Boy Refuses to Wrestle Girl

[Guest Raids]

Cantabile, I get what you're saying, and I have been the designated "anti-feminist" many times on this Board before because some think I expect women to do too much bootstrapping. Nevertheless the sum total of my opinion of you from all the threads you have posted here is that you exhibit a very high degree of unconscious sexism. Sorry.

But I'm not the feminist mafia. I'm pretty middle of the road. Marilyn Frye *is* considered pretty radical, but not in regard to the birdcage.

In regard to the wire that is door-holding, it is about passive sexism. Passive sexism - putting women on a pedestal - has limited career options. It's *not* a minor issue to adopt a view where women are fragile.

Having said that, I never say anything to anyone about this. But if asked, yes, I have an opinion and that's what it is.

You have repeatedly suggested that feminists could be better feminists by focusing on issues that YOU define as important, argued that it's totally fine to call a woman a bitch even though you think it's the pinnacle of offensiveness to use the word retard, and seem to think that Bakker writes good female characters. So get off of it already.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

The custom in question is the one where men are taught to not hit women.

Some argue that this is a sign of respect, and that it is ridiculous, or even contradictory, that equality between sexes means that boys should not be taught this custom.

The counter-argument is that by singling out women as a group to be considered off-limit against violence, the custom is actually accomplishing several things, and all of them actually go against equality for women in the long run.

One, it is teaching the boys that women needs more protection than men. In a society where the safety of women from physical harm is accomplished by the staying of hands from men, then the safety that women enjoy is given at the mercy and consideration of men. Women have not achieved protection against violence, because safety is now at the whims of men. There's no control, and no self-determination for women in this structure. The non-sexist way to achieve safety for women would be to teach everyone to not use violence at all, against anyone, while empowering people to train in basic safety courses to gain confidence during physical confrontations.

Second, the custom is condoning violence between men. Most feminists or those for gender equality will agree that this is a poor message to send. Men are not more expendable than women, and men are not more deserving to be victims of violence than women.

Finally, this custom perpetuates the historical trend of women having things done to them, which keeps putting women in a passive and non-self-determinatory ways. When one seeks to protect women from harm in a way that one does not do so for men, one is imposing protection on women in a way that restricts and constrains women's freedom. It is not wrong to protect women, of course, but it is wrong to attempt to protect women in ways above and beyond what you would do for men. That different pattern of treatment is what is being criticized. It is not being argued that we should just declare fair-game for violence against women. Rather, it is the recognition that in treating women differently than we do men in this way, we are reinforcing a larger social and cultural context of seeing women as less in control, more in need of protection, and less capable of achieving objectives on their own.

Good grief. OK. Teaching men not to hit women doesnt make womens safety contingent on a mans whim, as he is taught NOT to hit women, NOT that its OK if he wants to, to hit women. If you feel society teaches women need more protection than men, it doesnt follow that the men are suddenly going to beat the woman as a result of said teachings. Nor does it teach that it is OK for men to beat up men. It just teaches men to be chivalrous in dealings with women. It doesnt mean at all women cant accomplish things; it means merely that men should treat women decently.

And women are not men and as we are different, yes, we should be treated with respect for those differences. As I wrote earlier, women have children; men do not. That is why for most of history accross many cultures, women did not fight on the front lines. Not because women were inferior, but because if you destroy most of the females within a society, that society is pretty much dead. No more children can be born...or allot fewer. However, if a large number of males are destroyed, the society will continue as there are women to birth children, and the men who are left can impregnante them.

This is NOT saying I feel women should not be on the front lines; ANY woman who can pass the SAME exact test a man can, should be in the armed services if she wishes.

None of this perpetrates a view that women are less in control or can not do what they wish. A mans holding a door for me doesnt at all diminish my control of anything.

[TerraPrime]

The argument that this is just one part of the Evil Sexist Patriarchy (without providing any type of evidence) is little more than a cheap rhetorical trick. This argument has been put forward: Not wanting to hit women -> treating women differently -> sexism -> sexual violence. There has not been an ounce of evidence to support this argument. I will not accept this conclusion without some type of evidence to back it up.

But whence do the motives and rationale for sexual violence come from, if not a pervasive view of women being suitable preys on account of them being weaker? And whence do the notion of women being weaker come from, if not reinforced by the multitude of smaller acts of seeming innocence? To the extent that sexual violence is aggravated by sexism, and to the extent that multiple factors contribute to and help reinforce existing sexism, I think it is quite reasonable to make the connections.

Incidentally, what sort of evidence would even be capable of convincing you of this connection? Is it even a possibility in your realm of thinking that seemingly innocuous customs like telling boys not to hit women/girls may contribute to the overall structure of sexism? Or are you disputing that sexism is a contributing factor to sexual violence?

Your analogy, as usual, is quite faulty. Instead of ordering for me, my Korean friend would act as a translator between me and the Korean wait staff. This analogy is closer, but it is still a rough fit. Why do you always try to force incongruous situations into nice, neat little analogies?

Yes, if your friend had acted as a translator, then she would have been respectful and helpful. But what if she had not? That was my analogy. What if she had simply ordered for you without asking you if you wanted her to? That is the part that I wanted to draw analogy to vis a vis teaching men that it's always wrong to hit a girl, to the extent that a male athlete refuses to wrestle with a female competitor (I will say, though, that is not quite the case, since the male student cited religious reasons, although the discussion has become generalized enough that not wanting to hit a girl has been discussed in this context throughout this thread).

ReL Cantabile

Nevermind then, I was talking about opening doors, not the violence.

Two of the 3 reasonings still apply, in that case. Just change words like "Safety" to "assistance" and the argument is essentially the same.

[Guest Raids]

I like how she writes like she's the only one who's ever had these ideas and we're all like awestruck hearing them for the very first time.

[Tempra]

The custom in question is the one where men are taught to not hit women.

Some argue that this is a sign of respect, and that it is ridiculous, or even contradictory, that equality between sexes means that boys should not be taught this custom.

The counter-argument is that by singling out women as a group to be considered off-limit against violence, the custom is actually accomplishing several things, and all of them actually go against equality for women in the long run.

One, it is teaching the boys that women needs more protection than men. In a society where the safety of women from physical harm is accomplished by the staying of hands from men, then the safety that women enjoy is given at the mercy and consideration of men. Women have not achieved protection against violence, because safety is now at the whims of men. There's no control, and no self-determination for women in this structure. The non-sexist way to achieve safety for women would be to teach everyone to not use violence at all, against anyone, while empowering people to train in basic safety courses to gain confidence during physical confrontations.

Very black and white view. Teaching men not to hit women is a recognition that men are likely to cause more damage to women than they are to other women because of the average physical differences between the sexes. Just as it is more wrong for large, muscled individuals to beat up small, waif-like individuals, or adults to beat up kids, it is wrong for men to hit women.

Second, the custom is condoning violence between men. Most feminists or those for gender equality will agree that this is a poor message to send. Men are not more expendable than women, and men are not more deserving to be victims of violence than women.

Absolutely false. We have assault laws that prohibit physical violence against men. From a moral standpoint, physical violence is not condoned either. Hitting men is wrong morally and legally, but not AS wrong (morally) as hitting a woman.

Finally, this custom perpetuates the historical trend of women having things done to them, which keeps putting women in a passive and non-self-determinatory ways. When one seeks to protect women from harm in a way that one does not do so for men, one is imposing protection on women in a way that restricts and constrains women's freedom. It is not wrong to protect women, of course, but it is wrong to attempt to protect women in ways above and beyond what you would do for men. That different pattern of treatment is what is being criticized. It is not being argued that we should just declare fair-game for violence against women. Rather, it is the recognition that in treating women differently than we do men in this way, we are reinforcing a larger social and cultural context of seeing women as less in control, more in need of protection, and less capable of achieving objectives on their own.

In what way is the freedom of women constrained or restricted by teaching young boys to not hit women?

[Returned]

Very interesting thread, I had to stiffle a laugh reading the original post and seeing the amount of pages. Still reading through most of it tho.

I'd like to say that women and men are equals and yet also they're different as day and night, and thus, knowing that, I believe in some situations and settings men and women should be treated accordingly. It's a thin line to walk on, yet I believe some of the informal behaviour we all acquire through instinct, rather than upbringing.

I've never been specifically thought not to hit women by anyone.

Let me just ask you all to answer a very simple scenario.

It's a late hour, you're walking home from a cafe. While walking home through a dark street, you see two alleyways, one on your right and one on your left. On the left alleyway you see a man being assaulted by three thugs, on the left alleyway you see a woman being assaulted by three thugs. Assuming you have the courage, of course, to whom's rescue do you come and how do you come to this decision?

[Guest Raids]

So it's wrong for a 125lb weakling to hit a female Marine because some men are stronger than some women? I don't mean to trivialize the difference - my husband is not a big guy but he is WAY stronger than me, but it would have to be true in all cases for your logic to hold up. It's like you're saying that we should teach Norwegians that it's wrong to hit Japanese people.

[Guest Raids]

And nice hypo returned. Even I would probably help the woman. Because I'm still sexist too.

[MercenaryChef]

Very interesting thread, I had to stiffle a laugh reading the original post and seeing the amount of pages. Still reading through most of it tho.

Let me just ask you all to answer a very simple scenario.

It's a late hour, you're walking home from a cafe. While walking home through a dark street, you see two alleyways, one on your right and one on your left. On the left alleyway you see a man being assaulted by three thugs, on the left alleyway you see a woman being assaulted by three thugs. Assuming you have the courage, of course, to whom's rescue do you come and how do you come to this decision?

what was funny about the original post?

and in your scenario i would call the police.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

<headdesk>

You know what? You go on being a White Knight. If it makes you feel good and superior because you are Doing The Right Thing. I'll just keep taking advantage of poor bastards like you who leave the door open (literally and figuratively) for me to exploit your male weakness towards females.

It tastes delicious.

Balefront, I agree with FormerLordofWinterfell. Id have quoted his post to but I STILL cant get that multiquote thing working. Men holding the door for me, or treating me with respect hardly equates to putting me on a pedestal they can then get rid of and rape me as I fall. It is not in any way creating a rape culture for men to respect women. Indeed, I would guess that men raised to respect women would be LESS inclined to rape, not more.

White Knight? Gallantry is not a bad thing. Its not a patronizing or infantilizing thing either, the idea that women should be well treated. And it is a pity you just cant smile and say "Thank you" when a man does you a favor; instead the idea seems to threaten you greatly.

And if you say YOU can take advantage of HIS male weakness (which he does not display by being polite; consideration for others is a strength not a weakness) then where is this pedestal you fear to be on? You are inconsistent in your words.

And if you think its "delicious" to exploit men, that is very sad as well.

[TrueMetis]

It's a late hour, you're walking home from a cafe. While walking home through a dark street, you see two alleyways, one on your right and one on your left. On the left alleyway you see a man being assaulted by three thugs, on the left alleyway you see a woman being assaulted by three thugs. Assuming you have the courage, of course, to whom's rescue do you come and how do you come to this decision?

This is why we have cell phones.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Very interesting thread, I had to stiffle a laugh reading the original post and seeing the amount of pages. Still reading through most of it tho.

I'd like to say that women and men are equals and yet also they're different as day and night, and thus, knowing that, I believe in some situations and settings men and women should be treated accordingly. It's a thin line to walk on, yet I believe some of the informal behaviour we all acquire through instinct, rather than upbringing.

I've never been specifically thought not to hit women by anyone.

Let me just ask you all to answer a very simple scenario.

It's a late hour, you're walking home from a cafe. While walking home through a dark street, you see two alleyways, one on your right and one on your left. On the left alleyway you see a man being assaulted by three thugs, on the left alleyway you see a woman being assaulted by three thugs. Assuming you have the courage, of course, to whom's rescue do you come and how do you come to this decision?

I come to neither of their rescues. I am unqualified to interfere in a situation like that, I would simply be adding another victim to the situation. What I would do is call the police, describe the situation as best I could, and they being the professionals, would handle it as they saw fit.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Same response, MC. I'd call the police, go back for more help, start yelling and shouting to see if either or both groups would break it up now that they know there are people around (and to draw more attention), all sorts of alternate options.

If you're going to say I have to absolutely choose one, I choose the woman, because chances are better that the man is not going to be raped. Of course it also depends on which group of thugs looks more like one I could reasonably break up -- if it's three weaklings beating up the man, I might go for him first because he then might be able to help me with the three thugs attacking the woman.

[RWHamel]

This is why we have cell phones.

No signal! #@#$$%! Shakes fist at ATT!

[Tempra]

So it's wrong for a 125lb weakling to hit a female Marine because some men are stronger than some women? I don't mean to trivialize the difference - my husband is not a big guy but he is WAY stronger than me, but it would have to be true in all cases for your logic to hold up. It's like you're saying that we should teach Norwegians that it's wrong to hit Japanese people.

All cases? Of course it doesn't. A rule of general applicability is not defeated because of the odd exception. It is wrong in ALL cases for any man or woman to hit another person unprovoked. In your instance, I would find it worse for a female fighter, marine, etc, to beat the crap out of a 125lb weakling than vice versa.

[Returned]

So it's wrong for a 125lb weakling to hit a female Marine because some men are stronger than some women? I don't mean to trivialize the difference - my husband is not a big guy but he is WAY stronger than me, but it would have to be true in all cases for your logic to hold up. It's like you're saying that we should teach Norwegians that it's wrong to hit Japanese people.

Men are stronger than women, although I realize some feminists cannot face this fact. Men have more muscle(testosterone as opposed to women having higher concentrations of estrogen), men have a larger heart and lungs and lesser fat percentage. All in all, a male has about 30% more strength than your average female.

But then again, men contract diseases much faster and don't live as long as women.

[TerraPrime]

Re: RIL

As I wrote earlier, women have children; men do not.

I think it will come as a surprise to people like FLoW and Trebla that they don't have children.

I think what you meant is that women gestate the fetus and experience physical labor in birthing the children.

In other words, women should be treated differently because they have wombs. And, FYI, reducing women to wombs is about the least feminist thing that you can do.

Re: Tempra

Very black and white view. Teaching men not to hit women is a recognition that men are likely to cause more damage to women than they are to other women because of the average physical differences between the sexes. Just as it is more wrong for large, muscled individuals to beat up small, waif-like individuals, or adults to beat up kids, it is wrong for men to hit women.

Then why emphasize the women part? Why not say, you should not use your superior physicality to intimidate others? Why say, instead, boys should not hit girls?

Absolutely false. We have assault laws that prohibit physical violence against men. From a moral standpoint, physical violence is not condoned either. Hitting men is wrong morally and legally, but not AS wrong (morally) as hitting a woman.

I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about the social mores. For example, ask people like Peterbound or FLoW if he'd be willing to hit someone at a bar if that someone insults his wife or his children, and my guess is that it depends on the gender of the person doing the insulting. If I were the one, I think he'd have no problem admitting that he would swing a fist at me. If, on the other hand, Raids were the one doing the insulting, he might hesitate, or not swing a fist at all, on account of the notion that men should not hit women. So, in that sense, violence against men is condoned when it's by men, but not against women. What else would you expect to happen when you teach men that they should not hit woman in any circumstances, but you do not give the same restrictions when you tell them that they should not hit other men?

In what way is the freedom of women constrained or restricted by teaching young boys to not hit women?

In the way that Balefont explained, and in the way that I had expounded on in the post you quoted.

Ask yourself this:

Does sexism contribute to the prevalence of sexual violence against women in our society?

In what ways are sexist views reinforced and validated in our society?

Does teaching boys never to hit girls qualify as one of the many small, seemingly innocuous, ways in which we reinforce sexism? If not, why not?

[The Anti-Targ]

In principle I have no problem with girls/women competing against men in any sport: 1. if they want to, and 2. if they are able. But in the sporting arena I am against affirmative action. The inclusion of a girl/woman in a competition against boys/men has to be strictly on the basis of merit.

The higher up the the competition level the less likely a female is going to be able to meet the minimum requirements for competing against men. Which is pretty much why equestrian sports are the only sports where men and women compete at the highest level.

The whole not wanting to beat up on a girl thing in sports is stupid and should be eliminated from one's thinking. If the girl/woman wants to mix it up with the guys then let it be on an equal basis. If a woman has what it takes to play in the NFL/NHL/NBA/MLB/Footbal Premier League/IPL/... then why shouldn't she? The only reason that can be put forward is too many of the male players would go out of their way to be abusive towards her and NOT treat her as an equal for no other reason than their own prejudices and sexist attitudes.

Women need their own competitions because, basically, the vast majority of women/girls can't compete in the male competitions at the same level.

Of course these things need to happen gradually. Firstly at the low level children's competitions where boys and girls are physically more similar, and in sports that are mostly non-contact but have retained the traditional male/female divide.

The reality is though, that the instances where a girl/woman can compete with men to the extent that she will be up near the top placements in a competition (let alone winning) will be few and very rare.

[Returned]

I've never hit anyone with aggressive intent, but I'd certainly feel worse over hitting a woman than I would hitting a man. Call me sexist, I guess.

No actually, the whole idea of sexism is stupid when being brought into a discussion about sports or physical attributes, only someone very ignorant will think there aren't obvious differences between men and women.

ALSO; You're an ass if you don't hold the door open for anyone and everyone, regardless of gender, unless of course you're in a blasted hurry. :D

[Res ipsa loquitur]

Re: RIL

I think it will come as a surprise to people like FLoW and Trebla that they don't have children.

I think what you meant is that women gestate the fetus and experience physical labor in birthing the children.

In other words, women should be treated differently because they have wombs. And, FYI, reducing women to wombs is about the least feminist thing that you can do.

MarkosWine, in no way do I reduce women to just wombs. Women are ELEVATED when we acknowledge all that they are...and denying a womans unique ability to have children is to me, anti feminist and denying her complete humanness. I celebrate the WHOLE female, and part of being female is the womb of ours. Celebrating the differences between the sexes isn't saying women are inferior. Be not afraid of the womb <grin>.