How deferring to Women because of their sex is bad.

[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 The real victory would be if all those laws protecting women are repealed because they are truly no longer needed.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]

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...

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]

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.

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?

[Lord Dane]

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.

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?

If this were so Sir Ian, men & women would never overcome 'limitations' that are put upon them. I agree there are gender differences that are 'factual realities' making us 'limited in certain capacities'. But there are exceptions as stated...

There are limitations we place upon ourselves and those placed upon us by others. I can share in many of those war stories with vets disabled in combat that overcame their injuries who had no expectation of regaining their lives as they were before .... women & men. They fought together not thinking they would be in the situations they were in but overcame challenge & made it happen.   

[Ian]

This doesn't address inequality at all.  Overcoming a challenge or limitation is not the same as performing to the same level as another person all other things being equal besides gender.  And if you're suggesting that women need to overcome a challenge or limitation to perform equal to men, you're acknowledging that they do indeed have a limitation or challenge.

This isn't about a disabled person going through rehab and regaining their lives.  This is about two people, with nothing wrong with them, being different.  A woman simply cannot perform physically to the same level of a man on AVERAGE.  Female body builders cannot lift as much weight as male body builders.  Female runners cannot run as fast as male runners.  Female tennis players cannot serve as hard as male tennis players.  These are the realities of the world.  These aren't challenges to be overcome by alternate means.

My wife has the same job as me.  We're both military officers, we're both pilots.  Can she fly as well as me?  Sure, we had the same training and the same standards.  Can she run as fast as me on the physical readiness test?  no.... would she be able to pull me out of a crashed helicopter?  Maybe...  Does she have to meet the same physical standards as me?  No... why?  Because the military acknowledges the physical differences between us.  This doesn't affect our ability to fly a helicopter.  But it does affect for example, a female who wants to serve in the infantry, who's very job and survival depends on physical ability and endurance.

I suggest you read the article I linked.

[Lord Dane]

This doesn't address inequality at all.  Overcoming a challenge or limitation is not the same as performing to the same level as another person all other things being equal besides gender.  And if you're suggesting that women need to overcome a challenge or limitation to perform equal to men, you're acknowledging that they do indeed have a limitation or challenge.

This isn't about a disabled person going through rehab and regaining their lives.  This is about two people, with nothing wrong with them, being different.  A woman simply cannot perform physically to the same level of a man on AVERAGE.  Female body builders cannot lift as much weight as male body builders.  Female runners cannot run as fast as male runners.  Female tennis players cannot serve as hard as male tennis players.  These are the realities of the world.  These aren't challenges to be overcome by alternate means.

My wife has the same job as me.  We're both military officers, we're both pilots.  Can she fly as well as me?  Sure, we had the same training and the same standards.  Can she run as fast as me on the physical readiness test?  no.... would she be able to pull me out of a crashed helicopter?  Maybe...  Does she have to meet the same physical standards as me?  No... why?  Because the military acknowledges the physical differences between us.  This doesn't affect our ability to fly a helicopter.  But it does affect for example, a female who wants to serve in the infantry, who's very job and survival depends on physical ability and endurance.

I suggest you really read the article I linked.

Granted. I agree we have physical limitations by nature of our own being and gender differences. As such, standards are created. ** Personal note: Salute (to you & wife) ** I am happy that you & your wife serve together ... especially in the same capacity. I train & serve both men & women with the same standards & expectations of performance (even if the gender standard varies & has to be applied) .... when it comes to combat, I will place my life in their hands just as much as theirs in mine. 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. At desperate times, that is what saves you.

Personally, I would limit their service in the Infantry (or front-line combat) because of what I know would happen if they were ever captured alive by the enemy. But if they are willing to sign up, they will know what the dangers are & take their chances like us so .... if you wish to sacrifice yourself to serve & protect my back, who am I to say no. A woman is just as able to kill a man (or protect him) if trained right and follows orders. MY standards are that you do the same job efficiently but some are better than others at certain jobs. Cross-training is required for what I do with my team (in which women are included).

[Sir William]

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. 

[Sir Patrick]

To answer Sir Ian's question:  I don't feel practicing romantic chivalry is at odds with gender equality. Deference to women was a sign of respect for their station. Granted, their station has evolved quite a bit through the centuries, but the respect they deserve remains. I don't hold a door for a lady because I think she's too weak to open it herself, I do it as a sign of respect. I don't have to know her to respect her position in society (much as I'd be respectful to clergy or law enforcement and military personnel). As far as defending them, on average they are physically weaker, and therefore deserving of a knight's protection. But here is a different slant on that:  male mammals (especially primates) are hard-wired to protect the females of their species.  From a strictly biological standpoint, once a male has made hiscontribution to the gene pool, his reason for being has been severely diminished. This is one of the reasons we see altruistic behavior among primate males. So maybe we just can't help ourselves when it comes to standing up for a lady.

[Lord Dane]

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.

Say that to a woman I have trained Sir William, and you will think differently. But yes, point taken otherwise.

And of course, women appreciate being treated as women as do I also enjoy mutual respect, attention, and adoration from my wife. The one who doesn't appreciate being treated good & respected, will seek out someone who does return it eventually.

[Sir James A]

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.

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.

[SirNathanQ]

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. 

[Sir William]

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.

Say that to a woman I have trained Sir William, and you will think differently. But yes, point taken otherwise.

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.

[Thorsteinn]

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?