Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.
It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.
I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.
Support the archive
[–]ignaciocordoba44[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
They name a few exceptions and hide the vast majority of the cases when women get rarely/little consequences, compared to when it were men, as well as they don't mention objective percentages of the totality from numerous studies. Thus, manipulation and gaslighting.
Women are 2 times less likely to get convicted in case of an allegation in average (percentage of the totality, round 50% less convictions for allegations, compared to men).
Women get 63% less severe consequences for the same crime in average in terms of prison time and financial punishments (percentage of totality).
Basically, they name the few exceptions when men had no consequences for crimes and the few exceptions when women had harsh consequences.
Women have advantages and disadvantages and men have advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages of women are rarely/little consequences for abuses and crimes.
If I would use the same manipulative tactics naming exceptions to dismiss an advantage of the own sex, I'd say "No, women don't have less money then men. Look at the owner of L'Oreal, J.K. Rowling or Bezos Ex-Wife who are all female billionaires and those male homeless people at the metro station next to us."
The difference per percentage is what counts.