Why are we still more comfortable with violence on men over women? (scenes, watching)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Strange as I watched the movie Passengers last night with Jennifer Lawrence who gets so angry with her co star that she punches him hard on the face then threatend to hit him over the head with a heavy object.. I hardly turned a hair but think of it the other way round.. if it was him doing the same to her.. I would have cringed.. and thats not right. by the way they were supposed to be in love..
But most of the times in movies like this, the girls are not getting beat up. But if anything, the girls are doing the beating up.(Think Black Widow and Storm, etc.) Therefore, I don't get what your point is.
I agree the more fantastic the action is the more likely that there will be a supermodel thin female laying the smackdown on large male officers, mercenaries, gang members etc with movie martial arts. On CBS Friday 3/10 rail thin 40 year old Grace Park playing an around 30 year old Kono on Hawaii 5-0 had a double dose of going hand to hand against large men ready to fight first taking down mercenaries as a a guest star on MacGyver and then playing the throw the gun away I will beat you to beat down a knife wielding pimp.
But most of the times in movies like this, the girls are not getting beat up. But if anything, the girls are doing the beating up.(Think Black Widow and Storm, etc.) Therefore, I don't get what your point is.
The point is that people flock to see movies and even sports (like boxing, MMA, wrestling, sometimes hockey) that are just thinly veiled excuses to watch guys beat each other up. The OP was asking why we as a culture are comfortable with this. I can't answer that other than to say it makes money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
You forgot to mention rapes and other forms of sexual assault. That sort of violence is also fine.
And half the time it's a vicious assault on a woman that prompts the hero to go on his campaign of revenge, leading to more violence.
Yeah, but are we talking about bulls and roosters... or are we talking about human beings?
"Woman and children first into the life boats!" isn't so long ago.
Call me old-school, but I wouldn't have much use for a husband who would not place his own body between his wife and a physical threat to her and his children.
Strange as I watched the movie Passengers last night with Jennifer Lawrence who gets so angry with her co star that she punches him hard on the face then threatend to hit him over the head with a heavy object.. I hardly turned a hair but think of it the other way round.. if it was him doing the same to her.. I would have cringed.. and thats not right. by the way they were supposed to be in love..
That's probably because men are generally stronger than women, and are generally around 5 inches taller than woman, and generally weigh around 50 to 75 lbs or more than women.
"Woman and children first into the life boats!" isn't so long ago.
Call me old-school, but I wouldn't have much use for a husband who would not place his own body between his wife and a physical threat to her and his children.
That's a totally different argument than what you were making before.
That's a totally different argument than what you were making before.
No, it's part of the same argument. "Women and children first" is not a matter of a "husband's love for his family."
If that were the case, we'd have to acknowledge that mothers love their families perhaps even more than fathers. Therefore if it were a matter of love, it would be "fathers and children first" at least as often as "women and children first."
But notice, it's not "wives and children first," it's "women and children first." All women, any women, not just those beloved by husbands.
That's because of a social awareness that society persists with the survival of as many women as possible...not so much that many men.
The point is that people flock to see movies and even sports (like boxing, MMA, wrestling, sometimes hockey) that are just thinly veiled excuses to watch guys beat each other up. The OP was asking why we as a culture are comfortable with this. I can't answer that other than to say it makes money.
Well, bloodsport of one kind or another has been around forever. The reason female bloodsport never gains the validity of male bloodsport is that bloodsport capitalizes on the physical characteristics of, particularly, men.
So female bloodsport can never be the epitomy of bloodsport. The world's best female heavyweight boxer cannot beat the world's best male heavyweight boxer on any day.
Female bloodsport may be surreptitiously titillating, or just an interesting novelty, but it can't be the epitome of bloodsport.
No, it's part of the same argument. "Women and children first" is not a matter of a "husband's love for his family."
If that were the case, we'd have to acknowledge that mothers love their families perhaps even more than fathers. Therefore if it were a matter of love, it would be "fathers and children first" at least as often as "women and children first."
But notice, it's not "wives and children first," it's "women and children first." All women, any women, not just those beloved by husbands.
That's because of a social awareness that society persists with the survival of as many women as possible...not so much that many men.
Quote:
"Women and children first" (or to a lesser extent, the Birkenhead Drill[1][2]) is a code of conduct whereby the lives of women and children are to be saved first in a life-threatening situation, typically abandoning ship, when survival resources such as lifeboats were limited.
While the phrase first appeared in the 1860 novel Harrington: A Story of True Love, by William Douglas O'Connor,[3][4] the first documented application of "women and children first" occurred during the 1852 evacuation of the Royal Navy troopship HMS Birkenhead. It is, however, most famously associated with the sinking of RMS Titanic in 1912. As a code of conduct, "women and children first" has no basis in maritime law. According to disaster evacuation expert Ed Galea, in modern-day evacuations people will usually "help the most vulnerable to leave the scene first. It's not necessarily women, but is likely to be the injured, elderly and young children."
That doesn't affect my argument about historical human practice. Modern practice also puts women into combat, also having nothing to do with historical human practice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
