![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I reverted an edit that was merely based on feelings but had my edit reverted. What is the basis for this? Why should the section not be there? Is it a problem in the sources? Python Drink ( talk) 11:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Every second bloke is circumcised, never heard a single complaint about it in my entire life.doesn't rank very high on the scale of good reasons to remove information from Wikipedia. Madeline ( part of me) 06:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
but is an isolated event like that due?" It doesn't appear to be an isolated event. It's true that Forced circumcision does not seem to be any problem in "The West", but we must not hastily discard events in e.g. Africa as not relevant.
Both the Hellenic Jewish Philo in the first century C.E. and Moses Maimonides, also known in the Jewish tradition as the Great Rambam, in the twelth century wrote of the consequences of violently removing the most sensuous part of a man’s sexual organ before he is old enough to understand or consent to this loss.;
Circumcision achieves this by violently breaching the maternal-infant bond shortly after birth….
I, as a reader, would find it odd if circumcision was not mentioned at all. Also, some of the argumentation in both this thread and the one above is appalling. Arguments along the lines of "well I don't mind it" are just are poor as if I jumped in and deleted the section on conscription because both I and all my friends are pro-conscription.
Now, moving towards a solution, a quite honest description of the issue would presumably be something along the lines something like this:
Non-consensual circumcision conducted for non-medical reasons is a subject of a long-running and vigorous ethical debate. Such procedures have been criminalized in several countries, most notably South Africa and Sweden, unless performed for religious reasons. In 2012, the International NGO Council on Violence against Children identified non-therapeutic circumcision of infants and boys as being among harmful practices that constitute violence against children and violate their rights. The German Academy for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine (Deutsche Akademie für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin e.V., DAKJ) recommend against routine non-medical infant circumcision. The Royal Dutch Medical Association questions why the ethics regarding male genital alterations should be viewed any differently from female genital alterations. The Danish College of General Practitioners has stated that circumcision should "only [be done] when medically needed, otherwise it is a case of mutilation." These views clash with arguments based on religious freedom, as well as an argument that criminalization would be predominately ineffective, would lead parents who insist on the procedure to turn to poorly trained practitioners instead of medical professionals, and would further the stigmatization of or encourage the persecution of minority groups.
(shamelessly cobbled together from Circumcision with minor modifications, needs to be rephrased before use). - Ljleppan ( talk) 06:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
otherwise it is a case of mutilation, that sounds like it is deemed violence. I reject
The Royal Dutch Medical Association questions why the ethics regarding male genital alterations should be viewed any differently from female genital alterations, as that is an individual statement which definitely not aligns with medical or ethical consensus: Female Genital Mutilations are condemned almost universally, and carry an undisputed higher risk of serious harm. So yeah, not against a modified proposal here, but imo it needs to be a bit narrowed due to the page focus. – LordPickleII ( talk) 08:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Non-consensual circumcision conducted for non-medical reasons is a subject of a long-running and vigorous ethical debate. Such procedures have been described as constituting violence against children and violating their rights, with some medical organizations labeling circumcision performed for non-medical reasons as mutilation. These views clash with arguments based on religious freedom, as well as an argument that criminalization would be predominately ineffective, would lead parents who insist on the procedure to turn to poorly trained practitioners instead of medical professionals, and would further the stigmatization of or encourage the persecution of minority groups.
reqular old circumcision(whatever that means) is relevant when the paragraph I'm proposing is about
Non-consensual circumcision conducted for non-medical reasons. Ljleppan ( talk) 11:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
In the above discussion it's become rather obvious that there is no clear consensus for the removal of a section on circumcision. As such, we should retain the status quo before the originating edits, i.e. reinstate the section. I will do the relevant edits once I get home from work, unless someone gets to it before myself. For continued discussion, I suggest those in favor of removing the content formulate an RFC on this talk page. - Ljleppan ( talk) 13:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The_Emergency_(India)#Forced_sterilisation Has this which could be included here as a violence against men example.
Forced sterilization of 8.7 million men parts highlighted. Note that government agencies, police included, forced men to be sterilized.
In September 1976, Sanjay Gandhi initiated a widespread compulsory sterilization program to limit population growth. The exact extent of Sanjay Gandhi's role in the implementation of the program is disputed, with some writers holding Gandhi directly responsible for his authoritarianism, and other writers blaming the officials who implemented the programme rather than Gandhi himself. It is clear that international pressure from the United States, United Nations, and World Bank played a role in the implementation of these population control measures. Rukhsana Sultana was a socialite known for being one of Sanjay Gandhi's close associates and she gained a lot of notoriety in leading Sanjay Gandhi's sterilization campaign in Muslim areas of old Delhi. The campaign primarily involved getting males to undergo vasectomy. Quotas were set up that enthusiastic supporters and government officials worked hard to achieve. There were allegations of coercion of unwilling candidates too. In 1976–1977, the program led to 8.3 million sterilizations, most of them forced, up from 2.7 million the previous year. The bad publicity led many 1977 governments to stress that family planning is entirely voluntary.
2600:1700:D591:5F10:41AC:2FDE:35F9:1DDE ( talk) 15:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The claim that women are more often victims and men more often perpetrators has been thoroughly debunked by hundreds of studies, including every National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey put out by the CDC. The NISVS clearly shows that men are more often the victims of female perpetrators. 68.55.35.100 ( talk) 16:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the inclusion of this section Violence_against_men#Forced_circumcision. Do reliable sources support the inclusion of this section on circumcision in the article on violence against men? Tambor de Tocino ( talk) 07:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The Danish College of General Practitioners has defined non-medical circumcisions as mutilation [2]( [3])
Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.( [4])
a spectrum of views exists as to whether it is beneficial, neutral, harmful or even superfluous( [5], p. 19)
circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed( [6], p. 18)
a ban on non-therapeutic male circumcisionbecause they thought
circumcision of underage boys without a medical indication to be in conflict with the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child( [7])
Two debates surround circumcision: (1) whether circumcision of newborns should be routine, and (2) whether non-therapeutic circumcision should be performed at all., [8], p. 45) While there can certainly be discussion on how, exactly, to frame this debate in the article, a blanket removal of the discussion appears completely undue. - Ljleppan ( talk) 10:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Forced male circumcision: gender-based violence in Kenyaor [10], entitled
‘Not men enough to rule!’: politicization of ethnicities and forcible circumcision of Luo men during the postelection violence in Kenya, or [11] stating
Ljleppan ( talk) 16:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Forced circumcision as sexual terrorism and a war crime Rape and sexual violence are acknowledged to be serious problems in war. 42 A report from the Agence France-Presse noted that forced circumcision was used as a terrorist tactic in the civil conflict in Kenya in 2008,1 and that the same was true of ethnic and religious conflicts in Indonesia, Pakistan, The Sudan, Turkey and Uganda. Acknowledging and condemning the use of forced circumcision in war and civil conflicts will help to brand it as sexual terrorism and a war crime. [..] The first step is to acknowledge that forced circumcision is a widespread and serious human rights abuse. To acknowledge that forced circumcision often accompanies forced conversion, ethnic cleansing and genocide will sensitise the world community just as acknowledging the prevalence of rape in war is helping to bring condemnation on this abuse
[This article] highlights how male circumcision – like its counterpart female genital mutilation – is nearly always a strongly political act, enacted upon others by those with power, in the broader interests of a public good but with profound individual and social consequences. [..] During the Turkish occupation and subsequent genocide in Armenia in 1915, during which some 1.5 million died, Armenian men and boys were forcibly circumcised..
may. This naturally depends greatly on the type of RfC being considered. In my view, in this case the question you've put out is effectively a section-specific AfD: do we include any discussion about this topic at all. As with any editing, the underlying goal here is to end up with the best possible article. As with WP:HEY in the context of AfD's, if the issue can be solved through editing during the "deletion discussion," then surely that's preferable and much more respectful of everyone's time. The other option where we first hold an RfC on a section entitled
circumcision, and then start again with a slightly different section on
forced circumcisionseems counter-productive. But if there's consensus that the section should be completely frozen for the duration of this discussion, then I'll naturally follow that consensus.
moving the goalposts. This is at the least toying the line w/r/t casting aspersions and you've already been reminded on this talk page to assume good faith about other's edits. I have been nothing but civil, and all my edits are done with the intent of producing the best possible article. Ljleppan ( talk) 12:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). (Also not
original research, nor offered as any other particular evidence of anything .) As previously noted, the existence of the debate and such a letter deems it worthy of inclusion, for the historical record, in my opinion.
Lindenfall (
talk)
18:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)References
In 2012, a German court held that circumcision constitutes criminal assault. Under existing United States law and international human rights declarations as well, circumcision already violates boys› absolute rights to equal protection, bodily integrity, autonomy, and freedom to choose their own religion.
One salient cluster of argumentation in the controversies on male circumcision centered on what I call the “medicalization” of the body. The argument that male circumcision causes bodily harm and moral injury was often paired with reference to trauma, that is, the longer term psychological damage caused by the moral injury through the intervention into the child’s body. The most prominent proponents of this reasoning were a group of several hundreds of doctors, medical experts, and lawyers who jointly published an open letter to the government in July 2012 which accused parents who initiated male circumcision of sexual violence(Note that the source as a whole isn't really anti-circumcision, but it does discuss it as a form of violence)
Holm Putzke, a criminal law expert at the University of Passau, said the ruling was not binding for other courts, but could send a welcome signal. “After the knee-jerk outrage has faded away, hopefully a discussion will begin about how much religiously motivated violence against children a society is ready to tolerate,” he told the German news agency DPA.
Not a soapbox for your views on cabals or whether most violence is perpetrated by women |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
== Do not delete under the false pretence, it only proves how bad great an issue it is that there is a a cabal of power users controlling the narrative according to their misandrist whims. I will report users that attempt to delete it and then re-ad it. I encourage people to look at who it is deleting this topic as they are the one engaging in vandalising the page and terrified of me exposing this. This is a hugely important issue and the power users needs to explain their vandalism of this page and how the last few months have been engaging in a conserted effort to degrade it and make it worse. I think there is a serious issue of a cabal of power user vandalising and locking the page to spread misinformation and promote misandry. The most clear example of this is them including men being perpetuators of violence in the page of men as victims and then later further vandalising it by making it the first thing mentioned and thus giving it primacy. That is nothing but misandry as it's not relevant in any shape or form on a page talking about violence against men, it's effectively victim blaming and only serves to try and diminish men as victims. Secondly, it's also completely false as this is based on how many women are judged guilty in court, but this is misleading as women are extremely privileged in court and in most cases see no punishment for their crimes. I therefore call for these power users to explain themselves and to be banned if they cannot come up with a strong valid explanation. It's not relevant to include in the page for men as victims and especially not as the first thing mentioned in the summary. That includes the admins that are protecting these misandrist power users. If you think it should be included then we should also make the page about violence against women, or the page on domestic violence against women mention as the first thing that women commit the majority of domestic violence. If you think that is sexist you better explain why this is not 80.62.117.238 ( talk) 08:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
Bizarre notion that women commit most crimes of violence, and that there's a conspiracy to conceal that |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It's not relevant to mention it, it only seek to diminish men as victims. And it's also false. Whoever added it and then later choose to make it the first thing should be ashamed of themselves for their misandry. For example women are more often the perpetrators of domestic violence: http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/FindingsAt-a-Glance.Nov.23.pdf
"A study done in 2012 found that men usually receive 63% longer sentences for the same crime than women do even after controlling for all the legally and extralegally relevant factors from arrest to sentencing This would entail, based on her previous analysis on racial disparities, that discrimination against men in the criminal justice system is about 6 times higher than discrimination against minorities"
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.117.238 ( talk) 08:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I reverted an edit that was merely based on feelings but had my edit reverted. What is the basis for this? Why should the section not be there? Is it a problem in the sources? Python Drink ( talk) 11:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Every second bloke is circumcised, never heard a single complaint about it in my entire life.doesn't rank very high on the scale of good reasons to remove information from Wikipedia. Madeline ( part of me) 06:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
but is an isolated event like that due?" It doesn't appear to be an isolated event. It's true that Forced circumcision does not seem to be any problem in "The West", but we must not hastily discard events in e.g. Africa as not relevant.
Both the Hellenic Jewish Philo in the first century C.E. and Moses Maimonides, also known in the Jewish tradition as the Great Rambam, in the twelth century wrote of the consequences of violently removing the most sensuous part of a man’s sexual organ before he is old enough to understand or consent to this loss.;
Circumcision achieves this by violently breaching the maternal-infant bond shortly after birth….
I, as a reader, would find it odd if circumcision was not mentioned at all. Also, some of the argumentation in both this thread and the one above is appalling. Arguments along the lines of "well I don't mind it" are just are poor as if I jumped in and deleted the section on conscription because both I and all my friends are pro-conscription.
Now, moving towards a solution, a quite honest description of the issue would presumably be something along the lines something like this:
Non-consensual circumcision conducted for non-medical reasons is a subject of a long-running and vigorous ethical debate. Such procedures have been criminalized in several countries, most notably South Africa and Sweden, unless performed for religious reasons. In 2012, the International NGO Council on Violence against Children identified non-therapeutic circumcision of infants and boys as being among harmful practices that constitute violence against children and violate their rights. The German Academy for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine (Deutsche Akademie für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin e.V., DAKJ) recommend against routine non-medical infant circumcision. The Royal Dutch Medical Association questions why the ethics regarding male genital alterations should be viewed any differently from female genital alterations. The Danish College of General Practitioners has stated that circumcision should "only [be done] when medically needed, otherwise it is a case of mutilation." These views clash with arguments based on religious freedom, as well as an argument that criminalization would be predominately ineffective, would lead parents who insist on the procedure to turn to poorly trained practitioners instead of medical professionals, and would further the stigmatization of or encourage the persecution of minority groups.
(shamelessly cobbled together from Circumcision with minor modifications, needs to be rephrased before use). - Ljleppan ( talk) 06:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
otherwise it is a case of mutilation, that sounds like it is deemed violence. I reject
The Royal Dutch Medical Association questions why the ethics regarding male genital alterations should be viewed any differently from female genital alterations, as that is an individual statement which definitely not aligns with medical or ethical consensus: Female Genital Mutilations are condemned almost universally, and carry an undisputed higher risk of serious harm. So yeah, not against a modified proposal here, but imo it needs to be a bit narrowed due to the page focus. – LordPickleII ( talk) 08:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Non-consensual circumcision conducted for non-medical reasons is a subject of a long-running and vigorous ethical debate. Such procedures have been described as constituting violence against children and violating their rights, with some medical organizations labeling circumcision performed for non-medical reasons as mutilation. These views clash with arguments based on religious freedom, as well as an argument that criminalization would be predominately ineffective, would lead parents who insist on the procedure to turn to poorly trained practitioners instead of medical professionals, and would further the stigmatization of or encourage the persecution of minority groups.
reqular old circumcision(whatever that means) is relevant when the paragraph I'm proposing is about
Non-consensual circumcision conducted for non-medical reasons. Ljleppan ( talk) 11:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
In the above discussion it's become rather obvious that there is no clear consensus for the removal of a section on circumcision. As such, we should retain the status quo before the originating edits, i.e. reinstate the section. I will do the relevant edits once I get home from work, unless someone gets to it before myself. For continued discussion, I suggest those in favor of removing the content formulate an RFC on this talk page. - Ljleppan ( talk) 13:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The_Emergency_(India)#Forced_sterilisation Has this which could be included here as a violence against men example.
Forced sterilization of 8.7 million men parts highlighted. Note that government agencies, police included, forced men to be sterilized.
In September 1976, Sanjay Gandhi initiated a widespread compulsory sterilization program to limit population growth. The exact extent of Sanjay Gandhi's role in the implementation of the program is disputed, with some writers holding Gandhi directly responsible for his authoritarianism, and other writers blaming the officials who implemented the programme rather than Gandhi himself. It is clear that international pressure from the United States, United Nations, and World Bank played a role in the implementation of these population control measures. Rukhsana Sultana was a socialite known for being one of Sanjay Gandhi's close associates and she gained a lot of notoriety in leading Sanjay Gandhi's sterilization campaign in Muslim areas of old Delhi. The campaign primarily involved getting males to undergo vasectomy. Quotas were set up that enthusiastic supporters and government officials worked hard to achieve. There were allegations of coercion of unwilling candidates too. In 1976–1977, the program led to 8.3 million sterilizations, most of them forced, up from 2.7 million the previous year. The bad publicity led many 1977 governments to stress that family planning is entirely voluntary.
2600:1700:D591:5F10:41AC:2FDE:35F9:1DDE ( talk) 15:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The claim that women are more often victims and men more often perpetrators has been thoroughly debunked by hundreds of studies, including every National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey put out by the CDC. The NISVS clearly shows that men are more often the victims of female perpetrators. 68.55.35.100 ( talk) 16:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the inclusion of this section Violence_against_men#Forced_circumcision. Do reliable sources support the inclusion of this section on circumcision in the article on violence against men? Tambor de Tocino ( talk) 07:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The Danish College of General Practitioners has defined non-medical circumcisions as mutilation [2]( [3])
Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.( [4])
a spectrum of views exists as to whether it is beneficial, neutral, harmful or even superfluous( [5], p. 19)
circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed( [6], p. 18)
a ban on non-therapeutic male circumcisionbecause they thought
circumcision of underage boys without a medical indication to be in conflict with the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child( [7])
Two debates surround circumcision: (1) whether circumcision of newborns should be routine, and (2) whether non-therapeutic circumcision should be performed at all., [8], p. 45) While there can certainly be discussion on how, exactly, to frame this debate in the article, a blanket removal of the discussion appears completely undue. - Ljleppan ( talk) 10:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Forced male circumcision: gender-based violence in Kenyaor [10], entitled
‘Not men enough to rule!’: politicization of ethnicities and forcible circumcision of Luo men during the postelection violence in Kenya, or [11] stating
Ljleppan ( talk) 16:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Forced circumcision as sexual terrorism and a war crime Rape and sexual violence are acknowledged to be serious problems in war. 42 A report from the Agence France-Presse noted that forced circumcision was used as a terrorist tactic in the civil conflict in Kenya in 2008,1 and that the same was true of ethnic and religious conflicts in Indonesia, Pakistan, The Sudan, Turkey and Uganda. Acknowledging and condemning the use of forced circumcision in war and civil conflicts will help to brand it as sexual terrorism and a war crime. [..] The first step is to acknowledge that forced circumcision is a widespread and serious human rights abuse. To acknowledge that forced circumcision often accompanies forced conversion, ethnic cleansing and genocide will sensitise the world community just as acknowledging the prevalence of rape in war is helping to bring condemnation on this abuse
[This article] highlights how male circumcision – like its counterpart female genital mutilation – is nearly always a strongly political act, enacted upon others by those with power, in the broader interests of a public good but with profound individual and social consequences. [..] During the Turkish occupation and subsequent genocide in Armenia in 1915, during which some 1.5 million died, Armenian men and boys were forcibly circumcised..
may. This naturally depends greatly on the type of RfC being considered. In my view, in this case the question you've put out is effectively a section-specific AfD: do we include any discussion about this topic at all. As with any editing, the underlying goal here is to end up with the best possible article. As with WP:HEY in the context of AfD's, if the issue can be solved through editing during the "deletion discussion," then surely that's preferable and much more respectful of everyone's time. The other option where we first hold an RfC on a section entitled
circumcision, and then start again with a slightly different section on
forced circumcisionseems counter-productive. But if there's consensus that the section should be completely frozen for the duration of this discussion, then I'll naturally follow that consensus.
moving the goalposts. This is at the least toying the line w/r/t casting aspersions and you've already been reminded on this talk page to assume good faith about other's edits. I have been nothing but civil, and all my edits are done with the intent of producing the best possible article. Ljleppan ( talk) 12:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). (Also not
original research, nor offered as any other particular evidence of anything .) As previously noted, the existence of the debate and such a letter deems it worthy of inclusion, for the historical record, in my opinion.
Lindenfall (
talk)
18:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)References
In 2012, a German court held that circumcision constitutes criminal assault. Under existing United States law and international human rights declarations as well, circumcision already violates boys› absolute rights to equal protection, bodily integrity, autonomy, and freedom to choose their own religion.
One salient cluster of argumentation in the controversies on male circumcision centered on what I call the “medicalization” of the body. The argument that male circumcision causes bodily harm and moral injury was often paired with reference to trauma, that is, the longer term psychological damage caused by the moral injury through the intervention into the child’s body. The most prominent proponents of this reasoning were a group of several hundreds of doctors, medical experts, and lawyers who jointly published an open letter to the government in July 2012 which accused parents who initiated male circumcision of sexual violence(Note that the source as a whole isn't really anti-circumcision, but it does discuss it as a form of violence)
Holm Putzke, a criminal law expert at the University of Passau, said the ruling was not binding for other courts, but could send a welcome signal. “After the knee-jerk outrage has faded away, hopefully a discussion will begin about how much religiously motivated violence against children a society is ready to tolerate,” he told the German news agency DPA.
Not a soapbox for your views on cabals or whether most violence is perpetrated by women |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
== Do not delete under the false pretence, it only proves how bad great an issue it is that there is a a cabal of power users controlling the narrative according to their misandrist whims. I will report users that attempt to delete it and then re-ad it. I encourage people to look at who it is deleting this topic as they are the one engaging in vandalising the page and terrified of me exposing this. This is a hugely important issue and the power users needs to explain their vandalism of this page and how the last few months have been engaging in a conserted effort to degrade it and make it worse. I think there is a serious issue of a cabal of power user vandalising and locking the page to spread misinformation and promote misandry. The most clear example of this is them including men being perpetuators of violence in the page of men as victims and then later further vandalising it by making it the first thing mentioned and thus giving it primacy. That is nothing but misandry as it's not relevant in any shape or form on a page talking about violence against men, it's effectively victim blaming and only serves to try and diminish men as victims. Secondly, it's also completely false as this is based on how many women are judged guilty in court, but this is misleading as women are extremely privileged in court and in most cases see no punishment for their crimes. I therefore call for these power users to explain themselves and to be banned if they cannot come up with a strong valid explanation. It's not relevant to include in the page for men as victims and especially not as the first thing mentioned in the summary. That includes the admins that are protecting these misandrist power users. If you think it should be included then we should also make the page about violence against women, or the page on domestic violence against women mention as the first thing that women commit the majority of domestic violence. If you think that is sexist you better explain why this is not 80.62.117.238 ( talk) 08:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
Bizarre notion that women commit most crimes of violence, and that there's a conspiracy to conceal that |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It's not relevant to mention it, it only seek to diminish men as victims. And it's also false. Whoever added it and then later choose to make it the first thing should be ashamed of themselves for their misandry. For example women are more often the perpetrators of domestic violence: http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/FindingsAt-a-Glance.Nov.23.pdf
"A study done in 2012 found that men usually receive 63% longer sentences for the same crime than women do even after controlling for all the legally and extralegally relevant factors from arrest to sentencing This would entail, based on her previous analysis on racial disparities, that discrimination against men in the criminal justice system is about 6 times higher than discrimination against minorities"
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.117.238 ( talk) 08:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |