• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Men are not monsters.

The young man's walking out despite the pressure to say the oath is

  • An act of great courage

    Votes: 4 16.7%

  • An act of courage

    Votes: 20 83.3%

  • Unethical act

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    24
S

SCitizen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
316
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
JFink.jpg

Excellent article by Jennifer L.W. Fink.
Last week three of my four boys were herded into school-sponsored assemblies and asked to stand, raise their hands and pledge to never, ever hurt a woman. While their female classmates remained seated, my boys faced intense pressure to say:

I promise To never ever Hit, hurt, or otherwise harm A woman, girl, or child.
I understand That I am bigger and stronger Than many women, girls, and children.
Therefore it is my DUTY To NEVER HARM them, Protect, Respect, Honor, and Love them No matter what.
Click to expand...

Aghast, my 17-year-old son walked out.
Click to expand...

Notice: he did not give in to coercion.


Most males do not hurt females or other males, or even dogs and cats. Yet they’re all treated as potential perpetrators, and our boys feel the weight of this prejudice.
Click to expand...

It’s true males commit more violent acts than females: think school shootings, homicides and terrorist acts. But focusing on male violence against women ignores much of what is known about violence in general—while unfairly stigmatizing half of the population and poisoning the relationship between the sexes.

According to recent surveys by the National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control, some 40 percent of those reporting intimate partner violence in the last year are men. Nearly 30 percent of intimate homicide victims are men.
Click to expand...

Most comments were supportive, but some were not

Oh, boo hoo. Poor mistreated boys. What victims!
Click to expand...
 
To put out a blanket statement like that is denying how the real world functions, and is COMPLELEY coercive.

They have no idea when a woman/girl/ or children CAN and WILL KILL YOU.
There are children & women soldiers in all parts of the world.
There are women murder's in all parts of the world.

This is complete lunacy.

A woman will slide that blade into your ribs just as easily as a man.

A bullet fired from a child or female soldier can and will kill you just as dead if a man fire that shot.

These people have their heads in the clouds.
 
As a general rule you shouldn't start violence against others but if a woman tried to hit me with a closed fist you best believe she's gonna get dropped.
 
No matter what???

If a woman initiates force, she is in the wrong and self-defense is appropriate.

Making such a pledge would make one an idiot or a liar.

Treating men and women the same is gender equity, the exact opposite of sexism.
 
Pledging oath is ridiculous. There are no perjury accusations on the street.
 
d0gbreath said:
Pledging oath is ridiculous. There are no perjury accusations on the street.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately most high school students are not aware of the fact that since West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), forcing students to take a pledge is unconstitutional. In the case described in this article the school did not take disciplinary action against a student refusing to take the pledge. But if a school does, there can be a court case.
 
I'm going to set aside for the moment that a coerced oath is no oath at all and that the whole thing is highly insulting. Instead I am going to focus on the part of the oath that has nothing to do with violence.

It says it is their duty to also protect, respect, honor and love them no matter what.

There are plenty of women out there who don't deserve any of those things. Am I supposed to respect the woman who yelled a racial slur at my wife last week? Am I supposed to honor a mother who let's her child go hungry while she gets high on heroin? Are you kidding me?

Absolutely nothing bad about teaching kids that violence outside of self defense is wrong. But this is messed up.
 
Last edited:
Most of the time, when I see some right-wing nutjob complaining about the left's indoctrinating in the schools, I blow it off as conspiracy. But in this case, they may be on to something. Why not just make a pledge not to hit anyone that's a person? hmm? Why is it a pledge against hitting anything other than another man? Is hitting a man ok? Granted, I think a good fist fight between two men is therapeutic, but still.

My little brother is a bit of a hot head, and he constantly getting into it with his ex-wife. And when he's getting to hot, I punch him right in the mouth. Then we beat the **** out of each other, and afterwards he feels much better. Usually says things like, "Thanks, I needed that."
 
Last edited:
Tanngrisnir said:
That's some Orwellian-level double-plus-bad Groupthink right there.

He did the right thing by leaving.
Click to expand...

Don't be so dramatic. Intimate partner assault is a serious and underreported problem.

The flaws with the oath were that: (trigger warning--discussions of gender and sexual orientation to follow)

(1) The oath was gendered. Men tend to be the bigger domestic violence offenders in multiple senses of the word "big," but there are definitely woman offenders to. And what about violence between gay partners? The oath completely leaves them out.

(2) There are two instances where striking another human being is justified: Legitimate self-defense, and informed consent. If I decide to get into a literal sparring match with another adult and talk about the parameters beforehand, unless they are already commonly understood by all parties involved, then yeah, it's perfectly fine if we hit each other. But there would have to be a way to tap out in case things got to be too much. That's where intimate partner violence goes wrong: It isn't consensual, it isn't agreed to in a noncoercive manner ahead of time, and there's no safeword. Thus, it's abuse.
 
Phys251 said:
Don't be so dramatic.
Click to expand...

I'm not, thanks.
Intimate partner assault is a serious and underreported problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm quite aware of the problem. It's also irrelevant to what I stated.
The flaws with the oath were that: (trigger warning--discussions of gender and sexual orientation to follow)

(1) The oath was gendered. Men tend to be the bigger domestic violence offenders in multiple senses of the word "big," but there are definitely woman offenders to. And what about violence between gay partners? The oath completely leaves them out.

(2) There are two instances where striking another human being is justified: Legitimate self-defense, and informed consent. If I decide to get into a literal sparring match with another adult and talk about the parameters beforehand, unless they are already commonly understood by all parties involved, then yeah, it's perfectly fine if we hit each other. But there would have to be a way to tap out in case things got to be too much. That's where intimate partner violence goes wrong: It isn't consensual, it isn't agreed to in a noncoercive manner ahead of time, and there's no safeword. Thus, it's abuse.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah. Relevancy is a good thing.
 
The kid reacted appropriately.

The is the kind of PC crap I totally agree with the right on.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
What you stated is quite irrelevant to my post.
Click to expand...

Oh so we shouldn't discuss matters of consent, gender, and the like when discussing physical violence?
 
I didn't see an option that I agree with. It was a good move to step away from the weird oath-taking thing, but was it courageous? I don't think so.
 
MrPeanut said:
I didn't see an option that I agree with. It was a good move to step away from the weird oath-taking thing, but was it courageous? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I think it took a lot of will power not to fall in line with the peer pressure. I think situation of pushing an 'oath' is just plain stupid on the part of the school. I find that kind of 'pledge' pushing to be ineffective and counter productive.
 
SCitizen said:
View attachment 67210915

Excellent article by Jennifer L.W. Fink.


Notice: he did not give in to coercion.

Most comments were supportive, but some were not
Click to expand...

I would have wanted to understand my son's reluctance to make that pledge. I also would have been in the principal's office knowing why girls were not included in pledging.

I was manhandled in high school. Kept me with the same jerk for four years. Fact is, boys need to learn that real men don't use their physical superiority on women. And WOMEN should NEVER lay a hand on a guy in anger.

The lesson goes both ways.
 
I find it stupid for other reasons. Making people take an oath against violence isn't really rooting out the reasons that violence take place. Misogyny can be an insidious thing. While most men will never hit a woman, many men perpetuate marginalization of women in subtle ways without knowing it. This oath is the equivalent of telling people to swear that they will treat people right. What does that even mean?

I too find the one-sidedness unfortunate. This has nothing to do with PC or feminism, but some idiot who thinks if they get the children while they're young they can change the world. It changes nothing and just annoys people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom