I am using a phone and it hard for me to provide links. Google “women battalion” and “Dahomey Amazon warriors”, just for a start.
Women were among the first archers that “greeted” Christopher Columbus. You can find more about that using google too.
There is no reason to think female humans are naturally programmed to shy away from a defensive fight. The animal kingdom certainly doesn’t bear this out. And ecologically speaking it makes no sense to have half the adult population to be utter wimps. Everyone knows that mama bears (and gators and hippos and lions and buffalo) don’t mess around. So if you are going to make an appeal to nature, how about you bring some cites to the discussion? You are the one making the outrageous claim here.
And none of what you posted supports the assertion that humans are hard-coded to be extra-protective of women. We can tell all kinds of just-so stories all day long. But I am looking for empirical evidence. Not stories.
I once asked an anti-abortion protestor what should a lesbian do if she gets raped and pregnant. He responded “Most lesbians are too ugly to be raped.”
For the most part, the female of any species tends to be smaller in size and physical strength than the male counterpart. This says nothing of their willingness and ability to protect their young or hunt. It does say that they tend to lose in fights against a determined male.
That said, you’re not a poster that immediately comes to mind that would require a refresher on evolution theory, certainly not with respect to any implied “intelligence” of the selection process.
I think some of what was said has been misunderstood. I absolutely do advocate for my daughter to go out, explore, take risks , push boundaries etc.
What I don’t advocate are doing the incredibly dumb (to my own perceptions of dumb) things (Dating a 19 yr old as a 12-14 yr old falls into this), drinking and driving, and some of the very same things about being safe in certain neighborhoods or areas after dark (or even in the daylight)
I expect my kids to have a risk assessment skill that they can utilize themselves (that I am currently giving to them as they learn usually by failing to apply it )
I am probably guilty of victim blaming because I laughed when they slipped up with some non-fatal thing they wanted to try.
Well, I don’t know if it is hard-coded, but there are things like this
that show it is selected for. So maybe it is hard-coded, maybe it is the cultural recognition that women are more in need of protection, more likely a combination of both.
I haven’t seen you produce any empirical evidence to date, so that will have to do for now.
Well, no, it does actually say something about their ability to protect their young (and to hunt). It says that they are less able to do so than a larger male.
A thousand times this. This hurts women. Saying “I can’t help it, it’s biology” is ridiculous. We don’t accept that as a reason to insist on arranged marriages, covering one’s hair, not letting women out unescorted–all things that are also justified as a genetic need to protect women. I know so many women whose lives are materially affected by the fact that they feel like they cannot safely drive from Austin to Dallas on their own, or travel alone, or walk outside after dark–even in very safe places. We are constantly warned that we have to draw these tight boundaries around us, that we don’t have the same opportunities as men, because to take a job where the parking lot is sketchy or any number of other opportunities is to be complicit in your own rape.
You would get more angry with your daughter for driving drunk than your son?
What about things like living in an apartment in the city alone, or taking a job in a sketchy neighborhood? What about driving cross-country alone? What about camping, jogging after dark, traveling in a foreign country? Are their professional opportunities you’d advise your daughter to forgo but not your son?
While this disadvantage certainly exists, social norms only entrench it by teaching women they are frail and helpless. No, a woman is probably not going to be able to tackle a guy down to the ground if he is determined to harm her. But a woman can inflict enough damage to distract him long enough to escape. She can be trained to scream her head off. She can be trained how to use her smaller size as an advantage.
But instead of telling women they are strong and endowed with the same instincts that men have (and are encouraged to hone), we tell them they are weak. Not relatively weak, but objectively weak. And then we they act weak and helpless, we tell ourselves it must be the hormones and genes rather than socialization.
Come on. No crime victim gets as viciously blamed and falsely accused as the rape victim. Would your dude wobbling down the street get accused off the bat of lying about the assault*
because* he was a man and men all through history have lied about muggings?
The ribbing or criticism a guy gets is nothing compared to how rape victims get treated. They are always guilty until proven innocent, and they are almost never proven innocent. Observe the attacks on Christine Blasey-Ford in the Pit, where the absence of evidence after thirty years is presented as proof of her malice, yet Kavanaugh’s documented lies are handwaved away by the same people attacking Ford. Making mistakes after thirty five years is not malicious, but that’s exactly what was attributed to Dr. Ford. She was NOT given the benefit of the doubt.
This is part of a subset of stereotypes used against women: hysterical----which as an insult comes from the ancient Greeks, who blamed it on the uterus wandering through the body, crying out for a baby; emotional, crazy, attention-seeking, “calm down”, on the rag, women ate so unreasonable on their periods;
lying, conniving, cunning----all linked particularly to her gender and thus impossible to change or “fix.” When you criticize or even insult a member of a powerful class, he’s an individual, but when you punch down, that person is regarded as merely one of many identical drones.
Opportunities ? No, I doubt I would. I doubt it is the opportunity to do stuff. Perhaps it is about how it gets accomplished.
Suit and Tie for the man, what is the equivalent for women? Pant’s suit? Low cut blouses, short skirts?
Jogging after dark, most likely yes. I would likely be more worried about my daughter if she chose to do that than my son. Statistics will bear this out as the prudent choice.
Traveling abroad (probably a general, be aware of your surroundings at all times, know who you are with, where you are going etc) applied to both equally
I would probably tell them different things in regards to clothing choices (time and place)
I mean the bottom line is that women are less able to fight off a possible sexual predator than a man is. In instances that could result in that scenario being MORE possible, my advice for the two would differ.
“You mean you don’t get scared walking/ riding your bike/driving through that side of town? Don’t you know how unsafe that is?”
And when you tell them that you aren’t afraid, they start giving you a bunch of unsolicited advice. As if they aren’t the ones who have lived their whole lives in sheltered bubbles. As if it is you who is the naive one, not them.
By professional opportunities, I mean taking a job where she has to move to a city far away from her family, or in a dangerous neighborhood. Or where she will have to travel in a group where she is the only woman, or where she will have to travel on her own.
The statistics don’t bear out the idea that women jogging after dark or wearing scanty clothing, are in significant danger. In most times and most places, violent stranger assault is rare. The chances of anyone getting assaulted jogging in most public parks after dark is very, very small. There’s no evidence that clothing matters–rapists were surveyed, and they couldn’t remember what their victim was wearing. Violent criminals, again and again, refer to looking for vulnerable victims, not particularly enticing ones.
I concur. The amount of pressure I get as a woman not to “foolishly put myself at risk” by doing things that are totally normal for 14-year old boys is incredible.
For a real “blaming the victim” nightmare, read up on Marla Hanson. Her face was slashed, requiring over 100 stitches to repair, by two men hired by her landlord after she rejected his advances. She was accused of falsely accusing both her landlord (who called the incident “a random attack” ans denied having anything to do with it) and the two men who slashed her face, accusing them only because they were black and she was a racist.
Then if women are so small and weak men need to take their fears extra-seriously and punish much larger people who attack them, right? Womens’ smaller size and alleged frailty has for years----no, millenia---- been an excuse to restrict theirrights but never to ask why it’s okay for men to kill them with pregnancies or work them to death in factories and fields and subject them to corsets and foot-binding and backbreaking labor outside of a very small group of rich chattel wives. Nobody cared when female slaves were raped into repeated pregnancies and forced to perform hard labor in the fields.
In sports, in various other areas of real life, men insist on things like weight classes because of fairness and…stuff. In real life, we shrug off size differences between men and women and demand women orbit around men like men are a bad weather forecast so as to not get attacked. We tell women to be careful, to avoid…everything, basically. Everywhere. One half of the human race still demands that the other half not wear spaghetti straps in schools because they might be “distracting”. Meanwhile, men get to amble around shirtless without anybody batting an eye.
How come it’s not mens’ job to wear goggles? Or manage their own problems? Or just plain act like adults? How come any physical attack on a small woman is not adjudged as “intent to cause grave bodily harm”? The standard response is that you can’t stop rapists, or you can’t reach them, but I’d be willing to bet a lot of rapists don’t think it’s rape unless they use a gun, break bones, do it in a dark alley, and don’t know the victim at all-----kinda like how calling our first African-American president a Kenyan Muslim diesn’t make you a racist because you didn’t use the “n-word.”