OPINION:
I’ve followed the Karen Read, Lindsey Clancy and Cornell “Jane Doe” cases, and despite their obvious differences, I notice a common thread.
Before all the facts are known, many people instinctively extend greater sympathy to and patience for female defendants or accusers than they would to men in comparable situations. That pattern appears repeatedly across social media, news coverage and public commentary.
Modern chivalry rarely announces itself. It appears instead as softened criticism, a reluctance to assign blame and a willingness to give one side the benefit of the doubt.
People were interested in these podcasts
Because these impulses are informal and socially rewarded, they often feel less like favoritism than simple compassion. Yet their cumulative effect can be unequal standards of judgment.
One group is quietly shielded while another is expected to withstand harsher scrutiny with little complaint.
This is not to say that women are weak or beyond criticism. It is an acknowledgment that ancient protective instincts continue to operate beneath modern ideals of equality.
The most enduring privileges are often those disguised as courtesy, because they are the least likely to be recognized — even by those who benefit from them.
If we value equality, we should also be willing to examine whether unconscious protective instincts are influencing our judgments.
SCOTT T. THOMPSON
Bloomington, Indiana
Please read our comment policy before commenting.