Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
I feel a "pox on both houses" post coming on...
My ideas on wife-beating aren't very wife-beater-friendly, insofar as I think that the wife should simply kill their physically abusive spouse, preferably with a firearm so she doesn't have to worry about the typical strength disparity between men and women. As a practical matter, I think this is workable advice, depending on your state's laws concerning self-defense and firearms in general, of course. I'm not sure I can come up with a much more hard-line attitude towards clear-cut wife beaters than "kill them." I mean, what's left?
At this point, if you try to argue that I'm pro-wife-beating, you are clinically retarded. I just wanted to point that out.
The problem is, many people who get especially excited about DV have a habit of not merely stating that male-on-female DV is more common than female-on-male DV, but completely trivializing the existence of the latter. This includes trivializing any individual incidents cited, no matter how badly the male was victimized or how clear-cut the guilt of the woman was. Guys claiming abuse were sissies or had it coming. Anybody pointing out the mere existence of these abused men is a woman-hater (and probalby wife-beater themselves) with a neanderthal agenda. Pointing out that statistics, and indeed the law itself, sometimes lump together shouting matches and trivial physical contact with beatings, stabbings and murders under the catch-all title "domestic violence" is treated as some kind of mindcrime. Suggesting that a shove is not morally equivalent to caving in someone's skull with a blunt object is greeted with shocked indignation. The same human factors that are embraced to explain how rapes of women are under-reported, are treated as laughable when used to explain how female-on-male DV is under-reported. Or just ignored because it is inconvenient to think about. Funny, that.
Funny, too, how it isn't enough for people to say: asaulting, battering and killing your spouse is bad, just like it is bad to do those things to anybody else, and people who do it should be punished as voilent criminals either way. It has to become: men are a monolithic threat, and women are all innocent victims, and when men are victims, it is their fault anyway. Insinuating women who are victimized had it coming: completely evil tactic. Insinuating men who are victimized had it coming: acceptable tactic.
This is extremely stupid. Of course, the over-reaction to this, that domestic violence is almost entirely a female fabrication, designed to explot the presumption of male guilt in the judical system whenever there is a male-female domestic dispute, in order to get a financially exploitive divorce settlement, is just an inversion of the same kind of stupidity. The only difference is that you have to ignore even more bodies to buy into that point of view.
My ideas on wife-beating aren't very wife-beater-friendly, insofar as I think that the wife should simply kill their physically abusive spouse, preferably with a firearm so she doesn't have to worry about the typical strength disparity between men and women. As a practical matter, I think this is workable advice, depending on your state's laws concerning self-defense and firearms in general, of course. I'm not sure I can come up with a much more hard-line attitude towards clear-cut wife beaters than "kill them." I mean, what's left?
At this point, if you try to argue that I'm pro-wife-beating, you are clinically retarded. I just wanted to point that out.
The problem is, many people who get especially excited about DV have a habit of not merely stating that male-on-female DV is more common than female-on-male DV, but completely trivializing the existence of the latter. This includes trivializing any individual incidents cited, no matter how badly the male was victimized or how clear-cut the guilt of the woman was. Guys claiming abuse were sissies or had it coming. Anybody pointing out the mere existence of these abused men is a woman-hater (and probalby wife-beater themselves) with a neanderthal agenda. Pointing out that statistics, and indeed the law itself, sometimes lump together shouting matches and trivial physical contact with beatings, stabbings and murders under the catch-all title "domestic violence" is treated as some kind of mindcrime. Suggesting that a shove is not morally equivalent to caving in someone's skull with a blunt object is greeted with shocked indignation. The same human factors that are embraced to explain how rapes of women are under-reported, are treated as laughable when used to explain how female-on-male DV is under-reported. Or just ignored because it is inconvenient to think about. Funny, that.
Funny, too, how it isn't enough for people to say: asaulting, battering and killing your spouse is bad, just like it is bad to do those things to anybody else, and people who do it should be punished as voilent criminals either way. It has to become: men are a monolithic threat, and women are all innocent victims, and when men are victims, it is their fault anyway. Insinuating women who are victimized had it coming: completely evil tactic. Insinuating men who are victimized had it coming: acceptable tactic.
This is extremely stupid. Of course, the over-reaction to this, that domestic violence is almost entirely a female fabrication, designed to explot the presumption of male guilt in the judical system whenever there is a male-female domestic dispute, in order to get a financially exploitive divorce settlement, is just an inversion of the same kind of stupidity. The only difference is that you have to ignore even more bodies to buy into that point of view.
Can't tell whether we live our harmonious life because of or despite that.