dib8rman said:
Kasz216 said:
dib8rman said:
Kasz216 said:
ssj12 said:
dib8rman said:
Kasz216 said:
For the life of me... I can't see what the relevence of this post
|
It's kind of sad that you can't when your talking about sexism. I like to do a stress test on that inability to grasp at the obvious with some of my female friends and I'm sure it would hold true for some males as well.
The test usually involves having a kid swing the bat and some how the dad get's hit in the groin, rarely do I get signs of disapproval, while when I show the clip of the woman being hit in the crotch by a rope when the boat behind her starts off and the rope between her legs tightens.
In both cases the unexpected happens and in both cases the fetal position was executed but only for the male have I ever had folks giggle. Of course 100% of the time that I explain this to someone they say that they would find nothing funny with the males anguish but that neither here nor there.
My point is with all your worry about the woman’s right's it may be fair to worry about Asange's also especially when rape cases are notoriously (at least in the US) in favor of the female within the courts. If the Swiss incorporate closed door rulings to protect the women (if that is the language) then Asange may actually not get a fair trial even if he wasn't Asange the notorious wiki leaks guy.
|
Yes, that's the thing I wonder. And really my statement questioning the charges isn't even sexism. The name calling was more harsh, that's about it. Here in the US as you stated women are basically winners off the bat, but if a male "cries" rape they are questioned completely on if they are even telling the truth and if it really happened because (use godlike tone here) *he is male and men can't be raped.*
If the same applies worldwide, like it probably does, and the Swedes protect women as strongly as the US then any women can call rape and the book will be thrown at someone without question or a truly fair trial. Which is why I am calling this entire thing into question. Did he rape her or is she crying foul? Did they have unprotected or protected sex? Who actually initiated the act? These are all questions that need to be answered before anything major judgment is passed. If the answer is True, either, Assange, he is guilty. False, either, her or him; throw this out. False, unprotected, him; could probably hit him with it since its illegal everywhere to lie if your using protection or not.
|
Er... again.... not true. 13% of rapes get convictions... and the VAST majority of women who do go to trial are treated like shit... like you are doing to these women.
I mean hell, have you ever paid attention to a high profile rape case let alone.. any rape case. I'd suggest actually learning about rape victims that go to court go through before you make up proclimations that are just.. stupid.
I actually know people who have been DA's for rape cases. In general their general thoughts are "In most cases, it'd of been better off for them not to report it, because even with the most stonecold proof, getting a conviction is 50-50 due to peoples attidues and biases."
Hell, there is this one DA who's NEVER seen a rape case end in a convcition that didn't involve statutory rape.
|
I see, I've read differently; that the conviction rate was 58% for rape related cases, 14% were from cases of rape that were reported.
Now it isn't so much the percentages it's that the goal by the femanist lobby is to see that percentage go up. I'm not sure if you see what I'm getting at here or if I need to spell it out.
Those numbers come from Baroness Stern a goverment hired independent source meant to track those numbers specifically.
|
Little hint... how many baronesses do you know in the US?
Baroness Stern is a person... who tracked rape convictions... for the UK. The 14% rate is the number of people tried for rape who are convicted of rape.
The 58% is the number of people convicted of anything... so minor assault, public indency, anything.
The percentage of people who are convicted based on rapes reported is 6%.
So no... conviction rate is still much lower. People are still convicted in the case, but not for the actual crime... unlike the vast majority of other crimes... in the UK.
Though yes. It would be good it more people who were raped were bought to justice..
I finally get what your trying to say... the problem with what your trying to say is completely without merit you could ask, basically any law, pscychology or sociology expert who's remotely studied the issue
|
Check my info and you'll see where I'm from ^_^
Also your coming off a bit rude now and I've been nothing but silent towards it so far. Good for you, so I guess you want to turn this into a psychology, sociology and law citation war. If you do I'll take the 15 minutes to post at least a dozen independent sources from professionals who track misandry or misogyny.
Now if you want to be meaningful you can start by not making wild assertions that your backed by an imaginary group of professionals thus so am I and start off the citation battle with some citations from independent sources. ^_^
On that topic I'm not sure what you meant by your bolded in the UK. Do you mean I should be observing the case of the topic or the one that hasn't happened yet?
1. NY Times - http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/
This is a good conceptual link: it doesn't deals with misandry only indirectly and lays the ground work for understanding the points that you can rest assured are not my own conclusions but ones that I can say present strong and rational arguments. If anything the author and Dr. Baummiester approach the topic from a very objective maybe even egalitarian angle. (You may see it differently)
2. Weekly Standard - http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/christina-hoff-sommers
This article was done by Prof. Christina Hoff Sommer an opinionated but statistical reporter that is reliable for her sources as well as her professionalism. In this one you will find more information in regards to lobbyists… within America though but she has done other articles and literature on misandry internationally.
Now I'm only going to post one more to get us started, if you respond with your own sources for those professionals your talking about, I'm going start bringing hardcover and resource topics into this thread like the one below ;D
3. Legalizing Misandry - A book by Nathanson and Young describing misandry with much of the context that Dr. Baummiester approaches the subject with. The book deals more with countries other than the US and not just western societies either.
Now, please hint me on to some of your sources and I'll see if I either can debunk the study myself through reason and history or find someone who may have already with facts and logic. If none exist I will back down and you can walk away the knight in shining armor that you are and I would have a new stronger point of view that does not position 49% of the human race to repeat history.
Debilitating laws are exactly that; a law should not be prohibitive or empowering based on skin, gender or ethnicity.
|
Ok, now this is just getting painful. Also, what does the UK have to do with anything when you were talking specifically about the USA? Though, keep in mind, I still totally disproved you since only 14% of people tried for rape are convicted for rape. Conviction numbers in the uk may be similar... however rape convictions are not. It's near impossble to get arrested for rape.
1) This speech has a lot of problems with it, but the first 4 are simpliest to see.
A) The biggest is... he doesn't know what "Patriarchy" means. A "Patriachy" is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property.
It's not a conspiracy of men holding down women... it's a way of thinking through culture, that gives men authority over women. This isn't just an issue with men as it's also an issue with women.
A race comparisson is fairly apt here. In a study in the book "Blink: The power of thinking without thinking" they show many research studies in which negative aspects are always given by default to the minority instead of the white person. Even when the person is of that minority. That is what culture does and what is the problem. Culture needs to be changed, and culture is changed by education.
He probably doesn't know what the defintion means because his disicipline is self esteem, so he's kinda off the reservation here.
B) It justifies all inequality.
Afterall the same arguements could be applied to slavery in the US. Rich white landowners were in the fields he was talking about, while slaves were focused on less important "focusing on the small stuff" arguements.
C) What would of happened to a group of women in the 1700's who decided they wanted to go exploring? It's not like there weren't women who tried to enter theise fields. They were specifically held out of them and excluded from them.
D) He also implies the "Not all men are rich" arguement, which again, related to race is the same as the "Not all white men are rich" arguement. Which is a true arguement, however he tries to extend the argeument to stupid levels.
Not all white men are rich, therefore you shouldn't hate all white men. However that doesn't mean their is an inequality problem.
2) I don't see your issue here. The Gini coefficent dropped during the stimulus. I don't see too many people argueing "Therefore all the stimulus money should be focused on rising the gini coefficent."
3) Er, you do know that Nathanson and Young aren't experts right? They're degrees are in "Religious studies". From an actual expert on that book...
[H]ad the authors made this important connection between culture and structure they would see that there is no negative outcome of misandric stereotypes of men in popular culture. In fact, stereotypes that link men to power, technology and dirt (as Tim Allen) continue to ensure gendered hierarchies in the work force that reward men.
—Nancy Lewis-Horne, The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology
[T]he methodology that selectively examines some examples of popular culture and not others and then asks us to accept their interpretation as relevant and not others severely limits the potential of the research findings.
—Nancy Lewis-Horne, The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology
Essentially, it was a book written based soley on cherrypicking. Which, is something you should be familiar with on this website.
As for my sources... I guess I could provide some, though i'd just say "Look at the vast bulk of studies published in the vast majority of journals".
If you've actually tried to research the subject I find it ratehr odd that you haven't come across what is the vast majority consensus opinion.
There are vague minor issues in which there are problems in which men get the short end of the stick, which also need to be addressed but they are the minority... and very specifically don't include men being accused of rape being considered guilty. Which is what you started this arguement about..
Just how, again to bring it back to race... white big dudes in the NBA tend to face draft discrimination. That happens, but people wouldn't argue that suddenly "White dudes as a whole are being repressed."
Which in general is the patern of these kind of arguements "Look, two or three bad things happen to us too, therefore it's equal to the dozens and dozens of things you go through."
Though of course, you're veering extremely off the topic at this point.
