Reply to Re: Let's talk terrorism
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
the biggest one is without a doubt children and custody
Which is a luxury problem. I'm not disagreeing that it is worth fixing inequalities there. I'm just saying that it is not at the same level as the problems women face, which include (in some parts of the world) being murdered, or having their lives ruined to a point where they commit suicide.
That would be the reason men's rights groups don't gain any traction: activists stand up to fight injustice. There's not so much injustice going on, especially compared to what's happening to women. "The rich and powerful are mistreated and it's all the fault of the poor" just isn't very convincing.
I also find it highly disturbing that according to this site, ~80% of women want sole custody, while only ~40% of men demand joint custody
Why is this disturbing? There may be several reasons for this. The main one that I can think of (other than the gender roles you mention, which are also a part of it) is the power distribution. I expect men to be more dominant on average. Women don't want to share custody, because the dominant man will likely make their life difficult; they want as little to do with him as possible. Men on the other hand often don't have much to fear, so they find it acceptable. (Obviously this is only about averages, individual cases can be very different.)
Also note that there's no "demanding" in those numbers; it's just what their preference is.
mattress girl fiasco
I had heard about this story, so I had to look up the details. But holy shit, that is a biased article. And then they claim:
due partly to biased journalism, partly to activist zealotry amplified by irresponsible politicians such as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
Talk about blaming the victim! Gillibrand's story is a good example of the hostile work environment for women in the US senate. I haven't heard any credible news source even suggesting that it wasn't true, but nonetheless she is "irresponsible" anyway? For what?
Here's a more balanced discussion about a followup to the mattress story. They are balanced, not neutral, and their opinions differ and it gets heated (which is fun to watch).
That's how incentives work, by disadvantaging perfectly innocent white people for the sake of the "greater good".
I already said that is not what is happening:
I'm not proposing to disadvantage him, I want to take away his unfair advantage. I can understand that it feels the same, but it is very different.
If white men have more opportunities, that doesn't mean they are to blame for the inequality. But they should also not complain when their unfair advantage is taken away. That's not a punishment. Of course it means they will have to get used to not having as much power as they used to, but the fact that they had the power doesn't mean they deserved it. And it is fair to take away undeserved power from people who are "perfectly innocent".
I mean, is it okay to push 1 person in front of a bus if it means 10 other people will live?
For an individual, that is a hard choice. For a government, it isn't. The purpose of the government is to help the people. Of course they have to do whatever helps most people. If that means killing a person (which is extremely rare, for the record), then that's what they must do. How is that even a discussion? If the government refuses to help its people, why does it exist?
There are other ways to increase black representation in the workforce than discriminating against whites.
Can you name a way to increase their representation without decreasing the representation of all others?
Which is a luxury problem. I'm not disagreeing that it is worth fixing inequalities there. I'm just saying that it is not at the same level as the problems women face, which include (in some parts of the world) being murdered, or having their lives ruined to a point where they commit suicide.
That would be the reason men's rights groups don't gain any traction: activists stand up to fight injustice. There's not so much injustice going on, especially compared to what's happening to women. "The rich and powerful are mistreated and it's all the fault of the poor" just isn't very convincing.
I also find it highly disturbing that according to this site, ~80% of women want sole custody, while only ~40% of men demand joint custody
Why is this disturbing? There may be several reasons for this. The main one that I can think of (other than the gender roles you mention, which are also a part of it) is the power distribution. I expect men to be more dominant on average. Women don't want to share custody, because the dominant man will likely make their life difficult; they want as little to do with him as possible. Men on the other hand often don't have much to fear, so they find it acceptable. (Obviously this is only about averages, individual cases can be very different.)
Also note that there's no "demanding" in those numbers; it's just what their preference is.
mattress girl fiasco
I had heard about this story, so I had to look up the details. But holy shit, that is a biased article. And then they claim:
due partly to biased journalism, partly to activist zealotry amplified by irresponsible politicians such as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
Talk about blaming the victim! Gillibrand's story is a good example of the hostile work environment for women in the US senate. I haven't heard any credible news source even suggesting that it wasn't true, but nonetheless she is "irresponsible" anyway? For what?
Here's a more balanced discussion about a followup to the mattress story. They are balanced, not neutral, and their opinions differ and it gets heated (which is fun to watch).
That's how incentives work, by disadvantaging perfectly innocent white people for the sake of the "greater good".
I already said that is not what is happening:
I'm not proposing to disadvantage him, I want to take away his unfair advantage. I can understand that it feels the same, but it is very different.
If white men have more opportunities, that doesn't mean they are to blame for the inequality. But they should also not complain when their unfair advantage is taken away. That's not a punishment. Of course it means they will have to get used to not having as much power as they used to, but the fact that they had the power doesn't mean they deserved it. And it is fair to take away undeserved power from people who are "perfectly innocent".
I mean, is it okay to push 1 person in front of a bus if it means 10 other people will live?
For an individual, that is a hard choice. For a government, it isn't. The purpose of the government is to help the people. Of course they have to do whatever helps most people. If that means killing a person (which is extremely rare, for the record), then that's what they must do. How is that even a discussion? If the government refuses to help its people, why does it exist?
There are other ways to increase black representation in the workforce than discriminating against whites.
Can you name a way to increase their representation without decreasing the representation of all others?
