Self Defense: "Weak men put their hands on women for any reason!"

[Thor]

did not think segregation was inherently racist

Is segregation inherently sexist? Or is sexism inherently bad?

While it's obviously bad in most cases [women are definitely human and deserve the same rights and responsibilities as men], separating bathrooms by gender is quite clearly segregation - but how many people actually oppose separate bathrooms? I know many women who LIKE separate bathrooms because men's bathrooms are generally less clean than women's bathrooms [just talking about it] and they don't want to deal with dirty bathrooms. So if it's sexism, is that bad? Or is it not sexist?

Just curious.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Separate spaces isn't inherently bad, however when privileged groups get their own spaces they tend to use them to isolate other groups from society in general and/or the echelons of power, then it becomes a problem.

 

[Sucumbio]

Is segregation inherently sexist? Or is sexism inherently bad?

While it's obviously bad in most cases [women are definitely human and deserve the same rights and responsibilities as men], separating bathrooms by gender is quite clearly segregation - but how many people actually oppose separate bathrooms? I know many women who LIKE separate bathrooms because men's bathrooms are generally less clean than women's bathrooms [just talking about it] and they don't want to deal with dirty bathrooms. So if it's sexism, is that bad? Or is it not sexist?

Just curious.

It's not sexism... discrimination based on gender is sexism. Segregation is not inherently discriminatory, you can segregate your white clothes from your colored clothes so they are washed in separate cycles. Discrimination against people can be sexist or racist. A prime example that comes to mind regarding bathrooms, we had an employee at one of my previous jobs who was transgender but identified as female. She was not allowed to use the woman's restroom however, because she still exhibited "too many" masculine physical traits and qualities, and many of the employees knew she'd been a he technically and not undergone sexual reassignment surgery. The upper management's solution was to allow this one employee to use the "guest" bathroom which was technically out of bounds for all employees -except- her. So she was immediately segregated, and to an extent discriminated (though it's a touchy subject because the rights of one person and the rights of everyone else, yadda yadda.)

 

[Thor]

It's not sexism... discrimination based on gender is sexism.

Discrimination based on one's sex is sexism. You are not allowed to use certain bathrooms if you are a woman [or a man for others]. It's discrimination based on sex. It's sexism.

I don't understand how the rest of your post applies.

Separate spaces isn't inherently bad, however when privileged groups get their own spaces they tend to use them to isolate other groups from society in general and/or the echelons of power, then it becomes a problem.

This is probably a much better response, so I agree with what you are saying. If this is what you were trying to convey, Sucumbio, then I just don't understand the way you did it.

 

[Sykkamorre]

On the note of the "self defence" part of all this:

In the unfortunate event that defending yourself Is a necessity, if the man/woman has had any formal training in any form of self defence or martial art, the act of defence is suddenly becomes "assault with a weapon". The requirements by law to not get charged with this are often impossible to attain in the majority of said defensive situations, since most forms o assault happen in a private manner.


Surely... being punished for learning how to defend yourself is ridiculous. Regardless of gender.

 

[LarsINTJ]

On the note of the "self defence" part of all this:

In the unfortunate event that defending yourself Is a necessity, if the man/woman has had any formal training in any form of self defence or martial art, the act of defence is suddenly becomes "assault with a weapon". The requirements by law to not get charged with this are often impossible to attain in the majority of said defensive situations, since most forms o assault happen in a private manner.


Surely... being punished for learning how to defend yourself is ridiculous. Regardless of gender.

The main issue is how society is rather quick to dismiss a man's word over a woman's.

Here's something I would like to share. I assure you, it's relevant, although it may seem random and confusing at first.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Men typically have higher paying jobs than women. Software developers, computer admins, project managers, 90% male. Administrators, school teachers, nurses 90% female. Even though men do make more than women in the same job, it is only by about 2-3% (it's still wrong, of course to pay men more by virtue of their gender alone, but that's not the point). Point being that once a couple splits, the courts have to decide who is most likely to make the most money. And as is obvious, the man is. Not only do men have a better chance to get the jobs that pay the most, but women earn fewer raises, and are more likely to "top out" at an earlier age, with 10s of thousands in the difference, 90k for men and 60k for women.

So yah, women are going to typically be awarded child support, because men are in the vastly better position to be the ones to pay the ****. AND, since they make more in general, of course they're the ones who'll be expected to pay the alimony.

I appreciate your nuanced view of the gender wage gap, but it doesn't explain why men are 30 times more likely to pay alimony than women (97/3 > 30). Perhaps men are the primary earners in 97% of hetero couples? Nope: 26% of wives earn more than their husbands, and 13-16% of wives earn substantially (1.5 times) more than their husbands. Your point that "as is obvious, the man is [most likely to make the most money]" is simply false for these nontraditional couples. Perhaps such couples are less likely to divorce? Nope: they are 50% more likely to divorce, suggesting that women are ~39% of divorcing breadwinners but only 3% of alimony payers!

The court is self interested in this as well. The more high-paying jobs that are filled, the more taxes can be withheld. Since high paying jobs are more likely to be offered to men, it makes sense for the courts to award custody to women, because women won't be getting any jobs anyway that count for anything and they'll be getting their child support and Welfare payments to make up the difference

Why would a court think that women's jobs count for nothing in divorces where the wife was the breadwinner? How could a 2-3% wage gap possibly justify a 75% sole-custody-in-court gap in favor of women?

Men make up the overwhelming majority of inmates in the United States (table 1). Blacks ares 6 times more likely to be imprisoned than whites; blacks and Hispanics make up 68% of total prison population. It's clear that men are, yes, more likely to be found guilty of crimes, but that minorities are more likely as well, meaning that gender and race are closer not "far more."

Your statistics don't support your point. Firstly, incarceration rates reflect not just bias, but also differences in the crime rate. My source controlled for crime rate, yours didn't. Secondly even if blacks are 6 times more likely to be imprisoned than whites, your own sources show that men are 13 times more likely to be imprisoned than women (1500k vs. 113k).

I saw your post about women being allowed to one day fight on the front lines but let's be real it won't be 50/50 it'll be 9999/1

That post was about gender privileges, so how is the participation ratio relevant?

Men make up the overwhelming majority of arresting officers in the United States (table 76) while females are put to office jobs, like the military [...]. Meanwhile, male judges far outnumber women. What this means is that at the most crucial time during an incident, the making of the arrest report, it is male police who are deciding who the victim is and once again, "women are delicate flowers." This ends in court, run by mostly men, and so the sentencing difference (the sentences are the same just that all sentences come with a "maximum," it's not as if males get an automatic +1 on top of maximum just for being male, just that on average males get a harsher sentence, and it's usually a year more, according to your study). Therefore, the real reason why domestics seem to be skewed [against] men, is, ironically, men.

For the last time, your finger pointing is petty and irrelevant because male bias against men is still gender bias. And besides, professional feminists have consistently lobbied against equal rights in DV cases:

More sticky and difficult is unequal application of the law. One example of this is the “ungendering” of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which should, in theory, offer male victims of domestic violence the same protections and benefits women enjoy. Up until a couple of years ago, the wording of this piece of federal legislation was gendered, and men were specifically excluded from its protections and benefits in more than 60 passages. It was only through a procedural technicality regarding funding and different levels of government taxation that the old law was halted midway through reauthorization and a new, gender-neutral one was introduced. Women’s groups, such as the National Organization for Women, fought hard to keep the language in the act gendered, despite entreaties from LGBTQ groups to reconsider how the language of female victims and male perpetrators failed to serve their community.

So now we have a mostly gender-neutral VAWA. Problem solved, right?

Unfortunately, no. Despite scads and wodges of evidence indicating that violence between intimate partners as well as child abuse are not gendered problems, much of the policy around them, and the implementation of services, is, in fact, gendered. The paradigm used to train police, social workers, counselors, lawyers, judges, medical personnel, guardians ad litem, and anyone else who may become involved in a domestic violence case is based on a disproven (disproved before it was even named!) model called “Duluth”—a brainchild of feminist academics and activists. This model characterizes domestic violence as a microcosmic reflection of “the patriarchy,” wherein men batter their wives in order to assert patriarchal dominance and impose female subordination. It is the most widely used model in the world, despite it describing the smallest minority of domestic violence cases (in cases of one violent partner battering a non-violent partner for, say, burning the toast, women are up to twice as likely as men to be the sole perpetrators).

So we are working from a faulty model when it comes to everything from training judges to counseling perpetrators and victims.

In addition, our cultural values tend to prioritize protecting women from violence and harm while considering most violence against men commonplace and unremarkable and female violence against men justified at best, hilarious at worst.

Predominant aggressor policies (not laws, mind you—just “policies,” so less subject to scrutiny) profile men through the use of sneaky language. They don’t require “the man” to always be the one arrested—they simply require the larger, stronger, heavier, less visibly distressed partner to be considered the predominant aggressor and be subject to arrest. This is no less discriminatory against men than, say, poll taxes and literacy tests at the ballot booth were discriminatory against Black and poor voters in the first half of the 20th century.

 

[Sucumbio]

I appreciate your nuanced view of the gender wage gap, but it doesn't explain why men are 30 times more likely to pay alimony than women (97/3 > 30). Perhaps men are the primary earners in 97% of hetero couples? Nope: 26% of wives earn more than their husbands, and 13-16% of wives earn substantially (1.5 times) more than their husbands. Your point that "as is obvious, the man is [most likely to make the most money]" is simply false for these nontraditional couples. Perhaps such couples are less likely to divorce? Nope: they are 50% more likely to divorce, suggesting that women are ~39% of divorcing breadwinners but only 3% of alimony payers!

Uh, well if 26% of wives earn more than husbands, then the other 74% of husbands earn more than women. So that means 3 out of 4 higher paid breadwinners are men. That aside the courts have been slowly moving away from tradition in the US regarding gender bias in divorce cases. We tend to not be able to see the forest for the trees, or in this case, we're looking at statistical data that represents the problem without recognizing that action is slow to change things. What men do you know would want to change society, say, 40 years ago, in favor of equality? Cause those same men still rule the world, they've not died off yet... it'll take another 20 years.

Think of it like this: IF men and women were equally treated in divorce cases, then men and women would HAVE to be treated equally in terms of employment, otherwise financially speaking, it wouldn't work. So that means those 3 sectors would have to become 50/50 so that when alimony becomes 50/50 - broken families from within those sectors can be sustained.

Do you really think 40% of software engineers are willing to just tank their careers just so they have a 50/50 shot at not having to pay alimony in the event of a divorce?

Also you cannot dismiss the numbers so easily. "Non-Traditional" couples? We're not talking just about them. We're talking about All People in the US who work in 6 specific sectors. In the first 3 sectors specified men made up 90% of the total work force, women only 10%. That's 9 out of 10 people being male, and being paid higher wages than say, school teachers who are primarily women (90% vs 10%).

Why would a court think that women's jobs count for nothing in divorces where the wife was the breadwinner? How could a 2-3% wage gap possibly justify a 75% sole-custody-in-court gap in favor of women?

It didn't... the 2-3% wage gap just is proof that sexism is real and male sided (there's no reason for it). The point was that courts are funded by the government, and the government is funded by taxes, and the only way to earn taxes as a government is for your populace to work. The higher paying the populaces' jobs are, the more tax revenue. Since men predominantly get to own the jobs that pay the most, it makes sense that courts tend to favor the woman. That way she's not tied down to a job she can't even really get.

Your statistics don't support your point. Firstly, incarceration rates reflect not just bias, but also differences in the crime rate. My source controlled for crime rate, yours didn't. Secondly even if blacks are 6 times more likely to be imprisoned than whites, your own sources show that men are 13 times more likely to be imprisoned than women (1500k vs. 113k).

You suggested that sex effects gender discrimination "way more often" than color effects racial discrimination in terms of sentencing. If anything it's the other way around.

That post was about gender privileges, so how is the participation ratio relevant?

Oh I thought you said something like "stop whining about how women can't fight on the front lines cause they will be able to by 2017" or something. I dunno what gender privileges are... but the fact remains that women are NOT allowed to fight on the front lines. That's gender inequality.

For the last time, your finger pointing is petty and irrelevant because male bias against men is still gender bias. And besides, professional feminists have consistently lobbied against equal rights in DV cases:

You're starting to sound like Lars, lol. "male bias against men is still gender bias." AND???? That means I'm right! Gender bias is the problem, dude. If there weren't so many MEN on the streets making arrests, then there wouldn't be so many MEN in jail. If there weren't so many MEN running the court, there wouldn't be so many MEN in jail.

Just think about it, reverse it. *snap* there, I just made it so 90% of cops are WOMEN. And 90% of judges are WOMEN.

NOW, who's in jail all the time? Is it still men?

I guess we'll never know cause it'll never happen. I'd settle for 50/50, though...

 

[adumbrodeus]

I fail to see how the presence of individual biases against men discounts the need for feminism, gender issues aren't a 0 sum game and feminism is about breaking down gender roles.

If anything, the presence of these issues that men face (which are entirely based on male gender roles) suggest that female gender roles are alive and well because gender roles are complimentary by their nature.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

I fail to see how the presence of individual biases against men discounts the need for feminism, gender issues aren't a 0 sum game and feminism is about breaking down gender roles.

If anything, the presence of these issues that men face (which are entirely based on male gender roles) suggest that female gender roles are alive and well because gender roles are complimentary by their nature.

Feminists have made excellent progress promoting a positive view of strong independent women, yet weak men in need are still shamed and blamed. Traditional gender roles were complementary, but modern blurring of the roles has been asymmetrical. Feminist assistance to men has largely been a series of commandments not to **** and abuse women, when men really need a cultural environment that values and discusses our emotional health.

Feminists have also had great success removing anti-female bias from Western law and policy, yet have made no discernible effort to fight anti-male bias (draft, divorce, victim support, criminal punishment). The biggest US feminist group (NOW) is specifically for women, and the word 'feminism' literally emphasizes the feminine. Feminists pay lip service to men's rights, but no politically significant groups are fighting anti-male bias, and NOW actively opposes men's equality in family law.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I don't see how feminism primarily dealing with one set of roles is somehow a black mark against it, both as a philosophy and an activist movement which does concentrate on women's issue.

The fact is activist organizations tend to be more effective when they concentrate on a particular area and support each other, organization's effectiveness tends to be more limited for issues that aren't in their primary demographic. There's an old joke about how when socialists join a feminist group, within two months the group decides they'll talk about women's issues after the revolution has been accomplished.

This applies just as more for men's issue, there are examples of feminists fighting for men's issues (paternity leave comes to mind), but frankly because most women haven't lived as men most women don't understand men's issues and are a poor fit for taking leadership on them.

Men's orgs should be dealing with that but the modern men's rights movement spends all it's time blaming women's movements for pre-existing men's gender roles and declaring women's gender issues non-existant.

As far as NOW's position, you're referring to divorce right? The position of preference for equal custody vs. primary caregiver custody isn't an anti men's rights position. The only reason that this perception exists is because women are usually the primary caregiver, and that's the problem. The gender role that women are the primary caregiver inherently, something that feminism is trying to erode in other areas.


On the Asymmetry though, you can't erode women's gender roles without eroding men's as well, they support each other. It's just that only one side means that it takes longer both for gender roles to erode and specifically men's to erode.

 

[Firejew]

Discrimination based on one's sex is sexism. You are not allowed to use certain bathrooms if you are a woman [or a man for others]. It's discrimination based on sex. It's sexism.

Had an aneurysm.

 

[Thor]

Had an aneurysm.

1. That's not an argument.

2. I apologize for triggering an aneurysm by beating your brain in with a dictionary, but I find I do it rather regardless of how people who disagree with me end up feeling.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism

Sexism, n

prejudice or discrimination based on sex;

It's discrimination to refuse entry to a bathroom on the basis of sex (just as it is discrimination to refuse entry to a bathroom on the basis of race). So it's sexism - pretty clear-cut.

Now, I didn't say I want bathrooms to be unisex, only that the practice is sexist at the heart of it.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

This applies just as more for men's issue, there are examples of feminists fighting for men's issues (paternity leave comes to mind), but frankly because most women haven't lived as men most women don't understand men's issues and are a poor fit for taking leadership on them.

This would be a valid point if all feminists were women.

Men's orgs should be dealing with that but the modern men's rights movement spends all it's time blaming women's movements for pre-existing men's gender roles and declaring women's gender issues non-existent.

Women's movements have been pushing a lopsided public view for decades. They misdirect attention and funding by popularizing misleading statistics (1 in 5 women *****, 77% wage gap) and stereotypes (male abuser, female victim). Women's movements are culpable for exaggerating women's gender issues at the expense of men's issues.

As far as NOW's position, you're referring to divorce right? The position of preference for equal custody vs. primary caregiver custody isn't an anti men's rights position. The only reason that this perception exists is because women are usually the primary caregiver, and that's the problem. The gender role that women are the primary caregiver inherently, something that feminism is trying to erode in other areas.

Why not erode the stereotype in THIS area by giving men who are equally fit to parent equal chances to parent their kids?

 

[LarsINTJ]

It's discrimination to refuse entry to a bathroom on the basis of sex (just as it is discrimination to refuse entry to a bathroom on the basis of race). So it's sexism - pretty clear-cut.

Now, I didn't say I want bathrooms to be unisex, only that the practice is sexist at the heart of it.

Gender segregated bathrooms were mainly put in place to protect women from sexual harassment.

Do you think that men generally have a problem with gawking women who enter their bathrooms? They certainly don't in my experience.

Patriarchy, damn male privilege.

 

[adumbrodeus]

This would be a valid point if all feminists were women.

Actually you're correct in this regard, my terminology is poor because feminism is a gender neutral equality philosophy. A better statement would be feminist activism primarily fights for women's issues. Why is that a problem, that specialization improves results is well established in activism.

Women's movements have been pushing a lopsided public view for decades. They misdirect attention and funding by popularizing misleading statistics (1 in 5 women *****, 77% wage gap) and stereotypes (male abuser, female victim). Women's movements are culpable for exaggerating women's gender issues at the expense of men's issues.

And yet, women's issues still remain. Granted, it misleading statistics have been used for feminist goals, but do you think that the people were aware at the time? Initially feminism was mostly concerned with getting results on direct issues that faced women, as time went on they've become more concerned with the social factors that created sexism, as such they've become more aware that these statistics are misleading and taking action to change positions to reflect this reality. Hence the disparaging motlier I presented earlier "bro feminism", describing one that looks to advance feminist goals by reinforcing gender roles. This is heavily discouraged in modern feminism and doesn't fit the philosophy at all which defines itself on the basis of equality.

The wage gap however, does exist. The fact that it's based partially on the expectation that women are more likely to be the primary caregiver of a child is a feminist issue and one that I adressed last post.

Why not erode the stereotype in THIS area by giving men who are equally fit to parent equal chances to parent their kids?

You'd have to ask NOW why they don't support shared custody for that. I have no opinion on the two, but there are benefits and drawbacks to both the sole and shared custody approach, regardless of the gender of the primary caregiver.

The fact that feminism opposes women being viewed as the necessary primary caregiver is a separate issue, legally the gender is irrelevant.

 

[LarsINTJ]

MRA responds to a Feminist.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

News! 2011 CDC numbers show that men are now more likely to be ***** than women (table 1, including "made to penetrate").

A better statement would be feminist activism primarily fights for women's issues. Why is that a problem, that specialization improves results is well established in activism.

Gender-neutral activists "specializing" in women's issues is wasteful! They're running out of meaningful women's causes. Which is more important: feelings (catcalling, memory triggers, feeling believed when reporting ****) or rights (consent to parenthood, forced enrollment in selective service, equal access to resources for ****/violence victims)?

I have no opinion on the two, but there are benefits and drawbacks to both the sole and shared custody approach, regardless of the gender of the primary caregiver.

Do you have an opinion on the wage gap? There are benefits and drawbacks to employers subtly discriminating, just as there are benefits and drawbacks to family court judges subtly discriminating. Don't you think we should fight both kinds of gender discrimination?

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Uh, well if 26% of wives earn more than husbands, then the other 74% of husbands earn more than women. So that means 3 out of 4 higher paid breadwinners are men.
[...]
Think of it like this: IF men and women were equally treated in divorce cases, then men and women would HAVE to be treated equally in terms of employment, otherwise financially speaking, it wouldn't work.

Since female breadwinners are 50% more likely to get divorced, the percentage of breadwinners in divorce court who are women is about 26% x 1.5 (EDIT: corrected using Bayes' theorem) 35%. So we'd expect 65% of alimony payers to be men, not 97%.

Spoiler: maths

Let D = divorce, W = female breadwinner, M = male breadwinner. Standardly, P(x|y) = the probability of x given y. We want P(W|D) = the probability of female breadwinner given divorce.

Bayes' theorem says that P(W|D) = P(D|W)*P(W)/P(D), and that P(M|D) = P(D|M)*P(M)/P(D).
Dividing these, P(W|D)/P(M|D) = [ P(D|W)/P(D|M) ] * P(W)/P(M) = (1.5)(26/74).
Since all divorcing couples are either female- or male-breadwinner, P(W|D)+P(M|D) = 1.
Letting x = P(W|D), we solve the algebraic equation: x/(1-x) = (1.5)(26/74), to find P(W|D) = 35%

The largest estimates for the wage gap are around 23%, and this figure doesn't take into account that men work longer hours and choose jobs that are in higher demand. Should courts discriminate against a husband based on the assumption that he will work more and choose a higher-paying career than his wife? Doesn't this assumption reinforce traditional gender roles?

Also you cannot dismiss the numbers so easily. "Non-Traditional" couples? We're not talking just about them.

Please try to understand my argument before you reply. The above paragraph explains why I'm talking about female-breadwinner ("these non-traditional") couples - basically, it gives us a more accurate picture of the alimony gap.

That aside the courts have been slowly moving away from tradition in the US regarding gender bias in divorce cases. We tend to not be able to see the forest for the trees, or in this case, we're looking at statistical data that represents the problem without recognizing that action is slow to change things. What men do you know would want to change society, say, 40 years ago, in favor of equality? Cause those same men still rule the world, they've not died off yet... it'll take another 20 years.

Some actions are slower to change things than others. Waiting for old people to die is indeed a very slow solution that conveniently resembles complete inaction. A better fix would be alimony reform laws that (#1) standardize the conditions under which alimony can be granted, and (#2) limit the amount depending on incomes, length of marriage, etc. These simple fixes leave less room for discrimination and random differences among judges. New Jersey recently passed such legislation, as Massachusetts did in 2011, but Florida's governor vetoed a reform bill last year. If you care about gender equality then advocate alimony reform in your state!

So that means those 3 sectors would have to become 50/50 so that when alimony becomes 50/50 - broken families from within those sectors can be sustained.

Do you really think 40% of software engineers are willing to just tank their careers just so they have a 50/50 shot at not having to pay alimony in the event of a divorce?

We're talking about All People in the US who work in 6 specific sectors. In the first 3 sectors specified men made up 90% of the total work force, women only 10%. That's 9 out of 10 people being male, and being paid higher wages than say, school teachers who are primarily women (90% vs 10%).

Why are you talking about specific job sectors when we're already dealing with incomes averaged over ALL sectors?

It didn't... the 2-3% wage gap just is proof that sexism is real and male sided (there's no reason for it). The point was that courts are funded by the government, and the government is funded by taxes, and the only way to earn taxes as a government is for your populace to work. The higher paying the populaces' jobs are, the more tax revenue. Since men predominantly get to own the jobs that pay the most, it makes sense that courts tend to favor the woman. That way she's not tied down to a job she can't even really get.

The 2-3% wage gap isn't all sexism - it also reflects maternity risk when hiring young women. Also your argument makes no sense. Discrimination in divorce court shuffles money into women's pockets but it doesn't increase total income taxes, and even if it did that would be a terrible reason for sexism.

You suggested that sex effects gender discrimination "way more often" than color effects racial discrimination in terms of sentencing. If anything it's the other way around.

I cited an academic source showing that in criminal sentencing discrimination, sex trumps race by far. Black men are discriminated against primarily because they're men. Your turn! Prove me wrong.

Oh I thought you said something like "stop whining about how women can't fight on the front lines cause they will be able to by 2017" or something. I dunno what gender privileges are... but the fact remains that women are NOT allowed to fight on the front lines. That's gender inequality.

Combat roles are an inequality that is being corrected because of feminism. Men need someone to fight for their issues. Privileges are advantages, especially (in this context) ones that correlate with identity features such as race and gender.

You're starting to sound like Lars, lol. "male bias against men is still gender bias." AND???? That means I'm right! Gender bias is the problem, dude. If there weren't so many MEN on the streets making arrests, then there wouldn't be so many MEN in jail. If there weren't so many MEN running the court, there wouldn't be so many MEN in jail.

Just think about it, reverse it. *snap* there, I just made it so 90% of cops are WOMEN. And 90% of judges are WOMEN.

NOW, who's in jail all the time? Is it still men?

I guess we'll never know cause it'll never happen. I'd settle for 50/50, though...

What makes you so sure that women don't discriminate?

 

[Accelerator]

The only people who should hit others are the ones prepared to get hit back. It doesn't matter if she's a woman. If you're an adult you should be familiar with consequences.

 

[LarsINTJ]

The only people who should hit others are the ones prepared to get hit back. It doesn't matter if she's a woman. If you're an adult you should be familiar with consequences.

Unfortunately female aggressors are awfully convincing at playing victim when push comes to shove. They can do no wrong, see? She was stressed out, depressed, frustrated - p*ssy pass activate!

Men are just bad.

 

[Sucumbio]

math

You have me at a disadvantage, sir, as math was never my strong suit. But I think the math is irrelevant to this particular discussion. You see, men created the "problem." Both problems, actually. Men corralled and trod down women into the gender roles that they've been trying to break. Women may have a hand in this too, of course. I'm sure of it, actually. When my wife was attacked and tried to fight back, for instance, well, she failed, lol. She got "knocked the F out!" and her immediate (emotional, therefore truest) response was looking at me through tear streaked eyes and pointing at the attacker "Get him!"

Get him? WTF... like I'm an attack dog or something? Lest we forget I -heard- what you said to the dude, he was in the right to knock you on your back imho. Some things you just don't say to others. That's another debate, point being my gender role was immediately defined in the flash of a moment. "Protector." So yes, I do concede that women and men both contribute to the existence of gender roles. I don't believe that it's fair to say, however, that men "suffer" the way women did, and still do. Equality is something that's been defined in two ways, when it really should be one:

1.) (the wrong way) Men and women are equal. Men work and women raise kids. Both are equally challenging and men are better at working and women better at child raising, so it's all good.

2.) (the right way) Men and women are equal. Men and women can work the same jobs, including raising children. Both men and women are equally capable of achieving the same things.

Now, unfortunately there are still some things that most men and women are better suited for. So this dichotomy instantly creates a schism of thought when considering gender equality and the elimination of traditional gender roles. I think if anything this sort of divide can only be conquered by allowing more males to be primary caregivers, instead of assuming that dad has to be the one to go to work. More women in the workforce -at a level that's "important" enough- should lead to this.

True -only- women can give birth. This is a unique position for women. It DOES make them different on a level that a man can NEVER actually achieve regardless of how "equal" they want to be. This specific difference has been the basis for much of the disparity between the genders. If men could give birth, things would be different, sure. I don't currently have any ideas as to how this single but important distinction can be allayed. It's just something that the gender equality forum has to accept.

Why are you talking about specific job sectors when we're already dealing with incomes averaged over ALL sectors?

My statistics linked above were from a report that focused on 6 major job sectors, and which demonstrated my point.

The 2-3% wage gap isn't all sexism - it also reflects maternity risk when hiring young women. Also your argument makes no sense. Discrimination in divorce court shuffles money into women's pockets but it doesn't increase total income taxes, and even if it did that would be a terrible reason for sexism.

I agree, it's terrible, but it's true. Putting men into the workforce is advantageous in a world where men dominate the workforce (that is to say, the workforce of highest paying jobs). Judges have to consider the welfare of the child. A child being raised by a single mother will have the best chance (most money thrown at them) if the mother wins alimony, child support, etc. Because their prospects of landing a solid high paying career is far smaller than that of a man - especially if they're a single parent (yeah, I know it's against the rules to use that as an excuse to not hire someone, but let's get real, most employers won't higher single moms unless they're akin to Wal-mart et al). And this isn't a socio-economic thing either, because in poorer families, or families of minorities, the men are -still- more likely to get paid more. Black families in the south, for instance, the men land physical labor jobs paying upwards of 30 dollars/hr vs women who wind up working retail, administrative, or as care givers.

I cited an academic source showing that in criminal sentencing discrimination, sex trumps race by far. Black men are discriminated against primarily because they're men. Your turn! Prove me wrong.

Several tables in here demonstrate what I was referring to.

Clearly blacks above all others are incarcerated more often and for longer periods of time. Something I just learned from this study, Female college students are more likely to have longer sentences than male college students. Granted this study focused on demographics between 1998 and 2002 (which is why I hate statistics to begin with, it's dead information), but that's not to say it's improved any.

Combat roles are an inequality that is being corrected because of feminism. Men need someone to fight for their issues. Privileges are advantages, especially (in this context) ones that correlate with identity features such as race and gender.

Well, I agree that everyone should have a say, and that men deserve a chance to be primary caregivers, deserve a chance to do what "women do best." I'm all for breaking down gender roles. Remember, I'm looking forward to being a stay-at-home dad.

What makes you so sure that women don't discriminate?

I know they do. All people are capable of it. It's just that throughout this debate we've seemed to ignore the glaring fact that men created this world that women struggled to change, and now that it's changing, men want it back the way it was. OR, for gender roles to just go inert. But one thing men should not do, is complain that they're being treated unfairly as if they had nothing to do with it in the first place. Now men finally know just how crappy it was to be a women all those years.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

You have me at a disadvantage, sir, as math was never my strong suit. But I think the math is irrelevant to this particular discussion. You see, men created the "problem." Both problems, actually. Men corralled and trod down women into the gender roles that they've been trying to break. Women may have a hand in this too, of course. I'm sure of it, actually. When my wife was attacked and tried to fight back, for instance, well, she failed, lol. She got "knocked the F out!" and her immediate (emotional, therefore truest) response was looking at me through tear streaked eyes and pointing at the attacker "Get him!"

Get him? WTF... like I'm an attack dog or something? Lest we forget I -heard- what you said to the dude, he was in the right to knock you on your back imho. Some things you just don't say to others. That's another debate, point being my gender role was immediately defined in the flash of a moment. "Protector." So yes, I do concede that women and men both contribute to the existence of gender roles. I don't believe that it's fair to say, however, that men "suffer" the way women did, and still do.

If women contribute to the existence of gender roles now, what makes you think that men "corralled and trod down" women in the first place? Gender roles could be the result of women getting men to do all the dangerous and physically demanding work. As pre-human brains got bigger, pregnant women were unable to do much hunting and fighting, and given high infant mortality and a shortage of birth control, women were pregnant a LOT. Hence your role as "protector" and women's hypo-agency.

 

[LarsINTJ]

 

[DunnoBro]

1. That's not an argument.

2. I apologize for triggering an aneurysm by beating your brain in with a dictionary, but I find I do it rather regardless of how people who disagree with me end up feeling.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism

Sexism, n

prejudice or discrimination based on sex;

It's discrimination to refuse entry to a bathroom on the basis of sex (just as it is discrimination to refuse entry to a bathroom on the basis of race). So it's sexism - pretty clear-cut.

Now, I didn't say I want bathrooms to be unisex, only that the practice is sexist at the heart of it.

You phrased this in a very (and I believe purposely) misleading way. But allow us to dissect this one step further. You state that it is discrimination, and by the basis of which being gender, sexism.
But do you really understand what "discrimination" means?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

"the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people"

Both genders adhere to the rule they have a bathroom for their gender. And there are -always- both bathrooms made available if not unisex, if not, then THAT is what is sexist. A man cannot use the female restroom just as the woman may not use the males. No one is following rules that anyone else wouldn't be forced to follow. You seem to be mistaking an absence of absolute gender neutrality for sexism.

Gendered bathrooms are sexist in the same way.

---Anyway, to the topic.
Men should always be allowed to defend themselves. Equal rights, equal lefts.

 

[Thor]

You phrased this in a very (and I believe purposely) misleading way. But allow us to dissect this one step further. You state that it is discrimination, and by the basis of which being gender, sexism.
But do you really understand what "discrimination" means?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

"the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people"

Both genders adhere to the rule they have a bathroom for their gender. And there are -always- both bathrooms made available if not unisex, if not, then THAT is what is sexist. A man cannot use the female restroom just as the woman may not use the males. No one is following rules that anyone else wouldn't be forced to follow. You seem to be mistaking an absence of absolute gender neutrality for sexism.

Gendered bathrooms are sexist in the same way

I have seen more than a few places that have not modernized such that women have like one bathroom on the first floor (added in) in a 4-story building, while men have bathrooms on each floor, and none (Except first floor) are unisex. It is because previously those areas were closed off to/rarely accessed by women (old university buildings - sexism), and the building wasn't equalized when access was. That's separate and unequal access, which was struck down in 1954 as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Discrimination is actually defined at least 3 ways. Here's an important definition for this discussion:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

"the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing"

And as my other citation discussed, the ability to tell the difference between a man and a woman (which has been a problem - there was a ruling about a person who looked like one sex but was the other and used the bathroom that they were, not that they looked like) and refusing entry to some on the basis of that determination alone is discrimination. And discrimination based on sex = sexism, as stated above.

You also managed to omit a quote I had earlier where I said that not all sexism is inherently bad (because someone stated that all sexism is always bad, or something like that) - I think this is a tolerable instance of granting and refusing access to certain facilities on the basis of sex. But it is creating separate facilities for men and women to use is sexist. [I am making a line break here because I think the next sentence is particularly notable and worth separating from the rest of this paragraph.]

If you did the same thing but for white and blacks that would be (correctly) identified as blatantly racist [to use your quote but rewrite it with black and white, "Both races adhere to the rule they have a bathroom for their gender. And there are -always- both bathrooms made available if not unirace, if not, then THAT is what is racist. A white cannot use the black restroom just as the black may not use the white restroom. No one is following rules that anyone else wouldn't be forced to follow. You seem to be mistaking an absence of absolute race neutrality for racism."] Is it more obvious now that separate bathrooms are a form of discrimination?

This is why I have stated (and will defend) my position that segregating bathrooms is discrimination on the basis of sex is sexism [though it has little to do with the heart of this thread].

Tangentially related, this line of reasoning and argumentation was why a women's right's bill in the 1970s was defeated (or part of why it was) - some bill that would outlaw all segregation against women was defeated, and this was one notable reason why; opponents of the bill successfully argued that all bathrooms would be unisex or illegal. Doubtless some chauvinistic pieces of trash defended their reasoning with this, but there were also people who wanted the bill altered because it literally would outlaw bathrooms for different sexes, and that idea made many people very uncomfortable at the time.

 

[DunnoBro]

I have seen more than a few places that have not modernized such that women have like one bathroom on the first floor (added in) in a 4-story building, while men have bathrooms on each floor, and none (Except first floor) are unisex. It is because previously those areas were closed off to/rarely accessed by women (old university buildings - sexism), and the building wasn't equalized when access was. That's separate and unequal access, which was struck down in 1954 as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

That makes the buildings sexist, not the concept of gendered bathrooms. You're merely applying sexism to something that isn't sexist so that you may then call it sexist in it's entirety.

Discrimination is actually defined at least 3 ways. Here's an important definition for this discussion:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

"the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing"

I fail to see how this is relevant. Elaborate please.

And as my other citation discussed, the ability to tell the difference between a man and a woman (which has been a problem - there was a ruling about a person who looked like one sex but was the other and used the bathroom that they were, not that they looked like) and refusing entry to some on the basis of that determination alone is discrimination. And discrimination based on sex = sexism, as stated above.

It is not discrimination as they are not being "denied entry" so much as being directed to the proper bathroom. The other sex would be met with the same "discrimination" and if they have to adhere to the same rules, then it is no longer discrimination. Hence the definition.

You also managed to omit a quote I had earlier where I said that not all sexism is inherently bad (because someone stated that all sexism is always bad, or something like that) - I think this is a tolerable instance of granting and refusing access to certain facilities on the basis of sex. But it is creating separate facilities for men and women to use is sexist. [I am making a line break here because I think the next sentence is particularly notable and worth separating from the rest of this paragraph.]

It was only the above point i found contention with. I find no issue with this stance and yours and overall agree. Sexism is not an absolute evil.

If you did the same thing but for white and blacks that would be (correctly) identified as blatantly racist [to use your quote but rewrite it with black and white, "Both races adhere to the rule they have a bathroom for their gender. And there are -always- both bathrooms made available if not unirace, if not, then THAT is what is racist. A white cannot use the black restroom just as the black may not use the white restroom. No one is following rules that anyone else wouldn't be forced to follow. You seem to be mistaking an absence of absolute race neutrality for racism." Is it more obvious now that separate bathrooms are a form of discrimination?].

This is a fair point, but if both whites and blacks for the most part decided they preferred their own bathrooms like men and women do, it wouldn't be discrimination either (i.e not having the black bathrooms out in the street or on the 4th floor, etc). Just as sexism isn't an absolute evil, neither is racism. But races don't have the differences that sexes do, nor the kinds of feelings stirred in the bathroom around other races like we do other genders. So the reason, or at least perceived reason for these segregated bathrooms would be intolerance, or racism than any objective reasoning.

But no, this would not inherently be "unfair" so it would not be discrimination. It would however, be pointless segregation to drive a wedge between whites and blacks so don't think I'm denying this would be a problem.

 

[greatbernard]

Feminism in a nutshell: Hate and punish men because oppressive patriarchy...

So basically you're generalizing feminism in its entirety based on an extreme vocal minority of feminists.

This unfortunately precludes any possibility of having a reasonable discussion with you.

 

[LarsINTJ]

So basically you're generalizing feminism in its entirety based on an extreme vocal minority of feminists.

This unfortunately precludes any possibility of having a reasonable discussion with you.

Projection, well done. That reply has as much impact as a fart in the wind.

You're a little late to the party, I suggest reading the whole thread before replying to the first thing which provokes a social justice knee-jerk reaction.

If you have a problem then explain yourself.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Does it bother anyone that the quotation in the thread title is a sentence fragment.

 

[DunnoBro]

The problem with this "vocal minority" of feminists is that they are the ones in power, and it makes one have to wonder that if these views simply pushed them to get this power, or the power made them more comfortable revealing those views.

Are all feminists wrong? The majority even? No, of course not. The underlying message of equality is fine, but those at the reigns, the ones dictating the narrative, those regular feminists try to write off as "radicals" are still a threat and are still feminists. I do not disagree with nor do I dislike or wish any ill upon regular, non-radical feminists, but they empower the radicals and enable them. I simply pity them and dearly wish they leave the crumbling movement as I did.

Sites like Jezebel, Kotaku, and r/SRS with their brigades are the voices of feminism as they are the loudest. And guess what? They're all radical as hell. Lies, coercion, some of them don't even give a single damn about women, they just rile them up about non-issues for ad-revenue.

Feminists can finger their ears and try to deafen themselves to it, but in the end the feminist movement is dead. It's always been inherently flawed to a degree (the ones who actually accomplished stuff were women's rights activists mostly, and yes there's a difference) and has now been taken up by misandrists and cultural marxists who understand the destruction of western civilization begins with the destruction of men. Feminists cannot reclaim their movement, and attempts while admirable are futile. They need to en masse identify as egalitarian/humanist.

Most of this goes for MRAs, too. Though they're mostly counter-culture to feminists and have no actual power except to undo what feminists do wrong.

 

[Thor]

Projection, well done. That reply has as much impact as a fart in the wind.

You're a little late to the party, I suggest reading the whole thread before replying to the first thing which provokes a social justice knee-jerk reaction.

If you have a problem then explain yourself.

I think she does it just fine...

http://www.eonline.com/news/581276/...inequality-check-out-a-transcript-and-a-video

@ AfungusAmongus I think she agrees with you (and she'd be right in many respects - the issues highlighted exist as well, though I'm still dubious as to whom is more affected [and at this point, I wonder if it matters who is more affected as much as it matters that these things are changed for the better...]).

Also f*ck 4chan.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Gender-neutral activists "specializing" in women's issues is wasteful! They're running out of meaningful women's causes. Which is more important: feelings (catcalling, memory triggers, feeling believed when reporting ****) or rights (consent to parenthood, forced enrollment in selective service, equal access to resources for ****/violence victims)?

Ya sure, a persuasive culture that systematically punishes women for exercising agency, trains them against exercising it, and tells men that women are incapable so they give them less opportunities. Yep, totally feelings!

Regardless, that isn't even the reason for specialization, the reason is because of lack of experience with the issue. How example is a women who is born a women supposed to understand the gendered issues men face without being painted a picture by men? I mean there are some things that you can quantify with numbers and laws on the books, but that's a just scratching the surface because the meat of the issues are the constant social reinforcement in both subtle and obvious ways. Without somebody to explicitly quantify and guide, a woman that was born a women has no background to understand male issues. So why in God's name are feminist gender activists (a majority female organization) qualified to take a leading role on men's issues?

Do you have an opinion on the wage gap? There are benefits and drawbacks to employers subtly discriminating, just as there are benefits and drawbacks to family court judges subtly discriminating. Don't you think we should fight both kinds of gender discrimination?

I already explained my issue with the wage gap.

My thesis is that sole versus shared custody should not be dealt with as a gendered issue, sole custody preferred is the same regardless of the gender of the primary caregiver which is the language of sole custody.

Wage gap is significantly mitigated and the custody issue is completely solved by ending the social presumption that women will be the primary caregiver.

 

[DunnoBro]

Also f*ck 4chan.

Seriously, the admin has gone totally insane. It's totally worthless now.

Unless you're referring to the Emma thing, in which case... Here: http://rt.com/uk/190348-emma-watson-nude-hoax/

 

[Thor]

Seriously, the admin has gone totally insane. It's totally worthless now.

Unless you're referring to the Emma thing, in which case... Here: http://rt.com/uk/190348-emma-watson-nude-hoax/

Well yeah I actually was coming to edit my post as I saw that it was some random internet prank within a prank. But you already posted so w/e.

But after reading some of what I read (mostly because of related links to that issue about them), I'd swear the place doesn't have mods, contrary to what the articles said.

 

[DunnoBro]

No biggie. It was a pretty extensive effort and I'm surprised they got found out at all.

But yea, the base chan model of moderation is one of self-moderation, to promote freedom of speech and creativity(this produces extreme goods and extreme bads). The goal is for the mods to be as invisible as possible, hence why staff are terminated/punished if they ever reveal their identity. So that's likely why you feel there is a lack of moderation.

Unfortunately, the head admin has found out freedom of speech doesn't make him money and is pruning the site to be sold. The original japanese 2ch(the one 4chan is merely an english ripoff of) has endorsed a new 8chan and it seems to be taking off well this week. Hopefully since it doesn't have a /b/ (the part of 4chan typically blamed for raids/attacks like for the Emma thing) they can maintain a better image.

 

[adumbrodeus]

do they have a /pol/?

 

[DunnoBro]

Iirc /pol/ and /v/ are the reasons it was made and seem to be the most popular boards.

 

[adumbrodeus]

well pol's the other main contender for this sort of thing so, still gonna be a ****hole

 

[DunnoBro]

Eh, /pol/ is hard to stomach at times(especially with a Jewish background) but it's nice that the userbase is so diverse and allowed to post anything, you get all sorts of news that way. Stuff fox won't show you, stuff msnbc won't show you, and stuff no media will ever show you (but should)

I've always been somewhat tolerant to a fault though.