Gender equality is still a concernining issue.

^ For such arrogance in this post, you sure don't have any answers for the many examples I immediately pulled.

This isn't an answer. Men are being discriminated against in almost every civilized country where they are forced into military slavery.

Not only is this not an answer, it's not even a complete thought. You just threw in the buzzword "violence against women" and somehow dismiss the massive legal discrimination against men in almost every civilized country.

How are women currently not afforded equal (actually, more) rights? I've just provided many widespread examples of discrimination against men, but somehow, you think that women are not equals of men in the West.

 

It is an answer. Men are forced into military service because of outdated gender notions that women can't fight, so men must protect them. Ending this sexist system, we must treat men and women equally - in short, be more feminist in our thinking.

I didn't say that men weren't discriminated against.

It's not a complete thought because you cut off my sentence and put the rest of it into your next quote.

I'm not discounting courtroom discrimination against men. It's possible to be discriminated against in one situation, and not in another.

~25% of women are sexually assaulted each year.

Women are shamed for happening to enjoy sex.

They're raped, and not believed.

They hold fewer positions of authority, and when they do, they're taken far less seriously than their male counterparts.

They're seriously underrepresented in goverment.

They do most of the housework (even when working full-time).

The media hands them self-image problems on a silver platter.

If you're a black, gay, or transgender woman (or all 3), God help you.

Also, regarding courtroom discrimination against men in custody battles, have a read:

http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/08/bias-against-fathers/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html

In particular, look for the part where it says "...the majority of custody settlements – even those that favor the mother – are reached by mutual agreements outside of the courtroom."

 

So why is it feminists aren't ever focused on equality? Why is it about claiming the victim status when men are the victims under the law?

Absurd. That would average out to the average woman being sexually assaulted 20 times over the course of her lifetime. Even so, this isn't some sort of issue that feminism can wave a wand and dispel - assault of any kind is immoral, everyone already knows this.

No they fucking aren't lmao. Basically all living things are biologically programmed to enjoy sex, women aren't victims here. Furthermore, that argument carries no weight, it would be like me saying men are shamed for being virgins.

Then they aren't meeting the burden of proof. Which is a good thing since about 40% of rape claims are false.

Then they should achieve these positions and that respect by merit. What are you suggesting, mandatory promotions for poor victim women?

Government is a corrupt entity that feeds on other humans. It is evil in it's entirety, women are not special victims to government.

Men do most of the work labor (even when doing housework part time). This isn't an argument.

Not an argument, and in fact, countered by reality. Women have actual measurable real life economic advantage with aesthetics/sexuality (see: strip clubs, cam girls, prostitution).

Any sources? This is just a vague ass statement to try to make victims out of all these groups as well.

Holy fucking shit, that everydayfeminism article is literally calling minimizing child support greedy. I can't tell if you are trolling or just trying to generate clicks. Men are being locked into paying women alimony and child support in the court system (which, so be fair and consistent, is an extension of gov't which is wholly evil). Even before considering something as subjective as the well being of a child, there is a stark economic advantage to being a woman in court.

 

>For example, the Australian bureau of statistics reports that on average men earn 18% more then women across all fields of work.

The gender pay gap is a result of women choosing to pursue different occupations than men. Men often choose more dangerous and risky jobs that require physical strength, like working on oil rigs and with heavy machinery, while women choose safer jobs. It would be unfair if a man had to do a job that had a high chance of injury/death and got paid as little as a woman doing a safe job with a negligible chance of injury/death.

>For much of 2013, our former Prime Minister Julia Gillard was interrogated about her sexuality, her husband and other personal details by the media.

Almost every famous person gets shit on by the media at one point or another.

>In conclusion, we as a society need to fix these plaguing issues, which are holding back our advancements from not only an economic standpoint, but from a humanitarian one.

The compiler doesn't give a shit about the programmer's gender. If women want more money and power, it's right there for the taking, starting at 6 figures a year.

 

Plenty of feminists are focused on equality. However, if women are being discriminated against in a particular area, it's not "claiming the victim status" to point it out.

Sorry - that's a typo. I can't find the numbers on sexual assault, but rape is anywhere from 15-20% of the female population.

I didn't say feminism had a magic wand. You asked how women were discriminated against and I'm giving you the information.

Have you heard of "slut shaming"?

Sometimes they don't meet the burden of proof, but since a majority of rapes aren't reported to the authorities, consider that they also might not be believed by friends and family.

40%? Do you have a source for that number?

Mandatory promotions, no. I'm pointing out an issue.

It's hard to come by respect when people won't take you seriously because you're a woman.

If you're an anarchist, I'll gladly have that debate in another thread. As it is, government exists and exerts its force on us. While it does so, women are under-represented.

This in particular isn't a "men vs. women" issue. I point out that when husband and wife work equal hours, women do more housework, because it illustrates that there's a tendency to view women as "homemakers".

As one example, women are far more likely to become anorexic: http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/anorexia-nervosa.html#b

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_inequality_in_the_United_States#Health_and_violence
http://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html

Yes, greedy. Child support is money paid to help raise a child. Minimizing the amount you pay to keep more for yourself, at your child's expense...what would you call that?

You know, women can pay alimony too. It's not a "man penalty", it's to account for situations where a woman leaves the labor force to raise a child/be a homekeeper.

 

Being an abnormally large percentage of victims for a crime is not discrimination.

Yeah. It's where you criticize someone for having (a lot of) sex. However, like I said, there is no argument here.

How can the statement "a majority of rapes aren't reported" possibly be tested? It is literally a claim about information that people do not know.

Of course.

The issue is that women aren't performing as well as men in the workplace?

Respect is earned. Being a women doesn't make you a victim that deserves more respect, or is denied respect because of her lack of a penis.

If feminism isn't men vs women, why is it always this sort of back and forth that we are having now? There are OBVIOUSLY differences between men and women. Why must women always be victims and men never victims? Why is female genital mutilation condemned for women and not for men? Why is forced military servitude sex discrimination even a second thought for them?

Men are more likely to commit suicide. This isn't an argument. Furthermore, anorexia is SELF INFLICTED.

Dead wrong. Men pay child support to the mother. She can spend it on whatever she wants.

Cut the bullshit. The "raise a child" thing is utter deception. When millionaires get divorced, they have to pay out absurd amounts of money to "Maintain the standard of living for which their partner became accustomed to", even if the other partner earned no money for themselves. It's not like the mother itemizes the expenses for the child and they split the cost. The man has to fork over cash every month, and if he doesn't, he will be hunted down and shot.

 

Opportunities are never equal, and can never be equal. Evolution would not allow it for one. Even if all environmental conditions hypothetically were controlled, which they still can't be, given people will be born in different geographical locations, there will still be vastly different opportunities available to different people.

Even if the sentiment behind your assertion is true, it is meaningless, even if all the feminism hopes to achieve is in fact realized, there will still be vast amounts of inequality of opportunity.

What if men naturally gravitate to fields such as engineering, and women naturally gravitate to fields such as nursing? To say that everything is blamed on our sexist upbringing of our children is absurd if you consider that maybe, just maybe, men and women are different, and will want different things. Likewise, it is equally unacceptable to say all the difference is explained by natural tendencies. It may be. It may not be. However I would contest that if there is a natural tendency, then the general approach to socializing children in accordance with their natural tendencies, I can't see anything wrong with that. Anyways, there is a difference between institutional sexism and bad parents. For the most part, I think any institutional sexism here, at least in Australia, is no more.

As it stands by the way, the happiness of women has been on the decline. I won't elaborate on this point, but I think it bears mentioning.

. This is a contradiction. You cannot promote both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. What if say we treat both genders equally, and we find x gender dominating one field, and y gender dominating another? Do we intervene for equality of outcome, meaning we sacrifice equality of opportunity, or do we let it be, and accept inequality of outcome, and accept equality of opportunity.

You cannot have it both ways. Being more specific on the college part, there is a preponderance of women in nursing, and a preponderance of men in engineering. This may be because from a young age they were socialized as such, or perhaps it is just that they were socialized as such because they have a natural tendency to gravitate to such fields. No one is arguing for equality of outcome in the fields of nursing between men and women though. Go figure.

You can be different but equal. Men and women are different (you can easily be labelled as sexist for this statement). It follows that treating them differently will lead to different outcomes. This should be an acceptable state of affairs. In fact, trying to make the outcome of the sexes equal when they are different is an act of sexist discrimination in itself. See affirmative action.

I agree that it's reasonable for one to focus on issues that affect them the most. I think however also that it is disingenuous to hold that view, which is reasonable, but simultaneously also hold the view that they fight for men's rights. They don't. Those that do, usually focus on it disproportionately. I mean, if the majority of women say don't care so much about men's issues, why should a man care so much about women's issues. The argument that because women faced a lot more discrimination I would reject because that simply is not the case now.

Though I whole-heratedly agree with you that the proponents of feminist theory are now-a-day, are a large part to blame for the negative press feminism receives.

A bit of a hyperbole, but what I was trying to get at the 'rape culture', where some extreme proponents, as far as I'm aware, have tried to define rape in the situation where a women regrets sleeping with a man after the fact.

By the way, saying rape is rape when the key contention is what rape is, is quite awkward lol.

 

That 25% figure is from a terrible study of two very small colleges that count things like an unwanted verbal advance (like a guy talking to a girl in a bar) as sexual assault. It is a completely bullshit statistic that is a complete lie.

 

You know what I mean - it's an area where women suffer. You said, "How are women currently not treated equally?", and this was an example.

You're right, it's not an argument - it's a way that women aren't treated equally, which is what you asked for.

But as I had said earlier, yes, women ARE shamed for having/enjoying lots of sex.

Aren't reported to the police.

Found the wikipedia article, but apparently you missed the next part:

For comparison, the FBI's number is about 8%, but even that is over-inflated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#FBI_statistics

Yes, pointing it out per your request.

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/36/7/923.short
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/sexist-politician-quotes_n_4038199.html

I'm glad you grew up in an area where sexism is apparently not a thing, but there are huge parts of the world where it remains in force.

Because we disagree on the topic of discussion? You think women aren't oppressed, I think they are.

There are OBVIOUSLY differences between men and women. Why must women always be victims and men never victims?[/quote]

I never said men couldn't be victims. I don't know what your experiences with other feminists are, but you can't assume every feminist is the same way.

Most of the feminists I know condemn it for both, but consider also that it's typically far more severe and disfiguring when performed upon women, which is why there's more attention brought to FGM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg

The almost entirely male Congress voted to keep the draft men-only, and the 100% male Supreme Court upheld that.

See also a resolution of the National Organization of Women, supporting female military enlistment: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00005244/00001/1j

In my opinion, the draft should be abolished entirely, but as a feminist, I 100% agree that IF it must exist, then both men and women should have to register.

It's not an argument, it's an example of inequality. I'd also hesitate to say that anorexia is self-inflicted, because it's a mental disorder. Generally, those with mental disorders are held less than accountable for their actions. It's why there's a such thing as an "insanity plea".

I think you've been reading too many MRA posts about single moms splurging on new shoes. Raising a kid is expensive, and my guess would be that most women use the money to help pay bills. Unless you have some numbers that indicate otherwise?

Actually, it depends. In the US at least, there are several states that severely limit the amount/duration of alimony. For the others, there are varying guidelines. For example, in some states, if a person acquires their fortune before marriage, it dims the prospects of their partner for getting a share of it.

To your point where all these millionaires are losing their millions, I'd definitely agree with alimony reform in those situations. The vast majority of cases are nothing like that, though, and should not be the main focus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony#Factors_affecting_alimony_in_the_United_States

So, what, because 100% equal opportunity is impossible, we should just give up entirely? I accept that there are certain things we cannot change, but why on earth would that mean not doing anything about the things we can change?

They don't: http://www.livescience.com/1927-men-dominate-math-science-fields.html

Most differences (apart from physical) can easily be explained by socialization, not innate nature.

I didn't say I was promoting equality of outcome, I actually said the opposite. As long as opportunities are equal, that's all I care about. Incidentally, you can promote equality of outcome by promoting equality of opportunity, since men and women are largely equal.

Probably because it's one of the few fields where women outnumber men. As a feminist, I'd love to see more men in nursing, though.

That's not what I said. I said that people who insist that men and women are not equal are sexist. Example - people who insist women are dumber than men.

Affirmative action is a way to strong-arm institutions into complying with various anti-discrimination laws. It's not sexist in the least.

Feminism itself favors equality between men and women. Individual feminists will not necessarily give every subject under the sun equal treatment.

It certainly is the case now. See my earlier posts about women being sexually assaulted/raped, denied bodily autonomy, murdered by their partners, shit on by the media, and so on.

The exact definition of rape will vary, but the key part is that the raped party doesn't consent. I've never heard of anybody, ever, trying to retroactively withdraw consent. It doesn't work that way.

You're thinking of another study, where the government said that 1 in 5 (20%) of women had been sexually assaulted during their time at college. And while that study definitely had its flaws, it didn't count talking to a girl as a sexual assault, it only counted actual attempted or completed sexual assault.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ually-assaulted-the-source-of-this-statistic/

The more relevant number is how many women have been raped. Numbers vary, but it's anywhere from 15-20%. Note that this only counts rape, and not sexual assault.

 

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that your point is irrelevant.

You're saying that if x is equal, y will also be mostly equal. I'm merely pointing out that if feminism's goal is realized, x will still not at all be equal, and so it follows that y certainly won't be equal. Hence feminists disproportionate focus on equality of outcome is futile since even if their goal is realized, it doesn't at all follow that their will be equality of outcome.

This article doesn't negate my contention. The first season in Hjernevask: The Gender Paradox is an interesting documentary about this very problem in employment. Also, as to the article you cited, and the study it cites within, there are large flaws. Just because women sweat on seeing a male-heavy sector doesn't mean there is discrimination. Once again, you are evaluating outcome and linking it back to opportunity. You might mount an argument saying that this is inequality of opportunity, as their male counterparts wouldn't sweat, and so from the very beginning they wouldn't be steered away (on this factor alone). Again though, this is not discrimination, just the natural differences between men and women. Perhaps men are discriminated in nursing. No fuss about that though.

Also on your point, I'm not sure whether you're in uni and have access to these articles, but this one, doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0209-4 The title: "When trying hard isn't natural: women's belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns". I'm just going to quote the description.

Refer to my bolded points. In the beginning we can see that given the same opportunities (the perception that your peers are putting less effort in than you for the same result), for women it predicts a decreased sense of belonging, and for men no significant difference. At the end we find that telling these women (remember men don't feel this lack of belonging), that that effort is expected to achieve success elevates their sense of belonging. There really appears to be no bad socialization here. Just the fact that women are different from men. PERHAPS these differences are a result of earlier socialization. Perhaps not. The evidence certainly doesn't command an environment view here however.​

Reading studies is dry. I'm sure you've heard of Christina Hoff Summers. She addresses this issue in this short youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-6usiN4uoA​

They can also be explained by nature. Just because socialization can explain it, doesn't mean socialization caused it, or was a significant cause to it.

On your first point, that's fine, and good. I'm sure we can all accept however that a lot of people don' promote solely equality of opportunity, but a combination of the two. As to your second point, I do not actually necessarily agree.

People are different. Treat them equally (equality of opportunity), does not necessarily follow that there will be more equality of outcome. It just does not follow.

Would you also prefer to see more women as brick layers, etc. Even if you do, why is it that no one really petitions for equality in these areas? Would you like to see more men as receptionists, dental assistants, and so on?

What number would you like to see?

If it was the case that women were dumber and men, would that view be sexist?

So telling a company that they must hire more women irrespective of their ability or be sued in court is not sexist?

You can't be the proponent for equal treatment and accept unequal treatment because it's not convenient for you.

Men get sexually assaulted and raped too? Try filing a rape as a male. You'll be laughed at. Women initiate divorces more than men too. Men get shat on in child custody and alimony (at least in America), also. What about false rape accusations, and how they can ruin a mans life with little consequence to women. The fact that women get more lenient sentences as well? Feminists doing much on that frontier? Also on bodily autonomy.

You are referring to abortion I'm assuming. Abortion is quite interesting. It requires a balancing of rights. Rights of the females bodily autonomy: they own their body. Also "rights" of the supposed foetus. If one prefers to rights of the foetus over the rights of the female, this is not sexist. It is a judgment independent of sex. The fact that it is an issue that can only arise in females is not relevant.

Some feminists would disagree with you. You missed the other key part. Rape requires sexual penetration (that can be by a penis, a finger, or an object). When drunk, females cannot freely consent. But males can still sexually penetrate. Thus even if males are drunk and cannot consent, the fact that they sexually penetrated, it is still considered rape.

The law requires males to be responsible for their actions while not being able to consent, whereas females are not required to be responsible for their actions while not being able to consent. Also the key part isn't that the raped party doesn't consent, it's that they cannot legally consent. Depending on how the freely consent provisions are interpreted and applied, there certainly can be instances where one actually consented at the time, retrospectively decided to claim rape, and rely on the lack of legal consent.

 

Generally speaking, women are just as good as men at most things (leaving aside questions of physical strength). Generally speaking, when you remove barriers, women tend to do as well as men (see college enrollments/graduations). Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that if opportunities are equal for the most part, the outcomes will be too. Nobody will care if engineers are 51% male, 49% women, they care if they're 90% male and 10% women.

I apologize if the article wasn't clear, but the point was to show that women are graduating in large numbers with engineering degrees. This number has increased drastically from what it was - it doesn't seem like women aren't wired to be engineers. At any rate, that wouldn't make one bit of sense - women are the same species as men, and have the same brain, and same capacity for rational thinking.

When I talk about the same opportunities, I mean from birth. I don't mean raising a crop of girls to be nice, play with dolls, look pretty for boys, then offering them the chance to choose between calculus and caretaking.

I should have clarified - socialization IS responsible. As I mentioned previously, removing barriers generally results in women doing things that men do, whether it be going to college, joining the military, running for office, founding companies, etc. If it were nature, removal of barriers should effect no change at all.

But we see it in practice. I'm not saying it follows a priori, I'm saying it follows empirically.

Ideally, I'd like to see roughly equal numbers in pretty much every occupation. Most probably, nobody petitions for equality in those areas because it wouldn't grab anybody's attention. "There are more men in positions of power" grabs peoples attention and seems to hint at unfairness, whereas "there are more male plumbers" doesn't have the same effect.

No. Sexism is prejudice/discrimination against somebody solely on the basis of their sex. If it were truly the case that women had, on average, a lower IQ, remarking on that would not be sexist.

If that actually happened, that would be outrageous and I'd be the first up in arms against it.

To the best of my knowledge, affirmative action occurs when selecting between comparable candidates, since that is theoretically where sexism could intervene so that mostly male candidates are selected. Have you any data to the contrary?

That's not what I'm saying. Right now I'm arguing about gender inequality, but I'm also against racism, homophobia, religious hatred, evolution deniers, and a whole host of other issues. However, this evening, I'm really tired and will probably go to sleep without discussing any of the other topics. That is no different.

You're right, and it's no joke. Prison is where the worst of it happens, but of course it can happen outside prison too.

I don't really see divorce as a bad thing, exactly. I'd rather that an unhappy couple split up than stay together.

Not so much anymore. See my earlier post on alimony, but regarding custody: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html

A large chunk of men agree with their ex-wives that the mother should get custody. This is something settled out of court.

Of course it's a terrible thing when it happens, but it rarely does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#FBI_statistics

Keep in mind that even the FBI estimate of 8% is likely too high.

And, for the record, I completely agree that a rape accusation shouldn't hurt anybody until a conviction is reached. "Innocent until proven guilty", as we say here in the states.

I agree also that women shouldn't get more lenient sentences, but consider that in the US, people are generally convicted by a jury of their peers. Maybe if we can have women viewed as ordinary people, instead of targets for misplaced chivalry?

Well, no, it's not sexist as such, but it's a woman's issue where a group of predominantly old white dudes get to decide what a woman may or may not do with her body. It certainly factors into the discussion.

If both parties are drunk, that's not rape. It's rape if one party is unable to consent while the other can (blackout drunk), and they are taken advantage of. Consider the new FBI definition of rape:

"The carnal knowledge of a person, without the consent of the victim, including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her age or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity"

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...ew-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions

Nothing about penetration there, only lack of consent by one party.

You mean, "if a person decided to lie"? Sure, that could happen. Not sure how that could be stopped.

 

Sure I exaggerated but it counts things that are clearly not assault or attempted assault. It was a web based survey meaning that only people who care answered. It also had a terrible response rate. Either way it is a completely bullshit statistic that should be disregarded. The 15-20% stat you quote is similarly completely bullshit. It is completely and utterly false and also should be disregarded.

 

Being drunk does not mean you can not consent and one person being drunk while the other is not does not mean they are being taken advantage of. That is just perpetuating the victimization culture that feminism has created.

 

From what I can tell, you say you want equality of opportunity, but you actually want equality of outcome. Your reasoning betrays your wants. I do not doubt the sincerity of your statement that you truly want equality of opportunity. But you keep, time and time again, measuring that with equality of outcome. You cannot do that. Your argument isn't a valid form of moddus tollens simply because is isn't the case the equality of opportunity always leads to equality of outcome.

Take one Black Jamal, and one White Gary. They run a race. A short race. Jamal wins. He ran 100m in 11s. Gary ran 100m in 11.5s. From this inequality of outcome, you are concluding that there is inequality of opportunity, that Gary has been discriminated against. However, that analysis on outcome cannot at all be imputed back to opportunities because they are two separate things. If you were to truly analyze whether there was equality of opportunity, you might look at the access they had to training grounds. The shoes they wore, or the coaches they had access too, etc. You WOULD NOT look at the outcome of the race, and thus far that is what you are doing, and that is the error in your reasoning, and the source of much contention. Stop looking at the outcome of 9:1 M:F ratio in engineering, or that 50% of men and women ought to be brick layers. Look more towards the opportunities they have. When you say women and men are socialized differently, and this leads to them going down different paths resulting in that ratio. That argument is far more compelling than saying look 9:1 ratio therefore there is inequality of opportunity. Even if it is true, the logic is incoherent, and thus unless you can distinguish between when it is and isn't, just don't argue the latter, and focus the former. You cannot continuously claim that you stand for equality of opportunity, yet continuously harp on equality of outcome. You're either lying or unaware of the implications of your words/reasoning, and I'm just going to assume it's the latter.

Men and women can do as well as each other and want different things wouldn't you agree. From that, why is it a problem that there is a 9:1 ratio in engineering? You're taking the outcome as evidence for opportunity. That because the outcome has equalized in some areas, therefore there is equality of opportunity, and because the outcome is still not equal in other areas, that therefore there is insufficient equality of opportunity. You cannot do this.

You have said multiple times that you stand for equality of opportunity, yet your reasoning reflects your stance for equality of outcome. If you didn't care about equality of outcome you wouldn't cite outcome statistics. Unless of course you think that equality of opportunity > equality of outcome. As I said, it doesn't follow.

Take x and y, and assign different integer values to them. Plug them a function. Notice how the outcome will often be different, but in some instances, it might be the same? That is the purest form of treating something equally.

Women are the same species as men: correct. They have the same brain: incorrect, there are differences between the male and female brain. Yes they are substantially similar, but not entirely similar. In fact, not everyone's brain is substantially similar, gender aside. If the brain gives rise to ones capacity for rational thinking, and it is demonstrated that the brains differ in very subtle ways, then we might expect subtle differences in ones capacity for rational thought.

It has hard to distinguish whether it is the product of socialization that women want different things from men, or the product of their natural tendencies.

If it is the product of natural tendencies, do you think it is acceptable then for parents to raise children of different genders differently? After all, parents almost always want to raise their children to do well in the future. If doing well in that future for a man means focusing on getting a good job, and doing well in that future for a female means to have feminine traits, I don't see a problem. In fact even if it is the product of socialization, is it still wrong for parents to raise their children the same way, perhaps only adding that they (the children) should feel free to pursue what they want because society is changing?

Notice that women are becoming increasingly unhappier. Perhaps the changes in society have been a detriment to women.

I would contest that far from removing barriers, women are being privileged over men, both legally and socially. If that were the case instead, then your argument doesn't apply, because we aren't removing barriers, but rather handicapping men by assisting women.

You are seeing correlation but not necessarily causation. We've been talking about the abstracts in opportunity and outcome, and you are then conflating them with the concretes in opportunity and outcome. In reality women have far more opportunities and assistance than men do. So really, the empirical evidence you are presenting is not based on equality of opportunity giving rise to equality of outcome, but inequality of opportunity giving rise to equality of outcome. Funnily enough, this is a logically possible state of affairs. When you treat different people differently, only then in principle can you attain a state of affairs that is an equal outcome.

Of course, no one cares about men, why would it grab anyone's attention! Stop focusing on outcome if you care about equality of opportunity. You don't measure equality of opportunity by equality of outcome.

So if the people do hold that view, then they would not be sexist, just ignorant, correct?

It's very difficult to demonstrate this to you on an online forum. My advice, if looking for these stories online is insufficient, is quite literally, throughout your life observe and notice and talk to people in positions of power. Anyway, see below.

There are quotas companies have to fill. Guess what happens when there are insufficient comparable women to men? Would companies leave the quota unfilled at risk of a lawsuit. ABSOLUTELY NOT. They just hire women even if they are less qualified than men because they derive more value for hiring women to meet the quota then they derive from the small value they would obtain from a better employee.

As an aside, I think the companies should feel free to hire whomever they want, and discriminate on whatever grounds they want. They pay a price for discrimination anyway. Let them. It is unethical to force a business to hire someone they don't want to. So I would still reject affirmative action on these grounds, simply because you shouldn't compel a company by force to hire x or y. If you don't like their hiring practices, don't indulge them, and they will be less competitive in comparison to companies that do not hire discriminatorily, but on merit.

Me to, and I'm saying within the sphere of gender inequality, you are prioritizing women's issues far more than men's issues, so don't say you care about equal treatment when your actions contradict that.

Who gets the kids and the material possessions?

Watch Divorce Corp.

Yea that doesn't happen in practice though. No one cares because it's men though.

Women are jurors too?

Would it make a different if they were young black dudes? It shouldn't factor in at all. Follow the reasoning.

Having done criminal law units in Australia, I can say that sexual penetration is an important element for rape. I have briefly googled some of the laws in US, which presumably only apply to one state: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920

"(a)Rape.—Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by—"

Note that the code defines what a "sexual act" means: "1)Sexual act.—The term “sexual act” means—
(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or
(B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person."

The FBI's definition of rape is irrelevant. Read the statute. I have to emphasize this point again. If you bring this FBI definition in court, it will quickly be shredded. Edit: I'm also not sure if I've read what you've cited improperly, or if you've read it improperly (Even though it is irrelevant). But you cited the old definition of rape, not the new one, which emphasizes sexual penetration. Re-read the first few paragraphs, it's at the top.

They're not lying at all. They just say I didn't legally consent. Consent =/= legal consent. Whether the women consented or not is irrelevant, only legal consent is irrelevant (This might be ambiguous, but to reiterate by consent I mean the non legal view of consent). Unless of course you're saying the laws don't reflect accurately the reality of the situation and leave exposed what would otherwise be innocent men to a life time of ridicule at best, and a large sentence at worse.

 

I wasn't talking about that college survey, I was talking about national rape statistics (in the U.S.).

Why do you think it's completely and utterly false? Because the CDC seems to think it's true.

To clarify, I'm not talking about "person A has half a beer and person B has none". You can consent while having alcohol in your system but you can't consent while properly drunk. Cornell puts it better than I ever could:

"Consent is comprised of words or actions that show a knowing, active and voluntary agreement to engage in mutually agreed upon activity. Consent is never implied and cannot be assumed – the absence of “no” does not mean “yes.” Consent cannot be given if there is coercion (to pressure intimidate or force), violence or the threat of violence. Consent can be withdrawn at any time. So when engaging in mutual or romantic intimacies, be sure your partner is not too intoxicated to know what’s going on and that you are confident they want to be intimate. According to NYS law, a person cannot legally give consent if: a) the person is under the age of 17, b) the person is developmentally disabled, or c) the person is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless, including as a result of alcohol or drugs."

http://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-and-clear-consent/

Here is the reason that I repeatedly bring up outcomes while arguing for equality of opportunity: I'm operating under the premise that men and women are roughly equal in terms of intelligence, capability, ambition, desires, etc. I am operating under this premise because we have the same brain. We are both homo sapiens sapiens. Therefore, if my premise is correct, differences in outcome in most situations imply differences in opportunity. If evidence can be shown that men and women have radical differences (apart from physical) that clearly indicate that men are predisposed towards engineering and women are predisposed towards teaching, then I will gladly retract my argument.

It is a problem because, if I am correct, women are shoehorned into low-paying positions while men are able to grab the lucrative positions.

I never claimed that all opportunities were equal. My claim is that opportunities have equalized to an extent, but progress remains to be made.

There are subtle differences between individual brains, sure, but recent research shows that the "male/female" brain concept is vastly over simplified. Nobody has a "male" brain or a "female" brain.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/male-female-brain-valid-distinction-study-35496259
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/sc-male-female-brain-health-1201-20151201-story.html

Definitely, only way we'll know is if we socialize men and women the same.

If it's what they actually want, I have no problem. However, parents exert a lot of influence on their children, and children can be socialized through other means (media, school, etc.).

There are too many confounding variables to make that conclusion. It could be anything from better data collection to envy from seeing your friends supposedly have it all on Facebook.

If that were the case, I don't see how your argument would follow. Which measures to help women have handicapped men? Note - I'm talking about measures that were specifically enacted to help women.

How do women have more opportunities/assistance?

Since men tend to have the higher-paid positions, I don't see why many people would be protesting for men's rights when it comes to job opportunities.

I wouldn't actually call it ignorant if it were true.

Anecdotal evidence isn't much use to me, but if you have statistics to back that up I'd gladly take a look.

Quotas for affirmative action are not only a myth, they're completely illegal:

http://www.columbia.edu/content/seven-myths-about-affirmative-action-universities.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#Quotas

Affirmative action only works when people are equally qualified. So, if you have 100 black men and 100 white men who are equally qualified, it's to stop the company from only hiring the whites.

If we didn't kick people out of the dark ages, we'd still have segregated school systems and water fountains.

I've only been arguing here against people who say that men are now the oppressed gender. If there's somebody posting about how men have zero problems, I'll gladly argue with them as well.

In the U.S. it varies by state, what the divorcing couple agree on, what the kids want, who the breadwinner was, what their financial situation was before the marriage, the list goes on and on. In short, there's no clear-cut answer.

I don't really have time to watch a whole movie. If you want to post the statistics they quote and their sources here, though, I'd be glad to read through them.

I care. I'm not sure what I can do to fight against it, though.

Sure, women can be part of the problem too. We should all view men and women as equals, and not one as more or less deserving of leniency.

"Old white dudes" is a bit of a derogatory name for out-of-touch legislators, and no, strictly speaking, neither their age nor their race should matter. I do think it's a bit rich of men to legislate on an entirely female problem, though.

To be fair, the FBI definition was only for crime statistic collection purposes. I'm not a law expert, so I don't know how it would hold up in court.

Going by the definition you linked to, though, it's possible for a female to rape a male. It doesn't specify that the penetration has to be of the raped party, just that penetration has to occur.

Apologies - I misread your post. I don't know of any legal mechanisms that could prevent this sort of thing, since you can't really prove "a week ago I was drunk" beyond "he said/she said".

 

Well my post just deleted itself, so that's always nice lol. I'll be a lot briefer, and if I skip over pertinent points, so please come back so we can address them.

Two parts here.
First, differences. Every child has different physical features, arms, legs, height, hair, clavicle length, etc etc etc. Overwhelming inductive evidence points to this fact. It follows then, peoples brains are also different, gender irrespective. So if people are so entirely different (yes some people share similarities, such as height, etc, but by and large we are all quite different), then it follows that these small differences will lead to inequality of outcome as I have said prior. This is all gender irrespective mind you.

Second, radical. Following on from what I just said, you said that unless there are radical differences, then this difference in outcome is due to differences in opportunities. This cannot be. An analogy. When building a house, when measurements are milimetres off, the walls, angles, etc, will be off by a significantly larger margin. Likewise, when people have subtle differences, they will be treated differently, act differently, etc, just by virtue of their existence. It follows then that small differences can lead to inequality of outcome. The burden is on you to show that why small differences cannot lead to such inequality of outcome (not for me to sure that there are radical differences). I don't think there are radical differences, I think there are small differences, just that these small differences can have significant effects on outcome.

Again note this is all gender irrespective (except perhaps the parts of the second point). So, people are different, and thus their outcomes will be difference. Thus you cannot look to outcomes as indicators of opportunity, becuase you haven't set up a valid modus tollens.

So you're saying:

If equality of opportunity, then equality of outcome.
Not equality of outcome,
Therefore not equality of opportunity.

The point is, there is not ever going to be equality of opportunity, no matter how hard you try. That doesn't at all mean we shouldn't strive for equality of outcome, we should. It just means you can't look to outcome statistics to evaluate differences in opportunities. It may be that there is equal opportunities with a 7:3 MF engineering split. That is a logical possibility, but you would always conclude unequal outcome therefore unequal opportunity. No, that is a fallacious line of reasoning.



I'll be more cursory now.

If women want those positions that are low paying, and the opposite for men, I don't see a problem. Why should I pay you more for doing what you want when you aren't worth that?

This was in the context of outcome statistics from memory. Again, you would be begging the question by assuming there are no differences from my first paragraphs.

This is actually impossible, and therefore unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable things tend to be unscientific. Why is it unfalsifiable? For one, people are located on different points in the cartesian co-ordinate system. But more generally, and obviously... people have different parents, are born into different cultures, speak different languages, interact with different people, experience different life events (death, natural disaster, prosperity, etc). If you're theory can only be falsified by equal socialisation, and that equal socialisation cannot ever occur, then your theory is unfalsifiable; or perhaps it has to be falsified in a different manner, but either way, your statement cannot be correct, or worthwhile.

Not sure if you meant children or parents here.

Note that men were also subect to the same confounding variables, and as far as I'm aware, although I might be wrong, the rate of decrease in womens happiness is higher than mens.

Things don't have to be specifically enacted to help women in order to help women. As an example, see reproductive rights. Being cursory, women get to choose parenthood independent of what a man wants, thinks, or has said or done prior to sex, or at the time. Even if this is justified in a woman's right to their own body (which I agree with), a privilege is a privilege.

Just an example, but I would say the right to choose parenthood, is a huge right, considering it has probably the largest affect on one's life.

Not including the above, but see below on affirmative action and 'targets'.

Men also do the grubbier, and more physically demanding jobs. Don't see government instituting affirmative action to meet targets for laborers though, do you? I understand why people want the high paying jobs, I'm not stupid. I also understand why people don't want the hard jobs also. Just saying though, if you actually wanted equality, you would petition equally for both. Alas, people just want equality in the areas that benefit them most. Perhaps they just want to benefit themselves, and use equality as a means to get there.

Ayn Rand: “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.”

Come back if you want more on this point.

I had alot more on this. But, the judgment in the case cited in columbia, the Bakke case, was that quotas are illegal yes, but using race as a factor was not illegal. If we were analogise to gender, than using gender as a facotr is not illegal. Now, you are right that quotas are illegal, but this is just mere plays on language. Entities strive for 'targets' now in order to diversify their workforce. Affirmative action allows companies to discriminate, insofar as they are using gender or race, etc, as a factor in order to reach these targets. Call it a quota or a target, the result is the same, they are allowed to discriminate in favour of gender or race.

Skipping over this.

Skipping over this.

Unfortunately, you're a minority. I had more here, but the response in favour of womens rights, even if justified (which I think it isn't per comments here), is entirely disproportionate, and a waste of our resources. I'd rather spend the money on scientific research, or helping the third-world so they can be productive, than allowing Sally go to HR cause her co-worker called her sweetie.

Going to skip over this, but I generally agree.

If the issue is one of morality and politics, then it doesn't matter who is doing the reasoning. If the reasoning is sound, it doesn't matter that it was a male behind that reasoning. I see where you're coming from, but ultimately I think it's irrelevant.

FYI then, it is irrelevant in court. Also note that the FBI updated it to reflect sexual penetration. But also note any differences for 'crime statistic collection purposes' and the actual law, will result in an obvious mismatch.

In the case of intoxication, that is different. Intoxication can render one's consent not freely given. So you clearly have a penetration. But then if a male says I was raped, and a female says they were raped guess who's side is going to be taken? Even non-legally, people aren't sympathetic to male rape victims.

I haven't done evidence law yet, but just think, who would you believe? I think it goes to the jury, and so quite literally, who would you believe?

 

This.

Hate to break it to all the SJW's out there, but this whole pay-gap thing is just a myth. Women generally enter into different careers.

The medical field is one of the best examples.

http://crgp.ucsd.edu/documents/GenderinMedicalProfessionsCaseStudy.pdf

Women can complain all they want about this pay-gap propaganda, but it's entirely untrue. Like in the medical field, women generally choose different career paths, and these career paths can be lower-paying.

It's kind of like the whole "Blacklivesmatter" movement that is so insanely stupid in its own niche. Cops aren't out hunting black people to gun them down, black on black crime is much larger an issue than the "evil white cops executing poor black children" which happens rarely.

Nothing but half-truths and propaganda.

E: My favorite person that puts to bed a lot of this "gender equality" crap is Milo



At the end of the day the only real arguments are "muh feelingz tho."

 

Just reading the NYT article shows that the percentage is completely bullshit.

1) They are using rape and sexual assault interchangeable which they are not.
2) They defined rape as forced penetration which is a sexist and dishonest definition
3) They include sex while intoxicated as rape, which it isn't
4) They include attempted rape, which isn't rape

Phone surveys also will not accurately capture the true rate of rapes because there is so much disagreement about whether a certain situation constituted a rape and many women will consent to sex and later decide that they were raped. There are been so many high profile cases such as that which makes me not trust self reported instances of sexual assault. There is no rape epidemic in this country and this study is clearly biased and based on completely wrong definitions and assumptions.

The absence of yes also does not mean no. If you think that affirmative consent is the only real form of consent I would like you to enter the real world. If you only count affirmative consent as consent then I would gander 99.999% of non-virgins have been "raped". Cornell's definition there is patently absurd and ridiculous. It is a travesty against due process and destroys peoples rights. New York just passed an affirmative consent law and hopefully it will be struck down as the unconstitutional law it is.

 

Can you expound on this a little bit, please? The legal definition of rape is

and/or

Forced penetration sounds like rape to me. Also how is the definition you referred to "sexist?"

 

sorry about formatting, not good at the quoting system.