|
On June 07 2011 04:26 Redukt wrote:We seem to agree about the most important thing. Gender roles are stupid, throw rocks at them. If you're equally vocal about double standards when they hurt girls and women, imma go ahead and consider you a crypto-feminist.
I'd prefer the term 'ally', as there are a number of positions where I'd differ from mainstream feminists (despite agreeing on many others), but you seem to have the right idea. I'd be more inclined to identify as feminist in the event that equity feminists ever displace the gyno-centric feminists who make up the leadership/voice of the modern feminist community.
On June 07 2011 04:26 Redukt wrote:
This is probably true. Doesn't mean they side with the girls. They blog about feminism, and this wasn't actually a feminist issue until this thread made it into one by getting all chin-strokingly hypotethical.
You're right that overlooking the issue doesn't imply they'd side with the girls (though other examples do). However, the fact that they don't care about this issue, when they would likely be in uproar should the genders be reversed, is a significant discrepancy with the stated claim of feminists to advance gender equality. Only throwing rocks when gender roles hurt girls, and not when gender roles hurt boys, is somewhat hypocritical, and is particularly damaging given the monopoly that feminists hold over mainstream gender equality discourse.
On June 07 2011 04:26 Redukt wrote:[citation needed.] I remember some support for her, but none from academic feminists. In fact, they were mostly busy trying to convince everyone that they weren't manhaters.
The academics of course distanced themselves from the politically incorrect support of Lorena Bobbitt that rippled through the feminist rank-and-file. However, this is little different from the way that anti-abortion leaders distance themselves from anti-abortion violence or the way that Republican leaders distanced themselves from the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. The fact that the perpetrators are simply taking their ideology to their logical (if extreme) conclusion, as well as the support they receive from the rank-and-file, demonstrates that there is a problem with the group's ideology/rhetoric to begin with.
Due to the Bobbitt case occurring years ago, before the proliferation of the Internet, the best link I can come up with that includes a meta-discussion (rather than pulling individual quotes from various sources) can be found here. Though it certainly comes with a MRA-slant, the general idea there is what I'm referring to, and the quotes can be verified with Google searches for the most part.
|
On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote:
to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO..
No, and this post perfectly illustrates the misandric attitudes of western society. You're saying that if two HUMAN BEINGS of different genders at the same age are exposed to the same negative stimulus, their reaction will be more severe in one gender and that gender should therefore be coddled and receive special legal privileges? The same offense committed against a person of one gender should be more punishable than another?
This is unacceptable, but I'm glad my outrage is shared by most people who've responded to this story.
|
Why... are... you... pretending... there.... is... no...difference...between....men...and....women...
|
I hope those bitches are boiled alive for eternity.
|
United States5052 Posts
yeah.. there should be charges pressed.. by the police fuck the mom if she decides not to press charges. if the situation was reversed it would be such a huge deal and the girls, if they were boys would literally be in juvie for a year or 2..
them bitches need some real punishment.. like at the very least a couple hundred hours of community service
|
While I agree that it is a terrible double standard and if the genders were reversed it would have obviously created a fucking shitstorm, there's a great deal of truth in this:
On June 07 2011 16:41 Kickboxer wrote:
Why... are... you... pretending... there.... is... no...difference...between....men...and....women...
|
@kickboxer yes, there is a difference, but the difference does not apply to legal right. It does, however, apply to popular perception. However, the law should treat this case as though it were a bunch of 14-year-olds stripping an 11-year-old (regardless of sex or gender). The mother of the 5th grader did not exercise that right. I feel sorry for the boy. Hopefully, he doesn't turn an adverse reaction to becoming humiliated... Or thanks girls! America has gained one more serial rapist...
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 07 2011 16:50 Phenny wrote:While I agree that it is a terrible double standard and if the genders were reversed it would have obviously created a fucking shitstorm, there's a great deal of truth in this: Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 16:41 Kickboxer wrote:
Why... are... you... pretending... there.... is... no...difference...between....men...and....women...
In this case its not a man or a woman affected, its an 11 year old kid.
|
Her not pressing charges is most likely due to the fact that the "offenders" were 8th graders, very susceptible to group think and peer pressure, so not reflective of intent to harm psychologically etc...
|
Pretty interesting situation - I'm of the belief that male and female are different, so, this situation would've been 100 times more traumatising for the girl if the roles were reversed. Thus, I support the mother's stance on not pressing charges - but I sincerely hope that the parents' of the girls come up with some suitable punishment.
I also don't like many feminists in this world - I find many of them men-haters rather than doing what they should be doing. Their silent stance on this issue (and many others) shows what they really are up to.
The 11-yo hasn't reached puberty yet, so hopefully, in the next few years, he grows up and becomes a confident, strong young man. Maybe he'll have a story to tell in the future - he could tell a girl, "You know, there are girls who can't resist taking my clothes off..."
|
United States5052 Posts
On June 07 2011 17:12 Aberu wrote:
Her not pressing charges is most likely due to the fact that the "offenders" were 8th graders, very susceptible to group think and peer pressure, so not reflective of intent to harm psychologically etc...
Intent doesnt matter.. its what you do that matters. What they did was harm a young child, regardless of if they were being affected by peer pressure or not.
So by your logic its okay to murder someone if you dont intend to harm them? Intent matters not one whit when it comes to law, its actions that dictate.
|
On June 07 2011 17:15 Azzur wrote:
Pretty interesting situation - I'm of the belief that male and female are different, so, this situation would've been 100 times more traumatising for the girl if the roles were reversed. Thus, I support the mother's stance on not pressing charges - but I sincerely hope that the parents' of the girls come up with some suitable punishment.
I also don't like many feminists in this world - I find many of them men-haters rather than doing what they should be doing. Their silent stance on this issue (and many others) shows what they really are up to.
The 11-yo hasn't reached puberty yet, so hopefully, in the next few years, he grows up and becomes a confident, strong young man. Maybe he'll have a story to tell in the future - he could tell a girl, "You know, there are girls who can't resist taking my clothes off..."
He easily could have been traumatized. You have no way of knowing. Just assuming that he wouldn't be because he's a boy is ridiculous.
|
On June 07 2011 17:15 Azzur wrote:
Pretty interesting situation - I'm of the belief that male and female are different, so, this situation would've been 100 times more traumatising for the girl if the roles were reversed. Thus, I support the mother's stance on not pressing charges - but I sincerely hope that the parents' of the girls come up with some suitable punishment.
I also don't like many feminists in this world - I find many of them men-haters rather than doing what they should be doing. Their silent stance on this issue (and many others) shows what they really are up to.
The 11-yo hasn't reached puberty yet, so hopefully, in the next few years, he grows up and becomes a confident, strong young man. Maybe he'll have a story to tell in the future - he could tell a girl, "You know, there are girls who can't resist taking my clothes off..."
What is your thought process behind this? Being a prepubescent male gives you no advantage in this situation. A young girl in this situation would feel violated and scared, does the boy not feel the same way? His self confidence will actually take a huge blow (most likely) and actually be detrimental to his social life, which at that age is extremely important to develop.
|
On June 07 2011 08:43 dogmeatstew wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote: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
Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are.
Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic 
On June 07 2011 16:32 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote:
to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO.. No, and this post perfectly illustrates the misandric attitudes of western society. You're saying that if two HUMAN BEINGS of different genders at the same age are exposed to the same negative stimulus, their reaction will be more severe in one gender and that gender should therefore be coddled and receive special legal privileges? The same offense committed against a person of one gender should be more punishable than another?
Of course not. This has been covered earlier. You don't treat them differently or give them special priveleges based on their gender. You simply act according to your interpretation of the perceived needs and threats. Just as you would do anything. This way, two men might end up being treated differently, and a man and a woman might end up being treated differently.
|
On June 07 2011 17:16 sc14s wrote:Intent doesnt matter.. its what you do that matters. What they did was harm a young child, regardless of if they were being affected by peer pressure or not.
So by your logic its okay to murder someone if you dont intend to harm them? Intent matters not one whit when it comes to law, its actions that dictate.
Intent does matter under the law.
That's not to say that the girls weren't at fault, but your statement was patently untrue.
|
On June 07 2011 18:10 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:43 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote: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 Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are. Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic
Sorry, but what are you even trying to argue? You basically said since society has a bias that leads them to believe boys are more dangerous that it doesn't create a double standard. Just because a society thinks and acts in certain ways does not make it immune to misguided logic and a learned double standard. It also made it seem like you believe if the person is unaware consciously that they support this double standard then they don't contribute to it.
|
On June 07 2011 17:16 sc14s wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 17:12 Aberu wrote:
Her not pressing charges is most likely due to the fact that the "offenders" were 8th graders, very susceptible to group think and peer pressure, so not reflective of intent to harm psychologically etc... Intent doesnt matter.. its what you do that matters. What they did was harm a young child, regardless of if they were being affected by peer pressure or not. So by your logic its okay to murder someone if you dont intend to harm them? Intent matters not one whit when it comes to law, its actions that dictate.
For a killing to be considered murder, there normally needs to be an element of intent. For this argument to be successful, the killer generally needs to demonstrate that they took precautions not to kill and that the death could not have been anticipated or was unavoidable, whatever action they took. As a general rule, manslaughter[24] constitutes reckless killing, while criminally negligent homicide is a grossly negligent killing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
|
On June 07 2011 21:39 DrOmni wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 18:10 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:43 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote: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 Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are. Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic Sorry, but what are you even trying to argue? You basically said since society has a bias that leads them to believe boys are more dangerous that it doesn't create a double standard. Just because a society thinks and acts in certain ways does not make it immune to misguided logic and a learned double standard. It also made it seem like you believe if the person is unaware consciously that they support this double standard then they don't contribute to it.
Yes, it's been a bit hard to keep a clear goal of what we're actually discussing, which is why this discussion is getting a bit tedious. I've felt a bit bad for responding, because I thought that expanding the dicussion without having any motivation to do so would make for some painful reading. Still, I guess the rough replies egged me on a bit, and I didn't just want to leave all that negativity hanging.
My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident.
This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components
|
On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 21:39 DrOmni wrote:On June 07 2011 18:10 Asjo wrote:On June 07 2011 08:43 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are. Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic Sorry, but what are you even trying to argue? You basically said since society has a bias that leads them to believe boys are more dangerous that it doesn't create a double standard. Just because a society thinks and acts in certain ways does not make it immune to misguided logic and a learned double standard. It also made it seem like you believe if the person is unaware consciously that they support this double standard then they don't contribute to it. Yes, it's been a bit hard to keep a clear goal of what we're actually discussing, which is why this discussion is getting a bit tedious. I've felt a bit bad for responding, because I thought that expanding the dicussion without having any motivation to do so would make for some painful reading. Still, I guess the rough replies egged me on a bit, and I didn't just want to leave all that negativity hanging. My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident. This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components
This is a double standard.
On June 07 2011 18:10 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 08:43 dogmeatstew wrote:On June 07 2011 08:34 Asjo wrote: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 Except, as I have tried to explain, this is not based on a standard, rather an often subconscious interpretation of events. If you act from a perspective that you will knowingly favour girls, you act unjustly, and thus contribute to a double standard (whether that is good or bad). If you simply happen to find it likely that a boy would have greater chances of going through with rape in a particular case based on your knowledge and experience, you are acting farily, on the base of what you can understand. The bias that is introduced comes from a logical deduction, which would more often leads us to believe that the danger posed by boys in that situation is greater. The bias, as such, is not unfair (it's simply dictated by the state of our society), but can lead to court rulings which are. Either way, I wouldn't personally put anyone in jail for an incident like this, let alone otherwise punish them through the courts. That's just silly, and doesn't really represent a proper way of dealing with this kind of misconduct. However, I suppose that discussion might go slighty off-topic Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 16:32 Drowsy wrote:On June 05 2011 16:00 ewswes wrote:
to everyone saying that people would take this more seriously if the genders were reversed:
that's true, but don't you think that in this situation, the victim will be affected/traumatized much less than if the genders were reversed?
A boy being stripped by 3 girls simply isn't going to feel that awful about it compared to if a girl was stripped by 3 boys IMO.. No, and this post perfectly illustrates the misandric attitudes of western society. You're saying that if two HUMAN BEINGS of different genders at the same age are exposed to the same negative stimulus, their reaction will be more severe in one gender and that gender should therefore be coddled and receive special legal privileges? The same offense committed against a person of one gender should be more punishable than another? Of course not. This has been covered earlier. You don't treat them differently or give them special priveleges based on their gender. You simply act according to your interpretation of the perceived needs and threats. Just as you would do anything. This way, two men might end up being treated differently, and a man and a woman might end up being treated differently.
Would this bolded part be true if the genders were reversed? If not, that is a fucking double standard and is sexist because you're basing your judgements on gender stereotypes. Why is this difficult to understand? You're arguing something that makes no sense, you're rationalizing your own sexism in double standards in ridiculous ways.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here, holy shit.
|
On June 08 2011 01:09 Asjo wrote:My first post was made to remind people to "keep things real", as the popular phrase goes. People blindly claim that because a girl was treated in a specific way that it's about double standards or even sexism (I have already explained why the use of "sexism" in this thread is quite misguided). I'm saying that this need not be the case, and just because some people overreact in some cases against boys who do this and punish them by law where it's not appropriate to do so does not mean that we should do the same against these girls. That it is not being done to these girls isn't a double standard, but simply people being able to take things at face value and take a more level-headed approach, realizing that it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident. This is the point to which we have been nitpicking the different components
It actually boggles my mind that you can't grasp the concept of a double standard even remotely.
All of the bolded parts of your above are all indication of a double standard, you are outright stating that personal bias causes people to act differently to two different demographics in the same situation, which as I've already established through some quality wikipedia link is *literally* the definition of a double standard, and furthermore in incredibly sexist.
I'm astounded by this line in particular:
"it is unlikely that any sexual abuse is an immediate risk following this incident."
Please refer back to the OP... where three 14 year old girls sexually assault an 11 year old boy. How can you possible claim something like that?
On June 08 2011 01:47 Mordiford wrote:
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here, holy shit.
ditto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
