Teacher dies defending a lady from woman beater

Guys are supposed to sacrifice themselves for helpless chicks getting beat up. Unless you are a single father with young kids with nobody else to take care of them, then you can make an exception. But that's standard, "Guy code" or chivalry rule. Don't worry gentlemen, if you leave behind a girlfriend or wife, she can always find another dude to bang. No one will miss you that much.
 
That's chivalry for you, huh?
 
I often pretend to be blind, deaf and dumb in such incidents.
 
Mr.M said:
Guys are supposed to sacrifice themselves for helpless chicks getting beat up. Unless you are a single father with young kids with nobody else to take care of them, then you can make an exception. But that's standard, "Guy code" or chivalry rule. Don't worry gentlemen, if you leave behind a girlfriend or wife, she can always find another dude to bang. No one will miss you that much.
Click to expand...

A defense of someone giving their life in defiance of misogyny that is based entirely on an enforcement of strict and arbitrary gender roles. That sure is something.
 
Jesus Christ......what a horrible individual
 
The fact that misogyny is based on that enforcement doesn't mean that there aren't good healthy relationships and lifestyles based on that enforcement. To suggest otherwise is a silly non sequitur.
 
ThePhantasm said:
The fact that misogyny is based on that enforcement doesn't mean that there aren't good healthy relationships and lifestyles based on that enforcement. To suggest otherwise is a silly non sequitur.
Click to expand...

Nope.

There are good healthy relationships and lifestyles based on those roles, but not their enforcement. People fall into traditional gender roles all the time and that's fine if that's who they are and how they want to live their lives, but gender roles should never be enforced. Enforcement means pushing it on other people, and that's not healthy.
 
Huh, I thought you were saying what Mr. M said above was enforcement. Arguing for gender roles with an ethical / moral argument isn't enforcement, at best its persuasion. That's probably why I misunderstood.

Not that I like Mr. M's argument.
 
ThePhantasm said:
Huh, I thought you were saying what Mr. M said above was enforcement. Arguing for gender roles with an ethical / moral argument isn't enforcement, at best its persuasion. That's probably why I misunderstood.
Click to expand...

That was what I saw saying. Where we disagree is my use of the word enforcement. It's a semantic miscommunication that, now addressed, seems irrelevant to me.

Though, perhaps "reinforcement" would have been a better choice of words, as it does not draw the image of actively, physically curtailing one's actions as "enforcement" does.
 
All I'm saying is that one can make an ethical argument for chivalry that inspires men to protect women rather than harm them. I'm not quite sure anymore what you're saying.
 
ThePhantasm said:
All I'm saying is that one can make an ethical argument for chivalry that inspires men to protect women rather than harm them. I'm not quite sure anymore what you're saying.
Click to expand...

And all I'm saying is that such an argument, while well intentioned, is ultimately harmful because it's based on notions about gender that dehumanize people and limit how they're "allowed" to behave and live their lives. A man should stand up for a woman because it's a man's job to protect a woman, a man should stand up for a woman because it's a person's job to stand up for other people.
 
The Question said:
And all I'm saying is that such an argument, while well intentioned, is ultimately harmful because it's based on notions about gender that dehumanize people and limit how they're "allowed" to behave and live their lives. A man should stand up for a woman because it's a man's job to protect a woman, a man should stand up for a woman because it's a person's job to stand up for other people.
Click to expand...

I agree that chivalry should encourage people to help all those in need when the time arises. I disagree that said arguments about gender roles are dehumanizing, however.
 
ThePhantasm said:
I agree that chivalry should encourage people to help all those in need when the time arises. I disagree that said arguments about gender roles are dehumanizing, however.
Click to expand...

Why do you disagree?
 
Why should chivalry be an issue when helping a weaker person who is attacked?

and did you guys read the article? The woman the teacher died protecting is visiting the murderer in jail, apologizing to him.

To think this teacher left behind an unborn child to protect her.
 
MessiahDecoy123 said:
Why should chivalry be an issue when helping a weaker person who is attacked?

and did you guys read the article? The woman the teacher died protecting is visiting the murderer in jail, apologizing to him.

To think this teacher left behind an unborn child to protect her.
Click to expand...

So you're saying she didn't deserve to be saved?
 
The Question said:
Why do you disagree?
Click to expand...

All ethical arguments place limitations upon people. They aren't dehumanizing because being human doesn't mean being unlimited, or being able to do whatever you very well please. At the very least that definition of autonomy has been up for debate throughout philosophical history and continues to be debated today. Basic natural roles aren't dehumanizing, in fact, just the opposite, one could argue that they infuse life with greater meaning and purpose. Its the age-old argument - is human freedom a freedom from something or a freedom to something?

So that's as short an answer as I can give as to why ethical arguments that place limitations on people aren't necessarily dehumanizing (though you might argue that said arguments are dehumanizing for other reasons; it really depends on the argument / ethic being discussed).
 
MessiahDecoy123 said:
Why should chivalry be an issue when helping a weaker person who is attacked?

and did you guys read the article? The woman the teacher died protecting is visiting the murderer in jail, apologizing to him.
Click to expand...

Thank you! After reading the article, the first thing that ran through my mind was how horrible it was that the killer/abusive boyfriend told her she should be grateful for killing someone who tried to defend her, and the crazy chick bought it.

But somehow, Question and Phantasm turned this into a semantics-divided non-argument about chivalry.
 
ThePhantasm said:
All ethical arguments place limitations upon people. They aren't dehumanizing because being human doesn't mean being unlimited, or being able to do whatever you very well please. At the very least that definition of autonomy has been up for debate throughout philosophical history and continues to be debated today. Basic natural roles aren't dehumanizing, in fact, just the opposite, one could argue that they infuse life with greater meaning and purpose. Its the age-old argument - is human freedom a freedom from something or a freedom to something?

So that's as short an answer as I can give as to why ethical arguments that place limitations on people aren't necessarily dehumanizing (though you might argue that said arguments are dehumanizing for other reasons; it really depends on the argument / ethic being discussed).
Click to expand...

It's not dehumanizing because it's an ethical argument. It's dehumanizing because it argues that men are obligated to protect women, or, to be clearer, that women are something that needs protection. That is absolutely dehumanizing. It defines an entire group of people, without their consent or input, as being inherently less capable than another group of people as a fact of their biology. That is dehumanizing.

One could argue that basic natural roles "infuse life with greater meaning and purpose," but one would be wrong to do so. They don't imbue life with greater meaning, they set a limit on what people can do based on a completely arbitrary standard. That's not just.
 
The Question said:
That is absolutely dehumanizing. It defines an entire group of people, without their consent or input, as being inherently less capable than another group of people as a fact of their biology. That is dehumanizing.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you, but this is perhaps not the place for a discussion of human freedom. I'll simply say that humans are defined all the time by things they don't consent to or have input on, and indeed that this is part of being human rather than dehumanizing. One example? Birth. You don't get to choose your parents or your family, but you are very much defined by your relationship to them - heck, their influence on your formative years greatly shapes the person you become.

Again, you might find said ethical arguments dehumanizing for another reason, perhaps. There are plenty of ethical arguments I find dehumanizing. But it isn't because of the fact that they place limitations on people in and of itself.

But I'll leave my thoughts at that lest Manic et al. get too hot and bothered. :oldrazz:
 
Manic said:
Thank you! After reading the article, the first thing that ran through my mind was how horrible it was that the killer/abusive boyfriend told her she should be grateful for killing someone who tried to defend her, and the crazy chick bought it.

But somehow, Question and Phantasm turned this into a semantics-divided non-argument about chivalry.
Click to expand...

Through an organic exchange of words we started discussing the very-relevent topic of gender roles and people's attitudes toward them.

I don't see how it's a non-argument, but I'll stop if you want me to.

For relevancy's sake I'll repeat a question I already asked: Do people think the woman didn't deserve to be saved? I don't, I think what the teacher did was heroic and her apologizing is a symptom of mental illness and she should not be judged or hated for that.
 
Last edited:
Manic said:
After reading the article, the first thing that ran through my mind was how horrible it was that the killer/abusive boyfriend told her she should be grateful for killing someone who tried to defend her, and the crazy chick bought it.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is horrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 874 (members: 40, guests: 834)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,928
Messages
21,855,526
Members
45,663
Latest member
JaiHind007

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"