My experience with game

[MaryKB]

If the genders were switched, would wanting the guy punished be man-hating? Or are men fair game for enjoying seeing punished?

I agree that lenient sentences for women for the same crime are not a plot against men, but male sexism towards women in seeing them as weaker and less threatening. If we are to ever reach equality, people must face the same consequences for the same crimes regardless of their sex, class, or race, don't you think?

I feel it's problematic when I see men complaining about that first, like "We'll achieve equality when we start punishing women more severely". Really no one gets off as easy as affluent white men, consider Brock Turner like I mentioned, and they even have a thing called "Affluenza" where a rich white man was let off for manslaughter because he's incapable of thinking like a normal person. Male-female imbalances in sentencing is really more about how much joy white men take in punishing black men, it's a racist thing.

I'm totally in favor of sentencing reform, like @Synsensa I totally believe in rehabilitation and help rather than punishment, but that's a totally different thing and not related to gender equality. How much you punish people has nothing to do with equal respect and representation, but it's something sexists love to bring up because it lets them derail the conversation and the idea of seeing women suffer pleases them.

 

[Phrossack]

I mean, a quick looksie at the user's other posts would seem to suggest a general slant towards being anti-women. It's not a random personal attack.

I'm not so sure. In post #343 he went out of his way to state that he believed men were generally much worse-behaved than women, among other things. I wouldn't be so quick to classify him as another Elliot Rodgers. And Hygro liked that post, and he's not a woman-hater, is he?

I feel it's problematic when I see men complaining about that first, like "We'll achieve equality when we start punishing women more severely". Really no one gets off as easy as affluent white men, consider Brock Turner like I mentioned, and they even have a thing called "Affluenza" where a rich white man was let off for manslaughter because he's incapable of thinking like a normal person. Male-female imbalances in sentencing is really more about how much joy white men take in punishing black men, it's a racist thing.

I'm totally in favor of sentencing reform, like @Synsensa I totally believe in rehabilitation and help rather than punishment, but that's a totally different thing and not related to gender equality. How much you punish people has nothing to do with equal respect and representation, but it's something sexists love to bring up because it lets them derail the conversation and the idea of seeing women suffer pleases them.

Punishment *does* relate to equality! Just as Brock Turner got away with rape, or the "affluenza" punk got away with manslaughter, so is she getting away with abusing a mentally suffering person into suicide. It's a mockery of justice to let people like Turner, or the affluenza killer, or her to get away with something just because of who they are.

I totally agree with you that rehab is better than punishment, but it's against the principle of equality to say that some people should be treated better than others because of the way they're born, and I really don't think that saying so makes one an evil woman-hater.

As someone with mental conditions myself, who quit medications entirely, I think I can say that it doesn't matter what people are on; they're still responsible. I don't think the intoxicated driver who killed my aunt should have been handled more leniently for being intoxicated, nor should it matter what mental conditions he had. I think it's demeaning to treat people like they have no agency. I don't get mad at animals for acting up, because they're just animals and can't be expected to know better. To treat people like they're too weak or dumb to have done any differently is to treat them like animals, in my mind. If I committed a crime I wouldn't expect any such leniency just for my conditions; it would be wrong.

 

[inthesomeday]

I should certainly argue that, were she a man who did this, I would not be surprised if she faced no prison at all.

Likewise, were she black, she would probably be going away for a much, much longer time.

 

[MaryKB]

I don't feel you're really familiar with this case, she didn't actively do something like those other people you mention, she didn't hit someone with her car or do something like that. Both he and she had issues and both had suicide attempts, and it's not like she's an abusive spouse and he committed suicide to escape her. I'm not saying she's not responsible for her actions, but some people are cruising around thinking "Oh, here's a woman we can really punish!" and want to see her suffer, which won't even help anyone. She's not a threat to people (except if you get into a relationship with her and you try to kill yourself she might encourage you to go through with it)

I agree sometimes someone's dangerous enough you need to remove them from society, but I don't feel that's what people are after in her case, and I don't believe justice is his motivation for wanting to see her punished.

 

[red_elk]

It is easy to sentence a woman to less time than a man when many people today still see a woman as "just" a woman. It's still a widely held belief that women are soft, delicate, and more pure (from a moral sense) than men. Subtle and subconscious biases affect how we treat people, especially when there are deep stereotypes involved.

Biases obviously exist and they are one of the reasons why men and women get different sentences. But this stereotype is negative to men, since they are considered as more dangerous and cruel than women, "by nature". If this is a form of sexism, it's sexism against men.

Otherwise, the idea to end discrimination against women by sending more women in jail for life, sounds... paradoxical to me.

 

[Synobun]

Biases obviously exist and they are one of the reasons why men and women get different sentences. But this stereotype is negative to men, since they are considered as more dangerous and cruel than women, "by nature". If this is a form of sexism, it's sexism against men.

Sure. I'm not necessarily opposed to this viewpoint.

Sexist against men by whom, however? Who established that baseline?

 

[red_elk]

Sure. I'm not necessarily opposed to this viewpoint.

Sexist against men by whom, however? Who established that baseline?

By judges and jurors who hold these stereotypes, I guess.
Would be interesting to see the statistics for male/female judges and their biases.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm sorry to hear about your aunt phrossack.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

The woman in question is somewhat mentally ill, therefore she should serve her sentence in a psychiatric prison. The judge in this case probably took into account her mental state when he/she sentenced her. However, the judge failed to send the woman to a psychiatric facility (as far as I know) for reasons unknown.

If she were not mentally ill at the time of the commission of the crime, she should get the same sentence as a man who committed the same crime (and was not mentally ill at the time of commission of the offense). Just because you have a vagina does not mean that you should get a more lenient sentence. I'm sorry, but the world shouldn't work that way. If you do the crime, you should do the time. I'm all for equality in sentencing, and by the logic expressed in this thread so far, I would submit that a man committing the same offense as the woman in question should get the same sentence as she did under the circumstances. To do otherwise is simply unfair. If we rule out mental illness as a cause, then both sexes should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. The same crime = the same sentence for both.

BTW, I worked for 25 years in a mental hospital, 10 of those years in the high security unit. I can tell you without doubt that the women in that facility were more violent, and more vicious than most of the men there. Most women in the unit would laugh at the light sentences they received simply because they were female. It was appalling. There is no fair sex. Women can be just as evil and vicious as men can be, and to think otherwise is just being delusional.

Sorry to rain on some people's parade, but being a woman does not let you avoid accountability for your actions.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

something these guys just refuse to understand is anything they think is sexism against men is really sexism against women

@MaryKB, as long as you continue to use this type of divisive black and white language, you can count me out. I have a different vision for how to get to the promise land.

As MLK said, “darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” We aren't going to defeat sexism with more sexism.

Like, have we stopped believing that we can get to this world? A world where people are not stereotyped based on their gender or race, but instead by the content of their character? Have we given up on peace and decided we need war? War is hell people, we come from thousands of years of war, slavery, sexist, racist, misery and death, I'm happy with the idea of moving forward. We need to stop seeing each-other as members of some tribal identity group, but instead as fellow humans. We should stop painting with broad brushes - generalizing and oversimplifying.

We are good at tribal conflicts. We like to join our teams and toss stones at each-other. We decide who the bad guys are, we dehumanize them, and then attribute bad motives to them. It had its uses in the past, but as we come together, we are dividing over smaller and smaller things. These divisions are giving us a distorted view of the world, one that is tiresome and depressing.

We are all in this together. We are all on this tiny rock in the middle of space, trying to figure out how to live the best lives we can. So, to each one of you on this forum, this might sound weird, but I love you and I want you to be happy. Every single one of you is unique in your own way, but we are all one in our humanity, and I really hope that one day we can live that way.

“We're one, but we're not the same
We get to carry each other
Carry each other”

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I'm sorry to hear about your aunt phrossack.

So am I, Phrossack. As someone who has had a loved one killed by a drunk driver, I know how it feels.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What reason has Mary given for you not trusting her? Did she break a promise she made to you? Did she cheat you of something you think you should have? Did she do something illegal and you're afraid she'll do it again?

I suspect the answer to all of those is "no." So that just leaves you implying that she's not being truthful about her own life because you don't like what she's saying.

Earlier in this same thread, there were several false claims regarding misandry and non-response/addressing of evidence regarding that, or the linked violent crime rates after another questionable assertion.

Given that context, further comments do take some credibility hit. Making statements that do not fly when measured against evidence in objective reality does make future statements less trustworthy.

Out of curiosity— what do you think is the “goal” of our nefarious narrative? A matriarchal new world order?

Same "goal" as systemic discrimination in general. Most people in power aren't likely acting for some nonsense like "I make this choice to further the benefit to people with similar skin complexion in general". They're making choices that benefit them directly, each with own set of priors/biases.

From what I gather very few racist practices occur because someone deliberately chooses an action based on the reasoning that they're a racist and don't like a race. Same for sex. Yet these practices still happen.

"Women go to jail for less time than men for heinous crimes" isn't much of a point, or a counterargument, when the discussion is about discriminatory practices against women

The discussion was asserting that there were *not* discriminatory practices against men on systemic scales (aka misandry). That's a false claim, and the sentencing gap is one example.

A woman is rarely an individual, not in the true sense, and they are often reduced to whatever perspective a man has on women as a concept.

The ironic thing is that holding women responsible for their choices seems to be something receiving a lot of pushback. However, this responsibility is a mandatory component of individuality.

it's not like she did something minor like rape.

Just for fun, look up the average sentence time for male vs female rapists. It's especially telling with statutory rape, but also extends to incidents involving intoxication or force (the latter being obviously rare).

I'm totally in favor of sentencing reform, like @Synsensa I totally believe in rehabilitation and help rather than punishment, but that's a totally different thing and not related to gender equality.

If that "isn't related to gender equality", what is related to gender equality? The idea of the term is to treat the sexes equally, true or false?

Male-female imbalances in sentencing is really more about how much joy white men take in punishing black men, it's a racist thing.

Male-female imbalances are significantly larger than any race-race, so quoted assertion can't hold.

Sexist against men by whom, however? Who established that baseline?

Same as who establishes any "baseline" for assertions of sexism at macro scales.

 

[Phrossack]

I'm sorry to hear about your aunt phrossack.

So am I, Phrossack. As someone who has had a loved one killed by a drunk driver, I know how it feels.

Thanks. She and her son died before I was born, though. It was just an example.

 

[metatron]

https://jezebel.com/michelle-carter-is-going-to-prison-1832558335

And she's only going to serve 15 months.

Is it really that mysterious? I think the argument can be made that it's too lenient of a sentence, and if the roles were reversed her boyfriend would get a steeper sentence.

Is it really woman-hating to want someone punished for deliberately driving someone to suicide? I think she got off lightly given the awful thing she did.

1. In the exact same circumstances it is all but guaranteed a man would be judged more harshly, both legally and socially. Yes, very probably.

2. In retrospect i increasingly feel the charges are unwarranted in the first place and she should not have been convicted at all.
Not of involuntary manslaughter anyway. Maybe i could see a charge for felony neglect to help (thinking Djerman law here)... but i mean really?
The meat of the case is a single phone call and we're going all §323 StGB on this?
Yeah, sure, like that's not dystopian or anything...
Point being:
People are responsible for their own feelings; and they are responsible for their own actions.

3. And even judging her at moral level there are mitigating factors:

• Ms. Carter has been on anti-depressants in large quantities and shifting dosage for years.
• Ms. Carter chronically suffered from a severe eating disorder and was also obsessed with her appearence and social approval in general.
• Ms. Carter had for the balance of their relationship done just the things that one would expect a normal person to do. She displayed all signs of care for Mr. Roy, urged him to seek help, get better, see the good about himself and his life etc.
• Her sudden shift into aggressively persuing the idea that his death would avoid suffering for him and the people in his life (and grant her the persona of griefing quasi-widow) was likely in part brought about by her switch from Fluoxetine to Citalopram, about a month before his death (iirc).
• The very texts that constitute most of the body of evidence agaist her, reveal her to be - in addition to her previous conditions - increasingly dysfunctional in the most basic sense. She was irritable, apathetic, with intermittant episodes of mania and aggression, suffered from vivid nightmares, which she increasingly failed to distinguish from reality.

However: Her comments to Mr. Roy in the final stages of his life were highly revealing and emblematic of the misandry of contemporary Amemica.
A sense of exaggerated, asymetric male responsibility was on full display.
He was supposed to man up, in her view.

The woman in question is somewhat mentally ill, therefore she should serve her sentence in a psychiatric prison. The judge in this case probably took into account her mental state when he/she sentenced her. However, the judge failed to send the woman to a psychiatric facility (as far as I know) for reasons unknown.

See above. She's a minor. The whole rational of involuntary manslaughter here is highly dubious per se.
And on top of that there's the mental health.
And on top of that there is this massive substance issue.

It would surely be a good idea for her to get help. But criminal prosecution - with any result - strikes me as quite odd.
Are we doing this with every suicide from here on out?
Sifting through the person's posts and telecommunications to see if we find someone to prosecute?
You know, just to be sure.
We wouldn't want to miss some involuntarily manslaughtering criminal on the loose, right?
Involuntarily manslaughtering petite teenage womenfolk, roamin' the streets, high as a kite on on Celexa...

I'm all in favor of having entitled white women eat the peas of the criminal justice they so often demand and approve of.
But i can't see a point in labeling Ms. Carter with manslaughter.
Maybe it's because i'm still too distracted by Isabel O'Shaughnessy having turned herself in and my women-hatin' quota is all filled up with that for this quarter. Possibly.
It's a delicious treat of schadenfreude in any event.

It is easy to sentence a woman to less time than a man when many people today still see a woman as "just" a woman.

And they are never responsible and nothing is ever their fault because the Patriarchy dun did it.
Yes.

Am I an evil woman-hater for wanting equal sentencing?

According to "feminist" ideology you would be, yes.

This is the essence of contemporary American "feminism". An equal standard is literally an assault on women. Arguing in favor of an equal standard is a hate crime.
That is their ideology.
They are telling you this. Openly.
Over and over and over again.
I allmost feel bad for them. Cause i don't know what they have to do for you to take them at their word.

but it's something sexists love to bring up because it lets them derail the conversation

If the only persons who are allowed to examine and criticise one's position are the persons agreeing with oneself, by definition, then that is not a "conversation".
If negative claims, accusations are made about persons, and any proper case in favor of these persons - as would be a normal approach in other circumstances - is characterised as deviant and evil, then that is not a "conversation".

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I do agree this particular anecdotal crime is a terrible example on several levels. Person in question is a minor, has mental health issues (as did the guy committing suicide), no direct action beyond words. It's not like she had him do 8 shots then left him passed out in a running car. Not a case I'd pick to highlight my point.

I think dipping into the categories of "violent crimes by adults" would demonstrate this particular issue more cleanly. Perhaps something along the lines of a woman stabbing someone multiple times with a knife and not seeing any jail time (or minimal) would be a better example. Even that's an anecdote though, more useful are on-average stats. That's how you show actual systemic bias.

 

[Senethro]

Srs question tho, is male crime the same as female crime? Which one is the "normal" level, degree or frequency of crime.

 

[red_elk]

If the only persons who are allowed to examine and criticise one's position are the persons agreeing with oneself, by definition, then that is not a "conversation".

Yes, "derail the conversation" was interesting choice of words.
Someone decided they control the conversation, like train operator. And anyone who disagrees, not just disagrees but derails it from the path it rightfully belongs to.

 

[The_J]

I'd actually say that the OP sort of "owns" the topic, by setting it in the OP, and we're like miles off .
(yes, that's how a conversation goes, but it's possible just to ramble on and end up somewhere completely else, which is not exactly the intention in a discussion forum)

 

[Phrossack]

@metatron : yes, many who are called feminists often have views at odds with their stated goals.

No, you're never going to convince me that feminism is the #1 threat to civilization and a good excuse to become a reactionary, nor can you persuade me to hop on your "Anglosphere" Disdain-Train. I am, after all, one of those lesser, perfidious Anglos.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'd actually say that the OP sort of "owns" the topic, by setting it in the OP, and we're like miles off .

I think he abandoned it long ago to be fair. Not even a single book sold either.