Masculism/Men's Rights Groups

[Darth Holbytlan]

@Alyrium Denryle: That is a vast oversimplification. The state where half the assets is closest to a rule is California, and even there only assets earned during the marriage are split 50-50. In most states, courts have have all sorts of considerations that affect how they divide property "fairly". See here. Some related information regarding property ownership is here.

[Surlethe]

If you are a white heterosexual man, try getting into the Metropolitan Police.

Leaving aside that

1. the burden of proof is on you,
2. you have not established the relevance of this claim to the debate,

the Met force is not even 25% minority (source).

I am totally in favour of the best person for the job. I am not in favour of "affirmative action" or whatever other phrase is flavour of the month.

<snip red herrings>

What part of is this a systemic problem do you not understand? You must first show that it is a problem, and then you must show that it is present across society. Throwing out anecdotes about firefighters and he Met police and unsupported claims about the government just doesn't cut it.

[Superman]

If you are a white heterosexual man, try getting into the Metropolitan Police.

Oh, please. As someone who has worked in corrections, and who knows and has worked with lots of cops, I can safely say you're full of shit.

The truth of the matter is that most law enforcement agencies are in dire need of people at the moment. The so called "baby boomer" generation is retiring in droves, and the pool of qualified candidates is shrinking. Most agencies are screaming to get people; large ones like LAPD, NYPD, and Las Vegas Metro have recruitment programs that even target residents of other states.

Try getting a job in law enforcement as white heterosexual male...

What a retard.

[Plekhanov]

Is it true that divorced men in the USA have to pay "ex-wife tax" (or something like that) after their divorced wife? The law stems from Victorian times and has not been removed since.

No but there is a 'former spouse tax' in that the wealthier individual in a marriage that's breaking up can be required to pay alimony to the poorer regardless of their gender so this is hardly something 'masculists' can legitimately whine about.

[Howedar]

In some cases there is such systemic discrimination against white men. The University of Michigan, for example, requires (as I recall) 120 "points" for acceptance, and one receives (as I recall) 20 "points" for being an underrepresented minority.

The numbers might have changed since I applied, but I'm pretty sure the system is still in place.

This providing of an example should not imply that I am on the "oh noes I'm white!!1" side of the argument.

That's a single example; to meet the criterion "system-wide", you'd want to show that this example is representative of at least public universities.

It's an official policy of a large state institution. Move the goalposts much?

[brianeyci]

If a woman can hack that sort of job (front-line combat being another example, perhaps?) then fine, let her do it. Most women can't - whether you like it or not, that is a fact of biology. The average woman is approximately as strong as an average 13-year-old boy IIRC.

Neither do I think that it ought to be appreciably more difficult for a white heterosexual man to get into a job because the prospective employer - just about always a government one - has a stated policy of favouring women and minorities for recruitment.

How about you provide some evidence that it actually is ‘appreciably more difficult for a white heterosexual man to’ gain employment. Repeating a claim in slightly different language is not the same thing as substantiating it.

Don't bother Plekanov. Kinnison doesn't understand statistics, and believes her own experience to be a representative sample. Ask her for the number of hispanics and blacks and asians in the government and she'll flounder around and not provide such numbers.

Kinnison sounds like the kind of person who thinks that affirmative action is bigoted. Yes, it is easier for minorities to get in. No, it is not discrimination. It is a corrective measure by the government against the hurdles faced by minorities in private sector employment. That does not mean that a white guy has a harder time getting in. There's a limited number of spots, yes, but there are still more whites serving. Whites being, oh I don't know, not a minority there.

Kinnison sounds like the kind of person who thinks that noticing racial inequalities is racism itself.

[brianeyci]

the Met force is not even 25% minority (source).

Actually your source says only currently 5% minority, with 25% being some fairy target years from now.

It's a scathing rebuttal against her claim. Yes, all things being equal with a white guy and a minority in the application process, a minority applicant could use his minority status to get the "edge." What Kinnison doesn't see is rarely are all things equal. White people have advantages many minorities do not such as cultural integration, higher income, and family history.

I like how Kinnison brought up the red herrings of women in the military. Unless she's trying to make a point that women are not physically capable of being police officers, I don't see the point in mentioning women can't be in special forces. And it is a total red herring relative to minorities, unless she's trying to suggest whites are more physically capable.

Hot Fuzz most police work is not. I wonder how she would respond if I brought up statistics of overweight, physically inept police officers since as far as I know once you pass the first physical there is never any other physical down the line ever so you can grow fat and let loose and never work out ever again.

[Surlethe]

That's a single example; to meet the criterion "system-wide", you'd want to show that this example is representative of at least public universities.

It's an official policy of a large state institution. Move the goalposts much?

Hmm? How did I move the goalposts? Hasn't it been clear from my first post that I've been talking about society-wide problems?

[Howedar]

Splitting hairs. The issue is whether or not the practice is widespread and condoned within an organization. Apparently an organization of fifty thousand isn't big enough for you. Tough shit.

[Darth Wong]

All this preposterous victimhood rallying of the poor white males is based on the singular assumption that "equal opportunity" = "equal treatment by institutions at the official level".

Take away that demonstrably false assumption, and the whole argument falls apart. In order to ensure equal opportunities, a certain amount of unequal policymaking is actually necessary.

Remember, the words "opportunity" and "official treatment" are NOT synonyms, no matter how many oppressed white males tell you otherwise.

[Surlethe]

Splitting hairs. The issue is whether or not the practice is widespread and condoned within an organization. Apparently an organization of fifty thousand isn't big enough for you. Tough shit.

Since when has an organization of fifty thousand been equivalent to a society of three hundred million? Last I checked, pointing out the difference between the two is not splitting hairs, especially when I've been talking about society from the start.

[Howedar]

System-wide, you said. You never defined system. Is or is not the University of Michigan largely a self-sustaining bureaucratic entity?




Mike, I don't you if you were referring to me, but if you were, I tried to make it very clear in my first post in this thread that I do not agree with the argument made in favor of there being some kind of vast anti-white conspiracy in hiring or anywhere else. Surlethe asked for an example of a "system-wide" (presumably in contrast to a practice that is confined to a small part of an organization, one racist hiring manager for example). I grow angry when examples I provide are ignored for semantic reasons; that doesn't mean I'm on one side of the overall argument or the other.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, I don't you if you were referring to me, but if you were, I tried to make it very clear in my first post in this thread that I do not agree with the argument made in favor of there being some kind of vast anti-white conspiracy in hiring or anywhere else. Surlethe asked for an example of a "system-wide" (presumably in contrast to a practice that is confined to a small part of an organization, one racist hiring manager for example). I grow angry when examples I provide are ignored for semantic reasons; that doesn't mean I'm on one side of the overall argument or the other.

I wasn't referring to you in particular, but as long as we're talking about your contributions to this thread, if you don't take one side of this argument or the other, then why the fuck are you even participating in this thread? To make your own semantic nitpick of another person's argument with no particular concern for whether you agree with his overall position, and then complain if he semantically nitpicks you back? That's a great contribution. You should get an award.

[Howedar]

No, I made my first post in this thread to provide evidence for someone's claim that there is some discrimination in some government agencies against white men. As far as I'm concerned, it's always reasonable to step into a thread, be it friendly discussion or venomous argument, to provide additional information on the subject. You're free to tell me to carry myself differently, of course.

[Darth Wong]

No, I made my first post in this thread to provide evidence for someone's claim that there is some discrimination in some government agencies against white men. As far as I'm concerned, it's always reasonable to step into a thread, be it friendly discussion or venomous argument, to provide additional information on the subject. You're free to tell me to carry myself differently, of course.

I have no problem with you stepping into a thread to provide information. But it seems to me that most of your contribution to this thread has been a back-and-forth nitpick fest. Do you not see that yourself?

[Howedar]

No, I agree. I wish it hadn't been that way, because I wish my information had not been tossed aside for semantics.

That's a pet peeve of mine, though, so it's not an easy thing for me to drop.

[Surlethe]

No, I agree. I wish it hadn't been that way, because I wish my information had not been tossed aside for semantics.

That's a pet peeve of mine, though, so it's not an easy thing for me to drop.

I'm not sure where you get off on accusing me of semantics whoring. I had thought my first post in this thread made clear that I was treating "system" as the entire society. Perhaps it didn't, and that would be my bad, but my position is certainly crystal-clear now.

[Mr. T]

Brilliant. The standards were in place because firefighters often have to climb up and down ladders, and often this is while carrying someone on their back. So now in the UK we have qualified firefighters who just plain can't do the job.

Define ‘often’.

My best mate back home is a mid ranking fireman he’s been on the force for well over 10 years and has never carried someone down a ladder over his shoulder (I know this as when I was getting to know him we discussed what he did for a living). Thanks to the decline of open fires and increased safety standards in homes house fires are relatively rare nowadays and firemen spend more time cutting people out of cars than climbing up and down ladders.

Which excuses watering down standards how? I have no idea how low the standards were brought down but just saying "oh it's OK if a fireman/woman doesn't have enough strength to pull you out of a burning house because statistically that's a pretty remote possibilility that they'll have to do that". Is that exactly comforting? Society expects firemen to do very demanding physical work in a crisis, whether it's pulling people out of a burning building or climbing up 30 floors of that building with 60-80 pounds of gear strapped to their body and if most women aren't up to those kinds of physical standards then it should be too fucking bad for them shouldn't it?

If they want more gender diversity in the fire dept. then assign women that can't match the physical standards to tasks like working at the fire station or driving the fire truck or checking and maintaining equipment but don't water down the standards if it means that the fire department as a whole becomes less effective in a crisis.

Someone is going to come along and say that I don't know that these fire fighters in the UK are now less effective in a crisis due to the lowering of standards, which is true because I don't, but generally speaking doesn't lowering standards always create a less capable force? And if kinnison is right in that this lowering of standards was brought about for the sole purpose of increasing the amount of female firefighters then it sounds like a political decision rather then a pragmatic one which is to say that it was probably a bad decision.

[Megabot]

Which excuses watering down standards how? I have no idea how low the standards were brought down but just saying "oh it's OK if a fireman/woman doesn't have enough strength to pull you out of a burning house because statistically that's a pretty remote possibilility that they'll have to do that". Is that exactly comforting? Society expects firemen to do very demanding physical work in a crisis, whether it's pulling people out of a burning building or climbing up 30 floors of that building with 60-80 pounds of gear strapped to their body and if most women aren't up to those kinds of physical standards then it should be too fucking bad for them shouldn't it?

If they want more gender diversity in the fire dept. then assign women that can't match the physical standards to tasks like working at the fire station or driving the fire truck or checking and maintaining equipment but don't water down the standards if it means that the fire department as a whole becomes less effective in a crisis.

Someone is going to come along and say that I don't know that these fire fighters in the UK are now less effective in a crisis due to the lowering of standards, which is true because I don't, but generally speaking doesn't lowering standards always create a less capable force? And if kinnison is right in that this lowering of standards was brought about for the sole purpose of increasing the amount of female firefighters then it sounds like a political decision rather then a pragmatic one which is to say that it was probably a bad decision.

Besides creating a less capable force what pisses me off about lowering strength standards is that you are giving women special treatment for this kind of job, which is sexist in itself. Don't lower the standards for physical performance, make women require the to have the same strength as men; if a woman can meet the requirements, she is in, if not she can't join, just like any man. Refusing the job to a woman who can pass the tests or not allowing her to take them at all because of her gender is sexist, not refusing her because she can't make the grade. I seriously doubt this woman would have any trouble meeting the strength requirements of a firefighter.

[kinnison]

Megabot, I'm impressed with that video! If she has a boyfriend, I bet he doesn't give her any shit.

Returning to the thread, however; the same applies, with a bit less force, to women in the police. It applies especially in the UK because of our no-guns policy, but it is a fact that police sometimes get into physically demanding situations, one reason being that criminals don't generally like being arrested and may respond with violence to the attempt.

This may well result in one or both of two things; the perp getting away and the policeperson getting hurt, which is more likely with a female officer for obvious reasons. If the officer is armed, the possible results then include the perp getting hold of the officer's weapon and the officer getting killed - it also makes it more likely that the perp gets killed, because most people don't want to get shot and an officer may shoot to preserve his or her own life. A female officer, being more likely to get hurt, may shoot earlier for this reason.

This is not to say that women don't have a place in the police. Women have (on average!) better people skills and of course are better at dealing with specifically female-related crimes such as rape. However, the fitness tests ought to be the same for men and women and not made easier to make it more likely that a woman will get into front-line policing. Example - a woman who can't make that grade has no business being outside a crowded nightclub at 3AM. As for other policing jobs - victim support, interrogation, correlation of evidence for example - that is quite another matter.

Best person for the job - that's what matters. And on another subject - if your religious or other beliefs make it impossible to follow your orders as a police officer, then sorry but you should be fired. Police officers sign a contract and in most jurisdictions swear an oath to follow orders, enforce the law and protect the public "without fear or favour". If you can't do any of the three then you should be out.

As for employment in government jobs - it should simply be against the rules to even ask the race, sex, sexuality and religious affiliation of anyone applying for such a job, and even the name should be replaced by some sort of code during shaking down the applicants into a shortlist. It should also be against the rules to ask questions about such things during interview. Once in, it should also be a firing offense for any government employee to show favour to anyone for any of these reasons.

Private organisations can have whatever rules they like within reason - but in the case of a government employee whose job covers my area then I am paying part of his or her salary, and one of the things I should get for that is fair treatment.

[Darth Wong]

Megabot, I'm impressed with that video! If she has a boyfriend, I bet he doesn't give her any shit.

Returning to the thread, however; the same applies, with a bit less force, to women in the police. It applies especially in the UK because of our no-guns policy, but it is a fact that police sometimes get into physically demanding situations, one reason being that criminals don't generally like being arrested and may respond with violence to the attempt.

This may well result in one or both of two things; the perp getting away and the policeperson getting hurt, which is more likely with a female officer for obvious reasons. If the officer is armed, the possible results then include the perp getting hold of the officer's weapon and the officer getting killed - it also makes it more likely that the perp gets killed, because most people don't want to get shot and an officer may shoot to preserve his or her own life. A female officer, being more likely to get hurt, may shoot earlier for this reason.

This is not to say that women don't have a place in the police. Women have (on average!) better people skills and of course are better at dealing with specifically female-related crimes such as rape. However, the fitness tests ought to be the same for men and women and not made easier to make it more likely that a woman will get into front-line policing. Example - a woman who can't make that grade has no business being outside a crowded nightclub at 3AM. As for other policing jobs - victim support, interrogation, correlation of evidence for example - that is quite another matter.

So ... do you have some actual numbers to show that these worst-case scenarios are actually happening in some significant quantity? You know, like you were asked for quite a while ago?

Best person for the job - that's what matters. And on another subject - if your religious or other beliefs make it impossible to follow your orders as a police officer, then sorry but you should be fired. Police officers sign a contract and in most jurisdictions swear an oath to follow orders, enforce the law and protect the public "without fear or favour". If you can't do any of the three then you should be out.

As for employment in government jobs - it should simply be against the rules to even ask the race, sex, sexuality and religious affiliation of anyone applying for such a job, and even the name should be replaced by some sort of code during shaking down the applicants into a shortlist. It should also be against the rules to ask questions about such things during interview. Once in, it should also be a firing offense for any government employee to show favour to anyone for any of these reasons.

Private organisations can have whatever rules they like within reason - but in the case of a government employee whose job covers my area then I am paying part of his or her salary, and one of the things I should get for that is fair treatment.

Nice tangent, but off-topic. Make another thread if you want to talk about special treatment for religious groups.

[brianeyci]

Besides creating a less capable force what pisses me off about lowering strength standards is that you are giving women special treatment for this kind of job, which is sexist in itself. Don't lower the standards for physical performance, make women require the to have the same strength as men; if a woman can meet the requirements, she is in, if not she can't join, just like any man. Refusing the job to a woman who can pass the tests or not allowing her to take them at all because of her gender is sexist, not refusing her because she can't make the grade. I seriously doubt this woman would have any trouble meeting the strength requirements of a firefighter.

Special treatment for women is not sexist. It's as if you think that equality = equity.

Here's a newsflash. Unlike combat arm in the military, police work involves a lot of community interaction and soft skills. Here's another newsflash. A lot of "standardized tests" have absolutely nothing to do with the requirement to do the job at all, but are a filter to weed out undesirables or excess. In the case of police shortage, it's a filter to weed out men who should do a lot more since they start with more than women. A woman has to work a lot harder to get to a certain point, while a man can be a lazy fuck and be as strong as a woman so the requirements are higher.

It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that if police women are on the force and doing their job then the lower physical requirements for females is not hurting two shits. But you guys take the opposite approach, a high and mighty moral horse rather than the empirical evidence in front of you.

It's as if both you and kinnison think that police work is some kind of objective wrestling match rather than soft skills, and most importantly intuition. This is not like taking a math test and giving women a higher grade or a man a higher grade.

[kinnison]

brianeyci, you are of course correct; a lot, and perhaps most, of the time police work has very little to do with physical strength and/or fitness, and in those cases women may well actually be better at the job.

However, on some occasions (riot policing, controlling crowds of drunks outside nightclubs at 3AM being two of them) policing can and does degenerate into a "wrestling match". On one of those occasions, if I was one of those in need of protection I'd rather have a 6-foot 180-pound cop turn up than a 5'4" 110-pound one, regardless of gender.

As I've said a number of times, the right person for the right job. As I haven't, this varies within an organisation. As an example, it is quite likely that women would make better fighter pilots as they respond better to gravity stress and have better manual dexterity (on average, of course). This may well mean that a woman makes a better Marine attack jet pilot - but not a very good ground-pounder.

[Darth Wong]

brianeyci, you are of course correct; a lot, and perhaps most, of the time police work has very little to do with physical strength and/or fitness, and in those cases women may well actually be better at the job.

However, on some occasions (riot policing, controlling crowds of drunks outside nightclubs at 3AM being two of them) policing can and does degenerate into a "wrestling match". On one of those occasions, if I was one of those in need of protection I'd rather have a 6-foot 180-pound cop turn up than a 5'4" 110-pound one, regardless of gender.

What part of "cough up some fucking evidence of the severity of this problem" do you not understand? I want some numbers showing that criminals are actually getting away because of female cops.

And how about those aging cops, eh? Did you know that a 50 year old cop is actually not as fit or strong or capable in a fistfight as a 30 year old? As long as we're getting rid of all those weak female cops, we should also fire every cop who's over 40, right?

As I've said a number of times, the right person for the right job. As I haven't, this varies within an organisation. As an example, it is quite likely that women would make better fighter pilots as they respond better to gravity stress and have better manual dexterity (on average, of course). This may well mean that a woman makes a better Marine attack jet pilot - but not a very good ground-pounder.

Oh right, because actual combat is like an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie and fistfights are common. After all, it's not as if modern combat is done with guns or anything, right?

[Megabot]

Special treatment for women is not sexist. It's as if you think that equality = equity.

Here's a newsflash. Unlike combat arm in the military, police work involves a lot of community interaction and soft skills. Here's another newsflash. A lot of "standardized tests" have absolutely nothing to do with the requirement to do the job at all, but are a filter to weed out undesirables or excess. In the case of police shortage, it's a filter to weed out men who should do a lot more since they start with more than women. A woman has to work a lot harder to get to a certain point, while a man can be a lazy fuck and be as strong as a woman so the requirements are higher.

It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that if police women are on the force and doing their job then the lower physical requirements for females is not hurting two shits. But you guys take the opposite approach, a high and mighty moral horse rather than the empirical evidence in front of you.

It's as if both you and kinnison think that police work is some kind of objective wrestling match rather than soft skills, and most importantly intuition. This is not like taking a math test and giving women a higher grade or a man a higher grade.

Except I wasn't talking about police work like kinnison was. In the case of firefighters, lowering the strength standards may end up costing lives if a weaker firefighter can't drag a 200 pound person to safety or carry less equipment up a ladder, as it has been said before. If a woman can meet those requirements the same as a man then she should be allowed to be a firefighter. I have no problem letting a woman on the police force since a female officer can do her job in other areas not requiring physical strength. I apologize for not being more specific.