Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 198

Thread: Equal rights between men and women

  1. #26
    To vex the world rather than divert it. Villerar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Thursday, Mar 4 2010
    Location
    To your left
    Posts
    3,908

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    There aren't equal rights yet, but there should be more (insofar biological limits do not make them infeasible, as in the abortion debate).

    One still very pressing hurdle to equality is still posed by the glass ceiling. But I am glad that the EU at least will introduce boardroom quotas.

    Quote Originally Posted by shiny stone View Post
    US family courts award sole custody to the mother 4x more often than to the father when they both go to trial seeking custody. This source is some 20 years old, so I'm open to newer evidence, but it suggests that family courts are heavily biased against men.
    Three times more*. One time 11% is 11%, one time more of 11% is 22%.

    Keep in mind that these numbers do not describe the backgrounds of the parents. We do not know to what degree the outcome may have been determined by the father being incarcerated or otherwise punished for or suspected of criminal activities, though that probably cannot explain the whole trend. I am not a sociologist, but divorce rates among lower socio-economic strata tend to be higher than among more affluent strata (that is part of why US divorce rates are lowest among Episcopalians, followed by Jews and then non-theists; these groups are predominantly upper (middle) class in the US) and among the same classes blue collar crime is more common. We also know that men are overrepresented as criminals, which has both biological and cultural causes.

    It also doesn't defeat Elfice's point about judges favouring sending young children to mothers. The trend described by that source is a 33% bias towards sole custody by mothers. If we assume for the sake of argument that divorce rates are independent of the child's/children's age (thus uniformly distributed from age 0 to 17), that the probability of seeking custody is also not correlated to the offspring's age and that the judges' bias for maternal custody for young children is towards always favouring the mother in cases with young children (I doubt any of these are completely true, in particular the last one, but we need simplifying assumptions), then the sum of nearly all cases for children aged 0 to 5 years could explain the whole 33% bias. The actual distribution will surely be messier and may have additional surprises for us. Another point is that this hasn't supported the claim that judges favour men for older children (in my simplified example, the distribution for minors from 6 to 17 years old would be 11% to mothers and 11% to fathers), but Elfice's other contention would go a long way to explaining even more of the bias: men are disproportionally less likely to go to the court for older minors.

    So I think Elfice's contention could still well be true and I suspect he has based his statement on what an expert has said. Though I'd be interested in the source, I must say.

    And this last issue is a bit late to the party, but I'm not sure I am without misgivings about the site.

    Quote Originally Posted by shiny stone View Post
    Besides the obvious counterexample of forced selective service (the draft), men legally consent to parenthood anytime they have sex (or get raped!), while women can legally opt out via morning after pill, abortion, adoption, or abandonment at a safe haven. So the broader sphere of reproductive rights actually favors women.
    The belief that men consent to parenthood whenever they have unprotected sex is irrelevant to the issue of complete control over their entire body.

    You are correct about draft for most countries, although women are in fact drafted into the IDF. And the conscription of males in Switzerland may well hurt women more, considering the use of army guns in family murders and domestic violence, although it seems that the male death toll by those guns would rank higher (this is mostly because these army guns are more often used for suicide than for homicide). (I oppose conscription by the way.)

    As for the problems with statutory rape, the sentence should read "American men", potentially to be further specified if other jurisdictions do not have these problems. It has not been a general disadvantage for men, or not that I have seen it to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by shiny stone View Post
    Prove it! I think the wage gap for equivalent work+qualifications is around 3%, not 23%.
    "Prove it" in the meaning of "provide evidence for it" is a reasonable demand, but may I ask you what makes you think the wage gap is around 3%? In any case Lenore has provided a link that clarifies that these numbers come from the 2013 Current Population Survey (which is suppose is like a census) and she notes that this figure only applies for white women, as the figures for black and Hispanic women are even worse.

    Considering the dreadful underrepresentation of women in top business functions in Europe (except for excellent Norway, which already has government-enforced boardroom quota) despite an overrepresentation of women with relevant degrees (approx. 60% of people with graduate degrees in economics, business and law in Europe are women) and a generally better academic performance (worse performance by men is also a truly problematic issue in my eyes), one would expect the wage gap to be a little more significant than 3%. Yes, Europe isn't the rest of the world, but Europe encompasses some of the most gender-egalitarian regions of the world. If things are that bad there, I would expect them to be worse in less egalitarian places. That also qualifies "work experience": it is on average tougher for a woman simply getting such a job high in the pecking order. Work discrimination earlier will also translate to 'worse' work experience later.

    That is a red herring. Elfice said that "[Men] don't immediately have to fear for their lives when they're walking alone at night or drunk off their ass at bars with no friends around", not a more general statement about violence or murder. There is no contradiction between women alone outside or at a bar at night being at greater risk of being killed (or raped or propositioned for that matter), while women are in general less often the victim of violence and murder. I am quite sure all these statements can be and are true simultaneously.
    Last edited by Villerar; September 19th, 2014 at 08:52 AM.

  2. #27
    resident asshole cyanide_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Tuesday, Mar 2 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    811

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenore View Post
    lol i'm not qutoing this all, but it's mostly good

    Slight contentions I have are figures about economic earnings compared to men, women are more likely to take lower paying jobs anyway so this skews the figures somewhat. It's not equal but the 77% figure is pretty contentious and some economists will put it around the 90% mark with pregnancy pretty much explaining the discrepancy.

    It seems to me that a lot of it is more of an issue of culture (girls being turned away from maths, sciences, engineering etc at young ages even when they perform just as well if not better than boys in these subjects) as opposed to a simple bosses pay women less because they're women. There is also the issue of men demanding pay rises more often et cetera and also 'traditional' jobs women do have developed as a bit lower paying jobs because women did them (if you compare typical jobs of the working class, women being maids and men being builders as an example).

    The other truly contentious issue in this post is trans* rights, or how they fit into feminism. A lot of modern gender theory is fundamentally opposed to a binary formation of gender that trans* people often fall into. (there are also a lot of issues around mental health and how trans* people are evenly split between boys/girls at an early age but HUGELY spike in favour of teenage/adult men deciding to identify as women).
    http://i51.tinypic.com/2m4x27t.gif

    Man struggled against man until the end, heaving and clawing. A single hand rose from the pile of corpses spread across the Earth, until it, too, softened and returned to the soil.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwnkFlVRCZc&feature=fvw

  3. #28
    Putting a cap in your benefits Forum Moderator Superninfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Monday, Mar 1 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,784

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by cyanide_ View Post
    (there are also a lot of issues around mental health and how trans* people are evenly split between boys/girls at an early age but HUGELY spike in favour of teenage/adult men deciding to identify as women).
    This is really interesting. I've had the impression for a while that transwomen are much more common than transmen (I rarely ever hear anything about transmen), but I didn't know if that was just me or if it was backed up by statistics.

    Is there any reason why it might be?
    "Have killed many, Shepard. Many methods. Gunfire, knives, drugs, tech attacks, once with farming equipment. But not with medicine." Mordin Solus, Mass Effect 2


  4. #29
    resident asshole cyanide_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Tuesday, Mar 2 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    811

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by Superninfreak View Post
    This is really interesting. I've had the impression for a while that transwomen are much more common than transmen (I rarely ever hear anything about transmen), but I didn't know if that was just me or if it was backed up by statistics.

    Is there any reason why it might be?
    It's a complete minefield with various possible reasons. It's much more taboo for men to wear female clothing so whereas women who perhaps identify as more masculine may simple be able to wear more masculine clothes, get a shorter haircut etc and feel relatively comfortable with their lives men may feel they need to take the full leap (as they can't just go around wearing womens clothing, acting effeminately without getting abuse anyway).

    Very closely related to that is that a FtM trans* will be less noticeable and generally receive less hassle (so don't complain about their daily troubles as much and in general get noticed less).

    Then also I think gender surgery is more costly to go Ftm than MtF.

    Personally I would also posit that it's a byproduct from how feminism has developed in Western society. It has largely focused on women's rights and in general women being able to do more masculine things. But generally speaking more feminine things are often more looked down upon and the reversal (masculine to feminine) is much more unnacepted. So while women who don't fit into classic ideals of femininity have been given much more freedom, it's generally more difficult for men who don't fit into ideals of masculinity.
    http://i51.tinypic.com/2m4x27t.gif

    Man struggled against man until the end, heaving and clawing. A single hand rose from the pile of corpses spread across the Earth, until it, too, softened and returned to the soil.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwnkFlVRCZc&feature=fvw

  5. #30
    Pacha-cutie the Adorable Incan shiny stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Friday, Mar 5 2010
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    325

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by Villerar View Post
    Three times more*. One time 11% is 11%, one time more of 11% is 22%.
    Good point. US courts award sole custody to the mother 4x as often (3x more often) compared to the father.

    Keep in mind that these numbers do not describe the backgrounds of the parents. We do not know to what degree the outcome may have been determined by the father being incarcerated or otherwise punished for or suspected of criminal activities, though that probably cannot explain the whole trend. I am not a sociologist, but divorce rates among lower socio-economic strata tend to be higher than among more affluent strata (that is part of why US divorce rates are lowest among Episcopalians, followed by Jews and then non-theists; these groups are predominantly upper (middle) class in the US) and among the same classes blue collar crime is more common. We also know that men are overrepresented as criminals, which has both biological and cultural causes.
    Is it reasonable to suppose that men are 4x as likely to be unfit parents in custody disputes? Imagine taking that approach to the glass ceiling: "We do not know to what degree the outcome may have been determined by the women being uninterested or otherwise less qualified for boardroom positions, though that probably cannot explain the whole trend". The boardroom and the courtroom both involve a mix of unfair sexism, and fair choices that happen to correlate with sex. And in both cases the danger with quotas is the same: that by directly gender-equalizing the end results (jobs, custody) we'd mess up existing mechanisms for choosing the best candidates/parents. EU boardroom quotas seem to have built in limitations so that companies who explain their gender-neutral hiring criteria can ignore the quota. This is good, and the approach suggests that we can reduce custody discrimination using gender quotas for each judge, and mandating that judges who violate the quota explain their gender-neutral criteria.

    It also doesn't defeat Elfice's point about judges favouring sending young children to mothers. The trend described by that source is a 33% bias towards sole custody by mothers. If we assume for the sake of argument that divorce rates are independent of the child's/children's age (thus uniformly distributed from age 0 to 17), that the probability of seeking custody is also not correlated to the offspring's age and that the judges' bias for maternal custody for young children is towards always favouring the mother in cases with young children (I doubt any of these are completely true, in particular the last one, but we need simplifying assumptions), then the sum of nearly all cases for children aged 0 to 5 years could explain the whole 33% bias. The actual distribution will surely be messier and may have additional surprises for us. Another point is that this hasn't supported the claim that judges favour men for older children (in my simplified example, the distribution for minors from 6 to 17 years old would be 11% to mothers and 11% to fathers), but Elfice's other contention would go a long way to explaining even more of the bias: men are disproportionally less likely to go to the court for older minors.
    *75% bias. Courts give men get sole custody just 25% as often as women. Your 33% figure is the additional children that women get custody of, as a percentage of total custody verdicts (including joint custody and "other"). This number could be 33% even if men never got sole custody, so it's not a good measure of sole-custody bias. Stratifying kids by age might help pinpoint the bias but we've still got a custody gap against men.

    Men's hesitance to seek custody cannot explain any meaningful part of the custody gap cited above because those stats are when both parents go to trial seeking custody. If anything, men who hesitate to seek custody are on average less qualified as parents than other men, so the men who do seek custody are even better qualified to be parents.

    And this last issue is a bit late to the party, but I'm not sure I am without misgivings about the site.
    Sure, find a better source and let's talk about it. A lot can change in 20 years! (my source cited a 1997 book referring to a 1992 study)

    The belief that men consent to parenthood whenever they have unprotected sex is irrelevant to the issue of complete control over their entire body.
    [...]
    As for the problems with statutory rape, the sentence should read "American men", potentially to be further specified if other jurisdictions do not have these problems. It has not been a general disadvantage for men, or not that I have seen it to be.
    A man legally consents to parenthood even when he wears a condom and reasonably believes she's using birth control. If she somehow becomes pregnant with his DNA he's legally responsible for any resulting child(ren). Granted it's not a bodily autonomy issue, but it falls under the same categories of reproductive rights and self-determination. Family planning is crucial to the well-being of parents and children, and it's effectively monopolized by women in all Western nations.

    When a woman wants to carry her pregnancy to term without her partner's consent, she shouldn't be able to demand child support from him. Child support should be for parents whose deadbeat partners flake on their commitments or prove unfit, not for women who unilaterally volunteer for motherhood.

    "Prove it" in the meaning of "provide evidence for it" is a reasonable demand, but may I ask you what makes you think the wage gap is around 3%? In any case Lenore has provided a link that clarifies that these numbers come from the 2013 Current Population Survey (which is suppose is like a census) and she notes that this figure only applies for white women, as the figures for black and Hispanic women are even worse.
    The 23% wage gap is averaged over all races, not just whites. OK 3% is too low, the wage gap is something like 7% in the USA when controlling for worker choices. However if the argument is that women's choices are part of the problem (due to gender norms etc.) then the 23% figure is still relevant.

    That is a red herring. Elfice said that "[Men] don't immediately have to fear for their lives when they're walking alone at night or drunk off their ass at bars with no friends around", not a more general statement about violence or murder. There is no contradiction between women alone outside or at a bar at night being at greater risk of being killed (or raped or propositioned for that matter), while women are in general less often the victim of violence and murder. I am quite sure all these statements can be and are true simultaneously.
    Elfice gave no evidence that women have greater risk of being killed or raped near a bar or in a car, in the dark or in a park. Whence your certainty?
    Last edited by shiny stone; September 20th, 2014 at 12:20 PM.

  6. #31
    What Would Bayonetta Do? Forum Veteran Elfice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Friday, Jul 9 2010
    Location
    don't you DARE take the name of Texas in vain
    Posts
    1,927

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    You want evidence that women face a greater risk of being raped than men?

    1 out of 6 American women will be raped in their lifetime. Men? 1 out of 33. However, bringing it up in a discussion about rights that women have that men don't and vice versa isn't entirely fitting, but shrug, I'd say that still falls under the right to live without being afraid.

    By the way, your little Dr. Seuss rhyme about women getting raped was horrendously distasteful and straight up offensive. Never do something like that in response to something I've said about violence against women ever again, and for that matter, straight up never do it again.

    Moving on!

    I'll admit, I read through your post for a while before I could pinpoint why it didn't sit right with me aside from what I've already mentioned(gg articulation). But here's the scenario you've kind of depicted in your argument about child support:

    Jane, a single woman in her 30s, has decided to have a child. Because she does not have a partner, wants to have her own biological child instead of adopting one, and does not want to get sperm from a sperm bank, she has decided that the best course of action is to find a man in a bar while she is ovulating and seduce him. So she does just that, and meets John (you can pick the age, idrc). They hit it off, each have maybe a few too many, and decide to take it back to Jane's place. John is a responsible young man who understands that he needs to use a condom for two reason - to reduce the risk of STIs, and to reduce the risk of Jane getting pregnant. But Jane bats her eyelashes and says, "Oh don't worry about that, I'm on the pill. And I have some Plan B just in case. Let's do it naturally." Because his faculties aren't entirely in order, he decides that this is a good course of action. They have sex, and the next morning, John leaves. So Jane waits a week and then whips out her handy dandy pregnancy test. She tests herself and discovers that she's pregnant! It's perfect!

    But then it hit her - she'd be having a child. And that's going to take money. The job she has right now might not cut it. What can she do?

    "I know, I'll force John to pay child support and spin the tale to make it sound like he got me pregnant against my wishes, instead of me tricking him into impregnating me! It's perfect!"

    So she calls a lawyer and gets a court order for child support, and John is saddled with a nice extra bill for 18 years because he unknowingly fathered a child.
    You realize how ridiculous that sounds, right? Like that's not how it happens. At all. Motherhood is not a commitment that women undertake lightly, and if they DO want a child but are single, they're pretty much always going to use channels like adoption agencies and sperm banks. Women don't sit around twiddling their fake handlebar mustaches thinking "now who can i get to impregnate me today so i can bleed them dry for 18 years?". It just doesn't happen.

    The reason why women are the ones who need reproductive rights is because they are the ones who have to set their lives aside for 9 months while a baby grows inside them. Men cannot get pregnant. They do not need to have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, nor do they need the right to have access to medication that can prevent pregnancies from happening in the first place. Reproductive rights have NOTHING to do with the ability to have sex with impunity. It has to do with allowing women to make choice about her body and what goes on in it without any stipulations, conditions, or restrictions.
    shoutout to moose for the amazing avatar feat. my dog carter

    hey look a tumblr

  7. #32
    Klaatu Barada Nikto Kiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Thursday, Mar 4 2010
    Posts
    2,631

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by shiny stone View Post
    Elfice gave no evidence that women have greater risk of being killed or raped near a bar or in a car, in the dark or in a park. Whence your certainty?
    Rhymes, yeah, classy when discussing this particular topic. Statistics be damned, women are at huge risk when out alone at night. Women aren't as likely to actually speak out about this sort of thing, due to various factors.

  8. #33
    Goodbye, have a good life, all of you. RavThunderbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Saturday, Nov 12 2011
    Location
    You will never know, will you.
    Posts
    363

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfice View Post
    You want evidence that women face a greater risk of being raped than men?

    1 out of 6 American women will be raped in their lifetime. Men? 1 out of 33. However, bringing it up in a discussion about rights that women have that men don't and vice versa isn't entirely fitting, but shrug, I'd say that still falls under the right to live without being afraid.
    You realize how ridiculous that sounds, right? Like that's not how it happens. At all. Motherhood is not a commitment that women undertake lightly, and if they DO want a child but are single, they're pretty much always going to use channels like adoption agencies and sperm banks. Women don't sit around twiddling their fake handlebar mustaches thinking "now who can i get to impregnate me today so i can bleed them dry for 18 years?". It just doesn't happen.

    The reason why women are the ones who need reproductive rights is because they are the ones who have to set their lives aside for 9 months while a baby grows inside them. Men cannot get pregnant. They do not need to have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, nor do they need the right to have access to medication that can prevent pregnancies from happening in the first place. Reproductive rights have NOTHING to do with the ability to have sex with impunity. It has to do with allowing women to make choice about her body and what goes on in it without any stipulations, conditions, or restrictions.
    Look at more of the statistics on the website that you posted, about two out of three sexual assaults are committed by someone that the person knows and 38% of rapists are friends or acquaintances (not sure how they are differentiating "person you know" and "friend or acquaintance" though). As far as what percentage of rape is "stranger rape" I could not find a good statistic, though this site showed that it is more like 30% that is stranger rape. While the picture is grim it is not quite as grim as you are painting it to be. Also, when you are drunk at night near a bar or whatever, bad things can happen to anyone intoxicated regardless of whether or not you are a man or woman, don't get drunk in public.

    As far as reproductive rights goes, this pdf gives a break down of women's reproductive rights state by state and do be honest, it does not look too good with the average nationwide grade being a D letter grade.

    As for what you said in the bolded (is that how you spell it? "bolded","Bold'd" whatever) portion of the second quote, please clarify further. Are you saying that there should not be male contraceptives? (Which some companies are trying to develop).

    As far a men possibly being able to legally make someone terminate pregnancy, while from some paradigm's it may be morally wrong to force someone to do something like that, at the same time it is just as immoral to turn around and say "oh, by the way, you now owe me large chunks of money in child support for a pregnancy that you object to.". While they may need the money to raise a child, they know that full well when they decide to carry the pregnancy (there are also the cultures/religions where it is considered immoral to terminate a pregnancy, but that is a whole different ballpark from what I am talking about right now). I am not saying that it should go one way or another, I am just saying that some system other than the current one needs to be devised, because both ways have serious repercussions for someone.

  9. #34
    Pacha-cutie the Adorable Incan shiny stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Friday, Mar 5 2010
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    325

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfice View Post
    You want evidence that women face a greater risk of being raped than men?

    1 out of 6 American women will be raped in their lifetime. Men? 1 out of 33. However, bringing it up in a discussion about rights that women have that men don't and vice versa isn't entirely fitting, but shrug, I'd say that still falls under the right to live without being afraid.
    Those stats come from the 1998 National Violence Against Women Survey which uses a biased definition of rape:
    Quote Originally Posted by NVAWS
    Rape was defined as an event that occurred
    Without the victimís consent, that involved the
    Use or threat of force to penetrate the victimís
    Vagina or anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or
    Object, or the victimís mouth by penis.
    Poetic, but it excludes the vast majority of male rape victims, who are raped by women enveloping (not penetrating) them. A 2011 CDC survey found that when "made to penetrate" is considered rape, 1 in 12 men has been raped in his lifetime (table 1). Furthermore, looking at the last 12 months, men were raped more often than women. Lifetime victimization stats underestimate male victimization for a few reasons, including recall bias (women remember emotional childhood events better) and denial (male victims are less likely to admit being victimized by women).

    Besides, even if they're raped less often, men are victimized far more often by other forms of violence. It is absurd to claim that men enjoy some "right to live without fear" that women are denied.

    You realize how ridiculous that sounds, right? Like that's not how it happens. At all. Motherhood is not a commitment that women undertake lightly, and if they DO want a child but are single, they're pretty much always going to use channels like adoption agencies and sperm banks. Women don't sit around twiddling their fake handlebar mustaches thinking "now who can i get to impregnate me today so i can bleed them dry for 18 years?". It just doesn't happen.
    You realize that optimistic speculation about what people "pretty much always" do is a typical rationalization of power imbalances? Is your armchair characterization of women supposed to imply that men don't need reproductive rights?

    The reason why women are the ones who need reproductive rights is because they are the ones who have to set their lives aside for 9 months while a baby grows inside them. Men cannot get pregnant. They do not need to have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, nor do they need the right to have access to medication that can prevent pregnancies from happening in the first place. Reproductive rights have NOTHING to do with the ability to have sex with impunity. It has to do with allowing women to make choice about her body and what goes on in it without any stipulations, conditions, or restrictions.
    You're confusing autonomy with reproduction. "Allowing women to make choices about her body" is an example of autonomy. Family planning and birth control are examples of reproductive rights (reproduction is the creation of new organisms). I believe that all humans deserve basic reproductive rights such as meaningful consent to parenthood, and that these rights need not trespass against women's bodily autonomy.
    Last edited by shiny stone; September 21st, 2014 at 01:01 AM.

  10. #35
    What Would Bayonetta Do? Forum Veteran Elfice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Friday, Jul 9 2010
    Location
    don't you DARE take the name of Texas in vain
    Posts
    1,927

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    A 2011 CDC survey found that when "made to penetrate" is considered rape, 1 in 12 men has been raped in his lifetime (table 1). Furthermore, looking at the last 12 months, men were raped more often than women.
    You literally read table 1 backwards - even with the inclusion of men being forced to penetrate (by the by, I did not know the source I linked was using an outdated definition of rape, so I do thank you for bringing that to my attention - an oversight on my part), in total, almost 5.8 million men were victims of sexual violence, while almost 6.9 million women were victims in 2011. And looking at the numbers for the "traditional" (for lack of a better word, I suppose) definition of rape in 2011 alone, almost 2 million women were raped, while there were so few reports of men getting raped that they were statistically insignificant.

    But I am aware that men underreport rape just as much as women do - whereas women have to face the ridicule of being called a whore, get every previous partner they've had thrown back in their face as evidence that surely they wanted to have sex, and get the facts of whatever situation they were in skewed to make them look bad (what they were wearing, BAC, etc.), men face the ridicule of, basically, "oh come on dude don't be crazy, you got LAID, man. everyone knows dudes want sex ALL the time." So I do acknowledge that in reality, 2011 was most definitely not a year that men did not get raped. But don't try to say that men will ever get raped more than women. It just won't happen.

    And I understand what you mean about men being victims of other violence more often - men do get killed more often (table 1), but there's a fundamental difference between homicide and rape. In a homicide, the victim is not around to see how their being killed might have damaged their reputation, and the pain that is caused by the crime is not thrust upon them - they're dead! Unless a rape escalates into a homicide, the victim survives. And they will have the memories of that event for the rest of their lives, as well as the backlash they might receive (slutshaming, etc.). When you're killed, that's it for you. You're done. When you're raped, you enter into what will absolutely be the darkest period of your life. It is the single most heinous thing that someone can do to someone else for that very reason: the victim sticks around to feel the residual pain. I'm not saying that homicide, specifically murder in this case, isn't also disgusting. They're both kinda equal on the "how bad is this thing that i'm doing to someone else" scale, but they have very different end results in whom they affect and what kind of lasting repercussions they have, and personally, that's what bumps rape above murder on my personal order of unspeakable crimes that one can do to another.

    As for reproductive rights!

    Let's start with the definition of reproductive rights:
    Quote Originally Posted by WHO
    Within the framework of WHO's definition of health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, reproductive health addresses the reproductive processes, functions and system at all stages of life. Reproductive health, therefore, implies that people are able to have a responsible, satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so.

    Implicit in this are the right of men and women to be informed of and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of fertility regulation of their choice, and the right of access to appropriate health care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant.
    [source]

    Here's the thing: men already have access to safe, effective, affordable, and acceptable methods of fertility regulation - literally anyone can buy condoms (I'm not discussing male birth control pills because they haven't been released yet, but hey, another layer of protection from unwanted pregnancies is always a good thing). But women are STILL fighting for their right to terminate unwanted pregnancies, and even with the mandate from the Affordable Care Act, thanks to the Supreme Court's GENIUS decision this past summer, certain companies can now refuse to cover certain contraceptives that they find "disagreeable". Both of those channels of birth control are still restricted in some way, and thus, women in America do not have full reproductive rights. If a woman gets pregnant but she does not consent to motherhood, she has two options if she's fortunate to live in a state where abortion isn't restricted - terminate or give the baby up for adoption. If a man gets a woman pregnant and doesn't consent to fatherhood, he can just leave the woman and the baby (and by the way to use what you've already said, if the woman decides to file for child support in response, he can't argue because that would make him a "deadbeat [partner who flakes] on their commitments"), or even worse, try to pressure the woman into making a decision that he wants that she might not.

    However, if a pregnancy that a potential father does not consent to arises from condom error, statutory rape in which the father is underage, or straight up rape, things do need to be considered with a finer lens.

    The most obvious is if a man does not consent to fatherhood but impregnates a woman that he rapes - frankly, whatever he doesn't consent to doesn't matter. He made it clear that he didn't care that the woman did not consent to sex, so him not consenting to fatherhood (assuming she even wants to keep the baby, which would serve as a permanent reminder of what is arguably the worst moment in her life) means jack &&&&. He lost any right to complain about not consenting to fatherhood when he &&&&ing raped somebody.

    On the other side of the argument, if the father is the one who got raped and impregnated the woman against his will, things get...complicated. If the man didn't file a report, a court might find the situation hard to believe. I honestly can't say what I would expect the outcome to be, but if the man gets stuck with a bill, then that IS the system being abused, and steps should be taken to fill in these gaps, from both the legal side and the social side.

    An underage father is also complicated, regardless of whether or not the mother is also underage - if she files for child support, would it put an undue stress on the father (or even the father's family if the father can't find employment to pay it himself) to fulfill his obligation? If the father consented to sex, in my opinion, he really is reaping what he has sown. If the father was sexually abused by an older woman, I don't believe she would have a chance to get child support, namely because if that really was the case, that would be the entirety of the defense's (are they still called the defense in civil matters like child support?) argument, and she probably wouldn't see a penny, much less the outside of a prison cell.

    Condom error is unique in that neither party is at fault - they both believed they were protected, but there was a bump in the road before the finish line. I myself can't exactly picture a woman keeping the baby in this situation, much less filing for child support, but I suppose it could happen, and I would also chalk that up to abusing the system.

    Ultimately, though, despite what you personally believe, I feel that bodily autonomy and reproductive rights go hand in hand. You're correct - everyone should have the right to dictate what happens with their bodies with complete freedom from any outside interference. But women don't have that. Plain and simple.
    shoutout to moose for the amazing avatar feat. my dog carter

    hey look a tumblr

  11. #36
    Pacha-cutie the Adorable Incan shiny stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Friday, Mar 5 2010
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    325

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfice View Post
    You literally read table 1 backwards - even with the inclusion of men being forced to penetrate (by the by, I did not know the source I linked was using an outdated definition of rape, so I do thank you for bringing that to my attention - an oversight on my part), in total, almost 5.8 million men were victims of sexual violence, while almost 6.9 million women were victims in 2011. And looking at the numbers for the "traditional" (for lack of a better word, I suppose) definition of rape in 2011 alone, almost 2 million women were raped, while there were so few reports of men getting raped that they were statistically insignificant.

    But I am aware that men underreport rape just as much as women do - whereas women have to face the ridicule of being called a whore, get every previous partner they've had thrown back in their face as evidence that surely they wanted to have sex, and get the facts of whatever situation they were in skewed to make them look bad (what they were wearing, BAC, etc.), men face the ridicule of, basically, "oh come on dude don't be crazy, you got LAID, man. everyone knows dudes want sex ALL the time." So I do acknowledge that in reality, 2011 was most definitely not a year that men did not get raped. But don't try to say that men will ever get raped more than women. It just won't happen.
    The authors don't include "made to penetrate" in their definition of rape. Notice that it falls under "other sexual violence", not "rape". You have to add it yourself:
    1.7% "raped" + 6.7% "made to penetrate" = 8.4% = 1/12 (approx.) men raped in their lifetimes.
    0% men "raped" + 1.7% men "made to penetrate" > 1.6% women "raped" + 0% women "made to penetrate"

    Thus in the 12 month category men were raped more often than women.

  12. #37
    What Would Bayonetta Do? Forum Veteran Elfice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Friday, Jul 9 2010
    Location
    don't you DARE take the name of Texas in vain
    Posts
    1,927

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    You're cherry picking the numbers to try to suit what you want to say, but you can't just ignore the data for the ENTIRE "other sexual violence" category, though.

    for 2011: 0% of men getting raped + 5.1% of men being victims of other sexual violence = 5.5% of men being victims of any kind of sexual violence < 1.6% of women getting raped + 5.5% of women being victims of other sexual violence = 7.1% of women being victims of any kind of sexual violence
    for a lifetime: 1.7% of men getting raped + 23.4% of men being victims of other sexual violence = 25.1% of men being victims of any kind of sexual violence < 19.3% of women getting raped + 43.9% of women being victims of other sexual violence = 63.2% (ALMOST TWO THIRDS) of women being victims of any kind of sexual violence

    by ignoring everything but the numbers for rape and forced to penetrate, you're completely ignoring things like inappropriate physical contact (groping) and pressuring someone into having sex. No matter how you try to dissect that chart to suit whatever it is you're trying to say, the numbers clearly say one thing: women are two and a half times more likely to be victims of any kind of sexual violence. You're trying to say that men have more reason to be afraid of being victimized than women, and that's literally never been the case, and never will be.
    Last edited by Elfice; September 21st, 2014 at 11:06 AM.
    shoutout to moose for the amazing avatar feat. my dog carter

    hey look a tumblr

  13. #38
    Putting a cap in your benefits Forum Moderator Superninfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Monday, Mar 1 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,784

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfice
    Here's the thing: men already have access to safe, effective, affordable, and acceptable methods of fertility regulation - literally anyone can buy condoms (I'm not discussing male birth control pills because they haven't been released yet, but hey, another layer of protection from unwanted pregnancies is always a good thing). But women are STILL fighting for their right to terminate unwanted pregnancies, and even with the mandate from the Affordable Care Act, thanks to the Supreme Court's GENIUS decision this past summer, certain companies can now refuse to cover certain contraceptives that they find "disagreeable". Both of those channels of birth control are still restricted in some way, and thus, women in America do not have full reproductive rights. If a woman gets pregnant but she does not consent to motherhood, she has two options if she's fortunate to live in a state where abortion isn't restricted - terminate or give the baby up for adoption. If a man gets a woman pregnant and doesn't consent to fatherhood, he can just leave the woman and the baby (and by the way to use what you've already said, if the woman decides to file for child support in response, he can't argue because that would make him a "deadbeat [partner who flakes] on their commitments"), or even worse, try to pressure the woman into making a decision that he wants that she might not.
    Men have fewer birth control options than women. They basically only have condoms and vasectomies, while women have a wide variety of birth control options.

    Of course, that's because of basic biology rather than any sort of societal bias. It's much harder to stop millions of sperm than it is to stop one egg.
    "Have killed many, Shepard. Many methods. Gunfire, knives, drugs, tech attacks, once with farming equipment. But not with medicine." Mordin Solus, Mass Effect 2


  14. #39
    To vex the world rather than divert it. Villerar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Thursday, Mar 4 2010
    Location
    To your left
    Posts
    3,908

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by shiny stone View Post
    Is it reasonable to suppose that men are 4x as likely to be unfit parents in custody disputes? Imagine taking that approach to the glass ceiling: "We do not know to what degree the outcome may have been determined by the women being uninterested or otherwise less qualified for boardroom positions, though that probably cannot explain the whole trend". The boardroom and the courtroom both involve a mix of unfair sexism, and fair choices that happen to correlate with sex. And in both cases the danger with quotas is the same: that by directly gender-equalizing the end results (jobs, custody) we'd mess up existing mechanisms for choosing the best candidates/parents. EU boardroom quotas seem to have built in limitations so that companies who explain their gender-neutral hiring criteria can ignore the quota. This is good, and the approach suggests that we can reduce custody discrimination using gender quotas for each judge, and mandating that judges who violate the quota explain their gender-neutral criteria.
    No, it would be very unreasonable, but nobody has said or supposed that men four times as likely as women to be unfit parents, so I don't see what you're getting at.

    No, taking that approach to the glass ceiling would be wrongheaded, but likening that to what I did would be comparing apples and oranges. For the glass ceiling, there is compelling evidence that women are interested in boardroom positions and probably more qualified for it than your average 'old boy' (which I have laid out already). For the sole custody bias towards mothers over fathers, there is evidence that divorce is to a degree a class phenomenon, that violent crime correlates with lower class and that men are biologically and culturally more likely to commit violent crimes. (And yes, I am against classist double standards in sentencing, but I do have sympathy for people who want to divorce a criminal spouse.) Hence the background knowledge points in completely different directions. Really, my point about background . And I'll reiterate just in case that I do not intend to establish criminal backgrounds as a major cause.

    No, we have not established yet that the courtroom involves unfair sexism. Nor have we excluded that this happens. What has been pointed out is that your figures do not establish that unfair sexism against men occurs in the courts.

    I am glad that we both appreciate the EU boardroom quota and the relevant distinctions the policy allows. But I strongly disagree with your suggestion that similar quota should be introduced for custody cases. First of all, I am wary of such mechanisms from the executive, separate from the actual penalties described in the law, intended to steer the judges' rulings, similar to recommended minimum sentences. We rely on judges to carefully motivate their judgments anyway, so the possibility for exceptions if there is a good motivation seems strangely redundant. But my main beef is with your assumption that this is already needed, while we have not established that there actually is unfair bias. You simply came up with these figures and decided they demonstrate unfair suppression of duped males, without sufficiently considering other viable alternatives. You have not delved into the verdicts and found out what caused the results to be this way. Or, a more reasonable demand on you and an even more crucial first step, you have not investigated what peer-reviewed research says about the possible causes. So we still do not know why this gender discrepancy exactly exists. And your supposition that this is an injustice against men remains unjustified.

    Quote Originally Posted by shiny stone View Post
    *75% bias. Courts give men get sole custody just 25% as often as women. Your 33% figure is the additional children that women get custody of, as a percentage of total custody verdicts (including joint custody and "other"). This number could be 33% even if men never got sole custody, so it's not a good measure of sole-custody bias. Stratifying kids by age might help pinpoint the bias but we've still got a custody gap against men.

    Men's hesitance to seek custody cannot explain any meaningful part of the custody gap cited above because those stats are when both parents go to trial seeking custody. If anything, men who hesitate to seek custody are on average less qualified as parents than other men, so the men who do seek custody are even better qualified to be parents.
    Sorry, I intended to speak of a percent point bias out of the total cases but accidentally forgot to use percent points. However, if you read the example as percent points, you will see that the gist is entirely sound:

    It also doesn't defeat Elfice's point about judges favouring sending young children to mothers. The trend described by that source is a 33 percent point bias towards sole custody by mothers out of all cases. If we assume for the sake of argument that divorce rates are independent of the child's/children's age (thus uniformly distributed from age 0 to 17), that the probability of seeking custody is also not correlated to the offspring's age and that the judges' bias for maternal custody for young children is towards always favouring the mother in cases with young children (I doubt any of these are completely true, in particular the last one, but we need simplifying assumptions), then the sum of nearly all cases for children aged 0 to 5 years could explain the whole 33 percent point bias. The actual distribution will surely be messier and may have additional surprises for us. Another point is that this hasn't supported the claim that judges favour men for older children (in my simplified example, the distribution for minors from 6 to 17 years old would account for 11% to mothers and 11% to fathers out of all total cases), but Elfice's other contention would go a long way to explaining even more of the bias: men are disproportionally less likely to go to the court for older minors.
    There is no problem with using the 33 percent point surplus, that this could still be the surplus even if men never got sole custody does not affect anything in the above example (although that would be a stronger bias, but not per se a worse outcome). It would still result in the possibility of a total distribution of 0 to 5 year olds to sole custody by mothers. The sample is solely intended to demonstrate that these numbers would still be consonant with Elfice's scenario. So the cited figures do not refute him.

    Where did you read that these statistics only apply when both parents go to court? This is what that webpage says:

    How is child custody decided?

    51% agreed on their own

    29% settled without third party involvement

    11% decided during mediation

    5% resolved differences after a custody evaluation

    4% went to trial (of the 4% that initiated litigation, only 1.5% actually completed it)
    Only the final option is about actual trials, and nothing is said about both parents litigating.

    In relation to this issue, it is probably good to share this link that Elfice gave me: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-...b_1617115.html

    Yeah, that's not an academic source, but I reckon it is more reliable than Joe the Plumber's or the AmazingAtheist's opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by shiny stone View Post
    Sure, find a better source and let's talk about it. A lot can change in 20 years! (my source cited a 1997 book referring to a 1992 study)
    Okay, I'll give it a try.

    Quote Originally Posted by shiny stone View Post
    A man legally consents to parenthood even when he wears a condom and reasonably believes she's using birth control. If she somehow becomes pregnant with his DNA he's legally responsible for any resulting child(ren). Granted it's not a bodily autonomy issue, but it falls under the same categories of reproductive rights and self-determination. Family planning is crucial to the well-being of parents and children, and it's effectively monopolized by women in all Western nations.

    When a woman wants to carry her pregnancy to term without her partner's consent, she shouldn't be able to demand child support from him. Child support should be for parents whose deadbeat partners flake on their commitments or prove unfit, not for women who unilaterally volunteer for motherhood.
    The most relevant part is: "Granted it's not a bodily autonomy issue". That was exactly what Elfice said. It was about full control of their bodies. Men do not have an equivalent to it.

    As for effective monopolisation, what do you think condoms are? Merely funny hats for Phrygians, Smurfs, Jovian priests and Dave Cameron?

    Do you have evidence of cases wherein it has been established that the male partner used a condom and he still had to pay child support? I did come across a number of outcomes that I wouldn't endorse immediately, but I am wary of jumping to conclusions here based on media reports of lawsuits.

    Quote Originally Posted by shiny stone View Post
    The 77% wage gap is averaged over all races, not just whites. OK 3% is too low, the wage gap is something like 7% in the USA when controlling for worker choices. However if the argument is that women's choices are part of the problem (due to gender norms etc.) then the 77% figure is still relevant.
    Actually, according to the link about median earnings of full-time, year-round workers that Lenore provided, white, non-Hispanic women earn 78%, African-American women 64% and Hispanic women 54% of white, non-Hispanic men's wages.

    Though, as Lenore also mentioned, ethnic background also plays into this. If you normalise it to the wages of men from similar backgrounds, African-American women earn 88% and Hispanic women 89% of the pay for men of similar backgrounds. But in absolute terms, they are of course still worse off than white men and women.

    As for controlling for the employees' choices, for all I know that might well be right, but I am unwilling to accept that straight-away from a scholar from a neoconservative institute. Neoconservatives just have too many beliefs I consider unfounded for me to just accept them uncritically. And due to the continued existence of the glass ceiling in the EU, thus affecting some of the top earners, one would reasonably expect the gap to be larger than just "a few cents". (So I do not say she is necessarily wrong, but my bias prevents me from believing this directly - that is all.)

    Quote Originally Posted by shiny stone View Post
    Elfice gave no evidence that women have greater risk of being killed or raped near a bar or in a car, in the dark or in a park. Whence your certainty?
    I have checked some relevant sources before and this stuck in my head. And I have read reliable newspaper articles about it. And the knowledge developed as part of my common sense.

    This is from a UK government report for England and Wales, An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales, January 2013, from page 14:

    Sexual victimisation rates were higher for females who reported visiting a pub at least once a week (4.3 per cent) or a night club one to three times a month (5.6 per cent). Those who visited a night club at least four times a month had the highest victimisation rate of any characteristic covered by the CSEW (9.2 per cent).
    Many of these characteristics will be closely associated, so care should be taken not to view the categories in isolation. Particular attention should be paid to the relationship between age and characteristics such as marital status, full-time student status and use of nightclubs and pubs; as should the relationship between household income and economic status, output area classification, tenure, occupation and residential characteristics.

    Previous reports in this area have used logistic regression to help identify factors which are independently associated with increased risk of victimisation. Previous analysis by the Home Office[9] found that the characteristics which contributed most to explaining the risk of sexual offence were the respondentís sex, use of any drugs in the last year and age. However, other variables such as marital status, having a long-term illness or disability and frequency of visits to a nightclub were also important.
    That said, I want do clarify some things (in a general statement, not directed at anything you have said). Women alone being raped at night constitute in fact a minority of rape cases. Most rapes on females, as with other types of violence against women, happen in familiar settings, not in public, committed by a perpetrator known to the victim. Nonetheless, those English and Welsh data indicate that women who frequent pubs or nightclubs are more often victimised by sex offenders. And any claims that a circumstance like this translates into responsibility for the woman's victimisation are extremely odious.

    And finally, yes, I also don't like the rhyme one bit, but I suppose that point has been hit home by now.

  15. #40
    To vex the world rather than divert it. Villerar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Thursday, Mar 4 2010
    Location
    To your left
    Posts
    3,908

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by RavThunderbird View Post
    Look at more of the statistics on the website that you posted, about two out of three sexual assaults are committed by someone that the person knows and 38% of rapists are friends or acquaintances (not sure how they are differentiating "person you know" and "friend or acquaintance" though). As far as what percentage of rape is "stranger rape" I could not find a good statistic, though this site showed that it is more like 30% that is stranger rape. While the picture is grim it is not quite as grim as you are painting it to be. Also, when you are drunk at night near a bar or whatever, bad things can happen to anyone intoxicated regardless of whether or not you are a man or woman, don't get drunk in public.

    As far as reproductive rights goes, this pdf gives a break down of women's reproductive rights state by state and do be honest, it does not look too good with the average nationwide grade being a D letter grade.

    As for what you said in the bolded (is that how you spell it? "bolded","Bold'd" whatever) portion of the second quote, please clarify further. Are you saying that there should not be male contraceptives? (Which some companies are trying to develop).

    As far a men possibly being able to legally make someone terminate pregnancy, while from some paradigm's it may be morally wrong to force someone to do something like that, at the same time it is just as immoral to turn around and say "oh, by the way, you now owe me large chunks of money in child support for a pregnancy that you object to.". While they may need the money to raise a child, they know that full well when they decide to carry the pregnancy (there are also the cultures/religions where it is considered immoral to terminate a pregnancy, but that is a whole different ballpark from what I am talking about right now). I am not saying that it should go one way or another, I am just saying that some system other than the current one needs to be devised, because both ways have serious repercussions for someone.
    How do you jump from the relative incidences of "friend or acquaintance" rape, "person you know" rape and "stranger" rape to "the picture is grim it is not quite as grim as you are painting it to be"? Do you consider more or less stranger rape to be grimmer? And I'm serious, I really do not understand you here.

    What do you think of drunk rapists? Do you think that being drunk while committing rape is a mitigating circumstance?

    And legal instruments to terminate somebody else's pregnancy may be immoral from "some paradigm(s?)"? Try "the paradigms of most relevant forms of modern ethical traditions". Even a utilitarian bullet biter like Peter Singer stops well short of that. It would be a flagrant violation of women's right to bodily integrity. No state should have any business forcing abortions on anybody, neither as policy nor as legal result. So I don't think that it is as immoral as making somebody pay child support for an unwanted child, though I do not have one singular opinion on child support cases like that as I differentiate between various scenarios. Shiny's stated aim to neither violate women's bodily autonomy nor to neglect (in his opinion, not mine) male reproductive rights.

    Apologies if I have mischaracterised you (I hope I've misread you, but I haven't noticed it yet), so please clarify if you meant something entirely different.
    Last edited by Villerar; September 22nd, 2014 at 06:32 AM. Reason: Added "from" to first sentence

  16. #41
    Goodbye, have a good life, all of you. RavThunderbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Saturday, Nov 12 2011
    Location
    You will never know, will you.
    Posts
    363

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by Villerar View Post
    How do you jump the relative incidences of "friend or acquaintance" rape, "person you know" rape and "stranger" rape to "the picture is grim it is not quite as grim as you are painting it to be"? Do you consider more or less stranger rape to be grimmer? And I'm serious, I really do not understand you here.
    With the "grimmer" part I was responding to elfice's thing about women having to fear for their lives whenever it is nighttime near a bar/if they are drunk. It was a bit (just a bit) over-dramatic to say that women have to live in fear of being raped by some stranger constantly. Like I was trying to say it is bad, but not quite as dramatic as he was making it out to be (though it is a bad thing period).

    Yeah...reading back over my own post it didn't make much sense to me either. I was making one point and providing evidence for something a bit different.

    What do you think of drunk rapists? Do you think that being drunk while committing rape is a mitigating circumstance?
    I would have to say no, the reason being that rape is rape, but at the same time, non-drunk rape would basically mean the person is very very twisted.

    And legal instruments to terminate somebody else's pregnancy may be immoral from "some paradigm(s?)"? Try "the paradigms of most relevant forms of modern ethical traditions". Even a utilitarian bullet biter like Peter Singer stops well short of that. It would be a flagrant violation of women's right to bodily integrity. No state should have any business forcing abortions on anybody, neither as policy nor as legal result. So I don't think that it is as immoral as making somebody pay child support for an unwanted child, though I do not have one singular opinion on child support cases like that as I differentiate between various scenarios. Shiny's stated aim to neither violate women's bodily autonomy nor to neglect (in his opinion, not mine) male reproductive rights.
    The reason I said "some paradigm's" was because for every ideal in morality, you have some nut-job who thinks the opposite. From a "ends justify the means" psychology it would be totally justified to do something like that if the goal was for the person to not be pregnant. I was trying to be a little bit too neutral with my statements in that post (to some degree). I think that it would be incredibly immoral to do something like that, regardless of any circumstance. What I was saying is that a solution needs to be found that answers both men being forced to pay for child support for unwanted pregnancies (which in some cases is justified, in some it is not). We shouldn't have to sacrifice either, but hey, ideal versus real.

    Apologies if I have mischaracterised you (I hope I've misread you, but I haven't noticed it yet), so please clarify if you meant something entirely different.
    Yeah, I need to stop writing posts in the debate thread at 11:30 at night when I am brain dead, because reading back over my post it made very little sense.

  17. #42
    Pacha-cutie the Adorable Incan shiny stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Friday, Mar 5 2010
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    325

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfice View Post
    You're cherry picking the numbers to try to suit what you want to say, but you can't just ignore the data for the ENTIRE "other sexual violence" category, though.

    for 2011: 0% of men getting raped + 5.1% of men being victims of other sexual violence = 5.5% of men being victims of any kind of sexual violence < 1.6% of women getting raped + 5.5% of women being victims of other sexual violence = 7.1% of women being victims of any kind of sexual violence
    for a lifetime: 1.7% of men getting raped + 23.4% of men being victims of other sexual violence = 25.1% of men being victims of any kind of sexual violence < 19.3% of women getting raped + 43.9% of women being victims of other sexual violence = 63.2% (ALMOST TWO THIRDS) of women being victims of any kind of sexual violence

    by ignoring everything but the numbers for rape and forced to penetrate, you're completely ignoring things like inappropriate physical contact (groping) and pressuring someone into having sex. No matter how you try to dissect that chart to suit whatever it is you're trying to say, the numbers clearly say one thing: women are two and a half times more likely to be victims of any kind of sexual violence. You're trying to say that men have more reason to be afraid of being victimized than women, and that's literally never been the case, and never will be.
    Let me be clear: claiming that men "don't immediately have to fear for their lives when they're walking alone at night or drunk off their ass at bars with no friends around" is deeply sexist and ignorant. It simultaneously belittles women's self-reliance and men's (statistically greater) victimization. When it comes to sexual violence my point is simply that male victims are a significant minority. This is a radical assertion because survey after survey uses the biased "penetration" definition of rape to dismiss and undercount male victims, and these biased numbers get quoted in the media.

  18. #43
    To vex the world rather than divert it. Villerar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Thursday, Mar 4 2010
    Location
    To your left
    Posts
    3,908

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by RavThunderbird View Post
    With the "grimmer" part I was responding to elfice's thing about women having to fear for their lives whenever it is nighttime near a bar/if they are drunk. It was a bit (just a bit) over-dramatic to say that women have to live in fear of being raped by some stranger constantly. Like I was trying to say it is bad, but not quite as dramatic as he was making it out to be (though it is a bad thing period).

    Yeah...reading back over my own post it didn't make much sense to me either. I was making one point and providing evidence for something a bit different.
    Oh, I get it now. The report I quoted earlier, An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales, actually states that in 10% of cases the offender is a stranger (figure 2.1, page 16). So the incidence of those cases might in other countries also be still smaller than the figure you suggested, reinforcing your point about stranger rape being less common.

    However, rape of lone women in public at night (not necessarily by a stranger, but I am unsure about the correlations between the variables "known person vs. stranger" and "private vs. public setting") is a type of rape that has a very high profile in the media, in particular if the crime was violent or even lethal (and even more if the victim is a sex worker... then tabloids will really obsess about it).

    This probably relates to a high fear of rape among women and a high fear of being victimised by violence among women as well (there is a social-scientific "paradox" of women being more often afraid of violence whereas men are more victims of violence).

    So, to wrap this up, the fear is in any case definitely real and quite widespread, especially for the situation of being alone outside at night.

    Quote Originally Posted by RavThunderbird View Post
    I would have to say no, the reason being that rape is rape, but at the same time, non-drunk rape would basically mean the person is very very twisted.
    All right, we are agreed on intoxication not being a mitigating circumstance, then. Most people who think drunkenness is bad, stupid or even an incriminating circumstance for victims also believe it is a mitigating circumstance for assailants, so that is why I asked. Good job on steering clear of that double standard, although we'd still disagree on our moral evaluation of people being drunk in public.

    Quote Originally Posted by RavThunderbird View Post
    The reason I said "some paradigm's" was because for every ideal in morality, you have some nut-job who thinks the opposite. From a "ends justify the means" psychology it would be totally justified to do something like that if the goal was for the person to not be pregnant. I was trying to be a little bit too neutral with my statements in that post (to some degree). I think that it would be incredibly immoral to do something like that, regardless of any circumstance. What I was saying is that a solution needs to be found that answers both men being forced to pay for child support for unwanted pregnancies (which in some cases is justified, in some it is not). We shouldn't have to sacrifice either, but hey, ideal versus real.

    [... (quote)]

    Yeah, I need to stop writing posts in the debate thread at 11:30 at night when I am brain dead, because reading back over my post it made very little sense.
    Okay, so I misunderstood you severely. I'm sorry about that.

  19. #44
    What Would Bayonetta Do? Forum Veteran Elfice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Friday, Jul 9 2010
    Location
    don't you DARE take the name of Texas in vain
    Posts
    1,927

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    So here's a great coincidence

    Two days ago, UN Women launched a new campaign called "He For She". To sum it up, it's a call to action aimed at men (specifically cisgender men) to use the status that they've been given (or rather, that they've built society around to give them) as the most privileged gender group for change to achieve complete gender equality. Emma Watson (who was appointed this past July as a UN Women Goodwill Ambassador) gave the keynote address at the launch...meeting, I guess is the right word, and it was absolutely incredible. I would highly encourage everyone who has posted in this topic to give it a watch (only 360p video quality, but shrug, whatever).

    She brings up, I think, one of the most important factors in achieving gender equality - the fact that cisgender men are the most privileged gender group on the planet, and that we should be using this status as a platform, and not as a wall barring others from reaching the same level of rights and privileges that we have. The voices of others are ignored. Ours are not. And we should be using that to help those who face inequality, not reinforce it.

    Thoughts?
    shoutout to moose for the amazing avatar feat. my dog carter

    hey look a tumblr

  20. #45
    Pacha-cutie the Adorable Incan shiny stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Friday, Mar 5 2010
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    325

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Women in the West don't need much help, except (against the Church) on abortion. Feminists here already have powerful groups to lobby for legislation, attract media coverage, and mobilize voters. Somebody has to advocate men's rights. Men deserve real choices about parenthood, we deserve recognition and support when we're victimized (especially by rape and domestic violence), we deserve fair adjudication of alimony and child custody, we deserve unbiased criminal trials and sentences, and we deserve freedom from compulsory military service. In short, we deserve the rights that women enjoy. It is not at all clear that our voices are privileged when nobody with real power is speaking up for us.

    Africa and the Middle East need a healthy dose of religious pluralism in order to weaken sharia law. Traditional patriarchal religions (Islam and Christianity) are the main forces holding back women in the world.

  21. #46
    Klaatu Barada Nikto Kiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Thursday, Mar 4 2010
    Posts
    2,631

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    So you're shifting the blame to religion, then?

    And of course men should have equal rights. Women also need equal rights. That's the point of feminism. Equality.

  22. #47
    Pika Power Sparklesqueak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Thursday, Jul 1 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    520

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
    So you're shifting the blame to religion, then?

    And of course men should have equal rights. Women also need equal rights. That's the point of feminism. Equality.
    Apparently, feminism and masculinism are actually two sides of the same coin, one fighting for women's rights to be equal to men, and the other fighting for men's rights to be equal to women. They're just applied to different spheres of life.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism

  23. #48
    Putting a cap in your benefits Forum Moderator Superninfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Monday, Mar 1 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,784

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by shiny stone View Post
    It is not at all clear that our voices are privileged when nobody with real power is speaking up for us.


    If only we had someone in office who understood what it's like to be a man...

    (Also it's weird how you dismiss inequalities facing women, while simultaneously saying that religion is why women have such a hard time. Pick one.)
    Last edited by Superninfreak; September 22nd, 2014 at 07:43 PM.
    "Have killed many, Shepard. Many methods. Gunfire, knives, drugs, tech attacks, once with farming equipment. But not with medicine." Mordin Solus, Mass Effect 2


  24. #49
    Pacha-cutie the Adorable Incan shiny stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Friday, Mar 5 2010
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    325

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwi
    And of course men should have equal rights. Women also need equal rights. That's the point of feminism. Equality.
    Great, so which feminist groups are advocating men's right to choose parenthood?

    Quote Originally Posted by Superninfreak View Post
    If only we had someone in office who understood what it's like to be a man...
    Great, so which president is speaking up for male victims?

    (Also it's weird how you dismiss inequalities facing women, while simultaneously saying that religion is why women have such a hard time. Pick one.)
    Quote Originally Posted by me
    Women in the West don't need much help, except (against the Church) on abortion. Feminists here already have powerful groups to lobby for legislation, attract media coverage, and mobilize voters. Somebody has to advocate men's rights. Men deserve real choices about parenthood, we deserve recognition and support when we're victimized (especially by rape and domestic violence), we deserve fair adjudication of alimony and child custody, we deserve unbiased criminal trials and sentences, and we deserve freedom from compulsory military service. In short, we deserve the rights that women enjoy. It is not at all clear that our voices are privileged when nobody with real power is speaking up for us.

    Africa and the Middle East need a healthy dose of religious pluralism in order to weaken sharia law. Traditional patriarchal religions (Islam and Christianity) are the main forces holding back women in the world.

  25. #50
    Putting a cap in your benefits Forum Moderator Superninfreak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Monday, Mar 1 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,784

    Re: Equal rights between men and women

    My point is that men have massive representation in government. About 80% the seats in both Houses of Congress are held by men. You'd think if women had everything great and were oppressing men, that there'd be a few more women in positions of power.

    About a man's right to choose parenthood, what solution do you offer for that? What do you propose should be changed?
    "Have killed many, Shepard. Many methods. Gunfire, knives, drugs, tech attacks, once with farming equipment. But not with medicine." Mordin Solus, Mass Effect 2


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •