That’s rough. You come across as a good guy.
Thanks, man.
I don’t want to deny the overwhelming male-base of domestic violence either, but things need to change (and thankfully, the laws here are changing - from a focus on the rights of the woman to the rights of the child, but a little slowly).
What do you mean ‘here’? Family Law’s the same nationally. 
Indeed.
Not sure about AVOs though. Especially when they’re renewed and renewed… I’m on my second two-year term now. If she goes for a third, I’ll apply for one too. I simply couldn’t afford to fight the first two - now I can.
Yeah, vexatious AVO’s are a bit of a problem, but I’m told Fam Court magistrates are alive to it. The other problem is the cost of proper representation, but good to see you have that in hand.
The problem is that the courts are reluctant to deny a potentially vexatious AVO just in case it isn’t - if I sucessfully get one knocked on the head, then go out and go nuts with two botles of scotch and a machete, there’s a judge’s career at stake. But if I get an AVO against me, and spent the term drinking weak tea and quietly learning Bible verses, then the AVO has been correct because it’s taught me a lesson. It’s hard to blame the judiciary for being cautious.
Anyway, we’ve hijacked this thread enough. 
Pardon me for having started such a contentious thread. (I still hold that a very tall person is more harassed than a very fat one.)
And pardon me again for taking exception to Zoe’s comment cited above.
All of human history is a parade of wives, lovers, mothers and daughters sending their menfolk off to war and work to bring home something nice. While I understand the much of the human condition can be fairly viewed as the oppression of women, I honestly take the contrary view.
In WWI, British women handed out chicken feathers (a sign of cowardice) to uniformed men on London streets. Just a very obvious example of the expectation that men are supposed to go get shot at while women can enjoy the comforts of home and family.
(Did you see the article intoday’s Times?)
Too true, Paul. When you want to shame a male into ‘proper’ behaviour, you can say “Be a Man.”
There’s no analogue for women, That I can think of. (Not Ladylike? - almost works)
Misandry. It’s called misandry. Ingrained in the language, apparently.
Surely you mean non-uniformed men.
No, I meant un-uniformed. My fingers got in the way.
I don’t buy this. Nobody ever tells a tall person that they should just stop growing so much.
Sandy Allen may have been an extremely harassed individual, but she wasn’t just a very tall person; she was a very, VERY tall person.
I have to think that if the women were really calling the shots throughout history, they wouldn’t have kept overlooking the right to own stuff.
Women live longer than men (nowadays).
----But oddly can retire (in the US) younger than men.
Women are richer than men (in the US and most industrial countries).
Women are allowed (by social norms) to stay home and raise their children.
Perhaps because men earn more than women do so their income would be the one most missed? Cite that women are richer than men in the US and most industrial countries?
I don’t know why I’m bothering asking you, you haven’t bothered to respond to anyone regarding why you’re taking Howard Stern’s word as to the worth of someone’s fuckability.
Yes, but what if a woman doesn’t want to stay home and raise children? They have that option now (in the US and some other places), but it’s a new thing.
Similarly, if women are richer than men these days, that’s also a new thing. As you concede, they don’t have that going for them in non-industrialized countries. If they’re not in charge there now, how likely is it that they’ve somehow been in charge for “all of (non-industrialized) history?”
Gosh, was that called for? I am not familiar with Howard Stern. Further, I am willing to retreat from the OP. (I certainly ought to have used a better title.)
Moving along to women being richer than men, this is obvious to anyone who looks around. Women live longer then men and so inherit huge amounts. Cite There are certainly lots of poor single women, but women dominate the top two categories, and these groups are so much richer than the bottom groups are poor as to overwhelm them.
Consult the last line of the Quintiles table. Then finally, because this is the Pit; lick me.
You started a thread and defended it until people started questioning you, then you were nowhere to be found. Instead of answering people who took the time to respond to you, you’ve decided to scrap your defense of the overly tall and move on to this. In other words, yes… it’s called for.
Obvious to anyone who looks around? Are you drunk? Women inherit huge amounts because they live longer? Is there anything else you’d like to make a wild speculation about without proof? You’re talking about a small percentage of people, not the average person.
From your own cite, a man with “some college” over the age of 25 makes nearly $4,000 a year more than a woman with a bachelor’s degree. Overall, the average income of a male of 25 is $33,517 while a woman over 25 is $19,679.
Not if your (or my) very life depended on it. ::Shudder::
You misunderstand. I remained silent when the thread veered off in unforeseen directions.
You misunderstand. It takes many men making $4K more (that is to say a bountiful $2 an hour over a 2,000 hour workyear) a year than women of the same age group to make up for the very few happy widows who inherit millions and millions they did not earn.
Yes, I retreated from the opinion I held in the OP. What do you do when you reconsider a subject?