Where Is The Female Red Pill Movement?

[redpilled]

You didn't answer my question - do you think women are morally superior to men?

And yes, murder is a rare crime - around 5 per 100,000 per year in the west, or ... if you live to 80 years old, you have a 0.004% chance of being murdered. So yes, you're extrapolating a statistical anomaly onto half the population of the planet. Again, weak argument.

 

[JeanLucBB]

It is not rare of course, and murder and torture are the worst forms of cruelty... not some girl giving the finger in a youtube video. But OK...

2011 data

• Males constituted 98.0% of those arrested for forcible rape
• Males constituted 89.0% of those arrested for robbery
• Males constituted 85.0% of those arrested for burglary
• Males constituted 83.0% of those arrested for arson
• Males constituted 81.5% of those arrested for motor-vehicle theft.
• Males constituted 81.7% of those arrested for stolen property.
• Males constituted 81.7% of those arrested for vandalism.
• Males constituted 79.7% of those arrested for offenses against family and children.
• Males constituted 77.8% of those arrested for aggravated assault

and it goes on and on...

Again, means absolutely nothing in regards to how a woman would act in politics, the workforce or in a broader context of cruelty. It is an invalid argument to use statistics that show women commit less violent crimes to claim that they would be less brutal and more competent in a position of power. These are entirely different issues.

 

[JeanLucBB]

Sure, as far as murder, torture, genocide go. I think for whatever reason we see far more males carrying this out then females. Nothing is more serious, unless you think WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, the Khmer Rouge, the nonsense going on today are good. In this thread it's been stated that women are more natural "caregivers". If we are talking about political leadership, I'd like to see less of the physical aggression impulse and more of the caregiving one, absolutely.

And you do realise there is no evidence Hitler directly killed or harmed anyone? I guess his lack of physical aggression would make him a good leader then?

 

[yetti]

You didn't answer my question - do you think women are morally superior to men?

And yes, murder is a rare crime - around 5 per 100,000 per year in the west, or ... if you live to 80 years old, you have a 0.004% chance of being murdered. So yes, you're extrapolating a statistical anomaly onto half the population of the planet. Again, weak argument.

I did answer your question, look at the first line of my last post.

I am obviously not saying that every male on the planet murders, but I am saying (and it's not debatable) that males murder at a far, far higher rate than females, and there are virtually no female mass murderers. This is not irrelevant when we are talking about leadership of armies and countries, with the capacity to murder and commit genocide. I'd like less genocide and world wars and I think that's more likely with more feamle leadership.

 

[JohnsonDDG]

What is the overall aim of this thread?

What is the gist of what you are trying to say?

 

[yetti]

Again, means absolutely nothing in regards to how a woman would act in politics, the workforce or in a broader context of cruelty. It is an invalid argument to use statistics that show women commit less violent crimes to claim that they would be less brutal and more competent in a position of power. These are entirely different issues.

OK, please list the female Hitlers, Pol Pots, and Stalins, etc etc etc. SHow me the women that caused WWI and WWII to happen, and the women who ran the concentration camps.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that men clearly have much more of an impulse to murder in society, and as leaders.

 

[JeanLucBB]

OK, please list the female Hitlers, Pol Pots, and Stalins, etc etc etc. SHow me the women that caused WWI and WWII to happen, and the women who ran the concentration camps.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that men clearly have much more of an impulse to murder in society, and as leaders.

They don't exist because the patriarchy kept them in the kitchen.

 

[yetti]

They don't exist because the patriarchy kept them in the kitchen.

No, there are been many female heads of state. Women have actually worked outside the kitchen.

 

[redpilled]

I did answer your question, look at the first line of my last post.

I am obviously not saying that every male on the planet murders, but I am saying (and it's not debatable) that males murder at a far, far higher rate than females, and there are virtually no female mass murderers. This is not irrelevant when we are talking about leadership of armies and countries, with the capacity to murder and commit genocide. I'd like less genocide and world wars and I think that's more likely with more feamle leadership.

And at the very top end of intelligence, there are more men than women. However, it doesn't follow that men are more intelligent than women. To be blunt, you're not very good at statistics.

 

[redpilled]

What is the overall aim of this thread?

What is the gist of what you are trying to say?

Well, we need to get it back on topic...if anyone's willing. I did post a video a few comments up - thought that might do it...

 

[JohnsonDDG]

Well, we need to get it back on topic...if anyone's willing. I did post a video a few comments up - thought that might do it...

So what is your overall view on this topic?

 

[pjhair]

I did answer your question, look at the first line of my last post.

I am obviously not saying that every male on the planet murders, but I am saying (and it's not debatable) that males murder at a far, far higher rate than females, and there are virtually no female mass murderers. This is not irrelevant when we are talking about leadership of armies and countries, with the capacity to murder and commit genocide. I'd like less genocide and world wars and I think that's more likely with more feamle leadership.

Nonsense. One of the St. Bernadino attacker in 2015 was female. Hitler had innumerable female supporters. Isis and Al Qaida have a lot of female supporters. Have you not heard of female suicide bombers?

 

[yetti]

And at the very top end of intelligence, there are more men than women. However, it doesn't follow that men are more intelligent than women. To be blunt, you're not very good at statistics.

If 90% of murderers are men, and virtually no women commit mass murder, it follows that men are much more likely to murder, and there's virtually no chance that a mass murder will have been carried out by a woman.

 

[yetti]

Nonsense. One of the St. Bernadino attacker in 2015 was female. Hitler had innumerable female supporters. Isis and Al Qaida have a lot of female supporters. Have you not heard of female suicide bombers?

Yes there are some, of course. The vast majority are men. But much more importantly as far as ending it goes, the people they work for, and the people at the top of the groups that perpetrate it, the leadership, are all men.

 

[pjhair]

Yes there are some, of course. The vast majority are men.

There weren't merely "some" females that followed Hitler. Also, there are millions of Muslim women that support the genocidal ideas of ISIS.

But much more importantly as far as ending it goes, the people they work for, and the people at the top of the groups that perpetrate it, are ALL men.

Men have often been at the top due to patriarchal nature of religion/society. That's irrelevant anyway. It doesn't matter if men were leaders when atrocities were committed and women were merely followers because followers are equally morally culpable. For example, if a bunch of racists, led by some skinhead, lynch a black, they all are equally culpable. Leader is not morally worse than those who agree with him.

Having said that, I agree with your assertion that men are often more violent. However, I disagree with your proposition that changing the sex of leaders will somehow make the world a better place. Women are equally prone to succumbing to bad ideologies. You want to change the world? Then fight bad ideologies, not attempt to change the sex of politicians.

 

[yetti]

There weren't merely "some" females that followed Hitler. Also, there are millions of Muslim women that support the genocidal ideas of ISIS.



Men have often been at the top due to patriarchal nature of religion/society. That's irrelevant anyway. It doesn't matter if men were leaders when atrocities were committed and women were merely followers because followers are equally morally culpable. For example, if a bunch of racists, lead by some skinhead, lynch a black, they all are equally culpable. Leader is not morally worse than those who agree with him.

Having said that, I agree with your assertion that men are often more violent. However, I disagree with your proposition that changing the sex of leaders will somehow make the world a better place. Women are equally prone to succumbing to bad ideologies. You want to change the world? Then fight bad ideologies, not attempt to change the sex of politicians.

I agree with much of your post too. But... I think it's a bit easy to say that men are often at the top, therefore it's due to only that reason that we don't see genocides and world wars being started by women. There have been plenty of organizations and countries led by women. There's enough evidence that men are so much more prone to violence that I think it's not a stretch to say that it has extended to leadership, and the evidence points to it. So I personally think the world would be better off with a little more "nurturing" in top positions, and a little less "risky, competitive" stuff.

 

[JeanLucBB]

I agree with much of your post too. But... I think it's a bit easy to say that men are often at the top, therefore it's due to only that reason that we don't see genocides and world wars being started by women. There have been plenty of organizations and countries led by women. There's enough evidence that men are so much more prone to violence that I think it's not a stretch to say that it has extended to leadership, and the evidence points to it. So I personally think the world would be better off with a little more "nurturing" in top positions, and a little less "risky, competitive" stuff.

"Women = nurturing"
"Men = risky, violent, competitive"

The cringe is real.

 

[pjhair]

I agree with much of your post too. But... I think it's a bit easy to say that men are often at the top, therefore it's due to only that reason that we don't see genocides and world wars being started by women.

I didn't say that. Here is what I said:

"Men have often been at the top due to patriarchal nature of religion/society. That's irrelevant anyway. It doesn't matter if men were leaders when atrocities were committed and women were merely followers because followers are equally morally culpable."

Anyway, my main argument is that sex of the individual at the top has far less impact on the policies that a group/state follows than the ideology. Bad ideas are the main drivers of violence committed by nation states in the modern world.

 

[redpilled]

If 90% of murderers are men, and virtually no women commit mass murder, it follows that men are much more likely to murder, and there's virtually no chance that a mass murder will have been carried out by a woman.

Nobody can that just because the vast majority of genius inventors were men...that it follows that men are more intelligent than women. Clearly, your illogic doesn't understand bell curve distribution and you extrapolate the extreme end of a curve onto the rest of it. You are saying that exceptions describe the rule - you are saying (in a sexist way) that men are more intelligent than women "because outliers".

In reality, the end of the curve marked "extreme violence" has more men in it than women. Please understand this: it does not follow that it means men are more violent than women, but that a larger number of men (who make up a tiny minority of the overall male population) have a propensity to violence than the number of women who have that same propensity - THAT is the difference. In statistics, you realise that people are individuals and you know when to use mean, mode and median. You cannot smooth out a propensity to violence using stats - it doesn't work that way. Otherwise you can say that the average person has just under 2 arms, and just under 2 legs. Learn how to statistics. In a small number of men, there is that propensity for violence. They help make up 90%+ of the prison population. I know in the UK at least, the prison population is about 0.1% of the population.

 

[Exodus2011]

so why do you guys think men commit more violence? is it because we have to prove ourselves? because we are socialized to be more aggressive? testosterone? combination of all these things and others?