#MeToo Becomes #LeaveMeAlone

[Petrasylvania]

I try to read this thread, but all I hear is "Vags have too much rights."

[Ostroeuropa]

I try to read this thread, but all I hear is "Vags have too much rights."

Here's a good example of a feminist who has become unwilling or unable to properly engage with discussion of how men are mistreated as a result of their ideology and how it prevents them from being honest about their critics. When you are this flippant and dismissive of abuses against men and violations of their human rights, when your movement thinks acting this way in response to any and all criticism even when it bares no resemblance to your cariacature is valid, the result is peoples lives get ruined. These CEOs have decided not to let people like you do that to them anymore.

You are operating on the level of people who scream "You just hate jesus" or "The bible says there'd be demons among us like you!" to criticism of theocracy, and sadly that level probably makes you average for a feminist. You only interact with a set of internal scriptures, not reality, and it produces results like this. I'm pointing this out about you so others can see how feminism works and what it does to the adherents who practice it, and why they are wrong.

[Petrasylvania]

I try to read this thread, but all I hear is "Vags have too much rights."

Here's a good example of a feminist who has become unwilling or unable to properly engage with discussion of how men are mistreated as a result of their ideology and how it prevents them from being honest about their critics. When you are this flippant and dismissive of abuses against men and violations of their human rights, when your movement thinks acting this way in response to any and all criticism is valid, the result is peoples lives get ruined. These CEOs have decided not to let people like you do that to them anymore.

I haven't dealt with any discrimination based on being male, so I must not live in the same world as you where amazon hunting parties look for men to castrate before setting them to work hard labor.

[Ostroeuropa]

Here's a good example of a feminist who has become unwilling or unable to properly engage with discussion of how men are mistreated as a result of their ideology and how it prevents them from being honest about their critics. When you are this flippant and dismissive of abuses against men and violations of their human rights, when your movement thinks acting this way in response to any and all criticism is valid, the result is peoples lives get ruined. These CEOs have decided not to let people like you do that to them anymore.

I haven't dealt with any discrimination based on being male, so I must not live in the same world as you where amazon hunting parties look for men to castrate before setting them to work hard labor.

Yes, you have. You merely don't want to acknowledge it for ideological reasons.
It's very noteable you only talk about strawmen when discussing this instead of engaging with the actual examples of sexism against men we bring up. You do live in the same world as me Gauth, it's a world where feminists have actively eroded due process for men accused of sexual misconduct as a part of a decades long campaign to undermine it. So why don't you talk about that instead of refusing to actually interact with your critics/reality.

It's because you can't, isn't it. You have to rely on this type of thing otherwise you've got nothing. Your only winning move in terms of honest discussion is not to play, because your movement is not honest, and cannot be honest, if it hopes to survive.

[Vassenor]

I haven't dealt with any discrimination based on being male, so I must not live in the same world as you where amazon hunting parties look for men to castrate before setting them to work hard labor.

Yes, you have. You merely don't want to acknowledge it for ideological reasons.
It's very noteable you only talk about strawmen when discussing this instead of engaging with the actual examples of sexism against men we bring up. You do live in the same world as me Gauth, it's a world where feminists have actively eroded due process for men accused of sexual misconduct as a part of a decades long campaign to undermine it. So why don't you talk about that instead of refusing to actually interact with your critics/reality.

So is there some sort of law mandating that anyone with a Y chromosome be denied due process now?

Because the sort of conspiracy you're describing just isn't sustainable. For something to be that big and that far reaching without someone blabbering about it by accident just strains credibility too far. It's the same reason the moon landing fakery conspiracy doesn't hold up to scrutiny either.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes, you have. You merely don't want to acknowledge it for ideological reasons.
It's very noteable you only talk about strawmen when discussing this instead of engaging with the actual examples of sexism against men we bring up. You do live in the same world as me Gauth, it's a world where feminists have actively eroded due process for men accused of sexual misconduct as a part of a decades long campaign to undermine it. So why don't you talk about that instead of refusing to actually interact with your critics/reality.

So is there some sort of law mandating that anyone with a Y chromosome be denied due process now?

Firstly you're ignoring that legal and official discrimination is only one type of discrimination when you never behave this way for other groups facing discrimination. (There is no law mandating cops shoot black people more often.).

Secondly, in practice, Title 9 and the dear colleague letters, which was recently in part reversed by the Trump administration.

Notably courts ruled the feminists broke the law and violated the mens due process rights. So the law actually defended them for once here. That doesn't change what the feminists did here, it in fact only solidly confirms it.

[Petrasylvania]

I haven't dealt with any discrimination based on being male, so I must not live in the same world as you where amazon hunting parties look for men to castrate before setting them to work hard labor.

Yes, you have. You merely don't want to acknowledge it for ideological reasons.
It's very noteable you only talk about strawmen when discussing this instead of engaging with the actual examples of sexism against men we bring up. You do live in the same world as me Gauth, it's a world where feminists have actively eroded due process for men accused of sexual misconduct as a part of a decades long campaign to undermine it. So why don't you talk about that instead of refusing to actually interact with your critics/reality.

It's because you can't, isn't it. You have to rely on this type of thing otherwise you've got nothing. Your only winning move in terms of honest discussion is not to play, because your movement is not honest, and cannot be honest, if it hopes to survive.

It's cute how you label your "damn vagocrats trying to neuter us men" diatribes as "honest discussion". I haven't had to worry about an amazon hunting party trying to castrate me.

[Des-Bal]

Ak, k, I got it. Yeah, I've heard about that. Why is it downplayed so much? I've seen videos of MRAs trying to bring it up and they literally got slapped over it.

2 reasons.
1 Because as a society we don't care all that much about bad things happening to men.
2 It's difficult to find an MBA who can string together two coherent points without ranting.

I try to read this thread, but all I hear is "Vags have too much rights."

Quote someone. The snide comments to nobody I'm particular and about nothing in particular aren't really discussing.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ak, k, I got it. Yeah, I've heard about that. Why is it downplayed so much? I've seen videos of MRAs trying to bring it up and they literally got slapped over it.

2 reasons.
1 Because as a society we don't care all that much about bad things happening to men.
2 It's difficult to find an MBA who can string together two coherent points without ranting.

I try to read this thread, but all I hear is "Vags have too much rights."

Quote someone. The snide comments to nobody I'm particular and about nothing in particular aren't really discussing.

This is gold.

Here's a good example of a feminist who has become unwilling or unable to properly engage with discussion of how men are mistreated as a result of their ideology and how it prevents them from being honest about their critics. When you are this flippant and dismissive of abuses against men and violations of their human rights, when your movement thinks acting this way in response to any and all criticism is valid, the result is peoples lives get ruined. These CEOs have decided not to let people like you do that to them anymore.

I haven't dealt with any discrimination based on being male, so I must not live in the same world as you where amazon hunting parties look for men to castrate before setting them to work hard labor.

Yes, you have. You merely don't want to acknowledge it for ideological reasons.
It's very noteable you only talk about strawmen when discussing this instead of engaging with the actual examples of sexism against men we bring up. You do live in the same world as me Gauth, it's a world where feminists have actively eroded due process for men accused of sexual misconduct as a part of a decades long campaign to undermine it. So why don't you talk about that instead of refusing to actually interact with your critics/reality.

It's because you can't, isn't it. You have to rely on this type of thing otherwise you've got nothing. Your only winning move in terms of honest discussion is not to play, because your movement is not honest, and cannot be honest, if it hopes to survive.

It's cute how you label your "damn vagocrats trying to neuter us men" diatribes as "honest discussion". I haven't had to worry about an amazon hunting party trying to castrate me.

I want it framed.

[Petrasylvania]

2 reasons.
1 Because as a society we don't care all that much about bad things happening to men.
2 It's difficult to find an MBA who can string together two coherent points without ranting.
Quote someone. The snide comments to nobody I'm particular and about nothing in particular aren't really discussing.

This is gold.

I haven't dealt with any discrimination based on being male, so I must not live in the same world as you where amazon hunting parties look for men to castrate before setting them to work hard labor.

It's cute how you label your "damn vagocrats trying to neuter us men" diatribes as "honest discussion". I haven't had to worry about an amazon hunting party trying to castrate me.

I want it framed.

Feel free if you think it's that important. Gotta have a hobby in between imagining yourself the Champion of Menz and Slayer of Feminazi Amazons, Gatherer of Handmaids.

[Des-Bal]

Feel free if you think it's that important. Gotta have a hobby in between imagining yourself the Champion of Menz and Slayer of Feminazi Amazons, Gatherer of Handmaids.

Quote an instance of Ostro suggesting women should be treated as less than equal to men.

[Petrasylvania]

Feel free if you think it's that important. Gotta have a hobby in between imagining yourself the Champion of Menz and Slayer of Feminazi Amazons, Gatherer of Handmaids.

Quote an instance of Ostro suggesting women should be treated as less than equal to men.

Must there be actual quote for observations? He talks as if gender rights is a zero sum game, and rarely if ever refers to women as anything but adversaries. Wouldn't be difficult to see how things would go if he got his way.

[Des-Bal]

Must there be actual quote for observations? He talks as if gender rights is a zero sum game, and rarely if ever refers to women as anything but adversaries. Wouldn't be difficult to see how things would go if he got his way.

That's a good point, if you said that instead of bringing up the handmaidens tale as a posters objective for the second time you wouldn't need a quote. But you did.

[New Mivango]

Quote an instance of Ostro suggesting women should be treated as less than equal to men.

Must there be actual quote for observations? He talks as if gender rights is a zero sum game, and rarely if ever refers to women as anything but adversaries. Wouldn't be difficult to see how things would go if he got his way.

Or maybe he's pointing out how many rad fems view gender equality as a zero-sum and consistently seek to erode men's rights in order to gain what they call "equality," but amounts to supremacy.

[Vassenor]

Must there be actual quote for observations? He talks as if gender rights is a zero sum game, and rarely if ever refers to women as anything but adversaries. Wouldn't be difficult to see how things would go if he got his way.

Or maybe he's pointing out how many rad fems view gender equality as a zero-sum and consistently seek to erode men's rights in order to gain what they call "equality," but amounts to supremacy.

So what rights have men lost to feminists then?

[Galloism]

So if family courts are biased, why doesn't the data match up with that conclusion?

That study is both an outlier and in another country, but here's what the data in the United States says.

Not that you're going to respond, but here you go:

While it might be thought that a statement such as the one quoted above represents only one judge’s opinion, surveys of judicial attitudes support the conclusion that his view is shared by a vast number of judges. A study conducted in 2004 found that although the tender years doctrine had been abolished some time ago, a majority of Indiana family court judges still supported it and decided cases coming before them consistently with it.[2] A survey of judges in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee found a clear preference among judges for maternal custody in general.[3]

Another survey, this one commissioned by the Minnesota Supreme Court, found that a majority (56%) of the state’s judges, both male and female, agreed with the statement, “I believe young children belong with their mother.” Only a few of the judges indicated that they would need more information about the mother before they could answer. Fathers, one judge explained, “must prove their ability to parent while mothers are assumed to be able.”[4] Another judge commented, “I believe that God has given women a psychological makeup that is better tuned to caring for small children.”[5]

Judges’ self-reporting of their prejudices against fathers was consistent with practicing attorneys’ impressions of them. 69% of male attorneys had come to the conclusion that judges always or often assume from the outset (i.e., before being presented with any evidence) that children belong with their mothers. 40% of the female attorneys agreed with that assessment. Nearly all attorneys (94% of male attorneys and 84% of female attorneys) said that all judges exhibited prejudice against fathers at least some of the time.[6]

Similar findings have been made in court-sponsored gender bias studies conducted in other states. The Maryland study, for example, found that most attorneys perceived that it is either always or often the case that “[c]ustody awards to mothers are based on the assumption that children belong with their mothers.”[7] A follow-up study conducted in 2001 “still indicates a preference to award mothers custody.”[8] The majority of attorneys, both male and female, agreed that fathers either did not always get treated fairly in custody proceedings, or that they “often” did not. 6% of judges, 17% of female attorneys and 29% of male attorneys went so far as to say that no father ever receives fair treatment in a Maryland custody proceeding.[9] Surveys of judges in Maryland, Missouri, Texas and Washington found that a majority of judges were unable to say that they usually give fathers fair consideration in custody cases.[10] This matched the perception of members of the bar.[11]

A review of appellate court decisions led a team of psychology and law professors to conclude that the maternal preference is still the norm.[12]

The Georgia Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System uncovered judicial beliefs that mothers are always better parents than fathers; that children need to be with their mothers, but not necessarily with their fathers; and that a father cannot be a nurturing parent if he works outside the home. In addition, the commission uncovered a reluctance to deny custody of children to mothers out of fear that doing so will “brand” the mother as unfit or unworthy.[13] No judges expressed any comparable concern for the reputation or feelings of fathers.

References:

[2] Julie E. Artis, Judging the Best Interests of the Child: Judges’ Accounts of the Tender Years Doctrine, 38 Law & Soc’y Rev. 769, 771 (2004)

[3] Leighton Stamps, Maternal Preference in Child Custody Decisions, 37 J. Divorce & Remarriage 1(2002).



In general, it seems that judges are unwilling to explicitly specify whether mothers or fathers are the preferred parents, with the exception of the situation when children are under the age of six, in which case they believe that the mother is the preferred parent. Although they disagreed with the specification of either parent as better than the other, … the disagreement was stronger with regard to the father. Overall, on each of the five items, the means indicated a preference toward mothers over fathers, which are consistent with the theory of maternal preference.



Id. at 7.

[4]Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force for Gender Fairness in the Courts, Final Report 23 (1989)

[5] Id. at 23-24.

[6] Id. at 24.

[7]Maryland Special Joint Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts, Gender Bias Report (1989)

[8]Maryland Select Committee on Gender Equality, Retrospective Report (2001)

[9] Maryland Special Joint Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts, supra note 44.

[10] Douglas Dotterweich & Michael McKinney, National Attitudes Regarding Gender Bias in Child Custody Cases, 38 Fam. & Conciliation Cts. Rev. 212 (2000). Moreover, “[w]hen asked whether the courts always or usually give fair consideration to fathers, only one third (33.4%) of all judges and attorneys answered in the affirmative. Id. at 215. Incredibly, even in the face of this finding, judicial bias against fathers was dismissed as merely a “perception.” Rather than acknowledging the existence of a problem and suggesting judicial education or sensitivity training to address it, the concluding recommendation was this: “perceptions of gender bias might be further mitigated if judges are careful to provide complete explanations for the rationale behind their decisions in custody cases.” Id. at 217.

[11] Id. at 213.

The attorney bit is especially relevant, as attorneys are required to represent their clients best interests - including not wasting their time and money. So if an attorney thinks that the man has no chance due to his gender, he'll advise him not to contest, which means only the very strongest cases from men and the very weakest cases from women get challenged, and among those, women get custody about half the time.

There's substantial selection effects here.

[Galloism]

Or maybe he's pointing out how many rad fems view gender equality as a zero-sum and consistently seek to erode men's rights in order to gain what they call "equality," but amounts to supremacy.

So what rights have men lost to feminists then?

We can start with the right to equal protection under law.

[Galloism]

Yes, you have. You merely don't want to acknowledge it for ideological reasons.
It's very noteable you only talk about strawmen when discussing this instead of engaging with the actual examples of sexism against men we bring up. You do live in the same world as me Gauth, it's a world where feminists have actively eroded due process for men accused of sexual misconduct as a part of a decades long campaign to undermine it. So why don't you talk about that instead of refusing to actually interact with your critics/reality.

It's because you can't, isn't it. You have to rely on this type of thing otherwise you've got nothing. Your only winning move in terms of honest discussion is not to play, because your movement is not honest, and cannot be honest, if it hopes to survive.

It's cute how you label your "damn vagocrats trying to neuter us men" diatribes as "honest discussion". I haven't had to worry about an amazon hunting party trying to castrate me.

Someday Gauthier, you're going to have a friend who confides in you that he is being beaten by his wife or girlfriend or whatnot and gets arrested on her word alone, as a method exercised in furtherance of her abuse.

Or maybe, heaven forfend, it'll be you.

That day, Gauthier, I hope for your sake and your friend's sake, you actually engage with the issues at hand instead of mocking them. They deserve better. You deserve better.

[Petrasylvania]

It's cute how you label your "damn vagocrats trying to neuter us men" diatribes as "honest discussion". I haven't had to worry about an amazon hunting party trying to castrate me.

Someday Gauthier, you're going to have a friend who confides in you that he is being beaten by his wife or girlfriend or whatnot and gets arrested on her word alone, as a method exercised in furtherance of her abuse.

Or maybe, heaven forfend, it'll be you.

That day, Gauthier, I hope for your sake and your friend's sake, you actually engage with the issues at hand instead of mocking them. They deserve better. You deserve better.

Wishing abuse on someone to score points. Classy.

[Galloism]

Someday Gauthier, you're going to have a friend who confides in you that he is being beaten by his wife or girlfriend or whatnot and gets arrested on her word alone, as a method exercised in furtherance of her abuse.

Or maybe, heaven forfend, it'll be you.

That day, Gauthier, I hope for your sake and your friend's sake, you actually engage with the issues at hand instead of mocking them. They deserve better. You deserve better.

Wishing abuse on someone to score points. Classy.

I wish nothing - but millions of men are beaten and abused by their wives every year. It could be you. It could be your brother. Your neighbor. Your close friend.

I hope when one of them confides in you, you will treat this with the seriousness it deserves.

[The Emerald Legion]

Someday Gauthier, you're going to have a friend who confides in you that he is being beaten by his wife or girlfriend or whatnot and gets arrested on her word alone, as a method exercised in furtherance of her abuse.

Or maybe, heaven forfend, it'll be you.

That day, Gauthier, I hope for your sake and your friend's sake, you actually engage with the issues at hand instead of mocking them. They deserve better. You deserve better.

Wishing abuse on someone to score points. Classy.

That's not wishing abuse. That's just saying it's liable to happen.

[Galloism]

Quote an instance of Ostro suggesting women should be treated as less than equal to men.

Must there be actual quote for observations? He talks as if gender rights is a zero sum game, and rarely if ever refers to women as anything but adversaries. Wouldn't be difficult to see how things would go if he got his way.

Point of order:

Referring to women as adversaries was Costa. Ostro slapped him down for it.

[Des-Bal]

Wishing abuse on someone to score points. Classy.

That was a prayer that when you are finally, inevitably, forced to confront the horrible things you make light of and ignore on this forum that you will find the strength, emotional maturity, and heart to help someone overcome something terrible- whether it's a friend or yourself.

[Discourse Ouro-Bros]

I try to read this thread, but all I hear is "Vags have too much rights."

Detox yourself from your current ideology. It is rendering you incapable of understanding the words your opposition write.

Ponder the fractal nature of ecology, spiraling from the the greatest ecosystems to the molecular level.

Actually believe in evolution, don't just claim that you do because it's endorsed by the "correct" ideology, and understand that it is not limited to biological systems. Compute its implications on social and information systems and the mechanisms of which they are composed.

Because right now, you don't believe in evolution, and you don't understand ecology.

Galloism is of course the actually correct one, but even Ostro is doing better than you.

[Costa Fierro]

We're making the assumption feminism is what feminists say it is. If we had a truly equal society, much of what women would be subject to would be decried as patriarchy.

Do you mean like long custodial sentences for anything less than murder and being legally capable of rape?

Of course.