|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by mr. chicken on 03:55 PM June 5th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Now that that's done and over with, hopefully the Department can move on to the hotels with Women-Only wings. Sexual segregation outside of bathrooms and locker rooms has no excuse that can't be explained away with some logic and reason.
I have to say, I am pleased with the results of this case. I don't think my private parts should determine where I can go.
What about a hermaphrodite, a transvestite, or a cross-dresser? Would they be allowed in these Women-Only gyms and hotels? Just an odd question.
Another thing: how are posts rated? Have there ever been any five star posts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 05:49 PM June 5th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Now that that's done and over with, hopefully the Department can move on to the hotels with Women-Only wings. Sexual segregation outside of bathrooms and locker rooms has no excuse that can't be explained away with some logic and reason.
Alas this ruling is limited to California, which has as I understand it a clause in its Con'n that denies the right of businesses to restrict access to services or favors based on indellible characteristics, or some larger principle that that fits into (I went looking for a good cite but couldn't find one; maybe a Cali lawyer out there can elucidate?). However TTBOMK it's the only state that has such a clause that is also actionable in terms of redress by lawsuit (again, not sure, so someone else who may know better, please post).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MR on 05:25 PM June 7th, 2006 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Alas this ruling is limited to California, which has as I understand it a clause in its Con'n that denies the right of businesses to restrict access to services or favors based on indellible characteristics, or some larger principle that that fits into (I went looking for a good cite but couldn't find one; maybe a Cali lawyer out there can elucidate?).
I believe you are referring to the Unruh Act.
Unrih Civil Rights Act
Another CA story of gender discrimination against men
"Rava insists that isn't the case — though he acknowledges that the Mother's Day promotions he is contesting in California probably would be legal in states that lack Unruh-type protections."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 07:09 PM June 5th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
What about a hermaphrodite, a transvestite, or a cross-dresser? Would they be allowed in these Women-Only gyms and hotels? Just an odd question.
If it's anything like Canada, only biologically "oppressed" women qualify. I actually had that conversation with a government official once when my application for a research grant and position were declined on the basis of gender. I told them I was really a woman in a man's body, a lesbian through and through. They wouldn't go for it. I offered to cross-dress through the duration of the appointment. They wouldn't budge.
Another thing: how are posts rated? Have there ever been any five star posts?
I've never seen one rated above two, and that appears to happen automatically when someone who's a moderator posts (or so it seems - that's just a wild-assed guess, so if I'm wrong, feel free to say so, guys). Last year a few of my usual rants scored a '2', but overall, there doesn't seem to be alot of moderating going on in terms of scoring articles. Then again, there also don't seem to be any trolls about, which is a pleasant development, so I gather there's less need for careful moderation these days. Not a complaint, just an observation.
This is just my opinion, but anybody with a handle like "mr. chicken" deserves some points for originality. I'm just a random, ordinary guy, so I had to go with "RandomMan" when I was forced to choose a nick ;)
Where the heck did you come up with "mr. chicken" anyhow? It's great! (Apologies if that's already been explained - I'm relatively new here. No need to answer if you'd rather not).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 09:11 PM June 5th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I actually had that conversation with a government official once when my application for a research grant and position were declined on the basis of gender.
Can you give us more details about that? What was the outcome of the whole thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:56 AM June 6th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a little background for you (and some more) on the situation, although both pieces are talking about examples of discrimination which happened after I'd chosen never to offer my services as a scientist again due to the blatant sexism in my country's academic research establishment. SAFS (who hosts that article) lists some of the reasons I would rather starve on the streets than return to my career as a researcher in this country. This sort of openly discriminatory bullshit is why I left academia in disgust years ago, and it's only getting worse. To this day, I will not even offer a scientific opinion to a client, employer or anyone else it might benefit in this country. I've got a long list of useless letters attached to the end of my name, thanks to decades of work, but I'd rather burn the proof of their existence than use them to benefit Canada. They can get one of their more-than-equal girls to work on the cures for diseases, alternate energy strategies and the like, because men like me won't even speak to female "colleagues" hired and promoted due to their genitals rather than their abilities. It's really a shame that all of the great minds in my field were men, because only women are being hired today.
The story? Before making my decision never to practice my trade again, despite many happy and productive years as an actively publishing researcher, when I phoned to ask why I couldn't even apply for a grant from one of the only sources of public funding for scientific research in my field, and was told that the competition was only open to women, I informed them that I was disabled throughout my entire career, from before graduate studies, and asked would that make a difference, since I'm a member of a "disadvantaged" and "under-represented" group, too? No, I was told. They were only interested in addressing "disadvantage" and "under-representation" if it affected healthy, able-bodied, mostly white, middle-class, university (to the post-graduate level) educated women. I wasn't aware that a female scientist at the post-doctoral or professorial level was at a comparative "disadvantage" in this country, when compared to say, a native woman living in poverty on a reservation, unable to feed herself. The woman with the stable government job that was denying me access to the only funding in the country, working 8-4 in an air conditioned office, with a union to protect her and a fat pension to retire on after 20 years of service, informed me that women were the target of systematic discrimination in all areas of Canadian life.
So I decided to dig a little.
I claimed I was a minority (I'm not).
No.
I claimed I was an aboriginal (I'm not).
No.
I said I'd have a sex change (I didn't, obviously), could I please continue to work in my field?
No.
I informed the woman on the phone that she was a sexist pig, told her to go fuck herself and decided to leave my field. I haven't worked in science since.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ASDJKL on 08:49 PM June 5th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I think seperation however it is defined should be allowed. There will be repercussions of this to come.
We all need time to get away. Without having to mingle or be "on guard" one hundred percent of the time.
Alot of the great things this country has, came because a group of men or women got together and didn't have to kowtow to the other side.
The status quo is not always wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 09:50 PM June 5th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
ASDKJL,
Could agree with you if the principle were applied even moderately fairly. However, given that it's been applied to men, but not to women, it's time that women feel the sting. Once that happens, true progress may be possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 08:10 AM June 6th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
It's hard for me to know just what to feel about this.
Frankly, I have no problem with 'women only' gyms or fitness clubs, as long as men can like wise have their own gyms and fitness clubs.
I have to agree with ASDKJL. This could set a bad precedence.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 09:48 AM June 6th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
You're missing the point, TC. I agree that freedom of assembly is a good thing. Except that right now, it's only extended to women. If men were also able to have private clubs, hire whoever they wished, etc., I'd be upset about this. However, since women seem to believe that anything we do is evil, we're currently not entitled to the same rights they are, so this is a good decision. If we can't have privacy and freedom of assembly (who we work with, who we socialize with, etc.), neither can women. Thanks, feminism. Now we're all screwed.
I believe the idea, as brotherskeeper put it, is that since some separation is a good thing, the only way we'll ever get that right back is if women need it for themselves (i.e. because "equality" crusaders pull stuff like this), and decide that maybe it isn't such a bad thing after all. Think they're likely to ease up anytime soon? Me neither. When they segregate themselves, it's "empowering". When we segregate ourselves, it's "sexist". Once feminism is dead as a popular movement, I think you'll see a healthy return to men's and women's private spaces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:58 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
(RandomMan) -- "If men were also able to have private clubs, hire whoever they wished, etc., I'd be upset about this. However, since women seem to believe that anything we do is evil, we're currently not entitled to the same rights they are, so this is a good decision."
I'm still thrashing out how I should feel about this court decision, which on its face seems to come down on the correct side against sexism as a rationale for women's entitlement to private spaces.
An aside -- (It's funny that it's all about insecure overweight women wanting to be able to exercise without SUFFERING under the evil judgmental gaze of male scrutiny... because they want to lose weight and get in shape so that they can ENJOY the evil gaze of male scrutiny!)
I guess it's all about who gets to screwtinize who, and how many times, at what cost?
My larger concern/issue is that feminism has effectively in the legal sense anyway destroyed the concept of a private space, a personal sanctuary.
A man (a woman's) "private club" used to be called "home."
Not any more.
The Domestic Violence Industry with its 24 x 7 goon squads under orders to arrest the "primary aggressor" (read - male) has entirely eradicated the home as a safe private space.
If you'd like to experiment, dial 9-1-1 and simply state "I'm afraid of him/her." See what happens in the next twelve minutes... Your personal club will be changed significantly, forever....
Nothing that a woman and man say, do, or decline to do is any longer private.
All behavior in the domestic home sphere is subject to surveillance and intervention under VAWA and related laws and criminal codes. (And of course the public workplace arena is a circus of gender suspicion and manipulation.)
Indeed the feminazis were correct when they asserted that the "personal would become political."
What nobody much envisioned was that the feminist's political dominance would destroy even the possibility of the personal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mr. chicken on 06:14 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
That post was so good, I'm going to save it on my computer for future reference. Roy, I now consider you one of the best posters on here.
You guys are right: they can have their women's only gym if we can have a men's only gym. Same goes for the hotels.
The problem is, if we were to have such things as a men's gym, people would complain about it. They wouldn't accept our excuse of,"well, there are women-only gyms, hotels, etc.", because somehow, the women are entitled to a woman-only area and we men aren't entitled to our own male-exclusive area. Somehow, the authority involved would justify the woman's gym and criminlalize the men's gym. It's not equality unless they have more than us. It's sick.
I say: both genders have an inclusive area, or no one does.
Another point: could this lead to racism? Hispanic-, Asian-, White-only areas? It already is comparable to racism in that you aren't allowed based off of something you can't change.
This is overwhelming with all the possibilities, both good and bad. I need to think about this.
Time for a bike ride, where I can get away from EVERYONE, not just one facet of humanity.
I agree, life needs to become privatized again. Information about people needs to be less readily available. It's bad enough without VAWA and other privacy-destroying laws, because we still have the rumor mill at work, in the family, and pretty much everywhere else.
Thanks for reading what I have to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:03 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
mr. chicken I think I may have also posted under another thread defending your voice against the label of "troll."
Thank you for proving me temporarily correct by this reasonable, insightful comment.
But don't count on me for anything other than a rigorous (actually brutal) questioning of your logic, and a kick in the ass if you take the low road and begin to insult the voices hereabouts.
I personally hate rules and despise authority.
But when comrades agree upon civil conventions, that is when a real revolution begins.
Welcome to reasonable discourse, sir chicken!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 11:44 AM June 7th, 2006 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
>"I say: both genders have an inclusive area, or no one does."
Mr. Chicken-
Exactly. That was all I was saying in my earlier post.
I don't not want women to have their female-only clubs. But conversely I don't want men to not have their all male clubs either.
The problem is (as it's been stated earlier) is that if women have male exclusionary clubs it's just women getting away from men, but if men have female exclusionary clubs it's "anti-female", sexism and such. THAT is a GLARING double standard!
Sorry, Ladies. I love ya, but much of the time you all really just annoy the hell out of me and I DO need a place away from you all, from time to time, to re cooperate and clear my head. Like you I, as a man, should have the same right to "get away" from the opposite gender that you have. Hate to be so blunt, but there it is, and I make no apologies for it.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:25 PM June 7th, 2006 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud's concept of "getting away" from one's opposite gender got me thinking...
Why, when women today never miss an opportunity to express that they feel men are insensitive, poor conversationalists, egotistic, selfish, unemotive, dull, etc. etc. ----
WHY would they want to insist that they can hang out more often with the vile dumb creatures that they reject and revile?
Wanna know why?
Because even the least interesting man is an interesting man for an attention whore.
Google "Narcissistic Personality Disorder"...
and be enlightened!
Women need their "NPD Supply..." and YOU are it!
It will soon be illegal for a man to ignore a woman.
Oh shit!
It already is!
(See VAWA 2005.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by dipy911
(dipy911@Nunya.com)
on 08:45 PM June 7th, 2006 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, we can't even keep the cigar room to ourselves anymore.
dipy911
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 11:17 AM June 6th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I think seperation however it is defined should be allowed.
I disagree. Segregation has been tried and shown to be a bad policy. If people want to discriminate in whom they invite over to watch a football game, play bridge with, or even work out with in their home, that's fine. If they want to go work out in a club and only invite women to accompany them, that's fine too so long as the club allows men to join. As soon as they're doing business with the public however I don't think segregation should be allowed. "We the people" own this country and "we the people" are allowing this business to operate in our country. Whenever a business starts treating certain segments of "we the people" unreasonably, such as by refusing service or adjusting pricing based solely on which birthgroup the the would-be customers were born into, then "we the people" have an obligation to force that business to stop those policies or get out of our country. Whenever we let property rights trump civil rights, our shining democracy amounts to nothing more than 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 01:04 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Good points, Hombre,
A simple look at the history of this country tells us that 'freedom of association' (which, as a small government conservative, I desire) easily becomes a de facto oppression.
The problem is, where does one draw the line? Case in point:
Shouldn't men be able to join the LPGA (without handicap)? Note that this isn't a hypothetical question. It's being decided now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 07:58 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Good points, Hombre,
Thank you.
A simple look at the history of this country tells us that 'freedom of association' (which, as a small government conservative, I desire) easily becomes a de facto oppression.
The problem is, where does one draw the line?
That question comes up a lot in many different issues, and an easy answer doesn't usually suggest itself. I don't think this case is an exception. If we draw the line too far either way, we interfere with people's rights. Right now I'm inclined to think that when it comes to who you want to hang out with or invite into your home, that should be up to you, no questions asked. When it comes to discriminating in pricing or memberships when doing business with the public, I don't think that should be allowed at all.
I think it becomes a more complicated question with the LPGA, since women are being paid to play in it which makes them somewhat more like employees than customers. I tend to dislike affirmative action policies, (although I think at one time it was necessary, but much moreso for blacks than for women), and instinctually frown on forcing them to allow men for that reason. Also, the simple biological differences between men and women make it nearly impossible for a woman to compete on an even field with the men. Considering that, I don't think it's unreasonable to allow them to compete just with each other and try to be the best woman golfer. Hopefully that isn't inconsistant with the rest of my philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by shawn on 08:58 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
I think it becomes a more complicated question with the LPGA, since women are being paid to play in it which makes them somewhat more like employees than customers ... Also, the simple biological differences between men and women make it nearly impossible for a woman to compete on an even field with the men.
If LPGA players are like employees, does this mean businesses should be allowed to discriminate when it comes to hiring decisions?
You are right that biological differences make it nearly impossible for women to compete with men in golf and most other sports. But that argument also applies to men. Biological differences make it nearly impossible for 99.999% of men to play professional sports. These men are not on an even field with the best male golfers. In fact, very few men are on an even playing field with the best female golfers. We don't make exceptions for all these "biologically inferior" men. I don't see why we should make exceptions for "biologically inferior" women. That's the whole idea behind professional sports. The best people compete. We don't expect level playing fields. Biological differences make it nearly impossible for short people to play in the NBA. Tough luck. [I'm ignoring the fact that sports are entertainment and we do allow discrimination in entertainment].
I look at this in two ways. In public situations, either require the same standards regardless of race/sex/religion/etc or allow discrimination. I don't particularly believe in exceptions because exceptions will always lead to one group being treated better than another (i.e., discrimination against women is bad, discrimination against men is good).
Personally, I don't care whether there is an LPGA. What really gets me is when the LPGA players complain that they are discriminated against because they aren't payed as much as the men. Likewise, I don't particularly care if there are women-only facilities. What gets me is that these same women are going to go home and complain about all the discrimination they face in society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ASDJKL on 04:41 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
>>As soon as they're doing business with the public however I don't think segregation should be allowed.
Freedom of association is just that. The ability to associate or do business with whomever one wishes or desires.
The ability to be separate almost goes hand in hand. For example when this fitness club opened doors for business they had a model and a set defined limit on things. This might have included floorspace, equipment, possibly showers and bathrooms. Recognizing that they could not accomodate the whole world they chose to go the route of the people who make 76 percent of what we do, but yet some how make 80 percent of all the major decisions. Read females here.
I can support this. I can support anyone having the ability to feel relatively safe in their surroundings. The ability to not have to curtail days, or worry about being raped or being stared at or stalked while working out. The ability to not have to worry about infections and "stinky, smelly equipment probably fits in their nicely too. The ability to not have to reset the majority of the machines in your workout because "AARNOLD" was ahead of you is probably pretty nice too. Mind you in most cases females have to ask for assistance depending on the machines makes and design in resetting the machine to a weight that they can use.
I also don't have a problem with "Female only anythings" or "Male only anythings". Just recognize that you get yours and I get mine. I won't beech about yours if you leave mine alone. This is where we are today. It's not happening.
I am only guessing here, but most rape survivors probably don't wan't males in the self help groups. However most males golfers probably don't want a group of females teeing off in front of them either. Is either group wrong? No. Should they both be able to have their way. I say yes.
When we all realize, we're all different, we can't please the whole world, we will all be much better off. Until then keep the litigation rolling.
So in closing is it segregation, or just smart prudent business practice? I surmise it is the later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 07:25 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Freedom of association is just that. The ability to associate or do business with whomever one wishes or desires.
You forget that being allowed to operate a business in America is not a right. Even priveledge isn't a strong enough word for it. It's an honor. And if someone is going to practice bigotry against Americans with their business, I don't see any reason why we should allow them that honor.
I can support this. I can support anyone having the ability to feel relatively safe in their surroundings. The ability to not have to curtail days, or worry about being raped or being stared at or stalked while working out.
That's a rather phallophobic, (phobic of male sexuality), viewpoint. Men aren't monsters and women aren't being raped while working out at health clubs. This is the same kind of irrational fearmongering that used to be done in the days of racial segregation. Back then it was blacks who needed to be kept out of the hotels to keep whites safe.
The ability to not have to worry about infections and "stinky, smelly equipment probably fits in their nicely too.
Yeah, they used to say blacks stink too. People who want to justify discrimination often use bigotry to do so.
I am only guessing here, but most rape survivors probably don't wan't males in the self help groups.
What about the men who've been raped, or did you forget about them? Their tax dollars helped pay for those centers, but they can't use them. Meanwhile the females who do go in are not helped, but instead are taught to see all men as the enemy and to cling to their hate, calling themselves "rape survivors" the rest of their lives instead of recovering and getting on with their lives. Here's a page with links to several articles by Erin Pizzey, the founder of the very first battered women's shelter, many of which are about what's happened with them and why she feels they've been hijacked and turned into bunkers in a war against men, (her words).
http://www.fathersforlife.org/pizzey/pizzey.htm
So in closing is it segregation, or just smart prudent business practice?
Those are not mutually exclusive options. Of course it's segregation. Whether it is a profitable practice for them is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ASDJKL on 09:13 AM June 8th, 2006 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
You forget that being allowed to operate a business in America is not a right. Even priveledge isn't a strong enough word for it. It's an honor. And if someone is going to practice bigotry against Americans with their business, I don't see any reason why we should allow them that honor.
This isn't true. All you need is money. What honor is there in the fact that 90 percent of small businesses fail within the first 5 years? The majority of small businesses are gifted through SBA loans to pretty much any minority which applies and which pretty much exclusively exclude "White Males".
I was in the military for many years so the use of the word "honor" better have alot more meaning then the ability or running of a business on some street corner.
Men aren't monsters and women aren't being raped while working out at health clubs.
Please do a look at the statistics. The majority of Serial Killers are almost all males. There is 563000 predominantly males on serial child predator lists in this country. I will even go so far as to say that the majority of males that are raped, are raped by other males. What is it 94 percent of the prisoners in jail are males. I will grant you there are innocent people and people that don't belong there and that the rules are all stacked against us. The fact of the matter is we still commit the majority of the crime.
Yeah, they used to say blacks stink too. People who want to justify discrimination often use bigotry to do so.
With out quantifying "they" or "used to" the fact of the matter is "They" were probably correct considering that most blacks lived in poverty, didn't have running water in their houses or sewer systems. They probably weren't afforded the ability to have regular dental and health checkups either, however I do not know this for a fact. Having been all over the world. Koreans eat alot of Kimchee. Their pores literally emanate this stuff. Do they stink? Alot of people would say they do. Would blacks stink because of something they ate? I don't know.
When I was speaking of groups I was speaking of those that run under the auspices of self help programs in hospitals and churches and other organizations which I am only guessing pass the hat and don't get any money or very little from VAWA.
By the way my whole premise was that people should be able to feel safe and business owners should be able to cater to whomever they want to. Please look at serial killer Cleophus Prince Jr. and confirm his modus operandi. Who is now on death row in California for his murdering and rapes in and around Clairmont California.
I just watched a documentary on a serial killer (Cleophus Prince Jr.) who would follow women home from health clubs, break into their homes and rape and
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php ?t=182676
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:33 AM June 9th, 2006 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Men aren't monsters and women aren't being raped while working out at health clubs.
Please do a look at the statistics. The majority of Serial Killers are almost all males. There is 563000 predominantly males on serial child predator lists in this country. I will even go so far as to say that the majority of males that are raped, are raped by other males. What is it 94 percent of the prisoners in jail are males. I will grant you there are innocent people and people that don't belong there and that the rules are all stacked against us. The fact of the matter is we still commit the majority of the crime.
98% of men have no convictions for violent offenses, if memory serves, and saying that men commit most of the rapes is like saying women have most of the babies. According to federal law in the US, rape is exclusively a crime committed by men against women. Aside from statutory rape, it's difficult for a woman to force sex on an unwilling victim, so rape statistics are terribly misleading when people like you attempt to use them to characterize all men as violent. The fact that most rapists are men does not mean that all men are violent, despite the propaganda to the contrary. Most abortions and fetal injuries/defects occur as a result of women's behavior. Does this automatically mean that I can make the assertion that women are more likely to kill babies after birth and assert that all women are violent baby-killing thugs?
Also, you're looking partially at the effects of feminism and then blaming men for it. There are a disproportionate number of men on that list and in prison, and the numbers would be one hell of a lot different if women were treated "equally" by the criminal justice system. It's misleading to say that "men are more likely to rape" and use it to paint all men as violent, because by definition, only men can commit rape! It's the same false pretense used to "convict" all men of domestic violence when a feminist researcher interviews only women who have been abused. Of course most of the perpetrators were men, only women can be "victims" so only women were interviewed. This sort of "analysis" totally neglects reality, and selects its sample to ensure that the anti-male status quo is the only possible conclusion.
Women who commit sexual offenses are far less likely to be labeled sexual offenders for life, and they do far less time than a man for the same crime because society insists on seeing them as victims, so women are artificially under-represented on the sex offender registries and in prison populations. The majority of criminals are male, that's true enough, partially because we only criminalize "male" behavior in this culture, but the majority of child abusers are female, and there have been several female serial killers of note. I notice that you, like feminists, were happy to omit the fact that most geniuses, scientists and philosophers are also male. When feminists do acknowledge this, it's to point out "negative discrimination" or "sexism" acting against women.
Let's apply some feminist reasoning here. If men and women are equal, there should be equal numbers of female scientists and philosophers as any other result must be a consequence of negative discrimination and sexism, and we should enact laws to ensure equality of outcomes. But, according to the feminist's own philosophy, if men and women are equal, they are therefore equally likely to commit acts of violence and other crimes, as is necessarily the case according to feminist logic. Therefore we can conclude that it is only as a result of sexism and negative discrimination that men are the majority of prisoners and the majority of the victims of violence, according to the feminist's own logic, and we should be proceeding to criminalize more female behavior to "equalize" this situation. Feminists are very big on equality of outcomes, and insist that we are all equal. Why is this an exception?
This bit of your response sounds almost like feminist propaganda, i.e. "paint all men as evil, violent, stupid brutes". Society has done just that, and our criminal codes focus on what we might describe as "male" behavior, using your brand of analysis. Some cultures criminalize feminine behavior. Why is it "sexist" only when we attempt to criminalize such behaviors in women? Why are the same behaviors and actions that land men in prison excused when committed by women?
As you're well aware from all the current research on DV, dating violence and other measures of human interaction, women are as or more likely to be violent than men, yet they only make up 6% of the prison population by your own admission. Why? Women are just as prone to violence as men, but we're surrounded by a victim myth that excuses (or even rewards) them for their criminality while punishing men who commit the same acts. Young women today are more likely than young men to be violent. Women are more likely to commit acts of domestic violence, particularly those that involve "severe" violence, and are more likely than men to abuse a child. Men are far more likely to be the victims of crime and violence in our culture, yet our laws are focused on protecting women.
Please account for these observations using your perspective, i.e. that "men are more violent and more criminal". The very definitions of "violent" and "criminal" in our society are sexist, and hideously biased against men, as is the criminal justice system, which serves primarily to protect women from violence and does scarce little to protect men from that same violence.
Men make up both the high and low range of intelligence, so it's reasonable to expect that in this society, men would also be most of the criminals, since criminality and intelligence can be roughly correlated with socio-economic outcomes. Since society refuses to acknowledge this basic fact of biology, and feminism has succeeded in criminalizing all men and masculinity while claiming we're all equal, they can deal with the consequences. The consequences we're observing here will persist until a) feminists criminalize female behavior to an equivalent degree, driving up female prison populations to achieve "equality of outcomes" or b) until the feminist myth of equality of outcomes is debunked, and society begins to pay attention to gender-specific issues with treatment, intervention and other remedies.
If a philosopher or scientist that adds to the quality of human existence equals a violent criminal that rapes or murders another human being in society's eyes, then I see no moral problem with demanding that the sexes be "leveled" in cases like this discussion over the health club. It was, after all, not our idea, and the evidence shows that society should be protecting men from violence, not women, using the same feminist logic that says: "nothing should be done about boys lagging behind in education until white, middle class women make more than men, regardless of education, hours worked, training, responsibility, risk and other factors related to compensation", i.e. equality of outcomes. Feminists have demanded equality, and insisted that masculinity is "socialized" and "evil", and that only women can be "victims", yet they insist that we're all equal. By their own logic, we can conclude that femininity is also "socialized" and "evil" and that men are equally likely to be "victims".
Feminist "logic" is the only politically acceptable logic, so it can be used against them, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 12:20 PM June 6th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
What would really make a difference is that if there was a strong men's group to back up this lone crusader. It's times like this when I long for a more viable movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MR on 05:52 PM June 7th, 2006 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
"What would really make a difference is that if there was a strong men's group to back up this lone crusader. It's times like this when I long for a more viable movement."
Ask and ye shall recieve,
National Coaltion of Free Men, Los Angeles
NCFM,LA v. State of California Complaint for Relief in Widespread Discrimination Against Men(1/3/2003)
I do believe there is more current litigation underway than that, say here,
Amicus Curiae brief
The Los Angeles Chapter of the National Coalition of Free Men (“NCFM-LA”) respectfully applies for permission to file the following Amicus Curiae brief in support of Appellants in this case, pursuant to Rule 13(b) of the California Rules of Court.
NCFM-LA is a non-profit educational and civil rights organization that looks at the ways sex discrimination affects men and boys. NCFM-LA believes sexism cuts both ways, in that both sexes are systematically discriminated against based on gender roles and stereotypes, and, that this discrimination should end.[1] NCFM-LA addresses fathers’ custody rights, paternity fraud, male victims of domestic violence,[2] false accusations, men’s health, and other issues. NCFM-LA’s website is www.ncfmla.org.
NCFM-LA is dedicated to raising public awareness about these issues in various ways. For example, on April 11, 2006, Marc Angelucci,[3] as NCFM-LA President, was a guest lecturer at UCLA School of Law, where he introduced men’s rights issues to a Human Rights and Sexual Politics class taught by Dr. Lara Stemple, who invited him back. (See Dr. Stemple letter, EXH. “A”). NCFM-LA regularly sets up an informational table at the UCLA School of Law Public Interest Career Day and the International Family Violence Conference. The United States Navy, Los Angeles County Probations Officers, Dome City Homeless Project, and others, have invited NCFM-LA to be guest speakers. In 2003, NCFM-LA was an official member of the California Paternity Workgroup, created by Governor Gray Davis, and NCFM-LA also sponsored a paternity fraud bill (SB1030), which led to a compromise bill (AB252) that has now helped thousands of paternity fraud victims obtain relief. (EXH. “B.”)
and
"This action seeks to bring justice and fairness to male victims of domestic violence and their children, and to restore the right of equal protection to California governance.
The issues presented here are of great public importance requiring prompt resolution and implicating the constitutional rights of half the population of California."
JOIN US PLEASE, and be a part of making history.
There's more, but you get the idea. The old adage "strength in numbers" is true so please, join us, or find a place where you can be active and effective in the Men's Rights Movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MR on 05:55 PM June 7th, 2006 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 12:08 AM June 8th, 2006 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
JOIN US PLEASE
Hm. You call yourselves "national", and I'm not an American =).
How about ICFM, International...?
BTW, there is no valid e-mail on your home page nor in the registry whois information :\.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MR on 11:01 AM June 8th, 2006 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
There has been some talk about going International, but nothing yet.
Here's the link to the CONTACT US page at NCFMLA's "contact us" page. Sometimes that email link "Contact Us," doesn't work at NCFMLA. I'm not sure what's going on there. I report it, then I'm told it's working. It appears to be an internittent problem. I'll report it again. Yea, I just went there and got a 404 Error message. Sorry about that.
Here's the email to the National site.
ncfm@ncfm.org
and here's the url
http://www.ncfm.org/contact.php (no spaces)
and here's the National phone # 1-888-223-1280
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 09:14 PM June 8th, 2006 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the info.
The contact link worked when I tried it, but such a form cannot substitute real e-mail contact.
While I don't like our own laws that require sites to have a complete masthead (otherwise you can get a legal dissuasion at your own expense), already for technical reasons a real e-mail-address remains a must have if one takes internet standards seriously.
BTW, is the "men" in your name men as in humans or men as in males? This is not the same word in German. I don't think I understand exactly how this works in English.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:33 AM June 6th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't suppose this could be another step towards equality? I mean what is wrong with Men's organizations? What is wrong with Women's organizations? If the Women would have left the Men's groups alone, I am sure we would have left them alone. Oh, the Women had the help of the government. Oh well, more drama fueling the legal shitstem!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "