Female brutality - NOW WITH VIDEO!!!

[Sleepingzombie]

Look the term now used for "femenism" is "equalitarism". It´s goals are that Both sexes should be held by the same standards, same codes. There is no significant difference between the sexes, only superficial biological ones that is not enough to make a lasting difference.

There is no "general human" just as no one have 2.33 kids, so "the general female" and "the general male" is rendered moot. Some are stronger than others some are weaker, that goes for both sexes. You dont need powerful muscles to hurt someone, the right technique is enough. One it to the head is enough to kill.

I think the gentleman should have taken steps to protect himself from injury.

 

[Sleepingzombie]

Amen. I also agree. On tha subject: how do you dispell the fear that the feminazis are out to get them?

 

[Epona]

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.

If feminism were about equality, hon, then why isn't it called humanism or some other gender neutral term? Why don't feminists fight against VAWA since it is discriminatory? How about the discrimination present in custody hearings?

Feminism is about helping women and ONLY women. That's all fine but let's not claim it's about equality.

I am done with this because this topic will surely end with me getting a warning or worse.

It is called feminism because when it was originally started, women were not treated equally as men. It was about raising the female sex to men's level. The phrasing hasn't changed since then, but the objective is still the same.

That's pretty broad to state that feminists don't fight against VAWA or unfair custody. Just because the loud and proud ones (aka, the ones mentioned before) don't do those things doesn't mean that the rest of us aren't in favor of men's rights. How about you actually look into a group before just throwing them all under the bus?

I have spent a few years "looking into feminism". Maybe you could show me a feminist group that fights against VAWA?

 

[Mr Companion]

Although I see a lot of support to hit back here, I respect his decision not to.
That way he is entirely in the right (even if he did cheat I mean see what he was cheating on can you blame him?) and is upholding the male code of honor when many would and probably should hit back.

 

[Pearwood]

I bet all she gets is community service 6 months.

It's a domestic situation that's caused by one moment of anger at her boyfriend cheating, I wouldn't say she deserves more than that. Not like she's dangerous, she was just really pissed off. No point making up a list of charges, one off domestic incidents like that happen all the time involving men and woman without people getting lengthy prison sentences.

Amen. I also agree. On tha subject: how do you dispell the fear that the feminazis are out to get them?

By doing actual research without paranoia. Quite easy really, just talk to any woman who identifies as feminist and chances are they like men just fine.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The S.C.U.M. manifesto has become a valid political statement, in case you are unfamiliar, The society for cutting up men manifesto, was written by a radical feminist who thought men were inferior and should all be executed. The arguments that it is a joke are somewhat overshadowed by the fact that the author did try to kill a couple of em. Speaking out against there modern actions like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7WVCkLUzJ8

I'm probably going to kick myself later for wading into this with you, because I know what your views are on these issues and they're pretty polarized, but I honestly think you need to stop going to the well with Valerie Solanas. She was a sexually abused girl who grew up into a deeply disturbed murderer. I'm not sure why anything she says or writes would be taken as legitimate political or psychological discourse. We don't look to Charles Manson or Ted Bundy as representatives of the male attitude towards women. Or at least, we shouldn't. You can't really argue a position using the most extreme examples you have at hand.

If the S.C.U.M. Manifesto has indeed become a valid political statement ANYWHERE, this is the first I've heard of it, because it's fairly widely regarded as A) satire or B) nonsense. The ONLY thing I can find discussing it online related to Sweden is on this website:

http://www.avoiceformen.com

Which hardly qualifies as a unbiased source. After flipping through it for a few pages it's the male equivalent of Eve Bit First. I mean, I see you've got a crazy Youtube video there, but really? A crazy Youtube video? You can find anecdotal evidence to support almost ANYTHING.

The problem is that there are hundreds of studies that peg violence committed by women to men more widespread a problem than violence committed by men to women generally settling on something around a 70/30 split.

There are hundreds of studies to support almost anything. Ask someone on one side of a political divide about their talking points, and they'll reference "hundreds of studies" to support their position. I don't suppose we need to get into a discussion about biased polling data, because lord knows I've gone to statistics when they've served my purposes and ignored them when they don't, so that would make me a huge hypocrite, but "studies", especially unlinked and vaguely referenced studies, don't really tell us much of anything.

What I like about you, and your perspective on things, is you do talk about sexism towards men, and it doesn't get talked about very often, and it is pretty rampant, and it is pretty socially acceptable, and that is a problem. What I DON'T like about your position is how it always seems to manifest itself as minimizing and/or attacking feminism. If there's a gender politics post on The Escapist, I could make money betting that BRex21 is going to be in there, and he's going to be beating the "men are the bigger victims" drum. Maybe this is because you're striving for balance by arguing against what you feel is a culturally biased perspective, so you're coming off as militant. Maybe it's because your avatar is an angry cat in a beret. I don't know. But you do sometimes come off as an extreme "masculanist".

Do you think it's POSSIBLE that your anger/frustration around this issue has given you a BIT of a confirmation bias?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I think that ends the first portion; now onto feminism. Know what? I like equal rights. I am the black sheep of my family and the color of my wool nearly got me lynched daily. If its equal i support it and if it is slanted in favor of one side or the other it can burn. Now instead of fighting to say feminism is a piece of shit(not denying just not going to outright say it and defend it to the death today) i am going to say that if feminism wanted to do right by women it would be better at PR. Know why everyone equates femnazis and star feminists to feminism? Because they are already in the public field and they are not denounced by the movement. Straw feminists are allowed to grow in power until they hit the point where they become a new face to feminism and the movement proper doesn't fight it. We could be here for the next hundred years arguing if they let it slide because thats how they feel or if they just don't care but i will say my peace on it. It slides because A: they need the support it garners or B: they don't know. A is probably wrong because most of the straw feminism followers would view proper feminism as weak while B is BS because that's an elephant in your wheel house you cannot ignore.

For all it has/hasn't been able to do i do not like third age feminism. I give them credit for not outright campaigning to outlaw words like ***** and ****. But they have no unified cause and they have no direct focus thus causing splinter groups to go off in search of perceived large threats instead of real small threats. Disown them all you like but feminism lost is title to straw feminists and it wont get it back. True equality fighters should abandon ship and move on to broader equality groups. Maybe torch the ship before you leave so they don't use it with you 100% gone.

"Feminism" can't be good at PR. Feminism is an idea. People do PR. People are individuals, and do not represent the idea as a whole.

The reason "radical feminists" who don't actually represent the spirit of feminism in the slightest are able to so easily hijack the spotlight from the sane majority is because we live in an information based society where the loudest and most controversial voices dominate every forum. Don't believe it? Take a look at the state of US political discourse. Or easier yet, make some discussion threads right here on the Escapist. Make your first one a reasonable, intelligent, neutral discussion where you carefully analyze every side of an issue before putting it forward for debate. Make the second an angry, polarizing rant with a bunch of absurd claims. One of those threads will be off the first page in a matter of minutes. The other will get 50,000 views and stay at the top of the forum all day. People are drawn to the outrageous, the controversial, and the stupid. We seek OUT things that offend us because we like the feeling of righteous indignation.

TLDR, you don't hate feminism if you support equality. You don't hate what feminism has become, either, because it hasn't become anything. The definition remains unchanged. If you want to be less annoyed about it, try listening to more moderates, and less angry fringe lunatics. A movement doesn't need to disown anyone who never represented their perspective to begin with.

 

[iLazy]

Hitting anyone is wrong, unless you're into that sort of thing.

But seriously, why didn't that woman do what we normally do? Attack them emotionally and mentally, in hopes that it will mentally scar them for life. Kidding.

I hope she gets charged with assault.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

But people within still need to do better PR for its idea. And yes i hate what it has become as an ideal because the ideal shapes the movement and the ideal is warped by nutters that claim to be feminists yet don't get denounced by the organizations that want equality for women. Either you publicly say she is not with you and she does not stand for equal rights or you let her spread the belief that that is what she is. Information age is a constant war when it comes to this. A war that the good in most sides is losing horrible. And yes if you support equality you can hate feminism. Because the idea nay or may not have changed but the world around it has. Why continue fighting for something that is attained when you could broaden the horizon and go to fight for others equality? At this point you are either playing watch dog or chasing your tail.

Like any word the definition can change; officially or in the minds of people. Safeguard it so it doesn't do so negatively.

Attained HERE maybe, for many. Not so much in say, India, or the Middle East. We could stand to think a little less nationalistically when it comes to issues like gender politics.

Maybe I'm stubborn and like my language, but while I agree we end up with colloquial definitions for things, we somehow manage to have dozens of 'isms that haven't changed their definition over hundreds of years. Yet feminism changed in a couple of decades? Do you think that MIGHT have something to do with the fact that gender issues are emotionally charged, and that the blame lies as much with the people misinterpreting it as with the people misrepresenting it? If I called myself a Capitalist but argued violently for Socialism, you wouldn't say I was disintegrating the definition of Capitalism, you'd say I was an idiot who misunderstood the term. I don't understand why the same rules can't apply here.

 

[NinjaCatStudios]

No wonder he cheated if she gets like that.

 

[NiGHTSJOD]

I would have absolutely no problem hitting this crazy woman back. I would never hit a lady but I certainly would not classify her as one by any stretch of the imagination. No different to any other kind of scumbag except this one has a vagina.

 

[Rutnier Nodarse]

FINISH HIM!!!!!!!

 

[brainslurper]

Seems to be a common trend that women like that think they can do whatever the fuck they want to a guy they know won't hit back. It upsets me, but there is a sex-barrier when it comes to self defense. There would be a long trial if he had hit her back, or at least tried to subdue her. That woman's lawyer was argue he used too much force, or he took advantage of his masculinity to control her femininity.

In a perfect world? I would have taken that woman down, face first, put both knees in either shoulder blade and sat there waiting for the cops while she shouted profanity at me.

Did you see how she was hitting? She was just sort of flailing her arms in his general direction. I think it would have been incredibly immoral to respond with force, not because of her gender, because she is weak.

 

[Redratson]

you wanted equal rights, you fucking got em.

I agree 100%. Stop playing the "Im a girl" card. You stepped up to the plate, you can't just walk out on the pitch..

Couldnt said it any better myself

 

[NiGHTSJOD]

Seems to be a common trend that women like that think they can do whatever the fuck they want to a guy they know won't hit back. It upsets me, but there is a sex-barrier when it comes to self defense. There would be a long trial if he had hit her back, or at least tried to subdue her. That woman's lawyer was argue he used too much force, or he took advantage of his masculinity to control her femininity.

In a perfect world? I would have taken that woman down, face first, put both knees in either shoulder blade and sat there waiting for the cops while she shouted profanity at me.

Did you see how she was hitting? She was just sort of flailing her arms in his general direction. I think it would have been incredibly immoral to respond with force, not because of her gender, because she is weak.

Umm, you did see the kicks, heel kicks and punches to the back of the head, yes? They could have been life threatening.