My surprise realisation about the social implications of being hit by a woman

[Smoutwortel]

For those not interested in reading other peoples random text.
Totally understandable. I just needed to get this of my chest.
For those who want to comment: go your gang(within forum rules and basic human decency) with the warning that the comments under this thread are probably gonna be one big flame war.
Long ago a girl who was sharing a meal with me and some others asked me(in a way that took several rounds of clarification) why it's more embarrassing to be hit by a girl than a guy for a guy with the underlying accusation of systematic sexism.
This set me thinking and I realized some strange things.
First the answer to the question:
because the trigger is probably a faux pas and response of the hit guy is under all circumstances socially wrong.
Second why:
If a guy hits another guy its often a playful challenge to which the proper response is to hit back.
This especially in elementary school groups leads to a more general social code that defaults in all circumstances to hitting back.
Under girls this is often different where a hit is a declaration of an all out war.
Under normal circumstances this is no problem.
Don't hit girls.
But what if a girl hits a guy.
Abiding to his own social code he is supposed tohit back, but under that same social code is big taboo under declaring all out war meaning that in both cases he's in violation of the "bro code".
You might argue that she started, but as any teacher would like to point out who started it is of relevance, but deescalation is more important.
Third my reasoning for ruling out the standard suggested other possibility:
women are weak so letting yourself be hit is weak: getting hit by someone seriously younger than you and under 12 isn't embarrassing in the "bro code", while they clearly fall for both actual as conceptional reasons under "someone weak".

This internal reasoning surprised me with its complexity of thought.
This can mean two things my explanations for peoples thought processes are more complex than the truth or people are more complex than I thought.

[Fyraltari]

This is just a rather detailed way of saying "systemic sexism", though.

[S@tanicoaldo]

This whole thread hits different if you read initially assuming "hit" was about flirting and not like.. Punching or something LOL

Just gos to show hit has many meanings in English. What a fascinating language.

Or maybe I'm just a perv HAhahhaha maybe both.

[Fyraltari]

This whole thread hits different if you read initially assuming "hit" was about flirting and not like.. Punching or something LOL

Just gos to show hit has many meanings in English. What a fascinating language.

Or maybe I'm just a perv HAhahhaha maybe both.

You're thinking of "hit on". I've made the same mistake.

[theangelJean]

For those who want to comment: go your gang

I am guessing this means ”go right ahead"? *

with the underlying accusation of systematic sexism.

Interesting that you should think of this as an accusation. Maybe it was the circumstances - was the comment directed at someone specifically?
To clarify, by "systematic sexism" do you mean the attitude of a particular person, being consistently sexist? "Systematic" has connotations of working towards a specific goal. Or do you maybe mean what's described as systemic sexism, which is a description of the way a society supports and reinforces sexist views?

I'd be curious what your emotional reaction is to the idea of either accusation. Obviously you have engaged with the idea, and had several quite productive chains of thought.
In the end, do you feel like you, personally, have engaged in sexist behaviour? How would you feel about that?
Would you change your future behaviour in any way, now that you've examined the thoughts and feelings behind it?

We're discussing an feeling of embarrassment, after all - and feelings aren't sexist in themselves, they are just emotions. However, feelings most often come from thoughts, and quite often they lead to specific behaviours (eg. avoiding certain actions). A thought can definitely be rooted in sexist beliefs, and when people say that a behaviour is sexist, they usually mean that the thought pattern that typically leads to this behaviour has sexist elements. Now that you've examined some of your thought patterns, can you pick out any of these thoughts that might come from sexist beliefs?

I also wonder, of the many thoughts that make up this complex behaviour, how many of them do you agree with, yourself? Can you pick out any that you don't personally believe strongly, but you feel like others do?
What factors make you think that "people" think a certain way?

This internal reasoning surprised me with its complexity of thought.
This can mean two things my explanations for peoples thought processes are more complex than the truth or people are more complex than I thought.

It can always be both! An individual person can be more complex than we might believe. And in thinking about other people's thought processes, it is possible to overthink what a particular person might be thinking or feeling. But when it comes to "people" you will always have multiple possibilities and a myriad of situations.

*I'd love to know which language this idiom is translated from. An equivalent idiom in English might be "knock yourself out" - we don't mind if you (figuratively) charge in head on!

[Murk]

*I'd love to know which language this idiom is translated from. An equivalent idiom in English might be "knock yourself out" - we don't mind if you (figuratively) charge in head on!

It could very well be Dutch. "Ga je gang" is common Dutch and the direct, literal translation would be "go your gang". It's an infamous bad English translation, usually as a joke, but sometimes just an honest mistake.

[theangelJean]

It could very well be Dutch. "Ga je gang" is common Dutch and the direct, literal translation would be "go your gang". It's an infamous bad English translation, usually as a joke, but sometimes just an honest mistake.

Thank you!

[olskool]

For those not interested in reading other peoples random text.
Totally understandable. I just needed to get this of my chest.
For those who want to comment: go your gang(within forum rules and basic human decency) with the warning that the comments under this thread are probably gonna be one big flame war.
Long ago a girl who was sharing a meal with me and some others asked me(in a way that took several rounds of clarification) why it's more embarrassing to be hit by a girl than a guy for a guy with the underlying accusation of systematic sexism.
This set me thinking and I realized some strange things.
First the answer to the question:
because the trigger is probably a faux pas and response of the hit guy is under all circumstances socially wrong.
Second why:
If a guy hits another guy its often a playful challenge to which the proper response is to hit back.
This especially in elementary school groups leads to a more general social code that defaults in all circumstances to hitting back.
Under girls this is often different where a hit is a declaration of an all out war.
Under normal circumstances this is no problem.
Don't hit girls.
But what if a girl hits a guy.
Abiding to his own social code he is supposed tohit back, but under that same social code is big taboo under declaring all out war meaning that in both cases he's in violation of the "bro code".
You might argue that she started, but as any teacher would like to point out who started it is of relevance, but deescalation is more important.
Third my reasoning for ruling out the standard suggested other possibility:
women are weak so letting yourself be hit is weak: getting hit by someone seriously younger than you and under 12 isn't embarrassing in the "bro code", while they clearly fall for both actual as conceptional reasons under "someone weak".

This internal reasoning surprised me with its complexity of thought.
This can mean two things my explanations for peoples thought processes are more complex than the truth or people are more complex than I thought.

Oh boy, here we go! Let the flame war begin.

It stems from a past precedent in the legal community from the Bronze Age. It was considered bad to hit someone who is weaker than you so hitting women, children, the elderly, and the physically or mentally impaired was considered taboo. The feminist out there will immediately be offended but biology doesn't lie. A typical male is physically stronger than a typical female. Likewise, a younger person is generally physically stronger than an elderly person. Under US Law, this is sometimes referred to as a "DISPARITY." There are 5 recognized "Disparities" in my own State's use of force laws...

Disparity Of Age (old versus young... OR... adult versus child)
Disparity Of Size (5'2" & 100lbs versus 6'5" & 300lbs)
Disparity Of Sex (male versus female)
Disparity Of Numbers (5 versus 1)
Disparity Of Force (a pro boxer or Navy SEAL versus an "ordinary joe")

When a "Disparity" occurs, the person with the advantage is expected to not "exploit" their advantage. To make sure that weaker members of society are not "exploited," we evolved both customs and laws (which evolve from customs) to protect those physically weaker members from the stronger ones. This does NOT mean that a person who has a "disadvantage" (size, age, gender, etc...) should be allowed to take advantage of that status though. If a woman strikes a man, she can be charged with Assault, and if that man hits her right back and TKOs her, he may be protected legally and socially for his actions based on the circumstances of the situation.

[Smoutwortel]

I am guessing this means ”go right ahead"? *


Interesting that you should think of this as an accusation. Maybe it was the circumstances - was the comment directed at someone specifically?
To clarify, by "systematic sexism" do you mean the attitude of a particular person, being consistently sexist? "Systematic" has connotations of working towards a specific goal. Or do you maybe mean what's described as systemic sexism, which is a description of the way a society supports and reinforces sexist views?

I'd be curious what your emotional reaction is to the idea of either accusation. Obviously you have engaged with the idea, and had several quite productive chains of thought.
In the end, do you feel like you, personally, have engaged in sexist behaviour? How would you feel about that?
Would you change your future behaviour in any way, now that you've examined the thoughts and feelings behind it?

We're discussing an feeling of embarrassment, after all - and feelings aren't sexist in themselves, they are just emotions. However, feelings most often come from thoughts, and quite often they lead to specific behaviours (eg. avoiding certain actions). A thought can definitely be rooted in sexist beliefs, and when people say that a behaviour is sexist, they usually mean that the thought pattern that typically leads to this behaviour has sexist elements. Now that you've examined some of your thought patterns, can you pick out any of these thoughts that might come from sexist beliefs?

I also wonder, of the many thoughts that make up this complex behaviour, how many of them do you agree with, yourself? Can you pick out any that you don't personally believe strongly, but you feel like others do?
What factors make you think that "people" think a certain way?



It can always be both! An individual person can be more complex than we might believe. And in thinking about other people's thought processes, it is possible to overthink what a particular person might be thinking or feeling. But when it comes to "people" you will always have multiple possibilities and a myriad of situations.

*I'd love to know which language this idiom is translated from. An equivalent idiom in English might be "knock yourself out" - we don't mind if you (figuratively) charge in head on!

1. "Go your gang" is an English idiom I learned from people with English as their second language. I expect what happened here is that, since where I live(Netherlands) English is a common second language we developed our own idioms in it. I don't know for certain. Your interpretation is spot on.
2. I meant the sexism present in a system. Which also answers the other half of your question: I was not personally accused of it(I did semi regularly voluntary and for entertainment engaged in activities that involved getting hit by girls*

Spoiler

Show

Primarily birtish bulldogs, which is a simple, but rough game. The rules are as follows in the field there are players called bulldogs/lions who've to catch and obtain some objective(lifting them up/working them to the ground/tagging them) with the other players who've as objective to cross the field once every round without getting caught by the bulldogs. If the bulldogs successfully caught another player the other player joins the bulldogs until there are less than two players left +the optional "honor round" for the last player

, but was accused(undertone not explicit) of not actively fighting a system that was.
3. My first emotional reaction was a simple "WARNING CONVERSATIONAL MINEFIELD" later I could actually think about it in private leading to a lot reflection and thought. One of the bigger hurdles I discovered was my lack of social activity with class mates in elementary school.
- On this particular subject: no. In general I don't have enough self awareness to know for certain, but I know there have been periods in my life where I was less prone to hurting and/or angering men with my words than women, so probably.
- This kind of realizations are how I learn life skills, so yes. This one learned me that the way you treat one and other can based on external input can still hurt the external input. I've thus become more careful about the way I view reactions.
4. For this particular case, probably because I'm pretty convinced that the assumption "women are vengeful" is a pretty sexist assumption, which although my reasoning accuses others of it, it manages to accuse them from, because it knows these thoughts all too well.
5. The answer to this question is a little embarrassing. Little to none of the thoughts described I haven't had myself although more in an analytic fashion, which means I must have been convinced of them at some point in my life. Only the begin and end connection don't need at least a grain of personal conviction. I don't agree with the beginning assumption that getting hit by a woman is shameful in itself and fear of social war is something I've had to learn to fear through high school and still mostly get as a pure theoretical concept, but the assumption that "women are vengeful" is still deeply rooted in my thought process without them really doing anything to deserve it in my face except accusing each other of it and one case in elementary school.
- Deduction, observation, questions and experience. First I rule out the standard explanations with obeservations or accept them(can be hard). If I rule them out I start by making hypothesizes, which are rooted in my own assumptions. After I have some hypothesizes I start trying to rule them out with observations until I'm left with one. After this I tend test them on people by asking them questions about it and showing them my hypothesis.
6. I considered the option, but I ruled it out with the assumption that there was no more room for both in the gap between my expectation and the "truth", but now I think about it that is an awful lot of assumptions. Thanks for the input you're right(this is why you should always bounce your reflections off others)

* as a warning: I don't see this as "progressive" behavior or whatever you want to call it, because wasn't out of some moralistic stance, but my general inability to follow the flow.

[Smoutwortel]

It could very well be Dutch. "Ga je gang" is common Dutch and the direct, literal translation would be "go your gang". It's an infamous bad English translation, usually as a joke, but sometimes just an honest mistake.

That must be it thanks.

[Smoutwortel]

This whole thread hits different if you read initially assuming "hit" was about flirting and not like.. Punching or something LOL

Just gos to show hit has many meanings in English. What a fascinating language.

Or maybe I'm just a perv HAhahhaha maybe both.

Totally understandable mistake I first considered trying to avoid it, but in English its hard to avoid sounding romantic, so I have given up long ago.
Association not direct reaction to post:

Spoiler

Show

I try to avoid boring/angering this community with my personal reflections as much as I possibly can, so I didn't post my theories on that particular subject.

[H_H_F_F]

Oh boy, here we go! Let the flame war begin.

It stems from a past precedent in the legal community from the Bronze Age. It was considered bad to hit someone who is weaker than you so hitting women, children, the elderly, and the physically or mentally impaired was considered taboo. The feminist out there will immediately be offended but biology doesn't lie. A typical male is physically stronger than a typical female. Likewise, a younger person is generally physically stronger than an elderly person. Under US Law, this is sometimes referred to as a "DISPARITY." There are 5 recognized "Disparities" in my own State's use of force laws...

Disparity Of Age (old versus young... OR... adult versus child)
Disparity Of Size (5'2" & 100lbs versus 6'5" & 300lbs)
Disparity Of Sex (male versus female)
Disparity Of Numbers (5 versus 1)
Disparity Of Force (a pro boxer or Navy SEAL versus an "ordinary joe")

When a "Disparity" occurs, the person with the advantage is expected to not "exploit" their advantage. To make sure that weaker members of society are not "exploited," we evolved both customs and laws (which evolve from customs) to protect those physically weaker members from the stronger ones. This does NOT mean that a person who has a "disadvantage" (size, age, gender, etc...) should be allowed to take advantage of that status though. If a woman strikes a man, she can be charged with Assault, and if that man hits her right back and TKOs her, he may be protected legally and socially for his actions based on the circumstances of the situation.

But it's more than that though, right?

Consider: a 5 feet tall dude starts **** with you, or vice versa. You're a big strong man, and you don't take his ****, and he proceeds to beat the ever living **** out of you, because he's a martial artist.

Surprising. Hurts. Also somewhat humiliating, sure, but not THAT much, right? "Turns out, that little f*cker knew Kung-Fu, and he beat me up."

Compare and contrast to the following scenario: a 5'8'' girl who's in good shape starts **** with you. You laugh it out, and she proceeds to beat the ever living **** out of you, because she's a martial artist.

Now, 8 inches of a difference in height is huge, and makes for a bigger difference in a fight than the average muscle-mass disparity between same-size men and women. With similar training and with the little guy not being a body builder, the disparity is actually more to her advantage than to his. She could probably beat him up, to, by virtue of range and mass alone. So, it should be less humiliating, because the physical disparity between you and a 5' human is greater than the disparity between you and a leaner muscle, higher fat, but 5'8'' human.

But it isn't less humiliating, is it? It's far, far more humiliating. "That ****er knew Kung Fu and she beat me up" doesn't go here.

That's because the expectation of disparity isn't merely physical (or, as you've phrased it, "biology doesn't lie".) There's also a cultural aspect. Women aren't supposed to know how to fight, they aren't supposed to be able to beat you up. Getting beat up by a woman is much more of a challenge on your manhood than being beat up by a smaller dude. It is like, as you've noted, being beat up by a child - which obviously isn't an apt comparison physically but it is one socially. The "assumed disparity" of gender is larger and more encompassing than the assumed disparity of physical appearance. It is not merely an extension or a specific case of the disparity of size, it is an entirely different societal expectation, which compounds with the size disparity, and isn't included in it.

Also interesting to note is the way I phrased it as a "challenge on your manhood". Think of a woman being beat up by a smaller woman, or a disabled person - someone she has a clear disparity of physical prowess with. It's not a good time, but it isn't a challenge on her womanhood, in any sense. There is no feeling of this deep failure - because it's not her role. Even if she's supposed to be able to beat someone up because of an assumed disparity, failure to do so doesn't speak on her quality as a person. It does on ours.

So, what have we here? We have two categories of people, man and woman. Because of biological and social factors, the bell curve of the physical prowess of man is shifted to the right ("stronger") when compared to the bell curve of the physical prowess of women.

However: Losing or winning a fight is much more important to the social standing and internal feeling of worth to a man than to those of a woman, regardless on where they're placed on the physical prowess bell curve. Losing to a woman is much worse than losing to a man in that regard, even on the rare case where the specific woman in question happens to be as physically powerful as the specific man in question, or even stronger. This is the case because beyond the general state of psychical disparity, men and women have different roles and expectations placed on them, and a different standing in different social hierarchies.

This direct link between gender, societal expectations, and internalized feelings of worthiness and value are often called in academia "systemic sexism". A deeper discussion on its societal impacts to the detriment of everyone (man, woman or otherwise) is outside the scope of this post and outside the rules of the forum.

I hope that you've found this interesting. I also hope that you note that I was not "offended" by your comment - I just happen to think that your oversimplification is wrong.

[Beeftank]

I think you kind of pointed out the difference in the situation, with the smaller guy fighting you, you fought back and lost, with the girl you just kind of stood there and took it. “Don’t hit girls” and “don’t be a wimp, stand up for yourself, we’re both drilled into most mens brains as boys, so if a girl starts hitting you, most guys will just take it because it’s either take the hits and feel embarrassed, or hit back and feel like an *******.

[Smoutwortel]

I think you kind of pointed out the difference in the situation, with the smaller guy fighting you, you fought back and lost, with the girl you just kind of stood there and took it. “Don’t hit girls” and “don’t be a wimp, stand up for yourself, we’re both drilled into most mens brains as boys, so if a girl starts hitting you, most guys will just take it because it’s either take the hits and feel embarrassed, or hit back and feel like an *******.

There's more to it though.
It's more than "stand up for yourself".
It also feels like you're offending your challenger if you ignore them.