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

[ResonanceSD]

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.

 

[Vegosiux]

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

 

[Nurb]

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.

 

[Aprilgold]

If they thought there was even the slightest possibility she was a problem, they would've done something, or at least tried to keep her at the scene. But they didn't. They had the right person, and they knew it.

Where the fuck are these assertions that they were restraining the man because "Oh shit, he's a dude, this must be all his evil works!" OK, exaggeration, but seriously. Where does, "They had the right person, and they knew it" come from?!

What they saw was a struggle between a drunk man and a woman. What they were probably doing is trying to stop people from hurting each other. If they managed to restrain one individual, and the other one flees, then success! Fight has ended. If the woman continued to fight, they would have probably tried to restrain both of them.

If it had been two men just fighting, if good Samaritans had broken up the fight, and one was drunk and couldn't speak the local language and the other one left the situation when given the opportunity, all without the robbery deal, would we be having this conversation?

Do you honestly think they were trying to stop the tussle for glory or to be knight and knightess in shining armor or something? It really just sounds like they were trying to diffuse a physical fight, and the thief just got lucky. I really don't think these guys deserve to be antagonized.

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.

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.

 

[Sentox6]

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.

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.

 

[AugustFall]

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.

 

[Eri]

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.

Sexism against both genders is fact, not opinion as you seem to use the word perceived.

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.

 

[Aprilgold]

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.

Sexism against both genders is fact, not opinion as you seem to use the word perceived.

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.

So..... Why was I quoted? Yes it is fact, that is what I am saying, however the way I said it was in a ironic pretense showing that the story highlights many people's delusional thought that sexism can only be man = woman and not man = woman / woman = man.

 

[Eri]

snip

I was agreeing with you and so I quoted.

 

[Schadrach]

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.

As a streetfighting expert, I can tell you why this 'investigative journalism' misses a lot of details.

If you see the initial man beating a woman in the clip, you can see that he has complete physical dominance over her. His hand is on her throat, he picks her up and he leaves her nowhere else to go, trapping her there on the bench.

This absolutely screams for someone to help her, because she is being held against her will and there's few things more dangerous than a hand on your throat.

When you see the woman beating the man, he's able to defend himself for most of the punches. The reason why she is able to hit him is not because of physical, but because of social dominance. He doesn't try or want to fight back. He's actually able to block and hold her arms a lot of the time. Even tough the things she does might easily lead to very serious damage (faceslapping can have some dangerous results), it's one of those things that doesn't LOOK like it could deal serious damage and most people naturally are less ready to help defend him.

The same thing when they reverse the roles with the first couple; the girl throws an empty water bottle at him? Not really necessary to intervene there.

I'm not saying that there either is or isn't sexism at work here, but I found this video rather lacking. I'm curious what would happen if you had a woman who had physical dominance, who would trap a man and threaten him dangerously, as well as what would happen if you had a man without physical dominance, but where the woman kinda let him slap her around a little. The results might be the same, but my instinct says that a man, too, would be protected.

So basically someone needs to repeat the experiment with a sufficiently large woman and a sufficiently small man for you to accept any part of it? Or will that just change the reason why it doesn't count?

 

[Blue Radium]

So basically someone needs to repeat the experiment with a sufficiently large woman and a sufficiently small man for you to accept any part of it? Or will that just change the reason why it doesn't count?

Needs? Any part? Count? Strange words to use in this context.

Needs --> Nobody needs to, I'm just curious.

Accepting any part ---> I haven't shared what part I do or don't accept, but I am pointing out that where they try to portray these 2 situations identical with only the sexes reversed, I observe these situations as not identical at all.

Count --> Here you make an assumption about who I am or what I will do.

I do not like that you accuse me of a lack of intellectual integrity, especially since I see no reason why you should.

-Aren't you curious?

-Do you not see the difference in how the woman was being violent to the man, compared to how the man was being violent to the woman?

-Do you not agree that (even if you don't agree there was a difference), that this video would not be evidence to any sexism if there WAS more different to the situation than only their sex?

By picking apart what he said in the way you did, you are indirectly attacking his intellectual integrity. First an appeal to authority, then trying to take the high ground by taking his strait-forward question, and presenting it as so flawed in its presentation it doesn't warrant an answer. He just wants to know under what circumstances you would agree that gender roles cause a bias reaction when a woman is seen victimizing a man. You claimed that in your opinion, it isn't gender, but rather, the domination aspect that is important, so he asked for a strait answer based on that information.

Beyond that, interesting article/video. Gender will always play a role with this sort of thing. I think of it this way: in media, a TV show like Saturday Night Live for example, if you want to create a humorous moment, a comically massive and angry man abusing a helpless woman will pretty much never pull laughs. A comically massive and angry woman abusing a helpless man, however, could get an audience laughing. It's that dynamic on a much more complicated scale that is at play here.

 

[Pyramid Head]

This might be *slightly* off topic, but what the hell is with the obscene number of people on this forum who just automatically deny every example of sexism against men? It seems to me like every time a male is discriminated against for being male, a hundred people immediately pounce in and loudly pretend that it isn't discrimination or that "men have it so much better" (usually whilst simultaneously accusing the other side of saying the same thing).

If you're one of those people, I have a newsflash for you: NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT WOMEN AREN'T DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. NO ONE IS DENYING THAT WOMEN WERE SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. NO ONE IS PRETENDING THAT WOMEN DON'T HAVE IT FAR WORSE IN MOST THIRD-WORLD COUNTRIES.

However, the FACT of the matter is that there is a lot of discrimination against men in first world nations, to the point that discrimination against the sexes has become roughly equal. Men certainly don't have it any better in modern, western nations, don't pretend that we do. For every example of discrimination against women you could possibly cite, I could cite an equivalent against men.

[/rant]

All i have to say to that is BULL FUCKING SHIT! Women are still paid less than men, discriminated against far FAR more than men, and there is still a real problem with sexism in this country. Yes there is some anti male bias on occasion, but that allegation that it is on par with what women face even in developed nations is absurd at best and horribly ignorant at worst.

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.

Discriminated against far more than men. That's all you have to say after mentioning only one example?

Sexism. Got it.

It is especially bad in the States, in other nations I will disagree, yes, but in the US it's pretty bad.

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

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

Men are always considered the perpetrators in any situation + Chivalry.

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

To say women have it so much worse is pretty far-fetched. It is hard to measure because both sides have pretty big differences in HOW they're discriminated but it's clear it's close enough that this shit about how women have it so much worse is rather ignorant. Especially considering the rather justifiable idea that the statistics for men and sexual assaults against them are extremely skewed due to the fact that men are largely raised to keep to themselves no matter what happens in case it destroys they're "manliness" I am going to assume. Whereas women are raised to be very open with others thus they're are more likely to be willing to confess of being victims of sexual assault.

So you dismiss statistical averages as "Women take lower paying jobs," try to compare a procedure with proven health benefits like reduced STD risk to painful genital mutilation with no possible benefits done specifically to reduce a woman's sexual pleasure, and try to make what could have been a valid point but then post an extremely biased blog post as your citation which i couldn't pull raw data from.

Quite a stupendous way to make a bad first impression i must say. Want to try again in proving men have it worse than women? Or do you want to admit that even if minor examples of anti-male sexism do exist, they hardly stack up against anti-women sexism which is especially pervasive due to the power held by misogynistic politicians?

 

[Schadrach]

I'm not saying that there either is or isn't sexism at work here, but I found this video rather lacking. I'm curious what would happen if you had a woman who had physical dominance, who would trap a man and threaten him dangerously, as well as what would happen if you had a man without physical dominance, but where the woman kinda let him slap her around a little. The results might be the same, but my instinct says that a man, too, would be protected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5wmxtURmW8

Have fun with that... But I would not say that it was because she was female, it was more the bystander effect (expirienced it more than often myself).

The bystander effect is itself genderless. The implication being that when a female is the victim, something else is also involved that overcomes or otherwise renders less influential the bystander effect (or that reinforces it with male victims, but that's largely splitting hairs when talking about heterosexual couple violence).