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/datablog/2013/nov/20/non-resident-dads-relationship-childrenCoincidently, 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/womens-life/11666990/Domestic-abuse-and-violence-is-not-gender-neutral.-Wake-up-Britain.htmlhttps://www.xojane.com/issues/domestic-violence-shelters-for-menIn 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.htmlFeminists 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.