Anybody knows what's the current feminist/SJW/leftwing consensus on this?

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

Are they still admitting that the sole and only reason why women are seemingly less likely to commit some vile acts is because of them being physically weaker, or are they agreeing with tradcons that women are somehow inherently better than men?

This graph got me thinking about that:

Childhood physical abuse: Differences by birth cohort

This study uses self-reported data from the 2014 General Social Survey (GSS) on Victimization to examine trends in and characteristics of childhood physical abuse over time. Respondents are grouped into one of three birth cohorts: (1) 1940 to 1959; (2) 1960 to 1979; or (3) 1980 to 1999. For each...

www150.statcan.gc.ca

Against the people they can afford to get very physical with, their daughters, they do so as happily as men, while not doing so as much with people they can't do that to, though even with their sons they get physical quite often and it's actually increasing.

I remember that a surprisingly large number of them used to freely admit that there is actually nothing about women that makes them inherently better than men, they are just physically weaker. However, recently I've seen a lot of feminists kind of pivoting towards claiming that, actually, whether because of "oppression" or not having "male privilege" or "male socialization towards violence" that women actually are less aggressive and violent than men (which is bullshit I believe) and its not just that they are weaker but otherwise the same as men (which is true).

Also, remember that that graph is only about who was responsible for the most serious act, and not just about who was abusing the kid, which would inevitably have fathers overrepresented. For that, there's this other graph. Scratch that, I misread it. The graph still says a lot though.

"Muh stranger danger". Also lol at personality detectors already malfunctioning even among <15-year-olds.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Are they still admitting that the sole and only reason why women are seemingly less likely to commit some vile acts is because of them being physically weaker, or are they agreeing with tradcons that women are somehow inherently better than men?

This graph got me thinking about that:

Childhood physical abuse: Differences by birth cohort

This study uses self-reported data from the 2014 General Social Survey (GSS) on Victimization to examine trends in and characteristics of childhood physical abuse over time. Respondents are grouped into one of three birth cohorts: (1) 1940 to 1959; (2) 1960 to 1979; or (3) 1980 to 1999. For each...

www150.statcan.gc.ca

Against the people they can afford to get very physical with, their daughters, they do so as happily as men, while not doing so as much with people they can't do that to, though even with their sons they get physical quite often and it's actually increasing.

I remember that a surprisingly large number of them used to freely admit that there is actually nothing about women that makes them inherently better than men, they are just physically weaker. However, recently I've seen a lot of feminists kind of pivoting towards claiming that, actually, whether because of "oppression" or not having "male privilege" or "male socialization towards violence" that women actually are less aggressive and violent than men (which is bullshit I believe) and its not just that they are weaker but otherwise the same as men (which is true).

Also, remember that that graph is only about who was responsible for the most serious act, and not just about who was abusing the kid, which would inevitably have fathers overrepresented. For that, there's this other graph.

"Muh stranger danger". Also lol at personality detectors already malfunctioning even among <15-year-olds.

Boris Johnson: Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if he were a woman

Boris Johnson: Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if he were a woman

Prime minister says Russian president’s gender a contributory factor to Ukraine invasion

www.theguardian.com

View: https://youtu.be/MRs5iyYGJiU?si=p8E4fKlT8rvJMntq

 

[Sloth.Belgrade]

I'd guess that they probably say both and try to connect both points together via some feminist logic

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

As if female rulers are not inclined to make wars.

Are they still admitting that the sole and only reason why women are seemingly less likely to commit some vile acts is because of them being physically weaker, or are they agreeing with tradcons that women are somehow inherently better than men?

This graph got me thinking about that:

Childhood physical abuse: Differences by birth cohort

This study uses self-reported data from the 2014 General Social Survey (GSS) on Victimization to examine trends in and characteristics of childhood physical abuse over time. Respondents are grouped into one of three birth cohorts: (1) 1940 to 1959; (2) 1960 to 1979; or (3) 1980 to 1999. For each...

www150.statcan.gc.ca

Against the people they can afford to get very physical with, their daughters, they do so as happily as men, while not doing so as much with people they can't do that to, though even with their sons they get physical quite often and it's actually increasing.

I remember that a surprisingly large number of them used to freely admit that there is actually nothing about women that makes them inherently better than men, they are just physically weaker. However, recently I've seen a lot of feminists kind of pivoting towards claiming that, actually, whether because of "oppression" or not having "male privilege" or "male socialization towards violence" that women actually are less aggressive and violent than men (which is bullshit I believe) and its not just that they are weaker but otherwise the same as men (which is true).

Also, remember that that graph is only about who was responsible for the most serious act, and not just about who was abusing the kid, which would inevitably have fathers overrepresented. For that, there's this other graph. Scratch that, I misread it. The graph still says a lot though.

"Muh stranger danger". Also lol at personality detectors already malfunctioning even among <15-year-olds.

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

Boris Johnson: Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if he were a woman

Boris Johnson: Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if he were a woman

Prime minister says Russian president’s gender a contributory factor to Ukraine invasion

www.theguardian.com

View: https://youtu.be/MRs5iyYGJiU?si=p8E4fKlT8rvJMntq

Jfl.

I'd guess that they probably say both and try to connect both points together via some feminist logic

I can imagine that, I've thought that that would probably be the response of any of them who somehow saw this thread.

 

[veryrare]

You post a lot of good threads slavic
One thing I've noticed is that most of the stats you send are usually surveys like the ones on rape/assault and this one too
It would be better If they weren't surveys would be more valid IMO

I can't tell If this will be perceived as rude or constructive criticism cuz aspieness but you get the point

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

You post a lot of good threads slavic
One thing I've noticed is that most of the stats you send are usually surveys like the ones on rape/assault and this one too
It would be better If they weren't surveys would be more valid IMO

I can't tell If this will be perceived as rude or constructive criticism cuz aspieness but you get the point

I know, but there's much more surveys being published than peer reviewed studies and such.