RSS
Teenage girl track and field athletes are suing the Connecticut Association of Schools, the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference and other authorities for integrating biological men into women’s sports, which has allowed them to dominate.
According to the legal complaint, two male “transgender” students have been using their biological advantages to crush their female competitors in statewide track tournaments, effectively denying young women as a class the right to fair play, scholarship opportunities, and awards.
Starting in 2018, the two men, Andraya Yearwood and Terry Miller, have become the only two serious contenders in CIAC Women’s track races.
In the June 2018 100m Women’s Outdoor Track CIAC State Championship, Terry Miller won with a time of 11.72 seconds, with Adraya Yearwood coming in second place. The closest female, Bridget Lalonde, came in 3rd place with a significantly worse time at 12.36 seconds.
In 2019, the 55m version of the race found similar results. Miller clocked in at 7.00s, Yearwood at 7.07s, and nearest female contender Cori Richardson finished with 7.24s. The 4th, 5th and 6th place women all clustered closely with Richardson’s time, effectively left in the dust by Miller and Yearwood.
These results have been repeated over and over again. Yearwood and Miller have won 15 state championships between them, when previously the same number of awards were shared by nine different girls. Miller consistently crushes its competitors, leading to it being named “All-Courant girls indoor track and field athlete of the year” for 2018-19.
The rules of the NCAA state that a man can compete in women’s sports after taking one year of testosterone suppressing hormones. The lawsuit argues that this does not take into account the drastic differences in lung capacity, bone structure and size, and musculature that testosterone induces after puberty that can never be reversed.
The ACLU juggernaut has announced that it plans to fight these little girls in open court. The legal resources at the ACLU’s disposal, which holds more than $400 million dollars in assets and spends $120 million a year, turns any case, no matter how compelling, into an attrition-laden trek into the Russian winter.
The track on which the plaintiffs make their case is full of loaded language, looking to tap the Civil Rights act to defend normal people for once. A problem could arise with their approach, since “civil rights” laws are facially unconstitutional and thus interpreted subjectively by judges.
A plebiscite on whether men should be able to compete in women’s athletics would be a lopsided affair, with most people voting against. Unfortunately, Americans do not have the right to vote on issues that effect their day to day lives. The trajectory of this trial will be up to the personal political persuasions of the Clinton-appointed judge in question, particularly in the face of pressure by Jewish media and his elite social peers.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
I like how one of the plaintiffs is surnamed Soule, a Mayflower name. How symbolic.
The photo at the beginning of this article really shows the bizarre, freaky appearance of these trannies. Most are creepy types that make your skin crawl. If a person has a gender identification issue and they cross-dress in their private lives then so be it. However, all these weirdos try to be at the head of a parade with the spotlight on them. They’re forcing their weirdness on everyone else. Then there’s all these enablers who also try to force all this on us. A guy thinks he’s Napoleon, do we call him Napoleon? Usually not. But if he thinks he’s another gender we all have to go along with it. Judges are dictating laws and they are all political; that’s how they became judges to begin with.
I’m so glad to see someone has taken this up. Organized Feminism, as usual, is silent on this outrage, because they don’t represent women. They represent their donors.
I say GO TRANNIES. Mess up feminism.
Btw, as ridiculous as the tranny stuff is, it’s not a civilization-destroyer.
The notion that men can use women’s washroom or run in races with women is moronic, even outrageous, but washrooms and race tracks aren’t what civilization is about.
But ‘gay marriage’ is a bunker-buster against civilization. Marriage is the most important institution there is, and Jewish Power and Homos decided to blow up with the idiot notion of ‘marriage equality’ that says real sexuality between father and mother that produces life is no better or higher than homos bung-donging each other or trannies cutting their dicks off. That is truly sick.
That said, one aspect of tranny-ism that is EVIL and utterly destructive is encouraging CHILDREN to undergo radical surgery and the like to become Trankenstein creatures. That is utterly sick.
If a full-grown man wants to play ‘woman’, fine, but if we encourage little children to do likewise, it it utterly demented.
Andraya Yearwood …
Terry Miller …
🤡 🌏
Our side should be 100% behind transgender athletes at all level of sports. Let the left live up to their own rules and suffer the consequences. And let the corporations who’ve supported the gay thing bleed money on weird transgender Olympics that no one wants to watch.
Seems hard to deny the growing body of evidence, growing as if it is on testosterone; you could have left this bit out.
I like my coffee like I like my women. Without a penis.
There is now no such thing as women’s sports. Why have parts of the West become so perverted?
This country has gotten so goddamn stupid…it’s ruination is assured.
I am inclined to agree with you in most respects, sometimes the only way to expose the flawed nature of some ideas is to take them all the way to their logical conclusions. If gender is nothing but a social construct (as some claim) then women’s sports events should not exist at all as they are clearly unwarranted discrimination. In many other areas of the PC culture there are clear opportunities to grab the ball and run with it. Take ‘diversity’ for example, why not insist on strict proportional racial/ethnic representation in all things? Lets see how Jews (say) like to be limited to 1.7% representation in banking and in Hollywood or blacks being limited to 12.7% of representation in sports events.
On the subject of transgenderism I am perplexed by what I am not hearing. We know that our drinking water is contaminated by hormone disrupting pollutants. We know that fish and amphibians are having their genders bent by those pollutants. We know that male sperm count is declining, year in year out and has been for decades. Yet when increasing numbers of people are experiencing confusion about what sex they are, it seems that hardly anyone is capable of putting 1 and 1 together. In my opinion those people are victims and should be suing the asses off of the polluters and the government agencies that have so spectacularly failed to protect their interests. Perhaps pretending that gender transphoria is ‘normal’ is cheaper than protecting the public.
Jews makeup 7 percent of congress.
There are only three Jewish players in the NBA, and no Jewish head coaches. Yet nearly half the owners of NBA teams are Jewish, as are the league’s current commissioner and its immediate past commissioner.
No other major pro league in the United States has such a high proportion of Jewish owners. The NFL comes closest: Roughly a third of that league’s owners are Jewish.
Jews are over-represented as “owners” in the NBA and NFL because Jews are more practiced at owning people.
https://forward.com/news/israel/197643/why-are-so-many-pro-basketball-owners-jewish-like/
https://atlantajewishtimes.timesofisrael.com/whos-in-the-owners-box-jews/
https://forward.com/fast-forward/417047/congress-is-now-3-times-more-jewish-than-united-states-as-a-whole/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/5-jews-make-forbes-list-of-top-10-wealthiest-americans/
1+1=2
These gender confused children really are victims.
Perhaps pretending that gender dysphoria is ‘normal’ is part of a larger agenda.
Do you clowns really belive that these two “people” are in these girls races under their own volition? That this whole thing, which has grown international was a organic event?
…Having a triple-digit IQ is severly overrated.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the women in this situation. The biggest promoters of transgenderism have been women, so I say let them get a taste of their own medicine.
What do you mean by “the women”?
It sounds like you’ve been manipulated by divide & conquer politics if you’re without sympathy for the plaintiff girls. Why should they be getting “a taste of their own medicine” when they and their families have courageously challenged this madness?*
*That this apparently must be fought in a court is idiotic, too. The country seems about 10% loony, 89.9% gutless.
@MichaelTomac…exactly. To quote the movie Airplane…”they bought their tickets…they knew what they was getting into…I say, let ’em crash.”
No, actually we don’t believe these two guys are in the girls’ races of their own volition.
We believe they are in the girls’ races because they were forced to run in them against their will.
These boys’ families have probably been kidnapped and they were told they had to dress like girls and run, or they will never see their families again.
I guess a room temperature IQ is severely underrated.
It’s not as if they intentionally went after a group of conservative women at a religious school.
In most cases, this is a “you go girl” feminism that we got dreched with during the “Womens National Soccer Team” drama.
—
On another point, supporting university athletics is probably a bad idea for the Right, as it has been the vehicle to admit unqualified applicants that demeans the academic process.
Hmmm. A one-and-done commenter endorsed by another.
Keep sprinting, boy(s).
It just so happens, that you are wrong, but only 90 or so percent, so you are improving. This is (sort of) along the lines of the way your slavemasters operate.
@anonymous[245]
And?
Is kissing your feet customary before posting a first comment? I didn’t get that memo.
That you and “Michael Tomac” arrived here “exactly” in agreement broad-brushing and blaming women seemed remarkable. There’s an observable pattern at this website of knuckle dragging, one off comments that seem designed to discredit the place.
But exceptions occur. So, if you’re sticking around, what do you say in response to my reply to Michael?
Good. I say enforce title 9 and all civil rights laws as strictly as possible.
Video Link
Women who are at most 18 or in some cases 19 years of age. Did they promote the LGBTQ cause in essays in sophomore English?
No, just normal girls whose parents may be political moderates or maybe even somewhat conservative.
The commenter(s) Michael Tomac / OrangeFox has apparently run along.
Thanks a lot for your support. We really appreciate it.
I note for the record that men who complain about fat chicks are not to be found here defending the integrity of women’s sports.
The ugly, but totally unsurprising, schadenfreude on display here fails to take account of the fact that the girls adversely affected by this are not to blame for radical feminism, not that anyone cares. If they agreed with the idea that thre is no difference between the sexes, they would be demanding access to men’s sports, which they obviously are not. With rare exceptions, even women chess players aren’t interested in mixed competition.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r
Unfortunately, it takes cojones to show solidarity with women in the dissident right, and Mr. Striker is greatly appreciated.
That’s because they know they’d lose. It’s not because they’re “not interested,” as you misleadingly imply, but because they don’t have a hope in hell of competing with the men. The difference between Polgar and all the other female chess players is that Polgar was that rare woman who was talented enough to be able to beat male players on a regular basis.
Well unfortunately, most women for decades never lifted a finger against radical feminism. Radfems dominance of all our lives won’t end until women start seriously suffering from its effects. As is always the case, insane ideologies imposed on the people don’t limit the scope of their damage to one group, but spread out until they affect everyone.
You’re not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, are you? My point is that they they know they can’t compete and aren’t interested in pretending otherwise.
This is ridiculous. The vast majority of people aren’t political activists.
Phyllis Schlaffly defeated the ERA. Since then, abortion has sucked up most of the energy and and resources of conservative activist women.
Jewish billionaires aren’t lining up to fund conservative shiksa political movements. Where are the White male billionaires?
Women, let alone teenage girls, have no power whatsoever to undo radical feminism. It was imposed from above and will persist as long as the plutocracy desires.
You phrased your point in typically feminist fashion, that is to say, vaguely, ambiguously, and misleadingly – as if women in chess were contentedly choosing not to compete with men rather than the truth that they can’t compete with them. The sole reason Polgar is interested in playing men and all the other women aren’t is because she’s light years better a player than any other woman who has ever lived.
Women were not powerless to avoid taking women’s studies courses in college. Women signed up in high enough numbers to keep these fraudulent academics in business. Women were not powerless to speak up against the # MeToo sham. Some did, but most did not. Many women took advantage of changes to the legal system that enabled them to fuck over their husbands in the event of a divorce. They may not identify as a feminist, but they’re not doing much of anything to fight back against feminism (even though they must know it’s a pack of lies) because they’ve enjoyed too many perks from it. Women will only start resisting radical feminism in earnest once it starts hurting them as badly as its hurt men. And that day is coming. But in the meantime, I’m not going to cry bitter tears for the suffering of women because I’ve come to see that it’s unavoidable. There’s nothing that can be done now to avert it. Neither women nor men will be able to escape the collapse of civilization that modern feminism will have played a major part in bringing about.
I had to put up with the feminist skanks in college so I am unsympathetic to any problems female jocks have . Female sports are ridiculous and only serve to encourage mannish behavior in women who need to develop feminine behavior. Tough luck libbers I am enjoying your suffering take a home economics class you need it!
They are.
You overestimate the extent to which women GAF about beating you at things.
And what percentage of women is that? Less than 10% ? Less than 5%? Should women judge all men by the actions of the minority? Didn’t think so.
What #MeToo sham? Do you deny that quid pro quo sexual harassment goes on in Hollywood?
Aw the poor dears don’t get to dump their aging wives and walk away Scot free. Does anyone have a tissue?
You don’t think refusing to vote for Hillary Clinton was “fighting back”?
Go ahead and tell me what else it is you would like women to do.
You’re not going to dictate to us what sorts of recreational activities are and are not appropriate for us.
Translation:
Nanna nanna booboo, wash your face in doodoo.
“Female sports are ridiculous and only serve to encourage mannish behavior in women who need to develop feminine behavior.”
Rugby, soccer, weightlifting, contact and strength sports, agreed. Most of track, field and winter sports, disagreed.
High-jump and pole vault seem to feature the most attractive athletes of both sexes.
Healthy recreational sports for women are certainly not a problem, as I see it. On the contrary, moderate physical activity is a necessity for human wellbeing, physical and mental. In our sedentary society, sports are an important part of this. As long as one polices the organizations against lesbians and other destructive elements, the idea itself is a positive one. Just as, for boys, the Boy Scouts used to be, before it fell victim to the dark powers.
Although naturally, in order to fill a positive function, sports should be recreational amateur sports. Professional women’s sports as they exist today are indeed cancerous, but only marginally less so than those for men.
They should be kicked out of school and blacklisted for saying men are physically stronger than women and not completely equal. Women are firefighters and in combat units. Could they do this if they weren’t as physically capable as men?
It’s women who initiate around three quarters of divorces, usually for frivolous reasons. Men are certainly not blameless, but women file for divorce most often and it’s precisely because the system is enormously biased in their favor, and they know it. Likewise, I don’t see women protesting too much the blatant double standards that are enshrined in every aspect of the legal system that favor women. The pussy pass is real, and the evidence has been around for literally decades that if you have a vagina, you are less likely to be convicted and if you are convicted, you will probably do much less time in jail.
Stop lying about their so called victimization, for one. (But this is not directed at all women, just women with your own obnoxious attitude.) And stop pretending they’re owed some sort of apology for a historical “oppression” that isn’t even real.
No. But Ian McKellen said something that I agree with, which was that there have always been loads of women (actresses or aspiring actresses) throwing themselves at powerful men in the industry in exchange for roles. For every pig like Weinstein demanding sex in exchange for parts, you can find dozens of women who happily make the first move in prostituting themselves. It’s a two way street.
I saw no acknowledgement in the media, anywhere, of the fact that Hollywood is not an industry just like any other. It’s industry where the people who become famous are generally those who crave fame and fortune to the point they’ll do absolutely anything to get it – or they’re nepotists with connections. Talent has little to do with it most of the time. Weinstein has no morals, but neither do most of his so called victims. Women like Asia Argento and Rose McGowan claim to have been raped by him, yet have no convincing explanation for why they kept sleeping with him for years after their alleged rapes. Evidently they were willing to do literally anything – even at the cost of their own self respect – just to keep getting film roles.
It’s ridiculous to claim what goes on in sleazy, corrupt Hollywood – in which success is largely determined by who you know or who you blow far more than it is by actual talent – is the same as what goes on in every other industry or walk of life. #me too is a sham because it doesn’t tell the truth about how Hollywood operates – and what kind of shameless fame whore and narcissist your typical aspiring young actress – or actor – is to begin with.
So you say.
Yes, I’m sure muh biased courts are just railroading totally innocent men who dindu nuffin for no reason whatsoever.
When did I ever say anything about being owed an apology?
Hey Rosie, what’s the best thing about dating homeless girls?
You can drop them off anywhere.
🙂
The only apparent upside of these young men’s mental illness is the increased probability that these boons won’t reproduce.
Well, for one thing, Rosie, admit that on balance, “Islam is right about women.” 😉
An English comedian’s vulgar but somewhat amusing take on the incident:
Video Link
And this concise & thoughtful column by a Libyan guy (well, “British-Libyan”, but put aside that absurdity and just enjoy the column):
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/26/the-genius-of-the-islam-is-right-about-women-stunt/
What does Islam say about women? I don’t really know, but I will tell you this. Sharia Law doesn’t prevent women from:
Getting an education.
Divorcing a useless and/or abusive husband.
Running a business.
Inheriting and disposing of property.
Playing soccer.
Shall we talk about whether Islam is right about men? Can you really not refrain from raping a woman showing a bit of ankle?
Can I not refrain from doing that? Yes, and I’d never do that no matter a woman wears.
Anyway, I’m not a Muslim.
But surely you’re aware that women (and GIRLS) are showing more than “a bit of ankle” in public in our fair land these days?
I actually respect women, Rosie. But many men don’t, in the sense that you and I both mean it. And equally troubling, many women show through their dress, language, and conduct that they don’t respect themselves.
Try opening your eyes and paying attention for once. See here:
https://equalitycanada.com/misandry-law-public-policy/
The website is Canadian but the findings apply everywhere.
Another in depth study finding major gender disparity in criminal cases:
https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
The only people who can’t see the pussy pass in action in the legal system – virtually everywhere – are strident, perpetually aggrieved feminists like Rosie.
Hopefully Rosie will note that many of those studies demonstrating the gender bias against men in the courts were conducted by female academics and researchers. Obviously there are plenty of thoughtful and honest women there. The problem isn’t women. It’s all the de facto (regardless of what label they use) feminists like Rosie with an ax to grind against men, who can never shut up for ten seconds about their female victim complex. They have to drag their strident feminist ideology into every single discussion of anything under the sun. And unfortunately, such women are everywhere in academia, politics, and journalism.
The problem I see in the dissident right regarding this issue is that men don’t agree on how women should dress. All they agree on (present company excluded) is that women are doing something wrong.
If women dress like sluts and aging matrons like me say nothing, we are derelict in our duty of instruction. If we do say something, we’re just spoiling young women’s fun, because we’re jealous old hags past our prime. It’s basically a no-win for us.
For the record, I really don’t care how women dress. I have reported in the past that I have only really been bent out of shape about female attire IRL once that I can remember. I was at a water park with husband and kids when I saw a young woman with a bikini that went up into the crack of her nether region. Why anyone would want to wear something like that is beyond me, let alone to a place that is essentially a wet playground for children.
I really don’t feel like reading your links, but I am willing to do so.
First, to avoid wasting my time, I’m going to ask you an honest question.
Do your cites provide evidence of unequal treatment, or merely unequal outcomes?
Boys do better than girls on the math portion of the SAT, because they’re better at math, not because someone or something is “biased” against them. A fair-minded and intellectually honest person, I am willing to admit this.
Men are also better at committing crimes than women. They are also better at getting involved in noncriminal but antisocial conduct that ruins marriages, such as compulsive gambling and drug addiction.
Punishment is not determined merely by the counts on which a defendant is found guilt, but also any aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case. Since men are more violent, I would assume their crimes are, generally speaking, more aggravated than women’s crimes, all else being equal.
Now, having said all if that, do you still want me to read whatever is in these links?
Who rely on blatantly-false naked assertions — then, when confronted with their lies, whine:
lol.
Returning to the actual topic of the thread, I’d have to agree with those whose reaction to this apparent spat between trannies and lesbian feminists is to shrug. No dog in this fight.
But it is important to recognize that the poz flows from the top down. It’s not the “establishment” caving in to “protesters” and “activists” — it’s the establishment using those activists as cover to advance their own agenda.
Just look at what happened when North Carolina tried to prevent male perverts from using women’s bathrooms:
More than 80 major corporations joined in a conspiracy in restraint of trade targeting NC.
Including the NBA:
the NCAA, and the NFL. Even the NAACP joined in — clearly in response to “grassroots” pressure from ordinary Negroes, right?
They were sued by the “Justice” Department.
Etc.
Projected losses from the oligarchy’s financial war on NC ran into the billions…
So the NC government caved, and decided to allow male perverts use the women’s room, after all.
But it was all just a response to a few stunning and brave “protestors” and “activists,” tho.
I wouldn’t be so sure about that.
I really hate to break the news to you, Rosie, but if a majority of men desired, we could use and breed you just like cattle.
I’m pretty sure there are places in the world where that’s still the case.
Christian Civilization elevated the status of women.
Your kind certainly prove that should be reviewed.
Rural India. The result: female infanticide and no wives.
So no, you really can’t do that without shooting yourselves in the foot.
That said, I’m well aware of the fact that the manosphere creeps who have infiltrated White nationalism do not represent normal men.
Video Link
Such as?
I have been going rounds with dissident right chauvinists for many years.
I don’t have time to read every link they post here, especially when they can’t even be bothered to answer a simple question.
I went ahead and took a look at your links despite your failure to answer my question. As I suspected, there is nothing in either of them that proves unequal treatment.
From the second link:
Indeed. The question is whether we should assume that these discretionary decisions are rational and made in good faith. Prosecutors have the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to be determined by a jury made up of men and women. If they don’t think they can get a conviction, either for lack of evidence or sympathy for the defendant, they’re not going to prosecute the case.
The author continues:
But locking up more women is precisely what will happen, and it will help noone. Perceived injustices like this always trigger demands for more rigid standards and less discretion for those decision-makers who are most intimately familiar with the facts of each individual case, a cure that is far worse than the disease. On the other hand, I have no problem with efforts to find alternatives to incarceration for men.
Predictably, Rosie, in typical feminist fashion, willfully ignores the substance of the linked articles and falsely claims they bolster her POV. They do not.
The question of whether we should punish women more harshly or men more leniently is a separate and distinct question from whether a blatant double standard exists in the first place. It does, and it strongly favors women.
The reason you resist drawing this obvious conclusion is not that the evidence is not there. It is there, in spades. But feminists – being religious zealots, not rational thinkers – cannot allow themselves to admit that women are, in many respects, the privileged sex, not the oppressed sex. Since they take the “oppression of women” to be a self-evident truth, any evidence to the contrary will always be rationalized away as you have done.
Groans. Because you pigeonhole me, you are incapable of understanding me.
I never said the linked articles bolster my POV. I said they fail to prove your POV. Indeed, one of the linked articles admits as much in so many words!
So there you have it. We have, at most, “pretty good reason to suspect that disparate treatment may be one of the causes of this gap.” That’s pretty weak sauce, but as I said, if you want to advocate for more extensive use of alternatives to incarceration for men, I certainly won’t quarrel with that.
If you believe that mere inequality of outcomes favoring women is proof of a double standard, do you also believe that inequality of outcomes favoring men is proof of a double standard? If not, perhaps you ought to look in the mirror.
Oh lookie here. I guess I’m not a feminist by your very own definition. I have never, ever said women are oppressed. We once were, and many Unz cretins would very much like to see us oppressed again in the future. (I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not among them.) I am here to rein them in, because they are repugnant not only to women but also the overwhelming majority of decent White men in the world who care about our wellbeing.
How the hell is her assertion that we have “pretty good reason” to suspect a double standard “weak sauce”? Have you ever listened to how academics talk? By your logic, unless she had come out and pompously said “I have proven irrefutably that the legal system discriminates against men” we cannot draw any such inference of bias. Of course, radfems and SJW types always speak in such absolutist terms, without qualification or caution, but more serious, sober researchers rarely do.
You zeroed in on one statement while simultaneously ignoring the cumulative impression developed by the various studies that point in only one direction – discrimination advantaging women and disadvantaging men. Of course, in reality, it’s not “weak sauce” at all. What matters are the findings of the studies, not the one remark you quoted. Keep in mind that feminists have actually waged vindictive hate campaigns against researchers that went against the feminist narrative, trying to get them fired. Anyone upsetting the feminist apple cart has had to proceed with caution.
Learn to read more carefully. The issue is not mere inequality of outcomes. What points to a double standard in the legal system is not the mere fact of unequal outcomes. It’s that after several decades of research, these academics have still not been able to locate any clear variable that could account for the discrepancy other than some defendants having a vagina and others having a penis. They specifically went looking for other possible causes of the discrepancy and were unable to find any. That’s what makes their research authentically scientific and not mere guesswork.
The problem with most feminist researchers, on the other hand, is that they don’t look for these possibly disconfirming factors. They go looking only for confirmation, never disconfirmation. For a theory to be legitimate a researcher must look hard for evidence against, not merely evidence for. But most feminists never do that (except of course for dissident feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers, who is hated by most mainstream feminists, many of whom refuse to consider her a feminist at all). They are looking only for evidence to confirm their assumptions and willfully ignore anything that appears to undermine them.
Actually, it’s far from clear that women were ever oppressed in the past. For every disadvantage women experienced, they also experienced significant advantages. In some ways, life was better for men, but in other ways – just as significant – it was better for women, on average. Martin Van Creveld’s well-researched book The Privileged Sex goes a long way to refuting the dubious feminist narrative of perpetual female oppression.
Except that the author herself admits that “two seemingly similar cases could differ in ways not captured by the data.” Hence, we are right back where we started. We have two choices: We can assume that discretionary decision-makers are acting rationally and in good faith (without bias) or not. For all we know, a very simple variable, such as the demeanor and apparent remorse of the defendant explains the whole disparity, by definition only something that people who are actually there can properly evaluate.
If you take discretion away fro. decision-makers who are in a position to know the most about the matter at hand, you’re not going to get better decisions, and you’re very probably going to get worse decisions.
We’ve been down this road before, and it hasn’t worked out very well.
Lol!
Except that there is no evidence whatsoever that that is the case. She mentioned that as a conceivable possibility, since she didn’t want to rule anything out, but there’s no evidence of this, whereas there is Centuries worth of evidence of the existence of male chivalry throughout the western world.
Essentially what you are resorting to is cherry picking. You went sifting through the mountains of evidence indicating significant judicial bias against men and wilfully zeroed in on the one and only thing that you could find to shore up your refusal to consider that men have grievances at least as legitimate as women’s. While also ignoring,
Despite the fact that killing a woman tends to result in longer sentences than killing a man (thus we already have a secondary evidential reinforcement, from another angle, for the primary thesis) Rosie clings to the notion that it’s all about “judicial discretion” due to women showing more remorse. Even though no such evidence exists.
An in depth review of Van Creveld’s book someone posted on Amazon, amply demonstrating the many real and major advantages over men women as a class have always enjoyed:
You’re confused. I definitely think men have legitimate grievances, to wit:
1. The outsourcing of our industrial base to China.
2. Forever wars that have nothing to do with our national interest, but which nonetheless result in the death and dismemberment of young White men.
3. Schooling that favors girls by pushing early academic achievement and damages young boys’ self-esteem.
4. The fact that the underrepresentation of men is never considered a problem, however pronounced e.g. veterinary school), but over representation of men is considered a problem.
I could go on, but you get the idea. This sentencing disparity (assuming it exists) is really the least of your problems.
In any event, perhaps you’d like to explain to me why you think black men get longer sentences than White men, controlling for all the known and quantifiable variables.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/16/black-men-sentenced-to-more-time-for-committing-the-exact-same-crime-as-a-white-person-study-finds/
Lol this is ridiculous. Things this idiot attempts to spin as “privilege”
Not getting to leave your house.
Not getting at equal education.
Having to leave the workforce for unpaid childcare responsibilities.
Same chauvinist sh!t different day. Men’s work is more important than women’s work, which doesn’t really even exist. We disagree, and we don’t owe you anything. True to form, the manosphere creep complains about “double standards,” and then says this:
Women owe all men for what some have done, but men only owe their mothers. Get it? Me neither.
And BTW, go make your own damned sandwich. Come to think of it. Since the majority of you sit on your backsides all day while the wife takes care of the kids and cleans house, you can go ahead and make her a sandwich while you’re at it.
You have completely misconstrued Van Creveld’s point. He is saying Greek women were not prisoners of their own homes. Being more secluded and working more inside the home than out doesn’t mean they were oppressed the way feminists spin it. His point is that the feminists have misread the data, just as they continue to misunderstand the medieval witch hunts as a “gender-cide” and “war against women,” when in reality most of their accusers were also women, many men were accused of witchcraft or wizardry as well, and witchcraft was only one form of heresy you could be accused of (a big majority of heretics put to death, counting up all the different types of heresy) were male.
Did you miss this part?
As for black men getting longer sentences than white men, yes, race is a factor in sentencing. There is discrimination and racism against blacks, even if the issue is more complicated than the Left would like to think. (The MSM actually covers up and refuses to acknowledge the extent of black crime, hence you need to read a Colin Flaherty or Paul Kersey to find out the truth.). But that reinforces the point: where blacks really have been discriminated against under the law, the law actually advantages women. It’s possible to be a member of a racial outgroup, for blacks to have been a pure outgroup, lower on the totem pole historically, but sexism is more ambiguous – Van Creveld shows that women’s evident historical disadvantages were invariably attended and intertwined with advantages and privileges. Not the same thing as racism at all.
I am not a historian, but I’m not going to rely on someone like this for such information. He clearly has an axe to grind.
Yes, I’m aware of the Spartan exception.
I couldn’t disagree more. I suspect that the actual black-white disparity would be much larger but for judges bending over backwards to give black men every benefit of the doubt.
Irrelevant even if true (which I doubt). You can say the same thing about black slaves, who got free health care, retirement, maternity leave, etc, and were better off than poor whites. That doesn’t make slavery any less egregious and dehumanizing.
FWIW, I really don’t care much one way or the other whether you think women were or were not “oppressed.” I care about the future.
You accuse Van Creveld of having an ax to grind, then make up your own sloppy, misleading version of history.
But let’s say, for argument’s sake, that you are correct that black slaves were generally much better off than poor whites. That would, in a crucial sense, make the condition of black slaves more enviable than that of poor whites and it would suggest that their status was not one of “victimization” in comparison with poor whites. And that they emphatically should not be considered greater victims of oppression than poor whites at the time. After all, if as you say black slaves were generally better off than poor whites, then it necessarily follows that they were not greater victims of society we have to feel sorry for.
Likewise, if we push your analogy to its logical conclusion, women were never more oppressed than men of same social class as them were. For even if the women’s situation was not ideal, neither was the men’s. And men in their own distinctive way usually had it just as bad as women, if not worse — if we compare like with like, if we compare men and women of the same social class in the same society.
His position is perfectly consonant with what members of earlier generations of historians believed. I read a book years ago from the early 20th century where the author, whose name escapes me, dismissed the assumption of some of his colleagues that the Greeks were these raving misogynists and that they oppressed their womenfolk. According to him, that was a misreading of the available evidence, and I agree.
Of course, in today’s climate of ubiquitous feminism, the “Greek men hated women” school is taken as undoubtedly true, while the school of thought that particular author represented is ignored. But I agree with him, and so does Van Creveld. It’s important to realize that that way of thinking about the Greeks was never disproven, simply shoved aside by the radfem and politically correct zealots who now dominate academia. They didn’t win on the strength of their arguments, they simply completed their Long March through the institutions.
You could breed more women in that case.
Incidentally, when there are many more women for every man, women have much less bargaining power and are more liable to be used and pumped and dumped by men. Women have to be more accommodating and better behaved to get a man.
The fundamental problem with your analysis (or better yet, your attitude) is your failure to take account of harm to human dignity. You reduce humans to animals, with no needs higher than creature comforts.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/maslow-s-hierarchy-of-needs--scalable-vector-illustration-655400474-5c6a47f246e0fb000165cb0a.jpg)
I don’t particularly care whether you think women were especially victimized or not. Again, what matters is the future, and whether women will be deprived of our legal rights as we have been in the past. Whether you think such deprivations were or were not oppressive, offset by other privileges, etc. is irrelevant and of no concern to me.
It’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder whether you’re a psychopath than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
A rare admission of all-too-common male sexual depravity and manipulative, predatory conduct towards women.
Virtue in a woman is totally independent of the marriage market. As in all things, virtue lies in a mean, here between selfishness and servility. Servility won’t help a woman get a man; and if it does, it won’t help her keep him; and if it does, it won’t help her get her needs met, including being treated with respect. If anything, it’s the other way around.
A shortage of women provides no benefits to women. Indeed, it creates a demand for prostitutes so fierce that girls and women can scarcely leave their houses without risking abduction and and sale to a brothel.
A typical irrelevant response from the strident feminist in egalitarian’s clothing, Rosie.
First you claim that blacks had more protection and security, and better living standards, and were thus “better off” than poor whites. Then you suggest a parallel here with the conditions of women as compared with men.
But obviously, what this analogy actually shows, despite Rosie’s rather desperate attempts to preserve her imaginary female victim status, is that “oppression” is not something so easily quantified. If black slaves were “better off” than poor whites, then they cannot be considered more oppressed, regardless of whether they attained some hypothetical ideal state of living. Likewise, women cannot be considered oppressed in comparison with men, since they were generally better off than men in almost every way that mattered – certainly far more effort was made to ensure their physical security and comfort than was ever made for men.
Maslow’s claims have zero relevance to any point you seem to think you are making. What his pyramid actually argues is that esteem and self actualization only come to the fore once physIllogical, safety and love and belonging needs are already met. And since it is women who were mainly protected when it comes to those latter three named categories (the primary categories, the first requiring fulfillment according to Maslow, before we can go on to the higher realms) that again is evidence of the reality of female privilege.