This is my commentary on the "bus driver uppercuts female passenger" story. The common norm that you may never hit a women no matter what may seem positive at first glance, but if we take a closer look it's just another form of sexism.
In fact it discriminates against both men and women: Men are portrayed as the aggressive, dangerous gender which must restrain its violent tendencies, while women are portrayed as weak and vulnerable.
Doesn't it make more sense to judge the individual situation and the actual people involved? What if a strongly built woman beats up a skinny guy? Shouldn't he be allowed to defend himself, or at least try to? Or what if the man and woman involved are about the same build and likely equally strong and fit?
Over-generalizing rules and categories just don't always work. Sexism and fanatical feminism are definitely not the right answer. True equality of all genders is what we need.
Skallagrim (1 год назад)
Yeah, but that's an issue of culture and socialization. I've often heard
people claim women are weaker and/or cannot fight because of inherent
biological differences, but it's mostly the societal gender roles.
Kyle Dyer (3 мес. назад)
i always hated how people said it is against the law to hit a woman. its
illegal to assault anyone, no matter the race, gender, etc. the only thing
that says anything about respecting women and treating them better is the
knight's code of chivalry and the oaths of the Knights Templar. i do
believe that you shouldn't attack a woman, but i also believe in having a
sense of self-preservation and defending your well-being.
Doom (7 мес. назад)
Women dont want equality, they want equal opportunities without equal
Jaysann22 (1 месяц назад)
You can't just say, in a debate of logic, that we have to seriously set
aside facts and statistics for the sake of what YOU specifically perceive
and "feel" is wrong. When you are debating logic and reason you don't "set
aside" the facts and rationalize with emotion. And with your argument of
"equality" between men and women, it simply doesn't work. Just as you say
you can't generalize everyone, YOU can't just generalize men and women as
the same assets in the work place. For example, lets say you hire a woman
and a man to be bricklayers. A physical job laying bricks and pouring
concrete. The women who apply for the job cannot lift the bricks while the
men could. But the employer has to hire the women because not doing so
would be "sexist". So the employer is forced to put all the men on bricks
and all women on concrete because the women could not physically handle the
bricks. Ultimately, the men were handed the hard work and the women, the
easier work. But the employer then pays both the men and women equal pay.
Because doing otherwise would be "sexist" according to you right? But is
this really fair and equal? No...no its not. Its bullshit but THAT is the
kind of shit people and employers have to put up with all over the country.
You want to talk about playing the victim card? Nonwhites and women take
the grand prize. You can't even call a prostitute a slut anymore without
being called a misogynist and you can't criticize a black president's
policies because you'll be called a racist.
Alastor (26 дн. назад)
The problem is that your view here(which I at least mostly agree with)
would require people to assess individual situations without any
stereotyping or generalizing. Unfortunately, this would require people to
actually think. People don't want to think. Most of them can't because no
one ever taught them how and they didn't put forth the effort to learn
themselves. They want to make the most general, all-purpose rule they can
and then apply it to every situation possible so they don't have to
consider each situation. It's just the way the human mind works.
I am absolutely all for judging a situation without applying
generalization. But 99.99% of people simply do not wish to or do not know
how to use their brains.
Jade Muyan (20 дн. назад)
I'm pretty sure women are physically less strong than males, genetically.
But i still think the point remains the same, if you are going to hit
someone the victim has every right to self defense and hit back. Man or
woman weak or strong (although if a tiny 50kg girl was punching a huge
bodybuilder i would hope that he would hold back his full force but that is
the same reguardless of gender)
Wiziek (6 мес. назад)
I'd say it is funny especially when women can just point at guy and just
say "rapist, child molester" and screw that man life. Here we go, feminism
is just one big lie.
Alejandro Gangotena (1 месяц назад)
People shouldnt hit people. If people hit people, it should be either as a
friendly sparring match or consensual training, or as people defending
themselves or other people from someone being aggressive.
MosbeckSB (7 мес. назад)
If women want actually equality they'd be willing to put up with getting
LarsaXL (2 мес. назад)
Fighting ability is not just about strength. For example I was much
stronger than my exgf but she had two black belts and could still toss me
SHEIKHALI A (1 месяц назад)
I think it's a social constructs that only women can give birth.
Patrick Murphy (5 мес. назад)
In general I agree with you that resolving physical confrontations between
men and women should take into account any exceptions to the rule of men
generally being "stronger" than women, but the stereotype holds out pretty
well, and not only for extreme body builders (steroids actually often
lessens the difference there). The body design/composition of men and women
is different; women bruise more easily for example, due to having more
subcutaneous fat and less dense collagen in their skin than a similar male.
There are reasons for this from an anatomical design standpoint and there
are exceptions to this rule, but even a slim woman will generally bruise
easier than an overweight man. As far as muscle building, women have to
work a lot harder to get similar gains to a similarly aged male, but strong
is a subjective term to an extent (like you said). If a woman is trained to
defend herself, whether by means of a weapon, bodybuilding or martial arts,
or if she is facing a weaker male (perhaps unfit, younger, unsuspecting),
she can be "stronger" than a male. Thus the generalization does not always
hold true, and should be addressed in such cases.
UnholyReaver (4 мес. назад)
Thing that irritates me is when people use statistics for singular events.
I am not the amorphous male, and the girl next to me is not the amorphous
female. If someone punches someone, it is not the
demographic punching the
demographic; it's Jack punching Paul.
People seem to ask in demographics, which is fine. It is easy to recognize
the the people by apparent traits, like "Why did the blondie punch the
black hair guy?' ease of communication. But when answering the question you
don't use statistics on hair colour to make a judgement. People dont hold
up banners about all the people with light hair being oppressed. Why did
Jack punch Paul? Who cares, it's they're problem. Does the punch become
worse if Jack was the taller one? or better if Paul cheats in videogames?
The question should be "Was Jack's punch a measured response?" and "Was
Paul being an arse?
Hall brolan (4 мес. назад)
well heres the problem with looking at strength lets say a man is huge like
300 pounds of pure muscle and a small 100 pound woman punches him. of
course hes at a advantage but she should have thought of that before she
attacked him. this also goes both ways if a small 100 pound man attacks a
300 pound pure muscle woman he should have thought of that before he
attacked her. it should be a simple matter of who started it . and whoever
started it is basically the one in the wrong and deserves what comes to
them. and let me clarify that started it means first to make contact in a
threatening or offensive manner such as a slap or again other form of
offensive contact. including sexually harrassing actions .
Zachary walter (4 мес. назад)
My only problem with this entire video is actually just something that I
had wished that you added. That would be the fact that physical strength
has little to do with fighting, being physically fit IS important, strength
arguably is not. My point is that saying that a woman (or women in general)
cannot defend themselves simply because they are not strong, or as strong
as a man, is sheer idiocy. Just because you are strong doesn't mean that
you can hold your own in a fight, by these peoples logic a woman can beat
me near to death and just because statistically men are supposedly stronger
than women I cannot retaliate? I agree with you Skallagrim, 100 percent.
BossProductions (4 мес. назад)
Ive always been disappointed with this particular sexist dilemma , but if
they attack you , go ahead , fuck em up. But if you just get into an
argument with a weaker person , man or woman , try not to hit them but if
you need to go ahead. But nobody needs to have a fight unless someone
REAAAALLY has it coming and needs a bashing to sort them straight then go
Infernal Design (5 мес. назад)
Does it even matter if she is smaller and therefore "disadvantaged" in a
fight. It's irrelevant that would mean small people could get away with
hitting large people by virtue of the fact that if the large person fought
back that they would have the advantage. If someone tries to inflict
bodily harm on you then you should have the right to use reasonable
physical force to defend yourself regardless of how strong they are OR what
gender they are THEY are ultimately in the wrong and you shouldn't have to
suffer an assault simply because of your physical advantages
NoIdea ForNick (2 мес. назад)
My personal view: Generally speaking i agree that on average men are
stronger and so on and that men and women tends to have
different characters and finally we are not equal, BUT here goes some
points from me:
1) not equal does NOT mean better/worse for me, it only means not the same.
Example: on average women tends to show more emotions. Same mechanic goes
for any 2 people of the same sex, they are likely to be different, hence,
not equal because equal for me means "the same", "the copy"
2) So, because "unequality" of men and women means simply "differences" for
me, I actually find it quite positive, because we can work out different
sets of skills etc.
3) Does it affect how we treat each other? Yes and it should (here goes
heavy stuff) but i don't mean only that "oh, you are a men and you HAVE
to..." or "oh, you are a women and you HAVE to..." but simply helping each
other because sometimes we can solve some problems because we are different
(for example different way of thinking) but i don't mean, that some
"predefined rules on how to treat men/women" are bad, NO, in my opinion,
you simply need something to start with and some "rules" exists because we
are different in that and no another way.
4) Compilation time! So where it should go in my opinion?: Simple, be aware
of general differences (that also mean you shouldn't bully someone just
because he/she is different, you are different for him/her aswell), you can
use "rules" defined in your culture to start relationship and that, once
it's started, triggers the most important part: go individual and work out
your "private set of rules and definitions that fits you"! Because in my
opinion, when we accept that we all are different --> not equal, then it's
actually easier to actually think of someone as unique individal regardles
of men/women thingy (then it only becomes big, but only one of differences)
5) Bus-like situations:in my opinion these men and women were taken as
average, uniform men and women so the only difference that people were
likely to see was man/women, so preety low in my opinion. Situation was not
concidered, different situation and behaviour was not concidered too so it
looks for me that lack of unequality acceptance had its role here. Making
both sexes equal is not a sollution because it's based on rejecting
something that simply is and will hang around for a while yet and makes us
more "uniform" but not "personal" <-- both solves THIS problem but what
with other problems we may face?
6) "But tolerance and diehard people...": Tolerance in my definition is
"low" feeling: it does only mean that you "allow" something to exist
somehow near you (you dont have to even like it, example: you can tolerate
for example barking dog, you may not like it, but you wont do any harm).
Why i made point about tolerance? because i talked about acceptance, but
not about accepting someone but accepting the fact/information, the we are
different so that means sort of tolerate+keeping in mind as something
"positive" and diehard people fail at this point in my opinion.
7) Law: law is another thing, this is hard code of what we can and can't do
(mostly can't) so here should be no place for any differences for men,
women, rich men, poor men, me, you etc. But that's official part of our
lives, you can't and you shouldn't try to control people lives fully by law
(you have to do this, that, go there...), this is the job for familly and
your environment to form you as a person. So this is different kind of
"equality", more like that: if you don't breathe, you die, but fact of
breathing doesn't make as equal.
So to sum up: uneqality means little if taken only as a hollow statement
(we can't event make a accurate list of pros and cons on those so where is
the point and problem in talking that we are not equal?).
Question: When we can unite as a one fully developent nation/society? When
there are slight differences and we supplement each other thus we need each
other or when everyone is equal and there are no differences so we all can
do same stuff? For me second part sounds more like "uniform" not "united"
and in second option, without any problem, you can be... replaced.
I hope that i somehow managed to show my thinking, have a good sunny day
DeviantDespot (6 мес. назад)
Equal opportunity asskicker. Duke Nukem was leading the way in equality.
Rebuswind (5 мес. назад)
will never punch a lady, but will kick a bitches if it needed. BTW equality
normal people don't want to be treated equally, they want to be treated
better than others. why do you think we need friends and families? BECAUSE
they treated us different than they treat others! Bias makes people to be
people. It is a sin to treated different people the same.equality is not
fair, giving what people deserve to have is fair. like the situation you
have here. Female or not , if she or he deserve that punch, then she or he
should be punched.There should not be any focus on the gender.
Украина About sexism and punching women смотреть бесплатно