Double Standards Against Men

[Allbutanillusion]

After watching part of the last presidential debates, I noticed that part of the debate was focused on women and women's health. Not that there is anything wrong with that per say but it got me to thinking, do women really have it so tough? After all men/boys are the ones that are considered as the disposable ones in society. Lets take a look at some of the double standards that society has toward men( there are many more but I didn't have time to post every single one). Let me reiterate that I don't want to debate every single thought/talking point( actually I won't be saying much of anything unless I think that there is an error or someone misinterpreted what I stated). I also will point out that there are exceptions to the statements/Rhetorical questions but for the most part they are based on attitudes and events that occur on a constant basis in society.


Why do we have to say “Chairperson” and “Congressperson” but its ok to say “garbage man” and “bad guy”?

Why is it politically incorrect to say anything negative about women but funny to put men down?

Why is it considered woman-hating or whining to point it out when women have something better than men, but we rush to pass new laws if men might have something better than women?

Why are feminists pushing for laws that prevent new laws from being passed that protect men from women, such as with domestic violence against men, false allegations by women, or paternity fraud? 18 percent of men have been victims of domestic violence by a wife or female partner as opposed to 13 percent of women by a man.

Why is it funny when a woman kicks a man in the groin but terrible if a man did the same to a woman - won't the man be in more pain?

Why do we often hear the phrase “innocent women and children” but never hear about “innocent men” or “men and children”?

Why does women’s health get much more attention when men die about seven years younger than women?

If single mothers have it so bad, why do women initiate about eighty percent of divorces and routinely commit perjury to win custody?

Why do we complain about legislators being mostly male when they always promote women’s rights and never promote men’s rights?

Why is it sexist to have clubs for only men but empowering to have them for only women?

Why do men that don’t pay child support go to prison but nothing ever happens to women that don’t allow visitation?

Why do fathers have to pay the mother to take his children away from him in divorce?

Why is it called sexual freedom when a married woman commits adultery but called cheating when a man does the same?

Why are female murderers presumed to be mentally ill but male murderers presumed to be killers?

Why do men have to support women at the same standard of living following divorce?

Why is it considered sexist to have a couple of television shows geared towards men when there are several channels catering only to women?

Why are television moms always portrayed as wonderful and loving and television dads always portrayed as inept buffoons?

Why do feminists demand that women be equally represented in high paying and powerful jobs but don’t complain when low-paying, dirty, and dangerous jobs remain mostly done by men?

Why is it that when a woman accuses a man of rape, the man's name is made public and he is presumed guilty, but when he is proven innocent the woman remains anonymous and the man is still ruined?

Why is it that we've had forty years and billions of dollars going into women's rights and men's responsibilities, but it's taboo in most circles to even suggest that maybe it's time to consider men's rights and women's responsibilities a little bit for a change?

Why are men considered more privileged than women with so many double standards against men?

[Sir Suomi]

Becuase, people are becoming more liberal in their thoughts. Nothing wrong with this, but women now adays are expecting to be treated like men, but still expect stuff like "Ladies first", or the fact that it's perfectly fine for a women to slap a man, but God forbid he lay a hand on a women, it's immedietly domestic violence. Nothing against women, but if you want to be treated as equally as men, you have to be ready to EXACTLY the same.

[Sugaree]

Why do we have to say “Chairperson” and “Congressperson” but its ok to say “garbage man” and “bad guy”?

The profession of being a garbage collector is usually held by men, so it became common place to call them "garbage men". "Bad guy", I'm not so sure of; it probably has a ring to it.

Why is it politically incorrect to say anything negative about women but funny to put men down?

Women's Suffrage has pretty much affected the national attitude towards women, and that was almost 100 years ago.

Why is it considered woman-hating or whining to point it out when women have something better than men, but we rush to pass new laws if men might have something better than women?

Again, most likely Women's Suffrage.

Now, I don't have time to address all your questions, but I do believe the majority of them have to deal with modern feminist attitudes and Women's Suffrage.

[Allbutanillusion]

Thank you for your input...,I just want to reiterate, that more or less these questions are rhetorical questions, I already am aware of the Feminism / Women's Suffrage behind much of the thoughts of today in regards to these double standards.

Yes, comment on them if you want, share your thoughts but my main purpose was to show that women/girls really don't have it so tough, that life is not unfair as they like to claim, and really the scales of justice and attitudes in society are in their favor.

[FreeFall]

We may not have it though today, and go ahead and brush it off that it was only 100 years ago, I just laugh. I can't even see how you think "oh it was foreeeevvvveeerr ago get over it", when in comparison 100 years is still very new. It may be 100 years old that we've finally attained our rights, but the fight to get there was even longer. Do you tell a Jewish person to get over the mass spread hatred of Hitler for the holocaust?

Historically, men have never had to fight for their rights. They got the comfy cozy life from birth. Women were raised to cook, clean, not think, give birth, and obey her man whom of course had to be approved of by daddy or so help her she'd shame the family. If a man were of color or deemed less superior than the white man, then they did, but that's in the same boat. And minorities still have it tough today with those similar issues.

So 100 years is nothing to you, while for the very few women who are nearing the end of their life that were born in those times, it's everything. At least respect that. It's not going to be forgotten in our life time. The mentality that women are to serve is still here, it's going to take a few more years to breed it out. My boyfriend's mom was forced into Catholicism by her husband, because she's his wife. He won't allow her to get a job, because she's a mother. This is how he was raised, and his father, and his father. My boyfriend's the only one to have broken that thought.
My point with that, until that mentality's gone or dead enough, we're going to harp on having it hard. Society still expects us to just find a man, settle down, have children and stay at home with them anyways. Then we'll be the sweet old granny's that bake cookies for the grand kids and complain about our husband's golf.

I do agree with you on some things you've said. I certainly spit on the women that demand equal rights, but if she's so much as flicked by a man she goes to play the don't hit a woman card. It's pathetic and a waste of what women have fought for us to be able to even wear pants.

But this: If single mothers have it so bad, why do women initiate about eighty percent of divorces and routinely commit perjury to win custody?
What? Most women do not ask to be single moms just to bitch about it. You may not have meant to but you've pretty much said "if you're miserable, stay miserable because I don't want to hear you bitch about being a single mom." If her husband's beating her, she needs to leave. If her husband's cheating on her, she needs to leave. If her husband's lost his job and is lazing around the house, she better leave. As for custody, kids need their mothers. It's the person they've known since they were a fetus. That's their safe haven as long as she's a good woman. If her husband sucks, no way in hell should she forfeit the children to him.

Some women suck. They're an embarrassment and shame to the rest of us. Some should never be allowed to breed or even hold a child. Many are equal if not worse in crimes. That's got a while to change, I hope it changes soon.

[Human]

Becuase, people are becoming more liberal in their thoughts. Nothing wrong with this, but women now adays are expecting to be treated like men, but still expect stuff like "Ladies first", or the fact that it's perfectly fine for a women to slap a man, but God forbid he lay a hand on a women, it's immedietly domestic violence. Nothing against women, but if you want to be treated as equally as men, you have to be ready to EXACTLY the same.
I kind of agree with this. But it's not women in general who think this. Mainly feminists.

[Jean Poutine]

Why do we have to say “Chairperson” and “Congressperson” but its ok to say “garbage man” and “bad guy”?

It's perfectly ok to also say garbagewoman and bad girl.

Why is it politically incorrect to say anything negative about women but funny to put men down?

Why is it politically incorrect to make Holocaust or 9/11 jokes? Because the calamity is still fresh in the memories of many.

Why is it considered woman-hating or whining to point it out when women have something better than men, but we rush to pass new laws if men might have something better than women?

Positive discrimination. Discutable.

Why are feminists pushing for laws that prevent new laws from being passed that protect men from women, such as with domestic violence against men, false allegations by women, or paternity fraud? 18 percent of men have been victims of domestic violence by a wife or female partner as opposed to 13 percent of women by a man.

Because feminists by definition push for rights for women.

Why is it funny when a woman kicks a man in the groin but terrible if a man did the same to a woman - won't the man be in more pain?

Neither's funny unless you're retarded.

Why do we often hear the phrase “innocent women and children” but never hear about “innocent men” or “men and children”?

Of course you hear of it. You just have to realize that men still have it good and there is still a degree of condescendence towards women.

Why does women’s health get much more attention when men die about seven years younger than women?

Do you know why that is? Because men are more likely to do stupid shit than women. That is why life expectancy is lower. Testosterone makes us dumb.

If single mothers have it so bad, why do women initiate about eighty percent of divorces and routinely commit perjury to win custody?

Women are very attached to their children, for obvious reasons, to a degree manhood can not comprehend. Is it right to lie in court? No, never. But there is justification.

Why do we complain about legislators being mostly male when they always promote women’s rights and never promote men’s rights?

There is not multiple "legislators" and the legislator has no gender. The legislator is judicial fiction to talk about the lawmaking body.

Why is it sexist to have clubs for only men but empowering to have them for only women?

What are you talking about?

Why do men that don’t pay child support go to prison but nothing ever happens to women that don’t allow visitation?

Women who don't pay child support also go to prison, and visitation rights are considered with the wellbeing of the child first. It has nothing to do with gender. BTW my ex-brother in law has complete custody of my nephew and my sister is not allowed visitation by the court.

Why do fathers have to pay the mother to take his children away from him in divorce?

You mean child support? Women also pay support if the man wins custody. It happens more rarely because in most cases, children are much better off with their mother than with their father, developmentally.

Why is it called sexual freedom when a married woman commits adultery but called cheating when a man does the same?

No, it's adultery and scumbag behavior in both case. Why is an unmarried man sleeping around a player and a woman doing the same a slut? Because society is sometimes retarded.

Why are female murderers presumed to be mentally ill but male murderers presumed to be killers?

I don't know what you are talking about. Mental illness is a defense ; there is no presumption in law for mental illness benefitting to either gender.

Why do men have to support women at the same standard of living following divorce?

That's a complicated question that's too complex to quickly delve into here, but basically, because marriage is a contract and there is an expectancy that the contract will be committed to fully. A married women often gives up her career to become a homemaker and take care of the children still - the standard of living remedy is so the woman can fix her life around when the contract falls, instead of losing her standard of living and falling from 100 to 0 in a single court session.

Why is it considered sexist to have a couple of television shows geared towards men when there are several channels catering only to women?

And countless channels catering only to men, too.

Why are television moms always portrayed as wonderful and loving and television dads always portrayed as inept buffoons?

You are generalizing.

Why do feminists demand that women be equally represented in high paying and powerful jobs but don’t complain when low-paying, dirty, and dangerous jobs remain mostly done by men?

Because it's not their role to complain for men. They are feminists. PS there are plenty of women doing drudge work.

Why is it that when a woman accuses a man of rape, the man's name is made public and he is presumed guilty, but when he is proven innocent the woman remains anonymous and the man is still ruined?

Because then the woman would be ruined for either filing in a false suit, which she will be sued for, or could be subject to payback from the crazier memebrs of the public.

Why is it that we've had forty years and billions of dollars going into women's rights and men's responsibilities, but it's taboo in most circles to even suggest that maybe it's time to consider men's rights and women's responsibilities a little bit for a change?

Because we are not to parity yet.

Why are men considered more privileged than women with so many double standards against men?

Because we still are. We hold power in almost all countries and corporations, amongst other things.

[Allbutanillusion]

I think that it is important to mention that not all of the thoughts/points are my own or reflect what I believe but rather consist of thoughts from other people who I have encountered based and were upon things that they have witnessed/observed and I am not sure if I can adequately explain the original thought or intended thought process behind everyone. After actually properly reviewing each statement, I realize how some of them are really simple or silly upon first reading but I suspect that the originator of the thought had a deeper meaning in mind.

I will try to find out have have corrections/explanations over the weekend. I also have read some of the responses and I think that some of the statements have been oversimplified by the reader. Again I will explain as I am able to. Thanks

I just wanted to comment on this really quickly,


If single mothers have it so bad, why do women initiate about eighty percent of divorces and routinely commit perjury to win custody?


I think that the reasoning behind this statement was that there are a lot of programs to help single moms out, thus there is incentive to keep the family structure in tack. Sure some single moms may have some difficulties but in my state ( Unites States of America) single moms can receive free college education, free health care, free housing, free daycare if needed, free utilities( electric, gas, phone), they have their transportation expenses paid for ( in other words gas) and free groceries. Are their any similar programs offered for men? NO They could go to college for free but that is just general financial aid.



If her husband's cheating on her, she needs to leave. If her husband's lost his job and is lazing around the house, she better leave. As for custody, kids need their mothers. It's the person they've known since they were a fetus. That's their safe haven as long as she's a good woman. If her husband sucks, no way in hell should she forfeit the children to him.


This is all and good but what if the woman is at fault? Also your comment about the husband losing his job.., seriously, Really? Is that why women get married now days, to have additional income, someone to buy things for them and help the produce kids? Also , is it not better for the child/kids to know both parents, your statement about the mothers almost sounds like something a feminist would say. Yes, I get it society/attitudes(mainly from women), more now it a than ever before views men as disposable, something to be used then tossed away.

I am offended, as anyone would be I think, to viewed like that. I have nothing against women as a whole but just the attitudes/ideas in society about me as a male bothers me. I guess my main thing is that I am all for fairness. I don't like to be taken advantage of or be used as a "doormat" yet that is exactly what is happening.

I am in agreement with gender equality, but when it is taken to the extreme on the opposite end of the spectrum, where someone else (men/boys) is now "disadvantaged", can you really call it progress in gender equality.

I have heard reports/stories of women marrying for a short period of time and then divorcing, just to receive all of the free benefits. I mean where do we draw the line and say enough is enough already!

Please don't double post. Edit your previous post instead. -Gigablue

[Syvelocin]

We do need to remember there are several levels of feminism. The stupid feminists and the rational feminists. I'm a rational one thanks.

But anyway. Let's have at it with a metaphor. We'll have two exactly alike scenarios, but with two different kids. We have Timmy and Jimmy. So these two little kiddies want to swim in the deep pool like the older kids. Timmy asks his mum but he is rejected. "Aww but maaaa, Johnny gets to swim in the deep pool!"

So Timmy bothers his parents, over and over, complaining about equality, until finally his dad gives in. He says okay, he can swim in the deep pool. The dad pushes him in to the deep pool and he starts struggling to stay afloat to the point that he screams and screams he wants to get out. "It was too deep for me mommy, why'd you let me go in the deep pool?" he says. And this continues again and again until his parents stop giving in.

Jimmy approaches things a different way. When his parents reject him the first time, he decides to practice treading water until he's old enough to swim in the deep pool. When finally his parents are comfortable letting him swim in the deep pool, when he goes in, he manages to stay afloat because he was prepared for the change.

tl;dr: Stupid feminists take a bite bigger than what they can handle. They say they want to be equal but then "No no no no, not THAT equal!" By equality, they really mean they want to be treated superiorly. They want it just because "Johnny gets to," not because they want a more advanced society.

Trust me, there are rational feminists who would definitely be ready, willing, and able to handle full equality, but are given a bad name by their other counterparts.

Full equality is wishful thinking anyway guys. It's just not going to happen in our lifetimes. Even if it did, it would change to whether you had a intelligence storage chip installed in your brain or not, or whatever the future brings for us. There's always segregation, always unfairness, and always discrimination.


Why do we have to say “Chairperson” and “Congressperson” but its ok to say “garbage man” and “bad guy”?

I promised myself I wouldn't go through each of your examples individually but I just have to address this one: Your fact is actually playing for the other team.

Basically, a man is the default gender assumed. Or at least, this was the case when the uses of words in this manner were established. A woman is the added little specification. For instance, mankind sounds male but it's actually a generalization for everyone. We are all men. But a group of women is a group of women. In French, you always call a generalized group ils (pronoun they, masculine) whether full of men or mixed. Only when it's specifically a group of all women is it elles (they, feminine). The same way, adjectives have genders based on what gender the noun is. The base adjective is masculine, but we add -e, -es, -ieuse, etc. when we know it's feminine. And other linguistic examples.

[FreeFall]

This is all and good but what if the woman is at fault?
Where's your point with this, I must've missed it.

Then the husband better leave her. I fail to see how it matters the gender. If the relationship sucks, the miserable one has all right to leave.
Also your comment about the husband losing his job.., seriously, Really? Is that why women get married now days, to have additional income, someone to buy things for them and help the produce kids?
Why did you get so fired up when that wasn't even my point?
You clearly have no idea what it's like when there's a household struggling on one income when it needs two for it to run. If the mom's making shit money, and dad was making bank, she's better off without worrying about his mouth to feed.
I'm not advocating women leave men that lose their job. I don't even know how you got that.

I'm advocating people leave people who have no motivation and are going to be dead weight. It's not fair to the kids when what money could be saved from the freeloader is being wasted.
Also , is it not better for the child/kids to know both parents, your statement about the mothers almost sounds like something a feminist would say. Yes, I get it society/attitudes(mainly from women), more now it a than ever before views men as disposable, something to be used then tossed away.
Did I not say laze around the house? That does not mean "Oh you lost your job? Gotta go get divorce papers kthnxbai!"
Did I not say if the husband sucks? Not daddy's the greatest person in the world, but straight up awful human being?
You're too broad. I'm narrowing it down to crappy people, you're looking at the whole globe. Stop it. In a perfect world, it's great to know both parents. If neither of them are bad people, the kid should know them. But our world's not perfect.

Mom's a crack head prostitute that tried to kill her son when he was 3 months old many times. Should her son know her? Should she be allowed, someone so toxic, in his life?

Dad raped a bunch of little girls. He kills dogs for fun then leaves them on the roads. Should lil Sarah know her daddy? She's around the age of his last victim, should she know him?

I'm not a feminist. Some of what I said may be categorized as such, but I am not one. I'm more of a humanist.

EDIT: It's actually the opposite of feminist thinking, what I said about the fetus. The hardcore feminists would view that as a shackle of society, that mothers are the more needed and have this duty to take care of the kid when in many cases a father's better suited, and cannot leave the kids blah blah mother hood is the prison society made and women that don't conform are uncaring mothers. Oddly enough, did you know that there's some sort of "scarlet letter" to the women that give full custody to their children's father in divorces? Because everyone sees the mom as the one the kids should go to? I only said the fetus thing because it's true. Your mother is the first you hear, her heart. You know her smell, touch and warmth. Babies need their mothers, no one else, unless of course mom cannot be there because she's the safe haven. Babies only know their moms and need to learn to know everyone else, even daddy, that's why those first months are crucial.

Again there are exceptions and some women should never ever breed. Ever.

I am offended, as anyone would be I think, to viewed like that. I have nothing against women as a whole but just the attitudes/ideas in society about me as a male bothers me. I guess my main thing is that I am all for fairness. I don't like to be taken advantage of or be used as a "doormat" yet that is exactly what is happening.
Maybe you know shitty women then. I'm bothered by how you're painting us as terrible things out for money, sex, and are selfish monsters in your generalizations.

It's equal.
Men toss out women, women toss out men.
Both are disgusting.

I am in agreement with gender equality, but when it is taken to the extreme on the opposite end of the spectrum, where someone else (men/boys) is now "disadvantaged", can you really call it progress in gender equality.

And how are you disadvantaged in the legal/corporate world? Some places the paternity leave is much better than maternal if that matters, especially since women are the ones giving birth.

I have heard reports/stories of women marrying for a short period of time and then divorcing, just to receive all of the free benefits. I mean where do we draw the line and say enough is enough already!
And there are some men who marry women in the service to get the same benefits and do the exact same, if not worse because they leave kids behind to save their own money, leaving the service mom with kids.

[Magical]

Positive discrimination. Discutable.

Because then the woman would be ruined for either filing in a false suit, which she will be sued for, or could be subject to payback from the crazier memebrs of the public.

Positive discrimination isn't good. It's also negative discrimination against the other sex.

Oh yes. The woman couldn't possibly be allowed to be ruined. Not when she has almost certainly filed a false suit, and is therefore a jerkface. Not when she has ruined the man's image forever.

Sexism anyone?

[Jean Poutine]

Positive discrimination isn't good. It's also negative discrimination against the other sex.

No shit, Sherlock. Hence why I wrote "discutable".

Oh yes. The woman couldn't possibly be allowed to be ruined. Not when she has almost certainly filed a false suit, and is therefore a jerkface. Not when she has ruined the man's image forever.

You do not understand the logic behind this.

Is not presumed a victim whoever files a suit for the purpose of protective injunctions, like keeping press out of the courtroom or not allowing a victim's name to be divulged, but a man IS presumed innocent until further proof. He just does not need the same protection because court measures awaiting trail (jail time, etc) are enough. Those measures must be asked for and sufficient proof must be brought forward to justify limiting the public's right to transparent trials. Rape victims are not protected 100% of the time, only when the particulars of the case warrant it. Granted, usually in rape cases, this protection is given, for obvious reasons.

On the other hand, a judgement of innocence expunges any guilt of the accused. Why should he be protected? He has been declared innocent before a judge and a jury of his peers. This should be enough for any reasonable person. If they don't like it, accused can tell them to read the court case.

A woman filing in a false suit will already be punished, and if she is appealing or the guy got out on procedural mistakes, it's much too soon to lift the protective order. There's no reason for a man's life to be ruined after he has been acquitted on decent grounds. This whole "women can file rape charges against men and get away with it herp herp" attitude is what is sexist.

[Φρανκομβριτ]

Welcome to the world of overcompensation.

It's happenned with almost every race which as been abused long ago i.e. natives in Canada, Indians in the U.K.

Everyone wants equal rights, but we're so caught up in accomodating the people our ancestor's ancestor's ancestor's ancestors abused, that we really aren't living with equality at all.

http://img2.purerave.com/5/09/5859209_.jpg

[Thanatos]

There's a double standard as always. My cousin married a woman and had 2 children with her. 4 years later he finds her on the couch cheating on him with another woman, while their kids are napping in the house. He has had to fight for 2 years to get 50% custody. Tell me how that works.

[Sir Suomi]

There's a double standard as always. My cousin married a woman and had 2 children with her. 4 years later he finds her on the couch cheating on him with another woman, while their kids are napping in the house. He has had to fight for 2 years to get 50% custody. Tell me how that works.

Apparently, she had one good-ass lawyer.

[Allbutanillusion]

feminist lies .........,http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/a-catalog-of-cruelty

[Human]

Personally, I think that men and women should be completely, literally equal. If a man were to punch a woman in the face, he shouldn't get a longer jail sentence than if he punched a man. If the woman were to punch someone, she shouldn't get less. Just an example.
One of the things I hate the most, is that women pretty much almost always get to keep the children the majority of the time in a divorce. It's not fair.

[Charles Finley]

There is not multiple "legislators" and the legislator has no gender. The legislator is judicial fiction to talk about the lawmaking body.
I think it's cute when people try to be condescending and don't have the first clue about the topics they discuss. A legislator is a member of a legislature.
Women who don't pay child support also go to prison, and visitation rights are considered with the wellbeing of the child first. It has nothing to do with gender. BTW my ex-brother in law has complete custody of my nephew and my sister is not allowed visitation by the court.
Thank you for that lovely bit of anecdotal evidence that means absolutely nothing. Would you like some statistics?
79% of custodial single mothers are gainfully employed
50% work full time, year round
29% work part-time or part-year
92% of custodial single fathers are gainfully employed
74% work full time, year round
18% work part-time or part-year
Does that not imply judicial bias?
Studies have also shown that single-father homes have a higher standard of living, higher student graduation rate, and lower delinquency rate than single-mother homes. children are much better off with their mother than with their father, developmentally. Would you care to back up your claim?

[Amaryllis]

Gender equality can never be achieved.

You can change the laws but you cannot change the people. You can give equal opportunity but you cannot determine equal outcome. Gender conflict, in all likelihoods, will forever exist. It will persist should we continue to chase an ideal world of absolute fairness, because that is a world that exists only in abstraction.

Take yourself for an example - you believe the world is biased towards females, yes? That, in itself, is proof of the world's eternal inadequacy. Someone, somewhere, most likely until our extinction, will believe that someone, somewhere, is biased towards a certain sex. Because of that, gender equality cannot be achieved, because someone will always feel it unfair.

Men and women are different. We will always be different for the day we are not is the day we are no longer merely male and female. There are "double standards" against both sexes and everything in between. Men do not "have it worse." Most men will not react well to you calling them "girly," "sissy" or "pussy." Why? Because they are men and they hold their masculinity in high regard. Most women would not find "You look like a man" complimentary. Why? Because they are not men.

We are different.

Your questions - although some are valid questions - often generalise. A woman who sleeps with a married man is often called a "ho" or a "whore" - and sometimes, their families will never speak to them again.

As for television mums - firstly, that isn't true as I've seen many movies with terrible mothers. But even if it were true, it might have something to do with the mother - usually - having to carry a 10-pound human being in her uterus for 9 months. They are biologically more attracted to babies and motherly scenes than men are. Men are more attracted to sexy ladies with fertile hips - for obvious reasons as a human male's role is to spread his sperm and a human female's role is to give birth and care for the baby.

It's simple logic, really. Men and women were made for different things. I am not saying all women are good for is being foetus-hosts and you may choose to never have children, times are different and it is your choice. Perhaps one day men and women will not exist and we'll just have one species of asexual creatures, I don't know.

My point is, everyone is "sexist" to some extent. Do you expect men to take the cheque and do you prefer women to have long hair? Do you find hairy armpits on men alright and hairy armpits on women bizarre?

We have separate standards for different sexes because we are different. Women tend to be better at empathising and men tend to be better at problem-solving. I am not generalising. We are what we are.

Equal opportunity is not equal outcome. Changing the laws do not change the people. Changing your words will not change the science. We are different.

[Jean Poutine]

I think it's cute when people try to be condescending and don't have the first clue about the topics they discuss. A legislator is a member of a legislature.

"In continental European jurisprudence and legal discussion, "the legislator" (le législateur) is the abstract entity that has produced the laws."

I think it's cute when people are so closed in on themselves that they refuse to entertain the possibility that there might be multiple definitions. I happen to be an European-trained jurist. That would have been painfully obvious on the very first glance of my location.

Does that not imply judicial bias?

All it implies is that women have a tougher time in the labor market. This is nothing new.

It also implies that woman have in general lower-paying jobs, and it also implies that women have a much tougher time turning their life back around after a failed relationship. There is still a lot of homemakers and that doesn't go on a resume. So after a woman's lost everything, the Court should also take away her children? Don't think so, not without good reason, especially since...

Would you care to back up your claim?

No. I do not care ; in fact I do not give a shit. I'm lazy and I have more important things to do. If you're so interested you can always back it up yourself. A cursory glance reveals an abudance of usable sources.

For example : http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2206&context=californialawreview

oh see what i just did there

[Charles Finley]

"In continental European jurisprudence and legal discussion, "the legislator" (le législateur) is the abstract entity that has produced the laws."

I think it's cute when people are so closed in on themselves that they refuse to entertain the possibility that there might be multiple definitions. I happen to be an European-trained jurist. That would have been painfully obvious on the very first glance of my location.
Then why the devil would you correct someone else for using a term correctly?
All it implies is that women have a tougher time in the labor market. This is nothing new.

It also implies that woman have in general lower-paying jobs, and it also implies that women have a much tougher time turning their life back around after a failed relationship. There is still a lot of homemakers and that doesn't go on a resume. So after a woman's lost everything, the Court should also take away her children? Don't think so, not without good reason, especially since... To quote your own source, "All states recognize the welfare or "best interests" of the child as
the sole or paramount concern in the resolution of custody disputes
between parents following divorce or separation." The happiness of the mother is secondary.

No. I do not care ; in fact I do not give a shit. I'm lazy and I have more important things to do. If you're so interested you can always back it up yourself. A cursory glance reveals an abudance of usable sources.
If you're going to make a claim, you should damn well be prepared to back it up.
For example : http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2206&context=californialawreview

oh see what i just did there
Excellent job. I concede the point about children of single-father families doing better.

[Jean Poutine]

Then why the devil would you correct someone else for using a term correctly?

Because I didn't know any better - a wrong for a wrong here.

To quote your own source, "All states recognize the welfare or "best interests" of the child as
the sole or paramount concern in the resolution of custody disputes
between parents following divorce or separation." The happiness of the mother is secondary.

It is secondary. For good or for bad it's still a criterion though, even if not officially admitted.

If you're going to make a claim, you should damn well be prepared to back it up.

I am an asshole. I generally make flippant claims without caring about backing them up. As with the above.

[Charles Finley]

I am an asshole. I generally make flippant claims without caring about backing them up. As with the above.

That's a bad debating practice. If you're called on a claim that you've no intention of backing up, either concede the point or back it up anyway, as you did.