george will, moron

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Unsurprisingly, The Onion does it better than George:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/col...s-to-re,36129/

I got involved in a discussion on Facebook with someone who said he didn't think the numbers on how many women are assaulted, etc., could possibly be right, therefore, they weren't true. Sigh. As they say, you cannot reason a man out of something he did not reason himself into.

yeah, actual assaults are actually higher, since so many women don't report them.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, actual assaults are actually higher, since so many women don't report them.

The Washington Post ran another offensive op-ed about how if more women would just get married, they would lessen their chance of being assaulted by a
partner. One of the most bone-headed things I've ever read in that paper. I'll post the link if I can find it again.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The Washington Post ran another offensive op-ed about how if more women would just get married, they would lessen their chance of being assaulted by a
partner. One of the most bone-headed things I've ever read in that paper. I'll post the link if I can find it again.

i just double-checked my calendar....yep, it shows this is 2014. sometimes i wonder tho.


i found it, am reading it now.

[Danzig]

'For women, part of the story is about what social scientists call a “selection effect,” namely, women in healthy, safe relationships are more likely to select into marriage, and women in unhealthy, unsafe relationships often lack the power to demand marriage or the desire to marry.'


lack the power to 'demand marriage'?

and of course if they're with a bad boyfriend they won't desire to marry!


er, what? guy contradicts himself:

'But marriage also seems to cause men to behave better.'

and then:

'Marriage is no panacea when it comes to male violence.'

edit~
lol

just saw this on my home page:

http://flavorwire.com/461854/washing...ta-journalism/

i have to say that while reading the op ed, the first thing i thought of was the FSM piece that showed global warming is directly linked to the number of pirates.
as piracy has dropped over the last couple centuries, temps have risen. so, to halt global warming, we need more pirates!

and props to the writer of the response for 'asspuddings'

[Danzig]

from the flavorwire article:

For a start, there’s the conflation of correlation with causation. We have numbers showing that married men are statistically less abusive to women and their children than their unmarried counterparts. So what’s more likely: that the sort of man who abuses women is statistically less likely to have any interest in marriage, or that the act of standing in a church in a white dress on one day of your life means that your children have a magical shield around them protecting them from violence? I’m gonna go with the former, but then, that’s a reflection of my ideology.

Which brings us to the second point: confirmation bias. The hoary old cliché about lies, damn lies, and statistics is a cliché for a reason: because you can use numbers to demonstrate pretty much anything. W&W’s article notes that “married women are less likely to be raped, assaulted, or robbed than their unmarried peers.” OK, great. But is that an effect of marriage? Is there any evidence of causation? Because another way of interpreting these statistics might be doing a little more research (seriously, guys, two ****ing Google searches) to discover that marriage is less prevalent in poorer communities, wherein violence against women and children is more prevalent. In other words — violence and marriage rates both correlate with socioeconomic status, with one declining as the other increases.


and, near the bottom:

As an example of how meaningless this all is, you could conceivably use this same data that W&W used for their article to conclude that men are statistically a menace to society and thus should be castrated en masse and cast into outer darkness for all eternity. It’s just as valid and reasonable a conclusion to draw from the data as the one that W&W do draw, i.e., it’s simplistic and ridiculous and would be laughed out of the room by anyone outside a lunatic fringe, the only difference being that in this case the lunatic fringe is at the super-radical feminist end of the ideological spectrum as opposed to the misogynist ****wit end.