The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Torsiedelle]

Modern day feminism is cancer.

I love you.

[Des-Bal]

Woman stabs boyfriend and is spared custodial sentence

Because it could ruin her career...

In other words, don't worry about it, it's only a man she stabbed! Society's view on DV is so fucked up.

That's bad paraphrasing. Sentences often consider the collateral impacts, it's not uncommon or unique to women.

[Costa Fierro]

Woman stabs boyfriend and is spared custodial sentence

Because it could ruin her career...

In other words, don't worry about it, it's only a man she stabbed! Society's view on DV is so fucked up.

That's bad paraphrasing. Sentences often consider the collateral impacts, it's not uncommon or unique to women.

Except when judges in the UK have been told to be lenient towards women.

[Des-Bal]

Except when judges in the UK have been told to be lenient towards women.

That's not an except, it's an issue in and of itself and it's one worthy of discussion but considering the offenders future prospects when determining a sentence isn't something that only women get and it's improper to characterize it by saying "it's only a man she stabbed." This is the first step on the path to the place of madness where nobody takes you seriously.

[Costa Fierro]

I'm inclined to believe that no one takes me seriously regardless. Anyway, the fact that she isn't being sentence because it "might affect her career" is no different to those American sports players who raped people in college but got off lightly because it "might affect their sporting careers". It's as much about elitism as it is about gender.

[Des-Bal]

I'm inclined to believe that no one takes me seriously regardless. Anyway, the fact that she isn't being sentence because it "might affect her career" is no different to those American sports players who raped people in college but got off lightly because it "might affect their sporting careers". It's as much about elitism as it is about gender.

It's no different because those are also about the collateral impact of the sentence. A month in jail and a month in jail that ruins your career prospects are two different things.

[Costa Fierro]

I'm inclined to believe that no one takes me seriously regardless. Anyway, the fact that she isn't being sentence because it "might affect her career" is no different to those American sports players who raped people in college but got off lightly because it "might affect their sporting careers". It's as much about elitism as it is about gender.

It's no different because those are also about the collateral impact of the sentence. A month in jail and a month in jail that ruins your career prospects are two different things.

A month in jail would ruin your career prospects whichever way you shake the proverbial stick. The point is that you cannot apply sentences differently based on the social class of the criminal. Someone who was working class that committed domestic violence would not be met with such leniency.

[Des-Bal]

A month in jail would ruin your career prospects whichever way you shake the proverbial stick. The point is that you cannot apply sentences differently based on the social class of the criminal. Someone who was working class that committed domestic violence would not be met with such leniency.

No it really wouldn't, the impact of a sentence can be changed by the circumstances of the person being sentenced. If the sentence will end up costing you millions of dollars rather than just a month of your time the sentence has a greater impact on you than it would on someone else.

Someone who was working class and could face major collateral consequences based on their sentence may in fact be met with similar leniency. For example, people who may be deported often get lesser sentences specifically to avoid that collateral consequence. Either you're talking about a privileged class of people that's made up of women, athletes, and immigrants or you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Mattopilos II]

Modern day feminism is cancer.

I love you.

Loving biases is normal, yes.

[Audioslavia]

Modern day feminism is cancer.

*** Warning for trolling *** and an eye-roll for the complete lack of effort.

[Ors Might]

I'm inclined to believe that no one takes me seriously regardless. Anyway, the fact that she isn't being sentence because it "might affect her career" is no different to those American sports players who raped people in college but got off lightly because it "might affect their sporting careers". It's as much about elitism as it is about gender.

It's no different because those are also about the collateral impact of the sentence. A month in jail and a month in jail that ruins your career prospects are two different things.

I would assume that stabbing someone would affect your chances of being hired more than spending a month in jail. Then again, I'm probably biased against the former on account of not wanting my employees to stab people so what do I know?

[Des-Bal]

I would assume that stabbing someone would affect your chances of being hired more than spending a month in jail. Then again, I'm probably biased against the former on account of not wanting my employees to stab people so what do I know?

You may be surprised to learn that "have you ever served jail time" is a more common question than "have you ever stabbed anyone."

[Hirota]

I would assume that stabbing someone would affect your chances of being hired more than spending a month in jail. Then again, I'm probably biased against the former on account of not wanting my employees to stab people so what do I know?

You may be surprised to learn that "have you ever served jail time" is a more common question than "have you ever stabbed anyone."

And yet is an equally common question compared with " have you ever been arrested or charged for a criminal offence."

Background checks can include both asking if you have been convicted and/or if you have been charged.

Source: I've worked in two public sector jobs, and one private sector job where I was asked. Luckily my warning for common assault does not have to be included if I am asked I was charged as a warning in UK law isn't a conviction.

[Des-Bal]

And yet is an equally common question compared with " have you ever been arrested or charged for a criminal offence."

Background checks can include both asking if you have been convicted and/or if you have been charged.

Source: I've worked in two public sector jobs, and one private sector job where I was asked. Luckily my warning for common assault does not have to be included if I am asked I was charged as a warning in UK law isn't a conviction.

A sentence that landed you jail time reads worse than a sentence that did not.

[Hirota]

A sentence that landed you jail time reads worse than a sentence that did not.

Indeed, which means that given women are statistically less likely to be sentenced to jail for the same crimes, background checks disproportionately harm men more than women.

[Des-Bal]

Indeed, which means that given women are statistically less likely to be sentenced to jail for the same crimes, background checks disproportionately harm men more than women.

True, but to nail down the issue the referenced case doesn't necessarily show sexism.

[Galloism]

Warren Farrell (Myth of Male Power) and Cassie Jaye (Red Pill) conduct audience experiences

Long, but worth it.

So there's a lot that goes on in this, and not all of it relevant (and Warren Farrell is not the greatest public speaker, although his thoughts are sound). He talks about in this video something he also talks about in his book. It's an unusual concept, but I think it's worthy of discussion:

Money represents power you've given up to get that money. Money isn't power per se, it represents power you sacrificed.

To be clear, he's not talking about inherited wealth, where the person who has it sacrificed nothing. He's talking about these men who work 60, 70, 80 hours a week in dangerous jobs where they're risking death to provide for their families doing a job they hate. He talks about, in times past, women literally risked death (in an appreciable fashion) to bring the next generation into the world. Childbirth was very hazardous (and in the US, sadly still is to an extent), and women literally risked their lives to bring the next generation into the world. Men also risked their lives to keep those children from harm by going into battle to defend their home.

Now, in most western countries, we've made childbirth very safe (again, the US has a poor record in this regard). It's not completely absent of risk, but neither is walking in the park. However, men are still risking death to protect their families. They're still drafted in some countries to protect their homeland. In other countries they're just under threat of draft (like the US), but even beyond that, they take the most dangerous jobs in the world to protect their families. It's just that now, they risk death to protect their families from poverty, exposure, starvation, and want.

So for all the men who make good money being garbagemen or police officers or underwater welders, and risk death for their families, are they earning more money than their wives because they have more power, or do they have less? They earn more money than their wives, but is that really a sign of greater power, or is it a sign they've sacrificed more of their power?

Relevant consideration: while men earn more money than women, women control more spending than men. Who has the power here?

[Costa Fierro]

I think women pretty much have 99% of the power in relationships, because not only do they control finances but also control access to sex and whether or not to have children, which is a massively important and life changing decision. Men's power depends on the dependency of his wife/girlfriend. If she is earning more than her partner, then there's no dependency. If she is working but earning less, then there is some dependency but not much. If she doesn't work, there is total dependency.

This power imbalance affects the dynamics of a relationship because it forces the man to be secretive with some aspects of his finance just to retain that little bit of freedom from his overbearing wife/girlfriend.

And this is why we're seeing the rise of movements like MGTOW, where men are quickly catching onto the fact that they're really only being used for their ability to provide in a relationship rather than for their inherent value as a human being.

[Hakons]

I think women pretty much have 99% of the power in relationships, because not only do they control finances but also control access to sex and whether or not to have children, which is a massively important and life changing decision. Men's power depends on the dependency of his wife/girlfriend. If she is earning more than her partner, then there's no dependency. If she is working but earning less, then there is some dependency but not much. If she doesn't work, there is total dependency.

This power imbalance affects the dynamics of a relationship because it forces the man to be secretive with some aspects of his finance just to retain that little bit of freedom from his overbearing wife/girlfriend.

And this is why we're seeing the rise of movements like MGTOW, where men are quickly catching onto the fact that they're really only being used for their ability to provide in a relationship rather than for their inherent value as a human being.

Most women want to be with someone they love, which implies valuing their humanity. Relationships are about working together, and not getting leverage or power over your girlfriend.

[The Imperial Union of Scandinavia]

Not sure if y'all just want equality or the extermination of the male gender, so that will be dertermined by your response to this word:

MEN

[New haven america]

I think women pretty much have 99% of the power in relationships, because not only do they control finances but also control access to sex and whether or not to have children, which is a massively important and life changing decision. Men's power depends on the dependency of his wife/girlfriend. If she is earning more than her partner, then there's no dependency. If she is working but earning less, then there is some dependency but not much. If she doesn't work, there is total dependency.

This power imbalance affects the dynamics of a relationship because it forces the man to be secretive with some aspects of his finance just to retain that little bit of freedom from his overbearing wife/girlfriend.

And this is why we're seeing the rise of movements like MGTOW, where men are quickly catching onto the fact that they're really only being used for their ability to provide in a relationship rather than for their inherent value as a human being.

You know that's not how healthy relationships work, right?

[The Grene Knyght]

I think women pretty much have 99% of the power in relationships, because not only do they control finances but also control access to sex and whether or not to have children,

Thats just silly and patently untrue

Men control sex and procreation just as much as women. It takes two to tango.
If women controlled finances, than that counters your second statement below, which was easily as ridiculous on its own

This power imbalance affects the dynamics of a relationship because it forces the man to be secretive with some aspects of his finance just to retain that little bit of freedom from his overbearing wife/girlfriend.

Thats just ridiculous.

men are quickly catching onto the fact that they're really only being used for their ability to provide in a relationship rather than for their inherent value as a human being.

Yep, every woman is a soulless, emotionless, cash-hungry husk.

[The Grene Knyght]

Not sure if y'all just want equality or the extermination of the male gender, so that will be dertermined by your response to this word:

MEN

Hey sorry uwu you must be new here uwu but this thread is a safe space and word such as m*n are considered violence here. Please be more considerate of other people's triggers in future

[Costa Fierro]

Most women want to be with someone they love, which implies valuing their humanity.

Actually women want financial stability.

Relationships are about working together, and not getting leverage or power over your girlfriend.

Except no one ever works together. You either have power imbalances in favour of men, especially those in relationships with much less experienced and much younger women, or you have relationships where the woman controls the finances and thus have the final approval of a lot of major purchases. Where is the equal balance of power in any of those relationships?

You know that's not how healthy relationships work, right?

So you're suggesting that at least 90% of relationships are unhealthy?

[Costa Fierro]

Thats just silly and patently untrue

It is not. It is fact.

Men control sex and procreation just as much as women. It takes two to tango.

No we don't. Men are taught that we have to make sure that our SO's needs are met regardless of our own desires.

If women controlled finances, than that counters your second statement below, which was easily as ridiculous on its own

It doesn't counter, because that money that is hidden from women is not in the control of women. The majority of the wealth a couple has is in shared accounts.

Thats just ridiculous.

Denying it doesn't make it go away.