|
On June 07 2011 07:14 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:01 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 06:10 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:59 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:45 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 06:06 Asjo wrote:
I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this. The video aside, it's mostly playing around involving close physical contact with girls ...
The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it. People interpret behaviour, consider what it might lead to, and act preventatively. Perhaps this might sometimes lead to an overreaction, but that doesn't mean that you should also overreact to a single instance of bullying by girls in the name of equality. As it is, it was a bunch of young kids acting immaturely and getting physical about it. Obviously, the school/parents will react to avoid things escalating, but as such there is nothing outrageous about the interaction.
I don't know if the comments in this thread about child porn are serious. However, just because someone underage is filmed nude, does not in any way make it child porn. Nudity is the most natural thing in the world. Child porn is about exploitation of children and the often sexualized depiction of such. Never have I simply entered the discussion by only saying: "I think this - this is intuition"My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. nuff' said about that i think, unless you want me to Cite other examples? no..Are you sure?...No?..Ok Then we can move on. The only thing i am arguing is these lines right here "I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this" and "The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it." Why is there a sexual aspect just because their boys doing it? that is a Gender Double Standard..... In the example you give, there is no need for any further explanation than that which I have already given about hormones, fondless of touch, desperation for contact. It's a pretty general thing, which I'm sure everyone can understand. Note, I wasn't argued that he enjoyed it, only that it was a possibility to consider before anyone went apeshit about or, went to the media or courts with it. In the second quote, I simply outline the morale of my point, telling others what conclusion I have personally reached in regard to the morality that had been discussed. This then branched out through my entire argument, where I constructed an understanding of the situation that would not necessitate punishing the girls by taking this to court. Ýour third example, about the sexual rationalizations, is about forceful physical contact, carried out boys onto girls. I think the connection here is quite simply. Many people will have heard about or experienced that this is how such things start or escalate and turn into rape or the like. They will have seen other kind of behaviour where this approach of "no regard" is a way for boys to be "sexually forward". Generally, people will react very strongly to any such physical behaviour simply because they know that a lack of reaction might legitimize taking it a step further. Since they don't fear the girls taking it a step further, as this often won't be the care, it wouldn't play a conscious part of their interpretation if the roles were reversed, which would mean that other factors would be more important (social behaviour, bullying, group disharmony, etc.). Therefore, many people will overreact. In the end, those people are the ones who decide the law, and thus the boys risk ending up being charged with sexual assualt in a similar situation. Now, if girls raping boys because a problem of similar proportions and became as big a part of people's consciousness as rape carried out by males (just like, relating to my previous example, people are more conscious about terrorists being more dangerous than other criminals these days), the reaction would be different. I'm sorry... but I really don't understand your post, just like I didn't understand any of the shit you said earlier... Can you highlight your references to "hormones, fondless of touch(?) and desperation for contact(?)" because as far as I know, hormones work both ways, and the other two I'm not really sure about. As for your last paragraph, it's a bit of a mess and once I again I'm confused, it sounds like you're simply saying that it's more likely that it would have escalated to rape if it were three boys(once again based on your all powerful intuition) and that boys wouldn't mind girls taking it further(from the point seen in the video? once again based on intuition and once again, this blows my fucking mind) and then you end with girls raping boys isn't a big part of our consciousness... So we're not as aware of girls raping boys-... So let's not give a fuck when it actually happens despite expecting gender equality... Cool fucking beans. I really think you should re-read that, since you seem to have completely misunderstood it. I hope it's not riddled with typos - I can be quite bad with those. If I wrote "fondless", what I meant was "fondness". These were things I referenced from my previous posts where I talk about the sensitivities that might be involved and how the situation might have different implication for boys and girls. I'm sure you cannot have missed it. But yeah, re-read it, or, alternatively, point out the parts that cause you to misunderstand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that girls raping guys was fine, and that the guys would appreciate this. In fact, I have previous written: "It has nothing to do with double standards, and I'm sure people would react strongly if the girls actually did rape the boy or something to that effect (if not, at least, then you can talk about double standards)". Once again, I responded to that and the post you mentioned, the girls would not be required to rape the boy for it to establish a double standard since in the comparison mentioned, the boys wouldn't be raping the girl. Also, this would be my response, girls are developing identities at that age? So are boys. They generally place more weight on appearances, I'm not sure what you mean here but so do boys, and this would damage a boys self image as well, there is an equal chance that this would affect a boy's relation to the other gender and I disagree with the statement in parentheses, I think there is openness and shyness on both sides. Also, how would being overpowered physically "make her very uneasy in the future" in comparison to a boy in this situation? It's not a boy losing a fight or bullying, which by the way can happen with girls as well, I simply don't agree with this. This is where we reach our impasse because you've simply mentioned stuff that I don't think is true at all using "intuition", I can't argue or respond to these statements if I don't find the statements themselves to be true themselves, so the response simply becomes, if you're saying these things, cite some sources or it's a perfectly valid response to say that your actual points are bullshit and this is a double standard that you're perpetuating based on falsehoods. You contest several points here, and either make vague counter-claims or pose questions. For the sake of clarity, allow me to outline them: 1) Developing identities - "both guys and girls do this" 2) Place weigh on appearance - "both guys and girls do this" 3) Become uneasy about the other gender as a result of forceful physical contact - "equal chance for both guys and girls" 4) Openness and shyness - "the case for both guys and girls" Point 1: Of course they both do this. The question is; at what rate and to which effect. I would say that, for boys, developing an identity with the context of school is mostly focused on finding a role within the school. There can several reasons for this, and I won't claim one to be more valid than the other. It could be because society more often encourages boys to be competitive at an early age, and fulfilling this expectations satisfies a claim to identity. It could also be that dominance is an important quality, due to a macho instinct, meaning that once the question of dominance is established by you finding a role within the group, this generally puts you at ease. Meanwhile, as expected in my post before this, the search for identity will often be different for girls and will have more intellectual properties. Girls might feel more obliged to filfull a role in several contexts and therefore feel the need for an identity than can emcompass all of this. So, girls will often try out different identities, trying to find something that can give them a clear self-image which makes sense in many contexts. This can make them more sensitive to events that expose them in various ways as it forced them to rethink their self-image, because it's more fragile, or greatly challenges it. Point 2: Perhaps this ties in with some of the other behaviour described. If you physically act out your emotion, instead of intellectualizing them or putting them into a great frame of identity, you will look outward rather than inward. This is only enhanced if you generally act on impulse, heavily affected by your emotions, because you rarely get the time to reflect on other things than what you are immediately dealing with. Therefore, many boys will go around completely oblivious about how they appear to others unless it relates to some of the things which play a major role in their perception, for instance, their role within their group. If they are wrestled onto the ground and stripped, thus being put in a humiliating, it will matter because of how it affects their social status, less so because of his it exposes their physical appearance or other body language that could be communicated in such a situation. Point 3: As I already mentioned, boys will have been physically overpowered many times. It's fully acceptable to do this to boys, so people won't hold back and have much fear as to how it will affect them (to a certain extent, of course, when it comes to parenting). Some girls could have similar experience, of course, but there will often be many spheres where heavy physical contact will be much more legitimate if directed at a boy, simply because it feels more "natural". If a boy has been fighting or wrestling other boys, this element will not stand out when it comes to the incident that we discuss. Whereas, for girls, the heavy physical contact might trigger many insecurities, both due to the stigma that society might attach to it, but also due to it simply not feeling as natural. Also, the physical contact might confuse her about her approach to boys. As I believe I mentioned, the goal with interaction with boys, might rather be to explore potential for friendships rather than fulfill specific emotional needs. Because of the insecurities triggered, the girl will now have to understand the physical behaviour of the boys much better for it not to be a hinderance to her feeling safe about establishing said friendship. Point 4: Argh ... I have been writing a lot, and at this point, I really cannot remember where this played a role. Isn't it included in the other things I have detailed in this post and my last one? ' Point 1: I don't think this is relevant in any significant way to any crime or offense whatsoever, I don't even understand what you're drawing on here... Boys can be sporty/Girls can be brainy therefor girls feel worse if they're held down and stripped... What? I'm thoroughly confused by this and in general don't agree with any of this. Yes, boys and girls tend to have varying interests growing up but that's not relevant in any way to this situation or any situation of offense. Point 2: I disagree with this, I don't think this is the case at all, sure girls may be more interested in their own looks though I don't think this is overwhelmingly the case at all, I'd say it's pretty even as you go up in age and I absolutely disagree that a boy would only feel(or be more) upset about the aspects of them being held down and stripped that relates to social status, it would be just as much about being powerless and naked. Point 3: Sure boys may be rougher with each other but this makes no sense in this frame of reference once again even if you think this is overwhelmingly the case. Honestly, it's like "Hey, this boy grew up with three brothers and is probably used to being beaten up so we're not going to make a big deal of this assault case because he's probably used to it". It doesn't fucking matter, this varies so heavily based on upbringing and environment and is irrelevant to assault or any crime or offense whatsoever. "They're probably used to it, so we shouldn't care as much". It doesn't fucking matter, this is entirely irrelevant even if it were true.
Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation:
Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation.
Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role.
Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
|
I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
|
On June 07 2011 07:27 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:14 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:01 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 06:10 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:59 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:45 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 06:06 Asjo wrote:
I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this. The video aside, it's mostly playing around involving close physical contact with girls ...
The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it. People interpret behaviour, consider what it might lead to, and act preventatively. Perhaps this might sometimes lead to an overreaction, but that doesn't mean that you should also overreact to a single instance of bullying by girls in the name of equality. As it is, it was a bunch of young kids acting immaturely and getting physical about it. Obviously, the school/parents will react to avoid things escalating, but as such there is nothing outrageous about the interaction.
I don't know if the comments in this thread about child porn are serious. However, just because someone underage is filmed nude, does not in any way make it child porn. Nudity is the most natural thing in the world. Child porn is about exploitation of children and the often sexualized depiction of such. Never have I simply entered the discussion by only saying: "I think this - this is intuition"My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. nuff' said about that i think, unless you want me to Cite other examples? no..Are you sure?...No?..Ok Then we can move on. The only thing i am arguing is these lines right here "I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this" and "The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it." Why is there a sexual aspect just because their boys doing it? that is a Gender Double Standard..... In the example you give, there is no need for any further explanation than that which I have already given about hormones, fondless of touch, desperation for contact. It's a pretty general thing, which I'm sure everyone can understand. Note, I wasn't argued that he enjoyed it, only that it was a possibility to consider before anyone went apeshit about or, went to the media or courts with it. In the second quote, I simply outline the morale of my point, telling others what conclusion I have personally reached in regard to the morality that had been discussed. This then branched out through my entire argument, where I constructed an understanding of the situation that would not necessitate punishing the girls by taking this to court. Ýour third example, about the sexual rationalizations, is about forceful physical contact, carried out boys onto girls. I think the connection here is quite simply. Many people will have heard about or experienced that this is how such things start or escalate and turn into rape or the like. They will have seen other kind of behaviour where this approach of "no regard" is a way for boys to be "sexually forward". Generally, people will react very strongly to any such physical behaviour simply because they know that a lack of reaction might legitimize taking it a step further. Since they don't fear the girls taking it a step further, as this often won't be the care, it wouldn't play a conscious part of their interpretation if the roles were reversed, which would mean that other factors would be more important (social behaviour, bullying, group disharmony, etc.). Therefore, many people will overreact. In the end, those people are the ones who decide the law, and thus the boys risk ending up being charged with sexual assualt in a similar situation. Now, if girls raping boys because a problem of similar proportions and became as big a part of people's consciousness as rape carried out by males (just like, relating to my previous example, people are more conscious about terrorists being more dangerous than other criminals these days), the reaction would be different. I'm sorry... but I really don't understand your post, just like I didn't understand any of the shit you said earlier... Can you highlight your references to "hormones, fondless of touch(?) and desperation for contact(?)" because as far as I know, hormones work both ways, and the other two I'm not really sure about. As for your last paragraph, it's a bit of a mess and once I again I'm confused, it sounds like you're simply saying that it's more likely that it would have escalated to rape if it were three boys(once again based on your all powerful intuition) and that boys wouldn't mind girls taking it further(from the point seen in the video? once again based on intuition and once again, this blows my fucking mind) and then you end with girls raping boys isn't a big part of our consciousness... So we're not as aware of girls raping boys-... So let's not give a fuck when it actually happens despite expecting gender equality... Cool fucking beans. I really think you should re-read that, since you seem to have completely misunderstood it. I hope it's not riddled with typos - I can be quite bad with those. If I wrote "fondless", what I meant was "fondness". These were things I referenced from my previous posts where I talk about the sensitivities that might be involved and how the situation might have different implication for boys and girls. I'm sure you cannot have missed it. But yeah, re-read it, or, alternatively, point out the parts that cause you to misunderstand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that girls raping guys was fine, and that the guys would appreciate this. In fact, I have previous written: "It has nothing to do with double standards, and I'm sure people would react strongly if the girls actually did rape the boy or something to that effect (if not, at least, then you can talk about double standards)". Once again, I responded to that and the post you mentioned, the girls would not be required to rape the boy for it to establish a double standard since in the comparison mentioned, the boys wouldn't be raping the girl. Also, this would be my response, girls are developing identities at that age? So are boys. They generally place more weight on appearances, I'm not sure what you mean here but so do boys, and this would damage a boys self image as well, there is an equal chance that this would affect a boy's relation to the other gender and I disagree with the statement in parentheses, I think there is openness and shyness on both sides. Also, how would being overpowered physically "make her very uneasy in the future" in comparison to a boy in this situation? It's not a boy losing a fight or bullying, which by the way can happen with girls as well, I simply don't agree with this. This is where we reach our impasse because you've simply mentioned stuff that I don't think is true at all using "intuition", I can't argue or respond to these statements if I don't find the statements themselves to be true themselves, so the response simply becomes, if you're saying these things, cite some sources or it's a perfectly valid response to say that your actual points are bullshit and this is a double standard that you're perpetuating based on falsehoods. You contest several points here, and either make vague counter-claims or pose questions. For the sake of clarity, allow me to outline them: 1) Developing identities - "both guys and girls do this" 2) Place weigh on appearance - "both guys and girls do this" 3) Become uneasy about the other gender as a result of forceful physical contact - "equal chance for both guys and girls" 4) Openness and shyness - "the case for both guys and girls" Point 1: Of course they both do this. The question is; at what rate and to which effect. I would say that, for boys, developing an identity with the context of school is mostly focused on finding a role within the school. There can several reasons for this, and I won't claim one to be more valid than the other. It could be because society more often encourages boys to be competitive at an early age, and fulfilling this expectations satisfies a claim to identity. It could also be that dominance is an important quality, due to a macho instinct, meaning that once the question of dominance is established by you finding a role within the group, this generally puts you at ease. Meanwhile, as expected in my post before this, the search for identity will often be different for girls and will have more intellectual properties. Girls might feel more obliged to filfull a role in several contexts and therefore feel the need for an identity than can emcompass all of this. So, girls will often try out different identities, trying to find something that can give them a clear self-image which makes sense in many contexts. This can make them more sensitive to events that expose them in various ways as it forced them to rethink their self-image, because it's more fragile, or greatly challenges it. Point 2: Perhaps this ties in with some of the other behaviour described. If you physically act out your emotion, instead of intellectualizing them or putting them into a great frame of identity, you will look outward rather than inward. This is only enhanced if you generally act on impulse, heavily affected by your emotions, because you rarely get the time to reflect on other things than what you are immediately dealing with. Therefore, many boys will go around completely oblivious about how they appear to others unless it relates to some of the things which play a major role in their perception, for instance, their role within their group. If they are wrestled onto the ground and stripped, thus being put in a humiliating, it will matter because of how it affects their social status, less so because of his it exposes their physical appearance or other body language that could be communicated in such a situation. Point 3: As I already mentioned, boys will have been physically overpowered many times. It's fully acceptable to do this to boys, so people won't hold back and have much fear as to how it will affect them (to a certain extent, of course, when it comes to parenting). Some girls could have similar experience, of course, but there will often be many spheres where heavy physical contact will be much more legitimate if directed at a boy, simply because it feels more "natural". If a boy has been fighting or wrestling other boys, this element will not stand out when it comes to the incident that we discuss. Whereas, for girls, the heavy physical contact might trigger many insecurities, both due to the stigma that society might attach to it, but also due to it simply not feeling as natural. Also, the physical contact might confuse her about her approach to boys. As I believe I mentioned, the goal with interaction with boys, might rather be to explore potential for friendships rather than fulfill specific emotional needs. Because of the insecurities triggered, the girl will now have to understand the physical behaviour of the boys much better for it not to be a hinderance to her feeling safe about establishing said friendship. Point 4: Argh ... I have been writing a lot, and at this point, I really cannot remember where this played a role. Isn't it included in the other things I have detailed in this post and my last one? ' Point 1: I don't think this is relevant in any significant way to any crime or offense whatsoever, I don't even understand what you're drawing on here... Boys can be sporty/Girls can be brainy therefor girls feel worse if they're held down and stripped... What? I'm thoroughly confused by this and in general don't agree with any of this. Yes, boys and girls tend to have varying interests growing up but that's not relevant in any way to this situation or any situation of offense. Point 2: I disagree with this, I don't think this is the case at all, sure girls may be more interested in their own looks though I don't think this is overwhelmingly the case at all, I'd say it's pretty even as you go up in age and I absolutely disagree that a boy would only feel(or be more) upset about the aspects of them being held down and stripped that relates to social status, it would be just as much about being powerless and naked. Point 3: Sure boys may be rougher with each other but this makes no sense in this frame of reference once again even if you think this is overwhelmingly the case. Honestly, it's like "Hey, this boy grew up with three brothers and is probably used to being beaten up so we're not going to make a big deal of this assault case because he's probably used to it". It doesn't fucking matter, this varies so heavily based on upbringing and environment and is irrelevant to assault or any crime or offense whatsoever. "They're probably used to it, so we shouldn't care as much". It doesn't fucking matter, this is entirely irrelevant even if it were true. Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation: Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation. Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role. Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident.
Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing.
Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes.
Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard.
Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
|
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote:
I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
You're being way too sexist, though you admit it. In a fair trial, sexism would not stand. "girls are young and stupid." So what? Actions are punishable not motives.
It doesn't matter if someone saved the lives of a million people if killed a few. That someone would still be charged with homicide.
You can't say the mother's choice was right or wrong because no one knows what will happen after this.
On June 07 2011 07:34 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:27 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:14 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:01 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 06:10 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:59 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:45 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 06:06 Asjo wrote:
I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this. The video aside, it's mostly playing around involving close physical contact with girls ...
The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it. People interpret behaviour, consider what it might lead to, and act preventatively. Perhaps this might sometimes lead to an overreaction, but that doesn't mean that you should also overreact to a single instance of bullying by girls in the name of equality. As it is, it was a bunch of young kids acting immaturely and getting physical about it. Obviously, the school/parents will react to avoid things escalating, but as such there is nothing outrageous about the interaction.
I don't know if the comments in this thread about child porn are serious. However, just because someone underage is filmed nude, does not in any way make it child porn. Nudity is the most natural thing in the world. Child porn is about exploitation of children and the often sexualized depiction of such. Never have I simply entered the discussion by only saying: "I think this - this is intuition"My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. nuff' said about that i think, unless you want me to Cite other examples? no..Are you sure?...No?..Ok Then we can move on. The only thing i am arguing is these lines right here "I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this" and "The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it." Why is there a sexual aspect just because their boys doing it? that is a Gender Double Standard..... In the example you give, there is no need for any further explanation than that which I have already given about hormones, fondless of touch, desperation for contact. It's a pretty general thing, which I'm sure everyone can understand. Note, I wasn't argued that he enjoyed it, only that it was a possibility to consider before anyone went apeshit about or, went to the media or courts with it. In the second quote, I simply outline the morale of my point, telling others what conclusion I have personally reached in regard to the morality that had been discussed. This then branched out through my entire argument, where I constructed an understanding of the situation that would not necessitate punishing the girls by taking this to court. Ýour third example, about the sexual rationalizations, is about forceful physical contact, carried out boys onto girls. I think the connection here is quite simply. Many people will have heard about or experienced that this is how such things start or escalate and turn into rape or the like. They will have seen other kind of behaviour where this approach of "no regard" is a way for boys to be "sexually forward". Generally, people will react very strongly to any such physical behaviour simply because they know that a lack of reaction might legitimize taking it a step further. Since they don't fear the girls taking it a step further, as this often won't be the care, it wouldn't play a conscious part of their interpretation if the roles were reversed, which would mean that other factors would be more important (social behaviour, bullying, group disharmony, etc.). Therefore, many people will overreact. In the end, those people are the ones who decide the law, and thus the boys risk ending up being charged with sexual assualt in a similar situation. Now, if girls raping boys because a problem of similar proportions and became as big a part of people's consciousness as rape carried out by males (just like, relating to my previous example, people are more conscious about terrorists being more dangerous than other criminals these days), the reaction would be different. I'm sorry... but I really don't understand your post, just like I didn't understand any of the shit you said earlier... Can you highlight your references to "hormones, fondless of touch(?) and desperation for contact(?)" because as far as I know, hormones work both ways, and the other two I'm not really sure about. As for your last paragraph, it's a bit of a mess and once I again I'm confused, it sounds like you're simply saying that it's more likely that it would have escalated to rape if it were three boys(once again based on your all powerful intuition) and that boys wouldn't mind girls taking it further(from the point seen in the video? once again based on intuition and once again, this blows my fucking mind) and then you end with girls raping boys isn't a big part of our consciousness... So we're not as aware of girls raping boys-... So let's not give a fuck when it actually happens despite expecting gender equality... Cool fucking beans. I really think you should re-read that, since you seem to have completely misunderstood it. I hope it's not riddled with typos - I can be quite bad with those. If I wrote "fondless", what I meant was "fondness". These were things I referenced from my previous posts where I talk about the sensitivities that might be involved and how the situation might have different implication for boys and girls. I'm sure you cannot have missed it. But yeah, re-read it, or, alternatively, point out the parts that cause you to misunderstand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that girls raping guys was fine, and that the guys would appreciate this. In fact, I have previous written: "It has nothing to do with double standards, and I'm sure people would react strongly if the girls actually did rape the boy or something to that effect (if not, at least, then you can talk about double standards)". Once again, I responded to that and the post you mentioned, the girls would not be required to rape the boy for it to establish a double standard since in the comparison mentioned, the boys wouldn't be raping the girl. Also, this would be my response, girls are developing identities at that age? So are boys. They generally place more weight on appearances, I'm not sure what you mean here but so do boys, and this would damage a boys self image as well, there is an equal chance that this would affect a boy's relation to the other gender and I disagree with the statement in parentheses, I think there is openness and shyness on both sides. Also, how would being overpowered physically "make her very uneasy in the future" in comparison to a boy in this situation? It's not a boy losing a fight or bullying, which by the way can happen with girls as well, I simply don't agree with this. This is where we reach our impasse because you've simply mentioned stuff that I don't think is true at all using "intuition", I can't argue or respond to these statements if I don't find the statements themselves to be true themselves, so the response simply becomes, if you're saying these things, cite some sources or it's a perfectly valid response to say that your actual points are bullshit and this is a double standard that you're perpetuating based on falsehoods. You contest several points here, and either make vague counter-claims or pose questions. For the sake of clarity, allow me to outline them: 1) Developing identities - "both guys and girls do this" 2) Place weigh on appearance - "both guys and girls do this" 3) Become uneasy about the other gender as a result of forceful physical contact - "equal chance for both guys and girls" 4) Openness and shyness - "the case for both guys and girls" Point 1: Of course they both do this. The question is; at what rate and to which effect. I would say that, for boys, developing an identity with the context of school is mostly focused on finding a role within the school. There can several reasons for this, and I won't claim one to be more valid than the other. It could be because society more often encourages boys to be competitive at an early age, and fulfilling this expectations satisfies a claim to identity. It could also be that dominance is an important quality, due to a macho instinct, meaning that once the question of dominance is established by you finding a role within the group, this generally puts you at ease. Meanwhile, as expected in my post before this, the search for identity will often be different for girls and will have more intellectual properties. Girls might feel more obliged to filfull a role in several contexts and therefore feel the need for an identity than can emcompass all of this. So, girls will often try out different identities, trying to find something that can give them a clear self-image which makes sense in many contexts. This can make them more sensitive to events that expose them in various ways as it forced them to rethink their self-image, because it's more fragile, or greatly challenges it. Point 2: Perhaps this ties in with some of the other behaviour described. If you physically act out your emotion, instead of intellectualizing them or putting them into a great frame of identity, you will look outward rather than inward. This is only enhanced if you generally act on impulse, heavily affected by your emotions, because you rarely get the time to reflect on other things than what you are immediately dealing with. Therefore, many boys will go around completely oblivious about how they appear to others unless it relates to some of the things which play a major role in their perception, for instance, their role within their group. If they are wrestled onto the ground and stripped, thus being put in a humiliating, it will matter because of how it affects their social status, less so because of his it exposes their physical appearance or other body language that could be communicated in such a situation. Point 3: As I already mentioned, boys will have been physically overpowered many times. It's fully acceptable to do this to boys, so people won't hold back and have much fear as to how it will affect them (to a certain extent, of course, when it comes to parenting). Some girls could have similar experience, of course, but there will often be many spheres where heavy physical contact will be much more legitimate if directed at a boy, simply because it feels more "natural". If a boy has been fighting or wrestling other boys, this element will not stand out when it comes to the incident that we discuss. Whereas, for girls, the heavy physical contact might trigger many insecurities, both due to the stigma that society might attach to it, but also due to it simply not feeling as natural. Also, the physical contact might confuse her about her approach to boys. As I believe I mentioned, the goal with interaction with boys, might rather be to explore potential for friendships rather than fulfill specific emotional needs. Because of the insecurities triggered, the girl will now have to understand the physical behaviour of the boys much better for it not to be a hinderance to her feeling safe about establishing said friendship. Point 4: Argh ... I have been writing a lot, and at this point, I really cannot remember where this played a role. Isn't it included in the other things I have detailed in this post and my last one? ' Point 1: I don't think this is relevant in any significant way to any crime or offense whatsoever, I don't even understand what you're drawing on here... Boys can be sporty/Girls can be brainy therefor girls feel worse if they're held down and stripped... What? I'm thoroughly confused by this and in general don't agree with any of this. Yes, boys and girls tend to have varying interests growing up but that's not relevant in any way to this situation or any situation of offense. Point 2: I disagree with this, I don't think this is the case at all, sure girls may be more interested in their own looks though I don't think this is overwhelmingly the case at all, I'd say it's pretty even as you go up in age and I absolutely disagree that a boy would only feel(or be more) upset about the aspects of them being held down and stripped that relates to social status, it would be just as much about being powerless and naked. Point 3: Sure boys may be rougher with each other but this makes no sense in this frame of reference once again even if you think this is overwhelmingly the case. Honestly, it's like "Hey, this boy grew up with three brothers and is probably used to being beaten up so we're not going to make a big deal of this assault case because he's probably used to it". It doesn't fucking matter, this varies so heavily based on upbringing and environment and is irrelevant to assault or any crime or offense whatsoever. "They're probably used to it, so we shouldn't care as much". It doesn't fucking matter, this is entirely irrelevant even if it were true. Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation: Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation. Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role. Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident. Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing. Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes. Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard. Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
This i agree with. The law treats everyone equally which mean males and females will be treated the same.
Honestly, i feel like some people are way too sexist and/or feminist.
In a fair trial, you cant say "because they're female" or "because they're male"
|
On June 07 2011 07:36 Release wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote:
I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different. You're being way too sexist, though you admit it. In a fair trial, sexism would not stand. "girls are young and stupid." So what? Actions are punishable not motives. It doesn't matter if someone saved the lives of a million people if killed a few. That someone would still be charged with homicide. You can't say the mother's choice was right or wrong because no one knows what will happen after this.
I think when saying "young and stupid" he is referring to the severity of the actions. Namely, that they were within acceptable limits of being "young and stupid", which committing murder wouldn't mean. By saying "young and stupid" he also infers that their intent was not one that would usually warrent punishment or preventative measures. Just like you can excuse a young boy for having broken a public statue because he didn't it by carelessly running around on his skateboard and not by plotting to cause specific damage through vandalism.
|
On June 07 2011 07:41 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:36 Release wrote:On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote:
I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different. You're being way too sexist, though you admit it. In a fair trial, sexism would not stand. "girls are young and stupid." So what? Actions are punishable not motives. It doesn't matter if someone saved the lives of a million people if killed a few. That someone would still be charged with homicide. You can't say the mother's choice was right or wrong because no one knows what will happen after this. I think when saying "young and stupid" he is referring to the severity of the actions. Namely, that they were within acceptable limits of being "young and stupid", which committing murder wouldn't mean. By saying "young and stupid" he also infers that their intent was not one that would usually warrent punishment or preventative measures. Just like you can excuse a young boy for having broken a public statue because he didn't it by carelessly running around on his skateboard and not by plotting to cause specific damage through vandalism.
You could excuse the boy, but you could definitely charge him for it too.
It doesn't really matter what the intent was because it's impossible to factually know the intent.
I don't think "young and stupid" can refer to severity of actions because "young and stupid" actions would require a formal definition. These actions have the severity of a misdemeanor.
On June 05 2011 14:59 [FSM]Doji wrote:
The kid is 11, seriously.
When you were that age, anyone of 14 would've beaten you up, girl or not.
It's horrible that this stuff happens and even worse that the news anchor couldn't surpress a smile at the end.
As many stated before, if the roles were reversed. This would've been a case of "attempted rape, mollestation, etc. " and the boys responsible would've been kicked from the school instantly.
I don't get why these girls are getting away with no punishment whatsoever.
I feel horrible to say it but: gang up on these bitches and do the same on them...
This is a post i would like to address with a formal statement:
The mother of the boy who got was assaulted is not smart.
And also, yes, definitely get 3 boys for each girl and have them rape the girls. See what punishment that gets and apply it to the girls.
|
On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote:
I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different.
The mother is a fucking idiot who doesn't truly grasp the concept of what happened to her child. He was sexually harassed and abused by 3 older HUMANS ( who cares what gender ).
To be honest guys I'm embarrassed that there's even an argument over this.
|
On June 07 2011 07:34 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:27 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:14 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:01 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 06:10 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:59 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:45 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote:On June 06 2011 06:06 Asjo wrote:
I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this. The video aside, it's mostly playing around involving close physical contact with girls ...
The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it. People interpret behaviour, consider what it might lead to, and act preventatively. Perhaps this might sometimes lead to an overreaction, but that doesn't mean that you should also overreact to a single instance of bullying by girls in the name of equality. As it is, it was a bunch of young kids acting immaturely and getting physical about it. Obviously, the school/parents will react to avoid things escalating, but as such there is nothing outrageous about the interaction.
I don't know if the comments in this thread about child porn are serious. However, just because someone underage is filmed nude, does not in any way make it child porn. Nudity is the most natural thing in the world. Child porn is about exploitation of children and the often sexualized depiction of such. Never have I simply entered the discussion by only saying: "I think this - this is intuition"My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. nuff' said about that i think, unless you want me to Cite other examples? no..Are you sure?...No?..Ok Then we can move on. The only thing i am arguing is these lines right here "I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this" and "The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it." Why is there a sexual aspect just because their boys doing it? that is a Gender Double Standard..... In the example you give, there is no need for any further explanation than that which I have already given about hormones, fondless of touch, desperation for contact. It's a pretty general thing, which I'm sure everyone can understand. Note, I wasn't argued that he enjoyed it, only that it was a possibility to consider before anyone went apeshit about or, went to the media or courts with it. In the second quote, I simply outline the morale of my point, telling others what conclusion I have personally reached in regard to the morality that had been discussed. This then branched out through my entire argument, where I constructed an understanding of the situation that would not necessitate punishing the girls by taking this to court. Ýour third example, about the sexual rationalizations, is about forceful physical contact, carried out boys onto girls. I think the connection here is quite simply. Many people will have heard about or experienced that this is how such things start or escalate and turn into rape or the like. They will have seen other kind of behaviour where this approach of "no regard" is a way for boys to be "sexually forward". Generally, people will react very strongly to any such physical behaviour simply because they know that a lack of reaction might legitimize taking it a step further. Since they don't fear the girls taking it a step further, as this often won't be the care, it wouldn't play a conscious part of their interpretation if the roles were reversed, which would mean that other factors would be more important (social behaviour, bullying, group disharmony, etc.). Therefore, many people will overreact. In the end, those people are the ones who decide the law, and thus the boys risk ending up being charged with sexual assualt in a similar situation. Now, if girls raping boys because a problem of similar proportions and became as big a part of people's consciousness as rape carried out by males (just like, relating to my previous example, people are more conscious about terrorists being more dangerous than other criminals these days), the reaction would be different. I'm sorry... but I really don't understand your post, just like I didn't understand any of the shit you said earlier... Can you highlight your references to "hormones, fondless of touch(?) and desperation for contact(?)" because as far as I know, hormones work both ways, and the other two I'm not really sure about. As for your last paragraph, it's a bit of a mess and once I again I'm confused, it sounds like you're simply saying that it's more likely that it would have escalated to rape if it were three boys(once again based on your all powerful intuition) and that boys wouldn't mind girls taking it further(from the point seen in the video? once again based on intuition and once again, this blows my fucking mind) and then you end with girls raping boys isn't a big part of our consciousness... So we're not as aware of girls raping boys-... So let's not give a fuck when it actually happens despite expecting gender equality... Cool fucking beans. I really think you should re-read that, since you seem to have completely misunderstood it. I hope it's not riddled with typos - I can be quite bad with those. If I wrote "fondless", what I meant was "fondness". These were things I referenced from my previous posts where I talk about the sensitivities that might be involved and how the situation might have different implication for boys and girls. I'm sure you cannot have missed it. But yeah, re-read it, or, alternatively, point out the parts that cause you to misunderstand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that girls raping guys was fine, and that the guys would appreciate this. In fact, I have previous written: "It has nothing to do with double standards, and I'm sure people would react strongly if the girls actually did rape the boy or something to that effect (if not, at least, then you can talk about double standards)". Once again, I responded to that and the post you mentioned, the girls would not be required to rape the boy for it to establish a double standard since in the comparison mentioned, the boys wouldn't be raping the girl. Also, this would be my response, girls are developing identities at that age? So are boys. They generally place more weight on appearances, I'm not sure what you mean here but so do boys, and this would damage a boys self image as well, there is an equal chance that this would affect a boy's relation to the other gender and I disagree with the statement in parentheses, I think there is openness and shyness on both sides. Also, how would being overpowered physically "make her very uneasy in the future" in comparison to a boy in this situation? It's not a boy losing a fight or bullying, which by the way can happen with girls as well, I simply don't agree with this. This is where we reach our impasse because you've simply mentioned stuff that I don't think is true at all using "intuition", I can't argue or respond to these statements if I don't find the statements themselves to be true themselves, so the response simply becomes, if you're saying these things, cite some sources or it's a perfectly valid response to say that your actual points are bullshit and this is a double standard that you're perpetuating based on falsehoods. You contest several points here, and either make vague counter-claims or pose questions. For the sake of clarity, allow me to outline them: 1) Developing identities - "both guys and girls do this" 2) Place weigh on appearance - "both guys and girls do this" 3) Become uneasy about the other gender as a result of forceful physical contact - "equal chance for both guys and girls" 4) Openness and shyness - "the case for both guys and girls" Point 1: Of course they both do this. The question is; at what rate and to which effect. I would say that, for boys, developing an identity with the context of school is mostly focused on finding a role within the school. There can several reasons for this, and I won't claim one to be more valid than the other. It could be because society more often encourages boys to be competitive at an early age, and fulfilling this expectations satisfies a claim to identity. It could also be that dominance is an important quality, due to a macho instinct, meaning that once the question of dominance is established by you finding a role within the group, this generally puts you at ease. Meanwhile, as expected in my post before this, the search for identity will often be different for girls and will have more intellectual properties. Girls might feel more obliged to filfull a role in several contexts and therefore feel the need for an identity than can emcompass all of this. So, girls will often try out different identities, trying to find something that can give them a clear self-image which makes sense in many contexts. This can make them more sensitive to events that expose them in various ways as it forced them to rethink their self-image, because it's more fragile, or greatly challenges it. Point 2: Perhaps this ties in with some of the other behaviour described. If you physically act out your emotion, instead of intellectualizing them or putting them into a great frame of identity, you will look outward rather than inward. This is only enhanced if you generally act on impulse, heavily affected by your emotions, because you rarely get the time to reflect on other things than what you are immediately dealing with. Therefore, many boys will go around completely oblivious about how they appear to others unless it relates to some of the things which play a major role in their perception, for instance, their role within their group. If they are wrestled onto the ground and stripped, thus being put in a humiliating, it will matter because of how it affects their social status, less so because of his it exposes their physical appearance or other body language that could be communicated in such a situation. Point 3: As I already mentioned, boys will have been physically overpowered many times. It's fully acceptable to do this to boys, so people won't hold back and have much fear as to how it will affect them (to a certain extent, of course, when it comes to parenting). Some girls could have similar experience, of course, but there will often be many spheres where heavy physical contact will be much more legitimate if directed at a boy, simply because it feels more "natural". If a boy has been fighting or wrestling other boys, this element will not stand out when it comes to the incident that we discuss. Whereas, for girls, the heavy physical contact might trigger many insecurities, both due to the stigma that society might attach to it, but also due to it simply not feeling as natural. Also, the physical contact might confuse her about her approach to boys. As I believe I mentioned, the goal with interaction with boys, might rather be to explore potential for friendships rather than fulfill specific emotional needs. Because of the insecurities triggered, the girl will now have to understand the physical behaviour of the boys much better for it not to be a hinderance to her feeling safe about establishing said friendship. Point 4: Argh ... I have been writing a lot, and at this point, I really cannot remember where this played a role. Isn't it included in the other things I have detailed in this post and my last one? ' Point 1: I don't think this is relevant in any significant way to any crime or offense whatsoever, I don't even understand what you're drawing on here... Boys can be sporty/Girls can be brainy therefor girls feel worse if they're held down and stripped... What? I'm thoroughly confused by this and in general don't agree with any of this. Yes, boys and girls tend to have varying interests growing up but that's not relevant in any way to this situation or any situation of offense. Point 2: I disagree with this, I don't think this is the case at all, sure girls may be more interested in their own looks though I don't think this is overwhelmingly the case at all, I'd say it's pretty even as you go up in age and I absolutely disagree that a boy would only feel(or be more) upset about the aspects of them being held down and stripped that relates to social status, it would be just as much about being powerless and naked. Point 3: Sure boys may be rougher with each other but this makes no sense in this frame of reference once again even if you think this is overwhelmingly the case. Honestly, it's like "Hey, this boy grew up with three brothers and is probably used to being beaten up so we're not going to make a big deal of this assault case because he's probably used to it". It doesn't fucking matter, this varies so heavily based on upbringing and environment and is irrelevant to assault or any crime or offense whatsoever. "They're probably used to it, so we shouldn't care as much". It doesn't fucking matter, this is entirely irrelevant even if it were true. Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation: Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation. Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role. Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident. Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing. Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes. Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard. Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist.
The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
|
On June 07 2011 07:47 sQually wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote:
I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different. The mother is a fucking idiot who doesn't truly grasp the concept of what happened to her child. He was sexually harassed and abused by 3 older HUMANS ( who cares what gender ). To be honest guys I'm embarrassed that there's even an argument over this.
Well to be fair, i don't think anyone but that one guy actually credited the mother for making the right choice.
Yes the mother is fucking stupid, but you have to realize, the city that the girls are (were? maybe they fled) in is 100 times fucking stupider for not charging the girls.
On June 07 2011 07:48 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:34 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:27 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:14 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:01 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 06:10 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:59 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:45 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote:
[quote]
Never have I simply entered the discussion by only saying: "I think this - this is intuition"
My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. nuff' said about that i think, unless you want me to Cite other examples? no..Are you sure?...No?..Ok Then we can move on. The only thing i am arguing is these lines right here "I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this" and "The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it." Why is there a sexual aspect just because their boys doing it? that is a Gender Double Standard..... In the example you give, there is no need for any further explanation than that which I have already given about hormones, fondless of touch, desperation for contact. It's a pretty general thing, which I'm sure everyone can understand. Note, I wasn't argued that he enjoyed it, only that it was a possibility to consider before anyone went apeshit about or, went to the media or courts with it. In the second quote, I simply outline the morale of my point, telling others what conclusion I have personally reached in regard to the morality that had been discussed. This then branched out through my entire argument, where I constructed an understanding of the situation that would not necessitate punishing the girls by taking this to court. Ýour third example, about the sexual rationalizations, is about forceful physical contact, carried out boys onto girls. I think the connection here is quite simply. Many people will have heard about or experienced that this is how such things start or escalate and turn into rape or the like. They will have seen other kind of behaviour where this approach of "no regard" is a way for boys to be "sexually forward". Generally, people will react very strongly to any such physical behaviour simply because they know that a lack of reaction might legitimize taking it a step further. Since they don't fear the girls taking it a step further, as this often won't be the care, it wouldn't play a conscious part of their interpretation if the roles were reversed, which would mean that other factors would be more important (social behaviour, bullying, group disharmony, etc.). Therefore, many people will overreact. In the end, those people are the ones who decide the law, and thus the boys risk ending up being charged with sexual assualt in a similar situation. Now, if girls raping boys because a problem of similar proportions and became as big a part of people's consciousness as rape carried out by males (just like, relating to my previous example, people are more conscious about terrorists being more dangerous than other criminals these days), the reaction would be different. I'm sorry... but I really don't understand your post, just like I didn't understand any of the shit you said earlier... Can you highlight your references to "hormones, fondless of touch(?) and desperation for contact(?)" because as far as I know, hormones work both ways, and the other two I'm not really sure about. As for your last paragraph, it's a bit of a mess and once I again I'm confused, it sounds like you're simply saying that it's more likely that it would have escalated to rape if it were three boys(once again based on your all powerful intuition) and that boys wouldn't mind girls taking it further(from the point seen in the video? once again based on intuition and once again, this blows my fucking mind) and then you end with girls raping boys isn't a big part of our consciousness... So we're not as aware of girls raping boys-... So let's not give a fuck when it actually happens despite expecting gender equality... Cool fucking beans. I really think you should re-read that, since you seem to have completely misunderstood it. I hope it's not riddled with typos - I can be quite bad with those. If I wrote "fondless", what I meant was "fondness". These were things I referenced from my previous posts where I talk about the sensitivities that might be involved and how the situation might have different implication for boys and girls. I'm sure you cannot have missed it. But yeah, re-read it, or, alternatively, point out the parts that cause you to misunderstand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that girls raping guys was fine, and that the guys would appreciate this. In fact, I have previous written: "It has nothing to do with double standards, and I'm sure people would react strongly if the girls actually did rape the boy or something to that effect (if not, at least, then you can talk about double standards)". Once again, I responded to that and the post you mentioned, the girls would not be required to rape the boy for it to establish a double standard since in the comparison mentioned, the boys wouldn't be raping the girl. Also, this would be my response, girls are developing identities at that age? So are boys. They generally place more weight on appearances, I'm not sure what you mean here but so do boys, and this would damage a boys self image as well, there is an equal chance that this would affect a boy's relation to the other gender and I disagree with the statement in parentheses, I think there is openness and shyness on both sides. Also, how would being overpowered physically "make her very uneasy in the future" in comparison to a boy in this situation? It's not a boy losing a fight or bullying, which by the way can happen with girls as well, I simply don't agree with this. This is where we reach our impasse because you've simply mentioned stuff that I don't think is true at all using "intuition", I can't argue or respond to these statements if I don't find the statements themselves to be true themselves, so the response simply becomes, if you're saying these things, cite some sources or it's a perfectly valid response to say that your actual points are bullshit and this is a double standard that you're perpetuating based on falsehoods. You contest several points here, and either make vague counter-claims or pose questions. For the sake of clarity, allow me to outline them: 1) Developing identities - "both guys and girls do this" 2) Place weigh on appearance - "both guys and girls do this" 3) Become uneasy about the other gender as a result of forceful physical contact - "equal chance for both guys and girls" 4) Openness and shyness - "the case for both guys and girls" Point 1: Of course they both do this. The question is; at what rate and to which effect. I would say that, for boys, developing an identity with the context of school is mostly focused on finding a role within the school. There can several reasons for this, and I won't claim one to be more valid than the other. It could be because society more often encourages boys to be competitive at an early age, and fulfilling this expectations satisfies a claim to identity. It could also be that dominance is an important quality, due to a macho instinct, meaning that once the question of dominance is established by you finding a role within the group, this generally puts you at ease. Meanwhile, as expected in my post before this, the search for identity will often be different for girls and will have more intellectual properties. Girls might feel more obliged to filfull a role in several contexts and therefore feel the need for an identity than can emcompass all of this. So, girls will often try out different identities, trying to find something that can give them a clear self-image which makes sense in many contexts. This can make them more sensitive to events that expose them in various ways as it forced them to rethink their self-image, because it's more fragile, or greatly challenges it. Point 2: Perhaps this ties in with some of the other behaviour described. If you physically act out your emotion, instead of intellectualizing them or putting them into a great frame of identity, you will look outward rather than inward. This is only enhanced if you generally act on impulse, heavily affected by your emotions, because you rarely get the time to reflect on other things than what you are immediately dealing with. Therefore, many boys will go around completely oblivious about how they appear to others unless it relates to some of the things which play a major role in their perception, for instance, their role within their group. If they are wrestled onto the ground and stripped, thus being put in a humiliating, it will matter because of how it affects their social status, less so because of his it exposes their physical appearance or other body language that could be communicated in such a situation. Point 3: As I already mentioned, boys will have been physically overpowered many times. It's fully acceptable to do this to boys, so people won't hold back and have much fear as to how it will affect them (to a certain extent, of course, when it comes to parenting). Some girls could have similar experience, of course, but there will often be many spheres where heavy physical contact will be much more legitimate if directed at a boy, simply because it feels more "natural". If a boy has been fighting or wrestling other boys, this element will not stand out when it comes to the incident that we discuss. Whereas, for girls, the heavy physical contact might trigger many insecurities, both due to the stigma that society might attach to it, but also due to it simply not feeling as natural. Also, the physical contact might confuse her about her approach to boys. As I believe I mentioned, the goal with interaction with boys, might rather be to explore potential for friendships rather than fulfill specific emotional needs. Because of the insecurities triggered, the girl will now have to understand the physical behaviour of the boys much better for it not to be a hinderance to her feeling safe about establishing said friendship. Point 4: Argh ... I have been writing a lot, and at this point, I really cannot remember where this played a role. Isn't it included in the other things I have detailed in this post and my last one? ' Point 1: I don't think this is relevant in any significant way to any crime or offense whatsoever, I don't even understand what you're drawing on here... Boys can be sporty/Girls can be brainy therefor girls feel worse if they're held down and stripped... What? I'm thoroughly confused by this and in general don't agree with any of this. Yes, boys and girls tend to have varying interests growing up but that's not relevant in any way to this situation or any situation of offense. Point 2: I disagree with this, I don't think this is the case at all, sure girls may be more interested in their own looks though I don't think this is overwhelmingly the case at all, I'd say it's pretty even as you go up in age and I absolutely disagree that a boy would only feel(or be more) upset about the aspects of them being held down and stripped that relates to social status, it would be just as much about being powerless and naked. Point 3: Sure boys may be rougher with each other but this makes no sense in this frame of reference once again even if you think this is overwhelmingly the case. Honestly, it's like "Hey, this boy grew up with three brothers and is probably used to being beaten up so we're not going to make a big deal of this assault case because he's probably used to it". It doesn't fucking matter, this varies so heavily based on upbringing and environment and is irrelevant to assault or any crime or offense whatsoever. "They're probably used to it, so we shouldn't care as much". It doesn't fucking matter, this is entirely irrelevant even if it were true. Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation: Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation. Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role. Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident. Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing. Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes. Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard. Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist. The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
The reactions are completely based on a double standard.
Read 1000 reports of guys raping girls, and count how many guys are released free of charge.
Read 1000 reports of girls raping guys, and count how many girls are released free of charge.
There is a huge difference.
|
On June 07 2011 07:48 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:34 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:27 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:14 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:01 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 06:10 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:59 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:45 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:20 Nanoko wrote:
[quote]
Never have I simply entered the discussion by only saying: "I think this - this is intuition"
My point is completely valid; he could definitely have enjoyed it. I'm using my own experience and knowledge to make that call. nuff' said about that i think, unless you want me to Cite other examples? no..Are you sure?...No?..Ok Then we can move on. The only thing i am arguing is these lines right here "I see this as a harsh prank by the girls, not a legal matter. Also, I think we have to consider that maybe the kid secretly liked this" and "The reason that people would react differently if it was a bunch of boys would only be due to rationalizations in regards to the sexual aspect of it." Why is there a sexual aspect just because their boys doing it? that is a Gender Double Standard..... In the example you give, there is no need for any further explanation than that which I have already given about hormones, fondless of touch, desperation for contact. It's a pretty general thing, which I'm sure everyone can understand. Note, I wasn't argued that he enjoyed it, only that it was a possibility to consider before anyone went apeshit about or, went to the media or courts with it. In the second quote, I simply outline the morale of my point, telling others what conclusion I have personally reached in regard to the morality that had been discussed. This then branched out through my entire argument, where I constructed an understanding of the situation that would not necessitate punishing the girls by taking this to court. Ýour third example, about the sexual rationalizations, is about forceful physical contact, carried out boys onto girls. I think the connection here is quite simply. Many people will have heard about or experienced that this is how such things start or escalate and turn into rape or the like. They will have seen other kind of behaviour where this approach of "no regard" is a way for boys to be "sexually forward". Generally, people will react very strongly to any such physical behaviour simply because they know that a lack of reaction might legitimize taking it a step further. Since they don't fear the girls taking it a step further, as this often won't be the care, it wouldn't play a conscious part of their interpretation if the roles were reversed, which would mean that other factors would be more important (social behaviour, bullying, group disharmony, etc.). Therefore, many people will overreact. In the end, those people are the ones who decide the law, and thus the boys risk ending up being charged with sexual assualt in a similar situation. Now, if girls raping boys because a problem of similar proportions and became as big a part of people's consciousness as rape carried out by males (just like, relating to my previous example, people are more conscious about terrorists being more dangerous than other criminals these days), the reaction would be different. I'm sorry... but I really don't understand your post, just like I didn't understand any of the shit you said earlier... Can you highlight your references to "hormones, fondless of touch(?) and desperation for contact(?)" because as far as I know, hormones work both ways, and the other two I'm not really sure about. As for your last paragraph, it's a bit of a mess and once I again I'm confused, it sounds like you're simply saying that it's more likely that it would have escalated to rape if it were three boys(once again based on your all powerful intuition) and that boys wouldn't mind girls taking it further(from the point seen in the video? once again based on intuition and once again, this blows my fucking mind) and then you end with girls raping boys isn't a big part of our consciousness... So we're not as aware of girls raping boys-... So let's not give a fuck when it actually happens despite expecting gender equality... Cool fucking beans. I really think you should re-read that, since you seem to have completely misunderstood it. I hope it's not riddled with typos - I can be quite bad with those. If I wrote "fondless", what I meant was "fondness". These were things I referenced from my previous posts where I talk about the sensitivities that might be involved and how the situation might have different implication for boys and girls. I'm sure you cannot have missed it. But yeah, re-read it, or, alternatively, point out the parts that cause you to misunderstand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that girls raping guys was fine, and that the guys would appreciate this. In fact, I have previous written: "It has nothing to do with double standards, and I'm sure people would react strongly if the girls actually did rape the boy or something to that effect (if not, at least, then you can talk about double standards)". Once again, I responded to that and the post you mentioned, the girls would not be required to rape the boy for it to establish a double standard since in the comparison mentioned, the boys wouldn't be raping the girl. Also, this would be my response, girls are developing identities at that age? So are boys. They generally place more weight on appearances, I'm not sure what you mean here but so do boys, and this would damage a boys self image as well, there is an equal chance that this would affect a boy's relation to the other gender and I disagree with the statement in parentheses, I think there is openness and shyness on both sides. Also, how would being overpowered physically "make her very uneasy in the future" in comparison to a boy in this situation? It's not a boy losing a fight or bullying, which by the way can happen with girls as well, I simply don't agree with this. This is where we reach our impasse because you've simply mentioned stuff that I don't think is true at all using "intuition", I can't argue or respond to these statements if I don't find the statements themselves to be true themselves, so the response simply becomes, if you're saying these things, cite some sources or it's a perfectly valid response to say that your actual points are bullshit and this is a double standard that you're perpetuating based on falsehoods. You contest several points here, and either make vague counter-claims or pose questions. For the sake of clarity, allow me to outline them: 1) Developing identities - "both guys and girls do this" 2) Place weigh on appearance - "both guys and girls do this" 3) Become uneasy about the other gender as a result of forceful physical contact - "equal chance for both guys and girls" 4) Openness and shyness - "the case for both guys and girls" Point 1: Of course they both do this. The question is; at what rate and to which effect. I would say that, for boys, developing an identity with the context of school is mostly focused on finding a role within the school. There can several reasons for this, and I won't claim one to be more valid than the other. It could be because society more often encourages boys to be competitive at an early age, and fulfilling this expectations satisfies a claim to identity. It could also be that dominance is an important quality, due to a macho instinct, meaning that once the question of dominance is established by you finding a role within the group, this generally puts you at ease. Meanwhile, as expected in my post before this, the search for identity will often be different for girls and will have more intellectual properties. Girls might feel more obliged to filfull a role in several contexts and therefore feel the need for an identity than can emcompass all of this. So, girls will often try out different identities, trying to find something that can give them a clear self-image which makes sense in many contexts. This can make them more sensitive to events that expose them in various ways as it forced them to rethink their self-image, because it's more fragile, or greatly challenges it. Point 2: Perhaps this ties in with some of the other behaviour described. If you physically act out your emotion, instead of intellectualizing them or putting them into a great frame of identity, you will look outward rather than inward. This is only enhanced if you generally act on impulse, heavily affected by your emotions, because you rarely get the time to reflect on other things than what you are immediately dealing with. Therefore, many boys will go around completely oblivious about how they appear to others unless it relates to some of the things which play a major role in their perception, for instance, their role within their group. If they are wrestled onto the ground and stripped, thus being put in a humiliating, it will matter because of how it affects their social status, less so because of his it exposes their physical appearance or other body language that could be communicated in such a situation. Point 3: As I already mentioned, boys will have been physically overpowered many times. It's fully acceptable to do this to boys, so people won't hold back and have much fear as to how it will affect them (to a certain extent, of course, when it comes to parenting). Some girls could have similar experience, of course, but there will often be many spheres where heavy physical contact will be much more legitimate if directed at a boy, simply because it feels more "natural". If a boy has been fighting or wrestling other boys, this element will not stand out when it comes to the incident that we discuss. Whereas, for girls, the heavy physical contact might trigger many insecurities, both due to the stigma that society might attach to it, but also due to it simply not feeling as natural. Also, the physical contact might confuse her about her approach to boys. As I believe I mentioned, the goal with interaction with boys, might rather be to explore potential for friendships rather than fulfill specific emotional needs. Because of the insecurities triggered, the girl will now have to understand the physical behaviour of the boys much better for it not to be a hinderance to her feeling safe about establishing said friendship. Point 4: Argh ... I have been writing a lot, and at this point, I really cannot remember where this played a role. Isn't it included in the other things I have detailed in this post and my last one? ' Point 1: I don't think this is relevant in any significant way to any crime or offense whatsoever, I don't even understand what you're drawing on here... Boys can be sporty/Girls can be brainy therefor girls feel worse if they're held down and stripped... What? I'm thoroughly confused by this and in general don't agree with any of this. Yes, boys and girls tend to have varying interests growing up but that's not relevant in any way to this situation or any situation of offense. Point 2: I disagree with this, I don't think this is the case at all, sure girls may be more interested in their own looks though I don't think this is overwhelmingly the case at all, I'd say it's pretty even as you go up in age and I absolutely disagree that a boy would only feel(or be more) upset about the aspects of them being held down and stripped that relates to social status, it would be just as much about being powerless and naked. Point 3: Sure boys may be rougher with each other but this makes no sense in this frame of reference once again even if you think this is overwhelmingly the case. Honestly, it's like "Hey, this boy grew up with three brothers and is probably used to being beaten up so we're not going to make a big deal of this assault case because he's probably used to it". It doesn't fucking matter, this varies so heavily based on upbringing and environment and is irrelevant to assault or any crime or offense whatsoever. "They're probably used to it, so we shouldn't care as much". It doesn't fucking matter, this is entirely irrelevant even if it were true. Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation: Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation. Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role. Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident. Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing. Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes. Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard. Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist. The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation.
Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards.
Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism.
|
On June 07 2011 07:44 Release wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:41 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:36 Release wrote:On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote:
I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different. You're being way too sexist, though you admit it. In a fair trial, sexism would not stand. "girls are young and stupid." So what? Actions are punishable not motives. It doesn't matter if someone saved the lives of a million people if killed a few. That someone would still be charged with homicide. You can't say the mother's choice was right or wrong because no one knows what will happen after this. I think when saying "young and stupid" he is referring to the severity of the actions. Namely, that they were within acceptable limits of being "young and stupid", which committing murder wouldn't mean. By saying "young and stupid" he also infers that their intent was not one that would usually warrent punishment or preventative measures. Just like you can excuse a young boy for having broken a public statue because he didn't it by carelessly running around on his skateboard and not by plotting to cause specific damage through vandalism. You could excuse the boy, but you could definitely charge him for it too. It doesn't really matter what the intent was because it's impossible to factually know the intent. I don't think "young and stupid" can refer to severity of actions because "young and stupid" actions would require a formal definition. These actions have the severity of a misdemeanor.
Yes, but only for the damages, not to actually hurt/punish him. Because of his age, the "wrongfulness" of his act will be excused, but the damages of course need to be covered somehow (seing as it results in the loss of a tangible asset).
|
On June 07 2011 07:51 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:48 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:34 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:27 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:14 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:01 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 06:10 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:59 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:45 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:
[quote]
In the example you give, there is no need for any further explanation than that which I have already given about hormones, fondless of touch, desperation for contact. It's a pretty general thing, which I'm sure everyone can understand. Note, I wasn't argued that he enjoyed it, only that it was a possibility to consider before anyone went apeshit about or, went to the media or courts with it.
In the second quote, I simply outline the morale of my point, telling others what conclusion I have personally reached in regard to the morality that had been discussed. This then branched out through my entire argument, where I constructed an understanding of the situation that would not necessitate punishing the girls by taking this to court.
Ýour third example, about the sexual rationalizations, is about forceful physical contact, carried out boys onto girls. I think the connection here is quite simply. Many people will have heard about or experienced that this is how such things start or escalate and turn into rape or the like. They will have seen other kind of behaviour where this approach of "no regard" is a way for boys to be "sexually forward". Generally, people will react very strongly to any such physical behaviour simply because they know that a lack of reaction might legitimize taking it a step further. Since they don't fear the girls taking it a step further, as this often won't be the care, it wouldn't play a conscious part of their interpretation if the roles were reversed, which would mean that other factors would be more important (social behaviour, bullying, group disharmony, etc.). Therefore, many people will overreact. In the end, those people are the ones who decide the law, and thus the boys risk ending up being charged with sexual assualt in a similar situation. Now, if girls raping boys because a problem of similar proportions and became as big a part of people's consciousness as rape carried out by males (just like, relating to my previous example, people are more conscious about terrorists being more dangerous than other criminals these days), the reaction would be different. I'm sorry... but I really don't understand your post, just like I didn't understand any of the shit you said earlier... Can you highlight your references to "hormones, fondless of touch(?) and desperation for contact(?)" because as far as I know, hormones work both ways, and the other two I'm not really sure about. As for your last paragraph, it's a bit of a mess and once I again I'm confused, it sounds like you're simply saying that it's more likely that it would have escalated to rape if it were three boys(once again based on your all powerful intuition) and that boys wouldn't mind girls taking it further(from the point seen in the video? once again based on intuition and once again, this blows my fucking mind) and then you end with girls raping boys isn't a big part of our consciousness... So we're not as aware of girls raping boys-... So let's not give a fuck when it actually happens despite expecting gender equality... Cool fucking beans. I really think you should re-read that, since you seem to have completely misunderstood it. I hope it's not riddled with typos - I can be quite bad with those. If I wrote "fondless", what I meant was "fondness". These were things I referenced from my previous posts where I talk about the sensitivities that might be involved and how the situation might have different implication for boys and girls. I'm sure you cannot have missed it. But yeah, re-read it, or, alternatively, point out the parts that cause you to misunderstand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that girls raping guys was fine, and that the guys would appreciate this. In fact, I have previous written: "It has nothing to do with double standards, and I'm sure people would react strongly if the girls actually did rape the boy or something to that effect (if not, at least, then you can talk about double standards)". Once again, I responded to that and the post you mentioned, the girls would not be required to rape the boy for it to establish a double standard since in the comparison mentioned, the boys wouldn't be raping the girl. Also, this would be my response, girls are developing identities at that age? So are boys. They generally place more weight on appearances, I'm not sure what you mean here but so do boys, and this would damage a boys self image as well, there is an equal chance that this would affect a boy's relation to the other gender and I disagree with the statement in parentheses, I think there is openness and shyness on both sides. Also, how would being overpowered physically "make her very uneasy in the future" in comparison to a boy in this situation? It's not a boy losing a fight or bullying, which by the way can happen with girls as well, I simply don't agree with this. This is where we reach our impasse because you've simply mentioned stuff that I don't think is true at all using "intuition", I can't argue or respond to these statements if I don't find the statements themselves to be true themselves, so the response simply becomes, if you're saying these things, cite some sources or it's a perfectly valid response to say that your actual points are bullshit and this is a double standard that you're perpetuating based on falsehoods. You contest several points here, and either make vague counter-claims or pose questions. For the sake of clarity, allow me to outline them: 1) Developing identities - "both guys and girls do this" 2) Place weigh on appearance - "both guys and girls do this" 3) Become uneasy about the other gender as a result of forceful physical contact - "equal chance for both guys and girls" 4) Openness and shyness - "the case for both guys and girls" Point 1: Of course they both do this. The question is; at what rate and to which effect. I would say that, for boys, developing an identity with the context of school is mostly focused on finding a role within the school. There can several reasons for this, and I won't claim one to be more valid than the other. It could be because society more often encourages boys to be competitive at an early age, and fulfilling this expectations satisfies a claim to identity. It could also be that dominance is an important quality, due to a macho instinct, meaning that once the question of dominance is established by you finding a role within the group, this generally puts you at ease. Meanwhile, as expected in my post before this, the search for identity will often be different for girls and will have more intellectual properties. Girls might feel more obliged to filfull a role in several contexts and therefore feel the need for an identity than can emcompass all of this. So, girls will often try out different identities, trying to find something that can give them a clear self-image which makes sense in many contexts. This can make them more sensitive to events that expose them in various ways as it forced them to rethink their self-image, because it's more fragile, or greatly challenges it. Point 2: Perhaps this ties in with some of the other behaviour described. If you physically act out your emotion, instead of intellectualizing them or putting them into a great frame of identity, you will look outward rather than inward. This is only enhanced if you generally act on impulse, heavily affected by your emotions, because you rarely get the time to reflect on other things than what you are immediately dealing with. Therefore, many boys will go around completely oblivious about how they appear to others unless it relates to some of the things which play a major role in their perception, for instance, their role within their group. If they are wrestled onto the ground and stripped, thus being put in a humiliating, it will matter because of how it affects their social status, less so because of his it exposes their physical appearance or other body language that could be communicated in such a situation. Point 3: As I already mentioned, boys will have been physically overpowered many times. It's fully acceptable to do this to boys, so people won't hold back and have much fear as to how it will affect them (to a certain extent, of course, when it comes to parenting). Some girls could have similar experience, of course, but there will often be many spheres where heavy physical contact will be much more legitimate if directed at a boy, simply because it feels more "natural". If a boy has been fighting or wrestling other boys, this element will not stand out when it comes to the incident that we discuss. Whereas, for girls, the heavy physical contact might trigger many insecurities, both due to the stigma that society might attach to it, but also due to it simply not feeling as natural. Also, the physical contact might confuse her about her approach to boys. As I believe I mentioned, the goal with interaction with boys, might rather be to explore potential for friendships rather than fulfill specific emotional needs. Because of the insecurities triggered, the girl will now have to understand the physical behaviour of the boys much better for it not to be a hinderance to her feeling safe about establishing said friendship. Point 4: Argh ... I have been writing a lot, and at this point, I really cannot remember where this played a role. Isn't it included in the other things I have detailed in this post and my last one? ' Point 1: I don't think this is relevant in any significant way to any crime or offense whatsoever, I don't even understand what you're drawing on here... Boys can be sporty/Girls can be brainy therefor girls feel worse if they're held down and stripped... What? I'm thoroughly confused by this and in general don't agree with any of this. Yes, boys and girls tend to have varying interests growing up but that's not relevant in any way to this situation or any situation of offense. Point 2: I disagree with this, I don't think this is the case at all, sure girls may be more interested in their own looks though I don't think this is overwhelmingly the case at all, I'd say it's pretty even as you go up in age and I absolutely disagree that a boy would only feel(or be more) upset about the aspects of them being held down and stripped that relates to social status, it would be just as much about being powerless and naked. Point 3: Sure boys may be rougher with each other but this makes no sense in this frame of reference once again even if you think this is overwhelmingly the case. Honestly, it's like "Hey, this boy grew up with three brothers and is probably used to being beaten up so we're not going to make a big deal of this assault case because he's probably used to it". It doesn't fucking matter, this varies so heavily based on upbringing and environment and is irrelevant to assault or any crime or offense whatsoever. "They're probably used to it, so we shouldn't care as much". It doesn't fucking matter, this is entirely irrelevant even if it were true. Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation: Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation. Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role. Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident. Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing. Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes. Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard. Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist. The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation. Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards. Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism.
No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
|
On June 07 2011 07:51 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:44 Release wrote:On June 07 2011 07:41 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:36 Release wrote:On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote:
I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different. You're being way too sexist, though you admit it. In a fair trial, sexism would not stand. "girls are young and stupid." So what? Actions are punishable not motives. It doesn't matter if someone saved the lives of a million people if killed a few. That someone would still be charged with homicide. You can't say the mother's choice was right or wrong because no one knows what will happen after this. I think when saying "young and stupid" he is referring to the severity of the actions. Namely, that they were within acceptable limits of being "young and stupid", which committing murder wouldn't mean. By saying "young and stupid" he also infers that their intent was not one that would usually warrent punishment or preventative measures. Just like you can excuse a young boy for having broken a public statue because he didn't it by carelessly running around on his skateboard and not by plotting to cause specific damage through vandalism. You could excuse the boy, but you could definitely charge him for it too. It doesn't really matter what the intent was because it's impossible to factually know the intent. I don't think "young and stupid" can refer to severity of actions because "young and stupid" actions would require a formal definition. These actions have the severity of a misdemeanor. Yes, but only for the damages, not to actually hurt/punish him. Because of his age, it will be excused, but the damages of course need to be covered somehow (seing as it results in the loss of a tangible asset).
Yes for the damages, and yes, you can't hurt him. But this is different from the case of rape at hand. There are predefined punishments for rape (just as there are for breaking a $100000 car), but in this case, they weren't applied and that is why this case doesn't show justice being served.
|
On June 07 2011 07:47 sQually wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote:
I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different. The mother is a fucking idiot who doesn't truly grasp the concept of what happened to her child. He was sexually harassed and abused by 3 older HUMANS ( who cares what gender ). To be honest guys I'm embarrassed that there's even an argument over this.
The reason I said she made the right choice is because what exactly can be done to fix this situation?
What form of justice?
I did a thought experiment on myself to see what it would be like to if three men did this to me and three women. The biggest difference I felt was that with the men, I would be truly scared for being raped, tortured ( beyond stripping) and beaten/killed.
On the other hand with the women, I felt helpless, embarrassed, hurt emotionally, and physically (from being overly restrained, struggling), which are all the things I felt with the men but the highest form of terror I would feel would be the things that could help.
Is my though experiment, in anyway accurate? No of course not but from where I sit the differences are so large that I can't help but feel a different.
I also have 6 older brothers and 4 older sisters. I'm the youngest male. My brothers did horrible shit and it was always 50 times worse then when my sisters would do the same thing. Of course there was no fear of rape, murder, blah blah but still it is just how it was.
|
On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:51 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:48 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:34 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:27 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:14 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:01 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 06:10 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:59 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:45 Mordiford wrote:
[quote]
I'm sorry... but I really don't understand your post, just like I didn't understand any of the shit you said earlier... Can you highlight your references to "hormones, fondless of touch(?) and desperation for contact(?)" because as far as I know, hormones work both ways, and the other two I'm not really sure about.
As for your last paragraph, it's a bit of a mess and once I again I'm confused, it sounds like you're simply saying that it's more likely that it would have escalated to rape if it were three boys(once again based on your all powerful intuition) and that boys wouldn't mind girls taking it further(from the point seen in the video? once again based on intuition and once again, this blows my fucking mind) and then you end with girls raping boys isn't a big part of our consciousness... So we're not as aware of girls raping boys-...
So let's not give a fuck when it actually happens despite expecting gender equality...
Cool fucking beans. I really think you should re-read that, since you seem to have completely misunderstood it. I hope it's not riddled with typos - I can be quite bad with those. If I wrote "fondless", what I meant was "fondness". These were things I referenced from my previous posts where I talk about the sensitivities that might be involved and how the situation might have different implication for boys and girls. I'm sure you cannot have missed it. But yeah, re-read it, or, alternatively, point out the parts that cause you to misunderstand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that girls raping guys was fine, and that the guys would appreciate this. In fact, I have previous written: "It has nothing to do with double standards, and I'm sure people would react strongly if the girls actually did rape the boy or something to that effect (if not, at least, then you can talk about double standards)". Once again, I responded to that and the post you mentioned, the girls would not be required to rape the boy for it to establish a double standard since in the comparison mentioned, the boys wouldn't be raping the girl. Also, this would be my response, girls are developing identities at that age? So are boys. They generally place more weight on appearances, I'm not sure what you mean here but so do boys, and this would damage a boys self image as well, there is an equal chance that this would affect a boy's relation to the other gender and I disagree with the statement in parentheses, I think there is openness and shyness on both sides. Also, how would being overpowered physically "make her very uneasy in the future" in comparison to a boy in this situation? It's not a boy losing a fight or bullying, which by the way can happen with girls as well, I simply don't agree with this. This is where we reach our impasse because you've simply mentioned stuff that I don't think is true at all using "intuition", I can't argue or respond to these statements if I don't find the statements themselves to be true themselves, so the response simply becomes, if you're saying these things, cite some sources or it's a perfectly valid response to say that your actual points are bullshit and this is a double standard that you're perpetuating based on falsehoods. You contest several points here, and either make vague counter-claims or pose questions. For the sake of clarity, allow me to outline them: 1) Developing identities - "both guys and girls do this" 2) Place weigh on appearance - "both guys and girls do this" 3) Become uneasy about the other gender as a result of forceful physical contact - "equal chance for both guys and girls" 4) Openness and shyness - "the case for both guys and girls" Point 1: Of course they both do this. The question is; at what rate and to which effect. I would say that, for boys, developing an identity with the context of school is mostly focused on finding a role within the school. There can several reasons for this, and I won't claim one to be more valid than the other. It could be because society more often encourages boys to be competitive at an early age, and fulfilling this expectations satisfies a claim to identity. It could also be that dominance is an important quality, due to a macho instinct, meaning that once the question of dominance is established by you finding a role within the group, this generally puts you at ease. Meanwhile, as expected in my post before this, the search for identity will often be different for girls and will have more intellectual properties. Girls might feel more obliged to filfull a role in several contexts and therefore feel the need for an identity than can emcompass all of this. So, girls will often try out different identities, trying to find something that can give them a clear self-image which makes sense in many contexts. This can make them more sensitive to events that expose them in various ways as it forced them to rethink their self-image, because it's more fragile, or greatly challenges it. Point 2: Perhaps this ties in with some of the other behaviour described. If you physically act out your emotion, instead of intellectualizing them or putting them into a great frame of identity, you will look outward rather than inward. This is only enhanced if you generally act on impulse, heavily affected by your emotions, because you rarely get the time to reflect on other things than what you are immediately dealing with. Therefore, many boys will go around completely oblivious about how they appear to others unless it relates to some of the things which play a major role in their perception, for instance, their role within their group. If they are wrestled onto the ground and stripped, thus being put in a humiliating, it will matter because of how it affects their social status, less so because of his it exposes their physical appearance or other body language that could be communicated in such a situation. Point 3: As I already mentioned, boys will have been physically overpowered many times. It's fully acceptable to do this to boys, so people won't hold back and have much fear as to how it will affect them (to a certain extent, of course, when it comes to parenting). Some girls could have similar experience, of course, but there will often be many spheres where heavy physical contact will be much more legitimate if directed at a boy, simply because it feels more "natural". If a boy has been fighting or wrestling other boys, this element will not stand out when it comes to the incident that we discuss. Whereas, for girls, the heavy physical contact might trigger many insecurities, both due to the stigma that society might attach to it, but also due to it simply not feeling as natural. Also, the physical contact might confuse her about her approach to boys. As I believe I mentioned, the goal with interaction with boys, might rather be to explore potential for friendships rather than fulfill specific emotional needs. Because of the insecurities triggered, the girl will now have to understand the physical behaviour of the boys much better for it not to be a hinderance to her feeling safe about establishing said friendship. Point 4: Argh ... I have been writing a lot, and at this point, I really cannot remember where this played a role. Isn't it included in the other things I have detailed in this post and my last one? ' Point 1: I don't think this is relevant in any significant way to any crime or offense whatsoever, I don't even understand what you're drawing on here... Boys can be sporty/Girls can be brainy therefor girls feel worse if they're held down and stripped... What? I'm thoroughly confused by this and in general don't agree with any of this. Yes, boys and girls tend to have varying interests growing up but that's not relevant in any way to this situation or any situation of offense. Point 2: I disagree with this, I don't think this is the case at all, sure girls may be more interested in their own looks though I don't think this is overwhelmingly the case at all, I'd say it's pretty even as you go up in age and I absolutely disagree that a boy would only feel(or be more) upset about the aspects of them being held down and stripped that relates to social status, it would be just as much about being powerless and naked. Point 3: Sure boys may be rougher with each other but this makes no sense in this frame of reference once again even if you think this is overwhelmingly the case. Honestly, it's like "Hey, this boy grew up with three brothers and is probably used to being beaten up so we're not going to make a big deal of this assault case because he's probably used to it". It doesn't fucking matter, this varies so heavily based on upbringing and environment and is irrelevant to assault or any crime or offense whatsoever. "They're probably used to it, so we shouldn't care as much". It doesn't fucking matter, this is entirely irrelevant even if it were true. Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation: Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation. Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role. Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident. Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing. Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes. Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard. Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist. The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation. Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards. Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism. No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are.
You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
|
On June 07 2011 07:58 Release wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:51 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:44 Release wrote:On June 07 2011 07:41 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:36 Release wrote:On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote:
I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different. You're being way too sexist, though you admit it. In a fair trial, sexism would not stand. "girls are young and stupid." So what? Actions are punishable not motives. It doesn't matter if someone saved the lives of a million people if killed a few. That someone would still be charged with homicide. You can't say the mother's choice was right or wrong because no one knows what will happen after this. I think when saying "young and stupid" he is referring to the severity of the actions. Namely, that they were within acceptable limits of being "young and stupid", which committing murder wouldn't mean. By saying "young and stupid" he also infers that their intent was not one that would usually warrent punishment or preventative measures. Just like you can excuse a young boy for having broken a public statue because he didn't it by carelessly running around on his skateboard and not by plotting to cause specific damage through vandalism. You could excuse the boy, but you could definitely charge him for it too. It doesn't really matter what the intent was because it's impossible to factually know the intent. I don't think "young and stupid" can refer to severity of actions because "young and stupid" actions would require a formal definition. These actions have the severity of a misdemeanor. Yes, but only for the damages, not to actually hurt/punish him. Because of his age, it will be excused, but the damages of course need to be covered somehow (seing as it results in the loss of a tangible asset). Yes for the damages, and yes, you can't hurt him. But this is different from the case of rape at hand. There are predefined punishments for rape (just as there are for breaking a $100000 car), but in this case, they weren't applied and that is why this case doesn't show justice being served.
I'm not sure which rape you speak of ... I'm guessing you have switched to talking in legal terms instead conversational terms now.
|
On June 07 2011 08:00 Release wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:51 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:48 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:34 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:27 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:14 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:01 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 06:10 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:59 Asjo wrote:[quote] I really think you should re-read that, since you seem to have completely misunderstood it. I hope it's not riddled with typos - I can be quite bad with those. If I wrote "fondless", what I meant was "fondness". These were things I referenced from my previous posts where I talk about the sensitivities that might be involved and how the situation might have different implication for boys and girls. I'm sure you cannot have missed it. But yeah, re-read it, or, alternatively, point out the parts that cause you to misunderstand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that girls raping guys was fine, and that the guys would appreciate this. In fact, I have previous written: "It has nothing to do with double standards, and I'm sure people would react strongly if the girls actually did rape the boy or something to that effect (if not, at least, then you can talk about double standards)". Once again, I responded to that and the post you mentioned, the girls would not be required to rape the boy for it to establish a double standard since in the comparison mentioned, the boys wouldn't be raping the girl. Also, this would be my response, girls are developing identities at that age? So are boys. They generally place more weight on appearances, I'm not sure what you mean here but so do boys, and this would damage a boys self image as well, there is an equal chance that this would affect a boy's relation to the other gender and I disagree with the statement in parentheses, I think there is openness and shyness on both sides. Also, how would being overpowered physically "make her very uneasy in the future" in comparison to a boy in this situation? It's not a boy losing a fight or bullying, which by the way can happen with girls as well, I simply don't agree with this. This is where we reach our impasse because you've simply mentioned stuff that I don't think is true at all using "intuition", I can't argue or respond to these statements if I don't find the statements themselves to be true themselves, so the response simply becomes, if you're saying these things, cite some sources or it's a perfectly valid response to say that your actual points are bullshit and this is a double standard that you're perpetuating based on falsehoods. You contest several points here, and either make vague counter-claims or pose questions. For the sake of clarity, allow me to outline them: 1) Developing identities - "both guys and girls do this" 2) Place weigh on appearance - "both guys and girls do this" 3) Become uneasy about the other gender as a result of forceful physical contact - "equal chance for both guys and girls" 4) Openness and shyness - "the case for both guys and girls" Point 1: Of course they both do this. The question is; at what rate and to which effect. I would say that, for boys, developing an identity with the context of school is mostly focused on finding a role within the school. There can several reasons for this, and I won't claim one to be more valid than the other. It could be because society more often encourages boys to be competitive at an early age, and fulfilling this expectations satisfies a claim to identity. It could also be that dominance is an important quality, due to a macho instinct, meaning that once the question of dominance is established by you finding a role within the group, this generally puts you at ease. Meanwhile, as expected in my post before this, the search for identity will often be different for girls and will have more intellectual properties. Girls might feel more obliged to filfull a role in several contexts and therefore feel the need for an identity than can emcompass all of this. So, girls will often try out different identities, trying to find something that can give them a clear self-image which makes sense in many contexts. This can make them more sensitive to events that expose them in various ways as it forced them to rethink their self-image, because it's more fragile, or greatly challenges it. Point 2: Perhaps this ties in with some of the other behaviour described. If you physically act out your emotion, instead of intellectualizing them or putting them into a great frame of identity, you will look outward rather than inward. This is only enhanced if you generally act on impulse, heavily affected by your emotions, because you rarely get the time to reflect on other things than what you are immediately dealing with. Therefore, many boys will go around completely oblivious about how they appear to others unless it relates to some of the things which play a major role in their perception, for instance, their role within their group. If they are wrestled onto the ground and stripped, thus being put in a humiliating, it will matter because of how it affects their social status, less so because of his it exposes their physical appearance or other body language that could be communicated in such a situation. Point 3: As I already mentioned, boys will have been physically overpowered many times. It's fully acceptable to do this to boys, so people won't hold back and have much fear as to how it will affect them (to a certain extent, of course, when it comes to parenting). Some girls could have similar experience, of course, but there will often be many spheres where heavy physical contact will be much more legitimate if directed at a boy, simply because it feels more "natural". If a boy has been fighting or wrestling other boys, this element will not stand out when it comes to the incident that we discuss. Whereas, for girls, the heavy physical contact might trigger many insecurities, both due to the stigma that society might attach to it, but also due to it simply not feeling as natural. Also, the physical contact might confuse her about her approach to boys. As I believe I mentioned, the goal with interaction with boys, might rather be to explore potential for friendships rather than fulfill specific emotional needs. Because of the insecurities triggered, the girl will now have to understand the physical behaviour of the boys much better for it not to be a hinderance to her feeling safe about establishing said friendship. Point 4: Argh ... I have been writing a lot, and at this point, I really cannot remember where this played a role. Isn't it included in the other things I have detailed in this post and my last one? ' Point 1: I don't think this is relevant in any significant way to any crime or offense whatsoever, I don't even understand what you're drawing on here... Boys can be sporty/Girls can be brainy therefor girls feel worse if they're held down and stripped... What? I'm thoroughly confused by this and in general don't agree with any of this. Yes, boys and girls tend to have varying interests growing up but that's not relevant in any way to this situation or any situation of offense. Point 2: I disagree with this, I don't think this is the case at all, sure girls may be more interested in their own looks though I don't think this is overwhelmingly the case at all, I'd say it's pretty even as you go up in age and I absolutely disagree that a boy would only feel(or be more) upset about the aspects of them being held down and stripped that relates to social status, it would be just as much about being powerless and naked. Point 3: Sure boys may be rougher with each other but this makes no sense in this frame of reference once again even if you think this is overwhelmingly the case. Honestly, it's like "Hey, this boy grew up with three brothers and is probably used to being beaten up so we're not going to make a big deal of this assault case because he's probably used to it". It doesn't fucking matter, this varies so heavily based on upbringing and environment and is irrelevant to assault or any crime or offense whatsoever. "They're probably used to it, so we shouldn't care as much". It doesn't fucking matter, this is entirely irrelevant even if it were true. Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation: Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation. Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role. Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident. Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing. Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes. Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard. Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist. The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation. Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards. Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism. No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are. You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females.
Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
|
On June 07 2011 08:00 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:47 sQually wrote:On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote:
I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different. The mother is a fucking idiot who doesn't truly grasp the concept of what happened to her child. He was sexually harassed and abused by 3 older HUMANS ( who cares what gender ). To be honest guys I'm embarrassed that there's even an argument over this. The reason I said she made the right choice is because what exactly can be done to fix this situation? What form of justice? I did a thought experiment on myself to see what it would be like to if three men did this to me and three women. The biggest difference I felt was that with the men, I would be truly scared for being raped, tortured ( beyond stripping) and beaten/killed. On the other hand with the women, I felt helpless, embarrassed, hurt emotionally, and physically (from being overly restrained, struggling), which are all the things I felt with the men but the highest form of terror I would feel would be the things that could help. Is my though experiment, in anyway accurate? No of course not but from where I sit the differences are so large that I can't help but feel a different. I also have 6 older brothers and 4 older sisters. I'm the youngest male. My brothers did horrible shit and it was always 50 times worse then when my sisters would do the same thing. Of course there was no fear of rape, murder, blah blah but still it is just how it was.
Are you being intentionally stupid? You can't perfom an experiment with yourself as the only subject. It's way too subjective. By your logic i could say that females would murder me after they finish, and the males would ask me politely what they wanted to do (and stop when i said no).
On June 07 2011 08:02 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:00 Release wrote:On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:51 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:48 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:34 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:27 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:14 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:01 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 06:10 Mordiford wrote:
[quote]
Once again, I responded to that and the post you mentioned, the girls would not be required to rape the boy for it to establish a double standard since in the comparison mentioned, the boys wouldn't be raping the girl.
Also, this would be my response, girls are developing identities at that age? So are boys. They generally place more weight on appearances, I'm not sure what you mean here but so do boys, and this would damage a boys self image as well, there is an equal chance that this would affect a boy's relation to the other gender and I disagree with the statement in parentheses, I think there is openness and shyness on both sides. Also, how would being overpowered physically "make her very uneasy in the future" in comparison to a boy in this situation? It's not a boy losing a fight or bullying, which by the way can happen with girls as well, I simply don't agree with this.
This is where we reach our impasse because you've simply mentioned stuff that I don't think is true at all using "intuition", I can't argue or respond to these statements if I don't find the statements themselves to be true themselves, so the response simply becomes, if you're saying these things, cite some sources or it's a perfectly valid response to say that your actual points are bullshit and this is a double standard that you're perpetuating based on falsehoods. You contest several points here, and either make vague counter-claims or pose questions. For the sake of clarity, allow me to outline them: 1) Developing identities - "both guys and girls do this" 2) Place weigh on appearance - "both guys and girls do this" 3) Become uneasy about the other gender as a result of forceful physical contact - "equal chance for both guys and girls" 4) Openness and shyness - "the case for both guys and girls" Point 1: Of course they both do this. The question is; at what rate and to which effect. I would say that, for boys, developing an identity with the context of school is mostly focused on finding a role within the school. There can several reasons for this, and I won't claim one to be more valid than the other. It could be because society more often encourages boys to be competitive at an early age, and fulfilling this expectations satisfies a claim to identity. It could also be that dominance is an important quality, due to a macho instinct, meaning that once the question of dominance is established by you finding a role within the group, this generally puts you at ease. Meanwhile, as expected in my post before this, the search for identity will often be different for girls and will have more intellectual properties. Girls might feel more obliged to filfull a role in several contexts and therefore feel the need for an identity than can emcompass all of this. So, girls will often try out different identities, trying to find something that can give them a clear self-image which makes sense in many contexts. This can make them more sensitive to events that expose them in various ways as it forced them to rethink their self-image, because it's more fragile, or greatly challenges it. Point 2: Perhaps this ties in with some of the other behaviour described. If you physically act out your emotion, instead of intellectualizing them or putting them into a great frame of identity, you will look outward rather than inward. This is only enhanced if you generally act on impulse, heavily affected by your emotions, because you rarely get the time to reflect on other things than what you are immediately dealing with. Therefore, many boys will go around completely oblivious about how they appear to others unless it relates to some of the things which play a major role in their perception, for instance, their role within their group. If they are wrestled onto the ground and stripped, thus being put in a humiliating, it will matter because of how it affects their social status, less so because of his it exposes their physical appearance or other body language that could be communicated in such a situation. Point 3: As I already mentioned, boys will have been physically overpowered many times. It's fully acceptable to do this to boys, so people won't hold back and have much fear as to how it will affect them (to a certain extent, of course, when it comes to parenting). Some girls could have similar experience, of course, but there will often be many spheres where heavy physical contact will be much more legitimate if directed at a boy, simply because it feels more "natural". If a boy has been fighting or wrestling other boys, this element will not stand out when it comes to the incident that we discuss. Whereas, for girls, the heavy physical contact might trigger many insecurities, both due to the stigma that society might attach to it, but also due to it simply not feeling as natural. Also, the physical contact might confuse her about her approach to boys. As I believe I mentioned, the goal with interaction with boys, might rather be to explore potential for friendships rather than fulfill specific emotional needs. Because of the insecurities triggered, the girl will now have to understand the physical behaviour of the boys much better for it not to be a hinderance to her feeling safe about establishing said friendship. Point 4: Argh ... I have been writing a lot, and at this point, I really cannot remember where this played a role. Isn't it included in the other things I have detailed in this post and my last one? ' Point 1: I don't think this is relevant in any significant way to any crime or offense whatsoever, I don't even understand what you're drawing on here... Boys can be sporty/Girls can be brainy therefor girls feel worse if they're held down and stripped... What? I'm thoroughly confused by this and in general don't agree with any of this. Yes, boys and girls tend to have varying interests growing up but that's not relevant in any way to this situation or any situation of offense. Point 2: I disagree with this, I don't think this is the case at all, sure girls may be more interested in their own looks though I don't think this is overwhelmingly the case at all, I'd say it's pretty even as you go up in age and I absolutely disagree that a boy would only feel(or be more) upset about the aspects of them being held down and stripped that relates to social status, it would be just as much about being powerless and naked. Point 3: Sure boys may be rougher with each other but this makes no sense in this frame of reference once again even if you think this is overwhelmingly the case. Honestly, it's like "Hey, this boy grew up with three brothers and is probably used to being beaten up so we're not going to make a big deal of this assault case because he's probably used to it". It doesn't fucking matter, this varies so heavily based on upbringing and environment and is irrelevant to assault or any crime or offense whatsoever. "They're probably used to it, so we shouldn't care as much". It doesn't fucking matter, this is entirely irrelevant even if it were true. Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation: Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation. Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role. Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident. Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing. Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes. Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard. Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist. The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation. Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards. Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism. No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are. You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females. Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role.
So being male, when one can be male or "not male", plays a role? That is completely double standard.
|
On June 07 2011 08:02 Release wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:00 AttackZerg wrote:On June 07 2011 07:47 sQually wrote:On June 07 2011 07:32 AttackZerg wrote:
I'm glad the mother made the right choice.
The girls are young and stupid. This was cruel, very cruel, but to waste the systems time on rehabilitating 3 14 year old girls for being cruel assholes won't due anything. I'm a sexist. If it was boys doing the exact same thing, I would feel completely different. The mother is a fucking idiot who doesn't truly grasp the concept of what happened to her child. He was sexually harassed and abused by 3 older HUMANS ( who cares what gender ). To be honest guys I'm embarrassed that there's even an argument over this. The reason I said she made the right choice is because what exactly can be done to fix this situation? What form of justice? I did a thought experiment on myself to see what it would be like to if three men did this to me and three women. The biggest difference I felt was that with the men, I would be truly scared for being raped, tortured ( beyond stripping) and beaten/killed. On the other hand with the women, I felt helpless, embarrassed, hurt emotionally, and physically (from being overly restrained, struggling), which are all the things I felt with the men but the highest form of terror I would feel would be the things that could help. Is my though experiment, in anyway accurate? No of course not but from where I sit the differences are so large that I can't help but feel a different. I also have 6 older brothers and 4 older sisters. I'm the youngest male. My brothers did horrible shit and it was always 50 times worse then when my sisters would do the same thing. Of course there was no fear of rape, murder, blah blah but still it is just how it was. Are you being intentionally stupid? You can't perfom an experiment with yourself as the only subject. It's way too subjective. By your logic i could say that females would murder me after they finish, and the males would ask me politely what they wanted to do (and stop when i said no). Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:02 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:00 Release wrote:On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:51 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:48 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:34 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:27 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:14 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:01 Asjo wrote:
[quote]
You contest several points here, and either make vague counter-claims or pose questions. For the sake of clarity, allow me to outline them:
1) Developing identities - "both guys and girls do this"
2) Place weigh on appearance - "both guys and girls do this"
3) Become uneasy about the other gender as a result of forceful physical contact - "equal chance for both guys and girls"
4) Openness and shyness - "the case for both guys and girls"
Point 1: Of course they both do this. The question is; at what rate and to which effect. I would say that, for boys, developing an identity with the context of school is mostly focused on finding a role within the school. There can several reasons for this, and I won't claim one to be more valid than the other. It could be because society more often encourages boys to be competitive at an early age, and fulfilling this expectations satisfies a claim to identity. It could also be that dominance is an important quality, due to a macho instinct, meaning that once the question of dominance is established by you finding a role within the group, this generally puts you at ease. Meanwhile, as expected in my post before this, the search for identity will often be different for girls and will have more intellectual properties. Girls might feel more obliged to filfull a role in several contexts and therefore feel the need for an identity than can emcompass all of this. So, girls will often try out different identities, trying to find something that can give them a clear self-image which makes sense in many contexts. This can make them more sensitive to events that expose them in various ways as it forced them to rethink their self-image, because it's more fragile, or greatly challenges it.
Point 2: Perhaps this ties in with some of the other behaviour described. If you physically act out your emotion, instead of intellectualizing them or putting them into a great frame of identity, you will look outward rather than inward. This is only enhanced if you generally act on impulse, heavily affected by your emotions, because you rarely get the time to reflect on other things than what you are immediately dealing with. Therefore, many boys will go around completely oblivious about how they appear to others unless it relates to some of the things which play a major role in their perception, for instance, their role within their group. If they are wrestled onto the ground and stripped, thus being put in a humiliating, it will matter because of how it affects their social status, less so because of his it exposes their physical appearance or other body language that could be communicated in such a situation.
Point 3: As I already mentioned, boys will have been physically overpowered many times. It's fully acceptable to do this to boys, so people won't hold back and have much fear as to how it will affect them (to a certain extent, of course, when it comes to parenting). Some girls could have similar experience, of course, but there will often be many spheres where heavy physical contact will be much more legitimate if directed at a boy, simply because it feels more "natural". If a boy has been fighting or wrestling other boys, this element will not stand out when it comes to the incident that we discuss. Whereas, for girls, the heavy physical contact might trigger many insecurities, both due to the stigma that society might attach to it, but also due to it simply not feeling as natural. Also, the physical contact might confuse her about her approach to boys. As I believe I mentioned, the goal with interaction with boys, might rather be to explore potential for friendships rather than fulfill specific emotional needs. Because of the insecurities triggered, the girl will now have to understand the physical behaviour of the boys much better for it not to be a hinderance to her feeling safe about establishing said friendship.
Point 4: Argh ... I have been writing a lot, and at this point, I really cannot remember where this played a role. Isn't it included in the other things I have detailed in this post and my last one? ' Point 1: I don't think this is relevant in any significant way to any crime or offense whatsoever, I don't even understand what you're drawing on here... Boys can be sporty/Girls can be brainy therefor girls feel worse if they're held down and stripped... What? I'm thoroughly confused by this and in general don't agree with any of this. Yes, boys and girls tend to have varying interests growing up but that's not relevant in any way to this situation or any situation of offense. Point 2: I disagree with this, I don't think this is the case at all, sure girls may be more interested in their own looks though I don't think this is overwhelmingly the case at all, I'd say it's pretty even as you go up in age and I absolutely disagree that a boy would only feel(or be more) upset about the aspects of them being held down and stripped that relates to social status, it would be just as much about being powerless and naked. Point 3: Sure boys may be rougher with each other but this makes no sense in this frame of reference once again even if you think this is overwhelmingly the case. Honestly, it's like "Hey, this boy grew up with three brothers and is probably used to being beaten up so we're not going to make a big deal of this assault case because he's probably used to it". It doesn't fucking matter, this varies so heavily based on upbringing and environment and is irrelevant to assault or any crime or offense whatsoever. "They're probably used to it, so we shouldn't care as much". It doesn't fucking matter, this is entirely irrelevant even if it were true. Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation: Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation. Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role. Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident. Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing. Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes. Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard. Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist. The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation. Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards. Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism. No, it's not double standards, because it doesn't apply generally because of gender, but depends in the individuals and our understanding of their actions. And, for most girls, people will not deem it likely that the girls had any interest in carrying out rape, so the reaction will be less severe. Whether you believe that people misjudge this is an entirely different case. That would have to be argued on a situational basis. As it is today, the bias that you speak of is that people are more conscious about what consequences this behaviour can lead to when carried out by males. This might cause them to overreact and dole out a heavy punishment for a situation that was in fact very innocent. Just because people overreact in some of the cases where males are involved, doesn't mean that they should do the same in cases where females are. You just introduced another double standard: People over react to males but people won't over react to females. Once again, to individual males, my friend. Not because they are male, but because of an overall judgement call, where their identity (part of which is being male) plays a role. So being male, when one can be male or "not male", plays a role? That is completely double standard.
Of course, it plays a role. It can't not play a role in trying to understand and individual. So, your point is void - in that case, anything would be double standard. Gender is not the deciding factor here, though.
|
On June 07 2011 07:51 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 07:48 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:34 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:27 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 07:14 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 07:01 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 06:10 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:59 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 05:45 Mordiford wrote:On June 07 2011 05:37 Asjo wrote:
[quote]
In the example you give, there is no need for any further explanation than that which I have already given about hormones, fondless of touch, desperation for contact. It's a pretty general thing, which I'm sure everyone can understand. Note, I wasn't argued that he enjoyed it, only that it was a possibility to consider before anyone went apeshit about or, went to the media or courts with it.
In the second quote, I simply outline the morale of my point, telling others what conclusion I have personally reached in regard to the morality that had been discussed. This then branched out through my entire argument, where I constructed an understanding of the situation that would not necessitate punishing the girls by taking this to court.
Ýour third example, about the sexual rationalizations, is about forceful physical contact, carried out boys onto girls. I think the connection here is quite simply. Many people will have heard about or experienced that this is how such things start or escalate and turn into rape or the like. They will have seen other kind of behaviour where this approach of "no regard" is a way for boys to be "sexually forward". Generally, people will react very strongly to any such physical behaviour simply because they know that a lack of reaction might legitimize taking it a step further. Since they don't fear the girls taking it a step further, as this often won't be the care, it wouldn't play a conscious part of their interpretation if the roles were reversed, which would mean that other factors would be more important (social behaviour, bullying, group disharmony, etc.). Therefore, many people will overreact. In the end, those people are the ones who decide the law, and thus the boys risk ending up being charged with sexual assualt in a similar situation. Now, if girls raping boys because a problem of similar proportions and became as big a part of people's consciousness as rape carried out by males (just like, relating to my previous example, people are more conscious about terrorists being more dangerous than other criminals these days), the reaction would be different. I'm sorry... but I really don't understand your post, just like I didn't understand any of the shit you said earlier... Can you highlight your references to "hormones, fondless of touch(?) and desperation for contact(?)" because as far as I know, hormones work both ways, and the other two I'm not really sure about. As for your last paragraph, it's a bit of a mess and once I again I'm confused, it sounds like you're simply saying that it's more likely that it would have escalated to rape if it were three boys(once again based on your all powerful intuition) and that boys wouldn't mind girls taking it further(from the point seen in the video? once again based on intuition and once again, this blows my fucking mind) and then you end with girls raping boys isn't a big part of our consciousness... So we're not as aware of girls raping boys-... So let's not give a fuck when it actually happens despite expecting gender equality... Cool fucking beans. I really think you should re-read that, since you seem to have completely misunderstood it. I hope it's not riddled with typos - I can be quite bad with those. If I wrote "fondless", what I meant was "fondness". These were things I referenced from my previous posts where I talk about the sensitivities that might be involved and how the situation might have different implication for boys and girls. I'm sure you cannot have missed it. But yeah, re-read it, or, alternatively, point out the parts that cause you to misunderstand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say that girls raping guys was fine, and that the guys would appreciate this. In fact, I have previous written: "It has nothing to do with double standards, and I'm sure people would react strongly if the girls actually did rape the boy or something to that effect (if not, at least, then you can talk about double standards)". Once again, I responded to that and the post you mentioned, the girls would not be required to rape the boy for it to establish a double standard since in the comparison mentioned, the boys wouldn't be raping the girl. Also, this would be my response, girls are developing identities at that age? So are boys. They generally place more weight on appearances, I'm not sure what you mean here but so do boys, and this would damage a boys self image as well, there is an equal chance that this would affect a boy's relation to the other gender and I disagree with the statement in parentheses, I think there is openness and shyness on both sides. Also, how would being overpowered physically "make her very uneasy in the future" in comparison to a boy in this situation? It's not a boy losing a fight or bullying, which by the way can happen with girls as well, I simply don't agree with this. This is where we reach our impasse because you've simply mentioned stuff that I don't think is true at all using "intuition", I can't argue or respond to these statements if I don't find the statements themselves to be true themselves, so the response simply becomes, if you're saying these things, cite some sources or it's a perfectly valid response to say that your actual points are bullshit and this is a double standard that you're perpetuating based on falsehoods. You contest several points here, and either make vague counter-claims or pose questions. For the sake of clarity, allow me to outline them: 1) Developing identities - "both guys and girls do this" 2) Place weigh on appearance - "both guys and girls do this" 3) Become uneasy about the other gender as a result of forceful physical contact - "equal chance for both guys and girls" 4) Openness and shyness - "the case for both guys and girls" Point 1: Of course they both do this. The question is; at what rate and to which effect. I would say that, for boys, developing an identity with the context of school is mostly focused on finding a role within the school. There can several reasons for this, and I won't claim one to be more valid than the other. It could be because society more often encourages boys to be competitive at an early age, and fulfilling this expectations satisfies a claim to identity. It could also be that dominance is an important quality, due to a macho instinct, meaning that once the question of dominance is established by you finding a role within the group, this generally puts you at ease. Meanwhile, as expected in my post before this, the search for identity will often be different for girls and will have more intellectual properties. Girls might feel more obliged to filfull a role in several contexts and therefore feel the need for an identity than can emcompass all of this. So, girls will often try out different identities, trying to find something that can give them a clear self-image which makes sense in many contexts. This can make them more sensitive to events that expose them in various ways as it forced them to rethink their self-image, because it's more fragile, or greatly challenges it. Point 2: Perhaps this ties in with some of the other behaviour described. If you physically act out your emotion, instead of intellectualizing them or putting them into a great frame of identity, you will look outward rather than inward. This is only enhanced if you generally act on impulse, heavily affected by your emotions, because you rarely get the time to reflect on other things than what you are immediately dealing with. Therefore, many boys will go around completely oblivious about how they appear to others unless it relates to some of the things which play a major role in their perception, for instance, their role within their group. If they are wrestled onto the ground and stripped, thus being put in a humiliating, it will matter because of how it affects their social status, less so because of his it exposes their physical appearance or other body language that could be communicated in such a situation. Point 3: As I already mentioned, boys will have been physically overpowered many times. It's fully acceptable to do this to boys, so people won't hold back and have much fear as to how it will affect them (to a certain extent, of course, when it comes to parenting). Some girls could have similar experience, of course, but there will often be many spheres where heavy physical contact will be much more legitimate if directed at a boy, simply because it feels more "natural". If a boy has been fighting or wrestling other boys, this element will not stand out when it comes to the incident that we discuss. Whereas, for girls, the heavy physical contact might trigger many insecurities, both due to the stigma that society might attach to it, but also due to it simply not feeling as natural. Also, the physical contact might confuse her about her approach to boys. As I believe I mentioned, the goal with interaction with boys, might rather be to explore potential for friendships rather than fulfill specific emotional needs. Because of the insecurities triggered, the girl will now have to understand the physical behaviour of the boys much better for it not to be a hinderance to her feeling safe about establishing said friendship. Point 4: Argh ... I have been writing a lot, and at this point, I really cannot remember where this played a role. Isn't it included in the other things I have detailed in this post and my last one? ' Point 1: I don't think this is relevant in any significant way to any crime or offense whatsoever, I don't even understand what you're drawing on here... Boys can be sporty/Girls can be brainy therefor girls feel worse if they're held down and stripped... What? I'm thoroughly confused by this and in general don't agree with any of this. Yes, boys and girls tend to have varying interests growing up but that's not relevant in any way to this situation or any situation of offense. Point 2: I disagree with this, I don't think this is the case at all, sure girls may be more interested in their own looks though I don't think this is overwhelmingly the case at all, I'd say it's pretty even as you go up in age and I absolutely disagree that a boy would only feel(or be more) upset about the aspects of them being held down and stripped that relates to social status, it would be just as much about being powerless and naked. Point 3: Sure boys may be rougher with each other but this makes no sense in this frame of reference once again even if you think this is overwhelmingly the case. Honestly, it's like "Hey, this boy grew up with three brothers and is probably used to being beaten up so we're not going to make a big deal of this assault case because he's probably used to it". It doesn't fucking matter, this varies so heavily based on upbringing and environment and is irrelevant to assault or any crime or offense whatsoever. "They're probably used to it, so we shouldn't care as much". It doesn't fucking matter, this is entirely irrelevant even if it were true. Once again, I must repeat that these arguments do not act as direct justifications for how you react to the incident, but as a way to conceptualize and better understand the implications, results in rationalizations which, in the end, determines how people act. There is no right and wrong here, just making a judgment call in a given situation: Point 1: What I talk about doesn't relate to interests. It relates to building identities, which has implications for your coping mechanisms and how you orient your response. Therefore, it makes a big difference in such a situation. Point 2: Yes, indeed, they feel bad about being powerless and naked. Of course, part of this is pure human instinct. But apart from that, what could be the other sources of frustration or regret? Here, I'm saying that, with boys, it is more likely to be about changes to the social status whereas, with girls, more facets of appearences are likely to play a role. Point 3: I believe you're confusing the points here. It has nothing about the punishment or reaction, but simply about the implications of it. People will expect it to more heavily impact girls, in the way that I have described, and this will affect their considerations when the make sense of the incident. Once again, this is the problem with this discussion and why I said we're at an impasse, because we have to delve super fucking deep into every point where you justify and reason your statements and it always comes down to the same fucking thing. Point 1: Yes, yes, yes... How does it make a big difference in this situation? Generalizations don't work in this regard because there's so much shit that goes into how you respond to situations that gender can not be regarded as significant because the other things can't be regarded as significant. So what if it's a really "boyish girl"? But she had a vagina so fuck a duck, sucks for the boys. What if it's a really effeminate boy? Well... He's scarred for life, who gives a cock? This is why you can't generalize based on gender because gender stereotypes are what are sexist just like basing judgements on racial stereotypes. Point 2: I disagree, I don't really know what more I can say than that... From personal experience I don't think this is the case, boys can be just as embarrassed about this shit and you can't create a meter for judging this which is why having such views is a double standard. Point 3: Okay, well we take into consideration that some boys could potentially have more experience in rowdiness, SURE for the fuck of it, let's run with this... Why should this generalized stereotype be a consideration, there a ton of other things that could be considered which are why judgements based on stereotypes are wrong. This is why I think your views are sexist. The major point a disagreement lies in identifying what is being contested. We don't know the specifics of this situation, so of course we have no way of knowing how these factors play out. And, as such, it's not useful in any specific situation to act simply based on generalizations of anything relating to human behing, gender or not. However, what we are discussing here is the rationale behind how people might react to these incidents. The reactions will vary in each case, of course, but whereas you describe particular reactions as double standards, I simply see them as rational deductions based on an intuitive understanding of the situation. Once again, what the fuck are you saying? It just sounds like you're trying to rationalize sexism, and this is why I used my earlier examples because they are no different, you can try and rationalize sexism, you can try and justify double standards, but they're still double standards. Ignoring all other information, with the exact same knowledge of the situation we have now, the response should be the same regardless of it were three girls stripping one boy, or three boys stripping one girl. You are perpetuating a double standard based on generalizations and this is sexism.
In addition to this how are you claiming an intuitive understanding of the situation? Are you close friends which each of the persons involved in this story such that you have an exclusive view on what happened and we're all missing something? Or are you just claiming that you have an infallible understanding of the human condition?
It's got to be one of the two, else I'm not clear on why you think you have this deep understanding of what's going on here or why you feel you know how the kids feel about the situation...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
