This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Feminism, Warfare, and Honor: Is chivalry dead?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
Historically, one of the male-gender roles has been to safeguard the woman and children of his family/tribe/clan/etc. Ancient men served as the warriors and hunters of the community, and were typically raised to be more violent and agressive than the women were.
When it comes to warfare and death, it has historically been more acceptable for men to be killed than women. While there have certainly been a great many women and children killed by conquerors and dictators, it has become a matter of honor for men to be killed instead of women and children. In war, it seems to me that the biggest cause of this comes from the fact that enemy soldiers are almost exclusively male, while women and children would necessarily be civilians, and killing civilians has become taboo in recent years (read, the last thousand years or so).
In addition, there is the concept of "save the women and children first," on doomed ships, and similar concepts.
The reason I bring this up is because of the extraordinarily recent surge of feministic thinking. Gender equality is something that many many women (and men) have striven for for years. In an ideal world, it seems, gender would have absolutely no bearing on anything but reproduction. Men and women would be completely equal in everything, or at least that's how I understand it.
So my question is this: Is it sexist to put the lives of women above those of men?
I was raised with a particular sense of honor, in which killing women is a greater crime than killing men. While an enemy killing all the men in a village is terrible, the same enemy killing the women is abhorrent.
Is this sense of Warrior honor and chivalry in opposition with the ideals of gender equality? If so, which is right? Is it wrong of me to find it so much more despicable for an enemy to kill mothers than fathers?
What do you think?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I would gladly take a bullet for my girlfriend. And should we ever have children, I would do the same for them. That really has nothing to do with sexism. If I were in love with a man, I would think I would do the same thing.
I'm sure my gf would be willing to take a bullet for me. I would never let her :P I don't think that's got anything to do with sexism either.
Would I take a bullet for another woman? Possibly. Would I do it for another man? Possibly.
I think the issue is less that men "favor" women more, but that women are more apt to accept it from a man than another man is.
Post by
Thror
I think you should ignore the feminists, and keep on rolling as a gentleman. There are women who might not like that, but there are also women who want just that. I prefer the second type.
You ended up your OP with a rather odd question though. I expected that the discussion motif would be something, you know, that people can easily relate to. But you asked if it is wrong to find it despicable to kill women x_X
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Men, biologically, have a better chance of surviving almost all physical hardships then women. Any feminist that says otherwise is lying. When it comes to things like being a firefighter or whatnot, it makes perfect sense that there are more male firefighters then female. It's only sexist when a woman who meets the criteria is denied access. Any feminist who complains about how many more male firefighter's there are then female is letting bias cloud his/her common sense. This includes being a soldier, while there are other reasons I may or may not agree with that have nothing to do physical attributes short of T and A.
When it comes to things like sinking ships, I think it's really just an extension of this, as human society has bent around that fact. No chivalry is not dead.
Post by
Skreeran
Would I take a bullet for another woman? Possibly. Would I do it for another man? Possibly.
I think the issue is less that men "favor" women more, but that women are more apt to accept it from a man than another man is.This is mainly what I'm talking about.
When I hear about a man in a totalitarian nation executed unfairly, it's regrettable. When I hear about a woman executed, I find it deplorable.
I'm joining the Army as soon as school is over, and I feel like I would give more to save a woman than I might for a man. In addition, I think I would find myself more driven to defeat an enemy that I know has killed woman than I might if he had only killed men.
You ended up your OP with a rather odd question though. I expected that the discussion motif would be something, you know, that people can easily relate to. But you asked if it is wrong to find it despicable to kill women x_XI'm sorry if you found my question confusing. What I meant was that if it is wrong to find it
more
despicable to kill a woman than it is a man. Hundreds of men were victimized and killed in the Rape of Nanking, but I only ever find myself thinking about the women brutalized and killed.
Post by
DarkOpeth
"While there have certainly been a great many women and children killed by conquerors and dictators,"
In addition to conquerors and dictators, you should add U.S. Army Predator Drone strikes in the Middle East to that list.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
This is mainly what I'm talking about.
When I hear about a man in a totalitarian nation executed unfairly, it's regrettable. When I hear about a woman executed, I find it deplorable.
I'm joining the Army as soon as school is over, and I feel like I would give more to save a woman than I might for a man. In addition, I think I would find myself more driven to defeat an enemy that I know has killed woman than I might if he had only killed men.
I think that's just you equating "woman" with "innocent." You hear that a man is killed and you immediately assume that he was a fighter, but you hear that a woman was killed and you automatically assume that she was an innocent bystander. I agree that killing innocents is much more deplorable than killing an enemy soldier, but that doesn't have to follow gender lines.
Post by
Skreeran
I think that's just you equating "woman" with "innocent." You hear that a man is killed and you immediately assume that he was a fighter, but you hear that a woman was killed and you automatically assume that she was an innocent bystander. I agree that killing innocents is much more deplorable than killing an enemy soldier, but that doesn't have to follow gender lines.Perhaps, but even assuming that both are innocent, I suppose I just feel that it's more wrong to execute an innocent woman that it is to execute an innocent man. Maybe I'm just sexist, but that's how I was raised.
Likewise, I know that there are times in war where killing women can be necessary, like when they start shooting at you. Enemy combatants are usually men, but they
can
in some occasions be women too, and you would have to act realistically in such a situation.
"While there have certainly been a great many women and children killed by conquerors and dictators,"
In addition to conquerors and dictators, you should add U.S. Army Predator Drone strikes in the Middle East to that list.I do not see the point of this post. Are you trying to start up an anti-U.S. debate in this thread? While I'm certain that you could argue that the United States can be corrupt and does morally reprehensible things, I don't really see the relevance here.
I could list a dozen nations responsible for killing woman and children, but right now we're talking about the principle, not the nations responsible.
Post by
DarkOpeth
I agree with hyperspace... we definitely tend to think of killed men more as fighters, and women and children more as innocent bystanders... this is likely to some degree of truth, however women have been warriors, there is evidence of female samurais, Joan of Arc, etc, and there are definitely (and unfortunately) child soldiers.
In my opinion, Chivalry at least in the male to female medieval sense is gone. This may be because of time-passed, and because gender roles are slowly but surely changing in wide society. Whatever you take on it, women are regarded as the "weaker" gender, and thus tend to be regarded as more in need of prprotected. The way I was raised though, is that I am to stand up and defend/help out anyone who is in trouble or in a weak spot, regardless of gender, age, race etc.
Post by
Aimsyr
Well in a sense it is sexist to feel more sorry for women over men when they die in war, but if you are sorry for both then that is not really a problem. If it is like you go meh when someone from one gender dies and are only sorry for them if they are from the other gender then that is pretty mean. But seeing as that is not the case it is acceptable for you to feel more sorry for one than the other, but if it leads to open bias then that is not very good.
I agree with hyperspace... we definitely tend to think of killed men more as fighters, and women and children more as innocent bystanders...
Actually this is pretty much true. Since men have traditionally always been soldiers rather than women it helps reinforce this belief.
I could list a dozen nations responsible for killing woman and children, but right now we're talking about the principle, not the nations responsible.
You would do as well to list pretty much every nation that has ever existed upon this earth.
In my opinion, Chivalry at least in the male to female medieval sense is gone. This may be because of time-passed, and because gender roles are slowly but surely changing in wide society. Whatever you take on it, women are regarded as the "weaker" gender, and thus tend to be regarded as more in need of prprotected. The way I was raised though, is that I am to stand up and defend/help out anyone who is in trouble or in a weak spot, regardless of gender, age, race etc.
As I take it, Chivalry is gone and never truly existed. While it is true in the middle ages there were those that had a code of honour and could be considered Chivalrous, war was still pretty much the same as it is today. While there were far less civilians killed, you can always look back and find at least one group of people who murdered the innocents regardless. Look at the various crusades that have happened, I do not see anything Chivalrous about them. Most nations create excuses for a war simply to try and keep from getting a bad image, but either way it cannot excuse the acts they commit in those wars.
But yeah, back on to the topic of medieval Chivalry, as with many different forms of honour and the like, they only existed as long as they were upheld by someone, I am sure some people today still have a code of honour and that kind of thing, but essentially what I am saying is that there have always been those who have a blatant disregard for what is morally acceptable and what can be considered honorable, thus I believe Chivalry on a wide scale has never truly existed in every sense of the word as there are always a large number of people willing to ignore what it entails.
Anyhow, that concludes my rant and hopefully people can actually understand the point I am trying to get across.
Post by
Skreeran
@XD (because I don't want to quote the whole post):
When I say "chivalry," I mean it mostly in a personal sense. A Warrior's personal code of honor, if you will. Even if the enemy does not follow the same code, that doesn't matter, because a personal code is something you hold yourself to, not something you necessarily expect everyone too (although something as fundamental as "don't kill women and children" is something I demand from just about every enemy).
Post by
327953
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
Skreeran
as bad as i am.. if there was a hot chick in danger.. i would risk my life to save her.
i put children and hot females lives first before mine....i'll be glad to do it... with no second thoughts..Well that's definitely sexist. The physical attractiveness of a person has nothing to do with the value of their life.
I think part of the reason is society somewhat subconsciously thinks that men as civilians stand a better chance to put up some defense or fight back against the opposing soldier or enemy even though that might not be the case.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.
Post by
Aimsyr
@XD (because I don't want to quote the whole post):
When I say "chivalry," I mean it mostly in a personal sense. A Warrior's personal code of honor, if you will. Even if the enemy does not follow the same code, that doesn't matter, because a personal code is something you hold yourself to, not something you necessarily expect everyone too (although something as fundamental as "don't kill women and children" is something I demand from just about every enemy).
Well if you mean it on an individual basis then chivalry is certainly not dead, for some people follow a code of honour even today. On a global basis it is pretty much safe to assume it is dead, though you could argue that it was more common in the past since everyone was more spread out rather than packed into large cities and so societies tended to look after their own except in times of conflict which was often. Nowadays, with everyone centralized in the cities it is quite clear that a lot people are looking out for themselves only, whereas in small communities you often see people helping each other out. I am not saying that does not happen in cities, but in a small community you tend to get to know everyone whereas in a city you only really know people you have dealings with such as colleagues, friends, etc etc.
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.
Post by
Skreeran
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?
Post by
170325
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
Adamsm
You only NEED one man in order to breed. Except if you keep it as just one man, the gene pool is incredibly small, and the Bible aside, bad plan as all children would be related to each other, increasing chance of birth defects and mouth breathing-itis. Alright, off topic over.
On topic....no comment.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.