Jump to content
mooeypoo

Are girls really treated preferentially?

Recommended Posts

!

Moderator Note

Moved from "Why do men commit so many rape crimes?" thread




I agree with the majority of your post, but I am not sure about this part:

Once society stops favoring girls over boys, the prevalence of anger-retaliation rape [and the murders frequently that follow] will decrease significantly.



I think it's a tad simplistic. I'm not too sure the majority of rapists are that affected by social stigmas. There's no doubt the victims are, but how many of those turn out to be rapists, and what percentage of rapists are boys who were raped or molested as children? Are you sure the relation is that strong as to have it decrease if society ignores boys more?


And another point -- I think we still dont' have equality in treatment between boy and girl victims, but at least in the case of children I am not too sure that's true anymore, specially after the whole deal with the Catholic church and the prevalence of rapes and sexual abuse there of little boys. There's a big problem with men having their claims laughed-at when they report a sexual abuse case (or even sexual harassment cases are ignored) and that should be changed and improved. But I don't know if I would say that children - boys and girls - are treated that differently. I would think (and I am making a baseless assumption here, if you have data, please feel free to correct me) - that society is appalled by abuse of children as children, and not necessarily by gender.

As for the problem of male victims, I agree that social stigmas are very bad, and that skews the data about how many adult men are, in fact, raped, by women or by other men.

~mooey Edited by swansont
add modnote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it's a tad simplistic. I'm not too sure the majority of rapists are that affected by social stigmas. There's no doubt the victims are, but how many of those turn out to be rapists, and what percentage of rapists are boys who were raped or molested as children? Are you sure the relation is that strong as to have it decrease if society ignores boys more?

 

I'm positive that once society stops forcing males of all ages to treat girls preferentially over boys, that anger-retaliation rape will become close to non-existent.

 

And another point -- I think we still dont' have equality in treatment between boy and girl victims, but at least in the case of children I am not too sure that's true anymore, specially after the whole deal with the Catholic church and the prevalence of rapes and sexual abuse there of little boys. There's a big problem with men having their claims laughed-at when they report a sexual abuse case (or even sexual harassment cases are ignored) and that should be changed and improved. But I don't know if I would say that children - boys and girls - are treated that differently. I would think (and I am making a baseless assumption here, if you have data, please feel free to correct me) - that society is appalled by abuse of children as children, and not necessarily by gender.

 

Sadly, gender does play a strong role in cases of child sex abuse. Just imagine the public outrage if those priests were abusing girls instead of boys.

 

Remember the Michael Jackson child molestation case, where the accuser got beaten by his peers? The schoolyard bullies continuously pestered him with homophobic and transphobic taunts because they believed "that's the kid who got raped by Michael Jackson". If that kid were a girl, she wouldn't be bullied as much and the response to her accusation would be more sympathetic.

 

Many boy victims of child rape face what this boy faced. Not to scare anyone but I wouldn't at all be surprised if MJ's accuser turns out to be an anger-retaliatory rapist to punish the macho bullies who ruined his adolescence. Those same bullies are very protective of girls and have a soft spot for girls.

Edited by Green Xenon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm positive that once society stops forcing males of all ages to treat girls preferentially over boys, that anger-retaliation rape will become close to non-existent."

Well, since society doesn't do that (though it does try to encourage both sexes to treat all people equally) that problem must be solved.

Face it, if society really did that, then women would be better paid than men for a start.

You seem to have got your facts backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm positive that once society stops forcing males of all ages to treat girls preferentially over boys, that anger-retaliation rape will become close to non-existent."

Well, since society doesn't do that (though it does try to encourage both sexes to treat all people equally) that problem must be solved.

Face it, if society really did that, then women would be better paid than men for a start.

You seem to have got your facts backwards.

 

 

Sadly, society does perpetrate such sexism. Males of all ages are forced by society to treat minor girls favorably over minor boys.

 

By "favorable treatment", I mean one or more of the following:

 

1. More compassion

2. More sympathy

3. More respect

4. More gentleness

5. More easiness

6. More empathy

7. More cleanliness

8. More protection

9. More luxury

10. More personal space

11. More privacy

12. More security

13. More freedom

14. More modesty

15. More decency

 

Society strongly enforces this pro-girl sexism despite scientific proof that the average girl is no more weak, innocent, well-behaved, delicate, vulnerable, or sensitive than the average boy of the same age.

 

In addition, this sexism is not at all innate or natural. It's simply a product of society. This sexism is worse in non-western cultures than in the west. Also, this sexism was historically more intense than it is now.

 

This pro-girl sexism is least intense in the upper-class modern western cultures -- such as the city of Diamond Bar in Southern California. This sexism is the most intense in southeastern Africa where things hardly appropriate for discussion happen to children.

 

I was born and raised in USA. However, my parents are from India. After knowing about the horrors of anti-boy sexism in India, I thank my good fortune that my childhood was in America. India is no place for children.

 

On average, the adult woman:

 

1. Is physically weaker than the adult man

2. Is more emotional than the adult man

3. Is better behaved than the adult man

4. Is far more likely to be a victim of opposite-gender violence [e.g. violence may be sexual, domestic, or spousal abuse] than the adult man

5. Can get or be pregnant whereas the adult man can't

6. Is physically more delicate than the adult man

 

Also, it is likely natural for a man to want to treat an adult woman partially over an adult man -- this is seen in many mammalian species. For example in many species of large mammals -- such as bison --, the adult males are rough with each other but tender with the adult females.

 

I therefore understand that:

 

1. Women need - and should be provided with - more protection against men, than visa versa

2. Women need - and should be provided with - more protection against men, than adults of the same gender from each other

 

However, the same does not apply to boy-child vs. girl-child.

 

If society got anything right, it's that the age of adulthood is 18 years. This is the magic age in which a child turns into an adult.

 

I believe males of all ages should be taught to be gentle and polite to adult women and to give adult women more space than adult men. This will give men/boys a respect for adult women and will help prevent these males from perpetrating domestic violence against their wives and girlfriends. However, males -- of any age -- should never be taught to treat girl-children better than boy-children because this will cause boys to develop an intense and life-long hatred for young girls and a hatred for the macho men who teach these boys to defer to girls. This sexism against boy children will likely cause boys to also despise society and what they perceive as irrational norms.

Edited by Green Xenon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banishing a 6 year old from school for kissing a play mate is totally ridiculous!

 

This again has to do with society forcing males of all ages to treat girl-children better than boy-children.

 

If a girl kisses a boy, no one cares. If one kid kisses another kid of the same gender, no one cares [though if they're male they make face homophobic teasing from peers]. However, if a boy kisses a girl, he is shamed to the core by society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This again has to do with society forcing males of all ages to treat girl-children better than boy-children.

 

If a girl kisses a boy, no one cares. If one kid kisses another kid of the same gender, no one cares [though if they're male they make face homophobic teasing from peers]. However, if a boy kisses a girl, he is shamed to the core by society.

 

During the recession that started in the 70's I became an advocate for homeless people, and very aware of the discrimination against males. There are complaints that the rich US does not give its share of charity to the world, but neither are we very caring with each other, and I think women's liberation in some ways made things worse, because now we are almost as careless of homeless women and children as we are of men. Actually, when we "liberated" women, there was a rise of women and children being involved in crime, both as victims and perpetrators. Women and children are less protected than they once were, but things remain worse for males. I think we should question what does it mean to be civilized?

 

When I was an advocate for the homeless, the men were associated with crimes and rape, but college males are far more apt to rape than a homeless man, and the argument that we should not protect these undesirable males, included ignoring the women and children who needed help. While the homeless men I was working with, were very concerned about the safety of women and children. Mind you this was a time of economic crisis and we are in economic crisis again. The life risk and suffering I was dealing with as an advocate still weigh heavy on me, and it seems to me if we what healthy society, we must protect males as well as females, because a male who is in a good situation is more able to help the women and children, and when treat others well, that becomes the standard for how we treat others.    I think we need to think wholistically about these relationships.  <br><br>I reviewed the original question, and how would a female rape a male who was not aroused?  It isn't the same for women, because arousal is not required for their rape.  However, I have heard priest seducing children of either sex is very harmful to them.   Going by the news, may be priest should learn this and pass a test on their understanding of it, before being made ordained priest?  <br>

Edited by Athena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we should question what does it mean to be civilized?

 

A truly civilized society would treat it's persons differently only if based on age, strengths, weaknesses, sensitivity, vulnerability, abilities, and disabilities. Males of all ages would still treat adult women more gently and give them more space than adult men, because adult women usually are physically-weaker, softer, and more sensitive to personal space than adult men.

 

However, a truly civilized society would never force a male of any age to treat a girl-child better than a boy-child. This is because that society would understand and respect the fact that the average minor girl is no more weak, delicate, sensitive, vulnerable, or innocent that the average minor boy of the same age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, society does perpetrate such sexism. Males of all ages are forced by society to treat minor girls favorably over minor boys.

 

By "favorable treatment", I mean one or more of the following:

 

1. More compassion

2. More sympathy

3. More respect

4. More gentleness

5. More easiness

6. More empathy

7. More cleanliness

8. More protection

9. More luxury

10. More personal space

11. More privacy

12. More security

13. More freedom

14. More modesty

15. More decency

 

Society strongly enforces this pro-girl sexism despite scientific proof that the average girl is no more weak, innocent, well-behaved, delicate, vulnerable, or sensitive than the average boy of the same age.

 

In addition, this sexism is not at all innate or natural. It's simply a product of society. This sexism is worse in non-western cultures than in the west. Also, this sexism was historically more intense than it is now.

 

This pro-girl sexism is least intense in the upper-class modern western cultures -- such as the city of Diamond Bar in Southern California. This sexism is the most intense in southeastern Africa where things hardly appropriate for discussion happen to children.

 

I was born and raised in USA. However, my parents are from India. After knowing about the horrors of anti-boy sexism in India, I thank my good fortune that my childhood was in America. India is no place for children.

 

On average, the adult woman:

 

1. Is physically weaker than the adult man

2. Is more emotional than the adult man

3. Is better behaved than the adult man

4. Is far more likely to be a victim of opposite-gender violence [e.g. violence may be sexual, domestic, or spousal abuse] than the adult man

5. Can get or be pregnant whereas the adult man can't

6. Is physically more delicate than the adult man

 

Also, it is likely natural for a man to want to treat an adult woman partially over an adult man -- this is seen in many mammalian species. For example in many species of large mammals -- such as bison --, the adult males are rough with each other but tender with the adult females.

 

I therefore understand that:

 

1. Women need - and should be provided with - more protection against men, than visa versa

2. Women need - and should be provided with - more protection against men, than adults of the same gender from each other

 

However, the same does not apply to boy-child vs. girl-child.

 

If society got anything right, it's that the age of adulthood is 18 years. This is the magic age in which a child turns into an adult.

 

I believe males of all ages should be taught to be gentle and polite to adult women and to give adult women more space than adult men. This will give men/boys a respect for adult women and will help prevent these males from perpetrating domestic violence against their wives and girlfriends. However, males -- of any age -- should never be taught to treat girl-children better than boy-children because this will cause boys to develop an intense and life-long hatred for young girls and a hatred for the macho men who teach these boys to defer to girls. This sexism against boy children will likely cause boys to also despise society and what they perceive as irrational norms.

 

 

A lot of what you say that society "demands" would now be illegal under the equality act if you did it at work. The law requires both sexes to be treated as equally as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of what you say that society "demands" would now be illegal under the equality act if you did it at work. The law requires both sexes to be treated as equally as possible.

 

 

Sure the law may mandate gender equality, but society doesn't always obey the law and often times this law isn't enforced.

 

For example, in martial arts classes, female instructors often treat children equally in terms of gender. However, male instructors are required -- by society's irrational norms -- to be easier and make less physical contact with girls than boys. If a man is as physical with a girl as most men are with boys, society will cry "abuse" and the male instructor will be falsely-accused of sexual harassment.

 

This is just one of the many examples of how society forces males of all ages to treat girl-children better than boy-children. Seriously, this pro-girl sexism is counterproductive because it causes boys to hate girls and society. A boy who is severely-victimized by this pro-girl bias, may go insane and end up with suicidal and homicidal thoughts. He may end up doing what the Columbine kids did. What if this pro-girl discrimination drives the boy psycho to the point where he commits suicide? What if he commits suicide in such a manner that he takes a *large* number of minor girls with him? It's best to prevent such a tragedy from happening. The best way to prevent such from happening, is for society to stop forcing a male of any age to treat a girl-child better than a boy-child.

 

A boy's perception of society and it's girls are key to preventing the boy from growing up with harmful intentions against minor girls and hatred for society's irrational gender stereotypes. In the above suicide-murder scenario, the girls maybe innocent, however, the boy's aim is to punish the macho men of society. Macho men really care for the well-being of young girls. Nothing upsets macho men more than if a male of any age attacks a young girl -- they have a rule "don't hit girls". So, in his attempt to punish machismo, the boy would likely pull off the above scenario if he is a victim of extreme gender-biased childhood abuse and bullying.

 

How does this topic relate to the thread? Well, the aforementioned victimized boy would have the mentality of an anger-retaliation rapist. I.E. hating society and it's minor girls.

 

Anger-retaliation rapists are hot-hearted and want justice for the wrongs society has perpetrated against them.

 

Anger-retaliation rapists can be cured of their rape-causing indignation, but first, society needs to stop the aforementioned pro-girl bias.

Edited by Green Xenon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm positive that once society stops forcing males of all ages to treat girls preferentially over boys,

 

I don't see this. I think that when there is a long-standing bias, it gets to be that it seems like that's fair, and any effort for true fairness seems like bias. (Witness efforts in the US to treat all religious positions equally, and see the reaction from the Christians). Males and females are different. Treating them identically is not the same as treating them equally, and efforts to treat genders equally that isn't identical might seem like preferential treatment, but is that from an unbiased perspective, or one that has been designed by males for the comfort and benefit of males?

 

There's an example in the US — Title IX in athletics, which said that women's sports had to provide equal participation as with men's sports at any place receiving federal funding. There was a lot wailing and gnashing of teeth, because colleges were going to fund these activities by reducing the number of men's programs. Was that preferential treatment, or removal of bias?

 

Note that the solution was not to have women on men's teams, competing directly. That might seem like equal treatment, but because men and women are not identical, it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see this. I think that when there is a long-standing bias, it gets to be that it seems like that's fair, and any effort for true fairness seems like bias. (Witness efforts in the US to treat all religious positions equally, and see the reaction from the Christians). Males and females are different. Treating them identically is not the same as treating them equally, and efforts to treat genders equally that isn't identical might seem like preferential treatment, but is that from an unbiased perspective, or one that has been designed by males for the comfort and benefit of males?

 

There's an example in the US — Title IX in athletics, which said that women's sports had to provide equal participation as with men's sports at any place receiving federal funding. There was a lot wailing and gnashing of teeth, because colleges were going to fund these activities by reducing the number of men's programs. Was that preferential treatment, or removal of bias?

 

Note that the solution was not to have women on men's teams, competing directly. That might seem like equal treatment, but because men and women are not identical, it's not.

 

 

1. We're not talking about adult women vs. adult men

2. We *are* discussing boy-child vs. girl-child

3. The average girl-child is no more innocent, weak, vulnerable, sensitive, better-behaved, or delicate than the average boy-child of the same age -- so it is illogical and unfair for society to force a male of any age to treat her favorably over him

4. I never said adult women and adult men should be treated identically

 

I think the title of the thread should be changed to "Are *girls* [not women] really treated preferentially?" since that is the scope of this topic.

Edited by Green Xenon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the title of the thread should be changed to "Are *girls* [not women] really treated preferentially?" since that is the scope of this topic.

Done. It doesn't change any of the points I made in my post.

 

Different ≠ preferential

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, we are talking about preferential behavior in pre-puberty kids?

I would like to see examples and/or evidence, please. The list provided is too random to be of any use.

 

What may be the case is that, on average, corporal punishment rates for boys are higher than for girls. But it is should also be noted that society does indeed treat them differently, boys are often encouraged to be more active and may thus result in behavior that is more likely to be punished.

Adolescence. 1994 Fall;29(115):543-61.Straus MA, Kantor GK.

However, girls are more likely to be sexually abused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, we are talking about preferential behavior in pre-puberty kids?

I would like to see examples and/or evidence, please. The list provided is too random to be of any use.

 

What may be the case is that, on average, corporal punishment rates for boys are higher than for girls. But it is should also be noted that society does indeed treat them differently, boys are often encouraged to be more active and may thus result in behavior that is more likely to be punished.

Adolescence. 1994 Fall;29(115):543-61.Straus MA, Kantor GK.

However, girls are more likely to be sexually abused.

 

1. Yes, we're talking about pre-adolescent kids

 

2. You're right, boys are more likely to face corporal punishment than girls IF the professor is male. Women tend to treat kids in a gender-neutral manner. It's the men -- who are forced by societal norms -- to avoid making physical contact with girls. For example, Singapore and Malaysia banned the caning of girls. In those nations, girls readily exploit this anti-boy bias and are often very cruel to boys because they know only the boy will be physically-disciplined. This is a recipe for disaster because at some point a boy victim will explode and likely pull of a Columbine-like attack on the girls.

 

3. Prior to adolescence, boys are just as likely to be sexually abused as girls. However, boys who report such abuse often face opposition from their peers [in the form of homophobic and transphobic bullying] which is why a boy is likely to keep such tragedies a secret. As a result, the statistics are skewed and give the false idea that sex abuse affects girls more than boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are societies where a girl is not allowed to go out by herself or in the company of a boy who is not a relative. How is that preferential treatment? Where they are not allowed to go to school at all, or boys will get the first spots in the school if the family can't afford to send all of the children.

 

I agree — your examples are too random and general to be useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm positive that once society stops forcing males of all ages to treat girls preferentially over boys, that anger-retaliation rape will become close to non-existent."

Well, since society doesn't do that (though it does try to encourage both sexes to treat all people equally) that problem must be solved.

Face it, if society really did that, then women would be better paid than men for a start.

You seem to have got your facts backwards.

 

Interesting, except higher pay for men also goes with patriarchy, which is male domination, and male domination goes with rape. It should be said, this is not just male domination of women, but also male domination of men. It is like a colony of chimpanzee where the alpha male takes whatever he wants by force, and everyone caters to him. In contrast to the bonobo which are just like chimps, except they are female dominated, a matriarchy.

 

The important difference between these two groups of primates is there food supply. Bonobo are situated where there is an excellent food supply and the food supply for chimps is not as good. Biologically I don't think there is much difference between a chimp and bonobo, but culturally they are different. I am sure if you do a cross cultural study of humans, you find, some cultures have more rapes than others. I seriously do not believe rape is as likely in matriarchies. It should also be said bonobo are very intimate with each other, and use touching to smooth each other. Researchers have associated this touching with sexual behavior, however, we might question if the researchers have confused affection with sex, because that is our cultural bias? Heck, we can look at a banana and see a sexual organ, and use sex to sell everything.

 

I think we need to question if there is something happening in our society that increases the likelihood of rape, but I also want to point out Muslims are so male dominated women assume they and the children should eat after the men have their fill. They also want the women to completely cover themselves, as did Puritans in the US also promoted covering the body, and punished women for exposing so much as an ankle, because it is assumed we can not show our bodies without trigger sex urges.

 

Questioning cultural factors that increase the likelihood of rape, and does include different expectations of males and females is legitimate, and I regret the changing of this thread. In fact, I realize I am feeling very angry about this change, because this subject is so important to our safety, and beneath my anger is fear. If we do not talk about this stuff, the evils remain in the dark and grow. The thread needs to be about rape, with questioning if preferential treatment of females discussed as a possible cause of rape.

 

Some cultures will realize more rape than others, and also, historically, women are treated much better when people enjoy the safety of a high standard of living. Our present economic troubles increases our risk. The more secure men feel, the less apt they are to abuse others in any way, and this thread should be about that. Men who victimize women will victimize women, regardless of who they believe has victimized them, because victims look for someone weaker to victimize, and being unemployed and loosing everything, and not having hope for doing better, is most certainly connected with feelings of being victimized. Feelings of being victimized in a highly competitive patriarchy, makes life dangerous for women.

Edited by Athena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. You're right, boys are more likely to face corporal punishment than girls IF the professor is male. Women tend to treat kids in a gender-neutral manner. It's the men -- who are forced by societal norms -- to avoid making physical contact with girls. For example, Singapore and Malaysia banned the caning of girls. In those nations, girls readily exploit this anti-boy bias and are often very cruel to boys because they know only the boy will be physically-disciplined. This is a recipe for disaster because at some point a boy victim will explode and likely pull of a Columbine-like attack on the girls.

 

First I would like to see the evidence of this. Second what if the person doing the punishing is a woman. Why would the person giving out punishment necessarily be male?

 

3. Prior to adolescence, boys are just as likely to be sexually abused as girls. However, boys who report such abuse often face opposition from their peers [in the form of homophobic and transphobic bullying] which is why a boy is likely to keep such tragedies a secret. As a result, the statistics are skewed and give the false idea that sex abuse affects girls more than boys.

 

It's hard to make a bold statement like that and back it up by saying, 'even though you may have evidence saying otherwise what I say is true.' True boys and girls are treated differently, but both get picked on quite a bit. My mother was raped when she was a child and many of her friends refused to be around her and even an aunt said it was her own fault. So in what why do you believe that girls don't have a fear of being stigmatized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are societies where a girl is not allowed to go out by herself or in the company of a boy who is not a relative. How is that preferential treatment? Where they are not allowed to go to school at all, or boys will get the first spots in the school if the family can't afford to send all of the children.

 

I agree — your examples are too random and general to be useful.

 

Now this is a different subject from rape, but connected. What does education do for a person? It often leads to better pay and personal power is directly connected with money. When the male children are more likely to be educated, you have a patriarchy, male domination. A patriarchy can be as protective of females as a buck is protective his herd, and the young studs will also lurk around hoping to get a female and may be even, someday, the whole herd. The females may enjoy the best life has to offer, because this is what the buck is suppose to provide, or the alpha male of any species for that matter. If a woman and her children are not being well cared for, she didn't marry very well. The male is to protect her, and in our reality, females are less protected since they were "liberated".

 

First I would like to see the evidence of this. Second what if the person doing the punishing is a woman. Why would the person giving out punishment necessarily be male?

 

 

 

It's hard to make a bold statement like that and back it up by saying, 'even though you may have evidence saying otherwise what I say is true.' True boys and girls are treated differently, but both get picked on quite a bit. My mother was raped when she was a child and many of her friends refused to be around her and even an aunt said it was her own fault. So in what why do you believe that girls don't have a fear of being stigmatized.

 

You might google for information before questioning what someone says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You might google for information before questioning what someone says.

 

I'm sorry, I forgot the rules of the forum were, 'look up other peoples statements to make sure they are factual.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questioning cultural factors that increase the likelihood of rape, and does include different expectations of males and females is legitimate, and I regret the changing of this thread.

The thread wasn't changed, it was split off since two different discussions were going on. This thread is about the claim that girls are treated preferentially. The rape thread is linked at the top of the first post, in the mod note.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thread needs to be about rape, with questioning if preferential treatment of females discussed as a possible cause of rape.

 

The split was to answer the question whether females are really preferentially treated (or rather girls) since this was the premise of one of the posters. I think this premise is being questioned as most societies would be characterized as male dominated.

Before that is established assuming that it is connected to rape is a little bit premature. However, the overall discussion regarding gender dominance, societal biases and rape can easily continue in the main thread, I think.

If specific elements have to be clarified, it may be good to split it again to clear up some premises. Clearly we are talking about a rather complex subject in which many factors may or may not contribute. I think it is a good idea to clear up whether a given situation really exists, before moving on to find associations.

 

Edit: crossposted with swansont

Edited by CharonY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First I would like to see the evidence of this. Second what if the person doing the punishing is a woman. Why would the person giving out punishment necessarily be male?

 

Why not make punishment of children gender-neutral and non-corporal regardless of who in providing the punishment?

 

Equally important why should gender-specific restrictions exist as to how a male teacher may discipline a girl? It makes no sense.

 

 

It's hard to make a bold statement like that and back it up by saying, 'even though you may have evidence saying otherwise what I say is true.' True boys and girls are treated differently, but both get picked on quite a bit. My mother was raped when she was a child and many of her friends refused to be around her and even an aunt said it was her own fault. So in what why do you believe that girls don't have a fear of being stigmatized.

 

There is stigma regardless of gender. However, girl victims of pedophilia are given more sympathy than boys -- especially if the perpetrator is male. Girls who are molested by men are enjoy a lot of sympathy from the male members of the public. Boys who are molested by men, are instead, seen as "girly", "effeminate", or "sissy". These boys are scrutinized for not being able to fight off their assailants. Society thinks of these boys as having lost their manhood.

 

This is another example of society forcing males of all ages to treat girl-children better than boy-children.

Edited by Green Xenon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not make punishment of children gender-neutral and non-corporal regardless of who in providing the punishment?

 

Equally important why should gender-specific restrictions exist as to how a male teacher may discipline a girl? It makes no sense.

 

My point is that you are only assuming everything that is happening is done by men and not actions of both genders. While assuming that you are not providing evidence for these claims.

 

I have no problem of punishment being gender-neutral, I have a problem with you assuming punishment is given out only by males. What gender specific restrictions exist about how male teachers may discipline male students but may not do the same to females?

 

 

There is stigma regardless of gender. However, girl victims of pedophilia enjoy more sympathy than boys -- especially if the perpetrator is male. Girls who are molested by men are given a lot of sympathy from the public. Boys who are molested by men, are instead, seen as "girly", "effeminate", or "sissy". These boys are scrutinized for not being able to fight off their assailants. Society thinks of these boys as having lost their manhood.

 

Yes you are saying that males are treated worse than their female counter-parts in similar situations, but do you have the evidence to support this. [sarcasm] Because I know when I hear about about a girl being molested I feel bad for her, but when it's a boy I know he's just a pansy[/sarcasm]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now this is a different subject from rape, but connected. What does education do for a person? It often leads to better pay and personal power is directly connected with money. When the male children are more likely to be educated, you have a patriarchy, male domination. A patriarchy can be as protective of females as a buck is protective his herd, and the young studs will also lurk around hoping to get a female and may be even, someday, the whole herd. The females may enjoy the best life has to offer, because this is what the buck is suppose to provide, or the alpha male of any species for that matter. If a woman and her children are not being well cared for, she didn't marry very well. The male is to protect her, and in our reality, females are less protected since they were "liberated".

 

I'm against patriarchy. I prefer matriarchy, because it is less likely to force it's males to treat girls better than boys. I am feminist.

 

For example, in fundamentalist cultures [clearly patriarchal] -- boys are penalized by being made sexually-available to men. This is common in the northwestern frontier of Pakistan. They view encourage the sexual abuse of boys as a matter of pride. It is seen as high-class of an adult man to have a harem of pre-adolescent boys. I'm not racist, I'm just stating the facts. Sorry if anyone is offended.

 

Very similar situations occur in Papua New Guinea and the indigenous tribes of Southeastern Africa. In the former, little boys are forced -- by cultural norms -- to submit to the perverse desires of grown men and older adolescent boys. Their culture claims that a boy needs to be raped by men in order to cleanse him of "maternal pollution". What a bunch of nonsense.

 

Sadly, in many non-western cultures if a boy is raped by men -- regardless of his age, he will face social condemnation and legal action for practicing sodomy, even though he is the victim. It is common in Pakistan, for police to arrest and jail young boys who they know/suspect to be victims of pederasty. Just imagine the public outrage is this crude "blame the victim" mentality was perpetrated against girls instead of boys. Not that it's right when it happens to anyone.

 

My point is that you are only assuming everything that is happening is done by men and not actions of both genders.

 

I never said that.

 

 

What gender specific restrictions exist about how male teachers may discipline male students but may not do the same to females?

 

Well, as said before, in Singapore and Malaysia -- and likely many cultures of human society -- men are not allowed to corporally-punish girls. However, anything other than a man punishing a girl is allowed. Not that I support corporal-punishment of anyone by anyone.

 

I'll give you another example. In Taekwondo -- and other martial-arts -- female instructors are allowed to make physical contact with kids of both genders. Male instructors are only allowed to make physical contact with boys. If a male instructors does make physical contact with a girl, then society will falsely-accuse him of "sexual harassment". Don't you think this is illogical?

 

Both cases are examples of society forcing males to treat girl-children better than boy-children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that.

 

That's why I said assume not said. You have not yet talked about if females are allowed to punish girls in a physical manner. And if they are, if they are allowed to do the same without having any fear of punishment themselves.

 

 

 

Well, as said before, in Singapore and Malaysia -- and likely many cultures of human society -- men are not allowed to corporally-punish girls. However, anything other than a man punishing a girl is allowed. Not that I support corporal-punishment of anyone by anyone.

 

Again the same problem. You are singling out men/girl punishment without giving examples of the opposite. Also, could you provide a link to the exact rules you are speaking of?

 

 

I'll give you another example. In Taekwondo -- and other martial-arts -- female instructors are allowed to make physical contact with kids of both genders. Male instructors are only allowed to make physical contact with boys. If a male instructors does make physical contact with a girl, then society will falsely-accuse him of "sexual harassment". Don't you think this is illogical?

 

The would be illogical if it were true. I train in various martial arts and have been to various martial arts schools. Every one I have been to this is a false statement. If you start training in a martial arts school you, or your parent, sign a waiver acknowledging you are engaging in martial arts training and all that comes with it. I have personally rolled with several females of varying ages and have never been accused of sexual harassment. The same thing happens for female wrestlers, I helped coach a Jr. High team while I was in high school, they wrestle with the males and the male coaches and it is not seen as harassment.

 

Both cases are examples of society forcing males to treat girl-children better than boy-children.

 

Again they would be if you showed the opposite was untrue and show that what you are saying is true.

 

[edit] When I say rolled I mean sparring in a Jiu Jitsu[/edit]

Edited by Ringer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.