Late night musings...shit be heavy yo

[Suited hippy]

Domestic violence against men is real, and does happen, but to say at an equal rate is ludicrous. 

 

"In 2013, the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that from a sample of 16,000 U.S. adults, 26% of homosexual men, 37.3% of bisexual men, and 29% of heterosexual men had been a victim of IPV, compared to 43.8% of lesbians, 61.1% of bisexual women and 35% of heterosexual women. Although the study found that lesbians experienced IPV at higher rates than heterosexual women, it did acknowledge that the majority of IPV perpetrated against both men and women was carried out by men. "

[Oramac]

Although the study found that lesbians experienced IPV at higher rates than heterosexual women, it did acknowledge that the majority of IPV perpetrated against both men and women was carried out by men. "

 

I'm not saying it isn't true, but this sentence doesn't make sense.  Regardless of who commits the IPV, by definition it has to be committed by an "Intimate Partner".  Which means that if "the majority of IPV perpetrated is carried out by men", a majority of those 43.8% of lesbians had to have intimate partners who were male.  

[StillWaters]

Because you are interpreting it incorrectly. It is saying that, out of ALL IPV cases, the majority of that grand total is carried out by men. Obviously, that "43.8% of lesbians" would not be part of that majority. 

[Mark D]

A couple people have mentioned thinning the mating pool by setting requirements.  That's exactly what you're SUPPOSED to do when looking for someone to spend your life with, ultimately you lower the number of potential partners to one.  If there's something that's important to you, you make sure a potential partner has that quality/feature/whatever.  For instance, as a Christian I wanted a Christian wife.  Friends told me I was limiting myself too much, but it was important to me.  Limiting the number of potential candidates isn't really a problem, I only wanted one.  Heck, my requirements were pretty tame compared to some.

 

If you want a woman who wants to be a stay-at-home wife/mother, then go for it.  Just make sure YOU'RE also bringing something to that party, for instance a job which will provide a standard of living that allows such a lifestyle.  

 

Still, based on the original post, finding a wife isn't where you're at right now, you have to find yourself first.  Figure yourself out, figure out what's important to you.  Once you know yourself it's a lot easier to figure out if someone else is compatible with you.  No one can do it for you, and to a large extent it's trial and error.  You think you want something, you get it, and you find it ain't what you expected.

 

I speak (write?  type?) from experience there.  Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, spent way too many years with the wrong woman because I hadn't figured myself out yet.  Perhaps one of the advantages of being middle-aged (and as I said above, I DO plan on living to be 102 years old).

[Oramac]

Because you are interpreting it incorrectly. It is saying that, out of ALL IPV cases, the majority of that grand total is carried out by men. Obviously, that "43.8% of lesbians" would not be part of that majority. 

 

That's fine.  But if that's the case, the sentence is irrelevant.  A majority of all IPV cases are carried out by men.  OK, I can follow that.  But then the first part of the sentence must stand alone.  Lesbians experience IPV more than Heterosexual women.  

[Suited hippy]

Consider as well: A lesbian who does not fully understand/accept her sexuality can be in a relationship, or even a marriage with a man, perhaps a man who initiates IPV. The woman then understands/accepts her sexuality, identifies as lesbian, and is surveyed in the group of 16,000 americans. The act of violence does not have to be in their current relationship, just in their life. 

[Rurik Harrgath]

[...] Basically, Im wondering what I, a 27 yo man in 2015 America, should aim to do as "a man". And what I mean by that is simple: what sort of man do you think it is best to be in this modern age? The supposed "traditional" male (protector/provider)? The "neutered" male (think gay friend without the gay part)? These hipsters Ive heard so much about? [...]

 

I guess to answer your question, as a man you ought to do whatever you want.  I pride myself on having been raised to be at least a partial gentleman, even if I've been left jaded and world-weary as a result of some of the awful behavior on behalf of both sexes.  In my experience the 'traditional male' is still very much in existence, but that isn't sensational or unusual enough for the media to report, and therefore goes unacknowledged.  I still wear plaid for its functional qualities, quality jeans that don't cost $100, know how to change my oil or a spare tire, and can build things with my hands from a coffee table to MacGuyvering a solution to many a problem.  It feels good to be handy, but that is a value I was raised with and something I pride myself in.  I grow out my beard.  I don't do any of the above to 'be a man' or be 'hip.'

 

I see "traditional" masculinity as dead in 21st century America- not because it is a bad thing, but because it is increasingly difficult to practice. The role of protector/provider (as delineated by The Myth of Male Power) is something increasingly being shared between the partners....that is, when people decide to get married at all. This is not a condemnation of people who choose not to marry, it is simply recognizing that the trend is to cohabitate for several years, usually ending in marriage only if children arrive (and children are often a very unwelcome surprise).

 

Despite what a few people have suggested here, and in the wider world of media (internet or otherwise), gender roles are still very much in flux at this point in time.  Sure, feminism gets a lot of press but the research I conducted in university for my gender classes in Sociology strongly suggest that the "feminazis" that get most of the dramatic attention are another example of a vocal minority.  It's true that women are coming into their own more than ever and a lot of the inequality that existed in workplaces and the home are eroding but it is also true that the (seemingly) majority still loosely follow the traditional gender roles that many of us were raised with.  You still see a majority of women taking maternity leave as opposed to men, there is still a minority of women in traditionally male-dominated labor-oriented careers, and stay-at-home fathers, while more prevalent than ever, is still yet another minority.

 

And in speaking to the phenomenon of increasing cohabitation, I checked the most recent US and Canadian census polls and both suggest that married cohabitation remains the norm with an overall two-thirds of couples.  The remaining third consists rising amounts of single parent, common law, and same sex homes.  So while the trend toward cohabitation over marriage as we know it is rising, it isn't the new status quo yet, and the same goes for pregnancy.  Birthrates are shown to be falling amongst twenty-somethings and yet rising amongst thirty-somethings.  The age of conception is changing, and the fertility rate is slowing, but vast majority of couples still hold to 'tradition' as we know it.

 

Add to that the growing "pressure" of the homosexual movement (yes, I firmly believe that people are being pressured into being, if not gay, at least bisexual in a bid to be more "tolerant")  and you have a society in which strong, virile men, those paragons of masculinity are reviled, if not outright mocked as "old-fashioned."

 

I have never once in my life heard of homosexual or bisexual being 'pressured' into their preferences (and the notion is offensive, to say the least), and I already commented on the remnant of the "paragons of masculinity."  Maybe in ultra-liberal, neo-hipster subarbs of major cities (I'm considering Portland, New York, et cetera here) is that trope vilified, but I can't find any source to suggest masculinity is mocked outside of marginalized subcultures that exist to set themselves apart.

 

But here is what really upsets me. Despite all the above, it is a biological fact (to the best of my knowledge) that women, despite the social conditioning, are wired to respond to the virile, domineering male over the simpering, pedistalizing "beta" (to borrow a term from the "manosphere"). Why is an easy fact of early evolution: you had to be strong to protect your mate- if you werent, you (and most likely she as well) would die, along with your children. Do I want to be the protector/provider? Yes, as that is how I was brought up. The problem, to bring this back full circle, is the young women of today are apparently all "bad ass bitches" who think that they can run around beating men at anything- including literal physical violence. Why would any man want that in his mate? It confuses and somewhat enrages me.

 

For starters it is not 'biological fact' that women are wired with a preference to "domineering male."  The only 'biological fact' that is relevant to your argument is that humans are programmed to procreate and survive.  While there is evidence suggesting a preference for virility (and even those indicators vary by society and culture), no two people are wired alike.  Nor is there anything wrong with being the Beta Male.  Current culture has a cult-like worship for the Alpha Male and a disdain for the 'Beta Nice Guy' because of nostalgia and media conditioning, but the reality is that almost every male is beta.  Take a wolf pack for example.  One alpha male and several beta males.  Unless you are a cutthroat CEO for a Fortune 500 company, a 'take no shit' Special Forces soldier, or Arnold Schwarzenegger, completely compelled to rise above and dominate your fellow men in order to procreate and thrive above all others, you likely aren't alpha.  I know I'm not Type A, nor Alpha, nor a "simpering, pedistalizing 'beta'."  I have no desire to be any of the above, nor are such titles all that relevant in today's society.

 

Be very careful when referencing the "manosphere."  While that blanket term encompasses fairly wholesome sites such as the Art of Manliness like others have mentioned, it is also home to the Return of Kings who advocate for a style of 'hook up culture' that borders on nonconsent, look down on anyone who isn't a 'jock player' with a prodigal black book, and despise the increasing equality for women.  Some of these sites I've seen don't exactly advocate for a type of man a mother and father would be proud of.

 

Others have done the work for me already and referenced the rates of Intimate Partner Violence and the statistics hardly support the notion that "all the young women of today are apparently all 'bad ass bitches'." 

 

Hopefully some of what I have provided challenges some of your preconceived notions.  It's a bit unfortunate that some of your opinions are likely shared amongst a lot of men who are feeling lost and de-masculinized in a culture that doesn't cater toward them as much as in older generations, but that's the world we live in.  I'm an existentialist and I believe that the only value or purpose to life is that which we prescribe to.  So do whatever makes you happy, be whatever kind of man you like to be, and find a partner that holds the same values as you and who will respect you for you.  There really isn't, nor has to be, much more to life than that.

[Oramac]

Consider as well: A lesbian who does not fully understand/accept her sexuality can be in a relationship, or even a marriage with a man, perhaps a man who initiates IPV. The woman then understands/accepts her sexuality, identifies as lesbian, and is surveyed in the group of 16,000 americans. The act of violence does not have to be in their current relationship, just in their life. 

 

OK, but if that's the case, the whole study is rendered invalid.  Were they to have done the exact same study with the exact same people before she identified as lesbian, the results would have been different.  And who knows how many other people in the study were/could have been in the same situation.

[StillWaters]

I think that feminism gets a bad rep from a few loud mouth extremists. Feminism is the idea that everyone should have the same legal and social rights regardless of gender. So all those people who paint men as unruly animals and ostracize women who choose traditionally feminine pursuits are not really feminists. They are assholes.

There is a concept called "toxic masculinity" and I believe it is part of the reason why so many boys and men are going through a sort of identity crisis. It is the idea that society's patriarchal culture defines what it is to be a "man" in a way that is so limited, that it causes psychological and emotional harm. This poem sums it up nicely:

OP, I think you should define "being a man" in a way that feels right for you and matches your personality. If that means being a provider and protector who wants to go earn money while your wife stays at home, go for it. There are plenty of women who will happily join you in your pursuit. However, there are plenty of other women, like myself, who would not be happy as homemakers. Some of us want to earn our own money, own businesses, become professional athletes, build/fix things, travel, call the shots, whatever, and that is perfectly ok. There are men who don't want to take up the protector/provider role as it is traditionally defined. There are those who prefer the type of woman previously described, and that is ok too. If you encounter one of these people, please respect the fact that they have different goals in life, and continue with your own business.

[Rurik Harrgath]

I also found this, which kind of remarks upon the "toxic masculinity" that StillWaters mentioned:

 

http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/03/toxic-alpha-male/

 

The Toxic Alpha Male, by Dr Nerd Love... a blog about dating and all sorts of other topics from a nerd perspective.  Right up most of our alleys!

[fortheplaid!]

Be whatever type of man you want to be just realize that you will limit your potential mate pool. 

 

I suppose I would fall into your "bad ass bitches" category. I make more money than my husband, I travel while he takes care of the home front (he works too, just closer to home), and he is definitely the sensitive one. I can even hunt and fish. With all that being said, I find masculinity more desirable than the current metro-sexual trend (using that for lack of a better way to state it). If my husband were to say, "quit your job and stay home to raise the kids," I would not. It has to do with not wanting to be dependent on anyone. That being said, I know a lot of women who are stay at home moms and I still fully respect them and their choices.

 

I would like to say that historically, the female gender role has already shifted so it makes sense that the male gender role would also shift. Good thing? bad thing? let's debate. A lot of your generation grew up with two working parents - that is their norm.

 

As a final note, if you are surrounding yourself with people who demean you for being male or advocate acceptance of female violence against men (dear god I hope not!), find new people to be around! Yeah, that's harsh - I meant it to be. Strength and confidence in yourself should not necessitate bringing anyone else down /off the soapbox

Jumping in very quickly here, just want to thank everyone for their thoughts/views, hope to see more down the line ^.^

Specifically for Sylvia (<------I know, wrong spelling): I have no problem with women earning more than men. I really dont. Merit should be rewarded no matter what type of sexual organs you possess (or dont, as the case may be). I also have no problem with stay at home fathers. I dont know why I have to keep reiterating this, but its NOT the shifting gender norms/roles that I object to. Its this attitude I see of hyperagression, from women towards men, that is completely unwarranted and should be inappropriate. Now let me be completely clear, Im not talking about sexual aggression. I am specifically refering to physical violence/intimidation, on the part of women, towards men, and society's, if not acceptance, at least tolerance of it (as shown by the unequal treatment of the genders by the police in cases of IPV). Even in the workplace, Ive had women threaten to hit me, whove said they could "kick my ass", and I just have to sit there and shake my head. Where does this attitude come from? Are they for real? Its mindboggling, but THAT is what I am refering to-not the ability to excel in the workplace.

 

As for the last part of your missive- sucks having an unsupportive family doesnt it? 

[TMedina]

What exactly is it that you do?  Specific job title, or general industry if you feel comfortable answering.  Mostly from idle curiosity.

 

Maybe you're just having a bad run of luck with the women in your workplace?  Particularly if it's not a job/career field where aggression is considered a plus.

 

As to why the women are being aggressive to you, or in general, I don't know.  Maybe they're just aggressive.  Maybe they think they have to be aggressive to be accepted by their peers and co-workers.  Maybe they're just bad folks - it has been known to happen from time to time, regardless of gender.

 

But I also don't get why you are particularly surprised by women displaying aggressive, even violent behaviors.  Men do it quite often, which is unfortunate, but also tends to get a pass from society as something expected from men which, in my opinion, is also wrong.  But that goes back to the arguments about gender roles, societal expectations, and so on.

[Sylvaa]

As for the last part of your missive- sucks having an unsupportive family doesnt it? 

 

As a parent, this makes me angry. Like hulk-smash angry (wait, does that fall into your aggression category?). My goals for my children are to be happy and healthy. If that means they are (fill in the blank with whatever you would like here - I'm going to go with Pittsburgh fans), then so be it.

 

We have a running joke in my family about my tendency towards violence - but it's just that a joke. If you'd like to hear the back story, I can tell you, but it's primarily due to clumsiness. It is interesting to hear you say that though, because I absolutely can see how it could be perceived by others as aggression. It is interesting to hear you talk about it happening at the workplace; I would never say anything like that to my co-workers (hello harassment suit!). I'm also wondering about the industry - but I do want to clarify that I don't think the industry justifies the action!

 

I wondered if your original post had to do with a bad relationship, but family dynamics would make sense too. I know that's why I went the whole gender roles route. I definitely needed the extra clarification.   I'd adopt you, but you are a little too old to pass as my child!

[Suited hippy]

OK, but if that's the case, the whole study is rendered invalid.  Were they to have done the exact same study with the exact same people before she identified as lesbian, the results would have been different.  And who knows how many other people in the study were/could have been in the same situation.

Could you expand on this a bit. I'm not understanding why a person changing their identified sexuality effects the validity of the study. 

 

---

 

And to Fortheplaid:

 

You know, Never once in my life have I come across people who have acted like that to me. Seems like you have a number of women accosting you.

 

"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole." -Raylan Givens

[fortheplaid!]

What exactly is it that you do?  Specific job title, or general industry if you feel comfortable answering.  Mostly from idle curiosity.

 

Maybe you're just having a bad run of luck with the women in your workplace?  Particularly if it's not a job/career field where aggression is considered a plus.

 

As to why the women are being aggressive to you, or in general, I don't know.  Maybe they're just aggressive.  Maybe they think they have to be aggressive to be accepted by their peers and co-workers.  Maybe they're just bad folks - it has been known to happen from time to time, regardless of gender.

 

But I also don't get why you are particularly surprised by women displaying aggressive, even violent behaviors.  Men do it quite often, which is unfortunate, but also tends to get a pass from society as something expected from men which, in my opinion, is also wrong.  But that goes back to the arguments about gender roles, societal expectations, and so on.

Because, frankly, aggression is associated with testosterone, the MALE sex hormone (yes women have it, but no where NEAR the levels that men do.) And its just so....unladylike. They may have no sexual interest in me at all, or in men at all, but that does NOT give them a pass to act like some bully simply on the (mistaken) belief that men wont (or at least shouldnt) ever hit a girl. 

 

Its the golden rule writ large frankly-treat others how you want to be treated. And if you want to act like a hyper agressive sociopath, guess what, Im going to treat you like one. And I dont treat threats to my safety lightly, regardless of what type of parts you have. 

 

Also in answer to your first question, Im in food service. So yea, not exactly an industry that rewards aggression.

[StillWaters]

Because, frankly, aggression is associated with testosterone, the MALE sex hormone (yes women have it, but no where NEAR the levels that men do.) And its just so....unladylike. They may have no sexual interest in me at all, or in men at all, but that does NOT give them a pass to act like some bully simply on the (mistaken) belief that men wont (or at least shouldnt) ever hit a girl. 

 

Its the golden rule writ large frankly-treat others how you want to be treated. And if you want to act like a hyper agressive sociopath, guess what, Im going to treat you like one. And I dont treat threats to my safety lightly, regardless of what type of parts you have. 

 

Also in answer to your first question, Im in food service. So yea, not exactly an industry that rewards aggression.

 

They are doing this for two reasons. One, because they associate aggression with strength. I've seen it too many times to count among my peers growing up and as an adult. A woman wants to show that she is strong and not to be messed with, so she resorts to physical threats and getting in people's face when it is completely unwarranted. Why? Because that is what media portrays when it wants to show that a character is large and in charge. Not to mention that its what they see a lot of men do, mostly for the same reason. The second reason is that they have never been called out on their bullshit. This is because the physical strength of women is not respected. Women are generally seen as too weak to be of any real threat, so our threats of bodily harm are not taken seriously. Again, look at what exists in the media. Every time a female character is violent toward a male character who is not a threat to her, its done as a joke: Ha ha, that male character just got his ass kicked by a female, lol, he's weak he's not a real man. This is also where the whole "men should never hit women" thing comes from.

 

Of course, there is always the possibility that the women on your job are acting that way simply because they have an aggressive personality (that went unchecked for the reason mentioned above). Yes, women can have aggressive personalities. Its not "unladylike", its being a douchebag, and people can be douchebags regardless of their gender identity. It would really benefit you to ditch the idea of "ladylike" and "unladylike" as this suggests that there are social behaviors that are more acceptable for a man to do than a woman and vice versa. Making threats against the safety of others is unacceptable for anyone to do. There really is no such thing as "ladylike" and "unladylike", there is only being a decent person and being an asshat.

[Hit]

It seems like you're shifting goalposts here, since you originally asked how do you "be a man" in modern society. But let's put your posts side by side for a second - 

 

 

 

The problem, to bring this back full circle, is the young women of today are apparently all "bad ass bitches" who think that they can run around beating men at anything- including literal physical violence. 

 

 

 

I have no problem giving respect to anyone, if you EARN it. What I bridle at is this unwritten (unspoken?) trend among modern women that because penis I am automatically beneath you, especially if I want to work and have you stay at home.

 

 

 

Its this attitude I see of hyperagression, from women towards men, that is completely unwarranted and should be inappropriate.

 

 

 

Because, frankly, aggression is associated with testosterone, the MALE sex hormone (yes women have it, but no where NEAR the levels that men do.) And its just so....unladylike.

 

So, you're coping shit at work from some 'bad-ass bitches' and you want to know why? I'd say it's more than a little bit likely to be a response to you walking around calling any woman who doesn't want to be dependent on a man 'unladylike' and spouting evo-psych and MRA talking points. In the real world much like in this thread, people are gonna call you on your bullshit. And if you're bullshit includes implying that they cant be strong, then strength is what they're gonna push back in your face. 

 

I wonder if you took this to your parents, or your manager, and they laughed at you being intimidated by these women and told you to "be a man" and take it? And that's why you're asking how to be a man in this scenario? If that's the case, your parents/manager are being sexist and sticking their heads in the sand alongside you. Being a man here just means being an adult - standing up for yourself and taking responsibility for the situation. 

[Mark D]

"The second reason is that they have never been called out on their bullshit. This is because the physical strength of women is not respected."

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence, and not so much with the second.

 

They don't get called out because there's no way for a man to "win" that altercation. If he hits her (even hits her BACK in self defense) he's a brute who beats women.  If he doesn't hit her back, he just got beat up by a woman.  The only thing he can do is walk away (and probably be considered a coward who's afraid of being beat up by a woman).  

 

A number of years ago I had a "bad assed bitch" who considered herself an expert kick-boxer try to hit me in the face.  No, it wasn't in  a gym, it was in a bar, and for her part alcohol was involved.   I just caught her fist in my left hand like I was catching a baseball, and the force of her punch pushed her backward without moving me.  I had over 100 pounds on her, so physics was in my favor.  I saw the light go on in her eye, the full knowledge that she was in way over her head, and she sobered up pretty quick.  I don't know for sure, but I suspect she had a male trainer who usually let such blows get thru, he was after all being paid to make her feel good about herself so she'd come back for more training (for which she would continue to pay).  I was probably the first guy she'd ever tried to hit who wasn't willing to BE hit.  I hope she realized later that, had I been a different type of man, she'd have wound up in the emergency room.  I should have sent her a bill for the important lesson she learned that day.  Either that or she tried it again with someone who didn't have my sweet and sunny disposition and got the ass-kicking she was looking for.

 

And no, I don't consider her behavior particularly unladylike except insofar as it would be ungentlemanly if a man did it, she was an asshole from the ears up and all the way down.  My point is that she got away with it (with me at least, and probably with other men) because she was a woman.  If she'd been a man she'd have been picking up her teeth.

 

 

[Sylvaa]

Also in answer to your first question, Im in food service. So yea, not exactly an industry that rewards aggression.

 

I'm going to argue this - sure if you are on the waitstaff, aggression doesn't go over well; but it's another story if you are in the kitchen.

 

Kitchens are notoriously sexist and inappropriate (okay at least the ones I've been in!). Male chefs dominate the landscape of high end kitchens - an irony in and of itself in a "woman's" domain. However aggressive behavior is seen as a highly sought after skill in a head chef. You can research this to confirm or deny; I had a whole list and my entire post disappeared. /madface.

 

So if you are part of the waitstaff, you may be seeing aggressive women trying to steal your tables. If you are part of the kitchen you may be seeing aggressive women trying to prove they are capable of running the kitchen.

 

I've lost the jump from your first post (in regards to supporting your wife) to here (in regards to dealing with aggression in the workforce). 

[Oramac]

Could you expand on this a bit. I'm not understanding why a person changing their identified sexuality effects the validity of the study. 

 

Sorry for the delay.  Sure can.  

 

Consider Amy (random name picked out of thin air for example): She used to identify as hetero, and in May of 2011 she "found herself" and from then on identified as lesbian.  

 

Now, I don't know the exact date of the study, but for this example assume it was conducted AFTER May of 2011.  Also, to keep the math simpler, instead of 16,000 people, let's just say 100 people.  We know from the survey that ~48% of lesbians said they'd experienced IPV, so in our example that's 48 women, of which Amy is one.  No problem.  

 

But now, assume the study was conducted BEFORE May of 2011, when Amy identified as hetero.  The same 100 people are surveyed, except this time Amy states that she is hetero, which takes her out of the pool of lesbians and puts her in the pool of hetero women.  Thus, in our example, it would reduce the number of lesbian women who have experienced IPV to 47, or 47% of those surveyed.  

 

So, if it was conducted before Amy identified as lesbian, 47% of lesbian respondents would have experienced IPV, whereas if it were conducted after Amy identified as lesbian, 48% of lesbian respondents experienced IPV.   Therefore, the results are flawed.  

 

The only thing that could bring it back to relevance is if every single respondent answered using their sexual orientation at the time IPV was committed.  

[Hit]

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence, and not so much with the [because the strength of women is not respected].

 

but then!

 

 

 

I just caught her fist in my left hand like I was catching a baseball, and the force of her punch pushed her backward without moving me.  I had over 100 pounds on her, so physics was in my favor.  I saw the light go on in her eye, the full knowledge that she was in way over her head

 

and further 

 

 

 

I was probably the first guy she'd ever tried to hit who wasn't willing to BE hit. 

 

and lastly 

 

 

 

I should have sent her a bill for the important lesson she learned that day. 

 

are all examples of you not respecting her strength. if you'd feared that her strikes may hurt you, you probably would have defended yourself, struck back, "put her in the emergency room" or what have you. that's a clear example of you not respecting the strength of women, whether they're weaker than you or not. it's the exact societal bullshit stillwaters mentioned.

[StillWaters]

"The second reason is that they have never been called out on their bullshit. This is because the physical strength of women is not respected."

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence, and not so much with the second.

 

They don't get called out because there's no way for a man to "win" that altercation. If he hits her (even hits her BACK in self defense) he's a brute who beats women.  If he doesn't hit her back, he just got beat up by a woman.  The only thing he can do is walk away (and probably be considered a coward who's afraid of being beat up by a woman).  

 

A number of years ago I had a "bad assed bitch" who considered herself an expert kick-boxer try to hit me in the face.  No, it wasn't in  a gym, it was in a bar, and for her part alcohol was involved.   I just caught her fist in my left hand like I was catching a baseball, and the force of her punch pushed her backward without moving me.  I had over 100 pounds on her, so physics was in my favor.  I saw the light go on in her eye, the full knowledge that she was in way over her head, and she sobered up pretty quick.  I don't know for sure, but I suspect she had a male trainer who usually let such blows get thru, he was after all being paid to make her feel good about herself so she'd come back for more training (for which she would continue to pay).  I was probably the first guy she'd ever tried to hit who wasn't willing to BE hit.  I hope she realized later that, had I been a different type of man, she'd have wound up in the emergency room.  I should have sent her a bill for the important lesson she learned that day.  Either that or she tried it again with someone who didn't have my sweet and sunny disposition and got the ass-kicking she was looking for.

 

And no, I don't consider her behavior particularly unladylike except insofar as it would be ungentlemanly if a man did it, she was an asshole from the ears up and all the way down.  My point is that she got away with it (with me at least, and probably with other men) because she was a woman.  If she'd been a man she'd have been picking up her teeth.

 

 

 

Do you understand that everything stated in this post actually proves my point?

 

You state that a man who is physically threatened by a woman finds himself in a catch-22 situation. If he takes her threat seriously and fights her in self defense and wins, society labels him a brute. If he loses, society ostracizes him for getting beat up by a woman. If he walks away, he is labeled a coward. 

 

You claim it is because its a woman involved in the fight. OK, why? What is it about women that causes society to make fun of men for losing, and labeled a brute for winning?

 

The answer of course is that the physical strength of women is not respected, because if it was, people would acknowledge that even though the average man is stronger, a woman can still cause serious damage whether it is with her bare hands or by pragmatic use of her surroundings. Then it would be neither horrible for a man to win against her nor embarrassing to lose to her, because people would understand that she has the potential to re-arrange his face.

[kaelvan]

I can give you an example not to be...Chris Brown

[fortheplaid!]

I can give you an example not to be...Chris Brown

Ok maybe this makes me a bad person but I cracked up at that one. And yea, Im definitely not Chris Brown....

[fortheplaid!]

 

 

Do you understand that everything stated in this post actually proves my point?

 

You state that a man who is physically threatened by a woman finds himself in a catch-22 situation. If he takes her threat seriously and fights her in self defense and wins, society labels him a brute. If he loses, society ostracizes him for getting beat up by a woman. If he walks away, he is labeled a coward. 

 

You claim it is because its a woman involved in the fight. OK, why? What is it about women that causes society to make fun of men for losing, and labeled a brute for winning?

 

The answer of course is that the physical strength of women is not respected, because if it was, people would acknowledge that even though the average man is stronger, a woman can still cause serious damage whether it is with her bare hands or by pragmatic use of her surroundings. Then it would be neither horrible for a man to win against her nor embarrassing to lose to her, because people would understand that she has the potential to re-arrange his face.

Because women are the protected sex, and men are the disposable sex. And Id really love to know what you ladies (miss korra and our resident lioness) would propose we (as in men) should do if we're faced with that situation-do we "respect her strength", treat her like a threat (this is all contingent on her being the aggressor, for whatever reason), defend our bodily integrity and go to jail? Let me bold this so Im clear......

 

 

IN YOUR PERFECT SOCIETY, IN WHICH EVERYONE IS TREATED EQUAL AND GIVEN EQUAL RESPECT, IF A WOMAN ATTACKS A MAN FOR NO REASON, WHO GOES TO JAIL, THE ASSAILANT OR THE VICTIM?