Three girls face no charges after pinning down and stripping an 11 year old boy

[Nomrombom]

Right, but "babied" isn't the same thing as pro-women, besides that idea's pretty degrading.

 

Somehow if you are getting a divorce sexually assaulting another child and posting a video of it and you have a bias in favor of you when it comes to getting husbands income/child custody punishment I dont think you will be complaining about a bias being "degrading."

This fits in well.

[aspeeder]

.....were they hot girls?

I'll just put this here.

 

Besides dude, they were in middle school...

 

Right, but "babied" isn't the same thing as pro-women, besides that idea's pretty degrading.

 

Somehow if you are getting a divorce and you have a bias in favor of you when it comes to getting husbands income/child custody I dont think you will be complaining about a bias being "degrading."

 

Yes you can, and you should. This kind of behavior creates a double bind situation for women where they are either warm-but-incompetent or cold-but-independent. This [cabbage] has consequences.

 

Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) differentiates between hostile sexism and benevolent sexism arguing that both forms reinforce traditional gender roles and power relations and thus serve to keep women “in their place”.

[Nomrombom]

Can/should =/= will/want.

[aspeeder]

Can/should =/= will/want.

 

...an offer of patronizing help creates a difficult bind for a female target. Past research shows that unsolicited help (even when not explicitly patronizing) can harm the repipient (leading to lower self-esteem and negative affect;Deelstra et al., 2003; Schneider, Major, Luhtanen, & Crocker, 1996). Furthermore, observers perceive help recipients as less competent because receiving help implies that the helper possesses skills or resources the help recipient lacks (e.g., Gilbert & Silvera, 1996; Graham & Barker, 1990). Therefore, when a subordinate group member accepts a dominant group member’s offer of help, hierarchical status relations are reinforced, even when group membership is not explicitly invoked as motivating the offer. Indeed, research suggests that members of high status groups sometimes offer help to members of low status groups as a strategy for reinforcing their group’s dominance (e.g., Hopkins et al., 2007; Nadler, 2002; Nadler & Halabi, 2006; Nadler, Harpaz‐Gorodeisky, & Ben‐David, 2009).

From my earlier source. They might not actually want to accept an extremely patronizing offer since it may make them feel worse about themselves. But no, of course, all women just will take whatever they can steal from their husbands just out of spite. [/sarcasm]

 

I know I might sound a little harsh, but whether you intended it or not here's what you're argument is kinda sexist. My source claims that accepting unsolicited or patronizing help makes the individual worse off and feel worse about themselves. But you're saying that even though they'll feel worse they will still take the money, or avoid the punishment in the case of the OT. Why would they do something that will just make them feel worse? Obviously, to make the men other feel bad out of pure malice.

[Nomrombom]

What I'm saying is that many don't care if their social role is reinforced if they get the help/money/whatever it is.

[aspeeder]

What I'm saying is that many don't care if their social role is reinforced if they get the help/money/whatever it is.

And what I'm saying is that there are more direct consequences in addition to reinforcing gender roles, including their perceived competency and their self-esteem, both of which do carry more tangible harms. They're also likely to be aware of these harms, since as we've discussed women are thought of as weaker, and so they are offered patronizing help more often.

[Nomrombom]

What I'm saying is that many don't care if their social role is reinforced if they get the help/money/whatever it is.

And what I'm saying is that there are more direct consequences in addition to reinforcing gender roles, including their perceived competency and their self-esteem, both of which do carry more tangible harms. They're also likely to be aware of these harms, since as we've discussed women are thought of as weaker, and so they are offered patronizing help more often.

 

And they seem to be fine with that, generally.

[aspeeder]

What I'm saying is that many don't care if their social role is reinforced if they get the help/money/whatever it is.

And what I'm saying is that there are more direct consequences in addition to reinforcing gender roles, including their perceived competency and their self-esteem, both of which do carry more tangible harms. They're also likely to be aware of these harms, since as we've discussed women are thought of as weaker, and so they are offered patronizing help more often.

 

And they seem to be fine with that, generally.

That's a pretty large generalization to make with nothing to back it up.

[Nomrombom]

Have you ever heard any woman complain about receiving alimony instead of her husband receiving it? Or a woman complaining that she got a lesser charge than a man would?

 

I highly doubt it. But you have men complain about this all the time (this thread for example).

[K4ylan]

We also don't hear men saying chivalry is dead. When's the last time a woman pulled out your chair, dropped her jacket over a puddle, or opened a car door for us? [/sarcasm]

*organizes Men's Rights Movement on TIF*

[aspeeder]

Have you ever heard any woman complain about receiving alimony instead of her husband receiving it? Or a woman complaining that she got a lesser charge than a man would?

 

I highly doubt it. But you have men complain about this all the time (this thread for example).

 

Yes, yes I have, and they have made legal advances in changing the legal system in Europe to reflect new equal views. Here's an article about it.

 

Thus far on this thread, unless I'm mistaken, I haven't heard from someone who's actually gone through a divorce. Where are you getting your information about what happens in a divorce? The media? Popular culture? Of all of the divorces I've know about in my life, including my own parents', I have only known one ruling to be massively one sided towards the wife, and that was because she was a lawyer herself not because she was handed a large amount.

 

EDIT: I don't even know why we're arguing about this, we both agree that it's a stupid precedent in the legal system...

[aspeeder]

Did you actually read the article I just linked above?

 

The rest of Europe has got on with implementing the principles of feminism and equality, for which generations of women have fought long and hard. When couples split up, the general view is that pay-offs to wives, entirely separate from maintenance for children, should be along the lines of redundancy - a bit of a cushion to help with adapting to a new lifestyle. Laws are generally fairly tightly drawn, reducing the scope for argument. In England, however, the discretion allowed to judges means that case law comes to reflect the prevailing opinion.

 

...

 

Since then, the notion of equality seems to have been subsumed in the drive for women to present themselves as victims. When it comes to divorce, they are being seen here as largely incapable of supporting themselves, and are laying claim to inherited wealth, and the fruits of any previous career success their husband has brought to the marriage, in a way that would be unlawful in neighbouring European member states.

"You just have to look at who judges are," said William Longrigg, a solicitor who has regularly acted in cases where couples are fighting over assets worth millions. "They are part of the establishment, largely male, and drawn from a narrow social class. They still hold the view that women need to be protected. Other people may consider that paternalistic or patronising, but old habits die hard. Because they are allowed to operate so much discretion in divorce cases, we get all sorts of strange decisions." Like many of his legal colleagues, Longrigg believes an overhaul of the divorce laws is long overdue.

 

You're holding a stereotypical, largely unfounded, and insulting view of women. I suppose I can't argue with your experience, I don't know what you've gone through exactly, but I think that it's a pretty stereotypical view that's heavily reinforced by our society. I had my ipod stolen by a black guy off my lap in high school, that doesn't give me the right to hold on to racist views.

[aspeeder]

Well me personally if I had my ipod stolen by a black guy I wouldnt come to the conclusion that black people are bad. I can think of all the conditions that may cause him to steal.

 

His reasons for stealing aren't a result of race but other conditions such as perhaps poverty, maybe drug addiction, maybe culture (grew up in an area full of theives therefor had a different attitude about it then someone else?), parenting, etc.

 

For me to use this example to justify racism there would need to be a random sample of people of a certain race regardless of gender, religion, wealth, culture. If President Obama stole my Ipod right after Tyrone, and then Oprah did after they did, perhaps a black minister did, I might be able to determine that gender, religion, culture, or anything else i listed are factors in it and that race is surely what they have in common and be able to justify a distrust towards that group.

 

 

That is how I determined in my own experience women behave in a certain manner. Do you have any objection to the way I went about determining if a certain attitude towards a certain group is justifed by the method I presented? If so explain what I am doing wrong.

Here's where I believe you went wrong: you turned to the most obvious and readily apparent way to put those people into a group. How do you know that all the women you interact with have no differences in the way that they were brought up or the conditions surrounding them besides their gender?

[Nomrombom]

You have the right to think whatever you want about anyone.

 

OT: Actually, just today my mother was telling me about her friend's husband's ex-wife, who receives more in alimony than my mother and father make put together (over 150k a year at least) and who once told their daughter to run away while at her dad's to meet her at a bookstore.

 

Here's an article by WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120700651883978623.html

 

Divorce experts say that fewer and fewer men are rejecting outright any talk of seeking alimony. The percentage of alimony recipients who are male rose to 3.6% during the five years ending in 2006, up from 2.4%, in the previous five-year period, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

 

3.6% are male. That is 96.4% of alimony receivers being female. 964 of 1000 receivers are female. If that is not gender bias, kittens are ugly.

[aspeeder]

You have the right to think whatever you want about anyone.

You're right, thoughts aren't policed and I should phrase it differently, the situation I described above does not give me ample justification for racist presumptions.

 

OT: Actually, just today my mother was telling me about her friend's husband's ex-wife, who receives more in alimony than my mother and father make put together (over 150k a year at least) and who once told their daughter to run away while at her dad's to meet her at a bookstore.

 

Here's an article by WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120700651883978623.html

 

Divorce experts say that fewer and fewer men are rejecting outright any talk of seeking alimony. The percentage of alimony recipients who are male rose to 3.6% during the five years ending in 2006, up from 2.4%, in the previous five-year period, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

 

3.6% are male. That is 96.4% of alimony receivers being female. 964 of 1000 receivers are female. If that is not gender bias, kittens are ugly.

I'm not denying there's gender bias, I'm saying that the bias rises out of sexist origins and actually only serves to further subjugate women. We are in agreeance on the actions, that this precedent should be abolished, but for different reasons. You focus on the direct and readily apparent financial/parenting problems it causes men, and I'm focusing on the less readily-apparent effect it has on women's place in society, their self-esteem, and the unfair double-bind they are put in.

 

Perhaps they were all spoiled as kids :lol:. You would be right to say I dont know every detail about their lives.

 

But I can say there are a LOT of women I have met who behave as the picture I put above. Whether or not you personally are different as long as those women are around things wont be too different.

Perhaps during conversation you could ask them why they act that way, learning a bit of feminist theory might help you avoid paying for the bill every single time haha. Instead of just blaming them and allowing the system to perpetuate, work to change their minds on both ends.

 

And I do know women who aren't like that. My best friend for example hadn't eaten in over 30 hours, yet when I tried to give her money for food she wouldn't accept it; people in any group are very diverse.

 

Also, for the record, I am a guy. Sorry if my sig confused you, my account was a gift from a female friend and I've opted not to change its gender.

[Nomrombom]

This is totally off topic, but I just want to congratulate everyone on not turning this into flaming. Really nice to have to proper discussion for once.

[aspeeder]

This is totally off topic, but I just want to congratulate everyone on not turning this into flaming. Really nice to have to proper discussion for once.

Indeed.

 

@Ring_World Also, thinking about the "I meet a lot of women like that" a bit more, I think your problem might be where you meet certain kinds of women. Now from your posts elsewhere you said you're mostly conservative, nothing wrong with that, but it probably also means that the women you meet socially tend to be more conservative and thus don't react against societal gender roles as much. Then, when you meet other women who might be more liberal in other scenarios, like the workplace, when they complain about, for example, their economic oppression you might take that as a double standard since you lump both of these kinds of women together as just women and assume that they have similar ideologies. From that comic, who's to say that brunette wouldn't have insisted that she pay for half of the dinner date?

 

EDIT: Yeah, back to the OT I do agree with you that this legal inequality is a problem. I suppose all of our disagreements are because you both think that this system is "feminist" when I believe that it's chauvinistic and actually quite sexist.

[Dheginsea]

Just felt like saying that ring is right about liberal leaning people (only applies to those I've met), in my school about 90% of the girls in the grade are liberal and that same percentage are the ones who act most upset to treated as ring said.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Chris]

Lucky boy.

[Lose No Hope]

Lucky boy.

Being forced down, stripped, mocked, and publicly humiliated. Where's the lucky part in that?

[K4ylan]

Lucky boy.

Being forced down, stripped, mocked, and publicly humiliated. Where's the lucky part in that?

 

I highlighted it for you.

[Folding]

Lucky boy.

Being forced down, stripped, mocked, and publicly humiliated. Where's the lucky part in that?

 

I highlighted it for you.

 

It's hardly 'sexy' or 'awesome' when you're eleven and you have no clue what is happening to you and you're shouting for help and struggling. It's unfair that nothing should happen to these women who, being ~13, should have a grasp of the concept of consequences.

 

It may be sexy and awesome to an exhibitionist, but not to an eleven year-old.

[Nomrombom]

Lucky boy.

Being forced down, stripped, mocked, and publicly humiliated. Where's the lucky part in that?

 

I highlighted it for you.

 

It's hardly 'sexy' or 'awesome' when you're eleven and you have no clue what is happening to you and you're shouting for help and struggling. It's unfair that nothing should happen to these women who, being ~13, should have a grasp of the concept of consequences.

 

It may be sexy and awesome to an exhibitionist, but not to an eleven year-old.

 

This. People think men can't be raped - that is utterly false. While many men may not have a problem with being forced into sex, some definitely will. And if you're 11, disoriented, and helpless, you are not going to enjoy it at all.

 

Edit: Not implying he was forced into sex, just making a related example.