Ends justifying the means

[EscherEnigma]

As long as we're dishing out "evidence", I'd like to remind the audience that men are most likely to be assaulted/abused/killed by strange men. Women are most likely to be assaulted/abused/killed by known men.

But quite simply, the "problem" is that there are two competing reproduction strategies. There's the " 'em all" strategy (the man asking for leniency from a judge because he needs to pay child support to eight women for twelve kids). And there's the "one and only" strategy (the "family man" who devotes all his time and resources to one family). Both are undeniably human, but this is one of those "it's all on a bell curve" deals.

That said, why the need to establish chivalry as some sort of genetic predisposition? So that you don't "feel bad" about not agreeing with "if hitting women is bad, hitting men is equally bad"? I got an easy out for that right here: the "don't hit women" rules is a rule-of-thumb simplification of the "don't pick on the weaker" rule as that's way the bell curves work out. Rules of thumb are fine, but don't mistake them for straight jackets and don't forget what they're derived from.

 

[MJS]

No evidence for humans, what a surprised. Funny how apes often kill the babies of female apes or that some orang-outangs commit rape or that divorce (and being forced to pay a pension) are so common. It seems the common thread is spreading genetic material. The question is, are these strategies genetic or cultural (young ape saw older ape act, does the same, pays off, cultural trait is passed on).

In your opinion. It certainly can be cultural too. Women beater, rapist, murderers or just divorcers are rather common. Are they common enough to also be genetic, in your opinion? I'm curious.

You still need to prove it is an instinct of males. So far it is just your opinion, you haven't proven that these aren't manifestations of culture.

[quoe]What your opinion suggests is that our natural tendency to protect females/nest is somehow "wrong",

The facts here speak for themselves, and the evidence, which you would prefer to ignore, is overwhelming. I am not here to teach you or convince you, its not my job. Feminists I know agree with me. There is an animal nature at work, that has a complex relation to cultural biases, but is not the same as them.
Yes, males attack and kill babies; others defend nests. I am suggesting there is room for both of these things to be true. Truth isn't black and white. Thats about all I care to engage in this with you. Research it on your own time.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

The facts here speak for themselves, and the evidence, which you would prefer to ignore, is overwhelming. I am not here to teach you or convince you, its not my job. Feminists I know agree with me. There is an animal nature at work, that has a complex relation to cultural biases, but is not the same as them.
Yes, males attack and kill babies; others defend nests. I am suggesting there is room for both of these things to be true. Truth isn't black and white. Thats about all I care to engage in this with you. Research it on your own time.

Whoa there, ace, I don't think anyone is ignoring 'evidence' that males want to protect females. Hell, we've had more than one gallant White Knight show up in this very thread. If anything is being ignored it's our history (only recently, all things considered, that beating your wife was made illegal, some still think rape that occurs in marriage isn't rape, etc) and the fact that prisons are full of men who beat or kill women. I haven't seen any reason whatsoever given that I should forget about all of that and just say 'yeah, it's totes in our nature to protect women'. Address that stuff and we can really start to talk. Until then it's just you telling us what you think is a fact without even stopping to consider the counter evidence we've presented.

Let's talk about how men in the military respond to women who claim they've been raped.

There's one. Tell me how that's evidence of our natural protective instinct. When we get done with that, we can move on to something else.

 

[MJS]

Whoa there, ace, I don't think anyone is ignoring 'evidence' that males want to protect females. Hell, we've had more than one gallant White Knight show up in this very thread. If anything is being ignored it's our history (only recently, all things considered, that beating your wife was made illegal, some still think rape that occurs in marriage isn't rape, etc) and the fact that prisons are full of men who beat or kill women. I haven't seen any reason whatsoever given that I should forget about all of that and just say 'yeah, it's totes in our nature to protect women'. Address that stuff and we can really start to talk. Until then it's just you telling us what you think is a fact without even stopping to consider the counter evidence we've presented.

Let's talk about how men in the military respond to women who claim they've been raped.

There's one. Tell me how that's evidence of our natural protective instinct. When we get done with that, we can move on to something else.

i have addressed this more than once, again, truth is not point A disproving point B, it is an organic thing. Lemming syndrome is a powerful factor, Cover Your Ass syndrome is in every corporation (and military)
I am saying that, in nature, as in humans, we have a stark contradiction apparently. There is no question that males protect females; nor is this universally true. The fact that we document this protection in animals shows it to be deeply rooted. So, when a man says, in a thread like this, that his protective feeling towards women is not sexism, we might consider respecting that as part of this truth, rather than seek to attack it as a binary thing.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

i have addressed this more than once, again, truth is not point A disproving point B, it is an organic thing. Lemming syndrome is a powerful factor, Cover Your Ass syndrome is in every corporation (and military)
I am saying that, in nature, as in humans, we have a stark contradiction apparently. There is no question that males protect females; nor is this universally true.

Are you suggesting that the reason males protect females is because the female is a female and nothing more?

The fact that we document this protection in animals shows it to be deeply rooted. So, when a man says, in a thread like this, that his protective feeling towards women is not sexism,

Shouldn't that depend on the reason for these protective feelings towards women? I mean, I could claim that my reasons to be protective of women aren't sexist;; however, I feel protective of women because I believe they are weaker, both physically, and mentally, and their role is to bare children and do as the man says, while a males role is to be the head of the household, be the provider, and protector of the weaker sex. In other words, just because I claim something, doesn't mean my claim is true.

 

[Kramodlog]

The facts here speak for themselves, and the evidence, which you would prefer to ignore, is overwhelming.

I didn't ignore it, you seem to ignore the evidence I provide. I also proposed an alternative explication for the ape's behavior. A cultural one that you also ignore. So far what you call facts are just your opinion and feelings.

I am not here to teach you or convince you, its not my job. Feminists I know agree with me.

And those I know disagree. This is just an appeal to an authority.

There is an animal nature at work, that has a complex relation to cultural biases, but is not the same as them.

But you haven't demonstrated the it is genetic, you simply affirm it. You walking on the side of the road example is cute, but is not genetic evidence and can be easily explain by cultural influences.

Yes, males attack and kill babies; others defend nests. I am suggesting there is room for both of these things to be true. Truth isn't black and white. Thats about all I care to engage in this with you. Research it on your own time.

But do you know why they kill babies or will protect a baby? Are you familiar with the selfish gene concept?

i have addressed this more than once, again, truth is not point A disproving point B, it is an organic thing. Lemming syndrome is a powerful factor, Cover Your Ass syndrome is in every corporation (and military)
I am saying that, in nature, as in humans, we have a stark contradiction apparently. There is no question that males protect females; nor is this universally true. The fact that we document this protection in animals shows it to be deeply rooted. So, when a man says, in a thread like this, that his protective feeling towards women is not sexism, we might consider respecting that as part of this truth, rather than seek to attack it as a binary thing.

So basically you are saying we should consider what you say to be true because you say it and we shouldn't question it?

Sounds paternalistic, a bit like this how men are genetically programmed to protect women. If at least you said men wanna maximize the chance to dissiminate their genetic material, now you'd be on to something.

 

[EscherEnigma]

So, when a man says [...] that his protective feeling towards women is not sexism [...]

Then we tell him he doesn't full understand the word he's using.

Whether something is "sexist" or not says nothing about it's origins (cultural or biological) or morality (for good or ill). It simply speaks to treating things differently based on perceived sex and gender. So even if you can justify an attitude as biologically or genetically determined (or more likely strongly influenced) that doesn't give you a "totally not sexist" card. It just means you have a reason to point to.

Now, whether it's moral is an entirely different discussion from whether it's biological.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

i have addressed this more than once, again, truth is not point A disproving point B, it is an organic thing. Lemming syndrome is a powerful factor, Cover Your Ass syndrome is in every corporation (and military)
I am saying that, in nature, as in humans, we have a stark contradiction apparently. There is no question that males protect females; nor is this universally true. The fact that we document this protection in animals shows it to be deeply rooted. So, when a man says, in a thread like this, that his protective feeling towards women is not sexism, we might consider respecting that as part of this truth, rather than seek to attack it as a binary thing.

Again, we document far different behavior in animals, too. Hell, I once saw a duck rape another duck right in front of its mate. One was protecting and the other was rapacious. Which was the one behaving naturally?

As for the sexist stuff, treating a woman differently than you treat a man simply because she is a woman is sexist whether you like it or not.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As for the sexist stuff, treating a woman differently than you treat a man simply because she is a woman is sexist whether you like it or not.

Whether something is natural or not doesn't really illuminate whether it is moral, so I think arguments over whether men are naturally protective of women get us no where and take things beyond the simple principle of it is wrong for a man to hit a woman.

on the 'is it sexist front', all i can say is i am a man, so i decided to ask female friends of mine who are feminists (women who are very much active feminists who studied it in college or are out there trying to change things for the better) and i asked them specifically about this issue of whether its sexist to say men should not hit women and that there is a difference between a man striking another man and a man striking a woman. The response i got across the board was they agreed it is worse for men to strike womn and that this is a principle we shouldn't toss away lightly. They didn't see it as sexist because man on woman violence is something that perpetuates sexist power structures in place. Man on man violence dosnt perpetuate those power structures though it is still bad in its own way (these are their words, not mine). I am sure there are also feminists out there who disagree, but something about the argument bein pg made here (that men and women are equal so we shouldnt treat men punching women differently than women punching men or men punching men) feels like it is mysogynistic juijitsi, a kind of "mens's rights" movement rhetorical tactic of throwing "equality" back in the faces of feminists.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then we tell him he doesn't full understand the word he's using.

Whether something is "sexist" or not says nothing about it's origins (cultural or biological) or morality (for good or ill). It simply speaks to treating things differently based on perceived sex and gender. So even if you can justify an attitude as biologically or genetically determined (or more likely strongly influenced) that doesn't give you a "totally not sexist" card. It just means you have a reason to point to.

Now, whether it's moral is an entirely different discussion from whether it's biological.

i am no expert on feminism or sexism, but is this true? When i looked up the word sexist, it said it was prejudice or discrimination based on sex, or viewing someone as inferior because of their sex. I agree that can clearly include treating people differently based on their gender, but it also seems to there are issues, like domestic violence where women are the victims of male abusers, where you have to treat the situation differently than the reverse in order to address existing sexism in the culture. I am sure some guys do get battered by their women, but i doubt they are at nearly as much risk when they try to leave than women are, and i think because women still have less power in our society it makes the situation different than if it is the man being abused. On top of that, men tend to be larger than women (on average, and there are definitely plenty of exceptions) and i thinkt hey are more culturally pressured to acquire combat skills and do things like lift weights. So i think when you take the problem as a whole, you have to treat man on woman violence differently than woman on man violence.