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.
Well, their junk is so underutilized, maybe they’re afraid they’ll lose it before they use it.
MizDarwin:
There’s another type?
@Bagelsan
“To actually address the topic (for the first time so far on this thread): if someone is ripping off your buttons couldn’t you just gently smack away their hands? I can’t imagine why someone’s first impulse would be to full on slap them instead of just remove them from the buttons in question. Like… did she literally start picking at this guy’s “rage buttons” or something? She’s drunk; just remove her hands, or even try using your words or removing yourself.”
Ahhh, so treat a drunk, obnoxious, violent, abusive woman with kid gloves, aye? Yet if a man did this, would that be your solution as well? More than likely it’d be sexual assault, harrassment, attempted rape, the violations would be endless. In fact, if this very comment were reversed-gendered on the spearhead, it’d be manboobz misogynist mockworthy.
—————–
@CassandraSays
“I know one kung fu teacher who has incoming dudebro students spar with his teenage daughter for exactly this reason – there’s nothing like being knocked on your ass by a petite 13 year old girl to knock the bravado out of a sexist man”
In the manboobz universe, everyone personally knows women and little girls who are smarter, stronger, bolder, more creative, more talented, and more courageous than any man.
—————-
@KathleenB
“Because there are never different circumstances! Every single case of a person getting hit is exactly the same as every other one, and we can judge them equally by a single standard! Christ, MRAL, even for you that’s stupid.”
So sayeth the emperor’s of the strawman/ad hominem arguement.
—————–
@Hershele Ostropoler
“Where in Title IX does it say it’s ok to nonconsensually hit men?”
http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/popup/news/2011/04/04/education_department_civil_rights_office_clarifies_colleges_sexual_harassment_obligations_title_ix
If you click on the link titled “the 18 page message” it’ll give you the new “law/policy” which ever you prefer, which dictates basically men are always criminals, and Title IX ait’s own, above the law agency.
I’ve read it, so should all of you, although you may have already and are quite happy with it. I’ll give you a few exerpts.
“Schools may have an obligation to respond to “reported” sexual harrassment that happened off school grounds”
My, my! Title IX extending it’s reach. Sexual harrassment is of course determinied by a ny womans feelings at any moment in time, extending far into the future, much like the modern day definition of rape.
“Reguardless of who, (third party) files a complaint”
Imagine that shit? Being charged of a crime, not by the “alleged victim” but someone else, (man-hating feminist). This is really good stuff.
“Recipients of federal funding must comply.”
Only 2 US colleges are currently not obligated to comply.
“Schools should instruct law enforcement units”
Do you grasp this? Title IX is now it’s own law enforcement.
“Police investigations are NOT determinative of whether sexual harrassment violates Title IX.”
Title IXs own law enforcement unit is nothing less than nazi SS special forces.
“The police investigation does not constitute the outcome of the investigation or the filing of charges”
Title IX is above the law.
“Grievance procedures that us the, ‘clear and convincing standard’ are NOT equitable with Title IX.”
Guilt is now assumed, a mans innocense must be proven.
“Alchohol and drugs never makes the victim at fault”
So if a woman, under no duress gets drunk and feels bad about her actions the previous night, she isn’t at fault.
“Allowing an alleged perpetrator to question an alleged victim may be intimidating and traumatic.”
Cross examination, the very procedure used to determine credibility, is inconsistent with Title IX law.
Do read the entire “recomendation” which has wholly been adopted. These policies are being extended into grade schools where boys are already demonized by the State with womens full endorsement. I told all of you back in April this would happen and it has. The feminist Russlynn Ali, (A woman in power) has done a fantastic job. Obama signed it, Biden, the VAWA king endorsed it, Hillary and Nancy love it, and everywhere, women in power debate how to best implement the dismantling of due process for men. I’d say that constitutes women wielding State violence against men. And you’re worried about a slap in the face.
NWO, you don’t interact with people, so why are you concerned about this?
NWO, the very moment you say that women should be culturally allowed to walk around topless when it damn well pleases them is the very moment i will say that ripping the buttons off a man’s shirt has the same connotations as ripping the buttons of a woman’s shirt.
UNTIL THEN, yes, I will say that ripping buttons off a woman’s shirt is sexual harassment and ripping the buttons off a man’s shirt is rude and a minor annoyance.
it=she. No idea how i screwed that one up
MRAL: I also recall, a long time ago, someone recalled a situation where a man touched her breast at a concert, and then she chased after him and kicked him in the balls. Everyone applauded her, naturally. Is this not the same thing, except less severe in the retaliation?
First I’ve heard of it, and no, I don’t applaud her. It’s battery, and she should have been arrested.
Self defense requires actual threat of bodily harm, and the response must be proportional to that threat.
As to your fantasies of being able to beat up women, just cause, pretty much just that.
Why? Because you aren’t the type. Anyone who is willing to initiate violence, is likely to win. Being first matters, with John Q. Public, but if you want to try that, you have to be willing to follow through. You have to be able to get in, get it done, and get out. To get away with it you have to be someplace where, “everyone is looking in their beer”, otherwise you will get arrested.
And you talk a lot, but the way you weasel when challenged, it’s not really in you to just haul off and hit someone, which is why you aren’t in jail, you don’t hang out in the right sort of place to do that shit, and if you did, they’d see you for a kid from the suburbs and ignore you/beat the snot out of you, no matter how toned you are from being a lifeguard.
The other thing… pull that shit on me, or Brandon, or those friends of Kathleen’s, or anyone who actually knows how fighting works, and you better pray the first shot is, “nighty-night-bunny-rabbit” or your ass is getting handed to you, because you won’t be expecting the response.
RW: If a man has got in my face and is being very aggressive, then there is a totally different set of probabilities involved as opposed to a woman getting in my face and getting very aggressive. Maybe you can agree it would be “idiotic in the extreme” to view both situations as being on the same level? If so, why? And if not, why not?
I view them all pretty much the same. Then again I’ve been violent for a living, and seen lots of violence (ER security, reporter, bouncer, soldier), so I don’t have the illusions you do about what women can’t do.
Miz Darwin: Also, I’ve always been skittish of “proportionate force” arguments when they are applied equally to both parties, if both parties have a disproportionate level of strength. Often, a weaker party can only escape/defend him or herself by doing something rather nasty. If I attacked a 6′ man, he could easily defend himself without hurting me. If he attacked me, I’d have to go for his eyes or other important squishy bits.
Proportionate force is proportionate to the threat presented. So long as what you are doing is to stop the threat, and you stop when the threat is neutralised, you are in bounds.
Kick ’em when they’re down, and you are committing a new assault.
NWO: What? how is it a straw man argument to say that the circumstances of every assault are different? I’m not saying that men hitting women is inherently worse than women hitting men, I’m not saying the women should always be able to hit men without legal repercussion (because that is just stupid). I’m saying that each case needs to be treated and judged as an individual case, not a collection of stereotypes. Please, explain how this is wrong.
As usual, NWO, you didn’t read what you posted.
This explains why you’ve never been married
For example: Let’s say person 1 walks up behind person 2 and hits person two across the temple with a beer bottle for no particular reason. This is wrong, yes? I think we can all agree that unprovoked physical attacks are very wrong.
So person 2, startled and bleeding from a cut temple, turns around and decks person 1 – still holding the now broken bottle. I think that this constitutes a pretty clear case of self-defense – person 1 still posed a danger to person 2.
You can jigger the genders of person 1 and person 2 all you like, but the end result is going to be the same: Person 1 committed assault and person 2 was defending zirself.
“Feminists do not hate men!” You haven’t looked at too many manboobz posts by them lately, have you? They just blame men for all of their own inherent female shortcomings, mental, spiritual, moral, and sometimes even physical. They cite the consequences of natural, inherent, fundamental inequality in ability and aptitudes, and then blame men for the inevitable consequences of employment and other patterns in the larger world. If men hold some 90% of powerful or influential offices, it is because they evolved in such a way as to make this the most likely outcome! It is as foolish as blaming “overpopulation” on women having too many babies, when breeding is one of the things that women are SUPPOSED to do!
We won’t even discuss here the fact that men–especially white men–are allowed to hold those influential or powerful positions only if they become renegade males–and renegade Whites–who are committed to serving the interests of the NWO criminal oligarchy first, and of females and nonwhites secondly, over and above their own! Look at the egalitarian laws and regulations already passed by such renegades, and enforced,often with brutal severity, even in times of severe hardship, against fellow men, (and fellow Europeans). This is your “civil rights” legislation and your “pursuit of equality”. Even the impending bankruptcy and evaporation of what was once the United States isn’t holding them back, they want and demand an egalitarian “New World Order” where the only people capable of organizing resistance to them are reduced to slavery and the nonwhites and females–outside the charmed circles of the ruling class–probably is eradication…
Having “power” at the behest of one’s enemies is NOT power, and simply can’t form an accurate metric of men’s–still less “white men’s” actual power in our society! Rockefeller, Rothschild, et al. are “European”, but their focus of power is in a transnational and nonracial “new world order”, not definable or focused on national, racial or ethnic considerations. Service to this criminal corporate oligarchy is what counts as far as access to power is concerned, NOT race or gender. The last three appointees of the US Supreme Court were female, as were the last three Secretaries of State of the most “powerful nation” on Earth, but it says nothing about the positon of women in this UN/WTO/Federal Reserve province, and a sitting President of the “United States” is African, but that tells you NOTHING about actual africans in what was once the USA!
Saying that 90% of the power of the country is held by men is meaningless, if not downright misleading, is such contexts! Those (men) hold no power at all, they are merely transmission belts for the corporate/diplomatic/media mafia oligarchy which is enslaving us all!
Feminism serves the purpose of turning men and women against each other, and nothing else! While we are fighting each other over crumbs, the Oligarchy is solidifying their control over all of the levers of power in our society, leaving ALL OF US with empty pockets!
There are still websites you can access for more information, although keep in mind that much of what is happening is still secret, and the actual truth is probably even more hideous that anything that they have uncovered!
http://www.prisonplanet.com
http://www.anu.org
http://www.americanfreepress.net
www,infowars.com
http://www.thenewamerican.com
http://www.antiwar.com
http://www.rense.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.911truthNY.com
http://www.counterpoint.com
http://www.amren.com
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
This is disproportiaonate in the extreme. I will say, however, that people (including MrB) who touch me unexpectedly will get an elbow in the gut or sternum. It’s instinctive, I don’t like being touched when I’m not expecting it. I never follow it up with anything else, and can usually pull it when I know it’s someone I know, but if I get startled, the elbow comes out.
CassandraSays: Also describing the shogunate as recent history is…um, well, in a “compared to the dinosaurs” sense, sure. But otherwise, not so much.
I think we have to remember this is MRAL, so his grasp of history is a bit weak. I think he means the Meiji, and then the postwar gov’t (imposed by the US). That’s only going back about 135 years.
But go back 150 and you have the tail end of the Tokugawa Shogunate; which was most decidedly not copying the west. It made Alabama look positively eager for immigrants and outside ideas.
KathleenB: Yep, I have physical reactions to certain types of contact. I’ve hit men, and women, who’ve touched me in those ways. I’ve been lucky. None of the, for want of a better phrase, incidental events triggering that response have led to actual injury, but some of them could have led to my having to explain things to a cop/district attorney if the person had been less understanding.
@hellkell
“NWO, you don’t interact with people, so why are you concerned about this?”
Did you deduce this thru intuition? A womans psycic way of knowin? I’m sure you’re quite the social butterfly. If only I was as social as you.
——————
@Pecunium
“Proportionate force is proportionate to the threat presented. So long as what you are doing is to stop the threat, and you stop when the threat is neutralised, you are in bounds.
Kick ‘em when they’re down, and you are committing a new assault.”
I guess if a woman wacks you in the back of the head with a stick and walks away ya gotta just take it in stride.
—————
@Shora
” NWO, the very moment you say that women should be culturally allowed to walk around topless when it damn well pleases them is the very moment i will say that ripping the buttons off a man’s shirt has the same connotations as ripping the buttons of a woman’s shirt.”
Umm, they already do, slutwalker, or slutwalker proponent, which ever the case may be. Did ya happen to actually read the link to your Title IX gestapo report I gave ya? Some pretty good stuff, huh?
Obviously it’s already acceptable to rip a mans buttons off his shirt as you, personally, have stated. But what the hell, knock yourself out if ya wanna play that game. I deem it, “allowed.” Of course now you must accept the fact that any man can rip the buttons off your, or any womans shirt, pretty much forcing her to be topless. Happy now? Somehow I get the feeling you’ll go all conservative on me, and still say men can’t do that.
NWO: I honestly can’t tell if you really are so mentally dense that your head will implode any minute, or if you’re just trolling. I’m not sure it makes a difference, either.
FTFY
I’m done for the night, I actually get 2 whole days at home. Lucky me. The gang can call it flounce, or lizards, or rothchilds, or big book o larnin, or whatever non related elephant hating nonsense pops into your heads. Long flight so I’m pretty tired.
However, I provided the link, here it is again. Just click on the like entitled “the 18 page message” I’d truely love to hear your exhaltations of Title IX. Wasn’t Title IX all about equality in sports. Now it’s the waffen ss elite hit squad. Feminist cops as special forces. Ain’t that some shit?
http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/popup/news/2011/04/04/education_department_civil_rights_office_clarifies_colleges_sexual_harassment_obligations_title_ix
There’s one for the book. Sexual harassment prosecution is EXACTLY LIKE NAZIISM.
What people do and what people are culturally allowed to do are two different things.
Wrong. I, personally, stated that it is “rude” and a “minor annoyance.” Perhaps your confusion lies with the fact that you assume I believe rudeness and inconveniencing someone for no reason is acceptable. Let me assure you that I do not.
I have, personally, stated that ripping buttons off a man’s shirt is not as problematic as ripping the buttons off a women’s shirt. Both of these things are still not okay however.
Cool, so you now agree that:
Women can go topless or wear skimpy clothing without you accusing them of “teasing”.
It is ridiculous to assume that men are harmed by women going topless, wearing skimpy clothing, or boners in general.
Women who go topless or wear skimpy clothing do not deserve to get raped
Women who go topless or wear skimpy clothing do not deserve to be shamed, belittled, put down, or otherwise discriminated against.
When all of the above are true, then unacceptability of ripping the buttons off a woman’s shirt is equivalent to that of ripping the buttons of a man’s shirt. That is, not okay, rude, and a minor annoyance.
No, I’m pretty sure I’ve said this entire time that ripping buttons off people’s shirts are not okay, regardless of gender. So in this world that you and I have created, ripping buttons off people’s shirts is still not cool and you shouldn’t do that. It’s just that the circumstances of ripping buttons off is equal for everybody. Yay feminism!
VoiP, there is basically one script that everyone should be following. Since western Europe, Australia, and the US are better than the rest of the world, and said countries share distinct similarities, they should be the sole ideal.
Wait…aren’t those the most feminist parts of the world?
I guess if a person wacks you in the back of the head with a stick and walks away ya gotta just take it in stride.
Fixed that for you.
Although my definition of “take it in stride” involves what you call, “committing” violence” effecting an arrest.
I’ve had to learn a new set of protocols (New Jersey Law,) which are different to the law in Calif., which is the law I’ve had to use in the past; in Calif. an arresting citizen who has witnessed a misdemeanor, or has good reason to believe a person committed a felony may make an arrest. They have to inform the person they are being arrested, and why they are arrested. At that point the arrested person is required to wait for the police (who have to be called immediately). The arresting individual is allowed to use all necessary force to detain the arrested person.
Doing this without valid cause does open you up to a lawsuit for false arrest.
So yes, you have to take the shot, and not chase them down to, “pay them back”, but you don’t have to ignore it.