[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Stop Denying that Women Batter Men!
posted by Adam on Tuesday February 11, @05:35AM
from the Domestic-Violence dept.
Domestic Violence Ray writes "In this article the outgoing mayor of a Southern California city is reported as having been caught on videotape slugging a City Councilman. She was cited for misdemeanor battery. Does this story confirm once again that violent women really can't do any serious harm, because their upper body strength is not equivalent to that of a man? Does our society view a woman's upper body strength differently here, than when a woman competes against a man for a job?"

<  Male Suicide: Genetic Defect or Desperate Act? | Free Clara Harris?  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
'Course it does. (Score:1)
by Hunsvotti on Wednesday February 12, @05:14AM EST (#1)
(User #573 Info)
Women can't injure men because their strength is concentrated in their lower bodies, and ours is concentrated in our upper bodies, and we have, on average, more back-up mass behind our fists anyway. For a man to playfully grope a woman's breasts is sexual assault, but for a woman to playfully kick a man in the crotch is just girls being girls.

Now, if a woman can't carry a 75-lb. sandbag across a field during an examination to become a firefighter, it's not because she isn't cut out for the strenuous physical duty of being a firefighter. It's because the test is unfair!

Men don't take home-economics classes because they are dangerously out-of-touch with their feminine sides, but women don't take drafting or engineering classes because they are disenfranchised. (By the way, if anyone accuses me of having a feminine side to begin with, I'm going to point at my dick and ask them if they're mental.)

Men are severely underrepresented in dance and aerobics classes, but that is either not a problem or, again, a lack of in-touchness with the fabled feminine side. All the same, let's slash funding to the men's teams and eliminate half their sports so that women's sports can be built up. Hey, girls! Let's put posters all over campus and bomb the entire female student body with leaflets to get them to sign up for athletics! Not that the men need posters and leaflets, they physically walk up to coaches and engage them in conversations because many more of them are actually INTERESTED in sports.

This twisted, half-baked, flawed logic is what gender feminism has got us.
Re:'Course it does. (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 12, @11:22PM EST (#2)
Hey, Hunsvotti.
I have an idea.
Let's make a deal with the feminists and like-minded women.

...WE men will get in touch with OUR feminine sides if they (feminists) get in touch with THEIRS!

...Yeah, THAT'll happen...,

    Thundercloud.

Re:'Course it does. (Score:1)
by Aidan Pryde on Sunday March 09, @04:19AM EST (#3)
(User #1205 Info)
Touché!

The percentage of females in college has now far outpaced those of men, even beyond the 52:48 population percentage that is thrown about. So, I have to ask again, if women are the MAJORITY per capita. . . why are they still getting all the scholarships and funding while those unfortunate enough to possess a "y" chromosome have to fight tooth and nail for every cent?
[an error occurred while processing this directive]