3 Women Arrested for Revenge on Cheater

[Lord of the Abyss]

Oh no, the poor weak little men, complaining that there's a double standard about male vs female assault and female vs male assault, even though male vs female assault is the overwhelming majority of inter-gender violence! Oh boo hoo!

Actually, as I recall there have been studies showing male-female domestic violence to be just about equal towards each gender. It's just that violence against men is much less likely to be admitted by the man, or investigated or punished by the authorities.

[Pick]

Feel free to cite one of these studies any day now.

[jcow79]

I would have to liken this to the debate being had in this thread: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=135921 regarding Gates getting arrested and overall race relations.

It was pretty well agreed upon that although Gates behavior was out of line there was at least some sympathy for it because of the inequality minorities receive at the hand of whites. You can easily apply this same standard to women. Woman have been and still are largely oppressed by their male counterparts worldwide so it would make sense to use a double standard as the parties are not truly equal. I don't think the law should necessarily distinguish it that way but I can certainly see where someone’s sympathies might be swayed.

[fgalkin]

Still does not detract the issue that if it the gender roles would be rervered, then people would be crying for blood. Then again I thought it was a good idea to at least try and not have double standard's. On top of that I never debated that men were predators to women on anything.

Why shouldn't we have double standards between unequal parties? Explain.

I'll take a shot. In what way are the parties unequal in this instance? This wasn't some physical fight, where women are statistically weaker than men, nor were they all part of some power structure the dude was in charge of, like a job. The girls tricked the guy into tying himself up and then assaulted him free from reprisal (physical anyways). How were the scales unequal towards the women to justify a double standard or any other sort of leveling the playing field modifiers?

Because statistically, more women are assaulted by men rather than vice versa? This is about how we view gender violence in general, and the "double standard" of being more sympathetic to women victims. The fact that a man is the victim here is seen as a "reversal" of sorts, with the tables being turned on the "victimizer."

That's not to say that this is necessarily correct, but it does explain why so many here are not sympathetic to the guy. That, or because he's a scumbag.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Simon_Jester]

It seems to me that if we describe these women's actions as "wrong, but comprehensible" (which seems to be the consensus)...

...flipping the sexes on the same action should still be "wrong, but comprehensible" More wrong, very likely, simply because greater harm would be involved. But if we can understand why women would be outraged enough to do something along these lines to a man, I'd think we would be equally able to understand why men would be outraged enough to do something along these lines to a woman.

[EDIT]: What I mean is that if we can understand the women's motives, we should be able to understand identical motives in men.[/EDIT]
_______

That does not mean that the action is right in either case, or that both actions would be equally wrong if they are not the same action. Which they wouldn't be, for biological reasons. But it is interesting to reflect on why we are more sympathetic to a wronged woman who resorts to physical violence than a wronged man who does so.

As far as I can tell, the only reason is what fgalkin was getting at. Normally men have an advantage in the physical violence department, so the expectation that they not get violent is stronger. When they break that expectation, we cut them less slack. Also, men are implicitly presumed to be able to defend themselves physically from women (a leftover of old attitudes), so a man who gets physically beaten and humiliated by women is mockable for "failing to defend himself."
_______

If we want a really weird test case, how would people feel if this happened among a group of homosexuals (of either sex)? If three gay men or lesbian women did something along these lines to a fourth who had cheated on them, would we feel the same way about the rights and wrongs of the case, and about whether the actions of the three were understandable?

[Tiriol]

Feel free to cite one of these studies any day now.

I actually remember the study (or at least some similar ones) which Lord of the Abyss referred to, so he didn't made it up. But what I DON'T remember is what was counted as violence and what was not (nor exactly how old the study is).

There was a recently published Finnish study that also showed that violence against children is more often done by women than by men; however, that is probably understandable, since the women are even in these days seen as the caretakers of the family more than the men, who bring in the money etc. And as such, women tend to spend more time with children and situations in which violence might take place are thus more common.

[Surlethe]

Without a citation, we can't be sure your memory's not tricking you or Lord of the Abyss.

[Androsphinx]

Such studies do crop up from time to time, based on extrapolations of under-reporting. The most recent concrete statistics which I have on domestic abuse (not child abuse, which is a different kettle of fish) are for the UK 1995-2006.

You can read them here (pdf)

As you can see, although reported figures put the male rate at between a fifth and half of the female rate, some surveys [edit: when extrapolated to the population as a whole would] indicate a basically 1:1 ratio, especially when the emphasis is shifted from "incidents" to "victims" (because women are more likely to be repeat victims).

[Tanasinn]

What a gaggle of half-wits. They're frankly not much better than him - and they probably stood a chance of getting revenge through legal means, like an earlier lawsuit comment mentioned. Fortunately, the criminal justice system does not recognize "well he was MEAN" as a valid argument. You don't have to like this douchebag to dislike what was done to him.

Ziemann and Belliveau are sisters and Belliveau didn’t do anything wrong, Sewell said Monday. “She was just there for moral support. She wasn’t even dating the guy. She stood at the door the whole time and didn’t participate or nothing.”

Which is still a crime, moron.

Because statistically, more women are assaulted by men rather than vice versa?

It's worth noting that female-on-male violence is rarely reported let alone successfully prosecuted. The statistics are skewed, though not necessarily inaccurate about which sex commits more violence on the other.

[Knife]

Because statistically, more women are assaulted by men rather than vice versa?

Is that statistical data or general consensus? If you are going to rely on generalization to support a double standard, isn't it up to you to prove that the double standard is indeed a fact?

This is about how we view gender violence in general, and the "double standard" of being more sympathetic to women victims.

Indeed. I agree. This is the argument.

The fact that a man is the victim here is seen as a "reversal" of sorts, with the tables being turned on the "victimizer." [/m quote]

I disagree. The gender of the victim is not the issue. Whether or not a 'double standard' should relive the culprits is the question. Why should the women in this case recive the cushion of a double standard should be the question here. So far, little besides that they are weak women against a strong man has been presented.

That's not to say that this is necessarily correct, but it does explain why so many here are not sympathetic to the guy. That, or because he's a scumbag.

Oh, trust me, I understand the 'shiney armor' syndrome of men.

[dragon]

In all honesty if I got stuck on the jury I don't know if I would find them guilty. I'm thinking it would be based upon the exact charges and the penalties that would occur. Now if they're charged with a simple assualt sure butr anything more not needed as the guy was only humiliated. Now if the guy wants to sue for personal liability k fine whatever but criminal charges that they hit them with were a little bit over board.

And I asked several of my freinds and my wife friends and they take the same stance, granted their all germans or Brits and have a slightly different outlook. Hell most of the Women I asked said they would have cut his pecker off and not just glued it.

Whats really funny is the one women that suggested that is a swinger as is her husband. But I guess it's beucase they both know and have an arrangement already.

Edited for speeling jeesh I really need to stop posting half asleep, or at least run in through spell checker first.

[Glocksman]

To be honest, I wish there were an aspect of the law that had accommodation for people who really deserve what they get.

There is, but it's not much used today.
It's called 'jury nullification'.

The problem with it is that juries in the South (surprise, surprise) would refuse to convict racists who'd been literally caught in the act of shooting someone or planting bombs.

That said, if I were on a jury hearing this case and the article is accurate as to the circumstances, I'd probably vote 'not guilty' and argue to my fellow jurors that the poor women had suffered enough.

Though I'll admit that my feelings are also colored by the fact that my no good SOB father cheated on my mother while she was pregnant with my younger sister and we spent several years living 'hand to mouth' because of his refusal to pay child support.

I'll also say that while my father and I have reconciled, I still aim to live long enough to piss into his second wife's open grave.

[Julhelm]

There have been studies that show women are getting more and more violent now than just a few decades ago, with a higher ratio of assault, robbery, so that's probably what the guy in the article is referring to.

[mr friendly guy]

Still does not detract the issue that if it the gender roles would be rervered, then people would be crying for blood. Then again I thought it was a good idea to at least try and not have double standard's. On top of that I never debated that men were predators to women on anything.

Why shouldn't we have double standards between unequal parties? Explain.

Well if the story about one party having a firearm is true, and assuming things like they are willing to use it, the physical inequalities between men and women would be less of an issue, no? Even if there was no gun, the fact that he had been tied up before the alleged assault began, it would have nullified any physical advantage so I can't really see too much difference between man immobilised then assaulted by women, vs woman immobilised than assaulted by men.

[Surlethe]

There have been studies that show women are getting more and more violent now than just a few decades ago, with a higher ratio of assault, robbery, so that's probably what the guy in the article is referring to.

Such as ... ? Feel free to cite them.

[open_sketchbook]

And who is to say that`s a case of women getting more violent vs. women no longer asking men to step in and commit violence for them? Until quite recently (and hell, it still happens, to a lesser degree) it was not uncommon for women with a beef to use men for a sort of `surrogate violence` whereby the men would do the arguing or fighting for them, and the man, eager to impress the woman with chest beating displays of stupid, aggressive masculinity, would leap at the chance. But attitudes are shifting and such behavior would be increasingly seen as being needlessly reliant on men, by some women at least.

That, or evil feminism is driving them to it, along with forcing them to abort babies, divorce their husbands and become lesbians.

[Julhelm]

There have been studies that show women are getting more and more violent now than just a few decades ago, with a higher ratio of assault, robbery, so that's probably what the guy in the article is referring to.

Such as ... ? Feel free to cite them.

It was in the metro newspaper here a few months ago. Was a swedish study if IIRC.

[ArmorPierce]

Feel free to cite one of these studies any day now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2 ... abuse.html

[Darth Wong]

Worthless horseshit. Look at the statistics for spousal murder, where women are killed by men more than men are killed by women (by a factor of 1.5 to 2, depending on which stats you look at).

Stats based on self-reporting of abuse are fraught with many problems; you should know that.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That, or evil feminism is driving them to it, along with forcing them to abort babies, divorce their husbands and become lesbians.

YAY!

Ah-hem.

But of course in some respect it's right, and also normative. Feminism has resulted in women winning the ability to take male roles in society with freedom and dignity (a distinctly different thing from acting like men, to note), that is the point of it. One should invariably expect a certain degree of decay in the older social roles to take place. In short one of the inevitable results of perfectly achieved feminism with perfectly equal sexes would be equal crime rates, yes ? Now that's still not the case and there's a variety of highly debateable factors as to why, but the simple fact is that, yes, we should expect feminism to result in an attendant increase in crimes rates. This is due to the fact that the old society is watering away, that women must also support themselves, and that the social restraint you mention is missing.

But notice also that our crime rate would be much lower overall if our society was structured more like a European one. So if the crime rate becomes too high because of women committing crimes, then it's not the fault of feminism but rather a structural issue; it tells us that we had to systematically repress women to keep our crime rate at acceptable levels in our existing society, and therefore, that entire society needs to be changed. I'm sorry, but no movement for progress and rights has a 100% positive outcome... Some of the points of equality include having equal right to be a total idiot. If this is perceived as a problem, then fundamentally it must be addressed as a problem with high crime rates in American society, not as actually having anything to do with feminism. The end of tight social restraint mechanisms which repressed women to the point that even regular rates of criminality were not possible, is an ethical imperative and absolute requirement of an equitable modern society. If it leads to unpleasant consequences in America, then we should be asking why we have such high crime rates as an overall society.

[Tiriol]

Without a citation, we can't be sure your memory's not tricking you or Lord of the Abyss.

Well, the link is in Finnish, but Helsingin Sanomat newspaper's website has an article about relationship violence: 40 per cent of serious violence committed in relationships is done by women. The article's main point, though, is that it's much harder for women to find counseling if they are violent than it is for men; officials don't take their problems seriously. The same article also says that women are just as prone to use violence when dealing with kids as men are. So my memory did play a trick on me to some extent.

[CmdrWilkens]

Worthless horseshit. Look at the statistics for spousal murder, where women are killed by men more than men are killed by women (by a factor of 1.5 to 2, depending on which stats you look at).

Stats based on self-reporting of abuse are fraught with many problems; you should know that.

Which still doesn't answer the prior objection that we are talking about abuse cases wherein by definition the abusing party has more power. Moreover I don't think you would claim that it is okay to have a double standard in cases of spousal murder.

[Pick]

Androsphynx: All you've done is linked to a study that supports the view that women are abused more, and again mentioned "some studies" that suggest we should view it differently.

As for the BBC story from Armorpierce, I'm trying to find... numbers in it. I'm not, by the way. Instead, I'm getting things like this:

The official definition of partner abuse includes non-physical forms like emotional bullying as well as physical force. But men in this age range have been on the receiving end of all forms, including sometimes severe violence.

All this says is that men are abused sometimes under traditional definitions. We knew this.

Across most age ranges more women are abused than men. But analysis of the latest figures from the Home Office shows the problem is more evenly spread between the sexes in the early stages of a young relationship

More evenly spread, okay. But how much more evenly spread? Apparently they have two numbers here, one bigger than the other, but they're sharing neither.

Mark Brooks from the men's health charity Mankind reckons the issue of male domestic abuse is often ignored by the government, social services and the police.

Oh, okay. A guy reckons.

To be fair, this is probably true, but this article is not scientific. No statistics are listed. Furthermore, it doesn't link to anything with numbers, except maybe the radio piece, but I can't hear it here in the computer lab.

[Androsphinx]

Androsphynx: All you've done is linked to a study that supports the view that women are abused more, and again mentioned "some studies" that suggest we should view it differently.

My reference was the Supplement to the 1996 BCS, discussed on p.2-3 of the report I linked to. A detailed survey of 11,000 people found that while lifetime rates were 50% higher for women (23% to 15%), in the year 1995 rates were equal - 4.2% each. This was extrapolated to infer 6.6 million incidents of "domestic physical assault" - 3.29M with female victims and 3.25M with male victims. This is particularly worth noting because as I said above, a focus on "incidents" rather than "victims" usually shows higher rates of abuse of women. Injury rates, btw, were still three times higher for women - 2.9M to 1M.

I don't actually agree with the position of Tiriol, Lord of the Abyss, etc. but their position is not wholly without statistical evidence.

[Darth Wong]

Worthless horseshit. Look at the statistics for spousal murder, where women are killed by men more than men are killed by women (by a factor of 1.5 to 2, depending on which stats you look at).

Stats based on self-reporting of abuse are fraught with many problems; you should know that.

Which still doesn't answer the prior objection that we are talking about abuse cases wherein by definition the abusing party has more power. Moreover I don't think you would claim that it is okay to have a double standard in cases of spousal murder.

Maybe you have some kind of reading comprehension problem, but I was attacking the idea that all double standards are necessarily wrong. I never said that every double standard is good, so please dispense with your bullshit strawman.