|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing new here! I grew up with this absurd double standard. Through out my school years, and in my married life I have been subjected to this kind of mentality. I of course always felt that I should do unto others as I would have them do unto me. Therefore if a female assaults me I will defend myself. Of course, self restraint is the mark of an intelligent being. Men are brainwashed as children that they should never strike a woman no matter what. But, if they are attacked by a woman then they should defend themselves, period. If a woman punches me in the arm, I punch back. When they look at me and say, you aren't supposed to hit a woman, I just look at them and say, "well keep your hands to your self", they quit trying to bully me. I have met more female bullies in my life than I have men. It is truly sad that we have to deal with this level of ignorance, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 20, @06:23PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"If a woman punches me in the arm, I punch back."
You are lucky they haven't had you put in prison for defending yourself.
"I have met more female bullies in my life than I have men."
Most women believe in what feminism tells them. All of those women are bullies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am either lucky, or stubborn. But, either way I refuse to be abused as much as possible. I did not imply that I over react in situations such as this, I may even give a verbal warning prior to retaliation. I have had a friends wife slug me on the arm hard, on the second occasion that this occured I turned to her husband and told him that if she hit me again I was going to hit her back. I told him in front of her, so that everyone knew where they stood. She constantly was hitting him, and even leaving bruises. When I asked him why he tolerated this abuse he told me that men were supposed to be tough, and take it. Of course, he was raised by a single parent women. Almost all bullies are cowards, when stood up to they shrink. So, how dumb does a man have to be to allow himself to be abused, even for a piece of ass?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I provided the link so that others could write the newspaper and express their outrage at this idiot's hate speech. I doubt any of us will get published, for a few reasons, not the least of which is that the column was from November and none of us (I don't think) are students or alumni of UCSB.
By the way, Dave...I don't know if you mean women hit you in the arm playfully or maliciously. I "play fight" with female friends sometimes. If she hits me in the arm, I retaliate, and nobody gets mad. I guess that's my way of being consistent. Showing that boys and girls can play hit each other leads to my point that no one is supposed to hit anyone else for real...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am referring to women that will slug a guy in the arm during a conversation to make a point. I am referring to female bullies. I am not talking about getting hit in the face, as that is somewhat serious, even for bullies. I do not tolerate men slugging me in the arm or any place else because they are frustrated by our conversation, as that is an act of aggression. If I am on the mat, and practicing martial arts, I expect to take some punishment. I do not think that someone hurting me during a conversation is acceptable, nor do I tolerate it. Have I explained myself Mr. Genteel?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah. I understand now. Not "play fighting" but rather a punch in the arm to show aggression and/or displeasure. It's good of you to stand up for yourself and use only as much force is necessary. That's very honorable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""It's good of you to stand up for yourself and use only as much force is necessary. That's very honorable.(sic)"""
At least you didn't say, "That's very CHIVALROUS."
That is an improvement!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""It's good of you to stand up for yourself and use only as much force is necessary. That's very honorable.(sic)"""
Thanks! No, I don't believe in one-sided chivalry. I think it's sexist toward both genders. I support common courtesy.
But why the "sic"? I think I spelled "honorable" correctly, didn't I?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""If a woman punches me in the arm, I punch back. When they look at me and say, you aren't supposed to hit a woman, I just look at them and say, "well keep your hands to your self","""
GOOD FOR YOU!
I do not punch anybody when I am in a conversation with them and I expect to not be physically abused either. From either a male or female.
And if a female does hit me, playfully or otherwise, she will receive the same in return.
And if she hands me that tired old bullshit about "you can't hit a woman no matter what," then I just say, "I don't give a damn if you were born with 6 tits and 3 twats, keep your damn hands to yourself and you want get hit back!"
I let them know that I consider getting hit regardless of context to be a physical assault against my person and an apology from them would be in order also.
STOP BEING CHIVALROUS DOORMATS GUYS!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While this column in particular is quite obviously cause for annoyance by men such as ourselves who are tired of seeing our sex demonized and violence against us denied if not also encouraged, I will say this after reading her other columns: She is a gifted writer (as far as style goes), but a complete lunatic. I cannot be sure if she would have turned out this way w/out her WST101 and other such classes, but I am sure she is probably not someone people of either sex have much to do with. This may be why she writes so much. I don't know whether to feel sorry for her or to just plain dislike her in a puzzled sort of way.
Some of her other columns though are rather funny in their own way... if you can get past the poorly-disguised misandonistic-cum-misanthropic anger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 21, @01:43AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
None of this suprises me, either.
Some years back, when I was "studying" women and the "female mentality" I found that one of the best ways to see what women think and belive about men and why many women behave towards men as they do, is to simpily look at what women read and what they watch on TV and movies.
Look at ANY "women's magazine", Read the articles.
In nearly ALL of them I would find a common theme. In realationships, for instance, women were/are incouraged to treat men like dogs, literaly. Many of the magazines go as far to tell women; "Men won't admit to it, but they REALLY DO like being treated like dogs."
When I studied "romance" novels, Male-bondage situations are a common theme. The woman keeps a man chained up in the basement, or a closet, as a pet. One in particular novel depicts a woman holding a man prisoner, tied to a bed for "breeding purposes".
When men read similar material, it is called pornography! But when it is "geared to women' it is a "ROMANCE novel".
Even easier to observe is what women see on Television. Some of the same male-bondage themes can be found in soap operas.
How many of you here have seen 'Dominatrixes' on TV.? I didn't even know what a dominatrix was untill about 4 years ago. A dominatrix is a woman who dominates men sexually via bondage whipping and humiliation. Many times have I seen a whip cracking dominatrix whipping a sniveling wussy-poopie man, on TV. If a man were attacking a woman with a whip, it would never make it to the screen. The show "CSI" seems to have a particular fasination with dominatrixes and sado-masochism.
Of course when it comes to movies, ("chick-flicks") we see no end of anti-male violence. women beating the snot out of men, tieing men up, putting men in car trunks, kicking men in the genitals, shooting them, dehumanizeing, degrading and humiliating them in every possible way, that if the genders were reversed, the "entertainment" industry would be brought to their knees and the studios burned down, over night!
And this, my freinds, is only the TIP of the proverbial iceberg.
So, No. This columnists words don't suprise me at all. What WOULD suprise me is, if she said something like; "Men are just as human as women, and deserve the same respect, joy of life and dignity that women do."
But I suspect we will hear a female columnist say things like that the day a certain very warm place freezes over...!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are women who enjoy being defiled as well. But, in these situations we are dealing with consentual sex, and abuse. If you, or I do not agree with these types of sexual pursuits, then that is our choice, as it is for the people that do, to pursue them. Of course one could postulate about the reasons for an individual to pursue those types of behavior, why one would want to be degraded, or why one would want to degrade someone else in that fashion. Of course, I do believe that those types of behavior are described as deviate sexual practices. As they deviate from what is considered normal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>
Well, no. Fortunately, there are female columnists who have addressed these inequalities and are on our side. Kathleen Parker, Kathy Young, and (I believe her name is) Becky Beaupre have defended men and lambasted the on-screen violence you're talking about that we all revile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't imagine what's so "gifted" about simply aping the self-indulgent style of self-absorbed liberal feminism; I see this exact type of smart-assed "snappy-pattered" arrogance so often that I can spot it in a millisecond.
There's nothing "gifted" about smug, egocentric sarcasm, particularly when it's the verbal equivalent of spreading one's legs for the world to see-- it simply shows a lack of respect for herself and others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, it's ok for modern feminists to make the rules, and to define "sexy" from "sexist."
She can likewise talk like a complete slut (I'm saying that a tight grip around my hips right before a little headboard-knockin' is hot") but flatter herself with the term "sex kitten," just like she can say it's "sexy" for women to slap men--and for men to sit there and take it-- but still declare that any man who reverses the situation "deserves to be run over by a tractor."
This double-standard may go over well with liberal men with very low self-esteem, who buy this crap and thus have to get their sex from abusive women, but they must also buy their groceries at the city dump.
Like the saying goes: don't go to bed angry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd also like to mention another double-standard, i.e. that of freedom of sexual expression, whereby women are free to toot their orgasms in everything from talk shows to shampoo commercials, while men are branded as contemptible and disgusting at the mere mention of their even having sexual feelings at all.
Again, this is underscored by the author airing her sexual proclivities for all to see under the license of being a "sexually liberated woman" (or, as she prefers to flatter herself, a "sex kitten"), however one can only imagine at the repurcussions of a man doing likewise, since we know we'll never see it in print.
The thing that gets me is the shamelessness of the hypocrisy, under which this double-standard isn't even questioned, but is openly accepted by women who not only openly exploit it, but even take it for granted and expect it like with every other double-standard.
This is garbage; if women want the same rights as men, then they can't honestly expect favors and privilege which men and society grant them simply for being women; for this reason, women who trumpet their sexuality should rightly be called what they are: SLUTS!
Otherwise, they remain discreet either as men do, or as women DID-- this double-standard of "having it both ways" (i.e. free to express themselves sexually without public disgust) isn't liberation so much as exploitation.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
