I wonder if Tiger Woods will get the same treatment Rihanna got when it came to domestic violence? Somehow, I doubt Diane Sawyer will be interviewing him on Good Morning America about his injuries--at least, not with any sympathy.
Labels: domestic violence
posted by Helen at 10:58 AM
82 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Not sure of the facts yet. Some reports say he was cheating. Not saying that he deserved to be clubbed for that, but women are a volatile lot, at least when they think their man is straying.
In any case, half a billion should soothe any frayed nerves she has.
@NKVD
LOL. So a man beating his wife because she is cheating is a horrible crime that should send him to jail. But a women? You just hope the women is feeling better and it's not crime at all!
The question I want to know is did his wife put on a golf glove before assaulting the card with a golf club like Johnny Drama in Entourage? OK I am answering your question for you, no Rihanna treatment here.
FROM CAROL HERMAN
For what it's worth he was on drugs. Called 'prescription medicine.' But flying higher than a kite when his wife whammed him. Has he seen this before? YES! That's why he took flight. (At least she called the cops for help 'after the fact.') And, from here on out, it doesn't look like he has a happy marriage. Men grow bored with beauty. And, who knows? You think she was all that pretty when she was angry? Got a clamp on the news for 12 hours. Giving Tiger a chance to sober up at home.
Grim, you got it in one. NKVD fell right into the trap. "Women are a volatile lot" is chummy locker-room banter when it comes to husband-beating; the line might not sound as good at the candidates' debate. I can remember when negroes, Italians and the Irish were "a volatile lot." Jihadis are "a volatile lot."
What would you say to our last two Secretaries of State, or the 1984 Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate? Are they also "volatile"?
Chances are slim-to-none any investigation will even be done. (sigh)
Based solely on the facts as we know them now would anyone believe for a nanosecond that if the roles were reversed and it had been Tiger with the club and the wife in the car that he would NOT have at least been taken in for questioning? As a little "mental experiment" that says a lot about the Rihanna issue Ms. Smith is getting at.
No, he won't be treated the same as Rihanna, and he shouldn't be.
I'm not excusing, and certainly not defending, female-on-male violence. But the truth is that human beings view it differently from male-on-female violence, because human beings innately understand that men are stronger and more threatening than women.
Pretending that Chris Brown and Tiger's wife are equivalent is to engage in the same sort of head-in-the-sand political correctness that gums up so much else in modern society. It cedes the premises of the left -- that "equality" should be our leading principle, even at the expense of reality -- and thus ultimately does more harm than good.
Let's stop throwing sand in the gears of reality, and help the world spin a little more efficiently.
At least Comatose didn't fall into any trap.
My ex- cheated on me then threatened to blow my head off with a shotgun. I had her arrested. Trust me, I know volatile when I see it.
Tiger is gaining street creds by the day - taking drugs, cheating, allegedly, being chased out of his house by a crazy woman - before long he may become officially black, like Bill Clinton.
Here_Now: I'd agree with you in general terms about men being "stronger and more threatening", but I'd say a golf club evens things out a bit.
I will refrain from making any statements about this though, because we really don't know anything about what happened. All we have are some statements that Tiger Woods made after being questioned by the police, and conjecture that it may have had something to do with tabloid reports about him having an affair.
It's like I always say sometimes: He who lives by the nine-iron shall perish by the nine-iron.
NKVD's and Here_Now's comments are par for the course. Women can't be held responsible for their actions especially when teeing off on their spouses. Grim hits a hole in one.
On the lighter side, I wonder if Buick will withdraw Tiger's endorsement contract because he was driving an Escalade.
Back off, no where did I say they shouldn't be held responsible. My ex- was arrested - even though the charge was minimized, stupid crazy bitch got frog walked by the sheriff. How is that not being held accountable?
But I do like the "par for the course" comment. Teeing off, not bad. Could have thrown in some "putter" comments for an eagle, however. Maybe something about "strokes" or "grip", or losing your ball in the rough.
Ok, back to causing mischief in real life...
"Here_Now: I'd agree with you in general terms about men being 'stronger and more threatening', but I'd say a golf club evens things out a bit."
The issue isn't whether or not the violence itself is equivalent. The issue is about the way humans intuitively perceive and categorize its context.
Rihanna was greeted with a particular kind of care and sympathy not because she was a battered human being, but because she was a battered female human being. Asking us to greet Tiger Woods with the same response is asking us to play make-believe -- to pretend that our instincts should be the same regarding men and women.
To my mind, that would amount to the same make-believe that underlies most other PC behavior. It insists that we tell ourselves lies so that someone, somewhere, might somehow benefit from the false reality.
"NKVD's and Here_Now's comments are par for the course. Women can't be held responsible for their actions especially when teeing off on their spouses."
I know you're just having pun, but I explicitly wrote that "I'm not excusing, and certainly not defending, female-on-male violence."
I'm not excusing, and certainly not defending, female-on-male violence. But the truth is that human beings view it differently from male-on-female violence, because human beings innately understand that men are stronger and more threatening than women.
Human beings with functional reasoning faculty understand that what matters is not ability to do violence, but wilingness.
Rihanna was greeted with a particular kind of care and sympathy not because she was a battered human being, but because she was a battered female human being. Asking us to greet Tiger Woods with the same response is asking us to play make-believe -- to pretend that our instincts should be the same regarding men and women.
When it comes to how we treat victims of violent attacks, our instincts should be the same.
"When it comes to how we treat victims of violent attacks, our instincts should be the same."
I realized right after hitting the post button that I should have written "are" rather than "should" ("... pretend that our instincts should be the same"). Because as it stands, the sentence basically begs the question, which certainly wasn't my intent.
My main point stands: We don't process male and female violence -- or victims -- the same way, so asking us to go through a charade pretending we do is, well, asking us to go through a charade.
Here_Now,
I understand your point--to a point. You are saying that we process violence against a man and woman differently. Perhaps, but my response, so what?
We are a society that now hold men accountable in ways that have never been seen in the past. Men are put in jail for a variety of actions that in previous years did not warrant that punishment.
Women have stepped up and said they are equal. That is the society we now live in. If women are making men play by these rules, then women must be held accountable in the same way. I don't care how people feel about Tiger Woods but justice demands that his wife pay the same price that a husband would pay under the circumstances. To do any less is to give women special privilege. It is not PC to think that people should be held equal under the eyes of the law. The problem is that culture dictates politics and legal actions. If our culture continues to view violence against men as okay, then the law will rarely follow to punish those who are violent.
against them.
The truth is that people, perhaps yourself included, actually see women beating and harming, even killing men as harmless or funny. This is the antithesis of PC behavior. Your attitude is PC behavior in it's truest form.
I've seen few women willing to stand up and plainly state a difficult truth the way Helen does. It is most admirable.
As everyone but she herself seems to know, she is WAY too good for that Instaguy.
Helen,
What I think I'm reading here is that you're suggesting the give-'em-their-own-medicine approach: Like, "OK, then, if women are going to make society play by these rules, then we'll play by them, all right. If they want to distort society, we'll play along and distort right back." And so then hopefully... what? We'll force them to confront their hypocrisy and realize the error of their ways, and they'll call off their project?
It might be give 'em their own medicine, but it's also two wrongs don't make a right. It's the same reason I don't like when fellow conservatives get into the language-police game with liberals' public statements. Hoisting people by their own petards is fun and all, but in the long run you're just helping sustain the validity of the game.
To my mind, it's better to stick to principles and let reality do its work. It might take time, yes. But it will take a lot longer if we participate in the whole exercise too, just to play "gotcha."
And for the record, no: I don't see the beating or killing of men as harmless or funny. But the question wasn't whether Tiger Woods' beating is harmless or funny. The question was whether it's unfair if there's no high-profile public reaction that treats him like a delicate, vulnerable figure, as there (rightfully) was with Rihanna. And that's the proposition I was addressing.
Let me frame it another way.
The original post, with its rhetorical question about the mainstream reaction to Woods, seemed to involve two core concepts:
(1) Our leftist establishment claims that men and women should be treated equally.
(2) But will that same establishment give actual equal treatment to a man (Tiger Woods) and woman (Rihanna)? Yeah, right.
In other words, you're calling them out for hypocrisy (2), when what we should be calling them out for is their faulty premise (1) in the first place.
We should ge striving to ELIMINATE the forced charades that are demanded by PC culture -- not making our own demand for a forced charade.
The fact that the divergent reactions to Tiger and Rihanna are socially acceptable is the way it should be. It shows that when it comes down to it, society actually does understand that men and women are different. And thus it serves as a good example -- not as an imbalance to be remedied just for the sake of making a point.
my ex used to throw things. phones, plates, books.
she had terrible aim, but it always worried me that she would be throwing things...and when i pointed out to her that if i had done that she could have had me removed forceably, she smiled.
i have noticed that in the last few years men come and go, but don`t stay around her long
mind you, if she attacked me with a golf club she should make sure i`m sleeping.
I don't have long to be here, but came over knowing this conversation would be going on. I am not disappointed. Have to say I agree with Here_Now and understand his point. There's no need to reiterate his points but they're well taken from my perspective.
I don't condone violence, however, I would only add to his position with one point: Violence takes many forms besides fighting. There violent flight, there's violent triangulating. And when a woman, a mother, has small children and discovers her husband and father may be cheating on her, to most women, it's doesn't get much more violent from her perspective.
Again, violence takes many forms. A deadly silence can be as violent as a scream.
One thing we can all agree on, this marriage is in trouble. And two people are always to blame, no matter how it may appear. When will people learn to deal with conflict in more constructive ways?
I respect Here_Now for having the balls to say what he has to say on this site. It's not politically correct over here to say what he has.
Thanks for the kind words, Webutante. But I can't say I knew I was being particularly daring (albeit I'm not a daily reader). I think we're all on the same page ideologically here. Ultimately, this exchange is about differences in strategy more than anything else.
I wonder if she shouted FORE! first.
"I respect Here_Now for having the balls to say what he has to say on this site. It's not politically correct over here to say what he has."
Webutante has an axe to grind: "Conservatives are intolerant." Here-Now put a stop to that, and deserves applause. Indeed, Dr. Helen's site is famously tolerant of dissenting opinions, reasonably expressed. Webutante was no doubt confusing this site for Daily Kos, which is famously intolerant of dissent. The site is, after all, run be a self-described asshole.
I went looking on other major news sources other that TMZ, and couldn't find any media outlet willing to say that his wife caused his injuries. I'll wait until the Florida Highway Patrol does its investigation before drawing any type of conclusions.
I think we are about to learn more about Tiger's marriage and his prescription drug habits.
Here_Now: "My main point stands: We don't process male and female violence -- or victims -- the same way, so asking us to go through a charade pretending we do is, well, asking us to go through a charade."
No. It means we need to convince those people that their previously held notions of men and women are wrong. A hundred years ago, people couldn't "process" that women might be able to work outside the home. So what happened? Women started working outside the home and people were forced to challenge their prior ways of thinking. At one time, people couldn't "process" that women can play sports and men can stay at home and take care of their kids. If we just say, "Well, people aren't going to treat this the same way," on everything, then society will never evolve. You MAKE people rethink what they believe.
Here_Now: "Our leftist establishment claims that men and women should be treated equally."
No, that's not a "leftist establishment" belief. That's a common-sense belief. If you're describing that as a "faulty premise," then I think I see why you're mistakenly treating the two incidences of violence as different.
Here_Now,
I would argue that the best way to force the elimination of "the forced charades that are demanded by PC culture" is indeed to call them on their own hypocrisy.
Instead of viewing it as "two wrongs" I think that doing so would make it difficult for PC leftists to continue their two-faced "say one thing and do another" facade. And from their philosophical perspective & rhetoric something then has to give.
The lefist establishment has to be called to account on this: either men & women are considered equals (and treated & punished equally under the law), or they are not. Which one will it be? Personally, I would prefer keeping equality under the law, which means that the media & legal treatment of this story bears watching.
"No, that's not a 'leftist establishment' belief. That's a common-sense belief."
I simply used shorthand that I presumed would be understandable by all, because I'm trying to keep my posts from becoming any more unwieldy than they already are.
Of course human beings should be treated equally in the legal sense. No one should be denied the right to vote, the right to choose a certain profession, the right to play sports.
But the left's conception of equality -- the one my shorthand was intended to depict -- is not merely that. The left seeks both a cultural equality and a legally mandated equality of outcome.
Letting girls play basketball (duh) is one thing. Title IX is another thing altogether. So is the cultural pressure that, say, compels the NBA to prop up the WNBA.
There's nothing novel about this observation. It's basic Left-Right Dichotomy 101. I didn't think this would be controversial as a descriptive statement. But clearly my sentence needed more clarity.
"So is the cultural pressure that, say, compels the NBA to prop up the WNBA."
You've (probably unintentionally) put your finger on the crux of the matter: Men and women are NOT equal. If they were, the NBA wouldn't have to prop up the WNBA.
Equal rights is one thing. Pretending the sexes are essentially the same, and not marked by profound differences, is another.
"I would argue that the best way to force the elimination of 'the forced charades that are demanded by PC culture' is indeed to call them on their own hypocrisy."
This is a fair argument, and seems to be the same one Dr. Helen is making. Like I said earlier, when it comes down to it, this conversation is really just about strategy.
Personally, I think there's a risk in relying on the hypocrisy charge: Even if you get them to recognize their two-facedness, prompting them to change their behavior, that change might not be in the direction you want. Rather than dropping the facade, they might actually expand it, and then we're living in a world where everything is make-believe.
So I'm all for calling the left to account -- just not in a way that lets them mistakenly infer that we're onboard with their project. But you make a convincing case.
"You've (probably unintentionally) put your finger on the crux of the matter: Men and women are NOT equal."
Hmm? That's actually the basis for my entire argument. There was nothing unintentional about it!
Now you've got me worried: Have I done that bad a job here communicating my position??
"Have I done that bad a job here communicating my position?? "
I may have done a bad job understanding it. This sounded like a left/right arguments and a question of methods for redress to me. But I did not see the central issue exposed. (Which, again, may be my fault.)
PC culture, to which you do refer, demands that the differences between men and women be viewed as inconsequential. To do otherwise is "sexist". But in fact, our differences are considerable. They are not insurmountable, but sweeping them under the rug (something to which men have, sadly, contributed) is not the solution. Indeed, the solution demands understanding of these differences - the very opposite of what PC culture insists upon.
Maybe we should take a Mulligan on our first comments, Here_Now and NKVD, but even when saying you're not excusing the woman's actions, you did. Maybe you meant something else but addressed it improperly.
Looks like Tiger and Ms. Woods are preparing for a better round tomorrow when the police come to question them. I wonder what club they recommend for driving an Escalade.
I predict a cover-up of Ms. Woods' real actions. Or, at least lots of excuse making by others. Some are making too much of Tiger's apparent use of painkillers. He's had back and knee problems. He probably suffers chronic pain.
Sorry, maybe I never explicitly said it, but that's the fundamental thing at the bottom of all this.
The really short version: Men and women aren't the same. The left claims we are. The left has used this claim to force all sorts of artificial ("PC") behavior. Tiger and Rihanna won't be treated equally, which shows that the left actually has a funny definition of "equal."
Some here say we should insist Tiger be treated like Rihanna, to reveal the left's hypocrisy. I say no, Tiger and Rihanna are treated differently because they ARE different, that's the way it should be, and that sort of realistic approach should be applied to everything else too.
That's what the conversation amounts to.
I can only agree with you.
"Maybe we should take a Mulligan on our first comments, Here_Now and NKVD, but even when saying you're not excusing the woman's actions, you did."
Actually, no, I didn't. In fact, the "woman's actions," in and of themselves, aren't pertinent to what I'm writing about. I could be a full-time male-victim advocate and still have written everything I've written in this thread. My comments have simply been about the nature of perceptions and the left's engagement with reality, not about domestic violence per se.
I suspect the one giving Mrs. Woods behavior a pass will be Mrs. Woods. And not because he's just exhibiting classic feminine behavior of "ignoring the abuser".
We won't see Mr. Woods playing the victim of domestic violence on tv, because that is clearly a role that would not help him, as many women are convinced that the role will help.
Here's why dr. helen is wrong to urge "sameness" in these two situations, and clearly Wa oods understands that while it might help dr. helen's profession, it will not help his own:
Public Relations.
here now is right that the public simply won't equate a battered woman (Rhianna), with a battered husband Tiger), high on prescription pills, who allegedly has been cheating on the wife and two young children with a more beautiful blonde, known to have affairs with celebrity men.
If she bashed his SUV, and his body, with a golf club, it might be criminal, but he's a fool to press charges. He won't.
Nor will he need, or accept, the Diane Sawyer invite. Or even Oprah.
Conservative America understands there are cheating men (and women). But those who don't understand the world of hurt you are courting when you play with passions. Particularly those to whom you've offered your word in the form of an oath. Especially if you have children in common.
Doesn't excuse the beating, doesn't make physical violence the answer. But it's human passion.
And no, Tiger Woods isn't so stupid as to damage his p.r. permanently by being the first "out" celebrity victim of female domestic violence, not with this backstory he's not.
I suspect the man who eventually takes up that platform will be more of the Kato Kaelin, B-list celebrity type with more to gain, and less to lose by seizing the "victim" label.
I suspect the ones giving Mrs. Woods' behavior a pass will be MR. Woods.
Wow, I must be really out of the loop. (My sports time has become fully devoted to soccer obsession -- if you value your love of NFL or baseball, I'm warning you to stay away from soccer, because no matter how much you initially resist, it ultimately will suck you in, and you'll wind up like me, forsaking those sports you previously loved.)
Um, anyway, I must be really out of the loop: What is this "pills" business everyone keeps mentioning with Tiger?
He allegedly told the cops that he was drifting in and out of consciousness on the scene because of the "domestic issue" with his wife, and because he is taking prescription pain pills for an injury.
(He's had surgeries and maybe continues to treat with the pills. Either way, this is self-reported information explaining his state at the scene. Maybe they drew blood for an OUI, and he wanted to explain what he'd been legally taking or why he was in the shape he was in.)
They live in Florida for a reason; she's not likely to get half a billion if they split. I think FL law leaves you with what you brought to the dance. Tiger's notoriously tight with money; he'll have his before and during money wrapped tight.
Tiger doesn't believe men and women should be treated equally—at least, in the domestic arena. If he did, and if his wife was responsible for his injuries, he would have fought back and punched her around a time or two. He did not, thus demonstrating he understands there is no genuine physical equality. His best response was to leave the house, even under the influence of meds. That tells us a whole lot about him that people are ignoring. His wife had no problem meeting the cops cuz she didn't have a hand laid on her. He is not going to meet the cops any time soon because, possibly, probably, he doesn't want them to lay a hand on his wife. If he strayed, Elin's put him on good notice she won't put up with it. Some men need that kind of wake up call. No, I don't think a man should handle a straying wife with physical force. But then, for me, having equal rights is not a confession of equal abilities.
Great points, Grapp.
Well, obviously Tiger is going to need a new driver.
Feminists always have an excuse for her domestic abuse and Webutante shows herself to be no exception to that rule.
Only sexists imagine that being smaller and weaker should give a violent female perp a free pass.
Webutante ends by trying to distract attention from the female-first chauvinism under discussion by whining about psychological abuse. Ok, let's go there. The primary reason psychological abuse in relationships is generally overlooked is that females are its usual and worst perpetrators.
Wow. Heavy stuff, Micha.
Here_Now: "Letting girls play basketball (duh) is one thing. Title IX is another thing altogether. So is the cultural pressure that, say, compels the NBA to prop up the WNBA."
Of course, equal opportunities should be sought, not necessarily equal outcomes. Your Title IX point is the better one, as many men see their programs cut in favor of women's programs. That's not equality. I don't have a problem with the (M)NBA supporting the WNBA, though, since the WNBA also must battle people's prejudices ("It's strange: they got girls playin' ball, but a lot of 'em aren't that good-lookin'...") and the athletes must bend over backwards to assure threatened males that they can still be "feminine." And I find that those who don't take the WNBA seriously are often the same ones who don't take male DV victims seriously, since the people who hurt them are "only" women.
"Some here say we should insist Tiger be treated like Rihanna, to reveal the left's hypocrisy."
No, not to reveal the "left's" hypocrisy. You treat domestic violence victims equally because they're all equal. I don't care if you're right outside linebacker for the Seattle Seahawks or you're a 98-lb. ballerina. If your partner abuses you, you're a victim. Otherwise, we're placing men at a disadvantage not because of their actions, but rather because they're (usually) physically stronger. And being physically stronger than another person isn't a crime. Battering someone is.
Mary: "here now is right that the public simply won't equate a battered woman (Rhianna), with a battered husband Tiger)..."
...unless I ram it down their throat that they should. People parrot what they see on television. If they keep getting fed this line of crap that a battered woman is somehow "different" from a battered man, they'll just keep eating it up.
It's not my throat you need to be ramming then, if your "equal victim" theory is to take hold, it's Mr. Tiger Woods'.
Good luck with that one.
Trust me, for whatever reason, he prefers this one would simply go away. Not interested in playing victim for society's betterment.
And if you think this has anything to do with gender equality in sports, that's really stretching.
Think damages.
Like in torts. You measure the harm by the potential for damages.
Even a crazed Swedish wife, wrathful like a woman scorned, and armed with the best golf clubs money can buy, is not going to inflict the kind of damages to make her husband claim the victim role.
When she lays him out like O.J. Simpson's dead wife Nicole and waiter friend, then dr.helen will have her story and all the fellas that just know men are the real victims these days, will have their poster boys to cling to.
Until then, it's simply an alleged domestic squabble that went physical, with no mandatory charges expected because of the celebrity influence, not gender influence. (If he weren't a celebrity, I'm pretty sure based on both their stories at the scene, she'd be picked up for mandatory domestic. His celebrity, and wanting to keep things quiet, surely are influencing the charges.)
It all really boils down to women not being held to the same legal standards as men for the same action. All the cultural crap is just that: crap. But, it's the legal message sent that is the most powerful. We'll see what charges are brought.
I have no fondness for Rihanna, or Tiger, or Chris or Elin. I'm not much of a fan of hip hop or golf. So, if anything, I remain impartial.
I'm kind of wondering about an accident that occurred early Friday morning and here we are on Sunday and Mr. Woods still refuses to speak to the police. He's refused 3 attempts by the police to interview him. If I were in his shoes I'd be in the lock-up awaiting a police interviewer.
I've read some other media sources and there is speculation that Tiger's people are busy getting their stories straightened out. So if Mr. Wood's wife put those scratches on his face, we'll never know. The only truth-telling fact that we will have to learn more about this will be the results of any blood test taken at the hospital.
She wasn't whacking him with a golf club -- she was just giving him his two stroke penalty for playing the wrong hole.
Think he saw birdies?
The thing that blows about the Rihanna situation is the complete lack of context cited by the drive-by gossip media.
Right before her boyfriend beat her, she was beating and berating him (reportedly with a pair stiletto shoes) while he was driving a car. So for her to go on TV and say "this could happen to anybody" she means "this could happen to anybody who initiates violence to their boyfriend in a car."
The whole situation looks like a mutually dysfunctional relationship for which both sides are responsible, but nobody ever calls her on that.
So instead of teaching women to pick good men and get out of dangerous situations, the myth continues that all men are crazed psychopaths, ticking down to the moment they will explode and pound their woman without provocation. With a collateral message that women's emotional and physical outbursts are OK and a man is just supposed to take it because he's bigger than she is (a discrepancy equalized by the human invention of weapons).
Pretending that Chris Brown and Tiger's wife are equivalent
Ok, we'll let Mrs. Woods take a swing at you with a golf club. Think that might make a difference?
"Ok, we'll let Mrs. Woods take a swing at you with a golf club. Think that might make a difference?"
Your post makes no sense. Do I think that "might make a difference" with what? With the way the public perceives Chris Brown and Tiger's wife? With the actual equivalence of Chris Brown and Tiger's wife? Why would Mrs. Woods swinging a golf club at me "make a difference" with that?
If you have a point to make, make it. Vague, fanciful metaphors -- or whatever your comment is supposed to be -- don't do anything but blur communication.
TO: Dr. Helen
RE: [OT] Was 'Mary'....
....onto 'something'?
Why is it some of my less verbose comments in threads where 'Mary' and I were 'discussing' things no appearing?
Something to do with 'Blogger'? Or something more insidious?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....one way or another....]
P.S. For some reason, my e-mails to you are being returned as 'undeliverable'.
Why is THAT?
If I were Tiger Woods, living in Florida and having a brown face while my wife has white skin and blond hair, I would be much more concerned about something happening where I would get the O.J. Simpson treatment.
Everybody loves Tiger Woods today, but if anything happens to his wife then he'll become the latter day O.J. Simpson in the blink of an eye.
A Black man fighting with a white woman in Florida hasn't got a fighting chance in court. I think he should move to Jamaica or Barbados.
I also read that his wife used his golf club to smash the BACK window of his SUV so that she could pull him out of the BACK window, presumably to save the police and fire people the trouble of having to do so, and to assure that if his spine was fractured then dragging him over two banks of seats and through a back window would make his prognosis clearer. HAHAHAA
I don't think any of us has a right to know why Tiger Woods ran over the fire hydrant and ran into a tree. His insurance will cover the damage to the fire hydrant, he wasn't drunk and he didn't hurt anyone but himself, while fleeing from his wife, in all likelihood.
Anything Woods or his wife says about the circumstances will give the police a reasons to file criminal charges against one or both of them. So, he's right to keep his mouth shut and stick to his story: "I don't know what happened."
Perhaps he and his wife can get some marriage counseling or divorce or something before Woods is driving down the highway in a white Bronco, with fifty television news cameras over his head.
Chuck Perlton,
"P.S. For some reason, my e-mails to you are being returned as 'undeliverable'."
Why is THAT?"
Something to do with hotmail. I am not getting any messages. I was getting hundreds of spam emails a day. Now, I'm getting almost none. Perhaps they are in the process of fixing it. I am also having problems posting on blogger. I hope this post shows up!
Thanks for linking to my article on Markos C. Alberto Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ) over at The Truth About Kos blog.
It gives me a great sense of satisfaction to have created a blog that people can link to and instantly prove that MAMZ is a fraud and an "asshole" (his term). I wouldn't have used that term to describe anyone, but that's the term he used to explain why he opposed ALL gay service in the US military back in 1993, when Clinton was trying to open the military to gay service.
Can there be any doubt but that one of the reasons President Obama is going slow about overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is that Obama is aware of the very successful beat down that Clinton got from ex-military people like MAMZ back in 1993?
Oh, Lord! Just read what MAMZ (KOS) wrote and published at his college newspaper at the time (after he finished his three (?) years in the Army)! He vehemently opposed ALL, ALL gay service in the US military and ridiculed President Clinton for bringing the issue up in the first place.
"Letting girls play basketball (duh) is one thing. Title IX is another thing altogether. So is the cultural pressure that, say, compels the NBA to prop up the WNBA."
LOL - "letting"? Gee, whiz, thanks! Your narrow mindedness is showing.
Title IX? Gosh, yes! It's so bad that all those women got to go to college on scholarships. Pooooooor men. Outnumber souls. Equal opportunity stinks, don't it?
Cultural Pressure? Honey lamb, you have no idea what cojones it takes to fight a society that decided that women were too delicate and so competitive basketball had to be wipe out. In 1930.
The NBA props up plenty of NBA teams -- what's the cultural pressure there? Considering how much they lose, what the NBA --and several independent owners put up -- is small pickings.
As for Tiger talk -- spousal abuse is unacceptable -- male or female. Of course, the language used to describe a man who steps out on his wife (and two children) vs. a woman who steps out? Let's talk about equal treatment. Not.
TO: Dr. Helen
RE: "hotmail" Problems???!?!?!
Chuck Perlton,
"P.S. For some reason, my e-mails to you are being returned as 'undeliverable'."
Why is THAT?"
Something to do with hotmail. -- Dr. Helen
Looks to be more than merely issues involving 'hotmail', herren doktor.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Another glass of merlot???!?!
"Looks to be more than merely issues involving 'hotmail', herren doktor."
On what basis?
Oh. NONE. You just felt like making a vague, unsubstantiated accusation. How impressive.
FWIW, "Chuckie" is doing the same troll routine on Amazon. God knows why.
In Sweden, the 9 iron is the Jaws of Life.
Bang! Zoom! To the moon. . .
At least we now know that someone can beat Tiger.
"LOL - 'letting'? Gee, whiz, thanks!
You know, my comments here have been even and measured, scrupulously so. I haven't written anything that implies I'm some sort of neanderthal. I haven't written anything radical. I have responded fairly to others' comments.
And yet you're taking that response out of context. I didn't say that "letting women play basketball" is some sort of radical thing. I even included the "duh" to emphasize that -- just so nobody could mischaracterize my statement like you just did. It was simply a direct response to the previous commenter's point:
"At one time, people couldn't 'process' that women can play sports"
And so I was merely acknowledging that, yes, that was dumb when people did that, but that's not the same issue we're discussing here; here's the relevant issue, etc.
It's irritating to have invested so much effort being rigorously precise -- to the point of even recapping my points while noting my desire for clarity -- and still be greeted with a derisive "LOL, etc." that completely misrepresents what I wrote.
That's why politicians refrain from straight answers, Here_Now. No matter what they say, someone with an agenda will twist it.
Those of us that have trained in the particulars of killing with bare hands, knows that strength does not really matter for violent outcomes. Thus the difference in men and women can only be in intent and hormonal motivations. It is not that a lack of strength presents less of a danger.
The law is not the law if you make special exceptions for people. If you think you're hurting the Left by maintaining double standards, think again. They will always have you beat at double standards. It is how they roll. And they are much better at it than their competitors.
All the cultural crap is just that: crap.
It's multiculturalism. We can't be allowed to make common sense judgments because somebody thinks it would be PC. Except, the refusal to hold blacks and whites to the same standard, is what is PC. The refusal to take responsibility as an equal, yet claim all the privileges and rights of an equal, is also PC.
People seem to think the feminist movement or racist politics or class warfare is about 'equality', under the law or not under the law. It has never been, and it never will be, about equality.
"People seem to think the feminist movement or racist politics or class warfare is about 'equality', under the law or not under the law. It has never been, and it never will be, about equality."
Well-put. Much of what we've seen, under the guise of 'equality', has been one huckster or another seeking their own empowerment and ADVANTAGE. (See also Reverend Al and other bottom-feeders.)
Why would Mrs. Woods swinging a golf club at me "make a difference" with that?
Well, with one well placed whack of the club, you'd be face down, on the floor, in a pool of blood with a fractured skull and the consequent life-threating injuries.
I'm pretty sure that Chris Brown can't do that with his fists. He's not a trained pugilist, and even if he scores a knock-out punch, unless you crack your skull on a hard surface, you're not going to suffer life threatening injuries.
Might give you pause to rethink your premise that "they're not the same". I'd say that they would be, if that was the way incident last Friday played out.
The availability of weapons changes the balance of power. To pretend that it doesn't...well, draw your own conclusions.
Alfred used a golf club to dispatch villains in Batman Begins. And they had guns!
If a victim of domestic violence refuses to press charges or later testify in court, there are no charges or the charges or dropped.
Tiger is standing by her man.
Cue Patsy Cline.
It wouldn't be the first time a man has sung 'Stand by Your Man'. (Blues Brothers. the movie)
I really miss "Sad Dad" at times like this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home