|
Is it just me or does anyone else think that if it were three 8th grade boys force-stripping a 5th grade girl, the boys would probably be marked as sex offenders and this would be a much bigger deal?
|
On June 07 2011 08:17 Emperor_Earth wrote:
Is it just me or does anyone else think that if it were three 8th grade boys force-stripping a 5th grade girl, the boys would probably be marked as sex offenders and this would be a much bigger deal?
LOL!
No, it's not just you, 70% of the people who posted in this thread have directly claimed this :D
|
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.
Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null...
You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
|
On June 07 2011 08:21 dogmeatstew wrote: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. Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null... You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it?
No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
|
This is fucking retarded. I really hate parents.
|
On June 07 2011 08:24 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:21 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:02 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:00 Release wrote:On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote:
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. Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null... You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it? No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
It applies to Males and females equally but:
"... 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. ..."
and
"... 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. "
And we're still going with not a double standard?
|
On June 07 2011 08:24 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:21 dogmeatstew wrote: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:
[quote]'
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. Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null... You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it? No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
Are you really fucking doing this dance right now?
So the reaction is equal, but you have more reason to believe that if it were men, it'd be more damaging and more likely to lead to rape so you'd charge them as such, if it were women, it'd be less damaging and less likely to lead to rape so you'd charge them with that reasoning. That is a fucking double standard, what part of this is difficult?
|
On June 07 2011 08:24 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:21 dogmeatstew wrote: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:
[quote]'
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. Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null... You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it? No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it.
But you have stated that if "you" is a male, then people are more likely have a stronger reaction to it in previous posts.
|
sigh, most of this wouldnt be a problem if we could beat children for greater justice.
just kick the shit out of those cuts
|
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.
See, the funny thing is, that 14 is around the time girls are taught to be safe due to sexual predators in the world. Even funnier yet, is that they're doing something that usually happens to girls around their age.
This isn't wasting time. This is about proving a point that this is NOT okay, regardless of who is doing it/who it is begin done to.
Clearly you're a sexist. So would it be wasting time if 3 14 year old boys did the EXACT same thing to an 11 year old girl?
|
wow there's some cruel people in the world
|
On June 07 2011 08:30 dogmeatstew wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:24 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:21 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:02 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:00 Release wrote:On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote:
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. Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null... You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it? No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it. It applies to Males and females equally but: "... 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. ..." and "... 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. " And we're still going with not a double standard?
No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
|
incase noone noticed, we live in a retarded world, with retarded laws, retarded people.. and retarded psychology.
|
wow this is pretty pathetic
|
he should have started pissing on them, i bet the girls would fuck off then
|
On June 07 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:30 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:24 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:21 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:02 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:00 Release wrote:On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote:
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. Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null... You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it? No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it. It applies to Males and females equally but: "... 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. ..." and "... 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. " And we're still going with not a double standard? No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
Alright, then we'll go with sexist...
That is what this is, you're stereotyping on a massive scale in a discriminatory way.
|
On June 07 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:30 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:24 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:21 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:02 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:00 Release wrote:On June 07 2011 07:55 Asjo wrote:
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. Wow wait are you being serious? Do you know what a double standard is? You're stating repeatedly that people feel that one demographic would deserve different treatment in a given situation then an equal but different demographic and telling everyone who points this out that they're somehow missing your point making their argument null... You're *actually* stating the exactly double standard you think you're arguing over and over and somehow believing that we don't get it? No, the same thing applies to females and males equally: if people suspect that you will rape someone, they will have a strong reaction to it. It applies to Males and females equally but: "... 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. ..." and "... 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. " And we're still going with not a double standard? No, it's not a double standard, but simply a bias in interpretation. There is a difference in how you conceptualize it. One is where you say "it's okay because she was female", while the other is where you say "it's okay because she wasn't trying to rape the guy". As said, this bias in interpretation is likely to lead to some cases of male attacks being interpreted wrongly and therefore ending up in undue punishment. This is not double standard, but simply people making mistakes because they are emotional beings.
Ok, here we go again, from the wikipedia article:
"A double standard is the unjust application of different sets of principles for similar situations."
and
"A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms."
which sounds a lot like
"but simply a bias in interpretation."
citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
|
On June 07 2011 08:34 Cloud9157 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. See, the funny thing is, that 14 is around the time girls are taught to be safe due to sexual predators in the world. Even funnier yet, is that they're doing something that usually happens to girls around their age. This isn't wasting time. This is about proving a point that this is NOT okay, regardless of who is doing it/who it is begin done to. Clearly you're a sexist. So would it be wasting time if 3 14 year old boys did the EXACT same thing to an 11 year old girl?
I am a sexist, and even though my opinion may not be educated by standards of fairness or other areas it is how I feel and I won't apologize for not forcing my feelings into a box of political correctness that they don't fit in.
I don't think it would be wasting time if 3 boys did the same thing and were charged. I'm sorry that being aware of my sexism doesn't change how I feel.
|
On June 07 2011 08:44 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:34 Cloud9157 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. See, the funny thing is, that 14 is around the time girls are taught to be safe due to sexual predators in the world. Even funnier yet, is that they're doing something that usually happens to girls around their age. This isn't wasting time. This is about proving a point that this is NOT okay, regardless of who is doing it/who it is begin done to. Clearly you're a sexist. So would it be wasting time if 3 14 year old boys did the EXACT same thing to an 11 year old girl? I am a sexist, and even though my opinion may not be educated by standards of fairness or other areas it is how I feel and I won't apologize for not forcing my feelings into a box of political correctness that they don't fit in. I don't think it would be wasting time if 3 boys did the same thing and were charged. I'm sorry that being aware of my sexism doesn't change how I feel.
Okay, thats all I needed to hear. I could go on, but I'm really not going to. Waste of my time and yours.
|
On June 07 2011 08:51 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:44 AttackZerg wrote:On June 07 2011 08:34 Cloud9157 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. See, the funny thing is, that 14 is around the time girls are taught to be safe due to sexual predators in the world. Even funnier yet, is that they're doing something that usually happens to girls around their age. This isn't wasting time. This is about proving a point that this is NOT okay, regardless of who is doing it/who it is begin done to. Clearly you're a sexist. So would it be wasting time if 3 14 year old boys did the EXACT same thing to an 11 year old girl? I am a sexist, and even though my opinion may not be educated by standards of fairness or other areas it is how I feel and I won't apologize for not forcing my feelings into a box of political correctness that they don't fit in. I don't think it would be wasting time if 3 boys did the same thing and were charged. I'm sorry that being aware of my sexism doesn't change how I feel. Okay, thats all I needed to hear. I could go on, but I'm really not going to. Waste of my time and yours.
Thank you for being respectful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
