Best violence in society books according to redditors

We found 45 Reddit comments discussing the best violence in society books. We ranked the 22 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Violence in Society:

u/mkmcmas · 52 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

David Cohen, author of Living in the Crosshairs: The Untold Stories of Anti-Abortion Terrorism recently interviewed two of the doctors who have continued Dr. Tiller's work. You can read the interview here.

u/Ye_Olde_Seaward · 29 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

I'm a volunteer clinic escort, and I've been followed home, screamed at inches from my face, called a whore, called a murderer, told I deserved to die, and otherwise disrespected. And I don't even consider it to be that bad.

If you're interested in learning more about the threats that abortion providers face, I highly recommend Living in the Crosshairs: The untold stories of anti-abortion terrorism. It's really a terrifying way to live. The violent and religious rhetoric used by even mainstream anti-choice groups seems to resonate with people who are mentally unstable, and I think that's probably a tactic within the movement.

u/75billion · 20 pointsr/india

Read this and this. No armyman has ever been punished (or tried) for rape in Kashmir. Very few have been punished for murder but no one for rape.

u/txstoploss · 14 pointsr/collapse

I'm betting on this guy's "three-thousand-mile-wide Yugoslavia".

The hype of 'identity politics' has done its work too well for anything approaching a "Confederacy" to form. Seriously, can you imagine:

  1. Antifa
  2. BLM
  3. Occupy [whatever-this-week]
  4. ADL, SPLC
  5. Neo-cons
  6. Neo-liberals
  7. SJWs
  8. Alt-right
  9. LGBT∞

    ...actually picking up weapons and pointing them in the same direction?
u/Brother_Alyosha · 10 pointsr/AskSocialScience

It's...a lot of factors. The short answer is, the socioeconomic status of blacks in America, combined with the re-segregation of the US school system and the use of exclusionary disciplinary practices that create a "push out" problem. I don't have an advanced degree in the subject, so I apologize in advance for any vagueness of mistakes. I'll do the best to synthesize what I've learned so far.

First let's get into the details. To say that all blacks in America have a high drop-out rate is a serious oversimplification. Drop-out rates vary by income level; poor whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians, and any other subgroup you can find will all have high dropout rates that decease as income increases. Similarly, dropout rates vary by region type. Suburban schools tend to have low dropout rates, urban schools tend to have high dropout rates, and rural schools tend to be in the middle.

Remember that up until very recently in US history, schools systems were segregated, and not just in the south. Because most cities and states couldn't care less about the quality of education non-white students received, these schools were often very low-quality, especially in areas with the most virulent racism (again, not just in the south.)

So as you probably know, the civil rights movement happened, and was successful in ensuring legal rights for all students to gain aces to formerly all-white schools free from discrimination based on race, through such case as Brown v. Board of Education. But this was only true on paper, in reality it took decades to actually implement desegregation schools, mostly because the same Supreme Court that ruled segregated schools as unconstitutional gave up authority for integration to the same state governments that had created those segregated schools.

Whites did everything possible to prevent blacks from gaining equitable access to the school system. They used the "massive resistance" doctrine that was epitomized by Little Rock ("Segregation now, segregation forever"), and after Brown v. Board of Education, delay tactics ("You can't just rush these things, people will get too upset, we need more time...") and tokenism ("Of course our school is integrated, we have a whole 10 black students out of 3,000!"), as well as outright violence and intimidation. Source But when all of that failed after years or decades of legal pressure and activism, the response of whites was frequently to leave the cities for the suburbs, the phenomena known as White Flight. As whites abandoned the inner city, attention of media and policymakers left as well.

The result is the re-segregation of the US public school system, in which urban school schools, which are disproportionately composed of poor people of color receive far less funding and attention, in contrast to white suburban schools. Overview Remember that even with federal and state funding, local governments provide the backbone for schools. Since local governments receive their funding from property taxes, lots of poor people concentrated in a school district translates to a shortage of money where it is needed the most.

These inner-city schools have also seen a dramatic rise in exclusionary disciplinary practices such as detentions, suspensions, and expulsions. As crime and poverty increased in the inner city, conservatives often accounted it to a lack of morality by poor people of colon, and supported these practices to "get tough" on crime, juvenile delinquency, and school violence. Exclusionary disciplinary practices by definition take a student out of class, prevent them from learning, and frequently kick them out of school altogether. Numerous studies have documented that students of color are dramatically more likely to be punished in this way than white students, even for the same infraction. Zero tolerance policies are particularly unbalanced in this way.
Source # Source #2



These combination of factors have created what many call a school to prison pipeline, which I highly encourage you to look up for further reading. Start here Thanks..and if someone more qualified than me could please let me know if I made any mistakes or oversights, that would appreciated.

*EDIT: A few minor formatting errors.
**EDIT: Sources

u/Hynjia · 9 pointsr/Anarchism

>Violence can always destroy power; out of the barrel of a gun grows the most effective command, resulting in the most instant and perfect obedience. What never can grow out of it is power.

Hannah Arendt, "On Violence"

u/Alt_Right_is_growing · 6 pointsr/altright

Balkanization into geographic corners of the US will also happen: https://i.sli.mg/VLG2jC.png

-Source

u/dougpreston · 6 pointsr/IAmA

I followed the Amanda Knox trial closely as the prosecutor was the same as in the Monster of Florence case. In fact I even wrote a couple of Kindle Singles about the Knox case...

https://www.amazon.com/Trial-Fury-Internet-Savagery-Amanda-ebook/dp/B00CDU1H98

https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Killer-Murder-Meredith-Kercher-ebook/dp/B00I3QZ7G0/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1483647386&sr=1-1&keywords=the+forgotten+killer

I've never considered a podcast, because I fear it might take time away from writing the Pendergast novels.

u/HubbleSaurusRex · 5 pointsr/TrollXChromosomes

Similar situation here, where I thought it was my fault and couldn't get away from the rapist colleague.

This book helped me call it like it was: https://www.amazon.com/Rape-Distortion-Blaming-Fueling-Acquaintance/dp/161374479X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1522814884&sr=1-1&keywords=%22rape+is+rape%22

It reviews the definitions of rape and talks a lot about denial and victim blaming. Denial and victim blaming help us maintain the illusion that we live in a safe world in which people who behave well don't get raped. Nit picking victim behaviors and dress is a desperate grab for illusory shreds of safety and control.

This book helped me heal:
https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-After-Rape-transforming-survivor/dp/0615209661/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1522813967&sr=8-1&keywords=resurrection+after+rape

u/Avbitten · 5 pointsr/OnlineDating

Its honestly a very complicated topic that I just can't fit into a reddit post. I can give you a book recommendation though. https://www.amazon.com/Asking-Alarming-Rise-Culture-about/dp/0738217026

u/Guomindang · 5 pointsr/DarkEnlightenment

Has society, in fact, renounced racial warfare? Certainly the days of lynching are long past. But as Mencius Moldbug observed, violence committed by minorities is received quite differently. It is terribly convenient that it should embolden demands for social justice, which is to be realized by transferring more money and power into the hands of the progressive political machine. And because the Cathedral tells blacks that they have been hideously deprived and that the whole of white society is guilty in perpetuating an international racist conspiracy against them, black-on-white crime is justified on the grounds of political retribution and transgenerational trauma. And there is also the overt alliance the left-wing made with gangs i.e. ethnic militias in the heyday of Third Worldism, which continues to some extent.

Progressives cannot disown class and racial resentments because these grievances are fundamental to their demotic strategy.

u/timstolt1 · 5 pointsr/The_Donald

My guess is this goes on for a few more days or weeks, and then it gets boring and they will move on to something else. Good book on the possibly coming civil war (because we're truly an empire, and not a nation. .pdf is available online for those who search for it.

u/eosnos1 · 5 pointsr/IAmA

Lots of unpack here, but I would honestly recommend (if you have a rainy afternoon) to read Mike Weisser's book on the myths around how often people use their guns to defend themselves. Mike is an NRA life member, a gun dealer and instructor. He knows his stuff. And he thinks people are being sold a false bill of goods: https://www.amazon.com/Great-American-Argument-Guns-America/dp/0692336354?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

u/NUMBERS2357 · 4 pointsr/MensRights

If I were you I'd try to make modest, concrete arguments. If you open with "rape culture doesn't exist" then people won't listen because they're already committed to the idea, and because it's such an abstract question (what is "rape culture" exactly?) that it's hard to really argue over in a way that will win anyone over.

I also think specific examples from personal experience, or clashes with other values people hold, can help.

It would help to strike the right balance between asserting arguments, and not making yourself the center of attention. If they're going around the seminar with everyone saying their views, or if people are called on, just wait your turn and then say some stuff you think. If it's all volunteering, start by volunteering on small, specific items where you have a concrete answer. People will be more likely to listen to you that way, vs standing up and delivering a monologue that starts with "I am against feminism!" which to them may as well be saying you're pro-Ebola.

If you do this, you can later decide to either stop speaking up, or really get into it. Just by making a small objection you might be holding yourself out as the most anti person there. If you can make a concrete, specific, contained point rather than seeming like you're ranting, then people will listen, and other potential dissenters will be emboldened. You want the moderates in the room to think "I'm not so sure about all this, but I feel like I can't speak up, I'm glad that kid's there to make some good points", not "ugh that MRA is ranting again."

For me, I'd cite things like:

  • for all the talk of how we should "teach men not to rape", I have been "told not to rape" many times in life, and was told this again as an incoming freshman.

  • for every "rape myth" (or whatever) the book mentions, I see nothing but people decrying it on the media all the time. What "culture" are you talking about that doesn't believe those things?

  • From the reviews online, there is this:

    > Perhaps most importantly, Harding isn't just a champion of women and rape survivors. She admonishes society for giving men so little credit: of course men aren't tempted to rape because of what a woman is wearing, and of course most men aren't so ruled by their hormones that they won't accept "no" for an answer.

    Point out how it's feminists who spread the idea that many men want to rape, for example making up BS studies that claim to show that some huge % of men would rape if they could. It's feminists saying if a man is accused it must be true. It's feminists who characterize men as conniving abusers but women would never lie or anything.

  • On a University like this, due process for accused kids is imperiled. Lots of reasons, one example being that if both people are drunk, the man is a rapist by virtue of the woman being drunk, but not the woman. They claim it's because the man "initiates", but sex doesn't even necessarily have an initiator, and it's clearly just a way to use gender norms to nail the guy with an allegedly neutral rule. Be familiar with BS cases that have happened, of which there are many. Maybe read stuff from feminists who are skeptical of this stuff, like Janet Halley, Jeannie Suk, and Nancy Gertner, all of who signed on to that letter from 28 Harvard Law School Professors about this stuff and have written other things about it, so you can cite them.

  • If the book talks about "redefining what it means to be a man", then talk about how people saying this don't accept men who are masculine, for example boys who are masculine have different ways of learning in school which are disfavored which is why so many boys drop out of high school and college - and the more feminist those places get, the bigger that gap gets. Approach it this way because their normal reaction will be to not care since boys are allegedly "privileged" - point out how boys are worse off. If this stuff was in your high school, use personal examples.

  • As another example of the above - if someone says we should do away with the phrase "boys will be boys", point out that boys get harsher punishments than girls for the same offenses in school. Same with men vs women in the criminal justice system. It's the same thing as above - pointing out boys' disadvantage - with the added benefit that you can say this ties into the "school to prison pipeline", "zero tolerance policies" and other such things. Bring up, for example, the Scared Straight program as an example of "getting tough" on boys, i.e. psychologically torturing and physically threatening them.

    For some specific claims that might come up:

    If they bring up "2-8% of rape accusations are false" say that those numbers are cases proven false, essentially where the person recanted. The UVA Rolling Stone story would not be included as false by that statistic. You could pivot to how all these stats floating around these days are BS, a huge % of studies fail to replicate, methodologies are questionable, etc.

    For the 1 in 4 claim, point out how most women counted as rape victims in that stat don't consider themselves as such. They'll say that's because those women are ignorant of what is really rape. Respond that it's one thing to say this about some women, but when you're saying 75% of women don't consider it rape, how can you just summarily tell them all they were raped without knowing the exact situation, based on some vaguely worded survey with an overly broad definition? Especially since they're always telling people to "listen to women's voices".

    Point out that that number first debuted 30 years ago, that the crime rate (including for rape) is way down since then, and yet that number hasn't changed. If you want you could cite feminist authors who have said the rape rate has gone down 80% in the last 30 years, which totally contradicts the 1 in 4 number.

    If they explain it away by saying the rape rate is higher on college campuses - there's no evidence for this, they just care more when it's in a college and happens to people like them. Surveys that ask college and non-college people similar questions show that non-college people are at higher risk.

    If you are gonna say rape on campus is a moral panic, point out feminists' support for the Satanic Ritual Abuse Daycare scandal/witch hunt of the 80s.

    If they say that feminists are the ones helping men, have specific examples of how they don't. Good example = National Organization for Women (huge group, 500k members) and their opposition to shared parenting laws.

    If they say that the man-haters are only a few extremists, analogize to race: there are extremist overt racists, and there are far more numerous, subtly racist people. It would be odd if there were no kinda-sorta racists, only totally race-neutral people, and then a few people totally out there, with no middle ground. Same here. People can be subtly sexist, and that's what you're claiming about feminists. Saying feminists can't be sexist because only a few of them scream that men are pigs, is like saying America can't have racism because the Klan is tiny and hated.

    If they say "if you believe in equality, you're a feminist", say that the dictionary definition doesn't matter, what feminists do matters, and you know that because of how the people there would define "racism" and "sexism" (i.e. contra the dictionary). Point out that even many feminist authors, including one of those I cited earlier, define the word differently.
u/american_apartheid · 3 pointsr/AntifascistsofReddit

no, they really aren't. that's not what fascism is. if it was, fascism would have existed long before Mussolini.

If you actually want to understand our position as antifascists, and the positions of the people anti-fascism opposes, here are two books that will get you started:

  • this is the best primer on antifa that you will find. anyone interested in antifa actions should read this. the author has been involved in leftist activism for a long time and is currently a member of an anarcho-communist organization that's well-regarded. the book here is presented for free. This is so important a work it should honestly be linked in the sidebar.

  • this book is also highly important for the beginner and follows fascism from its inception into the modern day, up to around Charlottesville when both fascism and antifa more or less became mainstream. Unfortunately, this is not free. There are other books cataloging fascism, however, that you can find if you don't want to spend money. This one is just current and synthesizes a lot of older academic analyses of fascism.

    Umberto Eco's Ur Fascism is also highly regarded as one of the better analyses of the core of fascism. It's pretty short and it's free.

    There are many more excellent works on the subject, and I urge you to keep reading. Claiming that "racist laws are fascism" is... just... not right. At all.
u/Cielle · 3 pointsr/EnoughCommieSpam

What, that he wrote the foreword? It's not a secret, check the authors listed.

Chomsky's response upon being questioned about this book's claims was as follows:

>There’s no “implicit endorsement.” I made no reference to their claims about these or other matters, but kept to their main thesis, which is extremely important and not understood at all. It would, in my opinion, have been totally inappropriate to comment on these or many other claims in the book. I was not writing a review, but pickup the main thesis and elaborating on it. True, it might have been “wise” — if my goal were to appease British intellectuals. It wasn’t.

He declined to comment on these claims in the remainder of this correspondence as well. Herman and Chomsky have worked together frequently in the past (eg, on "Manufacturing Consent"), and many observers have interpreted his extreme reticence to make any direct follow-up comment about the incidents in question as indicating a tacit acceptance of said claims. The book reflects more poorly on Herman than Chomsky, to be sure, but it does seem (at a minimum) to have been a bit of a tactless move.

If you're interested, here is a fuller examination of the book's claims about Rwanda.

u/westcoastal · 3 pointsr/asktransgender

The #1 thing I can say to this is, there is no universality of experience. There is no such thing as a 'female perspective'.

I think what you might be fearing is that you might fall into 'male gaze' writing traps, and that's fully understandable if you were socialized toward toxic masculinity, as so many ASMAB people are. But keep in mind that cis women write male gaze BS all the time. Everyone is capable of falling into those traps.

If you are really concerned, I have a few suggestions:

Read The Macho Paradox by Jackson Katz. It is a fantastic book about misogyny from a male perspective.

Read Asking For It by Kate Harding. Similar themes, but written by a woman.

My #1 tip for you, though, is to just write and see what comes of it. Trust yourself and trust who you are. You always have the option of testing out the finished piece with some trusted women afterward to get their thoughts on it. But I would urge you to keep the identity and gender of the author secret if/when you do so as to avoid any unconscious bias on the part of the reviewers.

The most important thing is to always write!

u/JennyDiversCover · 2 pointsr/serialpodcast

I think if you go to any discussion forum about a potential wrongful conviction, you will find the same seemingly mad dedication to arguing guilt.

The Amanda Knox guilters have been going for years. Online defenders of Knox have actually received death threats to themselves and their families.

Read Trial by Fury by Douglas Preston. It's free on Kindle

Trial By Fury explores this dark netherworld, identifying the people involved, and investigating their motives. It documents the real-world damage caused by these anonymous bloggers, including how they managed to get a much decorated ex-FBI agent fired from his job. It also recounts the story of the Wikipedia entry about the case, which triggered a spectacular brawl among top wiki-editors, leading to outings, rants, bannings-for-life, and death threats, requiring the intervention of Jimmy Wales himself


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trial-Fury-Internet-Savagery-Amanda-ebook/dp/B00CDU1H98

The bickering that we have on this forum is mild by comparison.

In short, murder cases bring out strong emotions, resulting in irrational behaviour.

No Russians needed.

u/nice_guy_bot_ · 2 pointsr/news

All of this talk about racial privilege in the American military makes me think the US government is thinking about a strategy to deal with the possibility of a future insurrection by the white majority that wants to take the country back. You can do that by removing "privileged whites" from positions of power and replacing them with people that are willing toe the line of the party. This guy talks about this topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Two-Breakup-America/dp/0929408179

u/redwormcharlie · 2 pointsr/changemyview

Do you want a list?

Here is a good one I always refer to.

Other than that I would challenge you to go find your own books on the subject and read into it if I am creating a storm of thought and questions for you.

u/salziger · 2 pointsr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon

I've already been gifted by you, but to help push this towards lucky number 11, I'll submit this: Trial By Fury.

u/BossMaverick · 2 pointsr/news

Its too bad there isn't a book that describes every single MN police deadly shooting for a 25 year period, oh wait, there is

u/qwertypoiuytre · 2 pointsr/GenderCritical

I've checked and all of these are available new and are not exorbitantly expensive. I haven't read all of them, some are just from my own personal wish list. These are radfem but not directly trans-focused. Sorry if that was more what you were looking for, if so I can check for more along those lines.

Life and Death by Dworkin

Intercourse by Dworkin

Letters from a war zone by Dworkin

The creation of patriarchy by Lerner

Origin of the family, private property and the state by Engels

Ain't I a woman: black women and feminism by hooks

Pornland by Dines

Anticlimax by Jeffreys

Are woman human? by MacKinnon



u/KonDon · 2 pointsr/DocumentedTruth

I agree with a lot of your posts bumbling but I don't think this accusation is fair. The whole "gatekeeper" idea is a bit silly to me. People will dig as far down the rabbit hole as they please, Chomsky or Jones or Dawson or whoever is not stopping people from continuing to research. I think he, as a respectable MIT professor, brings a lot of crediblity to criticism of Israel, also because hes a jew. Just because he denies 9/11 doesn't mean he's on the payroll, probably just afraid of losing his job or being discredited. You should read "Politics of Genocide" a book with a foreward by Chomsky. Excellent stuff.

http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Genocide-Edward-S-Herman/dp/1583672125

u/babylock · 2 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

Living in the Crosshairs: The Untold Stories of Anti-Abortion Terrorism has plenty of examples of abortion doctors who have had anti-abortion protesters find their home address and protest outside of their home/send hate mail/send bomb threats or threats to kill them and their family.

One doctor changes cars multiple times and switches routes to work to prevent protesters from finding his new address, and another once dressed as a technician as a safety measure due to death threats.

I think it happens more than you would think.

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/bestof

I gotta say this is quite different. There were layers of abstraction separating the person from the actual act of violence. This separation is pretty key in allowing a normal person to commit a violent act, as argued in the book [Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory] (http://www.amazon.com/Violence-Micro-sociological-Theory-Randall-Collins/dp/0691143226). Which, I might add, I found to be incredibly interesting.

u/kayvent · 1 pointr/offmychest

>Yes, but the difference here is that forty-two young men were mauled by bears for being jerks to a good guy... Giving people another chance, despite their wrong-doings?

They won't mauled for calling Elisha names.

Elijah was taken up in a flaming chariot. They knew that. Elijah and Elisha were well known in that area for decades proclaiming for people to repent of their sins. They knew that. Some of those young men may have even been from the community Elisha just cleaned the water from. Maybe all of them. Decades of sending prophets while these young men lived. A flaming chariot. A FLAMING CHARIOT. And Elisha, messenger of God, right in front of them. Guy, who helped a community just verses before. All these are second, third, and millionth chances. And they laugh at it. Elisha standing in front of them was there "another chance despite their" lifetime of "wrong-doings".

>Wait, wait, wait, you're a Christian and a feminist? That's like being a fan of Martin Luther King Jr. and a member of the KKK.

And we had a famous anti-zionist, former member of the US communist party, feminist as a speaker once! LOL. It was an amazing experience. This is a major reason why I believe there is a god. Only one with humour could architect a world as hilarious. I'll explain later how the Christian Feminist thing works.

>Have you read the entirety of the bible, sir? Or just Corinthians? 1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

Let's just ignore any disagreement I have in how you are interpreting that verse. I will point out that Paul is writing to Corinth, specifically to Corinth, that is having issues staying in one peace because of in-fighting and arguments and petty squabble. But please, going forward, we'll interpret that verse how you think.

Flip forward to Ephesians 5:25, another Pauline epistle, it says "Husbands love your wives like Christ loves the Church." And I'll add that Christ died for his church. Flip to Judges and Esther, we see women leading the jewish people. Flip around Paul's epistles and Acts, we see women being church leaders, but not pastors, in the church. My house flooded three weeks ago, so I forget if you need to go backwards or forwards in 1st Corinthians 14:34 where it says at home or elsewhere wives may ask as many questions as they want.

>Plus in Genesis, where it says that women should be ruled by their husbands.

I just want to point out, the Bible isn't that friendly to men either. It is horrible critical of Adam. Any sins a man's wife or children commit are reckoned on the man as well. Read that passage you are referring to in Genesis, it doesn't let husbands off the hook without reprise. "Women and Children first" to get off the sinking boat, men last. In one verse, a bunch of young men get mauled to death by two bears for making fun of a dude's haircut!

>Christianity and feminism simply don't mix. One is the belief that men and women are all equal, the other openly states that women should be ruled by husbands and deserve less rights.

3rd Wave Feminism does not assert that all men and women are equal nor deserve the same rights. They generally believe men and women are different and that women deserve superior rights.

Instead of repeating what you've probably heard my liberal friends say, that Christianity "openly states that women should be ruled by husbands and deserve less rights", have you bothered hearing what we believe? Find me that verse. Or maybe we read the scriptures in a way and don't come to that conclusion. And since its ours, we're allowed to read it how we read it.

Now for the whole Christian/Feminist thing. I read Feminist books, right now I'm reading "Rape Is Rape: How Denial, Distortion, and Victim Blaming Are Fueling a Hidden Acquaintance Rape Crisis" by Jody Raphael. I recommend it. I read feminist blogs. I forward interesting posts to feminist friends. I talk to friends and they quote me on social media about how I think it is sexist that a super power anime character, who is female, is somehow dependent on a feeble lead male character (I was complaining to him for ten minutes and said that show bothered me too much to continue watching). I also read Christian apologetics books and blogs and videos. Right now I'm reading Dr. James White's and Jeff Niell's "The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality". Get smaller titles guys! It's just a coincidence they are both about sex. Usually I read about textual criticism. I don't recommend that book. It's alright but so far it is no no where near the quality of some of White's other material (arguments' pacing are too fast).

I'm a Christian and not a feminist. I disagree with 3rd wave feminists. A lot. A lot. Like not a little, a lot.

I'm not a feminist, I'm a complementarian. A non-legalist complementarian like many Christians. That's why feminist and I get along together. We both think that society does awful and exploitive things to women. It disturbs me that 100% of the people at my daughter's daycare, including the clerical staff and franchise owner, are women. Society says "yeah women, you can work. Get out of the house and be strong." *cough*, now we'll discourage you from going into STEM fields and disportionately push you into childcare fields, early childhood education, nurses, psychology and worthless majors at expensive schools. Rape culture bugs me. Men openly treating women as sex objects bothers me.

Breaking down what a non-legalist complementarian is. Legalism means not allowing exceptions to secondary or tertiary issues. Non-legalists say that exceptions on non-primary issues are ok. Complementarians believe that men and women have identical rights and freedoms. That both genders are equally made in the image of God, unlike the puritans who believed that God had multiple images in his mind when he created us in it. While we believe in equal rights and freedoms, we believe in different duties. What you would consider a difference in freedoms (husband works, wife at home, only male pastors), we see as different life callings (duties). Again, exceptions are ok. Complementarians believe men complement women (and they deserve it) and women complement men. We are equal but different and those differences highlight the beauty of humankind. Those differences are why we believe that women, generally, are better for some tasks and men others. And vice versa.

>So our attributes come from God? What about hatred? Selfishness?

All those attributes are good and we misuse them. Perhaps you are different than I am but when a cop executes a black teenager and the grand jury says "Nah, this guy won't even see a trial", that angers me. I don't think that's wrong, I hope you don't think being angry at injustice is wrong either. But we, I, misuse that anger. What was a good trait, I often use as a bad trait (some would say the trait itself is neutral and our usage is good or bad but when left non-annotated the trait is understand to be used in a bad way)

Our attributes come from god, but we misuse them.

>And why is it not on him that you're autistic?

About the autism, I'd really like to hear more of your life story than mine if you don't mind sharing it in PMs or emails. I'm not going to ask for it on a (very) public form. So I'll just keep leaking mine.

From a theological prospective, humanity is what brought defects into itself. So humanity is to blame for the autism. Despite that, God used that autism for good.

My daughter's maternal grandfather has Aspergers. We talk weekly. See eachother bi-weekly. Randomly, we continue talks from years ago without notifying the other and don't miss a beat. It creeps out onlookers when we do that. Other autistic people collect stamps or stack blocks when they were little. Mine was to catalogue my brain.

Long story short, God used that bizarre memory and my hatred of having inconsistencies in my catalogued brain to lead me to him. And God has used it for good in other ways. Innumerable ways. How has society used this? The endless boredom, the never being full or satisfied with food, the almost constant thinking in my head, the inability to understand social norms despite years of conscious effort, the inability to place myself in the past, the fact I can't look at a mirror because I don't recognize myself, and other issues, they've not a fault in autism. They don't come directly from my autism. They're a fault with society. If you're not a square peg, society tries to hammer you in anyway and doesn't care about the damage it causes. You know this all too well.

Two year old kid just sits and looks at block? Gotta get a psychologist to teach him nice and young something is wrong with him and that he better play with 'em blocks. My daughter's 10-year-old aunt is autistic and used to be regularly reminded when she was young that she was different and defective and would never be the same as other, normal, kids by a parent. I've been called diseased. And our families were the nice ones. When I graduated university, at least two companies wouldn't hire me because of my autism. At school my definition of a friend was those who tolerated my differences. I didn't have many friends.

u/FinalDoom · 1 pointr/needadvice

> > How many other long relationships have you been in?

> Just one other one, two total. My first was in high school, lasted 9 months.

I think us long-termers have a harder time than others rebounding from relationships. Maybe that's where most people end up, then marriage and so on. I'd be curious whether the people that end up divorcing shortly after marriage are those who bounced around between relationships and the marriageable one was one of their first long-term ("mature"?) relationships.

> It's like living with a ghost that periodically moves things around in the kitchen and haunts the other bedroom at night.

Haha, just be glad she's not leaving little fires or big messes. Those are the worst kind of ghosts.

> We chalked it up to the fact that we had basically exhausted things to share, we already shared each others life stories.

I think there's some adage about the old married couple that never talks, but are perfect for each other. Maybe I'm thinking of a comic. Either way, I never liked that view of things. With most people, there is a period of getting to know each other, exploring, asking questions, and so on. It does die down, but in the best relationships (in my eperience), it's replaced with a different kind of conversation. It's not a good typification, but I think of the "Honey, I'm home." "What did you do today?" or if you're talking to a kid, "What did you learn in school today?" conversation as a continuation of the exploratory conversation. You may know a person well, but the're going to change, and you can share in that change with them. Maybe they learned something, did something cool, had a shit day, punched their boss, found a new hobby, etc. You're going to change too. Your days will be different, and you can share experience. In general, I think when things stagnate (largely mentally, people get stuck in how they see themselves and things around them), life becomes dull and that's when you need to do some exploring of your self or your world.

> To a point where both of us are not happy.

So you're both better off in some way where you are now. You can be happy that you're not fighting, you're not stressed about the relationship, and he's not, and that (given the right insight), he can be happy for the same things in you. Compersion is great. The Chrome dictionary still doesn't recognize that word. ><

> I'm an anxious person. So I will still have insidious and scary thoughts.

That's one thing a good CBT therapist could help you out with. I think a lot of intelligent people have similar "negative" thought patterns in our world. I'll recommend a couple books later on that might help with some of the self examination that goes into conquering your mind (somewhat), though they're not psychology texts.

I used to have a pretty strong inner monologue that would talk me out of a lot of things. I see a pretty girl, I tell myself I should go over and say hi, I like your hair, what do you do, etc. Then I tell myself no, it'll probably come to naught, there are too many people around her, I'll embarrass myself, etc. Eventually I just continue doing what I was doing. It took me a few years of various things to basically quiet that voice. Some of it was self-esteem work--every day, when you go to the bathroom and there's a mirror in front of you (huge mirrors in the dorms, not so much now), look yourself in the eyes, and tell yourself you're awesome (or whatever your choice phrase is that you don't quite believe). After a while of doing that, you'll start believing it as truth. It's a mantra of sorts.

The other part of the retraining is somewhat common to a lot of CBT approachable issues, and is somewhat similar to the above mantra idea. When I see an opportunity, I naturally address its pros and cons. For a good part of my life, I let the cons weigh in too highly, like above. For me, I had to hear the con voice, then talk back to it, logically. "No, you're wrong. Most people are willing to at least have a conversation, if you're not a creep. You're not a creep, you're a weirdo. Big difference. Most of those people around her aren't talking to her, they probably won't even notice, since it's loud in here. Finish your drink, stand between her and them, order another drink, then you'll have an excuse to be there and talk to her. If it doesn't work out, what's the worst that can happen?" For me, what's the worst that can happen became the ultimate rebuttal. Basically it always came down to: "In the astronomically unlikely case, she'll stab you. But that's not so bad, as long as it's nowhere super vital. Maybe she'll slap you or throw a drink in your face. Those have never happened yet, though. So realistically, worst case is she doesn't want to talk, you walk away, go do whatever you were doing." Now, I just go with "Will this opportunity in front of me kill me?" "No. Okay, I'll do it." (I have boundaries, but that's the best way to approach life, for me, especially regarding the unknown.)

> But I'm worthy of happiness and of having love and a life with the type of person I want.

You'd be surprised how many people this doesn't even occur to. It makes relationships and life difficult.

> I want to do it in such a way that helps me find myself too. I let him become the object of my life, and I didn't spread out things as much as I should have to school or other hobbies.

That was a big mistake I made as well. I eventually was dating my best friend, and all my other friends were auxiliary, if I even talked to them, or were through her. Hopefully you've learned from this, and can work on balance in your future relationships.

The conclusion that I came to is that you always need to put yourself first. If you've got issues, you need to work on them, before you can really support other people. That wasn't where I wanted the idea to go, but it's true anyway. I wanted it to lead into saying that a relationship is like a job, or something like that, and you should treat it like one, in some ways. You can work 120 hours a week, but your outside life is going to suffer. You need to spend time with other friends, alone, with hobbies, whatever it is you enjoy alone. Maybe your SO joins you sometimes, but not always. Somewhere on the art of manliness blog, the author writes that two people have 100% to give, each. In many relationships (codependent, especially), you end up giving a total that's less than 200%. But in the good relationships and marriages, you support each other's individuality and are able to give more, say 250%. I forget if it's from there or from Rose or something else, but in a relationship, partners must protect one another's solitude.

> I don't know who I am right now, I need to figure that out. How do I do that?

Once I got more comfortable being alone again, I spent my reconciliation time figuring out myself. It's a great time to do it, and a good context to put it into. The challenge of hurt and loneliness is that much more satisfying when overcome. More on how I figured things out below.

> I want to have a secure and cemented identity of myself, but right now I don't know what I want, who I am, or what I'm doing. I feel hopeless like I'm losing my purpose, like I'm losing value. Am I losing value?

I really don't know how to answer this without questioning what value you're thinking of. Monetarily, intellectually, spiritually, it doesn't sound like you're losing anything. Maybe you're sitting at the same level, and have been for a while. That lack of change can feel weird if you're used to adapting and changing. I will say that when you've worked through things, you'll probably have a lot more to offer (more value?) in a lot of ways, because of what you'll have figured out and experienced. You can give great advice not having experienced a great many things, but people will tend to believe personal experience and get a lot more from it.

> I feel like I was clinging to a rock that I believed would never fail me.

Quite common in dependent or codependent relationships. As above where (I think) I said (something like) you should put yourself first, you should be your rock. Not the other, changing, corporeal person. Some people look to a god of one sort or another for this, but it comes down to the same idea. Ultimately, you're going to be the only constant in your life, and even you (hopefully) won't be all that constant. But you'll be there, and you'll be able to support you. It may take some reworking your thoughts to trust yourself, love yourself, etc., but that's part of this process.

> I just want to feel okay again. I don't know how to prevent this from happening again.

I don't know that you can. You can guard yourself, and probably will, to lessen the pain until you find someone you can trust and let go with, but it's part of loving. 'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. (Internet is flakey here, so I may get some of these quotes wrong. Bah.) It'll take a while to accept the wisdom of that quote, though. That and "If you love it, let it go." (I think there's more to that.) The idea of that one being that you can't keep something you love in a cage where you can enjoy it. Other beings have their own needs, and if you truly love them, you will let them out to be their own beings, and in your love you can feel glad at doing that, because they will be happier than in that cage. Perhaps, even, they will come back to you after having stretched their wings (or a pet will usually come back for food and snuggles).

u/thedignityofstruggle · 1 pointr/collapse

Or maybe he presumes women split in two like worms.

P.S. Your comment is pathetically stupid bullshit. Lets see, "most of the world" having free contraceptives is just false. Laws dont prevent rape in the first world, let alone the third. The rape rate in the US is one in five women get raped. Culture? In the US women who are raped are constantly blamed for it having happened to them. Rapists are consistently given a pass legally. Fucking read a book:

https://www.amazon.com/Asking-Alarming-Rise-Culture-about/dp/0738217026

u/mvanvrancken · 1 pointr/Egalitarianism

I suppose we'll have to disagree. Would you like me to support the title's wording using the article? Please address these passages, then.

>In our culture, men are shown that they are valued if they are comfortable with and able to participate in violence and stand up for themselves in a physical way. Being “a man” in the traditional sense means distancing oneself from compassion and empathy, and these rough and tough characteristics in turn foster more violent actions against others.

and

>Eating meat, after all, has long been associated with masculinity; since pretty much the dawn of advertising, commercials have explicitly linked meat-eating to desirable manliness. To name but a few of the most egregious examples from the last few years, there was the Carl’s Jr.’s ad depicting X-Men’s Mystique morphing into a ripped manly man after consuming a bacon cheeseburger (with the tagline “Man Up”); Burger King’s “I Am Man” commercial, in which a guy sings about not settling for “chick food”; and the Taco Bell “Guys Love Bacon” campaign.

and

>Moreover, men are told that they should be sexually dominant toward women, pursuing them in a sport-like manner. These sexual and behavioral dynamics are at the root of rape culture in America, where one in five women report having been sexually assaulted with approximately 98% of rapes against women perpetrated by a man.

and the coup de grace:

>It’s not just the bodies of other people that men are told to oppress and domineer; animals, too, are seen as theirs to dispassionately dominate. Ninety-one percent of hunters are male — and of course, it’s men who are told that eating meat, even to their health detriment, is the manly thing to do.

It is not I who am mistaken. It is you, and this ridiculous article. The only thing I could perhaps challenge about the title is the use of the word "directly", but as you can see from the article, the author attempts to provide a causal path from carnivorousness to damaging male behavior. No, I think the title was worded just fine.

u/jackpoll4100 · -1 pointsr/Documentaries

Douglas Preston wrote a pretty convincing short book about this a few years ago called Trial by Fury. I think it's worth reading if you are interested in the case. Link if anybody is interested:
https://www.amazon.com/Trial-Fury-Internet-Savagery-Amanda-ebook/dp/B00CDU1H98

u/Black08Mustang · -6 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

If the first time you heard the phrase War on Women was 2012, you need to get your head out of the right wing echo chamber.

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Death-Andrea-Dworkin/dp/0743236262/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408995742&sr=8-1&keywords=0743236262

Here's a book on it from 1989. Mitt Romney was just a personification of it, so they used it against him in the election.