Discrimination against Men

[Objection]

uh. I think we said that already - man and woman alone together, man rapes woman, woman says 'I was raped', man says 'it was consensual' - how is that provable in a court of law generally?

Now here we have an issue: if neither side's statement can be proven correct, then what happens?

blah blah logic you actually don't understand it at all

Do you mean I don't understand logic or I don't understand sarcasm? Am I going to have to prompt you to say what you mean every single time you answer one of my posts?

LOGICALLY la la la did I say that? no. I quite like some stupid people. Sometimes they are my friends, and that means I trust them to a degree - to be alone with a man, I have to trust him implicitly for reasons like the above scenario! this does not mean he is a member of MENSA. I said I wouldn't trust a stupid person to make decisions that affect every aspect of my life. Thanks.

The fact that there have been stupid people in positions of authority before and the fact that you get people who basically use others as means to ends such as rapists, all suggests that you can't really trust anybody, regardless of whether they are stupid or smart.

Also, up to this point, you have been rather wrongly assuming that I am naturally adept at communicating.

 

[akuchi]

except he's not being reasonable. he's trying to ascertain an objective standard (lol pun) by which human actions can be planned, judged and executed. but it doesn't work like that, people are not robots.

as to the last post, I see nothing particularly offensive in saying 'men are more assertive on the whole than women' or 'women make more conservative investments than men'. it's quite probably true, for reasons of socialisation I discussed earlier!
smarter, though, I won't have that.

 

[akuchi]

Now here we have an issue: if neither side's statement can be proven correct, then what happens?
believe the woman, support her, give her everything she needs to live with the attack. don't convict the man.


Do you mean I don't understand logic or I don't understand sarcasm? Am I going to have to prompt you to say what you mean every single time you answer one of my posts?
both


The fact that there have been stupid people in positions of authority before and the fact that you get people who basically use others as means to ends such as rapists, all suggests that you can't really trust anybody, regardless of whether they are stupid or smart.
I trust the people in my life that I deem trustworthy! I trust rather too easily, as it happens! but that is okay, because my friends are good :3
Also, up to this point, you have been rather wrongly assuming that I am naturally adept at communicating.
oh no, I haven't.

in the usa, if a woman is naked and stands in front of the window, and a man looks inside the man can get arrested. if a man is naked and a woman looks inside the man gets arrested too lol

also I am pretty sure this is a lie. if a man is quite obviously showing off his nudity in order to get other people to see it, that is counted as some sort of sexual harassment (quite rightly too) and so it is wrong and illegal and yes, you can get arrested. similarly if you're a woman doing it you can get arrested!
if, however, a woman is changing, or naked in her own home and people go out of their way to spy on her then that is also illegal AND QUITE FUCKING RIGHTLY SO. your post, whilst amusing in it's inanity at first, is actually quite awful and disingenuous to all those women (and men) who have had people purposefully invade their privacy in this manner.

 

[GOTO2435]

Hmm Akuchi how can you say that you should believe the woman but don´t convict the man. If there is no proof the man is guilty (not guilty unless proved wrong) and people shouldn´t believe the woman by default, support her yes but why would, say the judge believe her. I mean suppose she is lying, then you are categoriizing a mn as a rapist even though he is set free. I know that women lie very few times on this cases and that most of them are true but without evidence the correct thing to do would be not believe the woman but support her anyways and set the man free.
On the naked person on the window scenario, the man would probably go to jail for staring and also for standing there. Probably becouse men (myself included) like to see naked women and would probably not go file a police report becosue a women saw us naked/ a woman was showing herself (my opinion). I am nor sexist i just think that it what would happen. Also i too think this discussion has become repetitive, i think we should make a list of points in favour and points against and continue from there. BTW this discussion, as i said earlier is about MEN BEING DISCRIMINATED, not negating that women are discriminated, women ARE disriminated but so are men and this is what this post is here to prove. I think that with all the information that has been given we have proved that there is atype of discrimination that affects men, there are also several groups (i don´t remember their name right now) that were created that fight against this type of discrimination.

 

[akuchi]

Hmm Akuchi how can you say that you should believe the woman but don´t convict the man. If there is no proof the man is guilty (not guilty unless proved wrong) and people shouldn´t believe the woman by default, support her yes but why would, say the judge believe her. I mean suppose she is lying, then you are categoriizing a mn as a rapist even though he is set free. I know that women lie very few times on this cases and that most of them are true but without evidence the correct thing to do would be not believe the woman but support her anyways and set the man free.
On the naked person on the window scenario, the man would probably go to jail for staring and also for standing there. Probably becouse men (myself included) like to see naked women and would probably not go file a police report becosue a women saw us naked/ a woman was showing herself (my opinion). I am nor sexist i just think that it what would happen. Also i too think this discussion has become repetitive, i think we should make a list of points in favour and points against and continue from there. BTW this discussion, as i said earlier is about MEN BEING DISCRIMINATED, not negating that women are discriminated, women ARE disriminated but so are men and this is what this post is here to prove. I think that with all the information that has been given we have proved that there is atype of discrimination that affects men, there are also several groups (i don´t remember their name right now) that were created that fight against this type of discrimination.

Yeah, Fathers 4 Justice is one of them. You know how many of them have convictions for beating up their girlfriends?
Your framing of sexual abuse is worrying at best. 'I like to see naked women' - um. yes. do these naked women particularly want you looking at them/ why is it any less abuse because it's a woman doing it to a man? Fair play, it's your worldview, but it's not particularly.. right. Women like to see naked men, too! Yet non-consensual sexual behaviour is bad, and should always be regognised as such regardless of the gender of the perpetrator/victim.
I should perhaps have made the distinction a little clearer;it's really difficult. By believing a woman, are you condeming a potentially innocent man? Sometimes, yes. That's maybe a personal choice - I tend to err on the side of the alleged victim (hey, someone has to). But belief has to be given, somewhere - by the police, certainly, by their friends, by relevant support services and healthcare providers. All those should give nothing but belief, unless there is a fucking excellent reason not to.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

I believe that akuchi means that you could help the victim without convicting the man. For a extreme example, look at the OJ Simpson trial, where most people believe that he was guilty, but there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, so he wasn't convicted.

And I don't believe that akuchi contests the point that both sexes have discrimination against them, nor that it does not justify discrimination against either sex. Women have been prosecuted for public indecency, just as men have.

Also, GOTO2435, spell check is your friend.

On a side note, what's everyone's opinions of the gender neutral pronouns?

I should perhaps have made the distinction a little clearer;it's really difficult. By believing a woman, are you condeming a potentially innocent man? Sometimes, yes. That's maybe a personal choice - I tend to err on the side of the alleged victim (hey, someone has to). But belief has to be given, somewhere - by the police, certainly, by their friends, by relevant support services and healthcare providers. All those should give nothing but belief, unless there is a fucking excellent reason not to.

Most people side with the alleged victim, that's a good reason why we need to make sure of guilt. And alleged victims should be given support, because even in the eventuality that they are lying, they must have some problem that causes them to do that. Proclaiming yourself to be a victim of a sexual crime isn't particularly fun, folks.

 

[cantab]

On a side note, what's everyone's opinions of the gender neutral pronouns?

I use singular they. It can be a bit difficult to use correct grammar with, but it's preferable to clumsy slashes, using a single gender, or horrible-sounding and not understood neologisms.

 

[cim]

I use singular they. It can be a bit difficult to use correct grammar with, but it's preferable to clumsy slashes, using a single gender, or horrible-sounding and not understood neologisms.

Anything other than singular they just sounds silly, honestly.

 

[MrIndigo]

As was also mentioned earlier, there are studies that show that it is indeed the case that there are women being paid less for the same role. Not to mention enough equal pay lawsuits. Personally I think the pay issue would reduce if men were granted equal parental leave. From the employers point of view, a woman is a risk to them - if she gets pregnant, they still have to pay her, AND have to find a temporary staff member to cover.

Those studies are mostly older, and the error is in interpretation. The studies generally take an averaged sample across a particular field/industry, and find the average salary for women is lower than the average salary for men.

However, this is not attributable to the companies refusing to pay the same amount for women; in fact, for most employers the contracts are standardised within the company meaning that there is no difference between what male employees and female employees get.

The difference in average salaries arises because there is a much greater population of men in the upper echelons of these companies; for various reasons (old boys' club, women leave to start families before they spend enough time there to get promoted all the way, etc.). This is a problem (i.e. women are not being given the same opportunities to reach the top, the so-called glass ceiling), but it is not the same as saying there is a systematic bias in wages against women; i.e. a given woman will not be paid less than a given man if they both compete for the same role; a given woman will have less chance of being promoted/hired than a given man for a particular role.

The note about parental leave is interesting, though; I would expect that salary is reduced to incorporate parental leave, however this would mean that the contract value of employment is the same, and so to say the women are being underpaid would be misleading; they're getting the same calculated value from their contract as men, it's just that their part of their base salary is converted into a different form.

@OJ Simpson: Actually, one of the defining aspects of the reasonable doubt in that case was because the defense attorney misrepresented the mathematics behind the statistics of wifebeating.

OJ had a history of violence against his wife, but the defense lawyer pointed out that only 5% of people who beat their wife go on to kill them (and therefore 95% of people who beat their wife do not kill them). This, however, is the wrong statistical analysis. While that statistic is true, what is also true that men who do not beat their wife are 0.001% likely to kill them. Consequently, a man who beats his wife is 5000 times more likely to kill her than if he didn't beat his wife.

However, this argument successfully prevented the jury from considering his past in making their determination of guilt.

So, in summary: Everyone should learn how Bayesian Reasoning works if they are going to be doing any considerations with statistics.

 

[ivar]

except he's not being reasonable. he's trying to ascertain an objective standard (lol pun) by which human actions can be planned, judged and executed. but it doesn't work like that, people are not robots.

as to the last post, I see nothing particularly offensive in saying 'men are more assertive on the whole than women' or 'women make more conservative investments than men'. it's quite probably true, for reasons of socialisation I discussed earlier!
smarter, though, I won't have that.

I just assumed it would be offensive (hey its arguably so to some). And I never said he was successful at being rational/reasonable/smart, only that he was trying.

I just can't agree with believe the woman anyways without sufficient evidence; it is contrary to the legal paradigm and basically shits on everything the law stands for: namely, that it is a legal precedent to put the onus on the prosecution. Even if most woman do not lie, it is still unacceptable. What if I say Tony stole my stereo despite me having zero evidence that he took it? Would he be convicted. No, and for good reason. I do not udnerstand why rape needs to be different. Yes, it is a serious issue and petty theft not so much, but we still apply said legal precedent to murder (onus on prosecution to provide sufficient evidence) and murder is quite desctrucitve.

 

[cantab]

As has been said before, you can believe someone without having any proof. The legal system, quite rightly, requires proof beyond all reasonable doubt. While it may seem harsh to tell a rape victim "we believe you, but we can't prove it, so your rapist will walk free", that is the attitude we must take.

 

[GOTO2435]

Yeah, Fathers 4 Justice is one of them. You know how many of them have convictions for beating up their girlfriends?
Your framing of sexual abuse is worrying at best. 'I like to see naked women' - um. yes. do these naked women particularly want you looking at them/ why is it any less abuse because it's a woman doing it to a man? Fair play, it's your worldview, but it's not particularly.. right. Women like to see naked men, too! Yet non-consensual sexual behaviour is bad, and should always be regognised as such regardless of the gender of the perpetrator/victim.
I should perhaps have made the distinction a little clearer;it's really difficult. By believing a woman, are you condeming a potentially innocent man? Sometimes, yes. That's maybe a personal choice - I tend to err on the side of the alleged victim (hey, someone has to). But belief has to be given, somewhere - by the police, certainly, by their friends, by relevant support services and healthcare providers. All those should give nothing but belief, unless there is a fucking excellent reason not to.

Hmm well i actually didn´t know many of the people in the fathers for justice have convictions for beating up on their girlfriends, me would love to read about that, would you be kind enough to give me a link :), still i don´t think that i particulary get you, the organization exists, there are other organisations and again i think that throughout this post we have proven that men are discriminated, are you saying otherwise couse i really can´t get your point here? I know that women like seeing naked men i just said that as i man i don´t know what a woman would do but i don´t think i or any other man would call 911 becouse they saw a naked woman showing herself from her window actually i think me, my friends, any other man would be quite pleased i stated that that was my particular opinion, i don´t know how a woman might react since i am not one and i never discuss naked men with my girl friends [sarcasm(as amazing as that sounds)end sarcasm lol]. I understand if in a case of a woman claiming she has been raped, you tend to believe the victim, that is a completely objective position and perhaps i didn´t make myself perfectly clear but i meant to say that in trial the woman whouldn´t be believed unless proved otherwise, her friends, family, etc. can have the opinion they want and should IMO believe her even if she had claimed raped before and it was proven that she lied, if a friend of mine were to claim she had been raped i would believe her but i wouldn´t be subjective in that case.
Also english is not my native language so i might have some tendencies to write one or two words or phrases wrong, also i wrote that post really rushed but i am really good at writing in english, actually i took and exam last year and came in first af all the country (at least the people who took it) :).

 

[Megan_Fox]

Funny Thread but i Wholeheartedly agree. Men really are discriminated