Feminism 2.0 or why you should hit women

[khall]

So girls don't really get hit. I don't mean their husbands/boyfriends/whatever don't hit them. I mean, as a little boy, violence is part of your life. If you're too bad, you'll get a spanking, or a slap, or an aggressive grab followed by being thrust into a chair or corner. If you're too good, you'll get called a teacher's pet or something and get

Comments

[anais_pf]

Hmm. Very thinky.

[khall]

<3

K.

(Also, I would like to hear Allan's perspective on this, if he has time.)

[anais_pf]

I would, too! :)

[kushielsfire]

Interesting.

Also curious and an interesting thought to me, that the rise in 'violence against women' statistics should go up; yet we can't look at it in a way that 'people hitting people' should go down. I guess the thought you had related to that was that bad people are going to hit other people, and if we can't stop them from hitting people period, we should expect there to be a rise in violence.

[khall]

Yes, but also...girls will (and are) becoming more physically violent. If you look at youtube for 'cat fight' I bet you'd find a million videos. There are girls out there who will punch you nowadays, and while they might have always been present in some capacity, I sincerely think that as an outgrowth of the (partial) success of feminism there are much more of them in 2015 than in 19 or 1815. All-female gangs are on the rise, even. As are females becoming present in the notoriously physical fields or 'boys only clubs' such as organized crime, construction, etc

[khall]

And? I think the reason girls(/women) aren't taken seriously in the business world, is because they (subconsciously) didn't make the cut. There's a reason 'women and children first' was a thing in the old days. And it hints at something. Think of a child. Let's say that child was in your way, refused to move. You know, without much effort, you can walk through that child. How seriously are you going to take any of their threats? Or any other attempt by them to exert their will? This is explains, for instance, the famous example of where a judge talks down to a female attorney, thus undermining her in front of the jury, by calling her 'hon/sweetie' comes from, I believe. She is, subconsciously akin to a child. Thus, [a woman is] only really rewarded when she's good, and only taken semi-seriously, and, also "punished" when she's 'bad' (say by disagreeing with a misanthrope.) That's what you do. To children. And pets.

K.

[khall]

The other element is "separate but equal" doesn't work. RE: protected classes. If you can't hit girls...but they're equal...they're not. To be truly equal, it has to be okay to use violence against a woman/girl, in any situation where you'd do the same to a boy/man. Or, again, our efforts need to be focused on ways to decrease violence and violent tendencies, and not concerning ourselves with who hits who. Any...policy or philosophy that doesn't deal with or acknowledge that violence is a fact of life, to some extent, is cotton-candy-coated pipe dreams. Again, I'm not saying it should be okay to hit women. I'm simply saying...'don't hit women' is part of the problem and creates it's own issues. Some of which have long term consequences for society. I don't have a definitive solution, and I don't think decreasing violence in humanity is realistic at this stage in our evolution. But at least..we can discard policies that aren't actually doing what we need them to do. Or pursue something better. That won't happen, though, until everyone

[magentametrix]

In Neal Stephenson's interesting book, Anathem, one of the hero-scholars decides to learn about fighting and reads that, regardless of how prepared one is for it, the first time one is hit, the novelty is so overwhelming that no concerted response is possible. So he tries to persuade a friend to hit him, to get it over with. Friend refuses, so he goads, prods, and pisses him off until he loses it and punches our hero. A brawl ensues and both come out of it ready to battle the bad guys

[khall]

In military science (and simulations of all kinds) troops are rated as 'green' 'regular' 'veteran' and 'elite'. The difference between green and regular troops is that regular troops have seen combat, green have not. This is a simulation structure used in pentagon/international wargames, as well as almost any strategy based wargame.

Boxing gloves work wonders for solving that. They spread the impact out wider, resulting in fewer deep tissue injuries. Also, there are boxing helmets. I doubt you would be the only lady of that age there, nowadays. The class would get you in better shape. :)

I love your brain so much.

K.

[relinquish2you]

Hum, so what I take from this is that we should enroll all children in some sort of martial arts program (in lieu of a semester or two of gym, perhaps?) so they can get familiar with the physical and psychological affects of being hit/having their space invaded

[kushielsfire]

An insightful response. Thank you for sharing!

[khall]

*smiles* I love that I have so many smart, open-minded friends. You should see the comment I made above to kushielsfire for a better explanation of some of the points I was trying to make. I have been seriously flamed for trying to explain this before, and...I love that I haven't gotten a single comment (yet anyway) that misunderstands my purpose in exploring this.

K.

[relinquish2you]

Oh how crazy! I just got home from work and could see your response to kushielsfire, whereas I couldn't see it before on my phone.

I have nothing more to add other than "nod" and "I agree with you" (specifically about the infantilizing of women).

Oh, and yes, boxing gloves are awesome.

[ahunter3]

I'm coming at this from a peculiar angle (which is, itself, sort of un-peculiar for me, I suppose

[khall]

The first four paragraphs describe me perfectly. Until, yeah, in mid-high-school I decided it wasn't working.

K.