Sweden Aims for "Gender Neutrality"

[Epimethean]

That's something at least. You don't think females can't be stalkers. However, notice that both your studies dealt with reported crimes. How many men will admit to being raped or abused by a female? Not many.

Now who's playing the theist?

By the way, you are correct: I don't think females can't be stalkers. I simply know that men are more commonly such-and more dangerous as such.

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

Playing the theist? I thought I was supporting my claim with studies and examples, as well as pointing out possible inaccuracies in opposing arguments. If you can show me something to prove that most male victims of rape actually report the offense, I will change my viewpoint according to logic. As it stands, it's significantly more difficult for a male to admit to weakness than it is for a female, something which gender neutrality laws would help to change.

[Epimethean]

So, you are basing your sweeping statement about women being as creepy as men on what sort of logic here? The fact that many men do not report being raped or molested by women? Let us call it the Rapist of the Gaps. Not saying we can prove that it doesn't exist, but you asked for statistics and now I find you quibbling with the data by throwing up smoke screens.

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

So, you are basing your sweeping statement about women being as creepy as men on what sort of logic here? The fact that many men do not report being raped or molested by women? Let us call it the Rapist of the Gaps. Not saying we can prove that it doesn't exist, but you asked for statistics and now I find you quibbling with the data by throwing up smoke screens.

Not at all. It stands to reason that as humans living in the same society, males and females would share many of the same emotional disturbances unless it is demonstrated to be otherwise.

I have indicated thusly and have provided links that not only show that males are indeed abused and raped, but also, if you clicked on them, that most cases of abuse against males go unreported. One particular study shows that the rate of male victims is slightly higher than that of females. (the rate of abuse, not rape specifically)

If a multitude of links and an admission that I will recant if proven incorrect appear to be a smokescreen, perhaps you should revise your definition.

This is from one of the links that you posted.

"Information about the low proportion of sex offenses committed by females is fairly consistent, at least when relying on data about female sex offenders known to the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Yet when various individuals are surveyed about their sexual victimization experiences, the incidence of female-perpetrated sex crimes is often higher and much more variable. For example, reviews of multiple sources of victimization data reveal that up to 63% of female victims and as many as 27% of male victims report having been sexually victimized by a female..."

That's 40% total, by the way, just under half.

In short, your links made it more certain that nearly as many females are stalkers as males. The evidence supports it, and bias is pointless. I don't hold a grudge, so there's no need to swallow any pride. We all err at some point, and bias is a tricky beast to overcome.

[Epimethean]

No, my links did no such thing. Your choice of interpretation did that. By all means, continue on to refute the data about serial killers and-oh yes: Stalkers. All you have done is suggest that there may be more female molesters than are reported. This does not change the rape statistics, the serial killer statistics, or the stalking statistics. Then again, why worry? You seem to have it sewn up rather neatly in your Return to Eden at the bathroom conjecture.

[Aegrus]

So far, most of Rennat's links show individual cases of female crime, whereas Shell B and Epimethean's show broader studies. There are exceptions, but that' the general trend.

Given the current evidence, I agree that women overall are less prone to violent crimes than men. However, couldn't a person argue that this is only because women are currently socialized to be more submissive in most modern societies? If men and women were treated completely equally, might the crime rates in turn equalize? Perhaps many of the differences in behavior between males and females in society are a result of conditioning. As evidence for this, I'd need to cite links that show the male to female crime rates in very unequal countries as opposed to equal countries. Alas, I'm too lazy to do that right now, so I can't expect anyone to listen to me.

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

No, my links did no such thing. Your choice of interpretation did that. By all means, continue on to refute the data about serial killers and-oh yes: Stalkers.

I'll give you the link then.
http://www.csom.org/pubs/female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf

Read all of it, and you'll see that I have taken a direct quote. Once again, feel free to retract your view at any time. People will think of you more highly for it, not less. We must always follow logic, even when we don't want to the most. Especially when we don't want to.

---

So far, most of Rennat's links show individual cases of female crime, whereas Shell B and Epimethean's show broader studies. There are exceptions, but that' the general trend.

Given the current evidence, I agree that women overall are less prone to violent crimes than men. However, couldn't a person argue that this is only because women are currently socialized to be more submissive in most modern societies? If men and women were treated completely equally, might the crime rates in turn equalize? Perhaps many of the differences in behavior between males and females in society are a result of conditioning. As evidence for this, I'd need to cite links that show the male to female crime rates in very unequal countries as opposed to equal countries. Alas, I'm too lazy to do that right now, so I can't expect anyone to listen to me.

Aegrus, I understand that you're trying to mediate this since you think I'm going to lose. Look at the data yourself, or kindly exit.

(btw, for people wondering how I deduced that, we're friends)

[Aegrus]

I happen to find traditional gender roles adorable for those who embrace them. Stay at home moms are awesome, but I really don't care if it is the mom or the dad. My point is that taking this "neutrality" thing too far will detract from the good in traditional roles. That being said, I think people should choose if they want to feel neutral, overtly feminine, overtly masculine or overtly something in-between. The differences between typical males, females and every other gender should be noticed and embraced. The only thing that should count is that one is not discriminated against for their gender. Neutrality does not accomplish that.

---

I beg to differ. There is a very good reason for it. When a woman sees a male in the woman's room, she knows to go on the defensive.

The good in traditional roles? Why are they good- because you find them adorable? I think they often times enforce sexism. I'd rather split things 50/50 with anyone I was romantically involved in.

As for the second point- of course, you're correct. Because as it is, the genders are not equal. Wouldn't it be a great world where men weren't any more feared than women? I'm not saying we should start sharing bathrooms, but I get very sick of people acting like modern crime is one sided on a basis of gender.

---

No, my links did no such thing. Your choice of interpretation did that. By all means, continue on to refute the data about serial killers and-oh yes: Stalkers.

I'll give you the link then.
http://www.csom.org/pubs/female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf

Read all of it, and you'll see that I have taken a direct quote. Once again, feel free to retract your view at any time. People will think of you more highly for it, not less. We must always follow logic, even when we don't want to the most. Especially when we don't want to.

---

So far, most of Rennat's links show individual cases of female crime, whereas Shell B and Epimethean's show broader studies. There are exceptions, but that' the general trend.

Given the current evidence, I agree that women overall are less prone to violent crimes than men. However, couldn't a person argue that this is only because women are currently socialized to be more submissive in most modern societies? If men and women were treated completely equally, might the crime rates in turn equalize? Perhaps many of the differences in behavior between males and females in society are a result of conditioning. As evidence for this, I'd need to cite links that show the male to female crime rates in very unequal countries as opposed to equal countries. Alas, I'm too lazy to do that right now, so I can't expect anyone to listen to me.

Aegrus, I understand that you're trying to mediate this since you think I'm going to lose. Look at the data yourself, or kindly exit.

(btw, for people wondering how I deduced that, we're friends)

I looked at the data. It doesn't quite support what you're saying. I'm not going to exit.

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

I told you to read all of it. The graphs say one thing, and the text explains that the graphs are inaccurate.

[Epimethean]

Rennat, you are the one who wants the data to support your contention, and that is where your logic leads you to non-validation. You have yet to refute the larger body of data provided against your assertion that women are as often creepers as men. Shall we limit it-to help your case-simply to stalkers, rapists and serial killers, since what we are talking about with the paradise by the bathroom lights theme is public aggression shown by women versus men, hmmmn?

OK, bored now, and headed to bed. I checked the perimeter of the house. No creepy females to be found.