Men's Rights

Post Reply New Topic

It worked for both Obama and the tea party. Blacks voted as a giant block for Obama, and even though he is flushing the country down the shitter, and even though Putin warned him 2 years ago that his socialist vision wouldn't work. Most people would stop and listen to the former KGB officer and communist party member, but Obama knew better. It doesn't seem to matter yet. He allowed black panthers to get away with voter intimidation, he subsidized an organization that was busted for voter fraud, he's poured money into a settlement for poor black farmers and refused to implement legislation passed to weed out the rampant fraud (maybe that's one of the things they like him so much for). He helped (and even forced) the mortgage companies to offer predatory loans to minorities that lacked the education to know what they were getting into (if they had any idea how interest worked and how to calculate it, only the greedier ones would have likely signed it) and made it look progressive and politically correct. He even helped prevent the Bush administration from reforming the financial market to stop abuse. The black community can thank Obama for the 16-20% unemployment rate of blacks and the 40% unemployment rate of black teens looking for a first job. It only averaged 9% under the Bush years, yet Obama still enjoys a 86% approval rate among blacks. Their wish came true and now we're all getting it big time.

The conservative voters rallying for the tea party is another example of voters mobilizing. Liberal extremists often accuse them of being insane or corporate pawns (despite no appreciable central leadership), or sometimes even scary or evil. Yet they rallied in large numbers because their message resonated with people who felt they were sold a bill of goods by the "progressives" the previous election cycle. Whether or not they wanted to affiliate with the tea party directly is another story.

Now according to the 2010 census, MEN are the MINORITY. Women make up 1.6% of the population. Considering the far lower rate of criminal convictions among women compared with men (I didn't calculate exact numbers), that adds up to a substantially larger of eligible female voters than male voters. So if a large enough group of female voters wanted an extremist feminist political wishlist, it would happen. But apparently there is no significant support even in local elections in most liberal areas.

My point was that it is not a zero sum game. I think we actually have broad agreement on this. My main point was that an injustice to one is an injustice to all.

'First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.'

-Pastor Martin Niemöller

@Ancalagon

My mistake.

Why would you agree with looking at rights as zero sum? A woman can have a right she shouldn't have while still lacking other rights she should have same for men. Women do have rights they shouldn't have their treatment in family courts being one of them.

That would mean that men make up 98.4% of the population, which would put men in the majority.

Credit where credit is due. Your math is besser as the of JB. Unless - are insects being counted in those population figures? If so, the % for men could be, say, ,5%.

When a voter is faced with a choice between a knave and a fool, what does it matter that the voter is a wise man?

It's a given that in the United States that third party and independent candidates have virtually no potential to be elected (at least at the state and federal level). So the issue is not so much how many women there are voting, but rather how women there are running--and more importantly, how many women there are running for the two major parties.

Too many apologists try to make the case that "equivalent treatment" and "equal treatment" are the same thing. They are not.

When we put a staircase to the front door, we say, "it's the same stairs for everyone." But that is of no use to the person who uses a wheelchair.
When we hold an election on Saturday, we say, "it's open to all to participate" But that is of no use to the Saturday sabbath observer.

When we put systemic barriers in the way of equal participation in society--whether it be academia, employment, politics or business--those barriers are no less discriminatory than the sign at the door that says, "No Blacks." You can legistlate away the latter, but systemic discrimination is much more insidious, and often disguises itself under a veneer of equality.

Elections on the national level are held the 1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday of November.

FFS. I cannot f*****g believe that you are pulling a Godwin over the supposition that 'men don't have enough rights.'
You lose.

Please check the bolded parts of my prior post.

Way to miss the point, 'Yasha.

Originally you made statements that are almost certainly false.

Now you ask me questions about detailed statistics that I'm not going to answer. It's your point. If you want to make it with statistics, look them up yourself.

Don't just hint at what your point might possibly be, make your actual point.


Why would anyone think that rights are a limited resource?


Good analogy.

But I think if about 50% of voters were confined to a wheelchair, getting people to build ramps would not be much of a problem.

Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"

Hitler was not mentioned. Nazis were not mentioned.

Comparisons were not made.

He quoted Martin Niemöller, who eloquently indicated that speaking out for others is a good idea.

Is what they are "constantly screaming" accurate?

well, I don't think having gender separate rights, such as men's right as well as women's right, to be a good ideal, it seems to create more tension than unity, so I rather prefer something more universal, that actually offer rights and protection to everyone.

I haven't heard of that movement, but from what I get from what I have found on the net, I get why is the case, not only the issue regarding divorce cases, but a problem I have seen coming from men's rights adovcates is rape allegations, and I see why. In my opinion, when it comes to rape, sexual harassment and molestation allegatations, that is something to worry about for men, in general, given that the pressumption of innocence in those cases seems endangered, some would call it "political correctness" or so. And I said this because I have seen that.

Enough women, especially with sons, nephews, or brothers that age, tend to worry about them and coach them on being very careful in watching their backs in this area because they know that it happens and its like getting in a car accident or texting while driving and hitting a senior citizen - if you talk to the wrong person, miss the signs that their crazy (or someone in your group does despite the protests), and spend time alone with them you're putting yourself at risk. It happened at Duke and there's another more recent case where a guy had received emails, ignored them, the girl involved claimed rape, she actually then admitted that it was incorrect, and the school never removed the ban. Once it gets in the news that you're a rapist, regardless of what comes to light afterward, there's no way of undoing that - unless you're acquittal and the slander itself receives just as much press. If you're that unlucky, your life as you know it is over.

Its not at all to say that women should have their right to protection reduced, just that the system in this area needs a LOT of work. Sadly enough the guys who actually want to rape women are likely savvy enough on the law where the majority of cases still don't go very far, and then the guy who gets ployed, just having that poor of a radar goes to show that he'll be a sitting duck and wide open. There's a lot of mess on both sides of the ideal outcome which is justice.

Ah, my bad.

what statement was that? That the laws in the US are almost exclusively made, interpreted, and enforced by men? When women make up less than 90% of the bodies that make, interpret, and enforce the laws, I consider that 'almost exclusively' male.
If you look only at the current make up of some of these bodies, there might be some which approach 20% women - which might mean that the laws in the future will be more egalitarian (though an 80% male majority is still pretty f*****g biased, it's not 'almost exclusively' male). However, if you look at all of the people who have filled these roles for the last 50-100 years, and who thereby established the laws and norms that we currently exist under, yes, 'almost exclusively' definitely applies.