Misandry Included In UK Hate Crime Law Review

[Kowani]

Personally I think no group should be protected, since we've seen quite a lot of overreach in this field (Especially in the UK).

Nice sentiment. However, if there must be protection laws, let them extend to everybody.

[Ostroeuropa]

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/0 ... 81236.html

They also punish them more for the same behavior as girls and pathologize boys behavior more often seeing something "wrong" with them, this is consistent with overall studies showing high levels of in-group bias among women and their views of men such as the WAW study and other recent ones. Overall they disincentivize boys from participating through their treatment of them. UK studies concluded the primary cause of the male suicide epidemic (the leading cause of death in young men) was related to education, it has wide ranging ramifications for all of society not to confront this, and confronting it means dealing with female chauvinism.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 87501.html

I agree with you that there are some serious problems men and boys have that need to be addressed, but I don't think these problems have anything to do with female chauvinism.

Why don't you think so despite the evidence shown about women teachers bias against them (Not shared by male teachers, showing it is a problem with women and their view of boys rather than a problem with societies view of boys) and the evidence showing strong in-group bias among women and so on? I'll put this to you, reducing the number of male influences on a youth increases the traits associated with "toxic masculinity", why would that be?

Why do you seemingly have an urge to not view female agency as a potential source of societal problems? You just write it off out of hand and have claimed that there is zero negative impact on boys from female chauvinism, zero, despite measurable in group bias among them.

I would argue that this is a prejudice on your part stemming from an overly idealized view of women and their agency brought about by feminist influence on culture and its fetishization of female agency as definitively good, justified, and a measure of progress. You have an impulsive need to reject the notion women could negatively influence boys. Why is that?

You've also got the bromance studies showing men are comparatively far more comfortable sharing feelings and so on with other men than women. i would suggest that female chauvinism causes women to project their hostility to male emotion onto men as a result of feminist gynocentrism and their refusal to consider themselves a potential source of social ills (Something that keeps them a source of social ills.).

The feminist movement is merely the same expression of female chauvinism that leads to people denying women can commit DV, or rape and so on, writ large, and you express it here in your kneejerk rejection of the notion of female prejudice and discrimination. We've seen feminism routinely express this chauvinism. Why is this expression of it from you different from the DV and rape examples?

How many decades will we need to shove evidence in your faces before you start blaming patriarchy for "making" women teachers have evil thoughts that make them drive men to suicide?

Refusal to make women responsible for their negative behavior, as usual, and as usual expressed through a feminist and their fetishization of female agency. This was not how we treated women doing wrong before your movement, it is a recent dysfunction in society.

When you applied feminist ideas like this to DV you fucked it up and drove sexism. When you did it to rape you did the same. But you guys still won't get over the fact that it's the lens itself causing this shit. Feminism is merely the organized expression of female chauvinism, and its that chauvinism codified that leads you to out of hand reject the notion of female sexism being a cause of ills.

Demographic tribalism is not a flaw only some people must overcome and others are magically free of. Woman can be biased. It is an absurd expression of chauvinism that you think otherwise.

Society is at the moment several decades in to one very abusive spouse blaming every single thing wrong with a toxic relationship on their partner and out of hand rejecting and re-framing things to suit their fucked up psychodrama. "No hunny, you don't want to learn golf, you just don't properly appreciate my tennis lessons because you hate me" levels of self-absorbtion and obsession with their own perspective and devaluation and dismissal of their partners internal experience seperate from them. Feminism and this dynamic you are alluding to is nothing more than the persistent dehumanization of men and their subjective experiences separate of women, asserting women's view as objective reality despite their measurable bias.

Did this abusive rant from one partner in a toxic relationship reveal some legitimate flaws in the partner? Sure. Does that make this dynamic functional? No. The difference is, the partner going on abusive rants is in utter denial over their own toxic contribution.

Your feminism inspired refusal to consider women as a potential source of social ills means the social ills they cause will never be addressed because you refuse to examine the source. That is why feminism is anti-male, because when women fuck themselves over, it's still men who get policed and forced into changing their behavior to rectify that and fix womens mess for them because obviously its the men doing it, and when women fuck men over, the feminist just pulls a "stop hitting yourself" like it's the height of human intelligence, apparently the best decades of feminist academia can manage.

[Galloism]

It would be interesting if there was a comparison of hire rates with no special reservations and for rates with jobs reserved for women and other groups. That would be a possible measure for determining if such reservations are necessary.

I don’t know if we have a study like that, but Australia tested gender blind hiring.

Spoiler: at least in that context at that time, employers were biased against men.

[Galloism]

Men can still be discriminated against on the basis of their gender though. That's the point of the law: If men are victimised based on their gender, there's an additional punishment. The same applies for women and all other protected characteristics.




So, the solution to discrimination against women is to... discriminate against men?
Why not treat both as equals?


No. But there's a difference. B isn't being directly hurt by the lack of money being given.
But a man trying to get a job is if that job is restricted to women only.
Also, it's not that individual people who have been victimised are getting benefits, it's entire groups of people. So even victimised men are unable to get that job, whilst non-victimised women are able to get it.

There aren't jobs restricted to women only, that's a strawman.
There are fields that are dominated by men, the overwhelming majority of positions are occupied by men, and in order to partially compensate such disadvantage in such field then some positions are being reserved to women, just to be sure that even women have access.
Example: quotes for corporate boards - corporate boards are overwhelming male, they're reserving some positions to women.

https://www.theladders.com/job/ceo-coo- ... c_37015225

[Ostroeuropa]

It would be interesting if there was a comparison of hire rates with no special reservations and for rates with jobs reserved for women and other groups. That would be a possible measure for determining if such reservations are necessary.

I don’t know if we have a study like that, but Australia tested gender blind hiring.

Spoiler: at least in that context at that time, employers were biased against men.

Do you know what we call it in science when someones model of reality fails to make an accurate prediction?

[Galloism]

I don’t know if we have a study like that, but Australia tested gender blind hiring.

Spoiler: at least in that context at that time, employers were biased against men.

Do you know what we call it in science when someones model of reality fails to make an accurate prediction?

Falsification?

[Ostroeuropa]

Do you know what we call it in science when someones model of reality fails to make an accurate prediction?

Falsification?

"Being wrong" I thought, but that's also pretty relevant to a lot of it with the stuff on DV and rape and so on and the desperate need to make facts fit the theory. How many issues has feminist theory been applied to and fucked up so far, and how many times will the planes they keep making need to crash before they accept they don't understand the subject as well as they think they do?

[Galloism]

Falsification?

"Being wrong" I thought, but that's also pretty relevant to a lot of it with the stuff on DV and rape and so on and the desperate need to make facts fit the theory. How many issues has feminist theory been applied to and fucked up so far, and how many times will the planes they keep making need to crash before they accept they don't understand the subject as well as they think they do?

Well, conflicting results is a thing.

A different context gave the opposite result.

Basically, misandry and misogyny both exist. If one is worth legally fighting against, so is the other.

[Ostroeuropa]

"Being wrong" I thought, but that's also pretty relevant to a lot of it with the stuff on DV and rape and so on and the desperate need to make facts fit the theory. How many issues has feminist theory been applied to and fucked up so far, and how many times will the planes they keep making need to crash before they accept they don't understand the subject as well as they think they do?

Well, conflicting results is a thing.

A different context gave the opposite result.

Basically, misandry and misogyny both exist. If one is worth legally fighting against, so is the other.

To pretend feminism has a history of accounting for misandry rather than fighting the notion it exists tooth and nail is to give credence to the gaslighting performed by its members unwilling to admit they attached themselves to a hate movement and believed its lies. I'd recommend reading some sociology textbooks on the matter from 2015 or earlier and perhaps even modern editions as well, as late as at least 2008 they're pretty clear on the matter and I have one right in my hand that notes the mens rights movement was the one backing these kinds of issues in opposition to feminism and presents this as a negative thing for equality that the MRM is doing such evil shit as presenting misandry as real and so on.

So i'd argue the feminist prediction and their theory, instead of the grassroots revisionism by laymen dogmatists who aren't of concern to academic rigor, is that there would only be unidirectional results from such a thing. Inconsistent results are more consistent with the mens rights movement and its long history of asserting sexism as at least a two way street rather than imposed on society as a whole, uniform and universal. (I.E, female chauvinism and gynocentrism, the assertion of womens perpsective as objective reality with other experiences that contradict or upset that being lies designed to hurt women or delusions that need to be corrected into thinking more like women. This problem with feminist thought and ideas and philosophy has been consistently pointed out for practically every demographic because fundamentally it is just a bout of self-absorbed, abusive, and selfish nonsense that dehumanizes everyone who isn't the speaker. They have been dragged kicking and screaming through gays, trans, race, and so on, but are seemingly unwilling or unable to take the final step and admit the premise of their framework is fundamentally flawed for men too, and it is only useful for describing a particular type of experience and not useful to describe anything in terms of experiences and perspectives as related to eachother.

That refusal is because of chauvinism and a disdain and contempt for men that they no longer have for minorities and so on.

[Petrasylvania]

It would be interesting if there was a comparison of hire rates with no special reservations and for rates with jobs reserved for women and other groups. That would be a possible measure for determining if such reservations are necessary.

I don’t know if we have a study like that, but Australia tested gender blind hiring.

Spoiler: at least in that context at that time, employers were biased against men.

The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview.

Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door.

Doesn't look completely gender blind at all. They should have limited first names to just initials.

[Vassenor]

I don’t know if we have a study like that, but Australia tested gender blind hiring.

Spoiler: at least in that context at that time, employers were biased against men.

The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview.

Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door.

Doesn't look completely gender blind at all. They should have limited first names to just initials.

Or just "Candidate A, B, C" etc.

[Galloism]

I don’t know if we have a study like that, but Australia tested gender blind hiring.

Spoiler: at least in that context at that time, employers were biased against men.

The trial found assigning a male name to a candidate made them 3.2 per cent less likely to get a job interview.

Adding a woman's name to a CV made the candidate 2.9 per cent more likely to get a foot in the door.

Doesn't look completely gender blind at all. They should have limited first names to just initials.

It was a test whether men or women benefit from their gender.

In that context at that time, women did. Men were penalized.

[Petrasylvania]

Doesn't look completely gender blind at all. They should have limited first names to just initials.

It was a test whether men or women benefit from their gender.

In that context at that time, women did. Men were penalized.

If that was the case as a whole, why are more corporate executives and business owners men than women?

[Galloism]

It was a test whether men or women benefit from their gender.

In that context at that time, women did. Men were penalized.

If that was the case as a whole, why are more corporate executives and business owners men than women?

Effort and willingness to take risks mostly. Men are required by society to sacrifice everything to work, while women aren’t. Surprise surprise, men who sacrifice everything for work tend to rise faster.

Basically, the sexism men face and social compulsion to be providers drives them to the top.

[Ostroeuropa]

It was a test whether men or women benefit from their gender.

In that context at that time, women did. Men were penalized.

If that was the case as a whole, why are more corporate executives and business owners men than women?

Men are more severely punished than women are for having work-life balance, and the feminist dysfunction demands people view women as the oppressed folk for that dynamic because of a hostility to admitting female privilege and misandry. Women choose to have a healthier relationship with work than men because they have the freedom to do so and men don't. Men are forced to behave as workaholics, and this means they become over-represented in upper positions. Despite hiring preferences for women in many fields due to gynocentrism and feminist chauvinism in dealing with issues, men dominate those fields because fundamentally, having work-life balance is preferable to the overwhelming majority of humans.

You've also got the aftereffects of the feminist demonization of men in the arena of domestic violence and rape and so on, and the celebration of female chauvinism in terms of single mothers and the propoganda about them being able to do the job just as well because of fetishization of womens agency and choices and hatred for men and seperatist sentiment fostered by feminism meaning women are often lumbered with childcare. (Notably, the MRM has said about this since the beginning that this was sexist. Feminists only came around to this after realizing it fucked them over in the business world and then suddenly started pretending to care about men too and custody and so on.)

Men used to participate in parenting and no longer do. Feminists blame patriarchy for the social dysfunction their own hate movement caused with its demonization of men as dangerous to children and superfluous to family life with no positive or necessary impact. Why do men not bother? Perhaps because women spent the better part of three decades telling them they were useless at best and a detriment at worst to raising children and fighting tooth and nail to prevent joint custody. The notion that giving women more choices and agency could be a bad thing goes against feminist dogmatisms and their fetishization of female influence, so they went ballistic and vilified anyone who pointed out the harm to children their demands were causing. It was only when they realized the harm to their wallets that they suddenly gave a shit.

[Des-Bal]

Personally I think no group should be protected, since we've seen quite a lot of overreach in this field (Especially in the UK).

There should be absolutely no prohibition against hate speech but when you'r talking about crimes targeting people because of their membership to a certain class I don't see there shouldn't be additional penalties applied.

[Ostroeuropa]

Personally I think no group should be protected, since we've seen quite a lot of overreach in this field (Especially in the UK).

There should be absolutely no prohibition against hate speech but when you'r talking about crimes targeting people because of their membership to a certain class I don't see there shouldn't be additional penalties applied.

I don't see the issue with prohibition of hate speech from media organizations and am fine subjecting them to standards members of the public shouldn't be subjected to. A random asshole saying celebrity x fucks a horse has less impact on that celebrities reputation than a newspaper doing so and this is reflected in our treatment of slander/libel, recognizing the impact of hate speech from newspapers as qualitatively different is fine with me. The guardian should be repeatedly fined as should most papers that tolerate explicit misandry denial and so on, and the daily mail should probably be fined by default and have to apply for refund each issue just to save on the admin fees. Okay, i'm not serious... about the default.

[New Owca]

It was a test whether men or women benefit from their gender.

In that context at that time, women did. Men were penalized.

If that was the case as a whole, why are more corporate executives and business owners men than women?

Partly old inheritance, partly because of the decisions they make - there are simply less women who want to be corporate execs.

[Galloism]

There should be absolutely no prohibition against hate speech but when you'r talking about crimes targeting people because of their membership to a certain class I don't see there shouldn't be additional penalties applied.

I don't see the issue with prohibition of hate speech from media organizations and am fine subjecting them to standards members of the public shouldn't be subjected to. A random asshole saying celebrity x fucks a horse has less impact on that celebrities reputation than a newspaper doing so and this is reflected in our treatment of slander/libel, recognizing the impact of hate speech from newspapers as qualitatively different is fine with me. The guardian should be repeatedly fined as should most papers that tolerate explicit misandry denial and so on, and the daily mail should probably be fined by default and have to apply for refund each issue just to save on the admin fees. Okay, i'm not serious... about the default.

Id hesitate on that if I were you. Who is a “media organization”?

I ask because we’re currently debating whether having a semi-popular blog makes you “press” in the United States.

[Loben]

Agreed, not being offended shouldn't be a right. Freedom of Speech should be.

As long as I still have the right to deck you for what you say.

So the right to have a childish reaction?

might as well make shitting in the street a human right.

[Oil exporting People]

Agreed, not being offended shouldn't be a right. Freedom of Speech should be.

As long as I still have the right to deck you for what you say.

Vass we all know if you actually swung on someone you'd be more apt to hurt yourself than anyone else.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Agreed, not being offended shouldn't be a right. Freedom of Speech should be.

As long as I still have the right to deck you for what you say.

Is that a threat?

[Loben]

As long as I still have the right to deck you for what you say.

Is that a threat?

yes.

[Valrifell]

Is that a threat?

yes.

No, it's a reference to the legal concept of "fightin' words" where assault on individuals spewing sufficiently inflammatory messages were excused or reduced because of the insulting/dehumanizing nature of the speech.

[Dogmeat]

Not sure how I feel about hate crimes generally, but consistency is good.