Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Ah. One of the anonymice whose name is Legion.
Legionaries tended to be much braver, however.
Thank you for the website. Is that where you all get your quotes?
How splendid that all you disrespected gentlemen now have TWO places to vent.
Censorship = not getting to hog the conversation whenever and wherever you want.
I don't think I'll be posting over there because I prefer to work on ground of -my- choosing, but thank you for the invitation, however sincerely I don't think it was meant.
I absolutely abhor anyone intiating force against anyone else. In the context of a loving relationship, it is absolutely inexcusable. Women should never hit their male companions. To do so is acting in bad faith. In general a woman who is not in top condition is weaker than a man, particularly in her upper body. If a woman hits a man unprovoked (that is to say not in defense) she is acting in bad faith if she is acting on the assumption that her man cannot hit her back because he would be ashamed to do so. All decent men feel shame at the thought of hitting a woman. *** ALL DECENT HUMANS SHOULD FEEL SHAME AT THE THOUGHT OF HITTING WEAKER PEOPLE! TO DO SO IS TO BE A BULLY! ***
Therefore if a woman hits a man depending upon his decent sense to keep him from retaliating, she is acting indecently and in the worst sort of bad faith.
Couples who by habit engage in brawling are lowlifes. Sorry, but this is just no way to live. With a better more well-funded CPS system, they would have their children taken from them because they are traumatizing those children and setting a bad example that will likely be passed along to future generations.
Slapstick comedy is an old tradition. It can be funny because it is goofy. Look at some old silent Charlie Chaplin films if you don't understand what I mean. However, in the real world, there is nothing funny about female on male violence, male on female violence, female on female violence, male on male violence, or adult on children violence.
We need, in our schools and our families and in our culture at large to adopt a zero tolerance for violence standard. Do that and we will be several large steps closer to a great society that we can now only dream about.
So that's your reaction to a sexual assault. Your last comments were bordering on derision. I didn't bring up the issue out of concern of being kicked in the nuts-- I brought up the issue to illustrate a sexual assault. And in the context of an earlier post where I posited that this type of thing is dismissed in our society. Your last post just reiterated my point. Thank you.
I wonder what your response would have been to a woman relating her experience of a childhood sexual assault?
Feminism is fine and great-- but in my view all women have really won is the ability to be short-sighted, narrow-minded and bigoted just like the men. Men, conversely, have had time to consider many of the issues and would like to find a new dynamic and yet women, in the guise of Feminists, aren't interested in a new deal. They just seem to want (my own opinion) to reverse the roles and keep on going with the old one.
Myself I am hoping for the day when people everywhere (including myself) can dismiss their "-isms" and just enjoy each other for who they are. And work to cover each other's weaknesses and to complement each other's strengths instead of hissing and clawing and all the other stupid shit that people spend their precious time on.
The sad part about humanity is that you spend a bunch of your time being young and stupid. And just about the time you wise up and mellow out and learn tolerance for your fellow inhabitants, its time to die.
it's difficult to see how there will be real interest in changing the double standard, as opposed to instituting some ass covering pious lip service.
I agree with you that all other things being equal, a man is more of a threat to a woman than vice-versa, but rarely are all other things equal.
You do not need to be a strong or highly trained woman to grab a man by the head and plunge your thumbs into his eyes. For that matter, any woman get kick a man very hard in the shin and hurt him badly.
No matter how strong a man is, he'll never be able to grow muscles over his eyes or throat or groin or shins or kneecaps or insteps, and with a little training a woman can learn how to attack each of those. Also, can woman can pick up a blunt object or a knife, or even a gun.
A woman may have less strength than most men, but given some training,she can pose a very dangerous threat to any man alive. The fact that too many women already assault men (in one-sided assaults) demonstrates that women should not be dismissed as "the weaker sex," except maybe in a weightlifting competition.
No you do not have to be strong to gouge someone's eyes out. What you have to be is trained. Perhaps you have been doing this for so long and with women whose behavior in a fight has become instinctual that you have forgotten what it is like not to know this stuff and not to be training to react in this manner. I once visited a DV shelter where I saw a woman whose right eye had been knocked from its socket. A rather unforgettable experience. The cause? A single blow to her head from her husband.
Joe, you are simply not going to persuade me that males are not stronger than females or that using martial arts training is the normal way that people fight. I'm the country girl, remember? If you want a male not to be as strong and as agressive and to level the playing field, simply castrate him. I swear, sometimes I believe some of you folks have never seen nature up close. Here's a clue:
Two animals of the same species are fighting.
Bet on the unneutered male over the female.
Bet on the larger over the smaller.
Bet on the female over a uneutered male.
Bet on the Brangus over the Hereford.
Bet on the fighting cock over the white leghorn (even when the leghorn is larger).
Bet on the one who fights regularly over the one who has never been in a fight.
However, don't take self-defense excuse before a jury if you out weigh you opponent by 40 pounds and no weapons were used. Don't bet on yourself in those circumstances. It would be just plain foolish.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
