Women and violence

[Zuul]

I've been kicking around this rant for a while now, which has been brewing over time. There are a couple of things which really, really irritate me, all floating about the same general topic.

No, this isn't about violence against women. This is about women committing violence.

First off, I don't give a crap what claims you might make because you watched a little too much Buffy the Vampire Slayer, women are simply flat out not as strong as men. Testosterone is a steroid hormone, ladies. No, testes don't make you blow up to inhuman proportions, but they do a lot of things to the body. There's muscle growth, of course. Even without working out, a man is going to end up having greater muscle mass than his feminine counterpart. Beyond that, however, there's the greater bone density and stronger tendons for supporting those muscles. Men are built for strength in ways women flat out aren't.

So when I read anecdotes about some tiny girl kicking the crap out of men repeatedly, you'll have to forgive me for automatically thinking, "Bullshit." The only way that could be remotely plausible is if this little hellion is running about, kicking men in the balls without warning and the men are too shocked/pained/sexist to hit a girl back. Which brings me to my next point.

Women hurting men isn't funny. It is abuse. If a woman came up to a man in a bar and kept bugging him and trying to get him to come home with her and maybe rubbing up on him and he wasn't interested, what would he do? He might be polite and tell her no and avoid her. He might walk away. He might insult her and publicly humiliate her. But if he threw drinks on her, hit her, or maybe lit her on fire, we'd all happily conclude that he was a neanderthal asshole or insane.

Yes, men are stronger than women. That does change the dynamic somewhat. A woman does need to fight dirty if she's in a self-defense situation, but being sexually harassed in public without any threat or violence does not equal a self-defense situation. You can walk away. You can scream. You can push him away and make a big scene and say, "I said no, motherfucker." And if he hurts you or threatens and nobody's helping? Then, yes, you try to hurt him to make him stop. And then you try to get away.

If a man hits another man, he can bet chances are good he's going to be hit back. Women know that any "decent man" won't hit them and so some of them, without the fear of reprisal, think it's okay to hit men. It isn't.

[Harlequin]

Women hurting men isn't funny. It is abuse.

Approving nod. You're dead on.

Tangentially related is my peeve about domestic abuse. A man hitting his wife isn't bad because he's a man and she's a woman, and not even because he's stronger and she's weaker, but because he's the one who should be holding her and kissing her, not beating her up. That's also why a woman hitting her husband is just as fucking bad, and not funny in the least.

[Exy]

From the much reviled Best Page In The Universe -- commentary on an email forward about The 26 Things A Perfect Guy Would Do.

11. React so cutely when you hit him and it actually hurts.

See, this is what pisses me off about women: they expect special treatment at their discretion. They want equal rights, equal pay, and equal treatment for everything EXCEPT when it comes to shit like this, then they want you to "react cutely" instead of, say, putting them in a head lock and making them eat ants and/or spiders while you give them carpet burn. Why don't women react "cutely" when men hit them for a change? Oops, I forgot, that's domestic abuse.

Anyway I'm the last person to complain about "double standards" and "reverse discrimination" and so forth, and I tend to roll my eyes when people sit around and bitch that white men are the real victims, but seriously, fuck this idea that it's somehow okay for women to be violent against men. Bitch, if you set me on fire, I'm gonna set you on fire right fucking back, vulva or not.

[RabbitMage]

To add, because this has also been on my mind lately: violence for comedy effect. I think violence can be funny, don't get me wrong. Two guys beating the crap out of each other over something stupid can be played for comedy effect. Two women fighting over something might be labeled insensitive and sexist, but could still be funny. A woman beating up her male counterpart? Hilarious. But you will rarely if ever see a man acting violently toward a woman for comedy effect. I understand the basis behind this: domestic violence against women is the most common (at least by current reports) and has a pretty long, terrible history. But in my mind it sets up a double standard. Why is it okay to laugh at a woman beating her husband, but not a husband beating his wife? There are men who suffer abuse at the hands of their spouses, and debate over if this is less common, or simply seems less common because it's underrepresented due to social stigma, male machismo, or people unwilling to believe or listen.

Which brings me to the related and awful topic of rape. You can say many of the same things. No one would dream of using the rape of a woman as comedy, at least in the mainstream. Male rape, though? Hilarious. Think about all the prison soap jokes you've heard. Think about the fact that's the only male rape most people ever hear about. Again, we don't hear about it as much. It either doesn't happen as often, is underrepresented, machismo, etc again.

And I'm not trying to paint men in general as an oppressed class, especially when you look over the long history of the things women have had to endure. But is the female gender entitled to 'payback'? If so, for how long? Or rather should we be leaning a little more towards equality?

[featherlou]

<snip>
If a man hits another man, he can bet chances are good he's going to be hit back. Women know that any "decent man" won't hit them and so some of them, without the fear of reprisal, think it's okay to hit men. It isn't.

I agree with everything you said, and I'll add this, too - women have to be careful of their mouths, too. A woman can reduce a grown man to a trembling heap with one cutting comment. It's verbal abuse when a man tells a woman she's ugly and no one could love her, and it's verbal abuse when a woman says something like, "Oh, fine, I'll get it. You're so useless." I know the "know-it-all woman, idiot man-child" is the in thing right now, but it isn't right, to put a man down and pretend that all men are stupid and incompetent. It makes me cringe when I see this in commercials and sitcoms. Loving partners are supposed to be loving to each other, not look for weaknesses and soft spots to exploit.

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

You know what I hate? How on tv and in movies it's "okay" for a woman to slap a man if he pisses her off. Ugh. Hate. It's not okay to hit anyone, no matter who does the hitting. Hate.

Yes, men are stronger than women. That does change the dynamic somewhat. A woman does need to fight dirty if she's in a self-defense situation, but being sexually harassed in public without any threat or violence does not equal a self-defense situation. You can walk away. You can scream. You can push him away and make a big scene and say, "I said no, motherfucker." And if he hurts you or threatens and nobody's helping? Then, yes, you try to hurt him to make him stop. And then you try to get away.

My brain agrees with you on all of this, but it isn't anywhere close to the same thing when a woman is being sexually inappropriate with a man. Is it right? Nope, she shouldn't do it. But like you mentioned earlier, men have very little to fear physically from a woman. A woman who is rubbing on a man and being physically inappropriate isn't a real threat of anything but embarrassment. A man doing the same thing is a threat, full stop. As a woman you know you are usually on the victim end of any sexual assault, so a man being over-the-top with an unwanted sexual advance is going to release cortisol and adrenaline and your body is going to say FIGHT or FLIGHT, like NOW. Of course the correct things is flight, but if you're not surrounded by people you trust I can understand (especially if a little tipsy) where a woman might start swinging. Rape is no fun. No, I'm not saying all unwanted sexual advances end in rape because it's not even close but my days of passively standing by because I don't want to seem like a bitch are over.

Which brings me to....

So when I read anecdotes about some tiny girl kicking the crap out of men repeatedly, you'll have to forgive me for automatically thinking, "Bullshit." The only way that could be remotely plausible is if this little hellion is running about, kicking men in the balls without warning and the men are too shocked/pained/sexist to hit a girl back.

For the most part I agree with you 100%. There are exceptions. I'm 5'1" and weigh around 95 pounds. I've taken kickboxing from a professional kickboxer (which I've been doing for years) and have recently started Krav Maga classes from real live Jews! I am doing all I can to shift those odds in my favor. They may never be totally in my favor, but it makes me feel a bit better to know I have more of a chance. My instructor says "When I say 'no quarter' that's what I mean. It's them or you and you want to always make sure it is always you walking away. I'm going to teach you to do as much damage as humanly possible as quickly as possible so you can get away."

I'm trying to get every woman I know to take classes with me.

for the tl;dr crowd: EVERYBODY STOP BEING VIOLENT!

[Jeff]

for the tl;dr crowd: EVERYBODY STOP BEING VIOLENT!

MAKE ME, HIPPY!

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

for the tl;dr crowd: EVERYBODY STOP BEING VIOLENT!

MAKE ME, HIPPY!

[Darth Sensitive]

Handstand kicks in the face!

[Jeff]

That's it, Sleeps. Shit be on like muthafucking donkey kong now. I'm gonna leave you more messed up than a month's worth of Busey family pics.

[INSERT APPROPRIATELY CAPTIONED PIC HERE, YO]

[Dangerously Unqualified]

There is definately a double standard at work, but a thorny and difficult one to work with as well.

Do we want to send the message that women abusing men is ok? No.

Do we want to send the message that men abusing women is ok? No.

So how do we stop the pendulum of socially unacceptable behavior from swinging wildly between these two messages?

First, stop focusing on either one. More attention given to reinforce one negative behavior inadvertantly reinforces the other.

Second, stop focusing on each other. No one likes or deserves the "Blame Game".

Third, define abuse with a solid, set in stone definition of "Anything one person does to hurt another person, whether mentally, physically, emotionally, socially or spiritually where "Hurt" is defined by the perception of the victim."

Ghandi defined violence as when "one person imposes his will upon another." He doesn't say anything about hitting, or yelling, or being derrogatory. To stop violence, to stop abuse we must, as a society, start looking at the core behavior of abuse, not just at the outlying symptoms such as hitting, yelling and name calling.

And finally we must act with insight and introspect. Beyond the "religious" meaning of The Golden Rule is the social implications of it. "Treat other people the way you would like to be treated." Don't do unto others as they do unto you, don't assume that other people are going to take the first step and don't bring out the straw man of the sociopath who mistreats others because he enjoys being mistreated. Very few people are genuine sociopaths and those who are can be treated, they are not an excuse to abandon the Golden Rule and go about running amok like you ain't got no Mama.

See? Accusing you of not having a Mama may have been emotionally painfull. If it was and you feel that it hurt then that was abusive.

The abuse needs to stop.

Please note that all of the above is strictly my opinion and responsibility of such lies solely in the hands of Dangerously Unqualified/nd_n8/Nate and no one else. Any resemblance to any court ordered non-violence program is strictly unintentional. All rights reserved.

[Harlequin]

First, stop focusing on either one. More attention given to reinforce one negative behavior inadvertantly reinforces the other.

So let's focus on "people abusing people". Aren't the genders involved supremely irrelevant?

[ivan astikov]

It's not wrong for men to hit women, or for women to hit men*. What is wrong, is bullying of any sort. If a female wants to behave like a testosterone-overloaded lout and resort to fisticuffs, they shouldn't be complaining if it turns out worse for them.

* Unless we lived in an ideal world, which we are a bit away from achieving.

[featherlou]

Well, if a woman who likes to slap guys got sucker-punched every time she did it, I think she'd stop pretty quickly, so I do agree with you there, Ivan.

[ivan astikov]

I was reading a news article earlier, stating that my city(Manchester), along with another, is reintroducing boxing into the school curriculum for boys and girls.

I'm sure somewhere there'll be people shrieking "What kind of example is this to set to our children?", but when governments are still sending armies to fight wars, this would seem a bit of a lame objection.

Obviously controlled violence has a time and a place, or we wouldn't still be funding military forces, so the main question is, "When is violence acceptable?"

As an organised sport, I'd say certainly. Physical competition has always been deemed a honorable pastime, and I also see no reason why women shouldn't compete, if they choose.

In self-defense, most definitely, and as much of it as the situation requires. If someone has no respect for your well-being, they deserve likewise.

Violence for personal entertainment and/or to impose your will on somebody is not allowed. The exception is, if it is to put an obvious bully in his/her place, as they do not understand the language of reason unless it is punctuated with force.

Unless your profession brings you into violent situations with regularity, most sane people want to avoid violent conflict and this plays right into the hands of the typical bully. If they do want you to hit back, they only want you to do it ineffectively. Fortunately, those nutjobs who want you to fight back because they enjoy the challenge to their manhood, are as rare as rocking horse shit.

All civilian self-defense should be geared towards giving its pupils enough stamina and striking/grappling savvy in order to maintain a one minute onslaught, intended to overcome the unexpectant average attacker long enough to escape to safety.

In fact, come to think of it, we need a new martial art called Minutsu which trains people to unleash their inner Tasmanian Devil. Anyone want to set up a dojo with me?

Oh alright, let's develop the theory a bit more then!

[Dangerously Unqualified]

First, stop focusing on either one. More attention given to reinforce one negative behavior inadvertantly reinforces the other.

So let's focus on "people abusing people". Aren't the genders involved supremely irrelevant?

Absolutely.

[dread pirate jimbo]

This whole subject tends to get me very upset, since I've been on the wrong end of it before and understand all too well the process that goes along with it.

The Canadian White Ribbon Campaign website does a nice job of setting the stage for the overall discussion:

The most widespread problems are physical violence against spouses and girlfriends (from hitting right up to murder) and sexual violence (usually committed by a boyfriend, husband, trusted adult, or family member.) There is also emotional abuse -- sexual harassment at work or on the street, stalking, jokes that demean women, and controlling behavior...

Although ending men’s violence against women is our focus, we are concerned about all forms of violence. We are deeply concerned about violence against children. We are concerned about violence among boys on the playground, in the sports arena, in relationships, and in war. And we are concerned by acts of violence by women against women or against men, although these are not as extensive nor as frequently lethal as men’s violence against women.

Unlike violence by some women against men, violence committed by some men against women has long been socially acceptable and is deeply rooted in beliefs of men’s superiority and of men’s right to control the lives of “their” women.

(bolding mine)

And there it is. According to this advocacy group, violence by women against men is not extensive and therefore unworthy of much discussion. Further, while it notes that men's violence against women has been previously considered socially acceptable, it makes no such admonition about women's violence against men without giving any further explanation of whether it is or is not socially acceptable or even if it is a problem.

The reality is very different. Oregoncounseling.org estimates that 40% of all acts of domestic violence are committed by women. When discussing why incidents of women's violence against men are under-reported, they give several reasons:

- The incidence of domestic violence against men appears to be so low that it is hard to get reliable estimates.
- It has taken years of advocacy and support to encourage women to report domestic violence. Virtually nothing has been done to encourage men to report abuse.
- The idea that men could be victims of domestic abuse and violence is so unthinkable to most people that many men will not even attempt to report the situation.
- The counseling and psychological community have responded to domestic abuse and violence against women. Not enough has been done to stop abuse against women. There has been very little investment in resources to address the issues of domestic abuse and violence against men.
- In most cases, the actual physical damage inflicted by men is so much greater than the actual physical harm inflected by women. The impact of domestic violence is less apparent and less likely to come to the attention of others.
- Even when men do report domestic abuse and violence, most people are so astonished, men usually end up feeling like nobody would believe them. It is widely assumed than a man with a bruise or black eye was in a fight with another man or was injured on the job or while playing contact sports. Women generally don't do those things.

The last one is particularly telling. As Zuul noted in the OP,

So when I read anecdotes about some tiny girl kicking the crap out of men repeatedly, you'll have to forgive me for automatically thinking, "Bullshit." The only way that could be remotely plausible is if this little hellion is running about, kicking men in the balls without warning and the men are too shocked/pained/sexist to hit a girl back.

Society makes an automatic assumption that no tiny little girl could possibly hurt a big, strong man.

In fact, the Oregon estimates are probably too conservative. Psychiatry Online points to a study that indicated that,

Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. This finding surprised Whitaker and his colleagues, they admitted in their study report.

As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time). "This is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious," Whitaker and his group stressed.

And there's more. Corry, Fiebert, and Pizzey explain in their 2002 paper (warning: pdf!):

women are openly given permission to hit men. Presently 25%-30% of all intimate violence is exclusively female on male.

Primary aggressor laws usually result in arrest of the male and ignore research showing 50% of domestic assaults are mutual combat. The woman is thus encouraged to abuse her partner further until finally he will take no more. Such provocation of the human male is dangerous.

Studies consistently find women use weapons more often in assaults than do men (~80% for women; ~25% for men). Women are significantly more likely to throw an object, slap, kick, bite, or hit with their fist or an object.

There is no support in the present data for the hypothesis that women use violence only in self defense. Three common reasons women give for male abuse are: to resolve the argument; to respond to family crisis; and to stop him bothering me. Male abuse of a woman, requiring self defense, is one of the less-frequently stated reasons by women for their assaults.

This last cite, in particular, hit home for me. It reminded me in several places of a toxic relationship I went through a number of years ago involving an undiagnosed bi-polar. Long story short, I was abused in just about every manner possible -- physically, emotionally, monetarily, you name it. Things came to a head during one violent outburst that resulted in my arms and face being covered in bite and scratch marks, the police being called and me being arrested for assault because, in spite of the physical evidence, the poor little girl couldn't possibly have been the attacker. As it is succinctly described in the Corry, Fiebert, and Pizzey pdf,

By the time police do arrive an angry woman often will have made up a story making it the mans fault. And the cops will buy her story 9 times out of 10. Reams of data document the man is most often the one arrested and jailed.

If the police are called and find probable cause, which is often loosely and subjectively defined, there is an 80-90% chance the male present will be arrested whatever the evidence and circumstances.

The charges were stayed and eventually dropped, but I suspect I am still just beginning to deal with the psychological damage that particular incident and the subsequent three years of living with bogus assault charges hanging over my head did.

My point is this: violence is not a gender issue; it is a human issue. Women are every bit as responsible for violent acts as men are and, knowing they need to up the ante to do damage, are far more quick to grab a weapon. The self-defense argument that advocates in the "stop violence against women" camp like to haul out as the reason women attack men is demonstrably incorrect at best or a flat-out lie to push their agenda at worst. When I see the campaigns fighting to stop violence against women, that ignore or pooh-pooh the notion that women ever commit violence against men, my blood starts to boil because it is the worst kind of propaganda, adding fuel to an already volatile fire by ignoring the actual issue at hand.

No one deserves to get attacked. Violence is a tool that should be reserved for only the most extreme of cases, and then only to provide sufficient time to escape the situation and get help. Until we, as a species, get our heads around that, nothing is going to change. And until we stop trying to fool ourselves into believing that this is only a problem for one gender, we are contributing to sustaining and exacerbating the problem.

[Exy]

And there it is. According to this advocacy group, violence by women against men is not extensive

Well, that's true. It's also vastly, vastly less likely to result in serious injury or death.

and therefore unworthy of much discussion.

Actually, that's the opposite of what they said. They said that they are concerned about all kinds of violence.

Further, while it notes that men's violence against women has been previously considered socially acceptable, it makes no such admonition about women's violence against men without giving any further explanation of whether it is or is not socially acceptable or even if it is a problem.

I think considering the differing degrees of social acceptability of male-on-female versus female-on-male violence is something worth discussing, but sitting around and playing the victim card doesn't seem like a great way to begin such a discussion.

My point is this: violence is not a gender issue; it is a human issue. Women are every bit as responsible for violent acts as men are and, knowing they need to up the ante to do damage, are far more quick to grab a weapon. The self-defense argument that advocates in the "stop violence against women" camp like to haul out as the reason women attack men is demonstrably incorrect at best or a flat-out lie to push their agenda at worst. When I see the campaigns fighting to stop violence against women, that ignore or pooh-pooh the notion that women ever commit violence against men, my blood starts to boil because it is the worst kind of propaganda, adding fuel to an already volatile fire by ignoring the actual issue at hand.

I'm sorry about what you experienced but frankly this idea that domestic violence campaigns are claiming that violence against men doesn't matter is something you're perceiving, not something that's actually there. As your first quote shows.

[dread pirate jimbo]

And there it is. According to this advocacy group, violence by women against men is not extensive

Well, that's true. It's also vastly, vastly less likely to result in serious injury or death.

and therefore unworthy of much discussion.

Actually, that's the opposite of what they said. They said that they are concerned about all kinds of violence.


[quote:1ttldpo5]Further, while it notes that men's violence against women has been previously considered socially acceptable, it makes no such admonition about women's violence against men without giving any further explanation of whether it is or is not socially acceptable or even if it is a problem.

I think considering the differing degrees of social acceptability of male-on-female versus female-on-male violence is something worth discussing, but sitting around and playing the victim card doesn't seem like a great way to begin such a discussion.

My point is this: violence is not a gender issue; it is a human issue. Women are every bit as responsible for violent acts as men are and, knowing they need to up the ante to do damage, are far more quick to grab a weapon. The self-defense argument that advocates in the "stop violence against women" camp like to haul out as the reason women attack men is demonstrably incorrect at best or a flat-out lie to push their agenda at worst. When I see the campaigns fighting to stop violence against women, that ignore or pooh-pooh the notion that women ever commit violence against men, my blood starts to boil because it is the worst kind of propaganda, adding fuel to an already volatile fire by ignoring the actual issue at hand.

I'm sorry about what you experienced but frankly this idea that domestic violence campaigns are claiming that violence against men doesn't matter is something you're perceiving, not something that's actually there. As your first quote shows.[/quote:1ttldpo5]
While I freely admit that my viewpoint is coloured by my own experiences, yours is stupid and wrong. An entire website devoted to preventing violence against women that feels a whole two lines of text are sufficient to address women's violence against men is paying lip service to the issue, nothing more -- further, it's claim that women's violence against men is not extensive is utterly false (as demonstrated by my other cites), showing the white ribbon's agenda aiming to downplay or lie about the real statistical realities. But it seems clear that you, like the white ribbon campaign, haven't bothered to look at the actual statistics (which I provided), preferring to simply agree with the popular perception as purported in my first cite. Wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a good nay-saying, after all.

[featherlou]

And there it is. According to this advocacy group, violence by women against men is not extensive

Well, that's true. It's also vastly, vastly less likely to result in serious injury or death.
<snip>

But it's not true. Violence by women against men IS extensive and likely to injure men (not only can women hurt men with their own bodies, but they also can and do use weapons). I did a thread on this subject on the Dope, and I was surprised by my own research findings (that violence by women against men is as common as it is) and by the responses of the Dopers, that so many of the men actually had been violently abused by women themselves. It was just as Jimbo's statistics say; men don't report it, they don't talk about it, and they probably don't consider it as serious as violence against women because there is no consciousness raised about violence against men.

Doing a quick Google search on local resources, I see most of them are focused on violence against women, but there actually are some resources for abused men, which is a pleasant surprise.

From this site (the Family Of Men Support Society):

As many men as women are victims of physical and emotional abuse at the hands of their partners, according to numerous Canadian, American and British studies.

Women violently abusing men is real, it is happening, it is far too common, and if you don't agree with that, well, all the cites in the world won't convince you, I suppose.

[ivan astikov]

The advice should be the same to both sexes. If you are in a relationship where your partner needs to reinforce their message with a slap or a punch, get the fuck outta there. This is the last person you want to raise a family with.

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

Women violently abusing men is real, it is happening, it is far too common, and if you don't agree with that, well, all the cites in the world won't convince you, I suppose.

Please to be showing me where someone here saying it isn't happening?

[dread pirate jimbo]

Please to be showing me where someone here saying it isn't happening?

I don't think anyone is saying it isn't happening at all, but someone is agreeing with the common misconception that it isn't very common and that it isn't very serious, which is absolutely incorrect:

dread pirate jimbo wrote:
And there it is. According to this advocacy group, violence by women against men is not extensive

Well, that's true. It's also vastly, vastly less likely to result in serious injury or death.

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

Well, since you're speaking for Featherlou even though I asked her, I still fail to see how anyone is saying what you're claiming. The quote I responded to by her certainly seemed to insinuate that Exy was claiming that it wasn't happening. Perhaps she will come along and explain it since I asked her about it.

The quote she used earlier:

As many men as women are victims of physical and emotional abuse at the hands of their partners, according to numerous Canadian, American and British studies.

could not be any more vague. I'm sorry, but you can find "numerous" studies proving just about anything if you look hard enough for it, especially since that quote is talking about physical and emotional abuse. Emotional abuse is very subjective. It's easy to claim and hard to prove.

What Excalibur was trying to say is that although abuse from female to male is happening, wrong, and in high numbers it *does not* result in the kind of injuries or fatalities that male to female abuse does. Does not.

Now, I'm not going to play the "let's match studies to show each other how it is!" game by pulling cites from this special interest group or that special interest group, the cites I've read over the years clearly demonstrate that far, far more women are killed at hands of their "SO" than the other way around. If someone doesn't believe that, then no amount of cites will help.

No one here is saying that it's okay for women to hit men. No one here is saying it isn't a problem. No one here is dismissing it. Nobody advocates for women to beat up men.

I thought most of us were saying that NO ONE should be hitting ANYONE, so why is there some kind of argument?

[featherlou]

Yeah, that's what I meant - Exy basically poo-pooing the idea that there is a problem with violence against men. If he wasn't doing that, I sit corrected.

[featherlou]

I'm not sure when this turned into a competition, but if we're going there, how about stats that say that the majority of abuse of children is at the hands of women? Or the ones that say women are more likely to use a weapon? It sounds like your question, Sleeps, is whether or not women are doing as much damage to men as men are doing to women, and I don't know the answer to that. I do know that women are being AS abusive to men as men are to women, and since women are more likely to grab a weapon, I'd say they are doing some significant damage to men and children.

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

I'm not sure when this turned into a competition, but if we're going there, how about stats that say that the majority of abuse of children is at the hands of women? Or the ones that say women are more likely to use a weapon? It sounds like your question, Sleeps, is whether or not women are doing as much damage to men as men are doing to women, and I don't know the answer to that. I do know that women are being AS abusive to men as men are to women, and since women are more likely to grab a weapon, I'd say they are doing some significant damage to men and children.

I think it turned into a competition when Jimbo started wanting to prove to everyone what we were already saying because it hit close to home for him. No one here was arguing that women weren't sometimes violent, but it's like he wanted us all to bow down and tell him that yes, women are evil too!

Which question of mine are you referring to? I guess I don't remember asking a question that you seem to want to be answering.

Also, Jimbo's very first line had me scratching my head:

This whole subject tends to get me very upset, since I've been on the wrong end of it before and understand all too well the process that goes along with it.

What's the right end of domestic abuse? If a woman hitting him is the wrong end, what's the right end?

[Glazer]

Why don't we all step outside and settle this like men.

[dread pirate jimbo]

So if I'm following the illogic in your last couple of posts, you are objecting to my speaking for someone else in part by speaking for someone else? You have a problem with me answering a question aimed at featherlou and then immediately presume to speak for Excalibur?

I think it turned into a competition when Jimbo started wanting to prove to everyone what we were already saying because it hit close to home for him. No one here was arguing that women weren't sometimes violent, but it's like he wanted us all to bow down and tell him that yes, women are evil too!

Prove? Or support? The consensus prior to my first post was that there is a problem with people abusing other people and that it reaches far past the popular notion that abuse only happens when it is a man attacking a woman. I sought merely to provide evidence that the issue of violence from one gender against the other is every bit as prevalent in both directions and to present myself as an example of exactly what I was talking about. If you think I was somehow demanding anyone "bow down" to me, you are, as usual, wildly over reacting to something you haven't adequately understood. And you wrap up by nit-picking a turn of phrase? Holy missing-the-entire-point, Batman!

Incidentally, if you'd care to show me where exactly I said that women are evil, that'd be much appreciated.

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

Actually Jimbo you've had a combative attitude since you entered this discussion. Exy was very reasonable and rational with you, but you have taken it up a notch every time you respond. I'm sorry a woman abused you, but you don't have to turn around and be a total ass about the subject. I realize we're in the Thunderdome, but your "debate" skills seem to consist of accusations, insults, and being deliberately obtuse. You're not an honest debater from what I've seen here, so why should anyone attempt to have a real back-and-forth discussion with you?

Are you here to impart information or just plain argue? If it's the latter, then count me out. If it's the former, you have a seriously strange way of doing it.

You continue to come back to this thread to tell us over and over again what we already know. Women sometimes abuse men and THAT IS WRONG. NO ONE SHOULD ABUSE ANYONE. No one has fought against that, yet you seem completely unsatisfied with that knowledge. What, exactly, would you like us all to say to make you happy?

And as for your comment that I "as usual" wildly over-react to something I don't understand, perhaps you can give me some examples of that or kindly go fuck yourself for your smarmy bullshit. I understand the information presented perfectly well, but since I can't read your fucking mind I can't make heads or tails of what you really want us to know beyond what we ALREADY KNEW before this little fun discussion got started.

Sorry, was that too abusive of me?

[dread pirate jimbo]

Go fuck yourself? Is that all you've got? Well, that's rather disappointing, I must say.

The only person I've argued with in this thread has been Excalibur, whose response to me was dismissive, condescending and studiously ignored most of the evidence I presented -- it was neither reasonable nor terribly rational. And since you've apparently been appointed his Official Speaker and Knower of his Intents and Thoughts, I am now arguing with you by proxy. I'd hardly call my initial post combative -- nor has anyone else -- so I have no idea where you're getting the notion that I've been combative since I entered this discussion, unless the use of several cites in a single post meets your definition of combative. Incidentally, if you concede that you agree with the consensus of the thread, and that my opinion agrees with the consensus in the thread, why the hell are you arguing with me, aside from some bizarre need to defend a guy who has never needed anyone else's help to take care of his business in the past?

My happiness is not dependent on anyone saying anything. And seriously, you actually think I'm arguing with everyone in the thread when I have only challenged one person (and subsequently his apparent representative)? Talk about being obtuse...

Incidentally, as I have said before, by sharing my history with the class I was not looking for you or anyone else to feel sorry for me, so there's no need for you to patronize me. You can pass that message on to your Exy as well.

Have a great day!

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

Go fuck yourself? Is that all you've got? Well, that's rather disappointing, I must say.

So in other words, you've got nothing to back up the bullshit you spewed about me from your previous post? This shit right here:

If you think I was somehow demanding anyone "bow down" to me, you are, as usual, wildly over reacting to something you haven't adequately understood.

Please don't flatter yourself by thinking that you've said something here that I don't understand. Plus, if anyone here is over-reacting to anything, it's y-o-u. This isn't the first time you have misrepresented what I've said in a discussion. There was a thread on the Dope where you accused me of calling Nigella Lawson obese when I said no such thing. When that was pointed out to you, you chose to ignore it. Now you use the same tactics here. Is this normally how you discuss things? Throw whatever you can against the wall and see what sticks?

As for Exy, he would hardly need anyone to defend him from someone who chooses to insult the person instead of sticking to the discussion. As for you thinking his response was dismissive and condescending, that is the height of hilarious considering that he said it was worth discussing, just not if you're going to make it such a personal thing. I agree because it seems that on this subject your personal experience is (obviously) clouding your rational thought on the subject. Well, that or you just generally throw insults around for no reason when having a discussion. He was polite and stuck to the information. You came back with the ever-so-intelligent "While I freely admit that my viewpoint is coloured by my own experiences, yours is stupid and wrong." With those kind of debate skills I'd hardly believe abused men would want you speaking for them, unless you're illustrating emotional abuse as irony.

You are the first person in this discussion to make things personal instead of sticking to the facts and debating the ideas. Yes, I told you to go fuck yourself, but that was after you decided to make things personal with your insults and absolute nonsense. If you are incapable of discussing this topic without being an ass, then count me out of your discussion. I don't care if this is the Thunderdome, call me a cunt if you want to but don't misrepresent me.

And as for your cutesy bullshit about me being Exy's rep, I commented with a question to Featherlou to get clarification on a statement she made. You are the one who came in raring to go from that point on. You've been spoiling for a fight, but Exy hasn't come back to the thread. Next time I'll know better than to even answer a comment to you because you've now demonstrated to me (this 2nd time) how you handle discussions. I'll have no part.

[dread pirate jimbo]

Actually, I'm the first person in this thread to post facts. So that's wrong. And I attacked the viewpoint, not the person -- "yours [ie. your viewpoint]is stupid and wrong" is different than "you are stupid and wrong." So you also got that wrong. And you actually had to go back to some comment I made on a board I haven't posted to since February to back up your accusations of me over-reacting? Well, kudos to you for pulling out something that arcane -- I guess you have me pegged.

You say Excalibur doesn't need anyone to defend him, and yet you continue to do so. I'm not sure where you're going with that, but whatever.

And if you're mistaking this for me getting overly emotional, then you have no idea whatsoever what me getting emotional even looks like. You and Exy would have to work a whole lot harder to ilicit an emotional response from me.

[hatesfreedom]

I LOVE VIOLENT WOMEN

I don't like the verbally abusive ones though

[Exy]

Yeah, that's what I meant - Exy basically poo-pooing the idea that there is a problem with violence against men. If he wasn't doing that, I sit corrected.

I'm sorry, Featherlou, but if you think that I said that you need to get a CAT scan because you have a brain tumor or something.

[Exy]

While I freely admit that my viewpoint is coloured by my own experiences, yours is stupid and wrong.

Well now.

An entire website devoted to preventing violence against women that feels a whole two lines of text are sufficient to address women's violence against men is paying lip service to the issue, nothing more

Yeah, and why the fuck isn't the ACLU helping to fight against the habitat destruction that threatens the noble giant panda?!

further, it's claim that women's violence against men is not extensive is utterly false (as demonstrated by my other cites)

From the abstract, at least, the one cite you gave that actually compares the incidence of violence perpetrated by the sexes doesn't address the seriousness of violence; given that women are much more likely to be murdered by male partners than vice versa, it seems safe to assume that other serious violence is probably also disproportionately male-on-female. The other paper you cite isn't even published, nor does it appear to even claim to establish much more than "sometimes women are violent against men".

I don't really care about your little "who's more violent" battle of the sexes anyway; I'm not invested in whether men or women hit more, but I have to assume that if you had good statistics establishing the -- in your view -- extreme prevalence of female-on-male violence, you would have posted them already. I don't really care anyway, but from where I sit, your "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the men?" histrionics and general victim stance seem unjustified.

[Myrnalene]

I LOVE VIOLENT WOMEN

I don't like the verbally abusive ones though

aww, that is sad news indeed.

[featherlou]

Yeah, that's what I meant - Exy basically poo-pooing the idea that there is a problem with violence against men. If he wasn't doing that, I sit corrected.

I'm sorry, Featherlou, but if you think that I said that you need to get a CAT scan because you have a brain tumor or something.

It's not a tumah.

[jali]

There's a promo on Fox for a morning show, Mike and Juliet, and Juliet slaps Mike in the face after he says something she doesn't like. I get angry every time I see it and this thread has inspired me to write a letter to complain. It's supposed to be all in fun, I imagine, but its a horrible thing to show as part of a promotion for a "fun" morning show.

Thanks for addressing this.

[dread pirate jimbo]

While I freely admit that my viewpoint is coloured by my own experiences, yours is stupid and wrong.

Well now.

An entire website devoted to preventing violence against women that feels a whole two lines of text are sufficient to address women's violence against men is paying lip service to the issue, nothing more

Yeah, and why the fuck isn't the ACLU helping to fight against the habitat destruction that threatens the noble giant panda?!


[quote:1moxoilj]further, it's claim that women's violence against men is not extensive is utterly false (as demonstrated by my other cites)

From the abstract, at least, the one cite you gave that actually compares the incidence of violence perpetrated by the sexes doesn't address the seriousness of violence; given that women are much more likely to be murdered by male partners than vice versa, it seems safe to assume that other serious violence is probably also disproportionately male-on-female. The other paper you cite isn't even published, nor does it appear to even claim to establish much more than "sometimes women are violent against men".

I don't really care about your little "who's more violent" battle of the sexes anyway; I'm not invested in whether men or women hit more, but I have to assume that if you had good statistics establishing the -- in your view -- extreme prevalence of female-on-male violence, you would have posted them already. I don't really care anyway, but from where I sit, your "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the men?" histrionics and general victim stance seem unjustified.[/quote:1moxoilj]

Once again, you have missed the point. I was not attempting to suggest that one gender is worse than the other, but that the statistics very clearly demonstrate that women's violence is far more prevalent than it is typically understood to be or presented by the anti-domestic violence lobbies; that this is not a gender-specific issue. And since you admit that you didn't get past the first page of one of my cites (which runs 17 pages in total), you're hardly in a position to question it's findings, are you?

Meanwhile, you seem hung up on severities, although you do nothing to prove your point, aside from make a WAG -- what exactly is that about? Would you care to attach a severity rating to psychological abuse or emotional abuse? Are those somehow less damaging because you don't wind up with an impressive scar to show everyone after the fact? Abuse is abuse; it is something that needs to be addressed as a concern for society as a whole and wrangling over which group had the most bruises at the end of the day is not only irrelevant to the issue, but it pulls the discussion away from the root problem, as you seem bound and determined to do.

And where did I say that my cites were all published papers? * And what has that got to do with anything? One cite is a published paper, two make specific references to published papers, three demonstrate that domestic violence is of equal concern to both genders, and all four agree that violence is bad. But you're niggling over whether my cites have been published as proof that I must somehow be incorrect? Your response is meaningless and irrelevant.

And you know what? Maybe someone should "PLEASE think of the men." If the issue of domestic violence was being discussed in an open, honest way, as an issue that goes beyond silly gender politics, perhaps some real change might begin to take place. Frankly, if more societal issues were discussed as societal issues and not us-versus them, I expect a lot would get accomplished.




* By the way, "71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women" does not equal "nor does it appear to even claim to establish much more than 'sometimes women are violent against men.'" In fact that means, "frequently women are violent against men."

[Exy]

Once again, you have missed the point. I was not attempting to suggest that one gender is worse than the other, but that the statistics very clearly demonstrate that women's violence is far more prevalent than it is typically understood to be or presented by the anti-domestic violence lobbies

Except the only "evidence" you found that anti-domestic-violence groups aren't paying attention to this is to claim that one group said that they don't think violence against men matters, when that is actually the opposite of what they said.

And since you admit that you didn't get past the first page of one of my cites (which runs 17 pages in total), you're hardly in a position to question it's findings, are you?

I didn't say anything about not having made it past the first page of anything. If you're talking about the pretend article, if what it says is valid why can't you find a valid source for it? (I say "pretend" because it wasn't published and therefore wasn't peer-reviewed, or more likely failed peer-review. Obviously neither you nor I am an expert here, so I can't perform the equivalent of peer review.)

Meanwhile, you seem hung up on severities

I'm not hung up on anything, Jimbo. I only posted in this thread to point out that, in order to justify your "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the men?!" outrage, you had to resort to completely misrepresenting the words of some organization. All your myriad (poor-quality) citations of statistics to attempt to prove the prevalence of woman-on-man violence are irrelevant anyway, since the army of people trying to minimize that that you are so bravely fighting against only exists in your own head. Stop trying to assign me the position of violence advocate.

I know you want to imagine you're some brave voice in the wilderness here, but when you're so desperate to have an opposing viewpoint to "fight" that you assign it to anyone just on the basis of their not advocating your pet cause loudly enough -- first that domestic violence organization you quoted, and then me -- that should be a signal that, whoops, you're making an ass out of yourself.

And where did I say that my cites were all published papers? * And what has that got to do with anything?

A valid study would be published. If you don't understand the publication and peer review process, go do some homework. Let me preempt your objection that I'm now only permitting citations of peer-reviewed articles -- I'm not. But you can pretty much be certain that something that tries to look like a real academic article but is not (since it's not published) has something seriously wrong with it, since people put articles together in order to publish them, both to add to their CVs and to contribute to the public debate on an issue. If they went to the trouble of putting together a paper but couldn't get it published even in a lower-reputation journal, that is a signal that there's serious problems with it, even if they're problems that are not discernible to people who are not experts in the field.

But you're niggling over whether my cites have been published as proof that I must somehow be incorrect?

Again, you're trying to claim that I said that woman-on-man violence is not a problem. I didn't say that. Jesus fucking Christ, get a damn clue. I know you love self-righteously inventing reasons to pretend to be some sort of brave crusader, but when you find yourself having to resort to these stupid strawmen, shouldn't that be a signal that maybe you're not able to rationally discuss the issue?

Frankly, if more societal issues were discussed as societal issues and not us-versus them, I expect a lot would get accomplished.

Then take the first step and shut the fuck up about this. You're so far from being able to discuss this rationally that the entire thread has consisted of you repeatedly trying to pretend that everyone else is callously ignoring the needs of men. That's exactly the us-versus-them bullshit you're claiming to not want.

* By the way, "71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women" does not equal "nor does it appear to even claim to establish much more than 'sometimes women are violent against men.'" In fact that means, "frequently women are violent against men."

Actually, no, it doesn't, and many of the statistics you have brought to bear don't actually advance your claim that woman-on-man violence is common. Reread the statistic slower if you need to. (And no, once again, to preempt this again, I take no position as to how common it is, because I'm not invested in your stupid gender war, so don't use this line to confirm your fantasy that I said that woman-on-man violence isn't common.)

[featherlou]

This is the response I received from a local abuse help group, Homefront Calgary:

We help anyone that finds themselves in an abusive situation. We work with families, the victims, offenders and children of the relationships and are not gender specific. Our goal is to break the cycle of violence in general and that involves working with everyone involved.

That is to say then that we do not have specific programs for men who are/have been violently abused, nor do we for women. We work with both genders equally in whatever capacity they are referred to us and work to find them the appropriate treatment and support necessary.

That sounds like the right approach.

[Exy]

My point is this: violence is not a gender issue; it is a human issue. Women are every bit as responsible for violent acts as men are and, knowing they need to up the ante to do damage, are far more quick to grab a weapon. The self-defense argument that advocates in the "stop violence against women" camp like to haul out as the reason women attack men is demonstrably incorrect at best or a flat-out lie to push their agenda at worst. When I see the campaigns fighting to stop violence against women, that ignore or pooh-pooh the notion that women ever commit violence against men, my blood starts to boil because it is the worst kind of propaganda, adding fuel to an already volatile fire by ignoring the actual issue at hand.

I'm sorry about what you experienced but frankly this idea that domestic violence campaigns are claiming that violence against men doesn't matter is something you're perceiving, not something that's actually there. As your first quote shows.

You know what? I should have just left it here. This is still the best summation.

[dread pirate jimbo]

Once again, you have missed the point. I was not attempting to suggest that one gender is worse than the other, but that the statistics very clearly demonstrate that women's violence is far more prevalent than it is typically understood to be or presented by the anti-domestic violence lobbies

Except the only "evidence" you found that anti-domestic-violence groups aren't paying attention to this is to claim that one group said that they don't think violence against men matters, when that is actually the opposite of what they said.

And since you admit that you didn't get past the first page of one of my cites (which runs 17 pages in total), you're hardly in a position to question it's findings, are you?

I didn't say anything about not having made it past the first page of anything. If you're talking about the pretend article, if what it says is valid why can't you find a valid source for it? (I say "pretend" because it wasn't published and therefore wasn't peer-reviewed, or more likely failed peer-review. Obviously neither you nor I am an expert here, so I can't perform the equivalent of peer review.)


[quote:hrnkevpe]Meanwhile, you seem hung up on severities

I'm not hung up on anything, Jimbo. I only posted in this thread to point out that, in order to justify your "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the men?!" outrage, you had to resort to completely misrepresenting the words of some organization. All your myriad (poor-quality) citations of statistics to attempt to prove the prevalence of woman-on-man violence are irrelevant anyway, since the army of people trying to minimize that that you are so bravely fighting against only exists in your own head. Stop trying to assign me the position of violence advocate.

I know you want to imagine you're some brave voice in the wilderness here, but when you're so desperate to have an opposing viewpoint to "fight" that you assign it to anyone just on the basis of their not advocating your pet cause loudly enough -- first that domestic violence organization you quoted, and then me -- that should be a signal that, whoops, you're making an ass out of yourself.

And where did I say that my cites were all published papers? * And what has that got to do with anything?

A valid study would be published. If you don't understand the publication and peer review process, go do some homework. Let me preempt your objection that I'm now only permitting citations of peer-reviewed articles -- I'm not. But you can pretty much be certain that something that tries to look like a real academic article but is not (since it's not published) has something seriously wrong with it, since people put articles together in order to publish them, both to add to their CVs and to contribute to the public debate on an issue. If they went to the trouble of putting together a paper but couldn't get it published even in a lower-reputation journal, that is a signal that there's serious problems with it, even if they're problems that are not discernible to people who are not experts in the field.

But you're niggling over whether my cites have been published as proof that I must somehow be incorrect?

Again, you're trying to claim that I said that woman-on-man violence is not a problem. I didn't say that. Jesus fucking Christ, get a damn clue. I know you love self-righteously inventing reasons to pretend to be some sort of brave crusader, but when you find yourself having to resort to these stupid strawmen, shouldn't that be a signal that maybe you're not able to rationally discuss the issue?

Frankly, if more societal issues were discussed as societal issues and not us-versus them, I expect a lot would get accomplished.

Then take the first step and shut the fuck up about this. You're so far from being able to discuss this rationally that the entire thread has consisted of you repeatedly trying to pretend that everyone else is callously ignoring the needs of men. That's exactly the us-versus-them bullshit you're claiming to not want.

* By the way, "71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women" does not equal "nor does it appear to even claim to establish much more than 'sometimes women are violent against men.'" In fact that means, "frequently women are violent against men."

Actually, no, it doesn't, and many of the statistics you have brought to bear don't actually advance your claim that woman-on-man violence is common. Reread the statistic slower if you need to. (And no, once again, to preempt this again, I take no position as to how common it is, because I'm not invested in your stupid gender war, so don't use this line to confirm your fantasy that I said that woman-on-man violence isn't common.)[/quote:hrnkevpe]
That sure is a lot of words to explain that you have not a single shred of actual evidence to refute anything I've said.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to fight a gender war, when in fact, I'm fighting a perception war. There is a difference, even if you are too thick to see it. I have repeatedly said this is an issue caused by both men and women which is relevant to both men and women; that the popular attitude that this is an issue only of bad men and abused women is wrong. Most everyone in this thread agrees with that sentiment, and if you took your eyes off your own navel for a second or two you might notice that I haven't been arguing with everyone in this thread. Just because you are not invested in this does not give you licence to announce from on high that no one else may feel strongly one way or the other about it.

Which raises another question: if by your own admission, you take no position and have no investment, why are you continuing to post, aside from a ham-handed attempt to derail any possible discussion? If you've got nothing worthwhile to contribute, why don't you go heed your own advice and "shut the fuck up?"

[Exy]

That sure is a lot of words to explain that you have not a single shred of actual evidence to refute anything I've said.

Since you can't come up with a real response, a politer thing to say would be, "Gee, Excalibur, I'm sorry I smeared you as well as that domestic violence advocacy group by suggesting you were minimizing the problem of woman-on-man violence. I shouldn't have done that."

Which raises another question: if by your own admission, you take no position and have no investment, why are you continuing to post, aside from a ham-handed attempt to derail any possible discussion? If you've got nothing worthwhile to contribute, why don't you go heed your own advice and "shut the fuck up?"

So, what, if I don't want to take the opposite position of yours, I'm not allowed to post in the thread? And I shouldn't say anything when you post a quote and then right beneath it make up a crazy lie about what it said?

Shit, you didn't even start this thread. Not only do you want to use it to advocate some half thought-out agenda, now you take it upon yourself to throw people out if they don't want to have exactly the discussion you want? And that discussion is what -- you want someone to stand up in defense of woman-on-man violence so you can shoot them down?

[dread pirate jimbo]

That sure is a lot of words to explain that you have not a single shred of actual evidence to refute anything I've said.

Since you can't come up with a real response, a politer thing to say would be, "Gee, Excalibur, I'm sorry I smeared you as well as that domestic violence advocacy group by suggesting you were minimizing the problem of woman-on-man violence. I shouldn't have done that."

Which raises another question: if by your own admission, you take no position and have no investment, why are you continuing to post, aside from a ham-handed attempt to derail any possible discussion? If you've got nothing worthwhile to contribute, why don't you go heed your own advice and "shut the fuck up?"

So, what, if I don't want to take the opposite position of yours, I'm not allowed to post in the thread? And I shouldn't say anything when you post a quote and then right beneath it make up a crazy lie about what it said?

Shit, you didn't even start this thread. Not only do you want to use it to advocate some half thought-out agenda, now you take it upon yourself to throw people out if they don't want to have exactly the discussion you want? And that discussion is what -- you want someone to stand up in defense of woman-on-man violence so you can shoot them down?

So quoting you to you is now being interpreted as me trying to throw you out? That's your most hilariously sad bit of spin doctoring yet.

[Exy]

You asked me why I'm continuing to post. I'm posting for the same reason as I was in my very first response to you. Why would I not continue to post? My advice that you refrain from continuing to embarrass yourself stands.

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

And you actually had to go back to some comment I made on a board I haven't posted to since February to back up your accusations of me over-reacting? Well, kudos to you for pulling out something that arcane -- I guess you have me pegged.

You say Excalibur doesn't need anyone to defend him, and yet you continue to do so. I'm not sure where you're going with that, but whatever.

And if you're mistaking this for me getting overly emotional, then you have no idea whatsoever what me getting emotional even looks like. You and Exy would have to work a whole lot harder to ilicit an emotional response from me.

Oh please don't flatter yourself that I "actually had to go back" and do anything. When I first started posting here I remembered you and your BS way of discussing things from the previous thread when you accused me of saying things I never said. I assumed that was a one-time thing and have interacted with you here as if it didn't happen. Now you're again making accusations without facts so I have to believe this is just how you discuss things. I didn't need to go digging to find anything. On the other hand YOU have yet to come forward with anything about what you accused me of nor have you withdrawn your accusation.

Are you dense? I'm not defending Exy at all. I am (and have been) continuing to discuss MY issue with YOU. Not Exy's, mine. Or is that just another of your weird deflect-and-misrepresent debate skills? Here's a clue, you repeating something doesn't make it true.

You have seriously fucked up ways in discussing subjects with people where you are actually AGREEING with them on the topic. I do not have an issue with the information you've posted, just your fucked up way of how you choose to defend it. Every time you respond, you illustrate my point even more.

[Exy]

I'm not defending Exy at all.

Well fuck you too!

You have seriously fucked up ways in discussing subjects with people where you are actually AGREEING with them on the topic. I do not have an issue with the information you've posted, just your fucked up way of how you choose to defend it. Every time you respond, you illustrate my point even more.

Yeah, that's the funny thing here, isn't it? My first post in this thread was to decry casual or humorous treatment of violence when it's women being violent towards men.

[Sleeps w/Butterflies]

No Exy, you believe that men should be allowed to abuse women. I DEMAND THAT YOU TAKE THAT POSITION SO WE CAN FIGHT!