Reddit reviews Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men

This ruling never made any sense to me until a few days ago.

I am reading this book right now and there are some juicy little details in it, especially about Canada.

Here's a sample:

> Chapter 12: 5 Women's Rights v. Human Rights: The Case of Entitlements
>
> Of interest here are two sections of the Charter, which became law in 1982. Sections 15 and 28 must be seen as operating together. According to the first part of section 15, “[e]very individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” According to the second part, that “does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” Now consider section 28: “Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.”40

[...]

> In 1995 pay equity was given legal status under Canada’s Employment Equity Act. “The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfilment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences.”60

[...]

> Status of Women Canada is a government office, remember, but it acts also as a lobby group for women. Note the link between “equal outcomes” and “substantive equality.”) In addition, a new argument follows: “Gender-based analysis can prevent costly legal challenges under the Charter and at the same time promote sound and effective public policies.”64 In other words, forget litigation. Bureaucracy itself can take care of everything. Just leave it to us!

> The following statement of commitment leaves no doubt that gender-based analysis is really woman-based, or gynocentric, analysis: “The federal government is committed through the Federal Plan [Setting the Stage for the Next Century, which we have already mentioned] … to ensuring that all future legislation and policies include, where appropriate, an analysis of the potential for different impacts on women and men. Individual departments will be responsible for determining which legislation or policies have the potential to affect women differentially and are, therefore, appropriate for a consistent application of a gender lens.”65 The word “men” appears, to be sure, but – as the very next line indicates – only as a token gesture.

> Interpretations of the Charter have institutionalized equality of result as a goal. This clearly distinguishes Canadian law from American. (Passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, the struggle for which is far from dead, would open up very similar possibilities in the United States. This is why feminists still want it). But all legislation that results from feminist agitation for equality of result, whether in the United States or Canada, is based on the assumption that women constitute a victim class. (Some feminists believe that women constitute the original and even the ultimate victim class.) Ergo, women both need and deserve special protection. And by “special” we refer to protection that infringes on the rights of other citizens. Like every other segment of society, women are indeed victims in some ways.

Take a look at the book "Legalizing Misandry"--written by two Canadian academics and part of their multi-volume series on misandry:

https://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Paul-Nathanson-ebook/dp/B00CS5BJ78/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512019773&sr=1-2&keywords=misandry

Actually throughout history females were much, much more likely to survive to adulthood and reproduce. And they have always had their own set of privileges and their own forms of power.

Speaking of books/papers:

The Privileged Sex

The Myth of Male Power

Female forms of power and the myth of male dominance

Favored or Oppressed?

The Legal Subjugation of Men (1908)

The Boy Crisis

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men

Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men

The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys

Gender differences on automatic in group bias: whey do women like women more than men like men?

Sex Differences in the Ultimatum Game: An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective

Intrasexual Competition Shapes Men’s Anti-Utilitarian Moral Decisions

Moral Chivalry: Gender and Harm Sensitivity Predict Costly Altruism

The Gender Empathy Gap: Chivalry is not dead when it comes to morality

Note that with the exception of the first link, which leads to an historical study of female privilege written by a right wing military strategist, all of these books and papers were written by liberals and socialists.

Another recent [study](Objectivity and realms of explanation in academic journal articles concerning sex/gender: a comparison of Gender studies and the other social sciences) (conducted in Sweden, of all places) concluded that 'gender studies' is by far the most unscientific and biased discipline in all of the social sciences and possibly all of academia. Basically, if you've learned about gender solely through the lens of feminism, you've been wildly misinformed.