(no subject)

[threeplusfire]

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.

Comments

[kevinblanchard.livejournal.com]

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.