Tor SR Thidesen wrote:
Because women are delicate little flowers? Like shit they are.
So tell me about your mother Tor.
Sep 10 2010 18:05
Sep 10 2010 22:10
Tor SR Thidesen wrote:
So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater?? Because women are delicate little flowers? Like shit they are.
If you go around kicking people for being "assholes," your macho thug posturing doesn't even deserve a response.
Sep 10 2010 22:13
Tor SR Thidesen wrote:
So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater??
This is a fair question I think. I don't know the answer to it.
Sep 10 2010 23:17
No but beating up your wife on a regular basis and going on long drunken diatribes about how ALL women are whores etc etc etc probably suggests some sort of women hating tendencies don't yer think?
Sep 10 2010 23:25
Hughes wrote:
Tor SR Thidesen wrote:
So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater??This is a fair question I think. I don't know the answer to it.
Are you serious? Jesus fuck. Most women do not have the same body weight and physical strength as most men, ergo it is not a fair fucking fight, you dipshits.
Sep 10 2010 23:43
Hughes wrote:
Tor SR Thidesen wrote:
So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater??This is a fair question I think. I don't know the answer to it.
Who would even ask this question, other than someone already with an interest in hitting women?
Sep 10 2010 23:46
Nah, it's just liberal correctness on its head.
Sep 10 2010 23:47
Sensitive veganarchist defying patriarchal norms:
Sep 10 2010 23:51
mateofthebloke wrote:
Hughes wrote:
Tor SR Thidesen wrote:
So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater??This is a fair question I think. I don't know the answer to it.
Are you serious? Jesus fuck. Most women do not have the same body weight and physical strength as most men, ergo it is not a fair fucking fight, you dipshits.
But men of unequal sizes fight all the time.
Sep 10 2010 23:56
Hughes wrote:
mateofthebloke wrote:
Hughes wrote:
Tor SR Thidesen wrote:
So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater??This is a fair question I think. I don't know the answer to it.
Are you serious? Jesus fuck. Most women do not have the same body weight and physical strength as most men, ergo it is not a fair fucking fight, you dipshits.
But men of unequal sizes fight all the time.
Most men are 10-15% larger than most women. And approx. 30% physically stronger, especially on the upper body. So it is nothing like "men of unequal sizes fighting each other" unless the inequality is pretty staggering, in which case, it is not a fair fucking fight.
Ffs the stuff that passes for moral dilemmas around here. 
Sep 10 2010 23:59
mateofthebloke wrote:
Hughes wrote:
mateofthebloke wrote:
Hughes wrote:
Tor SR Thidesen wrote:
So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater??This is a fair question I think. I don't know the answer to it.
Are you serious? Jesus fuck. Most women do not have the same body weight and physical strength as most men, ergo it is not a fair fucking fight, you dipshits.
But men of unequal sizes fight all the time.
Most men are 10-15% larger than most women. And approx. 30% physically stronger, especially on the upper body. So it is nothing like "men of unequal sizes fighting each other" unless the inequality is pretty staggering, in which case, it is not a fair fucking fight.
Ffs the stuff that passes for moral dilemmas around here. :(
So you'd have no problem with a man hitting a woman of the same strength and weight if he'd hit a man in the same situation?
Sep 11 2010 00:00
Hughes wrote:
mateofthebloke wrote:
Hughes wrote:
mateofthebloke wrote:
Hughes wrote:
Tor SR Thidesen wrote:
So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater??This is a fair question I think. I don't know the answer to it.
Are you serious? Jesus fuck. Most women do not have the same body weight and physical strength as most men, ergo it is not a fair fucking fight, you dipshits.
But men of unequal sizes fight all the time.
Most men are 10-15% larger than most women. And approx. 30% physically stronger, especially on the upper body. So it is nothing like "men of unequal sizes fighting each other" unless the inequality is pretty staggering, in which case, it is not a fair fucking fight.
Ffs the stuff that passes for moral dilemmas around here. :(So you'd have no problem with a man hitting a woman of the same strength and weight if he'd hit a man in the same situation?
Clearly some women fight men their own strength and size all the time in professional sports like karate, judo etc. So no, I wouldn't.
Sep 11 2010 00:02
Tor SR Thidesen wrote:
So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater?.
You'd hit people just because their basic values are arseholeishness? Surely in a utopia we should all be what we want to be? Oppressor!
Sep 11 2010 00:04
mateofthebloke wrote:
Hughes wrote:
mateofthebloke wrote:
Hughes wrote:
mateofthebloke wrote:
Hughes wrote:
Tor SR Thidesen wrote:
So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater??This is a fair question I think. I don't know the answer to it.
Are you serious? Jesus fuck. Most women do not have the same body weight and physical strength as most men, ergo it is not a fair fucking fight, you dipshits.
But men of unequal sizes fight all the time.
Most men are 10-15% larger than most women. And approx. 30% physically stronger, especially on the upper body. So it is nothing like "men of unequal sizes fighting each other" unless the inequality is pretty staggering, in which case, it is not a fair fucking fight.
Ffs the stuff that passes for moral dilemmas around here. :(So you'd have no problem with a man hitting a woman of the same strength and weight if he'd hit a man in the same situation?
Clearly some women fight men their own strength and size all the time in professional sports like karate, judo etc. So no, I wouldn't.
OK, because from my slightly inebriated position, it would seem almost anti-feminist not to in the aforementioned situation. *Kind of kidding
Sep 11 2010 00:05
The point is, Hughes, that nearly 100% of domestic violence occurs between profoundly unequal parties. Indeed the inequality (and consequently the power trip for the superior party, which is invariably the man) is what makes it possible.
Sep 11 2010 00:09
mateofthebloke wrote:
The point is, Hughes, that nearly 100% of domestic violence occurs between profoundly unequal parties.
Agreed.
EDIT: Random question. Didn't Betty Friedan and her husband go at it physically all the time?
Sep 11 2010 00:14
Hughes wrote:
mateofthebloke wrote:
Hughes wrote:
mateofthebloke wrote:
Hughes wrote:
Tor SR Thidesen wrote:
So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater??This is a fair question I think. I don't know the answer to it.
Are you serious? Jesus fuck. Most women do not have the same body weight and physical strength as most men, ergo it is not a fair fucking fight, you dipshits.
But men of unequal sizes fight all the time.
Most men are 10-15% larger than most women. And approx. 30% physically stronger, especially on the upper body. So it is nothing like "men of unequal sizes fighting each other" unless the inequality is pretty staggering, in which case, it is not a fair fucking fight.
Ffs the stuff that passes for moral dilemmas around here. :(So you'd have no problem with a man hitting a woman of the same strength and weight if he'd hit a man in the same situation?
This is an improper way of phrasing the issue. Physical violence against women is directly linked to the general economic violence perpetrated against women throughout capitalist society. You cannot reduce the issue to some isolated "if two people hit each other... and their respective genders are..." because such a scenario does not exist in capitalist social relations. We could entertain ourselves with the abstraction that, given a situation of absolute equality in all other things, only body mass indexes count in our characterization. However, we obviously do not live in an equitable society and I find this liberal moralism to be a moot point.
Women are more vulnerable in capitalist society than men are, this is a fact constantly reflected in the average salaries, differential cultural expectations, etc. This means that most physical violence against women (and all those directly targeted by economic violence) is between parties of vastly different strengths--whether this be physical or economic. Of course this should not be misconstrued to say that "men" are privileged in any meaningful sense, in capitalist domination the working class' capacity to consume its own is a very powerful weapon.
Sep 11 2010 00:21
Sheldon wrote:
Of course this should not be misconstrued to say that "men" are privileged in any meaningful sense
Men clearly are privileged in a patriarchal society; that does not negate the existence of classes, and it does not mean that male workers have more in common with their male bosses than with their female fellow workers. Feminism doesn't have to mean the kind of man-hating liberal shite you're thinking of. It can, and has historically, taken class lines (Mujeres Libres). Just like racism is used by the bosses to drive a wedge between workers by giving whites a series of privileges (better pay, better housing) that blacks don't have access to, so does sexism drive a wedge between male and female workers by privileging the former (in much the same way as in the case of racism). These are not privileges that cross class boundaries, but they are there, and we should acknowledge them. It's not that women are "more vulnerable" (frankly I think that is condescending tripe), it's that they are actively and intentionally kept on a lower standard of living than men by the boss class.
Sep 11 2010 00:43
Sheldon wrote:
Hughes wrote:
mateofthebloke wrote:
Hughes wrote:
mateofthebloke wrote:
Hughes wrote:
Tor SR Thidesen wrote:
So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater??This is a fair question I think. I don't know the answer to it.
Are you serious? Jesus fuck. Most women do not have the same body weight and physical strength as most men, ergo it is not a fair fucking fight, you dipshits.
But men of unequal sizes fight all the time.
Most men are 10-15% larger than most women. And approx. 30% physically stronger, especially on the upper body. So it is nothing like "men of unequal sizes fighting each other" unless the inequality is pretty staggering, in which case, it is not a fair fucking fight.
Ffs the stuff that passes for moral dilemmas around here. :(So you'd have no problem with a man hitting a woman of the same strength and weight if he'd hit a man in the same situation?
This is an improper way of phrasing the issue. Physical violence against women is directly linked to the general economic violence perpetrated against women throughout capitalist society. You cannot reduce the issue to some isolated "if two people hit each other... and their respective genders are..." because such a scenario does not exist in capitalist social relations. We could entertain ourselves with the abstraction that, given a situation of absolute equality in all other things, only body mass indexes count in our characterization. However, we obviously do not live in an equitable society and I find this liberal moralism to be a moot point.
Women are more vulnerable in capitalist society than men are, this is a fact constantly reflected in the average salaries, differential cultural expectations, etc. This means that most physical violence against women (and all those directly targeted by economic violence) is between parties of vastly different strengths--whether this be physical or economic. Of course this should not be misconstrued to say that "men" are privileged in any meaningful sense, in capitalist domination the working class' capacity to consume its own is a very powerful weapon.
all this shit is absolute superfluous, it's not alright to go around throwing your weight around against women or men because you simply deem them to be assholes, it doesn't matter if they are men or women, only macho bullying assholes get on like that.
The fact that this violence is generally backed up by a power imbalance either physical, emotionally or economically should come as no surprise considering it's generally the actions of bullying pricks.
Sep 11 2010 00:47
also the idea that violence against women taboo is rooted in concern for social inequalities is bullshit, it was and continues to be rooted in patronising notions of pure delicate flowers, about excluding women from certain activities and also the fact that women were historically seen as property and so whilst it was okay for their husbands or fathers to hit them as a means of 'discipline' another man may not.
Sep 11 2010 00:50
mateofthebloke wrote:
Sheldon wrote:
Of course this should not be misconstrued to say that "men" are privileged in any meaningful senseMen clearly are privileged in a patriarchal society; that does not negate the existence of classes, and it does not mean that male workers have more in common with their male bosses than with their female fellow workers. Feminism doesn't have to mean the kind of man-hating liberal shite you're thinking of. It can, and has historically, taken class lines (Mujeres Libres). Just like racism is used by the bosses to drive a wedge between workers by giving whites a series of privileges (better pay, better housing) that blacks don't have access to, so does sexism drive a wedge between male and female workers by privileging the former (in much the same way as in the case of racism). These are not privileges that cross class boundaries, but they are there, and we should acknowledge them. It's not that women are "more vulnerable" (frankly I think that is condescending tripe), it's that they are actively and intentionally kept on a lower standard of living than men by the boss class.
I agree with you and perhaps my way of phrasing it isn't as clear as it could be. I don't think to describe certain groups as "more vulnerable" is necessarily condescending though, although it certainly could be meant that way. Of course immigrant agricultural labor is "more vulnerable" than civil service unionized labor in the United States. I don't think this is a statement of condescension.
My problem with the discourse of privilege is that too often it is a keyword in activistoid circles to ape the New Left/Marcusian accusations of "privileged" workers (or groups) being unable to develop revolutionary consciousness. This may reflect a rhetorical framework more prevalent in the United States, however.
Sep 11 2010 00:52
revol68 wrote:
also the idea that violence against women taboo is rooted in concern for social inequalities is bullshit, it was and continues to be rooted in patronising notions of pure delicate flowers, about excluding women from certain activities and also the fact that women were historically seen as property and so whilst it was okay for their husbands or fathers to hit them as a means of 'discipline' another man may not.
I wish I could communicate the way Revol can. This is the point I was trying to make. Whether it's correct or not is another story
Sep 11 2010 00:55
Sheldon your problem is that you haven't engaged with the specific issue and instead fudged it with talk of generalised trends.
I mean if you got slapped around the head by a 200lb female cop would it be wrong to smack her back?
Sep 11 2010 01:06
revol68 wrote:
also the idea that violence against women taboo is rooted in concern for social inequalities is bullshit, it was and continues to be rooted in patronising notions of pure delicate flowers, about excluding women from certain activities and also the fact that women were historically seen as property and so whilst it was okay for their husbands or fathers to hit them as a means of 'discipline' another man may not.
And yet, nowhere did I say that violence against men (or violence in general) is something to be on the whole agreeable. Just that it's more complex than that. Of course much of the moralism in opposition to violence against women comes from the lofty towers of bourgeois patronization, does this mean then that the instances of direct violence against women are somehow an affront to this moral system? Of course not. It is part and parcel of it. Of course, I don't think this is a universal characteristic--violence changes its nature with the ebbs and flows of class struggle. Class violence more so. As an example, in Greece 2008 there was plenty of violence from and against men and women! However, in the case of domestic violence there certainly is a qualifiable difference. I'm just suggesting that there needs to be more analysis about this difference, which I think is directly rooted in social inequalities.
Edit:
Quote:
Sheldon your problem is that you haven't engaged with the specific issue and instead fudged it with talk of generalised trends.
I mean if you got slapped around the head by a 200lb female cop would it be wrong to smack her back?
A rhetorical error I'm constantly accused of, so apologies if sometimes I say things that seem confusing. As to your second point, of course not. It's not an ideal category for me, I just think that most instances of violence against women (and specifically in the context as it was discussed in this thread; throwing wine glasses, calling them whores) are expressions of social inequalities.
Sep 11 2010 01:03
also arguments that you shouldn't hit any women because on average they are smaller etc is really sketchy shit, people shouldn't be judged against some fucking retarded 'average', otherwise would we put a blanket ban on women from doing physical jobs. Or if we found that men on average were less good at caring roles would we put a blanket ban on them from becoming nurses?
Sep 11 2010 01:07
revol68 wrote:
also arguments that you shouldn't hit any women because on average they are smaller etc is really sketchy shit, people shouldn't be judged against some fucking retarded 'average', otherwise would we put a blanket ban on women from doing physical jobs. Or if we found that men on average were less good at caring roles would we put a blanket ban on them from becoming nurses?
Doing a "physical job" is not the same as being in a fight. And it is not about averages; it is an anatomical fact that women have a different body size and musculature than men. A "200 lb female cop" is not an exception to that.
Sep 11 2010 01:09
Sheldon wrote:
revol68 wrote:
also the idea that violence against women taboo is rooted in concern for social inequalities is bullshit, it was and continues to be rooted in patronising notions of pure delicate flowers, about excluding women from certain activities and also the fact that women were historically seen as property and so whilst it was okay for their husbands or fathers to hit them as a means of 'discipline' another man may not.And yet, nowhere did I say that violence against men (or violence in general) is something to be on the whole agreeable. Just that it's more complex than that. Of course much of the moralism in opposition to violence against women comes from the lofty towers of bourgeois patronization, does this mean then that the instances of direct violence against women are somehow an affront to this moral system? Of course not. It is part and parcel of it. Of course, I don't think this is a universal characteristic--violence changes its nature with the ebbs and flows of class struggle. Class violence more so. As an example, in Greece 2008 there was plenty of violence from and against men and women! However, in the case of domestic violence there certainly is a qualifiable difference. I'm just suggesting that there needs to be more analysis about this difference, which I think is directly rooted in social inequalities.
Ofcourse there are these inequalities and ofcourse it plays into differences between violence towards men and women but in truth the notion that the taboo of hitting women stems from an awareness and desire to remove these inequalities is simply nonsense as it is actively part of the ideological disempowerment and infantilisation of women and their domestication as property.
Sep 11 2010 01:13
mateofthebloke wrote:
revol68 wrote:
also arguments that you shouldn't hit any women because on average they are smaller etc is really sketchy shit, people shouldn't be judged against some fucking retarded 'average', otherwise would we put a blanket ban on women from doing physical jobs. Or if we found that men on average were less good at caring roles would we put a blanket ban on them from becoming nurses?Doing a "physical job" is not the same as being in a fight. And it is not about averages; it is an anatomical fact that women have a different body size and musculature than men. A "200 lb female cop" is not an exception to that.
Okay so no woman could ever be physically bigger or more 'fit' for fighting than a man? What patronising shit that seeks to reify differences between the sexes.
What bollox?
Also a 200lb cop is an exception cos she is a fucking cop and is as welcome to a brick in the face as any man cop.
Sep 11 2010 01:17
revol68 wrote:
mateofthebloke wrote:
revol68 wrote:
also arguments that you shouldn't hit any women because on average they are smaller etc is really sketchy shit, people shouldn't be judged against some fucking retarded 'average', otherwise would we put a blanket ban on women from doing physical jobs. Or if we found that men on average were less good at caring roles would we put a blanket ban on them from becoming nurses?Doing a "physical job" is not the same as being in a fight. And it is not about averages; it is an anatomical fact that women have a different body size and musculature than men. A "200 lb female cop" is not an exception to that.
Okay so no woman could ever be physically bigger or more 'fit' for fighting than a man?
I already stated above that women do fight male opponents as part of martial arts sports, but in such a situation the man is clearly chosen so as to even out the natural anatomical differences between men and women. So yes it is perfectly possible for a woman to be as fit if not more so than a man. But again, that does not negate the fact that there are fundamental differences in body structure that make it highly unlikely that in a fight between a random man and a random woman both opponents will be of equal strength and size. Not that domestic violence has much to do with any of this shit, so I don't know why the fuck we're talking about this.
Quote:
Also a 200lb cop is an exception cos she is a fucking cop and is as welcome to a brick in the face as any man cop.
Why would you mention her weight if the only thing you were drawing attention to was her being a cop? Why not a 60 lb cop?
Can comment on articles and discussions
if you hit a woman, however tough or delicate she may be, I'd hope you'd get beat down for it.