This American Life

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's an interesting question that I've never thought about before.  

I've seen wives protect their husbands before, and put themselves between their husbands and harm, so I don't know that the evidence supports it's built into men's biology more than it is in women's (if it's built in at all).  Women will do some pretty amazing things to protect their children as well, for example.

What could be a part of our biology is the instinct to protect what we perceive to be weaker than us, maybe?  I don't know.  I'm also not sure how we could separate a biological impulse to protect from a learned and culturally expected impulse to protect.  

Plus, we know that women suffer abuse at the hands of males at an alarming rate.  That alone would seem to preclude the idea that male biology causes men to protect women.  In America, an average of 3 women are murdered every day by a current or former male romantic partner.  That doesn't speak well for the idea that males are biologically programed to protect females.

Interesting. I think a man who hurts a woman is going against his nature. I would say a man who hurts a female has learned that behavior. My combat veteran son confirms the sentiment of this article, 

Quote

For now, as America is focused on the Islamic State and the presidential election, women in combat will just happen one day sometime in the not-distant future. Eventually, we’ll avert our eyes from footage of a young woman’s tortured body — someone’s wife, mother, daughter, sister or lover — as she is crucified, burned or beheaded in the name of God knows what.

That will be a day no civilized nation should have invited upon itself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/women-in-combat-put-men-at-risk/2015/12/11/f0e00768-a04b-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html?utm_term=.4789ef5a3865

 

[juliann]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

 "Apologies—statements that acknowledge an error and its consequences, take responsibility, and communicate regret for having caused harm—can decrease blame, decrease anger, increase trust, and improve relationships. Importantly, apologies also have the potential to decrease the risk of a medical malpractice lawsuit and can help settle claims by patients."

I probably had a great lawsuit over a couple of doctors who punctured my dying husband's intestines. The one who ordered it never bothered to see him after in the hospital. The other one was there several times and was very caring. He saved the other doctor because I didn't want to involve the caring doctor in a malpractice suit. He made a mistake and he didn't run from it. 

[juliann]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

For now, as America is focused on the Islamic State and the presidential election, women in combat will just happen one day sometime in the not-distant future. Eventually, we’ll avert our eyes from footage of a young woman’s tortured body — someone’s wife, mother, daughter, sister or lover — as she is crucified, burned or beheaded in the name of God knows what.

That will be a day no civilized nation should have invited upon itself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/women-in-combat-put-men-at-risk/2015/12/11/f0e00768-a04b-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html?utm_term=.4789ef5a3865

 

As if brutality against women hasn't been going on since recorded history with averted eyes. That is just silly to think it worse because it happens in war rather than everyday life. The number of women who just disappear world wide is horrifying. No concern there. 

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting. I think a man who hurts a woman is going against his nature. I would say a man who hurts a female has learned that behavior. My combat veteran son confirms the sentiment of this article, 

 

 Yes, much better to kill our women (and men) in private, that is the civilized way:

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/women-executed-us-1900

Are you really suggesting we aren't bothered by men being executed "in the name of God knows what"?  Somehow I don't think you are trying to convey that message.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Calm

[Rain]

 

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

 

I am ok with convincers, once I understand the agenda.  It takes a while to understand individuals in a group and what they are here to do.  Once I a clear on that, I know when and with whom to engage on each topic. 

That's good.  I've been here awhile and still get caught when I shouldn't engage.  

[Calm]

may repost later, not sure it isn't off topic

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Yes, much better to kill our women (and men) in private, that is the civilized way:

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/women-executed-us-1900

Are you really suggesting we aren't bothered by men being executed "in the name of God knows what"?  Somehow I don't think you are trying to convey that message.

I'm not suggesting any such thing. The question I am asking has to do with wartime, women in combat, and men being naturally defensive of women, as per the article I cited and my son's comments. The question was whether our soldiers could deal with the consequences of their female comrades being captured, raped, tortured, and executed in combat. The article describes that defensiveness as built into men by nature. I'm not sure what you are reading into that or how your citation is even relevant.

Quote

Arguments against this move are many, some of which I touched upon in a previous column that focused on women’s unequal opportunity to survive because of various physical differences. This time, I submit another crucially important but politically incorrect proposition: Men’s lives will also be put at greater risk if women are in combat.

The reasoning should be obvious. Plainly put, men tend to like women quite a lot and either will be tempted to express their attraction, and/or will want to protect their female companions.

Scoff if you must, but blame Nature.

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

... men being naturally defensive of women ...

I don't think I'm naturally defensive of all women. Some, I'm terrified of and wish to be protected from. Some I'm happy to let go on their own. But one of my female coworkers was sexually harassed last weekend (including touching), and I'm livid. I didn't realise what had happened at the time, only that she was quite shaken up. I told her yesterday when she filled in the details that I won't rest until we've made certain this man never dares do anything like that again, and I won't. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

As if brutality against women hasn't been going on since recorded history with averted eyes. That is just silly to think it worse because it happens in war rather than everyday life. The number of women who just disappear world wide is horrifying. No concern there. 

Are you attributing a lack of concern to me? Is this a general world-wide lack of concern? Not sure where you are going with this.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think I'm naturally defensive of all women. Some, I'm terrified of and wish to be protected from. Some I'm happy to let go on their own. But one of my female coworkers was sexually harassed last weekend (including touching), and I'm livid. I didn't realise what had happened at the time, only that she was quite shaken up. I told her yesterday when she filled in the details that I won't rest until we've made certain this man never dares do anything like that again, and I won't. 

Why do you think you had this reaction? Would it be the same if it were a male co-worker?

Edited November 15, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why do you think you had this reaction? Would it be the same if it were a male co-worker?

It was based on her reaction. A male coworker with the same reaction would prompt the same response by me.

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think I'm naturally defensive of all women. Some, I'm terrified of and wish to be protected from. Some I'm happy to let go on their own. But one of my female coworkers was sexually harassed last weekend (including touching), and I'm livid. I didn't realise what had happened at the time, only that she was quite shaken up. I told her yesterday when she filled in the details that I won't rest until we've made certain this man never dares do anything like that again, and I won't. 

Women friends would probably respond the same way, I suspect, so I don't think it is a gender thing.

I was furious when a female professor attacked my husband to one of his bosses solely on the grounds he was Mormon and therefore would be inherently mistreating the women he worked with (and therefore she should get a particular position rather than he).  So were the women he worked with and some spoke up on his behalf saying he was the most respectful and best man they had worked with, treating even lower rung staff as equals...which the woman making the accusation did not from their reports.  They were really ticked off.  One of the women went out of her way to reassure me they were watching out for him.

Humans protect those they love and respect generally.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are you attributing a lack of concern to me? Is this a general world-wide lack of concern? Not sure where you are going with this.

My opinion is you are choosing to view some behaviour as evidence (where men are feeling protective, though examples are of women they know, not women in general) while ignoring other that is evidence against your position, where men are perpetrators of horrendous crimes against women...such as the men torturing and raping the women the others want to protect or some soldiers actually being the ones raping the women that others are afraid they will be manipulated in order to save them.

If men are so protective of women biologically to the point that women can be used to manipulate them where men would not be (personally I would be disgusted by a man who could resist hearing another man being tortured and rape, but gave in for a woman who had chosen to be there just as much as the man) then why is war so synonymous with rape in history?  That can easily be explained by territorial impulses, not so well by a biological imperative to protect.

Came across this article looking for info on how consistent for a segment of the men to be raping civilian populations.  

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/gender-race-and-rape-during-the-civil-war/283754/

And it is often not men under the immediate stress of combat, but those who come in later as conquerors (which goes to territorial instinct again):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan

Edited November 15, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

The article describes that defensiveness as built into men by nature. I'm not sure what you are reading into that or how your citation is even relevant.

It is not only women condemning these women to death.  If men are so protective of women, why are they signing off on their executions?

And if civilization is measured by 'averting of eyes' from women being executed, then America hasn't been a civilized country imo in a long time as we have accepted executions of women since 1632.

The article is about women they have bonded with, not women in general, btw.  It is therefore not evidence of a general male biological imperative to protect.  And as far as learned behaviour, who is teaching those men in modern times who continued to rape women in warzones and occupied territories as I referenced above.

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is not only women condemning these women to death.  If men are so protective of women, why are they signing off on their executions?

And if civilization is measured by 'averting of eyes' from women being executed, then America hasn't been a civilized country imo in a long time as we have accepted executions of women since 1632.

The article is about women they have bonded with, not women in general, btw.  It is therefore not evidence of a general male biological imperative to protect.  And as far as learned behaviour, who is teaching those men in modern times who continued to rape women in warzones and occupied territories as I referenced above.

Never mind.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

My opinion is you are choosing to view some behaviour as evidence (where men are feeling protective) while ignoring other that is evidence against your position, where men are perpetrators of horrendous crimes against women...such as the men torturing and raping the women the others want to protect or some soldiers actually being the ones raping the women that others are afraid they will be manipulated in order to save them.

If men are so protective of women biologically to the point that women can be used to manipulate them where men would not be (personally I would be disgusted by a man who could resist hearing another man being tortured and rape, but gave in for a woman who had chosen to be there just as much as the man) then why is war so synonymous with rape in history?  That can easily be explained by territorial impulses, not so well by a biological imperative to protect.

Came across this article looking for info on how consistent for a segment of the men to be raping civilian populations.  

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/gender-race-and-rape-during-the-civil-war/283754/

And it is often not men under the immediate stress of combat, but those who come in later as conquerors (which goes to territorial instinct again):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan

You win.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It was based on her reaction. A male coworker with the same reaction would prompt the same response by me.

Thank you.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm not suggesting any such thing. The question I am asking has to do with wartime, women in combat, and men being naturally defensive of women, as per the article I cited and my son's comments. The question was whether our soldiers could deal with the consequences of their female comrades being captured, raped, tortured, and executed in combat. The article describes that defensiveness as built into men by nature. I'm not sure what you are reading into that or how your citation is even relevant.

 

There you go again my buddy getting beat up for defending women, you monster! Welcome to the club.

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think I'm naturally defensive of all women. Some, I'm terrified of and wish to be protected from. Some I'm happy to let go on their own. But one of my female coworkers was sexually harassed last weekend (including touching), and I'm livid. I didn't realise what had happened at the time, only that she was quite shaken up. I told her yesterday when she filled in the details that I won't rest until we've made certain this man never dares do anything like that again, and I won't. 

Uh oh, another one, you horrible beast!

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You win.

Well I think there are none of us left yet again.   We can't win for losing.

Ah, Hamba.

He won't last long though. On the other hand though he cares much more about what's right than I do.

 

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I think there are none of us left yet again.   We can't win for losing.

Ah, Hamba.

He won't last long though. On the other hand though he cares much more about what's right than I do.

 

 

So let’s see, you come in this thread, mock the OP’s friends for not telling the world, then call the OP a liar, then complain about how poorly you’re being treated by the women in this thread. Do I have that about right?  You are indeed a defender of women. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting. I think a man who hurts a woman is going against his nature. I would say a man who hurts a female has learned that behavior.

 

I guess it probably depends on how you look at it.  On one hand, the scriptures teach that our natures are fallen and that it is in our nature to do evil continually.  On the other, we also have a divine nature.  In that sense, it is not in our nature to sin, regardless if we are man or woman, and regardless of what the sin is.

But since we are talking about biology, I don't think a successful argument can be made that it is against the biology of a male to hurt females.  It's been happening for too many millennia.  

JS taught that when someone has authority, it is in their nature to abuse it.  Since the beginning of time men, in general, have had authority over women.  They have had both the physical power and political power in the relationship.  If JS is right, then men (in general, historically) did not learn to abuse women, it is in their nature to use their power and authority to do so.

Quote

My combat veteran son confirms the sentiment of this article, 

I'm not sure that I understand this article.  Is it saying that men are more naturally suited to the evils of war than women so it's more sad for a woman to die in war than a man?

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

You win.

She's not trying to win.  This isn't a competition between men and women, and no one has to lose in order for someone else to win.  We aren't adversaries. 

She's trying to have a discussion and she's explaining why she disagrees with some of your conclusions.  Replying 'you win' rather than honestly engaging her points makes it seem like you have no use for the perspective of women and would rather not have discussions with them at all unless they agree with you.

 

[MustardSeed]

Someone mentioned they could see where this thread was headed a few pages back and I see that in effect it headed precicely where they led it.  Slow. Clap. 

For what it’s worth, I adore men.  I’m simply thrilled to be a woman, and I like my doors opened for me.  I also won’t be treated poorly, thank you very much. 

I think the internet is a convenient place for people to go and kick the dog.  I just assume if folks are driving around in traffic being mean and aggressive, they probably have issues I can’t see.  I slow way down so they can’t hit me. 

Back in the day, when I was young and feisty, I used to chase them down and call police and shake my fist. Turns out, it only put me in danger and stole my peace. 

As I age I find that I actually have the power and skills in life to quiet the conflict. I’m too tired for much else. 

Ive drawn my own conclusions about individuals here, as you have me.  That image is constantly changing, with an open heart. 

May you all have a peaceful day. 

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

She's not trying to win.  This isn't a competition between men and women, and no one has to lose in order for someone else to win.  We aren't adversaries. 

She's trying to have a discussion and she's explaining why she disagrees with some of your conclusions.  Replying 'you win' rather than honestly engaging her points makes it seem like you have no use for the perspective of women and would rather not have discussions with them at all unless they agree with you.

 

I have had a concern with many of the "defenders" of the church staying more and more quiet on these threads for that very reason. 

Sadly, it has shown me how I have been dismissive of the concerns of people in other situations. 

I think we really can disagree on things without contention. And it comes back to what I have been talking about for a long time. We need to listen as Heavenly Father listens to us.

I may reply to this again and add stuff, but now I am running out the door.