The Ultimate Battle of the Sexes

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Instead of just copping it and moving on, instead of letting it slide, instead of "being a man about it" and just accepting the phrase "men are in power, they cannot experience real sexism or oppresion", some of them snapped. No, I will not do these things, I will actually take the advice of feminists who suggested I start a men's rights group. I will demonstrate clearly that something is wrong and I am close to powerless to stop it, but I will not just sit by and let it happen.

And so MRA was born. And what happened when it came into public awareness? Check back to criticism argument A above. And now, we are currently deep in stage B. But that is where it stops. Feminism will not be able to recover from its current position unless there is a significant reformation or a revolutionary more effective PR campaign. "But women are so oppressed!", "you are just a misogynist!", "you want women to fail!" These phrases mean nothing now. They are little more than talking points that lack substance.

If you don't want an extreme reaction like MRA to occur again, be more receptive to criticism and don't allow it to be the basis that irrepairably harms your movement.

Conclusion

In reality, females in Western countries have achieved equality in every way that it is possible to regulate. There is even strong evidence that they receive extra rights which men do not have in the legal, social and political spheres. They are favoured over men for certain jobs just because they are women. They are protected from harsh criticism and harsh scrutiny because they are women. They have far more services and resources that are focused on providing support to women. They are still the first ones along with children whose lives are deeemed more valuable and more innocent when emergencies or dangerous situations occur. They are allowed to have high expectations and will not be critcised when complaining that these are not met. They are given freedoms and privileges without being forced to own the responsibilities that usually come with those freedoms and privileges.

The burden is now on women to show that they do not need to hide behind a movement whose goals have been met. They have the same opportunity as men to achieve any realistic goal they have in mind. The pendulim that was very much against them in the past has swung passed the centre and is now heading way farther in the opposite direction. If you are a true egalitarian and believe in equal rights for every individual, remove your shackles and embrace an ideology that cannot be corrupted, that cannot be used to openly demonise 50% of the population, and one that will never become a dirty word because it has strayed so far from the original meaning and purpose of the movement.

If you made it this far, thank you for reading. Even if you now love me, hate my guts or found it somewhat interesting, I respect your decision and effort to hear me out in full.

And, yet, white-privileged male judges still tell female rape victims to keep their legs crossed or knees together, or some stupid s**t like that. Justice is not being served to both women and men in varying situations.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

It appears to me that you are agreeing that Feminism is more likely a umbrella term than it is a singular collective with a tiny fringe minority? Would I be correct?

are you saying the MRA isn't??
and, if you look at history, you will find that yes, minority men have benefited a great deal from the feminist movement. in it's beginnings, the feminists worked much more towards reversing slavery and earning all MEN the right to vote than they did their own causes!

originally posted by: InTheLight
And, yet, white-privileged male judges still tell female rape victims to keep their legs crossed. Justice is not being served to both women and men in varying situations.

To be honest, it really does seem like you are trying to bait me into antagonising you. The reason I say this is because despite whether or not your reply can be considered to be making a decent point or not (which I don't think you are, since you only mention an example of a female experiencing injustice without presenting a male equivalent and then claim that this shows both sexes experience injustice so to complain about men experiencing injustice is somehow worthy of being completely dismissed).

I am very suspicious of why you would mention a "white-privileged male judge" if your intention was not for something nefarious. What does race have to do with the topic? I referenced race in one section of the thread for comparison purposes as an issue, but other than that the thread has nothing to do with race. What does white-privilege have to do with being a judge? Can black people be judges? Can women be judges? I really am at a loss for words as why you would include that description.

Alas, I remember you and I have had a heated history at some time in the past, although recently we have not crossed paths. I am willing to forget the past for the sake of welcoming a potentially interesting and beneficial dialogue that can be achieved between us a this point in time on a topic that we seem to both feel passionately about. Would you be willing to do the same?

originally posted by: dawnstar
are you saying the MRA isn't??
and, if you look at history, you will find that yes, minority men have benefited a great deal from the feminist movement. in it's beginnings, the feminists worked much more towards reversing slavery and earning all MEN the right to vote than they did their own causes!

I thought I made my views on that part of the opening post rather clear.

Regardless of my views on MRA (which by the way for anyone curious, I am not an official member — well, I'd imagine I would have to register in some form to be included as being a part of one of the groups that share similar ideals to be "a member" but I do not think being supportive of the majority of their views makes you a member, does it?)

Defining Feminism is a lot harder. The reason for this is not purely because feminism has been around a lot longer and had to adapt over time, it is more for the reason that you can find prominent feminists living today saying one thing that contradicts other prominent feminists living today, especially on when it comes to distinguishing equal rights with special rights. I am yet to find prominent MRA figures (are they old enough as a movement to earn that standing?) contradicting key aspects of their shared views. Maybe I should just give it time?

At the end of the day, I do not see the potential for corruption in the MRA movement in its current form as I being anywhere near concerning as the corruption one can witness by doing basic research on the different waves of feminism, especially the most recent one.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: InTheLight
And, yet, white-privileged male judges still tell female rape victims to keep their legs crossed. Justice is not being served to both women and men in varying situations.

To be honest, it really does seem like you are trying to bait me into antagonising you. The reason I say this is because despite whether or not your reply can be considered to be making a decent point or not (which I don't think you are, since you only mention an example of a female experiencing injustice without presenting a male equivalent and then claim that this shows both sexes experience injustice so to complain about men experiencing injustice is somehow worthy of being completely dismissed).

I am very suspicious of why you would mention a "white-privileged male judge" if your intention was not for something nefarious. What does race have to do with the topic? I referenced race in one section of the thread for comparison purposes as an issue, but other than that the thread has nothing to do with race. What does white-privilege have to do with being a judge? Can black people be judges? Can women be judges? I really am at a loss for words as why you would include that description.

Alas, I remember you and I have had a heated history at some time in the past, although recently we have not crossed paths. I am willing to forget the past for the sake of welcoming a potentially interesting and beneficial dialogue that can be achieved between us a this point in time on a topic that we seem to both feel passionately about. Would you be willing to do the same?

I mention a white privileged male judge because there are a few instances where female rape victims were blamed for being raped, or the rapist is given a jail sentence of six months. I mention male white privilege because it is still a dominant factor in our courtrooms and meeting rooms and to deny this is to deny the facts. Ask any non-radical men's group fighting for equality and justice how systematic, ingrained patriarchal elements are reared in a courtroom or in society in general (your point).

My point is valid, we all need to see beyond our own sphere of experiences and look at the facts - the realities of injustices that others' face in societies of intolerance and hate.

originally posted by: InTheLight
I mention a white privileged male judge because there are a few instances where female rape victims were blamed for being raped, or the rapist is given a jail sentence of six months. I mention male white privilege because it is still a dominant factor in our courtrooms and meeting rooms and to deny this is to deny the facts. Ask any non-radical men's group fighting for equality and justice how systematic, ingrained patriarchal elements are reared in a courtroom or in society in general (your point).

Are you arguing that having fewer white privileged male judges and a greater number of diverse judges would result in fairer outcomes for female rape victims? If so, are you specifically saying that "white privileged males" are the unique problem, and say a black male judge would be more fair involving female rape victims of (any) colour? Or are you saying a female judge (regardless of if she is a rape victim herself or not) is more fair for the female rape victim because she too is female?

My point is valid, we all need to see beyond our own sphere of experiences and look at the facts - the realities of injustices that others' face in societies of intolerance and hate.

I do not deny that many women are victims of injustice via the legal system. I'm not sure I would agree that most Western countries could be accurately described as societies of intolerance and hate, though? Are you saying that Western countries such as USA, England and Australia are examples of societies that can be described as intolerant and hateful in general?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

My point is that everyone (broad societal brush stroke here) needs equal representation or special education. How else can justice or understanding be served? By the way, judges and law enforcement are now being offered courses in sexual assault as many believe in the same old myths, have a lack of awareness, and continue to practice intolerance and discrimination. Hate comes from fear - fear of change - lack of understanding.

www.torontosun.com...

originally posted by: InTheLight
My point is that everyone (broad societal brush stroke here) needs equal representation or special education. How else can justice or understanding be served? By the way, judges and law enforcement are now being offered courses in sexual assault as many believe in the same old myths, have a lack of awareness, and continue to practice intolerance and discrimination. Hate comes from fear - fear of change - lack of understanding.

You seem to be passionate about the topic of sexual assault. Considering that the number of victims of sexual assault (or at least the number of those reported) are a small minority of the general population, and a small minority of the female population of most Western countries (where sexual assault is illegal and overwhelmingly condemned as immoral in social situations) do you think it is reasonable to be focusing so intently in terms of education on this particular issue?

You can teach people that murder is wrong. You can show them evidence of how devastating murder is for loved ones affected by it. You can encourage judges to be more aware of the impacts on relatives of the victim and encourage them to be more severe when dishing out sentences for murder. However, you cannot prevent murder. You cannot even make a huge dent in murder rates by making the laws harsher because people that actually want to commit murder care more about ending another person's life than what consequences they will suffer for doing so.

Do you really think education about sexual assault will be effective at reducing the number of sexual assault victims by continually reinforcing the idea that sexual assault is wrong? I don't. The only way you could achieve this through education is to push for the definition of sexual assault to become so broad in scope, that people who didn't know they were even victims, will come forward and realise they are victims, increasing the number of sexual assault victims. Which seems counter-productive if you are trying to prevent sexual assault and aim for less sexual assault victims.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

You missed a few key facts.

If women are degraded and treated unjustly in courts, why then would they come forward? They would not come forward, hence the low population statistics you mention.

What sexual assault training and education will do (as proposed, focused, and deemed a priority by the leaders of my government) is, hopefully, to educate some of those who have the power to use the full extent of the law to punish the criminal fairly. That is not happening in the courts today.

I am not passionate about the topic, rather I am proactive in relaying the truth as to the inequalities that exist for women and men with this particular problem, which counters your claims that women have equality in all things.

I shudder to think what injustices men (of all walks of life) face in the courtrooms in response to their claims of being raped.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

The MRM largely went underground as radical feminism lost the national spotlight in the 80’s. It wasn’t until the birth of Internet activism in the past decade—think the Arab Spring and Anonymous—that the MRM was given a platform to politically organize. The anonymity and geographical diversity of online communities was key to the growth of this movement whose presence is largely loathed. In its current iteration, the MRM seeks to rally around issues of family law, reproductive rights, male domestic and child abuse, military service and now sexual assault policy. A look online at MRM discussion threads, however, reveals that in reality a majority of the conversations taking place are not academic and intellectual calls for justice and equal treatment under the law.
A Voice for Men, one of MRM’s foremost website, includes threads with titles like MGTOW (“Men Going Their Own Way”)—which refers to those who reject the presence of female relationships in their life by “killing their thirst for women”—and “Fight Club,” a forum for diatribes. In fact a large portion of this community revolves around venting about problematic female relationships (cheating fiancés and abusive mothers). Even A Voice for Men founder Elam cites his troubled relationship with his mother as his “red pill.” In MRM speak, taking the “red pill”—a reference to The Matrix—marks the moment one realizes that one lives in an oppressive female dominated world. Elam’s first evidence of the matriarchy was founded in a flawed personal relationship rather than institutional subjugation. In this sense, outside of its leadership and despite its stated agenda, most of the movement has little concern for a true civil rights agenda.

It appears that the MRM’s reliance on online political organizing has been both its means of revival and a deep-rooted flaw. On online platforms, MRM has little control over the direction its discourse takes. Any blogger, redditor or violent twenty year-old can tap into and produce content that becomes a part of the movement. Online, MRM has drifted away from its historical foundation in challenging masculinity—however flawed its approach might be. As MRM-ers spew hateful comments about women in their lives (many of which cannot be reprinted) it is hard to ignore that these misogynistic threads, under the veil of civil rights, speak more to a repossession of “manliness” than a deconstruction of male gender roles. Here lies an inherent hypocrisy in the MRM. In its attempt to subvert male socialization towards violence and anger, it seems to have repossessed those very qualities.

www.brownpoliticalreview.org...

reading this, it kind of seems that it's already been corrupted...

I'm a big fan of the old feminists, ya know like elizabeth stanton and susan anthony. I very much enjoy their writings. ever read the bible? there's one story in there about the virtuous women..

Proverbs 31:10-31King James Version (KJV)

10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.

19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.

23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.

29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.

31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

www.biblegateway.com...

this is a lady that is working her arse off. she sees a field, and buys it, no mention of her running to her husband, asking for permission, she buys it, plants a vineyard, she's weaving the cloth, making the clothing, making the candles, she's industrious, and her goods are referred to as merchantdise, meaning she is selling her goods.. in all this, only once is her husband mentioned... and where is he, he's sitting at the gates with the elders...

throughout history, jewish women would spend her days working, earning the money so their husbands could spend their time learning, and working toward raising in rank in the jewish society, to be able to sit at the gates among the elders...

what is funny is that one of those early feminists kind of gives a similar story, the women are hard at work, in the factories earning a paycheck, that is given to their husbands instead of them, and again, where are the husbands... no they aren't at the gates of the city, they are congregated on the main streets, or within the bars...
I am not sure just who it was that gave this picture although if my memory serves me right, it was given to the NY State Congress, in a plea to allow women to vote, to be represented in the gov't.

Stanton was my favorite because she often addressed a more spiritual side to the issue, which to me is just as important. The freedom to go into the congregation of a church without you husband's permission, to worship your god as you see fit, not as your husband sees fit, to not have a man set up as some kind of intermediate between you and god... that is still kind of denied in many of the churches in this country.
and, I can't help but think that some of those who in the past sat on that little yahoo message thread for abused women and tried to blame the abused wife when her deacon of a husband chose to molest their daughter claiming it wouldn't have happened if she wasn't there to rape, oh ya, that's right, you can't really rape your wife, can you?? helped form this little group..

so, can you tell me that there isn't a portion of this group that isn't quoting bible verses to support the idea that it was those evil feminist that conned women into their god given role of submissive, obedient housewives?

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Instead of just copping it and moving on, instead of letting it slide, instead of "being a man about it" and just accepting the phrase "men are in power, they cannot experience real sexism or oppresion", some of them snapped. No, I will not do these things, I will actually take the advice of feminists who suggested I start a men's rights group. I will demonstrate clearly that something is wrong and I am close to powerless to stop it, but I will not just sit by and let it happen.

And so MRA was born. And what happened when it came into public awareness? Check back to criticism argument A above. And now, we are currently deep in stage B. But that is where it stops. Feminism will not be able to recover from its current position unless there is a significant reformation or a revolutionary more effective PR campaign. "But women are so oppressed!", "you are just a misogynist!", "you want women to fail!" These phrases mean nothing now. They are little more than talking points that lack substance.

If you don't want an extreme reaction like MRA to occur again, be more receptive to criticism and don't allow it to be the basis that irrepairably harms your movement.

Conclusion

In reality, females in Western countries have achieved equality in every way that it is possible to regulate. There is even strong evidence that they receive extra rights which men do not have in the legal, social and political spheres. They are favoured over men for certain jobs just because they are women. They are protected from harsh criticism and harsh scrutiny because they are women. They have far more services and resources that are focused on providing support to women. They are still the first ones along with children whose lives are deeemed more valuable and more innocent when emergencies or dangerous situations occur. They are allowed to have high expectations and will not be critcised when complaining that these are not met. They are given freedoms and privileges without being forced to own the responsibilities that usually come with those freedoms and privileges.

The burden is now on women to show that they do not need to hide behind a movement whose goals have been met. They have the same opportunity as men to achieve any realistic goal they have in mind. The pendulim that was very much against them in the past has swung passed the centre and is now heading way farther in the opposite direction. If you are a true egalitarian and believe in equal rights for every individual, remove your shackles and embrace an ideology that cannot be corrupted, that cannot be used to openly demonise 50% of the population, and one that will never become a dirty word because it has strayed so far from the original meaning and purpose of the movement.

If you made it this far, thank you for reading. Even if you now love me, hate my guts or found it somewhat interesting, I respect your decision and effort to hear me out in full.

And, yet, white-privileged male judges still tell female rape victims to keep their legs crossed or knees together, or some stupid s**t like that. Justice is not being served to both women and men in varying situations.

That judge should be singled out. We shouldn't claim that the profession of being a judge is corrupt to the core because of these INDIVIDUALS. They don't speak for most judges, they speak for themselves and their own interpretation of the law. Feminists on the other hand like to speak for all groups expect men.

originally posted by: Antipathy17

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Instead of just copping it and moving on, instead of letting it slide, instead of "being a man about it" and just accepting the phrase "men are in power, they cannot experience real sexism or oppresion", some of them snapped. No, I will not do these things, I will actually take the advice of feminists who suggested I start a men's rights group. I will demonstrate clearly that something is wrong and I am close to powerless to stop it, but I will not just sit by and let it happen.

And so MRA was born. And what happened when it came into public awareness? Check back to criticism argument A above. And now, we are currently deep in stage B. But that is where it stops. Feminism will not be able to recover from its current position unless there is a significant reformation or a revolutionary more effective PR campaign. "But women are so oppressed!", "you are just a misogynist!", "you want women to fail!" These phrases mean nothing now. They are little more than talking points that lack substance.

If you don't want an extreme reaction like MRA to occur again, be more receptive to criticism and don't allow it to be the basis that irrepairably harms your movement.

Conclusion

In reality, females in Western countries have achieved equality in every way that it is possible to regulate. There is even strong evidence that they receive extra rights which men do not have in the legal, social and political spheres. They are favoured over men for certain jobs just because they are women. They are protected from harsh criticism and harsh scrutiny because they are women. They have far more services and resources that are focused on providing support to women. They are still the first ones along with children whose lives are deeemed more valuable and more innocent when emergencies or dangerous situations occur. They are allowed to have high expectations and will not be critcised when complaining that these are not met. They are given freedoms and privileges without being forced to own the responsibilities that usually come with those freedoms and privileges.

The burden is now on women to show that they do not need to hide behind a movement whose goals have been met. They have the same opportunity as men to achieve any realistic goal they have in mind. The pendulim that was very much against them in the past has swung passed the centre and is now heading way farther in the opposite direction. If you are a true egalitarian and believe in equal rights for every individual, remove your shackles and embrace an ideology that cannot be corrupted, that cannot be used to openly demonise 50% of the population, and one that will never become a dirty word because it has strayed so far from the original meaning and purpose of the movement.

If you made it this far, thank you for reading. Even if you now love me, hate my guts or found it somewhat interesting, I respect your decision and effort to hear me out in full.

And, yet, white-privileged male judges still tell female rape victims to keep their legs crossed or knees together, or some stupid s**t like that. Justice is not being served to both women and men in varying situations.

That judge should be singled out. We shouldn't claim that the profession of being a judge is corrupt to the core because of these INDIVIDUALS. They don't speak for most judges, they speak for themselves and their own interpretation of the law. Feminists on the other hand like to speak for all groups expect men.

The same can be said for men's groups. I am not sure what your point is here.

a reply to: InTheLight

Look at the scale. Tell me it doesn't matter. You can tell from plain eye observation that feminists are trying to copt other groups because their message is failing. They are using other groups as a crutch to keep their flawed ideology going. Some MRA members or smaller affiliate groups are doing the scale but I'll continue to say scale matters.

Feminism has been taken over by hating bitches. The message has been deluded and all members of society will suffer from their policies.

a reply to: Antipathy17

Other groups naturally joined with them through shared experiences of inequality/injustices, including those men/women that witnessed and shared in their partner's negative experiences. Men's groups seemed to initially take hold due to courtroom battles which they felt were unjust to their gender. In this respect, all groups have shared experiences in this realm, I am sure. So, we need to stop this divisiveness and shift focus to the societal, systemic problems which plague us all.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Antipathy17

Other groups naturally joined with them through shared experiences of inequality/injustices, including those men/women that witnessed and shared in their partner's negative experiences. Men's groups seemed to initially take hold due to courtroom battles which they felt were unjust to their gender. In this respect, all groups have shared experiences in this realm, I am sure. So, we need to stop this divisiveness and shift focus to the societal, systemic problems which plague us all.

I say BS. Women used to be oppressed and that's when most alliances were made. The new alliances are made out of necessity. Now days, you call feminism what it is, over reaching crap; and you are instantly labeled a woman hater. If groups try to distance themselves from feminism, they will be demonized. I'd say the opposite is for mens groups.

Men's used to demonize women and women needed feminism. The MRA was seen as anti women because women were being oppressed at the time and men weren't. I can understand that. In many ways some of the MRA was trying to oppress women. That time has passed now. Feminists are using the MRA and feminism of the past as an excuse to push their current agenda! "feminism was amazing for women in the past so it has to be amazing now" "MRA was horrible in the past, it has to be horrible now". It's just crap. Women have institutional equality. So feminism for american women should be considered a victory but instead it's now a fake cause to bully men into submission. I wont have it.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Antipathy17

Other groups naturally joined with them through shared experiences of inequality/injustices, including those men/women that witnessed and shared in their partner's negative experiences. Men's groups seemed to initially take hold due to courtroom battles which they felt were unjust to their gender. In this respect, all groups have shared experiences in this realm, I am sure. So, we need to stop this divisiveness and shift focus to the societal, systemic problems which plague us all.

Right, but you're not going to do that by throwing around made up terms like "white male privilege".
There is zero inherent privilege in being white or male. Privilege exists in money and power. It's a class issue, not race or gender. There will never be any sort of real movement with any progress until that is understood.

originally posted by: InTheLight
You missed a few key facts.

If women are degraded and treated unjustly in courts, why then would they come forward? They would not come forward, hence the low population statistics you mention.

In cases involving rape/sexual assault, you might have a point. Of course you are ignoring the fact that unlike almost every other crime in existence, the vast majority of these types of cases have very little physical evidence to go by. It almost always comes down to a person A's word vs person B's word. What is the judge supposed to do if in every single other case, the accused is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Do you want the laws to be changed so that only in sexual assault/rape cases, the accused is guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?

What sexual assault training and education will do (as proposed, focused, and deemed a priority by the leaders of my government) is, hopefully, to educate some of those who have the power to use the full extent of the law to punish the criminal fairly. That is not happening in the courts today.

If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody sexually assaulted or raped another person, do we then (like EVERY other case) expect the judge to sentence on the severity of the sexcual assault or rape? For example, if a man is walking on the street and grabs a random women's breast, lets go, laughs and then runs away, that woman has been sexually assaulted. If another man jumps out from behind the bushes at night and forcefully pins down a random woman against her will and penetrates her, steals her belongings and runs off, she has been brutally raped (and robbed as well). Do you believe both of these cases should carry the same minimum term of punishment if the perpetrator is proven guilty? If you were the judge, would you give a similar sentence to both perpetrators?

I am not passionate about the topic, rather I am proactive in relaying the truth as to the inequalities that exist for women and men with this particular problem, which counters your claims that women have equality in all things.

No, it does not counter my claim at all. I never stated that women do not experience injustices in the legal system. I stated that in the vast majority of legal cases, women are shown more leniency than men when they are found guilty. Women tend to get shorter sentences for committing crimes of a similar severity to their male counter parts. In cases involving domestic violence and child custody, women are overwhelmingly favoured over men in the vast majority of cases. In cases of statutory rape, women are given MUCH more lenient sentences than their male counterparts.

So no, you have not countered anything and have a LOT more work to do if you want to hint at the suggestion that women have it as bad as men when it comes to the legal system.

I shudder to think what injustices men (of all walks of life) face in the courtrooms in response to their claims of being raped.

Gee, I wonder why? Couldn't have anything to do with feminism always portraying men as the aggressor and women as the victims, could it?

a reply to: dawnstar

I'm not sure why you are quoting religious scripture to aid in boosting your argument. I am an atheist and do not take the words of the bible literally, anyway.

The fact is that when it comes down to pure physical strength, level of aggression and strong ambition to ensure one's own survival, 8/10 men will win every time when they come up against a female counterpart. THAT is why men have been "in charge" for the vast majority of history. Not because of some patriarchy or some other BS, but because of significant differences in attributes between the sexes.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

if it all boiled down to brute force and aggression, man wouldn't have had to invent a god to help them enforce their rulership over women through most of history, would they?

as for your debate concerning rape, here's an interesting fact. when a small nine year old girl in Brazil was found to be pregnant with twins, her doctors, her nurses, her mother had to fight the legal system to allow this small girl to have an abortion, even though those doctors and nurses all said that the pregnancy posed an extreme risk to the girl. the girl was raped by her stepfather, who the gov't eventually found and imprisoned. but the catholic church was outraged that the girl was allowed to have an abortion, they excommunicated the doctors, the nurses, the mother...
but, the stepfather?? na... raping the girl and endangering her life by making her pregnant was not as great of a sin, it was forgivable, but trying to protect the girls life, now, that was such a bad sin, it was unforgivable in the eyes of the catholic church.

content.time.com...

for the most part, at least here in the US, we would reject this logic, or at least most of us would. but, I've got to tell you, back in the mid 60's and 70's, it was more than common to let the rapists and child molesters off, to blame the victims. and for the boys to treat the girls they could bed as trophies, and be patted on the back as studs for the number of trophies they collected while the girls they bedded were categorized as sluts and whores and looked down on. such views don't die just because we decide to change the laws. they can take decades, a generation to filter out of a society. the idea that we still have judges on the bench that will blame the victim for the way she dresses, or whatever and let the rapist off with just probation isn't that far fetched! Heck the number of untested rape kits sitting on shelves gathering dust across this nation shows just how little effort goes into punishing rapists!

www.usatoday.com...

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Long Live Manism ! Without it , Our Species Is Doomed ...