|
On May 03 2013 15:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:58 kmillz wrote:On May 03 2013 14:46 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 14:43 Falling wrote:
How the heck did this topic morph from ills received by a woman from men on the internet to ills received by men from women (feminists)? First of all, women ≠ feminists. To answer your question, this topic shift naturally came about because it is yet another example (following many others in recent history) of feminists coming into a male-dominant environment where everyone is treated badly, and getting upset and demanding changes just for women. Misandry is just as prevalent as misogyny, you just don't hear about it as often. I am all for equal rights, but I despise any agenda that asks for more rights than the opposite sex (in either instance, whether it be men demanding more rights than women or women demanding more rights than men). In the case of the op, women think its unfair that they get harassed constantly by childish viewers demanding "tits or gtfo" and the such, while many men think its unfair that women get 10x as many viewers just for being a woman. It goes both ways no matter how you slice it. Garbage like this just fuels the fire: On May 03 2013 14:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 14:47 Falling wrote:On May 03 2013 14:45 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 14:43 Falling wrote:
How the heck did this topic morph from ills received by a woman from men on the internet to ills received by men from women (feminists)? ♪ somebody's new to net femi-nism argu-ments ♪ Not really, there's a term used for this sort of derail, but I cannot recall it right now. It's just a little irritating to see it on TL as well I used to dismiss a lot of those sorts of critiques. Happens all the time in feminist blogs. They'll post something and then MRA people show up to attack them usually making me wonder "why the hell is an MRA guy doing reading feminist blogs?" Some people just enjoy attacking women. Being that that is exactly what is happening here, in this thread, right now, and is still happening, right now. I am not inaccurate.
Feminists ≠ women. Most women do not identify as feminist, either.
Criticizing feminism ≠ criticizing women, just like criticizing Israel ≠ criticizing Jews.
Besides, I thought women are just as strong as men, and can handle criticism just like men can, no? Or do they need so brave white knights like you to protect them?
|
There is a distinction to be made between the "unfounded" and "false". You failed to make that distinction between r.Evo. The data is simply of too low quality to really say anything about rates of false accusations, but unfounded rate could be an indicator variable.
I think it is idiotic to write off the discussion in this thread as purely hating on women or radical feminists. It seems that most moderate people seem to agree on the end goal being gender equality, the road there however is where opinions truly differ.
|
|
|
On May 03 2013 15:20 sunprince wrote:
Feminists ≠ women. Most women do not identify as feminist, either.
Criticizing feminism ≠ criticizing women, just like criticizing Israel ≠ criticizing Jews.
Besides, I thought women are just as strong as men, and can handle criticism just like men can, no? Or do they need so brave white knights like you to protect them?
bro i found a possible reason why nobody likes the role you are playing in this discussion bro
does the fact that he wants women to respond to posts in a thread on a forum involving a pastime that society typically sells as a male pastime count as irony? anyone?
|
Northern Ireland24979 Posts
Those aren't to do with rights but are manifestations of a genderised culture, a la the same stuff feminists also bemoan
|
On May 03 2013 15:25 Wombat_NI wrote:
Those aren't to do with rights but are manifestations of a genderised culture, a la the same stuff feminists also bemoan
yes
yes
|
On May 03 2013 15:15 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 15:13 r.Evo wrote:
Someone advocating that more women or more men should be hired for a certain job or that standards for one of the genders should be lowered is what I find to be horrible. you mean exactly what doesn't happen and nobody takes seriously in reality?
Our politcal parties in Germany have female quotas. While laws to introduce female quotas at the workplace haven't been successful (mostly due to a case in front of the EU courts) companies like German Telecom (30%), E.ON, BMW, Daimler and Bosch (15%-22%) have introduced them mostly due to public pressure. The women in our military need lower qualifications and the very law that allows women to enter our military is void in the case of defense (§3, parapraph 4, SGleiG) and can be declared void on a case-by-case basis for all foreign military activities.
Those quotas do happen and all I see are "feminists" cheering them on failing to understand they accomplish the exact opposite.
|
On May 03 2013 15:20 Ghostcom wrote:
There is a distinction to be made between the "unfounded" and "false". You failed to make that distinction between r.Evo. The data is simply of too low quality to really say anything about rates of false accusations, but unfounded rate could be an indicator variable.
"Unfounded", however, is the same term applied to all of the FBI's definitions. They simply use that term instead of "false" because they do not want to dig into whether the accusation was deliberately malicious or not.
But regardless, there are far more accusations of rape that are not factually correct, even if they weren't done on purpose.
From the Uniform Crime Report, they state specifically that "The “unfounded” rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were “unfounded,” while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent."
|
On May 03 2013 15:24 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 15:20 sunprince wrote:
Feminists ≠ women. Most women do not identify as feminist, either.
Criticizing feminism ≠ criticizing women, just like criticizing Israel ≠ criticizing Jews.
Besides, I thought women are just as strong as men, and can handle criticism just like men can, no? Or do they need so brave white knights like you to protect them? bro i found a possible reason why nobody likes the role you are playing in this discussion bro
Nice of you to speak for everyone. Keep white knighting, bro.
On May 03 2013 15:24 TheExile19 wrote:
does the fact that he wants women to respond to posts in a thread on a forum involving a pastime that society typically sells as a male pastime count as irony? anyone?
If anyone wants to participate, they can participate, instead of whining that the culture is not to their liking.
I don't show up on forums I don't belong to and tell them how they should change their rules and protect me from criticism.
Why do you think women are entitled to special treatment? Could it be that you're a sexist who thinks that you're brave from protecting the poor, defenseless women?
|
On May 03 2013 15:26 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 15:15 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 15:13 r.Evo wrote:
Someone advocating that more women or more men should be hired for a certain job or that standards for one of the genders should be lowered is what I find to be horrible. you mean exactly what doesn't happen and nobody takes seriously in reality? Our politcal parties in Germany have female quotas. While laws to introduce female quotas at the workplace haven't been successful (mostly due to a case in front of the EU courts) companies like German Telecom (30%), E.ON, BMW, Daimler and Bosch (15%-22%) have introduced them mostly due to public pressure. The women in our military need lower qualifications and the very law that allows women to enter our military is void in the case of defense (§3, parapraph 4, SGleiG) and can be declared void on a case-by-case basis for all foreign military activities. Those quotas do happen and all I see are "feminists" cheering them on failing to understand they accomplish the exact opposite.
my cultural ignorance is exposed
so essentially that particular law for women soldiers is a paper tiger that does nothing in wartime? well, not much to say about that besides that it makes congress look like effective policymakers.
if those percentages are the actual female saturation in the workplace, that still doesn't seem very scary to me. I'm not exactly a fan of just trying to shove women into a culture that undoubtedly pushes back in more subtle, insidious ways, but at least some nation is experimenting with it.
|
On May 03 2013 15:25 Wombat_NI wrote:
Those aren't to do with rights but are manifestations of a genderised culture
So by that logic, blacks aren't discriminated against, right? After all, every measure I gave you is used to prove that blacks are victims of systemic discrimination, only the gender divide is much worse. So it's okay that black men get much more prison time, amirite?
On May 03 2013 15:25 Wombat_NI wrote:a la the same stuff feminists also bemoan
Nope. Feminists are only too happy to fight for gender roles when it suits them. I posted plenty of examples earlier in this thread, and it includes things like releasing all women from prison, including female serial killers.
|
On May 03 2013 15:30 sunprince wrote:
Nice of you to speak for everyone. Keep white knighting, bro.
If anyone wants to participate, they can participate, instead of whining that the culture is not to their liking.
I don't show up on forums I don't belong to and tell them how they should change their rules and protect me from criticism.
Why do you think women are entitled to special treatment? Could it be that you're a sexist who thinks that you're brave from protecting the poor, defenseless women?
no, most women/men/people are much more courageous than I am. people are brave, not genders as you well know, and I don't feel particularly brave for spending a few hours sitting on my amply privileged ass trading some barbs and ideas with people that aren't even particularly receptive. save your accolades for the people, usually women, who actually go out with this particular schema and try to make the country less obnoxious, but definitely reserve more than a few cheers for people who advocate societal problems without making it seem like the ones they focus on are the only ones that matter.
edit: it's almost like if you look at the most extremist members of any given movement, you can stereotype and caricature a legitimate mode of thought into a joke! thank you sunprince, you have brought light into this cave.
On May 03 2013 15:34 sunprince wrote:
So by that logic, blacks aren't discriminated against, right? After all, every measure I gave you is used to prove that blacks are victims of systemic discrimination, only the gender divide is much worse. So it's okay that black men get much more prison time, amirite?
what is this gibberish
|
On May 03 2013 15:20 Ghostcom wrote:
There is a distinction to be made between the "unfounded" and "false". You failed to make that distinction between r.Evo. The data is simply of too low quality to really say anything about rates of false accusations, but unfounded rate could be an indicator variable.
I think it is idiotic to write off the discussion in this thread as purely hating on women or radical feminists. It seems that most moderate people seem to agree on the end goal being gender equality, the road there however is where opinions truly differ.
To draw an analogy I don't think it's a great idea to call yourself "Black rights advocate" when your goal isn't to give black people more rights. Why not call yourself an "equal rights advocate"? Both the feminist and the MRA sides have a clear agenda that by its definition goes against gender equality.
The plain fact that both those movements have people finding quite solid points about what's "wrong" in their view shows, to me, that neither can be right for all their points when it comes to equal rights.
As an example, we have people here repeatedly argueing that if a woman wants to dress sexy it's her right and it's everyone elses problem if they perceive that to be "indecent" or if they objectify her because of the way she dresses. Personally, if I run around with an x-marks the spot on my crotch I shouldn't be confused if people look at my crotch. Also I shouldn't be surprised that if I have a "perfect body" and show it to the public at e.g. a swimming pool that women call me sexy or something they'd love to have as a sex toy.
None of those behaviours are inherently bad. Hell, objectifying isn't inherently bad. It only becomes an issue when it's non-consensual, non-provoked and/or out of place. It's up to every single person themselves when it comes to what they want to show the public about them. However, when what they show is a more sexualized version of themselves than what they'd like to represent it's hard to see them as completely innocent in the process.
|
Northern Ireland24979 Posts
On May 03 2013 15:34 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 15:25 Wombat_NI wrote:
Those aren't to do with rights but are manifestations of a genderised culture So by that logic, blacks aren't discriminated against, right? After all, every measure I gave you is used to prove that blacks are victims of systemic discrimination, only the gender divide is much worse. So it's okay that black men get much more prison time, amirite? Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 15:25 Wombat_NI wrote:a la the same stuff feminists also bemoan Nope. Feminists are only too happy to fight for gender roles when it suits them. I posted plenty of examples earlier in this thread.
They have the same 'rights', if end results are different it's due to cultural or socio-economic reasons. Im neither with or against you on this, just feel the moniker is badly chosen
|
On May 03 2013 15:37 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 15:30 sunprince wrote:
Nice of you to speak for everyone. Keep white knighting, bro.
If anyone wants to participate, they can participate, instead of whining that the culture is not to their liking.
I don't show up on forums I don't belong to and tell them how they should change their rules and protect me from criticism.
Why do you think women are entitled to special treatment? Could it be that you're a sexist who thinks that you're brave from protecting the poor, defenseless women? no, most women/men/people are much more courageous than I am. people are brave, not genders as you well know, and I don't feel particularly brave for spending a few hours sitting on my amply privileged ass trading some barbs and ideas with people that aren't even particularly receptive. save your accolades for the people, usually women, who actually go out with this particular schema and try to make the country less obnoxious, but definitely reserve more than a few cheers for people who advocate societal problems without making it seem like the ones they focus on are the only ones that matter. edit: it's almost like if you look at the most extremist members of any given movement, you can stereotype and caricature a legitimate mode of thought into a joke! thank you sunprince, you have brought light into this cave. Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 15:34 sunprince wrote:
So by that logic, blacks aren't discriminated against, right? After all, every measure I gave you is used to prove that blacks are victims of systemic discrimination, only the gender divide is much worse. So it's okay that black men get much more prison time, amirite? what is this gibberish
Your reading comprehension sucks. Luckily for you, I'm feeling patient today:
Every single measure I listed is normally used by sociologists to demonstrate that blacks are discriminated against. That is, they receive longer prison sentences, they are more likely to be victims of violent crime, they do worse in all aspects of the educational system, etc.
When you apply the same measure to the difference between men and women, instead of blacks and whites, you find that the differences are even more drastic.
|
On May 03 2013 15:27 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 15:20 Ghostcom wrote:
There is a distinction to be made between the "unfounded" and "false". You failed to make that distinction between r.Evo. The data is simply of too low quality to really say anything about rates of false accusations, but unfounded rate could be an indicator variable. "Unfounded", however, is the same term applied to all of the FBI's definitions. They simply use that term instead of "false" because they do not want to dig into whether the accusation was deliberately malicious or not. But regardless, there are far more accusations of rape that are not factually correct, even if they weren't done on purpose. From the Uniform Crime Report, they state specifically that "The “unfounded” rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were “unfounded,” while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent."
Actually "unfounded" is a bit broader than malicious or not and I almost find it intellectually dishonest that you are linking just the index of the Uniform Crime Report as a means of backing up your claim. Here is an article written specifically discussing what "unfounded" means when it is used in connection with forcible rape:
http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/
|
On May 03 2013 15:31 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 15:26 r.Evo wrote:On May 03 2013 15:15 TheExile19 wrote:On May 03 2013 15:13 r.Evo wrote:
Someone advocating that more women or more men should be hired for a certain job or that standards for one of the genders should be lowered is what I find to be horrible. you mean exactly what doesn't happen and nobody takes seriously in reality? Our politcal parties in Germany have female quotas. While laws to introduce female quotas at the workplace haven't been successful (mostly due to a case in front of the EU courts) companies like German Telecom (30%), E.ON, BMW, Daimler and Bosch (15%-22%) have introduced them mostly due to public pressure. The women in our military need lower qualifications and the very law that allows women to enter our military is void in the case of defense (§3, parapraph 4, SGleiG) and can be declared void on a case-by-case basis for all foreign military activities. Those quotas do happen and all I see are "feminists" cheering them on failing to understand they accomplish the exact opposite. my cultural ignorance is exposed so essentially that particular law for women soldiers is a paper tiger that does nothing in wartime? well, not much to say about that besides that it makes congress look like effective policymakers. if those percentages are the actual female saturation in the workplace, that still doesn't seem very scary to me. I'm not exactly a fan of just trying to shove women into a culture that undoubtedly pushes back in more subtle, insidious ways, but at least some nation is experimenting with it.
I wouldn't go as far as calling them paper tigers. Essentially they're equal as soldiers and the idea is that such "case of defense" will not come into play anytime soon. If I remember correctly the main justification for that paragraph is that (quoting freely) "equality aside, when it comes to defense we need our armies to be at 100%". Add to that the pretty rational comparison that the average women performs worse physically than the average man and the law becomes reasonable to a certain extent.
For me that example is a classic case of "well, fuck, the public wants us to be politically correct but we have other issues to worry about as well". To me real gender equality in such a scenario would mean to hold men and women to the same physical standard without lowering it. If a woman has the same physical standard as a man, go for it (or only allow those who can't make that standard to join certain parts of the army). A measurable physical standard that applies for both gender is as objective as it can be in such a case.
Those percentages aren't the actual saturation, they're declared "we want x% women working for us until xyz". Technically it isn't legal to hire a woman over a man because she's a woman but you can imagine yourself how such a quota is best acheived. =P
|
On May 03 2013 15:43 sunprince wrote:
Your reading comprehension sucks. Luckily for you, I'm feeling patient today:
Every single measure I listed is normally used by sociologists to demonstrate that blacks are discriminated against. That is, they receive longer prison sentences, they are more likely to be victims of violent crime, they do worse in all aspects of the educational system, etc.
that's cool bro
are you ready to address the staggering, insurmountable difference between a system explicitly prejudiced against black people as a sociocultural, historically moral mode of discrimination, and a system that, not only as a byproduct of men being very clearly societally superior to women, but mostly just having nothing to do with any actual subjugation maintained by a gender conflict, i.e. the very core tenet of feminism, is a totally different matter of discussion?
are you ready? because you seem to think that this is your answer to feminism, and in reality it's just an answer to societal tendencies that, while generally as arbitrary, systematic and unfair as issues that feminism focuses on, is a subset of various sociocultural functions that don't have a goddamned thing to do with women other than when you co-opt them to serve as a non-sequitur foil to win an internet argument.
I could elaborate further on the specific origins of the conflicts those stats of yours refer to, or try to since I'm not a genius or a sociology major, but I suspect quite highly that you have ulterior motives and biases here that go beyond any neutral interest I have in the subject. additionally, you are a boor. good day.
|
On May 03 2013 15:38 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 15:34 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 15:25 Wombat_NI wrote:
Those aren't to do with rights but are manifestations of a genderised culture So by that logic, blacks aren't discriminated against, right? After all, every measure I gave you is used to prove that blacks are victims of systemic discrimination, only the gender divide is much worse. So it's okay that black men get much more prison time, amirite? On May 03 2013 15:25 Wombat_NI wrote:a la the same stuff feminists also bemoan Nope. Feminists are only too happy to fight for gender roles when it suits them. I posted plenty of examples earlier in this thread. They have the same 'rights', if end results are different it's due to cultural or socio-economic reasons. Im neither with or against you on this, just feel the moniker is badly chosen
By "rights", the reference is to "equal rights". You know, like how blacks fought for "equal rights" such as desegregated schools.
But sure, let's get into legal, institutionalized discrimination:
-By directive of the US Department of Education, a rape accusation does not need to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to end a college student's career. One guess which gender this has a massive disparate impact on.
-DOJ will not investigate white male bullying victims.
Men are screwed by child support laws, even when they are not fathers.
-Domestic violence laws, including the Violence Against Women Act, protect only women and allow women to accuse virtually any man due to expanded definitions which include things like "getting annoyed if she disagrees'.
-The Duluth Model (upon which VAWA is based), in particular, makes it mandatory for police to arrest the larger partner in any domestic violence call. Yep, that would usually be the man.
-Obamacare discriminates against men. Canadian health care funding does the same.
|
On May 03 2013 15:45 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 15:27 sunprince wrote:On May 03 2013 15:20 Ghostcom wrote:
There is a distinction to be made between the "unfounded" and "false". You failed to make that distinction between r.Evo. The data is simply of too low quality to really say anything about rates of false accusations, but unfounded rate could be an indicator variable. "Unfounded", however, is the same term applied to all of the FBI's definitions. They simply use that term instead of "false" because they do not want to dig into whether the accusation was deliberately malicious or not. But regardless, there are far more accusations of rape that are not factually correct, even if they weren't done on purpose. From the Uniform Crime Report, they state specifically that "The “unfounded” rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were “unfounded,” while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent." Actually "unfounded" is a bit broader than malicious or not and I almost find it intellectually dishonest that you are linking just the index of the Uniform Crime Report as a means of backing up your claim. Here is an article written specifically discussing what "unfounded" means when it is used in connection with forcible rape: http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/
You can use the index's sidebar to actually navigate to individual chapters. Chapter 2 has the relevant quote I pulled, which you can use Ctrl-F to find. I assume most TLers have basic computer skills.
The article you quoted corroborates my point. Not all unfounded cases are proven to be false, no. However, that doesn't change the fact that law enforcement cannot find any evidence for them, or that the rape accusation turned out not to actually be forcible rape as defined by law.
The same, however, applies to unfounded accusations of any crime. So when we find that the unfounded rape accusation rate is 8%, and the unfounded crime accusation rate is 2%, we're still comparing apples to apples, which is a pretty good indicator that false rape accusation rates are higher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
