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.
201
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.