Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Effycat3000 t1_j5vixcl wrote

Reply to comment by vladimirraul in Spain calls second emergency meeting over murders of six more women by misana123

What if the roles are reversed? Is the women sexist?

Also just trying to grasp this.

4

vladimirraul t1_j5vr7e1 wrote

Well, that sounds similar to when people ask about 'reverse racism'. To say that gender is socially constructed (and go ahead and shoot me down for being 'woke', but Simone de Beauvoir came up with this many decades ago....), just like that racism is 'systemic' means it's built into our societal values, and also built in to the way behaviors/actions such as domestic violence/murder are punished (or not - see Russia or conservative Islamic societies). So that doesn' t mean roles can' t be reversed, it just means that most of the time, for reasons pertaining to these values and the fact that the majority of people adhere to them unconsciously, the roles are not reversed. Femicide is a thing because in the vast majority of cases it is women being murdered by their partner/ex-partner, not men. And this is the case because this thing called sexism exists, where one sex is being opressed by the other thanks to a complex and historically robust system of values (beliefs/accepted behaviors). That doesn't exclude nor is it contradicted by the fact that there may be cases where women kill men! Does this help at all?

3

mpsed t1_j5vtpy6 wrote

' Femicide is a thing because in the vast majority of cases it is women being murdered by their partner/ex-partner, not men. And this is the case because this thing called sexism exists, where one sex is being opressed by the other thanks to a complex and historically robust system of values (beliefs/accepted behaviors). That doesn't exclude nor is it contradicted by the fact that there may be cases where women kill men! Does this help at all?'

​

If ' a complex and historically robust system of values (beliefs/accepted behaviors' caused women to be hurt more , then that means that it would be logical for us to not see that through the entirety of human history , but we do, because you ARE WRONG .Stop with this nonsense. Enough is enough , please. In any physical conflict between a man and a woman , a woman is more likely to die because of physical factors. It was always like this and it will always be like this. It's a biological reality that has created this problem. Sexism has nothing to do with it. Unless you want to categorize the entirety of the human and animal experience as sexist. Through the entirety of human history women could and would be victimised unless protected by a man , or a group of men. A town is sacked and the men are dead then the women are raped and enslaved. A lion kills a rival and takes the females as his and then they either accept it or are killed too. Are lions sexist ? Try and be logical with your arguments or as demonstrated they will be easy to expose as inaccurate.

−9

vladimirraul t1_j5vzcoe wrote

OK, I apprciate your analogy, but it's not a question of logic, but your underlying assumptions. Your premise is that humans are just like lions. So be it! Then let's not even have a society then, let's not have laws, let's not have equality between the sexes.....I'm a let someone else take over, because my palm has now completely covered my face, and I have nothing further to say.

4

mpsed t1_j5wfr1y wrote

If you want to debate you need to actually read what I am saying. The lion analogy was the tip of the iceberg of my argument. You yourself said that laws are clearly not followed all the time since women are killed and just explained the phenomenon in a specific way. Just to summarise , we are discussing why women are , lots of the time , the recipients of violence , in effect the recipients of the result of breaking a law. So if you say that women are facing these issues because of a specific set of complex beliefs , values etc then I can prove you wrong just by pointing out that this is more widespread then you think and that the absence of supposedly sexist beliefs and values ( like in lions who are incapable of " believing" and " valuing") doesnt equate to the absence of females being a common recipient of violence. Look at math , disproving a proof requires only one example. Not that this is anywhere close to math , just an analogy again.

So if your palm is covering your face maybe it is because my point is eluding you , or more likely because you have no other arguments. Try to admit when you are unable to form cohesive arguments instead of corrupting my point and insulting me. The only way debates can lead to answers and to the solution of issues is if we actually debate with the long term goal of solving the issues instead of just trying to support a specific narrative and proving ourselves right. Surely in that you must agree. And if you agree then act like you agree.

−8

vladimirraul t1_j5x0lni wrote

You are clearly a master debater.. But our belief systems are very different, and I’m not interested in trying to convince you. Take the ‘win’ my friend!

5