GameBanshee Forums

Of couse I would!
I'm believe in equal rights so if a women has the right to attack me I have the right to defend myself.
This I'm sure sounds strange coming from a hippy. PEACE

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I don't understand what you mean with "not fair to object" in the quote above, since it only contains a statement of my own opinion and a question to Denethorn. If you feel that I have objected unfairly to something a person have not said, please demonstrate where I have done so and I will edit this.[/QUOTE]
Ok no problem then, it just seemed to me you were arguing against his expressed disgust at violence towards women in general by pointing out that violence towards the disabled and children in general is probably even more repulsive by asking that question.

"Well violence against women is just horrible as a whole."
"Yes but I find violence against the disabled and children is much worse because they can't defend themselves to the extent the typical woman can, don't you agree?"

This is just what I heard when I read that post... Using topics that have not been addressed to refute (to an extent) the topic at hand. If the question was truly legitimate for curiosity's sake then I withdraw my objection.

*Notices all the scientifical numbers and theories being tossed around and ducks for cover*

[QUOTE=Denethorn]Apologies then, if we are to be scientifically precise. I have stated I don't wish to get into an debate about the semantics of the word 'instinct'. You clearly have the general idea of what I am trying to say. Which is what matters.
[/QUOTE]

To accuse an argument of being about semantics is to state that it has nothing to do with meaning, and everything to do with words. Yet there is a great difference between stating that something is a matter of instinct (nature) or training (nurture). The difference is between white and black, night and day--two things that are far apart, and not a matter of semantics at all. This also applies to the difference between "belief" and "scientific fact." We are really dealing with opposites. Consider:

Let's say I maintain that Italian teens driving very fast and recklessly is a matter of nature, "instinct," something in the genetic code. You maintain that they drive fast because of cultural training, nurture. These are two very different views.

The same applies to scientific fact and belief. For example, Fiona says to you that the Pentacostal faith is the only truth, and that this is a matter of scientific fact. You say it is a matter of belief--and you are correct, because if it is scientific fact, then there will be scientifically evaluated evidence backing up this contention. If there isn't, it is simply a belief--someone's opinion.

To argue that men have it in their DNA code to protect women--that's the instinct/nature argument--is your belief. On the other hand, there is plenty of scientific evidence collected from many studies showing that this is a matter of nurture/cultural training, and that is not a belief, but a fact.

Magrus wrote:I personally don't have any issues with gender in regards to the situation. However, I was simply curious as to what others think, given the negative reactions I have gotten from friends when the discussion came up and I voiced my opinion IRL. However, yes, so long as the offender is opposite the target, violently attacking the target and the target cannot get away or reason with the target, I couldn't care less what is visualized. Entering into it other conditions might prove interesting though, I know certain people who wouldn't hurt a white woman, but would gleefully attack a black woman.

That's the impression I got, and I don't view your example situation as neither unlikely nor too simplified to answer, since exactly the situation you pose has been known to happen.

I think it is interesting how this kind of question can conjure up the most amazing prejudices and beliefs based on ideas people have about gender, age, skin colour or other human characteristics.

Also, I find it intriguing that all 3 women who have voted on my poll have voted "Yes", and all 4 of those who voted "No'' are male.

This is probably because the question of defending yourself physically against an attacker of the opposite sex does not conjure up any demands for behaviour that goes against gender stereotypes in females, but it does in males. According to traditional Western gender role stereotypes, it is socially acceptable for a woman to defend herself against a man but not for man to defend himself against a woman, since women according to this stereotype are passive, non-violent and non-aggressive unless maybe in self-defense, mild and peaceful creatures. As is often the case with cultural norms, people holding those stereotypes like to defend the stereotypes with beliefs that they are "natural", "genetic/heritable", "set by god" or in other way determined and difficult or impossible or generally bad to change.

Denethorn] Apologies then wrote:
It's not only scientific precision, it's also the standard definition of the word which you will find in any theusaurus. The best way to avoid discussions getting stuck in semantics is, in my opinion, to use standard definitions of words rather than inventing new, subjective meanings to them. Since you wrote...:

I have had limited physical abuse from females, but in those cases I was drunk or in a rage myself and probably warranted it. While you have experiance in being abused by your mother, I have experiance in seeing my mother abused. Can you see how this will generate two different instincts?

...it is of yet not clear to me whether you mean "instinct" in the correct manner, or if you mean it as just a general behaviour pattern that could as well be socioculturally learned. The former would mean that you hold a belief that is factually incorrect, the latter would mean that you use a term in an incorrect manner. It makes a difference to the discussion which of the two it is.

Of which I am sure I'd be able to find material supporting my view. Hence the nature of science, research and discovery in general.

Please provide us with said material. Being subjectively sure that you can find something, and refer to the "nature" of something, is not equal to actually finding it. I could say I am sure I will find unicorns because such is the nature of the universe in general. But this is a non-sensical statement since it's only in my head.

Perhaps my comments were poorly formed. I do not expect anyone to tell their attacker to receive therapy. My point was that I would perceive it as pointless to aggressively retaliate (which goes back to another source of confusion in this thread ) against the attacker. My comments where that these sorts of people require therapy, not equal violent treatment - from their victims or outside intervention. Apologies for not making myself more clear.

Ok, so self-defense is one thing and revenge is another thing. This I agree with. So would you agree that all victims of violent offenders has equal right to defend themselves and that all violent offenders mean needs therapy rather than retaliation?

Enough to validate my comments in this thread, otherwise I would not have made them. My body of knowledge is extrapolated from my own personal observations, not scientific papers which I myself find less valuable.

But you realise that your body of knowledge, which is limited to your own personal observations, cannot then be generalised to anything else than your own personal sphere? Scientific results are meant to be generalisable, thus they use specific methods to exclude personal and subjective biases. In investigations of nature-nurture questions for instance, you always control for sociocultural influence. This can obviously not be done in personal observations interpreted by only yourself. On the other hand, results valid for group level cannot necessarily predict the single individual. Again though, one has to be aware of these basic differences and not believe that personal experiences can be generalised outside oneself. Thus, when discussing your personal beliefs based on your personal experience and personal feelings, you should avoid referring to "men" and "women" in general, and instead refer to "women I have met" or "men I know". Your previous posts give me the impression that you falsly believe you can generalise your subjective feelings to other people, which perhaps you do not mean at all and thus it is best to clarify this.

Tony] Ok no problem then wrote:
No problem Tony, just a misunderstanding...the question was meant exactly as it was formulated, no more no less. As you can see in my post above, I asked the question because I did not understand what Denethorn meant (and I still don't!)

[QUOTE=Magelord648]Of couse I would!
I'm believe in equal rights so if a women has the right to attack me I have the right to defend myself.
This I'm sure sounds strange coming from a hippy. PEACE[/QUOTE]

Not at all, most pacificist are not so extreme so they wouldn't defend themselves or or defend a helpless victim if absolutely necessary. Only the most extreme would rather watch a baby get killed by a violent parent than try to save it. Most non-violence ideologies allow for emergency defense (and then I mean real self-defense, not the proactive "let's go hit them because we believe they may hit us in the future"-type).

As far as I know, hippie views are associated not only with non-violence but also with gender equality and rejection of traditional gender role stereotypes, so your views seems to fit perfectly into the hippie ideology.

[QUOTE=Magelord648]This I'm sure sounds strange coming from a hippy. PEACE[/QUOTE]

Hmm, my personal experiences with hippy's have been that a number of the new generation of them are simply looking for an excuse to get high, sleep with anyone who will let them, and not work. Not that I'm saying that is your reason for doing so...however, there happens to be one that stole $900 from me, slept with his best friends girlfriend because he wanted to prove he could, mooched off everyone he knew, attempted to steal a canoe in order to cross from the South shore of Lake Ontario to the North shore of Lake Ontario in order to smuggle drugs over from Canada to the US, and generally uses and lies to anyone he meets. However, he is a pacifist now, as he's a hippy. Also he verbally abuses anyone who isn't vegan.

However, that hasn't been my experience with all hippie's and I do recall the night I ended up sharing with a female hippy. We worked a deal out for her to have a place to stay for the night before taking off on her travels, which...probably isn't appropriate for this place. However, that came after she ended up slugging a drunken fool who was all over her and wouldn't take no as a response to his advances. Given my experiences with hippie's at the time, I was shocked the girl hit him, and mentioned so after I asked her if she was ok. She shrugged and said "I walk all over the country, and hitch-hike too. It has paid off to learn how to defend myself. The work I've picked up randomly along the way paid off making me stronger than I look too!" and then she laughed. She had a good point though, it makes perfect sense for a pretty young lady who travels by herself most of the time to be willing and able to protect herself.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I think it is interesting how this kind of question can conjure up the most amazing prejudices and beliefs based on ideas people have about gender, age, skin colour or other human characteristics.
[/QUOTE]

*nods* Actually the question was tossed at me in a sarcastic tone by my best friend last fall when I had this discussion with her "Would you hit an old lady if she came after you too? " I said "Yes, I would. Why wouldn't I defend myself?" She got pissed again. Chances are the old lady wouldn't be able to do more than annoy me without a weapon, but I wouldn't let her do so regardless. If some 70 year old woman came at me with a knife, I wouldn't at all hesitate, nor a child as a matter of fact. I had to be physically restrained from retaliating against the child that broke a pool cue over my head and chipped a piece of my skull in doing so. If the girl was old enough to be be breaking wooden objects over the head of someone twice her age, frankly, she was old enough to learn the consequences of her actions.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]This is probably because the question of defending yourself physically against an attacker of the opposite sex does not conjure up any demands for behaviour that goes against gender stereotypes in females, but it does in males. According to traditional Western gender role stereotypes, it is socially acceptable for a woman to defend herself against a man but not for man to defend himself against a woman, since women according to this stereotype are passive, non-violent and non-aggressive unless maybe in self-defense, mild and peaceful creatures. As is often the case with cultural norms, people holding those stereotypes like to defend the stereotypes with beliefs that they are "natural", "genetic/heritable", "set by god" or in other way determined and difficult or impossible or generally bad to change.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. However, I have found it to be common among the women and girls I have met, at least the ones who have grown up wealthy to expect to be defended by men. To the point, a number of the girls in my school used to pick fights with people with the boy they wanted to end up dating nearby, in an attempt to draw out that stereotypical reaction of getting him to defend her and inspire a protective feeling for the girl. I always chuckled the when the boys ignored them as they got dropped by the person they had hit too. I mean...really, that is a disturbing way to find a boyfriend.

Magrus wrote:Hmm, my personal experiences with hippy's have been that a number of the new generation of them are simply looking for an excuse to get high, sleep with anyone who will let them, and not work.

The only personal experience I have with hippies, is some of my friends parents who used to be hippies back in the late 1960's and 1970's. Free love and relatively liberal drug-attitudes were common, but all of the people I know were uni students - in Sweden the hippie movement was an intellectual and political movement.

*nods* Actually the question was tossed at me in a sarcastic tone by my best friend last fall when I had this discussion with her "Would you hit an old lady if she came after you too? " I said "Yes, I would. Why wouldn't I defend myself?" She got pissed again. Chances are the old lady wouldn't be able to do more than annoy me without a weapon, but I wouldn't let her do so regardless. If some 70 year old woman came at me with a knife, I wouldn't at all hesitate, nor a child as a matter of fact.

Old people and children can be dangeous if they are crazy enough even if they are physically weak. A friend of mine was assaulted by one of these infamous street-orphan gangs in Rio - he was beaten all over and didn't even have his clothes left when they were finished. The attack took merely a couple of minutes, and he described to me later he didn't really defend himself because he couldn't overcome his resistence to hit a child.

One of the strangest attacks I've ever experienced, albeit not a serious one, was when I was about 21-22 and was standing at a bus stop on my way to school. I had recently had a big knee surgery due to a climbing accident, so I had one leg immobilised in a plastic device that kept the knee in an approximately 150 degree angle, which meant the foot did not reach the ground. I skipped on one leg with crutches, with a large visible bandage on the injured leg. I was standing looking in another direction when suddenly an old lady attacked me, screaming that I was standing in her way (she was obviously not healthy since there was about 5 meters of pavement for her to walk around me. It should also be noted that I am 5'2 and at the time I weighted about 44 kgs, less than 100 lbs, so I hardly looked like a threat to anyone). She almost pushed me over and tried to take on of my crutches. I was very grateful that the guy was not a traditionalist sexist!

Yeah. However, I have found it to be common among the women and girls I have met, at least the ones who have grown up wealthy to expect to be defended by men. To the point, a number of the girls in my school used to pick fights with people with the boy they wanted to end up dating nearby, in an attempt to draw out that stereotypical reaction of getting him to defend her and inspire a protective feeling for the girl. I always chuckled the when the boys ignored them as they got dropped by the person they had hit too. I mean...really, that is a disturbing way to find a boyfriend.

Everything you tell me about the environment you grew up in sounds like a nightmare in various respect. What's wrong with the people around you? The particular experiences with girls in your school must be due to the far more traditional gender roles you have in the US compared to Scandinavia. Sure, if you get attacked you hope that anyone will help defending you, Teenagers can be immensly ridiculous but honestly I've never heard of such a ridiculous and unsympathetic way to find a boyfriend. However, I take it that a boy and a girl who find each other by this method of selection deserve each other in their liking for prejudiced behaviours.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Everything you tell me about the environment you grew up in sounds like a nightmare in various respect. What's wrong with the people around you? The particular experiences with girls in your school must be due to the far more traditional gender roles you have in the US compared to Scandinavia. Sure, if you get attacked you hope that anyone will help defending you, Teenagers can be immensly ridiculous but honestly I've never heard of such a ridiculous and unsympathetic way to find a boyfriend. However, I take it that a boy and a girl who find each other by this method of selection deserve each other in their liking for prejudiced behaviours.[/QUOTE]
This isn't actually that uncommon in the States. I was witness to this several times in middle school and high school with girls doing this.

I suspect it's cultural. I would never go so far as to say any example of social behavior in a US school was "typical," because the nation is too damned large to fit any convenient categories. Inner cities, basic urban, rural, South Florida suburbs, states that spend a good deal on schools, those that spend next to nothing, Roman Catholic schools, private secular schools, schools in Minnesota and Texas, California and South Carolina: too much variety in behavior patterns.

Edit.