Feminism - Equality when it suits "her"

[Rukarl]

Modern feminism has become a disease.

 

[abdulbarijan]

based on your post history and advocacy of men's right I thought you belong to such movement.. my bad... but i dont see anything wrong being a proponent of such movement...
may be there is an equal rights movement which we all can join but i think the stated goal will be too vague for it to be of any influence... it will remain a hippy group.
irrespective of what influential feminist thinker say about equal rights, if you see the history how it came about, its was not an 'all inclusive equal rights' movement... women were indeed in bad shape and in that context we should see what equality these women were trying for.
i say this for all other special interest group... workers right movement.. black right movement.... these can bring real change due to the sharp focus on the issues they fight for...

Yes if we go back to the era of the first wave of feminism, where there were massive inequalities by law against the female gender, the claim that it was not always "all inclusive" holds true. However, the fact is we're living not in the era of the first wave, but the third and "equality of women & men" ultimately did end up in the concept of feminism as per the arguments given in the last response.

All you need now is look at the available literature which argues as to how feminism can benefit men ... that should be proof enough that the movement is marketed as something that is positive to both genders ... Although we do know it does more or less nothing in practice (for men) as highlighted in the previous posts ..

http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/08/why-men-need-feminism-3/

 

[livingdead]

Yes if we go back to the era of the first wave of feminism, where there were massive inequalities by law against the female gender, the claim that it was not always "all inclusive" holds true. However, the fact is we're living not in the era of the first wave, but the third and "equality of women & men" ultimately did end up in the concept of feminism as per the arguments given in the last response.

All you need now is look at the available literature which argues as to how feminism can benefit men ... that should be proof enough that the movement is marketed as something that is positive to both genders ... Although we do know it does nothing in practice (for men) as highlighted in the previous posts ..

http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/08/why-men-need-feminism-3/

my point is instead of trying to force feminist movement to be equal rights movement, its better to have other movement that focuses on other specific cause... lobby in media, lobby in politics and bring real change(say more homeless shelter for men)...
we are all animals but i doubt animal rights movement will include human rights as part of their cause to fight for.

 

[abdulbarijan]

my point is instead of trying to force feminist movement to be equal rights movement, its better to have other movement that focuses on other specific cause... we are all animals but i doubt animal rights movement will include human rights as part of their cause to fight for.

I don't think we can "force" the feminist movement to be an equal rights movement, as from its late second wave and especially its third wave ... It has already assumed that position. All you need is to read the relevant literature which as I've linked argues that the feminist movement is for men as well, in extension ... an "equal rights for all movement" ... except ofcourse when it comes to practice ..

 

[livingdead]

I don't think we can "force" the feminist movement to be an equal rights movement, as from its late second wave and especially its third wave ... It has already assumed that position. All you need is to read the relevant literature which as I've linked argues that the feminist movement is for men as well, in extension ... an "equal rights for all movement" ... except ofcourse when it comes to practice ..

i would say its clever marketing strategy so as not to be opposed by men... they want to widen the appeal beyond their current base... i see nothing wrong in it... may be they will fight for men's issues but i wont hold my breath

 

[takeiteasy]

with a stated goal to achieve equality for women when they are behind men

More like a movement to brainwash women to live feminine characters and tries to mimick men and their ways. Be proud of your gender females! rather than falling for so called radical movements which wants to envisage a world where men are to be eliminated since they cause the wars and violence and that bad testosterone ridden aggression. I've even read they believe to have a women only society.

 

[livingdead]

More like a movement to brainwash women to live feminine characters and tries to mimick men and their ways. Be proud of your gender females! rather than falling for so called radical movements which wants to envisage a world where men are to be eliminated since they cause the wars and violence and that bad testosterone ridden aggression. I've even read they believe to have a women only society.

read the history bro.. you dont have to be brainwashed to want right to vote... just like men...

 

[abdulbarijan]

i would say its clever marketing strategy so as not to be opposed by men... they want to widen the appeal beyond their current base... i see nothing wrong in it... may be they will fight for men's issues but i wont hold my breath

Thats EXACTLY the point of this thread --- As someone who has specialized in marketing in my bachelors and masters, a company can literally be sued if the value promised in a promotion is not delivered by a product or service.Similarly the appeal of the third wave feminism through its literature and activists is that "come join feminism -- we cater to equal rights or BOTH men and women" ... yet the reality is totally different ...

 

[war&peace]

Islam has given more than sufficient rights to both men and women. If we ensure that our women get those rights, that will be a great achievement. In Islam women has the right to education and her parents and the state have to ensure that, she has the right to select her partner (husband), she gets her share in inheritance from her father and husband, some man is responsible to provide for her (father/brother, husband, son) and if none then state has automatic responsibility. Further the security of her live, property and honour has to be ensured by the society.
Now import the western style feminism and you get a sexual liberty that destroys the society.
Feminism especially the radical feminism is a satanic construct which is aimed at promoting LGBT around the globe.
What the feminist do is to hate men...and consequently the women are encouraged to like women...No men-women relations...no children...total chaos in the society and people behaving like animals... population control

Pakistan can do with some (more) female liberation. One thing that most almost all feminists and their critics have in common is that they've never been in love with a person of the opposite sex. @abdulbarijan has made some good points in the past and I've acknowledged them but I'm willing to bet my precious arse that he's never been in love.

What being in love has to do with feminism?
Rather feminism teaches women to hate men.

 

[Luffy 500]

First of all feminism does NOT help women in any way shape or form. Its a western reactionary ideology and is a branch of liberal secularism. It has nothing to do with women's issues. Liberalism needs a constant enemy and "oppressed" group to save to stay relevant. And they invent such oppressed groups and coin terms for them. For example after the homosexual rights established in the west , they are now promoting the concept of gender neutrality and ranting for transgender rights as they now identified transgenders as an "oppressed" group that need to be saved:

https://defence.pk/threads/unisex-toilets-in-schools-–-the-new-lgbt-battleground.432497/

Same way feminism was liberal attempt of manufacturing the concept that women are oppressed and that they need equality with men. Muslims should question this very notion of equality. Men and Women are NOT equal. Allah (swt) has made men and women in such a way that they compliment each other. Men and Women are different and their rights are different. Allah (swt) has given men and women their due rights NOT equal rights. Muslims should become aware of that since one of the main aims of western secular colonialists is what they call "liberating" the muslim women. The muslim women for them is the primary obstacle to complete intellectual domination. If they can make muslim women drunk , do party all night and fornicate in then name of liberation and rights then they have destroyed the muslim society.

Having said that , i don't mean that muslim women are getting their fair and due rights in muslim lands today. We need to ensure that muslim women get their due rights that Islam has given them but that narrative can NOT be shaped by feminist who has an obvious agenda. It has to be addressed by muslims in muslim lands NOT westerners and intellectually colonized secularists. Most of the problems women face in muslim lands are due to ignorance of Islam and blind traditionalism and culture which are pre-islamic in origin. Eg. In Bangladesh there is a cultural norm for Brides family giving dowry (joutuk) to grooms family and in many such cases the grooms family literally torture or even kill the bride if bride family fail to give joutuk. But this is both illegal in BD and prohibited in islam . Rather islam demands that the groom give bride dowry as a condition for the marriage to be valid. Same goes for honor killings in Pakistan and India.

@abdulbarijan

 

[The Sandman]

OP is a brave man i have seen your previous posts too talking about man's right keep it up sir.
They didn't even spared video games

@abdulbarijan

 

[Dubious]

1stly,
I do agree feminism has taken a different direction but just like most of the laws were/ are male friendly...the feminists show that other laws need to be added coz the "current" ones arent covering everyone (female are human too). However, what feminists do want is equal treatment ....they would like to be taken seriously or at least for the sake that they are still human beings! There is no doubt that they cant be equal in EVERY aspect but in terms of respect they shouldnt need to demand it!

Just because there are some feminist groups that demand rights (respect) it doesnt mean that the old laws are overlooked or rewritten....they still are available to whoever wants to search and use them. By adding laws old ones dont get overwritten!

Lastly, about the stats..

You do know that the groups where you got your stats from such as "http://www.avoiceformen.com/

"/ http://thedisabilityguys.com/ ( where your stats came from) is also not about gender equality and ONLY cries for men? So how can you use them as a statistic "proof" when you are claiming feminism doing the same thing is fraud?

The idea that female suffrage should take precedence over male suffrage because allegedly one is more important then the other is not an argument that should be made

Yet the article does exactly that by leaving the stats hanging like that!

And then lets look at the stats present:

Men are 97% of combat fatalities.

- counted from Gulf war when women werent popular at such posts to get killed in the first place! The first 2-3 decades in the count already spiked the stats enough to show it skewed and not a good representation of a case!

Do you know the % of men to women in American combat? Lets say there are 20 ducks and 2 sparrows flying when xyz is shooting, the chance that a duck gets shot would be higher - common sense nothing to be surprised about! REALLY!

Men make 94% of work suicides.

So lets take a look at the stats:
According to the website In 2008, 94% of workplace suicides were committed by men. In the year 2008, what was thre ratio of men to women working? If the women were/are not at employed at the same rate then how can they do suicide at the same rate? Not sure how that was to help your case?

And the explanation on the same website states that :

the number of suicides taking place at work is “…a ripple effect from the economic problems we’re seeing.” The economic problems of the global economy is more than the loss of a job – health benefits, homes, and families are torn apart. The increase of stress causes disruptions in relationships, an increase in workplace bullying, or causes or increases mental health problems. As a result, Shadick says, “Suicide, anxiety, depression, substance abuse are all of concern, particularly during these scary times.”

Men lose custody in 84% of divorces.

This one I clearly object to as well....There is no equality in this obscure law and I had posted and article here regarding it and was ridiculed but yes I agree this law is very skewed!

80% of all suicides are men.

In 2011, middle-aged adults accounted for the largest proportion of suicides (56%), and from 1999-2010, the suicide rate among this group increased by nearly 30%.5

As for women most of the time they prob end up in honor killings (Asian families and some wild villagers) or angry ex (not unheard off - as some psychologists say that itself is done for some mental honor that doesnt get the title honor killing)

It would be useful to have a look at what is causing it- almost all leads to mental instability...not sure if women scare themselves to seek help or the ego of men dont allow them to seek help
Risk factors for suicide include:
• Previous suicide attempt(s) • History of depression or other mental illness • Alcohol or drug abuse • Family history of suicide or violence • Physical illness • Feeling alone

Again I am not sure how one's mental health can be brought into the equation....In the west there is a concept of personal space so unless you talk about your depression people arent going to hand you free help!

Overall, suicide rates varied by the level of educational attainment. Persons with the highest educational attainment had the lowest rates, those with the lowest educational attainment had intermediate rates, and those who had completed only the equivalent of high school (or 12 years of education) had the highest rates.

77% of homicide victims are men.

From the abstract of the study itself you can stop wallowing in self pity

we analyzed Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports data on homicides that occurred in the United States between 1976 and 1987. Only cases that involved victims aged 15 years or older were included. Persons killed during law enforcement activity and cases in which the victim's gender was not recorded were excluded. A total of 215,273 homicides were studied, 77% of which involved male victims and 23% female victims. Although the overall risk of homicide for women was substantially lower than that of men (rate ratio [RR] = 0.27), their risk of being killed by a spouse or intimate acquaintance was higher (RR = 1.23).

89% of men will be the victim of at least one violent crime.

What is data from 1987 trying to proof? There was not much feminism then....

Men are over twice as victimised by strangers as women.

Very misleading indeed...This is what the link suggests which was somehow overlooked by OP :

In 2010, males experienced violent victimizations by strangers at nearly twice the rate of females (figure 2). The rate of violence against males by strangers was 9.5 victimizations per 1,000 males in 2010 compared to 4.7 victimizations per 1,000 females. In 1993, the rate for males (56.9 violent victimizations per 1,000 males age 12 or older) was nearly three times the rate for females (19.6 per 1,000 females). From 1993 to 2010, males experienced a larger decline (83%) than females (76%) in the rate of violence committed by strangers.

Men get 63% longer sentences than women for the same crime.

Study clearly states this:

Prof. Starr emphasized that it is not possible to "prove" gender discrimination with data like hers, because it is always possible that two seemingly similar cases could differ in ways not captured by the data. Given the size of the apparent gender gap and the richness of the dataset (which allowed many alternative explanations to be explored), however, Starr believes that there is "pretty good reason to suspect that disparate treatment may be one of the causes of this gap."

So bringing such a study in is actually going raise more questions then acceptance of the theory being presented here!

Boys face vastly more corporal punishment than girls.

Ok this is also sort of explained in the article itself:

One high school teacher suggested one possible reason for the gender disparity in paddling, noting that at her school it was common practice to “stay away from hitting the girls. I guess they’re more fragile, and a lot of them could be pregnant and we wouldn’t know it.”
-Physiologically women are different from men.

60-80% of the homeless are men.

Interesting enough the article states:
The US Interagency Council on Homelessness estimates that of the chronically homeless 75% are male. One third of those are veterans. In case you are wondering 97% of the homeless vets are male.

Well, veterans - esp more than 3-4 decades ago- not many female were in that field so I am sorry if women who didnt get a chance to work in the army didnt end up homeless or mentally ill and thrown out of their homes....

Seriously, this comparison is really desperate issue...Have you checked the % of desperation ratio...I am almost certain it is higher in men than women!

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

Anyone who thinks that men and women are equal lives in a fallacy. Men & Women are not equal, they are co-dependent on the other.

The average woman is not Serena Williams, but the average male doesn't weight 130 pounds, 59kg.

There's nothing wrong with asking for your rights, regardless of gender an employee should be paid their fair wage in comparison with their experience and potentially education?

But a line is drawn when someone demands equality without the responsibilities associated with it. That person there is taking advantage of the system they neither helped create or help continue.

 

[abdulbarijan]

@Akheilos !!! -- Nice to see you again .. and I hope your doing fine ...

1stly,
I do agree feminism has taken a different direction but just like most of the laws were/ are male friendly...the feminists show that other laws need to be added coz the "current" ones arent covering everyone (female are human too). However, what feminists do want is equal treatment ....they would like to be taken seriously or at least for the sake that they are still human beings! There is no doubt that they cant be equal in EVERY aspect but in terms of respect they shouldnt need to demand it!
Just because there are some feminist groups that demand rights (respect) it doesnt mean that the old laws are overlooked or rewritten....they still are available to whoever wants to search and use them. By adding laws old ones dont get overwritten!

As far as your "argument" goes .. that most LAWS still favor men (ironically in your reply you didn't cite one SINGLE law as an example for that), but since you say that, lemme take the example of US, a state with large influence of feminism. You'd expect since there is a feminist influence, hence there should be equality ... atleast in the legal framework of things ... but .. NOT REALLY! .... However ...unlike you .. I'll give you examples..
Women in the US, by LAW have the choice in parenthood. They can abort a fetus, they can surrender the child for adoption, or they can surrender an infant under safe haven laws and walk away with no responsibility whatsoever. What about men .. No choice for them now is there ? They have to pay child support for 18 years otherwise bye bye freedom .. your going to jail .. There even have been cases where men, who aren't biologically related with a child were forced to pay child support and landed in jail because they couldn't. Heck I'll tell you about an even more interesting case. A case where a woman literally raped a kid (14 years at the time) and then sued him for child support. You want to talk about women being human beings which NO ONE in their right mind would EVER deny yet you want to put a tape on your eyes when there is discrimination against the opposite sex no matter what is the price they end up paying ... because god forbid .. men are human beings as well.... Modern feminism ... and it's version of equality at display ... But then again, it's hard to expect fair treatment from a movement whose icons like Emmeline Pankhurst during the suffrage movement were busy handing out white feathers to young kids so that they can go to war and die ..

Spoiler: Story of white feather recipients

James Lovegrove, was only sixteen when he received his first white feather: "On my way to work one morning a group of women surrounded me. They started shouting and yelling at me, calling me all sorts of names for not being a soldier! Do you know what they did? They struck a white feather in my coat, meaning I was a coward. Oh, I did feel dreadful, so ashamed." He went to the recruiting office and at first he was rejected for being too young and too small: "You see, I was five foot six inches and only about eight and a half stone. This time he made me out to be about six feet tall and twelve stone, at least, that is what he wrote down. All lies of course - but I was in!".

William Brooks was also given a white feather at the age of sixteen. "Once war broke out the situation at home became awful, because people did not like to see men or lads of army age walking about in civilian clothing, or not in uniform of some sort, especially in a military town like Woolwich. Women were the worst. They would come up to you in the street and give you a white feather, or stick it in the lapel of your coat. A white feather is the sign of cowardice, so they meant you were a coward and that you should be in the army doing your bit for king and country.... In 1915 at the age of seventeen I volunteered under the Lord Derby scheme. Now that was a thing where once you applied to join you were not called up at once, but were given a blue armband with a red crown to wear. This told people that you were waiting to be called up, and that kept you safe, or fairly safe, because if you were seen to be wearing it for too long the abuse in the street would soon start again."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/
http://lawnewz.com/video/man-legall...pport-even-after-dna-test-proves-hes-not-dad/
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/man-faces-jail-paying-child-support-child/

Lastly, about the stats..You do know that the groups where you got your stats from such as "http://www.avoiceformen.com/"/ http://thedisabilityguys.com/ ( where your stats came from) is also not about gender equality and ONLY cries for men? So how can you use them as a statistic "proof" when you are claiming feminism doing the same thing is fraud

Hmm .. interesting point. I would take you on your word for it but then again I know better then to take a feminist of all people on their word. The article quoted a total of 16 links and a video. So that's 17 links in totality ... Out of those 17 links .. 4 are from "http://www.avoiceformen.com" ... One was from http://thedisabilityguys.com.
I quoted a master link from the "realseximproject" which had a collection of all such statistics.

Now my dear friend, Out of the 17 links of this thread ... you've literally accounted for 5 of them from these alleged "biased websites" ... which on a good day is just a little over 29%. The rest of the links involve "human rights watch", "University of Michigan", "US department of Justice, bureau of justice statistics", a research document from "NCBI", "the telegraph", the website of "CNBC", "NYtimes", "Forbes", and the "International Business times". All of them "MRA advocates" I assume ..
What's even more funny is that, the links given in the articles by the likes of these "biased MRA websites" come from "United states inter agency council on homelessness" which further quote " The U.S Dept. of Housing and Urban development". Other stats come from the CDC and other reputable institutes ... which basically makes your point of "bias-ness" moot.

Coming to your argument about how men's rights are

not about gender equality and ONLY cries for men? So how can you use them as a statistic "proof" when you are claiming feminism doing the same thing is fraud?

How many times have you seen MRA's saying that "MRM is for women as well" .. I've not ... Why ? because it's a reactionary movement which is literally about men's rights". Michael A. Messner writes in his book "Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements" that
" Early men's rights texts were similar to early men's liberationist texts in that they tended to argue that both men and women have been hurt by sexism, but men's rights differed in the fact that they tended to place much great emphasis on the costs of masculinity then on the problems faced by women. By the late 1970's and early 1980's men's rights discourse had all but eliminated the gender symmetry of men's liberation in favor of a more overt and angry anti-feminist backlash" ...
In essence, Men's rights movement is a backlash movement to feminism, (whose second and third wave promised equality for all, yet failed to deliver in the case of men) unlike feminism whose literature is about "how feminism can help men" yet in practice it's the complete opposite ...

Feminism is a fraud because it claimed one thing yet did another, the MRA's did not ..

Yet the article does exactly that by leaving the stats hanging like that!And then lets look at the stats present:
- counted from Gulf war when women werent popular at such posts to get killed in the first place! The first 2-3 decades in the count already spiked the stats enough to show it skewed and not a good representation of a case!
Do you know the % of men to women in American combat? Lets say there are 20 ducks and 2 sparrows flying when xyz is shooting, the chance that a duck gets shot would be higher - common sense nothing to be surprised about! REALLY!

Except the sparrows in this case had a movement which said every sparrow is equal to a duck. The sparrows advocated for and in most cases got laws that were more equal in nature. Except the sparrows were a cunning bunch, they never touched the law which only forced the ducks to sign up to go in to areas. which had hunters in them ..
Look up the selective service and you'll get what I'm talking about. It's 2016, more then half a century with the second and third wave ... yet it's only now that we see a bill that also requires women to sign up for the draft, except whether it becomes a law and is activated in 2018, is still to be seen.

So lets take a look at the stats:According to the website In 2008, 94% of workplace suicides were committed by men. In the year 2008, what was thre ratio of men to women working? If the women were/are not at employed at the same rate then how can they do suicide at the same rate? Not sure how that was to help your case?
And the explanation on the same website states that :

Actually the data does exist, according to the World bank statistics, -- the ratio of female to male workers in the U.S in 08 was 81.6% which basically means for every thousand male workers there were 816 female workers. Now lets say a 100 workers committed suicide ... out of these 100, 94 happened to be men ...A good indicator of equality right ?
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FM.ZS

This one I clearly object to as well....There is no equality in this obscure law and I had posted and article here regarding it and was ridiculed but yes I agree this law is very skewed!

Good to know...

In 2011, middle-aged adults accounted for the largest proportion of suicides (56%), and from 1999-2010, the suicide rate among this group increased by nearly 30%.5
As for women most of the time they prob end up in honor killings (Asian families and some wild villagers) or angry ex (not unheard off - as some psychologists say that itself is done for some mental honor that doesnt get the title honor killing)
It would be useful to have a look at what is causing it- almost all leads to mental instability...not sure if women scare themselves to seek help or the ego of men dont allow them to seek help
Risk factors for suicide include:
• Previous suicide attempt(s) • History of depression or other mental illness • Alcohol or drug abuse • Family history of suicide or violence • Physical illness • Feeling alone
Again I am not sure how one's mental health can be brought into the equation....In the west there is a concept of personal space so unless you talk about your depression people arent going to hand you free help!
Overall, suicide rates varied by the level of educational attainment. Persons with the highest educational attainment had the lowest rates, those with the lowest educational attainment had intermediate rates, and those who had completed only the equivalent of high school (or 12 years of education) had the highest rates.

I find it very amusing, that even in a statistic, which speaks of the fact that an OVERWHELMING majority of suicide victims are men. A statistic used to prove in this thread that feminists who claim to be for equality, who say that men can benefit from feminism as well. These same feminists don't do jack for male issues, in fact in your case ... outright go out trying to deny their severity.
Thank you for practically proving that point for me, by bringing up another issue (honor killing) ... as a response to a statistic that shows the suicides victims are 80% of the time, men.
According to the CDC"Males take their own lives at nearly four times the rate of females and represent 77.9% of all suicides."
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet-a.PDF
Heck a similar percentage is observed in Australlia ..
https://www.psychology.org.au/inpsych/2012/august/beaton/

From the abstract of the study itself you can stop wallowing in self pity we analyzed Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports data on homicides that occurred in the United States between 1976 and 1987. Only cases that involved victims aged 15 years or older were included. Persons killed during law enforcement activity and cases in which the victim's gender was not recorded were excluded. A total of 215,273 homicides were studied, 77% of which involved male victims and 23% female victims. Although the overall risk of homicide for women was substantially lower than that of men (rate ratio [RR] = 0.27), their risk of being killed by a spouse or intimate acquaintance was higher (RR = 1.23).

Great going, except you forgot to bold one sentence from the same abstract ... Here lemme show you ..
"A total of 215,273 homicides were studied, 77% of which involved male victims and 23% female victims"
I don't know if I find it amusing or not ... but the fact that out of a 100 homicide victims, an overwhelming majority of them being men i.e. 77, and Feminists like yourself are more concerned with the likelihood that for the 23 female victims, the people committing the homicides were more likely intimate partners ... Are you even serious ? Or is that male victims of a crime don't qualify as victims because equality can go to hell when its men facing the short end of the stick ...

What is data from 1987 trying to proof? There was not much feminism then..

Pfft .. seriously ? women's suffrage movements had started in different parts of Europe in the early 1900's. The second wave of feminism had emerged from the 60's to the 80's and yet there was "not much feminism around" ..

Very misleading indeed...This is what the link suggests which was somehow overlooked by OP :
In 2010, males experienced violent victimizations by strangers at nearly twice the rate of females (figure 2). The rate of violence against males by strangers was 9.5 victimizations per 1,000 males in 2010 compared to 4.7 victimizations per 1,000 females. In 1993, the rate for males (56.9 violent victimizations per 1,000 males age 12 or older) was nearly three times the rate for females (19.6 per 1,000 females). From 1993 to 2010, males experienced a larger decline (83%) than females (76%) in the rate of violence committed by strangers.

You forgot to bold this little sentence ..
"In 2010, males experienced violent victimizations by strangers at nearly twice the rate of females"
Let's put this in clear terms ... you think that a slightly larger decline for men as being the victims of violence committed by strangers, is much more favorable to men --- even when the statistics explicitly show that men are STILL twice as likely to be the victims compared to women ...

Study clearly states this: Prof. Starr emphasized that it is not possible to "prove" gender discrimination with data like hers, because it is always possible that two seemingly similar cases could differ in ways not captured by the data. Given the size of the apparent gender gap and the richness of the dataset (which allowed many alternative explanations to be explored), however, Starr believes that there is "pretty good reason to suspect that disparate treatment may be one of the causes of this gap."
So bringing such a study in is actually going raise more questions then acceptance of the theory being presented here!

Again, bolding out statements which you think support you while blatantly ignoring the very next sentence.. i.e.
"Given the size of the apparent gender gap and the richness of the dataset (which allowed many alternative explanations to be explored), however, Starr believes that there is "pretty good reason to suspect that disparate treatment may be one of the causes of this gap."
But then again, this isn't the only study proving a bias in criminal courts .. there have been others as well .. like the following ..
http://journalistsresource.org/stud...-justice/courts-lenient-sentencing-bond-women
https://works.bepress.com/gang_lee/5/

Ok this is also sort of explained in the article itself:
One high school teacher suggested one possible reason for the gender disparity in paddling, noting that at her school it was common practice to “stay away from hitting the girls. I guess they’re more fragile, and a lot of them could be pregnant and we wouldn’t know it.”
-Physiologically women are different from men.

Does this explanation change the fact that most kids receiving corporal punishment are male? and here I thought that treating women different from men because of physiology was termed sexist ... Wasn't gender a "social construct" -- atleast thats what I heard from feminists ..

Interesting enough the article states: The US Interagency Council on Homelessness estimates that of the chronically homeless 75% are male. One third of those are veterans. In case you are wondering 97% of the homeless vets are male.
Well, veterans - esp more than 3-4 decades ago- not many female were in that field so I am sorry if women who didnt get a chance to work in the army didnt end up homeless or mentally ill and thrown out of their homes....
Seriously, this comparison is really desperate issue...Have you checked the % of desperation ratio...I am almost certain it is higher in men than women!

It's funny how equality is such a subjective term for feminists like yourself. When its the top 10% of the men, Board of directors, CEO's, positions of political power ... feminists are quick to call out ... "look at the discrimination" ... "There is sexism, glass ceiling etc." ... yet when the reverse is in position where the positions require you to actually do the dirty work ... Well don't want that part of equality now do we ...

You have as always PROVEN NOTHING, your rebuttal is you picking and choosing statements which you think discredit a point ... yet they don't ... The point of this whole thread was to expose how feminists especially go about talking for equality, yet when its men who are suffering ... they DO NOTHING ... You hiding behind your baseless "arguments" PROVES my point .. Thank you and have a nice day! ...

 

[SMC]

1stly,
I do agree feminism has taken a different direction but just like most of the laws were/ are male friendly...the feminists show that other laws need to be added coz the "current" ones arent covering everyone (female are human too). However, what feminists do want is equal treatment ....they would like to be taken seriously or at least for the sake that they are still human beings! There is no doubt that they cant be equal in EVERY aspect but in terms of respect they shouldnt need to demand it!

Just because there are some feminist groups that demand rights (respect) it doesnt mean that the old laws are overlooked or rewritten....they still are available to whoever wants to search and use them. By adding laws old ones dont get overwritten!

The feminists - the ones with any sort of influence and power - do not want equality. They are always advocating for laws that are sexist one way in favour of women. The internet feminists that may want equality are not doing anything to make a difference. And please, most laws are not male friendly. In fact, it's starting to look more and more like they are female friendly.

Lastly, about the stats..

You do know that the groups where you got your stats from such as "http://www.avoiceformen.com/

"/ http://thedisabilityguys.com/ ( where your stats came from) is also not about gender equality and ONLY cries for men? So how can you use them as a statistic "proof" when you are claiming feminism doing the same thing is fraud?

Yes they want to make laws and statistics known that show that men face just as much if not more oppression. But their stats are coming from well known sources such as US department of labour, department of justice, etc.

- counted from Gulf war when women werent popular at such posts to get killed in the first place! The first 2-3 decades in the count already spiked the stats enough to show it skewed and not a good representation of a case!

Do you know the % of men to women in American combat? Lets say there are 20 ducks and 2 sparrows flying when xyz is shooting, the chance that a duck gets shot would be higher - common sense nothing to be surprised about! REALLY!

In the US, more than 10% of combat roles are occupied by women.

So lets take a look at the stats:
According to the website In 2008, 94% of workplace suicides were committed by men. In the year 2008, what was thre ratio of men to women working? If the women were/are not at employed at the same rate then how can they do suicide at the same rate? Not sure how that was to help your case?

There are MORE women employed in the US than men. One statistic that OP didn't mention, 90%+ of workplace fatalities are men. Again, MORE women than men are employed in the US.

This one I clearly object to as well....There is no equality in this obscure law and I had posted and article here regarding it and was ridiculed but yes I agree this law is very skewed!

It's actually closer to 95%..

In 2011, middle-aged adults accounted for the largest proportion of suicides (56%), and from 1999-2010, the suicide rate among this group increased by nearly 30%.5

As for women most of the time they prob end up in honor killings (Asian families and some wild villagers) or angry ex (not unheard off - as some psychologists say that itself is done for some mental honor that doesnt get the title honor killing)

It would be useful to have a look at what is causing it- almost all leads to mental instability...not sure if women scare themselves to seek help or the ego of men dont allow them to seek help
Risk factors for suicide include:
• Previous suicide attempt(s) • History of depression or other mental illness • Alcohol or drug abuse • Family history of suicide or violence • Physical illness • Feeling alone

Again I am not sure how one's mental health can be brought into the equation....In the west there is a concept of personal space so unless you talk about your depression people arent going to hand you free help!

Overall, suicide rates varied by the level of educational attainment. Persons with the highest educational attainment had the lowest rates, those with the lowest educational attainment had intermediate rates, and those who had completed only the equivalent of high school (or 12 years of education) had the highest rates.

I think the point is if 90% of suicides were committed by women then we would have had a crisis on our hands that we needed to solve yesterday, and would have have been a symbol of male oppression.

From the abstract of the study itself you can stop wallowing in self pity

we analyzed Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports data on homicides that occurred in the United States between 1976 and 1987. Only cases that involved victims aged 15 years or older were included. Persons killed during law enforcement activity and cases in which the victim's gender was not recorded were excluded. A total of 215,273 homicides were studied, 77% of which involved male victims and 23% female victims. Although the overall risk of homicide for women was substantially lower than that of men (rate ratio [RR] = 0.27), their risk of being killed by a spouse or intimate acquaintance was higher (RR = 1.23).

Was there a point you are trying to prove? Just because women have a greater chance of being killed by a spouse or intimate partner, should we overlook the fact that vast majority of homicide victims are men? I highly doubt you would overlook the fact that women have a higher chance of being killed by a spouse or intimate partner just because men have a higher chance.

Btw, this number is not that different today tha it was in 87.

What is data from 1987 trying to proof? There was not much feminism then....

There was not much feminism in 87? You are clearly clueless about feminism if you think there was not much feminism in 1987. Second, this data still holds true today.

Very misleading indeed...This is what the link suggests which was somehow overlooked by OP :

In 2010, males experienced violent victimizations by strangers at nearly twice the rate of females (figure 2). The rate of violence against males by strangers was 9.5 victimizations per 1,000 males in 2010 compared to 4.7 victimizations per 1,000 females. In 1993, the rate for males (56.9 violent victimizations per 1,000 males age 12 or older) was nearly three times the rate for females (19.6 per 1,000 females). From 1993 to 2010, males experienced a larger decline (83%) than females (76%) in the rate of violence committed by strangers.

You seem to be an expert at playing with words. Without disproving what the OP said, you clam he's misleading people, which is not true. So things got slightly better for men. Good news. OTOH, feminists don't seem to care unless women are far better than men in every way.

Study clearly states this:

Prof. Starr emphasized that it is not possible to "prove" gender discrimination with data like hers, because it is always possible that two seemingly similar cases could differ in ways not captured by the data. Given the size of the apparent gender gap and the richness of the dataset (which allowed many alternative explanations to be explored), however, Starr believes that there is "pretty good reason to suspect that disparate treatment may be one of the causes of this gap."

So bringing such a study in is actually going raise more questions then acceptance of the theory being presented here!

Yet this has been observed in every crime out there, and it's always against men. If it was random, then in some cases, it should have gone against women, and the difference should have not been as stark as 63%.

Ok this is also sort of explained in the article itself:

One high school teacher suggested one possible reason for the gender disparity in paddling, noting that at her school it was common practice to “stay away from hitting the girls. I guess they’re more fragile, and a lot of them could be pregnant and we wouldn’t know it.”
-Physiologically women are different from men.

So let's see:

1) You are using a single teacher's opinion to disprove a study
2) That because middle school or high school girls MAY be pregnant, (probably a very remote chance at a given time), let's give them lesser punishment.
3) Women are physiologically difference so let's punish them less.

Yup, this is everything that feminists do. Play whatever card that's necessary to instill more privilege for women.

Interesting enough the article states:
The US Interagency Council on Homelessness estimates that of the chronically homeless 75% are male. One third of those are veterans. In case you are wondering 97% of the homeless vets are male.

Well, veterans - esp more than 3-4 decades ago- not many female were in that field so I am sorry if women who didnt get a chance to work in the army didnt end up homeless or mentally ill and thrown out of their homes....

You still don't get it...

if 75% of homeless were women, regardless of being veterans, we'd have had a crisis on our hands that needed to be resolved yesterday.

Seriously, this comparison is really desperate issue...Have you checked the % of desperation ratio...I am almost certain it is higher in men than women!

The only thing you appear to be good at is playing mental and word gymnastics and making men's issues seem trivial but if women had the same issue it would have been all about male oppression and stuff.

@abdulbarijan IMO the poll does not take into account the essence of feminism. When you say that feminism only takes female issues account, this is not even entirely true. Feminists actively revolt when you try to push for equality that is not in the best interests of women. For example, they are against extending the draft to women in the US. They were against extending conscription to women in Norway. Some of them were against a male birth control pill. Feminists were the ones that advocated and wrote the VAWA in the US. They wrote the law where if a male and a female have an intercourse and both were drunk, then the male is the one charged with rape.

So, in other words, if you try to push equality that does not absolutely benefit women, feminists will spin it as some sort of oppression against women. It's not just about only taking female issues into account.