First, the word 'misogyny' dates from the 17th century. It is far older than Marxism, so misogyny is not a Marxist term. Stop being a tard and trying to redefine language to serve your delusions.
Second, in the top article, yes, women CAN be as violent as men. Women are also more likely to admit to being violent with their partners, and men less likely to report being the victim of violence from women. That's because most violence from women doesn't actually hurt the men they slap, punch, or throw a bowl at. That sort of violence is more of a warning or signal than an attempt to harm.
Third, in the second article, it contradicts you. "Female criminals are disproportionately outnumbered by male criminals except in cases of human-trafficking," We aren't talking about human trafficking.
Fourth, if you read between the lines of that third article that was apparently written by a soyboy psychologist trying to paint a false image of equality over reality, a great deal of the 'violence' that women use against men are 'stand-off' actions. Pushing or slapping to make a point, rather than to cause harm.
Now, don't get me wrong, women can be violent with the intent to cause harm, but even the last article you provided uses weaselwords and moving goalposts to force a point that can't stand on it's own.
I'm still chuckling because you are so desperate to defend your misogyny with science that you are proving yourself to be a shill.
I also rarely engage in Ad Hominem attacks. You might try engaging in a discussion without logical fallacies sometime. The people you are engaging might think you are worth listening to, instead of just laughing at you as you struggle to force your beliefs into places where logic and facts can't go.
"It might also be that women have historically been less likely to resort to violence to resolve problems."
"yes, women CAN be as violent as men. Women are also more likely to admit to being violent with their partners, and men less likely to report being the victim of violence from women."
Try to throw in cognitive dissonance and straw man next time you reply to me. You haven't used those yet. I think you are a closet marxist. You haven't changed my mind, only reinforced the idea with your contradictory comments and defend women at all cost by interpreting their intentions to fit your leftist narrative.
"A great deal of the violence is to make a point or as a stand off actions"
So you know what goes on in the mind of a women when she becomes violent? Her insecurities? Her frustrations? What drove it? What motivated it? What triggered it?
I defend women because I understand that women and men are different. I also understand that women being different from men does not make them inferior.
As for what might be going on in a woman's mind when she becomes violent? In my experience, really bad puns and sexist jokes frequently resulted in a punch to the shoulder or an elbow in the ribs. I also got a couple jabs from young ladies on a few occasions during house parties when they got crowded and people started bumping into each other.
Of course, if someone has never had female friends or a relationship with a female, it might be difficult to imagine a punch or elbow just being part of the relationship, rather than being an effort to cause harm.
Calling people out for their ignorance and blatant stupidity is not an Ad Hominem attack. An Ad Hominem attack is when you use a personal attack in substitution for a real argument.
First, the word 'misogyny' dates from the 17th century. It is far older than Marxism, so misogyny is not a Marxist term. Stop being a tard and trying to redefine language to serve your delusions.
Second, in the top article, yes, women CAN be as violent as men. Women are also more likely to admit to being violent with their partners, and men less likely to report being the victim of violence from women. That's because most violence from women doesn't actually hurt the men they slap, punch, or throw a bowl at. That sort of violence is more of a warning or signal than an attempt to harm.
Third, in the second article, it contradicts you. "Female criminals are disproportionately outnumbered by male criminals except in cases of human-trafficking," We aren't talking about human trafficking.
Fourth, if you read between the lines of that third article that was apparently written by a soyboy psychologist trying to paint a false image of equality over reality, a great deal of the 'violence' that women use against men are 'stand-off' actions. Pushing or slapping to make a point, rather than to cause harm.
Now, don't get me wrong, women can be violent with the intent to cause harm, but even the last article you provided uses weaselwords and moving goalposts to force a point that can't stand on it's own.
I'm still chuckling because you are so desperate to defend your misogyny with science that you are proving yourself to be a shill.
You use the word misogynist like a pez dispenser just like a communist faggot would.
Now call me a bigot for calling you faggot, the soy in your veins compels it
I use the word correctly, and with cause.
I also rarely engage in Ad Hominem attacks. You might try engaging in a discussion without logical fallacies sometime. The people you are engaging might think you are worth listening to, instead of just laughing at you as you struggle to force your beliefs into places where logic and facts can't go.
"I also rarely engage in Ad Hominem attacks."
"Check your misogyny at the door, please."
"written by a soyboy psychologist"
"It might also be that women have historically been less likely to resort to violence to resolve problems."
"yes, women CAN be as violent as men. Women are also more likely to admit to being violent with their partners, and men less likely to report being the victim of violence from women."
Try to throw in cognitive dissonance and straw man next time you reply to me. You haven't used those yet. I think you are a closet marxist. You haven't changed my mind, only reinforced the idea with your contradictory comments and defend women at all cost by interpreting their intentions to fit your leftist narrative.
"A great deal of the violence is to make a point or as a stand off actions"
So you know what goes on in the mind of a women when she becomes violent? Her insecurities? Her frustrations? What drove it? What motivated it? What triggered it?
Maybe you should check your misandry at the door.
I defend women because I understand that women and men are different. I also understand that women being different from men does not make them inferior.
As for what might be going on in a woman's mind when she becomes violent? In my experience, really bad puns and sexist jokes frequently resulted in a punch to the shoulder or an elbow in the ribs. I also got a couple jabs from young ladies on a few occasions during house parties when they got crowded and people started bumping into each other.
Of course, if someone has never had female friends or a relationship with a female, it might be difficult to imagine a punch or elbow just being part of the relationship, rather than being an effort to cause harm.
Calling people out for their ignorance and blatant stupidity is not an Ad Hominem attack. An Ad Hominem attack is when you use a personal attack in substitution for a real argument.