The real problem with sexism

[barbzilla]

I had a female friend who was "discussing" equality in battle with me at a bar when a fight broke out, telling me how women are just as capable fighters are men. A short hour later a fight broke out in the bar (the fight had nothing to do with us, and was unlikely to effect us at all) and her first reaction is to hide behind me.

Now I have no problems with a woman hiding behind me, but it makes her previous point seem invalid. If someone is going to have a conviction, they need to stand behind it. This is similar to someone harping on recycling and the fact that not enough people recycle their plastics that end up in landfills, then five minutes later you see them throw their soda bottle into a trash can. It is hypocrisy and you know it.

Why? Was she saying that she herself wanted to fight on the front lines, or felt that she could? Just because she wants women to be given the same opportunity to, doesn't mean that she wants it for herself.

Her statement was that women were just as capable in combat as men. Given that at that point neither of us had any combat training or experience we should be equally able to defend ourselves (from her statement), yet she hides behind me because I am a man. We weren't that different size wise, so you can't go with the usual statement that men are larger and therefor better suited to combat.

I understand why she did it, I am not a dunce, but by her doing it she shows the hypocrisy inherent in such statements. I think we need to embrace our differences and get over this whole rigid equality thing. I think we should be treated as equals, I don't think we should ignore our own personal strengths and weaknesses. I think women would make better snipers as they are more limber and tend to be smaller, this means they can get themselves into tighter places and stay there for longer periods. Meanwhile in a fist fight men are better suited due to size and strength differences. This doesn't mean there aren't exceptions to the rule, but that is kind of the point isn't it? Some people are better suited to other jobs, stop making generalizations on both sides of the fence.

Edit quick aside, I'm sending you a PM about your job, if you get a chance check it out.

I really don't see the hypocrisy. All men are not built equal, nor are all women. I think in general, women and men should be pretty equally able to defend themselves to the best of their ability, but that doesn't mean everyone is equally brave or capable of doing that.

Um... I agree? That is pretty much what I said, with the exception that making broad generalized statements and then not following through on them is hypocrisy. They are saying one thing and doing another, which is the very essence of hypocrisy.

I do agree though that we need to embrace our individual strengths. We aren't built equally, and we should try to make it out to be as such. In reference to combat, women should study things along the lines of jujitsu and tai-chi if they want to compete with brute force. Anything that allows them to counteract that force using agility and fluid movements, meanwhile a big burly guy might be better off with Muay Thai boxing to do as much damage as quickly as possible. They don't have to conform to those roles, I am just saying they can be equally effective.

Either way we are on the same page, sorry for any confusion.

 

[chadachada123]

So wait...who is being sucked up by a whirlpool? Is it every single woman...or a bunch of transexual puppies? I'm confused.

OT: I'd agree with the double standards being a problem. But this topic has been done a trillion times and I imagine that most people are just...tired of it. I wish you luck in finding a decent discussion of it.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Um... I agree? That is pretty much what I said, with the exception that making broad generalized statements and then not following through on them is hypocrisy. They are saying one thing and doing another, which is the very essence of hypocrisy.

I do agree though that we need to embrace our individual strengths. We aren't built equally, and we should try to make it out to be as such. In reference to combat, women should study things along the lines of jujitsu and tai-chi if they want to compete with brute force. Anything that allows them to counteract that force using agility and fluid movements, meanwhile a big burly guy might be better off with Muay Thai boxing to do as much damage as quickly as possible. They don't have to conform to those roles, I am just saying they can be equally effective.

Either way we are on the same page, sorry for any confusion.

Oh, gotcha, thanks for the clarification. Also, tai chi is awesome.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

snip

I have done my research, Romans had entire legions made up of women, Celts had their women fight along side with them, same goes for Vikings. As a matter of fact Vikings is where we get the term battle born, that is where a child is born during a battle. As for the every 1 woman we have 100 men passing, that is because of social stigmas and expectations. If as many women tried as men we would see much closer to equal numbers. But instead we tell women they have to wait for their knight in shining armor to rescue them, and that they are all princesses when the grow up. Society is what makes women out to be what they are, not the other way around (as proven by the celts and vikings).

I'm not going to continue the discussion on it, as it seems we both have our own views on the subject that are unlikely to change. I just wanted to go out as saying my piece. If you respond I will read it, and if there is something valid and researched I might respond, but as for now I'm done.

Pretty ironic coming from a someone who hasn't posted a shred of research or source material themselves, other than playing the "I've done my research" line (which FYI doesn't count). I'm the only one who has posted a quote sourced from wiki, and yet it is me again who is sourcing more stuff and I can't find any evidence of anything you have said so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_ancient_Rome
"There is no archaeological evidence that suggests that women constituted a significant proportion of troops even amongst the federated troops of the late empire. For the majority of its history, the Roman army was open to male recruits only, and for a greater part of that history only those classified as Roman citizens (as opposed to allies, provincials, freedmen and slaves) were eligible for military service as legionaries, though a great deal of non-citizens could join as auxiliaries, and perhaps earn citizenship in return."


Wait why am I the one having to look up YOUR sources?

I'll bother responding to YOU if you post any research, I just wanted to go out saying my piece. Though I'm actually curious what you may come up with next...the Spartans having armies entirely made of 6-year-old girls I suppose?

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

...the Spartans having armies entirely made of 6-year-old girls I suppose?

5 years old actually. And they didn't have armies made up of them. The rigorous training those 5-year old girls went through killed 90% of them. They were small elite teams given the finest armor crafted by Hephaestus himself; made from the bones of falling kings, forged in the fires of hells fury and cooled with the wailing tears of the men they rejected. Warrior goddesses one and all, they could tame the mightiest lion with their courageous gaze, and lived life on the edge of their blades. Why, they could fight 20 men without breaking a sweat, all without ruining their perfect hair. Their prestigious order was so secretive, even Leonidis didn't know only 4 of them held off another 2 million Persians on what was commonly referred to as the "cool gates". It's been speculated that they are responsible for the original myth of the 'Valkery', since they were known to swoop in, as if from the heavens, and carry off the bodies of the fallen heroes. No doubt to harvest their genes to spawn more of their bad ass sisters. It's where the inspiration for Xena came from no doubt. And that's what one might look like after the tolls of middle age start affecting their fighting skills; they tend to lose their quick step.

True story.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

...the Spartans having armies entirely made of 6-year-old girls I suppose?

5 years old actually. And they didn't have armies made up of them. The rigorous training those 5-year old girls went through killed 90% of them. They were small elite teams given the finest armor crafted by Hephaestus himself; made from the bones of falling kings, forged in the fires of hells fury and cooled with the wailing tears of the men they rejected. Warrior goddesses one and all, they could tame the mightiest lion with their courageous gaze, and lived life on the edge of their blades. Why, they could fight 20 men without breaking a sweat, all without ruining their perfect hair. Their prestigious order was so secretive, even Leonidis didn't know only 4 of them held off another 2 million Persians on what was commonly referred to as the "cool gates". It's been speculated that they are responsible for the original myth of the 'Valkery', since they were known to swoop in, as if from the heavens, and carry off the bodies of the fallen heroes. No doubt to harvest their genes to spawn more of their bad ass sisters. It's where the inspiration for Xena came from no doubt. And that's what one might look like after the tolls of middle age start affecting their fighting skills; they tend to lose their quick step.

True story.

If you came up with all that yourself then bravo, you made me laugh pretty hard especially at the "cooled with the wailing tears of the men they rejected" part XD

 

[Piorn]

Sexism Doesn't exist!
I'll keep repeating this phrase whenever someone asks me about it. I'll treat every human equally, and if other people do the same, we'll have sexism starved out of humanity in a few years.
Sounds good? Then join me!

 

[RanD00M]

As opposed to all of the fake problems we have addressed thus far in one of out many many MANY threads of this very same topic.

Couldn't you just pull a necro?

He shouldn't have as necros are actually a reportable offense.

OT: I agree with you OP. Nothing more that I can really add to it other than when I asked to do something at work and I point to someone else to do it because they are more experienced with it and sexism is called.
I work in a place that is like 80% women, so the person I point to is most likely a woman.

 

[barbzilla]

snip

I have done my research, Romans had entire legions made up of women,

"Only men could be in the Roman Army. No women. Every Roman soldier was a Roman citizen. He had to be at least 20 years old."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/romans/the_roman_army/

Bull-shit more.

Sorry, you are correct, I mispoke, women fought against the roman army and won when they went against the celts. I wasn't paying attention when I wrote that post. It will be edited to reflect as much. Sorry again.

Also calm down, I wasn't trying to bull-shit you, I just miss-stated what I was aiming at. A group of women fought against one legion, and a woman led a successful rebellion against the roman empire. I am sorry again for the mistake though.

 

[barbzilla]

snip

I have done my research, Romans had entire legions made up of women, Celts had their women fight along side with them, same goes for Vikings. As a matter of fact Vikings is where we get the term battle born, that is where a child is born during a battle. As for the every 1 woman we have 100 men passing, that is because of social stigmas and expectations. If as many women tried as men we would see much closer to equal numbers. But instead we tell women they have to wait for their knight in shining armor to rescue them, and that they are all princesses when the grow up. Society is what makes women out to be what they are, not the other way around (as proven by the celts and vikings).

I'm not going to continue the discussion on it, as it seems we both have our own views on the subject that are unlikely to change. I just wanted to go out as saying my piece. If you respond I will read it, and if there is something valid and researched I might respond, but as for now I'm done.

Pretty ironic coming from a someone who hasn't posted a shred of research or source material themselves, other than playing the "I've done my research" line (which FYI doesn't count). I'm the only one who has posted a quote sourced from wiki, and yet it is me again who is sourcing more stuff and I can't find any evidence of anything you have said so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_ancient_Rome
"There is no archaeological evidence that suggests that women constituted a significant proportion of troops even amongst the federated troops of the late empire. For the majority of its history, the Roman army was open to male recruits only, and for a greater part of that history only those classified as Roman citizens (as opposed to allies, provincials, freedmen and slaves) were eligible for military service as legionaries, though a great deal of non-citizens could join as auxiliaries, and perhaps earn citizenship in return."


Wait why am I the one having to look up YOUR sources?

I'll bother responding to YOU if you post any research, I just wanted to go out saying my piece. Though I'm actually curious what you may come up with next...the Spartans having armies entirely made of 6-year-old girls I suppose?

Yeah, as I said to the previous poster I was wrong about rome, I wasn't paying attention, that should have read women fought against a roman legion. I am actually a dunce this time, and I apologize for that. I have edited the previous post to reflect what it should have said. I do love how you jumped on my one mistake though, yet you fail to provide any hard proof on the topic at hand. Anyway this topic isn't about history lessons, I was only pointing out that historically women have fought alongside men and have done well.

I have posted outside research to someone earlier, but when people come at me with you don't know this you don't know that, and I do know. Especially about snipers. My second stepfather was a marine sniper who was paralyzed in Korea by a grenade. I have heard all the stories about his job and his training. I am well aware of what they have to do, and I am also aware that women can do this. I am sorry if this bothers you, but its the truth.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Yeah starting off your forum going career with a controversial topic probably wasn't the best idea.
Anyway the big problem as I see it is that the major champions for female equality, both female and male, fail to realize that true equality is a double edged sword. Sure it would come with some nice perks, but it would also mean not hiding behind the fact that you're female when you don't want to do something or playing the weak defenseless woman to get out of a confrontation. It also means not crying foul every time something doesn't go your way. You can't throw a hissy fit if your passed over for a job/promotion in favor of a man, because unless those in charge of making the decisions consistently chooses men over women, there's no way to prove you were passed over because you're a woman and you just have to accept that maybe the man was legitimately more qualified than you.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the the equality of woman provided, of course, that everyone involved understands what that truly means.

Oh and incidentally, welcome to the Escapist.

 

[CJMacM]

I don't know a single feminist who hides behind double standards like that, and I hate seeing that used all the time about why feminism is annoying.

 

[hazabaza1]

Hell, when I was a kid, I didn't even know there was a time where people of a different skin color were looked down on until my school decided to beat the idea into my head and call it "History."

Same thing with gender and orientation. If I hadn't had my school beating the idea into our heads as kids for the sake of History Class, we would have all grown up not knowing it had even existed at all.

Yes, because:
A) Being ignorant of the mistakes of the past is totally the best way to do things
and B) We only learn things in school and can't get information from anywhere else.

Please. Stop being so fucking naive and realise that sexism and racism would still exist even if we weren't taught about it.

 

[hazabaza1]

Hell, when I was a kid, I didn't even know there was a time where people of a different skin color were looked down on until my school decided to beat the idea into my head and call it "History."

Same thing with gender and orientation. If I hadn't had my school beating the idea into our heads as kids for the sake of History Class, we would have all grown up not knowing it had even existed at all.

Yes, because:
A) Being ignorant of the mistakes of the past is totally the best way to do things
and B) We only learn things in school and can't get information from anywhere else.

Please. Stop being so fucking naive and realise that sexism and racism would still exist even if we weren't taught about it.

Maybe it's just because I live in Canada, where you leave your door unlocked when you go to work and come home to find your house totally untouched. It's not being naive, it's just exasperation.

I'm all for educating children about the mistakes of our past, but my schools obsessed over them. Remembrance Day was a 2 month long speel about World War 1. Black History Month was brought in with fanfare but the teachers. And LGBT History month was spent... watching Degrassi... okay they dropped the ball on that one, but I digress.

Maybe we would benefit by toning down the obsession. When it comes to Racism and Sexism in today's society, we're not under attack by a thousand dragons. We're just being dive bombed by two Nazgul. You don't need a nuke to take them out.

I guess that we had different kinds of educations.
Over here in England we spent a term each on the Nazis and the Suffragettes, with Martin Luther King being sprinkled into history and PSHE (Personal, social, health education) lessons so there was never a massive amount of obsession.

I still stand by saying that people can and will be racist and sexist no matter how they could be educated. Though, this may come from growing up in London for my early youth where anyone slightly brown was "paki".
Didn't even know Pakistan was a place until I was like, 13.

 

[Something Amyss]

Often the girls that I work with would ask me to get something off the top shelves for them because they are a girl and I'm a guy.

I'm sure they phrase it exactly like that.

I know for a fact

Doubt it.

that if I saw the same girl trying to get something and I said, "Let me get that for you, I'm a guy after all" she would cry sexism on me.

To be fair, that reads as ham-handedly dickish. I can see why someone would be offended. Are you really wording things this way?

Because every time I'm asked to get something down from a high shelf it's because I'm tall, not because I'm a guy.

Indeed, at 6'5" most men I know could use some assistance from me.

I am a fully grown adult but only reached 4"9 and sometimes reply on tall people and foot ladders to reach things in high places. All of the awesome things are in high places. I am really really really happy when people help me reach stuff. Especially if they are a tall Spock look-a-like. If a someone gets offended because someone offered them help, male or female, they are being rude.

But I am superior to all you tall people because I can fit in a suitcase, ahah!!

Suitcase, eh?

Wanna join me in the freakiest ventrillouqism act ever?

So, what you're really complaining about is that you don't want to have to help people people who are shorter than you reach things? So much for common courtesy, I guess.

I fail to see how this is indicative of "the real problem with sexism".

To be fair, this is the internet. Not wanting to be courteous describes 90% of the population therein.

 

[aba1]

Hell, when I was a kid, I didn't even know there was a time where people of a different skin color were looked down on until my school decided to beat the idea into my head and call it "History."

Same thing with gender and orientation. If I hadn't had my school beating the idea into our heads as kids for the sake of History Class, we would have all grown up not knowing it had even existed at all.

Yes, because:
A) Being ignorant of the mistakes of the past is totally the best way to do things
and B) We only learn things in school and can't get information from anywhere else.

Please. Stop being so fucking naive and realise that sexism and racism would still exist even if we weren't taught about it.

Maybe it's just because I live in Canada, where you leave your door unlocked when you go to work and come home to find your house totally untouched. It's not being naive, it's just exasperation.

I'm all for educating children about the mistakes of our past, but my schools obsessed over them. Remembrance Day was a 2 month long speel about World War 1. Black History Month was brought in with fanfare but the teachers. And LGBT History month was spent... watching Degrassi... okay they dropped the ball on that one, but I digress.

Maybe we would benefit by toning down the obsession. When it comes to Racism and Sexism in today's society, we're not under attack by a thousand dragons. We're just being dive bombed by two Nazgul. You don't need a nuke to take them out.

I guess that we had different kinds of educations.
Over here in England we spent a term each on the Nazis and the Suffragettes, with Martin Luther King being sprinkled into history and PSHE (Personal, social, health education) lessons so there was never a massive amount of obsession.

I still stand by saying that people can and will be racist and sexist no matter how they could be educated. Though, this may come from growing up in London for my early youth where anyone slightly brown was "paki".
Didn't even know Pakistan was a place until I was like, 13.

I am Canadian and I have been saying what Bhaalspawn was getting at for a whiles now. I have had people get actively upset at me like you are but honestly the sheer idea of judging people based on skin colour or gender etc was definitely not something that I feel I would have ever really thought of if I didn't have to sit through a jillion don't be prejudice speeches. I mean sure I get teaching it in history and what not but if kids are not having issues with prejudice why constantly enforce not doing it. By constantly seeing that people get labeled into these groupings I feel like we are teaching kids that they are naturally supposed to pair with each other this way.

People also toss around the sexist and racist label so easily too that it makes me a little uneasy. I have found myself getting nervous around people before just because it has been so enforced on me that I shouldn't be prejudice that I get nervous that I will say something remotely considered without even realizing it. This has happened to me even and since I am white straight and male, people have it enforced on them that I am automatically in the wrong or the bad guy. Hell I have had people tell me because I am white male and straight that I am not allowed to defend myself or have a opinion.

It is really easy to see how if these things came up less maybe people wouldn't be so quick to jump to use them as a reason unless it is a legitimate reason.

 

[hazabaza1]

major snip

I don't really have much to say regarding your post apart from the idea of not judging people regardless of lessons, speeches or etc.
I don't doubt this. Hell, I feel very similar.
However, this world has a lot of cunts in it. Cunts who are racist and sexist and will teach their kids to be racist and sexist cunts, and so the everlasting circle of **** continues.

 

[90sgamer]

You sure it was for that reason?

Because every time I'm asked to get something down from a high shelf it's because I'm tall, not because I'm a guy.

You too suffer from height-ism? It's such a sad state of affairs that us tall people are constantly asked to pull things from, or place things on, high shelves just because we're 'taller'.

As a short person, shut your glob hole you towering, stilt wearing, lightning rod--and get that thing off the top shelf for me.

 

[manic_depressive13]

There are plenty of women who pretend to want equality, but in reality are sexist assholes.

There are plenty of men who claim they want equality, but in actuality are sexist assholes.

Did I blow your mind?

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

There are plenty of women who pretend to want equality, but in reality are sexist assholes.

There are plenty of men who claim they want equality, but in actuality are sexist assholes.

Did I blow your mind?

Personally I don't know any men who genuinely WANT equality. They simply tend to agree with the women to make them stop harping on and on about it.