The proof for oppression against women: Still missing

This post garnered a lot of discussion in the comments thread, which I am happy to see, I started this reply to a poster named bob who makes the cases for why women are more oppressed than men are. These are oft-repeated arguments so I felt it was important to dedicate a new post to my reply.

“Women get beat, raped, and exploited more.”

Men are more likely to be the victims of a violent crime, if you’re talking about D.V. then some say it happens to men a lot too. I’m not going to commit to stats since I am not a stats guy but I’m damn sure it happens to men more than those paltry handful of D.V. shelters that accommodate males. Rape does affect women overwhelmingly due to the nature of the crime.

However, for both D.V. and rape the same answer applies. These things are both crimes, therefore how is this oppression against women? We continually push, as a society, for more laws and services for women who have been raped or battered so we realise that this is a problem. Consider a crime where men are more likely to be the victim, like violent crime in general, it is accurate to say that violent crime oppresses men? No it is not, since it is not perpetrated by the state, but by individuals on other individuals and is recognised as being illegal.

The important part is where you claim women are exploited more but you’ve merely changed the words you use. Women are oppressed, women are exploited.

Never a scrap of evidence on how. The nearest you came to it was when you said this:

“Look at Middle Eastern countries.”

We are living in the west, criticising feminists in the west, who complain about the west and try to affect legislation in the west, they claim that all these oppressions happen to women in the west and when I ask how, what do I get in reply? “Look to the east”. What a crock.

“Women get paid less, men don't get to retire as soon.”

You’re missing the importance of the retire issue. This is government policy which treats men differently based upon their sex. Why do we always restrict freedom of speech to the government? Because government is the necessary totalitarian mechanism of control over all citizenry, you cannot escape the government. However, if the bakery doesn’t want you to say certain things then you can always walk out, you can never “walk out” of the government.

I realise this important distinction which is why I distinguished between the types of oppression and state that the state mandated instance of oppression are surely the worst kind and if men win in this area then what is the point of going further? The things I pointed out involve government action or funding. Do the feminists have an example of where the government acts in this way? Lets see..

The wage gap is a common example. Does the government enforce different pay on people based upon sex? Well no, it doesn’t. In fact, there is legislation passed in 1970 (1963 in the U.S. I think) that says that companies cannot pay people differently based upon sex, so if this does happen then it is like in the rape and D.V. examples where individuals in companies are choosing to pay women less. It is against the law. Therefore no government oppression exists.

The wage gap is the most sheepish feminist line out there. You’ll hear it spouted again and again when talking about these issues. It seems strange to me that so many people view the world as being so systemically sexist through-and-through as to make such a gap so pervasive throughout society. Ever since I first heard about the gap I though it was B.S. since I am not inclined to believe such conspiracy theories.

Feminism has won the culture war, its effects and ideas are pervasive in society to the extent where people can get ostracised for misplaced comments and heretical thoughts. Yet despite this people are still such sexists?! Any man will know a number of women in his life, his mother, sister, aunt, grandmother. Do so many men want what is bad for women?

I don’t want to portray that I am simple minded to how convoluted humans can be, I know that nothing is simple, taller people earn more than others because people subtly prefer taller people. Will the position of an attractive person when compared to a similarly-abled unattractive person be better? I would put my money on “yes”. However, I honestly do not find the feminist line on the wage gap to be persuasive.

The economists I know do not support the mass sexism explanation for the wage gap, these are people who actually look underneath the underneath in matters of markets and wages. I have not seen thoughts which support the feminist line in what I have read in the works of Milton Friedman, Walter Block, Thomas Sowell, etc. I see again and again that the wage gap used as proof of victimisation is made by feminists and feminists-economists (effectively like a “creation scientist”) and other groups of the activist victimist mentality such as racial groups.

In fact, I would play the victim if I wanted to. Check this out.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_503DRRB.pdf

Those Asian women sure did a great job of breaking through that glass ceiling didn’t they? Having studied computer science, I can tell you that for all their flaws, the Asian students had a fierce work ethic. It would be an unfair world that dictated that the rest of us who had not worked as hard had to be raised on a pedestal to their level to close this “gap”.

As Thomas Sowell so aptly puts it, Asians always kill the yarns that the victimists try to sow.

We've frequently heard, and will hear much more I am sure if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, that women make 76 cents for every dollar a man makes. Can you give us a basic rundown of why that discrepancy exists?

There are lots of reasons. Men and women do not work the same number of hours. They do not work in the same occupations. They do not work continuously the same, and so on.

You know, if it was really true that you could hire a woman for three quarters of what you could hire a man with exactly the same qualifications, then employers would be crazy not to hire all women. It would be insane to hire men. Not only would it be insane, it would probably put them out of the business because the ones that were smart enough to hire women would have such a cost advantage that it would be really hard for the others to compete.

There are lots of gross differences between men and women and other groups and some of them shocked me when I first started doing the research. For example, I found that young male doctors make considerably more than young female doctors. But, when I dug into it a little deeper, I discovered that young male doctors work an average of 500 hours a year more than young female doctors. Obviously, a doctor that works 500 extra hours is going to make more money than the other doctor.

One profound thing you said in the book, when talking about disparities between the wages earned by white workers and minority workers in this country was that there are differences between groups all over the world, so why should we expect different groups to make the same amount of money in the first place? Can you tell us a little bit more about those differences...

I think most people have heard that there are these differences, but I think that what most of them have not heard is that there are the same differences between Asian-Americans and whites as there are between whites and blacks. Asian-American families have higher incomes than white families; during downturns in the economy, whites get laid off moreso than Asian-Americans. Among people who apply for mortgage loans, whites get turned down more often than Asian-Americans. Whites have to resort to sub-prime loans more often than Asian-Americans.

But, most of the people who talk about these things leave out Asian-Americans because it really kills their whole story. Their whole story is that non-whites do poorly because of white racism. Well then, if you find that there is the same disparity between Asian-Americans and whites as there is between whites and other non-whites, that whole argument falls down.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/02/an_interview_with_thomas_sowel.php

It’s 4am and this is getting long. So I will end it there. I am truly interested in hearing rebuttals to my points here since I am interested in finding the truth on these matters. I have not heard the feminist come back with reasonable counter arguments to points like these. They usually make the claims and then these claims work their way into the zeitgeist. But as for not, that elusive proof for oppression against women is still missing.

Posted on: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:29 AM
Share this post: email it, bookmark It, digg It, kick It

Comments

  1. Posted by: bob on 8/30/2009 7:25 AM
    Gravatar
    “Women get beat, raped, and exploited more.”

    I was commenting on the question JD asked, "But what are they going through in the western world?"

    "Women are exploited more." "Never a scrap of evidence on how."

    It's usually sexual.

    "they claim that all these oppressions happen to women in the west"

    And I don't, which is why I wasn't just talking about the west, there are people fighting for women's rights all over the world.

    "Do so many men want what is bad for women?"

    The men who are hypocrites. For example, a man can be "dating" a lot of women and think it's okay, but if the man in the life of his mother, sister, aunt, daughter, or grandmother was "dating" other women he would be upset. Another example would be, a president not wanting their children to fight in war, but would easily send other people's children. It's like the saying,"better them than us", people tend to think different about things that don't effect them personaly.

    "The wage gap"

    I don't like it when people who are doing the same amount of hours, at the same job get paid less than others. If that's not going on then there's no problem.

    "Women getting favored in courts"

    If your supposed to get a certain amount of jail time for a certain crime, and the woman gets less or the man gets more, isn't that because of that certain judge or jury.

    A lot of problems for men and women are because of gender roles. People believe the mother should nurture and be responsibile for the children, so she gets them. People believe that the father should provide financialy, so he pays child support. Doesn't the person making more money have to pay child support, I've seen women who were making more money not get custody.



  2. Posted by: Mith on 8/30/2009 9:53 AM
    Gravatar
    0I was commenting on the question JD asked, "But what are they going through in the western world?-

    "Women are exploited more." "Never a scrap of evidence on how."

    It's usually sexual.

    "they claim that all these oppressions happen to women in the west"
    -And I don't, which is why I wasn't just talking about the west, there are people fighting for women's rights all over the world.

    Please be more specific.

    -The men who are hypocrites. For example, a man can be "dating" a lot of women and think it's okay, but if the man in the life of his mother, sister, aunt, daughter, or grandmother was "dating" other women he would be upset. Another example would be, a president not wanting their children to fight in war, but would easily send other people's children. It's like the saying,"better them than us", people tend to think different about things that don't effect them personaly.-

    Um...what? That has nothing to do with the law. That's how people judge each other. There is no current law that claims women can't go around sleeping with as many men in as little time as possible. Nor is there any against men.

    Your logic is also on a basic level, flawed. Most women don't view other women who go around dating and sleeping with a ton of men well either. Just as they don't see men going around dating a lot of girls a big deal either, so long as we remain within reason. Why? Because men and women hold different roles in the method of reproduction. Men naturally want to sow their seeds among many females, while females want their male partners to provide for the young and take care of them. Therefore, it's expected for a woman to be less carefree because she's supposed to pick on male that she can rely on.

    This isn't either side being sexist anymore than running from a tiger is speciest. These are methods of survival and are thus under the domain of instinct and it requires a great deal of work to undo thousands of years of evolution.

    Sure, a man may not LIKE it that his sister is dating a new guy every week, but he has no right to legally force her to stop.\


    -If your supposed to get a certain amount of jail time for a certain crime, and the woman gets less or the man gets more, isn't that because of that certain judge or jury.

    A lot of problems for men and women are because of gender roles. People believe the mother should nurture and be responsibile for the children, so she gets them. People believe that the father should provide financialy, so he pays child support. Doesn't the person making more money have to pay child support, I've seen women who were making more money not get custody.-

    You see, there is a difference between what is okay in public and private life, and what is expected of the government. I can hate blacks, jews, women, and dogs. The government can't touch me for hating them or even being rude to them, so long as I remain within legal boundries, me being an asshole to certain groups of people is rather not the government's business.

    However, when the government starts favoring dogs in court just when no evidence is provided, it doesn't matter if I like dogs or not. It has no bearing as to whether or not I committed the crime, apart from motive, which is not enough to convict me. You have to prove that I assaulted that dog.

    And this is probably the problem that feminists face. They can alter the laws to give women as many 1UP's as they like, but they can't force individuals to change their opinions or beliefs. You could make the prostitution business legal, sing it to the top of your lungs until your blue, but unless people actually want prostitutes, then there aren't going to be many. Why? No market.

    Feminists face the problem that while women can go to work and make themselves into corporate leaders, most women don't want to. Clearly feminsits, in their belief that equality means that 12 must = 12 on both sides at the end of the day, cannot understand as to why men earn more, have better positions, and why most women stay at home and raise the children. They believe that something must be holding them back, someone must be lying somewhere, someone must be cheating...because they have already determined what success is. Success is not female success, it is male success. They don't care about women being happy, they care about women winning.

    It's like two fanboys, each claiming that their pet hero is the greatest. They both become so caught up in their argument over which is best, that they don't watch the shows because they like them--they watch them to see which one is stronger, smarter, faster, and so forth. The thing they loved stopped recieving attention when they put their own pride ahead of what they love, thus losing sight of what is truly important. Feminists are the same way. They've lost sight of the injustice that they originally fought against and they demand that x becomes y simply because they want to be better. They HAVE TO WIN.

    So no, feminists don't care about women or men. They care about winning and that means that men have to lose. It doesn't matter why or how, just that they do. Do you honestly think feminists would complain about a wage gap if women were being paid more? No, of course not. In fact, we both know they'd use it as bragging rights to show that women are better than men, ie; "See? We're better than you, that's why you held us back for so long!"

    Unfortunately, reality doesn't work that way. As far as society is concerned, men get shafted by feminists in some areas, while women get shafted in other areas for other reasons (or similar in some cases). Feminisim has altered society to some extent, but not enough to override the major population's idea on how society should be run. For the most part, they're just shifting the blame onto men.

    How you think blame shifting is fighting for equality is beyond me.
  3. Posted by: bob on 8/30/2009 11:29 AM
    Gravatar
    "Um...what? That has nothing to do with the law. That's how people judge each other. There is no current law that claims women can't go around sleeping with as many men in as little time as possible. Nor is there any against men."

    I was just giving examples of hipocrisy.

    "These are methods of survival and are thus under the domain of instinct and it requires a great deal of work to undo thousands of years of evolution."

    I understand that animals do a lot of things naturally, I just thought humans were a little bit more civilized and moralistic.

    "How you think blame shifting is fighting for equality is beyond me."

    I didn't say that.

    When I asked how are men so much more oppressed if they are the majority of people in power, it was to point out that a lot of our problems are because of other men, not so much Feminist. Like you said, they can't force individuals to change their opinions or beliefs.
  4. Posted by: Martin on 8/30/2009 11:19 PM
    Gravatar
    Two words: Great post!
  5. Posted by: Mith on 8/31/2009 1:02 AM
    Gravatar
    -I was just giving examples of hipocrisy.-

    It's not hypocritical. It's a natural instinct. It's about as hypocritical as forcing the dog to walk but letting the bird fly. They are not the same, ergo they are treated differently. Women want x in life. Men want Y. Thus, we treat and judge people based on a mixture of instincts and social morals.

    It only becomes hypocritical when you allow men to skirt on what's expected of them, but not women. For example, a man who thinks women should stay at home with the kids because it's proper is not being a hypocrite if he works. He simply believes in gender roles. However, in that same vein, if he believes in gender roles, he must also believe that HE has to go to work because that's his job.

    Claiming that gender roles are hypocritical is just showing that someone doesn't understand how it works. Take a server and the bus boy. Would it be hypocritical for the server to expect the bus boy to clean the table while they don't? Of course not. However, it would be if they expected the bus boy to do their job, but they don't do their job.

    -I understand that animals do a lot of things naturally, I just thought humans were a little bit more civilized and moralistic.-

    We are. Have you seen animals? They have no method of controls or balances in their social groups (mostly). They can kill, rob, or rape anyone they choose so long as they're strong enough to get away with it. No one is going to go after them.

    We're different and we've been doing so for thosands of years and each time we get a bit better, though we regress often. However, instincts are just there. It's like calling a man shallow because he'd rather date a girl he finds attractive rather than one he doesn't because of PC.

    -I didn't say that.-

    Except Feminists do that and you seem to be under the impression that they do a great deal of good--and that may be true. But they do it only with the intention of helping women and making themselves look good.

    -When I asked how are men so much more oppressed if they are the majority of people in power, it was to point out that a lot of our problems are because of other men, not so much Feminist. Like you said, they can't force individuals to change their opinions or beliefs.-

    Because those men in power let the screaming nutjobs that are the feminists guilt them into making sexist laws in favor of women, therefore oppressing the millions of men who don't have the power to do whatever the hell they want.

    Any questions?
  6. Posted by: bob on 8/31/2009 1:50 AM
    Gravatar
    "It's not hypocritical."

    When someone does something and thinks it's okay, but then criticizes someone else for doing the same thing, it's hypocritical. I was talking about certain actions not gender roles.

    "Because those men in power let the screaming nutjobs that are the feminists guilt them into making sexist laws in favor of women, therefore oppressing the millions of men who don't have the power to do whatever the hell they want."

    If you're the one holding the power, and you let someone screaming make you oppress a certain group of people, your still at fault, you have some self control. Just to clarify, I'm not talking about you Mith.


  7. Posted by: Mith on 8/31/2009 3:51 AM
    Gravatar
    -When someone does something and thinks it's okay, but then criticizes someone else for doing the same thing, it's hypocritical. I was talking about certain actions not gender roles.-

    No it isn't, because that person is not going back on what they expect of others and themselves. They expect women to abide by gender roles and they also expect men. It would be hypocritical if he expected a woman to live up to their role, but thought it was alright for men not to.

    That is not the case.

    -If you're the one holding the power, and you let someone screaming make you oppress a certain group of people, your still at fault, you have some self control. Just to clarify, I'm not talking about you Mith.-

    Yeah, let's ignore that someone is harrassing you and presenting you with false evidence to base your choices on, right? True, they are to an extent responsible, but they're victims all the same. They're being manipulated and going after them isn't going to do much. Sure, they can be kicked out of office, but it really comes down to punishing the sheep for being gulliable to the wolf's lies.

    I generally think it a better idea to put down the wolf.
  8. Posted by: Porky on 8/31/2009 4:01 AM
    Gravatar
    Women live longer.

    Women commit suicide four times less often.

    Women graduate college more often.

    Women get lighter sentences for the same crimes.

    Women are less likely to be drug addicts and alcoholics.

    Women are far less likely to be beaten or murdered - they get most of the DV and rapes, we get most of all the other types of violence (yet its women who are told to be careful late at night!).

    Women have the option to either have a career or spend their lives at home looking after the kids, men do not, not unless they want to be treated as a joke.

    The wage gap is only about 25% discrimination, the majority is due to longer hours, harder work, more dangerous work by males. Men earn that difference yet get vilified for it.

    In real life, female idiots are as common as male idiots, yet in the media male idiocy is about ten times more common.

    Over 20% of US soldiers in Iraq are women yet they make up less than 5% of the casualties because they are kept out of harms way.

    American men have to sign up for the draft, American women do not.

    Adultery is illegal for Indian husbands but not for Indian wives.


    Women lost 20% of the jobs lost in the U.S yet Obama's job creation package is sending 42% of jobs to women.

    Men pay more taxes, women get more of what those taxes buy - health care, welfare etc.

    Women get special government offices to help with what few problems they have (Office for the Status of Women in Aus, White House Council on Women and Girls in the US) but men don't get the same type of agencies to help with the many problems we have.

    If this is all adds up to oppression then please, for Gods sake, someone start oppressing me already!
  9. Posted by: bob on 8/31/2009 12:35 PM
    Gravatar
    I have listed problems that women have to go through before, but if your saying that because there are laws against those things that women go through that they are not oppressed, then men aren't oppressed either. If it's against the law to send someone to prison for something they didn't do or that there is no proof of them doing, favor someone in a legal situation or not give them what is rightfully thiers, because of gender, someone is breaking the law. The thing is that those people breaking the law are in power. Those people are mostly men, who are not victims because they're not going to put themselves in prison for doing someone wrong. (Unless a woman is still a victim when she lets a man smooth talk her into sleeping with him, and the man should be put down for manipulating her.)

    "Women get lighter sentences for the same crimes."

    Even when there is proof of someone doing a crime, that's not all the judge or jury wants to know. They also want to know why they did it, and are they sorry about what they did. If the reason that person did the crime is more selfish or stupid, because they're naturally more aggressive, or they have little remorse, they probably won't get as much sympathy as someone crying and begging for mercy.

    "Women have the option to either have a career or spend their lives at home looking after the kids, men do not, not unless they want to be treated as a joke."

    If you let your ego get in the way of you doing something that you want, that's your fault. Just because it's mostly women who do something, doesn't mean it's degrading for a man to do it.

  10. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 8/31/2009 6:01 PM
    Gravatar
    - "but if your saying that because there are laws against those things that women go through that they are not oppressed, then men aren't oppressed either"

    You seem to forget that Argus' post and the original argument was about the feminist claim that women in the west are still oppressed. You're not defending that position one bit with a response like this.

    - "...The thing is that those people breaking the law are in power. Those people are mostly men, who are not victims because they're not going to put themselves in prison for doing someone wrong."

    How ridiculous to claim that male criminals are 'in power'. They aren't making the laws or judging themselves lighter sentences. In fact male judges will give a male criminal a longer and harsher sentence than he would a female criminal doing the same crime.

    - "Even when there is proof of someone doing a crime, that's not all the judge or jury wants to know. They also want to know why they did it, and are they sorry about what they did. If the reason that person did the crime is more selfish or stupid, because they're naturally more aggressive, or they have little remorse, they probably won't get as much sympathy as someone crying and begging for mercy"

    This basically sums up your position on the entire issue, you're indulging in special pleading without realising the error in your reasoning.

    People like you read an article about a female teacher raping a 14 year old boy and think "that poor women, she needs help" And then you get the exact same article but with reversed genders and you're glad they guy gets 30 years for raping a minor.

    for you, when women have problems, you want things to be done about it. But when men have problems, they're already in power.
  11. Posted by: bob on 8/31/2009 10:29 PM
    Gravatar
    Oekedulleke,

    Did you even read my other comments? The things you wrote were not true.
  12. Posted by: Porky on 9/1/2009 3:37 AM
    Gravatar
    "Even when there is proof of someone doing a crime, that's not all the judge or jury wants to know. etc "

    The studies show that even when all the factors are taken into account men still get heavier sentences.


    "If you let your ego get in the way of you doing something that you want, that's your fault."
    Rubbish. Personally i wouldn't do it even if i could, and theres a difference between ego and not wanting to lose most of your male friends. Incidentally Bob, if you are so psychologically independent why not use your full name? Afraid the other guys will point to you and say "There goes Mangina Bob!" I guess thats your fault huh?

    "Just because it's mostly women who do something, doesn't mean it's degrading for a man to do it."
    I said nothing to suggest it was degrading.

    Since you don't address anything else on my list i will take that as a tacit agreement that men have it worse. This argument is over- men have it worse than women, men are more oppressed than women, at least in the west. Sometimes its feminism, sometimes its capitalism, sometimes its political correctness, but the truth is clear to those willing to look at it honestly.
  13. Posted by: bob on 9/1/2009 4:28 AM
    Gravatar
    "The studies show that even when all the factors are taken into account men still get heavier sentences."

    Read the rest.

    "Rubbish. Personally i wouldn't do it even if i could, and theres a difference between ego and not wanting to lose most of your male friends. Incidentally Bob, if you are so psychologically independent why not use your full name? Afraid the other guys will point to you and say "There goes Mangina Bob!" I guess thats your fault huh?"

    You use the name Porky. If men don't want to do that any way, for whatever reason, what's the problem?

    "Since you don't address anything else on my list i will take that as a tacit agreement that men have it worse. This argument is over- men have it worse than women, men are more oppressed than women, at least in the west. Sometimes its feminism, sometimes its capitalism, sometimes its political correctness, but the truth is clear to those willing to look at it honestly."

    I wrote more than what you commented on, can I say that too? The reason I didn't comment was because the rest didn't have anything to do with oppression, or I commented on it already.




  14. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 9/1/2009 7:35 AM
    Gravatar
    I did read your other comments, and every claim you made where women in the west have it ooh so bad: rape, violence and exploitation have been countered several times, by several people here. And you have yet to refute one of their arguments. So the title of the piece still stands very firmly: their is still no proof that women are, in any way, oppressed here. (or, imo, have it any worse than men here)

    As for the things I wrote not being true, I quoted you, and then called you on the pure BS that post was by voicing my opinion.

    What part of it was untrue, did I misquote or misunderstand what you wrote somewhere ? As you do in every post, you just throw some words around and see what sticks, without ever going into any actual discussion.
  15. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 9/1/2009 7:45 AM
    Gravatar
    damn, wish I could edit my posts. Your last response to porky is another great example of what your do:

    -"Read the rest"

    Read the rest ? what part of WHEN ALL FACTORS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT don't you understand ?

    It doesn't matter what reason or how sorry a person is for committing a crime. Statistically, if he is male, he will get a harsher sentence than if he where a female.
  16. Posted by: bob on 9/1/2009 10:56 AM
    Gravatar
    "I did read your other comments, and every claim you made where women in the west have it ooh so bad: rape, violence and exploitation have been countered several times, by several people here."

    Are you saying those things don't count as oppression?

    "What part of it was untrue, did I misquote or misunderstand what you wrote somewhere ? As you do in every post, you just throw some words around and see what sticks, without ever going into any actual discussion."

    "You seem to forget that Argus' post and the original argument was about the feminist claim that women in the west are still oppressed. You're not defending that position one bit with a response like this."

    I was commenting about ArgusEyes saying,"These things are both crimes, therefore how is this oppression against women?"

    "How ridiculous to claim that male criminals are 'in power'. They aren't making the laws or judging themselves lighter sentences. In fact male judges will give a male criminal a longer and harsher sentence than he would a female criminal doing the same crime."

    There are men in power who do illegal things. Just to clarify, you don't have to discriminate against a different gender, than what you are, to be sexist.

    "People like you read an article about a female teacher raping a 14 year old boy and think "that poor women, she needs help" And then you get the exact same article but with reversed genders and you're glad they guy gets 30 years for raping a minor.

    People like me, you don't even know me. I don't think that. If I hear a man raped a minor, and a woman raped a minor, I have to look at it the same with no more information than that. If the woman did the crime for a more selfish or stupid reason, with little remorse, and the man was crying and begging for mercy, I would expect the woman to get more time. If she does or not is up to that certain judge or jury.

    "for you, when women have problems, you want things to be done about it. But when men have problems, they're already in power."

    Again, that's not what I think or what my comments meant.

    "Read the rest ? what part of WHEN ALL FACTORS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT don't you understand ?"

    That means, if you read the rest of my comment you will understand my point.

    "It doesn't matter what reason or how sorry a person is for committing a crime. Statistically, if he is male, he will get a harsher sentence than if he where a female."

    It does matter, because the reason or how sorry you are can have an effect on how bad your punishment is. A woman can get more time than another woman, a man can get more time than another man, because of the reason or how sorry they are for for doing the crime. The judge or jury takes that into consideration.



  17. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 9/1/2009 11:29 AM
    Gravatar
    I'm not going to make a point by point response because then it will become too big and a mess.

    first: indeed, I don't think that rape, violence and exploitation are in anyway evidence of oppression. There are laws and plenty of helpful programs and shelters that deal with these problems (for women). Women in the west are not held down by any kind of system, in fact they get a lot more support for their problems than men do. Have you ever heard of a "battered men shelter" ? I haven't, but there's plenty for the little ladies even though men are just as often victims of domestic violence.

    second, on the women getting away with lighter sentences:

    Well, what is your point, why don't you spell it out for me.

    Public records of justice departments in many western countries show that when all factors are taken into account (that also means the reasons for doing the crime, and the regret the culprit may feel, gender and composition of judges and juries, etc) men STILL get harsher sentences than women for exactly the same crime.

    If you have a better explanation than gender discrimination and bias against men to explain these findings, I'm all ears. But if you're going to say that women are 'more sorry' or that they get lighter sentences because they are begging for mercy and crying and whatnot, you're only confirming that its a pure gender based bias, and you're willfully participating in it.

    equality my ass.
  18. Posted by: bob on 9/1/2009 1:39 PM
    Gravatar
    "first: indeed, I don't think that rape, violence and exploitation are in anyway evidence of oppression. There are laws and plenty of helpful programs and shelters that deal with these problems (for women). Women in the west are not held down by any kind of system, in fact they get a lot more support for their problems than men do. Have you ever heard of a "battered men shelter" ? I haven't, but there's plenty for the little ladies even though men are just as often victims of domestic violence."

    There are laws that say you can't do certain things to people because of their gender, race, etc. Just because those laws were made because of the problems that women and blacks had, doesn't mean they're limited to women and blacks. So if those things are done to men, whites, asians, hispanics, etc., it's still illegal. The people who care so much about men's problems, should do like the people who care about women's problems and start programs and shelters that deal with the problems. Starting a program or shelter isn't illegal. Men are not as often victims of dv, men deal with other violent crimes.

  19. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 9/1/2009 2:36 PM
    Gravatar
    Can you at least have the courtesy of answering my god damn point rather than jumping on an anecdote I used to show that rather than be oppressed by rape and violence, our society actually allocates a great deal of resources to help women in those cases.

    You simply ignored my main point that rape, violence and exploitation are not evidence of oppression and tried to change topic completely, you dishonest hag.

    The laws are their for everyone, and men are no more oppressed regarding rape and violence than women are.

    When it comes to help and shelter however, these are government sponsored programs, and without the same financial backing its much harder to get a program running for men. This, however, merely shows bias in favor of women.
  20. Posted by: bob on 9/1/2009 2:59 PM
    Gravatar
    "When it comes to help and shelter however, these are government sponsored programs, and without the same financial backing its much harder to get a program running for men. This, however, merely shows bias in favor of women."

    Men are also favored in the wage gap.

    I'll answer your point in a moment, but is there really a need for name calling?

  21. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 9/1/2009 3:16 PM
    Gravatar
    yes, because you just keep adding red herrings, and it doesn't make for an honest conversation.

    the wage gap ? That has NOTHING to do with the allocation of resources to shelters or programs to help rape victims.

    Are you now seriously suggesting that men should pay for their own 'help' while women are entitled to government help ?

    the wage gap is a whole different topic, and while I have a lot to say about that one too, I'm now getting quite cross at you for trying to, yet again, derail my main points like this. And this behavior really does make you a dishonest hag.
  22. Posted by: bob on 9/1/2009 3:30 PM
    Gravatar
    "Are you now seriously suggesting that men should pay for their own 'help' while women are entitled to government help ?"

    No, I saying that men and women both have problems when it comes to getting the money they need and should have.

  23. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 9/1/2009 4:15 PM
    Gravatar
    - "Men are also favored in the wage gap."

    - "No, I saying that men and women both have problems when it comes to getting the money they need and should have."

    really ?

    You just tried to use the wage gap as an excuse for the goverments heavy bias in favor of women when it comes to aid programs.
    And now you're trying to claim that what you really meant was that both genders have trouble comming up with the money they need ?

    give me a break.

    I seriously hope you realise that you're just pulling stuff out of you ass now and that you're showing the very bias and dishonesty I've been talking about in several posts.
  24. Posted by: bob on 9/1/2009 4:29 PM
    Gravatar
    Do you realize that your argument isn't that the men didn't deserve the punishment they got, it's almost as if your jealous that the women usually get less punishment for certain reasons. It's almost like when a president pardons someone in power for doing something illegal. In certain situations, if two different people wrong me by doing something illegal, I can decide to not press charges on the first person, and press charges on the second. The second person was not done wrong by being punished for a crime they did. How is someone oppressed by getting what they deserved. Just to clarify, I'm not talking about everything that was ever done to a man.

    Think about how US soldiers are mostly men, I'm not saying this is all they do, but they are sent to another country to murder, and get away with it. Not all the people over there are the enemy. Some of them are just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but you know what they say, "better them than us".

    Someone could argue that they're favoring men, because men have certain physical advantages they think men will make better soldiers, and they're trying to keep most of the military skill, power, and knowledge in the hands of men.

    Targeting men for jobs involving the military, manual labor, or employment in general, keeps men in an economically superior position.
  25. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 9/1/2009 4:51 PM
    Gravatar
    ugh, what does ANY of that have to do with whether or not women are being oppressed and whether or not instances of rape, violence and exploitation are signs of oppression ?

    I think my opinion on the disproportionate punishments between men and women was more than clear enough. facts show that women, on average get lighter sentences for doing the same crime, and I think its because the courts are biased in favor of women and against men.

    dont talk to me about my feelings, this is an observation and a logical conclusion to explain the phenomenon.

    As for the entire, ridiculous, red herring about the military, the only thing I'll say about it is: if you really think you're going to make the job of defending a country and killing other human beings more 'women friendly' and that anything but the strongest members of soiety should be found fit to uphold that duty, you're an idiot.
  26. Posted by: bob on 9/1/2009 10:40 PM
    Gravatar
    "ugh, what does ANY of that have to do with whether or not women are being oppressed and whether or not instances of rape, violence and exploitation are signs of oppression ?"

    If nobody is the west is oppressed because of gender, then we would have to look at other parts of the world, where nobody is arguing that women are more oppressed. So my opinion, statement, or whatever, would still stand. You asked me to comment on your point about women getting less time in prison.

    "I think my opinion on the disproportionate punishments between men and women was more than clear enough. facts show that women, on average get lighter sentences for doing the same crime, and I think its because the courts are biased in favor of women and against men."

    How are they being oppresed by that if they deserved it.

    "dont talk to me about my feelings, this is an observation and a logical conclusion to explain the phenomenon."

    I didn't, I said "it's almost as if", which means "it seems like".

    "As for the entire, ridiculous, red herring about the military, the only thing I'll say about it is: if you really think you're going to make the job of defending a country and killing other human beings more 'women friendly' and that anything but the strongest members of soiety should be found fit to uphold that duty, you're an idiot."

    How did I defend that by saying why most of the people in the military are men. I was showing you how all those men, targeted to be in the military, are able to get away with crime.


  27. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 9/2/2009 7:30 AM
    Gravatar
    -"If nobody is the west is oppressed because of gender, then we would have to look at other parts of the world, where nobody is arguing that women are more oppressed."

    Although you're not saying it, I'm going to assume you concede my (and Argus's) main point and the one made in his post, that women in the west are not oppressed, if that's the case we can move on (this point btw, is what I wanted, and still would like you to give a straight answer to)

    Nobody is denying that in other parts of the world women have a raw deal, and that its a problem. The question is what we can do about it, as members from one sovereign country to another.

    -"How are they being oppressed by that if they deserved it."

    nowhere did I claim that its oppression, simply that it shows a bias. I do accept the way our justice system works.

    -"How did I defend that by saying why most of the people in the military are men. I was showing you how all those men, targeted to be in the military, are able to get away with crime."

    You claimed and lamented that, because the military is targeted towards men, because of their physical strength, its trying to keep all that "power" in the hands of men.

    There is no system that keeps women from doing anything in the military. But if they don't cut it in the physical tests, that though luck. We can't afford to lower those standards to get more women in there, because the work being done there is too important.

    next point, soldiers who kill innocent civilians have not committed a crime in the eyes of the law. I know they did in your eyes, and that you don't like it, but there is such a thing as acceptable loses. Also consider that they only fight wars because they are send by their superiors and the political system. So do you really feel you have the moral authority to claim that they are "getting away with crime ?"
  28. Posted by: bob on 9/2/2009 12:18 PM
    Gravatar
    The reason I ask people to read my other comments, is so they see that my point was about women being more oppressed than men. People were saying that the things I listed about women's problems, didn't count as oppression, for certain reasons. I was using those certain reasons to show how the things they say make men more oppressed, couldn't count either. In my other comments I kept bringing up the Middle East, so if it's true that for those certain reasons the examples of oppression don't count, my point would still stand. The thing is that, I don't know if it really doesn't count.

    "So do you really feel you have the moral authority to claim that they are "getting away with crime ?"

    Murder is a crime. They say," better them than us", meaning, as long as it's not someone in the US it's okay. I just don't think it is. I don't know if I have ever been done wrong by someone over there, I know for a fact that I've been done wrong by people in the US.

  29. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 9/2/2009 1:44 PM
    Gravatar
    well, finally a reply where you take a clear position on the issues.

    You admit that the only way you can conclusively claim oppression against women is by pointing to countries and cultures largely outside of our sphere of influence. And that, when it comes to the west, even with all the arguments made here you "don't really know if it really doesn't count". So you're basically doing a cop-out on that one.

    -"murder is crime ..."

    Yes, your naivete and simplicity of mind is very apparent here.
    I suggest you have a look at Argus' video on youtube about "war and peace" to see why I disagree and don't accept such a simple world view.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzt0gCRUZzY
  30. Posted by: bob on 9/2/2009 4:17 PM
    Gravatar
    "And that, when it comes to the west, even with all the arguments made here you "don't really know if it really doesn't count". "

    Do you know, does oppression only count if it's legal?

    "Yes, your naivete and simplicity of mind is very apparent here.
    I suggest you have a look at Argus' video on youtube about "war and peace" to see why I disagree and don't accept such a simple world view."

    I said, "Not all the people over there are the enemy. Some of them are just in the wrong place at the wrong time,... " Those are the people who are being murdered. Sure, people in the US could say that it was a mistake, the people over there could say that 9/11 was a mistake, it's murder all the same. They were willing to kill innocent people, to make sure they got the enemy. Those innocent people were murdered.
  31. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 9/2/2009 5:36 PM
    Gravatar
    -"Do you know, does oppression only count if it's legal?"

    To put it bluntly: yes. The word oppression means 'the subordination of a given group or social category by unjust use of force, authority or societal norms'

    With instances of rape and violence, no matter how deplorable, the group 'women' is not targeted, and the act does neither have the intent to subjugate that group, nor any authority or social acceptance to do that. In fact, many systems and forms of authority are in place to combat these acts. And not one instance of rape or DV towards a women is deemed acceptable in our society.

    A real instance of oppression would be much much worse than anything a women in the west experiences, because unlike here, she would not find any support or help. Harming her, and putting her down, would be the intent and it would accepted by her environment. THAT is oppression.

    -"...Sure, people in the US could say that it was a mistake, the people over there could say that 9/11 was a mistake..."

    Please, dont be so naive, if an american soldier blows up a house from his tank because there's a guy with an RPG shooting at him, and he happens to kill the family who lives there. He can really say that he is sorry but that he had no choice.

    The terrorists of 9/11 didn't make a mistake, because they targeted the innocent civilians.

    You only made my point here, the only thing going through your head is killing = murder = bad. And your thoughts are so overly simplistic that you cant see the difference between soldiers fighting a war and terrorists murdering innocent people.
  32. Posted by: bob on 9/2/2009 7:30 PM
    Gravatar
    "Please, dont be so naive, if an american soldier blows up a house from his tank because there's a guy with an RPG shooting at him, and he happens to kill the family who lives there. He can really say that he is sorry but that he had no choice."

    How much more danger could he really be in, if he's in a tank? If that guy blows up a few american soldiers because of their weapons, he could say that same thing, because he's also following his orders.

    I didn't say it was a mistake, I said they could say that it was.

    Were the people in Iraq our terrorist.

    I don't think killing equals murder, I think killing when there is no threat equals murder.
  33. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 9/2/2009 8:06 PM
    Gravatar
    djees, this will be my last one, because after a few decent responses you seem to be going back into baby-reasoning-mode.

    first: If the enemy of the US soldier is carying an RPG, he is still a reasonable threat, even to a tank.

    next: the "enemy with an rpg" does indeed not count as a terrorist. Nowhere did I say that.
    He is only in there to put my theoretical US soldier in a position where he needs to fire at a house, which happens to contain an innocent family, but he can't see them. He only sees the enemy with the rpg. (I'm basically discribing a war situation in which the innocent casualties where unavoidable)

    And I contrasted that situation with YOUR 9/11 terrorists, who YOU say can use the same arguments to excuse their acts: targeting innocent civilians.

    Here is the quote:

    -"Sure, people in the US could say that it was a mistake, the people over there could say that 9/11 was a mistake"

    So please, dont embarrass yourself by trying to deny your own words, because I'm fairly sure that that's what you're contemplating doing right now.

    If anyone reads our little correspondence here, it will be plain to see who was trying to have an objective discussion, and who was using one fallacy after another and getting nowhere.

    I can say its been fun though. Maybe another round, some other time.
  34. Posted by: bob on 9/2/2009 9:00 PM
    Gravatar
    "next: the "enemy with an rpg" does indeed not count as a terrorist. Nowhere did I say that."

    I didn't say you did, I asked a question.

    "(I'm basically discribing a war situation in which the innocent casualties where unavoidable)"

    That's not always the case.

    This is my quote:

    "Sure, people in the US COULD SAY that it was a mistake, the people over there COULD SAY that 9/11 was a mistake"

    This is what I said after:

    "I didn't say it was a mistake, I said they COULD SAY that it was."

    That means, just because someone COULD SAY something, doesn't make it true. They're not always unavoidable. What did I deny?



  35. Posted by: Pankaj on 9/2/2009 11:11 PM
    Gravatar
    "How is someone oppressed by getting what they deserved."

    Bob, in a system based on retributive justice (as exists in most nations around the world), the valuation of the punishment is based on seriousness of the crime perpetrated. If one group of perpetrators get lighter sentences, it means one or more of the following things

    1. Their victims are not valuable (these are usually children and domestic partners for women)
    2. The perpetrators are privileged, by whatever virtue.
    3. There is a bias favoring the perpetrators over every other type.

    The point is not that male convicts should get lighter sentences, but that female convicts must also be given the same sentences. Especially, if you are demanding equality everywhere else! What is so hard in understanding that? Or is it too hard to swallow for you?

    As for your accusations of "jealousy" (hmm.. equal pay demands isn't jealousy?) - well, that is understandable. Afterall, Logical consistency is the enemy of egalitarian arguments.
  36. Posted by: bob on 9/3/2009 3:05 AM
    Gravatar
    Pankaj,

    Like I've said before, read my other comments so you can see what my point is, or you could just read what it says at the top of the post. Either way, I've talked about it already. My point still stands.

    Have a good night!
  37. Posted by: Travis on 9/22/2009 7:34 AM
    Gravatar
    I love this whole pay argument.

    You know why males are paid more than females? The fact of the matter is that they take more dangerous, time consuming and physically taxing jobs/professions (which in turn pay higher) than females. And it's not exactly a new trend... look all the way back to the first bands/tribes of humans for your explanation. Males were the hunters, leaving the home in search of meat, risking life and limb (ever try killing a mammoth with a spear?) whereas females remained home, gathered food and took care of the family. It's not difficult to see why, today, females, as a whole, have a tendency to take jobs closer to home and jobs which give them more conveniences than do males. I'm not saying that one is more important than the other, just throwing in my two cents.

    I just want to see TRUE equality happen... an ideal which few people actually seem interested in attaining.
  38. Posted by: Lee on 9/23/2009 12:38 AM
    Gravatar
    The new anti-feminism guide over at manhood101.com just came out! it gives men tons of helpful tips to eradicate feminism :) Download a free copy.
  39. Posted by: Pankaj on 10/20/2009 9:42 PM
    Gravatar
    "I've talked about it already. My point still stands. "

    Yeah! Right!

    Apparently, reading feminist "arguments" is enough to explode the mythology of feminism.

    You know Bob.. I wish you good luck at whatever it is you are trying to do. Just be sure you know what you are doing. Because the blowback is already beginning.. Women are increasingly targeted for exploitation by the device they used to exploit men - the natural goodwill that men had towards women. Chivalrists started it and feminists expanded it. Now, the beast is coming to bite women back.. hope you find enough men then to "help women".
  40. Posted by: bob on 10/26/2009 10:34 PM
    Gravatar
    "Yeah! Right!

    Apparently, reading feminist "arguments" is enough to explode the mythology of feminism.

    You know Bob.. I wish you good luck at whatever it is you are trying to do. Just be sure you know what you are doing. Because the blowback is already beginning.. Women are increasingly targeted for exploitation by the device they used to exploit men - the natural goodwill that men had towards women. Chivalrists started it and feminists expanded it. Now, the beast is coming to bite women back.. hope you find enough men then to "help women"."

    Pankaj, just so we're clear, could you tell me what my point is?
  41. Posted by: Luke on 12/1/2009 6:14 PM
    Gravatar
    Wow Bob, I've just read like 8 pages of comments and I've gotta say you are fucking ridiculously stupid. Like, Jesus man... seriously?
  42. Posted by: bob on 12/7/2009 2:30 PM
    Gravatar
    "Wow Bob, I've just read like 8 pages of comments and I've gotta say you are fucking ridiculously stupid. Like, Jesus man... seriously?"

    Please, be more specific. Do you even know what my point is?

Post your comment




(this will save your form settings for the next time you comment)

Please add 3 and 8 and type the answer here:

The umbrella in particular is remembered as the symbol of the nineteenth century’s disturbing obsession with individualism. In Bellamy’s utopia, umbrellas have been replaced with retractable canopies so that everyone is protected from the rain equally.
“In the nineteenth century,” explains a character, “when it rained, the people of Boston put up three hundred thousand umbrellas over as many heads, and in the twentieth century they put up one umbrella over all the heads.”