Originally posted by Bardock42
I think I and others have pointed out how men are in other ways more likely to be killed (suicide, gang related crimes, as soldiers (although that's a more complicated topic)). One can completely value someone as an object and not as a person and it can be beneficial to their life expectancy.A good example of this is the recent Mad Max, btw. The women were definitely thought of as objects and property, but being highly priced in that way made their lives be more valuable than those of the men...
just saw this...
see, this is basically what i mean by you will just rationalize any results whatsoever to fit your feminist narrative. if women aren't offered protection, we value them less as people. if they are offered protection, it's cause we value their "lives" merely because we value them as "objects."
you will basically twist any outcome to fit the feminist paradigm. this starts to come across as dogma, to me.
see, my "reality" growing up has been one where bullying was everywhere, and was a simple fact of life like a lion hunting down a gazelle. it transcended sex or gender, though women of course are the weaker sex and are thus easier victims... but they were by no means the predominant victims. and more often than not, a female was bullied by another (stronger) female rather than by a male.
on the other hand... if an unruly woman is attacking you physically, you were supposed to just man up and take it... at the most resorting to restraining her... but never actually fighting back with the same ferocity with which she is attacking you... because "a man doesn't lay his hands on a woman..."
yet i'm sure to you this is just another example of us valuing them as objects and not as people..
so what is the non-sexist, non-misogynist answer? do i respond with a mortal kombat style uppercut, like the bus driver from cleveland? or do i play the chivalrous role and refuse to hit a woman even if she is hitting me?