As far as boys not hitting girls goes, I don't see the harm in teaching that. Of course, you should teach your child not to hit anyone. But if my boy is on the playground and a girl starts hitting him, he needs to know that it is not OK to hit her back and he needs to walk away. If another boy is hitting him, he has my full permission to defend himself however necessary. Why the double standard? Because of basic physiology. Women ARE physically weaker. It is never OK to hit a woman and they need to learn that as children.
Once again, the lesson here is that you shouldn't hit anyone. But the rules for defending yourself against men and women are different. It may not be fair, but it's life. l
What? You're teaching your child violence is on if someone else started it. And with your quiver full I'm sure you know perception of who stayed what can vary widely.
As far as boys not hitting girls goes, I don't see the harm in teaching that. Of course, you should teach your child not to hit anyone. But if my boy is on the playground and a girl starts hitting him, he needs to know that it is not OK to hit her back and he needs to walk away. If another boy is hitting him, he has my full permission to defend himself however necessary. Why the double standard? Because of basic physiology. Women ARE physically weaker. It is never OK to hit a woman and they need to learn that as children.
Once again, the lesson here is that you shouldn't hit anyone. But the rules for defending yourself against men and women are different. It may not be fair, but it's life. l
What? You're teaching your child violence is on if someone else started it. And with your quiver full I'm sure you know perception of who stayed what can vary widely.
If a male playground bully is beating on my son, I EXPECT him to stand up for himself physically. You turn the other cheek til someone causes you bodily harm, then you have every right to defend yourself. You are not a doormat.
If one of my sons hits the other one and then the victim hits back, and then I find out about it, the instigator gets in trouble. You don't get punished in our house for self defense.
If my daughter hits my son, she gets punished. If my son hits her back, he gets punished, too. That's the way the world works here. It's preparation for the real world, where even defending yourself against a woman physically will land you in jail. It's not fair, but then again, it's not really fair that they were born physically stronger than my girls either. It's just the way it is.
"Global economic considerations aside, the real tragedy is that these girls aren’t being taught the fine art of yielding to others. Nobody is giving them the opportunity to be gallant. Instead, these fabulous little creatures, who absorb everything joyfully and tear through barriers gleefully, are being fitted for the same old corset. The stays are a little looser but the whalebone is just as rigid."
"Fine art of yielding" is either sarcasm or a poor choice of words. But I agree with the idea expressed in the paragraph. I want to be gallant! I want to be the heroic female protagonists in meshaliuknits books. I want to save my sweetie and kick ass and take names. There's nothing wrong with wanting that for our daughters and ourselves.
I just don't understand how letting 4 year girls use the bathroom first leads to stifling women from doing great things. All these antiquated ideas of gallantry and heroism as if we're in some lame Disney princess movie is ridiculous. My 6 year old son is being taught that women can do anything by seeing women in traditional "male" careers. I'm also teaching him that girls are inherently different and that he can't body slam them like he does with boys. He's being taught not to be an asshole by learning not to be a bully and all around jerk. And finally he's being learning to not be a doormat by sticking up for himself when people wrong him.
If the idea of opening doors for women or letting them use the bathroom first is getting you all hot and bothered, then you're missing the point of feminism. Feminism is about allowing women to make choices about her life and getting what she's worked hard for.
And I love it when some man offers me a seat on the train or opens a door for me. In my head I'm thinking, "damn straight you gave up your seat. I am the giver of life!" Women are fucking awesome - we should have a red carpet everywhere we go!
What? You're teaching your child violence is on if someone else started it. And with your quiver full I'm sure you know perception of who stayed what can vary widely.
If a male playground bully is beating on my son, I EXPECT him to stand up for himself physically. You turn the other cheek til someone causes you bodily harm, then you have every right to defend yourself. You are not a doormat.
If one of my sons hits the other one and then the victim hits back, and then I find out about it, the instigator gets in trouble. You don't get punished in our house for self defense.
If my daughter hits my son, she gets punished. If my son hits her back, he gets punished, too. That's the way the world works here. It's preparation for the real world, where even defending yourself against a woman physically will land you in jail. It's not fair, but then again, it's not really fair that they were born physically stronger than my girls either. It's just the way it is.
In the eyes of the law there is assault, domestic violence, and self defence. Pretty sure that in 2015 the sex of either party is irrelevant.
"Global economic considerations aside, the real tragedy is that these girls aren’t being taught the fine art of yielding to others. Nobody is giving them the opportunity to be gallant. Instead, these fabulous little creatures, who absorb everything joyfully and tear through barriers gleefully, are being fitted for the same old corset. The stays are a little looser but the whalebone is just as rigid."
"Fine art of yielding" is either sarcasm or a poor choice of words. But I agree with the idea expressed in the paragraph. I want to be gallant! I want to be the heroic female protagonists in meshaliuknits books. I want to save my sweetie and kick ass and take names. There's nothing wrong with wanting that for our daughters and ourselves.
I just don't understand how letting 4 year girls use the bathroom first leads to stifling women from doing great things. All these antiquated ideas of gallantry and heroism as if we're in some lame Disney princess movie is ridiculous. My 6 year old son is being taught that women can do anything by seeing women in traditional "male" careers. I'm also teaching him that girls are inherently different and that he can't body slam them like he does with boys. He's being taught not to be an asshole by learning not to be a bully and all around jerk. And finally he's being learning to not be a doormat by sticking up for himself when people wrong him.
If the idea of opening doors for women or letting them use the bathroom first is getting you all hot and bothered, then you're missing the point of feminism. Feminism is about allowing women to make choices about her life and getting what she's worked hard for.
And I love it when some man offers me a seat on the train or opens a door for me. In my head I'm thinking, "damn straight you gave up your seat. I am the giver of life!" Women are fucking awesome - we should have a red carpet everywhere we go!
The fuck? Wrong. WRONG. Black and white people are equal, because the only difference is in skin tone.
Men and women are different. Their brains are structured differently. They respond to neurological stimuli differently.
I can't fucking even with this.
You and I agree that black people and white people are equal. There's no need to move fast and break things.
I thought your wording in the original post was strange: men and women aren't equal. You can't mean that. You do believe that men and women are equal, yes?
So I changed men and women to black people and white people for extra attention grabbing emphasis. Because CEP.
Women ARE biologically different. This is something that has been discussed here before. For example, women give birth and can also breastfeed. All people of any sex or gender should be given paid family leave when they have or adopt a baby, IMO. But only the woman who actually gives birth has to recover from birthing a child through her vagina or through an incision in her abdomen, which is a medical reality. Only the woman who has given birth has engorged breasts, whether or not she chooses to breast feed. And if she does breast feed, only the woman can actually feed the child with her body, or pump milk for others to feed the baby.
Women end up doing the majority of childcare, which is lamentable when we're discussing careers and the split in household duties, but also necessary when it comes to infant care, most of the time, as a function of biology.
And that's just one example.
The issue is that this should be treated as a DIFFERENT function and not a lesser function, or a more revered function, either, IMO.
If a male playground bully is beating on my son, I EXPECT him to stand up for himself physically. You turn the other cheek til someone causes you bodily harm, then you have every right to defend yourself. You are not a doormat.
If one of my sons hits the other one and then the victim hits back, and then I find out about it, the instigator gets in trouble. You don't get punished in our house for self defense.
If my daughter hits my son, she gets punished. If my son hits her back, he gets punished, too. That's the way the world works here. It's preparation for the real world, where even defending yourself against a woman physically will land you in jail. It's not fair, but then again, it's not really fair that they were born physically stronger than my girls either. It's just the way it is.
where are you getting this from?
you know a lot of people with domestic disturbances run ins with the law?
So you're telling me there isn't a tendency to punish men for defending themselves? A woman is hitting a man, so the man decides to clock her back and knocks her out or busts her face open. You mean to tell me he isn't going to be judged for that differently than a man hitting another man or a woman hitting another woman? Courts tend to rule in favor of women on this, especially when it is just one person's word against the other.
And deep down, men enjoy treating women that way. People were talking last week about modern men not having purpose and perhaps that being the cause of some of the unhappiness in modern men. The idea that women are something special that you should protect at all costs makes men feel good. It makes them feel needed.
This right here encapsulates everything that bothers me about the idea of gender-based chivalry: at the root, it's not actually for the benefit of women, it's about coddling men's delicate feelings.
I want my children to learn how to be kind and courteous people. I'd like it if that was reinforced in their schools (and for my chlidren, it is.) Little girls don't get to be first because they are girls. Little boys shouldn't defer to little girls because of out dated social expectations.
However, it would be really nice if when the door is held open for you, you say thank you. It would be a kindness if you assist someone who needs help because looks like they're struggling, regardless of their sex. It would go a long way to say please and thank you and offer for someone else to go first whether they are male or female.
Good gawd Lemon! How hard is it just to teach some basic respect and courtesy to boys and girls in how they treat one another?
I just don't understand how letting 4 year girls use the bathroom first leads to stifling women from doing great things. All these antiquated ideas of gallantry and heroism as if we're in some lame Disney princess movie is ridiculous. My 6 year old son is being taught that women can do anything by seeing women in traditional "male" careers. I'm also teaching him that girls are inherently different and that he can't body slam them like he does with boys. He's being taught not to be an asshole by learning not to be a bully and all around jerk. And finally he's being learning to not be a doormat by sticking up for himself when people wrong him.
If the idea of opening doors for women or letting them use the bathroom first is getting you all hot and bothered, then you're missing the point of feminism. Feminism is about allowing women to make choices about her life and getting what she's worked hard for.
And I love it when some man offers me a seat on the train or opens a door for me. In my head I'm thinking, "damn straight you gave up your seat. I am the giver of life!" Women are fucking awesome - we should have a red carpet everywhere we go!
What? You're teaching your child violence is on if someone else started it. And with your quiver full I'm sure you know perception of who stayed what can vary widely.
If a male playground bully is beating on my son, I EXPECT him to stand up for himself physically. You turn the other cheek til someone causes you bodily harm, then you have every right to defend yourself. You are not a doormat.
If one of my sons hits the other one and then the victim hits back, and then I find out about it, the instigator gets in trouble. You don't get punished in our house for self defense.
If my daughter hits my son, she gets punished. If my son hits her back, he gets punished, too. That's the way the world works here. It's preparation for the real world, where even defending yourself against a woman physically will land you in jail. It's not fair, but then again, it's not really fair that they were born physically stronger than my girls either. It's just the way it is.
Your 2 sentences actively contradict each other. If your son defends himself against his sister, he gets punished for it, amirite?
And deep down, men enjoy treating women that way. People were talking last week about modern men not having purpose and perhaps that being the cause of some of the unhappiness in modern men. The idea that women are something special that you should protect at all costs makes men feel good. It makes them feel needed.
This right here encapsulates everything that bothers me about the idea of gender-based chivalry: at the root, it's not actually for the benefit of women, it's about coddling men's delicate feelings.
Why can't it be about both genders getting something out of it?
And deep down, men enjoy treating women that way. People were talking last week about modern men not having purpose and perhaps that being the cause of some of the unhappiness in modern men. The idea that women are something special that you should protect at all costs makes men feel good. It makes them feel needed.
I hope people don't ignore this because AW wrote it. This is what I was thinking about while reading. Maybe if some of these guys looked at women as something to be protected, then they wouldn't get all angry and violent when a woman told them no. They would still have a desire to protect them. This doesn't make the woman weak in my eyes. But I don't know if I classify as feminist or not and I didn't read the intersectional feminism thread, so what do I know.
That was a fascinating thread and one take away was that black women and white women have very different opinions on "chivalry" and how that relates to feminism.
If a male playground bully is beating on my son, I EXPECT him to stand up for himself physically. You turn the other cheek til someone causes you bodily harm, then you have every right to defend yourself. You are not a doormat.
If one of my sons hits the other one and then the victim hits back, and then I find out about it, the instigator gets in trouble. You don't get punished in our house for self defense.
If my daughter hits my son, she gets punished. If my son hits her back, he gets punished, too. That's the way the world works here. It's preparation for the real world, where even defending yourself against a woman physically will land you in jail. It's not fair, but then again, it's not really fair that they were born physically stronger than my girls either. It's just the way it is.
Your 2 sentences actively contradict each other. If your son defends himself against his sister, he gets punished for it, amirite?
Yes. His sister is half his size. There is no fight there. He can easily walk away from her. If he engages, he would seriously harm her. You don't have to defend yourself from someone physically weaker than you - children, the disabled, the elderly. You already have the upper hand.
Once again, NO ONE SHOULD BE HITTING ANYONE. But when people DO hit you, there are appropriate responses based on the physical strength of the bully.
What? You're teaching your child violence is on if someone else started it. And with your quiver full I'm sure you know perception of who stayed what can vary widely.
If a male playground bully is beating on my son, I EXPECT him to stand up for himself physically. You turn the other cheek til someone causes you bodily harm, then you have every right to defend yourself. You are not a doormat.
If one of my sons hits the other one and then the victim hits back, and then I find out about it, the instigator gets in trouble. You don't get punished in our house for self defense.
If my daughter hits my son, she gets punished. If my son hits her back, he gets punished, too. That's the way the world works here. It's preparation for the real world, where even defending yourself against a woman physically will land you in jail. It's not fair, but then again, it's not really fair that they were born physically stronger than my girls either. It's just the way it is.
This is downright incorrect. Defending yourself against a man or woman, as long as you are using the amount of force reasonably needed to defend yourself and no more, will absolutely not land you in jail. Even if the person you are defending yourself against is a woman and you are a man. A man can certainly defend himself against a woman who is attacking him. Can he use deadly force if she is just hitting him with an open hand? Nope. Neither could he against a man.
This right here encapsulates everything that bothers me about the idea of gender-based chivalry: at the root, it's not actually for the benefit of women, it's about coddling men's delicate feelings.
Why can't it be about both genders getting something out of it?
Because it's not accurate to say that both genders get something out of it. I don't get anything out of it. Quite a few women in this thread have said they don't get anything out of it, and most of the women I know in real life prefer common courtesy over genital-based preferential treatment in such trivial matters as who opens the door for whom. When a man's chosen method of demonstrating respect for me has the actual effect of making me feel less respected, what's the point? And along the lines of what eponinepontmercy said, if a man lacks a sense of purpose in life because women aren't bothered by not having their chairs pulled out for them, he's not much of a man to begin with.
Your 2 sentences actively contradict each other. If your son defends himself against his sister, he gets punished for it, amirite?
Yes. His sister is half his size. There is no fight there. He can easily walk away from her. If he engages, he would seriously harm her. You don't have to defend yourself from someone physically weaker than you - children, the disabled, the elderly. You already have the upper hand.
Once again, NO ONE SHOULD BE HITTING ANYONE. But when people DO hit you, there are appropriate responses based on the physical strength of the bully.
Feminism is about equality. And yes, it does open up more choices to women because giving women the same choices as men when it comes to education and careers expands their options.
But women (and men) can make choices that don't advance the cause of feminism or encourage equality.
It's a subtle difference, but it's not about allowing women to do whatever they want because they are women. It's about opening up options to make men and women equal.
It also kind of discounts that our choices are still constrained by patriarchy and our own circumstances.
Your 2 sentences actively contradict each other. If your son defends himself against his sister, he gets punished for it, amirite?
Yes. His sister is half his size. There is no fight there. He can easily walk away from her. If he engages, he would seriously harm her. You don't have to defend yourself from someone physically weaker than you - children, the disabled, the elderly. You already have the upper hand.
Once again, NO ONE SHOULD BE HITTING ANYONE. But when people DO hit you, there are appropriate responses based on the physical strength of the bully.
But why do you assume that a female person is always weaker than your son?
Your 2 sentences actively contradict each other. If your son defends himself against his sister, he gets punished for it, amirite?
Yes. His sister is half his size. There is no fight there. He can easily walk away from her. If he engages, he would seriously harm her. You don't have to defend yourself from someone physically weaker than you - children, the disabled, the elderly. You already have the upper hand.
Once again, NO ONE SHOULD BE HITTING ANYONE. But when people DO hit you, there are appropriate responses based on the physical strength of the bully.
Why is it ever appropriate to hit back, boy or girl? What if the instigator is a boy but smaller than your son, still okay to hit back? Why not just teach them not to hit and get a grown up to help them?
Yes. His sister is half his size. There is no fight there. He can easily walk away from her. If he engages, he would seriously harm her. You don't have to defend yourself from someone physically weaker than you - children, the disabled, the elderly. You already have the upper hand.
Once again, NO ONE SHOULD BE HITTING ANYONE. But when people DO hit you, there are appropriate responses based on the physical strength of the bully.
Is it an issue of size differences or of gender?
Physical strength. The average man is stronger than the average woman. Of course there are tough women out there, but we make rules in society based on the majority. The rule is, men shouldn't hit women. Period.
Yes. His sister is half his size. There is no fight there. He can easily walk away from her. If he engages, he would seriously harm her. You don't have to defend yourself from someone physically weaker than you - children, the disabled, the elderly. You already have the upper hand.
Once again, NO ONE SHOULD BE HITTING ANYONE. But when people DO hit you, there are appropriate responses based on the physical strength of the bully.
Why is it ever appropriate to hit back, boy or girl? What if the instigator is a boy but smaller than your son, still okay to hit back? Why not just teach them not to hit and get a grown up to help them?
Because a grown up isn't always going to be there to bail them out.
Feminism is about equality. And yes, it does open up more choices to women because giving women the same choices as men when it comes to education and careers expands their options.
But women (and men) can make choices that don't advance the cause of feminism or encourage equality.
It's a subtle difference, but it's not about allowing women to do whatever they want because they are women. It's about opening up options to make men and women equal.
It also kind of discounts that our choices are still constrained by patriarchy and our own circumstances.
Right. Totally agree. Should have been a bit more clear.
Physical strength. The average man is stronger than the average woman. Of course there are tough women out there, but we make rules in society based on the majority. The rule is, men shouldn't hit women. Period.
But when it comes down to a specific situation involving two specific individuals, who may not be anywhere close to average, why does it matter that the average man is stronger than the average woman?
Physical strength. The average man is stronger than the average woman. Of course there are tough women out there, but we make rules in society based on the majority. The rule is, men people shouldn't hit women other people. Period.
Your 2 sentences actively contradict each other. If your son defends himself against his sister, he gets punished for it, amirite?
Yes. His sister is half his size. There is no fight there. He can easily walk away from her. If he engages, he would seriously harm her. You don't have to defend yourself from someone physically weaker than you - children, the disabled, the elderly. You already have the upper hand.
Once again, NO ONE SHOULD BE HITTING ANYONE. But when people DO hit you, there are appropriate responses based on the physical strength of the bully.
No the strength of the bully doesn't impact punishment.
You could frame your argument in terms of age (older children bear more responsibly) and I might buy it. But currently you're teaching your children that gender alone allows for different outcomes.