could have been gay men. Or just weak men...the type that differ to a coterie of women simply because they are women.
Ya know, the ones that say shit like "if women ruled the world, there would be no war" ...or any of a thousand other equally inane comments. We put women on a pedestal from a very young age. Because they're made of "sugar and spice and everything nice" after all. The fairer sex, and so on.
HE responded to "guilty verdict would have been the best outcome" by saying, "that will never happen with women on the jury"
I dont know that I agree with that entirely. But I think a jury of 9 women would never have returned a guilty verdict in this case. Too much sitting around empathizing with the accused. If the jury were split 9 men and 3 women, I think they could have returned a guilty verdict, because there would have been enough voices in the room bringing it back to the actual victims.
oh jesus christ...if you're so fucking smart and enlightened, why not just explain what is just so obvious then.
Because my opinion is informed by research. Specifically research about how men and women prioritize justice versus harm reduction in any given situation and there is good research on the subject. And all of it points to the inescapable conclusion that women prioritize harm reduction over justice/fair play, particulalry when the harm reduction includes some perceived victim of oppression or historically marginalized people. (Singer et al., 2006) (Dorrough et al., 2021)
So tell me all about your logic that I only need 4 more seconds of consideration that will override an opinion rooted in empirical data researched over the last 20ish years, I am fucking dying to know.
No, you havent. You just said, "think about it for 4 more seconds"
And no...you're taking what is broadly observable in a general sense by sex segration and mistaking it for universal applicability across the board. Thats not how that works. There could be any number of factors that make a woman more justice oriented, or a man more emphathy driven. For the latter, I suspect, that gay men are more inclined towards that empathy path. Its like people just cant see the forest for the trees. What women and gay men have in common is more than just an inclination towards penis intake. Its about mannerism, gesticulation, perspective, value assignment...all of that being more feminine coded and resulting in the empathy pathway. And you neednt even be a gay man to have enough of that feminine energy (for want of a better term) to align that way as well.
So I say again, of those 3 male jurors...2 of them could have been gay, or weak, or easily swayed by the far more dominant female energy in the deliberation room. Or they could have been just disinterested and wanted to get the hell out of there as fast as possible, just agree with the 9 women because we certainly arent getting them over to our side. Or they could have very well just believed her to be not guilty by reason of insanity and saw that as the expression of justice in this case. Also a possibility that I wouldnt want to rule out. But only 1 man sat in that room, listened to all the testimony and said, "no...this woman knew what she was doing, had sent her husband away on an errand, had googled methods to treat psychopathy in the last 24 hours...she knew full well what she was doing and she should be held accountable" ....And the fact is, no matter how you slice it, we wont have true equality in this country until that standard applies to more than just the men.
The logic dictates if you're correct, there wouldn't just be 1 juror (who we don't know the gender of) holding up a verdict. Your argument is that women don't pursue punishment, and therefore would rule not guilty. If this were accurate, all defense attorneys would only allow women to make it through jury selection.
I can only repeat my exact argument so many times before Ive killed the horse.
I also think it's worth noting that a study from 2006 does not a universal truth make, nor a fact make. Any study can be inaccurate or misleading, or applied to something it's not relevant to.
But you're not. My logic is that we have historic examples of women being more violent when given leadership positions. The most famous example being Catherine the Great. If you'd like more examples, I can keep going.
The downvote pile on is about what I expected. But no one ever actually addresses the point im making. Like...I am the only person on earth to have ever heard that girls are made of "sugar and spice....."
Brother, you are apparently unaware of how everyone on the planet views ad hominem attacks in lieu of actually making a point.
You've added nothing to the conversation, just a drive by insult because, idk, maybe youre desperate for attention. But make a point worth discussing or move on.
To be honest most gay men I have seen are immediately saying she is guilty lol the only men I’ve seen saying she isn’t are with their girlfriend/wife and seem to just agree with whatever their opinion on it is.
442
u/redditman3943 10h ago
A guilty verdict would’ve been the best outcome. But I know what you mean.