University Class Debate

Senno82 · 2017-01-31T16:30:47+00:00

Its a topic that can be divisive. Without knowing your school thats the best I can say. If you decide to go forward with it, be sure to have good research.

Rasalom72 · 2017-01-31T18:19:06+00:00

Just look at the MP Philip Davies... he's of the opinion that if he's not triggering feminists, he's not doing his job.

Feminists that black list you are worthless and you are better off not having anything to do with them. Women that will actually listen to what you say and relate to them are the kind of women you want ( and might just find you more attractive for being honest and brave ).

MattClark0995 · 2017-01-31T18:13:32+00:00

It may be social suicide but who cares. These issues deserve to be discussed.

As for articles, here's a good men's rights list.

If you really want to get some of the right folks angry at you, you can show them how much we dedicate to 'female issues'.

Rethgil · 2017-01-31T23:18:01+00:00

There's plenty examples of sources and so on. Just do some more searching on this site and you'll find all you need. In fact tbh, just Googling areas like suicide rates, workplace deaths, jail terms for similar crimes for different genders, treatment of male victims of dv, life expectancy, the wage gap myth, etc, etc ,etc will give you lots of proof so long as you use reliable unbiased sites.

Dembara · 2017-01-31T19:21:26+00:00

r/MRRef has a lot of reference sources.

r/mensrightslinks has more academic pieces.

double-happiness · 2017-01-31T21:17:37+00:00

As for me, I would love to discuss Mens' rights.

It's a big topic IMO. I'd suggest you discuss, or at least focus on, something more specific.

anonymous3182 · 2017-02-01T01:32:37+00:00

If you only do the odd debate (eg few) of men's rights you could avoid social suicide. Make sure you pick one that has lots of logic and backing. I say logic first because data will be questioned.

Pst pick circumcision as genital mutilation.

rg57 · 2017-02-01T02:38:13+00:00

is it networking and social suicide

It depends on you and your friends. Have you been outspoken about truly controversial topics before? You may trade a couple of bad friends for a new good one.

And it depends on what career you're going into. My guess is you'd be better off if you're heading to a career as your own boss.

I'm surprised by how many people support men's rights, and are anti-feminist, but will not say so in public for fear of losing their jobs.

MagicTampon · 2017-02-01T07:24:05+00:00

Yes, it's true that men receive sentences that are 60% longer for the same crime, after controlling for all variables, including severity of crime, prior criminal record, and all other factors:

Original paper here (follow the link to the pdf at the bottom): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002

Interestingly, this discrepancy became apparent after including disparities in plea bargaining (prosecutors treating females with greater clemency) and other pre-sentencing disparities (something that was not done in prior studies):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

Interestingly, this does not include and differences in how men are treated before making a decision to arrest, or in differences in deciding when to release prisoners (parole), meaning that the disparity in how men are treated is actually even larger.

In contrast, by the same methods, disparities between how blacks are sentenced vs whites are on the order of 10%. So the gender disparity against men is approximately 6x worse than the disparity based on race.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1985377

MagicTampon · 2017-02-01T07:24:19+00:00

There are a lot of lies floating around out there about how men are treated in family courts. In reality, men are treated very poorly. States have stymied researchers from studying the issue very closely, by claiming that the family court proceedings must be "secret" and therefore researchers don't have a lot of information. What information there is, is horribly biased and largely discredited:

http://breakingthescience.org/SJC_GBC_analysis_intro.php#mbr_analysis

"There is a legitimate argument that in the prevailing legal climate, the deck is so stacked against fathers that the only ones who do seek sole custody are those who have extraordinarily good cases, and therefore constitute a self-selected non-representative sample."

I have had several male friends who were told by their lawyers that it would be fruitless to vie for custody, because, as the male, the chances they would win it are horrible.

Some other misconceptions:

"NO FAULT" DIVORCE

Actually, we need shared custody legislation, not rolling back no fault divorce.

No fault divorce has never been tried anywhere. We'd actually be in much better circumstances, if we actually did have REAL no fault divorce.

We do not have no fault divorce in this country. We never have had it. In practice, what "no fault divorce" means today, is that the man (in a court of law) is always found to be at fault.

And because the man is always found to be at fault, women have great financial incentive to seek divorce. They literally get paid to divorce. That's the root of the problem.

More specifically, all the wording of a "no fault divorce" law states, is that couples may legally split without establishing the existence of one of the traditional grounds for divorce (desertion, abandonment, cruelty or adultery). That's all it says. By the old system, if you could not prove desertion, abandonment, cruelty or adultery, you literally could not get a divorce.

That's not good. The old system was pretty terrible.

But after reforms today, "no fault divorce", doesn't say that a court won't assign blame (what we normally consider the meaning of the word "fault") for a divorce. And the courts regularly do assign blame for divorce.

And in divorce, who do you think that the courts will as a matter of practice, blame for the divorce? That's right: always the person who has the penis (the male).

"No fault divorce" is not the problem at all. The problem is that we've established a legal system that always holds the man at fault.

We've gone from a system of having only four different reasons to assign fault for a divorce (desertion, abandonment, cruelty or adultery), to a system with an infinite number of reasons to assign fault for a divorce (he doesn't hug me enough).

This is hardly "no fault." "No fault" divorce laws have never been passed, anywhere.

And in so doing, we've created legal, financial and cultural enticements for the one who is most likely to breach the agreement.

We need shared custody legislation and court reform to counter bias and unfairness in divorce proceedings that favors females. We do not need a return to the old system of "fault divorce."

http://mensviews.com/how-feminist-and-liberal-women-have-ruined-marriage-for-men-and-our-society/

SHARED CUSTODY

In most states of the US, there actually is a presumption of joint legal custody of the child, unless one parent is deemed unfit. What they don't have in the US a presumption of shared (as opposed to joint) physical custody.

Basic terminology:

Joint legal custody: Both parents have the legal right to influence major decisions (medical, educational etc...). Has nothing to do with how much access the parents have to the child.
Shared (Physical) Custody: This form of custody means each parent receives roughly equal amounts of time spent with the child, and the parents work together to raise the child in the same manner that they would have if they were still together. [A bit of a bullshitter's definition, because the divorced parents typically do not live together. Shared custody means roughly equal amounts of time spent with the child, period. That's all it means.]
Joint (Physical) Custody: This type of custody, which comes in both the forms of legal and physical custody, focuses more on the tasks and responsibilities of each parent as a separate person instead of both parents together as a couple [usual bullshitter's definition, see below] ... Most joint custody arrangements involve an alternating schedule between each parent. However, one parent may have a much greater amount of physical custody time than the other parent. Also, one parent may have more parenting responsibilities than the other. [Actually, it's usually the case. A typical joint custody arrangement for the non-primary custodial parent is once every other weekend; generally not enough to maintain a meaningful long term relationship.]

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/shared-custody-vs-joint-custody.html

A recent North Dakota Bill was not just about joint legal custody, it was also about creating a presumption in favor of shared (as opposed to joint) physical custody. It was defeated due to opposition from women's groups and the ACLU (which was run by feminists in North Dakota).

Similar bills in a great many states have likewise been defeated after receiving pressure from women's groups.

The way things work in the US now, unless both parents agree to shared physical custody, there is a presumption that the courts will not award shared physical custody, but generally apply joint custody instead. If one of the two parents (almost always the female) demands primary physical custody, it forces the court to decide who is the primary physical custodian, and that person get the lion's share of time with the child. The courts are literally not able to award shared physical custody if one of the two parents (usually the female) objects.

This situation is largely a result of pressure from feminists groups, established through the courts.

Once every other weekend contact is typical for one of the parents in a joint custody arrangement (almost always the father).

Be careful not to unscrupulously accept terms such as "joint custody" as they are bandied about in literature or by journalists as in your paper.

The typical American arrangement for fathers is "contact" once every other weekend, which is frankly not a basis to maintain a long term emotional tie to a child.

CHILD SUPPORT

Here, you need to read about the Federal Bradley Amendment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Amendment#Controversy

contractor808 · 2017-02-01T16:13:02+00:00

Choose a single issue. Working broadly provides an opportunity to argue in circles about society, gender roles, and whataboutism.

Title	University Class Debate
Author	Titan0129
Upvotes	19
Comments	15
Date	January 31, 2017 3:55 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5r8ywv/university_class_debate/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/university-class-debate.932939 https://theredarchive.com/post/932939

Comments