Monday, September 21, 2015
Basically, in a lot of domestic violence cases, the violence is both ways. I am assuming we agree that in most cases, the man who does hit the woman first does so not literally for no reason (like, woman these eggs are overcooked *bam*); it's not the fucking 1850's, alright? It's usually during an argument. Heated argument. And what do women do during arguments? Insult. Demean. Chastise. Belittle. Provoke. Threaten. Mock.
Insult. Demean. Chastise. Belittle. Provoke. Threaten. Mock.......wait, if a man did that to a woman in their relationship, wouldn't people say that man was an emotional abuser? So isn't what these women are doing actually emotional abuse? Now, you might say that hitting is not justified as a response. I mean, it's HITTING, right? The thing is though, and this where I may lose people, say you slap someone in the face. What actually happens? Their face stings. They may feel afraid. Or enraged. Or ashamed. What's the person being emotionally abused feeling? They may feel afraid. Or enraged. Or ashamed.*
The only real difference is the stinging face, right? So you can do all that shit to people and it's okay, just don't make their face sting?
But how do you stop someone who won't stop emotionally abusing you? What if it went on and on and on? They followed you from room to room? Just refusing to leave you alone. Why can't you make their face hurt for a minute to make them stop? Are you just supposed to take it? Leave your own house? And why is she being portrayed as an innocent victim? That sounds to me like discrimination in favour of women to me.
I'm not saying it's okay to hit a wom- oh wait, I guess I am?
But am I right?
*There`s a difference between thinking things out/asking question and defending or promoting something, so save the over the top angry comments/accusations, etc. I've never hit a female and I really couldn't see myself doing so despite what I am saying. I'm not much of a fan of hitting anybody; what I am a fan of however, is dissecting common ideas and logic testing them.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
It's ignorance of human biology.
We men (and women, but the focus for now is on men) all have a biologically imposed need for sex and the objects of said need are going to be largely the same (ie, 'hot girls') as the 'hot ones' are the ones that bear the indicators of good genetic material. You know, youth, symmetry, health, hip to waist ratio, etc*(see below). These guys don't lust after these girls because they think of them as objects that they have a right to; they lust after them because millennia of evolutionary imperatives compel them to. This is exactly the same type of compulsion that drives women to want to feel safe and protected with their man. Are these women viewing men as security objects? Oh, what's that? "That's different?" Okay, explain how without just implying that sex is somehow less valid a need than security.
Want a hint? Either we all view one another as objects (because we ALL want certain things from someone else) or none of us do and it's all a part of life. You don't get to pick and choose which needs are 'okay' and which needs are 'objectifying' people. Doing that is simply sexism; ironically the very charge you're levying against the guys for wanting sex (which you do too, right?).
Look, snarkiness aside, all guys want sex; the only difference is the Elliot Rodgers' of the world never get their urges satiated. Year after year of this resulting in them becoming enraged after years of frustration is understandable and NOT a symptom of rampant misogyny. It's simply frustrated biological urges manifesting in a terrible, terrible way.
The real answer is not gun control, blogging about rape culture or any of that other nonsense: It's education, better communication in our society regarding sex and relationships, a removal of the stigma against male sex toys and legalized and affordable prostitution for guys who cannot get laid but really need to. You'll never get rid of the urges, nor can you change the fact that some guys will never get said urges satiated. So what you do is allow them to legally and safely satiate those urges, thereby allowing it to be done without harming another person.
You'll never get guys to stop lusting after women. And to think if you just educate them about "women not being objects" they will stop feeling this way is really missing the point. If you think you can condition this into them then logically you could condition the girls to be into the guys they aren't into, right? I mean, men aren't objects and maybe that nerd is an excellent person- if only she could get past her culturally induced ideas about what is attractive, right?
Oh, what's that? Suddenly biology is a factor?
Make up your damn minds!
I'll end this with this thought: Even if he did view women as "objects" how did those women view him? As nothing. would you rather be sexualized or totally ignored?
*Right here is where the 'women as objects crowd' will get all excited and say "see! he's talking about them like they are objects as well." Here's something you all need to hear, so listen up: People have physical characteristics and it is these characteristics upon which they are judged by men when it comes to sexuality. This is much in the same way as THOSE SAME GIRLS JUDGE THE GUYS AS NOT BEING 'WORTHY' OF SEX. Either both sides are objectifying the other, or neither is. Pick one but stop putting the onus on the guys only. As i pointed out above, if you want to talk about sexism, it's actually here in this area, and it's against men. Women categorize men all day long but anytime they feel like a guy might be categorizing them suddenly there's an epidemic of men viewing women like they are pieces of non sentient meat.