Also I've seen a lot of mini-essays posted by people who then become infuriated by others who "clearly haven't read my last posting!!" I think it's the equivilent of having a face-to-face conversation and insisting on talking for two hours without interruption. Then getting angry at anyone whose attention wanders.

So I would like to propose that in this thread, at least, we endeavor to stay on-topic throughout and try to make our points in 200 words of less? I don't mean to sound dictatorial, but I thought it might be a nice idea if a group of babblers made the effort to stick to these ground rules and see if the ensuing discussion was any more satisfying as a result. Anyone want to give it a try? And wouldn't it be neat if the feminist contigent of babble ended up revolutionizing how we communicate on this board?

Oh, and yes I realize I've probably just gone over my 200 word limit.

quote:

---

Oh, and yes I realize I've probably just gone over my 200 word limit.

---

I'm reluctant to align myself with people under the banner of "men's rights". From what I've read from some of the self proclaimed representatives here in the past, I think it's an excuse, for some, for some deep seated mysogyny.

My concerns aren't many, I think it's hard to make a case that men are descriminated on the basis of their gender. And, I'd say it's impossible to outside the venue of family law.

There are, I believe, inequities against men in family law, particularly in regard to custody.

quote:

---

Assuming that 'women's rights' issues are pretty much just equal rights issues, how can the two be distinguished?

---

Precisely! Many feminists (like me) would tell you that they can't be distinguished, but a lot of people immediately equate feminism with being 'anti-male' like it's an either/or situation.

quote:

---

There have been some howlingly bad, unfair decisions.

---

Well, that's just true in general. I doubt the courts have been any more biased against men in favour of women than vice versa. Of course there have been cases where women were granted custody, etc. for no reason other than that they were women, and this sort of thing is what "men's rights" advocates seize upon. But let's not get into a pee-ing contest over which gender is more screwed over by the courts--I mean where to begin when it comes to legal reform?

Uh-oh, how many words was that? One more thing:

quote:

---

Does our society generally assume any male accused of violence toward a woman or child to be guilty, before proof?

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does our society generally assume any male accused of violence toward a woman or child to be guilty, before proof?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeez, I don't think so. Why, do you?

---

You don't think any male accused of violence etc, or you don't think SOCIETY generally assumes any male etc?

Laws are supposed to be representative of society--so naturally when a law states that regardless of evidence, in a domestic disturbance situation the male must be put in jail--I make the inference that society feels that any male accused of violence is guilty. There are even cases when the male has been removed when HE is the one who called police and is making allegations against her.

quote:

---

I'm reluctant to align myself with people under the banner of "men's rights". From what I've read from some of the self proclaimed representatives here in the past, I think it's an excuse, for some, for some deep seated mysogyny.

---

I can understand when someone is reluctant to align themselves with men's rights. I too have come across many so-called "men's rights" activists who aren't really mysogynistic...but are very immature and ill-informed. Which is why I think more ppl like myself need to get involved with men's rights...and we need to try getting women involved too. Otherwise we will not be taken seriously.

quote:

---

I think it's hard to make a case that men are descriminated on the basis of their gender. And, I'd say it's impossible to outside the venue of family law

---

I would strongly disagree. I have already given one example of discrimination in criminal law. Another example would be sexual assault cases, where the innocent-until-proven-guilty notion is reversed. Also, in the admittance of evidence, the "victim"'s past sexual history is inadmissable, but any violent history on the part of the accused is.

Additionally, men are discriminated against for employment in governments all over the place, who are trying to look diverse.

quote:

---

We value the contributions that aboriginal peoples, racial minorities, women and people with disabilities bring to our organization.

---

Notice how it specifically mentions women, but excludes men? When this statement is put into practice it discriminates against white men applying for various occupations. I would argue that it also discriminates against those mentioned, though, because instead of regarding them as just people, they are regarding them as "aboriginal peoples, racial minorities, women and people with disabilities". They just happen to get the jobs in the name of "diversity".

I checked the criminal code, and sexual assault doesn't seem to be a reverse-onus offence, though I'm not a lawyer and don't know for sure. It makes sense for the victim's sexual history to be excluded from evidence because it's irrelevant. Consent yesterday doesn't necessarily mean consent today. Past criminal history on the part of a defendant is relevant.

quote:

---

Also, in the admittance of evidence, the
"victim"'s past sexual history is inadmissable, but any violent history on the part of the
accused is.

---

quote:

---

They just happen to get the jobs in the name of "diversity".

---

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: WingNut ]

But would it stand for a government agency to say "the contributions of white males are valued"? I doubt it. My point is simply that if they were going for equality they would not have singled out minorities and women. The phrase would have said something like "all peoples, regardless".

On types of occupations women hold:

quote:

---

The majority of employed women continue to work in occupations in which women have traditionally been concentrated. In 2000, 69%of all employed women were working in one of teaching, nursing and related health occupations, clerical or other administrative positions or sales and service occupations. This compared with just 30% of employed men.

---

On single mothers:

quote:

---

Female lone parents are less likely than mothers in two-parent families to be employed. In 2000, 63% of female lone parents with children less than age 16 living at home were employed, compared with 71% of their counterparts in two-parent families. This represents a major shift from the late 1970s when female lone parents were more likely to employed than mothers with partners. (Table 6)
In the intervening years, however, the employment rate of mothers in two-parent families grew steadily, surpassing that of female lone parents in the mid-1980s. However, in recent years, the proportion of employed lone mothers has increased substantially, jumping 10 percentage points between 1995 and 2000. The presence of young children also has a greater impact on the employment of lone mothers than it does
their counterparts with partners. In 2000, just 42% of lone mothers with children under age 3 were employed, compared with 63% of mothers in two-parent families. At the same time, among those whose youngest child was aged 3-5, 56% of female lone parents, compared with 70% of mothers in two-parent families, were part of the paid workforce.

---

http://www.ilsgroup.com/canadaconnectjuly2000.pdf

quote:

---

As it stands, I am convinced, though I have no proof, that of two people (one a man and one
a woman) applying for the same government position, with the man marginally better qualified--the woman would be hired for the position in the name of diversity (or the aboriginal or black guy).

---

quote:

---

Also, in the admittance of evidence, the "victim"'s past sexual history is inadmissable, but any violent history on the part of the accused is.

---

quote:

---

I just don't think your average white male can speak to this. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

---

Specifically, if the Toronto PD is actively recruiting women and minorities, and none show up, is it entirely the police force's fault?

I recall reading an article a year or two ago whose authors were terribly angry that, despite affirmative action, women university professors were still in the minority, and tended to occupy lower-ranked positions. The helpful chart accompanying the article could have shown the authors why, if they had bothered to read it.

The chart showed that hiring for university professors peaked about 30 years ago, and has been sharply declining ever since. At the peak, women were very underrepresented in hiring. In the last ten years, however, hiring was evenly split between genders.

quote:

---

As a side note, could we perhaps discuss, disagree, bait, deride, argue, etc. with each other without the threat of banning the members we don't agree with?

---

quote:

---

I just don't think your average white male can speak to this. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

---

quote:

---

On the contrary, I've never believed this and actually think that its highly counter-productive. Discussion about such matters should not be left to the experts, and the most important constituent of any radical social movement ought to be the apathetic.

---

quote:

---

Specifically, if the Toronto PD is actively recruiting women and minorities, and none show up, is it entirely the police force's fault?

---

Are they really? Or is it just spin?
The ranks of the Toronto police force, unlike the university faculty, is constantly changing. Yet it remains overwhelmingly white and male. Why?

Could it be because despite a couple of minority cops in the recruitment office, minorities contine to be fearful of the police and do not see themselves represented? And do not believe, with good reason, they would be welcomed on the force?

What about women? I remember a little while ago there were news reports about women cops forming a group and attempting to present their issues, unsuccessfully, to the police brass. It seems their partners, male cops, had beaten them. When they complained their husbands were not charged. More than that the issue was buried. The women felt betrayed by their fellow officers and in danger.

And who wouldn't.

Because a door is open does not mean you are welcome to walk through it. Because a sign says you are welcome does not mean that you are. In the end you are still invading the traditional grounds of red haired men.

I have no proof because there is no proof. The city does not publish current hiring statistics. I am very heavily informed on the matter, which is why I am convinced without proof. And people still haven't answered the question of whether or not a government saying "we value the contributions of white men" would stand.

With regards to the hiring practice of minorities, I wish to distance myself from the topic. 1) I am ill-informed on the matter. 2) They are legitimately under-represented in the public and as a result not on a level playing field with, say, caucasians.

So how is that the city's fault? Just because a generation ago it discriminated heavily, does not mean it should pick up the blame for people's mistrust now.

quote:

---

And people still haven't answered the question of whether or not a government saying "we value the contributions of white men" would stand.

---

quote:

---

Are they really? Or is it just spin?

---

I honestly don't know. And I agree that there exist barriers keeping women and minorities out of white-male-dominated jobs. But, your original comments suggested to me that the blame lay completely with the police and the city rather than with the women/minorities, and I think that some of the blame must be shared.

That report on female cops being abused by their partners surprised me. Most of my experience (admittedly secondhand) with women entering "men's" fields has been that, after an ajustment period, the women tend to be accepted as equals. It would seem to stand to reason: if someone pulls a gun on you and your partner, you'd think you wouldn't want them to stand there and say "Go ahead, shoot the creep. He deserves it."