IC

why is being derogatory to a persons/groups opinion/beliefs/ideas considered and championed as open/liberal while being derogatory to the person is considered illegal.

This is what happened recently in Mumbai, India.

About a dozen thugs went to a nearby resturant.

A 25 something male/female group were already there in the resturant. A fight broke up between the thugs and the males from that group over some eve teasing by those thugs.

The thugs killed two males. They did nothing to females.

Now everybody wants non bailable and stricter laws against eve teasing.

I just do not understand how a thug killing males can be checkd by making eve teasing laws much more harsh and lopsided. To be precise, people are asking that on any complaint by female against any male, he should be put behind bars first and then should the trial in court begin. In nutshell Guilty until proven inocent.

I could have understood any motive to this irrational proposition had the girl who was eve teased was harmed physically. But in this case primary victims were boys. Those thugs would have killed others on more or less any other pretext. What is reqd is strong law to control this downright thuggery/hoodlum. Though there is a need for having a eve/adam-teasing free society and there are no two thoughts about that, what i fail to understand is how quickly this feminist society is able to turn tables by claiming that women are the only victims even when the ones who got killed were men.

If Y is income of man and X be that of woman..then

CS = min(Y,X) / 3

for those who object on why child should bear the fall outs of divorce...why not it be

(Y+X) / 6.

how come in the game of chess since ancient times, the most powerful piece is called Queen.

Also the weakest pieces are pawns(read men).

but man hitting woman is not ok because she can land in hospital...

if that be the logic, Can a man hit a woman making sure that at no point of time she is so seriously hurt that she lands in hospital but she keeps getting handful of slaps every few minutes.

I do not find huge difference between a moderate and a radical feminist, just that while the former is mostly selfish, the later is both selfish and angry. And this anger in later results into hatred being shade more prominent and visible.

Otherwise they are fac-simile.

if a woman shouts at a man and he shouts back and this goes on for while back and forth and becomes increasingly louder and dirtier and then

1) Women crumbles down and starts weeping...Is this an abuse

2) Women becomes angry and starts throwing fists around and the man in retaliation slams a couple of slaps on her face.Is this an abuse?

if a woman shouts at a man and he shouts back and this goes on for while back and forth and becomes increasingly louder and dirtier and then

1) Women crumbles down and starts weeping...Is this an abuse

2) Women becomes angry and starts throwing fists around and the man in retaliation slams a couple of slaps on her face.Is this an abuse?

are concerned about spellings and grammar in a question.

Men mostly(if not always) are critical of the the intent/substance of the question.

Women mostly(if not always) are critical of the linguistic aspect of the question.

What could be the explanation for this behaviour?

Why is it that the explanation(by feminists) given to the fact that "women return back to their abusers" is a very very twisted logic. It is something on the lines as follows

"the abuser(read the man) is control freak, or abuser as very extreme sides...they have that saccharine sweet side, then they have that direct opposite side, when they're angry.

They isolate the victim from family and friends, they make the victim believe that the only person in the world that "loves" them, is the abuser...and they're LUCKY that they even "love" them.

It's usually a vicious cycle, because the abuser was [probably], more than likely abused, too."

When the much simpler and comprehendible answer is

"Woman initiates a abuse, gets caughts in a tiff. After the tiff is over, she realises that it was her mistake and that she would be loosing more if the relationship falls apart and then goes back and apologizes to her spouse/rather tries to make up with her spouse." Later when she again commits similar(if not same) mistake, she pays for it again and then again realises it was her mistake and again goes back to her spouse. After all "To err is human".

I mean look , how simple is the later and how complicated/twisted is the former one. Why do people have to resort to twists and turns to explain things from the viewpoint of female, Are there verifiable thoeries/facts that former is correct and the later(a more simpler explanation) is wrong.

I was going through the list here

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak5um...

And on a serious note, found out that in a more general and practical context

None of them sounds too absurd.

1. Female births are not registered.

I got to agree, i find this wierd.

2. Women cannot vote.

Frankly speaking, I being male hardly ever feel the need to vote because i know my opinion is 1 in million(billion). That said, even when you vote you may vote for a person for issue X even when you disagree with him on issue Y. So I as an individual do not see any benefit from voting. Even in those cases where a single vote here and there makes a difference, i will not be happy to have 51 people overruling over 49 people, just because I happen to be on the side of majority. If you think seriously, democracy they way it has been implemented is sham as far as an individual in concerned. Yes, if you are part of a group which holds an opinion e.g Collectivism then it may matter. But i most cases, i am pretty happy with others around me decide for myself.

The only thing i am interested is that an the end of the day i should get justice within the means of law and should be treated justly and equally as per law. And i am pretty sure as long as people around me are not passing laws which promote inequality, I can depend on them to vote on my behalf(such would be 1 in 10000 cases). In fact even when i have the right of vote, Govts year after year is still passing blatant laws which treat women preferentially and men unfairly and i can do nothing about it with my sole vote. So this right to vote for an individual as i see it is a face wash. Unless you can must enough people to make a majority, you vote is useless.

3. Women cannot drive.

I would like to hire a driver. Well i did not know how to drive for 25 years and i was perfectly happy with my family members driving for me. In fact after i have learnt driving, it is come to me as a responsibility to take care(and move around) people around me who either do not have vehicle or do not know how to drive. My mother does not know how to drive, and she is reluctant to learn driving and is very happy that she has me driving for her.My wife even though knows driving, always insists that i drive for her.

4. Women must be fully veiled in public.

Ok i admit, that seems a little wierd. But in the end it is just a matter to covering the face, because even men are expected to be full clad from top to bottom(excluding the face). I have seen arabs fully covered. May be that suits the climate they live in.

5. Polygamy is legal

Even in western countries, men and women have ample partners and it is considered bad to question a person about his/her sexual history(as long as (s)he is disease free). I still do not understand why in west, this thing called marriage is suddenly(on the wedding day) supposed to force men(and women) in west to change from being polygamous to being a monogamous being. Marriage is anyway becoming an outdated ritual in the west.

6. Middle aged men marrying 16, 17, 18 yr olds is the norm.

Again if west legally permits a 16, 17, 18 yr teenager to become pregnant, what is so special about marriage. See my point of marriage beng an outdated ritual as above.

7. You will most likely marry your father's friend or business associate.

That i would say, hardly matters. In fact if you statistically calculate, the chances of marriage going wrong if you or your parents choose your partner is almost equal.Point me to sound statistical study which proves it otherwise. In fact your parents are your best well wisher and they with their experience have more chances of being right that you yourself. Anyway I personally i have no issues marrying a business associate unless (s)he is an asshole in which case i am reasonably sure that my parents would also not want me to marry her.

8. You will be bought from your parents for a bride price (Mahr) depending on how young/beautiful you are.

Are you telling me that women are not judged based on their looks and men not based on their wallet in the west. Come on, you have to stop joking and consider this seriously.

9. Your husband will marry many more women after you.

I still do not understand why women force men to become monogamous from the day of wedding wedding, when itis ok for both men and women to be polygamous before that...Now that is as per established western standards.

10-16 i will ask later. Yahoo does not allow me the space.

So well, I am having a really hard time pointing out anything wrong there.

or pays for the date

What do you expect that he has the right to expect of you.

Surely, you are not expecting that he does these things for you out of his philanthropic disposition.

Feminists claim that rape is about power

While for others it is mainly about sex.

Is not it possible that both of them are right in their own way.

Feminists use sex as power to control and manipulate and once somebody takes that power away from them, they perceive it as an act of power.

For most rapists, rape is about getting good sexual pleasure but for free. They hardly ever have any non-sexual motivation nor are they "generally" driven by their vengeance to humiliate, attack, assault the person(unless it is the case of rape of a male). Instead most rapists are happy as long as they get sex for free. That way, they are acting much like tax offenders or thieves.

So for a person who considers sex to be all about controlling, manipulation and power...rape obviously turns out to be an act of power.

While for others who think that sex is a act of pleasure, enjoyment , rape at worst is about stealing that source of pleasure, enjoyment and hence akin to a case of theft.That goes so well with what we observer around. How many men have ever reported sexual assault by women as rape anywhere? It is simply because men either enjoy sex and even if they are no enjoying having sex with a woman, their only concern is whether they got infected because of sex or not.

I am pretty sure, no man would object to a forced sex from a woman for reason other than one listed above, even if he did not like the act of sex with that woman.

I thus think that both feminists and non-feminists are right in their own sense because their reactions are dependent on how they perceive sex to be(i.e a tool to exercise power, control and manipulate OR a means for obtaining enjoyment).

Do you agree with my assessment? If not, Why not and What are your arguments?

I was reading some of the answers to following Y Q.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=201102...

And I saw so many of women claiming

1) There were a set of people who said brain size(weight) of whale is more that that of man, when it is widely known that it is the ratio of brain size to that of body size which decides how intelligent a species is. I am pretty sure that people are aware of the ratio. Why then do they bring up such inane arguments and comparison with whales and elephants.

2) It is not size but size to weight ratio that matters.

First of all it is not size to weight rather size of brain to avg size of body(of that species) which is the correct measure. For e.g if a person puts on weight it does not in any way mean that (s)he has grown dumber.Since avg size of body can be conveniently related to avg weight so the ratio is generally expressed in the ratio of of weights.

Secondly even when considering brain weight to body weight ratio men are stand better than women.

My question then is Why do women have difficulty in accepting facts on the face value. They instead choose to twist and misquote the facts.Why?

Why do not policy makers treat men and women same(using principle of lowest common denominator) and make gender dependent policies with the rational taht women can reproduce and hence need to be compensated for.

After all the decision to reproduce is solely a woman's personal decision. Why should one be getting any leeway for making a personal decision.

Men have no reproductive rights but only reproductive obligations.

Govt seems to be doing everything these days to help underprivileged sections of society.

Should Govt grant some monetary allowance to men to compensate of their lack of reproductive rights and to compensate them for the reproductive obligations that may arise for them in future.

Men and women do not stand equal on this front, simply because women has a choice for sex as well as for reproduction/rearing. Men have a choice only in terms of having sex.

What could be the cause if my wife has normal calcium(9.4) but high PTH?

Could it be because of VitD deficiency or is it primary hyperparathyrodism because of malfunctioning of parathyroid gland(or adenoma in parathyroid glands).

Aside to that..she has high TSH but normal T3 T4.

Could the two be related?

What could be the cause if my wife has normal calcium(9.4) but high PTH?

Could it be because of VitD deficiency or is it primary hyperparathyrodism because of malfunctioning of parathyroid gland(or adenoma in parathyroid glands).

Aside to that..she has high TSH but normal T3 T4.

Could the two be related?

kind of questions.

How about if you are asked

"what is the evidence that females are equal to males?"

1) Men and women have statistically equal intelligence.

2) Men are better than women.

Note: Please try to quote sample characteristics upfront(e.g sample size, distribution, variance). Quoting these will have twin benefits

a) It will make me easier to sift through important ones.

b) It is ensure that the person answering has read the study too.