Woman robs man on side of road, Two "samaritans" help her because she's a woman

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT
 

Come off it, guys. Any other day they'd be right, I have little doubt that having ascertained the situation or not, they worked off the stereotype that the man would be attacking the woman, but does it matter? The fact is, that particular stereotype probably helps women more than it disadvantages men, this is just the one case in however many where it happens to be wrong.

As for this case, it just goes to show you that one of the first words you need to learn to speak coherently and fluently is "THIEF!"

Glass Joe the Champ:

Eri:
I dunno what else to say really, this all happened because they were being sexist towards men.

Hey guys, let's take a situation we know little about and try to fit it into an ongoing narrative about the horrible wrongdoings of feminism!

Funny, the OP never mentioned feminism, though to be fair, early feminism (and some flavors of current radical feminism) do certainly push "man bad, woman good" as a seemingly fundamental position. For example, early DV statistics simply didn't ask men if they were victims, painting a women=victims, men=perpetrators" image which isn't accurate. A woman forcing sexual intercourse on a man is classed as something like "made to penetrate" or "other sexual harrasment or assault" or other similar categories so that one can talk about "rape" statistics as being the important and meaningful ones while not counting the most common form of female on male sexual violence, one that is literally the same act, but with the "wrong" partner being the one who isn't consenting.

What I find interesting is that if this were people responding to a situation by assuming and acting on a negative stereotype of women, we'd be hearing about how it's inherently sexist and how entire communities/subcultures are to blame.

Trilligan:
Seems legit.

After all, they're all over the internet with their stupid arguments about how you should be tolerant and treat other people with compassion and respect.

Buncha bullshit's what that is.

I think you've got feminists and bronies confused again...

Mick Golden Blood:
Women are paid less than man because they tend to prefer to go into different fields that just happen to be less paying, plus parenting issues where they must leave work at times to care for their children. It's not discriminatory.

Even when you account for all known confounding factors, there's still a gender wage gap, and depending on how exactly you weight those factors it ranges from ~7% to ~-7%, with 2-5% being typical. This difference might be due to discrimination, or do to still unknown confounding variables. Either way, it sets a maximum for how much pay difference could be truly discriminatory.

Mick Golden Blood:

Did you know that a very large percentage of males when they're born are circumcised? I don't see women getting their clitoris cut out when they're born. Would be nice to have the choice huh? I am one of these victims in fact. Fuck im just whining huh, all they did was cut off a piece of skin right, off of my penis without permission? I even have a link. It says it's at it's lowest. orly 54.5% of boy infants penis's cut off the tip is the lowest. women got it so bad in the states. http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/02/27/prse0302.htm and the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

You're looking for Type Ia FGM, which is exactly homologous to circumscision (removal of the prepuce [foreskin in males, clitoral hood in females], rendering the glans [head of the penis in males, clitoris in females] external rather than internal, causing keratinization and partial loss of sensation above and beyond the nerves directly removed), and absolutely illegal to perform in the US. Even the least severe varieties of Type IV FGM (Type IV is a catch-all for things that don't fall into another grouping) such as "nick" and "pinprick" procedures are illegal to perform on girls, because it's still FGM. Of course, anti-FGM groups act as though all FGM is infibulation (Type III) which is severe and horrific and really does need an end put to as rapidly and thoroughly as possible.

Most of the arguments against FGM that include "nick", "pinprick", and Type Ia are at a minimum equally valid against circumscision, but using them against it is somehow trying to argue that we *should* engage in lesser forms of FGM by saying we shouldn't subject boys to genital mutilation either. Never quite understood that. Probably has something to do with a combination of sexism and foreskins from circumsized boys being sold at a profit.

Mick Golden Blood:
Men are recieve 40% more jail time for the exact same crimes compared to women. link: http://misformalevolent.blogspot.com/2009/09/s-is-for-statistics.html

It's not an even 40%, it depends a lot on the severity of the crime. For minor offenses it's not that bad (and being black is much, much worse), but for very serious stuff it's a larger factor and eventually overtakes being black in terms of how it effects the severity of sentences. If you're caught with weed, better to be a white man than a black woman. If you've robbed a bank, it's better to be a black woman than a white man. Black men just get screwed (see Brian Banks, who took that plea deal because he knew the score and the alternative was a much, much longer sentence), and white women get off easier than any other group.

Mick Golden Blood:
Men are always considered the perpetrators in any situation + Chivalry.

Oh, not in *every* situation. Sometimes there's clear proof he didn't do anything, and sometimes that's enough.

Mick Golden Blood:
Note: I could go on and on about how men get fucked just cus they're men, mostly by the legal system.

My personal favorite is that not having fathered the child is not a defense against child support. So long as you were deceived long enough for the ink to dry on the birth certificate with your name on it.

Another good one. Do you remember that case where a woman was raped, the alleged rapist failed to be indicted, and she was kicked off the cheerleading team for refusing to cheer when he was supposed to be cheered, and what a horrific injustice that was? There are multiple cases where a woman committs statutory rape against a boy, gets pregnant, names him as the father, and not only doesn't even get charged let alone convicted, but claims child support. Apparently getting kicked off the cheerleaders for not cheering your rapist who got off by not being indicted is a worse fate than giving a third of your income for two decades to your rapist, who is openly declaring she is such without charge.

The Lunatic:
White Knighting isn't just an internet thing.

Actually, white knighting isn't a thing, period. Especially on the internet. No one is dumb enough to think that they would have a chance of getting any just because they supported feminism on some forum. I guess it's just not possible for anyone using the white knight term to imagine a guy believing in feminism and women's rights without it directly benefiting him (in the pants). Give guys some credit, jeez.

itsthesheppy:

JeffBergGold:

Women are pure and would never commit a crime, while every man is a potential raging murderer.

Women are every bit as likely to be evil as men. The only difference is they're smart enough to get someone else to do their dirty work for them and there are plenty of knights out there willing to do it.

I don't know what fantasy world you're living it but it sure sounds like a pollyanna romanticization of the fairer sex.

I never said or even hinted at any of those things. This is why talking to you MRM guys is so frustrating. To say nothing of how hair-tearingly maddening it is to hear someone who is himself deluded, telling you that you're deluded.

Wild-eyed conspiracy theories are boring, and trying to talk you down off them would be a flat-out waste of my time and energy. Shine on, you crazy diamond. I'm going somewhere the air is a bit fresher and less crazy.

Actually, if you want an example of his position being culturally reinforced (though I make no promises that this remains the case outside the US and in English), but listen to the news, and pay close attention to when people are explicitly gendered or not. Victims and good people will tend to only be gendered if female, criminals and the like only gendered if male. This minimizes the idea of female perpetrators and male victims. Sometimes a male on the wrong "side" of this equation will be indirectly gendered as a reault of someone else's involvement. Indirect gendering by giving proper names also occurs with some frequency (though it usually doesn't persist beyond use of the name, with gendering of common nouns describing that person being as above). This all goes out the window when the topic is specifically tied to someone's gender, innately (such as the Catherine Kieu case which should be hitting trial soon).

A man shooting up a place is a "gunman" a woman doing the same is a "shooter". Male victims get referred to by ungendered job titles if possible (such as "miner" or "driver" or whatever). That kind of thing. It's really blatantly pervasive if you listen for it.

The mistake they made was getting involved at all. Personally I would have called 999 and kept driving. I am not risking getting stabbed, shot or getting robbed myself.

This is literally the most ridiculous argument ever, I mean it basically sounds like this to me: "Damn sexism, making men more likely to help a female they think is in trouble". Its a misunderstanding big whoop.

This isn't just even a societal thing, men are practically hard wired to protect females, it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint as the chances of reproduction and species survival increase if the woman is still alive to care/birth children.

J Tyran:
The mistake they made was getting involved at all. Personally I would have called 999 and kept driving. I am not risking getting stabbed, shot or getting robbed myself.

You mean 911 right?

MrPanafonic:

J Tyran:
The mistake they made was getting involved at all. Personally I would have called 999 and kept driving. I am not risking getting stabbed, shot or getting robbed myself.

You mean 911 right?

Sorry I used the number for the UK emergency services instead of the US term, I did it out of habit I guess.

Discussing this through facts?

It is sexist. No question about it. If the decision which course of action to take is made solely on a person's gender, then the decision if sexist by the very definition of the word and whoever refuses to acknowledge it as such is being dishonest or is a fan of double meanings.

"Men are more likely to be agressors, therefore assuming he was the aggressior in this case is not sexist." I mean, seriously, what the actual fuck? Assuming a gender stereotype and claiming it's not sexist, how stupid is that?

And that's pretty much everything I'm saying on this one, because I'm seriously in no mood to get into another feminism vs straw feminsim vs anti-feminism debate.

I said it before and I will say it again, I hope that the dude who had his stuff stolen sues those "good samaritans" into the ground.

Question:
If we saw a woman engaging and attacking a man, there would be some sort of intervention or would there not? This is the question that must be asked

I think there is a sexist undertone regardless. Simply put society has structured stereotypes that imply that women are passive and that men are aggressive, thus men are more likely to attack other people. Typically this is strongest if the people appear a certain way. That probably influenced how the people who intervened approached the situation, but no one can be certain what exactly went through their minds.

It sounds like they did not see the whole of the altercation, and often in scuffles people do not act soundly by asking "whats going on?" if they feel immediate reaction is necessary. Truthfully if they were the kind of people to get involved regardless of gender associations they may have simply assumed that the man was displaying aggression against the woman by his actions. Chasing after her and engaging her, this is typically viewed as aggressive, thus they intervened.

Furthermore we don't know much about the two who intervened a number of factors could have impacted their decisions(Family history of abuse, experiences fights, experiences of rape, etc). We can't just go saying utterly and totally "sexist" without more information. For some people depending on what they saw their mind would immediately go towards the idea of rape more than assault and I do not think most people here would have a problem if they turned out to be in the right. To be honest a lot of women( children and men) are raped due to non-intervention...excessive fatal force was not used here...so I'm not sure if we want to go demonizing so quickly.

That and good sumaritan laws sometimes cover things like this *shrugs* not sure if something like that would apply in any way here.

Yeah, these two meant well but went about it the dumb way. They assumed that a woman who is under attack was the one who needed help while the male clearly started it and needed to be pinned down. It would have been smarter to restrain them -both- until the authorities get there, and very possible.

I've seen several comments about how males are more likely to commit acts of murder then women are. Statistically, that is a fact. Statistically. However it should be noted that those are cases of reported incidents. What if a male who murdered his wife was verbally abused by her for years and just found his breaking point? What if there was a history of physical abuse such as slapping or hitting upside the head or the arm that a male just had enough? It's a problem with statistics, it's bare-bones and simply going off values of averages theoretically. And theory is a tricky thing.

And it leaves out the severity of the murders as well. Speaking from personal experience, women are far more likely to be the instigators in a conflict then men are due to social pressures to never lay your hands on a woman.

A female is more likely to cross a verbal line or even -begin- a physical altercation than a male is since-again-there is a structure that encourages it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

Evidence of my claim. A female is far -far- more likely to escape with as few repercussions to their actions than men are. And in my own opinion, I find it extremely sexist and unjust.

NightowlM:

The Lunatic:
White Knighting isn't just an internet thing.

Actually, white knighting isn't a thing, period. Especially on the internet. No one is dumb enough to think that they would have a chance of getting any just because they supported feminism on some forum. I guess it's just not possible for anyone using the white knight term to imagine a guy believing in feminism and women's rights without it directly benefiting him (in the pants). Give guys some credit, jeez.

You know white knighting isn't just a feminism thing.
I recall on a forum for blockland where some guy was trying to defend someone who had dropped the situation entirely.

Erana:

Eri:
How about not assuming because there's a man and a woman fighting, that the man must have caused it?

The article said that the man did cause it. At least, the part where they were in a physical tussle.

"The victim said he tried to prevent his assailant from leaving the area, engaging her in a physical struggle, when the passing motorists apparently intervened"
AKA:
Man gets mugged.
Man attempts to aprehend assailant, engaging her in a physical struggle.
(passing motorists arrive in time to see this part of the encounter, but not the initial robbery)
Passing motorists attempt to restrain the person they saw attacking another.

I don't see where they jumped to any sexist conclusions. They just tried to stop a physical encounter between two people.
Oh, and also, "the entire situation was complicated by the fact that the victim was intoxicated and spoke limited English."
Yeah. That's going to make everything clear as day.
If you saw a drunk man attacking a woman, would you stop to ask "Hey, did that women attack you first?" or try to get the two people off of each other?

Eri:
Because they just assumed there is no possible way she could be the one in the wrong.

And how do you know that? Can you read minds from a distance through time?

The article also says that she was allowed to flee the scene and he was not. If they were simply stopping the altercation (and not harboring any sexist attitudes) why would that be? Generally speaking men are not victims of sexism, but it does happen. Seems to me that it happened here.

lol, this story is amusing, as is the anti-women rage from some Escapists here.

Unless I see a video of the events, it's going to be pretty tough to judge what it looked like. Maybe the woman looked like she was trying to escape some dude she just robbed, but maybe she looked like she was trying to escape sexual assault. Do the two scenarios even look much different when two people are engaged in a scuffle? Hard to say.

I think all you folk should just calm down and stop and think "Maybe it is just tough to be human? Instead of have a dick waving contest on who has it worse we should work together to improve all of our lots in life?" But what do I know, I'm just a hayseed from Iowa. :)

And why was my first thought that two bronze age levantines jump out of the bushes into the fray?

dyre:
lol, this story is amusing, as is the anti-women rage from some Escapists here.

Talking about sexism against men =/= being anti-women

Y'know.

Of course this case in particular is not sexism though, since somebody defending themselves by restraining their assaulter makes them seem like they are assaulting for somebody that just came in.

BUT, many people only read the title and hastly jumped into conclusions (me included).

SidheKnight:

dyre:
lol, this story is amusing, as is the anti-women rage from some Escapists here.

Talking about sexism against men =/= being anti-women

Y'know.

Of course this case in particular is not sexism though, since somebody defending themselves by restraining their assaulter makes them seem like they are assaulting for somebody that just came in.

BUT, many people only read the title and hastly jumped into conclusions (me included).

I didn't feel like thinking of a proper term for it (male sexism alarmists? Sounds pretty weird), so I just picked a not-too-accurate term that I assumed people would understand my meaning.

It just seem to me like there's a trend in the Escapist in which people are eager to jump to the conclusion that society is pushing down men. Or at least there was one when I actively posted here a few months ago. Lots of dumb / angry threads about rape and gender roles in video games at the time.

dyre:

SidheKnight:

dyre:
lol, this story is amusing, as is the anti-women rage from some Escapists here.

Talking about sexism against men =/= being anti-women

Y'know.

Of course this case in particular is not sexism though, since somebody defending themselves by restraining their assaulter makes them seem like they are assaulting for somebody that just came in.

BUT, many people only read the title and hastly jumped into conclusions (me included).

I didn't feel like thinking of a proper term for it (male sexism alarmists? Sounds pretty weird), so I just picked a not-too-accurate term that I assumed people would understand my meaning.

It just seem to me like there's a trend in the Escapist in which people are eager to jump to the conclusion that society is pushing down men. Or at least there was one when I actively posted here a few months ago. Lots of dumb / angry threads about rape and gender roles in video games at the time.

Ahh, I see. Yeah that's what I thought you meant.

It's not that society pushes down men or anything, it just that a fringe but vocal group of people blames men for everything wrong in this world and wants to ban everything that arouses men because of supposed "objectification" (there's an active thread about it in this forum somewhere..)
And frankly many of us are tired of being stereo typified as villains.

But this article is not the case. It wasn't sexism, it was a misunderstanding.

SidheKnight:

And frankly many of us are tired of being stereo typified as villains.

That's kinda like how many women are tired of being stereotyped as vacuous sex objects.

Empathy is key to human interaction.

peruvianskys:
I'm smart enough to realize that I will get paid, on average, far more than a woman in any job I have.

Unfortunately for your self-perceptions, you probably won't.

There are many studies floating around demonstrating the pay disparity between men and women. To a one, they're all statistically... suspect, shall we say.

That being said, irrespective of the lack of solid evidence for widespread sex-based wage discrimination, the biggest problem is that fundamentally, it relies on sexist attitudes prevailing at the expense of capitalist greed. If we take the simple precepts that women are, on average, as capable as men in a given field, yet are paid less as a matter of course, then women would be in much higher demand in the workplace. Employers could reduce their costs and therefore increase their profit simply by replacing male labour input with female, ceteris paribus. Since we do not observe this in practice, we're left with some basic possibilities:

1. Our precept is wrong and women, on average, are not as capable as men.
2. The wage gap is a myth, perpetrated by "statistics" that ignore the complexities of labour economics and demographics.
3. Sexism is so endemic that it is stronger even than the capitalist profit motive.

A simplistics analysis, but I'm sure you get the point. Since #3 is utterly laughable, and #1 will be rejected purely out of distaste for the concept if nothing else, well... I'm sure you're smart enough to figure it out.

Sentox6:
Snip

I don't know that your point three is utterly laughable. Some attitudes can well override the capitalist profit motive.

Chik-Fil-A, for instance, remains closed on Sundays in spite of the fact that remaining open would boost their profits by roughly 17% across the board, due purely to a religious conviction.

It is also somewhat disingenuous to accuse statistics of being suspect - they're statistics. Data was collected, the data shows a wage gap. It doesn't say why there's a wage gap. People determine the why.

It is also disingenuous to suggest that the wage gap was determined by some external force that has nothing to do with the system in place. A business can't look at its workforce and say 'oh, we'll save 5% in labor costs by switching to females because their pay is naturally lower' because that's not how it works. The factors that determine what a single worker gets paid in relation to other workers - i.e. hiring decisions, wage decisions, and work hour distribution decisions - exist primarily at the local H.R. level. Someone in one branch or outlet or office or store makes those decisions, and somehow the sum of those decisions results in a generally lower wage for women. To make an argument about the wage gap that is based on the wage gap existing as some property of women is spurious.

Trilligan:

SidheKnight:

And frankly many of us are tired of being stereo typified as villains.

That's kinda like how many women are tired of being stereotyped as vacuous sex objects.

Empathy is key to human interaction.

I'm tired of people getting excited to be so offended over things personally.

A sad reality.

Our society may change, but our nature to defend the relatively physically weak woman as men remain with us, rightly or wrongly.

Sentox6:

1. Our precept is wrong and women, on average, are not as capable as men.
2. The wage gap is a myth, perpetrated by "statistics" that ignore the complexities of labour economics and demographics.
3. Sexism is so endemic that it is stronger even than the capitalist profit motive.

A simplistics analysis, but I'm sure you get the point. Since #3 is utterly laughable, and #1 will be rejected purely out of distaste for the concept if nothing else, well... I'm sure you're smart enough to figure it out.

First off, if you think endemic, socialized discrimination can't trump profit, then you clearly don't know history. The entire history of American segregation is defined by white business owners sacrificing profit and labor in order to serve their prejudice - although you could argue that they excluded African-American customers in order to secure more business from racist whites, which leads me to my next point...

Women are economically disenfranchised mainly because the sexism of those who interact in higher level economic arrangements, at every level, from investors and clients to other employees and officers, is so deeply ingrained that their full realization as active members of a corporation is actually a drawback for anyone looking to make a profit. This is the primary reason that you don't see nearly as many female CEOs or otherwise economically valuable employees; from college and graduate school to the top tier of the most important corporations around the world, women are consistently at a disadvantage because they are perceived as either less competent due to their gender or a liability in terms of the difficulties others will have working with them. Because of the high "risk" associated with females, coupled with the fact that they are often denied access to training, enriching activities, grants, scholarships to non-traditional subjects, etc., women are offered far fewer jobs. This creates a large pool of women who have a far smaller selection of viable jobs, which means of course that they can be paid far less and still be forced to accept them to avoid unemployment or underemployment. The reason that you don't see AT&T or some other corporation hiring women en masse for their cheap labor is that 1) once you hire a ton of women, your ability to pay them less disappears because there isn't an unequal supply of workers for jobs, and 2) because any company that was staffed by a large number of women in all areas of corporate function would simply not succeed, due to the endemic sexism inherent in our culture.

It's all economically predictable, quantifiable, and reproducible. Misogyny makes "femaleness" a barrier to entry, for many reasons, which makes women less desirable as employees, which, when coupled with discriminatory education policies, creates a glut of competent but unhirable women who then have to compete for lower-paying jobs in markets that see them as liabilities.

So if you accuse gender-gap theorists of underestimating or otherwise ignoring the complexities of the labor market and general economics, perhaps you are the one who is ignoring the complexity of social expectation, the education system, and the interaction between prejudice and economic incentive?

itsthesheppy:

JeffBergGold:

itsthesheppy:

I never said or even hinted at any of those things. This is why talking to you MRM guys is so frustrating. To say nothing of how hair-tearingly maddening it is to hear someone who is himself deluded, telling you that you're deluded.

Wild-eyed conspiracy theories are boring, and trying to talk you down off them would be a flat-out waste of my time and energy. Shine on, you crazy diamond. I'm going somewhere the air is a bit fresher and less crazy.

Not a MRM it is a white supremacy and sexual frustration movement a bunch of entitled privileged whiners.

And you sound just like them.

Meditate on that.

I'm sure anyone who disagrees with you sounds like a MRA.

I just had a crazy idea:
Maybe some men are always a bit dumbfounded when confronted by aggressive feminists about female discrimination, because these men are not inherently sexist.

Citing oneself as an example is far from being scientific, but here we go:

At the university, many of my fellow students are female, so many in fact, that I dare say we almost have a 60:40 split, with 60 being the female part.
And I personally do not care about that fact at all.
When I am assigned group work with a female student, let's say an attractive one for the sake of this argument, I am quite capable of noticing that this human female opposite from me is physically attractive, but what matters most to me is not the question if my subconcious feels that this specific individual would make a good mating partner, but wether or not she possesses the skill-set necessary to complete our assignment in a fast yet diligent manner.

I am aware that many of you will probably take this the wrong way so allow me to elaborate.
What I trying to convey here is, that in a work situation, the sex of my co-worker does not matter to me at all. Of course I notice the physical appearance of anyone assigned to work with me, but it only interests me as far as health and skills being apparent is concerned and no further. On a professional lever, the sex of my partner does not matter at all, since I only judge co-workers on the merit of their skills and was I to staff a team, I would hire the most qualified workers, not the sexiest, manliest, whitest, blackest, greenest, whateverest, because I sincerely feel that a person must be judged on their own merits, and not by a "group" they do not belong to by choice, aka sex and "race"

Before you bring it up: Transgender people did "choose" to belong to a certain group of individuals only on a physical level, since they claim (and I shall not challenge that claim) to have belonged to that group from the very beginning, meaning that they as well did not choose to belong to a specific group.

And Michael Jackson had a "skin condition"

So, when I am told by someone that I should be ashamed of myself, simply because other members of my sex, again, a group I did not choose to be a part of, are being sexist towards women, a fact I don't deny, I react adversely, since it basically refutes what I believe to be right, since I am not judged on my individual merits but solely based on the fact that I am forced to be part of a group with a lot of bad individuals.

FelixG:
I said it before and I will say it again, I hope that the dude who had his stuff stolen sues those "good samaritans" into the ground.

Would it be counted as aiding and abetting a criminal as well? Accessory to escape? Those are criminal suits, rather than civil suits XD.

I just wish people would stop basically saying "Sexism against men isn't sexism because it's not the usual breed of gender discrimination".

It goes to a deeper level. Any violence toward men in public is acceptable because the prejudice of passers by makes them assume he deserved it. (That's pre-judging, not bigotry). The opposite is also true, and this story shows it.

This was looked at in an "investigative journalism" piece. A passing cop even sees the female actor beating on the male and thinks it's hilarious and has no problem telling the camera afterwards he thought the guy probably deserved it and he would have tackled the guy if he was defending himself.

ResonanceSD:

FelixG:
I said it before and I will say it again, I hope that the dude who had his stuff stolen sues those "good samaritans" into the ground.

Would it be counted as aiding and abetting a criminal as well? Accessory to escape? Those are criminal suits, rather than civil suits XD.

They are indeed criminals, and due to the fact that they helped a criminal in stealing his property, that makes for a hell of a few civil suits :P

Eri:

Erana:

Eri:
I don't think their overt-conscience thoughts were "IT'S HIS FAULT" and then they proceeded on.

My point is they didn't even have to think about it, because they just knew he was the problem. That's the whole sexist part, what other possibility could it have been if not his fault? They gave no other thought.

How the fuck do you know what they were thinking..? I'll say it again: Unless your a tele-chronologic mind-reader, you can't know what they were thinking.

They were trying to help stop a fight between two people, and that's all we can know at this point. They do not deserve you or anyone on the internet putting words into their mouths minds, and accusing them of being sexist.

This same logic applies to you as well. You can't possibly know what they were thinking, so it is just as valid to take my position on it.

And I bet that man didn't deserve having his money and necklace stolen, but you know what? That obviously didn't stop them from handing it over to her under the guise of trying to save her.

Just going to say, nothing you say will convince the person you are arguing. If you don't get your point across the second time you state it then they are not seeing the big picture and are nitpicking for faults to make themselves seem more correct, despite missing the point of what they are nitpicking.

HorrendusOne:
Isn't this just how our western culture works?
As in women automatically get the benefit of the doubt since we place a higher moral standing on women compared to men since for some reason we are taught in our culture from a young that we are not equal rather then that everyone's just a human being.

Pretty much. Gotta love how sexism only exists from a man to a woman and not back and forth.

Trilligan:
I don't know that your point three is utterly laughable. Some attitudes can well override the capitalist profit motive.

Chik-Fil-A, for instance, remains closed on Sundays in spite of the fact that remaining open would boost their profits by roughly 17% across the board, due purely to a religious conviction.

An anecdote does not a valid case make. Sure, it's a reasonably sizeable chain, but even so, it's no more valid than me cherry picking a single company where women are (provably) on the same pay scale as men.

If the argument is about the wage gap between women and men across the entire economy, then individual examples don't really prove anything.

It is also somewhat disingenuous to accuse statistics of being suspect - they're statistics. Data was collected, the data shows a wage gap. It doesn't say why there's a wage gap. People determine the why.

To be fair, you're really just dancing with semantics. Yes, there is a distinction between data and/or calculations performed on that data being fundamentally wrong, and correct numerical results being used to draw erroneous conclusions, but I'd like to assume we're all smart enough to understand the intention of my statement.

It is also disingenuous to suggest that the wage gap was determined by some external force that has nothing to do with the system in place. A business can't look at its workforce and say 'oh, we'll save 5% in labor costs by switching to females because their pay is naturally lower' because that's not how it works. The factors that determine what a single worker gets paid in relation to other workers - i.e. hiring decisions, wage decisions, and work hour distribution decisions - exist primarily at the local H.R. level. Someone in one branch or outlet or office or store makes those decisions, and somehow the sum of those decisions results in a generally lower wage for women.

I'd buy into that if the oft-quoted statistical figures were around the 5% mark, but not with claims that women are paid about 75%-80% of what men are, which seems to be more often the case. There's just no way a potential cost reduction that big is going to be obscured by vertical management complexity.

To make an argument about the wage gap that is based on the wage gap existing as some property of women is spurious.

Isn't that exactly what the wage gap argument, is though? Women are paid less because they're discriminated against. Why are they discriminated against? Because they're women. The argument for the wage gap simple boils down to the idea that it exists as a property of men and their attitudes, effectively.

Moreover, my personal opinion is that the wage gap doesn't exist at all (at least not in the range of 20-25%), so I'm not making an argument of your proposed logic whatsoever.

If you care to search, there are plenty of studies from established, respected institutions supporting my view. I don't care to link them because the ultimate result is two people throwing studies that support their perspectives around, without having done any of the groundwork themselves. The unfortunate reality is that you can find 'statistics' to support any viewpoint you want, so I only care to bring references into subjects where I've done a very significant amount of research on my own time.

And then there's the other unfortunate truth, that arguing on the internet is like competing in the... well, I'm sure you've heard it before.

peruvianskys:
So if you accuse gender-gap theorists of underestimating or otherwise ignoring the complexities of the labor market and general economics, perhaps you are the one who is ignoring the complexity of social expectation, the education system, and the interaction between prejudice and economic incentive?

Actually, I suspect the most likely outcome by far is that both are true. Gender wage-gap theorists underestimate the effects of fundamental economic forces (i.e. the invisible hand) and are often subject to using raw data figures in unseemly ways, while I have less regard for social paradigms, the irrationality of your typical human, and the utility of prejudical attitudes than I should.

Also, just because it's bugging me: why did you typo your name? I would have assumed it was a Dream Theater reference, but I'm wondering if there's something more obscure I don't know about.

I don't often come to the Escapist anymore.

But when I do the top threads are always based on misogyny/perceived double standards from a childish male's point of view or are pro-pedophilia (Not even kidding).

The other threads are all about how women only date jerks.

Thus: See line one.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked