Don't dismiss the views of a new generation
The Boston Globe has an article today pointing out a survey that shows many Boston teens say Rihanna is at fault for the assault by Chris Brown. I haven't really followed the story much--seems that those in the music business are always fighting, e.g. take a look at Amy Winehouse who admits instigating violence against her boyfriend. I do think that one of the comments following this article made a valid point:
Naturally, the article talks about how health groups are concerned that the Boston teens say that both of the participants were at fault. Maybe they should take that as a sign and help both genders understand that reciprocal violence can lead to injury and problems for both concerned, rather than just tell women they are victims, and men, the perpetrators.
SHE STARTED THE FIGHT AND SHE HIT HIM, GAVE HIM A FAT LIP. IF THE GENDERS WERE REVERSED, SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FIGHTING FOR SELF DEFENSE. THEY ARE BOTH GUILTY. THE IDEA THAT THE MALE HAS TO BE GUILTY IS PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH DV LAW TODAY - THE ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH TO ALL VIOLENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS WERE THE MAN IS ALWAYS GUILTY AND THE WOMEN IS ALWAYS THE VICTIM. FEMINIST THEORY MAKES BAD LAW. THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN ACROSS THIS COUNTRY WHO HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY THESE BIASED HATE LAWS. by PJ1 March 13, 10:55 AM
Naturally, the article talks about how health groups are concerned that the Boston teens say that both of the participants were at fault. Maybe they should take that as a sign and help both genders understand that reciprocal violence can lead to injury and problems for both concerned, rather than just tell women they are victims, and men, the perpetrators.
posted by Helen at 11:03 AM
40 Comments:
Even if she committed no violence of her own, if he has a history she knows about, then she is partially at fault for staying with him. It is akin to a person climbing into the lion cage at a zoo. They are at fault for putting themselves in the situation. That is not to say, however, that they 'deserve' what they get. It only means that there was something simple they could have done to prevent this.
What this does, however, is highlight the problematic difference between probability and possibility. The average man is more likely to prevail in combat against the average woman. If there was abuse, therefore, it is reasonable to consider by default that the man is probably at fault. Where this breaks down, is when you transition to immutable assumption. There may be relatively few cases in which the woman is at fault. One must be prepared, however, to recognize them.
People who are trained to work with domestic abuse hardly ever think in terms of victim and abuser. Now people who are not trained use those labels all the time. 8)
Instead, trained professionals think in terms of how much time each partner spends abusing the other. Most relationships are 60/40, some are 80/20. People with training do not think in terms of 100/0.
Trey
If women start taking responsibility for starting fights and being in relationships with men who are violent, then that will reduce the risk of domestic violence, and that will undermine the job security of those who depend on women being irresponsible in their relationships. As always, follow the money and you will find the answer.
Obi-Wandreas, The Funky Viking --
"The average man is more likely to prevail in combat against the average woman. If there was abuse, therefore, it is reasonable to consider by default that the man is probably at fault."
Your conclusion is faulty.
The average woman losing a physical confrontation with the average man says absolutely nothing about whose fault the abuse was. Simply imagine a smaller man picking a fight with a larger one and getting his ass whipped. The larger man is not the abuser.
If later that night while he was asleep she had pulled out a gun and blown him away, the DV folks would have OK'd that. Women get to perform vigilante justice using capital punishment under these circumstances.
Men don't hit women. Women not only hit men, but are quick to employ flying crockery, and can be quite deadly with a pistol while in a state of high dudgeon. In such situations, whatever the provocation, a real man has no option but to get out the door as quickly as possible.
Let them buy chimps.
Like Erin Pizzey tried to tell the world, many of the women who get into these kinds of situations are "emotional terrorists."
Women are very good at manipulating the behaviours they want out of men.
Until the DV Industry starts examining that very, very, very few people just fly off the handle for no reason at all... well, they are just blowing smoke.
The DV Industry understands perfectly well about emotional/psychological abuse... which is a typically female form of aggression. Too bad they only seem to claim that men are guilty of such kinds of abuses - which most often is what leads to these kinds of situations, I believe.
I think there are likely a lot of men and women who understand that a woman can launch a several month long campaign against a man, with the intention of making him miserable - leading to the question: Are women who get hit trying to get hit?
I read that D'Oprah peed her pants over this story, and is now going to have a week long special about Dating Violence.
Orcah has probably caused more DV in the world than anyone else, by excusing women from all blame - even the women who campaign against a man to drive him over the edge.
Remember, Hell hath no fury...
Whenever I hear of a woman being beaten or raped, I simply shrug my shoulders now. It is far more rare for me to meet a woman who does not claim some sort of abuse within our first few meetings than to meet one who claims she is abuse/rape free.
I blame the whale.
"If women start taking responsibility for starting fights and being in relationships with men who are violent, then that will reduce the risk of domestic violence, and that will undermine the job security of those who depend on women being irresponsible in their relationships."
While I take a less cynical view, your logic is spot on! And working out of the old abuser/victim model does nothing to stop recurring domestic violence. I understand that from your perspective, that is the point!
It is like a bureaucrat. If they solve the problem, they lose their job. They seek to MANAGE the problem instead.
Trey
uncle ken --
"Men don't hit women."
Uh, since when? If by that you mean good men, yes. But that should then read Good people don't hit people. Neither dothey seek to create emotional wreckage.
Oligonicella said...
"Men don't hit women."
Uh, since when? If by that you mean good men, yes.
I meant men, as opposed to boys, metrosexuals and other assorted garbage with testicles. There are still some of us around, rumors to the contrary. You know; clean fingernails, goes to work reliably, likes football, can shoot straight, rather have a root canal than watch Oprah. Just good ol' men.
clean fingernails (good grooming applies to both genders)
goes to work reliably (I thought "going Galt" - kind of the opposite - is in now; in any case I personally don't want to deal with lazy women)
likes football (this is the measure of ... uhh ... what? Don't tough, real men like you prefer cage matches or pro wrestling?)
can shoot straight (*yawn*)
rather have a root canal than watch Oprah (I don't like women who watch Oprah either)
--
Good qualities in people (reliability, honesty, fairness and all the rest) shouldn't be exclusive to one gender. In fact, I would say I've seen a whole lot of "real men" get drilled in divorce court or otherwise specifically because they don't look for qualities in "their women" like honesty, fairness and the like.
Big tits and the big game on TV, haw haw, I'm a real man.
"Men don't hit women."
As Uncle Ken explained, 'men' and 'good men' are actually the same thing, at least as far as MEN are concerned.
Jeez - that came out mangled. Uncle Ken knows what I mean, though. I hope.
Oligonicella: "If by that you mean good men, yes. But that should then read 'Good people don't hit people'".
Not necessarily. A more accurate statement would be 'good people don't hit other males unless it's necessary'.
I imagine there would be very, VERY few instances in which I would feel required to strike an unarmed female. I'm not saying such a situation could never arise, but right now none come to mind.
I CAN imagine, however, instances where I would not hesitate to drop (or attempt to) a male, such as one attacking my women folk, or threatening to. Said male, by our definition, is not a man. A man realizes that violence, while a last resort, has its place. And as a long-time CCP holder, I understand completely (as do most responsible permit holders) that last resort means LAST resort.
OK - my comment is a mess; I'm afraid I'm not expressing myself very clearly.
If anyone sees what I'm trying to say, feel free to translate for the rest.
Many thanks.
Pete The Treak said
"Jeez - that came out mangled. Uncle Ken knows what I mean, though. I hope"
I do. What JG is trying to say; I have no idea.
In my 20+ year marriage, as it came to a close, my ex was doing exactly as Rob Fedders describes. Except I didn't bite, even though she resorted to physical blows when the attempts to make me hit her did not work. But she is "ill", you see, and ended up in the "system". A man, of course, ends up in prison. The larger clenched fist, as the deeper pocket, pays.
It is not as cut and dried as so many make it out to be. Women, the courts, the police know it to be true. So does the MSM, but the truth is never as news worthy.
I submit JG is female, perhaps "mary".
No, men do not hit ladies.
Women, however, who tend to regard this as open season to hit their men are not ladies.
* br549 said...
I submit JG is female, perhaps "mary".*
No. I comment under the name "Mary". And take care making such comments without any proof please.
Wouldn't want to see you get played for a sucker, afterall!
Amen to Pete's "Men do not hit ladies. Women, however, who tend to regard this as open season to hit their men are not ladies."
uncle ken --
"I meant men, as opposed to boys, metrosexuals and other assorted garbage with testicles."
My point in clarifying. Men is just a group of one sex. By the way, I hate football. Love fencing.
Pete the Streak --
The context was abuse. My statement is within context.
In such situations, whatever the provocation, a real man has no option but to get out the door as quickly as possible.
WTF? You claim to be a real man and yet one crazed woman can route you so easily. Yeah, you and Pete are "real men". When you peddle this bullshit, you do as much as any feminist to foster the hate of men and the promotion of women at mens' expense.
Bottomline: if Rihanna attacked Chris, then he was just defending himself. They are not "both guilty". She is. The end. Again, this kindergarten logic that you people seem to apply to moral issues is what is effeminate and above all weak. It is intellectually weak, not at all masculine, and only a very modern attitude that practically no man, let alone a "real man", even thought less than a century ago. But mostly, what it shows is a complete cowardly submission to social pressure.
Adrian:
My old man told me don't hit girls and stand up to bullies. If you find that 'modern' and 'cowardly' nothing I can say is going to change your mind.
Just don't hit my sister or we'll be reopening this discussion.
"Just don't hit my sister or we'll be reopening this discussion."
--
Now THAT'S a real man. Not only a veiled threat (anonymously, on the Internet, no less!) and the giddy exuberance of being the superhero saving his sister - when no threats at all were made by anyone against his sister - but also the homespun "my pappy done told me" thing that has also made Dr. Phil a RealMan(TM).
"My old man told me don't hit girls and stand up to bullies."
---
Well, what happens when the girls are bullies (and there ARE quite a few of them)?
Do your circuits start frying like the Colossus Computer confronted with an insolvable problem?
I would personally take the route of the minimum level of self-defense (not retaliation) against women and then getting out of the relationship with her. Not only for my own personal peace of mind, and not only in fulfillment of my idea that NO ONE should be hitting other people, but also to steer clear of the law.
On the other hand, if a woman starts physically attacking another man, including with the use of weapons, I really, truly no longer care what kind of response she gets from that man. I say go to it - we're all equal now. The chivalry circuit in my head and genes has been burned out by the behavior of modern women.
Just don't hit my sister or we'll be reopening this discussion.
Your sister hits me, and will you be helping her pick her teeth up off the floor, or will you just be waiting to do both of yours at once?
Act like a man - get treated like a man.
That ancient protection of women came at a price - act like a lady. Which means a single, open palm slap for an inappropriate grope or rude comment is all she gets.
That deal is either on - in toto - or it is off. And that is her choice.
The idea that her reproductive plumbing gives her license to use me or any other man for a punching bag is almost as absurd as the ridiculous notion that if she does, I must have done something to deserve it.
Simply standing up and refusing to participate in the woman's game is probably considered abuse these days.
Just to clarify: Pete, and Pete the Streak are two different commenters.
JG, are you male or female? "Now THAT'S a real man. Not only a veiled threat (anonymously, on the Internet, no less!) and the giddy exuberance of being the superhero saving his sister..." blah blah blah.
If you're male, and feel only 'superheros' defend sisters, I feel sorry for your women folk.
Uncle Ken was raised properly re women and bullies, and your mocking the 'homespun' advice says much about you. UK won't hit a woman throwing items at him, verbally abusing him, baiting him, etc., and other real men won't either. Personally, I'll do everything to attempt to restrain her first, even if she's hitting me. Weapons, however - real weapons, not crockery, shoes or books - change things.
Physical attacks against a sister, mother, daughter etc., will result in 'reopening the discussion', be you male OR female. Did this actually need to be spelled out?
The fact that these things even need to be explained to some adults today is depressing.
Uncle Ken summed up this entire comment, with all its ancillary provisions, in four words: 'men don't hit women'.
Men understood.
"Men understood."
--
I think you mean "real men understood" - men like you and Uncle Ken - who would make mincemeat out of anyone who messed with his sister (even Andre the Giant and Mike Tyson, why he'd cream the whole lot of them).
Chivalrous dolts have caused a lot of misery for men. Usually chivalrous dolts bully other men when they can, but shut their mouths real quick when it's clear that they're going to get the short end of the stick. In other words, puffed-up idiots who are (most likely) trying to get the approval of women. People who are bullies to smaller men and supplicants to bigger men (all in a show to beg for scraps of approval from women and possibly other men) deserve what they get.
I'll stick by this assessment (that I also wrote above):
----
I would personally take the route of the minimum level of self-defense (not retaliation) against women and then getting out of the relationship with her. Not only for my own personal peace of mind, and not only in fulfillment of my idea that NO ONE should be hitting other people, but also to steer clear of the law.
On the other hand, if a woman starts physically attacking another man, including with the use of weapons, I really, truly no longer care what kind of response she gets from that man. I say go to it - we're all equal now. The chivalry circuit in my head and genes has been burned out by the behavior of modern women.
----
See the part about "minimal self-defense (not retaliation)" ?
Disagree with it?
If you just want to feel good by pretending to be a chivalrous hero, on the other hand, go f#%k yourself, and I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Have you ever see a 13 or 14-year-old boy (possibly with braces) who is just starting to feel cool and tough, maybe he got a leather coat as a gift from grandma at Christmas.
He's strutting around in his leather coat, maybe bullying other boys if he knows he can get away with it. He's got a big mouth - a real big mouth - but shrivels up as soon as someone really calls him on it.
That's your chivalrous hero. That's Joe Biden and Uncle Ken and Pete the Streak, despite their blustering speeches. A-holes.
And, by the way, Joe Biden is going to reap the praise and approval of women by spending OTHER MEN'S money. By obligating OTHER MEN. You have to let that sink in for a while to get the full effect of his chivalry.
Can somebody please tell me why Rihanna is going back if she was really abused to the core? I mean, if a man or woman is the victim of spousal abuse, he or she has the right to leave them and find another true love. She's just going back for money. Most women would never stoop this low. Please don't use Rihanna against women. Thank you.
You aren't real men, you aren't even adults, for goodness sake. There is nothing "homespun" or "old fashioned" about this "never hit a lady" horseshit. It is a modern concoction of city folks. The issue, of course, isn't anything to do with someone wanting to hit your sister which, by the way, I would also have no compunctions about knocking her teeth out if she started trying to slap box me on the street (or whatever it is that women do in a fight). But, why would we want to do that when she is probably far better behaved than you are and we probably have far more respect for her than we do you? No, no one wants to come after your sister.
The issue is entirely with what we do with people like Chris Brown. You ass holes will support prosecuting him to the full extent of the law. And, you will pass laws to punish the crap out of him even though he was just defending himself and all the while passing a litany of laws to make sure women are otherwise coddled so that everyone can be "equal". And, all you have to justify any of this is "papa always told me...." Well, that leaves us with very few options, frankly, when that's all you have to say to rally support for your fucked up cause.
So, one day, when all these "not a real man" men get fed up with your shit. They aren't going to come along and smack your sister. It is going to just be a fight between you and the "not a real man" men. And, it's not going to be a trivial private matter anymore, at that point. The only sad thing about all of this is that you'll probably be long since dead by then. It will be a fight between your great grandsons because you "raised them up right" and these men.
It's just too bad that the people that are really responsible for all this shit get to eat their young and never have to pay the consequences for it.
JG: "I think you mean "real men understood" - men like you and Uncle Ken - who would make mincemeat out of anyone who messed with his sister (even Andre the Giant and Mike Tyson, why he'd cream the whole lot of them)".
No, I didn't mean that. Read Uncle Ken: "I meant men, as opposed to boys, metrosexuals and other assorted garbage with testicles".
JG: " He's strutting around in his leather coat, maybe bullying other boys if he knows he can get away with it. He's got a big mouth - a real big mouth - but shrivels up as soon as someone really calls him on it.
That's your chivalrous hero. That's Joe Biden and Uncle Ken and Pete the Streak, despite their blustering speeches. A-holes."
Damn, Uncle Ken - he's got us nailed. Personally, I'll yield to his superior intellect.
Uncle Ken, it'd be nice to have a beer with you sometime. Enjoy your weekend.
It is incredibly easy for women to manipulate the chivalristic "real men". It happens all the time.
There are innumerable videos on YouTube about women causing trouble and then calling in their husbands or boyfriends like ersatz pitbulls.
In one case that gained nationwide fame for a few minutes, a hefty black woman got into an argument over some petty reason with a white guy while they were waiting in line for food in a pizza place. The whole thing was on video. You see the guy trying to be conciliatory and nice to her, the woman is getting in his face (I don't remember her petty grounds, as I remember she was even in the wrong). Eventually the guy just wanted to stay away from her. She called her boyfriend out in the car on her cell phone, and you see him come in to the pizza parlor, not even assess the situation in any way, and simply attack the man the woman pointed out. He severely injured him and was sentenced to several years in prison (he had priors for assault). Why doesn't the woman just get a pitbull?
In another case that was briefly in the national news, a father was called in to a school for a conference about his daughter. A policeman and the principal were there and explained to the father that his daughter had made an allegation that the math teacher had sexually assaulted her.
The hothead father went down to the teacher's room - the teacher had not yet been told that there were accusations against him - and sucker-punched him in the face, breaking his jaw. The teacher never expected it.
It turned out that the girl had made the whole thing up, she eventually confessed after her story was found to have a number of inconsistencies. Her reason was that the math teacher had been "mean to her" by giving her detention or the like, so that was her way of getting back at him.
Big tort suit for dad.
In fact, big tort suits all around for any of you real men who think you are going to kick butt first and ask questions later. You could be simply subject to the manipulation of a woman and, further, you could well get your head handed to you (surprise!), in addition to a tort suit.
But probably nothing will happen to you if you just want to try to impress people on message boards that you are tough guys.
You can probably tell that I'm incredibly impressed.
Yeah, and pople like Ken on Mr Streak are probably going to be the ones to hit on these damsels after they have "rescued" them, and then throw a real beatdown on them when they don't give it up.
I'll save my efforts to be said knight for women who have demonstrated they deserve it. Feminism pissed away that birthright for women, and the rest of the women stood by and let them.
In such situations, whatever the provocation, a real man has no option but to get out the door as quickly as possible.
As it has been for a very long time:
The way to fight a woman is with your hat. Grab it and run.
John Barrymore (1882-1942)
Bottomline: if Rihanna attacked Chris, then he was just defending himself. They are not "both guilty". She is. The end.
Too bad that in the end, it will be Chris who gets arrested when the cops show up. He may prevail in a trial, but only if he has adequate resources.
If you have the requisite resources, and don't mind the potential of being dragged thru the mud, and of course being arrested and having to say yes, I've been arrested to all you future employers, by all means stand your ground and feel free to use the self-defence tactic. Who knows? your jury might believe you. Or the DA drops the case because the case is too flimsy to withstand a trial.
But me? I'll use the hat method.
Well, we could also always change the social norms and the accompanying laws disseminated through society largely by an ex-homeless prostitute from France over the last few decades. The only real question is how many fellow Americans would we have to shoot to do it. Since the whore is already dead, justice isn't possible anymore. But, that doesn't mean we have to perpetuate the injustice.
Adrian, that's exactly where discussions about these issues ought to lead. I fully agree.
Why is "the personal the political?"
Just how important is this issue? Are we willing to let the government into our homes - ALL of our homes - to ensure that the forever expanding definition of abuse gets completely stamped out?
Is this issue too complex, and so solving it will only result in totalitarianism? How could all of women's "plausibly deniable" yet completely vicious manipulations ever be outlawed without taking away all our personal freedoms?
Is there an acceptable amount of DV in society?
Didn't assault & battery laws already protect people before this "industry" popped up?
How can we pin something to an absolute so we can say to the government: "this is the line you are not allowed to cross over - see here? - THAT is too far."
This is one of those "never ending problems" but its advocates, from the Orcah whale to the hypocritical Take Back The Night'rs, vow that they won't stop until it is completely stamped out from society. They are advocating for totalitariniasm, aren't they?
Even if they DID start to honestly acknowledge how women play a huge role in domestic violence, I don't see any other way to "stamp this out" than giving the governments dictatoral powers within our own homes and lives.
Is that really what we want?
Isn't it better that a few of the idiots be allowed to bring themselves into abusive situations so that the rest of us might retain the property amount of liberty?
Aren't there enough chivalrists in society that the poor dears will still get enormous amounts of "un-needed protections" without us also needing the boot of the government kicking us in the teeth too?
I sure hope society wakes up.
Rob, no doubt. True spouse abuse has always had a variety of social and legal sanctions against it. The childish "don't hit my sister" crap does have an original legitimate basis to it. The relatives of abused women would gang together and retaliate against the husband if he engaged in a pattern of extreme unjustifiable physical abuse. (On the other hand, if they held a little sock party like that for trivial reasons, the husband and his familly would probably retaliate. So, uncle ken and his pa would probably just get their own asses kicked for their home spun "never hit a lady" horseshit.) There were also statutes here in a America going back as far as the 17th century (before the US was even the US) concerning domestic violence. The fact is we have probably always recognized the possibility of abusive husbands and dealt with it in one way or another.
Like so many things, though, it has all these special laws to it during an era when, of all times in history, there is almost no justification for handling it any differently than the ordinary assault of one adult on another. It is only recently that we have gotten the outrageous laws that we do, agitated for by crazy ex-homeless prostitutes like Andrea Dworkin. You see, in 'Merica, we let these people write our statutes for us -- everything from domestic violence to pornography to sexual harrassment -- you name it. It's not what one would think -- that there was this real problem originally that got addressed but then was taken too far to what we have now. No, almost all of this was bullshit from the get go.
Adrian,
I totally agree with what you say, men have to wake up and see what is real. Women hit because they know nothing will happen to them. If they know there are consequences they wouldn't do it in the first place, plain and simple.
But for "real" women I show them respect just like I do for men. I show respect for everyone the first time I meet them, and I agree real men don't hit women, and real women don't hit men. But the law is bias in favor of women, and men in most cases are held accountable for most womens actions.
This needs to change, how? I don't know the best course of action on this, perhaps going to court and fight it like any gay coalition group leader would do. We have not done this that's why we as men are in this situation, men don't complain.
Men are programmed from boys to go out of their way to protect any women and child, we don't know how to help other men it feels to ackward. This way of thinking must change "it has too" or these type of things are going to continue to happen to us.
Post a Comment
<< Home