05-13-2019, 11:28 AM
(05-13-2019, 11:06 AM)Bring4th_Jade Wrote: Wasn't the argument in the other thread that men are just so much more physically capable than women that women should be barred from jobs as protectors? That women can't play football literally because they can't take a hit from a man, like a man? So how do we get from there, to here?
Anyway, I believe in "turn the other cheek" to the extreme, so no, I don't think anyone should hit anyone back. *If your life is in danger*, which it probably isn't from "being hit", especially by a woman, I'm not going to deny anyone's right to defend themselves. But we are quite hysterical and afraid as a people and we use lethal force way more often than is necessary, so in general I prefer to err on the side of, let's try to refrain from hurting others, even if they hurt us first.
You do realize that arguments like this are just full of misogyny, right? This isn't a logical or even clever argument, it's the same focus on separation. The basis of this hypothetical is that there exists some desire in men to hit women. I don't have a desire to hit anyone, so it's just incomprehensible to me.
If we want to talk about "natural order", then please, let us look at the animals, and how males are the ones who fight each other almost without exclusion. This happens usually over resources, like territory or mates, and often because of hormonal influxes at certain times of the years, like the rut, which is when males of a certain species battle it out over weeks until only the strongest remain and get to mate with the majority of the females. Male animals fighting other male animals is super common, but male animals do not fight the females of the species, and usually females do not fight each other, either. This doesn't happen because the female, whether or not she is more fragile (this varies from species to species) must maintain her physical vitality to incubate, birth, and rear the progeny of the males. A male can die after copulating with a female, because he has already done his job in the natural order to further the proliferation of his DNA. The female, usually, must survive at least another year or two for the children to have any viability. Of course there are examples where the males help take care of the newborn children, but almost all species that require rearing from parents require the presence of the mother to survive. This is also why males grow things like antlers, tusks, and super fancy colored feathers - they don't have to expend the same amount of personal bodily energy to create another life form. Males have always been compensating for this inequality of roles, which is why I understand the role of "protector" and "those who carry brute force" are being gatekept from females.
There are also species where males will kill newly born offspring that don't carry their DNA, which causes the female to ovulate again, and then he can mate with her and force her to care for his child, instead.
Anyway, I went off a little bit of a tangent there, but I think we can all agree that violence has a gender bias, just by evolution and natural selection. And on that note, please don't post video clips of people fighting, they will be removed.
I will add a bit of nuance to this argument. Females of a species will fight each other if access to males is a limiting factor. Males compete for females because usually reproductive success relies on access to a limited number of females, and females can only reproduce with one male at a time. In species where access to males is more limited, females will usually try and gain sole access to a male and will fight other females for it, despite the fact that males could procreate with multiple females. Often in those cases males also have a significant hand in incubating and/or rearing the offspring.