#violenceisviolence video potentially a fraud

[Aaron Sylvester]

Why can't women do the same?

Fun fact: its impossible for you to answer this without being branded a sexist by this forum. Go ahead and try.

Because the genders aren't 100% identical in every aspect, otherwise we wouldn't need to call them male and female.

Those seeking 100% "equality" will always find themselves lost or confused.

I don't really care what a bunch of anons on the internet brand me, my only goal is to get straight to the point and get people to see the core reasons behind why things are they way they are.

 

[generals3]

Why can't women do the same?

Fun fact: its impossible for you to answer this without being branded a sexist by this forum. Go ahead and try.

Because the genders aren't 100% identical in every aspect, otherwise we wouldn't need to call them male and female.

Those seeking 100% "equality" will always find themselves lost or confused.

I don't really care what a bunch of anons on the internet brand me, my only goal is to get straight to the point and get people to see the core reasons behind why things are they way they are.

In this case however the differences are irrelevant. Physical superiority cannot be used because even defending yourself can get you branded as an abuser if you're a man. And any other action a man can take, so can a woman. Although no, for men seeking help is harder because they have no shelters, very little help lines and won't be taken seriously by the authorities. They have less options than women and yet are expected to handle things themselves. Makes little sense.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

In this case however the differences are irrelevant. Physical superiority cannot be used because even defending yourself can get you branded as an abuser if you're a man.

This is because gender differences ARE absolutely relevant. That's the whole reason men are typically framed as the "attacker" even in self-defence.

And any other action a man can take, so can a woman.

But nowhere to the same degree of threat or effectiveness. The average man can quite easily handle being punched in the face by a woman, but if he was to punch her back (WITHOUT holding back, with all his force) she would end up being knocked to the ground in a bruised mess.

That's why in the video (despite being heavily edited) people weren't taken the woman's "attacks" on the man seriously - because she was never really a genuine threat to him. Not unless she used a weapon anyway.

They have less options than women and yet are expected to handle things themselves. Makes little sense.

They have fewer options for support BECAUSE they are expected to handle things themselves. Makes perfect sense.

 

[generals3]

In this case however the differences are irrelevant. Physical superiority cannot be used because even defending yourself can get you branded as an abuser if you're a man.

This is because gender differences ARE absolutely relevant. That's the whole reason men are typically framed as the "attacker" even in self-defence.

And any other action a man can take, so can a woman.

But nowhere to the same degree of threat or effectiveness. The average man can quite easily handle being punched in the face by a woman, but if he was to punch her back (WITHOUT holding back, with all his force) she would end up being knocked to the ground in a bruised mess.

That's why in the video (despite being heavily edited) people weren't taken the woman's "attacks" on the man seriously - because she was never really a genuine threat to him. Not unless she used a weapon anyway.

They have less options than women and yet are expected to handle things themselves. Makes little sense.

They have fewer options for support BECAUSE they are expected to handle things themselves. Makes perfect sense.

I'm sorry but you are making less and less sense. First you say that expecting men to stand up to themselves is the best mindset but you never mention how and seem to agree with me men have less options and can't actually defend themselves. So tell me why is expecting men to stand up to themselves the best mindset? What do men have, and can use, that makes them more capable of that?

And please don't say "being capable of taking a beating". Because that won't help you when she decides to poison you (a method used much more often by women than men) and it also won't help you when you're ambushed at home from behind the door and hit by a bat. (At least it didn't the help the victim who wrote about his story, well actually it did help because being hit unconscious and than getting all his teeth knocked out while unconscious is what finally made the authorities believe he was the victim and not the perpetrator) And let's not forget that even if things don't get that bad "taking it" simply doesn't solve anything, it only preserves the shitty status quo.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

I'm sorry but you are making less and less sense. First you say that expecting men to stand up to themselves is the best mindset but you never mention how and seem to agree with me men have less options and can't actually defend themselves. So tell me why is expecting men to stand up to themselves the best mindset? What do men have, and can use, that makes them more capable of that?

The have the ability to stop things even reaching that stage. Let me put it this way - if a man has reached a point where he's taking domestic abuse from his female partner, then he's already beyond help. He needs to sit down and reflect on why things reached that stage and how/why he let it happen. Domestic violence starts with mental dominance and that's also where domestic abuse can (and should) be stopped.

I'm having a lot of trouble even trying to IMAGINE what kind of guy would just sit there tolerating domestic abuse from a female. What kind of a female even decides that it's OK to physically attack her male partner...is she not worried that the male will retaliate? Is she simply crazy? Any normal female would definitely be worried about making their male partner "snap", they are not relying on letting the bias of law/society take their side later on - it's the situation in that moment that matters. What is she trying to accomplish? So many questions, so many things that don't make sense.

You make this sound less of a domestic abuse problem and more of a straight-up male vs female fist fight.

At least define a situation/scenario and then I could respond to that specifically. Male DO have options and need to be careful what they do, it really depends on the scenario.

And please don't say "being capable of taking a beating". Because that won't help you when she decides to poison you (a method used much more often by women than men) and it also won't help you when you're ambushed at home from behind the door and hit by a bat. (At least it didn't the help the victim who wrote about his story, well actually it did help because being hit unconscious and than getting all his teeth knocked out while unconscious is what finally made the authorities believe he was the victim and not the perpetrator) And let's not forget that even if things don't get that bad "taking it" simply doesn't solve anything, it only preserves the shitty status quo.

Sounds less like domestic abuse and more like a murder attempt, and that's not really what this thread is about. The couple should've separated long before things got that bad. Who the hell lives with someone that could potentially poison them or plan surprise attacks on them? It's definitely happened, but again we are hinging on straight-up murder attempts and this is way beyond the subtle domestic abuse that this thread is centred around.

 

[infinity_turtles]

Any normal female would definitely be worried about making their male partner "snap", they are not relying on letting the bias of law/society take their side later on - it's the situation in that moment that matters.

I feel like that's incredibly silly. As long as they don't suspect they'll get killed or permanently injured, there are plenty of people in the world, not just women, that are willing to provoke someone into attacking them so they can then screw the person over socially and legally. People that spiteful exist. And if someone can also be fairly confident they can physically attack someone, be safe from legal ramification for it, and if their victim does defend themselves socially and legally screw that person over? That's a hell of a power trip. Hell, that was a large component of most female bullying I saw going on in highschool. Keep any physical attacks deniable(cause pain but don't leave marks), have more people to corroborate your story, and if they try to fight back, let them and then claim they attacked you.

Your emphasis on an individual moment and what could happen if something goes wrong misses a whole hell of a lot of relevant details.

 

[generals3]

The have the ability to stop things even reaching that stage. Let me put it this way - if a man has reached a point where he's taking domestic abuse from his female partner, then he's already beyond help. He needs to sit down and reflect on why things reached that stage and how/why he let it happen. Domestic violence starts with mental dominance and that's also where domestic abuse can (and should) be stopped.

And what you're missing is that one of the major issues is that many victims do let things reach such a stage and that it is mainly those victims who need help. If you're capable of just leaving than you don't need help lines, shelters or whatever. Whether you're male or female. But unfortunately many victims are not rational. For instance the case of abuse i mentioned in my previous post was one like that, the guy basically said that he couldn't just leave because "he loved her". He wanted the abuse to stop but just leaving... didn't work. Sounds totally irrational, but that's the reality of things.

I'm having a lot of trouble even trying to IMAGINE what kind of guy would just sit there tolerating domestic abuse from a female. What kind of a female even decides that it's OK to physically attack her male partner...is she not worried that the male will retaliate? Is she simply crazy? Any normal female would definitely be worried about making their male partner "snap", they are not relying on letting the bias of law/society take their side later on - it's the situation in that moment that matters. What is she trying to accomplish? So many questions, so many things that don't make sense.

Well you need to keep in mind everyone is different and that it's also hard to judge such a situation as an outsider.

And any normal person would know blowing themselves in the name of deity up is stupid, anyone normal person would know insulting a cop while resisting arrest is stupid (and i could come up with plenty of other examples), yet people do those things. If humanity was truly rational we wouldn't be facing even half the problems we are.

And domestic abuse is not a "normal" situation, so basing expectations on normal behavior seems rather iffy.

You make this sound less of a domestic abuse problem and more of a straight-up male vs female fist fight.

Domestic abuse unfortunately often reaches that stage. And one way to prevent that is by giving people support not just telling them to Take It. Because Taking It might not be as straight forward for the person who's the victim. No matter how simple it may look like to us.

At least define a situation/scenario and then I could respond to that specifically. Male DO have options and need to be careful what they do, it really depends on the scenario.

But why do I need to define a scenario? Wouldn't you agree that giving them more tools would cover more scenario? So why would you say that current situation, which is very restrictive, is good?

Sounds less like domestic abuse and more like a murder attempt, and that's not really what this thread is about. The couple should've separated long before things got that bad. Who the hell lives with someone that could potentially poison them or plan surprise attacks on them? It's definitely happened, but again we are hinging on straight-up murder attempts and this is way beyond the subtle domestic abuse that this thread is centred around.

Some victims do. It's a sad truth. One which goes for both men and women. And attempted murder isn't mutually exclusive with domestic abuse.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

This is because gender differences ARE absolutely relevant. That's the whole reason men are typically framed as the "attacker" even in self-defence.

Don't you think that's a bit of a problem? If I have to level my attacker, if female, in order to get her to stop, what I in the right in exerting that much force? What if I break her arm accidentally in attempting to restrain her from hitting me?

The purpose is to illustrate the issue in perceptions, especially the stereotypical one you just asserted. We need to understand that men are often framed as the "attacker" because we are physically stronger, even though we are not the aggressors. Otherwise we cannot justify changing our viewpoints merely because we assume physical aspects are the determining factor in judgments, not mental, or specifically intent.

Which of course, is inherently problematic. Might makes right and all that.

But nowhere to the same degree of threat or effectiveness. The average man can quite easily handle being punched in the face by a woman, but if he was to punch her back (WITHOUT holding back, with all his force) she would end up being knocked to the ground in a bruised mess.

So we're judging people on their overall effectiveness? Why suddenly is the man required to hit the women without holding back with all his force? Isn't the woman doing the same? Do we judge stronger people more harshly? How do you gauge how hard he hit her? What if she bruises easy? Do we give her lesser charges merely because she didn't harm him as much as the next man abused?

That's why in the video (despite being heavily edited) people weren't taken the woman's "attacks" on the man seriously - because she was never really a genuine threat to him. Not unless she used a weapon anyway.

And that's the problem.

They have fewer options for support BECAUSE they are expected to handle things themselves. Makes perfect sense.

And that's the problem.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

I feel like that's incredibly silly. As long as they don't suspect they'll get killed or permanently injured, there are plenty of people in the world, not just women, that are willing to provoke someone into attacking them so they can then screw the person over socially and legally. People that spiteful exist. And if someone can also be fairly confident they can physically attack someone, be safe from legal ramification for it, and if their victim does defend themselves socially and legally screw that person over? That's a hell of a power trip.

This is just emphasizing the very worst of humanity and I have a strong feeling that people like what you describe aren't anywhere near as common as you make them out to be. Sure, there ARE women who think they can attack someone because law/society is on their side, but I feel they are rare. The female would FIRST be concerned of how badly that encounter could go if the man disregarded all respect/honor and decided to get serious on her. Sure he could get his ass landed in jail, but was it worth it for the woman to get the shit beaten out of her - potentially raped, or even killed? Hell no! That's not something that is even remotely sane or common, nobody calculates things like that. Maybe if we were talking about women with mental issues.

Think about it like bullying amongst boys. A bully keeps physically picking on some poor kid, but eventually the kid decides he's had enough and the next time the bully tries something funny the kid lands just ONE solid hit on the bully that inflicts pain. Even if the bully goes berserk and completely stomps the kid into the ground (i.e. the kid loses horribly)....but that encounter will GREATLY discourage that bully from ever picking on that kid again. It's simply not worth it for the bully to get in a fight and take the chance of ending up in any sort of pain, even if the bully knows he'll ultimately win. It's a similar scenario for the female attacker, except she's in far greater danger.

Hell, that was a large component of most female bullying I saw going on in highschool. Keep any physical attacks deniable(cause pain but don't leave marks), have more people to corroborate your story, and if they try to fight back, let them and then claim they attacked you.

Your emphasis on an individual moment and what could happen if something goes wrong misses a whole hell of a lot of relevant details.

I haven't seen this translate to adulthood. The gender differences between males & females are less divided at a younger age. I even remember getting bullied by girls when I was ~11-ish, its' not uncommon for girls to be bigger/stronger than boys at that age due to hitting puberty way earlier. But we're talking bout people in their 20's and 30's where it's simply not a good idea for women to physically attack a male and they know it (most of them anyway).

Don't you think that's a bit of a problem? If I have to level my attacker, if female, in order to get her to stop, what I in the right in exerting that much force? What if I break her arm accidentally in attempting to restrain her from hitting me?

...you're not going to accidentally break someone's arm while restraining them. Males on average have 60-65% stronger hand grip than females which gives them an enormous advantage when it comes to restraining. Use it wisely.
BUT we are talking about the public situation in the video right? If I was that guy there is no way I would restrain the woman because it would look like I'm attacking her - my options are to keep defending myself till she runs out of steam (her attacks were never a threat) OR run away. Those are the available options in a public situation. Get back home somehow, and then confront her at home. If things get physical at home then...well, handle things accordingly. See the bully situation above - let her know that it's not in her best interest to physically attack you, she has nothing to gain and only to lose. Make it clear. It REALLY shouldn't be too hard for the male to do this, not unless something is wrong with him.

The point I'm trying to drive home is that male needs to adapt to the situation and do his best to control it - because when things get physical, he's the one who has to take control. Because he CAN if he really wants to. With power comes responsibility.

The purpose is to illustrate the issue in perceptions, especially the stereotypical one you just asserted. We need to understand that men are often framed as the "attacker" because we are physically stronger, even though we are not the aggressors. Otherwise we cannot justify changing our viewpoints merely because we assume physical aspects are the determining factor in judgments, not mental, or specifically intent.

Which of course, is inherently problematic. Might makes right and all that.

Men only get framed as the attacker (in cases where they genuinely aren't) if they are not careful of how they handle the situation and decide to act irrationally. There is always a way.

So we're judging people on their overall effectiveness? Why suddenly is the man required to hit the women without holding back with all his force? Isn't the woman doing the same? Do we judge stronger people more harshly? How do you gauge how hard he hit her? What if she bruises easy? Do we give her lesser charges merely because she didn't harm him as much as the next man abused?

Pretty sure people are judged according to the severity of injury they cause to the other person, not what % of their strength/force they put into the attack. Bruising someone's shoulder is going to have slightly less repercussions than hospitalizing them for a month with a broken rib-cage...I think. Unless the law in US is insane (which it often can be).

Doesn't matter how much force the woman is trying to exert, if she's still failing to do any real harm to the male then nobody needs to intervene. It's up to the male to decide how he wants to handle that situation. Do we charge a child with assault for desperately trying to hit an adult with all their strength? Of course not because the adult can simply laugh it off. That's just an example btw, I'm not implying the gap is THAT huge. But in the majority of cases where a female decides to assault her male partner after an intense argument/situation (no weapon involved), the male is perfectly capable of coming out of the situation unharmed if he handles things correctly.

That's why in the video (despite being heavily edited) people weren't taken the woman's "attacks" on the man seriously - because she was never really a genuine threat to him. Not unless she used a weapon anyway.

And that's the problem.

You consider it a problem that the woman wasn't a threat to the guy? How is that a problem?

They have fewer options for support BECAUSE they are expected to handle things themselves. Makes perfect sense.

And that's the problem.

Explain : /

 

[axillarypuma]

This is why I hate everyone who's anything than further than ankle deep into this debate. Both sides are just playing to see who can bullshit harder. I'm sure soon feminists will counter with a completely legit study which shows the wage inequality between genders is actually 240%.

Fuck MRAs and fuck modern feminism, both your movements are poisoned to the damn core. Every sensible person in this world is ignoring you.

Dude, you are my goddamn HERO! I couldn't have said it better. Smash for MASTER RULER OF THE UNIVERSE.