double standards

[hillbillyatheist]

I just came across this clip and wondered your thoughts. I hate double standards no matter which way they go. and I hate violence no matter who's doing it to who. (excluding things like self defense) people should stand up against domestic abuse, verbal, sexual, and physical, no matter who's doing it or who its being done too.

[youtube:1g01nia4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks[/youtube:1g01nia4]

[Solitary]

Wow! I never realized it was that bad. If a guy was doing that to a women I don't many people would say she has it coming, if at all, from what I saw.  :shock:  Solitary

[stromboli]

From the culture I was raised in, my first reaction would be "what a wuss." My second response would probably be "he deserves it for some reason." You're right, gender reversal does show the built in attitudes we have about different roles in the sexes.

[SilentFutility]

What are your thoughts on the fact that most women assumed that the man deserved it simply because he was being physically assaulted?

[Icarus]

We have help lines and support groups for both men and women in abusive relationships. So while our first reaction is different depending on the aggressor, the resources to available to the victim are the same regardless of gender. While individuals might have the double standard, I don't think society does anymore.

[GSOgymrat]

This minimizing of females being aggressive to males has always bothered me. I was watching an episode of Weeds where one of the female characters ties her husband, who has been seriously injured, to his wheelchair, knocks him over and assaults him, including his genitals. This was played for laughs but I thought is was horrible and knew if these roles had been reversed viewers would have not found it funny at all. My mother and my sister worked construction using heavy earth moving equipment and my father was a chemical engineer, so I never viewed women as being weak or passive. I always hated the saying "never hit a woman" and always wish it would have been "never hit people."

[Solitary]

Good point! Solitary

[SilentFutility]

We have help lines and support groups for both men and women in abusive relationships. So while our first reaction is different depending on the aggressor, the resources to available to the victim are the same regardless of gender. While individuals might have the double standard, I don't think society does anymore.

We have them, but there is a huge disparity in the amount of these resources available between genders eg. women's shelters even though looking at homelessness statistics there are far more homeless men than homeless women in the US.

Not to mention that for virtually all crimes, including those associated with domestic abuse, women get significantly shorter custodial sentences than men on average for the same charge, as well as fewer impositions of custodial sentences for the same charge, on average.

[Icarus]

We have them, but there is a huge disparity in the amount of these resources available between genders eg. women's shelters even though looking at homelessness statistics there are far more homeless men than homeless women in the US.

Not to mention that for virtually all crimes, including those associated with domestic abuse, women get significantly shorter custodial sentences than men on average for the same charge, as well as fewer impositions of custodial sentences for the same charge, on average.

Very true, is the shorter sentences for women cause by legal decree (laws mandate women get less time) or is that up to the discretion of the judge? If it's up to the judge than we have a case of personal double standards impacting the standard of society, or the judges representation as the justice of society.

[Jack89]

Well, to be perfectly blunt, the average man is bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than the average woman.  There's a double standard because men and women, on average, are not physically equal.  There are different physical standards and expectations in the military and in sports for a reason.  

Watching that video I felt quite a bit different watching the man hit the woman than the woman hitting the man.  My gut reaction when I saw the man abusing the woman was that she was trapped, she needed help, and the guy needed a serious ass whooping.  She didn't look like she could physically defend herself against him and it seemed that she was trapped.  The man was physically controlling her, tossing her around like a rag doll.
Now when I saw the woman hitting the man, I felt sorry for the guy and a little embarrassed for him.  The big difference between the two is that the man probably could have physically defended himself and could have at least got away from the situation if his aggressor persisted, whereas the woman probably couldn't.

[SilentFutility]

We have them, but there is a huge disparity in the amount of these resources available between genders eg. women's shelters even though looking at homelessness statistics there are far more homeless men than homeless women in the US.

Not to mention that for virtually all crimes, including those associated with domestic abuse, women get significantly shorter custodial sentences than men on average for the same charge, as well as fewer impositions of custodial sentences for the same charge, on average.

Very true, is the shorter sentences for women cause by legal decree (laws mandate women get less time) or is that up to the discretion of the judge? If it's up to the judge than we have a case of personal double standards impacting the standard of society, or the judges representation as the justice of society.

Certainly in both the US and the UK it would in fact be illegal to give someone a longer sentence because they were a man and vice versa.

I can't really say much about the US sytem, (I am from the UK), however in the UK system, judges have "sentencing guidelines". I'm certainly no expert, but I do know how the system basically works: there is a maximum sentence permissible for a certain charge, the judge then has guidelines which dictate how badly the offender should be punished based on the nature of the crime. These guidelines consist of "aggravating" and "mitigating" factors, ie. things that made it better or worse eg. an aggravating factor in common assault might be that the perpetrator had no provocation or particular reason to assault the victim. A mitigating factor in a robbery may be that the person was homeless and needed money for food. The guidelines consist of examples of potential factors in determining a sentence, bu ultimately it is entirely up to the judge to interpret these guidelines, as well as the events surrounding the crime to decide how severe the crime was and what an appropriate punishment would be.

The upshot of such a system is that, rather than having a blanket punishment for a crime eg. assault is this many years in prison, a judge has the ability to differentiate between different types of assault, and harshly punish those who did something particularly unjustifiable, and go easier on those who didn't do something as morally wrong, within limits, as there is a maximum possible sentence no matter what.

The downside, of course, is that it is therefore almost impossible to ensure a completely homogenous determination of the severity of punishment that should be applied across all cases.

When looking at averaged data, women are punished significantly less harshly than men:

"The published statistics show that a higher proportion of men are given a sentence of immediate
custody than women, irrespective of age of offender (juveniles, young adults or adult) and type of
court (magistrates or Crown). This has been the case in each year between 1999 and 2009...For
each offence group, a higher proportion of males are sentenced to custody than females...In 2009
58% of male offenders who entered a guilty plea for an indictable offence were given an
immediate custodial sentence compared to only 34% of women."
Transcript from a discussion in UK parliament

This is just one statistic, but it is particularly telling. In 2009 58% of men who pleaded guilty of doing something that could send you to prison got sent to prison versus 34% of women who pleaded guilty.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Watching that video I felt quite a bit different watching the man hit the woman than the woman hitting the man.  My gut reaction when I saw the man abusing the woman was that she was trapped, she needed help, and the guy needed a serious ass whooping.  She didn't look like she could physically defend herself against him and it seemed that she was trapped.  The man was physically controlling her, tossing her around like a rag doll.
Now when I saw the man hitting the woman, I felt sorry for the guy and a little embarrassed for him.  The big difference between the two is that the man probably could have physically defended himself and could have at least got away from the situation if his aggressor persisted, whereas the woman probably couldn't.

I'm sure you meant to word that differently.

[Johan]

What are your thoughts on the fact that most women assumed that the man deserved it simply because he was being physically assaulted?

My thoughts are that this is a produced piece for television. Therefore it is impossible to know if most women who were interviewed assumed that the man deserved it. It could have been most of the women they interviewed or it could have been four women out of one hundred. We have no way of knowing.

All that aside, my thoughts are this. Double standards exist. For better or worse, women are treated differently than men. There was a time when I was younger that I really struggled with this. It bothered me that women were so often objectified and discriminated against. It bothered me so I made an effort to treat both genders exactly the same. And I found that it was a really tough thing to do. I found that nearly all of my social interactions with people were tempered by gender and that really bothered me. It made me feel like an ignorant man that I treated women differently than men in so many ways. Note here that I didn't say better or worse, just different.

And then I realized that women do the exact same thing. They treat and interact with men differently than they do women. So I came to realize that me treating women differently wasn't an ignorant man thing, its a people thing. Its how our society works and double standards are a part of that. Making your peace with that involves realizing that one can treat everyone equally without necessarily treating everyone exactly the same. At least that's how it went for me.

So double standards exist. They exist because we're people that's how we act. Don't discriminate or treat anyone as a lessor person. But don't get too hung up on the fact that we treat the girls differently than we treat the guys.

[Jack89]

Watching that video I felt quite a bit different watching the man hit the woman than the woman hitting the man.  My gut reaction when I saw the man abusing the woman was that she was trapped, she needed help, and the guy needed a serious ass whooping.  She didn't look like she could physically defend herself against him and it seemed that she was trapped.  The man was physically controlling her, tossing her around like a rag doll.
Now when I saw the man hitting the woman, I felt sorry for the guy and a little embarrassed for him.  The big difference between the two is that the man probably could have physically defended himself and could have at least got away from the situation if his aggressor persisted, whereas the woman probably couldn't.

I'm sure you meant to word that differently.

Yes, thank you.  I fixed it.

[SilentFutility]

[spoil:3pmieh9w]

What are your thoughts on the fact that most women assumed that the man deserved it simply because he was being physically assaulted?

Same thing, SF. Women are being raised, shaped and living with the same bullshit. They see men as natural enemies too. Not just men, but women are forcing that 'patriarchal' values on men and women, boys and girls, daughters and sons. And that is stupid, ridiculous, disgusting myths like hitting manhandling -note the term- males are OK, because being males, they are not hurt or feel anything and again that is because what is thought is 'male is an active human, female is not.' One counts, other doesn't.

Do you remember the rape article from UK? And what women thought about raped women that if they were raped when they drunk. How disgusting is that? Also let's don't forget the about the mothers who raise most of those male or female bigots.

-A point I wrote to some gender thread months ago. Most laws; almost all of them concerning violence and assault are written in a context that accepts any potential perpetrator as male. For example, as a woman if I harm a child, my sentence is not just given for assaulting a person, but also assaulting someone weaker than myself and naturally vulnerable. I get a heavier sentence for attacking someone who cannot defend himself/herself against me. (It has a name, but I don't know what's that in English) Therefore when a man attacks a woman, he gets a different take than attacking a woman, not as in just attacking a person. As there isn't another gender more physically powerful than male, in general laws and the understanding it's is shaped this way. So men are getting heavier sentences for violent crimes than women also based on this.

-However, there is always a prejudice against men in all violent cases, because men are physically stronger and no matter we don't like to hear statistics, an incomparable amount of violence cases -I mean the reported and convicted, not alleged- against men AND women are committed by men. In this sense men also face far more violence overall, first from men and then women.

-Like women are almost always doubted with prejudice in rape cases because they are women, men are almost always doubted in violent cases, because they are men, the violent gender. Therefore when women mostly choose not to report rape cases, men mostly choose not to report violence cases against them, esp. when assaulted by a woman. Women will be asked many questions according to their gender and why she didn't 'resist' or reported right away; men will be asked how he couldn't protect himself against a woman or what did he do to incite a physically weaker person than him to attack a physically stronger one, because he should have done something to force her to take that risk.

-Nobody's first thought will be that how much the wife or the girlfriend physically attacked the husband or the boyfriend, that man my have tried NOT to strike back to her intimate partner because the very reason not to harm her worse and succeeded. OR at first noone will think he is so psychologically abused, he cannot protect himself in any means. Noone gets this has nothing to do with gender. This happens a lot.

(I think I typed this to Bri, long time ago- which doesn't look funny to me, no matter how many years passed. Something close to 15 years ago when I was drunk, I hit a woman at the end of new year's party because I have become so angry watching her abusing her bf with everything she did all night from simple behaviour to hitting him. My behaviour was not better than hers even a little. She was bigger than me, if men didn't get in between and one simply held me up like a child (I am little) to get away, (don't laugh please) she would have beaten me up bloody, black and blue. But I know the rage I felt at that young age, that man stood there and took all of it. Nobody got angry with me, they didn't cheer, but they thought I was right. Nobody even thought of calling the police to report it. I wasn't right, they should have gotten angry with me. If I was a man they would be furious and report it.)[/spoil:3pmieh9w]

Good post, I agree with much of it.

I still need to do more thinking on this topic before I can form a complete opinion of my own.

My thoughts are that this is a produced piece for television. Therefore it is impossible to know if most women who were interviewed assumed that the man deserved it. It could have been most of the women they interviewed or it could have been four women out of one hundred. We have no way of knowing.

This is true, but seeing images of a woman literally fist-pumping and smiling broadly simply because someone of the opposite gender is being assaulted is quite disturbing, even if it is only one.

Its how our society works and double standards are a part of that. Making your peace with that involves realizing that one can treat everyone equally without necessarily treating everyone exactly the same. At least that's how it went for me.

So double standards exist. They exist because we're people that's how we act. Don't discriminate or treat anyone as a lessor person. But don't get too hung up on the fact that we treat the girls differently than we treat the guys.

How then, do you treat everyone equally by not treating them the same on a large scale, such as employment laws, criminal sentencing, child custody etc etc.?

I am also of the opinion that men and women are different; of course they are, it is basic biology. However, how do you fairly account for this in legislation? Do you treat men and women differently in the eyes of the law? Should one get better jobs and pay than the other? Would that be fair? I don't think it would, and I'm sure most don't either. So, do we make everything completely equal instead, despite the irrefutable fact that men and women are not the same as each other? Clearly most western societies do not do this either. So what should we do?