I don't know if its just me, but whenever I hear someone has relationship troubles, everyone automatically goes to the girl's side.
Not trying to start a flamewar, so please keep it civil.

The girl that lives under my Mom's apartment recently stabbed her boyfriend in the back (literally) while he slept.
He would have died if a neighbor hadn't called 911 when they heard "OH GOD CALL THE COPS!" coming from the guy.

The first thing everyone says when they hear that is "I wonder what the boyfriend did to deserve it?". Yet no one thinks the girl is at fault.
And in the opposite situation, no one would even think that the girlfriend was at fault for anything. They'd automatically think the guy is crazy.


Anyone have any input on this?


P.S. The women got charged with Attempted 2nd degree murder, if anyone wanted to know.

My first thought at that story (for either six) would be that the attacker had some kind of mental illness, if the attack is described as completely unprovoked and out of the ordinary.
Clearly everyone didn't go to her side if she's been charged with attempted 2nd.

It's the prevailing cultural outlook at the moment. In part it comes down to the idea that men are the dominant, proactive gender, and that everything that happens must have been started or initiated by a dude. It also has to do with how most of us react to the suffering of those around us - if my female friend's boyfriend is a jerk, I feel like I need to step in to support her. If my male friend's girlfriend is a jerk, I feel like he needs to "man up" and take care of it himself. (statistically, most people appear to be heterosixual). We're better at remembering events that we become significantly evolved in, so most people can remember far more cases where the guy legitimately was at fault, compared to cases where the girl was at fault. Therefor, people feel like guys are more likely to be at fault than girls are.

It's sixist and stupid, just like our culture.

The "I" in this post is a hypothetical, less self-aware version of myself. IRL I try to offer equal support to my male and female friends.

I'm talking about a general glance at things. I'm sure if anyone had an in-depth look at things, like at a trial, it may be different. But thats generally not the case when it comes to the average onlooker.

It's a sick world we live in, a guy got his... thing chopped of by his ex, woman applauded her for it, if it was the other way around the man would be condemned by everyone.

Everyone should be equal.

Uh. What?

Ohgodohmanohgodohmanohgodohmanohgodohman

I'm all for womans rights, but I'm more for human rights, instead of focusing on one gender how about you focus on EVERYONE.

I agree with this.

Eh, feminism still hasn't wiped out the idea that there are major personality differences between most women and men, and probably won't for awhile. The best thing people can do to stop it is just not being a pretentious sixist themselves, and calling out anyone who is.

There's a horrible double standard. When women got the same rights as men, the special treatment they receive in so many regards should have gone away, but it never did. Makes me think of the statement, "Is chivalry dead?" which is always pulled out when a woman doesn't get the special treatment she "deserves". My response (kept to myself of course) is always, "Nope, but it should be".

If you want respect, you can't ask for special treatment. The men and women who perpetuate this double standard are doing everyone a great disservice.

At the last community I was a part of, I got more frustrated with the women than I did the men. But they were all teenagers, so...yeah.

I'd read "what did he do to deserve it" more as a common place phrase rather than an actual statement of him deserving it. It's like saying "what did I do to deserve this" when you're having a [censored] day. Furthermore, something must have triggered the incident, so while I doubt it was deserved, there is a cause to be found.

So, basically, I don't think that there's as much of a "it's always the guy's fault" as you make it seem. It's a view prevalent in comedy, but not so much, in my experience, in actual thinking.

Nah, you got that from breaking the rules, like you're doing now.

Yes, but it's not as clearcut as you make it seem. Women do not have the same position/rights as men do. Men also don't have the same position/rights as women do. The problem is on both sides, and needs to be fixed from both sides. Speaking as if women are on top and wanting more isn't accurate and isn't helping anyone.

Silly boys, woman are always right, you'll learn.

I don't see this thread being open much longer, which is a shame, I think would could all talk about this civil like.

If any mod foresees it becoming an issue, please lock this thread.

I'd rather save the dignity of these forums than start a flamewar.

I learned that the hard way!

Well, women don't have the same rights as men, which is probably why in certain predicaments, that the women get pandered. But in a situation like what this topic is about, a romatic relationship gone awry, there shouldn't be any societal rights applied to either side as the relationship is of a personal and private nature rather than a professional and formal nature, which is where the rights are skewed.

So determining that the stabbing was, if not justifiable, understandable, without any evidence, seems to me as discrimination against the man, simply because he is male.

That's quite possibly true, but then I think whenever anyone is murdered (or there's an attempt) I think most people say "why?", which is where stereotypes probably come into play before the facts come out. Whether that's abuse, drugs, money, revenge - whatever fits the bill for whatever group of people are involved.
It's definitely true that there's a double standard for abusive relationships. Many still think of women as weak, soft and inferior, and so lots of men feel like they wouldn't get support if their female partner is abusing them, which is sad. The same is often said for men suffering from depression (they should "man up"). But I agree with Lady Nerevar - turning what should be an egalitarian argument into an "us vs. them" position doesn't really help things.

Your same perception of what happens when it comes to what may be an abusive relationship where the woman is the abuser can also be taken to look at how cases of [censored] and sixual assaults on women are viewed by the general public. What was she wearing? Was she leading him/them on? What did she do to deserve it?

Yes, people are biased toward certain assumptions when they don't have all of the information. There is sixism, and there is "reverse-sixism" (which I'm pretty sure is just sixism). There is racism and there is "reverse-racism." There are apologists that pander to people that feel victimized. None of it is productive, but it's the way people are. Things like that don't change over night.

They do in just about any developed country.

On paper, maybe. In practice? http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983185,00.html.

I think he's referring to more of a societal factor; a woman can become a successful politician or musician, but it's clear that, for whatever reason, it's far more often for men to.

Like Softnerd called it, "reversed-sixism"... If women are held higher in regard, they do not have the same rights as men. The equality is still skewed.

I think this goes back to the topic about people being judgmental. I don't really see a problem with off-handed comments from people who don't know the situation, the problem arises when they take it to the next level and start blaming/defending someone just because of their preconceived notions.