Considering that the vast majority of government officials, military leaders, and corporate heads in every single industry are male, this has got to be one of the most unsuccessful wars I've ever seen.
I wouldn't say that there is a war on men, but there are certainly men's rights issues.
It seems to me like you're just trying to find an excuse to whine about feminists. confused
Please provide to me one time I stated anything that was:
1) Whining about feminism.
2) Implying I was whining about feminism.
3) Even mentioning feminism in the slightest.
4) Even implying feminism in the slightest.
You see, I do not see how the existence of men's rights issues is me whining about feminism.
Considering that the vast majority of government officials, military leaders, and corporate heads in every single industry are male, this has got to be one of the most unsuccessful wars I've ever seen.
I wouldn't say that there is a war on men, but there are certainly men's rights issues.
It seems to me like you're just trying to find an excuse to whine about feminists. confused
Are feminist unassailable paragons of goodness that can never be criticized?
... You did notice that your examples of 'War on Men' have next to nothing to do with women, right?
Most of your examples were dealing with the justice system. In case you haven't noticed, most judges throughout the country are men. So, unless you are going to argue these men are all secret double agents or the lion's share of these rulings come exclusively from the few female judges out there, those points don't evidence a 'War on Men'.
The few examples that remain are small samplings that can't constitute a 'war' (like your asserted 8-10% allegation of rapes as 'at least partly' false), self-imposed (men forfeiting control of personal wealth to women), or simply the by-product of natural processes (men dying sooner than women).
At least the notion of a 'War on Women', as cheese-ball as that phrase is, has at least some veneer of legitimacy to it.
There was never a "war on women" to begin with. It was hype played up by liberals both in the media and in the feminist movement who prefer to refer to women from the waist down and not the waist up. If all women care about is free birth control and abortions, then I am disappointed with all womankind.
It is true however that women do have their own institutional perks. Such as almost always getting full custody of a child in a divorce, given a lesser sentence for committing a crime compared to a man, can falsely claim rape, and awhile back I heard of men being forced to pay child support to women who deceived the men and told them it was their children when in actuality it was not their children. The courts rejected the results of the DNA tests because most of the men had been tricked into signing birth certificates. Women do get away with much more just for being women and it is wrong.
Gender equality from what I can tell is basically women trying to be better than men at this point, and society re-affirming that. Personally no one should get any special benefits regardless of their gender. If a woman commits a gruesome murder execute her like you would a man. If the man is better-able to provide for his child, grant him custody or at least joint custody. Let both men and women do the same work for the same pay. If women want to serve in combat, then make them live up to the same high standards as men. Punish rapists whether a man has rapped a woman or a woman has rapped a man. And before anyone says that is crazy it does happen. I am a guy and I was sexually harassed by a girl back when I was in middle school. Now I am an adult though. But basically stop giving perks because of gender. The only thing different about us is our genitalia. Remove that and we are all essentially the same.
The father not wanting custody does count for the discrepancy. Having a child when you're not married is considered a burden since it's difficult to support a child on a one-person income. Not saying that there aren't dads who fight for custody, but the court-reported reason why custody of children fall towards women is because men simply don't ask for it.
The FBI report for unfounded is around 6-8%, what it is for most crimes. And unfounded does not mean falsely accused by the way. Rape accusations only have a 1 in 4 chance of the person being arrested and an even lower conviction rate. Your chances of getting your rapist arrested, much less convicted, are particularly dismal if you're for some reason unconscious whether drunk or asleep.
Speaking of the Slate article, this page addresses pretty clearly using government statistics of why those numbers are misleading.
http://theenlivenproject.com/the-story-behind-the-infographic/ The picture above was made based on this data.
A clear reference would be the De Anza rape case where the victim was gangbanged, but no one was actually convicted of anything because the victim was so drunk that she couldn't remember anything. And this is in-spite of three witnesses not only being present (they saw her passed out and being violated, and broke into a room full of guys taking turns where one guy was keeping a look out), but rescuing the victim and taking her to the hospital.
There was another case recently in California where the guy raped a sleeping woman who was drunk (she woke up in the process) and pretended to be her boyfriend (who was in the vicinity, just not in the room) until there was enough light in the room where she saw it wasn't and freaked the ******** out. His case was taken to re-try on charge that his victim wasn't married according to some 1800s California law. The law basically says it's rape to have sex with someone while pretending to be their husband. But the court when reviewing this case interpreted this law very strictly and said in this case, the rapist was pretending to be her boyfriend, not her husband. Of course, they were very quick to shove off responsibility by saying that it's the law's fault for being retarded and people should hurry up and get it changed.
And prosecutors themselves often say that say that rape cases, even the few that are actually reported, are extremely hard to try and convict. In the example of the De Anza rape case, there wasn't even a criminal charge brought against anyone and two different district prosecutors said there wasn't enough of a case. The victim then tried to sue for damages and everyone was pretty much let off the hook.
I think an even better example would be the huge shitstorm going now where women have been officially permitted into combat roles in the US.
Or you can look at the Steubenville rape case where a young woman is being hauled around by her hands and feet and someone would still say "Well, maybe she was just having a good time."
I don't feel there is a 'war' on anybody. Neither gender needs a crusade, we just need to put down the pitchforks and look at each other for a moment, realize that the other side is hurting just as much. Maybe when we do that, we can finally right these wrongs and get on with our lives.
Could be
I sure hope so. I'm sick of seeing a world where women in power are judged on their looks rather than their actual polices and ideals, and where men aren't allowed to show their emotions but rather are pressured to be stoic and violent. These things are completely silly, and need to change.
The "war on women", as recently defined, has nothing to do with patriarchy or rape culture. The term "war on women" was coined due to actions against abortion and birth control.
Ummmm the abortion issue is not about women's rights, and it never was. Ask ANYBODY who is against abortion, and they'll tell you they're anti-abortion for one reason: Because they are against killing babies. That's it. It was NEVER to keep women down, or to put women in their place, or any of these false accusations. NO woman should have the right to kill a baby. Should we support a woman's right to rob a convenience store? How about a woman's right to manufacture crystal meth? Or a woman's right to burn buildings? There are some things NO HUMAN should have the right to do, and killing a baby is one of them.
Define baby.
Should we support a woman's right to rob a convenience store?
No.
How about a woman's right to manufacture crystal meth?
Yes.
Or a woman's right to burn buildings?
Her own, yes.
I don't feel there is a 'war' on anybody. Neither gender needs a crusade, we just need to put down the pitchforks and look at each other for a moment, realize that the other side is hurting just as much. Maybe when we do that, we can finally right these wrongs and get on with our lives.
Could be
I sure hope so. I'm sick of seeing a world where women in power are judged on their looks rather than their actual polices and ideals, and where men aren't allowed to show their emotions but rather are pressured to be stoic and violent. These things are completely silly, and need to change.
Meh, it is what it is.
But if we don't make an effort, nothing will ever change.
Considering the fact that mean usually rule the house hold
In what way?
Quote:
don't get periods
Getting a period is a war on women? neutral
Quote:
don't have to worry about not getting a job based on their a**/tits
Speak for yourself.
Quote:
don't have to spend excess money buying bras, tampons, birth control pills and makeup.
All of these things can be purchased exceedingly cheaply, some are not necessarily, and none constitute a war on women.
Quote:
They don't have to worry about birthing children AND if they get a woman pregnant they can give up their rights to the child and not have to pay child support.
That is not my understanding of the law.
Quote:
Men don't have to fight to get equal pay
Equal pay for what?
Quote:
they didn't have to fight for the right to vote
neutral Sure we did. Ever hear of the Revolutionary War (or the Civil War, to an extent)? Our battle for suffrage was much bloodier.
Quote:
men are usually physically stronger , men don't have to shave their legs/ under arms, you have by feet? So what most men take pride in their big feet.
Quote:
So where is the war again?
Nothing you said was a rational response to my proposition.
Human males aren't the only males this rule applies to, either. I didn't want to wade into the argument too much since I have some very strong personal opinions on the matter but I figured I could at least toss that out there. Number six just has nothing to do with the rest of your argument since it's not something 'done' to anyone, it is just the way things are.
Fair enough, I will retract that example. Although one could argue it is in part a result of certain burdens placed on men (namely, defense), I withdrawal my example of it. Thanks.
Considering that the vast majority of government officials, military leaders, and corporate heads in every single industry are male, this has got to be one of the most unsuccessful wars I've ever seen.
I wouldn't say that there is a war on men, but there are certainly men's rights issues.
No disagreement; the raw amount of stupid s**t we hoist on boys in this society, so many of it contradictory, is inexcusable. But a "war"? I don't really even believe in a war on women, honestly.
[Skeptical]
Considering the sheer amount of legislation being proposed by the GOP, I'm legitimately confused as to how you could think otherwise.
It is all based around one or two issues. Abortion and birth control. The GOP could have a reasonable excuse for opposing the two other than a hatred of women.
The GOP could have a reasonable excuse for opposing the two other than a hatred of women.
Yes, I'm pretty sure they have an excuse
And they will speak of it at length. They'll derail into anatomy and sociology, while simultaneously displaying their ignorance and contempt of both fields.
100
200
200
