(December 30, 2017 at 9:05 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(December 30, 2017 at 8:30 pm)SaStrike Wrote: @tizh, it does alter the overall point. taking the optimal set of data to push the article's bias is ridiculous. the sample chosen was "cases where women work more than men". with this set, the result was 50-50.

what about the rest of the data? where men work more than women, where there is unemployment, where one parent is unempliyed, where there are equal working hours etc.

most likely was not 50-50 so was left out. in fact, the article actually PROVES discrimination against men in child custody cases. since the parent which works the most working hours usually LOSES the case. so how is it 50-50 lol

(yes i know it can be argued that time spent and working hours shouldnt play a role but it does)

Sigh no it dose not . And the rest of the data  is a moot point . And no it does not prove male discrimination .

---

(December 30, 2017 at 8:48 pm)Shell B Wrote: Why not? I’m the one getting shit for it, obviously.

Still does not mean you need do it back 

...

if there are 10 cases. 2 of these cases meet the criteria of women working more hours than men and this has a 50-50 split. that means 1 case of 2. not 5 of 10. i give up on trying to explain this to you now. the article tricked you. nothing more i can do.

Because there  is no better evidence they can only complain about perceived flaws in one set of data . And none have even touched the data i presented . Which further reinforces the claim in the articles .

---

(December 30, 2017 at 9:12 pm)SaStrike Wrote:

(December 30, 2017 at 9:05 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Sigh no it dose not . And the rest of the data  is a moot point . And no it does not prove male discrimination .

---

Still does not mean you need do it back 

...

if there are 10 cases. 2 of these cases meet the criteria of women working more hours than men and this has a 50-50 split. that means 1 case of 2. not 5 of 10. i give up on trying to explain this to you now. the article tricked you. nothing more i can do.

You probably should give up . Because this statement makes zero sense . I no i have not been tricked i think you have been .

(December 30, 2017 at 9:08 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(December 30, 2017 at 7:24 pm)SaStrike Wrote: but those are just old blog pages from two random women. right?

anyway lets assume that they are not biased and just go with it;

in the second link you posted, what i understand from what is being conveyed, is that when a married couple divorces, and ONLY when the woman works more hours than the man, the child custody win rate is around 50-50

that doesnt mean there is no gender biased in court against men regarding child custody? what a misleading article title. dishonest writing imo...

The Times piece wasn't a feminist rant; it was referencing a series of articles for Working Mother Magazine, warning that readers who held the misperception of there being a gender-bias being in their favor would undoubtedly be dealt a blow of shock and devastation in the courtroom.

Because again, the court bias appears to be in the presumption, that the parent who works more, parents less. Male OR female.

I'm not suggesting that gender bias against men never, ever occurs in regards to custody proceedings. But I seriously question the MRM claim of gender bias being widespread and prevalent to the point of the system being rigged against them in regards to custody, when they can only produce the fervent assertion of everyone knows this... and anecdotal accounts that can't be corroborated or verified. If there's better evidence, where is it?

Because again, if anyone has any reliable/statistical data that supports the claim, I'd be interested in seeing it.

i agree with you 100%

but i just find it strange she was able to find the set of data she was looking, you know, that 50-50 equality split. and for the other (more important and easier to find data, the actual numbers of all included cases) hasnt been mentioned and seems to be missing from the public.

as you can tell by my lack of grammar im on mobile at the moment so im unable to search.

Right it's vast conspiracy to not find evidence to that will prove gender bias . Or we can go with the data available that shows the claim is not so.

(December 30, 2017 at 9:05 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Still does not mean you need do it back 

But it’s perfectly okay for someone else to shit on me? Okey-dokey... Way to perpetuate something that was ending.

(December 30, 2017 at 9:23 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(December 30, 2017 at 9:05 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Still does not mean you need do it back 

But it’s perfectly okay for someone else to shit on me? Okey-dokey... Way to perpetuate something that was ending.

I never said it was okay. But what about repeating makes it any better? No you did a fine job of that.

(December 30, 2017 at 9:21 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Right it's vast conspiracy to not find evidence to that will prove gender bias . Or we can go with the data available that shows the claim is not so.

lol stop. i already tried to explain why it isnt the actual numbers. just 1 subset meeting a specific condition. as in a portion of the actual total number. a portion that is actually supposed to be skewed towards men but is 50-50. i have no doubt that if we were to take the portion that looks at "men working more hours than women" it will be far from 50-50. i predict 80-20 favouring women.

(December 30, 2017 at 9:29 pm)SaStrike Wrote:

(December 30, 2017 at 9:21 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Right it's vast conspiracy to not find evidence to that will prove gender bias . Or we can go with the data available that shows the claim is not so.

lol stop. i already tried to explain why it isnt the actual numbers. just 1 subset meeting a specific condition. as in a portion of the actual total number. a portion that is actually supposed to be skewed towards men but is 50-50. i have no doubt that if we were to take the portion that looks at "men working more hours than women" it will be far from 50-50. i predict 80-20 favouring women.

I made it clear that the Times piece was written in 2009's recession/recovery era, when more women had taken to working longer/full-time hours in light of their spouses' layoffs.

(December 30, 2017 at 9:29 pm)SaStrike Wrote:

(December 30, 2017 at 9:21 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Right it's vast conspiracy to not find evidence to that will prove gender bias . Or we can go with the data available that shows the claim is not so.

lol stop. i already tried to explain why it isnt the actual numbers. just 1 subset meeting a specific condition. as in a portion of the actual total number. a portion that is actually supposed to be skewed towards men but is 50-50. i have no doubt that if we were to take the portion that looks at "men working more hours than women" it will be far from 50-50. i predict 80-20 favouring women.

You predict but have no data . The article had data .End of story .

(December 30, 2017 at 9:26 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(December 30, 2017 at 9:23 pm)Shell B Wrote: But it’s perfectly okay for someone else to shit on me? Okey-dokey... Way to perpetuate something that was ending.

I never said it was okay. But what about repeating makes it any better? No you did a fine job of that.

Firstly, why am I the only person you’re targeting? Why don’t you chastise your buddies? Secondly, why the fuck is it my job to make it better? I’m not here to do what you think is right. I’m not interested in “being the bigger person” when dealing with random assholes.