American feminism is about superiority, not equality

[RasenUchihaChaos]

BS a girl treated me like dirt and instead if hitting. Her I ripped her school work up and yet I was the monster and she the victim

 

[Avani]

if there is not much awareness. I know. There is a inherent bias about men being pedophiles .... For example: Many airlines prevents 'only' men from sitting near unsupervised children. I think thats sexism .... Link:

You must be registered for see links

I agree that the policy itself is sexist, ill defined and a case of poor handling by the flight staff. Although that particular airlines was sued and :
"BA paid £2,161 in costs and £750 in damages which Fischer donated to child protection charities. In June 2010 BA said that the policy was under review and [5] in August 2010, it changed its policy and began seating unaccompanied minors in a nondiscriminatory manner near the cabin crew."

Others should follow the suit. There is no cure for stupidity but monetary loss helps them in finding better solutions.

Saying that- statistics. Ask School going boys and girls in buses or local trains frequently about it. You just may want to rethink your feelings about the case the day you set your minor kids on a plane or train unaccompanied.

I am fully aware of that, but there is a general trend of women reciving lesser sentences for similar crime actually ... Much like Black people receiving more sentences for similar crimes ... I think there is stereotypical bias involved here

You see, general trend is tricky term. It’s not that different than comparing average salary earned by women and men. There is a gap but for much of it is there for a reason. Let me elaborate-

Many minor kids end up living in jails just because their mother, the, primary caregiver is in jail. Not many jails have a separate facility for such kids.

Prison Statistics India Snapshots – 2012, 1,394 existing prisons housed 385,135 inmates in the country. There were a total of 344 women convicts with their 382 children and 1,226 women awaiting trial with their 1,397 children lodged in various prisons in the country

You must be registered for see links

This is one of the reasons for not pushing for maximum sentence for these women. Another is that many of them are seen as associate and not the main culprit or presented in court in that way. Some of these accused would indeed be the minion only. Some may be the main culprit but get away with it because stereotypical thinking kicked in. Not that it always works in their favour. One example of rape cases in many countries where rape victim ended up being punished themselves for adultery because they couldn’t prove the rape due to lack of witnesses/evidence.

General trend also indicates that re entry in the society and re employment for these women is much harder than their male counterparts. Husbands/ rest of the family is going to say bye to them much faster. If they have minor kids finding even a safe housing and food on table is going to be much harder. So while sentencing a judge maybe taking these trends in consideration too.

Point being it’s too difficult to reach to a conclusion without bias. There is nothing black and white about it. Some judges may have tendency to give lighter sentence due to stereotypical thinking but those very studies say when judges are female they are more strict towards female accused and tend to give lighter sentence to men too. ( I ended up on link following links from the initial link you gave and it covered this part) So there you go.

I think we were discussing Pedophile sentencing .... As for adult cases your observation may be right, but there is also the case where I pointed out that people and the Justice system does not seem to consider 'sexual act without consent is rape' for men ... In some cases openly laughed at.

In US and some other countries the legal term is gender neutral. So even if Judges and society may show bias technically the system itself is neutral.

Part of the problem is the definition of the word “rape”. It wasn’t an umbrella term for all but strictly defined to cover only one type of sexual assault-vaginal penetration. If you go by the traditional definition male biology wouldn’t cover it and technically rules out many types of assault in this category regardless of the gender. Other assaults were covered with terms like unnatural ***, sodomy etc.

Many countries have broadened this definition in recent years. Some still have to do it and normal public is yet to get educated and catch on to the subject. ( e.g. in India it was expanded to include more than vaginal penetration only in 2013. )

People who laugh- it's their personal ignorance isn't it? Most people in this category are likely to be the same who also declare that woman was asking for it.

I remember a case where the victim herself offered a very nominal sentence and the charged pled guilty. I know things get wierd. But for Pedophile cases ... I am ver much 'kill it with fire'.

Agreed .. People need to be more responsible.

As I said the Bill seems completely redundant, is like basically retarded slower brother of the Normal Sexual Assult laws.

Politicians. They like to appear to be doing something.

Not quite when you hear things like this:

Innocent student probed and punished because he sort of looked like a rapist:

You must be registered for see links

Whoever handled that case was not trained properly to deal with such cases. Many schools and universities seem to have knee jerk reactions to such cases-- They want to keep their image of a safe place. So either they try to sweep such problems under the rug or go to stupid lengths in attempt to show how committed they are to the safe environment (as in this case ).

Feminists involved in these cases need to rethink what feminism is and be more responsible.

 

[Luther]

BS a girl treated me like dirt and instead if hitting. Her I ripped her school work up and yet I was the monster and she the victim

You should have been arrested for violence and disturbing the peace, she was the victim. Your a man shes a woman simple. I don't believe in hitting women or retaliating against them on trivial issues as this.

 

[slimreaper]

You should have been arrested for violence and disturbing the peace, she was the victim. Your a man shes a woman simple. I don't believe in hitting women or retaliating against them on trivial issues as this.

you are a sexist

 

[Anorien16]

I agree that the policy itself is sexist, ill defined and a case of poor handling by the flight staff. Although that particular airlines was sued and :
"BA paid £2,161 in costs and £750 in damages which Fischer donated to child protection charities. In June 2010 BA said that the policy was under review and [5] in August 2010, it changed its policy and began seating unaccompanied minors in a nondiscriminatory manner near the cabin crew."

Others should follow the suit. There is no cure for stupidity but monetary loss helps them in finding better solutions.

True but as I pointed out ... these are some general biases that I wanted to showcase. A policy change wont stop people thinking that only men are predators and women are flowers.

Saying that- statistics. Ask School going boys and girls in buses or local trains frequently about it. You just may want to rethink your feelings about the case the day you set your minor kids on a plane or train unaccompanied.

Dont be silly Ira ... we were talking about only singling out Males while not caring the pretty next to the little kid might be not what people think.

You see, general trend is tricky term. It’s not that different than comparing average salary earned by women and men. There is a gap but for much of it is there for a reason. Let me elaborate-

I am aware of the situations, but many of those reasons for being light on women are sexist like that Airline Policy.

Many minor kids end up living in jails just because their mother, the, primary caregiver is in jail. Not many jails have a separate facility for such kids.

Many families are similarly broken when a the sole male breadwinner is sentenced. I dont think they are allowed much liniency on that grounds normally.

This is one of the reasons for not pushing for maximum sentence for these women. Another is that many of them are seen as associate and not the main culprit or presented in court in that way. Some of these accused would indeed be the minion only.

The reverse is also possible (Women are better emotional manipulators) ... As Indian I wont have to introduce you to the typical evil Mother in Law torturing for Dowry.

Some may be the main culprit but get away with it because stereotypical thinking kicked in. Not that it always works in their favour.

Thus is the flaws of lack of Ominipotence ... we cant never be sure.

One example of rape cases in many countries where rape victim ended up being punished themselves for adultery because they couldn’t prove the rape due to lack of witnesses/evidence.

I dont think 'those countries' also beat up and murder men who by general local rules court women whom under Western Standards
would be nromal. Those places are not the examples of proper Rule of Law.

trend also indicates that re entry in the society and re employment for these women is much harder than their male counterparts.

Possibly because the probable employment fields are hard labor jobs .... Women tend to diverge away from that.
But just a curious question, how is a lesser sentence relevant in this case? I dont think potential employers care much about the length of sentences, just the status of conviction.

Husbands/ rest of the family is going to say bye to them much faster. If they have minor kids finding even a safe housing and food on table is going to be much harder. So while sentencing a judge maybe taking these trends in consideration too.

I think this is the bias I was talking about .... Unless you think sole male breadwinners for improvised families who for some reason or other become criminals dont have families, obligations and face similar circumstances. Yet you are using that to excuse only women ....

Point being it’s too difficult to reach to a conclusion without bias. There is nothing black and white about it. Some judges may have tendency to give lighter sentence due to stereotypical thinking but those very studies say when judges are female they are more strict towards female accused and tend to give lighter sentence to men too. ( I ended up on link following links from the initial link you gave and it covered this part) So there you go.

Yes there is the problem, Women judges trying to look impartial often commit partiality (the irony). But the overall trend might not so favorable to men as it is to men .... But still, wouldnt you agree biases in policies and perception are harmful?

In US and some other countries the legal term is gender neutral. So even if Judges and society may show bias technically the system itself is neutral.

So is it wrong to point out that the system might be okey but the people who are involved are less than perfect?

Part of the problem is the definition of the word “rape”. It wasn’t an umbrella term for all but strictly defined to cover only one type of sexual assault-vaginal penetration. If you go by the traditional definition male biology wouldn’t cover it and technically rules out many types of assault in this category regardless of the gender. Other assaults were covered with terms like unnatural ***, sodomy etc.

You just explained my point actually. The Laws in practice has progressed in certain places and remained Victorian in certain others such that there really is not the so called equality that people preach.

Many countries have broadened this definition in recent years. Some still have to do it and normal public is yet to get educated and catch on to the subject. ( e.g. in India it was expanded to include more than vaginal penetration only in 2013. )

I really dont see much people actually caring about the issue. I think that causes some grievances among people.

People who laugh- it's their personal ignorance isn't it? Most people in this category are likely to be the same who also declare that woman was asking for it.

Yet we have so much media and 'education' dedicated to condemning the a holes who dismiss the woman's plight ... But not so much for the men..... I think that is the essence of gynocentric bias.

Politicians. They like to appear to be doing something.

As I said I really dont care about the law at a Political level ... But the bias in the promotion.

Whoever handled that case was not trained properly to deal with such cases. Many schools and universities seem to have knee jerk reactions to such cases-- They want to keep their image of a safe place. So either they try to sweep such problems under the rug or go to stupid lengths in attempt to show how committed they are to the safe environment (as in this case ).

Feminists involved in these cases need to rethink what feminism is and be more responsible.

Which is the entire point of the thread ... Except the OP is just too extreme to explain in a civil and calm manner. These 'Feminists' have been eating away at the true purpose of Feminism and is giving them bad PR and imploding things from within. Believe it or not Ira, the Social Media Feminism (= A company makes video or writes an article with apparently feminist massages under whose comments the loud extremes clash while the reasonable morderates are ignored .... eventually nothing productuive happens, and only hate fosters) is becoming the mainstream feminism.

you are a sexist

Or may be he thinks that sucking up will eventually take away his V Card.

 

[Avani]

True but as I pointed out ... these are some general biases that I wanted to showcase. A policy change wont stop people thinking that only men are predators and women are flowers.
Dont be silly Ira ... we were talking about only singling out Males while not caring the pretty next to the little kid might be not what people think.

I am aware of the situations, but many of those reasons for being light on women are sexist like that Airline Policy.

Well...You cannot control thinking of anyone. At the most you can put checks so that the biases are not affecting others negatively and try to raise awareness about real problems.

I did cover that already. Airlines shouldn't have taken it upon themselves to profile their customers. Nothing silly about recognizing where the bias and paranoia stems from.

If you are aware of the situation then why act as if only the sexist reasons in favour of women playing a role in shorter sentences? While it may happen at times people take raw statistics and make it look more severe than it is and they also ignore the reverse cases where women get longer convictions.

Many families are similarly broken when a the sole male breadwinner is sentenced. I dont think they are allowed much liniency on that grounds normally.

But they are. Too many convicts get their sentence reduced just because of that.

MUMBAI: If you have dependents, there is all chance that you can get away with rape.

Mumbai resident Suresh Vanse, was pronounced guilty of raping a 14-year-old girl.

He was sentenced to imprisonment for just one day. And the logic behind the diminished sentence? Well, sessions court judge Laxmi Rao's ostensible concern for the 'humanitarian' angle. Vanes was the sole bread winner in the family.

In a similar case five days ago, Rao convicted a man to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for raping and kidnapping a minor but released him on probation after 45 days in custody.

Both Vanse and Paramram Sarane, the first offender, were the sole bread-winners of families and had a large number of dependents, noted the two judgments.

Interestingly, in July the judge had sentenced a woman convicted of seducing a young boy to five years' rigorous imprisonment.

You must be registered for see links

Mind that the 'evil' woman got 5 years and men 1 day to 45 day. And it took 12 years to reach that verdict...

The reverse is also possible (Women are better emotional manipulators) ... As Indian I wont have to introduce you to the typical evil Mother in Law torturing for Dowry.

That's sexist thinking. U_U Men are just as much skilled at it.

What about the father in law and husbands who ask for dowry directly and get violent when the demands not met? What about the father in law and husband who do not try to stop and often giving their silent or active consent for the same if the mother is doing this job? Dowry deaths rarely result in murder unless the whole set of in-laws are involved in one way or another.

Thus is the flaws of lack of Ominipotence ... we cant never be sure


I dont think 'those countries' also beat up and murder men who by general local rules court women whom under Western Standards
would be nromal. Those places are not the examples of proper Rule of Law.

They are going to challenge your perception just the same.

Possibly because the probable employment fields are hard labor jobs .... Women tend to diverge away from that.
But just a curious question, how is a lesser sentence relevant in this case? I dont think potential employers care much about the length of sentences, just the status of conviction.

Not much if they are sentenced but more to get probation rather than actual incarceration and not letting the kids in prison too long if it could be avoided. And just one of many reasons.

I think this is the bias I was talking about .... Unless you think sole male breadwinners for improvised families who for some reason or other become criminals dont have families, obligations and face similar circumstances. Yet you are using that to excuse only women ....

No this is your bias which ignores that men do get relief and their imprisonment shortened on these counts.

Yes there is the problem, Women judges trying to look impartial often commit partiality (the irony). But the overall trend might not so favorable to men as it is to men .... But still, wouldnt you agree biases in policies and perception are harmful?

Biases in policies and perceptions arm harmful but people are acting as if it's one sided and I disagree with that part. Exactly what do they think should be done here to improve the situation? Is their complaint that some woman spent less years in jail and that's all?

So is it wrong to point out that the system might be okey but the people who are involved are less than perfect?

If technically the law itself doesn't have a provision that sentence one gender more harshly than another then exactly what change you would like to propose?

Otherwise this is how biased it could be:

Munic law Pennsylvania July 1913 literally made it law that females were to be the punished for maximum amount of time for any crime. If the provision was 1 to 3 years, she has to be jailed for 3 years. If the maximum was longer than 3 years then it would be fixed to that maximum amount. In 1964 a woman was jailed for 4 years for theft which was declared illegal after a month on grounds that woman should have been punished under Munic law and thus 10 years. (Trial judge refused to overturn the sentence and the judgement was challenged. Finally dumped in 1968 by Sc verdict on the case). But during that period women kept getting the maximum on the excuse that prisons are rehabilitation centers and women need it more.

IN

You just explained my point actually. The Laws in practice has progressed in certain places and remained Victorian in certain others such that there really is not the so called equality that people preach.

Though you say so, and I agree, exactly what is equality?

You cannot make any person donate their kidney or blood tissue without their permission but the uterus belongs to everyone else but the woman. Purvi Patel can be sentenced to 20 years for miscarriage despite lack of evidence that she really caused it. And Savita Halappanwar dies of septic while in a hospital which wouldn't to remove a dying fetus and let it poison her for a week. Not something the other gender is going to face anyway.

I really dont see much people actually caring about the issue. I think that causes some grievances among people.

People do not care for any issue unless they think it's directly affecting them.

Yet we have so much media and 'education' dedicated to condemning the a holes who dismiss the woman's plight ... But not so much for the men..... I think that is the essence of gynocentric bias.

Feminists didn't get anything without struggling and constantly raising awareness for it.

As I said I really dont care about the law at a Political level ... But the bias in the promotion.

They promoted it as a 'affirmative law'. Didn't they or I'm forgetting something? Didn't the bias come from not understanding it properly?

Which is the entire point of the thread ... Except the OP is just too extreme to explain in a civil and calm manner. These 'Feminists' have been eating away at the true purpose of Feminism and is giving them bad PR and imploding things from within. Believe it or not Ira, the Social Media Feminism (= A company makes video or writes an article with apparently feminist massages under whose comments the loud extremes clash while the reasonable morderates are ignored .... eventually nothing productuive happens, and only hate fosters) is becoming the mainstream feminism.

OP has a history of posting extremely racist and sexist comments. You give OP an excuse for his extremism but similar extremists among feminists do not have the same consideration. It's not like misogynists are now an extinct breed. Some of the extremists are reaction to them. Some are just selfish. It's up to rest of the people to not give them more importance than is their due and counter their argument objectively if need be.

 

[Anorien16]

Well...You cannot control thinking of anyone. At the most you can put checks so that the biases are not affecting others negatively and try to raise awareness about real problems.

I did cover that already. Airlines shouldn't have taken it upon themselves to profile their customers. Nothing silly about recognizing where the bias and paranoia stems from.

Now the problem arises that if someone points outs this Bias, he or she would be considered something like a evil MRA and shamed or ignored on that basis.

If you are aware of the situation then why act as if only the sexist reasons in favour of women playing a role in shorter sentences? While it may happen at times people take raw statistics and make it look more severe than it is and they also ignore the reverse cases where women get longer convictions.

Individual cases dont make a overall trend Ira. Unless there is further study of the possible bias of the the previous study ... My point stands at least applicable.

But they are. Too many convicts get their sentence reduced just because of that.

You must be registered for see links

Mind that the 'evil' woman got 5 years and men 1 day to 45 day. And it took 12 years to reach that verdict...

Umm ... Firstly, We were talking about USA. Secondly, you and I both know gender has little to do with justice in India, only money.

That's sexist thinking. U_U Men are just as much skilled at it.

Not sexist when it is true. Much like how saying that generally women are physically weaker than men is not sexist. Men are more prone to physical abuse as the means ....

What about the father in law and husbands who ask for dowry directly and get violent when the demands not met? What about the father in law and husband who do not try to stop and often giving their silent or active consent for the same if the mother is doing this job? Dowry deaths rarely result in murder unless the whole set of in-laws are involved in one way or another.

We were talking about possibility of deviation from typical cases and ringleaders-minion relations possible with in it. I dont think we were discounting the details of one scenario for another.

They are going to challenge your perception just the same.

Not on Equal Grounds ... Moral Relativism is a thing. But lets stay on USA as the thread says ok?

Not much if they are sentenced but more to get probation rather than actual incarceration and not letting the kids in prison too long if it could be avoided. And just one of many reasons.

But this worth looking into.

No this is your bias which ignores that men do get relief and their imprisonment shortened on these counts.

My point was Women get less sentences >>>>>than<<<< men >>>>>>>comparitively<<<<<< ... Have you considered that the fact study was done >>>>>>including<<<<< in >>>>>>both forms of biases<<<< ????
(Source:

You must be registered for see links

)

Biases in policies and perceptions arm harmful but people are acting as if it's one sided and I disagree with that part. Exactly what do they think should be done here to improve the situation? Is their complaint that some woman spent less years in jail and that's all?

Oh it is me that was one sided? Honestly? ... I am sure the biased law practices that consider males as the primary aggressor in domestic violence despite the evidence and nearly provide funds go for male shelter go for abuse are not one sided (S:

You must be registered for see links

), and if someone points out that fact that person is being one sided .... Not to mention if someone points out the often unfair Alimony and Child Support laws, that person is being one sided ..... etc

Its is sickening to see someone like you thinking that if someone like you who acts like a sensible person think that a call for balance and vigilance is an act of dominance.

If technically the law itself doesn't have a provision that sentence one gender more harshly than another then exactly what change you would like to propose?

Dont want to call you a moron but do you really think that if the Law itself is more or less unbiased the practices will be unbiased? Law Enforcement can still adopt biased policies you know (Much like how the Airlines adopted a sexist Policy despite the Constitution)
... First step would be calling out those biased policies and then spreading awareness about that ... But naturally even people like you think that bringing some issues men face is being anti-women. :/

Otherwise this is how biased it could be:

Munic law Pennsylvania July 1913 literally made it law that females were to be the punished for maximum amount of time for any crime. If the provision was 1 to 3 years, she has to be jailed for 3 years. If the maximum was longer than 3 years then it would be fixed to that maximum amount. In 1964 a woman was jailed for 4 years for theft which was declared illegal after a month on grounds that woman should have been punished under Munic law and thus 10 years. (Trial judge refused to overturn the sentence and the judgement was challenged. Finally dumped in 1968 by Sc verdict on the case). But during that period women kept getting the maximum on the excuse that prisons are rehabilitation centers and women need it more.

IN

You noticed the years on those practices? Also if such laws exists still now, mention them please ... I am sure I would be equally against the bias.

Though you say so, and I agree, exactly what is equality?

I think you know.

You cannot make any person donate their kidney or blood tissue without their permission but the uterus belongs to everyone else but the woman.

A unbiased Law would change that right? (Although if I remember right in most of the US the sole power in this regard is with the woman)
Also I am sure that men and women are not speaking out against this where they exist.

Purvi Patel can be sentenced to 20 years for miscarriage despite lack of evidence that she really caused it. And Savita Halappanwar dies of septic while in a hospital which wouldn't to remove a dying fetus and let it poison her for a week.

I am sure people were not outraged on their behalf.

Not something the other gender is going to face anyway.

Does that mean they wont care about it?

People do not care for any issue unless they think it's directly affecting them.

Thus they are selfish then .... Funny that you in a way indicated that the Feminist movement might be selfish.

Feminists didn't get anything without struggling and constantly raising awareness for it.

But raising awareness about some other bitter truths is too much of a burden. /s

They promoted it as a 'affirmative law'. Didn't they or I'm forgetting something? Didn't the bias come from not understanding it properly?

In truth? Nah ... The Law in just an excuse for education and awareness, it is literally the ordinary Sexually Assault Laws with a emphasis on verbal consent .... But it was handled poorly as it kinda ignores the fact that men too are sexually assaulted under those clauses.

OP has a history of posting extremely racist and sexist comments. You give OP an excuse for his extremism but similar extremists among feminists do not have the same consideration. It's not like misogynists are now an extinct breed. Some of the extremists are reaction to them. Some are just selfish. It's up to rest of the people to not give them more importance than is their due and counter their argument objectively if need be.

In this regard I will quote Plato: "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

 

[slimreaper]

Can I get a legitimate answer to this question... How are drunk people resonsible for all the decisions they make(and consequences) while drunk, except giving sexual consent?

 

[Avani]

Now the problem arises that if someone points outs this Bias, he or she would be considered something like a evil MRA and shamed or ignored on that basis.

Except that it didn’t happen. No one tried to shame MRA on this issue as far as I saw in the articles. Airlines was wrong to profile it’s customers like that, and he won.

Individual cases dont make a overall trend Ira. Unless there is further study of the possible bias of the the previous study ... My point stands at least applicable.

So does my point, which you chose to ignore or misunderstand.

And funny that you link individual cases of

You must be registered for see links

nature like [/url] and can claim a trend because the guy was told to stay away from that girl whom he reminded of a rapist. But I cannot cite Purvi Patel which is not individual case but setting a precedent under a newly formed law.

Umm ... Firstly, We were talking about USA. Secondly, you and I both know gender has little to do with justice in India, only money.

US citizens claim it’s colour which decides the sentence. It’s interesting that you choose to believe it was money which resulted in such judgment instead of sexism whereas if the sentence were opposite you would be linking it as proof of bias against men.

Not sexist when it is true. Much like how saying that generally women are physically weaker than men is not sexist. Men are more prone to physical abuse as the means ....

You say men are more prone to physical abuse... that was the airline logic you know.

We were talking about possibility of deviation from typical cases and ringleaders-minion relations possible with in it. I dont think we were discounting the details of one scenario for another.

Yes we are, otherwise find a better argument instead of bringing up a stereotype comment like that .

Not on Equal Grounds ... Moral Relativism is a thing. But lets stay on USA as the thread says ok
But this worth looking into.

My point was Women get less sentences >>>>>than<<<< men >>>>>>>comparitively<<<<<< ... Have you considered that the fact study was done >>>>>>including<<<<< in >>>>>>both forms of biases<<<< ????
(Source:

You must be registered for see links

)

Huffington post? Here- this is the study they quoted from is here:

You must be registered for see links

Exactly what kind of cases most of these were and which section of women were most affected and largest disparity was found?

Oh it is me that was one sided? Honestly? ... I am sure the biased law practices that consider males as the primary aggressor in domestic violence despite the evidence and nearly provide funds go for male shelter go for abuse are not one sided (S:

You must be registered for see links

), and if someone points out that fact that person is being one sided .... Not to mention if someone points out the often unfair Alimony and Child Support laws, that person is being one sided ..... etc

Maybe something to do with their official reported cases being 85% women and more of them ending up dead when trying to leave home than men. As for alimony and child support law:
[url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142637/More-women-U-S-paying-husbands-alimony-child-support-before.html]More-women-U-S-paying-husbands-alimony-child-support-before[/url]

Not that there are no men shelter either or women's shelter didn't get their budget cuts. Most of the homeless shelters seem to have more beds for men than women in a random check I did. sometimes like 270:50 ratio.

Other men's charities such as the DYN Project and the Men's Advice Line dispute the view that male-only refuges are necessarily wanted or needed by most victims, saying that the issue has been misrepresented out of misogyny rather than genuine concern.

You must be registered for see links

You know the study you linked – didn’t even include weapons, pornography, rape and family offenses declaring them 94% male crimes. Talk about bias huh?

It’s funny that when it comes to salary we are to accept that while there is an unexplained gap at times mostly it’s because of a reason. But when it comes to comparing sentences that's not worth looking in to at all. But of course not you are never one sided in such cases.

You must be registered for see links

Its is sickening to see someone like you thinking that if someone like you who acts like a sensible person think that a call for balance and vigilance is an act of dominance.

It's sickening to see that you pull something from your arse and try to put it on me just because I didn't support your view on the subject completely. Typical " if you are not with us, you are against us" cry.

Dont want to call you a moron but do you really think that if the Law itself is more or less unbiased the practices will be unbiased? Law Enforcement can still adopt biased policies you know (Much like how the Airlines adopted a sexist Policy despite the Constitution)
... First step would be calling out those biased policies and then spreading awareness about that ... But naturally even people like you think that bringing some issues men face is being anti-women. :/

So we are exchanging insults now for not agreeing? OK. I don't want to call you a moron but do you really think that practices can ever be unbiased and mechanized ignoring human factor? Is that even that a right solution to remove the consideration for human circumstances or discretion?

If you are seeing yourself as anti-woman then it's Freud talking since I never suggested something like that. You insulted me verbally based on personal biased assumption and you have a gall to try to pin it on me. I guess the only line that can be taken, when men are complaining about the evil women, is to immediately lend them a handkerchief and start abusing rest of the woman to look cool.

Oh BTW the discriminatory policies go a long way- based on colour skin, religion, minority, caste, tribe Good luck. You need to remove the welfare state tag before you get anything done in this direction. And send a petition to UN for review over it’s policy regarding women and special sections. Because part of these policies stems from it’s directives.

And since you are so distressed over them getting smaller sentences don’t worry they have much higher rate of getting raped in prison. If you think I am being harsh then keep it to yourself because you guys here are a piece of work. One keeps asking silly question about drunken consent while having no intention of seeking a legitimate answer for real. Next one screams conspiracy and games ( rather idiotic claim but whatever). And third one joins in insults because someone didn’t see the things the way they wanted them to see.

You noticed the years on those practices? Also if such laws exists still now, mention them please ... I am sure I would be equally against the bias.

First- you noticed the context or didn’t?
So yeah laws exist that punish women or have potential to send a woman to prison for miscarriage and to prevent them from seeking legal abortions and a right to their own body.

I think you know.

No I don’t. But not interest any more either.

A unbiased Law would change that right? (Although if I remember right in most of the US the sole power in this regard is with the woman)
Also I am sure that men and women are not speaking out against this where they exist.

One cannot make any man donate or use any part of his body against his consent even if someone is dying. But of course women’s body is not hers. State, religion, abusive BF anyone can make a claim with their personal
righteousness. Unbiased- Oh please- are you five?

And yes they are- otherwise we wouldn't have antiabortion threads posted regularly and pro-choice feminists getting bashed for wanting to keep the option.

I am sure people were not outraged on their behalf.

Of course not. People were happy-“ down with the woman trying to abort even when we cannot prove that she did. Make an example of her now!!”

Does that mean they wont care about it?

Well if you can assume feminists don't care about problems men face then why do you bother to ask this question?

People do not care for any issue unless they think it's directly affecting them.

Thus they are selfish then .... Funny that you in a way indicated that the Feminist movement might be selfish.

And MRA wouldn't be included? Or any person or group for that matter in general terms? Thanks for the new definition of 'people'. Send a petition to all those publishing houses to fix their dictionary.

But raising awareness about some other bitter truths is too much of a burden. /s

All feminists will agree. Oops what a dirty word! Maybe you should ask Zise to censor it for NB.

In truth? Nah ... The Law in just an excuse for education and awareness, it is literally the ordinary Sexually Assault Laws with a emphasis on verbal consent .... But it was handled poorly as it kinda ignores the fact that men too are sexually assaulted under those clauses.

It's men like you who do not take into consideration that men too are sexually assaulted. The law was gender neutral and that means men could report just the same.

If male rape is such a big problem first thing you need is this law so that they can report. The argument that since male victims may not be taken seriously by some narrow minded people, the others shouldn’t have a remedy too. News flash-that’s selfish. Also, not all female victims report either and some men are going to misuse it just the same.

In this regard I will quote Plato: "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

Actually like many other statements in your post, even this quote is erroneous. The phrasing of the quote seriously distorts Plato's meaning. This is what he said:

“The good are not willing to rule either for the sake of money or of honor. They do not wish to collect pay openly for their service of rule and be styled hirelings nor to take it by stealth from their office and be called thieves, nor yet for the sake of honor, [347c] for they are not covetous of honor. So there must be imposed some compulsion and penalty to constrain them to rule if they are to consent to hold office. That is perhaps why to seek office oneself and not await compulsion is thought disgraceful. But the chief penalty is to be governed by someone worse if a man will not himself hold office and rule. It is from fear of this, as it appears to me, that the better sort hold office when they do, and then they go to it not in the expectation of enjoyment nor as to a good thing, but as to a necessary evil and because they are unable to turn it over to better men than themselves [347d] or to their like. For we may venture to say that, if there should be a city of good men only, immunity from office-holding would be as eagerly contended for as office is now”