[samfoo]

I don't understand your point: How is a woman being more likely to be raped not equivalent to a man being more likely to be the victim of a violent crime? When men are victimized it's their own fault, but when women are it's men's fault?

[jamesaguilar]

> How is a woman being more likely to be raped not equivalent to a man being more likely to be the victim of a violent crime?

I don't know where I read this, but my understanding is that criminals are the people most likely to be victims of violent crime. For example, 50% of all murder victims are black men under the age of 25, and that is often associated with gang-related violence. I don't have sources for any of this; I read it somewhere, but where I remember not. So absent some conflicting data I consider the typical violent crime one that received somewhat by choice -- it's often associated with some kind of violence or criminality the victim had previously done. One should not have the expectation of being involved in criminal activity and remaining completely safe from violence at the same time.

I realize that in a debate the burden of proof is on me at this point. But since this is not a formal debate and I don't believe there's much hope of convincing you, I'm going to shirk that duty for the time being.

> Who's more likely to be a grade school teacher?

Women, I think. Are you trying to say that being a grade school teacher is a matter of privilege? Because last I checked it's not exactly a super-desirable job on the social ladder.

> Who's more likely to be convicted (or for that matter: charged) with child molestation?

The same group that is more likely to perform child molestation. What's your point?

[samfoo]

I'll accept that victims of violent crime are also more likely to be the perpetrators. I just don't see how that matters: They're still part of the demographic of "men" and still contributing sociological disadvantage to the population (viz. "Men are stupid muscly brutes").

There are disadvantages (and advantages), sociologically speaking, for both genders. I'm not arguing that women are equally enabled at present (I don't think they are). As discrimination trends towards zero -- which I believe it is -- it's hard not to feel frustrated that cheer leading (pun not intended) is acceptable on one side but not the other.

(Note: I removed my questions in the edit because I didn't feel it was necessary for this to turn into a quid-pro-quo of discrimination reports)

[jamesaguilar]

> As discrimination trends towards zero -- which I believe it is -- it's hard not to feel frustrated that cheer leading (pun not intended) is acceptable on one side but not the other.

I guess our fundamental difference is how much discrimination we believe remains. You seem to think the disparity is small, justifying your frustration with female solidarity. I think the it is still very large.

Most areas where men are at a broad disadvantage are caused by male tendencies acting against themselves, not by other groups discriminating against men (e.g. the violent crime issue, which is not caused by discrimination but by male violent tendencies). Fundamentally, I don't care as much when people are hoist on their own petard as when they hoist others on the same.

In the areas where men are being discriminated against, the discrimination can be very strong (e.g. custody battles). But these contexts are far narrower than the contexts in which women face discrimination, which are more easily described by listing out the few places women are safe from it. I surely agree that we should work to end discrimination against males where it exists, but I also think as a society it makes sense to address problems in the order of their magnitude (or perhaps, with effort proportional to magnitude).

I agree that compared to historical norms we are doing quite well, but we are far from the point where solidarity is not an important asset to females.

[onemoreact]

I would argue that while discrimination is still significant in the US. IMO, the magnitude of net discrimination is fairly small. It’s not hard to find cases where men have an advantage. However, being a Man is a horrible disadvantage in child custody battles. In the eyes of the law when two drunken people have sex it’s often assumed that the man took advantage of the situation etc. Men receive less support in cases of domestic abuse and are more often killed. Infract only 10 year old boys are less likely than their female counterparts to die in any given year etc.

Biologically you can look at say men’s increased chance of baldness vs. PMS and think men have an advantage. But socially the cost / benefit analysis is harder to balance and harder to suggest that one side has a clear advantage because it comes down to how you weigh different parts of the equation.

[btilly]

However, being a Man is a horrible disadvantage in child custody battles.

Citation needed.

From what I've read, men who choose to contest custody, usually win. That's because he's likely making more money and is therefore in a better financial position to take care of the children.

Women usually get custody because men don't usually contest it. That's not to say that it doesn't come up. But men often trade the threat of a custody battle for other things in divorce proceedings.

[yohui]

Without going into the rest, I would note that even if you're right, you haven't refuted onemoreact. If it is ”known” that men are at a disadvantage in custody battles, you might expect men to only contest if they had significant other advantages.

P(male wins | male is richer) != P(male wins)

[neutronicus]

Alternative hypothesis:

Perhaps the social safety net steps in for women before they are driven to violent crime?

On topic:

I wish both genders would quit moralizing and start negotiating already. I can only feel so guilty before I stop listening.

[jamesaguilar]

> Perhaps the social safety net steps in for women before they are driven to violent crime?

I can't think of any reason to believe this is the case, nor have you offered any evidence, so I'm going to tentatively reject this hypothesis.

> quit moralizing and start negotiating already . . .

I have no idea what you mean by this. "You guys stop discriminating against us in the workplace and we'll let you down easier when you proposition us on the street?" Something like that?

Re: your feelings of guilt: you probably don't need to feel guilty unless you are exploiting your privilege. Just being aware of it, not being a jerk, and not accepting it when other men act like jerks is all that's needed most of the time.

[neutronicus]

You've given about as much evidence for your hypothesis as I have mine. We're just bullshitting on the internet here. Anyways, for what it's worth, I buy your hypothesis (men are just violent people who kill each other more than women do) as well as mine (people are more likely to lend a helping hand to women in desperate straits).

I have no idea what you mean by this. "You guys stop discriminating against us in the workplace and we'll let you down easier when you proposition us on the street?" Something like that?

Not quite so flippant, but more or less. Women have a lot of leverage, they're half the population after all. A more unabashedly self-interested agenda would be a breath of fresh air (and possibly more effective).

[sliverstorm]

The same group that is more likely to perform child molestation. What's your point?

It'd be interesting to learn whether this is actually true. The public is blind to incidences of molestation committed by women, so as I understand it many occurrences go unreported or undiscovered.