Women Are Not Trash...Women Are NOT Disposable

1. If an adult man physical beat up an adult women to the point of breaking her jaw, cracking her ribs, and knocking her unconscious would be much more egregious.

2. Men are generally physically stronger than women.

3. Obviously, there are some exceptions.

In your hierarchy of violence, what do you do with the cases where..

- an adult woman beats up an adult woman?
- or, an adult woman beats up an adult man?

Do are these fall in between the cases you outline as far as seriousness?

I don't accept that violence against a woman is any worse than violence against a man. In a society that is attempting to consider men and women as equals, gender shouldn't matter.

Of course some violence is worse than other violence, a physically abusive woman regularly beating up her spouse may be considered worse than a woman stabbing a man in the street.

I don't think the gender stereotype of women as precious, fragile creatures needing special protection fits any more in modern society.

Also let me make the issues clear...

1) Whether women and men victims of violence should be considered differently based on their gender?

2) Whether the data show that men are more likely to be victims of serious violence than women?

The first is a matter of opinion. The second is a matter of fact.

My criticism is people here are letting their opinions subvert the facts.

1. When I reference violence against women, I am only referring to men committing violence against women.

2. I am not referring to women beating up women

3. Just like I am not referring to elderly people beating up elderly people.

4. Just like I am not referring to children beating up children.

5. Just like I am not referring to handicap people beating up handicap people.

6. To suggest otherwise is only to distract from the real issue.

You stated this opinion. I have no problem with you stating an opinion. However I disagree with it.

In my opinion violence against women and violence against men should be considered the same. Of course there are other factors, such as the motive and the relationship between them and "power imbalance" etc. Children need extra protection because they are uniquely fragile and vulnerable. Adult women are not like children.

But I see no reason to judge based on gender. The idea that women are "uniquely" fragile needing special protection seems outdated to me.

1. I have no issue with you disagreeing on that one thing.

2. It does appear that you agree that it isn't always about the numbers.

3. Especially regarding violence against children, elderly people, and disabled people.

4. I think that you agree that some things are just more egregious, regardless of the numbers.

Yes,

1. I agree that it isn't always about the numbers.
2. And I agree that violence against children, elderly people and disabled people are good examples of your point.

I am just curious Real Music (I don't feel the need to argue this point, but I am curious).

The next time the US is in a war that leads to a draft, should women be drafted into combat positions the same as men?

Yes. And so should 72 year billionaires since they usually have more to do with starting wars than 18 year old persons.

In my opinion, I don't think women should be drafted into combat positions.

Interesting. I don't share this opinion either. Equal rights and equal opportunity imply equal reaponsibility.

I respect the fact that your opinions are logically consistent.

Why?
If the training is exactly the same for females as males, and she is qualified, then she has much of a right and duty as any male.

Women are able to serve with police departments and fire departments, the military should be no different.

(And our nonbinary citizens too!)

I AGREE.



I was only stating that I don't think women should be drafted or forced to serve in the military against their will.

Being drafted and forced to serve in military is entirely different from volunteering to serve in the military.

I think you might have misunderstood my response.

I'm not sure, but I think the last time the United States instituted the draft was during the Vietnam war.

If the United States were to institute the draft again, I would be oppose to women being drafted and forced into the military.

Every male citizen has a legal duty to fight, and sometimes die for their country. There is no choice for male citizens, we are expected by law and by culture to rise to this responsibility and make this sacrifice whether we want to or not. This duty for men is not voluntary, it is part of being a citizen. Immigrants being naturalized must take this as a solemn oath to give their lives if necessary to protect and defend the country that they are now full part of.

What does it say about the difference between men and women that women are excluded from this duty?

This tangent came about because Real Music asserted that there is some intrinsic difference between men and women that makes a violent act against an adult woman more "egregious" than an equal act against an adult man.

I think Real Music is being logically consistent. If there is an inherent difference between men and women, then both excluding them from the draft and judging violence against them differently makes sense. I happen to be of the opinion that men and women should be equal in both cases.

I am curious how Sturgis feels about these two issues, and how he resolves the possible logical contradiction....

Of course, if Sturgis agrees with me in both issues, then that would resolve the issue.

I guess it might be a great idea to have a seance and connect with the men who were responsible for drafting the laws regarding women's right to vote. It's been just short of a century since women gained the right to vote, and it wasn't until around WWII when women were accepted to serve on juries. There wasn't a law preventing women from serving on a jury.....they just were not selected. The. I began my career with DOD the only military women I saw were either clerks or young officers attached as aides to Flag officers. Initially, the armed services wouldn't make allowances for uniforms and women were issued smaller men's shoes (they didn't fit).

Women have served this country since it began. If the draft returns, not everybody drafted will be sent into combat, just as now.....the military still requires linguists, cryptanalysts, photographers, chaplains, mechanics and the list is very very very long. I seriously doubt that both a father and mother will be removed from the family making children temporary or permanent orphans.....however, decisions like that are above my pay grade.

My personal view is that both genders are equal. Sure, there are women who are less muscular from the start. The same is true of men. Agility and ability too, vary from one man to another and one female to another. To take an approach of men somehow being more fit and suited for a task is absurd and unfair.

My view of equality ranges across most areas. Science, literary, history, legal, governing, medical, financial, sculpture, farming, driving (truck, bus, car train and other) and other occupations. The one spot where there is a difference is that a woman in the vast animal kingdom, can carry an embryo which develops into a living being and in most cases then can give birth (without surgery).

In countries such as Israel, women are required to serve. As of 2016, it is required in Norway. Several other countries also have mandatory enlistment.

As glitterbag said, there are lots of positions available which do not involve combat. If a woman can achieve the goals of training, she also has the right to enter into combat.

Until fairly recently, women were held back from having or reaching their desires. That is not anywhere near right or good. All people have something to offer.

Sturgis, you seem to agree with me. (You just dont want the cool kids to know).

Women and men should be considered as equals.

You're like a stopped clock Max, of course you're going to be right now and then. I don't think anyone would argue that men and women shouldn't be equal, although I'm surprised to hear you say it.

Just because you got that bit right doesn't mean you don't talk nonsense.

You're still incredibly immature, unable to take criticism for what it is. There are no 'cool kids' here, and I doubt very much that Sturgis is trying to get in with me considering we didn't talk for about five years.

People independently come to the same conclusion about you, there's no group pressure or any of that, just people who can recognise the bleeding obvious.

I am going to ignore Izzy's insulting provocation on this thread. (That's 2, see... https://able2know.org/topic/541084-1#post-6938661)

"myself."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) first administered the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) in 2010. NISVS examines the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV), sexual violence (SV), and stalking among women and men in the United States. NISVS is administered annually and will be used to track trends in IPV, SV, and stalking.

Key Findings

IPV, SV, and stalking are widespread in the United States. The findings
from NISVS underscore the pervasiveness of this violence, the immediate
impacts of victimization, and the lifelong health consequences. Women are disproportionately impacted. They experienced high rates of severe IPV, rape, and stalking, and long-term chronic disease and other negative health impacts, such as post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms.

Women are disproportionately affected by IPV, SV, and stalking.

• Nearly 1 in 5 women (19.3%) and 1 in 59 men (1.7%) have been raped in their lifetime.

• Approximately 1.9 million women were raped during the year preceding the survey.

• One in 4 women (22.3%) have been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner, while 1 in 7 men (14.0%) have experienced the same.

• One in 6 women (15.2%) have been stalked during their lifetime, compared to 1 in 19 men (5.7%).

IPV, SV, and stalking victims experience negative impacts and health consequences.

• More than 1 in 4 women and more than 1 in 10 men have experienced
contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner
and reported significant short- or long-term impacts, such as post-traumatic
stress disorder symptoms and injury.

• Women who experienced rape or stalking by any perpetrator or physical
violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime were more likely than
women who did not experience these forms of violence to report having
asthma, diabetes, and irritable bowel syndrome.

• Men and women who experienced these forms of violence were more
likely to report frequent headaches, chronic pain, difficulty with sleeping,
activity limitations, poor physical health, and poor mental health than men
and women who did not experience these forms of violence.

Female victims of IPV experience different patterns of violence than male victims.

• Female victims frequently experienced multiple forms of IPV (i.e. rape, physical violence, stalking); male victims most often experienced physical violence.

The majority of this victimization starts early in life.

• Most female victims of completed rape (78.7%) experienced their first rape
before the age of 25 and almost half (40.4%) experienced their first rape
before age 18 (28.3% between 11 and 17 years old and 12.1% at or before
the age of 10).

• About 35% of women who were raped as minors also were raped as adults
compared to 14% of women without an early rape history.

• More than a quarter of male victims of completed rape (28%) were first raped when they were 10 years old or younger.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs-fact-sheet-2014.pdf