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

oh hi Member,

Fancy seeing you here! Same old tired old lines, eh? So, are you planning to jack this thread and turn it into a 'poor mistreated men' debate?

Anyhow, nice to see zoomer giving you a run for your money.


az

*simulpost*

Didn't see you there, blicky! Well done.

az

Well said, Blicky.

I've been asked elsewhere why I "conceded defeat" so I'll come back for a minute.

I conceded defeat in the "online debate" because I'm not interested in the "online debate." It's meaningless. I hadn't realized it was a "debate." If people are entering into a "debate" about the Montreal Massacre, I want no part of it. I could very easily argue quite well any side of any issue in a debate, as could many here. I'm not interested in debating for entertainment on this particulr subject. As I suggested before, I broke one of Member's meaningless rules of online debate, so I'm out of the debate. And yet, the issues that led to the Montreal Massacre are still quite obviously very present in the world. I'm glad I live in a place where they've been diminished somewhat.

I hopea good deal of entertainment comes from this online debate of your daughters' lives.

Just so you all know, Member has unsubscribed from this thread, so there is no reason for anyone else to rise to his baiting. Apparently he just turned up to tell us that if all these women had been barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen where they belonged they never would have got themselves killed? Frankly, I'm appalled at what he did on this thread.

Perhaps we should all leave this 'debate' now so as to not give the misguided person who began this thread any more attention.

az

az: "Same old tired old lines, eh?"

Same tired old facts. Yes. And no, I'm not planning on hijacking the thread.

But... someone asked, rather clearly, for examples of where the law favours women. I provided more than half a dozen. I've had some weak arguments about the INTERPRETATION of those laws, but not a single substantive statement suggesting that I've been inaccurate, merely boorishly, inconveniently right.

blicky:

"Men earn more money, [etc]. Sure these are not legally enshrined inequalities but [...]"

The question was *very specifically* about legally enshrined inequalities. You'll forgive me, I'm sure, for answering the question that was asked, rather than wandering off the subject and onto gender politics.

"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?"

Since I don't watch much TV, and little of that commercial TV, I couldn't say. I do, however, go into shops, and I know that the VAST majority of the products I see are of no interest to me whatever. They are aimed at women, but paid for, in the main, by men. I could list such things, but to do so would be tiresome.

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

The question was not "who is better off", the question was "name one instance of where the law favours women". I have. QED.

"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."

I am disturbed that you suggest that women should be treated as though they are irresponsible children and not to be trusted. I am further disturbed that nobody on this thread has expressed any offence at your generalisation of women as infants not capable of taking adult responsibility.

Do women not CARE that they are being infantilised thus by the law?

" 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."

No, it most certainly is not. Guaranteed anonymity for the ACCUSED until conviction - which interestingly enough is also a feature of the law regarding children - would make the law truly fair. Right now, it isn't, and it's biased against... men. Which was the question.

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

And why? To impress women. Sad but true, and don't bother denying it.

"Can you think of any other situations where one person has authority over what medical procedures someone else has?"

Dozens. But the obvious one that springs to mind - the one that you yourself would presumably agree is a sensible analogy - is parents and children. A parent has authority over what medical procedures their child has - even if that choice will kill the child, as is the case with Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions.

Since you enthusiastically endorsed, above, the treatment of women as irresponsible infants in the eyes of the law, I don't understand why you don't accept that rational adults, i.e. men, should be the ones with authority over what medical procedures apply to those who the law "protects" from themselves, i.e. women. If women deserve anonymity like children, don't they deserve to have their OTHER decisions made for them?

Why are they privileged to be treated like children when it suits them, but are able to demand adult rights when the protection of infantilism is not to their liking?

Obviously this is a devil's advocate position, and I'm not suggesting that men should really have any rights over when or whether a woman has an abortion.

BUT: if a woman demands that she should be able to take away all of a man's RIGHTS, then with those rights he should lose all RESPONSIBILITIES.

And let's not go down the "just don't get her pregnant" route - that's just stupid. We're trying to debate what you do when she IS pregnant. Contraceptive responsibility is a whole other debate.

In any case, once again, I was answering the question posed - where does the law favour women? Answer: abortions. Women have ALL the rights to choose, but can DEMAND the father takes on financial responsibilities for a pregnancy that could be safely terminated, or alternatively can DEMAND the termination of a pregnancy the father desperately wants to go to term.

If you have a problem with the question, take it up with Vestboy.

If you have a problem with the answers, take it up with some women, or perhaps the legislature. I'm only answering the question that was asked.

I'm sorry, but this whole discussion has frankly made me sick. I'm sorry to see that the deaths of fourteen women at the hands of a sick b*****d who couldn't achieve anything in his own life and chose, as is often the case, to blame that on someone else who was ultimately uninvolved and not at ALL responsible for his situtation. We unfortunately live in a society where we are taught to blame our own personal shortcomings and "failures" on others and claim no accountability whatsoever for the state of our own lives.

That said, I must also add that I resent the implication that women in the workplace put in far less hours than men, etc. I put in well over 80 hours a week, just to make ends meet. And I don't quite achieve that. Yet, at the same time, I am subject to a constant barrage of inquiries as to what is "wrong" with me, that at 32, I am not married and childless. I feel even more for the women I work with who *have* had children, and who, at 30 and 40 and even 50 years old, live with a parent or a roommate because they cannot afford to provide for themselves and their children otherwise. I remain single and childless simply because I cannot AFFORD the alternative. Period.

I'm sick and tired of being seen as less of a woman because I simply cannot AFFORD to maintain myself, a spouse, and/or children on my salary. I am tired of being paid less (and yes, here in the States, it is a FACT that women are paid less for EQUAL work- not more physical, not longer hours, none of that, period. The rate of pay per hour for a woman for the SAME job with the SAME qualifications IS less, period. No point in arguing that, it's the pure and simple TRUTH.)

I'd love to let this drop, to post a bunch of roses In Memoriam of those fourteen women who died at the hands of a lazy, self-righteous slacker who saw fit to blame his station on life on extrinsic forces beyond his control, i.e., those women who "got all the breaks". But I can't. What happened to them makes me very, very angry.

I am a woman. I am very feminine in some ways, very independent in others. I work my ASS off just to get by, and ask no one to help. I would never DREAM of asking a man to support me. Nor would I think for one single moment that having had sex with a man obligated me to solace myself in a subservient role as vessel for his seed as opposed to a human being with needs (f**k rights, how about NEEDS?) of my own. I am no one's property. I am inferior to no one who is possessed of less skill and talent and ability than my own. And I am sick and tired of hearing men whine about how women get "all the breaks". We are still treated as inferiors, thanks much in part to people like you. I pray that your daughters will never have to endure a marriage to an abusive husband (yes, I know, you'll find a way to deem me deserving of that), or a rapist (yes, I know, I was "asking for it"), or anything of the kind. Because when and if that happened, your daughters woule be in dire need of our love and respect and support. And they would not get it. And so, they would end up feeling as I do. And I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Headlines in Member's world:

*Woman Rapes Man, Leaves For Dead*

*'I Lost My Job Because I Wouldn't Sleep With The Boss'* Declares Man.*

*Study To Review Serious Lack of Males In Politics*

*The Fortune 500 And The Women CEOs Who Are In Charge.*

*The Gender Gap- Why Unfair Laws Have Put Women in Charge Everywhere*

*Bullying In The Schoolyard- We Talk To The Girls Who Beat Up The Boys*

*'Why Should The Rules Be Reversed?' says Researcher, 'What Was Wrong With The Old Way?'*

I really would like to find out what your significant other thinks of your stance here, Member. Have you asked him/her?

Zoomer I love it!

>*Woman Rapes Man, Leaves For Dead*<

Thanks, clzoomer. Member's obviously never had this happen to him. I have.

I'd had more than a little respect for Member till now. Now I'm just confused. I'm anxiously awaiting his responses to your questions, but if he's truly done a hit-and-run and then unsubscribed, I guess we aren't likely to hear it.

I'm pleased to hear the truth again, psychocandy. (But I'm sad that it is the truth)

Some like to comfort themselves with the pretense that equality has been achieved in fact as well as in a certain amount of legislation. Unfortunately, the truth is that while some attempt has been made in some jurisdictions to equalize laws and sometimes to make laws that compensate for the fact that certain segments of society are disadvantaged from the start, still there are additional barriers, both legislative and otherwise that will only be overcome with education over generations. It is tragic that human sacrifice seems to be the most effective form of education.

The point of the entry was to offer up the facts of the Massacre and the fact of the positive change that has occurred and is occurring in Canadian society. Yes, he was a loser who blamed others for his failures. But he lived in a society which failed to give a red light to his plans. He lived in a society where the battering of women was considered by some to be the legitimate subject of humour in the Parliament of the land. He lived in a society where women were paid less than men for the exact same job. He lived in a society where some men loudly proclaimed that feminists were all a bunch of hairy lesbians who couldn't get a husband if they tried and that women who had any desire to work for a living were those same feminists.

The point of the article is that it is possible for society to put up a red light to try to stop such murderous attitudes.

The piece was not meant to be the jumping off point for an "online debate" in which someone suddenly decides that one mass murder can't be compared to another because then the comparer has thereby "lost" the "debate" (to which he never was a party). Sorry, but in my book a holocaust is a holocaust (and a holocaust denier is despicable). The analogy that is made in the entry and that I made earlier in this thread is part of the public discourse in Canada surrounding the Montreal Massacre: if somebody here feels that it is invalid for them, fine, they win their "debate". I hope the "win" gives them great satisfaction. The analogy that has been seen to be valid in Canada has brought some wisdom to our society: no one is forcing that wisdom onto anybody. And the wisdom would never have been gained if we subscribed to unstated, arbitrary rules of debate which are nothing less than holocaust denial.

<>

Oh great, just what he wanted.

HEADLINE: Member hijacks yet another thread in order to spew out his tired old misogynous claptrap whilst claiming this delusional nonsense to be fact.



az

I see precisely 2 posts from Member.

How is this threadjacking ?

All attempts to associate this thread with the events in Montreal are foundering on personal grudges and 'smart' answers.

I have not personal grudges and I hope my answers are smart, quotations or no.

Two posts, yes but they were of such an inflamatory nature they changed the thread, wouldn't you agree? I could exchange statistics with someone ad infinitum but this thread is about misogeny, is it not?

c