A couple of intriguing quotes from Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit.
The topic at hand: A Redditor claims an ex falsely accused him of rape and caused him various other problems and basically acted like a shit. No one, of course, can possibly know if the guy is telling the truth, but the r/mr regulars all assume the alleged false accuser is guilty until proven innocent. (And maybe not even then.)
Naturally, some of the regulars use this as an opportunity to discuss how completely understandable it is when guys kill their exes.
Really, in this misandrist world, dudes murdering their exes is totally like slaves murdering their masters. Illegal, sure, but who can blame them? At least that’s how texaswildfires sees it:
Yep, in his mind, dudes today are totally in the exact same situation as slaves in the antebellum south — so when a guy murders his ex, the person you should feel empathy with is the murderer.
Naturally, both of these comments got upvotes, because that’s just how r/mr rolls these days.
Lauralot: Don’t go giving them ideas! You know what that leads to!
Exactly, juliejezebel.
@KathleenB: Wait, you mean they actually read our posts?
Oh shit. What have I unleashed?
Lauralot: Be afraid. Be very afraid.
@hellkell, whew!
Brandon: Moral Relativist.
I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.
So Brandon is cool with the men killing their exes, right? Because what could be more moral than the death sentence for leaving.
@Bostonian: Are you damaged? I have been saying this entire time that murder isn’t really the way to go in this situation regardless of gender.
A man sleeping poses no immediate threat to someone. So pack your shit and go.
A woman sleeping poses no immediate threat to someone. So pack your shit and go.
See?! Regardless of the gender, My response is consistent.
Or do you not know how to find gender biases? It’s easy:
1) Read the same statement again but reverse the genders. If you come to a different conclusion…you are biased and are favoring one gender over the other.
So if the genders were reversed and a man killed his sleeping wife, I would come to the same conclusion “no amount of rationalization can negate the fact that you killed someone and I am not going to feel sympathy for you because there are less extreme options you could have taken then using murder as a way to solve the problem of you being abused.”
So this woman isn’t going to get sympathy from me and make me think “Well, he abused her…so that gave her the RIGHT to commit murder”.
It will be more like “Throw her criminal murderous ass in jail”
I would expect nothing less than your complete lack of sympathy. Or understanding of PTSD regardless of gender. Or, well, anything, really.
@hellkell: ditto his complete pig ignorance about how many women are killed while trying to leave their abusive husbands, or after (even tracked down in shelters–the real horror stories are women married to policemen whose blue buddies take their manly sides)–and how SELDOM the same things happen to men who leave their abusive spouses (which does happen but much less often).
Brandon, you are wasting your gifts in IT. You really should be a life coach or therapist or, hell, Supreme Dictator of the Universe, since you invariably have simple solutions/preventatives to all of life’s problems!
I mean, you’ve already told us how to fix the economy (GOOOOOOOOOOLD!), avoid those oh-so-common alimony payments (don’t get married, but take out a zillion seperate contracts!), avoid false rape accusations (tape all your sexual encounters!), and now how to leave your violently abusive death-threatening spouse (wait until zie’s sleeping, then pack all necessities for you and your children and any pets and just go, because you can TOTALLY do that without making any noise during the typical timeframe of a nap).
Why are you spreading your wisdom on this stony, infertile soil? You should be sharing yiur gifts with the world!
So you really think the promise of being killed if you leave presents no immediate threat? Because it’s intended as a constant threat. “Immediate” is inherent to “constant” in this context. As in, “Holy shit, what if he/she finds me?”
You know Brandon, assuming the male victim was abusive and had driven his wife to murder, surely it would make more sense to approach him when he can’t kick the shit out of her. I’m assuming the woman was weaker than the man. Women don’t usually go for physical violence when they intend to commit murder for this reason. You seem more upset about the way she killed him more than anything else.
I think if a sleeping woman is killed by her abused husband then that would be the same as an abusive woman being killed by her female partner or an abusive man being killed by his male partner or his female partner. Does that cover all the possibilities Brandon? Because I’m pretty much sure that someone who is abusive to the point that their partner is afraid to defend themselves while the person is awake is different from an innocent person and the courts will hopefully take that into account. But of course, everything is only possible if it’s possible in Ashley and Brandon world. So, whatevs.
Hi peeps…
This whole discussion is rather silly. Brandon, along with countless MRAs, believe that men are being abused by women in general in the same way that battered spouses are, so they see no difference in the battered spouse case and the general case. Hence we are being hypocritical for defending the woman, but not the man, and doing the same things we accuse MRAs of doing…
It all makes a happy little argument, save for the fact that what MRAs describe being abused is not being abused… So yeah.
On a different note… Taking a step back, I actually am seeing what Brandon et al. are seeing with the “jumping to conclusions about the abused woman story” thing… We’re better than that here. The argument “well, you don’t know what happened either” is just not a good one, for us or them. There are plenty of real cases of abuse without us having to make up one to make a point…
Luckily a news story with no information means that it doesn’t support anybody’s point of view.
@Joanna
“Do you honestly believe that I was gonna say, “No it’s ok for a woman to kill her ex because she was a victim etc etc”?
What you say and what the law that women have lobbied for, enacted and support speaks volumes. Saying it’s not OK for you to kill a man while carrying a, “get out of jail free card” means very little. Actually it means nothing. Battered womens defense might as well be called the 007 defense. It is a license to kill, as long as it’s a man that dies by a womans hand. As long as this defense is in existance, hatred of men is policy.
——————
@KathleenB
“THIS is why I mentioned my gender neutral comment, dipshit.”
See my above comment as to what your gender neutral comment is worth. You support State sanctioned murder. You support proponderance of evidence over innocent until proven guilty, (Title IX). These are your laws. You support hatred of men. Saying you don’t means nothing, your support means everything.
—————–
@juliejezebel
“Does that mean killing someone is a good thing hooray for feminizzzmmm! No, no it doesn’t. It means that humanity and the systems we’ve designed as society and culture have horribly failed. That the woman was left to suffer in a system that was run by a sociopath and help was offered or intervened. It means that the man was somehow brought up to believe that a woman was his property to treat like an object. Don’t like what she does? Hit her. Scare her. Control her. He needed to be in jail, she needed to be in therapy.”
The failed system you speak of that we live in has been created entirely by women. Nearly all of your councilors/psychologists are women giving out their interpretation of right and wrong. Default child custody goes to women who initiate over 70% of divorce and win custody battles over 84% of the time, (womens hands are rocking the cradle, they are instilling values and morals, purposely excluding men). All MSM caters to women. All laws favor women. There can be no doubt, women have created the hell on earth we live in.
Yet still it isn’t enough. Your entire screed is that of women still suffering at the hands of men while wielding the violence of the State. In the spirit of equality you must support any man who kills a woman. If he says he, “felt” scared/controlled his word must be taken at face value. If you take a womans word that she “felt” controlled you must also take a mans word as well. That’s equality.
Joanna: And that’s wrong Brandon…. Killing is wrong.
I won’t say that. I can’t, in all honest consistency say that. I took tax money for 16 years on the basis that sometimes killing isn’t wrong.*
So, for a lesser time, did Brandon.
Murder is wrong. The question before the court was/is, “Is this act murder, or some other form of homicide”.
hellkell: BrandonWorld is a very black and white place with precious little critical thinking.
But it is pretty predictable.
1: Does Brandon think it makes Brandon’s life easier/more fun.
If yes, then good. If no, then bad.
2: If it has no direct affect on Brandon, make moralistic decision based on dominant cultural mores, and pretend it is the “right thing.”
3: If challenged, and shown wrong, backpedal and redefine. Move conversation tangientially if possible, and hope original errors are left in place.
*I was in the Army. I was good at what I did. I knew what I was doing. I am still (in the form of a pension) being paid for what I did. I’ll be taking money for killing people to the day I die. For me say that all killing is wrong would be hypocritical in the extreme, the moreso since I don’t believe it.
Brandon: @Hellkell: And is morality not subjective? I didn’t realize that morality was this absolute concept where everyone has the same, exact set of values and principles.
Oh, that’s right…it IS subjective.
Which is (at some level) acceptable.
What isn’t acceptable is a morality which is inconsistent. What I am seeing from you (and I am not alone in this) is that you have an inconsistent morality (when things don’t directly affect you… when they do your “morality” is consistent…. “Fuck you Jack. I got mine).
NWO: Seriously, have you checked your gravitational field lately? Do you find small objects being sucked toward your person, maybe hairballs or post-its? Because your density has got to be nearing critical levels, and it would seem prudent that you warn local authorities in advance of any large-scale gravitational disturbances.
@NWO:
“Battered womens defense might as well be called the 007 defense. It is a license to kill, as long as it’s a man that dies by a womans hand. As long as this defense is in existance, hatred of men is policy.”
Don’t you kinda hafta… prove that you were a “battered woman” in order for the law to apply?
If your first thought was “Feminists think that ALL women are abused by men, so it applies to all women,” congratulations! You’ve lost the argument already.
Wait, maybe that’s why logic doesn’t seem to affect NWO: What if it’s being sucked into the black hole forming in his brain before it can get processed!
@Snowy
“I think if a sleeping woman is killed by her abused husband then that would be the same as an abusive woman being killed by her female partner or an abusive man being killed by his male partner or his female partner. Does that cover all the possibilities Brandon? Because I’m pretty much sure that someone who is abusive to the point that their partner is afraid to defend themselves while the person is awake is different from an innocent person and the courts will hopefully take that into account. But of course, everything is only possible if it’s possible in Ashley and Brandon world. So, whatevs”
Your words mean nothing, you support battered womens defense. Your support means everything. Have you ever signed any petitions against this defense? I have. Your assumption of someone being too afraid to confront their abuser while they’re awake is just that, an assumption. They could just as easily simply want to murder that person for profit or dislike, and all we have as evidence is their word. If a woman sheds a few tears in the courtroom, does that signify she’s telling the truth?
Future scientists will call it the ‘Internet Fuckwit Effect!’
@kirbywarp
“If your first thought was “Feminists think that ALL women are abused by men, so it applies to all women,” congratulations! You’ve lost the argument already.”
Feminists lobby that only men are abusers. I lose because feminists lie.
NWO: There’s this nifty thing called evidence. I believe (correct me if I’m wrong, as IANAL) that battered woman syndrome is a defense in which actual proof of abuse has to be presented (proven?). You can’t just go into court, tell the jury he beat on you, and get off without so much as a slap on the wrist.