TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Young Girls Attack 11-Year-Old Boy

Go To

MrAHR Ahr river from ಠ_ಠ Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: A cockroach, nothing can kill it.
Ahr river
#126: Jun 6th 2011 at 3:28:31 AM

Fascinating. I am experiencing a slight double standard in my judgement. Not one I'd ever act upon, oh no, but one from a gut reaction. This one actually shifts to the parents, I suppose, where I think "it's the parents that didn't make a big deal out of it, so of course it wasn't made a big deal of." but it's a pretty shitty justification.

Dammit brain. Stop that. I raised you better than that.

edited 6th Jun '11 3:28:46 AM by MrAHR

Read my stories!
BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#127: Jun 6th 2011 at 3:49:03 AM

I'm not sure what should be done about the bullies themselves. It's the boy I'm worried about.

Is it wrong that I cannot help but wonder if that kind of thing might have been beneficial in the long run? Not directed at you, or at the victim, but at society. I wonder if people dying from this is what it takes to force society to address this. Then again, in today's society, even THAT might not be enough.

I really doubt it would help. As far as kids are concerned, that would just be another bullying-related suicide, I think. If you're a kid who didn't know the victim personally, those are generally just something to joke about, or at worst a bit sad but an overreaction on the victim's part.

Is it that people are becoming more vicious, or have people always been this vicious, but without the means to broadcast it to the world?

I'm going to go with the latter.

@ Koujin: If you don't mind, where are you from? Because while that's utterly appalling, I can't imagine they'd get away with doing that in the USA without getting the Pedo Hunt on their cases.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
ladycoffee Shotamouse reporting. from your pocket Since: Sep, 2009
Shotamouse reporting.
#128: Jun 6th 2011 at 5:12:00 AM

Oh no. Yet another ammo for the Kids Are Cruel Kids Are Evil people.

I've been wanting to say this for a long time, but had no opportunity to. Of course, the kids MUST suffer the consequences of their behavior. But judging from all the outrage that strikes me as just moralistic, we forgot to consider, or maybe conveniently discard the thought, that the ADULTS around them may have a big influence in their behavior. Yes, we're talking about adults like you and me. The parents, the environment, everybody. How do we know that the adults around those girls are setting the right example? And going all "but they knowingly committed this crime! They're evil!" strikes me as simply passing the buck of responsibility. Because, it is said that it takes a village to raise a child.

Yeah, diss me off for my Rousseau Was Right (or whatever you call it) stance. This is just what I believe.

edited 6th Jun '11 5:15:20 AM by ladycoffee

WARNING: This troper is a severe monomaniac. Caution is advised.
BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#129: Jun 6th 2011 at 5:52:14 AM

I don't think they're evil, necessarily, but they're bullies. A child pornography charge seems overly harsh and I'm not sure what good it would do, but I think something ought to be done because this kind of behaviour can have seriously damaging effects on the victim.

Kids Are Cruel is a generalisation, but at the same time, never underestimate the capacity of children to behave cruelly, and all it takes is a few sickos and many indifferents to make a child feel as though the whole world has it in for him or her.

This incident was sick. It was horrible. As are any cases like it, regardless of whether the victim was male or female. You can blame the parents, blame society, blame whatever, sure - no person exists in a vaccuum. But they still did it, and he's still going to have to cope with the consequences, which are only going to be exascerbated by the way this was handled.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Ukonkivi Over 10,000 dead.:< Since: Aug, 2009
Over 10,000 dead.:<
#130: Jun 6th 2011 at 6:13:15 AM

I do rather hate the "children are innocent" assumption. Which seems to be commonly stated in pedophilia arguments that have become common throughout the internet.

There are so many blatant, obvious reasons that child rape is wrong, so why do people have to add something like this to the mix? Children aren't innocent. They never have been, and they probably never will be. People need to use the million other reliable reasons for why child rape is obviously wrong. I'm sick of people defending something right with something stupid.

On another note, about pedophilia and child porn. It's so wrong how they news program talked about the horror and how the video was taken down. Because, part of the violation here was what happened to him being done in public and then on top of that being broadcasted to the entire internet. And yet the news program does just that, only with blur so you can't see the poor kid's genitals. That the news program acts innocent and morally right while broadcasting softcore child porn or borderline of that to the public. I'm repulsed, and I reported the video. Seriously, what makes them think they have the right to do that?

edited 6th Jun '11 2:59:36 PM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]
Midgetsnowman Since: Jan, 2010
#131: Jun 6th 2011 at 7:53:11 AM

This sounds to me like the sort of girls that will go on to happily abuse their husbands.

You know a case is ridiculously unfairly biased when my much more socially conservative mother heard the story and was absolutely horrified that a young child of any gender could have that happen to them.

@Deux: I think their point was more that "some people" is about as journalistic as making shit up on the fly. Some people needs about as much proof as religions do because frankly, someone out there MUST have that view.

edited 6th Jun '11 7:57:53 AM by Midgetsnowman

BlackHumor Since: Jan, 2001
#132: Jun 6th 2011 at 9:03:23 AM

EDIT: I'm stupid, disregard.

edited 6th Jun '11 9:04:19 AM by BlackHumor

neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#133: Jun 6th 2011 at 12:47:17 PM

"Of course, the kids MUST suffer the consequences of their behavior. But judging from all the outrage that strikes me as just moralistic, we forgot to consider, or maybe conveniently discard the thought, that the ADULTS around them may have a big influence in their behavior." - ladycoffee

No shit, sherlock. I already mentioned before that the parents of these girls didn't do much of a good job making them give a damn about right and wrong. Apparently, this is not enough. Give a mouse a cookie and he'll ask for a glass of milk.

It's just that, upbringing aside, people's actions show us who they really are, regardless of their reasons for being the way they are. After all, how we are when we are adults ALSO depends on how we were raised, yet adult criminals don't get to hide behind that excuse.

"And going all "but they knowingly committed this crime! They're evil!" strikes me as simply passing the buck of responsibility." - ladycoffee

Nonsense. This reflecting on the kids and reflecting on the adults are not mutually exclusive. Those kids ARE evil; their actions prove it. Acknowledging this does not equal denying that the adults who raised them and influenced them were part of the problem.


"A child pornography charge seems overly harsh and I'm not sure what good it would do" - Bobby G

Let's see:

  • Drive home the point that this kind of behaviour is NOT acceptable.
  • Likely result in some major punishment for the perpetrators, which in turn would:
    • Give the victim the impression that at least the justice system is looking out for him. (After all, no one else seems to be, with the possible exception of his mother, who isn't doing a very good job of it.)
    • Deter OTHER perpetrators from repeating these crimes.

The last one is the most important, of course. Incidents like these show that we cannot rely on compassion to deter this, because there are plenty of people like them utterly devoid of it. Slam down on this, if only to stop copycat criminals from creating further victims.


"Because, part of the violation here was what happened to him being done in public and then on top of that being broadcasted to the entire internet. And yet the news program does just that, only with blur so you can't see the poor kids genitals. That the news program acts innocent and morally right while broadcasting softcore child porn or borderline of that to the public." - Ukonkivi

Not quite. They need to show excerpts of the video in order to prove it happened. When there are reports of things like this, people tend to deny it. When you show a video of it, there is no longer any room for denying it.

edited 6th Jun '11 12:50:55 PM by neoYTPism

MumbleMissMumble from Dublin Since: May, 2011
#134: Jun 6th 2011 at 2:46:57 PM

My theory on why is this happening: Women want equality with men. In the contemporary western society, they have almost completely achieved their goal, and I fully support them. Most men find women equal, but it is still combined with some outdated sexist ideas such as chivalry. Women are still assumed to be the weaker, gentler and more innocent sex, so men still go by the rules of chivalry (eg. not hitting a girl). Of course, this benefits women so they don't complain. Women, actually, currently have more benefits than men - they have the same rights, but are automatically protected when it comes to certain issues. I'm afraid that this will lead to a matriarchate.
Women have more benefits than men? Women have the same rights? We’re automatically protected in certain issues? I really wish I believed all that. I’m a woman, and I can tell you that now, none of that is true. Women don’t have more benefits than men. Not really. And we don’t have the same rights. We’re supposed to have the same rights, but the difference between sexes isn’t the same as the differences between things like race. There is actual proper differences between men and women, differences in the way we think, in our bodies, in our needs. Society, particularly the working world, was designed by men, for men. Women can survive in it, but it’s not always ideal for our needs. Not complaining, just stating a fact.

And as for the fact we’re automatically protected in certain issues, I’m sorry, but we aren’t.

I guess the difference is just how definite this case is. You can accuse people of racism all you want and in most cases, you'll never know for sure if that argument holds any water, but in this case, we know that a girl victim would cause a different reaction, because there's more than enough cases to compare this one with. Or something. I don't know.

And you can accuse people of sexism all you want, but you don't know that this case would be treated differently if it was the other way around. I can think of a case that happened a while ago near where I live, where it was a young girl attacked by a boy, and nothing was done then either. Nothing. Didn't even get reported in the news or nothing, and the girl was eight, not eleven.

Lately, there were a lot of cases similar to this happened in my country (well actually there are only 3 or 4 reported cases but that's already too many and who know how many there are went unreported...) but the victims are female.

It went like this: a bitch along with her posse (middle or high school age) publicly beat up, stripped, humiliated another girl and filmed the whole thing and posted it on the Internet and get off with nothing more than Slapped On The Wrist punishment, because the adults think it would ruin their futures if they punished them too harshly.

There’s another troper telling the story of a similar incident, but again, with a girl as the victim. I don’t remember those cases even getting mentioned on this site, or the case I spoke about being mentioned either. But when it’s a boy as the victim, it suddenly gets all the attention, and everyone goes on about how no one cares when the victim’s a boy. Well, that’s clearly not true.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is horrible and everything, but I don't see why everyone's dragging his gender into it. Yes, it'd be terrible if it was a girl who was attacked. Yes, it's terrible that a boy was attacked. But there's no point in making men in general out to be the victims, that no one will care because it's a man who was attacked, when looking at this thread, six pages of absolute outrage, prove that people do care. Do you really think if it was a girl who was attacked it'd get this much attention? Like I said earlier, no it wouldn’t.

I'm also sick of having feminism insulted whenever a case like this comes up. Did feminists actually come out and say, “Who gives a crap, it’s only a boy?” No. No one said anything like that, and gender has nothing to do with this, so why bring it up? If it was a girl who was assaulted, no one would be insulting men in general, or insulting masculinity, it’d just be treated as something that happens to girls. I think certain men need to learn to see cases like this in the same way, whatever sex the victim is. That’s not the important part of the story, it’s the poor child who’s just been sexually assaulted and publicly humiliated.

And I’m sorry if I offend anyone, but I’m a female victim of rape, molestation and domestic violence. I got no help from anyone when I needed it most, and even now, I still get very little sympathy from people who hear about it. I still get blamed for the whole thing, and treated like I should have done something to stop it all, even when I was completely helpless. It absolutely sickens me to hear men complaining that they get no help or sympathy, and women have it so easy when we get put into situations like that. I was told that to my face one time when I told a potential boyfriend about my past. “Well, your situation would be a lot worse if you were a man.” I doubt it, I really, really do. I hate that whole point of view, that women have it much easier than men. Because I really hate to be the one to say it, but no we don’t. Take it from someone who knows.

edited 6th Jun '11 2:49:00 PM by MumbleMissMumble

emeriin Since: Jan, 2001
#135: Jun 6th 2011 at 2:53:32 PM

[up] I don't want to start a fight, but I was also sexually abused by a long period of time. I found out (at twelve) then that women can hurt people just as much as men and that boys could be molested. While I got treated like a victim who had been defiled forever, they and other guys I know who have been mistreated got either ignored or lauded as getting laid. Both attitudes are sick and it would be such a nice thing if we worked together to stop them.

MumbleMissMumble from Dublin Since: May, 2011
#136: Jun 6th 2011 at 3:08:52 PM

[up]That's horrible, how people treated you and your friends. It'd be nice if other people could kind of move on from what happened, I think. I've moved on, mostly. I can act like a normal human and do everything non-abused individuals can do. It's in my own private time that I get upset about everything and all that. But it's no one else's concern, so unless I go to them looking for help, they should just be able to treat me like a proper person, without any preconceived ideas about me, you know? I think there needs to be a change in society's view of victims of sexual abuse, that's the main thing to do, and the best way to protect people like us.

I'm not saying that men don't get treated badly after they're abused, I'm really not, and I'm worried my post will come across as saying men can never be victims. I just hate the way the view is kind of, 'Men get terrible treatment after the abuse, women are treated wonderfully', when it's not like that, and I find, as a female victim treated badly, that it's a damaging perspective, for victims of every sex.

emeriin Since: Jan, 2001
#137: Jun 6th 2011 at 3:16:11 PM

[up] I'm glad this didn't erupt, thank you. And I get what you mean. A female victim is expected to fall apart and be "looked after", while a man is supposed to just shrug it off because no way can he be considered weak. They both suck.

secretist Maria Holic from Ame no Kisaki Since: Feb, 2010
OnTheOtherHandle Since: Feb, 2010
#139: Jun 6th 2011 at 3:51:23 PM

This is absolutely horrendous and disgusting. Let's look at what these girls did, and what the sentence would be:

  • Assault in the Third Degree (2 years)
  • Child Molestation (statistics are quite fuzzy on this, but at least 1 year, most likely more)
  • Creation and Distribution of Child Pornography (at least 7 years)

Now, they are kids, but looking at the jail time add up like that should show that this was a crime and they are criminals - not "pranksters" who "some would say" have gone too far. They have scarred this poor child for a long time, they have likely ostracized him from his peers, and people are just okay with this? They're calling it a "prank"? What the fuck kind of reaction is that? It is sexual assault, public humiliation, and intentional bodily harm.

I can't believe how hypocritical the public's reaction is. If these were boys and the victim was a girl, it would be stated for what it was. The huge disparity in reactions proves just how alive and well sexism is.

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."
neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#140: Jun 6th 2011 at 4:00:51 PM

"Society, particularly the working world, was designed by men, for men. Women can survive in it, but it’s not always ideal for our needs. Not complaining, just stating a fact." - Mumble Miss Mumble

More like an assumption. Designed by men? Mostly. Designed for men? Unclear. We live in a democratic society, where women have half the vote on who gets into power. You may put that aside and focus on corporate power, things like differences in whether men or women get more top jobs, etc... but the flip side might be to ask questions such as how many of these men are doing such and such due to pressure from their wives or girlfriends. It depends on which form of power you are looking at. More generally, to say it Penn Jillette style, "I don't pretend to know all the answers, but one thing is for sure; it is NOT just that simple!"

"And as for the fact we’re automatically protected in certain issues, I’m sorry, but we aren’t." - Mumble Miss Mumble

The lack of prosecution of these perpetrators, when it very obviously would have been different with the genders reversed, is arguably an example contradicting your assertion.

"And you can accuse people of sexism all you want, but you don't know that this case would be treated differently if it was the other way around." - Mumble Miss Mumble

Just think about it. Picture a group of 8th grade boys ganging up on and stripping a terrified 5th grade girl, and posting the video to the Internet. They would be the target of a much stronger public moral outrage, at least, if only due to the stigma against male sexual abusers of children, one that evidently is not shared by female sexual abusers of children.

"I can think of a case that happened a while ago near where I live, where it was a young girl attacked by a boy, and nothing was done then either. Nothing. Didn't even get reported in the news or nothing, and the girl was eight, not eleven." - Mumble Miss Mumble

False equivalence. If it did not get reported in the news, how would the public be expected to know about it? How well-proven was it that it happened? In this case, the perpetrators literally showed everyone the evidence against them. I doubt you could find a case comparable to that. Had it been as public knowledge, there would probably be outrage less ambiguous than what we get now.

"There’s another troper telling the story of a similar incident, but again, with a girl as the victim. I don’t remember those cases even getting mentioned on this site, or the case I spoke about being mentioned either." - Mumble Miss Mumble

The case of the vicious 8 got reported in the media, and triggered PLENTY of outrage. Again, it tends to depend on how well the news is spread, how well proven it is, etc...

"But when it’s a boy as the victim, it suddenly gets all the attention, and everyone goes on about how no one cares when the victim’s a boy." - Mumble Miss Mumble

Not everyone. Did it ever occur to you that the people pointing this out are actually responding to something?

"Don't get me wrong, I think this is horrible and everything, but I don't see why everyone's dragging his gender into it." - Mumble Miss Mumble

What about when a woman gets fired from her job, or does not get a promotion, and one suspects gender had something to do with it? How do you feel about dragging gender into it then?

At the very least, it ought to be DISCUSSED. If logic is on your side, you should have no problem arguing your own case, unless you have poor argumentative skills.

"But there's no point in making men in general out to be the victims, that no one will care because it's a man who was attacked, when looking at this thread, six pages of absolute outrage, prove that people do care." - Mumble Miss Mumble

It proves that TV Tropes users tend to care. They are not necessarily a representative sample of humanity, though. I for one get the impression that people on this site have more compassion and moral integrity (the kinds of factors that would lead one to care about this) than most people do. Others on this site would consider TV Tropes users more progressive; hence the threads from a while back about TV Tropes being more welcoming to the gay community than some other sites, etc... and said progressiveness might also lead to more objection to such double standards.

Again, it is important to remember that people calling attention to the double standard does not come out of thin air. The double standard is obviously there, and TV Tropes users objecting to it does not disprove this.

"Do you really think if it was a girl who was attacked it'd get this much attention? Like I said earlier, no it wouldn’t." - Mumble Miss Mumble

Repeating a claim does not make it true.

"I'm also sick of having feminism insulted whenever a case like this comes up. Did feminists actually come out and say, “Who gives a crap, it’s only a boy?” No." - Mumble Miss Mumble

Their tendency to do much less about double standards like these than about double standards against women (some of which are arguably milder) makes it seem like they are implying that it matters less to them when the double standards disadvantage men. Actions speak louder than words.

Another dimension that ought to be discussed here are the effects of gender on your perception of these issues. Being feminist is one thing, but it is a very vaguely defined ideology label that is open to a lot of different interpretations. At least gender tells us what position someone is in, what is in their best interests, etc... talking about male feminists, female feminists, male nonfeminists, female nonfeminists, etc... would be more complete.

"If it was a girl who was assaulted, no one would be insulting men in general, or insulting masculinity" - Mumble Miss Mumble

Nonsense, it happens a lot. Look at Does Not Like Men, or Straw Feminist; hell, just think of cases of these among people you know. Ever hear someone say "ugh that asshole broke up with me, guys are horrible" etc? You are making a lot of assumptions here, some of which frankly strike me as going against the logic and evidence presented to you.

"I think certain men need to learn to see cases like this in the same way, whatever sex the victim is." - Mumble Miss Mumble

Again, do women need to say the same about alleged workplace discrimination cases?

"And I’m sorry if I offend anyone, but I’m a female victim of rape, molestation and domestic violence. I got no help from anyone when I needed it most, and even now, I still get very little sympathy from people who hear about it." - Mumble Miss Mumble

How do you know why that is, though? What makes you assume it was because you were female, and not because of whatever circumstances may have been involved in the trial, or the report, or the case in general? What if it is because of the way you express your complaints, or tell your story? How does your personal anecdote refute this cited example the rest of us know so much more about?

Whatever you have been through, it is important to remember that your life is not a representative sample of the world. It frankly strikes me as a false equivalence, to say that because you as an individual did not get help, that this refutes all concerns about the double standard at play. There are still plenty of cases of domestic abuse, rape, and molestation that DID generate sympathy for the victim; well-known cases like what happened to Rihanna are more reliable examples than mere anecdotes.

"It absolutely sickens me to hear men complaining that they get no help or sympathy, and women have it so easy when we get put into situations like that." - Mumble Miss Mumble

But is that sufficient excuse to make the same mistake? How much sympathy you get depends on the individual, but that does not refute general tendencies in sympathy, just as how much money you make depending on the individual does not refute general tendencies in it.

"I hate that whole point of view, that women have it much easier than men. Because I really hate to be the one to say it, but no we don’t. Take it from someone who knows." - Mumble Miss Mumble

No matter your experiences, the point remains that it is an opinion. You cannot "know" what is ultimately subjective.

BlackHumor Since: Jan, 2001
#141: Jun 6th 2011 at 5:12:47 PM

I agree with everything MMM said.

@neo: More like an assumption. Designed by men? Mostly. Designed for men? Unclear.

Of course it was designed for men. Don't be obtuse; feminism has already had three waves to get rid of various ways society was biased towards men and they're still not done yet.

The lack of prosecution of these perpetrators, when it very obviously would have been different with the genders reversed

How closely did you read her post? She's offered plenty of evidence it wouldn't be any different with the genders reversed, and this is a case of not taking sexual assault seriously enough instead of a case of sexism against men.

Just think about it. Picture a group of 8th grade boys ganging up on and stripping a terrified 5th grade girl, and posting the video to the Internet. They would be the target of a much stronger public moral outrage, at least, if only due to the stigma against male sexual abusers of children, one that evidently is not shared by female sexual abusers of children.

How do you know this? As she said, there have been stories of similar things having happened before where no charges were filed when it was boys assaulting a girl.

False equivalence. If it did not get reported in the news, how would the public be expected to know about it? How well-proven was it that it happened? In this case, the perpetrators literally showed everyone the evidence against them. I doubt you could find a case comparable to that. Had it been as public knowledge, there would probably be outrage less ambiguous than what we get now.

The outrage in this thread hasn't been ambiguous at all.

And there are plenty of comparable cases. Take a look at the whole Roman Polanski fiasco from a few years ago; he's still never done any time for that, and tons of actors were defending Polanski.

At the very least, it ought to be DISCUSSED. If logic is on your side, you should have no problem arguing your own case, unless you have poor argumentative skills.

Yes, which is what she's DOING.

Their tendency to do much less about double standards like these than about double standards against women (some of which are arguably milder) makes it seem like they are implying that it matters less to them when the double standards disadvantage men. Actions speak louder than words.

What? No they don't. I did link you to the many pages on NOW's website where it's official policy that they are for drafting women if there is a draft? I did link you to the tons of feminist blogs on the internet which all have at least post and usually more dedicated to "rape of men is bad too, mmmkay?"

At least gender tells us what position someone is in, what is in their best interests, etc... talking about male feminists, female feminists, male nonfeminists, female nonfeminists, etc... would be more complete.

No it wouldn't? Why does gender give you a better picture of the issue after you've added the ideological marker? Maybe radical feminists vs. liberal feminists vs. marxocapitalist feminists or whatever, but I, a male feminist, entirely agree with MMM, a female feminist.

Nonsense, it happens a lot. Look at Does Not Like Men, or Straw Feminist; hell, just think of cases of these among people you know. Ever hear someone say "ugh that asshole broke up with me, guys are horrible" etc? You are making a lot of assumptions here, some of which frankly strike me as going against the logic and evidence presented to you.

Not that it never happens, but look, for example, at the coverage of the DSK rape case. So far I've seen "the French are pigs" more than "men are pigs". Hell, I've seen more "hotel maids are pigs" than "men are pigs", which is really just sick.

Again, do women need to say the same about alleged workplace discrimination cases?

Do you have no ability to distinguish between properly and improperly bringing something up?

If I step on your toe, are you going to going to go "it must be because I'm a man!"?

No matter your experiences, the point remains that it is an opinion. You cannot "know" what is ultimately subjective.

If she can't, you can't either.

neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#142: Jun 6th 2011 at 5:38:29 PM

"Of course it was designed for men. Don't be obtuse; feminism has already had three waves to get rid of various ways society was biased towards men and they're still not done yet." - Black Humor

You say this as if there are no ways in which society seems to be biased towards women. I do not consider this alone to suggest it is to the same the extent MMM was arguing.

"How closely did you read her post? She's offered plenty of evidence it wouldn't be any different with the genders reversed" - Black Humor

And I already refuted why. Uncited anecdotes, false equivalences, and a general undercurrent of "exception disproves the rule" logic to her post.

Sexual assault in general is too often unreported, but let's not forget the double standard at play on top of it.

"How do you know this? As she said, there have been stories of similar things having happened before where no charges were filed when it was boys assaulting a girl." - Black Humor

As I said before, these cases are different in many ways. An incompetent cop may decide not to bother prosecuting a male rapist, but don't you think having footage of the rape go viral on the Internet and get mentioned on the news would provide an incentive to go after the perpetrators? Put aside the question of who files charges, don't you think the public outrage, for a comparably well-known gender-flipped case of this, would be significantly stronger, judging by the pattern of how popular opinion claims to feel about sexual abuse?

"The outrage in this thread hasn't been ambiguous at all." - Black Humor

I wasn't talking about this thread.

"And there are plenty of comparable cases. Take a look at the whole Roman Polanski fiasco from a few years ago; he's still never done any time for that, and tons of actors were defending Polanski." - Black Humor

That he is a CELEBRITY is kind of a source of error there. People who were celebrities prior to doing something tend to be more likely to have apologists for them. In this case, their only fame is through this video, and it is not the same kind of fame as one would get through acting.

"Yes, which is what she's DOING." - Black Humor

I never denied that. At the same time, however, she is implying that certain subject should not even have been brought up.

"I did link you to the tons of feminist blogs on the internet which all have at least post and usually more dedicated to "rape of men is bad too, mmmkay?"" - Black Humor

And yet, double standards against men in the context of things such as domestic abuse seem to have a lot more momentum than double standards against women in the context of subjects such as workplace discrimination. What do you attribute that to?

"If she can't, you can't either." - Black Humor

That's fine, but I wasn't the one claiming to "know" it.

MumbleMissMumble from Dublin Since: May, 2011
#143: Jun 6th 2011 at 5:59:15 PM

More like an assumption. Designed by men? Mostly. Designed for men? Unclear. We live in a democratic society, where women have half the vote on who gets into power. You may put that aside and focus on corporate power, things like differences in whether men or women get more top jobs, etc... but the flip side might be to ask questions such as how many of these men are doing such and such due to pressure from their wives or girlfriends. It depends on which form of power you are looking at. More generally, to say it Penn Jillette style, "I don't pretend to know all the answers, but one thing is for sure; it is NOT just that simple!"

Women have only had the vote for a very short amount of time compared to how long men have had it. So designed for men, yep, pretty much. I don’t see how wives or girlfriends pressurizing men into taking jobs really has anything to do with what I’m saying. Obviously, that’s bad, I just don’t think it has anything to do with this. Actually, that whole part came from someone claiming women have it so much better than men, which is obviously not true.

The lack of prosecution of these perpetrators, when it very obviously would have been different with the genders reversed, is arguably an example contradicting your assertion.

Well, not necessarily. You don’t know the reasons behind the mother letting them go, and you don’t know it ‘obviously would have been different with the genders reversed’. Like other people have said, maybe she didn’t want to drag her son through a court case, and maybe she figured the girls’ parents could handle them better than the law could. Or maybe it was because they’re still kids. Her reasons could have been completely unrelated to their sex, there’s no point making assumptions there.

Just think about it. Picture a group of 8th grade boys ganging up on and stripping a terrified 5th grade girl, and posting the video to the Internet. They would be the target of a much stronger public moral outrage, at least, if only due to the stigma against male sexual abusers of children, one that evidently is not shared by female sexual abusers of children.

I’m not American, so I don’t know how old 8th grade and 5th grade is, but I’m going to guess 5th grade is 11 year olds? Anyway, like I said, I do know of a case near me where this happened. I don’t think there was much more public moral outrage, it was still the same, a kid got hurt, people said it was terrible and moved on. There was nothing brought up about genders or anything, which is my point. Why should gender only become an issue when it’s a male victim? I do agree there’s a stronger stigma against male sexual abusers, though, but I kind of get the impression when it’s a kid, like a 14 year old male or female, the age is the more important part than the sex, but that’s just me. When you hear of other cases with teenaged and child abusers, it’s their age that seems to be treated as the more terrible part, not their sex, I don’t know if anyone else sees that, it’s just something interesting I’ve seen coming up, but maybe it’s all in my head.

False equivalence. If it did not get reported in the news, how would the public be expected to know about it? How well-proven was it that it happened? In this case, the perpetrators literally showed everyone the evidence against them. I doubt you could find a case comparable to that. Had it been as public knowledge, there would probably be outrage less ambiguous than what we get now.

I didn’t mention the public, I mentioned that nothing was done, similar to this case. Neither mothers reported the case, not the boy’s mother or the girl’s mother. That’s what I mean by nothing was done. People knew about it in the area, you could see the pictures on the internet and that, and I know the victim’s aunt, so it did happen. I don’t think the news should be reporting it in the way this case was reported though. It seems to be a lot more scarring for the child than what happened before. I mean, you can move on from things like that, but when it’s all over the news, and everyone knows about it, it’s not so easy. And I don’t think the outrage is all that ambiguous either, by the way.

The case of the vicious 8 got reported in the media, and triggered PLENTY of outrage. Again, it tends to depend on how well the news is spread, how well proven it is, etc...

But were their genders the main point of discussion? My speakers have chosen now to stop working. =/ Was she beaten up by eight teenagers, was that it? She wasn’t raped or anything, was she? And is she still alive?

Outrage doesn’t depend how well the news spreads or how well proven it is. The case I knew about caused a load of outrage where I live. So it didn’t spread nationwide, and so people in other countries never heard of it, it managed to horrify everyone in my area, everyone was disgusted. Same as they are here. Only thing that’s different is the gender wasn’t important when she was a girl.

Not everyone. Did it ever occur to you that the people pointing this out are actually responding to something?

Responding to what though? His gender was never brought up. I’d understand if the news and that was going on about his gender, but it’s not, it’s all yous saying how it’d be different if he was a girl. No one’s responding to anyone, they’re making up a problem that doesn’t exist in this case. I’m not saying it’s not a problem in other cases, because it is. But in this one, no, it’s really not, so it shouldn’t have been brought up.

What about when a woman gets fired from her job, or does not get a promotion, and one suspects gender had something to do with it? How do you feel about dragging gender into it then? At the very least, it ought to be DISCUSSED. If logic is on your side, you should have no problem arguing your own case, unless you have poor argumentative skills.

I still don’t think gender has anything to do with it. Unless it’s explicitly something to do with her being a woman, then gender probably has no place in the argument. I wouldn’t presume straight away, “Oh, if she’d been a man, she would have gotten the job,” unless I had a reason to suspect that, which I usually wouldn’t. I wouldn’t play the gender card for the sake of it, which I think people are kind of doing here. There’s one thing playing it if it needs to be played, there’s another playing it for no real reason, other than the fact that you can.

And don’t insult me, thanks, I’m allowed to give my point of view.

Again, it is important to remember that people calling attention to the double standard does not come out of thin air. The double standard is obviously there, and TV Tropes users objecting to it does not disprove this.

But the double standard never came up in the case, that’s what I’m trying to say. The video was posted, with nothing said about the double standard, and then, a troper posted under this, “Would it have made a difference if he was a girl?” I don’t see how it relates. Would it have been different if he was black? If he was one-legged? If he was Chinese? I don’t know, it has no relevance to the discussion, so there’s no need to bring it up. Can we not just agree that it’s a horrible story without bringing gender into it?

Repeating a claim does not make it true.

Um, I never repeated myself to make my claim true. I repeated myself so I could make another point. ;)

Their tendency to do much less about double standards like these than about double standards against women (some of which are arguably milder) makes it seem like they are implying that it matters less to them when the double standards disadvantage men. Actions speak louder than words. Another dimension that ought to be discussed here are the effects of gender on your perception of these issues. Being feminist is one thing, but it is a very vaguely defined ideology label that is open to a lot of different interpretations. At least gender tells us what position someone is in, what is in their best interests, etc... talking about male feminists, female feminists, male nonfeminists, female nonfeminists, etc... would be more complete.

Well, to be fair, a feminist is going to be more concerned about women’s rights than men’s, in the same way a gay rights activist will be more concerned about the rights of a lesbian than a straight girl. They do have to pick their battles, so I don’t see anything wrong with that. Except since no feminist came out and said anything bad about this, so they shouldn’t be insulted. I didn’t see anyone coming out and defending the kid’s right as a white person, so let’s go insult black people. It’s kind of like that, makes no sense.

I’m sorry if I sound stupid, but I don’t really understand the second half of that paragraph.

Nonsense, it happens a lot. Look at Does Not Like Men, or Straw Feminist; hell, just think of cases of these among people you know. Ever hear someone say "ugh that asshole broke up with me, guys are horrible" etc? You are making a lot of assumptions here, some of which frankly strike me as going against the logic and evidence presented to you.

There’s a bit of a difference between someone breaking up with you, and someone sexually assaulting you, so they can’t really be compared. Yeah, you hear girls saying that, but you also hear men moaning about all women over being over-emotional and that when they’re having their periods. It’s mostly joking, and I wouldn’t take offence to it. Slagging off and completely turning on the other gender over sexual abuse is very different. It’s like me going and saying, “Look at all the men outraged over this case. Clearly they just want to rape me and get away with it, but they don’t want to be raped themselves. Assholes.” That’s not true. You get some horrible, disgusting, sick people, but they very rarely represent the whole group they belong to. You get someone bad from every group. Doesn’t mean anything. As a woman, I don’t look for special privileges, as I’ve heard before, and I’m not trying to put men down. I just want people to be treated fairly. I want black people and white people to be treated the same. Does that mean I think white people are better than black people? No, so I don’t get where some people get these ideas of feminism from. =/

Again, do women need to say the same about alleged workplace discrimination cases?

Again, just because a woman doesn’t get a job doesn’t make it sexism, and unless there was a proper reason for suspecting sexism, most women I know wouldn’t bring it up.

How do you know why that is, though? What makes you assume it was because you were female, and not because of whatever circumstances may have been involved in the trial, or the report, or the case in general? What if it is because of the way you express your complaints, or tell your story? How does your personal anecdote refute this cited example the rest of us know so much more about?

Well I can’t speak for everyone, I can only give my own personal opinion, and tell you how I, as a survivor found things, and that no, women don’t always find it easier than men. There’s still a stigma attached to being a sexual-abuse survivor, and that stigma’s there whether you’re a man or woman. You can’t deny there isn’t a stigma, that there isn’t a culture of ‘blaming the victim,’ of treating the victim differently rbecause of what happened, of looking down on victims. Also, I never assumed I was treated badly because I’m female. I was treated like that because of what happened to me, not because I’m a woman. I do think men can be treated badly when they survive abuse, and that yes, it can be different to how women are treated, but it doesn’t make either way better. It’s not any easier for either sex. And this case has nothing to do with the double standard, because you can’t prove the boy’s gender affected how things played out.

But is that sufficient excuse to make the same mistake? Howr much sympathy you get depends on the individual, but that does not refute general tendencies in sympathy, just as how much money you make depending on the individual does not refute general tendencies in it.

What mistake, now? Yeah, it depends on the individual, but I disagree that in general women get more sympathy when they’re the victims. I do think men and women are treated differently, but no better or worse than each other. Look at it like this, say someone got drunk, passed out and was raped while they were unconscious. If it was a man, it’d probably be a funny story. If it was a woman, it’d be all her fault for getting drunk to start with. I don’t think either is better, I think both views are sickening, and society’s view on rape victims needs to be changed.

No matter your experiences, the point remains that it is an opinion. You cannot "know" what is ultimately subjective.

No, I can say that for certain, from my experiences, women who get abused have it no easier than men who get abused. At the end of the day, no matter the public reaction, there’s still the nightmares, the regrets and the personal feelings you yourself feel as a victim, and you can feel like that whether you’re a boy or a girl. Women don’t have it easier than men when they get abused, and that’s what I’m trying to argue about. Don’t remember men being able to get pregnant after all. I know that last bit’s a bit bitchy, and I’m sorry, but it is an added pressure when you’re a woman who’s been raped by a man.

Basically to summarize what I’m trying to say.

1. Women don’t get treated much better when they are sexually abused.

2. This case has nothing to do with any sort of double standard, so it shouldn’t be brought up.

3. I don’t want people thinking those horrible bitches represent women as a whole, because I hate people like them.

4. I feel so bad for the poor kid, and I don’t care if he’s male or female or anything else, he’s still a kid who didn’t deserve this.

Edit-OK, I'm sorry for writing so much, I just went on and on and on, sorry. Also, I didn't even notice the two more posts since I finished writing this, I'm not just ignoring you, I was just busy writing this monstrosity. DX

edited 6th Jun '11 6:04:00 PM by MumbleMissMumble

BlackHumor Since: Jan, 2001
#144: Jun 6th 2011 at 6:13:21 PM

And yet, double standards against men in the context of things such as domestic abuse seem to have a lot more momentum than double standards against women in the context of subjects such as workplace discrimination. What do you attribute that to?

Because... there are more double standards against women? It's not exactly a difficult answer.

Just because there are injustices against everyone doesn't mean those injustices are all weighted the same. There are disadvantages to being white, but they're nowhere near the disadvantages to being black. Similarly, there are disadvantages to being male, but they're nowhere near the disadvantages to being female.

victorinox243 victorinox243 Since: Nov, 2009
victorinox243
#145: Jun 6th 2011 at 6:51:50 PM

I would call that attempted rape and have those girls listed as sex offenders.

I remember discussing the role of women in the military in high school. One student argued that they shouldn't be in the military because of the risks of getting raped. When I pointed out that men can also get raped, everybody in the classroom laughed as if it was some comedic comeback.

edited 6th Jun '11 7:10:16 PM by victorinox243

thespacephantom Jamais vu from the smallest church in Saint-Saëns Since: Oct, 2009
Jamais vu
#146: Jun 6th 2011 at 7:10:31 PM

I would think of it as attempted rape too.

edited 6th Jun '11 7:10:45 PM by thespacephantom

UN JOUR JE SERAI DE RETOUR PRÈS DE TOI
abstractematics Since: May, 2011
#147: Jun 6th 2011 at 9:29:27 PM

[up][up]By that logic, the student shouldn't have pointed that out in the first place. Don't they separate men and women in military camps anyway?

Now using Trivialis handle.
QQQQQ from Canada Since: Jul, 2011
#148: Jun 7th 2011 at 8:33:46 PM

Mira, they acted like bums to him.. but I don't feel that brutally revenging on them with spankings would help anything, or telling them to "go rot in hell." Their parents should show them the embarrassment they have inflicted upon him, so that they would understand and apologize to him for what they've done, on their own behalves.

Their apology should come sincere from their hearts - not because of the thousand voices threatening them to repent or die.

edited 7th Jun '11 8:34:17 PM by QQQQQ

neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#149: Jun 8th 2011 at 2:05:01 PM

"I don’t see how wives or girlfriends pressurizing men into taking jobs really has anything to do with what I’m saying." - Mumble Miss Mumble

I'm not just talking about jobs. I'm talking about guys doing various kinds of things on behalf of their wives or girlfriends.

"Actually, that whole part came from someone claiming women have it so much better than men, which is obviously not true." - Mumble Miss Mumble

But can "men having it so much better" be "true" either? It is subjective by its very nature, if only because which double standards are worse is a matter of priorities.

"Well, not necessarily. You don’t know the reasons behind the mother letting them go" - Mumble Miss Mumble

Put aside the mother for a minute, and think about the public. Picture the same scenario, gender-flipped. A group of 8th-grade guys force a terrified 5th-grade girl to strip naked, and post the video onto the Internet. The video goes viral.

Consider the expressed popular attitudes towards male "perverts" and then consider how much more cruel and aggressive that case would be than normal "perverted" behaviour. There is no way that kind of thing could go viral without yielding condemnation of the act much fiercer than what we had with this one. The mockers of the victim would be further and fewer, and they would be met with a lot more condemnation themselves than the ones in that video's comments section.

"Anyway, like I said, I do know of a case near me where this happened. I don’t think there was much more public moral outrage, it was still the same, a kid got hurt, people said it was terrible and moved on. There was nothing brought up about genders or anything, which is my point." - Mumble Miss Mumble

You did not answer my question about how proven it was, or how well known it was. This case involved the perpetrators posting the act to the Internet and gloating about it. For comparison, these questions are important, as otherwise your points could just as easily be a false equivalence.

"But were their genders the main point of discussion?" - Mumble Miss Mumble

Of course not. But my point is, we did not see the kind of "the victim must have done SOMETHING to deserve it" assumptions like we see when the victim is a man. Again, people bring gender into it because it seems to have an effect.

"Was she beaten up by eight teenagers, was that it? She wasn’t raped or anything, was she? And is she still alive?" - Mumble Miss Mumble

I think she survived, though I am not sure. She was not raped from what I heard, but she was very brutally beaten up in a way that I do not think is much less heinous than rape.

"So it didn’t spread nationwide, and so people in other countries never heard of it, it managed to horrify everyone in my area, everyone was disgusted. Same as they are here." - Mumble Miss Mumble

Uh, not everyone was disgusted here. Just look at that comments section.

"No one’s responding to anyone, they’re making up a problem that doesn’t exist in this case." - Mumble Miss Mumble

Again, simply repeating this claim does not constitute an argument for it.

"I still don’t think gender has anything to do with it. Unless it’s explicitly something to do with her being a woman, then gender probably has no place in the argument." - Mumble Miss Mumble

At least you're being consistent about it, but in practice, I tend to doubt the average person is. When I see double standards like the one in the context of abuse, (and that is obviously not the only example; turning men away from homeless shelters to protect the women in them is another example that comes to mind) and compare reactions to them to how double standards against women are approached, one suspects that consistency was abandoned somewhere even if one is not sure by whom.

"Can we not just agree that it’s a horrible story without bringing gender into it?" - Mumble Miss Mumble

We need to discuss whatever may be relevant so as to be able to better prevent these kinds of things. Unless you are sure a factor is irrelevant it SHOULD be discussed, as you never know what consequences ignoring a relevant factor could have.

"Well, to be fair, a feminist is going to be more concerned about women’s rights than men’s" - Mumble Miss Mumble

... which, in a way, is sort of sexist itself. They do not have to fight for the rights of men, sure, but better people would be fighting injustice in EITHER direction.

What separates you from others who use this cliche is that you are actually arguing for the idea that these double standards are not as prominent. Others would say "oh yeah these double standards are just as bad, but that's not MY problem" etc. you actually seem to take the approach of discussing which are worse and why, which makes you seem more intellectually honest than most.

"There’s a bit of a difference between someone breaking up with you, and someone sexually assaulting you, so they can’t really be compared." - Mumble Miss Mumble

My point was not to compare them. My point is that people making blanket generalizations based on personal experiences goes in either direction.

"As a woman, I don’t look for special privileges, as I’ve heard before, and I’m not trying to put men down. I just want people to be treated fairly." - Mumble Miss Mumble

Again, you come across as meaning that, but when I look at the approach women seem to take to double standards against them in comparison to ones favouring them, I get the impression that it is about seeking advantage, not about being treated fairly. The same can be said for men too, of course, but I get the impression that it is to a lesser extent, which I attribute to aspects of life like romance. (See the other thread.)

"Again, just because a woman doesn’t get a job doesn’t make it sexism, and unless there was a proper reason for suspecting sexism, most women I know wouldn’t bring it up." - Mumble Miss Mumble

The other question is whether or not they would distance themselves from those bringing it up.

"Well I can’t speak for everyone, I can only give my own personal opinion, and tell you how I, as a survivor found things, and that no, women don’t always find it easier than men." - Mumble Miss Mumble

I never said they "always" did. My point was simply an advantage women TEND to have in the context of abuse in general, including sexual abuse. That there are women who are blamed by some for being victimized by sexual abuse (which also varies on how many, in what circumstances, etc...) does not itself refute the notion of double standards involved here. Another woman claiming to have been a sexual abuse victim herself seems to agree on that point, so you do not speak for sexual abuse victims in any case.

"No, I can say that for certain, from my experiences, women who get abused have it no easier than men who get abused." - Mumble Miss Mumble

Again, you do not speak for sexual abuse victims here, even female ones, as it turned out earlier on that thread.

An individual victim may be disbelieved due to some circumstances or other, but generally speaking, people accept that rape of women by men HAPPENS. People generally just question the assumptions about what is actually a case of that. Rape of women by men, for comparison, tends to often be questioned as to whether or not it happens at all. Comparing these different kinds of disbelief is a false equivalence, to say the very least.

"Don’t remember men being able to get pregnant after all." - Mumble Miss Mumble

Not get pregnant, you mean? And again, it all depends on priorities. A guy could get raped by a girl, and be so widely disbelieved about it being rape that he is expected to pay child support payments. (In some cases of female-on-male "statutory rape" the guy is expected to pay anyway, though granted statutory rape is a different issue.) Compare that with abortion, wherein women who were pregnant from rape or from statutory rape tend to be treated less judgmentally than other women if they resort to abortion.

edited 8th Jun '11 2:13:12 PM by neoYTPism

Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#150: Jun 8th 2011 at 2:36:43 PM

Neo, you are not going to turn this into another instance of your exploring your issues with women in voluminous length. Consider this a warning.

A brighter future for a darker age.

Total posts: 284
Top