Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
10,479
8,240
AFL Club
St Kilda
Abuse is both physical and emotional, neglect isn't just "ignoring" a child or children.

Mothers carried out almost 68 per cent of cases of emotional and psychological abuse committed by parents, about 53 per cent of physical abuse and more than 94 per cent of neglect cases.

Sexual abuse is a drop compared to physical, emotional and psychological abuse and neglect which is the ocean.

Assuming a man will molest a child because he is a male and sitting next to them is blatant discrimination.

You are outgunned and shifting the goalposts is not helping you look any less flawed in your belief of feminism.
What??


No, seriously... so you are saying that there is a greater threat to a child from a woman sitting next to them on a plane, than there is from a male... based on the data you have given?

I'll look it all up, but I'm taking your word for it for now.


And I'm not shifting the goal posts at all... I'm following you. You started off by saying how ridiculously oppressed men are in the Western world... Now it's about women being "17 times more likely" to neglect their children.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Pack Specialist

Premiership Player
Aug 31, 2013
4,632
7,464
AFL Club
Geelong
Many men are forced to stay in a relationship with an abusive woman that they would otherwise have the agency to leave, simply to protect their own children.
Women can threaten to leave at any time and know that they will get the children and child support unless it's under the most extreme cases.

Women use this exact threat all the time.

To make matters worse, overwhelmingly it is the female who initiates separation or divorce proceedings...and men can't do anything to keep their children despite the fact they are great dads in a lot of cases.
 

Pack Specialist

Premiership Player
Aug 31, 2013
4,632
7,464
AFL Club
Geelong
What??


No, seriously... so you are saying that there is a greater threat to a child from a woman sitting next to them on a plane, than there is from a male... based on the data you have given?

I'll look it all up, but I'm taking your word for it for now.


And I'm not shifting the goal posts at all... I'm following you. You started off by saying how ridiculously oppressed men are in the Western world... Now it's about women being "17 times more likely" to neglect their children.
No I'm saying that men shouldn't be assumed to be paedophiles because they are men.

Sexual abuse is not as common as it seems in the media and is even more unlikely in a public setting such as a plane.

I would never assume that a mother is abusive just because she is a woman, however it is 3 times more likely than a father.
 

Pack Specialist

Premiership Player
Aug 31, 2013
4,632
7,464
AFL Club
Geelong
What??


No, seriously... so you are saying that there is a greater threat to a child from a woman sitting next to them on a plane, than there is from a male... based on the data you have given?

I'll look it all up, but I'm taking your word for it for now.


And I'm not shifting the goal posts at all... I'm following you. You started off by saying how ridiculously oppressed men are in the Western world... Now it's about women being "17 times more likely" to neglect their children.
I didn't say "ridiculously" either, I said actually.

Your misguided beliefs are exactly that, don't get upset because your belief is outdated and factually wrong.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
10,479
8,240
AFL Club
St Kilda
No I'm saying that men shouldn't be assumed to be paedophiles because they are men.

Sexual abuse is not as common as it seems in the media and is even more unlikely in a public setting such as a plane.

I would never assume that a mother is abusive just because she is a woman, however it is 3 times more likely than a father.
I never said you should assume men are pedophiles... I'm pointing out how you must have meant sexual abuse... because neglect wouldn't be a concern when sitting an adult next to a child... compared to sexual abuse...
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
10,479
8,240
AFL Club
St Kilda
I didn't say "ridiculously" either, I said actually.

Your misguided beliefs are exactly that, don't get upset because your belief is outdated and factually wrong.
Times are so rough that men are being oppressed... I read that as it being an extreme. Why would you include "so rough", otherwise?
What misguided beliefs? Is this a new goal post?
 

Pack Specialist

Premiership Player
Aug 31, 2013
4,632
7,464
AFL Club
Geelong
I never said you should assume men are pedophiles... I'm pointing out how you must have meant sexual abuse... because neglect wouldn't be a concern when sitting an adult next to a child... compared to sexual abuse...
How about we don't let mothers sit next to their children on planes because they are more likely to beat them than fathers?

How about we don't let women sit next to children on planes because if the plane went down, the woman won't hesitate to save herself and not think twice about the child etc.

Those instances are much more likely than sexual abuse.
 

Pack Specialist

Premiership Player
Aug 31, 2013
4,632
7,464
AFL Club
Geelong
Times are so rough that men are being oppressed... I read that as it being an extreme. Why would you include "so rough", otherwise?
What misguided beliefs? Is this a new goal post?
Third wave feminism is a misguided belief but you have already proven your misogyny anyway.

Times are rough for men in the Western world and this thread has given many examples.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
10,479
8,240
AFL Club
St Kilda
How about we don't let mothers sit next to their children on planes because they are more likely to beat them than fathers?

How about we don't let women sit next to children on planes because if the plane went down, the woman won't hesitate to save herself and not think twice about the child etc.

Those instances are much more likely than sexual abuse.
I have never suggested we don't let men sit next to children... I've just pointed out how it must have been sexual abuse you were talking about... And how you were wrong in that point...

Christ... Look at what you're saying...
Third wave feminism is a misguided belief but you have already proven your misogyny anyway.

Times are rough for men in the Western world and this thread has given many examples.
How have I proven that I'm misogynistic??? Do you know what misogyny means?

Times are not rough for men in the Western world...
Times aren't especially rough for anyone in the Western world...


Far out... is this the way you normally talk to people who you think are "third wave feminists"? I can imagine the look they give you...
 

Pack Specialist

Premiership Player
Aug 31, 2013
4,632
7,464
AFL Club
Geelong
I have never suggested we don't let men sit next to children... I've just pointed out how it must have been sexual abuse you were talking about... And how you were wrong in that point...

Christ... Look at what you're saying...

How have I proven that I'm misogynistic??? Do you know what misogyny means?

Times are not rough for men in the Western world...
Times aren't especially rough for anyone in the Western world...


Far out... is this the way you normally talk to people who you think are "third wave feminists"? I can imagine the look they give you...
We need to start showing women that it is a viable occupation for men and women.-your words

So we have gone from stopping women learning maths in school, to giving incentives to further their study in STEM subjects at nearly the highest level.

The incentive isn't needed for men, because they haven't been oppressed.-your words

As if women are too stupid to know that they can be involved in STEM fields.-your implication

Believing that you are doing women a favour by supporting them is misogynistic, as if you are needed to get them anywhere in life.

Believing that women would be better off, if you, a man helped their cause...

Do you know what misogyny means?

Men are marked lower in school, given less funding or scholarships needed to enter these fields (which they are actually interested in) and given less places just to fill quotas for women (in fields they are more likely to drop out in)

Men are more likely to die in workplace accidents, more likely to be homeless, more likely to commit suicide, be physically assaulted, be jailed, be the victims of infidelity and have their children taken away from them.

etc.

Times are not rough for men in the Western world is a ridiculous and ignorant statement.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
10,479
8,240
AFL Club
St Kilda
Holy shit...
Let me just break down your post so it's a little more legible.

1.
We need to start showing women that it is a viable occupation for men and women.
-your words

2.
So we have gone from stopping women learning maths in school, to giving incentives to further their study in STEM subjects at nearly the highest level.

The incentive isn't needed for men, because they haven't been oppressed.
-your words

3.
As if women are too stupid to know that they can be involved in STEM fields.
-your implication

4.Believing that you are doing women a favour by supporting them is misogynistic, as if you are needed to get them anywhere in life.

5.Believing that women would be better off, if you, a man helped their cause...
Points 1,2 and 3. How does that make me a misogynist?

4. Where did I say I thought I was doing anyone a favour?... Are you actually trying to say... that feminism is misogynistic??? Can I not be a feminist because I'm male???

Was Abraham Lincoln a racist???


Is that seriously what you're trying to say...?

5. Again... not what I've said... and what a ridiculous interpretation. An individual has a hard time making change happen... that's why there are movements... for example... feminism...
So, working together, we can all help to make change, and stop discrimination...

I can't believe I'm having to explain this...


Do you know what misogyny means?
Men are marked lower in school, given less funding or scholarships needed to enter these fields (which they are actually interested in) and given less places just to fill quotas for women (in fields they are more likely to drop out in)

Men are more likely to die in workplace accidents, more likely to be homeless, more likely to commit suicide, be physically assaulted, be jailed, be the victims of infidelity and have their children taken away from them.

etc.

Times are not rough for men in the Western world is a ridiculous and ignorant statement.
This hasn't been verified... Have you seen this for yourself, or are you taking Tas's word for the marking situation?
Do you know if it's for all year levels, or just for the year 12 uni entrance ranking?

Do you mean men are given less places than women... or there is a reduction in places for men, to allow some women?

If you looked at the actual scholarship funding for STEM fields, do you think women receive more money, or men?

Why are women more likely to drop out?

Men are more likely to be victims of infidelity??


And how is any of that, the fault of feminism? Workplace accidents, suicide...
Men are more likely to be physically assaulted... and men are more likely to physically assault.

Looks like there is a heap of education that is needed to help men... still don't see how we have it sooo rough... or how feminism is to blame for it...


Oh and if you want to see some ridiculous and ignorant statements... check out this guy!;
How about we don't let mothers sit next to their children on planes because they are more likely to beat them than fathers?

How about we don't let women sit next to children on planes because if the plane went down, the woman won't hesitate to save herself and not think twice about the child etc.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tas

Premium Gold
Dec 23, 2002
52,899
34,898
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
Really?
That's the first I've heard of that.
I'm going to assume you mean only for the end of year 12, for the Uni grading?
No, I believe the enter process of education has been changed over a number of years from primary to high school to tertiary education itself to suit the way women prefer to learn. I will have to dredge through the internet to find some articles on it, it is depressing reading though.

Here is an article which showed the problem identified in the early 90s with the NSW government initiating an inquiry into the system failing boys, sadly, the article also highlights that attempts to address inequality against boys was torpedoed by feminists.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/letters/education-systems-are-failing-our-boys-and-young-men/2008/05/26/1211653929145.html

That is to compete against the existing sexual discrimination.
So yes it isn't 100% right, but I think it's fair.
I think that is what any rational person wants, equality. Equality of opportunity. According to the 3rd wave feminism bible, 'best qualified' for the job is a microaggression.

Women were being over looked for positions, due to their gender (ranging from thinking of women as lower life forms, to being concerned about time off due to pregnancy).
I think women who are of child bearing age for senior or management positions are still discriminated against to some extent, it is not out of a desire to uphold the patriarchy, it is out of fear of the disruption to their business that will occur if someone senior is out of commission for some time.

Child bearing is probably the biggest issue we face in relation to having employment parity, however, it is not just men discriminating against women, senior women (especially those who chose not to have kids in exchange for a career) have had a far more regressive attitude towards women who wish to have children then men did in my experience. Sadly, it is a lot easier for men to have a career and a family. We are seeing a bit of a trend towards more house husbands but quite often women will go through a re-evaluation process of life during or after childbirth. Both my sisters for example discontinued their professional careers after giving birth.

We need to have a rational and civil discussion about child rearing in the nation, it is a horrific financial burden, especially for single parents, and it is significant barrier for the career of women, especially in the first 5-10 years. Does the nation take on more responsibility for breeding future generations? Is it solely the responsibility of those who choose to have kids? Our welfare system is a pyramid scheme built on the growth of future generations, we can ill afford for a decline in population with our desire for big government to take care of everyone. However, there is a ridiculous surplus of people on this planet though. We could alternatively just let more younger people migrate here.

Health services, hospitality, education, they are all desperate for more men, but a lot of those jobs are still considered below a man.
Teaching transition.
Nursing.
Waiter.
There isn't any work that is below any gender. There is a bit of a stigma against men working in some of these fields by the public but we do not really do much to try and cast out these sexist attitudes both men and women have towards men in these fields. I know a male nurse and the shit he cops on a daily basis... i wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of it.

There are still bigots out there, that make these jobs sound unappealing and beneath a man. Which isn't fair on men who have a genuine interest in learning.
I think there are more men in these fields than there used to be, all of these fields are dominated by women though, with an 85%+ majority. My point is the same feminists who demand quotas in the few remaining fields that men dominate will fight against quotas in any field that women dominate. It is just a hypocritical approach, you either believe in gender parity and quotas or you don't.

Should there be some kind of Gov funding to pull more men into those areas? I think the world needs to be better educated before that kind of thing would be accepted.
I think we should just allow people to go for whatever job they want and for employers to employ the best candidate, to me at least equality of opportunity is the very definition of what equality means. They have twisted the meaning to conform to whatever benefits women which I do not think is fair.

It's the same as if we started putting out scholarships for whites...
Sure, there are scholarships for the Indigenous... so why shouldn't there be one for non-indigenous?
Again... it's because there is inherent discrimination, and without some set aside specifically for women/Indigenous etc, there is a higher chance they will only be given to whites/males.
I think scholarships are great if it allows people to get an education who would otherwise not be able to afford one. I just don't believe in selectively helping people or having some bizarre lottery, we have the wealth to give every Australian a quality education. However, our education system is dysfunctional.

Is that for everything? Or is it the judges discretion?
"For instance, the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that 63.3% of men who were sentenced in higher courts received a penalty of imprisonment, compared to just 46.7% of women.

Women were also seen to receive more lenient prison sentences, with an average term of imprisonment of 42.4 months, compared to 60.3 months for men.

This apparent gender bias extended beyond penalties of imprisonment – one study found that male drink drivers generally received fines which were 9.7% higher than those received by women for the same offence, and received disqualification periods which were 22.2% longer."

http://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/do-women-get-lighter-sentences-than-men/

I think the problem is across the board and in some cases women are discriminated against, like women who plead guilty early. While our justice system is big on the precedence system it seems to have prejudice and bias when it comes to sentencing.

I know when I was a pup, a friend of the family (23 year old female) took myself and my twin to court with her... to help get a lighter sentence. It worked...

The system is flawed, and needs work. Human error will always cause problems.
Part of it is still this idea that a man is more than a woman. In a way that you wouldn't consider the actions of a teenager as harshly as if that teenager was mid 30s.
It does need to be looked at. However, men's rights group say they face significant push back from feminist groups when they try to push for law reform. I can't really comment on that because I don't really frequent any men's rights groups so other than what I read in passing online I don't know to what extent the problem exists.

Theoretically, mens rights groups and feminists should be advocating for and fighting for the same things. However, this doesn't happen and men who are the victims suffer while issues are ignored, as do some women.

So yeah, I think it's discrimination on both sexes, and something needs to be done.
In general I think the justice system could use an overhaul. But I'm not in the know of how the system really works.
Justice... what is it? Is it vindictiveness? Is it punishment or is it meant to be rehabilitating people who do the wrong thing to make them better prepared for society? We fail those who do the wrong thing, utterly. The vast majority of people sent to jail become survivors and are worse people for it.

Is that the best way to rehabilitate people who make mistakes? I'd rather be hung than left to rot in a prison. Crime isn't less prevalent where there is capital punishment, people commit crimes due to circumstances or due to poor decision making, often when their judgement is clouded due to emotional, psychological or chemical barriers.

We let down a lot of kids, they are raised in shit families, they have a shit education, they are treated like shit by the system and they end up doing stupid shit and we condemn them to a cycle of shit for the rest of their lives. How miserable society is when we can't change people for the better. The easiest point in the cycle to prevent it from occurring is when they are kids. There are too many bad parents producing bad kids and it's not the kids fault. You have to prove you have some level of competency to drive a car but you can just botch kid after kid which become a disastrous economic burden on everyone.

I think I remember reading a story once about a teen who was raped, and had to pay custody.
But I've never heard of a rape victim paying for custody... especially as usually the rapist would be in gaol, so they victim would have the kids anyway?
Well, it happened in America, but we have similar laws, similar ideology, wouldn't surprise if this occurred here. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/nick-olivas-alleged-rape-victim-_n_5773532.html?section=australia

The judgement was based on doing what is best for the child, not what is fair to the man involved. Men in general are considered the doormat that provides, even if unwilling or incapable of making a decision to become a parent.
 

fleabitten

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 16, 2012
5,646
10,081
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Portland Trailblazers
Was Abraham Lincoln a racist???
Yes.

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man."
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
10,479
8,240
AFL Club
St Kilda
No, I believe the enter process of education has been changed over a number of years from primary to high school to tertiary education itself to suit the way women prefer to learn. I will have to dredge through the internet to find some articles on it, it is depressing reading though.

Here is an article which showed the problem identified in the early 90s with the NSW government initiating an inquiry into the system failing boys, sadly, the article also highlights that attempts to address inequality against boys was torpedoed by feminists.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/letters/education-systems-are-failing-our-boys-and-young-men/2008/05/26/1211653929145.html
Ah ok. Yeah I've heard the theory that the education system is bias towards women. But I hadn't heard of the idea that grades are adjusted based on gender.

My thoughts on the education system is (I think you said the same in this post), it's dysfunctional and needs a lot done to it.
But I don't think it is catered towards females, so much as it's a structured systems pushing in as much route learning as possible.
I can't remember the study, but it was something I had thought previous to it. Women mature much earlier than men. Women fully mature near the mid 30s, and men near the early 40s... I think. I can't remember, but it was a big gap.
The school system might be better to have males start their middle/senior years at a later date. A few years later.
I know I didn't care for school, but when I was a bit older I became addicted to knowledge.

But what do you do with them in the meantime? And how do you separate without either side calling sexism?


I think that is what any rational person wants, equality. Equality of opportunity. According to the 3rd wave feminism bible, 'best qualified' for the job is a microaggression.
Well that's ridiculous. And I'd agree, any gender chosen because of their gender rather than their qualification is terrible, and should never be done.

But I don't think that generally happens with a quota system.
I'm sure it won't be needed forever, but until the stigma against hiring women* into certain positions is gone, it's a necessary evil.

*Not that I'm saying it's a huge thing.

I think women who are of child bearing age for senior or management positions are still discriminated against to some extent, it is not out of a desire to uphold the patriarchy, it is out of fear of the disruption to their business that will occur if someone senior is out of commission for some time.

Child bearing is probably the biggest issue we face in relation to having employment parity, however, it is not just men discriminating against women, senior women (especially those who chose not to have kids in exchange for a career) have had a far more regressive attitude towards women who wish to have children then men did in my experience. Sadly, it is a lot easier for men to have a career and a family. We are seeing a bit of a trend towards more house husbands but quite often women will go through a re-evaluation process of life during or after childbirth. Both my sisters for example discontinued their professional careers after giving birth.

We need to have a rational and civil discussion about child rearing in the nation, it is a horrific financial burden, especially for single parents, and it is significant barrier for the career of women, especially in the first 5-10 years. Does the nation take on more responsibility for breeding future generations? Is it solely the responsibility of those who choose to have kids? Our welfare system is a pyramid scheme built on the growth of future generations, we can ill afford for a decline in population with our desire for big government to take care of everyone. However, there is a ridiculous surplus of people on this planet though. We could alternatively just let more younger people migrate here.
I wouldn't disagree with that at all. Women can sexually discriminate against women.

And it's a very hard position when it comes to pregnancy.

And it can become even deeper, looking into economics, the need for both parents to work.

Would it be discrimination to provide funding and support to any business while an employee is away on pregnancy leave?
How would you stop people taking advantage of it?
How could it really be implemented.

These are all important and legitimate concerns. But it is still unfair to double think employing a woman over a man, because of it.

What's the solution? No idea.
But it's one of the reasons that quotas are still important.

There isn't any work that is below any gender. There is a bit of a stigma against men working in some of these fields by the public but we do not really do much to try and cast out these sexist attitudes both men and women have towards men in these fields. I know a male nurse and the shit he cops on a daily basis... i wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of it.
Absolutely. There are very few jobs where gender should play a part on it.
Nursing is a ridiculously difficult job... but it's looked down on... especially if it's a man.
What kind of idiotic society laughs at someone who is dedicating their life to help others?

I don't mind a bit of ribbing. But there are bigots who seriously believe a man is devalued doing "the roll of a woman".
Say as stay at home dads.
It is the overall societal sexism that believes women are lessers, so a man doing a woman's job... must then be a lesser.
It doesn't even need to be outright sexism... just the underlying belief that as a man, you're better.

The dickhead who will say "I'm no sexist... but c'mon... we all know it." or "look we all know it, it's just no one wants to say it and upset the little dears".


I think there are more men in these fields than there used to be, all of these fields are dominated by women though, with an 85%+ majority. My point is the same feminists who demand quotas in the few remaining fields that men dominate will fight against quotas in any field that women dominate. It is just a hypocritical approach, you either believe in gender parity and quotas or you don't.
Yep, feminism should be and is only about supporting women to an even playing field. When it starts working towards defeating or devolving the opposite gender, then it's sexism.

Do we need quotas in nursing though? I don't think so, but I don't have the inside knowledge.
I think in most places, where there is a serious demand for people(male or female) to fill positions, quotas aren't as necessary.
I think we should just allow people to go for whatever job they want and for employers to employ the best candidate, to me at least equality of opportunity is the very definition of what equality means. They have twisted the meaning to conform to whatever benefits women which I do not think is fair.
Yep, in an ideal world the position will go to the best candidate.
But that doesn't happen. Racism, sexism, nepotism et al

I think men and women have twisted the meaning. Nutjobs who claim to be feminists, and nutjobs who claim to be equalitarians but are actually just sexists hiding behind a legitimate movement.

I think scholarships are great if it allows people to get an education who would otherwise not be able to afford one. I just don't believe in selectively helping people or having some bizarre lottery, we have the wealth to give every Australian a quality education. However, our education system is dysfunctional.
I'd love education to be completely free, right up to and through university.

But I think there is definite merit in scholarships as is, and certain selective scholarships are still important for the same reason quotas are, in my opinion.


"For instance, the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that 63.3% of men who were sentenced in higher courts received a penalty of imprisonment, compared to just 46.7% of women.

Women were also seen to receive more lenient prison sentences, with an average term of imprisonment of 42.4 months, compared to 60.3 months for men.

This apparent gender bias extended beyond penalties of imprisonment – one study found that male drink drivers generally received fines which were 9.7% higher than those received by women for the same offence, and received disqualification periods which were 22.2% longer."

http://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/do-women-get-lighter-sentences-than-men/

I think the problem is across the board and in some cases women are discriminated against, like women who plead guilty early. While our justice system is big on the precedence system it seems to have prejudice and bias when it comes to sentencing.
That is a fairly large disparity.
Have to look into it more.
What could the reasons be?
Is it back to the general societal sexism, that women are not equal to men... so can't be held to account to the same level?
Is it that the male to female ratio of court appearances are so different?
Are the averages for women heavily skewed due to mothers and the thoughts of the needs of the child (maternal blah blah , sexism).
What is behind it all?

Does the justice system just hate men, and want to punish them more?


It does need to be looked at. However, men's rights group say they face significant push back from feminist groups when they try to push for law reform. I can't really comment on that because I don't really frequent any men's rights groups so other than what I read in passing online I don't know to what extent the problem exists.

Theoretically, mens rights groups and feminists should be advocating for and fighting for the same things. However, this doesn't happen and men who are the victims suffer while issues are ignored, as do some women.
Yep, there is no reason you cannot be a feminist and an egalitarian. They should never be opposing sides.

I don't know about feminism pushing against law reform either. So I don't have much to say on it.
Justice... what is it? Is it vindictiveness? Is it punishment or is it meant to be rehabilitating people who do the wrong thing to make them better prepared for society? We fail those who do the wrong thing, utterly. The vast majority of people sent to jail become survivors and are worse people for it.

Is that the best way to rehabilitate people who make mistakes? I'd rather be hung than left to rot in a prison. Crime isn't less prevalent where there is capital punishment, people commit crimes due to circumstances or due to poor decision making, often when their judgement is clouded due to emotional, psychological or chemical barriers.

We let down a lot of kids, they are raised in shit families, they have a shit education, they are treated like shit by the system and they end up doing stupid shit and we condemn them to a cycle of shit for the rest of their lives. How miserable society is when we can't change people for the better. The easiest point in the cycle to prevent it from occurring is when they are kids. There are too many bad parents producing bad kids and it's not the kids fault. You have to prove you have some level of competency to drive a car but you can just botch kid after kid which become a disastrous economic burden on everyone.
Yep. Recidivism is ridiculous. A teenager goes to gaol once... odds on he will go there many more times and become a career criminal.

Best solution for it, I think, is fully funded health and education.
It won't fix all the problems, but it would help break down a lot of the slums that create these things.



Well, it happened in America, but we have similar laws, similar ideology, wouldn't surprise if this occurred here. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/nick-olivas-alleged-rape-victim-_n_5773532.html?section=australia

The judgement was based on doing what is best for the child, not what is fair to the man involved. Men in general are considered the doormat that provides, even if unwilling or incapable of making a decision to become a parent.
Yeah, that's the one I remember reading.
Very unusual case. But at the end of the day, it was rape and I don't think the victim should be burdened with anything.

But I don't think it's a regular occurrence either.

Anyway, good post! Thanks Tas.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
10,479
8,240
AFL Club
St Kilda
Yes.

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man."
Where did you get that information from?
I did a google search... and it pinged a heap from stormfront...

I can't see any evidence that he said it, and this site claims it wasn't said by him at all...
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

Mitchell also sent a memorandum to black ministers urging them to use their influence to encourage emigration. Providence itself, he wrote, had decreed a separate existence for the races. Blacks were half responsible for the terrible Civil War, Mitchell went on, and forecast further bloodshed unless they left the country. He concluded:63

This is a nation of equal white laborers, and as you cannot be accepted on equal terms, there is no place here for you. You cannot go into the North or the West without arousing the growing feeling of hostility toward you. The south must also have a homogeneous population, and any attempt to give the freedmen equal status in the South will bring disaster to both races.


In mid-May 1862, Lincoln received a paper from Reverend James Mitchell that laid out arguments for resettling the country's black population:60

Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.

 
Last edited:

Sydney Bloods

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,795
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
Was Abraham Lincoln a racist???
yeah actually he was a pretty hardcore racist, he had to be pressured into signing the emancipation document and only did so in limited circumstances (that being only the slaves in the confederate states were freed) after it became apparent that it would bankrupt the confederacy. slavers in the union or those that remained neutral could still own human beings. after the war lincoln attempted to deport the "negros" as he put it, back to africa.

credit for freeing the slaves in the US should be directed to William W Patton a staunch abolitionist who personally lead 3 delegations demanding lincoln abolish slavery.

then there's the matter of the letter lincoln wrote Robert E Lee after finding out he'd been using freed slaves as soldiers. most of whom previously had been held as "contraband" under a wartime acquisitions act that lincoln himself drafted and signed into law, which allowed union soldiers to take slaves from their southern masters and hold them as the spoils of war.

in short lincoln was a piece of shit that america in its worship of presidents chooses to remember through rose tinted glasses. lincoln had a gift for making people think he was a good bloke, for example he was very outspoken about the manifest destiny ideals and yet signed into law the very document which would make it possible (the home steaders act)

lincoln was responsible for one of the most disgusting outright theft of lands. where as in the past land had been acquired through underhanded tactics and dodgy deals from the indian tribes. lincoln offered great deals that no man with a brain would turn down (over a million dollars) ....... problem was he then simply, refused to pay. He was behind the trail of tears which not only displaced tens of thousands of native americans but gave the military full authority over indigenous tribes, then there's fixed trials of indians he oversaw during his administration. after it got out that the state of minnesota had asked him to authorise the execution of over 300 indians he offered minnesota $2 million dollars if it promised to only execute only 39 indians instead of 300 because he was worried about securing money from european bankers for his war against the south. bizarrely the agreement contained the condition that the state of minnesota allow federal troops to drive every "redskin" out of that state. again making him "appear" to be the good guy, what wasn't reported was that federal troops had found the men guilty at military trials in line with the same conditions as the same sham trials he'd made legal.

Lincoln also oversaw the westward drive of the railroads (allegations were he actually stole money from the federal coffers to do this. although the investigation was dropped after his murder) and authorised federal troops to remove any indian tribes that got in the way, the result they offered a pittance at gunpoint and those that refused move were slaughtered. the man was campaigner.
 
Last edited:

RobbieGray17

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 19, 2007
10,705
5,192
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Just saw someone bring up a video of Lisa Wilkinson touching some guys abs on tv. Change roles to Karl stefanovic doing something similar and see what happens. Why is it ok for a female to do something, but not for a man. Hypocrasy much.
 

Barry_Badrinath

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 23, 2011
18,377
57,409
Bathing in Premiership Glory
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Home Finals at the MCG
It's the same as if we started putting out scholarships for whites...
Sure, there are scholarships for the Indigenous... so why shouldn't there be one for non-indigenous?
Again... it's because there is inherent discrimination, and without some set aside specifically for women/Indigenous etc, there is a higher chance they will only be given to whites/males.
Are you seriously gonna sit there with a straight face and say that companies prefer male employees over female, and that a female is less likely to be offered a job? Especially in STEM fields.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
10,479
8,240
AFL Club
St Kilda
yeah actually he was a pretty hardcore racist, he had to be pressured into signing the emancipation document and only did so in limited circumstances (that being only the slaves in the confederate states were freed) after it became apparent that it would bankrupt the confederacy. slavers in the union or those that remained neutral could still own human beings. after the war lincoln attempted to deport the "negros" as he put it, back to africa.

credit for freeing the slaves in the US should be directed to William W Patton a staunch abolitionist who personally lead 3 delegations demanding lincoln abolish slavery.

then there's the matter of the letter lincoln wrote Robert E Lee after finding out he'd been using freed slaves as soldiers. most of whom previously had been held as "contraband" under a wartime acquisitions act that lincoln himself drafted and signed into law, which allowed union soldiers to take slaves from their southern masters and hold them as the spoils of war.

in short lincoln was a piece of shit that america in its worship of presidents chooses to remember through rose tinted glasses. lincoln had a gift for making people think he was a good bloke, for example he was very outspoken about the manifest destiny ideals and signed in to law the very document which would make it possible.

lincoln was responsible for one of the most disgusting outright theft of lands. whereas in the past land had been acquired through underhanded tactics and dodgy deals. from the indian tribes lincoln offered great deals that no man with a brain would turn down....... problem was he then simply, refused to pay. He was behind the trail of tears which not only displaced tens of thousands of native americans but gave the military full authority over indigenous tribes, then there's fixed trials of indians he oversaw during his administration. after it got out that the state of minnesota had asked him to authorise the execution of over 300 indians he offered minnesota $2 million dollars if it promised to only execute only 39 indians instead of 300 because he was worried about securing money from european bankers. bizarrely the agreement contained the condition that the state of minnesota to allow federal troops to drive every "redskin" out of that state. again making him "appear" to be the good guy, what wasn't reported was that federal troops had found the men guilty at military trials in line with the same conditions as the shame sham trials he'd made legal.

Lincoln also oversaw the westward drive of the railroads (allegations were he actually stole money from the federal coffers to do this. although the investigation was dropped after his murder) and authorised federal troops to remove any indian tribes that got in the way, the result they offered a pittance at gunpoint and those that refused move were slaughtered. the man was campaigner.
Thanks, but I have a bit of a hard time believing that right off. But I don't know Lincoln that well.

I'll have to look into it.
I hope it isn't just misinformation, like how Einstein was a racist nazi or something.

Regardless, I think my point is still fairly obvious.
 

Barry_Badrinath

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 23, 2011
18,377
57,409
Bathing in Premiership Glory
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Home Finals at the MCG
No... I clearly wrote that for shits and giggles...
Not sure if there are studies done in Australia, but there are American studies that show female STEM job applications are preferred at a 2:1 ratio over men.

Also, over 70% of people working in human resources are female, so the majority of people doing the hiring and firing are women. Are you suggesting that predominantly female recruiters are actively discriminating against their own kind?
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
10,479
8,240
AFL Club
St Kilda
Not sure if there are studies done in Australia, but there are American studies that show female STEM job applications are preferred at a 2:1 ratio over men.

Also, over 70% of people working in human resources are female, so the majority of people doing the hiring and firing are women. Are you suggesting that predominantly female recruiters are actively discriminating against their own kind?
Women can sexually discriminate against women.
 

Tas

Premium Gold
Dec 23, 2002
52,899
34,898
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
This again?

Also: who is more likely to kill kids, based on time spent with kids?
Mothers do commit more harm on children, and are more likely to kill them, but it is largely because they bare a significant load in terms of child raising in general. It would be unfair to suggest that on a per hour basis that women are more likely to harm kids.

However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't highlight that there is a problem in terms of domestic abuse committed by women and it is something we need to address. Feminist groups, who have significant political influence, hinder any kind of attempt to highlight the problem as they see it as an attack on women rather than a need to protect children. Yet, they don't bare any responsibility for the countless deaths that may have otherwise been prevented if the matter was addressed.

The ability for someone to sleep peacefully despite playing an integral role in ensuring other humans are destined to die due to your actions is a remarkable and loathsome human quality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Bottom