That is exactly what I think, and you think so too: you concede that the opposing the gendered provisions of the Duluth Model and the Violence Against Women Act is 'very important'.Kirbmarc wrote:
....
You seem to think that males were targeted as a gender, instead of this result being simply a side effect of focusing on crimes which are more likely to be committed by men.
The solution you propose-- "activism to raise awareness" does nothing to help the individual man who is on trial Right Now, without access to Equal Protection Under The Law: a phrase engraved across the front of the US Supreme Court building & enshrined in the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.
US courts have no legal authority to apply laws unequally: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Paul Elam is on solid Constitutional ground... asserting that individual male rape defendants should be afforded the same protections as every-other accused person, or summarily set free. You may not realize it, but you are parroting the Duluth Model here, treating males as collectively-guilty of original gender-sin:
A Voice For Men remedies your ignorance with evidence: http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/ge ... nal-court/Kirbmarc wrote:
In general evolutionary psychology and socio-biology have proposed many explanations for different rates of aggressiveness and anti-social behavior (which are likely to lead to crimes and misdemeanor) between men and women. Upper-body strength is lower in women than in men. Men have evolved to be more aggressive and competitive. The "Male Warrior" hypothesis suggests that human psychology has been shaped by conflicts between groups and by competition for resources.
There is evidence that in primates (chimpanzees, gorillas) males are more aggressive and reckless, as well.
Regardless of why it happens, men are more likely to engage in violent, anti-social, reckless behavior. This doesn't mean that women are more ethical than men, but that they resolve conflicts and frustrations in ways (social ostracism, gossiping, stigmatization) that are less likely to lead to crime, or at least to the crimes targeted by "Broken Window" laws.
....
I'd like to see some evidence of this systemic disparity....Again, it'd be interesting to see some evidence of this.
The same could be said of every shithead reverse-discrimination policy every implemented by SJWs!... from the Occupy Wall Street 'progressive stack' to Missou's protesters racially-segregating their own group... to campus diversity officer Bahar Mustafa banning white cis males from her 'anti-racism' event! Why are you justifying it? I was right: you're more SJW than you realize.Kirbmarc wrote:
While there is the potential for misuse of these laws, the intent behind their creation was to counter an irrational social bias. They should be amended, or corrected, but it's hard not to understand the reasons why the were created in first place.
I said, "The same Mary Koss who spawned the 1-in-4 rape college rape stat in the 1980s now advises the FBI & CDC that males forced to penetrate females should not be counted as 'rape' victims, but should be categorized in a separate 'other' category. The number of males reporting having been forced to penetrate-- is higher than the number of females reporting being penetrated. No 'rape is rape', if you're male."
Go floosh yourself, Nerdmarc of Redhead: http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/Kirbmarc wrote:
I find this rather hard to believe. Any evidence for this claim?
Kirbmarc wrote: Of course lunatic SJW activism must be countered. But doing it in an equally gender politics-based, extremist and frankly insane way is incredibly counterproductive.
Classical liberalism-- the values of the US founding fathers-- with its emphasis on individual justice and rights-- has been maligned by critics as empowering Colonialism, Imperialism, Patriarchy, Genocide of other equally-valid social systems.
I think the Jeffersonian way is the best way-- to carve society's 'cake' into fair pieces. Hence my citing the Constitution as authoritative. Yet I am magnanimous-enough to entertain alternatives, because no system is without downsides. The feminists have proposed an alternative. The MRAs have accepted the feminists' premises-- wage gap, genital mutilation, rape culture, whatever-- and convincingly argued that females aren't the golden victims as was expected/ but rather males are deserving of a greater number of noble meowmeowbeans which were to be heaped upon the females.
Basic fairness dictates that an honest feminist must thus: 1. either abandon her critique-- and become a Jeffersonian individual-equality proponent, or 2. follow her feminism to its unexpected conclusion and bow to the MRAs. :clap:
Those are the 2 intellectually-honest options. Remaining a kirbmarc-style feminist is not viable-- it requires willful denial of reality, or changing the rules you created-- as soon as your realized you were losing the game.
