Lets get this out into the open: MRAs

[Borachio]

I think you right that there isn't an explicit phrase, in popular use, "Be a woman!".

There is, though, a mild reprimand that I've heard "That's not very feminine," which might be considered, by implication, to be equivalent.

 

[Oruc]

No. Maybe not actively. Nor as much as they were.

But have you not noticed they tend to swear less than men?

They also tend to talk - how shall I say? - more up-class?

You obviously live in a nicer area then I do.

 

[Borachio]

Not necessarily. I'm no stranger to women who swear. A lot. It's just that I've noticed they still do so a lot less, and use the stronger registers less often, than their menfolk.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think you right that there isn't an explicit phrase, in popular use, "Be a woman!".

There is, though, a mild reprimand that I've heard "That's not very feminine," which might be considered, by implication, to be equivalent.

Very good. So if we want to proceed in our analysis to the next blade of grass providing a drag on our female runner, we can examine the asymmetry between "Be a man!" and its closest equivalent: "That's not very feminine" (or ladylike).

The male version is an exhortation; the female version, as you point out, a reprimand. The male is being encouraged (+) to attempt (future) valorized (+) behavior, and, implicitly, trusted (+) that it is likely he will be able to do so. The woman is being corrected (-) for (past) disapproved (-) behavior, and not trusted (-) to choose her own mode of acting.

A path is being opened for the boy; one is being closed down for the girl. That's bad enough, but remember, it goes further than that. The girl will internalize that femininity itself is associated with avoiding acting; the boy, that masculinity is a mode of action. Who do you suppose will be the more confident agent, even in non-gender-related activities, going forward?

 

[Borachio]

Well, plainly the girl. She faces certainty and convention. Her path is clearly marked.

The boy faces uncertainty and must prove himself worthy of his destiny. His fear of failure must at times be paralyzing.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Ah, fair enough. Two meanings of "confident."

"Intrepid," then.

 

[Luckymoose]

There are numerous biases against men in modern society. The assumption of material gain by men, and the culture surrounding it, puts men in a very narrow lifestyle stream. The issue isn't so much based on truth as it is extremism by feminists or MRAs. The actual facts can be found through studying gender bias in society, for both sides, and how our culture forces us into roles and expectations. Men are no more free than women in those regards. We are raised and expected to behave masculine, as the provider and supporter and worker. But that has very little to do with reality and more to do with cultural bias.

Don't assume men aren't suffering in society. We might not suffer in the same ways as women, but we do have biases against us that force us to behave in ways we often disagree with. Industrial and modern society really put a stunt in masculine expectations. We may earn more, or have more opportunities, but we're just as open to ridicule or forced into narrow paths by society to the point of depression and stunted societal progress.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Very good. So if we want to proceed in our analysis to the next blade of grass providing a drag on our female runner, we can examine the asymmetry between "Be a man!" and its closest equivalent: "That's not very feminine" (or ladylike).

The male version is an exhortation; the female version, as you point out, a reprimand. The male is being encouraged (+) to attempt (future) valorized (+) behavior, and, implicitly, trusted (+) that it is likely he will be able to do so. The woman is being corrected (-) for (past) disapproved (-) behavior, and not trusted (-) to choose her own mode of acting.

A path is being opened for the boy; one is being closed down for the girl. That's bad enough, but remember, it goes further than that. The girl will internalize that femininity itself is associated with avoiding acting; the boy, that masculinity is a mode of action. Who do you suppose will be the more confident agent, even in non-gender-related activities, going forward?

I wouldn't say being coerced into a particular mode of behaviour is "having a path opened up for you", more like being pushed into a channel. Also, it essentially is a reprimand as well - "be a man" might be said as an 'encouragement' to behave in a certain way in the future, but it's only being said in response to acting in a non-masculine way in the past/present, and essentially being castigated for that.

 

[Narz]

Very good. So if we want to proceed in our analysis to the next blade of grass providing a drag on our female runner, we can examine the asymmetry between "Be a man!" and its closest equivalent: "That's not very feminine" (or ladylike).

The male version is an exhortation; the female version, as you point out, a reprimand. The male is being encouraged (+) to attempt (future) valorized (+) behavior, and, implicitly, trusted (+) that it is likely he will be able to do so. The woman is being corrected (-) for (past) disapproved (-) behavior, and not trusted (-) to choose her own mode of acting.

A path is being opened for the boy; one is being closed down for the girl. That's bad enough, but remember, it goes further than that. The girl will internalize that femininity itself is associated with avoiding acting; the boy, that masculinity is a mode of action. Who do you suppose will be the more confident agent, even in non-gender-related activities, going forward?

This is actually much more interesting than talking about MRA's.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Good points, Lucky and Manfred, and I feel like I acknowledged the truths you are point to in my first response to Yeekim, when I said the role might be inappropriate or unwelcome or unhealthy. But you're reading past what I'm actually saying. I'm not actually addressing gender roles, just the messages these phrases send about action per se, as a function of the kind of being (gender) you are. The male phrase encourages one to act; the female phrase, to stop acting.

 

[classical_hero]

I think you right that there isn't an explicit phrase, in popular use, "Be a woman!".

There is, though, a mild reprimand that I've heard "That's not very feminine," which might be considered, by implication, to be equivalent.

I think the similar term is "That's not very lady like."

 

[Borachio]

This is actually much more interesting than talking about MRA's.

Absolutely!

Mr Grey is one smooth operator.

 

[El_Machinae]

There still might be a cultural pressure against swearing. Women get more pain relief from cussing, and it's theorized that this due to the fact that they're violating more of a taboo when they do so.

Having an adult family to live with? Are you assuming the criminal is a juvenile? If the criminal is already an adult, then what do you mean by adult family? Pensioner-age parents? Living with an extended sibling group?

Also, are you saying there is evidence or reason to believe that women, on average, are more likely to have an adult family to live with after prison (however you are defining that)?

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask a question. Do I have a never-ending uphill battle here? I'm not an expert on the common law regarding sentencing, so I cannot answer all questions.

Do you doubt that there are factors that lead to lower sentences upon conviction? Do you doubt that for some of these factors, women will be more likely to meet them?

But, to answer your question, and incredible number of convicts are young adults and so an incredible number of them 'move back in with the folks' afterwards. Parents, Aunts, Uncles, Grandparents. It's considered to be a stabilizing factor, and helps predict recidivism.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask a question. Do I have a never-ending uphill battle here? I'm not an expert on the common law regarding sentencing, so I cannot answer all questions.

Do you doubt that there are factors that lead to lower sentences upon conviction? Do you doubt that for some of these factors, women will be more likely to meet them?

But, to answer your question, and incredible number of convicts are young adults and so an incredible number of them 'move back in with the folks' afterwards. Parents, Aunts, Uncles, Grandparents. It's considered to be a stabilizing factor, and helps predict recidivism.

I'm not trying to be beligerent, but it just seems that faced with the proposition that women (on average) face less jail time than men for the same crimes, your answer seems to just be "well there might be some reasons for that". But when I ask you to outline what you think the reasons might be you're saying "well I've already said there might be reasons, you don't expect me to theorise as to what those reasons ARE as well do you? I can't be expected to do everything..."

It just seems to me that it's a non-argument. Or that you're preparing the ground to make some kind of argument or point, but then it just fizzles out before any actual meat is put on the bones.

Without giving some examples of some factors where you think women would outscore men, your point doesn't seem to hold any weight at all. So you've explained that most criminals are young adults and can "move back in with the folks" but again, are you saying there is a different proportion between men and women where this is the case? Because if not it still doesn't get us anywhere. I'm willing to entertain the fact that it's a possibility that some factors or criteria are more easily met by women, but there are no obvious examples leaping to my mind, nor apparently to yours, and there really need to be some for the idea to be given any credence.

Just saying there might be a reason why women get treated less harshly by the courts, but not giving the slightest indication what you think that reason (or reasons) might be, isn't really saying anything.

Or am I just missing the point? Obviously you think I am, but I'm just not getting it.

 

[El_Machinae]

What I am doing is creating a thoughtspace where there would be an 'obvious and fair' reason why women receive lower sentences (on average). We need to be alert to those reasons, because they'd be legit. It creates a toughtspace in which the complaint would be legitimately defanged.

There's the old "crying to get out of a speeding ticket" canard, girls have an obvious advantage here, and it's sexist. BUT
"I'm speeding because my baby needs to get to the emergency room ASAP" would be a legit reason. And, if it just so happens that women are more likely to be driving babies to emergency rooms, that would show up in the statistics as "lower sentences".
Like I said, I'm not an expert in sentencing Common Law. I just know there are 'reasons' some people get lower sentences, and wouldn't be the least bit surprised if women had an easier time meeting those conditions.

 

[Borachio]

I think you make a good point.

Women are likely to get lower sentences because they less likely to appear in court in the first place. And this, in turn, is possibly due to the fact that they're less likely to be arrested. Because they're less likely to be thought to have broken the law.

It's a self-fulfilling mythology.

Or maybe I've not expressed it quite correctly.

 

[Old Hippy]

about semtencing and conviction rates
even with women judges now common a lot of men still sit at the high end of the justice system, and they are normally on the older side, they carry old stereotype with them, so the women is either a saintly mother and just got in over their head, or the devils own slut and deserves burning, it depends on if they show the right attitude, do they cry a lot, or wear sunglasses and stoically declare their innocence... it only takes a small sample to shift the % of convictions, jail time. Women are a lot better at this game on the whole, a good example is the hatred exhibited towards Lindy Chamberlain,("a dingo took my baby") based largely on the fact that she did not act like most women should act, so really it is a male problem that gets blamed on women, something feminism is really trying to get past...

 

[El_Machinae]

I think you make a good point.

Women are likely to get lower sentences because they less likely to appear in court in the first place. And this, in turn, is possibly due to the fact that they're less likely to be arrested. Because they're less likely to be thought to have broken the law.

It's a self-fulfilling mythology.

Or maybe I've not expressed it quite correctly.

Yeah, we're talking recidivism here. But, you're right, a drop in recividivism could be masked by sexist re-arresting policies.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

What I am doing is creating a thoughtspace where there would be an 'obvious and fair' reason why women receive lower sentences (on average). We need to be alert to those reasons, because they'd be legit. It creates a toughtspace in which the complaint would be legitimately defanged.

There's the old "crying to get out of a speeding ticket" canard, girls have an obvious advantage here, and it's sexist. BUT
"I'm speeding because my baby needs to get to the emergency room ASAP" would be a legit reason. And, if it just so happens that women are more likely to be driving babies to emergency rooms, that would show up in the statistics as "lower sentences".
Like I said, I'm not an expert in sentencing Common Law. I just know there are 'reasons' some people get lower sentences, and wouldn't be the least bit surprised if women had an easier time meeting those conditions.

Okay, thank you for the example. I don't think that specific example stands up to much scrutiny however as, although speeding is technically a criminal offence, it's usually dealt with by a fixed fine and points on your licence (or whatever the international equivalent is). I'd imagine a woman speeding to get her baby to hospital would still face the fine and the points on her licence, even if society at large didn't judge her as harshly. OR she would be let off the charge altogether. I don't think she would be given a reduced fine though, as I don't think that would even be an option.

As the statistic was about more lenient sentences or punishments, this doesn't really fit in with that - she would either have been let off altogether, or given exactly the same penalty as everyone else, there wouldn't be a middle ground. In addition, there would of course be the argument that by driving dangerously she would be putting her child at more risk than driving within the speed limit, so it would by no means be automatically condoned at any rate. Plus it would never get as far as jail time, so this particular crime can't have ay impact on those statistics.

I'm more than open to the possibility that there may be something in what you say, as I do like to find logical explanations for things, I just think the premise is a little thin at the moment.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think you make a good point.

Women are likely to get lower sentences because they less likely to appear in court in the first place. And this, in turn, is possibly due to the fact that they're less likely to be arrested. Because they're less likely to be thought to have broken the law.

It's a self-fulfilling mythology.

Or maybe I've not expressed it quite correctly.

As I understand it, the statistic is about women who have been charged and sentenced for crimes, so it isn't going to include any factors about women who don't make it as far as court or arent even arrested. And it's also about the average sentences for a particular crime, not the absolute numbers of people charged for that crime, so the overall fewer number of women being charged also doesn't come into it.