Okay, I am going to start nice here - but your opinion about Domestic Abuse (that its far higher one way) is NOT supported by numerous studiesOriginally Posted by rustyrobot
"Women reported committing one-sided attacks more than twice as often as men (70% versus 29%)"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemi...estic_violence
"The 1985 U.S. National Family Violence Survey, carried out by Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles on a nationally representative sample of 6,002 couples, found that when a woman called the police to report IPV, the man was ordered out of the house in 41.4% of cases. However, when a man called, the woman was ordered out of the house in 0% of cases. When a woman called, the man was threatened with immediate arrest in 28.2% of cases; when a man called, the woman was threatened with arrest in 0% of cases. When a woman called, the man was threatened with arrest at a later date in 10.7% of cases; when a man called, the woman was threatened with arrest at a later date in 0% of cases. Whan a woman called, the man was arrested in 15.2% of cases; when a man called, the woman was arrested in 0% of cases. In fact, in 12.1% of cases when the man called, the man himself was arrested."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti...ce_against_men
And here is an NZ study for you:
"In New Zealand, the twenty-one year Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, published in 1999, reported that of their sample of 1,037 people, 27% of women and 34% of men reported being physically abused by a partner, with 37% of women and 22% of men reporting they had perpetrated IPV.[34] Also in New Zealand, a 2009 report by the Journal of Applied Social Psychology evaluated samples of university students (35 female, 27 male), general population (34 female, 27 male), and incarcerated participants (15 female, 24 male), and found that 16.7% of the male respondents reported physical abuse (12.9% for students and 15.4% for convicts), while 29.5% reported bidirectional (i.e. both partners commit IPV against one another) violence (14.5% for students and 51.3% for convicts)"
(same source as above)
In fact - go read the entire Article - then come back to this debate. I won't even go into theory that information about Women on Male violence is actively suppressed by those who benefit/profit from perpetuating the notion that women are always the victims
Women can Serve in the armed forces, only men can be forced. This is a historic hangover from when only men could fight in the armed forces - Various Mens Right organizations have attempted to have this changed in countries where Draft still exists in legislation
Except before womens Lib there were women that attained great provedance in Academia (Ada Lovelace, Marie Curie spring to mind) but that aside - your argument is that we spent 5000 years doing something wrong in one particular way, so therefore we should spend 5000 years doing it wrong a different way? This is not about me feeling sorry for myself, this is about the simple fact that if Men were to setup a Men-Only scholarship, there would be an uproar from various groups, yet when there is a Womens-only scholarship - Silence. Treating people differently based solely on their Gender is Sexism - which we must strive to eliminate.
Ah yes - the old redressing the balance arguement: I will make 2 points:
First: How did men assume positions of power - before the Corporates came into existence? Men took risk, cause that is what we are biologically programmed to do, in Nature there is no consolation prize for being 2nd, you are either the best, or you die. So Men have evolved to be risk takers - and many fall by the wayside when their gambles don't pay off, but some, a select few by virtue of their skill, their luck and other factors get a pay out from taking risk. Afterall - it wasn't women that formed Apple, Google, Microsoft etc.
Second point: You have 2 candidates for a position on the board of directors, one Female, one Male. The male is more qualified (more experiance in the field, better degree etc.) Who do you hire?
The obvious answer is the one most qualified for the position - The Male
Same scenario - only this time the Female is more qualified, Who do you hire?
Obvious answer is the Female - most qualified for the position.
Now back to scenario 1, but this time your company has a quota required on the board of directors - who do you hire? You are now hiring someone who is less qualified for the position, based solely on their Gender - this is Sexism, which we must strive to eliminate.
Actually equality - from a Legal standpoint should absolutely mean Sameness. Men and women should be treated identically by the Legal system.
Now, I agree men and women aren't the same - one carries babies, the other carries up 50% more muscle mass - we have evolved to fulfill different roles in accordance to nature. There are a lot of societal and legal hangovers to the time when society wasn't equal - In area where men got a sweet deal, these have been legislated against, campaigned against etc. Where women got a sweet deal - they still exist, the various womens organisations don't do anything about them (even the ones that proclaim to be about equality) - so it is up to an Organisation of men to do it.
I agree the name does sound like a gay camping trip though
One final anecdote to perhaps highlight my position:
When I was younger (at School) someone wore this Tshirt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_ar...m!_controversy
Yes, I laughed, cause it was funny - but at the same time, If I wore a Tshirt that actively promoted throwing stones at women, I would be persecuted as a Mysognist, Women hater, compared to backwards countries that still stone women to death for infedelity etc.
And you will be quick to point out that there was controversy on the Tshirt but I think this line from Helen Grieco, executive director of the National Organization for Women sums it up:
"No, I don't think the shirts are cute. But I spend every day on life-and-death issues and don't have time for T-shirt campaigns."
If the roles were reversed and it was a Tshirt that promoted violence against women - I would bet she would have a little more to say than 'She doesn't have time for a T-shirt campaign'
Reply With Quote
Yet the dbl standards (and the women) persist with it. The least we can do is get the ones that directly affect us to at least be talked about. That's why I love funnyman Bill Burr... 
Bookmarks