The Double Standards and Bootlicking of @mychalsmith and @feministing

14 Sep

 

This article originally appeared at feministing.com.

 

I’ve made a few corrections, based on the very simple idea that losing a fight you started doesn’t make you a victim. The truth is that men rarely hit women, unless you hit them first.

 

 

tiger

tiger

car

Here’s a sure-fire way to know that you hate men: when an incident of intimate partner violence in which a woman beats a man with a nine iron gains national attention and every question or comment you think to make has to do with his behavior, you really hate men. Like, despise.

 

There is no other explanation. There is no “I need all the facts.” There is no excuse. You hate men. Own it.

 

stupid

 

Now, you probably don’t believe you hate men. You probably honestly think you’re being an objective observer whose only interest is the truth. You are delusional.

 

We have this problem in our discourse around the most important challenges we face where we feel we have to be “fair to both sides.” But sometimes, one of those sides is subjugation and oppression. If you’re OK with legitimizing that side in the interest of “fairness,” you’re essentially saying you’re OK with oppression as a part of the human condition. That’s some hateful shit.

MRM-4-213x325

 

Violence against men doesn’t deserve a “fair” hearing. There should be no justifications offered, no rationalizing, no equivocating. Violence against men should be intolerable. But every time we are called upon to collectively denounce that violence, there’s a section of the choir that starts singing from a different set of sheet music.

 

“Well, I don’t believe she should have hit him, but he also shouldn’t have…”

 

“Hitting men is wrong, but …”

 

“He has a responsibility to his family…”

 

“He stayed with her, so obviously he’s condoning that behavior…”

 

“It’s none of our business what happens between…”

 

“What did he expect?”

 

Hate. It’s all hate. Because if you can look at the history of men being beaten and battered into silence and second-class citizenship, their lives thrown away in wars women are protected from, and still ask if they are at all to blame for the violence visited upon them, there’s nothing else to call that.

 

cemetary

 

There is a tendency to judge the actions of those with the least amount of power the same as those with more power and then ask, “Isn’t that what equality means?” It’s a clever rhetorical evasion of the issue. Equality is the goal, but to pretend that we actually exist as equals right now is to ignore reality. Like it or not, we all carry history with us in our personal interactions. The history of violence against men is one where men’s bodies are a battleground in a struggle for power. Punches, kicks, weapons, and the threat of death have been used to assert dominance and deny men autonomy, at home and out in the rest of the world.

 

How are men denied autonomy? How are their bodies used? The most common way is to deny them the right to choose parenthood. Their money, their lives, their bodies are nothing but instruments to be used at the sole discretion of women. And just to remind men of how disposable their bodies are, every single one of them, upon turning 18, is required to sign a document acknowledging that they can be discarded like trash at the whim of the government. Women have never been required to acknowledge their bodies or their lives as something that can be disposed of in service to a greater good.

 

If you think violence against men is funny, or not worthy of consideration or somehow less important than violence against women, you hate men.

 

It’s that simple.

 

There, feministing. I fixed your stupid piece of shit writing about hate for you.

You’re welcome.

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

42 Responses to “The Double Standards and Bootlicking of @mychalsmith and @feministing”

  1. insanitybytes22 September 14, 2014 at 14:21 #

    Feministing often lacks any logic or reason, but what jumped out at me the most is the “hatred of women” that their view actually seems to embrace. If you watch the video, that guy is already backed in the corner of the elevator and half the impact comes from her rushing towards him. Anyone who teaches women that rushing towards someone about to swing is a good idea, is not filled with a love of women. Feministing goes on to say, “It reinforces patriarchal thinking about a man’s duty being protection.” So now we’re going to attempt to erase any sense of protection men may have towards women as something shameful and patriarchal, while promoting the idea that women should be able to rush towards someone who is swinging, without any fear of injury. Okay, so now I’m just not feeling the love of the sisterhood here, because obviously that’s going to be a recipe for disaster.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Jason Wexler September 14, 2014 at 16:26 #

    Could we get a link to the infographic with all the stats on it? The image doesn’t come up very large.

    Like

  3. DrPinWV September 14, 2014 at 17:35 #

    Another eye-opening essay by JB. How important is feministing.com anymore? Comments are rarely posted. Perhaps this is another sign that women are getting bored with internet feminism.

    Like

  4. That_Susan September 14, 2014 at 19:30 #

    Yeah, it doesn’t seem that complicated to me to say that it’s not okay for anyone to hit anyone else. When I was first educated about domestic violence back in college when I volunteered at a battered women’s shelter, we were taught that if women hit men, it was usually because they could sense that their man was on the verge of blowing up and they just wanted to get it over with because then he’d go into the “honeymoon phase” and that was so nice. And maybe that’s true in some cases, but I think it’s also true that some women go through “cycles of violence,” too.

    But the staff of the shelter insisted that the only way It could be a safe place was if no men were ever allowed admittance.

    On the positive side, this was my first time learning about the concept of raising children without hitting them — and that is an awesome concept, one that I’ve put into practice with my own children. And really, parenting without violence is the best way that I know of to break that awful cycle. Adults who see hitting as a way to resolve conflicts were most likely hit as a matter of course throughout their childhoods..

    Another positive thing I learned was how important it is for each person in an abusive relationship to get individual counseling and work on him or herself, rather than seeking out marriage counseling. People who focus on couples counseling tend to stay in the abuse cycle because the abuse gets treated as a “marriage problem” when the abuser or abusers need to be focusing on taking personal responsibility for how they’re dealing with their own emotions.

    One positive thing I wanted to share from my own city is that, some years back, someone I knew who was a foster parent was caring for some kids from a family in which the father and mother got into a physical fight at the kids’ daycare. The daycare staff called police, and I guess it wasn’t a clear situation in which one parent was the attacker and the other was the victim, so all of the children were placed in foster care while the parents got whatever help they needed. It’s not really a great situation — I just see it as positive that the mother wasn’t automatically shown favoritism. But I suppose that if there hadn’t been any witnesses, the woman would have had the upper hand.

    Like

  5. Jason Wexler September 14, 2014 at 20:22 #

    Somewhat more on point, I saw parts of a repeat of “48 Hours” last night, and there was a half full auditorium with just high school boys being led in a chant of hitting girls is always wrong. I couldn’t resist interrupting with “where the fuck are the girls and why isn’t the chant I won’t hit anyone”. You could see on the boys faces that they feel bad for the girls who are victims but they didn’t know why they were being punished.

    Like

  6. RS September 15, 2014 at 04:27 #

    Someone pointed out to me that his wife also appears to elbow him when they first enter the elevator. Sure enough it does appear that she does. I have never done that to anyone, but if I did I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the other person to not fight back.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. evilwhitemalempire September 15, 2014 at 08:56 #

    If you agree that a guy with a .30-06 has the right to fire back at someone that is shooting at him with a .22 but you think that it’s different whenever a man hits a woman in self defense because he does more damage when he hits……you might be a feminist.

    Like

  8. LostSailor September 15, 2014 at 13:04 #

    Feministing goes on to say, “It reinforces patriarchal thinking about a man’s duty being protection.”

    I’m confused. Women are supposed to be protected by not hitting them even when they attack me, but feminists deny that men have a duty to protect women because Patriarchy. So if I don’t have a duty to protect women, why can’t I hit them? Not that I want to hit anybody, but all these feminist rules seem contradictory.

    I guess it’s Calvinball….

    Like

  9. Brave New Man September 15, 2014 at 13:07 #

    It’s like any authoritarian ideology – it feeds of ignorance. Many (or most) women haven’t got a clue of what feminism is and what it really stands for.

    Like

  10. Jason Wexler September 15, 2014 at 15:24 #

    Feminist does not equal woman, only 22% of people identify as feminist, before being bullied into doing so on the grounds that feminism is just equality for women (dictionaries are never wrong or incomplete don’t you know). When one does a sex breakdown of who identifies and doesn’t identify as a feminist, slightly more than 2/3 of women aren’t feminists. I would anticipate that most of those nonfeminist women, aren’t so much ignorant or uninformed about feminism, but rather indifferent to feminism, which may be why so many of them can be bullied into accepting it on dictionary grounds.

    Like

  11. Mark Wharton September 16, 2014 at 00:49 #

    Ask a woman (or man) if he condones beating a woman if he knows for a fact she is cheating on him. I’m going to guess for the most part most people will say something like “there is never any reason for a man to hit a woman.” Then ask about how they feel about how Tiger Woods was treated by his ex.

    Like

  12. Steve September 16, 2014 at 00:51 #

    You can find the poster here:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2012/08/97percent.pdf

    Like

  13. Mark Wharton September 16, 2014 at 00:51 #

    It is not just the sisterhood. There are many whiteknights and manginas that disagree with you. Janay lunged at Rice (who was cornered) with a closed fist. Rice defended himself, indeed he could of inflicted way more if he put his body into his strike.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Mark Wharton September 16, 2014 at 00:55 #

    Size is a red herring to try to mask the sexist bigotry. If she was bigger then him, with the rest of events being the same, we would see the same outcome from the sexist bigots condemning the man. So instead of claiming that they are bigoted against men, they find some other excuse. Oh but the man is bigger, you see I am not just blaming him cause hes a man!

    Like

  15. Jason Wexler September 16, 2014 at 01:06 #

    Thank you, that was appreciated.

    Like

  16. Jason Wexler September 16, 2014 at 01:13 #

    Somewhat tongue in cheek… does that mean the lesson for men ought to be don’t date women who are so much smaller than you, that if they rush or attack you, they would cold cock themselves on the bounce? I haven’t followed this case and I’d prefer to remain blissfully ignorant, but this sounds like it may be the first legitimate instance of “officer, I swear I didn’t hit her… she ran into my fist….”

    Like

  17. Jason Wexler September 16, 2014 at 01:37 #

    I’m sorry if this is too off topic for this thread or site but I thought some of you may find this interesting or infuriating:
    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/im-not-the-sexist-pig-youre-looking-for

    Apparently Sam Harris, the evangelical atheist, has been the victim of a feminist smear campaign, and he has responded. Unfortunately his response starts out in a way at least I like, containing factual rebuttals and some well deserved call outs on hyper whining of certain activist types, however it then descends into “but I’m still a feminist” apologia, what some of you may call “manginism”. The other reason this stuck out for me, is he claims several atheist blogs have decided to crucify him for his non offense; I didn’t have the stomach to see what Phyringula or Skepchick had to say, but I held my nose and checked out my old haunts. They weren’t talking about Harris’ clear and blatant seexism (ha ha), they were too focused on another atheist luminary, Skeptic magazine founder Michael Shermer, whom they have convicted in the court of their opinions, of being a rapist, because he was the last person three different female coworkers remember seeing/being with while getting black out drunk. Keep in mind none of them know for sure they even had sex while they were blacked out, but you know… details. I’m not saying he couldn’t have or didn’t rape them, or even just have consensual sex, but this still isn’t very good evidence for rape accusations.

    Like

  18. Spaniard September 16, 2014 at 07:23 #

    Congrats USA for basketball world championship Spain 2014.
    Would be fab a classic final Spain-USA but this could not be. Next.

    Like

  19. Spaniard September 16, 2014 at 07:27 #

    And all my support to Matt Walsh.

    Like

  20. Spaniard September 16, 2014 at 13:51 #

    There is no contradiction in being an alpha male and a bluepiller at the same time.

    Vg: Tiger Woods is an aplha but he behaved bluepill getting married to someone less rich than he is.
    As a man, you always have to marry someone your same economic level or higher. Doing hypogamy is a natural instinct in men, but it is loser behaviour.

    Paul MacCatney learned it the harsh way.

    Or you can marry a woman poorer than you just in case you have a vasectomy and an iron armored prenup. Then, you are protected.

    And you can be a macho pig and a bluepill at the same time. Like Mexican men. They are very “macho”, but they always keep on saying: “A las mujeres no hay que entenderlas, hay que quererlas” (“You don´t have to understand women, you just have to love them”) Probably one of the dumbest sentences ever.
    And Mexican men they always buy all the drinks to women. That is very pussy.

    Like

  21. Spaniard September 16, 2014 at 14:41 #

    If a man gets angry about his wifey cheating on him, he is “insecure”.

    If a man does not give a fuck about his wifey cheating on him, people mock at him.

    Like

  22. Master Beta September 16, 2014 at 17:44 #

    Well, he told me.
    Here I was thinking I was fairly fond of women, but he has opened my eyes with sound reasoning and logic, and I cannot deny my hatred for women.
    I will adjust my behavior in accordance with this epiphany.

    Like

  23. Evelyn September 17, 2014 at 03:23 #

    Hello JB! I’ve been following your site for a long while and really enjoy the things that you say, and that you back it up with lots of research. I apologise for hi-jacking this post, but I’m curious about your take on this whole conversation on women leadership and ‘more women are needed across boardrooms’. I think you might have written about this topic before in various articles on your site. I’m a researcher by day and I’m actually very skeptical of this sudden push by corporates to get more women to step up to the plate so to speak; I attribute this to feminism really, and am rather disappointed to see all these companies pandering to feminism.

    I’m a woman as well and whilst I have no issues if women are encouraged to step up and take responsibility, they should only be asked to do so only if they are COMPETENT enough to. This is same for any man stepping up to take a leadership role. I want a competent leader or manager leading me and my fellow colleagues. Someone who got there because he/she can get the job done, and not because of the person’s gender! Also, when we are talking about personal development, I think it would be more effective for managers to address the individual needs of people in the team, rather than turn it into a male and female issue. I don’t see how my needs as a woman will be the same as the needs of another woman…just because we are women. It’s insulting. Seriously. There are 3 women in my team including me and we all differ in terms of needs/career/personal development/family issues etc. I think other more important variables like age, generation, personal career/family aspirations matter far more than a person’s gender.

    I am just getting so sick and tired of hearing that any and every ‘issue’ we face in society and corporates are because of the gender divide and that women are having this glass ceiling above their heads, stopping them from getting where they want to.

    Whenever I talk to people in corporates about these stuff, they always mention the glass ceiling, and how senior female leaders are good role models for their junior female peers. For reals? No. I’ve mostly had male bosses and I’ve never had a problem with that or with them. I found them very competent but also very nurturing and caring towards all in the team. Who says only women are nurturing? And who says only women are interested in promoting the interests of other women? Actually, if I were given a choice, i would always choose a male leader over a female one.

    Why? This is purely just based on my experience but the irony is that, I find female leaders to be extremely catty and un-caring to their subordinates – both males and female subordinates. I didn’t think any of them were any better than my male bosses at caring for me and my development. In fact, I’d actually go on to say that my male bosses were far more concerned about my well-being. I also dislike the lesser ability to control their emotions in high-stress situations. My male bosses were always firm, fair and decisive and addressed what needed to be addresses, the female bosses on the other hand, had meltdowns, took it all out on other people, saw a need to be bitchy demanding and over-aggressive to get people to do what they want, and had a very poor handling of the task and people aspects of the situation.

    Of course those are just my observations, and I will stop here now cause this is getting too long. But i thought it would be really lovely to hear your take on this whole women leadership and gender diversity thing. I think It’s taking up way too much of time in corporates talking about these issues when there are more important things to think of. Have a nice day, Janet! And thank you for your wonderful insightful blog:)

    Like

  24. Anthony September 17, 2014 at 10:57 #

    I just wanna say bravo, and that I was brought to your awesome site by http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/

    Like

  25. Orphan September 17, 2014 at 18:41 #

    I was thinking of the graphic you have of the boy.

    Boys are stupid
    Throw rocks at them
    They won’t throw back
    They don’t hate all women
    Till you stop throwing like a girl
    And hit them…

    Like

  26. Wilma September 20, 2014 at 07:25 #

    I’ve attended talks aimed at encouraging women to aim for board membership, delivered by female boards members. To a woman they said pull your wait and learn finance to be prepared to contribute to a board. They had no patience for women who just felt entitled to get on boards.

    Same goes for female executives who got their position through merit. Not a single feminist among them.

    However the push for female board member is for feminist boRd members, not just female ones.

    This is an important difference. Especially for women who think they can get places through merit. It is less and less possible cause the positions are held for feminists.

    The nazi part didn’t nationalize companies, they forced them to appoint nazi party member to key positions. Same with feminists, socialist dogma with fascist methods of controlling private business.

    Like

  27. That_Susan September 20, 2014 at 18:54 #

    Since I’m not into sports, your post was what made me aware of the whole Ray Rice fiasco, and I’ve spent some time watching the video and also debating various aspects of this issue at a feminist blog that I frequent. I’ve found it useful to try to mentally reconstruct the situation and imagine Ray acting like Janay and Janay acting like Ray, to see whether I think the public reaction would be any different if their actions had been reversed.

    So here’s what I got — and again, this is the reverse of what actually happened. Janay is standing out in front of a casino, and when Ray walks up, she spits in his face. He then hits her in the face with the back of his hand, and she follows him into the casino and into the elevator.

    Once in the elevator, she hits him and he hits her back. Then she steps back away from him, at which point he lunges at her and she punches him in the face and knocks him out. Somehow, even if the situation were completely reversed, I think most people would still see him as the abuser, even after she’d done something as gross as spitting in his face.

    The most logical argument I got at the feminist site was that in any conflict where one person is a lot bigger and stronger than the other, the bigger, stronger person has a greater responsibility for self-control (this reminds me of Spiderman — great power, great responsibility and all that).

    Since I am a tall, large woman (I’m nearly 5’10” tall and weigh over 200 lbs., but my weight’s a lot more fat than muscle, in a female distribution, and I don’t lift or anything), I suppose that I’m a lot stronger than a really tiny and petite woman — and yet if a tiny woman violently launched herself at me in an elevator, I’d be totally shocked and terrified. In fairness to Ray, I don’t imagine that I’d be thinking, “I’m a lot stronger than her, so I need to be careful not to hurt her.” I’d just be thinking about how to protect myself. I doubt that I’d manage to knock her out, though. Maybe I’d pull out a couple handfuls of her hair or something.

    But then again, I wouldn’t have spat on her in the first place, and I DEFINITLY wouldn’t have followed someone into an elevator after she’d just backhanded me in the face. So it seems unlikely that Rice was reacting out of fear for his own safety. Still, things can happen really quickly in these kinds of situations. There were a couple of things — such as him spitting in her face at the beginning — that I didn’t even catch until I’d watched the video several times. And if the action’s happening so fast that it’s hard to catch it when viewing it on a video, that means that it’s happening way too fast for the actors to even think about what they’re doing.

    So I don’t know. I think they were both in the wrong — but maybe not EQUALLY in the wrong. Ray knew that he was a lot stronger than Janay and was capable of hurting her, which is probably why he felt no hesitancy about spitting in her face or following her into the elevator and hitting her. But then, he did step back from her after she hit him back, which seems like an indication that he was trying to disengage from the situation, but she seemed unwilling to let him disengage — she lunged at him, and he knocked her out.

    Bottom line, I feel so sorry for any two people who have somehow managed to reach adulthood and parenthood without having completely rejected violence as a means of resolving conflicts. I know nothing about their families of origin, so I don’t want to make assumptions, but I can’t help thinking that they grew up in situations where violence was the norm — maybe they weren’t hit by their parents, but somehow or other they absorbed the idea that when you’re mad, it’s normal to physically attack people.

    If there’s any good to come out of this, it will be that they wake up and decide to break this cycle with their own children. On a larger scale, I hope more and more parents will reject physical punishment as a form of child discipline, and join the growing group of parents who are learning gentle, non-punitive childrearing techniques. Because the mentality of an abuser is NOT formed when a person starts dating — it’s formed in childhood.

    Like

  28. That_Susan September 20, 2014 at 19:19 #

    So I just tried making another mental journey and pictured a big, muscular guy walking up and spitting in the face of a small, skinny guy. The smaller man would be rightfully upset but would probably not feel at all safe retaliating. If the bigger guy tried to follow him onto the elevator, he’d probably either get off or just back away and try to avoid any contact. These kinds of scenarios happen a lot in school settings but seem to fade away as people grow up.

    Now, I’m picturing a big, fat woman like me walking up and spitting in the face of a tiny, petite woman, and then following her onto an elevator. She probably wouldn’t hesitate to call for help, and I’d probably be arrested, which is as it should be. If she was feisty enough to stay in the elevator with me and try to fight it out, and I knocked her out, and it was all caught on video — well, I think I’d STILL be going to jail. The big guy who spat on the little guy should get arrested too, but the little guy probably wouldn’t want to draw attention to himself as a victim.

    I think I’m just trying to put off some housework I need to do. 🙂

    Like

  29. inexorablefate September 23, 2014 at 14:05 #

    Gotta love how the media pounces on this shit, and pretends its some nationwide plague that needs to be addressed 24/7 until some other ‘atrocity’ rears its ugly head for the good people of the world to pontificate on. If this really were a societal plague, women everywhere would be going about their day black and blue.

    I have no desire to ever hit a woman. Even if she punches me like a man, I’ll subscribe to the old mantra: “I won’t hit her, but I’ll shake the shit out of her.” It’s mostly tongue in cheek, but basically I will not punch her in the face, but will physically prevent her from doing so to me. I said this at work the other day (foolishly, as I was surrounded by women), and they all looked at me like I was some kind of monster…because I wouldn’t stand there and be pummeled by some hysterical bitch with no concept of personal responsibility. These types of women feel they can get away with hitting men because we allow it.

    All these tough girls who think they are so ‘hard’ because they can throw a punch are deluded. I have been punched in the face by a girl (I wasn’t even looking at her, my mouth was open, and she jawed me…because I was flirting with her sister, no less), and it hardly phased me. If I were to cock back and punch her straight on, I would have mangled her face. Its just physics. Like I said, I’d never do it, but it is infuriating to see such a disconnect with reality in so many girls who don’t realize how severely my fist could fuck up their week.

    Like

  30. That_Susan September 23, 2014 at 14:58 #

    If a woman spat in your face, like Rice did to his fiancée when she walked past him on her way into the casino, is there any chance that you might have reflexively backhanded her like she did to him? I’m certainly not saying that it’s okay for a woman to attack a man and expect him to stand there and take it, and if my husband ever spat in my face (which is frankly unimaginable) I HOPE I would be a good role model for my children and just walk away — but I honestly don’t know but what I might have reflexively reacted just like she did — at least initially. Then I would have removed myself from the situation and insisted on seeing a major change in him before we could be together again.

    Like

  31. That_Susan September 23, 2014 at 18:35 #

    Hi Janet and anyone else who may still be interested in this thread. I want to belatedly ask you about the following statement of yours: “I’ve made a few corrections, based on the very simple idea that losing a fight you started doesn’t make you a victim.”

    After getting really into this topic and watching the Rice video several times, I realized I’d missed something important. I’d initially thought that while walking past Rice on the way into the casino, his fiancée had turned and backhanded him in the face for no apparent reason – essentially meaning that she probably had started the fight. Then I noticed that she backhanded him AFTER he spat in her face — essentially meaning that he probably started the fight, though we’ll probably have no way of knowing for sure what happened before they appeared in the video.

    Even though spitting is admittedly not as potentially damaging as throwing a punch, it seems to me that spitting in someone’s face could definitely be a way of starting a fight. I mean, if Rice’s fiancée had spat in his face, wouldn’t you see that as an attempt to antagonize?

    Like

  32. inexorablefate September 23, 2014 at 19:40 #

    If a woman spit in my face, I would certainly be enraged, but I don’t think I would strike her. It is just culturally engrained in me, and I’m aware of the damage that could be done. Honestly, I don’t know what I would do…spit back maybe?

    And I’m sure your husband wouldn’t spit in your face, or he wouldn’t be your husband : )

    Like

  33. inexorablefate September 23, 2014 at 19:47 #

    Certainly. And there’s no excuse for spitting in someone’s face; were a man to spit in my face, I would react with extremely prejudiced violence.

    I wouldn’t hit a woman for it, but she would no longer be my fiancee…and she might experience the alarming discomfort of a sleeper hold (which would paint me as the bad guy, but having male genitalia makes me a bad guy anyway).

    But of course, the media doesn’t want to cover that, because it takes some of the gusto out of the condemnation of manhood. Better to show her as a passionate woman who is a victim to some face-bashing neanderthal than as a recipient of instant karma. Spit is gross

    Like

  34. Jason Wexler September 23, 2014 at 20:05 #

    Susan,

    In many respects I’m probably not who you are talking to, I haven’t followed this case outside of this comment thread and I haven’t and probably won’t watch the video, I’m a pacifist who thinks no one should ever hit anyone, in most cases even in self defense, and like you I accepted that the girlfriend was in the wrong all along, until you started talking about the spitting in the face issue over the weekend. That all said I think an argument can be made that whether it’s starting a fight or escalating one, which is what it sounds like she did based on your description, once you’re an active participant in a fight you lose the status of victim. I’m kind of reminded of my mom’s oft used since I was a child, hyperbolic threat of “I brought you into this world, I can take you back out”; short of attacking me in my sleep or sniping me she actually can’t, but if she were to try to make good on that threat and failed, regardless of what I had done to earn her ire, would she be a victim? I think what Janet is trying to encourage in this line of discussion is a recognition that with equality of right comes equality of reponsibility. Labeling the girlfriend a victim, besides being inaccurate, releases her of responsibility for her role in the altercation, it’s an attempt to create a double standard.

    If you study history by which I don’t mean names and dates but actual explanatory history, you will find maybe one verifiable instance where one belligerent in a conflict is defending themselves from an invader responding to natural disaster at home (this is in fact the late classical migration period), otherwise no one is really innocent, and true and lasting peace has only ever been achieved when people on all sides swallowed their pride and grievances and worked to achieve an end to enmity and discourage the young from learning their hatred for the enemy. That won’t happen if one party continues to try and play the role of agrieved victim and demands the other take all the blame, and there is no reason the same isn’t applicable on a smaller scale of interpersonal relationships.

    Like

  35. That_Susan September 23, 2014 at 21:20 #

    Jason, regarding what you said about there not historically being many instances where anyone was considered innocent in a conflict, this reminded me of something I previously learned about Laura Ingalls Wilder’s family history. She changed the story of Aunt Docia in her books in order to leave out something considered shameful at that time. Aunt Docia’s first husband had been imprisoned for shooting an intruder to their home, and she was so ashamed over this that she divorced him and moved back into her parents’ home with her two children until she remarried. Apparently shooting an intruder was a worse sin than divorce back then!

    http://www.liwfrontiergirl.com/docia.html

    Like

  36. That_Susan September 23, 2014 at 21:21 #

    🙂

    Like

  37. Jason Wexler September 23, 2014 at 21:30 #

    Susan,

    Frontier values often differ from “civilized” values. Although that instance surprises me. There may be something else to the story of Aunt Docia, but yes even in the story as related, the intruder isn’t completely inocent, and the husband may have overreacted which is why she was ashamed.

    Like

  38. inexorablefate September 24, 2014 at 20:15 #

    Yep, the score is twelventeen to gutenberg. Which means they are winning. Until they stumble into the zero gravity zone, that is.

    Calvinball is the perfect example of modern feminist discourse

    Like

  39. inexorablefate September 24, 2014 at 20:17 #

    I’d like to think sites like JB have something to do with lagging interest in internet feminism, but its probably more the fact that their silly antics aren’t garnering enough attention online, so they are setting their sights elsewhere

    Like

  40. inexorablefate September 24, 2014 at 20:20 #

    Hmmmm….so they said when a woman hit a man, it was because he was on the verge of blowing up? Seems to me like smearing oneself in antelope blood and poking a hungry lion with a stick.

    The logic of this escapes me, but then again I’m not one to ever look for a good mauling or hungry lions

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Double Standards and Bootlicking of @mychalsmith and @feministing | Manosphere.com - September 14, 2014

    […] The Double Standards and Bootlicking of @mychalsmith and @feministing […]

    Like

  2. Dark Brightness | Gomer, the daughter Dibliam, or a living hell of a marriage. - September 26, 2014

    […] there is an out, and it is not the family courts, with their cycle of violence and their intrusive social workers and police force. It is instard seen in the last past of our […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: