Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Is it seen as acceptable for women to hit men?
Options
Comments
-
The way I see it, if women want equality, they shouldn't think they can hit who they want and not expect one back.
I've been a victim of it before, for anyone who cares, this is the story...
There was a college night out last year where at the end of the night we all went to get food, as ya do. A woman, of about 40/45ish tried to skip my girlfriend in quite a lengthy line so I stood infront of her and she proceeded to abuse me, calling me every name under the sun. I eventually told her to **** off and theres a line for a reason, she then threatened to "break my legs" when she got the chance to outside, all while her boyfriend/husband laughed on, I told her I'd love to see her try it. She then blindsided me, so I caught her arms and pulled her out of the line and pushed her into the floor as she crawled out of the chipper.
I may not have hit her back but I don't regret it one bit, I'd do it again if I was ever in the position again. Absolute scum out there.0 -
Is it unfair? That there is such a marked difference in how female-on-male versus male-on-female statutory rape betrays that it is at least seen as a far lesser of two evils by society - which does include women. So, no, it's not unfair._Whimsical_ wrote: »I think women who see nothing wrong with it would be VERY far and few between. Saying just because we don't hear them endorse it doesn't mean they don't is unfair.
Even in the media, you see a marked difference in how male and female sexual predators are treated; for example, the female commentator in this news segment describes the women in question as emotionally 'immature' and the students as being 'seduced' - where would you hear something simelar said of a male predator?
Clearly not as aberrant as when the victim is a girl though, as the often deafening lack of condemnation surrounding such cases demonstrates.We don't have figures to work with but I think there is ample anacdotal evidence to illustrate that women see teenage boys as kids,not sexually desirable and that behaviour and opinions to the contrary are aberrant.
That's the bottom line. You can claim that you wouldn't know any woman who would be utterly appalled, yet the fact remains that women do not display this, as they do when the victim is female - so clearly even women see it as at most a lesser crime. All your anecdotal evidence cannot rebut that reality, I'm afraid.
That's both true and touching, but not what's being discussed. The question is; is it seen as acceptable for women to hit men? And unfortunately the answer is yes, regardless if it is ok or not.It's not ok for a man to hit a woman, or for a woman to hit a man0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Is it unfair? That there is such a marked difference in how female-on-male versus male-on-female statutory rape betrays that it is at least seen as a far lesser of two evils by society - which does include women. So, no, it's not unfair.
Even in the media, you see a marked difference in how male and female sexual predators are treated; for example, the female commentator in this news segment describes the women in question as emotionally 'immature' and the students as being 'seduced' - where would you hear something simelar said of a male predator?
Clearly not as aberrant as when the victim is a girl though, as the often deafening lack of condemnation surrounding such cases demonstrates.
That's the bottom line. You can claim that you wouldn't know any woman who would be utterly appalled, yet the fact remains that women do not display this, as they do when the victim is female - so clearly even women see it as at most a lesser crime. All your anecdotal evidence cannot rebut that reality, I'm afraid.
That's both true and touching, but not what's being discussed. The question is; is it seen as acceptable for women to hit men? And unfortunately the answer is yes, regardless if it is ok or not.
To correct you and dispel this false assumption.
I've heard immaturity being discussed in terms of male predators in the context of only being able to relate to children. That's not an uncommon theme to come across. And it's very commonly talked about as a seduction. Because it often is a seduction.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »The point is that females seem to get off a lot more lightly than males
In the UK. Possibly/probably Ireland too. We can't say.Not everyone is open with their prejudices, and will speak them out loud. I've heard many comments, by both men and women, about seemingly celibate men of this nature, over the years.
And I've heard none. I agree that given the evidence it seems likely that in Ireland too, women may get off easier in sentencing. I can't say for sure, but given the evidence you presented it seems so. I will give you that. But I can't honestly ever say that men have the worse end of the stick when it comes to that. The "slut" culture around women is much much more prevalant than any juvenile 16 year old comments about someone being "gay" if they don't score that night.No. One direct consequence of this conditioning is how child abuse is treated. As Henry9 pointed out earlier where a male teacher has sexual relations with an under-age female student, he's condemned as a "paedo teacher" and ends up in prison, meanwhile switch the genders around and the abuse is trivialized as an "affair" and avoids any custodial sentence. In the US, the Debra Lafave case resulted in so many media comments that the victim was a 'lucky kid' that it inspired Southpark to satirize this attitude.
I get all that. And agree with all that. But just not sure how you linked the two statements. So you think that fact that men are seen as "players" conditions them to be seen as "lucky" if they get involved in situation like the female teacher/male student? Ok...I see your point I think. I don't really think it's a strong connection but I agree 100% with the wrongs of the older female/younger male scenario.This attitude continues beyond this; in Ireland women cannot legally commit rape (you need a penis apparently to do this, even in statutory rape), leading to situations where a man may be charged with rape if he has sex with a 14-year old, but a woman can only be charged with the lesser charge of indecent assault
I agree wholeheartedly the law should be changed.Even in the Slane incident, there appears to be little sympathy (and even scorn) of the boy who was filmed, even though (to the best of my knowledge) he appears to be guilty of nothing more than the girl.
Sympathy for the girl? You must be joking. The majority of people are calling this girl a slut and have no sympathy for her whatsoever.Or, my favourite scenario, where two under-age kids can have sex and once 18, the boy can be charged, but she cannot - all good examples of where female violence against males is more acceptable than the reverse.
Once again, agree the law should be changed but how does a (stupid) law regarding sex have anything to do with female on male violence? My main issues with your posts on here TC, is not the content, as I agree with many issues you're pointing out, but rather the way you are linking them as some sort of societal acceptance of female-on-male aggression.Or women who see nothing wrong with it? Just because they're not cheering, that doesn't mean they don't share the same views.
That's a little idealistic. I think it's a little naive to assume that women support it even though there is no evidence to suggest that. It is largely men who promote this culture IMO.Don't know about you, but I wouldn't particularly want to have a video of me engaging in a sexual act floating around on the Web, even if it was with Angelina Jolie.
Either would I. But if it had to be done, it would sure be nice if the whole world saw me as a "legend" and not a "dirty slut".As for consequences, it awaits to be seen. Legally he could still be tried for sexual assault (she cannot) of a minor (even if he's one too). If so, I suspect he faces consequences that are worse.
I've stopped following the story, as the hundreds of comments of slut shaming have just been depressing to read, so I don't know if she is a minor or not?0 -
Aye. Just going by the internet alone, it ain't women who trot out this clip in relation to cases of woman having sex with an underage boy._Whimsical_ wrote: »I think women who see nothing wrong with it would be VERY far and few between.
The attitude of "If my under-age son was having sex with an older woman I'd be thinking 'little legend' even though I know it's wrong, but if my under-age daughter was having sex with an older man I'd want his balls chopped off" doesn't help either.
This isn't whataboutery, it's just in response to the assertion re women not having a problem with it. I've no doubt there are women who don't have a problem with it, but they don't tend to go in for the "NICE" stuff. I would say women are less likely to celebrate it, if be complacent about it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Femme_Fatale wrote: »Aye. Just going by the internet alone, it ain't women who trot out this clip in relation to cases of woman having sex with an underage boy.
The attitude of "If my under-age son was having sex with an older woman I'd be thinking 'little legend' even though I know it's wrong, but if my under-age daughter was having sex with an older man I'd want his balls chopped off" doesn't help either.
This isn't whataboutery, it's just in response to the assertion re women not having a problem with it. I've no doubt there are women who don't have a problem with it, but they don't tend to go in for the "NICE" stuff. I would say women are less likely to celebrate it, if be complacent about it.
Not only that, but whatever gender you are, or age for that matter, the burden of proof is on the victim in a sex crime. Very hard to prove, and cops often don't believe them.
And then of course you can get charged with slander without enough proof. Interesting article here.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/why_cops_don_t_believe_rape_victims_and_how_brain_science_can_solve_the.html0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »
- Furthermore, once arrested, persons proceeded against for indictable offences per 1,000 estimated resident population, by sex, works out at 14.5 men versus only 2.3 women - which is a huge difference.
Huge difference?!? Er, bit of a misuse of statistics there, mate.
Females were indeed more likely than males to be cautioned, and males more likely to face court proceedings - but the difference was not as pronounced as you are trying to make out.
The arrest rates per 1,000 population were:
Females: 10
Males: 53
That means the male arrest rate was 5.3 times the rate for females.
Once arrested, the proceedings rates per 1,000 population were:
Females: 2.3
Males: 14.5
That means the rate at which males would face court proceedings was 6.3 times the rate for females. That's a wider gap than the arrest rate, but the difference isn't of an order of magnitude.
To look at this another way. Out of 1,000 males, 53 get arrested and 14.5 of those face trials. So of the males arrested, 27% go on to be tried and 73% don't. Out of 1,000 females, 10 get arrested and 2.3 of those face trials. So of the females arrested, 23% go on to be tried and 77% don't.
27% versus 23% - that's not a huge difference, and as the report points out repeatedly, that could be related to the severity of the offences committed.0 -
I think things* have moved away from the topic, "Is it seen as acceptable for women to hit men?"
The topic about whether "relationships"/sexual abuse of an adult and underage child is treated differently depending on the genders could make an interesting thread in itself if anyone wanted to discuss it (I don't want to volunteer as not particularly interested in it at this moment in time).
ETA:
*excluding Ulysses1874' post, which came in when I was posting.0 -
clairefontaine wrote: »And then of course you can get charged with slander without enough proof. Interesting article here.
Charged with slander? You can't be charged with slander in Ireland or Britain. It's a civil wrong, and the concept of criminal defamation no longer exists in Irish and English law.
Where does the article you linked refer to defamation?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »Charged with slander? You can't be charged with slander in Ireland or Britain. It's a civil wrong, and the concept of criminal defamation no longer exists in Irish and English law.
Where does the article you linked refer to defamation?
The article I linked doesn't refer to defamation.
That was my own point.
You can still sue over a civil wrong in the civil courts. On the other hand you can still sue in the civil courts even if you don't get a criminal, beyond reasonable doubt conviction. Doesn't mean you'll win though.0 -
I think things* have moved away from the topic, "Is it seen as acceptable for women to hit men?"
The topic about whether "relationships"/sexual abuse of an adult and underage child is treated differently depending on the genders could make an interesting thread in itself if anyone wanted to discuss it (I don't want to volunteer as not particularly interested in it at this moment in time).
ETA:
*excluding Ulysses1874' post, which came in when I was posting.
Sexual assaults are commonly seen as a form of violence. It's understandable the topics are overlapping.0 -
clairefontaine wrote: »You can still sue over a civil wrong in the civil courts. On the other hand you can still sue in the civil courts even if you don't get a criminal, beyond reasonable doubt conviction. Doesn't mean you'll win though.
I see what you mean, but you can't get charged with defamation because it's not a criminal offence. I'm not aware of people being sued for defamation or being charged with "wasting police time" for making allegations of sexual assault or rape, though if I'm wrong I'm sure someone can cite some examples.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I see what you mean, but you can't get charged with defamation because it's not a criminal offence. I'm not aware of people being sued for defamation or being charged with "wasting police time" for making allegations of sexual assault or rape, though if I'm wrong I'm sure someone can cite some examples.
I'm sorry I know its the guardian. On wasting police time. Yes there have been cases of women who drop the charges and then get punished. This article has a female slant.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/09/women-drop-rape-allegations
These are examples of convicted offenders. Obviously, if you don't get a conviction you are not a sex offender.
Convicted sex offender sues.
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Convicted-sex-offender-sues-mother-of-victim-over-blog-post--117373498.html
This one sues for custody of his victim and wins.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/convicted-sex-offender-nicholas-elizondo-gets-sole-custody-his-6-year-old-daughter
Accused but no conviction here,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2013/04/30/torii-hunter-darius-mcclinton-hunter-prosper-texas/2124387/
By the way I acknowledge this is a catch 22. If you falsely accuse someone of abuse and smear their name, you deserve to get sued, but in the other hand if the person is guilty and gets an acquittal, then technically and legally they are innocent and the accuser can be seen to have smeared their name. So what's the answer?0 -
The answer is to continue with the presumption of innocence and leave the burden of proof to the accuser. Also perhaps protect the identity of both the accused and accuser, otherwise its a pyrrhic victory when an innocent individual is accused and 'clears' their name.clairefontaine wrote: »By the way I acknowledge this is a catch 22. If you falsely accuse someone of abuse and smear their name, you deserve to get sued, but in the other hand if the person is guilty and gets an acquittal, then technically and legally they are innocent and the accuser can be seen to have smeared their name. So what's the answer?0 -
clairefontaine wrote: »I'm sorry I know its the guardian. On wasting police time. Yes there have been cases of women who drop the charges and then get punished. This article has a female slant.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/09/women-drop-rape-allegations
I don't think the problem is that it's the Guardian, or the article's "female slant". The problem is that the article is poorly subedited. The headline says the woman was jailed for withdrawing an allegation of rape - but she wasn't. The CPS proceeded against the woman because she actively sought to derail the trial, and then changed her mind again and accused the man for a second time. She was charged with perverting the course of justice because she perverted the course of justice. From a human perspective it is terrible that in this case she was the victim, but being a victim does not give someone the right to scupper a fair trial.
By the way, the Appeal Court decision and judgment in the case is well worth reading for anyone who professes an interest in criminal law and the courts. In summary, the Appeal Court found that the woman was guilty of a serious crime and that her conviction should stand. However, the Court also found that there were mitigating circumstances in her situation, quashed her prison sentence and replaced it with a community service order.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/a-v-r-judgment.pdfclairefontaine wrote: »Convicted sex offender sues.
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Convicted-sex-offender-sues-mother-of-victim-over-blog-post--117373498.html
And convicted sex offender loses. The judge threw it out.clairefontaine wrote: »This one sues for custody of his victim and wins.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/convicted-sex-offender-nicholas-elizondo-gets-sole-custody-his-6-year-old-daughter
That's not a "lawsuit". He sought custody of his daughter, and a court granted it. While one might very well wonder why a judge granted him custody, the case isn't relevant to the question - because it isn't a case of someone suing a person who alleged they raped or sexually assaulted them.clairefontaine wrote: »Accused but no conviction here,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2013/04/30/torii-hunter-darius-mcclinton-hunter-prosper-texas/2124387/
First of all, there's no way of knowing for some considerable time whether or not that case will succeed. Secondly, that's not an example of a "difficult to prove" case. The complainant who made her allegation withdrew it within 2 days of making it. The police continued to investigate Hunter for nearly a year afterwards.clairefontaine wrote: »By the way I acknowledge this is a catch 22.
But is it? No-one in Ireland or Britain has ever been sued for alleging sexual assault or rape. You quoted one such case in the United States, but the case is still ongoing and in any case there is a strong claim to be made by the plaintiff that the allegation was false and malicious - which is very different to making an allegation that is difficult to prove. One woman in the UK got a conviction for trying to derail the trial of the man she accused of rape, and one other woman got a conviction for fabricating a rape claim.
The above don't point to any systemic issue or any "catch 22". The criminal justice system makes life very difficult indeed for victims of sexual assault and rape, and it would be wrong to deny that. However, there really isn't evidence to support the claim that people making allegations of sexual assault or rape face any material risk of being sued or criminalised for doing so.0 -
Actually we can and do say; that women are treated more leniently has been raised as an issue in pretty much every western country in the World; you seem to be trying to treat it as the elephant in the room that we should not acknowledge.jaffacakesyum wrote: »In the UK. Possibly/probably Ireland too. We can't say.
I disagree, but then again I was a teenage boy, so I saw it happen.The "slut" culture around women is much much more prevalant than any juvenile 16 year old comments about someone being "gay" if they don't score that night.
Whatever about how boys, in particular, treat each other on this point, I've presented you with numerous social and legal examples of how this attitude is very real and has very serious implications to males; but you still don't really think it's a strong connection? Seriously?I get all that. And agree with all that. But just not sure how you linked the two statements. So you think that fact that men are seen as "players" conditions them to be seen as "lucky" if they get involved in situation like the female teacher/male student? Ok...I see your point I think. I don't really think it's a strong connection but I agree 100% with the wrongs of the older female/younger male scenario.
Actually, there's been numerous Irish articles in defence of the girl in question and absolutely no article condemning her. And of the boy?Sympathy for the girl? You must be joking. The majority of people are calling this girl a slut and have no sympathy for her whatsoever.
Because the patriarchal view demonstrated by all this is that the male is always the aggressor, the predator. Males seek sex, while women do not. Males are violent, while women are not (unless naturally forced into acting against their 'nature' by male abuse).Once again, agree the law should be changed but how does a (stupid) law regarding sex have anything to do with female on male violence? My main issues with your posts on here TC, is not the content, as I agree with many issues you're pointing out, but rather the way you are linking them as some sort of societal acceptance of female-on-male aggression.
Sorry, but that is complete abdication of responsibility and demonstrably false. The tabloids (as demonstrated earlier here) are typical proponents of this paradigm, for example. Are you suggesting that there are no women, be they journalists, sub-editors or editors, involved in this promotion? Was Rebekah Brooks a man in disguise?That's a little idealistic. I think it's a little naive to assume that women support it even though there is no evidence to suggest that. It is largely men who promote this culture IMO.
And are you telling us that feminism hasn't been selling us the line that only men are sexual predators for the last few decades? Or was that just male feminists?
Actually, your analysis contains quite a bit of a misuse of statistics there, mate.Deleted User wrote: »Huge difference?!? Er, bit of a misuse of statistics there, mate.
Your figure of 10 females to 53 males is skewed by the fact that you're citing arrests, yet 49% of women will be cautioned rather than arrested, against 30% of men. That means that the ratio of those caught is in fact 20 females to 76 males (narrowing the ratio from just over 1:5 to 1:3).
Then we go to the next step, prosecution. Now, those who are prosecuted represent 12% and 19% of those caught, rather than 23% versus 27%, more than doubling the gap between the two, from your own figure.
And finally, the difference in the use of custodial sentences further or that for certain crimes the gap between the genders is greater still.
Your 'dumbing down' of the figures only works when you conveniently ignore how the law is applied from the start - when the alleged criminal is caught.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Actually, your analysis contains quite a bit of a misuse of statistics there, mate.
Your figure of 10 females to 53 males is skewed by the fact that you're citing arrests, yet 49% of women will be cautioned rather than arrested, against 30% of men. That means that the ratio of those caught is in fact 20 females to 76 males (narrowing the ratio from just over 1:5 to 1:3).
Then we go to the next step, prosecution. Now, those who are prosecuted represent 12% and 19% of those caught, rather than 23% versus 27%, more than doubling the gap between the two, from your own figure.
And finally, the difference in the use of custodial sentences further or that for certain crimes the gap between the genders is greater still.
In fairness, I think it might be more accurate to say that both of our analyses have errors caused by reading the data too quickly.
For my part, the error is simple - I took statistics for all offences, whereas I should have considered indictable offences only. See Table A3.3 on page 82.
Your error is a bit more complicated, and not helped by the wording and layout of the report, but it is an error nonetheless.
Your 30% and 49% figures are taken from a graph (fig 3.5) on page 28 of the report. However, if you read the graph title you'll see that the graph neither says nor intends to say that 30% of males were cautioned. It says that of those males who were either cautioned or proceeded against, 30% were cautioned - and likewise 49% of females who were either cautioned or proceeded against were cautioned. In other words, the alternatives in the graph aren't "caution" and "arrest". The alternatives are "caution" and "prosecution".
The graph (figure 3.5) is meant to describe what happens after arrest. Unfortunately, the report is unhelpful in that respect because the graph title itself doesn't say that. But the report section in which the graph is contained does say that. Have a look at the heading "Cautions" on page 25, where the opening line of text says:
"Once arrested, the majority of suspects are either charged and then prosecuted at court, or given a formal warning."
The following graphs in that section, including graph 3.5, all give data for what happens after arrest.
While the 30% vs. 49% is a noticeable difference, we can't use the data to tell is if it has a significant effect on the overall outcomes in the system for men as opposed to women. Why? Partly because the arrest figures and the caution/prosecution figures are not statistically consistent with each other. The caution/prosecution figures are for indictable offences, whereas the arrest figures aren't. There's also the issue of what happens to the rest of the cases. We know that in 2007 1,228,100 males were arrested. We know that 148,477 were cautioned in relation to indictable offences, and that 339,716 were proceeded against. That adds up to 488,193. Does that mean the other 740,000 or so were all "done" for non-indictable offences? Or that they were all let go with no further action? Or a mixture of these? In any case, if we look at the "all offences" data in table A3.3, the total number cautioned and proceeded against is higher than the total number arrested, so obviously there is some other statistical factor at play there. Unless we know how many males and how many females were cautioned/prosecuted/let off for both indictable and non-indictable offence types, we can say that the 30% vs. 49% makes a difference - but we have no way of saying how big that difference is.
Notwithstanding the above, that still leaves the question of why the police - after arrest - are more likely to prosecute males and caution females. As I mentioned previously, the report itself says more than once that this may have something to do with the severity of the offence rather than the gender of the accused. Unless we have statistics for very specific offences rather than overall categories, any attempt to explain police decisions is only speculation.The Corinthian wrote: »Your 'dumbing down' of the figures only works when you conveniently ignore how the law is applied from the start - when the alleged criminal is caught.
It's a public message board. When you say something, you should expect it to be challenged. When that happens, it might be better to confine yourself to dealing with the facts rather than petty and over-sensitive ad hominem remarks. Just a thought.
By the way, flawed as the report might be in some respects, at least it exists and has plenty of data to grapple with. Do any statistics at the same level of detail exist for Ireland?0 -
Fair enough. TBH, to properly analyse such reports would be a full time job and, in fairness, if we have time to do so, then we have way bigger problems than poor statistical analysis.Deleted User wrote: »In fairness, I think it might be more accurate to say that both of our analyses have errors caused by reading the data too quickly.
The point of the report was to demonstrate that the oft quoted propaganda about how men are the 'criminal gender' is not as simple as that. That even in how the law is applied there are biases that contribute to this stereotype and the corresponding one of an innocent, non-violent woman.
Now, don't be silly; that no more an ad hominem than your accusing me of "bit of a misuse of statistics" earlier - so either it's not or you can dish it out but don't like getting it in return.It's a public message board. When you say something, you should expect it to be challenged. When that happens, it might be better to confine yourself to dealing with the facts rather than petty and over-sensitive ad hominem remarks. Just a thought.
Because we're that organized...By the way, flawed as the report might be in some respects, at least it exists and has plenty of data to grapple with. Do any statistics at the same level of detail exist for Ireland?0 -
What was there to defend about the boy? Discussions about the girl, specifically, exploded on social media. The #slanegirl and #slaneslut hashtags trended worldwide on Twitter. The vast, vast majority of comments were attacking, shaming and laughing at her for what she did. Her real name was discovered and posted on Twitter and Facebook.The Corinthian wrote: »Actually, there's been numerous Irish articles in defence of the girl in question and absolutely no article condemning her. And of the boy?
In contrast, barely anything was said about the guy. I disagree that he was labelled a "legend", he just wasn't talked about at all.
Articles were written in defense of the girl because she was the victim of an extreme cyberbullying case. Nothing was written about the boy because he was not bullied or shamed. There was nothing to defend.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »The point of the report was to demonstrate that the oft quoted propaganda about how men are the 'criminal gender' is not as simple as that. That even in how the law is applied there are biases that contribute to this stereotype and the corresponding one of an innocent, non-violent woman.
I'm not sure what your particular angle is, but what the report clearly demonstrates is that men are more likely to commit crimes, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be prosecuted and more likely to be jailed. Along the way some things happen that are undoubtedly interesting and that warrant further study, but they don't alter the fundamental fact that men have a higher propensity than women to commit crimes, particularly violent crimes.The Corinthian wrote: »Now, don't be silly;.
There you go again. You were doing OK up to that point.
0 -
No one denies that men commit more crimes. However, what the data demonstrates is ostensibly that when caught men are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be prosecuted and more likely to be jailed, for the same crimes as women.Deleted User wrote: »I'm not sure what your particular angle is, but what the report clearly demonstrates is that men are more likely to commit crimes, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be prosecuted and more likely to be jailed.
It does though because the statistics commonly quoted about gender and crime ignore the above 'interesting things that happen along the way', which skew the final figures. And these same commonly quoted statistics are the very ones that are presently being used by groups seeking to abolish custodial sentences for women.Along the way some things happen that are undoubtedly interesting and that warrant further study, but they don't alter the fundamental fact that men have a higher propensity than women to commit crimes, particularly violent crimes.0 -
I'm not sure what your particular angle is, but what the report clearly demonstrates is that men are more likely to commit crimes, more likely to be arrested, more likely to be prosecuted and more likely to be jailed. Along the way some things happen that are undoubtedly interesting and that warrant further study, but they don't alter the fundamental fact that men have a higher propensity than women to commit crimes, particularly violent crimes.
Um, I thought it hinted that both are as likely to commit crimes, but women just don't get as reprimanded as the men?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »No one denies that men commit more crimes. However, what the data demonstrates is ostensibly that when caught men are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be prosecuted and more likely to be jailed, for the same crimes as women.
No it doesn't. And anyway, "ostensibly" is a loaded word that doesn't belong in quantitative analysis. Either a report shows something or it doesn't. This report shows that men are more likely to be prosecuted and jailed for crimes in the same general category as women. As the report says more than once, this may have to do with factors other than the sex of the accused persons. It may, for example, have to do with the severity of the offence. Unless we have statistics for the various arrest, caution, prosecution and conviction rates by gender for specfic indictable offences, anything we say about why the rates differ between men and women is conjecture.
That's why the interesting things that happen along the way during the process are worthy of further analysis. But jumping to conclusions about them doesn't add value to the debate.0 -
GalwayGuy2 wrote: »Um, I thought it hinted that both are as likely to commit crimes, but women just don't get as reprimanded as the men?
I don't know that the agencies of HMG use statistical reports to "hint" things. As I said above, either the data shows something or it doesn't. But one way or another, anyone who is asserting that women are as likely as men to commit crimes, especially violent crimes, is making an extraordinary claim - and they should go get the data to back their claims.0 -
An ex girlfriend of mine would slap me in the face behind closed doors for the smallest of things. She wasn't very strong so I didn't fear her because I can handle myself if things were to get too out of hand from her.
Nobody should have free reign to physically abuse anybody else, regardless of what genitals they may or may not have.0 -
So you're happy to dismiss such overwhelmingly conciliatory evidence as simply "worthy of further analysis" and thus not admissible in discussion until then?Deleted User wrote: »That's why the interesting things that happen along the way during the process are worthy of further analysis. But jumping to conclusions about them doesn't add value to the debate.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »So you're happy to dismiss such overwhelmingly conciliatory evidence as simply "worthy of further analysis" and thus not admissible in discussion until then?
As a general rule, I don't take seriously any question on an internet message board that starts with "so". It is the clearest demonstration possible that the person posing the question has jumped to one conclusion, if not several conclusions.
In the instant case, I feel it is no harm to point out that you seem to have a misapprehension as to the meaning of the word "conciliatory", and I've already explained why your "evidence" can't realistically be described as "overwhelming" in any respect.
The issue is not whether what we say is admissible - it's a message board, not a court of law, so we can say whatever oul' nonsense comes into our heads. The issue is whether what we say is supported by the information available. The report doesn't support what you say. It does however show some statistics that merit further study, and notes that the data exist while also explaining why definitive conclusions can't be drawn.
The report made this information available to you whatever number of times you read it, and I've noted that at least three times. I'm not sure what else I (or the report) can do in the circumstances.
Wouldn't you really have something to carp about if I said the data wasn't worthy of further analysis?0 -
I'd never touch a hair on a woman's head not unless she gave me some belt.
If a woman is well able to throw a slap she's well able to take one,that's how I see it anyways.
Yes, but in general a woman's slap won't be near as potent as a man's. I wouldn't forcefully hit a woman because I'd like to think that I have the speed, strength and skills to fend her off and defend myself. Now, should she be a menace and my fending isn't working, yes, she gets decked!0 -
Advertisement
-
Regarding men and women committing violent acts and violent crime, it is overwhelmingly men who commit the acts. It is down to nature and testosterone. We are naturally a more aggressive human. Built for it and designed for it. Now, women too commit these acts, but not near as much as men.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement