Real-life implications of "The Unfair Sex"

Here's an especially unpleasant example from the troper tales section...

So basically, some guy was saying a bunch of girls were verbally abusing him, so he resorted to punching one of them, and nobody, not even his family, defended him after this.

While I'd agree that verbal abuse doesn't justify violence, (obviously he should have sought non-violent means of retaliation) it's hard not to pity him for resorting to it.

Also, there is a worthwhile point in there about how popular opinion wouldn't be as likely to look down on a girl who attacked a guy for verbally abusing her. The question is, whose fault would this double standard be in the first place?

Punch that bitch in the throat and do your part to get rid of the double standard!

To answer that question, you'd probably have to go a very long time back in history.

Like, before the invention of writing.

edited 10th Dec '10 3:49:19 PM by SpainSun

I spread my wings and I learn how to fly....

But Cavemen have written on walls!

for the Biblical style, Adam and Eve could probably write

One of my own examples was written in that section as well. (Hint: I'm the Black guy.)

Kinda my reasoning on this:

1. It's bad to use violence against people who are weaker than you.
2. Girls are generally physically weaker than boys.
3. Therefore, it's bad for boys to use violence on girls.

Not that I believe this argument personally, but I think it sounds a lot less unreasonable put that way. If he had punched out She Hulk that would have been damn awesome.

Violence against anyone for a problem is bad, even if the person hits you.

Unfortunately, it boils a little further down that because "Women are weaker" they can't actually physically hurt someone.

needless to say, that isn't true.

In general, a man hitting a woman is usually unnecessary. Violence is only justified when it's your only means of escape. For most men in unarmed situations, it's unnecessary.

"In general, a man hitting a woman is usually unnecessary. Violence is only justified when it's your only means of escape." - King Zeal

What about when it's violence against the violent? We have the death penalty for murderers under the assumption that they don't deserve to live. Would a hypothetically lawful means of using assault as punishment for assault be justified? (Not saying one way or the other here, just suggesting that it's a grey area.)

Huh? Utilitarian supporters of the death penalty generally say that it should be used only when there is very little chance of the criminal being able to contribute meaningfully to society, or if it intimidates other criminals from committing crimes. Neither has anything to do with "deservingness".

I dunno what the official justification for the death penalty is, but saying that it exists because someone "deserved it" sounds a bit off to me.

Er, not sure where you're going with this. I don't think there's a universally agreed upon answer for this. You say so yourself that it's a gray area...

edited 10th Dec '10 5:26:48 PM by melloncollie

Some people reason that the death penalty exists because there's no real way to rehabilitate someone who's committed such a crime (yet), that realistically, keeping them locked up would be far worse a punishment for everyone involved.

Yeah, for one, there's no consensus (in America) that Eye for an Eye punishment is necessary or effective.

For two, the law states that self-defense is only justified if it's required to immediately escape danger and regain control. Once control is established and escape is possible, any further violence is unjustified and liable for arrest.

"Utilitarian supporters of the death penalty generally say that it should be used only when there is very little chance of the criminal being able to contribute meaningfully to society, or if it intimidates other criminals from committing crimes." - meloncollie

But the threat of death "if caught" won't stop other criminals from committing crimes, (just ask a psychology professor about the so-called "deterrent effect") so that's not a real argument. As for the criminal being unable to contribute meaningfully, obviously that's a moot point since killing them won't make them contribute either. From what I've seen of the pro-DP arguments, "they deserve it" is all that's left.

edited 10th Dec '10 6:18:49 PM by neoYTPism

Personally, I think it's only fair to hit a woman under the same circumstances under which one would hit a man. Fortunately, I also think it'd take some fairly extraordinary circumstances to make me hit anyone.

Why don't more feminists decry old proverbs like "women and children first", or "you've got to hold the door for women", or of course the subject of this discussion "don't hit a woman" etc.? Not exactly equal treatment being advocated for.

Of course, maybe some of them do decry this kind of stuff and it just isn't as common/as well noticed.

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

Yeah I've heard that, but the point to my post was that there isn't a general consensus among everyone why we should have the death penalty. Which is what King Zeal said. Uh.

Well, process of elimination doesn't make something right. The proper conclusion could be not to have the death penalty at all, just not everyone's realized it.

"Why don't more feminists decry old proverbs like "women and children first", or "you've got to hold the door for women", or of course the subject of this discussion "don't hit a woman" etc.? Not exactly equal treatment being advocated for." - deathjavu

Actually, on another forum I've been to someone who says they hold the door for both genders says a woman he held the door for assumed it was only because she's a woman. If you ask me, though, people who jump to conclusions can go fuck themselves, regardless of gender or ideology.

But yeah, it does seem that the mainstream of the feminist movement, not unlike the mainstream of most movements, doesn't really seem to apply logic consistently. They will confront discrimination against women based in reasoning X yet seem not to confront discrimination against men based in similar reasoning.

So, how many feminists have you asked about this? I know plenty of people who find chivalry condescending, even if they aren't particularly vocal about it.

If they're more vocal about sexism against women than sexism in their favour, then someone probably abandoned consistency somewhere along the line.

I dunno about that. There's only so much time to complain. Focusing on one manifestation of sexism doesn't mean you can't be equally opposed to others.

I wasn't saying there aren't feminists opposed to these sorts of things. I'm just saying I don't hear them as often as the others. Whether this is due to a sampling bias, or the media filter, or something else I leave open to debate.

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

Now, you may have redacted it now, but even making the original argument deserves this notification:

"I don't hear about X" !!!!!= "X doesn't exist"

You don't hear about most of the thousands of daily car crashes, yet I assure you they do happen.

Similarly, just because you don't hear about feminists denouncing privileges of women is not anywhere near evidence that that doesn't exist. Especially if you don't spend any significant amount of time listening to feminists in the first place.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

I'd say that line of reasoning is more closely attributed to Abuse Is Okay When It’s Female on Male than The Unfair Sex. While the former trope does often use the 'women are weaker than men' argument as a justification, the latter deals specifically with the notion that men are always in the wrong, no matter what they do.

NOTHING pisses me off more than these tropes. The fact that we, as a species, can laugh at or dismiss the suffering of our fellow man- ONLY because he's a man; is just sickening. One of the quotes in the Rape Is Okay When Its Female On Male featured a quote-unquote 'feminist' blogger writing about how she didn't feel sorry for male rape victims because it's 'not supported by the patriarchal power structure' or some such nonsense. What's worse, there were actually 3 or four other bloggers agreeing with her. It crosses over from Wallbanger material straight into Nightmare Fuel when you realize that these people; actual human beings; can proudly claim that they feel no sympathy for young boys who get sexually violated.

And what most people don't realize is that those tropes are just as insulting to women as they are to men. Yes, it obviously implies that every man is a Complete Monster or Jerkass who deserves anything bad that happens to him at the hands of a woman, but it also implies that women are both too fragile or weak to take any kind of abuse, and too stupid or immature to be held responsible for their actions.

edited 11th Dec '10 6:43:21 PM by TyeDyeWildebeest

I love to learn, I love to yearn, and most of all... I love to make money.

That's why whenever my friend says she's watching Lifetime on TV, I usually make some sarcastic comment where I say "The Lifetime Channel: Where every man is a wifebeater, doormat, or gay."

The Media is really pissing me off with this... From childrens television to sitcoms, there's tons of great female rolemodels, they are all intelligent, beautiful, and practical. The man is either a womanizer who has funny antics, but is overall obviously not a person to model yourself after, or the incompetent fat guy with the smoking hot Mary Sue of a wife.

In short, men are stupid but well-meaning buffoons, women are competent problem solvers who just put up with us because we mean well. According to TV.

edited 12th Dec '10 5:13:22 PM by Barkey

That's a good reason to not have TV. Especially if one has impressionable children.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

But those characters aren't role models, because the audience is not expected to identify with them. We are expected to want to bone them. The doofuses they are dating/married to are usually the viewpoint characters, and the awesomeness of the women just adds to their prize value for the guys. This article explains it pretty well.

Stuff what I do.