3 ms·

I definitely disagree with this. I cannot see how women can be both things to be protected, and be taken as seriously as their male peers.

by kbatten 16y ago

ZoFreX 16y ago
I think this is a false dichotomy. Women are, generally, weaker than their male peers. That's not sexist, or discriminatory, it's how things are and (on a biological basis) probably how they will be for some time. To fail to acknowledge that, or pretend that the sexes are equals on all levels, is not only ignorant but in my opinion harmful to the progress of "equality". It is perfectly possible to regard someone as physically weaker, but intellectually equal or superior. If I'm making a decision on whether I'm "taking someone seriously", physical strength isn't going to factor into that in many situations. In the context of FOSS conferences, their physical stature is completely orthogonal to whether I give a damn. From here I only need make the assumption that those physically weaker than their peers may need assistance sometimes, and we're basically there. Of course, I would not assert that all women need assistance, or that some women need assistance all the time - I know some girls that play rugby and I'd wager they could beat 95% of HN readers in a showdown. However the fact remains that many people believe that stronger people have a duty to protect weaker people, that many women are weaker than many men, and (importantly) that women are being targeted because they are women. I for one am going to step in if I see any shenanigans, because I am a man. Note on male camaraderie and bravado: I'm not sure whether it is constructive, de-constructive or neither for men to place themselves as protectors and aspire to such ideals as "be a man" and "man up", but in situations like this such phrases serve as good motivators to get people to do the right thing, so unless I find evidence of such phrasing being harmful, I think it's a useful tool to inspire decent behaviour.
- TheAmazingIdiot 16y ago
  And there are larger men (example: me at 6'5", 275) who can literally wipe the floor with most other _men_. Of course, I have to protect them, because they are weaker and smaller. Can anybody say bullshit? I'm up for equality, and I mean real equality. We will be equal when a woman hits a man in the face, and the man responds in kind by punching her, and nobody says anything about "hitting a woman". Lastly, I have a duty to protect all those I care about, male or female. I would just as well die (or kill) for my guy friends as I would my female friends. What you have between the crotch doesn't matter to me.
  - ZoFreX 16y ago
    I agree with some of what you said, but not total equality. There are differences between the genders, and I think some gender roles are more helpful than harmful (and some are undeniable, until we invent male pregnancy at least). And yes, I would also protect my male friends. As it stands though, they are not the ones being sexually assulted (mostly - and in those rare situations, generally the guy is able to get himself out of it), and the article only talked about male on female assault, so that's all I really addressed.
  - tbrownaw 16y ago
    > And there are larger men (example: me at 6'5", 275) who can literally wipe the floor with most other _men_. Of course, I have to protect them, because they are weaker and smaller. From other people your size, yes. > Can anybody say bullshit? Sure, but it's not coming from ZoFreX. If person/entity A is being coercive towards (or just randomly assaulting) person/entity B, you should generally intervene to protect person B if possible. This applies to men protecting women from other men, stronger men protecting less-strong men from other stronger men, the police protecting the general populace from violent criminals, the various forms of consumer-protection laws, employment law, civil-rights protesters and some revolutionaries, teachers breaking up playground fights, ....
  - sliverstorm 16y ago
    I'm up for equality, and I mean real equality. We will be equal when a woman hits a man in the face, and the man responds in kind by punching her, and nobody says anything about "hitting a woman". There's a reason that social moor exists. Until women catch up in physical power, or men regress, most men will have the power to seriously injure a woman and walk away unharmed, unless the woman is trained or armed. As such, it is a man's duty to take responsibility for this difference, and that is where the taboo on striking a woman came about. There's a partner taboo as well- regarding children- that exists for exactly the same reasons. Would you argue that someone more powerful does not have a responsibility to manage their strength, and using brute force on women and children should not be considered reprehensible?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
sliverstorm 16y ago
I take my little brothers seriously (well, that's not precisely true- one of them is only 14, so you can't always take him too seriously- but if you have brothers you probably know what I mean) and I've defended them in the past.

I definitely disagree with this. I cannot see how women can be both things to be protected, and be taken as seriously as their male peers.

by kbatten 16y ago

I definitely disagree with this. I cannot see how women can be both things to be protected, and be taken as seriously as their male peers.

ZoFreX 16y ago

I think this is a false dichotomy. Women are, generally, weaker than their male peers. That's not sexist, or discriminatory, it's how things are and (on a biological basis) probably how they will be for some time. To fail to acknowledge that, or pretend that the sexes are equals on all levels, is not only ignorant but in my opinion harmful to the progress of "equality". It is perfectly possible to regard someone as physically weaker, but intellectually equal or superior. If I'm making a decision on whether I'm "taking someone seriously", physical strength isn't going to factor into that in many situations. In the context of FOSS conferences, their physical stature is completely orthogonal to whether I give a damn. From here I only need make the assumption that those physically weaker than their peers may need assistance sometimes, and we're basically there. Of course, I would not assert that all women need assistance, or that some women need assistance all the time - I know some girls that play rugby and I'd wager they could beat 95% of HN readers in a showdown. However the fact remains that many people believe that stronger people have a duty to protect weaker people, that many women are weaker than many men, and (importantly) that women are being targeted because they are women. I for one am going to step in if I see any shenanigans, because I am a man. Note on male camaraderie and bravado: I'm not sure whether it is constructive, de-constructive or neither for men to place themselves as protectors and aspire to such ideals as "be a man" and "man up", but in situations like this such phrases serve as good motivators to get people to do the right thing, so unless I find evidence of such phrasing being harmful, I think it's a useful tool to inspire decent behaviour.

TheAmazingIdiot 16y ago
And there are larger men (example: me at 6'5", 275) who can literally wipe the floor with most other _men_. Of course, I have to protect them, because they are weaker and smaller. Can anybody say bullshit? I'm up for equality, and I mean real equality. We will be equal when a woman hits a man in the face, and the man responds in kind by punching her, and nobody says anything about "hitting a woman". Lastly, I have a duty to protect all those I care about, male or female. I would just as well die (or kill) for my guy friends as I would my female friends. What you have between the crotch doesn't matter to me.
- ZoFreX 16y ago
  I agree with some of what you said, but not total equality. There are differences between the genders, and I think some gender roles are more helpful than harmful (and some are undeniable, until we invent male pregnancy at least). And yes, I would also protect my male friends. As it stands though, they are not the ones being sexually assulted (mostly - and in those rare situations, generally the guy is able to get himself out of it), and the article only talked about male on female assault, so that's all I really addressed.
- tbrownaw 16y ago
  > And there are larger men (example: me at 6'5", 275) who can literally wipe the floor with most other _men_. Of course, I have to protect them, because they are weaker and smaller. From other people your size, yes. > Can anybody say bullshit? Sure, but it's not coming from ZoFreX. If person/entity A is being coercive towards (or just randomly assaulting) person/entity B, you should generally intervene to protect person B if possible. This applies to men protecting women from other men, stronger men protecting less-strong men from other stronger men, the police protecting the general populace from violent criminals, the various forms of consumer-protection laws, employment law, civil-rights protesters and some revolutionaries, teachers breaking up playground fights, ....
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  I'm up for equality, and I mean real equality. We will be equal when a woman hits a man in the face, and the man responds in kind by punching her, and nobody says anything about "hitting a woman". There's a reason that social moor exists. Until women catch up in physical power, or men regress, most men will have the power to seriously injure a woman and walk away unharmed, unless the woman is trained or armed. As such, it is a man's duty to take responsibility for this difference, and that is where the taboo on striking a woman came about. There's a partner taboo as well- regarding children- that exists for exactly the same reasons. Would you argue that someone more powerful does not have a responsibility to manage their strength, and using brute force on women and children should not be considered reprehensible?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

sliverstorm 16y ago

I take my little brothers seriously (well, that's not precisely true- one of them is only 14, so you can't always take him too seriously- but if you have brothers you probably know what I mean) and I've defended them in the past.