[Luis Dias]

Believe that woman as you like, I cannot even take one word she says as anything remotely near the "truth". After that long post by her boyfriend, why on Earth does anyone still believes any word that comes from her is somewhat of a mystery to me. My inclination is, "She said something, probably untrue, without external proof I'll take it as untrue period". Pretty sure that my skepticism is probably mysoginism of the highest order, waiting to have the police knocking my door for raping some sensitivity now!

While I understand Karajorma's decision to move this thread to GenDisc (after all a lot of the discussion went to become less focused on games), I question it precisely on the merit of the followup prediction of it being destroyed within 3-4 posts at the most. It's obviously not the intention to shred a thread to ruins by moving it to GenDisc, but if this consequence of moving it is so predictable, then wouldn't it be better if it stayed in GameDisc?

[MP-Ryan]

Perhaps you may find unattributed, unsourced, anecdotal opinion pieces fun to read, but they're generally considered irrelevant by anyone actually wanting to discuss an issue.

Discussion IS sharing of opinions.

What the hell do you think you're doing when posting?
Or when you post a video of someone talking about the issue?
Or do you consider opinions and thought of everyone but you (or people you approve of) irrelevant?

Really Ryan, get off your high horse for a minute.

I'm guessing TrashMan can no longer respond to this since it's in GD, but I'll respond to this anyway.

The difference between quoting what you did, and things like what Scotty and Luis did, is that in your case we have no means of knowing who wrote it, why they wrote it, or what information they were working from when they wrote it.  Opinion articles aren't bad; unattributed/unsourced ones are (unless they contain internal citations in which case you can usually evaluate them).

More generally, if this thread is going to devolve into the GamerGate nonsense, which I have explicitly avoided paying any attention to because the entire thing is idiotic, then I am OUT.

[Bobboau]

well, if you have explicitly ignored it then you might not be aware of the fact that you are knee deep in it right now.

[karajorma]

While I understand Karajorma's decision to move this thread to GenDisc (after all a lot of the discussion went to become less focused on games), I question it precisely on the merit of the followup prediction of it being destroyed within 3-4 posts at the most. It's obviously not the intention to shred a thread to ruins by moving it to GenDisc, but if this consequence of moving it is so predictable, then wouldn't it be better if it stayed in GameDisc?

Basically it was a sarcastic reminder to all concerned to NOT destroy the thread. This thread has been pretty good so far. Keep it that way.

And for that matter, my opinion (Taking off the admin hat for a moment) is that we should continue the sensible topic on sexism and avoid this gamergate crap.

[Luis Dias]

I'm personally interested in this #gamergate crap myself, but I agree we could discuss more interesting things here

[MP-Ryan]

I agree we could discuss more interesting things here

+1

[Bobboau]

maybe splitting the GG stuff off would be a good move? then it can continue it's life cycle without taking this thread down with it.

[Mongoose]

Or everyone could just collectively Stop Talking About It so that there's nothing to split.

[Bobboau]

I somehow do not think that is likely to happen any time in the near future.

also that tech crunch article on the last page was really good, not specifically on the GG stuff but on online communities in general. makes some good points about accountability.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Believe that woman as you like, I cannot even take one word she says as anything remotely near the "truth". After that long post by her boyfriend, why on Earth does anyone still believes any word that comes from her is somewhat of a mystery to me. My inclination is, "She said something, probably untrue, without external proof I'll take it as untrue period". Pretty sure that my skepticism is probably mysoginism of the highest order, waiting to have the police knocking my door for raping some sensitivity now!

Given that you're skeptical of everything she says, but apparently believe everything her ex-boyfriend says, despite no evidence of her having lied about anything... yup, that sounds like misogyny to me!

If you don't like being called a misogynist, maybe you shouldn't act like one.

[Scotty]

Believe that woman as you like, I cannot even take one word she says as anything remotely near the "truth". After that long post by her boyfriend, why on Earth does anyone still believes any word that comes from her is somewhat of a mystery to me. My inclination is, "She said something, probably untrue, without external proof I'll take it as untrue period". Pretty sure that my skepticism is probably mysoginism of the highest order, waiting to have the police knocking my door for raping some sensitivity now!

Given that you're skeptical of everything she says, but apparently believe everything her ex-boyfriend says, despite no evidence of her having lied about anything... yup, that sounds like misogyny to me!

If you don't like being called a misogynist, maybe you shouldn't act like one.

I'm personally interested in this #gamergate crap myself, but I agree we could discuss more interesting things here

I share a viewpoint with Luis at the moment.  Could we please navigate back to the previous discussion?

[Bobboau]

...

could you not go for the low hanging bait one time? she is shouting the damned rallying cry for the SJW side, how could she possibly be considered reliable? and she is one ****ing person who has a very visible recent history, his opinion of her cannot possibly be used to extrapolate how he feels about women in general. but then again if name calling is the best you've got why should I care what your opinion is.

[AdmiralRalwood]

she is shouting the damned rallying cry for the SJW side, how could she possibly be considered reliable?

What rallying cry? Also, would that make you pro-social-injustice?

and she is one ****ing person who has a very visible recent history, his opinion of her cannot possibly be used to extrapolate how he feels about women in general.

It was just the most recent example of him acting like a misogynist; the inherent cognitive dissonance was too extreme to let pass without comment.

but then again if name calling is the best you've got why should I care what your opinion is.

* AdmiralRalwood bursts out laughing

Point out one instance of me name-calling anyone.

[Hades]

but then again if name calling is the best you've got why should I care what your opinion is.

* AdmiralRalwood bursts out laughing

Point out one instance of me name-calling anyone.

would you be implying that being a misogynist is fine because calling someone such isn't name-calling/insulting?

[Scotty]

I share a viewpoint with Luis at the moment.  Could we please navigate back to the previous discussion?

This is no longer a polite request.

[Bobboau]

What rallying cry? Also, would that make you pro-social-injustice?
gamergate is a bunch of blahblahblah, gamers are dead blahblah, gameovergate, etc, read her twitter

Point out one instance of me name-calling anyone.

what he said

[karajorma]

Alright, let's make it clear. Next person who talks about gamergate gets banned for 3 days from Gen Discuss.

In family law, the disproportionate focus on women's wants has worsened men's standing and has disenfranchised countless of divorced fathers.

In laws about sexual offences, the alarmism about a so-called "rape-culture" fueled with false statistics like the 1 in 5 women wreaks havoc on US colleges and universities, demolitioning human relationships and due process.

You're going to have to provide citations for at least both of these claims.  Dividing the Child (that's a book, by the way) addresses the first issue directly, and comes to the conclusion that there is not a disproportionate focus on women's wants.  I'll quote the relevant section:

We have found that although mothers receive sole physical custody in the vast majority of cases, the proportion of joint or father custody outcomes approaches 50 percent for high-conflict families. At first blush, this finding would appear to disprove allegations that the California divorce process reflects and perpetuates gender bias. Why, after all, shouldn’t a 50-50 distribution of outcomes suggest gender neutrality?

Both advocates for women’s rights and advocates for fathers’ rights would probably reject this reading of our findings, and in fact the presence or absence of gender bias in the legal process is not so simple to establish. A fathers’ rights group might well argue that since the overall gender ratio in cases where there are conflicting requests is 2 to 1, the law in action still reflects a maternal presumption. Why, after all, would fathers who conceded custody at lower levels of the conflict pyramid have settled for less than they wanted if they believed they had a 50 percent chance? Advocates for women, on the other hand, would counter that our findings demonstrate that escalation of legal conflict over custody clearly operates to the benefit of fathers. As we demonstrated in Chapter 3 before divorce mothers are the primary caretakers of children far more often than men. Thus, a 50-50 distribution of outcomes should be considered neither fair nor neutral. Rather, a “fair” distribution of outcomes should reflect differences in the care-taking base rate for mothers and fathers.

Alternatively, suppose that, on the merits, custody claims of mothers were, on the average, no stronger than the claims of fathers. (Imagine a judge going into her chambers and flipping a coin in all contested cases.) The outcome ratios might still vary by conflict level if most mothers simply cared more about the custodial outcomes than most fathers, and were therefore more prepared to escalate the conflict to a higher level rather than settle for less than their preferred custodial alternative. Because it takes time and energy to work one’s way up the conflict pyramid, this would imply that only in a small minority of families would the father be prepared to pay the price, even though those who did so might have a 50 percent chance of prevailing.

But one thing does seem reasonably clear: our finding that the gender ratio of custody decrees at the top approaches 50-50 even though the overall ratio among conflicted cases is closer to 2 to 1 in favor of mothers demonstrates neither the presence nor the absence of gender bias.

I'm going to make the counterpoint that this sort of quote is exactly the sort of thing that wouldn't be accepted if it was about a women's issue. Even if I agree with Luis that the writer obviously has issues with understanding how to write about mathmatics and his actual point is that men get a fair deal at the top level it's still an unacceptable conclusion to reach that this means the justice system is fair.

The issue of women being paid less than men for the same job is one of feminism's most famous issues. It's quite probable that this is very little to do with direct sexism ("Hey, let's be bastards and pay the women less the men") and more to do with the fact that companies can get away with giving women a lower starting wage and lower annual pay rises simply because women in general won't demand as much as men do. I agree with any feminist who says that this is an obvious problem with the way society expects women not to be as demanding and forthright as a man about making such demands for fear of being thought of as a *****. But let's have some fairness when the shoe is on the other foot and we're discussing a men's right issue. 

The writer is making the argument that men don't drag their custody cases through the courts until they become what he terms high-conflict cases and therefore don't get a fair deal. He's basically saying that men get a raw deal in court cause they don't care enough about their kids to fight for them. This completely ignores the fact that expecting a raw deal from the divorce courts makes this a self-fulfilling prophecy even if there is no actual sexism. And that's assuming a perfect court system rather than one which is unfair at the bottom but gets better towards the higher level where you are dealing with better qualified judges.

[Luis Dias]

That's an analogy that I hadn't thought up previously, but it fits. If one is indeed inclined to believe and assert that the wage gap is due to a systemic bias against women in regard to the speed of advances in their career and so on, then one cannot in the other hand assert that in custody cases systemic biases suddenly disappear and that women's dominance in the stats is actually men's fault again somehow, and not an analogous systemic bias against men.

I think both are equally credible biases that we could be more aware of.

[karajorma]

Funny thing is that I've often said that men's failure to get a fair deal in divorce court is pretty harmful to women in and of itself. Sure it means they get the kids more often, but it reinforces the notion that women are the ones who should be looking after children, not men. And there's a lot of sexist bull**** that flows downhill from that particular notion.

[SkycladGuardian]

That's an analogy that I hadn't thought up previously, but it fits. If one is indeed inclined to believe and assert that the wage gap is due to a systemic bias against women in regard to the speed of advances in their career and so on, then one cannot in the other hand assert that in custody cases systemic biases suddenly disappear and that women's dominance in the stats is actually men's fault again somehow, and not an analogous systemic bias against men.

I think both are equally credible biases that we could be more aware of.

The analogy does not work, since the wage gap does not exist.