Sexism discussion moved here

[PurpleGurl]

That's sexist on itself.

Not really when you study it. "Man" is just an old name for the species, and "woman" is short for "wombed man." So if we are all "man," then talk about equality.

Most languages have word constructs for one gender for many common words, but it doesn't mean the items are for that gender. For instance, the Spanish word for shoes has the male suffix, but it doesn't mean they are only worn by men. And I am not sure which is the correct ending for their word for computer. I've called it "computadora" (feminine), but it just might be "computadoro" (masculine).

Some will argue that sexism against men is impossible since men still have advantages. They'll say it is only fair that men get penalized to lower their influence in society to that of women. Women should not have to be forced to act like men in the bad ways to get the same level of rights. In other ways, however, it is fair, such as the push to get more girls interested into computers, science, etc., thus putting them in a position to directly compete with men for opportunities on their own, without any legal intervention (affirmative action, for instance).

What I hate is false equivalency when it comes to bad actions. Like if you mention a behavior one group does more than another, someone will almost always say, "They do it too." But doing it too is not the point, but that one does it at a far higher rate. For instance, male serial killers far outweigh female killers, and a lot of that is biological. People will mention Eileen Weurnos, but she was not a typical woman. She preferred female partners, so she might have had a brain that was more in the male direction, giving her more of the nature of a predator (and defender, at least in the case of her girlfriend). Or take race. There are more White serial killers. However, I believe that is cultural. White culture tends to reward seriousness and repressing negative emotions more. African-American culture tends to deal with slights immediately and they tend not to let things stew in their minds. Insult them, they attack you right then, and they get it over with and done with. Hence the phrase "keeping it real." They don't have the same social pressure to repress negative things and be fake and all to get acceptance. There are a handful of African-American serial killers, but only a fraction of the number of White serial killers. Bombers are mostly White as well, since that takes a more isolated person with a lot of built up anger and who feels they must overcompensate. But other types of multiple killings are more equal opportunity, like sniping and spree killing. Snipers may have hunting or military experience, and all races and genders join the armed forces. As for spree killing, that tends to come from perceived unfair treatment and a sense of lasting loss. So if a man of any race is unfairly fired or denied an opportunity he earned, he just might return to work with weapons or commit an act of arson.

But back to false equivalence, I mean things such as rape. Forcible rape is mostly a male thing, with rare exceptions. However, if you mention that, there will always be guys who will change the topic to statutory sexual offense and say women do it too. As sick as even that is, it is a far cry from beating someone nearly to death, perhaps causing permanent injury, and making them do something against their will. So it is not fair to compare two different offenses with two different levels of seriousness. Sometimes it is unclear in statutory offenses who the guilty party is. Like take a grown female teacher and a male teen. In that case, while it might be statutory offense, the roles of perp and victim might be reversed, with the male student committing forcible rape or extortion. There was a Law and Order episode that presented that, though I formed my opinions on the issue long before watching that.

[Webunny]

That's sexist on itself.

Not really when you study it. "Man" is just an old name for the species, and "woman" is short for "wombed man." So if we are all "man," then talk about equality.

Most languages have word constructs for one gender for many common words, but it doesn't mean the items are for that gender. For instance, the Spanish word for shoes has the male suffix, but it doesn't mean they are only worn by men. And I am not sure which is the correct ending for their word for computer. I've called it "computadora" (feminine), but it just might be "computadoro" (masculine).

Some will argue that sexism against men is impossible since men still have advantages. They'll say it is only fair that men get penalized to lower their influence in society to that of women. Women should not have to be forced to act like men in the bad ways to get the same level of rights. In other ways, however, it is fair, such as the push to get more girls interested into computers, science, etc., thus putting them in a position to directly compete with men for opportunities on their own, without any legal intervention (affirmative action, for instance).

What I hate is false equivalency when it comes to bad actions. Like if you mention a behavior one group does more than another, someone will almost always say, "They do it too." But doing it too is not the point, but that one does it at a far higher rate. For instance, male serial killers far outweigh female killers, and a lot of that is biological. People will mention Eileen Weurnos, but she was not a typical woman. She preferred female partners, so she might have had a brain that was more in the male direction, giving her more of the nature of a predator (and defender, at least in the case of her girlfriend). Or take race. There are more White serial killers. However, I believe that is cultural. White culture tends to reward seriousness and repressing negative emotions more. African-American culture tends to deal with slights immediately and they tend not to let things stew in their minds. Insult them, they attack you right then, and they get it over with and done with. Hence the phrase "keeping it real." They don't have the same social pressure to repress negative things and be fake and all to get acceptance. There are a handful of African-American serial killers, but only a fraction of the number of White serial killers. Bombers are mostly White as well, since that takes a more isolated person with a lot of built up anger and who feels they must overcompensate. But other types of multiple killings are more equal opportunity, like sniping and spree killing. Snipers may have hunting or military experience, and all races and genders join the armed forces. As for spree killing, that tends to come from perceived unfair treatment and a sense of lasting loss. So if a man of any race is unfairly fired or denied an opportunity he earned, he just might return to work with weapons or commit an act of arson.

But back to false equivalence, I mean things such as rape. Forcible rape is mostly a male thing, with rare exceptions. However, if you mention that, there will always be guys who will change the topic to statutory sexual offense and say women do it too. As sick as even that is, it is a far cry from beating someone nearly to death, perhaps causing permanent injury, and making them do something against their will. So it is not fair to compare two different offenses with two different levels of seriousness. Sometimes it is unclear in statutory offenses who the guilty party is. Like take a grown female teacher and a male teen. In that case, while it might be statutory offense, the roles of perp and victim might be reversed, with the male student committing forcible rape or extortion. There was a Law and Order episode that presented that, though I formed my opinions on the issue long before watching that.

lol. Did this just get it's own thread? Seriously? Well, since it did, I'll guess I'll continue...

As for what it's worth, I do not agree with the basic tenet you start with.


First of all, trying to go back to the origins of words (the semantic route, thus) isn't really all that relevant, since the meaning of words change. There are a lot of words who even got the opposite meaning of what they meant in earlier times, but that still doesn't put much weight into things today. So today, "he" is referring to male, and "she" to female, at least§ in the vast majority of cases. And it also has no importance anymore that woman would be 'wombed man', just like 'nigger' and 'black' changed places in matters of being considered racist/offensive (until the 60ies, it was reversed). And of course there a pre- and suffixes and what not to indicate female or male, without it meaning much, but in most cases it does, and in some languages it's pretty stringent; the Japanese 'boku' is referring to oneself, but only used by males, for instance. But anyhow, this whole semantic discussion has little relevance. The point it really boils down to, was that by referring some traits to 'he' (or she), one also lays the link there. This is not, or not always warranted. In fact, in most cases it ain't. Which makes of the implied link between the two a generalisation...at best.


Yes, there is or can be more prevalence within one group compared to another, for a myriad of reasons. But so what? A generalisation is still a generalisation. 'Doing it at a far greater rate' is not an excuse to make generalisations by linking groups of people as a whole to the action of an individual EVEN if there are more individuals within that group who do it. If you do not agree to this, you also have no problems with equating blacks, Moroccans and Turkish people as being criminals. Because, as statistically proven (in my country) they have a disproportional amount of criminal acts on their conto, compared to white people. The reasons given go from biological to cultural to social, but the reason sought doesn't really matter. Thus, since they are doing it more/at a higher rate, and that is the point according to you, is it now justified to use 'black' for 'criminal'?

I doubt you do agree. Well, reciprocity would lead one to accept that this does not count for other groups nor other generalisations neither then, EVEN if the prevalence would be greater. Which first would have to be proven in the first place, and one should be careful with that. For instance: "Bombers are mostly White as well"? Really? Well, not counting suicide-bombers, then, or did you miss the IS-stratagem? In fact, that kind of bombing is far more frequent with middle-eastern people and Asians. Getting the facts completely straight, with nuances and all, is not as easy thus.

But back to false equivalence; I think your shifting the basic underlying point I was making towards something else entirely. I did not say that for any individual offender, it is a valid excuse to point to others (groups or individuals alike) and think this absolves his or her own actions. Far from it. But that really has nothing to do with it. I'm saying one shouldn't indicate, explicitly or implicitly, that some sort of behaviour is typical for a GROUP of people, whether that group is defined by race, gender, religion, etc.

I know, it is often done. And there is a reason for doing that; it is 'more prevalent' - as you also said - within that group (rightfully or wrongfully claimed as such). That's why the police stops more Arabs and Muslims at airports, and why black kids get far more police control then white kids. Yet, that's also why this is illegal racial profiling, and is, quite plainly, wrong to do so. The doctrine of attributing the action of an individual to a whole group, whether it is more prevalent in that group or not, simply is not justified, imho.

[PurpleGurl]

With all due respect, it got its own thread because you ran with my side comments in two different threads, and if it isn't addressed here, you will keep doing that with me elsewhere. I've ran into this in other places where some are not mature enough to read side comments without commenting and derailing the topic. So I generally start threads to deal with the things people keep using to derail topics with, or even to discuss me when I am the target. Then they can get it out of their system and stop polluting the threads. When a person mentions a side example, etiquette dictates never jumping on a minor point someone else mentions as a mere example. You've inserted comments about PCness and sexism in two of my posts.

Again, my comments only refer within the context of the US. We don't have many suicide bombers in the US, and Middle Eastern is considered "White" if you go by archaeological classifications and the 3-race hypothesis. But in the US, bombers tend to be White and loners, and it is more lone terrorism. It was a simplified overview with liberties taken and not a treatise. If you think I am going beyond what you say, I am, because I always expand topics to look at the whole picture. Any idiot can see details, but it takes a genius to see the big picture.

The facts are that men currently rape, abuse, and commit violence the most, so laws need to be set up to punish these acts far stronger when men do them to reduce such activity down to female levels. That used to be the case. Now men are organizing and pretending to be victims as a way to abuse and trivialize women and their concerns even more. And I would say the same needs to be done with race until the higher numbers of certain crimes drop. Part of the problem is that minority groups think of themselves as communities rather than as individuals. The majority in the US think of just themselves and their own family and don't automatically "go to war" every time someone does something anti-White. So really, there needs to be a way to drive a wedge between the good people and the criminals instead of the good people letting warped loyalties cause crime to go unpunished.

I get tired of the "my poor baby" routine when someone is caught. No, they didn't make "a mistake." There is no way to mistakenly rape. That is unless one has a rare medical condition that causes them to do it in their sleep, and there might be a few documented cases of that. I am unsure about someone getting very drunk and getting into the wrong bed and having sex with whoever else is there. Nor could someone "accidentally" rape except for a few far-fetched scenarios (like an unclothed man falling out of a tree onto an unclothed woman and things miraculously aligning properly). I don't really understand why one ethnic group would take up for criminal family members and another ethnic group wouldn't. Maybe the difference is the family structure, where a mother might be more likely to develop unhealthy nurturing bonds (codependency or whatever) with her children if there is no father around.

And me saying a certain race in the US is currently more likely to do something is not making a generalization. Besides, if you feel you are a victim of a generalization or stereotypes, then it is your job to take it out on those in your own group and let them know how bad they are making you look. Let me switch names of groups to try to make things less offensive. Lets suppose Green guys have a bad rap for raping Purple women. I believe it is the Green Community's job to do inside housecleaning and stop other Green guys from sexually assaulting women - Green, Blue, Purple, Polka-dotted, or otherwise. They should work to reduce violence from their own to targets outside their race because such interracial violence only causes more racism, even when the attackers don't attack from a place of racist animus against the victim. (In other words, a victim may perceive racism regardless of the motive.)

So if you don't like anti-male "sexism," then you as a man need to stop making excuses and instead work to reduce certain male behaviors. I believe instead of making women more "assertive," efforts should be put on making men less aggressive and less macho. I believe the world needs many more passive, non-competitive, non-athletic, non-macho men. Ironically, the more macho someone is, the more insecurity they have, and often, the most violent of men may be closeted homosexuals or transgendered (because they are running from themselves and have the most to try to prove). I'm glad the NFL is finally taking a stand on domestic violence, though it still seems players get in more trouble for abusing animals than their lovers or spouses. I am glad they are starting to close the penalty gap there. It isn't fair to be involved in a dog or rooster fight and get benched for a year, but put a lover/spouse in the hospital for a while and get suspended for only 3 games. I did sign a petition on the issue. The NFL now has an internal panel to tackle this issue, but it is not a fully representative group. Most of the players are African-American, and yet there are no Black women on the panel. So if none of the women

I will say something else, if a person mentions a group, they never mean the entire group unless they use the word "All" or another prefix.

[Webunny]

With all due respect, it got its own thread because you ran with my side comments in two different threads, and if it isn't addressed here, you will keep doing that with me elsewhere. I've ran into this in other places where some are not mature enough to read side comments without commenting and derailing the topic. So I generally start threads to deal with the things people keep using to derail topics with, or even to discuss me when I am the target. Then they can get it out of their system and stop polluting the threads. When a person mentions a side example, etiquette dictates never jumping on a minor point someone else mentions as a mere example. You've inserted comments about PCness and sexism in two of my posts.

Again, my comments only refer within the context of the US. We don't have many suicide bombers in the US, and Middle Eastern is considered "White" if you go by archaeological classifications and the 3-race hypothesis. But in the US, bombers tend to be White and loners, and it is more lone terrorism. It was a simplified overview with liberties taken and not a treatise. If you think I am going beyond what you say, I am, because I always expand topics to look at the whole picture. Any idiot can see details, but it takes a genius to see the big picture.

The facts are that men currently rape, abuse, and commit violence the most, so laws need to be set up to punish these acts far stronger when men do them to reduce such activity down to female levels. That used to be the case. Now men are organizing and pretending to be victims as a way to abuse and trivialize women and their concerns even more. And I would say the same needs to be done with race until the higher numbers of certain crimes drop. Part of the problem is that minority groups think of themselves as communities rather than as individuals. The majority in the US think of just themselves and their own family and don't automatically "go to war" every time someone does something anti-White. So really, there needs to be a way to drive a wedge between the good people and the criminals instead of the good people letting warped loyalties cause crime to go unpunished.

I get tired of the "my poor baby" routine when someone is caught. No, they didn't make "a mistake." There is no way to mistakenly rape. That is unless one has a rare medical condition that causes them to do it in their sleep, and there might be a few documented cases of that. I am unsure about someone getting very drunk and getting into the wrong bed and having sex with whoever else is there. Nor could someone "accidentally" rape except for a few far-fetched scenarios (like an unclothed man falling out of a tree onto an unclothed woman and things miraculously aligning properly). I don't really understand why one ethnic group would take up for criminal family members and another ethnic group wouldn't. Maybe the difference is the family structure, where a mother might be more likely to develop unhealthy nurturing bonds (codependency or whatever) with her children if there is no father around.

And me saying a certain race in the US is currently more likely to do something is not making a generalization. Besides, if you feel you are a victim of a generalization or stereotypes, then it is your job to take it out on those in your own group and let them know how bad they are making you look. Let me switch names of groups to try to make things less offensive. Lets suppose Green guys have a bad rap for raping Purple women. I believe it is the Green Community's job to do inside housecleaning and stop other Green guys from sexually assaulting women - Green, Blue, Purple, Polka-dotted, or otherwise. They should work to reduce violence from their own to targets outside their race because such interracial violence only causes more racism, even when the attackers don't attack from a place of racist animus against the victim. (In other words, a victim may perceive racism regardless of the motive.)

So if you don't like anti-male "sexism," then you as a man need to stop making excuses and instead work to reduce certain male behaviors. I believe instead of making women more "assertive," efforts should be put on making men less aggressive and less macho. I believe the world needs many more passive, non-competitive, non-athletic, non-macho men. Ironically, the more macho someone is, the more insecurity they have, and often, the most violent of men may be closeted homosexuals or transgendered (because they are running from themselves and have the most to try to prove). I'm glad the NFL is finally taking a stand on domestic violence, though it still seems players get in more trouble for abusing animals than their lovers or spouses. I am glad they are starting to close the penalty gap there. It isn't fair to be involved in a dog or rooster fight and get benched for a year, but put a lover/spouse in the hospital for a while and get suspended for only 3 games. I did sign a petition on the issue. The NFL now has an internal panel to tackle this issue, but it is not a fully representative group. Most of the players are African-American, and yet there are no Black women on the panel. So if none of the women

I will say something else, if a person mentions a group, they never mean the entire group unless they use the word "All" or another prefix.

I guess it's a cultural difference, then. Where I come from, it's exactly deemed to be mature to accept that, if you make sidecomments, people may and can respond to it as well. In fact, in any living discussion this ALWAYS happens. For me, starting a thread in the wrong area is indeed not very suited, but I would never make comments on somebody who responds to an aside when I made asides as well, for instance. (Frankly, THAT seems pretty immature). I don't know what your etiquette says, but there is no such thing as what you described in my book. It seems contrary to any normal discussion, and it's also rather hypocritical to complain someone is diverging off topic when one is doing the same. (Not saying you do, just talking on the principle of the matter). If one wants to stay on topic, stay on topic. If persons deviate from that with asides in a thread, others may deviate from it with asides too in that thread. It's that simple. It's called reciprocity.


I'm not sure why you use the 'in USA context" to something which deals with the basic principle and is universal in nature (in as far as anything is universal, but that's another discussion). Whether or not there are more suicide-bombers in the USA does nothing to refute the fact any sort of presumed or real link can be wrong, or interpreted wrongly. For instance; are blacks more criminally inclined, or is it that they are just more targeted by the police? Or both? Do men commit more murders, or is it that women murder in ways that are less conspicuous? (I read a paper where it is said women use far more poisoning to kill than men, for instance, and poisoning is more difficult to recognise as murder, than, say, a headshot). I'm not making a definite statement one way or another, just making clear one has to be cautious of supposed links, and even if there is a correlation, not to infer there is also a causality.

I do not agree with you that men should be more targeted than women because there is a real or perceived 'more prevalence' for crimes. Such a concept is inherently unfair, since it arbitrarily assumes all members of a group share the responsibility of that group, even if the only link is being born into that group. That's exactly what I mean by it being morally incorrect to target a whole group through the actions of individuals. I'm sorry, but I do not feel responsible for the actions of other individuals EVEN if they are men. (Actually, the 'man' or 'woman' thing is completely irrelevant to it). It's also not clear why you choose women as point of reference - one could think it's actually a bit self-serving, in fact. For instance, it could well be that budhist monks - men or women - commit even far less crimes than 'women' as a group. Thus, we should 'punish those acts far stronger when non-budhists do them, to reduce such activity to Buddhist levels'. Ridiculous? Yes. And so is the same thing you said. One is NOT responsible for other individuals' actions, and thus one should not receive harsher punishment because one is born into a certain group. The fact that I have to point out the moral lacune in such sort of reasoning, I find concerning.

Much of your other paragraphs deal, again, with an offender which might use 'others do it too' as an excuse. But that was never the point of the discussion in the first place, so I take it as an aside (mind you, *I* am not complaining about it, nor do I ask to make yet another thread about it ). As said, I agree with that, and it was never a point of contestation in the first place. Nor do I have a problem of making women more assertive (and other victims in general too, btw). But I am not to blame for what other people do, nor do I think a harsher punishment is needed because one has been born in a certain group. Any group is arbitrary chosen as reference point in any case. You take women, but there is no real necessity to use that as reference group. Say you have a very peaceful matriarchal Indian tribe somewhere, and you take that as point of reference, than it's fully justified to say white western women should be harsher punished, because there is more 'prevalence' there. So, no, to punish 'Greens' more because there are more individuals there that commit certain crimes, is still not correct, even if they commit more of those crimes than Purple. You do not get culpabilisation nor criminalisation by belonging by birth to a certain group. I know this is viewed differently by feminists, but I don't regard 'men' as a particular group I 'should' feel responsible for as a whole. I do not feel more responsible for the actions of individual men than I feel responsible for the individual actions of women, and of humans as a hole. The prevalence of crimes is much higher with the Islamic State, but even if I were a muslim, I would not feel responsible for their actions neither, nor would I argue that Muslims should be harder punished because of it. The idea that one should is, frankly, pretty bizarre and alien to me, and impossible to implement within the setting of the Categorical Imperative of Kant, which is what I use as moral compass. If all groups set themselves as normative for all other groups for every or any specific behaviour, then all could ask for harsher punishment for all other groups for such behaviour. Thus the logical conclusion would be an extremely harsh punishment equal for all except the meekest of all such groups (and only that specifically to certain behaviour, since it's unlikely there is a group that is in all and every behaviour more meek than in any other group).

As one can see, the whole concept is not only morally dubious, but also logically incoherent. In fact, culpabilisation of whole groups of people for actual or imagined wrongdoings of some individuals, led to myriads of historical atrocities in the past. Racial profiling is also a logical consequence of such a concept. This is exactly the 'big picture' you were talking about.

[Nemerian]

Again, my comments only refer within the context of the US. We don't have many suicide bombers in the US, and Middle Eastern is considered "White" if you go by archaeological classifications and the 3-race hypothesis. But in the US, bombers tend to be White and loners, and it is more lone terrorism. It was a simplified overview with liberties taken and not a treatise. If you think I am going beyond what you say, I am, because I always expand topics to look at the whole picture. Any idiot can see details, but it takes a genius to see the big picture.

The facts are that men currently rape, abuse, and commit violence the most, so laws need to be set up to punish these acts far stronger when men do them to reduce such activity down to female levels.

Actually, the classical white, 20's to 30's lonely male, only applies to something like 11% of murders and crimes and stuff.
But it's irrelevant anyway, since punishing crimes according to perceived groups is insane, and these entire posts are one big ecological fallacy.

[PurpleGurl]

Actually, the classical white, 20's to 30's lonely male, only applies to something like 11% of murders and crimes and stuff.
But it's irrelevant anyway, since punishing crimes according to perceived groups is insane, and these entire posts are one big ecological fallacy.

I said bombers and terrorists, not murderers. Lets not take things out of context. Also, nobody mentioned punishing based on groups, unless of course if a given group is doing it more. Then in that case, those who are not guilty should be angry at those who are and apply pressure to make them stop making their group look bad and thus cause them to lose freedoms. Large numbers of people in a group don't do things in a vacuum. Obviously, others in their group want them to do so or at least sympathize with them, or things would not happen at such higher percentages.

[Nemerian]

I said bombers and terrorists, not murderers.

"and stuff"

Also, nobody mentioned punishing based on groups, unless of course if a given group is doing it more.

"We don't punish according to groups, but actually we are"

Then in that case, those who are not guilty should be angry at those who are and apply pressure to make them stop making their group look bad and thus cause them to lose freedoms.

In what sane society do a citizen's civil liberties depend on his groups performance?
What, should black people intervene in the Crips vs Bloods conflict and scold them that "your ways are bad, and damaging our group's look"
We already see the damage that black people endure because them being black makes judges subconsciously give them higher sentences, since they are seen as prone to crime. This is how your marvelous idea would pan out.
Should the views of feminists be worth less because of this:
http://www.vice.com/read/is-reducing-th ... r-problems
and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist ... separatism
Haven't seen serious criticism of these deviations from within your circles.
In my country, gypsies commit more crimes. Should they have less liberties because of that?
Should i be presumed semi-guilty if accused of a crime in UK, since some political parties and newspapers portray immigrants from my country as some tsunami of eastern europeans that want to run Britain into the ground?
Everyone is equal before the law, that's one of the cornerstones of democracy.
The actions of a minority within that group should not hold accountable the rest of the group. That's self-evident.

What you are proposing is textbook discrimination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
"This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated""

[Webunny]

But it's irrelevant anyway, since punishing crimes according to perceived groups is insane, and these entire posts are one big ecological fallacy.

While I concur with the sentiment, it doesn't make logical sense to call it an ecological fallacy. I think you meant 'logical'.

Actually, the classical white, 20's to 30's lonely male, only applies to something like 11% of murders and crimes and stuff.
But it's irrelevant anyway, since punishing crimes according to perceived groups is insane, and these entire posts are one big ecological fallacy.

I said bombers and terrorists, not murderers. Lets not take things out of context. Also, nobody mentioned punishing based on groups, unless of course if a given group is doing it more. Then in that case, those who are not guilty should be angry at those who are and apply pressure to make them stop making their group look bad and thus cause them to lose freedoms. Large numbers of people in a group don't do things in a vacuum. Obviously, others in their group want them to do so or at least sympathize with them, or things would not happen at such higher percentages.

Saying "nobody mentioned punishing based on groups, unless of course if a given group is doing it more" IS punishing based on groups. It would be akin to a racist saying: "I don't discriminate based on race, unless they are black." That IS discrimination/racism.

It's difficult to see why you don't seem to comprehend that criminalising a whole group based on the actions of individuals of that group is inherently wrong. Also in a logical setting (using reciprocity) it's an untenable reasoning.

1)The choice of which crime you choose is arbitrary. Why bombers and terrorists, and not murderers? Why bombers, but not suicide bombers? Should any 'more prevalence' of any sort of crime lead to more severe punishment for any crime, or just for the specific crime, and why? As I said last time, if all groups set themselves as normative for all other groups for every or any specific behaviour, then all could ask for harsher punishment for all other groups for such behaviour.
2)The choice of the 'reference-group' is arbitrary. Why women or men? Why not groups based on religion? Based on race? Based on blood-ties/family? Based on ancestry/aristocracy? (It once WAS that way, you know?: Nobles were far less severely punished for the same crimes than the hoi palloi. And no doubt the hoi palloi will have had for some crimes more prevalence, indeed). Based on having blue eyes or not? Imagine it would turn out people with blue eyes have less prevalence in doing crimes than people with brown eyes, and you have brown eyes. Would you feel it justified that you are punished much harsher because you have brown eyes? Really?
3)Why would someone' else's' arbitrary inclusion of me (or another person) in some group be decisive in determining the (level of) punishment? I'm not sure if you are a feminist, but you use a lot of the stereotypical thinking of feminists, such as considering "men" as the enemy, or at least as a distinct group that should feel culpabilised just because they were born as a man. I refute such notion. If you feel free to do such, then, in reciprocity, I may feel free to do so as well. Say, I'm a budhist. The level of prevalence in crimes are far lower with 'budhists' as group than as 'women'. Therefore, I find it fully justified that you should be harsher punished, because you are a non-budhist woman. Agreed with this line of reasoning? Because it's basically yours... The fact you deem it somehow my responsability what another individual does just because he's a man is YOUR notion, not mine. It makes, for me, as much sense as that you, in the presumption you have brown eyes, should feel responsible and be culpabilised for crimes committed by brown-eyed people (*even* if it turned out they would have 'more prevalence').

It just makes no sense, why don't you see that?

Criminalising a whole group because of actions of some individuals of that group, while the only 'fault' of the other members of that group is that they were born in that group, would lead to a society that would be unbelievable repressive and unfair, and rife with racial profiling and discrimination. For someone claiming to look at 'the big picture' your ideas seem to lack any such foresight of the big picture if such mentality were consistently implemented in a society. As the other poster said; being "equal before the law" is one of the most basic tenets of a modern, constitutional state. You would basically flush that down the toilet.