Wikileaks founder a rapist and molester...?

[Kasz216]

dib8rman said:

Kasz216 said:

 

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.

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

 

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."

 

Though of course, you're veering extremely off the topic at this point.

 

I'll respond to your post in reverse:

You brought up how unfair the women were being treated by myself and I believe another poster, I'm pointing out that it is a rape case and no one should be considered guilty or innocent before a verdict. How I did this was by presenting the corollary argument of your misogyny arguement.

I brought up the issue you illustrated yes, but I also explained that a man coming from war as a POW should not have to (This is a US soldier by the way) serve time in  an American jail for not paying child support while he was a POW in Iraq.

Now if you are as researched as you claim you know I'm speaking specifically of the VAWA act here. The capability of the act to on it's own eliminate due process speaks volumes.

Yes, they are both religion majors which says something else about the book all together but one holds a PhD. in ethics as well, they received alot of hell for writing that book but they also received their fair share of credit for it. I would be making up a ratio if I ever gave you one of those qualified who were against the observations of that book to those who agreed.

Man or woman his argument is that both either lived like kings or the poor, the logic for men to be in a better position is consequential to the type of labor that was desirable being suited to men physiologically. If the jobs that put food on the table and value to the land were tending to homes and the like women would have been only slightly better off.

Also skipping a lot. The whole point of the first paragraph was that when clear unlawful intercourse convictions can’t be attained other related methods are employed and have a 58% conviction rate. Of course that's just England.

----

So copy pasted the core readings >_>, you've been misleading in a few points but now your just using low blows.

Well then I think I'll try to 1up you on this, explain each one briefly for me just like I did for my first three, do that and I'll work on supplying you with an hopefully equal amount of sources.

(This is just for copy pasting that crud)

I also don't see the point in posting the core readings when all I would have to do is cite someone with a Phd who write in the same context I've been posting in. Like Warren Farrell or the aforementioned Christina Hoff Sommers who at the very least in both their cases had to have read some of those books to earn their Ph.D in Ethics.

A)Nobody has been trating Assange as being guilty before the trial.

As for the rest... yes it's copied and pasted core readings.  Which I got from an expert in the field, who finds your positon... ignorant. 

Hence the Engles link, in general they said someone who believes that way should "start from the beggining" if they want to actually learn something, though in general probably thought you were being intentionally and willfully ignroant, considering that well... the vast majority of the evidence is againt you, and to find such information and not realize it, you probably had to intentionally be looking for that kind of idea.

And no, citing people who aren't experts in the field does not counter it. Hell finding one lone researcher who actually has a degree in what is being talked about wouldn't.  Finding a few people that disagree with a basic accepted fact doesn't change anything anymore then the people who push intellegent design.

Fact is, you've offered nothing but pure fringe ideas from people who aren't experts in the field they are talking on.  The core beliefs and accepted fact of gender studies all directly go against your claims.

You'll find the occasional fringe arguement for literally, everything.  The mere presense of holocaust deniers existing proves that.  Regardless, at the very core, the ideas you've presented are considered completely not credible by the experts at large of gender studies... and that's just the sociological branch.

I mean honestly, what does it tell you when to get a degree to be an expert on the subject, basically every book and piece of research you have to read disagrees with your opinion? Reserach that has been going on for over 100 years.

I mean, you do realize that  is what your arguement is here.

"I know that basically every book and study that is considered important for being an expert on the topic says i'm wrong. However, I can find a couple people who disagree, who are very tangentially related to the field that disagree thereofre i am disproving it."

It's hard to have an arguement, because in general your opinion is so fundamentally wrong, that we literally would have to deconstruct everything and start back from the very start and very basics of it.  I mean, you want to try and disregard basically all credible accepted knowledge on the subject... of which, there is a lot.

I don't mean to sound contempful, but it's hard not too... as you are argueing a position that's about as equal in credibility as things like "being gay is a choice".  So it's hard to not come off that way.