[Scrapped]

[Jagalonia]

how is it that women are classified as "weaker" than men when and only whenever it's so fucking convenient for them to get away with shit? If a Non Action Guy was verbally abusing an un-hot strong Amazon by calling her a dork, ugly, horrible, and gay, would that mean she's not allowed to hit him? Calling a girl ugly alone would get him beaten up, and witnesses would cheer the girl for it.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/T ... eUnfairSex

Basically, this is in the responses to the 2nd anecdote; the person who submitted that anecdote claims he was being verbally abused by a group of girls, then he one of them, and then EVERYONE sided with the girls who verbally abused him. He obviously shouldn't have resorted to violence in the first place, but it does seem somewhat telling that if genders in that anecdote were reversed, and it was guys verbally abusing a girl and the girl resorting to violence, she'd probably be regarded a lot more sympathetically than a guy is for resorting to violence against girls who verbally abuse him.

At the very least, that group of girls is hypocritical for emotionally hurting the guy and then acting indignant when the guy physically hurts one of them.

First off, I know we can't rely on its truthfulness since this is the Internet and all, but that this is even plausible carries implications all its own... whatever reasons there are for this kind of double standard consist of either the idea that women are physically weaker or that they're held to lower standards of rationality... popular opinion seems to regard either line of reasoning as unacceptable in the context of workplace discrimination, and yet seems fond of it in contexts like these. The same reasoning is used to justify these kinds of double standards when the same kind of reasoning is considered asinine elsewhere.

Somewhere along the line, someone abandoned consistency.

Women are better at victemizing themselves....They can cry.

[Dakini]

The "source", my arrogant friend, is my personal experience.

Then it's utterly meaningless. Even if I didn't already distrust the veracity of your statements (especially ones concerning genders) based on your previous posts in this forum, there's no way to verify the source so it doesn't belong in a debate.

If you were expecting something on the internet, I am underwhelmed, and you will be too.

If an opinion is at all prevalent it will exist somewhere on the internet.

Furthermore, you seem to have a serious complex where you think just because YOU'VE only ever done something, that means it's the same for everybody. That is where you are arrogant and wrong.

I'm not the only one who hasn't ever done this. Read the thread. Do you see any feminists on here claiming that it's ok for girls to hit boys?

My female acquaintance, who I shall not name for you, supports whole heartedly hitting boyfriends who are rude. This is unacceptable, and feminist in the extreme. And by rude, I mean simply making jokes that offend, as I have seen this view of hers in action.

This is not feminism at all. Feminism is the belief that men and women are equal, this means that women should treat men as equals, not as subjects for physical violence (and that the reverse should be true).
Further, your initial statement was:

I find it funny that feminists like to encourage the idea that women are stronger than men, but then get just as pissed when a guy hits a girl. Very ironic.

I fail to see how your example shows that feminists believe that women are stronger than men or how feminists get pissed when a guy hits a girl. So you haven't even provided shoddy evidence to support your initial statements.

And I have to point out something to YOU. You are pissy.

For someone who isn't fond of being called sexist you're doing a great job at acting like you are.

Every time I point out a double standard coming from YOUR arena, you become arrogant and foolish. Do you honestly think that observing something that offends you makes it wrong? Hardly.

No, I think that you misunderstand what feminism is and make erroneous statements without basis in reality. If you'd stop doing that then I'd stop pointing this out. You've also demonstrated extremely sexist behaviour in the past, giving me reason to be extremely suspicious of your posts on these sorts of topics to begin with.

[Hayteria]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/T ... eUnfairSex

Basically, this is in the responses to the 2nd anecdote; the person who submitted that anecdote claims he was being verbally abused by a group of girls, then he one of them, and then EVERYONE sided with the girls who verbally abused him. He obviously shouldn't have resorted to violence in the first place, but it does seem somewhat telling that if genders in that anecdote were reversed, and it was guys verbally abusing a girl and the girl resorting to violence, she'd probably be regarded a lot more sympathetically than a guy is for resorting to violence against girls who verbally abuse him.

At the very least, that group of girls is hypocritical for emotionally hurting the guy and then acting indignant when the guy physically hurts one of them.

First off, I know we can't rely on its truthfulness since this is the Internet and all, but that this is even plausible carries implications all its own... whatever reasons there are for this kind of double standard consist of either the idea that women are physically weaker or that they're held to lower standards of rationality... popular opinion seems to regard either line of reasoning as unacceptable in the context of workplace discrimination, and yet seems fond of it in contexts like these. The same reasoning is used to justify these kinds of double standards when the same kind of reasoning is considered asinine elsewhere.

Somewhere along the line, someone abandoned consistency.

Women are better at victemizing themselves....They can cry.

Well, guys can as well, but they're just thought of as crybabies when they do.

[Jagalonia]

Women are better at victemizing themselves....They can cry.

Well, guys can as well, but they're just thought of as crybabies when they do.

My point exactly.

[Gagatron]

The "source", my arrogant friend, is my personal experience.

Then it's utterly meaningless. Even if I didn't already distrust the veracity of your statements (especially ones concerning genders) based on your previous posts in this forum, there's no way to verify the source so it doesn't belong in a debate.

If you were expecting something on the internet, I am underwhelmed, and you will be too.

If an opinion is at all prevalent it will exist somewhere on the internet.

Furthermore, you seem to have a serious complex where you think just because YOU'VE only ever done something, that means it's the same for everybody. That is where you are arrogant and wrong.

I'm not the only one who hasn't ever done this. Read the thread. Do you see any feminists on here claiming that it's ok for girls to hit boys?

My female acquaintance, who I shall not name for you, supports whole heartedly hitting boyfriends who are rude. This is unacceptable, and feminist in the extreme. And by rude, I mean simply making jokes that offend, as I have seen this view of hers in action.

This is not feminism at all. Feminism is the belief that men and women are equal, this means that women should treat men as equals, not as subjects for physical violence (and that the reverse should be true).
Further, your initial statement was:

I find it funny that feminists like to encourage the idea that women are stronger than men, but then get just as pissed when a guy hits a girl. Very ironic.

I fail to see how your example shows that feminists believe that women are stronger than men or how feminists get pissed when a guy hits a girl. So you haven't even provided shoddy evidence to support your initial statements.

And I have to point out something to YOU. You are pissy.

For someone who isn't fond of being called sexist you're doing a great job at acting like you are.

Every time I point out a double standard coming from YOUR arena, you become arrogant and foolish. Do you honestly think that observing something that offends you makes it wrong? Hardly.

No, I think that you misunderstand what feminism is and make erroneous statements without basis in reality. If you'd stop doing that then I'd stop pointing this out. You've also demonstrated extremely sexist behaviour in the past, giving me reason to be extremely suspicious of your posts on these sorts of topics to begin with.

Do you really expect me to take the time to respond to every little sentence in quotes? That's a nuisance.

I will say this though; I'm not anymore sexist than you are religious.

[Dakini]

Do you really expect me to take the time to respond to every little sentence in quotes? That's a nuisance.

No, but I expect you to actually provide evidence for your statements if you want to argue that they are representative of reality and perhaps not call other people "pissy" when you consistently fail to do this.

I will say this though; I'm not anymore sexist than you are religious.

Yes, because saying that women who aren't passive don't display the "loveliest behaviour" isn't sexist at all.

[Gagatron]

Yes, because saying that women who aren't passive don't display the "loveliest behaviour" isn't sexist at all.

That post is nothing more than me complaing that I don't like controlling(etc) girls, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't construe that to serve as your "evidence".

[Dakini]

Yes, because saying that women who aren't passive don't display the "loveliest behaviour" isn't sexist at all.

That post is nothing more than me complaing that I don't like controlling(etc) girls, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't construe that to serve as your "evidence".

No, you clearly said that if girls aren't passive then they're screaming, talking back and don't care about other people's emotions etc. That wasn't the only thing you said that was incredibly sexist, mind you, that was just the easiest to find.

If you don't want people to think you're sexist, stop saying sexist things.

[Gagatron]

That post is nothing more than me complaing that I don't like controlling(etc) girls, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't construe that to serve as your "evidence".

No, you clearly said that if girls aren't passive then they're screaming, talking back and don't care about other people's emotions etc. That wasn't the only thing you said that was incredibly sexist, mind you, that was just the easiest to find.

If you don't want people to think you're sexist, stop saying sexist things.

Well, if you don't want people to think you're pissy, stop flaring your temper every time things don't go your way.

And seriously, I thought it would be a no-brainer that screaming is non-passive. -___-

[Dakini]

No, you clearly said that if girls aren't passive then they're screaming, talking back and don't care about other people's emotions etc. That wasn't the only thing you said that was incredibly sexist, mind you, that was just the easiest to find.

If you don't want people to think you're sexist, stop saying sexist things.

Well, if you don't want people to think you're pissy, stop flaring your temper every time things don't go your way.

And seriously, I thought it would be a no-brainer that screaming is non-passive. -___-

So far you're the only person who has called me pissy. I'm not the only person who has called you sexist (nor am I the only person you've called pissy).

There's also a large difference between being assertive and being the sort of raving bitch you described.

[/threadjack]

[Gagatron]

Well, if you don't want people to think you're pissy, stop flaring your temper every time things don't go your way.

And seriously, I thought it would be a no-brainer that screaming is non-passive. -___-

So far you're the only person who has called me pissy. I'm not the only person who has called you sexist (nor am I the only person you've called pissy).

There's also a large difference between being assertive and being the sort of raving bitch you described.

[/threadjack]

But what happens when she tries to "assert" her self and is denied? Pretty often, she becomes what you call a raving bitch.

[Dakini]

So far you're the only person who has called me pissy. I'm not the only person who has called you sexist (nor am I the only person you've called pissy).

There's also a large difference between being assertive and being the sort of raving bitch you described.

[/threadjack]

But what happens when she tries to "assert" her self and is denied? Pretty often, she becomes what you call a raving bitch.

1. I find it funny that the idea of a woman being assertive deserves scarequotes.
2. Evidence for women often becoming "raving bitches" when they aren't permitted to be assertive?
3. Evidence that women are more likely to become "raving bitches" than men are to become the male equivalent?
4. We're going on a threadjack here and should probably stop anyway.

[Gagatron]

But what happens when she tries to "assert" her self and is denied? Pretty often, she becomes what you call a raving bitch.

1. I find it funny that the idea of a woman being assertive deserves scarequotes.
2. Evidence for women often becoming "raving bitches" when they aren't permitted to be assertive?
3. Evidence that women are more likely to become "raving bitches" than men are to become the male equivalent?
4. We're going on a threadjack here and should probably stop anyway.

Okay, you have a point.

[Hayteria]

Well, guys can as well, but they're just thought of as crybabies when they do.

My point exactly.

Meh, I guess it just wasn't well worded then.

[Nazi Flower Power]

You think you have me all figured out, huh? If that's what you want to believe go ahead. -.-

He's going to make a thread about people on the internet who presume to know things about him, now.

Well, not NOW, but in, like, maybe 9 months, totally.

He actually has already done that.

[Nazi Flower Power]

According to that anecdote, EVERYONE the guy knew in person sided with the group of girls. That suggests that the double standard IS pretty common, at least where he lives.

Or it suggests the guy was an asshole, and he really was wrong. Considering he resorted to violence without being physically threatened, this asshole theory is sounding pretty good.

[Nazi Flower Power]

This doesn't really warrant discussion. Obviously if a woman is justified in hitting a man, and man would be justified in hitting a woman in the same situation. Knowing so little about the facts of this anecdotal situation, there's nothing to be gained trying to hash out whether the responses of those present would have been the same had the genders been reversed.

Oh please, we know enough. That the girls were heavily verbally abusing him means we know that they intended to cause him emotional harm. That they persisted in it means we know they wanted to get as much in as they could get away with. That he resorted to violence means we know that either he thought the benefit of hurting one of them outweighed the trouble he'd get in, or he was upset enough not to think it through rationally. That everyone sided with the girls as a result of this means we know that the people around him didn't mind him being persistently verbally abused, but did mind him physically hurting one of them.

And Ashmoria, at least you're being consistent. I just think more consideration should be given to the impact of being upset on their rationality, and at least some blame should be shifted onto them for provoking him in the first place.

We do NOT know how much they did to provoke him. He says they were heavily verbally abusing him, but that's his biased opinion. We haven't heard the other side of the story from anyone else who was there. We haven't seen a video or anything. Biased opinions aren't ALWAYS wrong, but they aren't reliable either.

[Nazi Flower Power]

id have to doubt it. in the absense of any objective view of the case and WITH his description of it being horrifying, id have to go with the crowd. usually at least your best friend sides with you even if he thinks you were an asshole.

What if they were only pretending to be his friends just to set him up? What if they and the girls were working together to prank the guy into resorting to violence just so they could all say he was in the wrong?

WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY DO THAT????

You said the guy had no reason to lie, but you can't see that everyone else has no reason to conspire against him like this?

[Nazi Flower Power]

Gagatron, "feminist", by definition, means someone who thinks men and women should be considered equal, not that women are "stronger". Also, I've heard sexist people say many times that men should take it "like a man" if a woman hits him--because, after all, it's just a woman. But I have never heard this from a feminist, and, in fact, it directly contradicts the fundamental precept of feminism, which means anyone who says it is not a feminist anymore than someone who claims the government should own everything is a capitalist.

Well said.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Well, guys can as well, but they're just thought of as crybabies when they do.

My point exactly.

That double standard, unlike the one described in the OP, is very real and widespread.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Yes, because saying that women who aren't passive don't display the "loveliest behaviour" isn't sexist at all.

That post is nothing more than me complaing that I don't like controlling(etc) girls, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't construe that to serve as your "evidence".

It really did come off sounding sexist.

[Hayteria]

Or it suggests the guy was an asshole, and he really was wrong. Considering he resorted to violence without being physically threatened, this asshole theory is sounding pretty good.

Resorting to violence doesn't NECESSARILY mean he's an asshole; it could mean that he was so upset that it got in the way of his better judgment, something that being surrounded and then continuously verbally abused by people of the opposite sex could cause.

We do NOT know how much they did to provoke him. He says they were heavily verbally abusing him, but that's his biased opinion. We haven't heard the other side of the story from anyone else who was there.

True enough, but what do you think "the other side of the story" could say that would sufficiently explain it? Ifreann argued for the idea that they may have been just joking or trying to have fun, but as I pointed out earlier, if that were the case I would think someone would have told him so.

You said the guy had no reason to lie

If I said that it's probably a poor choice of words on my part. If I recall correctly, what I meant was that it doesn't seem likely that the guy would have a reason to lie that would have led him to put it on TV tropes. I'd think if he were lying for attention, he'd have gone to a more mainstream site like youtube or facebook.

but you can't see that everyone else has no reason to conspire against him like this?

What do you mean, "no reason"? If everyone decided it would be "fun" to humiliate a guy, make him upset, get him in trouble, make him more upset, etc... then yes, they have a reason to conspire againt him. What makes you think they'd have no reason?

[Bottle]

Well, guys can as well, but they're just thought of as crybabies when they do.

My point exactly.

In my personal experience (NOTE: NOT MAKING CLAIM OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE) girls get the same amount of contempt for crying that guys do, it's just that when guys do it they are called "crybabies" and when girls do it they are called...girls. The fact that girls are assumed to be wimpy and emotional doesn't really help things. The fact that I'm EXPECTED to be a "crybaby" because I'm female, and therefore if I cry it will be chalked up to my natural feminine wussiness, isn't really a good thing.

[Hayteria]

My point exactly.

In my personal experience (NOTE: NOT MAKING CLAIM OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE) girls get the same amount of contempt for crying that guys do, it's just that when guys do it they are called "crybabies" and when girls do it they are called...girls. The fact that girls are assumed to be wimpy and emotional doesn't really help things. The fact that I'm EXPECTED to be a "crybaby" because I'm female, and therefore if I cry it will be chalked up to my natural feminine wussiness, isn't really a good thing.

Or alternatively, attributed to something someeone did to them? From the same page I linked to earlier, another anecdote further down the page says the following:

Something that happened when I was younger. I was on the playground, racing with a girl. She pushed me over and I fell onto the hard sidewalk, getting a large cut on my leg, making me cry. Everyone who saw it thought it was funny. I went back to her and pushed her into the nice soft grass. She gave a clearly fake little cry. Guess who was immediately taken to the principals office for a ten minute lecture on why its important to be nice to girls?

Again, this anecdote might not necessarily be true, but if it is, it's another example of "girls' crying eliciting more sympathy than guys' crying."

[Bottle]

In my personal experience (NOTE: NOT MAKING CLAIM OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE) girls get the same amount of contempt for crying that guys do, it's just that when guys do it they are called "crybabies" and when girls do it they are called...girls. The fact that girls are assumed to be wimpy and emotional doesn't really help things. The fact that I'm EXPECTED to be a "crybaby" because I'm female, and therefore if I cry it will be chalked up to my natural feminine wussiness, isn't really a good thing.

Or alternatively, attributed to something someeone did to them? From the same page I linked to earlier, another anecdote further down the page says the following:

Something that happened when I was younger. I was on the playground, racing with a girl. She pushed me over and I fell onto the hard sidewalk, getting a large cut on my leg, making me cry. Everyone who saw it thought it was funny. I went back to her and pushed her into the nice soft grass. She gave a clearly fake little cry. Guess who was immediately taken to the principals office for a ten minute lecture on why its important to be nice to girls?

Again, this anecdote might not necessarily be true, but if it is, it's another example of "girls' crying eliciting more sympathy than guys' crying."

Maybe it's because I live in cities, but I've never felt that crying gets me sympathy. Most people ignore a crying woman where I live.

As far as girls getting more help than boys when they cry, I'm guessing it has something to do with how girls are assumed to be weaker and more fragile. I mean, I used to get a lot more teacher protection than anybody else when I was in school, but it was because I was freaking tiny. [Seriously, when I was in 4th grade a hall monitor asked if I needed help finding my way back to my kindergarten classroom.] Teachers tend to look out for the kids who they perceive are less able to look out for themselves. Boys are assumed to be "naturally" rough and tumble, so boys are more often expected to take care of themselves.