Femenists want to make masculinity a hate crime.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by johncmcleod


Ok, so you disagree with an argument and that makes the person that said it on drugs. Is that the critical thinking you said they didn't teach me? (which, btw, is why I will be going to a private school next year instead of a public one)

If you say the sun rises in the west and the sky is green, then the "argument" is so flawed as to not be worth serious response. Ditto with comparing murders to school expulsions.

My comparisons are called figurative analogies. Instead of arguing against some of them, you just said two things are different, therefore the principle cannot be applied to both.

Does the Heisenburg uncertainty principle apply to a tennis ball? There's such a thing as scope. Butter is to powdered laundry detergent as an automobile is to... is nonsensical for the same reason. There's "different" and there's "so different as to be beyond any valid comparison."

You mentioned that expelling kids because of their race was a crime in itself. I agree. Murdering people because of their race should be a crime in itself, also. They are different subjects same principle. Harming someone because of their race is wrong.

Sigh. Let me see if I can explain this: Murder = wrong in all circumstances (i.e. there can be justifiable homicide, but murder, by definition is an unlawful, intentional killing.) Expelling kids from school = absurdly trivial in comparison to murder. That aside, expelling kids from school is a lawful policy decision, if done for reasons permitted under school rules and applicable law. The reason is relevant, because it alone determines whether the action is legal and proper, an unintentional misuse of an otherwise proper administrative authority (the principal thought the reason was acceptable under school policy, but it wasn't, OR a civil or criminal violation of civil rights law. Get the difference?

Pretty much what you said is: killing someone, no matter the intent, is equivalent and therefore should be punished equivalently. I disagree with that way of thinking. According to what you believe if I kill someone in self-defense it is the same as murder. My intent wasn't bad, it was to protect myself. But all the same, "killing people is equivalent, and should be punished equivalently."

[quote]
Apparently, you have some vocabulary issues. Murder does not mean "killing a human being" Homicide is the killing of a human being. Murder is a subset of homicide, in that it's unlawful, intentional homicide.

If you stick to what I said, instead of your totally misinterpreted version of what you think what I said meant, it's a lot easier:

Premeditated murder with torture for one reason, is as bad as premeditated murder with torture for another reason.

Self-defense is your addition to the analogy, not mine. To treat self defense the same way you treat murder is an absurdity.

I have no idea why I'm even arguing. We all know I'll lose. I don't even remember the last time I won an argument.

You need to get your vocabulary down precisely - especially in the sense of not assuming two words are synonymous when they're not, or not rewording what someone else says in your own thought process - if you do that, you end up debating with yourself, and you lose by definition, since you've left the other guy's argument behind. (and it might have been a truly crappy one, but you'd never know.) Precision in terminology is critical in a lot of fields, especially law.

Law libraries (at least good ones) all carry a huge series of books entitled "Words and Phrases" and different state versions like "California Words and Phrases". The California hardback one is around a hundred volume set, 1200 pages or so per book, and the entire series is just a collection of all the definitions that courts have applied to different words or phrases in when the meanings of those words have been disputed in court. Page after page of stuff like what has "adjacent" been determined to mean in different cases where the parties disagree on whether one thing is adjacent to another. Same thing with "murder" "homicide" or any other word where the meaning has been disputed in court.

Depending on your point of view, it's the most boring, or the most interesting, stuff you'll ever read. It's a little of both, because it gives you an idea of how much trouble you can get into when two people say the same thing but mean two different things.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's making quite an assumption. You don't know me, yet you say I am biased against women. This is bs.

No more than you making assumptions against feminists.

If feminists want equality, why are they still around. There are few laws that give men the advantage.

Yes, and there are also few laws that give whites advantage over minorities, but you say later that they are in a worse situation. Why? No laws preventing them. Isn't that equal opportunity?

If you really believe the genders are 'equal', you have been smoking something.

As long as opportunities are the same, they don't need to make changes. There's no need for females to stop being homemakers and become senators, for there's nothing wrong with a homemaker.

The opportunities AREN'T the same! This tired, stupid argument that females don't need to stop being homemakers simply masks the true reality that women in the workforce that want to advance are frequently passed over by their male collegues. This has nothing to do with homemakers, but everything to do with the glass ceiling that in many companies does seem to exist. The opportunities are NOT the same because people like you continue to say they are and because of it no one wants to do anything to actually equalize the opportunities. No one wants to change the perception that an aggressive man is a good thing while an aggresive woman is a *****. No one wants to change the perception that men are better in this kind of jobs than women. This outdated and frankly bigoted thinking results in opportunities that are not equal.

[johncmcleod]

originally posted by Imran Siddiqui:
No more than you making assumptions against feminists.

When did I do that?

Yes, many times women might get passed up because a male of less skills got accepted. You cannot change the thinking of some people so fast. But, you must admit, much progress has been made. If the same situation happened 50 years ago, do you think they would have even looked at the woman? Times are changing. I really don't believe it'll be long before biases against women completely stop. Not too long ago, women were always the comic characters of movies, it was rare to talk about biases against women, and it was very rare for them not to be a homemaker.

Only a few years later, in movies women are almost always the strong, protagonist who beats up the bad guy (almost all movies have a female character who the guys ridicule and then she turns out to be way better then them). It is very common for the girls to beat up the guys (Alias, Dark Angel, etc., but when was the last time you saw a guy beat up a girl in a movie (not including movies dealing with abuse).

I have to go I'll post more later.

[St Leo]

but when was the last time you saw a guy beat up a girl in a movie (not including movies dealing with abuse).

XMen2.

[johncmcleod]

Ok, there's one example compared to millions of other movies where the whole point of the movie is the girl gets prejudiced against, etc.

Where I'm going is, we're making progress and getting close to absolute equality. Men are much less sexist than they use to be. It'll keep on going this way. We don't need feminists going around to complain of male domination. The only thing they're doing is separating the two into groups, which is not good.

You need to get your vocabulary down precisely - especially in the sense of not assuming two words are synonymous when they're not, or not rewording what someone else says in your own thought process - if you do that, you end up debating with yourself, and you lose by definition, since you've left the other guy's argument behind. (and it might have been a truly crappy one, but you'd never know.) Precision in terminology is critical in a lot of fields, especially law.

Yeah, I guess you're right about that. I changed 'murder' to killing people. But the whole point is the same. You believe that if you kill someone in self-defense it is not as bad as murder. They should not be punished the same. Why? Because the intent is different. They're both killing, but with a murder you're doing it just to kill them. The same is applicable to hate crimes. A hate crime is worse than regular murder. They should not be punished the same. Why? Because the intent is different.

Maybe I've gone off my rocker on this one.

[blackice]

The opportunities AREN'T the same! This tired, stupid argument that females don't need to stop being homemakers simply masks the true reality that women in the workforce that want to advance are frequently passed over by their male collegues.

Other than isolated incidents this tired old stupid arguement has no foundation in proof nor fact. If it does show some. The "Glass Ceiling" as it is refered to is a myth started by, guess who? Even studies show that the last 15% of the wage gap is accounded for if one factors in lost wage due to job absense. For the first year out of your field or trade you lose 5% after 3 years it jumps to 15%. Since most women choose to stay home to raise kids an average of three years, well you figure it out.

This has nothing to do with homemakers, but everything to do with the glass ceiling that in many companies does seem to exist.

Glass ceiling is an old arguement, most of the reasons for this inequity in gender has been researched posted and dismissed.

The opportunities are NOT the same because people like you continue to say they are and because of it no one wants to do anything to actually equalize the opportunities

That is a farce too, tell me how many millions and millions of our tax dollars are spent on this exact topic?

No one wants to change the perception that an aggressive man is a good thing while an aggresive woman is a *****.

Tell me what is wrong with an agressive man? Women's groups have been preaching this for years, so tell me who do you know that has a problem with a career oriented aggressive woman? I know no one. Now tell me who do you know that has a problem with a career oriented aggressive man, other than radical womans groups of course...

No one wants to change the perception that men are better in this kind of jobs than women.

So you have proof of this? You have proof that men and women are exactly the same in every detail? You have proof that in fact men and women are exactly the same in all areas of the workplace and beyond? If so then tell me why women are concidered better person's to raise kids? Better at finances, better at healthcare better sales people and nurturing? Why do men and women make such radical career and educational choices then? Let me guess men made them do it right?

Or is it your point to say women can do everything that men can but men can not do what women can? because it does not take much looking around to see these perceptions pushed and published by the media.

In fact doing very little reseach on the net, you will see all research and studies into this matter by men and women will show that in fact your assuption is completely wrong.

You have to be very neive and or not understand the sexes very well to not know we are different and excell differently in most all areas. An example of this would be all the wasted funding trying to get women into engineering fields. After many wasted millions on the pressure of the womens groups and alike. Concrete studies show not very many women are interested in that field. This list goes on and on so to use that example in a reseach paper as womens groups do simply shows fraudulent intent.

Supporters of gender-based preferences claim that the existence of wage gaps proves the existence of systemic discrimination against women. Without preferences, they reason, women will not be able to overcome the "glass ceiling" that prevents them from advancing in the male dominated business world. This argument is flawed for numerous reasons.

First, it does not take into consideration a number of variables that account for such discrepancies between men and women in the workforce. An analysis of census data and economic labor studies demonstrates that gaps do not reflect discrimination, but instead reflect different education fields and different career and family choices. When one compares women and men with the same level of education, field of education, and workforce experience, the gap virtually disappears.

To further this thread the question has to be asked why millions of tax payer dollars were pumped into special programs and courses for girls in school to make them equal to boys. As the paper these people dismiss and call hate critisizes. When in reality the published reports contrdict what the womens groups shoved down our throats for years.

Schools do not Shortchange Girls. Supporters of preferences also claim that primary and secondary education favors boys, and therefore girls experience gender discrimination as soon as they enter school. Much of this claim relies on a 1992 report by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) entitled How Schools Shortchange Girls: A Study of Major Findings on Girls and Education. The report concluded that girls suffer from low self-esteem and lag behind boys in academic achievement, and it has served as justification for a multitude of government programs that secure millions of dollars to implement "gender equity programs" aiming to advance girls educationally.

Yet as Judith Kleinfeld, a psychology professor at the University of Alaska, reveals in the 1998 study The Myth That Schools Shortchange Girls: Social Science in the Service of Deception, "The facts are different. Girls excel in school. Girls get higher grades in every school subject, get higher class rank, get placed half as often in special education classes, score significantly higher on standardized tests of writing and reading achievement, enter college more often, and graduate more often with bachelor’s and master’s degrees."19 While girls do score lower than boys in advanced science and mathematics, the gap is much smaller than the gap between girls and boys in reading and writing.

Kleinfeld also expresses concern that this myth that schools shortchange girls diverts attention away from the real at-risk gender group: African-American boys. African-American boys score far below African-American girls on virtually every educational scale. Additionally, on average, they most often earn the lowest scores in the nation. As explained earlier, the best way to help students excel in school is through school choice.

Just one conclusion but they all say the same thing, womens groups promoted myths, the reality this paper they can hate is trying to bring attention to the real needy people, boys.. This is hate? I think not.

St Leo when was the last time you saw a man on T.V. that was actually competent? When was the last time you saw a woman beat up a man?

[Az]

Sigh, blackice is so very correct on many of the accounts.

This thread reminds of that Prodigy video. didn't we all think that the violent drunk bastard was a man? a damn magnificent video it was.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
- the woman's image is still widely associated with sex. Sexist ads still are galore, and are way more sexist towards women than towards men (same for porn, in which women manage to be even more disgraced than men).

I am not sure what you mean by sexist ads, unless you mean ads that sells products by sex. Unfortunately, it is a firm belief of the advertising companies that sex sells. Even if that holds for products targetting men, you'd see a lot of them featuring women photographed in various sexually provocative ways, implying that a man will get lots of sex if he buys these products.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

To me, the most important equality is that of opportunity, not result.

But the stunning disparity in result seems to indicate a lack of the equality of oppertunity, wouldn't you say? Showing that perhaps there IS a glass ceiling in most businesses and that a lot of voters may not vote for a woman simply because she is one (at the subconscious level). This is the same reason that aggressive men are lauded, but aggressive women are called *****. It's all about a double standard that needs to be changed, and is being changed slowly... but feminism is needed to change it all the way.

What has been happening these days? Have you been possessed by an ancient Native American spirit Imran? This is so unlike you!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
What we must do is remove sexism from the interpersonal ( not only romantic!) relations

I don't quite understand this bit. For me, it is very important that my SO is a woman - and happily, she is YMMV

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
I never said that men and women would behave the same. This difference is well established, AFAIK. But the difference will smaller than it currently is.

I am not so sure. For example, men tend to be better spatially, but women tend to be better temporally. There are other similar important differences between the genders. For me, I can see that men and women being equal, but in a Yin-Yang way, not a "divide a circile stright down through the centre" way.

[Az]

I don't quite understand this bit. For me, it is very important that my SO is a woman - and happily, she is

Ahem, I probably should've put this differently. many Men and women still treat each other according to their gender in bussiness and non-romantic relationships. Romantic relationships are a matter of choice, and are completely different.

I am not so sure. For example, men tend to be better spatially, but women tend to be better temporally. There are other similar important differences between the genders. For me, I can see that men and women being equal, but in a Yin-Yang way, not a "divide a circile stright down through the centre" way.

Of course, of course, noone denies that there are noticeable differences. However, these differences are encreased and dramatized by society. Without this, in a perfect nurture, men and women would still be masculine and feminine, respectively, but would've both strong-willed, determined, and competitive, as well as friendly, compassionate, and caring. It's a known fact that these facts don't exclude each other.

[Lincoln]

Blackice is the man My brother is currently being jacked around by the "unbiased" system in California. But the tide may be changing to reflect true equality. We can only hope that the radical femenists have overplayed their hand to such a extent that their hypocrisy will be exposed for all to see. I know first hand of the plight of single mothers and I have tried where I could to help them when they were abandoned by some jerk. But teaching the sexes to hate each other is certainly not the answer. It is ironic that one hate group tells their opposition that they are guilty of a hate crime.

[Lincoln]

Anyway, I am off for the weekend. You all have fun with this thread while I am gone. And surely there are some comments from some of the women out there. Or does Mark still treat them like chattel in this man dominated forum? Too bad the govermnent puts up with this blatant discrimination!

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by johncmcleod It is very common for the girls to beat up the guys (Alias, Dark Angel, etc., but when was the last time you saw a guy beat up a girl in a movie (not including movies dealing with abuse).

Coogan's Bluff (the other night).