Main > The Round Table

How deferring to Women because of their sex is bad.

(1/7) > >>

Thorsteinn:
This came about due to that Facebook meme showing the bloodied lesbian who described how, after being called a name by a bigot, she slapped said bigot and was subsequently struck in response by him. She then whined that he had brutalized her.

A friends son posted about this. I took the guys side (given that he had initially only been rude not violent) and he replied that "You should never hit a woman ever" When I said his attitude was not only wrong but dangerous I was asked why. This is my response:
------------------------------------------------------------

First I will start with the premise that Equal Rights means Equal Responsibility (Sounds like "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility" right? It's because Rights are a form of Power). Which means that if one is able to do a thing, and thus does it, one is responsible for the results of the exercising of the thing. Also one is responsible when one does not exercise it yet should have.

A good example: Via the ADA & Civil Rights Act I have Equal Rights as anyone even though I have Asperger's Syndrome. My responsibility is to not use those laws as a crutch but as an enabler to do better in life. I also must help teach people what my disability is and what it means to me & how it affects my life. Thusly do I help all those whom are disabled to be seen, and treated better, and more equitably.

So how does this relate to your question you ask? ("Just out of pure curiosity. How is his opinion harmful to others?") Glad you did. Women are a protected classification but that is really a band-aid for the real problem. The real victory would be if all those laws protecting women are repealed because they are truly no longer needed.

Taking the attitude that women are "special and need to be protected" means that you will treat all women in a deferential and patriarchal manner. No matter if the intentions are good, women will pick up on this and some will begin to believe that lie. The lie that they are less able, and less valuable because they cannot be trusted with the true responsibility of Equality. That they need to be coddled and looked after to a degree because they cannot survive failing nor are they able to stand up afterwards and dust them off. Thus saying that men are inherently superior beings who are burdened with taking care of the weaker sex because they are unable to.

If a woman is equal then she has an equal responsibility to look after herself. If a woman chooses to do something hard then we must respect her right to fail, learn from that failure, and pick herself up. We must respect her right to fail as often as she needs to to succeed.

Carrying the attitude that Women are inherently less than Men will bleed off you and affect the people around you by eroding the hard won confidence of women that they can do it, and re-enforcing the beliefs of Men that women cannot.

All women, all men, all people are powerful we just have to believe that. It is the duty of all men & women to treat the opposite sex as their equal. Just because it takes you longer to run the distance doesn't mean you cannot win the race.

Thoughts?

SirNathanQ:
While I do agree with you on many points, especially that the ultimate triumph over sexism is when it's a not-issue, not when draconian legislation is passed, there are differences between men and women.

Physically, I believe it's wrong to strike a woman (except in a extreme self defense scenario) as they are weaker. On average, a woman has considerably less strength than a man, by no fault of her own. By using his strength in an offensive or retaliatory manner, the man is abusing his strength. Granted, there are muscular women out there, and any fighter worth his salt will tell you that strength alone won't give you victory, but the average Jeanette Six-pack isn't sporting large biceps or is a martial artist...   

Lord Dane:
In responding to what would be deemed criminal .... I arrest or charge the one who threw the first punch making a verbal argument into a physical confrontation. Let her cry to her attorney and a court. In response to hitting her back, I can only avoid same response if the strike was 'self-defense' as opposed to vengeance for being hit. Personally, she probably deserved it but I 'cannot' condone it. But then again, I didn't see it.  ::) Hopefully, it doesn't fit a domestic situation which becomes a different response.

I keep it simple, you throw the 1st punch, you get charged. Let her cry hate crime & other stupidity if she wants but I won't be adding that to the docket for something she started and is unproven or non-witnessed by a reliable, unbiased 3rd party.... 'He said, she said,' is how most of these scenarios play out so the cop becomes the deciding factor and I always trust my judgement.   

Lord Dane:

--- Quote from: SirNathanQ on 2012-08-01, 08:39:43 ---While I do agree with you on many points, especially that the ultimate triumph over sexism is when it's a not-issue, not when draconian legislation is passed, there are differences between men and women.

Physically, I believe it's wrong to strike a woman (except in a extreme self defense scenario) as they are weaker. On average, a woman has considerably less strength than a man, by no fault of her own. By using his strength in an offensive or retaliatory manner, the man is abusing his strength. Granted, there are muscular women out there, and any fighter worth his salt will tell you that strength alone won't give you victory, but the average Jeanette Six-pack isn't sporting large biceps or is a martial artist...

--- End quote ---

Sir Nathan, I grew up in a household of women & they are by no means "weaker" even if meant in generally speaking about their physical prowess. Women are just as capable as men in any regards if they train the same, learn the same, & can also excel in suit. Do not be presumptious and mistake their gender for something else. They have traits that make us differ but like men, we learn from our weaknesses & hopefully overcome them. I can train anyone to do the same thing & learn the same skills if they are disciplined, receptive to learning, & willing to act when required. Focusing on 'vulnerabilities' is how you overcome an opponent including your own weaknesses (not your strong points). Be good at everything you do & do it effectively to overcome challenge. When that fails, use ingenuity to improvise.

Physically, it's wrong to strike 'anyone' but righteous to 'protect the innocent' (which means anyone) in a notion of chivalrous behavior. But there can be 'justification' even if viewed as "immoral" or "something you & I wouldn't do" (striking a woman) in any context when such action is appropriate & reasonable especially if supported by the circumstances. Knowing 'restraint' is what makes you 'stronger' but knowing when not to restrain is what makes you 'smarter'. So when applicable, exercise restraint until there is no other choice then react forcefully, specifically, efficiently, and with intended result.

Ian:

--- Quote from: Lord_Dane on 2012-08-01, 12:18:35 ---Sir Nathan, I grew up in a household of women & they are by no means "weaker" even if meant in generally speaking about their physical prowess. Women are just as capable as men in any regards if they train the same, learn the same, & can also excel in suit. Do not be presumptious and mistake their gender for something else. They have traits that make us differ but like men, we learn from our weaknesses & hopefully overcome them. I can train anyone to do the same thing & learn the same skills if they are disciplined, receptive to learning, & willing to act when required. Focusing on vulnerabilities is how you overcome an opponent including your own weaknesses.

--- End quote ---

I disagree wholeheartedly.  A lot of women cannot train to the same level because of their physical limitations, and it's simply because they on average are physically weaker.  And that's not a BAD thing.  If you don't want to take it from me, take it from a female combat engineer Marine officer, formerly top collegiate athlete who after serving on the front lines actually came clean about the physical limitations of women.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

Look at any sport.  Women train just as hard as men, but there's a reason they don't compete against each other.  The Olympics are a great example.  I don't believe the women train any less hard than the men, but if you look at the performance levels, the men are faster and stronger in their respective sports.  This is not a deficiency of training, this is a gender difference.  Of course there are exceptions to everything, but they are called the exceptions for a reason.

My questions to Thorsteinn, or anyone for that matter, is this though:  Does the notion of Romantic Chivalry put its practitioner at odds with the notion of gender equality?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page