Although I have often said "Chivalry is not dead," I do not think that the chivalry system has been dominant in American society for a very long time. When studies show that the most polite city in the nation is New York, I figure we're quite some distance from the Court at Camelot.
It also occurs to me that there is a tacit assumption somewhere in both systems that women are by nature non-violent. I do not believe this. Women are, rather, not merely violent but vicious, when their interests are at stake. They do not share the male propensity for trying to be better than everyone else (which evolutionary biologists would say is much the same as male peacocks strutting their feathers and male rams butting heads to impress potential mates); but if there is a threat to their claim on their mate or a danger to their children, they can be far more violent than most men.
I believe that they are generally not violent for much the same reason that I myself am not generally violent: we have learned that this is not our strength, and that to shift the battle into the physical realm is to lose. I learned to war with words, because most of those who attacked me with fists were in a battle of wits unarmed. I told aggressors straight out that they would only look the more foolish beating up a guy who wouldn't fight back. Women know that they stand little chance of winning a brawl, and a much better chance of winning battles built around words and social maneuvering. Thus women want a system in which those weapons are permitted but physical force is not.
They would prefer, though, a system in which they are allowed to use physical force but men are not, because they can win in that situation.
Most of you are not old enough to remember when Viet Nam was the big issue in society. One aspect that was very much a part of the problem at that time was what you could call the tyranny of the weak. We had the weapons and the tactics to reduce North Viet Nam to smouldering rubble--but because we were so much stronger than they were, we were under the watchful eye of the rest of the world, who did not mind whether we won or lost as long as we did not use excessive force, defined as any weapons or abilities not available to our opponent. We could not win that war, because by definition we had to limit our own abilities to something less than our enemy.
I remember that there was a law in New York City at one time which specified that police could not use superior weapons against criminal aggressors, that if the aggressor attacked with a knife the police could not oppose with guns. It was thought that this was an appropriate concept because the rights of the police are in part based on the doctrines of self defense and defense of third persons, and in those circumstances the right to use force is limited to the force used against you. The absurdity of the law became apparent rather quickly: if the criminal was using an illegal zip gun, the police would be forced to use inferior weapons in response, and in deed even apart from that sort of example, the police would always be disadvantaged.
Yet this is what we have in the views of many women, and to some degree in the legal system we have built around it: if a woman hits a man, she is almost never convicted of anything, but if a man hits a woman, even in retaliation, he almost always is.
It surprised me some time back that Kevin Sorbo's version of Hercules as the soft-spoken non-violent powerful demigod was the ideal image of the perfect 90's man, but that somehow the violent reformed warlord Xena was the perfect 90's woman. There was a disparity there. It still exists.
--M. J. Young
Ya know, MJ I was just thinking that you said my sister hitting me for poking her in the forehead was not an overreaction on her part. What if I hit her for poking me in the forehead? Would it still not be an overreaction? I smell a Double Standard....
(Doing Therapy)
As I said earlier...there is a double standard as it ought to be. You're measuring two different things.
And probably the most violent guy I ever met, or at least the most capable of violence, flat out told me that it would be more dangerous for a burglar to break into a house with his lady since she had a kid than to break into a house with him alone.
I will consider disagreeing with one point MJ makes. In the system of chivalry there might be a buried recognition that women are capable of great viciousness, but that if given another avenue and restricted from the violent avenue they can be reliably trusted to not be violent.
This is another way of saying what MJ says, but it supposes a certain intentionality to the system for the deeper reader of the system.
Edit: Of course, I've written (and possibly published??) the Parallel Worlds of Gothika and Fantastique. Both are Steampunk. In one, Athena rules, and the world is correspondingly noble and generous even if dangerous. In the other, Ares rules, and things are rather more grim. One of the big differences is how women are treated between each world.
As I said earlier...there is a double standard as it ought to be. You're measuring two different things.
I've asked several different women; "If you hit a guy with the intention of starting a fight, would you expect to get hit back?" And believe it or not, most of them said they would. One said "Yeah, if I'm offering myself up for a fight, then I expect what's coming." Another lady friend said that she would be kind of disappointed if the guy didn't fight back. Then she wouldn't get to beat him senseless.
(Doing Therapy)
Meant to enter this yesterday, I had it all typed out and then left without hitting submit...
Not going to debate whether it's utopian or not, because we're both saying it is, I just don't think the fact that the perfect solution can't be reached invalidates the attempt to get as close to it as possible.
Humanity is tragic, that's why society has to apply rules and laws that go against aspects of humanity. Humanity itself would have us kill one another. Society stops this. Society is directly meant to stop tragedy and it's exactly where social casts falls.
Feminism and Chivalry aren't quite the polar opposites we seem to be treating them as, nor are they the only options and 100% is never possible for any, which is why they are all utopian.
As to more men being victims of domestic abuse than women, I do presentations on the topic pretty regularly as a volunteer in a group I'm in. Below is one of the statistics regarding domestic abuse in the United States.
•Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.
Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 183781, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, at iv (2000), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/183781.htm
This isn't from a feminist propaganda site or extremist group. It's research done by the US department of Justice and there are a number of reports supporting similar numbers.
The issue with an expansion of the chivalry system is how do you explain taking away rights from some women to protect them when they actively say they don't want that. Is that not in and of itself an indecent attack upon the women, and in a way violating the chivalry system itself?
In the end we're both going to believe the aspects of each that we wish, and pursue them in our lives as we wish.
Regarding this chivalry system, at least where I live, it used to be required that female police officers had to have a partner. Now that's no longer required. I asked a lady cop about that, and she said "That good ole' days are over." It sounded like she missed it. You just know that that was started by some feminist group.
As to the attack on women, we restrict people's rights all the time. We don't allow women to sell their bodies, or their organs. And in this regard, women are no different than men.
I really don't see this as a valid objection. Some people are going to object to any law. I personally object to your not giving me all your money (and I'm sure my pain at this economic loss is going to keep you up at night. :) )
And this objection mistakes the point of the chivalric system. It is NOT ONLY for the benefit of women.
I keep meaning to mention this footnote, but then I figure that everyone probably already knows it.
U-topia is (classical) Greek for "nowhere", and it is thought by many that Plato used this name very tongue-in-cheek for the location of his ideal society. I'm told that the end of his book says, "I have created the perfect society; now all I need is the perfect man to place within it." So the "Utopian" concept has always been recognized as impossible.
Because of the shift from millions to thousands that sounds highly disparate. However, 1.3M+835K=2.135 Million, and that means that the 835,000 men represent 39.11% of the total--very close to a 60/40 split, only slightly favoring women. The problem is much closer to even than the women want us to believe.•Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men....
We might also raise the issue of reporting and extrapolation. How many cases of abuse of women go unreported because they are too terrified to say anything? But then, how many cases of abuse of men go unreported because the men are too embarrassed and they do not have the wounds to show for it?
All legal and all social systems take away rights from all classes of people who do not want those rights restricted, for the benefit of others in the same or different classes. No fifteen year old wants to be told that he is too young to drive, drink, or smoke, but we create a caste and restrict them for their own good and the good of others. Very few men want to obey the speed limit, but we enforce it just the same, for their safety and the safety of others....how do you explain taking away rights from some women to protect them when they actively say they don't want that. Is that not in and of itself an indecent attack upon the women, and in a way violating the chivalry system itself?
The notion that we are "taking away rights" is itself suspect. It presumes that all people have rights, and that those rights specifically include those of a particular category being impinged by law or custom. It is evidence of "entitlement" thinking, that everyone deserives specific benefits regardless of any basis in themselves for this. We Americans assume that everyone of a particular age should have the "right to vote"; but the right to vote is not inborn--it is granted by the government to specific citizens. Convicted felons do not have the right to vote; is it unfair that we are taking away the rights of these people who have impinged the law in some way? Illegal aliens, even legal visitors, do not have the right to vote; have we trampled their rights by saying that one must be a citizen of the United States to have a voice in our government?
The distinction that should be made is not whether any group is having its rights "taken away", but whether any group is being given rights unjustly. One science fiction author (Heinlein) created a world (in Starship Troopers) in which no one had the "right to vote" other than those who were combat veterans of military service. That suggests a conception of legal rights in which each is balanced by responsibility: those who took it upon themselves to defend the Earth had the right to a voice in determining how the Earth would be governed, and no one else did. In the same way, the Chivalry system distributes rights along with responsibilities. (What it lacks, ultimately, is any means of enforcing the responsibilities; it assumes that those who have the rights are already exercising the responsibilities.) Modern systems tend to view rights as existing a priori, and to object to any impingement upon those rights completely independent of any dessert on the part of the one so impinged.
That's an important point to remember in world design: not all people consider all rights inalienable. It's actually a Baptist contribution to our thought, that government does not have the power of God.
But as Eric said, there is a double standard. Actually, and more precisely, there is a single standard that is complex enough to recognize the distinctions between individuals and between categories.
For example, the original standard for determining who could vote was education: the belief of the founding fathers was that educated persons (and only educated persons) could make intelligent well-reasoned decisions concerning who would be best at establishing government policy. At that time, in most states this meant landed gentlemen--public education was not yet prominent, and the poor, women, slaves, and certain other groups were not educated. Gradually education improved; as it did, so did the extension of the right to vote. Voting rights did not advance as quickly as education in part because those in power had a vested interest in maintaining power; but the reasons why those who did not have voting rights in the end of the eighteenth century were excluded were valid given the theory of government. It just took time for the conditions to change, and again for the system to adjust to the changes.
--M. J. Young
Ya know MJ, I just discussed this with my aunt. Yes, perhaps my sister had the right to retaliate by hitting me for poking her in the forehead. I started it, after all. The question though is, where does the retaliation stop? It was a movie I saw. The Russians accidentally launched a handful of nuclear warheads at the US. They swore up and down it was an accident (and it was). The Russian president called the American president and he said "You now have three choices. Accept the damage we have done to your country, and we will stop. If you choose to, we will allow you to target an equal number of our cities with nuclear missiles in retaliation (fair is fair, after all) Your third choice is nuclear warfare." Obviously, you're hoping the president either decides that enough is enough and doesn't shoot back, or that he limits the retaliation. Nuclear warfare is not something you're hoping for. Where does it stop?
I poke my sister. She has the same choices. Accept that I poked her in the forehead and end it, or retaliate. She could have poked me in the forehead, and we would have a good laugh over it. Maybe I escalated the situation, but where does the escalation stop? Thinking about it in terms of nuclear warfare kind of puts it into perspective. My sister could have accepted the damage I did and ended the war before it started. Responsibility goes both ways.
(Doing Therapy)
60/40 is a really staggering split, and the numbers get worse with other forms of sexual assault which is generally what is talked about. Domestic violence in general is shoved under the table. Imagine an election where someone won 60% of the votes. They are a dominent and clear winner. It's not close at all, it's 1.5x as likely strictly based on a persons gender. Unfortunately these statistics do have room for error because of lack of reporting on both sides, but there is no reason to assume that the lack of reporting is more prevalent on one side than the other.
Also, I know the chilvalry system is not intended to strictly benefit women. If they were why not allow women some say in the system and how it is formed. The chilvary system was created with little to no influence from women. Furthermore it is taking away rights in America. As a US citizen you should be able to expect the same rights as another US citizen. These then are augmented by skills and actions of the past (felons are augmented by actions of the past, illegal aliens as well (not to mention they're not US citizens), and legal visitors I imagine still get to vote in their native land if they're only visiting the US.)
What I'm trying to get at is yes, social laws restrict, but they can not be allowed to restrict on an unjust merit. What position gives someone the authority and power to tell women that they must accept this protection whether they want it or not and it will cost a certain amount. I wish I could sell items like that. Go around to people telling them they must take my product and then take their money for it, whether they want it or not.
I understand that some may not care about the reasons I speak of, and nothing I say will change anything about that, but a legalized form of the chilvalry system seems far fetched and changing society to naturally accept it is no less utopian than the feminist utopia.
John,
Glantri talked a bit about equivalencies of force...
Glantri,
I'm going to disagree that there is no reason to presuppose much more underreporting among men. My acquaintance, as I said, had a very significant role in the medical system and a lot of experience. To put it in Multiverser terms, she probably had Low Expert level skills at least. I would not be surprised if there is significant overreporting among women (see the Duke 88 Lacrosse team fake rape case).
The notion that the chivalry system was created with no influence from women is amusing. There is a reason for the common joke "I'm the head of the household, and my wife gives me permission to say this." The natural state of Man as Man is militaristic fascism. The fact that we live in a Democracy is thanks to Woman or so goes one theory.
Chivalry is not unjust. Its restrictions are quite fair and reasonable. By what right did I do my tiny little bit to kick David Duke out of the Republican Party because he was a racist scumbag? By what right do we tell people you have to pay taxes for police? By what right do business owners create a shop that caters to women, and doesn't have chainsaws and shotguns amongst the doilies and fabrics? By what right do I grasp my child by the arm, and take him out of Chuck E. Cheese's tonight when he clearly did not want to leave? People have the right to their own social arrangements, to kick out scum from their groups, and to create stores that cater to men. My child is less mature than I and so the law gives him less right to resist my commands. A woman is different than me in a number of important factors, and it seems right to be flexible and acknowledge that.
Let us make this simpler and clearer: IF women are different, then they should have differing standards. If all women were blind, then refusing to allow them to drive cars, even if they disagreed with this restriction, would be just. IF women are not different, at least in any important and relevant way, then having different standards is unjust. So what you're really contending is that women are not different from men in any relevant way.
I also think the Feminist Project is more utopian because it is not based on reality, or less so than the Chivalry System. I also think the FP requires more legal force than the CS which being a small gov't sort of person is a definite negative.
Something that I find funny. It's considered chivalrous for a man to offer his jacket to a lady. The funny thing is that, physiologically speaking, women are supposed to have a much higher tolerance for cold than men. Something about the average ratio of body fat to muscle mass or something, I don't remember. If this is right, then the chivalrous thing to do would be for the lady to give the man her coat.
(Doing Therapy)
Not the chivalrous so much as the educated, if you ask me. Presupposing that particular small difference has enough of an impact for it to matter.
First off, there is no such thing as the Duke 88 Lacrosse "fake" rape case. There is a case similar to which where there was reasonable doubt that the crime was not committed. Second, rape has the same misreporting rate as any other violent crime. (I know domestic violence was what was being talked about, but seeing as the Duke case is being used as proof it's only fair to look at the statistics for rape.) If anyone cares I could cite a multitude of government released statistics such as rate of reporting, rate of trial, and rate of imprisonment over rape cases.
Also, I really don't care about a mild experts view on a subject based on his vantage point when I'm quoting statistics from a overall view done by experts specialized in the topic. Perhaps he's treated more male patients than female. Unless he's treated hundreds of thousands of patients of domestic abuse the numbers don't form a large enough basis to make a statistical statement as to rate of occurence.
Furthermore, to state that men want military fascism... I don't even want to be associated with that mindset, and I'm a man. Perhaps men are more prone to military fascism than women but the idea of men wanting military fascism as a whole seems unlikely.
If the chivalry system was fair and just then why would women have such a large problem with it on such a significant scale? Are we operating under the concept that these women are just not rational or smart enough to realize what the men around them are doing are for their own good and they should keep quiet about it?
The question isn't if women and men are different, they are. The question is are they different enough that it matters to the subject matter. There is very little that a man can do today that a woman absolutely could not do and vice versa. The few exceptions being each sexes biological role in reproduction.
More then just being different, I believe that they are meant to be one. This entire separating of the two sexes, be it in a competing way, such as feminism or in a hierarchic or 'restricting' way, such as chivalry and patriarchal societies is not, in my eyes, the right approach.
Now inevitably I am supposed to give what I believe is the right approach. For myself I do not have the experience, nor the wisdom to give an answer of my own. Thus I will quote my guide to life, the bible. Yet many misguided explanations have come from it. I will try not to be misguided.
Corinthians 7:3-4
"Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife."
Now this is in marriage, but I think it would be logic if also outside marriage this attitude (in a lesser form, not of servant-hood but of respect) would be valid.
Each gives himself (in marriage) totally to the other, and both are leaning on nothing other then the other. There is unity in this total surrender from both sides. And if I interpret that correctly, that would be a mixture of the chivalry approach and the equal rights approach. Each have equal rights towards the other, being none at all (like the knight who would die for his beloved, simply for her word.)
But that's just a simple opinion of which I do not claim that it is faultless.
Glantri,
The '88' refers to the 88 professors who jumped ahead of the facts to condemn the innocent is what I've heard. I'm going to highly doubt that rape has the same misreporting stats as murder.
Why do women have objections to chivalry? Do you know that the conservative women's org is larger than NOW, right? Remembering from years ago, it was something like 2.3 M for CWA and 890,000 for NOW. Why do so many women have objections to feminism?
You deny that the differences are relevant. One of the key points of chivalry is that men should restrain themselves from hitting women, especially so compared to ordinary situations. Given that the Typical Guy can clobber the Typical Girl this seems reasonable. This hardly seems irrelevant.
Glantri, I'm going to take a break from this conversation.
Mike, I hope you don't feel like I'm picking on you here. I do the same to John and Eric sometimes, when I disagree with them, as I'm sure they can attest more readily than I.
It is absolutely no comfort to a man who is being abused to know that it would have been fifty percent more likely to have happened to him had he been a woman.It's not close at all, it's 1.5x as likely strictly based on a persons gender.
As to elections won by 60% against 40%, we're rather spoiled in America because our social sciences have enabled the two major parties to fight over the middle ground--to set up their alliances such that each holds well over forty percent of the voters by virtue of the fact that they would "never" vote for the opposing party no matter what, and then they fight over the centrists. It was not always so. Abraham Lincoln had less than 40% of the popular vote in the 1860 presidential election, which he won in the electoral college, despite the fact that 60% of Americans wanted someone else.
Objection, your honor: assumes facts not in evidence.The chilvary system was created with little to no influence from women.
It is difficult to know what forces and factors led to the development of the system we call Chivalry. Certainly much of it arose from the essentials of feudalism, in which the conquering general of a nation literally owned the entire country, but apportioned it to his best warriors as his caretakers in exchange for their promise to continue to support his rulership, and who in turn apportioned their portions to their own top men on the same terms. Thus men did not ever really own anything, but they held "real property" in service to the only owner, the liege. Women were unable then even to hold property on those terms, because they were unable to match men in the physical combat required. However, it is very difficult to imagine that nothing in this system arose from the demands and expectations of the women. Wives and mothers have much more influence on husbands and sons than you seem to credit, and queens have more than just the ears of kings. Granted that they did not make the rules in the same way that the king did, neither did the other men; any "rights" anyone had under that system amounted to the grace of the king in permitting his servants to act on his behalf.
I'm not a defender of chivalry as a social system; I do believe it has elements that we ought to preserve.
--M. J. Young
I didn't think you were picking on me, this is just a topic I get frustrated with a little too easily probably. I volunteer on a rape crisis hotline and do peer presentations on campus on topics of sexual assault and as such certain things set me off and I'm a bit too defensive about them. I do enjoy having what I say be questioned though, so thank you for that.
I understand that it's no concilation to male survivors of sexual assault that women are more likely targets, and I've gone through training specifically with how to talk with male survivors after the incident. This doesn't change the fact though that when talking specifically about the rate of incidence, that it's pretty far off. The only application I meant for this was that stating men were more often victims of domestic violence isn't supported by large scale stastics.
Also, quickly responding to Tadeusz's comments, but I'll only do so with statistics and direct responses as I'm not trying to prolong this, I've been trying to disengage for a few days, but as mentioned above some things just set me off when it comes to this topic.
Rape and murder have a statistically insignificant misreporting rate difference. This isn't my opinion, it's the statistics from the department of justice I believe. It might be FBI crime statistics though. I don't quite remember.
One of the main (ok, that's not a statistic, but seems reasonable) reasons for objections between conservative women and feminism is the pro-choice/pro-life debate.
I wouldn't really consider whether a person can handle themself in a fight a relevant aspect to life in todays world unless they enter a career that requires it.
Back to MJ. You're right, I was discounting the role women play through their men. My question is why does it have to be indirect? A women is bound by the power her husband climbs to as opposed to her own efforts. What I meant to say is that chilvalry was established by men (who very well could be influenced, but from my vantage point it seems the active aspect of developing the social system was done by men during a time of patriarchy), and naturally tendancy is to favor oneself.
I'm not saying the chivalry system has no good aspects to it. I believe aspects of should be preserved, but to preserve them as the chivalry system brings too much baggage.
If a man's pants are too tight, he's put on some weight. If a woman's pants are too tight, she's trying to be sexy.
If a man is in a bad mood, he's just not having a good day. If a woman is in a bad mood, it must be that time of the month.
If a woman breaks down crying, she's being normal. If a man breaks down crying, he's being a sissy. (Speaking as a man who really enjoys a good cry, I hate this one a lot)
Mike--one of the complications in this discussion has been the failure consistently to distinguish between "assault" and "sexual assault".
John poked his sister with his finger, and his sister slugged him. Technically, what John did was (legally) battery--he physically touched a person without permission. It was probably not assault, because it did not involve threat of bodily harm. What his sister did in response was assault and battery, in that she did touch him without permission and she did so intending to cause bodily harm, and communicated that intent quite effectively. That incident, though, is unreported, and not part of the statistics. The possible reasons for this failure in reporting are myriad. For one thing, John probably was not as seriously injured by his sister's assault on him as she might have been had he assaulted her; thus in the very act there is a prejudice. Additionally, it seems likely that the police would not take seriously an attack by a sister on a brother in which no one was seriously injured, and this would be a factor in John's perception of his situation. A woman who claims that a man hit her will be taken seriously even if she has no injury or bruising to prove it; a man who claims that a woman hit her will at least expect to be ridiculed for complaining that he was hit by a girl. This is in addition to those reasons which fall both ways, most notably that members of families tend to attempt to resolve such matters within the families, assume that they are loved, and suppose that they deserved whatever happened. Further, although it is more a factor for women, men who are truly harmed by physical abuse are as much afraid to say anything as women in the same circumstance, and the more so because society is considerably less likely to take their assertions seriously. Far more restraining orders are issued to women against men on far less evidence than are issued to men against women, and at least part of that is the evidence. Not so many years ago it was sufficient in New York State for a woman to make the allegation to get the restraining order, but men had a strong burden of proof to meet for the same protection.
Had the situation been reversed--had John's sister poked him and then been met with his pommeling--it is almost certain that charges would have been brought against him. The situation is inherently unequal, and it is so because men and women are inherently different and cannot be treated equally even under the law in such matters. Yet we must concern ourselves with this: should it be the act and intent that matter without regard for the gender, or should the fact that most men are superior to most women in physical combat mean that all men have a worse position in law than all women?
This ignores the factors in emotional abuse--a skill at which women might be superior, whose damages are at least as severe but much more difficult to demonstrate.
So I approve and admire your work in defense of abused women, but please do not think that this is a one-sided issue. Abused men are quite numerous, and probably more so than the statistics demonstrate.
--M. J. Young
One reason why it's under reported is that people don't always think with their brain. I had a lady friend who had an abusive boyfriend. She would throw him out, he comes over with flowers, she forgives him. She obtained and dropped 2 restraining orders against him, for similar reasons. Think with your brain. As my good friend Brandon said "John, there's over 3.5 billion women out there. Why cry over one?"
Two Posts, 20 hours later.
Just an update about the conflict with my sister. Now everyone in my family, none of whom were even there, are saying that I got into a fistfight with my sister's husband and he threw me out the door. My family is composed mostly of really messed up people. Sometimes I think I'm the only sane person in it.
I laughed at the above.
I don't volunteer just for women, in fact I'm the only one at my college that has gotten the chance and took it to go to a seminar on dealing with abused men ranging from sexual assault to domestic abuse. As such, you're right, these aren't statistics I would tell an abused male. The primary method of helping abused men is to refer them to groups that consist of abused men who share their experiences. This takes away the feeling of being alone better than anything I could say. Unfortunately that's the best I'm able to do.
As to the example of John and his sister I agree, but from a slightly different perspective. Since I do not know John nor his sister I'm going to have to make a couple of assumptions. I'm going to assume John is both taller and stronger than his sister. The context in which I see the problem is as such:
If a stronger person (John) slaps a weaker family member (John's sister) and the weaker family member proceeds to punch the stronger family member, society would not view the issue as problematic.
However, if a weaker person (John's sister) slaps a stronger family member (John) and the stronger family member proceeds to punch the weaker family member, society would move quickly to condemn the response.
I believe this states the two events fairly, but merely displays it from a different perspective. Instead of viewing the issue as being because of gender, I view it as one of strength. Yes, men tend to be stronger than women. Yes, the stronger person in this scenario has a higher responsibility. This is unfair to the stronger person, and thus men. However, there are situations in which a womens strengths put her in a position to have to take more responsibility than the man.
I can't think of a good example right now, but I'll post my example when I think of one. Or if someone else has a good one that'd be awesome.
Regarding my conflict with my sister. I would love to run into some of the old high school bullies that I knew. I could honestly tell them that my little sister hits harder than they do.
Ya know, my sister just celebrated her 31st birthday. I poked her in the forehead, and then she slugged me and spent the next 10 minutes screaming at me. And I am the aggressor? I am the one who is out of control? That's kind of immature actions for a 31 year old woman, don't you think? She just became a mother, does she really want her son to see his mommy acting like that? What kind of an example is she setting there? If her son were old enough to comprehend what happened, what did he just learn? "If someone pokes you in the forehead, you beat them up. Mommy does it, so it must be OK." How many times do you get poked in the forehead in your life and just write it off and keep going with your day? But no, my precious little sister freaks out over being poked in the forehead, and I am the one who has a problem. At least I have a legitimate, documented mental illness. What's her excuse?
I don't recall ever being poked in the forehead, actually. I've been poked between the shoulder blades, but someone was just asking for my attention.
What i want to know, John, is did you apologize and explain your were just making fun? That would have defused the situation if she was reasonable and willing to listen. I happen to have a friend that objects to playful whacks on the head with my paperback books when I think he's being stupid, which I do to all my friends. He asked me not to do that, and I've never done it to him again. Would that work with her?
I don't recall ever being poked in the forehead, actually.
So maybe you haven't been poked in the forehead, but I'm sure someone has done something equally jackass and annoying and you didn't respond by beating them up.
What i want to know, John, is did you apologize and explain your were just making fun? That would have defused the situation if she was reasonable and willing to listen.
Keywords "If she were reasonable and willing to listen."
She wasn't.
I used to worry that her husband would hit her. I couldn't really understand why until that happened. Then I remembered. And I'll tell you right now, I've changed my mind. He now has my blessing to slap her silly if she pulls something like that with him.
Two Posts
If I were retarded and poked my sister in the forehead, most people would be outraged if she beat me up. A psychotic pokes you in the forehead, you should beat him up though. If I were retarded and people made fun of her for having a retarded older brother, she would get pissed off and kill them. People make fun of her for having a psychotic older brother, she gets mad at me and tells me to act like a normal person. I can't wish myself not psychotic anymore than I could wish myself not retarded. Yes, I was being a jackass for poking my sister. I accept that. However, she can't seem to accept that she's dealing with a crazy person. I almost hope her son did get Uncle John's Curse. Maybe she will understand then.
(Doing Therapy)
I'm hard to annoy, really. I've had people do plenty of annoying things like that, but the only things that really get to me are:
1. Intelligent people acting stupid on purpose.
2. Repeating your position over and over without adding something new to the discussion (when you DON'T have a mental problem that makes you do it).
3. Messing with my friends and family when they have told you to stop.
Well, did you at least try to reason with her? You say she wouldn't listen-is that past experience talking, or just an assumption, or what?
Also, was she whacking you with intent to harm, or is that just her way of playing back? she might have just wanted to roughhouse. Bear in mind I don't really know her, so if that sounds ridiculously off-base, well, I don't know her.
Why do you refer to yourself as crazy? I thought that bothered you.
Well, did you at least try to reason with her? You say she wouldn't listen-is that past experience talking, or just an assumption, or what?
I poked her, and in the blink of an eye, she hit me. There wouldn't have been time to reason with her.
Also, was she whacking you with intent to harm, or is that just her way of playing back?
No, she was doing it with intent to cause harm. She's got a baby watching her every move, learning from her. Which one of us is supposed to be the responsible adult? The gender issue has nothing to do with this. Yes, I was being a jackass, however, she could also have accepted the fact that I am going to be a jackass and not retaliate. I tell a joke where I poke people in the forehead. You know how many times I got slugged for telling it? ZERO!!!!!!!
Why do you refer to yourself as crazy? I thought that bothered you.
It does. It's different though. You're allowed to say it about yourself, but no one else is allowed to say it about you. I'm sure we've all got things like this. You're allowed to think anything you want about yourself, but God help the person who calls you one to your face. You know what I mean? If it was anybody but myself calling myself crazy, I'd say it was a Double Standard, but under the circumstances, I'd say not.
This could be completely misremembered, and if so, I apologize, but I believe Samuel L. Jackson said "I know I'm a nigger, cuz I'll kill any mother Fer that calls me one."
Repeating your position over and over without adding something new to the discussion (when you DON'T have a mental problem that makes you do it).
Thanks for qualifying that statement. Like I keep saying, you think it's annoying? You only deal with me here. I deal with me all the time.
(Doing Therapy)
This catches my eye, because you're the one who was complaining that you would get in trouble for quoting jokes Chris Rock tells about black people.You're allowed to say it about yourself, but no one else is allowed to say it about you.
However, Brock is right on this: if you use a term to describe yourself, you lose the right to complain when others use the same word to describe you. Using it of yourself is akin to admitting that it is true and appropriate; objecting to its use is akin to asserting that it is a slanderous lie. The two attitudes are incompatible.
--M. J. Young
However, Brock is right on this: if you use a term to describe yourself, you lose the right to complain when others use the same word to describe you.
I'd like to see you say that to Samuel L. Jackson, or for that matter, any black man who calls himself a nigger. Tell him that since he calls himself that, you have the right to call him that. I want to see that happen. I'll just have a mop and bucket ready to clean your blood up off the ground when you do.
Two Posts
This catches my eye, because you're the one who was complaining that you would get in trouble for quoting jokes Chris Rock tells about black people.
There's a difference between quoting someone else and genuinely saying something yourself.
(Doing Therapy)
Three Posts
(Laughing)
If you want to call me crazy, use a metaphor. "A few screws loose" "A few fries short of a Happy Meal" I want to see who can come up with the funniest/best metaphor for it.
(Doing Therapy)
While I won't call you crazy, since it seems like everyone I know is crazy and you are rather mild in comparison, I do like a good metaphor. I'm more likely to call you weird, which I find many people find much less offensive, presupposing I wanted to call you anything.
So MJ, now that you have read my arguments above, do you still think I don't have the right to ask not to be called crazy, whilst saying it about myself?
A few years ago, I got second place in a stand up comedy contest, telling a story about how I escaped from a mental institution. It's not so much the story as how I tell it. I hope that doesn't need any further explanation. A 30 roll would be someone in the audience has a grandfather or somebody who is schizophrenic and takes great offense to the story. If I ever tell it again, I'm going to give a disclaimer. "I personally am a paranoid psychotic. If I'm not allowed to make fun of crazy people, no one is."
(Doing Therapy)
I agree that your personal experience tends to absolve you of guilt in making fun of people in the same category.
Someone I know was in the juvenile psych ward for a week or so. In one of the recreation rooms there was a desk in which there were paperclips. He linked them together in a chain and left them on the desk with a note that said, "If I'm going to escape, I'm going to need more paper clips." We thought that was hysterical. The staff of the facility thought it was very wrong. However, later when that same individual was in another care facility, we delivered some stationary supplies to him including a box of paper clips. He enjoyed the joke.
John, I do not believe that Samuel L. Jackson has the right to use a word of himself that he objects to others using of him. I also do not believe he has the right to pommel me senseless if I use it. It happens that I would not use the word of him or anyone else because I think it disrespectful, even when he uses it of himself. Your use of any particular word of yourself signals others that it is O.K. to use that word to describe you. Your objections are then inconsistent with your actions.
I saw Paul Rodriguez on stage at some comedy fundraiser along with Martin Mull, Robin Williams, and a few others. Mull was speaking immediately after Rodriguez, and commented that he (Mull) was very unfortunate not to be a member of an oppressed minority he could mock the way Rodriguez did the Hispanics. Rodriguez was looking rather embarrassed, as Williams started trying to tell the audience where Rodriguez' house was. It was all very funny, but it underscored the idea that it is really not fair for people to make fun of their own ethnic or other group and then object when others do so. The only defense that can be raised is whether the others do so in a mean-spirited or intentionally offensive way.
I suppose an example I could use here is that I have a joke for nearly every major denomination (I don't really, but I've got a lot of them covered). My jokes in essence stereotype the peculiarities of the groups, such as:
- How many Eastern Orthodox theologians does it take to change a light bulb? You mean a lamp wick, don't you?
- Then there was the Presbyterian who fell down the stairs, brushed himself off, and said, "Thank God that's over."
- The United Methodist Church was once the largest Protestant denomination in North America: nine million members no two of whom agree on any point of doctrine.
- When you've said "Independent Baptist", you've just said "Independent" twice.
Now, I noticed that in the beginning of this century the right word for blacks in America was "Negro", which many prejudiced people particularly in the south slurred to a derogatory "Nigger", which was very offensive. So there was a move to change the word, spearheaded by groups like the National Organization for the Advancement of Colored People, to "Colored". But prejudiced southerners were still able to say "Colored" in a way that was derogatory and offensive. So by the sixties, the "correct" term was "Black", but this too became offensive so it was replaced by "African American". The fact is, it's not the word but the derogation behind the word that is the objectionable part. The reason black kids today call each other "nigger" (much to their grandparents' distress) is that there's no derogation in it, so they find it humorous. Samuel Jackson is too old not to feel the derogation in the word, so he does not find it humorous. I'll bet Chris Rock does.
When I was in college, a good friend of mine tried to say something and tripped over his words, so that it came out in one of the best statements any of my friends ever made: "Hold on to your insanity, it's the only thing you've got that will keep you from going crazy." I have no trouble with people calling me insane or crazy. I'm comfortable with who I am in that regard.
If you use the word of yourself, you signal that it's all right for others to use it of you. If you do not want others to use it of you, you need to find a way to communicate that whenever you use it of yourself. What Samuel Jackson says about knowing he is a nigger because he will pommel anyone who calls him that is funny, and it communicates the fact that he considers the word derogatory and expects that you will not refer to him by it. I doubt you will hear him use the word of himself in any other context.
--M. J. Young
Major Religions
Buddhism "Shit Happens."
Christian "If shit happens, it's God's will."
Catholicism "If shit happens, I deserve it."
Islam "If shit happens, take hostages"
Baptist "Shit won't happen if I pray hard enough."
Hindu "That's sacred shit."
Rastafarianism "Let's smoke some of that shit."
On the other point, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
(Doing Therapy)
That's a rather uneducated view of Islam. There aren't nearly as many people of that religion which do as you say as there are that would never. I hope you didn't mean it. Terrorism is not the norm in any major religious group. As for the others, They seem all right, though I'm not sure of a few of them. Except the Buddhism one, which is a pretty good one.