I already stated the obvious in the 1st sentence of the very post you quoted
Well, this is exactly why people are questioning feminism. Because the feminists that actually hold any power and influence don't seem to be interested in equality.
You from Canada stating that is interesting!
What's your point? The statistics on the OP are mostly from western countries as well.
Yes but if you have a look their stat is also coming from poorly read articles which have both sides of the story but they choose a side to share!
I don't get your point. Can you share examples where something like that happened?
And that 10% is supposed to somehow out number the 90% who get mentally traumatized?
What is your exact point here?
May we see you statistics for this claim?
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-222-x/2008001/sectionb/b-unemployment-chomage-eng.htm
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/07/07/128359804/unemployment-rate-men-vs-women
Regardless, you should be smart enough to know that the ratio of men to women working would never be proportional to men killed vs women killed while working. Even if only 40% of the working force was women, that would be nowhere near the percentage of those being killed at work being men, 92%.
Well, the fact still remains if 90% were women that would be the future of the whole nation at stake since men cant carry a baby to term! And that is a fact that even ALLAH acknowledged (as a Muslim) by calling the womb the same derivative as his name RAHIM! So be thankful it isnt 90% for women!
Here we go with another feminazi claim that women are more valuable because they give birth. And who built the civilization and all the technology as we know it? We won't have any problem if 90% of the suicides were women. The population will keep growing more or less just as fast.
But that's not my point. The solution to this problem isn't that 90% of suicides are women -- there's another option available. There isn't anything about being done because it's men that are killing themselves. Nothing is being done to solve this problem. I want solution instead of having 90% suicides be women.
As for a symbol of male oppression or not that is up to the men killing themselves to decide many do it due to job stress rather than anything to blame a woman or a law about!
But if women don't eat to satisfy society's image then it's men's fault yes? It's always the men's fault and never the society.
Well, the chance of being killed by someone you know is higher than being killed by a random stranger....
Well the opposite was what OP was pointing out, wasnt it?
Just concentrate on men and overlook the fact that a woman also faces her own set of problems...
OR
Just highlight men face problems without showing the other side of the coin which is women also face problems which even in the 1st world country are not acknowledged best case would be the recent release of a rapist in USA despite having proof and witness! The humiliation of a woman when she is denied justice even WITH PROOF!
So, let's do the math. There are 100 homicides. 20 of them are women (typical percentage - 20-25% of homicides tend to be women out of 100), and 16 of which were committed by someone they know. Should we pay attention to those 16 over the rest 80 that were men.
I think the article would have pointed the latest number if it was favouring men
It's an academic paper. Do you know the difference between academic papers and news articles?
What you call "rise of feminism in the early 70s" is not the same as today! Back then it was still screaming and fighting and now it is more established!
You were talking about 1987. You need to read up history of feminism. It wasn't that much less powerful or entrenched then as it is today.
Honestly speaking, you just demonstrated that men don't seem to care unless men are far better than women in every way...Doesnt that kind of show psychological projection at play?
You are projecting your own misandry here and putting words into my mouth. The original statistic was that men experienced only a slightly larger decrease in violence from strangers. I said it's a non-statistic and non-issue as nothing changed that much. But you want to make a zero-sum game where men's conditions being improved must means women's condition deteriorates?
So she claiming her own data not sufficient to prove much yet you insist you know better about her research than her? interesting!
You didn't answer my point nor you understood it. Her point was that it's not possible to say two cases are same because the data held by police or the justice system may not cover all aspects. My point is that even if that's true in one case, it should average out over all the cases. So in the end, you'd see roughly equal amount of punishment being given to men and women for similar crimes. You don't see that, and you don't see that across all sorts of possible crimes.
Do you get it now? Her point deals with individual cases. My point deals with all the cases averaged out, i.e. the general case.
Btw, if it was women that were punished more, I am 200% sure you'd be making a big deal about this even if that disclaimer was printed.
You think only 1 teacher thinks that way?
Like I said it is psychology and one's right not to feel extreme hate (like you) and feel empathy.
Yes, let's feel empathy... but it must be only one way, toward women! Men, no, let's be violent toward them!
And that is a fact of science which you cant change!
This is quite silly. Why not just give boys the same punishment then? You don't have to give them worse punishment just because they are stronger. If you are going to go down this road, then let's give something to men in return for being guilty of being stronger.
I am pointing out facts learn to understand them first!
I am pointing out your facts are pointless because if it were women in the same position we'd have a crisis on our hands.
And the article in OP did the same for men but I dont see you going crazy about it. Maybe you need to understand equality before pointing fingers at 1 end of the spectrum and accepting the other end of the spectrum blindly!
How did the article do this? I understand equality better than you. You seem to want equality one way.. let's punish boys for being stronger and not girls, women's lives are more important, etc.
