Gender hypocrisy and that

I think there are many traditionalists who would argue that you should never hit a woman under any circumstances. Many people are uncomfortable with the issue from a 'physical strength' perspective: women shouldn't hit men, but if men hit women back then they are far more likely to injure them. And I agree with you wholeheartedly, but in terms of the real consequences of hitting a woman as opposed to discussing it theoretically, it presents an awkward issue. Though I might argue that any adult woman prepared to hit a man ought to accept the consequences.

Added to that there are still facets of social conditioning - you might be hitting a mother, you're hitting the 'weaker sex', men are supposed to be gentlemen, protectors, providers etc etc. Women are the losers in this as much as any man who would see it as reasonable to respond in kind if a woman threatened or hit him. Men definitely suffer where domestic violence against them is concerned - to the extent that it's hard to grasp what the real scale of domestic violence against men is; it's humiliating to admit that you're being beaten up by a woman.

We don't live in an equal society - whatever gave you that idea. I'm still surrounded by women who expect men to pay for them, support them, take care of them. There's still a glass ceiling and women are still paid less than men in many professions. Women are expected to work in a man's world by mens' rules. Women are prone to being too emotional. Men are frequently told to treat women equally, but at the same time, treat them with kid gloves. There's an awful lot of gender pigeon holing bias for men and women to contend with.

I completely agree with you. I have never threatened anyone or raised my hand to a single soul, but if I did I would expect the same by return.

I'm not sure I agree with your argument that if men aren't allowed to hit women back then they shouldn't have the vote or be allowed to drive. I don't think the two are so easily exchangeable - apart from anything many of the people who'll tell you you must never retaliate against a woman are men.

I realise that I'm probably not one of the people you wanted to comment on this, bearing in mind your previous thread, but I feel quite strongly about this sort of thing so thought I'd say my piece.

Gender aside, hitting another person is wrong.

I agree with Doeslittle - in fact, I am alarmed to find myself thinking that women are actually slipping backwards in the fight for equality, with many women conditioned socially to believe that men should take care of them, etc etc, as DL points out.

It also concerns me that any woman who stands up for her rights is labelled 'masculine', a 'feminist' or 'lesbian'.

We are equal in rights - but not necessarily in the way we are treated by society. I do not see why we cannot celebrate our different strengths and weaknesses - we are all different, but unless we learn to all treat each other with respect and see each other as equals without prejudice due to gender, skin colour, sexual preference or any other factor, we won't ever achieve true equality.

J x

"I'm still surrounded by women who expect men to pay for them, support them, take care of them."

Yep too many women want 'equality' yet expect the man to pick up the restaurant bill. Tis true 'we really do live in an age of the most spectacular gender hypocrisy."

I think a lot of aspects of feminism were the biggest 'own goal' in history. Because so many women demanded careers, it has driven up tax receipts and stoked asset prices to the point where staying at home to look after the home and children is no longer an option for those on average income. I'd love to stay at home to ensure my children are brought up properly rather than being 'looked after' by some GCSE reject in cheap day-care. The irony is that I can only do that as a 'single mother' and that's sadly the plan... to stay apart until the children are at school!

jude

The employment/childcare thing is a tricky one. Okay, this is how I see it. It’s been an uneven evolution. First of all you had a situation where women either weren’t supposed to work, once they had children due to the mores of their class, OR, if they had to work for extra cash as my mother did, it was pin-money wages. That made the woman financially dependent on the male. That sucks. The divorce laws tried to cater for this so that, if a husband ran off with his secretary after thirty years of marriage, the unskilled, career-less wife in her fifties, wouldn’t be left in the shit. Fair enough.

Then they tried to address the female frustration that men got to have a family and a career, but the women didn’t. This is where some problems started. Not many people would argue that the ideal way to bring up children would be to have one parent available to them when it matters. Frequently, mothers work part-time or school friendly hours to accommodate this, but again we’re talking relative pin-money. So they brought in Maternity Leave and suchlike to enable women to continue their full-time jobs and provide children. Trouble is, I don’t think the ethos behind this legislation should have meant that both parents would continue to work full-time. It was supposed to get over the ‘women are the ones who physically give birth’ problem, it was supposed to provide a choice of who did what.

In practice, however, if the mother continues her career after maternity leave, the father generally does too. That has three outcomes, in my experience. Most commonly, the full-time working mother is still the one to tailor her work-life round the kids (often due to the fact a female’s job is less well paid and therefore not deemed as important) This means she has to take time off for child sickness, school stuff, having to leave AT 5pm etc… generally not as flexible as the father is able to be at his place of work. This is not news to employers.

Second scenario is that the woman doesn’t compromise her work-life. For this, she has to hand the childcare over to professionals. Yes, it may work well in practice, but I hardly think it’s ideal.

Thirdly, a couple decides that they want children and that one parent should be available when it matters depending on who wants to the most/who can earn the most etc etc. And because of the maternity legislation, that’s do-able. Hooray! Along comes the ‘house-husband’ – something to be encouraged – the epitome of equality…. that is, until the poor bugger gets a divorce. Two friends, both ‘house-husbands,’ are currently going through divorces, having looked after the kids for years whilst their wives pursued successful careers. They’re both being screwed over in the courts, one of them hasn’t even got custody. The legislation is still stuck in the 1950s.

I would rattle on about certain women taking the piss out of the maternity laws and screwing it up for the rest of us… but, I’m starting to sound like a pompous schoolteacher, so I’ll shut up now.

~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

We may be equal but we are not the same. If we were all the same we wouldn't have separate women's and men's races at the Olympics.

Surely it's mostly a matter of abuse of power. If a man solves a dispute with a (smaller, weaker) woman by reducing it to violence he is abusing his stronger physical power. No less an abuse of power than the rich outspending the poor in law courts, or the well connected calling in favours.

-if a woman reduces a dispute to violence then no doubt she deserves what she gets-

There is a similar maxim about not hitting a man in glasses. (As a man in glasses I am wholly in favour of this)

Women should not fuck with testosterone. It's like kids playing with matches. It's a matter of hormones. Did you know that bull sharks have the highest levels of testosterone? When feminists encourage women to hit a man, then something is very wrong with them AND the woman who believes in their bullshit. However, this doesn't mean there's something wrong with modern feminism's decadent bollocks. Like any other movement feminism needs a serious set of balls. Has to be aggressive toward society's mores i.e.

And us, males, must always think: What are we? bull sharks? Or humans? Never hit a girl, boy. Never hit a boy, girl. End of story.

It's very likely I shall be offline again soon and so I'm going to say my piece now rather than wait as I'd prefer.
So here are a few thoughts which others have probably made and I've missed because I'm just recovering from the 'dreaded lurghi' and my eyes still burn and water.

I think Maddan cut to the heart of the matter.
"We may be equal but we are not the same."

However, last time I looked hitting anyone, regardless of sex, was against the law.
Have they change things recently?
Of course it doesn't stop people doing it but it does discourage them.
I can see the value of threatening to reply in kind but it can backfire.
There are only rules and we know what the rules are.

As for the "feminism has happened and women are assumed to be equal beings to men"
I'm not sure it actually makes any sense.

Again as Maddan points out men and women rarely compete against each other in sports as men usually have the advantage but men are definitely inferior at childbirth and only a handfull have ever managed it...
They're usually around at the beginning though :O)

If you lump everything into a generality you are never going to get anything definite and it's usually done to hide holes as big as hillsides in people's arguements.

"Do we live in an equal society though?"
Well Bukh's answered that very well before - of course not.
Some people are millionaires with several homes and some are broke and homeless.

I take it that women shouldn't be allowed to drive in case they hit you and you can't hit them back but I can't see why they shouldn't be allowed to vote unless it so they can't vote that they should be allowed to drive again.

All in all quite hilarious Mac but not up to your usual standard.

"Some people are millionaires with several homes and some are broke and homeless." - this is an irrelevant point to make in an argument about gender equality. I'm talking about gender equality, obviously not economic equality. And, in the 21st century, even if there isn't perfect gender equality in society, our society at least *aspires* to gender equality. So, it is hypocritical then, to want the good aspects of gender equality but not the bad ones.

And obviously I don't really think that women shouldn't be allowed to vote or drive cars. That's ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as thinking that women shouldn't be allowed to be punched in the face after they've just punched a man in the face.

www.myspace.com/norwichfacetransplant

I am taking issue (and by that I don't mean starting a war, just quibbling a little) with Jude's comment:

'I'd love to stay at home to ensure my children are brought up properly rather than being 'looked after' by some GCSE reject in cheap day-care.'

Just because someone isn't intellectually gifted it doesn't necessarily mean they are crap at their vocational profession. People have different strengths, I see it every day - mainstream education simply doesn't cater for the spectrum of talents that children have.

Also, bringing up children properly in my book is demonstrating good role model behaviour- surely a mother who has a career and works to be able to give them a high quality of life is an admirable example to follow?

J x

I agree with Jennifer.

So do I

'I'd love to stay at home to ensure my children are brought up properly rather than being 'looked after' by some GCSE reject in cheap day-care.'

that is such a patronising statement. and who is to say that these 'GCSE rejects' are any less intelligent than those who have gone to uni? i've know many, many people who imo are far superior in intelligence than those who have spent years in university. in my book, intelligence also incorporates empathy and compassion, not a mere learning of facts by rote

and mac i thought that was the last thing you were bothering to say on this website?

time to make up your mind and stick to it

It is a predjudice I will not relinquish until I encounter evidence that suggests I should. My sister and I interviewed almost 30 unsuitable candidates to mind her baby... that was after visiting 3 nursery's filled with disinterested and inarticulate staff who attended to the children's basic care needs reluctantly, totally neglecting a large proportion of their developmental needs. 'Liking children' or indeed having empathy is not enough at a time when children are gaining their rudimentary vocabulary and need stimulation and attention. With the exception of a few foreign child-minders (I've a friend who has an excellent Estonian child-minder) I have never encountered a child-care facility within most average people's budget's that I would be happy leaving my children under.

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

That wasn't my point.

Not all people who work in such professions are doing so because they have failed to get to Uni etc - some people have a genuine vocation and different talents for learning non-academic things, such as childcare.

Plus, I felt you were being rather harsh in your phrasing and generalising somewhat.

But from the sound of it, it's time to get a career where you can work from home.

J x

I guess it just accentuates the generation gap (in other words, I am getting old and therefore 'old fashioned') but to me, punching a woman in the face for any reason would make me physically sick. The very thought of it is abhorrent! If struck, I would walk away and later, find it far easier to live with myself. How the times have changed! I have adapted while moving through this journey that we call life; I have 'up-skilled' and continued to embrace new ideas and rules but I am afraid the old principles - learned for the most part from my 'stay at home' mother and working class father - and a morale code that we managed to cling too, through both good and hard times, are too well ingrained to be shaken off for the cause of equality. I am glad that I was born when I was and envy not, youth!

Chris

Perhaps I am being a little harsh in phrasing but I didn't base my conclusions on interviewing a couple of dreadful 'childminders', as I said, there were almost thirty and my sister was starting to despair.
Nursery workers tend to be young, poorly educated women and for every one who may have a vocation to childcare even though they had the capabilities of doing something else (like the middle aged woman my sister eventually found), there are many more like the twenty-some we interviewed who might have had some capability but wanted to drop-out of school as early as possible and had no interest in bettering themselves and in other cases clearly lacked the intellectual capacity I believe necessary for caring well for a child. One interviewee wanted to be a primary school teacher but couldn't even get the necessary 'C' grades in Maths and English GCSE!

I am already planning the 'working from home' strategy but I would rather manage on benefits than put a child in sub-standard care.

I know it is a fault of mine for being so judgmental - mea maxima culpa - but it is something I feel so strongly about. I had parents who were money-poor yet time-rich with us and I feel anything less would be unacceptable. Sadly my father didn't encourage music or poetry as he wasn't into these things but he passed on his love of science by taking us out into the wilds and teaching us the names of birds, hibernation patterns of amphibians etc. He also read to us extensively, not just children's books but his books as well (mainly with a biological angle like G. Durrell + Herriot). It used to surprise me when people say that they don't know how to fish or they never read E. Nesbitt as a child or they have never seen a snake or lizard in the wild in this country!

jude

Well, I was at a local childminder from 6 months to the age of about 9. Both my parents worked full-time in order to provide me with a higher standard of life than they had experienced. They also devoted every single weekend to me and taught me to read (reading extensively to me in the evenings) write, count and draw. My mother compromised by only working three days a week in the holidays - so I was with her Mon and Fri and at the childminder's Tues, Wed, Thurs.

At 9 all our problems were solved when I developed a love of horses and spent the next 9 years helping out my riding teacher throughout the holidays (also on a three days a week basis). I learnt a hell of a lot from her (she was very discplined and I have to this day never seen horses better cared for).

Have you any friends in the same predicament? Perhaps you could come to an arrangement where you both, for example, work three days a week and childmind for the other the other three days?

J x

I'll accept that we have gender equality when the women in the office stop asking the man to reload the photocopier and move the furniture. Just because I wear my reproductive organs on the outside, it doesn't mean I'm a human forklift. Equality is a two way street.

Some of us women are perfectly capable of reloading and even unjamming photocopiers and moving furniture. Please don't tar us all with the same brush.

Oh the other hand, true gentlemanliness is rare nowadays and I am always slightly impressed when a man offers to help or do something for me.

J x

"some... women are perfectly capable"

"true gentlemanliness is rare nowadays"

I know what you mean but, poor buggers... can't do right...

~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

I was reading an article/commentary in the Times about Gail Trimble of receent University Challenge fame. They astutely pointed out "The fact that she did not dress like Paris Hilton simply added to her offence. Here was a living embodiment of that favourite female stereotype: the “bluestocking” – a clever woman unbothered by looks or fashion sense...Although Miss Trimble rarely makes mistakes she had, in fact, made two: first, she was clever, and second, she was not clever enough to hide it behind a makeover. " (She turned down the offer of a makeover and a photoshoot with Nuts).

It is sad but true that women need a certain look to achieve in certain careers. Academia is the one exception. "In that, she has an air about her of both Hillary Clinton and Cherie Blair at her age, back when they still believed that clever women could be judged on that quality alone."

I am graduating from my MA next January and have certain choices to make. I have applied to law school as I have much interest in clinical negligence. Also I could go freelance, making the 'stay at home and look after the children' option more viable. However, becoming a lawyer would mean an Ally McBeal look which I am not sure I can be bothered with. Don't get me wrong, I can do the smart look but city law firms want women to power dress and look sexy. So my second choice (which I would actually prefer though it means less money) means undertaking a Phd and looking for an academic or public policy post.

I don't get resentful about the fact that my inability to Ally McBeal myself means my career options are limited. I suppose I have accepted that this is the way the world is. This is confirmed by the attitude to Ms Trimble for whom I have a great deal of admiration.I don't think this shallowness is 'sexist' but is indicative of the basal values that have degenerated due to cultural shifts. I was filling in a YouGov survey the other day and it asked 'who would you most like to be your best friend?' followed by a list of actresses and pop singers. Fortunately there was a 'none of the above' option. I have nothing against these women and not all my friends are particularly bright but if I were selecting a stranger to come to dinner on the basis of the facts I had about their lives, I would want a scientist or a missionary/ foreign aid worker or even a politician. But listing these celebraties shows that most people value fame and glitz more highly. For this reason I see myself as living in and not being a part of mainstream modern society.

Sorry for the tangential waffle. I feel better now for getting it off my ample chest (Amanda Foreman, the historian of the Duchess of Devonshire, got more accolades for her nude photoshoot for Tatler than for her PhD so maybe one day I will use my other assets)!

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

Dear Jude,

A lot of jobs have an expected dress code. This applies to men also. At school, we are expected to maintain a certain standard of 'smartness' that some manage better than others. Sadly, many of my male friends have had to chop off their hair after Uni in order to gain a professional job...hair seems so silly, since women with long hair never raise eyebrows...

In careers such as the law, surely putting forward an image of power is important, especially in court?

I agree that it does seem ludicrous that how you dress in this world seems to be symbolic of character or ability to do the job...but never fear - one day we shall all be doubtless sat plugged in to computers all day every day and nobody will see anybody face to face. Then, we'll all be able to dress or not dress how we like.

J x

I don't mind wearing a suit and dressing appropriately, but the high-heels, expensive hair-cuts and make-up are just a step too far for me! I do accept the reasons though and am not too resentful!

"one day we shall all be doubtless sat plugged in to computers all day every day and nobody will see anybody face to face. Then, we'll all be able to dress or not dress how we like" ahh such glorious, wishful thinking!

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

Well I grew up in a very violent household (cue violins)my father was extremely violent drunk or sober against my mother and the rest of us. I'm one of nine. I have just come out of a violent relationship where I have been attacked by my ex with various implements normally a bit of 2"x1" and being a carpenter there were plenty of bits of those.
She's waved knives around, sliced through all the cables of my beloved computer and the last event a bottle of wine over cranium. I managed to shift my head just enough that only the base of the bottle caught me, if it had rained down on me bonce amidships it would have shattered, and horror upon horror, we'd have lost a bottle of wine.
Why did I stick it for so long? Why did my mother stay with my psycho father for so long? I dunno.

Oh I forgot to mention I did want to hit her just to stop these rages of hers, but couldn't.

"I have just come out of a violent relationship where I have been attacked by my ex with various implements... She's waved knives around... and the last event a bottle of wine over cranium."

Yes, but if you'd hit her back that would be despicable and unmanly and not in the slightest bit understandable or justifiable and retaliation is always evil and blah blah blah wank wank wank self-righteous hypocritical idiotic dismissive bollocks.

I've been away a while and don't really know what to say as this is quite a serious thread.
First of all Styx, you sure it was 2x1, that's like a pencil!
But seriously, my wife gouged my face in an arguement, she never did it again. I told her, if she ever did such a thing again I'd leave.
I've slapped her once, she was doing about 90 on the motorway and going hysterical because I'd just knocked her brother out, I slapped her to concentrate her mind as I thought she may well crash. She had really lost it, she was crying and screaming and there was no concentration.
Although it's of no relevence I don't know why she was so upset, he started it, I finished it. Maybe it was because they were Roma and she expected a fall out, but the truth is, they treated me better than before.

Before that I backhanded a women once before that in rage, in a non get your head together way, i can honestly say it was the worst thing I'd ever done.

To break it down as quick as possible, I was brought up pure underclass, I scraped my way up to be a class A drug dealer, which wasn't nice, and so my ideals were pretty skewed. My biggest shame in therapy was that I'd backhanded my partner at the time, and trust me I'd done some shit things to other human beings, but that I couldn't justify, even though she'd attempted to attack me.
It's not the action, but how you feel afterwards, and that's the shit you've got to live with.
The equality thing is bullshit, it's about equal pay etc, not strength and stamina.
Violence in any sense is wrong, no matter the sex, and has nothing to do with equality.

On and end-note, an attempt to difuse an arguement.
Jude is right, sorry Jen, but she is.
There are many good child minders etc, but also the government tried a couple of years ago to introduce plans to employ work opportunities to those that left school without any GCSE's. One of those ideas was childcare. Now, without a doubt, some of those have been great, but many aren't so.
As a father, who recently did all he could to make sure my son wasn't in his local primary, I wouldn't want people tutoring my child who were incapable. Some who aren't academicaly gifted do a great job, when the government enrolls enmass those who didn't make the grade to do the job it's worrying.

Craig

Well, no, Craig, it *is* about equality. Because if a man hits you, it's perfectly fine to hit him back, right? So why should it be any different with a woman? Gender equality isn't just about equal pay and equal rights, it's about everything, such as equal treatment. Women should not take advantage of a man's gentlemanliness by assuming she can start whacking him without being whacked back. That's not what equality or gentlemanliness are about. Men are human beings too, and we have the right not to be treated like shit, just as much as women do.

Equality means thinking of women as equal to men on a basic, fundamental level. Equality involves expecting women to have the same standards of decency as men, and not letting them get away with being crazy and over-emotional and unreasonable and violent and un-self-controlled just because they're women. If you deny women this aspect of equality but grant them other aspects, you are being hypocritical.

It doesn't matter that women are usually physically weaker than men. If some little bloke with weedy muscles started hitting you, you'd still smack him back, wouldn't you?

Yes, violence is wrong. But sometimes people need to have violence meted out against them because firstly, they deserve it, and secondly, it makes them realise that their own violent conduct is wrong. You can't stop a tyrant by waving a bunch of flowers in his or her face.

I am not a hippy or a pacifist, and I am certainly not a liberal. Chairman Mao he say, "In order to get rid of the gun, we have to pick up the gun."

This issue about whether it's acceptable or unacceptable for a man to physically retaliate to a woman always fascinates me. What fascinates me most is that it's always men who say it's unacceptable. Women almost always tell me the opposite...

www.myspace.com/norwichfacetransplant

Let me tell you about my dear old muvver.

My Mum has suffered domestic violence at the hands of my Dad. I don't think it happened often, but it certainly happened at least once, quite badly, and for no good reason. It made my Mum hate my Dad for a long time, and ultimately she divorced him, when I was but a bairn. I grew up in a one-parent family, with a matriarch.

My Mum never poisoned my or my brothers' minds against my Dad, though she was bitter. And she taught me some important values that have always stayed with me.

Firstly, my Mum always taught me to never, ever throw the first punch. To never strike anyone, male or female, without real provocation. And I never have.

Secondly, my Mum always taught me to stand up for myself, and not to let cunts push me around. She taught me that retaliation is fine if someone is being violent towards me, and that includes women. This lesson is sometimes a lot harder for me to follow, because there are often cunts around me telling me that I ought to let people push me around.

My Mum would be ashamed of me if I hit a girlfriend for no good reason. But she would defend me to the hilt if I hit a girlfriend who hit me first.

My Mum is the source of most of my working-class pride. It is she who convinces me that we are, for the most part, a noble race. And I would much rather take the advice of this strong, principled, hard-working, tender Cockney matriarch, than the advice of some boring smug accentless liberal pacifist with a beard.

So, if you are calling my beliefs immoral, then you are also calling my mother's beliefs immoral.

quote (february 25): 'This is the last thing I'm bothering to say on this website...'

give it a rest then, will you?

I changed my mind. It's my right to change my mind if I want to. At the moment I quite fancy sticking around simply in order to piss off the people who deserve to be pissed off.

www.myspace.com/norwichfacetransplant

I was brought up to be a gentleman, almost an anachronism these days. I was also brought up to believe that my brain is the greatest 'weapon' I have and hitting anyone, regardless of gender, only causes more violence.

Having said this, I would like to relate a little story: a number of years ago, while working for a large government IT department, I held a door open for a woman who had an armful of equipment. I then called for and held open an elevator door as well. I wasn't helping her because she was a woman, or because I was trying to impress her with my gentlemanly behaviour. I was helping her because she was someone who needed assistance. I'd do the same for anyone. The next thing I know, I was called into my manager's office and asked to explain my sexist behaviour. I was absolutely gobsmacked. But if I had let her struggle, she probably would have thought I was an ass. Sometimes, blokes just can't win.

I respect Dynamaso's brand of pacifism because it isn't hypocritical. He says "regardless of gender". It's not some dodgy pacifism of the "hitting men is fine but hitting women isn't, and I still believe in equality" variety. Also, he doesn't talk like I'm a Nazi for having a different personal approach to confrontation.

If what Radiodumbo says is true about Peaceful, then Peaceful is being very silly with his attitude towards me, as I was one of the very few people who livened up UKA while I was there, and one of the very few people who ever took on e-griff, who ruins that site. Since I left UKA the number of people who visit and post on the site has plummeted. There are only ever four or five members online at any one time nowadays. It's e-griff that puts people off. UKA should have backed me instead.

www.myspace.com/norwichfacetransplant

Mac, I hardly know you except for the interactions we've had here but I appreciate your (sometimes) brutal honesty. I particularly like it in your poetry. We are all individuals with our own ways of dealing with different issues. Maybe some folk need to remember this. And you are most certainly NOT a nazi.

Thanks, mate. It cheers me up to read an intelligent opinion on here.

www.myspace.com/norwichfacetransplant

Thanks Mac.