Jump to content
Skypool

Sexism

Recommended Posts

 

And, as Likewise said, there are times when you DO need to lash out because the other person is getting physical with you. It's a matter of defense--in times like that violence and yelling can be required. Not just to make your point heard, but for your own good.

There are NO times at all you have to get physical or lash out, strike back, or whatever your lingo is.

 

The proper way to act is to dodge, let others,make a foolnout of themselves. Deescalation is the best way to attain peace, violence the most likely to start another war.

Share this post


Link to post

Deescalation should be your first motto, not striking back.

Yep. Striking back is my second motto, when the first fails.

 

If someone punches me, but doesn't make an act of following up, I myself won't follow up. If it's a bully? Yeah, maybe. Depends on the situation.

 

If they are coming after me with intent of beating me up, and I cannot escape, you can bet your dog that I'm going to hit back. It's asinine in some situations to not self-defend, and yes, that does involve getting physical. Or would you rather me the helpless damsel in distress that doesn't want to get physical because it's "improper and barbaric and uncivilized"? I'm not going to lie around doing nothing if fighting back will save me.

 

I don't know what ideal, perfect part of the world you're in, but some people just don't care.

Edited by High Lord November

Share this post


Link to post
There are NO times at all you have to get physical or lash out, strike back, or whatever your lingo is.

 

The proper way to act is to dodge, let others,make a foolnout of themselves. Deescalation is the best way to attain peace, violence the most likely to start another war.

Seriously?!?

 

So if someone punches me in the gut, knocks me down, and kneels on my chest while hitting my face, I'm supposed to just lie there and "let them made a fool out of themselves" instead of kicking, punching, and otherwise doing my best to get them off me while screaming my lungs out?

 

I don't think so.

 

Violence isn't the answer to everything, nor should it be the first answer to most situations. But there absolutely are times when one has to meet force with force to prevent worse from happening.

Share this post


Link to post

There's only two scenarios in a fight.

1) you are superior in strength or technique. Then there's absolutely no need to hit or punch or whatever. Pacify, don't destroy.

2) Or you are not. Then better run. Because all that hitting back will get you, is more attention and more hits.

 

 

Screaming is an entirely different thing though. Violence always brokers more bad consequences for those who use it, and it should be totally unacceptable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
There's only two scenarios in a fight.

1) you are superior in strength or technique. Then there's absolutely no need to hit or punch or whatever. Pacify, don't destroy.

2) Or you are not. Then better run. Because all that hitting back will get you, is more attention and more hits.

 

 

Screaming is an entirely different thing though. Violence always brokers more bad consequences for those who use it, and it should be totally unacceptable.

Running isn't always an option. Anyone who ignores that fact is being disingenuous.

 

So I have to ask, do you really believe that violence, even in self-defense is always wrong? That when faced with a life or death situation, someone should choose pacifism and, as a consequence, death?

Share this post


Link to post
There are NO times at all you have to get physical or lash out, strike back, or whatever your lingo is.

What if the other person is trying to rape you? You gonna talk them outta that?

Share this post


Link to post

...And pacifying sometimes requires hitting a certain spot to disable the opponent, and so forth. Self-defense should always be an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Running isn't always an option. Anyone who ignores that fact is being disingenuous.

 

So I have to ask, do you really believe that violence, even in self-defense is always wrong? That when faced with a life or death situation, someone should choose pacifism and, as a consequence, death?

I do believe, that violence, especially if you are untrained in self defense, is the worst action to take.

 

That does not mean pacifism is the only way to go. The important part is that self defense is not about hurting others but protecting yourself. This starts out on where you go, how you act, and continues with the actions you take if you get attacked.

 

Especially women often feel, that being as violent as possible leads to better results in self defense.... Fallacy. If you fail, you'll be pulp.

Share this post


Link to post

So basically, run or let someone beat the hell out of you because if you can't execute perfect self defense you might get hurt by the person who's already hurting you.. Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
I do believe, that violence, especially if you are untrained in self defense, is the worst action to take.

 

That does not mean pacifism is the only way to go. The important part is that self defense is not about hurting others but protecting yourself. This starts out on where you go, how you act, and continues with the actions you take if you get attacked.

 

Especially women often feel, that being as violent as possible leads to better results in self defense.... Fallacy. If you fail, you'll be pulp.

That doesn't really answer the question, does it? You said above that violence should be totally unacceptable. Do you believe that is true in life and death situations?

Share this post


Link to post
I do believe, that violence, especially if you are untrained in self defense, is the worst action to take.

 

That does not mean pacifism is the only way to go. The important part is that self defense is not about hurting others but protecting yourself. This starts out on where you go, how you act, and continues with the actions you take if you get attacked.

 

Especially women often feel, that being as violent as possible leads to better results in self defense.... Fallacy. If you fail, you'll be pulp.

I'd like to know where you got that fallacy. When I've practiced self defence (not any good but was messing around with a friend of mine who took a couple of classes) pinning or disabling your oppenent is optimal. Even if you get to a point where you can run if you end up at a dead end then you're screwed.

 

Especially when you're more likely to get help if you call out 'fire' over 'rape'. In fact when I took sex ed it was one of the things taught to us to prevent rape was to yell fire, but there was also a stress that rape was serious and we should help if someone yelled rape.

Share this post


Link to post

The important part is that self defense is not about hurting others but protecting yourself.

 

The moment someone tries to do you harm, they are knowingly stepping into a situation where they themselves might be harmed. They have forfeited their right to not be hurt. That does not mean that you should use deadly force. However, if I have to gouge out an eye to save my life, I ain't gonna feel bad about it later. And I don't particularly care how my attacker felt.

 

This starts out on where you go, how you act, and continues with the actions you take if you get attacked.

 

Blaming the victim. Classy.

Share this post


Link to post

first off, lets get some facts straight: most of the violence happening is NOT murder or rape, but other forms. SO arguing about those won't be at all useful for the average case.

 

also, I do not blame victims. It just that some people (mostly young males..) go out with an outwardly agressive stance, and provoke violence just by virtue of being themselves.

 

@braitrainer: i got that "fallacy" making my shodan in aikido. just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
While violence is an important part of this discussion, please bring it back to the original topic at hand, which is the violence perpetuated by sexism.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pretty discouraged. I just started a job a couple weeks ago working in a warehouse. I'm the only female in the warehouse. I have not had ANY trouble whatsoever lifting anything.

 

Yet, today, one of the men who has been there for a long time and has been extremely helpful with helping me find things(because the organization of the warehouse is a complete mess) today said:

 

"Can I be honest with you? I don't want to say it's because you're a woman, but I don't think this is the kind of job for you because of all the heavy lifting. I don't want to see you get hurt."

 

It really hurt me because he's probably my favorite person there, and I'm completely confused because I don't know what he's talking about. I haven't had trouble lifting anything. My arms are never even sore.

 

I can't help but think this is just complete sexism and has nothing to do with my strength. Some of the older men complain that I make my boxes too heavy and it hurts their backs. It clearly can't be because I legitimately have trouble lifting anything.

Share this post


Link to post

That's the older generation for you; they tend to hold on to sexist stereotypes more so than younger people and think that women are "x" and men are "x", because of the era they were raised in. Before you accuse me of generalizing, but I know that not all older people are like that. But remember, no matter people say or how much they try to put you down, don't ever give up your job. I know you'll show them and prove them wrong. Because like you said, you can handle the weights. Heck, there are some men in the world who can't lift like you do. So who's to say that lifting weights is a men's job only?

Share this post


Link to post
I'm pretty discouraged. I just started a job a couple weeks ago working in a warehouse. I'm the only female in the warehouse. I have not had ANY trouble whatsoever lifting anything.

 

Yet, today, one of the men who has been there for a long time and has been extremely helpful with helping me find things(because the organization of the warehouse is a complete mess) today said:

 

"Can I be honest with you? I don't want to say it's because you're a woman, but I don't think this is the kind of job for you because of all the heavy lifting. I don't want to see you get hurt."

 

It really hurt me because he's probably my favorite person there, and I'm completely confused because I don't know what he's talking about. I haven't had trouble lifting anything. My arms are never even sore.

 

I can't help but think this is just complete sexism and has nothing to do with my strength. Some of the older men complain that I make my boxes too heavy and it hurts their backs. It clearly can't be because I legitimately have trouble lifting anything.

I think it's one of those cases of 'good intentions'. Especially if he's an older guy, it's possible he is genuinely concerned. Now the concern might well be misplaced, but I doubt any of it is malicious. Best way to deal with it is just to keep showing them there's nothing to be worried about. Once they've had a few months to get used to the idea that you really *don't* have any trouble they'll stop worrying so much.

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously his statement isn't based in observations of what's been going on with you being able to lift everything fine. So it has to be some preconception - maybe it could be based on preconceptions about, if you have smaller muscles than the men he is around (I don't know if that's true, but just thinking of possibilities), he thinks that might mean you're more prone to injury. I don't know why he'd think someone who has been having no problems is suddenly going to have a problem, but maybe he's seen other people have injuries who have previously been fine.

 

Regardless, I still think it's a sexist statement he made. Plus, it's sort of like those "No offense, but..." statements - it's like, you know you're about to say something offensive when you say that. So I feel like if he had to say "I don't want to say it's because you're a woman" he really should have thought better of the statement overall.

 

If he had based his thoughts and remark on not your sex but your physical size, I honestly don't know if that would make it any better - the distinction between those probably doesn't mean much in terms of a situation like this or how sexist something is. Just a possibility to think about, I guess.

 

This really is a discouraging situation you were in, and I hope you don't let the discouragement get you down too much. Don't think that what he said was based on your job performance in the slightest. It's based on him and his own ideas, independent of you. Be proud of doing your job well and try not to worry about stupid stuff like that. <3

Share this post


Link to post

First off: There are Physical differences between Males and Females. That's a fact only very stubborn equalists will try to negate. So most women will not be able to work in that line of work, which does not mean that its impossible or even a bad idea - if you have the muscles and build for it, go for it.

 

Secondly: Because women are far and between in quite some jobs, they are under constant pressure. They tend to overreact and overwork, to try to prove their worth more than is necessary. That in itself can be seen by many as bad judgement in the field / bad working. - Why you ask? Lifting more than men might be good for the ego, but it might also be that its just too much. We're talking about "career"-heavy lifters, you are just a newbie. It might be that they see your eagerness to carry much as stupidity and short-sightedness, no matter what sex you are.

 

And probably, because you are a woman, they would not want to tell you in the same way they'd tell a man.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, there are a lot of studies now pointing out that so-called biological differences between the sexes are a bunch of hokey. Due to sexist practices, we discourage girls from the time they're babies not to push it and not to try. We see them as physically weaker and in doing so we actually make them physically weaker and pretty much stunt their growth.

 

Either way, that was a pretty gross answer to give to someone who's clearly proven they aren't struggling at the job and came here because they were hurt from the baseless, sexist accusation.

Share this post


Link to post
Either way, that was a pretty gross answer to give to someone who's clearly proven they aren't struggling at the job and came here because they were hurt from the baseless, sexist accusation.

This.

 

When people are hurt you go up to them and try to comfort them, not say something like "oh that's actually justifoed!"

Share this post


Link to post
Either way, that was a pretty gross answer to give to someone who's clearly proven they aren't struggling at the job and came here because they were hurt from the baseless, sexist accusation.

I'd rather be honest over the reasons than to mollycoddle anyone. Because that would be sexist, I don't do it for male employees, so why in hell is it suddenly not alright to do it for FEMALES the same?

 

Also, my point stands: It probably has nothing to do with muscles or gender, probably more with behavioural patterns - and yes, those might be gender based and sexist, or just plain unknowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, there are a lot of studies now pointing out that so-called biological differences between the sexes are a bunch of hokey. Due to sexist practices, we discourage girls from the time they're babies not to push it and not to try. We see them as physically weaker and in doing so we actually make them physically weaker and pretty much stunt their growth.

 

Either way, that was a pretty gross answer to give to someone who's clearly proven they aren't struggling at the job and came here because they were hurt from the baseless, sexist accusation.

Uh, saying that Sock hormones *do* make a difference. I know several trans women that say they actively cannot lift as much now as they were able to before they started taking Estrogen.

 

That's not to say that girls/women shouldn't be encouraged to push it and try their best. They should. It's just that, well, there *are* physical differences.

Share this post


Link to post
I'd rather be honest over the reasons than to mollycoddle anyone. Because that would be sexist, I don't do it for male employees, so why in hell is it suddenly not alright to do it for FEMALES the same?

1. You and I have a very different definition of what mollycoddling means

2. She is not your employee

Share this post


Link to post
Uh, saying that Sock hormones *do* make a difference. I know several trans women that say they actively cannot lift as much now as they were able to before they started taking Estrogen.

These are anecdotal evidence, though, and cannot thusly be taken for a fact. Plus, there is also the notion that we are dealing with artificial hormonal reconfiguration, which might have slightly different effects compared to having had one's body produce this kind of hormones from the beginning.

 

But yeah... I myself am a relatively thin woman who can quite effortlessly lug around almost my own weight for longer durations.

 

What we should do is quit dividing people by their varying qualities and focus solely on what *this* individual can do.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.