4 ms·

>There is a whole literature in a particular brand of feminism (mostly associated with the radicals) that simply takes the association of hunting and interperso

by tedks 12y ago

>There is a whole literature in a particular brand of feminism (mostly associated with the radicals) that simply takes the association of hunting and interpersonal violence on faith This is a straw woman. I cannot think of any radical feminist for whom this is an important point. (You probably don't mean actually radical feminists, but just liberals with whom you disagree, but that's another point.) I think virtually any feminist would say that men are violent because patriarchal society teaches and programs men to be violent. It teaches boys that violence is an acceptable way of solving problems, interacting with others, etc., and even when violence is overtly discouraged (for example, in schools) it is often covertly encouraged (the pride a father displays in a son who hits back against a bully, the resulting respect on the schoolyard for that child, not to even mention video games, movies, and other cultural role models). But maybe you've just read different feminists from me. What prominent radical feminists, or even liberal feminists, hold this viewpoint?

cjsthompson 12y ago
What's wrong with hitting back a bully if you can? If you can, by all means do it. The problem is not that, it's shaming those who can't hit back.
- mbrock 12y ago
  Social contracts, religions, wisdom traditions of all kinds have been founded on the insight that "hitting back a bully if you can" is not a good behavior in the long term. The Buddhist text Dhammapada puts it like this, in Gil Fronsdal's translation: Hatred never ends through hatred. By non-hate alone does it end. This is an ancient truth. (Of course this is not evidence; you didn't provide any, either.)
  - wvh 12y ago
    Idealistic moral philosophy and real life are quite different. My own experiences tell me repeatedly turning the other cheek will rarely improve your situation in reality. I think the utopia of religions and "wisdom traditions" run counter to human nature, especially in individual situations (e.g. bully violence) as opposed to a lofty moral concept for mankind (as in "we all ought to strive to...").
    - mbrock 12y ago
      I see your point. Moral philosophy and real life aren't separable in a clear-cut way, though. This conversation isn't about judging whether individual actions by people in extreme situations involving violence are right or wrong. It's about the ideas, emotions, and structures that surround those situations. Let's take another example. Consider the moral injunction "don't steal," and the ethical/philosophical idea "stealing is wrong." These are quite basic, definitely not outlandish. Yet there are many situations where stealing is necessary for one's survival[1] and therefore proper. Someone discussing the ethics of theft could well be accused of lofty idealism because of the existence of emergency situations wherein theft are necessary. But I think such examples don't completely invalidate the moral prohibition against stealing; they only show that nuance is required. This conversation started as a discussion of male conditioning, the culture of male violence, and how that relates to bullying at an early age. That's a larger scale than individual incidences of bullying. The "utopian" idea of nonviolence, for example as expressed in my Dhammapada quote, isn't primarily saying that kids should be scolded for hitting back. I'd say it's more relevant to how parents, perhaps especially fathers, should talk about such violence. The hypothetical parent who cheers on the bullied kid when he/she hits back may be propagating values that are not beneficial. [1]: Even such a strict property ethicist as Ayn Rand wrote about this in an essay called "The Ethics of Emergencies."
      - Retric 12y ago
        That's one way of looking at it. Another is violence is part of establishing a pecking order. Not fighting back generally establishes you as someone on a lower rank in the pecking order and invites more of the same over the long term. In cases where someone thinks physically you may be above them but you keep backing down this creates a tension. Where fighting back can clear things up and long term you may start a friendship with some of those bullies. Also, even if you lose making fights more costly / painful is a significant disincentive. PS: There are also pure sociopaths out there and not everyone can put up a good fight etc. But, in plenty of situations violence is not really vicious and can calm things down.
        12y ago
rquantz 12y ago
I don't know why this was downvoted, it's a perfectly reasonable post. I can believe there is some second wave feminist who has written something like what the GP was saying above – feminists are pretty damn diverse. That said, it seems like most modern feminists are pretty skeptical of evolutionary psychology, and would be unlikely to make arguments about modern human behavior based on paleolithic culture. If you know otherwise, please produce whatever feminists you're talking about. I don't know you, Mr. tjradcliffe, but I suspect that if you think it's fun to bait your feminist "friends" (why is this woman friends with you?), then she probably got mad at you not because of your fabulously argued points, but because you were being an asshole.
- tedks 12y ago
  >she probably got mad at you not because of your fabulously argued points, but because you were being an asshole. This encapsulates 90% of hacker news.
halfcat 12y ago
There is a line from a post apocalyptic TV show: "Ain’t nothing sadder than an outdoor cat that thinks he’s an indoor cat". Why is it considered "misbehaving" when men don't act like women? We have advanced to a rather cushy society that allows for this stance to seem reasonable, and when considered only in this setting, perhaps it is. But the world is not all roses. Sometimes violence is not only an acceptable way of dealing with a situation, sometimes it is the only way of dealing with it and achieving a successful outcome. The bully comes in many forms, and when it's you, or your family, or your society that peaks the bully's prolonged interest, you only have one question: Fight, or flight? This decision boils down to whether or not you stand any chance against the bully. If your child is being stalked by a street gang, you should probably get in the car, drive 30 hours and relocate. If your child gets beat up by the school bully every week, then by all means, get him training on how to throw a punch, and the next time the bully chooses to bully, your child should break his nose. This sounds harsh, I'm sure, but my opinion comes from the experience of being in such situations (mostly as an adult, with non-violent bullies). The bully and I were lucky, as the bully got bored and moved on. But that experience made it crystal clear that one of the most horrible crimes anyone can commit is abusing one's power over another who is not capable of defending themself. We all agree rape is among the worst crimes a human can commit. It's an extreme case of abuse of power. Bullying, in whatever form, is abuse of power. I am in full agreement with Sun Tzu that it's better to avoid a battle if possible, because there is always a cost. But once you determine a battle is unavoidable, the right thing to do becomes clear, and in some cases the right thing includes violence. Luckily, most of us live in good enough circumstances that resorting to violence is rarely the right choice, but it's foolish to think violence is never an acceptable way of dealing with problems. Anyone who thinks that should count themselves lucky that their life experience so far has not brought them face to face with a real bully who won't go away.
- rquantz 12y ago
  Why is it considered "misbehaving" when men don't act like women? What does it mean to act like a woman? You think you know. Name a behavior, I guarantee I can name a woman who does not engage in said behavior. But the world is not all roses. Sometimes violence is not only an acceptable way of dealing with a situation, sometimes it is the only way of dealing with it and achieving a successful outcome. But the GP was not talking about the entire world, they were specifically talking about child bullies. The bully and I were lucky, as the bully got bored and moved on. And yet the lesson you draw from this experience is that children should be taught to respond violently to a bully?

by tedks 12y ago

cjsthompson 12y ago

What's wrong with hitting back a bully if you can? If you can, by all means do it. The problem is not that, it's shaming those who can't hit back.

mbrock 12y ago
Social contracts, religions, wisdom traditions of all kinds have been founded on the insight that "hitting back a bully if you can" is not a good behavior in the long term. The Buddhist text Dhammapada puts it like this, in Gil Fronsdal's translation: Hatred never ends through hatred. By non-hate alone does it end. This is an ancient truth. (Of course this is not evidence; you didn't provide any, either.)
- wvh 12y ago
  Idealistic moral philosophy and real life are quite different. My own experiences tell me repeatedly turning the other cheek will rarely improve your situation in reality. I think the utopia of religions and "wisdom traditions" run counter to human nature, especially in individual situations (e.g. bully violence) as opposed to a lofty moral concept for mankind (as in "we all ought to strive to...").
  - mbrock 12y ago
    I see your point. Moral philosophy and real life aren't separable in a clear-cut way, though. This conversation isn't about judging whether individual actions by people in extreme situations involving violence are right or wrong. It's about the ideas, emotions, and structures that surround those situations. Let's take another example. Consider the moral injunction "don't steal," and the ethical/philosophical idea "stealing is wrong." These are quite basic, definitely not outlandish. Yet there are many situations where stealing is necessary for one's survival[1] and therefore proper. Someone discussing the ethics of theft could well be accused of lofty idealism because of the existence of emergency situations wherein theft are necessary. But I think such examples don't completely invalidate the moral prohibition against stealing; they only show that nuance is required. This conversation started as a discussion of male conditioning, the culture of male violence, and how that relates to bullying at an early age. That's a larger scale than individual incidences of bullying. The "utopian" idea of nonviolence, for example as expressed in my Dhammapada quote, isn't primarily saying that kids should be scolded for hitting back. I'd say it's more relevant to how parents, perhaps especially fathers, should talk about such violence. The hypothetical parent who cheers on the bullied kid when he/she hits back may be propagating values that are not beneficial. [1]: Even such a strict property ethicist as Ayn Rand wrote about this in an essay called "The Ethics of Emergencies."
    - Retric 12y ago
      That's one way of looking at it. Another is violence is part of establishing a pecking order. Not fighting back generally establishes you as someone on a lower rank in the pecking order and invites more of the same over the long term. In cases where someone thinks physically you may be above them but you keep backing down this creates a tension. Where fighting back can clear things up and long term you may start a friendship with some of those bullies. Also, even if you lose making fights more costly / painful is a significant disincentive. PS: There are also pure sociopaths out there and not everyone can put up a good fight etc. But, in plenty of situations violence is not really vicious and can calm things down.
      - 12y ago

rquantz 12y ago

I don't know why this was downvoted, it's a perfectly reasonable post. I can believe there is some second wave feminist who has written something like what the GP was saying above – feminists are pretty damn diverse. That said, it seems like most modern feminists are pretty skeptical of evolutionary psychology, and would be unlikely to make arguments about modern human behavior based on paleolithic culture. If you know otherwise, please produce whatever feminists you're talking about. I don't know you, Mr. tjradcliffe, but I suspect that if you think it's fun to bait your feminist "friends" (why is this woman friends with you?), then she probably got mad at you not because of your fabulously argued points, but because you were being an asshole.

tedks 12y ago
>she probably got mad at you not because of your fabulously argued points, but because you were being an asshole. This encapsulates 90% of hacker news.

halfcat 12y ago

There is a line from a post apocalyptic TV show: "Ain’t nothing sadder than an outdoor cat that thinks he’s an indoor cat". Why is it considered "misbehaving" when men don't act like women? We have advanced to a rather cushy society that allows for this stance to seem reasonable, and when considered only in this setting, perhaps it is. But the world is not all roses. Sometimes violence is not only an acceptable way of dealing with a situation, sometimes it is the only way of dealing with it and achieving a successful outcome. The bully comes in many forms, and when it's you, or your family, or your society that peaks the bully's prolonged interest, you only have one question: Fight, or flight? This decision boils down to whether or not you stand any chance against the bully. If your child is being stalked by a street gang, you should probably get in the car, drive 30 hours and relocate. If your child gets beat up by the school bully every week, then by all means, get him training on how to throw a punch, and the next time the bully chooses to bully, your child should break his nose. This sounds harsh, I'm sure, but my opinion comes from the experience of being in such situations (mostly as an adult, with non-violent bullies). The bully and I were lucky, as the bully got bored and moved on. But that experience made it crystal clear that one of the most horrible crimes anyone can commit is abusing one's power over another who is not capable of defending themself. We all agree rape is among the worst crimes a human can commit. It's an extreme case of abuse of power. Bullying, in whatever form, is abuse of power. I am in full agreement with Sun Tzu that it's better to avoid a battle if possible, because there is always a cost. But once you determine a battle is unavoidable, the right thing to do becomes clear, and in some cases the right thing includes violence. Luckily, most of us live in good enough circumstances that resorting to violence is rarely the right choice, but it's foolish to think violence is never an acceptable way of dealing with problems. Anyone who thinks that should count themselves lucky that their life experience so far has not brought them face to face with a real bully who won't go away.

rquantz 12y ago
Why is it considered "misbehaving" when men don't act like women? What does it mean to act like a woman? You think you know. Name a behavior, I guarantee I can name a woman who does not engage in said behavior. But the world is not all roses. Sometimes violence is not only an acceptable way of dealing with a situation, sometimes it is the only way of dealing with it and achieving a successful outcome. But the GP was not talking about the entire world, they were specifically talking about child bullies. The bully and I were lucky, as the bully got bored and moved on. And yet the lesson you draw from this experience is that children should be taught to respond violently to a bully?