As some of us are aware, in USA 2017 there is discrimination against men. Male offenders are more likely to be arrested, being arrested they are more likely to be convicted, being convicted, they get 63% longer sentences for the same crime then female offenders. Men are discriminated in Divorce cases. Male victims of Domestic Violence are arrested more frequently then helped. Male bashing is widely accepted in the Mainstream Media -- including calls for the extermination of men, which are supposedly a joke. Anyone who mentions these issues risks being excluded from polite society and losing his/her job. Given that most people have little awareness of the issues men face, men are considered to be privileged oppressors. Even though many men and some women realize that the situation is bad, few realize how much worse the situation can become if SJWs win this round of societal conflict. The victory of SJWs would bring important changes. Men accused of sex offenses would lose Presumption of Innocence, thus there would be far more false convictions. Domestic Violence against men would be much more common and even more acceptable. Male bashing and #killallmen rhetoric would be more common then now. The most important change would be the end of Free Speech. According to "What if women ruled the world?" (Gurdian, 5/07/17), mansplaining would be penalized: "I imagine we would call it the Law of Sschhh: if a woman says sschhh to a man, he is bound by law to go home and sit down and shut up. Soon, there will be no ... #notallmen." That would be achieved within the latter of the First Amendment. The penalty against anyone who seriously complains about anti-male discrimination would be inflicted by non-government forces. They would be banned from all Social Media, and blacklisted. The SJW era is not 2019, when there were still Facebook groups, YouTube channels, subreddits, and Twitter accounts devoted to men's issues. (The original essay had year 2017 -- now Freedom of Speech is melting very fast.) Men would face considerably more discrimination and domestic abuse then in 2019. In the public sphere men would be subject to much more verbal abuse including jokes about androcide like #killallmen. Men would be fired for slightest comment perceived even mildly offensive or for complaining about male bashing. Men would be subject to the rules in making which they had no part, rules which do not apply to those who made them. That is called tyranny. The tyranny to which men would be subject would have an element of cruel game absent in many other types of tyranny. People subject to tyrannical rule at least have sympathy from humanitarians. Men in SJW world would be forbidden from mentioning that they are discriminated against, and would be pressured to reaffirm multiple times that they are the privileged oppressors. Thus, the perception of men being privileged would increase even as men suffer more discrimination. Gender feminists would have complete power over men -- including the power to coerce men into constantly apologizing for being powerful privileged oppressors.
The mainstream media colludes on this the same way they collude on every other liberal agenda topic. Plus liberal colleges teach it. My college entrance exam essay was "Discuss the hypothesis that ignoring the size advantage the average man has over the average woman, a woman and man of the same size have similar physical strength." So if you tell the truth that men are stronger than women no matter what, you don't get into the school.
I've meet some female Olympic athletes who are stronger than 80% of the men in the world. Two are now working for the Fire Department. They passed the CPAT test in their sleep. So maybe you wouldn't have passed the college entrance exam because you pretended to know things that you didn't ....
That ignorant post just proved my point. If you have to single out Olympic athletes to claim they are stronger than most men, you've lost your argument. A couple of years ago the US women's national soccer team lost to a team of 14 year old boys. https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/ne...-the-u-s-womens-national-team-in-a-scrimmage/ The Australian women's national soccer team was beaten 7-0 by a boy's team.
I agree 100%. The issue of my post is not physical strength, but general discrimination against men. Men suffer discrimination. In many places men are punished for mentioning discrimination they experience. Not for hate speech, but just for mentioning reverse discrimination. He who is not at liberty to speak for his rights has no rights.
Men commit around 88% of homicides and 75% of all legal felonies of course they are prosecuted more. Could you imagine the narrative if another group accounted for almost all murder and crime in the United States? There would be calls for mass surveillance of that group. Deportation of that group, denying of visas, special laws to target them... But because it’s men — shrug — boys will be boys, right?
You realize the alphabet has more than two letters, right? It isn't just a choice of A or B. There is a whole ton of positions and politicians and political ideologies that lie between feminists and Trump. It's absolutely insane to think that the only choice is one or the other.
I hope Feminists and Leftists who stand for Equality will denounce those who advocate for collective guilt and discrimination of a birth group in their name. So far, the only choice for a sane man is to support the strongest opponents of those who advocate for such discrimination. Trump Bolsonero
This is a complete misframing of the argument. Intentionally, I suspect. No one is saying that men shouldn't be prosecuted more often when they commit crimes more often. The argument is that, when committing the same crime, a man is prosecuted more often and typically given a longer sentence than a woman. If you can't honestly address that point, then you're not engaging in good faith.
I had to look up SJW thinking it had WOMAN in it somewhere...I was surprised to see it stands for Social Justice Warrior. Then I thought about this thread and realized it really has little to do with women and much to do with the OP. If you are opposed to Social Justice then that is on you and is in no way flattering. You also seem to have a problem with women which likely reaches much further into the mind than is comfortable. Yes, women get special treatment under family law because they tend to be the nurturing force in a family and they also have lighter criminal sentences because they commit a lot less violent crime.
I don't want "social justice". I want equality for all. Social justice actually hampers equality for all because it requires lifting up one group at the expense/detriment of another group. Equality for all means that everyone has the same Rights and opportunities. If this belief is "on me" then I accept that...gladly. And I consider it far more "flattering" than being an SJW who bases thoughts on identity.
We need much harsher laws based only on the behavior of the criminal act, not race or gender, and much, much harsher punishments.
The same thing happens to blacks in both policing and sentencing. I support proactive policing and using statistical data to do so.
We already have the highest per capita prison population in the world. It doesn’t seem to be working. What do you propose? Execution?
As we all know that white educate veteran professional comfortably cis-gendered males, like me are entitled, and that entitlement requires to help those not so entitled to move up the economic chain.
Ramp up punishment until people make a decision not to do crime. Weakness is why it ain't working. Trade the cell phones and devices for a ditch blade and a snow shovel in season, or a sledge on the rock pile.
jay runner, the silly suggestion of increased punishment will change nothing. You have an opinion but no evidence for it.
There is a very important field in one field where men are considered as second zone citizen : Family. Men are considered as a "real" father until the wife decide to divorce, then they're always considered as the optionnal parent. That's a very important field where men right should drastically improve.
And do you support that as well? You mean profiling? Actually, I don't think there's anything wrong with profiling per se. But that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issue at hand is what happens after arrests occur. It is an issue of unequal treatment before the law, something we are supposedly against. It is a prosecutor choosing not to charge women for crimes while charging men for the exact same crimes. It is a judge and jury who convict a man when they would not have convicted a woman who did the same thing. It is a judge and jury giving longer sentences to men. That is not justice, it is discrimination.