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

Hoo,

So what sort of stupid white man - exactly - would ever say that by raping a woman a man was just getting what he wanted and that this should be considered just fine by the rest of us.

z

Oh come on, you deliberately misinterpreted that one and you knew it. He was pointing out that because that is not considered "just fine", that the women trying to get those embryos implaneted isn't "just fine" either.

I happen to disagree on this one though, I sympathise that they want children, but I feel that if the men don't want to be forced to have children with them then that's their right.

And I say again, that doesn't require spite, it doesn't require bitterness, it doesn't require jealousy.

"Rarity or otherwise is irrelevant. The woman has rights, the man, none. If it happens once, that's still wrong. If it doesn't happen at all, the principle is still unjust.>> (Hoo)

This is not irrelevant at all. It is the woman who will have to go through nine months of carrying a child. Things being as they are, the woman must have more rights than the man"

Fine. Not a problem. Why then, though, does the man have MORE responsibility than the woman? Fewer rights, more responsibilities. Justice?

"And so the woman must have the right to decide what happens to her own body."

I agree. And if she chooses to exercise that right, she must take responsibility - SOLE, personal responsibility - for it. If nobody else has a right to interfere with that decision, nobody else should have to suffer the consequences of it. Fair?

"Laws *should* exist within our society for the benefit of all. "

Yeah. And they don't. Which is my point.

"As Blicky previously pointed out, the laws have mostly been on the side of men for centuries, it is only recently that women have been able to retain legal rights for themselves."

Except that's NOT what they've done, which IS MY POINT. They've gone in the opposite direction - now in almost every single case (VAT on sanitary products aside) where the law treats the sexes unequally, it is MEN who are discriminated against.

">>Any woman I impregnate can choose to abort the fetus without consulting me.>> (Hoo)
And why not? It is her body, not yours."

I agree. My point is that in that case, I have NO rights over what is potentially my son/daughter's continued existence. This is distinct from the argument about whether abortion in itself is right or wrong. I'm not ASKING for rights - I'm merely pointing out that I don't have them, when justice might suggest I should be entitled to some, however limited.

"<> (Hoo)

That is total nonsense."

Sadly, it is not.

"How many women do you truly believe would ever charge a man with rape if this had not been the case?"

More than you might think. There have been several high profile cases in the UK over the last ten or twelve years. I know the names of all the men, and none of the women. In every case they were shown to be malicious fantasists. In NONE of the cases were the women prosecuted, or even named.

"Perhaps a few lost souls who, yes, perhaps are malicious liars etc. But this is hardly the norm. And you know it!"

Again - it DOESN'T MATTER that it's rare. The point is - it's unjust. It's biased against the men.

>

"somehow managed to hold down a job most of the time. Hence he got custody of us. Truthfully, neither of them should have had custody of us."

Courts make mistakes. That one sounds regrettable. But even you have pointed out that he, not she, held down a job. How else is the court to judge? The fact is the bias is there, and that you are one of the tiny minority who went to their father is no disproof.

"<<"I don't even know what it is you are so angry about.">> (me)
<> (Hoo)
Oh come off it. Men are the minority? Don't make me laugh."

Why are you laughing?

There are more whites than blacks in the UK - hence blacks are a minority. There are more women than men in the UK, and the world in general, hence men are a minority. You may find it funny, but inconveniently, it's the truth.

"Try saying something a bit more intelligent, I know you can."

I'll stick to just saying true things I can back up with examples and statistics.

"I have already said that because the women had signed a binding agreement then the hearing against them was probably just and fair."

And my counterpoint was that it should never have reached that stage. No court should have wasted their time with it. They wouldn't have if the complainants had been men.

">>I agree they were only trying to get what they really wanted, but then again that's all Mike Tyson was doing when he raped that girl in that hotel, wasn't it?>> (Hoo)
That is possibly the most ignorant and stupid thing I have ever heard you say. I sincerely hope you didn't mean it."

Oh, I meant it. "They were only trying to get what they really wanted"??? What kind of justification for perverting the course of justice is that? I sincerely hope YOU didn't mean it.

H.

"Rarity or otherwise is irrelevant. The woman has rights, the man, none. If it happens once, that's still wrong. If it doesn't happen at all, the principle is still unjust.>> (Hoo)

This is not irrelevant at all. It is the woman who will have to go through nine months of carrying a child. Things being as they are, the woman must have more rights than the man"

Fine. Not a problem. Why then, though, does the man have MORE responsibility than the woman? Fewer rights, more responsibilities. Justice?

"And so the woman must have the right to decide what happens to her own body."

I agree. And if she chooses to exercise that right, she must take responsibility - SOLE, personal responsibility - for it. If nobody else has a right to interfere with that decision, nobody else should have to suffer the consequences of it. Fair?

"Laws *should* exist within our society for the benefit of all. "

Yeah. And they don't. Which is my point.

"As Blicky previously pointed out, the laws have mostly been on the side of men for centuries, it is only recently that women have been able to retain legal rights for themselves."

Except that's NOT what they've done, which IS MY POINT. They've gone in the opposite direction - now in almost every single case (VAT on sanitary products aside) where the law treats the sexes unequally, it is MEN who are discriminated against.

">>Any woman I impregnate can choose to abort the fetus without consulting me.>> (Hoo)
And why not? It is her body, not yours."

I agree. My point is that in that case, I have NO rights over what is potentially my son/daughter's continued existence. This is distinct from the argument about whether abortion in itself is right or wrong. I'm not ASKING for rights - I'm merely pointing out that I don't have them, when justice might suggest I should be entitled to some, however limited.

"<> (Hoo)

That is total nonsense."

Sadly, it is not.

"How many women do you truly believe would ever charge a man with rape if this had not been the case?"

More than you might think. There have been several high profile cases in the UK over the last ten or twelve years. I know the names of all the men, and none of the women. In every case they were shown to be malicious fantasists. In NONE of the cases were the women prosecuted, or even named.

"Perhaps a few lost souls who, yes, perhaps are malicious liars etc. But this is hardly the norm. And you know it!"

Again - it DOESN'T MATTER that it's rare. The point is - it's unjust. It's biased against the men.

>

"somehow managed to hold down a job most of the time. Hence he got custody of us. Truthfully, neither of them should have had custody of us."

Courts make mistakes. That one sounds regrettable. But even you have pointed out that he, not she, held down a job. How else is the court to judge? The fact is the bias is there, and that you are one of the tiny minority who went to their father is no disproof.

"<<"I don't even know what it is you are so angry about.">> (me)
<> (Hoo)
Oh come off it. Men are the minority? Don't make me laugh."

Why are you laughing?

There are more whites than blacks in the UK - hence blacks are a minority. There are more women than men in the UK, and the world in general, hence men are a minority. You may find it funny, but inconveniently, it's the truth.

"Try saying something a bit more intelligent, I know you can."

I'll stick to just saying true things I can back up with examples and statistics.

"I have already said that because the women had signed a binding agreement then the hearing against them was probably just and fair."

And my counterpoint was that it should never have reached that stage. No court should have wasted their time with it. They wouldn't have if the complainants had been men.

">>I agree they were only trying to get what they really wanted, but then again that's all Mike Tyson was doing when he raped that girl in that hotel, wasn't it?>> (Hoo)
That is possibly the most ignorant and stupid thing I have ever heard you say. I sincerely hope you didn't mean it."

Oh, I meant it. "They were only trying to get what they really wanted"??? What kind of justification for perverting the course of justice is that? I sincerely hope YOU didn't mean it.

H.

Hoo,

<>

Good heavens, get a grip.

I know many women who have had children on their own and who have never tried to get the father to pay anything at all.

There is a law in Germany that states a child can sue their parents if they do not provide a proper university education. I know someone who did this. She had fallen out with her family and had left the family house, yet by German law she was still entitled to a proper university education paid for by her parents. She sued them. She won.

Yes, sometimes laws can appear somewhat strange. But the best they can do, I think, is try to take care of their particular society as best they can. And they will often appear weird or strange or - as Hoo would have it - totally unfair against men.

Nothing is perfect. But things tend to move forward - or at least I hope so.

az

"Rarity or otherwise is irrelevant. The woman has rights, the man, none. If it happens once, that's still wrong. If it doesn't happen at all, the principle is still unjust.>> (Hoo)

This is not irrelevant at all. It is the woman who will have to go through nine months of carrying a child. Things being as they are, the woman must have more rights than the man"

Fine. Not a problem. Why then, though, does the man have MORE responsibility than the woman? Fewer rights, more responsibilities. Justice?

"And so the woman must have the right to decide what happens to her own body."

I agree. And if she chooses to exercise that right, she must take responsibility - SOLE, personal responsibility - for it. If nobody else has a right to interfere with that decision, nobody else should have to suffer the consequences of it. Fair?

"Laws *should* exist within our society for the benefit of all. "

Yeah. And they don't. Which is my point.

"As Blicky previously pointed out, the laws have mostly been on the side of men for centuries, it is only recently that women have been able to retain legal rights for themselves."

Except that's NOT what they've done, which IS MY POINT. They've gone in the opposite direction - now in almost every single case (VAT on sanitary products aside) where the law treats the sexes unequally, it is MEN who are discriminated against.

">>Any woman I impregnate can choose to abort the fetus without consulting me.>> (Hoo)
And why not? It is her body, not yours."

I agree. My point is that in that case, I have NO rights over what is potentially my son/daughter's continued existence. This is distinct from the argument about whether abortion in itself is right or wrong. I'm not ASKING for rights - I'm merely pointing out that I don't have them, when justice might suggest I should be entitled to some, however limited.

"<> (Hoo)

That is total nonsense."

Sadly, it is not.

"How many women do you truly believe would ever charge a man with rape if this had not been the case?"

More than you might think. There have been several high profile cases in the UK over the last ten or twelve years. I know the names of all the men, and none of the women. In every case they were shown to be malicious fantasists. In NONE of the cases were the women prosecuted, or even named.

"Perhaps a few lost souls who, yes, perhaps are malicious liars etc. But this is hardly the norm. And you know it!"

Again - it DOESN'T MATTER that it's rare. The point is - it's unjust. It's biased against the men.

>

"somehow managed to hold down a job most of the time. Hence he got custody of us. Truthfully, neither of them should have had custody of us."

Courts make mistakes. That one sounds regrettable. But even you have pointed out that he, not she, held down a job. How else is the court to judge? The fact is the bias is there, and that you are one of the tiny minority who went to their father is no disproof.

"<<"I don't even know what it is you are so angry about.">> (me)
<> (Hoo)
Oh come off it. Men are the minority? Don't make me laugh."

Why are you laughing?

There are more whites than blacks in the UK - hence blacks are a minority. There are more women than men in the UK, and the world in general, hence men are a minority. You may find it funny, but inconveniently, it's the truth.

"Try saying something a bit more intelligent, I know you can."

I'll stick to just saying true things I can back up with examples and statistics.

"I have already said that because the women had signed a binding agreement then the hearing against them was probably just and fair."

And my counterpoint was that it should never have reached that stage. No court should have wasted their time with it. They wouldn't have if the complainants had been men.

">>I agree they were only trying to get what they really wanted, but then again that's all Mike Tyson was doing when he raped that girl in that hotel, wasn't it?>> (Hoo)
That is possibly the most ignorant and stupid thing I have ever heard you say. I sincerely hope you didn't mean it."

Oh, I meant it. "They were only trying to get what they really wanted"??? What kind of justification for perverting the course of justice is that? I sincerely hope YOU didn't mean it.

H.

"Rarity or otherwise is irrelevant. The woman has rights, the man, none. If it happens once, that's still wrong. If it doesn't happen at all, the principle is still unjust.>> (Hoo)

This is not irrelevant at all. It is the woman who will have to go through nine months of carrying a child. Things being as they are, the woman must have more rights than the man"

Fine. Not a problem. Why then, though, does the man have MORE responsibility than the woman? Fewer rights, more responsibilities. Justice?

"And so the woman must have the right to decide what happens to her own body."

I agree. And if she chooses to exercise that right, she must take responsibility - SOLE, personal responsibility - for it. If nobody else has a right to interfere with that decision, nobody else should have to suffer the consequences of it. Fair?

"Laws *should* exist within our society for the benefit of all. "

Yeah. And they don't. Which is my point.

"As Blicky previously pointed out, the laws have mostly been on the side of men for centuries, it is only recently that women have been able to retain legal rights for themselves."

Except that's NOT what they've done, which IS MY POINT. They've gone in the opposite direction - now in almost every single case (VAT on sanitary products aside) where the law treats the sexes unequally, it is MEN who are discriminated against.

">>Any woman I impregnate can choose to abort the fetus without consulting me.>> (Hoo)
And why not? It is her body, not yours."

I agree. My point is that in that case, I have NO rights over what is potentially my son/daughter's continued existence. This is distinct from the argument about whether abortion in itself is right or wrong. I'm not ASKING for rights - I'm merely pointing out that I don't have them, when justice might suggest I should be entitled to some, however limited.

"<> (Hoo)

That is total nonsense."

Sadly, it is not.

"How many women do you truly believe would ever charge a man with rape if this had not been the case?"

More than you might think. There have been several high profile cases in the UK over the last ten or twelve years. I know the names of all the men, and none of the women. In every case they were shown to be malicious fantasists. In NONE of the cases were the women prosecuted, or even named.

"Perhaps a few lost souls who, yes, perhaps are malicious liars etc. But this is hardly the norm. And you know it!"

Again - it DOESN'T MATTER that it's rare. The point is - it's unjust. It's biased against the men.

>

"somehow managed to hold down a job most of the time. Hence he got custody of us. Truthfully, neither of them should have had custody of us."

Courts make mistakes. That one sounds regrettable. But even you have pointed out that he, not she, held down a job. How else is the court to judge? The fact is the bias is there, and that you are one of the tiny minority who went to their father is no disproof.

"<<"I don't even know what it is you are so angry about.">> (me)
<> (Hoo)
Oh come off it. Men are the minority? Don't make me laugh."

Why are you laughing?

There are more whites than blacks in the UK - hence blacks are a minority. There are more women than men in the UK, and the world in general, hence men are a minority. You may find it funny, but inconveniently, it's the truth.

"Try saying something a bit more intelligent, I know you can."

I'll stick to just saying true things I can back up with examples and statistics.

"I have already said that because the women had signed a binding agreement then the hearing against them was probably just and fair."

And my counterpoint was that it should never have reached that stage. No court should have wasted their time with it. They wouldn't have if the complainants had been men.

">>I agree they were only trying to get what they really wanted, but then again that's all Mike Tyson was doing when he raped that girl in that hotel, wasn't it?>> (Hoo)
That is possibly the most ignorant and stupid thing I have ever heard you say. I sincerely hope you didn't mean it."

Oh, I meant it. "They were only trying to get what they really wanted"??? What kind of justification for perverting the course of justice is that? I sincerely hope YOU didn't mean it.

H.

Speak for yourself mate. I'm as stupid and white as the next man. Who is my flatmate who totally isolated from reality and has the deathly palor of someone who last saw the sun on July 23rd 1987.

And i'm just as guilty as the rich white folks. You know why? Well, it's because I haven't done anything recently to upset their comfy applecart.

Okay, here we go again, Hoo.

>>Why then, though, does the man have MORE responsibility than the woman? Fewer rights, more responsibilities. Justice?>>

How is this true? Men might be forced to pay money to support a chld but they often do not have to deal with the day-to-day nurturing and bringing up stuff, taking them to school, worrying about day care, etc. Handing out some cash is quite a light sort or parental responsibility.


<>

No,this is not entirely fair because no woman gets pregnant without the assistance of a man. If a man is responsible for a pregnancy then he should be socially and morally and personally committed to helping that child. It is not the child's fault that they have been conceived and born.

I do not believe in the slightest that laws are suddenly 'against men'. Come off it. What planet are you living on? So many women I know are still struggling to find work and support their children within a 'male dominated' societal structure. If you choose to say this is not true and does not exist then I will say that you that you are living with your head deeply buried somewhere where the sun doesn't shine.

<>

You are so asking for rights. It's the whole basis of your diatribe. Men do not have rights! Please! Reality check!



<>

In fact I hope it matters a lot that it is rare. But I am not convinced that rape *is* a rare occurrence.



<>


Really? So you should be basking in the glory that my no-good father got custody of four small children that he had no idea how to take care of. After he had forced my mother into various mental institutions to receive shock treatments, after he had physically beaten her totally into submission so that she no longer knew who she was. So she no longer had any self-respect because she was only being beaten because she was ' a stupid f**king Indian' and had no human rights of her own. He often beat her to a pulp in front of my own eyes. And yet he was deemed the parent most capable to raise us. He was given custody.

Woo hoo! Let's hear it for male rights to raise their children! That f**ker had no right to raise us. Because aside from having beat his ex-wife he also abused his children.


<>

Well bully for you. You stick to your statistics. I will stick to the personal stories I hear from real people.

You may not believe it but most women and children DO NOT actually exaggerate the abuse they have suffered.

Perhaps some women might say they have been raped when this was not the case, but again, I think this is not the norm.

And no, I am not man-bashing. I am only talking about abusive situations and - sorry - but so many of them are caused by men who are not totally 'all there' in their minds and souls. Very sad men who need to hurt. Again, this is not the norm. But if any child or any woman ever tells me they have been hurt by a man, then I *will* believe them. I would also believe any child who told me it was their mother who was hurting them. I will always believe the child.

az

"Speak for yourself mate. I'm as stupid and white as the next man."

Hmm. By "Stupid White Men", I assumed you were referring to the title of the book by Michael Moore, a book which attacks the super-rich elite in charge of America. You and I have about as much in common with those people as we do with a household cat, and there are about a thousand of them and about two billion of us.

However, if you're telling me that either

(a) you're a member of that super-rich elite OR
(b) you were just referring to men in general, and not to that book title and what it implied, then

(a) f**k off, OR
(b) don't be so pathetically apologetic for owning testicles.

"Who is my flatmate who totally isolated from reality and has the deathly palor of someone who last saw the sun on July 23rd 1987."

I don't know... who IS your flatmate, etc?

"And i'm just as guilty as the rich white folks. You know why? Well, it's because I haven't done anything recently to upset their comfy applecart."

In that case I suggest you arrest yourself for the Yorkshire Ripper murders, since I doubt you personally did anything to prevent or solve them. I'm all for personal responsibility, but precisely what do you expect ME to do about "President" Bush? (In quotes because the title "President" is usually applied to people who win elections, not court cases...)



>>Why then, though, does the man have MORE responsibility than the woman? Fewer rights, more responsibilities. Justice?>>
How is this true? Men might be forced to pay money to support a chld but they often do not have to deal with the day-to-day nurturing and bringing up stuff, taking them to school, worrying about day care, etc."

A beautiful example which illustrates my point excellently.

A man, once he has successfully fertilised an egg, has the RESPONSIBILITY to provide financially for that child, whether or not the mother wishes him to - the state will FORCE him to (in the UK at least). He has NO legally guaranteed rights to even SEE the child, much less be involved in any way in its upbringing. You're right that they often do not have to deal with day to day nurturing. I know fathers who want nothing more than to be able to do just that - but are barred by the capricious bitches they made the mistake of trusting from doing so. Women, I might add, who ignore court orders guaranteeing access, and do so with impunity because they plead inconvenience. These men DO worry about day care - mainly because they have no idea who is looking after their children while their mothers are out doing whatever it is women do when they have no job but aren't at home with their children.

"Handing out some cash is quite a light sort or parental responsibility."

Being forced to hand out cash for a child that isn't yours is, I would suggest, rather a heavy sort of responsibility. That is the current state of UK law, however. Even if one can prove, by DNA evidence, that one is not the father of a child, if one has been duped by the mother into accepting responsibility for it at some point in the past, you're stuck with it for life.

"If nobody else has a right to interfere with that decision, nobody else should have to suffer the consequences of it. Fair?>>
No,this is not entirely fair because no woman gets pregnant without the assistance of a man."

No parachutist jumps without the assistance of a pilot. No pilot takes any responsibility for the decision to jump, however.

"If a man is responsible for a pregnancy then he should be socially and morally and personally committed to helping that child."

If he must be committed so heavily, then he MUST be given equal rights over the other decisions - i.e. to abort or not. Since that is not acceptable to you, you CANNOT, with any pretence at justice, claim he must live with the consequences of a decision he has no part in.

"It is not the child's fault that they have been conceived and born."

Nor is it the man's "fault". The man supplies only what is necessary to achieve a pregnancy. The woman is the sole arbiter of whether or not that pregnancy results in a child.

However, while it seems women are happy to accept rights, they are unwilling or incapable of taking on the commensurate responsibilities.

"I do not believe in the slightest that laws are suddenly 'against men'."

There's nothing sudden about it. It's been in progress for decades.

"Come off it. What planet are you living on?"

A planet where breast cancer research receives twenty times the funding and publicity of prostate cancer research, even though the latter kills more men than breast cancer does women.

A planet where innocent men accused of rape have their name publicly dragged through the mud while the vicious fantasists victimising them hide behind anonymity.

A planet where men die younger than women because of harder work, more hazardous jobs, poorer health care and higher statistical chance of death by violence.

A planet where a person accused of a crime has a basic guaranteed right in law to face and personally question their accuser - UNLESS the accused is a man and the accuser is a woman in rape cases.

Didn't I already say all this?

"So many women I know are still struggling to find work and support their children within a 'male dominated' societal structure. If you choose to say this is not true and does not exist then I will say that you that you are living with your head deeply buried somewhere where the sun doesn't shine."

Oh no, that happens. Equally, however, one man I know personally is struggling to support just himself, having been evicted from the family home by his erstwhile partner. He's struggling despite having a well-paid job, because the majority of what used to be his take home pay is now deducted from his pay packet at source by the Child Support Agency, ostensibly to support his wife and children. He is no longer allowed to visit the five bedroom home on which he pays the mortgage - she lives there now, accompanied by her new partner. He sees his kids twice a month, unless she's taken them abroad, which she can now afford to do four or five times a year. He meanwhile has a room in a rented house, and he's told me more than once that there's no point him even bothering to look for a new partner because what could he offer her? He worships his kids and can barely afford to feed himself. That's the planet I live on.

"<>
You are so asking for rights. It's the whole basis of your diatribe."

Wow. Did you ever miss the point.

The basis of my diatribe is NOT "give us the rights" - it's "since you've denied us the rights, why don't you f**k off with the responsibilities?". Get it?

I don't WANT to have any right to decide whether or not an abortion happens. It's none of my business, as you so rightly point out. And since it's none of my business, I don't expect to have to pay for whatever the decision happens to be. THAT is the basis of my diatribe.

If you want it summed up in a pithy soundbite, try this:

"No taxation without representation."

"Men do not have rights! Please! Reality check!"

I've listed the rights we don't have. You've not actually disputed any of the examples I've provided. So I suggest you're the one in need of a reality check where this is concerned...

"<>
In fact I hope it matters a lot that it is rare. But I am not convinced that rape *is* a rare occurrence."

OK, now you're just misquoting me, as well as, bizarrely, yourself. The thing YOU said was rare, and I agreed but said it was irrelevant, was FALSE, MALICIOUS accusations of rape.

Rape, there is no doubt, is under-reported. Most crimes are, especially in places where people don't think the police are any use and there's no chance anything will be done. It's probably less rare than figures suggest. However, a small but significant proportion of the cases that are reported are spurious - and in those cases the law STILL favours the malicious time-waster and not the innocent victim.

"Woo hoo! Let's hear it for male rights to raise their children! That f**ker had no right to raise us. Because aside from having beat his ex-wife he also abused his children."

Like I said - courts make mistakes, and your case is regrettable. But getting emotional about specific individual cases like your own does not change the distasteful fact that fathers are discriminated against heavily in family courts.

<>
Well bully for you. You stick to your statistics. I will stick to the personal stories I hear from real people."

There's a reason that governments base public policy on statistics rather than the stories their friends tell them over dinner or down the pub. Any one person's experience, no matter how wide, varied, interesting or emotionally charged, is still ONE person's experience ,and therefore unrepresentative of society.

The reason I'm trying to steer clear of personal stories, except in direct answers to such examples, is that they prove NOTHING. Give me an example of anything you like, and chances are I know someone or know of someone whose case "proves" the opposite.

The undeniable FACT is - where the law of the UK shows any gender bias at all, whether in the letter of the law or its application through the courts, that bias is ALWAYS in favour of women and against men (VAT on sanitary products aside - anyone think of another example, because that one is so weak it's almost embarrassing to use it...).

"You may not believe it but most women and children DO NOT actually exaggerate the abuse they have suffered."

I never suggested for a moment that they do. This is not as far as I'm aware a conversation about abuse, though.

"Perhaps some women might say they have been raped when this was not the case, but again, I think this is not the norm."

No, it's not the norm. But it happens. And when it does, innocent men suffer and guilty women are protected. You're HAPPY about that?

"And no, I am not man-bashing. I am only talking about abusive situations"

Why? I wasn't.

"and - sorry - but so many of them are caused by men who are not totally 'all there' in their minds and souls. Very sad men who need to hurt. Again, this is not the norm."

No, it's called "mental illness", and it would be shallow, ignorant individual who would be prejudiced against all men on that basis...

"But if any child or any woman ever tells me they have been hurt by a man, then I *will* believe them."

Oh... oh dear. Well, it's the "shallow and ignorant" box for you then, I'm afraid.

"I would also believe any child who told me it was their mother who was hurting them. I will always believe the child."

That's a whole other conversation, and one I don't want to get into here...

H.

Hmmm Hoo, my interpretation of Stupid White Men is that it was an attack not just on the "Fat Cats" at the top of the pile, but also the whole society based in the interests of all WASPs.

>>that it would be their child, for which they would have emotional ties and moral responsibility for a child which, is at the end of the day, theirs.<<
Somehow, they don't come across as credible regarding the above assertion. (I am being very careful *not* to be as emotional as I was yesterday...)

>>My mother was not allowed custody of her four children because my father took her to court and 'proved' her to be 'incompetent'. She was not even remotely a drug-dealing prostitute, just a very sad alcoholic. My father was also a very sad alcoholic, but somehow managed to hold down a job most of the time. Hence he got custody of us. Truthfully, neither of them should have had custody of us. <<
I am very sad for you, az - I have known many alcoholics, and growing up with them must be horrendous.
I know a woman who lost custody of her son, back in 1981... she was never 100% sure why, but some of it had to do with her parents being dead, her ex-husband's lawyer having made a huge point during the case, that if 'anything happened' to the man, he had parents to step in, and she didn't - siblings, the youngest of them 18 years old were all the family she had. Other reasons were that, probably, the issue of support - the judge opposed welfare, but he also opposed working mothers, and she hadn't remarried. She was younger than the ex, and for all she knws, it came down to the movie Kramer vs Kramer being Oscar nominated at the time! (She has never used drugs, BTW...)
In NZ, the latest figures I could find, said 30% of men win custody. Those figures were from 1991, it may have increased since then. What's interesting is perception. Most men and many women *think* that men *never* win!

Thanks for that, Ferrettbadger. I think maybe Hoo read a different book called 'Stupid White Men', because the one I read was implicitly critical of all us stupid white men for letting the whole situation get as stupid as it has.

As for the rest of the diatribe, Hoo (I can't seriously bring myself to call it an argument), well, I hope you get over your issues with hating women soon. It must make life very difficult for you.

To pick just the most glaring example of the falseness of your 'argument';

>A planet where men die younger than women because of harder work, more hazardous jobs, poorer health care and higher statistical chance of death by violence.<

Well, stop being a dumbass stupid white man and stop blaming women for the fauilure of successive MALE run governments to address the issues of Health and Safety in the workplace (you might like to start with a look at the long running dispute in the Liverpool docks over the death of a student there some years ago), equality in the age of retirement and the issue of state sponsored violence in Iraq and the issue of male violence in general. Which in this country, to my certain knowledge, pretty much comes down to stupid, white, *drunken* men. Oh, and of course malicious old farmers with shotguns.

Really, blaming women for that little lot is like trying to blame the Gypsies for the rise of Hitler.

Evening Hoo,


>>I know fathers who want nothing more than to be able to do just that - but are barred by the capricious bitches they made the mistake of trusting from doing so. Women, I might add, who ignore court orders guaranteeing access, and do so with impunity because they plead inconvenience. These men DO worry about day care - mainly because they have no idea who are looking after their children while their mothers are out doing whatever it is women do when they have no job but aren't at home with their children.>>

Ah, what has happened to your cold statistics? This sounds suspiciously like a personal tale. Friend of yours, perhaps? And using the words 'capricious bitches' and saying nonsense like 'mothers are out there doing whatever it is women do when they have no job but aren't at home with their children' makes you sound like a real dork. Sorry. You know I like you. And I'm not saying you *are* a dork, of course (and you probably wouldn't give a monkey's if I thought this or not) but you are saying a few things recently that do come across as rather dorkish.

For example:


<<No parachutist jumps without the assistance of a pilot. No pilot takes any responsibility for the decision to jump, however.<<

Somehow comparing this to a man's responsibility for fathering a child. Say what???

<<"If a man is responsible for a pregnancy then he should be socially and morally and personally committed to helping that child.">> (me)

<> (Hoo)


No, a man does not have equal rights in deciding whether a woman should have an abortion or not. It is not his body. You actually agree with this, Hoo, so I don't know why you are now saying you don't.

You seem to have known a lot of men who have been torn away from their children and do not have proper visiting rights. Perhaps this has coloured your viewpoint. All of the people I know personally who are separated and raising children independently yet together have arranged for the best possible way their children can spend time with both parents and also extended families.



<>


Her body.

Meanwhile, men *do* know what may happen as a result of having sex with a woman - baby!

<>

Oh it seems that way to you, does it? I doubt it seems that way to the many women to take on all the daily task of raising children on their own-



<<"Come off it. What planet are you living on?">> (me)

<>

This might have something to do with women organizing their own campaigns and groups to create public awareness about breast cancer and do their own fundraising.

<>

Oh come off it. Hardly.


<>

Men have always died younger. It was just a biological fact until recently. Now women are catching up due to them being in high stress jobs and smoking ,etc.



The story about your friend is very sad. I hope he will at least not cut himself off from finding a new relationship. What he has to offer is obviously a very caring and giving person. Sometimes these nasty family situations work themselves out with time. I hope things work out for your friend.



<>



Well, aside from not believing that you would not like to have a say if your loved one was pregnant and considering an abortion, and over-looking your *language* . . . I just don't believe that you really believe what you are saying. Perhaps you really do.


Anyhow, it's late now and I cannot get through the rest of your posting at the moment. Must get to bed.

Did take a bit of umbrage to this however:


<< Oh... oh dear. Well, it's the "shallow and ignorant" box for you then, I'm afraid.>>


You know that I am neither shallow nor ignorant, Hoo. Just because you disagree with some things I say doesn't mean you should insult me. I mean, okay, I referred to you as sounding possibly dorkish earlier but then I made it clear that I don't actually believe you are a dork.

Oh dear. If I try to go on now I am just going to bury myself in silliness. I've totally lost the thread here and am very tired. So anyhoodle, best to carry on another day.

buenas noches,
az

Concernming the IVF case, where I understand one woman stated that at the time of the treatment her partner had said that she could use the embryos even if the split up, and then changed his mind later, it doesn't seem any worse to me than a woman who'd planned to have a child by man A getting pregnant by him, then deciding that with hindsight she'd prefer to bear a child by man B, and having an abortion.

Blues:

"I think maybe Hoo read a different book called 'Stupid White Men', because the one I read was implicitly critical of all us stupid white men for letting the whole situation get as stupid as it has."

We didn't. Stop letting people tell you the terrible state of the world is somehow your fault. It isn't, and to be blunt, there isn't much you or I can do about it. I don't have the money, and unless you're holding out on us, neither do you. And because we don't have the money, we don't have the power. Simple.

We didn't "let" the situation get this way - it's been this way for centuries, millenia even. A rich elite in charge, and the plebs fed bread and circuses. Plus ca change, etc.

Moore might well be "implicitly critical" of the apathy of the masses, but if history teaches us anything, it's that rich elites are ALWAYS in control. Look at France - liberte, egalite, fraternite? Or cliques of vested interests working the graft for their own benefit?

"As for the rest of the diatribe, Hoo (I can't seriously bring myself to call it an argument), well, I hope you get over your issues with hating women soon. It must make life very difficult for you."

Not at all. It makes life much, much easier. If one's expectations are low, it's difficult to be disappointed, and a positive pleasure to be proven wrong. Would that the latter were a more common occurrence...

"Well, stop being a dumbass stupid white man and stop blaming women for the fauilure of successive MALE run governments to address the issues of Health and Safety in the workplace (you might like to start with a look at the long running dispute in the Liverpool docks over the death of a student there some years ago)"

If you don't mind, I'll start by assuming overall health and safety responsibility for my own workplace and cutting the rate of works accidents by a combination of modifications to the processes and better behavioural training for the workforce. It's slightly more practical. And I wasn't blaming women for the higher rate of male deaths. I was merely pointing out that it's a bit rich to hear them whining about how hard they've got it when we're the ones dying of mesothelioma, silicosis, and half a dozen other occupational diseases almost unique to men.



az:

"Ah, what has happened to your cold statistics? This sounds suspiciously like a personal tale. Friend of yours, perhaps?"

Well, yes. You used a personal example, I used a counter-example. I'd rather keep it to principles, but you brought up specifics, so there's a specific for you.

"And using the words 'capricious bitches' and saying nonsense like 'mothers are out there doing whatever it is women do when they have no job but aren't at home with their children' makes you sound like a real dork."

Quelle domage.

"Sorry. You know I like you. And I'm not saying you *are* a dork, of course (and you probably wouldn't give a monkey's if I thought this or not)"

Hey, you're probably right. Just 'cos I'm a dork doesn't make me wrong...

"but you are saying a few things recently that do come across as rather dorkish.
For example:
<<No parachutist jumps without the assistance of a pilot. No pilot takes any responsibility for the decision to jump, however.<<
Somehow comparing this to a man's responsibility for fathering a child. Say what???"

I was trying to make a point. It's OK if you didn't understand.

No woman becomes pregnant without the help and participation of a man. But her decision to continue that pregnancy is hers and hers alone. Fine. Therefore, I believe, the responsibility for that decision - that JUMP, to go back to my analogy - should also be hers, and hers alone.

One should only have rights if one is prepared to deal with the responsibilities which come with them, and one should only expect to share responsibility if one is prepared to share rights.

Women want their cake and eat it - and they get it, too.

<<"If a man is responsible for a pregnancy then he should be socially and morally and personally committed to helping that child.">> (me)
<> (Hoo)
No, a man does not have equal rights in deciding whether a woman should have an abortion or not. It is not his body. You actually agree with this, Hoo, so I don't know why you are now saying you don't."

I'm NOT. Read what I SAID.

IF he must be committed so heavily, then he MUST be given equal rights.

What I didn't think I had to bother saying (but apparently I have to explain this in short words...) was that SINCE he CANNOT be given equal rights, he should not be committed so heavily. D'you see, yet?

"You seem to have known a lot of men who have been torn away from their children and do not have proper visiting rights."

Not a lot. A few. Sadly, MOST of the men I know who are separated from their partner, where children are involved, have a story like that. It's far from unusual. And yet this is tolerated, because they're just men.

"Perhaps this has coloured your viewpoint."

Duh.

"All of the people I know personally who are separated and raising children independently yet together have arranged for the best possible way their children can spend time with both parents and also extended families."

Whoopety doo. I'd be prepared to bet folding money that the definition of "best possible" put the children with their mother the majority of the time, even in these rose-tinted ideal families.

"<>
Her body. "

YES, I KNOW, and I agree. Her body. Her decision. Her responsibility - financial, emotional, whatever.

"Meanwhile, men *do* know what may happen as a result of having sex with a woman - baby!"

Um... I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it doesn't happen every time you know. I myself have had naughty relations with almost several times with almost as many women, and so far the number of successful fertilisations numbers precisely zero, thanks to a variety of drugs and devices.

Of course, one of those women could have chosen not to bother using one of those drugs, and lied to me, thus leading to conception. I have been, I think, fortunate as well as wise in selecting partners who were trustworthy.

One thing men *do* know is that women lie about contraception. I personally know a woman who has lied to two different men - one of them married - about her contraceptive status, and as a result has three children by two fathers, neither of whom has married her. She went out with the express intention of getting pregnant. It is difficult to describe the depths of my contempt for this person, my pity for her daughter, who is one of the brightest and cleverest children I've ever met, and my abject horror at the fact that this women is a science teacher at a Catholic school, and is therefore responsible for educating children in how to be responsible about sex. Not for the first time, I'm glad I'm not a parent...

"<>
Oh it seems that way to you, does it? I doubt it seems that way to the many women to take on all the daily task of raising children on their own-"

But it DOES seem that way to the men suffering attachment of their earnings to pay for the upkeep of children they didn't want and never see. See- there's always another side.

"<<"Come off it. What planet are you living on?">> (me)
<>
This might have something to do with women organizing their own campaigns and groups to create public awareness about breast cancer and do their own fundraising."

It might. You're right. Women are better organised. Men deserve to die.

"<>
Oh come off it. Hardly."

Wow. That was an effective counter-argument. You've really got me there. There's really no answer to that. Other than:

"police forces in Canada use a computerized system called the Violent Criminal Linkage Analysis System (VICLAS). More than four years ago, Ontario passed a law mandating extensive recording of violent crime in the province (police forces in other provinces use the system, but only Ontario mandates its use by law).
As such, Ontario tracks not just unfounded rape cases, but also tracks outright false sexual assault allegations. Province-wide, the system reports that about 5.7 percent of all such allegations are false. A very small percentage, but in the four years of using the system, that accounts for 2,235 sexual assault allegations that later turned out to be false.
...Meanwhile, analyses of incidents involving a Toronto police squad that restricts itself to handling major rape cases where the assailant is unknown to the victim, a whopping 30 percent of cases -- 69 out of 232 cases -- turned out to be false."

From: http://www.equityfeminism.com/discussion/fullthread$msgnum=559

"Oh hardly...".

<>
Men have always died younger. It was just a biological fact until recently.

It was not a "biological fact". It was the fact that men lifted more, carried more, fought more, and basically were expected to uncomplainingly do anything dangerous that needed doing, with the sole exception of bearing children - probably the single most dangerous thing most women ever did, and the thing most likely to kill them.

"Now women are catching up due to them being in high stress jobs and smoking ,etc."

Women are catching up because of things they choose to do? And someone was calling MEN dumb?

"The story about your friend is very sad. I hope he will at least not cut himself off from finding a new relationship. What he has to offer is obviously a very caring and giving person. Sometimes these nasty family situations work themselves out with time. I hope things work out for your friend."

So do I.

"Well, aside from not believing that you would not like to have a say if your loved one was pregnant and considering an abortion..."

Damn right I'd want a say, but only because I'm the poor b*****d who'd spend the rest of my life paying most of my wages to her for the upkeep of the thing.

If I wasn't saddled by a biased legal system with a responsibility I don't want and can't abrogate, I really honestly would want absolutely NOTHING to do with any offspring or any decisions about them. That attitude was good enough for my father, and it's good enough for me.

", and over-looking your *language* . . . I just don't believe that you really believe what you are saying. Perhaps you really do."

You're darn tootin' I do.

"Anyhow, it's late now and I cannot get through the rest of your posting at the moment. Must get to bed."

Sweet dreams.

"Did take a bit of umbrage to this however:
<< Oh... oh dear. Well, it's the "shallow and ignorant" box for you then, I'm afraid.>>
You know that I am neither shallow nor ignorant, Hoo. Just because you disagree with some things I say doesn't mean you should insult me."

You stated outright that you would presume ANY man (presumably me included) guilty of assault on the word of any woman or child.

Dress it up how you like, that's prejudice. I'd hate to think you'd be allowed to sit on a jury with a mindset like that, because I pity any man expecting justice from you. "Innocent until proven guilty" is supposed to apply to all, equally. Not for you though - you said so yourself. Hence the insult, and perhaps something to think about.

H.

>And because we don't have the money, we don't have the power. Simple.<

If it was that simple then we'd all still be living as serfs. But I guess it's not my problem if you've been browbeaten into submission by the system. Interesting though that a man who can spend so much of his time campaigning for something as essentially meaningless as the Rules of H2G2 can't use the same intelligence and energy to affect real change in the real world. And since when did the fact that something has been that way for centuries make it acceptable?

I notice you won't take the challenge on the rate of violent death, as well.

>Of course, one of those women could have chosen not to bother using one of those drugs, and lied to me, thus leading to conception. I have been, I think, fortunate as well as wise in selecting partners who were trustworthy.<
Well f*ck me. I didn't know there were still parts of this Sceptred Isle where they hadn't heard of condoms. That Branson man's a complete waste of time.

If you're gonna shag it, bag it, to quote the old slogan. To do anything else is a stupidly irresponsible attitude in this day and age, and not just for preventing pregnancy. If you aren't gonna take the responsibility for the contraception (which is easier and less damaging to your health than almost any method used by women), then be prepared to take responsible for the resulting pregnancy. You'll get no sympathy from me if the CSA come knocking and your excuse is 'I thought she was on the pill'.

>One thing men *do* know is that women lie about contraception. I personally know a woman who has lied to two different men - one of them married - about her contraceptive status, and as a result has three children by two fathers, neither of whom has married her. She went out with the express intention of getting pregnant.<
Boots sold out of condoms had they? Or no change for the machine in the pub. Gimme a break.

>But it DOES seem that way to the men suffering attachment of their earnings to pay for the upkeep of children they didn't want and never see.<
Getting a bit like a stuck record this one. If they didn't want a kid, they could take responsibility for putting a bloody johnny on their wick before they dipped it. Pretty damned simple from where I'm sitting.

>Damn right I'd want a say, but only because I'm the poor b*****d who'd spend the rest of my life paying most of my wages to her for the upkeep of the thing.<
You know, I think your use of the term 'the thing' says more about your attitude and believes on this than anything I could ever say.

>That attitude was good enough for my father, and it's good enough for me.<
Maybe something for *you* to think about there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3167090.stm

looks like men can perhaps have even more control of what they do with their sperm.

(condoms for std aside) This is a way that you can control any woman taken/stealing your sperm for a baby you do not consent to.

... and about bloody time too!