I would just like to ask you to read some of the statements made in this thread.LittleChone said:No. It's morality, not sexism.
This argument has hit needle point now and it's either you believe that the tradition is sexist or a certain moral. I personally believe that something positive and that makes real sense shouldn't be shaded in negative light such as sexism.DPunch4 said:I would just like to ask you to read some of the statements made in this thread.LittleChone said:No. It's morality, not sexism.
If you try to say it's moral to not hit women, you are in turn saying that women should be treated like delicate flowers. That is sexist.
Once you open up and understand arguments against your position you might discover you have a new position.
I go more detail of my views in my earlier post here I'll show you:Nazulu said:This argument has hit needle point now and it's either you believe that the tradition is sexist or a certain moral. I personally believe that something positive and that makes real sense shouldn't be shaded in negative light such as sexism.DPunch4 said:I would just like to ask you to read some of the statements made in this thread.LittleChone said:No. It's morality, not sexism.
If you try to say it's moral to not hit women, you are in turn saying that women should be treated like delicate flowers. That is sexist.
Once you open up and understand arguments against your position you might discover you have a new position.
Can you imagine what this world would be like with out this tradition? I say it would be worse, far worse. Maybe you should open up as well.
Your tradition argument is flawed. Having some tradition is good but without progress you don't have... well progress. It was a tradition to treat people of different colour like dirt. It's a tradition in a specific Islamic sect(?) where you can stone a women to death if she dishonors her family.DPunch4 said:Completely sexist, if you want everything to be equal then hitting women should mean nothing.
What is wrong is violence in the first place! If you hit anyone it's not good.
However if you think that women deserve special treatment, I'm hearing you say "get back in the kitchen". Chivalry is sexist, however being kind and courteous to a girl you like is just common sense in my mind. Giving special treatment to anyone of your choice is fine, it has nothing to do with sexism.
i basically said what you said in the bit i bolded.Dys said:Are you serious? The average height for a man is something like 20 cm higher than a woman. It is possible for a woman to be stronger than a man, but it's uncommon and is the exception not the rule. Men also naturally develop considerably more muscle than women, again there are exceptions and some (very, very few) women feel the need to obsessively build muscle, but again the number of these women simply is not significant. It doesn't matter how much society decides men and women are equal, from a physical standpoint we are not and in terms of raw strength, men are always going to be dominant.Merkavar said:also the whole men are stronger thing and shouldnt throw their weight around is so old fashion. Its like from back in the day were all men worked the fields and laboured all day and women did the laundry. Now a days men and women can be stronger and weaker than each other. men might be on average stonger than women but alot of women are stronger than men. so i think that arguement is invalid.
My tradition argument isn't flawed at all. I agree that other old traditions were barbaric but this one in particular works perfectly in society. Men are usually stronger than women as we both know, so it makes sense that in a perfect society that men should be more careful. However, if the women is stronger or taller than the man then she should take it into consideration as well because she could do more damage. See, I'm looking at it both ways, that's fair isn't it?DPunch4 said:I go more detail of my views in my earlier post here I'll show you:Nazulu said:This argument has hit needle point now and it's either you believe that the tradition is sexist or a certain moral. I personally believe that something positive and that makes real sense shouldn't be shaded in negative light such as sexism.DPunch4 said:I would just like to ask you to read some of the statements made in this thread.LittleChone said:No. It's morality, not sexism.
If you try to say it's moral to not hit women, you are in turn saying that women should be treated like delicate flowers. That is sexist.
Once you open up and understand arguments against your position you might discover you have a new position.
Can you imagine what this world would be like with out this tradition? I say it would be worse, far worse. Maybe you should open up as well.
Your tradition argument is flawed. Having some tradition is good but without progress you don't have... well progress. It was a tradition to treat people of different colour like dirt. It's a tradition in a specific Islamic sect(?) where you can stone a women to death if she dishonors her family.DPunch4 said:Completely sexist, if you want everything to be equal then hitting women should mean nothing.
What is wrong is violence in the first place! If you hit anyone it's not good.
However if you think that women deserve special treatment, I'm hearing you say "get back in the kitchen". Chivalry is sexist, however being kind and courteous to a girl you like is just common sense in my mind. Giving special treatment to anyone of your choice is fine, it has nothing to do with sexism.
(?)-I honestly don't know the correct terminology here, sorry(also not attacking Islam here, christians burned witches on the stake remember).
My point is, if women want equality it has to work both ways, or it wont work at all.