Angry Canadian Feminist Columnist Calls All Men "Savages"

[Jedi Knight]

It is difficult for feminazis to hold back anger when a feminist myth is disproved and the feminist myth that men are the only ones that initiate domestic violence is one of those myths disproven this week by a new scholarly study.

In response to that fact (http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/jacobs.html), an angry feminist columnist has written a column about it and used hate speech against all men.

quote--"Savagery is primarily a male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception."-- end quote

That hate speech against men is typical for the feminazis. It used to be that the word 'savage' and 'savages' was used to describe native Indians in America as the colonists were bringing a superior civilization to the continent. That term is highly unfashionable in today's political correctness society of Orwellianism, unless a bitch uses it to attack men. Then it is 'cool and fashionable'.

Now the feminazis are using 'savages' to describe all men alive. Men are the new Jew class in the United States. They have been given a different type of Star of David, but as the Jews were slowly stripped of minor rights, then major rights and then sent to concentration camps and genocided, that is the fate that is awaiting men from the feminazis who say all men are 'savages'.

The 2nd Amendment has never been more important than it is today, especially concerning the safety of men.

JK

[c0rbin]

I don't know, the feminist idea of gender equality seems to be, IMO, upheld when it comes to light that women can be just as brutal as men.

Seems like your arguing for feminism, JK.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by c0rbin
I don't know, the feminist idea of gender equality seems to be, IMO, upheld when it comes to light that women can be just as brutal as men.

Seems like your arguing for feminism, JK.

But you do not understand what feminism is. Feminism claims to seek gender equality, but how can that be when all men are 'savages' and all women are like a harmless, innocent doe walking to a calm pool to take a drink?

Feminism is terrorism against men and the nation-state. Feminism is communism using cultural terror to achieve its ends.

JK

[synaesthesia]

Feminists are right about equality, and right about the savagry of men. I think this ridiculous social taboo against hitting women has to go so men can deal in equity with women as their nature dictates.:rolleyes:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by synaesthesia
Feminists are right about equality, and right about the savagry of men. I think this ridiculous social taboo against hitting women has to go so men can deal in equity with women as their nature dictates.:rolleyes:

Myth.

JK

[Thumper]

Originally posted by synaesthesia
Feminists are right about equality, and right about the savagry of men. I think this ridiculous social taboo against hitting women has to go so men can deal in equity with women as their nature dictates.:rolleyes:

Obviously, there is a great deal of sarcasm in this reply. Try to state your position clearly and without sarcasm so we understand what you truly mean.

For instance, do you mean to imply that it is men's nature to hit things? We are chosen by evolution to be violent? It is our instinct to hit?

I think you have a very good point. :rolleyes:

(Oh, I guess that was sarcasm, too.)



(Hey JK, congrats on hitting your 6000th post.)

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
That hate speech against men is typical for the feminazis.
JK Honestly,

The only gender-related hate-speech I've ever seen on this board has come from JK.

When did I ever see 'malenazis' or 'patriarchal totalitarianism'? :p

What is it that you cannot control, Jedi? Why all the hatred? Who hurt you so much? :(

[JAR]

I love it when Jedi Knight bashes on feminists.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
[snip]Men are the new Jew class in the United States. They have been given a different type of Star of David, but as the Jews were slowly stripped of minor rights, then major rights and then sent to concentration camps and genocided, that is the fate that is awaiting men from the feminazis who say all men are 'savages'.
Jedi Knight, you are absolutely a genius.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by JAR
Jedi Knight, you are absolutely a genius.

Thanks JAR. ;)

JK

[DragonLady]

That hate speech against men is typical for the feminazis. It used to be that the word 'savage' and 'savages' was used to describe native Indians in America as the colonists were bringing a superior civilization to the continent. That term is highly unfashionable in today's political correctness society of Orwellianism, unless a bitch uses it to attack men. Then it is 'cool and fashionable'.

That hate speech against women is typical for the male chauvinists. It used to be that the word "bitch" and "bitches" was used to describe females canines intended for breeding as the human women were considered a superior species. That term is highly unfashionable in today's political correctness society of Orwellianism, unless a man uses it to attack women. Then it is 'cool and fashionable'.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
What is it that you cannot control, Jedi? Why all the hatred? Who hurt you so much? :(

I find it particularly troubling when feminazis say: "All men are savages".

By allowing that logic in debate, we are basically giving the nod to saying any relationship in culture that men form is therefore a 'savage' relationship.

The plan there is to eliminate marriage and gender differences (even proven, obvious biological differences). How can 'savages' marry and contribute to society? How can 'savages' run a society with validity?

You need to pay more attention to what these feminazis spew as rhetoric and see how dangerous it is. When I say matriarchal totalitarianism is a danger to global security, it is obvious I am correct.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DragonLady


That hate speech against women is typical for the male chauvinists. It used to be that the word "bitch" and "bitches" was used to describe females canines intended for breeding as the human women were considered a superior species. That term is highly unfashionable in today's political correctness society of Orwellianism, unless a man uses it to attack women. Then it is 'cool and fashionable'.

Only a bitch would say such a thing about men collectively.

When you call a group, an entire gender, 'savages', you are referring to a major self-defined deficiency that requires some form of reeducation or liquidation if the reeducation doesn't meet the objectives of those seeking to uplift the men from their 'savage' state.

In Central and South America, the Spanish brought Christianity there to break the indigenous populations of their 'savage' state. History is full of such examples.

My question, naturally, is what the chick who wrote the article thinks should be enforced upon men to change them out of their 'savage' state to the feminazi preferred state?

She didn't mention it in the article because 'savages' like me aren't smart enough to figure out her rhetoric (*yawn*....yeah right :rolleyes: ) so I just thought I would ask what is it that is in store for all of us 'savages' to 'unsavage' us.

JK

[DragonLady]

How did you take "Savagery is primarily a male characteristic" and change it to "All men are savages"?

That seems quite the unreasonable leap. But if you'll refrain from the name-calling I'll try to discuss it in a reasonable manner.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DragonLady
How did you take "Savagery is primarily a male characteristic" and change it to "All men are savages"?

That seems quite the unreasonable leap. But if you'll refrain from the name-calling I'll try to discuss it in a reasonable manner.

That is what she said. If I say all heroin addicts have female characteristics, I am saying all females are heroin addicts.

I am restating her position, not changing it. I thought you hung out in a reality cafe.

JK

[DragonLady]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That is what she said. If I say all heroin addicts have female characteristics, I am saying all females are heroin addicts.

I am restating her position, not changing it. I thought you hung out in a reality cafe.

JK

Sorry, but that's a logical error. To say that "Drownings increase when ice cream sales are high" doesn't mean that eating ice cream causes drownings.

To say 100% of people suffering male pattern baldness are males does not mean all males are bald.

There is a difference. The woman is saying that most savage acts are committed by men. But the reverse is not neccesarily true.

She didn't say "Savagery is exclusively a male characteristic" or even that "All men commit savage acts". Which would still be two different things.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DragonLady


Sorry, but that's a logical error. To say that "Drownings increase when ice cream sales are high" doesn't mean that eating ice cream causes drownings.

To say 100% of people suffering male pattern baldness are males does not mean all males are bald.

There is a difference. The woman is saying that most savage acts are committed by men. But the reverse is not neccesarily true.

She didn't say "Savagery is exclusively a male characteristic" or even that "All men commit savage acts". Which would still be two different things.

You have got to be kidding me. "Primarily", the adverb she used to describe men as "savages" is used for ranking:

1. Most important (when describing sequence of variables)

2. Basic

3. The first in order

There is no way in hell that she said that to describe "some" or the few. If she meant that she would have restated it. What she is saying is that all men have the savage component (First in order, basic, most important) and those that commit domestic violence prove it, while those that do not are not savages but 'self-disciplined' savages. I really do enjoy it though when someone comes along to debate what the definition of "is" is with me. It is leftist fun.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

To prove it let's use the english language check.

Here is her statement:

"Savagery is primarily a male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception."

Now using the adverb usage of the word Primarily, here is what we get:

1) Savagery is the most important male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

2) Savagery is the basic male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

3) Savagery is the first in order male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

See how it works? It is like math.

She said "all men are savages". I am right.

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
If I say all heroin addicts have female characteristics, I am saying all females are heroin addicts.

I am restating her position, not changing it.

JK If I say all catholic child molesting priests have male characteristics, I'm saying that all males are child molestors. :p

Jedi, still crazy, after all these years? :)

[DragonLady]

You have got to be kidding me. "Primarily", the adverb she used to describe men as "savages" is used for ranking:
1. Most important (when describing sequence of variables)

2. Basic

3. The first in order


And she is probably correct. I could fill up this forum with horror stories about violence from men against women. And while there are certainly plenty of violent & aggressive women, they don't commit nearly as many violent acts -and certainly not against men.

There is no way in hell that she said that to describe "some" or the few. If she meant that she would have restated it.

She didn't need to restate it. She said what she meant in perfect English.

What she is saying is that all men have the savage component (First in order, basic, most important) and those that commit domestic violence prove it, while those that do not are not savages but 'self-disciplined' savages.

No, she didn't say that. If that was what she meant, I'm sure she has the language skills to express that. She did not.

I really do enjoy it though when someone comes along to debate what the definition of "is" is with me. It is leftist fun.

So far there's no debate. You've made a logical error and have rephrased someone's position in a manner that changes her intent and the spirit of her statement.

We cannot have a discussion if we cannot agree on the basics of the language we are writing in.



Anyway, hate to post-and-run, but I have unexpected company & have to go. I'll be back late tonight or tomorrow.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
If I say all catholic child molesting priests have male characteristics, I'm saying that all males are child molestors. :p

Jedi, still crazy, after all these years? :)

lol

No, if you said: "All child molestors have primarily male characteristics", then you would be saying all men are child molestors.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DragonLady
And she is probably correct. I could fill up this forum with horror stories about violence from men against women. And while there are certainly plenty of violent & aggressive women, they don't commit nearly as many violent acts -and certainly not against men.

Ah, so there is your motive. Sure thing, hon. :rolleyes:

J "Dragonfire" K

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
No, if you said: "All child molestors have primarily male characteristics", then you would be saying all men are child molestors.

JK Yeah, OK, I'll say exactly what you write and claim the following two:

1: "All child molestors have primarily male characteristics".

2: "All child molestors have primarily female characteristics".

According to your logics, I have now claimed that all men and all women are child molestors.

Still crazy, after all these years? :p

[Ion]

I don't agree with Jedi on another topic:

when I say that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, in order to cover up his oil and power agenda in the Middle East.

I agree with Jedi on the meaning of this:
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...
Here is her statement:

"Savagery is primarily a male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception."

Now using the adverb usage of the word Primarily, here is what we get:

1) Savagery is the most important male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

2) Savagery is the basic male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

3) Savagery is the first in order male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

See how it works? It is like math.

She said "all men are savages". I am right.

JK
Aside from the quote -to which I agree about its meaning explained above-, I did live in Canada for six years, I saw many statements like this, and I became worried that the government's Political Correctness serving 'Professional Victim' feminists, was overlooking real issues.

For example, the risk that legal immigrants to Canada like me were undertaking in a new culture, risk met with illegal discrimination in opportunities by the locals.

[subgenius]

"Why all the hatred? Who hurt you so much? "
The 64K$ ?. Paging Dr. Freud. (Don't ask about childhood or parents.)

[Nova Land]

When I use the word primarily, what I mean by it is mainly, but not without exceptions.

For instance, let's say I go to a comic book store or convention. Someone sees me browsing and asks what I'm looking for, and I reply "I'm primarily looking for silver-age DC." What I hope that person understands from what I said is that I am mostly looking for silver-age DCs, but am interested in other stuff as well.

If I say I primarily like folk music, it means I mainly like folk music but enjoy some other kinds of music as well. If I say I primarily vote for Republicans, it means I vote mainly for Republicans but occasionally vote for non-Republicans. If I say I shop primarily at Wal-Mart, it means I shop at Wal-Mart more than at other stores (but do shop at other stores). Etc.

Jedi appears to be saying that, to him, primarily means exclusively. That may be a Connecticut regionalism; I've never heard the word used that way, and can't think of a single example where I would understand the word to have that meaning.

Therefore, unless someone can post examples of sentences where primarily has the meaning Jedi ascribes to it, I'm going to assume that the feminist Jedi quotes in the starting post of this thread is using the word primarily the same way I use and understand it. Here's my deconstruction of the quote.

"Savagery is primarily a male characteristic -- no matter the era or the society -- and family violence is no exception

1. "Savagery is primarily a male characteristic". In other words, savagery is mainly found among males, but may be found among females as well.

This does not say that all males exhibit savagery. What it does say is that, if we find an example of savagery, the person behaving savagely is most likely to be male.

I'm not sure I agree with that claim or not, but it is not an unreasonable claim to make. Most historical examples of savagery that I'm familiar with were committed by men.

It could be that men are genetically more disposed to acts of savagery; it could be that men are culturally more disposed to acts of savagery; it could be that men are physically more capable of committing acts of savagery; or it could be that men have simply gotten bad press coverage, and that there are many acts of female savagery that simply go unreported. The feminist Jedi quotes doesn't say. All she claims in the quote is that men appear to be greatly more likely to commit these acts than women.

When astrologers claim that people born under one sign are more likely to be good athletes (or good scientists, or whatever) than people born under different signs, the reasonable thing to do is to test the claim and see if it is so. It seems reasonable to me that we should try to do the same thing, using similar standards of testing, with political claims.

(a) One way of testing the astrological claim would be to randomly select groups of people born under different signs, and see if there is indeed a tendency among people born under a particular sign to be better athletes (or scientists, or whatever)

(b) A second way of testing the astrological claim would be to systematically select people who are good athletes and see if more of these people were indeed born under some particular sign.

Either of these would seem to me to be a good test.

In trying to test the feminist's claim, an analogue of the first test above would be to examine the lives of a large randomly selected group of women and men to check for acts of savagery, and to see whether these acts are found significantly more often among the men than among the women. An analogue of the second test above would be to systematically select a large number of people noted for having committed acts of savagery, and to see whether there are significantly more men than women in this group.

My suspicion is that, if such testing were carried out, we would find that men are indeed more likely to engage in such acts, and quite possibly greatly more likely. I say that because, in mentally conducting such tests ("thought experiments") that's the way the results seem to come in.

For exmple: most of the perpetrators of acts of savagery against the civil rights movement in the mid-20th century were male. Most dictators who have ordered massive campaigns of murder and brutality have been male. Most gay-bashings in the US (by which I mean the selecting of a stranger on the street to beat up because of sexual orientation) have been committed by males. Most serial killers that law enforcement agencies have tracked down have been male. Etc. (If these are not good areas of life to use for sampling on this question, let us agree on what would be a good area to examine.)

One can find isolated instances of women committing acts of savagery in all of these categories -- but one can find isolated instances of almost anything. The question here is not whether there are some exceptions to the statement, the question is whether it is primarily true.

Until systematic testing is done, the question remains open as far as I'm concerned. The feminist's assertion is not proven, but neither is it disproven. On the surface, though, it seems a not-unreasonable thing to believe.

(2) "...no matter the era or the society..." Here, the feminist is simply saying that this observation, that acts of savagery are mainly committed by men, is not limited to certain time periods or certain societies, but seems to be true everywhere she looks.

Again, on the surface, this seems not-unreasonable. While I'd prefer to keep an open mind on the question until systematic observation is done, in the meantime casual observation seems to support her statement. Can anyone offer any obvious examples of societies where acts of savagery are not much more likely to be committed by males than by females? A society, perhaps, in which most of the armed forces are female, or most of the police force, or most of the prison guards, or most of the interrogators and inquisitors, or most of the muggers and rapists, are female ? I can't. But I'm not an anthropologist or historian, so I will gladly defer to the knowledge of others on this.

(3) "...and family violence is no exception." Again, this is a testable claim. Most men and women do not commit acts of savagery against their family members. But among those who have committed such acts, are the perpetrators significantly more likely to be male or not?

(a) Are people who have murdered their families more likely to be one sex than the other? Several women who have been accused of or convicted of killing their families come to mind, but my impression is that it is vastly more common for an adult or adolescent male to commit such crimes.

(b) Are people who have raped or sexually molested family members more likelly to be one sex than the other? My impression, again, is yes, males.

(c) Are adults who physically beat their children significantly more likely to be one sex than the other? I don't know. (This could be tested by finding victims of such acts of savagery and determining whether the person who beat them was female or male.)

(d) Are adults who emotionally beat their children significantly more likely to be one sex than the other? I don't know. (Again, this could be tested by finding victims of such abuse and determining the sex of their abusers.)

(e) Are adults who physically beat their adult partners significantly more likely to be one sex than the other? I don't know. Again, testing is possible, and should be done before we reach a conclusion.

(f) Are adults who emotionally beat their adult partners significantly more likely to be one sex than the other? One more time: I don't know.

If it turns out that men are not significantly more likely to commit savagery in any of the 6 categories I just listed of family savagery, then the feminist is mistaken.

Because it is easier to ojectively identify victims of physical than emotional abuse, it is easier to come up with a sample of cases and to determine if the perpetrators in these cases were female or male. And in most of these areas it looks (on the surface, at least) as if the feminist is correct in her claim.

But until agreement can be reached on how to measure and test objectively in relation to all the categories, especially the ones involving emotional savagery, the question should remain open. Jedi may turn out to have a valid point, when the question has been tested. He just doesn't have one yet.

[DragonLady]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
To prove it let's use the english language check.

Here is her statement:

"Savagery is primarily a male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception."

Now using the adverb usage of the word Primarily, here is what we get:

1) Savagery is the most important male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

2) Savagery is the basic male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

3) Savagery is the first in order male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

See how it works? It is like math.

She said "all men are savages". I am right.

JK

Almost. But as Nova Land stated so eloquently, primarily means mainly.

So I think your statements should read like this:

1) Savagery is mainly a male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

I disagree here with "the most important".

2) Savagery is mainly a basic male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

I don't know how "basic" it is. I know a large number of men who aren't 'savage' or don't act in a 'savage' manner. So I wouldn't say it's a "basic" characteristic like the production of testosterone or the presence of a penis.

3) Savagery is the first in order male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

First in order? Where did that come from? How did you decide that she was claiming anything was the 'first in order'? What then was second in order? What's third?



Originally posted by DragonLady
And she is probably correct. I could fill up this forum with horror stories about violence from men against women. And while there are certainly plenty of violent & aggressive women, they don't commit nearly as many violent acts -and certainly not against men.

Ah, so there is your motive. Sure thing, hon. :rolleyes:


Uh, yes...I do believe that to be the debatable point. And I am both willing and prepared to defend my position. The fact the topic exists & you have stated your position tends to make me believe you are of the opposing viewpoint, and that your are both willing and able to defend your views. Apparently Nova Land thinks so as well.

Of course, if your motive is really just to clutter the dance floor, by all means have at it and I'll simply bow out of the discussion.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


lol

No, if you said: "All child molestors have primarily male characteristics", then you would be saying all men are child molestors.

JK
Go Jedi!!!! please, please don't stop.....you have the gun loaded, your foot is centered in the sights.....squeeeeeeeeeeeeze that trigger!!!

This little beauty could even eclipse you gravity howler!!!


hmm, let me see...Jedi Philosophy.

All murderers have primarily criminal characteristics.......all criminals are murderers.

All cars are primarily made of metal...all metal is in cars.

All Goldfish have primarily fishlike characteristics....all fish are goldfish.

Jedi Knight has primary conspiracy theorist characteristics....all conspiracy theorists are Jedi Knight.


I hope this makes sense to you...because its got me in stitches. This is right up there with the Gravity thread Jedi, whatever you do....don't stop now!!
:D

[Crossbow]

So what one woman says in Canada is supposed to make me so afraid of women in America that I need a firearm to protect myself?

Sorry, JK but I think you are over-reacting.

By the way, I will rate this thread five stars.

[c0rbin]

Feminism claims to seek gender equality, but how can that be when all men are 'savages' and all women are like a harmless, innocent doe walking to a calm pool to take a drink?


I thought that "feminazi-ism" was the radical man-hating movement, not feminism.

Which is it?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Nova Land
When I use the word primarily, what I mean by it is mainly, but not without exceptions.

That is the wrong definition of the adverb. The usage I posted is the correct usage.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DragonLady


Almost. But as Nova Land stated so eloquently, primarily means mainly.

So I think your statements should read like this:

1) Savagery is mainly a male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

I disagree here with "the most important".

2) Savagery is mainly a basic male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

I don't know how "basic" it is. I know a large number of men who aren't 'savage' or don't act in a 'savage' manner. So I wouldn't say it's a "basic" characteristic like the production of testosterone or the presence of a penis.

3) Savagery is the first in order male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

First in order? Where did that come from? How did you decide that she was claiming anything was the 'first in order'? What then was second in order? What's third?


Ah, so there is your motive. Sure thing, hon. :rolleyes:


Uh, yes...I do believe that to be the debatable point. And I am both willing and prepared to defend my position. The fact the topic exists & you have stated your position tends to make me believe you are of the opposing viewpoint, and that your are both willing and able to defend your views. Apparently Nova Land thinks so as well.

Of course, if your motive is really just to clutter the dance floor, by all means have at it and I'll simply bow out of the discussion.

No, Nova Land is incorrect.

JK

[DragonLady]

Okay...okay. Let's assume for a moment that your usage of "primarily" is correct; and that the journalist has used the word incorrectly.

You're still changing the intent of her statement. She has afterall, had much more to say about the subject, and you've culled the only (IMO) questionable sentence.

Some of the other things she had to say:


I doubt women's groups have ever insisted that men are solely responsible for domestic abuse.


Men do not have a monopoly on anger, jealousy, hatred and insecurity.


Yes, women beat, maim and kill their current or former spouses, but men do it far more frequently and with much more serious consequences.


Although rates of spousal abuse increased for both men and women between 1995 and 2001, males far outpace females.



While spousal homicide has been declining since 1974, the numbers remain horrific and the perpetrators are largely men.



I think it's plain to see that the qualifiers "more frequently" "outpace" and "largely" show that she was saying more men are violent, but not that only men are violent. She admits in plain black-and-white that women can be violent too -and that some of them are.

But overall, men have the history and the numbers against them.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DragonLady
Okay...okay. Let's assume for a moment that your usage of "primarily" is correct; and that the journalist has used the word incorrectly.

You're still changing the intent of her statement. She has afterall, had much more to say about the subject, and you've culled the only (IMO) questionable sentence.

Some of the other things she had to say:

I think it's plain to see that the qualifiers "more frequently" "outpace" and "largely" show that she was saying more men are violent, but not that only men are violent. She admits in plain black-and-white that women can be violent too -and that some of them are.

But overall, men have the history and the numbers against them.

None of those quotes from her article changes the substance of her use of the word "savage" regarding men. She is saying all men are savages and then trying to convince the reader by throwing around myths and pseudo-statistics. That is the usual feminist drivel.

JK

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
None of those quotes from her article changes the substance of her use of the word "savage" regarding men. She is saying all men are savages and then trying to convince the reader by throwing around myths and pseudo-statistics. That is the usual feminist drivel.

JK
Hmmmm. OK, JK, lets propose a hypothetical. Suppose she had written the following sentence:

"All savages are men."

Would that be the same to you as her saying "All men are savages" ?

[DragonLady]

trying to convince the reader by throwing around myths and pseudo-statistics. That is the usual feminist drivel.

Is that then the primary point of debate? If it is, you need to back this statement up with facts & real statistics. Show me the numbers, the case histories and the other facts that show women to be just as violent or "savage" as men.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DragonLady


Is that then the primary point of debate? If it is, you need to back this statement up with facts & real statistics. Show me the numbers, the case histories and the other facts that show women to be just as violent or "savage" as men.

Here you go. (http://theunionleader.com/Articles_show.html?article=22935)

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Well hon, what do you say about the Columbia University (gosh, done by a woman scholar too, wow) study that says women are domestic violence culprits as much as men?

You know, that is why the Canadian feminist wrote the article she did too--in response to that new study. Why didn't you know that?

JK

[c0rbin]

Well hon, what do you say about the Columbia University (gosh, done by a woman scholar too, wow) study that says women are domestic violence culprits as much as men?


Sounds like a case for gender equality to me--a tenet of feminism.

What are you trying to say here, JK?

[DragonLady]

WOMEN AND MEN are roughly equal contributors to domestic violence in the United States, according to three women scientists whose research was largely sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. The idea that men are the only abusers is “a myth,” USA Today quoted one of the women as saying. It’s a myth that has been perpetuated for political reasons but now may be ready for explosion.

Who are these scientists? The article doesn't say!


Most domestic violence prevention programs are aimed at curbing male aggression.


Why would that be? Could it be because the people who set these programs up -the ones with real experience in this field recognize that men are usually the perpetrators?


Fellow researcher Miriam Ehrensaft of Columbia University said, “New data is emerging that says women are also involved in aggression. If we do not tell women that, we put them at risk.”


At risk of what? Sounds like they can take care of themselves. The article does not say what they're at risk of.


The point is not to shift blame, but to decrease violence, they say. If women are escalating domestic violence, making them aware of that will make them safer.


Hmmm....if a man attacks me, I've been 'involved' with violence. If that man is my intimate partner, I've been 'involved with domestic violence. This is true whether I fight back or not; and true whether I successfully defend myself or not. It sounds like they're saying any woman's attempt to defend herself carries the risk of "escalating domestic violence".

Now that I've been informed of this, exactly how am I "safer"?


These new findings won’t sit well with the “men are pigs” crowd. But for the safety of everyone who suffers from domestic abuse, it is important that we move beyond the myths and stereotypes.


This is the end of the article. These three unknown scientists have provided no hard data, have given no examples, have provided nothing to back up their claims.

Have you any other articles which provide such facts?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by c0rbin


Sounds like a case for gender equality to me--a tenet of feminism.

What are you trying to say here, JK?

I am saying that only a handful of women are real feminists that are involved in the issues. The rest of them are men-hating extremists, matriarchal totalitarians.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DragonLady
Who are these scientists? The article doesn't say!

A quote from the article I linked for Dragon Lady and a part she completely ignored:

“Prevention and treatment should focus on managing conflict and aggression for both young men and women,” reasearcher Deborah Capaldi told USA Today.

Fellow researcher Miriam Ehrensaft of Columbia University said, “New data is emerging that says women are also involved in aggression. If we do not tell women that, we put them at risk.”

Well gosh, the article didn't mention who the scientists were, huh. :rolleyes:

JK

[LTC8K6]

The idea that savagery is primarily a male characteristic is sufficiently idiotic for me to dismiss this woman entirely.

I guess that guy must have been savaging the front end of Chante Mallard's car.

[DragonLady]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Well hon, what do you say about the Columbia University (gosh, done by a woman scholar too, wow) study that says women are domestic violence culprits as much as men?

I don't know. If you post a link to the study, I will read it and render an opinion.


You know, that is why the Canadian feminist wrote the article she did too--in response to that new study. Why didn't you know that?


Because with a husband, four children, two businesses to run & a gaggle of other responsibilities, there's only so much I can read in day?


Edited for code

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DragonLady


I don't know. If you post a link to the study, I will read it and render an opinion.

[quote]
You know, that is why the Canadian feminist wrote the article she did too--in response to that new study. Why didn't you know that?
[QUOTE]

Because with a husband, four children, two businesses to run & a gaggle of other responsibilities, there's only so much I can read in day?

This topic has nothing to do with you Dragonlady. Sounds like you need a vacation to Bermuda. lol.

I am sick of feminist myths and the agents who perpetuate them in the media. That is what this thread is about.

JK

[DragonLady]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


A quote from the article I linked for Dragon Lady and a part she completely ignored:

“Prevention and treatment should focus on managing conflict and aggression for both young men and women,” reasearcher Deborah Capaldi told USA Today.

Fellow researcher Miriam Ehrensaft of Columbia University said, “New data is emerging that says women are also involved in aggression. If we do not tell women that, we put them at risk.”

Well gosh, the article didn't mention who the scientists were, huh. :rolleyes:

JK

I didn't ignore it. The article doesn't make it clear whether these are the researchers/scientists who worked on the article in question. One is only identified by name, and the other is linked to Columbia University, while the article itself was apparently commissioned by the National Institutes of Health.

BTW, if you stop calling me "hon", I won't start calling you "dude" or "bunny" or some equally inane term. Please refer to me as DragonLady, Dragon Lady or simply DL. Thanks!

[DragonLady]

This topic has nothing to do with you Dragonlady

I didn't claim this topic was about me. I was answering the question about why I didn't know what the Canadian journalist was writing about.

Nor was my comment intended to take the focus from the issue at hand. :o

[Vorticity]

By the by, JK: Concerning the title of tis thread, and the debate on page 1, I'm still awaiting your answer to this question:
Originally posted by Vorticity
Suppose she had written the following sentence:

"All savages are men."

Would that be the same to you as her saying

"All men are savages" ?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Vorticity
By the by, JK: Concerning the title of tis thread, and the debate on page 1, I'm still awaiting your answer to this question:


Bring up a point referring matriarchal totalitarianism and I will debate it. I am not going to start venturing off into a limbo derailment of the thread based upon your leftist view of what the definition of "is" is.

The chick said all men are savages. There is no other interpretation of what she said.

JK

[c0rbin]

I am sick of feminist myths and the agents who perpetuate them in the media.

Do you mean "feminazi" myths? Or "feminist myths"?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by c0rbin


Do you mean "feminazi" myths? Or "feminist myths"?

That is a good question. There are real feminists out there but the 'feminist' movement has been hijacked by extremists so I would have to say feminist myths at this time is the same as feminazi myths.

Hopefully the real feminists can retake control of their movement.

JK

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The chick said all men are savages. There is no other interpretation of what she said.

I beg to differ. Here is what she said:
From the articel
Savagery is primarily a male characteristic...
It seems pretty clear to me that she meant "Savagery is a characteristic most commonly found among males."
Or, more concisely: "Most savages are males." ...from which the statement "All men are savages" does not even remotely follow logically.
The point I was trying to make above was that even if she had made the much more specific and definite statement "All savages are men", it would not follow from this that "All men are savages".
Another example: From "All Germans are Europeans", one cannot infer "All Europeans are German".

[Nova Land]

Jedi Knight, concerning the meaning of "primarily"

Nova Land is incorrect.
No. I said that is what I mean by the word "primarily", and it is. It may not be what you mean by the word, but that's a separate question.

The important question, however, is what the Canadian feminist means by the word.

Quite a few other people here seem to be using the word the same way I do. I have heard numerous people, outside this board, use the word in precisely the way I have used it. Therefore, I think it is a reasonable possibility that the Canadian feminist is using it in the same way.

I gave four examples using the word "primarily" to illustrate how I and others I know tend to use the word. I'll repeat them for you, color-highlighted.
For instance, let's say I go to a comic book store or convention. Someone sees me browsing and asks what I'm looking for, and I reply "I'm primarily looking for silver-age DC." What I hope that person understands from what I said is that I am mostly looking for silver-age DCs, but am interested in other stuff as well.

If I say I primarily like folk music, it means I mainly like folk music but enjoy some other kinds of music as well. If I say I primarily vote for Republicans, it means I vote mainly for Republicans but occasionally vote for non-Republicans. If I say I shop primarily at Wal-Mart, it means I shop at Wal-Mart more than at other stores (but do shop at other stores). Etc.
In the passage I explain what I intend when I say things like that. Please tell me what meaning you derive from those 4 statements.

I am quite willing to show the 4 statements to any panel of impartial judges, along with my interpretation of what I said and your interpretation of what I said, and see which interpretation they favor.

[NOTE: If that test is not suitable, I can think of another possible test to see which of our interpretations seems more on target. I suspect that the word "primarily" is not used exclusively by leftists. It is quite possible that Daniel Pipes, Rush Limbaugh, David Horowitz, or other people you respect have used the word at some time. I would be interested to see whether your interpretation of the word's meaning is the same when applied to statements they have uttered.]

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Nova Land
No. I said that is what I mean by the word "primarily", and it is. It may not be what you mean by the word, but that's a separate question.


No, the word usage that I used was proper English using the exact definition of the term. You and others can desire words to mean different things that they mean, but dictionaries readily dismantle those desires.

JK

[Nova Land]

Yes, just as I thought, this is ridiculously easy. I typed "primarily" and "David Horowitz" into Google, and right away several examples popped up where my interpretation of the word "primarily" makes sense but yours makes Horowitz into a liar.
David Horowitz:

Consumer Federation of America [is] primarily an advocacy organization bringing consumer issues before Congress, the White House, federal and state regulatory agencies, and the courts.By my interpretation, he is saying this is its main, but not sole, purpose. By yours, he is saying this is it's only purpose. If you're right, then Horowitz is a blatant liar, because he immediately goes on to list several other subsidiary purposes.
America's unique political culture was indeed created by white European males, primarily English and Christian.
By my interpretation, he is saying our political culture was created mainly but not exclusively by white European males. By yours, he is saying it was created solely by white European males -- a blatant untruth.
...slavery, an institution that was destroyed throughout the western hemisphere and across the Atlantic over 100 years ago primarily through the efforts of Great Britain and the United States.By my interpretation, Horowitz is saying slavery was destroyed mainly but not exclusively through US and British efforts; by yours, he is saying that only the US and Britain had a hand in destroying slavery -- another blatant untruth.

So, by your definition, the person you've been quoting in your sig is a liar, and by my definition he's not. What fun! Are you sure you want to stick by that definition? I can go on-line for a much longer time tonight and look up lots more of these examples if you'd like to see how untruthful (by your interpretation of words) some of your other favorite pundits are.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Nova Land
Yes, just as I thought, this is ridiculously easy. I typed "primarily" and "David Horowitz" into Google, and right away several examples popped up where my interpretation of the word "primarily" makes sense but yours makes Horowitz into a liar.
By my interpretation, he is saying this is its main, but not sole, purpose. By yours, he is saying this is it's only purpose. If you're right, then Horowitz is a blatant liar, because he immediately goes on to list several other subsidiary purposes.

By my interpretation, he is saying our political culture was created mainly but not exclusively by white European males. By yours, he is saying it was created solely by white European males -- a blatant untruth.
By my interpretation, Horowitz is saying slavery was destroyed mainly but not exclusively through US and British efforts; by yours, he is saying that only the US and Britain had a hand in destroying slavery -- another blatant untruth.

So, by your definition, the person you've been quoting in your sig is a liar, and by my definition he's not. What fun! Are you sure you want to stick by that definition? I can go on-line for a much longer time tonight and look up lots more of these examples if you'd like to see how untruthful (by your interpretation of words) some of your other favorite pundits are.

I am correct and the quotes you used prove it. Primarily is a word used to define ranking. Horowitz used the term to describe the "Basic, Most Important, The first in Order."

I am right. I am always right.

JK

[Ion]

1) I think that Jedi is right about this:
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

No, the word usage that I used was proper English using the exact definition of the term.
...
JK
English is my third language, and after checking Jedi's explanation against a dictionary, Jedi's explanation does match the proper use of the English language:
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...
Here is her statement:

"Savagery is primarily a male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception."

Now using the adverb usage of the word Primarily, here is what we get:

1) Savagery is the most important male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

2) Savagery is the basic male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.

3) Savagery is the first in order male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception.
...
JK

2) Besides Jedi's explanation, I consider the study posted by Jedi in a link, which shows that violence is often genderless.
So even with the explanation of 'primarily' in the quote as meaning 'mainly' -when 'the most important', 'basic' and 'first in order' rank all men and women-, the quote is still feeding the feminist myth of man violence and woman innocence.

Based on 1) and 2), I hope that Jedi has patience here to stick with his position (and mine too) about feminism being phony many times, because when I was in Canada I saw feminists hijacking the government's sympathy in funds and in media propaganda, in spite of pseudo-science like the quote in the opening post of this thread and in spite of real issues like the one issue I mentioned and other real issues.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Primarily is a word used to define ranking. Horowitz used the term to describe the "Basic, Most Important, The first in Order." In other words, you are saying that Horowitz is using the word precisely as I defined it: "mainly, but not exclusively". You do see, don't you, that my definition -- the one you called incorrect -- is exactly the reading you're putting onto Horowitz's words?

I think where you went wrong is that in attempting to apply the definition to the Canadian feminist's statement you seem to be misreading the word "primarily" as "primary".

What she wrote was "Savagery is primarily a male characteristic" -- i.e. it is mainly but not exclusively found among males. (Or, to use your words, the basic place it can be found is among males; the most important source for acts of savagery is among males; the first in order of sources of acts of savagery is males, females coming in second.)

What you seem to have replaced that with is "Savagery is the primary male characteristic" -- i.e. it is the most basic characteristic of males. That's quite different from what she said, but that's exactly what you seem to have attributed to her.

It's an easy mistake to make. A person hostile to Horowitz, Pipes, et. al. could do the same to their writings, and conclude they were raving lunatics.

That's why I try to take time to read the words of people I am inclined to disagree with more slowly and carefully than the words of those I tend to agree with, looking for ways it might make sense rather than for ways to interpret it that don't.

Most people are trying to speak sense rather than nonsense, even though they don't always succeed. If much of what you read sounds like nonsense, you may be putting too hostile a spin onto their words.

It pays to be willing to look past the misspelled word, the incorrectly used word, the clumsy phrasing, and try to grasp what a person was actually trying to say. In this case, I think I and others here have done a better job of understanding what the Candadian feminist was trying to say than you have yet been able to do.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Nova Land
In this case, I think I and others here have done a better job of understanding what the Candadian feminist was trying to say than you have yet been able to do.

I completely disagree.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ion
1) I think that Jedi is right about this:

English is my third language, and after checking Jedi's explanation against a dictionary, Jedi's explanation does match the proper use of the English language:


2) Besides Jedi's explanation, I consider the study posted by Jedi in a link, which shows that violence is often genderless.
So even with the explanation of 'primarily' in the quote as meaning 'mainly' -when 'the most important', 'basic' and 'first in order' rank all men and women-, the quote is still feeding the feminist myth of man violence and woman innocence.

Based on 1) and 2), I hope that Jedi has patience here to stick with his position (and mine too) about feminism being phony many times, because when I was in Canada I saw feminists hijacking the government's sympathy in funds and in media propaganda, in spite of pseudo-science like the quote in the opening post of this thread and in spite of real issues like the one issue I mentioned and other real issues.

Thanks Ion, I know I am right.

JK

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Ion
English is my third language, and after checking Jedi's explanation against a dictionary, Jedi's explanation does match the proper use of the English language
While dictionaries are a very valuable reference tool, more useful in this case, I think, is to try to use the word in a sentence and see what it means to you, and look for examples where others have used it in sentences and see how you interpret the meaning in those.

Many words have more than one meaning. What's important here is to understand what the Canadian feminist actually intended.

It is often possible to come up with one definition or usage that makes nonsense of a person's statement, and another definition or usage that makes the statement sensible. Indeed, it is almost impossible to read even a short passage in English without facing this problem many times.

Most of us have learned to pick out the usage that makes sense of what is written without even thinking hard about it. However, some of us in whimsical moods enjoy deliberately reading things so that they don't make sense.

(For instance, there are road signs common in my state that read: "Keep Tennessee Litter Free". What that literally says is that one may pick up roadside trash and keep it, without paying anyone for it. What was actually intended, I suspect, is "Keep Tennessee litter-free", i.e. don't throw trash beside the road.)

If you've read my earlier post, explaining how I use the word "primarily", did you have any problem with the examples I gave? Did they seem to make sense -- could you understand the statement I was trying to make in each case? If so, then whether or not there is some alternative definition of primarily that could be applied, the definition of "primarily" I'm intending when I say those sentences is the one a good listener should pick up and choose to assign to the word in interpreting what I've said.

A number of us, all fairly competent readers, have read the Canadian feminist's statement and assigned to the word "primarily" a common definition which makes sense in the context. Jedi has read the same statement, and managed to come up with an interpretation which makes the statement sound like nonsense. Whether deliberately or carelessly, I think he's playing the litter free game.

Humor is fun, and Jedi's got a good sense of humor. It's a good way to prod those you disagree with to think carefully about what they're saying. In this case, by making a humorous mis-interpretation of what the feminist said, he's gotten us all to look over it several times, think about it, and ask ourselves what she really meant. That can be a good thing sometimes.

(Whether the humor in his posts in this thread is intentional or unintentional is for Jedi to say, but it's hard for me not to suspect his tongue is in cheek quite a bit here.)

[Ion]

Originally posted by Nova Land

...
Many words have more than one meaning. What's important here is to understand what the Canadian feminist actually intended.
...

The point 2) in my previous post covers your use of 'mainly' for the 'primarily' in Jedi's quote, by stating that violence is often genderless, and the portraying of man as 'primarily' aggressive and of the woman as 'primarily' innocent is a stereotype that I have seen being abused in Canada.

In line with what I wrote just now:

A) I kept this article from The Knoxville News Sentinel from Thursday December 23, 1999, titled 'Canada drawing hard line on free speech' and authored by Walter Williams, and I quote from it (with further passages if necessary):

"
...
That means you can say, "The average woman cannot fight as well as the average man," and wind up facing fines...
...
"

B) I kept this article from The Vancouver Sun from Friday March 3, 1995, titled 'Foreign-trained engineers don't overcome barriers to find work' by Gillian Shaw, from which I quote:

"Last October I wrote about a group of 16 foreign-trained engineers who found their academic and job training were hardly enough to land them jobs washing dishes in Canada.
...
"
Meanwhile, Innovation -the magazine of The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia- doesn't have a problem with this dramatic discrimination, but gee, in November 2001 for example goes on and on about female harassment in the work place, an issue that I experienced as being imagined locally in Canada, fluff compared to the real issue of widespread discrimination of legal immigrants to Canada, and only lobbied for by feminists.

When the Canadians are calling themselves 'liberals' based on this feminist Political Correctness, I am thinking that they have no clue of what the notion of liberal means in Europe.

[Nova Land]

Originally posted by Ion

the portraying of man as 'primarily' aggressive and of the woman as 'primarily' innocent is a stereotype...But the feminist quoted does not say either that "men [are] primarily aggressive" or that "women [are] primarily innocent". If this is what you are getting from the passage, I feel you are badly misreading it.

Once more: the actual words are "Savagery is primarily a male characteristic". That does not give any indication at all about how many men exhibit this characteristic. It may be that savagery is quite rare among men. All the quote says is that, when acts of savagery do occur, they are significantly more likely to be done by males than by females.

Savage and innocent are separate concepts. A person may be far from innocent without resorting to savagery. So the idea that the feminist has said women are "primarily innocent" also seems to me something being read into the feminist's remarks rather than being inherent in them.

Taking someone's words, twisting them, and saying "Here's what they really meant" is a game some people such as Rush Limbaugh enjoy playing. (In giving Rush as an example, I don't mean to single out right-wingers; people on both sides of the political fence do this. Rush is simply an easy-to-spot example.) Again, I would recommend asking yourself, "Is this what the Canadian feminist intended the words to mean, not is this what a person hostile to her beliefs can make it sound like the words mean.

She's not around on this forum (as far as I know) so it is not easy to consult her. But I strongly suspect that, if she were shown your and Jedi's interpretation of what she was saying, and shown my and other's interpretation of what she was saying, she would shake her head in disbelief at the former and nod at the latter.

That doesn't mean I (or others) necessarily agree with the point she's making. But we are able to read it and understand what she's saying. For a skeptic, that's a very important first step.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Nova Land

...
But I strongly suspect that, if she were shown your and Jedi's interpretation of what she was saying, and shown my and other's interpretation of what she was saying, she would shake her head in disbelief at the former and nod at the latter.
...

Me, I strongly suspect that if she were shown my and Jedi's interpretation of what she was saying, and shown your's and other's interpretation of what she was saying, she would shake her head and see what she can get away with:

a) more (which is Jedi's and my interpretation)

or

b) less (which is your's and other's interpretation).

That's my (stereotyped) feeling, so I don't have a hard proof of this other than the technically correct English pointed by Jedi, because I have seen Canadian feminists with no shame to my face.

[The Fool]

lon.
Can I just check something with you? I want to know if you understand the basic rason why Jedi's statement that if savagery (or whatever) is primarily (or whatever) a male characteristic means that all men are savages, is a load of parrott poo.

If we assume all A are B, which is the correct conversion of this statement? Some B are A ....or all B are A.

So lets give Jedi his wierd little definition and assume primarily means all


(savages) are ALL (men) .......coverts to?

ALL(men) are (savages)
or
some(men) are (savages)

seems to me to be a simple question, Jedi knows the answer too, he's not stupid. He will continue to play the game,repeating the falsehoods, peddling the lies... because he is a follower of the Goebbels method. Its just a game to Jedi, honesty or integrity is not something he is concerned about. Sheer volume of propaganda is how he judges success.... If he can flood the P&CE forum with his "reds under the beds" conspiracy theories, he awards himself victory and a higher status position in his fantasy world. He is "the Jedi" a fearless warrior in the fight for truth justice and the american way.....Lol, its nearly as good as having a life.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

http://www.ifeminism.com

[Ion]

Originally posted by The Fool
lon.
Can I just check something with you? I want to know if you understand the basic rason why Jedi's statement that if savagery (or whatever) is primarily (or whatever) a male characteristic means that all men are savages, is a load of parrott poo.

If we assume all A are B, which is the correct conversion of this statement? Some B are A ....or all B are A.

So lets give Jedi his wierd little definition and assume primarily means all


(savages) are ALL (men) .......coverts to?

ALL(men) are (savages)
or
some(men) are (savages)
...

OK, let's extend this quote:
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...
"Savagery is primarily a male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception."
...

to:

"Savagery is primarily a male characteristic -no matter the era or the society- and family violence is no exception.

Savagery is secondarily a female characteristic -no matter the era or the society- and family violence is no exception."

I think the extension that I give, keeps the context intact.

What does it mean, now, when the context is bigger to see?

It means that:

"Savagery is principally a male characteristic...", a characteristic found mainly in males, not in all men -which you correctly point out, I give you that-, and secondarily found in women.

However, my dictionary says: 'primarily' = 'principal' (not 'principally') which goes Jedi's way (i.e.: "Savagery is the principal male characheristic..."), but out of honesty to the extended context and to grammar, I correct the dictionary to say 'primarily' = 'principally', instead.

Whether it is 'all men' or 'all men' minus epsilon -considering semantics-, Jedi's (and my) beef is with feminists focusing this characteristic on men:
Originally posted by Ion

...
2) Besides Jedi's explanation, I consider the study posted by Jedi in a link, which shows that violence is often genderless.
So even with the explanation of 'primarily' in the quote as meaning 'mainly' -when 'the most important', 'basic' and 'first in order' rank all men and women-, the quote is still feeding the feminist myth of man violence and woman innocence.
...

[FFed]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

I am sick of feminist myths and the agents who perpetuate them in the media. That is what this thread is about.

JK
I couldn't agree more.

I don't know if this article has been posted here yet as I don't have to much time tonight, but here is a bit from the article, and the link.



Violence against family members is something women do at least as often as men! There are dozens of solid scientific studies that reveal a startlingly different picture of family violence than what we usually see in the media. For instance:

Women are three times more likely than men to use weapons in spousal violence.
Women initiate most incidents of spousal violence.
Women commit most child abuse and most elder abuse.
Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely than they hit their female children.
Women commit most child murders and 64% of their victims are male children.
When women murder adults the majority of their victims are men.
Women commit 52% of spousal killings and are convicted of 41% of spousal murders.
Eighty two percent of the general population had their first experience of violence at the hands of women.

http://www.landwave.com/family/

[The Fool]

Annually, compared to males, females experienced over 10 times as many incidents of violence by an intimate. On average each year, women experienced 572,032 violent victimizations at the hands of an intimate, compared to 48,983 incidents committed against men. (Ronet Bachman Ph.D., U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report," January 1994, p. 6)

Department of justice US nationwide figures.....Anyway, lets quote figures at each other until we are all blue in the face, or how about going out and talking to people who have to pick up the pieces?....Know anyone who works in the field? I do, and they laugh at the "men are just as much the victims" line. If they are, there must be secret hospitals where they go to get put back together.

[Ion]

Originally posted by The Fool

...
...Anyway, lets quote figures at each other until we are all blue in the face,...
...

My point is, don't feed all the feminists.

Plenty make a living and look for free rides from the government, by posing as 'Professional Victims'.

[Nova Land]

the Fool:

lets give Jedi his weird little definition and assume primarily means all

(savages) are ALL (men) .......converts to?

ALL (men) are (savages)
or
some (men) are (savages)

seems to me to be a simple question, Jedi knows the answer too, he's not stupid.
Well put! As often, you speak very wisely.

It is perhaps academic, however, since Jedi seems now to agree that the meaning of primarily is some rather than all. He says primarily means "the most important" or, as a ranking, "first in order". Most[/b] is a comparative, meaning there must be some other group besides males that exhibits savagery. First, likewise, means men cannot uniquely be savages -- if they're first in line to exhibit characteristics of savagery, some other group must be second in line.

While Jedi has said my definition of "primarily" as meaning "mainly but not exclusively" is incorrect, that seems to be the meaning he is agreeing to in interpreting Horowitz. I can see no difference in meaning between how he applies "the most important" or "first in order" to Horowitz's how I apply "mainly, but not exclusively".

For instance: "The most important purpose of the CFA is advocacy" seems to me identical in meaning with "The purpose of the CFA is mainly but not exclusively advocacy." It's just different words to say the same thing. It is only when he tries to apply the definition to the Canadian feminist's writings that Jedi begins going through odd verbal contortions to come up with a meaning that seems obviously at variance with what the author intended.
the Fool

Anyway, lets quote figures at each other until we are all blue in the face, or how about going out and talking to people who have to pick up the pieces?....Know anyone who works in the field? I do...
Again, very wise. I wish I could put these things as briefly as you do.

It has become, sadly, quite common these days for interest groups to put together think tanks and other front groups to publish "research" filled with carefully-spun figures that appear to give support to their claims.

For instance, James Dobson's Focus on the Family set up the Family Research Council which would routinely publish reports for Dobson to quote in his "news" broadcasts and which rightists could then use in letters, speeches, congressional lobbying, etc. Family Research Council was then spun off as a separate entity, rather than remaining as a branch of FOTF, in order to make it appear to be an independent entity, with Gary Bauer leaving FOTF to head FRC.

That was more than a decade ago. FRC did very well -- Bauer, as you may recall, was a presidential candidate in the Republican primary 4 years ago. There are dozens of these front groups around nowadays. Therefore, whenever I see or hear rightists citing "research studies" on abortion, sex education, pornography, homosexuality, or other "family" issues, I'm always curious to see just where the alleged study is from. I also tend to be wary of any research group that has "family" in its name.

Which brings me to:
[i]Originally posted by FFed

I don't know if this article has been posted here yet as I don't have to much time tonight, but here is a bit from the article, and the link...

http://www.landwave.com/family/
I'm not familiar with Sam and Bunny Sewell, the people who run "Family Resources and Research" (the group that produced and published the report FFed is referring to). I would like to know more about them and this study before putting too much credence in their conclusions.

I don't mean this as religion-bashing. I'm religious myself, and feel that it is quite possible for religious people to put together honest protocols, conduct honest research, and report the results honestly. However, living in the real world, I can't help but notice that much religiously-based research is not conducted that way.

I would, for instance, be curious to know more about the Bonita Springs Ministerial Association (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ssewell38/BSMAweb.htm)
Bonita Springs Ministerial Association
Contact: Revs. Sam and Bunny Sewell
and about
the Church Without Walls (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ssewell38/church_wow.htm)
The husband and wife team who founded Church Without Walls has diverse and interesting backgrounds. Rev. Bunny Sewell received her early training through conservative Christian colleges and seminaries. Bunny has served as an educator and counselor in secular and Christian schools and organization. Rev. Sam Sewell has been a life-long Presbyterian. Sam served for many years as an institutional chaplain and learned to minister to the spiritual and counseling needs of people of many faiths.

The Church Without Walls adult religious education group will explore the age-old conflict between religion and science. "Since the time of Aristotle and Plato scientific thinking has been in conflict with faith based thinking," said Rev. Sam Sewell, co-pastor of Church Without Walls. Rev. Bunny Sewell, the other half of the husband and wife team added, "Our goal is to explore the areas where science and religion seem to agree. We want to call a truce in the fight between religion and science."

From the cosmological significance of ancient Jewish teachings, to the spiritual kinship between Buddhism and quantum physics, Church Without Walls will explore how science and religion frequently dovetail. “We are seeking awareness, not promoting a dogma or denomination,” said Rev. Bunny Sewell. “From Anglican to Zen, we will take a look at many forms of the human spiritual quest and how they relate to modern science"

Reverends Sam and Bunny Sewell lead the group. A textbook "God for the 21st Century" is available for twenty dollars. The text book features fifty leading world thinkers discussing the inter-relationship between science and religion, addressing topics as varied as astronomy, cosmology, evolution, genetic engineering, extraterrestrial life, psychology, religion, medicine, and artificial intelligence The contributors represent the Christian, Jewish, Islamic and Hindu traditions. The learning tools used by the group are the textbook, videos, discussion and a CD-ROM including a library of the world’s religions.
Please not that nothing I read in my brief search for information about these people indicates anything discreditable about them. They may indeed be sincere people doing good work. But I would like to know more.

Question for FFed: do you like this study (a) because you like the conclusions it reaches, or (b) because you are familiar with the group doing the research and can vouch for the fact this is honest work honestly presented? I am unfamiliar with this group or this study, and will not have time to look into them any time soon, so I would be interested to know if you are as in the dark as I am about them. If you are familiar with this group and can honestly say this is a reputable study worth looking into, I will make a point to read it carefully as soon as time permits.

But I think The Fool made an excellent point, worth repeating (even if I can't say it as briefly as he did). Many people can (and do) put forth studies and figures. We can quote figures back and forth endlessly. Unless we know that the figures come from a reliable source, there seems little point in cluttering up the discussion floor with them, except as thought-provoking ideas. And since this particular "thought-provoking idea" has already been raised numerous times there seems little need in continually "provoking" unless substantive evidence can also be found to support it.

Oh, the heck with this. The Fool already said this so much more eloquently than I can, so I'm just going to quote him on it again....how about going out and talking to people who have to pick up the pieces?....Know anyone who works in the field? I do...
(Thank you for saying that, the Fool. Thank you for reminding us to be grounded in reality on this very real matter. It is not statistics that get attacked, beaten, raped, killed. It is very real people.)

[schplurg]

So then I guess men should be just as afraid of spousal abuse as women are? Shirley, you can't be serious.

You can argue statistics all you want, there are few women in my town that I am physically afraid of. Yes, women piss men off and can initiate violence.

Women are three times more likely than men to use weapons in spousal violence. Gee I wonder why? Could it be that men are typically stronger? My friend saved a womans life who was being repeatedly stabbed with a screwdriver by her husband right in the street in front of their house.
Women initiate most incidents of spousal violence. How? By calling her husband a name, or by hitting him?
Women commit most child abuse and most elder abuse. Maybe. Maybe if men were the primary caregivers of children and stayed home with them every day that stat would be reversed.
Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely than they hit their female children. Men are more savage though remember? We need it! I'll bet that stat applies to men as well. ;)
Women commit most child murders and 64% of their victims are male children. 64% is a little too close to half for me. I don't see an alarming trend based on that. Boys are generally harder to handle than girls.
When women murder adults the majority of their victims are men. Men that were abusive perhaps? These stats mean Jack Squat.
Women commit 52% of spousal killings and are convicted of 41% of spousal murders. See above.
Eighty two percent of the general population had their first experience of violence at the hands of women. You mean when your mommy spanked you? Please...
The point to me isn't whether or not these stats are true. Y'all can throw out all the stats you want. I am not afraid of being physically abused by a woman and that's really the bottom line. I'm sorry, but anyone who goes around saying that men are being unfairly represented as victims of domestic violence is a p*ssy. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.

I mean really, what's the point with all of this? Is a big brave Jedi afraid of a little girl?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Nova Land
Well put! As often, you speak very wisely.

Not true. Fool was wrong. There is no 'some' in 'primarily'. Primarily is an english adverb establishing order. There is no "some" in "first".

JK

[Gem]

Not true. Fool was wrong. There is no 'some' in 'primarily'. Primarily is an english adverb establishing order. There is no "some" in "first".

Americans are primarily whites.

Unless I'm using bad english?

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


Americans are primarily whites.

Unless I'm using bad english?

Gem

You are correct. White Americans are first in numerical population tabulation.

JK

[Gem]

"Savagery is primarily a male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception."

For starters, I disagree with her. Men had an unfair advantage in violence for centuries, but I beleive that women are catching up (as the statistics are proving).

But I don't see how you can interpret it as "all men are savages" from this quote. I do not see in that quote that all men are savages, just that savagery is primarily a male characteristic.

Gem

P.S.: Most important of all, don't go beserk, JK.

[Gem]

Forgot to add:

White Americans are first in numerical population tabulation.

So doesn't that mean that some americans aren't white? If americans are primarily whites, that means that other americans aren't white. Therefore, SOME Americans are white, but MOST of them are white.

I think that's what she is saying: Savagery is mostly found in male, no matter what period of time.

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
Forgot to add:



So doesn't that mean that some americans aren't white? If americans are primarily whites, that means that other americans aren't white. Therefore, SOME Americans are white, but MOST of them are white.

I think that's what she is saying: Savagery is mostly found in male, no matter what period of time.

Gem

No, she said savagery is a male primary characteristic. That means 'first'.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
I do not see in that quote that all men are savages, just that savagery is primarily a male characteristic.

That means all men are savages, by her definition using the terminology.

P.S.: Most important of all, don't go beserk, JK.

Contrary to what the chick says, as a male I am not a savage.

JK

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Thumper
Obviously, there is a great deal of sarcasm in this reply. Try to state your position clearly and without sarcasm so we understand what you truly mean.

I think you have a very good point. :rolleyes:

(Oh, I guess that was sarcasm, too.)

I was pointing out an incongruity. The point was quite clear, but evidently I didn't chew and digest it to a sufficiently fine mush for your consumption. [?sarcasm]

[Gem]

she said savagery is a male primary characteristic. That means 'first'.

No, she said savagery is primarily a male characteristic. That means most but not all. "first" does not mean "all."

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


No, she said savagery is primarily a male characteristic. That means most but not all. "first" does not mean "all."

Gem

Gem, you are smarter than that. Primarily is the adverb of primary, both used to define the order of the subject.

So what does primary mean, Gem? Does primary mean 'some' or 'half' or 'maybe a little bit'?

No. Primary means 'most important', 'basic' and 'first'. Primarily is used to order 'most important', 'basic' and 'first' when describing groups, in the article's case it was describing all men.

It saddens me that so many people have no idea what english words mean and how they are used in context.

Orwell was right. :eek:

JK

[Gem]

Savagery is primarily a male characteristic - no matter the era or the society - and family violence is no exception

It's starting to look as if the whole meaning of this sentence is based on the definition of "primary" is. (Was is Bill Clinton who said: "That depends on what your definition of "is" is."?)

Let's try to plug in your words.
Primary means 'most important', 'basic' and 'first'.

Savagery is a most important male charactersitic.
Savagery is a basic male charactesitic.
Savagery is firstly a male characteristic.

Notice how the meaning of all three phrases above can mean some very different things.
Make Primarily "mainly" and you have:

Savagery is mainly a male characteristic.

Insert any synonyms, or definition of synonyms, and you have some vastly different meanings.

But you haven't told me how "primarily" can translate into "all men"
in the article's case it was describing all men.
Maybe I see you logical steps. Because she is describing all men by saying that savagery is mostly found in men, all men are savages?

Gem

[Bjorn]

Gem
I do not see in that quote that all men are savages, just that savagery is primarily a male characteristic. Jedi
That means all men are savages, by her definition using the terminology. Maybe by your definition, but surely not by anyone else's.

You cannot seriously think that the quote: Americans are primarily whites means that all Americans are white? :p

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
You cannot seriously think that the quote: Americans are primarily whites means that all Americans are white? :p

Americans are primarily whites lumps all Americans into one group, where 'whites' are the 'primary' population. That means whites are the 'basic' population, the 'most important population' and the 'first' population concerning tabulation.

That means exactly the same thing as what the feminist said in her article.

JK

[Gem]

Americans are primarily whites lumps all Americans into one group, where 'whites' are the 'primary' population. That means whites are the 'basic' population, the 'most important population' and the 'first' population concerning tabulation.

That means exactly the same thing as what the feminist said in her article.


Yes, but you said that "all men are savages" from what she said. Now you say that since Americans are primarily whites, and that "savagery is primarily a male characteristic" is the same thing. So how can "Americans are primarily whites" not mean "all americans are whites" but turning around you say that "savagery is primarily a male characteristic" means "all men are savages"

Btw, are you also getting tired of copying the same quote over and over again?

Gem

[Bjorn]

A calendar of Bjorn's stupidity

Sorry - deleted! (Did you think I would keep it?)

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Americans are primarily whites lumps all Americans into one group, where 'whites' are the 'primary' population. That means whites are the 'basic' population, the 'most important population' and the 'first' population concerning tabulation.

That means exactly the same thing as what the feminist said in her article.

JK Does "Americans are primarily whites" mean that all Americans are white?

It is a yes or no question. :p

[Gem]

Bjorn, you might want to take it to the other thread, where this message in this board is completely taken out of context.

Gem

P.S.: We pathetic humans must laugh at our pathetics mistakes.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


It's starting to look as if the whole meaning of this sentence is based on the definition of "primary" is. (Was is Bill Clinton who said: "That depends on what your definition of "is" is."?)

Let's try to plug in your words.


Savagery is a most important male charactersitic.
Savagery is a basic male charactesitic.
Savagery is firstly a male characteristic.

Notice how the meaning of all three phrases above can mean some very different things.
Make Primarily "mainly" and you have:

Savagery is mainly a male characteristic.

Insert any synonyms, or definition of synonyms, and you have some vastly different meanings.

But you haven't told me how "primarily" can translate into "all men"

Maybe I see you logical steps. Because she is describing all men by saying that savagery is mostly found in men, all men are savages?

Gem

Gem, 'primary' is not 'mainly'. The columnist did not use 'mainly' in her sentence, did she? :rolleyes:

Mainly is for the most part.

Again, you are wrong about what you 'feel' the answer is.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
P.S.: We pathetic humans must laugh at our pathetics mistakes.

Well at least you can self-actualize.

JK

[Gem]

Gem, 'primary' is not 'mainly'.

It's a synonym, according to the Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus. Basicly is also a synonym.

Gem

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Gem
Bjorn, you might want to take it to the other thread, where this message in this board is completely taken out of context.

Gem

P.S.: We pathetic humans must laugh at our pathetics mistakes. Ooops! On the other hand, will anyone else notice? :p

[Bjorn]

Jedi,

Does "Americans are primarily whites" mean that all Americans are white?

It is a yes or no question.

:p

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Does "Americans are primarily whites" mean that all Americans are white?

It is a yes or no question. :p

No, it means that all the sub-groups of Americans are primarily whites. That has nothing to do with the description the columnist gave of one population--men. Are men divided into subgenders? :rolleyes:

Give it up. I am right.

JK

[Gem]

it means that all the sub-groups of Americans are primarily whites

Where did you get sub-groups? We aren't talking about sub-groups here, we're talking about primarily.

All Americans are White means that the majority of Americans have white skin. In that statement is the fact that not ALL americans are white.

Same thing with her quote. Primarily doesn't mean ALL or ONLY. What she meant was that savagery is mainly a male characteristic in the sense that MOST BUT NOT ALL men used savagery.

Gem

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No, it means that all the sub-groups of Americans are primarily whites. That has nothing to do with the description the columnist gave of one population--men. Are men divided into subgenders? :rolleyes:

Give it up. I am right.

JK Sorry - I am confused.

If "Americans are primarily whites" does not mean that all Americans are white, how can "savagery is primarily a male characteristic" mean that all savages are men?

Further, how are "all sub-groups of Americans primarily whites"?

Thin ice, I notice? :p

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Sorry - I am confused.

If "Americans are primarily whites" does not mean that all Americans are white, how can "savagery is primarily a male characteristic" mean that all savages are men?

Further, how are "all sub-groups of Americans primarily whites"?

Thin ice, I notice? :p

Read my posts above for the answer.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


Where did you get sub-groups? We aren't talking about sub-groups here, we're talking about primarily.

All Americans are White means that the majority of Americans have white skin. In that statement is the fact that not ALL americans are white.

Same thing with her quote. Primarily doesn't mean ALL or ONLY. What she meant was that savagery is mainly a male characteristic in the sense that MOST BUT NOT ALL men used savagery.

Gem

Read my posts above for the answer.

JK

[Gem]

Read my posts above for the answer.

Read my statements above for counter argument.

Gem

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Read my posts above for the answer.

JK Jedi,

You're down to your stupid one-liners that you resort to when you know you're wrong but won't admit it. :p

"Covered that already" is another one when your 'evidence' is just repeating what you said in a former post.

Do you actually prefer to make a fool of yourself?

:confused:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Jedi,

You're down to your stupid one-liners that you resort to when you know you're wrong but won't admit it. :p

"Covered that already" is another one when your 'evidence' is just repeating what you said in a former post.

Do you actually prefer to make a fool of yourself?

:confused:

Read my posts above for the answer.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


Read my statements above for counter argument.

Gem

There is no need to. Read my posts above for the answer.

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Read my posts above for the answer.

JK QED

:p

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Gem, 'primary' is not 'mainly'. The columnist did not use 'mainly' in her sentence, did she? :rolleyes:

Mainly is [b]for the most part.


According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary (http://www.webster.com), so is "primarily":


One entry found for primarily.
Main Entry: pri·mar·i·ly
Pronunciation: prI-'mer-&-lE also pr&-, chiefly British 'prI-m&r-&-lE
Function: adverb
Date: 1601
1 : for the most part : CHIEFLY <has now become primarily a residential town -- S. P. B. Mais>
2 : in the first place : ORIGINALLY


So, just to make things crystal clear, "primarily" is a synonym for "mostly", and the sentences "savagery is mainly a male trait" and "savagery is primarily a male trait" both means "savagery is for the most part a male trait."

[The Fool]

Statements of the form ..
ALL A are B
do not convert to
ALL B are A
rather, they convert to
SOME B are A

Are you listening Jedi? Either accept this basic rule of logic or continue to look silly, It's up to you.

please continue to tell me that because all goldfish are fish ...then all fish are goldfish....

All of Lenin is dead...so all dead people are Lenin.
Is any of this getting through?