GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=frogus23]If 'defending' means smething like what Magrus is describing (taking physical revenge on those who have crossed your female), then I think this is barbaric, and a bad idea. Once again it is irrelevnt that it is a female involved, nobody is worth revenging.[/QUOTE]

Well, perhaps. Given that the boy had been harrassing her constantly, with the stress of the person who had raped her calling her house, knocking on her door, waiting for her after school, etc had really upset her I stood up for her when he showed up to harrass her again in public. He has no fear of the police, and that's common here. If the law isn't working to protect people, someone has to. After my display, she's never heard, nor seen from him since.

I'm not a person to needlessly become violent. I avoid it when I can unless there's no other decent option to fix a problem. However, if a situation comes up where becoming violent will protect myself, or others and no other option is ready at the time and reasonable, I won't hesistate to do so.

If that makes me barbaric, so be it. I've seen methods people propose as a better way to do things fail miserably and have people get hurt regardless. Maybe the area I live in is different from other places. Kids aren't afraid to stop fighting the person they are attacking and go after the police that come to stop the fight. If I see someone attacking my friend, calling the police and waiting 20 minutes for them to get there won't help them from being harmed any further. If I knock down and restrain the person, that person is unable to harm others and someone else can call the police and we can wait. Standing idly saying "oh, gee I hope everything works out" won't keep anyone safe in that instance. If in harming someone else, who is already causing harm will prevent a greater harm from occuring I'd say thats a good trade.

Not only that, knowing some people will start a fight, win, walk away and come back again, and again, and again until they are put down and stopped changes things from a simple scuffle and a few bruises. Take for example, my ex that got raped because the guy who did so hated me enough to rape my girlfriend. The guy did so repeatedly in order to get to me. Not an isolated incident where I could simply comfort her and help her get over it. He had to be stopped. Granted, I did my best to console and comfort her, but I scared him off to prevent more damage being done.

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]Edit- Re: Fable

While I agree with what you are saying, a question came to mind: if the basis of the "protective instinct" is cultural, how can one explain the trans-cultural existence of this instinct? What I mean is that the phenomenon of men protecting (or dominating) women is not limited just to one culture or region, and so does that undermine the idea that this phenomenon is a completely learned phenomenon.[/QUOTE]

First, an important semantic point: it is not an instinct if it's cultural.

As for the second part, I see no evidence that this "need of the male to protect the female" is transcultural. It's in South America because the Europeans who colonized the place brought their culture with them. If it's in portions of Africa, it's there like the pith helmet and khaki shorts, because it was brought by colonizing powers. Japanese samurai women are trained in the use of their swords, and have traditionally committed sepuku just as their male counterparts, despite lacking the upper body strength to wield blades in battle as efficiently.

If you go back more than 200 years, roughly speaking, this whole idea of men protecting women in Anglo-Saxon culture tends to vanish. It was largely a Victorian import, based on misinterpretation of the so-called School of Chivalry practiced by the Provencal nobility in the early Renaissance. Who, outside their courtly rituals, were a pretty smarmy bunch of goodtimers who knew how to party, to judge by their surviving bawdy tales.

Are you deliberately conflating "protecting" with "dominating?" That sounds to my ears a little too close to feminism, if I read you correctly. I don't think women need protecting, but I'm not about to conclude that somebody who does is automatically guilty either consciously or unconsciously of dominating women in the process. Protection doesn't equal domination.

[QUOTE=winter rose]<snip>
C Elegans and fable --- Personally I think it would be very offensive to think that a guy who likes protecting his better half is seen as a disappointment.I think that a protective nature only proves he cares a lot.
<snip>
[/quote]
Not really. I could just as well be a sense of pride for himself, and/or what his "friends" would think if he didn't act as the sterotypical male protector.
You wouldn't know if it was because he cared for you, or for himself. You wouldn't know if he was just a violent person who didn't want anybody to cross him.
Being prone to jumping in on some insignificant thing as "verbal abuse" makes me question the persons self-restraint and temper.

I question this whole concept and wether it in fact is genetically: the nature of man/woman or wether it infact isn't simply what the "media" has told us via movies about damsel in distress, tired to the railroad while a bearded man is grinning, and the hero in white hat comes riding to the rescue.

Much like "women on some level wants their man to protect them" .... or other such old sterotypes. I know I'd never want to have any serious relationship with somebody that insecure. Women are as capable as men when it comes to practically everything (although they still can't seem to play decent football , soccer to the US-people).

(Of course, there is a difference between being physical attacked and verbally attacked, or many other situations - and thus differnetiations has to be made, but this is generally speaking.....)


[QUOTE=winter rose]<snip>
I understand that a person who is very protective will protect all people regardless of gender, but even that person will be more protective towards his/her significant other.At least thats how I am.[/QUOTE]

That is very simple, it is because it is the person who is closed emotionally to you at the moment. It is the same pattern often seen with parents and their children as well. Children become the most importent person in their life, and thus they'll do anything to protect them.
It is naturally you'll want to protect people that are closest to you emotional, family, close friends, spouse, children etc, compared to some stranger. But it isn't gender specific for all of us. I'd help out my male friends just as much as I would the female friends. It is decency, it isn't "protecting" the "weaker" damsel in distress.

If you were single, would you want any "man" to step in to help you - or do you want any "person" to step in and help you?

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Yes. In general, maybe because I'm a shrink and because I hate unclear communication, I always ask people around why they are doing things, what they are thinking, how they value things, etc, etc. [/QUOTE]

Like you said before We all have individual response patterns and opinions. So in other words, just because you are a shrink does not mean people will change or rethink to suit your whims/wishes.People are all different - not all of them will want to tell you how they feel or what they are thinking.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]If we expect other people to read our minds and "understand by themselves" what they should do and not do, then we must be prepared to be very disappointed. [/QUOTE]

Actually I disagree. Depending on how well people know us- and Im assuming family/friends and significant other know us pretty well , they should be able to understand us (most times) without us having to spell everything out to them.Something must be told clearly - others shouldnt have to be.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]However, my friend is not really in conflict, he is too cynical for that. You are still in conflict - so you must realise that if you don't ask, you don't give anyone a fair chance to try. Which also means, you cannot be sad, disappointed or angry if the other person does not do what you wished them to do, but didn't say. [/QUOTE]

I realize that if I dont ask it might be unfair -but I am only being myself.I will never change for another person - I will only change for myself. And again I have the right to be sad, disappointed and angry if the other person is unable to understand - because I love them and they love me back. This whole expectations issues- I would only expect from those I love.Again some things I shouldnt have to ask for- they should know me well enough to know.Those who are close enough to me.

winter rose wrote: So in other words, just because you are a shrink does not mean people will change or rethink to suit your whims/wishes.People are all different - not all of them will want to tell you how they feel or what they are thinking.

I never suggested people would be more prone to tell me their thoughts because I am a shrink, I suggested I might be more interested in what people think because I am a shrink. I people don't want to tell me their opinions and motivations for their actions, I will simply not be interested in interacting with them.

Actually I disagree. Depending on how well people know us- and Im assuming family/friends and significant other know us pretty well , they should be able to understand us (most times) without us having to spell everything out to them.Something must be told clearly - others shouldnt have to be.

Your are of course entitled to hold any opinions you like. Personally I strongly dislike when people make assumptions rather than communicate openly. .

I realize that if I dont ask it might be unfair -but I am only being myself. I will never change for another person - I will only change for myself. And again I have the right to be sad, disappointed and angry if the other person is unable to understand - because I love them and they love me back. This whole expectations issues- I would only expect from those I love.

So even if you realise you are unfair towards others, you would not be interested in trying to change yourself? I am think I am unfair, I always strive to change because we human beings are in constant development, we are not static.

In any case, you choose your beliefs and attitudes, but I would be interested in an explanation why you think loving and thought reading are connected. If I understand you correctly, you meant that you have the right to have negative feelings towards people you love because they have not understood something you haven't told them because since you love each other they should understand without you saying anything? If this indeed is what you mean, why on earth do think people should understand you just because they love you?

frogus23 --- good for you.Btw no its not about revenge.Its when your gf or friend who is in the middle of the situation and you take their side instead of ignoring it or letting it go or letting her take it without your support.And I would say depending on how you think - as far as Im concenred we all men and women need to be defended at some point or another.

Xandax -- I was referring to the men in my own life and situations.I know them, and I know they defend me because they love me. I know them and I understand them- so there is no doubt in my mind - I know they are doing it for me not because of their own pride or what not.

If I were single - I would want and expect those who are close to me to help out as opposed to a stranger.I would expect my loved ones to be around.Thats just how I think.I wasnt talking about genders, although that IS how it started off.

Fable - protecting those who are smaller or weaker - would be instinct as opposed to culture.A simple example- why humans and animals will do everything to protect the young.This is not about just men doing the protecting it is about people who care about each other - defending to make sure their friends dont get hurt.Those we love - we are not taught culturally to protect or defend -we just "know".

[QUOTE=C Elegans] I never suggested people would be more prone to tell me their thoughts because I am a shrink, I suggested I might be more interested in what people think because I am a shrink. I people don't want to tell me their opinions and motivations for their actions, I will simply not be interested in interacting with them. [/QUOTE]

I know.Thats what I meant.But again not all people are too interested in those who wish to know all so to speak. Goes both ways I guess.


[QUOTE=C Elegans]Your are of course entitled to hold any opinions you like. Personally I strongly dislike when people make assumptions rather than communicate openly. . [/QUOTE]

Its not assumptions. When we're close enough to people, yes we communicate openly - which is why at one point they will know what to do without being told.I think its what happens when people get close.


[QUOTE=C Elegans]So even if you realise you are unfair towards others, you would not be interested in trying to change yourself? I am think I am unfair, I always strive to change because we human beings are in constant development, we are not static. [/QUOTE]

I believe in compromise. I believe in change.For myself - not for others.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]In any case, you choose your beliefs and attitudes, but I would be interested in an explanation why you think loving and thought reading are connected. [/QUOTE]

I believe loving and understanding are connected. Yes you misunderstood the second part.But anyhow leave it, I dont see a point in discussing that.

winter rose wrote:But again not all people are too interested in those who wish to know all so to speak. Goes both ways I guess.

Yep, it's the perfect mismatch, so those two groups of people probably stay away from each other spontaneously.

Its not assumptions. When we're close enough to people, yes we communicate openly - which is why at one point they will know what to do without being told.I think its what happens when people get close.

This would only work if you and your life were static. Being close does not mean being able to predict. You change constantly, the other person too, and the world around you. What situations you are in will change, and thus the issues connected to them. It is unrealistic to expect that previous information from previous situations would apply to all possible new situations. Thus, situations where other people (or even you yourself) cannot predict what you will want and need, are going to happen.

[QUOTE=winter rose]Fable - protecting those who are smaller or weaker - would be instinct as opposed to culture.A simple example- why humans and animals will do everything to protect the young.This is not about just men doing the protecting it is about people who care about each other - defending to make sure their friends dont get hurt.Those we love - we are not taught culturally to protect or defend -we just "know".[/QUOTE]

But instinct to protect the young is not identical with any supposed instinct to protect those smaller and weaker in a community. Some so-called primitive communities, for example, have been known to encourage the elderly--who fit the definition of smaller and weaker--to sacrifice themselves, either wandering off to die, or in special rituals designed for that purpose. Women of childbearing age in some ancient cultures were protected, but that was a matter of cultural policy: the future of the tribe's existence depended upon it. But once menopause occurred, the women were not the ones that were given priority. So, nurture, rather than nature.

[QUOTE=winter rose]C Elegans and fable --- Personally I think it would be very offensive to think that a guy who likes protecting his better half is seen as a disappointment.I think that a protective nature only proves he cares a lot. I mean I know some guys who will not raise an eyebrow and let their other half fend for herself...even though at times she could use his help.While other guys jump in when she might have been doing just fine.I suppose that there has to be a boundary - doing enough vs. over doing it.But its such a fine line, that it is often messed up.
[/QUOTE]

If he thinks of his SO as his "better half," than I would suggest he has problems in facing reality. And as for protecting her, I would suggest that such a one-sided relationship, where one partner does the protecting and the other is protected, is stifling, and leads to two-dimensional behaviorial patterns with longterm psycholological consequences. A relationship is an exchange in which each partner provides strengths to the world that make up for lacks in the other partner; but between themselves, partners exchange what they both have: warmth, respect, love, lust, security, protectiveness, esteem. If I was unable to accept my wife's assistance when an asthma attack renders me temporarily unable to move across a room without turning blue in the face, I'd be a stone statue of a man. If she could not face down a fool in her own consultancy department without relying upon a man for support, she'd do better to get a spinal graft than impersonate a human being.

Now, if what you mean in the final sentence is simply where one spouse is doing a lot of physical taskwork and the other ignores them, then yes: I think, in general, that should be corrected. But it holds true whether the one doing the work is female, or male.

I've been in a relationship before where I worked it out with my girlfriend that we would simply split any confrontations that came up. I'd deal with fights with guys, and she'd deal with girls. Arguments we took care of ourselves and in our own way. This was back when I was in school and younger though. It worked out fairly decent, the both of us always got in trouble because we didn't bother to watch what we said to people who decided to insult us.

Realistically, any situation where I consider a friend, or my girlfriend to be in "danger" I'll help them. That is to say, being at risk of harm. Insults, I'll let them handle. I have only one friend whom I stick up for with insults because of how reserved she is. She'd never stick up for herself and it's caused problems in the past. She appreciates it, and she'll get my attention if she wants me to stand up for her, or if she wants me to back down. I don't have a problem with it, as on the rare occasions I need to, I've viewed it as a healthy release for my frustrations to scare someone off.

On the other hand, I teach my friends to stick up for themselves too if they are in a situation they are able to do so. I taught my little sister to defend herself when she started school, in an appropriate manner and it came in handy one day for her. I taught one of my ex girlfriends to stand up for herself and she ended up going from a frightened, shy young woman dependant on others to being completely independant and outgoing now.

Some people simply are not taught what others are, and in some cases, are forced into a mindset which teaches them NOT to defend themselves, in any manner, violent or not. While helping those I care about to realize they can defend themselves, I've made it a point to help them do so until they are ready to do it on their own.

fable and ce--- er I dont think you quite understood what Ive said.But anyhow thanks for all the feedback.

Magrus-- yeah I got the idea you and I have a similar thought pattern.

[QUOTE=winter rose]fable and ce--- er I dont think you quite understood what Ive said.But anyhow thanks for all the feedback.
[/QUOTE]

Winter Rose, I'm sorry I don't understand where you're coming from. Could you explain a bit further? I'd really like to know.

Im sorry if I came off rude.

Its not so much that I wanted to know how people felt about being defended or protected.I guess I was thinking more in terms of being defended or protected by those who we know well and those who are cose to us.I mean if people who are very close to us (significant others) when these people defend us- we know why they do it.We understand them, and know it is not because they are "men" and think women need protecting.Its because they care about us and will not stand us being hurt.

And again initially I wanted to know how the men AND women felt about protecting each other.Not just how people felt about just the MEN protecting the women.I guess my fault for jumping between two different topics.

Well, personally I feel very warm and secure knowing that I've got a mate who will always be there when I need physical, emotional or intellectual support. I'd go the same distance for her, and I have. I can't say that either of us has had to defend the other from physical violence, but that doesn't mean we haven't had to "take charge" in situations where one or the other was ailing and incapable of doing so. I think this all counts as protecting one another, though I might prefer the term nurturing. Protecting sounds defensive, whereas nurturing has an active, creative side that implies growth and enthusiasm. But I think I see where you're coming from, now.

Thats what I meant.Thank you.That sounds very lovely btw.

[QUOTE=winter rose]I guess I was thinking more in terms of being defended or protected by those who we know well and those who are cose to us.I mean if people who are very close to us (significant others) when these people defend us- we know why they do it.We understand them, and know it is not because they are "men" and think women need protecting.Its because they care about us and will not stand us being hurt.
[/QUOTE]

Ok, I think I understand your question. Personally, if I was in a situation where I needed to be protected/defended, I would prefer not to be protected by my SO/friends/family, since they are at greater risk for overreaction and acting irrational due to emotional engagement and lack of training. If I could choose, I would prefer being protected by police/physician/any type of professional suitable for the situation. However, if no suitable professional was available and I was in danger of bodily harm, I would like anyone present to save me from harm since I obviously don't want to get abused or killed.

A few replies

Re: CE

I think that our disagreements in this discussion highlight a basic difference in the way we look a the world respectively- I am comfortable talking about stereotypes and making generalizations, whereas you are not. This is a tricky statement to explain (so please lend me a kind ear). What I experience is, for me, reality. I personally believe that reality is different for every individual person (Subjectivity, sophism, relativity, realism, practicality- call it what you like). IMO, it seems like you are more eager to base your statements on a scientific or objective approach. I don't think either of us is wrong. However, it does seem like we have conversations that are similar to the following:

Me: "Generally, most women like chocolate and girly movies"
You: "That's not true- your culture is telling you this"
Me: "Yes, but it is true in my culture, and maybe even in other cultures"
You: "It's not necessarily true in my culture or in any other, so stop generalizing!"

This is a parody, but I am curious to know whether you agree or not. I speak a lot of about subjective reality- change, perception, trends, etc. You speak about science more often- observations, objective truths, etc. In the V-Day thread I was going a little overboard because V-Day is always a disaster for me.

Re: Fable, "the Instinct"

I don't mean to confuse dominating and protecting women... but sometimes the line is blurry... I really couldn't come up with a better way to distinguish, so I threw both out there.

I think there is evidence of men protecting women in other cultures, but maybe it is just men dominating women. In the Far East, Africa, and Europe women had significantly fewer human rights for most of history. Your suggestion that protection is a Victorian addition is a very intriguing idea that I had never considered. But what about midieval poetry and literature that depicts knights protecting damsels, etc.?

My questions stem from a basic belief that men and women are, due to their biology, different. In the past, these difference have been exploited to keep women from being equal with men, socially speaking. I don't think the sexes should be differentiated socially. However, if men and women are different, doesn't this mean that there may be things that men are inclined to and women are not, and vice versa?

RE: WR

I am in a great spot in my relationship. I love the idea of protecting my girlfriend, but I also love to take her out to dinner . I think she feels the same way to me- she just loves to make me happy, and she does it so unconditionally that it never ceases to amaze me. I think this desire to proect has has more to do with love than anything else.

On the other hand, I hate it when guys abuse women, especially by getting physical. It is one of the few things that makes me lose my temper almost immediately. That is definately cultural- I was taught (conditioned CE? ) from the time I was a little boy that hitting a woman is wrong, no matter what. Furthermore, I was taught that if another man hits a woman, I should stop it.

Cuchulain82 wrote: What I experience is, for me, reality. I personally believe that reality is different for every individual person (Subjectivity, sophism, relativity, realism, practicality- call it what you like). IMO, it seems like you are more eager to base your statements on a scientific or objective approach.

Nah, this is not science, this is just my personal values. I strive for an inclusive way of expressing myself rather than speaking about my personal experience as if they were general.

Me: "Generally, most women like chocolate and girly movies"
You: "That's not true- your culture is telling you this"
Me: "Yes, but it is true in my culture, and maybe even in other cultures"
You: "It's not necessarily true in my culture or in any other, so stop generalizing!"

My critisism is strictly limited to your not specifying that you are talking about your subjective experience. When you say "Generally, most women..." you could be talking about "most women out of 3 billion" which is the world's population of women. If you specified your statement to include only what you now explain you are indeed referring to, ie "Generally, most women in my culture" or "most women I have come in contact with" I would not critisise the statement a bit. I am sure you see the difference between the statement "Generally, most gypsies are thieves" and the statement "I have met 12 gypsies in my life, and out of them 10 were thieves". I simply think it is an incorrect to say "most gypsies are thieves" if we have not collected sufficient data to draw conclusion on the entire population of gypsies. It's all about specifying the circumstances your statements are valid for.

My questions stem from a basic belief that men and women are, due to their biology, different.

Men and women are biologically different. The interesting question IMO is: what do these differences mean? The biological differences mean a lot less for behaviour than many people believe, and this can be seen easily: if genetic and biology determines a behaviour, then sociocultural factors do no change the behaviour. Men has a penis, women has a uterus. Almost all men have a penis regardless of which culture we study, or which point in time we study. The penis does not change cross-culturally. However, men's "protective behaviour" of women is not consistent over culture and time. Similar patterns exist in some cultures at some points in time, but not all. Because our genome has not changed for let's say 100 000 years, genetically determined phenomena does not change either over 100 000 years. It's is genetically determined that homo sapiens has two legs and two arms. This does not change unless you change the genes coding for body plan (which can be done with radiation, for instance). If gender roles were genetically determined, they would not change either.

Except for a few autosomal dominant diseases like Huntington's disease, we know virtually nothing about how the genes we were born with (our genotype) interacts with the environment to produce behaviour (phenotype output). What we do know however, is that although the human genome has less variation in the species than a single family of mountain gorillas, our individual differences in behaviour vary more than for any other species we know of. Very little genetic variation - a lot of behavioural variation = a lot of the differences must be caused by non-genetic factors.

I was taught (conditioned CE? ) from the time I was a little boy that hitting a woman is wrong, no matter what. Furthermore, I was taught that if another man hits a woman, I should stop it.

Not necessarily conditioned, you could have learned by model learning Seriously though, were you not taught to intervene if an adult hits a child or an elderly, or if one large and strong man hits another smaller and physically weaker man?

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Not necessarily conditioned, you could have learned by model learning Seriously though, were you not taught to intervene if an adult hits a child or an elderly, or if one large and strong man hits another smaller and physically weaker man?[/QUOTE]
You know that my treatment of a man hitting a woman has nothing to do with my treatment of man hitting man or man hitting anyone else... but even though you were joking, I probably was conditioned and learned from a model- my Dad . He's a strong person and he believes in doing what is right. When I was younger he taught me to stand up for what I believed in, to do what is right, and to stop any guy who was hitting a woman. He also left me the legacy of being completely blind to race/sex/creed, with sense of humor, and a significant lack of tact- a tough combination here at GB!