Well, I can sort of see alphabetpal’s logic. If you a the kind of man who would only orgasm in the course of doing things to a woman’s body if she gives you permission, you are a mangina. Since it is now illegal to do things to a woman’s body without her permission, it follows that only manginas are allowed orgasms. At least in the vicinity of another person.

I left out child porn because I assumed that Abony might have a shred of human decency and at least admit children don’t have agency.

The India article reminds me that for the MRA every culture is going to be too feminist.

OT and trigger warning: Jazabel covering story of a woman stabbed by a street harasser

http://jezebel.com/5974261/sf-street-harassment-stabbing-is-a-great-reminder-that-catcalling-isnt-a-joke

Pear_tree – that’s a big assumption with the trolls here.

I do like Abony for Abnoy. Is there such a thing as a Freudian typo?

I can’t make myself read that article about the Indian rape. Bad enough that scumbag in India saying the victim should have sweetly appealed to her rapists’ better natures, but MRAs essentially complaining that teh menz are treated SO BADLY there in the wake of this crime and so many others just like it, is vomit material. Hell, the point of the attention with this one is highlighting how common this extreme violence against women and girls is. Would these creatures think “men are treated as beasts” if they had lost someone* they cared for this way? Would they think it unfair of the father of another victim to complain? This other victim was tied up and raped and she died too. She was TWO YEARS OLD. And a woman was gang raped and beaten to death just days after the Delhi murder. Yeah, it’s soooo unjust to complain about anything going on in India.

*Unlikely, I know. MRAs seem to have little capacity to love anything save their boners and their imaginary** grievances.

**Real grievances and actually doing anything about them don’t appeal nearly as much to this lot.

@atomicgrizzly

The Violence against women act gave women the ability to legally murder their husbands and that Feminists support the legislation because they’re for the murder of innocent men.

Holy shit! It isn’t the Violence of Women Acts for crying out loud. How would anyone think that our mostly male, mostly married legislature would ever pass that? (Or is that the reason it failed this time?)

(I don’t know why I keep trying to find logical consistency in this lot, but I can’t help it.)

@cloudiah

The defense has been used successfully by men as well as women.

I’ve heard (and I wish I could remember where) that it isn’t that successful a defense anyway. If true, that makes all of their whining about legally killing men even stupider.

I meant, unenlightened, of course (hey, just happy I linked correctly!)

And then there is the fact that VAWA has saved men’s lives, because battered women can escape abusers through other means than murder. Apparently, not killing men is also misandry.

I love it when they get all condescending about feminism, like despite all the pushback from the culture and all the “I’m not a feminist, but…,” you just mindlessly decided to apply the label to yourself while knowing nothing about it.

It’s a shame that the Kotaku commenters are so shit, because the articles are often really good. IO9 is probably the Gawkerverse site I get most disappointed by when I scroll down, though. Great writers, but then stuff like “10 awesome female engineers in scifi” gets filled up with notes from guys’ boners.

“Or (kindest interpretation) spins out a bit about getting hair of any sort in his mouth.”

@kitteh, that made me think of my kid screaming in anguish while bathing at 3-y-o. I went running in and he had his hand out with a look of horror “MOM!! HAIR!!!!!”

One hair he couldn’t get off his hand….

Baths=mysandry.

Understanding international crime trends: The legacy of preschool lead exposure
Rick Nevin
National Center for Healthy Housing, USA
Received 12 August 2006; received in revised form 20 February 2007; accepted 23 February 2007 Available online 23 April 2007

“Stretesky and Lynch (2001) found USA counties with high 1990 air lead, mostly from industrial emissions, had 1989–1991 murder rates four times higher than counties with low air lead, after controlling for nine air pollutants and six sociological factors.”

“Nevin (2000) found 1941–1975 gasoline lead use explained 90% of the 1964–1998 variation in USA violent crime. The best statistical-fit lag of 23-years is consistent with neural damage in infancy and peak ages of violent offending. Nevin showed a best-fit lag of 18 years for gasoline lead versus 1960–1998 murders, and 21 years for per capita paint lead use versus 1900–1959 murders. The difference in best-fit murder lags is consistent with when paint and gas lead most affected preschool lead exposure.”

“National trends in average blood lead and the use of lead in gasoline were highly correlated, with median R2 of 0.94 in Greece, Spain, South Africa, Venezuela, Belgium, Sweden, Mexico, Finland, Canada, New Zealand, Italy, Switzerland, Britain and the USA (Thomas et al., 1999).”

…correlations range from a perfect inverse correlation (-1) to a perfect correlation (1)…0.94 is about as clear a correlation as you can get (caveat — correlation is still not causation, but I just said holy shit aloud at that)

The N values aren’t impressively high, but they aren’t impressively low either, considering the nature of the data, there are probably enough data points for this to be representative.

“Table 5 shows blood lead with an 18-year lag is significant in the combined nation murder regression and Britain, but Canada has a shorter best-fit and average (N 1⁄4 209) and unemployment is insignificant (N 1⁄4 178). The preschool blood lead is not significant in murder regressions best-fit time lag is 18–19 years for the USA, New Zealand, for Australia or West Germany.”

“Average black lead exposure might have changed little from the mid-1960s to the early-1970s as declining lead paint hazards offset the rise in ambient air lead, but severe poisoning prevalence likely rose among black children living near urban high- ways. A stronger association between severe lead poisoning and violence is also consistent with racial differences in late-1970s blood lead and early-1990s juvenile arrest rates. Average 1976–1980 blood lead for black children ages 6–36 months was 50% above the average for white children, but blacks were six times more likely to have blood lead of 30–39 mcg/dL and eight times more likely to be over 40mcg/dL. Those children were juveniles when the 1990–1994 black juvenile burglary arrest rate was 60% higher than the white rate, but the black juvenile violent crime arrest rate was five times higher and the black juvenile murder rate was eight times higher.”

That’s one hell of a correlation.

“It is striking that preschool blood lead is highly significant at best-fit lags consistent with peak offending ages for each crime category.”

…yes, yes it is.

“Changes in R2 when unemployment is added are also consistent with other evidence that unemployment has a substantively small effect on property crime (burglary and most index crime) and no clear relationship with violence.”

Shove it MRAs.

“Needleman et al. (2003) found that social factors, including race and single-parents, raised delinquency risk for youths with lower bone lead. Preschool lead exposure is highly correlated with social factors because poor children are more likely to live in older housing with deteriorated paint, and black children were concentrated in cities with higher air lead. Social factors could constitute independent offending risks for those with no preschool lead exposure, and/or interact with lead exposure to increase offending risk, but temporal trends suggest any independent social factor effect is small relative to the lead effect.”

No really, shove it.

“Social trends cannot explain why the 1990s homicide decline was so pronounced among juvenile offenders, and especially black juveniles, but blood lead trends can.”

Which explains why looking for social trends has been an um, murky endeavor.

“Further research is needed to specify the mechanisms by which blood lead affects behavior, and how blood lead interacts with other risk factors, but policy implications of this study and related research are clear: The association between crime and preschool blood lead should lend urgency to global efforts to eliminate preschool lead exposure.”

That’s about as “we are sure of this” as you can get and still be published (peer review frowns on hubris, and with good reason)

I had a conversation with a guy once and cited many sources including the *(#*($ US census. He cited almost all MRM folks. Then he had to the gall to call my sources biased.

Well, right-wingers did randomly decide the 2010 census was unconstitutional…

@katz

Well, right-wingers did randomly decide the 2010 census was unconstitutional…

I know and I’m laughing at it all over again. Why take a stance that proves you’ve never read the thing? It’s like being trolled by pell, but it was a (too big to be just funny) group of Republicans!

Since my last comment was silly long, I’ll keep this one short.

“Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between changes in gasoline lead exposure and changes in violent crimes per 100,000 population, based on the crime rates for murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and all violent crime reported in each year from 1960 through 1998 (US Department of Justice).”

“Temporal trends in IQ, violent crime, and unwed pregnancy show a striking association with changes in blood lead levels and gasoline lead exposure for very young children. The trends in IQ also suggest that the IQ to blood lead slope increases at lower blood lead levels. Although crime and unwed pregnancy rates are obviously affected by a variety of factors, temporal trends in lead exposure appear to be a significant factor associated with subsequent trends in these undesirable social behaviors.”

Yeah, correlation is not causation, but overwhelming correlation sure as shit implies causation. And it’d be damned unethical to test this theory (intentionally expose infants to lead?!)

“Assume writers know what they’re doing” *dies*

LOL what a cool idea!

@Argenti Aetheri

We had a lot of fish when I was very young (too young to remember what they were), but they were so much fun. Although me strongest memory of them is of one of our fish having babies in one of those little hangs-in-the-bigger-tank tanks and the baby fish swam out through the holes and got eaten. Each day, there were fewer and fewer little teeny fishies until there were none. :(

(Not the only pets we had eat their young, but the first.)

@The Kitteh’s

They can’t handle the fact that no one cares because they can’t fathom being that unimportant. (Then, you couple that with sex, which is even more important to them than themselves if such a thing is possible, and they really flip out with “pay attention to me and my sex life” antics.)