Female brutality - NOW WITH VIDEO!!!

[Epona]

I don't think many people still believe that the feminist movement is about equality. That ship has sailed.

I don't care if they believe it. Dictionary definitions aren't faith based. I can call myself communist and then announce that I support a free market economy. That doesn't mean that the definition of communism has changed. That just means that I'm an idiot who doesn't know the meaning of communism, and anyone who believes I am actually in support of communism is equally guilty of ignorance. Similarly, any psycho lady can call herself a feminist, but if she doesn't support full equality, she isn't. It's up to you to be able to recognise that.

Well, the definition of feminism is flawed as the word feminism doesn't lend itself to equality. The better term would be humanism. Feminism is about women alone, that isn't equality.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I am not hypothesizing actions either, the video is labeled as such, I am simply making an observation with the evidence given.

The dude isnt showing self control out of some form of Chivalry...

Hypothesizing his motivation for holding back.

...the dude is showing self control because of Guilt

Hypothesizing he feels guilty.

He cheated on her, and the only way she found to deal with her frustration and anger was to beat the crap out of him.

Hypothesizing she had "no other way to deal with her frustration and anger".

Even if you do KNOW that he cheated, which we don't, Youtube headline notwithstanding, but even if we ASSUME that this actually happened, all that other stuff you supplied? That's just you guessing as to motivations. How do you know he feels guilty? How do you know he's NOT holding back for chivalrous reasons? How do you know she didn't have plenty of other constructive ways of dealing with this?

 

[boag]

The dude isnt showing self control out of some form of Chivalry, the dude is showing self control because of Guilt.

He cheated on her, and the only way she found to deal with her frustration and anger was to beat the crap out of him. Was it smart? No. Was it rational? No. Was it even Justified? nope.

But seriously what course of action did she have left?

there is no legislation available to protect people in this position.

BS, he was showing restraint because he knew people were watching and if he retaliated he'd probably have been the one in cuffs.

You ask what legislation is available for people in her position? Why should there be, cheating in a relationship isn't a legal matter, nor should it be. All she can do is scream at him and break up. Like a normal person. There's no excuse for violence and the dumb ***** deserves jail time.

I do believe cheating is a form of emotional abuse.

You cant say that devoting yourself to a commited relationship, isnt damaging.

***READ***, I am not condoning her acts, I am merely pointing out the fact that people can get away with cheating without any form of punishment.

Again, BS.

Cheating isn't a form of emotional abuse and fortunately the courts don't see it that way.

It'd also be interesting to know whether you'd be as quick to contextualise if it was a man beating on a woman because she cheated on him. Or are men not as easily abused emotionally?

ok, why am I being targeted as a proponent of double standards?

If the positions were reversed, yes I would also call to point that cheating is a form of abuse.

You dont think infidelity it is a form emotional abuse?

Placing complete trust, and investing, time, money and emotional stability and then being betrayed isnt a form of abuse?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Well, the definition of feminism is flawed as the word feminism doesn't lend itself to equality. The better term would be humanism. Feminism is about women alone, that isn't equality.

Yeah, well, that's the definition. Take it up with the people down at the dictionary if it bothers you. If people didn't continually invent their own definition of the word "feminism" maybe we could have a reasonable discussion about it for a change.

I mean, shit. I don't like definition of the word "table". It doesn't fit. I think it should be called a "Slabulite". That seems a lot more appropriate.

Can we stick with the dictionary definition of things? Is that fair?

 

[manic_depressive13]

Well, the definition of feminism is flawed as the word feminism doesn't lend itself to equality. The better term would be humanism. Feminism is about women alone, that isn't equality.

Well unfortunately it isn't called humanism. It's called feminism. But I completely agree with you. While we're at it, we could change the term "mankind" to a gender neutral term, like "personkind". We can stop using "man" as a more general term for humanity. We could remove the word "man" from the word "woman". Or, you know, we could just get the fuck over it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You dont think infidelity it is a form emotional abuse?

Placing complete trust, and investing, time, money and emotional stability and then being betrayed isnt a form of abuse?

No, it isn't.

I was cheated on. Repeatedly. It was devastating. At no point did I say or think "I have been abused".

There is a degree of emotional risk involved in relationships. If you're not prepared to assume that risk, you should really stay single. No one is forcing you to couple up.

 

[boag]

I am not hypothesizing actions either, the video is labeled as such, I am simply making an observation with the evidence given.

The dude isnt showing self control out of some form of Chivalry...

Hypothesizing his motivation for holding back.

...the dude is showing self control because of Guilt

Hypothesizing he feels guilty.

He cheated on her, and the only way she found to deal with her frustration and anger was to beat the crap out of him.

Hypothesizing she had "no other way to deal with her frustration and anger".

Even if you do KNOW that he cheated, which we don't, Youtube headline notwithstanding, but even if we ASSUME that this actually happened, all that other stuff you supplied? That's just you guessing as to motivations. How do you know he feels guilty? How do you know he's NOT holding back for chivalrous reasons? How do you know she didn't have plenty of other constructive ways of dealing with this?

I do agree with your assessment, perhaps I have jumped a bit far into conclusions about this case in particular.

With that said, I still believe that there should be some legal recourse to deal with infidelity, which is what prompted my initial post.

 

[LetalisK]

I was initially neutral on what she was doing, since I could see a scenario where I would cheer what happened to that guy. Then she started acting belligerent with the police and it became apparent this is probably more of a problem with her.

That's like saying you would cheer on a guy beating a girl for cheating on him, since that was all the information we had. It's an identical scenario.

And what's your point? I already know I would react differently. Well, unless it was a retardedly extreme scenario, of course.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

With that said, I still believe that there should be some legal recourse to deal with infidelity, which is what prompted my initial post.

I hear that you do. Society at large disagrees, and rightfully so. Relationships are very complex. The motivations for cheating are very complex. There are no laws to protect you from heartbreak, nor should there be. It is not a legal issue, and it is not something I would want the courts meddling in.

And no, I am not a proponent of cheating, but it's not an issue for the courts.

 

[Actual]

Sexist BS, you clearly don't believe in equality.

No, cheating should not be a crime.

True, I don't believe in equality, I think it's a very foolish idea. I believe each person should be judged on their merits alone regardless of whatever groups they may fit into including gender.

The don't hit girls rule is a silly generalisation that women tend to be weaker than men, well that's correct, they do tend to be weaker than men, so in general you shouldn't hit them. The rule doesn't cover all ethical angles of every situation you could be put in but it's a good starting line to figure out the correct action from.

And cheating shouldn't be a crime because relationships are so complicated it would be almost impossible to enforce any legal punishments. Much simpler just to physically punish someone who is a scumbag and cheats.

 

[boag]

There is a degree of emotional risk involved in relationships. If you're not prepared to assume that risk, you should really stay single. No one is forcing you to couple up.

I believe your argument here is essentially flawed.

There is risk in every single action taken every day.

Slipping on the shower, getting run over by a car, getting mugged, that is no argument to say, you shouldnt X because you cant assume the risk.

There should be more recourse than just "get over it" for the party that suffered some form of infidelity.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

There should be more recourse than just "get over it" for the party that suffered some form of infidelity.

Why should there be? I don't understand this. Why should you be protected from emotional upheaval in your relationships? How would you legislate that? 2 years in prison for a drunken night of sex with your ex-girlfriend? My wife flirted with the bartender, 3 months probation? How about duration of cheating? Intensity? What about who it was with? What if you did something to merit it? What if you were frigid, or dysfunctional, or just a super prick?

It's not a legal issue. It will NEVER be a legal issue. And it SHOULD NEVER be a legal issue.

 

[boag]

And no, I am not a proponent of cheating, but it's not an issue for the courts.

I know you arent, i am not making that statement.

I think we might be diverging in points here.

so lets clear it up a bit

1.- should cheating be punishable by the law?
To an extent it should, and in a way it is, most of pre-marital contracts already have it stipulated.

2.-is cheating a form of emotional abuse?
I believe it is.

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

I want her put in jail, just like if I saw a man do it. And you now if he were to hit back he would be the one in jail.

 

[Epona]

Well, the definition of feminism is flawed as the word feminism doesn't lend itself to equality. The better term would be humanism. Feminism is about women alone, that isn't equality.

Yeah, well, that's the definition. Take it up with the people down at the dictionary if it bothers you. If people didn't continually invent their own definition of the word "feminism" maybe we could have a reasonable discussion about it for a change.

I mean, shit. I don't like definition of the word "table". It doesn't fit. I think it should be called a "Slabulite". That seems a lot more appropriate.

Can we stick with the dictionary definition of things? Is that fair?

No, Feminism is not about equality regardless of an outdated definition. I don't take issue with the definition though, until someone insists we acknowledge it. I don't acknowledge it because actions speak louder than words. Any movement that is interested in helping only one group cannot be called an equality movement.

 

[boag]

There should be more recourse than just "get over it" for the party that suffered some form of infidelity.

Why should there be? I don't understand this. Why should you be protected from emotional upheaval in your relationships? How would you legislate that? 2 years in prison for a drunken night of sex with your ex-girlfriend? My wife flirted with the bartender, 3 months probation? How about duration of cheating? Intensity? What about who it was with? What if you did something to merit it? What if you were frigid, or dysfunctional, or just a super prick?

It's not a legal issue. It will NEVER be a legal issue. And it SHOULD NEVER be a legal issue.

ok, please refrain from the silly examples, I believe can have a civil discussion without devolving to strawman arguments.

Jailtime for this time of abuse is never going to happen nor should it, that we can both agree on.

But, you should be able to sue someone over infidelity, you can already sue someone for mental duress and neglect. heck, the more i think about it and research it, the more i thing that there might already be legal recourse to this and I am just ignorant about it.

 

[Mallefunction]

Just watch this, simply incredible:

Well yeah. People are brutal to each other regardless of sex, race, age, etc. It's not acceptable for anyone to do it so I dunno why you singled out women as being ore brutal. The fact of the matter is simply that they are no more, no less brutal than men, men just tend to be a lot less likely to report it out of fear that no one will believe them or that they will be seen as weak for being beaten up by their girlfriend.

Maybe it's important to point it out when women are violent because there seems to be this public attitude that only men are violent. In the US we have the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), not the Act Against Domestic Violence and not a separate act to protect men. See the bias? See why it's important to counter what feminism has taught in the last 50 years?

In fact, I would bet that this attitude that only men are violent is why this women felt secure in beating this man. She knew he probably wouldn't fight back and if he did, he would be in violation of VAWA. Had she thought there was equality and that he would have knocked her on her ass, maybe she wouldn't have hit him.

That was not my argument at all. And feminism isn't the enemy, hon. True feminism IS about equality. The extremists (who are HARDLY the majority, just the loudest as with any group) are the ones who want priority over men.

 

[Epona]

I want her put in jail, just like if I saw a man do it. And you now if he were to hit back he would be the one in jail.

Wait, you say "he would be the one in jail". Does that mean that if he hit her back, she would not go to jail?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

No, Feminism is not about equality regardless of an outdated definition. I don't take issue with the definition though, until someone insists we acknowledge it. I don't acknowledge it because actions speak louder than words. Any movement that is interested in helping only one group cannot be called an equality movement.

Oh for fucks sake, who updated the definition? You? There is no updated definition. That's the definition. If you can't cope with the fact that the English language has words, and those words have definitions, and the fun definitions you make up in your head aren't going to be shared by society at large, then we really can't have any sort of conversation at all, because I'm never going to know WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.