Called the Police

[searock]

So searock... I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that it should be alright for a woman to be physically abusive towards a man? Are you saying that the double-standard is ok?

No, I am absolutely not saying that it's ok for a woman to be physically (or otherwise) abusive towards anyone. I'm also not saying that the double standard is a good thing - I'm just saying that it's understandable on a "gut" level and it's actually pretty unsurprising in our society, because in the case of men being abusive, they are exploiting their privileges and (in most cases) superior strength.

[searock]

1) Not true. Promiscuity increases the risk of spreading STD's and unwanted children out of wedlock.

Oh come on, I'm talking about directly hurting someone, not possibly increasing risks or whatever.

2) No, it's not about those things at all. You can re-read my example in the post above and make the smaller, weaker guy with zero self defense skill a poor black guy and see plain as day that my argument is completely unaffected despite all of your prerequisites that you've mentioned (physical strength and social privileges) to validate the hate machine being present.

So what you're saying is that women in our society are seen as weak and unable to defend themselves? We agree on this one. Anyway yes, it does also have to do with the guy generally being at a societal and physical advantage compared to the woman, IMO.

3) Don't know what the head shaking is about, I explained my point very clearly and everything you're trying to condescend me over is pretty much fact. How much do you actually know about gender favoritism in my (and Vince's) area of the world?

Really, I am not trying to be condescending - I am actually genuinely perplexed at your belief that women have an advantage in our society, compared to men. I really don't feel like continuing the discussion as I don't think it would be useful in any way, given our extremely diverging views on the subject. I don't live in your part of the world but I live in a pretty similar environment. I also use the Internet, watch TV shows and movies and read books (fictional and non), articles, blogs, forums, etc.

[dickriculous]

Oh come on, I'm talking about directly hurting someone, not possibly increasing risks or whatever.

So big picture effects don't count now? Then there's nothing wrong with financially contributing to a trade that indirectly funds human trafficking according to your views?

So what you're saying is that women in our society are seen as weak and unable to defend themselves?

No, here's what I'm saying. Your first point was that a physical disparity explains the double standard. We know that's not true because of my example where I beat up a man who was clearly much weaker than me and couldn't defend himself, reread it if you have to. Thus, the disparity in strength is removed as a possible answer. Then you brought up social privileges. Poor black men don't have social privileges, so make the small and weak male poor and black in addition to small and weak and I still don't get as severe of a backlash for beating his ass half to death as I get for one half-powered jab against a woman. Thus me having social privileges over my opponent is removed as a possible answer. What answer is left to explain the discrepancy other than favoritism toward women, otherwise known as female privilege?

Really, I am not trying to be condescending - I am actually genuinely perplexed at your belief that women have an advantage in our society, compared to men.

In the context of the situation I described women are clearly privileged over men and have a clear cut societal advantage. I've already explained and broken down how. The problem here is you're thinking of gender privilege as one universal thing when the reality is that it is situational. In the situation that kicked off this discussion, women are very much over-privileged compared to men. There are many, many other ways in which this is the case as well. If you don't want to discuss the issue then I won't write you a laundry list on the subject but if you doubt me then believe me, I certainly can do so. Hell, I could write you a book - it will be harder for me to find a stopping point than anything.

[searock]

So big picture effects don't count now? Then there's nothing wrong with financially contributing to a trade that indirectly funds human trafficking according to your views?

We were talking about the gut reaction in people that makes them see a man that hits and abuses a woman as a "worse" person than a woman that hits and abuses a man. At least, that was what I was talking about. I was not giving general moral judgments.

No, here's what I'm saying. Your first point was that a physical disparity explains the double standard. We know that's not true because of my example where I beat up a man who was clearly much weaker than me and couldn't defend himself, reread it if you have to. Thus, the disparity in strength is removed as a possible answer. Then you brought up social privileges. Poor black men don't have social privileges, so make the small and weak male poor and black in addition to small and weak and I still don't get as severe of a backlash for beating his ass half to death as I get for one half-powered jab against a woman. Thus me having social privileges over my opponent is removed as a possible answer. What answer is left to explain the discrepancy other than favoritism toward women, otherwise known as female privilege?

First of all, in the example of the poor weak black man being hit by a privileged, strong white guy, I can assure you at least where I'm from, that guy would be seen as equally badly as if he had hit a woman. I'm appalled that in the USA it wouldn't be the same. As for the explanation, I already agreed with you that in our society women are viewed as victims and as weak and unable to defend themselves. We are seen as child-like. This is actually part of the problem, part of sexism. I get that in this particular situation it may seem like a "privilege", but really, it is so far from it. It's just another way that society looks at us as being less than men.

[dickriculous]

We were talking about the gut reaction in people that makes them see a man that hits and abuses a woman as a "worse" person than a woman that hits and abuses a man. At least, that was what I was talking about. I was not giving general moral judgments.

Neither am I, at least not as my main point. My main point is that if hate has to be bred from privileges being taken advantage of in a way that can cause damage or adversity then it HAS to justify slut shaming in the same sense as it justifies men hitting women. Now, if the argument becomes "to the same magnitude", then obviously the answer is no. But maybe that's why promiscuous women receive far less hate than a man who hits a woman. A different magnitude for a different magnitude

First of all, in the example of the poor weak black man being hit by a privileged, strong white guy, I can assure you at least where I'm from, that guy would be seen as equally badly as if he had hit a woman. I'm appalled that in the USA it wouldn't be the same. As for the explanation, I already agreed with you that in our society women are viewed as victims and as weak and unable to defend themselves. We are seen as child-like. This is actually part of the problem, part of sexism. I get that in this particular situation it may seem like a "privilege", but really, it is so far from it. It's just another way that society looks at us as being less than men.

So what you're saying is that if I moved to your area and I hit a woman one day and a poor black guy who is clearly far, far weaker than me the next I will get the same backlash from both instances? What if a woman hits said black guy (assuming the black guy is no stronger than she is) and he hits back - does he get any backlash or is it acknowledged as self defense and only the woman gets in trouble? If the answers to these questions are what you're implying then maybe our environments are not as similar as you thought, which would explain at least in part why we're not seeing eye to eye.

Also, whereas you would say "women are seen as child-like", I would say "women are seen as child-like...whenever it's convenient for women". If a woman acts completely ridiculous you are not supposed to slap her on the hand and shout "NO! BAAAAAAAD GIRL!!!" No, that's much too inconvenient for women, and if a man does that he is called a "misogynist" or a "sexist" - accusations that have long since lost all meaning to me due to the sheer magnitude of their abuse against men over the decades. Instead you are supposed to take her very seriously and, if you're a man, contemplate what you did to provoke her and what you need to do different to not make her act that way again. I've been called a sexist asshole just for mocking women when they act in such a manner. Are you fukking kidding me? I would get my ass beat into the ground for acting in a similar fashion, not just made fun of.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should, because that's the kind of status that medieval and rennaissance nobles have, not an underprivileged class of people. A great many will defend women who act this way and defend the notion that that's the way things are supposed to be between men and women. This isn't sexist patronizing, it's sex-worshipping pandering. On the other hand, woman commits a crime or does something that would get a man a severe legal or social backlash? THAT'S when she gets treated by many authorities as child-like.

Does all of this sound like how an underprivileged class gets treated compared to an overprivileged class to you? Because it sounds like the exact opposite to me.

I willl say that these things have gotten better since about 10 years ago, but better than shit still isn't all that great.

[Wakeup]

Holy Derail, Batman!

[searock]

Sorry, dick, we just see things way too differently for there to be a useful discussion.

I would suggest articles and websites, but I know you wouldn't read them, so I won't bother.

[searock]

Oh okay just the one - I just stumbled upon it and it seemed so fitting (mind you, it's meant to be humorous) http://www.thegloss.com/2013/11/19/odds-and-ends/international-mens-day/

[michelle23]

I just landed on page 12 and i know if i go back i will just find pages and pages of dick and sea disagreeing lol. Anyone wana update me?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[searock]

Nah, this time we kept it short anyway what happened with Vince is that they basically broke up, he bought her a new laptop but she kept pestering him about the fact that it wasn't exactly as she wanted it and so on, so he returned it and he just gave her the money to buy herself a new one... and now they are broken up (unless things have changed) and Vince is on his way to "full recovery" :-).

[Maple1714]

Sold the computer to the first buyer, for $50 less than I paid for it. I just wanted to get rid of it and move on. Now she tells me that she wants a Mac desktop after all, just not that one. It doesn't matter, I'm handing her the money and she can try to find a better deal herself. I wash my hands of this mess.

Vince! I am very happy for you!!

[Wakeup]

It doesn't matter, I'm handing her the money and she can try to find a better deal herself. I wash my hands of this mess.

Do you mean the entire mess that is your relationship or just the mess regarding the computer? have you told her its over or have you just not said anything about ending it thus leaving the door open for a replay of what is?

Just curious as to what your definition of "washing your hands" of it means, Vince.

[dickriculous]

Oh okay just the one - I just stumbled upon it and it seemed so fitting (mind you, it's meant to be humorous) http://www.thegloss.com/2013/11/19/odds-and-ends/international-mens-day/

Lolwut? Da fuq does 7 paragraphs worth of "Oh yeah? Well FUKK anti-misandry because women have to deal with...." have to do with our discussion?

If you posted that article to try to bring to light that women actually do have real issues that they face then you're countering an argument that was never made. I said earlier in this thread that gender privilege is situational and based on context. In the particular context and situation relevant to Vince's escapades here, the woman is typically the overprivileged one...that's not really something that can be countered by an article that's basically saying "Anti-misandrists are all idiots because....because fukk wage gaps and bad female movie characters, that's why!"

[searock]

Lighten up, dick :-). The article was in no way defending misandry, it was just poking fun at people (namely, white western privileged men) who actually whine about being discriminated by society because of their gender. Sooo wrong XD.

[searock]

Want some serious reads, here you go:

http://www.rainn.org/statistics
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf
http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/without-consent-20061231.pdf
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/unreported-rapes-the-silent-shame-7561636.html
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/sexual_assault/acquaintance_rape/3.html
http://www.911rape.org/facts-quotes/statistics
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rape_apology

and on and on...