Is it sexist to imply women can't defend themselves?

[Rascolnikova]

I've seen this come up in a variety of threads here, and I was wondering what everyone thought. While I'd like to be clear exactly what sort of chivalry I'm in favor of (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1355519&postcount=4), I do think that presently, women are less able to defend themselves than men. This isn't entirely biological*, and I'm not sure that matters; effectively a difference is created.

My feeling is that the sexism of it depends on the context and manner in which it is implied. The problem is, often"men's empowerment"' types come along and say, "you can have equality or you can have us protect you, pick one." This is an infuriating false dichotomy; equality would mean equal safety for all. It fundamentally denies human beings the right to physical safety. Caving to this absurdity by pretending self-defense equality exists is not called for.



*From my own experience in jujitsu, for instance, it was clear that there's a cultural trend towards guys informally learning to fight on their own, and the opposite of this for women. On a wider level, who wouldn't, effectively, be "less able" to defend themselves with something as major as patriarchy to defend themselves against?

[brigadista]

why would women be less able to defend themselves ? the only reason is socialisation

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes, it is sexist to imply that women cannot defend themselves.

But you are also correct that denying women protection on this basis is short-sighted and abusive in it's own right.

The only reasonable outlook is that all people can defend themselves, and that one should help defend anyone who appeared in need while also taking into account one's own personal safety as well as the situational context.

- August

[Raúl Duke]

I think the implication is sexist, at least how it is usually worded or intended by sexist types in the world.

The implication makes an assumption that a woman can't defend her self in all cases.
Hell, what if she had a gun and the other didn't? What if she had knowledge in fighting in comparison to the other person? What if in the fight she had the upper hand/advantage? Etc. I think it's possible that she could.



The problem is, often"men's empowerment"' types come along and say, "you can have equality or you can have us protect you, pick one." This is an infuriating false dichotomy; equality would mean equal safety for all. It fundamentally denies human beings the right to physical safety. Caving to this absurdity by pretending self-defense equality exists is not called for.

I agree that that is a false dichotomy.

[Invincible Summer]

Not sure if this is directly related to what you're talking about, but I've noticed that there is a tendency for people to perpetuate stereotypes about women/wives being purely seen as "child-rearers" and "homemakers." I personally do not know many people who still carry these old-fashioned ideas, and the assumption that any woman who is a homemaker/at-home mother is being "oppressed" makes the hidden assumption that a woman has no will to choose/fight for what she wants to do which is also sexist, IMO. Yes, there are pressures from conservative traditionalists to stay at home and all that, but if a woman wants to live a life that is stereotyped then who's to stop her?

[Rascolnikova]

The only reasonable outlook is that all people can defend themselves

Perhaps this is where we differ. My outlook is that all people can't defend themselves (edit: or rather, that no people can), and I don't understand why it isn't way more reasonable than yours.

[Kassad]

There is nothing wrong with a word, really. It's all about the intent of a word and the reason behind the usage of the word of phrase. That's why Dave Chappelle can say 'nigger' 1,000 times and I'll still laugh, but if Carl the Klan Man says it, I'm going to be offended. The same goes for assumptions, but in this case, I can't find an intent of this phrase that isn't discriminatory. That, and the fact that my girlfriend and a significant amount of the female population could lay a decent ass kicking on my 5'8, 120 lb. ass.

In truth though, linguistical manipulation, assortment and the like is critical in society. 'Genocide' is called 'liberation.' 'Resistance' is called 'terrorism.' 'Fascist' is called 'Republican.' It's always critical that we pay attention to the way words are manipulated in society, as it is a key weapon used by the bourgeoisie elitists every day.

[Bitter Ashes]

"Go for the eyes"
The great gender equaliser

[Decolonize The Left]

Perhaps this is where we differ. My outlook is that all people can't defend themselves (edit: or rather, that no people can), and I don't understand why it isn't way more reasonable than yours.

Perhaps I'm confused, but it appears to me as though you're saying that "no people can defend themselves." If this is the case, then:

I can defend myself, and I am a person, and hence your statement is false.

- August

[Rangi]

I wouldn't want my girlfriend walking home by herself.

[Decolonize The Left]

I wouldn't want my girlfriend walking home by herself.

I wouldn't either, but this sentiment isn't due to the idea that a woman cannot defend herself, rather due to the probability of a dangerous situation.

- August

[Plagueround]

Perhaps I'm confused, but it appears to me as though you're saying that "no people can defend themselves." If this is the case, then:

I can defend myself, and I am a person, and hence your statement is false.

- August

Oh you semantic wizard you. ;)

Not all people can defend themselves. Some can. If they cannot, this is not due to gender and thus the stereotype is unjustified. It is not sexist, however, to defend someone in a situation where you perceive them as needing help.

[Decolonize The Left]

Not all people can defend themselves. Some can. If they cannot, this is not due to gender and thus the stereotype is unjustified. It is not sexist, however, to defend someone in a situation where you perceive them as needing help.

You're correct that not all people can defend themselves. For example, a person in a coma cannot defend themselves.
By saying "all people can defend themselves," we are assuming that those with physical conditions barring them from fleeing a scene, or engaging in some sort of physical combat, are counted out.

Once again, you're right all around you clever wizard you. :tt2:

- August

[Orange Juche]

I've seen this come up in a variety of threads here, and I was wondering what everyone thought. While I'd like to be clear exactly what sort of chivalry I'm in favor of (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1355519&postcount=4), I do think that presently, women are less able to defend themselves than men.

I think it depends on the context. Its a fact that, biologically speaking, men tend to be more suited for greater levels of physical feats (which is not always true, but a tendency is there and thats just how men are biologically built)... if you were to imply that, because of this, women (under certain circumstances) are less capable of defending themselves, I wouldn't say it was sexist.

You also have to consider - defend themselves in what kind of way? What is the situation?

[genstrike]

The problem is, often"men's empowerment"' types come along and say, "you can have equality or you can have us protect you, pick one."

"men's empowerment" people are idiots.

"you can have equality or you can have us protect you"... really? What are the statistics on male-on-female violence? Perhaps if men stopped raping women and beating their wives...

[jake williams]

I'm going to bullet point this.

- Women aren't at risk of violence because they're physically weak. They're at risk from violence from men because men actually do attack women. This much is obviously circumstantial - even if you want to say it's biological, the point is that when some people decide to assault others that's the problem, not physical weakness. They also attack men.

- The physical differences are almost insignificant. Being psychotic, or trained, or armed, is a lot more useful in a fight than being penised. If you really want to hurt someone, you usually can.

- I've said it in other threads, paternalism is part of the problem. A society where men are expected to "protect" women is one where men control women, and one where men are violent against women - often their intimates, the people they're entrusted with as it were. We need a society that fights patriarchy as the source of violence against women. I'm not denying the value of intermediary work, but ultimately the problem is that men are engaging in violence against women, not that women are physically weaker.

[Rangi]

So all men rape and beat women genstrike? I think you are being rather prejudiced. You won't get a warning though, as you have to be stereotypically prejudicial against a minority to get a warning.

[Plagueround]

So all men rape and beat women genstrike? I think you are being rather prejudiced. You won't get a warning though, as you have to be stereotypically prejudicial against a minority to get a warning.

Clearly, not what they meant at all.

[Mujer Libre]

So all men rape and beat women genstrike? I think you are being rather prejudiced. You won't get a warning though, as you have to be stereotypically prejudicial against a minority to get a warning.
No, people get a warning point when they actually say something prejudiced...

And if it isn't plainly obvious that male liberation is a ludicrous part of the backlash against feminism- try calling it "white liberation" and see where that ends up... But we're not here to talk about that.

[brigadista]

I wouldn't want my girlfriend walking home by herself.

I think you will find if you do some research that the people most likely to be assaulted on the street are young black men..

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Some women can defend themselves others cannot. Just like men. Although women tend to be in general weaker then men this does not mean that all women are unable to defend themselves.

Seriously watch female combat sport and then tell me women cannot defend themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z2rsJGWvG0 (turn the sound off theres elevator music in the background)

[synthesis]

Some people argue that the notion that "women need to be protected" is misogynist in that it underestimates the capacity of women to defend themselves; I would say instead that such an argument underestimates the capacity of our society to be misogynist.

[Rjevan]

It depends on the context but generally claiming that women are unable to defend themselves is sexist. The biological difference isn't that big, as jammoe said, if you want to hurt one it depends more on your attitude or weapons, so why should women be less able to defend themselves besides the fact of often being educated to avoid violence under all circumstances.

[Jazzratt]

So all men rape and beat women genstrike? I think you are being rather prejudiced. You won't get a warning though, as you have to be stereotypically prejudicial against a minority to get a warning.

lol, women are a minority now.

[Killfacer]

There was never an argument over something so vague. The question is too simple. Women can defend themselves yes, but in general are weaker than men and are (once again, in general) therefor less able to defend themselves.

[ChocolateToothpaste]

I agree with Killfacer. Most women (not all) have a smaller build. I know I couldn't defend myself against most men. It's not sexist for me to say that- I'm 4 feet 11 inches tall and have a small build, I legitimately can't defend myself against most men. This isn't to say there aren't exceptions, but in general women are smaller and have less experience with defense.

[Dr Mindbender]

lol, women are a minority now.

They are on revleft.

[Pogue]

To be honest in any fighting situation i want a fighter, dont care if its man or woman.

[brigadista]

this thread is pointless

[LavenderMenace]

[quote]lol, women are a minority now.[quote]
While women may not be a minority (and yea, i think that entire post is pretty funny), they are among the world's oppressed. Sure, things aren't as bad as they used to be - women can speak even if they haven't been spoken to, they can have jobs, they can own houses, attend college, etc. - defense isn't limited to the physical, it has just as much to do with mentally being able to defend themselves.
Apart from that let's not forget the long line of (impossible) physical attributes women are supposed to have - skinny, huge breasts, unblemished skin, smooth legs and armpits, etc. - which just cause more insecurities about their strength.

[quote]I agree with Killfacer. Most women (not all) have a smaller build. I know I couldn't defend myself against most men. It's not sexist for me to say that- I'm 4 feet 11 inches tall and have a small build, I legitimately can't defend myself against most men. This isn't to say there aren't exceptions, but in general women are smaller and have less experience with defense.[quote]
Jammoe already covered the small biological difference between men and women, which is correct. The issue isn't with build but with socialization; women have less experience with defense because it is seen in society as a man's job.

[quote]this thread is pointless[quote]
It definitely seems to be leaning towards pointless. If all we're going to talk about is physical defense, this conversation is going to continue in circles. I suppose that was the original question. I don't disagree with chivalry as long as it's coming from a place of respect rather than dominance but it's easy to feel as though one is being dominated when one has not been allowed to do things for oneself without the help of a male-bodied person.

[black magick hustla]

by the way women can inflict a lot of damage if they are taught properly how to do this. just a lil' bit of familiarity with saint newton's physical laws and you can inflict pain much more effectively than a drunken brawler. Although males have generally stronger upper bodies, females can counteract this with knowing how and where to punch.

[Killfacer]

by the way women can inflict a lot of damage if they are taught properly how to do this. just a lil' bit of familiarity with saint newton's physical laws and you can inflict pain much more effectively than a drunken brawler. Although males have generally stronger upper bodies, females can counteract this with knowing how and where to punch.

How is that relevant in the slightest? No one has ever said "trained women can't beat up drunk men".

[hammer and sickle]

Yeah its sexist in the same way saying all men can defend themselves is! :rolleyes:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Yeah its sexist in the same way saying all men can defend themselves is! :rolleyes:

No. All men cannot defend themselves the seriously disabled and those whom just cant fight spring to mind. Saying Woman cant defend themselves is sexiest because its falsely presuming women cant fight which problem stems from the old patronizing " little flower" view of women.

However saying in general men are better fighters then women due to on average a superior strength is not sexist.

[Bitter Ashes]

A picture says a thousand words dont they say?
http://scribalterror.blogs.com/scribal_terror/images/2007/05/09/sniper.jpg
Meet Lyundmila Pavilchenko. I'm sure those 309 Germans had little idea of what women are capable of either. For some reason they made a film about Vasily Zaystev's 225...

[RedAnarchist]

One of my friends in high school was (and still is) an international level kickboxer and she, at around 5 foot 4 and probably around 120lbs, could inflict far more damage on someone than I could.

[Hiero]

There are some people who can't defend themselves. Though "dfend themsevles" is too broad, but if I were to put an average woman and average man in a boxing ring I would place bets on the man.

But I don't think social policy or how to act around women should be based on that probability. It comes it's not the probability that is sexist, but when you want to limit someones behaviour on that probablity, like a father telling a daughter not to go out because a guy has the pyhsical ability to bash her then it is sexists.

So I don't think it is the though itself, but the way in wich people want to control other people's behaviour based on their sex. Because really women aren't just getting beat up on the streats that often on the basic fact they could not defend themselves against a male. I have actually seen averaged sized guys get bashed on the street/club and have no ability to defend themselves.

[TC]

This is really a ridiculous conversation, because simply put,

1. kung fu film fantasies aside, no one can, when unarmed, competently defend themselves against an armed assailant,

2. smaller people cannot competently defend themselves against significantly larger people, men tend on average to be significantly to be larger than women but size not gender is the relevant factor

3. when armed, size and thus gender are irrelevant.

From these observersations, we can conclude that 1. women, like men, can't defend themselves when facing larger assailants or armed assailants when themselves unarmed 2. women, like men, can defend themselves when armed.

Implying that women are inherently less capable of defending themselves is sexist. Arguing that the average woman is equally competent in an unarmed physical confrontation as the average man, given the significant difference in weight and muscle mass is ridiculous and implies that the person arguing it has confused themselves into thinking that socially relevant equality of capabilities entails or requires total physiological equality of capabilities on average, when clearly they do not.


For some reason they made a film about Vasily Zaystev's 225...

In fairness, a quick look at wikipedia will confirm that a number of other red army snipers killed far more fascist soldiers than either Pavilchenko or Zaystev and films haven't been made about any of them either...

[Hoxhaist]

the argument that womyn cant defend themselves is nonsense. it just comes down to how women choose to train themselves to defend themselves or not. some choose not to focus on self-defense but generally any physical fitness activity lends these womyn the fitness to defend themselves

[Bitter Ashes]

the argument that womyn cant defend themselves is nonsense. it just comes down to how women choose to train themselves to defend themselves or not. some choose not to focus on self-defense but generally any physical fitness activity lends these womyn the fitness to defend themselves
Sorry, but that spelling rings real alarm bells with me...
You're not one of those transphobic "womyn-born-womyn" believers are you? :bored:

[Hoxhaist]

oh i just shift back and forth for fun I am no chauvinist for men or women/womyn. I dont believe changing spelling is any substitute for real revolution or progress. I feel transfolks should be able make themselves feel whole if they feel their body doesnt match their feelings

[RHIZOMES]

It is sexist to say women are absolutely incapable of defending themselves. It is unscientific to say women are generally similiar in strength to men. But I think strength is totally overrated in self-defense, it's all about quickness.

[Killfacer]

It is sexist to say women are absolutely incapable of defending themselves. It is unscientific to say women are generally similiar in strength to men. But I think strength is totally overrated in self-defense, it's all about quickness.
Well men tend to be faster aswell so...

[MilitantAnarchist]

Im not sure on this one... I dont think it is sexist.... If i punched a woman in the face, is it the same as if a punched a guy in the face?
And if a woman punched a guy in the face, is that more acceptable? Of course it is, but it doesnt make it sexist, it just makes it human... Women dont need deffending and protecting because they are incapable, it is just a case of being a 'gentleman' isnt it? (gentleman not in any kind of superior way, i just meen a being decent guy)

[RHIZOMES]

Well men tend to be faster aswell so...

You're confusing running speed with reflexes here.

[Bitter Ashes]

You're confusing running speed with reflexes here.
Multitasking > all

[Nulono]

Yes, it's sexist. Any disparities you see are a social result of oppression, not an innate characteristic. Continued coddling will retard actual equality between the sexes.

[Le Libérer]

It doesn’t really matter how big you are or how strong you are, it’s what you do with what you are given. I for one was a typical tomboy and could usually win over boys in sports, until the boys passed me in physical size right after puberty. It was then I started overcompensating in those areas and winning, such as martial arts, chess, learning to shoot a gun. I've always been competitive with men, and cant really speak for other women. But I do think most women choose to do excel in other areas than what are considered to usually be things of interest for males, which would include physical fighting to defend themselves. If they were more interested in kicking a guys ass, (whether it be in defense or not) then they would learn to so.

[Spooky]

My feeling is that the sexism of it depends on the context and manner in which it is implied. The problem is, often"men's empowerment"' types come along and say, "you can have equality or you can have us protect you, pick one." This is an infuriating false dichotomy; equality would mean equal safety for all. It fundamentally denies human beings the right to physical safety. Caving to this absurdity by pretending self-defense equality exists is not called for.



*From my own experience in jujitsu, for instance, it was clear that there's a cultural trend towards guys informally learning to fight on their own, and the opposite of this for women. On a wider level, who wouldn't, effectively, be "less able" to defend themselves with something as major as patriarchy to defend themselves against?

Read Judith Butler's "Gender Trouble"... if you have the ability to understand what she is saying, it will solve your problems.

You're looking at males and females as two distinct groups with two highly distinct bodies. What about whimpy, weak males who are at greater risk in jujitsu, for example, than big, sturdy women? Clearly the male would be more in need of help.

To reroute her argument to this discussion, Butler would say that you concept of gender that you are using uses false assumptions not only about gender but also the inherent nature of sex. Both of which she says are completely fabbricated, imaginary categories.

Why not address individual's needs as individuals, without any recourse to gender or sex? Seems like the answer to me.

[Il Medico]

Yes and No. If you imply that all women are weak and need men to protect them then yes. However, if you are merely implying that most women are not as physically strong as men, then no. Why would it be sexist for me to help a woman who was being attacked by a mugger or something? We are equal, men and women, and thus whether one should protect the other is irrelevant, we should protect each other.

Yours truly,
Captain Jack