The most effective retort by our opponents to that claim is that such abuse is not due to the woman's gender, but rather the fact that she is most often the primary caregiver. If the man is at work, by definition this makes him less likely to abuse the kids than the woman, who is constantly exposed to them. Your opponents will claim that if the genders were reversed and it was mostly men taking care of kids, you would probably see a higher level of child abuse by males and less child abuse by females. Perhaps this is true, but we can't know this until a significant number of women embrace the provider role while the men embrace the nurturer role. Until then, it's just speculation. What we have to go on right now is hard data that shows that women are more likely to abuse children than men, regardless of the reason or context.

My theory is that if the genders were reversed, you would have less child abuse by male nurturers than by female nurturers. This is because abuse is a projection of powerlessness and frustration. I think that men are naturally better at adaptation and assertiveness than women, and hence their "make it happen" mentality (a natural phenomenon in degrees) would make them less inclined to abuse.

Quote from John Dias

The most effective retort by our opponents to that claim is that such abuse is not due to the woman's gender, but rather the fact that she is most often the primary caregiver.

Are you kidding? This wouldn't even be an effective retort on a high school level. Proximity = abuse. It is not an excuse, only an admission!

You cannot seize justification or moral high ground by saying "well, of course we kill and starve them far more often, whaddya expect?"

They constantly harp their moral superiority and this blows a hole in that. It also tips the domestic violence scales.

It's hitting you right in the face. These are unavoidable stats.

Quote from Billy

You're right. The facts will be denied by women.

It can't be denied. It's pure data taken from police stats over many years. God, you guys are willing to roll over and show tummy almost instantly.

No kidding. I know this!

Um, I thought the purpose of this website was to organize information and strategize, etc. But you sir are fatalistic, and in being so, simply enabling our foes.

The point is to use the information effectively. You sound like a quitter.

B

Quote from Billy

No, Bruce my point is most women and mainly manly feminist don't care about facts.


.

You are exactly right. The facts have been known for decades, but the feminists still teach the same old tired lies in "Women's Studies" hate training classes to each new generation of misandrist bitches. They ignore today's facts like their grandmothers ignored facts long ago. Facts are irrelevant. They invented a whole new meaning of "truth." To a feminist facts aren't "truth." Truth is how she "feels." Men are making a mistake if we are wasting our time finding out data and facts and trying to argue with the femiNazi. The only thing that matters to them and their mangina lackeys are their "feelings," what they "feel" is truth.

Facts and data are "so patriarchal." They "oppress womyn."

You can't argue with feminists with facts. They can't hear anything less than .223 caliber. Except maybe a 2x4 upside the head. That will get their "feelings" moved to a more useful track.

Blessings

Bob

Does either sex REALLY have the right to claim moral superiority?

Quote from TERA

Does either sex REALLY have the right to claim moral superiority?

Translation: The data may show that women are the abusers, but MEN
are BAD.

Her condescending attitude is as bad as her misandry.

Blessings

Bob