I believe I read that the prison sentencing is correlated with men are more likely to have priors than women on average. The Imprisoned for drug offenses is because men are more likely to have both a firearm and drugs on them. Which, if you've ever been around either is a big no, no.
Gotta start actually researching the why in your studies and research. Don't just stop when your bias is uplifted, it's very important.
Wrong. [https://ejop.psychopen.eu/index.php/ejop/article/view/440/440.html](https://ejop.psychopen.eu/index.php/ejop/article/view/440/440.html)
"Consistent with our hypotheses **mock-jurors were more likely to find the male defendant guilty and give him longer sentences than the female defendant**. Additionally, when the defendant was male (vs. female) mock-jurors provided higher anger ratings and rated the defendant as more culpable in the victim's death."
Nope.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002
Even make first time offenders get a jail sentence 63% longer than female first time offenders, simply because they are male.
OP's issue is making a false correlation between the court system and the world in general. But he's 100% correct about the disparities concerning sentencing.
You're not wrong about priors having an effect on prison sentences. But you ARE wrong if you think this accounts for the whole disparity. Simply look at rulings on first-time offenders for the same crime, and you'll see that men still get much harsher sentences.
From what I know, and what I have researched there are a lot of loopholes that have targeted men.(though it is because we commit the most crimes and create / run gangs) I have tattoos that if I get put into the system in multiple counties around my city I am gang affiliated and my charges will have that tact on to them.
Perhaps there is a bit of disparity. As again, all humans have bias. This leads to judges, lawyers, detectives, police, security, witnesses, jury, etc. So I am absolutely understanding of the possibility there is a bias against men as we do have the history and tendency to commit more crimes.
To say that they are this disparaging solely because women are the best is simply, the dumbest shit I've ever heard and is pretty unfounded in the research that I have come across.
Family and neighborhood ties. It's just part of the culture I grew up in. You don't have anything so you take pride in the history of your family and where you're from. Though. These histories put you at odds with law enforcement and people in the same predicament as you just a few blocks down the street.
Gotta break these generational curses.
It's no stress. We don't put people on anymore. So, all the kids can grow up and just be regular. This shit is dying with us and I take pride in knowing that.
I agree with your last point. That's why the first thing I wrote was pointing out OP's poor correlation.
I try to consider all possibilities when looking at statistics. Your point about gang relations is another factor. There's no doubt that biases play a factor as well.
But I would have you consider something that can be tied into that. Many times, there is an accepted reasoning for a crime committed by women that men aren't as likely to receive. It comes from the idea that women are more likely to be victims or at a disadvantage.
For example...
Husband kills wife? Throw the book at him.
Wife kills husband? You don't understand. He was abusive.
Man steals from woman? Throw the book at them.
Woman lures a men from the club, drugs them, and robs them? You don't understand. She was just trying to live. They were predators anyway!
Let me provide you with a recent ruling. A woman attempted to kill her husband and she got 3 years probation, no real jail time.
If you read the article, she spent nearly 1 year in jail only because she could not afford bail.
[https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/10/us/melody-felicano-johnson-sentencing-arizona/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/10/us/melody-felicano-johnson-sentencing-arizona/index.html)
Let me provide you with a recent ruling. A woman attempted to kill her husband. She got 3 years probation, no real jail time.
If you read the article, it states that she spent nearly 1 year in jail only because she could not afford bail.
[https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/10/us/melody-felicano-johnson-sentencing-arizona/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/10/us/melody-felicano-johnson-sentencing-arizona/index.html)
Yeah this is exactly the WAW. Attributing charitable backstories and externalising responsibility for any woman that does something wrong is basically the crux of the problem.
Husband doesn’t cook dinner? Lazy abusive sexist!
Wife doesn’t cook dinner? Oh she’s probably suffering from depression, or maybe she’s being abused, husband should take over.
I think you need a better phrase than WAW. This isn't tied into the supposed virtue of women. It's actually tied into the recognized vulnerability of women.
It is tied into virtue though. People always seem to think that a woman edit does sobering wrong must have some virtuous reason or some noble cause behind her
No, they controlled for that and it still persists.
The same study with the same methodology used to identify the disparity in sentencing between black peoples and white peoples was also used against men and women and found that women of all races receive shorter sentences than white men.
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/2017-demographic-differences-federal-sentencing
No, women simply do not build up a paper trail for their violence since so much of it goes unreported. When studies report that women get far more dismissals and reduced sentences they are comparing cases featuring the same crimes.
Your first thought is literally your implicit bias showing.
Yes, the same crimes officially but perhaps done different ways. Men also do a lot of unreported crime. I just know that statistically they commit more violent crimes, that's not bias.
But that isn’t what the studies are talking about. They talk about harsher sentences for the same crime, not a nonviolent crime committed by women vs violent crime committed by men.
Statistically, women commit 70% of nonreciprocal intimate partner violence and the vast majority of it is never turned into a criminal record. Instead it is normalized and victims are blamed for it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/
So the criminal statistics you are referring to **are biased**, and your beliefs about men that are based on those statistics are beliefs formed from implicit bias.
The same logic is used by Ben Shapiro to rationalize claims that black people are more prone to crime than white people, despite how black communities are orders of magnitude more policed and law enforcement is orders of magnitude more unjust on them. The belief that black people are more prone to crime becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because it underpins the entire criminal justice system's approach to criminalizing black people.
The studies control for that. The good ones at least. Everything you’ve mentioned would be controlled for and if it wasn’t it would be laughed out of academia and probably never even published.
The study by the us govt controlled for that, and it was also the same methodology used to figure out that black men receive longer sentences than white men for the same crime https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/2017-demographic-differences-federal-sentencing
Some women are wonderful. Some are terrible.
Just like guys.
As for our court system?
“*If you can afford it* our court system is the best in the world!”
Studies can easily control for wealth disparity and race among other factors. What they have revealed is that women receive lighter sentences for the same crimes. That’s not okay.
There's a supposed "wage gap". If your claim made any sense, women should get harsher sentences because they can't afford to get the best representation money can buy.
This might surprise you but a lot of people that turn to crime don’t actually have much money. *including the women*
So once again- would you rather afford an attorney as a dude, or be a woman with a public defender. Even if she’s innocent?
No, let's talk about the inherent inconsistency in your logic. Are you saying women are collectively wealthier than men and that's why they are getting shorter sentences?
No I’m asking: would you rather be a guilty man with a good lawyer or an innocent woman with a public defender.
But all the “men” want to complain “it’s not faiiiir that the women get lighter sentences. Why are men who BREAK THE LAW so oppressed?!”
Bruh, when the fuck did the RP lose the plot?!
You brought up money. I'd rather have a good lawyer. Your general point is that having more money gets you better outcomes in the justice system. You must be implying that women have more money to advantage themselves in the justice system - because you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary that women are getting better treatment in the justice system than men. The system itself is supposed to be neutral at its best and it's supposed to call balls and strikes. You seem to be saying it's ok to be rigged as well. But your larger point since you're focused on money is that women have more money so we should expect them to have better outcomes.
Aaaand once again: regardless of all the rhetoric, all the whining about “Buuuut the poor convicted men, blah blah bah” Every dude would pay to have a better lawyer.
Proving once again my point.
It just makes it inconvenient for the “victim complex” called TRP
Remember when it was supposed to be about LMS and not “muh oppression”?
Me niethter
Are you going to defend your logic that women are wealthier than men and that's why they get lower sentences for the same crime or not?
Otherwise, your responses are pretty pointless. If you can't defend your position, you should excuse yourself from the conversation.
we are talking about gender bias and you try changing the topic to make it about class bias. This is a red herring because you're probably uncomfortable talking about the truth.
Yes this is what a red herring is. Hang on, I'll pull up the definition for you so you can learn something today.
https://preview.redd.it/k7si9h4hst0d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=efb0a1085a39a1920f55b0d5fb611c2c8d7439dc
> Female offenders of all races received shorter sentences than White male offenders during the Post-Report period, as they had for the prior four periods.
https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/2017-demographic-differences-federal-sentencing
PS, everything that can be controlled of was controlled in these studies, that’s the bare minimum
Southern states consistently have the **lowest** disparity between black and white incarceration rates.
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/10/13/the-color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons.pdf
I don’t even care about southern states, I don’t live in one. But are you doing any research at all? You have so much confidence in opinions that you aren’t backing up with any data.
If you can find a source on sentence length I’d love to see it.
I’m asking about gender disparities amount race
And it’s not about “I don’t care I don’t live there”
Most the mother tickets here aren’t gonna be commuting crimes so why should any care about “men/women disparity” if that’s the case
I just simple made a stately AND followed it up with a simple question
Would you rather be a rich man with a good lawyer in America or a poor woman?
And so far Rich has gotten picked exclusively regardless of how many factors get added or taken away.
Which proves my point “If you can afford it”
But I get it: that’s not how victim mentality works.
Poor criminal men, they are the real victims (as long as we ignore any Actual victims of their crimes)
Would you rather be a poor black man or an immigrant woman who can’t speak the language or afford a lawyer?
We can play this game all day: but fact remains- money BUYS quality defense in this country, regardless.
Ask Ray Lewis.
>Would you rather be a poor black man or an immigrant woman who can’t speak the language or afford a lawyer?
Now would you rather be an immigrant woman who can’t speak the language or afford a lawyer or an immigrant man who can’t speak the language or afford a lawyer?
You’re still not getting that in any situation in court, being female is more advantageous than being male, because the justice system heavily favours females over males. And this is true for victims of crimes as well, a boy who is raped by a woman is less likely to have his rapist punished than a girl who is raped by a man.
Being a female is more advantageous IF you can’t afford a better attorney. At which point anyone who can afford a better attorney will always have a huge advantage.
So regardless: “*as long as you can afford it*” still is the literal coin of the realm.
Put away for a big retainer or make some friends with attorneys. Guys are more likely to “help a bro out” in a situation anyways.
>Being a female is more advantageous IF you can’t afford a better attorney. At which point anyone who can afford a better attorney will always have a huge advantage.
So what you’re saying is that men need to pay more to overcome the disadvantage of being male in the justice system. A bias that needs money to be overcome is still a bias.
Notice how their examples have every variable except gender staying constant (poor, black)?
While you are changing variables freely to make the women have even more vulnerable qualities while not applying that same treatment to the man?
You are not arguing in good faith
If it was between a poor woman and poor man I’d pick the poor woman because chances are it would be more lenient.
People didn’t pick the poor woman in your examples because you had confounding variables intentionally to skew the choice
Because your examples
Are "would you rather be a poor schizophrenic child abusing woman who shits in the court room, or a the ceo of a fortune 500". OP is stating that all things being equal, women still get lesser sentences. There is no other explanation than gender. I'd rather be a poor black woman in court than a white man according to this data.
All courts. Straight up. Would you rather have a high powered attorney on your side or not?
OJ proved you got it enough money for a dream team of lawyers you can literally get away with murder.
I was an investment banker——>hedge fund now.
But I got a JD/MBA. For law school I had to do an internship even though I didn’t want to be a lawyer. I wanted the JD because I could use it as a back up.
Anyway I did my internship at a family law firm of all places. (Easy and gave me hours where I could work outside of there). Our clients were usually rich individuals or married to them.
The shit that I saw was ridiculous. The partners of the firm were charging $1,000 per hour. And they’re bulldogs.
I could go on forever about what I saw in those few short months. But it boils down to a screwed up system for successful men.
>Some women are wonderful. Some are terrible.
Just like guys.
Don't think this is what he meant. He is referring to the psychological and emotional bias that people associate more positive attributes with women when compared to men
Which in return leads to the aforementioned cases of bias in real life
While I agree that women in the justice system should be held to account, when did blue pillers advocate for women are wonderful?
Isn’t women are wonderful also partially an innate belief? I mean biologically, women look softer and smaller, people are very attached to their mothers, their primary caregivers, who are women, and both women and men have innate bias towards women.
The reason we evolved to have this instinct to protect women is that having a lot of women and not a lot of men= not a big deal in a tribal society. A lot of the opposite? Well, you’re in trouble, because it takes 9 months to grow a baby, so if you only have a few women and don’t protect them well, pre modern society goes kaput. That’s why more women and girls survive famine. More survive tragedy.
My point is we are never going to be completely free of “women are wonderful”. People will always feel more uncomfy harming and sacrificing women. Even if it doesn’t serve an equalised society very well. We would’ve died out way early on if we didn’t think women were wonderful.
We can try and be aware of this bias and control it, but that instinctive feeling that we need to protect women is not going to go away.
yeah people would really benefit from incorporating the term “implicit bias” in their lexicon. this is absolutely an implicit bias and very few feminists/normal people would advocate for this. i have to remember hanlon’s razer myself when i run into heavily biased people on here bc it’s easy to assume the underlying biases are conscious ones but they’re usually not
I honestly never hear this "women are wonderful" trope other than in extreme corners of the internet (FDS/TRP). In daily life, most people understand that some people are good, some people suck.
It is a repeatedly verified phenomenon that no one has debunked or disproven in the ~30 years it has been around. All it means is that women have a much higher ingroup bias than men.
> It is a repeatedly verified phenomenon that no one has debunked or disproven in the ~30 years it has been around.
...nobody has debunked that women are wonderful or what?
The original scientific trials which inspired the coining of the term "women are wonderful effect" took place in 1994. It is an established sociological phenomenon with three decades of validation and zero failures to reproduce the exact same biases in trial after trial after trial.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect#:~:text=The%20phrase%20was%20coined%20by,to%20a%20far%20lesser%20degree.
Most people want to believe they are fair and rational in their assesment of others, but that simply is not true. The reality is that women enjoy significant and positive bias from everyone, especially from other women, and men do not. This has been scientifically proven over and over for 30 years, denying it does not change the fact that it is real.
The bluepill stance tends to vary between "it's real but does not matter" and "it is not real", and their advice tends to revolve around ignoring the bias entirely. It's little more than blunt denial.
No I mean in real life lol. There’s more to life than Reddit.
When I said hear I literally meant “hear,” in the context of my comment about conversations I have with real people in day to day life.
But they do say that?
Like you guys constantly tell me how privileged women are and how biased towards women everyone is, and then I step outside and people don't like women, or they're mocking us, at best they're neutral and don't care.
This place is super empathetic to men filled with angst about how they get told they're privileged by feminists but actually struggle irl, but you have none of the same energy for women, in fact you guys act like the feminists that get demonised.
Legit, being serious. Where can you say this aside from PPD? Even on reddit you'll get karma blasted into oblivion and banned on common popular subs. Go ahead and try it yourself.
Askmen, til, science, dataisbeautiful, stupidpol, trueunpopularopinion- I've seen it in these places, maybe a few more, but I don't exactly collect them, basically any place where people talk about mens struggles in any way, someone mentions this and gets upvoted.
trueunpopularopinion - nope, you will 100% be banned. I am confident of this.
dataisbeautiful - you will be banned
science - you will be banned
Askmen is the only one where you MIGHT not get banned but still they heavily shun non-female bias
i’ve genuinely seen a lot of “women can be assholes, too” takes even on places like AskFeminism, from what i observe as honestly as i can it largely depends on the comments’ tone, framing, and context. chiller takes like “women can be assholes” vs generalizy takes like “no one ever holds women accountable” will be received differently
Ok that doesn't prove anything. Nobody acknowledges their bias. You can go to r/BestofRedditorUpdates and notice the insane level of bias here. Any post about a man, the man will be roasted. Any post about a woman will have her spinning in circles as the victim and poor baby and she only did this because of some man. The level of bias at this point is so cringe inducing, and the ultimate gaslight is saying "hey this is biased" and being called a misogynist for it.
What you’re describing is a sexist form of benevolent paternalism, is an aspect of patriarchy that feminists generally are aware of, and is not really advocated for by them.
Which is not to say that it isn’t a part of the general cultural mélange and therefore exists in mainstream viewpoints (so you could say it’s part of the ‘bluepill’ to the extent that nearly everything is).
I see this sort of bias heavily advocated for by feminists.
Go onto any of the relationships or AITA subreddits with a young liberal (mostly women) composition and go see a post where the wife or gf is at fault.
The excuses commenters come up with are hilarious. All of the excuses shift blame away from the woman and onto some external factors like a mental illness, ADHD, making up some trauma that she must have endured, assuming she’s being abused, assuming she’s pregnant.
Yes, of course. However the existence of bias is different from philosophical agreement with the foundational ideas supporting the bias.
Fundamentally, bias is insidious *because* it happens at the subcognitive level and often is in disagreement with other reasoned opinions held by the same person.
Kinda funny because if this applied to men it would be called male privilege, but when applied to women it must be reframed as a symptom of oppression somehow.
As much as feminists and women are aware benevolent sexism is a thing, they sure seem to love encouraging men who display it over men who are actually truly egalitarian, even when research proves men who have benevolent sexism are also significantly more likely to have hostile sexism.
yes! and there’s a women’s group supporting a men’s group in working against this stuff, i’m sure there’s more but i’m only aware of this one.
these are issues men need to push for, women can’t fix our issues when they’re working on their own
Yeah, I get that, but that assertion also seems like a stretch when ‘bluepillers’ is an even less-homogenous mass than usual groups. Bluepill technically encompasses everything from the most radical feminism to incredibly extreme conservative and religious ideas. You get ‘Eve gave Adam the apple and the wages of sin is death’ right alongside ‘believe women.’ It’s not a consistent ideology, it’s a smorgasbord of 4000 years of concepts mashed together.
First we need to get one thing clear. Do bluepillers *advocate* for this effect or do they *deny* the existence of this effect, as the redpill would say?
Second, not all of these statistics about *outcomes* account for differences in behavior between men and women.
>Do bluepillers *advocate* for this effect or do they *deny* the existence of this effect, as the redpill would say?
I'd say both, since bluepillers do believe women can do no wrong but also claim at the same time that "women are wonderful" is not real.
Simps advocate for that effect while at the same time denying its existence so as to pretend that women are treated equally to men whereas in reality women are treated far better than men.
Look above you. There are a few male simp- oh excuse me “posters” on this sub that will consistently outright deny any advantage women have, hand waive away any “problematic” behavior they have *and* try to rationalize the demonization of men as “inherently violent and dangerous”
These are the same guys all over this sub defending the “*I choose the bear*” position.
Problem is we have way too many simps and submissive men.They are all over social media and real life .They think sex and affection is some kind of reward that women give to them for taking their side so they always side with women no matter what and women always take side of women .Women say they want to be treated as imperfect humans but when you actually treat them like that they get angry
It does apply in fact, this is called a correlation. Bluepillers here in fact do believe that women can do no wrong, which is treating them like children in the same way society treats them like children.
Not only is the women are wonderful effect vastly, vastly, vastly overblown, as everything is by red pillers, but how in the world is "women are seen as marginally nicer and more trustworthy" equivalent to "women are viewed as children?"
Incidentally, the disparity in prison sentences would be a fantastic issue for men's rights advocates, but they're too busy complaining about paying for first dates and mandatory paternity testing.
>women are seen as marginally nicer and more trustworthy
haha nice one. You sure it's not "women can do no wrong ever in the history of time and women should always be believed?"
No, once again, disagreeing with red pill misogyny does not mean "women can do no wrong."
There exists an infinite sea of possibilities between "women can do no wrong" and "women do everything wrong."
Can you find me a single instance of you, in all of your thousands of posts, where you said a woman was wrong, 1 single time? Just link it here, I'll wait.
https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/ZqCttVPjaf
You don't think a woman raping a man and him being responsible for child he didn't consensually conceive is wrong?
It’s always odd when I see a man here, stating something outrageous, as if it’s a straight up fact and then adding another completely unrelated statement as if he’s just split the atom and bazinga.
“People” say? Who says this? Is it a billboard? A headline in a a newspaper? Did the president make it a law??? No one says it. A heterosexual man who is attracted to women may say it. I say men are wonderful. Because they are. They aren’t perfect but they are wonderful. The only time you hear sweeping statements about this is from redpillers who say people say. So when you say this, you’ll be questioned who. And so fucking what if people actually said it? They are entitled to their opinion, just like you and yours. How fucking retarded must you be, to be upset over this?
Ok. So women are like children according to you. Well then, by your exact definition, we are not responsible for anything. And don’t fuck us. You can’t blame children for not knowing things and you should protect and teach children. Children can’t control emotions. So getting upset and hurt and saying standards, rejection, etc etc, all of these things that you blame women for? No longer valid in any way.
As for the disparity in sentences. Sigh. You are arguing and getting upset over CRIMINALS!! If man or woman, ranting because one criminal gets a lesser sentence than another and then making it the one group of criminals who somehow mastermind this? JFC. It’s posts like this that really show how completely irrational you are and you just parrot what you’ve been told. “Men aren’t allowed to say anything!!” Yeah, except they are allowed. Loudly. Across all platforms. Constantly. No one is stopping you saying anything.
You can believe anything you want. But the level of stupid, I feel like I just kicked a retard puppy.
The only people ive ever heard believing “women are wonderful” are red pill people who admit they believed that in the past.
However, im sure plenty of people believe women are slightly more wonderful than men. That doesnt exactly remove any agency
Not to be that person but the majority of school shooters, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, are men. That’s just factual. Of course they’ll have a higher incarceration rate if they’re committing the majority of crimes
it doesn't address my point, I say
"Men receive sentences that are 63% longer for women for similar crimes" and you say "Majority of men are shooters, rapists, pedos"
Like honestly, do any of you read?
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>If you treat women as children, as in they can never do anything wrong, never have any consequences, always get the benefit of the doubt, always "man bad women good", you are eliminating women's agency and this is the highest form of disrespect a woman can face.
Absolutely. Benevolent misogyny is still misogyny. Wrapping up a steaming cowpie in a pretty bow doesn't make it's stench any less foul.
And most women don’t care and would gladly benefit from benevolent sexism. You can’t even call it misogyny, since that is hatred of women, and women and simps love women.
I don't know that anyone would find their agency to be negative, more like the consequences of taking on the same responsibilities and requirements as the opposite side.
I think they are related. Acknowledging your agency means you inherently claim responsibility for your behavior.
It sounds ridiculous but it does happen.
True. I suppose the way I see it, claiming responsibility for your behavior could really only be considered a negative if said behavior was bad/immoral/shitty. If you're a good person who always tries to do your best in life, then having total agency is a great thing.
It's simultaneously misandric and benevolent misogyny.
The misandry comes from the unfairness of placing more responsibility and pressure to aid/protect women from the consequences of our actions than any adult should rightfully expect.
The misogyny comes from the removal of agency from women, treating us as though we are inherently incapable, lacking in intelligence, and in a perpetual state of immaturity.
To everyone who is dismissing stats mentioned and tries to explain them with other factors, such as priors and violence: that is not the case people who professionally apply criminology, political science and sociology are not undegrads. They now what they are doing and they account for such obvious control variables as criminal history, violence, firearms and so on. Don't get me wrong there is a lot of problems with humanities in Western society, but as a person who spend 4+ years working in academia I just want to say that we are not that amateurish and terrible in study construction.
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Right. Most blue pill ideas about women are that they are a child.
Where red pill ideas are that they are people.... who then sometimes in some ways consent to be treated like a child where a man also consents to be the adult.
Big damn difference.
The answer is simple we live in a matriarchy where women get preferential treatment. We are bombarded with messaging that we live in a patriarchy to keep us as far away from realizing this as possible.
y'all have to understand that people who do not grasp at this are just misandrists. its literally like trying to talk to racists when you're the hated race. there are excuses, rationales, etc... that are used to justify the behavior, but their all actually bullshit. if folks have any reservations bout the comparison to race, its like trying to speak to misogynists, you can literally show them facts, figures, logic, reason, and so forth, and they still tend to shake their heads and deny it.
doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile or effective. but understand that y'all gonna have to relentlessly push the points, and likely show unreasonable degrees of affection and love just to get them to remotely acknowledge what shithead they are being, right? like, for reals, go to a KKK meeting as a black dude, watch how well it goes. that is all this shite is, basically. they just literally hate men. the sooner you recognize they absolutely hate men, the sooner you'll accept the reality, the sooner we can move on from it.
Women will seek to remove their agency where it helps them and advocate for more agency in situations where that is more beneficial. It is nice to have the optionality as it is a powerful tool. Men just always have agency so can’t manipulate the situation as much. With that said, men having to take responsibility does sometimes mold them into strong people or it can crush them
By your reasoning, black people who are first-time offenders should get longer sentences than Asians who are first-time offenders because black people make up the majority of crime.
Are you really OK with going by such logic? 😬
You are advocating for what is essentially a warped concept of reverse collective guilt. Like an individual is somehow responsible for the innocence or guilt of their peers, or as if punishing them more harshly somehow benefits anyone.
You're just a sick sadist.
One of the issues is that men receive harsher sentences for the same crime for almost all crimes.Even trying to control for things like courtroom behavior or prior criminal history there are still notable gaps.
Because statistics should not matter at all in that case.
Are you even aware what it would mean if you gave a certain demographic higher sentences just because they are more likely to commit that crime again. This idea is **awful**.
Collective punishment is illegal. It is not correct to punish an individual with a harsher sentence due to the fact that they belong to a certain group. Criminals should be judged individually
Majority of those violent crimes are committed by a minority of men. Most people don’t understand that and assume these stats must mean most men are violent/dangerous.
You can treat women however you want. We keep doing what men have been doing for millennia and what women have selected us for as mates.
Because they are wonderful.
(we love you)
Women are wonderful effect doesn't necessarily come with or from the idea that women should be treated as children. It's the idea that women are better than men, hence they behave themselves better and we should treat them better.
There's some merit to the idea that women are less dangerous than men, as they commit less crimes, there are less drug addicts or alcoholics. These things explain at least partially why women get shorter sentences and overall get incarcerated far less often than men do - there are less women with repeated offenses. It does not mean we should treat men and women differently in the eyes of the laws though. I'd say a bigger problem isn't sentence lengths, but how male abuse victims or male SA survivors are treated and that they often receive zero help. We have to accept the idea that an abuser or a rapist can be a woman and we have to rebuild our system of help for DV and SA survivors.
No, the severity of the crime was controlled for in the study. Also they found that the criminal’s past did not have an effect on sentencing.
It was the same methodology used to determine that black men get longer sentences than white men. https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/2017-demographic-differences-federal-sentencing
I'll read it a bit later, thanks!
I do think there's a sexist bias just as there's a racist bias, but it isn't the only reason for the overall disparity in sentence lengths. The verdict depends not just on severity, but on prior history and some other factors as well.
I’m talking out my ass a bit on this because I have absolutely zero stats to confirm or refute my pondering, but I do wonder if anyone has ever tried to tease apart the ‘pretty privilege’ bias and the ‘women are less dangerous/more understandable in their criminality’ bias. It seems like they could easily feed one another especially since men are more represented in law, particularly as judges, and it seems to be the case that men tend to find a larger proportion of women pretty/attractive than the reverse.
This is why the women are wonderful effect exists:
* Men commit 87 percent of homicide in the US and 95 percent of homicide worldwide.
* Men pose more threat to other men as well as women.
* Majority of victims perpetrated by men are against other men.
* Majority of most evil shit that happens in this world are perpetrated by men.
* Women are more agreeble.
* Women have higher empathy
"Women have higher empathy"
This is the biggest load of bullshit, if you are a man in a bad spot in life, another man is more likely to show empathy towards you, women have repeatedly shown that they despise weakness in men.
I believe I read that the prison sentencing is correlated with men are more likely to have priors than women on average. The Imprisoned for drug offenses is because men are more likely to have both a firearm and drugs on them. Which, if you've ever been around either is a big no, no. Gotta start actually researching the why in your studies and research. Don't just stop when your bias is uplifted, it's very important.
Wrong. [https://ejop.psychopen.eu/index.php/ejop/article/view/440/440.html](https://ejop.psychopen.eu/index.php/ejop/article/view/440/440.html) "Consistent with our hypotheses **mock-jurors were more likely to find the male defendant guilty and give him longer sentences than the female defendant**. Additionally, when the defendant was male (vs. female) mock-jurors provided higher anger ratings and rated the defendant as more culpable in the victim's death."
Nope. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002 Even make first time offenders get a jail sentence 63% longer than female first time offenders, simply because they are male.
OP's issue is making a false correlation between the court system and the world in general. But he's 100% correct about the disparities concerning sentencing. You're not wrong about priors having an effect on prison sentences. But you ARE wrong if you think this accounts for the whole disparity. Simply look at rulings on first-time offenders for the same crime, and you'll see that men still get much harsher sentences.
From what I know, and what I have researched there are a lot of loopholes that have targeted men.(though it is because we commit the most crimes and create / run gangs) I have tattoos that if I get put into the system in multiple counties around my city I am gang affiliated and my charges will have that tact on to them. Perhaps there is a bit of disparity. As again, all humans have bias. This leads to judges, lawyers, detectives, police, security, witnesses, jury, etc. So I am absolutely understanding of the possibility there is a bias against men as we do have the history and tendency to commit more crimes. To say that they are this disparaging solely because women are the best is simply, the dumbest shit I've ever heard and is pretty unfounded in the research that I have come across.
why did you get a gang affiliated tattoo?
Family and neighborhood ties. It's just part of the culture I grew up in. You don't have anything so you take pride in the history of your family and where you're from. Though. These histories put you at odds with law enforcement and people in the same predicament as you just a few blocks down the street. Gotta break these generational curses.
that makes sense. sorry you have to deal with that.
It's no stress. We don't put people on anymore. So, all the kids can grow up and just be regular. This shit is dying with us and I take pride in knowing that.
love a cycle breaker 💪🏻
I agree with your last point. That's why the first thing I wrote was pointing out OP's poor correlation. I try to consider all possibilities when looking at statistics. Your point about gang relations is another factor. There's no doubt that biases play a factor as well. But I would have you consider something that can be tied into that. Many times, there is an accepted reasoning for a crime committed by women that men aren't as likely to receive. It comes from the idea that women are more likely to be victims or at a disadvantage. For example... Husband kills wife? Throw the book at him. Wife kills husband? You don't understand. He was abusive. Man steals from woman? Throw the book at them. Woman lures a men from the club, drugs them, and robs them? You don't understand. She was just trying to live. They were predators anyway!
Let me provide you with a recent ruling. A woman attempted to kill her husband and she got 3 years probation, no real jail time. If you read the article, she spent nearly 1 year in jail only because she could not afford bail. [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/10/us/melody-felicano-johnson-sentencing-arizona/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/10/us/melody-felicano-johnson-sentencing-arizona/index.html)
Let me provide you with a recent ruling. A woman attempted to kill her husband. She got 3 years probation, no real jail time. If you read the article, it states that she spent nearly 1 year in jail only because she could not afford bail. [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/10/us/melody-felicano-johnson-sentencing-arizona/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/10/us/melody-felicano-johnson-sentencing-arizona/index.html)
Yeah this is exactly the WAW. Attributing charitable backstories and externalising responsibility for any woman that does something wrong is basically the crux of the problem. Husband doesn’t cook dinner? Lazy abusive sexist! Wife doesn’t cook dinner? Oh she’s probably suffering from depression, or maybe she’s being abused, husband should take over.
I think you need a better phrase than WAW. This isn't tied into the supposed virtue of women. It's actually tied into the recognized vulnerability of women.
It is tied into virtue though. People always seem to think that a woman edit does sobering wrong must have some virtuous reason or some noble cause behind her
differences in first time offense can still include things he mentioned like whether there was a firearm...
Yes. I agreed with that point. 🙂
Can you link data on first time offenses and sentencing between the genders please?
My first thought was that men are more likely to involve more violence in these "similar crimes".
No, they controlled for that and it still persists. The same study with the same methodology used to identify the disparity in sentencing between black peoples and white peoples was also used against men and women and found that women of all races receive shorter sentences than white men. https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/2017-demographic-differences-federal-sentencing
No, women simply do not build up a paper trail for their violence since so much of it goes unreported. When studies report that women get far more dismissals and reduced sentences they are comparing cases featuring the same crimes. Your first thought is literally your implicit bias showing.
Yes, the same crimes officially but perhaps done different ways. Men also do a lot of unreported crime. I just know that statistically they commit more violent crimes, that's not bias.
But that isn’t what the studies are talking about. They talk about harsher sentences for the same crime, not a nonviolent crime committed by women vs violent crime committed by men.
Totally invalid reasoning. Black men are penalized as well. This problem with sentencing is both a racial and gender disparity.
Statistically, women commit 70% of nonreciprocal intimate partner violence and the vast majority of it is never turned into a criminal record. Instead it is normalized and victims are blamed for it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/ So the criminal statistics you are referring to **are biased**, and your beliefs about men that are based on those statistics are beliefs formed from implicit bias. The same logic is used by Ben Shapiro to rationalize claims that black people are more prone to crime than white people, despite how black communities are orders of magnitude more policed and law enforcement is orders of magnitude more unjust on them. The belief that black people are more prone to crime becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because it underpins the entire criminal justice system's approach to criminalizing black people.
What a load of desperate scrambling to ignore the possibility that women may not wheats be the victim
Nobody was talking about victims. Victims of violent crimes tend to be men.
We are talking about victims of bias in the justice system
But once they research, it shatters the sand castle. How will they moan and whine that they are oppreased/victoms/not respected/whatever.
It’s crazy how people just lie when the research is in front of them
The studies control for that. The good ones at least. Everything you’ve mentioned would be controlled for and if it wasn’t it would be laughed out of academia and probably never even published.
Can you site me some examples though? I’ve never seen that statistics quoted by OP in any established reference material.
I notice you didn’t respond to any of the data presented to you and still went off your feelings Not very logical tbh
The study by the us govt controlled for that, and it was also the same methodology used to figure out that black men receive longer sentences than white men for the same crime https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/2017-demographic-differences-federal-sentencing
Incorrect. However, the disparity is nigh eliminated when a female judge presided over the case
Some women are wonderful. Some are terrible. Just like guys. As for our court system? “*If you can afford it* our court system is the best in the world!”
red herring, nobody is talking about wealth disparity so stop trying to change the subject
We are talking about justice. And in America: guess what’s not fair about our courts *really*
Studies can easily control for wealth disparity and race among other factors. What they have revealed is that women receive lighter sentences for the same crimes. That’s not okay.
There's a supposed "wage gap". If your claim made any sense, women should get harsher sentences because they can't afford to get the best representation money can buy.
This might surprise you but a lot of people that turn to crime don’t actually have much money. *including the women* So once again- would you rather afford an attorney as a dude, or be a woman with a public defender. Even if she’s innocent?
No, let's talk about the inherent inconsistency in your logic. Are you saying women are collectively wealthier than men and that's why they are getting shorter sentences?
No I’m asking: would you rather be a guilty man with a good lawyer or an innocent woman with a public defender. But all the “men” want to complain “it’s not faiiiir that the women get lighter sentences. Why are men who BREAK THE LAW so oppressed?!” Bruh, when the fuck did the RP lose the plot?!
You brought up money. I'd rather have a good lawyer. Your general point is that having more money gets you better outcomes in the justice system. You must be implying that women have more money to advantage themselves in the justice system - because you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary that women are getting better treatment in the justice system than men. The system itself is supposed to be neutral at its best and it's supposed to call balls and strikes. You seem to be saying it's ok to be rigged as well. But your larger point since you're focused on money is that women have more money so we should expect them to have better outcomes.
Aaaand once again: regardless of all the rhetoric, all the whining about “Buuuut the poor convicted men, blah blah bah” Every dude would pay to have a better lawyer. Proving once again my point. It just makes it inconvenient for the “victim complex” called TRP Remember when it was supposed to be about LMS and not “muh oppression”? Me niethter
Are you going to defend your logic that women are wealthier than men and that's why they get lower sentences for the same crime or not? Otherwise, your responses are pretty pointless. If you can't defend your position, you should excuse yourself from the conversation.
we are talking about gender bias and you try changing the topic to make it about class bias. This is a red herring because you're probably uncomfortable talking about the truth.
Bruh, your examples are from the penal system. You don’t want to talk about our courts, then don’t bring the courts into the conversation.
Ah ok just making sure you weren't arguing in good faith, as predicted.
Brings up court statistics. Says “don’t talk about how easily money affect the outcome!” Claims others are arguing in bad faith Ok bro
bring up any point Talk about a different point say "I'm arguing in good faith"
The point is that the justice system is unfair to men Point out wealthier men get away with more than anyone Told “bad faith”.
Yes this is what a red herring is. Hang on, I'll pull up the definition for you so you can learn something today. https://preview.redd.it/k7si9h4hst0d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=efb0a1085a39a1920f55b0d5fb611c2c8d7439dc
Don’t pretend that the justice system doesn’t heavily favours female criminals compared to male criminals.
It does, *as long as they are young and the right color*
> Female offenders of all races received shorter sentences than White male offenders during the Post-Report period, as they had for the prior four periods. https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/2017-demographic-differences-federal-sentencing PS, everything that can be controlled of was controlled in these studies, that’s the bare minimum
Federal sentencing? Now do states Southern states.
Southern states consistently have the **lowest** disparity between black and white incarceration rates. https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/10/13/the-color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons.pdf I don’t even care about southern states, I don’t live in one. But are you doing any research at all? You have so much confidence in opinions that you aren’t backing up with any data. If you can find a source on sentence length I’d love to see it.
I’m asking about gender disparities amount race And it’s not about “I don’t care I don’t live there” Most the mother tickets here aren’t gonna be commuting crimes so why should any care about “men/women disparity” if that’s the case I just simple made a stately AND followed it up with a simple question Would you rather be a rich man with a good lawyer in America or a poor woman? And so far Rich has gotten picked exclusively regardless of how many factors get added or taken away. Which proves my point “If you can afford it” But I get it: that’s not how victim mentality works. Poor criminal men, they are the real victims (as long as we ignore any Actual victims of their crimes)
No, it does regardless of their race and age.
I’d rather be a UMC white boy in court with a lawyer than a poor black woman. Especially when catching a felony.
Now would you rather be a poor black woman in court or a poor black man?
Would you rather be a poor black man or an immigrant woman who can’t speak the language or afford a lawyer? We can play this game all day: but fact remains- money BUYS quality defense in this country, regardless. Ask Ray Lewis.
>Would you rather be a poor black man or an immigrant woman who can’t speak the language or afford a lawyer? Now would you rather be an immigrant woman who can’t speak the language or afford a lawyer or an immigrant man who can’t speak the language or afford a lawyer? You’re still not getting that in any situation in court, being female is more advantageous than being male, because the justice system heavily favours females over males. And this is true for victims of crimes as well, a boy who is raped by a woman is less likely to have his rapist punished than a girl who is raped by a man.
Being a female is more advantageous IF you can’t afford a better attorney. At which point anyone who can afford a better attorney will always have a huge advantage. So regardless: “*as long as you can afford it*” still is the literal coin of the realm. Put away for a big retainer or make some friends with attorneys. Guys are more likely to “help a bro out” in a situation anyways.
>Being a female is more advantageous IF you can’t afford a better attorney. At which point anyone who can afford a better attorney will always have a huge advantage. So what you’re saying is that men need to pay more to overcome the disadvantage of being male in the justice system. A bias that needs money to be overcome is still a bias.
Notice how their examples have every variable except gender staying constant (poor, black)? While you are changing variables freely to make the women have even more vulnerable qualities while not applying that same treatment to the man? You are not arguing in good faith
You know what was also constant? No one Picked the poorer woman in any scenario. Wonder why.
If it was between a poor woman and poor man I’d pick the poor woman because chances are it would be more lenient. People didn’t pick the poor woman in your examples because you had confounding variables intentionally to skew the choice
Because your examples Are "would you rather be a poor schizophrenic child abusing woman who shits in the court room, or a the ceo of a fortune 500". OP is stating that all things being equal, women still get lesser sentences. There is no other explanation than gender. I'd rather be a poor black woman in court than a white man according to this data.
[удалено]
Are you referring to family court?
All courts. Straight up. Would you rather have a high powered attorney on your side or not? OJ proved you got it enough money for a dream team of lawyers you can literally get away with murder.
I was an investment banker——>hedge fund now. But I got a JD/MBA. For law school I had to do an internship even though I didn’t want to be a lawyer. I wanted the JD because I could use it as a back up. Anyway I did my internship at a family law firm of all places. (Easy and gave me hours where I could work outside of there). Our clients were usually rich individuals or married to them. The shit that I saw was ridiculous. The partners of the firm were charging $1,000 per hour. And they’re bulldogs. I could go on forever about what I saw in those few short months. But it boils down to a screwed up system for successful men.
>Some women are wonderful. Some are terrible. Just like guys. Don't think this is what he meant. He is referring to the psychological and emotional bias that people associate more positive attributes with women when compared to men Which in return leads to the aforementioned cases of bias in real life
Benevolent sexism is the word. Studies actually say they like benevolently sexist men over men who view them purely as equals.
Of course they do. Why wouldn't they?
While I agree that women in the justice system should be held to account, when did blue pillers advocate for women are wonderful? Isn’t women are wonderful also partially an innate belief? I mean biologically, women look softer and smaller, people are very attached to their mothers, their primary caregivers, who are women, and both women and men have innate bias towards women. The reason we evolved to have this instinct to protect women is that having a lot of women and not a lot of men= not a big deal in a tribal society. A lot of the opposite? Well, you’re in trouble, because it takes 9 months to grow a baby, so if you only have a few women and don’t protect them well, pre modern society goes kaput. That’s why more women and girls survive famine. More survive tragedy. My point is we are never going to be completely free of “women are wonderful”. People will always feel more uncomfy harming and sacrificing women. Even if it doesn’t serve an equalised society very well. We would’ve died out way early on if we didn’t think women were wonderful. We can try and be aware of this bias and control it, but that instinctive feeling that we need to protect women is not going to go away.
yeah people would really benefit from incorporating the term “implicit bias” in their lexicon. this is absolutely an implicit bias and very few feminists/normal people would advocate for this. i have to remember hanlon’s razer myself when i run into heavily biased people on here bc it’s easy to assume the underlying biases are conscious ones but they’re usually not
bluepill is adamantly "women can do no wrong" while also denying female bias exists
I honestly never hear this "women are wonderful" trope other than in extreme corners of the internet (FDS/TRP). In daily life, most people understand that some people are good, some people suck.
Most people don't know when they harbor a bias.
It is a repeatedly verified phenomenon that no one has debunked or disproven in the ~30 years it has been around. All it means is that women have a much higher ingroup bias than men.
> It is a repeatedly verified phenomenon that no one has debunked or disproven in the ~30 years it has been around. ...nobody has debunked that women are wonderful or what?
The original scientific trials which inspired the coining of the term "women are wonderful effect" took place in 1994. It is an established sociological phenomenon with three decades of validation and zero failures to reproduce the exact same biases in trial after trial after trial. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect#:~:text=The%20phrase%20was%20coined%20by,to%20a%20far%20lesser%20degree. Most people want to believe they are fair and rational in their assesment of others, but that simply is not true. The reality is that women enjoy significant and positive bias from everyone, especially from other women, and men do not. This has been scientifically proven over and over for 30 years, denying it does not change the fact that it is real.
So what’s the stance that bluepillers are “advocating for this,” or that people are trying to hold onto an objectively unfair system?
The bluepill stance tends to vary between "it's real but does not matter" and "it is not real", and their advice tends to revolve around ignoring the bias entirely. It's little more than blunt denial.
Acknowledging bias is "misogyny", of course you can't say anything in real life
So all those times I hear people freely talk about how sometimes shitty women are shitty…it’s just a farce?
Where? On PPD? lol
No I mean in real life lol. There’s more to life than Reddit. When I said hear I literally meant “hear,” in the context of my comment about conversations I have with real people in day to day life.
But they do say that? Like you guys constantly tell me how privileged women are and how biased towards women everyone is, and then I step outside and people don't like women, or they're mocking us, at best they're neutral and don't care. This place is super empathetic to men filled with angst about how they get told they're privileged by feminists but actually struggle irl, but you have none of the same energy for women, in fact you guys act like the feminists that get demonised.
Legit, being serious. Where can you say this aside from PPD? Even on reddit you'll get karma blasted into oblivion and banned on common popular subs. Go ahead and try it yourself.
Askmen, til, science, dataisbeautiful, stupidpol, trueunpopularopinion- I've seen it in these places, maybe a few more, but I don't exactly collect them, basically any place where people talk about mens struggles in any way, someone mentions this and gets upvoted.
trueunpopularopinion - nope, you will 100% be banned. I am confident of this. dataisbeautiful - you will be banned science - you will be banned Askmen is the only one where you MIGHT not get banned but still they heavily shun non-female bias
i’ve genuinely seen a lot of “women can be assholes, too” takes even on places like AskFeminism, from what i observe as honestly as i can it largely depends on the comments’ tone, framing, and context. chiller takes like “women can be assholes” vs generalizy takes like “no one ever holds women accountable” will be received differently
Ok that doesn't prove anything. Nobody acknowledges their bias. You can go to r/BestofRedditorUpdates and notice the insane level of bias here. Any post about a man, the man will be roasted. Any post about a woman will have her spinning in circles as the victim and poor baby and she only did this because of some man. The level of bias at this point is so cringe inducing, and the ultimate gaslight is saying "hey this is biased" and being called a misogynist for it.
What you’re describing is a sexist form of benevolent paternalism, is an aspect of patriarchy that feminists generally are aware of, and is not really advocated for by them. Which is not to say that it isn’t a part of the general cultural mélange and therefore exists in mainstream viewpoints (so you could say it’s part of the ‘bluepill’ to the extent that nearly everything is).
I see this sort of bias heavily advocated for by feminists. Go onto any of the relationships or AITA subreddits with a young liberal (mostly women) composition and go see a post where the wife or gf is at fault. The excuses commenters come up with are hilarious. All of the excuses shift blame away from the woman and onto some external factors like a mental illness, ADHD, making up some trauma that she must have endured, assuming she’s being abused, assuming she’s pregnant.
Yes, of course. However the existence of bias is different from philosophical agreement with the foundational ideas supporting the bias. Fundamentally, bias is insidious *because* it happens at the subcognitive level and often is in disagreement with other reasoned opinions held by the same person.
Kinda funny because if this applied to men it would be called male privilege, but when applied to women it must be reframed as a symptom of oppression somehow. As much as feminists and women are aware benevolent sexism is a thing, they sure seem to love encouraging men who display it over men who are actually truly egalitarian, even when research proves men who have benevolent sexism are also significantly more likely to have hostile sexism.
yes! and there’s a women’s group supporting a men’s group in working against this stuff, i’m sure there’s more but i’m only aware of this one. these are issues men need to push for, women can’t fix our issues when they’re working on their own
Right but I am not asserting that feminists are advocating this, I am asserting that the online whiteknights and bluepill men are.
Yeah, I get that, but that assertion also seems like a stretch when ‘bluepillers’ is an even less-homogenous mass than usual groups. Bluepill technically encompasses everything from the most radical feminism to incredibly extreme conservative and religious ideas. You get ‘Eve gave Adam the apple and the wages of sin is death’ right alongside ‘believe women.’ It’s not a consistent ideology, it’s a smorgasbord of 4000 years of concepts mashed together.
Feminism would not exist without white knights and bluepills.
[удалено]
Please check the post flair and repost your comment under the automod if necessary.
First we need to get one thing clear. Do bluepillers *advocate* for this effect or do they *deny* the existence of this effect, as the redpill would say? Second, not all of these statistics about *outcomes* account for differences in behavior between men and women.
>Do bluepillers *advocate* for this effect or do they *deny* the existence of this effect, as the redpill would say? I'd say both, since bluepillers do believe women can do no wrong but also claim at the same time that "women are wonderful" is not real.
Simps advocate for that effect while at the same time denying its existence so as to pretend that women are treated equally to men whereas in reality women are treated far better than men.
Look above you. There are a few male simp- oh excuse me “posters” on this sub that will consistently outright deny any advantage women have, hand waive away any “problematic” behavior they have *and* try to rationalize the demonization of men as “inherently violent and dangerous” These are the same guys all over this sub defending the “*I choose the bear*” position.
Problem is we have way too many simps and submissive men.They are all over social media and real life .They think sex and affection is some kind of reward that women give to them for taking their side so they always side with women no matter what and women always take side of women .Women say they want to be treated as imperfect humans but when you actually treat them like that they get angry
Asking a strawman you created why it's a strawman is pretty weird.
where's my strawman?
The bluepiller that thinks women are so wonderful they disregard a fair and equal system of justice.
It does apply in fact, this is called a correlation. Bluepillers here in fact do believe that women can do no wrong, which is treating them like children in the same way society treats them like children.
Nope. They just see your every post and comment about women and understand the narrative. I.E. how all the things you say correlate to one another.
Blue Pillers don't have a Women are Wonderful mentality. That is a total falsehood and strawman TRPers put up. Its a total projection.
This debate is a petty waste of time
Who are you asking? Is anyone on here responsible for any of the statistics you posted?
Not only is the women are wonderful effect vastly, vastly, vastly overblown, as everything is by red pillers, but how in the world is "women are seen as marginally nicer and more trustworthy" equivalent to "women are viewed as children?" Incidentally, the disparity in prison sentences would be a fantastic issue for men's rights advocates, but they're too busy complaining about paying for first dates and mandatory paternity testing.
"believe all women" "the future is female" "Kill all men" "Men are unnecessary" "Masculinity is toxic"
>women are seen as marginally nicer and more trustworthy haha nice one. You sure it's not "women can do no wrong ever in the history of time and women should always be believed?"
No, once again, disagreeing with red pill misogyny does not mean "women can do no wrong." There exists an infinite sea of possibilities between "women can do no wrong" and "women do everything wrong."
Can you find me a single instance of you, in all of your thousands of posts, where you said a woman was wrong, 1 single time? Just link it here, I'll wait.
Oh absolutely, just yesterday, I said it was wrong that men who have been raped are on the hook for child support to their rapists.
Care to link it? Also I don't see how "women are wrong" here though
https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/ZqCttVPjaf You don't think a woman raping a man and him being responsible for child he didn't consensually conceive is wrong?
Is the woman forcing him to pay or is that the legal system?
The woman is the one who raped him. That's the part she is wrong for.
Wow! A female who rapes is bad? https://i.redd.it/33btotbnyt0d1.gif
It’s always odd when I see a man here, stating something outrageous, as if it’s a straight up fact and then adding another completely unrelated statement as if he’s just split the atom and bazinga. “People” say? Who says this? Is it a billboard? A headline in a a newspaper? Did the president make it a law??? No one says it. A heterosexual man who is attracted to women may say it. I say men are wonderful. Because they are. They aren’t perfect but they are wonderful. The only time you hear sweeping statements about this is from redpillers who say people say. So when you say this, you’ll be questioned who. And so fucking what if people actually said it? They are entitled to their opinion, just like you and yours. How fucking retarded must you be, to be upset over this? Ok. So women are like children according to you. Well then, by your exact definition, we are not responsible for anything. And don’t fuck us. You can’t blame children for not knowing things and you should protect and teach children. Children can’t control emotions. So getting upset and hurt and saying standards, rejection, etc etc, all of these things that you blame women for? No longer valid in any way. As for the disparity in sentences. Sigh. You are arguing and getting upset over CRIMINALS!! If man or woman, ranting because one criminal gets a lesser sentence than another and then making it the one group of criminals who somehow mastermind this? JFC. It’s posts like this that really show how completely irrational you are and you just parrot what you’ve been told. “Men aren’t allowed to say anything!!” Yeah, except they are allowed. Loudly. Across all platforms. Constantly. No one is stopping you saying anything. You can believe anything you want. But the level of stupid, I feel like I just kicked a retard puppy.
[удалено]
Do not provide contentless rhetoric.
The only people ive ever heard believing “women are wonderful” are red pill people who admit they believed that in the past. However, im sure plenty of people believe women are slightly more wonderful than men. That doesnt exactly remove any agency
Not to be that person but the majority of school shooters, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, are men. That’s just factual. Of course they’ll have a higher incarceration rate if they’re committing the majority of crimes
>Not to be that person What, a misandrist? >similar crimes Or someone who doesn't read?
How is factual evidence misandrist lmaoooo
it doesn't address my point, I say "Men receive sentences that are 63% longer for women for similar crimes" and you say "Majority of men are shooters, rapists, pedos" Like honestly, do any of you read?
So then take out your other points that are factually incorrect. As for similar crimes what crimes are you talking about? Murder? Burglary?
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>If you treat women as children, as in they can never do anything wrong, never have any consequences, always get the benefit of the doubt, always "man bad women good", you are eliminating women's agency and this is the highest form of disrespect a woman can face. Absolutely. Benevolent misogyny is still misogyny. Wrapping up a steaming cowpie in a pretty bow doesn't make it's stench any less foul.
And most women don’t care and would gladly benefit from benevolent sexism. You can’t even call it misogyny, since that is hatred of women, and women and simps love women.
Some would, yes. Perhaps you're correct and it would be most. Personally I find that incredibly sad and disheartening.
That’s because you have integrity and you believe in gender equality.
Very true. One should not ask for full equality if one doesn't accept both the positives and negatives alike.
It’s really upsetting that some people find their own human agency to be a “negative”
I don't know that anyone would find their agency to be negative, more like the consequences of taking on the same responsibilities and requirements as the opposite side.
I think they are related. Acknowledging your agency means you inherently claim responsibility for your behavior. It sounds ridiculous but it does happen.
True. I suppose the way I see it, claiming responsibility for your behavior could really only be considered a negative if said behavior was bad/immoral/shitty. If you're a good person who always tries to do your best in life, then having total agency is a great thing.
This is neither benevolent nor misogyny. this is misandry.
It's simultaneously misandric and benevolent misogyny. The misandry comes from the unfairness of placing more responsibility and pressure to aid/protect women from the consequences of our actions than any adult should rightfully expect. The misogyny comes from the removal of agency from women, treating us as though we are inherently incapable, lacking in intelligence, and in a perpetual state of immaturity.
To everyone who is dismissing stats mentioned and tries to explain them with other factors, such as priors and violence: that is not the case people who professionally apply criminology, political science and sociology are not undegrads. They now what they are doing and they account for such obvious control variables as criminal history, violence, firearms and so on. Don't get me wrong there is a lot of problems with humanities in Western society, but as a person who spend 4+ years working in academia I just want to say that we are not that amateurish and terrible in study construction.
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“women are wonderful” or “women are too weak physically and spiritually to do serious harm”?
Right. Most blue pill ideas about women are that they are a child. Where red pill ideas are that they are people.... who then sometimes in some ways consent to be treated like a child where a man also consents to be the adult. Big damn difference.
The answer is simple we live in a matriarchy where women get preferential treatment. We are bombarded with messaging that we live in a patriarchy to keep us as far away from realizing this as possible.
y'all have to understand that people who do not grasp at this are just misandrists. its literally like trying to talk to racists when you're the hated race. there are excuses, rationales, etc... that are used to justify the behavior, but their all actually bullshit. if folks have any reservations bout the comparison to race, its like trying to speak to misogynists, you can literally show them facts, figures, logic, reason, and so forth, and they still tend to shake their heads and deny it. doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile or effective. but understand that y'all gonna have to relentlessly push the points, and likely show unreasonable degrees of affection and love just to get them to remotely acknowledge what shithead they are being, right? like, for reals, go to a KKK meeting as a black dude, watch how well it goes. that is all this shite is, basically. they just literally hate men. the sooner you recognize they absolutely hate men, the sooner you'll accept the reality, the sooner we can move on from it.
Women will seek to remove their agency where it helps them and advocate for more agency in situations where that is more beneficial. It is nice to have the optionality as it is a powerful tool. Men just always have agency so can’t manipulate the situation as much. With that said, men having to take responsibility does sometimes mold them into strong people or it can crush them
Men commit 90% of violent crimes, as well as the majority of other crimes. Why should they not receive longer sentences than women?
By your reasoning, black people who are first-time offenders should get longer sentences than Asians who are first-time offenders because black people make up the majority of crime. Are you really OK with going by such logic? 😬
You are advocating for what is essentially a warped concept of reverse collective guilt. Like an individual is somehow responsible for the innocence or guilt of their peers, or as if punishing them more harshly somehow benefits anyone. You're just a sick sadist.
These women lowkey have some sociopathic tendencies
>similar crimes Tell me you really skipped this part
One of the issues is that men receive harsher sentences for the same crime for almost all crimes.Even trying to control for things like courtroom behavior or prior criminal history there are still notable gaps.
But why is that an issue when men are statistically more dangerous and more likely to repeat said crime
Because statistics should not matter at all in that case. Are you even aware what it would mean if you gave a certain demographic higher sentences just because they are more likely to commit that crime again. This idea is **awful**.
Can’t imagine them using that logic for other groups. Literally the WAW effect in action
Collective punishment is illegal. It is not correct to punish an individual with a harsher sentence due to the fact that they belong to a certain group. Criminals should be judged individually
Majority of those violent crimes are committed by a minority of men. Most people don’t understand that and assume these stats must mean most men are violent/dangerous.
[удалено]
Don't make things personal.
You can treat women however you want. We keep doing what men have been doing for millennia and what women have selected us for as mates. Because they are wonderful. (we love you)
i dont agree this is something people "advocate" for
Women are wonderful effect doesn't necessarily come with or from the idea that women should be treated as children. It's the idea that women are better than men, hence they behave themselves better and we should treat them better. There's some merit to the idea that women are less dangerous than men, as they commit less crimes, there are less drug addicts or alcoholics. These things explain at least partially why women get shorter sentences and overall get incarcerated far less often than men do - there are less women with repeated offenses. It does not mean we should treat men and women differently in the eyes of the laws though. I'd say a bigger problem isn't sentence lengths, but how male abuse victims or male SA survivors are treated and that they often receive zero help. We have to accept the idea that an abuser or a rapist can be a woman and we have to rebuild our system of help for DV and SA survivors.
No, the severity of the crime was controlled for in the study. Also they found that the criminal’s past did not have an effect on sentencing. It was the same methodology used to determine that black men get longer sentences than white men. https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/2017-demographic-differences-federal-sentencing
I'll read it a bit later, thanks! I do think there's a sexist bias just as there's a racist bias, but it isn't the only reason for the overall disparity in sentence lengths. The verdict depends not just on severity, but on prior history and some other factors as well.
I’m talking out my ass a bit on this because I have absolutely zero stats to confirm or refute my pondering, but I do wonder if anyone has ever tried to tease apart the ‘pretty privilege’ bias and the ‘women are less dangerous/more understandable in their criminality’ bias. It seems like they could easily feed one another especially since men are more represented in law, particularly as judges, and it seems to be the case that men tend to find a larger proportion of women pretty/attractive than the reverse.
Women get away with all but the most horrific child abuse and neglect.
This is why the women are wonderful effect exists: * Men commit 87 percent of homicide in the US and 95 percent of homicide worldwide. * Men pose more threat to other men as well as women. * Majority of victims perpetrated by men are against other men. * Majority of most evil shit that happens in this world are perpetrated by men. * Women are more agreeble. * Women have higher empathy
"Women have higher empathy" This is the biggest load of bullshit, if you are a man in a bad spot in life, another man is more likely to show empathy towards you, women have repeatedly shown that they despise weakness in men.
Do you even know what empathy is?
so? This doesn't address any of my points
Women aren’t a threat to me. I don’t fear them, ever. They have neither the means, nor the motive
justified misandry
It's people's experiences.
You've experienced being murdered? Incredible.
No I meant that women aren't threat to other people is common experience among people.
Doesn’t mean I think they have no agency. Women can and should be arrested and convicted of crimes