Reeeeeeeeally thought you were going to go in a serious direction as I started reading that.

Kinda like when Mallory Archer was talking about how she doesn't get what her son sees in Lana.

"I mean really, what does he see in a black.....ops field agent???"

Really felt like she was going in a whole different direction.

Can't do that or your driver's licence will be invalidated.

I love this because it has the potential to make an incel implode.

I was gonna say that some of this is also probably sentencing bias. Subjectively the correlation seems too strong to not have some truth to it. I also have other data to support male = higher violence risk largely outside of perceptual bias.

As an example from my area of expertise, men complete suicide more often because they typically choose deadlier means (guns especially) vs women are more likely to attempt something like a drug overdose which is more reversible / leaves more opportunity for aborting the attempt. There's not a lot of room in those stats for perceptual bias, dead is dead and alive is alive. It's basically a known fact that men are more violent to themselves. I won't get too much into the stats of violence against others except to say that the statistical predictor tool I've used for that in institutional environments didn't use "male," it used "male under 30y/o."

On the other end of perceptual errors almost govern criminal sentencing. Entrusting a group of people to judge an event reduces some but not all of the perceptual bias, but certainly can't eliminate it. And I do also have my own subjective / experiential perspective that is similar but in some ways inverted to yours (but is also almost certainly occurring in a 100% different environment):

When I first started in my field I was told and found to be true that when you're breaking up a fight between men all you need to do is break eye contact. You get between them back to back with a coworker and if you can't block their sightline to each other with your bodies you shove one of them around a corner. And that's it. Within about 30 seconds they're in tension reduction talking about their feelings in that emotionally constipated way western men do ("he just made me so mad!"). Otoh I was told and found to be true that you let the women go at it until the entire code team arrives from your surrounding units because you're going to basically have to do a full restraint episode for each woman.

(Sorry I have lots of thoughts about violence it's actually kinda my area of professional expertise.)

that is why conservatives and TERFS are afraid of women in general, they would lose thier ability to feed a war machine, industrial complex fattening defense contractors, plus they would have more control over thier bodies.

Y'know what, this stuff is sexist. It would be completely expected and socially supported for women to defend themselves against such odd claims, but when men do this, it's because they're "insecure", or "whiny". This is nothing but the projection of patriarchal approach to men as the ones shrugging it off meant to silence them against the clear gender war bullshit.

But then again, we're in the shitposting community.

I didn't read the linked article but from skimming the intro, it seems they found that unprovoked men are more likely to be violent but hell hath no fury like a provoked woman?

I initially connected your previous sentence, so I incorrectly thought it was the victim statistics that evened out, and the disparity was because the male victims were provoking, i.e. asking for it.

I want to be oppressed by women. It turns me on.

If women are so great, then how come God made them so good at cooking and cleaning and not business and stocks and racecar?

Plenty of women don’t report crimes against them. I think it would be fair to assume that reporting crimes against men in an attempt to sway these numbers probably would’t change much or might even swing them further in women’s favor.

Men can’t be raped or domestically abused apparently :/

I'm open to trying, I guess.

No. They're saying that 93% + 93% = 186%.

No. Go big or go home.

well if 93% is currently 10,000 murders, then women doing 10,000 murders would hypothetically turn it to 50%

edit: well maybe like 57% because they already have the other 7%? but it would be lower because there is more total? I confused myself