In a training session at work, the manager told us that in case we ever needed to lock the doors for someone threatening employees with a weapon, the rule in their handbook is that all women must take refuge and that males must stay outside the locked and safe room and attempt to de-escalate the situation. Even if the person has a deadly weapon.
What about equality? Even though it is chivalrous, it also seems extremely foolish. Why not have EVERYONE take refuge? Why is it up to the men to fix the life-treatening problem? This is just a problem I had that in a very small scoped and weird way, shows that gender inequality doesn't just affect women. Men here are asked to put themselves in life-threatening danger because they;re men and women get to be guarenteed safety.
it goes both ways in different contexts.
7 comments:
I totally agree that I think it is a little unfair to ask the men to have to protect women just because they are the men. I would say depending on the situation, like if it was a family and there was an intruder, I would want the man of the house to protect his family however I think there is no responsibility of a man to protect his co-worker just because she is a women. I think that is feeding into the stereotype that our society forces upon us that men should be the ones to take care of us.
It kind of reminds me of the debate about whether women should be forced to enter the draft like men when they turn 18. Many women are adament about having the same rights as men however are they willing to do the same things to get this privileges? What are your feeling about this?
From a biological standpoint, the men are more suited to handle the situation than the women.
As a society we get so concerned about equal rights (affirmative action, title IX, etc...) that we forget to talk about the responsibility that comes with equality. Men and women are different, thus different rights, and responsibilities apply to each sex.
I think that is rather ridiculous training! And I have to strongly disagree with Cadillac tears' biological standpoint in this situation. I say this because the training was referring to an individual threatening people with a weapon. Biologically it really makes no difference if you are a man or a woman- a knife can still stab you and a bullet can still penetrate you. Proper training should treat men and women equally in the situation. This training should advise both sexes to participate in the lockdown and allow trained professions to come in and alleviate the situation.
I guess I can see your point, but there is also another side to it. There has to be a reason why these women are doing this to their selves. Perhaps it is another example of hegemony. They are doing what they believe to be sexy and feminine, thinking this will take them to the top of their profession. However, there are ways to be sexy and feminine with out allowing camerman to do up the skirt topless crotch schots of you while you "grind" on a rap star. The women in turn are degraded because of being too sexual. I think it is sad because there is a reason why these women are doing this. I was raised to have self respect. I respect my opinions, beliefs, and my body. I know there is a fine line between a model and swim suit model, and a movie star and a soft porn star. Some women would do anything for attention and feel that using their body is the only way to do so. I wonder if these women have experienced sexual harrassment or abuse at some point in their lives. This is exactly like when we Dr. Lucas was talking about exotic dancers and how they are acting when they are "working". This is no different than the women in Rap videos.
Wow. I think that is so out dated and wrong to think that men should die for women that they potentially do not even care about. I think the handbook should state that everyone should take refuge. If certain persons care to de-escalate the situation they are to do so for personal reasons and not company reasons. This is like on Titanic how they only alowed women and children on the lifeboats. If this happened all the time and only women and children were saved, we would lose all of our men. As a woman I find that to be a travesty, because we can not continue the human race without men! I think this is ridiculous and the men have grounds to dispute it because it is a form of sexual discrimination.
Ok first of all, where the heck do you work because this strikes me as quite sexist at its very core. I'm pretty sure all the guys in your place of employment could possibly have a case to sue for sexual discrimination. Everyone who commented that their should be no difference is right in my book. You should be trained on how to stay calm and do anything and everything to make sure no one, man or woman gets hurt. I am also shocked that your company wants employees to learn how to talk a person down. That seems like a job for professionally trained police officers etc.
I think this retro idea of what it means to be a guy is absolutely ridiculous! It reminds me of the movie Titanic when the guys aren't allowed on the lifeboats because it's women and children first. I think this idea of forced heroism play into things we have learned in this class like in the Tough Guise video. Men are portrayed as being tough and rugged and protectors, but when it comes to actual life and death situations I believe it is unreasonable and probably illegal to expect them to live up to these idealized defintions of masculinity.
Post a Comment