This discussion is closed.
Sire
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#61
Report 16 years ago
#61
(Original post by xAngelx)
thats what i was saying like you have put it in to two things like a womans point of view and a males view to get the child

the parents shouldn't split up dammit!

i didn't mean to offend anyone by saying that (but i guess i will have done to someone)
Well they should and they shouldn't. Split up I mean. Would you like to be raised in a relationship where the parents are constantly antagonising each other, neither wanting to be in the relationship any longer?
0
xAngelx
Badges: 0
#62
Report 16 years ago
#62
(Original post by lala)
You're irritating because you're so petulant. You come on and start being argumentative and then whinge when someone replies to you.
couldn't you from the start just answered like when i said have you got any evidence you could have replied like what Sire has by the mother and father statement, me i would of just said theres alot of fathers out there who get the children and i would have been like fair enough, but u have to go about it been the biggest insult ever
0
xAngelx
Badges: 0
#63
Report 16 years ago
#63
(Original post by Sire)
Well they should and they shouldn't. Split up I mean. Would you like to be raised in a relationship where the parents are constantly antagonising each other, neither wanting to be in the relationship any longer?
oh defently not my dad left for a week when i was ickle and that wasn't nice, i wouldn't wish it upon anyones family, but its not nice for the child to be brought up n a unhealth family that argue all the time if you know what i mean
0
Sire
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#64
Report 16 years ago
#64
(Original post by xAngelx)
oh defently not my dad left for a week when i was ickle and that wasn't nice, i wouldn't wish it upon anyones family, but its not nice for the child to be brought up n a unhealth family that argue all the time if you know what i mean
Story of my life mate.
0
lala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#65
Report 16 years ago
#65
(Original post by xAngelx)
couldn't you from the start just answered like when i said have you got any evidence you could have replied like what Sire has by the mother and father statement, me i would of just said theres alot of fathers out there who get the children and i would have been like fair enough, but u have to go about it been the biggest insult ever
I did answer you, I think your problem is that I didnt say what you wanted. You kept asking me to backup something that I never actually said, what would you expect me to do?
What sire says, though sensible, isnt actually evidence either. Its a suggestion as to the best way of doing things, it doesnt actually prove anything in itself. Anyway, its his view, why would I say it before he did? I'm not psychic.
What is your problem?
0
*dave*
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#66
Report 16 years ago
#66
Now now Angel and La La stop bickering!

Lala, I was making generalisations, but it is a generally accepted truth that if a man and a woman split up, the woman keeps the children unless there are exceptional circumstances meaning that the father should take custody. I dont have 'figures', but I think youre the only one trying to dispute this.

I was stating that women are far more protected by law in todays society than men. It was also being debated whether the same was true for black people, in that black people can be racist and nothing happens, compared to white people being racist and being condemned.

Can we get back to the issues rather than squabbling yeah?
0
Sire
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#67
Report 16 years ago
#67
(Original post by *dave*)
Now now Angel and La La stop bickering!

Lala, I was making generalisations, but it is a generally accepted truth that if a man and a woman split up, the woman keeps the children unless there are exceptional circumstances meaning that the father should take custody. I dont have 'figures', but I think youre the only one trying to dispute this.

I was stating that women are far more protected by law in todays society than men. It was also being debated whether the same was true for black people, in that black people can be racist and nothing happens, compared to white people being racist and being condemned.

Can we get back to the issues rather than squabbling yeah?
Righto. Back to the issue, and starting with the point you just made about black people being racist and getting away with it. Political correctness seems to state, over here in Oz at least, that to call an Aboriginal black is wrong. Yet for an Aboriginal to call an anglo-saxon white is perfectly ok. How is that fair? The only true racists I know are black. Yet racism is a term used to describe 'white' people who think lesser of those not 'white'. Politically correct??? I think not, just plain stupid.
0
*dave*
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#68
Report 16 years ago
#68
(Original post by Sire)
Righto. Back to the issue, and starting with the point you just made about black people being racist and getting away with it. Political correctness seems to state, over here in Oz at least, that to call an Aboriginal black is wrong. Yet for an Aboriginal to call an anglo-saxon white is perfectly ok. How is that fair? The only true racists I know are black. Yet racism is a term used to describe 'white' people who think lesser of those not 'white'. Politically correct??? I think not, just plain stupid.
I agree. Many black people take advantage of strict racism laws. If they get stopped in the street, they always say 'Youve only stopped me cos Im black' ...

If you are walking down a dark alley in the middle of the night, and you either see a little of lady, or a young black man walking towards you, wo are you gonna be more wary of?

Police stop more young, black males because young black males are most likely to commit crimes. Its a true stereotype and human nature means you cant get away from it.
0
Sire
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#69
Report 16 years ago
#69
(Original post by *dave*)
I agree. Many black people take advantage of strict racism laws. If they get stopped in the street, they always say 'Youve only stopped me cos Im black' ...

If you are walking down a dark alley in the middle of the night, and you either see a little of lady, or a young black man walking towards you, wo are you gonna be more wary of?

Police stop more young, black males because young black males are most likely to commit crimes. Its a true stereotype and human nature means you cant get away from it.
Yes, yes it is. But there are always exceptions to the rule. Just because one person of a race does a terrible act, doesn't mean that they all will. But yes the generalised stereotype is a truism.
0
lala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#70
Report 16 years ago
#70
(Original post by *dave*)
Now now Angel and La La stop bickering!
Lala, I was making generalisations, but it is a generally accepted truth that if a man and a woman split up, the woman keeps the children unless there are exceptional circumstances meaning that the father should take custody. I dont have 'figures', but I think youre the only one trying to dispute this.
I was stating that women are far more protected by law in todays society than men. It was also being debated whether the same was true for black people, in that black people can be racist and nothing happens, compared to white people being racist and being condemned.
Can we get back to the issues rather than squabbling yeah?
OK you are considering more then one issue so best to go through them one at a time.
It isnt a generally accepted truth that the mother has to be genuinely appalling not to get custody, there was a thread on here a couple of months ago disputing just that. I think you assume everyone thinks as you do. Note, I havent said whether I agree with you or not, but you do have to provide more evidence for such a generalised assertion for it to be really concrete.
However, I will give my opinion on you second point. Namely, its rubbish. If women had more protection by law I doubt we'd see so pronounced a difference between male and female earnings, for example, and perhaps something would have been done to protect by law the half of all female murder victims who are killed by current and ex male partners? Maybe even about the incredibly low rate of rape convictions? Now while the latter two examples apply only to the small minority of men who are rapists and murderers, the first gives males in general an advantage across society over women, and I dont see any legal protection for women there.
0
xAngelx
Badges: 0
#71
Report 16 years ago
#71
(Original post by lala)
OK you are considering more then one issue so best to go through them one at a time.
It isnt a generally accepted truth that the mother has to be genuinely appalling not to get custody, there was a thread on here a couple of months ago disputing just that. I think you assume everyone thinks as you do. Note, I havent said whether I agree with you or not, but you do have to provide more evidence for such a generalised assertion for it to be really concrete.
However, I will give my opinion on you second point. Namely, its rubbish. If women had more protection by law I doubt we'd see so pronounced a difference between male and female earnings, for example, and perhaps something would have been done to protect by law the half of all female murder victims who are killed by current and ex partners? Maybe even about the incredibly low rate of rape convictions? Now while the latter two examples apply only to the small minority of men who are rapists and murderers, the first gives males in general an advantage across society over women, and I dont see any legal protection for women there.
but now there is a law for women who are getting abused by partners they can be locked away either with or with out partners pressing charges
0
*dave*
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#72
Report 16 years ago
#72
(Original post by xAngelx)
but now there is a law for women who are getting abused by partners they can be locked away either with or with out partners pressing charges
And no law for men who are victims of domestic violence.
0
Sire
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#73
Report 16 years ago
#73
(Original post by *dave*)
And no law for men who are victims of domestic violence.
aye, yet I guess they didn't think one was really necessary.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#74
Report 16 years ago
#74
(Original post by *dave*)
And no law for men who are victims of domestic violence.
Actually the new law is for *all* victims of domestic violence regardless of gender the media have just presented the story from the most common point of view (and it only means the police can prosecute without the co-operation of the victim if they feel the victim is being intimidated/manipulated something they *could* do before it's just a lot more straightforward with the new legislation)

There are no sexist laws - however that doesn't mean there isn't bias in the way those laws are enforced by both the police and the judiciary.
0
*dave*
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#75
Report 16 years ago
#75
(Original post by lala)
OK you are considering more then one issue so best to go through them one at a time.
It isnt a generally accepted truth that the mother has to be genuinely appalling not to get custody, there was a thread on here a couple of months ago disputing just that. I think you assume everyone thinks as you do. Note, I havent said whether I agree with you or not, but you do have to provide more evidence for such a generalised assertion for it to be really concrete.
However, I will give my opinion on you second point. Namely, its rubbish. If women had more protection by law I doubt we'd see so pronounced a difference between male and female earnings, for example, and perhaps something would have been done to protect by law the half of all female murder victims who are killed by current and ex male partners? Maybe even about the incredibly low rate of rape convictions? Now while the latter two examples apply only to the small minority of men who are rapists and murderers, the first gives males in general an advantage across society over women, and I dont see any legal protection for women there.
It IS a generally accepted truth that women get custody of children unless there is something wrong with the mother. I think Its about 8% (say otherwise if Im wrong) of custody cases are won by the father.

The current trend of male and female earning differences is because many employers are worried about giving high profile jobs to women. This is due to potential maternity leave payments and the complications that maternity leave brings.

And another thing that backs my point, I think paternity leave currently stands at 2 weeks, and for a woman is it about 18 weeks or sumthing like that?
0
*dave*
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#76
Report 16 years ago
#76
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
Actually the new law is for *all* victims of domestic violence regardless of gender the media have just presented the story from the most common point of view (and it only means the police can prosecute without the co-operation of the victim if they feel the victim is being intimidated/manipulated something they *could* do before it's just a lot more straightforward with the new legislation)

There are no sexist laws - however that doesn't mean there isn't bias in the way those laws are enforced by both the police and the judiciary.
It is a 'new' law, which reinforces my point that laws protecting men are needing to be introduced just as muh as those protecting women.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#77
Report 16 years ago
#77
(Original post by *dave*)
It is a 'new' law, which reinforces my point that laws protecting men are needing to be introduced just as muh as those protecting women.
it's a *new* law that talks about victims of domestic violence - not male or female victims just plain old victims. The law will protect all victims regardless of gender (although it's possible that the police may not choose to use the new law as often as they should when it comes to male victims - that's not the law being biased it's the police)
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homea...097826,00.html
0
xAngelx
Badges: 0
#78
Report 16 years ago
#78
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
it's a *new* law that talks about victims of domestic violence - not male or female victims just plain old victims. The law will protect all victims regardless of gender (although it's possible that the police may not choose to use the new law as often as they should when it comes to male victims - that's not the law being biased it's the police)
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homea...097826,00.html
yeah but as i've heard alot of the men dont come forward because of pride in been a man and cant admit it, but there was a story about a man been abused by his wife, he ran police and they laughed at him and put the phone down
0
*dave*
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#79
Report 16 years ago
#79
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
it's a *new* law that talks about victims of domestic violence - not male or female victims just plain old victims. The law will protect all victims regardless of gender (although it's possible that the police may not choose to use the new law as often as they should when it comes to male victims - that's not the law being biased it's the police)
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homea...097826,00.html
There are other laws however that could be seen as sexist however. For example, you cant indecently expose yourself to a man, only a woman.
0
Sire
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#80
Report 16 years ago
#80
(Original post by xAngelx)
yeah but as i've heard alot of the men dont come forward because of pride in been a man and cant admit it, but there was a story about a man been abused by his wife, he ran police and they laughed at him and put the phone down
would it be fair to say that there was no swift justice in that case?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (12)
8.51%
Confident (18)
12.77%
Indifferent (25)
17.73%
Unsure (39)
27.66%
Worried (47)
33.33%

Watched Threads

View All