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... no it isn'?.

13% of rape cases have convictions.  That's... just about the lowest conviction rate there is for a crime in the US.   Rape cases are actually notoriously biased towards the accused rapists. 

A woman, who is raped and beaten in an ally by a stranger is less likely to get a conviction then a woman who is just beaten in an ally. 

Also, the rulings aren't closed door.  The evidence is shown behind closed doors, but the arguments and verdicts are public. 

So they don't show naked pictures of women with their bruises... etc out of respect for the victims.  The only part that's "behind closed doors" is the recording of evidence.

If you believed it was anything else, again you bought into the outright lies of Assange.

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 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 color, 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...

—Nancy Lewis-Horne, The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology

—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.

Eh, for the hell of it I tracked down a core reading list  for gender studies for sociology.  This is literally just the "Core" list of books you are requried to read before you are considered to have a doctorate in gender sociology.  These are literally just the very basics... and they pretty much all go against your arguement... which is probably why the people you cited were writing out of discipline... if they actually had to study what they were argueing before they made the arguement... the wouldn't make the arguement because they'd realize it's dumb.

They were the only people that could be found to do so.

As for trying to disprove them all.... it would probably take you a while. 

Along with them, it would be helpful for you to read

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

The origin of gender studies And the scientific journals Signs and Gender & Society.

CORE READINGS
Overviews, edited collections
Adams, Rachel, David Savran, eds. 2002. The Masculinity Studies Reader, Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
England, Paula. 1993. Theory on Gender/Feminism on Theory, deGruyter Inc.,
Chapters 1-11, 14.
Fenstermaker, S. and C. West (eds.) 2002. Doing Gender, Doing Difference:
Inequality, Power, and Institutional Change. New York: Routledge [introduction]
Feree, Myra Marx, Judith Lorber and B.B. Hess (eds.) 1999 Revisioning Gender, J.
Revisioning Gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kimmel M. 2000 The Gendered Society. NY:Oxford University Press.
Messner, Michael, Jeff Hearn and Raewyn Connell. 2005. Handbook of Studies on
Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nicholson, Linda. (ed). 1997. The Second Wave: a Reader in Feminist Theory. New
York: Routledge
Tong, Rosemarie. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. Boulder:
Westview 1998.
Gender differentiation – classic perspectives
Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Engels, F (1884) ‘The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State’.
Availabi in many readers on Marxism, including R.C.Tucker (Ed.) The Marx-Engels
Reader, 1978
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 2000. “The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female are Note
Enough,” The Sciences 33 July: 20-25
Ortner, S. (1974) “Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?” in M.Rosaldo and
L. Lamphere (eds.), Women, Culture and Society, Stanford University Press, pp.
67-88.
West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing Gender.” Gender & Society
1(2):125-151.
Zelditch, Morris, "Role Differentiation in the Nuclear Family," Chapter 6, pp.
307-315 in Talcott Parsons and R. F. Bales, Family Socialization and Interaction
Process, New York: Free Press 1955.
Socialization/social constructionist perspectives
Kessler, Suzanne J. and Wendy McKenna. 1985. Gender: An Ethnomethodological
Approach. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
2
Messner, M. (1990). “Boyhood, Organized Sports, and the Construction of
Masculinities.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18(4): 416-444.
Schwalbe, Michael. 2005. “Identity Stakes, Manhood Acts, and the Dynamics of
Accountability.” Studies in Symbolic Interaction, vol. 28, edited by Norman K.
Denzin.
Thorne, Barrie. 1993. Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. Rutgers Press.
West, C. and S. Fenstermaker. 1995. “Doing Difference.” Gender and Society
9:8-37.
Collins, Patricia Hill et al. 1995. “On West and Fenstermaker’s Doing
Difference.” Gender and Society 9:491-514.
Materialist and institutional perspectives
Connell, R. W. and James Messerschmidt. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the
Concept.” 2005. Gender & Society 19(6):1-31.
Connell, R. W. 1987. Gender and Power. Stanford University Press
Connell, R. W. 1994. ‘Gender Regimes and the Gender Order’ pp. 29-40. In The
Polity Reader in Gender Studies. Polity Press.
Connell, R. W. 2005. Masculinities, 2nd edition. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Connell, R. W. 2002. Gender, MA: Blackwell.
Ingraham, Chrys. 1994. “The Heterosexual Imaginary: Feminist Sociology and
Theories of Gender.” Sociological Theory 12(2): 203-19.
Lorber, Judith. 1995. Paradoxes of Gender. Yale University Press.
Martin, Patricia Yancey. 2004. “Gender as Social Institution.” Social Forces 82
(June):1249-1273.
Risman, Barbara. 2004. "Gender as a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with
Social Change." Gender & Society 18(4):429-450.
Smith, Dorothy. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic. Boston: Northeastern
University Press, Ch. 2-4.
Intersectionality and difference
Acker, Joan. 1999. “Rewriting class, race, and gender: Problems in feminist
rethinking,” in Ferree et al. (ed.) Revisioning Gender.
Acker, Joan. 2006. “Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in
Organizations.” Gender & Society 20(4): 441-464.
Anzaldúa, Gloria. 1999. The Borderlands/La Frontera. Aunt Lute Books.
Davis, Angela Y. 1983. Women, Race, & Class. New York: Vintage Books.
Ferber, Abby. 1998. White man falling: race, gender, and white supremacy. Rowman
and Littlefield.
Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of
Whiteness. Minneapolis, U Minn. Press (selected chapters).
Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 1999. “The social construction and institutionalization of
gender and race: An integrative framework,” in Ferree et al. (ed.) Revisioning
Gender.
Hill Collins, Patricia. 2000. Black Feminist Thought, 2nd ed. Routledge.
Chapters 1-3, 10.
hooks, Bell, Ain’t I a Woman
Lorde, Audre. 1984. 'Age, race, class and sex: women redefining difference', in
A. Lorde, Sister Outsider, Trumansburg, NY: The Crossing Press, p 14-23.
Schippers, Mimi. 2007. “Recovering the Feminine Other: Masculinity, Femininity,
and Gender Hegemony.” Theoretical Sociology 36:85-102.
3
Queering gender
Bornstein, Kate. 1995. Gender Outlaw, Vintage: NY .
Butler, Judith. 1989. Gender Trouble. Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. New
York: Routledge.
Heasley, Robert. 2005. “Crossing the Borders of Gendered Sexuality: Queer
Masculinities of Straight Men” in Thinking Straight, ed. C. Ingraham. Routledge.
King, Dave, and Richard Elkins. 1999. “Towards a sociology of transgendered
bodies,” Sociological Review Vol. 47.
Valocchi, Steven. 2005. "Not Yet Queer Enough: The Lessons of Queer Theory for
the Sociology of Gender and Sexuality." Gender & Society 19:750.
Gender and research methods
Grant, Linda, Kathryn B. Ward and Zue Lan Rong. 1987. “Is There an Association
between Gender and Methods in Sociological Research?” American Sociological
Review 52:856-862.
Harding, Sandra (ed). 1987. Feminism and Methodology, Indiana Univ. Press.
Hurtado, Aida, and A.J. Stewart. 1997. “Through the looking glass: Implications
of studying whiteness for feminist methods,” In M. Fine et al. (eds.) Off White:
Readings on Race, Power and Society. N.Y.: Routledge.
Naples, Nancy (ed). 2004. Feminism and Method. New York: Routledge.
Reinharz, Shulamit. 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Smith, Dorothy. 1987. “The Everyday World as Problematic.” Pp 105-145 in The
Everyday World as Problematic: Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern
University Press.
Gender and gay identity
Abelove, Henry, Michele Aina Barale, and David M. Halperin. 1993. The Lesbian
and gay Studies Reader. Routledge.
Connell, Robert W. 1992. “A Very Straight Gay: Masculinity, Homosexual
Experience, and the Dynamics of Gender.” American Sociological Review,
57:734-751.
d'Emilio, John, and Estelle Freedman. 1989. Intimate Matters. NY: Harper & Row.
Gagne, Patricia, Richard Tewksbury, Deanna McGaughey. 1997. “Coming out and
crossing over: identity formation and proclamation in a transgender community.”
Gender & Society 11(4).
Mimi Schippers 2000 Rockin Out of the Box: Gender Maneurvering in Alternative
Hard Rock. Rutgers University Press.
Rupp, Leila and Verta Taylor. 2003. Drag Queens at the 801 Caberet. University
of Chicago Press.
Rupp, Leila J. and Verta Taylor. 1999. “Forging Feminist Identity in an
International Movement: A Collective Identity Approach to Twentieth-Century
Feminism.” Signs 24:363- 86.
Seidman, Steven, “Identity and Politics in a “Postmodern Gay Culture: Some
Historical and Conceptual Notes,” pp. 105-142 in Warner, Michael, ed. Fear of a
Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press. 1993.
Stein, Arlene. 1997. “Sisters and Queers: The Decentering of Lesbian Feminism.”
Pp. 378- 91 in the Gender/Sexuality Reader. Edited by Roger N. Lancaster and
Micaela di Leonardo. New York: Routledge.
4
Gender and International/Globalization/Development
Basu, Amrita. 2000. “Globalization of the Local/Localization of the Global:
Mapping Transnational Women of Color.” Meridians: feminism, race,
transnationalism 1(1): 68-84.
Bose, Christine, and Edna Acosta-Belén (eds.). 1995. Women in the Latin America
Development Process. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Charrad, Mounira. 2001. States and Women’s Rights: The Making of Post-Colonial
Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. UC Press.
Chow, Esther Ngan-Ling, and Deanna M. Lyter. 2002. “Studying Development with
Gender Perspectives: From Mainstream Theories to Alternative Frameworks.” In
Transforming Gender and Development in East Asia, edited by Esther Ngan-Ling
Chow. New York: Routledge.
Ehrenreich, Barbara and Arlie Russell Hochschild. 2002. Global Women.
Metropolitan Books.
Enloe, Cynthia. 2000. Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing
Women's Lives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lind, Amy and Jessica Share. 2004. “Queering Development: Institutionalized
Heterosexuality in Development Theory, Practice, and Politics in Latin America.”
Ch. 3 in Bhavnani, Foran, and Kurian (eds) Feminist Futures: Re-imagining Women,
Culture, and Development.
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 1991. “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and
Colonial Discourses.” In Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism, edited
by Chandra Mohanty, Ann Russo, and Lourdes Torres. Bloomington, Indiana
University Press.
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 2003. Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory,
Practicing Solidarity. Durham & London: Duke University Press.
Mohanty, Chandra, Ann Russo, and Lourdes Torres (eds.). 1991. Third World Women
and the Politics of Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press
Sassen, Saskia. 2002. “Global cities and survival circuits, “ in Global Woman,
edited by Barbara Ehrenreich and Arlie Russell Hochschild. Metropolitan Books.
Gender, work and labor
Acker, Joan Heirarchies, bodies and jobs.” Gender & Society 1990
Acker, Joan 1989. Doing Comparable Worth: Gender, Class, and Pay Equity.
Bianchi, Suzanne M. 2000. “Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender
division of household labor.” Social Forces 79 (Sept.): 191-228.
Browne, Irene and Joye Misra, 2003. "The intersection of gender and race in the
labor market.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:487-513.
Cohen, Philip N. and Matt L. Huffman. 2003. "Individuals, jobs, and labor
markets: The devaluation of women's work." American Sociological Review 68(3):
443-463.
Correll, Shelley J., Stephen Benard, and In Paik. 2007. “Getting a Job: Is there
a Motherhood Penalty?” American Journal of Sociology 112, 5: 1297-1338.
DeVault, Marjorie L. 1994. Feeding the family: the social organization of caring
as gendered work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Edin, Kathryn, and Laura Lein. 1997. “Work, Welfare, and Single Mothers’
Economic Survival Strategies.” American Sociological Review, 62: 253-266.
Ehrenreich, Barbara and Arlie Russell Hochschild, Global Women: Nannies, Maids
and Sex workers in the New Economy. NY: Metropolitan Books. 2003
5
England, Paula. 1992. Comparable Worth: Theories and Evidence. New York: Aldine
deGruyter.
England, Paula. 2000. “Marriage, the costs of children, and gender inequality,”
in Linda Waite (ed.) The Ties That Bind. NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
England, Paula. 2005. “Emerging theories of care work.” Annual Review of
Sociology 31:381-99.
England, Paula. 2005. “Gender Inequality in Labor Markets: the Role of
Motherhood and Segregation.” Social Politics 12, 2: 264-88.
Folbre, Nancy. 2001. The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values. New York:
The New Press.
Gerson, Kathleen. 2010. The Unfinished Revolution: How a New Generation is
Reshaping Family, Work, and Gender. Oxford University Press.
Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 1992. “From Servitude to Service Work: Historical
Continuities in the Racial Division of Paid Reproductive Labor.” Signs.
18(1):1-43.
Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 2002. Unequal Freedom: How Race and Gender Shaped American
Citzenship and Labor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1997. The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home
Becomes Work. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1983. The managed heart: commercialization of human
feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hochschild, Arlie. 2003. The Second Shift. New York: Penguin Books.
Kalev, Alexandra, Frank Dobbin, and Erin Kelly. 2006. “Best Practices or Best
Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity
Policies. American Sociological Review 71(August): 589-617.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1993. Men and Women of the Corporation.
Keene, Jennifer Reid and Jill S. Quadagno. 2004. “Predictors of Perceived
Work-Family Balance: Gender Difference or Gender Similarity” Sociological
Perspectives 47, 1: 1-24.
Keene, Jennifer Reid and John R. Reynolds. 2005. “The Job Costs of Family
Demands: Gender Differences in Negative Family-to-Work Spillover.” Journal of
Family Issues 26, 3: 275-299.
Kondo, Dorrine. 1990. Crafting Selves: Gender, Work and Discourses of Identity
in a Japanese Workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Chapters. 3, 6,
8]
Lopez, Steven H. 2006. “Emotional labor and organized emotional care:
Conceptualizin nursing home care work.” Work and Occupations 33:133-160.
Martin, Patricia Yancey, and David L. Collinson. 1999. “Gender and Sexuality in
Organizations.” In Revisioning Gender, edited by Ferree, et al.
Martin, Patricia Yancey. 2003. “Said and done” vs. “saying and doing”: Gendering
Practices, Practicing Gender at Work. Gender & Society 17:342-366. (Plus review
three critiques of the paper, immediately following it by S. Bird, R. W.
Connell, and M. M. Ferree)
Martin, Patricia Yancey. 2004. “Gender as a Social Institution.” Social Forces
82:1249- 73.
Padavic, Irene and Barbara Reskin. 2002. Women and Men at Work, 2nd edition.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Pierce, Jennifer. Gender Trials: Emotional Lives in Contemporary Law Firms.
Berkeley: University of California Press. [Chapters 3 and 4]
Reskin, Barbara, and Patricia Roos. 1992. Job Queues, Gender Queues.
Philadelphia, Pa: Temple University Press.
Romero, Mary. 1992. Maid in the USA. New York: Routledge.
6
Tomaskovic-Devey, Don, and Sheryl Skaggs. 2002 “Sex Segregation, Labor Process,
Organization, and Gender Earnings Inequality.” American Journal of Sociology
108:102-128.
Wharton, Amy S. 1993. "The Affective Consequences of Service Work: Managing
Emotions on the Job." Work and Occupations 20:205.
Wharton, Amy S. 2009. "The Sociology of Emotional Labor." Annual Review of
Sociology 35.
Williams, Christine. 1992. “The Glass Escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in
the „Female. Professions.” Social Problems. 39(3): 253-267.
Wingfield, Adia Harvey. 2009. “Racializing the Glass Escalator: Reconsidering
Men.s Experiences with Women.s Work.” Gender & Society 23:5-26.
Gender, family and relationships
Bernstein, Mary and Renate Reimann, eds. 2001. Queer Families, Queer Politics:
Challenging Culture and the State. Columbia University Press.
Blair-Loy, Mary. 2003. Competing Devotions: Career and Family among Women
Executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carrington, Christopher. No Place Like Home: Relationships and Family Life among
Lesbians and Gay Men. 1999. University of Chicago Press.
Coltrane, Scott. 1989. “Household Labor and the Routine Production of Gender”.
Social Problems 36:473-490.
Coontz, Stephanie. 1992. The Way We Never Were. Basic Books.
Fox, Greer Litton and Velma McBride Murray. 2000. “Gender and families: Feminist
perspectives on family research,” Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (November):
1160-1172.
Gerson, Kathleen. 1993. No Mans Land: Men’s Changing Commitment to Family and
Work. Basic Books.
Glauber, Rebecca 2008. “Race and gender in families and at work: The fatherhood
wage premium” Gender & Society 22:8-30.
Hill, Shirley. 2005. Black Intimacies: A Gender Perspective on Families and
Relationships. Alta Mira Press.
Hochschild, Arlie. 1989. The Second Shift. New York: Avon Books.
Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette, and Ernestine Avila. 1997. “’I’m Here, but I’m
There: The Meanings of Latina Transnational Motherhood.” Gender and Society Vol.
11, No. 5, 548-571.
Ingraham, Chrys. 1999. White Weddings: Romancing Heterosexuality in Popular
Culture. New York: Routledge.
Keene & Quadagno 2004 Predictors of Perceived Work-Family Balance: Gender
Difference or Gender Similarity? Sociological Perspectives. 47(1): 1-23.
Keene, Jennifer and John R. Reynolds. “Job Costs The Job Costs of Family Demands
Gender Differences in Negative Family-to-Work Spillover.” Journal of Family
Issues, Vol. 26, No. 3, 275-299 (2005)
Risman, Barbara and Danette Johnson-Sumerford. 1998. “Doing it fairly: A study
of postgender marriages.” Journal of Marriage and Family 60:23-40.
Risman, Barbara. 1999. Gender Vertigo, American Families in Transition. Yale
University Press.
Sahl, Daniel and Jennifer Reid Keene. 2010. “Gender Differences in Predictors of
Perceptions of Adult-Teen Sexual Relationships.” Sex Roles 62: 264-277.
South, Scott, and Glenna Spitze. 1994. “Housework in marital and non-marital
households.” American Sociological Review 59 (June): 327-347.
7
Stacy, J. and T. J. Biblarz. 2001. “(How) Does the sexual orientation of parents
matter?” American Sociological Review 66 (April): 159-183.
Weeks, Jeffrey, Brian Heaphy, Catherine Donovan. 2001. Same Sex Intimacies.
Routledge.
Gender and politics
Brush, Lisa 2003. Gender and governance. Alta Mira.
Connell, R.W. 1990. “ The State, Gender and Sexual Politics,” Theory and
Society. 19:507-44
Gal, Susan, and Gail Kligman. 2000. The Politics of Gender After Socialism.
Princeton, ch. 2.
Goetz, Anne Marie and Shireen Hassim. 2003. “Women in Power in Uganda and South
Africa,” ch. 1 in Anne Marie Goetz and Shireen Hassim, eds., No Shortcuts to
Power: African Women in Politics and Policymaking, Eds. Anne Marie Goetz and
Shireen Hassim, Zed Books.
Haney, Lynn. 1996. “Homeboys, babies, men in suits: The state aand the
reproduction of male dominance,” American Sociological Review61:759-78,
McCammon, Holly J., Karen E. Campbell, Ellen M. Granberg and Christine Mowery.
2001. “How Movements Win: Gendered Opportunity Structures and U.S. Women’s
Suffrage Movements, 1866 to 1919.” American Sociological Review 66:49-70.
Misra, Joya and Leslie King, “Women, Gender and State Policies” pp. 526-545 in
Janoski, Thomas, The Handbook of Political Sociology: States, Civil Societies,
and Globalization. Cambridge University Press. 2005
Orloff, Ann. 1993. “Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship.” American
Sociological Review 58:303-28.
Orloff, Ann. 1996. “Gender in the Welfare State.” Annual Review of Sociology
22:51-78.
Paxton, Pamela and Melanie M. Hughes. 2007. Women, Politics and Power: A Global
Perspective. Pine Forge Press. Ch. 1, 4, 5, and 9.
Viterna, Jocelyn and Kathleen M. Fallon. 2008. “Democratization, Women’s
Movements, and Gender-Equitable States: A Framework for Comparison,” American
Sociological Review 74: 668-689.
Ward, Kathryn and Jean Larson Pyle. 1995. “Gender, industrialization,
corporations and development.” Pp 37-63 in Christine E. Bose and Edna
Acosta-Belen (eds.) Women in Latin American Development Process. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Zippel, Kathrin S. 2006. The Politics of Sexual Harassment: A Comparative Study
of the United States, the European Union, and Germany. Cambridge, Chapters 1, 6.
Gender and violence
Anderson, Kristin & Debra Umberson. 2001. “Gendering violence: Masculinity and
power in men’s accounts of domestic violence.” Gender & Society (June).
Anderson, Kristin. 1997. “Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration
of feminist and family violence approaches,” Journal of Marriage and Family
August.
Bart, Pauline, Eileen Geil Moran, eds. 1993. Violence Against Women: The Bloody
Footprint, Sage.
Beneke, Tim. 2009. “Men on Rape” pp 559-572 in Men’s Lives, 8th edition edited
by Michael Kimmel and Michael Messner. Allyn & Bacon.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity
politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law review.
Dobash, Russell P., R. Emerson Dobash, Margo Wilson, and Martin Daly. 1992. The
Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence. Social Problems 39:71-91.
8
Giordano, Peggy C. et al. 2009. “Gender and the Meanings of Adolescent Romantic
Relationships.” Pp 338-367 in Men’s Lives, 8th edition edited by Michael Kimmel
and Michael Messner. Allyn & Bacon.
Renzetti, Clare M. and Raquel Kennedy Bergen, eds. 2005. Violence against Women.
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Roberts, Dorothy Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction and the Meaning
Liberty 1997
Sanday, Peggy Reeves. 1996. “Rape-Prone versus Rape-Free Campus Cultures.”
Violence against Women 2:191-208.

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.