Also, women only gyms are prevalent but not men only gyms.
In addition you could argue that men are making more on average because of bias the other way. (Not sure if this is really true). The other reason that women in marriages tend to make less is that they are more likely to take time out of the job market when the kids are born.
I would guess that it’s pretty rare for a woman who is sitting on a park bench, reading a book and minding her own business, to be approached by a police officer and asked to move on because some nearby parents think she’s scoping out their children.
It’s happened to me. Twice.
I can only assume Rigamarole is living in a home far beyond his means, has a female landlord, and assumes this to be universally the case.
This doesn’t back up your claim at all.
Case 1: The man makes $100k/year and the woman makes $20k/year.
Case 2: The woman makes $100k/year and the man makes $20k/year.
In Case 2, does the woman pay out as much as the man in Case 1?
The local YMCA is coed, and has women-only programs (including a women’s swim) and a women-only excercise area. Two blocks away is a YWCA that doesn’t let males past the lobby once they start puberty. :rolleyes:
Cute. 
I admit that one was more of a joke, but this whole popular rhetoric of “men get all the money and women don’t!” is a farce that needs to change.
Did you miss the part I quoted? Let me try it in bold so you see it:
“Although there is not supposed to be a gender bias anymore, alimony statistics show that women make up less then 4% of people who pay spousal support.”
Yeah, the fact that in the real world (not a hypothetical case) over 96% of those who pay alimony are men doesn’t back up the claim that alimony overwhelmingly and systematically favors women at all.
Again, this is only because men tend to make more money. The person who makes more money pays spousal support. I already explained why men tend to make more. The law is gender neutral and based on formulas in most if not all jurisdictions.
They have a sofa in their restroom. Why don’t I have a sofa in the men’s room?
The article you quoted claimed the disparity is due to social stigma that prevents men from seeking alimony. I don’t think that qualifies as discrimination.
It’s happened to me before too. Even on a couple of occasions when I had taken my sister and niece there.
Be honest, would you sit/lay on a sofa if there were one in the men’s room? Especially in a bar? I don’t even want to imagine what would be done on/to that couch in a short period.
Personally, I don’t know of anyone receiving alimony, though I do know a couple of people who tried for it. I also don’t know of any man who is raising children and doesn’t receive (or wasn’t granted) child support. Of course, some women are just as bad as some men about not paying up on the support but the men are supposed to be receiving it.
Only in the sense that overwhelmingly and systematically women make less money on average and given the fact that alimony is awarded based on income disparity, is more likely to be awarded to women.
It’s all sexist garbage. 2 years paid leave, my ass.
This thread is too funny!
Women pay lower rates of car insurance than men.
In the EU, this practice is about to be outlawed - no good saying that insurance is about risk, gender based service provision is not allowed, just as it would not be on race or religion.
Imagine a situation where black men were to have higher rates of car crashes than white males, do you think it would be allowed - even if it were true? Now switch a gender here or there and the issue is more obvious.
A friend of mine made quite a bit more than his now ex-wife over a long marriage and, for various reasons, he had 60% custody of the kids. He had to pay alimony and she had to pay child support. They are considered two separate things so he couldn’t just deduct the child support from the alimony. Every month they dutifully sent each other checks.
Males are more likely to be investigated, arrested, and punished for crimes; they are also punished more harshly.
Crimes against females tend to be taken more seriously and punished more harshly than crimes against males.
Domestic violence against males is generally considered funny or his fault, while it’s (rightfully of course) considered a crime against women. A woman can beat her boyfriend with a hammer, and the cops will arrest him not her even if there’s not a mark on her & he’s bleeding on the ground, unless the law gives them no leeway in the matter.
In underage sex, the male is treated as a criminal and the female as a victim. Two sixteen year olds have sex and get caught, the boy can end up jailed or having to flee the country while the girl gets counseling for her “trauma”.
Twice as much money is spent on female specific medical research than on male specific medical research.
Parents respond more quickly to a crying female infant than to a crying male one.
Historically (there was a fairly recent uproar over it so it might have changed some) males have been used much more often as medical research subjects than females. Note that this manages to be sexist against both genders; it puts men at greater risk of harm from the experimentation, but means that women end up subject to medicine designed with results skewed towards a male physiology.
That much? Some of it, certainly, is justifiable; women’s bodies are a bit more complex than men’s bodies.
As a counter to Tris’s comment about the medical spending, it wasn’t until fairly recently (in historic terms) that “women specific” medical research even happened at all. Up until recently, medical trials for drugs and treatments were made with all males, under the presumption that females were totally identical with the only exception of childbirth and breastfeeding.
That having been proven false, I’m willing to count the double-spending as making up for lost time with research that needs to be done over again to insure that it really is compatible with female bodies.
Also, can I find out where **Rigamarole **lives? Because I so want to live somewhere where I can get 2 years paid leave for childbirth! Right now, childbirth counts in with my regular sick leave. That means that women who are pregnant (or planning to become pregnant) where I work come in all the time with colds and aches and the flu because they are hoarding their limited leave to use when the child arrives. We have so much illness running through our library because people are contagious while they’re there - but the supervisors are all women too, and know why everyone’s doing it, so they’re not going to order anyone to stay home. Heck, in some cases, the supervisors are doing it also! It’s ridiculous.
Even FMLA is only 6 months, and it runs concurrently with your regular sick leave unless you have a VERY generous company/boss. In simple terms, if I have 3 months of sick leave saved up, by the time I get done using it, I’ve only got 3 months left of UNPAID FMLA leave remaining to use. I don’t get 9 months total.
QFT = Two years paid leave, my ass.
I know! Someone should put a [COMEDY GOLD] warning in the thread title.