Woman robs man on side of road, Two "samaritans" help her because she's a woman
- Thread starter Eri
- Start date
You can find quite a few right here on the escapist. Michael seems like the kinda guy who would do anything if you speak gingerly to him and pretend to be his friend.Boudica said:
Except it is, I'll post a few examples for you.itsthesheppy said:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/newlywed-dalia-dippolito-20-years-murder-sting/story?id=13866581#.UDerEaOPkqI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Haysom
http://pittsfield.wnyt.com/content/berkshire-murder-case-dateline-tonight
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/nyregion/15kansas.html
The attribution of purity to women in our society has caused your particular mindset to be fairly common. Women enlisting others to carry out malevolent deeds is considered a "conspiracy theory". I know if you hold this belief no amount of evidence will change your point of view on the matter.
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.
White knighting is actually a psychological disorder that extends far beyond trying to get into a woman's pants.Lyri said:
He probably is a cool guy. I really don't know him as a person. What I can surmise from his forum post though is that he seems like the guy you're looking for! I'm going to engage in some revisionist history and use a different example though. It's bad form to insult a guy who can't defend himself.Boudica said:
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.JeffBergGold said:
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.itsthesheppy said:
However, the assertion that women enlist other people to commit crime or perform it by proxy is established fact.
Choosing to ignore it because it doesn't fit your world view is childish.
Okay. In that case, take a look at the muscle differences between males and females, also the attitudes we have adopted as a gender. Males are built towards aggressive or direct responses, and our muscles back us up. Statistically speaking, murders committed by men often involve stabbings, gunshots, or other direct ways of ending the life of the victim.
Females, on the other hand, have less muscle mass and instead adopt a more subtle approach, which as stereotypical as these statements have thus far been, statistically speaking, most murders committed by a woman consist of poisonings or killing the victim in their sleep.
Now, I only know about these because of a book I read a few years ago about the differences in gender and why they are important in fiction (which had a lot of truths to "ground the story in reality") but really, if you had seen a man and a woman fighting over a wallet and a gold chain, who do you think was the victim? I'd have tackled the male without a second thought.
Females, on the other hand, have less muscle mass and instead adopt a more subtle approach, which as stereotypical as these statements have thus far been, statistically speaking, most murders committed by a woman consist of poisonings or killing the victim in their sleep.
Now, I only know about these because of a book I read a few years ago about the differences in gender and why they are important in fiction (which had a lot of truths to "ground the story in reality") but really, if you had seen a man and a woman fighting over a wallet and a gold chain, who do you think was the victim? I'd have tackled the male without a second thought.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.Glass Joe the Champ said:
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.
I think you've got feminists and bronies confused again...Trilligan said:
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 said:
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.Mick Golden Blood said:
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.
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 said:
Oh, not in *every* situation. Sometimes there's clear proof he didn't do anything, and sometimes that's enough.Mick Golden Blood said:
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.Mick Golden Blood said:
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.
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).itsthesheppy said:
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.
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.
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.