Ethics and Gender

[BadWolfskin]

Secondly, never harm a woman or child.

I'd like to know why men are of lesser worth.

 Global Moderator Comment Altered thread title to something useful. -Daxx

[Lanidrak]

Secondly, never harm a woman or child.

I'd like to know why men are of lesser worth.

Men are not of lesser worth. Woman and men are equal in my mind, but in almost all societies - traditional or contemporary - there is a divide between the sexes. I guess that particular belief stems from ancient codes of chivalric honor, in that a man must defend his pride wherever it is doubted. I am not saying that a woman has less right to defend her pride, I'm simply saying that if I were to offend a woman and she were to lash out or hit me, the last thing I (or any one else for that matter) would do is hit her back. So to save yourself the humility of being in such a situation, surely it makes sense to simply avoid harming woman and children in the first place? Maybe you took the 'harming' to mean it in a literal and physical sense, but you can harm someone in a more ways than just physically.

Hope this clarifies it for you.

[BadWolfskin]

Well, I hear you. And to a certain extent I am with you.
I believe you are uttering the pondering of many a person, not only in this forum.

That said, I have to probe a bit deeper into my former question. As much as I am with you on a chivalry code, as much I have to ask the following:

Maybe you took the 'harming' to mean it in a literal and physical sense, but you can harm someone in a more ways than just physically.

I am with you on harm in many different ways. I'd probably even say that physical and psychic damage are equal in there severity. (Maybe the latter is even more destructive..)
But even under that assumption: Why give women and children more importance in their right to stay unharmed? Is it more appropriate to hurt or humiliate a male?

Let me clarify this by the modification of your statement:
"I'm simply saying that if I were to offend a man and he were to lash out or hit me, the last thing I (or any one else for that matter) would do is hit him back."

I believe we have to change our balderdash of "emancipation" and "same rights for everybody" into what we pretend is there of it. Else it is nothing, but a pack of lies.
To state that a man is expected to defend his honour in a harming way (obviously by hitting the other person, or lashing out in a non-physical manner) from another male being is dissembling in the face of the belief that man and woman are equal. (Children being small men and women!)

[My apologies for strange looking constructions and word choices, I am not a native English-speaker )

[vrt]

Why give women and children more importance in their right to stay unharmed? Is it more appropriate to hurt or humiliate a male?

Genetically determined compassion: They're weaker physically, and thus less able to defend themselves. Next to that, passing down our genes is what drives us to protect our offspring and the people needed to create it (which'd be the ladies).

[Essence]

Why give women and children more importance in their right to stay unharmed? Is it more appropriate to hurt or humiliate a male?

It's simple.  1 woman + 100 men = dead Human race.  1 man + 100 women = live Human race. 

Therefore, men are expendable.  It shows in literally every aspect of Mammalian life, including Human life.  Male youths are significantly more likely to discount the future in their decision-making processes, because they're biologically programmed to realize that they might not be there in 2-5 years. 

Evolutionarily speaking, it's obviously preferable for the father to do the risky sh!t, because the mother is the one that actually carries, births, and nurses children until they can more-or-less care for themselves.  The father makes his donation, and then if he goes off and dies in a coal mine or a war or whatever, it's sad -- but the child still gets to grow up and have kids of his own.   

All of this leads to a clear biological bias toward men being the ones who put themselves in harm's way -- and a corresponding bias against women being in harm's way. 

...So yes, from a purely pragmatic perspective, it absolutely IS more appropriate to hurt or humiliate a male than a female.

[Essence]

Thread split?

[Lanidrak]

Could be nice, I suppose. Although, this thread was a compendium of beliefs and now we are merely debating those said beliefs either for clarity and better understanding or through disagreement.

A threads topic can evolve over time, but it is up to you Daxx, split this thread so we can continue our 'head-on-fist-arm-bent-and-clenching' philosophical pondering (and keyboard bashing) Or just see where this goes

I'll reply to the topic at hand, once a moderator has decided what to do.

[Daxx]

Thread split?

I was considering that, I suppose it's the best option if you guys want to keep talking about it.

EDIT: Go wild.

[Belthus]

The thread name should be changed too - something about men and women.

Defending one's honor is a less civilized mode than a legal system. Read the Oresteia trilogy by Aeschylus to see a mythical explication.

Nevertheless, people will fight. Men tend to be involved in violence more often than women. The rule should be that noncombatants shouldn't be hit. It is possible for a woman to be a combatant, though it is less common. If she is, then she is fair game. If she wants the noncombatant rule to protect her, then she should stay out of the fight. Men who are noncombatants are protected too. Of course, if the noncombatant rule is broken, then you have to decide whether you have a better chance with resisting or submitting to the violence.

[tyranim]

im just throwing in my opinion on sex discrimination...
i believe that men shouldnt be shunned by society just for hitting a woman, men hit men all the time yet they arent shunned. women hit men all the time yet they arent shunned. but when a man hits a women, it becomes a HUGE conflict and results in everyone hating that man, which annoys me. im not saying ive hit a woman other than my OLDER sister by a year and a half. im just saying people either need to make a big deal about hitting ANYONE (male/female) or dont make a big deal about it at all. if women want equality so much, they need to get both sides of it, not just the pros, but the cons as well. after all, what purpose is life if there is no balance?

[vrt]

im just throwing in my opinion on sex discrimination...
i believe that men shouldnt be shunned by society just for hitting a woman, men hit men all the time yet they arent shunned. women hit men all the time yet they arent shunned. but when a man hits a women, it becomes a HUGE conflict and results in everyone hating that man, which annoys me. im not saying ive hit a woman other than my OLDER sister by a year and a half. im just saying people either need to make a big deal about hitting ANYONE (male/female) or dont make a big deal about it at all. if women want equality so much, they need to get both sides of it, not just the pros, but the cons as well. after all, what purpose is life if there is no balance?

Feminism is about equality in a far different sense, not in a physical one.  It's a fact that women, on the average, are less physically capable than men (though I'd not like to give birth myself, but that aside). It's due to this that we consider it 'not done' to hit a lady. Of course, over the course of many years and the advancements of society and etiquette, it's become part of our manners, our morals and values. In it's raw aspect, though, it's all about physical incapabilities. I'm sure there's plenty of girls you know who'd be quite capable of kicking your butt should they need to, but this is about averages.


Basically, you don't stomp babies in the face either.




(I know that last one's overdoing it, hush.)

[tyranim]

when i say equality, i mean in an age aspect. i think it would be horrible if a 30 year old hit a 10 year old (regardless of sex). age has no place in this debate. everything i said is in the idea that that both parties are of same/close age (as in within 0-3 year's difference)
EDIT: P.S. physical strength has almost nothing to do with how well you can defend yourself. my friend cant even bench 100 pounds, yet hes able to take down the strongest kid in our systos class (when he starts crap with my friend) it was hillarious, im just sad i didnt get a video of it.