NationStates Jolt Archive

Equal protection under the law.

Equal opportunity.

The government is the arbiter of language?

Equity refers to things being just, fair, impartial.

Equality refers to having the same privileges, status, and rights.

Both are good things.

Equal treatment for all genders is the proper goal.

I would disagree. There are basic biological differences between biological sexes. As such, equal treatment is not possible. Equitable treatment, however, is.

Children are property? Methinks, you've missed the mark entirely.

No, money is property. You have stated that a woman automatically has access to a man's money because he slept with her (prostitution, anyone?), but a man does not have the same access to hers.

Meanwhile, if we are to hold both equally responsible for the fate of the possible child, then both must have the same rights to that child. Due to a basic biological difference, doing so would be allowing the father to have control over the mother's body, which we cannot do. Instead, we give the father options to counteract this inequality.

And when the embryo, fetus, etc. is part of the woman's body it is entirely the woman's property. Little thing called self-ownership. Men have it too.

The embryo/fetus/etc. is never part of the woman's body. It is housed within the woman's body. As such, she can ask that it be removed.

Both an abortion and childbirth include a myriad of costs and risks that a man avoids.

Because of a basic biological difference.

Your suggestion does not treat the genders equally. Instead, it gives the male an additional privilege that a woman cannot obtain without additonal cost to herself.

No, but it treats them equitably. The only way to treat them equally would be for men to be able to get pregnant and go through the same things. You have to understand that there are basic biologic differences between males and females. Yes, it is unfortunate that only women have to deal with pregnancy. However, the woman has the option of ending a pregnancy. To be perfectly equal, the man would have that right as well. However, the only way to do that would be to allow him to make medical decisions for the woman, taking *her* rights away. As such, we must give him *equitable* access to ending his responsibilities.

The only inequity that has been pointed out is that there is no way for the woman to have the child, but then leave it entirely to the man. This could be easily done away with by having access to a contract in which the woman agrees to continue pregnancy as a surrogate mother for the man.

The government is the arbiter of language?

Apparently, you are. Use a friggin' dictionary and stop making things up.

I would disagree. There are basic biological differences between biological sexes. As such, equal treatment is not possible. Equitable treatment, however, is.

Equal and equivalent are synonyms. Equal does not necessarily mean the same. Because you don't know what a word means doesn't mean we should use it.

No, money is property. You have stated that a woman automatically has access to a man's money because he slept with her (prostitution, anyone?), but a man does not have the same access to hers.

No, the child automatically has access to the man's money because he wasn't capable of keeping his cock in his pants. If the man raises the child, the woman will pay child support. Thus the man does have equal access. Does CHILD support have a different meaning for you to? Perhaps you should define it for us. Maybe you think it's equal to alimony. Oh, I mean equitable to alimony. (sorry, but that really made me laugh. it must be getting late).

Meanwhile, if we are to hold both equally responsible for the fate of the possible child, then both must have the same rights to that child. Due to a basic biological difference, doing so would be allowing the father to have control over the mother's body, which we cannot do. Instead, we give the father options to counteract this inequality.

Nature already counteracted the inequality.

No, but it treats them equitably. The only way to treat them equally would be for men to be able to get pregnant and go through the same things. You have to understand that there are basic biologic differences between males and females. Yes, it is unfortunate that only women have to deal with pregnancy. However, the woman has the option of ending a pregnancy. To be perfectly equal, the man would have that right as well. However, the only way to do that would be to allow him to make medical decisions for the woman, taking *her* rights away. As such, we must give him *equitable* access to ending his responsibilities.

Again, use a dictionary.

The only inequity that has been pointed out is that there is no way for the woman to have the child, but then leave it entirely to the man. This could be easily done away with by having access to a contract in which the woman agrees to continue pregnancy as a surrogate mother for the man.

I agree with that last point as it's mine.

No, money is property. You have stated that a woman automatically has access to a man's money because he slept with her (prostitution, anyone?), but a man does not have the same access to hers.

Wrong. If a mna rases a child he is intitled to support from her mother. Hell, palamony is available to any man with no self respect whos' wife earns more.

Meanwhile, if we are to hold both equally responsible for the fate of the possible child, then both must have the same rights to that child. Due to a basic biological difference, doing so would be allowing the father to have control over the mother's body, which we cannot do. Instead, we give the father options to counteract this inequality.

A child is a child, a feotus is a feotus. Dont confuse the two.

The embryo/fetus/etc. is never part of the woman's body. It is housed within the woman's body. As such, she can ask that it be removed.

Bollocks, the feotus is a parasite on a womans body, it takes what it needs and gives nothing in return. The definition of a parasite. She cn ask it be removed as is (or should be) the legal right of anyone in this situation. You dont see ring worm removal being illegal do you? But sadly abortion is also frowned upon by many and also illegal in many places.

You have to understand that there are basic biologic differences between males and females. Yes, it is unfortunate that only women have to deal with pregnancy. However, the woman has the option of ending a pregnancy. To be perfectly equal, the man would have that right as well. However, the only way to do that would be to allow him to make medical decisions for the woman, taking *her* rights away. As such, we must give him *equitable* access to ending his responsibilities.

You also have to understand that for many women abortion is a concience issue.

In my teens, abortion ( my family would have made me). Once i became self employed, i would have kept any child because i could bring it up and afford to work. Many women dont have my luxury but their morals tell them not to abort a vaible feotus.

Most women dont get pregant to trap men, it's an accident, as such i believe both parties to be culpable. If men dont want unwanted children, dont have sex. That was my teaching and it's a pretty god philophisy if you ask me. You have sex, you run the risk. deal with it.

Apparently, you are. Use a friggin' dictionary and stop making things up.

I am not making them up. And you had no problem with it when it was first stated by Sinehue earlier in the thread. Argumentative for the sake of argument, are we?

Besides, dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. I have defined my terms as I use them - as anyone should do.

Equal and equivalent are synonyms.

And synonyms mean *exactly* the same thing?

No, the child automatically has access to the man's money because he wasn't capable of keeping his cock in his pants.

And yet the child does not automatically have access to the woman's money because she wasn't capable of keeping his cock out of hers?

Meanwhile, it is not the child who decides - it is the woman. As such, it is the *WOMAN* who gets access to the money.

If the man raises the child, the woman will pay child support. Thus the man does have equal access.

But it is the *woman* who gets the entire decision on whether or not there will be child support. The man has to pay child support if the *woman* says so. The woman has to pay child support if *she* decides to have a child.

Nature already counteracted the inequality.

How is that? Did a man become able to have a child while I wasn't looking? I'd like to know so I can make sure my boyfriend does it for me when the time comes.

Again, use a dictionary.

Way to avoid the point by appealing to a document that does nothing but describe things.

I agree with that last point as it's mine.

More inconsistency. You agree that the only inequity is that a woman has no way to give the child to the man but disagree as shown above?

The government is the arbiter of language?

No. Are you?

Those are examples of what is meant by equality.

I would disagree. There are basic biological differences between biological sexes. As such, equal treatment is not possible. Equitable treatment, however, is.

Boy, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Equal treatment != treat everyone exactly the same.

Equal treatment = treating like cases equally.

Equal treatment = affording everyone the same rights, status, and privileges.

Equal treatment = equal protection under the law & equal opportunity.

Equal treatment = treating everyone as moral and legal equals.

Equity = impartiality and fairness.

No, money is property. You have stated that a woman automatically has access to a man's money because he slept with her (prostitution, anyone?), but a man does not have the same access to hers.

Wrong. The woman is not entitled to a cent from the man. The child is. If the mother were to give the child up for adoption, then the man would still be obligated to pay support.

Meanwhile, if we are to hold both equally responsible for the fate of the possible child, then both must have the same rights to that child. Due to a basic biological difference, doing so would be allowing the father to have control over the mother's body, which we cannot do. Instead, we give the father options to counteract this inequality.

No, but it treats them equitably. The only way to treat them equally would be for men to be able to get pregnant and go through the same things. You have to understand that there are basic biologic differences between males and females. Yes, it is unfortunate that only women have to deal with pregnancy. However, the woman has the option of ending a pregnancy. To be perfectly equal, the man would have that right as well. However, the only way to do that would be to allow him to make medical decisions for the woman, taking *her* rights away. As such, we must give him *equitable* access to ending his responsibilities.

The only inequity that has been pointed out is that there is no way for the woman to have the child, but then leave it entirely to the man. This could be easily done away with by having access to a contract in which the woman agrees to continue pregnancy as a surrogate mother for the man.

I can see there is no point discussing this further with you. You equate pregnancy to a financial inconvenience. Your response to the burdens of pregnancy, childbirth, and/or abortion as "due to a biological difference" and thus inconsequential. But you think something must be done to fix the "inequity" to the male caused by the same biological difference.

Why does one require balancing and the other not? Perhaps it's because you have a penis.

EDIT: And I am intimately familiar with the biological differences between men and women. I just don't think they are relevant to equal rights.

Wrong. If a mna rases a child he is intitled to support from her mother. Hell, palamony is available to any man with no self respect whos' wife earns more.

But a man does not get a say in the decision of whether or not there is a child to begin with. Thus, the woman is the one who decides, for both of them, whether or not money will be spent.

A child is a child, a feotus is a feotus. Dont confuse the two.

Believe me, I don't. How exactly did you skip over the word "possible"?

Bollocks, the feotus is a parasite on a womans body, it takes what it needs and gives nothing in return. The definition of a parasite. She cn ask it be removed as is (or should be) the legal right of anyone in this situation. You dont see ring worm removal being illegal do you? But sadly abortion is also frowned upon by many and also illegal in many places.

I said nothing that would argue with this in any way. Yes, the embryo/fetus acts as a parasite. As such, the woman can have it removed. That is *exactly* what I said. However, it is not, as you stated, "part of the woman's body", anymore than any parasite is part of her body.

You also have to understand that for many women abortion is a concience issue.

If it is, they have the option of carrying to term and giving the child up for adoption. And before Jocabia jumps in with a bunch of irrelevant whining, if the father has already given up rights, she does not need his permission for this.

Most women dont get pregant to trap men, it's an accident, as such i believe both parties to be culpable. If men dont want unwanted children, dont have sex. That was my teaching and it's a pretty god philophisy if you ask me. You have sex, you run the risk. deal with it.

If you are going to say that about men, you must say it about women as well: if you don't want unwanted children, don't have sex. You have sex, you run the risk.

However, currently, women have a way out of it - men do not. Yes, it is a difficult choice to make, but it is a choice given to the woman. And while not completely equal, signing such a paper would be a difficult choice for a man to make. Giving up the potentiality of a child is not easy on people - not even those who truly believe they have made the right decision.

Wrong. The woman is not entitled to a cent from the man.

It is the *woman* who gets to make that choice, not the potential child.

The child is.

Do not confuse child with embryo/fetus.

If the mother were to give the child up for adoption, then the man would still be obligated to pay support.

No, actually, he wouldn't. If a child is given up for adoption, all rights and responsibilities go to the adoptive parents.

I can see there is no point discussing this further with you. You equate pregnancy to a financial inconvenience.

I have made no such statement. In fact, more than once I have pointed out that the two are *not* equal.

Your response to the burdens of pregnancy, childbirth, and/or abortion as "due to a biological difference" and thus inconsequential. But you think something must be done to fix the "inequity" to the male caused by the same biological difference.

Women have a way out of childcare. Men do not. We give the woman the right to decide that the man must pay for a child, whether he wanted it or not.

Why does one require balancing and the other not? Perhaps it's because you have a penis.

One is unavoidable. We cannot fix the fact that women can get pregnant and men can not.

Meanwhile, I don't have a penis - way to use an ignorant stereotype and think that anyone who fights for the rights of men must be a man.

EDIT: And I am intimately familiar with the biological differences between men and women. I just don't think they are relevant to equal rights.

In things which are not based off of the differences, they are not relevant. However, childbirth is a direct result of the differences.

Go away, little troll. Yet another strictly Ad Hominem...

What's wrong Cat, can't answer the question so you have to resort to Ad Hominems?

Where does a man's Rights fit in with all of this, and why do you choose to ignore it?

Regards,
Gaar

Where does a man's Rights fit in with all of this, and why do you choose to ignore it?

I would suggest that it is the same reason I used to, but I believe Cat told us he has a penis, so that wouldn't work at all.

Of course it was, women were treated as lesser beings, so the obvious and most pressing problems were related to women's issues.

If I am attempting to feed the hungry, and I feed those who have gone without nourishment the longest first, does that mean that I am not working to make sure that everyone else gets fed?

If I am attempting to wash my clothes, and I wash the dirtiest first, does that mean I don't want *all* of my clothes to get washed?
While that IS deep, I don't think you can trust feminists to deal with anti-male sexism, after they are done with the most imminent female ones. After all, it's not like they even laid the groundword for AT LEAST 1 male issue. Not only that, the overwhelming majority of feminist high ranks, are... you guessed it. Women. How can you trust women to deal with issues of men? That's like women trusting men to deal with their issues; practice which was abolished early last century.

Note that Sinehue and I both use the term "equity", rather than "equality". There are points of difference based on basic biological differences that we are not going to make "equal". However, we attempt to make the "equitable". For instance, in this case, I am in favor of men having access to a "paper abortion" in which he could give up all rights and responsibilities if the woman chooses to continue her pregnancy. As it is, men are often required to pay child support for children they did not want, but women can decide they do not want a pregnancy and end it. Access to a "paper abortion" would made the situation equitable.
How about having a woman be able to kill (abort) your child, and you not even know about it?

To call myself a 'Masculist' would trivialise the fact that women often ARE discriminated against.And men aren't? How, after this statement, can men trust feminists to fight for their rights?

As was pointed out, female homosexuals are not seen by most men and many women to be as "perverted" as male homosexuals. I'd venture that for every male friend you have that has kissed a man on the mouth and does not consider himself gay, you have a half dozen female friends who have full on kissed a girl on the mouth but would not consider herself gay.
Being a homophobe, I can tell you that lesbians disgust me just as much as gay men. And bi people too.

Bollocks, the feotus is a parasite on a womans body, it takes what it needs and gives nothing in return. The definition of a parasite. She cn ask it be removed as is (or should be) the legal right of anyone in this situation. You dont see ring worm removal being illegal do you? But sadly abortion is also frowned upon by many and also illegal in many places.
Abortion discussion on another thread.

Equal treatment != treat everyone exactly the same
Programmer? :)

child with embryo/fetusThat's an abortion discussion. wrong thread.

While that IS deep, I don't think you can trust feminists to deal with anti-male sexism, after they are done with the most imminent female ones. After all, it's not like they even laid the groundword for AT LEAST 1 male issue. Not only that, the overwhelming majority of feminist high ranks, are... you guessed it. Women. How can you trust women to deal with issues of men? That's like women trusting men to deal with their issues; practice which was abolished early last century.

No one is saying that you should leave it completely up to them. If you feel you are being discriminated against, *you* should be fighting it. Meanwhile, many people fight against all discrimination, whether it is against them or not - that is all we are pointing out.

How about having a woman be able to kill (abort) your child, and you not even know about it?

That is an unfortunate consequence of a basic biologic difference. Women can be pregnant, thus women and women alone can make the decision on abortion. Men cannot be pregnant, nor can they be given rights to a woman's body. As such, the biologic difference dictates that men cannot make this decision.

No one is saying that you should leave it completely up to them. If you feel you are being discriminated against, *you* should be fighting it. Meanwhile, many people fight against all discrimination, whether it is against them or not - that is all we are pointing out.



That is an unfortunate consequence of a basic biologic difference. Women can be pregnant, thus women and women alone can make the decision on abortion. Men cannot be pregnant, nor can they be given rights to a woman's body. As such, the biologic difference dictates that men cannot make this decision.
A) But its easier to fight discrimination in groups. This is where Masculism,and this thread come in.

B) Well it's still my kid. If a woman got pregnant with my kid, and then aborted him/her, then I would simply kill her, without any concern for laws, or jailtime that will follow.

B) Well it's still my kid. If a woman got pregnant with my kid, and then aborted him/her, then I would simply kill her, without any concern for laws, or jailtime that will follow.

And, there goes your argument for 'equality for men'.

The assertion that a woman has the 'purpose' of being a 'vessel for your seed', is pretty much the bulk of Feminism's battle... and clear evidence of why 'Masculism' is a sham.

As a man, I am ashamed that someone of my 'gender' would be the source of such 'commentary'.

And, there goes your argument for 'equality for men'.

The assertion that a woman has the 'purpose' of being a 'vessel for your seed', is pretty much the bulk of Feminism's battle... and clear evidence of why 'Masculism' is a sham.

As a man, I am ashamed that someone of my 'gender' would be the source of such 'commentary'.

Agreed.

And damn well said.

And, there goes your argument for 'equality for men'.

The assertion that a woman has the 'purpose' of being a 'vessel for your seed', is pretty much the bulk of Feminism's battle... and clear evidence of why 'Masculism' is a sham.

As a man, I am ashamed that someone of my 'gender' would be the source of such 'commentary'.
I didn't say it's not her kid too. But it's just as much of my child, as it is hers, and she has no right to kill him without my agreement.

B) Well it's still my kid. If a woman got pregnant with my kid, and then aborted him/her, then I would simply kill her, without any concern for laws, or jailtime that will follow.
It's her "kid" too. It was also in her body. She can do whatever the fuck she wants with things that feed off her nutrients.

Furthermore, technically, the woman contributes more to a kid genetically... what with the mitochondrial dna and cytoplasm and all that beign from her. So she has more of a right to deceide what to do with her potential offspring that's in her body.

It's her "kid" too. It was also in her body. She can do whatever the fuck she wants with things that feed off her nutrients.

Furthermore, technically, the woman contributes more to a kid genetically... what with the mitochondrial dna and cytoplasm and all that beign from her. So she has more of a right to deceide what to do with her potential offspring that's in her body.
I agree that it is her kid too. But it is not only her kid, and she has no right to do anything to it without my consent. Just like I can't do anything to it without her consent.

I didn't say it's not her kid too. But it's just as much of my child, as it is hers, and she has no right to kill him without my agreement.
How's this, the minute it's in your body you get to choose what to do with it.


I agree that it is her kid too. But it is not only her kid, and she has no right to do anything to it without my consent. Just like I can't do anything to it without her consent.
Actually, she does. It is inside her body. It is a medical procedure that she can choose to undergo. You cannot force her to get an abortion the same way you cannot force her to get breast augmentation surgery. If she chooses to do it, there's nothing you can legally do about it. And that's all there is to it.

I hope you make anyone aware of this, so she knows not to tell you and to claim she had a miscarriage.

How's this, the minute it's in your body you get to choose what to do with it.
no. While I appreciate that she is nurturing it for 9 months, it doesn't give her any more rights to the child. Because it's 50% my child. Just because it's in her body, doesn't mean she can do anything she wants. If she didn't like it, she could have said no a few months ago. Same is opposite: if i want the child killed, but she said no, the child would live. If I didn't like it, I could have said no a few months ago.

Actually, she does. It is inside her body. It is a medical procedure that she can choose to undergo. You cannot force her to get an abortion the same way you cannot force her to get breast augmentation surgery. If she chooses to do it, there's nothing you can legally do about it. And that's all there is to it.

I hope you make anyone aware of this, so she knows not to tell you and to claim she had a miscarriage.
No, I cannot force her to undergo an abortion, nor breast augmentation surgery. However, she cannot go any surgery that affects another human being, (child, and me). It's like a Siamese twin, who wants his brother/sister cut off, even though only one of them can survive. It's his body, but its the brother's body too. In abortion, it's her body, but accoring to the same logic, it's the baby's body too. Since the baby cannot make its own decisions, all decision making rights of it are transferred to its parents, which means me and her. Which brings us back to square one.

no. While I appreciate that she is nurturing it for 9 months, it doesn't give her any more rights to the child. Because it's 50% my child. Just because it's in her body, doesn't mean she can do anything she wants. If she didn't like it, she could have said no a few months ago. Same is opposite: if i want the child killed, but she said no, the child would live. If I didn't like it, I could have said no a few months ago.
Well, she who owns the uterus deceides whether the potential human is born. Those are the breaks.

If she didn't want it, then she has until the what, 3rd month? 4th month? to deceide. Sure, she could have said no, she could have also insisted that you wear a condom or gone on the birth controll pill or depo prova. However, the point remains: It is in her body, it is her choice.

If you don't want a woman you sleep with to abort your potential offspring, then don't sleep with a woman who would get an abortion.

Well, she who owns the uterus deceides whether the potential human is born. Those are the breaks.

If she didn't want it, then she has until the what, 3rd month? 4th month? to deceide. Sure, she could have said no, she could have also insisted that you wear a condom or gone on the birth controll pill or depo prova. However, the point remains: It is in her body, it is her choice.

If you don't want a woman you sleep with to abort your potential offspring, then don't sleep with a woman who would get an abortion.
Well the fetus rents the uterus. So she can't do anything to it. And the fetus is also concerned, whose decisions are made by me and her.

no. While I appreciate that she is nurturing it for 9 months, it doesn't give her any more rights to the child. Because it's 50% my child. Just because it's in her body, doesn't mean she can do anything she wants. If she didn't like it, she could have said no a few months ago. Same is opposite: if i want the child killed, but she said no, the child would live. If I didn't like it, I could have said no a few months ago.

If I plant a tree in your yard, I do not have the right to prevent you from cutting it down if you want to.

Giving a man the right to tell a woman she *must* carry his child is giving a man the right to a woman's body - slavery.

No, I cannot force her to undergo an abortion, nor breast augmentation surgery. However, she cannot go any surgery that affects another human being, (child, and me). It's like a Siamese twin, who wants his brother/sister cut off, even though only one of them can survive. It's his body, but its the brother's body too. In abortion, it's her body, but accoring to the same logic, it's the baby's body too. Since the baby cannot make its own decisions, all decision making rights of it are transferred to its parents, which means me and her. Which brings us back to square one.
Usually they cut off the parasitic twin in those cases, as it's not good for either of them.

And the child is not a human being yet. Also, are you telling me that plastic surgery only affects the person who undergoes it? There are people whose families are very unsupportive of such procedures, there are people who go through plastic surgery and end up having insecure spouses who freak out afterwards over everything, yet the spouse is still not a decision maker. You are like the jelous spouse of a woman who just got say, a tummy tuck. It doesn't affect your health, it doesn't effect your well being, it affects your spouse's body and that's it. The rest is in your head.

And as I said, the owner of the uterus deceides whether it shall remain occupied or not.

Well the fetus rents the uterus. So she can't do anything to it. And the fetus is also concerned, whose decisions are made by me and her.

No, if we are going to use this analogy, the fetus "squats" in the uterus. She has never made an agreement to allow it to be there.

As such, she can evict it if she so chooses.

I didn't say it's not her kid too. But it's just as much of my child, as it is hers, and she has no right to kill him without my agreement.

First: Foetus, not 'kid'.

Second: Actually - logically flawed - the child is more 'the mother' than the father... if not genetically, then by virtue of shared resources... i.e. the father doesn't share his metabolism with the growinf foetus.

The day a man can affect the health of a foetus by adding Folic Acid to his diet, is the day on which a man is contributing equally to the foetus.

Third: Before the start of 'human' life', there is no capacity to 'kill' a foetus... but that is a different debate, really.

Fourth: As a man, I still say that - when a man can carry a foetus, THAT is the point at which a man get's to decide whether abortion is a viable option.

Well the fetus rents the uterus. So she can't do anything to it. And the fetus is also concerned, whose decisions are made by me and her.
The fetus is a potential person, not a person. It does not concern itself with anything until the 20th week.

And the owner of the womb, the person who will have to deal with all the downsides of pregnancy, the person who will have to deal with the downsides of an abortion, is the woman. If she does not want her uterus occupied, she can have that fetus evicted.

Usually they cut off the parasitic twin in those cases, as it's not good for either of them.

And the child is not a human being yet. Also, are you telling me that plastic surgery only affects the person who undergoes it? There are people whose families are very unsupportive of such procedures, there are people who go through plastic surgery and end up having insecure spouses who freak out afterwards over everything, yet the spouse is still not a decision maker. You are like the jelous spouse of a woman who just got say, a tummy tuck. It doesn't affect your health, it doesn't effect your well being, it affects your spouse's body and that's it. The rest is in your head.

And as I said, the owner of the uterus deceides whether it shall remain occupied or not.
No, he is human. He has complete human DNA, therefore he is a human.

If I plant a tree in your yard, I do not have the right to prevent you from cutting it down if you want to.

If yuo agreed to have the tree planted in yuor yard, or at least seeds sprayed all over it, then you cannot cut it off.

If you didn't argee, then it's rape, and I am not talking about that.

No, he is human. He has complete human DNA, therefore he is a human.

Human excrement has complete human DNA.

Would you also argue that excrement is 'human'?

And, that's before we get into cancers...

If yuo agreed to have the tree planted in yuor yard, or at least seeds sprayed all over it, then you cannot cut it off.

If you didn't argee, then it's rape, and I am not talking about that.

What about if you agreed to have holes dug in your garden, and one 'tree seed' got 'dropped in' by mistake?

If yuo agreed to have the tree planted in yuor yard, or at least seeds sprayed all over it, then you cannot cut it off.

Actually, you can. I can sit there and watch you spread seeds all over my lawn. I can then cut down any tree that grows from them.

No, he is human. He has complete human DNA, therefore he is a human.
Oh yeah?

*scratches arm*

There, I just ended the lives of thousands of cells with human DNA.

Don't give me this "but the DNA is unique" crap, as that kinda gets screwed around with identical twins and chimerics.

I am a masculist (spell check), but I have to be quiet about it, since it's hard to say without sounding sexist.

Oh yeah?

*scratches arm*

There, I just ended the lives of thousands of cells with human DNA.

Don't give me this "but the DNA is unique" crap, as that kinda gets screwed around with identical twins and chimerics.
But you didn't end your own life. When you abort a fetus, you end the future baby's life before it gets a chance to live.

Yes, but WE feel bad about it! ;)



Yes they are. And they love to say we're ruled by hormones. Testosterone is the most harmful hormone for monogamy ever conceved!



Yet in the modern world which values multi tasking, women are paid substantially less even though we are cabable of more in the work enviroment. it's not our fault you dont carry and rear the kids. and when we are the greater providers you get all huffy and put us down for other things 'cos earning more than your woman partner is the bee all and end all, seemingly.



You shouldnt. Women have affairs to feel loved and wanted. Men have affairs because they can.


I have one thing to say, stop giving me this bull

stop playing the victim because you know it just as well as I do
Women have affairs because they can
women DO NOT always feel bad for cheating in fact because of what you said it is clear you would just excuse it away that your partner doesn't love you enough

stop giving us this bull

A) But its easier to fight discrimination in groups. This is where Masculism,and this thread come in.

B) Well it's still my kid. If a woman got pregnant with my kid, and then aborted him/her, then I would simply kill her, without any concern for laws, or jailtime that will follow.

With that attitude, it is unlikely this scenario will ever present itself.

You really should seek therapy.

The fetus is a potential person, not a person. It does not concern itself with anything until the 20th week.

And the owner of the womb, the person who will have to deal with all the downsides of pregnancy, the person who will have to deal with the downsides of an abortion, is the woman. If she does not want her uterus occupied, she can have that fetus evicted.
If she didn't want her uterus to be occupied, she shouldn't have sex. Now that she did, and got knocked up, evicting the fetus would end its life.

When you abort a fetus, you end the future baby's life before it gets a chance to live.

You cannot end something before it begins.

But you didn't end your own life. When you abort a fetus, you end the future baby's life before it gets a chance to live.
Its life does not end because its life never started.

But you didn't end your own life. When you abort a fetus, you end the future baby's life before it gets a chance to live.

So, what law does that break?

I have one thing to say, stop giving me this bull

stop playing the victim because you know it just as well as I do
Women have affairs because they can
women DO NOT always feel bad for cheating in fact because of what you said it is clear you would just excuse it away that your partner doesn't love you enough

stop giving us this bull

Bitter at all?

If she didn't want her uterus to be occupied, she shouldn't have sex. Now that she did, and got knocked up, evicting the fetus would end its life.

If you don't want a woman having control over a possible fetus, you should not have sex.

Look, problem solved.

But you didn't end your own life. When you abort a fetus, you end the future baby's life before it gets a chance to live.


Amazing how you can end the life of something that isnt alive yet, isnt it.

Sort of like... a four sided circle you know?


Evidence of the corrupting influence of religiosity on the human intellect and reason.


If a woman had an abortion after I got her pregnant I would murder her

Evidence of the corrpting influence of religiosity on human character and morality.

If she didn't want her uterus to be occupied, she shouldn't have sex. Now that she did, and got knocked up, evicting the fetus would end its life.
And if she took a number of precautions?

To use the "squatter" example, Say you're a landlord and you're not ready to rent this one place out and you lock the place up, locks on the windows and doors and everything to keep people out. Someone picks a lock and gets in and deceided to live there without your consent. You can throw them out on their ass. You did not give permission for them to be there, even though you did not board up all the windows and get super heavy duty locks on the doors.

And again, if yo udon't want to worry about one of your potential offspring beign aborted, then dont' have sex with a woman who would have an abortion.

If she didn't want her uterus to be occupied, she shouldn't have sex. Now that she did, and got knocked up, evicting the fetus would end its life.
And if she took a number of precautions?

To use the "squatter" example, Say you're a landlord and you're not ready to rent this one place out and you lock the place up, locks on the windows and doors and everything to keep people out. Someone picks a lock and gets in and deceided to live there without your consent. You can throw them out on their ass. You did not give permission for them to be there, even though you did not board up all the windows and get super heavy duty locks on the doors. And even though the now homeless person will die in the cold, that isn't your concern.

And again, if yo udon't want to worry about one of your potential offspring beign aborted, then dont' have sex with a woman who would have an abortion.

Human excrement has complete human DNA.

Would you also argue that excrement is 'human'?

And, that's before we get into cancers...
But by flushing a log, you don't destroy yourself, or your chances for life. By aborting a fetus you remove his chances to live.

And cancer causes you to die. Nor will it ever become a human. Same way, fetuses that threaten mothers' life can and should be aborted.


But this thread is not about abortion. It's about masculism. So no more abortion talk.

Feminism:
The ability to make your own choices (meaning that there are multiple options available to you) regardless of your gender, sexual orientation, or race.

That means that man gets to cry while watching Old Yeller, a woman can be elected to any office in the United States, and same sex couples can marry (if they so chose).

The reason that "masculinists" don't get the same attention as other oppressed groups is that they have been the oppressors for CENTURIES. And, currently, men still are in a statistically better off position than women (e.g. social, economic, and political status).

I will pay more attention to "masculinists" when all health insurance companies cover birth control, and Viagra is considered an enhancement drug.

I myself have been very bias in regards to masculinity in the past, believing the whole ‘men are meant to be strong and not cry nonsense’ of course this view didn’t last very long once I actually got to know some males on an intellectual level, and it is odd to think of men as abused, after all they are normally stronger than woman.

But after a while I truly started to think about this, it is after all a possible happening, and why should males feel ashamed to come forward and express themselves if anything has happened to them? After all there are all kinds of abuse ranging from, mental to physical, and I believe that both sexes are just as venerable to each.

As for the workplace, there should be more equality within it, but men can be discriminated against just as much as woman. For a man going for a receptionist or beautician job will in fact be less likely to receive it (in my opinion). Also a woman going for a forklift driving job or something to do with welding will in fact have less of a chance at getting the job. One way the world can change these views is to first change the way we think about each other and our ‘stereotypical’ ideas.

Feminism:
The ability to make your own choices (meaning that there are multiple options available to you) regardless of your gender, sexual orientation, or race.

That means that man gets to cry while watching Old Yeller, a woman can be elected to any office in the United States, and same sex couples can marry (if they so chose).

The reason that "masculinists" don't get the same attention as other oppressed groups is that they have been the oppressors for CENTURIES. And, currently, men still are in a statistically better off position than women (e.g. social, economic, and political status).

I will pay more attention to "masculinists" when all health insurance companies cover birth control, and Viagra is considered an enhancement drug.

Amen.

By the way, getting back on topic, I remembered another place in which men *are* discriminated against, and should not be. In cases where two people below the age of consent have sex, the male is automatically considered to be the aggressor and if parents complain, possibly charged (generally as an adult) for statutory rape, even if he is younger than the female. I have yet to hear of a single case that occured the other way around.

By the way, getting back on topic, I remembered another place in which men *are* discriminated against, and should not be. In cases where two people below the age of consent have sex, the male is automatically considered to be the aggressor and if parents complain, possibly charged (generally as an adult) for statutory rape, even if he is younger than the female. I have yet to hear of a single case that occured the other way around.

Women have been convicted of statutory rape.

And how many cases of two people below the age of consent are you familiar with in which there was no issue of force and the male was convicted?

Women have been convicted of statutory rape.

Not in any case I have seen where *both* were technically guilty. Nor have I seen any case where an 18 year old woman was convicted of it for sleeping with her 16 year old boyfriend, but I have seen a case where a guy got ten years for doing just that (of course, he was a black guy and she was a white girl in Rome, GA, so that just compounded the whole case).

And how many cases of two people below the age of consent are you familiar with in which there was no issue of force and the male was convicted?

Only a few, but they are there.

*snip*
Only a few, but they are there.

A few -- assuming they exist -- hardly makes a case for national discrimination.

Given the very real discrimination women face every day and the very real problems with gender roles, isn't this "anti-male discrimination" ridiculous to even talk about?

A few -- assuming they exist -- hardly makes a case for national discrimination.

The caes themselves make a case for societal discrimination. It is automatically assumed throughout society in such a relationship that the male was the aggressor, a truly stereotypical assumption.

Given the very real discrimination women face every day and the very real problems with gender roles, isn't this "anti-male discrimination" ridiculous to even talk about?

Wow, what a perfect example of someone who isn't the least bit concerned with actual equity. *Any* discrimination is not ridiculous to talk about. It doesn't matter who it is against.

The caes themselves make a case for societal discrimination. It is automatically assumed throughout society in such a relationship that the male was the aggressor, a truly stereotypical assumption.

I highly doubt you can document a societal problem of statutory rape convictions of males who had consensual sex with women.

There is a vast societal problem of men raping women that we are barely making progress on.

Wow, what a perfect example of someone who isn't the least bit concerned with actual equity. *Any* discrimination is not ridiculous to talk about. It doesn't matter who it is against.

Wow, what a perfect example of someone that lacks perspective and doesn't understand priorities.

Discrimination is wrong. Period.

But the amount of discrimination against white men is a grain of sand on the beach of discrimination. To cry over the one grain and ignore the beach is either malevolent or stupid.

By the way, getting back on topic, I remembered another place in which men *are* discriminated against, and should not be. In cases where two people below the age of consent have sex, the male is automatically considered to be the aggressor and if parents complain, possibly charged (generally as an adult) for statutory rape, even if he is younger than the female. I have yet to hear of a single case that occured the other way around.
We studdied this in a criminal justice class based off of Minnesota law

With the wording of the law there is NO way that a female CAN be charged with statutory rape against a male REGARDLESS of the age
She could be 40
he could be 10
Still not statitory rape
Other laws apply ... molestation and such but the way the law is worded
(statitory rape holding the stronger penalty)

And yes weight is given to the male being the agressor even when younger ... as far as our class found not a single case in minnisota history that has been taken otherwise (we dident dig THAT deep though so a few could be out there)

I highly doubt you can document a societal problem of statutory rape convictions of males who had consensual sex with women.

There is a vast societal problem of men raping women that we are barely making progress on.



Wow, what a perfect example of someone that doesn't understand priorities.

Discrimination is wrong. Period.

But the amount of discrimination against white men is a grain of sand on the beach of discrimination. To cry over the one grain and ignore the beach is either malevolent or stupid.


But she is NOT ignoring the beach she is just not concentrating on that beach where the topic is about the sand

Wow, what a perfect example of someone that lacks perspective and doesn't understand priorities.

Discrimination is wrong. Period.

But the amount of discrimination against white men is a grain of sand on the beach of discrimination. To cry over the one grain and ignore the beach is either malevolent or stupid.

If I were actually ignoring the beach, you might have a point.

If I were actually ignoring the beach, you might have a point.
How come we always say like the same things :p lol

Discrimination against both sexes is very real, and should not be over looked nor dismissed by one or the other. It is a sad fact within out society that discrimination exists, and the only way to change it is to accept our views on each other, and work towards a resolution.

How come we always say like the same things :p lol

Great minds think alike.

:fluffle:

Discriminatory gender roles are a very real problem for both sexes. Feminists seek to change that for the benefit of both genders.

Discimination against men based on their gender is statistically insignificant compared to discrimination against women.

Does discrimination against white men exist? Yes.

Is discrimination against white men made illegal by every civil rights law? Yes.

Is discrimination against white men a societal problem that deserves attention at this time? Hell no.

They can get in the line they created behind women and minorities.

Great minds think alike.

:fluffle:
Lol yeah (btw posted about your statitory rape comment)

:fluffle:

Discriminatory gender roles are a very real problem for both sexes. Feminists seek to change that for the benefit of both genders.

Discimination against men based on their gender is statistically insignificant compared to discrimination against women.

Does discrimination against white men exist? Yes.

Is discrimination against white men made illegal by every civil rights law? Yes.

Is discrimination against white men a societal problem that deserves attention at this time? Hell no.

They can get in the line they created behind women and minorities.
SO we should ignore all but the biggest problems ... then why did we bother with ending slavery untill after we got the woman problem sorted out I mean cause its not like we can try to fix more then one thing at a time or something [/sarcasm]

SO we should ignore all but the biggest problems ... then why did we bother with ending slavery untill after we got the woman problem sorted out I mean cause its not like we can try to fix more then one thing at a time or something [/sarcasm]

If you actually thought the plight of the white male even vaguely compares to slavery, I would think you had much bigger problems to worry about indeed. ;)

Discriminatory gender roles are a very real problem for both sexes. Feminists seek to change that for the benefit of both genders.

Is discrimination against white men a societal problem that deserves attention at this time? Hell no.

They can get in the line they created behind women and minorities.


These two comments are incompatible.

Meanwhile, it is attitudes like this that make it difficult for those who really are concerned with discrimination to get anything done.

If you actually thought the plight of the white male even vaguely compares to slavery, I would think you had much bigger problems to worry about indeed. ;)
So you rank the levels of "wrong" what are your criteria? I find them all wrong and we should fix what we can as fast and redaly as possible but do tell how do you justify ignoring people that could be helped now specialy if you could help them while working to help the others?

If you actually thought the plight of the white male even vaguely compares to slavery, I would think you had much bigger problems to worry about indeed. ;)

I am thoroughly amazed at the way people can't seem to understand metaphor and analogy today. Are you a puppet of Jocabia?

I am thoroughly amazed at the way people can't seem to understand metaphor and analogy today. Are you a puppet of Jocabia?
No kidding I was making refferance to the "smaller" (note less people suffering from it) evil being fixed before the larger (more woman) being fixed secondly ... I think it went over his/her head

These two comments are incompatible.

Meanwhile, it is attitudes like this that make it difficult for those who really are concerned with discrimination to get anything done.

Those statements are not the slightest bit incompatible.

Gender stereotypes are harmful to both genders.

Claims of "discrimination" against white males are exaggerated and are of lower priority.

I am very concerned with discrimination. I am active in fighting discrimination in many ways. I contribute both time and money to fighting discrimination.

I think that "masculism" gets in the way of fighting discrimination. I think protecting white male privileges gets in the way of fighting discrimination.

Even a cursory look at economic statistics or studies of discrimination makes perfectly clear where the biggest problems with discrimination lie. We are making progress, but slowly. Focusing on the least discriminated against is illogical and wastes resources. And often their claims conflict with overall equality.

I firmly believe in equality for all. That does not mean focusing on the special plight of the white male -- the dominant group in this country.

Those statements are not the slightest bit incompatible.

Gender stereotypes are harmful to both genders.

Claims of "discrimination" against white males are exaggerated and are of lower priority.

I am very concerned with discrimination. I am active in fighting discrimination in many ways. I contribute both time and money to fighting discrimination.

I think that "masculism" gets in the way of fighting discrimination. I think protecting white male privileges gets in the way of fighting discrimination.

Even a cursory look at economic statistics or studies of discrimination makes perfectly clear where the biggest problems with discrimination lie. We are making progress, but slowly. Focusing on the least discriminated against is illogical and wastes resources. And often their claims conflict with overall equality.

I firmly believe in equality for all. That does not mean focusing on the special plight of the white male -- the dominant group in this country.


One thread studing the idea on an internet form hardly constitutes focusing ... while it helps with understanding.

I just dont see how you can make the claim to be fore equality when you dont treat discrimination equaly ... you make some people more important then others (is that not a form of discrimination in and of itself)

One thread studing the idea on an internet form hardly constitutes focusing ... while it helps with understanding.

I just dont see how you can make the claim to be fore equality when you dont treat discrimination equaly ... you make some people more important then others (is that not a form of discrimination in and of itself)

<sigh>

First, we have hardly seen examples of real discrimination even raised here.

Second, all discrimination is wrong. But neither you nor I have a magic wand to fix it all tomorrow. So, who are you going to help? Who are you going to worry about? Everyone is a nice concept, but it hardly works in practice.

Third, gender equity will generally eliminate discrimination against both genders. But focusing purely on cases were men are disadvantaged won't.

Fourth, some are more discriminated against than others. Do you deny it?

<sigh>

First, we have hardly seen examples of real discrimination even raised here.

Second, all discrimination is wrong. But neither you nor I have a magic wand to fix it all tomorrow. So, who are you going to help? Who are you going to worry about? Everyone is a nice concept, but it hardly works in practice.

Third, gender equity will generally eliminate discrimination against both genders. But focusing purely on cases were men are disadvantaged won't.

Fourth, some are more discriminated against than others. Do you deny it?
No I dont deny it I just dont think concentrating on one group at the expense of attention for other groups is a good idea

Those statements are not the slightest bit incompatible.

Yes, they are, as the latter statement says that discrimination agaist males does not matter becaues they put themselves there, which is no different than stating any group did it to themselves.

Gender stereotypes are harmful to both genders.

And thus *all* gender stereotypes should be fought, not just the ones you don't agree with.

Claims of "discrimination" against white males are exaggerated and are of lower priority.

Perhaps lower priority, but not without priority. Anyone who truly wishes for equity would speak out against *any* discrimination, not simply their pet group.

I think that "masculism" gets in the way of fighting discrimination. I think protecting white male privileges gets in the way of fighting discrimination.

(a) Masculism and feminism are the same, from the point of view of anyone who really cares.

(b) No one said anything about protecting priviledges.

I firmly believe in equality for all. That does not mean focusing on the special plight of the white male -- the dominant group in this country.

I never said anything about focusing on it, but *this* thread is about that.

Note: To add, you cannot work for equity for one gender without working for equity for all. Any attempt to do so goes against the very idea.

Yes, they are, as the latter statement says that discrimination agaist males does not matter becaues they put themselves there, which is no different than stating any group did it to themselves.

No, what I said and meant was white males have discriminated against everyone else -- creating a line in which they can wait their turn with their minor share of discrimination.

And thus *all* gender stereotypes should be fought, not just the ones you don't agree with.

Perhaps lower priority, but not without priority. Anyone who truly wishes for equity would speak out against *any* discrimination, not simply their pet group.

(a) Masculism and feminism are the same, from the point of view of anyone who really cares.

(b) No one said anything about protecting priviledges.

I never said anything about focusing on it, but *this* thread is about that.

Note: To add, you cannot work for equity for one gender without working for equity for all. Any attempt to do so goes against the very idea.

I'd really like to know WTF you've done for equity, since you see fit to question my devotion to it.

As demonstrated by much of this thread, "masculism" often descends into or fosters discrimination against women. And, in fact, you have proposed at least one "discrimination" remedy that very clearly gives a privilege to men and takes away from females.

I do not favor discrimination against men or whites. Our civil rights laws fully protect all genders and races.

I support equality for all. This happens to be the third thread I've seen in the last couple weeks complaining about discrimination against men or white men. It is a common complaint in these Forums. It recieves disproportionate attention.

Here are some facts that more than justify focusing on real problems of discrimination:


Minorities and women remain economically disadvantaged: the black unemployment rate remains over twice the white unemployment rate; 97 percent of senior managers in Fortune 1000 corporations are white males; (28) in 1992, 33.3 percent of blacks and 29.3 percent of Hispanics lived in poverty, compared to 11.6 percent of whites. (29) In 1993, Hispanic men were half as likely as white men to be managers or professionals; (30) only 0.4 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries are Hispanic. (31)


Blatant discrimination is a continuing problem in the labor market. Perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from "audit" studies, in which white and minority (or male and female) job seekers are given similar resumes and sent to the same set of firms to apply for a job. These studies often find that employers are less likely to interview or offer a job to minority applicants and to female applicants. (32)


Less direct evidence on discrimination comes from comparisons of earnings of blacks and whites, or males and females. (33) Even after adjusting for characteristics that affect earnings (such as years of education and work experience), these studies typically find that blacks and women are paid less than their white male counterparts. The average income for Hispanic women with college degrees is less than the average for white men with high school degrees. (34)


In 1994 alone, the Federal government received over 90,000 complaints of employment discrimination. Moreover 64,423 complaints were filed with state and local Fair Employment Practices Commissions, bringing the total last year to over 154,000. Thousands of other individuals filed complaints alleging racially motivated violence and discrimination in housing, voting, and public accommodations, to name just a few.


White males continue to hold 97 percent of senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries. Only 0.6 percent of senior management are African American, 0.3 percent are Asian and 0.4 percent are Hispanic.


African Americans hold only 2.5 percent of top jobs in the private sector and African American men with professional degrees earn only 79 percent of the amount earned by their white counterparts. Comparably situated African American women earn only 60 percent of the amount earned by white males.


Women hold 3 to 5 percent of senior level management positions -- there are only two women CEOs in Fortune 1000 companies.


The fears and prejudices of lower-rung white male executives were listed as a principal barrier to the advancement of women and minorities. The report also found that, across the board, men advance more rapidly than women.


The unemployment rate for African Americans was more than twice that of whites in 1994. The median income for black males working full-time, full year in 1992 was 30 percent less than white males. Hispanics fared only modestly better in each category. In 1993, black and Hispanic men were half as likely as white men to be managers or professionals.


In 1992, over 50 percent of African American children under 6 and 44 percent of Hispanic children lived under the poverty level, while only 14.4 percent of white children did so. The overall poverty rates were 33.3 percent for African Americans, 29.3 percent for Hispanics and 11.6 percent for whites.


Black employment remains fragile -- in an economic downturn, black unemployment leads the downward spiral. For example, in the 1981-82 recession, black employment dropped by 9.1 percent while white employment fell by 1.6 percent. Hispanic unemployment is also much more cyclical than unemployment for white Americans. (39) Hispanic family income remains much lower, and increases at a slower rate, than white family income.


Unequal access to education plays an important role in creating and perpetuating economic disparities. In 1993, less than 3 percent of college graduates were unemployed; but whereas 22.6 percent of whites had college degrees, only 12.2 percent of African Americans and 9.0 percent of Hispanics did.


The 1990 census reflected that 2.4 percent of the nation's businesses are owned by blacks. Almost 85 percent of those black owned businesses have no employees


Even within educational categories, the economic status of minorities and women fall short. The average woman with a masters degree earns the same amount as the average man with an associate degree. (42) While college educated black women have reached earnings parity with college educated white women, college educated black men earn 76 percent of the earnings of their white male counterparts. (43) Hispanic women earn less than 65 percent of the income earned by white men with the same educational level. Hispanic men earn 81 percent of the wages earned by white men at the same educational level. The average income for Hispanic women with college degrees is less than the average for white men with high school degrees.


A study of the graduating classes of the University of Michigan Law School from 1972-1975 revealed significant wage differentials between men and women lawyers after 15 years of practice. While women earned 93.5 percent of male salaries during the first year after school, that number dropped to 61 percent after 15 years of practice. Controlling for grades, hours of work, family responsibilities, labor market experience, and choice of careers (large firms versus small firms, academia, public interest, etc.), men are left with an unexplained 13 percent earnings advantage over women.


Here is my source (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa04.html). It is the Clinton Administration's Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President. Here are the footnotes (http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/footnotes.html#aa28).

I am more than justified in saying we need to do more to raise women and minorities up to the same level as white males. Then we can worry about ironing out the minor inequities -- most of which will fix themselves.

I am not making them up. And you had no problem with it when it was first stated by Sinehue earlier in the thread. Argumentative for the sake of argument, are we?

Besides, dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. I have defined my terms as I use them - as anyone should do.

SinUhue wasn't a nut about it. I also didn't correct you when you first started doing it. You are correcting people for using terms correctly regularly. As long as someone is not wrong, don't pretend like you know better than they do. Disprove and falsify has the same proof requirements as prove, parents can be biological, adoptive or logical (or technically all three), and equal does not mean the same.

And synonyms mean *exactly* the same thing?

Nope, they are equal.

And yet the child does not automatically have access to the woman's money because she wasn't capable of keeping his cock out of hers?

Meanwhile, it is not the child who decides - it is the woman. As such, it is the *WOMAN* who gets access to the money.

But it is the *woman* who gets the entire decision on whether or not there will be child support. The man has to pay child support if the *woman* says so. The woman has to pay child support if *she* decides to have a child.

Actually, the government can order child support in all sorts of cases where it finds itself responsible for any aspect of the child. The father can choose to pay support. And, with the birth of children's attorneys, children can sue their fathers for child support whether their mother wants it or not. Like any monies given to a child, the guardian(s) have control of that money until the child is of age. This could be a woman, a man, both, two women or two men.

How is that? Did a man become able to have a child while I wasn't looking? I'd like to know so I can make sure my boyfriend does it for me when the time comes.

You confuse equal with the same. Women have control of the child from conception to birth but they also have the pain of child birth, the massive effects on their body during pregnancy and child birth and the difficult

Way to avoid the point by appealing to a document that does nothing but describe things.

You didn't make a point other than to be equal men would have to get pregnant, essentially chastising Cat for using the word equal. There is no point to addressing your POINT because it's nonsensical. Men can't get pregnant and, as you know, it is not the only way to be equal. Unless you redefine the term, equal, which you're trying to do. Again, use a dictionary.

More inconsistency. You agree that the only inequity is that a woman has no way to give the child to the man but disagree as shown above?

I agree that allowing both men and women to sign this document is more equitable to the man and the woman. I think you still have to argue for the child and the government. I don't think that it's the only inequity, just that it should be counteracted by allowing both to sign the document. I should have been more specific.

By the way, getting back on topic, I remembered another place in which men *are* discriminated against, and should not be. In cases where two people below the age of consent have sex, the male is automatically considered to be the aggressor and if parents complain, possibly charged (generally as an adult) for statutory rape, even if he is younger than the female. I have yet to hear of a single case that occured the other way around.
Again, is this a law, or the application of the law based on stereotypes? Just as in the child custody issue, unless it's a law in the books, you need to fight the attitudes themselves that lead to this unfair treatment...but you can't call it legal discrimination.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]If it is, they have the option of carrying to term and giving the child up for adoption. And before Jocabia jumps in with a bunch of irrelevant whining, if the father has already given up rights, she does not need his permission for this.[QUOTE]

And yet, you never address what happens when the father doesn't give up his rights. You never address the *inequity* of nature requiring the woman to feel that child kicking in her belly before she gives it up. You never address the *inequity* of nature requiring a woman to be physically and chemically changed by the pregnancy. You never address the *inequity* of nature require a woman to spend nine months throwing up, running to pee, rubbing swollen feet and a sore back, etc. The only *inequity* you attempt to address is that a man can't have an abortion.

Again, is this a law, or the application of the law based on stereotypes? Just as in the child custody issue, unless it's a law in the books, you need to fight the attitudes themselves that lead to this unfair treatment...but you can't call it legal discrimination.
As I posed it is the LAW in minnesota at least ... the wording do not allow a male to be "statitorialy" raped at all

He can be molested yes and some other things but it is not concidered statitory rape

We studdied this in a criminal justice class based off of Minnesota law

With the wording of the law there is NO way that a female CAN be charged with statutory rape against a male REGARDLESS of the age
She could be 40
he could be 10
Still not statitory rape
Other laws apply ... molestation and such but the way the law is worded
(statitory rape holding the stronger penalty)

And yes weight is given to the male being the agressor even when younger ... as far as our class found not a single case in minnisota history that has been taken otherwise (we dident dig THAT deep though so a few could be out there)
Then this law needs to be dealt with. In most places I've seen cases like this in, women most certainly CAN be charged with statutory rape...just think of the cases of female teachers having sex with their students.

Then this law needs to be dealt with. In most places I've seen cases like this in, women most certainly CAN be charged with statutory rape...just think of the cases of female teachers having sex with their students.
Yes I agree it needs to be changed but it still is one example

And it is being worked on ... like I said they can be charged with other offenses yes and if it is an extreme minor other issues come into play as well

Discriminatory gender roles are a very real problem for ALL sexes. Feminists seek to change that for the benefit of ALL genders. I had to change that, because there are more than two genders.

Discimination against men based on their gender is statistically insignificant compared to discrimination against women.

Does discrimination against white men exist? Yes.

Is discrimination against white men made illegal by every civil rights law? Yes.

Is discrimination against white men a societal problem that deserves attention at this time? Hell no.

They can get in the line they created behind women and minorities.
Look, I get what you're trying to say. When the house is on fire, you don't need to worry that your mailbox is being stolen. Nonetheless, the theft of your mail box is still a problem. I haven't read anyone saying we need to pay more attention to discrimination against men than women. What I HAVE read is that we want to make it clear we know there IS discrimination, that gender stereotypes affect men too, and if we DO come across a blatant example of discrimination, we would be willing to fight it, just as we would go to bat for women and transgendereds.

I had to change that, because there are more than two genders.


Look, I get what you're trying to say. When the house is on fire, you don't need to worry that your mailbox is being stolen. Nonetheless, the theft of your mail box is still a problem. I haven't read anyone saying we need to pay more attention to discrimination against men than women. What I HAVE read is that we want to make it clear we know there IS discrimination, that gender stereotypes affect men too, and if we DO come across a blatant example of discrimination, we would be willing to fight it, just as we would go to bat for women and transgendereds.
Exactly!
To use your example
If you are standing and waiting for the firetruck to come and cant do anything but wait and see that mailbox being stolen which you CAN do something about while waiting for that truck you shouldent ignore it when you can do something about that ... or start to do something about it (ie calling the cops) does not take much of your time but can start a process that fixes that smaller problem while still waiting/working on the bigger one

No I dont deny it I just dont think concentrating on one group at the expense of attention for other groups is a good idea
To be fair to Cat Tribe...we all need to prioritise or we'd be aboslutely ineffective and worn out. I desperately want to address all issues I feel strongly about, poverty, immigration, human rights, education, health care, so and so forth. However, I only have the time and energy to focus on a few things if I really want to make any sort of headway. It doesn't mean I don't think about the other things...just that I can't do everything at once.

We HAVE to concentrate on a particular group or issue at a time. That does NOT mean it is at the expense of all the other groups. If I work in an anti-poverty group specifically targeting child poverty in my town, is that work at the expense of the urban poor? The adult poor? The poor of the world? Only if you think I could have made a difference in the lives of ALL those poor had I not been focused on one group.

I think both sides of this debate are getting a little upset about misunderstandings. Cat Tribe seems to be trying to get across that she considers disrcimination against women to be something she wants to deal with now, because to her it is more immediate. I don't think that means she is saying that men can all go to hell, and the more discrimination the better.

You never address the *inequity* of nature requiring the woman to feel that child kicking in her belly before she gives it up. You never address the *inequity* of nature requiring a woman to be physically and chemically changed by the pregnancy. You never address the *inequity* of nature require a woman to spend nine months throwing up, running to pee, rubbing swollen feet and a sore back, etc.
in America, a woman isn't required to experience any of those things. she can have an abortion if she doesn't want to endure pregnancy. if she chooses to carry a pregnancy to term she will experience all the physical aspects of that choice. a man has the same right; he is free to continue or terminate his own pregnancies as he chooses. where's the inequity?

in America, a woman isn't required to experience any of those things. she can have an abortion if she doesn't want to endure pregnancy. if she chooses to carry a pregnancy to term she will experience all the physical aspects of that choice. a man has the same right; he is free to continue or terminate his own pregnancies as he chooses. where's the inequity?

When a woman makes that decision she is deciding to not put her body through a physically traumatic experience (as any other results could be avoided by adoption). A man is hardly choosing to do that when he signs a paper abortion. They are not even close to logically equal.

To be fair to Cat Tribe...we all need to prioritise or we'd be aboslutely ineffective and worn out. I desperately want to address all issues I feel strongly about, poverty, immigration, human rights, education, health care, so and so forth. However, I only have the time and energy to focus on a few things if I really want to make any sort of headway. It doesn't mean I don't think about the other things...just that I can't do everything at once.

We HAVE to concentrate on a particular group or issue at a time. That does NOT mean it is at the expense of all the other groups. If I work in an anti-poverty group specifically targeting child poverty in my town, is that work at the expense of the urban poor? The adult poor? The poor of the world? Only if you think I could have made a difference in the lives of ALL those poor had I not been focused on one group.

I think both sides of this debate are getting a little upset about misunderstandings. Cat Tribe seems to be trying to get across that she considers disrcimination against women to be something she wants to deal with now, because to her it is more immediate. I don't think that means she is saying that men can all go to hell, and the more discrimination the better.

I am so attracted to you right now. :P

To be fair to Cat Tribe...we all need to prioritise or we'd be aboslutely ineffective and worn out. I desperately want to address all issues I feel strongly about, poverty, immigration, human rights, education, health care, so and so forth. However, I only have the time and energy to focus on a few things if I really want to make any sort of headway. It doesn't mean I don't think about the other things...just that I can't do everything at once.

We HAVE to concentrate on a particular group or issue at a time. That does NOT mean it is at the expense of all the other groups. If I work in an anti-poverty group specifically targeting child poverty in my town, is that work at the expense of the urban poor? The adult poor? The poor of the world? Only if you think I could have made a difference in the lives of ALL those poor had I not been focused on one group.

I think both sides of this debate are getting a little upset about misunderstandings. Cat Tribe seems to be trying to get across that she considers disrcimination against women to be something she wants to deal with now, because to her it is more immediate. I don't think that means she is saying that men can all go to hell, and the more discrimination the better.


I did not try to imply that and not saying that we can do everything at once ... but there are a lot of people out there and if we see something we can fix now we should do it
But I do not think we should ignore at least discussing the problem (which she was advocating esentialy saying "why are we even talking about this" sort of atitude) I understand we can only DO so much at a time but it does not mean we should push everything else out of our minds

I am so attracted to you right now. :P
*smacks Jocabia* Stop trying to get into my pants! They're hardly big enough for me!

When a woman makes that decision she is deciding to not put her body through a physically traumatic experience (as any other results could be avoided by adoption). A man is hardly choosing to do that when he signs a paper abortion. They are not even close to logically equal.
No but he is choosing not to dedicate his next 18 years to a child he does not want ... instead of paper abortion call it paper adoption then either way

*smacks Jocabia* Stop trying to get into my pants! They're hardly big enough for me!

There's plenty of room in mine. Wait, I didn't mean...oh, damn

No but he is choosing not to dedicate his next 18 years to a child he does not want ... instead of paper abortion call it paper adoption then either way

A man already has all the same legal rights as a woman regarding adoption.

When a woman makes that decision she is deciding to not put her body through a physically traumatic experience (as any other results could be avoided by adoption). A man is hardly choosing to do that when he signs a paper abortion. They are not even close to logically equal.
yes, men cannot naturally be pregnant. yes, women can. what's your point?

I did not try to imply that and not saying that we can do everything at once ... but there are a lot of people out there and if we see something we can fix now we should do it
But I do not think we should ignore at least discussing the problem (which she was advocating esentialy saying "why are we even talking about this" sort of atitude) I understand we can only DO so much at a time but it does not mean we should push everything else out of our minds
I get you:). However, I think (it's kind of funny that we are both trying to interpret for her:)) she is simply questioning why there seems to be such a focus on men in this thread when women's issues are still more pressing in their immediacy. I think she is taking the term masculist to mean 'men first', when the original poster meant it to mean essentially the same thing as feminist. However, I HAVE seen her say that she does not push everything out of her mind, and that ALL discrimination is wrong, but that in her mind, some discrimination is more pressing than other. ALSO, she has asked for (as have I) real examples of discrimination against men other than in terms of attitudes. So far, only two have cropped up: Maternity leave, and a particular law in one State of the US. Hardly overwhelming evidence of bias against men.

In my mind, it is gender stereotypes and attitudes that are the biggest problem for all the genders in the West...while laws are more immediately problematic for women and transgendered in particular in the rest of the world.

A man already has all the same legal rights as a woman regarding adoption.
(not really if I remember right it is the womans decision for adoption ... she can choose to give it up for adoption or not ... the man has no real legal choice in the matter except to sue for custody)

Ok then call it a paper abortion again ... it is his option to "opt out" just as she has an opt out of the situation (she can both avoid the phisical by aborting or adopt if she chooses to as well)

I get you:). However, I think (it's kind of funny that we are both trying to interpret for her:)) she is simply questioning why there seems to be such a focus on men in this thread when women's issues are still more pressing in their immediacy. I think she is taking the term masculist to mean 'men first', when the original poster meant it to mean essentially the same thing as feminist. However, I HAVE seen her say that she does not push everything out of her mind, and that ALL discrimination is wrong, but that in her mind, some discrimination is more pressing than other. ALSO, she has asked for (as have I) real examples of discrimination against men other than in terms of attitudes. So far, only two have cropped up: Maternity leave, and a particular law in one State of the US. Hardly overwhelming evidence of bias against men.

In my mind, it is gender stereotypes and attitudes that are the biggest problem for all the genders in the West...while laws are more immediately problematic for women and transgendered in particular in the rest of the world.


I agree ... in fact a lot of the issues that females have are rooted in attitudes more then law themslelves (at least in the us) things like unequal pay and such are not rooted in a flaw in the law but rather standard corporate practices that are based on attitudes and stereotypes

And I still dont know why she got so up in arms about even the discussion of it (which is what I really had a problem with) she was taking it like a personal affront that we even concider it at the same time women are still un equal ... that was my biggest issue

yes, men cannot naturally be pregnant. yes, women can. what's your point?

My point is an abortion is to get out of something men don't have to go through anyway. There is no reason to give men access to a paper abortion because they don't currently have to deal with pregnancy. Women don't have to deal with the financial responsibility of a child because there is no child when a medical abortion occurs.

WHEN a child appears, women have the same responsibilities as a man to finance that child.

Dem, if this is inconsistent with my initial position, it's because from discussing this with you, I've changed my mind (something I appreciate your help on). I now feel that a paper document that absolves a man of the responsibilities of a child isn't right. (however, if the man gets that paper so should a woman)

So far, only two have cropped up: Maternity leave, and a particular law in one State of the US. Hardly overwhelming evidence of bias against men.
But it not allowing paternity leave really discrimination directed towards men? Or is it towards woman? It's saying that only women get time off to raise kids, thus only women are expected to do so. Paternity leave would be good for both genders, as it removes the stereotype that women have to be the ones to stay home and look after the kids and it allows men to go home and bond with their infants.

My point is an abortion is to get out of something men don't have to go through anyway. There is no reason to give men access to a paper abortion because they don't currently have to deal with pregnancy. Women don't have to deal with the financial responsibility of a child because there is no child when a medical abortion occurs.

WHEN a child appears, women have the same responsibilities as a man to finance that child.

Dem, if this is inconsistent with my initial position, it's because from discussing this with you, I've changed my mind (something I appreciate your help on). I now feel that a paper document that absolves a man of the responsibilities of a child isn't right. (however, if the man gets that paper so should a woman)
But a woman has an opt out that a man can not make ANY decision regarding (I.E. abortion) while the mans only opt out is a joint decision (adoption) he should have the same option to make a decision that is not dependant on the womans wishes just as she gets to make the decision that is not dependant on the mans decision

Ok then call it a paper abortion again ... it is his option to "opt out" just as she has an opt out of the situation (she can both avoid the phisical by aborting or adopt if she chooses to as well)
one could look at it this way:

a woman can choose to be involved in the process on two different levels; she can choose whether or not she wants to be involved in the physical pregnancy (by choosing whether or not she will abort), and then she can choose whether or not she wants to be a part of rearing the child (by choosing whether or not to give the baby up for adoption). a man has only half as many choices, since he does not have the freedom to choose to be a part of the physical pregnancy...he can only choose how he will be involved with the baby if and when it is born.

(not really if I remember right it is the womans decision for adoption ... she can choose to give it up for adoption or not ... the man has no real legal choice in the matter except to sue for custody)

Ok then call it a paper abortion again ... it is his option to "opt out" just as she has an opt out of the situation (she can both avoid the phisical by aborting or adopt if she chooses to as well)

Actually, I showed earlier in the thread that if paternity is established to the satisfaction of the court or the man is on the birth certificate or if the man and woman were married at conception, the man has the same rights as the woman in allowing an adoption to occur. If a man does not establish paternity, the courts can't hardly help him, now can they?

But it not allowing paternity leave really discrimination directed towards men? Or is it towards woman? It's saying that only women get time off to raise kids, thus only women are expected to do so. Paternity leave would be good for both genders, as it removes the stereotype that women have to be the ones to stay home and look after the kids and it allows men to go home and bond with their infants.
I think it is reflective of steriotypes but really it only limits mens ability to take off of work (as the woman can opt not to take her full maternity leave at all) she at least gets the choice

(though by limiting the fauthers choice of taking maternity leave it does limit the mothers option to go back while the fauther takes care of the child ... but that is more an example of why discrimination hurts both of us)

one could look at it this way:

a woman can choose to be involved in the process on two different levels; she can choose whether or not she wants to be involved in the physical pregnancy (by choosing whether or not she will abort), and then she can choose whether or not she wants to be a part of rearing the child (by choosing whether or not to give the baby up for adoption). a man has only half as many choices, since he does not have the freedom to choose to be a part of the physical pregnancy...he can only choose how he will be involved with the baby if and when it is born.

No document will ever let a man be a part of the physical pregnancy. At the same time, when a woman chooses adoption she still must go through the physical difficulty and psychological attachment of pregnancy. When a man chooses adoption he still does not have to go through those things.

EDIT: YES, YES, I know, that's nature. I get it. I was just pointing it out.

Actually, I showed earlier in the thread that if paternity is established to the satisfaction of the court or the man is on the birth certificate or if the man and woman were married at conception, the man has the same rights as the woman in allowing an adoption to occur. If a man does not establish paternity, the courts can't hardly help him, now can they?
What about in a non marige situation? but paternity is proved?

And I still dont know why she got so up in arms about even the discussion of it (which is what I really had a problem with) she was taking it like a personal affront that we even concider it at the same time women are still un equal ... that was my biggest issue
Again, to be fair, I know that whenever I've started a thread about issues affecting women, I get a bunch of people jumping in screaming about how men have it bad, and how terribly sexist of me to only talk about women...even when the thread was specifically ABOUT women...

In fact, I have often come across the position that men are worse off than women because of women's lib and feminists. So, I kind of think Cat was interjecting a reality check...got attacked for it, and reacted aggressively. I think I may have done the same. So, let's lay down our arms, hug, and be happy:).

No document will ever let a man be a part of the physical pregnancy. At the same time, when a woman chooses adoption she still must go through the physical difficulty and psychological attachment of pregnancy. When a man chooses adoption he still does not have to go through those things.

EDIT: YES, YES, I know, that's nature. I get it. I was just pointing it out.
So biology is not fair ... we did not exactly choose that? And no amount of law making is going to change that.

There is still the FINANCIAL issue a woman has the means to disasociate herself from that (abortion) the man has no method for such if the woman does not want abortion or adoption

The woman still has a choice that a man dosent

What about in a non marige situation? but paternity is proved?

The man has the same rights to the child as the woman when paternity is established. As such a woman can not put a child up for adoption without consent of the father. I checked three states and all three states had this as adoption law, but feel free to check more states if you like. There are likely exceptions, but I don't really care to find them.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Adoption.htm

Also for the record, drawing blood is considered search and seizure and falls under the same requirements. As such, to draw blood from a child without consent of the parents, the father must make a reasonable plea to the courts showing there is reason enough for the court to need a blood sample. In many cases, reasonable is we had sex around the time of conception.

But it not allowing paternity leave really discrimination directed towards men? Or is it towards woman? It's saying that only women get time off to raise kids, thus only women are expected to do so. Paternity leave would be good for both genders, as it removes the stereotype that women have to be the ones to stay home and look after the kids and it allows men to go home and bond with their infants.
Oh, sorry...you may not have had time to read through this thread to get to the post about this.

Maternity leave in Canada is 32 weeks. ONLY women can take this time. Parental leave (not paternity leave) can be taken by mother or father, but is only for 20 weeks. Even if the mother wants to go back to work immediately, she is encouraged not to, because that would cut off 32 weeks of intimate time with the new baby. The solution I think would be to make it Parental leave period, not Maternal, not Paternal. HOWEVER, I think Parental leave should be 52 weeks, and there SHOULD be a two week Maternity leave for women who give birth (for recovery time). Adoptive mothers should not have this extra 2 weeks.

No, what I said and meant was white males have discriminated against everyone else -- creating a line in which they can wait their turn with their minor share of discrimination.

All white males have not been discriminatory, nor is the discrimination that was suffered entirely their fault. Remember that there were many women against women's suffrage, just as there now many women who are all for forcing FGM on their daughters. It is attitudes that must be changed *universally*, not just in whoever you see as being the most fortunate group.

I'd really like to know WTF you've done for equity, since you see fit to question my devotion to it.

I speak out against inequity *wherever* I see it, not just in the groups I think are most important.

As demonstrated by much of this thread, "masculism" often descends into or fosters discrimination against women.

And "feminism" often descends into or fosters discrimination against men. Of course, in either case, you are no longer talking about masculism/feminism, but simply more discrimination.

And, in fact, you have proposed at least one "discrimination" remedy that very clearly gives a privilege to men and takes away from females.

I have done no such thing, as there is no clear priviledge unless you assume that women are somehow less capbale than men.

I do not favor discrimination against men or whites. Our civil rights laws fully protect all genders and races.

Yes, they do, well -mostly, and as such discrimination generally comes from *attitudes*, not laws. Thus, we must fight against stereotpyes on *all* sides.

I support equality for all. This happens to be the third thread I've seen in the last couple weeks complaining about discrimination against men or white men. It is a common complaint in these Forums. It recieves disproportionate attention.

Do you really think these forums adequately represent worldwide attention? There have been "remedies" to discrimination against minorities/women that have descended into discrimination against majorities. As such, some backlash is to be expected. We can't simply sweep these complaints under the rug and stick our fingers in our ears and expect to be able to continue working for equity. We must address these concerns just as we address our own, or be no better than what we attempt to fight.

Again, to be fair, I know that whenever I've started a thread about issues affecting women, I get a bunch of people jumping in screaming about how men have it bad, and how terribly sexist of me to only talk about women...even when the thread was specifically ABOUT women...

In fact, I have often come across the position that men are worse off than women because of women's lib and feminists. So, I kind of think Cat was interjecting a reality check...got attacked for it, and reacted aggressively. I think I may have done the same. So, let's lay down our arms, hug, and be happy:).
Then thoes people are wrong ... not a reason for her to do the same thing in a thread about male equality. But yes lets hug :fluffle: lol I just dont like to see discussion swept under the rug about any form of discrimination just because there is other discrimination out there ... just leads to ignoring the problem :fluffle:

Oh, sorry...you may not have had time to read through this thread to get to the post about this.

Maternity leave in Canada is 32 weeks. ONLY women can take this time. Parental leave (not paternity leave) can be taken by mother or father, but is only for 20 weeks. Even if the mother wants to go back to work immediately, she is encouraged not to, because that would cut off 32 weeks of intimate time with the new baby. The solution I think would be to make it Parental leave period, not Maternal, not Parental. HOWEVER, I think Parental leave should be 52 weeks, and there SHOULD be a two week Maternity leave for women who give birth (for recovery time). Adoptive mothers should not have this extra 2 weeks.
That makes sense. (what you proposed)

Though some women do need time off before the kid is born (I don't hear of women working until the delivery day too often) and men should automatically get time off to help the mother of their child recover...

The man has the same rights to the child as the woman when paternity is established. As such a woman can not put a child up for adoption without consent of the father. I checked three states and all three states had this as adoption law, but feel free to check more states if you like. There are likely exceptions, but I don't really care to find them.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Adoption.htm

Also for the record, drawing blood is considered search and seizure and falls under the same requirements. As such, to draw blood from a child without consent of the parents, the father must make a reasonable plea to the courts showing there is reason enough for the court to need a blood sample. In many cases, reasonable is we had sex around the time of conception.
Thanks for the info I was honestly curious

So biology is not fair ... we did not exactly choose that? And no amount of law making is going to change that.

There is still the FINANCIAL issue a woman has the means to disasociate herself from that (abortion) the man has no method for such if the woman does not want abortion or adoption

The woman still has a choice that a man dosent

If the court could find a way for the child to still come into being without the woman's body the child would still be born and the woman would still be financially responsible. Since the courts can do no such thing, the courts have to support a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body. Once the fetus becomes capable of surviving without the mother, it becomes a child in the eyes of the law and the child's rights must be considered. The child has a right to financial support from both parents. The only way for either parent to opt out of this is for a substitute to be found (adoptive parents).

Thanks for the info I was honestly curious

I know. I found it interesting myself. I would like to see the MN law you talked about.

If the court could find a way for the child to still come into being without the woman's body the child would still be born and the woman would still be financially responsible. Since the courts can do no such thing, the courts have to support a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body. Once the fetus becomes capable of surviving without the mother, it becomes a child in the eyes of the law and the child's rights must be considered. The child has a right to financial support from both parents. The only way for either parent to opt out of this is for a substitute to be found (adoptive parents).
But that is NOT the only way for the mother ... it is one of the two ways
and abortion gives her the extra way to opt out without decision of the fauther

Again life is not fair nor is biology but we have to concidere the non primary consequences of actions (ie the primary of abortion would be the removal of philical stress on woman ... side effect removal of fiscal responsability)

Life is not fair but we have to concider the side-effects of actions 18 years is a LOT of fiscal responsibility

You are correcting people for using terms correctly regularly.

Oh?

Disprove and falsify has the same proof requirements as prove,

Not from a logical standpoint. The logical steps needed for the two are wholly different.

parents can be biological, adoptive or logical (or technically all three),

I never said they didn't, nor did I "correct" anyone using it differently. I pointed out how *I* use the term.

and equal does not mean the same.

You are working off of a different definition of equal than most people. As such, you must define it specifically in your use.

Actually, the government can order child support in all sorts of cases where it finds itself responsible for any aspect of the child.

This still does not address the point. The *woman* decides if there will even *be* a child. As such, she has the full decision of whether or not anyone, be it herself, the male, adoptive parents, or the government have to pay monies. With rights come responsibilities. She has the right to decide, and thus should have more responsibility than others.

You confuse equal with the same. Women have control of the child from conception to birth but they also have the pain of child birth, the massive effects on their body during pregnancy and child birth and the difficult

I am well aware of this fact - but it is not something that can be changed. As I pointed out before, it is a basic biologic difference, which is the only reason that unequal treatment can be given.

Women have the *choice* of whether or not to go through these things. It is a difficult choice, yes, but the choice is still available to them.

You didn't make a point other than to be equal men would have to get pregnant, essentially chastising Cat for using the word equal. There is no point to addressing your POINT because it's nonsensical. Men can't get pregnant and, as you know, it is not the only way to be equal. Unless you redefine the term, equal, which you're trying to do. Again, use a dictionary.

A dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. The definition of the word does not come from the dictionary, but the dictionary comes from use of the word. I have defined my usage. I use equal to mean equivalent (one of its definitions) and equitable to refer to fair, but different treatment. This is to avoid confusion.

I agree that allowing both men and women to sign this document is more equitable to the man and the woman. I think you still have to argue for the child and the government. I don't think that it's the only inequity, just that it should be counteracted by allowing both to sign the document. I should have been more specific.

We are talking about events that occur before there is a child and before government involvement. As such, I do not have to argue anything relating to them.

in America, a woman isn't required to experience any of those things. she can have an abortion if she doesn't want to endure pregnancy. if she chooses to carry a pregnancy to term she will experience all the physical aspects of that choice. a man has the same right; he is free to continue or terminate his own pregnancies as he chooses. where's the inequity?
I say that if such a paper abortion is allowed for men, he has to inform the woman before she gets too far along to abort. That way she can consider whether she can take care of the kid compltely on her own financially.

I know. I found it interesting myself. I would like to see the MN law you talked about.
I will dig out my books ... its been four years. (in fact I have a feeling they may have been changed recently ... we had a recent push changing sodomy laws and I think that might have went through at the same time) I will try to find it for you

And yet, you never address what happens when the father doesn't give up his rights.

When the father doesn't give up his rights, nothing changes. He is responsible for parital care of the child, and has the right of asking for partial custody of the child - just as it is now. The paper would give up all rights and responsibilities. As such, it should be obvious that not signing it simply means retaining such rights and responsibilities.

You never address the *inequity* of nature requiring the woman to feel that child kicking in her belly before she gives it up. You never address the *inequity* of nature requiring a woman to be physically and chemically changed by the pregnancy. You never address the *inequity* of nature require a woman to spend nine months throwing up, running to pee, rubbing swollen feet and a sore back, etc. The only *inequity* you attempt to address is that a man can't have an abortion.

There is no way to address this inequity. It is a basic biologic difference that we cannot change. It is unfortunate, just like the fact that women are more likely to get osteoporotic fractures and men are more likely to have early abdominal aortic aneurysm. However, there really isn't a damn thing we can do about it and it is not due to legal or societal discrimination.

I say that if such a paper abortion is allowed for men, he has to inform the woman before she gets too far along to abort. That way she can consider whether she can take care of the kid compltely on her own financially.
Deffinatly ... it should NOT be an option for someone to just decide one day leaving the woman with nothing ... it should be done as early on as possible

Look, I get what you're trying to say. When the house is on fire, you don't need to worry that your mailbox is being stolen. Nonetheless, the theft of your mail box is still a problem. I haven't read anyone saying we need to pay more attention to discrimination against men than women. What I HAVE read is that we want to make it clear we know there IS discrimination, that gender stereotypes affect men too, and if we DO come across a blatant example of discrimination, we would be willing to fight it, just as we would go to bat for women and transgendereds.

Exactly.

That makes sense. (what you proposed)

Though some women do need time off before the kid is born (I don't hear of women working until the delivery day too often) and men should automatically get time off to help the mother of their child recover...
There has actually been a wonderful extension to the whole thing that allows a woman to take time off before the birth without shortening her leave time. It's an extra 6 weeks, I believe (perhaps a bit less), but it is a special illness leave. It can also be tacked onto the end of the entire leave if the child has health problems and needs a bit more time. However, men only get one day off to be with the mother and their new child...over that, they have to take vacation time. Some employers will give more time on their end, but I think the maximum time I've ever seen for that is 3 days on top of the government provided 1. Four days in total after the birth of the child:(.

Again, this bias hurts men and women. My husband didn't have enough vacation time to stay with me and the baby the first time, and had to take leave without pay. Especially with a first child, BOTH parents need a couple of weeks (at least two) to stay at home and get adjusted to the new addition to the family. It would do a lot to help post-natal depression, and to strengthen the bond between not only mother and child, but father and child.

I say that if such a paper abortion is allowed for men, he has to inform the woman before she gets too far along to abort. That way she can consider whether she can take care of the kid compltely on her own financially.
i agree; of course, this means that the woman must be aware of the pregnancy and inform the man of the pregnancy by a certain point, to give him the chance to think about it seriously and make a decision before she "gets too far along." she can't just tell the guy at T-minus one day, "oh, by the way, i'm having your baby...you have 12 hours to tell me if you want to be a Daddy."

I say that if such a paper abortion is allowed for men, he has to inform the woman before she gets too far along to abort. That way she can consider whether she can take care of the kid compltely on her own financially.

That was one of the original stipulations. The man has the exact amount of time that the woman has to make a decision on an elective abortion (generally 3 months, but 6 in some states). If she does not tell him before that time, he gets the appropriate amount of time *after* he is informed.

i agree; of course, this means that the woman must be aware of the pregnancy and inform the man of the pregnancy by a certain point, to give him the chance to think about it seriously and make a decision before she "gets too far along." she can't just tell the guy at T-minus one day, "oh, by the way, i'm having your baby...you have 12 hours to tell me if you want to be a Daddy."
Another great point ... not a decision to be taken lightly and would be required to inform him as early as possible

There has actually been a wonderful extension to the whole thing that allows a woman to take time off before the birth without shortening her leave time. It's an extra 6 weeks, I believe (perhaps a bit less), but it is a special illness leave. It can also be tacked onto the end of the entire leave if the child has health problems and needs a bit more time. However, men only get one day off to be with the mother and their new child...over that, they have to take vacation time. Some employers will give more time on their end, but I think the maximum time I've ever seen for that is 3 days on top of the government provided 1. Four days in total after the birth of the child:(.

Again, this bias hurts men and women. My husband didn't have enough vacation time to stay with me and the baby the first time, and had to take leave without pay. Especially with a first child, BOTH parents need a couple of weeks (at least two) to stay at home and get adjusted to the new addition to the family. It would do a lot to help post-natal depression, and to strengthen the bond between not only mother and child, but father and child.i'm all for parental leave, but i'm surprised at how urgent and serious everybody seems to think this is.

my mom worked until a week before i was born, and was back working full time within 2 months of my birth. with my brother she was working until 2 weeks before his birth (he was late), and was at work a month and a half after his birth. my Dad took off work for 2 weeks following our due dates, and cut his work schedule to two-thirds workload for another month after that.

i know it was rough for my folks, as it is for all parents with new babies, but they certainly weren't dying or anything. my brother and i both turned out fine, with strong and loving bonds with our parents. i'm sure it would be lovely to get a year off to dink around with your new baby, but is it really necessary? should employers really be expected to provide that much leave time?

Another great point ... not a decision to be taken lightly and would be required to inform him as early as possible
i'm slightly biased on this issue, because my friend Phil became a Daddy almost overnight when he was 17. his girlfriend, who he had broken up with three months prior, came to him one afternoon and told him she was over 7 months pregnant. she claimed that she hadn't known until that day.

now, she was a little on the big side, and she was carrying pretty low, so it actually was possible she wouldn't have noticed the growth of her tummy that much. she also was dumber then a bag of wet sponges, so it's entirely possible that missing her period for 7 months never registered. however, whether or not she knew ahead of time, she certainly didn't give Phil any chance to think the matter over.

i think Phil's girl was a dramatic exception to the rule, and i don't think most women are that stupid or careless with their pregnancies, but it does show why we need to be careful that we don't neglect the fathers' perspective in all this. i want equal and fair treatment for everybody involved.

This thread is growing by ten pages a day! This is great! Keep it up!

Sorry for the delay Swimmingpool. I do have a life outside the internet and my mother has bronchitus. I've had more important things to do :rolleyes:



I meant behaviour, not misbehaviour. Dyslexia is a bitch but i can still predict your behavious 9 times out of 10, in any situation.



Aah, so you care about your kids, just not enough to leave work when they're sick? Thats the mothers job right, even if she works.

I know you arent all so selfish, but the majority i come across are.



Mine was a mistaken quest for love and aproval. I didnt feel valued (in fact i wasnt valued) so i looked elsewhere. it was a huge mistake, terribly hurtful to the boyfriend and something i have never and will never repeat again. I wont use alachol as an excuse as so many men do because i was still both compitent and knew what i was about to do was wrong.

We don't "all" think that we're god's gift to the world. Explain why intimacy is innately superior to sex. I would also love you to explain your comment "we humour you and groan at the right times" - the whole "women like men" thing is just an act, right?.

OK, intimacy is about a bond. it's about loving, caring and sharing things. Being appriceated and being there for someone when they need you.

Sex is about friction and orgasm can easily be brought about by your hand for guys.



Besides my own experiences, I have many female friends, they in turn have boyfriends and husbands. Do you think i made this up? No, it's experience, mine and my friends.



No, we have a little something called empathy. Women generally dont use other people, for sex or otherwise.



If you cenmically castrate a man (IE mane him impotent) he doesnt rape again. See above for the rest.



No, you should probably blame fear. Man on man in a fight is one thing, man on woman, the woman is likley to loose, i'd fire first too.



Wonderful! Maybe you're one of those few men who are kind and decent and loving and will make some girl happy for the rest of your lives.

I just dont think most are like that, sorry.



Will do! :rolleyes:

This is one of the most ignorant, steriotypical rants I have ever read. Do you mean to say that you take the experiences of you and your little circle of aquaintances and apply them to all of us? For your information, women are equally as capable and guilty of using other people for sex and otherwise. Men don't have a monopoly on libido, you know. Empathy is irrelevant when it comes to wanting to have sex. Your lack of open-mindedness has blined you to the possibility that woman are equally as cruel, thoughtless, and overbearing as men, just in a different way. Open your eyes to the truth. Women really aren't the helpless, innocent creatures you seem to be saying they are.

i'm slightly biased on this issue, because my friend Phil became a Daddy almost overnight when he was 17. his girlfriend, who he had broken up with three months prior, came to him one afternoon and told him she was over 7 months pregnant. she claimed that she hadn't known until that day.

now, she was a little on the big side, and she was carrying pretty low, so it actually was possible she wouldn't have noticed the growth of her tummy that much. she also was dumber then a bag of wet sponges, so it's entirely possible that missing her period for 7 months never registered. however, whether or not she knew ahead of time, she certainly didn't give Phil any chance to think the matter over.

i think Phil's girl was a dramatic exception to the rule, and i don't think most women are that stupid or careless with their pregnancies, but it does show why we need to be careful that we don't neglect the fathers' perspective in all this. i want equal and fair treatment for everybody involved.

Agreed ... by early as possible I meant that as soon as she had found out (because it is not possible for her to inform him of what she does not know)

Again, to be fair, I know that whenever I've started a thread about issues affecting women, I get a bunch of people jumping in screaming about how men have it bad, and how terribly sexist of me to only talk about women...even when the thread was specifically ABOUT women...

In fact, I have often come across the position that men are worse off than women because of women's lib and feminists. So, I kind of think Cat was interjecting a reality check...got attacked for it, and reacted aggressively. I think I may have done the same. So, let's lay down our arms, hug, and be happy:).

*snip*

*snip*

Thank you, Sinuhue.

Before I even logged on this morning, I had intended to back away from my temper-fueled remarks last night. I do see aspects of backlash in this thread and I strongly object. I then felt attacked. I said things that were over the top.

I apologize.

So, let me clarify my views.

I am, btw, a white male.

I posted earlier in this thread and have repeated several times that, as a feminist, I am against gender stereotypes. Period. Gender stereotypes are harmful to all genders -- including men and women.

I am against discrimination of any kind against anyone -- regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.

I belong to several organizations fighting inequality, including the NAACP and NOW. I have worked on several anti-discrimination lawsuits. I take offense at having my commitment to equality questioned.

I think the claim that discrimination against white males is significant is demonstrably false. Claims of so-called "reverse discrimination" are rare and exaggerated -- and already covered by existing law. I do not agree that feminism is male-bashing or leads to discrimination against men. To the contrary, it is about equality for all genders.

I'll try to explain what set me off. Some have used this thread to bash women and complain about the loss of male privilege. I understand that was not the original intent of the thread. I disagree with others on a specific issue because what they see as a proposal to create equity, I see as a proposal to add additional inequality. Then an issue was raised about statutory rape. Having worked as prosecutor and defense attorney and having a mother who has devoted her life to anti-rape advocacy, I am fairly certain that rape statutes are rarely if ever used to convict individuals who have had truly consensual sex with someone of approximately the same age. The claim was made, however, that "a few" such cases exist. I said that, in the scope of problems of discrimination facing this country, a "few" cases in which the statutory rape provisions may have been used against a male minor were hardly a significant concern. We went downhill from there -- with, I fully admit, my fanning the flames. (Mixed metaphor?) Much of my subsequent anger was fueled by the accusation that I was not really committed to "equity."

Discrimination is a very real, very serious problem. It would be best if those of us actually committed to ending inequality could cooperate. There is enough inertia and backlash to fight to keep us all busy.

Peace? :)

I will address my views on specific issues raised in this thread seperately.

But that is NOT the only way for the mother ... it is one of the two ways
and abortion gives her the extra way to opt out without decision of the fauther

Again life is not fair nor is biology but we have to concidere the non primary consequences of actions (ie the primary of abortion would be the removal of philical stress on woman ... side effect removal of fiscal responsability)

Life is not fair but we have to concider the side-effects of actions 18 years is a LOT of fiscal responsibility

Yes, but, again, it is a side-effect. Opting out of financial responsibility for a child is not a right. If there was a way to avoid this side-effect it would be avoided. It can't so women win out a little on this point. The only reason abortion is permitted by the government is because women have control over their own bodies. This is a right and the government cannot infringe upon it. If opting out of financial responsibility was a right then we'd all be in a lot of trouble.

i'm slightly biased on this issue, because my friend Phil became a Daddy almost overnight when he was 17. his girlfriend, who he had broken up with three months prior, came to him one afternoon and told him she was over 7 months pregnant. she claimed that she hadn't known until that day.

now, she was a little on the big side, and she was carrying pretty low, so it actually was possible she wouldn't have noticed the growth of her tummy that much. she also was dumber then a bag of wet sponges, so it's entirely possible that missing her period for 7 months never registered. however, whether or not she knew ahead of time, she certainly didn't give Phil any chance to think the matter over.

i think Phil's girl was a dramatic exception to the rule, and i don't think most women are that stupid or careless with their pregnancies, but it does show why we need to be careful that we don't neglect the fathers' perspective in all this. i want equal and fair treatment for everybody involved.
Some women spot every month while pregnant... Though you have to be pretty stupid to be like "Hey, my period is so short and light all of a sudden" and not think that something's up.

Well, it does depend on how regular or consistent your periods are.

I guess if something were to go screwy in the summer I might not notice. Stress seems to make them heavier and no school = much less stress. Plus being more active in the summer and all... if my periods were to suddenly get really light then, it's likely that's what I'd attribute it to. *shrugs*

i'm all for parental leave, but i'm surprised at how urgent and serious everybody seems to think this is.
I don't think most people give a crap unless they happen to be expecting a child:). It's certainly an improvement over what we used to have. 15 years ago, you got 2 weeks max before you had to go back to work. 7 years ago, you had six weeks. In both these cases, the man got no time off. Now, you get a full year, you are guaranteed your previous employment position, and some employers give you a hefty percentage of your regular salary for part of that time. Sure, women could go back to work right away...leaving their kids in the care of others, and the child would not suffer unduly. However, I for one am happy to have the option to stay home for at least a year, and I want my husband to have that option too. Also, keep in mind that under older rules, not even women who were sick, or had sick children got extra time.

Is it necessary? I believe so, yes. The option should be there. Plus, lots of people are getting the in they need through filling in during someone's maternity leave...I know plenty of teachers that would have been permanent subs had they not got their foot in the door that way. It doesn't hurt many companies to do it.

I am, btw, a white male.


Wow...I made a serious assumption:). It's funny...I think I'll go back and reread your posts with this fact in mind...shows me how biased my own thinking is that I assumed you were a woman! (and how I interpret your posts based on that assumption)

Some women spot every month while pregnant... Though you have to be pretty stupid to be like "Hey, my period is so short and light all of a sudden" and not think that something's up.

Well, it does depend on how regular or consistent your periods are.

I guess if something were to go screwy in the summer I might not notice. Stress seems to make them heavier and no school = much less stress. Plus being more active in the summer and all... if my periods were to suddenly get really light then, it's likely that's what I'd attribute it to. *shrugs*
yeah, i try to give her the benefit of the doubt, because i know it is possible that she honestly didn't figure out she was pregnant until practically the last minute. i dislike her for other reasons (it doesn't show, does it?), so i lean toward less favorable views.

some people shouldn't be having babies. and, believe me, i am just as annoyed with Phil for having slept with such a person.

I will dig out my books ... its been four years. (in fact I have a feeling they may have been changed recently ... we had a recent push changing sodomy laws and I think that might have went through at the same time) I will try to find it for you

I would be most curious as to what your textbook referred.

Here is a link to the Minnesota statutes (http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/609/342.html).

What appear to be the relevant statutes were last amended in 2000. It may be that your textbook referred to some much earlier law.

Minnesota does not have a crime of "rape."

Minnesota has a statute against criminal sexual assualt in the first degree, second degree, third degree, and fourth degree.

I see nothing in these statutes that discriminate based on gender.

I am not aware of rape statutes of any state that discriminate based on gender -- in the sense that men may be guilty but not women. But that does not mean they don't. I could very well be ignorant.

I would note that a serious issue -- and one that is rooted in ugly gender sterotypes -- is that many states recognize a marriage defense against rape. In other words, you cannot be raped by your spouse -- doesn't matter if your spouse uses force, etc. Often does not matter if you are seperated, etc. It's based on the idea that the woman is obliged to provide sex to her spouse -- that she is her husband's property. Cute, huh?

Here is a handy resource on rape statutes (http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/sexual_assault_statutes.pdf) nationwide (its focus is on the statute of limitations and DNA exceptions thereto, but it identifies the relevant statutes as well).

Here as well is a good resource on statutory rape issues (http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/stateleg/stateleg.html).

some people just shouldn't be having babies. and, believe me, i am just as annoyed with Phil for having slept with such a person.
I agree taht some people just shouldn't have kids.

This one girl I work with, for instance. Well first of all, she's been engaged to this guy for some time, they aren't married because they can't afford a wedding. And she got pregnant. Now first of all, why she got pregnant in the first place is beyond me, they weren't planning it and it had happened before but it was a tubal pregnancy so she had to end it. Now, if you get off scott-free from the first one, why the hell wouldn't you wise the fuck up and take proper precautions in the future? Anyways, she's having the kid, still smokes and is at a job where she earns minimum wage while her fiancee is in a rather dangerous job in industry.

She comes off as a rather selfish person who obviously doesn't think things through... and she's going to have a kid. What the hell kind of future will this kid have, really.

Wow...I made a serious assumption:). It's funny...I think I'll go back and reread your posts with this fact in mind...shows me how biased my own thinking is that I assumed you were a woman! (and how I interpret your posts based on that assumption)

I fully understand.

You may note that I made a similar mistaken assumption about Dempublicents1. I assume she was male. And was rightly taken to task for my stereotyping! ;)

I would be most curious as to what your textbook referred.

Here is a link to the Minnesota statutes (http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/609/342.html).

What appear to be the relevant statutes were last amended in 2000. It may be that your textbook referred to some much earlier law.

Minnesota does not have a crime of "rape."

Minnesota has a statute against criminal sexual assualt in the first degree, second degree, third degree, and fourth degree.

I see nothing in these statutes that discriminate based on gender.

I am not aware of rape statutes of any state that discriminate based on gender -- in the sense that men may be guilty but not women. But that does not mean they don't. I could very well be ignorant.

I would note that a serious issue -- and one that is rooted in ugly gender sterotypes -- is that many states recognize a marriage defense against rape. In other words, you cannot be raped by your spouse -- doesn't matter if your spouse uses force, etc. Often does not matter if you are seperated, etc. It's based on the idea that the woman is obliged to provide sex to her spouse -- that she is her husband's property. Cute, huh?

Here is a handy resource on rape statutes (http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/sexual_assault_statutes.pdf) nationwide (its focus is on the statute of limitations and DNA exceptions thereto, but it identifies the relevant statutes as well).

Here as well is a good resource on statutory rape issues (http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/stateleg/stateleg.html).


Very possible (and counting back it would have been 5 years ago 2000-2001 year) Like I said my notes and book are at home and I am atlass stuck at work :p

I think the claim that discrimination against white males is significant is demonstrably false. Claims of so-called "reverse discrimination" are rare and exaggerated -- and already covered by existing law. I do not agree that feminism is male-bashing or leads to discrimination against men. To the contrary, it is about equality for all genders.

I find it interesting that you realize that feminism is not male-bashing or discrimination against males (although you cannot deny that some people do take it to that level), but cannot admit that masculism is simply a term for the exact same thing with a root of the opposite gender. Masculism = feminism. It is not woman-bashing or discrimination against females, except when people take it too far. Frankly, I don't care if someone wants to call it agheioawhjeiowaism, as long as their purpose is equity.

You quite objectively demonstrate a bias on this issue.

I disagree with others on a specific issue because what they see as a proposal to create equity, I see as a proposal to add additional inequality.

Yet you refuse to see that the only reason you see this as an inequality is your preconceived notion that a man should automatically give up his rights by having sex, but a woman should not.

Then an issue was raised about statutory rape. Having worked as prosecutor and defense attorney and having a mother who has devoted her life to anti-rape advocacy, I am fairly certain that rape statutes are rarely if ever used to convict individuals who have had truly consensual sex with someone of approximately the same age.

You obviously don't live in the rural south, where parents who discover that their daughter is in a sexual relationship go on rampages against the boys involved, and often win out. (This is especially true if we are talking about a white girl and a black boy).

The claim was made, however, that "a few" such cases exist. I said that, in the scope of problems of discrimination facing this country, a "few" cases in which the statutory rape provisions may have been used against a male minor were hardly a significant concern.

And this is where I disagree. *Any* discrimination is a significant concern. And if we ignore discrimination against someone simply because it is not statistically significant across the entire country, or because they are not in our little pet groups, then we cause significant harm to our cause - by making it look like we are not actually interested in equity.

Much of my subsequent anger was fueled by the accusation that I was not really committed to "equity."

That is the impression that most people, especially those who you deem as insignificant, would get.

Peace? :)

I never considered any other thing. I just wanted to point out what I perceive as inconsistencies in your philosophy.

I must admit, however, that I find it interesting that as a female, I am more worried about discrimination against males than a male. While I would guess that we are equally worried about discrimination against females, I think it is fairly evident that you still hold biases about the female gender that you need to work out (and I am sure that I probably hold biases against the male gender as well, never having been a part of it).

I would be most curious as to what your textbook referred.

Here is a link to the Minnesota statutes (http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/609/342.html).

What appear to be the relevant statutes were last amended in 2000. It may be that your textbook referred to some much earlier law.

I think many discriminatory (on both sides) statutes are being changed all the time.

In GA, the statute on rape used to specifically state penis-vagina penetration. This not only made it possible for someone to rape a woman with other objects (beer bottles, what-have-you) and get off on a lesser charge, but also made it impossible for a man to ever charge that he had been raped.

After quite a bit of lobbying and many petitions later, this law has been changed.

agheioawhjeiowaism,
To be completely random, in Cree there is a word similar to this one:

ahioawhjiwai: summer thunder over the plains meaning the hot winds come

Seriously.

To be completely random, in Cree there is a word similar to this one:

ahioawhjiwai: summer thunder over the plains meaning the hot winds come

Seriously.

That is awesome. LOL

Maybe I was Cree in another life?

You obviously don't live in the rural south, where parents who discover that their daughter is in a sexual relationship go on rampages against the boys involved, and often win out. (This is especially true if we are talking about a white girl and a black boy).
Cat quite clearly said statute, meaning law, not the interpretation of the law, or the lawless actions of others.

And this is where I disagree. *Any* discrimination is a significant concern. And if we ignore discrimination against someone simply because it is not statistically significant across the entire country, or because they are not in our little pet groups, then we cause significant harm to our cause - by making it look like we are not actually interested in equity.
I don't, in fact, think you ARE disagreeing. Don't take 'insignificant' to mean 'unimportant' in this context. Cat has said a number of times that he is against ALL discrimination. In cases of domestic violence, for example, men are also victims, but not to the same extent as women and children. Should we fund anti-violence programs at a 50-50 level? or should we slate more funds for the higher percentage affected?

Cat quite clearly said statute, meaning law, not the interpretation of the law, or the lawless actions of others.


I don't, in fact, think you ARE disagreeing. Don't take 'insignificant' to mean 'unimportant' in this context. Cat has said a number of times that he is against ALL discrimination. In cases of domestic violence, for example, men are also victims, but not to the same extent as women and children. Should we fund anti-violence programs at a 50-50 level? or should we slate more funds for the higher percentage affected?
No but she is caling them a "non concern" not attempting to put them into perspective just saying "not important so lets not even try"

That is awesome. LOL

Maybe I was Cree in another life?
It's entirely possible....which would make you my nimis or nisimis, (sister/sibling) depending on whether you were older or younger than me:).

No but she is caling them a "non concern" not attempting to put them into perspective just saying "not important so lets not even try"
He.:).

Okay, okay, I'll let Cat speak for himself. I guess I'm trying to be the peacemaker today...tomorrow I'll be the peacebreaker!

He.:).

Okay, okay, I'll let Cat speak for himself. I guess I'm trying to be the peacemaker today...tomorrow I'll be the peacebreaker!
Ahh I apologise I must be geting things confused I thought someone said that cat was a she somewhere earlier ... my bad I should just go back to the he/she for everyone even when I think I was told the right gender :p hehe

Edit: and I could be wrong about intentions myself ... that is just what I am geting from the whole thing

Ahh I apologise I must be geting things confused I thought someone said that cat was a she somewhere earlier ... my bad I should just go back to the he/she for everyone even when I think I was told the right gender :p hehe
I assumed Cat was a woman too...I think because of his position, but I also might have got him confused a bit with Feminist Cat Woman.

I assumed Cat was a woman too...I think because of his position, but I also might have got him confused a bit with Feminist Cat Woman.
Yeah I am pretty sure someone said she earlier and thats where I got it from ... I apologize cat

*

Apparently you are unable or unwilling to forgive and forget or to admit you have ever erred. Fine. It cannot be said I didn't try.


I find it interesting that you realize that feminism is not male-bashing or discrimination against males (although you cannot deny that some people do take it to that level), but cannot admit that masculism is simply a term for the exact same thing with a root of the opposite gender. Masculism = feminism. It is not woman-bashing or discrimination against females, except when people take it too far. Frankly, I don't care if someone wants to call it agheioawhjeiowaism, as long as their purpose is equity.

I find it interesting that you continue to believe semantics is more important than substance.

I have no problem with the term "masculism."

But if the two terms mean exactly the same thing and the goals are the same -- why do you insist on promoting a new term instead of using the old one?

If you had spent a little less time accusing me of being a bigot and a little more time paying attention to what I have said, you might note that I recommended Susan Faludi's Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Male

You quite objectively demonstrate a bias on this issue.

Bullshit. Simply because I disagree with you does not mean I am biased.

Yet you refuse to see that the only reason you see this as an inequality is your preconceived notion that a man should automatically give up his rights by having sex, but a woman should not.

Not even close to true. I gave several reasons why it was an inequality.

One was this: In order for a woman to "give up" her rights she either has to seek an abortion or go through childbirth, both of which have mental, physical, emotional, and economic costs and risks. Your response is "tough shit, that is biological." At the same time, you say the women's right to choose gives her a biological advantage over the man. This biological difference you believe needs rectified. Your position is objectively biased.

You obviously don't live in the rural south, where parents who discover that their daughter is in a sexual relationship go on rampages against the boys involved, and often win out. (This is especially true if we are talking about a white girl and a black boy).

Gee, I thought racial discrimination wasn't an issue we were focusing on.

I believe the laws are non-discriminatory. If not, they should be changed. I believe the laws may be abused, but I have yet to see evidence this is a significant problem.

If you disagree, prove it. There must be at least some documented cases of convictions of minor males for having consensual sex with a minor female in which there was no issue of force, etc. If this is truly a big problem and not an abberration, you should easily be able to document it.

I do not deny that society has stereotypical views of women and sex. On the one hand, young women are viewed as sacred virgins preyed upon by males. On the other hand, young women are viewed as tramps and whores. These gender stereotypes should be eliminated.

But it is easily documented that men commit rape in ghastly numbers everyday. Many get away with it. Many get away with it because of false stereotypes about rape and women. Forgive me if I find this a greater problem.

And this is where I disagree. *Any* discrimination is a significant concern. And if we ignore discrimination against someone simply because it is not statistically significant across the entire country, or because they are not in our little pet groups, then we cause significant harm to our cause - by making it look like we are not actually interested in equity.

White males appear to be your little pet group.

That I am more concerned about discrimination against every other race and gender on the planet hardly makes me an advocate for a "little pet group[]."

I listed the overwhelming statistics about discrimination against women and minorities. Do you have anything other than your hypothetical ramblings to show discrimination against white males?

I believe in advocating equality. Period. You are the one that has chosen to worry only about discrimination against men. I believe fighting for the end of all gender discrimination will end any special discrimination against men. Why is that not good enough for you? Why special advocacy for the least discriminated against?


That is the impression that most people, especially those who you deem as insignificant, would get.

I don't deem anyone insignificant.

I deem the amount of discrimination against white males insignificant compared to discrimination against minorities and women. That is simply the truth. A fact. Do you honestly dispute it?


I never considered any other thing. I just wanted to point out what I perceive as inconsistencies in your philosophy.

I must admit, however, that I find it interesting that as a female, I am more worried about discrimination against males than a male. While I would guess that we are equally worried about discrimination against females, I think it is fairly evident that you still hold biases about the female gender that you need to work out (and I am sure that I probably hold biases against the male gender as well, never having been a part of it).

I undoubtedly hold biases about both genders. Our society teaches them everday of our lives.

I find it interesting that, male or female, you are more worried about a small amount of occasional discrimination against the privileged and powerful than about pervasive systematic discrimination against the disadvantaged.

Perhaps you have some biases you need to work out.

Yeah I am pretty sure someone said she earlier and thats where I got it from ... I apologize cat

No worries. Genders are nigh impossible to keep straight here.

And I sorta take it as a compliment. ;)

I think the main problem with men is they have no self insight.

Women analise, analise and analise(sp) sometimes too much. Most men dont. thats it. they dont wonder why they do things or wonder how what they do affect other people.

Is it genetic or conditioned? I dont know.

Can they improve themselves? Not without some insight into themselves.

I wonder how much insight (considering the name) The Mighty Khan has? does that name say something about emulating out dated masculin ideals to anyone else here?I think it's this sort of stereotype that part of the problem. You make a gross generalisation without considering that not only are men and women have differences but men also have differences. I for one am extermely anaylitical, sensitive to what others think, reflective of my approach towards others, occasionally over emotional.

I have known women who can be hard headed, brusque to the point of rudeness, quite intolerant of others (and happy to say it), have shown ignorance and offensivenesswhen trying to justify ideas etc.

The point that I want to make is, that we are all human. Hormonally / genetically, we are different in our make-up. While there are clear differences physically between men and women. The range of behaviours betwen the sexes can be fairly similar to each other.

If we are to accept equality between the sexes, we need to move on from the hackneyed and cliched stereotypical ideas expressed in some of the previous posts.

I just want to say, before things heat up more, Dem, Cat, please take a deep breath, chill out a bit, realise that you probably both have a lot more in common than not, and remember that a lot gets lost in translation when we can't talk face to face.

PEACE :fluffle:

No worries. Genders are nigh impossible to keep straight here.

And I sorta take it as a compliment. ;)
Well it was deffinatly not meant in insule :p :fluffle:

I just want to say, before things heat up more, Dem, Cat, please take a deep breath, chill out a bit, realise that you probably both have a lot more in common than not, and remember that a lot gets lost in translation when we can't talk face to face.

PEACE :fluffle:
Deffinatly ... we just differ in the details not the overall goal :fluffle: :fluffle:

PEACE :fluffle:
slight tangent:

i've noticed that since the advent of the *fluffle* emote there has been a growing tendency for people to *fluffle* when trying to diffuse tense situations. when a thread starts getting heated there will usually be at least one person who attempts to chill things out with a friendly *fluffle* or two, and sometimes a thread will even be hijacked for a page or so with reciprocal *fluffling* as people make up. this immediately makes me think of the bonobo chimps, who use sex as a means of diffusing conflicts and fights before they escalate.

I just want to say, before things heat up more, Dem, Cat, please take a deep breath, chill out a bit, realise that you probably both have a lot more in common than not, and remember that a lot gets lost in translation when we can't talk face to face.

PEACE :fluffle:

I appreciate your efforts Sinuhue. :fluffle:

I'll try. I thought I had extend the olive branch, but got it shoved back in my face with a "you're a bigot" and "you have issues with women you need to work out."

I've actually done shit about discrimination. Won cases. Made new law. I'm not taking this crap from someone who "speaks out about equity" whatever that means. :rolleyes: In fact, I have yet to see Dem speak out against any inequity against anyone except men.

OK, I'm ranting now. I'll go away for a while.

slight tangent:

i've noticed that since the advent of the *fluffle* emote there has been a growing tendency for people to *fluffle* when trying to diffuse tense situations. when a thread starts getting heated there will usually be at least one person who attempts to chill things out with a friendly *fluffle* or two, and sometimes a thread will even be hijacked for a page or so with reciprocal *fluffling* as people make up. this immediately makes me think of the bonobo chimps, who use sex as a means of diffusing conflicts and fights before they escalate.Yes, I was very anti-fluffle for a while, but I think that a lot of us are very visual, and sometimes need these little visual stimuli to get a feeling across. I most definately am offering sex to diffuse this situation:), but we should definately stay away from pages of reciprocal fluffles.

Yes, I was very anti-fluffle for a while, but I think that a lot of us are very visual, and sometimes need these little visual stimuli to get a feeling across. I most definately am offering sex to diffuse this situation:), but we should definately stay away from pages of reciprocal fluffles.
i'm saving my *fluffle* virginity for marriage, personally. it's disgraceful how today's youth treats *fluffling* like a handshake! how i long for the good old days, when *fluffling* was regarded as pure and holy and exclusive...

you're all *fluffle* sluts!

i'm saving my *fluffle* virginity for marriage, personally. it's disgraceful how today's youth treats *fluffling* like a handshake! how i long for the good old days, when *fluffling* was regarded as pure and holy and exclusive...

you're all *fluffle* sluts!
while I am a sinner (fluffle slut) I too remember hearing about the good ol days

People respected fluffling as an intimate act in marrige ... and thoes that fluffled outside of that were rightly E-Stoned to death

I'm sorry, but the word fluffle still makes me think of a quaint southern belle word for fart. :D

Not from a logical standpoint. The logical steps needed for the two are wholly different.

Not true. To prove false means the exact same thing as prove true if you make a statement it's opposite. Falsify Flying reindeer don't exist or prove true that flying reindeer do. You never objectively prove anything, but you can subjectively prove something (prove to an acceptable level).

I don't want to have this argument in this thread.

You are working off of a different definition of equal than most people. As such, you must define it specifically in your use.

Am I? The definition I'm using is in the dictionary. Since it is, a significant enough group of people must use it that way in order for it to have arrived in the dictionary (as you pointed out below). Oddly, since equal rights is so commonly used, apparently, it's a rather widespread use. Most people are aware that equal rights does not mean the same.

This still does not address the point. The *woman* decides if there will even *be* a child. As such, she has the full decision of whether or not anyone, be it herself, the male, adoptive parents, or the government have to pay monies. With rights come responsibilities. She has the right to decide, and thus should have more responsibility than others.

Oh, you mean like the responsiblity of making sure you don't physically damage the child while it is inside you? You're right. With rights come responsibilities. Women do not have the right to solely decide whether or not men have to pay for a child they fathered. They have a right to decide what happens to their body and the financial requirement is a side-effect of that right. If they decide to abort the child it removes a burden from the man. If a man signs a "paper abortion" it potentially increases the burden to the women. They have exactly opposite effects.

I am well aware of this fact - but it is not something that can be changed. As I pointed out before, it is a basic biologic difference, which is the only reason that unequal treatment can be given.

Oh, you mean like the fact that men can't get pregnant so they can't decide to end the pregnancy before birth. It's a basic biologic difference, which is the only reason that unequal treatment can be given.

Women have the *choice* of whether or not to go through these things. It is a difficult choice, yes, but the choice is still available to them.

Yes, they do and should. The tradeoff for having to go through these things is they have the right to decide not to. Seperating out my point doesn't make it less valid.

A dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. The definition of the word does not come from the dictionary, but the dictionary comes from use of the word. I have defined my usage. I use equal to mean equivalent (one of its definitions) and equitable to refer to fair, but different treatment. This is to avoid confusion.

I know equivalent is one of its definitions. I pointed that they were synonyms earlier and you asked me if synonym means exactly the same. Equal and equivalent both do not mean "the same". So the words are not being misused no matter how much you try to suggest the only equal treatment would be to allow men to end pregnancies.

We are talking about events that occur before there is a child and before government involvement. As such, I do not have to argue anything relating to them.

Yes, you do. Because when the man gets an "abortion" the child still might come to exist and has rights. When a woman gets an abortion the child does not come to exist and does not have rights. It's simple. I'm sure you can grasp it. Come on. I can see the light of understanding starting to flicker. OH, there it is.

I will dig out my books ... its been four years. (in fact I have a feeling they may have been changed recently ... we had a recent push changing sodomy laws and I think that might have went through at the same time) I will try to find it for you

I remember that (the sodomy thing). I lived in St. Paul the year the vikes went 7 and 0. Thanks.

I remember that (the sodomy thing). I lived in St. Paul the year the vikes went 7 and 0. Thanks.
Yeah they have been fighting over that stupid thing for years

(I live a wee bit north of there but only hundred and fifty miles and so lol)

When the father doesn't give up his rights, nothing changes. He is responsible for parital care of the child, and has the right of asking for partial custody of the child - just as it is now. The paper would give up all rights and responsibilities. As such, it should be obvious that not signing it simply means retaining such rights and responsibilities.

You keep forgetting what we're talking about. We keep saying that woman cannot put a child up for adoption with out the father's consent and you say she can if he agrees to sign away his rights. I'm reading what you write. Are you?


There is no way to address this inequity. It is a basic biologic difference that we cannot change. It is unfortunate, just like the fact that women are more likely to get osteoporotic fractures and men are more likely to have early abdominal aortic aneurysm. However, there really isn't a damn thing we can do about it and it is not due to legal or societal discrimination.

The fact that women can terminate a pregnancy is not due to legal or societal descrimination either. Women have a right to choose what happens to their own bodies. Abortions weren't made legal by the law or socieity. They are legal because it's a right. And just as you said, there is no way to address this inequity.

Yet you refuse to see that the only reason you see this as an inequality is your preconceived notion that a man should automatically give up his rights by having sex, but a woman should not.


Rights? What rights are those? The right to not have to finance a child you helped create? Women don't have that right either. The state does not infringe on your rights unless the rights of another person are involved. The child has the right to be cared for financially by the two people who created it unless substitutes are found. If the child comes into existence, the state enforces the childs rights. Women get to decide if the child comes into existence once inpregnation occurs and there is no way the state can ever impart this right to the father. You have yet to address the rights of the child.

I'm sorry, but the word fluffle still makes me think of a quaint southern belle word for fart. :D

I'm thirty and I've never been fluffled *tear*

Rights? What rights are those? The right to not have to finance a child you helped create? Women don't have that right either. The state does not infringe on your rights unless the rights of another person are involved. The child has the right to be cared for financially by the two people who created it unless substitutes are found. If the child comes into existence, the state enforces the childs rights. Women get to decide if the child comes into existence once inpregnation occurs and there is no way the state can ever impart this right to the father. You have yet to address the rights of the child.

You have a very good point. I tried to make a similar one earlier and Dempublicents1 dodged the question.

The father of the child has no financial obligation to the mother arising simply from the pregancy and childbirth. (If they had other connections such as marriage, that is different.)

The financial obligation is owed only to the child. It is not the mother getting money from the father for herself.

The "paper abortion" deprives the born child of its rights to support from its parents.

An actual abortion occurs before a child exists and has rights to such support. (Although, as you have pointed out, society seeks to impose various obligations upon pregnant women for the sake of the embryo, fetus, etc. The man faces no such responsibilities).

You have a very good point. I tried to make a similar one earlier and Dempublicents1 dodged the question.

The father of the child has no financial obligation to the mother arising simply from the pregancy and childbirth. (If they had other connections such as marriage, that is different.)

The financial obligation is owed only to the child. It is not the mother getting money from the father for herself.

The "paper abortion" deprives the born child of its rights to support from its parents.

An actual abortion occurs before a child exists and has rights to such support. (Although, as you have pointed out, society seeks to impose various obligations upon pregnant women for the sake of the embryo, fetus, etc. The man faces no such responsibilities).

Stop agreeing with me so much. Or stop saying things I can't help but agree with. Dem1 thinks you're a puppet. Or maybe that I'm your puppet.

WE don't rule the world! No laws exist in the western world that forbid women to vote, or run for office!

Women's actions are guided more by their hearts, while men's logic is guided more by the brains. Surprisngly, women have a higher brain activity in the left hemisphere (logic and math), while men have a higher brain activity in the right one (emotions, color, music)

And also, most men are forced into easy to understand, sex driven stereotypes.

And men don't? Do i smell a stereotype. Sounds like you have been reading the SCUM manifesto too much.

In other news, I know a guy who often comes in pink shirts, and tucks them in. Guys look down on him, but don't really say much, while girls love it.

And I can predict that if two black guys are following me on a dark streets they will probably mug me. However does that mean that ALL black people are robbers? no.

stereotype, again.

As in our rights?

It would actually work better if the two were one organization not two. It would also be better if masculism existed on the same scale as feminism. How many masculist organizations can you name? Now how man feminist ones?


Bullshit, many fathers stay home when their kids are sick. Yet another stereotype.

I, for example, hate seeing that the world's quest for gender equality is in women's hands alone.


Yea, and by the way, women have a lot more nerve endings on their genitals, so they actually enjoy sex more than men.


I don't, so there. WHAM!

And if we cut out a woman's vagina, she can't rape either.
So it was sex.

Because women never warred? Shall we remember Mary the Bloody, Cleopatra, and a few others?

Nope, you can get an erection without your will. AT least I can.

Not always, some women are bodybuilders, some men are weak, and there can be like 5 women jumping him.

Venus, duh! ;)

Statistics mean crap. According to statisticts, African Americans commit more crime than Caucasians. So does that mean that all African Americans are criminals, while Caucasians are sinless angels? Well if yuo think so, then you are probably a KKKer.

Debra takes care of the kids, while he just plays golf. Debra is the boss of him, telling him what to do. If he objects, she yells at him, beats him etc. It's actually a very abusive relationship.


Seriously, I mean no disrespect, but you should see a counselor. Or at least talk to your parents about some of this stuff.

I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm not trying to be funny or make a put-down.

You routinely refer to violence against women. This is disturbing. It appears again and again in your posts in various threads.

Your views about sexuality appear confused. Perhaps they are based on your religious beliefs, but you could discuss them with a religious leader. I think you might find it helpful.

I do not care if you like this post or not. I hope you get some help.

Apparently you are unable or unwilling to forgive and forget or to admit you have ever erred. Fine. It cannot be said I didn't try.

I have no idea where you got this. (a) There is nothing that I need to forgive, as I never got angry in the first place. (b) I specifically stated that I never wanted anything other than peace here (c) I never stated, at any point, that I have never erred.

I find it interesting that you continue to believe semantics is more important than substance.

Care to explain how explicitly stating "I don't care what you call it as long as the sentiment is there" is placing semantics before substance?

But if the two terms mean exactly the same thing and the goals are the same -- why do you insist on promoting a new term instead of using the old one?

Why do you make so many unfounded assumptions? I have yet to promote any such thing. I have *very* consistently stated that I don't care what you call it - as long as the substance is the same. I refer to myself as a feminist - it is an older term. If someone else refers to themselves as a masculist, but has the same philosophy, why rangle over what to call it? Why explicitly state, as you have, that one is necessarily different than the other?

Bullshit. Simply because I disagree with you does not mean I am biased.

You stated that out of two terms, which both mean the same thing, the one with one gender as the root is better than the one with the other gender as a root. How the hell is that not biased?

Not even close to true. I gave several reasons why it was an inequality.

One was this: In order for a woman to "give up" her rights she either has to seek an abortion or go through childbirth, both of which have mental, physical, emotional, and economic costs and risks. Your response is "tough shit, that is biological." At the same time, you say the women's right to choose gives her a biological advantage over the man. This biological difference you believe needs rectified. Your position is objectively biased.

Actually, I never said that a woman's right to choose gives her a biological advantage over the man. It is, in fact, a *legal* advantage over the man.

Let's look at it this way:

With equal rights must come equal responsibilities and vice versa. Obviously, wherever possible, we should promote both equal rights *and* equal responsibilities. However, in cases where biologic differences are at fault, this is impossible.

If a woman becomes pregnant, she has *all* the rights to decide the fate of the potential child. She can decide whether or not the potential becomes actual. Obviously, the best situation would be if we could give the man equal rights to decide this. Of course, we all know that this is impossible, as the only way to do this would be to take away the woman's inalienable right to her own body. Because we cannot give the man equal rights, we clearly cannot give him equal responsibilities, as this is a clear inequity.

Yes, the woman has a hard decision to make, but she has *all* the rights in the situation. As such, she has the responsibilities as well. If both people let it get past the point at which they have inequal rights, then equal responsibilities kick back in.

To come up with an analogy: My boyfriend and I bought a puppy together. He paid for, say, 35% of the costs associated with obtaining the puppy. Howevver, the puppy is completely and totally in *my* name. I decide where the puppy lives, what medicines the dog receives, and, in fact, *whether* the puppy ever even grows into an adult dog - as I could legally have him put down at any time. Of course, along with these rights, which my boyfriend does not have, I get more responsibilities. If I fail to get a rabies vaccine for the dog, *I* am legally responsible - my boyfriend is not. If the dog bites someone, *I* am legally responsible - my boyfriend is not.

You are asking for a man to have equal responsibilities, but inequal rights - thus very clearly stating that a man has more responsibilitiy placed upon him than a woman, as a woman only has the responsibilities that go along with rights.

Gee, I thought racial discrimination wasn't an issue we were focusing on.

It isn't.

I believe the laws are non-discriminatory. If not, they should be changed. I believe the laws may be abused, but I have yet to see evidence this is a significant problem.

The laws are mostly non-discriminatory with respect to gender as well, that doesn't keep social stereotypes from causing them to be misused. And any person being mistreated is significant. I am sorry if you disgree.

But it is easily documented that men commit rape in ghastly numbers everyday. Many get away with it. Many get away with it because of false stereotypes about rape and women. Forgive me if I find this a greater problem.

I find it to be a greater problem as well, but that does not mean I will be silent when I see *any* group being discriminated against.

White males appear to be your little pet group.

Not in the least. White males are very rarely discriminated against. All I have pointed out is that I will not ignore it when they are, just because I think some other group is more important. I don't ignore *any* discrimination when I see it.

That I am more concerned about discrimination against every other race and gender on the planet hardly makes me an advocate for a "little pet group[]."[quote]

Actually, it does. If you are more concerned about discrimination against X group, then that group is obviously more important to you. Now, if you said that you were going to focus the majority of your time on the groups which are discriminated against most often, there would be no problem - that is what I do as well. However, there is a difference between focusing more time and energy on those who need it most, and being less concerned with others in need.

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]I believe in advocating equality. Period. You are the one that has chosen to worry only about discrimination against men. I believe fighting for the end of all gender discrimination will end any special discrimination against men. Why is that not good enough for you? Why special advocacy for the least discriminated against?

Why do you insist on making completely unfounded claims? When Doom777 came in bitching about a woman's right to her own body, did you see me saying "that's not imortant"? Of course not! I am fighting gender discrimination *wherever* it occurs, with no special advocacy for any group. Stating that I am only worried about discrimination against men is the biggest load of bullshit I have heard on these forums, and I've heard quite a bit.

I deem the amount of discrimination against white males insignificant compared to discrimination against minorities and women. That is simply the truth. A fact. Do you honestly dispute it?

The amount? Of course not. However, I don't just shoo it away when I see it either. If there were 10,000 starving female children and only 500 starving male children, would you honestly say that we should ignore the male children and only feed the females?

I find it interesting that, male or female, you are more worried about a small amount of occasional discrimination against the privileged and powerful than about pervasive systematic discrimination against the disadvantaged.

Again, a completely unfounded statement. This particular thread was started with an aim to discuss discrimination against men (which, believe it or not, due to social stereotypes, *does* happen). Because that is the purpose of this thread, I am discussing such issues, rather than saying "Those aren't important. Only issues against women are important."

I just want to say, before things heat up more, Dem, Cat, please take a deep breath, chill out a bit, realise that you probably both have a lot more in common than not, and remember that a lot gets lost in translation when we can't talk face to face.

I have stated several times that we most likely have more in common than not. I stated that I believe Cat wishes for gender equity. The only things I have said any different are that anyone who truly wishes for equity must work for equity for *all* and that you can't sweep anything under the table.

Even when I explicitly stated that my intention was not to argue, but to point out what I see as inconsistencies, I was attacked.

Meanwhile, up until that last post, where Cat began to make completely unfounded statements, I have yet to feel even a flash of anger.

PEACE :fluffle:

I wouldn't ask for anythign less. =)

:fluffle:

Not true. To prove false means the exact same thing as prove true if you make a statement it's opposite

By logic, science can only disprove. This is because we can show that something does not happen, but we cannot show that something does happen. A logitician could explain it better.

Am I? The definition I'm using is in the dictionary.

The definition I am using is also in the dictionary. As such, you must define the terms you use more carefully than simply attacking someone and saying "look in the dictionary."

Oddly, since equal rights is so commonly used, apparently, it's a rather widespread use. Most people are aware that equal rights does not mean the same.

If that were true, there wouldn't be so many arguments. In fact, most people I have spoken with believe that "equal rights" means "exactly the same." Because of this, I have avoided confusion by using the word equity instead.

Oh, you mean like the responsiblity of making sure you don't physically damage the child while it is inside you? You're right. With rights come responsibilities. Women do not have the right to solely decide whether or not men have to pay for a child they fathered. They have a right to decide what happens to their body and the financial requirement is a side-effect of that right. If they decide to abort the child it removes a burden from the man. If a man signs a "paper abortion" it potentially increases the burden to the women. They have exactly opposite effects.

You are ignoring the fact that father has a stake in the potential as well. I am speaking of the right to determine whether or not potential becomes actual. A father does not have that right. The fact that we cannot give it to him is a result of the fact that a woman has rights to her own body. Thus, we cannot expect him to have equal responsibilities to the potential child.

Meanwhile, they do not have *exactly* opposite effects. In one case, the woman chooses to ensure that a burden the man may or may not want be placed upon him. In the other, the man has the right to decide whether or not the burden is placed upon him, and the woman has the right to decide whether or not the burden is placed upon her. Her responsibilities are in now way increased when a man gives up his, because she had more rights and thus more responsibilities to begin with. It is still completely and totally *her* decision whether or not she takes on the end responsibilities.

By your logic, if you and I decide to jump off a cliff together, and my leg gets broken, you should be liable to pay for my treatment, but should not have any decision in where I get the care.

Oh, you mean like the fact that men can't get pregnant so they can't decide to end the pregnancy before birth. It's a basic biologic difference, which is the only reason that unequal treatment can be given.

Yes, exactly like that. And since men cannot decide to end the pregnancy before birth, we cannot ascribe equal responsibility for the possible birth to the man.

Equal and equivalent both do not mean "the same".

Did you fail math?

Yes, you do. Because when the man gets an "abortion" the child still might come to exist and has rights.

It is not his right to decide that, and thus not his responsibility.

It *is* her right to decide that, and thus is *her* responsibility.

When a woman gets an abortion the child does not come to exist and does not have rights.

And thus she has no responsibility to it. Yes, I know.

Actually, I never said that a woman's right to choose gives her a biological advantage over the man. It is, in fact, a *legal* advantage over the man.

Um, no, it isn't. A woman is never given the right to decide the fate of a child. She is given the right to decide the fate of her body. A man has this same right. PERIOD.

Let's look at it this way:

With equal rights must come equal responsibilities and vice versa. Obviously, wherever possible, we should promote both equal rights *and* equal responsibilities. However, in cases where biologic differences are at fault, this is impossible.

If a woman becomes pregnant, she has *all* the rights to decide the fate of the potential child. She can decide whether or not the potential becomes actual. Obviously, the best situation would be if we could give the man equal rights to decide this. Of course, we all know that this is impossible, as the only way to do this would be to take away the woman's inalienable right to her own body. Because we cannot give the man equal rights, we clearly cannot give him equal responsibilities, as this is a clear inequity.

Yes, the woman has a hard decision to make, but she has *all* the rights in the situation. As such, she has the responsibilities as well. If both people let it get past the point at which they have inequal rights, then equal responsibilities kick back in.

The woman is the only legal entity in the abortion equation. The child does not exist and the man doesn't either when it comes to her body. She has *all* the rights, because she is all there is. If a child comes to exist the woman has equal responsibilities to a man. In fact, if the child is born damaged as a result of woman's use of alcohol or drugs the woman can in fact be punished. The man cannot. The fact is that until the fetus leaves the woman's body, she has additional decisions she can make and additional responsibilities related to those dicisions. This is *equitable*. Suddenly giving a man the right to deny a child's rights, does not make anything equitable. The man signing the "paper abortion" doesn't deny the woman money. It denies the child money. (Don't throw in that crap about potentially denies, because if the child doesn't end up existing the man wouldn't have had to pay and the piece of paper makes no logical difference.) What advantage that the child has are we making up for here with this increase in *equity*? You have yet to address this.

You are asking for a man to have equal responsibilities, but inequal rights - thus very clearly stating that a man has more responsibilitiy placed upon him than a woman, as a woman only has the responsibilities that go along with rights.

You keep making up rights. When did anyone say a woman has the right to exit the financial situation of a child? She only has an ability afforded to her by biology, but she has no RIGHT to do it. However, with this ability she gets the additional responsibility of the fetus inside her womb. You want the man to have more rights, to deny the rights of a child, and decrease the responsibilities of the man, who already has less responsibilities.

You keep forgetting what we're talking about. We keep saying that woman cannot put a child up for adoption with out the father's consent and you say she can if he agrees to sign away his rights. I'm reading what you write. Are you?

You asked what happens if a father does *not* sign the paper. A father who does not sign away his future rights to the child does not have any change from the current law. He has personally chosen to take on the rights and responsibilities associated, just as a woman personally decides to do that when she decides to continue a pregnancy. As I pointed out earlier, should a man wish her to, the woman can agree to continue a pregnancy as a surrogate mother for him, thus giving all rights and responsibilities (after the child is born) as well.

The fact that women can terminate a pregnancy is not due to legal or societal descrimination either.

No, but the fact that she can decide that a man must be legally and financially responsible for her decisions is.

Rights? What rights are those? The right to not have to finance a child you helped create?

If you help me plant a tree on my land, it is *my* tree. You have absolutely no say in whether or not I keep the tree. I can cut it down as a sapling, or dig up the seeds. You have no say in it, because it is my land.

You also have no responsibilities to it. If the tree falls and hits someone, you are not legallly responsible. If the tree falls and hits my house, you don't have to help me rebuild. If I wanted you to take on these responsibilities, I would have to give you rights to decide what happens to the tree.

The child has the right to be cared for financially by the two people who created it unless substitutes are found.

No, the child does not. There is only one person who can decide whether or not it comes into existence. Thus, there is only one person who is legally bound to it. You have yet to explain why one person should be legally and financially bound by another's personal decisions.

You have yet to address the rights of the child.

The rights of the child are irrelevant in this discussion, as this discussion occurs before there is a child. There is the *potential* of a child, and only one person has the right to determine if that potential becomes actual. If that is her decision, then she is responsible for the welfare of the child that comes out of it. She has more rights to the potential child, and thus more responsibilities to it.

By logic, science can only disprove. This is because we can show that something does not happen, but we cannot show that something does happen. A logitician could explain it better.

No, by logic, science can neither prove nor disprove. It's very simple. We can't ever know anything for sure. For that reason, prove or disprove just mean to the best of our ability. You say "It is not possible for Jocabia to crush that can." I crush the can. I disproved you, right? Until we find out the air was sucked out of the can by something outside my control and thus it was not crushed by Jocabia. You can't prove anything. You can only find evidence to suggest a theory is right or suggest it is wrong.

The definition I am using is also in the dictionary. As such, you must define the terms you use more carefully than simply attacking someone and saying "look in the dictionary."

If your definition is also in the dictionary, great. Doesn't give you any credence when you tell someone to use a different word because you can't understand their use. You were correcting Cat's use of the word "equal". If his use is in the dictionary and you don't understand it, that's really your problem not his. So I referred YOU to the dictionary.

If that were true, there wouldn't be so many arguments. In fact, most people I have spoken with believe that "equal rights" means "exactly the same." Because of this, I have avoided confusion by using the word equity instead.

Because someone else didn't understand that many words have multiple meanings, like you don't, doesn't mean I or Cat have to stop using proper English.

You are ignoring the fact that father has a stake in the potential as well. I am speaking of the right to determine whether or not potential becomes actual. A father does not have that right. The fact that we cannot give it to him is a result of the fact that a woman has rights to her own body. Thus, we cannot expect him to have equal responsibilities to the potential child.

The woman has no RIGHTS to deciding the potential existence of a child. She only has a RIGHT to decide the fate of her own person. The fate of the child is a side-effect of that right. Because of this when the child never comes into being, her rights are the only ones considered. When the child does come into being, her rights can actually be subservient to the child's like when a woman is punished for drinking while pregnant and damaging the child.

Meanwhile, they do not have *exactly* opposite effects. In one case, the woman chooses to ensure that a burden the man may or may not want be placed upon him. In the other, the man has the right to decide whether or not the burden is placed upon him, and the woman has the right to decide whether or not the burden is placed upon her. Her responsibilities are in now way increased when a man gives up his, because she had more rights and thus more responsibilities to begin with. It is still completely and totally *her* decision whether or not she takes on the end responsibilities.

For the woman's decision, in one case, the child does not exist. In the second case, when the child comes to exist they have equal responsibilities. For the man's decision, in both cases the child exists. In one case the woman has the only responsibility for the child and in the other both have equal responsibility. If no "abortion" occurs the effects are equal. If the "abortion" occurs the effects are opposite. The woman never decides if the *burden* is placed on the man. The woman decides the fate of her body. That is the only right she has at all. You're making up a right to decide financial responsibility. The burden is placed on both by the child's existence. She doesn't get to choose the burden she only gets to affect the child's existence by her right to control her own body. This right was afforded her by biology and we cannot undo it. Because it's not fair, does not give the government a reason to take rights away from the child.

By your logic, if you and I decide to jump off a cliff together, and my leg gets broken, you should be liable to pay for my treatment, but should not have any decision in where I get the care.

By my logic, I would have nothing to do with your leg so it's not an apt comparison. Analogies have to actually make sense. However, if you'd like to use this analogy. Often in American courts when a car accident occurs, person 1 pays to fix person 2's car. Person 2 decides where the repairs are done so long as the costs are not significantly different than what would be considered normal.

Yes, exactly like that. And since men cannot decide to end the pregnancy before birth, we cannot ascribe equal responsibility for the possible birth to the man.

Since a man cannot decide to end the pregnancy before birth, we get to take away the rights of the child? I don't think you've ever demonstrated how we make this leap in logic. Again, CHILD support is paid to the child, not to the mother. If the parents of a woman have legal custody of her child (custody does not mean adoption), the father pays child support to the his child's grandparents.

Did you fail math?

Nope. Didn't fail English either. Just because you can't figure out the mathematical equal is not the only use of the word, doesn't mean I have to stop using it. Go back to English class and when you learn the language I will be happy to chat.

It is not his right to decide that, and thus not his responsibility.

It *is* her right to decide that, and thus is *her* responsibility.

Again, because nature made it unfair, we should deny the rights of the child? I think you're gonna have to draw a line for us to follow on that one.

And thus she has no responsibility to it. Yes, I know.

It? What's it? And thus she has no responsibility to nothing? Of course. I think that if something doesn't exist we can all agree that this would relieve the responsibility of any person to the nonexistent entity.

You say "It is not possible for Jocabia to crush that can." I crush the can. I disproved you, right? Until we find out the air was sucked out of the can by something outside my control and thus it was not crushed by Jocabia.

Thus the reason that a *scientific* experiment must be controlled. It would have to be you, in a room with nothing but the can, with the air pressure and other variables monitored.

If your definition is also in the dictionary, great. Doesn't give you any credence when you tell someone to use a different word because you can't understand their use. You were correcting Cat's use of the word "equal". If his use is in the dictionary and you don't understand it, that's really your problem not his. So I referred YOU to the dictionary.

If you are going to continue to be inflammatory, perhaps we should end this discussion.

Meanwhile, I had already, earlier in the thread, pointed out my use of equality and equity. If someone is having a discussion with me, and I have already defined my terms, I am going to use them as such. Notice that, when Cat said that he used the terms differently, I stopped worrying about it. Meanwhile, you are unable to let it go because of some odd grudge you have that makes you wish to be incredibly inflammatory towards me.

Because someone else didn't understand that many words have multiple meanings, like you don't, doesn't mean I or Cat have to stop using proper English.

I understand that words have multiple meanings. In fact, *I* was the one who pointed it out in this discussion. Because this is so, people must define the terms they are going to use.

The woman has no RIGHTS to deciding the potential existence of a child. She only has a RIGHT to decide the fate of her own person. The fate of the child is a side-effect of that right. Because of this when the child never comes into being, her rights are the only ones considered.

So anything which is a side-effect of another right doesn't count? Wow, you just discounted quite a few of the rights we recoognize. The right to privacy? Nope, that's just a side-effect of the right to your own body, guess you don't actually have it.

When the child does come into being, her rights can actually be subservient to the child's like when a woman is punished for drinking while pregnant and damaging the child.

This is actually untrue. There are those who have attempted to bring such charges, but only a woman who does such a thing once the fetus is already viable actually has any legal liabilities. Even those haven't held up in court very well.

For the woman's decision, in one case, the child does not exist. In the second case, when the child comes to exist they have equal responsibilities. For the man's decision, in both cases the child exists.

You keep making this statement even though it is a blatent falsehood.

The woman never decides if the *burden* is placed on the man.

Yes, becacuse no one is ever responsible for the "side-effects" of their actions.

She doesn't get to choose the burden she only gets to affect the child's existence by her right to control her own body. This right was afforded her by biology and we cannot undo it.

I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit here. The right to an abortion was not afforded by biology. By biology, a woman cannot intentionally cause a potential child to never become an actual child without causing harm to herself. It is medical technology that has given her the ability to end a pregnancy safely.

By my logic, I would have nothing to do with your leg so it's not an apt comparison.

Yes, you would. You and I decided to engage in risky behavior together. The fact that it only physically affects me is unfortunate, but we are equally culpable for the risky behavior. By your logic, that means that we are equally culpable for the effects of that behavior.

Often in American courts when a car accident occurs, person 1 pays to fix person 2's car. Person 2 decides where the repairs are done so long as the costs are not significantly different than what would be considered normal.

This occurs when person 1 was at fault for the accident. Are you claiming that only the man is at fault for a pregnancy?

Since a man cannot decide to end the pregnancy before birth, we get to take away the rights of the child? I don't think you've ever demonstrated how we make this leap in logic. Again, CHILD support is paid to the child, not to the mother. If the parents of a woman have legal custody of her child (custody does not mean adoption), the father pays child support to the his child's grandparents.

There is no child, thus the child has no rights. At the time that the decisions are made, no child yet exists. The man decides to give up whatever rights and responsibilities he might have for being a parent. As such, it is now left to the woman to decide if she wants the responsibilities. If she does not, she still has that decision.

In the past, there was no way to safely end a pregnancy. As such, the only decision that actively brought a child into existence was the decision to have sex. Both people were equally culpable in that decision, so both were equally responsible for the child that came out of that decision. The child had the right to be taken care of by those who decided to bring it into existence.

However, we now have a new aspect to add in. A woman can now, with no input from the male whatsoever, decide that no child will come into existence. She can also, with no input from the male whatsoever, decide that a child does not come into existence. As such, she is now soley responsible for whether or not the child is born. The child still has the right to be taken care of by those who decided to bring it into existence. However, at this point, that decision only belonged to one person.

Nope. Didn't fail English either. Just because you can't figure out the mathematical equal is not the only use of the word, doesn't mean I have to stop using it.

If we had been talking soley about the word "equal", you would have a point. However, we were talking about the word "equivalent" as well, which *does* mean "the same."

Again, because nature made it unfair, we should deny the rights of the child? I think you're gonna have to draw a line for us to follow on that one.

No rights are removed from the child, as it still has the right to be taken care of by the person responsible for bringing it into the world. However, in this day and age, the only person responsible for that decision is the woman.

It? What's it? And thus she has no responsibility to nothing? Of course. I think that if something doesn't exist we can all agree that this would relieve the responsibility of any person to the nonexistent entity.

And yet you state that men have a responsibility all lined up to a non-existant entity that might exist one day.

But you didn't end your own life. When you abort a fetus, you end the future baby's life before it gets a chance to live.

There is a writer, Sheri S Tepper, who is often accused of being a 'feminist' writer... ofter, ans though such a thing would be a bad thing.

One of her books, "The Fresco" gives an interesting little aside that might be interesting to someone of your 'unique' approach to foetuses.

I recall above, seeing you threatening to kill any girl that aborted your foetus - so, obviously you consider the 'resident' IN the body more important than the person who 'owns' the body...

Now, Sheri Tepper describes an alien race that implants it's young in the males of the human species - but ONLY in those who espouse the same kind of Anti-Abortion spiel you insist on... because, those people obviously respect the 'sanctity of life', and would not harm the young, right?

So - I'm curious - an alien lifeform implants it's progeny in your stomach wall... what would you do?

*

I had concluded before that it was impossible to reason with you. I should have stuck by that judgment.


Care to explain how explicitly stating "I don't care what you call it as long as the sentiment is there" is placing semantics before substance?

Why do you make so many unfounded assumptions? I have yet to promote any such thing. I have *very* consistently stated that I don't care what you call it - as long as the substance is the same. I refer to myself as a feminist - it is an older term. If someone else refers to themselves as a masculist, but has the same philosophy, why rangle over what to call it? Why explicitly state, as you have, that one is necessarily different than the other?

You stated that out of two terms, which both mean the same thing, the one with one gender as the root is better than the one with the other gender as a root. How the hell is that not biased?

I'm starting to feel like Alice talking to Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking-Glass: "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'"

"Masculism" is not a term found in an ordinary dictionary.

Here is the Oxford English Dictionary:

Masculism

1. The possession of masculine physical traits by a woman. Obs. rare. App. an isolated use, completely superseded by masculinization (see MASCULINIZATION n. 2).

1895 W. D. MORRISON in C. Lombroso & W. Ferrero Female Offender Introd. p. xvi, Sexual peculiarities, such as feminism in men, masculism in women, and infantilism in both.

2. = MASCULINISM n.

1982 Bulletin (Sydney) 30 Mar. 58/3 Masculism aims to change all that by bringing men together in male consciousness-raising groups. 1990 Link-up (Nexis) May 13, I see masculism as a progressive movement... We are not interested in putting women back into the kitchen. 1995 Atlanta Jrnl. & Constit. (Nexis) 5 Feb. B1 At its worst, masculism can sound like ultra-political correctness, enlarging the pantheon of the oppressed to include straight white guys.

Masculinism

Advocacy of the rights of men; adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, etc., regarded as typical of men; (more generally) anti-feminism, machismo.

1911 Freewoman 30 Nov. 24 Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism. 1916 H. ELLIS Ess. in War-time viii. 88 The advocates of Woman's Rights have seldom been met by the charge that they were unjustly encroaching on the Rights of Man. Feminism has never encountered an aggressive and self-conscious Masculinism. 1985 E. SHOWALTER Feminine Malady (1987) vii. 173 That most masculine of enterprises, the Great War, the apocalypse of masculinism. 1988 G. NORTHAM Shooting in Dark (1989) vii. 118 Another section gives a sketch of official masculinism in the form of notes on the perils of Women and children in public protests.

Here is a link to Wikipedia on masculism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism).

Also, as Wikipedia notes, the Canadian government did a study in 2003 of masculism (School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse (http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/0662882857/200303_0662882857_3_e.html) ) and found "these groups are largely composed of white, heterosexual, middle-class men who have not been successful in coping with the challenge to masculinity posed by feminism." Masculism is largely a backlash movement according to this study.

Wikipedia does note that masculism has different meanings and sometimes is used to describe "New Masculinity," which is closer to a complementary movement to feminism. Although not opposed to feminism per se, this movement still objects to many aspects of feminism and focuses on alleged male disadvantage.

Now, you have put words in my mouth. Masculism as commonly understood is not simply the same philosophy as feminism under a different name. Nonetheless, I expressly said that I had no problem with a different term for the same thing. Where I have expressed concern about masculism, it was expressly about masculism as women-bashing or anti-feminism.

You claim there is no difference between the terms. Fine. I've said that to the extent that is true, I've no problem with them. But it makes no sense to demand use of the new term. What is a problem is that "masculism" does not always (and, in fact, usually does not) mean the same as feminism. To the contrary, it usually means anti-feminism.

So, no, my criticism of that term -- which you will actually find very little of -- is not objectively biased. It's damn well justified.


Actually, I never said that a woman's right to choose gives her a biological advantage over the man. It is, in fact, a *legal* advantage over the man.

Let's look at it this way:

With equal rights must come equal responsibilities and vice versa. Obviously, wherever possible, we should promote both equal rights *and* equal responsibilities. However, in cases where biologic differences are at fault, this is impossible.

If a woman becomes pregnant, she has *all* the rights to decide the fate of the potential child. She can decide whether or not the potential becomes actual. Obviously, the best situation would be if we could give the man equal rights to decide this. Of course, we all know that this is impossible, as the only way to do this would be to take away the woman's inalienable right to her own body. Because we cannot give the man equal rights, we clearly cannot give him equal responsibilities, as this is a clear inequity.

Yes, the woman has a hard decision to make, but she has *all* the rights in the situation. As such, she has the responsibilities as well. If both people let it get past the point at which they have inequal rights, then equal responsibilities kick back in.

To come up with an analogy: My boyfriend and I bought a puppy together. He paid for, say, 35% of the costs associated with obtaining the puppy. Howevver, the puppy is completely and totally in *my* name. I decide where the puppy lives, what medicines the dog receives, and, in fact, *whether* the puppy ever even grows into an adult dog - as I could legally have him put down at any time. Of course, along with these rights, which my boyfriend does not have, I get more responsibilities. If I fail to get a rabies vaccine for the dog, *I* am legally responsible - my boyfriend is not. If the dog bites someone, *I* am legally responsible - my boyfriend is not.

You are asking for a man to have equal responsibilities, but inequal rights - thus very clearly stating that a man has more responsibilitiy placed upon him than a woman, as a woman only has the responsibilities that go along with rights.

This is all very nice. You've stated this theory umpteenth times.

Would you care to address the flaw in your theory that I raised?




The laws are mostly non-discriminatory with respect to gender as well, that doesn't keep social stereotypes from causing them to be misused. And any person being mistreated is significant. I am sorry if you disgree.

:rolleyes:

Although you have been asked more than once, you fail to provide a single example that this "mistreat[ment]" is anything other than imaginary.

Apparently, semantics is your primary means of debate.

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=significant)

significant
Main Entry: sig·nif·i·cant
Pronunciation: -k&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin significant-, significans, present participle of significare to signify
1 : having meaning; especially : SUGGESTIVE <a significant glance>
2 a : having or likely to have influence or effect : IMPORTANT <a significant piece of legislation>; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount <a significant number of layoffs> <producing significant profits> b : probably caused by something other than mere chance <statistically significant correlation between vitamin deficiency and disease>

Significant has more than one meaning.

Yes, everyone is important.
Every injustice is wrong.
Every discrimination is wrong.

But some problems are more significant than others -- they happen more often and harm more people.

The rape of women by men is a very significant problem.

The conviction for rape of a male minor who has truly consensual sex with a female minor would be unjust and wrong -- if it occurs. If this problem exists, it should be corrected. But questioning whether it exists and how high a priority it should be does not make me sexist.

Most state statutes require an age difference for their to be statutory rape -- so the scenario you complained about of both being technically guilty but the male being convicted is impossible in most states.

Not in the least. White males are very rarely discriminated against. All I have pointed out is that I will not ignore it when they are, just because I think some other group is more important. I don't ignore *any* discrimination when I see it.

No gender or race is more important than any other. I never said otherwise.

I would not ignore discrimination against a white male when I saw it either.

What you have stated repeatedly is that I am not really devoted to "equity" because I am not blind to the fact that discrimination against white males is relatively insignificant both in numbers and degree compared to other discrimination.

That I am more concerned about discrimination against every other race and gender on the planet hardly makes me an advocate for a "little pet group[]."

Actually, it does. If you are more concerned about discrimination against X group, then that group is obviously more important to you. Now, if you said that you were going to focus the majority of your time on the groups which are discriminated against most often, there would be no problem - that is what I do as well. However, there is a difference between focusing more time and energy on those who need it most, and being less concerned with others in need.

Semantic bullshit again. So if I were to say "I'm equally concerned about all forms of discrimination" but spend all of my time and energy helping albino Eskimos, then "there would be no problem." I'd be on the "equity" team.

But if I say as I have many, many times: "All discrimination is wrong. Everyone should be treated equally regardless of gender, race, creed, color, national origin, etc. But we have pervasive and systematic discrimination against women and minorities so we should focus on ending that. And in the process we should eliminate almost all stereotypes" Then I'm a sexist bigot who has issues with women he needs to work out. :rolleyes:

The amount? Of course not. However, I don't just shoo it away when I see it either. If there were 10,000 starving female children and only 500 starving male children, would you honestly say that we should ignore the male children and only feed the females?

If there were 10,000 starving female children, 495 fat and happy male children, and five fat male children with stubbed toes, I'm going to prioritise feeding the starving. You seem to think I need to give the stubbed toes equal (equit?) attention.

Again, a completely unfounded statement. This particular thread was started with an aim to discuss discrimination against men (which, believe it or not, due to social stereotypes, *does* happen). Because that is the purpose of this thread, I am discussing such issues, rather than saying "Those aren't important. Only issues against women are important."

This thread was started to complain about discrimination against men -- and is filled with white male whining, anti-feminism, and women-bashing. I think adding a little perspective was in order.

I never said only issues against women are important.

I have said and will say that discrimination against women and minorities is more significant than discrimination against white males. Not that discrimination against white males isn't wrong. It is just as wrong. But it is practically non-existent and white males maintain disproportionate power and privilege.

I refuse to coddle white male backlash. White male complaints can be judged on their merits, not out of some backwards attempt to show fairness by elevating the concerns of the least disadvantaged.

But by flushing a log, you don't destroy yourself, or your chances for life. By aborting a fetus you remove his chances to live.

And cancer causes you to die. Nor will it ever become a human. Same way, fetuses that threaten mothers' life can and should be aborted.


But this thread is not about abortion. It's about masculism. So no more abortion talk.

By NOT having sex, a man produces millions of sperm, every day.... which will be wasted. Thus - removing the chance for a child to live.

By NOT having sex, a woman produces an egg every cycle... which will be wasted. Thus - removing the chance for a child to live.

By aborting an unwanted foetus, nothing 'more' is being lost than by not having sex.

By the way - just because a cancer never HAS become human, doesn't mean it couldn't... maybe we just have never sustained one long enough?

Anyway - didn't you bring abortion into the debate?

i'm saving my *fluffle* virginity for marriage, personally. it's disgraceful how today's youth treats *fluffling* like a handshake! how i long for the good old days, when *fluffling* was regarded as pure and holy and exclusive...

you're all *fluffle* sluts!

:fluffle:

I had concluded before that it was impossible to reason with you. I should have stuck by that judgment.

I really am sick of the inflammatory remarks that you and Jocabia are throwing. Disagreement does not imply a lack of reason. Meanwhile, if you would address my concerns instead of immediately taking offense at something that has been repeatedly stated to be meant in another way, the discussion would be over by now.

I'm starting to feel like Alice talking to Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking-Glass: "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'"

Thus is language - leaky. As such, anyone who uses a word in a logical sense must define it. Both Sinehue and myself discussed the difference between equity and equality as we use them earlier in the thread - without anyone disputing. Thus, those were the terms being used in the discussion. You chose to either not read or ignore that post, or you chose to use different terms. As such, you have the responsibility to state the definition you are using, or risk misunderstanding.

"Masculism" is not a term found in an ordinary dictionary.

For years, "ain't" wasn't found in the ordinary dictionary either. However, those who used it had a meaning for it and those ho heard it knew what it meant. Remember that dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Given enough time being used a certain way, the word *will* be in the dictionary.

Wikipedia does note that masculism has different meanings and sometimes is used to describe "New Masculinity," which is closer to a complementary movement to feminism. Although not opposed to feminism per se, this movement still objects to many aspects of feminism and focuses on alleged male disadvantage.

You mean the way your definition of feminism focuses on alleged female disadvantage?

Now, you have put words in my mouth. Masculism as commonly understood is not simply the same philosophy as feminism under a different name. Nonetheless, I expressly said that I had no problem with a different term for the same thing. Where I have expressed concern about masculism, it was expressly about masculism as women-bashing or anti-feminism.

You also stated, in the same sentence, that feminism does not descend into man-bashing or anti-male discrimination, which it sometimes does.

You claim there is no difference between the terms. Fine. I've said that to the extent that is true, I've no problem with them. But it makes no sense to demand use of the new term.

Of course it doesn't, and I have demanded no such thing.

So, no, my criticism of that term -- which you will actually find very little of -- is not objectively biased. It's damn well justified.

...by the exact same arguments people use and have used in this thread to justify being biased against the term "feminism".

Would you care to address the flaw in your theory that I raised?

It isn't a flaw. The responsibility for the care of the child is still upon the person directly responsible for the decision which results in there being a child.

This can be misused, of course. However, it is no different than the fact that a woman can misuse a pregnancy. There have been women who have looked at men and used abortion (or continued pregnancy) as a threat to get more money, or to attempt to place more responsibility on the man. Things can be misused. Of course, to suggest that more men would misuse such an option than women who would misuse a pregnancy is a blatantly sexist comment.

As for the "child support is owed to the child" comment, that is pretty much bull. If it were true, the child could sue any parent for not giving them enough money. As it is, the parent receiving the payment is under no legal obligation to use it on the child. A person receiving child support could be using it to make monthly payments on their plastic surgery, while the child has nothing more than the bare essentials required to keep the custodial parent out of court. If a child grows up and moves out, the old custodial parent can still sue for back child support, and the money goes to the custodial parent, not to to the (now grown) child.

However, you have yet to address the fact that the person directly responsible for the child's existence should have the responsibility to it and, in today's world - that is soley the mother.


Although you have been asked more than once, you fail to provide a single example that this "mistreat[ment]" is anything other than imaginary.

Well, UT did it for me. A lot of the things I know about (in many areas) come from non-internet sources. I'm pretty sure the same can be said of others. The real problem I have is not that you do not believe such things happen as that you seem to flippantly brush it aside as though impossible without even considering the possibility.

Meanwhile, you have yet to prove that your statistics have anything to do with "systematic discrimination". They have, just as the things which I have brought up, only to do with societal biases - which will only be addressed by demonstrating them false. The very suggestion is an insult to all of the women who have paved the way into traditionally male professions. Notice that the numbers of women in such areas is consistently growing. I am well aware and appropriately appreciative of the women who came before me and worked harder, doing more than a man, to earn respect in the engineering field.

Significant has more than one meaning.

Yes, it does.

The conviction for rape of a male minor who has truly consensual sex with a female minor would be unjust and wrong -- if it occurs. If this problem exists, it should be corrected. But questioning whether it exists and how high a priority it should be does not make me sexist.

If I told you that I knew a woman who got fired for being a woman, would you immediately question that?

Most state statutes require an age difference for their to be statutory rape -- so the scenario you complained about of both being technically guilty but the male being convicted is impossible in most states.

I don't know about "most". Many do - but this is more to protect 18 year olds who have under age significant others. This is not true in GA, hence the Marcus Dixon case where an 18 year old high school kid was given 10 years for having consentual sex with his underage girlfriend.

I would not ignore discrimination against a white male when I saw it either.

And yet you chastise me for not ignoring it when I see it.

What you have stated repeatedly is that I am not really devoted to "equity" because I am not blind to the fact that discrimination against white males is relatively insignificant both in numbers and degree compared to other discrimination.

I have said nothing at all about numbers. I have simply pointed out how very quick you are to state that any alleged discrimination against males (and I have never used the qualifier "white" - that has *always* been you) must be imaginary. The fact that it is insignificant in number means that less time should be spent on it, obviously.

Semantic bullshit again. So if I were to say "I'm equally concerned about all forms of discrimination" but spend all of my time and energy helping albino Eskimos, then "there would be no problem." I'd be on the "equity" team.

You can label everything you don't like "sematic bullshit", but it doesn't change anything.

But if I say as I have many, many times: "All discrimination is wrong. Everyone should be treated equally regardless of gender, race, creed, color, national origin, etc. But we have pervasive and systematic discrimination against women and minorities so we should focus on ending that. And in the process we should eliminate almost all stereotypes" Then I'm a sexist bigot who has issues with women he needs to work out. :rolleyes:

No, if that is what you had said, we would be fine. Instead, you said "All of the discrimination alleged against males is bullshit anyways" and "white males caused all the other discrimination, so they can wait in line."

If there were 10,000 starving female children, 495 fat and happy male children, and five fat male children with stubbed toes, I'm going to prioritise feeding the starving. You seem to think I need to give the stubbed toes equal (equit?) attention.

Of course not, but that was not the analogy, now was it?

This thread was started to complain about discrimination against men -- and is filled with white male whining, anti-feminism, and women-bashing. I think adding a little perspective was in order.

It has some male whining, anti-feminism, and women-bashing. It also has some female whining and male-bashing. All I have ever said is that both are equally wrong.

I refuse to coddle white male backlash. White male complaints can be judged on their merits, not out of some backwards attempt to show fairness by elevating the concerns of the least disadvantaged.

Well, point me to someone who is doing that and I will share your chagrin.

I really am sick of the inflammatory remarks that you and Jocabia are throwing. Disagreement does not imply a lack of reason. Meanwhile, if you would address my concerns instead of immediately taking offense at something that has been repeatedly stated to be meant in another way, the discussion would be over by now.

I addressed your concerns and was informed that I didn't understand the biological differences between men and women.

I don't know Jocabia. We are not in league. I am not his puppet. I disagree strongly with some of things he has said -- though many came before I joined the thread.

I have more posts than either of you.


Thus is language - leaky. As such, anyone who uses a word in a logical sense must define it. Both Sinehue and myself discussed the difference between equity and equality as we use them earlier in the thread - without anyone disputing. Thus, those were the terms being used in the discussion. You chose to either not read or ignore that post, or you chose to use different terms. As such, you have the responsibility to state the definition you are using, or risk misunderstanding.

It is very nice that you Sinehue agreed to use equity versus equality. I made very clear what term I was using, why I was using, and what it meant. Thank you. (In fact, you just chastised Jacobia by saying that he should have followed my example in providing a definition.)

But equity and equality was not the word I was referring to -- and you know it.


For years, "ain't" wasn't found in the ordinary dictionary either. However, those who used it had a meaning for it and those ho heard it knew what it meant. Remember that dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Given enough time being used a certain way, the word *will* be in the dictionary.

How very special that you have invented your own word. It was used differently in this thread before it came along. I documented it is used differently elsewhere. Fight your little semantic war all you want -- but it clearly is not "objectively biased" to criticize a word based on its normal meaning.


You mean the way your definition of feminism focuses on alleged female disadvantage?

Female disadvantage is not merely alleged. That you question it here (and later) makes me suspect that you have not been so feminist as you claim.


You also stated, in the same sentence, that feminism does not descend into man-bashing or anti-male discrimination, which it sometimes does.

No. I did not.

Feminism is not man-bashing or anti-male discrimination. Do things that are man-bashing or anti-male get labeled feminism? Yes.

And, as I documented and is evident in this thread, women bashing and anti-feminism are far from an occasional mishap for masculism.

Of course it doesn't, and I have demanded no such thing.

You accused be of being "objectively" biased based merely on my criticism of masculism.

...by the exact same arguments people use and have used in this thread to justify being biased against the term "feminism".

And they are wrong. You yourself have stated that feminism is not anti-male or discriminatory.

Masculism can be the same as feminism, but it more often is not -- as I have documented.

It isn't a flaw. The responsibility for the care of the child is still upon the person directly responsible for the decision which results in there being a child.

This can be misused, of course. However, it is no different than the fact that a woman can misuse a pregnancy. There have been women who have looked at men and used abortion (or continued pregnancy) as a threat to get more money, or to attempt to place more responsibility on the man. Things can be misused. Of course, to suggest that more men would misuse such an option than women who would misuse a pregnancy is a blatantly sexist comment.

As for the "child support is owed to the child" comment, that is pretty much bull. If it were true, the child could sue any parent for not giving them enough money. As it is, the parent receiving the payment is under no legal obligation to use it on the child. A person receiving child support could be using it to make monthly payments on their plastic surgery, while the child has nothing more than the bare essentials required to keep the custodial parent out of court. If a child grows up and moves out, the old custodial parent can still sue for back child support, and the money goes to the custodial parent, not to to the (now grown) child.

However, you have yet to address the fact that the person directly responsible for the child's existence should have the responsibility to it and, in today's world - that is soley the mother.

Again, you dodge the question.

And it is entirely true as a legal matter (i.e., rights and responsibilities) that child support is owed to the child, not the mother.

Well, UT did it for me. A lot of the things I know about (in many areas) come from non-internet sources. I'm pretty sure the same can be said of others. The real problem I have is not that you do not believe such things happen as that you seem to flippantly brush it aside as though impossible without even considering the possibility.

Actually, I showed that the Minnesota law says no such thing -- going back to at least 2000.

I am quite aware of non-internet sources, thank you.

But you have been deliberately vague about the nature and size of this alleged problem, despite my repeated requests.

Meanwhile, you have yet to prove that your statistics have anything to do with "systematic discrimination". They have, just as the things which I have brought up, only to do with societal biases - which will only be addressed by demonstrating them false. The very suggestion is an insult to all of the women who have paved the way into traditionally male professions. Notice that the numbers of women in such areas is consistently growing. I am well aware and appropriately appreciative of the women who came before me and worked harder, doing more than a man, to earn respect in the engineering field.

Here is where you show your true colors.

Women face systematic discrimination. In fact, if you read the damn things you'd see they included studies showing current discriminatory practices. That you would deny it confirms that you are not really seeking equality or equity at all.

That women who have paved the way into traditionally male professions have done so despite discrimination is no insult, but most praiseworthy.

And my wife happens to be a civil engineer. Although there are others that have gone before her, discrimination is very alive and well in that field.

Confess: Do women face systematic discrimination? Yes or no?

Yes, it does.

Good. Then you realize saying discrimination against white males is insignificant or relatively insignificant does not mean it is not a problem or that such discrimination is acceptable. So stop saying that I said that.

If I told you that I knew a woman who got fired for being a woman, would you immediately question that?

No. But you picked an area where I have some knowledge and what you allege runs counter to what I know "from non-internet sources," so I was skeptical. When pressed you vaguely replied you knew of "a few" cases. Until now, you have provided no more detail. Just berated me for failing to show enough concern about a problem you cannot even show exists.

I don't know about "most". Many do - but this is more to protect 18 year olds who have under age significant others. This is not true in GA, hence the Marcus Dixon case where an 18 year old high school kid was given 10 years for having consentual sex with his underage girlfriend.

Actually, I know it is most. I provided documentation including that information earlier.

Marcus Dixon's case has little to do with discrimination against men and everything to do with discrimination against blacks. Also, he was not sentenced for 10 years for rape or statutory rape. He received a mandatory sentence for aggravated child molestation. Moreover, that case does not fit the model you originally set forth -- (a) rightly or wrongly, the prosecutors and the girl in that case alleged the sex was by force, not consensual and (b) he was 18 and his partner was 15. Finally, Mr. Dixon's conviction was overturned and he was released. He served about 15 months.

The actual facts about the Dixon case are precisely why I pressed you for details regarding this alleged problem. Often there is more to the story -- particularly when we are talking about isolated cases rather than a widespread problem.


And yet you chastise me for not ignoring it when I see it.

No. You chastised me for not being concerned enough when you saw it but couldn't show it to me.

I have said nothing at all about numbers. I have simply pointed out how very quick you are to state that any alleged discrimination against males (and I have never used the qualifier "white" - that has *always* been you) must be imaginary.

I never stated that discrimination against males is imaginary.

To the contrary, I posted more than once that male stereotypes were very harmful to men.

I have disagreed with you about your "paper abortion" theory. And, based on my knowledge of the law and rape cases, I doubted -- apparently correctly -- your theory about statutory rape. Tough.

The fact that it is insignificant in number means that less time should be spent on it, obviously.

Thank you.

And yet I was berated for same exactly this.


You can label everything you don't like "sematic bullshit", but it doesn't change anything.

You were arguing semantic bullshit. I explained why. You've chosen not to respond.

No, if that is what you had said, we would be fine. Instead, you said "All of the discrimination alleged against males is bullshit anyways" and "white males caused all the other discrimination, so they can wait in line."

I did not say the first part.

I said something similar to the second. What I said was there was very real, very serious, very pervasive discrimination against women, blacks, hispanics, Indians, and other minorities. I said these were of greater priority than the handful of complaints about discrimination against white males. I then said that white males could get in the back of the line that they created. The rhetoric was a bit heated but I stand by that statement.

Why do you think males need to be at the front of the line? And if you don't think that, then why the hell are you berating me for prioritizing?

Of course not, but that was not the analogy, now was it?

No. Your analogy was silly. It bore no resemblence to reality.

It has some male whining, anti-feminism, and women-bashing. It also has some female whining and male-bashing. All I have ever said is that both are equally wrong.

And yet you have denied the reality of discrimination against women. Hmmm.

Well, point me to someone who is doing that and I will share your chagrin.

Try a mirror.

I addressed your concerns and was informed that I didn't understand the biological differences between men and women.

I never said that you didn't understand the biological differences - just that you seem to fail to understand that these differences introduce inequalities that cannot be addressed.

I have more posts than either of you.

Not if you count the number of posts I had under Dempublicents.

It is very nice that you Sinehue agreed to use equity versus equality. I made very clear what term I was using, why I was using, and what it meant. Thank you. (In fact, you just chastised Jacobia by saying that he should have followed my example in providing a definition.)

Yes, after the fact, you did define it - which is why I stopped worrying about it.

But equity and equality was not the word I was referring to -- and you know it.

Actually, I really thought it was, since that is the only case in which I have made up any words.

How very special that you have invented your own word. It was used differently in this thread before it came along.

It was used in more than one way in this thread before you came along. If you care to read back into the thread, you would see that many, including myself, used it in exactly the same way that feminism is used.

Female disadvantage is not merely alleged. That you question it here (and later) makes me suspect that you have not been so feminist as you claim.

You do understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", correct? *Any* discrimination is merely alleged until it is shown to be present. Notice that I never once stated that *all* female disadvantage is alleged, just that some is. And there are many who attempt to make a much bigger deal out of it than it is, which does nothing but harm the overall cause.

Feminism is not man-bashing or anti-male discrimination. Do things that are man-bashing or anti-male get labeled feminism? Yes.

And the same can be said for any term someone devises to refer to gender equity, be it feminism, masculism, hi3weohnioewaism, what-have-you.

You accused be of being "objectively" biased based merely on my criticism of masculism.

I accused you of being objectively biased when you stated that feminism is never used to refer to man-bashing, but that masculism is often used to refer to female-bashing. You have since revised that statement, so it is a moot point.

And they are wrong. You yourself have stated that feminism is not anti-male or discriminatory.

Yup.

Again, you dodge the question.

I have yet to dodge any question - and have answered whatever was presented to me when it was presented to me. What exactly, pray tell, is the question that I have supposedly dodged?

And it is entirely true as a legal matter (i.e., rights and responsibilities) that child support is owed to the child, not the mother.

And child support is owed to the child because the person responsible for bringing it into the world should be responsible for its care. In this day and age, that person is the mother - as she gets the sole decision in whether or not it is brought into the world.

Actually, I showed that the Minnesota law says no such thing -- going back to at least 2000.

And I pointed out that this, much like the GA law I cited, is an improvement.

But you have been deliberately vague about the nature and size of this alleged problem, despite my repeated requests.

No, I really haven't. I have pointed out that, in the scheme of things, it is a relatively small (by numbers) problem, but that it *is* a problem brought on by inappropriate gender stereotypes - stereotypes which must be addressed.

Women face systematic discrimination.

Women face systematic discrimination from certain sources. Yes, there are companies that systematically discriminate, but they are in the minority these days. There are plenty of individuals who discriminate, but they are fast becoming the minority.

However, a great deal of the discrepancy in certain professions is due to historic differences rather than current discrimination. Women have not *historically* been engineers, so the idea that women should not or cannot be engineers is still prevalent among many young girls. The idea that "girls aren't good at math and science" is also still prevalent. It is at *this* point that it must be fought - the societal views of gender.

In fact, if you read the damn things you'd see they included studies showing current discriminatory practices.

...in a certain companies, yes.

That you would deny it confirms that you are not really seeking equality or equity at all.

That you would state that I have denied that discrimination against females exists demonstrates that you either can't, or don't want to, actually read what I write.

That women who have paved the way into traditionally male professions have done so despite discrimination is no insult, but most praiseworthy.

To discount the progress they have made *is* an insult.

Confess: Do women face systematic discrimination? Yes or no?

That question is unanswerable. It needs more qualifiers. Do women face systematic discrimination from X company? Maybe. Do we face discrimination from Y company? Yes. Do we face it from Z company? No. Do we face systematic discrimination in the schools? In general, no. From certain schools? Probably. Do we face systematic discrimination by law? No.

If you would like to include appropriate qualifiers, I would be happy to answer the question.

Good. Then you realize saying discrimination against white males is insignificant or relatively insignificant does not mean it is not a problem or that such discrimination is acceptable. So stop saying that I said that.

There is a matter of context and tone. Your tone implied this. If it is not what you meant, then you should have stated as such from the beginning, instead of hurling unfounded attacks at me and repeating everything in basically the same tone.

Until now, you have provided no more detail.

Actually, I have still provided no detail, as I don't have specific case names to give you.

Just berated me for failing to show enough concern about a problem you cannot even show exists.

Actually, I berated you for no such thing. It was your flippant disregard of even the possibility that it *might* exist that bothered me.

Marcus Dixon's case has little to do with discrimination against men and everything to do with discrimination against blacks.

...which would be why I didn't use it as an example of discrimination against men.

The actual facts about the Dixon case are precisely why I pressed you for details regarding this alleged problem. Often there is more to the story -- particularly when we are talking about isolated cases rather than a widespread problem.

The Dixon case was brought up as an example of the fact that age qualifiers are *not* in all statutory rape laws, not as an example of my previous statements. Stop attempting to tear down arguments that aren't even being made.

No. You chastised me for not being concerned enough when you saw it but couldn't show it to me.

Wrong again.

Thank you.

And yet I was berated for same exactly this.

No, you really weren't?

You were arguing semantic bullshit. I explained why. You've chosen not to respond.

You have chosen to ignore that semantics can be *very* important in such discussions. Why do you expect me to answer every single issue you perceive when you ignore so many of mine?

Why do you think males need to be at the front of the line? And if you don't think that, then why the hell are you berating me for prioritizing?

I have never said that males need to be at the front of the line. I simply don't think there is a line. There is a crowd of problems. Because most of the problems concern women and minorities, most time will logically be spent on them. But there is no line. One cannot fight for equity by saying "All women's problems first. Then all black problems. Then all latino problems. Then all asian problems. ..... Oh, the guys are still around? Hell, ok, we'll deal with them."

No. Your analogy was silly. It bore no resemblence to reality.

Actually, it did. You are correct that most cases are women and minorities (thus, the 10,000), but there *are* cases in which males are discriminated against (the 500). What makes you think that the discrimination against them is simply, as you put it, a stubbed toe. If a man gets turned down for a job because he is a man, and a woman gets turned down for a job because she is a woman, is the woman's plight more important?

And yet you have denied the reality of discrimination against women. Hmmm.

Actually, if you would read what I wrote, rather than what you *want* to see, you would realize that I have done no such thing, at any point in time. All I have pointed out is that any claim of discrimination is an allegation until it can be shown to be true.

When my black, female colleague was threatening to sue my advisor and the school for discrimination, the fact that she was black and female didn't actually make her claims true simply because blacks and females are often discriminated against. In fact, they were entirely false and I am glad for her sake that she did not decide to go through with them, as she would have been horribly embarrassed in any case she tried to make.

Try a mirror.

Yippee! More unfounded personal attacks! I have not elevated anything, I have simply pointed out inequities wherever I see them. I am sorry if you are offended by someone pointing out, without a specific prioritization, the fact that there is discrimination against all types of people.

Ok while I respect both of your arguements I got to step in with the :fluffle: break ... once you guys start debating I know it is hard to stop
Specialy when it is so hard to convey what you FULLY mean at all times

Lets just take a step back and breath ... keep the posts simple and thought out :) :fluffle: :fluffle:

Something about post counts and the original dempublicents


If you want to play the post-count game then I win.

And as winner decree that when your nation is deleted, your deleted post count is irrelevant.

Also, POST COUNTS ARE IRRELEVANT.

If you want to play the post-count game then I win.

And as winner decree that when your nation is deleted, your deleted post count is irrelevant.

Also, POST COUNTS ARE IRRELEVANT.
:) and if they are deleted dont count I win :fluffle:

If you want to play the post-count game then I win.

And as winner decree that when your nation is deleted, your deleted post count is irrelevant.

Also, POST COUNTS ARE IRRELEVANT.

Out of curiosity, exactly why quote *me* on this, when *I* didn't start the conversation?

If we had been talking soley about the word "equal", you would have a point. However, we were talking about the word "equivalent" as well, which *does* mean "the same."


Equivalent
2 a : like in signification or import b : having logical equivalence <equivalent statements>

You know they have online dictionaries now. Equivalent in math means exactly the same, can be substituted for each other. This isn't math.

Thus the reason that a *scientific* experiment must be controlled. It would have to be you, in a room with nothing but the can, with the air pressure and other variables monitored.

If you think you can truly control a scientific experiment then it is you who doesn't understand science. We can only control what we know. We commonly find out the experiment wasn't as controlled as we'd hoped. That's why we can't PROVE anything. As PROVE is a part of the definition of every other word you've suggested, we can't do them either.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]If you are going to continue to be inflammatory, perhaps we should end this discussion.

Meanwhile, I had already, earlier in the thread, pointed out my use of equality and equity. If someone is having a discussion with me, and I have already defined my terms, I am going to use them as such. Notice that, when Cat said that he used the terms differently, I stopped worrying about it. Meanwhile, you are unable to let it go because of some odd grudge you have that makes you wish to be incredibly inflammatory towards me.

I understand that words have multiple meanings. In fact, *I* was the one who pointed it out in this discussion. Because this is so, people must define the terms they are going to use.

I wasn't being inflammatory. I was being serious. You don't get to dictate how other people use the language. If you wish to say "the same" say "the same". However, he is using equality the same it is commonly used. Seems like you should adjust in that case. You understood his meaning and you were being difficult. If you weren't being difficult then you didn't understand the meaning. It was one of the two and you know it. What is inflammatory about pointing that out?

So anything which is a side-effect of another right doesn't count? Wow, you just discounted quite a few of the rights we recoognize. The right to privacy? Nope, that's just a side-effect of the right to your own body, guess you don't actually have it.

The right to privacy is a side-effect? Ridiculous. But even if I accept that. Where in any legal document anywhere is the right to not have to pay for your child documented? The right to decide if a child is born? Find a single court case that upheld a woman's right to decide if a child is born or a woman's right to not be financially responsible for her child. You won't. The only thing the court has ever upheld is the right to her body. Much like the court has upheld that a child has the right to child support from both of its biological parents unless a substitute is found.

I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit here. The right to an abortion was not afforded by biology. By biology, a woman cannot intentionally cause a potential child to never become an actual child without causing harm to herself. It is medical technology that has given her the ability to end a pregnancy safely.

There is only the right to control your body here. Don't make up rights. The fact that a woman can control the existence of the child is because biology afforded her that ability by placing the child internally. My sentence was very clear. The right to her body was afforded her by being born.

Yes, you would. You and I decided to engage in risky behavior together. The fact that it only physically affects me is unfortunate, but we are equally culpable for the risky behavior. By your logic, that means that we are equally culpable for the effects of that behavior.

I have no culpability as your jumping off the cliff did not require my assistance or interaction. You could have jumped on your own and so could have I. A better example would be if we chose to fight and you were injured. In which case you would chose where you were cared for and we would split the expenses. In fact, you would also choose whether to recieve care or not. Basically, you would choose whether or not to pay out those cost and choose whether I would have to pay my half. Isn't it strange how we give people control of their own bodies.

There is no child, thus the child has no rights. At the time that the decisions are made, no child yet exists. The man decides to give up whatever rights and responsibilities he might have for being a parent. As such, it is now left to the woman to decide if she wants the responsibilities. If she does not, she still has that decision.

Abortion is essentially a form of birth control, used here in its strictest sense, to prevent birth. Men have access to birth control. Women have access to birth control. The fact is that either a woman or a man can actually puncture a condom and intentially cause a child to occur and both will still be responsible to the child. This is because the CHILD when it exists has rights. That doesn't mean the man or woman won't sue the individual who punctured the condom (assume in this case they are aware of the action), but that is a suit between the two adults. This does not change the fiscal responsiblity of the two adults.

In the past, there was no way to safely end a pregnancy. As such, the only decision that actively brought a child into existence was the decision to have sex. Both people were equally culpable in that decision, so both were equally responsible for the child that came out of that decision. The child had the right to be taken care of by those who decided to bring it into existence.

However, we now have a new aspect to add in. A woman can now, with no input from the male whatsoever, decide that no child will come into existence. She can also, with no input from the male whatsoever, decide that a child does not come into existence. As such, she is now soley responsible for whether or not the child is born. The child still has the right to be taken care of by those who decided to bring it into existence. However, at this point, that decision only belonged to one person.

The child has a right to be financially cared for by both of its biological parents. A right continuously upheld by the courts. The courts have, in fact, occasionally forced a man to continue paying child support for a child he finds out isn't his so as to protect the child. No government is going to abridge that right because the man thinks it's unfair that a woman has access to an abortion.

And yet you state that men have a responsibility all lined up to a non-existant entity that might exist one day.

A man's signature of that paper has no effect whatsoever on the existence of the child. Even without the paper, if the child doesn't exist the man has no responsibility to it. As such, we are only talking about when the child comes into existence, since everyone agrees that with no child there is no responsibility.

I'm done with the pissing match.

1. Women face pervasive economic discrimination in the US. Men do not.

2. Women face many times the amount of discriminatory acts than men do.

3. All genders are subject to harmful stereotypes that harm not only a specific gender but all genders.

4. Isolated instances of discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or other protected categories are wrong. Period.

5. Masculism emperically has been primarily anti-feminist. That is a bad thing. To the extent masclism can be encouraged to become another form of feminism, then it is a good thing.

6. Men, as a group, have disproportionate power and privilege in the US. Individual men may be disadvantaged for a variety of reasons -- chief among them they may belong to a minority or a lower economic class.

7. Equality should be our goal. Equal protection under the law, equal opportunity, like treatment for like cases, treatment as equally important, equal rights, etc.

Now, if someone would like to point to an area where men face discrimination, I'd love to discuss it.

I'm not discussing the "paper abortion" theory any more, but that obviously does not mean others cannot. My opinion is clear on that.

As to statutory rape, Georgia's statute makes sex with anyone under the age of 16 (who is not your spouse :eek: ) illegal. If the perpetrator is no more than 3 years older than the victim, it is merely a misdemeanor.

I'm not entirely conviced 18 year olds should have sex with 15 year olds. But a perhaps greater issue with the statute is no one can be convicted "on the unsupported testimony of the victim." That is a leftover from rape statutes where the testimony of women was never enough to convict as a matter of law.

As I stated before societal attitudes about sex and rape are way out of whack, sometimes paternalizing and sometimes villifying women. As a corollary, they sometimes are overly protective of men, excuse male behavior, or victimize men. This is an area where both genders would benefit from more enlightened understanding.

If you think you can truly control a scientific experiment then it is you who doesn't understand science. We can only control what we know. We commonly find out the experiment wasn't as controlled as we'd hoped. That's why we can't PROVE anything. As PROVE is a part of the definition of every other word you've suggested, we can't do them either.

You *do* realize the difference between logic and reality, correct? I didn't say that I could completely control an experiment. We all know better. However, it is *possible* if all variables are known. Thus, it *is* logical to be able to disprove something.

I wasn't being inflammatory. I was being serious. You don't get to dictate how other people use the language.

I was not dictating how other people use language. I was pointing out the use of terms as they had been used in *this* discussion. Notice that you are the only one bitching about this now, because Cat and I fast came to an understanding on it.

The right to privacy is a side-effect? Ridiculous.

Have you no understanding of the law? The only reason anyone hsa ever stated that you have a right to privacy is because of the fact that you have the right to your own body and property. There is nothing in the law that actually says "right to privacy".

Where in any legal document anywhere is the right to not have to pay for your child documented?

Where in the law does it explicitly state "A child has the right to be paid for by its biological parents"?

The right to decide if a child is born?

It doesn't, just like there is technically no right to privacy. It is, as you said, a side-effect. But, much like a drug that causes heart failure, it is a *huge* side effect.

There is only the right to control your body here. Don't make up rights. The fact that a woman can control the existence of the child is because biology afforded her that ability by placing the child internally. My sentence was very clear. The right to her body was afforded her by being born.

And the right to control her body in a way that she could get rid of the child without harming herself was given by medicine, not biology.

I have no culpability as your jumping off the cliff did not require my assistance or interaction.

You and I decided *together* to engage in a risky activity - thus implying that it would not have occurred if both of us were not involved.

A better example would be if we chose to fight and you were injured. In which case you would chose where you were cared for and we would split the expenses. In fact, you would also choose whether to recieve care or not. Basically, you would choose whether or not to pay out those cost and choose whether I would have to pay my half. Isn't it strange how we give people control of their own bodies.

If we agreed to fight and I was injured, you would have *no* legal liability, because we both agreed to the fight, with the foreknowledge that I might get hurt.

The child has a right to be financially cared for by both of its biological parents.

Where is this supposed right enumerated?

A man's signature of that paper has no effect whatsoever on the existence of the child.

...just like a man's wish to be or not be a father has no effect whatsoever on the existence of the child.

I'm done with the pissing match.

Were we having one?

*snip
5. Masculism emperically has been primarily anti-feminist. That is a bad thing. To the extent masclism can be encouraged to become another form of feminism, then it is a good thing.

Just about nothing I can disagree with or ever argue with there.

The only thing I can say about masculism being anti-feminist is that most who profess it truly see themselves as being discriminated against and often talk about feminism-gone-too-far, like the women out there who call themselves feminists, but in fact aren't. We may be able to look at their supposed plight and say "Wow, you're full of shit," but their actual intention is not to "keep women down."

Now, if someone would like to point to an area where men face discrimination, I'd love to discuss it.

Men are required to sign up for the selective service. Not doing so is against the law. After the age of 18, they can be forced into military service, should Congress decide to institute a draft. Women are not expected to do the same.

As to statutory rape, Georgia's statute makes sex with anyone under the age of 16 (who is not your spouse :eek: ) illegal. If the perpetrator is no more than 3 years older than the victim, it is merely a misdemeanor.

I believe it is actually "16 and under", unless they have very recently changed it, but ok. Of course, the law only holds unless the perpetrator happens to be a cop who has sex with a young girl in exchange for not telling her parents that she was caught drinking at a party - see Rome, GA again. Then, the prosecutor purposely charges him with regular rape, instead of the obviously proper charge of statutory, and he gets off without even a slap on the wrist.

As I stated before societal attitudes about sex and rape are way out of whack, sometimes paternalizing and sometimes villifying women. As a corollary, they sometimes are overly protective of men, excuse male behavior, or victimize men. This is an area where both genders would benefit from more enlightened understanding.

Absolutely. And I would add that the goofy stereotype that "men cannot be raped" should be done away with as well.

The only thing I can say about masculism being anti-feminist is that most who profess it truly see themselves as being discriminated against and often talk about feminism-gone-too-far, like the women out there who call themselves feminists, but in fact aren't. We may be able to look at their supposed plight and say "Wow, you're full of shit," but their actual intention is not to "keep women down."

I would agree except for 2 things.

1. Unlike feminism -- which has an established track record of seeking equality for all genders, masculism of the "pure" type you describe is at best a minority faction of masculism. You have chosen to define masculism as nothing more than feminism by another name. Few, if any, masculinists agree.

2. In this day and age, few openly admit to discrimination or seeking supremacy. That does not mean it is not what they are seeking -- whether they are aware of it or not.

Men are required to sign up for the selective service. Not doing so is against the law. After the age of 18, they can be forced into military service, should Congress decide to institute a draft. Women are not expected to do the same.

True. This is discriminatory. And should be changed.

Ironically, this has nothing to do with stereotypes about men or any intent to discriminate against men. Instead, it is because of sexist attitudes about women, particularly women in combat.

Everyone who is able-bodied should be eligible for conscription or military service, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

I believe it is actually "16 and under", unless they have very recently changed it, but ok. Of course, the law only holds unless the perpetrator happens to be a cop who has sex with a young girl in exchange for not telling her parents that she was caught drinking at a party - see Rome, GA again. Then, the prosecutor purposely charges him with regular rape, instead of the obviously proper charge of statutory, and he gets off without even a slap on the wrist.

It has said "under the age of 16" since at least 2001.

Unfortunately, the rest of what you describe is all too common an example of the many ways that rapists get away with it.

Absolutely. And I would add that the goofy stereotype that "men cannot be raped" should be done away with as well.

Agreed.

2. In this day and age, few openly admit to discrimination or seeking supremacy. That does not mean it is not what they are seeking -- whether they are aware of it or not.

But if they are not aware of it, we cannot blame them for being horrible, horrible sexist people. Instead, we should attempt to show them that what they are *actually* doing is the opposite of what they think they are doing, much like we need to with the minority in the feminist camp.

Ironically, this has nothing to do with stereotypes about men or any intent to discriminate against men. Instead, it is because of sexist attitudes about women, particularly women in combat.

Most of what I have heard is actually more about men. THe arguments are that "men will linger over a female body longer" or "men will attempt to save a woman who is beyond help when they will not try to save a man."

Personally, I think those are stereotypes based on stereotypes. There are many men out there who think they have to *protect* women, so the idea is that all men must think that, therefore women shouldn't be in front-line combat.

Everyone who is able-bodied should be eligible for conscription or military service, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

I definitely can't argue there. Do you know how many important people the military lost to "don't ask-don't tell"? Do you know how many of them spoke Farsi?

It has said "under the age of 16" since at least 2001.

I haven't been 16 since 1996, so I admit that I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure the age of consent was 17 back then though.

Agreed.

Yay! =)

You *do* realize the difference between logic and reality, correct? I didn't say that I could completely control an experiment. We all know better. However, it is *possible* if all variables are known. Thus, it *is* logical to be able to disprove something.

Yes, it is logically possible to prove something and disprove something. It scientifically impossible to prove or disprove anything. We can only do it to the best of our ability. That's the point.

I was not dictating how other people use language. I was pointing out the use of terms as they had been used in *this* discussion. Notice that you are the only one bitching about this now, because Cat and I fast came to an understanding on it.

You're replying. If you stop doing it. I'm done. And you're still trying to correct people on correct usage. You did it with equivalent in one of my more recent posts.

Have you no understanding of the law? The only reason anyone hsa ever stated that you have a right to privacy is because of the fact that you have the right to your own body and property. There is nothing in the law that actually says "right to privacy".

But there are now legal briefings that contain the "right to privacy". There are also legal briefing that state a child has the right to be financially cared from by both biological parents unless substitutes are provided.

And the right to control her body in a way that she could get rid of the child without harming herself was given by medicine, not biology.

First, there is NO child. The child never exists when a woman has this procedure. By your definition a condom gets rid of the child. Look both sexes have the same power.

Second, the ability to control her body in that way was given to her by science. The right to control her body isn't expanded by this ability.

You and I decided *together* to engage in a risky activity - thus implying that it would not have occurred if both of us were not involved.

Not true. I have no liability unless I pushed you or I'm an adult and you aren't.

If we agreed to fight and I was injured, you would have *no* legal liability, because we both agreed to the fight, with the foreknowledge that I might get hurt.

First, in illegal activities such as bare-knuckle fighting, yes, we're both liable. Second, why in your example foreknowledge of possible injury doesn't absolve one of responsibility and foreknowledge in my example does. You don't even follow your own rules.

Where is this supposed right enumerated?

In case law, which any lawyer can tell you it is not very different than a legislative law.

...just like a man's wish to be or not be a father has no effect whatsoever on the existence of the child.

I noticed you deleted every thing important in my statement. It doesn't matter what a man wishes or doesn't. We are only talking about when the child exists. To suggest that calling your paper an abortion makes it have anything to do with abortion is ridiculous. A man can tell a woman now that he doesn't want the child and can't pay for it and it may or may not affect her choice to engage in an abortion. Whether he tells her this or not has no affect on the man's obligation to the child. The father has a LEGAL financial obligation to the CHILD. Regardless of how you try to change that fact, the fact remains. If the child exists, the mother has the same LEGAL financial obligation. Because a woman has access to more types of birth control does not change this obligation. You can't get past the fact that in an abortion the child does not exist. There is no potential child. There is no child. A "paper abortion" does not affect the existence of the child. You haven't shown that it does. At all.

By the way, the woman's wish to not be a mother has no effect on her legal right to an abortion. She has a right to an abortion because of her wish not to be pregnant.

Yes, it is logically possible to prove something and disprove something. It scientifically impossible to prove or disprove anything. We can only do it to the best of our ability. That's the point.

The scientific method is based upon logic. Thus, the method can be used to disprove something (which is all I have ever said). The method, however, cannot be used to *prove* something (again, all I have ever said.) Good to know your finally close to the same page.

You're replying. If you stop doing it. I'm done. And you're still trying to correct people on correct usage. You did it with equivalent in one of my more recent posts.

I replied to an accusation that you made, nothing more.

But there are now legal briefings that contain the "right to privacy". There are also legal briefing that state a child has the right to be financially cared from by both biological parents unless substitutes are provided.

...which doesn't change the fact that it is nothing more than a side-effect.

Not true. I have no liability unless I pushed you or I'm an adult and you aren't.

Exactly!! But by your logic, you *should* be viable for *my* decision to get treatment. By your logic, if I decide to have the leg set (a medical procedure which would stop the break), you are not liable for anything. However, if I decide not to, you are liable for paying for the wheelchair and lost wages I need.

First, in illegal activities such as bare-knuckle fighting, yes, we're both liable. Second, why in your example foreknowledge of possible injury doesn't absolve one of responsibility and foreknowledge in my example does. You don't even follow your own rules.

The first example was using your logic. You state that even though only one is responsible for the ultimate child coming into being, both are equally culpable for paying for that child.

The second was my logic. If we both know there may be a child, but I am the only one who is responsible for whether or not the child exists, then I am the only one responsible to the child.

In case law, which any lawyer can tell you it is not very different than a legislative law.

Case law does not enumerate rights - it sets traditions on interpretations. And these traditions can be changed. Plessy v. Ferguson set precedent that a black man was automatically a slave and could not be a citizen, even if he was in a free state. It was later changed. This was all due to differing *interpretation*. Later, the right of black men to citizenship and equal treatment was specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Only legislative law (specifically the constitution) can legally enumerate rights. Tradition and precendent can dictate the "usual" interpretation.

It doesn't matter what a man wishes or doesn't. We are only talking about when the child exists.

No, *you* are only talking about when the child exists. And you have made it very clear that only the woman's wishes of whether or not to have a child mean anything to you. The fact that the man may or may not be ready for child=birth, but is only equally (not more) culpable for the sex act means nothing to you.

A man can tell a woman now that he doesn't want the child and can't pay for it and it may or may not affect her choice to engage in an abortion. Whether he tells her this or not has no affect on the man's obligation to the child.

How can he have a legal obligation to something that doesn't exist? That's like telling me that I have a legal obligation to my child, even though I've nevr had one.

And you have still not stated any type of reason that the man has any such obligation. The only one that would make sense is if he were equally culpable for the child's existence. However, he is not.

The father has a LEGAL financial obligation to the CHILD. Regardless of how you try to change that fact, the fact remains.

Laws change, darling. So I actually do have ways of trying to change that fact.

Because a woman has access to more types of birth control does not change this obligation.

Abortion is not birth control.

You can't get past the fact that in an abortion the child does not exist. There is no potential child. There is no child. A "paper abortion" does not affect the existence of the child. You haven't shown that it does. At all.

Actually, it is you who can't seem to get past this. If a woman has an aboriton, she is deciding, both for herself and for the father, that the child will not exist. She is deciding that the potential will not become actual. If a father signs a "paper abortion", the child does not exist to him - he actually gets to make his own decision, instead of having someone else decide what the next 18 years of his life will be like.

By the way, the woman's wish to not be a mother has no effect on her legal right to an abortion. She has a right to an abortion because of her wish not to be pregnant.

I suppose "reproductive rights" is just a misnomer, then?

No, *you* are only talking about when the child exists. And you have made it very clear that only the woman's wishes of whether or not to have a child mean anything to you. The fact that the man may or may not be ready for child=birth, but is only equally (not more) culpable for the sex act means nothing to you.

I am not talking at all about the women's wishes to have or not have a child. You are. I am talking about a woman's wish to be or not be pregnant. Men can't be pregnant so we can't give them that control.

How can he have a legal obligation to something that doesn't exist? That's like telling me that I have a legal obligation to my child, even though I've nevr had one.

He doesn't have a legal obligation to something that doesn't exist. There is no child in an abortion any more than there is a child in contraception. When a woman does not have an abortion a child MAY come to exist later. She makes no more of a decision about the child than when she decided to use the birth control pill or the sponge, etc.

And you have still not stated any type of reason that the man has any such obligation. The only one that would make sense is if he were equally culpable for the child's existence. However, he is not.

He is equally culpable. He could have prevented the child's existence as surely as the woman could have. I promise I've never impregnated a woman I haven't had sex with.

Laws change, darling. So I actually do have ways of trying to change that fact.

SHE likes me. SHE really, really, likes me. (Sorry, I didn't know you were female when we started. Dumb assumption). Thanks for doing it again so I could correct myself.

Abortion is not birth control.

Abortion prevents a child from occurring just like all other forms of birth control, just because the odds of a child coming into existence are much higher if this kind of "child existence prevention" is not used does not mean the woman has had more of a decision to have a child than the man did.

Actually, it is you who can't seem to get past this. If a woman has an aboriton, she is deciding, both for herself and for the father, that the child will not exist. She is deciding that the potential will not become actual. If a father signs a "paper abortion", the child does not exist to him - he actually gets to make his own decision, instead of having someone else decide what the next 18 years of his life will be like.

The child does not exist to him? And not allowing this "child" to have money is equitable how? How is the fact that women have this extra ability to prevent the birth somehow made right by taking money away from the child?

I suppose "reproductive rights" is just a misnomer, then?

Excellent point, though I take reproductive rights to refer to birth control, to control whether or not we reproduce. This "paper abortion" does not at all affect reproduction.

You treat abortion like last touch in basketball. A woman touches the ball last so she is responsible for it going out of bounds. Only in this case, the ball is going out of bounds and you want only the woman to be responsible for it going out because she could have stopped it and didn't. Come on, admit it, that's a pretty good analogy. You can concede a point once in a while. It actually doesn't hurt. I promise.

You treat abortion like last touch in basketball. A woman touches the ball last so she is responsible for it going out of bounds. Only in this case, the ball is going out of bounds and you want only the woman to be responsible for it going out because she could have stopped it and didn't. Come on, admit it, that's a pretty good analogy. You can concede a point once in a while. It actually doesn't hurt. I promise.

That's close. A woman has the responsibility for the ball going out because she is the only one with the right to stop it. No one else is even allowed to even touch it, even if they are on her team, or they helped buy the ball.

If I were to get pregnant tomorrow, I would know that the ball was entirely in my court. *I* am the one who gets the decision-making rights from there on out. For me, the decision has already been made - I can tell you with near absolute certainty that I would never have an elective abortion, but that is *my* decision to make, and no one elses'. As such, I am wholly responsible for the consequences of that decision, just as I am wholly responsible for any other decision I make. I, unlike many, take responsibility for my own actions.

As such, I would explicitly state to the father that he has a choice. He must decide whether or not he wants to be a father to the child. If he were to say no (which is highly unlikely since we have discussed it before), then I would pack up my stuff, walk out, and never look back. His name would not be on the birth certificate, and he would have no rights or responsibilities to *my* child. Sure, I would think he was a complete and utter dick, just like I think many women who have abortions (not all, I've seen some pretty screwed up situations) are, but it would be his right to be a dick.

If he were to say yes, that he wants the rights associated, then I would hold him to the responsibilities as well. *I* am not going to make that decision for him.

That's close. A woman has the responsibility for the ball going out because she is the only one with the right to stop it. No one else is even allowed to even touch it, even if they are on her team, or they helped buy the ball.

No one else has the ability to touch it. This is not because she made some rule that they can't. They just aren't able to, not without knocking the woman over.

No one else has the ability to touch it. This is not because she made some rule that they can't. They just aren't able to.

Of course she didn't make the rules. However, the rules themselves do dictate that no one else can touch it. As such, she is wholly responsible for what it does.

Of course she didn't make the rules. However, the rules themselves do dictate that no one else can touch it. As such, she is wholly responsible for what it does.

Sorry, I editted too late. The rules don't say it. They say that you can't knock the woman over trying to get to the ball. Unfortunately, due to the location of the ball on the court, the man can't get to it without knocking her over. She didn't intentionally put herself between the man and the ball. And, in fact, if she doesn't touch the ball, it still may not go out.

Sorry, I editted too late. The rules don't say it. They say that you can't knock the woman over trying to get to the ball. Unfortunately, due to the location of the ball on the court, the man can't get to it without knocking her over. She didn't intentionally put herself between the man and the ball. And, in fact, if she doesn't touch the ball, it still may not go out.

You have mixed up cause and effect. In this analogy, the rule is that no one else can touch the ball. This rule is a result of the fact that no one is allowed to knock anyone else over and anyone else attempting to get to the ball would automatically knock her over. The woman cannot avoid touching the ball, it has already happened, she just has to decide whether or not to keep it in bounds.

No one is saying that this is fair. It isn't going to be, but thems the rules, and people must take responsibility for their own decisions.

If either of them didn't want to be in the situation, then neither should have gotten into the game.

And just so we get right down to what we're talking about. Is is last touch that makes it a woman's responsibility or is it that she has a 100% effective method of preventing the birth?

For the record, the falacy here is that the abortion has anything to do with the child. The abortion does not prevent a child from occurring any more than any other form of "birth control" does. It helps prevent sex from resulting in a child, yes. But, there is no child at all when an abortion occurs any more than there is a child when a condom is used. And a child does not result from not getting an abortion either. A child, as is taught in most biology classes, is the result of sex, on occasion. When a woman does not have an abortion, a child does not result. The potential for a child increases, just like when you don't use a condom or don't use a diaphram or don't use spermicide or don't use the pill.

Case law does not enumerate rights - it sets traditions on interpretations. And these traditions can be changed. Plessy v. Ferguson set precedent that a black man was automatically a slave and could not be a citizen, even if he was in a free state. It was later changed. This was all due to differing *interpretation*. Later, the right of black men to citizenship and equal treatment was specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

You lecturing tone is particularly silly when you are dead wrong.

Let's see where I can start to unravel the errors in this.

Dred Scott v. Sanford (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/60/393.html ), 60 U.S. 393 (1857) is the case in which it was held that no person descended from a slave could be a citizen. Thus, Dred Scott was a slave despite being in a free state. This decision overturned the Missouri Compromise and -- to at least some degree -- contributed to The Civil War.

After the Civil War, Dred Scott was reversed -- not by a differing interpretation--but by the 13th and 14th Amendments.

Plessy v. Ferguson (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/163/537.html ), 163 US 537 (1896) was decided after the Civil War. At issue was whether racial segregation (specifically a "whites only" train section) unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Brown conceded that the 14th amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law, but he asserted that "in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races unsatisfactory to either." Thus, the Court created the "seperate but equal" doctrine.

Plessy was undermined by a series of decisions until it was completely overturned by Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/349/294.html ), 347 US 483 (1954). (One of the finest moments in judicial history.)

Only legislative law (specifically the constitution) can legally enumerate rights. Tradition and precendent can dictate the "usual" interpretation.

That is a overly simplistic division.

First, you must be speaking only of legal rights and eschew the existence of natural rights.

Second, caselaw is a little more complicated than your generalizations.

Third, legal rights need not be enumerated by legislation.

Here are just a few examples of fundamental rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution but that are protected by the courts and taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity

You have mixed up cause and effect. In this analogy, the rule is that no one else can touch the ball. This rule is a result of the fact that no one is allowed to knock anyone else over and anyone else attempting to get to the ball would automatically knock her over. The woman cannot avoid touching the ball, it has already happened, she just has to decide whether or not to keep it in bounds.
Um, no, I haven't. You're confused about the nature of an analogy. The rule actually is that you can't knock the woman over. However, by how the ball bounces, it ended up on the other side of her from the man. The man cannot get to the ball to prevent the ball from going out without knocking the woman over and breaking the rules. The rules aren't there to disadvantage the man. The woman isn't allowed to knock the man over either. However, in this case the ball is going out. Both touched it and the woman is in the way of the man preventing it from going out. The woman can prevent it, however, if she wishes to. They both touched the ball. If she doesn't stop it, it will not affect the refs decision as to possession.

You lecturing tone is particularly silly when you are dead wrong.

Let's see where I can start to unravel the errors in this.

Dred Scott v. Sanford (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/60/393.html ), 60 U.S. 393 (1857) is the case in which it was held that no person descended from a slave could be a citizen. Thus, Dred Scott was a slave despite being in a free state. This decision overturned the Missouri Compromise and -- to at least some degree -- contributed to The Civil War.

After the Civil War, Dred Scott was reversed -- not by a differing interpretation--but by the 13th and 14th Amendments.

Plessy v. Ferguson (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/163/537.html ), 163 US 537 (1896) was decided after the Civil War. At issue was whether racial segregation (specifically a "whites only" train section) unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Brown conceded that the 14th amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law, but he asserted that "in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races unsatisfactory to either." Thus, the Court created the "seperate but equal" doctrine.

Plessy was undermined by a series of decisions until it was completely overturned by Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/349/294.html ), 347 US 483 (1954). (One of the finest moments in judicial history.)



That is a overly simplistic division.

First, you must be speaking only of legal rights and eschew the existence of natural rights.

Second, caselaw is a little more complicated than your generalizations.

Third, legal rights need not be enumerated by legislation.

Here are just a few examples of fundamental rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution but that are protected by the courts and taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


I was hoping you would intercede there. I was having a hard time finding the decisions. I would also like it if you would correct where I was incorrect. I noticed the "make one's own choice about having children" which is a point I already conceded.

And just so we get right down to what we're talking about. Is is last touch that makes it a woman's responsibility or is it that she has a 100% effective method of preventing the birth?

It is the fact that she has the sole decision of whether or not to prevent something which has already begun. A pregnancy has already begun, and she can either let it take its course or not let it take its course. As such, she is responsible for that course. Both are equally culpable in having sex and for any attempts they want to make to prevent a pregnancy, but once a pregnancy has begun, she is the only one with the ability to put an end to it.

The abortion does not prevent a child from occurring any more than any other form of "birth control" does.

You are taking a very crass view to all of this. You are technically correct, just like me handing you a million dollars and then saying "Never mind, I just wanted you to hold it for a moment" does not technically keep you from getting a million dollars any more than never showing it to you in the first place.

It helps prevent sex from resulting in a child, yes.

Wrong. Contraception helps prevent a pregnancy from occurring.

Abortion prevents *pregnancy* from resulting in a child. We are one step further in the process.

When a woman does not have an abortion, a child does not result. The potential for a child increases, just like when you don't use a condom or don't use a diaphram or don't use spermicide or don't use the pill.

If the pregnancy has gotten to the point that a woman knows about it, it is incredibly unlikely that a child will not result. Meanwhile, you forget that we are only talking about *elective* abortions here.

A condom/diaphragm/etc. are used to prevent *pregnancy*. Abortion is used to prevent *childbirth*.

You lecturing tone is particularly silly when you are dead wrong.

You are right, I was wrong about the name of the case. I was not wrong, however, about the fact that judicial precedence can and does get overturned.

First, you must be speaking only of legal rights and eschew the existence of natural rights.

Natural rights are nice, but only count if they are protected somehow. In this country, we protect them with legal rights.

Third, legal rights need not be enumerated by legislation.

To be absolutely protected, they do.

Here are just a few examples of fundamental rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution but that are protected by the courts and taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


And the courts could begin to interpret the law another way - and any "rights" not specificlaly enumerated would no longer be protected.

Many of these rights are relatively new in the history of our country.

And the right to marry has not yet been upheld by the courts.

The right to make one's own choice about having children is one which you and Jocabia have been arguing *against*, as the woman is the only one with any such decision.

I believe one of the amendments specifically enumerates the voting, although it may not. In fact, that one is probably an interpretation of the "equal protection under the law" part of the 14th.

Um, no, I haven't. You're confused about the nature of an analogy. The rule actually is that you can't knock the woman over. However, by how the ball bounces, it ended up on the other side of her from the man. The man cannot get to the ball to prevent the ball from going out without knocking the woman over and breaking the rules. The rules aren't there to disadvantage the man. The woman isn't allowed to knock the man over either. However, in this case the ball is going out. Both touched it and the woman is in the way of the man preventing it from going out. The woman can prevent it, however, if she wishes to. They both touched the ball. If she doesn't stop it, it will not affect the refs decision as to possession.

Even in this analogy, my logic still works. The woman can stop it from going out if she wishes to. If she does, she is soley responsible for it still being in the court. If she does not, then she is soley responsible for it going out of the court.

All this talk about birth controle and abortion being equal are bollocks.

Abortion is geting rid of a viable life. Birth controle prevents that life forming. It's not 100% effective but men have to realise that as much as women have to.

Yes, a man cannot make a woman have an abortion, as it should be.

However, in cases (probably 0.00001 probability of this unless he's a controle freak) where men want to raise the child on their own and the woman wants an abortion, the woman must give birth to that child and hand it over to the father.

Few men want this option though or there would already be legislature for it.

As such, pay up if the mother wants to keep it. You had sex, you run the risk. if your morals allow you to have a baby aborted, be thankful your mothers didnt.

It is the fact that she has the sole decision of whether or not to prevent something which has already begun. A pregnancy has already begun, and she can either let it take its course or not let it take its course. As such, she is responsible for that course. Both are equally culpable in having sex and for any attempts they want to make to prevent a pregnancy, but once a pregnancy has begun, she is the only one with the ability to put an end to it.

You are taking a very crass view to all of this. You are technically correct, just like me handing you a million dollars and then saying "Never mind, I just wanted you to hold it for a moment" does not technically keep you from getting a million dollars any more than never showing it to you in the first place.

Wrong. Contraception helps prevent a pregnancy from occurring.

Abortion prevents *pregnancy* from resulting in a child. We are one step further in the process.

If the pregnancy has gotten to the point that a woman knows about it, it is incredibly unlikely that a child will not result. Meanwhile, you forget that we are only talking about *elective* abortions here.

A condom/diaphragm/etc. are used to prevent *pregnancy*. Abortion is used to prevent *childbirth*.

She has the ability to prevent a child from coming to exist. So does a man. It's very simple. Strictly speaking, abortion is used to prevent a pregnancy from continuing. Not having an abortion does not guarantee a baby.

And I didn't mention anything about elective or not. Don't make stupid assumptions about what I forgot or didn't. Where did I say anything about the abortion being elective?

15% of recognized pregnancies result in loss of the fetus. Slightly under 1% result in still birth (loss when the fetus would be viable). About 5% will have spontaneous abortion during the second trimester (when the fetus is not viable). The remaining 9% are lost during the first trimester. I seperated it out since you discount those that would have occurred before the abortion, but I would hardly call 6% (not including non-elective abortions) "incredibly unlikely". I would say if my plane had a 6% chance of crashing, I wouldn't get on it.

Even in this analogy, my logic still works. The woman can stop it from going out if she wishes to. If she does, she is soley responsible for it still being in the court. If she does not, then she is soley responsible for it going out of the court.

Out of bounds in my analogy is continuing the pregnancy to term. And no, being the last one to be able to prevent has nothing to do with the responsibilty for the ball going out.

Meanwhile, you have not yet described how taking money away from the child to overcome a biological disadvantage represents equity?

All this talk about birth controle and abortion being equal are bollocks.

Yes they are, but not for the reasons you state.

Abortion is geting rid of a viable life.

In truth, a woman has no access to elective abortion once there is a viable life involved. She only has access before the embryo has reached the point where it can even really be termed "life".

Yes, a man cannot make a woman have an abortion, as it should be.

However, in cases (probably 0.00001 probability of this unless he's a controle freak) where men want to raise the child on their own and the woman wants an abortion, the woman must give birth to that child and hand it over to the father.

That is utter bullshit. A man can no more force a woman to continue a pregnancy than he can force her to end it. That is the entire source of the argument.

Few men want this option though or there would already be legislature for it.

Actually, I have spoken to *many* men who think they should have this option. I have explained to them exactly why they should not. It was in such conversations when I realized how very inequitable the legal situation is. A man never has control over his own reproductive rights. Even if he and a woman decide to get pregnant together, she has full rights to end the pregnancy (as she should - and this is something that is unavoidable). However, the fact that she equally has full rights to continue a pregnancy whether he wants it or not is an inequity we *can* do something about.

As such, pay up if the mother wants to keep it. You had sex, you run the risk. if your morals allow you to have a baby aborted, be thankful your mothers didnt.

Someone could just as easily say "If you didn't want to have a baby, you shouldn't have had sex. Guess you can't have an abortion then." If a woman has a way out, a man must have a way out as well. There is *no* reason to give one adult control over the next 18 years of another competent adult's life.

Out of bounds in my analogy is continuing the pregnancy to term. And no, being the last one to be able to prevent has nothing to do with the responsibilty for the ball going out.

Really? So if I am the one driving a car, and I am the only one who can hit the breaks, and there is a child in the road - the person sitting in the passenger seat is just as culpable for the fact that I hit them?

Yeah, that makes *perfect* sense.

Meanwhile, you have not yet described how taking money away from the child to overcome a biological disadvantage represents equity?

You have not yet explained how you can take something away that was never given in the first place.

Nor have you given me any other reason for this supposed "right" than "the law has upheld it". I gave you a reason for the right, and you have yet to respond to it.

You have also not explained how giving one *actual* person more control over the next 18 years of another *actual* person's life than they have themselves represents equity.

You are right, I was wrong about the name of the case. I was not wrong, however, about the fact that judicial precedence can and does get overturned.

You were wrong about more than the name of one case, but whatever makes you happy.

Natural rights are nice, but only count if they are protected somehow. In this country, we protect them with legal rights.

To be absolutely protected, they do.

And the courts could begin to interpret the law another way - and any "rights" not specificlaly enumerated would no longer be protected.

There is no such thing as an absolutly protected right -- unless you count natural rights.

A legislature can also change statutes and legislatures can change the Constitution.

And the right to marry has not yet been upheld by the courts.

Wrong. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html ), 388 US 1 (1967).

The right to make one's own choice about having children is one which you and Jocabia have been arguing *against*, as the woman is the only one with any such decision.

No.

What I and Jocabia have argued against is your silly attempt to allow men the one-sided ability to write-off responsibility to their children.

I believe one of the amendments specifically enumerates the voting, although it may not. In fact, that one is probably an interpretation of the "equal protection under the law" part of the 14th.

If you consider the phrase "equal protection under the law" to be an enumeration of voting rights, then all of the rights I listed are enumerated under the equal protection or due process clauses of the 14th. But there is no specific enumeration of a right to vote.

Yes they are, but not for the reasons you state.

In truth, a woman has no access to elective abortion once there is a viable life involved. She only has access before the embryo has reached the point where it can even really be termed "life".


OK, an embrio isnt "life" but it is potential life and i am mature enough, independent enough and earn enough that my concience wouldnt allow me to get rid of this potential life.

That is utter bullshit. A man can no more force a woman to continue a pregnancy than he can force her to end it. That is the entire source of the argument.

I'm not sayinf they can, i'm saying they should for true equality. And if men faught for it, i'm sure it would become law eventually.

Someone could just as easily say "If you didn't want to have a baby, you shouldn't have had sex. Guess you can't have an abortion then." If a woman has a way out, a man must have a way out as well. There is *no* reason to give one adult control over the next 18 years of another competent adult's life.

I agree, if you absolutly dont want a baby, dont have sex, dont donate sperm and dont rely on birth controle.

i might add that i usually use 2 forms of birth controle. A hormone and a condome (At least until i knew the chap's sexual history well enough for him to stop using a condom). Do men ever think of that? A man has never asked me, as he rolls on his rubber "are you on anything else here baby?" No, it;s always "are you on anything? i dont like usin' a rubber".

You used to have everything your own way. You knocked a gorl up, well parentge couldnt be proved, you were in the clear. Now that you might have to face the same responsibility we do (perhaps our responsibility is dictated by our concience as mine is) you go all ape shit saying you dont have to do anything because we can get rid of it and you cant.

Well boo, bloody hoo. Stay celebate then. Before paternity could be proved we were landed, we are landed now. Why dont men face up to some of the burdens of sex!!!!!!

One of these burdens is that if you get a woman pregnant, she might want to keep it!

You were wrong about more than the name of one case, but whatever makes you happy.

I was not wrong about the point I was making. Yes, I used an improper example because I am bad at memorizing things, but the point still remains.

A legislature can also change statutes and legislatures can change the Constitution.

Yes, they can. But it is what *they* do which determines the hard and fast legal protections we have.

Wrong. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html ), 388 US 1 (1967).

If it didn't give homosexuals the right to marry, then the right has not yet been upheld.

No.

What I and Jocabia have argued against is your silly attempt to allow men the one-sided ability to write-off responsibility to their children.

I have argued no such thing. Once there is a child, the man would have no such right. The right only comes at the same time the woman's does - when the child is still only potential. The man has no control over whether or not potential beomes actual, but the woman does.

If you consider the phrase "equal protection under the law" to be an enumeration of voting rights, then all of the rights I listed are enumerated under the equal protection or due process clauses of the 14th. But there is no specific enumeration of a right to vote.

Note that I *SPECIFICALLY* said that it was *NOT* an enumeration of rights, but an *INTERPRETATION* of an enumerated right.

*

I realized I allowed you to avoid the issues earlier.

True or False:

1. Women face pervasive economic discrimination in the US. T or F?

2. Men do not face pervasive economic discrimination in the US. T or F?

3. Women face many times the amount of discriminatory acts than men do. T or F?

4. All genders are subject to harmful stereotypes that harm not only a specific gender but all genders. T or F?

5. Isolated instances of discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or other protected categories are wrong. Period. T or F?

6. Masculism emperically has been primarily anti-feminist. That is a bad thing. T or F?

7. To the extent masclism can be encouraged to become another form of feminism, then it is a good thing. T or F?

8. Men, as a group, have disproportionate power and privilege in the US. T or F?

I was not wrong about the point I was making. Yes, I used an improper example because I am bad at memorizing things, but the point still remains.

No. You were wrong about at least 3 facts and the point.

Yes, they can. But it is what *they* do which determines the hard and fast legal protections we have.

No. Legislatures rarely protect rights. Courts are in many ways the primary protector of our rights.

If it didn't give homosexuals the right to marry, then the right has not yet been upheld.

That is simply ridiculous.

Was there no right to vote for anyone until everyone had it? Some still don't -- is there no right to vote until 16 year olds can vote?

I fully support gay marriage -- because the right to marry is a fundamental right.

Just admit you were wrong.

I have argued no such thing. Once there is a child, the man would have no such right. The right only comes at the same time the woman's does - when the child is still only potential. The man has no control over whether or not potential beomes actual, but the woman does.

Only because you refuse to recognize the differences in the consequences of the actions (because it hurts your little theory.)

And you still have yet to explain why the woman must suffer costs that the man does not.

Note that I *SPECIFICALLY* said that it was *NOT* an enumeration of rights, but an *INTERPRETATION* of an enumerated right.

Actually, you suggested it might be an enumerated right or an interpretation of "equal protection."

As your entire point was that "mere" interpretations are real protections of rights, your were either wrong or undermining your own point. Which is it?

OK, an embrio isnt "life" but it is potential life and i am mature enough, independent enough and earn enough that my concience wouldnt allow me to get rid of this potential life.

And neither would mine, but it would be *my* decision to make, not my boyfriend's.

I'm not sayinf they can, i'm saying they should for true equality. And if men faught for it, i'm sure it would become law eventually.

You really have a flawed understanding of equality if you think legalizing slavery would be equal. And that is exactly what it would be. If a man has the right to tell a woman not to have an abortion, thus *forcing* her to continue a pregnancy, then that man has control over her body - the very definition of slavery. Congratulations on turning back the clocks 100 years.

i might add that i usually use 2 forms of birth controle. A hormone and a condome (At least until i knew the chap's sexual history well enough for him to stop using a condom). Do men ever think of that? A man has never asked me, as he rolls on his rubber "are you on anything else here baby?" No, it;s always "are you on anything? i dont like usin' a rubber".

Sounds like you aren't finding the right men then. I have yet to have sex with any man who I have not first discussed sexual history and birth control with. I also have yet to find a man unwilling to wear a condom.

You used to have everything your own way. You knocked a gorl up, well parentge couldnt be proved, you were in the clear. Now that you might have to face the same responsibility we do (perhaps our responsibility is dictated by our concience as mine is) you go all ape shit saying you dont have to do anything because we can get rid of it and you cant.

Look kids!! A sexist!! "You disagree with me so you must be a man".

Never mind that I am a woman and my opinion is specifically due to the fact that I think everyone should be responsible for their own actions.


Jocobia: Better analogy:

Suppose a man and a woman agree to enter a tournament together. Neither thinks they will make it to the end of the tournament. In fact, they might both be trying to lose on purpose so they don't get there. However, purely by chance, they end up in the last game. The announcer says "Well, so far you've both been playing equally. But now we're going to change the rules. In this game, only the woman will be able to play. If she wins, you will both get a big prize. However, with that big prize will also come a huge responsibility that will last for at least 18 years. Think carefully before you continue in this game, as it will effect, at the very least, the next 18 years of your life. Women, you will have the first third of the game to call it all off."

Man #1: "But I really, really, really want the prize!! I should be able to force her to play!"

Announcer: "I'm afraid that isn't how the rules work. We are not legally able to force any woman to play our game. Sorry."
Heckler from the crowd named nature: "HAHA! TOo bad you can't play yourself! Looks like you're SOL if she decides to end the game!"

Man #2: Great responsibilities, huh? How come she gets to decide to end the game and I don't? I don't want those responsibilities, the prize just ain't good enough for them."
Announcer: "Nope. We can't force *her* to continue in the game, but we sure as hell can force you to. If you attempt to leave, you will be put in jail."

*That is the way things are now.* The only change I am making is that, when man#2 says "I don't want to stay in the game", he has that option. The woman can still contintue to play, if she wants to.

Meanwhile, if a child is automatically entitled to money from both biological parents, what do we do when the father dies before the child is born? Do we take his entire estate to pay for 18 years of child support and sue his next of kin for the money if he didn't have enough?

I realized I allowed you to avoid the issues earlier.

I've answered all of this already, but since you seem to have missed it.

1. Women face pervasive economic discrimination in the US. T or F?
2. Men do not face pervasive economic discrimination in the US. T or F?
3. Women face many times the amount of discriminatory acts than men do. T or F?
4. All genders are subject to harmful stereotypes that harm not only a specific gender but all genders. T or F?
5. Isolated instances of discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or other protected categories are wrong. Period. T or F?
6. Masculism emperically has been primarily anti-feminist. That is a bad thing. T or F?
7. To the extent masclism can be encouraged to become another form of feminism, then it is a good thing. T or F?
8. Men, as a group, have disproportionate power and privilege in the US. T or F?

1. Define pervasive. There is quite a bit, but I wouldn't call it systematic, as the laws are in place to protect women/minorities/etc.
2. T
3. T
4. T
5. T
6. I have yet to see a masculist who is primarily anti-feminsist and uses the term. However, being anti-feminist, rather than pro-equitist ceratinly is a bad thing.
7. T
8. F There are more men in power, but there is nothing inherently giving them that power any more except for stereotypes and social conditioning (of all groups).

No. Legislatures rarely protect rights. Courts are in many ways the primary protector of our rights.[

Which is completely besides the point. The rights are put in place by legislative powers. They are in the Constitution (be it US or State). The court *upholds* these rights, yes. However, the extra rights that they consider under the penumbra of X right or other can and do change with the times. Thus, they are not actually enumerated by case law.

That is simply ridiculous.

Was there no right to vote for anyone until everyone had it? Some still don't -- is there no right to vote until 16 year olds can vote?

In the law? No, there wasn't. There was only the right for white, male, landowners to vote pretty much.

Was there a natural right to vote? I believe so, yes. But we are discussing what was upheld, not what existed.

I fully support gay marriage -- because the right to marry is a fundamental right.

And since they don't have it, it quite obviously has not been upheld.

And you still have yet to explain why the woman must suffer costs that the man does not.

Actually, I have explained this umpteen hundred times. It is her *right* to make the decision, so it is her *responsibility* to take care of the costs.

Actually, you suggested it might be an enumerated right or an interpretation of "equal protection."

Exactly, etiher or. Not, as you said, "enumerated by interpretation."

Meanwhile, having looked into it, there is an enumerated right to vote in the Constitution. However, it only covers Senate and House elections. The rest are generally enumerated in state constitutions.

As your entire point was that "mere" interpretations are real protections of rights, your were either wrong or undermining your own point. Which is it?

Actually, that wasn't my point at all. My point is that interpretations are not enumerations of rights, as they can and do change. If something is a "penumbric right", as most of your list are, they are not specifically enumerated anywhere. The courts could just as well, in 50 years, say "We were wrong, those were not really penumbric rights." Of course, there would be plenty of uproar, so the people would call for the legislature to add those rights into the Constitution - hence, checks and balances.

I've answered all of this already, but since you seem to have missed it.

Actually, you did not. Thank you for finally answering.



1. Define pervasive. There is quite a bit, but I wouldn't call it systematic, as the laws are in place to protect women/minorities/etc.
2. F
3. T
4. T
5. T
6. I have yet to see a masculist who is primarily anti-feminsist and uses the term. However, being anti-feminist, rather than pro-equitist ceratinly is a bad thing.
8. F There are more men in power, but there is nothing inherently giving them that power any more except for stereotypes and social conditioning (of all groups).

Odd that you cannot agree to #1 because you cannot define "pervasive" (did you try a dictionary?) and maintain that women are not subject to systematic discrimination, but you deny #2 -- indicating you believe men are subject to pervasive economic discrimination.

This confirms much of my suspicions about where you are coming from: You think men are subject to pervasive economic discrimination, but women are not. The opposite is true.

Your waffling on #6, skipping of #7, and denial of #8 futher confirm that you are objectively biased.

Which is completely besides the point. The rights are put in place by legislative powers. They are in the Constitution (be it US or State). The court *upholds* these rights, yes. However, the extra rights that they consider under the penumbra of X right or other can and do change with the times. Thus, they are not actually enumerated by case law.

No, it is the key point.

Your casual dismissal of caselaw is either simple ignorance or deliberate obstinance.

Legislative powers (very broadly defined) may create or amend constitutions. But, in the US, the interpreter of the Constitution is the courts. In so doing, the courts routinely enumerate rights. And, unlike the legistlature, routinely protect rights.

Caselaw may change -- although the doctrine of stare decisis provides significant stability -- but so may legislative actions.

Consider the UK, it has no written constitution. Yet its courts routinely protect rights.

In the law? No, there wasn't. There was only the right for white, male, landowners to vote pretty much.

Was there a natural right to vote? I believe so, yes. But we are discussing what was upheld, not what existed.

So, by your thinking there are no rights until they are universal (or at least as universal as you think they should be).

In addition to being absurd legally, this is ridiculous on its face. By that logic there have never been any rights "in the law" and likely never will be. As we originally noted, blacks were denied any legal rights until the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments -- so apparently no one had any legal rights. Blacks and women were denied many rights through much of the 20th century -- so again nobody had any rights. Eighteen year olds could not vote until 1971 -- so no one had a right to vote until then. But wait - 17 year olds can't vote -- so no one has the right to vote.

Simply because a right has not extended universally does not mean it is not a legal right. To the contrary, the best legal arguments for extension of a right is to note the existence of a right for some and the inequity of it being denied to others.


And since they don't have it, it quite obviously has not been upheld.

See above.

Again, the fact that the right to vote has been recognized as a fundamental right is one of the best arguments why homosexuals should not be denied that right.

You really are out of your depth here. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing.


Actually, I have explained this umpteen hundred times. It is her *right* to make the decision, so it is her *responsibility* to take care of the costs.

Ah, but you wish to extend an allegedly similar "right" to the man without any similar responsibilities -- creating an inequity (as I have noted several times and you keep avoiding).


Exactly, etiher or. Not, as you said, "enumerated by interpretation."

Again, you suggested it was an enumerated right (which I do not believe it is) or an interpretation of "equal protection" (which I do not believe it is either).

I believe one of the amendments specifically enumerates the voting, although it may not. In fact, that one is probably an interpretation of the "equal protection under the law" part of the 14th.

Feel free to explain how an interpretation of the "equal protection" clause would be an enumerated right.

Meanwhile, having looked into it, there is an enumerated right to vote in the Constitution. However, it only covers Senate and House elections. The rest are generally enumerated in state constitutions.

Please identify where you found this right in the US Constitution. I may be wrong, but I do not believe it is so enumerated.

There is a constitutional right to vote in federal elections that is not enumerated in the US Constitution or any state constitution but is protected by the courts.

Actually, that wasn't my point at all. My point is that interpretations are not enumerations of rights, as they can and do change. If something is a "penumbric right", as most of your list are, they are not specifically enumerated anywhere. The courts could just as well, in 50 years, say "We were wrong, those were not really penumbric rights." Of course, there would be plenty of uproar, so the people would call for the legislature to add those rights into the Constitution - hence, checks and balances.

By your definition, the legislature does not protect rights either "as they can and do change."

Again, it is no big thing to simply admit an error. Instead, you compound your error in trying to explain it away.

Actually, you did not. Thank you for finally answering.

If I have to spell it out for you...

Odd that you cannot agree to #1 because you cannot define "pervasive" (did you try a dictionary?)

Pervasive is a word that must have a comparison. *You* are asking the question so *you* must define pervasive. As I pointed out (back when you asked all this before), pervasive needs a point of reference. Is it overal pervasive? Probably not. Is it pervasive in certain classes, possibly. I would say that economic discrimination in general is worse in the economically disadvantaged and being a woman on top of that would probably make it worse. Is it pervasive in the schools? That's pretty much a no. Is it pervasive in all companies? No. Is it pervasive in some? Yup.

You have to define a point of reference so that we're both on the same page. Of course, you have made it quite evident that you don't want to be on the same page. Even where I have quite clearly agreed with you, you have made something up that I never said to argue about.

and maintain that women are not subject to systematic discrimination,

...which, as I also pointed out before, would depend on the system. The overall system - no. Certain companies, etc.? Of course.

but you deny #2 -- indicating you believe men are subject to pervasive economic discrimination.

Actually, that was one of those "do"/"do not" things. I was attempting to indicate that I do *not* believe men are subject to pervasive economic discrimination, but the do/do not had been switched around on me. This was why I was never good at T/F tests.

Of course, the fact that I have said things exactly opposite this several times *should* have keyed you to the fact that it was a mistake, if you weren't trying so hard to see something you don't like.

This confirms much of my suspicions about where you are coming from: You think men are subject to pervasive economic discrimination, but women are not. The opposite is true.

As I have pointed out umpteen hundred times, I believe no such thing. Your suspicions have been denied several times over now, so stop with them.

Your waffling on #6, skipping of #7, and denial of #8 futher confirm that you are objectively biased.

I'm sorry if you can't handle the fact that everything in this world is not T/F, Black/White, right/wrong. I did not intend to skip 7. The answer is true.

And I explained my view on 8, so it is quite evident that there is no bias involved.

Your casual dismissal of caselaw is either simple ignorance or deliberate obstinance.

Maybe you missed the conversation. I asked Jocabia where the rights he spouts are *enumerated*. He said case law. In other words, they could change any time the courts start interpreting things differently.

I never said that case law isn't important.

Legislative powers (very broadly defined) may create or amend constitutions. But, in the US, the interpreter of the Constitution is the courts. In so doing, the courts routinely enumerate rights. And, unlike the legistlature, routinely protect rights.

...rights that can change at any time and thus aren't really srictly enumerated.

So, by your thinking there are no rights until they are universal (or at least as universal as you think they should be).

No, in my thinking, the rights exist, but are not truly protected until they are universal.

In addition to being absurd legally, this is ridiculous on its face. By that logic there have never been any rights "in the law" and likely never will be. As we originally noted, blacks were denied any legal rights until the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments -- so apparently no one had any legal rights. Blacks and women were denied many rights through much of the 20th century -- so again nobody had any rights. Eighteen year olds could not vote until 1971 -- so no one had a right to vote until then. But wait - 17 year olds can't vote -- so no one has the right to vote.

If you understood english, you would see that I did not say that rights didn't exist, just that they were not actually protected. (And, if not strictly written down, not actually enumerated). Rich white men did have the right to vote, and it was protected - for them. However, no one else did. As such, it was not upheld as a right of all citizens. This really isn't that hard to understand.

Simply because a right has not extended universally does not mean it is not a legal right. To the contrary, the best legal arguments for extension of a right is to note the existence of a right for some and the inequity of it being denied to others.

Yes, and once they extend it to others, it has been protected. If you would like to study a little English, go back and read over the conversation which was about protection, not existance.

You really are out of your depth here. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

I'm arguing for the sake of arguing? You make shit up that I never said to argue with. You are the master of the strawman here.

Ah, but you wish to extend an allegedly similar "right" to the man without any similar responsibilities -- creating an inequity (as I have noted several times and you keep avoiding).

The responsibilities are the child. The woman can keep from those as well as the man can.

Again, you suggested it was an enumerated right (which I do not believe it is) or an interpretation of "equal protection" (which I do not believe it is either).

Actually, I said it *might* be that. If it is not expressly written down (as you have stated), then it is an interpretation of another enumerated right.

Feel free to explain how an interpretation of the "equal protection" clause would be an enumerated right.

Considering that I *expressly* said it wouldn't, and the fact that *you* are the one arguing that court interpretations=enumerated rights, I think you should be the one doing this. Really, what part of the word "or" don't you understand?

Please identify where you found this right in the US Constitution. I may be wrong, but I do not believe it is so enumerated.

Actually, I can't find it, so it looks like I was wrong on that one. The right to vote is apparently not specifically enumerated, although the right to not be denied on the basis of color or sex is. Go figure.

There is a constitutional right to vote in federal elections that is not enumerated in the US Constitution or any state constitution but is protected by the courts.

Not exactly. The Amendments clearly uphold the right to be treated equally as it comes to voting. I'm pretty sure the courts would get upset if any of the states tried to legislate voting completely out of the process, but don't know of any specific cases.

Meanwhile, you used a key phrase there - the exact point I've been making in fact.

By your definition, the legislature does not protect rights either "as they can and do change."

I never said anything about protection - you started that. I was specifically speaking about *enumerating* rights. To enumerate them, they must be written down as a clear right. Yes, they can change, but it is a difficult process and requires enumerating new rights, whereas case law does not.

Again, it is no big thing to simply admit an error. Instead, you compound your error in trying to explain it away.

I have done no such thing (other than the T/F thing and the voting rights - which I made clear once I realized my error). It isn't my fault that you are arguing what you want to see instead of what is actually written.

I have done no such thing (other than the T/F thing and the voting rights - which I made clear once I realized my error). It isn't my fault that you are arguing what you want to see instead of what is actually written.

Actually, I already identified several other errors.

As you seem to be unable to recall what and/or changing what you say anytime you are pinned down. I will go to the trouble to point out some examples here.

Perhaps in the future you will not accuse people of being unable to read English simply because they remember what you have said better than you do.

If I have to spell it out for you...

If you wish to point out where you had answered those points earlier, I will gladly admit I was wrong. As you did not, I will not need to do so.

Actually, that was one of those "do"/"do not" things. I was attempting to indicate taht I do *not* believe men are subject to pervasive economic discrimination, but the do/do not had been switched around on me. This was why I was never good at T/F tests.

As I have pointed out umpteen hundred times, I believe no such thing. Your suspicions have been denied several times over now, so stop with them.

I'm sorry if you can't handle the fact that everything in this world is not T/F, Black/White, right/wrong. I did not intend to skip 7. The answer is true.

And I explained my view on 8, so it is quite evident that there is no bias involved.

I am glad to have you retract your erroneous answer to #2.

I think it is quite evident your answer to #8 is wrong, but I agree that it is not objectively biased.

I do think you have quite clearly demonstrated that you are more sensitive to perceived discrimination against men than the actuality of discrimination against women. You have objectively sought to downplay and question the pervasive and systematic discrimination against women in our society, while exaggerating discrimination against men.

Maybe you missed the conversation. I asked Jocabia where the rights he spouts are *enumerated*. He said case law. In other words, they could change any time the courts start interpreting things differently.

I never said that case law isn't important.

...rights that can change at any time and thus aren't really srictly enumerated.

No, in my thinking, the rights exist, but are not truly protected until they are universal.

If you understood english, you would see that I did not say that rights didn't exist, just that they were not actually protected. (And, if not strictly written down, not actually enumerated). Rich white men did have the right to vote, and it was protected - for them. However, no one else did. As such, it was not upheld as a right of all citizens. This really isn't that hard to understand.

Yes, and once they extend it to others, it has been protected. If you would like to study a little English, go back and read over the conversation which was about protection, not existance.

I'm arguing for the sake of arguing? You make shit up that I never said to argue with. You are the master of the strawman here.

Ironically, you will say in this same post that you never said anything about protection.

Regardless, here is what you said about the right to vote:

That is simply ridiculous.

Was there no right to vote for anyone until everyone had it? Some still don't -- is there no right to vote until 16 year olds can vote?

In the law? No, there wasn't. There was only the right for white, male, landowners to vote pretty much.

You said there was no right to vote for anyone until everyone had it.

You changed your answer when I pointed out the absurdity of confusing the existence of a right with its universality.

You made a similar set of erroneous statements about the right to marriage.


The responsibilities are the child. The woman can keep from those as well as the man can.

No. Once again you seek to avoid the flaw in your dichotomy. You have done this a couple times . You do not respond directly in your first response. Then, by the second time, my point is no longer explicit and you respond as if I had been arguing something else.

For a pregnant woman, either birth or abortion includes mental, emotional, financial, and physical costs and risks beyond the child itself.

More specifically, a woman seeking an abortion gives up her rights to the child but suffers a number of mental, emotional, financial, and physical costs and risks.

A man exercising your "paper abortion" gives up his rights to the child without paying any additional costs or facing any additional risks. Perhaps a finger cramp or paper cut.

That is the inequity in your proposal. This is at least the fourth time I have pointed it out.

Actually, I said it *might* be that. If it is not expressly written down (as you have stated), then it is an interpretation of another enumerated right.

Considering that I *expressly* said it wouldn't, and the fact that *you* are the one arguing that court interpretations=enumerated rights, I think you should be the one doing this. Really, what part of the word "or" don't you understand?

Here is what you said:

I believe one of the amendments specifically enumerates the voting, although it may not. In fact, that one is probably an interpretation of the "equal protection under the law" part of the 14th.

Do you fail understand your own statements?

Actually, I can't find it, so it looks like I was wrong on that one. The right to vote is apparently not specifically enumerated, although the right to not be denied on the basis of color or sex is. Go figure.

Thank you. See, that wasn't so hard.

Not exactly. The Amendments clearly uphold the right to be treated equally as it comes to voting. I'm pretty sure the courts would get upset if any of the states tried to legislate voting completely out of the process, but don't know of any specific cases.

Meanwhile, you used a key phrase there - the exact point I've been making in fact.

My original statement with which you chose to argue was that the right to vote was one of 11 rights not enumerated but protected by the courts.

I never said anything about protection - you started that. I was specifically speaking about *enumerating* rights. To enumerate them, they must be written down as a clear right. Yes, they can change, but it is a difficult process and requires enumerating new rights, whereas case law does not.

Note all how you emphasized protection over existence above.

Further, you have said the following:

Natural rights are nice, but only count if they are protected somehow. In this country, we protect them with legal rights.

To be absolutely protected, they do.

And the courts could begin to interpret the law another way - and any "rights" not specificlaly enumerated would no longer be protected.

Yes, they can. But it is what *they* do which determines the hard and fast legal protections we have.

In the future, don't deny you have said things that you have said.

Your understanding of legal rights, precedent, and constitutional law is basically sound, but you are beyond your depth. Just give it up.

As you seem to be unable to recall what and/or changing what you say anytime you are pinned down. I will go to the trouble to point out some examples here.

I love the way people can't see the difference between clarifying and changing. When I change something, I point that out.

Perhaps in the future you will not accuse people of being unable to read English simply because they remember what you have said better than you do.

Your "examples" do not change a thing. I have constantly held that there is a difference between enumeration and protection. This is equally clear (at least with context) in the examples you pulled out.

If you wish to point out where you had answered those points earlier, I will gladly admit I was wrong. As you did not, I will not need to do so.

Well, there was the first time you asked them. But in actuality every single one of them has been brought up separately in the thread. I'm not going to recopy every single post of mine in here.

I am glad to have you retract your erroneous answer to #2.

You say that as if you didn't know when you read it that it was an accident.

I think it is quite evident your answer to #8 is wrong, but I agree that it is not objectively biased.

Why? I *am* a woman and have yet to suffer from discrimination. Now, it is clear to me that such discrimination might occur more frequently in the ecomomically disadvantaged and in the filthy rich - but most of us fall somewhere in the middle. There isn't a single woman in my area who doesn't have the same basic oppurtunities as a man. There is the problem that women and men are often encouraged in different areas - and that is something we actively fight against. However, it's not like the system says "Women can't do X."

I think it is clear that you have a case of what we like to call "white man's burden", but I don't dismiss things you say out of hand.

Every alleged case of discrimination must be judged on its own merits.

I do think you have quite clearly demonstrated that you are more sensitive to perceived discrimination against men than the actuality of discrimination against women. You have objectively sought to downplay and question the pervasive and systematic discrimination against women in our society, while exaggerating discrimination against men.

Yes, yes. See what you want to see instead of what I have written. I'm sure you are enjoying making shit up.

I have not downplayed anything. There is discrimination against women, but it is much more from attitudes (guess what! on both sides!) than to anything written into the system. This is why those of us who seek to fight it do so by attacking stereotypes (without ignoring others), rather than yelling and whining that "the man is keeping us down".

What would *you* do in the following situation:
You know that young girls often get the societal impression that they are not supposed to be interested in science and math. Because of this, less girls seem to do well in that area.

My guess: You would put some program in place for science and math tutoring just for girls. Of course, the real result of this would be that the boys who need help get less of it and everyone thinks that girls need extra help in math and science inherently.

Our approach: Send a bunch of female (and maybe a few male, since there were 1 or 2 in SWE) engineers to the school to tutor. Not just to tutor the little girls, but to tutor *anyone* who wanted it. Simply by being girls in engineering we are fighting the stereotype, while still encouraging *anyone* who is interested to work hard in such classes.

Do you see the difference?

If pointing that fact out means I am "downplaying" something, then I think you are grossly mistaken. Meanwhile, I have pointed out, what, 3 things that are discrimination against men? If that, to you, makes it seem like I think all discrimination goes against men, you have very little imagination for those things which do make up discrimination.

Oh noes! I mentioned that there is sometimes discrimination against men! I must be more worried about that, right? Never mind that my answer to your #1 was "maybe" and my answer to whether or not men are economically disadvantaged was a flat out no.

Ironically, you will say in this same post that you never said anything about protection.

From the beginning, I didn't. *You* were the one who started in with protection. If you would go back to the post that started this whole conversation, you would see that *enumeration* was the topic at hand.

You said there was no right to vote for anyone until everyone had it.

Wow, you really can't read English, can you? The quote you posted specifically says that the right existed for rich white men.

For a pregnant woman, either birth or abortion includes mental, emotional, financial, and physical costs and risks beyond the child itself.

More specifically, a woman seeking an abortion gives up her rights to the child but suffers a number of mental, emotional, financial, and physical costs and risks.

A man exercising your "paper abortion" gives up his rights to the child without paying any additional costs or facing any additional risks. Perhaps a finger cramp or paper cut.

Wow, you are rather crass aren't you? After all, there can't possibly be mental and emotional costs associated with a man giving up the rights to his possible child, can there?

Meanwhile, no inequity is added if the woman has financial and physical costs to an abortion - that is no different than now, when a man is not held responsible for the cost of an abortion and there is no way possible to put the physical costs on a man. How am I adding inequity without changing anything there?

That is the inequity in your proposal. This is at least the fourth time I have pointed it out.

So you allege that men never care about their possible children?

Here is what you said:



Do you fail understand your own statements?

Yes, it says that I think it was enumerated, but that it might actually be an interpretation of equal rights. This has a lot to do with the fact that your original statement did not say "right to vote" (as you have argued ever since), but "equal right to vote."

Note all how you emphasized protection over existence above.
Note how none of these address the point at hand - which is the definition of *enumerated* rights. It's all really nice that you can pull out quotes that seem to back you up, when anyone reading them in context would see that they were pointing out exactly what I pointed out in the last post - that case law protects rights, but does not enumerate them.

Your understanding of legal rights, precedent, and constitutional law is basically sound, but you are beyond your depth. Just give it up.

If I were actually arguing with you, there might be something to give up. Instead, you are arguing my exact same point and still trying to be argumentative. It's rather funny, actually.

With the exception of a few points below, I am done discussing this with you. You are incapable of seeing beyond your narrow experience and discussing things intelligently.

Why? I *am* a woman and have yet to suffer from discrimination. Now, it is clear to me that such discrimination might occur more frequently in the ecomomically disadvantaged and in the filthy rich - but most of us fall somewhere in the middle. There isn't a single woman in my area who doesn't have the same basic oppurtunities as a man. There is the problem that women and men are often encouraged in different areas - and that is something we actively fight against. However, it's not like the system says "Women can't do X."

Wow. In your 25 years of experience, you have yet to suffer from discrimination - so there just must not be any. :rolleyes:

I posted ample proof of societal inequality and discrimination against women.

Perhaps if you spent one-quarter the time you spend searching for discrimination against men on examining discrimination against women you could burst your little bubble.

I think it is clear that you have a case of what we like to call "white man's burden", but I don't dismiss things you say out of hand.

Yet another attack on my ability to reason and my character. I don't really give a shit what you think.

I have worked on numerous cases in which systematic discrimination against women (and other minorities) has been identified and remedies awarded. I have worked my entire adult life (and much before) against discrimination. I was working for the Equal Rights Amendment before you were even born. So forgive me if I think you need to grow up and learn a bit more about the world before you are so dismissive of others who may know things you do not.

And, btw, I applaud you for making strides in the field of engineering. As I noted earlier, my wife has a bachelors degree in civil engineering and has worked in that field. She has faced discrimination in many forms. Among others, she had professors that liked to start off each day with sexist jokes, advisors who repeatedly suggested she seek a more "suitable field" (she graduated with high honors), and employers that openly discriminated. I am glad that you had to overcome any obstacles like these.

Every alleged case of discrimination must be judged on its own merits.

Which is laudable but makes only small incremental progress in curing widespread discrimination.

(It is also odd that you say this, as it is not the approach you have taken re alleged discrimination against men.)

EDIT: I realized to some degree my criticisms were the pot calling the kettle black. Actually, we do have a lot in common -- including much of what I said about you above. Our styles of arguing are. We both appear to be stubborn and dismissive. We both tend to insult or abuse our opponents -- not with direct name-calling but with snide remarks, tone, etc. I believe we both care about ending discrimination and seeking equality/equity. I think your perspective is narrow and somewhat misguided. You appear to feel the same about my perspective.

Anyway, this edit is a weak olive branch. I don't intend to discuss this any further.

Ok again I have to say I respect both of you dem and cat butlets step back from the personal insults ... on BOTH sides ... keep it civil please ... I would hate to see either of you get into trouble because of a moment of anger :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I have read this debate between The Cat-Tribe and Dempublicents1 from the beginning and I would like to point a few things out. Aside from a few errors in citations and clarity, Dempublicents1 has been consistent in her argument and definitions of terms. The Cat-Tribe has, over and over, obscured, either intentionally or unintensionally, the arguments made by his opponent. For example, when discussing rights, Dempublicents1 was specific in her claim that certain rights, while existing for some, were not upheld for others, and thus were not upheld as universal. The Cat-Tribe sarcastically replied:
Was there no right to vote for anyone until everyone had it? Some still don't -- is there no right to vote until 16 year olds can vote?

I fully support gay marriage -- because the right to marry is a fundamental right.

Just admit you were wrong.
Dempublicents1 was not wrong, as you erroniously charge. You took her statement to mean that no one had it, when she was clearly saying that it was not truly upheld because other's rights were not protected.
I do think you have quite clearly demonstrated that you are more sensitive to perceived discrimination against men than the actuality of discrimination against women. You have objectively sought to downplay and question the pervasive and systematic discrimination against women in our society, while exaggerating discrimination against men.
She is not downplaying anything, she is staying true to the point of the thread, which is addressing the inequity (real or imagined) that some feel exists when it comes to how men are treated. Just because you have your own agenda that you want to spew, doesn't mean that you are welcome to come in here and change the subject. Dempublicents1 is not ignoring the discrimination against women, she is just illustrating that which she percieves to exist against men. It has absolutely nothing to do with sensitivity or lack thereof, which is where the bulk of your argument seems to lie. It appears that you have no sensitivity to the cases of discrimination against men which exist. Just because it's not as prevalent does not mean it's not important - which, by the way, is how your tone and arguments come across.

Your first posts replying to Dempublicents1 reveal this to be true:


*snip*
Only a few, but they are there.


A few -- assuming they exist -- hardly makes a case for national discrimination.

Given the very real discrimination women face every day and the very real problems with gender roles, isn't this "anti-male discrimination" ridiculous to even talk about?

This is precicely the point of the thread - discrimination against men exists. You're casual dismissal - "There isn't that much so it's not important" - is not only repugnant, but ignorant, and is why feminism is often looked at as male-bashing.

I can't believe this thread is still breathing! And that Dem and Cat are still going at it...perhaps you both need to just stay away from this thread for a while?

It's so weird...because I think under normal circumstances you two would get along fine...I think you're trapped in this argument.

I can't believe this thread is still breathing! And that Dem and Cat are still going at it...perhaps you both need to just stay away from this thread for a while?

It's so weird...because I think under normal circumstances you two would get along fine...I think you're trapped in this argument.
Was thinking the same thing ... caught so deep in the arguement quagmire no one wants to be the first to give up :p

Wow. In your 25 years of experience, you have yet to suffer from discrimination - so there just must not be any. :rolleyes:

If I had ever said anything even remotely related to that, then you might have a point. Instead, I have continually pointed out that there *is* discrimination against women. OVer and over and over and over and over and over again.

I posted ample proof of societal inequality and discrimination against women.

But none that isn't related more to societal attitudes than laws or rules. None that doesn't highlight specific instances, rather than an overall "this is the way it is." That is all I have ever pointed out. Leaps and bounds have already been made in this area. It would insulting to ignore them.

Perhaps if you spent one-quarter the time you spend searching for discrimination against men on examining discrimination against women you could burst your little bubble.

More made-up bullshit. This is a freaking thread about men. Obviously I was going to bring up gender issues related to men. If you really think I spend much overall time on it, that is simply your own bias speaking.

Yet another attack on my ability to reason and my character. I don't really give a shit what you think.

I didn't attack your character. I pointed out something that happens quite often among white men who really do care about discrimination - they take it to the extreme and look for discrimination in every single comment and every single action. Much like another thread, in which you attacked me for pointing out that human beings like to segregate themselves by yelling something along the lines of "YEAH DAMN THOSE MINORITIES FOR SEGREGATING THEMSELVES! NOT LIKE THEY HAD HELP OR ANYTHING"

Notice it was *you* who singled out minorities in that converation, not me.

I have worked on numerous cases in which systematic discrimination against women (and other minorities) has been identified and remedies awarded.

Good, as long as you examine such cases on a case-by-case basis, rather than a "this person is a minority so they must be telling the truth basis."

I have seen a few cases of discrimination, but I have seen more where there was none to speak of, and people tried to use their female/minority status to screw people over. If you would like to deny that this happens? Would you like to deny that such people only hurt the cause, rather than helping it?

So forgive me if I think you need to grow up and learn a bit more about the world before you are so dismissive of others who may know things you do not.

If I had ever been dismissive, you might have a point here. Of course, I haven't, so it doen't really matter. I never said that your statistics were false, nor did I ever say that there was not discrimination. But you have yet to point me to any cases that aren't indicitive of broad social stereotypes, rather than a single systematic "we don't want no women here" attitude.

And, btw, I applaud you for making strides in the field of engineering. As I noted earlier, my wife has a bachelors degree in civil engineering and has worked in that field. She has faced discrimination in many forms. Among others, she had professors that liked to start off each day with sexist jokes, advisors who repeatedly suggested she seek a more "suitable field" (she graduated with high honors), and employers that openly discriminated. I am glad that you had to overcome any obstacles like these.

I'll assume you mean that you're glad I didn't have to overcome any obstacles like these. And the fact that I didn't already shows leaps and bounds in the right direction. There was *one* prof in the engineering department at my school who I would say demonstrated discrimination against women - one out of an entire department. Strangely enough, there was also a prof who demonstrated discrimination in favor of homosexuals. Discrimination (real and imaginary) comes in many forms against many people - to deny that is ludicrous.

Which is laudable but makes only small incremental progress in curing widespread discrimination.

Discrimination is a direct result of societal attitudes, which can only be changed incrementally. If you start forcing things down someone's throat, you are generally going to *increase* their prejudice, not decrease it. We have made the large leaps and bounds already - incremental changes are really all we can do now without causing more harm than good.

(It is also odd that you say this, as it is not the approach you have taken re alleged discrimination against men.)

So, in other words, you don't agree with me so I must not have actually thought about it. Yeah, real open mind you show there. I have not brought anything up here which I have not seen happening and looked at carefully. I have not brought anything up here which I have not discussed with numerous people, both male and female. Don't make the assumption that you know better just because you disagree with me.

EDIT: I realized to some degree my criticisms were the pot calling the kettle black. Actually, we do have a lot in common -- including much of what I said about you above. Our styles of arguing are. We both appear to be stubborn and dismissive. We both tend to insult or abuse our opponents -- not with direct name-calling but with snide remarks, tone, etc. I believe we both care about ending discrimination and seeking equality/equity. I think your perspective is narrow and somewhat misguided. You appear to feel the same about my perspective.

From about the second post, I have never said that you didn't care about ending discrimination. I simply think that your approach is more likely to increase it.

Stubborn? Absolutely.

Dissmissive, not intentionally. I have yet to dismiss anything you have brought up. I posited that it might have a different root, and that you might be overexaggerating, but I certainly didn't dismiss it. The fact that women (interestingly enough, in the latest study, *white* women) are still making less is a problem. But it is a problem largely due to the fact that women still aren't going into the higher paying jobs. That is an issue that must be addressed at the societal attitude level. Why are these women not going into these jobs? Simple. People still see it as "man's work".

Really? So if I am the one driving a car, and I am the only one who can hit the breaks, and there is a child in the road - the person sitting in the passenger seat is just as culpable for the fact that I hit them?

Yeah, that makes *perfect* sense.

A more apt analogy would be that you and I choose to commit a crime, both of us have guns. We're robbing a store. You choose to pull the trigger and kill the man behind the counter. Are we equally culpable in the eyes of the law? Yep. Why? Because if I didn't want to be there I didn't have to be. The difference here being that I should be reasonably aware of the possibility that if we go into a store with a loaded weapon that it may get used.

You have not yet explained how you can take something away that was never given in the first place.

Nor have you given me any other reason for this supposed "right" than "the law has upheld it". I gave you a reason for the right, and you have yet to respond to it.

You have also not explained how giving one *actual* person more control over the next 18 years of another *actual* person's life than they have themselves represents equity.

So you still say that a right protected by the courts does not exist?

I gave a reason for this right. A man is aware that when he sleeps with a woman that she may get pregnant. He is also aware that he does not have access to an abortion. If he chooses to sleep with that woman then he chooses to take on that possible outcome.

The woman takes a different set of choices. She takes on that she still has access to an abortion if she wants and gets pregnant. With that, she accepts that she may get pregnant, which whether she chooses to continue it or not, may result in her death and/or physical trauma.

The child never chooses and therefore should be protected before anyone else in this situation. Both people knew of the possibility that a child could result and are EQUALLY responsible for its existence (assuming it is not aborted spontaneously or intentionally). The child deserves to be cared for by both of its biological parents or suitable substitutes.

To suggest that a woman should be held more responsible than a man for a pregnancy because she access to a surgical procedure that could kill her or render her sterile is absolutely absurd. To suggest that her access to this medical procedure should allow a man to remove his responsibilities to the child is equally absurd.

Yes, there is an inequity caused by the nature of pregnancy and no amount of law can or will change that fact. Creating a law that removes monies from the child (certainly, you can see that without this law the child recieves more financial support) in order to correct this inequity is simply ludicrous. Not only that, but this law suggests that a man, in order to protect his financial interest, neglect the emotional needs of the child as well.

As far as the point you made about the death of the father. If a man is found to be the father of a child, yes, his estate is responsible for the child. No, debt is not passed to the next of kin. If my brother passed away a portion of his estate would go to child support and if nothing remained and child support was still owed, my mother would most certainly not be required to take on that responsibility. The same way my mother would not be required to take on my brother's car note.

I can't believe this thread is still breathing! And that Dem and Cat are still going at it...perhaps you both need to just stay away from this thread for a while?

Probably, but I've never been good at doing so. =)

It's so weird...because I think under normal circumstances you two would get along fine...I think you're trapped in this argument.

Probably. I've tried to point out several times now that our differences seem to lie more in approach than overall goal - and then gotten attacked for not paying attention to something that he hasn't even yet discussed with me. *shrug*

So you still say that a right protected by the courts does not exist?

No, I say that it is not an enumerated right.

And case law has *reasoning* behind it - basically, that two people equally responsible for the birth of the child should be equally responsible for taking care of the child.

I gave a reason for this right. A man is aware that when he sleeps with a woman that she may get pregnant. He is also aware that he does not have access to an abortion. If he chooses to sleep with that woman then he chooses to take on that possible outcome.

So when a woman has sex, that is not consent to pregnancy. However, when a man has sex, it is. Gotcha.

To suggest that a woman should be held more responsible than a man for a pregnancy because she access to a surgical procedure that could kill her or render her sterile is absolutely absurd. To suggest that her access to this medical procedure should allow a man to remove his responsibilities to the child is equally absurd.

I am only giving him similar rights to hers (interestingly enough, you *liked* this idea at the beginning - arguing for the sake of argument, are we?). You still ignore the emotional trauma a man might incur when a woman has an abortion of the child that he is half responsible for against his will. Obviously, this is something we cannot correct - but it is a *huge* deal to many men.

Creating a law that removes monies from the child (certainly, you can see that without this law the child recieves more financial support) in order to correct this inequity is simply ludicrous.

The child does not necessarily receive more financial support. This is true only if the man makes more money that the woman, and the woman *chooses* to spend the extra money on the child - she is not in any way required to do so. Why assume that a woman cannot take care of a child on her own? Many do.

Not only that, but this law suggests that a man, in order to protect his financial interest, neglect the emotional needs of the child as well.

Ha! How very naive you are. Do you really think that having a father who never wanted you and begrudgingly signs a check to your mother (who he also despises) every week is someone emotionally healthy?

As far as the point you made about the death of the father. If a man is found to be the father of a child, yes, his estate is responsible for the child. No, debt is not passed to the next of kin. If my brother passed away a portion of his estate would go to child support and if nothing remained and child support was still owed, my mother would most certainly not be required to take on that responsibility. The same way my mother would not be required to take on my brother's car note.

So you would be ok with this then if the many paid a certain amount of money down and then signed the paper?

Meanwhile, you mother *would* be required to take on your brother's car note, unless he has some sort of insurance that covers his debts in the event of his death.

That is an issue that must be addressed at the societal attitude level.

You have frequently said that you're not sure the problem is pervasive and at the same time you keep mentioning it is a societal problem. Would you say women making less as a class is an example of economic discrimination, particularly when this difference is due to societal attitudes, by your own admission? Would you consider attitudes you yourself called "societal" to be pervasive?

Discrimination - Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice

Pervasive - Having the quality or tendency to pervade or permeate

You have frequently said that you're not sure the problem is pervasive and at the same time you keep mentioning it is a societal problem. Would you say women making less as a class is an example of economic discrimination, particularly when this difference is due to societal attitudes, by your own admission? Would you consider attitudes you yourself called "societal" to be pervasive?

It depends on what you are talking about. It is pervasive in some social circles and not in others. You must define exactly what you are talking about before that question can be answered.

So when a woman has sex, that is not consent to pregnancy. However, when a man has sex, it is. Gotcha.

Nope, nature gave her later control (but not more of it) and, in exchange, makes her go through more physical trauma. This does increase the level of responsibility, by nature, because the woman must be more careful as to how she cares for herself (and the fetus) if the pregnancy continues.

I am only giving him similar rights to hers (interestingly enough, you *liked* this idea at the beginning - arguing for the sake of argument, are we?). You still ignore the emotional trauma a man might incur when a woman has an abortion of the child that he is half responsible for against his will. Obviously, this is something we cannot correct - but it is a *huge* deal to many men.

Yes, I liked the idea in the beginning because I hadn't thought it through properly. Thank you for convincing me that it's a hideously stupid idea. I didn't mention emotional trauma because I believe both parties suffer emotional trauma. Only one party suffers physical trauma however. Pregnancy, birth and a lack of control represents a *huge* deal to both parties.

The child does not necessarily receive more financial support. This is true only if the man makes more money that the woman, and the woman *chooses* to spend the extra money on the child - she is not in any way required to do so. Why assume that a woman cannot take care of a child on her own? Many do.

You just make things up. If the woman makes more money than the man, the man still pays child support in proportion to what he makes. If there is joint custody then this factors in and the mother can in fact end up paying child support to the father and, obviously, if the father has custody the mother pays child support. Differences in income only factor in, in joint custody situations.

Assuming the woman has custody of the child, she is the guardian and controls the child's money. This is unavoidable.

I make no assumptions about a woman's ability to care for the child. I am only talking about a father's responsibility to the child. Whether a woman can or will care for her child financially has no bearing on this.

Ha! How very naive you are. Do you really think that having a father who never wanted you and begrudgingly signs a check to your mother (who he also despises) every week is someone emotionally healthy?

Naive? No, I think a person can have regrets. I think that a man who has not yet met his child or adequately considered the consequences of his actions can in a moment of panic choose to sign this document. Later, if he is remorseful and wishes to create a relationship with his child once it is born, he is unable to by law. The same way a woman can regret an abortion decision or both can regret an adoption. The difference is that in an abortion, no child exists to gain from this regret and, in an adoption, the child is being cared for by another SET of parents (and before you say it, adoptions by an individual are rare).

I wish to not allow financial decisions to further encourage a father to neglect his child. If you feel that is naive, well, then I'm naive.

So you would be ok with this then if the many paid a certain amount of money down and then signed the paper?

No. I am also concerned for the child's relationship with the father. I do not wish for the government to put into law an ability for a mother to keep a father who wishes to have a relationship with his child away from the child unless that father is a danger to the child. In this case the father is not necessarily a danger, he only decided very early on (as you pointed out, before the existence of the child) that he didn't wish to have a relationship.

The government can not force a man to have a relationship with the child, but should not discourage it. The government can force the father to financially care for the child and should use this ability.

Meanwhile, you mother *would* be required to take on your brother's car note, unless he has some sort of insurance that covers his debts in the event of his death.

You just make stuff up. This is the internet. Use it. You can easily look up law. Next of kin is not required to take on debt unless they were originally one of the debtors. The estate is responsible for the debt, but the estate is out of money, it's out of money and it ends there.

It depends on what you are talking about. It is pervasive in some social circles and not in others. You must define exactly what you are talking about before that question can be answered.

Societal - Of or relating to the structure, organization, or functioning of society

Societal means it is pervasive. If it's not, then it's not societal. It's localized. I don't have to define the terms you used, I would think. But since you asked me to, just see above.

Societal - Of or relating to the structure, organization, or functioning of society

Societal means it is pervasive. If it's not, then it's not societal. It's localized. I don't have to define the terms you used, I would think. But since you asked me to, just see above.

You do realize that there are separate social structures. When one says "societal", they do not necessarily mean "global society". They might mean "downtown Detroit society", "US society" "midwestern society", "high school society", etc.

Economic discrimination against women is certainly pervasive in a global sense. it is certainly pervasive in certain subsets of US society. I am simply unsure as to whether it is still pervasive among the whole of US society. As such, it must be broken up into subsets for the question to really have any meaning.

I would definitely say that, among those who are economically disadvantaged, women seem to have a harder time of it. Women are also quite obviously discriminated against in the filthy rich. I have yet to see any real evidence that there is pervasive discrimination against them in the middle classes.

As I pointed out before, women are not discriminated against as a whole in higher education. Are they in certain schools? Probably, but none that I have experienced thus far.

You do realize that there are separate social structures. When one says "societal", they do not necessarily mean "global society". They might mean "downtown Detroit society", "US society" "midwestern society", "high school society", etc.

Economic discrimination against women is certainly pervasive in a global sense. it is certainly pervasive in certain subsets of US society. I am simply unsure as to whether it is still pervasive among the whole of US society. As such, it must be broken up into subsets for the question to really have any meaning.

I would definitely say that, among those who are economically disadvantaged, women seem to have a harder time of it. Women are also quite obviously discriminated against in the filthy rich. I have yet to see any real evidence that there is pervasive discrimination against them in the middle classes.

As I pointed out before, women are not discriminated against as a whole in higher education. Are they in certain schools? Probably, but none that I have experienced thus far.

Women as a class make less money, you blame this on societal attitudes and you think this doesn't mean pervasive? Seriously, you really should work on your ability to communicate and your ability to occasionally, say, SHIT, I'm wrong. You know it's pervasive. You've said so. I showed the definition of pervasive and societal and discrimination. Admit, you are WRONG.

Women as a class make less money, you blame this on societal attitudes and you think this doesn't mean pervasive? Seriously, you really should work on your ability to communicate and your ability to occasionally, say, SHIT, I'm wrong. You know it's pervasive. You've said so. I showed the definition of pervasive and societal and discrimination. Admit, you are WRONG.
Sorry from the way I see it you are the one not understanding it ... all the info is there just re read

Nope, nature gave her later control (but not more of it)

You can only say this if you ignore the very real difference between conception and pregnancy.

You just make things up. If the woman makes more money than the man, the man still pays child support in proportion to what he makes.

I didn't say that he didn't. However, this amount may be insignificant and thus makes little difference to the care of the child.

Assuming the woman has custody of the child, she is the guardian and controls the child's money. This is unavoidable.

It also blows your "more money for the child" argument out of the water. This is only true if the custodial parent decides to spend it on the child. As such, while the idea behind it may be money for the child, it is actually money for the parent.

I make no assumptions about a woman's ability to care for the child. I am only talking about a father's responsibility to the child. Whether a woman can or will care for her child financially has no bearing on this.

So it is only important that the man financially care for the child, not the woman?

Naive? No, I think a person can have regrets. I think that a man who has not yet met his child or adequately considered the consequences of his actions can in a moment of panic choose to sign this document. Later, if he is remorseful and wishes to create a relationship with his child once it is born, he is unable to by law.

That is the price he pays for wishing to get rid of his responsibilities and is, in fact, exactly why most men wouldn't do it - just like most women don't rush out to get abortions.

The same way a woman can regret an abortion decision or both can regret an adoption. The difference is that in an abortion, no child exists to gain from this regret and, in an adoption, the child is being cared for by another SET of parents (and before you say it, adoptions by an individual are rare).

I fail to see how disrupting a child's life by suddenly introducing a "parent" who gave up their rights purposefully is a gain for the child. I don't think it is right ot play emotional soccer with a child.

I wish to not allow financial decisions to further encourage a father to neglect his child. If you feel that is naive, well, then I'm naive.

If a father is going to neglect his child, he is not going to make a good father anyways, and should be kept as far from the child as possible.

No. I am also concerned for the child's relationship with the father. I do not wish for the government to put into law an ability for a mother to keep a father who wishes to have a relationship with his child away from the child unless that father is a danger to the child. In this case the father is not necessarily a danger, he only decided very early on (as you pointed out, before the existence of the child) that he didn't wish to have a relationship.

So much for personal responsibility. Let's just throw it out the window. I can tell you right now that, were I to have a child and the father told me at the beginning he didn't want it - that would be it for him. Period. If he regrets that decision, fine - it is his life that he has screwed up.

If a child is given up for adoption, the birth parents have *no* rights whatsoever to attempt to contact that child as long as the child is a minor. If they attempt this, and the adoptive parents wish to block it, they may do so. Are they doing something wrong? Of course not. They do not wish to disrupt the life of that child.

The government can not force a man to have a relationship with the child, but should not discourage it. The government can force the father to financially care for the child and should use this ability.

This would not be discouraging anything - it would be forcing a man to take responsibility for his actions.

And I love it that you think the government should just go around forcing people to do things. Next you'll tell me you think the government should force us all to go to bed by 9:00. After all, that would be good for us.

You just make stuff up. This is the internet. Use it. You can easily look up law. Next of kin is not required to take on debt unless they were originally one of the debtors. The estate is responsible for the debt, but the estate is out of money, it's out of money and it ends there.

Funny, I just bought a house and I *did* look into it. If I died tomorrow, my mother would be responsible for paying off the house. We are both well aware of this.

Women as a class make less money,

Women are a class now?

you blame this on societal attitudes and you think this doesn't mean pervasive?

It means pervasive in *certain* parts of society. Did you not read my last post?

You know it's pervasive.

In certain areas.

You've said so.

In certain areas.

Meanwhile, you igore the fact that the numbers are changing. Every survey women move up in the ranks. This, in fact, speaks *against* an overall pervasive discrimination. After all, it's not like we could expect a couple of years to equilibrate things.

Funny, I just bought a house and I *did* look into it. If I died tomorrow, my mother would be responsible for paying off the house. We are both well aware of this.

Unless you are under 18 -- which you have said you are not -- or your mother co-signed your mortgage, this is simply false.

Unless you are under 18 -- which you have said you are not -- or your mother co-signed your mortgage, this is simply false.

*shrug* That would be wonderful actually, if it is true.

Sorry from the way I see it you are the one not understanding it ... all the info is there just re read

The point here is that Cat asked if there is pervasive economic discrimination against women in the US. The fact is yes, there is. Is it getting better? Yes, very much so, in fact. However, if you look, women as a class still make less money. If you break women in subclasses by race, you find these subclasses are still economically disadvantaged almost across the board when compared to their male counterparts. Break them up by rural and urban and you still find it to be true. Break them up by area of the country, it is still true almost across the board. That is the very definition of pervasive. Now if this is caused by either directly or indirectly discouraging women to pursue higher paying jobs or if they are denied those higher paying jobs as a class then it is discriminatory whether this discrimination is caused by women or men or whether this discrimination is carrying out by a small percentage of the populace or a large percentage of the populace. It affects the class of women in the US as whole, the effects are pervasive, the discrimination is pervasive. It's really quite simple. Cat showed this and I'm showing it too. She's being difficult because she doesn't want to concede the point.

I'd also like to point out that breaking up women by economic class and then comparing them to men doesn't really make any sense. You can't group a bunch of people together that have roughly the same amount of money and then point out that they have roughly the same amount of money.