SamRavster wrote...
[font=verdana][color=green]
But, why isn't sad when a women beats a man? Why isn't it sad that men struggle to control their emotions more than women? Why isn't it sad that, in divorce cases, a women always gets the custody of the children over the man?
This is sexist too--when courts assume that women should get custody of the children. What, men can't be good caretakers? Women can't be horrid parents? Honestly, parental suitability and the children's choice should be taken into account.
It is a two-way street.
In all honesty, if I may state my honest opinion, I think that the scales have tipped in women's favour. Looking at the law of rape; only a man can be charged of rape. Why can't a women? Looking at the law of employment; there have been many cases where, when a women has been discharged due to ineptitude, they have successfully claimed that they were discharged due to their sex and have claimed £100,000's of the company. Looking at the politics; there has to be a certain amount of women in Government and Parliament aka Positive Discrimination. Looking at the law of family disputes; the man doesn't stand a chance in hell anymore (Trust me, I know FULL WELL about this area of the law. Don't even question me on this).
The legal system has become a joke; pandering to the females' discrimination cases and such. If they weren't to do this, they wouldn't get into Parliament or Government or the Judiciary, so they're forced to do these things.
You may label me as sexist by those comments. Well, they're not. I care about the integrity of the legal system over petty disputes between males and females about who is the better sex. I couldn't care less about the gender divide.
I'm not so sure the scales have tipped in women's favour yet. Things have improved, but women still earn less than men for equal jobs except in the case of young women straight out of college. As careers go on, it's more the case that men earn more, even when taking into account maternity leaves and other such "womanly" matters. There was a study about that, actually.
I dunno about the UK, but in the US, I'm pretty darn sure women can be charged with rape too. However, no man would dare come forward. Why? Again, sexism. If a man were to claim he were rape he would either be a) disbelieved, because men are supposed to want sex all the time, so how could he have been raped? or b) laughed at because he is too "pussy" to have defended himself and deserves what he gets. Classic victim-blaming, and it paints rape as just a women's problem, whereas males can get raped too--by other males, or by females. However, it remains fact that most of the perpetrators of rape are by far and large male, so most of those who get charged are indeed male.
Rape trials are routinely thrown out--especially if the accused is a rich and powerful male--because of victim-blaming. See: the Dominique Strauss-Kahn rape trials, where aspersions were cast upon Diallo because of inconsistent testimony, even if there was physical evidence that an assault had occurred. Again, lots of victim-blaming occurs: when a women brings forth an accusation of rape, the first thing law enforcement does is ask the woman where she was, what she was wearing, what she was doing...and heaven forbid the women be out drinking wearing a "slutty" outfit, because then she can be blamed for not taking enough precautions against getting raped.
In the US, there was recently a class-action lawsuit against Walmart, putting forth the claim that Walmart systemically discriminated against women in hiring and promotion. There was very good evidence for it--women who worked longer that men being paid less, for example, and not getting promoted over men with lesser experience and this was shown to be true in Walmarts across the country--however, even with the preponderance of data showing the discrimination, it was thrown out of the courts.
Things might be different in the UK; I don't know the legal situation there. But in the US at least, things are still not equal, much less biased towards women.