Maybe The #He Doing All the Emotional Abuse Is A #She
There's a new hashtag on Twitter.
For the uninitiated, hashtags are little messages, sans spaces, with a little # sign at the front that people stick in their tweets, allowing themselves to feel they're doing something meaningful, part of a meaningful action group -- but without having to do anything more than tap a few fingers on the keyboard.
The latest hashtag is this:
#MaybeHeDoesntHitYou
Maybe "He"? Just "He"?
As soon as I saw this, I was reminded that men are also victims of domestic violence and emotional abuse, but the difference is, men are told that they should laugh it off or at least shrug it off.
This is the case even institutionally, in how there are help centers for domestic abuse that serve only female clients.
The story on the hashtag is in the Telegraph/UK.
A new hashtag on Twitter hashtag is raising awareness of emotional abuse in relationships.#MaybeHeDoesntHitYou was started by Dominican-American writer Zahira Kelly, who had no idea it would go viral.
She told the BBC that she just wanted to help people to "suss out damaging situations."
"Abuse is often seen as very cut and dry, and only physical. For several years now on social media, on a daily basis I've talked about many different forms of abuse and what they look like," said Kelly.
The thousands of tweets, using the hashtag, aim to raise awareness of the signs of non-physical abuse.
Twitter users are listing examples of emotionally abusive behaviour, such as "#MaybeHeDoesntHitYou but he manipulates you and controls you."
Yeah, well, maybe she does the same thing. As an advice columnist, I hear about this, though men tend to complain less (and probably don't always even identify abuse as such), so I would guess that I've heard about it less than it happens.
The thing is, if you're truly for equal rights -- and not special rights under the guise of equal rights or just a special platform for whining -- you care about anyone's rights that are violated, and not just those of people who are female.
Oh, and check out some of the signs of abuse they list on the Telegraph site, like:
1) They make you feel bad about yourself
Plenty of women do that to men.
But frankly, somebody who puts up with that has not just a problem partner but a problem self, in that they don't take action in their best interest.
But it's a lot less sexy to blame lack of personal responsibility than "the patriarchy," huh?
Oh, and guilty:
2) They control your social life and the way you dress
Introvert boyfriend, arriving with me to a party: "Do we have to go inside?"
Also, there are articles of clothing Gregg has that I have threatened to, uh, melt.
Should we take out a hashtag on me?
I know amongst our age cohort, I've seen and heard of this a lot. Certainly my ex- wasn't a hitter. A black hole of derision? Yup. The thing is, you have to decide which is the worse pain, when you've 2 kids, and lots to lose. Leaving did damage to kids, and I usually only think in terms of the financial nuke blast, but there was plenty O' emotional damage to me as well... both before and after the divorce. To be continued until my youngest turns 19, probably. And then when I'm eating dogfood in retirement, the lookback on how this damaged my adult life.
It may be the newer generations won't have a feeling that marriage requires work, and so it's easy to confuse work, with putting up with a destroyer of worlds. Maybe newer gens say "fck it, I'm out..."
or like my kids, never have a belief that someone you love, my just drop a grenade on you, just because they can. And so never get married at all.
My son, in particular, has absorbed that lesson... when his mother kicked him out, when they had a fight.
SwissArmyD at May 11, 2016 1:20 PM
Women are far more emotionally violent than men. And we don't even teach them to control their violence. So this may backfire on the feminists pretty fast.
And it was option two Swiss. The younger generation increasingly just aren't getting married.
Ben at May 11, 2016 2:03 PM
I hear ya SwissArmyD, and in my case, she went so far as to refuse visitation, interfere with visitation and cause so much grief the kids ended up alienated from me entirely.
#maybesheisclusterb
jerry at May 11, 2016 2:05 PM
Jerry's "cause so much grief the kids ended up alienated from me entirely.":
My cousin went through that and it ended very well for him and his sons. His ex was so caustic that the kids on their own decided he couldn't have been that bad (they certainly were not).
Once they hit 18 they visited him and then stayed on with him.
Bob in Texas at May 11, 2016 3:47 PM
Oh now. I wouldn't say one gender over another is far more emotionally violent. I think it goes into what your experience was a child/teen that molds how you handle your emotions as a teen/adult. A lot of females are overly emotional, overly dramatic - but if they were raised to never hit and never belittle, to never push another person around, then that's what counts. I really feel like this goes for both genders. It just seems that men tend to not recognize cluster B traits in women when they're dating. They get home from the honeymoon and then unwrap a crazy bitch. That crazy bitch was always there, just those obsessive traits actually made you feel wanted. Best indicator (in my experience) of a person's character - 1) Relationship with ex. 2) Relationship with mom. 3) Relationship with friends. 4) How they treat restaurant servers / how they tip.
gooseegg at May 11, 2016 4:19 PM
And let's not forget the prevailing double standards. Women can get away with things that would be decried as domestic violence if men did them.
If a man is running late, his wife might cuff him lightly on the back of the head to get him moving.
Now reverse roles.
I remember a while back, Amy, you ran a couple of letters where women were quite open about acts of violence committed against men, even proud of them.
For instance, the woman who stated that she threw an ashtray at a guy's head.
Then there was another woman who claimed she just wanted a break from - ugh!- men. So, she goes clubbing with the girls, always a great place to get away from men, then quite proudly described how she slapped a man who asked her bra size.
You appropriately pointed out that neither one of them had a right to act as they did, and that men would be arrested for doing the same thing to them.
And a the risk of sounding obsessed with this topic, the Social Justice Warriors aren't exactly helpful, with their love of the double standards. "Blacks can't be racist; racism has to do with institutions of power and privilege...nyaaaah!" Ditto with women and sexism.
One day, I was watching a video of the horse-faced horse's ass Franchesca Ramsey, of MTV's "Decoded," who takes full advantage of what she thinks is her immunity from the racist label and ridicules and does unflattering imitations of white people. Ramsey was claiming that the correct definition of racism comes from Sociology.
With the knowledge that Butterface Ramsey has no post-secondary education and is not a recognized authority on anything, I did something that would absolutely disgust the average Social Justice Warrior: I looked it up for myself.
I know. Shocking, isn't it? "Why should you go looking something up for yourself?" they might ask. "Why that nice, smart Franchesca Ramsey knows and has explained it to you. What on earth is wrong with you? Don't you trust her?"
No, I don't.
And one of things I've noticed is that she's basically right, but her ignorance is showing nonetheless. First the definition, from About Education:
Okay, that differs from the standard definition found in the dictionary, but that's not unheard of when it comes to standard definitions versus specialized ones.
But Social Justice Warriors, black activists and third-wave feminists have jumped on this definition and crowed, "That proves I can't be racist or sexist! You have to be white and male to have a position of power in our racist and sexist society."
Let's forget for a minute that women have more rights than men do, and an "oppressed" minority has the highest position of power in the U.S. today.
But this definition defines racism as institutions of power or privilege in a society. It doesn't mean that you have to have institutions that work in your favor to produce a racial hierarchy, or that your ancestors had such a society. It just means you have to believe you should have such institutions that benefit a particular race. Therefore, in order to be a racist, it is not sufficient to simply be bigoted against someone else on the basis of race. You have to actively support institutions or argue for special rights and privileges for persons on the basis of race.
With this in mind, every person involved in the Black Lives Matter movement is a racist. Every third wave feminist is a sexist. Because they actively seek special privileges for themselves on the basis of race and/or gender.
If you simply don't like people on the basis of race or gender, that, in and of itself, does not make you racist or sexist. Bigoted, yes. But not racist or sexist.
I spend so much time on YouTube. Maybe I should make my own video and seek to educate on this topic. Alas, I don't know how to make videos, and don't want to put my face out there.
Patrick at May 11, 2016 4:21 PM
Yes, Patrick -- means a lot that you remember those. It's no more acceptable for a woman to hit a man than the other way around.
And I write about sex differences in emotional expression. Men, as sex differences researchers Joyce Benenson and Anne Campbell point out, engage in direct physical conflict in a way women do not. Women fight covertly. So, it makes sense to suspect that a woman might be better at emotional abuse than a man -- the really nefarious kind rather than the "You're going out in THAT?!" sort of statement.
Amy Alkon at May 11, 2016 4:28 PM
You'd be amazed at the columns I remember of yours, Amy. I even remember the first column of yours I ever read. "The Mother-In-Law of All Bombs," by an obviously clueless man who was hot for his mother-in-law and seriously asked you if he should "confront her" regarding his attraction.
And you opened with, "Were you dropped on your head as a child? Are you looking to get dropped on your head as an adult?"
But this kind of brings to mind another question. There is a YouTuber known as Red Pill Philosophy, who is a Cubano (and actually looks like a young Fidel Castro).
His obsession is the double standards that work against men, and a particular hobby of his collecting and compiling videos in which women physically attack men and the men strike back. He absolutely loves these incidents. He sees them as just and as women "getting the gender equality they've always wanted."
Sometimes I find myself in agreement with him. For example, in a famous incident on a New York subway, a woman physically assaulted a man with a stiletto heel, actually cutting his nose and head behind one of his ears, all because she simply didn't like his 8-Ball jacket.
The man retaliated with a devastating slap that knocked her to the floor of the subway car. Strangely, he was arrested; she was not. Last I heard, his lawyer is planning on suing the city. As he should.
The women of "The View," interestingly enough, were unanimous in their belief that the man had a right to act as he did.
With something like this, I don't have much problem. She was way out line and the man has a right to defend himself and he did not seriously injure his assailant.
On the other hand, Red Pill Philosophy is in delectable glee when situations arise in which I think the man simply goes too far.
For example, he defends the Ray Rice incident on the grounds that his then-fiancee slapped him first, and was advancing on him with the obvious intent to slap him again when he...kayos her?
Another cringeworthy encounter was with a two high school students, a slight but athletic looking boy (named Judah) confronted by a very large girl. Physically, she towers over him, and must outweigh him by at least fifty pounds. She shoved him, and probably due to the weight of his backpack, he stumbled backward quite a ways and finally fell down. She advanced toward him, probably to gloat over having knocked him on his ass. He stood up, picked her up and body-slammed her onto the street. Hard to tell, but it looked like she came awfully close to having her head dashed onto the pavement. He then stood over her as she lay on the street in shock, daring her to push him again.
If he had seriously injured her, I doubt the police would have been terribly sympathetic had he claimed self-defense.
The sixteen-second video of this encounter is here. Warning: it's disturbing. Scroll down to see it.
My question is, when it comes to self-defense against women who escalate conflicts to the physical, what is too far?
Maybe Isab, as a lawyer, has some insight into this?
Perhaps I have a double standard of my own. If a man came up to me and viciously slapped me, I doubt very many would fault me if I responded with a straight jab that knocked him out.
But when Ray Rice does it to his fiancee, we're all outraged. So was I. And the way that the neanderthal simply dragged her unconscious body back to his cave didn't help his image much.
Patrick at May 11, 2016 5:40 PM
"question is, when it comes to self-defense against women who escalate conflicts to the physical, what is too far?
Maybe Isab, as a lawyer, has some insight into this?"
In most states especially those without the castle doctrine, you can only use self defense, especially against a woman, if you have no safe means of retreat.
At least that is what I would advise any man who is being threatened or abused by a woman.
What the law says about self defense, and who the courts will favor if you kill or seriously injure an unarmed woman are two different things.
The law will almost always favor the woman because of the physical strength differential. There are a few exceptions to that, for example if there is pretty clear evidence that the woman is armed.
(And usually in that case, you have a dead victim) My opinion is that women lose control more easily than a sober man, and will escalate a physical conflict quicker. A drunk woman is even worse.
Men have a tendency to want to settle an argument with a physical confrontation. Women want to murder you....
And when the conflict is between two women, the police will generally favor the injured party.
Although without serious injuries, it will be a he said she said situation, and the police will be likely to cart off the most drunk party, especially if threats are still being made or one of the combatants is still talking shit and acting aggressively.
Isab at May 11, 2016 6:34 PM
Not legally, but morally the gender of the parties should not matter. So if you want an answer to is it moral to use a certain level of force then just reverse the gender of one person.
As Isab and you point out there is a major double standard at work here. And it is prevalent. I had an uncle who's crazy (in the clinical sense) ex-wife broke in and attacked him while he was sleeping. He called the cops. Not a mark on her but he has blood and bruises. They arrested him and left the trespasser in his house. This is standard operating procedure in Oklahoma City. How do I know, that was the fourth incident. He always got arrested and she was let go.
And yes, Gooseegg, women are far more emotionally violent than men are. Are all women emotionally violent? No more than all men are physically violent. But there are sex differences and this is one of them. And yes, some people don't follow the trend.
Ben at May 11, 2016 6:55 PM
Thank you, Isab. That was most helpful. I have no idea if this is the sort of thing you specialize in, but your explanation sounds consistent with the things I've heard, especially about retreating where possible.
Since the man in the 8-ball jacket was in a moving subway car, he had no reasonable way to retreat.
And it seems all hell broke loose in that encounter, now that I watch the video and not someone's comment on it.
The man seems to lose it, but the woman could have avoided this if she kept her stupid hands to herself.
You could argue that Ray Rice had no safe way to retreat since he was in an elevator. But I can't imagine he would have had too much difficulty in restraining her, instead of knocking her out.
The male high school student who body-slammed his female classmate certainly had venues to retreat.
If I could have said something to him, I might say, "She shoved you and you fell on your ass. Perhaps you could just shove her back so that she falls down, too? I mean, it seems a more proportionate response than trying to dash her brains all over the street. Or better still, just walk away. She didn't seriously hurt you."
Patrick at May 11, 2016 7:06 PM
"Perhaps I have a double standard of my own. If a man came up to me and viciously slapped me, I doubt very many would fault me if I responded with a straight jab that knocked him out."
This, and
"I might say, "She shoved you and you fell on your ass. Perhaps you could just shove her back so that she falls down, too? I mean, it seems a more proportionate response than trying to dash her brains all over the street. Or better still, just walk away. She didn't seriously hurt you."
presuppose a couple of things not in evidence. Most people, untrained in fighting, have no idea what their next effort will do to their opponent. I wouldn't blame you at all, because I have the view that someone who comes lookin' for an ass-whuppin' should be happy if they get one, but there's a chance that guy'll just look at you, then get mad. Maybe Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris or Mike Tyson can tell just where and how hard to hit somebody and put them down "uninjured", yet hard enough to stop the fight, but not an amateur.
And it gets worse if there's a weapon. Millions of ignorant people commented on the Zimmerman trial without once cluing themselves in to the fact that if there is a gun in the fight, control over the gun becomes THE goal, and once fighting, few have the wit to just throw it away. It got used, no surprise at all, bang, dead Trayvon.
Radwaste at May 11, 2016 7:32 PM
Thank you, Isab. That was most helpful. I have no idea if this is the sort of thing you specialize in, but your explanation sounds consistent with the things I've heard, especially about retreating where possible.
Since the man in the 8-ball jacket was in a moving subway car, he had no reasonable way to retreat.
I have been on many subways including those in New York. Unless the woman had him cornered in the back of the last car, or the front of the first one, he had a place to retreat, and a duty to retreat.
You misunderstand the legal meaning of duty to retreat, and the deference the court will give to the weaker smaller individual in an unarmed confrontation.
Something else I failed to mention, is the concept of proportional force. A woman slaps you, you slap her back, probably ok. She slaps you, and you knock several teeth down her throat, not ok.
She slaps you, and you grab her arms and restrain her from hitting you again, ok. You KO her, in the elevator, not ok.
You can do what you need to do to stop the attack. No more. If someone pulls a gun on you or a knife, they are posing a deadly threat, and you will in most circumstances be able to meet deadly force with deadly force.
My speciality is actually business and contract law, but due to my personal interests, and some legal stuff I have done for those in the firearms industry, I have had to educate myself on self defense, and federal and state firearms law.
Isab at May 11, 2016 7:54 PM
I can see your point. I don't know if you watched the video, but I would say that even an untrained combatant ought to have some idea of what's going to happen if you pick someone up and drop them sideways onto a street.
Still, he is a high-schooler. Maybe he really doesn't know.
I'm glad you mentioned Zimmerman. I recently got into a discussion with someone about that. I called it "an encounter between two assholes, one of whom was armed, leading to a predictable outcome."
Trayvon might not have known the gun was there, but I doubt it. In Florida, you may conceal carry, but you cannot open carry unless you are going to or from a hunting site.
It was February, and jacket weather. Trayvon was wearing a hoodie. Zimmmerman wore a jacket which easily concealed his weapon.
What I find annoying about discussing this issue is that people seem to think it's a huge deal that Zimmerman killed an "unarmed" teenager.
Well, so fucking what? If I'm carrying a weapon and someone knocks me down and starts banging my head on the sidewalk, I am going to use my weapon.
No one in their right mind is going to say, "Well, he's trying to murder me using only his bare hands, so that means I can only use my bare hands as I defend myself."
This isn't "West Side Story" where both sides agree to go barefisted, or both use switchblades. When my survival is in doubt, I'm going to use whatever weapon I have, and I'm not going to fret that my attacker doesn't have the same weapon.
Patrick at May 11, 2016 8:27 PM
This isn't "West Side Story" where both sides agree to go barefisted, or both use switchblades. When my survival is in doubt, I'm going to use whatever weapon I have, and I'm not going to fret that my attacker doesn't have the same weapon.
Patrick at May 11, 2016 8:27 PM
Bingo. As a senior citizen woman, I can't afford to get my head banged on the concrete by some young punk.
If I feel threatened, I am going to shoot before he can get his hands on me.
I rely on situational awareness, and staying out of bad areas, and bad situations to keep me alive.
Hopefully that will be enough. Like you I never intend to get into a *fair* fight.
Isab at May 11, 2016 8:48 PM
I have no idea why but I pictured you in your 30s
Nicolek at May 12, 2016 12:54 AM
I guess I don't know how subways work, which is unsurprising, since I've never been on one.
Thanks for the information, Isab.
I suppose you might argue that retreating on a moving subway could pose some risk to his personal safety. As I understand it, those things come to screeching stops.
And speak of the devil, Isab. Look who's back in the news! He seems to enjoy taunting his detractors.
Patrick at May 12, 2016 6:12 AM
Oh, come now, don't you remember when we brought Boko Haram to its knees with a single, devastating hashtag #BringBackOurGirls?
No? huh...wait, neither do I.
Oh.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 12, 2016 6:49 AM
And it was option two Swiss. The younger generation increasingly just aren't getting married.
Because men have discovered just how rotten a deal marriage is as currently practiced in the USofA? All your base are belong to us isn't just a meme...
And some of the younger generations seem to be getting along and doing children together without that marriage thing.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 12, 2016 7:04 AM
Should we take out a hashtag on me?
#DontPissOffTheGinger
#GoddessIsHerMiddleName
#YesMistress
I R A Darth Aggie at May 12, 2016 7:07 AM
Shorter Isab: There is one way to fight a woman. Grab your hat and run.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 12, 2016 7:37 AM
I R A Darth Aggie, but what if the woman attacking you is Holly Holm?
Patrick at May 12, 2016 9:04 AM
@Rad,
"The wit to just throw it away?" Against a younger, stronger, larger assailant? That's not wit, it's more like suicide. First he beats you, then he goes and picks up the gun and shoots you, assuming he hasn't beaten or stomped you to death first.
I think Zimmerman has proven himself a lowlife many times over, but he's alive and was justly acquitted (after being overcharged.)
Patrick and Isab get it. Fair fights are for fools, or the boxing ring.
MarkD at May 12, 2016 9:37 AM
""The wit to just throw it away?" Against a younger, stronger, larger assailant? That's not wit, it's more like suicide."
Umm, YOU added that condition. This just illustrates how tough it really is in such a fight.
"Away" means that nobody can get to it, AND the person who does that would have things in hand AND not desire to KILL their opponent. Why else would they do that?
I dare say that many, of not most, would use the gun if there was any fight left in their opponent, even if they were winning.
Fights are rarely evenly matched, and the person with a gun who allows physical contact with her has made an enormous mistake.
Radwaste at May 12, 2016 1:01 PM
Patrick said: Another cringeworthy encounter was with two high school students
_____________________________________
Yes, it was cringeworthy.
As one commentator said, in effect, for all we know, he may have rudely shoved her first (before the part of the video that we get to SEE) or worse.
Another, Michael Ros, said:
"It is obviously not the same thing. The girl shoved him one time adn not that hard; he fell because of his own clumsyness. And while I never condone violence, a shove is at least somewhat proportionate to a taunt (look at the opening still, the girl is looking straightforward trying to ignore him, the guy is talking in her direction). Knowing how to body-slam someone makes you a douchebag martial arts student for using it outside of the Dojo. His trainer/Master should rip him a new one for it; or throw him out. You just don't use that shit unless you are in actual danger. Something that was clearly not the case here."
lenona at May 12, 2016 1:36 PM
Silly Rad. No one carries a gun to throw it away when getting the snot beat out of them.
Additionally, when someone is on the ground and the other person goes with them to continue the fight it's no longer a fight it's a maiming/death match (unless you are in a ring voluntarily). Come on. You know that.
Bob in Texas at May 12, 2016 1:44 PM
Patrick,
"And let's not forget the prevailing double standards. Women can get away with things that would be decried as domestic violence if men did them."
One of many, many reasons I and glad I'm gay.
"Racism refers to a host of practices, beliefs, social relations and phenomena that work to reproduce a racial hierarchy and social structure that yields superiority and privilege for some, and discrimination and oppression for others."
That definition doesn't exclude black people or any other minority group. In SF there is a cop, Chinese-American, being fired over some Stormfront level racist tweets. Black people can be hideously racist - but to other black people.
To treat a group as one undifferentiated mass that would never harm "itself" is a form of objectification of the individuals in that group.
Jim at May 12, 2016 1:51 PM
lenoma,
"And while I never condone violence, a shove is at least somewhat proportionate to a taunt (look at the opening still, "
For starters you just did condone violence, explicitly.
Secondly in what decent moral universe is a physical action commensurate to a speech act? That only applies when one person is privileged to commit physical aggression, and that is sexist bullshit.
You're better than this.
Jim at May 12, 2016 1:54 PM
"For example, he defends the Ray Rice incident on the grounds that his then-fiancee slapped him first, and was advancing on him with the obvious intent to slap him again when he...kayos her?"
If you can't do the crime, don't do the time.
Patrick, do you know why a badger can stand a grizzly down? It's because the grizzly is afraid it has rabies to be acting so foolishly and heedlessly. The same logic applies with smaller humans.
That or she was acting on the privilege of "you never hit a girl", which makes her a vile, low coward and then it hardly matters what happens to her or anyone like that.
Jim at May 12, 2016 1:59 PM
Michael Ros only said "somewhat."
Add that to the possibility that the guy shoved her first and I think that's a fair argument.
Maybe she thought he was going to attack her first* and figured that since she likely couldn't outrun him, she'd better intimidate him (and maybe she didn't know he knew martial arts?).
That is, after all, what people are advised to do in certain dangerous situations.
*Given the possibility he could have cracked her head open and didn't care, he does seem like a dangerous, untrustworthy person in general. Would YOU be comfortable at the idea of his dating anyone, whether you knew the girl or not?
lenona at May 12, 2016 2:16 PM
I meant, of course, the girl he's dating.
lenona at May 12, 2016 2:19 PM
Jim: That definition doesn't exclude black people or any other minority group. In SF there is a cop, Chinese-American, being fired over some Stormfront level racist tweets. Black people can be hideously racist - but to other black people.
That was the very reason I posted that definition. The SJWs and black activists, being stupider than even I gave them credit for (or at least more dishonest), saw this definition and with the guidance of idiots like Franchesca Ramsey of MTV's "Unplugged," and came to the brilliant conclusion that since racism refers to institutions of power and privilege, that means that black people can't be racist, because they were never in power.
First, that point is debatable.
Second, saying that only whites can be racist because of racist institutions that existed in the past that favored whites is like saying an anarchist is someone whose ancestors lived in anarchy.
No, an anarchist is someone who believes in anarchy. You don't have to live in a communist country to be a communist. You just have to believe in communism.
By the same token, a racist is someone supports the idea that institutions should favor individuals on the basis of race. With this in mind, anyone who supports Black Lives Matter is a racist, because they support the idea of institutions that favor blacks.
Third wave feminists are very much sexist, because they support the idea of institutions that favor women.
Patrick at May 12, 2016 4:00 PM
Oh look, lenona is blaming men for the actions of women, must be a day that ends in Y
As for Rice, video surveillance from the hall show her attacking him multiple times before they got on the elevator.
And he didnt knock her out. He hit her, hard enough to knock her off her feet, but striking her head on the railing is what knocked her out.
Claiming he did it is like claiming an in-field home run due to errors was a knock out of the park
lujlp at May 12, 2016 5:14 PM
came to the brilliant conclusion that since racism refers to institutions of power and privilege, that means that black people can't be racist, because they were never in power.
Wouldnt this likewise mean 99.9% of white people cant be racist as they were never in power either?
lujlp at May 12, 2016 6:30 PM
came to the brilliant conclusion that since racism refers to institutions of power and privilege, that means that black people can't be racist, because they were never in power.
Wouldnt this likewise mean 99.9% of white people cant be racist as they were never in power either?
lujlp at May 12, 2016 6:30 PM
One would think, but SJW logic is incomprehensible to me.
Patrick at May 13, 2016 2:47 AM
And maybe I should have said this first:
If the boy were body-slamming your teenage SON to the ground and potentially costing you thousands for brain surgery, would you say it was your son's fault?
lenona at May 13, 2016 10:28 AM
"would you say it was your son's fault?"
If he picked the fight and started it, yes. of course he would be at fault.
Stop a moment and remember that the rules for girls are different than for boys. That may be throwing your analysis off.
If a girl hits a boy, he's expected to stand there and take it. If a boy tries that, it can only because he is too stupid to survive. Darwin Award material.
Jim at May 13, 2016 10:42 AM
OK, maybe I should have spelled this out all the way. Would you go so far as to pay for the brain surgery yourself, even though the OTHER kid did it to your son? I would hope not.
There's a difference between striking back with a jiu-jitsu move - like tripping the opponent - and body-slamming someone who didn't body-slam you. Even if it isn't concrete that's below.
lenona at May 16, 2016 5:12 PM
No Lenona, you are wrong. If you chose to escalate from words to violence you are responsible for where that violence leads. You cannot predict how far things will go. You can never fully control the situation. You start punching a guy and he pulls out a gun and shoots you in the head that is your fault. You started the violence. You are responsible.
Similarly, you break into a house or business you are responsible for where that leads too. I don't care how non-violent you claim you are. You may only want to steal whatever you can easily grab. I still feel justified ending your life. Don't want to die then don't break into houses.
When you take these actions you take your life into your own hands.
Ben at May 17, 2016 2:47 PM
Leave a comment