Discrimination against Men

[ivar]

You do realize that not everyone that goes to prison gets raped right?

No technically it's not but it's prevalent enough.

 

[MrIndigo]

No technically it's not but it's prevalent enough.

What incidence rate would you consider prevalent enough? Numbers specifically.

 

[ultimifier]

heres my beef.

I'm at a party, and this drunk girl (one of my friends) starts punching me in the arm. Its not a full punch but you know, its annoying enough. So its obviously not very hard (and im not a pussy), but a punch is a punch. You get a knuckle on the tricep and it starts to hurt after a while. She punches me maybe 10 times and i tell her to stop. So then her friend (who i dont even fucking know) punches me in the arm as a joke, I say firmly to her "Fuck off". I get a bunch of dirty looks and a whole group of people who dont even know me give me that 'I cant believe you said that to a girl look'. I ended up leaving the party 15 minutes later because word had somehow spread and people were started to be weird around me.

I really hate the way society has burned into everyones heads the way guys are supposed to act in the presence of ladies. If I punched this random bitch in the arm for no reason this would be a whole different story.

Also, the chick wasn't good looking, so if she was trying to flirt with me it was NOT working

 

[Deck Knight]

It will be you who is in more trouble, but only because men created a ridiculous and sexist notion that women are dainty, helpless creatures that we must protect. Every single time I have had this sort of conversation, every other guy or nearly every other guy teams up against me with such utter conviction that a man should never hit a woman. Fucking ridiculous idiots.

Actually, it's mostly because the fight between an average unarmed man and an averaged unarmed woman, all other things being equal, is stupidly advantaged to any man capable of protecting his ballsack.

There is no need for a man to be aggressive to a woman, as a man almost always has superior upper body strength, reach, height, and weight. They can thus simply fend off attacks until the woman gets bored and takes her rage out on some other unfortunate target. Even a woman of comparable size and weight is still generally going to be weaker than their male counterpart, so men can always take a defensive position. You can't generally exploit anyone on the defense, since they aren't aggressing and therefore have no momentum to use against them. People in a temporary rage generally don't have the kind of focus it takes to cause you more than coincidental harm.

It's nothing to do with women being dainty and helpless as much you can't respect any man who lets himself get drawn into an aggressive position against a foe generally incapable of mounting a credible threat (or a clearly crazy person crudely attempting violence in a brief rage episode). If some little twerp goes picking on the biggest girls he can find, that just makes him a fucking idiot who deserves any pummeling he gets.

Aggression is fine in a contest of equals, but fights aren't beneficial contests and men should not submit to the ravings and lower themselves to the levels of an emotional headcase. It is irrational for a woman to attack a man in the first place on the bases outlined above. Let them vent their temporary rage, keep your nuts unkicked, and go on with your day unless they pull out some armament, in which case: disarm them with your superior strength if possible (blunt weapons), or walk away (run if they are truly, truly psychotic) and proceed as normal. What are they going to do, overpower you?

Remain calm, try to calm them down, and defend yourself with minimal aggression, and eventually it will subside. In other words, your superior strength is supposed to be used as an opening to apply your powers of calm and reason to someone clearly distressed, in a manner designed to do minimal harm to both of you. You because you're a male and are not easily damaged, and her because she's in distress and if she isn't calmed she is more apt to hurt herself.

It is simply an embarrassment to manhood to attack a woman, not a female protection racket. Men are blessed with many talents, among them the strength required to make a peace. You are certainly free to be a brainless douche and go about punching women in response to their aggressions, just don't expect any respect in return.

Now as to the specific scenario of a woman aggressing you, punches are largely unnecessary. Just find a way to grab her arms or block her legs, and you're probably fine if she has no martial training. If for some reason she does know some level of offensive martial art, she's probably so disciplined that she won't go off on you anyway. Unless you deserve it. Getting beat up by a girl is more respectable than punching one. You'll get hazed a little for the former (again, you probably deserved it), and ostracized for the latter.

But again chivalry is dead, replaced instead by shrill cries that everything in male culture is somehow a sexist statement against women. Men don't punch women not because they are dainty and need protection, but because you're supposed to be a fucking man, and men deserving of respect do not punch women. Period. It's about honor and respectability (to self and others), two things which modern strings of feminist thought have zero conception.

Honestly, can there be any more conformist notion than blaming sexism for why men don't punch women? Really? It's sexist to have a cultural norm for not engaging in violent behavior towards women? What a crock. The reason people gang up on you for your sentiments is because your sentiments are based in a completely idiotic gender paradigm with no relation to reality. The kind of idiocy you can only learn in the theory-centric ivory tower, where hypotheses are never tested, results are never measured, and no one is held accountable. You should ask for your money back.

 

[Hipmonlee]

That's the best post you ever made dude.

Have a nice day.

 

[akuchi]

argh my god my fucking ARRRRRRGH I've typed out reponses twice now

Thank you X-act for pointing that out, i know very few men who can cook and half of the women i know go to coocking classes and enjoy it. I cook terribly so if my couple cooked better (probably the case since the only thing i can cook is soup) i would expect her to cook but i have no problem with making the bed, cleaning the floor, washing the dishes, etc. In fact i like to do those things becouse i can´t stand living in a house that is dirty.

this is why my poor boyfriend has to clean up after me :3

Ok this is bullshit, men ARE discriminated by parenting law you can´t argue with that, as i posted earlier men can be forced to have childern or to abort one, a friend of mine once met his girlfriend and she told him that she had gotten pregnant but that she had aborted the child. My friend was devastated, he would have kept him and raised im on his own but he wasn´t given the chance and becouse of that a life was lost. Also if you don´t pay you go to jail and if you have no money (say you were fired) you also go to jail. And even when custody is spltted 50-50 the child ends up living with the mother and isiting the father on weeekends, that makes me sick. Also please argue with what i posted earlier because if not i will be forced to believe it is correct

it's odd that, I was actually at work! not online! mental times

right so basically I said here that women should not and cannot be forced to continue a pregnancy they don't want to keep, but we're not getting into an abortion debate

also that you go to jail for not paying child support for contempt of court, which means the judge is quite free to make their own choices - and if you can prove you're trying to get a job, it's highly unlikely you won't go to prison
also that blah blah you can be banned from getting things like hunting licenses if you're behind on child support but it might be an idea to stop shooting things and pay your damn child support

oh also that your anecdotal evidence is TOTALLY AWESOME but my own father was a cunt of massive proportion and ended up getting legal aid because his job is benefit fraud and drugs and my mam worked full time to support me so she had to pay £7000, which she got off my grandad; we were lucky a) he could afford that else we would have lost our house and b) my grandparents could look after me all day so my mother could work in the first place

Akuchi I'm very sorry if you were raped but its not especially fair that you bring it up. You aren't (for good reason) going to give us the whole story so there is no way we could really understand what happened. Bringing it up just makes it harder for everyone to be rational about this.
right ok uh here I said basically as someone who's life has not been directly affected by rape you really can't tell someone who has directly been affected by rape exactly how it affects you 'prison is worse! (uhh. right then)' and that it's TOO EMOTIVE for you know a discussion actually ON THIS VERY SUBJECT

i basically felt a bit worried here that you were going to rape someone because you don't actually seem to know what rape is (the whole story? I was raped. is this less important or traumatising a story than a virgin catholic who was snatched off the street? ermno)

so the definition of rape is this, and I use men raping women because it is the most common form of rape, but freely acknowledge that men can rape men and women can rape women and women can also rape men!
rape: unless someone has made it very plain they want to fuck you, and are in a reasonable state of consent to do so, if you fuck them it is rape! this is not difficult!
this means these things are rape: children, sleeping people, prostituted women who do not want to be there for reasons of trafficking or similar, people who initially decide they'd like to fuck you but then change their mind (YES EVEN IF IT'S HALFWAY THROUGH), people who make out with you and maybe even let you feel them up a bit (ohmy) but don't want to go further, people who are too drunk to know what is going on, big age gaps where one person is under the age of consent, coercive relationships, boys who just assume their girlfriend wants to fuck them so just climbs on top despite any lack of a response whatsoever, etc etc etc.

Also since you brought up the personal I feel the right have to doubt your claims. You said "Sexual assault is a part of a women's life" and "I have been assaulted countless times." You are either extremely unlucky or have a different definition of sexual assault then the rest of us. Huge numbers of women (My sister, my mother, several of my friends) claim to have NEVER been assaulted a single time. I don't understand how your worldview could be trusted if you have such a different experience of the world then many women I trust.
this is where I got a bit sarcastic with you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault

lets take the 'touched inappropriately' one
last wednesday (wednesday before?) I got very dressed up (there are pictures on my facebook! go see!) and drank a bit.
the boy from downstairs (I live in uni accommodation) slapped my arse. hard. I told him to fuck off. he is a drunken idiot.
he went 'oh ok, I'll do it again slower then' and proceeded to fully grope my arse. I went mental at him.
we then went out! the amount of people that a) tried to stick their hand up my dress, front and back or b) tried to stick their hands DOWN my dress (considerably fewer). One boy grabbed me and basically started licking my face as he tried to force me to kiss him; one boy tried to rip my dress off entirely to see my lovely back tattoo.
Will I forever hate mens for these things, no, do I think that drunken arseholes on a night out of a certain age are extremely prone to sexual assault, yes
do I think that if someone actually sat them down and explained it was sexual assault the majority of them would, after finding it funny, quit: yes
We also apparently have different idas on what constitutes a good statistic. I frankly don't buy the 3% statistic. For one thing I can't understand why that would be the case. Women HAVE reasons to claim they've been raped. I don't know why they wouldn't. My uncle WAS extorted money by someone living with him. Other examples exist but that's not the way to make an argument about public policy.
They do, those awful women! Some of them have, in fact, even been raped!
Why wouldn't you report a rape accusation. Hrm. Maybe because rape is an extremely traumatic thing to go through, and a rape allegation makes you relive it; from the personal violation of a rape kit to the repeated questioning on events (and that is from the most sensitive officer)?
Now, not all police officers are sensitive or indeed at all nice. Quite a few don't believe you, don't listen, tell you there's nothing they can do, lose the report or just no-crime it to make their own statistics look better. Some of them ask you very insensitive, personal questions on your sex life, underwear and drinking habits!
I think you're really underestimating the effect rape has on a life. It's not 'oops, there was some sexin' I didn't appreciate, how gross, oh well'* it's 'oh. god. my life is destroyed. I am having flashbacks. I can't trust people anymore. I never want to have sex again. I cry too much. I can't go outside. I, in fact, may have post-traumatic stress disorder!'*
*rape impacts some people a great deal more than others; some may not frame it as rape (another of my housemates asked if she had been raped, because two men 'had sex' with her when she was unconcious. I said yes)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/13/rape-convictions-low

Jails are absolutely horrible places. Rapists go there a long time. They are often raped while there. People hate rapists. Being sent to jail for rape is AT LEAST as bad as being raped. People need to feel real bad for anybody sent to jail for something they didn't do.
Fuck off with your JAIL IS AT LEAST AS BAD AS BEING RAPED. That is, frankly, retarded.
Of course, if you go to jail for something you did not do, then I am very, very sorry and the legal system has failed.
But why the fuck is this all about the men that don't get justice? What about the much greater number of women that don't? And please do not insult my intelligence by suggesting that there are more men in prison for rape than women that have been raped. Seriously.
Oh, and as for men, even rapists, being raped whilst they are in jail (though it's not so common here)? That's fucking awful and I would never, ever wish that on anyone. Does that mean they deserve to be let off for rape? No.
The feminist stats on rape are definitely wrong. If rape is reported 5% of the time AND rape accusations are even 90% true then a random male smogoner is 200 times more likely to rape a woman then is a woman smogoner likely to accuse a man of rape. That's ridiculous. Its IMPOSSIBLE that rape is both under-reported and the accusations are true. Feminist scholarship says both so I'd doubt much of what they say.
It is, in fact, not impossible!
Here's a tip: a withdrawal of a rape accusation does not mean it was false.

Where exactly are you getting your statistics?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html
We'll take a much higher one - from the super-evil FOX itself! Deck Knight himself would be proud to reference from this! Fox suggest around 25%. Britain has a rape conviction rate of roughly 4%. Factor into this the rapes that are not reported (because there are many, go check out http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors237.pdf page 7 onwards
And, um. How many women see justice? How simply can I put this? You're far, far, far, more likely to see your attacker evade justice than to get put in prison for a false allegation.


Here's an example of where I get mine: http://www.billoblog.com/?p=134

 

[akuchi]

Or Akuchi lives in a different place, in a different country, and does different things. Since Akuchi does seem to be using a fairly broad definition of sexual assault that includes verbal and minor physical actions, it doesn't sound at all implausible that she could be experiencing it fairly regularly, like pretty much every time she goes out of an evening. (And yes such actions, while a million miles away from rape or near-rape, can reasonably be described as sexual assault.)

I would not any street harassment as sexual assault unless it turns physical. I included those examples because they are also very common, and very scary!

Given rape accusations, genuine or false, rarely lead to successful conviction or even prosecution, no I do not find it odd that false accusations seem rare. You're also forgetting that false accusation (of any crime) is both illegal and immoral, and most people do behave mostly morally.
agree

About the death penalty, my own view is that because the justice system is not infallible, the death penalty should not be used. A wrongly-jailed person can be freed. A wrongly-executed person cannot be brought back to life.
also agree; the death penalty is in my humble opinion a Bad Thing.

 

[akuchi]

Just as an initial note akuchi, the Women's Center operators were like crazy, crazy feminists. They make you look like Michelle Duggar. We're talking balls to the wall feminist theory imbibers, of which I was more than happy to aggravate on a regular basis, naturally :D. Their office was right next to The Archway Office, where I was assistant opinion editor.

Oh my god. Wow. Just wow. No *kissing* until marriage?
Wow. Dear me.

Nothing is more dangerous to status quo, control-freak style groupthink than a little chaos, which I'm always happy to provide.



I hereby challenge you to a duel! *throws gauntlets* I will be shirts and you will be skins.

Skins? Like the programme about teenagers who take a lot of drugs? No?.. Good. That programme sucks.


They're not sexist they're British! There's a difference. (Ok not really.) It goes both ways, although I'm surprised you applied for a job at a bookie's office to begin with. Do you like the races?

Aha - try calling them British and see how far you get. They're Welsh and proud.
I applied in the summer for two jobs (well - I applied for about fifty, but there were two jobs I looked like I would get in the space of two days); a charity fundraiser telephone job, which was exceptionally well paid, and a bookies, which isn't.
One of my best friends said I'd be happier with the bookies, then the charity job didn't come off, so I took that rather than wait for the charity job again (they employed in cycles of two weeks - I would have been signed up then).
I oddly really enjoyed the bookies - I like jobs where I learn new things, and I'd never paid aaany attention to racing or gambling of any sort before then, so I had a lot of fun learning all the different sorts of bets and watching the races and talking to the customers. I left to go to university, and found the local branch of the same chain were hiring so I re-applied and was picked up again on the spot :3
It's an odd job. I love it lots, though - I enjoy watching the racing (and have started to bet myself on rare occasion) and I actually like talking to the customers, though some of them are terribly sexist and daft and I get called 'love' and 'gorgeous' etc a lot and hear terrible things about women quite often. I don't expect everyone to think like me (!), and I don't take myself so seriously that everything that might be a bit sexist makes me EXPLODE WITH FEMINIST RAGE, so it's a lovely job.*

*it has benefits too; duty-free cigarettes from some of the seedier customers and loong evenings where noone is in so I'm free to read or study for university.



I'm all for maximum liberty, but my beef with a lot of the "combativeness" of feminism is the sort of lopsided way they address that liberty. On the one hand they seem to want to micromanage workplace gender balances and payscales, but abortion is supposed to be entirely unregulated, and yet publicly subsidized, but rarely discussed in a serious fashion. Despite the fact I find little to be liberating about it, its a choice that should never have to be made in a civilized society in my opinion. The first wave feminists were in fact pro-life.

Oddly enough, a view like that I can understand. Whilst I am in favour of free health care, as you are not the objection you raise is entirely consistent and not one I am really equipped to solve - charities offering abortion/contraception? loans to cover the cost of abortion? offering free contraception after abortion?

It's because you are so short :( (I jest. I'm hardly qualified to be making short cracks)

I AM NOT THAT SHORT

My advice is to drop the slacker. He'd have more money to take you on dates if he wern't so busy making himself look lovely. Tell him the prototypical Ugly American psuedo-Thatcherite is busting his dating chops, that'll motivate him.

making himself look lovely? are you joking? have you seen him? he's 5'6 and quite tubby (and he'll kill me for saying this, but has man boobs a bit) and often forgets to shave. and is thirty. but these things are not why I date him!


Dirty sexy or dirty ugly? There I go mocking the British again.

just welsh, I think..

Deadbeat dads have zero respect. Zero. It's about the only status convicted child rapist is below in the Popular Official Patriarchal Conspiracy Respect Assignment Pyramid (POPCRAP). What I don't like though is societal systems wherin even non-deadbeat (but otherwise money-poor) dads are replaced by government checks. That is an overreaction to a serious problem that leads to more social dysfunction than it seeks to cure.

I see where you're coming from; but children unfortunately no longer pay for themselves!
I also get that deadbeat dads have no respect (apart from with each other; my biological father told an anecdote about a man that has no less than thirty children, for he pierces the condoms he uses, and then flees to the next woman - this clever man has never paid a penny childsupport in his whole entire life! just like my dad! tee hee!) but deadbeat mams (who abandon their children) are seen as somehow contravening the laws of nature - mammas are there to care and love and nurture, and to stop doing all those things as a lady is a very gross transgression indeed.

The main point behind the statistic akuchi is that it uses the same myopic standard of all deaths over all jobs to make a ridiculous political point. Men aren't dying all over the law office or at Burger King, the statistic includes stupidly dangerous stuff like deep-sea fishing, coal mining, skyscraper construction, etc. [ie jobs where possible death is an explicitly listed job hazard.] Just like the "Equal Pay Day" perennial statistic does not account for the lifestyle differences, job details, and personal choices that women and men make in employment. I only bring it up because it uses the same absurd logic and overreach. OSHA can't do a damn thing about the inherent dangers of these jobs. As they say, shit happens.

No doubt! There are two things in the UK pay gap that bother me;
1. It begins showing even before women have children and are straight out of university;
2. maternity leave; I believe parents should have the option to split it equally, or for the mamma or dadda to take as much as they want (of the prescribed amount) of said leave so whichever parent wants to do the raising can do!


Some men have terrible judgment and ridiculous expectations. "Tit for that" is not an axiom most mature men ascribe to, though what male college students expect (based on what some female college students deliver...) may be entirely different.



I didn't have terrible experiences so much as it just seemed like such a fabricated load of feminist theory gone wild. You saw the hatorade I got for my Vagina Monologues column, heh.

I honestly dread to think.

Innocence of youth is so easily dashed, earlier and earlier it seems. Based solely on what you've mentioned on Smogon I certainly don't discount your experiences, but I still believe there is value in trying to keep innocence around longer than what the oversexed culture realistically allows in modern times. I worry about people being degraded to their base physical parts, which is the definition of objectification. I'd much rather have a woman with qualms about being called a lady than embracing the term "cunt," as one of The Monologues suggested. I have difficulty reconciling feminist rhetoric/art/critique with stated feminist goals, in other words. Which has always been my main beef, its just you won't fill an opinion section with statements as qualified as that one.

I think there's a definite difference between innocence and dangerous naivete. I would, of course, like both genders to be taught exactly what their respective genitals are and about the other genders' too, an inclusion of homosexuality and trans issues in the curriculum and sex-positive sex education, but more than that I would like the issue of consent to be taught and hammered home, and I would like that to be mandatory in all schools including faith schools. You don't have to come out with a 'unless you're totally up for a fuck, don't feel like you have to have his dick in you'; but a simple 'don't ever feel you have to do anything you're not comfortable with' and a 'make sure at all times your partner is actually comfortable with what you're doing' would go a long way, I think. There are even ways to do this without a particular loss of innocence; 'your body is your own and nobody else has the right to touch it unless you actually want them to' sort of thing.
It's not so much innocence I was complaining about as that, as a product of a good Catholic school, noone had really explained sex; it was just, y'know, something that might happen when you get married, or whatever, and this bit went in that bit and it had no relevance to our lives whatsoever so when I went to a party and someone actually started having sex with me I was very, very surprised indeed. You don't have to offend sensibilities; but making it, I think, relevant to modern life. I dunno what abstinence-only is like over there, I naturally don't hear such good things - but if I were running it, I would probably say thus; 'this is sex. don't have sex, because we think sex should be kept between a married couple. however, sometimes people may want to have sex with you! it is okay to say no, and to wait! if you do slip up, you can still not have sex, it is okay! but you can use a condom or take a morning-after pill to avoid babby, for babby will probably shit all over your floor and your education.'
This is probably a topic for another topic, though!


I think that's true for most people who aren't activists about it. I have flights of fancy about activism, but I personally think I'm a much better rhetorician than a boots-on-the-ground activist. I was terrible that one time I tried phone-banking for a candidate. I prefer setting up signs, looking over policy positions, forming a coherent, powerful, punchy message, etc.
You know something totally cool? There's a broad spectrum of Nazi-related parties here (I hesitate to call them fascists, because you use that word for me!) and I went to a protest lately to tell them that yes, I was quite, quite happy as a white person to share Wales' green and pleasant land with brown people (and yellow people too!), and that I did not think they were smelly, or scary, or anything.
Anyway. They took pictures of me! I did not know they took these pictures! I am now, in fact, on redwatch!

Most of how men are taught politeness is in the context of behavior rather than words. Address your elders and superiors as "Sir" or "Ma'am." Give up your seat for the elderly or a woman, because they are possibly more infirmed/have a baby/are pregnant etc. It's not about thinking you are superior physically as it is a rote that you go through to be a decent human being, which for men generally means having a set standard of behaviors designed to be respectful and earn respect.

ah, chivalry. it is fascinating really just how different our experiences are, both from industrialised western nations that speak the same language!
It is kind of how women pressure each other on their appearance choices or how they conduct themselves at a function or all those other "ladylike" things, but men are expected to do it because they lose respect in general if they don't, and are expected to know it and not be told they are losing respect. Men aren't going to tell you if you are fucking up "being a man," as it were, because they are often your direct competition in some way. It's a strange sort of system because its based largely on internal feedback. If you don't have that feedback ingrained you become all of the bad things men become, and they don't care because they don't really know.
I think this also happens with the example you cited; there is a lot of internal-feedback that goes with being a woman, even a scary feminist woman.
Gender roles are so odd!



That shows up in some of my observations, but I'm not a woman so it isn't internalized, I'll take your word for it. Men have a very different operating definition of confrontation, since its sort of a given if you're a guy your friends are also somewhat your rivals. Not necessarily in an antagonistic way, but kind of as a benchmark for checking yourself.

Definitely a differing definition of confrontation. What I find interesting (purely anecdotal, natch) is that when women confront men it can get a lot more shouty (and vice-versa) than women on women. And this is good, for it means the issues in my flat are sorted out quicker. This is also bad, for it means that one of the boys in the flat got glassed.

What a patsy ;). Actually, my dad does the laundry for my parents (I do my own). They've worked something out since their relationship had some trouble, but all the solutions were largely internal.



Cosmo was mostly directed at being utterly pointless drivel which disgusts me on several levels, yet still deigns itself fit to give advice. Fuck off, Cosmo indeed.




Then we agree.

See, this is why I like you akuchi. You're always fun to converse with.
And you are taking me for dinner.

I have something else for this thread: the fact that until recently, a man could use the defence of provocation for killing a cheating or nagging wife, but women who had been abused for years had no legal defence at all, leading to such quirky cases as these, so I shall link to a rather biased source!

http://www.justiceforwomen.org.uk/ONTRIAL.HTM

In 1995 Brian Steadman was jailed for three years after he hit her 13 times with a hammer, he pleaded diminished responsibility due the his wife's constant nagging.
In 1997 Joseph Swinburne killed his wife by stabbing her eleven times when she told him she was leaving him for another man. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 200 hours community service.
In 1992 Judge Dennison gave Bisla Rajinder Singh, an 18 month sentence suspended for one year for the manslaughter of his wife on the grounds of provocation. The judge told him "you have suffered through no fault of your own….your wife was a domineering lady with a sharp and persistent tongue".
Lucy Kellet was preparing to leave Oliver Kellet after years of abuse. As she as waiting for the removal van to take her to her new home he stabbed her repeatedly with a bowie knife. He pleaded manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and was given 3 year probation.

In 1992 Zoora Shah snapped after 12 years of physical and sexual violence when her partner turned his attention to her eldest daughter. She poisoned him and was convicted of murder, sentenced to life with a minimum of 20 years, she is still in prison.
In 1993 Josephine Smith shot her husband after many years of violence when he threatened to track her down and kill her and their three children if she left him. She was convicted of murder and sentenced to life with a minimum of 12 years.
In 1989 Malcolm Thornton, an alcoholic, threatened to kill his wife Sara and her daughter in their sleep, he taunted her with a knife. The police had been called to the home on numerous occasion throughout their relationship by Sara because of his attacks on her and he was in fact due to appear in court on an assault charge 10 days after he died. Sara feared for her own and for her daughter's life. She stabbed him once and called an ambulance. She pleaded guilty on grounds of diminished responsibility, she was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
For four years Peter Iles persecuted Janet Gardner using violence, threats and harassment. On one occasion he tried to cut her throat, he beat and kicked her and burnt her with cigarettes. During the attack which led to his death he grabbed her round the neck and started beating her head against the kitchen doorway. Janet grabbed a knife and stabbed him seven times. She was cleared of murder but found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced to five years in prison.

wahey!

 

[akuchi]

heres my beef.

I'm at a party, and this drunk girl (one of my friends) starts punching me in the arm. Its not a full punch but you know, its annoying enough. So its obviously not very hard (and im not a pussy), but a punch is a punch. You get a knuckle on the tricep and it starts to hurt after a while. She punches me maybe 10 times and i tell her to stop. So then her friend (who i dont even fucking know) punches me in the arm as a joke, I say firmly to her "Fuck off". I get a bunch of dirty looks and a whole group of people who dont even know me give me that 'I cant believe you said that to a girl look'. I ended up leaving the party 15 minutes later because word had somehow spread and people were started to be weird around me.

I really hate the way society has burned into everyones heads the way guys are supposed to act in the presence of ladies. If I punched this random bitch in the arm for no reason this would be a whole different story.

Also, the chick wasn't good looking, so if she was trying to flirt with me it was NOT working

You were at a party with arseholes, then. They're being annoying, you tell them to fuck off, that's not rocket science. I would imagine it is *because* they don't know you they felt equipped to judge you in such a fashion. Bunch of idiots; forget them.

 

[akuchi]

Though I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, I have a little thinking question for the people in this thread:

If a girl starts a fight with me, as in, a violent fight, and I'm forced to defend myself and therefore cannot "walk away" from the fight, who's going to get into more trouble?

Will it be me, because I'm a male, or will it be the girl who actually started the fight?

This isn't a rhetorical question by the way, I actually want an answer because I don't know.

Self-defense is easily justifiable. If I went and punched my boyfriend in the face, and he pushed me over, that is justifiable!

right, I am finally done haha

 

[cantab]

A load of stuff about how a man should or shouldn't fight a woman

What about if you're in a situation where a woman is trying to commit a crime (other than physical assault) against you. For example, you wake up in the night to find a woman burgling your home. If you don't confront her, she's going to get away with your property. If you do confront her, you're going to have to use physical force against her, to stop her stealing your stuff.

What would you do? Let her make off with your stuff, or forcibly prevent her from doing so (either detaining her until the police arrive, or letting her escape without the loot)?
(Assume she doesn't have a weapon, you cannot passively block her exit from the house because there are two doors, and you will not face legal sanctions yourself whichever option you take.)

if you can prove you're trying to get a job, it's highly unlikely you won't go to prison

Iwonder if that was simply a mistake, or if it's actually the case that it's highly unlikely a father genuinely seeking work will be highly unlikely to escape jail. Somehow I reckon the reality in some places is the latter.

(Aside; child support in the UK, as you probably know, has been a complete fuckup over the last ten years or more in any case. My mother never got what she should have from the father who abandoned us before I was born.)

 

[akuchi]

What about if you're in a situation where a woman is trying to commit a crime (other than physical assault) against you. For example, you wake up in the night to find a woman burgling your home. If you don't confront her, she's going to get away with your property. If you do confront her, you're going to have to use physical force against her, to stop her stealing your stuff.
also reasonable. unless, like, you know. she's nicking your ipod and you beat her head in with a brick. that's not very reasonable.
What would you do? Let her make off with your stuff, or forcibly prevent her from doing so (either detaining her until the police arrive, or letting her escape without the loot)?
(Assume she doesn't have a weapon, you cannot passively block her exit from the house because there are two doors, and you will not face legal sanctions yourself whichever option you take.)

As I've said ITT I work in a bookies. A while back, a boy snatched a couple of hundred quid off the counter and a lady manager jumped on the boy and sat on him until the police came (this wasn't in my branch, mind).
When you're already doing something wrong to someone else, they can take steps to stop you doing it, I think. This is a very generalising, simplistic rule, but you get what I mean, don't you? If I saw someone doing something to my property, I would call the police (probably). If they were leaving, and I had the means to stop them without getting hurt myself, I would do so! Men often have the physical advantage over women, and I consider it reasonable and fair that they may use this in order to stop another person (be it a weaker man, or a woman) getting away with their things, or breaking their things, etc. My own boyfriend once grabbed me by the arms and held me still because I was going to kick in another gentleman's car (this is another story). It wasn't assault, or anything bad like that, though - just something a reasonable person would do.

Iwonder if that was simply a mistake, or if it's actually the case that it's highly unlikely a father genuinely seeking work will be highly unlikely to escape jail. Somehow I reckon the reality in some places is the latter.
I can only find a very few isolated incidences of fathers being sent to prison (and it's a brief spell) for not paying child support. And yeah, it was a mistake - saw it, couldnt be arsed to correct it, hoped you wouldn't notice!
(Aside; child support in the UK, as you probably know, has been a complete fuckup over the last ten years or more in any case. My mother never got what she should have from the father who abandoned us before I was born.)
yep, tell me about it.

 

[CaptKirby]

The kind of idiocy you can only learn in the theory-centric ivory tower, where hypotheses are never tested, results are never measured, and no one is held accountable. You should ask for your money back.

I am not going to interact with you on any serious level until you drop your act, that is that all you actually have in you is a bunch of bluster and ad hominem character attacks. My ideas are legitimate and have nothing to do with parroting others. I know you want to present the idea that I attended some liberal university where the teachers teach their "radical, anti-man notions" or whatever farcical bullshit you are trying to evoke an image of. That is what people like you rely on for your entire argumentation style, either blatantly or subtly throwing in misinformation/deceit to malign people rather than focus on the actual issue. Your kind are a disease that helps poison politics and information dissemination at every level. I understand that you cannot find it in yourself to grow up nor leave all of us alone, but at least leave me alone; there is no point trying to lay siege to me with your farcical nonsense other than to soothe yourself. No human who says the words "ivory tower" seriously in an attack, let alone a frivolous ad hominem character attack on an individual, can be taken seriously by any other human smart enough to recognize what just happened.

(It is okay Hipmonlee, I forgive you, just do better next time).

For people who may accurately point out that I attack people, I do so in a ludicrous manner on places like firebot, sometimes funnily, sometimes unfunnily, but not any shit like this. Ad hominem attacks meant to foster misinformation and hush up people actually addressing an issue is a completely different type of attack and has no place in a good discussion.

 

[Altmer]

to stop derailing this topic i suggest that i think that householdy stuff, datey stuff and shit should always be shared. i'm not one to keep exact track of all the pennies but you know i hate when the guy pays for everything: 1) like he has the money 2) it's a two way thing, girl has some responsibility 3) i frankly find it rude that if the girl suggests something she is making her boyfriend pay for it 4) i like the gender equality principle

i don't really think men are discriminated against because women are withholding sex, or because men have to do chores now... i think that's all normal. it should all be fairly balanced and in coordination with the relationship and the people in it (i.e. i have some motherfucking terrible motor skills, that means nobody is gonna tell me to fix my own bicycle when it has a flat tyre because I've tried and I cannot possibly fix it)

why don't people get that WE'RE ALL JUST HUMANS

 

[Hipmonlee]

Yeah tbh that last paragraph ruins it.. I didnt actually notice that bit.

Still, probably the best post he ever made, it didnt really deserve the praise because of that. I'll take it back.

Have a nice day.

 

[ivar]

What incidence rate would you consider prevalent enough? Numbers specifically.

Okay I looked around and apparently reported cases of prison rapes is around 1/5 and 2/5 of inmates but who knows what is not reported. Apparently there is a particular prison hierarchy when it comes to prison rape: there are the weak looking guys who are considered targets, but there is much more, such as those designated as "punks". Basically anyone who looks tough but when provoked doesn't actually attempt to do anything to defend themselves. Once you're locked into a position in prison, you're kinda stuck in that position (i.e. get raped once and you're getting raped the rest of your stay).

But yes obviously between 1/5 and 2/5 is not super prevalent and kinda underwhelming (I thought it was higher). It's not quite as clear cut as a first thought it was. Nevertheless, those are only reported cases and still at a reasonably high number, so it is prevalent enough to be incredibly frightening. Also, it seems like people with certain dispositions are more likely to get raped, and those that are falsely imprisoned are arguably not "tough, hardened criminals". This is only mere postulating, though. Probably should have looked at the hard facts before I actually said anything as it is not nearly as obvious as to which of the two is worse (rape once or falsely imprisoned for rape).

 

[MrIndigo]

There was actually an interesting case out here re: prison rape, where one inmate (Clarke, I think) told another new inmate that all the guys wanted to rape him, and so if he had sex with Clarke, Clarke would protect him from the rest of them. This was considered nonconsent.

@Akuchi: your list of what rape is is pretty much spot on, although it should be noted that coercive relationships are a grey area; it generally requires a deliberate threat or coercion just prior to inducing sexual intercourse with the intent to do so; a woman who has sex even though she doesn't want to, because she's scared her boyfriend will leave her and she needs his financial support, is still giving consent. Analogously, a person who hates surgical procedures may be unwilling to undergo one, but can still give consent to be operated on.

Not wanting to do something, and not giving consent are two separate ideas, legally speaking.

Also, another related statistic: It is estimated that 1/3 women will experience sexual assault or domestic violence in their lifetime.


EDIT: Also, @akuchi, the guy you mentioned who deliberately sabotages his own condoms before leaving the woman is almost certainly suffering from a mental illness from the psychopathy basket. Given he gains nothing from doing it, and he actually goes to the effort of making the pretense of protection, he must be deriving enjoyment from saddling the woman with a child, which is a form of diagnostic sadism.

 

[GOTO2435]

right so basically I said here that women should not and cannot be forced to continue a pregnancy they don't want to keep, but we're not getting into an abortion debate

Ok what i said was that people should come to an agreement, for example if a father doesn´t want to have a child he doesn´t have to pay for child support (provided he adviced the mother when abortion is still an option) and the mother can then choose
wether she wants to have the kid or not i think woman should have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. I fully understood what you had previously said

also that you go to jail for not paying child support for contempt of court, which means the judge is quite free to make their own choices - and if you can prove you're trying to get a job, it's highly unlikely you won't go to prison
also that blah blah you can be banned from getting things like hunting licenses if you're behind on child support but it might be an idea to stop shooting things and pay your damn child support

Ok i will give a hypothetical situation to express what i wanted to say here. Say i had sex with my girlfriend and she got pregnant and didn´t want to abort. The baby is born and she demands me to pay for support but i am 14 years old, i have no money of my own and my family is poor. Suddenly a 14 year old kid who didn´t want to have a baby has got to screw over his entire life to pay support to a woman who had a child he didn´t want to have and he has to get a job and this stops him from going to school. In case he didn´t get the job, he goes to jail (i am not sure if they would send a 14 year old to jail for this). My point was that if the father doesn´t want to have the kid, the mother can choose to raise the child on her own or abort him/her/it (however you feel like calling the unborn baby). Opposite case the woman should be able to abort without consent of the father but with him being notified (this is only my opinion)

oh also that your anecdotal evidence is TOTALLY AWESOME but my own father was a cunt of massive proportion and ended up getting legal aid because his job is benefit fraud and drugs and my mam worked full time to support me so she had to pay £7000, which she got off my grandad; we were lucky a) he could afford that else we would have lost our house and b) my grandparents could look after me all day so my mother could work in the first place

Ok what do you want me to say? i am sory your father was a cunt? yeah i am you didn´t deserve that but hey i have a friend who suffered and it fitted the discussion so i used it as an example and i don´t think i deserve that "TOTALLY AWSOME" sarcasm(at least that it how i recieved it) comment on your part.

 

[Basics]

Correlation does not imply causation.

I shouldn't have to say that, seriously. Have you not considered that maybe women are told, pressured, or otherwise influenced away from the fields of science and math? It happens more than you think and it's certainly a lot more explainable than "well women are just dumb!"
You appear to have misinterpreted what I've said. I'm not arguing that the increased number of highly intelligent males is the sole contributing factor to the shortage of females in the fields of science and math, I'm just saying that it's a factor that shouldn't be ignored simply because it doesn't sit well with a few feminists. This specific correlation almost necessarily implies causation, because the fields of science and mathematics are ones which require a degree of raw computational brain power in order to excel in. This should be obvious to you, ;)

Also, there are more women in "academia in general" than men. Nice try.
This one is definitely debatable; as the definition of 'acadaemia' is highly contestable. I'll retract that statement in favour of defending it in a spiralling semantic debate, and instead refer to the greater number of published/well-respected male intellectuals than female. If you can cite any raw data on the male : female ratio in acadaemia, however you find that defined, I'd be more than happy to look it over, but my half-assed Google searchery has produced no evidence for or against this assertion.



Once your IQ gets past 140 it's not a very accurate measure. Regardless of how shitty IQ is as a measure.
This is an entirely irrelevent red herring; regardless of the accuracy or reliability of the measure of IQ, the point is that in almost all things, intelligence included, men show a much flatter graph of distribution than women. Women tend toward the average far more than men, and there are historical/cultural, as well as genetic reasons for this. I would once again like to point out the link that I posted in my second post in this thread - petty bickering, and inane contrariness aside, it's an incredibly interesting read, and whether you agree or disagree with the thesis, I'm sure you'd find it compelling. I'll post a small, and relevant excerpt here.

The first big, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the most underappreciated fact about gender. Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women?

It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes, every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children.

Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

Right now our field is having a lively debate about how much behavior can be explained by evolutionary theory. But if evolution explains anything at all, it explains things related to reproduction, because reproduction is at the heart of natural selection. Basically, the traits that were most effective for reproduction would be at the center of evolutionary psychology. It would be shocking if these vastly different reproductive odds for men and women failed to produce some personality differences.

For women throughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing have been pretty good. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.

For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities. Sailing off into the unknown may be risky, and you might drown or be killed or whatever, but then again if you stay home you won’t reproduce anyway. We’re most descended from the type of men who made the risky voyage and managed to come back rich. In that case he would finally get a good chance to pass on his genes. We’re descended from men who took chances (and were lucky).

The huge difference in reproductive success very likely contributed to some personality differences, because different traits pointed the way to success. Women did best by minimizing risks, whereas the successful men were the ones who took chances. Ambition and competitive striving probably mattered more to male success (measured in offspring) than female. Creativity was probably more necessary, to help the individual man stand out in some way. Even the sex drive difference was relevant: For many men, there would be few chances to reproduce and so they had to be ready for every sexual opportunity. If a man said “not today, I have a headache,” he might miss his only chance.

Another crucial point. The danger of having no children is only one side of the male coin. Every child has a biological mother and father, and so if there were only half as many fathers as mothers among our ancestors, then some of those fathers had lots of children.

Look at it this way. Most women have only a few children, and hardly any have more than a dozen — but many fathers have had more than a few, and some men have actually had several dozen, even hundreds of kids.

In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners.

To put this in more subjective terms: When I walk around and try to look at men and women as if seeing them for the first time, it’s hard to escape the impression (sorry, guys!) that women are simply more likeable and lovable than men. (This I think explains the “WAW effect” mentioned earlier.) Men might wish to be lovable, and men can and do manage to get women to love them (so the ability is there), but men have other priorities, other motivations. For women, being lovable was the key to attracting the best mate. For men, however, it was more a matter of beating out lots of other men even to have a chance for a mate.

Tradeoffs again: perhaps nature designed women to seek to be lovable, whereas men were designed to strive, mostly unsuccessfully, for greatness.

And it was worth it, even despite the “mostly unsuccessfully” part. Experts estimate Genghis Khan had several hundred and perhaps more than a thousand children. He took big risks and eventually conquered most of the known world. For him, the big risks led to huge payoffs in offspring. My point is that no woman, even if she conquered twice as much territory as Genghis Khan, could have had a thousand children. Striving for greatness in that sense offered the human female no such biological payoff. For the man, the possibility was there, and so the blood of Genghis Khan runs through a large segment of today’s human population. By definition, only a few men can achieve greatness, but for the few men who do, the gains have been real. And we are descended from those great men much more than from other men. Remember, most of the mediocre men left no descendants at all.

Also, you should look up the word "anecdotal".

 

[akuchi]

There was actually an interesting case out here re: prison rape, where one inmate (Clarke, I think) told another new inmate that all the guys wanted to rape him, and so if he had sex with Clarke, Clarke would protect him from the rest of them. This was considered nonconsent.

I hope I've made it clear enough that I consider prison rape as bad as all other forms of rape. Rape is rape, unlike certain celebrities seem to think (re: Polanski, 'yes, he raped her, but it wasn't 'rape-rape'' said Whoopi Goldberg I think) and yes. Sexual contact under the threat of violence (whether it's at you, at someone else, from another person or indirectly) is rape. Similarly a judge recently was found to have been abusing prisoners in return for a shorter sentence; if I was in prison and had someone say 'I'll cut your sentence if you sleep with me', and they were in a position of power, that would rather be rape.


@Akuchi: your list of what rape is is pretty much spot on, although it should be noted that coercive relationships are a grey area; it generally requires a deliberate threat or coercion just prior to inducing sexual intercourse with the intent to do so; a woman who has sex even though she doesn't want to, because she's scared her boyfriend will leave her and she needs his financial support, is still giving consent. Analogously, a person who hates surgical procedures may be unwilling to undergo one, but can still give consent to be operated on.

Above, I meant coercive relationships mostly as the example you gave already - consent is obtained, but through coercion. I've had sex with my current boyfriend on a couple of occasions when I really didn't feel like it. It was not rape!
The example you give here is interesting though; if a boyfriend said 'I will leave you if you do not have sex with me, and though you are in desperate need of my financial support for our children, little Sarah will never see or have another penny from her daddy again'.. I'd be comfortable terming that rape.
Also, medical rape!
Anyway. Enough rape, it's Saturday morning.
Not wanting to do something, and not giving consent are two separate ideas, legally speaking.

Also, another related statistic: It is estimated that 1/3 women will experience sexual assault or domestic violence in their lifetime.

A large number of men also suffer domestic violence! Both sets of DV sufferers face different problems (gay couples the abuse is still perpetrated by a man, so the physical aspect is there) and I do understand that in our society a male DV sufferer may be perceived as weak and a bit gay and a total fanny for not STANDING UP TO HIS BIRD AND SHOWING HER WHAT HE'S MADE OF.
however. lots more women than men are being hurt, and being hurt worse, in I would say more ways perhaps; so the two should be kept a little seperate.
EDIT: Also, @akuchi, the guy you mentioned who deliberately sabotages his own condoms before leaving the woman is almost certainly suffering from a mental illness from the psychopathy basket. Given he gains nothing from doing it, and he actually goes to the effort of making the pretense of protection, he must be deriving enjoyment from saddling the woman with a child, which is a form of diagnostic sadism.
Quite possibly. I always just thought he was an arsehole who really doesn't like women.

Two more things: evolutionary psychology is BULLSHIT
and frankly, if you make babby, you pay for babby. threatening not to pay for a child you helped create is coercing a woman into an abortion. men should take equal responsibility - yes, women are in control during the pregnancy, but pregnancy is Not Exactly Fun either! It is sometimes life-threatening, often dangerous and childbirth is apparently a bit of a killer. So there you go. Also apparently in places abortions cost money too!

 

[Objection]

and frankly, if you make babby, you pay for babby.

What about in the "condom breaks" scenario? I'm talking about it accidentally breaking, not it being deliberately broken prior to use. Is it right that a man should be forced to pay for a child when he himself took appropriate measures to ensure that the child was not conceived?

 

[cantab]

Ok i will give a hypothetical situation to express what i wanted to say here. Say i had sex with my girlfriend and she got pregnant and didn´t want to abort. The baby is born and she demands me to pay for support but i am 14 years old, i have no money of my own and my family is poor. Suddenly a 14 year old kid who didn´t want to have a baby has got to screw over his entire life to pay support to a woman who had a child he didn´t want to have and he has to get a job and this stops him from going to school.

If you're 14 years old in most countries that's below the age of consent, so your girlfriend is considered to have statutorially raped you. If she's of age she's the one at risk of jail. If she's underage as well I think most jurisdictions wouldn't impose severe penalties. Either way I can't see you being demanded to pay child support.

What about in the "condom breaks" scenario? I'm talking about it accidentally breaking, not it being deliberately broken prior to use. Is it right that a man should be forced to pay for a child when he himself took appropriate measures to ensure that the child was not conceived?

In which case I'd say sucks be to him. Contraception doesn't always work. (If it did, I wouldn't be here.) Accidents happen, and we can't keep demanding someone else take responsibility for every little mishap. You should know when you have sex that contraception isn't 100%.
(Of course, nowadays you could probably sue the condom makers.)

 

[GOTO2435]

In which case I'd say sucks be to him. Contraception doesn't always work. (If it did, I wouldn't be here.) Accidents happen, and we can't keep demanding someone else take responsibility for every little mishap. You should know when you have sex that contraception isn't 100%.
(Of course, nowadays you could probably sue the condom makers.)

New way to pay for support, get a woman pregnant accidentally, sue condom makers, pay from the money you won and go vacationing in hawaii :P

 

[Altmer]

if the condom breaks YOU CAN USE A MORNING AFTER PILL (if your girlfriend isn't dumb)

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn

ofc you dont want that and girl has to consent but jesus

 

[cim]

What about in the "condom breaks" scenario? I'm talking about it accidentally breaking, not it being deliberately broken prior to use. Is it right that a man should be forced to pay for a child when he himself took appropriate measures to ensure that the child was not conceived?

Again, there's this thing. Called the morning after pill. And you can ask beforehand if she'll take it if the condom breaks.

Or you can ask if she's on the Pill beforehand. My personal policy is pill + condom or no sex.