Are women in the West "systematically discriminated against", as feminists claim?

Question

What system? How is it coordinated? Are there secret meetings, conventions, newsletters?

(See one of the last answers from a prominent GWS feminist.)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgROcheV.TqYiw7QQ4rbkmcYxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20080716000554AAYKGP3

Answer 1

Of course not! The only discrimination that goes on now is by feminists treating us stay at home moms like we're brainless, oppressed wife's of ogres.

They hate that collage educated women see the huge flaws in feminism and choose to disregard their "words to live by", (ie, toss you're kids in daycare and be a career b**ch.)

Don't believe me?? Google Linda Hirshman, shes a prominent leader in the feminist "movement" today. You don't have to read very far and you'll see just what she thinks of stay at home moms.

Answer 2

Not no but h**l no....

Answer 3

No. Those days have long passed.

Answer 4

Not so much anymore, but there was definite systematic discrimination against women throughout the past few centuries. It wasn't a coordinated effort, really, just a series of similar efforts that happened at the same time amid a constant media refrain.

Answer 5

Maybe by feminists, but not by men.  The tables have been turned and the women who fought for the fair treatment of SAHMs and such, have now become the persecutors.  Between traditional women and men, feminists have ample people to bully.  They have more rights than both traditional women and men  put together.

Answer 6

Not anymore. If it has happened in the past, they have all been put together to be shoved into our mouths NOW, while putting out all those anti-men laws (like the law in England that prohibits corporations from offering an equally qualified man the job if an equally qualified woman turns up).

I repeat from my other response regarding women and fire-fighting. A woman that became a fire-fighter because some standards were lowered, becomes the weakest link in that chain, to be euphemistic. If more women couldnt join the fire-fighting job because standards were NOT lowered, I understand why there arent equal number of women and men there, and dont even complain about it. If that is "systematic discrimination", so be it. My life is more important to me than my being politically correct.

Answer 7

You do realize that wage discrimination based on gender is still allowed, according to the Supreme Court?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Answer 8

How did they find out about those secret Water Buffalo meetings?

Wooooo a Wahhhhhh,  Woooooo a Wahhhhhh!

Fred Flinstone

(We'd be glad to start if they want us to)

Answer 9

No, the discrimination is going the other way around.

Answer 10

Women in their late 20s and early 30s are somewhat discriminated against in the job application process due to our maternity laws, but not exactly in a 'systematic' manner.

Doodlebug, once again those CPS guidelines are not gender specific. This has to be about the tenth time that I have pointed this out. Can you read? Why are you insisting on spreading misinformation?

Zinedine - I've responded to Doodlebug's other links numerous times. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again, especially when it doesn't relate to the question.

Answer 11

sam, guidelines in many countries aren't gender-specific, but for some strange reason men seem to have more trouble getting justice than women. A whole lot more. We're talking about male victims being told to 'be a man' and laughed at. Which police officer would receive sympathy, let alone support, for doing this to a female victim?

And you haven't responded to doodlebugjimv2's other links. You know he's right with those.

VAWA is state gender-neutral, and we know all too well how 'easy' it is for men to get justice. If a man is near death after a fight and the woman has a few scratches, the woman WILL be believed if she says she retaliated in self-defence and he just fell down the stairs or something and she didn't push him. And after paying the hospital bill, the man will be in jail.

I don't see the logic in a man supporting a working woman after divorce even after he's lost his house to her.

We know all too well how true the wage gap was. As was the case with '1 in 4' and the like.

Like doodlebugjimv2 says, it seems like men are systematically discriminated against. You feminists just think of men as sperm machines and walking ATM's. You've made laws that have made men the playthings of women: disposable and easily replaceable.

I'll use your famous line you always use in abortion arguments, only with a slight modification:

"You're not a man. You'll never understand."

Read Gun Fanatic's and Undertaker's answers here. Feminists (as usual) deleted a question where they lost the argument, but a snapshot of this gem of a question was saved:

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:IXn...

Answer 12

Indian women think that they are discriminated against if a man is not jailed for insulting a woman.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo...

American women think that they are discriminated against if a man is not jailed if she is afraid he might harm her

http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/news/f...

Mexican women think that they are discriminated against if their husband is not jailed for not sleeping with them

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnou...

British women think they are discriminated against if they get too many phone calls or unreasonable criticism from their partner and he is not jailed

(http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/...

p.34).

The question is, don't all these laws mean that men are systematically discriminated against?

Edit

@ Sam:  Can you imagine what a laugh they would have at the police station if a man phone in to ask the police to arrest his wife because she was phoning him too often or criticising him too much?  They would still be laughing about it years later.