Are Women Oppressed in the West?

[Jello Biafra]

Discrimination plays no part in it despite evidence of discrimination?

On the contrary there is considerable evidence against discrimination.

Really? Like what?

[Gravlen]

If there is DNA evidence then the man just has to claim the sex was consensual, which would lead to one of the other explanations.
If there is not DNA evidence then he could simply deny it was him.

I never said that DNA analysis proves that you have been raped, just that it negates the possibility of your first scenario where someone is raped but not by the person facing the accusation.

If they find DNA evidence - which isn't a given - and the DNA evidence isn't mishandled, degraded or too small, and if there isn't other evidence the juries find more compelling. (Example)

[Threeman]

No, they have too many rights as it is. The fact that ghey can vote is ridiculous. They abuse welfare

[Jamzmania]

On the contrary there is considerable evidence against discrimination.

Really? Like what?

The majority of the wage gap has been shown to exist due to the choices of men and women, as stated by the Department of Labor:

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the
wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively
account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and
thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. These variables
include:

A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to
pay less than full-time work.

A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child
care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who
were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of
children in the home.

Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies
more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly,
the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation.

It also says:

Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations
may account for part of the remaining gap. Specifically, CONSAD’s model and much of the
literature, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics Highlights of Women’s Earnings, focus on
wages rather than total compensation. Research indicates that women may value non-wage
benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation
in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits.

And to top it off:

Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous
conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a
multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify
corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be
almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.

There's other stuff out there, obviously, but this is just what I found. If there was any discrimination on the basis of sex, the victim has an obvious solution: sue their ass. I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers out there just begging for a discrimination lawsuit to file.

[Herargon]

You do realize that the West includes the whole of Latin America? Which includes several countries where homosexuality remains illegal, free speech is regularly undermined, ethnic minorities are constantly subjected to abuse at the hands of the state... Seriously, just start with this site.

I don't usually consider Latin America as part of the West as I think of things in terms of how Huntington defined them. However, I can see where you are coming from.

Latin America is part of the West, but another brand of the West.

There's the 'New World'-type West, and the more 'Old World'-type West, which encompasses a large part of Europe.
In the latter, people usually refer to themselves as belonging to a certain nationality, rather than being of some ethnic heritage or race.
For byspell, they would think of themselves as being 'French', 'Swedish', 'Polish', 'Senégalese', rather than thinking of 'French-American', 'Swedish-American', 'Polish-American', 'African-American', or such.

For me it is almost the entirity of the New World that would be of the first type, thus meaning the 'New World'-type West. This especially includes the US.
The only exceptions in the Americas I might see are Quèbec, Chili, Paraguay, Cuba, and such, although I'm not even sure of that.

--

Also, I doubt that according to Liriena's definition, the US could be included in the west. There's still large discrimination against different nationalities (Native Americans), and race issues that wouldn't make the US seem very tolerant. Free speech is also much more abused in the States than in Europe. Homosexuality was illegal in the US whilst most of West Europe already had decided homosexuals were okay, fine, top and nice.

It is depending on the measure and scale of what you define as West. If you were to travel to the US of the 1790s or 1800s, you would find the first and third thing you mentioned to happen in the US, and that too in Europe. Does that make the West only begin to exist since the 1950s?
Obviously not.

---

Women are half of world's population. Within the West, they relatively aren't oppressed.

[Jello Biafra]

Really? Like what?

The majority of the wage gap has been shown to exist due to the choices of men and women, as stated by the Department of Labor:

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the
wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively
account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and
thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.

Your own source admits that there is a wage gap.

There's other stuff out there, obviously, but this is just what I found. If there was any discrimination on the basis of sex, the victim has an obvious solution: sue their ass. I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers out there just begging for a discrimination lawsuit to file.

Discrimination suits are hard to prove, particularly when someone doesn't know that they're being discriminated against.

[Jamzmania]

The majority of the wage gap has been shown to exist due to the choices of men and women, as stated by the Department of Labor:

Your own source admits that there is a wage gap.

There's other stuff out there, obviously, but this is just what I found. If there was any discrimination on the basis of sex, the victim has an obvious solution: sue their ass. I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers out there just begging for a discrimination lawsuit to file.

Discrimination suits are hard to prove, particularly when someone doesn't know that they're being discriminated against.

We all know there is a wage gap. I'm just saying it does not exist due to discrimination.

If you are being paid less than a man for the exact same work (as is so often said), then that should be pretty easy to prove. If you cannot prove discrimination, then maybe there was no discrimination.

[Jello Biafra]

We all know there is a wage gap. I'm just saying it does not exist due to discrimination.

If you are being paid less than a man for the exact same work (as is so often said), then that should be pretty easy to prove. If you cannot prove discrimination, then maybe there was no discrimination.

How would someone go about proving this?

[Jamzmania]

We all know there is a wage gap. I'm just saying it does not exist due to discrimination.

If you are being paid less than a man for the exact same work (as is so often said), then that should be pretty easy to prove. If you cannot prove discrimination, then maybe there was no discrimination.

How would someone go about proving this?

You get the man that is doing the exact same work as you and you put their check next to yours? You would also need to show that they were, in fact, doing the exact same work as you, of course.

[Jello Biafra]

How would someone go about proving this?

You get the man that is doing the exact same work as you and you put their check next to yours? You would also need to show that they were, in fact, doing the exact same work as you, of course.

He'd also need to be willing to show you his check, of course.

[Frenline Delpha]

How would someone go about proving this?

You get the man that is doing the exact same work as you and you put their check next to yours? You would also need to show that they were, in fact, doing the exact same work as you, of course.

And to check overtime.

[Arcipelago]

The majority of the wage gap has been shown to exist due to the choices of men and women, as stated by the Department of Labor:

Your own source admits that there is a wage gap.

Did you not read a few sentences down on his source. The adjusted wage gap of 4.8 and 7.1 percent doesn't take into account many other factors that they cannot accurately survey. Therefore they actually say it shouldn't be considered meaningful at all.

[Roosevetania]

No, they have too many rights as it is. The fact that ghey can vote is ridiculous. They abuse welfare

You are so sexist, and you're 40 to 100 years behind the rest of the world.

[Lexten]

1) That is what happens when you report a rape. DNA from clothes is used.

https://www.rainn.org/articles/rape-kit
https://www.rainn.org/articles/importan ... ault-cases

And DNA, in addition to statements from eyewitnesses, the alleged perpetrator, alleged victim, alibis etc. make it very unlikely that you have somehow got the wrong person (the original point being that the wrong person could be accused)

The original point remains. Even with all of those things, miscarriages of justice do happen. If you had bothered to read the article I linked to, you'd see an example of that where they had DNA evidence (which was mishandled) witness testimony (which got it wrong) and alibis (which were ignored).

2) It's very obvious if you're being compelled to do something under duress. You're explicitly threatened.

It's not always obvious. The threats may be subtle.

It's very obvious when someone is unconscious - they're not moving or making any noises.

It's not always obvious. They may be passive in bed.

It's also rather obvious if someone has verbally given consent.

It's not always obvious, for the above-mentioned reasons.

Body language can be ambiguous, but that's why body language by itself doesn't count as consent, that's why I said verbal consent and body language.

Body language may count as consent, depending on the circumstances. A mute person is able to consent, for example.

In the Brock Turner case there were inconsistencies in his statement and two eyewitnesses who watched as he fingered an unconscious woman who was on the floor behind a freaking dumpster. Would you have believed him?

The point is that we needed all of the facts. It's not simply black and white, especially since it was his word against... well, nothing, since the victim couldn't remember anything.

3) So if you've given consent (which was in the original point) and then haven't withdrawn it - how is that rape?

You have withdrawn it, but the person you're with continues (because he didn't hear, was the original statement). You require that the person physically push the other person away or shout - none of which negates the fact that consent has been withdrawn.

1) Yes, but that event occurred 17 years ago when DNA technology was less developed and the field was comparatively new. And now, any competent lawyer could point to that case in order to ensure it does not happen again.
2) How exactly can the scenario you have described where someone thinks they are being threatened but aren't happen?
3) Being passive in bed =/= not moving at all and not saying anything at all. I mean, are you seriously telling me that you wouldn't know if someone was unconscious while you were having sex with them?
3) Well yes, a mute person can give consent through nodding/sign language.
4)His story which had changed versus the story of two eyewitnesses who saw him raping an unconscious woman actually.
5) So somebody is so frozen up and terrified (after giving consent) that they are completely incapable of physically pushing the other person away or audibly asking them to stop but can somehow inaudibly withdraw their consent. Seriously?

I never said that DNA analysis proves that you have been raped, just that it negates the possibility of your first scenario where someone is raped but not by the person facing the accusation.

It is possible for someone to have consensual and nonconsensual sex on the same night.
Also, there could be massive prosecutorial misconduct.

Yes, but I assume that someone who has been raped can tell the difference between their rapist and somebody who they had consensual see with.

I never said that DNA analysis proves that you have been raped, just that it negates the possibility of your first scenario where someone is raped but not by the person facing the accusation.

If they find DNA evidence - which isn't a given - and the DNA evidence isn't mishandled, degraded or too small, and if there isn't other evidence the juries find more compelling. (Example)

And that is why, as I said, in addition to DNA analysis, statements from eyewitnesses, the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator are taken. However DNA analysis is the most common way to establish if two people had sex.

[New Edom]

Of course you don't, because you are pro-feminist and see it as so good that no real criticism can stick to it, as far as I can see. So it seems more useful to just decide that you have your point of view, I have mine, and ultimately we'll see which is stronger.

What do you want me to say? "You're right, of course there should be sexist differences in ethical interactions."?

What I'd like from feminists is that they admit that they do not have a model for ethical interaction with men. because they don't. Until they do and indicate they are willing to discuss it fairly, I entirely oppose any furthering of the feminist socio-political agenda.

[Chessmistress]

The original point remains. Even with all of those things, miscarriages of justice do happen. If you had bothered to read the article I linked to, you'd see an example of that where they had DNA evidence (which was mishandled) witness testimony (which got it wrong) and alibis (which were ignored).


It's not always obvious. The threats may be subtle.


It's not always obvious. They may be passive in bed.


It's not always obvious, for the above-mentioned reasons.


Body language may count as consent, depending on the circumstances. A mute person is able to consent, for example.


The point is that we needed all of the facts. It's not simply black and white, especially since it was his word against... well, nothing, since the victim couldn't remember anything.


You have withdrawn it, but the person you're with continues (because he didn't hear, was the original statement). You require that the person physically push the other person away or shout - none of which negates the fact that consent has been withdrawn.

1) Yes, but that event occurred 17 years ago when DNA technology was less developed and the field was comparatively new. And now, any competent lawyer could point to that case in order to ensure it does not happen again.
2) How exactly can the scenario you have described where someone thinks they are being threatened but aren't happen?
3) Being passive in bed =/= not moving at all and not saying anything at all. I mean, are you seriously telling me that you wouldn't know if someone was unconscious while you were having sex with them?
3) Well yes, a mute person can give consent through nodding/sign language.
4)His story which had changed versus the story of two eyewitnesses who saw him raping an unconscious woman actually.
5) So somebody is so frozen up and terrified (after giving consent) that they are completely incapable of physically pushing the other person away or audibly asking them to stop but can somehow inaudibly withdraw their consent. Seriously?

This whole discussion is very telling, especially the highlighted parts: it exactly shows why within most universities the initiator have always the duty to check and re-check if the consent is still in place.

[Chessmistress]

What do you want me to say? "You're right, of course there should be sexist differences in ethical interactions."?

What I'd like from feminists is that they admit that they do not have a model for ethical interaction with men. because they don't. Until they do and indicate they are willing to discuss it fairly, I entirely oppose any furthering of the feminist socio-political agenda.

Feminism isn't about how women should behave towards men, quite the opposite: Feminism is about the right of women to behave how we want (within the limits of the law), and you know I'm always ready to discuss in a fair way.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

What I'd like from feminists is that they admit that they do not have a model for ethical interaction with men. because they don't. Until they do and indicate they are willing to discuss it fairly, I entirely oppose any furthering of the feminist socio-political agenda.

Feminism isn't about how women should behave towards men, quite the opposite: Feminism is about the right of women to behave how we want (within the limits of the law), and you know I'm always ready to discuss in a fair way.

But what if women choose to combat feminism, specifically third wave feminism?

[The balkens]

Feminism isn't about how women should behave towards men, quite the opposite: Feminism is about the right of women to behave how we want (within the limits of the law), and you know I'm always ready to discuss in a fair way.

But what if women choose to combat feminism, specifically third wave feminism?

Gender traitors and cock envious bitches.

[Aelex]

You get the man that is doing the exact same work as you and you put their check next to yours? You would also need to show that they were, in fact, doing the exact same work as you, of course.

He'd also need to be willing to show you his check, of course.

Because men are like an hivemind, all working collectively to maintain the Patriarchy.

[Gravlen]

The original point remains. Even with all of those things, miscarriages of justice do happen. If you had bothered to read the article I linked to, you'd see an example of that where they had DNA evidence (which was mishandled) witness testimony (which got it wrong) and alibis (which were ignored).


It's not always obvious. The threats may be subtle.


It's not always obvious. They may be passive in bed.


It's not always obvious, for the above-mentioned reasons.


Body language may count as consent, depending on the circumstances. A mute person is able to consent, for example.


The point is that we needed all of the facts. It's not simply black and white, especially since it was his word against... well, nothing, since the victim couldn't remember anything.


You have withdrawn it, but the person you're with continues (because he didn't hear, was the original statement). You require that the person physically push the other person away or shout - none of which negates the fact that consent has been withdrawn.

1) Yes, but that event occurred 17 years ago when DNA technology was less developed and the field was comparatively new. And now, any competent lawyer could point to that case in order to ensure it does not happen again.

Yet it has happened again, as is illustrated in the book Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA by Erin E. Murphy (Nation Books, 2015.)

2) How exactly can the scenario you have described where someone thinks they are being threatened but aren't happen?

A boss is having consensual sex with a subordinate. During the encounter they joke around, and the boss says "well you have to have sex with me, or I'd have to fire you". The next time the boss initiates an encounter, the subordinate feels coerced into having sex, and feels there's a real threat of being fired if s/he refuses. It was subjectively not a threat, but the power differential in their relationship makes it complicated.

Alternatively, there was a case where a man threatened to kill himself if his ex wife didn't have sex with him. She was afraid what could happen to their child, who was sleeping upstairs, and felt that this was a threat against both her and her child. Objectively, he only threatened to harm himself, but in that situation she subjectively felt threatened.

3) Being passive in bed =/= not moving at all and not saying anything at all. I mean, are you seriously telling me that you wouldn't know if someone was unconscious while you were having sex with them?

This is not about me, this is about what people in this situation experience. And there are indeed people who are consious yet not moving and not saying anything while having sex.

3) Well yes, a mute person can give consent through nodding/sign language.

While there are some mute people who know sign language, that's mainly an thing for deaf individuals.

And if you agree that someone can give consent through nodding, then you agree in general that you don't need a verbal response in order to establish consent.

4)His story which had changed versus the story of two eyewitnesses who saw him raping an unconscious woman actually.

The eyewitnesses could not say what had happened before they came upon them, however. The eyewitnesses could not say whether or not she had consented previously, at a time when she wasn't unconscious.

5) So somebody is so frozen up and terrified (after giving consent) that they are completely incapable of physically pushing the other person away or audibly asking them to stop but can somehow inaudibly withdraw their consent. Seriously?

No, not inaudibly.

If they find DNA evidence - which isn't a given - and the DNA evidence isn't mishandled, degraded or too small, and if there isn't other evidence the juries find more compelling. (Example)

And that is why, as I said, in addition to DNA analysis, statements from eyewitnesses, the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator are taken. However DNA analysis is the most common way to establish if two people had sex.

Actually, the most common way to establish if two people had sex is by asking them.

And, as seen in the case above, even when DNA evidence is found inside another person whom it was indisputible didn't give consent, it's not necessarily a case of "either you didn't give consent and were raped or you gave consent and weren't".

[Radikala Skold]

Feminism isn't about how women should behave towards men, quite the opposite: Feminism is about the right of women to behave how we want (within the limits of the law), and you know I'm always ready to discuss in a fair way.

But what if women choose to combat feminism, specifically third wave feminism?

Have you ever heard the words "internalized misogyny"? It's not their fault but, still, it can be a problem (not so relevant, since the number of women actually opposing Feminism is extremely narrow: women who define themselves "anti-feminists" are less than 1%).

[New Edom]

What I'd like from feminists is that they admit that they do not have a model for ethical interaction with men. because they don't. Until they do and indicate they are willing to discuss it fairly, I entirely oppose any furthering of the feminist socio-political agenda.

Feminism isn't about how women should behave towards men, quite the opposite: Feminism is about the right of women to behave how we want (within the limits of the law), and you know I'm always ready to discuss in a fair way.

Yeah I know, that's why I don't support it anymore. I don't support ideologies that have no ethical standards for how they treat others outside of themselves.

[Xadufell]

3rd wave "feminism" in a nutshell:

Woman trips over rock: PATRIARCHY
Woman loses a bet: PATRIARCHY
Woman doesn't like the way a man looks at her: PATRIARCHY
Woman who wants to freely express misandry: PATRIARCHY, I HATE MEN

[New Edom]

3rd wave "feminism" in a nutshell:

Woman trips over rock: PATRIARCHY
Woman loses a bet: PATRIARCHY
Woman doesn't like the way a man looks at her: PATRIARCHY
Woman who wants to freely express misandry: PATRIARCHY, I HATE MEN

It's getting old.