More female privilege

[laughing dog]

Just a sidenote: The woman used a box cutter and the wound was superficial enough to not require stitches. This indicates a lack of intent to injure. She could have left him looking like an open face clb sandwich with little more effort.

Good point.

Ms. Bobbit cut it off, put it in the car, drove miles from the house and threw it in a field.

Reminds of an old joke: What did Jeffrey Dahmer ask Lorena Bobbit?

Show

Are you going to eat that?

 

[Toni]

Ms. Bobbit cut it off, put it in the car, drove miles from the house and threw it in a field.

And not only was she acquitted of her heinous crime but became a feminist icon and heroine.
As I said, female privilege. I know of no man who mutilated a woman's genitals, got acquitted and became viewed as a hero.

Let's be accurate here, shall we? After throwing it in a field, she called police and told them what happened allowing John to be treated and the penis to be found and reattached. Lorena Bobbitt was found not guilty by reason of insanity, which is a lot different than a straight up acquittal. She later went on to be an advocate for preventing domestic abuse, although she apparently still had some anger management issues.

John Bobbitt was acquitted of spousal rape in the same incident. He did have his original penis re-attached and went on to become engaged few times and also married, with charges of domestic abuse against him filed by at least 3 other women. He also capitalized on his notoriety by making porn films and also by appearing on WWF's Monday Night Raw. He has since publicly apologized for how he treated Lorena during their marriage. And apparently still sends Lorena Valentine's day gifts.

A quick google search of women cutting off penises seems to indicate that they are generally sentenced to life in prison.

 

[laughing dog]

A quick google search of women cutting off penises seems to indicate that they are generally sentenced to life in prison.

But but that is still a lesser sentence than a man would receive!!!!

 

[Terrell]

No one gets to choose whether they're of any particular race or gender, people do get to choose their actions. Race & gender shouldn't be taken into account in the criminal or civil laws or courts in my opinion, in these types of matters, as it amounts to adjusting punishments based on accident of birth, rather than actions.

The same applies to those who say "tell men (Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Muslims, women, or other group) (not) to do X". Just because you tell them (not) to do X, doesn't mean they'll listen, so I don't see it as fair to adjust blame based on identity, nor is it fair to say that members of X group have responsibility for the actions of other members of their group, where said group membership is involuntary.

Either you can prove that the person did what's alleged or you cannot. If you can prove guilt then they should face the same punishment, regardless of any inborn characteristic, as anyone else who is proven guilty of the same thing. I can understand taking into account whether or not the specific person involved has any priors, but not the priors of others who happen to be in the same demographic.

How about we have the same set of rules for everybody and not try to justify exceptions based on things that the accused or (alleged) victim has no control over.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Ms. Bobbit cut it off, put it in the car, drove miles from the house and threw it in a field.

And not only was she acquitted of her heinous crime but became a feminist icon and heroine.
As I said, female privilege. I know of no man who mutilated a woman's genitals, got acquitted and became viewed as a hero.

Until you can show that such occurrences are the norm, that there is a history and a culturally if no legally sanctioned tradition of such occurrences and that women are now and have been in a position to impose their norms on men and to keep men from achieving political, economic, cultural and social power across generations, then you don't have privilege.

so you get a great big



"The Fail is strong in this one"

 

[fromderinside]

A quick google search of women cutting off penises seems to indicate that they are generally sentenced to life in prison.

But but that is still a lesser sentence than a man would receive!!!!

Reviving a revision of a popular exclamation "You (insert additional explitives here) Cock Cutter!!!"

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And that's what I am talking about right there. If it exists, it isn't earned. It is learned in regard to a group and generalized to individuals we tie to that group who have in no way earned any such thing. And this doesn't just apply to the "man as aggressor" and "woman as helpless victim" stereotypes. It applies to any such groupings and the individuals within those groups, be it race, gender, or whatever else.

On planet Earth, such things are a reality whether one likes it or not. People naturally base decisions and views on "averages".

Yes, and as I said, we need to guard against such bias. This applies to all stereotypes, whether they be based on race, gender, or anything else. Black men, for example, face an unfair stereotype of being violent and threatening. Women face a stereotype of being weak and vulnerable. We should not let that bias our sentencing of individuals of either grouping of people, regardless of comparative ratios between groups. And as I said, we see that happen both here and in society at large quite frequently. It is a failure of logic and of justice that we need to be vigilant against.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Curious, so I did a quick google and found this study, which seems to show that women really do have gentler treatment from the criminal justice system. Chivalry is apparently alive and well when it comes to criminal sentencing.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1767508

Chivalry - that set of values and code of conduct for the medieval knightly class - has long influenced American law, from Supreme Court decisions to substantive criminal law doctrines and the administration of criminal justice. The chivalrous knight was enjoined to seek honor and defend it through violence and, in a society which enforced strict gender roles, to show gallantry toward "ladies" of the same class, except for the women of the knight's own household, over whom he exercised complete authority. This article explores, for the first time, whether these chivalric values might explain sentencing outcomes in capital cases. The data for the article comes from our original study of 1299 first degree murder cases in California, whose death penalty scheme accords prosecutors and juries virtually unlimited discretion in making the death-selection decision. We examine sentencing outcomes for three particular types of murder where a "chivalry effect" might be expected - gang murders, rape murders and domestic violence murders. In cases involving single victims, the results were striking. In gang murders, the death sentence rate was less than one-tenth the overall death sentence rate. By contrast, in rape murder cases, the death sentence rate was nine times the overall death sentence rate. The death sentence rate for single-victim domestic violence murders was roughly 25% lower than the overall death sentence rate. We also examined, through this study and earlier California studies, more general data on gender disparities in death sentencing and found substantial gender-of-defendant and gender-of-victim disparities. Women guilty of capital murder are far less likely than men to be sentenced to death, and defendants who kill women are far more likely to be sentenced to death than defendants who kill men. We argue that all of these findings are consistent with chivalric norms, and we conclude that, in the prosecutors' decisions to seek death and juries' decisions to impose it, chivalry appears to be alive and well.

Hardly surprising, and reminds me of that video we saw on here a while back of the white guy, black guy, and white woman stealing a bicycle, which showed some reactions to each and how they differed. The black man was given a harder time than the white men, and the woman as actually offered help in carrying out the theft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge7i60GuNRg

Is it right to say that the reputation is "earned" by the group and that the individual therefore deserves it? No, it is not, and we need to guard against that.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Until you can show that such occurrences are the norm, that there is a history and a culturally if no legally sanctioned tradition of such occurrences and that women are now and have been in a position to impose their norms on men and to keep men from achieving political, economic, cultural and social power across generations, then you don't have privilege.

Why do you have to have others in your gender category "in a position to impose their norms" on members of the other gender category in order for you to have a privilege?

In another thread you pushed for a redefinition of racism so it would exclude black people from being racist. Are you doing something similar here regarding women and the woord "privilege"?

Just because somebody holds a privilege over you in one regard does not mean you don't hold one over them in another.

 

[laughing dog]

On planet Earth, such things are a reality whether one likes it or not. People naturally base decisions and views on "averages".

Yes, and as I said, we need to guard against such bias.....

Using averages is not bias.

 

[thebeave]

the sad fact is, reality itself is biased in certain ways. More men than women will commit violent crime. Men will rape more than women will. Men will be more often guilty of domestic abuse.

More often men will be targeted with attacks on their genitals because more men than women use them to do violent things, not to mention that it's hard to injure someone with a wet hole, and it's harder to do something quite as symbolic as cutting it off. Even as a man who enjoys his penis and the penises of others and who is quite concerned about the unnecessary and unwilling mutilation of penises in things like infant circumcision, I'll shed no tears for the removal of some asshole's dick with a box cutter.

The fact of the matter is, more women get lighter sentences in things like this because more men end up deserving it. I'll be the first to stand up for a guy who didn't have it coming. But if you are totally fair with standards, more men than women will end up qualifying as firefighters and marines, and more men than women will earn the loss of their genitals. Being sore at women for the state of reality just means you should probably look long and hard to make sure you aren't one of the deserving few to lose something long and hard.

How do you feel about waterboarding Muslim terrorists? You know, the guys who have killed perhaps dozens, or hundreds of innocent people in terrorist attacks? I just find it odd that most people would be adamantly against torturing a guy by waterboarding him (that results in no long term physical damage), but the attitude seem to be kind of "meh, he had it coming" when it comes to cutting off (or just slicing into) a guy's penis.

I have no problem with a woman who cuts/bites off some guy's dick (or stabs him or kills him for that matter) in self defense if she's being forcibly raped. Cutting into a man's organ, like in the OP, is flat out torture and should be treated and punished as such. Its not a laughing matter like those hags on The Talk video think it is.

 

[Toni]

the sad fact is, reality itself is biased in certain ways. More men than women will commit violent crime. Men will rape more than women will. Men will be more often guilty of domestic abuse.

More often men will be targeted with attacks on their genitals because more men than women use them to do violent things, not to mention that it's hard to injure someone with a wet hole, and it's harder to do something quite as symbolic as cutting it off. Even as a man who enjoys his penis and the penises of others and who is quite concerned about the unnecessary and unwilling mutilation of penises in things like infant circumcision, I'll shed no tears for the removal of some asshole's dick with a box cutter.

The fact of the matter is, more women get lighter sentences in things like this because more men end up deserving it. I'll be the first to stand up for a guy who didn't have it coming. But if you are totally fair with standards, more men than women will end up qualifying as firefighters and marines, and more men than women will earn the loss of their genitals. Being sore at women for the state of reality just means you should probably look long and hard to make sure you aren't one of the deserving few to lose something long and hard.

How do you feel about waterboarding Muslim terrorists? You know, the guys who have killed perhaps dozens, or hundreds of innocent people in terrorist attacks? I just find it odd that most people would be adamantly against torturing a guy by waterboarding him (that results in no long term physical damage), but the attitude seem to be kind of "meh, he had it coming" when it comes to cutting off (or just slicing into) a guy's penis.

I have no problem with a woman who cuts/bites off some guy's dick (or stabs him or kills him for that matter) in self defense if she's being forcibly raped. Cutting into a man's organ, like in the OP, is flat out torture and should be treated and punished as such. Its not a laughing matter like those hags on The Talk video think it is.

I certainly don't think the guy in the OP 'had it coming.' I think the woman was wrong to do what she did even if he had actually molested her toddler.

I do challenge the idea that the sentence this woman received was an example of 'female privilege.' In fact, women who cut off men's penises usually get life in prison.

i. This case, the victim suffered minor injuries, not castration. It seems that the judge and jury in this case felt there was sufficient mitigating circumstances to warrent the sentence. Perhaps they found the allegations is child molestation to be somewhat credible or perhaps they thought the mother had sufficient reason to be angry with the victim, whom she took in out of pity despite her very humble circumstances when he went after her teenaged daughter.

Usually if the victim doesn't give a victim impact statement, the judge isn't able to consider the victim's opinions.

Of course what the woman did was wrong.

 

[Sabine Grant]

the sad fact is, reality itself is biased in certain ways. More men than women will commit violent crime. Men will rape more than women will. Men will be more often guilty of domestic abuse.

More often men will be targeted with attacks on their genitals because more men than women use them to do violent things, not to mention that it's hard to injure someone with a wet hole, and it's harder to do something quite as symbolic as cutting it off. Even as a man who enjoys his penis and the penises of others and who is quite concerned about the unnecessary and unwilling mutilation of penises in things like infant circumcision, I'll shed no tears for the removal of some asshole's dick with a box cutter.

The fact of the matter is, more women get lighter sentences in things like this because more men end up deserving it. I'll be the first to stand up for a guy who didn't have it coming. But if you are totally fair with standards, more men than women will end up qualifying as firefighters and marines, and more men than women will earn the loss of their genitals. Being sore at women for the state of reality just means you should probably look long and hard to make sure you aren't one of the deserving few to lose something long and hard.

How do you feel about waterboarding Muslim terrorists? You know, the guys who have killed perhaps dozens, or hundreds of innocent people in terrorist attacks? I just find it odd that most people would be adamantly against torturing a guy by waterboarding him (that results in no long term physical damage), but the attitude seem to be kind of "meh, he had it coming" when it comes to cutting off (or just slicing into) a guy's penis.

I do not think there is any intent here to justify the use of torture.

I have no problem with a woman who cuts/bites off some guy's dick (or stabs him or kills him for that matter) in self defense if she's being forcibly raped.

If she is "forcibly raped"? Poor wording, the beave. "If she is raped" would have sufficed.

Cutting into a man's organ, like in the OP, is flat out torture and should be treated and punished as such.

Once more and I hope for the last time, I have deployed great efforts in this thread to detail and explain why Vela was sentenced to home confinement for 10 months versus detention in jail for 10 months. Which in NO way is to be confused for my in any way shape or form ( as well as for other posters agreeing with me) that I do not consider Vela's forceful detention of this young man, while subjecting him to threats of death and extreme violence to then cut his penis with a sharp object to not be torture. This young man was subjected to emotional, mental and physical abuse all at once.

Its not a laughing matter like those hags on The Talk video think it is.

I will assume that you are equally affected by the number of times we will encounter rape jokes in not only the social media but media as well as statements not made for laughs but seriously meant such as a politician claiming that women who claim to have a pregnancy resulting from a rape, well...it cannot happen because he knows from some obscure medical source that their bodies block fertilization.

Consistency obliged, of course.....

 

[ksen]

Sabine, take your girlsplaining female privilege apologia elsewhere!

 

[RavenSky]

Let's see how this looks when we consider not gender inequality in sentencing, but racial inequality:

If there is an inequity among genders between blacks and whites in sentencing, why do you suppose that is? Who set up that inequity and for what reason? This insistence on demanding equality divorced from history, social context, or consequences beyond the event in question will not bring about equity, will not bring about justice, will not bring about lasting solutions. It just sounds like whining from a six year old black guy mad that his sister a white guy got the "bigger half."

Your "revision" only shows me that you failed to understand what Athena actually said (&/or you fail to know anything about US history)

Here's a clue... When was the last time U.S. blacks were the powerful majority in the U.S. - controlling government, law enforcement, courts, etc?

 

[Underseer]

Let's see how this looks when we consider not gender inequality in sentencing, but racial inequality:

Your "revision" only shows me that you failed to understand what Athena actually said (&/or you fail to know anything about US history)

Here's a clue... When was the last time U.S. blacks were the powerful majority in the U.S. - controlling government, law enforcement, courts, etc?

So you deny that the Jews were persecuting innocent Germans? I suppose next you're going to claim that the Nazis weren't justified in defending themselves against the Jews who were persecuting them? Why do you hate Gentiles?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Using averages is not bias.

It is if you let group averages change how you look at and treat individuals.

Your "revision" only shows me that you failed to understand what Athena actually said (&/or you fail to know anything about US history)

Here's a clue... When was the last time U.S. blacks were the powerful majority in the U.S. - controlling government, law enforcement, courts, etc?

Why does it matter? How is that relevant to the point being made? If people are given privileged treatment over others in sentencing, isn't that a problem?

Surely we agree it is a problem when people get privileged treatment by the legal system for being rich and connected (ie, OJ Simpson). Surely we agree it is a problem when people get privileged treatment by the legal system for being white. Why do we disagree that it is also a problem when people get privileged treatment by the legal system for being female?

You and Athena appear to be pointing to historical events, as well as present day bias that women face in other areas of life (ie, employment and wages). But again, how is that relevant? And why does it matter who created the bias? If the bias exists and is unfair, shouldn't it be guarded against regardless of where it originated?

And why are we not guarding against category error as I warned about above? A specific woman may have an easier and more privileged life than a specific man, and yet if she can identify with the grouping of being a woman, she should get special treatment in criminal sentencing, because woman in general have had a tough time of things?

So you deny that the Jews were persecuting innocent Germans? I suppose next you're going to claim that the Nazis weren't justified in defending themselves against the Jews who were persecuting them? Why do you hate Gentiles?

Should Bernie Madoff have gotten off with lighter sentencing? Because, y'know, he was born of Jewish parents....

 

[Toni]

It is if you let group averages change how you look at and treat individuals.

Your "revision" only shows me that you failed to understand what Athena actually said (&/or you fail to know anything about US history)

Here's a clue... When was the last time U.S. blacks were the powerful majority in the U.S. - controlling government, law enforcement, courts, etc?

Why does it matter? How is that relevant to the point being made? If people are given privileged treatment over others in sentencing, isn't that a problem?

Surely we agree it is a problem when people get privileged treatment by the legal system for being rich and connected (ie, OJ Simpson). Surely we agree it is a problem when people get privileged treatment by the legal system for being white. Why do we disagree that it is also a problem when people get privileged treatment by the legal system for being female?

You and Athena appear to be pointing to historical events, as well as present day bias that women face in other areas of life (ie, employment and wages). But again, how is that relevant? And why does it matter who created the bias? If the bias exists and is unfair, shouldn't it be guarded against regardless of where it originated?

And why are we not guarding against category error as I warned about above? A specific woman may have an easier and more privileged life than a specific man, and yet if she can identify with the grouping of being a woman, she should get special treatment in criminal sentencing, because woman in general have had a tough time of things?

So you deny that the Jews were persecuting innocent Germans? I suppose next you're going to claim that the Nazis weren't justified in defending themselves against the Jews who were persecuting them? Why do you hate Gentiles?

Should Bernie Madoff have gotten off with lighter sentencing? Because, y'know, he was born of Jewish parents....

So, are you calling for mandatory sentences, then?

I am personally opposed to mandatory sentences precisely because they don't take into consideration the individual and the individual circumstances which led to the crime. And also because if sentences are mandatory and too harsh, juries may be less likely to convict someone they believe is guilty of a crime but is very sympathetic.

For example: Stealing is wrong, even if you need whatever it is that you stole. But does it really serve a good purpose to send a frail senior citizen who slips a ring of bologna in his/her pocket because there have been too many weeks in a row when the choice was rent vs meds vs food?

Or an 8 year old or a 15 year old, for that matter, who slips a ring of bologna in his/her pocket because the younger siblings at home are just hungry and there's nothing to eat and mom/dad are for whatever reason not providing what is needed.

VS: A young adult who slips a ring of bologna in his/her pocket because s/he is out of grocery money, having spent it all on beer or downloads or whatever?

The loss is identical to the grocer who shouldn't have to absorb the loss for stolen product. But what do you wish to accomplish with your sentence? Do you wish to discourage the offender from repeating his/her offense? If so, would it be better to do something to ensure that the offender actually has enough food to eat? Or gets appropriate personal finance/allowance maintenance training so they know how to budget responsibly?

I am probably the only person in America but I believe that for the most part, we give out sentences which are far too harsh and which are counterproductive.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It is if you let group averages change how you look at and treat individuals.



Why does it matter? How is that relevant to the point being made? If people are given privileged treatment over others in sentencing, isn't that a problem?

Surely we agree it is a problem when people get privileged treatment by the legal system for being rich and connected (ie, OJ Simpson). Surely we agree it is a problem when people get privileged treatment by the legal system for being white. Why do we disagree that it is also a problem when people get privileged treatment by the legal system for being female?

You and Athena appear to be pointing to historical events, as well as present day bias that women face in other areas of life (ie, employment and wages). But again, how is that relevant? And why does it matter who created the bias? If the bias exists and is unfair, shouldn't it be guarded against regardless of where it originated?

And why are we not guarding against category error as I warned about above? A specific woman may have an easier and more privileged life than a specific man, and yet if she can identify with the grouping of being a woman, she should get special treatment in criminal sentencing, because woman in general have had a tough time of things?

So you deny that the Jews were persecuting innocent Germans? I suppose next you're going to claim that the Nazis weren't justified in defending themselves against the Jews who were persecuting them? Why do you hate Gentiles?

Should Bernie Madoff have gotten off with lighter sentencing? Because, y'know, he was born of Jewish parents....

So, are you calling for mandatory sentences, then?

I am personally opposed to mandatory sentences precisely because they don't take into consideration the individual and the individual circumstances which led to the crime. And also because if sentences are mandatory and too harsh, juries may be less likely to convict someone they believe is guilty of a crime but is very sympathetic.

For example: Stealing is wrong, even if you need whatever it is that you stole. But does it really serve a good purpose to send a frail senior citizen who slips a ring of bologna in his/her pocket because there have been too many weeks in a row when the choice was rent vs meds vs food?

Or an 8 year old or a 15 year old, for that matter, who slips a ring of bologna in his/her pocket because the younger siblings at home are just hungry and there's nothing to eat and mom/dad are for whatever reason not providing what is needed.

VS: A young adult who slips a ring of bologna in his/her pocket because s/he is out of grocery money, having spent it all on beer or downloads or whatever?

The loss is identical to the grocer who shouldn't have to absorb the loss for stolen product. But what do you wish to accomplish with your sentence? Do you wish to discourage the offender from repeating his/her offense? If so, would it be better to do something to ensure that the offender actually has enough food to eat? Or gets appropriate personal finance/allowance maintenance training so they know how to budget responsibly?

I am probably the only person in America but I believe that for the most part, we give out sentences which are far too harsh and which are counterproductive.

You are not the only one.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So, are you calling for mandatory sentences, then?

No, and mostly for the reasons you state.

What I am saying is that we should be guarded against allowing race and gender biases influence us in sentencing. Women should not get lighter sentences for being women, just as black men should not get harsher sentences for being black men. Both happen and both shouldn't.