Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
........................... so this thread is... liberal feminist women deserve to be beaten because they want equality?
This is why the right-wing loses the female vote, too.
What?
This is really hard to argue with. The nature of stupidity makes it hard to use logic on, but I'm going to try my very best.
This is not saying women should be beaten. I'm not even sure how you reached that point? Could you explain that actually? I'd love to hear it.
This is saying women, if they can, should find ways to avoid domestic violence. What's wrong with that? How is it not true? In fact, to put this in perspective, if a man tried to pick a fight with me, should I A) scream and yell back B) Submit C) try and defuse the situation or D) fight back?
The answer is C. Obviously. Why would the answer be something different for women? I thought men and women were equal. Please explain to me what I'm not getting. I want to be wrong. Fulfill that for me (with proof, not a generic comment and an emoji).
Feminists champion equal rights for both genders but when Stephen A. Smith said that women shouldn't provoke men into hitting them, feminists were in an uproar and did not condone what he said. All he was basically saying was that women should try and do their best to not escalate a heated situation. He never said that men shouldn't be held accountable for hitting a woman but rather both genders doing their part to avoid domestic violence. Since feminism is all about equal gender rights, why didn't the majority of feminists defend Stephen A. Smith's comments?
Because feminists are not about bettering the world, they're about gaining power over men.
In fact, to put this in perspective, if a man tried to pick a fight with me, should I A) scream and yell back B) Submit C) try and defuse the situation or D) fight back?
We're talking about a relationship dynamic, not a random violent encounter. Putting the onus on one party to "defuse" every conflict in a relationship because the other party might get violent is not in the least bit empowering.
Have you ever witnessed a couple having an argument? They both have a right to get mad, you know. For all we know, the woman may be the wronged part.
You're shifting responsibility from the person who might get violent to the person who might become a victim. It's rather unbecoming.
"She shouldn't have provoked me" has been the excuse of pretty much any wife-beater, ever, and anyone giving that as much as one iota of credibility deserves the scorn heaped on his head.
There is not 'right to get mad.'
I'm not saying women especially shouldn't get mad. I'm saying people in general (male or female) should always do there best to keep there temper down; this is especially true in a tense situation. I really don't care that much about who provoked who at that point. It can go either way, and the party that did not initiate it should do there best to defuse it.
I don't see how I shifted responsibilities either. If a man is angry with his girlfriend for an illegitimate reason, and she get mad and then gets hit, it's still the man's fault. All I was saying that if it were possible for the women to somehow calm the man down and avoid the situation, that should be encouraged (why wouldn't it be?), but even if that doesn't happen, the blame is on the initiator, not the person who failed or chose not to defuse the situation.
Excuse me but since when did the person getting beat up become the perpetrator? I have had it with people constantly blaming the victim of violence & not ONCE do they place the blame on who deserves it, the person who does the abuse. Why is that?
We're talking about a relationship dynamic, not a random violent encounter. Putting the onus on one party to "defuse" every conflict in a relationship because the other party might get violent is not in the least bit empowering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
No, it isn't. It's putting the onus on women for not managing the conflict and keeping it from becoming violent. Which isn't their goddamn job.
Your pulling that argument out of thin air.
No one is saying that a woman who did not defuse the situation is at fault. You're being far too sensitive, a fatal flaw when discussing political and social issues. Encouraging women to attempt to defuse a situation is hardly a bad thing. I have yet to hear anyone opposed to the argument presented by the original posters actually address that issue. They've only focused on the issue they thought they heard.
So, if a husband/boyfriend is screaming into a woman's face, calling her names, etc., or threatening her, she should just stand down and try to placate the idiot? You do realize, right, that if a guy wants to abuse his wife/girlfriend, NOTHING she says or doesn't say; NOTHING she does or doesn't do will prevent him from abusing her.
A man has the right to lose control of his emotions, but a woman does not?
In other words, it's OK for a guy to lose his temper, but not OK for a woman to do the same?
That's sick. And backward.
Who could defend what he said?
While I agree with what you said, I will say I have had the experience of being in a relationship where the woman used to push my buttons on a regular basis knowing it would make me mad and even when told to back off it never stopped her. It was as if she had anger issues and took it out on those closest to her since no one else would put up with it. I have run into a few more like her over the years and have never been able to explain why some seem to be the meanest to those they are supposed to care about but believe me they are out there. No, I never hit any woman, I have better control over my emotions to be pushed that far, but I sure can see how some women seem to take pleasure in verbally abusing those around them, what is even more strange is when one has finally has had enough and leaves them they are shocked and cannot not understand why we could not work it out. For some it may be the way they were raised and they may actually believe they are acting like a normal loving couple, there are some messed up families out there. So, yes, you are correct, no man should ever hit a woman unless it is to defend themselves and even then most men are strong enough to be able to subdue a woman without having to actually hit them. That said I have personally experienced, and have had several friends that experienced he same thing, what it is like to be in a relationship where the woman seems to take glee in try to push people over the edge, and unfortunately not all men can take it or chose walk away soon enough. Domestic violence is one of those issues where we need to try and figure out the causes if we expect to resolve it, all the causes. Yes it true some men are just a-holes and any women that is being abused needs to get out the first time it happens, because it Will happen again and again and one day they may end up being maimed or killed, seek help it is there if they need it, and report them. Why abusers are not charged with assault or in some cases attempted murder is beyond me, why is different when a man or woman attacks their partner than if they walk down the street and attack a perfect stranger, which get harsher sentences?
My point is the OP does have a valid question and to not address it and to assume they meant something other than what they asked is not fair and does not really address and issue that needs to be discussed, because without discussion of the entire situation and the causes the issue cannot truly be dealt with.
Anyway, my 2 cents, for what that is worth.
Peace
What sane woman wouldn't try to make their husband/boyfriend less mad in a situation like that?
...
And as I said, a woman who can calm a man down is smart. Why get mad? Who does that help?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
I'm not saying women especially shouldn't get mad.
Hmmm...
Quote:
I don't see how I shifted responsibilities either.
I'm sure you don't.
Quote:
If a man is angry with his girlfriend for an illegitimate reason, and she get mad and then gets hit, it's still the man's fault.
For any reason. And notice how you're just assuming that we're dealing with an angry man, as if that's just an objective fact we have to deal with?
Quote:
All I was saying that if it were possible for the women to somehow calm the man down and avoid the situation, that should be encouraged (why wouldn't it be?), but even if that doesn't happen, the blame is on the initiator, not the person who failed or chose not to defuse the situation.
Which is substantially different from "Let's make sure we don't do anything to provoke bad situations" as the idiot in the video put it. "Provoke" is a word with very strong overtones. "Let's make sure" is pretty categaoric as an order. And "bad situations" is a distasteful euphemism.
No one is saying that a woman who did not defuse the situation is at fault. You're being far too sensitive, a fatal flaw when discussing political and social issues. Encouraging women to attempt to defuse a situation is hardly a bad thing. I have yet to hear anyone opposed to the argument presented by the original posters actually address that issue. They've only focused on the issue they thought they heard.
That's basically what Stephen A. Smith was saying. Yet he got suspended from ESPN.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
