What the fuck is wrong with Reddit these days? Today, the denizens of AskReddit are debating the topic: Is it wrong to hit a woman? You can probably figure out what the consensus is. (Hint: Two letter word, starts with N.) What’s especially striking is how, well, gleeful the discussion is. Redditor after Redditor weighs in with the exact same opinion on the subject; others reply with jokey assent; everybody gets upvotes, sometimes hundreds of them. This exchange captures some of the flavor of the, er, “discussion” there:
These aren’t people arguing dispassionately that in the interest of equality we should treat hitting women the same as hitting men, and that ideally no one should be hitting anyone at all. These are guys (mostly) using the topic as an excuse to complain about “bitches” and their rights.
Others, meanwhile, decided to use the topic as masturbation fantasy fodder, suggesting that the original poster had missed his chance for some hot sex with the woman he slapped. As toothsayer put it:
The single slap is disrespectful, shows that you are pissy bitch, and will not get you laid. However, catching up to her as she is walking away, scooping her up, bending her over the knee and repeatedly spanking that ass would have led to some seriously hard core sex.
47 upvotes for that hilarious suggestion.
Perhaps all of the commenters should simply up and move to Topeka, Kansas, where the city council is considering decriminalizing domestic violence in order to save a few bucks. Seriously.
Note: Once again, I have the fine folks (no sarcasm here; they actually are fine) at ShitRedditSays for pointing this discussion out to me. Here’s the SRS discussion of the whole stinky mess.
I pledge: my next post will have nothing to do with Reddit.
MRA’s, always coming out in defense of violence, when it is done against women.
Buhh what?? I can’t even formulate a comment about this. Seriously wtf
You’d have to either be a coward or well trained not to hit a woman back.
Of course, NWO, escalating instead of walking away is always the solution!
Until I got to the end of your post, I was about to provide that same link regarding Topeka. I am so sickened by it, and people need to make their outrage known.
And you could always move to Topeka now, it is legal to beat someone up as long as they are your significant other.
It sounds just up your alley.
All you have to do is hook up with a haggard 16 year old and you can beat her to your heart’s content if she gets out of line.
Regardless of gender the best response to being hit is to walk away. Men should walk away, women should walk away – everyone should walk away. If it is possible, if it is feasible, pick up your keys, your coat, your hat, your bag, etc. and walk the fuck out.
I think that men still have the right to self-defense against women. I think that women and men both have the right to consensually hit each other (in kink, martial arts, whatever). I don’t think it should be gendered, you know? Hitting is wrong in general for everyone.
Seriously, how is “don’t hit people” (unless it’s necessary to defend yourself) such a hard concept to grasp?
And why would spanking a woman without her consent lead to hot sexy tiems?
What if she actually prefers doing the spanking?
And, as ozy said, it’s also okay if the hitting is consensual, of course.
I forgot to add that *slaps self, consensually*
Protip: escalation is a crime whether committed against a man or a woman.
Yay gender equality.
I don’t think we need to buy into the flimsy fiction that these guys are talking about hitting a woman *back*.
Oh boy, Topeka, Kansas. I don’t know which claim to fame is worse, being the home of the Westboro Baptist Church or their position on domestic violence. The first comment after the article brings up a good point that the city can afford to prosecute many victimless drug offenses but apparently domestic violence is too costly. Maybe the police in Topeka want to go back to “the good old days” when a battered wife was told that she should just stop nagging if she wants to be safe at home. I want to know something, though. A person can’t go out in public and beat up a stranger. Why, then do so many people think it’s okay for someone to beat up a family member in the home?
Anyway, it’s true that hitting anyone is wrong, regardless of the gender. I think the MRA’s tend to take that truth, though, and try to justify battery with it. They want to portray all cases of wife beating as a man hitting back, and there are many cases when that isn’t true. They need to admit that not all battered women are equally culpable for domestic violence. They also ignore the fact that if someone hits you, you’re not supposed to hit back with disproportionate force. If someone slaps you in the face, you are not entitled to throw them down the stairs.
@Nobinayamu
“Regardless of gender the best response to being hit is to walk away. Men should walk away, women should walk away – everyone should walk away. If it is possible, if it is feasible, pick up your keys, your coat, your hat, your bag, etc. and walk the fuck out.”
Speaking of violence, here’s a peach of a story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/nyregion/barbara-sheehan-who-killed-husband-is-found-not-guilty-of-murder.html
This is a lovely tale of a woman pumping 11 shots into the now dead hubby. Now she could’ve walked away but didn’t. She claims DV of course. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn’t. The only thing we know for sure is there’s a dead man, and she was cleared of her murder charge.
Now a few things from the story stand out.
#1) “Her supporters, adorned in purple in solidarity with victims of domestic violence, began cheering.”
Isn’t purple the color of lesbianism in the blessed rainbow coalition? How nice to have unconditional support.
#2 “The case had also divided the jury: a day before the verdict was reached, the jurors said they were hopelessly deadlocked.”
“Nonetheless, the jury of nine women and three men unexpectedly reached a consensus on Thursday, in their third day of deliberations”
“In an interview, the jury forewoman, Barbara Fleisher, said jurors ultimately decided to exonerate Ms. Sheehan of murder because the family’s accounts of chronic and vicious abuse had rung true.”
It seems the “forewoman” must’ve done some fine convincing, since she said the jurors had found the story to ring true. It would appear her mind was already made up, no?
#3) ” Legal experts said the verdict was a vindication for the so-called battered-woman defense. Under this strategy the battered woman chronicles her abuse in intimate and graphic detail with the aim of convincing the jury that she reasonably feared for her life based on her abuser’s past behavior. ”
One would think in an equality based Government the law would read, battered spouse, not battered-woman. Also anyone can “chronical” anything they like and recite or write down lies and nonsense. I would think coroborated evidence would be the only evidence admissible.
#4) “The case is a good marker of the willingness of jurors to realize that a history of abuse can inform a woman’s sense of the need to act in self-defense,” said Holly Maguigan, a law professor at New York University”
A good ole gal proclaiming a womans need for self defense. Again not very gender neutral. Unfortunately, dead men tell no tales. Pretty tough to put up any defense when you’re dead.
Ask yourselves, would a man have been cleared if the situation were reversed? I know, it’s the patriarchy that allows a woman to murder a man. Funny how the patriarchy always seems to favor women over men. What a poor choice of names.
But that’s how they’d treat a man so it’d be sexist not to do it to a woman herp derp.
It’s important to recognize this as an argument against gender equality–the argumentative equivalent of “oh yeah?!” but still an argument.
What, no one made the obligatory “what’s the matter with Kansas” joke yet?
Anyway, yeah. This has nothing to do with equality, or voting, these guys just really want to hit women.
This is type of stuff that makes one want to say The Professor’s famous line, “I don’t want to live on this planet anymore” in utter seriousness.
Also, NWO’s justifying being a dick. Wow, he is certainly a crusader for Men’s Rights.
*barf*
MRAs really didn’t internalize kindergarten very well, did they? I bet they also push in line and don’t eat their vegetables.
Apparently Owly wants to re-try this trial at Manboobz. And somehow the real verdict is about gender disparity rather than whether Sheehan was justifiably defending her life.
Owly, it’s an informal term, not a law. Note the “so-called.” There’s no “Battered Woman Defense Law” that says women and only women get to have past abuse factored into their defense.
According to her, she was trying to walk away. If you want to use this as evidence of evul matriarchy or whatever you should at least look like you’ve read the article.
Indeed, the article is not gender neutral. Feminists warn against this kind of thing all the time. So you’re with us, right?
Why don’t you find us a similar case wherein the woman had a history of doing things like slamming her spouse’s head against a cinder-block wall and we’ll see.
I guess the reason Owlyslave gets such simple things wrong is because he thinks he’s reason Cyrillic.
FWIW, the incident the original poster on Reddit was talking about wasnt’ one where the woman had hit the man. For some drunken reason she had decided to pull the buttons off his shirt. And then she’d walked off. So it was a situation where she’d behaved obnoxiously, but not one in which the OP hit her in self-defense.
Well golly, I know sexualised assault always turns ME on. Jesus wept, that whole comment was a special level of offensively creepy.
NWO, if you can’t be bothered to read for comprehension before you post an article, then run along. The grown-ups are talking.
Can the NWO-types come in here JUST ONCE and address the issue at hand instead of trying to derail the conversation? JUST. FUCKING. ONCE?