$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', '
')Hmm. I seemed to have touched on some things and obviously you guys have some cherished beliefs there. Whatever, I don't really care to be the only one supporting women's rights on this thread -- strangely, including the women -- Sounds like alot of you guys are feeling victimized by women , think they are some kinda manipulating hell-spawn who just want your money and your seed, when in fact they're people, just like us -
PeakOil is You
Spouse with "Consumerist" syndrome
Re: Spouse with "Consumerist" syndrome
by BlisteredWhippet » Tue 14 Feb 2006, 04:31:09
Gee, I thought with all my detailed explainations no one would fail to miss my thesis, namely, that women are NOT like men at all- they are "people", but so is Idi Amin and Ted Bundy. Clichés like "people are people" are just nonsense and have no useful or practical meaning. Unless by that you mean to reference Depeche Mode as an apt metaphor.
Neither did my replies include a tacit argument against "women's rights". Clearly someone does not know the basic groundrules of logic and argumentation. The little "quote" function isn't on the MB for sh*ts & giggles. Use it, don't invent BS and attach my name to it.
And thanks, "Oprah", for the psychoanalysis.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'b')ut the funniest was Blistered Whippets comment,
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')E: domestic violence. Here's a touchy subject. The studies I have seen indicate that far more often it is the women that commit domestic violence.
What studies? Really? Who were they conducted by? I just find it hard to picture. Honestly. Most men are bigger and stronger than women. I just don't see this. The odd women taking a small man here or there, but really, most of the time it's no contest unless she's had some sort of special training. I hate to say it but without some training there's very few women who could take me unarmed, or even put me in the hospital, it's not ego, it's just a fact. I happen to be pretty big and I've done some martial arts - but most men can hold their own against most women without training. Unless they build women alot bigger from where you guys are from. If a woman is screaming at me and is all up in my face, I just choose to walk away, timeout. Some guys obviously don't. That's a problem. It's about choices.
First please put away the "Its about choices", a red herring attempt to hijack the point of debate. Everybody has "choices". That and a quarter will get you on the bus, pal. Irrelevant.
Second, you are misinformed. No wonder- the overwhelming media and cultural static is that women are abused more than men. My point, if you were so inclined to see it in the body of my response, was that this was the case: that in reality, women are just as if not more likely than men to commit technical assault and/or battery on their "partners", as the law defines "Assault" and "Battery". Your little scenario perfectly illustrated the double standard I was trying to show so well that I've boldfaced your words for emphasis. I did not make an infantile argument about the physical difference between men and women, and it has nothing to do with it. Fat, old, skinny, ripped, "Assault" is someone threatening you with words or as suggested by their actions. This is not my definition; it is common law.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')ttp://www.ncadv.org/resources/Statistics_170.html
These statistics validate eveything I said, and the part that it dosen't cover- unreported cases, fills in the blanks.
Here I will supply you not with statistics but a quote from a domestic abuse therapist. Please make note of her points in a manner consistent with rational deduction "for best results":
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')There are a couple myths about domestic violence that I would like to replace with the facts. The first myth is that all spousal abuse is done by men to women. This is not true! In fact, you can't even say that most spousal abuse is done by men to women. Women have truly achieved equality in the area of spousal abuse. To be fair, there is a disparity in the number of reported cases and in the cases where the female is the victim, there is usually more damage. Still, there is as high an incidence of male victim spousal abuse as female. A friend of mine finally filed divorce after more than ten years of violent attacks by his wife. She hit him, threw dishes and knives at him and attacked him any way she could, whether the children were there or not. Her attacks were so frequent and violent, when they vacated their house, he had to have the wallboard replaced (not just patched) in almost all the rooms. Here is a book that debunks the myth about Domestic Violence being only against women. If you're a female victim, this doesn't minimize your suffering...it just says you're not alone. Having counseled many families, I find it sad that I can find thousands of books to help women victims, but none for men. - Web Page
In your own hypothetical case you presented, if we were to reverse the gender roles- you, the 'screaming all up in your face" party, and she, "the victim", and given (my argument,) that women report assault more often than men, she would be more likely to choose dialing 911 and sending you to jail. You're only half right- is not just about "choices," its about "who chooses what action to take," where "actions" are a set of responses that fit within cultural and social norms for the sake of the broadest possible sample.
In other words, the set of responses available to a man if he was "successfully" socially programmed is, A: "Yes Dear", B: "Be silent", or C: "leave the room". That set does not include D: "Calling the police and having this woman put in jail or hit with a restraining order". However, and in support of the argument against a true "Equality" concept of social bargaining, the woman's set of responses includes "Calling in authorities and persecuting this person". My argument is precisely that men are trained to respond to women differently than women to men. Domestic Violence is just one area of contemporary life where the disparity of how we are trained to act within social norms runs against "Equality" and how we are trained to "perceive" reality contradicts "actual" reality in terms of this type of social interaction.
You're just one step away from making the next logical step implied by your argument: Since men are bigger than women, its okay for women to threaten, harass, and physically threaten us.
I'm thinking of the John Wayne Bobbit case. To wit, she retaliated to his abuses by cutting off his penis. Instead of being outraged and horrified, most women I know thought this was funny. This is not just Shadenfreude, this is tacit affirmation that in the arena of power in personal relationships, women have long been frustrated by man's superior physical size and "Equality" just means appropriating new social tools for getting the upper hand.
"Walking away" is a choice everyone has; indeed, everyone should be able to make that choice. But I disagree with a concept that seems to disempower people by rendering them unable to use their bodies to defend their bodies. I happen to believe in a basic concept of respecting someone's physcial space. If society was to mandate that "fleeing" was the only acceptable response to a violation of someone's personal space, or sense of safety through threats- and it does basically mandate this, what kind of social equality is that, given that the courts are biased against bigger men if they are victims of abuse by smaller women? When a man acts in self-defense, the automatic response by law enforcement is to lock the guy up. The bias is fairly obvious (to anyone who cares to notice) that the onus of proving inculpability is on the man. Why? Because the social expectation is that the man is never the victim because men are stronger than women, and more to the point, only a total pussy would allow himself to be pushed around by a woman which is another way of saying, if a woman threatens or physically assaults you you either deserved it or she did it in self-defense.
This kind of bias is very much like rape bias against some women victims that women have been fighting to rectify for years. I'm only pointing that out as analagous, not to make it a point of this argument.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')As for women being out at night, most often you will see them in groups. This is for safetly. Da.
I'm going to point out some root logical points in your post here to illustrate something.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here are 2 reasons why a chick asks you to walk her home -- either she is coming on to you, or for safety. DA! Clue in yet? Trouble is most women don't realize that if there's going to be an attack it's most likely the guy they know. Anyway, have you given any thought to why they have 'take back the night marches', I mean what do you think they are doing there diogenes? picking on you personally?
So:
Women believe that it is unsafe to travel at night alone, and...
...Even though this fear is completely unfounded because studies show the most likely attacker is someone she knows, yet...
...Women organize "Take back the night" marches..
...to guard against the much less common and more unlikely danger?
Thats logically equivalent to PeakOilers taking to the streets protesting driving cars when fully 75% of consumption is outside the transportation sector.
What this proves is that the social response is fundamentally miscalibrated to the real root causes of the problems it is obstensibly attempting to solve. This reminds me of a great book called "Culture of Fear" which talks mostly about the media's influence on our fear responses and how it distorts reality to the point where we react to the fearmongering of the media, cultural, and social forces at large instead of reality.
For instance, the "Take Back the Night" marches probably did more to scare women as a group into not walking around outside. What was the point of this if, in reality, the attacker is going to be someone they knew?
I mean really, how many women were attacked by someone they knew because they stayed indoors over at some acquaintence's house, because they were afraid of the BOOGEYMAN outside that was and is nothing more than a constructed illusion?
...
You might have had the impression I hate women because I care passionately about humanity and life, and your perceptions are as miscalibrated as the examples you've given here.
The fact is it makes me sick that women feel so controlled, cowered, and fearful of the men they know (that aren't a threat) and men they don't know out-of-doors (that don't exist) that they organize a mental picture of men that paints us all as scheming rapists, molestors, attackers, and perverts, and they all get depressed, sit around the house and get fat from eating ice cream all day watching Oprah's carnival of lurid victim stories and get a dog just so they can feel a little bit safe going outside at night, during the day, or just whenever because they're so caved in from being afraid to be alone.
The last thing women need is someone asserting their victimhood by reinforcing illusions that are the real disempowerment schemes: pandering to the cultural static thats enslaving everyone's mind!!!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Look, this original thread was Longsword and his wife's shopping problem. BlisteredWhippet made a few comments I felt compelled to address and now the thread is quickly going off topic.
.
