The Real Sexism Project.... www.realsexism.com

[_Lemmie]

Thanks for the laugh, canpakes!

And you're right, Blixa, however, since statistical analysis is one of my hobbies, I thought I would indulge myself a little here!

I went to that miserable site he got his brain-dead list from, and picked three at random.

Not a single statement I evaluated was properly statistically supported or represented in correct statistical context.

From "Men pay 97% of alimony," I was redirected to a newspaper article where all I could find was that in 2008, men comprised 97% of alimony-payers.

Not the same thing at all. Counting people is not the same as counting money.

From "Men are over twice as victimized by strangers as women," the link led to a report that did state that "In 2010, males experienced violent victimizations by strangers at nearly twice the rate of females" but the emphasis of that section of the report was to note that "from 1993 to 2010, males experienced a larger decline (83%) than females (76%) in the rate of violence committed by strangers."

Again, the statement inaccurately represented the emphasis of the data, instead cherry-picking a single aspect for a single year of the multi-year study focused on trends over time.

From "Court bias against men is at least 6 times greater than racial bias," the source is a Michigan Law study where the length of incarceration between genders is evaluated, controlling for arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics. Men have 63% longer sentences than women, on average.

The problem arises when this statistic is compared to race, where it's stated that on average black males receive 10% longer sentences than whites, after controlling for similar (but not identical!) data.

First, you can't compare a gender assessment to a race assessment unless you comparably define the sets. So if gender is composed of male and not male (female), then the corresponding set would be black and not black. However, the second paper uses the set of black males and white males, not a comparable set.

Second, the race study eliminates all cases involving drugs, while the gender study eliminates all cases where involving weapons, sex and pornography, and family offenses!

So not only are the gender/race measurements incomparable, the criminal offense database is wildly different and the control variables don't match. There is simply no way to take conclusions across these two papers and assume they can be compared.

It's simplistic and grossly misleading to take 1 single measurement representing length of time, sets of disparate data analyzing completely different behaviors using different statistical methods and controls and collapse it into '6 times more court bias.'

So my sample of 3 showed 100% biased, inadequate, or just plain wrong statistical analyses.

If any of my students had made statistical conclusions like any of the three above, I would hand it back and say fix this or fail.

So much for teletubbie ffaqs' stats. He really needs to step up his research efforts; for today's efforts I would give him an F.

[_Jersey Girl]

80% of all suicides are men.

I don't have time to dig anything up right now, but I'm pretty sure that if you searched for it, you'd find that women far surpass men in suicide attempts. But so far as completed suicides, yes, I think the stat there is probably correct and that has a lot to do with the methods that males use vs. females.

[_MsJack]

How many religions only allow female clergy vs. religions that only allow male clergy?

There's your sexism.

[_Some Schmo]

I honestly cannot comprehend what would motivate a male to express an opinion that males are somehow oppressed. While there may be one-off areas where females have a slight advantage, to try to make it sound like women have most of the advantages is just, well, screwed up.

You have to be a pretty insecure male to complain that men aren't getting a better deal.

[_ldsfaqs]

Part of the point of the website is to parallel much of the absurdity of Feminist claims, that simply because a particular sex is "more" of something, doesn't mean there is some grand patriarchal conspiracy against women.

The second part, is to show sobering facts about men.

by the way Lemmie, I'm not going to go through each of your errors, but your first fact claimed debunking is simply generic wording, and potentially a non-English speaker, likely Canadian. The "understanding" however is still the same. We know what was meant. That men pay 97% of Alimony awards. We understood the intent of the statement, even if worded imperfectly.

[_Jersey Girl]

. That men pay 97% of Alimony awards.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the above stat is accurate. I don't know if it is or not and I really am not going to look it up.

Why do you think that men pay more in alimony (maintenance) than women do?

[_ldsfaqs]

. That men pay 97% of Alimony awards.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the above stat is accurate. I don't know if it is or not and I really am not going to look it up.

Why do you think that men pay more in alimony (maintenance) than women do?

Well, certainly it's not saying that only 3% of women are successful, thus it's saying there is a clear bias against men in alimony awards.
We also know that most divorces are instigated by women, that being 69% of the time.

[_subgenius]

We all have better things to do.

yet, here you be....

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well. Men are responsible for the system we're in. You can throw a bunch of stats at me, but at the end of the day when nature makes a male mammal stronger, that male mammal typically tries to dominate in order to pass on its genetic material (“F”).

Sure, we're more or less enlightened these days, but even with all our knowledge, altruism, and progressiveness dudes want to pass on their genetic material (“F”) and to do that to the best of their ability they tend to dominate in business and government.

In other words, past men created the system in which we find ourselves, and if we current men don't like it then maybe we need to be more inclusive of our other halves so we can change any perceived inequities we're experiencing. I'm just not sure we're going to really get away from our natures, though. Alphas tend to want to pass on their genetic materially (“F”) really really badly, and thus they tend to dominate to ensure others don't get their opportunities at wealth and power which facilitate passing on one's genetic material (damned).

I'm not even going to touch what motivates a woman, but what I do think is really crappy is to deny them opportunity... But then again they have to compete against Alpha males in business and government and those dudes have their crap locked down tight (aided and abetted by their supportive women).

Anyway. Women, and it's a fact, are far, far, far more victimized by men than the other way around. So, I'm not really sure what LDSFAQs is suggesting. While my life hasn't been an easy one by any measure, I was literally groomed to compete in this world for my share. I wasn't given much quarter, but on the same token the fact that I was held accountable and responsible for my actions, words, and deeds from toddlerhood through now prepared me to exist in a world that doesn't really give a flying fuckall about me or my family. Couple that with the inherent advantages I've enjoyed being male, white, American, and a GODDAMN EAGLE SCOUT and I was better prepared than many to end up where I'm at these days which is damned RETIRED AT AGE 44!!! Wubba wubba dubba!!!

Cry me a river boys, if you feel victimized. Reach on down somewhere around your perineum and see if you still have a set, because if you're bitching about the unfairness of life here in America you're a damned pussy and couldn't hack it. That makes you Life's bitch. Hop on your Rascal, take a trip down to Walmart, park in front of their deli, and eat yourself some greasy deep fried chicken... Because that's the only thing you're good at.

V/R
Doctor Cameron, NC for Me

[_Lemmie]

Part of the point of the website is to parallel much of the absurdity of Feminist claims,

BS. Way to cowardly backtrack.

The second part, is to show sobering facts about men.

So the second reason is the opposite of the first. Trying to hedge your bets? Is it dawning on you how idiotic this site is?

by the way Lemmie, I'm not going to go through each of your errors

Why not? Because I made no errors?

...but your first fact claimed debunking is simply generic wording, and potentially a non-English speaker, likely Canadian. The "understanding" however is still the same. We know what was meant. That men pay 97% of Alimony awards. We understood the intent of the statement, even if worded imperfectly.

Omg. No, no, NO!!! No, ldsfaqs, your fact list stated 'men pay 97% of alimony," and reference it linked to DID NOT say that.

The wording of the original research was inaccurately portrayed in your list and you are making the same error. AGAIN. Even though I explained it. You don't change the meaning of a paper, and say, we all know the author really didn't mean that. Omg.

You blame it on 'generic wording' of a 'potentially English,' 'likely Canadian' 'speaker,' even though it is a written paper. What utter BS.

Well I had my fun with the stats, so I'll leave the idiot to his imaginary 'genius level' research. Ldsfaqs, the academic level of your thinking barely approaches middle school.