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

Ah. Like so much of what I think, I nicked that off the telly. (Funny, the "conclusive evidence" someone else had that I was someone else was a gag I'd stolen from a standup comedian...)

Specifically, about ten years ago there was a brief fad in literary circles for something I think was called "Iron John" books - basically a reaction against the then fashionable "new man" stuff where you change nappies, do yoga and pretend not to like football. I distinctly remember a chappie with short-cropped silver hair on Newsnight regaling Paxman with a litany of areas in which the law discriminated against men - most of which came as a surprise to me at the time. For instance, the poll tax was a rare exception - did you know that it was unique in tax law history, in that for the first time ever a woman could be held responsible for the debt of her husband? In every other law in history a man could be held responsible for the debts of his spouse, but the wife could not be pursued for her husband's debts? (Needless to say this benefitted women enormously, as they were not solely responsible for their own actions but men would often give them legal title of homes and possessions in order to escape their creditors). I don't, honestly, remember all of his examples, but some of them stuck with me and the recent bridge and crane-based superhero demonstrations have merely brought some of them back into the news. It's not politically correct to talk about them, however, as it's seen as "whinging".

I wouldnt call it whingeing, any more than Id call some of what Wraith says is whingeing.

However I do think its a bit rich when men cop an attitude that these inequalities are some kind of overall inequity where men have the shitty end of the stick. picking out and reeling of examples in a list of glaring ineqaulities just shows how good men have it. This is because these instances where the deck isnt stacked in mens favour are the exception.

Laws that have been created to favour women are there to redress societal imbalances that still run predominantly in the other direction.

And yet I still don't know, or even know OF, a single woman who is so downtrodden and discriminated against that she'd rather be a man.

I'm not suggesting that men have it bad *generally*. *Generally*, I think things are about equal. It's just that in the specific case of the LAW, men undeniably do get the brown end of the stick in every single case. I'm still waiting for an example of a law which favours men over women in the way the law on anonymity for rape victims favours women over men.

And given that the very law of the land discriminates (legally, by definition) against men, isn't that in itself some justification for men taking every opportunity they can to redress the balance in other ways (e.g. glass ceilings, etc.)? Or put another way - you can change our laws, but you can't change our brains. Societal imbalance gets redressed by instituting equality, not by favouring a so-called "oppressed" non-minority to the detriment of the rest.

Are you for real here member.

If I offered a service to a community I would have to offer it to all because its a question of equality of access.

Yet we do have laws. Free schooloing for the under 16s. This is not to save their parents picking up the bill its because we know U16s cant afford it themselves. SO are U16s getting something we dont? Yes.

Is it unfair? No.

We know that they need this service. Anyone with an ounce of sense (are ounces the SI units for sense) will understand that the past inequalities women suffered under which to some extents still exist mean they need targeted services and laws that address the many cases of inequality.

And yet I still don't know, or even know OF, a single woman who is so downtrodden and discriminated against that she'd rather be a man.

Is that the only way you can think of women getting a better deal. Perhaps you would suggest that other disadvantaged groups should grow limbs that work, become white or stop being so young and get a job to pay for their own nursery education.

And given that the very law of the land discriminates (legally, by definition) against men, isn't that in itself some justification for men taking every opportunity they can to redress the balance in other ways (e.g. glass ceilings, etc.)? Or put another way - you can change our laws, but you can't change our brains. Societal imbalance gets redressed by instituting equality, not by favouring a so-called "oppressed" non-minority to the detriment of the rest.

Oh here we go the old affirmative action makes peole angry what about a level playing feild argument is wheeled out again.

What can i do if people are short sighted and petty. Men (and I am one and no Im not a man hater) who cant recognise the advantages of being a man in this world maybe do need to have their brains changed, having a realistic outlook and some honest information that would facilitate this would be a start. If any man cant cope with womne being given the help they need to get a fair chance to represent their opnions and realise their ambition then these people are not real men in my book, just snivelling wimps who cant stand the thought of a bit more competition.

Im secure in my manhood. I wouldnt change it even though the operations are available but if my manhood, like my brown skin does, did cause me disadvantages I would campign for the removal of those iniquitous bars and changes to the law that ensured AND pushed forward the necessary changes in society.

one love

Yes, I'm for real.

"... the past inequalities women suffered under which to some extents still exist mean they need targeted services and laws that address the many cases of inequality."

The past inequalities are no reason to reverse those inequalities. Let's live in the present, shall we? I don't deny the Holocaust happened, for instance, and it should serve as a warning from history - but Germany doesn't put blond, blue-eyed people in ghettos and gas them to make up for the inequalities of the past. Why? Because that would be stupid and pointless. Just like punishing the men of today for the inequalities of the previous century is nothing other than revenge.

"Perhaps you would suggest that other disadvantaged groups should grow limbs that work, become white or stop being so young and get a job to pay for their own nursery education."

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that women seem to think they have it so bloody bad compared to men that they deserve the law to work in their favour - but they're not so oppressed that they think the grass is greener on the other side. Oh no. They know which side their bread is buttered, they know their life is actually better if they exploit their bogus victim status than it would be if they took some responsibility.

And on the subject of your examples, I think most people without limbs that work would rather have them and have them work. I'm missing a finger on my right hand, and I know I'd rather have it back. To suggest otherwise is just stupid.

I doubt that nowadays black people would actively prefer to be white in most cases - you tell me. But I suspect that that is more to do with education and self-esteem, and pride in one's culture and background which would be betrayed if one were to wish to be something other. That being a fairly recent development, I'd be surprised if, for instance, the average black man in the USA 100 years ago wouldn't have preferred to be white, if it were possible.

And as for kids - almost every kid I've ever known who thought about it wanted to be a grownup NOW, because they saw where the power was.

People in groups that are truly disadvantaged usually want OUT of those groups. Yet I've never met or spoken to a woman who thinks being a woman is so bad she'd rather be a man. If asked, they can always come up with fifty reasons off the tops of their heads why they'd rather be a woman. Fine. Then let's give them equality and hope they shut the hell up.

Continuing from the "atheism in schools" thread...

Yes, I would use the word "sensibilities", because that's what I mean. You may think it trivialises the issue, but surely the really scandalous trivialising was the thing I was responding to - that even if only 99.9% of rape reports were malicious lies, the 0.1% that were true would justify infringing the basic rights of all the innocent men wrongly accused.

A parallel: what if I suggest restricting the right of blacks (and only blacks) to proper legal representation? If I say to you that it's distressing for white people to have to face black people in a court, and that as such whites should not have to be cross-examined?

You cannot deny that it definitely IS distressing for white people to face black people in a court, when they are accusing them of a crime (purely because it's distressing for ANY person to face ANY person in a court). However, our current legal system treats black and white as equal, and if I, an adult, want to accuse a black man of a crime, I must face him in a court of law, and face cross-examination by his lawyer or possibly him. This is as it should be - I'm an adult, and have adult responsibilities.

But how would you feel if, simply because you're black, you were denied that right? How would you feel if you knew you were denied that right simply because it might be upsetting for me to be cross-examined by you? How would you feel if I could accuse you of, say, GBH, but didn't need to produce any physical evidence, didn't need to face you in court, and was guaranteed anonymity while your face was splashed over the local and possibly papers? And how would you feel if I later admitted to the police that I'd made up the GBH charge because I was feeling depressed and wanted attention, and got away with it? How would you feel if you'd spent a year in prison because of it?

This is the reality of the inequality of rape investigation. So yes, I use the word "sensibilities", because while rape *may* be the most under-reported crime, it provably *is* the violent crime most often mis-reported, i.e. lied about by the complainant. The average rate of withdrawn complaints (where the complainant admits they made up the charge) for all crimes is 2%. Conservative estimates by the FBI put the figure for rapes at 15%. All the proper studies I can find reference to put the figure in the region of 50%, plus or minus ten.

It's a horrible crime. But so is saying it happened when it didn't.

Women are grown-ups. Why are they not expected to be treated like them?

No I got your point entirely Memeber. What I dont think you recognise is that your perspective is not the only one.

women seem to think they have it so bloody bad compared to men that they deserve the law to work in their favour

Im not a woman but I and other men recognise the areas where women have it bad. are you suggesting the "Member test" for unfair and hindering discrimination. Unless someone has contemplated and attempted mutilating their body to overcome discrimination theyre not really trying

And on the subject of your examples, I think most people without limbs that work would rather have them and have them work. I'm missing a finger on my right hand, and I know I'd rather have it back. To suggest otherwise is just stupid.

You are really only speaking from your own perspective there. People dont want out of those groups so much as actual fairness. Not someone who is already two laps ahead on lifes momnopoly board going "ok for the last ten rounds you were only allowed one but now you can throw both dice". That is the essence of the level playing feild argument.

Some people honestly believe it, mostly because its not in their immediate interest to look any deeper at it. Some of the people who can see it for the sham of equality it is prefer to play dumb because they would rather hold onto the advantages it still delivers.

Laws that help those who havent had certain advantages dont mean shoving blonde haired people into gas chambers to exterminate them.(Mother nature is doing that already but Id put money on that being one of the first things to be reversed when genetic enginerring is offered to parents.)

And as for kids - almost every kid I've ever known who thought about it wanted to be a grownup NOW, because they saw where the power was.

OK I left the door open for that but the point still stands that we dont say grow up and get a job. We do things that makes life easier for them. We help them learn and support them till they are able to contribute and make the most of themselves.

And who benefits from that?

All of us.

We get this from nature but somethings are more complex and without an understanding of this not only do the disadvated suffer dut so does everyone else because we are losing what they have in potential that remains buried by inequality in opportunity. Its a trade off but I firmly believe that true equality could mena the benefits outweigh the costs.

For all of us.

one love

Saying "I got your point" doesn't mean you got my point. The fact you didn't understand is proven by this nonsense:

"Unless someone has contemplated and attempted mutilating their body to overcome discrimination theyre not really trying"

I'm not, and never was, suggesting that I expect women to want gender reassignment surgery. That *would* be ridiculous, I entirely agree. But YOU suggest that, not me.

I was saying that it's a common enough talking point - "would you rather be a man?". This is, at least among the people I've spoken to, generally understood to mean not "would you like to have your breasts removed and undergo surgery to construct a usable penis", but rather "do you think you would be happier if you had be conceived and born male?". I.e. would you rather have ALWAYS been a man? And the consistent answer, from *both* genders, is "I'd rather stay as I am". At least in my experience. This suggests to me that women can't possibly be having that bad a time of it, otherwise they'd be looking at the life men lead and thinking "I wish I had me some of that."

I haven't asked any *really* disabled people (I don't count being short one finger as being disabled) whether they'd rather have been born able to see, or hear, or walk - but I'd be stunned if any of them replied "oh no, I'd much rather be blind/deaf/crippled". I'm vaguely aware there are a fringe of militant disabled people who would disagree - people who seem to identify themselves almost exclusively through their disability, in much the same way as certain militant homosexuals define themselves entirely by their sexuality, but I think the views of these shallow types can safely be ignored.

Very interesting,but not so funny.

I see that I am over this thread too. It is a shame that no one bothers to ask themselves why,when Jesus Christ who shed His blood for them is mentioned, they get mightily upset, and do their best to blot out any mention of such things.

They don't bother if someone came on a thread and said something like Donald Duck is a god. But tell the truth, particularly one which reminds them that they are only half an inch from death at any time,and don't know if they are going to see another day, and they get seriously angry.

It is intersting to note here that all the Satanic devices which I am so familiar with, having been on the butt of them often, are in play here. We see relentless as hominem attacks, suggestions that the vilest behaviour found amongst sinners is something that Christians do, etc. Very few have the guts to face the fact of their mortality and the truth of what comes afterward.

But this is crazy! Christ has poured out His blood and suffered on a Cross to set men free from their sin. New birth is possible, where the demonic nature is taken out of man, and a new godly nature inserted, so that the recipient takes after God, and not after the devil. But so many prefer their darling devil, and their sin, and would rather fight the messenger of peace with God.

Justin

Not Steven, but close... remarkably close...

[Strokes chin.]

It's his posting style which mirrors Hoo's so closely. That's what gets people... He posts like Hoo, says the same stuff as Hoo, takes the same tone as Hoo, has the same interests as Hoo... Thus, I concluded he was Hoo.

Frankly, I#m still puzled

btw - who and what got yikes'd up there?

az

Hi az have you read the letters section in the Oberver yet? Some interesting stuff.

Hello Memeber excuse the delay, but I had other stuff to do before I got back to this.

You're begining to get near to my point Member. It is hard to see and its hard for me to define not just because Im not good at getting things across I thinks its a bit of a cant see the wood for the trees situation too.

I was saying that it's a common enough talking point - "would you rather be a man?". This is, at least among the people I've spoken to, generally understood to mean not "would you like to have your breasts removed and undergo surgery to construct a usable penis", but rather "do you think you would be happier if you had be conceived and born male?".

Both are equally daft questions and my even dafter example is a purposely extreme take on your question. People can only see things from where they are. try asking women if the would have prefered to have been into a matriarchal society where powerful institutions, hereditary rights and the general structure of society was designed by women with other women in mind. Instead of this one with a few slanted laws meant to make up for the inherent disadvantages they face and a few chivalrous rules about coats and puddles that are all but forgotten?


This suggests to me that women can't possibly be having that bad a time of it, otherwise they'd be looking at the life men lead and thinking "I wish I had me some of that."

You are asking do you want to be a man and do things *our* way. Why would women want to adopt male culture. My point even going back to my little story about my first post as Senior Youth worker is that we have to change structres to get a real culture change.

Apparently there are more prospective Tory MPs called Philip than there are prospective female Tory MPs.(OK that might not be entirely accurate but the wages, political representation, levels of domestic violence are all show how women get the bad end of the stick) Avoiding obvious jokes about women having better sense about political alligencies. I think it shows our culture is structured against women. It is only the laws that swing things the other way that stick out like sore thumbs. Like I have said before they are *unfair* but they are thaere to try and redress a greater unfairness.

They are answers and they are not the best ones but it will take people who can see past what we do, our *traditions and institutions* to think of better structures that include and empower everyone with better ones. Taking away what for somewomen are literally life lines is not a good way of starting to look for answers in my view. we need people to be involved so we get as many perspectives on this as possible. With the people sterrring all come from the same little groups we are unlikely to find answers that suit us all well enough.

I think the views of these shallow types can safely be ignored.

I think you can see them as shallow as you might not fully grasp the depth of their feelings and inherent understanding. I do not claim to, but I dont have to and neither do you we can and should be living in a world where people are asked and where we see our views being rpresented, but we know thats not always the case.

I do understand that some men feel that *we* are losing our power and rights. What is actually happening is that we are losing *some* of our powers and rights. In much the same way as Britain lost India.

Would you have asked Ghandi if he'd rather been born white?

one love

I think the title is meant to be sarcastic, Justin, and rightly so.

And I don't prefer the 'darling Devil,' I prefer the truth. My standards are too high for me to lie to myself. Surely you understand that I'm quite earnest about what I believe, and that if I professed to share in your views I'd be a hypocrite and a liar?

- Jordan

Oh, that wasn't a yikes'd posting - it was Justin! *waves*

<>

I've never been angry with you Justin. I've been lots of other adjectives with you, but never angry.



az

<>

Ten points for Jordan!



az

Member,

So what was with the 'raghead' comment yesterday on the Second Coming thread? (which has since been edited, someone must have yikes'd it)

I thought you were against people using racist remarks.

az

I'm against hypocrites pretending to be something they're not.

And I'm against the massive and persistent cultural pollution of Western culture by middle eastern influences - and by that I mean Christian, Jewish and Muslim influence, in roughly that order.

I appreciate that those are the very influences on which the culture was based, historically, but that was a LONG time ago. We've got at least a millenium of Western culture. Isn't it time to move on and stop running our lives based on a book basically written to describe how to live in a desert?

So if you weren't being hypocritical does that make you a racist?

az

Maybe. Depends what you mean.

When I encounter people, do I treat them differently depending on their skin colour, ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, whatever? No. So by my definition, I'm not a racist. Individuals are just that - individual, and to stereotype anyone based on anything, be it race, religion or gender would be foolish.

That said - it would be equally silly to pretend that there are not certain traits more prevalent in certain types of person. Only a really wooly-minded liberal would try to ignore the evidence of reality and experience to the point of saying "we're all the same really". Men are NOT like women. Arabs are NOT like Europeans. Fundamentalist Christians are NOT like people with two braincells to rub together. Pointing out these facts may be politically incorrect, but recognising them as facts is simple sense.

So:

Do I think the culture of the Western world is more civilised, moral, productive and valuable than that of the middle east? Yes, without a doubt.

Do I think that middle eastern culture - specifically Christianity, Judaism and Islam and all the cultural baggage that go with them - are a pernicious anachronism infecting Western culture and dragging it down into the pit it's spent the last millenium crawling up out of? Yes.

If that makes me a racist, fine.