4 ms·

> You're cherry picking statistics . . . All the statistics you picked are typically associated with choices the individual in question made. Some of them are

> You're cherry picking statistics . . . All the statistics you picked are typically associated with choices the individual in question made. Some of them are also associated with mental disorders. While it sucks that men are more susceptible to mental disease than women, that's not a form of discrimination. On the other hand, women that become a member of the statistical sets I picked do so in typical daily interaction with men. They don't have the option to not be around men, nor would it be reasonable to expect them to make that choice if it were available to them. There's no equivalence between your statistics and mine. > So can we just agree that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses? No, we cannot.

jnhnum1 15y ago
Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism#Masculist_concerns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism#Masculist_concerns And after you've read that, please don't make the claim that there is no "real" discrimination against men.
- jamesaguilar 15y ago
  I never made that claim. Maybe you are responding to the wrong commenter?
  - jnhnum1 15y ago
    look, you said this: "Most areas where men are at a broad disadvantage are caused by male tendencies acting against themselves, not by other groups discriminating against men (e.g. the violent crime issue, which is not caused by discrimination but by male violent tendencies). Fundamentally, I don't care as much when people are hoist on their own petard as when they hoist others on the same." Tell me then, how is it an innocent man's fault when society assumes he is a pedophile when he is simply playing with his kids at the park? Or why is criminal sentencing so much more severe for men than for women who have committed an equivalent crime?
    - jamesaguilar 15y ago
      Most areas, not all.
      - Vandy_Travis 15y ago
        Why can't we focus on correcting injustice for its own sake, rather than picking teams? [Not so much directed at you; I've found this discussing very thought provoking. More directed at "everyone" waves hands that seems to feel its an us-versus-them argument.]
samfoo 15y ago
I don't understand your point: How is a woman being more likely to be raped not equivalent to a man being more likely to be the victim of a violent crime? When men are victimized it's their own fault, but when women are it's men's fault?
- jamesaguilar 15y ago
  > How is a woman being more likely to be raped not equivalent to a man being more likely to be the victim of a violent crime? I don't know where I read this, but my understanding is that criminals are the people most likely to be victims of violent crime. For example, 50% of all murder victims are black men under the age of 25, and that is often associated with gang-related violence. I don't have sources for any of this; I read it somewhere, but where I remember not. So absent some conflicting data I consider the typical violent crime one that received somewhat by choice -- it's often associated with some kind of violence or criminality the victim had previously done. One should not have the expectation of being involved in criminal activity and remaining completely safe from violence at the same time. I realize that in a debate the burden of proof is on me at this point. But since this is not a formal debate and I don't believe there's much hope of convincing you, I'm going to shirk that duty for the time being. > Who's more likely to be a grade school teacher? Women, I think. Are you trying to say that being a grade school teacher is a matter of privilege? Because last I checked it's not exactly a super-desirable job on the social ladder. > Who's more likely to be convicted (or for that matter: charged) with child molestation? The same group that is more likely to perform child molestation. What's your point?
  - samfoo 15y ago
    I'll accept that victims of violent crime are also more likely to be the perpetrators. I just don't see how that matters: They're still part of the demographic of "men" and still contributing sociological disadvantage to the population (viz. "Men are stupid muscly brutes"). There are disadvantages (and advantages), sociologically speaking, for both genders. I'm not arguing that women are equally enabled at present (I don't think they are). As discrimination trends towards zero -- which I believe it is -- it's hard not to feel frustrated that cheer leading (pun not intended) is acceptable on one side but not the other. (Note: I removed my questions in the edit because I didn't feel it was necessary for this to turn into a quid-pro-quo of discrimination reports)

jnhnum1 15y ago

Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism#Masculist_concerns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism#Masculist_concerns And after you've read that, please don't make the claim that there is no "real" discrimination against men.

jamesaguilar 15y ago
I never made that claim. Maybe you are responding to the wrong commenter?
- jnhnum1 15y ago
  look, you said this: "Most areas where men are at a broad disadvantage are caused by male tendencies acting against themselves, not by other groups discriminating against men (e.g. the violent crime issue, which is not caused by discrimination but by male violent tendencies). Fundamentally, I don't care as much when people are hoist on their own petard as when they hoist others on the same." Tell me then, how is it an innocent man's fault when society assumes he is a pedophile when he is simply playing with his kids at the park? Or why is criminal sentencing so much more severe for men than for women who have committed an equivalent crime?
  - jamesaguilar 15y ago
    Most areas, not all.
    - Vandy_Travis 15y ago
      Why can't we focus on correcting injustice for its own sake, rather than picking teams? [Not so much directed at you; I've found this discussing very thought provoking. More directed at "everyone" waves hands that seems to feel its an us-versus-them argument.]

samfoo 15y ago

I don't understand your point: How is a woman being more likely to be raped not equivalent to a man being more likely to be the victim of a violent crime? When men are victimized it's their own fault, but when women are it's men's fault?

jamesaguilar 15y ago
> How is a woman being more likely to be raped not equivalent to a man being more likely to be the victim of a violent crime? I don't know where I read this, but my understanding is that criminals are the people most likely to be victims of violent crime. For example, 50% of all murder victims are black men under the age of 25, and that is often associated with gang-related violence. I don't have sources for any of this; I read it somewhere, but where I remember not. So absent some conflicting data I consider the typical violent crime one that received somewhat by choice -- it's often associated with some kind of violence or criminality the victim had previously done. One should not have the expectation of being involved in criminal activity and remaining completely safe from violence at the same time. I realize that in a debate the burden of proof is on me at this point. But since this is not a formal debate and I don't believe there's much hope of convincing you, I'm going to shirk that duty for the time being. > Who's more likely to be a grade school teacher? Women, I think. Are you trying to say that being a grade school teacher is a matter of privilege? Because last I checked it's not exactly a super-desirable job on the social ladder. > Who's more likely to be convicted (or for that matter: charged) with child molestation? The same group that is more likely to perform child molestation. What's your point?
- samfoo 15y ago
  I'll accept that victims of violent crime are also more likely to be the perpetrators. I just don't see how that matters: They're still part of the demographic of "men" and still contributing sociological disadvantage to the population (viz. "Men are stupid muscly brutes"). There are disadvantages (and advantages), sociologically speaking, for both genders. I'm not arguing that women are equally enabled at present (I don't think they are). As discrimination trends towards zero -- which I believe it is -- it's hard not to feel frustrated that cheer leading (pun not intended) is acceptable on one side but not the other. (Note: I removed my questions in the edit because I didn't feel it was necessary for this to turn into a quid-pro-quo of discrimination reports)