Main > The Round Table
How deferring to Women because of their sex is bad.
Lord Dane:
--- Quote from: James Anderson III on 2012-08-01, 17:58:43 ---
--- Quote from: Lord_Dane on 2012-08-01, 13:32:46 ---I will not say they are incapable of service because situations arise where you must be innovative & use ingenuity over physical means to get a job done.
--- End quote ---
By use of innovation and ingenuity over physical means, it reinforces the differences between physical strength and limitations thereof. It does not mean they can't accomplish the same goal; it means they do it a different way when physical strength is insufficient. That they are able to kill someone by something besides brute strength does not give them the same physical strength as a man; it gives them the potential to accomplish the same goal, through different means. Equality, but through differences.
There's probably a grey line for most people on hitting or not hitting a woman. There's only 3 situations I can think of where I would : (1) if I'm in mortal danger from one, (2) if we're bouting / sparring and it's acceptable, or (3) if it's reflexive. A long time ago I almost punched my wife (then girlfriend) in the face when she jumped out from behind a door and scared me - I dropped into stance and snapped back but luckily stopped when I realized it was her. You know, It's tough to turn off the ninja mode. :)
Oh, and Joan of Arc. ;)
--- End quote ---
Points taken, Sir James & Ian. You are both correct in your insights into the obvious. I may have gotten off track in my perceptions.
Lord Dane:
--- Quote from: SirNathanQ on 2012-08-01, 18:38:03 ---Lord Dane, we are not saying in the least that a woman cannot accomplish something. All we're saying is that women have less muscle mass. This is literally all it comes down to. If literally every single consideration were the same besides gender in two people, the male would possess more muscle mass.
We're not saying that a woman trained in combat couldn't prove effective, or that a woman couldn't harm us, ever. All we're saying is that women lack the luxury of naturally developing large quantities of muscle, and would in fact have to use ingenuity and skill where a unskilled man might be able to "power through" a physical challenge. The fact that a woman needs to do this is overcoming a limitation. Thus, you must then logically conclude that the woman started on an uneven playing field.
--- End quote ---
Agreed. I apologize for getting off-track. Most women do fit that perspective.
Lord Dane:
--- Quote from: Sir William on 2012-08-01, 18:51:10 ---
--- Quote from: Lord_Dane on 2012-08-01, 17:28:52 ---
--- Quote from: Sir William on 2012-08-01, 16:41:12 ---Some women like and appreciate that deference...take my wife, for instance. She's old-fashioned, likes that I hold the door or grab the chair for her, pick up the check, do the man chores around the house- all things she is perfectly able to do for herself but likes the attention and the feeling of being made much of.
I don't care how equal they are to us, as Ian said there are certain limitations due to the nature of their bodies and nothing else- and his Olympic examples bear up that argument.
I was raised to know that you didn't hit women under most circumstances, even in some self defense scenarios when its just hands involved. I mean really, unless they're trained and are trying really, really hard they can't hurt you unless you let them.
--- End quote ---
Say that to a woman I have trained Sir William, and you will think differently. But yes, point taken otherwise.
--- End quote ---
What, the part about being treated with deference out of respect? Or the part about them not really being able to hurt you unless they were trained and they were really trying to? In any case, it isn't something I'd be ashamed of saying as it isn't a disparagement, just my experience. I get what you're saying but I do not think the majority of women the world over are being trained as you are training your recruits.
With that said, a kick in the nuts would invalidate the argument I've just made, but again, that's not something I worry about- and most of the women I've had the pain/pleasure of knowing wouldn't resort to that as an opening salvo. God help the man stuck with one who does.
--- End quote ---
You are correct, Sir William. Most women don't fit that expectation. :) Although they have the potential. I hate to short-sight someone's abilities when muscle mass is something they can build to even match a man's potential but it is limited ... by natural progression or just sheer nature I suppose is true.
Lord Dane:
--- Quote from: Thorsteinn on 2012-08-01, 19:56:51 ---Does the notion of Romantic Chivalry put its practitioner at odds with the notion of gender equality?
No, but I rarely engage in that as I simply don't experience many of those kinds of feelings necessary for engaging in Romantic Chivalry. I can do romance, I can do chivalry, but I have a really hard time with the combo as seen in the high & late middle ages. Though this may also have to do with not being attracted to the wilting flowery waif type of woman. I'm more into the Gina Carano & Zoe Washbourne kind of woman.
Truthfully though I don't see Male & Female. I see Human ( I open doors for all folks). Thusly, for example, a woman who is willing to fight me is willing to be fought by me. I am unable to show her less honor.
-----------
I give you a corollary as a thought exercise:
A smaller person, after finding out my religion, calls me a "F**king Kike". In response I slap said person hard. They reply with a punch to my nose. I leave and whine how I was assaulted for being Jewish. What's you opinion then? Of me? Of the situation?
--- End quote ---
Interesting thoughts. Here's mine of that example. Be the bigger/better man (or person) & not respond with violence to 'fighting words' alone as slapping is what gets my attention & the insults make that person look stupid & biggoted. Say what you will but if the woman takes 'physical action' in support of those expressed feelings towards you, then respond in kind as justifiable reaction (i.e. self-defense) in any reasonable manner.
However, if I were speaking as a cop, I would arrest you 'both for stupidity' (and apply the appropriate charges based on circumstances). I have zero tolerance for stupidity, fighting, and other forms of idiocy in situations where these things are avoidable by being adults and decent human beings. And I absolutely hate whiners. :) LOL
On a personal note Thorsteinn, I am married but I'm for the Amy Adams or Kate Beckinsdale type of woman. ;)
Sir Edward:
Wow, I turn my back, and suddenly there's a long, interesting conversation going on. :)
Gender equality is, I think, something that has to be viewed in the right context. In terms of legal rights, privileges, and protections, and overall morality, respect, and treatment, everyone should be treated the same, regardless of gender.
But as others have pointed out, there are physical differences, as well as neurological differences. Men are predisposed toward more upper-body strength, and tend to be better at 3D spatial relationships and abstract concepts (in terms of evolution, all of these equate to better hunters). Women tend to be better at reading faces and body language, are better swimmers, and have a much more acute sense of smell.
But all of these things tend to follow a bell-curve distribution, where the male and female bell-curves mostly overlap. The averages are offset, but within the curves, probably 90% of the population fall into the same ranges regardless of gender.
But I think the main point of the thread is how to treat the opposite gender. The assumption that women are automatically "weak" is not a good assumption to make. However, all human beings are deserving of respect, until they do something to no longer deserve it.
I will never strike a woman out of anger, or domination. But if one were to attack me, I would defend myself accordingly.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version