Are MRAs who say these things contradicting themselves?

azazelcrowley · 2015-02-22T18:07:37+00:00

The strength requirements for lifting equipment don't change because of your genitals. Having a vagina doesn't magically make hoses 20% lighter. Standards should not be lowered.

There are NO strength requirements for committing assault, or for psychological terror. If I decide to go to a boxing ring, wait for them to leave, and attack the boxers on the street, I can't then wail my eyes out if they hit me back because Sniff i'm weaker than them bawww. It would be utterly ridiculous. And that would be an entirely empircal matter. We could say that yes, it is extremely obvious that boxers are going to be better fighters than me. With men/women? That's a stereotype. A lot of men don't have any real body strength to speak of, and are as a result about the same strength as women in general. Likewise, some women work out a lot or are fit. Such as those female firefighters who got there through work instead of whining.

In short, the two aren't comparable. Whoever starts the fight is at fault. It's fine to point out that responses should to the best of your ability be proportional, but thats the key thing. To the best of your ability. If you overshoot, then oh well. It's worth pointing out that a much saner proposal for feminists would be to advocate for research into lighter equipment weights and new materials. I can't think of anyone who'd have much of a problem with that. And it would also mean that fire response times and fire safety benefited, as opposed to suffered.

Ultramegasaurus · 2015-02-22T18:35:13+00:00

Apples and oranges.

The requirements for these jobs have a practical reason. For example, if a woman cannot lift a male comrade, she's unfit for the military, simple as that.

In case of violence, strength is not everything. A woman can still badly injure a man, physically and mentally.

Want a real contradiction? Men are laughed at and ridiculed for letting themselves get beaten up by a woman.

"lol ur a man why u let her beat u, lmao".

However, if a man defends himself, he is screwed too.

"omg how could you, fucking monster, a real man doesnt hit women EVER"

What do these people expect? Mind control? Perfectly painless armlocks?

DavidByron2 · 2015-02-22T19:21:03+00:00

You are suggesting that if someone is weaker than another person they have the right to punch them and assault them repeatedly?

v573v · 2015-02-22T18:26:05+00:00

Lower standards doesn't prohibit women - standards prohibit women and men that can't meet the standards.

Just because you have a vagina doesn't mean you can't pick up a ladder off the floor and put it on the wall.

PerniciousOne · 2015-02-22T18:44:51+00:00

Those who argue in defense of Ray Rice and similar cases often say he was acting out of self defense if the woman struck him first, even if he is the stronger of the two.

Strength does not matter against weapons, such as knives, and guns. You should be able to defend yourself against violence if needed.

However, MRAs usually tend to be against lowering standards for women in jobs like firefighters, military, police, etc just because they are women and usually not as strong.

Lowering the standards for the job based upon gender is completely assinine. If you need to hire a second person to assist or do the work for the person because they are incapable means that it is a waste of time and resources.

Do you want the 125 lb girl who is incapable of moving you to attempt to drag you out of a burning building? Or do you want a 160 lb woman who has completed the same standards as men to be the one to save you, or the 200 lb man to carry you out of there.

It does not matter the gender of the person, only that they are able to meet the requirements of the job. Lowing standards (based upon gender) means that all the women who have passed the more difficult standards will get treated more poorly because they will be gender tokens, instead of the capable people they are.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2015-02-22T19:36:01+00:00

You don't need to be physically strong to abuse someone. You do need to be physically strong to lift a certain weight.

DougDante · 2015-02-22T18:17:15+00:00

This might sound like a stretch, but isn't it contradictory to disregard the difference in strength between the sexes when it comes to domestic abuse but take it into account when it comes to the requirements of physically demanding work?

Absolutely, which is why we should not disregard the difference in strength between the sexes when it comes to domestic abuse.

However, we should not allow it to be the only factor.

ghebert001 · 2015-02-22T19:02:02+00:00

Do you think the negative effects of DV are based solely on the physical strength of the people involved or that maybe regardless of physical strength or gender, being struck by the person you love results in feelings of betrayal of trust? I think there's a much different dynamic there than whether or not someone is capable of doing a physically demanding job based on their physical strength.

blueXcat · 2015-02-22T20:04:47+00:00

I don't see how these statements contradicts themselves

SamHarrisFan · 2015-02-22T20:40:45+00:00

It takes 9 pounds of force to break a nose.

It takes much more to lift a hose.

:)

Correctrix · 2015-02-22T21:24:52+00:00

No, it's not hypocrisy. If a small man hits a big man, and the victim strikes back, no one says that he is an abuser because of it. There are plenty of "justice porn"-style videos of dumb robbers targeting a location and then being taken down because the guy working behind the counter happens to be a skilled martial artist or something. All the viewers applaud the beating of the weak assailant, regardless of he severity and regardless of how he was initially armed, because he put himself in that situation by initiating violence.

All this stuff about "He's big; she's small" is just rationalisation. The problem that people had with Ray Rice striking back was simply and literally the fact that the aggressor was a woman and deemed worthy of chivalrous carte blanche, a.k.a. pussy pass.

The issue with physical requirements for jobs is different. I think, for example, that the standards should be uniformly enforced for firefighters, who do an almost entirely physical job. It doesn't matter if this results in virtually no women doing the job. Police, by contrast, do a lot of community outreach, detective work, etc., and there are specific advantages to having a diverse pool of officer to draw from (e.g. you may need a woman to make that suspect's mother talk; you may need someone Latino-looking to infiltrate that gang) and thus hiring policies that bring in the demographics you need can be warranted.

Juan_Golt · 2015-02-22T23:40:57+00:00

I guess don't see the contradiction. In both cases the MRM feels like the standard for men and women should be the same. I.E. That we shouldn't judge genders based on their statistical averages. A contradiction would be assuming that men are inherently better at violence while claiming that women are equally ready to be in the military and police.

mikesteane · 2015-02-23T06:51:53+00:00

There is no contradiction here. Lowering standards means giving jobs to people who are incapable of doing them. If you get struck, you are entitled to strike back regardless of your relative strength. The two things have very little to do with each other.

MRSPArchiver · 2015-02-22T18:05:53+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

2015-02-22T19:11:18+00:00

I'm not seeing the contradiction. I disregard strength in the Ray Rice case and I disregard strength in those careers. I disregard strength across the board.

Suffercure · 2015-02-22T20:33:14+00:00

No... Thats just stupid. Bith are mutually exclusive.

chocoboat · 2015-02-22T20:52:53+00:00

isn't it contradictory to disregard the difference in strength between the sexes when it comes to domestic abuse but take it into account when it comes to the requirements of physically demanding work?

Whether it's physically demanding work OR domestic violence, the genitalia of the person involved should not be relevant at all.

If a job requires a person that can lift heavy items and kick open doors, then that job should be filled by any person who is capable of it, regardless of their genitalia. Just like how if a job requires a person who can write Java programs or a person who can diagnose and treat illnesses, you fill it with any person who is capable of it and don't consider their sex.

When it comes to domestic violence, all violence is against the law. The strength of the attacker doesn't matter - if a sickly 100 lb man beats his wife, it's not less illegal than an athletic 220 lb man doing it. And so it shouldn't be a lesser crime if women commit it as well.

When it comes to self defense, once again, it's not gender that matters. It's size and strength. Self defense must be reasonable - if a person half your size gives you a push on the shoulder, you do not have carte blanche to tackle them and beat their face into a pulp.

It's a very important point that STRENGTH matters, and gender doesn't matter one bit. If a 6 foot tall female professional athlete is shoved by a small, skinny man and she beats him half to death, it's the same situation. Gender is completely irrelevant.

Ray Rice had been slapped 15 seconds earlier, and then in the elevator she charged at him to attack again... he was certainly justified to defend himself. It's hard for me to judge whether he's guilty of a crime-worthy overreaction, I'd lean towards "no" because he had a split second reaction to her charging at him, there was no intent to harm her for any reason other than self defense.

jamminnummeruno · 2015-02-22T22:55:05+00:00

It's not the act itself, it is the intent of the act. A strong person should not be discriminated against on the basis of strength. It is not their fault for being capable of causing more damage. We don't blame the Hulk when he becomes outraged. Of course, with power comes responsibility, but let's apply that in reverse. If a smaller Ray Rice was doing the beating and his larger girlfriend laid him out, everyone would be cheering.

5th_Law_of_Robotics · 2015-02-22T19:39:24+00:00

The justifications are different.

You're allowed to defend yourself with whatever you have on hand.

If someone attacks you with fists you can reply with a bat. You don't have to handicap yourself because the goal isn't to be fair. It's to defend yourself.

Whereas physical requirements in those jobs are necessary for doing that job.

So it's totally different justifications.

therock6658 · 2015-02-22T18:59:51+00:00

Well I hardly hear anything in regards to standards when it comes to firefighting or military work. Both arguments have sound merit to them when they're being made so the issue as to which one is to be preferred is still up in the air.

But you know who's the king of contradictions? Razor Blade Kandy.

Title	Are MRAs who say these things contradicting themselves?
Author	omegaXXIV
Upvotes	2
Comments	28
Date	February 22, 2015 6:05 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2ws1zg/are_mras_who_say_these_things_contradicting/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/are-mras-who-say-these-things-contradicting.987505 https://theredarchive.com/post/987505

Comments