The Man Boobz Pledge Drive continues! If you haven’t already, please consider clicking the little button below and sending some bucks my way.
Thanks! (And thanks again to all who’ve already donated.) Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:
Some important information about females straight from the Men’s Rights subreddit:
![Merari01 2 points 3 days ago (6|4) As with any species, the female is more vicious, ruthless and agressive than the male. permalink source parent save give gold hide child comments [–]oneiorosgrip 7 points 3 days ago (9|2) Yes, and female humans have the added advantage of both a physical appearance and a social structure that facilitate female aggression by eclipsing it with the appearance or presumption of harmlessness.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/femalesright.png?resize=580%2C157&ssl=1)
I can vouch for this first-hand. I live with two females, and trust me, they can get away with anything just by giving me a look with those big round eyes of theirs — from scratching up the furniture to pooping outside the box to …
Oh, wait. We’re not talking about kitties?
Oh, female humans.
Anyway, one of the saddest things about this little exchange is that oneiorosgrip is herself a female human. Indeed, she’s actually Hannah Wallen, aka Della Burton, one of A Voice for Men’s so-called Honey Badgers. Yet she’s apparently so alienated from her own gender (and possibly her species) that she refers to her fellow women as “female humans” rather than, you know, women.
Note: Thanks to the AgainstMensRights subreddit for finding this lovely and enlightening exchange.
It’s amazing how obtuse people like swingsalot are. He clearly came here looking for a particular conversation and when it wasn’t forthcoming, took his toys and went home. Well done everyone for keeping reason and sophisticated thought alive.
Isn’t 1st degree premeditated, and 2nd “heat of the moment”? I don’t know what we have here in Australia. It’s a worry how much law knowledge is based on US tv shows.
I know a guy who is a magistrate, and one day a guy was in front of him on a charge and he “plead the 5th”. The magistrate was like “OK, but I don’t know what native title has to do with it, and you still have to testify”. In Australian law you have no right not to incriminate yourself.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)
Wikipedia offers a nice quick definition of degrees of murder, which do differ by state in the US. The TV show Law & Order is obviously not a documentary, but they do follow the actual definitions of NY law, including the fact that what’s usually called Capital Murder (aka death penalty cases) is called First Degree Murder in NY.
@Kiwi Girl In the US, if a white non-gang member killed a man in the manner you described he would probably be charged with Involuntary Manslaughter and would get a pretty light sentence that may include little or no jail time and probation. In the US, probation means that you are a felon, which can effect potential employment among other things, and you get the book thrown at you if you commit a serious crime while on probation.
Non-whites with gang affiliations are often treated more harshly obviously, but could get involuntary manslaughter if the death occured during a bar fight in front of witnesses.
In the US, sentencing differs wildly state by state. In some states, the sentence for all cases of Second Degree Murder (non-premeditated murder) is life in prison without the possibility of parole. Outrageously harsh sentences like that, unparalleled in the Western World, is why the US prison system is so depressingly massive. Throw in “the war on drugs” and you have a justice system in desperate need of major reform.
Awww… i knew I shoulda logged in this weekend. You guys chewed the new toy up so bad he deflated and went home before I got a nibble.
Ah, well. Assuming he’s coming back at least once: The reason no one cared, Sir Douchealot, is that you failed to establish a meaningful connection between your question and the subject of this particular blog entry (to-wit, the intimation by an MRA redditor that women are intrinsically more aggressive and dangerous than men are). The answer to your question, whether it was yes, no, it depends or anything else, would have no bearing on that topic, and thus you were utterly irrelevant, and not worthy of the respect we might show to a serious poster.
It’s murder or manslaughter here. Have you read the things going on about harsher sentencing for one-punch killings?
There was an article in the Age the other day saying that men need to be educated differently, taught to express their emotions instead of resorting to fists, and so on. It missed the point, I think, that it’s not just bottled anger leading to violence: it’s the whole toxic masculinity mess, with men feeling entitled to whatever-it-is, enraged when they’re “disrespected” by someone bumping into them at the pub, a woman not wanting to jump on their dicks, etc, etc … it’s not just drunks who turn violent in an instant and kill people, though the punch-murders seem to be carried out by drunks. No, it’s not just inability to express emotions that’s the problem: it’s the emotions and the attitudes underlying them. They think they’re supposed to be the centre of the universe and go into a toddler-rage when they’re not, or when passerby just exist (other men, in this case; I think all the victims of these murders have been men. And yeah, I’m calling them murders, not accidents or manslaughter or anything else, but that’s just me.)
I read years ago (no citation available) that getting someone good and drunk can tell you what emotional climate prevailed during that person’s toddler years. That could explain a lot of bar fights.
Also, swingandamiss reminded me of one of my favorite jokes:
What is difference between a duck?
One of its legs are both the same.
Reading that wikipedia page, it looks like voluntary manslaughter is based on a defence of “provocation”, and if there was no provocation then the charge would be second-degree murder.
In NZ, we recently removed the defence of provocation, see http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/legislation/bills/digests/49PLLawBD17021/crimes-abolition-of-defence-of-provocation-amendment
This was the case that tipped the balance against that defence: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10586155
The entire logic of using that defence was flawed: no reasonable person would ever kill another under any degree of “provocation”, because being “provoked” does not result in a reasonable person becoming physically violent.
Yup, that defence was removed here some years ago, too. Not that it stops abusive men using “she asked for it” it in the courts:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/she-asked-for-it-still-being-used-as-murder-defence-20121006-2767f.html
Apparently someone’s been reading their Kipling. And now that poem is going to be stuck in my head for the next five days.
Blueberry sweetness: Funny, the movie “Clue” is stuck in mine.
Wadsworth: “Ours is not to question why. Ours is but to do, or die.”
Col. Mustard: “Die?”
Wadsworth: “Merely quoting, sir. Alfred, Lord Tennyson.”
Col. Mustard: “I prefer Kipling myself. The female of the species is always deadlier than the male.”
(Mrs. White tenses)
Col. Mustard: “Do you like Kipling, Miss Scarlet?”
Ms. Scarlet. “Sure. I’ll eat anything.”
1920s greeting card:
He: Do you like Kipling?
She: I don’t know, you naughty boy, I’ve never kippled!