Discrimination against Men

[Maci12]

Oh boy. Lets see.

Men are drafted, women are not

This is true. However, touching draft laws isn't politically savvy for a first term president, and is especially stupid for any president engaged in a war; it scares the hell out of people.

Men are expected to pay on dates

This is a generalization; this isn't true of all (and not even most) relationships.

Men are expected to “protect” women often to their detriment (i.e. save the women and children first on a sinking ship)

If you are on a sinking ship and don't save someone else, I promise I won't knock you for it.

Men are presented terribly in our popular culture (“Boys are stupid throw rocks at them” – Men appear stupid and loutish on television sitcoms)

So is every group of people. See: Family Guy.

Men are heavily discouraged from adopted feminine manners and dress wear as women are not discouraged from the converse. Men more or less cannot wear skirts/dresses/make-up and expect to live a normal life. Men are considered “pussies” if they are emotional. I think this is rather unfair and that men’s lack of clothing choices reflects a lack of expression in other areas.

The same can be said of women; a women who dresses more masculinely and is aggressive in business can be considered a bitch, while a man who does the same thing isn't knocked at all.

Men really have few reproductive rights. This one hits home for me. Me and my girlfriend are having sex. I do not want children. However if she got pregnant I would have no recourse to pay child support if she went to term with the child. She has more choices. She alone decides whether to put the child up for adoption or to abort and I have no say. Since we are not married I would have rather unequal rights to see my son/daughter.

Wear a condom / don't have sex with someone not on the pill if you don't want children. Those are you're options, and they are damn good ones. What she does with her body is her choice; you can't stop her from having / not having it. Since you aren't married, it would be seen as her child.

I disagree about many women’s inequalities in the workplace. I have never personally heard anyone, in my entire life, openly discuss discrimination against women. In no organization I have been a part of have women had any trouble being elected to office. I agree the “wage gap” statistic is compilled unfairly. It merely compares the AVG wage of full time working men to full time working women. It makes no allowances for education or extra hours at the job nor seniority. I think, for better or worse, women make different lifestyle choices then men and this affects their salary.

They compiled that data taking into account all factors that would affect wages. Women working the same job in the same position as men don't see equal pay. The higher up you go, the more prevalent this is; the difference in executives pay is huge. By the way, its not just once source that compiles data; there are so many different sources, almost all of them will say that women earn less than men. Citing one article that says they don't doesn't go anywhere to proving your statement.

Divorce courts are extremely unfair to men. I do not see why if both parents are competent and willing that custody is not presumed to be a straight 50/50 split between each parent. However the current going rate is the father gets every other holiday and every other weekend. I think this is horrible and the risk of losing my kids like that is too great for me to currently entertain the idea of having children.

I'm willing to agree that this is unfair, but you have to recognize that divorce is an unfair process. Splitting the kids 50/50? You can't do that; that isn't fair to the kids. I struggled with alternating from week to weekend; doing it every day would have ripped me apart at that time, and I would have hated my parents for it. It has to be an unfair process, because everyone suffers in divorce. You can't make it easier for yourself by putting it on your kids, that just not fair.

We’ve all heard that women should be believed if they claim to have been raped or sexually harassed. I think this goes against the central notion of our legal system. Everyone, no matter what they are accused of, should be presumed innocent. In addition women almost certainly do make false accusation since it can easily work in there favor during a dispute or divorce preceding. The penalties for falsely accusing someone are low so it would seem like it would be abused. This video explains why many rape accusations must be unfounded.

Rape is one of the most scarring things anyone can go through. Friends of mine who have been raped have never been the same. We have to believe them, because not believing them and not pursuing what they say is so the wrong thing to do. I agree that there are people who take advantage of that; but those people are despicable, and thankfully there are few of them.

You raise some interesting points, and I'm willing to agree with you about some of them. However, you aren't seeing the broad picture on certain issues. Things are never simple when it comes to equality. Everyone has things they would like to see changed, things they view as unfair; that is why there are advocates for all people and minorities. Blaming what you see as unfair on women isn't the right approach; women aren't forcing any of those things upon you. They are fighting the same fight as you; equality. Help them in their fight instead of opposing them and blaming your problems on them.

 

[GOTO2435]

The same can be said of women; a women who dresses more masculinely and is aggressive in business can be considered a bitch, while a man who does the same thing isn't knocked at all.

I don´t know at work but a friend of mine is not feminine at all, dresses like a man and she is not discriminated at all but if i were to appear dressed with a skirt i would surely be made mock of. I think that´s what he was trying to state.

I'm willing to agree that this is unfair, but you have to recognize that divorce is an unfair process. Splitting the kids 50/50? You can't do that; that isn't fair to the kids. I struggled with alternating from week to weekend; doing it every day would have ripped me apart at that time, and I would have hated my parents for it. It has to be an unfair process, because everyone suffers in divorce. You can't make it easier for yourself by putting it on your kids, that just not fair.

But why not give custody to the father. I agree that you can´t split half the time half the time since kids need to go to school and some times parents life far away but on a divorce case, most of the time the children live with their mother and spendeng weekends (sometimes every other weekend) with their father and that doesn´t seem fair. We can´t ahve judges saying "Oh a divorce case, well we split the custody 50-50 but the mother has them 5 days a week and the father 2 and the mother gets the house, car, tv, half of the furniture + half of the money. I don´t know how diverce cases go in the USA but in argentina i am really familiar with at least 20 cases (all of them fathers of friends) and they all go this way not 1 of them breaks the mold. Why can´t fathers keep the kids all weekdays, have the house, the car and the furniture and the mother is forced to go find and pay for another place to live and see her kids only 2 days a week or 2 days every other week.

Rape is one of the most scarring things anyone can go through. Friends of mine who have been raped have never been the same. We have to believe them, because not believing them and not pursuing what they say is so the wrong thing to do. I agree that there are people who take advantage of that; but those people are despicable, and thankfully there are few of them.

Ok same thing as saying that we should believe a man/woman who claims somebody tried to kill them even if there were no clues. If a woman was raped there is medical proof, if there isn´t then we shouldn´t believe her and that´s what trials are for.

 

[Objection]

Again, there's this thing. Called the morning after pill. And you can ask beforehand if she'll take it if the condom breaks.

And she can lie, with malice intent or otherwise.

Or she can forget to take it.

Which brings me to my earlier question (though it seems I have to add a bit): Is it right that a man should be forced to pay for a child when he himself took appropriate measures to ensure that the child was not conceived but the woman did not take appropriate measures to ensure that the child was not born?

 

[The Plant]

They compiled that data taking into account all factors that would affect wages. Women working the same job in the same position as men don't see equal pay. The higher up you go, the more prevalent this is; the difference in executives pay is huge. By the way, its not just once source that compiles data; there are so many different sources, almost all of them will say that women earn less than men. Citing one article that says they don't doesn't go anywhere to proving your statement..

You make good points. But this is a rather vague statement. Who is they? How could they possibly take all that stuff accurately into account. Its possible my essential point is still wrong but (for the wage gap stat and only the wage gap stat) they didn't take anything into account. They took the average salaries of full time men and women and that is all. This is a silly way to do things.

 

[mtr]

Ok same thing as saying that we should believe a man/woman who claims somebody tried to kill them even if there were no clues. If a woman was raped there is medical proof, if there isn´t then we shouldn´t believe her and that´s what trials are for.

Err, its not quite that simple, especially in cases of acquaintance rape. I mean, if they find and identify the semen of a total stranger in the woman's vagina, then rape is obvious. But if the stranger used a condom, its harder. And if acquaintance rape or a rape at a party occurred, it is difficult to prove. The guy could simply state that it was consensual, and the burden of proof is, or should be on the prosecution.

 

[akuchi]

I don´t know at work but a friend of mine is not feminine at all, dresses like a man and she is not discriminated at all but if i were to appear dressed with a skirt i would surely be made mock of. I think that´s what he was trying to state.
I've already answered that point. idiot.
But why not give custody to the father. I agree that you can´t split half the time half the time since kids need to go to school and some times parents life far away but on a divorce case, most of the time the children live with their mother and spendeng weekends (sometimes every other weekend) with their father and that doesn´t seem fair. We can´t ahve judges saying "Oh a divorce case, well we split the custody 50-50 but the mother has them 5 days a week and the father 2 and the mother gets the house, car, tv, half of the furniture + half of the money. I don´t know how diverce cases go in the USA but in argentina i am really familiar with at least 20 cases (all of them fathers of friends) and they all go this way not 1 of them breaks the mold. Why can´t fathers keep the kids all weekdays, have the house, the car and the furniture and the mother is forced to go find and pay for another place to live and see her kids only 2 days a week or 2 days every other week.
you're not too bright, are you? mothers keep the children because mothers are EXPECTED to keep the children. it goes back to gender roles again.
also, read this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/why-divorce-makes-women-the-poorer-sex-1515463.html


Ok same thing as saying that we should believe a man/woman who claims somebody tried to kill them even if there were no clues. If a woman was raped there is medical proof, if there isn´t then we shouldn´t believe her and that´s what trials are for.
is there really? that is new to me!
1. condoms
2. other forms of rape - oral, rape with objects, rape by digital penetration
3. 'but she wanted it really'
4. rape kits go untested! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/why-divorce-makes-women-the-poorer-sex-1515463.html

I could go on.

do you really think all proper rapes are just OH MY GOD THIS SCARY MAN IN A BIG COAT AND CRAZY EYES SNATCHED ME OFF THE STREET AND BEAT ME UP A LOT AND THEN RAPED ME ALSO HE WAS PROBABLY BLACK AND HAD WEAPONARY AND THERE WAS SEMEN ALL OVER ME AND I'D NEVER HAD SEX BEFORE AND WAS DRESSED MODESTLY AND I SWEAR I HADN'T SEEN HIM BEFORE IN MY LIFE

do you not think husbands rape wives? boyfriends rape girlfriends? fathers rape their daughters, grandfathers rape their granddaughters? friends rape their friends? you scare me, you really do, I thought we were past this ridiculous rape-mythery by now.
http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/myths.html
read this, any problems I suggest you PM me.

EDIT: also stranger-rape is proving increasingly not-obvious, as they also claim that 'she wanted it really', and oh my lawd she was wearing a short skirt well obviously she's up for it case closed.

What about in the "condom breaks" scenario? I'm talking about it accidentally breaking, not it being deliberately broken prior to use. Is it right that a man should be forced to pay for a child when he himself took appropriate measures to ensure that the child was not conceived?

does this mean that every man who refuses to use a condom because his partner is on the pill (and the pill fails) should have sole custody of the child and to raise it totally alone and also an intervening nine months of severely restricted life-choices, medical pain, danger and bills (in the US), culminating with an extremely painful, dangerous one-to-thirty-hour torture of some description? no? oh. I see.

how fucking simple is this? if you fuck someone, you might well make a child.
I'll put this to you, too: abortion ain't easy. I'm not saying it scars a woman for life, many simply find it a relief; but it can. it can scar your body for life, too. so can a miscarriage! and there are always physical ramifications - hello, serious fatigue, hormones, and possible infections. but these are all fine things when you can just go SHIT CONDOM BROKE SRY and run?
you know it's possible for a woman to be refused the morning after pill because of a pharmacist's religious convictions, or simply be unable to afford it - or have it unavailable at the time (hello, that time I missed my Pill and it was a bank holiday weekend, how the devil are you?)

And she can lie, with malice intent or otherwise.

Or she can forget to take it.

Which brings me to my earlier question (though it seems I have to add a bit): Is it right that a man should be forced to pay for a child when he himself took appropriate measures to ensure that the child was not conceived but the woman did not take appropriate measures to ensure that the child was not born?

yes, those craaaaazy bitches running round just looking to STEAL YOUR HOLY SEED. DESPERATE FOR CHILDREN.
THEY PROBABLY OWN CATS AND LIVE ALONE AND OH GOD THEIR LIVES ARE SO EMPTY YOU GUYS BECAUSE THEY NEED A CHILD OR A MAN OR EVEN BETTER TO TRAP A MAN WITH A CHILD OR A CHILD WITH A MAN OR OH GOD SOMETHING JUST PLEASE I AM A WOMAN AND CANNOT COPE ON MY OWN PLEASE GOD SOMEONE GIVE ME SOMETHING TO LOVE
right?

 

[cantab]

I think the perception of women benefiting from divorces comes from a lot of high-profile celebrity divorces where the woman gets a big fat settlement. But that's really not representative of what happens to average people.

I would say a part of the issue, one that can never fully be eliminated, is that it's more expensive for two people to live separately than together.

Whoever gets primary custody of the children gets the big costs of that, which can't be fully mitigated by maintenance payments. Couple that with the fact that in couples where one person works, it's usually the man; thus if a divorce occurs, the woman is not likely to find as highly paid a job, and that women end up worse off after divorce is not really surprising. I would expect that in the rare case where the sole worker during the relationship was the woman, and the man receives primary custody of the children after the divorce, then the man will be worse off.

Men who rape do so to secure power and control.

That's a severe enough generalisation to be a myth itself, ironic on a webpage about debunking myths. Motivations for rape, as for any human activity whatsoever, are many and varied.

 

[akuchi]

small post to cantab: agreed up to a point, but I think it's mainly there to point out that rape, in general, is not really about sex; thus helping a lot of the other silly myths like 'oh he just couldnt control himself' or 'he didnt realise she didnt want to have sex with him because she was wearing lipstick after all'

 

[Luminary]

I think chaos posted the following link in a really old feminism thread. I'd like to echo his thoughts here: it's a great (and thorough) read for those who are really interested.
Men do get treated differently than women, and I think that some things we need to rethink as a culture. But I also agree with Hipmonlee that ultimately, people will pick you apart for any reason whatsoever. It's a problem when things are personal. But being concerned about the "boorish" portrayal of men on TV is nitpicking a bit. Entertainment can portray anything the way they want, because it's generally what will get the views. Not to mention that men generally get the "smart, untouchable, patriarchal" roles, too. Men and women are different and are portrayed differently. Deal with it.

 

[GOTO2435]

Originally posted by Fat akuchi
I don´t know at work but a friend of mine is not feminine at all, dresses like a man and she is not discriminated at all but if i were to appear dressed with a skirt i would surely be made mock of. I think that´s what he was trying to state.
I've already answered that point. idiot.
But why not give custody to the father. I agree that you can´t split half the time half the time since kids need to go to school and some times parents life far away but on a divorce case, most of the time the children live with their mother and spendeng weekends (sometimes every other weekend) with their father and that doesn´t seem fair. We can´t ahve judges saying "Oh a divorce case, well we split the custody 50-50 but the mother has them 5 days a week and the father 2 and the mother gets the house, car, tv, half of the furniture + half of the money. I don´t know how diverce cases go in the USA but in argentina i am really familiar with at least 20 cases (all of them fathers of friends) and they all go this way not 1 of them breaks the mold. Why can´t fathers keep the kids all weekdays, have the house, the car and the furniture and the mother is forced to go find and pay for another place to live and see her kids only 2 days a week or 2 days every other week.
you're not too bright, are you? mothers keep the children because mothers are EXPECTED to keep the children. it goes back to gender roles again.
also, read this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...x-1515463.html


Ok same thing as saying that we should believe a man/woman who claims somebody tried to kill them even if there were no clues. If a woman was raped there is medical proof, if there isn´t then we shouldn´t believe her and that´s what trials are for.
is there really? that is new to me!
1. condoms
2. other forms of rape - oral, rape with objects, rape by digital penetration
3. 'but she wanted it really'
4. rape kits go untested! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...x-1515463.html

I could go on.

do you really think all proper rapes are just OH MY GOD THIS SCARY MAN IN A BIG COAT AND CRAZY EYES SNATCHED ME OFF THE STREET AND BEAT ME UP A LOT AND THEN RAPED ME ALSO HE WAS PROBABLY BLACK AND HAD WEAPONARY AND THERE WAS SEMEN ALL OVER ME AND I'D NEVER HAD SEX BEFORE AND WAS DRESSED MODESTLY AND I SWEAR I HADN'T SEEN HIM BEFORE IN MY LIFE

do you not think husbands rape wives? boyfriends rape girlfriends? fathers rape their daughters, grandfathers rape their granddaughters? friends rape their friends? you scare me, you really do, I thought we were past this ridiculous rape-mythery by now.
http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/myths.html
read this, any problems I suggest you PM me.

EDIT: also stranger-rape is proving increasingly not-obvious, as they also claim that 'she wanted it really', and oh my lawd she was wearing a short skirt well obviously she's up for it case closed.

Ok firstly i treated you with respect, as i got it you didn´t understand what i said and i felt i should explained it further, i was being nice i wasn´t wuestioning your intelligence. Also i don´t neglect there being cases of grandfathers raping granddaughters, husbands raping wives, etc. i just said that there is physical evidence of rape if it wasn´t consentual, the woman screaming and there you have a possible witness. I just said that in no type of crime you should take an accusation for granted without proof IN A TRIAL (i also believe that if a woman tels me she´s been raped but she didn´t scream since lets say it was in a room in a school and there is no phisical evidence (there and scars left form the rape in the vagina of a woman that´s how you tell there has been a rape and that is a constant and every non consentual relationship, also sometimes there is bruises and otehr tyoes of scars that are left from a woman trying to defend herself) and no one heared the woman scream then there is no proof and i would be forces to believe that the woman is lying.
Also i hope you won´t personally offend me again since i have treated you with respect so far.

Edit: mothers don´t keep children bepcuse they are expected to but becouse they are granted the right by divorce courts. Keeping them is better than not having them since they are your children IMO.

 

[cantab]

Ok firstly i treated you with respect, as i got it you didn´t understand what i said and i felt i should explained it further, i was being nice i wasn´t wuestioning your intelligence. Also i don´t neglect there being cases of grandfathers raping granddaughters, husbands raping wives, etc. i just said that there is physical evidence of rape if it wasn´t consentual, the woman screaming and there you have a possible witness. I just said that in no type of crime you should take an accusation for granted without proof IN A TRIAL (i also believe that if a woman tels me she´s been raped but she didn´t scream since lets say it was in a room in a school and there is no phisical evidence (there and scars left form the rape in the vagina of a woman that´s how you tell there has been a rape and that is a constant and every non consentual relationship, also sometimes there is bruises and otehr tyoes of scars that are left from a woman trying to defend herself) and no one heared the woman scream then there is no proof and i would be forces to believe that the woman is lying.
Also i hope you won´t personally offend me again since i have treated you with respect so far.

As is mentioned, a rape can occur without any physical resistance by the victim (most commonly due either to fear or incapacitation by drugs). There's no biological way to distinguish that from consensual sex. There is also the factor that many rape victims do not report the crime until some time after the event. Thus, lack of biological signs of violent sex does not mean the victim is lying - though it also means the crime very likely cannot be proven.

 

[GOTO2435]

As is mentioned, a rape can occur without any physical resistance by the victim (most commonly due either to fear or incapacitation by drugs). There's no biological way to distinguish that from consensual sex. There is also the factor that many rape victims do not report the crime until some time after the event. Thus, lack of biological signs of violent sex does not mean the victim is lying - though it also means the crime very likely cannot be proven.

That´s why, following law, we should not believe the woman in those cases, i agree that some women might not react and that might lead to no signs of rape but we can´t just take a word and put people in jail

 

[MrIndigo]

They compiled that data taking into account all factors that would affect wages. Women working the same job in the same position as men don't see equal pay. The higher up you go, the more prevalent this is; the difference in executives pay is huge. By the way, its not just once source that compiles data; there are so many different sources, almost all of them will say that women earn less than men. Citing one article that says they don't doesn't go anywhere to proving your statement.

I've read recently in a few places that these stats are somewhat misleading; They take averages over differently sized sample-spaces and so forth, so while the average pay for a given role is smaller, it is not because a given woman is being paid less than a given man taking the exact same job in the exact same company; it's because most of the really high-paying executive roles are taken by men.

This in itself is a problem, but it's not the same as saying that a woman will be paid less for the same job as a man if they both apply for it. After all, for the most part salaries in corporate positions are determined prior to the job offer.

I'm willing to agree that this is unfair, but you have to recognize that divorce is an unfair process. Splitting the kids 50/50? You can't do that; that isn't fair to the kids. I struggled with alternating from week to weekend; doing it every day would have ripped me apart at that time, and I would have hated my parents for it. It has to be an unfair process, because everyone suffers in divorce. You can't make it easier for yourself by putting it on your kids, that just not fair.

It is an unfortunate occurrence in divorces that children/custody are used as a weapon, which impacts extremely badly on children, even when they're not young enough to realise that's what their role is.

The custody imbalance problem isn't fixed by saying 50% time each; the courts are obliged to act in the best interest of the child. The bias problem comes in because there was a prevaling psychological school of thought throughout the 1900s that a father was less important to the developmental psyche of a child than a mother was. Conventional psychology has revealed this to be completely untrue, and that both parental roles are required for proper stable development (note; parental roles are not the same as gender roles. A single father or single mother can provide BOTH roles, as can a homosexual couple etc.).

However, despite this psychological revision, the legal system (particularly in the USA) still has a huge presumption that the mother's custody is in the best interest of the child, and THAT is what needs to be destroyed; the erroneous bias in judgment of what is best for a child.

In some cases, that might be a 70%-30% split of custody time for mother:father. In others, it might be 100% to the father with monthly conditional/supervised visitations from the mother. It depends on the particular family and the particular nature of the divorce and the particular merits of each case individually.


In regards to rape trials; 99%+ of rape cases are not about proving intercourse; that kind of evidence is therefore irrelevant. They are about proving nonconsent. The push from most reform groups in my country is for a "Yes means yes" stance rather than a "No means no". This is, in fact, only bringing this crime into the same line as all other crimes.

For example, any form of physical contact (i.e. battery, assault) is presumed to be nonconsensual, and the Defendant can then raise the "defense of consent" if they meet a particular evidentiary burden.

An evidentiary burden is like the burden of truth in a civil trial, but for one particular matter. You have to raise evidence that, prima facie/balance of probabilities, you should be allowed to use the defense. Once the evidentiary burden is met by the Defendant, the defense is on the table and the Prosecution then have to prove the defense doesn't apply with the standard "Beyond reasonable doubt" criminal burden of truth.

In this way, believing the alleged rape victim initially is NOT inconsistent with "Innocent before proven guilty". In fact, the inconsistency is the fact that currently, rape does not follow this same pattern.

For example, in the trial for the murder of 'V', the defendant "D" might want to claim self-defense. We'll assume that the actus reus (guilty act, i.e. D's action actually killed V) and mens rea (guilty mind, i.e. D's intent to kill V or reckless indifference as to whether his act would kill 'V') have both been proven.

D would have to raise evidence that suggested (to some particular degree of likelihood) he was fearing for his life and that he felt his action was the only reasonable way to maintain his safety. If he produced enough evidence to suggest that, D would be innocent until the Prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that D's evidence is false or that he was not in fear of his life, or that he did not think at the time that it was his only reasonable chance of survival.

 

[Objection]

does this mean that every man who refuses to use a condom because his partner is on the pill (and the pill fails) should have sole custody of the child and to raise it totally alone and also an intervening nine months of severely restricted life-choices, medical pain, danger and bills (in the US), culminating with an extremely painful, dangerous one-to-thirty-hour torture of some description?

Actually, yes. In that instance, the man did not take appropriate measures whereas the girl did. In my opinion, it is only when both of them or neither of them took appropriate measures that there should be any debate whatsoever. If you want to have sex but you don't want to make a child, YOU use contraception and should not rely solely on your partner to use it. In the above example, it appears to me that the girl displayed evidence of not wanting a child, whereas the man didn't, so let me ask you:

• Is it right that a girl should be forced to raise a child when she took appropriate measures to ensure that it was not born?
• Is it right that a guy should be forced to raise a child when he took appropriate measures to ensure that it was not conceived?

I put it to you that the answers to the above questions must be the same because different answers would logically contradict.

how fucking simple is this? if you fuck someone, you might well make a child.

lol it's a good thing I don't want to fuck anyone then! Yes, there will always be a risk, but what I am saying matters is who is willing to reduce that risk.

I'll put this to you, too: abortion ain't easy. I'm not saying it scars a woman for life, many simply find it a relief; but it can. it can scar your body for life, too. so can a miscarriage! and there are always physical ramifications - hello, serious fatigue, hormones, and possible infections. but these are all fine things when you can just go SHIT CONDOM BROKE SRY and run?

If she didn't want the child, then logically, abortion or miscarriage should be desirable. If it is not desirable, then this suggests that she actually wants the child, which in turn means it is right that she should have responsibility.

you know it's possible for a woman to be refused the morning after pill because of a pharmacist's religious convictions, or simply be unable to afford it - or have it unavailable at the time (hello, that time I missed my Pill and it was a bank holiday weekend, how the devil are you?)

The first and third reasons would not stop the girl from going and getting an abortion. The second one would, but if she can't afford it, then either she has a really low-paying job and only just has sufficient budget for basic stuff like food, shelter and transport (assuming she does not walk to work), or she's been squandering her money on random useless crap like the 500th new pair of shoes.

yes, those craaaaazy bitches running round just looking to STEAL YOUR HOLY SEED. DESPERATE FOR CHILDREN.
THEY PROBABLY OWN CATS AND LIVE ALONE AND OH GOD THEIR LIVES ARE SO EMPTY YOU GUYS BECAUSE THEY NEED A CHILD OR A MAN OR EVEN BETTER TO TRAP A MAN WITH A CHILD OR A CHILD WITH A MAN OR OH GOD SOMETHING JUST PLEASE I AM A WOMAN AND CANNOT COPE ON MY OWN PLEASE GOD SOMEONE GIVE ME SOMETHING TO LOVE
right?

You'd trust anyone you meet wouldn't you. I mean, seriously, deep down, do you not question any actions that people take that cannot be justified by logic alone?

 

[cantab]

That´s why, following law, we should not believe the woman in those cases, i agree that some women might not react and that might lead to no signs of rape but we can´t just take a word and put people in jail

You can believe someone, but lack proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' what they say is true.

If she didn't want the child, then logically, abortion or miscarriage should be desirable. If it is not desirable, then this suggests that she actually wants the child, which in turn means it is right that she should have responsibility.

Totally untrue. Views on abortion range widely, including the common view that abortion is murder. It is thus entirely reasonable for a woman to not want a child, yet not desire an abortion either.

In general, you're being too logical. Human activity is not governed by logic.

 

[Objection]

Totally untrue. Views on abortion range widely, including the common view that abortion is murder. It is thus entirely reasonable for a woman to not want a child, yet not desire an abortion either.

I fear I was a bit unclear. Yes, it is entirely reasonable for a woman to not want a child and not desire an abortion provided that they are willing to use contraception.

In general, you're being too logical. Human activity is not governed by logic.

If that is true, then there is no way whatsoever of knowing whether or not an action is right.

 

[cantab]

If that is true, then there is no way whatsoever of knowing whether or not an action is right.

Logic alone cannot determine anything, since you can only deduce things from your premises. When it comes to the real world, the correctness of the premises is not axiomatic. (By way of eaxmple, you can logically deduce lots of things from Newton's Laws of motion - but you have to find those 'laws', those starting premises, by experiment.)

What you said above assumes that the only "way whatsoever of knowing whether or not an action is right" is logic. That premise may or may not be true - it is certainly not obvious. Morality is a complex issue, and 'moral dilemmas' often show it to not seem logically consistent. Unsurprisingly, since the situations are usually too contrived, and the allowed actions too restricted, to ever be likely to occur in the real world. We have scientific theories that predict nonsense results in certain situations - so we just know not to apply the theory in such situations.)
I believe morality comes primarily from an innate instinct, with strong societal influences. Logically, much can be deduced from the single idea "do unto others what you would have them do unto you" - but there is much that cannot be found either by instincts or from that idea.

 

[Altmer]

what you're basically saying is that Hume's skepticism doesn't allow you to reason with induction

i.e. the fact that the sun rose yesterday or this morning doesn't mean it will tomorrow

 

[metalrush]

The inequalities in the treatment of women and men are largely influenced by the patriarchial nature of history. It's kind of ironic that a man is complaining how he's getting inequal treatment compared to women. I don't mean to insult or offend, I'm just saying. If I do, I'm sorry. It's a slow process, but I think that eventually, men and women will be treated equally and the same, it just takes time.

 

[GOTO2435]

The inequalities in the treatment of women and men are largely influenced by the patriarchial nature of history. It's kind of ironic that a man is complaining how he's getting inequal treatment compared to women. I don't mean to insult or offend, I'm just saying. If I do, I'm sorry. It's a slow process, but I think that eventually, men and women will be treated equally and the same, it just takes time.

Well if you read all of the comments maybe you would change your mind (i don´t know if you did) but men are discriminated in some aspects, so are women but men are too.
BW:I am not saying you offended anyone i am just saying that saying no offense doesn´t make the comment less offensive

 

[cantab]

what you're basically saying is that Hume's skepticism doesn't allow you to reason with induction

i.e. the fact that the sun rose yesterday or this morning doesn't mean it will tomorrow

No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that logical reasoning starts from PREMISES. It's often not obvious or certain what those premises should be.

The inequalities in the treatment of women and men are largely influenced by the patriarchial nature of history.

Have you read the longish essay linked to somewhere in this topic? It argues rather different things.

 

[Deck Knight]

I am not going to interact with you on any serious level until you drop your act, that is that all you actually have in you is a bunch of bluster and ad hominem character attacks. My ideas are legitimate and have nothing to do with parroting others. I know you want to present the idea that I attended some liberal university where the teachers teach their "radical, anti-man notions" or whatever farcical bullshit you are trying to evoke an image of. That is what people like you rely on for your entire argumentation style, either blatantly or subtly throwing in misinformation/deceit to malign people rather than focus on the actual issue. Your kind are a disease that helps poison politics and information dissemination at every level. I understand that you cannot find it in yourself to grow up nor leave all of us alone, but at least leave me alone; there is no point trying to lay siege to me with your farcical nonsense other than to soothe yourself. No human who says the words "ivory tower" seriously in an attack, let alone a frivolous ad hominem character attack on an individual, can be taken seriously by any other human smart enough to recognize what just happened.

(It is okay Hipmonlee, I forgive you, just do better next time).

For people who may accurately point out that I attack people, I do so in a ludicrous manner on places like firebot, sometimes funnily, sometimes unfunnily, but not any shit like this. Ad hominem attacks meant to foster misinformation and hush up people actually addressing an issue is a completely different type of attack and has no place in a good discussion.

It's rather silly how you can take two sentences regarding the general source of your sentiments (if not your source specifically) and take it as an attack against your person. Gender theory is the source of most, if not all arguments relating to any aspect of male culture as inherently sexist. Now perhaps you are arguing you did not pay for this gross mis-education, but the indictment of that source remains. There is absolutely nothing legitimate about claiming something is sexist. "Sexist" is a political attack word just like "ivory tower," except it always applies to individuals rather than institutions. Same as racist, same as homophobic, same as "anti-science," the last of which seems to be popular around here. People have no problem levying these assaults against me and then backpedaling, so why should I avoid what is clearly part of Cong's culture, bearing in mind that I still attack sources (government, academia, media) rather than people [save forefront public figures like Al Gore when relevant, of course]. Disastrous notions do not get drilled into the public consciousness for no reason. There are very, very few things, especially on any matter of importance, that are merely coincidence. If I were to post up the planks of The Communist Party USA it would likely be dismissed as "fearmongering" because of its radical content. Nevermind a significant number of people in high political places are trying to implement it.

The existence of a position does not ensure its legitimacy, and global warming threads are proof enough that if proposing that notion is an ad hominem, it is actively applied in many topics. Perhaps I should post a disclaimer whenever I'm about to talk about the source of any particular ill by stating it in no way applies specifically to whoever's post I'm answering. I like to be comprehensive, answering each argument in turn and then pointing a beacon at the general source. I cannot possibly know anyone's specific source, that would require omniscience.

Politics is not poisoned by pointing out most theories inconsistent with reality arise from people paid to come up with theories they never have to test. I recently mused that the only reason Keynesian economics still exist as a legitimate theory is because so few Keynesian economists left the university where they teach the theory. Politics can only be poisoned when one side is silenced through the force of law. Everything else is fair game. I might as well be shouting "Buyer Beware!"

As for information dissemination, people can commit outright fraud and then still continue about like their pet political consensus is as untouched as before the discovery of the man behind the curtain. It is most ironic that what essentially boils down to "don't trust authority" can be so controversial. I am not a believer in the credentialed society. Just because some scientist, professor, businessman, or government official tells me about something relevant to their field does not lead me to accept it. It doesn't matter whether it is one such person or thousands of such people, I do not believe you need to be an accountant to examine a hypothetical correspondence between accountants engaging in blatant attempts to cook Enron's books, for example. You don't need to be a lawyer to speak to someone's violation of an obvious law.

The real farce is seeing a thousand infidelities to the public trust daily over centuries, even the previous century, and then engaging in an often unconscious chronocentrism where only your time is free from the kind of mass movement deceptions chronicled throughout the rest of history. There is nothing farcical about connecting the dots. The only thing boring about human history is that its themes rarely change, no matter how many times its actors do.

So I apologize if you were offended, I probably could have excluded the last sentence and substituted another one that would try and bring the local-global concept into focus better. But it is difficult for me not to be angered by this kind of thing. I know these people. I have met these people, or at least the people heavily prone to becoming those kinds of people. Starry-eyed ideologues ready to believe that their stated political adversaries act only out of a backwards hatred to women, gays, science, etc. That is, they are motivated by theories that suggest an inherent evil in the opposition, and therefore an inherent moral obligation and superiority in support. If you want confirmation of this idea, I believe ChristovaOnIce provided a quaint list of Republican "boogey-men" in a previous topic. It went something like Mexicans, single mothers, government, and some other thing, of which government was the only one that might be legitimately claimed given it was the only institution. Incidentally if you want me to go on a tirade about how stupid and fallen the Republican party has become, just post a topic about it lol.

The only thing that will stop these foolish ideas is a public awareness of their source and what they do, which goes back to the radical theories they come up with and then try to push into implementation through the back door of government, media, and academia. Glenn Beck does this on his show daily, and all Media Matters For America can do is say "nuh-uh! Beck is just anti-"insert classification here." This process used to be called muckraking. Now it's called dirty politics. And people wonder why I'm cynical.

So to summarize: I apologize for offending you CaptKirby. I simply hate not connecting the dots from local misconceptions to their global sources (global in this context meaning the largest relevant institution). My penchant for being punchy got in the way of that. I was trying to offer tongue-in-cheek advice. As it applies to this topic, Gender theory is the source for most sentiments that all previous society has been an oppressive patriarchy designed by men and for men for the express purpose of keeping women "in their place." This theory promotes notions to such extents that several books have been written on the subject on whether men are even fit to exist, some which are attempting to be playful and others which are deadly serious [I'll believe gendercide advocacy is a literary device when I believe eugenics advocacy as proposed by Margaret Sanger is].

 

[cantab]

Politics is not poisoned by pointing out most theories inconsistent with reality arise from people paid to come up with theories they never have to test.

In the definition of the word 'theory' used by scientists, a theory must be an idea consistent with at least some aspects of reality. "Theories inconsistent with reality" do not exist, nor do untested theories, in both cases because the definition of theory requires that it has been tested has found valid.
Of course I presume you meant the broad definition of the term, what scientists call a hypothesis. The usage of the term 'theory' to describe untested ideas annoys me somewhat, because it leads to the critical "just a theory" usage used by those who attack scientific theories for non-scientific reasons.

I recently mused that the only reason Keynesian economics still exist as a legitimate theory is because so few Keynesian economists left the university where they teach the theory.

In what way does it matter that Keynesian economists are primarily university-based? Most research and study in most fields is conducted in universities.

It is most ironic that what essentially boils down to "don't trust authority" can be so controversial. I am not a believer in the credentialed society. Just because some scientist, professor, businessman, or government official tells me about something relevant to their field does not lead me to accept it.

The problem is that if you don't trust authority and experts, who do you trust. You can't fully investigate everything yourself. It's not practical to trust no-one. (You trust the food shop to not sell you rocks instead of potatoes. You trust the cross traffic to stop when it's their red light. You trust this website to actually show your posts to the other users. Etc etc.)

It doesn't matter whether it is one such person or thousands of such people.

It does, because unless you believe conspiracy theories, if many independent people claim something they're probably right. (Yes, I know there are a few big howlers, like the Earth being flat, or the criticism of continental drift. But reporting bias means we hear about the upheavals where the received wisdom was overturned. "Newton's Laws still work for designing jet engines" doesn't make the news.)

I do not believe you need to be an accountant to examine a hypothetical correspondence between accountants engaging in blatant attempts to cook Enron's books, for example. You don't need to be a lawyer to speak to someone's violation of an obvious law.

True. But on the other hand, if you're not a lawyer, you might not realise there is a loophole. If you're not an accountant, you might not know a certain practice is actually permitted.

 

[Deck Knight]

In the definition of the word 'theory' used by scientists, a theory must be an idea consistent with at least some aspects of reality. "Theories inconsistent with reality" do not exist, nor do untested theories, in both cases because the definition of theory requires that it has been tested has found valid.
Of course I presume you meant the broad definition of the term, what scientists call a hypothesis. The usage of the term 'theory' to describe untested ideas annoys me somewhat, because it leads to the critical "just a theory" usage used by those who attack scientific theories for non-scientific reasons.

Generally things based in politics prefer to use the stronger word "theory" because "Gender hypothesis" sells fewer books, for example. Most people aren't scientists so most people with an academic hypothesis start out with theory because essentially they believe their explanation for something is right. I'm approaching this from an entirely cynical, realist approach.

In what way does it matter that Keynesian economists are primarily university-based? Most research and study in most fields is conducted in universities.

Correct, but I believe that only things which can earn a fairly large number of people independent of government subsidy a living are worthy of entertaining as a reflection of reality. Universities do not pay people to produce anything other than research and lectures. In political arenas specifically, anything novel can be tossed into the air and provided it can get funding, it will remain in place forever. The point of political science is after all to debate worldviews, you can't really "prove" anything one way or the other, save make a better arguments for your particular view of how history, human nature, and human action work together.

The problem is that if you don't trust authority and experts, who do you trust. You can't fully investigate everything yourself. It's not practical to trust no-one. (You trust the food shop to not sell you rocks instead of potatoes. You trust the cross traffic to stop when it's their red light. You trust this website to actually show your posts to the other users. Etc etc.)

I don't automatically trust authority. There is a difference between authorities who have control over me and authorities that do not. The supermarket faces legal action if they poison me for example. The traffic cop is being paid to do shitty work all day to prevent accidents. These kinds of authority are either checked or entirely benevolent. What I don't trust is anything that has power over me without direct accountability to me. An example would be the various czars that are appointed without Senate confirmation, especially those with here-to-for unconstitutional powers, like setting the pay rate for corporate CEOs that took bailouts. Setting a limit on the pay of an executive sets a ceiling on competence as well, as high-talent people work for the money they think they deserve. That and blatant unconstitutionality in this example. I shudder to think what else the Commerce Clause allows the government to do if that was their justification.

I also do not trust authorities that promote things counterintuitive to common sense. We recently had a primary election in Massachusetts, and one of the candidates, Steve Pagliuca(D) was a business partner of Mitt Romney (and partial owner of the Boston Celtics). He had run ads saying that he would raise the capital gains tax to spur the economy. As a Business major, I know that everything in his political ad was not only complete bullshit, but that as a rich man with undoubtedly a large investment portfolio, he knew he was lying. He was slaughtered at the polls incidentally, and I was going to vote Republican in the general anyway, but it irks me when such people demand I give them authority over the governance of my country.

I do however trust reasonable skeptics. Skeptics have no power over me and have nothing to gain from bucking the official explanation for something. At worst they cause trouble for the "approved" people. I've never much cared for popular approval. I don't care what the cost to me is provided I am doing what I think is right. And I don't automatically respect the "approved" people just because of their popular approval. That is asskissing, which I despise. America was founded on telling absolute authority to fuck off. I bow to no king and no anointed one, I am their equal.

It does, because unless you believe conspiracy theories, if many independent people claim something they're probably right. (Yes, I know there are a few big howlers, like the Earth being flat, or the criticism of continental drift. But reporting bias means we hear about the upheavals where the received wisdom was overturned. "Newton's Laws still work for designing jet engines" doesn't make the news.)

I believe in no conspiracy theories that cannot be substantiated by evidence or common sense, or are largely irrelevant anyway. I for instance have no reason to believe Obama is either not a US citizen, nor a secret Muslim. Those are unsubstantiated and defy common sense, no matter how much I dislike Obama's policies. What is true is that he attended a radical Black Liberation Theology Church that declares itself a Christian denomination. Which by all accounts makes Obama a self-described Christian, even if his Christianity and mine are um, differently informed. Now it is true Obama moved around a lot shortly after his birth, but even if, somehow, he wasn't a US citizen it wouldn't matter. He won the presidency and no one is going to be the senator who impeached the first black president. Aliens? UFOs? Don't care, I have earth problems to deal with.

Generally I will assume without difficulty that any scheme by an authority to gain more power through means that do not require and in fact override my ability to voice my opinion of them as inherently malicious. Doubly so if it redounds to their financial enrichment at the expense of my liberty. Triply if they cannot even explain how their policy goal addresses their stated grievance. If they insult me for merely questioning their aims, forget it. Those bastards are malevolent and must be exposed and driven out of the halls of power. I give the benefit of the doubt to people who deserve it. Ignorance can be feigned, malice rarely is, and while incompetence goes a long way to explaining a lot of things, sufficient incompetence and malice have the same results.

True. But on the other hand, if you're not a lawyer, you might not realise there is a loophole. If you're not an accountant, you might not know a certain practice is actually permitted.

This applies in say the case of a murder you personally witnessed. Lawyer's still have to call him the "alleged" killer even if he's got DNA, a coffee stain from Dunkin Donuts coffee purchased only an hour before the murder, and a personalized label with his name on it on the murder weapon. And of course, you saw him do it.

I'm not going to assume to know what he's talking about if he says Part 501(d) of the Criminal Code, but that kind of jargon isn't the sort of thing you can intuitively understand. If you work for a professional organization and your boss tells you delete your emails and those of a colleague, that's a red flag because the deletion of emails pursuant to legitimate operational business (and heck, even personal emails you aren't supposed to be writing with the company's property) are not supposed to be deleted under almost every company policy. The fact they are also generally archived in a meta-server anyway and exist on the other end also make deleting them stupid. If you only have limited space on your email server for some reason, your boss will probably ask you to archive them, which removes them from your queue without removing the content in the company's system memory. Such a set-up probably has the actual archival server off-site.

Requests to delete data in general is a non-starter because companies like to keep an electronic "paper trail" on all correspondence in case they need to procure them for legal purposes. So if I saw correspondence like that in a system, I wouldn't need to be employed in their profession to know that malfeasance was afoot. There is no difference between how a scientist, an accountant, a businessman, and a regular person interpret "delete these emails," even if they don't know what say "in regards to AR4." means immediately.

So yeah, if I see a bunch of suspect emails leaked and they include passages that suggest known violations of federal laws and contain requests to delete or alter data... yeah, I'm not waiting for the "official" explanation on that one. That's like believing Ken Starr when he said Enron simply made an accounting error, or Bernie Madoff when he said he didn't mean to embezzle everyone, or Bill Clinton when he said he did not have sexual relations with that woman.

I certainly don't think I know everything, in fact I will happily admit when I have screwed up or gone overboard or whatever. But I do know when someone is lying to me, and when not to trust somebody or some agency. I give the benefit of the doubt to ordinary people, I reserve a deep skepticism for the powerful.

 

[yond]

I agree with your points, but i think it has to do with the fact the women are more emotionally affected by things and have a harder time defending for themselves.

To put it in other words women look for me to take care of them and protect them. its been like this for hundreds of years in society.
this mindset brings us to believe men have more responsiblities out in the real world.

(i.e men in familes have jobs, majority run pf governments are run by men, etc)

Women also are more emotionally affected by little things whereas it seems men are more stolid in affairs when needed be.


because of this things like split custody is unfair for men simply, because it has been the commen thing for the man of a family to take on the real world while women take care of the children and the home. Many courts believe that women will provide children with a better home enviorment compared to men because of things like this. which can be a mistake.

Women in the working world receive more attention, becaue they have va.... they are less common. Women have different ways of getting things done and can be more persuasive and effective in certain areas.