logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

Back to:

Advice to Men
 
 

In Memory of Allen Wells

This set of web pages for Allen Wells has been recreated from web pages archived at http://web.archive.org

Key Page for Allen Wells

Re: "Biased towards men" (Was Re: Divorce Post-Mortem (long))


From ads.com!sparkyfs.erg.sri.com!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!uunet!microsoft!allenwe Fri Feb 22 17:17:28 PST 1991
Article 26267 of soc.men:
Path: ads.com!sparkyfs.erg.sri.com!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!uunet!microsoft!allenwe
>From: allenwe@microsoft.UUCP (Allen WELLS)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: "Biased towards men" (Was Re: Divorce Post-Mortem (long))
Message-ID: <70722@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 16 Feb 91 00:02:59 GMT
References: <70623@microsoft.UUCP> <1991Feb13.181841.12152@aucs.AcadiaU.ca> <15120@uudell.dell.com> <666544069@grad17.cs.duke.edu>
Reply-To: allenwe@microsoft.UUCP (Allen WELLS)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 70

In article <666544069@grad17.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>1) You compare criminal law and civilian law. In criminal law the state
> should prove, *beyond any reasonable doubt*, that the defendant is guilty.
>
> Asking men to prove, *beyond any reasonable doubt*,
> that they can be better parents is not equivalent.

Hillel - here you skirt around the real issue, but don't quite hit
it. Let me aim this a little closer.

Half of all US men go through divorce court. Their lives, and the
lives of the rest of men as well, are strongly influenced by the way
that this court acts. These men have done nothing wrong - at least
they have done no more wrong then their wives. They are not
criminals. They are not being judged.

This system is extremely biased against them, and this a type of
sexism that directly affects men as a class.

The criminal system is much different. First, only alleged
criminals ever go through the system. Unless the system isn't
working, those convicted HAVE done something wrong - and they are
being ordered to pay for it.

The criminal system has two possible errors - false positives and
false negatives. False positives (convictions of innocent people)
directly impacts people who have not done anything wrong. In the
case of rape, all the false positives are likely to be men - therefore
the system is convicting innocent men. This a bias of the court
against men. Understandable, given the fact that most of the guilty
rapists are men - but innocent men should not have to pay the price
for rapists just because they are also men.

The original poster seems to be implying somehow that false negatives
(guilty rapists who do not get conficted) is somehow a bias of the
court system that favors men, and that this bias somewhat balances
the bias against men in domestic court. This could not be farther
from the truth. INNOCENT men who are NOT rapists get absolutely NO
BENEFIT from a system that lets guilty rapists free, ONLY RAPISTS
get this benefit. On the contrary - the innocent man could be
the next rape victim, or a close loved one of his. The only way you
can justify this as a bias toward men is if you subscribe to the
theory that 'all men are rapists'.

There are two valid cases for bias in the court treatment of alleged
criminals:

- The first is if the legal system treats the same crime against one
gender differently than crimes against the other. In this case, if it
is more difficult to prosecute a rape whose victim is a woman than it
is to prosecute a rape whose victim is a man, then a valid case for bias
against women can be made.

- The second is if the legal system treats the same crime committed by
one gender differently than crimes committed by the other. In this
case, if it is more difficult to prosecute a rape committed by a man
than it is to prosecute a rape committed by a woman, then a valid
case for bias against women can be made.

In BOTH of these cases, the reality seems to be the other way
around. Rapes involving female rapists or male victims are
underrepresented in the convictions that occur compared to estimates
of the frequency with which they occur.

This why I was surprised to see rape listed as an area which is
'biased toward men' in the court system.
--
---------- "Never seal dead flies in a closed container. Doing so
Alien | may result in hazardous explosion."
---------- - documentation for the 'Fly Sniper'

____________________
Next Article by Allen Wells: Re: Further question about abuse by women
 

___________________
Posted 2006 09 04