Welcome to Gaia! ::

Riviera de la Mancha
Metroid Dread
there is no war on anyone

everyone just wants to be suppressed so they can fight the good fight and break free from their villainous captors

society is in love with the underdog and we all desperately want to believe that were the underdog just waiting for our chance


same same

Spend some time in the trenches. Isht ain't fun.

No one wants to be a persecuted group. Its awesome being in power.

except on the internet, where white men want to be oppressed like women and minorities. why, i don't know, probably because they're stupid.
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

like on unfair wages. that's not a gender problem. the problem is that the rich happen to be men but that doesn't mean men across the board earn more and are out to get the females! or anything like that. the data is skewed there. secondly, the other problem is that females tend to choose lower paying jobs, and that is still not the fault of men, but the fault of rich people and middle class who don't respect people who work menial jobs, and the over all unfair economic society we have as a whole. the problem is not men, or whites, or whatever, the problem is rich. it is a rich/poor problem.
PikachuBaller's avatar

Dapper Dabbler

I feel like life is a lot like the Starcraft II balancing systems.
Everything is fairly balanced, but each race hates the others, and thinks everyone else is stronger than you.
In reality, everything is fine and people need to shut up and play better.
SoullessSingularity's avatar

Lunatic

PikachuBaller
I feel like life is a lot like the Starcraft II balancing systems.
Everything is fairly balanced, but each race hates the others, and thinks everyone else is stronger than you.
In reality, everything is fine and people need to shut up and play better.

Excuse me, what the holy ******** are you talking about. Have you at all, AT ALL, examined the fact that so much of culture we may consider "sprung out of the aether" or not attributed to any discriminatory bias is in fact part of an in-place looking-down upon other races/cultures/etc? For example, take the idea that a woman must give up her last name upon marriage. In fact, if she does not, people will treat her differently and possibly look down upon her. It's because there was a great idealism for a woman to be naturally more subservient to her man and must be "owned" by her husband, Even now, crossing that line usually sparks reactionary suspicion and questioning. This is part of American culture and it is acceptable to be suspicious of a woman for not giving up her "maiden" name. In fact, the idea of a nuclear family sprouts from the pseudoscience idea that a woman is naturally unsuitable for the "man" workforce. That idea still holds today and you're sitting on your a** thinking "yeah I think we're all equal". ******** hell.
AKB0048

Unfortunately, I can't find the actual report where I am now though I am positive there is one, but here

Article written by a divorce law attorney

Custody law FAQ from a law firm

Divorce Stats

What these basically say is- most divorces are settled out of court with both parents agreeing that the mother should get custody of the children. However, most sources I've dug up says that if a father fights for custody, he is more likely to win. Now there are a lot of statistics for "sole custody" but that's a little debatable because men usually fight for joint custody. Meaning, if you're looking at raw male versus female numbers for fully custody, you're going to see some pretty ridiculous numbers because there are more women who fight for full custody.

And for the last one, while I'd like more solid numbers from a more recent report, it does line up with information I've seen from other sources, so at present I have no reason to doubt it. But, if that information can be pulled from the Census Bureau as indicated, I'll look for those statistics myself when I can.

The first article was ambivalent, the second one was unclear, and the third one asserted what I said (???).
Quote:

Well one issue is that rape is about the most serious crime you can assume someone of for your own interest. You can't accuse someone of murdering you, and to accuse someone of murdering someone else without murdering the person yourself, risking conviction. Rightly or not, accusing someone of sexual misconduct (not trying to understate the horror of rape, merely referring to such crime generally), is seen, and has been used as a form of vengeance. I'm sure it's happened, but to my knowledge that happening with accusations of theft is less common.


Quote:

You can easily accuse people of attempted murder or a third party can accuse someone of murder on your behalf (this is usually the state, but a party like a relative or whoever can bring the case forwards as a lawsuit for damages). People try to get each other falsely convicted for a lot of things.

And the percentage of false accusations for all those crimes are about the same. But, the public perception is that there are a lot of false rape accusations when there are not. That doesn't mean there are no false rape accusations, but it's very damaging when you're more way more likely to be assumed to be a liar when you come forward with rape than if you came forward saying that someone tried to kill you.

Do you have evidence that they are about the same?


Quote:

Even if his point is cherry picking, which is understandable, I have no doubts that part of that image is to create shock value, he still does not really dispute any of the actual statistics used for that image. So while maybe a bit embellished, that does not make what that image represents (the fact that rape is horribly under reported and has a very slim chance of conviction, much less false conviction) any less true.

The hell it doesn't. There is one correct number for each of the statistics he is addressing. So if he cherrypicks the best data for his case, he is a liar (for all he knows, and we know). And if it is for shock value, then it's propaganda. I can no longer trust any of his future work.

Quote:

And I'd much rather believe government statistics over statistics of a third party. Though you are correct that statistics and studies can easily be biased, but at the same time if you're going to question the source, then you have to consider ALL statistics taken from the source to be a bit dubious, not just the ones that might inconvenience you.

I used to think so, not anymore. That's true, but if they have a motive (often financially) for a certain outcome, one would be much more skeptical. Sure, everyone potentially is guilty of this, but that is no reason to give a pass to it when you see it.


Quote:

And I'm a strong believer of "two wrongs do not make a right". Yes, being falsely accused is very bad, but what about the rights of those who are harmed? Do they not have a right to justice and to live free of fear of being harmed again?

They have the right to justice; they don't have the right "to live free of fear of being harmed again". That's too nebulous and unenforceable to be a right.

Quote:
You can't simply discount one over the other and the legal system isn't designed for that.

Yes it is/was. Liberal legal systems are designed to maximize justice (i.e. give the benefit of the doubt to the accused), not efficiency. If that was its goal, it would make sense to convict anyone accused of misconduct. After all, people would be safer (from each other, clearly not from the State). That our legal system holds sacrosanct the rights of the accused (in theory, obviously not in practice lately) shows that it was very much designed to discount one (the accuser) over the other (the accused).

Quote:

It's by people and for people and as a product of people it is prone to make mistakes. However, if it makes a mistake then all other cases be damned, that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the system is working as best intended as it can, that's all we can ask of it. If there is a mistake with a false conviction, then we should work to fix it as best as possible, not let criminals run free for fear of a mistake.

I'm not saying we mustn't therefore convict anyone, but holding the assumption that the "victim" (in quotes for the plausible deniability) is always telling the truth is to ensure more innocents will be convicted.
Kokiri Prodigy
Where Pretty Lies Perish

But seriously, what is their to be gained by them hating women? There is the imminently believable view that they merely think abortion is morally wrong. No doubt, some of them are criminally reckless in their implications of this (like forcing women to give birth to a child conceived in rape), but to thereby assume they hate women is a little bit of a jump.
There's no real difference. When the Polish mafia drowns you, and they say to you 'It's nothing personal, tovarzysz. It's ehjust business'. At that point it's inconsequential whether they hate you or not because you're still being ******** drowned.

But the whole argument was based on their hatred of women.

Quote:

They're getting votes from wife beaters

I'm doubtful that wife-beaters skew one way or the other.

Quote:
fascists

An almost nonexistent voting bloc.

Quote:
religious fundamentalists

Perhaps.

Quote:
and snotty anarcho-capitalists with trust funds.

In what universe are anarcho-capitalists anything but a negligible part of the vote? Furthermore, how many of them would vote Republican? Almost none that I know vote, and the ones that do vote Democratic.

Quote:
That's their gain in this, and it's pretty huge.

That is not what I meant by asking what their gain was. If this is why they speak and vote as they do, then hate's got nothing to do with it.
Robot Macai
So are feminist organizations that take donations from people like Catherine Comins (who would not spare men who are falsely accused of rape the pain inherent to it because they can gain from the experience), Sharon Osbourne (who finds men having their junk cut off over asking for a divorce is funny), or Valerie Solanas (who wanted to kill all the men) just as tainted as the Republican Party? Because I can guarantee you, feminism at this juncture is just as if not more driven by a hatred of men as Republican social conservatives are driven by a hatred of women.

And I can give you examples of very anti-male examples of literature put out by mainstream feminist publications if you don't believe me. Mainstream among feminists, anyway.

Great point.
Dark Arcanist
I'm of the opinion that there is a constant war on people who oppose norms.

As a guy with feminine aspects of his personality that includes me. More than once have I been made to feel shitty by masculine guys and feminine girls.

I usually get along best with more "masculine" girls and more "feminine" guys.

So sue me.
Good point. Thanks for the perspective.
Riviera de la Mancha

Dude... that's how all statutes of limitations work; don't bring your case within the time frame, then you run the risk of forfeiting your rights to make a case. If you take issue with laws which say if the man doesn't challenge paternity within a certain amount of time, then you substantively take issue with any statute of limitations.

I understand, and support, the need for such statutes generally. I don't even think the "father" should legally be owed any money (after the alloted time frame). I am only saying that if it can be proved in court that the child is not his (and the child is under 18 and still being paid for, then he should be no longer forced to pay. Paternity fraud, like other fraud, is a crime. I begrudgingly accept the idea that the statute of limiations begins at the start of the crime, but the victim should at the very least be no longer forced to be a continuing victim of the fraud. In the same way that if it is discovered that for 15 years somone has taken $100 from your bank account every month, you should no longer have to be robbed, even if you will not be reimbursed for past damages.

Quote:

Again, unless you are going to argue all those judges, who hold the ultimate say in most cases dealing with paternity, are double agents or the decisions come from women judges, its hard to argue there is a "War on Men." To address your example, prison rape is a problem, but if I were to allege that male-on-male prison rape is a sign of a war on men, I would really be retching. Alleging a conspiracy against men for what are actions evidencing personal motives is just nonsensical.

The same is true for the Republican lawmakers on abortion, then. The mere fact that they are of the opposite sex does not make much difference, considering that neither the male judges or male Reps are affected personally by their decisions. There are Republican women (voters and lawmakers) who oppose abortion. If they made up the majority of Republicans? would the "war on women" cease to be? Not if we are rational. The "wars" (on men and women) either exist or they don't; the sex of the perpetrators is irrelevant because their social class puts them beyond laws effects.

Did I say male-on-male prison rape was indicative of a war on men? If I did, I take it back. I will say, however, that the public's callous indifference and even downright mockery of it (by men and women) shows a lack of empathy for certain segments of men, particularly poor ones. Male-on-male rape jokes are much more acceptable in polite society than male-on-female rape jokes. And the fact that males are the perps in male-on-male rape is only justification for the indifference if we are all at our essence defined by gender, something I think feminists would (at least publicly) object to. Barring that worldview, the perps are not (generally, I assume) the same people as the offenders, so their is still systemic violation of person. No, women as a group are not the cause of it, but neither do men as a group share the boneheaded views of people like Arkin.

Quote:

The issue with your statistic is that its just too vague. What do they mean by 'partly false'? Were most of the lies simply about non-material things, like what the guy was wearing, or are they material, like who they alleged raped them? Without detail, the sample is too vague and small to be relevant.

I'm not sure they mentions the "partly false" phrase. I think I added that, to be conservative.

Quote:

Didn't realize you were a clairvoyant and could tap into the minds of all or most feminists. I don't think most feminists would take an issue with that because all that stuff have to do with, if any gender roles are going to be blamed (Which I think is stupid for most of that), its that men created their own gender roles which are now influencing them. Men created the idea that 'manly work' was of the sort which kills its workers the most, to do stupid macho stuff which runs the risk of killing you in the process, etc.

Ok, as an example, the fact that feminists cry foul when they are denied maternity leave. Pregnancy is self-imposed.

Men and women have always influenced how the other sex behaves. This is partly by way of innate biology, partly sexual selection, and perhaps partly cultural, but to imply that men have had all the say in determining gender roles is absurd.
GunsmithKitten
Essandee
I agree with the OP. America is so bent to the side of women equality, that I suspect there currently is inequality that biases favorably to women.


If it is, it's pretty damn ineffective. We're still a society, remember, where saying someone "acts like a man" is a compliment, while "acting like a girl" is an insult.
Not when it is said to a girl . . .
We Do Not Kneel
Essandee
I agree with the OP. America is so bent to the side of women equality, that I suspect there currently is inequality that biases favorably to women.

i used to try and confront you geese, but that's not very effective. "PEople" (word used EXTREMELY loosely, I hardly think of you as people) like you tend to literally ignore what people like me say and just substitute it with something that fits their world view. talking to walls is, actually, more productive than talking to you, since at least a wall won't take what i said and regurgitate it as a lie.
Out of curiosity, to what are you referring?
Riviera de la Mancha
Metroid Dread
there is no war on anyone

everyone just wants to be suppressed so they can fight the good fight and break free from their villainous captors

society is in love with the underdog and we all desperately want to believe that were the underdog just waiting for our chance


same same

Spend some time in the trenches. Isht ain't fun.

No one wants to be a persecuted group. Its awesome being in power.

I've been in both to a certain degree. Both have positives and negatives. Being in power is preferable to being deeply oppressed (blacks in the South), but being a casually persecuted (most Western women) is preferable to being nominally "in power"(most white males). As a white male, I won't deny that I have advantages not afforded to most black people, which is unfair. They continue to be systemically oppressed.

Western White women, on the other hand, are not very oppressed at all. I don't deny that their great grandmothers were treated poorly, but today the advantages granted to me but not to them are negligible, and they have some not granted to be. As an alleged persecuted group, they have a target to hate: the omnipotent "white male", which gives them a feeling of moral superiority and an excuse for failure. They, however, do not have to deal with the downside associated with this: genuine systemic oppression.
SoullessSingularity
For example, take the idea that a woman must give up her last name upon marriage. In fact, if she does not, people will treat her differently and possibly look down upon her.

She need not give up her name in marriage, so for starters, that's a lie. Secondly, the consequences you cite for not doing so (though you said she had to) are comically harmless.
Where Pretty Lies Perish
Riviera de la Mancha

Dude... that's how all statutes of limitations work; don't bring your case within the time frame, then you run the risk of forfeiting your rights to make a case. If you take issue with laws which say if the man doesn't challenge paternity within a certain amount of time, then you substantively take issue with any statute of limitations.

I understand, and support, the need for such statutes generally. I don't even think the "father" should legally be owed any money (after the alloted time frame). I am only saying that if it can be proved in court that the child is not his (and the child is under 18 and still being paid for, then he should be no longer forced to pay. Paternity fraud, like other fraud, is a crime. I begrudgingly accept the idea that the statute of limiations begins at the start of the crime, but the victim should at the very least be no longer forced to be a continuing victim of the fraud. In the same way that if it is discovered that for 15 years somone has taken $100 from your bank account every month, you should no longer have to be robbed, even if you will not be reimbursed for past damages.

Quote:

Again, unless you are going to argue all those judges, who hold the ultimate say in most cases dealing with paternity, are double agents or the decisions come from women judges, its hard to argue there is a "War on Men." To address your example, prison rape is a problem, but if I were to allege that male-on-male prison rape is a sign of a war on men, I would really be retching. Alleging a conspiracy against men for what are actions evidencing personal motives is just nonsensical.

The same is true for the Republican lawmakers on abortion, then. The mere fact that they are of the opposite sex does not make much difference, considering that neither the male judges or male Reps are affected personally by their decisions. There are Republican women (voters and lawmakers) who oppose abortion. If they made up the majority of Republicans? would the "war on women" cease to be? Not if we are rational. The "wars" (on men and women) either exist or they don't; the sex of the perpetrators is irrelevant because their social class puts them beyond laws effects.

Did I say male-on-male prison rape was indicative of a war on men? If I did, I take it back. I will say, however, that the public's callous indifference and even downright mockery of it (by men and women) shows a lack of empathy for certain segments of men, particularly poor ones. Male-on-male rape jokes are much more acceptable in polite society than male-on-female rape jokes. And the fact that males are the perps in male-on-male rape is only justification for the indifference if we are all at our essence defined by gender, something I think feminists would (at least publicly) object to. Barring that worldview, the perps are not (generally, I assume) the same people as the offenders, so their is still systemic violation of person. No, women as a group are not the cause of it, but neither do men as a group share the boneheaded views of people like Arkin.

Quote:

The issue with your statistic is that its just too vague. What do they mean by 'partly false'? Were most of the lies simply about non-material things, like what the guy was wearing, or are they material, like who they alleged raped them? Without detail, the sample is too vague and small to be relevant.

I'm not sure they mentions the "partly false" phrase. I think I added that, to be conservative.

Quote:

Didn't realize you were a clairvoyant and could tap into the minds of all or most feminists. I don't think most feminists would take an issue with that because all that stuff have to do with, if any gender roles are going to be blamed (Which I think is stupid for most of that), its that men created their own gender roles which are now influencing them. Men created the idea that 'manly work' was of the sort which kills its workers the most, to do stupid macho stuff which runs the risk of killing you in the process, etc.

Ok, as an example, the fact that feminists cry foul when they are denied maternity leave. Pregnancy is self-imposed.

Men and women have always influenced how the other sex behaves. This is partly by way of innate biology, partly sexual selection, and perhaps partly cultural, but to imply that men have had all the say in determining gender roles is absurd.

Like I said, if you take issues with this statute of limitations, then you take issue with all statutes of limitations. For example, if someone steals something from me, I make no claim against them, and the statute of limitations runs for the theft, I am indeed still the victim of the theft. Everyday they have that item, I am being victimized. The same analogy works for all crimes with statutes of limitation.

... I don't know if you are new to this whole American republican party platform thing, but, in case you are, its the official party position to be against abortion. And when the stated flagship members of your party hold a position, it certainly looks alot stronger than guys raping other guys for their own reasons on their own choice.

And, for the record, I make TONS of rape jokes and get no flack.

... I don't know if you were also present for the birds and the bees talk, but that is a two-way street and hardly 'self-imposed'. On your supposed evidence of a war on men, those are all products of male-created gender roles for themselves.
PikachuBaller's avatar

Dapper Dabbler

SoullessSingularity
PikachuBaller
I feel like life is a lot like the Starcraft II balancing systems.
Everything is fairly balanced, but each race hates the others, and thinks everyone else is stronger than you.
In reality, everything is fine and people need to shut up and play better.

Excuse me, what the holy ******** are you talking about. Have you at all, AT ALL, examined the fact that so much of culture we may consider "sprung out of the aether" or not attributed to any discriminatory bias is in fact part of an in-place looking-down upon other races/cultures/etc? For example, take the idea that a woman must give up her last name upon marriage. In fact, if she does not, people will treat her differently and possibly look down upon her. It's because there was a great idealism for a woman to be naturally more subservient to her man and must be "owned" by her husband, Even now, crossing that line usually sparks reactionary suspicion and questioning. This is part of American culture and it is acceptable to be suspicious of a woman for not giving up her "maiden" name. In fact, the idea of a nuclear family sprouts from the pseudoscience idea that a woman is naturally unsuitable for the "man" workforce. That idea still holds today and you're sitting on your a** thinking "yeah I think we're all equal". ******** hell.


Pretty sure that's not even a thing anymore.
Almost all the women I know are choosing to hyphenate their names, or not change their name at all, and it's not looked on weirdly.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games