Sexism Against Men and Female Privilege in the British ‘Justice’ System
Scroll to see replies
Original post by jane matthews
Feminism is a load of rubbish, for stupid women who can't take responsibility for their own actions it's just a load of rubbish that persecutes men for things women do.
Feminism could serve a purpose IF it was used to make sensible arguments and had some consistency of a fair positive negative balance on the natural gender differences.
However feminism has become an ANTI-MEN movement for women who already have more than equality but are just sore losers in life.
Relax guys tho we're not all this stupid
When will women realise that destroying men is not helping them as men are part of our families. Men can be our sons brothers dad's husbands etc not just the guy you got drunk and chose to sleep with then somehow it's his fault
Feminism could serve a purpose IF it was used to make sensible arguments and had some consistency of a fair positive negative balance on the natural gender differences.
However feminism has become an ANTI-MEN movement for women who already have more than equality but are just sore losers in life.
Relax guys tho we're not all this stupid
When will women realise that destroying men is not helping them as men are part of our families. Men can be our sons brothers dad's husbands etc not just the guy you got drunk and chose to sleep with then somehow it's his fault
Feminism is not a load of rubbish and it certainly has not become an Anti-men movement at all unless you are talking about the radical 'feminists' that you see on twitter who are minority of misinformed women, not representative of the feminists who actually have a clue about what feminism really means.
Also it is not just women that are feminists, but men are feminists too. My dad, my uncles, my grandad, my guy friends are all feminists too because they believe in the true meaning of feminism. Some of the most influential males are feminists, aka Barack Obama, Will Smith, Patrick Stewart, John Legend, Prince Harry... the list is endless.
Feminist: a person who believes in the political, social and economic equality of the sexes.
please come back when you are fully informed and understand the TRUE meaning of feminism and try again hun, I'm rooting for you.
Original post by greysychology
Feminism is not a load of rubbish and it certainly has not become an Anti-men movement at all unless you are talking about the radical 'feminists' that you see on twitter who are minority of misinformed women, not representative of the feminists who actually have a clue about what feminism really means.
Also it is not just women that are feminists, but men are feminists too. My dad, my uncles, my grandad, my guy friends are all feminists too because they believe in the true meaning of feminism. Some of the most influential males are feminists, aka Barack Obama, Will Smith, Patrick Stewart, John Legend, Prince Harry... the list is endless.
Feminist: a person who believes in the political, social and economic equality of the sexes.
please come back when you are fully informed and understand the TRUE meaning of feminism and try again hun, I'm rooting for you.
Also it is not just women that are feminists, but men are feminists too. My dad, my uncles, my grandad, my guy friends are all feminists too because they believe in the true meaning of feminism. Some of the most influential males are feminists, aka Barack Obama, Will Smith, Patrick Stewart, John Legend, Prince Harry... the list is endless.
Feminist: a person who believes in the political, social and economic equality of the sexes.
please come back when you are fully informed and understand the TRUE meaning of feminism and try again hun, I'm rooting for you.
Gender, not sexes.
Original post by DarthRoar
Are we talking about feminism or capitalist scum, comrade?
To a large extent they derive from the same fundamental issue. The modern understanding of the family and gender relations are essentially an aspect of capitalism.
Original post by greysychology
Feminism is not a load of rubbish and it certainly has not become an Anti-men movement at all unless you are talking about the radical 'feminists' that you see on twitter who are minority of misinformed women, not representative of the feminists who actually have a clue about what feminism really means.
Also it is not just women that are feminists, but men are feminists too. My dad, my uncles, my grandad, my guy friends are all feminists too because they believe in the true meaning of feminism. Some of the most influential males are feminists, aka Barack Obama, Will Smith, Patrick Stewart, John Legend, Prince Harry... the list is endless.
Feminist: a person who believes in the political, social and economic equality of the sexes.
please come back when you are fully informed and understand the TRUE meaning of feminism and try again hun, I'm rooting for you.
Also it is not just women that are feminists, but men are feminists too. My dad, my uncles, my grandad, my guy friends are all feminists too because they believe in the true meaning of feminism. Some of the most influential males are feminists, aka Barack Obama, Will Smith, Patrick Stewart, John Legend, Prince Harry... the list is endless.
Feminist: a person who believes in the political, social and economic equality of the sexes.
please come back when you are fully informed and understand the TRUE meaning of feminism and try again hun, I'm rooting for you.
If it was that then the word for it should be "equality of the sex movement" not "feminism" if it was about equality why couldn't it be "masculism" instead of feminism. See obviously it wouldn't be because it is just a pro feminine anti men movement through and through.
Notice how the word "feminism" is surprisingly a lot more similar to the word "feminine" not the word "masculine" so the word itself tells you a lot more than some dictionary definition. So if it is really about equality how come it isn't synonymous with "masculinism" see because it's not about equality it's just anti men pro women through and through
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by greysychology
Feminism is not a load of rubbish and it certainly has not become an Anti-men
I strongly agree with you. Feminism is not rubbish!!!! Feminism is a highly institutionalised, destructive, sexist force that needs to be taken seriously. I also agree with you that feminism has not become anti-men. It has always been anti-men:
It is an ideology based on the sexist principle of Patriarchy, a premise which preaches the falsehood that men are to blame for world problems. That men are in a state of advantage and women in a state of disadvantage across the globe thanks to men. Reality of course is the opposite. The following comment left by your feminazi compatriot reinforces what I wrote here:
Original post by Moura
If you were actually wondering why this whole issue exists it is because MEN in the past did not believe women as capable of acts of atrocity as men. It is men that caused this culture in law, and often men that uphold it still. The vast majority of judges are men. I wonder if you compared the sentences of male judges vs. female judges on women there would be any differences.
..........
Original post by Moura
Also it is not just women that are feminists, but men are feminists too
This proves absolutely nothing. Countless Jews fought alongside and helped Nazis in the second world war. This doesn't mean that nazism was pro-jewish. Secondly, men are a non-existent minority of the feminist movement. The biggest testimony to this is the 100% gender gap in woman's studies courses across the UK.
(Stats for Women's Studies course at the University of York - Source - Mike buchanan's "Feminism the Ugly Truth" )
Thirdly, most anti-feminists that I have come across in my life are women and the majority of women refuse to identify themselves as feminists let alone men. You are a non-existent but loud minority.
Original post by greysychology
Feminist: a person who believes in the political, social and economic equality of the sexes.
You are confusing egalitarianism for feminism. I am an egalitarian and an anti-feminist. I believe that anti-feminism is fighting for political and social and economic equality of the sexes. We can't both be right.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by CookieButter
I strongly agree with you. Feminism is not rubbish!!!! Feminism is a highly institutionalised, destructive, sexist force that needs to be taken seriously. I also agree with you that feminism has not become anti-men. It has always been anti-men:
It is an ideology based on the sexist principle of Patriarchy, which preaches the falsehood that the male gender is in a state of privilege and women in a state of disadvantage thanks to men. Reality of course its the opposite. The following comment left by your feminist compatriot reinforces what I wrote here:
..........
This proves absolutely nothing. Countless Jews fought alongside and helped Nazis in the second world war. This doesn't mean that nazism was pro-jewish. Secondly, men are a non-existent minority of the feminist movement. The biggest testimony to this is the 100% gender gap in woman's studies courses across the UK.
(Stats for Women's Studies course at the University of York - Source - Mike buchanan's "Feminism the Ugly Truth"
Thirdly, Most Anti-feminists that I have come across in my life are women. In the majority of women refs to identify as feminists let alone men. You are anon-existent but loud minority.
You are confusing egalitarianism for feminism. I am an egalitarian and an anti-feminist. I believe that anti-feminism is fighting for political and social and economic equality of the sexes. We can't both be right.
It is an ideology based on the sexist principle of Patriarchy, which preaches the falsehood that the male gender is in a state of privilege and women in a state of disadvantage thanks to men. Reality of course its the opposite. The following comment left by your feminist compatriot reinforces what I wrote here:
..........
This proves absolutely nothing. Countless Jews fought alongside and helped Nazis in the second world war. This doesn't mean that nazism was pro-jewish. Secondly, men are a non-existent minority of the feminist movement. The biggest testimony to this is the 100% gender gap in woman's studies courses across the UK.
(Stats for Women's Studies course at the University of York - Source - Mike buchanan's "Feminism the Ugly Truth"
Thirdly, Most Anti-feminists that I have come across in my life are women. In the majority of women refs to identify as feminists let alone men. You are anon-existent but loud minority.
You are confusing egalitarianism for feminism. I am an egalitarian and an anti-feminist. I believe that anti-feminism is fighting for political and social and economic equality of the sexes. We can't both be right.
The reason I stopped replying to you is because you are quite clearly a very bitter person who has no interest in reality. Comparing feminism to nazi germany? Are you insane? I actually do not understand how people like you exist. Women around the world for millennia have been persecuted, discriminated against and abused... purely based on their gender. They still are in many countries. In our country (and other western countries) the hard work and sacrifice of some incredible women (and men) managed to change that. In the past 10-20 years a minority of women have started a 3rd wave, which includes some radical people. Most people, women included, think a lot of these radical ideas are unfair and unequal towards men and do not support them, or at least the way in which they go about them, and do not identify them as part of the feminist movement. There is 0 possibility of them becoming reality because most normal people do not agree (and let's be real, men still hold the majority of powerful government positions)... but even if they were to become reality then men would still not be facing even remotely the kind of inequality women faced.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Khanthebrit
Women wouldn't be commiting crimes if their husbands put them in their rightful place, the kitchen. There is no crime for making a good sandwich....
Lawl
Original post by CookieButter
In 2015 the conviction rate for murder for women was roughly 300% lower than that for men and 400% lower than the national average.
I can't be bothered taking a side either way on this issue at the moment, but I did chuckle at this stat.
If the conviction rate is 300% lower for women compared to men, and there are only men and women, how in the world can it be 400% lower than the national average? Who else is contributing to this national average?!
Original post by olitre
yes conviction means found guilty. More men are found guilty because more men are likely to commit crime.
These are just simple facts.
These are just simple facts.
Your lack of understanding around numbers is hilarious.
Original post by M1011
If the conviction rate is 300% lower for women compared to men, and there are only men and women, how in the world can it be 400% lower than the national average? Who else is contributing to this national average?!
If the conviction rate is 300% lower for women compared to men, and there are only men and women, how in the world can it be 400% lower than the national average? Who else is contributing to this national average?!
The national average is an average for conviction rates for all crimes. The conviction rate for women as compared to men in this example is of murder only. So we are comparing the conviction rates for murder to the national average for all crimes. So we are not talking about one population here from which these values are drawn but rather two populations. one of women and men for murder and the other of conviction rates for all crimes. I hope this helps you see the flaw in your statement.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by CookieButter
The national average is an average for conviction rates for all crimes. The conviction rate for women as compared to men in this example is of murder only. So we are comparing the conviction rates for murder to the national average for all crimes. So we are not talking about one population but two. I hope the helps you see the flaw in your statement.
It helps me see that you didn't articulate the point you were trying to make? None of the information you just presented is in the OP, how do you figure that's my fault? Silly.
Also, if that is indeed the facts, then why would you mention the 400%? I get the comparison of male conviction rates to female conviction rates for the same crime, that seems a sensible point to make. Comparing female conviction rates for murder (a pretty serious crime!) to national conviction rates for all crimes is absurd - seems like sensationalism.
I hope this helps you see the flaw in your statement.
Original post by M1011
It helps me see that you didn't articulate the point you were trying to make? None of the information you just presented is in the OP, how do you figure that's my fault? Silly.
"In 2015 the conviction rate for murder for women was roughly 300% lower than that for men and 400% lower than the national average.
The conviction rate for murder is going to be a conviction rate for murder alone and the national average is going to be an average for the conviction rates of all crimes....I think that this goes without saying really.
Original post by M1011
Also, if that is indeed the facts, then why would you mention the 400%? I get the comparison of male conviction rates to female conviction rates for the same crime, that seems a sensible point to make. Comparing female conviction rates for murder (a pretty serious crime!) to national conviction rates for all crimes is absurd - seems like sensationalism. I hope this helps you see the flaw in your statement.
Also, if that is indeed the facts, then why would you mention the 400%? I get the comparison of male conviction rates to female conviction rates for the same crime, that seems a sensible point to make. Comparing female conviction rates for murder (a pretty serious crime!) to national conviction rates for all crimes is absurd - seems like sensationalism. I hope this helps you see the flaw in your statement.
The average for conviction rates is an official figure used by the government to identify problems within the justice system. The whole purpose for calculating this national average is to compare the conviction rates from single crimes to it. That is its function. You compare conviction rates form single crimes to the national average for conviction rates to help identify problems within the justice system. let me give you an example, If the national average for conviction rates for all crimes is 30% and the conviction rate for murder for 'fat' people is 100% then this is a statistical indicator of a problem that needs investigating. The whole purpose of calculating the national average for conviction rates is to have it compared to conviction rates for single crimes. That is its whole purpose so I am little bit perplexed by your comments.
(edited 7 years ago)
Oh cool, we're doing breakdowns. This is getting serious!
You're too close to it. You wrote it, and knowing what you meant to say is distorting how you interpret the sentence. In plain English what you have said in that sentence is that the conviction rate for murder for women is (a) 300% lower than the same for men and (b) 400% lower than the same for everybody. That is what you said, although I do now understand what you were trying to say (even if it's nonsense).
Great, what has that to do with the conversation on the 400%. The final part of your statement makes perfect sense ('conviction rate for murder for fat people', that that is the equivalent of the 300% figure. You've compared conviction rates for murder for one group vs another group for the same crime and drawn a conclusion - great, no issues.
What I've criticised is your sensationalism by comparing murder conviction rates for one group against ALL conviction rates for everybody, and somehow interpreting that to mean something. It's apples and pears. To use your example, it's like saying fat people get convicted 50% of the time for all crimes and women get convicted 10% of the time for murder - that means nothing! Within that 50% fat people conviction rate for all we know the murder conviction rate could be under 10%? Murders make up a remarkably small proportion of total crimes.
You follow?
Original post by CookieButter
"In 2015 the conviction rate for murder for women was roughly 300% lower than that for men and 400% lower than the national average.
The conviction rate for murder is going to be a conviction rate for murder alone and the national average is going to be an average for the conviction rates of all crimes....I think that this goes without saying....how much more clarification do you need?
The conviction rate for murder is going to be a conviction rate for murder alone and the national average is going to be an average for the conviction rates of all crimes....I think that this goes without saying....how much more clarification do you need?
You're too close to it. You wrote it, and knowing what you meant to say is distorting how you interpret the sentence. In plain English what you have said in that sentence is that the conviction rate for murder for women is (a) 300% lower than the same for men and (b) 400% lower than the same for everybody. That is what you said, although I do now understand what you were trying to say (even if it's nonsense).
Original post by CookieButter
The average for conviction rates is an official figure used by the government to identify problems within the justice system. The whole purpose for calculating this national average is to compare the conviction rates from single crimes to it. That is its function. You compare conviction rates form single crimes to the national average to help identify problems within the justice system. let me give you an example, If the national average for conviction rates for murder is 30% and the conviction rate for murder for 'fat' people is 100% then this is a statistical indicator of a problem that needs investigating. I am little bit perplexed by your comments.
Great, what has that to do with the conversation on the 400%. The final part of your statement makes perfect sense ('conviction rate for murder for fat people'
, that that is the equivalent of the 300% figure. You've compared conviction rates for murder for one group vs another group for the same crime and drawn a conclusion - great, no issues. What I've criticised is your sensationalism by comparing murder conviction rates for one group against ALL conviction rates for everybody, and somehow interpreting that to mean something. It's apples and pears. To use your example, it's like saying fat people get convicted 50% of the time for all crimes and women get convicted 10% of the time for murder - that means nothing! Within that 50% fat people conviction rate for all we know the murder conviction rate could be under 10%? Murders make up a remarkably small proportion of total crimes.
You follow?
Original post by M1011
Oh cool, we're doing breakdowns. This is getting serious!
You're too close to it. You wrote it, and knowing what you meant to say is distorting how you interpret the sentence. In plain English what you have said in that sentence is that the conviction rate for murder for women is (a) 300% lower than the same for men and (b) 400% lower than the same for everybody. That is what you said, although I do now understand what you were trying to say (even if it's nonsense).
You're too close to it. You wrote it, and knowing what you meant to say is distorting how you interpret the sentence. In plain English what you have said in that sentence is that the conviction rate for murder for women is (a) 300% lower than the same for men and (b) 400% lower than the same for everybody. That is what you said, although I do now understand what you were trying to say (even if it's nonsense).
Are you for real M1011? Are you drunk or what?
Original post by M1011
Great, what has that to do with the conversation on the 400%. The final part of your statement makes perfect sense ('conviction rate for murder for fat people', that that is the equivalent of the 300% figure. You've compared conviction rates for murder for one group vs another group for the same crime and drawn a conclusion - great, no issues.
What I've criticised is your sensationalism by comparing murder conviction rates for one group against ALL conviction rates for everybody, and somehow interpreting that to mean something. It's apples and pears. To use your example, it's like saying fat people get convicted 50% of the time for all crimes and women get convicted 10% of the time for murder - that means nothing! Within that 50% fat people conviction rate for all we know the murder conviction rate could be under 10%? Murders make up a remarkably small proportion of total crimes.
You follow?
Great, what has that to do with the conversation on the 400%. The final part of your statement makes perfect sense ('conviction rate for murder for fat people'
, that that is the equivalent of the 300% figure. You've compared conviction rates for murder for one group vs another group for the same crime and drawn a conclusion - great, no issues. What I've criticised is your sensationalism by comparing murder conviction rates for one group against ALL conviction rates for everybody, and somehow interpreting that to mean something. It's apples and pears. To use your example, it's like saying fat people get convicted 50% of the time for all crimes and women get convicted 10% of the time for murder - that means nothing! Within that 50% fat people conviction rate for all we know the murder conviction rate could be under 10%? Murders make up a remarkably small proportion of total crimes.
You follow?
M1011....The national average for conviction rates is an official figure calculated by the govnerment for the sole purpose of having it compared to conviction rates for single crimes.....THAT IS ITS WHOLE PURPOSE...you compare conviction rates for single crimes to the average for all crimes to help you identify problems. This is common sense. If the average conviction rate for crimes is 70% and the conviction rates for murder for women is 10%, 6 times lower than the national average that tells you that something is wrong ...
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by CookieButter
Are you for real M1011? Are you drunk or what?
M1011....The national average for conviction rates is an official figure calculated by the govnerment for the sole purpose of having it compared to conviction rates for single crimes.....THAT IS ITS WHOLE PURPOSE...you compare conviction rates for single crimes to the average for all crimes to help you identify problems. This is common sense. If the average conviction rate for crimes is 70% and the conviction rates for murder for women is 10%, 6 times lower than the national average that tells you that something is wrong ...
M1011....The national average for conviction rates is an official figure calculated by the govnerment for the sole purpose of having it compared to conviction rates for single crimes.....THAT IS ITS WHOLE PURPOSE...you compare conviction rates for single crimes to the average for all crimes to help you identify problems. This is common sense. If the average conviction rate for crimes is 70% and the conviction rates for murder for women is 10%, 6 times lower than the national average that tells you that something is wrong ...
OK, you don't have a great grasp of stats. That's fine, not everybody does, but take some care when you're quoting them alright?
As anybody with a head for numbers will explain, your use of the national average is incorrect. You can not plausibly compare the murder conviction rate SPECIFICALLY for women, to the national average conviction rate for EVERYONE, and then draw a meaningful conclusion about gender. You are not comparing like for like.
Here's what you could do;
1) Compare the murder conviction rate for women vs the murder conviction rate for men. You actually did do this, quoting 300%, great - makes sense.
2) Compare the murder conviction rate for women against the national average conviction rate for women. This would tell you if there's an unusual trend between conviction rates for women for the specific crime of murder versus conviction rates for women for all crimes. An interesting stat, but irrelevant to a discussion on gender inequality. (and probably largely irrelevant anyway given the relative seriousness of a murder charge vs the trivial stuff that composes the bulk of the data).
3) Compare the murder conviction rate for everyone to the national average conviction rate. This would tell you if there's an unusual trend between conviction rates for all for the specific crime of murder versus conviction rates for all for all crimes. An interesting stat, but again irrelevant to a discussion on gender inequality (and probably largely irrelevant anyway given the relative seriousness of a murder charge vs the trivial stuff that composes the bulk of the data).
What you can not do (well you can try but it's meaningless), is compare the murder conviction rate for women, against the national conviction rate for all crimes for men+women, and then quote that as having some significance. These don't go together, apples and pears! You're confusing two potential issues at once, do you think this stat is showing you the disparity between murder and other crimes, or the disparity between men and women? Or, is it possible, it's showing you a mixture of both and therefore utterly irrelevant? Bingo!
Do you understand now? Please try and take in the facts I'm giving you, this isn't opinion or subjective. Don't argue for the sake of it unless you actually disagree with these facts, in which case let me know which specific bits of the above don't make sense to you and I'll explain.
Original post by M1011
Who told you that you cannot compare the conviction rates for females to the average conviction rates in this country?
What is the purpose of calculating an overall average for a population other than to have it compared to stats for single demographics? This is all basic primary school level mathematics...
When you compare the overall average for conviction rates in a country with the average for a single gender it helps you to statistically identify if that gender has it good or bad as compared to everyone else. That is the whole purpose of calculating overall averages for a population. That is the whole purpose of my comparing the conviction rates for women to the overall average. The whole purpose of calculating an overall average is to use it to compare single groups within a population to everyone else in that population.
Lets put this into perspective. UCAS calculates an overall average for the number of students that go to university after finishing school. UCAS compares the percentage of 'blacks' and 'whites' and the percentage of girls and boys that go to university to this overall average, which tells UCAS a story about the state of those genders and enthnicites in this country. If, for example, the overall average for students that go to university is 30% in this country and boys have a 5% chance of going to university...this tells you that men are at a statistical disadvantage as compared to the overall population. Comparing single demographics to overall averages for an entire population is an important part of statistics.
I think the problem with you is that you are confusing deductions with comparisons. You cannot for example deduce what things will be like for girls from an overall average that includes an entire population of both girls and boys. You cannot, for example deduce the chance of a women being convicted for a crime from an overall average that includes conviction rates for both girls and boys and I have not done this here. You can however COMPARE the number of girls being convicted to the overall average for the entire population in this country and this tells you if they are at a statistical disadvantage or advantage as compared to everyone else..this is what I did.
We compare single group means to overall averages for a population all the time in statistics. Let me give you another example; in universities we measure the number of students who drop out as a percentage of the total population. We call this the overall drop out rate. It includes both women and men. We also calculate the drop out rate for women alone and for men alone. We then compare the drop out rates for women to the overall drop out rate and do the same for men. This helps us compare the stats for men and women to the overall average which in turn helps us identify groups that are at a disadvantage or advantage.
You have misunderstood what is being done in my comparison. You also come across like the sort of person that will keep arguing until the end of time regardless of how often you are pointed out to be wrong. So I'm going to leave this non-sense debate about basic primary school level mathematics here. If you have an opinion about the gender issues being discussed in this thread I would gladly entertain it. Otherwise, I think its best we leave this discussion. I don't want this thread to derail into a debate about statistics.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by greysychology
Feminism is not a load of rubbish and it certainly has not become an Anti-men movement at all unless you are talking about the radical 'feminists' that you see on twitter who are minority of misinformed women, not representative of the feminists who actually have a clue about what feminism really means.
Also it is not just women that are feminists, but men are feminists too. My dad, my uncles, my grandad, my guy friends are all feminists too because they believe in the true meaning of feminism. Some of the most influential males are feminists, aka Barack Obama, Will Smith, Patrick Stewart, John Legend, Prince Harry... the list is endless.
Feminist: a person who believes in the political, social and economic equality of the sexes.
please come back when you are fully informed and understand the TRUE meaning of feminism and try again hun, I'm rooting for you.
Also it is not just women that are feminists, but men are feminists too. My dad, my uncles, my grandad, my guy friends are all feminists too because they believe in the true meaning of feminism. Some of the most influential males are feminists, aka Barack Obama, Will Smith, Patrick Stewart, John Legend, Prince Harry... the list is endless.
Feminist: a person who believes in the political, social and economic equality of the sexes.
please come back when you are fully informed and understand the TRUE meaning of feminism and try again hun, I'm rooting for you.
You don't judge a group by what they claim to stand for you judge them on what they stand for and feminism has moved so far away from that, do you class Jess Phillips as a feminist?
Do you think 93% of women in the uk are wrong for not being feminists?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by CookieButter
Who told you that you cannot compare the conviction rates for females to the average conviction rates in this country?
What is the purpose of calculating an overall average for a population other than to have it compared to stats for single demographics? This is all basic primary school level mathematics...
When you compare the overall average for conviction rates in a country with the average for a single gender it helps you to statistically identify if that gender has it good or bad as compared to everyone else. That is the whole purpose of calculating overall averages for a population. That is the whole purpose of my comparing the conviction rates for women to the overall average. The whole purpose of calculating an overall average is to use it to compare single groups within a population to everyone else in that population.
Lets put this into perspective. UCAS calculates an overall average for the number of students that go to university after finishing school. UCAS compares the percentage of 'blacks' and 'whites' and the percentage of girls and boys that go to university to this overall average, which tells UCAS a story about the state of those genders and enthnicites in this country. If, for example, the overall average for students that go to university is 30% in this country and boys have a 5% chance of going to university...this tells you that men are at a statistical disadvantage as compared to the overall population. Comparing single demographics to overall averages for an entire population is an important part of statistics.
I think the problem with you is that you are confusing deductions with comparisons. You cannot for example deduce what things will be like for girls from an overall average that includes an entire population of both girls and boys. You cannot, for example deduce the chance of a women being convicted for a crime from an overall average that includes conviction rates for both girls and boys and I have not done this here. You can however COMPARE the number of girls being convicted to the overall average for the entire population in this country and this tells you if they are at a statistical disadvantage or advantage as compared to everyone else..this is what I did.
We compare single group means to overall averages for a population all the time in statistics. Let me give you another example; in universities we measure the number of students who drop out as a percentage of the total population. We call this the overall drop out rate. It includes both women and men. We also calculate the drop out rate for women alone and for men alone. We then compare the drop out rates for women to the overall drop out rate and do the same for men. This helps us compare the stats for men and women to the overall average which in turn helps us identify groups that are at a disadvantage or advantage.
You have misunderstood what is being done in my comparison. You also come across like the sort of person that will keep arguing until the end of time regardless of how often you are pointed out to be wrong. So I'm going to leave this non-sense debate about basic primary school level mathematics here. If you have an opinion about the gender issues being discussed in this thread I would gladly entertain it. Otherwise, I think its best we leave this discussion. I don't want this thread to derail into a debate about statistics.
What is the purpose of calculating an overall average for a population other than to have it compared to stats for single demographics? This is all basic primary school level mathematics...
When you compare the overall average for conviction rates in a country with the average for a single gender it helps you to statistically identify if that gender has it good or bad as compared to everyone else. That is the whole purpose of calculating overall averages for a population. That is the whole purpose of my comparing the conviction rates for women to the overall average. The whole purpose of calculating an overall average is to use it to compare single groups within a population to everyone else in that population.
Lets put this into perspective. UCAS calculates an overall average for the number of students that go to university after finishing school. UCAS compares the percentage of 'blacks' and 'whites' and the percentage of girls and boys that go to university to this overall average, which tells UCAS a story about the state of those genders and enthnicites in this country. If, for example, the overall average for students that go to university is 30% in this country and boys have a 5% chance of going to university...this tells you that men are at a statistical disadvantage as compared to the overall population. Comparing single demographics to overall averages for an entire population is an important part of statistics.
I think the problem with you is that you are confusing deductions with comparisons. You cannot for example deduce what things will be like for girls from an overall average that includes an entire population of both girls and boys. You cannot, for example deduce the chance of a women being convicted for a crime from an overall average that includes conviction rates for both girls and boys and I have not done this here. You can however COMPARE the number of girls being convicted to the overall average for the entire population in this country and this tells you if they are at a statistical disadvantage or advantage as compared to everyone else..this is what I did.
We compare single group means to overall averages for a population all the time in statistics. Let me give you another example; in universities we measure the number of students who drop out as a percentage of the total population. We call this the overall drop out rate. It includes both women and men. We also calculate the drop out rate for women alone and for men alone. We then compare the drop out rates for women to the overall drop out rate and do the same for men. This helps us compare the stats for men and women to the overall average which in turn helps us identify groups that are at a disadvantage or advantage.
You have misunderstood what is being done in my comparison. You also come across like the sort of person that will keep arguing until the end of time regardless of how often you are pointed out to be wrong. So I'm going to leave this non-sense debate about basic primary school level mathematics here. If you have an opinion about the gender issues being discussed in this thread I would gladly entertain it. Otherwise, I think its best we leave this discussion. I don't want this thread to derail into a debate about statistics.
Take a step back buddy, try and listen to what I'm actually saying. I'll take another shot at explaining it, but if you don't want to listen that's fine.
Your examples make sense. They are in line with what I said. In your examples you take a cut of the same statistics by changing a single variable, and therefore get meaningful data. To take one of your examples;
The overall average for students that go to university [for all subjects] is 30% in this country and boys have a 5% chance of going to university...this tells you that men are at a statistical disadvantage as compared to the overall population.
This makes sense. You are applying a like for like measure. The only element you are changing is in one cut of the data you have an overall average, and in the other cut of the data you have the male average. Absolutely OK buddy, that's how stats work!
We can safely deduce from those numbers that males are statistically less likely to go to university. Great! Now would it make sense to you however if I used the same example again below, but with one minor tweak?
The overall average for students that go to university [for all subjects] is 30% in this country and boys have a 5% chance of going to university to study Biology...this tells you that men are at a statistical disadvantage as compared to the overall population.
Now what you'll see there is I've added a second variable - "to study Biology". Can we now draw the same conclusion that males are statistically less likely to go to university on the basis that 30% of everyone go to university and only 5% of men go to study Biology? I would hope you'd agree that's not the case! By adding a second variable we are no longer accurately comparing like for like with different cuts of the same total. The simple fact of the matter is that we no longer know if the stat is telling us men are at a disadvantage, or if Biology is a less popular subject. It could even be a combination of those factors, but unfortunately as we're not comparing like for like we can not tell from this stat what the root cause of the difference is.
Does this make sense? You can no longer conclude based on that edited quote that "men are at a statistical disadvantage", because it could actually be the Biology element that is causing the difference in the averages - we don't know!
Now apply this same logic to the below two statements;
In 2015 the conviction rate for murder was roughly 400% lower than the national average [for all crimes]
In 2015 the conviction rate for murder for women was roughly 400% lower than the national average [for all crimes]
Do you see now? On the first one we know the rate for murder is clearly below the national average - we can draw a conclusion. On the second one you've mixed variables and can no longer draw a conclusion, just like in the biology example above! We don't know if the conviction rate for murder is low compared to the national average for all crimes, if the conviction rate for women for crimes in general is lower than the average for all, or if it's a combination of the two! There is simply no way to draw that information from this stat as you've presented it.
I hope this makes more sense now, but if not I guess we can agree to disagree.
Spoiler
Original post by joecphillips
You don't judge a group by what they claim to stand for you judge them on what they stand for and feminism has moved so far away from that, do you class Jess Phillips as a feminist?
Do you think 93% of women in the uk are wrong for not being feminists?
Do you think 93% of women in the uk are wrong for not being feminists?
No I don't think that Jess Phillips should be classed as a feminist. If she mocks and undermines important issues such as male suicide, the mental health of males and domestic violence against men then she is hardly advocating equality, especially by playing the 'victim card'. Real feminists don't see women as 'victims' and we certainly don't undermine or downplay the role of serious issues that every gender faces. I've lost a very important male friend to suicide, someone that I went through childhood with so I understand the especially negative impact of mental health issues on men and I see that it is highly stigmatised and underplayed in society, honestly it makes me so angry that there isn't enough awareness concerning this issue. A real feminist would not ignore the growing statistics showing that men are increasingly becoming victims of domestic violence and it makes me sick to feel that it is laughed off just because they're men so surely that means domestic violence couldn't possibly happen to them ?!?! I think there is a huge misconception and misunderstanding of what feminism actually means in today's society. It should mean the gender equality between the sexes, not only from the perspective of white western women. Yes only 7% of Britons claim to be feminists, but 2/3s of the population also claim that they support gender equality. Maybe they don't claim to be feminists because the words is used in all the wrong ways and the notion of it has become so misconstrued and has so many negative connotations in today's society.
Original post by joecphillips
You don't judge a group by what they claim to stand for you judge them on what they stand for and feminism has moved so far away from that, do you class Jess Phillips as a feminist?
Do you think 93% of women in the uk are wrong for not being feminists?
Do you think 93% of women in the uk are wrong for not being feminists?
No I don't think that Jess Phillips should be classed as a feminist. If she mocks and undermines important issues such as male suicide, the mental health of males and domestic violence against men then she is hardly advocating equality, especially by playing the 'victim card'. Real feminists don't see women as 'victims' and we certainly don't undermine or downplay the role of serious issues that every gender faces. I've lost a very important male friend to suicide, someone that I went through childhood with so I understand the especially negative impact of mental health issues on men and I see that it is highly stigmatised and underplayed in society, honestly it makes me so angry that there isn't enough awareness concerning this issue. A real feminist would not ignore the growing statistics showing that men are increasingly becoming victims of domestic violence and it makes me sick to feel that it is laughed off just because they're men so surely that means domestic violence couldn't possibly happen to them ?!?!
I think there is a huge misconception and misunderstanding of what feminism actually means in today's society. It should mean the gender equality between the sexes, not only from the perspective of white western women.
Yes only 7% of Britons claim to be feminists, but 2/3s of the population also claim that they support gender equality. Maybe they don't claim to be feminists because the words is used in all the wrong ways and the notion of it has become so misconstrued and has so many negative connotations in today's society.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
