Categories
Uncategorized

Men’s Rights Redditor: “If it’s not okay to physically abuse a woman, it shouldn’t be okay to push a man to the breaking point”

No, fellas; you can’t hit her

By David Futrelle

Men’s Rights activists really do seem intent on finding justifications for men to punch women. There’s the “jokey” slogan they like to use: “Equal Rights mean equal lefts.” There was Paul Elam’s “Bash a Violent Bitch Month,” in which he imagined men responding to physical abuse from women by “beat[ing] the living shit out of them. … I mean literally … grab[bing] them by the hair and smack[ing] their face against the wall.”

Now a Redditor calling herself Tozae222 seems to suggest that men should be allowed to hit their partners in response to verbal abuse that pushes them to their “breaking point.”

Apparently that’s what happened with a friend of hers who, as she explains in a post on the Men’s Rights subreddit, has “just been jailed because his ex has finally gotten what she wanted.” By which Tozae222 presumably means enough of a beatdown to leave visible bruises behind, because cops generally don’t arrest anyone for domestic violence if there aren’t physical markings on the victim. But in Tozae222’s mind she made him do it.

“If its never okay to physically abuse a woman, it should never be okay to push a man to breaking point,” Tozae222 writes.

If a woman has got the balls to be in a man’s face being verbally abusive, even physically they should be prepared to cop the same back.

You’re not entitled to respond to abuse with abuse of your own. And you’re definitely not entitled to escalate — to respond to a finger wagging in your face with a punch –which is presumably more or less what her jailed friend did.

NO one deserves to be screamed at in nose to nose distance. NO one deserves to be constantly threatened that they’re going to leave or going to take their kids away. NO one deserves to be belittled infront of family and friends.

Well, no. All that is clearly abusive behavior. But what it isn’t is an excuse to respond with a punch — even if, in your mind at least, you’ve been “pushed to the breaking point,” whatever that means.

And just who in this scenario gets to define what this “breaking point” is? Some men see any “backtalk” as such a threat to their fragile masculinity that they respond with physical violence. Should these men be able to tell the cops that “she pushed me to the breaking point” and thus wiggle out of any arrest for physical violence? Violence is never the answer, even if the woman in question has been shrieking like a banshee in her partner’s face. Even if someone on Reddit thinks the victim “has finally gotten what she wanted.” This is the case regardless of the genders of those involved.

Hell, even if the woman in question resorted to physical violence herself, the response must be proportionate. You can defend yourself; but you can’t give someone a concussion.

Naturally, this being the Men’s Rights subreddit, most of the regulars responded warmly to Tozae222’s argument, and her post got 100 upvotes. “You’re a really good person and I don’t get to say that often,” wrote one new fan of hers. “That really nice to hear,” wrote another.

Only one commenter had the temerity to suggest that escalating a verbal fight into physical violence was a bad idea.

Maybe there’s a good reason why some people call the Men’s Rights movement an abusers’ movement,

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

81 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Anonymous
6 months ago

So how exactly can we be sure Tozae222 is in fact a real woman and not another LARPer? Call me cynical, but that’s the kind of thing I’d expect from that lot.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

It’s funny how MRAs are always super eager to find a loophole that will allow them to hit women. That’s not a red flag at all.

Naglfar
Naglfar
6 months ago

@Anonymous
I share the skepticism. This sounds an awful lot like another MRA cosplaying as a woman. Though there are some awful women MRAs as well, so that’s still a possibility.

Katherine the Adequate
Katherine the Adequate
6 months ago

Same here. I don’t believe Tozae222 is a woman, either, anymore than I believe Roosh V was an “attractive young woman” on some of the comment spaces for his blogs.

Ariblester
6 months ago

My comment got eaten by the mammoth 😢, potentially due to the density of linked sources, but the gist of it is that if you read the posts on that user’s Reddit profile, she’s a 31 year old mother of two, currently based in Australia, with a 28 year old boyfriend who had an abusive controlling ex with whom he has a daughter who he is not allowed to see, which she uses to justify her response to this matter. So far so neatly ticking the boxes of MRA talking points (women are also abusive, check, women estrange men from their children, check, men should be allowed to hit back, check).

She was also institutionalized 10 years ago in an institution that had “African nurses” (not many of those in Australia, so potentially she moved in the intervening time, oor…), and was diagnosed with Type II bipolar disorder 8 years ago, which she is currently controlling with medication and meditation. Not immediately pertinent, but potentially interesting for verifying bona fides.

Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
6 months ago

It’s not beyond belief she is a real person – not like there’s an acute shortage of women who still hold to the belief a man has the right to “chastise” his partner when they get out of line. Especially if the partner is his previous one (not them, of course) who they’ve heard chapter and verse about “that witch” for months or years.

(I’m writing this in 2020? People make me despair, sometimes.)

Ariblester
6 months ago

Threp (formerly Shadowplay) wrote on
August 24, 2020 at 7:48 pm:

It’s not beyond belief she is a real person – not like there’s an acute shortage of women who still hold to the belief a man has the right to “chastise” his partner when they get out of line. Especially if the partner is his previous one (not them, of course) who they’ve heard chapter and verse about “that witch” for months or years.

(I’m writing this in 2020? People make me despair, sometimes.)

Just in case there was any confusion, the person who she is writing about in this post (the one who was jailed for hitting his ex) is another mutual friend, not her current boyfriend. She is (correctly or otherwise, I can’t really tell from the details volunteered) noting the parallels in the two situations, which informs her sympathetic view towards men who “hit back” (which I absolutely do not agree with under any circumstances, potential parallels be damned).

Lenona
Lenona
6 months ago

I think it was “Ian Ironwood” (or a fan of his) who said, years ago, that men are expected to put up with verbal abuse from women that, if committed by a man, would result in a punch to the face.

Somehow, whoever said that didn’t seem to realize that it isn’t legal to hit a man for verbal abuse, either – and yes, the hitter CAN get arrested for that.

epronovost
epronovost
6 months ago

That’s a bit of a stupid argument. It could be used with the same effect by the woman in the scenario above. Should it be legal for a man to push a woman over the edge and get her shouting at two inches of her boyfriend face? That’s why any “right to escalation” is ridiculous. You can regress them to the absurd. If a couple is engaging in a shouting match, both need some therapy or one of them needs to end the relationship before one gets seriously hurt.

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 months ago

@Ariblester

Unfortunately it’s not like we can independently verify any of what Tozae222 said about herself is true. At minimum, we’re seeing a hell of a lot of internalized misogyny at work.

Reaktor
Reaktor
6 months ago

MRAs have the breaking point of a sandcastle.

Ariblester
6 months ago

Anonymous wrote on
August 24, 2020 at 9:58 pm:

@Ariblester

Unfortunately it’s not like we can independently verify any of what Tozae222 said about herself is true. At minimum, we’re seeing a hell of a lot of internalized misogyny at work.

Yes, very true, independent verification is impossible, but arguments in favor of her being real would be her activity being spread over several (not solely MRA-related) subreddits, though the low age of the account is suspicious. And yes, there is a lot of internalized misogyny here.

Moogue
Moogue
6 months ago

At the risk of starting a fight, imo yelling in someone’s face can in some cases be physical abuse, and not just verbal abuse, if the abuser is also blocking the other person’s path, or their ability to leave, even if no physical contact is being made. Of course, escalation isn’t ok, and you aways want to de-escalate, or use a proportionate amount of force. But it’s pretty easy to accidentally (or purposely) bodily corner someone in a building when you are literally in their face yelling at them.

Having been in a situation like this, having an abuser bodily block your escape when you try to go around them and scream in your face is terrifying. Luckily for me I had my cell phone in my pocket so I was able to call 911, but I don’t know how things would have ended up if I didn’t have my phone. I might have had to push them back, or even hit them to get away and out of the house.

Moogue
Moogue
6 months ago

*edit to add, in case you guys wonder, I never hit them, or threatened to do so. (Although I did threaten to call the police a few times). Luckily for me I was smart enough by that time to realize that they were trying to get me to hit them, (DARVO at it’s finest), and that particular incident was the last time I was, or will ever, be alone with that person for the rest of my life. It’s funny that realizing that they were setting me up legally was the last straw, but you know, all the other abuse wasn’t.

Big Titty Demon
Big Titty Demon
6 months ago

because cops generally don’t arrest anyone for domestic violence if there aren’t physical markings on the victim.

Huh…??? Yes they will, if it’s a white woman accusing a Latino. You’d best believe I know a controlling abusive psychopath that is a pathological liar who had her husband arrested twice this very way.

Lainy
Lainy
6 months ago

@big Titty Demon

Not always true, depends on the cop.

Ariblester
6 months ago

Moogue wrote on
August 25, 2020 at 12:14 am:

At the risk of starting a fight, imo yelling in someone’s face can in some cases be physical abuse, and not just verbal abuse, if the abuser is also blocking the other person’s path, or their ability to leave, even if no physical contact is being made. Of course, escalation isn’t ok, and you aways want to de-escalate, or use a proportionate amount of force. But it’s pretty easy to accidentally (or purposely) bodily corner someone in a building when you are literally in their face yelling at them.

Having been in a situation like this, having an abuser bodily block your escape when you try to go around them and scream in your face is terrifying. Luckily for me I had my cell phone in my pocket so I was able to call 911, but I don’t know how things would have ended up if I didn’t have my phone. I might have had to push them back, or even hit them to get away and out of the house.

I hear you, but in that situation you would be acting (justifiably) out of self-defense, not retaliating in anger. That’s a very different situation from what is being described here. I see no indication here that the man felt that he was in imminent danger.

The OP wrote:

If a woman has got the balls to be in a man’s face being verbally abusive, even physically they should be prepared to cop the same back.

Note their choice of words. “cop the same back”. This implies that in their mind physical violence and verbal abuse are interchangeable actions, and that aggression of one sort was met with aggression in equal measure, not in self-defense.

Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
6 months ago

Men barely ever have a voice in abusive relationships and their pride for their family blinds them from what they’re actually being put through until they’re either being jailed, taken everything for, giving up and contemplating suicide.. or drug and alcohol abuse to numb the pain.

So men are abused by women. To add insult to injury, the women have their abused male partners put in jail. Also, these women take all the abused men’s money. The abused guys give up. They contemplate suicide or resort to drugs and alcohol to numb the pain.

That explains why, in the rabble-rousing 1960s, some brave, dedicated men started shelters for abused men and their frightened children, established hotlines for abused men, and created groups for abused men to discuss how they’d faced violence from women — and ways out of those terrifying situations.

Penny Psmith
Penny Psmith
6 months ago

@Kat – Not sure who you’re quoting (word search on the page only comes right back to the quote; maybe it’s something by the OP elsewhere?) but on its own and out of context, the text you’re quoting doesn’t look so bad.
It doesn’t say that “men are abused” (umm, does this count as a NotAllMen? 🙃), it says that men who are in abusive relationship have a problem expressing their issues in a productive manner.
That sounds true; some men are, indeed, in abusive relationships. And often they are not believed when they try to express it, because of toxic masculinity (the idea that a man has to “control” his wife, and that if he doesn’t then he’s weak and contemptible) and general misogyny (the idea that all women are naggy and manipulative etc., so his situation must be “normal” rather than abusive).
Toxic masculinity also often means a man in a situation like that won’t have a good productive support network – by which I don’t mean ranting to the violent assholes on MRA forums, but an actual group of friends he can be emotionally open with and get actually good advice from. Men are encouraged to try to deal with things alone, for fear that not doing so will make them seem (or be) less of a man. This also leads to dealing with problems badly – either by responding in violence (which is seen as the main “manly” option) or by trying to just bear things silently, sometimes until the point of suicide.

These are actual problems. They’re a product of the same things that feminism is working to solve – it’s a good example of how sexism hurts men too.

Ariblester
6 months ago

Penny Psmith wrote on
August 25, 2020 at 3:03 am:

Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile wrote on
August 25, 2020 at 2:15 am:

Men barely ever have a voice in abusive relationships and their pride for their family blinds them from what they’re actually being put through until they’re either being jailed, taken everything for, giving up and contemplating suicide.. or drug and alcohol abuse to numb the pain.

@Kat – Not sure who you’re quoting (word search on the page only comes right back to the quote; maybe it’s something by the OP elsewhere?) but on its own and out of context, the text you’re quoting doesn’t look so bad.

It’s from the full text of the Reddit post being discussed. So in context, it’s “don’t be surprised that men use their fists to do the talking because society doesn’t allow them any other outlet”.

Penny Psmith
Penny Psmith
6 months ago

Ah, okay. I usually prefer not to go read these full things, because what’s quoted here is bad enough. Sorry for jumping in like that, Kat.
Well, in that case, OP seems to have said a right thing among her horribleness, and to have then used it in her very wrong conclusion.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
6 months ago

The distinction between verbal abuse and physical abuse here is a red herring, and while I overall like the article, it’s important to say that abusing emotionally someone isn’t less important or less problematic than beating it up.

It’s not okay to respond to abuse with abuse, period. We should have gone past eye for an eye and remember that abuse is never okay, regardless of the situation.

Note that using force to defend itself isn’t using abuse to answer abuse. Also, people actually rarely do only one type of abuse. I didn’t looked up for more context here, but it’s likely it was the man who was abusive emotionally before being abusive physically, since generally speaking with emotional abuse it’s quite often the abuser who become violent. That being said, exceptions do exist.

Naglfar
Naglfar
6 months ago

@Kat
AFAIK the only groups that have ever created shelters or support groups for abused men were feminists. The solution to abuse of men isn’t letting men abuse women back, it’s helping victims get out of a situation. But of course, MRAs just want to make apologia for men assaulting women and have actively tried to shut down men’s shelters.

Alan Robertshaw
6 months ago

O/T; but I found this so distasteful I felt obliged to comment.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/trump-rnc-charlie-gard-natalie-harp-right-to-try-cancer-baby-speech-biden-a9686616.html

Just to debunk the argument though; the court did not make a decision based on costs of keeping the child alive.

Every expert, including (eventually) the one instructed by the parents, agreed that there was no possibility of successful treatment and that keeping artificially prolonging life could only risk further suffering.

So the court held that the ‘best interests of the child’ (which is the test to be applied) was to let nature take its course.

Ariblester
6 months ago

Naglfar wrote on
August 25, 2020 at 5:46 am:

@Kat

AFAIK the only groups that have ever created shelters or support groups for abused men were feminists. The solution to abuse of men isn’t letting men abuse women back, it’s helping victims get out of a situation. But of course, MRAs just want to make apologia for men assaulting women and have actively tried to shut down men’s shelters.

Well, there was Earl Silverman, who has since become a martyr for the MRM.

Moogue
Moogue
6 months ago

@Alan

Wait, I’m confused. Were the the parents actually blocked from being able to try the experimental treatment as long as they paid for it and not the NHS, or was it just that the NHS wasn’t going to pay for the experimental treatment because doing so would be cruel, and the parents wanted to get the experimental care covered?

I’ve never got the whole American obsession with socialized medicine leading to “dealth panels”. What do they think private insurance does?

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
6 months ago

@Moogue : It’s. Alway. Projection.

They have, and want, death panel. The private insurances are death panel of their liking. So because they are unable to think that anyone could not want that system, they think socialized medicine do that, just in a way that they dislike.

Their problem isn’t socialized medicine killing people. It’s because it don’t kill the correct people.

Naglfar
Naglfar
6 months ago

@Moogue

Were the the parents actually blocked from being able to try the experimental treatment as long as they paid for it and not the NHS, or was it just that the NHS wasn’t going to pay for the experimental treatment because doing so would be cruel, and the parents wanted to get the experimental care covered?

I could be wrong, but what I thought happened was that they refused to let the parents transfer him to New York because they thought it would only prolong his suffering.

I’ve never got the whole American obsession with socialized medicine leading to “dealth panels”. What do they think private insurance does?

It’s a myth the right wing made up to scare people, just like the welfare queens.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
6 months ago

@Naglfar : and in a very real sense, welfare queen are also a product of projection. They would exploit any similar system if they could, so for them anyone would exploit it.

They aren’t against people getting money for nothing, but recoil in horror because it’s the wrong one who get it.

Alan Robertshaw
6 months ago

@ moogue & naglfar

As naglfar says, the court blocked the transfer on the grounds of risk of further suffering. It wasn’t about costs; the transfer was blocked regardless of the fact funds had been made available by donors.

The parents ended up with some expert, pretty much found for them by American evangelicals.

The expert initially supported the transfer. However at that time he had not had access to the child’s medical file. He was provided with that during the proceedings and then updated his view in light of the new information and agreed with the other experts that the treatment would be valueless.

In fairness to him he abide by the rules here which are that experts owe a duty to the court and not to the party paying them; so experts can’t advocate for one side in a dispute.

ETA: contrary to the article, adults here do have a ‘right to try’. Now there are certain medical things people can’t do without a licences here. But if you want to fly somewhere that does have experimental treatment, or just no rules whatsoever, then you’re perfectly free to do so.

Naglfar
Naglfar
6 months ago

@Ohlmann

and in a very real sense, welfare queen are also a product of projection. They would exploit any similar system if they could, so for them anyone would exploit it.

Indeed, they already do. Corporations and the wealthy constantly receive massive government handouts, and this is by design.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
6 months ago

So, let me explain the origins of “death panels.”

There is a benefit that had recently became available through Medicare, for end-of-life planning and counseling to be covered for beneficiaries. Prior to that, a doctor could do end-of-life counseling but wouldn’t be paid a separate fee for the time spent doing it; it was all wrapped up in the payment for the office visit. So many doctors wouldn’t bother, because they don’t work for free and Medicare wouldn’t reimburse them for their time. A couple of doctors got together and lobbied hard for this to change, and for Medicare to cover end-of-life counseling as a separate benefit with a separate fee payment, and succeeded.

When the ACA was being planned, these same doctors lobbied for ACA-covered plans to offer the same benefit for end-of-life counseling.

This was spun into “death panels” by the ever-in-bad-faith right wing. The spin was that your doctor would be pressured by bureaucrats into pressuring you to sign away your right to care, so as to reduce your cost on the system by making you die sooner with less care. End-of-life counseling does include decision-making as to how much intervention you want if you become incapacitated; the default is “every intervention possible” unless you specifically sign that away in (for instance) a living will. So the right wing, arguing in bad faith as always, decided to argue this meant that everyone would be forced into living wills that would kill them early, by bureaucrats, to reduce costs.

That’s how “death panels” came about. It’s been pointed out many, many times that insurance companies – including Medicare – really do already decide how much care you’re going to get by making coverage determinations, but that doesn’t have the same punchy ring as “death panel” and has never gotten the same reach.

Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
6 months ago

@ wwth:

find a loophole that will allow

the Holy Grail of 21st Century American conservatism — the loophole in the law

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
6 months ago

@Alan:
As Orac is fond of pointing out at Respectful Insolence, a lot of the massive push over ‘Right to Try’ in the U.S. has been from right-wing legal mills that oppose regulation in general, and the supplements industry in particular who absolutely hate the fact that the FDA can tell them what they can and cannot sell; the entire point is to get a workaround to the FDA, not to help patients. Given a lot of the actual details in the laws pretty much make any ‘Right to Try’ drug in the U.S. ‘caveat emptor’, it’s just an even better way to drain desperate patients’ bank accounts than the normal U.S. medical system.
“Right-to-try” in 2019: Still a failure, still all about the Benjamins (and weakening the FDA)

By the sounds of it, the main issue in the case you linked above is that the person in question was a child, and the government has the authority to decide some concept of ‘appropriate level of care’ and override the parents if they refuse to provide it. (Which, of course, is another thing that right-wing folks hate.) If the person had been an adult actually making their own decisions (no matter how blatantly pressured) the courts presumably wouldn’t have stepped in at all.

@Naglfar:

Indeed, they already do. Corporations and the wealthy constantly receive massive government handouts, and this is by design.

See, for example, the entire way Capital Gains taxes are set up at a different tax rate than other ways of making money.

And there’s a reason why people refer to the rather incestuous right-wing talk-show circuit as ‘Wingnut Welfare’.

Tabby Lavalamp
Tabby Lavalamp
6 months ago

Speaking of which, it’s Sean Connery’s birthday.

Aaron
Aaron
6 months ago

Honestly, I don’t see any reason to suspect that Tozae222 is really a man. There are tons of MRA and MRA-adjacent women.

And even among women who aren’t MRAs as such, I hear similar sentiments expressed frequently. The idea that domestic violence is sometimes justified given enough “provocation” (whatever that might mean) is not an uncommon viewpoint.

Lainy
Lainy
6 months ago

I’ve had so many women say terrible, cruel, and unbelievable things to me because of their hatred. They can hate themselves and hate their own gender and lash out. A certain woman from long ago was written about a lot on this blog itself. I think Tozae222 is a woman, she’s horrible but that doesn’t mean it’s a fake account. it’s true that a woman’s misogyny is different then a man’s misogyny . but it’s misogyny all the same

Alan Robertshaw
6 months ago

@ jenora

By the sounds of it, the main issue in the case you linked above is that the person in question was a child, and the government has the authority to decide some concept of ‘appropriate level of care’ and override the parents if they refuse to provide it.

That’s exactly it.

We have something called The Court of Protection here. As the name suggests that looks after the interests of people who lack capacity; whether that be through age (minors have limited powers of consent; elderly people may be subject to faculty issues); or some other reason.

People can ask the court for a determination where they have responsibility for someone and aren’t sure what the best cause of action is. For example someone having power of attorney over another person’s finances and wondering if they should downsize that person’s house.

Parents of course have, tautologically, ‘parental responsibility’ for their own kids. But in this case the hospital had a responsibility too; and there was a conflict. So the hospital made an application to the court as to what to do.

As it happens the court dealing was technically the Family Division of the High Court; but it’s still the same function and rules.

The duty with which I am now charged is to decide, according to well laid down legal principles, what is in Charlie’s best interests. Some people may ask why the court has any function in this process, why can the parents not just make the decision for themselves? The answer is that, although the parents have parental responsibility, overriding control is by law vested in the court exercising its independent and objective judgment in the child’s best interests. The Great Ormond Street Hospital has made an application and it is my duty to rule on it, given that the parents and the hospital cannot agree on the best way forward.

And decided this:

On 11 April 2017, after a hearing lasting several days which included detailed oral evidence from a number of experts, including an expert independently instructed by Charlie’s parents, who agreed with the experts from GOSH, and having of course heard evidence from the parents themselves, I made the following declarations:

i. Charlie, by reason of his minority, lacks capacity to make decisions regarding his medical treatment;
ii. it is not in Charlie’s best interests for artificial ventilation to continue to be provided to and it is therefore lawful and in his best interests to be withdrawn;
iii. it is lawful and in Charlie’s best interests for his treating clinicians to provide him with palliative care only;
iv. It is lawful and in Charlie’s best interests not to undergo nucleoside therapy.

Provided always that the measures and treatments adopted of the most compatible with maintaining Charlie’s dignity.

Kereea
Kereea
6 months ago

This actually made me think of the show I’ve been using as background noise today–Investigation Discovery’s “Fear Thy Neighbor.” Every episode is generally the same-something starts a feud going between neighbors, the men involves escalate and escalate until one of them (and it’s usually a tossup which) ends up trying to kill the other family.

Like, on the final episode of the block, I was genuinely with the guy who turned out to be the murderer until he hired people to set his neighbor’s house on fire (the other family literally broke into his garage and spied on him through his windows, claiming his religious practices must have been him “cursing” them, and also held late night parties the entire street complained of). The thing is, he lost all sympathy when he went to murder. Because PROPORTIONATE RESPONSES people.

Every episode is like that. It’s pretty much always the guys in the families starting a fight over something or other (legit or not) and then escalating and escalating until one of the guys decides he “has no choice” but to try and kill people. Once in a while the women in the families are involved (it was the wife spying on the neighbor and breaking into his garage in the final ep) but it’s ALWAYS the guys who eventually escalate it too far. And it’s always pride, this idea that being the bigger person and trying to let it go isn’t the way to go because “this is my property, I can do what I want.” And initially they do things the cops can’t get on them for (low level harassment, stuff that can’t be proven to be malicious or be them) and when the cops don’t stop it the escalation continues because they feel “oh, no one will help me” and eventually…killing spree, or at least an attempt at one.

Anyway, this article made me think of that. Because a lot of guys see defusing or even refusing to engage as a sign of weakness.

Lumipuna
Lumipuna
6 months ago

POM:

That’s how “death panels” came about. It’s been pointed out many, many times that insurance companies – including Medicare – really do already decide how much care you’re going to get by making coverage determinations, but that doesn’t have the same punchy ring as “death panel” and has never gotten the same reach.

Thanks, interesting. I always assumed it was about framing coverage determinations as a special new ACA thing.

Naglfar
Naglfar
6 months ago

@Kereea

Anyway, this article made me think of that. Because a lot of guys see defusing or even refusing to engage as a sign of weakness.

I’ve noticed this a lot in my own personal experience. I’m not a man, but I presented as one for years. One trait of my personality is that I’m very non confrontational and usually will try to de-escalate a situation or get away from it, and this was often seen as strange by men who expected me to fight or be more aggressive. OTOH, when I saw men escalating I often tried to encourage restraint but few listened.

Alan Robertshaw
6 months ago

@ naglfar

What that story outlines is that “self defence” is a very different thing from fighting; and it bugs me to see the two conflated and confused. Not just because it is ignorant; mostly because it is downright dangerous. To quote Kurt Osiander; “if your self-defence involves fighting then its usually because you fucked up a long time ago and now you’re gonna have to work really hard”. Anybody who is really practicing self-defense should be crossing the road, not fighting the horse; it’s way easier and all it takes is a little know how.

(The story in question is the old one about the Kung Fu master giving a wide berth to a stroppy horse)

Naglfar
Naglfar
6 months ago

@Alan Robertshaw
I agree. Self defense, if truly defensive, should first attempt to de-escalate the situation rather than escalate it. The goal should be self-preservation, and the best way to do this is usually to get away from any potentially dangerous situation.

Alan Robertshaw
6 months ago

@ naglfar

Well, I always say the hierarchy is: avoidance, evasion, de-escalation.

I guess the first two can be subsumed into the third of course.

But very few things being somewhere else won’t defend against!

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
6 months ago

@Alan:
Well, yes, there are similar courts both in Canada and the U.S., albeit by different names. A lot of their use is as in this particular case, where the parents are trying to do something stupid like use prayer as the sole treatment for their child’s leukemia. It’s one of those things that’s easier to do, again as in this particular case, if the child is already receiving treatment and the doctors know what the situation is, and can be the ones to call on the court.

I’ve heard more than enough horror stories about courts that lean in the parents’ favour even when the parents in question are pretty blatantly responsible for the death of their child (or children in some cases, there have been cases where the parents got off free after one child’s death only to have another die for suspiciously similar reasons). It’s even worse when the grounds to deny care are pretty openly religious, because that tends to get into things that courts are understandably reluctant to step into.

The case of Ezekiel Stephan here in Canada was a nasty one, involving a 19-month old child dead of bacterial meningitis because he’d been treated at home for months while his symptoms progressed, a family heavily invested in selling their own medical ‘supplements’ and thus looking to blame anybody else, a naturopathic nurse left out on a limb because while she seemed to understand she’d reached the edge of her knowledge she couldn’t convince the family of that, and an appeals court judge that seemed to make a decision for the defense based mostly on lashing out at the fact that the black medical examiner testifying as an expert witness for the Crown made him feel stupid.

Back more on subject, yes, the martial arts courses I took very much worked on ‘if you’re in a fight, you probably already screwed up somewhere before this’. Heck, the first aid courses made similar comments, and actually had some explicit discussion on trying to de-escalate from a panic situation.

I’d say it amazes me how many people insist on escalation, but sadly, it doesn’t. (And I’m the sort of person where when I swore out loud at one point, people around wondered what had just happened and commented on how it must have been serious because I hadn’t yelled like that in all the time they’d known me.) There are far too many people out there who seem to live their lives in constant fear that they’re not tough or ‘manly’ enough. And that’s not a mindset that leads to backing down easily.

Alan Robertshaw
6 months ago

@ jenora

Yeah, we’re quite lucky here as religious or philosophical objections by parents to medical treatment aren’t something courts will, or can, take into account.

What people here don’t necessarily know is that, in cases involving children, whilst the parents have certain procedural rights (to be heard, have legal representation etc) they don’t have any substantive rights. Only the child in question does. They get their own representative (a guardian ad litem) and their own legal representation.

The relevant law states that “the welfare of the child is paramount” and courts must make a decision based on the best interests of the child.

Children aged 16 and 17 can’t be overruled by their parents. Neither can so-called ‘Gillick competent’ kids. That’s where the child shows enough maturity and understanding to give informed consent to a particular treatment (or refusal of treatment); regardless of actual age. It arose out of an underage contraception case.

Where there is an objection to treatment the consent of one parent is enough; even if the other parent strenuously objects. The exceptions being sterilisation and circumcision in which case both parents must agree or the court order the procedure.

If you have capacity though the law states: “A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision.”

As to self defence; people often find it easier to remove the ego from the equation then they hear that all the special forces types say they’d just hand over their wallets. I put it like this though “If you found yourself bleeding to death on a pavement, how much would you pay not to be? I bet it would be more than the current contents of your wallet.”

Cyborgette
Cyborgette
6 months ago
Kimstu
Kimstu
6 months ago

@Alan Robertshaw:

But very few things being somewhere else won’t defend against!

Yeah, like the old joke says: In a dangerous situation, what’s the only thing better than presence of mind?

Absence of body.

Naglfar
Naglfar
6 months ago

@Alan

we’re quite lucky here as religious or philosophical objections by parents to medical treatment aren’t something courts will, or can, take into account.

Philosophical objections to medicine are a big issue in the US, as in most states it’s legal not to vaccinate kids if you claim philosophical differences. The danger of antivaxxers using this to undermine herd immunity, especially now, cannot be overstated.

@Cyborgette
Not sure how to respond either. We’ve gotten to the point where the water is boiling, and we’ve been warning everyone, but no one listened. The party going full mask off about everything, and most people don’t care or don’t even notice anymore. Or like it because it’s what they wanted all along.

Alan Robertshaw
6 months ago

@ kimstu

like the old joke says

Oh, sooo stealing that.

@ naglfar

Generally there’s no legal obligation to vaccinate your kids here; although until recently that wasn’t really an issue. Just about everyone did unless there was a genuine medical reason not to.

But Andrew Wakefield and ilk really buggered that up.

There doesn’t seem to be the will here, yet, amongst politicians or the general public for mandatory vaccines (but there’s general support for the idea that schools can make it a requirement for attendance etc.)

If take-up gets so low we lose herd immunity though that might change.