Woman robs man on side of road, Two "samaritans" help her because she's a woman
- Thread starter Eri
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Erana said:
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.
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?
And why was my first thought that two bronze age levantines jump out of the bushes into the fray?
Talking about sexism against men =/= being anti-womendyre said:
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.SidheKnight said:
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.dyre said:
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.
Unfortunately for your self-perceptions, you probably won't.peruvianskys said:
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.
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...Sentox6 said:
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?
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.
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.