zekko said:
1) Sorry your friend is such a pvssy.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, you must be joking here. I don't get it. What in that poster's post makes you think his friend is a pvssy? that he got assaulted and hurt? Interested to hear your reasoning here because it's a big part of the problem.
@ thread generally, back to the topic, all members should watch and understand the Molyneux video Die Hard linked. It describes the problem and current cultural bias very well.
A. In the OP incident, a man hit his wife, knocked her down/out.
B. In a hypothetical incident, a women hits her husband with a heavy purse, knocks him down/out.
What instant response to A? "It's never OK to hit a woman," despite we all know that is not true. It's perfectly permissible, moral and legal to hit a woman in self-defense, or if she is threatening grievous injury to another person. In lots of cases, hitting her is the only right choice. It's perfectly permissible to hit a woman committing assault, out of control, weapons nearby, yet people instantly accept the validity of the rigid "never OK" rule. Why? Gynoculture mixed with male ego. "I will merely stop the little woman's hands and grab her with my strong body, incapacitating her without hurting her, if you cannot do that you are a weak and small child, not a stronk man like me!.. AHhhnnn... AhhNNNN... give these people AIR!!" LOL, egregious BS. Would you "stop the little woman's hands" if you knew the last time you did that she waited til later and stabbed you in the neck with a steak knife? Would you "stop the little woman's hands" if the last time you did it, she burned the kids with a cigarette? Or would you -make a clear statement- after a point and stop playing defense?
Moreover, we know little facts. If a husband abuses a wife over time, she is allowed to 1. attack him, 2. mutilate him, 3. KILL him, under the defense of "battered wife syndrome." Few in our gynoculture will start up the "guilty til proven innocent" talk until more facts when the perpetrator is female ("but but women are more gentle, there must be some misunderstanding here!" WATCH the f-ing video). As an aside, imagine for a moment that George Zimmerman was a woman, and how that single change affects your view of that case instinctively. Be honest. Even though we know little of this couple's history, we instantly assign blame to the man in the outcome. That is wrong.
Let's say you are married to a woman who has a history of attacking you in the home with whatever is at hand, losing control, screaming and making a scene. Once she threw hot coffee on you. Another time she bruised you with a thrown plate that broke against a wall and then cut you. Another time she was threatening to harm or take your children. Every time she did that, one of her eyes rolls up in her head, her right hand starts trembling. You are on vacation and she is mad about something, you get on an elevator with her, she starts to escalate, you see the eyeroll and the shaky hand. She has a purse and you have NO IDEA what is in it.
What would YOU do?
The point of that is that ALL SCENARIOS HAVE CONTEXT. All fact patterns have necessary operative facts. People who apply rigid, absolute rules... of any kind... to a scenario before knowing all the context and operative facts are in error. If they persist after being shown this error, they are garden variety assclowns that cause misery and bad outcomes for all of us every day. Don't be an assclown.
Now, after all that what instant response to B? where the woman knocks the man out? "Wonder what he did to deserve that?" OR even worse, "what a pvssy to get handled like that by a woman," or worst of all, "LOL that's funny." Why? Gynoculture.
But really, the response to B is "crickets chirp," and if one tries to make an issue of it, replies will be uniformly some variation of "yeah, but what about domestic violence against women?" Anyone who denies this in our current culture should find someone else to think for them, as they are impaired. Anyone who thinks that "yeah but what about women?" when male issues are raised, is a legitimate discussion tactic is an assclown.
I can't understand how a rational person doesn't see the above factors at play, and that they are inconsistent double standards.
To summarize, if you are one of the posters who instantly assigns blame to the man in this case due to "knocked down/out woman = always bad," I want to ask your honest answer to one question, "if mitigating circumstances came to light in this case, would you be willing to change your assessment of 'man at fault' here?" and what level of mitigating circumstances would those be? IMO, people who can't conceive -any- mitigating circumstances, and are rigidly fixed on an opinion of ANY legal-criminal matter based merely on a couple of articles and a video, despite that many more facts are likely at play, are just as large a part of our societal problems as domestic violence.
