threeplusfire | (no subject)

Reading through the internet in the wake of the insanity yesterday, I've found myself frequently upset to the point of incandescent rage by many of the comments I've seen. Most of those comments happen to be from men. As someone who has spent most of my life "running with the boys," it is so disheartening.

A comment I read this morning:

"Except that espousing violence or the suggestion of violence in the face of what amounts to nothing more than irritation or uncomfortableness (sic) is more morally contemptible than anything these socially-retarded boob-honkers could come up with." Shades of the 19th century, when women were deemed to be such fragile moral creatures that they shouldn't be allowed outside the house.

Now. I understand the argument of turning the other cheek, or being the better person. But I find it repulsive to suggest that self defense is viewed in the same light as gratuitous violence. That's fucking bullshit. I also find the idea that this sort of behavior is dismissed as something that results in nothing more than "irritation." Again, fucking bullshit.

I am so angry about this attitude, and permutations of it, that I can barely stand to form a coherent response.

It took until 5:30am to fall asleep. My head is pounding and my throat hurts.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The only problem I might have with advocating this reaction is not from how the women should act but based not he same guys you are probably mad at. I'd probably advocate the woman slap the man very hard and/or yell at him to let him know what he did was wrong. The reason I advocate the slap and not the hit is once a woman hits a man the rules change (though please note I would never personally hit a woman).

Most men are raised knowing that you never raise a hand to a woman. But what many women don't realize is the reasoning behind it. Not being raised as a man they don't know what is going on in a man's head (understandably). Men are taught not to hit women because "women are weaker and can not defend themselves and need to be protected". "We" are not taught to not do it because it's a universal wrong. The wrong comes along with the reasoning behind it. The problem is there. It's why men who might never hit a women are more likely to hit a women if she hits him first. By hitting him she is sending a very clear message that she can stand up for her self and is not weak. The same message can be sent with a slap with far less fear of retaliation. When a women retaliates with a punch she is basically voiding the only reasoning a man has to keep himself from defending himself with an equal measure.

Please note I don't advocate hitting women even in self defense, nor was I raised to think like that BUT I know a lot of men who were raised to not hit woman for that reason above. So I warn my female friends to slap as needed but don't swing unless they can handle themselves in a fight because in many many cases when a women actually hits a guy closed fist she's now taken away the only reason keeping the guy from not swinging back like if a guy hit him.

I would argue that if a man gropes a woman, and the woman slaps/punches/sidehands him in response, it is the man who started it. Groping is violence, and here's how:

When a person (man, woman, child) accidentally brushes, touches, or bumps into a woman's breast, it is nothing more than a minor irritation (if even that). When a medical professional examines or manipulates a woman's breast in an appropriate clinical context, it is nothing more than discomfort. When a grown man intentionally grabs a woman's breast (outside consensual intimacy), it carries the the statement "I have control over your body." This is definitely an act of threat, intimidation, and violence.

So yeah, hitting a guy who gropes you is appropriate. It's self-defense. No jury I'm on would convict her.

I had a longer reply but it got too wordy. My short answer is I agree on all points. Yes the touch is a violent act of itself (breast touching). Yes a jury would side with the woman if he did strike back. But my point was to prevent it even having to go to a jury. My suggestion was only to shed some insight and to allow the woman to use a method (slapping) to physically let the guy know it was an unwanted touch without putting the woman in additional danger to be beaten. To me, right and wrong seem trivial if one can just avoid a situation escalating to that level to begin with. In this context or just events that may lead to violence in general.