I don't want to get in between you two's slap fight but crime rates and gender aren't exactly a solid data point. Women barely get even reprimanded for crimes, let alone charged, let alone the full actual charge instead of a lesser crime.
Its actually a real problem, especially in the "molesting and/or abusing kids" sector of crime.
I question how common it is that women don't even get 'charged' as a general rule. But even if true, that would actually support my point. Look at crimes such as murder, which are pretty difficult to hide. If women are barely punished for crimes (so less of a deterrent effect), and still they commit far fewer crimes, that really does show something.
And it most certainly shows that "only wahmen would do bad things, because men couldn't live with themselves" is the usual from this poor victim of the 5'1" Assassin Squad.
I'm not trying to take a side here, just point that the data you are using isn't a solid metric to simply say "this disproves you instantly."
If women are barely punished for crimes (so less of a deterrent effect), and still they commit far fewer crimes, that really does show something.
This does assume though that women and men are equal, and therefore respond to the same draws towards crime and the same deterrents out of it. Which is a very reductive idea.
Men are more than perfectly capable of crimes, I'd agree even that they commit far more. But only in the sense of defining crime as an illegal activity in the eyes of the court/law, which is also not a solid metric of defining the "badness" of the two genders either.
This does assume though that women and men are equal, and therefore respond to the same draws towards crime and the same deterrents out of it. Which is a very reductive idea.
I think you may have misunderstood. Even if women and men were exactly the same in every respect except size and strength, women would still be less likely to commit crimes due to lesser ability.
But if you're going to talk about how capable people are of doing bad things, then surely the crime rate is relevant.
But only in the sense of defining crime as an illegal activity in the eyes of the court/law, which is also not a solid metric of defining the "badness" of the two genders either.
I think it is folly to try to brand people as bad or good because of their biology. But that was my point entirely. Even though crime rates don't prove that men in general are worse than women, then surely they do prove that men are capable of doing bad things, and to a greater extent than women at that (see the rate of violent crime).
Really? You can't see "being male is more important than upbringing in determining criminality" as a weird version of the black = criminal idea portrayed by "race realists"?
Ever looked at the crime rates, champ?
I don't want to get in between you two's slap fight but crime rates and gender aren't exactly a solid data point. Women barely get even reprimanded for crimes, let alone charged, let alone the full actual charge instead of a lesser crime.
Its actually a real problem, especially in the "molesting and/or abusing kids" sector of crime.
I question how common it is that women don't even get 'charged' as a general rule. But even if true, that would actually support my point. Look at crimes such as murder, which are pretty difficult to hide. If women are barely punished for crimes (so less of a deterrent effect), and still they commit far fewer crimes, that really does show something.
And it most certainly shows that "only wahmen would do bad things, because men couldn't live with themselves" is the usual from this poor victim of the 5'1" Assassin Squad.
I'm not trying to take a side here, just point that the data you are using isn't a solid metric to simply say "this disproves you instantly."
This does assume though that women and men are equal, and therefore respond to the same draws towards crime and the same deterrents out of it. Which is a very reductive idea.
Men are more than perfectly capable of crimes, I'd agree even that they commit far more. But only in the sense of defining crime as an illegal activity in the eyes of the court/law, which is also not a solid metric of defining the "badness" of the two genders either.
I think you may have misunderstood. Even if women and men were exactly the same in every respect except size and strength, women would still be less likely to commit crimes due to lesser ability.
But if you're going to talk about how capable people are of doing bad things, then surely the crime rate is relevant.
I think it is folly to try to brand people as bad or good because of their biology. But that was my point entirely. Even though crime rates don't prove that men in general are worse than women, then surely they do prove that men are capable of doing bad things, and to a greater extent than women at that (see the rate of violent crime).
Correct. But the point was not that "men are bad", only that it's stupid to think that "men can't be bad", like this guy believes.
Being mothers. Quite important. None of the great scientists were the product of parthenogenesis.
Seems to me then that you realize how important having children is.
Almost as if both men and women have pros and cons.
Not this again.
The idea that we can just ignore that most criminals are raised solely by women is pseudoscience straight out of the "race realism" playbook
You're getting more incoherent by the minute. I think this past month has broken you.
Really? You can't see "being male is more important than upbringing in determining criminality" as a weird version of the black = criminal idea portrayed by "race realists"?
Nope, there are biological differences between men and women. That's what your whole hatred for women is based on, isn't it?
Besides, you ran away from your initial claim that no man would ever do anything wrong, despite crime numbers showing showing otherwise.
Crime rates are "racist".
Only my one true fictional anecdote tells me the real picture.