h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This thread is pretty much a replay in miniature of the debate that happened in all across Canada after the murders. As I wrote in the piece, many said it was just an isolated act of a madman but that argument fell away very rapidly when it became clear that while indeed it was the act of a madman, it was a political act and it was not isolated. The act was a hate crime just as much as firebombing a synagogue or lynching a black man would be. When the realization was absorbed, the debate ended. The numbers of women enrolling in science and engineering at Canadian universities and colleges went up and has stayed up.

Before the murders there was a rather disgusting incident in our House of Commons when a bill was introduced which was intended to help victims of spousal violence. A government member was heard to loudly joke in the background as debate began on the bill "I don't beat my wife, do you George? har. har." That was an attitude that some felt it was appropriate to express in the Parliament of the country. I feel safe to say that no Canadian would accept such a statement from an elected representative today, just as we wouldn't accept holocaust jokes or slavery jokes.

We must remember that it was less than a century ago that the British Parliament recognized that women were "persons" under the law in the British Empire. This recognition came some time after women were allowed to vote and hold elected office. Imagine: women could vote and hold elected office, but they were still chattels under the law.


McKay: I too am "I am a white, hetrosexual, married, employed, male, parent." Funny. I'm not descriminated against. In fact, I'm pretty much handed the wealth of society on a silver platter. I live on land that my ancestors stole from the ancestors of the people I see going through the garbage cans in the alley behind my house.

I am saddened by an attitude which seems to be "I've had these privileges from childhood, if you take them away you're descriminating against me"; an attitude which seems to say "men open doors for women; that's special treatment they should be greatful" (sorry, around here, its considered polite for the first person to the door to hold it open for the next one; it's not an issue of sexual politics, it's an issue of human decency).

When a white, heterosexual, married, employed, male, parent argues that he is the most descriminated member of society I can't help but ask:

When you walk alone in the daytime in public on a city street and you hear footsteps behind you is your first feeling one of terror? Have you ever been refused service at a bar because of the colour of your skin? Have you ever been told that you can't have a promotion or a pay raise because you have a penis? Have you ever stood in an crowded elevator and found that every individual on the elevator was staring at your crotch? Does it happen every time? Have you ever been in a university classroom and had a person come in screaming "I hate white men" separating all the women and men of colour and then executing the white men? Have you ever heard of such a thing happening to white men?

I'm sorry, McKay, there are fourteen pairs of shoes waiting for you in Montreal: you haven't walked even an inch in one of those pairs.

Blickybadger: Why does it surprise you that I'm a man? American civil rights workers in the 60s weren't all black. One of the stupidest statements I've ever heard made by a public figure (and I can't remember who it was that said it) was "well, I'm a man so I'm obviously not a feminist". This strikes me as about as irrational and frightening as "well, I'm not a Jew so I don't give a crap about the Holocaust" or I'm not Black so what did Apartheid matter to me?"

Personally, I think there are two types of people in the world: feminists and those who would be feminists if they allowed themselves to see what was really going on.

<>

Oh gosh, anhaga, that actually made me cry.

Meanwhile, I hope McKay has provided large dowries for his daughters and is planning to find them very rich husbands just in case any of them ever want to have children.


az

ps
remember I also thought you were a woman when I first met you here? which you can take as a compliment if you like . . .

I think it was just the sound of your name, An - haga.

Thanks Az.

I've often been mistaken for a women here. That's fine.

Blicky: Anhaga is Old English and of varied interpretations. Literally it seems to mean "solitary hedger" which is certainly obscure. Some argue that it means something like "a solitary, hedged-in one" which is only a little less obscure but is taken as meaning a hermit. The other interpretation is that it means a "solitary warrior" from the fact that the anglo-saxon infantry line, with closely packed spears sticking out was known as a hedge, and so, the individual soldiers could be described as "hedgers" and a soldier alone would be a "solitary hedger", an anhaga.

I not one to pour petrol on a fire, but:

Women get very different treatment in terms of child custody after a split up from a "family unit", as the government like to call it.

In the UK, women almost always get primary custody on the basis that a child needs its mother more than its father(although no-one knows if this is true, or where the idea came from). This has resulted in several fathers actions groups.

In the US, custody is a very bizarre issue, depending on what state you are in. There have been several cases in the last decade where the father is given custody simply because he earns more money, even in cases where he has been violent or abusive to his wife and/or children.

"Women get very different treatment in terms of child custody after a split up from a "family unit", as the government like to call it."

Everybody gets different treatment, depending on the laws where they live.

In Alberta, Canada, child custody is determined on the basis of one criterion: the best interests of the child. The judicial system here goes to huge lengths to help separating parents avoid going before a judge. They are required to take a course on "parenting after separation" before any divorce or legal separation will even be considered by a judge, the parents are expected to exhaust all options at reaching their own resolution before a judge will consider the case. A major reason the judicial system has instituted this policy is so that children are not used as bargaining chips in fights over the division of assets. Of course, here the division of assets is simple: all matrimonial assets are divided in half. Each spouse retains assets he or she owned before the marriage; everything else, including the increase in value of pre-owned assets is divided 50/50. Again, it is encouraged that this be done with the help of lawyers and accountants by mutual agreement, rather than by having a judge impose a settlement.

There are still problems here, but generally the problems come when the spouses decide they won't or can't work it out on their own, so they risk it all on a judges decision. In those cases, the judge will decide custody according to what in her or his estimation is best for the child. Under Federal law, each parent is responsible for child support according to a published scale based on income. The custodial parent receives that support from the non-custodial parent. If custody ever changes (which it can because custody is never a closed case here) than the parents switch who pays and again, it is according to the scale.

The first post on here made me feel physically

I'm not usually one for confrontation but... how dare you cheapen the lives lost on that day with your insensitive comments?

When reading about those poor women I cried, and it wouldn't have mattered if it had been serial killers he had massacred, a massacre is still a massacre and all victims should be looked on compassionately.

I pity you until you learn this

hi Luthiena,

I agree with you. I was living in Canada when that happened, I remember the horror of it all happening. For someone to cheapen such a horrific and senseless loss of so many precious lives by saying THEY AGREE WITH THE PERSON'S MOTIVES is unspeakably insensitive, to say the least.

az

Blickybadger -"McKay I've been hearing that argument of yours for years and I've never been able to think of any insults that are severe enough to match my feelings about the short-sighted self-centred people who spout it and I still cant now.2

Come on try ! What have I said you disagree with so strongly ?

Vestboy - "I find it interesting that the motives of women are questioned when they want to go into politics. Why do most men want to go into politics? Why shouldn't a woman want politics as a career when men have been choosing it for scores of years."

I actually said - "If women weren't inspired by what Margaret Thatcher achieved, then they only went into politics because they liked the holidays."

That is not questioning women choosing politics - its questioning the motivation. I'd have thought a woman rising to the role of Prime Minister should have inspired dozens of female graduates to enter politics - instead they joined the carping about her policies.

<>

Blah, blah, blah.

It should be clear that we this thread is actually about a senseless mass murder of young university students. The fact that they were women should be beside the point *except* for the fact that *because* they were women that this is why they ended up murdered.

Because some sick f**k thought he had a right to do this.

Because he hated 'feminists'.

Whether any of the dead women actually considered themselves to be feminists is obviously beside the point. So *why* is this thread suddenly about women's roles in society?

Let's turn the argument around again. Had it been so many blacks or Jews killed, would this thread be about how the Jews or blacks are 'getting away' with whatever in society? Would anyone dare to say that all the black people they knew could either choose to parent or have a job because they obviously wouldn't be able to do both! (Like, not even if they actually really needed the money???)

It's amazing how a ruthless slaughter of young women ends up starting a debate that . . . somehow . . . ends up with it being a debate about how these women, or women just like them, should have to defend their position. What position? The position to not be randomly murdered by psychotic mysogynists? Noooooo! The position of simply BEING WOMEN and having to defend the fact that they are . . . women.

How do we go from a senseless slaughter of young individuals to a discussion of how *women always get child custody . . .* ???



az

Anhaga -"McKay: I too am "I am a white, hetrosexual, married, employed, male, parent." Funny. I'm not descriminated against. In fact, I'm pretty much handed the wealth of society on a silver platter. I live on land that my ancestors stole from the ancestors of the people I see going through the garbage cans in the alley behind my house."

I haven't stolen anyones land - I have worked to support my family, and raised them to be good, loving people. I have worked to pay for the house I live in. Now I find that because I am married to wife and the parent of my children, they are not entitled to help with their university studies. Neither can my wife attend the colledge course she would like to unless I pay for it. If she was a single parent it would be free. If she was Asian it would be free. If she was Afro-caribbean it would be free.

"When a white, heterosexual, married, employed, male, parent argues that he is the most descriminated member of society I can't help but ask:

When you walk alone in the daytime in public on a city street and you hear footsteps behind you is your first feeling one of terror?" It has been. "Have you ever been refused service at a bar because of the colour of your skin?" Quite definately yes - indeed I've been told to get put because my sort weren't welcome. "Have you ever been told that you can't have a promotion or a pay raise because you have a penis?" No and neither has anyone else. I've been told I can't have one because - my smoking is an issue - because my hair is too long - because my health is an issue - because my attitude is wrong. Bosses use any excuse not to pay people what they are worth. The majority of society is discriminated against, by birth, by colour, by age, by gender, by religion, by class - wake up and smell the coffee. "Have you ever stood in an crowded elevator and found that every individual on the elevator was staring at your crotch?" No, but had you said breasts I would have said I know what you are talking about - the manners of some people are disgusting. "Have you ever been in a university classroom and had a person come in screaming "I hate white men" separating all the women and men of colour and then executing the white men? Have you ever heard of such a thing happening to white men?" Yes I have heard of it - in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

I'm sorry, McKay, there are fourteen pairs of shoes waiting for you in Montreal: you haven't walked even an inch in one of those pairs.

I have in no way supported the views of Mullet or the Montreal Maniac, I think the actions that day were horendous - something you might remember if you cast your mind back to the original peer review thread. I would think those actions equally as horrendous if he'd shot men. It seems the majority of contributers to this thread would not.

hi McKay,

It's really not a contest you know.

I'm more discriminated against than youuuuu!



yah, boo sucks. Who cares.


az

You do - deeply.

Thats what this thread has become. Not an expression of disgust at the murder of 14 young people - but a hammering board because some sad, inarticulate, moron expressed his support for the views of a twisted loser. Suddenly everyone is complaining about people looking at their breasts,and their being underpaid.

Those 14 young people were denied their right to make their way in the world because someone hated feminists. Possibly those young girls were not feminists - but this thought never entered his head. His definition of a feminist was a woman who succeeded where he'd failed. Its a label see and labels make us all into non-people. Its easy to kill a label - its very hard to kill a human being. (Assuming you have any humanity, which in this guy's case is dubious.)

Vestboy wrote: "I would like you to give me an example of the benefits women have that men do not? Where the law discriminates in their favour"

Bleat, bleat, bleat. Woman are so oppressed, bleat, the law favours men, bleat, we're so discriminated against, bleat.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, men get it in the neck from the law, left, right and centre.

Hmm... let's see... where to start... so much to choose from, so little time.

And please don't bother to debate what follows - they are plain, easily verifiable facts. You may consider them trivial examples (if you're a woman), but please don't waste time pretending they're anything other than factually accurate.

1. Until relatively recently, in the UK at least, a man was responsible, legally, for any and all debts incurred by his wife. A woman was NOT responsible for debts incurred by her husband. This only changed with the poll tax - and the change only applied to the poll tax. Still keen to get married, guys? Think about it...

2. A woman can accuse a man of rape, and while she is legally guaranteed anonymity, he is not - even if she later admits that no rape occurred. If she wastes police and court time in this way, it is highly unlikely she will be punished for it. Still want to go back to her place? Think about it...

3. Women live longer than men, yet collect their old age pensions earlier. Still not saving for a private pension? Think about it...

4. There is a general presumption in family courts that in the event of a marriage ending, the children should end up with the mother unless there are extremely unusual circumstances. Mothers with custody can violate court orders for access with impunity, because to punish them would adversely affect the children. Men who do not have custody and violate access arrangements are instantly denied access and sometimes jailed. Still think you'll have a relationship with your kids? Think about it...

5. Women are entitled to maternity leave lasting months, during which their employer is legally required to hold open their job. Men are supposed to think themselves lucky to get two weeks paternity leave - and the vast majority of men do not take that because most employers simply ignore the law, and do so with impunity because no women are affected. Still think you *want* kids? Think about it...

6. Yes, men are paid more. But statistically men work longer hours, for more years, in more stressful and dangerous jobs. Men are over twenty times more likely to die or be seriously injured in the course of their work than are women. Still think you want to support her? Think about it...

7. If a woman is pregnant and wants an abortion, the father-to-be cannot legally stop her. If she DOESN'T want an abortion, the father-to-be cannot legally force her to. Despite this complete lack of authority, the father remains financially responsible for the upkeep of any resulting child. Responsibility without authority? Sounds like oppression to me... Still think she has any need to consider what you think? Think again...

There's just a few for starters.

Oh, and anhaga - Online Debate Rule number 23: "The first side to make a comparison with the Nazis or the Holocaust, loses."

Jews are a tiny, tiny, tiny minority, and something like 30% of the world population of them were systematically exterminated over a period of just a few years.

Women are NOT a minority, and they've never, at least in civilised countries and in recent history, been the subject of extermination.

Even suggesting that the historical oppression of Jews is in ANY way comparable to the "oppression" women supposedly face today only shows that you *know* your case is weak.

I'm a white guy with a Masters degree. My ancestors came to Canada in the 18th century. If I apply for a job and the only other applicant is a Lubicon Cree woman with nothing but a high school diploma, I'll walk away from the job: she's got me beat hands down as far as qualifications go.

When you know enough of history to understand that story then we'll all be on the same page.

I did not compare the events with the holocaust or the people with Jews. I made a verbal substitution and asked if people where still comfortable with it. If they're not comfortable with the new phrasing, they must come to their own conclusions of why.

Anyway, things changed in Canada after the Montreal Massacre. They changed for the better for all Canadians. I would have liked the piece to have been one more memorial to the individuals that were horribly sacrificed so that my fellow Canadians could live in a better world. I suspect that this is actually what we all want here, despite the emotions we've all let cloud the discussion.

Oh, and, Member:

you're right. I concede defeat in the online debate.


And fourteen women are dead and Canada is a different better society than it was before and it's still far from perfect. And if somebody has a head start in the race of life, the race isn't fair, and Europeans some time ago stole the birthright of a large number of people and many people of European ancestory today continue to benefit from the head start that those earlier thefts gave them (which is by no means an attempt to ascribe responsibility to those that are enjoying that headstart; it is just a statement of fact).

I lose the online debate. Fourteen women lose their lives. Canada's a better place. I don't, frankly, give a shit about the online debate.

After over a half century of existence and having fathered three girls who are now grown, incredibly independent women I cannot remain silent.

*1. Until relatively recently, in the UK at least, a man was responsible, legally, for any and all debts incurred by his wife. A woman was NOT responsible for debts incurred by her husband. This only changed with the poll tax - and the change only applied to the poll tax. Still keen to get married, guys? Think about it...*
So the law is wrong? Change the law, don't blame the supposed *beneficiary*. It's part of the problems with the system, not the fault of the women it protects. Protects? Yes, protects. Those same women you are talking about were but a short time ago chattel. Within my life, but aparently not yours or you would remember.

*2. A woman can accuse a man of rape, and while she is legally guaranteed anonymity, he is not - even if she later admits that no rape occurred. If she wastes police and court time in this way, it is highly unlikely she will be punished for it. Still want to go back to her place? Think about it...*
I do think about it but apparently you don't. It's part of what is called the rape shield law in many countries and counters the previous law which made a painful event liable to violent cross examination unprotected by any procedure.

*3. Women live longer than men, yet collect their old age pensions earlier. Still not saving for a private pension? Think about it...* So their genetic makeup should be punished? Where are you talking about? Here everyone gets their pension at 65 or 60 if they accept a different deal. Don't like your particular country's laws? Get them changed or else get out of Dodge and go to some place civilised.

*4. There is a general presumption in family courts that in the event of a marriage ending, the children should end up with the mother unless there are extremely unusual circumstances. Mothers with custody can violate court orders for access with impunity, because to punish them would adversely affect the children. Men who do not have custody and violate access arrangements are instantly denied access and sometimes jailed. Still think you'll have a relationship with your kids? Think about it...*
Nurture verses father? Your own twisted belief system IMHO is the originator of this one. Men are strong, make the money, are the head of the household. Women are nuturers, the ones who bear the child, who create the individuals. An old lie but one based on millennia of family care. Don't like it? Then don't toot both sides against the other. Either they are equal or they are superior in some regard. I'm sure you would agree that the later is generally the rule. Changed any diapers lately or had an infant breast feed from you?

*5. Women are entitled to maternity leave lasting months, during which their employer is legally required to hold open their job. Men are supposed to think themselves lucky to get two weeks paternity leave - and the vast majority of men do not take that because most employers simply ignore the law, and do so with impunity because no women are affected. Still think you *want* kids? Think about it...*
Again, breast feeding, nurturing, traditional roles. Don't like it? Then change it all, not just the parts you personally don't like.

*6. Yes, men are paid more. But statistically men work longer hours, for more years, in more stressful and dangerous jobs. Men are over twenty times more likely to die or be seriously injured in the course of their work than are women. Still think you want to support her? Think about it...*
Why do they work longer hours? Because they can and are expected to. Why do they work more stressful and dangerous jobs? Because they are physically bigger generally and have traditionally done so. Why are they more likely to die or be injured? See above plus genetics. Your wide-eyed statement that I would want to *support* my female partner is quite frankly, sickening. What are you, stuck in the 50s?

*7. If a woman is pregnant and wants an abortion, the father-to-be cannot legally stop her. If she DOESN'T want an abortion, the father-to-be cannot legally force her to. Despite this complete lack of authority, the father remains financially responsible for the upkeep of any resulting child. Responsibility without authority? Sounds like oppression to me... Still think she has any need to consider what you think? Think again...*
This is the most disgusting, gut wrenching, insulting comment of all. IT'S THEIR BODY. It isn't a vessel for your progeny, even if the majority of doctors agree that that progeny isn't human until it is born. You shouldn't force her to keep the child since the world doesn't need any more knuckle dragging simians who are locked into their father's father's belief systems. Get yourself a slave and a plantation, you'll feel more at home.

*One entry found for misogyny.

Main Entry: mi·sog·y·ny
Pronunciation: m&-'sä-j&-nE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek misogynia, from misein to hate + gynE woman
: a hatred of women
- miso·gy·nic /"mi-s&-'ji-nik, -'gI-/ adjective
- mi·sog·y·nist /m&-'sä-j&-nist/ noun or adjective
- mi·sog·y·nis·tic /m&-"sä-j&-'nis-tik/ adjective*


*One entry found for misogamy.

Main Entry: mi·sog·a·my
Pronunciation: mi-'sä-g&-mE, mI-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek misein to hate + English -gamy
: a hatred of marriage
- mi·sog·a·mist /-mist/ noun*


*One entry found for misjudge.

Main Entry: mis·judge
Pronunciation: "mis-'j&j
Function: verb
intransitive senses : to be mistaken in judgment
transitive senses
1 : to estimate wrongly
2 : to have an unjust opinion of
- mis·judg·ment /-'j&j-m&nt/ noun*


I hope anyone you care for reads the words you have written.

1. Until relatively recently, in the UK at least, a man was responsible, legally, for any and all debts incurred by his wife. A woman was NOT responsible for debts incurred by her husband. This only changed with the poll tax - and the change only applied to the poll tax. Still keen to get married, guys? Think about it...

Men earn more money, sometimes for doing the same jobs as women. Many women are responsible for mens gambling debts and by means of violence are sperated from their incomes by their partners pimps. Sure these are not legally enshrined inequalities but they do happen and women have very little chance of escaping such situations.

Two wrongs dont make a right, but lets look at who actually has more money in their pocket at the end of the day. Im not going to dredge up statistics lets just turn on a commercial TV channel, ITV1 lets say, and watch a couple of commercial breaks. Are the more expensive items aimed at women or men?

Who do you think is better off despite the iniquitous law you have pointed out?


2. A woman can accuse a man of rape, and while she is legally guaranteed anonymity, he is not - even if she later admits that no rape occurred. If she wastes police and court time in this way, it is highly unlikely she will be punished for it. Still want to go back to her place? Think about it...

Children can accuse adults without being publicly named and retain their annomity even if the claims are proved to be malicious, likewise they will not suffer any consequences of this. There are some fairly simple precautions workers with childrrn and even parents can take to avoid false accusations ever reaching the stage of prosecution. Men can do the same with women.

Its good that you're advising people to think about their actions. However your insinuation that the law is unfair ignores the very important job it does of protecting those who have genuinely been raped or abused. Looked at in the round the law is as fair as it can be.

3. Women live longer than men, yet collect their old age pensions earlier. Still not saving for a private pension? Think about it...
6. Yes, men are paid more. But statistically men work longer hours, for more years, in more stressful and dangerous jobs. Men are over twenty times more likely to die or be seriously injured in the course of their work than are women. Still think you want to support her? Think about it...

Well *men* chose those pension qualification differences and the current thinking is that they should be changed. We will see...

That women live longer than men is largely down to...men. We as a group like the things that kill us young. We commit suicide more than women, dangerous sports, signing up for the army, binge drinking and driving like we think we're Stirling Moss. We even avoid desk jobs and disqualify by law women from some more dangerous jobs as well as discriminating against them at the interview level and cold shouldering them in "mens environments"

Men have a hard time in some ways, but the thing is we choose it.


4. There is a general presumption in family courts that in the event of a marriage ending, the children should end up with the mother unless there are extremely unusual circumstances. Mothers with custody can violate court orders for access with impunity, because to punish them would adversely affect the children. Men who do not have custody and violate access arrangements are instantly denied access and sometimes jailed. Still think you'll have a relationship with your kids? Think about it...

The intricacies of individual cases are a little difficult to go into here but each is decided on its individual circumstances. One thing I'd like to straightem out is that the parent with "residency" (as its called now) can often get away with violating the residency agreement, but it is not as you suggest always the woman. I feel genuinely sorry for anyone who has problems navigating the labarytine Family Court system at an emotionally distressing time, but I also know a lot of men and women who have shot themself in the foot by how they behave.


5. Women are entitled to maternity leave lasting months, during which their employer is legally required to hold open their job. Men are supposed to think themselves lucky to get two weeks paternity leave - and the vast majority of men do not take that because most employers simply ignore the law, and do so with impunity because no women are affected. Still think you *want* kids? Think about it...

Another example of a law enacted by a legislature dominated by men. However it does recognise the very real biological differences between men and women. Yet how is this a case of men getting it in the neck True we dont have the same benefits as women but we dont phisically need them. If men want bonding time with their child it is not impossible to do this around work. Heres a few hints, instead of playing sport with friends take your child for a walk, ditch chatting down the pub or on the net for talking to your child or reading to them, annual leave, weekends, bank holidays. Or just spend less time whineing and get on with it.


7. If a woman is pregnant and wants an abortion, the father-to-be cannot legally stop her. If she DOESN'T want an abortion, the father-to-be cannot legally force her to. Despite this complete lack of authority, the father remains financially responsible for the upkeep of any resulting child. Responsibility without authority? Sounds like oppression to me... Still think she has any need to consider what you think? Think again...

If you dont want a woman to have your child then simply dont get her pregnant. This can simply be acheived by not having sex with the woman or donating and agreeing the use of your sperm. No contraception is better than the word NO. So it is not a complete lack of authority as you suggest. Can you think of any other situations where one person has authority over what medical procedures someone else has? Its not oppression that other people can choose their own courses of action, but to give men authority over the reproductive rights of woemn would be the very definition of oppression.


Its a bit sad that so many men are still not aware of how ahead we are and cry like babies when it comes time to share the sweets out equally.

one love