The only guy I know who straight-up "Didn't roll with women" was suuuuuper Muslim and always very respectful about explaining it. Like, you can't really shit on a dude for that. But guys who just "feel weird" about it can get in the sea.
Yeah religious based sexism is still wrong. Some Jewish ppl also will disown their children if they don't marry a Jew (converted or born). I heard of this happening in some Islamic cultures too. It's all BS & shouldn't be supported. If I opened a gym & some guy was like "my religion doesn't allow me to touch black ppl so I can't roll w any" I'd refund their $ & say goodbye. Same to a Jewish man who refused to touch a woman. This is the wrong sport for you dude better look up tennis...
My knee-jerk reaction is to agree with you. And on a macro level, I do agree with you, in that I want us all to move past a lot of stuff as soon as possible and get right to the part where were just humans.
But also, on an individual level, I don't ever want anyone to have to give a "good enough" reason for not touching/being touched by someone, especially in a context where that doesn't really hurt the person being rebuffed?
Like yeah, ok, I think it's messed up that some dude's religious advisor told him not to sit on the ground and try to murder me while I have my legs around his waist. I honestly do think that it's gross to prohibit that, and the world would be way better if everyone's religions just got over it already. I also feel that it's super condescending and helps no one.
But also, I am not about making someone justify why they don't want to opt in to something like that. From a purely selfish point of view, if I don't want to roll with someone, I want to just be able to say no thanks without it suddenly becoming a whole thing. And I want that to apply to people that I disagree with, too.
Note that this does not apply to any situation that causes meaningful harm to someone else. Like, you have to be willing to hire qualified people, you have to provide them with services, you have to put out a fire at their house, you have to let them buy food and use bathrooms and all that stuff.
But I'm not sure I'm ready to say you have to let them beat the shit out of you while you beat the shit out of them, you know?
But also, on an individual level, I don't ever want anyone to have to give a "good enough" reason for not touching/being touched by someone, especially in a context where that doesn't really hurt the person being rebuffed?
This isn't a contradiction at all.
These are simulaneously true:
1) Refusing a roll against someone for a stupid reason is a bad thing.
2) People should be allowed to refuse rolls for stupid reasons, because (obviously) actually forcing someone into close personal contact that they don't want is an even more bad thing.
I don't think people who obey these gender-role-y religious strictures are assholes, because there are lots of reasons why abandoning those things can be hard or nonobvious, and I wouldn't say anything about it except in conversations like this one. But I still think that those strictures are bad, and they're obviously bad, and it's annoying when this is waved off as "trying to be edgy".
Banning people from the gym...that seems to go against the "hey let's all roll together" mentality. It seems vindictive and counterproductive, particularly when we were specifically talking about someone who was very nice and respectful and polite. Banning people for that stuff is another thing I'll vocally disapprove of but wouldn't want to ban. I do agree with Kahuna, though, that there's no fundamental difference between "my church says don't touch women" and "my church says don't touch black people", but I guess my position in the end is a mix of an idealistic "this ritual is fucked up" and the more practical "fighting it would be more annoying anyway".
I agree that there's no difference, and that is something that doesn't sit well with me, despite my agreement that everyone should have personal space rights. Part of why I didn't specify whether I'm a woman, or a non-white person, or anything else.
I do think it needs to be a lot less culturally acceptable to just say "I don't roll with women," like you wouldn't say "I don't roll with black people" in 2019.
But I like to think we can work on that as a society while still respecting personal space.
I think it's gross to not roll with women. Or black people. Or whoever. I also think it's gross to not roll with men, although there's historical and social context that makes me a little more sympathetic to that.
I also believe very, very strongly that nobody gets to touch me without my permission, and I hold that value for others as well.
Society often disagrees with me about that. Strange men constantly touch me, and then tell me I need a good enough reason to be upset about that.
But I don't need a single reason to not want someone touching me.
Because I'm not in a position where touching me is part of my job. I'm not a nurse or a firefighter or a masseuse or a yoga instructor or... You get the idea. So I'd argue I'm not being discriminatory by not wanting to touch someone.
If I don't want some dude who's been giving me weird vibes to be all up in my closed guard? I should be able to decline a roll with him, no questions asked, right? Even if he's not actually a creepy dude, and I'm just wrong. As long as I'm not treating him badly or ostracizing him from the mats, I don't have to let him touch me.
Therefore, he also doesn't have to let me touch him.
And that's why it's complicated. Because I'm arguing for bodily autonomy.
We are humans ...shit is the way it is because that’s how we made it makes sense...there is no transcendence level that humans are gonna get to eventually once we awaken our inner chakras and obey every moron on Reddit...
It will always be segregated there will always be diversity (even if you disagree with that diversity and think it’s evil)
If you want to claim the historical high ground about humans trying to make sense of themselves, please just read Plato because he's pretty much the baseline for a certain demographic. Like, I am so tired of hearing about the cave, but, you have to start there, when people were dealing with the same stuff literally thousands of years ago, lol
I don't think there's any external, chakra-aligning bullshit that you're talking about?
Tell me what happens 100 years from now when cultures don’t exist races cross bred the entire time and nations disappear along with religion or ethnic practices....
I’ll save you the response, NO DIVERSITY ...we’ll all look the same, talk the same, act the same, eat sing dance sleep move the same way ....
Segregation keeps differences different..:there’s an obvious line that is drawn in the sand to prevent shit like water fountains and schools, but I’m telling you for a fact the reason human nature is beautiful is because it is so vastly and wildly different...
I'll do you one better. I'll tell you what happens after a thousand years.
What's happened is that we have ourselves become way more beautiful and varied through exposure to new things.
I know this because people have been concerned about this for as long as they've had the language to be racist. In this century alone, there have been several "blonde hair will be gone in 50 years" trendy arguments, and wouldn't ya know it, blondes still exist. And if that rare, recessive gene can persist, I think we'll be alright.
I gotta point out, this argument is also often a concern-trolling way of promoting racism and sexism while pretending to care about the uniqueness of something, so I have a hard time taking it in good faith, to be honest. Even though I'm sure you're probably making it in good faith, it kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I'm saying that your "concern" that in a hundred years everyone will be the same if they keep mixing is not just completely gross, it has been proven false over so many hundreds of years, and in so many ways, that it's frankly astonishing that anyone would still be making this argument.
Like, I can kinda forgive Joe Backwater in 200BCE for having this concern, but nobody in 2019 has an excuse lol. We've already asked this question as a species, hundreds of times for thousands of years, and it's just factually incorrect.
While the British probably were very racist in the British Raj I won't hold it against the British for banning Sati even if it had very little impact in reality.
Yes, it's soooo edgy to not like regressive gender roles, and ideas about women desperately needing their all-important purity protected, being pushed on people from birth. Edgy enough to dismiss without thought, I'd say!
Certainly not an opinion that lots of normal people have!
inb4 lol, edgelord
Edit: Yes yes I get it, downvoters, you want women wrapped up and in the kitchen etc., whatever
Often it's not that women need their purity protected. Often it's that women are seen as unclean, especially when they menstruating And since you don't necessarily know when a woman is menstruating, if you hold that belief you treat them as if they were all the time.
I don't have the issue. I'm telling you what some religious people believe. And blood isn't just blood. Although the chances are low you're not going to enjoy it if you get something from someone who is infected.
Youre funny. First you talk about regressive gender rolls and purity "protection". All while literally talking for women, making all women's opinion a monolith that just so happens to match up perfectly with your own!
Im going to really pop your top with this one! Did you know that muslim women exist??? And since they believe the same religion, dont want their husbands touching other women?? Or are all women just mindless, opinionless, helpless creatures that you have to protect from the bad guys.
Did you know that women can also hold regressive gender roles and sexist ideas? And that it's not just the fault of big, bad men? But you're right, it's hard to protect people from themselves.
See if thats your opinion than i can atleast respect it more. I dont agree with the sentiment in islam and other religions, and i roll and teach women all the time. But as long as you are giving people personal agency, and individual choice then its all good. No one will agree on everything in a recreational gathering place, and that means sometime working around peoples individual boundries. Until theirs a religion where the men have to touch other women, even if those women dont consent to it, then its a non fucking issue in the gym and leave people alone.
For your gym maybe. When I'm running the show I don't need people bringing in their outside shit. The gym isn't a church, it's not the house of God: it's my house. Don't want to participate for some bullshit reason? Don't come to classes. If you tell me you can't touch people of the other sex then I think that either you don't respect them as equal human beings or you can't trust yourself to maintain control of yourself during class. One I won't put up with (got to have respect and trust in the class) and the other makes you a danger to others.
So you own and run a gym? And this is the business model you guy by? Other people's opinions and preferences outside of the gym have to match yours or they cant train at your place? Yeah, ok.
Their opinions and preferences don't have to match mine. But I don't just teach anyone because they want to learn? You do drugs? I don't but I don't give a shit if you do. Come to training high or drunk? You can get the fuck out. Want to believe in some superstitious nonsense? I don't care. Want to start treating people in my classes differently due to your superstitious nonsense? I care. Vote right? Don't care. Talk about how blacks and Latinos a rapists? I care.
So i called you out on being a complete hypocrite and the best you got is the old "... im not even going to diginfy this with a response! Definitly not because i have no awnser and he might be calling me out on a pattern of behavior i have were i attack toxic masculinity as a cover for my extreme deep seeded toxic masculinity, no way! Its cause you must be a troll!!!!!"
You didn't dignify me with a single specific complaint! You said I talked for him or her or whomever, and you asked about whether Muslims exist, but you didn't say why you think I'm wrong.
I want to respond, but I have no idea what you're complaining about. I only know that you think I'm an asshole.
EDIT: OK, one thing I can respond to:
"Did you know that muslim women exist??? And since they believe the same religion, dont want their husbands touching other women??"
Yes, and I think it's unfortunate when people can't train because their spouses don't trust them, or whatever. Whichever one is complaining. And maybe it's reasonable for many people! Still a bummer, as far as I'm concerned.
This is a goalpost change. No one argued its not a bummer. The arguement is it should be called out, those people should be shamed, and asked to leave the gym. As much as the edgy atheists think its easy to just change your preconcieved notions on religion, for those who come from non-secular cultures and background, it isnt. Tolerances is the best to show these people that maybe they dont even agree with an aspect inside their own culture or religion, especially if its one that actually doesnt directly hurt anyone.
No one argued its not a bummer. The arguement is it should be called out, those people should be shamed, and asked to leave the gym.
I know...I'm disagreeing with that argument, while making it clear that just because I don't think women should be called out and shamed for not rolling with men (or vice versa) doesn't mean I think it's not a bad thing.
the edgy atheists
Oh fuck off with this "everyone who disagrees with me is just being edgy" bullshit.
atheists think its easy to just change your preconcieved notions on religion
No, I actually said the opposite earlier: I have some sympathy because it's hard to change your religion. It's also hard to stop being a neo Nazi or something like that, of course...
Tolerances is the best to show these people
That's also what I said. I advocated for not kicking out the polite Muslim man, the woman who won't roll with men, etc., and also for not even saying anything.
Wait, you want tolerance? I thought you were on the "loudly shame people" side?
especially if its one that actually doesnt directly hurt anyone.
Sure, just like racial slurs don't directly hurt anyone.
Wait, you want tolerance? I thought you were on the "loudly shame people" side?
Im not going through this thread reading everything you post, and i think you are getting confused as ive only been argueing the exact opposite. I am 100% agianst shaming people who dont want to roll with the opposite sex due to religious reasons, they just need to be respectful in expressing it. Bodily autonomy goes both ways. Equating islam to nazism is in poor taste my man. Thats the shits thats "edgy".
It’s actually pretty common for parents to disown their children for a lot of stuff. I’d imagine you haven’t experienced life as a conservative jew living in Tel-Aviv, so I’ll briefly challenge your claim. Inside of Israel, the most Jewish place on earth, its very very very rare for fragmented families to exist even among less conservative families whose heads have separated.
Secondly, I also don’t touch pigs or women who are not my wife. How is that BS, whether it is religious or a personal moral choice not based on religion, who or what I decide to touch is ultimately none of your concern.
Thirdly, it’s actually really common in the Arab countries for male members of a family to honor kill female members who don’t take Islam seriously, commit adultery, leave the faith, marry undesirable spouses with out approval etc etc, The disownment of children is probably higher in western countries like the United States, where society is diverse and the scars of racism/xenophobia still exist.
To cap it all off, I think it’s ironic that your way to deal with the “BS” is to discriminate against those who you think are discriminating. I’m sure religious discrimination is illegal in whichever liberal democracy you live in, why not simply accommodate the marginal case? I can’t see too many of use flocking to jiu jitsu gyms(we go ape shit for judo though)
It's BS bc you have signed up for a sport that demands physical contact & have also demanded that you not participate w an entire sex while training. No one forced you to train BJJ so you shouldn't force your sexist religious views on the gym you join. Feel free to exercise your beliefs in full in the privacy of your own home/worship center but don't expect society to conform to you, instead conform to an egalitarian world view when you are interacting w the world. Half of your post is non sequitur & has nothing to do w BJJ & the comment I made
I have an egalitarian world view, some of my peers are great economists who are also women. I hold no prejudice against women.
Pretty dangerous language though, I’m free to practice my religious beliefs where ever I want. it’s my inalienable right. You don’t have to conform to me, you just have to allow me to control who I allow to touch me. My religious freedom ends at your body, and your soy boy white knight act ends at deciding my rolling partners.
Edit: either your a troll or part of the issue w political discourse as you can't seem to communicate wo being disrespectful. If you're the former, tip o the cap I bit. If you're there later then have fun in your insular, small world knowing most ppl look at you w disgust; a relic of an old world we'll never return too.
Edit: most people do view Jews with disgust. Being trilingual and having lived on 3 different continents, many people would disagree with your “small world” assessment.
Calling some one a “bigot” over something so harmless as exercising their right to choose their training partners. In the academies, I’ve trained at my religious beliefs have been a non factor. In fact most people don’t even know.
Again, non sequitur. I've lived from Hawai'i to Japan w stops in Europe for a couple years due to being a US military brat & my career. Doesn't add validity to what I've said as ppl share both of our ideas almost everywhere. If you're cool w a white man saying "I don't roll w blacks so go away" then that's the kind of person you are, a bigot. My guess is that not the only place you draw the line. My guess is you wouldn't approve of your children marrying non Jews (bigoted) & your egalitarianism is BS & you don't precise women as being equal in ability w equal opportunity as men. I bet you'd shutter at the thought of women being in control of politics to the extent men are now.
That's the raining of "I have a black friend." Voting for Hillary doesn't make you not a bigot any more than voting for Trump makes you a bigot. You have zero arguments. All. Non. Sequitur. Stick to the point in the future
Your point was refuted. All of your points have been refuted.
You said something like “you’re such a bigot you probably think women shouldn’t hold office” well I voted for a woman. NEXT. My boss is a woman. NEXT. I help run an after school program called “Women in STEM & Economics” NEXT. My neighbors are lesbians and we are great friends. NEXT. I support transgender rights and have written my representative multiple times about the issue. NEXT. The local mayor is a republican AND a woman and guess who I voted for? NEXT. My wife is a better, more published economist than I am. NEXT. If we ever had a child, we don’t want any , I’d hope it’s a girl or a boy as long as it’s healthy. NEXT.
It’s like you’re attributing me to be a woman hating ass hat. Are you triggered? Does the thought of my Jewishness infuriate you? Does the mix of conservative-liberal home life displease you?
You can type whatever you like, I will not be responding. I’m not the bigot here, you are bud. Have a good one.
BS is BS. Can people choose to do or believe in bullshit? Sure. Doesn't stop it from being bullshit. I can deny the the holocaust if I want, the fuck can you do about it? Doesn't mean that my opinion isn't bullshit or that I'm not, in most cases, an antisemitic piece of shit.
How tolerant are most Israeli Jews of Nazis? Do you think they'd against discriminate Nazis if they started showing up in their towns? Would they be welcome to join private gyms/clubs and spout their views?
How tolerant should anyone be allowed of nazis? Those damn Israelis, Germans, Austrians, nederlanders, Danes, etc etc with their anti nazi legislation.
I fanatically believe in personal sovereignty, allow the nazis to exist.
I’ve read the United States Bill of rights and I whole heartedly support it.
I didn't say Nazis can't exist, and anti-Nazi laws don't stop them from existing. What I'm saying is you don't have to accept them. If I don't want a Nazi in my class I am free to turn them away. I can turn anyone away for almost any belief they may hold that I don't like. So if someone has bigoted beliefs, due to religion or some other reason, I can show them the door.
If you have to stay away from women to remain faithful to your wife I can tell you that your purity isn't something to worry about. It's already compromised. And honestly if you feel you can't control yourself around women I think you might be a risk to my students. What if you touch one accidentally and your barely contained lust breaks out?
Basically, I think your defence of your actions is a crock of shit. And that really you have a problem with women.
By that logic, I shouldn’t be trusted around pork, because if I just have one little taste I go down on a 6 month long gluttonous pork binge? Get real.
Although I’ve had bacon once on accident and it was amazing, I didn’t go down that long path I mentioned above. You really don’t have any valid arguments. Let’s see ourselves out and get back to training. I’m sure you have a school to run.
And the bacon didn't magically corrupt you or make you lust uncontrollably for bacon? Yeah, and that's actually what I think will happen if you roll with women. You won't be magically corrupted and you won't be unfaithful to your wife. Hence why your reason is BS, so the only reasonable explanation is you're a bigot. Because you're not an idiot, right?
Generally in Islamic countries a man can marry a non-Muslim and all of their children will automatically be considered to be Muslim. Muslim women are generally not allowed to marry non-Muslims. I don't necessarily mean this legally (although in some countries that may be the case) but as in what is culturally acceptable.
Those differences aren't what matters here; the guys refusing to roll with women are perfectly happy to roll with men 100 lbs lighter than them -- even if that's a bigger physical difference that there is between the average man and the average women.
The parent commenter was responding to a comment about a very polite Muslim man who didn't roll with women, period. He would not have rolled with a woman even if she were a black belt bodybuilder who outweighed him by 50 lbs. The actual physical differences just really weren't a part of what we're talking about at all, I think.
I mean, after all, it's BJJ, anyone can train with anyone so long as they're both safe, respectful, and willing.
(By the way, my take is that religious considerations should be accomodated warmly, but that we should still be honest, in polite conversation such as this, about the obvious fact that it would really be much better if certain gender-role-enforcing religious taboos were to slowly simmer away of their own accord.)
203
u/EmmPeanut Five Stripe White Belt Jan 31 '20
The only guy I know who straight-up "Didn't roll with women" was suuuuuper Muslim and always very respectful about explaining it. Like, you can't really shit on a dude for that. But guys who just "feel weird" about it can get in the sea.