[screenager2004]

(Original post by sconter)
not really, as it proves what i was saying

No. Correlation =/= causality = it is NOT proof.

i didnt say this, i said this was NOT my opinion but you have to explore every explaination.

Well it's wrong. So if it isn't anyone's opinion we don't need to discuss it.

how is it racist please reason with me here,

Assigning social attributes to people on a basis of their race is called racism.

[sconter]

why do you only pick and choose what you respond to with me, is it because u are unable to refute what i say?

[Clip]

(Original post by screenager2004)
No? My point was that women (and men) DISADVANTAGE as the cause of/result of negative gender stereotyping in courts.


I disagree. I believe in equality - not benefiting one sex over the other. The reason that women 'benefit' in courts (get custody of kids, get large payments) is actually a disadvantage to women (because it is underpinned by the assumption that women should be the caregivers/women need financial assistance.

The problem you have is that you are in a tiny minority. Almost without exception, any woman undergoing divorce will take a pragmatic view, and will not want to be subject to your "advantages" i.e. being in a position of less power. There is simply no incentive for the individual to take less. Additionally, in a large number of these cases, there will be a motive to damage or harm the other party.

[screenager2004]

(Original post by Clip)
The problem you have is that you are in a tiny minority. Almost without exception, any woman undergoing divorce will take a pragmatic view, and will not want to be subject to your "advantages" i.e. being in a position of less power.

That doesn't make it right.

There is simply no incentive for the individual to take less.

Sure there is, say, in the name of social equality and justice?

[sconter]

(Original post by screenager2004)
No. Correlation =/= causality = it is NOT proof. yes it is


Well it's wrong. So if it isn't anyone's opinion we don't need to discuss it. sure we do, i mean u focused on it as a way of escaping arguing what i was saying in that whole post, so lets keep going


Assigning social attributes to people on a basis of their race is called racism.so with your definition if i said black people are kind and welcoming, that is racist. Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination..... you missed the most important part, moron DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF THEIR INHERENT TRAITS

hkff

[screenager2004]

(Original post by sconter)
why do you only pick and choose what you respond to with me, is it because u are unable to refute what i say?

a) Because you're incapable of using the quote function properly. You either don't quote at all and expect me to spot your reply, or you fill the quote with bold and just type "dghfhgd" as your response, making it difficult to reply.

b) because your quotes are nonsense, and it's difficult to respond with logic to someone who doesn't operate on logic.

c) Don't be a hypocrite. You haven't responded to my post either.

[sconter]

(Original post by screenager2004)
a) Because you're incapable of using the quote function properly. You either don't quote at all and expect me to spot your reply, or you fill the quote with bold and just type "dghfhgd" as your response, making it difficult to reply. it is because there are alot of things to respond to

b) because your quotes are nonsense, and it's difficult to respond with logic to someone who doesn't operate on logic. i am dleep deprived, but nothing is nonsensical. i dont operate on logic? you claim any comment on sex or race is racist/sexuist when there is evidence. you are also unable to look objectively, due you your overbearing libralism. you have no logic

c) Don't be a hypocrite. You haven't responded to my post either. will find, must have missed it, how many pages back is it?

rfrrer

[screenager2004]

(Original post by sconter)
yes it is

No it is not.

Sure we do, i mean u focused on it as a way of escaping arguing what i was saying in that whole post, so lets keep going

Shall I refresh your memory?

I said:
"Courts are biased into thinking that [...] women are less able to earn after a divorce and so are disadvantaged after a divorce"

You said: "not a negative stereotype"

I said: "Do you REALLY need to be explained to how the assumption one sex should earn less is negative?"

YOU said:
"i do not need it explaining, and am against two people equally qualified with equal abilities equal work ethic, and equal productivity, doing identical jobs, getting paid differently"


Thus, you are saying that women are earning less because they are not equally qualified, do not have equal abilities/work ethic/productivity.

This is sexist.
Then you've turned around and said it's not your opinion? Then why bring it up?

so with your definition if i said black people are kind and welcoming, that is racist.

Yes, it is. Firstly it's a generalisation on a basis of race, secondly it's excluding other races from that characteristic by singling out one race.

Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination..... you missed the most important part, moron DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF THEIR INHERENT TRAITS

What, like claiming that black people are more prone to crime because of their inherent aggressiveness? Well then you're a racist by your own terms.

[rad_student]

(Original post by screenager2004)
Uh no. When women are negatively discriminated against, men AND women lose out.
When men are negatively discriminated against, men AND women lose out. As I said in my first post here - sexism is not a one-way action. One negative stereotype depends on an unfair stereotype on the other sex as well.


You're hideously oversimplifying things. You neglect to mention barriers to employment, education biases, negative media pressures on individuals to conform to gender roles etc.


I think this is hideously unfair too - it's not an argument against me. I think it's sexist. As I must repeat AGAIN - sexism isn't a one way thing, it affects men and women.

Agree when 1 sex loses out, both lose; that's why I am trying to inform & hopefully people will fight for changes/solution. I find it worrying that women say well, if we are benefitting why should we complain? Men have been bought up on sacrificing their needs for the greater good, except the "grass eaters" of Japan & in the Western world MGTOW/MGHOW (men go their own way). Feminism is bigger - what have they done to correct this?

- barriers to employment: to get more women in (not sure if true in education in UK), barriers have been dropped as mentioned, name 1 standard that is lower for men, than it is for women?
Don't say its sexist against you, its sexist against the men/boys who are better for same money & is accepted - give me examples, not backchat. I hope I have answered your questions.

- education biases: ok, I am aware that teachers are working hard to work out why boys are underperforming, with the way they are teaching.

- negative media pressures on individuals to conform to gender roles: women are the main decision makers in the household (not referring to food shopping), hence why most ads are aimed at women (why the misandric ads exists; brainwashed into normalising: women think they r brilliant, men r stupid). Its also bigger in USA.
In India it is good for newspapers when families split up = more ads sold, as there is duplication in items bought; so they will not want to highlight that marriage is bad for men (or DV happens equally to men) & that less men wanna marry as the courts will take their children & family property away from them.

That's 3 questions I'd like to know (from anyone) inc other post.

[sconter]

(Original post by screenager2004)
No it is not.


Shall I refresh your memory?

I said:
"Courts are biased into thinking that [...] women are less able to earn after a divorce and so are disadvantaged after a divorce"

You said: "not a negative stereotype"

I said: "Do you REALLY need to be explained to how the assumption one sex should earn less is negative?"

YOU said:
"i do not need it explaining, and am against two people equally qualified with equal abilities equal work ethic, and equal productivity, doing identical jobs, getting paid differently"


Thus, you are saying that women are earning less because they are not equally qualified, do not have equal abilities/work ethic/productivity.

This is sexist.
Then you've turned around and said it's not your opinion? Then why bring it up?
this is my opinion, what i said wasnt my opinion is that women are nessisarily less hard workers/ intelligent it is a fact more men are high skilled, and go into higher paying jobs on average, observation, one i would have thought you would have jumped on as a possitive for you, not to call me sexist, nevermind

Yes, it is. Firstly it's a generalisation on a basis of race, secondly it's excluding other races from that characteristic by singling out one race. so its not racist, it is commenting on a train in a race. again an observation not racist. am i racist for saying black people have wide noses (actually you will probably say yes...) no it is a racial feature. racial feature arent only skin deep, so to speak

What, like claiming that black people are more prone to crime because of their inherent aggressiveness? Well then you're a racist by your own terms.how is that dicrimination, it is an observation. stop misquoting my and getting definition mixed up (intentionally)

f g

[screenager2004]

(Original post by sconter)
f g

No, it's not an observation - it's your opinion.
The consequences of you holding said opinions is damaging to those parties.

[sconter]

(Original post by screenager2004)
No, it's not an observation - it's your opinion.
The consequences of you holding said opinions is damaging to those parties.

they arent really opinions, more theories. with evidence to back them up. not all features are positive. if it is genetic then they soundnt be discriminated.

[screenager2004]

(Original post by sconter)
they arent really opinions, more theories. with evidence to back them up. not all features are positive. if it is genetic then they soundnt be discriminated.

You have no proof to back it up. Correlation =/= causation.

[sconter]

(Original post by screenager2004)
You have no proof to back it up. Correlation =/= causation.

correlation is enough

[screenager2004]

Okay well I think this thread has devolved quite enough.