imreallybored0741 liked this merrittocrazy reblogged this from realjusticewesteros
merrittocrazy liked this
theworidentire liked this
viedzma reblogged this from realjusticewesteros
neoma2 liked this
vivec1991 liked this communistbear liked this
watchyourselfimtakingover liked this shin-hero-buster liked this
argumentumadhominem-blog liked this
hentaighad reblogged this from oratorasaurus
hentaighad liked this
monstersintheskies liked this
just-like-falling-asleep liked this lonewolvesandstarryskies liked this
chameleon-circuit5727 liked this
arrow311o liked this
uknowitscanon-blog liked this
ifyoustillloveme liked this tallguystuff liked this
xdtathens liked this
shanksalteretta liked this
oratorasaurus posted this
- Show more notes
i’m shuffling this post around a bit because there’s an important bit at the bottom that’s needed for some interesting context
oratorasaurus:
i observe that it’s never considered here whether women can choose to find men who do more housework. there are a lot of men, but there are also a lot of police officers, so the same logic would surely seem to apply. why is it a woman’s choice whether she falls in love with a man who feels chores should be shared equally, but not a man’s choice whether he approaches a cop who takes domestic violence against men seriously?
anyway the important part here is: problems that arise from personal choice are considered irrelevant. got it? ok.
we have tread this ground before; much of it can be chalked up to men committing worse crimes than women, and black men in particular being hit hard because the system is hecka racist
this link is down so i have no idea what it says, alas
this is just a bibliography of papers i cannot easily read, but the summary of this one near the top is fascinating:
(…the author reports that women are more likely than men to throw something at their partners, as well as slap, kick, bite, punch and hit with an object. Men were more likely than women to strangle, choke, or beat up their partners.)
i’d wondered about this, and it’s nice that you’ve provided a source suggesting it: violence from men is significantly more brutal than violence from women.
this is the same class of error you made with the prison claim: there is a significant difference in magnitude of incidents involving men versus women. women slap, men choke.
but if so many female batterers are slapping and throwing things… frankly, how many men would call the police over that? and how many women would call the police if their partners tried to choke them?
a cursory glance over the previous bibliography suggests that most of the data comes from surveys, which in turn could easily mean that many male victims of domestic violence simply don’t consider it worthy of police involvement
while routine infant circumcision is indeed total bs, you seem to have a severe misunderstanding of just what female circumcision is. it is the removal of the clit, equivalent to the removal of the entire male glans. they are absolutely not equivalent in harm; female circumcision can easily leave women unable to ever orgasm (exactly the intended effect), whereas many American men can tell you the same is not true for them.
ah, and here’s why i put the concluding bit first.
are men not choosing to take far more dangerous jobs? they could be nurses and secretaries.
are men not choosing to take their own lives?
are men not choosing to commit more crimes, and ones that are more severe to boot?
it is not at all clear to me how these three things are the result of active government discrimination, which is how you yourself are defining oppression
moreover: what do you suggest be done about these? there’s no clear instigator to go after, yet you seem content merely to parade them around as evidence of your oppression
this is now a domain park
what you say has nothing to do with the linked story; this is a tale of men falsely accused of rape successfully suing those who falsely prosecuted them under bad faith. at worst this is classic corruption in the justice system, and at best it’s a success story where the justice system is correcting itself.
the law is probably suboptimal here, yes
but this is really a hypothetical tale about what one person could to do another when they trust each other with their lives. you could just as easily weave a tale about a man who lies to his long-time girlfriend about having had a vasectomy and bails as soon as she’s pregnant. or, worse, lies about not having something like HIV.
the irony is that these laws almost certainly exist because the government has long considered it critically important to preserve something that looks roughly like the nuclear family (and as part of that, treats the mother like she can’t take care of herself)
again, how is the government discriminating here? is it giving free houses to homeless women only?
also, careful phrasing here. the majority of people are women, too, but when you’re only dividing everyone into two groups that doesn’t mean anything. we have seen before that just under 60% of homeless are men, which is imbalanced but not outlandishly so.
(“unrelated to medical spending”, but the very first link here says it was for ovarian cancer. many of these are about housing for the homeless, yes.)
looking at the source website, though, it seems the vast majority of housing initiatives are for people of either gender. there are millions and millions of dollars here spent on facilities available to both men and women, and you are severely skewing the ratio by counting only those available to either men or women.
yes, it’s a common practice to give money to groups who are underrepresented. the majority (!) of business owners are already men.
shouldn’t you be applauding this story? a man successfully sued the airline over this—meaning the government supported gender equality. if Air New Zealand is still doing this, link a story that says that, not one that says your problem has already been solved three years ago.
i admit i don’t understand exactly how DoE “directives” work, but this all hinges on interpreting sexual assault as sex discrimination (?!) which sounds completely bogus from the start
he was unexpelled in october 2011
agreed, but this argument would have more teeth if the draft had ever actually been used.
note that women have been excluded from the draft because they have historically been barred from fighting on the front lines. (which kind of sounds like discrimination against women, actually.) this is no longer the case as of last January, so perhaps the draft will change as well shortly.