swansont Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 I'll give you another example. In Taekwondo -- and other martial-arts -- female instructors are allowed to make physical contact with kids of both genders. Male instructors are only allowed to make physical contact with boys. If a male instructors does make physical contact with a girl, then society will falsely-accuse him of "sexual harassment". Don't you think this is illogical? Can you point me to the actual laws that say this?
Green Xenon Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) You have not yet talked about if females are allowed to punish girls in a physical manner. And if they are, if they are allowed to do the same without having any fear of punishment themselves. Sadly yes, women are allowed to physically-punish girls in many non-western cultures, I thought I already discussed this in the previous thread. Not only are women allowed to corporally-punish girls. In many non-western cultures -- such as Africa -- women have a free pass to sexually-torture little girls. This is very common in Southeastern Africa. A gang of women will randomly approach a young pre-adolescent girl and then remove her clitoris -- very nasty procedure. These evil female pedophiles claim that a clitoridectomy will keep the girl "modest". Again, this is done only by women and all witnessing the procedure are women. Males of any age are not allowed to even remotely be involved in this practice. Sadly, this means that males are not allowed to rescue the poor little girl from those nasty perverted women. This also goes to show that, in terms of child abuse, same-gender molestation is just as prevalent -- if not more common than -- opposite-gender molestation Can you point me to the actual laws that say this? The laws maybe gender-neutral in some parts of the world. However, the society isn't. Society still wants males of all ages to avoid physical contact with girl-children as much as possible. It's not the legal system that's at fault. It's the societal system. This pro-girl sexism that I've been describing dates back 1,000s of years. As humans formed a society, they made irrational rules. This is one of them. Also true is that non-western cultures are *far* more intense in their anti-boy sexism than the west. My ancestors are from India but I still admit western cultures are far more gender-neutral [in terms of childcare] than non-western cultures. That is why I respect the west. In addition, the further back you go in the history of human cultures, the more intense the anti-boy sexism. Equally important, is that the poorer the area you are in, the more intense the pro-girl sexism. So the modern upper-class western cultures [such as Diamond Bar of Southern California in USA] have the least intense anti-boy sexism, while the primitive impoverished tribes of Southeastern Africa have the most intense anti-boy sexism. This pro-girl sexism is one entity that separates the humans' society from non-human societies. Non-human societies -- depending of the species -- may or may not treat adult females better than adult males, however, none of them force their males to treat the girl-children better than the boy-children. This pro-girl sexism is not innate, natural, or instinctive. It's a product of society. At heart, no one wants to perpetrate pro-girl sexism. However, in order to maintain social standing, they are forced to. Here is how pro-girl sexism started: It most likely started more than thousands of years ago with a small gang of strong men [the only male homo-sapien humans existing at the time] who decided that they would treat girls better than boys. The gang singled out male individuals and forced them to follow and enforce this rule -- they left the females alone. These male individuals joined the gang and -- out of extreme fear -- began following and enforcing the gang's pro-girl, anti-boy rules. More and more male individuals began joining this gang -- out fear for their own safety -- and submitting to their oppressive anti-boy regime. This is how the anti-boy, pro-girl gang got bigger. Members of this gang began teaching their boy-children -- likely through extreme corporal punishments -- to follow these sexist rules and pass these rules onto the next generation of children. Fathers who didn't teach their boy-children to follow this sexism were singled out by the gang [which was now big enough to be considered a society] and horrifyingly mistreated along with their helpless sons. This is my theory as to why anti-boy sexism exists. It exists for the same reason many other irrational, un-natural societal norms exists -- they are followed and enforced out of fear of facing social condemnation. This historical gang of humans I describe pretty much had similar rules of most of today's street gangs. If they want you, they force you to join, and if you try to leave, they torture and kill you. If they see you and don't want you, they torture and kill you regardless of your actions. Edited July 19, 2011 by Green Xenon
CharonY Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) So far I do not see any evidence for your assertions. I.e. that there is a anti-boy sexism. (I really have a hard time to see how it is anti-boy when only females are allowed to torture females). Let me ask you something. Let us say girls are more protected from harm. Therefore they are not allowed to interact with society outside the immediate family. Is that pro-girl or anti-girl sexism in your eyes? Edited July 19, 2011 by CharonY
Green Xenon Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) So far I do not see any evidence for your assertions. I.e. that there is a anti-boy sexism. (I really have a hard time to see how it is anti-boy when only females are allowed to torture females). The anti-boy sexism I'm referring it is usually limited to society forcing *males* of all ages to treat girl-children better than boy-children in a public place. Females in general tend not to be forced by society to treat one gender of children better than the other -- in public or private. However, in cases of African clitoridectomy [obviously perpetrated only by females] there is anti-boy sexism because so many males [in all age groups] are falsely-accused -- by society -- of somehow being involved in the practice and/or interfering with female-only activities, these men/boys are then tortured to death. Males are *not* allowed to rescue girls from these evil women, however, if a male doesn't rescue the girl, he is socially-condemned for *allowing* the abuse to take place. If he *does* rescue the girl, he is socially-condemned for *interfering* with female-only activities. Either way, the males don't win and suffer the same fate -- it's a Catch-22 situation. So there you go, this female-to-female violence never gets it actual perpetrator punished but instead society conveniently blames it on any male who happens to be around the area where such abuse was taking place. That's how it *is* anti-boy sexism. Let me ask you something. Let us say girls are more protected from harm. Therefore they are not allowed to interact with society outside the immediate family. Is that pro-girl or anti-girl sexism in your eyes? Pro-girl definitely. I'd rather be a physically-healthy uneducated individual who spends time at home being taken care of by the men of society, than someone who is forced from the time of conception to be strong, macho, pain-tolerant, dirt-tolerant, and independent. Girls often experience the former, while boys usually experience the latter. Of course, as a girl, I'd face other challenges but those would be from women and other girls. Clitoridectomy is only one example of the heinous abuses girls face from women and other girls. As a boy, I'd fear mistreatment from both genders [e.g. macho adult men, adolescent male bullies, and young girls -- girls can be very nasty during their growth spurts when aged 10 to 13. This is the age range in which girls are usually stronger, bigger, more aggressive, and more mischievous than boys of the same age]. As a girl, I'd fear mistreatment only from other stronger females. If a male of any age mistreats a girl, he is viciously-condemned by society. Being a girl is no bed of roses, however, it is preferable to the horrors of boyhood. Edited July 19, 2011 by Green Xenon
imatfaal Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Green-X - which society are you referring to? (I apologize if you have already specified and I missed it) It seems that you are generalizing western society - with respect, that is nonsensical. My country, the UK, is fairly homogeneous for a large state - but typifications such as "girls are treated better than boys" are impossible at a society wide level; even more so countries like the US which have vastly different communities (rural v urban, religious v secular etc) that hold little in common with each other.
Green Xenon Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Green-X - which society are you referring to? (I apologize if you have already specified and I missed it) It seems that you are generalizing western society - with respect, that is nonsensical. My country, the UK, is fairly homogeneous for a large state - but typifications such as "girls are treated better than boys" are impossible at a society wide level; even more so countries like the US which have vastly different communities (rural v urban, religious v secular etc) that hold little in common with each other. UK and US are both western. Russia, India, China, Japan, Middle East, and Africa are "non western". The native "Indian" cultures of the Americas are also "non western". Latino cultures are also "non western". Pro-girl sexism is the mildest in modern, western, upper-class, hi-tech cultures of USA. Pro-girl sexism is the most intense in primitive, impoverished, native cultures of southeastern Africa [no racism intended].
swansont Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Pro-girl definitely. I'd rather be a physically-healthy uneducated individual who spends time at home being taken care of by the men of society, than someone who is forced from the time of conception to be strong, macho, pain-tolerant, dirt-tolerant, and independent. Girls often experience the former, while boys usually experience the latter. OK, then. This certainly explains some things.
Ringer Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Sadly yes, women are allowed to physically-punish girls in many non-western cultures, I thought I already discussed this in the previous thread. So they are not treated preferentially, just that the punishment must be done by an individual of the same sex. Just like strip searches are done in the U.S. must be done by someone of the same sex. Not only are women allowed to corporally-punish girls. In many non-western cultures -- such as Africa -- women have a free pass to sexually-torture little girls. This is very common in Southeastern Africa. A gang of women will randomly approach a young pre-adolescent girl and then remove her clitoris -- very nasty procedure. These evil female pedophiles claim that a clitoridectomy will keep the girl "modest". Again, this is done only by women and all witnessing the procedure are women. Males of any age are not allowed to even remotely be involved in this practice. Sadly, this means that males are not allowed to rescue the poor little girl from those nasty perverted women. The clitorectomy is neither sexual-torture nor is it random (not that it's not terrible). It is a societal norm in some cultures that it be done to prove virginity and it is usually done by one's own mother. It is none of the things you assume it to be except to be unbelievably horrible. This also goes to show that, in terms of child abuse, same-gender molestation is just as prevalent -- if not more common than -- opposite-gender molestation This is not molestation as I said before. So it doesn't show your assertions are right in any way. This is the last time I will ask, give sources for ANYTHING you have said.
Green Xenon Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) So they are not treated preferentially, just that the punishment must be done by an individual of the same sex. Just like strip searches are done in the U.S. must be done by someone of the same sex. Personally, I don't think pre-adolescent children should be treated in the above gender-segregate manner. I believe: 1. A male -- of any age -- should be allowed to treat a pre-adolescent girl in the same way he is allowed to treat a pre-adolescent boy of the same age as the girl. 2. A male -- of any age -- should be allowed to treat a pre-adolescent girl in the same way a female -- of his age -- is allowed to treat her. 3. A male -- of any age -- should be allowed to treat a pre-adolescent girl in the same way a female -- of his age -- is allowed to treat a pre-adolescent boy of the same age as the girl. Fair is fair. Edited July 19, 2011 by Green Xenon
Ringer Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 That's not what you have been asserting. How about you addressing everyone's call for evidence as well and not ignore the majority of my post.
losfomot Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Society strongly enforces this pro-girl sexism despite scientific proof that the average girl is no more weak, innocent, well-behaved, delicate, vulnerable, or sensitive than the average boy of the same age. As far as mentally or emotionally, you may be right. But physically, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Are there studies showing that the average 10 year old girl is as physically strong as a 10 year old boy? Where is this 'scientific proof'? You believe that the way we treat women differently is proper for adults, but not for children... when do you think the boys are going to learn this? Do you think that if they grow up learning to treat girls the same as boys (and seeing adults treat them the same) they will suddenly change their ways at the magic age of 13.. or 18... or 25? Of course not. If you are brought up to learn that girls are treated and should be treated the same as boys, then you will become an adult that believes that women should be treated the same as men. Pro-girl definitely. I'd rather be a physically-healthy uneducated individual who spends time at home being taken care of by the men of society, than someone who is forced from the time of conception to be strong, macho, pain-tolerant, dirt-tolerant, and independent. Girls often experience the former, while boys usually experience the latter.. I do not believe the average individual would agree with your choice. Especially after some life experience.
Green Xenon Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) As far as mentally or emotionally, you may be right. But physically, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Are there studies showing that the average 10 year old girl is as physically strong as a 10 year old boy? Where is this 'scientific proof'? At the age of 10, most girls are stronger than boys because girls physically-develop faster than boys. You believe that the way we treat women differently is proper for adults, but not for children... when do you think the boys are going to learn this? Do you think that if they grow up learning to treat girls the same as boys (and seeing adults treat them the same) they will suddenly change their ways at the magic age of 13.. or 18... or 25? Of course not. That is why I suggested in a previous post that boy-children should be taught to treat adult women [18 or above] differently from adult men -- from the time a boy is old enough to learn. However, boys should never be taught to treat girl-children differently from other boy-children. This can cause a boy to develop a passionate hatred for girl-children and the society that supports them. If you are brought up to learn that girls are treated and should be treated the same as boys, then you will become an adult that believes that women should be treated the same as men. Absolutely not. There is a difference between an adult woman and a girl-child. Teach little boys to treat adult women differently from adult men but don't dare risk teaching a boy to treat girls differently from other boys. The former is rational and fair. The latter is sickening and cold-hearted. The latter is just begging the boy to grow up with a hazardous dislike for girl-children. Edited July 20, 2011 by Green Xenon
losfomot Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 At the age of 10, most girls are stronger than boys Are you quoting a fact? You are saying that, at the age of 10, on average, girls are stronger than boys? Do you have references for this or is this just your personal opinion, formed: because girls physically-develop faster than boys.
Green Xenon Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Are you quoting a fact? You are saying that, at the age of 10, on average, girls are stronger than boys? It's fact. So to be fair, a girl shouldn't hit a boy even if he hits first because she can damage him more than he can damage her. Just like a man shouldn't hit a woman even if she hits first. I believe that differential-treatment should be provided based on the age, behavior, strengths, weaknesses, abilities, and disabilities of the person -- gender may or may not be a factor depending on the age of the concerned persons. For example if an much older kid and a much younger kid get into a fight, I'd be more sympathetic to the younger child -- even if the younger one instigated, this is because the older child is not only stronger but has a better understanding of right vs. wrong. Reasonable discrimination is good.
imatfaal Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Green-X; I dont think it is a fact, I think it is a prerequisite for your argument that you have chosen to assume rather than research. I have spent barely 10 minutes on the internet and found the track and field records of the american amateur athletics union. For your ready reference they are here below http://image.aausports.org/sports/athletics/results/nationalrecordsjogamesboys.pdf http://image.aausports.org/sports/athletics/results/nationalrecordsjogamesgirls.pdf From a quick and non-scientific glance I could not find any examples where girls records were faster/longer/higher than boys; this requires some explaining if your claim is to be true!
CharonY Posted July 20, 2011 Posted July 20, 2011 Pro-girl definitely. I'd rather be a physically-healthy uneducated individual who spends time at home being taken care of by the men of society, than someone who is forced from the time of conception to be strong, macho, pain-tolerant, dirt-tolerant, and independent. Girls often experience the former, while boys usually experience the latter. Thank you. This puts your posts into a certain context. I do not think I have anything to add to the discussion at this point. Except maybe to advise you to look up actual data and recheck your own opinion before using them as facts. For instance in this study by Sardinha et al (PEDIATRICS Vol. 122 No. 3September 1, 2008 pp. e728 -e736 ) most measures would place boys and girls at age 9-10 equally with boys slightly stronger in certain bone measurements, for example. What you may confuse is that the onset for puberty is earlier in females and the maturation process is faster.
Ringer Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 No I'm pretty sure he is just confusing reality with ideology.
Athena Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 The thread wasn't changed, it was split off since two different discussions were going on. This thread is about the claim that girls are treated preferentially. The rape thread is linked at the top of the first post, in the mod note. Okay, but what happened to discussion of rape? It looks maybe both discussions came to an end? The nice thing about science is it doesn't stimulate the feelings than other human subjects can stimulate. If we observe male dominate chips and female dominate bonobo, we see rape is more likely in the male dominated culture of primates.
swansont Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 Okay, but what happened to discussion of rape? It looks maybe both discussions came to an end? The nice thing about science is it doesn't stimulate the feelings than other human subjects can stimulate. If we observe male dominate chips and female dominate bonobo, we see rape is more likely in the male dominated culture of primates. It's in the other thread. Please continue your discussion of there. If you have more points to raise, by all means do so.
Green Xenon Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 I maybe male. However, as a feminist, I prefer matriarchy over patriarchy. This is because the former tends to treat children in a genderless manner, while the latter usually forces the males of all ages to treat girls better than boys and perpetrates this discrimination bases solely on the gender of the children. Most non-western cultures are patriarchal, which is why their pro-girl sexisms are so much more intense than that of western cultures.
JohnB Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Girls are often "treated better" than boys simply because women are more important to survival than men. This probably goes back to the very early times, pre paleolithic. A tribe with 30 women and 5 men can produce 30 new tribespersons per year, provided food is available, however a tribe with 30 men and 5 women could only produce 5. Having the women survive a disaster with only a few males ensures the survival of the tribe, whereas having the males survive with only a few females does not. Put very bluntly, for every new tribemember next year a tribe requires one woman, it does not require one man per new tribesperson. Ergo, females are more important to survival than males. For a modern version of this, read John Wyndhams "Day of the Triffids". In a world struck blind those trying to rebuild could support a number of women who could not see because they would have babies that would, the same could not be said for men who could not see. 1
Green Xenon Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Girls are often "treated better" than boys simply because women are more important to survival than men. If that's the case, then why is it only the *males* who are forced -- by societal norms -- to treat girls better than boys? Why are females not mandated to treat girls better than boys? For example, I have a female friend from Guatemala. Her mom favors her brothers over her and her sister and has perpetrated this anti-girl sexism ever since my friend was born. Why? Remember this is a case of a *woman* discriminating against girls and giving boys preferential treatment. Women are allowed to treat children in a genderless manner. Women are also allowed to treat boys better than girls. However, men are forced to always treat girls better than boys. Why? If girls are more important to survival than boys, shouldn't women also treat girls better than boys, like the men do?
JohnB Posted July 27, 2011 Posted July 27, 2011 I take your point. However notice I said "often" and not "always". I think the general "survival" thing is a holdover from previous times. The forces that formed it are no longer prevelent in todays societies and so it is attenuating, basically behaviour like organisms, evolves. A second point to consider is that the "survival reflex" (if I can call it that) doesn't require that all women treat girls better than boys, simply that most do. In a similar fashion. The survival of of a herd gazelles in a lion hunting area doesn't require that all gazelles be faster than the lions, simply that most are. It sucks for individuals who aren't part of the "most", but that is nature. It is worth noting that the only culture (AFAIK) that didn't follow the general path were the Tasmanian Aborigines. They viewed their women poorly and were quite happy to trade or sell them to whoever came along, whether it was whites or the mainland tribes. They are now gone. While some do blame whites for this, it is worthwhile to note that on the archaeological evidence it is highly likely that if Tasmania hadn't been discovered until now, it would have been found to be a land empty of humans. History shows quite plainly that societies that don't generally value their women over their men fail, all modern societies are evolved from those who did.
CharonY Posted July 27, 2011 Posted July 27, 2011 Actually in many societies (although it also depends on the specific subgroup) females are treated as expendable. For instance many inheritance law only allowed the sons to inherit properties. Thus, females were groomed to become brides to someone else at best. Under certain combinations, as e.g. the one-child policy in China in conjunction with the preference for males, sometimes female babies are simply killed (if not aborted earlier, depending on level of health care, I presume).
Green Xenon Posted July 27, 2011 Posted July 27, 2011 Under certain combinations, as e.g. the one-child policy in China in conjunction with the preference for males, sometimes female babies are simply killed (if not aborted earlier, depending on level of health care, I presume). Speaking of China... ... Girl-babies are aborted/killed by *women* only. More importantly, here is why girls are removed. In China -- as in most of the world -- men are not allowed to make their daughters work in the fields and do other labor-intensive tasks because society expects men to protect their daughters. However, if a man has a son, the man can work the boy to death and no one will care. Because men are forced to provide this preferential treatment to daughters over sons, the family sees the girl as a waste of time, energy, space, and money. At least, boys maybe forced to work hard and provide for the family, girls will simply take in resources are drain the family empty. This is another example of males being forced by society to treat girls better than boys. As a result, the women of the family realize this and would prefer a boy over a girl.
Recommended Posts