Are women "equal"? I don't think so.?

Question

If women are equal to men, why do they need:
alimony,
preferential/quota hiring
women's sports (title IX - if they're "equal" can't they compete with the guys?)
Why aren't they required to sign up for the draft?

Seems to me that divorce should result in property being split in proportion to who earned what (not 50-50), there should be NO alimony, and no preferential hiring.

Also, why the big deal over breast cancer - when prostate cancer kills 3x as many people?

Shouldn't courts award custody to men ~50% of the time (instead of giving it to women 90% of the time?)

Why do we hear about "dead beat dads" when women who don't get custody have a higher rate of non-payment?

If a woman slaps a man, should he slap her back?

And for all you folks who think men start domestic abuse, the REAL stats are that almost exactly 50% of the time, the woman hits first. So where are the battered shelters for men?

When will women give up their "protection" and truly be "equal"?

I was asked for cites.

This one will do for starters.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48895

The evidence is available for anyone who cares to look.

Of course, most women won't, because they're getting all the benefit - and paying none of the price.

For dufeses who don't think the cite is "credible" - why don't you do your own homework and demonstrate error?

I made a statement and was asked for a cite. I provided one. The response that the cite "isn't credible" is BS. Find an opposing cite... if you can.

Fact is, this information is all over the web. I just picked the first cite that covered the ignorance of the person challenging my statement.

Answer 1

I know I'm gonna get tons of thumbs downs for this, but hear me out:

They won't because men in general are stupid when it comes to women. Men have the power to write most of the laws but continuously choose to give women more power in areas that should be equal.

Think about it, when a cop pulls over a man for speeding, he usually gives him a ticket with no hesitation. A woman can almost kill some one on the road, but if she's pretty enough, dainty enough, and convincing enough, the cop will let her go because she's pretty. Because he could possibly get with her if they meet again. Because he doesn't want to ruin the charm that happened. All stupid reasons to let her go but it happens all the time.

Or how about this...a 26 year old woman named Debra Lafave was a teacher who had sex with one of her 14 year old male students. She goes to court and gets no jail time. The lawyer even states "she's too pretty to go to jail, it would be like feeding her to the sharks". Even though attractive young guys get thrown in jail to be raped and killed every day with no remorse or care in the world from any one, and for simple crimes. And when men have sex with their students, they get 10, 20 40 or more years for it with no question. No ones saying, "awe, those guys are too pretty to go to jail". It was a male lawyer who said the dumb statement above, and it was the judge who gave her no jail time. Very stupid.

If men and women would work together to be fair with each other, their would be equality, but both sides usually have some sort of agenda for the other depending on the person. And money is a big factor to why things aren't truely equal as well.

Alright, now you can all rain down the thumbs downs. You know I love it.

Answer 2

First of all, nobody is claiming that women and men are not different. That's what you are talking about for the most of the time. It is a commonly admitted fact, that for example an average man is bigger and stronger than an average woman, especially if we consider upper body strength. However, this has got nothing to do with equality of sexes as any educated person defines it. It's about inequality that exists between men and women who are just as qualified for some defined task, job or whatever; those two should be treated equal, and unfortunately this is not the case (women still get paid less etc.).

But in the natural world everyone is different, and also both sexes are different. Nobody is claiming otherwise. So let's consider a bit about those examples you mentioned:

"Seems to me that divorce should result in property being split in proportion to who earned what (not 50-50)"
-This is due to fact that in a marriage a certain division of tasks is made, and different tasks get paid different amounts. Those amounts usually don't correlate with social benefits of those tasks. In the most extreme example the wife stays home, raises children home, does all the homework and gets paid none. The husband may bring all the money home. In the divorce situation, if we wouldn't split the property 50-50, we should then have to evaluate the monetary value of the work of the wife. How much it would have cost to hire a nanny, cleaning company once a week and a cook (plus a couple of other servants)? I think few normal men would earn enough to cover those costs. That kind of evaluation just doesn't work. After all, the marriage is all about sharing the responsibilities and costs of the whole family. By definition, both participants are treated equal, and that's how it should be. If you feel somebody might just be after your money (meaning if you really have a lot of it), it's a common practice to make marital contract to prevent that kind of hoaxes.

"women's sports ... if they're "equal" can't they compete with the guys?"
Men are bigger and stronger. I think we covered that. Nobody is claiming otherwise.

"Why aren't they required to sign up for the draft?"
Men still are bigger and stronger and make better soldiers. If you have issues with the drafts in your country, perhaps you should think why the hell to wage war anyways. Bringing women to the battlefield wouldn't make things any easier for you nor the other guys and/or gals you are fighting against.

"alimony"
Well the parent who raises the child (and pays for it) usually gets paid alimony, and that's just fair and square. Raising a child costs money, and if you have children together, you should share the expenses. Oh wait, you have a strange habit to pay alimony also to women with no children? Is that so? I'm sorry, we don't do that here. Well, maybe that has got something to do with the presumption that women do the housework even in the families without children, so they have less time to educate themselves or make a career. So in some way, men kind of need to pay for that housework afterwards... Dunno, I agree that in a modern society (where average people _share_ the housework) that is a strange thing to pay that kind of alimony... Do you share the homework there?

"preferential/quota hiring"
Now this has got to do with the real equality problems I discussed earlier. It's meant to balance things: when normally if there are two as qualified candidates, the male one gets chosen for promotion or whatever (that's inequality), then these laws are meant to balance things out. I'm also a bit skeptical about quotas too, I wonder if they'll cause less qualified women chosen over better male candidates... But somebody setting those quotas should have considered that there are enough qualified applicants in both genders. If not, that's not the problem of the system, but of the individuals setting those quotas. It wouldn't be wise to set those for example for military high command... Or have you done that too there? However, the preferential treatment is just fine also in that case. It just balances things out.

"Also, why the big deal over breast cancer - when prostate cancer kills 3x as many people?"
-Big deal? Well, I don't see any preference in getting either of those. As for the appearance in media (that's what you mean, right?), I think at least I've been informed enough about the symptoms etc. of both of those diseases. Again, you may have things differently there, but I would suggest asking for more education / information / advertising campaigns about prostate cancer, and no less info about breast cancer.

"Shouldn't courts award custody to men ~50% of the time (instead of giving it to women 90% of the time?)"
Now here we may have some bias we agree. But definitely I don't think 50% of the divorced men should get custody. An average divorced woman just seems to have better maternal instincts and tend to make better parents than her male counterpart. Same kind of fact as that one about the physical strength. Hey, if they lack the strength the men have evolved during hunting, gathering and waging war, the women must have evolved something while tending children at home.

"Why do we hear about "dead beat dads" when women who don't get custody have a higher rate of non-payment?"
Because of the reasons I mentioned just above, men usually get the custody only when women can't take care of the children. That usually means lack of income. The same lack would result in non-payment, no?

"If a woman slaps a man, should he slap her back?"
If a woman poses a serious physical threat to me and assaults me, I wouldn't hold back if I need to retaliate (meaning: I can't escape and the violent confrontation can't be avoided). However, that kind of women are rare (they do exists though), and none of them has had any interest in assaulting me (maybe because I'm so nice a person that I don't ask for beatings). Hitting the smaller and weaker person is considered a cowardly act, no matter if the person is a man or a woman.

Now to the last part, where we have the issue with the cited references: "And for all you folks who think men start domestic abuse, the REAL stats are that almost exactly 50% of the time, the woman hits first. So where are the battered shelters for men?"
If we look at the source you cited afterwards, it refers to a study which is about men and women willingly reporting a use of physical force against their partners. It's particularly _not_ taking into account who hit first, and that's the biggest reason of criticism against that particular study (it doesn't take into account if the case was about self defense). You asked for a citation that would contradict those claims. Well, I could paste one of those millions radical feminist websites with an oppositely biased statistics, but I tried to find some sources at least trying to be objective. Some sane looking statistics can be found from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm , and a good article about this recent media buzz over domestic violence can be found from http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1479 . I should remind you that all this kind of studies have some sort of bias in them (because of the researcher or the funding agency behind the research will implement them, sometimes unwittingly, but nowadays quite often on purpose), and even more often the media will twist the results quite shamelessly. But anyways, as a personal opinion, I think violence is never a good thing. And prejudice in the court (that either the man or woman is "more likely" to be the sole culprit) is a bad thing. Cases of domestic violence are never simple, and many times there shouldn't be the naming of guilty ones at all (or both should be named). This would be the case when for example somebody has a severe mental disease (well, hitting your wife sure needs a somewhat twisted mind, but if whether we should think it as a disease is a completely another matter)...

Anyways, I wouldn't recommend using violence against women nor men. Peace.

Answer 3

We have never been equal. Men are physically stronger than women.
We carry the babies for 9 months, go through hours of labor and give painful birth to that baby. Our own breasts prepare to feed that baby. These things give us a mother's instinct that most men don't have.
We sometimes get Alimony because of staying home and taking care of the children and not being able to earn money, or support their husbands going through college and getting you those high paying jobs.
Where are you getting your statistics, out of thin air?
Why do men try to get custody if women don't pay Child Support?
Men think of Child Support as giving their ex's money for them to party or something, not true! It takes money, a lot of money, and a lot of work to raise children. Men have no idea because they rarely do it.
No, a man should not slap her back. If he's getting slapped, it's probably because he's lying, cheating or disrespecting her.
What "protection?"
And again, where do you get all your statistics?
You sound like a very angry man/boy. Get some serious help.
And again, where do you get all your statistics? I want to see some links.

LMAO.. I saw one statistic made by anyone with an opinion. Did you just read that and get a stroke? Instead of giving yourself an ulcer worrying about things you'll never understand, why not get off the pity pot, get a job, and pay your Alimony AND Child Support your ex and children rightly deserve!

Answer 4

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Absolutely, there are some inequalities that favour women. There are yet inequalities that do not. Do you realise that women in Western society still earn significantly less on average than men in the same jobs? Do you realise that these days a woman is expected to be nurturer/mother/homemaker *and* worker/provider? Many find this too much and drop their bundles, I might add. No-one expects it of men.

But, addressing your concerns more directly:

Alimony: it's a case by case basis thing. Each situation is different. Some women suffer so damn much or have done more than their share in the marriage and they deserve it. Others are just b!tches.

The sports distinction I think may have started with contact sports, being as fellas are a bit rougher. Me, I'd be happy to see it all mixed up, but I suck at sports so it's not high on my priority list.

Women initially weren't required for the draft because contraception wasn't always available and if you got married (and sometimes even if you didn't), a baby was bound to be the result. Someone had to look after it. (Also you may consider war brings about extramarital affairs, and you wouldn't want a battlefield full of pregnant women, would you?) Women holding that role, it stayed as it was even after contraception came in (even now, it still doesn't always work). Then there's the point that some people have families before any major conflicts arise, without thinking 'gee, I'll have to go to war, later'.

Re property in divorce: some credit should be given to women who are homemakers, who cook and clean and take care of babies without being paid for it. Often, women have well and truly earned their half of the house. I'll come back to the instance of unequal pay here, as well. Your Mrs may be doing the same job as you and being paid a lot less, so she put in just as much effort but couldn't pay as much. As for preferential hiring, it's a political thing - brought in by male dominated governments, so don't blame us. Besides, if these roles weren't offered, women may never be given the chance to gain skills in certain areas to become good at the job. It's got its positive side.

I agree custody cases are often unfair. In most cases, joint custody, though frustrating for both, would be better for the children, so they have the influence of both parents in their lives. Mine was one case in which my father won custody, and it showed in many ways he had no idea about (or terribly much interest in) parenting. On the other hand, I've seen good men denied access to their children and being torn apart by it, and it's heartbreaking. Family courts are just plain not equipped to make the decisions they do about people's lives.

I also agree about cancer. I wouldn't take your stance so far as to suggest an unnecessarily big deal has been made over breast cancer, but I believe much more attention should be given to prostate cancer because of the reasons you stated. Though it should be noted that men get breast cancer also. We don't see much support for those men, either.

Slapping: if people keep their hands to themselves, this is not an issue. I'm not of the school of thought that women should slap men without expecting repercussions.

Re 'dead beat dads': what difference does it make what someone's called? Whoever is shirking their responsibilities is a louse.

I haven't seen those statistics regarding domestic abuse, but even if it is so, shouldn't we concern ourselves with stopping it from occurring at all, rather than 'he/she started it'? As for battered men shelters - if a man needs help, I believe he should have it. Too little attention has been paid to men's needs.

I wish you could express your concerns without being so blatantly bitter about it. Women aren't evil. We really don't have such a brilliant deal. Let's face it - life's hard, and it doesn't pick and choose who to treat horribly. We're all in it together, and whatever wonders you think women have that makes our lives better than yours, there's plenty of things that suck for us and don't for you.

As for this 'protection' you speak of - I haven't had any of the benefits of that. My life has held all the responsibility and a few of the joys you could expect for either gender. Get away from superficial women and feminazis, and spend some time with the down-to-earth, working class types. You might find out we're not so bad.

Answer 5

How about providing some CREDIBLE sources to back up your "facts"? What is the deal with you and this Web site you keep citing? This is a propoganda site, not a legitimate news source--it doesn't even begin to follow credible journalistic standards. Think critically, for pete's sake.