Male discrimination?

[ksst]

If you can have men's and women's dressing rooms/bathrooms/spas/exercise classes, why not hotel floors? I personally would not be interested in staying there, on that floor, but it's ok if others have that option.

Personally, I'm in favor of women being drafted, if anyone has to be drafted. And not because I only have sons; I have always felt that way.

[denuseri]

Thanks thir!

And I agree that we "shouldn't" have too carry a gun to feel safe.

All that aside....whats wrong with sexual segregation?

We all know that making everything completely co-ed is a non starter... right?

[thir]

[I][B]Thanks thir!

And I agree that we "shouldn't" have too carry a gun to feel safe.

All that aside....whats wrong with sexual segregation?

Segregation means forcibly seperating people, yes? No, I think people have a right to choose.

We all know that making everything completely co-ed is a non starter... right?

Co-ed??

[denuseri]

Segregation means forcibly seperating people, yes? No, I think people have a right to choose.



Co-ed??

No.

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

Force isn't required at all...we already for the most part in one way or another live in a gender stratified-sexually segregated society.

IE: separate locker rooms, bathing facilities and bathrooms in most public places.

The trend appears to be one of slowly becoming more and more de-segragated however. Not too long ago men and women sat on opposite sides of the Church for instance...in some societies they didn't eat meals at the same time or in the same room. In ancient Greece women were not even allowed to view any of the male events at the Olympic games.

Co-ed simply means shared...like Co-ed dorms where males and females live next too each other or in some cases even share a room.

[Punish_her]

No.

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

Force isn't required at all...we already for the most part in one way or another live in a gender stratified-sexually segregated society.

IE: separate locker rooms, bathing facilities and bathrooms in most public places.

The trend appears to be one of slowly becoming more and more de-segragated however. Not too long ago men and women sat on opposite sides of the Church for instance...in some societies they didn't eat meals at the same time or in the same room. In ancient Greece women were not even allowed to view any of the male events at the Olympic games.

Co-ed simply means shared...like Co-ed dorms where males and females live next too each other or in some cases even share a room.

males and females do share rooms at more liberal colleges. I had a friend who lived with 3 girls in college

also, the first olympics were in the nude, maybe the athletes got a bit shy
just imagine the five man bobsled

[Thorne]

also, the first olympics were in the nude, maybe the athletes got a bit shy
just imagine the five man bobsled

Considering that the bobsled is done in winter, on a frozen course, with the icy breeze from your speed causing every exposed nerve to shrivel, I don't think it would have been a problem. (Of course, they didn't HAVE bobsleds then, OR Winter Olympics.)

[lucy]

The trend appears to be one of slowly becoming more and more de-segragated however.

Not so sure about that. Proposing a return back to gender-segregated schools is still considered a sacrilege around here, but there are more and more articles and studies being published about the topic.
All, or at least most, of those studies show that nobody profits from coeducation. Not the boys, and certainly not the girls, for whose benefit coeducation first was demanded.

[Thorne]

All, or at least most, of those studies show that nobody profits from coeducation. Not the boys, and certainly not the girls, for whose benefit coeducation first was demanded.

The problem is that going to separate schools brings back the old problem of "separate but equal", which was anything but equal! I went to a co-ed high school while my brothers went to boys only high schools. I can't see any difference in the quality of education, nor did I ever notice any difficulty on my part related to being in a class with girls. I'd like to see who's doing these studies, and how comprehensive they are, before I say whether they were good or bad.

[thir]

Co-ed simply means shared...like Co-ed dorms where males and females live next too each other or in some cases even share a room.[/B][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

ok, thanks

[StrictMasterD]

If the Hotel is privtely owned and not owned by a Corporationwith Stock Holders, at lest in the United States, privately held companiescan set their own rules look at Augusta National Golf Course in Georgai, it has been around for yearsm does not allow Female Members BUT they are a Privately owned Course
IBM is their biggest sponsor for the US Open and the Green Jackets, the CEO of IBM is now a Female, it wil be interesting to see if Augusta offer Membership to their New Female CEO, if they do not IBM should pul it's supportof the US Open out, unless they offer and she simply kindly turns them down
Thisis 2012 foklks not 1912
The issue alwasways has been and probbly alwayswil be can they do thisif they are Privatelt owned as oppsed to a Public Company with Shareholders

[Punish_her]

nobody seems to understand the blinding flash of irony here.
Lucy says, and i quote, "@punish_her: If men go at each other because they drink too much and don't know what to do with their testosterone or just because they are gangsters, that's their problem and isn't really discrimination, because, you know, men can't discriminate other men because of their sex."

What you are saying here is quite simply, "men get attacked because they put themselves in situations where they are more likely to get attacked."


you are completely excusing violence against men just because other men are doing it. That is discrimation. You are discriminating against men by saying that they are the reason they are attacked. I think violence against women is a horrible thing, so is violence against men, you, on the other hand, don't give two shits that men gett atttacked because of the reasons you just gave, you said them, you are discriminating against men.

You are a misandrist and a perpetuator of discrimination, there is no other way to put it, and I see no reason in continuing this any longer with you.

[lucy]

nobody seems to understand the blinding flash of irony here.
Lucy says, and i quote, "@punish_her: If men go at each other because they drink too much and don't know what to do with their testosterone or just because they are gangsters, that's their problem and isn't really discrimination, because, you know, men can't discriminate other men because of their sex."

What you are saying here is quite simply, "men get attacked because they put themselves in situations where they are more likely to get attacked."
you are completely excusing violence against men just because other men are doing it. That is discrimation. You are discriminating against men by saying that they are the reason they are attacked.

We are, in this thread, discussing discrimination (well, most of us are, anyway). Originally, it was about discriminating males. I said that males beating males can't really be discrimination, because, you see, it is inherently impossible for one group of people to discriminate itself. At least that's what I understand.
Also, if guys get drunk/do drugs/use weapons on each other, that's horrible, but still not discrimination. If anything, it's stupidity.
Anyway, I don't expect you to understand my argument the third time around when you didn't get it the first two times.

Still: I did not excuse any violence. Not violence against women, nor violence against men. If you read that in my post, I'd say you should go have some reading classes.
I said that this is a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not discrimination, but bad luck. Not topic of this thread, though.
And, also, you're right about one thing: it's not one of the things I care too much about. I didn't even care too much about when it happened to me. Put a plaster on my forehead, swore and cried for some time, shrugged it off as bad luck, took the same way home the next day (with the phone in hand and the emergency number already punched in, though )
So why should I give a rat's ass if some drunk guys smash in each other's head?

[Punish_her]

We are, in this thread, discussing discrimination (well, most of us are, anyway). Originally, it was about discriminating males. I said that males beating males can't really be discrimination, because, you see, it is inherently impossible for one group of people to discriminate itself. At least that's what I understand.
Also, if guys get drunk/do drugs/use weapons on each other, that's horrible, but still not discrimination. If anything, it's stupidity.
Anyway, I don't expect you to understand my argument the third time around when you didn't get it the first two times.

Still: I did not excuse any violence. Not violence against women, nor violence against men. If you read that in my post, I'd say you should go have some reading classes.
I said that this is a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not discrimination, but bad luck. Not topic of this thread, though.
And, also, you're right about one thing: it's not one of the things I care too much about. I didn't even care too much about when it happened to me. Put a plaster on my forehead, swore and cried for some time, shrugged it off as bad luck, took the same way home the next day (with the phone in hand and the emergency number already punched in, though )
So why should I give a rat's ass if some drunk guys smash in each other's head?

misandrist

[lucy]

misandrist

You still didn't get it, right?

[Punish_her]

You still didn't get it, right?

yes i do, you're a misandrist

[js207]

Fields in which women who perform the same tasks as men make significantly less pay!

Almost all of which is explained by different working pattern and career choices, rather than discrimination. Given two, say, software developers aged 35. One is female and took a five year career break to raise children, the other is male and did not. Which do you expect to earn more? Then, when you look at computer programmers aged 30-40, of course the women have a lower average pay - because they've got less experience on average, despite being the same age!

There are other issues too, different priorities: for example, I expect female employees are more likely to take an option with slightly lower pay for greater flexibility or other benefits. My own mother recently switched to 90% employment in a condensed working week - 10% less salary and longer days on those four, in exchange for having every Friday free. 10% less pay - for more free time. The job also pays less money in the first place, in exchange for better vacation and flex-time (which, for example, lets you get an additional 18 days off through the year by working extra hours on other days if you wish) - and as it happens, that setup has attracted more female than male staff, while men tend to choose the higher salaries and harder hours of other employers in the same field.

[lucy]

So far that's about right. Women do make different choices. In general, women aren't as hot for careers as are men, for a lot of different reasons.

However this:

One is female and took a five year career break to raise children, the other is male and did not.

is pretty fucked up, isn't it? Women being punished for raising children. An economic system that treats women like this and punishes them for raising kids should be changed, and changed asap, too.

Because it's a very bad move, in the long run. It might sooner or later keep well educated women from having kids at all. As a matter of fact, that's what's already happening. Which leaves procreation to the idiots/uneducated masses/trailer park folks/immigrants.

Kind of an evolutionary downwards spiral, imho.

[Punish_her]

So far that's about right. Women do make different choices. In general, women aren't as hot for careers as are men, for a lot of different reasons.

However this:

is pretty fucked up, isn't it? Women being punished for raising children. An economic system that treats women like this and punishes them for raising kids should be changed, and changed asap, too.

Because it's a very bad move, in the long run. It might sooner or later keep well educated women from having kids at all. As a matter of fact, that's what's already happening. Which leaves procreation to the idiots/uneducated masses/trailer park folks/immigrants.

Kind of an evolutionary downwards spiral, imho.

so if a woman's not working, she should still be paid? that's complete idiocy
how fair is it for a company to have to give a woman time off, hire someone to replace the woman, then fire the new guy the second the woman comes back?
oh, well, you'd be all for that because fuck men, women need everything

[thir]

so if a woman's not working, she should still be paid? that's complete idiocy
how fair is it for a company to have to give a woman time off, hire someone to replace the woman,

I guess that depends entirely on whether this country wants more people or not..
However, many employers are happy to do this, in order to keep a valued employee.

then fire the new guy the second the woman comes back?

Yes, of course. He would have know that when he took the job.

[js207]

is pretty fucked up, isn't it? Women being punished for raising children.

No - it is fucked up that you think it is "punishment" to lose salary for not doing a job for several years. If I suddenly decide I want to become an airline pilot now, should I get paid the same as someone who has been doing it since leaving school, i.e. has well over a decade more experience than me? You think if someone takes several years off, they should step back in as if they'd been working and gaining experience in the job all that time, even though they haven't? Would you be happy to be operated on by a surgeon who hasn't actually held a scalpel in years, but wants to pretend otherwise?

Because it's a very bad move, in the long run. It might sooner or later keep well educated women from having kids at all. As a matter of fact, that's what's already happening. Which leaves procreation to the idiots/uneducated masses/trailer park folks/immigrants.

Kind of an evolutionary downwards spiral, imho.

You have a point there. Of course, most measures that promote child-bearing make that problem worse...

[thir]

No - it is fucked up that you think it is "punishment" to lose salary for not doing a job for several years. If I suddenly decide I want to become an airline pilot now, should I get paid the same as someone who has been doing it since leaving school, i.e. has well over a decade more experience than me?

Why several years? There are day care institutions, and a father, mostly.

You think if someone takes several years off, they should step back in as if they'd been working and gaining experience in the job all that time, even though they haven't? Would you be happy to be operated on by a surgeon who hasn't actually held a scalpel in years, but wants to pretend otherwise?

So, we should stop having children?

[js207]

Why several years? There are day care institutions, and a father, mostly.

Most mothers - and indeed fathers - seem to want to spend time with their kids. Even if it means taking a cut in pay to do so. For various reasons, it's more likely to be the mother than the father doing this, particularly in the early stages: men tend not to be very good at breast feeding.

In my own family, my mother switched to working part-time as a languages teacher after I was born, having previously been a full time export manager. As a new and part-time teacher, of course she'd have been paid less than one with more experience, male or female - and that will have pulled the average for female teachers her age down slightly. I see Lucy agrees this is not "punishment"; I'm hoping we can now agree this isn't wrong, either? (Ban that, she'd have had to choose between being away from young children much more than she wanted as well as paying a babysitter, or not working at all. Obviously neither of those appealed to her.)

So, we should stop having children?

No - though that would reduce the "problem" being complained of in the short term, and eliminate it (and humanity) long term. What we should do first is understand that there are factors besides the salary at work - that, as already confirmed in academic research years ago, a large part of the "gap" in salaries is the result of different choices. Just as German cars tend to be more expensive than Korean: not because of some anti-German import tariffs, but because the German manufacturers sell into a more luxurious market segment: Mercedes, Audi, BMW versus Hyundai and co.

Back on the employment area: I have known very capable supersonic pilots, some of them female. There certainly are women who are perfectly capable of doing that job - but do as many women as men want to? I bet if you sit near a military recruiting office, you'll see more men than women going in; go to a nursing school, you'll see the opposite. Now, if you see a job advertised as "men only" or "women only" (and there are far, far more of the latter) for a reason besides actual biology (for example, sperm donation, surrogacy etc) I will agree it's wrong - but point to an occupation being largely one or the other gender as "proof" of discrimination and you'd better think again.

[thir]

Almost all of which is explained by different working pattern and career choices, rather than discrimination. Given two, say, software developers aged 35. One is female and took a five year career break to raise children, the other is male and did not. Which do you expect to earn more? Then, when you look at computer programmers aged 30-40, of course the women have a lower average pay - because they've got less experience on average, despite being the same age!

There are other issues too, different priorities: for example, I expect female employees are more likely to take an option with slightly lower pay for greater flexibility or other benefits. My own mother recently switched to 90% employment in a condensed working week - 10% less salary and longer days on those four, in exchange for having every Friday free. 10% less pay - for more free time. The job also pays less money in the first place, in exchange for better vacation and flex-time (which, for example, lets you get an additional 18 days off through the year by working extra hours on other days if you wish) - and as it happens, that setup has attracted more female than male staff, while men tend to choose the higher salaries and harder hours of other employers in the same field.

I think there are several factors which are mixed up:

One is equal pay for equal work, the fact that in many countries and many areas women earn less than men for doing the exact same job.

Another is what kinds of jobs women are allowed into, and if they pay better or worse than the rest.

A third is what kinds of jobs women typically choose, and the fact that those jobs are typically payed less

[lucy]

punish_her: Stop putting things in my mouth which I never said or shut the fuck off. I didn't say a woman should be paid when she's not working. I said that it's a short-sighted policy to punish (and yeah, I agree with js207 that punish is the wrong word. I don't have a better one, though) a woman just because she has to take a time-out to raise her kids.

Also, even though I am apparently a misandrist, I call discrimination for males on this, too. If a father decides to have children and take some time off, he faces the same problem as a mother. Having a career and spending more than just a few minutes with your kids is virtually impossible. It just happens much less that it's the father and not the woman, so we don't get to hear about it as much.

Might make sense for the individual company. Yeah, I guess it definitely does. But for a society, it's a dead end in the long run.

[lucy]

Actually, one of those studies found that girls from girl-only schools ventured more often into "male-dominated" professions like engineers, technicians or other fields where natural sciences play a large role.
Also, I heavily doubt that girls are told to go for pink and boys are taught to like guns. At least a large part of that behaviour is not nurture but nature. Or epigenetics.

And here some of the studies: ftp://ftp.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp4026.pdf
ftp://ftp.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp2037.pdf
http://www.hausarbeiten.de/faecher/vorschau/98149.html (in German)

[thir]

Actually, one of those studies found that girls from girl-only schools ventured more often into "male-dominated" professions like engineers, technicians or other fields where natural sciences play a large role.

Interesting/

Also, I heavily doubt that girls are told to go for pink and boys are taught to like guns. At least a large part of that behaviour is not nurture but nature. Or epigenetics.

Doubt no more. Here they are not only taught, they are forced - no choices!

[Punish_her]

The point of this thread, when it started, was to discuss the possibility that there exists male discrimination. At the end of the day, our society is structured in such a way that female imperatives are valued greater than male equivalents. Feminism may have started with women’s suffrage, but it has grown to a political and societal agenda that does not seek equal treatment, but preferential treatment.
1. “Women like sports just as men” leads to Title IX, which has resulted in cutting many MENS sports program throughout the country both at the high school and college level.
2. 98% of alimony payments are from men to women though 40% of women outearn men, 90% of mothers get sole custody of the children after a divorce, 75% of women initiate divorce – the courts are fully stacked against men
3. Despite men being the victim of violence three times as often as women, there is no Violence Against Men Act.
4. Despite the majority of jobs lost during the crash in 07-08, the stimulus plan was heavily skewered towards female dominated fields
5. Despite women earning the majority of college degrees and high school, yet classroom policies and federal spending favor women’s education.
6. Despite women living longer, government spending on healthcare favors women.
7. Women can choose to keep or abort a pregnancy, but men have no say in the matter whatsoever, despite having steep implications. Legally forfeited paternity laws have been consistently struck down.
8. Women want equality in the workplace, yet they are also entitled to maternity leave
9. Women want the same privileges as men, but not the responsibilities – women may serve in the military but do not register for selective service, and before a unit is deployed, there is a considerable increase in the amount of females who become pregnant and are pardoned from deployment.
10. Many states have or are legislating for mandatory arrest laws which almost always result in men being jailed, despite physical abuse levels being nearly identical.
Think about a few situations for a minute.
1. When a girl hits a man, it’s cute or funny, excuses are made for negative behavior. When a man strikes a woman, it’s assault.
2. A woman can say in public “women are smarter than men” and it’s empowering, a man saying the opposite is a misogynist.
3. Men’s Right’s Groups are considered “extremists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, while feminist movements are pandered to by politicians.
Women went from the PROTECTED SEX, that’s right, not abused, to equal, but they retain permission to switch back to defenseless at anytime they wish.
In short, the average American woman wants to be fiercely independent, but men are still expected to be chivalrous.
That is all I am going to say, you see that the deck is stacked against men, or you don't.

[lucy]

1. “Women like sports just as men” leads to Title IX, which has resulted in cutting many MENS sports program throughout the country both at the high school and college level.

What does that mean? That funds who had been reserved for men are now spent equally on both sexes?

2. 98% of alimony payments are from men to women though 40% of women outearn men, 90% of mothers get sole custody of the children after a divorce, 75% of women initiate divorce – the courts are fully stacked against men

But alimony goes to children, not to ex-spouses, right? And, well, if you produce offspring, you got to pay. In Switzerland we have a new law which favors shared custody. It's been in place for two years and already 50% of the time an agreement on shared custody is achieved. Again, you guys seem to do it wrong.
As for the women initiating divorce: Yep. Woman are more likely to go through different phases in their life and that changes them and often the guy "lags behind", kind of. At least that's the impression I get when looking at couples a few years older than me.

3. Despite men being the victim of violence three times as often as women, there is no Violence Against Men Act.

Why not? Go for it and demand one. Seems as if women have done a better job in lobbying for their interests in the past.
That aside: We don't have such an act here and I don't think there should be one. Violence should always be treated the same, regardless of the sex of the aggressor.

5. Despite women earning the majority of college degrees and high school, yet classroom policies and federal spending favor women’s education.

Seems only logical to me, if there are more women than men in colleges, they'll get the bulk of money. 1000 female students will cost more than 100 males. There is of course also another explanation why more women than men get degrees, but I don't dare to say it here.

6. Despite women living longer, government spending on healthcare favors women.

Actually, the gap between life expectancy is closing.At least here, dunno bout the US. And the only reason why more money is spent on women is because of, TA-DAA: Women are the ones who get pregnant and live longer.
On the other hand: There is just one (1!) professor in all the German-speaking countries who does research on medical differences between the sexes. There are differences. However, women are treated the same as men, because men researched men for a long time.

7. Women can choose to keep or abort a pregnancy, but men have no say in the matter whatsoever, despite having steep implications. Legally forfeited paternity laws have been consistently struck down.

You get pregnant, you get to decide. Also, for the last 2000 years women didn't have a choice or were killed when they did chose. So maybe you guys just have to live with that for the next 2000 years. Unfair as it may seem.
Also, if a man doesn't want to have to decide, he can always practice safe sex. But it's so easy to stick your dick into a pussy without having to think about contraception, because women take care of that.

8. Women want equality in the workplace, yet they are also entitled to maternity leave

You get pregnant, you get paternity leave.
Actually, I'm all for paternity leave because it is a good thing. Look at Scandinavia. It can work.

9. Women want the same privileges as men, but not the responsibilities – women may serve in the military but do not register for selective service, and before a unit is deployed, there is a considerable increase in the amount of females who become pregnant and are pardoned from deployment.

Military? Seriously? Yawn. Military is so yesterday. It's only underclass chicks and dudes who do that anyway, no? Joking aside: You're right. While I think spending time to learn handle a tank is wasted time, I think a year of mandatory civil/military service for both sexes would be a pretty good thing.

10. Many states have or are legislating for mandatory arrest laws which almost always result in men being jailed, despite physical abuse levels being nearly identical.

Right, that's stupid. Change those stupid laws. Vote for different politicians. Or emigrate. There are places in this world where this doesn't happen.

3. Men’s Right’s Groups are considered “extremists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, while feminist movements are pandered to by politicians.

Again, this seems to be a problem mainly in the US of A. Also, I've been called all sorts of names by anti-feminists.

All in all: I think most of the problems you raise here (some of which really are problems) are rather unique to the US of A. It's up to you to change that.

[thir]

The point of this thread, when it started, was to discuss the possibility that there exists male discrimination. At the end of the day, our society is structured in such a way that female imperatives are valued greater than male equivalents. Feminism may have started with women’s suffrage, but it has grown to a political and societal agenda that does not seek equal treatment, but preferential treatment.

1. “Women like sports just as men” leads to Title IX, which has resulted in cutting many MENS sports program throughout the country both at the high school and college level.

Was that to make room for women? In that case, don't you think it is fair to share the time?

2. 98% of alimony payments are from men to women though 40% of women outearn men,

I am surprised about the 40 %, but if true, surely that is wrong.


90% of mothers get sole custody of the children after a divorce,

Also wrong, although in many many cases the women are the ones looking after the kids, as you have made very clear.

75% of women initiate divorce – the courts are fully stacked against men

I do not see that the fact that many more women than men initiate divorce is a sign of discrimination againts men - what do you mean here?


3. Despite men being the victim of violence three times as often as women, there is no Violence Against Men Act.


I am surprised at those numbers, unless they also contain men against men as Lucy said, in which case it can hardly be said to be a discrimination, any more than violence by women against women.

4. Despite the majority of jobs lost during the crash in 07-08, the stimulus plan was heavily skewered towards female dominated fields

If the situation was like in Europe, that would be because of the fact that women were worst hit in the first place - part time workers, you know.

5. Despite women earning the majority of college degrees and high school, yet classroom policies and federal spending favor women’s education.

How?

6. Despite women living longer, government spending on healthcare favors women.

How?

7. Women can choose to keep or abort a pregnancy, but men have no say in the matter whatsoever, despite having steep implications. Legally forfeited paternity laws have been consistently struck down.

That is indeed a complicated problem!

8. Women want equality in the workplace, yet they are also entitled to maternity leave

A country needs new generations.

9. Women want the same privileges as men, but not the responsibilities – women may serve in the military but do not register for selective service, and before a unit is deployed, there is a considerable increase in the amount of females who become pregnant and are pardoned from deployment.

What is selective service?

10. Many states have or are legislating for mandatory arrest laws which almost always result in men being jailed, despite physical abuse levels being nearly identical.


There is a problem with violence towards men, not easily solved. But you make so much of the physical difference - how can so many women beat up the much stronger men??


Think about a few situations for a minute.

1. When a girl hits a man, it’s cute or funny, excuses are made for negative behavior. When a man strikes a woman, it’s assault.

I agree with you here, absolutely.

2. A woman can say in public “women are smarter than men” and it’s empowering, a man saying the opposite is a misogynist.

You have a point here as well.

3. Men’s Right’s Groups are considered “extremists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, while feminist movements are pandered to by politicians.

That I do not know about.

Women went from the PROTECTED SEX, that’s right, not abused,

I am sure women were protected to some extent, some classes of women anyway, but also without much influence. But do you seriously mean to say that no women are abused??


to equal, but they retain permission to switch back to defenseless at anytime they wish.


I think there is something in this, and that is not right. Equal rights, equal responsibilities.

In short, the average American woman wants to be fiercely independent, but men are still expected to be chivalrous.


Well, not here anyway, I can assure you no men in DK know the meaning of the word ;-)
Women are not so fiercely independant, it is more kind of normal.

That is all I am going to say, you see that the deck is stacked against men, or you don't.

There are definitly some areas, like with children especially, same conditions here, and it isn't right. Also the weirdly bigger tolerance towards women's behavour in some situations, frankly I do not understand it at all.
But the rest I admit I cannot see.

[Punish_her]

alimony and child support are different.child support goes to children, alimony is considered "spousal support," and is awarded in a divorce and there are no children, and it is to be paid typically until the receiving partner remarries. child support only goes until the child is 18. some divorce settlements require both to be paid.