Author Topic: Sex roles and the double standard.  (Read 30089 times)

RoninAngel

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2009, 07:31:23 pm »
but him getting his ass kicked by a female is funnier and therefore better radio.

 :P






The other thing I hate about being a guy in a woman's world is strippers. Strippers seen to be desinged precicley for the purpouise of putting everything that's crappy about being a guy and putting it in sharp review (and then taking advantage of it.)
Men have a hard time saying no to pretty girls. Check.
Men are often ruled by thier labido. Check.
Sexual angst sometimes shows up when a man doesn't wan't it to. CHECK!
Girls can see boys as nothing more but living wallets! CHECK! CHECK! CHECK!

I guess I just don't have that much patients for strippers when they misbehave. In my experiance, as customer serivice people they tend to suck. I mean, either they are coldly ignore you or try way too hard get your attention.
See, both of you know that you're both only there so that you can get hussled, but they still try to make you feel guilty (or gay) if you aren't drooling thier every movement.
Then the next thing you know, they discard you when a high roller or some drunk girl on her birthday comes in and throws money all over over the stage.
It doesn't matter if you come in with an open heart all googly eyed and try to be as nice to them as you can or you act like a total prick - you get treated like shit either way.
It's not like it's all their fault; it's a rough scene to be in, and some of the strippers I've met are sweethearts. It's just that if they weren't such pretty girls I doubt they'd get away with it all. I know I can't think of any other performers who act like this.

What did men do to get treated this way? Is it so dispicable that some of us are occasionly willing to pay money so that girls will be nice to us? Female niceness is a very powerful force.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2009, 07:36:36 pm by RoninAngel »
I got 99 problems but a nymphomaniac jester girl ain't one.

RoninAngel

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #31 on: July 07, 2009, 08:08:44 pm »
I am in the minority becuase I like women who are tops.  :-[

I can't think of anything more romantic then a girl I like proposing to me.   :-*

But, yes I am a wierdo.
I got 99 problems but a nymphomaniac jester girl ain't one.

CrystalDragonSpaceMarine

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
  • Show me your enemies.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2009, 08:57:42 pm »
I am in the minority becuase I like women who are tops.  :-[

I can't think of anything more romantic then a girl I like proposing to me.   :-*

But, yes I am a wierdo.

Or girls that ask you out.

I hate it when girls are like, showing they're interested in you, but they won't just come out and say it, like they're waiting for you to make the move.

Razzly

  • Erotic
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Contrast.
    • View Profile
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2009, 02:41:43 am »
Ged: So, you believe you're stronger than the average female. All right, you're free to think so and you may even be right, but strenght is not the issue. Women can endure more pain and are generally more sinewy than men, so many of those "weak twigs" you described may very well be able to handle your punches.

And many of them could probably beat the shit out of you if you just stood there with your mighty "don't hit women"-code.

Violence is never good, but I'm talking about the principle. And I don't understand the argument that the court always believes the woman. Do you have any proof that that is the case?

As far as I've understood it, hundreds of rapists go unpunished because "the woman was drunk" or "The woman was wearing a skirt that was too short so she's got herself to blame" and law most certainly does not favour women.

Ronin: I'm sorry about that mean girl. She was obviously not mature enough for any kind of social relationship anyway, so you should put that behind you.

I don't ask guys out. That's not because I'm a girl, though, that's because I'm shy and no one I like ever likes me back.
Winner of Brion Foulke's "cute little panda"-award.
"Mutta rukous on vain mutina tuulessa, ei sitä kukaan kuule..."

RoninAngel

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #34 on: July 08, 2009, 07:05:28 am »
thing is, I've had TONS of crushes on shallow mean bitches over the course of my life. I just like strong, women, take charge women, unfortunently that seems to go hand in hand with mean all too often.

Will you be my Dom, Razzly, pretty please with sugar on top? :-[
I got 99 problems but a nymphomaniac jester girl ain't one.

Ged

  • Guest
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #35 on: July 08, 2009, 08:11:06 am »
Ged: So, you believe you're stronger than the average female. All right, you're free to think so and you may even be right, but strenght is not the issue. Women can endure more pain and are generally more sinewy than men, so many of those "weak twigs" you described may very well be able to handle your punches.

Within certain contexts women can endure more pain; neurological differences aren’t as simple as just being more or less able to endure pain. And that aside the speed of the onset of the pain and the presence of other stimuli on the nervous system also dramatically alters the equation. If you walk up to someone who doesn’t have a lot of muscle and just punch them hard then, man or woman, they’re going to be in trouble. By contrast when you're in a fight chemical changes mean hardly anyone really feels any pain; I've seen people get nailed in the crotch, repeatedly, and keep on going. Five minutes later they were on the floor but right then it just wasn't an issue. Their brain kept them on their feet so they could do the important survival oriented stuff when it counted.

What I’d be looking for if I sunk a punch into one of them would be that brief second of air being expelled, a pulling back from my fist and the collapse of their body structure that’s connected to that; that kind of thing, actually using your force to accomplish something. That’s what I mean by snapping someone in half. Once that’s happened it’s all over for them, the structure from which they could base further attacks has vanished while I’ve moved in close enough to leverage the advantages of my own structure at close range and send them to the sidewalk, or do whatever else I feel like doing to them. Hit them again to break a few ribs, take their throat and throw them down, break an arm or a leg through the joint if they’re actually dangerous enough to put down in a less kind way, you’ve pretty much got your pick at that point; by the time they’ve finished working out what’s gone on you’ve moved away.

Muscle is like armour in that regard, it helps to pad out your bones and shields deeper organs so the shock of a punch doesn’t penetrate as deeply. It has very little to do with pain, pain is just a useful by-product induced in people who haven’t realised that they’re in a fight by the time you hit them. It’s to do with shielding your bones with muscle, the amount of energy that penetrates to important areas, how a person’s body moves to absorb those sorts of forces and the reflex actions associated with that. Using those elements to take away the things your opponent needs in order to continue the fight: body structure, efficient muscle use, and the relevant distancing that enables them to deliver power into you properly.

Skill aside strength is the issue, someone with a lot of strength is better armoured and better able to deliver force to the other person in order to break down their body structure. After a point of course having a lot of muscle will start slowing you down which is why body builders aren’t automatically the world’s best fighters (Edit: Well you know, that and there's generally a disparity in skill ); and there are always areas that you can hit that don’t take very much strength at all, eyes, etc, although most of those are considerably harder to get to and then to legally justify; but in the degrees we’re talking about the difference in speed is negligible. The person who breaks the other person’s body structure first gets to dictate what’s going to happen a half second down the line and can keep doing so until they’ve got to whatever their objective for getting into the fight was.

And many of them could probably beat the shit out of you if you just stood there with your mighty "don't hit women"-code.

Because violence is the only way to remove yourself from a hostile situation, right? I can control most people without the need to hit them and those I can’t control I can usually outrun, but sure, if it comes down to it a woman’s getting hit just the same as man. It’s just that I’d be more reluctant to resort to violence.

Violence is never good, but I'm talking about the principle. And I don't understand the argument that the court always believes the woman. Do you have any proof that that is the case?

That’s not an argument I’ve made so of course I don’t have proof for it. The idea that it’s going to be that way, at least in cases of assault, is the grounding of the principle for me though. You get two people in court, one of them is a relatively weedy girl sporting a few bruises where she’s gone to the deck in a hurry and the other is a man who’s not really sporting bruises; who are you going to believe when they both claim they were attacked by the other one? The actuality may be different, we can debate over whether the differences in conviction rates are a result of jury bias or actually women committing less crimes until the cows come home; since we can’t crawl inside others’ heads the chances of conclusive evidence one way or the other seem slim.

As far as I've understood it, hundreds of rapists go unpunished because "the woman was drunk" or "The woman was wearing a skirt that was too short so she's got herself to blame" and law most certainly does not favour women.


Rape and assault are two related but distinct areas and I wasn't talking about the latter. Although that said I have never heard of a case within the last decade in England where the man has said, ‘she was wearing a skirt that was too short,’ and got away with it. Maybe there are the occasional cases of it, and you get places like Iran that are just messed up, but by and large I'd hope we've moved a bit beyond that.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 08:44:45 am by Ged »

Razzly

  • Erotic
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Contrast.
    • View Profile
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #36 on: July 08, 2009, 10:02:37 am »
Ged: I don't think you understand what I mean. Yes, if you're a large man and you hit someone smaller and thinner than you, chances are they will get hurt. Just like if I went and hit a child or a very scrawny man.

I'm talking about the principle. Principle.

If you met a woman who was as tall as you, as strong as you, who wanted your money and kicks you in the crotch in order to get it. Let's say you're unable to run.
Many men wouldn't hit back to defend themselves, because hitting a woman is 'wrong' and 'weak'.

You talking about biology just makes it look even more like you think all women are weak. There are physically strong women, get over it.

And your argument about violence is completely irrelevant because I'm still talking about the principle. The idea. I'm not trying to tell you to use violence to get out of every bad situation. And yes, I'm sure you can control people. Yes yes.

My comment about rape was mostly directed at RoninAngel, but I still want to point out that I don't live in England, and cases like that happen -all- the time. Probably in england too, if you squint.

Winner of Brion Foulke's "cute little panda"-award.
"Mutta rukous on vain mutina tuulessa, ei sitä kukaan kuule..."

Ged

  • Guest
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #37 on: July 08, 2009, 10:32:59 am »
Ged: I don't think you understand what I mean. Yes, if you're a large man and you hit someone smaller and thinner than you, chances are they will get hurt. Just like if I went and hit a child or a very scrawny man.

I'm talking about the principle. Principle.

And your question went something along the lines of 'If men don't think women are weaker than them....' But if women actually are, on average, weaker than them and men think that they are then there's nothing really there to question.

If you met a woman who was as tall as you, as strong as you, who wanted your money and kicks you in the crotch in order to get it. Let's say you're unable to run.
Many men wouldn't hit back to defend themselves, because hitting a woman is 'wrong' and 'weak'.

You know a lot of men who've been in that situation then? People say it, it doesn't mean it's actually true. In my experience all this, 'I wouldn't hit a woman,' stuff when you actually start seeing what people are prepared to sacrifice for it comes down to, 'I wouldn't hit a woman provided she wasn't really a threat.'

You talking about biology just makes it look even more like you think all women are weak. There are physically strong women, get over it.

So what does all your talking about biology make you look like? Of course there are physically strong women, I've never said there aren't. It's not the average.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 10:34:35 am by Ged »

Razzly

  • Erotic
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Contrast.
    • View Profile
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #38 on: July 08, 2009, 10:49:14 am »

And your question went something along the lines of 'If men don't think women are weaker than them....' But if women actually are, on average, weaker than them and men think that they are then there's nothing really there to question.

Yes there is, because the generalization doesn't consider the situation. The idea says "Never hit women because they're weaker." not "Never hit a weaker woman." Get me?


Quote
You know a lot of men who've been in that situation then? People say it, it doesn't mean it's actually true. In my experience all this, 'I wouldn't hit a woman,' stuff when you actually start seeing what people are prepared to sacrifice for it comes down to, 'I wouldn't hit a woman provided she wasn't really a threat.'

Do I know a lot of men who've been beaten up by women? No, because most people understand that violence should be avoided. I do, however, know many men who say they'd never hit a woman, no matter what the situation.
And what does it matter what people really do, if the sexist idea is there anyway? And quite honestly, if a woman goes and punches a man much bigger and stronger than her, she has herself to blame if she gets hit back. We don't need sexism to protect us. That's medieval thinking.


Quote
So what does all your talking about biology make you look like? Of course there are physically strong women, I've never said there aren't. It's not the average.

How would I know? You tell me.
So basically, "average" should dictate how we treat absolutely everyone of that group? So I should start calling every American a fat slob, no matter if they were healthy or not? I thought the point of democracy was to respect every individual's rights.
Winner of Brion Foulke's "cute little panda"-award.
"Mutta rukous on vain mutina tuulessa, ei sitä kukaan kuule..."

RoninAngel

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #39 on: July 08, 2009, 11:02:00 am »
Um... quite a bit of spousal abuse is woman on man. It's just not reported becuase the men are embaressed and the police don't believe them. It's actually kinda sad.  :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#Physical_violence
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 11:07:41 am by RoninAngel »
I got 99 problems but a nymphomaniac jester girl ain't one.

Ged

  • Guest
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2009, 01:43:23 pm »
Yes there is, because the generalization doesn't consider the situation. The idea says "Never hit women because they're weaker." not "Never hit a weaker woman." Get me?

We also tell children they shouldn't hit people in general. We deal with general rules that come with a long list of unspoken conditionals which we then modify depending on the situation; it makes talking to people much quicker and more efficient. Most of the time.

And what does it matter what people really do, if the sexist idea is there anyway?

Well actions have the potential to harm or help, that's why they matter. What does the idea matter if it doesn't motivate action?

And quite honestly, if a woman goes and punches a man much bigger and stronger than her, she has herself to blame if she gets hit back. We don't need sexism to protect us. That's medieval thinking.

You might not, someone stupid enough to go and hit someone bigger and stronger than them does.

How would I know? You tell me.

It was a rhetorical question. It sounds like you tried to pick up a premise you couldn't secure and decided to change tack halfway through an argument.

So basically, "average" should dictate how we treat absolutely everyone of that group? So I should start calling every American a fat slob, no matter if they were healthy or not?

The average should dictate how you think about people you don't know and have no reason to think otherwise of. We live in a world of limited information; the actuality of the situation doesn't matter if you don't know about it. Yes, if you're going to be hiring from a group of labour for something where you need fitness you should probably skip over the average American because they would be unfit. Should you go around calling all Americans fat slobs? Of course not. (Isn't that a steriotype rather than something that's actually true in any case?) Although it, supposedly, has a greater chance of being true than false it’s just a bad idea to comment on someone’s weight. (Provided that their weight doesn’t endanger their health and that you won’t suffer overmuch from doing so and that they’re not in a position where they’re likely to be able to cause anyone you care about to suffer. Etc. But all this qualifying of a general statement is of course very time consuming so we don’t do it very often. Kinda like how we say you shouldn’t hit women when it’s a rule that actually has all these unspoken conditionals stuck on the end.)  If on the other hand you see a fit American....

I thought the point of democracy was to respect every individual's rights.

The point of democracy is to get people to trade their actual power for change, violence, for a much lesser, largely illusory power of very limited change, a vote.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 01:48:23 pm by Ged »

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #41 on: July 08, 2009, 01:49:32 pm »
You might not, someone stupid enough to go and hit someone bigger and stronger than them does.
You know, hitting someone bigger than them and getting thumped would fix that particular stupidity real quick.

Razzly

  • Erotic
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Contrast.
    • View Profile
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #42 on: July 08, 2009, 02:09:24 pm »

We also tell children they shouldn't hit people in general. We deal with general rules that come with a long list of unspoken conditionals which we then modify depending on the situation; it makes talking to people much quicker and more efficient. Most of the time.

I've already made it clear that I'm not talking about violence in general. I'm talking about men treating -all- women as something weaker that needs to be pampered. I.E the "never hit women"-thing. I feel like I'm just repeating myself here.


Quote
Well actions have the potential to harm or help, that's why they matter. What does the idea matter if it doesn't motivate action?

The idea is sexist and offends me. That's why it matters.


Quote
You might not, someone stupid enough to go and hit someone bigger and stronger than them does.

I'll point up to Churba's reply here. What he said.



Quote
It was a rhetorical question. It sounds like you tried to pick up a premise you couldn't secure and decided to change tack halfway through an argument.

As silly as this sounds - I didn't understand the second sentence there. English is my third language and you're using many difficult words.

Quote
The average should dictate how you think about people you don't know and have no reason to think otherwise of. We live in a world of limited information; the actuality of the situation doesn't matter if you don't know about it. Yes, if you're going to be hiring from a group of labour for something where you need fitness you should probably skip over the average American because they would be unfit. Should you go around calling all Americans fat slobs? Of course not. (Isn't that a steriotype rather than something that's actually true in any case?) Although it, supposedly, has a greater chance of being true than false it’s just a bad idea to comment on someone’s weight. (Provided that their weight doesn’t endanger their health and that you won’t suffer overmuch from doing so and that they’re not in a position where they’re likely to be able to cause anyone you care about to suffer. Etc. But all this qualifying of a general statement is of course very time consuming so we don’t do it very often. Kinda like how we say you shouldn’t hit women when it’s a rule that actually has all these unspoken conditionals stuck on the end.)  If on the other hand you see a fit American....

I understand what you're saying, but I most certainly don't agree with it. Thinking like that limits groups (in this case women.) more than you realize. The average man is better at mathematics than the average woman. So, when you're teaching maths, you subconsciously look down on the girls, and the mathematically talented girls don't get taken seriously because of the thinking you described above. We should see people as -individuals- and judge them based on themselves, not on whether they have a penis or a vagina. It is exactly because of that way of thinking that sexism still exists in the modern society, when one would think we'd gotten rid of it by now.


Winner of Brion Foulke's "cute little panda"-award.
"Mutta rukous on vain mutina tuulessa, ei sitä kukaan kuule..."

RoninAngel

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #43 on: July 08, 2009, 03:08:00 pm »
But girls are physically (espeshally in the arms and shoulders) weaker then boys on average. It's a medical fact. Ask a doctor.
It doesn't help that girls in genral don't do pushups or pump iron.
How many girls do you know that spend there afternoons doing pullups and press ups?

That's not to say that an exceptional girl wont lay you the fuck out if you mess with her. It's just that most girls have to work extra hard to get that way.

Female Ultiment Fighters are quoted as saying this. These are not chicks that you mess with, however they have commented that they have less of a natural inclanation to be violent in them, so they have to nurture it. 

Plus there is the fact most girls spend thier childhood learning how to socially network and not how to fight. Most girls have little to no experaince fighting. Man or women, if you have won a fight before and your oppnent has never been in one, my money's on you. Without experiace, you need smarts, luck or exceptional genes to win a fight.
 

All these factors team up to make girls on average, weaker then boys. It's not exactly sexist to notice that, it's just accurate factual analysis.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 03:11:59 pm by RoninAngel »
I got 99 problems but a nymphomaniac jester girl ain't one.

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #44 on: July 08, 2009, 03:19:35 pm »
That's not to say that an exceptional girl wont lay you the fuck out if you mess with her.
You're not wrong, Not that she ever used it on me, but Salubi had(and possibly still has, but probably doesn't considering) a bloody fierce right hook. She didn't work hard for it, It was just a combination of good fitness and good technique.

Ged

  • Guest
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #45 on: July 08, 2009, 06:38:47 pm »
I've already made it clear that I'm not talking about violence in general. I'm talking about men treating -all- women as something weaker that needs to be pampered. I.E the "never hit women"-thing. I feel like I'm just repeating myself here.

And I'm saying that the, 'never hit women,' thing doesn't actually mean what it says it means, at least not under most conditions. In the same way that other instructions don't always mean what they say. English just doesn't work like that, the meaning of the statements is connected to a much broader social context.

The idea is sexist and offends me. That's why it matters.

That it offends you isn't a reason for it to matter. And that it's sexist doesn't automatically seem to be one either. Personal and important aren't the same things.

I'll point up to Churba's reply here. What he said.

You know, hitting someone bigger than them and getting thumped would fix that particular stupidity real quick.

The legal standard for self defence doesn’t really let you, at least in this country, just pound on someone who annoys you by trying to hurt you; their intentions notwithstanding they have to actually represent a credible threat. Now that’s the same for men and women, it’s just that fewer women represent what would qualify as a credible threat. Most of these annoying women have never had to fight someone when it counts and so have no idea how to do it. You can just throw up your hands and idly fend them off until they give up and go away.

I’m not saying that it’s right that it’s this way but since it’s so hard to tell who started a fight that’s the standard that self defence tends to be judged against. Until the law changes to reflect a different attitude among the ruling class this is what we have to work with. And who knows, maybe if we did start hitting them back they'd learn to handle themselves, and then there'd just be more violence.

As silly as this sounds - I didn't understand the second sentence there. English is my third language and you're using many difficult words.

It sounds like you were making one kind of argument and then started to make another when the first one didn’t work.

I understand what you're saying, but I most certainly don't agree with it. Thinking like that limits groups (in this case women.) more than you realize. The average man is better at mathematics than the average woman. So, when you're teaching maths, you subconsciously look down on the girls, and the mathematically talented girls don't get taken seriously because of the thinking you described above. We should see people as -individuals- and judge them based on themselves, not on whether they have a penis or a vagina. It is exactly because of that way of thinking that sexism still exists in the modern society, when one would think we'd gotten rid of it by now.

If we dealt with everyone as an individual we'd be unable to function. When I step outside my home I have no idea whether the first person I'm going to meet is going to try and kill me or not; but I work on a general rule that most of them aren't; when I go into a shop I work with a general rule that the people serving me are going to speak English rather than talking to them in Latin or Russian or German. We work with these assumptions all the time. We have to, we don't have the time to know everyone as individuals; and even if we did it would be incredibly boring to do so. People become Citizen #X, or postman, or soldier, black guy, white guy, male, female. We naturally draw these lines across visible differences because they cut down on the amount of information we have to deal with and in doing that allow us to function around all the people we don't know.

A teacher who deals with thirty children, as a group, for at most an hour a day is only ever going to be able to deal with the majority of their class in terms of generalities. The vast majority of people we meet we do not think of as individuals, they’re the postman or the student or whatever; sometimes they’ll have a name, sometimes they won’t, but the majority of them are only ever going to be caricatures of their true self judged in terms of general assessments.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 07:34:58 pm by Ged »

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #46 on: July 08, 2009, 07:34:47 pm »
The legal standard for self defence doesn’t really let you, at least in this country, just pound on someone who annoys you by trying to hurt you; their intentions notwithstanding they have to actually represent a credible threat.
Incorrect. The standard for self defense is Reasonable force, not credible threat - so if a woman half your size attacks you, you are well within your rights to defend yourself with reasonable force until the threat has passed. Reasonable force is generally defined as force lesser than or equal to, but no greater than, the force you are being attacked with.

Ged

  • Guest
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #47 on: July 08, 2009, 07:43:00 pm »
Incorrect. The standard for self defense is Reasonable force, not credible threat - so if a woman half your size attacks you, you are well within your rights to defend yourself with reasonable force until the threat has passed.

....

Reasonable force is generally defined as force lesser than or equal to, but no greater than, the force you are being attacked with.

Reasonable force is just the level of violence you're allowed to use, and is somewhat more complex than the tit for tat she did it so I'm allowed to do it equation.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 07:47:15 pm by Ged »

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #48 on: July 08, 2009, 08:21:18 pm »
Incorrect. The standard for self defense is Reasonable force, not credible threat - so if a woman half your size attacks you, you are well within your rights to defend yourself with reasonable force until the threat has passed.

....

Reasonable force is generally defined as force lesser than or equal to, but no greater than, the force you are being attacked with.

Reasonable force is just the level of violence you're allowed to use, and is somewhat more complex than the tit for tat she did it so I'm allowed to do it equation.
And "Tit for tat she did it so therefore so I am I" is not only not at all what I said, but also an obvious strawman. Defend your position properly or concede.

As for the emphasis you've added to my statement, good work taking two separate parts of the sentence out of context, too bad it doesn't actually mean a goddamned thing.

Allow me to give you a brief example of why this is:
Quote
Reasonable force is just the level of violence you're allowed to use, and is somewhat more complex than the tit for tat she did it so I'm allowed to do it equation.

....

Slightly more exaggerated than your effort, purely for effect, but I'm pretty sure you've got the point.

But, Just in case you honestly thought it was some sort of argument to do so, allow me to state it for you more clearly for you, so there is no possibility for any misunderstanding, intentional or otherwise.

Quote
The standard for self defense is Reasonable force, not if that person is a credible threat to you.So, if a woman half your size attacks you, you are well within your rights to defend yourself with reasonable force,defined as force no greater than the force she has applied to you, until the threat, However small the threat she may pose is, has passed.

RoninAngel

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #49 on: July 08, 2009, 09:19:35 pm »
But girls are physically (espeshally in the arms and shoulders) weaker then boys on average
Girls are physically weaker on the upper torso, but stronger in the hips down, given strength per mass.  THAT is what is average, not that girls are always weaker than boys altogether.

I'm really a pretty good example of this, because even though I work out, I'm still fairly weak in the upper body.  That isn't to say I couldn't knock any of you out cold.  I could probably squat more than most of you, though, unless you've been trained (or if you're a woman).

As far as social training, I really have nothing to say but, "That shit sucks."
And that I didn't experience it, for the most part, living in a farm area most of my life.

I guess.  Seeing as most fights are mostly punching and wrestling... seems like upper body strength is more relevent here... whatever. If you learn to fight like Chung Li your good to go. Or whatever. Look, I don't want to get in a pissing contest. Deatzh might be a horrifying abberation of nature and able to kick all of our asses, but if you grabbed some random guy off the street and had him fight a random girl of the same wieght class, my money would be on the guy. I might be rooting for the girl but if the chick won, it'd be an upset.
I'm all for chicks that kick ass, but part of what makes them so special is their rarity. The most an average woman knows about fighting is that if she throws random objects at your head, she can hurt you and break your stuff at the same time. Also if you retaliate physically, she can call the cops and you'll go to jail. Has a girl needed to get any of you in a rear naked choke?
I didn't think so. 
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 09:41:44 pm by RoninAngel »
I got 99 problems but a nymphomaniac jester girl ain't one.

Ged

  • Guest
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #50 on: July 08, 2009, 09:22:04 pm »
But, Just in case you honestly thought it was some sort of argument to do so, allow me to state it for you more clearly for you, so there is no possibility for any misunderstanding, intentional or otherwise.

Quote
The standard for self defense is Reasonable force, not if that person is a credible threat to you.So, if a woman half your size attacks you, you are well within your rights to defend yourself with reasonable force,defined as force no greater than the force she has applied to you, until the threat, However small the threat she may pose is, has passed.

*sigh* She still has to pose a threat to you; it has to be a credible threat because a jury has to believe you about it. Ideally you should believe the threat to be of a certain degree in justifying your response to it as well, although you can lie about that part easily enough. If a threat isn't credible then by definition it cannot meet the standards of reasonable force because you didn't believe it to be a threat when you responded to it, somewhat more importantly it won't be believed by the jury.

You can’t just go around 'thumping' these annoying people who are trying to hurt you because they’re so incompetent at it that your response would be completely out of proportion to the degree of threat people would believe they represented. By contrast if someone comes at me with a hammer, even knowing full well that they probably wouldn't be able to kill me I could get away with killing them fairly easily. The law says threat but what determines whether your action is legal or otherwise is how credible it is; what you can get people to believe, not the reality.

charles

  • Moderator
  • Harem Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 3603
  • LAWNMOWER MASACRE
    • MSN Messenger - charles_wilkinson@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • google profile
    • Email
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #51 on: July 08, 2009, 09:26:51 pm »
What it comes down to, is it's hard for people to imagine a woman starting or picking a fight with a guy.  So if you have a bruised and battered woman and a bruised and battered man both claiming the other one started the fight and they were just defending themselves, who do people tend to believe?

Women are PERCEIVED as the weaker and meeker sex so it's generally believed that the man and the PERCEIVED stronger and more violent sex, must be the offender.

Imagine instead a fight between this guy:     AND THIS GUY:


Now who you gonna believe if they both claim the OTHER one started the fight?
CLAN OF THE CATS IS MAKING A COMEBACK! JUNE 8th.  BE THERE!

charles

  • Moderator
  • Harem Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 3603
  • LAWNMOWER MASACRE
    • MSN Messenger - charles_wilkinson@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • google profile
    • Email
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #52 on: July 08, 2009, 10:04:38 pm »
 :'(

Seriously wrong.  Flatulence is much worse.

Although it does bring up the inequality of how a man can fart and it's GENERALLY laughed at heartily while the woman would have such an accident remembered as a big deal.
CLAN OF THE CATS IS MAKING A COMEBACK! JUNE 8th.  BE THERE!

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #53 on: July 08, 2009, 10:25:17 pm »
But, Just in case you honestly thought it was some sort of argument to do so, allow me to state it for you more clearly for you, so there is no possibility for any misunderstanding, intentional or otherwise.

Quote
The standard for self defense is Reasonable force, not if that person is a credible threat to you.So, if a woman half your size attacks you, you are well within your rights to defend yourself with reasonable force,defined as force no greater than the force she has applied to you, until the threat, However small the threat she may pose is, has passed.

*sigh* She still has to pose a threat to you; it has to be a credible threat because a jury has to believe you about it. Ideally you should believe the threat to be of a certain degree in justifying your response to it as well, although you can lie about that part easily enough. If a threat isn't credible then by definition it cannot meet the standards of reasonable force because you didn't believe it to be a threat when you responded to it, somewhat more importantly it won't be believed by the jury.

You can’t just go around 'thumping' these annoying people who are trying to hurt you because they’re so incompetent at it that your response would be completely out of proportion to the degree of threat people would believe they represented. By contrast if someone comes at me with a hammer, even knowing full well that they probably wouldn't be able to kill me I could get away with killing them fairly easily. The law says threat but what determines whether your action is legal or otherwise is how credible it is; what you can get people to believe, not the reality.
*Sigh*Thank you for the law lesson. I forgot that what I was taught in every class on the topic that was required my security license - before you start carrying on about internet tough guys and so on, I used to be a flight attendant, it's a legal requirement of the job - was so completely and utterly wrong.
More the fool me for trusting the knowledge and experience of professionals rather than random people on the internet, surely not a mistake I will make twice.

Oh, no, wait, sorry, I misspoke - I meant to say "Well, clearly you are convinced your baseless opinion is actually something that coincides with reality, and that creating strawmen is a valid argumentative technique, so you'd have to really surprise me to give me reason to waste any more time attempting to discuss this with you."

Argument from Authority? Ad hominem? Hell yes, but that doesn't make you any more or less correct. I'm simply withdrawing because it is pointless to argue with someone so clearly convinced of their own inerrancy.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 10:36:16 pm by Churba »

Ged

  • Guest
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #54 on: July 08, 2009, 11:08:42 pm »
I don't really see how I'm misrepresenting your position here. You flat out stated that the standard was not whether it was a credible threat. (Which if you want to talk in terms of strawmen I never claimed to be the entirety of the standard anyway; I just said that they had to be one.) And when you're called on how the other standard you want to presuppose for us is actually going to be applied if the threat’s not credible... Oh dear, suddenly it's this drama queen nonsense secured against your, likely imaginary, training; training that if it somehow did manage to cover the difference between codified law and the actual application, the standards that people are actually going to be held to, managed to fuck it up completely.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 11:13:05 pm by Ged »

charles

  • Moderator
  • Harem Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 3603
  • LAWNMOWER MASACRE
    • MSN Messenger - charles_wilkinson@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • google profile
    • Email
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #55 on: July 08, 2009, 11:15:13 pm »
Quote from: rules
II. Treat Others With Respect
Make your best effort to get along and treat others respectfully. Don't cause trouble.

I. Be Civil
It is all right to be aggressive and challenge others, to a certain extent.  Where that extent ends is where you start insulting others.  Please keep the discussions civil.

II. Follow the "Guidelines For Debate"
Before you post in this section, you should at least read these over once.  What these guidelines basically tell you is to use fair arguements.  So for example, if you are using a logical fallacy and someone calls you on it, correct yourself.  Make your best attempt to follow these guidelines and argue as fairly as possible.

Not seeing anything too great here YET guys but just be aware of the above.
CLAN OF THE CATS IS MAKING A COMEBACK! JUNE 8th.  BE THERE!

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #56 on: July 08, 2009, 11:55:22 pm »
Oh dear, suddenly it's this drama queen nonsense secured against your, likely imaginary, training; training that if it somehow did manage to cover the difference between codified law and the actual application, the standards that people are actually going to be held to, managed to fuck it up completely.
I trained at Aviation Australia initially, attaining a Certificate II in Transport and Distribution: Flight Operations(Cabin Crew) - as I've mentioned here previously - and then with Alliance Airlines after that, and hold a Class 1 security license, as is required of flight attendants by Australian Law. I'll post a photo of my Certification a little later, if you'd like?
Or maybe you'd like to present your qualifications or education on the matter - if any.

In any case, allow me to settle this right now.
 
Nolo Press's Legal Glossary defines self defense as -
Quote
n affirmative defense to a crime. Self-defense is the use of reasonable force to protect oneself from an aggressor. Self-defense shields a person from criminal liability for the harm inflicted on the aggressor.

And reasonable force, as defined in Criminal Law Today 2E published by Pearson higher education
Quote
a degree of force that is appropriate in a given situation and is not excessive. The minimum degree of force necessary to protect oneself, ones' property, a third party, or the property of another in the face of a substantial threat.

With that, other than the above offer to present my qualifications in a provable fashion, I decline any further discussion with Ged. Rant, rave, froth, foam, do whatever the hell you like, but I'll have no further involvement with this silliness.

Razzly

  • Erotic
  • ****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Contrast.
    • View Profile
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #57 on: July 09, 2009, 02:32:09 am »
But girls are physically (espeshally in the arms and shoulders) weaker then boys on average. It's a medical fact. Ask a doctor.


BUT THAT IS NOT MY FUCKING POINT!

Really! I've done -absolutely- nothing in this thread but repeating myself. So Ged, instead of me writing yet another long post repeating what I've said in all my past ones, why don't you just save me some time and go back to read them?
I'm done here.

Good luck with that Churba.
Winner of Brion Foulke's "cute little panda"-award.
"Mutta rukous on vain mutina tuulessa, ei sitä kukaan kuule..."

Selan

  • Heavenly Orgasmic
  • *****
  • Posts: 4841
    • View Profile
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #58 on: July 09, 2009, 03:54:30 am »
Well this whole discussion is becoming pretty heated, Churba and Razzly stepped out.. I suggest you do the same Ged. You all can post whatever you like about the subject that this thread is about.. but the discussion in the previous posts is over. And any tries of picking it up again will be deleted.




RoninAngel

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Sex roles and the double standard.
« Reply #59 on: July 09, 2009, 07:46:18 am »
Quote from: RoninAngel
The most an average woman knows about fighting is that if she throws random objects at your head, she can hurt you and break your stuff at the same time.
Wow, dude.
I really want to argue with you on your views of women, but I realize that I won't change them.
INSTEAD I WILL SIMPLY STATE THAT THEY ARE WRONG:
They are wrong.

This is silly, but applicable to this thread.  I actually had an argument with someone over how he believed that it was perfectly fine for him to fart up a storm, but God forbid that any air gets in a vagina and a girl queefs.  Because queefs, being solely air getting caught in a spot, were somehow more disgusting than gases that are because of digestion and waste.
God, that was an absolutely stupid argument.
(Yes, it spawned because one of us was watching that episode of South Park.)

As far as the object throwing; I've seen it happen. I'm not crazy. Maybe this is changing in our generation. I think that'd be a good thing.
And I wasn't saying that these were right. I was just calling it how I see it. Like I said, not a pissing contest.   

And nothing against your freind, but he sounds kinda like a dipshit. I wouldn't bother listening to most things he said after that.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 07:50:13 am by RoninAngel »
I got 99 problems but a nymphomaniac jester girl ain't one.