If you could separate all men, from all women, and put them on equally stable and resourced planets, which planet would be the safest to live on?
To first order, they'd likely be the same. While it may be true that historically, males have taken up the dominate role, it's not to say that if things were reversed they would be any different. Humans are violent, jealous, greedy creatures. That's across the board.
You can say "who's more nurturing?", but that's only in the historical context of our societies where men had been dominate. They were the hunter/gathers and the women staid and tended the home sort of thing. But again, had this historic trend had been reversed, who is to say that we wouldn't perceive men as the nurturers? Is there anything innate in the male that makes them incompatible with being the nurturer? Or is it historic context and societal construct through which we view the capabilities of the sexes?
You are mistaking (I suspect willfully) the responses here as anything OTHER than merely pointing out the stupidity of your comments.The fun here is in watching some highly sensitive "men" wet themselves over the concept that "men" might not be the greatest friggin being to ever grace the heavens and the Earth.
To suggest that, at the very least, women are equally as great really threatens the very core of their identity.
How about you explain how women have it worse then men. Here is a short list off the top of my head why you are wrong:
1. Men get mutilated at birth at around 50% of the time and it is completely legal to do.
2. Women can give their child up after birth without even telling the man it happened. I bet its real fun to learn you are a father and already lost your parental rights due to the mother giving the child up without your consent.
3. Unmarried men many times can't get parental rights at all simply because they can't prove themselves worthy. You know, because being the biological dad just isn't good enough!
4. Men get more time for the same crime.
5. Men have no choice after birth, while interesting enough women STILL do.
Quite literally government set up entire systems to make men the bitches of women or to ignore the rights of men in favor of women. Need examples?
Child support
Alimony
Safe Haven laws.
What is even better is that all of those are from different eras in time.
What problems do women face again? Oh right, they can't get birth control for free. You know, because taxpayers don't pay for PP that provides it for free. /sarcasm
All of those things you mentioned are obviously very real problems for some men. The heavy generalizations by some people in this society about men do deny the exists of male specific problems, which exist and should be acknowledged. However, this should not be become a tit for tat "who has it worse" comparison. Women's problems would still win out, hands down. It's totally ridiculous to assert anything else. Absolutely ridiculous. So let's just avoid that. There's still a gender pay gap, though its not necessarily caused by gender discrimination by bosses.
Its more complicated than that. Women still suffer sexual harrassment and discrimination in the work place far more frequently and have a much larger hurdle to overcome to earn the respect of their colleagues and superiors, especially in math, science, and physical labor jobs.
Women suffer from cultural imposed body image issues much more frequently from the constantly reinforced idea of physical attractiveness being strongly associated with a woman's worth, which we don't do nearly as much with men.
As much as your very correct list of male problems related to legal rights to children shows issues on the male side, the female side isn't a rosy picture either. Women's access to maternal care is constantly on the chopping table from Republicans religious war on contraception and abortion.
Women don't have any guarantees to paid maternal leave and often suffer serious career setbacks due to taking time off for child birth.
Women are still culturally seen as the primary ones responsible for child rearing, leading to shaming by others for trying to "have it all" as they say and generally disproportionate acceptance of responsibility by fathers.
Let's not forget the levels of domestic violence and rape in our country. Domestic violence and rape aren't purely female issues, of course, but they are more common for women and the other issues of less economic opportunity and cultural moral ideas about divorced women and single mothers make it difficult for women to leave abusive situations.
People are not owed equal pay though. Employment is agreement between worker and employer and there is no reason to think an employer should be obligated to provide equal agreements.
Well, the former will always exist just due to how men and women generally approach situations, while the later will be overcome in time.
. Women are responsible for the vast majority of divorces and have been since forever. I don't see how cultural views on single motherhood matters much at all.
Sorry. Nevermind. I thought you were being reasonable for a second.
Sorry. Nevermind. I thought you were being reasonable for a second.
Single motherhood is rampant in every single racial demographic. How can negative cultural views be a major factor with rates as high as they are? Most single moms are the result of women leaving men, not men abandoning children, so it would seem to me that fear of judgement is not much of a factor.
I would love to know where you get the idea women deal with more body image issues than men. The vast majority of men have issues involving their dick size and the majority of younger men have issues involving muscle mass or height.
Also, how is it unreasonable to respect the contractual rights of employers? Should I just ignore that employment agreements are individual and not collective? Should I ignore that people have a right to agree to terms and not have them forced on them? Just because you want something in a contract doesn't mean you have a right to it. Contracts are based on agreement of both parties, not one party getting what they want with the help of government force.
Its unreasonable to think the issue of gender pay gap is about contractual rights of employers. Discrimination is illegal. Specifically, pay discrimination based on gender is illegal. It has been since 1938. That battle has already been fought and won.
Much of the 27% pay gap between men and women is not outright, easily identifiable discrimination anyway so it doesn't really have much to do with contractual rights of employers. Its the result of a complex set of factors including behaviors of employers, bias, the difference in behaviors and preferences of women and men in choosing jobs and balancing life, family, and work. etc, gender based cultural values, and educational choices made early in life.
"But switching to a fully adjusted model of the gender wage gap actually can radically understate the effect of gender discrimination on women’s earnings. This is because gender discrimination doesn’t happen only in the pay-setting practices of employers making wage offers to nearly identical workers of different genders. Instead, it can potentially happen at every stage of a woman’s life, from girlhood to moving through the labor market. By the time she completes her education and embarks on her career, a woman’s occupational choice is the culmination of years of education, guidance by mentors, expectations of parents and other influential adults, hiring practices of firms, and widespread norms and expectations about work/family balance held by employers, co-workers, and society (Gould and Schieder 2016). So it would not be accurate to assume that discrimination explains only the gender wage gap that remains after adjusting for education, occupational choice, and all these other factors. Put another way, we cannot look at our adjusted model and say that discrimination explains at most 13.5 percent of the gender wage gap. Why? Because, for example, by controlling for occupation, this adjusted wage gap no longer includes the discrimination that can influence a woman’s occupational choice."
What is the gender pay gap and is it real?: The complete guide to how women are paid less than men and why it can’t be explained away | Economic Policy Institute
And I don't agree with the laws as they stand. :shrug: Violating contractual and property rights because of discriminatory concerns is not legitimate. People have a right to decide what reasons they wish to consider in a contract when approaching their own agreement, People also have a right to decide how much of their property they wish to part from in a contractual agreement. I am very interested in getting back into that battle and defeating the laws that feminists help put in place with bogus and unjust views on human rights.
I never said it wasn't a factor or didn't exist, but only that I don't buy into the argument that is a problem that needs government attention.
What about at every point in modern history prior to about 60 years ago when men controlled politics and commerce almost exclusively and systematically disenfranchised women? Was it not a good idea then either? The gender pay gap has come down significantly and our economy is still the largest in the world so clearly this legislation is effective and hasn't come at a great cost. I don't know what advantage absolute freedom to discriminate gives society, especially when one race and one gender are overwhelmingly in control of politics and money.
Men are not a disadvantaged minority.
But that doesn't stop men convicted of DV from crying victim.
A woman assaults you and somehow fails to leave a visible mark, but in your defense of your person you manage to give her a black eye.
Who loses?
The black eye was not necessary, it was not self defense. The lack of marks on the male proves that beyond any doubt. That's an easy conviction.
Self defense law is not "a swing for a swing". It's about stopping a real threat.
You realize that getting a black eye doesn't nessarcily require a great level of force being applied to the area, right?
No marks on the man. Not necessary. Not self defense. Easy case.
The fact that she started the assault and all cops cared about was visible signs of injury is the problem.
A black eye could be caused by a poke that could be caused accidentally in such situations, so going by that and that alone is a very piss poor job of police work.
It's never a good idea to violate the rights of people to benefit others. The law shouldn't act like anyone has a right to aggress on others to gain employment or a certain level of pay. You win the argument against discrimination by changing peoples minds, not by making them act against their conscience. The day a movement wins is not the day they force their views on others, but the day other peoples accept their views as valid.
Wrong. Not a problem. It's an easy way to determine if a punch to the face was necessary. It obviously was not. It doesn't matter "who started it", the hit to the face was clearly not self defense.
No poke needed. Not self defense.
It was fine police work. Those guilty of DV should stop playing victim.
No strike with a fist is needed in the situation.
Who said it was needed? If it was accidental it clearly was not intended to happen.
The woman is guilty of DV, not the man.
How about we switch things up a bit? How about if it is a woman that is being assaulted and before he manages to strike her she gets him with her fingernail. Who is guilty? The woman. Why? Because like the situation with the man the cops only look at visible signs of injury. The way they approach DV cases leads to these kind of situations for men and women alike, but because men are more capable in a fight due to greater strength and size they are also more likely to cause injury in defense situations and thus this kind of thing affects men more than it does women.
That sounds nice, but its a fantasy in a world where one side holds so much power. Patriachy has been a dominant part of the power structure for practically all of written history. Its only significantly changed in the last century. In my opinion, its a wildly perverse and unrealistic moral system that puts an ambigious right to enter into free contract over the welfare of half the human population. A limitation on what you can base your valuation of a person on in an employment contract, excluding race, sexuality, and gender, does not put an unreasonable burden on anyone's rights to free association.
You need to learn to differentiate self defense from vindictive physical abuse. Good luck.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?