Ends justifying the means

[Bedrockgames]

I think there's a clear indication that neither of you is going to be convinced by the other. So, please let it be, gents. Thank you.

Sorry umbran. I didn't mean to drag this out so much. I will stop posting on the subject.

 

[Kramodlog]

yes, but that doesn't perpetuate sexist power structures (at least that is was my feminist friends reasoning)

But aren't all power strutures backed by violence problematic, no matter the gender involved? What feminist did is show that women were abused, but it doesn't make their abuse more important. Quantitatively it is more important, because women represent like 52% of the population, but qualitatively, there isn't any diffence.

i am saying they disportionately affected by domestic violence from men, more impacted by it because of existing inequalities in the culture, and more likely to be victims of it because if cultural influences in our society. I am also saying that the general physical differences (both the average size and strength advantage if men and the ones that result from cultural pressures) mean we need to emphasize to men its not pkay for them to hit women.

Why not emphasize that physical and psychological abuse is not okay, period? Both gender (and other genders) are victims of it.

 

[tomBitonti]

Why not emphasize that physical and psychological abuse is not okay, period? Both gender (and other genders) are victims of it.

There are issues with allowances for men to be passive and non-physical, at least in western societies. That is, a guy who doesn't fight back tends to not get sympathy or support. There is also a lot of push back against the idea of woman on man sexual abuse.

That is to say, I don't think that many would disagree with physical and psychological abuse being bad, but different expectations for men and women interfere with the problem.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Kramodlog]

There are issues with allowances for men to be passive and non-physical, at least in western societies. That is, a guy who doesn't fight back tends to not get sympathy or support. There is also a lot of push back against the idea of woman on man sexual abuse.

That is to say, I don't think that many would disagree with physical and psychological abuse being bad, but different expectations for men and women interfere with the problem.

Thx!

TomB

Why tolerate these expectations in the first place?

 

[MJS]

In other words, just because I claim something, doesn't mean my claim is true.

it is true that male animals - which humans are - exhibit a protective behavior. I think you and others are looking for an absolute truth here that doesn't exist. What I have outlined is a part of it.

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

In your case, yes. And, maybe loosen the helmet a bit.
Increasing mating chances is where my whole point goes. As I said before, it's not about chivalry per se. Bu you wanted to argue that male animals have no protective instinct, and I'm done talking to you about it.

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

I'm not sure that you do either. A biologically ingrained pattern is different from idiotic religious and cultural factors. That's what I was on about, but its become a game of prove/disprove, not a wholistic discussion.

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.

no, I don't think it is. By that definition, the only non-sexists are bisexuals.
Sorry about the duck rape. You will never really be able to un-see it.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

it is true that male animals - which humans are - exhibit a protective behavior. I think you and others are looking for an absolute truth here that doesn't exist. What I have outlined is a part of it.

It's funny that you say we are looking for an absolute truth when you make a claim that humans exhibit protective behavior. Humans, as any other organisms, exhibit behaviors. You, however, are attributing a protective quality to the behavior. You're doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing. That's bad form.

The other problem is that it appear that you are saying that "males" are protective of females. Are you suggesting that males are protective of females because they are females?

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

no, I don't think it is. By that definition, the only non-sexists are bisexuals.
Sorry about the duck rape. You will never really be able to un-see it.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[EscherEnigma]

yes, but that doesn't perpetuate sexist power structures (at least that is was my feminist friends reasoning)

... please, tell me more about how butch men beating up girly men, because they're girly and not butch, doesn't perpetuate sexist power structures. I'm deeply interested in your thoughts.

 

[Bedrockgames]

... please, tell me more about how butch men beating up girly men, because they're girly and not butch, doesn't perpetuate sexist power structures. I'm deeply interested in your thoughts.

Sorry Escher I am not posting on this subject anymore (see above).

 

[EscherEnigma]

m not sure that you do either. A biologically ingrained pattern is different from idiotic religious and cultural factors. That's what I was on about, but its become a game of prove/disprove, not a wholistic discussion.

Again, why are you conflating the cause or reason with the behavior differences? When identifying sexism, racism, and all the other *isms don't care about why the difference in standards and treatment is happening, you simply identify the difference. And then later you go in and say "okay, why did this happen" and you can decide if it's a morally acceptable case of discrimination or not.

For example...

no, I don't think it is. By that definition, the only non-sexists are bisexuals.

When it comes to mate-selection? Yep.

However, that's a morally acceptable case of sexism. But it is still sexism. The only reason this is controversial is because knee-jerk reactions to terms that people don't understand. Underwear is also pretty sexist. As are different trianing regimines at the gym for women vs. men. And nutritional requirements for women vs. men. Different recommendations for sungliht exposure for Irish vs. Nigerians is racist.

You really need to understand that just because something is an *ism or *ist doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. Yes, the ones you normally hear about are, but that's because no one is really going to care that beard trimmers are targeted almost exclusively towards men. Which quite clearly falls into the "morally acceptable sexism" category.