This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Feminism, Warfare, and Honor: Is chivalry dead?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
269791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Dogs are different from humans. Also, if your gene pool is one male and multiple females, just takes one sickness that affects the male genes to wipe all the children in one blow.
Post by
269791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Much as I am trying to find a reason not to, I agree with Hyper completely on this topic, including his assessment of why you (Skreeran) have particular feelings on the execution of women.
I recognise my bias when watching / reading about such events as an 'innocence' bias, in that I think some of the affected women are more innocent than some of the affected men. But then, I was fairly indifferent to both Australian males and females caught smuggling drugs into and out of Indonesia recently, because I think they're both equally culpable (or equally innocent, whatever the case may be).
Post by
Aimsyr
Yeah. Another reason I've come up with as I've thought about this concept is the idea that it's a man's duty to go down fighting while the women and children get to safety. A fleeing man seems almost weak, while a fleeing woman warrants protection.
Not trying to be sexist, I'm just analyzing the concepts that have been drilled into my head by Western society. I don't think that women are weaker of character than men, but for better or for worse, I was raised with the concept of protecting women from harm over men if necessary.
Many societies follow believe in the concept of protecting the women and children over the men, I assume this is entirely based on the tradition that men are the ones who do the fighting while the women stay at home, look after the house, the family and so on. Although some societies value the women less then the men, the men are still generally considered the warriors in amongst those societies.And so what I'm wondering is whether or not it's sexist to feel that way. Is it denigrating to woman to believe that it is the man's duty to fight and die for their protection?
Well depends, if you openly are more defensive towards women while not really caring about the men then that would probably be sexist, though if you would be willing to help either equally in times of conflict and the like, despite feeling that the women should be protected while the men fight I would say it is not really that sexist.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
269791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Aimsyr
As for that - considering a LOT of dog breeds started with just one or two well-known dogs that were bred over and over and over and over and over.. it's going to take a lot more than 2 generations of human inbreeding (from one related parent) to cause the issues you speak of. :P
Should have pointed this out earlier, but I only saw it now.
Are you trying to say that purebred dogs do not have birth defects? Many purebred dogs DO have birth defects, largely because the dogs are constantly interbred with the same species, very often with dogs that are related, and while some dogs may not inherit the defects, they often inherit weaknesses to disease and the like. Generally speaking, the dogs that have the least defects and the like are mixed breeds.
Edit: And chickens have a 50/50 ratio but large amounts of sexed chicks are flicked into grinders because they're males... since they' aren't really... "needed"... in fact; keeping more than two roosters to a small flock of hens(ratio is approx 1 roo for every 10 hens)
the roosters will /KILL/ the hens with over breeding
if they don't kill each other. With your reasoning such an animal "should" be about 20/80 for gender birth ratio but that isn't how nature works. Either you can control the gender or its essentially going to be 50/50 by default.
Actually the roosters will not kill the hens with overbreeding, believe me, one of my grandparents owns a lot of chickens and even at times when the amount of roosters has been far too many for there to be a at least ten hens per rooster I never once seen a hen that is a casualty of
overbreeding.
It also helps that the dominant roosters claim as many hens they can for themselves while the weaker ones have to move on or try to attain dominance over the others.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Asian cultures generally value male children more than female children - they're better able to do farmwork, traditionally. When China instituted their one-child policy, many families opted to abandon / abort / hide their female children, in favour of a male child. Where this policy and attitude has left China is in a gigantic female drought in their working low-middle class. A few years ago, I read a statistic (and backed up with anecdotal experiences of family friends from Shanghai) that in the cities, because of the influx of people from the countryside moving in, the ratio of single guys to girls was 10:1 or greater.
Just saying - the biological / cultural influence isn't necessarily the biggest factor in the 'save women first' attitude. Otherwise, certain countries wouldn't have gotten themselves into the demographic disaster that they're in now.
Post by
skribs
Chivalry is sexist. We should be polite to women, but we should be equally polite to men.
Post by
Skreeran
Chivalry is sexist. We should be polite to women, but we should be equally polite to men.Alright, now on the topic of honor in warfare: Does it make you any more mad to hear/read about an army killing unarmed women than it does unarmed men?
Because it does for me. I suppose that's sexist, but that's just the way I feel.
Post by
skribs
If the woman or man is unarmed, it makes me mad. If the woman or man is an armed combatant, well it's sad but that's the nature of war. I honestly don't care if it was a woman or a man, the gender of the individual is not relevant to the nature of the act.
To suggest that women are to be treated better than men is to suggest that women need the extra treatment, e.g. that they're inferior. I remember when I was in high school, and a lot of my friends had the attitude of "If I ever find out that you hit a girl, I'll beat you down." Upon prodding, I discovered they would even do this if I hit a girl in self defense. So therefore I should let a girl beat me up so that they don't beat me up later. I wasn't saying it's a good thing to hit a girl, but I was saying that it's a bad thing to hit a guy, but nobody cares about that. My standpoint was that if you're going to beat someone up because they hit a girl, you should beat someone up because they hit a guy, too. Otherwise, you're assuming that girls are inferior and in need of special care.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I disagree with Either you can control the gender or its essentially going to be 50/50 by default.
If a species had an advantage by having more females born than males, natural selection would dictate that more females were born.
Natural selection doesn't quite work that way.
We'd have an advantage as a species if we were infinitely smart and invincible. But we're not. The change or mutation must exist first before natural selection can do anything. So you can't say that just because the ratio at the moment is 50/50, that therefore that's the most adventitious ratio.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
While that is probably true, there is nothing else we have to go by and by looking at the growing population trend of human beings I would have to say 50/50 is a fairly successful ratio for us as an organism. And I believe it would be hard for anyone to prove that we would be a more successful species if the ratio was any different.
Successful is a relative term, and with nothing to compare it with, it's arbitrary.
At the rate total firtility rates are dropping, it's predicted we'll drop below 2.0 in 50 years. Why is that successful?
Post by
Squishalot
I'm inclined to think that if there were more females and less males, we would probably be a more successful species. Less males = less testosterone = less aggression = less wasted resources.
Why do you think there are so many species of animals where there are more females? It's the most efficient use of resources to minimise clashing between alpha males.
I think a better question would be to define 'success' from a species point of view. China has the highest growth rate in the world, but they don't have a 50/50 ratio of newborns, since many female children get aborted. Is that growth rate a measure of 'success'?
Successful is a relative term, and with nothing to compare it with, it's arbitrary.
Damn you getting in first :P
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
War is about winning.
That belief has gotten so many people killed, it's sad.1
War is (read,
should be
) about protecting people.
1If you want a striking example of this, read
A Heart for Europe
. Charles I of Austria tried extremely hard to negotiate peace with France in WWI, yet France was not interested in just Austria making peace, they had to have Germany too; the aim was to win (total subjugation) not to end one of the bloodiest wars Europe had ever seen.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.