When Men are Stabbed, it's Apparently Funny
Glenn Sacks points out what happens when a man gets stabbed in a domestic dispute:
I know that people find men being stabbed or hurt funny from first-hand experience. I once told two female friends about the MIT student who was stabbed in a dorm room without mentioning gender. The two women were shocked and dismayed about the case--thinking the victim was female. However, when I told them the student was male, they burst out laughing. When I pointed out the hypocrisy, they argued and didn't even seem to understand what I was talking about. People are so indoctrinated to believe that violence against men is okay, especially if perpetrated by women, that they find the whole thing a joke. How empathetic.
Apparently the filming of the new James Bond movie Quantum of Solace is being plagued with problems. While listening to McIntyre In The Morning on KABC in Los Angeles this morning, I was dismayed when KABC entertainment reporter Debra Mark (pictured) lightly and semi-laughingly mentioned that one of the film crew had been "stabbed in a domestic dispute."
I know that people find men being stabbed or hurt funny from first-hand experience. I once told two female friends about the MIT student who was stabbed in a dorm room without mentioning gender. The two women were shocked and dismayed about the case--thinking the victim was female. However, when I told them the student was male, they burst out laughing. When I pointed out the hypocrisy, they argued and didn't even seem to understand what I was talking about. People are so indoctrinated to believe that violence against men is okay, especially if perpetrated by women, that they find the whole thing a joke. How empathetic.
Labels: Male Bashing
posted by Helen at 8:06 AM
48 Comments:
Gah!
That to me is a nightmare scenario. A crazy woman coming at you with a knife and you are hobbled in how you defend yourself because you have been taught never to hurt a woman.
It's literally a joke here in southern Louisiana. "Boudreaux" jokes are a staple, and the one about Boudreaux's wife being arrested is a favorite. When she asked the charge, the police told her, "Marie, cher, de charge is murder." She indignantly replied, "I stabbed dat bastid plenty times before and he never died!"
If the joke teller can do the accent well, it gets a laugh every single time. I reversed it once just to see what kind of reaction I'd get from my coworker who routinely told jokes slamming men: "I can't believe you just said that." She was really offended, and reported me to the boss for it.
A lot of women in my generation, who have been indoctrinated in college by the so-called "academic feminists" really think they are "special", just becasue they are women. And that if they commit a violent criminal act, say by stabbing a husband, it is OK, since they and the sisterhood have been oppressed for centuries by the male, patriarchal hegemony.
Plus, law enforcement is of no help, because most officers, approach a potential domestic violence situation with a pro-female bias.
Not a good situation at all, especially if a man gets involved with a women, and then realises she is a psycho.
Let me get this straight: you quote someone else's opinion and then go on a rant about this woman? Did you hear the broadcast first-hand? Have you heard her explanation for the misunderstanding the last two mornings? You're a psychologist (supposedly) - isn't it psych-101 that there are two sides to every story? Maybe you ought to get back to your day-job and stop trying to be a shock-jock.
I'm waiting for the Real Men (TM) on the board to turn up and explain how a knifing from the little lady just means that she wants more attention and then stories about how knifings didn't hurt them, as Real Men, one bit. Cuz they're he-man / real men.
And, by the way, I really do think that the chivalrous real-man attitudes play a role in creating the women who think stabbings of men are funny. One requires the other in a sense, the heros need the dopey damsels.
Dr. Helen ranted about Debra Mark? And here I thought the point was about hypocrisy in humor. Silly me.
Sample of Real Man checking in: violence isn't funny. Knives hurt. Law should apply across the board, though it often doesn't.
Manning up means putting up, not putting up with. It's not manly to ignore danger or injustice. Stab me, and you're incapacitated without much injury while the police arrive. Unless you're stabbing me on the way to harming my family, of course, in which case, the coroner will be a better call.
In other news, some need to review the definition of Real Man, hashed out at length here, at Rachel Lukis' place, and others. Glib stereotyping just makes you sound like a moron.
Gah!
That to me is a nightmare scenario. A crazy woman coming at you with a knife and you are hobbled in how you defend yourself because you have been taught never to hurt a woman.
Wow. Get over it. I was taught not to hit women too but if anyone, man or woman, comes at me with a knife I'm going to defend myself. Any man who can't get past a stupid stereotype to defend himself (or especially his family) is not much of a man.
be,
That's your idea of a rant? You obviously don't get around the internet much. It seems that for some people, any form of disagreement is a "rant."
"Manning up means putting up, not putting up with."
--
No, what it really means is that the woman pretends you are a hero because she doesn't have to work or do other unpleasant things in life and the chivalrous man acts the role of the hero because deep down he doesn't think he can get a woman unless he pays for her and does other unpleasant tasks for her in life.
And it's the perpetuation of that kind of crap that leads to women thinking that men are just expendable idiots - because that's exactly the role they take on when they think they are being a real man.
I guess a real person treats others like they want to be treated, is honorable, doesn't cheat others etc.
And I wouldn't want a woman around me who didn't also have those principles. Because she would be a child, like a good number of American women today.
Sorry, can't respect the hero he-man (really a useful idiot for her) / princess on a pedestal (really a spoiled child) division.
And further, if men are viewed as expendable idiots to be used by a whole lot of women in society, then ... they are going to be viewed as expendable idiots. Like when one of them gets stabbed.
Oh well, there are plenty of other ones to use.
Wow. Get over it. I was taught not to hit women too but if anyone, man or woman, comes at me with a knife I'm going to defend myself. Any man who can't get past a stupid stereotype to defend himself (or especially his family) is not much of a man.
Pete, I take it you've never been in a situation like that before especially since you are so cock sure that you would not hesitate under any circumstance.
Violence is something you have to be trained for so that you react instantly, without hesitation. Most people don't realize that until the are actually in a violent situation.
Unfortunately in most situations like this, many men will hesitate before taking action because of the way they are raised. This can be all the difference between disarming/disabling the attacker, and getting stabbed in the guts.
It has nothing to do with not defending yourself or not being a man, it has everything to do with overcoming the training to "not" hit a woman, even when you absolutely must.
But thanks for a well considered and thoughtful reply just the same.
pdwalker sez:
"Unfortunately in most situations like this, many men will hesitate before taking action because of the way they are raised."
--
I agree with that. That is reality, no matter what men who have never been in that situation want to proclaim about themselves.
It is funny to people who believe women are inferior or oppressed, like we think it's funny when Jerry beats up Tom. If Tom ate Jerry, it wouldn't be funny, it would be reality.
pdw wrote: "It has nothing to do with not defending yourself or not being a man, it has everything to do with overcoming the training to "not" hit a woman, even when you absolutely must."
Absolutley true, and well said. And I really cannot fault that training. With our upper body strength, it is very important to be careful to not get aggressive with smaller people unless it is absolutely necessary.
Heck, the same thing goes with bigger people! I think that the bad part of the old training is to NEVER hit a girl. That was based on the premise that a woman would act like a lady, and that is too often an anachronism today.
Trey
As a side note:
I also think that the vocal real man - with his exhortations of chivalry for other, lesser men - is a bit like an immature twit who just bought a Rolex. The twit has to keep holding his wrist out and asking people if they want to know what time it is. Because if no one notices his Rolex, he just wasted all that money. It's all an affectation. It's all a role that is played. It's kind of like Madonna with her new, fake British accent - she wants other people to look up to her.
But just as Madonna reverted on tape to her cruder Michigan accent when no one fixed the air-conditioning, sometimes the real man does not follow the Chivalrous He-Man Code if things don't go exactly his way. And that's what the problem is - many of the lesser men who are the subject of his patient teachings DO treat people, all people, in the right way even if it is disadvantageous. They don't talk about it, they live their life in the right way, and not to get chicks.
I realize there are many uses in society for Real Men - cutting ribbons at groundbreaking ceremonies with gigantic scissors and then stiffly waving to the crowd, shoveling the first bit of dirt for hotel construction, or even being the MC at big wedding receptions - but sometimes the irritation factor produces a negative cost/benefit analysis.
---
Also:
I noticed Peregrine John and some of the other usual suspects start calling people names (i.e. "moron") when others disagree with them. There's kind of a discordance there between that behavior and RealMannedness. What's next, "Yur a Poopy Pants" screamed in rage by the "real man". LOL
Tmink sez:
"That was based on the premise that a woman would act like a lady, and that is too often an anachronism today."
---
I think that's where some of the irritation comes in with women who say, "you just can't handle a strong, independent woman" ... what *some* of them do is make full use of men's chivalry, but in turn act like a man.
That's why you see women in bars getting away with slapping a man or even throwing a drink on him etc. A man, even a small man, would not get away with that quite as easily. And he would also be told: "If you don't want the consequences, don't throw a drink". In the case of a woman, usually the men in the bar would instantly jump on a man who retaliated against her.
I'm slowly coming around to the opinion: If they want to act like men, they should get treated like men.
Be,
Perhaps you should take that up with Glenn Sacks, or go to the actual radio station's website and read the comments. Perhaps you can even listen to the audio. I heard a woman on a CBS Sunday morning show with similar sentiments about abusing men.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm disturbed that anyone would laugh at the news of a[n attempted] murder. (Even if the victim is a horrible human being, it's still not something to laugh about.)
Lets see, bobbit jokes, stabbing men jokes, what other jokes are there.
Remember all the laughing at the rash of penis chopping a few years ago. This is just another in a long line of anti male jokes.
Violence against women is wrong, violence against men is right.
How can men live in a place that allows that?
jg --
Your use of "real man" and "chivalry" are synonymous with other's use of "moron". From your keyboard they're derogations. And at 10:23, you threw the first stone. Watch out for that pedestal rocking.
There's nothing wrong with courtesy, generosity or valor - dexterity of arms is less significant nowadays. There's also nothing inherent in those three words that impels one to exhibit them towards the unworthy.
pdwalker:
Perhaps you're projecting feelings about other people who have questioned your statements onto me. I never said anything about not hesitating if I was attacked. I'd like to think I would react properly if attached but I try to be honest with myself so I know that I'd probably be killed if anyone, man or woman, came at me with a knife.
While I don't know if I have the ability to beat someone who attacks me, I know that I have to try because I have a responsibility to myself, my soon to be wife, and my future family to stay alive as long as possible.
My point is that being attacked by a woman is no more a nightmare scenario than being attacked by a man. Both are very difficult situations. In a difficult situation survival must trump sexism and the response to a woman with a knife and a man with a knife should be the same.
You seem to suggest that it is normal and understandable for a man who is trained to react properly in a violent situation to be unable to do so because he's been trained not to hit a woman. I disagree. I feel that a man should be able to drop his sense of chivalry in order to defend himself or his family TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY against anyone, woman or man, who attacks him or his family.
Growing up, I was trained to never hit a woman. I was also trained to think for myself. There's a point where a man must exercise his judgment as to whether his training applies to a particular situation. A man has a responsibility to himself and his family to know when that is and to accept the consequences of his actions.
oligonicella, you are right as rain. The attempt by a few segments of society to reassign good words that meant good traits to foolish stances and doormat-like behaviors in the name of... goodness knows what, really, political correctness, taming the menfolk, or whatever... well, it's a thing that could stand undoing. I think that it may well be the source - or at least a major symptom of - the confusion about ideal traits/virtues as regards a group or gender.
(In my defense, and the only one I'll bother to offer, I said that generalizations make one "sound like a moron," not "define one as a moron." It's something avoidable if the grey matter works, and unhelpful to conversation. But when, in adding to the generalizations, a chap rambles on, twists sentences, spins positions and projects like a drive-in theater, then res ipsit loquitur, and there's nothing I can do with it but ignore it as trollery. Or point and laugh, which seems unkind.)
Most women do not have empathy for men. The biological and evolutionary bases of this are hypothetical.
But the sheer overwhelming facticity of the observation is hard to dispute.
Women are incredibly indifferent to male suffering-- if they are not laughing about it. They don't care.
When women organize-- it is almost always for some cause specific to women or girls... they have little concern for male victims of anything-- unless a woman is also thereby victimized.
Any problem that is predominately male-- women don't care about-- as evidenced by their actions---not prostate cancer or homelessness or differences in longevity-- ot the fact that males are more afflicted by almost every health issue- and women unite to claim women's health care needs are being neglected !
Women are obsessively devoted to all things female -- so in their view-- women are ALWAYS being neglected.
Heart disease is getting a push because women are being told it affects women as often as men-- WRONG-- coronary artery diease afflicts men at a much younger age. ANd its lethal. Women live longer, so they succumb to heart failure.
But if we trick women into caring about heart disease-- perhaps men will get some benefit-- otherwise, women will pursue female-only concerns.
The observations can be piled one upon another-- selective media attention to 'Missing white women" ( whom Greta van Sustern channels each nite on FOX)..... amd murdered coeds, when we never hear of the male student who was murdered there 6 months ago...
Part of this is the predominance of women in the media-- again, its illustrative-- women get control of the media-- and they cover what concerns or interests women. Women just don't see "bad" things happening to men as important.
Enough ramblimg-
Women don't care about men or male suffering or problems that predominantly affect men or boys. Its a simple fact. The WHY? is the interesting question.
peregrine --
I gots no problem with lobbing derogations back at someone what be derogating.
pete --
Actually, chivalry would demand of one to defend one's self and family to the best of ones ability.
Here's how you too can start living like a chick and never have to be accountable to anyone for anything.. ever..
http://doittodayorelse.blogspot.com/
I read a writing by Warren Farrell where he was surprised at studies that show that children raised by single fathers tend to be more empathetic than children raised by single mothers. Stories like this may give a clue. Aside from the fact that fathers are far less likely to badmouth others with their friends constantly, in range of little ears non-the-less, I think it would be harder to find a man who thought violence against half the country was fine. You'd also be hard pressed to find a man that boasted he was "president of the OJ Simpson fan club" (as my own mother joked she was president of the lorena bobbit fan club. How hilarious.)
Best regards,
trust
Trust-- problem with the sample there-- single men raising their own children are likely to be quite different--- more committed and caring parents-- than their non-custodial brethren.
As far as your mother-- and I mean no disrespect-- I have long since ceased to be amazed at the barbarism and brutality of women.
Its not like Lazarus-- there is no way to roll away the stone: the sickness of women is a sickness unto death. I think it is intrinsic in the beast to ENJOY stories of male sufffering and-- especially-- to champion the women who inflict it. Obviously-- to men-- that is beyond immoral. Complete the syllogism.
Oligonicella:
Agreed. But in the case of being attacked by a woman two types of chivalry are in conflict and one must be abandoned. I know which one I would pick. :-)
lovemelikeareptile:
I hope you're trolling, but just in case you're not I think you have a bit of observational bias. You think that women don't care about men's issues so that's what you see everywhere. The fact that a woman hosts this blog should be an indicator that you're wrong.
Heart attacks kill more men than women because men refuse to do anything about stress and diet. Prostate cancer has a low survival rate because men think it's "gay" to have a finger stuck up their butt so it doesn't get found in time. And homelessness is considered a moral failing, not a disease. Yes these things affect men mostly and don't get the attention they need but it has nothing to do with misandry.
I won't, but someone could list plenty of examples where women's needs are/were ignored.
The truth is that most men and women, hell let's just say people, don't care about anything but themselves. When they band together for a cause it is almost always because they see a self interest in it. Self interest is a much more likely explanation for your examples than a lack of empathy for men.
pete --
True, but one of those types is fallacious and doesn't even fit the definition. And of chivalrous, it only fits #2 - considerate and courteous to women; gallant. So, all that's needed is to politely say to the knife wielding woman, "Sorry to break your nose", then smash her face.
Just to be clear, I'm certainly not saying that all women are as unempathetic or bigoted as the ones I've pointed out. Our dear Dr. H is living proof of that. But, it is just a simple fact, that in our society there is far more tolerance towards, and far less condemnation of, female bigotry towards men than the reverse. As a result, we have more of it.
Another example--do you think if a man, let's call him Andre Yates, stalked and drowned 5 children in the pits of depression, that there would be an outpouring of sympathy? Let's say Marvin Winkler shot his wife in the back while she slept to get her attention, would his church rally to his support after he served a few months in prison? The answer is, and should be, no.
Why the reverse is different is unfathomable to a sane person.
Why the reverse is different is unfathomable to a sane person.
It's different because men are "stronger" and women are "weaker" and thus it is ok when the weak defeats the strong.
Men are afraid to fight back, 1 the police are totally focused on helping the woman, 2, the law courts are totally focused on helping the woman.
So even if in self defence, you hit a woman, who was coming to stab you, chance are you will be arrested for assault.
pdwalker, you mean after all these years of women being told they are stronger, and better than men, they are not. They are in fact weak women? (is that sarcasm i am not sure).
and yes trust, the great dr helen, is a rare champion, But i think she is a rarity, one of a very very few who knows about men and their lives. and for that i am so very grateful, as she may help others see.
To defend my life i will fight back, BUT i know if its a woman attacking, i would be better off being stabbed, than punching her.
So pete, men are to blame, Not that breast cancer (which can affect men) gets billions more, and prostate which kills the same amount as women, get so little.
So is it the mans choice, when they are not informed of the risks as they do in breat cancer. if just 10% more money was spent on advertising, and publicising prostate cancer there would be more tests for it. BUT THERE ISNT. Must be mens fault.
Men are told to be real men, to not complain to suck it up, to cry, to be emotional, the violence against women act, no violence against men, minister for women (in the UK), no minister for men. and so on.. It is a misandrist world. i can give you thousands of stories, pete goto angryharry.com go to any mens rights sites. Knife blocks in the shape of men, where its a joke to stab a man.
I agree with you to some extent, Mercurior.
Here is an anecdote, it could well be made up of course:
When I was in college in the 1980s, I was sitting at a large table in a bar with a bunch of people (students).
A man and woman were lightly arguing, and suddenly the woman hit him on the side of the head with a glass. She then let loose a blood-curdling scream because the glass broke and cut her finger a bit (he had a big cut on the side of his head that was bleeding, not far from his eye).
When they heard the scream the bouncers ran over and literally jumped the guy, trying to pin him down. They were ready to beat the crap out of him. Everyone at the table got it across to them that the woman had hit the man and the man had done absolutely nothing.
At that point, seeing that it was only a man who had been hurt, the bouncers just let him up and asked the woman if she wanted help for her finger. The guy just got up and walked out of the bar, and the woman was given some help in the bathroom by other woman with her finger. That's it. The man would have been prosecuted for assault and battery.
---
And yes, Mercurior, men have been arrested for holding the arms of a woman to prevent her from attacking him. The best you can do is immediately get OUT of the situation, using absolutely the minimum amount of force possible to prevent serious injury to yourself. Then you at least have a good argument for the police / court.
The problem with that strategy is a possible miscalculation / hesitation with a woman - and then you may be dead if she has a good weapon.
pdwalker --
Too shallow. There's more to it than that. A small and weak man couldn't get away with those things despite the size and strength of a woman.
I actually think Helen is a rarity in her vocal support, but that mostly we are seeing the same perceptual skewing of society as in other areas because of the malignant focus of the media. If it bleeds it ledes, thing. I don't find the same hyperhatred in the general female population I come in contact with as it would seem I should.
This comment has been removed by the author.
be:
Buzz off.
So is it the mans choice, when they are not informed of the risks as they do in breat cancer. if just 10% more money was spent on advertising, and publicising prostate cancer there would be more tests for it. BUT THERE ISNT. Must be mens fault."
You're right, women's groups joined together to raise lots of money for breast cancer awareness. Good on them. What is keeping men's groups from doing the same thing about prostate cancer? Are the women holding them back? Is there a cabal of feminists dedicated to keeping men's health problems out of public discussion? As I said before, people mostly look out for themselves. Just because women are better at it right now doesn't mean that men can't do it.
If you really think that the media caters only to women, then you must be blind to all the T&A all over the news. That stuff isn't there to attract women. The way that the media bends over backwards to titillate men makes me think that if men were truly interested in prostate cancer awareness it would be all over the media and billions of dollars would pour in.
So when you can show me a group of men trying to raise awareness of prostate cancer who are being held back by anything but apathy I'll stand up and listen.
Men are told to be real men, to not complain to suck it up, to cry, to be emotional, the violence against women act, no violence against men, minister for women (in the UK), no minister for men. and so on.. It is a misandrist world. i can give you thousands of stories, pete goto angryharry.com go to any mens rights sites. Knife blocks in the shape of men, where its a joke to stab a man.
Do you honestly think that if a large number of men wanted a "Violence Against Men Act (VAMA)" that it wouldn't be enacted? Political power is not a zero sum game. Women gained political power and got their agendas passed into law but men did not give up their power. There's no VAMA because men don't feel a need for it. I know that I don't. Whether we need a WAWA is another discussion entirely.
I will concede your point that there are certain areas of the law and society that are stacked against men and boys. I've seen normal rambunctious kids medicated into submission. I know that the child support and alimony laws are enforced unfairly. But I also acknowledge that these laws were enacted and enforced this way for a reason. Society has changed and those reasons have passed but it takes the law a while to adjust to society.
When I visit sites like angryharry and the searing pain in my eyes from such an ugly site has subsided, I have a hard time getting excited about it. Because naming women as the cause of all men's problems is the kind of scapegoating of women that has been happening for millenia and I'm not buying it. If you're honest, you know that on average men are no more responsible or adult than women. You know plenty of men that shirk their responsibilities and act like children. Up until now we enacted laws to contain mens bad behavior and used society to contain women's. That is obviously changing now.
Pete,
I think you are wrong here. Men who do stand up against misandry are often labeled as women-haters and ignored. I know from personal experience that almost no news outlets or media are interested in anything having to do with men's rights. If you bring it up, they ignore it. Warren Farrell spoke about this saying that when he supported NOW, he was listened to, treated well and asked to speak constantly. When he turned to men's issues, no one wanted much to do with him. Try working on a dissertation in a PHD program that has to do with men's issues. There are few people in universities who want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Try the same with women's issues and you will get all the support you want.
When women were upset about their rights many years ago, people told them there was no discrimination or it wasn't important or to shut up. Now the tables are turned and men are getting the same treatment and you are supporting it. I hope that other men feel differently.
Helen,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.
While I criticized the points made by lovemelikeareptile, I never said that there are no issues affecting men or that they are unimportant. I am certainly not telling anyone to shut up. I wouldn't read or comment on your site if I didn't accept that problems exist and that you had a good perspective on them.
I can see from my posts how someone would think that I'm minimizing or denying men's problems. I'm not. I'm trying to point out that men have to take a some responsbility for their own situation and for the ways in which they will improve it.
I'm also trying to point out that blame and misogyny will not get men anywhere. Just like women needed men to understand them when they fought for their rights, Men need women just the same.
Wow. Stories like this (and the sentiments regarding men which were summarized above by LoveMeLikeAReptile) make me glad I live in an anachronistic little backwater in Middle America (South of Cincinnati).
Even hearing random conversations on the Bus (I'm a compulsive eavesdropper), I don't hear women talking in ways that I've read numerous stories about recently. The women I meet generally are concerned about men's issues as well as women's. Of course, it's natural to do some complaining away from spouses, boyfriends/girlfriends, and such, but I just don't hear the level of hatefulness that is being talked about here and in other places.
Pete's Post is one logical howler after another---- and "he" repeatedly proves the point he is attempting to dispute.
Your comments are so confused and illogical and ironic that I wonder-- are you joking ?
A quick review
1. The ad hominem--- I came to the conclusion that most women have little empathy for men by making observations. You claim with no support whatever that I started with a prejudice and then looked to re-inforce it. It wouldn't matter anyway-- all that matters is that there is empirical support for a position, not where it originated.
2. Your comments on coronary artery disease, prostate cancer, and homelessness-- as examples I suppose of "observational bias" illustrate how confused you are--
1) the higher incidence of coronary artery disease in men is due primarily to biological factors, not diet and stress. Males are always, everwhere more likely than females to have CAD. Incredibly , you blame males for this higher incidence, because of their lifestyle choices. Thats irrelevant anyway-- we should fund research into ways to alter those choices if the goal is to reduce mortality. Isn't that the goal ? Not justifying inaction by blaming males-- do we ever do that for health problems females face?
2) prostate cancer-- you blame male homophobia for prostate cancer mortality rates-- amazing. If we want to reduce the rates , why not fund research into ways to reduce that fear then? If women were dying from diseases related to the discomfort related to seeing a gynecologist, would we say- as you do --- just let them die then ?
Why do you need to blame males for the diseases that afflict them ? If attitudes or beliefs or behaviors increase the prevalence of those diseases-- why not fund research to change them ?
3)homelessness-- why is it considered a "moral failing", "Pete"? And why is that relevant? oh yeah-- its men's fault-- like heart disease and prostate cancer-- which begs the question-- So what? Isn't the goal reducing suffering ?..... is 'single motherhood" a "moral failing".... Why do issues get put in the category of 'moral failing'... alcoholism, ... obesity, too... -- it typically reflects contempt for the sufferer-- and blame directed at him.
3. Who said misandry was the cause of women's disinterest in men's needs ?
4. You are unable to supply a list of the needs/interests of women and girls that are being ignored. With good reason-- what would possibly be on it.
5.You them conclude with the gem that women's concern with themselves is due to self -interest. Thank you-- that was my point. You tell men to be just as selfish as women. Thats another topic.
Later you claim the reason for disinterest in men's health issues is---apathy-- men's , I guess. Its men's fault , again. All the more reason for women to get together and aid men-- who are apathetic about their health care...
If you ignore and belittle another's health needs, enjoy his suffering, and joke about brutality directed towards him-- I'd say it was a good hypothesis that you have little empathy for him. Got another explantion?
And then--- incredibly-- you accuse men of scapegoating women and blaming women for all their problems-- haven't we witnessed women doing just vis a via men for a couple of generations.? Oh , yeah-- they were right...
As far as "blame and misoygny" not getting men anywhere... I am not going anywhere. I am not an advocate nor an activist, much less a self-appointed "expert" offering advice (!). I just attempt to understand what I see.
Sigh. This is what I get for subscribing to a comment thread.
I think it's ironic that you accuse me of being unfair to you in an argument and then reply by questioning my manhood (putting "he in quotes), calling me confused and illogical, and saying that I'm attacking you personally rather than your arguments. If you are so fair and logical, maybe you could enlighten me without the insults.
That being said, I will acknowledge that my original response to you was too snarky. I used homophobia as an excuse for men not getting regular prostate cancer screenings and that is not valid. I apologize for that.
Now for my "logical howlers". I'm tempted answer your arguments point by point but this is getting too long already and I'm tiring of the conversation. I'll cut to the chase:
The heart of my disagreement with you is that I don't accept that women lack empathy for men's issues. Like Wayne, the women I generally meet are just as concerned with men's issues as women's issues. If your experiences have caused you to dislike and distrust women as much as it seems then you have my sympathies.
Since I didn't accept your premise I attempted to point out, with varying levels of success, that there are other explanations for the disparate interest and effort in regards to men's and women's issues. This was the source of my assertion that you have confirmational bias in your argument. I believe that you are taking a set of facts and observations, all of which are true, and you are attributing causes to them them that fit your view of women. Nothing you have said so far contradicts that interpretation.
To Pete:
You stated that: "...the women I generally meet are just as concerned with men's issues as women's issues."
Women routinely say that they are concerned with men's issues, but when it comes to actually taking actions which incurs some cost on themselves to benefit men, they generally will not. To be more blunt, many, perhaps most, women are prolific and accomplished liers, highly practiced in manipulating their social environment, particularly the men in it.
I offer as evidence my informal 5-year study on women's attitudes toward paternity fraud in marriage, in which the biological father of the wife's child is not the husband, and the husband did not agree to this arrangement beforehand. Under current American law, the husband is stuck for the child support payments. Almost all women with whom I talk say this is morally wrong, but not one of them has ever done anything to change a legal environment which clearly benefits them. When I have pointed this out to these women, several of them have taken the fallback position of blaming men, as if it's men's fault for being stupid enough to trust women. What an easy mistake to fix!
Cynicism toward women's deceit may not be attractive or pleasant, but that doesn't mean that it isn't factually correct.
The good news is that a prepared man can use the disparity in upper body strength to his advantage.
If a woman hits you, you need to hit her back. Exactly one time. Immediately. With every bit of your strength. Put your whole body into the blow.
"Gee, your honor, she hit me first. I only hit her once. Then I stopped. I didn't mean to break her jaw, it was just an honest reaction to being attacked."
Okay, that was a bit grim. But I really have to disagree with Pete on this -- far too many women I meet in my professional life (I'm an IT executive now), as well as the ones my wife meets while teaching college -- do see violence by women against men as "no big deal." In fact, in my experience, while not unanimous (my wife hates the double-standard, too), it is endemic in the USA.
As it is on television. When was the last time you saw a male character, like a police officer, knock down a female criminal or punch her in the jaw ? Now transpose genders and ask the same question. . .
I'm not talking about "trapping her arms" or something, I'm talking a full shot to the jaw, or a body slam that smashes someone right to the pavement.
"Temperance Brennan" on the TV show Bones (love the show) has punched male perps -- have you ever seen Booth (male lead FBI agent) punch a female perp hard enough to knock her down ?
Yes, it's a TV show. But while unrealistic in action, it can serve to show prevailing or emerging attitudes.
Hits in the groin -- are those assault ? Nah, they're laugh-track material in many shows and movies these days.
As Dr. Helen did, I've been "telling stories" for years of real-life examples with genders reversed, i.e. husband punches wife in the arm, hard, for saying something stupid. I get horrified looks. Then I say "Oh, sorry, I got that one wrong -- it was the wife who punched the husband." Two beats. "And why are you feeling the relief that's so evident on your face right now ? Is that how you really feel about domestic abuse ? Or 'equal rights' ?"
I welcome counter-examples. There are times when I think I am too cynical. Please, somebody, demonstrate with concrete pop-culture references where I am wrong. Show me women getting bashed between their legs to a laugh-track . . .
A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520視訊做愛聊天室plus論壇sex520免費影片avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home