It's worth discussing rather than dismissing:
What a load of rubbish; the kind of thing one would expect from the DM or "Conservative Woman" (?!).
Amid all the eagerness to celebrate the prosecution of offensive tweeters and misogynistic bloggers, the questions have to be asked: are similar resources being put into the fight against other crimes, such as theft and burglary?Is the same energy devoted to incidents where men are overwhelmingly the victims? Grievous bodily harm, for example?
As a white middle class man I am more than happy for more resources to be aimed at crimes that have been utterly ignored basically for ever. The fact that things like marital rape were completely ignored, or not even illegal, until fairly recently suggests we still have an awful long way to go until domestic and sexual abuse are treated as seriously as they should be by the justice system and society in general.
Domestic abuse, not exclusively but overwhelmingly aimed at women, is so insidious it needs a lot more work to bring it to the surface; there aren't many other crimes that can have such a massive impact on a victim's life while at the same time making the victim not just reluctant to come forward but even blame themselves. Burglary and theft are minor irritants in comparison.
When such crimes are taken seriously by [i]everybody[/i], then we can start spreading the effort around a bit more. The existence of this article suggests we have a long way to go yet.
It's the Daily Heil.
For several reasons, I consider their point to be entirely invalid.
However, I may start giving DM articles a cursory glance once they start paying their taxes properly.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jul/10/whos-who-britain-legal-offshore-tax-avoidance-james-dyson ]Tax Avoidance.[/url]
I totally agree on the Dail Fail comment but I read this and it genuinely resonated. I wouldn't normally link to it but this one I felt was an interseting piece.
Domestic abuse, not exclusively but overwhelmingly aimed at women
The problem is you have no idea that that is the case. Apart from the fact that there is growing evidence to suggest it's not something that women predominantly experience, it also doesn't really matter because crime is not a 'mine's bigger than yours' contest, which is what you're reducing the argument to. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law, which is the point this barrister is making.
Burglary and theft are minor irritants in comparison.
Really? A bit of a generalisation there I think. I've dealt with burglary victims in the aftermath of them realising someone was in their house while they were asleep. It isn't minor not feeling safe in their house. Whatever the reason.
Wasn't there a case (might even have been someone on here), where the husband was put in a cell for the night after being beaten and the police called, then told basically to suck it up and not make a fuss because there was no way the wife would be prosecuted and she'd just make tit-for-tat allegations?Domestic abuse, not exclusively but overwhelmingly aimed at women, is so insidious it needs a lot more work to bring it to the surface; there aren't many other crimes that can have such a massive impact on a victim's life while at the same time making the victim not just reluctant to come forward but even blame themselves.
Imagine if rape was treated the same way.
Imagine if rape was treated the same way.
This is the point of the article. It's not about saying we should reverse the progress made on the way we handle crimes like rape and DV. It's simply saying a) don't do that in a way that unfairly prejudices a whole group of people and b) make sure that the laws you pass are symetric.
The recent example of Nottinghamshire Police classifying verbal heckling and harrassment of women a crime, but not it would seem, men, is a good example of the asymetry in the law.
The recent example of Nottinghamshire Police classifying verbal heckling and harrassment of women a crime, but not it would seem, men, is a good example of the asymetry in the law.
Yeah but heckling men is alright, cuz it's taking back power.
http://elitedaily.com/life/culture/okay-to-objectify-men/1106317/
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/08/why-we-objectify-men-without-guilt.html
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/men-objectified-by-women/
Totally makes all the female sex tourists in India and Africa all right then.
This is a thing in 'Murica as well
http://mentakingup2muchspaceonthetrain.tumblr.com/
Apparently it's okay to harass people based on how they are sitting (I presure, so they don't squash their balls/giant cocks).
Imagine her outrage, if I as a man, started photographing fat chicks on the underground because they took up too much space. Oh the body shaming!
Got to love the fact that she smashed up her grandfathers hunting rifle as well. Totally oblivious to the fact that she is alive because her ancestors could hunt.
A post from reddit
About a year ago feminists -- apparently having nothing better to do -- started whining about "manspreading." Nevermind trivialities like male genital mutilation or fathers not being able to see their children; of far greater concern to these oppressed damsels was the sin of men sitting comfortably on public transport.Bizarrely, the women who began the campaign claimed that manspreading is a "microaggression" against the fairer sex and a means by which men assert "patriarchal dominance." Even more bizarrely, the patriarchal transport authorities took their theories seriously and spent $100,000 dollars of tax payer money on an anti-manspreading campaign in New York.
Since that time, police have been using the manspreading epidemic as a pretext to arrest inner city youth. Who needs stop and frisk when you have feminism?
MRA's and other non-insane people pointed out that this is simply how men sit, and that harassing them for spreading their legs on public transport would be akin to harassing women for having larger breasts and buttocks. They also pointed out that 99% of the creep shot photos posted online by feminists were of men sitting alone; when women sit down next to these patriarchal beasts they actually try to make as much as room as possible, even at the expense of their own comfort (and sometimes, testicles).
Two scientists have now debunked the feminist theory of manspreading, though it beggars belief that it required such extensive analysis in the first place.
Authors Ash Bennington and Mark Skinner wrote: “Our new analysis suggests that manspreading is something men do to adjust for their body proportions — especially their high shoulder to hip ratio — and not an act of transgression against their fellow passengers.”
They argued: “If a man sits on the subway with his knees together, and other passengers crowd in closely on both sides, then his torso likely won't fit on the top half of the seat if his knees are positioned less than shoulder width apart."
The final set of data looked at Kodak’s Ergonomic design studywhich found “a seated man’s knees extend forward much farther than a seated woman’s knees do.”
They used this to suggest that men’s knees can extend out as much as 4.3 inches longer than a seated woman’s would and he can reduce this distance by adjusting his legs outwards by 30 degrees.
How have feminists responded? Not well. Here is one feminist from the Telegraph, who laments that men are using that strange patriarchal sciencey thing to undercut her feelingz.
In this scenario the man is honourably trying to “avoid collisions in the aisles on crowded trains” – conveniently forgetting that by doing so he is colliding with the woman inevitably crossing her legs next to him.
As impressive as it is that so many studies relate to manspreading, it does still look like it isn’t a natural condition that affects only one half of our human species – it’s a societal habit otherwise known as chauvinism. [congratulations to the author for remaining oblivious to the fact that feminists, not men, are the chauvinist parties in this scenario]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/manspreading-when-men-use-science-to-excuse-chauvinism/
Chauvinism:
: an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex; also : behavior expressive of such an attitude
Another female chauvinist/feminist over at the NY Daily News is equally perturbed by this strange sciencey stuff, and in this case actually uses the word "science-y."
A new “science-y” report researched and written by men claims men spread out on public transit because of their bodies’ proportions — so the dude taking up three seats on the subway is acting on his biology, not his bro privilege.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-mansplains-manspreading-science-article-1.2498986
Is is just me or do feminists these days have the mental age of teenage girls? And how in the world are these ladies being hired by major news publications? Their grasp of basic logic and their overall tone is straight out of Teen Vogue.
I LOL'd - science is cool if it confirms your preconceieved opinions, but not cool and part of the patriachy if it doesn't. But nooo, perfectably acceptable for you to get your tits out because "biological necessity" but if I want to cool my balls off so my soldiers don't die, make room or have my knees sticking out less - suddenly I'm a chauvenist.
Third wave feminists are batshit mental
[url= http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=e44_1472414595 ]Link[/url]
I'm trying to work out what colour her skin is, because unless my screen has gone mental, that image is a negative?Third wave feminists are batshit mental
Manspreading is f***ing annoying, though - and I say that as a man with normally-sized genitals.
Manspreading is fine if you're on an empty train but if someone - man or woman - needs to sit next to you, move them in. If your balls are genuinely so big that you can't possibly sit comfortably, then stand up! If you don't do this you're either a creep or an arrogant prat...unfortunately they are both numerous on the Tube.
Tom_W1987 you're coming over as a bit 'MRA' and unattributed woman-hating quotes from Reddit are not helping the cause...
What's wrong with MRA?
What's wrong with MRA?
It's pathetic and whiny.
Everything is wrong with MRA. And I say this as someone who finds their feminist counterparts equally as tedious and bigoted.
Nahhh, I just find people who claim to hold an ideology but in reality hold a prejudice like the very people they claim to rail against - utterly irritating. Very few people are out to make a positive difference to the world, most are out to try and gain more power for themselves or their own social group - at the expense of others. There is less of a difference between this reality and the sodding walking dead series, than some people might believe.
In conclusion, **** everyone.
In other news, anti-smoking ads and the CDC are sexist, confirming that satire - is indeed dead and lying face down in a mass grave.
Next week, sugar and diet awareness ads in "body shaming" horror.
Good lord.
The problem is you have no idea that that is the case.
Yes we do. We don't really know how much by, mind; domestic and sexual abuse is hugely under reported even now because of the massive taboo about coming forward for people who have been conditioned to think they are wrong and do not deserve help. Overwhelmingly, these people are women.
I've dealt with burglary victims in the aftermath of them realising someone was in their house while they were asleep. It isn't minor not feeling safe in their house.
It's not minor, but it's still not really in the same league... long term serious psychological damage is far more common from domestic violence than burglary. It's not hard to come out and say you were burgled; taking the first steps towards getting out of an abusive relationship is the hardest thing in the world, and there are far more women than men who never manage it.
Imagine if rape was treated the same way.
Wow, you have an anecdote! Shit like this happens ALL THE TIME to women, and it doesn't get reported at all. This is the problem; it's been under the radar getting totally ignored for so long it needs to be prioritised until it's treated the same, not ignored because oh it's just those women getting uppity again, they need to get back to the kitchen sink and start thinking about kittens again.
There will always be people out to make a name for themselves for a cause; it doesn't mean the cause is wrong.
Phil you're confusing two different points. No one is saying that bad things don't happen to women and the barrister who wrote that article isn't saying that either.
What is being argued here is that in addressing those bad things that happen to women you in turn prejudice men and create an unequal justice system that discriminates against men in favour of women, then that is a bad thing.
And there are lots of people who feel that this is what's happening Phil and I think you at least to acknowledge.
That DM article seemed to be almost entirely froth based!
The author just chucks out a lot of emotive accusations without actually substantiating them. Requiring the accused in a rape case to demonstrate evidence of consent overturns the notion of innocent until proven guilty? I'm not a lawyer, but even I can see that statement is just nonsense. Accusing Alison Saunders of "adherence to a doctrinaire brand of feminism" is just a lazy attempt at a smear. It makes it sounds as if Saunders belongs to some sort of radical organisation, but again, it doesn't actually mean anything.
The rest of the article is similar. Once you strip away the outrage and the "feminism is really bad, OK?" stuff, there is nothing really there.
Let's have some real evidence that the law favours women over men and we can discuss the "issue". I'm not seeing it in that article.
Accusing Alison Saunders of "adherence to a doctrinaire brand of feminism" is just a lazy attempt at a smear.
the whole article is essentially one giant smear campaign. Fairly typical DM fare.
A lot to properly discus in her article some of which I half agree with but she lost a shed load of credibility by banging on about blind justice on the Bailey British justice is not blind and she does not have a blindfold on .
The author just chucks out a lot of emotive accusations without actually substantiating them. Requiring the accused in a rape case to demonstrate evidence of consent overturns the notion of innocent until proven guilty? I'm not a lawyer, but even I can see that statement is just nonsense. Accusing Alison Saunders of "adherence to a doctrinaire brand of feminism" is just a lazy attempt at a smear. It makes it sounds as if Saunders belongs to some sort of radical organisation, but again, it doesn't actually mean anything.
How does one produce evidence of consent? A notarized contract? Consent can be revoked at any time, and you can't prove the signature wasn't coerced - so that's out. There's only one solution then. All heterosexual sex must take place in a court of law, in front of a judge, jury, and both people's lawyers and for good measure their therapists (just in case anyone feels a little bit upset - the poor little darlings).
I take some comfort in the fact that the majority of STWers are savvy enough to have seen through the article for what it was - a frothy editorial from conservativewoman.co.uk arguing that feminism is skewering the justice system in favour of Millie Tant-esque angry wimminz, because some men really get confused at the notion that a woman might actually be a human being and want to be treated with some semblance of respect.
Anyone with sisters/daughters/female drinking buddies ought to see it for what it is.
Same author as the OP's but a much better article - the Mail one is crap to be fair.
It seems a rather complicated issue, I don't think her point of view can be dismissed out of hand.
its never worth discussing third rate DM trolling as can be seen by those who seem to agree with her
Its amusing its on trolling though and they are trolling.
I just find people who claim to hold an ideology but in reality hold a prejudice like the very people they claim to rail against - utterly irritating.
you have a fairly well documented trouble dealing with female bosses. However I am sure its just them and not you
i acknowledge some men [ any chance you could define many ?] of men are threatened by assertive women and want to pretend we[men] are somehow discriminated against in the quest for equality and the rightful prosecution for rape and beating women. Then then use the most ludicrous of ill conceived arguments to justify their "claim"there are lots of people who feel that this is what's happening Phil and I think you at least to acknowledge.
in addressing those bad things that happen to women you in turn prejudice men
What a load of bollocks it is its just frightened men who struggle to deal with the modern world
I dont know which is greater my pity for you or my shame we are the same gender
FFS we are trying to end DV and increase rape conviction rates- its hardly the most oppressive thing i can think off and its not feminism gone mad
Some men really are dicks
The law is not a monolithic entity:
[i]If you thought rape is where a man has sex with a woman without her consent – you would be right but consent is not black and white. A man could be guilty of rape if he ‘tricks’ a women into bed; if he agrees to use a condom but then removes it or damages it; or, if he agrees to withdraw from her but refuses to at the end[/i]
I'm forty-two. I've lived, have enjoyed the company of numerous partners but I don't see that abiding by the above is in any way unreasonable. The fact that the article has been shared by the Telegraph doesn't exactly make it any less bollocks.
Anyone with sisters/daughters/female drinking buddies ought to see it for what it is.
Most of my drinking buddies are women, however the amount of times I've lost count of the number of times I've heard them say "oh he's too wet/shy, he doesn't take charge".
Well, that's because he doesn't want to get accused of being a rapist or pervert. Lot's of men are a little bit autistic and poor at reading social cues, so we are getting to this weird place where the sexes are becoming increasingly alienated from each other. If we don't want men to make women feel threatened then we have to change to a culture in which women proposition men on the whole, I have no issue with this - I think it would be fun.
However, a friend of mine from Spain utterly loathes British men because they aren't forward enough and have to get blind drunk to talk to women. I'm not sure all women would find such a change in dating culture, palatable.
It's all getting a bit silly.
indeed what we need to know here is how ignorant the general public are and they go with their viewThe crucial question is, are these decisions an accurate reflection of the public’s understanding of what the offence of rape truly is?
A man could be guilty of rape if he ‘tricks’ a women into bed; if he agrees to use a condom but then removes it or damages it; or, if he agrees to withdraw from her but refuses to at the end.
SO you are free to do as you pleas when they consent to an act and when they dont or you do something they dont agree to its rape- hardly surprising or controversial
Its an appeal to ignorance and stupidity
Of course, it's rape Junkyard - but the question is whether courts can actually effectively arbitrate such cases.
the amount of times I've lost count of the number of times I've heard them say "oh he's too wet/shy, he doesn't take charge".
BS
TOm take charge give her a slap and make her do as you say - woman love that shit 🙄
FFS
And your anecdote is clearly made up BS
Nope.
Stuff like 50 Shades of Grey doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists because westeners have become increasingly confused over how to relate to one another without resorting to lawyers or therapists.
It's like living in a world where everyones EQ is in total ****ing freefall.
It's all getting a bit silly.
Getting?
I've been that guy, criticized for not "taking control" because a woman giving off mixed signals hasn't felt assertive enough to make her intentions clear. You know what? I'm quite happy forgoing the meaningless notches on my bedpost because I wasn't sure what she wanted either. Remember, I've also been the first friend on the scene, who's had to pick up the pieces and deal with someone's resulting self-hatred and psychological damage because the messages they were sending out were so ambiguous that their date simply took what they wanted anyway.
I agree, it would be fun if more women took control - but then they'd also have to deal with stuff like rejection in an overly sexualised culture that still sees them as somewhat subservient.
It's still bollocks.
I agree PMJ, I think most of what she says is bollocks but I do think that she has a point when it comes to whether courts can effectively arbitrate some types of cases.
What is being argued here is that in addressing those bad things that happen to women you in turn prejudice men and create an unequal justice system that discriminates against men in favour of women, then that is a bad thing.
You see "unequal", I see "paying more attention to those who, historically, have been at best ignored and at worst abused further by an unequal system". Men have made this problem for ourselves, and will have to accept the consequences throughout this period of transition. If that means being more careful when asking for consent or sitting with your legs together on public transport that's not really much of a burden.
There are many other areas where the benefit of the doubt errs towards the weaker party; this isn't really any different.
Men have made this problem for ourselves
The set of 'men' is an abstract concept, it's not a single entity. Show me where the unified body representing 100% men, all of whom agreed with the decision made is and I will agree with. Until then if you feel guilty yourself and feel the need to some how make reparations by positive discrimination (which is what you seem to be advocating) then that's your choice but please don't include me in your plans or your set of 'men' that caused the problem because I am not one of them.
[s]Men[/s] Muslims have made this problem for ourselves, and will have to accept the consequences throughout this period of transition. If that means [s]being more careful when asking for consent[/s] getting stop and searched or [s]sitting with your legs together[/s] removing veils on public transport that's not really much of a burden.
Got to love Guardian readers - define consent and what counts as adequate proof of consent please.
There are many other areas where the benefit of the doubt errs towards the weaker party; this isn't really any different.
Oh so it's a "he said, she said" deal? We don't believe in beyond reasonable doubt, anymore then?
but please don't include me in your plans or your set of 'men' that caused the problem because I am not one of them.
Neither am I, but whether we like it or not we are members of the group that currently has all the power, so must bear more of the responsibility.
The same does not apply for your Muslim analogy; again, non-muslims are the ones with the power foisting their will on the minority knowing that they can't do much about it.
We don't believe in beyond reasonable doubt, anymore then?
This kind of case is full of a million shades of grey, there's nothing that can be done to avoid that... but when historically the balance has been extremely one sided, the least we can do is pull in the other direction hoping we can correct it.
Is it so different from a thousand court decisions where a dead cyclist probably had it coming, wasn't wearing visible enough clothes and should have been wearing a helmet? The balance is off, and realistically the only way it is ever going to change is to make the more powerful party shoulder a bit more of the responsibility.
no one has argued there is no differences between men but its absurd to argue its an abstract concept.
Until then if you feel guilty yourself and feel the need to some how make reparations by positive discrimination (which is what you seem to be advocating)
Straw man - he has clearly said women have been discriminated and in the transitionary stage some men - the luddites amongst us - will feel insecure and threatened. Which do you wish to argue against women have not been treated equally or that you are not feeling insecure and threatened by this?
"positive discrimination" is a very strange phrase to use in the context of an adult debate about rape.
clearly you have been at the forefront for gender equality and men and women everywhere thank you for your sterling efforts in this area.then that's your choice but please don't include me in your plans or your set of 'men' that caused the problem because I am not one of them.
Essentially women have been treated poorly and unfairly, Its slowly becoming more equal. If you cannot accept this nor embrace then you really do have issues you need to address
Tom if you dont understand what consent is then you have some very serious issues to address.
I am fairly confident non guardian readers are able to only have sex with folk who consent. You strike me as the sort of person who deos not read the guardian - ever struggled to work out whether the person was consenting ? Have you remained worried as you dont know what it means and you are not really sure they consented?
This kind of case is full of a million shades of grey, there's nothing that can be done to avoid that... but when historically the balance has been extremely one sided, the least we can do is pull in the other direction hoping we can correct it.
Nope, I don't agree - unless it's beyond reasonable doubt then we shouldn't be putting people away to make an example to society. You sound like something out of Chinas cultural revoloution. This seems like an attempt to control culture and morality and apply a dogma through the use of the law, instead of the other way around.
An interesting little, kind of related topic.
http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-review/article/the-cultural-turn/18699#.V9Hupq0neUk
Tom if you dont understand what consent is then you have some very serious issues to address.
You're a squarking fool of a true believer Junkyard and you'd be a dangerous one at that, if you ever have any position of power. Stop attempting to smear anyone who disagrees with you as a rapist.
Neither am I, but whether we like it or not we are members of the group that currently has all the power, so must bear more of the responsibility.
What power exactly? All men are members of this group how? You mean white men or all men or only affluent men? Do white affluent females have more power than poor brown men? Why the need to split all people on the planet into two groups based on their sex and all the generalisations that entails? Preposterous.
Behind these outbreaks of self-righteous wrath is a distinct if somewhat amorphous ideology we could dub “SocJus.” (The callback to “IngSoc” from George Orwell’s 1984 is not quite coincidental.) At the center of this worldview is the evil of oppression, the virtue of “marginalized” identities—based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion or disability—and the perfectionist quest to eliminate anything the marginalized may perceive as oppressive or “invalidating.” Such perceptions are given a near-absolute presumption of validity, even if shared by a fraction of the “oppressed group.” Meanwhile, the viewpoints of the “privileged”—a category that includes economically disadvantaged whites, especially men—are radically devalued.
http://observer.com/2016/02/the-totalitarian-doctrine-of-social-justice-warriors/
Just so that we're all clear in regards to the kind of rabid dogma that Junkyard ascribes to - do we really want people like this influencing the judicial system? What will be the next law where the burden is proof of lowered, in order to coerce public attitudes?
He and his ilk seem to have resurrected the medieval concept of blood libel, which was used as a weapon to persecute the Jews for centuries. You're "responsible" for "oppressing" people, because of unfortunate things that have happened in the past, that you had absolutely nothing to do with. Finally, they have even brought back the Catholic concept of "original sin," because "privileged people" are born with the sin of "privilege" and have a duty to self-flagellate like our friend Phiil in order to make up for it.
Nastiest thread in quite some time. Eurgh. 😕
but whether we like it or not we are members of the group that currently has all the power, so must bear more of the responsibility.
That's the same argument that was used to justify racial profiling and look how that turned out. It's a facile and reductionist approach that is entirely counterproductive to creating a fairer and more equal society.
You make a fairer and more equal society by looking at which groups are treated unfairly. Men, as a group, are not treated unfairly, women are.
The things that MRA people complain about - greater levels of violent deaths in men, for instance - are usually things done to men by other men.
Its always amusing when folk use big words to sound clever - all the more so when they dont really know what the mean and they dont bother to be restrained by the argument making sense.That's the same argument that was used to justify racial profiling and look how that turned out. It's a facile and reductionist approach that is entirely counterproductive to creating a fairer and more equal society.
Its an absurd thing to say that saying men hold/held the power and we were the ones who oppressed women is the same as racial profiling. Its blatantly chalk and cheese
the facile thing here is to claim men are under threat because women are being raped an the conviction rate is shit. Women are still the overwhelming majority of the victims here
FWIW I bet the same arguments, you are espousing , were put forth when we were making it illegal for a husband to rape his wife 🙄
By pointing out that you did not have any problem ensuring consent was obtained - you really are dumb I was using you to negate your own crap argument. Here it is slowly for you.Stop attempting to smear anyone who disagrees with you as a rapist.
Your argument was it was only guardian readers who understood consent- and you were asking for clarity about what it meant as you were " confused"
My point was to prove that you did understand consent and it was not the preserve of "guardian readers" as even morons could get consent.
The very point was that YOU were not a rapist and you did understand consent who knew sexists were dumb eh who knew...insert points and laugh pic here.
There is no such thing as men as a group. If you want to split the entire population of earth into two groups then do it by the haves and the have nots. We might start to get somewhere then.
Geetee, can you just summarise in one line what you are concerned about?
There is no such thing as men as a group
Interesting theory. Do you also believe that other species do not have two distinct sexes?
Don't be ridiculous. Distinction between two sexes is one thing. Grouping everyone together on basis of sex and making sweeping generalisations is another.
Well, it's comparable to any other power imbalance isn't it? Same as white/black people, cyclists/motorists etc. I'm sure in each case there are individuals who treat each other with respect, but as a class one has significant power over the other.
Not to recognise this is a bit blinkered I think.
No, I think it's a never ending argument that people getting caught up in it are distracted by. Meanwhile the real people taking advantage of the power go about their business increasing that power and taking advantage whilst everyone else is bickering about black vs white, men vs women etc.
There is no such thing as men as a group.
You must have a lot of fun on dates if you cannot split the world by gender
to say we are a groups is not to say we are indistinguishable from each other or to claim we are a homogenous entity [ except on gender]
I really dont understand how anyone wants to argue there is no such thing as men
What like there is no such thing as them or only the sweeping statements you dont like?Grouping everyone together on basis of sex and making sweeping generalisations is another.
No one has said there is no differences between men what they have said is that women , in general, are treated less favourably /are "oppressed" in relation to men
As this is so blatantly true they seem intent to avoid the point being discussed and debate whether there is such a thing as "Men"- which is again a blindingly obvious simple point no one can really dispute
EDIT: I am not sure why we have to play a top trumps of oppression- yes other forms of oppression exist. I doubt a raped woman who fails to get a conviction is most angry about capitalism
Start another thread and discuss this issue will you as its just whatabouterry.
No, I think it's a never ending argument that people getting caught up in it are distracted by. Meanwhile the real people taking advantage of the power go about their business increasing that power and taking advantage whilst everyone else is bickering about black vs white, men vs women etc.
I disagree. I think these issues are too important to disregard as bickering and distractions. Considering the abuse that the "out groups" are subject to on a daily basis, and the pain and distress they suffer I think that's a pretty heartless point of view.
I don't think I am heartless. Quite the opposite. I am all for equality and ending oppression, but generalising that one group made up of 50% of the planet is oppressing the other 50% doesn't cut it.
So you don't think that they is a problem with male oppression of females?
The stats that are regularly trotted out about the relative wealth of the genders, the poor rape/abuse reporting conviction rates, the glass ceilings, the religious mysoginy, the gendered bias of domestic violence, the media skew on female sexual objectification, the gender imbalance that starts at birth. All of this is not true? Really?
I'm not sure if I'm missing something here.
Edited to add - I'm not saying all males are oppressing all females. Although there are obviously indirect benefits to those males that aren't, and to be honest most is probably subconscious anyway...
but generalising that one group made up of 50% of the planet is oppressing the other 50% doesn't cut it.
The group of males is oppressing the group of females- the evidence is overwhelming - this is not to say every single male oppresses women. However in the lottery of life males win as the world is sexist.
I am not sure denying reality/facts is a great way to end oppression.
EDIT: what he said now he has edited- crossed posts we did not see each others posts for clarity
I think there is a problem with oppression full stop. Lumping all people of the same sex or colour together as a collective isn't going to fix the problem.
I think there is a problem with oppression full stop. Lumping all people of the same sex or colour together as a collective isn't going to fix the problem.
If the problem is systemic, which it is in this case, a systemic solution is needed. You cannot treat each individual on a case by case basis when the entirety of society is the problem. The structures we have in place: law, judiciary, police, social norms/rules, media etc. all display and operate within this oppressive framework, they all need to be tackled as they are, for want of a better phrase, a "reflection on the society that produced them".
The sooner men, white people, or whoever is the beneficiary of this oppression, as a class (and as individuals for that matter so not disregarding your approach), recognise this the better.
I don't see any other way it can be tackled, but I'm open to ideas?
Its not a very good argument not least because the distinction you wish to ignore is the basis for the oppression
In south Africa the whites were oppressing the blacks based on racial divides. I am not sure how ignoring this fact helps us stop the oppression.
the police were oppressing blacks due to institutional racism - are you saying it would have got better if we just ignored the racial aspect to this?
#greatcoffeetimeamusement
#bravoatous
So you don't think that they is a problem with male oppression of females?
No I really don't, not in this country at least. Around the world that statement gets closer to the truth but it's still not the truth.
I would agree that there is a problem with 'some' men oppressing 'some' women and that in this country the set of men doing the oppressing and the set of women being oppressed is incredibly small relatively to the total population. So small in fact that to use gender as a differentiating and causal characteristic is inaccurate and misleading, at least as far as correctly identifying the problem and classifying it as a significant issues in need of redress.
Defining the argument as being a problem caused by 'men', suggests that our gender has something to do with the oppression; that it is a causal factor and thus that being male means you’re more likely to be guilty of that. This is what I mean by reductionist and this is what I mean by it being same reductionist argument used to justify racial profiling. It’s saying that because black men are over represented in the criminal population, therefore we are justified in using racial profiling for things like stop and search. It ignores factors other than race in why that population is over represented hence racial profiling is inherently racist, just as arguing that changing the judicial process such that it favours women at the expense of men (with regard to their equal access to justice and the judicial process) is a form of sexual discrimination against men.
But a much bigger problem than gender inequality in this country is inequality based on other dimensions such as wealth, status, power and culture. You're almost as likely as a man in the UK to be overlooked, passed by ignored or otherwise marginalised because of your personality, your social status, your income etc as you are a women because of your gender and the data proves this. The gender pay gap on a like for like basis is only 9%, four percentage points from the margin of error and that differential could potentially be accounted for by the simple fact that men change jobs more frequently than women. That tells us that in the work place at least, inequality as something that men do to women, (rather than women choose for themselves) is disappearing or it may even have disappeared.
Now around the world this story is different, but the whole point of this thread was that it was focused on what is happening in this country.
Its always amusing when folk use big words to sound clever
That's a bit childish isn't it? I'm very confident in my own intelligence and it's not even like the words I used are big.
I would agree that there is a problem with 'some' men oppressing 'some' women and that in this country the set of men doing the oppressing and the set of women being oppressed is incredibly small relatively to the total population. So small in fact that to use gender as a differentiating and causal characteristic is inaccurate and misleading, at least as far as correctly identifying the problem and classifying it as a significant issues in need of redress.
Except it seems that much of the data, and I admit it is difficult to collect data on unreported behaviour, suggests that this oppression is a constant and ongoing problem. If, as some surveys suggest, upto 75% of women experience serious sexual assault from men at some point then (IIRC about 30% are raped) this doesn't appear to me to be incredibly small. This is discounting other behaviour such as verbal/emotional assault and domestic abuse without a sexual element and completely ignoring the gender expectations of society.
I think we disagree on the scale of the problem. The stats suggest it's bigger than "some", nationally and internationally.
Defining the argument as being a problem caused by 'men', suggests that our gender has something to do with the oppression; that it is a causal factor and thus that being male means you’re more likely to be guilty of that.
It is a problem caused primarily by men, who do you think is doing the oppressing? It has been demonstrated that males, across all sociodemographic groups are the perpetrators (and also the victims for most non sexual violence).
I don't know enough about the legal process to make a judgement on whether I consider it "fair" or not. I'll have a catch up, but I would be surprised if it unduly favoured women. Traditionally it has favoured men and it's only been the last few years when it has been making steps to right that wrong. It doesn't surprise me to learn that there are MRA groups who are upset at the prospect of losing their legal gender privelidge though!
Interesting article on the Gender Pay Gap 9% thing here:
These things are never as clear cut as first imagined! Also, I suppose it doesn't account for the problems of actually getting into work in the first place (initially, then post maternity if that's your bag). But that's probably for another thread...
Defining the argument as being a problem caused by 'men', suggests that our gender has something to do with the oppression
You are right its women's fault they dont get equal treatment and not mens
Rape is a caused by men. I have not accused all men of being rapists. I dont know why you cannot grasp the fact that it's our gender that is doing it.
so your basic argument is sexism is not caused by differences in gender and one group treating the other poorly - I genuinely cannot stop laughing at thatSo small in fact that to use gender as a differentiating and causal characteristic is inaccurate and misleading,
I am sure women everywhere are delighted to hear you tell them they dont experience sexism and its a tiny problem. DO you think they are over reacting becaus eyou know they are a bit emotional arent they
Men really are more likely to be guilty of it like white folk were more likely to be racist in South Africa. You read this as someone saying all men or all white people. Its not my fault you read something that is not being said by anyone but youthus that being male means you’re more likely to be guilty of that
I'm very confident in my own intelligence
The test of intellignece is not how confident you are in it it is whether your argument is well argued, shows insight, makes sense, accurately depicts reality etc. Someone bright would know their confidence in their ability and the ability are not related
For example
I am very confident i am the best cyclist in the world- in what way do you consider this "Proof"?
Sexism is real
Not all men are sexists
Men have been the ones doing the oppressing
these are just facts and no one intelligent can deny this
Its always amusing when folk use big words to sound clever - all the more so when they dont really know what the mean and they dont bother to be restrained by the argument making sense.
Its an absurd thing to say that saying men hold/held the power and we were the ones who oppressed women is the same as racial profiling. Its blatantly chalk and cheesethe facile thing here is to claim men are under threat because women are being raped an the conviction rate is shit. Women are still the overwhelming majority of the victims here
FWIW I bet the same arguments, you are espousing , were put forth when we were making it illegal for a husband to rape his wife
No ones claiming men are under threat, what is being claimed is that the basic tenets of our rule of law are being undermined by excuses that appeal to emotion - whether it's terrorism or rape. Your shrieking suggesting otherwise is doing you no favours.
Your excuse for this is that it's okay, because "women are historically oppressed" - no one is arguing that they haven't been, they're arguing that this is a shit excuse to suspend basic principles of western justice.
a shit excuse to suspend basic principles of western justice.
Okay, I've just read the Telegraph article now, and I may be being a bit dim (not unusual) and I'm not a lawyer or legally trained, but I don't understand how "conditional consent" could be used to suspend the basic principles of western justice.
Conditional consent seems pretty straightforward to me and why shouldn't juries and the courts be delving into this level of detail if someone requires that be done? I really don't see the issue. Anyone like to explain?
Okay, I've just read the Telegraph article now, and I may be being a bit dim (not unusual) and I'm not a lawyer or legally trained, but I don't understand how "conditional consent" could be used to suspend the basic principles of western justice.
How do you prove continual verbal consent? And why is it now, on the defendant (not guilty until proven otherwise) to prove this? The burden should be on the prosecution or the state to prove the defendants guilt.
#AllLivesMatter
How do you prove continual verbal consent? And why is it now, on the defendant (not guilty until proven otherwise) to prove this? The burden should be on the prosecution or the state to prove the defendants guilt.
I didn't think the article was claiming that the burden should be transferred, I read it that it was becoming more difficult for juries/the judiciary to distinguish consent from non-consent due to the changes made to the law.
I don't see anything wrong with this, the old wording allowed for all manner of abuse to operate without being challengeable in court.
Proving continual verbal consent? I don't know, I guess that's one for the lawyers/judiciary to work out. I suppose the old ways of assuming consent (e.g. no marital rape law) and people knowing their "rightful" place in society are being challenged, rightly so, and we're going through a transition period. The Law and the Legal System as a whole will need to transition too.
Spoken like a ture believer Peyote. If the coursts are finding it difficult to tell whether someone consented or not, then if what the articles state are true - that they are simply making a defense so hard that it's incredibly difficult to be acquitted/found not guilty - then I think that there is an issue. Simply washing your hands of this because "it's for the cause" is dangerous. It's that attitude that really grates me, and one I see increasingly pervading society.
they are simply making a defense so hard that it's incredibly difficult to be acquitted/found not guilty - then I think that there is an issue
Given the conviction rate is 56.9 % it seems incredibly unlikely your assessment is correct
Shall we discuss your scenario when it actually occurs?
Spoken like a ture believer Peyote. If the coursts are finding it difficult to tell whether someone consented or not, then if what the articles state are true - that they are simply making a defense so hard that it's incredibly difficult to be acquitted/found not guilty - then I think that there is an issue. Simply washing your hands of this because "it's for the cause" is dangerous. It's that attitude that really grates me, and one I see increasingly pervading society.
Yeah, perhaps you're right, and I agree "it's for the cause" is a dangerous view and if it results in these kinds of issues occurring then I think it is right that they be challenged. Does it mean that we cannot question some of the basic tenets of western justice though? If they aren't working (which they don't seem to be) in some cases should they not be addressed?
Unfortunately it is always going to be difficult without firm proof one way or the other. 'Twas ever thus, was it not?
I take the view that the conviction rates are so low at the moment, and the weight of society's prejudice is so ingrained that if the balance was swung in the opposite direction then maybe the ends do justify the means?
It begs the question which would you rather: the huge majority of rapists/abusers continuing their behaviour (and if survey results are anything to go by, there's an awful lot of them) and the associated impacts. Or a few (lots?) innocent men locked up for crimes they didn't commit. Hobson's Choice.
At the moment thought the system isn't working, and the closer we strive towards male/female equality the more in stark relief the failure of the Law to get to grips with this problem will be.
Apologies for all the question marks...
Given the conviction rate is 56.9 % it seems incredibly unlikely your assessment is correct
Shall we discuss your scenario when it actually occurs?
That's a fair point too.
I'm also kind of conscious that the reporting rate is so low, the charging rate is low and the number of offences that actually gets to court is so low that the conviction rate compared with what is actually going on is the tip of a very big iceberg. We're arguing over a tiny percentage of the problem, depressing really.
Yes! Constructive conversation, although I'll admit than some of my first posts really weren't. I'll answer in a bit Peyote.
New data today shows that the conviction rate for DV perpetrated by women against men has trippled in the last 10 years.
Refuge's own data from 2000/2001 showed that the split was about 80/20 in terms of DV committed by men and women respectively. If the numbers being convicted in the courts have trebled in the last few years, then depending on the total increase in all convictions for DV you could see that ratio looking more like 70/30 or even 60/40.
At this point, everyone really should stop encoding the discussion of DV as being implicitly something that men do to women.
Don't know where you're getting your numbers from - latest numbers from 2015:
In 2015, 92,779 people were convicted of domestic abuse in England and Wales, thereby suggesting that 87,138 or 93.9 per cent of convicted abusers are male, while 6.1 per cent of convicted abusers are female.
So it's nowhere remotely near 70/30 or 60/40, it's 94/6.
I was getting it from the charity 'Refuge', which stated that the split based on numbers from 2000/2001 were 80/20.