"Most women, unlike most men, know what it is like to be discriminated against and oppressed and, if they want to succeed, must "learn to see both sides in ways that men do not," as Slate's Dahlia Lithwick put it."

This has to be one of the most asinine comments Lithwick has come up with amidst a varsity squad's worth of asinine comments.

In any position where a man has to deal with women or young children, they have to take exceptional steps to avoid even the appearance of impropriety - to the point where some professions (elementary school teacher) are almost entirely devoid of men.

When you get in a fight with your girlfriend and she starts hurling frying pans at you, don't be surprised when the police arrest you - even though you didn't even raise your voice, much less hit her.

If you and a young lady get drunk and have sex, be aware that you won't have any idea whether or not this sex was rape until the next morning - and if she unilaterally decides it rape, you have absolutely no recourse to having your name dragged through the mud.

Get a divorce and want to see your children? Sorry. Our courts have decided that women make better caregivers, men always abuse their children and are only useful for money. And if your ex drags the children halfway across the nation so you can never see them, the courts won't help you. You skip a few payments, and you go to jail.

Men don't understand women? The reverse is true. How many men have you heard saying they're trapped in a relationship by their bad choices? How many women? Men study women intensely because they're very interested in forming relationships with them. Women don't need to do this, since they're the "pursued".

Inarguably, many of these points are taken to extremes, but they should showcase just how silly it is for a modern women to complain that men "just don't understand".

Only a complete ass would believe that their 'kind' (whatever that is and however they wish to define that many groups one can believe they belong to), is someone special. AND of course when people discuss their 'kind' they only point out the special gifts their 'kind' have and not any of their negatives or limitations.

For example, I'm know as the jazz man and jazz guitar players know a lot of chord shapes. We need a lot to play jazz standards. Blues and Rock players often know only a few chord shapes BUT they can ROCK and play with more SOLE! So when I play blues with my friends I have to forget all the shapes I know (it just throws the blues\rock players off), and just try to ROCK

Thus a jazz guitar style isn't better than blues\rock but just different and it all depends on the situation. Same with women and men.

. . . .everything looks like a nail.

Dude . . . what you say here is, in some sense, correct. Becoming involved with a woman, for a man, involves a certain amount of legal risk. You know: what if she lies? What if she stabs you and blames you for it? And so on. . . but that's not something that needs to be taken out of sex. Quite the contrary. Sex is about jeopardy. . . Your legal jeopardy matches her physical jeopardy, to the ultimate benefit (unless one of you misjudged) of you both.

Never look for risk-free sex. . . it doesn't exist, and if it did it would be about as hot as masturbation.

The only case of "discrimination" that you have legitimately listed is that of child custody. But even that one isn't very accurate - because it depends on the age of the child, and a host of other issues. And not all that long ago (30 years) it was completely the opposite.

The critical word here is "discrimination" - EVERYONE has experienced being discriminated against because it simply means a decision where someone elses attributes were preferred over yours.

The REAL intent of the term here is "irrational discrimination" or "myth based discrimination". And none of your other examples are "irrational" - even the child custody example has some fact behind it.

No, white men do not experience daily and pervasive "irrational discrimination". And the fact that you cannot come up with examples of:

• being ignored in a conversation significant to you because you are man
• having your choices ignored in preference of a female's decision
• being assumed to being lower ranked in business than you are
• being assumed to be a threat when you are not
• being assumed to be dishonest because of your skin color
• the list goes on

but only singleton examples where the facts support the biased decision making - is demonstrative of the fact that you - as a white male - do not get what "discrimination" even IS.

No, white men do not experience daily and pervasive "irrational discrimination". And the fact that you cannot come up with examples of:

• being ignored in a conversation significant to you because you are man

Exactly how are women ignored in this manner? I have never seen this happen unless there is an abusive relationship involved and then it couler be either the man or the woman.

• having your choices ignored in preference of a female's decision

I think you ment having your choices ignored in preference to a man's decision. Either way it simply dosent happen much if ever in a business these days.....Perhaps 20 years ago but not now? When was the last time you witnessed such an occurrence?

• being assumed to being lower ranked in business than you are

I don't think you are referring to glass ceiling here. In anyof my business dealings If I am told somebody I am dealing with is _______officer of the company by a secretary or in a formal introduction I am not surprised if it is a woman. What other ways do you envision a person can be assumed to be "lower ranked in business"? Perhaps a chance meeting on a street corner?

• being assumed to be a threat when you are not

Again Women are assumed to be a threat? Why would you beleive that a woman or anybody else would be discriminated against in this manner?

• being assumed to be dishonest because of your skin color.

OK obviously you are not talking about women here. I can actually beleive this one happens or at least the "victim" beleives it is happening. Usually When I see a person with pants falling to his knees and exposing purposefully his boxers I assume that person is part of the Criminal culture....either a real criminal or a wannabe. It really has nothing to do with skin color Becuase I have seen Whites and Hispanics wear this mode of clothing bot just Blacks. I also consider it shamefull to dress in this manner

• the list goes on

but only singleton examples where the facts support the biased decision making - is demonstrative of the fact that you - as a white male - do not get what "discrimination" even IS.

Again I don't agree with the premise that one should experience discrimination to know what it is. In fact not experienccing it may give a potential jurist a more balanced perspective in assessing the law.

American women will never admit that they are the most coddled, spoiled people on the planet, because the "discrimination card" and "victim card" has worked very well for them.

its true, most men are never discriminated against. Unless they are short, or ugly or minorities, or gay, or bald, or poor. How could a man possibly know what women go through?

@degsme

"And not all that long ago (30 years) it was completely the opposite"

Welcome time traveller! Currently it is the year 2009, and the Victorian 'tender years' doctrine has been in effect for more than a century. 30 years prior to today was 1979, and I assure you that men then had even less chance of joint or full custody than they do today.

I'm curious though - what do you do for a living that's so great you can dismiss children, family and home as insignificant?

TP - that you haven't seen it doesn't mean much. YOU have a tendency to see what you believe.

Again I don't agree with the premise that one should experience discrimination to know what it is.

No you don't have to experience it to be able to identify it. But not having experienced it makes it much harder to recognize it - particularly when you have benefitted from that discrimination throughout your life and "recognizing it" means you have to forego priviledge.

Sorry should have said 35-40 years. No Fault divorce only became widely adopted in the early/mid 1970s. In "fault divorce" women were often deemed "unfit parents".

Who said I'm dismissing children home and family as insignificant?

degsme:

TP - that you haven't seen it doesn't mean much. YOU have a tendency to see what you believe.

Again I don't agree with the premise that one should experience discrimination to know what it is.

No you don't have to experience it to be able to identify it. But not having experienced it makes it much harder to recognize it - particularly when you have benefitted from that discrimination throughout your life and "recognizing it" means you have to forego priviledge.

Degs,

You claim to be big on scientific method and english. If the average person can use a book to identify an animal by Species. I would think an average person could do the same to identify discrimination. In fact a person who has not experienced it could (in my estimation) more reasonably apply the law to the situation better than somebody who has an emotional stake in the outcome (i.e. sombody who has experienced it).

So rather than address my questions you just off-handedly dismiss my statement that I don't agree with you. I think my questions were valid and it is quite telling that you ignored them.

hating white males, the new acceptable racism. simple as that. strange considering how anything worth having now was invented, developed, and produced by white males.

The only case of "discrimination" that you have legitimately listed is that of child custody. But even that one isn't very accurate - because it depends on the age of the child, and a host of other issues. And not all that long ago (30 years) it was completely the opposite.

The critical word here is "discrimination" - EVERYONE has experienced being discriminated against because it simply means a decision where someone elses attributes were preferred over yours.

The REAL intent of the term here is "irrational discrimination" or "myth based discrimination". And none of your other examples are "irrational" - even the child custody example has some fact behind it.

No, white men do not experience daily and pervasive "irrational discrimination". And the fact that you cannot come up with examples of:

• being ignored in a conversation significant to you because you are man

-Ever been a non-professional (yet no less intelligent) male trying to talk to a bunch of professionals, let alone a female professional?

• having your choices ignored in preference of a female's decision

-Abortion? This is also way too broad of a category, and entirely vague.

• being assumed to being lower ranked in business than you are

-Is it 1960 still? Where does this happen? Wouldn't this also apply to men who don't carry themselves very well?

• being assumed to be a threat when you are not

-Um, dating? Being around children? When are women perceived as threats? Or is this directed at minorities?

• being assumed to be dishonest because of your skin color

-Evil white male? The patriarchy?

• the list goes on

-Apparently.

The average person has no vested interest in what species an animal is. When they do (like in the ivory billed woodpecker case ) the results become skewed very much by the vested interests. White males like you have a vested interest in not seeing your unearned priviledges.

that's why you look at studies like the Institute of Managment, the Federal Reserve Bank, the Chicago Housing Authority, in class video based analysis etc.

And ALL of those studies EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM - finds unearned preferences for white males.