6 ms·

Why would it be the size of the specific two people in a relationship? It looks very clear to me that violent behavior in relationship (and more specifically,

by cauch 1y ago

Why would it be the size of the specific two people in a relationship? It looks very clear to me that violent behavior in relationship (and more specifically, in the first few days of dating) is a question of education, not the result of one person being bigger. For example, every parents are stronger than their young children, but only some kind of parent are violent towards their children. If it's a question of education, reducing the problem of the size of the people is a terrible terrible idea: the problem will never go away because you don't understand the source and therefore don't act on the source to fix it. It feels like some people here are framing the problem in "men vs women" framework, as if it is a competition and they don't want to accept that maybe men behavior is different from women behavior because the way they are raised in our society. I don't really see the point: I'm a man, and yet I don't take it personally. The same way I don't take it personally when someone says "don't accept candy from strangers": I'm a stranger for a lot of kids, and yet I understand why they should be prudent and I understand that, in situation where I have to interact with an unknown kid, I should do things differently (for example not giving them candy), not because I'm a danger for them, but because it is true that there is danger and that they cannot know if I'm a danger or not. So many men take it uselessly and nonconstructively personally as soon as it is dating.

Dylan16807 1y ago
> Why would it be the size of the specific two people in a relationship? That's the main argument of the grandparent post. If you're missing that then you're not really responding to what they said. They went into significant detail so I feel like trying to reword it myself would be worse than suggesting you read the post again. > If it's a question of education, reducing the problem of the size of the people is a terrible terrible idea: the problem will never go away because you don't understand the source and therefore don't act on the source to fix it. Nah. Root cause analysis is entirely different from risk analysis. This is about risk analysis. If a woman dates a man that's smaller than her, who should be more worried about violence? That's not the time to worry about why and how to fix society. > maybe men behavior is different from women behavior Maybe it is! But then you need a really good explanation for the data in the above post. Or you need to say the data is wrong. But you can't just dismiss it as being defensive.
- cauch 1y ago
  > That's the main argument of the grandparent post. Exactly, and I've answered that saying I'm not convinced, so, I've asked you if you had further arguments. I've said at the time why it was not convincing, and I've built even more in my previous comment. > If a woman dates a man that's smaller than her, who should be more worried about violence? I still think it's the woman, because not every parent beat their children despite them being smaller, which proves that being bigger does not mean being violent. You need something more. In this case, I think it's a culture that implies that violent men are manly and successful, which is present in the manosphere. Because there is no such culture (I guess you can find anecdotical case, far from being as common as the manosphere) that implies that women beating men is somehow "womenly", I doubt it implies that tall women will beat men at the same rate. > But then you need a really good explanation for the data in the above post. All the data adds up, everything is pretty well predicted by this model. Not sure which data you think this model does not explain (unless you think that somehow this model implies 0%-100%, which is of course not the case). On the other hand, I doubt anyone has ever proven that being taller in the relationship is really a strong causal factor (and not just correlation, as the manosphere is also into going to the gym) (but happy to get links if you have some).
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    > Exactly, and I've answered that saying I'm not convinced, so, I've asked you if you had further arguments. I've said at the time why it was not convincing, and I've built even more in my previous comment. You never made it clear that you understood the argument, because you went straight from "Not sure what is your point" to "Why would it be". That doesn't look like a request for more convincing, that looks like you never considered it. > I still think it's the woman, because not every parent beat their children despite them being smaller, which proves that being bigger does not mean being violent. What. Not every dating relationship involves violence either. We're talking about what's more likely here. Also children and dates are different in so many ways that even ignoring that factor this doesn't disprove the argument at all. > Not sure which data you think this model does not explain If the root cause is culture encouraging men to be physically violent, why would the total amount of physical violence be the same in gay relationships, especially lesbian ones?

by cauch 1y ago

Dylan16807 1y ago

> Why would it be the size of the specific two people in a relationship? That's the main argument of the grandparent post. If you're missing that then you're not really responding to what they said. They went into significant detail so I feel like trying to reword it myself would be worse than suggesting you read the post again. > If it's a question of education, reducing the problem of the size of the people is a terrible terrible idea: the problem will never go away because you don't understand the source and therefore don't act on the source to fix it. Nah. Root cause analysis is entirely different from risk analysis. This is about risk analysis. If a woman dates a man that's smaller than her, who should be more worried about violence? That's not the time to worry about why and how to fix society. > maybe men behavior is different from women behavior Maybe it is! But then you need a really good explanation for the data in the above post. Or you need to say the data is wrong. But you can't just dismiss it as being defensive.

cauch 1y ago
> That's the main argument of the grandparent post. Exactly, and I've answered that saying I'm not convinced, so, I've asked you if you had further arguments. I've said at the time why it was not convincing, and I've built even more in my previous comment. > If a woman dates a man that's smaller than her, who should be more worried about violence? I still think it's the woman, because not every parent beat their children despite them being smaller, which proves that being bigger does not mean being violent. You need something more. In this case, I think it's a culture that implies that violent men are manly and successful, which is present in the manosphere. Because there is no such culture (I guess you can find anecdotical case, far from being as common as the manosphere) that implies that women beating men is somehow "womenly", I doubt it implies that tall women will beat men at the same rate. > But then you need a really good explanation for the data in the above post. All the data adds up, everything is pretty well predicted by this model. Not sure which data you think this model does not explain (unless you think that somehow this model implies 0%-100%, which is of course not the case). On the other hand, I doubt anyone has ever proven that being taller in the relationship is really a strong causal factor (and not just correlation, as the manosphere is also into going to the gym) (but happy to get links if you have some).
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  > Exactly, and I've answered that saying I'm not convinced, so, I've asked you if you had further arguments. I've said at the time why it was not convincing, and I've built even more in my previous comment. You never made it clear that you understood the argument, because you went straight from "Not sure what is your point" to "Why would it be". That doesn't look like a request for more convincing, that looks like you never considered it. > I still think it's the woman, because not every parent beat their children despite them being smaller, which proves that being bigger does not mean being violent. What. Not every dating relationship involves violence either. We're talking about what's more likely here. Also children and dates are different in so many ways that even ignoring that factor this doesn't disprove the argument at all. > Not sure which data you think this model does not explain If the root cause is culture encouraging men to be physically violent, why would the total amount of physical violence be the same in gay relationships, especially lesbian ones?