Turn on thread page Beta

Feminists Are Always Unattractive - Is This Generally True? watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    I can read and think independently
    Come end of this reply and this discussion I'll prove to you that you can do neither....

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    More men are convicted of murder because more murders are committed by men.
    Clearly you are not a teacher in mathematics nor English nor literature otherwise you would have understood those basic words and concepts that are percentages and you would have understood the meaning of the word RATE, which you clearly do not...I almost feel embarrassed for you because you question my criticising your comprehension skills in this same paragraph…whilst inadvertently proving that you are lacking in this department. Let me elaborate with the following question:

    How can a person claiming to be a teacher when shown a rate for convictions for men as compared to women reply with the following statement:

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    More men are convicted of murder because more murders are committed by men.
    Unless they were either mentally ill or really young or really ignorant or simple minded or purposely acting stupid?

    Rate is a frequency and percentages are proportions of a whole my ignorant friend. So firstly, you cannot describe either using the word 'more' but rather ‘higher’ or ‘lower’. Secondly, you not knowing what a rate or what a percentage is has lead you to misunderstand the meaning of my example and the article that I gave you.

    Conviction rates for gender in murder are a measure of the total number of men or women that have been convicted of murder as a percentage of the total population of either gender indicted for the crime. I doubt you have the comprehension skills to understand what I have written here so I'm going to try and break this down for you. If conviction rates for murder for women were for example 40% and conviction rates for men were 4000% that means that men are around 100 times more likely to be convicted of a crime in court than women. In this country women have conviction rates that are roughly 200% lower than those for men and 300% lower than the national average for all crimes. This raises the question as to why? The answer, I went to explain in my previous comment by giving examples, is sexism.

    A higher conviction rate for men does not equate to more men being convicted of murder. It just means men are being convicted more often than women. Do you even maths?...but it gets worse for you still, even if more men commit murders than women their conviction rates should be similar as per feminism's interpretations of equality….Its so f’n funny how you feminists preach equality, that principle of sameness morning day and night when it benefits your agenda but when it does not you throw it out of the window……You claim sexism because pay between women and men is not the same…apply this same logic of yours to conviction rates. According to feminism disparities in outcomes between men and women in society are due to sexism because men and women should have EQUAL OUTCOMES in life….clealry in conviction rates they don’t so according to feminism's idiotic logic men are suffering sexism and women are benefiting from it in the justice system and this contradicts their patriarchy theory. No, it contradicts their entire ideology, which argues that we live in a world that is designed for the benefit of men and disadvantagement of women.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    And you said I was stupid!
    Nowhere in my previous comment did I call you stupid...but considering your reply so far calling you that would be a gross understatement.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    No, but the document you linked to makes it completely clear. "For female offenders, the predominant mitigating factors that were included (within the offence groups analysed) included the appearance of genuine remorse, the age of the offender, the offender having caring responsibilities and a lack of previous relevant convictions. Male offenders were less likely to have any of these taken into account, especially in relation to having caring responsibilities. The aggravating factors that appeared for male offenders included the presence of previous relevant convictions, the location of the offence, being a member of a group or gang and evidence of some degree of pre-planning or pre-meditation. All of these were less likely to appear for females, although threatened or actual use of weapons (or equivalent) appeared for a similar proportion of both genders. " In other words, men and women have the same law applied, and are treated according to their circumstances. Men tend to have more previous convictions, are less likely to show remorse, more likely to have premeditation and are less likely to be the principal carer. Note the phrase 'less likely'. Not 'never', so the rest of your paragraph is factually incorrect.
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    That's the same sentence given to John Warboys who was convicted of drugging and raping or sexually assaulting 12 women. Yes, male and female sex offenders getting the same sentence. If you look at the table on the final page of this research document https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-sentences.pdf you will see that a large range of factors were measured, and for gender there was no statistically significant difference. What mattered was the type of crime and number of previous convictions.
    Even when these factors are controlled for, women still have significantly lower conviction rates. I will let the abstract from the following seminal paper address this issue for you:

    “Gender and Sentencing in the Federal Courts: Are Women Treated More Leniently?

    We examine the role of gender in the sentencing of defendants in federal courts. We address two questions: First, can we explain the gender gap in sentencing by taking into account differences in legal and extralegal factors? (i.e. the excuses you give for the disparity in your reply) And second, do legal and extralegal factors have the same impact for male and female defendants?

    Overall, we find that female defendants receive more lenient sentence outcomes than their male counterparts even after controlling for legal characteristics a substantial gap in sentencing outcomes remains. Also, despite their influence on sentencing outcomes in some instances, extralegal characteristics do not help to close the gender gap. Finally, when male and female defendants are examined separately, we find that not all legal and extralegal factors weigh equally for male and female defendants.”

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    In the UK there are 1.6 million women bringing up children by themselves. For men it is 179 000. That's why having a responsibility as a carer is more likely, but not exclusively, going to apply to women. On page 85 of the same document is a chart that shows men are also more likely to reoffend.
    Yes, this is another example of sexism against men in society. In the UK, divorced fathers do not have legal rights to their children whilst all mothers are automatically given that right. This thanks to laws brought into effect in 1992 which stripped them off their rights to their children. The architect of these laws were feminists. This is why women are always awarded custody of children. Your ignorance is limitless and I don't blame you for being this ignorant. You clearly lack the ability to think independently as you have claimed above. No, you are the definition of the word conformist. You are a sheep.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Rape is legally defined as the penetration of mouth, vagina or anus by a penis. That's why women can't be charged with rape.
    Yes and my argument was that this definition is sexist. I’m not sure whether you are purposely playing dumb or you are just really simple minded and I think its a combination of the two. You lack the courage to admit that you are wrong and that you live in a world that is disagreeable with feminism. A world where women are privileged as compared to men in all aspects of life, where they benefit from sexism as apposed to suffer from it.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    There are other offences, such as sexual assault by penetration. This is prosecuted under exactly the same sentencing guidelines as rape.
    Firstly, this does not change the fact that women cannot be charged with rape thanks to a sexist definition for that crime which excludes them from prosecution for it. You feminists argue for sexism against women in rape because up until recently according to you husbands could not be charged with this crime towards their wives. Yet you defend women, an entire gender, being excluded from prosecution for this crime throughout history….you are not just stupid you are hypocrites too.

    Just an FYI…men were not recognised as victims of rape until the late 90s…and only victims of other men. As in, women who rape young boys and men are protected from being labeled rapists by our judicial system, which you claim is not sexist.

    Secondly, sexual assaults are themselves written in such a way as to exclude most females from prosecution for the crime and even if women were charged with sexual assault it does not carry the same cultural and judicial repercussions as rape. I emphasised this fact in my previous comment. Being a convicted rapists is not like being convicted of sexual assault.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Utter nonsense. The victims were sexually assaulted and photographed. They were not raped. How could she have raped them, without a penis? One other woman was convicted of assault by penetration though.
    The definition for rape in this country includes forceful penetration using an object…Vanessa George forcefully penetrated those babies with objects. She would have been charged with rape had she been a man but because we live in a sexist society that protects female rapists and trivialises their crimes she was not charged with that crime.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    That's something that needs to change in our culture then. We need to get rid of gender stereotypes where men are always seen as stronger. I don't think any feminist would disagree with you there.
    Nope, we would not agree here me and feminists. You see, feminists claim that we live in world run by a system they call the patriarchy. A system created by men for the benefit of men. A system put in place by men to enslave and disadvantage women. Yet clearly here we have the opposite happening, women benefitting from stereotypes and men being disadvantaged by them…this is a case for sexism against men in favour of women..and this is disagreeable with feminism, which preaches that we live in a world that does the opposite.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Except you have no evidence to support this assertion. Quoting an American judge from 1923 is not going to change anyone's mind. Yes, there are initiatives aimed directly at reducing female reoffending. Even more is being spent of reducing gang and knife crimes, which are overwhelmingly committed by men.
    When I make claims I support them with references. Treat me in kind.

    Now, even if your claim was true those benefits that I mentioned are purely gendered and sexist. They are purely based on sex. Only women can benefit from them. Your knife crime example isn’t gendered at all. It benefits everyone.

    It is so incredibly easy walking all over you feminists.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Conviction rates for gender in murder are a measure of the total number of men or women that have been convicted of murder as a percentage of the total population of either gender indicted for the crime.
    No. They are not. Let me show you.
    In the document you linked to as 'evidence' it states:
    Female Male
    Arrests 2012/13 15% 85%
    Penalty Notices for Disorder 23% 77%
    Cautions 23% 77%
    Court Proceedings 25% 75%
    Convictions 25% 75%

    Notice how the figures for male and female in each case add up to 100%? That's not a coincidence. It means of all those arrested, 15% were female, 85% were male.
    Of those who ended up in court, 25% were female and 75% were male. In other words, even though only 15% of those arrested in 2013 were women, they formed a quarter of the total who went to court. The last two rows prove that a woman has exactly the same chance of getting convicted as a man. 75% of people in court are men, and 75% of people convicted are men.
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    It just means men are being convicted more often than women. Do you even maths?...
    Yes, I maths. And men are 3 times as likely to appear in court because they are three times more likely to be arrested, because they commit three times as many crimes. Unless of course you can find a reliable source that proves that loads of women are committing crimes and getting away with it.

    (Original post by CookieButter)
    “Gender and Sentencing in the Federal Courts: Are Women Treated More Leniently?
    We don't have Federal Courts. This, and your language use, suggests that you are more familiar with the USA than the UK, which puts you at somewhat of a disadvantage. The UK evidence, which I linked to previously, shows clear statistics to prove beyond doubt that in the UK, gender has no direct influence on outcome. I'm not an expert on crime in the USA, so if you say that there are gender issues in Federal Courts who am I to argue.

    (Original post by CookieButter)
    In the UK, divorced fathers do not have legal rights to their children whilst all mothers are automatically given that right.
    Not true. Here's the legal summary
    "A mother automatically has parental responsibility for her child from birth. A father usually has parental responsibility if he’s either: married to the child’s mother listed on the birth certificate (after a certain date, depending on which part of the UK the child was born in) You can apply for parental responsibility if you don’t automatically have it.
    If the parents of a child are married when the child is born, or if they’ve jointly adopted a child, both have parental responsibility. They both keep parental responsibility if they later divorce.

    "Most child residency court cases end amicably with either agreed residency or joint residency as the outcome Access and maintenance payments from the non resident parent are also taken into consideration In disputed cases each parent is individually assessed before a decision on which parent is given custody of the child, or children, is made The best interests of the child is the general standard at the heart of all residency cases. Joint Residency Joint residency is considered to be the preferred solution as being in the best interests of most children. BUT...there are no laws or 'rights' that state that a child should live specifically with either the mother or father.

    (Original post by CookieButter)
    women cannot be charged with rape thanks to a sexist definition for that crime which excludes them from prosecution for it.
    Yeah, and men can't be diagnosed with cervical cancer for a similar reason. As I stated earlier, the crime of sexual assault by penetration has exactly the same sentencing rules. It's a matter of semantics.
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    The definition for rape in this country includes forceful penetration using an object…
    Then 'this country' clearly isn't the UK. It's written very clearly here .
    Vanessa George was charged with two counts of assault by penetration and given an indeterminate sentence, which the judge said was the equivalent of life behind bars. She is still in prison now. As I pointed out, that was the same punishment as given to a man who drugged and raped more than 10 women.


    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Nope, we would not agree here me and feminists...this is a case for sexism against men in favour of women..and this is disagreeable with feminism,
    I don't know of any feminist in the UK who supports domestic violence against men. Men being less likely to report violence from women doesn't favour women in general, only violent partners.
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    When I make claims I support them with references. Treat me in kind.
    I did. And I have here too. I've done it through links, so you don't need to keep scrolling down to find the evidence.
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Your knife crime example isn’t gendered at all. It benefits everyone.
    Not true. The vast majority of people arrested for knife crimes are men. The vast majority of victims are men too. Stopping knife crime saves male lives and keeps men out of prison.

    I deleted all your insults, which seemed to multiply in direct inverse proportion to how much you actually understand. You would be taken more seriously if you spent less time insulting and more time looking at the facts.
    Attached Images
       
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    I saw on some TV program on BBC recently someone said feminists are nearly always not attractive - do we think that is true?

    It just seems to me feminists are striving for things which are impossible to attain. Like tennis, if it was unisex then there wouldn't be a female pro in the top 10,000. Also women's tennis games are 3 sets, mens are 5 sets. I believe they tried women's tennis with 5 sets and all that happened was more injuries and fatigue so it didn't work out. In this case equality would harm women as oppose to help them.

    A lot of 'typical' girls I know like to dress up, wear make up, look good, take selfies for instagram and snapchat. They say they expect the guy to ask them out, they say they want their men to be real men, pay for the first date etc. So is this wrong?

    Also consider women are physically, mentality, biologically and emotionally different from men. Not saying one is better than the other, my opinion is both are as important as each other. But knowing they are very different, how can you achieve equality? You can't.
    to be honest I won't engage with the facts, but I'm just going to point out a few flaws in your logic, here.

    1) even if feminists believe in an untenable/unattainable position, how does holding an untenable position lead to being unattractive? This is nonsensical, and even if there were a correlation (which I deny), it's clearly not causation..?

    2) You're assuming that if there's any difference between people, you can't achieve equality. This is clearly wrong. Equality can be achieved even with biological differences between people. Individual men are all different from one another (biologically) but they can be equal. Equality is also not restricted to equality of outcome (and noone really wants that either).

    3) There's a difference between sex and gender. Feminism is the movement for equality of GENDER not equality of sexes, necessarily. That's just a gap in the logic...

    4) Just because some girls like being wined and dined, doesn't mean gender inequality should exist. Some girls can remain being wined and dined even when equality does exist, and perhaps some individuals would prefer not to live in this culture?

    All these arguments are very weak.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charlyleeds)
    Hi, I consider myself a feminist but what you need to know is many of the women you see today who call themselves feminists aren’t really feminists, they believe women are better than men and that is not what a feminist is, by definition a feminist is someone who strives for things to be equal among any gender.
    Generally speaking, they would be right. Men are proven to be more violent and aggressive. A large part of feminism is fighting against male violence against women. What many men don't understand is that the vast majority of feminists who say that men are pigs, don't necessarily mean them personally, specifically.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    No. They are not. Let me show you.
    In the document you linked to as 'evidence' it states:
    Female Male
    Arrests 2012/13 15% 85%
    Penalty Notices for Disorder 23% 77%
    Cautions 23% 77%
    Court Proceedings 25% 75%
    Convictions 25% 75%

    Notice how the figures for male and female in each case add up to 100%? That's not a coincidence. It means of all those arrested, 15% were female, 85% were male.
    Of those who ended up in court, 25% were female and 75% were male. In other words, even though only 15% of those arrested in 2013 were women, they formed a quarter of the total who went to court. The last two rows prove that a woman has exactly the same chance of getting convicted as a man. 75% of people in court are men, and 75% of people convicted are men.
    Yes, I maths. And men are 3 times as likely to appear in court because they are three times more likely to be arrested, because they commit three times as many crimes. Unless of course you can find a reliable source that proves that loads of women are committing crimes and getting away with it.

    We don't have Federal Courts. This, and your language use, suggests that you are more familiar with the USA than the UK, which puts you at somewhat of a disadvantage. The UK evidence, which I linked to previously, shows clear statistics to prove beyond doubt that in the UK, gender has no direct influence on outcome. I'm not an expert on crime in the USA, so if you say that there are gender issues in Federal Courts who am I to argue.


    Not true. Here's the legal summary
    "A mother automatically has parental responsibility for her child from birth. A father usually has parental responsibility if he’s either: married to the child’s mother listed on the birth certificate (after a certain date, depending on which part of the UK the child was born in) You can apply for parental responsibility if you don’t automatically have it.
    If the parents of a child are married when the child is born, or if they’ve jointly adopted a child, both have parental responsibility. They both keep parental responsibility if they later divorce.

    "Most child residency court cases end amicably with either agreed residency or joint residency as the outcome Access and maintenance payments from the non resident parent are also taken into consideration In disputed cases each parent is individually assessed before a decision on which parent is given custody of the child, or children, is made The best interests of the child is the general standard at the heart of all residency cases. Joint Residency Joint residency is considered to be the preferred solution as being in the best interests of most children. BUT...there are no laws or 'rights' that state that a child should live specifically with either the mother or father.

    Yeah, and men can't be diagnosed with cervical cancer for a similar reason. As I stated earlier, the crime of sexual assault by penetration has exactly the same sentencing rules. It's a matter of semantics.
    Then 'this country' clearly isn't the UK. It's written very clearly here .
    Vanessa George was charged with two counts of assault by penetration and given an indeterminate sentence, which the judge said was the equivalent of life behind bars. She is still in prison now. As I pointed out, that was the same punishment as given to a man who drugged and raped more than 10 women.


    I don't know of any feminist in the UK who supports domestic violence against men. Men being less likely to report violence from women doesn't favour women in general, only violent partners.
    I did. And I have here too. I've done it through links, so you don't need to keep scrolling down to find the evidence.

    Not true. The vast majority of people arrested for knife crimes are men. The vast majority of victims are men too. Stopping knife crime saves male lives and keeps men out of prison.

    I deleted all your insults, which seemed to multiply in direct inverse proportion to how much you actually understand. You would be taken more seriously if you spent less time insulting and more time looking at the facts.
    Respect for having the patience to argue against that unbearable troll.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANM775)
    I did come across this study once saying that feminists are more masculine.....

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4158978/

    "The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization "


    and I have to agree, as I am very good at spotting whether a user is male or female just based off their posting style [being given no other info] ..but the few instances I get it wrong, it is usually a feminist with an aggressive posting style that has made me thought they were a male.
    Shocker. The aggressive group dominates society and the more determined, aggressive of the oppressed are the ones fighting for the oppressed. Really shocking.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Realitysreflexx)
    Emma watson is the unspoken feminist leader so i think this debate is over.
    Emma Watson is a liberal muppet, a certain type of feminism is part of liberalism. Not that everything is wrong with them, but a lot is.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Most (radical) feminists would rather go after men then fix themselves and improve their own attractiveness to the point of finding a viable sexual partner (man). Theres some that are hot but its quite rare... most women are attracted to handsome, confident and (strong, masculine) men. The attractive ones can easily get them, those who don't despise them
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    Listen mate, wage gap is a complete myth. Do you know anything about anything?

    It has been shown time and time again, women choose not to pursuit certain jobs. You do realise certain top financial positions require 70-100 hours a week, the opportunities are open to anyone male or female but many females do not choose to do those roles. And who are you to tell them to do this or not?
    And why is that? Couldn't be because of social stereotypes. Couldn't be because those high paying fields are still male dominated which means any potential woman thinking about going into those fields will be a minority and will face a much higher wall than men. I know plenty of women at my work who work a lot more than the men. In fact, if you head to feminist boards, you will hear an awful lot of stories where women pick up the slack in the office. The same way men in general do less work at home. It's been shown time and time again that men get praise for work but women don't. That women get talked over and not listened to in meetings.

    It has been showing women prefer jobs like nursing over say men who would prefer engineering in general. Again who are you to tell women which jobs they want to go for? So stupid, do you not understand basic data analysis? Stupid?
    Again, why is that? Couldn't be because men are discouraged from being nurturing (boys will be boys, don't be such a girl) while girls are raised to be caring?

    If women were actually being paid less for the same work, everyone would hire women and bosses would be richer. Of course that is illegal, which completely shuts down your point - not that you had one to begin with.
    What a lazy argument. If you are sexist you won't take women because you might get them cheaper, you will pick men because subconsciously you think they will be better.

    Speak more carefully next time, and think before you speak.
    Oh lord if only you'd heed your own words.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    Women are more likely to work part-time, and to take career-breaks than men. Even without that, women and men may voluntarily choose to pursue different career paths.
    And why is that? Because men don't step up at home, with chores, at home with the family with kids. Because companies put women on the mummy track, whereas men are congratulated for having kids. You can google it, it's been shown having kids negatively impacts a woman's earnings, but positively for a man. If a woman has a kid, people will think she can't work long. If a man has a kid, other men will think he still can work long because he has a wife at home to take care of the kids.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    It was clearly in response to pressure from feminists though.

    Obviously not all feminists have identical opinions, but I've met many (highly intellient) people who identify themselves as feminists, and also criticise women who do modelling/beauty competitions etc.

    I found that surprising. Despite not identifying as a feminist, I fully support a woman's right to do whatever she wants. Whereas the people who did identify as feminists that I was speaking to, were critical of women who wanted modelling careers etc. It seemed like the "feminists" were actually less supportive of women's freedom and choices than I was...




    Surely a pretty widespread feminist principle is that women should not be judged on their appearance or sexual activity? I find it difficult to see how you can square that with comments such as "LOL are you a virgin?!?!" to a (presumably male) poster.
    I am sure these feminists would also criticize someone else's free choice of taking drugs. How dare they criticize something that is a free choice for someone else.

    The last part is quite obvious. Many (young) males are not as successful (hence the virgin part) with women as they'd want, and become incredibly bitter. They find online material that suggests that it's their right to have women but evil women deny them that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    who can I sue TSR for allowing not one, but TWO, of those pictures of Mayhem on the first page??? I got ptsd, smh
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    So how come feminism continually talks about the "gender pay gap" and essentially never talks about the "gender imprisonment gap", the "gender life expectancy gap", the "gender grade gap", the "gender university attendance gap"?
    Because feminism is for women. It's to achieve equality for women in areas where they lack. If you are unhappy in areas where men are lacking, you are free to campaign for it. But don't cry if at first you face opposition. Women have faced opposition whenever they fought for something. Not to mention some of these are pure nonsense. Men are in prison more because they are statistically proven more aggressive and committing more crime. Similar reason leads to a lower life expectancy. The last two are funny because if you let feminism be, they would improve. It is exactly the kind of gender stereotypes that contribute to them.

    It is clear: feminism is not actually interested in equality. If it was, then it would care about all of these issues. Instead, it just cares about equality whenever it suits them.
    Yes. Finally, you got it. Feminism is for women. It's not for men (though men benefit a lot from it, too). Now you just have understand that "being for women" doesn't mean they want one up men.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    No.

    The girls I know hate feminists because they say they are ruining things for them. Many girls out there want to be wine and dined and spoilt.

    Is it the case most of these campaigners are the ones that don't get asked out?

    What they want, equality, cannot fundamentally be achieved its impossible as women and men are different. The only way to achieve this would be to turn everyone into men or women.

    Most girls, especially around our age, enjoy dressing up, wearing make up and looking good. Why are these idiot women out there trying to ruin these girl's lives? Jealous much?
    Most men will do the whole 'paying for the first date' thing anyway, irregardless of what feminists say or not. If they want to continue to be paid for after the first date then they are extremely entitled. If they have a wage coming in there's no reason they shouldn't contribute
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkilled)
    Feminism is made up of predominantly women because the movement is anti-men.
    Criticize something you don't have the first clue about.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I know a lot of feminists with a huge range of looks. You really can’t generalised. Like any group of people, some will be conventionally attractive Andy some won’t.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    No. They are not. Let me show you.
    In the document you linked to as 'evidence' it states:
    Female Male
    Arrests 2012/13 15% 85%
    Penalty Notices for Disorder 23% 77%
    Cautions 23% 77%
    Court Proceedings 25% 75%
    Convictions 25% 75%
    God give me strength. Lit teacher...for the love of everything you hold dear...quit your job as a teacher and sue the person that taught you maths and the English language at school. Sue them for everything they have. Sue them for failing you so bad.

    I promised you that come end of this discussion between myself and yourself that I will prove to you that you can neither read nor think independently. I will hold myself to this promise again in this reply.

    Those numbers that you have quoted above, those are percentages not rates, neither are they numbers for convictions or any of the other variables that you have listed. There's a difference between numbers, percentages and rates. We are taught these difference in primary school in this country, around year 4, year 5, year 6. Did you skip primary school Lit teacher? You mentioned the word more in your previous post. Men commit more crimes was the crux of that part of your comment. Nobody is questioning this fact. Not me and not anybody else here. I am discussing rates. In an equal society rates should be the same when they are not, that is deemed inequality and when an inequality effects gender it is called sexism and when it negatively effects that gender whilst positively effecting the other it is called a sexism against that gender in benefit of the other. That is the feminist interpretation of fair, of equality. Conviction rates for men are higher than they are for women. That as per the feminist definition of equality is sexism towards men and since feminism argues that we live in a world where stereotypes are such that they benefit men and disadvantage women, feminism refutes itself. I'm 100% sure that this is going to fly right over your head but I hope that you will understand what I am saying here.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Yes, I maths.
    Oh I beg to differ. You do not maths at all.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    men are 3 times as likely to appear in court because they are three times more likely to be arrested, because they commit three times as many crimes.
    Nobody is arguing that they don't have higher crime rates. Our issue is with the conviction rates...for women and men.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Unless of course you can find a reliable source that proves that loads of women are committing crimes and getting away with it.
    I have given you a dozen sources for just that so far. The conviction rates are a great example for what you are asking for. The conviction rates for female crimes for murder are 300% lower than the national average. Judges have been ordered by the government to give lenient treatment to women based on their gender. They are being given special treatment because they were born with a hole in between their legs. They cannot be charged with serious crimes such as rape..etc what more do you want to become convinced that they are benefitting from sexism in the judicial system in this country? The most comical thing about all this is that you feminists accept far less than this to argue for sexism against women. You take conviction rates for rape and say that they are low, despite them being higher than any other crime, and you use this to claim that men are being let off for raping women...lol You take differences in earnings between women and men and call it sexism based on nothing but numbers far less convincing than what I have given you here.

    This is a great example of how hypocritical you feminists are.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    We don't have Federal Courts. This, and your language use, suggests that you are more familiar with the USA than the UK, which puts you at somewhat of a disadvantage. The UK evidence, which I linked to previously, shows clear statistics to prove beyond doubt that in the UK, gender has no direct influence on outcome. I'm not an expert on crime in the USA, so if you say that there are gender issues in Federal Courts who am I to argue.
    Nobody said that we have federal courts Lit teacher. This is yet another example of your sub par reading and comprehension skills. That passage that I gave you was a quote from the study. Hence, the quotation marks. Its a seminal (emphasis on the word seminal though I doubt you understand its relevance) paper. Its relevant to us here in the UK. You claimed that other factors such as previous convictions etc play a part in the lenient sentencing. This study controlled for these factors and found women to have lower conviction rates despite them. As in, women are receiving special treatment in courts even when you take into account factors such as previous convictions etc.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Not true. Here's the legal summary
    "A mother automatically has parental responsibility for her child from birth. A father usually has parental responsibility if he’s either: married to the child’s mother listed on the birth certificate (after a certain date, depending on which part of the UK the child was born in) You can apply for parental responsibility if you don’t automatically have it.
    If the parents of a child are married when the child is born, or if they’ve jointly adopted a child, both have parental responsibility. They both keep parental responsibility if they later divorce.
    Yet another example of your inability to read. Did I not make it clear that I was referring to divorced fathers? why in the hell are you writing about married fathers?

    Now let me enlighten you. Divorced fathers in this country were stripped their rights to their children back in 1989 after the introduction of the Children Act of that year. Divorced fathers do not have a right to their children in this country. If a wife and a husband separate the mother has the sole right to their child. this thanks to the children act the architects of which were sexist like you.

    The Act stipulates that mothers automatically have a right to their children whether married or divorced fathers have no right to their children. Yes, you read that right. Divorced fathers have no right to their children by the law in this country and married fathers can only obtain the right to their child only if the mother or the child agreed. If families break up the mother has the sole right to look after her child in a manner and place as she sees fit. Before the full enactment of The Children Act in 1991. Feminist politicians (Harriet Harman, Anna Coote and Patricia Hewitt) got together to write a policy paper called “The Family Way” to advise the government on how to go about implementing the Act. In it they write: ‘It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion.’ As a result of these feminist policies fathers became denied their natural rights to their children and mothers were forced to become stay at home mums. As a result of these feminist polices the majority of custody cases are awarded to the mother.

    I don't think you realise just how much I know about these stuff. I find it funny that you think you can teach me about these things that I've been researching for almost 10 years now...I find it insulting that you reference links to guides written for the public about parental responsibilities whilst not knowing anything about the laws behind them...

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    "Most child residency court cases end amicably with either agreed residency or joint residency as the outcome Access and maintenance payments from the non resident parent are also taken into consideration In disputed cases each parent is individually assessed before a decision on which parent is given custody of the child, or children, is made The best interests of the child is the general standard at the heart of all residency cases. Joint Residency Joint residency is considered to be the preferred solution as being in the best interests of most children. BUT...there are no laws or 'rights' that state that a child should live specifically with either the mother or father.
    40% of divorced fathers permanently loose all contact with their children after two years from separation.

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...nship-children

    Coincidently, ten years after the introduction of the children act 1989 a government study found 40% of mothers admitting to thwarting fathers’ attempts to access their children. I'll leave it there.

    http://www.cyriax.co.uk/process.htm

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Yeah, and men can't be diagnosed with cervical cancer for a similar reason. As I stated earlier, the crime of sexual assault by penetration has exactly the same sentencing rules. It's a matter of semantics.
    I see you are still acting dumb in an effort to justify the sexism. Its understandable. Its hard to refute what I'm throwing at you. Firstly, as I mentioned before, the definition for sexual assault itself excludes most female perpetrators from prosecution for the crime. For the third or fourth time lit teacher, being convicted of rape is not like being convicted of sexual assault. So even if women were convicted of sexual assault they are protected from being charged with rape and rape carries different judicial and cultural repercussions.

    We are not playing semantics. You follow a hypocritical ideology of sexists that like justifying for men what they do not accept for their own kind. I find it funny that you feminists argue that its sexist that married men could not be charged with rape until the 90s whilst justifying the entire female gender not being charged with this very same crime who's definition is gendered and sexist. All crimes apply to both women and men with the exception of rape which in this country has been defined in such a way as to exclude women from being prosecuted for it. That is sexism. The definition for rape is sexist and I know that you know it but you do not have the courage to admit to the wrongs of this society, wrongs that benefit women.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Then 'this country' clearly isn't the UK. It's written very clearly here .
    Vanessa George was charged with two counts of assault by penetration and given an indeterminate sentence, which the judge said was the equivalent of life behind bars. She is still in prison now. As I pointed out, that was the same punishment as given to a man who drugged and raped more than 10 women.
    As of 2003 the sexual offences act was changed thanks to feminist activism to include "assault by penetration" using an object in the definition of rape. two seconds search on google will help you confirm that. Don't preach to me mate. You are not on my level. Like I said before I've been researching these things for roughly a decade now.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    I don't know of any feminist in the UK who supports domestic violence against men. Men being less likely to report violence from women doesn't favour women in general, only violent partners.I don't know of any feminist in the UK who supports domestic violence against men. Men being less likely to report violence from women doesn't favour women in general, only violent partners.
    I did. And I have here too. I've done it through links, so you don't need to keep scrolling down to find the evidence.
    This is the most comical paragraph so far. It just shows the level of your ignorance. You don't know of any feminists who support violence against men here in the UK because you have vail over your eyes that prevents you from seeing any truth that might challenge your creed. That much is very evident from all your replies so far.

    The domestic violence movement was hijacked by feminists here in the uk back in the late 60s. Men and boys over the age of 13 were forced out of domestic violence shelters. Feminists campaign for women to be prioritised over men in domestic violence.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...p-Britain.html
    https://www.xojane.com/issues/domest...elters-for-men

    In the US feminists have successfully campaigned for quotas in domestic violence arrests such that only a certain number of women can be arrested for domestic voilence by the police and if that number is exceeded women are no longer arrested. This is one of those disgusting groups that campaigned for this: http://www.justicewomen.com/tips_dv_victims.html

    Feminists have been preaching for almost a hundred years now the reduction of the male population...some feminists going so far as calling for the eradication of the entire male sex leaving just enough for reproduction.

    Feminism is a global cancer that needs to be eradicated as apposed to men.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Not true. The vast majority of people arrested for knife crimes are men. The vast majority of victims are men too. Stopping knife crime saves male lives and keeps men out of prison.
    You have not really addressed what I wrote. Stopping knife crime is not a gendered policy irrespective of who it benefits...ring fencing budgets and putting money aside and roles specifically for women is however sexist and gendered.

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    I deleted all your insults, which seemed to multiply in direct inverse proportion to how much you actually understand. You would be taken more seriously if you spent less time insulting and more time looking at the facts.
    Lit teacher you accused me of calling you stupid in my first reply to you despite me not having done that. You lack comprehension and you lack logic and you also lack facts. These are not insults. This is me telling the truth about yourself.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    I'm saying generally.

    Obviously I have my own opinions below.

    I'm a mans man, I don't do all that crap where these 'men' are becoming women.

    Most girls don't find that kind of crap attractive. Girls from my experience want strong, stability, strength in their man - which is what I am.

    Feminist men, although they are very low in number are a disgrace to society and a disgrace to manhood.

    Men and women are fundamentally different, how can you achieve equality with two different things? You can't.
    'a disagrace to manhood'... this isn't a trashy magazine article yet it sounds like it. Can people not be people? Why do people's actions have to be dictated by their gender? When you think about yourself and what you value, is the first thing you think of your 'manhood'? What about gratitude, charity, intellectualism and other actually important qualities? People like you make me lose faith in humanity.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Criticize something you don't have the first clue about.
    Hello you salty humans.

    Firstly addressing anyone who would like to quote me please avoid downgrading yourself to insulting the thinker, not the thoughts.

    Surely we are in a modern era where feminism is about eradicating prejudice, not 'anti men' or whatever that even means. We are all people, regardless of gender or race or religion.

    I am a go to an all girls' grammar school and love physics, engineering and mathematics. I played and still play multiplayer PVP games as a hobby. These factors have made me quite aware that there are basic biological differences that can't be absolved by law or any other moral means.

    It's not about saying men and women are the same, it is about eradicating subconscious influences. To me, feminism means the day when the number of males and females in STEM finally evens out. As a girl who loves physics and maths, I struggle to comprehend this massive gender proportion disparity. Theories include marketing of toys to children and our treatment of children between formative years. I want a day where I won't be seen as odd for liking logic and numbers or being competitive because we should be working to break stereotype boundaries.

    No insults. Only a short time of observation.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    God give me strength. Lit teacher...for the love of everything you hold dear...quit your job as a teacher and sue the person that taught you maths and the English language at school. Sue them for everything they have. Sue them for failing you so bad.

    I promised you that come end of this discussion between myself and yourself that I will prove to you that you can neither read nor think independently. I will hold myself to this promise again in this reply.

    Those numbers that you have quoted above, those are percentages not rates, neither are they numbers for convictions or any of the other variables that you have listed. There's a difference between numbers, percentages and rates. We are taught these difference in primary school in this country, around year 4, year 5, year 6. Did you skip primary school Lit teacher? You mentioned the word more in your previous post. Men commit more crimes was the crux of that part of your comment. Nobody is questioning this fact. Not me and not anybody else here. I am discussing rates. In an equal society rates should be the same when they are not, that is deemed inequality and when an inequality effects gender it is called sexism and when it negatively effects that gender whilst positively effecting the other it is called a sexism against that gender in benefit of the other. That is the feminist interpretation of fair, of equality. Conviction rates for men are higher than they are for women. That as per the feminist definition of equality is sexism towards men and since feminism argues that we live in a world where stereotypes are such that they benefit men and disadvantage women, feminism refutes itself. I'm 100% sure that this is going to fly right over your head but I hope that you will understand what I am saying here.



    Oh I beg to differ. You do not maths at all.



    Nobody is arguing that they don't have higher crime rates. Our issue is with the conviction rates...for women and men.



    I have given you a dozen sources for just that so far. The conviction rates are a great example for what you are asking for. The conviction rates for female crimes for murder are 300% lower than the national average. Judges have been ordered by the government to give lenient treatment to women based on their gender. They are being given special treatment because they were born with a hole in between their legs. They cannot be charged with serious crimes such as rape..etc what more do you want to become convinced that they are benefitting from sexism in the judicial system in this country? The most comical thing about all this is that you feminists accept far less than this to argue for sexism against women. You take conviction rates for rape and say that they are low, despite them being higher than any other crime, and you use this to claim that men are being let off for raping women...lol You take differences in earnings between women and men and call it sexism based on nothing but numbers far less convincing than what I have given you here.

    This is a great example of how hypocritical you feminists are.



    Nobody said that we have federal courts Lit teacher. This is yet another example of your sub par reading and comprehension skills. That passage that I gave you was a quote from the study. Hence, the quotation marks. Its a seminal (emphasis on the word seminal though I doubt you understand its relevance) paper. Its relevant to us here in the UK. You claimed that other factors such as previous convictions etc play a part in the lenient sentencing. This study controlled for these factors and found women to have lower conviction rates despite them. As in, women are receiving special treatment in courts even when you take into account factors such as previous convictions etc.



    Yet another example of your inability to read. Did I not make it clear that I was referring to divorced fathers? why in the hell are you writing about married fathers?

    Now let me enlighten you. Divorced fathers in this country were stripped their rights to their children back in 1989 after the introduction of the Children Act of that year. Divorced fathers do not have a right to their children in this country. If a wife and a husband separate the mother has the sole right to their child. this thanks to the children act the architects of which were sexist like you.

    The Act stipulates that mothers automatically have a right to their children whether married or divorced fathers have no right to their children. Yes, you read that right. Divorced fathers have no right to their children by the law in this country and married fathers can only obtain the right to their child only if the mother or the child agreed. If families break up the mother has the sole right to look after her child in a manner and place as she sees fit. Before the full enactment of The Children Act in 1991. Feminist politicians (Harriet Harman, Anna Coote and Patricia Hewitt) got together to write a policy paper called “The Family Way” to advise the government on how to go about implementing the Act. In it they write: ‘It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion.’ As a result of these feminist policies fathers became denied their natural rights to their children and mothers were forced to become stay at home mums. As a result of these feminist polices the majority of custody cases are awarded to the mother.

    I don't think you realise just how much I know about these stuff. I find it funny that you think you can teach me about these things that I've been researching for almost 10 years now...I find it insulting that you reference links to guides written for the public about parental responsibilities whilst not knowing anything about the laws behind them...



    40% of divorced fathers permanently loose all contact with their children after two years from separation.

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...nship-children

    Coincidently, ten years after the introduction of the children act 1989 a government study found 40% of mothers admitting to thwarting fathers’ attempts to access their children. I'll leave it there.

    http://www.cyriax.co.uk/process.htm



    I see you are still acting dumb in an effort to justify the sexism. Its understandable. Its hard to refute what I'm throwing at you. Firstly, as I mentioned before, the definition for sexual assault itself excludes most female perpetrators from prosecution for the crime. For the third or fourth time lit teacher, being convicted of rape is not like being convicted of sexual assault. So even if women were convicted of sexual assault they are protected from being charged with rape and rape carries different judicial and cultural repercussions.

    We are not playing semantics. You follow a hypocritical ideology of sexists that like justifying for men what they do not accept for their own kind. I find it funny that you feminists argue that its sexist that married men could not be charged with rape until the 90s whilst justifying the entire female gender not being charged with this very same crime who's definition is gendered and sexist. All crimes apply to both women and men with the exception of rape which in this country has been defined in such a way as to exclude women from being prosecuted for it. That is sexism. The definition for rape is sexist and I know that you know it but you do not have the courage to admit to the wrongs of this society, wrongs that benefit women.



    As of 2003 the sexual offences act was changed thanks to feminist activism to include "assault by penetration" using an object in the definition of rape. two seconds search on google will help you confirm that. Don't preach to me mate. You are not on my level. Like I said before I've been researching these things for roughly a decade now.



    This is the most comical paragraph so far. It just shows the level of your ignorance. You don't know of any feminists who support violence against men here in the UK because you have vail over your eyes that prevents you from seeing any truth that might challenge your creed. That much is very evident from all your replies so far.

    The domestic violence movement was hijacked by feminists here in the uk back in the late 60s. Men and boys over the age of 13 were forced out of domestic violence shelters. Feminists campaign for women to be prioritised over men in domestic violence.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...p-Britain.html
    https://www.xojane.com/issues/domest...elters-for-men

    In the US feminists have successfully campaigned for quotas in domestic violence arrests such that only a certain number of women can be arrested for domestic voilence by the police and if that number is exceeded women are no longer arrested. This is one of those disgusting groups that campaigned for this: http://www.justicewomen.com/tips_dv_victims.html

    Feminists have been preaching for almost a hundred years now the reduction of the male population...some feminists going so far as calling for the eradication of the entire male sex leaving just enough for reproduction.

    Feminism is a global cancer that needs to be eradicated as apposed to men.



    You have not really addressed what I wrote. Stopping knife crime is not a gendered policy irrespective of who it benefits...ring fencing budgets and putting money aside and roles specifically for women is however sexist and gendered.



    Lit teacher you accused me of calling you stupid in my first reply to you despite me not having done that. You lack comprehension and you lack logic and you also lack facts. These are not insults. This is me telling the truth about yourself.
    Wow, seems like you got him good. Learning new things here.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.