Is this really "the lowest point in our nation’s history that they can remember"?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 20:05
VIEWED: 20528
PAGE 4 of 22
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I just call it discrimination. There is no "reverse" about it.- Agreed. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter which direction it's flowing. Also, not too keen on the designation "hate" crime, either. It's either a crime, or it's not. I don't see any "extra-special-crime" designation being useful.
Well, that's the thing. "hate" before crime is useful, just as "reverse" before any "ism" is useful to certain groups. It's simply a double standard that all other races have on whites. It's also a double standard that gays have over straights. It's also a double standard that women have over men.
Quote:
I think I know what you're saying, and I agree. It IS possible to be racist against whites, I've seen it all the time and had my "whiteness" held against me.
Well there you go. Now imagine being a man and having that also held against you.
Quote:
You can? I can't think of a single statute or law that allows women more privilege than men. If you have some examples, let me know.
BUT if you're going to bring up the whole "abortion" thing again, I will flatly disagree with you. Since women bear the social and professional burdens and medical risk of pregnancy - and there is no way for men to take that on themselves (For example, what if a pregnancy gets in the way of a job or promotion? Is the father of the baby going to be able to undo that lost opportunity?) then men have- IMHO- no say in the pregnancy or its outcome. "Donating" sperm simply isn't taking on enough responsibility to ensure any kind of authority, and in my book responsibility should = authority.
"Donating" sperm is just as bad as using any of those other terms. If that's really how you look at it, then how can I even argue the point?
The way I look at it, it should be one way or the other. Give women 100% choice in the matter, but they do not have the ability to come after a man for any financial support. OR, make men completely accountable for the child after the fact in all cases, but also give men a say on whether the abortion takes place.
But that's not the only law or privlidge that women have on men. I've talked about them before, but here's a few.
1. At birth, a male has no say whether or not his parents can mutilate his reproductive organ. Women have that protection. (It is unimportant whether or not you believe circumcision to be genital mutilation. I do, and many other people do).
2. Men have to register for the draft. Women don't.
3. In the military, women are held to lower standards of physical ability than men are.
4. In a divorce it is always assumed that the children will be with the mother. It is the burden of the father to make a case and pay the legal fees and make the choice to drag his children through what will likely be a very long and drawn out process that will harm the children psychologically. In cases where the mother is simply unstable this puts the father in the no-win situation of harming the children either way.
5. There are battered wives shelters. There aren't any for men. Vocal feminists will and have argued and protested against Men's Rights Activists who fight against this.
6. Women have the right to exclusive tax benefits for being business owners.
To name a few...
EDIT:
More on number 5.
http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE-VAWA-Discriminates-Against-Males.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree with you about that. The concept of "hate crime" means that some people are afforded more protection under the law than others, which is clearly discriminatory.
I just call it discrimination. There is no "reverse" about it.- SIX
Agreed. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter which direction it's flowing. Also, not too keen on the designation "hate" crime, either. It's either a crime, or it's not. I don't see any "extra-special-crime" designation being useful.- SIGNY
Well, that's the thing. "hate" before crime is useful, just as "reverse" before any "ism" is useful to certain groups. It's simply a double standard that all other races have on whites. It's also a double standard that gays have over straights. It's also a double standard that women have over men.- SIX
Quote:I don't have to imagine, since being female is constantly being held against ME. Can we reach a mutual understanding on this point? That sexism is uncomfortable no matter which way it flows?
I think I know what you're saying, and I agree. It IS possible to be racist against whites, I've seen it all the time and had my "whiteness" held against me.- SIGNY
Well there you go. Now imagine being a man and having that also held against you.- SIX
Quote:Sounds fair. I pick option #1.
You can? I can't think of a single statute or law that allows women more privilege than men. If you have some examples, let me know. BUT if you're going to bring up the whole "abortion" thing again, I will flatly disagree with you. Since women bear the social and professional burdens and medical risk of pregnancy - and there is no way for men to take that on themselves (For example, what if a pregnancy gets in the way of a job or promotion? Is the father of the baby going to be able to undo that lost opportunity?) then men have- IMHO- no say in the pregnancy or its outcome. "Donating" sperm simply isn't taking on enough responsibility to ensure any kind of authority, and in my book responsibility should = authority.- SIGNY
"Donating" sperm is just as bad as using any of those other terms. If that's really how you look at it, then how can I even argue the point?
The way I look at it, it should be one way or the other. Give women 100% choice in the matter, but they do not have the ability to come after a man for any financial support. OR, make men completely accountable for the child after the fact in all cases, but also give men a say on whether the abortion takes place.- SIX
Quote:Now you're moving the goalposts. We were talking about laws or statutes, not custom or practice.
But that's not the only law or privlidge ...- SIX
Quote:You can thank the Jewish lobby for that. Since Nazis used circumcision as a means of identifying Jewish males, Jews here agitated to have circumcision made the standard practice so that their population could never be identified amongst all of the other males.
... that women have on men. I've talked about them before, but here's a few.
1. At birth, a male has no say whether or not his parents can mutilate his reproductive organ. Women have that protection.
Quote:As do I. I think it's a barbaric custom foisted on us by Jews and should be done away with. How do we go about it?
(It is unimportant whether or not you believe circumcision to be genital mutilation. I do, and many other people do).- SIX
Quote:Yeah, you're right. Abolish registration.
2. Men have to register for the draft. Women don't.- SIX
Quote:Not a law or statute. But now you're putting women in a no-win situation. You want them to be drafted just like men and treated just like men when it's clear that women are smaller than men (on the average) with less m
3. In the military, women are held to lower standards of physical ability than men are.- SIX
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I agree with you about that. The concept of "hate crime" means that some people are afforded more protection under the law than others, which is clearly discriminatory.
Yep.
Quote:
I don't have to imagine, since being female is constantly being held against ME. Can we reach a mutual understanding on this point? That sexism is uncomfortable no matter which way it flows?
You say that, but I don't understand what you mean by that. I've never experienced this happening in retail jobs or even in the professional jobs that I've held. We must have just been working in different environments or something.
I'm a white male who is almost 40 without a college degree. It is extremely hard for somebody like me to get a job these days because I don't fill up a spot on any race or gender quotas. There might not be laws that state that you have to hire a certain amount of "diversity", but there certainly are big tax incentives to do so.
Quote:
The way I look at it, it should be one way or the other. Give women 100% choice in the matter, but they do not have the ability to come after a man for any financial support. OR, make men completely accountable for the child after the fact in all cases, but also give men a say on whether the abortion takes place.- SIX
Quote:
Sounds fair. I pick option #1.
That's progress. It's not the option I'd prefer, but that's the price of negotiations. I realize that not everyone in the world views abortion as murdering babies, so I can't use that as an argument. But I do think that relinquishing the ability to go after men for child support would suffice in making the woman's choice of what to do with her body deemed as a fair choice. (Because they way it is now, it's not only the choice she has about her body, but the very livelihood of the man in question for the next 18 or so years)
Quote:
Now you're moving the goalposts. We were talking about laws or statutes, not custom or practice.
Not moving the goalposts. I said this before. Not much of a difference between a law and a practice if the practice happens 100% of the time and the outcome is expected.
Quote:
You can thank the Jewish lobby for that. Since Nazis used circumcision as a means of identifying Jewish males, Jews here agitated to have circumcision made the standard practice so that their population could never be identified amongst all of the other males.Quote:As do I. I think it's a barbaric custom foisted on us by Jews and should be done away with. How do we go about it?
(It is unimportant whether or not you believe circumcision to be genital mutilation. I do, and many other people do).- SIX
I'm not really looking for a history lesson here. I'm glad that you agree that it should be done away with though. I don't know how to do away with it. I'm not an MRA and I don't subscribe to any type of group like that, but I do know it's one of the things that is high on their list of priorities.
Quote:
Yeah, you're right. Abolish registration.
Good enough for me.
Quote:
Not a law or statute. But now you're putting women in a no-win situation. You want them to be drafted just like men and treated just like men when it's clear that women are smaller than men (on the average) with less muscle mass. Either (1) change the requirements so that women can meet them (for example, require less ammo which weighs less*) or (2) create tiered assignments/duties based on something like height and muscle mass to account for different physiologies in a non-sexist way.
I actually don't want them to be drafted just like men, or treated just like men. That's supposedly what they've fought for. I was just using the draft as one of the most hypocritical things about the feminist movement. It's all about equality until we talk about the draft.
If the draft is
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey SIX, thanks for your detailed and on-point response.
Quote:
I agree with you about that. The concept of "hate crime" means that some people are afforded more protection under the law than others, which is clearly discriminatory. - SIGNY
Yep. - SIX
I actually heard this brought up by a law professor in CA a few months ago, when "they" were thinking of adding yet-another category of crimes to the list of potential "hate" crimes. I DO hope that means "they're" re-thinking the whole concept.
Quote:Yes, definitely. For example, I was prevented from field work by an old-fashioned supervisor who told me quite openly that "We've always had a woman in the lab". He thought he was doing me a favor, I wasn't mad about it because he was just an nice old-fashioned guy from Lithuania, but it sure was frustrating! KIKI experienced being told that she wouldn't be accepted into medical school because she was a woman. Even today, many engineering and science building have male and female bathrooms on alternate floors because they were originally built only with male bathrooms. So you wouldn't see discrimination against women in "traditionally" female jobs, like teaching or retail or secretarial work or nursing, but once you get outside of those areas then yes, you do.
I don't have to imagine, since being female is constantly being held against ME. Can we reach a mutual understanding on this point? That sexism is uncomfortable no matter which way it flows?- SIGNY
You say that, but I don't understand what you mean by that. I've never experienced this happening in retail jobs or even in the professional jobs that I've held. We must have just been working in different environments or something. - SIX
Quote:It's extremely hard for ANYbody to get a job these days! You're either too young or too old, or too raw or "overqualified", or too good-looking or not good-looking enough, etc.
I'm a white male who is almost 40 without a college degree. It is extremely hard for somebody like me to get a job these days- SIX
But I have been part of over a couple of HUNDRED screening interviews and a couple dozen HIRING decisions in my career (it was a "hire by committee" kind of thing) and aside from technical or personality considerations (for example we work in a cooperative lab where we have to share equipment, and extremely territorial people simply wouldn't work out) the only discrimination that I have heard openly expressed more than once is against people over 50. As in "Why would we want to train a person when they'll just retire in ten years anyway?" Seems awfully short-sighted to me. Most 50-year-olds bring a wealth of experience to a job.
By focusing on things like that, we're made to feel as if the problem is with each other, when in reality the problem is NOT ENOUGH JOBS CREATED BY THE SO-CALLED JOB CREATORS. And I can get into the whys and wherefores of THAT, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
Quote:So, did I miss something about tax incentives to hire by gender or race?
... because I don't fill up a spot on any race or gender quotas. There might not be laws that state that you have to hire a certain amount of "diversity", but there certainly are big tax incentives to do so.- SIX
There are? - SIGNY
Quote:
The way I look at it, it should be one way or the other. Give women 100% choice in the matter, but they do not have the ability to come after a man for any financial support. OR, make men completely accountable for the child after the fact in all cases, but also give men a say on whether the abortion takes place.- SIX
Sounds fair. I pick option #1.- SIGNY
That's progress. It's not the option I'd prefer, but that's the price of negotiations. I realize that not everyone in the world views abortion as murdering babies, so I can't use that as an argument.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think that the answer to our identity politics problem is like Saker suggested: A demand to drop identity politics, ALONG WITH a process of "truth and reconciliation" and a forward commitment to real equality, as opposed to "window-dressing" equality.
Of course, people aren't all the same. There will always be some who are smarter, stronger, more compassionate, more focused etc. But if you're going to select people for various positions, just do it on the basis of job-related qualifications, not on random stuff.
ALSO, I think we should restructure what society rewards, because right now we reward psychopathy. The rest of us are just left fighting it out over crumbs. It's like we live in the Warsaw ghetto, and don't even realize it. If there were meaningful jobs with living wages for everyone who could work, we wouldn't be fighting over them so much. If we had any sort of real agency in our lives, we wouldn't be so depressed.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hey SIX, thanks for your detailed and on-point response.
No problem. I don't know what good this is doing anything, but it's nice to talk it out with a reasonable person.
Quote:
I agree with you about that. The concept of "hate crime" means that some people are afforded more protection under the law than others, which is clearly discriminatory. - SIGNY
Yep. - SIX
I actually heard this brought up by a law professor in CA a few months ago, when "they" were thinking of adding yet-another category of crimes to the list of potential "hate" crimes. I DO hope that means "they're" re-thinking the whole concept. - SIGNY
It's nice to dream, but somehow I doubt it. Probably going to make it worse.
Quote:
I don't have to imagine, since being female is constantly being held against ME. Can we reach a mutual understanding on this point? That sexism is uncomfortable no matter which way it flows?- SIGNY
You say that, but I don't understand what you mean by that. I've never experienced this happening in retail jobs or even in the professional jobs that I've held. We must have just been working in different environments or something. - SIX
Yes, definitely. For example, I was prevented from field work by an old-fashioned supervisor who told me quite openly that "We've always had a woman in the lab". He thought he was doing me a favor, I wasn't mad about it because he was just an nice old-fashioned guy from Lithuania, but it sure was frustrating! KIKI experienced being told that she wouldn't be accepted into medical school because she was a woman. Even today, many engineering and science building have male and female bathrooms on alternate floors because they were originally built only with male bathrooms. So you wouldn't see discrimination against women in "traditionally" female jobs, like teaching or retail or secretarial work or nursing, but once you get outside of those areas then yes, you do. - SIGNY
Well you definitely work in a higher level of things than I ever have. Maybe it's something among highly educated people. I've had a couple of jobs peaking at around 60k/yr. plus benefits, but I've never had to wear a lab coat. I've personally never seen any sexist or particularly any anti-female behavior at any place I've worked.
It seems strange to me that this would be the case though. Usually it's the college types who are against that type of behavior. My suspicion is that's the "old dogs" doing it in positions like yours and the landscape is about to have a major shift.
Quote:
I'm a white male who is almost 40 without a college degree. It is extremely hard for somebody like me to get a job these days- SIX
It's extremely hard for ANYbody to get a job these days! You're either too young or too old, or too raw or "overqualified", or too good-looking or not good-looking enough, etc.
But I have been part of over a couple of HUNDRED screening interviews and a couple dozen HIRING decisions in my career (it was a "hire by committee" kind of thing) and aside from technical or personality considerations (for example we work in a cooperative lab where we have to share equipment, and extremely territorial people simply wouldn't work out) the only discrimination that I have heard openly expressed more than once is against people over 50. As in "Why would we want to train a person when they'll just retire in ten years anyway?" Seems awfully short-sighted to me. Most 50-year-olds bring a wealth of experience to a job.
By focusing on things like that, we're made to feel as if the problem is with each other, when in reality the problem is NOT ENOUGH JOBS CREATED BY THE SO-CALLED JOB CREATORS. And I can get into the whys and wherefores of THAT, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. - SIGNY
Yeah.... We're
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes. We have a diverse and international workplace, and problems tend to come from people who grew up in the Middle East, who can't seem to leave that part of their culture behind.
Honestly though, do you really have women being groped in your workplace?
Quote:The other set of miscreants seem to be ... wait for it ... lawyers.
I've worked around some pretty shady characters in some of my jobs and I've never seen that behavior before. I'm starting to think this is a middle class/rich class problem or something.
I was going to add that those at my workplace who complain about the bias against white hetero males are assholes. It would be a lot more compelling argument if it came from the mouths of those who weren't constantly horn-dogging their way thru the female staff. The only reason why I give it any credence at all is because it's been raised in the past by men who were real angels towards women.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't you guys have an HR department that takes care of these things? None of that would have been tolerated at all at my last job making 60k+, and I was one of the relatively lower level employees. My manager was easily making close to 6 figures if not above that. One of the other shift managers was fired for e-mailing what was considered to be inappropriate pictures to a female employee. She was crying about it after the fact. They were friends. She didn't report it. Either the system was in place to look at pictures that were sent, he was the victim of a random email check or somebody already had it out for him and was just waiting for an excuse to get rid of him.
Then again, if a majority of this behavior is coming from middle easterners, they are of a protected class that ranks higher than women. I'm not saying that one couldn't get one of them fired, but they'd probably have to have some proof or at least one witness. All they'd pretty much have to do if it was a white guy was say it happened and it's over.
BTW... did you watch that video from The View. (That's a sentence I just said).
I'd never seen that one. I just picked one of the first videos that came up on youtube about Feminism and the Draft. I assumed that it would be everybody complaining about it. I was actually very surprised to hear Whoopie Goldbergs take on it. Pretty adult response if you ask me.
You can find plenty of videos of Feminists protesting against the draft being expanded to females on youtube.
Again, it's hard to say that "Feminists are against the Draft", because that word can mean a lot of different things. When you have a "movement" that isn't an actual organization with a non-changing Mission Statement that can be read, it's hard to pin down any actual beliefs of the movement. Generally speaking, especially these days, it is the loudest voices that get recognized.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, but I think they're grossly incompetent.
Don't you guys have an HR department that takes care of these things?
The Egyptian who grabbed a boob in the elevator was fired. The lawyer who made a drunken and deeply offensive comment at a staff party was also fired.
But the guy who horndogged his way thru the female staff was kind of railroaded. He was accused of doing something that didn't happen, but what he DID do was never confronted. Basically, he had a very sarcastic sense of humor, which nobody appreciated, but they would have tolerated it better if he had worked harder and more competently. On top of that he would lean just a little too close to some women, invite some female staff to "just a lunch", and stared a little too long at some boobs. Overall, he was kind of a jerk who complained about being discriminated against because he was a white hetero male.
The guy who had an explosive temper was never investigated; and the manager who ogled women was never disciplined. It was kind of a crap shoot.
On top of that, the investigation process was a joke. People could be accused of things and never know who accused them, and would never have a chance to speak up in their defense. It was so ridiculous that I was put in the position of having to tell someone "I can't tell you what you did because that would ID the complainant, but whatever you did you'll have to stop".
I really think that these kinds of complaints should be investigated and tried the same way that you would in court, with a chance to confront your accusers, and with sworn testimony.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.bustle.com/articles/118139-4-statistics-that-prove-we-need
-to-teach-people-about-consent
1. Men Are More Likely To Say They'll Rape If They Don't Consider It Rape
In the previously-referenced survey published in Violence and Gender, 32 percent of college men said they would have “intentions to force a woman to sexual intercourse” if ‘‘nobody would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences." Only 13.6 percent of these men said they would have “any intentions to rape a woman” in the same situation. This suggests that when we teach people to recognize rape as rape, they're less likely to do it.
2. 33.1 Percent Of Women, 39.1 Percent of TGQN People, And 8.6 Percent Of Men Experience Nonconsensual Sexual Contact During College
... more recent research published in JAMA Pediatrics in 2015 found that 10.8 percent of college men had committed rape in either high school or college. That's a significant proportion — too large to just be considered a fringe population ...
3. 18 Percent Of College Students Think Someone Has Consented As Long As They Don't Say "No"
This statistic comes from a poll conducted by The Washington Post between January and March of 2015.
4. Victims Say They Didn't Report Their Sexual Assaults Because They Didn't Know They Were Assaulted
These victims did not understand that it is always a crime to engage in sexual contact with someone without having given their consent.
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME