Bus driver uppercuts woman

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

Heh, I actually said earlier in the thread that people seem to think women are a hive mind expecting special treatment if we assault someone and it's hypocritical that men point out that it's not them who started this idea, you can't have it both ways.

And I think that if someone wants to fight on the front lines they should be allowed to. Women just aren't even nowadays. Yet men act like it's our fault and we are revelling in some privilege when really we are having our freedoms restricted.

 

[lord.jeff]

Why has the Escapist become the go to site for hearing about women getting hit/yelled at news?

 

[Nathan Crumpler]

snip

Heh, I actually said earlier in the thread that people seem to think women are a hive mind expecting special treatment if we assault someone and it's hypocritical that men point out that it's not them who started this idea, you can't have it both ways.

And I think that if someone wants to fight on the front lines they should be allowed to. Women just aren't even nowadays. Yet men act like it's our fault and we are revelling in some privilege when really we are having our freedoms restricted.

I could be wrong, but no one on this thread implied that women started the rule. They are saying that some women take advantage of the rule, even if they did not start it. I don't know what it is like where you live, but where I am, people vehemently believe than a man should never hit a woman. Some believe that even if the man's life is in danger he should not hit a woman. You may not consider them feminists, they may not consider themselves feminists, but there are plenty of women who would happily reap the rewards that feminist and others have given them, yet turn around and cry foul when a man they hit, hit them back. You may not believe me, but where I live it is not a fringe group who believe this, it is the norm.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

But you see how that view in itself is sexist? Saying that women can't handle themselves. It's not a privilege rooted in equality at all.

Considering in the law men and women are equal when it comes to assault we don't have this magic privilege you seem to be so envious of. In fact in my personal experience men are always too keen to beat on women.

 

[Driekan]

So... From the info I could find on this thing, apparently the perp did strike the driver before, and spat at him. To anyone who claims you would not react to this, I'll just say one thing: You should see about growing a backbone.

Gender politics should not figure into this. A human being did something deserving of a wallop to another human being, and got walloped. The gender of either human being does not matter, but since it has been touched on and apparently some people believe it is relevant to this issue: The whole "Don't hit a girl" idea is sexist and needs to go, along with all other truisms that underlie a belief that women are somehow impaired, inferior, or defective human beings. That is all.

 

[rbstewart7263]

snip

But you see how that view in itself is sexist? Saying that women can't handle themselves. It's not a privilege rooted in equality at all.

Considering in the law men and women are equal when it comes to assault we don't have this magic privilege you seem to be so envious of. In fact in my personal experience men are always too keen to beat on women.

But you keep fighting hypocrisy with hypocritical statements. as long as you do that women could be the god gender for all I care and be able to shoot lasers out of there eyes. it wont matter though what women can and cant do the arguement is lost when you are a hypocrite. generalizing men and then condemning him for making generalizations.

Doesnt work like that. also scientifically debates tend to be a waste of time you should know that by now.

captcha:not in kansas

 

[Something Amyss]

Why has the Escapist become the go to site for hearing about women getting hit/yelled at news?

Because juvenile boys enjoy vicariously acting out their misogynist revenge fantasies?

So she was taunting him and threatening him, acting like a child. I assume she was old enough to know what she was doing was wrong. He had enough of it and punched her (in a glorious style). While he was in the wrong for punching her (Not because she is a women, but because it is assault), she deserved it. Personally I would have just thrown her off the bus, but to each 'is own.

So are you advocating uppercutting children, too? Just curious as to how this comparison is going to play out.

 

[Something Amyss]

generalizing men and then condemning him for making generalizations.

From what I see, MB is merely countering anecdotal evidence with anecdotal evidence.

What was the hypocrisy, again?

 

[Vegosiux]

Say what you will, but that was one impressive uppercut. The kind you keep replaying in your head over and over when someone pisses you off.

That said, I still think it should have stayed in his head. If I was him I'd simply refuse to start the bus until she was calmly seated or off the bus.

 

[Nathan Crumpler]

snip

But you see how that view in itself is sexist? Saying that women can't handle themselves. It's not a privilege rooted in equality at all.

Considering in the law men and women are equal when it comes to assault we don't have this magic privilege you seem to be so envious of. In fact in my personal experience men are always too keen to beat on women.

I never said that the privilege was rooted in equality.

Yes, but not every altercation ends with a court case. If a man gets attacked by a woman, he is less likely to call the cops because he is not sure if he will be taken seriously; chances are, his friends won't take him seriously either. Honestly, there are times when a man would get attacked by another man and he still would not call the cops or press charges. There's what the law says, and then there's what society says; they aren't always the same.

Bear in mind, if the woman who got uppercut was a man, this whole thing would most likely never have happened because most guys are smart enough not to mess with some one twice their size or to at least run when things turn violent. She just stood there and took it on the chin and then came back for more after she got thrown out.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Considering in the law men and women are equal when it comes to assault we don't have this magic privilege you seem to be so envious of. In fact in my personal experience men are always too keen to beat on women.

Your personal experience in its limited sample size (while unfortunate, given what I think you are implying) does not change the fact that it is not representative of reality as a whole. There exist a non-trivial number of people who believe men should never strike a woman under any circumstances, even in self defense, and this in turn enables a lot of violent behavior in women. A woman who strikes someone that can't defend themselves is a bully, irrespective of whether or not the reasons behind it or biological or social.

Since we're trading personal anecdotes, I'll return the favor. Around five years ago, I witnessed a male police officer have to forcibly restrain and arrest a near-rabid female. I was a civilian with the Calgary Police Service at the time, so I can certify with 100% accuracy that he followed the "use of force" guidelines exactly as required, eventually using nothing more than small joint manipulation to break apart her clenched hands so he could handcuff her. The crowd, which had nothing to say while this woman was punching, striking and kicking the officer, started screaming "abuse!" and "she's a woman!" while getting out their cell phone cameras. I seemed to be the only person who was willing to publicly point out that she was also violently resisting arrest. In the end, I can only speculate how many false claims of police brutality I was able to circumvent by simply providing witness to the incident, but even if it was just one, it was a lunch hour well spent.

With all due respect, I stand by my claim that my experience is more accurately reflective of society's views on inter-gender violence. I suspect we'll just have to 'agree to disagree'

... finally, as a side note: the law that men and women are theoretically equal under is, in practice, anything but. All other things being equal, the "gender gap" in both conviction rates and sentencing rates (in favor of female criminals) is larger than either the "race gap" or the "wealth gap". So no, I don't think "they're putatively equal under the eyes of the law even though they aren't" in any way disqualifies the reality that society, as a whole, is enabling of violent female behavior.

 

[Driekan]

Considering in the law men and women are equal when it comes to assault we don't have this magic privilege you seem to be so envious of. In fact in my personal experience men are always too keen to beat on women.

Your personal experience in its limited sample size (while unfortunate, given what I think you are implying) does not change the fact that it is not representative of reality as a whole. There exist a non-trivial number of people who believe men should never strike a woman under any circumstances, even in self defense, and this in turn enables a lot of violent behavior in women. A woman who strikes someone that can't defend themselves is a bully, irrespective of whether or not the reasons behind it or biological or social.

Since we're trading personal anecdotes, I'll return the favor. Around five years ago, I witnessed a male police officer have to forcibly restrain and arrest a near-rabid female. I was a civilian with the Calgary Police Service at the time, so I can certify with 100% accuracy that he followed the "use of force" guidelines exactly as required, eventually using nothing more than small joint manipulation to break apart her clenched hands so he could handcuff her. The crowd, which had nothing to say while this woman was punching, striking and kicking the officer, started screaming "abuse!" and "she's a woman!" while getting out their cell phone cameras. I seemed to be the only person who was willing to publicly point out that she was also violently resisting arrest. In the end, I can only speculate how many false claims of police brutality I was able to circumvent by simply providing witness to the incident, but even if it was just one, it was a lunch hour well spent.

With all due respect, I stand by my claim that my experience is more accurately reflective of society's views on inter-gender violence. I suspect we'll just have to 'agree to disagree'

... finally, as a side note: the law that men and women are theoretically equal under is, in practice, anything but. All other things being equal, the "gender gap" in both conviction rates and sentencing rates (in favor of female criminals) is larger than either the "race gap" or the "wealth gap". So no, I don't think "they're putatively equal under the eyes of the law even though they aren't" in any way disqualifies the reality that society, as a whole, is enabling of violent female behavior.

Do have to agree...

In my life, I've been struck by women far more often than I've been struck by men. I suspect (Though, of course, I'm not a mind-eater) that in most such cases the women figured I could not strike her back (As it would be socially unacceptable and land me in a lot of trouble) whereas a man in the same situation would have thought about it twice.

I further think that this whole distinction actually stems from an openly sexist way of thinking. People act as if being female is a handicap, and women should be treated as if they were deficient in some way. They're not. Being female is not a defect, it is not a weakness, it is not a problem.

 

[Tanner The Monotone]

So... From the info I could find on this thing, apparently the perp did strike the driver before, and spat at him. To anyone who claims you would not react to this, I'll just say one thing: You should see about growing a backbone.

Yeah, at spitting the gloves come off. To me, that's about as disrespectful as you can get.

I know people will say that's not a justifiable reason to start a fight, and their right, but it really has nothing to do with logic anyway.

 

[Augustine]

Laying hands on a driver of a public vehicle? Verbal abuse? Threatening loved ones?!
The moment any adult lays hands on me, and to compound it threatens my family I am within my right to use reasonable force necessary to subdue them.

And what driver did, is not greatly excessive, in my opinion. He acted as far as needed to get the person forcefully out of the vehicle, he did not hop out after her, and beat her while she was down or anything of the sort.
That's the problem with successful provocation, lady - it ESCALATES the conflict, I hope she learned a lesson.

There's no distinction in gender according to my state's laws in regards to this, nor should there be.

 

[the December King]

If it is true about her having hit and spit on him while he was driving, then I agree that she had to go - to try and do your job while someone assaults you is ridiculous. The punch might have been excessive, granted, but quickly removing her from the bus was warranted.

I'm more shocked that no one intervened in any appreciable capacity to stop this before it escalated to the point it did.

 

[Souleks]

If it is true about her having hit and spit on him while he was driving, then I agree that she had to go - to try and do your job while someone assaults you is ridiculous. The punch might have been excessive, granted, but quickly removing her from the bus was warranted.

I'm more shocked that no one intervened in any appreciable capacity to stop this before it escalated to the point it did.

You don't ride public transport do you? Nobody ever does anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

 

[AlphaLackey]

Do have to agree...

In my life, I've been struck by women far more often than I've been struck by men. I suspect (Though, of course, I'm not a mind-eater) that in most such cases the women figured I could not strike her back (As it would be socially unacceptable and land me in a lot of trouble) whereas a man in the same situation would have thought about it twice.

I further think that this whole distinction actually stems from an openly sexist way of thinking. People act as if being female is a handicap, and women should be treated as if they were deficient in some way. They're not. Being female is not a defect, it is not a weakness, it is not a problem.

There's no doubt that the double standards stem from open sexism. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the huge gulf in statutory rape conviction and sentencing (for instance) stems straight from the slut/stud dichotomy. Similarly, the exact same sexism that thought women couldn't possibly be mechanics, engineers or scientists also thinks that women can't possibly be murderers, abusers or bullies. The key is, of course, that feminist activists have been actively fighting the sexism inherent in the former while not caring about the latter. For all the NOW has been advocating for "equal pay for equal work", have you ever seen them once advocate for "equal time for equal crime"? Neither have I. Have you seen them advocate any affirmative action plans, quota systems or double standards to address the sexism in the latter, as they openly approve of in the former? Neither have I.

 

[Sunrider]

This thread is like the thread I saw about bullies the other day.
"No, it's the victim's fault! The bully is actually the real victim!"

I love apologist society.