View Full Version : Male discrimination?
Hotel Sky in Copenhagen have a floor exclusively for women, men no admittance. There are 20 rooms on this floor, and the hotel contains 821 rooms.
The hotel has been taken to court by an anonymous man for discimination. His argument is that "it is an expression of a strongly provoking and demonizing attitude towards men, that they are shut out of the women's floor because some women feel unsafe around men."
The hotel owner, Arne Bang Mikkelsen, argues as follows:" I do not understand this at all. Are women's and men's toilets also disciriminating, and are women's races?"
Who is right?
http://politiken.dk/turengaartil/rejsenyt/ferieidanmark/ECE1583673/hotel-skal-forsvare-sin-kvindeetage-i-retten/
http://newstonight.net/content/bella-sky-hotel-continues-keep-floor-exclusively-women
Further to this: I see that there are hotels with women-only floors also in New York, Vancouver, Washington DC, London, Singapore and I think somewhere in Germany.
Punish_her
04-03-2012, 05:24 PM
I think there's a plethora of better examples of male discrimination out there. In this patyicular case, it is the usual "We assume the worst about men." There's no rational reason (of course women are far from rational) for the average woman to be afraid of the average man: the average man is not prone to violence or sexual assault.
I think there's a plethora of better examples of male discrimination out there.
What are you thinking of here?
In this patyicular case, it is the usual "We assume the worst about men." There's no rational reason (of course women are far from rational) for the average woman to be afraid of the average man: the average man is not prone to violence or sexual assault.
Yes, you can see it as demonizing men, can't you? Or you can see it as a special service for women with a bad past. However, right now it is just a trend for rich women, noone else can afford those hotels anyway.
Of course women are just as rational as testosterone plagued men ;-)
Thorne
04-04-2012, 06:23 AM
I don't see any discrimination here. All I see are hotel chains catering to their clients. How is this any different from having smoking and non-smoking rooms?
If enough men requested it I'm sure they would have a MEN only floor, too. I would suggest in the basement. Next to the laundry.
I think there's a plethora of better examples of male discrimination out there.
Apart from child custody cases in divorces where men usually hold all the shitty cards, at least around here, I can't think of too many of them right now. But I'm tired and should be going home, so maybe it's just me.
In this patyicular case, it is the usual "We assume the worst about men."
No, it is a very unusual but highly welcome "We want to make our female guests feel welcome and secure."
Because, you know, many of those female guests actually might HAVE experienced the worst.
There's no rational reason (of course women are far from rational) for the average woman to be afraid of the average man: the average man is not prone to violence or sexual assault.
True. But: It doesn't take a majority of men to molest or rape a woman. One is quite enough.
(of course women are far from rational)
The only point where I agree with you: We who think with our cunts are about as irrational as you who think with your dicks. Or something like that. Or some other crap. Who cares.
Also, I call discrimination because I can't go walk the streets around the clubs in Zurich's West Side on a Friday or Saturday night on my own. Well, of course I could, but it wouldn't be a pleasant experience and I'm almost 100 % sure that I'd be at least verbally molested. I wouldn't even have to wear a short skirt.
I want to be able to go everywhere and at all times. The fact that I can't because I have no dick is (you guessed as much): Discrimination!!!!
~Draegon~Faeire~
04-04-2012, 09:14 AM
What about a gentlemans club where women are not admitted. Is it not the very same thing ?
IAN 2411
04-05-2012, 11:46 AM
What about a gentlemans club where women are not admitted. Is it not the very same thing ?
Very touchy subject here in the UK...I believe there is a case going through the European courts about that very fact...conjured up by a woman stating ..yes, you guessed it. "Discrimination." The question is, why would a woman want to join a gentlemen only club, when most men would be repelled by the idea of joining a men only club themselves.
From the capers I have seem women doing in some of the hotels I have stayed in...I think it would be fair to them to have an hotel to themselves not just 20 rooms.
Be well IAN 2411
denuseri
04-05-2012, 03:44 PM
No, it is a very unusual but highly welcome "We want to make our female guests feel welcome and secure."
Because, you know, many of those female guests actually might HAVE experienced the worst.
One in every four women will experience violence directed against them solely due to the nature of their sex.
The only point where I agree with you: We who think with our cunts are about as irrational as you who think with your dicks.
Here Here! Applauds!
Also, I call discrimination because I can't go walk the streets around the clubs in Zurich's West Side on a Friday or Saturday night on my own. Well, of course I could, but it wouldn't be a pleasant experience and I'm almost 100 % sure that I'd be at least verbally molested. I wouldn't even have to wear a short skirt.
I want to be able to go everywhere and at all times. The fact that I can't because I have no dick is (you guessed as much): Discrimination!!!!
Its the same here in the States...which is why I have a license to carry...and do. Things like the stand your ground law can make a very big difference for women in surviving unscathed or not in a very real way if attacked outside the home.
Additionally:
An estimated 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by an intimate partner each year.
85% of domestic violence victims are women.
Historically, females have been most often victimized by someone they knew.
Females who are 20-24 years of age are at the greatest risk of nonfatal intimate partner violence.
Most cases of domestic violence are never reported to the police.
Almost one-third of female homicide victims that are reported in police records are killed by an intimate partner.
In 70-80% of intimate partner homicides, no matter which partner was killed, the man physically abused the woman before the murder.
Less than one-fifth of victims reporting an injury from intimate partner violence sought medical treatment following the injury.
Intimate partner violence results in more than 18.5 million mental health care visits each year.
One in 6 women have experienced an full on attempted or completed rape.
Nearly 7.8 million women have been raped by an intimate partner at some point in their lives.
Sexual assault or forced sex occurs in approximately 40-45% of battering relationships.
1 in 12 women have been stalked in their lifetime.
81% of women stalked by a current or former intimate partner are also physically assaulted by that partner; 31% are also sexually assaulted by that partner.
Approximately 20% of the 1.5 million people who experience intimate partner violence annually obtain civil protection orders.
Approximately one-half of the orders obtained by women against intimate partners who physically assaulted them were violated.
More than two-thirds of the restraining orders against intimate partners who raped or stalked the victim were violated.
Department of Justice statistics revealed that women who resisted their attackers with the use of a firearm were twice as likely to survive a violent encounter unscathed as those who followed proactive "passive defensive means" (IE blowing a whistle, screaming for help, running away etc) and 4 times as likely to survive unscathed as those resisting through other means (IE martial arts, pepper spray, tasers etc).
TrIcK
04-05-2012, 06:11 PM
Male discrimination in most cases is nothing compared to the discrimination towards women. The example you have given is actually very weak,
as there are plenty of places which are seen as acceptable to have a gender discrimination (notably in favour of men), and notice that the hotel
does not actually deny men custom, only restricts access to certain areas. Also just as additional titbit concerning the managers argument,
some of the night clubs in the city I live have unisex toilets because gender specific toilets are discriminatory to transsexual people.
Department of Justice statistics revealed that women who resisted their attackers with the use of a firearm were twice as likely to survive a violent encounter unscathed as those who followed proactive "passive defensive means" (IE blowing a whistle, screaming for help, running away etc) and 4 times as likely to survive unscathed as those resisting through other means (IE martial arts, pepper spray, tasers etc).
There is an ongoing discussion about this, whether having a weapon means you just give your attacker one - that is the prevailing logic here, I think. But there is also the problem that if you kill someone with a weapon, and your attacker has none, you have to prove self-defense beyond any doubt, or you are the one going down.(Again, here.) An attitude I can both agree with and not.
In DK you cannot carry as much as a pepper spray - reason being a) your attacker would take it away and use it against you (same argument) or b) it might harm his eyes, and we cannot have that, can we? ( I kid you not, that is the argument!!)
Conditions in UK - every day a man dies from domestic violence. An overlooked fact.
To get back to the hotel: from what you write, the primary risk is in the home, so one could argue that there is no reason for a floor for women only in a hotel. Or, that it is not to be safe, but to feel safe, which is of course also important.
I agree there aught to be a men-only floor as well to avoid the demonizing effect, but there does not seem to be a need. Yet, anyway.
Punish_her
04-07-2012, 12:09 AM
Apart from child custody cases in divorces where men usually hold all the shitty cards, at least around here, I can't think of too many of them right now. But I'm tired and should be going home, so maybe it's just me.
No, it is a very unusual but highly welcome "We want to make our female guests feel welcome and secure."
Because, you know, many of those female guests actually might HAVE experienced the worst.[QUOTE=lucy;965976]
Forced rape constitutes 6% of all violent crime. At the end of the day, when we're both walking down that dark street, I'm 3 times more likely than you to be the victim of a violent crime. Despite the fact that I'm clearly much more likeely to be attacked, no concessions are made to me.
True. But: It doesn't take a majority of men to molest or rape a woman. One is quite enough.
The only point where I agree with you: We who think with our cunts are about as irrational as you who think with your dicks. Or something like that. Or some other crap. Who cares.
Also, I call discrimination because I can't go walk the streets around the clubs in Zurich's West Side on a Friday or Saturday night on my own. Well, of course I could, but it wouldn't be a pleasant experience and I'm almost 100 % sure that I'd be at least verbally molested. I wouldn't even have to wear a short skirt.
I want to be able to go everywhere and at all times. The fact that I can't because I have no dick is (you guessed as much): Discrimination!!!!
Once again, having a dick would actually reduce your safety by about 300%. instead of looking up these facts and figures, which come from the DOJ, you immediately began throwing around a rape card. irrational
Punish_her
04-07-2012, 12:27 AM
bear with me here, i really haven't figured out how to use the quote feature
Its the same here in the States...which is why I have a license to carry...and do. Things like the stand your ground law can make a very big difference for women in surviving unscathed or not in a very real way if attacked outside the home.
Additionally:
An estimated 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by an intimate partner each year.
[QUOTE=denuseri;966034]85% of domestic violence victims are women.[QUOTE=denuseri;966034][
false, archer, 2000 showed that men and women strike each other at near equal rates
Historically, females have been most often victimized by someone they knew.
Females who are 20-24 years of age are at the greatest risk of nonfatal intimate partner violence.
[QUOTE=denuseri;966034][Most cases of domestic violence are never reported to the police.[QUOTE=denuseri;966034]
and reporting a fake one is a great way to get the upper hand in a divorce, just ask my uncle
Almost one-third of female homicide victims that are reported in police records are killed by an intimate partner.
[QUOTE=denuseri;966034]In 70-80% of intimate partner homicides, no matter which partner was killed, the man physically abused the woman before the murder.[QUOTE=denuseri;966034]
As Archer, 2000 has shown, men and women strike first at equal rates, women just don't leave a black eye
Less than one-fifth of victims reporting an injury from intimate partner violence sought medical treatment following the injury.
Intimate partner violence results in more than 18.5 million mental health care visits each year.
[QUOTE=denuseri;966034]
One in 6 women have experienced an full on attempted or completed rape..[QUOTE=denuseri;966034]
The DOJ has admitted that with new DNA testing, the incidence of false rape acusations may be as high as 1 in 4
Nearly 7.8 million women have been raped by an intimate partner at some point in their lives.
Sexual assault or forced sex occurs in approximately 40-45% of battering relationships.
1 in 12 women have been stalked in their lifetime.
81% of women stalked by a current or former intimate partner are also physically assaulted by that partner; 31% are also sexually assaulted by that partner.
Approximately 20% of the 1.5 million people who experience intimate partner violence annually obtain civil protection orders.
Approximately one-half of the orders obtained by women against intimate partners who physically assaulted them were violated.
More than two-thirds of the restraining orders against intimate partners who raped or stalked the victim were violated.
Department of Justice statistics revealed that women who resisted their attackers with the use of a firearm were twice as likely to survive a violent encounter unscathed as those who followed proactive "passive defensive means" (IE blowing a whistle, screaming for help, running away etc) and 4 times as likely to survive unscathed as those resisting through other means (IE martial arts, pepper spray, tasers etc).
Punish_her
04-07-2012, 12:32 AM
How's this for fucked up double standard,
On The Talk, a gaggle of female hosts joked and laughed about a man having his penis cut off by his bitter wife and thrown in the garbage disposal.
Rush Limbaugh loses advertisers for calling a girl a slut
Punish_her
04-07-2012, 12:46 AM
Male discrimination in most cases is nothing compared to the discrimination towards women. The example you have given is actually very weak,
as there are plenty of places which are seen as acceptable to have a gender discrimination (notably in favour of men), and notice that the hotel
does not actually deny men custom, only restricts access to certain areas. Also just as additional titbit concerning the managers argument,
some of the night clubs in the city I live have unisex toilets because gender specific toilets are discriminatory to transsexual people.
consider any perceived male privilege I have a surcharge for being the last demographic to leave the titanic and a logical way to hedge a bet in case me and my penis get drafted.
Being a male isn't some sacred privelege, it's a responsibility and it always has been.women were confined to the house for most of history because they sure as hell won't be chasing down a deer for dinner or mining coal for 16 hours a day. those brutal, shitty, but necessary jobs require ample volumes of testosterone
@denuseri:
I don't want to have to carry a fucking gun to feel fucking safe, for fuck's sake!
Besides: I'm glad we don't have "stand your ground" laws here, because I firmly believe that the government should have and should always retain the monopoly on violence. Everything else opens doors to anarchy, and we all know who loses first in anarchy. Might be different in the US, but around here I like to keep it that way.
Then: It has to be said, but when it comes to domestic violence, women are not much better than men. In Switzerland, 40 % of victims of domestic violence are male. Taking into account that it's much harder for a man to go to the police and report that he's being violated by his partner than it is for a women it might well be that half of the offenders are female.
@punish_her: If men go at each other because they drink too much and don't know what to do with their testosterone or just because they are gangsters, that's their problem and isn't really discrimination, because, you know, men can't discriminate other men because of their sex.
If they go at me coz I'm a woman, that's my fucking problem and an altogether different matter.
Also: I didn't say there is no discrimination. I just said that it's fully understandable that women might enjoy having a floor to themselves in a hotel.
And puleeeze, just for once, leave me alone with US statistics. The world doesn't end at the coast of New Jersey and I'm certainly not going to look up any statistics of a country that's 4000 miles away, especially if the original topic of this thread isn't the US.
'kay?
Punish_her
04-07-2012, 09:31 AM
@denuseri:
I don't want to have to carry a fucking gun to feel fucking safe, for fuck's sake!
Besides: I'm glad we don't have "stand your ground" laws here, because I firmly believe that the government should have and should always retain the monopoly on violence. Everything else opens doors to anarchy, and we all know who loses first in anarchy. Might be different in the US, but around here I like to keep it that way.
Then: It has to be said, but when it comes to domestic violence, women are not much better than men. In Switzerland, 40 % of victims of domestic violence are male. Taking into account that it's much harder for a man to go to the police and report that he's being violated by his partner than it is for a women it might well be that half of the offenders are female.
@punish_her: If men go at each other because they drink too much and don't know what to do with their testosterone or just because they are gangsters, that's their problem and isn't really discrimination, because, you know, men can't discriminate other men because of their sex.
If they go at me coz I'm a woman, that's my fucking problem and an altogether different matter.
Also: I didn't say there is no discrimination. I just said that it's fully understandable that women might enjoy having a floor to themselves in a hotel.
And puleeeze, just for once, leave me alone with US statistics. The world doesn't end at the coast of New Jersey and I'm certainly not going to look up any statistics of a country that's 4000 miles away, especially if the original topic of this thread isn't the US.
'kay?
BOOM point proven. when men get attacked it's because they were drunk, or they were too testosterone fueled or they must all be gang bangers, it's completely there fault. however, you should be allowed to do whatever you want and if you get attacked it's far worse than when I get attacked. [I] was at a bar last year, and I was attacked. Some guy thought I was trying to sleep with his girlfriend so he decided to take a pitcher and slam it into my face as hard as he could. Thankfully, it was plastic, so it just broke apart and left me with a huge bruise. If it had been glass, I'd be blind in one eye with a few dozen stitches. I suppose that's my fault right?
but no, when a woman walks home by herself at 2 am, that's not her negligence putting herself in danger at all.
that mindset is disgusting
Punish_her
04-07-2012, 09:35 AM
seriously, that's like saying emmitt till deserved what he got for talking to a white woman. that's ludicrous that men somhow bring our misfortunes upon ourself.
nobody deserves to get attacked
I'm sorry you've been attacked. I got beaten down and mugged, too. At 9 pm on the campus. I don't call that discrimination, coz it could have happened to anyone. It's a question of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
but no, when a woman walks home by herself at 2 am, that's not her negligence putting herself in danger at all.
Yes. Unfortunately, apparently a woman can't walk home alone at two am. Because some testosterone-laden fuckwads make exactly that impossible. It shouldn't be negligence if she does and gets into troubles. That is exactly what I was talking about in my first post.
that mindset is disgusting
Yes, you are so right here: The mindset that a woman being assaulted/raped/whatever because she dared to walk home on her own at two am (something most men wouldn't think twice about) is negligent is indeed fucking disgusting. Very, very disgusting.
TrIcK
04-07-2012, 05:53 PM
consider any perceived male privilege I have a surcharge for being the last demographic to leave the titanic and a logical way to hedge a bet in case me and my penis get drafted.
Being a male isn't some sacred privelege, it's a responsibility and it always has been.women were confined to the house for most of history because they sure as hell won't be chasing down a deer for dinner or mining coal for 16 hours a day. those brutal, shitty, but necessary jobs require ample volumes of testosterone
Last time I checked both of those examples given are enforced by other men not women.
Your claim that its a responsibility to be a man isn't true in today's society, there is no reason for a man not to be the one staying at home, while a woman goes out to work and provides income for the household. Your idea that a man is always responsible for the families income is in itself a sexist belief, women should have equal rights and in turn equal responsibility.
when a woman walks home by herself at 2 am, that's not her negligence putting herself in danger at all.
While I'll agree that it may be dangerous for a women, it shouldn't be more dangerous for her than a man.
IAN 2411
04-08-2012, 12:04 AM
While I'll agree that it may be dangerous for a women, it shouldn't be more dangerous for her than a man.
I think that for any person whether male or female walking the street at "2 am" is would be dangerous. I live 18 miles from Brighton UK, and you would not catch me walking those streets after 6 pm. I don’t think for one minute that it is a woman thing, it is anyone that looks vulnerable, including macho men walking alone.
Stereotyping, individualism, discrimination and racism cuts both ways, and this floor in the hotel that caters for women only, is only fuelling the fires of the controversial politically correct idiots that walk our streets. It is most probably because of them women need that whole floor.
If it wasn't a man complaining it would be a woman shouting about being discriminated somewhere else about another petty point. He should be fined for being stupid and checked for signs of insanity and if certified sane, the judge should kick his ass out of court and tell him to get a life. This kind of crap is taking place on a daily basis all over the world, because we are in a society of the politically correct on a mission to give us the new world order. "And the question the majority ask, is this what we really want???"
Be well IAN 2411
How's this for fucked up double standard,
On The Talk, a gaggle of female hosts joked and laughed about a man having his penis cut off by his bitter wife and thrown in the garbage disposal.
Rush Limbaugh loses advertisers for calling a girl a slut
I do nthink this is 'anybody's' double standard. There are different examples of bad behaviour.
consider any perceived male privilege I have a surcharge for being the last demographic to leave the titanic and a logical way to hedge a bet in case me and my penis get drafted.
Being a male isn't some sacred privelege, it's a responsibility and it always has been.women were confined to the house for most of history because they sure as hell won't be chasing down a deer for dinner or mining coal for 16 hours a day. those brutal, shitty, but necessary jobs require ample volumes of testosterone
I do not understand why women should not get drafted as well, not reasonable, I agree.
'Confined' to the house is an illuminating expression, isn't it? I guess you would disagree, but IMO there are few jobs that either sex cannot do as well as the other, given personal talent in the specific job.
However, that is not the important thing as I see it. That being not 'confining' anyone to anything, but to letting them choose their path themselves, whatever that might be. No one have a right to confine anyone to anything.
If you can have men's and women's dressing rooms/bathrooms/spas/exercise classes, why not hotel floors? I personally would not be interested in staying there, on that floor, but it's ok if others have that option.
Personally, I'm in favor of women being drafted, if anyone has to be drafted. And not because I only have sons; I have always felt that way.
@denuseri:
I don't want to have to carry a fucking gun to feel fucking safe, for fuck's sake!
I agree, I do not either. I would also like to be able to go where I want, when I want, in peace. The question is what to do when we can't??
A good start might be a zero tolerance to any violence, even if it be at night and people 'should have known better'. Maybe also, in spite of all the bad statistics, we should stop seeing women as victims. That would be my main reason for not liking the ide of the hotel floor for women.
Then: It has to be said, but when it comes to domestic violence, women are not much better than men. In Switzerland, 40 % of victims of domestic violence are male. Taking into account that it's much harder for a man to go to the police and report that he's being violated by his partner than it is for a women it might well be that half of the offenders are female.
This is a point that needs to be kept in mind, or we leave half of humanity between a rock (the agressors) and a hard place (hidden victims.)
And puleeeze, just for once, leave me alone with US statistics. The world doesn't end at the coast of New Jersey and I'm certainly not going to look up any statistics of a country that's 4000 miles away, especially if the original topic of this thread isn't the US.
'kay?
Actually, although it started with a Danish hotel, it got international in the second post, because looking more into it, I realized that so many other countries, European as well as in US and Canada, also have these women-only floors.
US is not the world, true, but I find it quite natural that we all give examples, including statistics, from our own home turf.
denuseri
04-08-2012, 07:42 AM
Thanks thir!
And I agree that we "shouldn't" have too carry a gun to feel safe.
All that aside....whats wrong with sexual segregation?
We all know that making everything completely co-ed is a non starter... right?
StrictMasterD
04-08-2012, 09:25 AM
If the Hotel is privtely owned and not owned by a Corporationwith Stock Holders, at lest in the United States, privately held companiescan set their own rules look at Augusta National Golf Course in Georgai, it has been around for yearsm does not allow Female Members BUT they are a Privately owned Course
IBM is their biggest sponsor for the US Open and the Green Jackets, the CEO of IBM is now a Female, it wil be interesting to see if Augusta offer Membership to their New Female CEO, if they do not IBM should pul it's supportof the US Open out, unless they offer and she simply kindly turns them down
Thisis 2012 foklks not 1912
The issue alwasways has been and probbly alwayswil be can they do thisif they are Privatelt owned as oppsed to a Public Company with Shareholders
I agree, I do not either. I would also like to be able to go where I want, when I want, in peace. The question is what to do when we can't??
Do it anyway and reclaim the streets. Just like with slut walks. Maybe we should go out and walk this streets and let the idiots know that those streets aren't theirs.
A good start might be a zero tolerance to any violence, even if it be at night and people 'should have known better'.
I don't know whether that still happens in other countries. But I don't see that courts her can afford to "minimize" the guilt of a perpetrator with the "she's guilty too because she was wearing a short skirt"-approach (insert here any dumbass excuse for an asshole committing a crime). Any judge pulling such a shit would have been a judge for the longest time in a matter of minutes.
If anything, I think we're moving too much into the wrong direction, i.e. trying to establish full security by way of law. That will never be possible and if it is possible at all, it will cost us most or all of our freedom. I'd rather get beaten down and mugged than have that.
Maybe also, in spite of all the bad statistics, we should stop seeing women as victims. That would be my main reason for not liking the ide of the hotel floor for women.
Yep. That's a good reason. Unfortunately, it's often easier to achieve a political goal if you can claim "victim-status", one of the many reasons why being a victim has quite some appeal.
Actually, although it started with a Danish hotel, it got international in the second post, because looking more into it, I realized that so many other countries, European as well as in US and Canada, also have these women-only floors.
US is not the world, true, but I find it quite natural that we all give examples, including statistics, from our own home turf.
Right. I don't mind people citing statistics and giving examples from their home turf. I do it myself all the time. It's understandable, since our home turf is what we know best.
What pisses me off, though, is when some guy expect me to read up his home country's statistics. I might be married to an American, but that doesn't mean I've bookmarked the DOJ's homepage. Nor do I want to compare our crime stats with American's, because they're simply not comparable.
As for the example given in this thread; I fully agree with StrictMaster. It's a privately owned company. If they want to have a floor reserved to women, they should have the freedom to do that. If someone doesn't like it, I'm pretty sure there are lots of other hotels in Copenhagen to choose from.
There's a whole hotel reserved for women only in Zurich. That's totally ok and none of my business. What I don't like as much is that there surely would be an outcry by the same women who hail the idea of a women-only hotel if someone opened a men-only hotel. That's the point where feminists get annoying.
Punish_her
04-08-2012, 06:38 PM
nobody seems to understand the blinding flash of irony here.
Lucy says, and i quote, "@punish_her: If men go at each other because they drink too much and don't know what to do with their testosterone or just because they are gangsters, that's their problem and isn't really discrimination, because, you know, men can't discriminate other men because of their sex."
What you are saying here is quite simply, "men get attacked because they put themselves in situations where they are more likely to get attacked."
you are completely excusing violence against men just because other men are doing it. That is discrimation. You are discriminating against men by saying that they are the reason they are attacked. I think violence against women is a horrible thing, so is violence against men, you, on the other hand, don't give two shits that men gett atttacked because of the reasons you just gave, you said them, you are discriminating against men.
You are a misandrist and a perpetuator of discrimination, there is no other way to put it, and I see no reason in continuing this any longer with you.
Punish_her
04-08-2012, 06:42 PM
Last time I checked both of those examples given are enforced by other men not women.
Your claim that its a responsibility to be a man isn't true in today's society, there is no reason for a man not to be the one staying at home, while a woman goes out to work and provides income for the household. Your idea that a man is always responsible for the families income is in itself a sexist belief, women should have equal rights and in turn equal responsibility.
That can't happen because men and women are different. It's not a social construct that I am stronger than 99% of all women, it's biology because of differing hormone levels. Jobs that require enormous amounts of physical exertion will always be male dominated fields. It is not a social construct that says my girlfriend can't lift me upp if I were unconscious on the floor. Therefore, there are certain jobs that will always require much more male input than female input. These jobs happpen to be dangerous. Women won't be drafted because the average woman would not be as effective in combat as the average man.
Punish_her
04-08-2012, 06:44 PM
I do nthink this is 'anybody's' double standard. There are different examples of bad behaviour.
Just think for a second 5 men sitting around on national television laughing about a man cutting off his wife's clitoris and breasts and throwing them in the garbage disposal. The only place that would ever happen is afghanistan.
Thorne
04-09-2012, 07:18 AM
That can't happen because men and women are different. It's not a social construct that I am stronger than 99% of all women, it's biology because of differing hormone levels. Jobs that require enormous amounts of physical exertion will always be male dominated fields. It is not a social construct that says my girlfriend can't lift me upp if I were unconscious on the floor. Therefore, there are certain jobs that will always require much more male input than female input. These jobs happpen to be dangerous. Women won't be drafted because the average woman would not be as effective in combat as the average man.
This has got to be the greatest load of horse shit I've seen in quite a while. Just because you're stronger than most women (and maybe even most men for all I know) doesn't mean a woman can't do most of the jobs that you can do. And some jobs they will do better than you. You might have a steroid-enhanced physique that makes you look (and act) like the Hulk! But just try soldering a delicate component onto a circuit board in a field repair and see how well your strength helps. Need to haul a deuce-and-a-half up a hill? Great, grab a pile of muscle-bound jocks and have them haul their hearts out. OR you can grab a power-winch and let Twiggy do the job a lot faster.
As for women in combat, I suggest you rethink! Just look at the Israeli Army. They've had women in combat units for decades, and they can fight just as well and just as hard and just as long as any of the men. Sure, there may be situations where brute strength works best. And there are situations where being small, quick and quiet will work better. BOTH kinds of soldiers are needed, working as teams.
It's this kind of thinking, that women are less than men, that make women targets in society. They aren't looked upon as real people but as property, to be used at the whim of the man. If you treat women as equals, and really understand, deep down, that they are equals, you and they will be far better off. Give women the respect they deserve, the same kind of respect you think YOU deserve. They've earned it.
Thorne
04-09-2012, 07:32 AM
Just think for a second 5 men sitting around on national television laughing about a man cutting off his wife's clitoris and breasts and throwing them in the garbage disposal. The only place that would ever happen is afghanistan.
While I have to agree that those women laughing over that man getting his penis cut off is in very bad taste, and reflects badly on those women, the comparison you mention is not anywhere near the same thing.
Why did that woman cut off his penis? My guess would be that he beat her up and raped her one too many times, just because he could, and she'd had enough. I say, good for her. He deserved it.
Now let's look at your hypothetical case in Afghanistan: What would cause that to happen? Well, maybe it was a father who decided to disfigure his 14 year old daughter because she didn't want to be forced into marriage with the 70 year old Imam. Or maybe it was the abusive husband who was angry when his wife asked him to stop beating her. Or maybe it was the prison official who felt that she didn't scream loud enough when his men raped her. Yeah, I can see a bunch of Taliban assholes sitting around the fire laughing about it. Funny thing, though, I can see you there just as easily.
nobody seems to understand the blinding flash of irony here.
Lucy says, and i quote, "@punish_her: If men go at each other because they drink too much and don't know what to do with their testosterone or just because they are gangsters, that's their problem and isn't really discrimination, because, you know, men can't discriminate other men because of their sex."
What you are saying here is quite simply, "men get attacked because they put themselves in situations where they are more likely to get attacked."
you are completely excusing violence against men just because other men are doing it. That is discrimation. You are discriminating against men by saying that they are the reason they are attacked.
We are, in this thread, discussing discrimination (well, most of us are, anyway). Originally, it was about discriminating males. I said that males beating males can't really be discrimination, because, you see, it is inherently impossible for one group of people to discriminate itself. At least that's what I understand.
Also, if guys get drunk/do drugs/use weapons on each other, that's horrible, but still not discrimination. If anything, it's stupidity.
Anyway, I don't expect you to understand my argument the third time around when you didn't get it the first two times.
Still: I did not excuse any violence. Not violence against women, nor violence against men. If you read that in my post, I'd say you should go have some reading classes.
I said that this is a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not discrimination, but bad luck. Not topic of this thread, though.
And, also, you're right about one thing: it's not one of the things I care too much about. I didn't even care too much about when it happened to me. Put a plaster on my forehead, swore and cried for some time, shrugged it off as bad luck, took the same way home the next day (with the phone in hand and the emergency number already punched in, though ;) )
So why should I give a rat's ass if some drunk guys smash in each other's head?
js207
04-09-2012, 09:01 AM
Why did that woman cut off his penis? My guess would be that he beat her up and raped her one too many times, just because he could, and she'd had enough. I say, good for her. He deserved it.
Interesting - your "guess" is that he was the abusive one in the relationship, even though he's the one who ended up mutilated with life-threatening injuries - why? What information do you have, besides the victim's gender and the nature of the terrible injuries inflicted by the spouse? Look back in the thread ... note that statistically, from that study, women are as likely as men to be guilty, just much less likely to get caught.
Can you actually give us any excuse for your glib "he deserved it", besides prejudice?
Punish_her
04-09-2012, 10:46 AM
While I have to agree that those women laughing over that man getting his penis cut off is in very bad taste, and reflects badly on those women, the comparison you mention is not anywhere near the same thing.
Why did that woman cut off his penis? My guess would be that he beat her up and raped her one too many times, just because he could, and she'd had enough. I say, good for her. He deserved it.
Now let's look at your hypothetical case in Afghanistan: What would cause that to happen? Well, maybe it was a father who decided to disfigure his 14 year old daughter because she didn't want to be forced into marriage with the 70 year old Imam. Or maybe it was the abusive husband who was angry when his wife asked him to stop beating her. Or maybe it was the prison official who felt that she didn't scream loud enough when his men raped her. Yeah, I can see a bunch of Taliban assholes sitting around the fire laughing about it. Funny thing, though, I can see you there just as easily.
biggest load of bullshit i ever heard.
he asked for a divorce
Punish_her
04-09-2012, 10:57 AM
this is a pathetically stupid argument you're making
yes, there are machines that allow women to do jobs that men can do. a woman can operate a forklift just like a man. then next time you move, instead hiring movers, rent a forklift if you feel the need to
Or maybe if I'm unconscious in a burning building, and the average female fire fighter can't pick my limp body up, should she just call ahead for a forklift or the jaws of life?
and no, women cannot fight just as long as men can and just as hard as men can, but because you seem to love living in a nice, oblivious place, i'll spell it out for you why:
1) upon completion of basic training, the average male can throw a grenade 40 yards, and a female can throw it 15 yards. a grenade's blast radius is about 15 yards
2) women have lower bone density, and a statistically significant portion of women fail to complete basic training because of stress fractures that come from heavy physical exertion
3) a statistically significant portion of women are combat ineffective during their periods
and while israel may conscript women, they rarely, if ever, serve on front line duty
Punish_her
04-09-2012, 10:58 AM
We are, in this thread, discussing discrimination (well, most of us are, anyway). Originally, it was about discriminating males. I said that males beating males can't really be discrimination, because, you see, it is inherently impossible for one group of people to discriminate itself. At least that's what I understand.
Also, if guys get drunk/do drugs/use weapons on each other, that's horrible, but still not discrimination. If anything, it's stupidity.
Anyway, I don't expect you to understand my argument the third time around when you didn't get it the first two times.
Still: I did not excuse any violence. Not violence against women, nor violence against men. If you read that in my post, I'd say you should go have some reading classes.
I said that this is a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not discrimination, but bad luck. Not topic of this thread, though.
And, also, you're right about one thing: it's not one of the things I care too much about. I didn't even care too much about when it happened to me. Put a plaster on my forehead, swore and cried for some time, shrugged it off as bad luck, took the same way home the next day (with the phone in hand and the emergency number already punched in, though ;) )
So why should I give a rat's ass if some drunk guys smash in each other's head?
misandrist
Punish_her
04-09-2012, 11:16 AM
This has got to be the greatest load of horse shit I've seen in quite a while. Just because you're stronger than most women (and maybe even most men for all I know) doesn't mean a woman can't do most of the jobs that you can do. And some jobs they will do better than you. You might have a steroid-enhanced physique that makes you look (and act) like the Hulk! But just try soldering a delicate component onto a circuit board in a field repair and see how well your strength helps. Need to haul a deuce-and-a-half up a hill? Great, grab a pile of muscle-bound jocks and have them haul their hearts out. OR you can grab a power-winch and let Twiggy do the job a lot faster.
As for women in combat, I suggest you rethink! Just look at the Israeli Army. They've had women in combat units for decades, and they can fight just as well and just as hard and just as long as any of the men. Sure, there may be situations where brute strength works best. And there are situations where being small, quick and quiet will work better. BOTH kinds of soldiers are needed, working as teams.
It's this kind of thinking, that women are less than men, that make women targets in society. They aren't looked upon as real people but as property, to be used at the whim of the man. If you treat women as equals, and really understand, deep down, that they are equals, you and they will be far better off. Give women the respect they deserve, the same kind of respect you think YOU deserve. They've earned it.
and yea, you're right,women are victims in our society
they don'tget drafted(not a single woman died in combat from america in the 20th century)
they got rushed off the titanic first, and are usually given preferential treatment even now in disasters
and oh yea, the stimulus package was heavily skewed towards women despite most jobs lost were male dominated fields
98% of alimony payments go from male to female despite 40% of women outearning men
and there are now about 10 states that have mandatory arrest laws for police responding to domestic disturbances, and the male is always arrested, by law,even if he called the police saying his wife was attacking him
yup, victims indeed
Thorne
04-09-2012, 01:20 PM
Can you actually give us any excuse for your glib "he deserved it", besides prejudice?
I never said "he deserved it", merely postulated it as a likely scenario. Similar to the Lorena Bobbitt case, I'm speculating that it may have been the result of continuous abuse by the husband. I didn't bother looking up the case, though. If I was wrong and the woman was the abuser, I apologize.
women are as likely as men to be guilty, just much less likely to get caught.
I will grant you that men are much less likely to report such abuse, generally as a matter of pride I would think. But women who do report being abused aren't guaranteed to get protection, either. I know of one woman who called the police on her abusive husband only to have the responding officer stand out in the yard talking and joking with the husband, then driving off, telling him not to do it any more, without even talking to her!
misandrist
You still didn't get it, right?
js207
04-09-2012, 02:06 PM
I never said "he deserved it", merely postulated it as a likely scenario. Similar to the Lorena Bobbitt case, I'm speculating that it may have been the result of continuous abuse by the husband. I didn't bother looking up the case, though. If I was wrong and the woman was the abuser, I apologise.
That's better - it sounded earlier very much as if you had leapt to precisely that conclusion. Why the speculation in the first place? If a woman had been horribly mutilated, would you have been suggesting it was her fault?
I will grant you that men are much less likely to report such abuse, generally as a matter of pride I would think. But women who do report being abused aren't guaranteed to get protection, either. I know of one woman who called the police on her abusive husband only to have the responding officer stand out in the yard talking and joking with the husband, then driving off, telling him not to do it any more, without even talking to her!
As noted earlier in the thread, there are far worse examples in the opposite direction. In how many such cases does the woman end up getting arrested?
Thorne
04-09-2012, 02:16 PM
(not a single woman died in combat from america in the 20th century)
Absolutely not true! (http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/lives.html)
Marion G. Crandall, Alameda, California, killed by enemy shell in March 1918 at Ste. Menehould, France.
Winona Martin, Rockville Center, N.Y. killed in a Paris air raid in March 1918.
Ruth Landon, NYC, New York, killed by a shell fired on St Gervais Church, Paris, France, March 1918.
One hundred and eleven Army Nurses died overseas and one hundred and eighty six died stateside, all while serving their country in WWI. Twenty two or more U.S. Navy Yeoman (F) died during the World War. Twenty seven Navy Nurse Corps women died while serving. Dieticians, telephone operators, YMCA volunteers, Red Cross and Salvation Army women, and women in military intelligence also lost their lives.
And that's only one year! Check the link for women who died serving their country in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and on into the 21st century. Just because they weren't allowed to shoot back doesn't make them any less casualties of war.
they got rushed off the titanic first, and are usually given preferential treatment even now in disasters
There were 316 women who survived the Titanic, and 338 men. Doesn't sound so preferential to me!
and oh yea, the stimulus package was heavily skewed towards women despite most jobs lost were male dominated fields
Fields in which women who perform the same tasks as men make significantly less pay!
98% of alimony payments go from male to female despite 40% of women outearning men
But the number of women paying alimony is rising. And how many men actually seek alimony from their wives, even when those wives have earned more. There are many reasons for this discrepancy, many of the based on social prejudices which men have perpetuated!
and there are now about 10 states that have mandatory arrest laws for police responding to domestic disturbances, and the male is always arrested, by law,even if he called the police saying his wife was attacking him
That sounds suspicious. I'd like to see a citation on that. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I'd be surprised to find it to be built into the law. That would, indeed, be discrimination. What springs to my mind (more speculation, based on TV cop shows) is the husband who strikes his wife, then calls the cops when she fights back. I've also seen the other way, her calling the cops, then being arrested because she attacked him first.
Punish_her
04-09-2012, 06:13 PM
Absolutely not true! (http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/lives.html)
Marion G. Crandall, Alameda, California, killed by enemy shell in March 1918 at Ste. Menehould, France.
Winona Martin, Rockville Center, N.Y. killed in a Paris air raid in March 1918.
Ruth Landon, NYC, New York, killed by a shell fired on St Gervais Church, Paris, France, March 1918.
One hundred and eleven Army Nurses died overseas and one hundred and eighty six died stateside, all while serving their country in WWI. Twenty two or more U.S. Navy Yeoman (F) died during the World War. Twenty seven Navy Nurse Corps women died while serving. Dieticians, telephone operators, YMCA volunteers, Red Cross and Salvation Army women, and women in military intelligence also lost their lives.
And that's only one year! Check the link for women who died serving their country in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and on into the 21st century. Just because they weren't allowed to shoot back doesn't make them any less casualties of war.
There were 316 women who survived the Titanic, and 338 men. Doesn't sound so preferential to me!
Fields in which women who perform the same tasks as men make significantly less pay!
But the number of women paying alimony is rising. And how many men actually seek alimony from their wives, even when those wives have earned more. There are many reasons for this discrepancy, many of the based on social prejudices which men have perpetuated!
That sounds suspicious. I'd like to see a citation on that. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I'd be surprised to find it to be built into the law. That would, indeed, be discrimination. What springs to my mind (more speculation, based on TV cop shows) is the husband who strikes his wife, then calls the cops when she fights back. I've also seen the other way, her calling the cops, then being arrested because she attacked him first.
being a civillian and having a bomb dropped on you is not dying in combat. the people who died on 9/11 did not die in combat, it's dying as a result of war. there's a difference
women making less money for the same job is the biggest load of horseshit ever. women earn less than men because they're less likely to commute or travel as far, less likely to work overtime, and far more likely to take a huge portion of time off for maternity leave, and that was a lame response
there were far more men on the tiitanic. 1,347 men died, 103 women died
Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin all have mandatory arrest laws, where police are required to arrest the bigger, strongerof the two which will almost always be male. In new jersey, the wording of the law addresses the aggressor in masculine pronouns only
Punish_her
04-09-2012, 06:14 PM
You still didn't get it, right?
yes i do, you're a misandrist
js207
04-10-2012, 04:30 AM
Fields in which women who perform the same tasks as men make significantly less pay!
Almost all of which is explained by different working pattern and career choices, rather than discrimination. Given two, say, software developers aged 35. One is female and took a five year career break to raise children, the other is male and did not. Which do you expect to earn more? Then, when you look at computer programmers aged 30-40, of course the women have a lower average pay - because they've got less experience on average, despite being the same age!
There are other issues too, different priorities: for example, I expect female employees are more likely to take an option with slightly lower pay for greater flexibility or other benefits. My own mother recently switched to 90% employment in a condensed working week - 10% less salary and longer days on those four, in exchange for having every Friday free. 10% less pay - for more free time. The job also pays less money in the first place, in exchange for better vacation and flex-time (which, for example, lets you get an additional 18 days off through the year by working extra hours on other days if you wish) - and as it happens, that setup has attracted more female than male staff, while men tend to choose the higher salaries and harder hours of other employers in the same field.
So far that's about right. Women do make different choices. In general, women aren't as hot for careers as are men, for a lot of different reasons.
However this:
One is female and took a five year career break to raise children, the other is male and did not.
is pretty fucked up, isn't it? Women being punished for raising children. An economic system that treats women like this and punishes them for raising kids should be changed, and changed asap, too.
Because it's a very bad move, in the long run. It might sooner or later keep well educated women from having kids at all. As a matter of fact, that's what's already happening. Which leaves procreation to the idiots/uneducated masses/trailer park folks/immigrants.
Kind of an evolutionary downwards spiral, imho.
Punish_her
04-10-2012, 08:57 AM
So far that's about right. Women do make different choices. In general, women aren't as hot for careers as are men, for a lot of different reasons.
However this:
is pretty fucked up, isn't it? Women being punished for raising children. An economic system that treats women like this and punishes them for raising kids should be changed, and changed asap, too.
Because it's a very bad move, in the long run. It might sooner or later keep well educated women from having kids at all. As a matter of fact, that's what's already happening. Which leaves procreation to the idiots/uneducated masses/trailer park folks/immigrants.
Kind of an evolutionary downwards spiral, imho.
so if a woman's not working, she should still be paid? that's complete idiocy
how fair is it for a company to have to give a woman time off, hire someone to replace the woman, then fire the new guy the second the woman comes back?
oh, well, you'd be all for that because fuck men, women need everything
js207
04-10-2012, 09:05 AM
is pretty fucked up, isn't it? Women being punished for raising children.
No - it is fucked up that you think it is "punishment" to lose salary for not doing a job for several years. If I suddenly decide I want to become an airline pilot now, should I get paid the same as someone who has been doing it since leaving school, i.e. has well over a decade more experience than me? You think if someone takes several years off, they should step back in as if they'd been working and gaining experience in the job all that time, even though they haven't? Would you be happy to be operated on by a surgeon who hasn't actually held a scalpel in years, but wants to pretend otherwise?
Because it's a very bad move, in the long run. It might sooner or later keep well educated women from having kids at all. As a matter of fact, that's what's already happening. Which leaves procreation to the idiots/uneducated masses/trailer park folks/immigrants.
Kind of an evolutionary downwards spiral, imho.
You have a point there. Of course, most measures that promote child-bearing make that problem worse...
[I][B]Thanks thir!
And I agree that we "shouldn't" have too carry a gun to feel safe.
All that aside....whats wrong with sexual segregation?
Segregation means forcibly seperating people, yes? No, I think people have a right to choose.
We all know that making everything completely co-ed is a non starter... right?
Co-ed??
Do it anyway and reclaim the streets. Just like with slut walks. Maybe we should go out and walk this streets and let the idiots know that those streets aren't theirs.
Depending on where you live - or how many you are walking together..
I don't know whether that still happens in other countries. But I don't see that courts her can afford to "minimize" the guilt of a perpetrator with the "she's guilty too because she was wearing a short skirt"-approach (insert here any dumbass excuse for an asshole committing a crime). Any judge pulling such a shit would have been a judge for the longest time in a matter of minutes.
I do not know if it happens so much nowaday in courts - ? It used to for sure. But I did not mean legally, I meant people's opinions often go in the direction of 'if you know it might be dangerous, why do it?'
If anything, I think we're moving too much into the wrong direction, i.e. trying to establish full security by way of law. That will never be possible and if it is possible at all, it will cost us most or all of our freedom. I'd rather get beaten down and mugged than have that.
I agree - we seem to think (in our part of the world) that one can ensure safety, and if safety isn't there, someone must be to blame! But though there are many things we can do, life can never be safe.
As for the example given in this thread; I fully agree with StrictMaster. It's a privately owned company. If they want to have a floor reserved to women, they should have the freedom to do that. If someone doesn't like it, I'm pretty sure there are lots of other hotels in Copenhagen to choose from.
In DK the board of equality are trying to take more power than they should have - in fact, they should be cancelled! But they cannot decide what the hotel should do. The courts have to decide if the hotel broke the laws against prejudice, and my guess is they would say no problem.
There's a whole hotel reserved for women only in Zurich. That's totally ok and none of my business. What I don't like as much is that there surely would be an outcry by the same women who hail the idea of a women-only hotel if someone opened a men-only hotel. That's the point where feminists get annoying.
Well, our feminists apparently felt the men were discriminated against here..
Jobs that require enormous amounts of physical exertion will always be male dominated fields.
Are there any left?
It is not a social construct that says my girlfriend can't lift me upp if I were unconscious on the floor.
Nor could many men. That's why paremedics work in pairs.
Therefore, there are certain jobs that will always require much more male input than female input.
[/quote
Input?? Lost you there.
[quote]
These jobs happpen to be dangerous. Women won't be drafted because the average woman would not be as effective in combat as the average man.
Aren't there male marines? There are fem soldiers in many countries, DK and Israel for instance, and in Israel women are drafted.
This has got to be the greatest load of horse shit I've seen in quite a while. Just because you're stronger than most women (and maybe even most men for all I know) doesn't mean a woman can't do most of the jobs that you can do. And some jobs they will do better than you. You might have a steroid-enhanced physique that makes you look (and act) like the Hulk! But just try soldering a delicate component onto a circuit board in a field repair and see how well your strength helps. Need to haul a deuce-and-a-half up a hill? Great, grab a pile of muscle-bound jocks and have them haul their hearts out. OR you can grab a power-winch and let Twiggy do the job a lot faster.
As for women in combat, I suggest you rethink! Just look at the Israeli Army. They've had women in combat units for decades, and they can fight just as well and just as hard and just as long as any of the men. Sure, there may be situations where brute strength works best. And there are situations where being small, quick and quiet will work better. BOTH kinds of soldiers are needed, working as teams.
It's this kind of thinking, that women are less than men, that make women targets in society. They aren't looked upon as real people but as property, to be used at the whim of the man. If you treat women as equals, and really understand, deep down, that they are equals, you and they will be far better off. Give women the respect they deserve, the same kind of respect you think YOU deserve. They've earned it.
What I like about your post is that you do not confuse 'equal' with 'identical', as many people seem to do.
this is a pathetically stupid argument you're making
yes, there are machines that allow women to do jobs that men can do. a woman can operate a forklift just like a man. then next time you move, instead hiring movers, rent a forklift if you feel the need to
Or maybe if I'm unconscious in a burning building, and the average female fire fighter can't pick my limp body up, should she just call ahead for a forklift or the jaws of life?
and no, women cannot fight just as long as men can and just as hard as men can, but because you seem to love living in a nice, oblivious place, i'll spell it out for you why:
1) upon completion of basic training, the average male can throw a grenade 40 yards, and a female can throw it 15 yards. a grenade's blast radius is about 15 yards
2) women have lower bone density, and a statistically significant portion of women fail to complete basic training because of stress fractures that come from heavy physical exertion
3) a statistically significant portion of women are combat ineffective during their periods
and while israel may conscript women, they rarely, if ever, serve on front line duty
"From the beginning of the 1970s, most Western armies began to admit women to serve active duty.[2] Only some of them permit women to fill active combat roles, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military
In Russia they have done it for ages. Also, women were serving on the convoys during ww2, where many ships and lives were lost.
I am no friend of war, which in most cases are idiotic in the extreme and not neccesary. But if men are drafted, women should be too. Equal rights, equal responsibilities.
I do not like the draft etiher. I think people should vote whether they want to go to war or not, if they agree with it or not. to be forced to fight for something you might think is stupid or maybe just plain wrong, is not democratic.
As for non-military uprisings or revolutions, women are have been there in a many cases.
Just think for a second 5 men sitting around on national television laughing about a man cutting off his wife's clitoris and breasts and throwing them in the garbage disposal. The only place that would ever happen is afghanistan.
The comments and attitudes of the women in question (earlier post) were callous and inexcusable. But not, I would like to think, representative.
and yea, you're right,women are victims in our society
they don'tget drafted (not a single woman died in combat from america in the 20th century)
In your society, not everybodies.
But, according to you that is not discrimination against men, but because they cannot do the job, right?
they got rushed off the titanic first,
That would be the first and second class women, the rest never got a chance, men or women.
and are usually given preferential treatment even now in disasters
What disasters are you talking about? Wars? They die as everybody else, and get raped. Floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcano eruptions? What preferential treatment can you do in those situations?
and oh yea, the stimulus package was heavily skewed towards women despite most jobs lost were male dominated fields
I do not know about that. An American law? And what does it matter if jobs are in male dominated fields? Surely males can take female dominated jobs too?
98% of alimony payments go from male to female despite 40% of women outearning men
There are think you have a point in a number of situations.
and there are now about 10 states that have mandatory arrest laws for police responding to domestic disturbances,
Well, obviously
and the male is always arrested, by law,even if he called the police saying his wife was attacking him
Now that is just plain wrong!
Almost all of which is explained by different working pattern and career choices, rather than discrimination. Given two, say, software developers aged 35. One is female and took a five year career break to raise children, the other is male and did not. Which do you expect to earn more? Then, when you look at computer programmers aged 30-40, of course the women have a lower average pay - because they've got less experience on average, despite being the same age!
There are other issues too, different priorities: for example, I expect female employees are more likely to take an option with slightly lower pay for greater flexibility or other benefits. My own mother recently switched to 90% employment in a condensed working week - 10% less salary and longer days on those four, in exchange for having every Friday free. 10% less pay - for more free time. The job also pays less money in the first place, in exchange for better vacation and flex-time (which, for example, lets you get an additional 18 days off through the year by working extra hours on other days if you wish) - and as it happens, that setup has attracted more female than male staff, while men tend to choose the higher salaries and harder hours of other employers in the same field.
I think there are several factors which are mixed up:
One is equal pay for equal work, the fact that in many countries and many areas women earn less than men for doing the exact same job.
Another is what kinds of jobs women are allowed into, and if they pay better or worse than the rest.
A third is what kinds of jobs women typically choose, and the fact that those jobs are typically payed less
so if a woman's not working, she should still be paid? that's complete idiocy
how fair is it for a company to have to give a woman time off, hire someone to replace the woman,
I guess that depends entirely on whether this country wants more people or not..
However, many employers are happy to do this, in order to keep a valued employee.
then fire the new guy the second the woman comes back?
Yes, of course. He would have know that when he took the job.
No - it is fucked up that you think it is "punishment" to lose salary for not doing a job for several years. If I suddenly decide I want to become an airline pilot now, should I get paid the same as someone who has been doing it since leaving school, i.e. has well over a decade more experience than me?
Why several years? There are day care institutions, and a father, mostly.
You think if someone takes several years off, they should step back in as if they'd been working and gaining experience in the job all that time, even though they haven't? Would you be happy to be operated on by a surgeon who hasn't actually held a scalpel in years, but wants to pretend otherwise?
So, we should stop having children?
denuseri
04-10-2012, 02:40 PM
Segregation means forcibly seperating people, yes? No, I think people have a right to choose.
Co-ed??
No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation
Force isn't required at all...we already for the most part in one way or another live in a gender stratified-sexually segregated society.
IE: separate locker rooms, bathing facilities and bathrooms in most public places.
The trend appears to be one of slowly becoming more and more de-segragated however. Not too long ago men and women sat on opposite sides of the Church for instance...in some societies they didn't eat meals at the same time or in the same room. In ancient Greece women were not even allowed to view any of the male events at the Olympic games.
Co-ed simply means shared...like Co-ed dorms where males and females live next too each other or in some cases even share a room.
punish_her: Stop putting things in my mouth which I never said or shut the fuck off. I didn't say a woman should be paid when she's not working. I said that it's a short-sighted policy to punish (and yeah, I agree with js207 that punish is the wrong word. I don't have a better one, though) a woman just because she has to take a time-out to raise her kids.
Also, even though I am apparently a misandrist, I call discrimination for males on this, too. If a father decides to have children and take some time off, he faces the same problem as a mother. Having a career and spending more than just a few minutes with your kids is virtually impossible. It just happens much less that it's the father and not the woman, so we don't get to hear about it as much.
Might make sense for the individual company. Yeah, I guess it definitely does. But for a society, it's a dead end in the long run.
Punish_her
04-10-2012, 05:48 PM
@punish_her: If men go at each other because they drink too much and don't know what to do with their testosterone or just because they are gangsters, that's their problem and isn't really discrimination, because, you know, men can't discriminate other men because of their sex.
If they go at me coz I'm a woman, that's my fucking problem and an altogether different matter.
Also: I didn't say there is no discrimination. I just said that it's fully understandable that women might enjoy having a floor to themselves in a hotel.
i'm not putting anything in your mouth that didn't come from it first. when men get atttacked, it's their own fault, when women get attacked, it's a great injustice. that's your view
Punish_her
04-10-2012, 05:49 PM
No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation
Force isn't required at all...we already for the most part in one way or another live in a gender stratified-sexually segregated society.
IE: separate locker rooms, bathing facilities and bathrooms in most public places.
The trend appears to be one of slowly becoming more and more de-segragated however. Not too long ago men and women sat on opposite sides of the Church for instance...in some societies they didn't eat meals at the same time or in the same room. In ancient Greece women were not even allowed to view any of the male events at the Olympic games.
Co-ed simply means shared...like Co-ed dorms where males and females live next too each other or in some cases even share a room.
males and females do share rooms at more liberal colleges. I had a friend who lived with 3 girls in college
also, the first olympics were in the nude, maybe the athletes got a bit shy
just imagine the five man bobsled
Thorne
04-11-2012, 04:51 AM
What I like about your post is that you do not confuse 'equal' with 'identical', as many people seem to do.
Well, it's obvious that men and women aren't identical. There are physical and even mental differences. That doesn't make either sex inherently better than the other, just means that there are some things one sex can generally do better than the other. However, there are a hell of a lot more things that both can do equally well, with or without testosterone. Regardless, if you're doing the same job you should be getting the same compensation.
Thorne
04-11-2012, 05:00 AM
also, the first olympics were in the nude, maybe the athletes got a bit shy
just imagine the five man bobsled
Considering that the bobsled is done in winter, on a frozen course, with the icy breeze from your speed causing every exposed nerve to shrivel, I don't think it would have been a problem. (Of course, they didn't HAVE bobsleds then, OR Winter Olympics.)
Very touchy subject here in the UK...I believe there is a case going through the European courts about that very fact...conjured up by a woman stating ..yes, you guessed it. "Discrimination." The question is, why would a woman want to join a gentlemen only club, when most men would be repelled by the idea of joining a men only club themselves.
Because in this country, "gentlemen's clubs" have become a way for male politicians and businessMen to network out of reach of female colleagues who might be competitors for promotions or deals. In a culture where you can only get ahead by meeting the right people, making sure you can only meet them if you're the right sex is blatant discrimination.
Basically, follow the money.
Well, it's obvious that men and women aren't identical. There are physical and even mental differences. That doesn't make either sex inherently better than the other, just means that there are some things one sex can generally do better than the other. However, there are a hell of a lot more things that both can do equally well, with or without testosterone. Regardless, if you're doing the same job you should be getting the same compensation.
It's about looking at the person and not the average or the stereotype. Women on average have less muscular strength (though more stamina), but professions that need strength, like the fire service, have long ago accepted that they should let anyone take the tests, and not assume that a candidate must be too weak because she doesn't have balls.
A lot of basketball players are black, because some African subraces are markedly taller than average, but that doesn't mean white men can't jump.
Thorne
04-11-2012, 05:35 AM
Women on average have less muscular strength (though more stamina), but professions that need strength, like the fire service
Something I noticed yesterday while checking up about women casualties in war: it was always assumed that women couldn't handle modern fighter jets because their lower bone density and other physical aspects would make them less able to handle high-G maneuvers. When tested, though, it was determined that women (on average) could handle such stresses better than their male counterparts! Makes you wonder just how many of those things that "men can naturally do better" have been tested.
Or maybe if I'm unconscious in a burning building, and the average female fire fighter can't pick my limp body up, should she just call ahead for a forklift or the jaws of life?The average female firefighter can pick your limp body up. If she couldn't, she wouldn't have qualified for the job.
You're making the textbook mistake of confusing the average with the individual. On average, women are better at organisation, but that doesn't mean you should be ruled out from any administrative post because of your sex. You might be as good as a woman...
Something I noticed yesterday while checking up about women casualties in war: it was always assumed that women couldn't handle modern fighter jets because their lower bone density and other physical aspects would make them less able to handle high-G maneuvers. When tested, though, it was determined that women (on average) could handle such stresses better than their male counterparts! Makes you wonder just how many of those things that "men can naturally do better" have been tested.
Thanks for that fascinating tip! And yes, there are a lot of those assumptions that nobody has checked.
I'm reminded of a case in the '60s where a black guy was refused a job in a frozen food warehouse because, you know, black people are from Africa so they can't stand cold like us.
js207
04-11-2012, 06:25 AM
Why several years? There are day care institutions, and a father, mostly.
Most mothers - and indeed fathers - seem to want to spend time with their kids. Even if it means taking a cut in pay to do so. For various reasons, it's more likely to be the mother than the father doing this, particularly in the early stages: men tend not to be very good at breast feeding.
In my own family, my mother switched to working part-time as a languages teacher after I was born, having previously been a full time export manager. As a new and part-time teacher, of course she'd have been paid less than one with more experience, male or female - and that will have pulled the average for female teachers her age down slightly. I see Lucy agrees this is not "punishment"; I'm hoping we can now agree this isn't wrong, either? (Ban that, she'd have had to choose between being away from young children much more than she wanted as well as paying a babysitter, or not working at all. Obviously neither of those appealed to her.)
So, we should stop having children?
No - though that would reduce the "problem" being complained of in the short term, and eliminate it (and humanity) long term. What we should do first is understand that there are factors besides the salary at work - that, as already confirmed in academic research years ago, a large part of the "gap" in salaries is the result of different choices. Just as German cars tend to be more expensive than Korean: not because of some anti-German import tariffs, but because the German manufacturers sell into a more luxurious market segment: Mercedes, Audi, BMW versus Hyundai and co.
Back on the employment area: I have known very capable supersonic pilots, some of them female. There certainly are women who are perfectly capable of doing that job - but do as many women as men want to? I bet if you sit near a military recruiting office, you'll see more men than women going in; go to a nursing school, you'll see the opposite. Now, if you see a job advertised as "men only" or "women only" (and there are far, far more of the latter) for a reason besides actual biology (for example, sperm donation, surrogacy etc) I will agree it's wrong - but point to an occupation being largely one or the other gender as "proof" of discrimination and you'd better think again.
The trend appears to be one of slowly becoming more and more de-segragated however.
Not so sure about that. Proposing a return back to gender-segregated schools is still considered a sacrilege around here, but there are more and more articles and studies being published about the topic.
All, or at least most, of those studies show that nobody profits from coeducation. Not the boys, and certainly not the girls, for whose benefit coeducation first was demanded.
Thorne
04-11-2012, 09:23 AM
All, or at least most, of those studies show that nobody profits from coeducation. Not the boys, and certainly not the girls, for whose benefit coeducation first was demanded.
The problem is that going to separate schools brings back the old problem of "separate but equal", which was anything but equal! I went to a co-ed high school while my brothers went to boys only high schools. I can't see any difference in the quality of education, nor did I ever notice any difficulty on my part related to being in a class with girls. I'd like to see who's doing these studies, and how comprehensive they are, before I say whether they were good or bad.
Thorne
04-11-2012, 09:31 AM
but point to an occupation being largely one or the other gender as "proof" of discrimination and you'd better think again.
It's a bigger problem than that, really. Some of it has it's basis in childhood, where girls are steered towards the pretty pink toys and the dolls, while the boys are led to the trucks and sports. I recall a story (comment on a forum somewhere) about a guy who took his daughter into a toy store and she was upset because they didn't have any of the "cool" toys in the girls' section.
Even in schools, girls are encouraged to participate in traditionally girl classes, or into cheer leading instead of playing sports. That's changing, now, but some of the old stereotypes still prevail. So naturally, when a woman goes searching for work, she's going to gravitate towards more familiar areas. It may not be discrimination by the employers, but by society at large which is holding them back.
But the primary issue in the work force is the fact that, on average, women who do the same job as men, who have the same qualifications and skills, are still frequently paid at a lower rate. THAT is discrimination.
Actually, one of those studies found that girls from girl-only schools ventured more often into "male-dominated" professions like engineers, technicians or other fields where natural sciences play a large role.
Also, I heavily doubt that girls are told to go for pink and boys are taught to like guns. At least a large part of that behaviour is not nurture but nature. Or epigenetics.
And here some of the studies: ftp://ftp.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp4026.pdf
ftp://ftp.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp2037.pdf
http://www.hausarbeiten.de/faecher/vorschau/98149.html (in German)
Punish_her
04-11-2012, 11:46 AM
Considering that the bobsled is done in winter, on a frozen course, with the icy breeze from your speed causing every exposed nerve to shrivel, I don't think it would have been a problem. (Of course, they didn't HAVE bobsleds then, OR Winter Olympics.)
they did it "cool runnings style," more of a go kart, and greece has a shit ton of hills!
Punish_her
04-11-2012, 11:49 AM
The problem is that going to separate schools brings back the old problem of "separate but equal", which was anything but equal! I went to a co-ed high school while my brothers went to boys only high schools. I can't see any difference in the quality of education, nor did I ever notice any difficulty on my part related to being in a class with girls. I'd like to see who's doing these studies, and how comprehensive they are, before I say whether they were good or bad.
I would say that's because the type of education was still the same.
current education in the US is based on the Prussian system: one person dictating to a larger group of students, standardized tests, and so on.
studies typically show that boys learn better in small groups that are competitive
there'sno reason that it wouldn't "seperate, but equal" and be different. In an ideal environment, girls would not be as successful in a boys class, as boys are not as successful in a girls class, bt both classes maximize the ahcievement of the individual sexes
Punish_her
04-11-2012, 11:55 AM
It's a bigger problem than that, really. Some of it has it's basis in childhood, where girls are steered towards the pretty pink toys and the dolls, while the boys are led to the trucks and sports. I recall a story (comment on a forum somewhere) about a guy who took his daughter into a toy store and she was upset because they didn't have any of the "cool" toys in the girls' section.
Even in schools, girls are encouraged to participate in traditionally girl classes, or into cheer leading instead of playing sports. That's changing, now, but some of the old stereotypes still prevail. So naturally, when a woman goes searching for work, she's going to gravitate towards more familiar areas. It may not be discrimination by the employers, but by society at large which is holding them back.
But the primary issue in the work force is the fact that, on average, women who do the same job as men, who have the same qualifications and skills, are still frequently paid at a lower rate. THAT is discrimination.
a few more points,
1) when you account for differences within the same field, ie a woman who takes no time off and has the commute roughly equal to a man and both work nearly identical hours, there is almost no variation in wage. think about it logically, if a business can hire a man for 10 $ an hour OR hire a woman for 7.50 $ an hour, nobody would ever hire a man. it does not make sense unless there'smore factors at work
2) I saw the video of the girl complaining about the toys, in my opinion, it's scripted. the father prompts her when she gets off topic.
3) Look up the Brenda/Brian case. I'll give a quick synopsis- a mother gave birth to twin boys. during circumcision, one of the boys had his penis essentially destroyed beyond all hopes of repair. the solution was to construct an artifical vagina, give the now her hormones, and raise her as a girl. in short, it was a train wreck, despite societal conditioning towards "girly" things, brenda (formerly brian) resisted tremendously- she (formerly he) insisted on peeing standing up, refused to wear dresses, and, in middle school, wanted to be a heavily tattooed, well muscled mechanic. society could not force this natural born boy to act like a girl
Punish_her
04-11-2012, 12:07 PM
The average female firefighter can pick your limp body up. If she couldn't, she wouldn't have qualified for the job.
You're making the textbook mistake of confusing the average with the individual. On average, women are better at organisation, but that doesn't mean you should be ruled out from any administrative post because of your sex. You might be as good as a woman...
this assumes that the qualifications are the same for men and women. in chicago, due to political pressure and accusations of discrimination, the fire department had to remove whole sections of the test to allow more females to pass. in the us military, at every age bracket, men are required to perform at least double the amount of pushups as women, and run 2 miles in at least 3 less minutes.
while some women undoubtedly can perform as well as men, they are in the extreme minority, and it usually requires much more taining to bring them up to the same level as men.
west point monitors the physical progress of cadets, and not only do men enter with more physical ability, when they graduate, that gap has actually widened.
and yes, i hope i would not be ruled out of administration jobs because of my sex, but it would be just as wrong to lower my standards because i am a man
Punish_her
04-11-2012, 01:08 PM
The point of this thread, when it started, was to discuss the possibility that there exists male discrimination. At the end of the day, our society is structured in such a way that female imperatives are valued greater than male equivalents. Feminism may have started with women’s suffrage, but it has grown to a political and societal agenda that does not seek equal treatment, but preferential treatment.
1. “Women like sports just as men” leads to Title IX, which has resulted in cutting many MENS sports program throughout the country both at the high school and college level.
2. 98% of alimony payments are from men to women though 40% of women outearn men, 90% of mothers get sole custody of the children after a divorce, 75% of women initiate divorce – the courts are fully stacked against men
3. Despite men being the victim of violence three times as often as women, there is no Violence Against Men Act.
4. Despite the majority of jobs lost during the crash in 07-08, the stimulus plan was heavily skewered towards female dominated fields
5. Despite women earning the majority of college degrees and high school, yet classroom policies and federal spending favor women’s education.
6. Despite women living longer, government spending on healthcare favors women.
7. Women can choose to keep or abort a pregnancy, but men have no say in the matter whatsoever, despite having steep implications. Legally forfeited paternity laws have been consistently struck down.
8. Women want equality in the workplace, yet they are also entitled to maternity leave
9. Women want the same privileges as men, but not the responsibilities – women may serve in the military but do not register for selective service, and before a unit is deployed, there is a considerable increase in the amount of females who become pregnant and are pardoned from deployment.
10. Many states have or are legislating for mandatory arrest laws which almost always result in men being jailed, despite physical abuse levels being nearly identical.
Think about a few situations for a minute.
1. When a girl hits a man, it’s cute or funny, excuses are made for negative behavior. When a man strikes a woman, it’s assault.
2. A woman can say in public “women are smarter than men” and it’s empowering, a man saying the opposite is a misogynist.
3. Men’s Right’s Groups are considered “extremists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, while feminist movements are pandered to by politicians.
Women went from the PROTECTED SEX, that’s right, not abused, to equal, but they retain permission to switch back to defenseless at anytime they wish.
In short, the average American woman wants to be fiercely independent, but men are still expected to be chivalrous.
That is all I am going to say, you see that the deck is stacked against men, or you don't.
Thorne
04-11-2012, 01:12 PM
1) it does not make sense unless there'smore factors at work
Except that I've actually seen it happen, a couple of times. Primarily, the persons who hired the men did so because he disliked having women in the work place, but when forced to (by law) he always paid them less.
3) Look up the Brenda/Brian case.
For clarity, it was Brenda/Bruce (Brian was the undamaged twin).
Yes, forcing a genetically male person to live as a girl would be a problem. But the question is not about what a girl is, but her preferences. If raised as a girl, given girls toys to play with, encouraged to like girly colors and things, would Brenda/Bruce reject those things in favor of more boyish toys? There's still a lot of work being done in this area, but some studies show that HOW a child is raised has a marked influence on her choices later in life.
As for standing while peeing, this is a societal preference, not a genetic predisposition. Brenda did not have a standard urethra, but urinated through a hole in her abdomen, probably through a tube. It would likely have been much easier standing!
Co-ed simply means shared...like Co-ed dorms where males and females live next too each other or in some cases even share a room.[/B][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
ok, thanks
Most mothers - and indeed fathers - seem to want to spend time with their kids. Even if it means taking a cut in pay to do so. For various reasons, it's more likely to be the mother than the father doing this, particularly in the early stages: men tend not to be very good at breast feeding.
In my own family, my mother switched to working part-time as a languages teacher after I was born, having previously been a full time export manager. <snip>(Ban that, she'd have had to choose between being away from young children much more than she wanted as well as paying a babysitter, or not working at all. Obviously neither of those appealed to her.)
Back on the employment area: I have known very capable supersonic pilots, some of them female. There certainly are women who are perfectly capable of doing that job - but do as many women as men want to? I bet if you sit near a military recruiting office, you'll see more men than women going in; go to a nursing school, you'll see the opposite. Now, if you see a job advertised as "men only" or "women only" (and there are far, far more of the latter) for a reason besides actual biology (for example, sperm donation, surrogacy etc) I will agree it's wrong - but point to an occupation being largely one or the other gender as "proof" of discrimination and you'd better think again.
I wonder what women would choose if they really had a choice? No daycare, no chance of going part-time with the father so the children could have maximum benefit of both? It is children, or career, end of story.
As long as these things do not exist, the women do not have choices, nor do the children, IMO, have the full benefit of a father.
The problem is that going to separate schools brings back the old problem of "separate but equal", which was anything but equal! I went to a co-ed high school while my brothers went to boys only high schools. I can't see any difference in the quality of education, nor did I ever notice any difficulty on my part related to being in a class with girls. I'd like to see who's doing these studies, and how comprehensive they are, before I say whether they were good or bad.
So would I. And there is also the question of socialization to be considered.
1. “Women like sports just as men” leads to Title IX, which has resulted in cutting many MENS sports program throughout the country both at the high school and college level.
What does that mean? That funds who had been reserved for men are now spent equally on both sexes?
2. 98% of alimony payments are from men to women though 40% of women outearn men, 90% of mothers get sole custody of the children after a divorce, 75% of women initiate divorce – the courts are fully stacked against men
But alimony goes to children, not to ex-spouses, right? And, well, if you produce offspring, you got to pay. In Switzerland we have a new law which favors shared custody. It's been in place for two years and already 50% of the time an agreement on shared custody is achieved. Again, you guys seem to do it wrong.
As for the women initiating divorce: Yep. Woman are more likely to go through different phases in their life and that changes them and often the guy "lags behind", kind of. At least that's the impression I get when looking at couples a few years older than me.
3. Despite men being the victim of violence three times as often as women, there is no Violence Against Men Act.
Why not? Go for it and demand one. Seems as if women have done a better job in lobbying for their interests in the past.
That aside: We don't have such an act here and I don't think there should be one. Violence should always be treated the same, regardless of the sex of the aggressor.
5. Despite women earning the majority of college degrees and high school, yet classroom policies and federal spending favor women’s education.
Seems only logical to me, if there are more women than men in colleges, they'll get the bulk of money. 1000 female students will cost more than 100 males. There is of course also another explanation why more women than men get degrees, but I don't dare to say it here.
6. Despite women living longer, government spending on healthcare favors women.
Actually, the gap between life expectancy is closing.At least here, dunno bout the US. And the only reason why more money is spent on women is because of, TA-DAA: Women are the ones who get pregnant and live longer.
On the other hand: There is just one (1!) professor in all the German-speaking countries who does research on medical differences between the sexes. There are differences. However, women are treated the same as men, because men researched men for a long time.
7. Women can choose to keep or abort a pregnancy, but men have no say in the matter whatsoever, despite having steep implications. Legally forfeited paternity laws have been consistently struck down.
You get pregnant, you get to decide. Also, for the last 2000 years women didn't have a choice or were killed when they did chose. So maybe you guys just have to live with that for the next 2000 years. Unfair as it may seem.
Also, if a man doesn't want to have to decide, he can always practice safe sex. But it's so easy to stick your dick into a pussy without having to think about contraception, because women take care of that.
8. Women want equality in the workplace, yet they are also entitled to maternity leave
You get pregnant, you get paternity leave. ;)
Actually, I'm all for paternity leave because it is a good thing. Look at Scandinavia. It can work.
9. Women want the same privileges as men, but not the responsibilities – women may serve in the military but do not register for selective service, and before a unit is deployed, there is a considerable increase in the amount of females who become pregnant and are pardoned from deployment.
Military? Seriously? Yawn. Military is so yesterday. It's only underclass chicks and dudes who do that anyway, no? Joking aside: You're right. While I think spending time to learn handle a tank is wasted time, I think a year of mandatory civil/military service for both sexes would be a pretty good thing.
10. Many states have or are legislating for mandatory arrest laws which almost always result in men being jailed, despite physical abuse levels being nearly identical.
Right, that's stupid. Change those stupid laws. Vote for different politicians. Or emigrate. There are places in this world where this doesn't happen.
3. Men’s Right’s Groups are considered “extremists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, while feminist movements are pandered to by politicians.
Again, this seems to be a problem mainly in the US of A. Also, I've been called all sorts of names by anti-feminists.
All in all: I think most of the problems you raise here (some of which really are problems) are rather unique to the US of A. It's up to you to change that.
Actually, one of those studies found that girls from girl-only schools ventured more often into "male-dominated" professions like engineers, technicians or other fields where natural sciences play a large role.
Interesting/
Also, I heavily doubt that girls are told to go for pink and boys are taught to like guns. At least a large part of that behaviour is not nurture but nature. Or epigenetics.
Doubt no more. Here they are not only taught, they are forced - no choices!
a few more points,
1) when you account for differences within the same field, ie a woman who takes no time off and has the commute roughly equal to a man and both work nearly identical hours, there is almost no variation in wage. think about it logically, if a business can hire a man for 10 $ an hour OR hire a woman for 7.50 $ an hour, nobody would ever hire a man. it does not make sense unless there'smore factors at work
there are other factors at work. In DK in 2010 the difference in pay was 17.7%, which seemed about the average for Europe, and the equal work-equal pay campaign went on.
US:
• " ‘The wage gap hasn't moved significantly in nearly a decade’
For ever dollar a man makes in California, a woman holding the same job is paid 84 cents, according to a new report from the American Association of University Women.
California ties with Vermont for the 84 percent earnings ratio, the report says. In Washington, D.C., where equal pay laws and regulations have been formulated, the gap is the least – 91 cents for every dollar a man makes in the same job, the report says.
The state with the worst earnings ratio is Wyoming, where women make 64 percent of men's earnings.
The national average puts women at just 77 percent."
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=20814
2) I saw the video of the girl complaining about the toys, in my opinion, it's scripted. the father prompts her when she gets off topic.
How convincing, one example. What is that supposed to show?
3) Look up the Brenda/Brian case. I'll give a quick synopsis- a mother gave birth to twin boys. during circumcision, one of the boys had his penis essentially destroyed beyond all hopes of repair. the solution was to construct an artifical vagina, give the now her hormones, and raise her as a girl. in short, it was a train wreck, despite societal conditioning towards "girly" things, brenda (formerly brian) resisted tremendously- she (formerly he) insisted on peeing standing up, refused to wear dresses, and, in middle school, wanted to be a heavily tattooed, well muscled mechanic. society could not force this natural born boy to act like a girl
What is your point?
The point of this thread, when it started, was to discuss the possibility that there exists male discrimination. At the end of the day, our society is structured in such a way that female imperatives are valued greater than male equivalents. Feminism may have started with women’s suffrage, but it has grown to a political and societal agenda that does not seek equal treatment, but preferential treatment.
1. “Women like sports just as men” leads to Title IX, which has resulted in cutting many MENS sports program throughout the country both at the high school and college level.
Was that to make room for women? In that case, don't you think it is fair to share the time?
2. 98% of alimony payments are from men to women though 40% of women outearn men,
I am surprised about the 40 %, but if true, surely that is wrong.
90% of mothers get sole custody of the children after a divorce,
Also wrong, although in many many cases the women are the ones looking after the kids, as you have made very clear.
75% of women initiate divorce – the courts are fully stacked against men
I do not see that the fact that many more women than men initiate divorce is a sign of discrimination againts men - what do you mean here?
3. Despite men being the victim of violence three times as often as women, there is no Violence Against Men Act.
I am surprised at those numbers, unless they also contain men against men as Lucy said, in which case it can hardly be said to be a discrimination, any more than violence by women against women.
4. Despite the majority of jobs lost during the crash in 07-08, the stimulus plan was heavily skewered towards female dominated fields
If the situation was like in Europe, that would be because of the fact that women were worst hit in the first place - part time workers, you know.
5. Despite women earning the majority of college degrees and high school, yet classroom policies and federal spending favor women’s education.
How?
6. Despite women living longer, government spending on healthcare favors women.
How?
7. Women can choose to keep or abort a pregnancy, but men have no say in the matter whatsoever, despite having steep implications. Legally forfeited paternity laws have been consistently struck down.
That is indeed a complicated problem!
8. Women want equality in the workplace, yet they are also entitled to maternity leave
A country needs new generations.
9. Women want the same privileges as men, but not the responsibilities – women may serve in the military but do not register for selective service, and before a unit is deployed, there is a considerable increase in the amount of females who become pregnant and are pardoned from deployment.
What is selective service?
10. Many states have or are legislating for mandatory arrest laws which almost always result in men being jailed, despite physical abuse levels being nearly identical.
There is a problem with violence towards men, not easily solved. But you make so much of the physical difference - how can so many women beat up the much stronger men??
Think about a few situations for a minute.
1. When a girl hits a man, it’s cute or funny, excuses are made for negative behavior. When a man strikes a woman, it’s assault.
I agree with you here, absolutely.
2. A woman can say in public “women are smarter than men” and it’s empowering, a man saying the opposite is a misogynist.
You have a point here as well.
3. Men’s Right’s Groups are considered “extremists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, while feminist movements are pandered to by politicians.
That I do not know about.
Women went from the PROTECTED SEX, that’s right, not abused,
I am sure women were protected to some extent, some classes of women anyway, but also without much influence. But do you seriously mean to say that no women are abused??
to equal, but they retain permission to switch back to defenseless at anytime they wish.
I think there is something in this, and that is not right. Equal rights, equal responsibilities.
In short, the average American woman wants to be fiercely independent, but men are still expected to be chivalrous.
Well, not here anyway, I can assure you no men in DK know the meaning of the word ;-)
Women are not so fiercely independant, it is more kind of normal.
That is all I am going to say, you see that the deck is stacked against men, or you don't.
There are definitly some areas, like with children especially, same conditions here, and it isn't right. Also the weirdly bigger tolerance towards women's behavour in some situations, frankly I do not understand it at all.
But the rest I admit I cannot see.
Punish_her
04-11-2012, 03:09 PM
alimony and child support are different.child support goes to children, alimony is considered "spousal support," and is awarded in a divorce and there are no children, and it is to be paid typically until the receiving partner remarries. child support only goes until the child is 18. some divorce settlements require both to be paid.
Punish_her
04-11-2012, 03:57 PM
and i didnt mean that there'smore spending on women because they are already in college: there are more subsidies and grants available for women than men
alimony and child support are different.child support goes to children, alimony is considered "spousal support," and is awarded in a divorce and there are no children, and it is to be paid typically until the receiving partner remarries. child support only goes until the child is 18. some divorce settlements require both to be paid.
Ah, ok. We use the expression "alimony" both for spousal and child support.
Yeah, well, again: That of course is wrong. If a couple here divorces and both work 100% nobody has to pay anything. OUr pension system tends to fuck women who took time off from work to care about children (or those who never worked because of children) up their ass, though.
Also, this puts way too much emphasis on the institution of marriage.
On the other hand, if there are children, child support doesn't end here when the child is 18, but when it has finished it's education. Makes sense to me.
alimony and child support are different.child support goes to children, alimony is considered "spousal support," and is awarded in a divorce and there are no children, and it is to be paid typically until the receiving partner remarries. child support only goes until the child is 18. some divorce settlements require both to be paid.
I thought alimony was something you had even after a second marriage - which I found weird. Admittedly based on films - not any read fact.
Do these laws not take into consideration how the marriage was? I mean, if one spouse has mostly worked at home, she might be badly situated to get a job. In DK alimony is not self-evident, you can get it you can show the neccesity, and it is taken up on a regular basis, both with respect to what one part needs, but also with respect to what the other part can pay.
OUr pension system tends to fuck women who took time off from work to care about children (or those who never worked because of children) up their ass, though.
Also, this puts way too much emphasis on the institution of marriage.
Same in UK. In DK you have the same pension if you have lived for 40 years in the country, after you have turned 18. So, marriage or working life is not relevant.
On the other hand, if there are children, child support doesn't end here when the child is 18, but when it has finished it's education. Makes sense to me.
Yes.
and i didnt mean that there'smore spending on women because they are already in college: there are more subsidies and grants available for women than men
Do you know why? And who pays those subsidies and grants? I know that there's no gender difference here when it comes to subsidies and grants, but Switzerland's educational system is (luckily) very different from the one in the US.
js207
04-12-2012, 06:19 AM
The school I went to was all male until the year before I started, phasing them in (senior girls only at first, juniors later) so that my year was the last to get girls (for the first 3 of my 5 years there, it was all male).
Single sex schools probably do have advantages in many respects - academic results I suspect, as well as eliminating an obvious distraction for most of the students. On the other hand, particularly in boarding schools like mine was, I'm sure lack of exposure to the opposite sex is a disadvantage in social development. Maybe that's why I ended up all sick and twisted hanging out on sites like this ;-P
Was that to make room for women? In that case, don't you think it is fair to share the time?
No, it wasn't to free up room - it was because the rule was interpreted as requiring exactly the same level of funding - so if 60 guys who want to play football get a $10,000 budget for equipment etc, the 3 girls who want to play have to get the same resources - despite that being absurd and impractical. It's exactly the mistake you mentioned earlier, confusing fairness with identical results, so they would have to spend as much on a tiny or even non-existent women's sport as on the men's one with actual people involved.
StrictMasterD
04-15-2012, 05:25 PM
The Laws in the US can vary. some couple who Divorce here WAiver Alomony and in the case no kids are involed, no child support
Plus with Alomonu it is only piad until the person receiving it get remarried then it is ended it is not a life long Financial arragmeent unles that spouse simply decides to stay simple o acceptthe Alomny and with Childsuport, that end at either 18 or 21 dependon on the laws in that state, in other woeds, child suport in the United State is only payable while the child is a Minor once they reach adult hood by age that support stops, whether they have a job or not and in the Case of a DEath and Eath Benefits to a Minor that ends upon their 18th or 21st birthday dependong pn the age of consent in that state
Thorne
04-17-2012, 07:03 PM
they got rushed off the titanic first, and are usually given preferential treatment even now in disasters
Just ran across this (http://news.discovery.com/history/titanic-women-children-120413.html). Seems "women and children first" isn't as common as some think!