|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from the article -
"Research on multiple causality of women's violence
To compartmentalize women's motivations for engaging in violent behavior towards intimate partners as either self-defense (socially approved and therefore, legally excusable) or retaliation and other intentions (which would identify a woman as the initiator of abuse and therefore, legally punishable) is to disregard the complexities of women's lives.
Of course, to follow the Duluth model which universally characterizes MEN'S violence as nothing but a manifestation of men's inherent violent nature and participation in "the patriarchy" is scholarship of the highest order and a (feminist) theoretical contribution to the human race's body of knowledge on par with Einstein's theory of relativity.
Women are just SO complex, and all men are just pigs. Thank you, Susan Brownmiller.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A close reading of this "scholarly" paper will reveal that the main intent of the author is to find new excuses and "exculpatory" explanations for women's violence against their male intimate partners.
(It's worth noting that this feminist scholar eliminated all discussion of women's violence against children, the aged, and lesbian couple aggression... using the usual feminist "dodge" that it's "outside the scope of this inquiry.")
Having thus relieved herself of the burden of looking at the total spectrum of female violence, the author then goes on to argue for more complete "contextualizing" of female battering behavior! Re. this quote -
"The major problem plaguing the popular understanding of women's violence is the tendency to remove such behavior from its complete context. Even when the surrounding contexts are somewhat recognized, the dynamic underpinnings of the interactions are overlooked. The criminal justice system plays an extremely important part in how we as a society interpret and define events and actions. Since the criminal justice system approaches incidents as isolated and separate from each other, we also end up removing behaviors from their circumstances. Once actions and behaviors are dislodged from their contexts, the result is often a fallacious understanding."
Substitute the words "men's violence" for "women's violence" in the first sentence of the above quote, and the statement nicely summarizes the way our current DV injustice system "dislodges" men from their homes, families, children, careers, and reputations!
Feminist scholars all suffer from the same tragic dementia... which is, first they decide what they want their research to prove, then they work backwards to select the data that supports the already-determined and ideologically compelled "findings..."
This is just one more piece of femacademic screed that proves once again that dishonest theory always makes for corrupt practice!
I'm quite confident that tenure will be awarded for this outstanding example of political correctness masquerading as scholarship!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's a major point in my research paper [which is due tomorrow, you want an update on how that goes?] which I'm quoting this article for. Women must always have a reason for being abusive, whereas men are just dorks. One thing I considered, in one survey they asked victims of both sexes why they thought they were hit, the women thought it was to control them [and to retaliate for being hit first]. The men thought it was to show to show they were emotinally hurt.
I'm wondering how much of that is a difference in perception of events, like does a guy not interpret getting punched for cheating as a controlling action, but rather as a show of emotion? Whereas a girl might take more offense and interpret it as trying to control. My wondering.
The research paper, which is sadly only 2-4 pages, is combined with a survey I did at college for whether a man or a woman was justified in the exact same violent situation - I got slightly more egalitarian responses than I thought I would, still reflected my main point that a woman was justified and a man was not using the exact same violence for the exact same 'offense.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 24, @09:13PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Gee, I'm not sure I understand or agree with all that, and you do sound a little tired.
All I know is I told my now ex-wife that I would like to go to a mediator to work out a separation, because I just couldn't take her violence and abuse anymore. She went into a psycho rage and started smashing up the house, and eventually threw a book stand into my knee so hard that I was on crutches for a week (bone bruise). I was lucky, a half inch closer one way and she would have got the meniscus.
The bottom line is that "battered man syndrome" is a covered up epidemic in America today, and that’s based on standard criteria used to determine what is domestic violence, The truth is, “There are as many controlling, battering females out there doing domestic violence against men as there are battering men doing domestic violence against women (maybe more battering women), and no amount of lying research or feminist controlled domestic violence scamming will ever change that reality.”
Some day in the future, if America survives as a free country, the truth will come out and the entire domestic violence industry will be revealed for the abhorrent pseudo science that it is. There are just too many honest men and women out there who know the truth, and 30 years of Marxist-Leninist, feminist “power and control” will never brainwash the truth away.
Truth is the slave of life and lies are truth’s fool, and those domestic violence lies, which seemingly go on without end will have a stop.
Good luck on your paper. I know sometimes really smart students have to spin reality to the expectations of the teacher to get a grade, so get that "A" by telling the teacher whatever it is he/she wants to hear, but deep inside, never forget what you've really learned, while you were treading water in school.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Objective academic scholarship has suggested that men are seven times LESS likely to report (not just to police... but to "self-report on surveys) the domestic violence they suffer at the hands of their female partners.
Fearing the biased (indeed, rabidly discriminatory) "must-arrest" goon squad system, men refrain from calling 911 when they're battered.
Also, men tend not to interpret a female's "minor" slapping, punching, hitting, or throwing of objects as "violence."
Thank our socialization into the delusions of chivalry for that perceptural blindness.
IF the true statistics were to come to light, there is every reason to believe that men are victimized MORE OFTEN by so-called "minor" assaults than are women.
Of course, the Duluth-ideologues have now defined DV as giving HER a "glaring look," engaging in the "silent treatment," or even asking her where your money was squandered!
There is a silent crisis evident in men's victimization by violent females, but the DV Industry does not profit from acknowledging this truth.
Then again, truth has never been the currency of radical feminism....
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 24, @11:04PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"Objective academic scholarship has suggested that men are seven times LESS likely to report (not just to police... but to "self-report on surveys) the domestic violence they suffer at the hands of their female partners."
I will never forget to my dying day, assisting a Marine who was drowning in his blood, when I was in Vietnam. He was paralyzed and his mouth was full of blood so I called a corpsman who turned his head and let his blood spill out. What was I doing at the time? Sweeping the floor.
I tell that story in order to support your statement, that I quoted at top, because the Marines had a saying about the abuse they suffered in Vietnam. They used to tell each other. "Get tough or die." I wonder if they are still telling each other that, only this time in Iraq?
Certainly the domestic violence movement and our nation are telling male victims of domestic violence, “Get tough or die.” I suppose that’s also why the homicide, suicide, work deaths, combat deaths, etc are so high for men too.
Unfortunately these days, if you get tough you get arrested and your life becomes worse off than dead, and if you don’t you just die.
The men’s movement should really back a compassionate ballot initiative to allow battered men to choose euthanasia. We could always set forth the argument that men should be allowed the same rights as dogs, but I doubt that this country would extend men that level of compassion.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray,
You have experienced the tragic horror of war and its infinite ...
And survived. With much anguished eloquence....
Keep posting... my brother.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I aint been where you been bro. Aint been shot at or in that kinda situation. But I am one who does appreciate you being there for my freedom. Those who went to Vietnam have had sons and daughters who have not grown up. I am one of them. There is a very short but true statement :"the accolades of one's countrymen is the salve for a warriors wounds". When most of you guys came back you didn't get that. But trust in this: the generation who grew up after and heard how our fathers were treated know. We know from what was said to us, and what was not said but conveyed when we saw you react to others "knowingly preaching" about Vietnam, those said same who were not there. Your sons and daughters know. And we won't let it happen again. For proof I offer how this country treats its current returning veterens. Many in our country don't agree with the war, but you don't hear the stories of men returning to be spit on by some unwashed, stoned, college deferred loser from that shameful time in our past. Peace to you sir.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that should have read:
Those who went to Vietnam have had sons and daughters who have NOW grown up
Fuck I am tooo quick with that SUBMIT button. Must be being married and submitting all the time. ACK!! Did I say that outloud?
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...I've mentioned this before but one more time can't hurt. I help out with a national organization called Stop Abuse For EVERYONE, a group that, yup, seeks to assist the "neglected" victims such as abused men. Our website is www.safe4all.org, and there are people who can help you at that site. I hope it's not too late to have this violent monster punished for what she did to you.
Peace be with you, bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having lived all their lives under feminist brainwashing, these responses don't surprise me. I'll echo Rays' comments about giving the teacher what is expected in order to get the grade. Choose your battles carefully and a 4 page paper is not worth falling on your sword for and having yourself marked as a troublemaker.
No one has remarked on it in this thread (and I don't remember seeing it in any other similar threads) so I want to point out the similarities between the relentless attacks on men and maleness by the feminists and the behaviors of individual abusive women. Feminists (collectively) are doing to men (collectively) precisely what an abusive woman does to the man or men and children under her control. Feminism is political abuse of men in the mirror image of the personal abuse so many women love to engage in. The personal is political once again.
The troublesome paradox of power is that men really do have more power than women do because men take the responsibility for their actions and realize that those actions affect the world around them and thus CHOOSE their actions based on the effect they want to have on the world. Simple effectiveness based on understanding the law of cause and effect.
Women routinely refuse to use power that they do have by focusing exclusively outside themselves for reasons that things happen, then set out with the goal of changing the entire external world so that they themselves don't have to change at all. Of course this is going to be frustrating and not work most of the time. Men feed right into this game by extending a paternalistic tolerance toward women similar to what they extend toward children - men expect women to be infantile and unable to control themselves and participate in women's excuse-making.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....excellent work, as always, and I haven't even read your paper yet. What college and class are this for? (Don't worry, I won't ask for your phone number.) Please keep us abreast of your paper and how it is received by faculty and your peers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The men thought it was to show to show they (the battering women) were emotionally hurt.
Making the man feel guilty and ashamed (her violence is his fault) and putting the woman in control. It's that much more of a mindfuck because the man doesn't realize how he's being manipulated.
Larry
The source of all power is the ability to say "No."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Making the man feel guilty and ashamed (her >violence is his fault) and putting the woman in >control. It's that much more of a mindfuck >because the man doesn't realize how he's being >manipulated.
I wondered how much of it is reaction, women thought they were being controlled, intrepreting any violent or otherwise agitated reaction is trying to control her actions. Whereas men don't realize it was a controlling action, [that sounds bad, makes men seem unaware of things, hope you understand what I mean] - it isn't seen as a direct controlling action. What is the difference between smacking someone and telling them never to do it again, and smacking them for doing it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crescentluna, do us all a favor and post that paper here somewhere after you turn it in - and let us all know what you got on it.
As a part time College Instructor myself, I can probably tell you what you should have gotten on it, should you hit the PC wall.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @02:06PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"It is very clear following the sexist line of reasoning of the domestic violence industry that everything is all men's fault."
Watching the History Channel the other night I was stunned to silence by what I was hearing. A description was being given of the interrogation methodology under Stalin's Marxist-Leninist regime.
It said that truth was not sought after, but what was sought after was a confession. Guilt was automatically assumed so tactics were employed to extract a confession. The parallels to the domestic violence movement at every step were chilling, right up to the batterer's program gulag that tortured confessors are sentenced to attend.
Yes, if you haven't seen the parralles between Marxist-Lennenism and the structure and function of the domestic violence industry you will be absolutely astounded at the similarities, since of course, it is falsely alleged that we are a free country.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @02:29PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
That's freakin sick!! Now I know why our founding fathers would'nt let them vote!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flood them with mail. We will not tolerate their bending over backwards to defend their own hypocrisy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In fact, we need to do exactly the opposite - send the link to everyone we know and say nothing to them so they don't know their game is busted.
The DV industry and ideology is so entrenched and the power politics so refined that many police officers admit that arresting a woman is bad for their career. If men have not learned over the past 3 decades that the truth is completely irrelevant to the DV industry, then we are all dumber than dogshit.
A friend of mine and his wife live under the following sick Mexican standoff - every once in a while she will threaten to go nuclear on him while they are having an argument and say "All it would take is one phone call and you would be out of here." His reply is "Go ahead. When they get here, it won't be a false accusation any more."
Wimmins will continue to defend the rights of the Andrea Yateses of the world to murder their children and anyone else they feel like, and come up with excuses for it no matter what we do or how many emails we write to whom. It is a waste of our time and energy which would be better spent educating other men about how completely rigged against them the game of marriage really is. Still on the main page here is MA's repeat of the lie that DV is the leading cause of wimmins's visits to emergency rooms. Accidents are, and that fact has been repeated so many times that it amazes me that ANYONE is left who is so stupid and brazen as to repeat the lie again -- but repeat it they do.
Marriage is a crime you have committed - and all that remains is the wait for your wife to rat you out. Get used to it, and make your choices accordingly or suffer the consequences you know about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zenpriest is clapping the sound of one man righteously proclaiming the truth!
There will be no prospect of "egalitarian" relationships between women and men in this un-free land until the DV gestapo system is "terminated, with extreme prejudice."
Only one gender enjoys a tax-payer funded, state-sanctioned third-party terrorist accomplice (local indoctrinated cop goon squad) that will descend upon a man's domicile and summarily exile him from everything he has has worked to accomplish... only because SHE (the legally-defined "victim-class") has stated -- "I'm afraid of him."
Nothing more is required... no need for evidence of battery, let alone actual abuse. (And, female violence will not be permitted to be considered.)
Men must know, this is TYRANNY by any name!
Revolutions have been fought over less than the injustices men now suffer in the current system of legal apartheid which segregates men only as the lesser recipients of "equal" justice under the law.
Our complicity in this ongoing subjugation is an indictment of masculinity at its very core!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @06:44PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"Revolutions have been fought over less than the injustices men now suffer in the current system of legal apartheid which segregates men only as the lesser recipients of "equal" justice under the law."
Why else do yu think they are so anxious to take our guns away, not just in the US but every country in the english world?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Correct!
And the easiest way to deprive a man of his legal right to gun ownership is to make a false allegation of "domestic violence."
In most states, even a single DV misdemeanor conviction (often a false accusation made to insure the mother's child custody in a divorce...) means the man will be legally required to surrender his firearms... and will be prevented from legally purchasing one ever again.
Feminism may have ulterior motives... yuh think?
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @03:08PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
A friend just sent this to me and it is an excerpt from President Bush's new Family Violence Initiative. This initiative appears to be taking the usual misandrist approach to domestic violence. Clearly we see that the top Republican is a man hater, who actively promotes the militant feminist agenda in this area:
"Imagine what it would be like if you were an abused person trying to find help and you went from one place to another. it must be confusing and disheartening. The victim has been so traumatized, and then she has to tell her story over and over again, which repeats the trauma."
My Reply:
Now imagine that you're a male victim of domestic violence and magnify the pain a thousand fold.
If this is the way our government is going to continue to treat male victims of domestic violence, then we really do need to start advocating for euthanasia programs for battered men, because we really do show more compassion for a battered dog than a battered man.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(To whom else can we go?)
Shame on you.
Shame on you for aligning yourself with Shamita Das Dasgupta and her blatantly sexist and discriminatory "study" on the perceived "differences" between violence committed by men and that committed by women. Now that abused men are finally receiving a modicum of help, and the arrests of violent women, long overdue, are finally occurring, along comes Dasgupta to explain (as many others have contended) that female violence against men should be treated differently from that committed by women against men.
People like Dasgupta are not truly interested in ending the horror of domestic abuse so much as interested in vilifying (and incarcerating) as many men as possible. This was my favorite part: "Men, on the other hand, often minimize their violence against female partners or blame the victim, which reflects a greater sense of entitlement to such behavior than for women." And what, exactly, do you think Disgupta is doing except blaming male victims and minimizing the violence against them?
The fact remains that women initiate (as in...NOT IN SELF-DEFENSE) domestic abuse against their male partners approximately as often as the reverse. To scream for stiffer punishments for half of the offenders while calling for "understanding" for the other half is the height of hypocrisy, and those of us who are truly interested in helping ALL victims of abuse shall never cease to confront Disgupta and others who try to mislead.
Brian Gillin,
safe4all.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @03:31PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"To scream for stiffer punishments for half of the offenders while calling for "understanding" for the other half is the height of hypocrisy,"
Yes it is, and it is also a violation of the United States Constitution's gaurantee of "equal justice" and "equal protection" under law.
We do remember the U.S. Constitution don't we? If not, we can find it in a neat little roll in any Domestic Violence Shelter, or Women's Studies Center next to the commode. Sorry, no toilet paper. That neat little roll is it.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bam .... 1 shot, 1 kill
2 points for Ray
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @04:04PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore, we must say again and yet again:
1. The males are our destruction. They want to destroy women. This plan must be blocked.
2. There are no distinctions between men. Each man is a sworn enemy of the feminist movement. If he does not make his hostility plain, it is only from cowardice and slyness, not because he loves us.
3. The males are to blame for each woman who falls. They must pay for it.
5. The males enjoy the protection of our enemies. That is all the proof we need to show how harmful they are for women.
6. The males are the enemy's agents among us. She who stands by them aids the enemy.
7. The males have no right to claim equality with us. If they wish to speak on the streets, in lines outside shops or in public transportation, they should be ignored, not only because their are simply wrong, but because they are males who have no right to a voice in the community.
8. If the males appeal to your sentimentality, realize that they are hoping for your forgetfulness, and let them know that you see through them and hold them in contempt.
9. A decent enemy will deserve our generosity after we have won. The males however are not a decent enemy, though they try to seem so.
10. The males are responsible. The treatment they receive from us is hardly unjust. They have deserved it all.
It is the job of the government to deal with them. No one has the right to act on his own, but each has the duty to support the state's measures against the males, to defend them with others, and to avoid being misled by any male tricks.
The security of the state requires that of us all.
--------------------------------------------------
Okay, you caught me. I plagiarized, although I did change just a few of the words. Here is the link to the real author:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb1.htm
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @04:07PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
...and I sure as heck don't defend either the linked artilce or the link I included. It just strikes me that there is a lot of similar reasoning being employed in both.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read your post quickly yesterday, and couldn't figure out what you were [b]really[/b] trying to say. Then I read the speech by Goerbells and re-read what you wrote. The funny thing is, when I scanned what you wrote I honestly thought you had found some old feminist text that had not been scrubbed of blatant sexism. I thought you had found some b*tch "womyn's" studies professor who had let her guard down and said what she really thinks. It sounded like the usual rant of hateful Feminazis. But NO, it WAS the NAZIs. And because I really didn't make the connection until a day later the impact was that much greater. Nicely done Ray
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no surprise here. The ability for feminists to rationalize female behavior when it serves their interests is well-established.
Feminism is about power and privilege for women. It is not about justice. Until the men's movement collectively realizes this is at heart a political struggle, we'll still act surprised when we see things like this. Once it's accepted that this is a political battle, nothing will surprise us anymore and we will be much better able to deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Feminism is about power and privilege for women. It is not about justice."
Indeed.
As well, contemporary radical feminism is also dedicated to sowing terror and fear in all men through its systematic corruption of the legal system via blatant discrimination against men.
VAWA ($3.2 billion annually!) is clearly unconstitutional. These tax monies go to subsidize a vast apparatus of tyranny.
The best example (along with the Anti-Family Courts) is the domestic violence gestapo regime that targets men as prey and has in effect criminalized maleness itself.
The psychological warfare waged by the feminazis is just one facet of their pathological drive to subjugate, disempower, and ultimately, eradicate men's rights and liberties.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are all in transition (being a synonym for change) but, then, we have always been. Uncertainty has never been a favorite of the ego/mind. The ego establishes tradition to obscure the instability induced by the passage of time. In time, the traditions become a comfort. During the past millenia when physical survival itself was the fundamental uncertainty, certain traditions became even somewhat refined. Men opening doors for women, for example.
Without getting shrill about it, I think it could be beneficial to examine the motivation behind the condemnation of some of these well established traditions. Finding ourselves no longer faced with the exigencies of survival, we men are now faced with a dilemma - not unlike the veterans who came back from Vietnam (I was not one) - they went there because they were told it was necessary; came back and found out they were not appreciated by many. From the beginning, men have been asked to be responsible for the continuation of the species. That has included impregnating women and then protecting and feeding them and the offspring. Now we are not needed nearly as much for that purpose and find ourselves quite unappreciated for HOW we accomplished the survival of the species... including such atrocities as asking women to help out by cooking and cleaning the house.
In short, we find ourselves in a peculiarly vulnerable position worldwide. Some of us respond by coming up with reasons to go to war - it resembles so well the survival tasks of the previous millenia: kill or be killed. We're comfortable with it. When not engaged in a form of war, some men attack women since many of the women seem to have taken on the role of aggressor; therefore, enemy; therefore, a justifiable target. Hardly a valid or desirable endeavor, but understandable from a certain point-of-view.
When will women get that we are weary... weary of aggression; and in need of a respectable and respected alternative persona. The aggression of women against men is perceived by men as a sign that we must never lay aside our warrior nature. We must continue to defend ourselves (read, our egos; our minds) for the purpose of survival. If we could just relax in the arms of love (for most of us that means a loving woman - but to each his own) we might be able to have time to reflect and discover that the next frontier to conquer (?? of course we'll come up with a better word; such as explore, grasp or embrace) is beyond ego/mind/body; is, rather, spiritual.
The traditions that the feminazis want so desperately to disparage, deconstruct and replace are fundamentally harmless. Indeed, the whole issue is diversionary: it pits us against each other. And, I'm afraid, therein is the seduction for women: men are seen to be vulnerable. Wherever and whenever a woman can use a man's traditional nature against him, she does. It appears in many forms but usually follows along the lines of: make him angry by whatever means work the best; then demand that the authorities (ironically, usually men in police uniforms) restrain and punish whatever behavior got manifested; all the while acting and appearing as the victim so as not be discerned as the actual perpetrator. So women end up usurping the traditional (violent) nature of men.
I must admit, it is an enticing opportunity for women; though not at all portentous for humankind. Perhaps it is time for women to ask themselves what they want; and is it for them alone or is it for all of us, men included.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And, I'm afraid, therein is the seduction for women: men are seen to be vulnerable. Wherever and whenever a woman can use a man's traditional nature against him, she does. It appears in many forms but usually follows along the lines of: make him angry by whatever means work the best; then demand that the authorities (ironically, usually men in police uniforms) restrain and punish whatever behavior got manifested; all the while acting and appearing as the victim so as not be discerned as the actual perpetrator. So women end up usurping the traditional (violent) nature of men."
PJ -
An OUTSTANDING post!! As men begin to pic pick themselves up and formulate a response to the past 40 years of attacks on our character, it is incredibly important to have some sort of theoretical base from which to fight the nonsense. OF COURSE women want us to be "vulnerable". How many times have we heard that over the past 4 decades? The more "vulnerable" we are, the easier we are to attack and defeat.
If you look at the root of the word "violence", it comes from the same concept as "violate". That which VIOLates is VIOLence. Women are masters of verbal and emotional violence - in violating personal boundaries of respect and courtesy and betrayal of trust.
The feminasties have been masters at playing the shell game of defining the physial as violent and the emotional/verbal as not being violence, until they have established enough of a stereotype in peoples' minds that "violence" is male that they can now act as if people simply cannot see when women become violent - as if it were invisible.
I'm sorry I didn't get back with a response to your excellent analysis until this thread fell into the purgatory of "page 2 and beyond."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women are masters of verbal and emotional violence - in violating personal boundaries of respect and courtesy and betrayal of trust.
Back when I suffered under the delusion that these issues could be discussed with courtesy, reason, empathy, mutual respect, etc., I had an encounter in a forum with a woman who self-righteously pronounced her prerogative to say no to sex at any time.
It turned out that, when she felt sufficiently mistreated in a relationship, she would feign reconciliation, accept her man's advances for sex and then, when he was naked and vulnerable and expecting affection and validation, she would lay into him by telling him everything that was wrong with him.
She found this shamed them into a quite agreeable state of compliance. She had pulled this on four different men and was quite satisfied with the results. She considered that she was helping them "build character."
IOW, in her view, they asked for it. They deserved it. So she taught them a lesson.
As I gently and courteously tried to point out that she was a passive-aggressive, manipulative, self-serving asshole, two women who I had thought had their heads on straight chimed in to remind me that anything a woman does to a man is insignificant compared to rape. (Even though none of these four men raped her.)
The feminasties have been masters at playing the shell game of defining the physial as violent and the emotional/verbal as not being violence, until they have established enough of a stereotype in peoples' minds that "violence" is male that they can now act as if people simply cannot see when women become violent - as if it were invisible.
You said a mouthful!
Larry
The source of all power is the ability to say "No."
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
