Philosophy Now Forum

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:36 pm Bad men become famous because their misbehaviour is often against the law, whereas there are very few laws against female ways of misbehaving. Hence the twenty-to-one ratio of men to women in jail in the UK.

What laws should be ADDED for putting women in jail, Duncan?

Must you solicit on this forum by imploring that people use your website link on every post you write like some kind of sleazy salesman? You can post it on your profile.

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:36 pm Philosophy Explorer --- Brute is a derogatory word almost exclusively applied to men, like thug, barbarian, lout, swine, ogre, bastard. Accordingly, it must be very rare for women to be brutish. There are of course equivalent derogatory words for women, but for different sorts of behaviour -- female ways of being nasty. Virago, harridan, shrew, witch, nag, ogress. Bad men become famous because their misbehaviour is often against the law, whereas there are very few laws against female ways of misbehaving. Hence the twenty-to-one ratio of men to women in jail in the UK.


Please visit my Suffrageur website

Better to encounter a nag than a serial killer or paedophile.

vegetariantaxidermy --- You say, “better to encounter a nag than a serial killer or a paedophile”, and this is obviously true. But what are the odds? Everyone has been a nag, at one time or another, while the numbers of killers and paedophiles are relatively few. I would say nagging is the more serious problem for today's society. But still I don’t think there should be a law against it -- it is up to individual husbands to deal with the problem.

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:04 pm vegetariantaxidermy --- You say, “better to encounter a nag than a serial killer or a paedophile”, and this is obviously true. But what are the odds? Everyone has been a nag, at one time or another, while the numbers of killers and paedophiles are relatively few. I would say nagging is the more serious problem for today's society. But still I don’t think there should be a law against it -- it is up to individual husbands to deal with the problem.

I meant to write 'nag'. It's just a nasty label men give women who find it difficult to deal with men's unreasonable and selfish behaviour. What does it really mean?

vegetariantaxidermy --- As a woman, when there is an altercation between husband and wife, you naturally side with the woman to say the man is to blame (she’s only nagging him because he is selfish and unreasonable). As a man, I have the same response in reverse. Take domestic violence. My perspective is when a man hits a woman it is in desperation, after a huge amount of verbal abuse. In perhaps 85% of cases it is the woman bullying the man, not the other way round. I have some evidence from domestic violence refuges here in the UK to back this up.

Unfortunately, there are precious few men who react like this: most men think domestic violence is men’s fault, as do nearly all women. In fact men as a group are hopeless at judging women -- contrary to feminist patriarchy theory. This is what my Suffrageur Society is intended to cure.

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:22 pm vegetariantaxidermy --- As a woman, when there is an altercation between husband and wife, you naturally side with the woman to say the man is to blame (she’s only nagging him because he is selfish and unreasonable). As a man, I have the same response in reverse. Take domestic violence. My perspective is when a man hits a woman it is in desperation, after a huge amount of verbal abuse. In perhaps 85% of cases it is the woman bullying the man, not the other way round. I have some evidence from domestic violence refuges here in the UK to back this up.

Unfortunately, there are precious few men who react like this: most men think domestic violence is men’s fault, as do nearly all women. In fact men as a group are hopeless at judging women -- contrary to feminist patriarchy theory. This is what my Suffrageur Society is intended to cure.

That's just bullshit. Why would I automatically take the side of women I don't even know? There are plenty of vile women. I don't see why I should have to explain a post that was perfectly clear in the first place.

vegetariantaxidermy --- Calm down. This is what you wrote:

I meant to write 'nag'. It's just a nasty label men give women who find it difficult to deal with men's unreasonable and selfish behaviour. What does it really mean?

In other words, what you are saying is that whenever a man calls a woman a nag he is mistaken, for she is just reacting reasonably to some unreasonable behaviour of his own. In other words again: he is just calling her nasty names when it is his own misbehaviour that is causing the problem. This what I term automatically taking the woman’s side. Have I interpreted you incorrectly?

Duncan Butlin wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:05 am vegetariantaxidermy --- Calm down. This is what you wrote:

I meant to write 'nag'. It's just a nasty label men give women who find it difficult to deal with men's unreasonable and selfish behaviour. What does it really mean?

In other words, what you are saying is that whenever a man calls a woman a nag he is mistaken, for she is just reacting reasonably to some unreasonable behaviour of his own. In other words again: he is just calling her nasty names when it is his own misbehaviour that is causing the problem. This what I term automatically taking the woman’s side. Have I interpreted you incorrectly?

Think about the word 'nag' and you will get there eventually....

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:03 am Don't recall reading about women being brutish in history, Not even about other species (cavemen are hunters while the women stayed home).

Other animals I recall did have brutish females, but not humans.

PhilX

Both men and women have been convicted of violent crimes; male and female serial killers both exist (e.x. Countess Elizabeth Bathory), much as how women, historically have been allowed to serve in combat (e.x. Soviet female snipers in WWII) if they were able to meet the physical requirements.

Most of what is said about "cavemen" is also nonsensical and speculative; from what I've read, even in ancient 'hunter gatherer' tribes, both men and women in practice performed in various "roles" even if one in general was more common for men or for women, often based on pragmatic conditions or circumstances.

So this question shouldn't have been so easy or obvious to answer, that I'm shocked or surprised that anyone who hasn't graduated from grade school, or who has so much as even read a single history book would even feel a need to ask it.