Author: has written 5251 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

280 Responses

  1. Thlayli
    Thlayli June 26, 2007 at 4:30 pm |

    The (generally fishwrap-worthy) New York Post is promoting “animal husbandry”.

  2. Alex, FCD
    Alex, FCD June 26, 2007 at 4:31 pm |

    Chances are I’d have voted for a bullet for them both. These sort of vermin are why our society is turning into a cesspool.

    I hate it when people overuse the word ‘fascist’.

    Fuck this fascist.

    I need a hug.

  3. Lloyd Webber
    Lloyd Webber June 26, 2007 at 4:35 pm |

    Wow…They’re not even trying to hide their unabashed hatred of women and people of color are they, especially Black men, are they? I can’t say I’m surprised, but I am sickened and disheartened.

  4. ksfeminist
    ksfeminist June 26, 2007 at 4:40 pm |

    This just makes me want to cry. Every time I get close to thinking, “Hey, the world’s getting a bit better”, something comes along to prove me wrong.

  5. ekf
    ekf June 26, 2007 at 4:44 pm |

    Don’t give me any shit about how a crime like this horrid murder is a surprise to you. It was as predictable as a sunset

    I wasn’t surprised at all…that a man who thinks he is entitled to use multiple women for his own sexual gratification and leave the women to deal with the consequences of his actions would end up murdering a woman who became inconvenient to him. I wasn’t surprised at all…that another woman would die at the hands of the man who shared her bed, or that he would kill her while pregnant. So, uh, not at all surprised, but not because Jessie was a “slut” — because yet another man feels entitled to murder yet another woman and child he found inconvenient.

    Those commenters are really hideous pieces of hate-filled work. Reading their racist misogyny is profoundly depressing. Wonder how they explain the man in the Chicago area who killed his wife and four kids last week? They were married and white and living the Moral Minivan life — what did she do to “ask for” being murdered? What did the kids do? And now there’s some wrestler who was found dead with his wife and son and they suspect that he murdered his wife one day, his son the next and himself last. Any thoughts on who asked for what there? What were those (white, well-off, married) women reaping? No doubt these commenters will find something, because it sure as fuck can’t be a problem with men. No, sirree!

  6. Nadai
    Nadai June 26, 2007 at 5:18 pm |

    So if Jessie Davis had been married like that nice couple in CA – Scott and Laci Peterson, I think their names were – she’d be alive today. Makes sense to me.

  7. Poker Butt
    Poker Butt June 26, 2007 at 5:25 pm |

    This is disturbing. It’s disturbing that values voters like this guy think that there’s a cause and effect relationship between getting pregnant out of wedlock and being killed. It’s disturbing that he feels like he could have predicted this — it makes me think that he can put himself in the shoes of her killer and somehow justify his actions, because she was a slut and she had it coming.

    It is but a hop, skip and a jump from this to directly stoning the bitch. The mindset is the same.

  8. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne June 26, 2007 at 5:26 pm |

    Yes, these kinds of cases were so unheard of 100 years ago that Theodore Dreiser researched similar cases for years before he wrote An American Tragedy.

    I can’t decide which pisses me off more, their complete ignorance of history or their complete denial of reality. Because forcing your 15-year-old daughter to have a child isn’t going to teach her “responsibility.” It’s going to teach her to hate that child.

    Take a little trip to the Crime Library to see how unusual this kind of case was in the 1800s and foward. (Hint: not at all.)

  9. Tom
    Tom June 26, 2007 at 5:30 pm |

    Jesus Motherfucking Christ.

    And this

    But she was the one that kept having a relationship with him.

    Yeah, because he had nothing to do with that.

  10. evil fizz
    evil fizz June 26, 2007 at 6:02 pm | *

    *gives Alex a hug*

    I think the acid, seething hate coming from those comments has melted my keyboard.

  11. Rachel S.
    Rachel S. June 26, 2007 at 6:12 pm |

    Yeah, I read those racist misogynist bastards earlier today…..

    You all should read the comments I wrote about this case at my site and Alas.

  12. Kyra
    Kyra June 26, 2007 at 6:21 pm |

    Words cannot describe the contempt I feel for these assholes. Bigoted, misogynist, sadistic piles of shit who think they have brains and decide to use them to hurt people.

    Newsflash: women are raped because PEOPLE RAPE THEM! Women are killed because PEOPLE KILL THEM! Women “get into” abusive relationships because PEOPLE, ABUSIVE MANIPULATIVE PEOPLE, FAKE NICE WITH THE INTENT OF TRICKING WOMEN INTO SUFFERING THAT ABUSE. And most of these PEOPLE are MEN, men who are raised to think women are inferior, sub-human, and selectively worthless and that they, possessers of the Magic Penis, have some divine authority to abuse, rape, kill any of these lesser beings that they can justify killing with a simple “Bitch had it coming.”

    And legions of other men look on and say things like “but if we do something to stop it, then women’ll start thinking they can, you know, live as if they’re, like, real people or something!”

    It is truly a shame that the human race has sunk to this level.

  13. maja
    maja June 26, 2007 at 6:28 pm |

    Riehl:

    Unfortunately for Ms. Davis and her friends and family, it is the crime beneath the crime we shouldn’t simply ignore in this instance.

    Un-fucking-believable. The REAL crime was Jessie Davis’ living her life, of course the poor man had to murder her.

    Which the second post and comments more than confirm.

    And people wonder why feminism is still necessary.

  14. MikeEss
    MikeEss June 26, 2007 at 6:40 pm |

    Wow…They’re not even trying to hide their unabashed hatred of women and people of color are they, especially Black men, are they? I can’t say I’m surprised, but I am sickened and disheartened.

    When there are no consequences for spewing this kind of hate – and the guilty parties in fact thrive in the cancerous Reichwing – this crap will only get worse.

    Until people stand up and shout this bigotry and misogyny down, and make those who spout it aware that it is unacceptable, expect to see a lot more before it subsides…

  15. ahunt
    ahunt June 26, 2007 at 7:27 pm |

    Nadai beat me to it.

    Also:

    Pity Jesse didn’t get an abortion, huh? She would be alive today.

  16. Tiny
    Tiny June 26, 2007 at 7:34 pm |

    OK – breathing. WTF?

    I knew when the case broke that it was the boyfriend, but only because men (for some reason) feel even more free to abuse and kill women when they are pregnant. (See stats in original post).

    Yep, blaming the victim sure is the “moral” stance.

  17. templar knight
    templar knight June 26, 2007 at 7:47 pm |

    Interesting banter, but I just got through reading the post in question at Riehl’s website, and it must be in code only you can decipher. I didn’t get the vibes out of his post you got. Namely racism, hate, etc. Oh, well.

  18. EG
    EG June 26, 2007 at 7:52 pm |

    And to suggest that one isn’t in any way related to another only endorses the notion that values don’t matter.

    I thought that it was the conservatives who objected the way that liberals tried to blame crime on “society”? These guys are totally being soft on crime! What about personal responsibility? Isn’t that their watchword?

  19. Charity
    Charity June 27, 2007 at 11:40 am |

    Shorter Templar Knight: *Summer vakation is borrringg!! Mom won’t bring me to the mall, so I have to wank on the Internets all day! God, I hate women! Good thing i read Ivanhoe in “english literature” last spring to give myself a cool username. Off to look at amputee porn now!*

  20. Dana
    Dana June 27, 2007 at 11:48 am |

    I saw something similar after David Benoit and his family were found: “The wife was rumored to have been unfaithful years ago…” I asked the person whether Benoit’s son had also been unfaithful to him?

    This shit makes me sick.

    COMPLETELY UNRELATEDLY, because I am not into pissing on corpses, I believe that your average human being is both good and bad, in varying degrees of each. With that in mind, I do not believe it is possible to commit adultery and be a completely good person. A greater capacity than usual for dishonesty and betrayal is required in order to cheat on your spouse or help someone else cheat on theirs. These people do not deserve to die, but perhaps they do deserve some level of social stigma. And I say that as a person who has cheated multiple times. I don’t know what the social stigma would look like but in my world it would not involve violence. And as you say, if Davis really “deserved” this shit in the eyes of these assholes (and she didn’t), what the hell does Cutts deserve?

  21. Dana
    Dana June 27, 2007 at 11:54 am |

    MikeEss: Shouting them down doesn’t work. I wouldn’t have them censored, either. It’s just too bad we can’t find out their true identities so we could avoid ‘em like the frigging plague. It always freaks me out at least a little to run across rhetoric like this and realize that ordinary people with no special identifying characteristics feel that way.

    Templar: She quotes two different writers. Riehl’s statement was indeed a lot more innocuous. I didn’t read the first excerpt the same way as the OP, but other than that he seems to be blaming Davis for her own death simply because of her marital status and relationship status, which is ridiculous–as any pregnant woman murdered by her husband would happily tell you, if she could still speak. Meanwhile there are women who have babies with someone else’s husband and live to a ripe old age. Could it be that marital status does not determine murder rate? Nah…

  22. Bunny
    Bunny June 27, 2007 at 12:00 pm |

    I… Wow. Just wow.

    I thought ignorant bigots like this had either died out or were at least recognised as bigots and ignored?

    That whole thing is a piece of work, but I especially like the “animal husbandry” and the suggestion that, since children born of mixed parents are bullied, we shouldn’t let people “breed” outside of their own genepool. I mean, seriously, bloody fucking hell.

    I’m gonna go bake some cookies. I can’t even think about what I just read or I’m going to go into a rage.

  23. SunlessNick
    SunlessNick June 27, 2007 at 12:22 pm |

    where nobody is held to account for anything and where breaking up a family is more acceptable than daring to wag a finger at the home-wrecking slut in the first place.

    Isn’t it the one who cheats who’s the homewrecking slut? (Are we allowed to call men sluts? I’m going to anyway).

  24. ginmar
    ginmar June 27, 2007 at 12:23 pm |

    Oh, but men aren’t sluts. They just can’t help themselves on account of that massive manly sex drive. .

  25. Bles
    Bles June 27, 2007 at 12:26 pm |

    Every time I start to think that maybe humanity isn’t so bad, crap like this comes spewing out of the woodwork. It scares and stuns me that people like this exist. If I had any contents in my stomach to hurl, I would do so. I think I’ll curl up in a corner now.

  26. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 12:48 pm |

    Perhaps the point that gets lost when we do the “he said X, but he really meant Y, and Y is racist sexism, or sexist racism, I can’t remember which is which” thing that is so popular here is that X might have meant something subtle but important that you completely glossed over.

    I find it interesting that people who had pre-convicted three rich hunkies made zero mention of the fact that Mr. Cutts was a serial batterer and stalker, at least according to an ex – which appears to have been the behavior that, you know, led to the poor woman’s death. Maybe I notice this because I come from the outside of the preferred worldview at feministe, but it appears that black men get a pass in all of Liberaldom for battery – and for the glorification of battery in the pimp-and-bitches theme that gets played out in real lives pretty much anywhere that isn’t middle suburbia. (I’ll just guess that it is the result of Mr. Cutts’ great-great grandfather being whipped on a Georgia plantation, and thus my fault that he does it in turn to women). This is not general patriarchy, but a pervasive underclass of adolescent hyper-masculinity that has developed and is aspired to as authentic black male-ness. Because saying so makes one an inveterate racist, perhaps Reihl refrained from making so fine a point about it, to avoid the label that he wound up with anyway in an intent to stifle his speech. Nevertheless, Cutts ought to be heaped on for thinking that beating women is just part of loving them, as I am certain that he would have been had he been a more typical white male villain. He ought to be heaped upon once more for killing her – with a noose, but for now with condemnation – need I remind you that the man has a name, and can be blamed at this point without reservation as it appears that he has confessed to the crime and led the authorities to the woman’s body. Thus far, Reihl has received the real criticism, and the silence concerning Cutts – the actual batterer and murderer – is rather deafening.

    If I may expound on what I believe to be the tenor of Reihl’s statement – the deceased apparently embraced this pimp-and-bitches theme as one of Cutts’ kept seminal depositories, and bore Cutts’ child, and was prepared to do so again – as a testament to Cutts’ virility as is the fashion in inner cities, where (as in my native Philadelphia) beatings and murders abound. Simply stating that there is no correlation between this particular underclass subculture and violence in general and against women in particular does not make it so. Saying that juggling chainsaws is a bad health decision does not equate to wishing for the juggler’s death, or rejoicing in it when the predictable occurs.

    I would say that there is a certain [i]value[/i] in encouraging relationships of reciprocal commitment, in which a man makes a public declaration that he will support and rear the children of the woman he impregnates, and where the community holds him to account, but alas, I’m a fuddy-duddy who doesn’t understand the sexual autonomy of the deceased to do the opposite. How traditional of me. I’m certain that the children of these transitory relationships appreciate their status as urban flotsam, and that there are no particular deleterious effects from being raised in a crash-pad for the serial sexual conquests of your mother and “new daddy,” or that such children have the same economic support as others whose fathers have not sired a legion between and among a generous handful of women.

    It is simply beyond credulity to hold that Jessie was beaten for the first time on the day she was murdered, or that the behavior (which Cutts shared with his other lovers) was not a defining aspect of the relationship which she chose to maintain and which was not addressed in large part because the general standards of behavior to which society holds black men are rather low, as apparently is the case at feministe. By some accounts, Cutts was not only married but had another mistress – are we really going to pretend that Jessie was free to pursue other men with Cutts’ knowledge? Is being one of the man’s harem really just a an expression of her sexuality? It appears that there was real misogyny, of the particularly violent kind, that was a part of her daily life and [i]observing[/i] this, and from it predicting a negative outcome is decidedly not blaming the victim – unless you would all advocate the same for your sisters and daughters.

    Cutts is and was a villain for his behavior, which is not excusable because he is a black man, and participation in which was not a legitimate lifestyle for the deceased regardless of the fact that she is blameless for the act of her own murder. Perhaps Jessie had low self esteem, or was repressed so that she couldn’t express her kink in play, or whatever – but we infantilize her if we deprive her of her moral autonomy and pretend that there were not wiser – and safer – lifestyle choices available to her.

  27. Aaron
    Aaron June 27, 2007 at 1:05 pm |

    Interesting banter, but I just got through reading the post in question at Riehl’s website, and it must be in code only you can decipher. I didn’t get the vibes out of his post you got. Namely racism, hate, etc. Oh, well.

    Is that what the kids are calling it these days? Back when I was young, we’d have said “I’m a shrieking misogynist asshole!” For example:

    “At least four girls were taken in by this smooth talker.”

    I think that is part of Dan’s point. How can supposedly intelligent, beautiful young women be taken in by a person like this? I would appreciate it if one or more of you ladies would enlighten me.

    In other words, either they must’ve been some butt-ugly bitches to stay with that guy, or dumber than doorposts, or quite likely both.

    Nice guy.

  28. greginsocal
    greginsocal June 27, 2007 at 1:18 pm |

    With the notable exception of Tony, here, the rest of you are pathetic. No, she did not deserve to die, but life is made up of choices. She chose to stay with an unstable, womanizing bastard with a history of violence. To expect a different outcome is not rational. You “non-judgemental” types need to examine the idiocy of your position. Judgement is a life-saving device. You ignore it at your peril. As Jessie did. You morons are almost as responsible for her death as Cutts is.

  29. Bitter Scribe
    Bitter Scribe June 27, 2007 at 1:27 pm |

    Of course, these guys would have said the same things, in the same tone, if the accused killer and the victim had been of the same race.

    And Saddam buried his WMDs in my backyard the day before the invasion.

    I just wonder how much slut-bashing Cutts’s lawyer is going to try during the trial? You’d think that would be utterly counterproductive, but looking at the comments on the “Emperor’s” site, I have to wonder.

  30. Leonard Pierce
    Leonard Pierce June 27, 2007 at 1:31 pm |

    You stay away from my man, you tramp.

  31. brad
    brad June 27, 2007 at 1:45 pm |

    Ummm, it gets worse. Dan wrote a post to you, Jill. I won’t link to it because it’s among the more offensive things I’ve ever read, but…. wow. It’s bad.

  32. slythwolf
    slythwolf June 27, 2007 at 1:47 pm |

    Jesus fuck.

    the home-wrecking slut

    Because of course it’s the woman’s fault that a married man is sleeping with her. What did she do, tie him to the bed? “I’m an evil slut, here to break up your family!” God knows he’s not responsible for his own actions; the minute his penis gets within ten feet of a viable vagina he can’t help himself. Fucking fuck. There’s a reason adultery is defined as someone married fucking someone they’re not married to, and not someone unmarried fucking someone married. She’s not the one who broke the vows.

  33. brad
    brad June 27, 2007 at 1:47 pm |

    Oh, you saw it.

  34. Rachel S.
    Rachel S. June 27, 2007 at 2:02 pm |

    Jill, sorry about this stupid asshats coming after your site.

    Nothing gets crazy white men more riled up (perhaps I should say Riehled up) than interracial sex and crime.

    They are crazy bastards, and this is honestly why as a white women in an interracial relationship I do worry about where I travel, and who I run into because you never know when you’re gonna come upon a Neo-Nazi in a whether it’s in a suit or a police uniform.

    They really do believe that white women who have sex with black men deserve to be punished; they have come to my site saying I should be raped because I’m with a black man. They say I’m stupid and naive, blah blah blah. So given my own experience, I wouldn’t put it past them, insult a murdered women and her two year old child.

    You white supremacist guys are sick, sick people.

  35. Nellie
    Nellie June 27, 2007 at 2:30 pm |

    I wish I believed in Hell so that I could at least take comfort in the fact that the people who wrote hateful trash would burn in it someday.

  36. Nellie
    Nellie June 27, 2007 at 2:30 pm |

    I wish I believed in Hell so that I could at least take comfort in the fact that the people who wrote hateful trash would burn in it someday.

  37. Nellie
    Nellie June 27, 2007 at 2:31 pm |

    I wish I believed in Hell so that I could at least take comfort in the fact that the people who wrote this hateful trash would burn in it someday.

  38. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 3:04 pm |

    Jill,

    In your opinion, what do you think people should do as individuals AND society as a whole, to prevent this kind of act from happenning?

  39. Neko-Onna
    Neko-Onna June 27, 2007 at 3:12 pm |

    This case has been upsetting from the get-go. I first wrote about it on my blog, when I asked why, it seemed, that the press couldn’t resist reminding us that Ms. Davis was pregnant.

    The answer, of course, is that women are only important as baby factories. That is also why people like the nut jobs quoted in this post feel so comfortable spewing hate. Women are objects, valuable only because of their place in reproduction. That feeds the “she asked for it” comments, the “animal husbandry” (see the OBVIOUS linkage to reproduction there) comments, etc.

    The thing that allowed her killer to murder her was the same thing that drives the media to point out she is pregnant, and the freepers to make their ugly remarks. Women are things. Period.

  40. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 3:40 pm |

    Very well Jill, then count me a racist. You should also define the term so I know exactly what you intend by it. You’d better add Stanley Crouch and others to the list, who have made the identical argument for some time, although not in the context of this event. “Urban culture” is a minstrel show of brown clowns and eternally adolescent boys, of “baby mammas” and “creeping,” of authenticity defined as delinquency, consumed daily in various media. It bears no essential relationship to black lives and experiences of just fifty years ago. As a matter of fact, concerning the violence, there is more of a provenance of Southern Scots-Irish honor culture than anything else. But this is irrelevant, because it is now both a lifestyle to which to aspire as when it is glamorized by rappers and athletes, and an excuse after the fact. My evidence that Cutts was involved in this culture issues from the fact that he saw fit to spread himself around as an indication of his masculinity – and his apparent affiliation with at least one drug dealer with whom he was “down” to such an extent that he “loaned” his duty weapon to the latter for a one off. One of the first rules of firearm ownership is that firearms are not community property. Being authentic to “urban culture” in that case meant betraying his oath to “protect and serve” in order to “keep it real” with a drug dealer with whom he never should have been fraternizing, relative or not. So take this, along with Cutts’ appearance, and we’ll call it an educated guess. Perhaps he listens to Verdi, plays croquet, reads Euripides in Attic, and attends Knights of Columbus meetings, but something about me doubts it.

    Do white men spread their seed in such a way? I’m certain that they do, and I’m also certain that a goodly percent of these consume “urban culture” media as well. At the same time, I’m also certain that they are outside of the mainstream of the culture, marginalized, and kept out of my polite company. See, for example, the practice of “shunning.” I share no solidarity with the transcendently stupid and shockingly course by virtue of our shared skin color, and feel free to openly criticize the same at every opportunity. This is not the case in “the Black community” where appealing to adherents of “urban culture” appears more important than making declaratory moral judgments about destructive behavior. Russell Simmons says, essentially, “it reflects what is on the street corner.” Fair enough. I’ll call it subtle mockery and unwitting self-parody.

    But the seminal fact is this, Jill – I’ll call both the black and the white, and Asians, if any, the human refuse that they are in no uncertain terms when the label applies.

    I simply found it odd that Cutts wasn’t really mentioned but Reihl was – and I’ll accept your tacit condemnation of Cutts – however we ought to see his hyper-misogyny for what it was, and what it wasn’t. It was not a legitimate lifestyle in which Ms. Davis ought to have participated. It wasn’t a one-time battery-turned manslaughter. And I’m not naïve enough to believe the beatings began after the birth of the first child. There is something more insidious in the human psyche of both actors – and in most of us to a lesser degree – that we’d prefer wasn’t there.

    If we will be honest with ourselves, we could probably guess with a reasonable degree of certainty that Davis sought out Cutts for his hyper-masculine posing, for the emotional ups-and-downs of the battering and the “I’m sorry baby,” for the exotic flavor of flouting straightlaced white daddy with his mortgage and greener-than-green lawn and for the excitement of being a part of a rebellious “cool” culture by being the concubine of a black man and the bearer of his child.

    She was most likely with him because of the drama, the uncertainty, the emotional spikes and valleys – and because a respectable, nice, white college boy doesn’t represent enough of a break from a boring suburban life approved by mom and dad. This is not some statement of absolute antimiscegination qua policy – if it was I’d have to find a ruse to hate Clarence Thomas, for example – but an observation that there is a tacit approval of substandard, hyper-misogynist behavior by black men, and the embrace and reward of the same as “culture” above criticism, and a failure to even call it what it is. It seems to me that the schaddenfreude at the expense of alleged racists who become unnerved by pretty white women becoming the sexual plaything of a black man is more important to some here than calling out the degrading situation that Davis put herself in, and using these events both as a cautionary tale and a measuring stick by which to say “this behavior is unacceptable for all involved” which might elicit some value from a tragedy.

    Regarding “social programs,” it is my opinion from the evidence provided that more “social programs” will render an exacerbation of the situation at hand as economic incentives for having the illegitimate children, and thus the twenty year tie to the battering father, in the first place.

    I will say that no one should spam your blog to shut it down – it seems like those people who would do have an unnecessarily “close” relationship with their computers, if you catch my drift. Right or Left.

    I like you. You are not entirely disagreeable, as one would expect. But you really should refrain from the Marcottery such as “So-and-so said X, which really means Y, and we all already hate Y in all its forms. Let us condemn so-and-so and ban all the trolls that I have just attracted, and rejoice in our superiority.” It doesn’t convince the uninitiated, and you can write better than this about things that people actually said anyway, and in such away that those of us with varying views aren’t forced into a binary “racist-sexists versus everyone else” frame. There is a good chance that someone who stumbles upon your blog thinks that Cutts has earned primary responsibility for Davis’ death, and deserves severe punishment, but at the same time that Davis did not pursue a course of action indicative of someone with minimal self esteem, intelligence, and discipline.

  41. Bunny
    Bunny June 27, 2007 at 3:41 pm |

    Hmmm…

    just came back and bloody hell, if we haven’t got a bunch of ignorant arsehats all to ourselves!

    To anyone who doesn’t get what an abusive relationship is like,

    Ummm… no one “chooses” to stay in an abusive relationship when the option of escape seems actually possible.

    Remember that a woman (or man- men get treated like crap too) suffering under an abusive partner may also be suffering extensive psychological abuse and emotional blackmail. Many people get caught in a cycle of guilt- believing that the abuse they’re suffering is in part their fault because they did something to deserve it, or believing that their partner really means it when they promise to stop, they just lost control, they feel so bad about it. Notwithstanding the fact that when you’re utterly terrified of someone it’s kinda hard to get the guts up to tell them you’re leaving them, and unless you have the financial means to up sticks and move away at last notice without simply becoming homeless, there’s always the risk that he/she will come after you.

    Of course, I’m very fortunate that I don’t speak from personal experience, although sadly I’ve known plenty of women who have suffered like this. It is hard to let go of some one whom you love.

  42. Lady Heather
    Lady Heather June 27, 2007 at 3:42 pm |

    Neko-Onna,

    Are you for real?

    I don’t recall Chandra Levy being pregnant.

    And it seems missing women are always front and center, in the national news, when they go missing. Hardly hear about missing men , unless they’re children or wanted for a crime.

  43. evil fizz
    evil fizz June 27, 2007 at 4:04 pm | *

    Tony, you fret about being called out on your racism and yet you manage to type sentences like “Do white men spread their seed in such a way?” without seeming to have the slightest understanding of all that connotes. (Hint: think of Ewell screaming about Tom Robinson “rutting on my Mayella”.)

    It was not a legitimate lifestyle in which Ms. Davis ought to have participated.

    And what lifestyle is that?

    There is a tacit approval of substandard, hyper-misogynist behavior by black men, and the embrace and reward of the same as “culture” above criticism, and a failure to even call it what it is.

    Where? Go on, we’ll wait. I’m sure you will find no evidence whatsoever of women of color engaging in incredible activism on the matter.

  44. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 4:12 pm |

    “Remember that a woman (or man- men get treated like crap too) suffering under an abusive partner may also be suffering extensive psychological abuse and emotional blackmail. Many people get caught in a cycle of guilt- believing that the abuse they’re suffering is in part their fault because they did something to deserve it, or believing that their partner really means it when they promise to stop, they just lost control, they feel so bad about it. Notwithstanding the fact that when you’re utterly terrified of someone it’s kinda hard to get the guts up to tell them you’re leaving them, and unless you have the financial means to up sticks and move away at last notice without simply becoming homeless, there’s always the risk that he/she will come after you.”

    Isn’t this the ideological inverse of the “men can’t help themselves when it comes to sex” argument? It sounds like you are depriving women as a class of their moral agency and saying, essentially “women are too emotional to leave” despite obvious evidence that things aren’t very healthy. Some people are just stupid, others are weak, and yet others need the physical drama to get off – whether we want to admit it or not, and whether it is hard-wired into all of us or the result of some long standing internalized misogyny.

  45. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 4:33 pm |

    “Tony, you fret about being called out on your racism and yet you manage to type sentences like “Do white men spread their seed in such a way?” without seeming to have the slightest understanding of all that connotes. (Hint: think of Ewell screaming about Tom Robinson “rutting on my Mayella”.)

    It was not a legitimate lifestyle in which Ms. Davis ought to have participated.

    And what lifestyle is that?

    There is a tacit approval of substandard, hyper-misogynist behavior by black men, and the embrace and reward of the same as “culture” above criticism, and a failure to even call it what it is.

    Where? Go on, we’ll wait. I’m sure you will find no evidence whatsoever of women of color engaging in incredible activism on the matter.”

    No, I don’t fret about being called a racist, mostly because it is going to happen no matter what I say, and with greater frequency the closer I come to certain unappetizing truths. Unappetizing, but true nonetheless.

    The lifestyle is the one where your serially-battering boyfriend is a married man with a third mistress, other children by other women (those that are known), and not actively responsible for your well-being nor you for his, and you decide on two occasions to bear more of his children and bring them into a social and economic morass. This is not my paradise, and you cannot seriously be stating that it is a feminist paradise because “she was getting off and pissing off racists” either.

    Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the fact that sperma is the Latin word for seed, and seed is an acceptable synonym for sperm in literature. Onan “spilled his seed.” Onan was not black. I fail to see the racism, but perhaps you can help educate me.

    Finally, a few black feminist activists a cultural revolution do not make. It is the pervasive Leftist sensibility in mainstream media that views blacks as something other and to be pitied, and which extends a wool blanket of sympathy over obviously self destructive behavior, reinforcing the “delinquency as authenticity” paradigm I addressed above. Let us not forget an Academy Award, because, you know “It’s hard out here for a pimp . . . “ as we liberal crackas are all entertained by the Three 6 Minstrels du jour.

  46. Wil Golden
    Wil Golden June 27, 2007 at 4:45 pm |

    Feminism was invented so that stupid, ugly women could get attention.

  47. ginmar
    ginmar June 27, 2007 at 4:48 pm |

    Tony talking about Minstrels—and whatever else he’s drivelling—is almost as offensive as the original piece.

  48. Hedonistic Pleasureseeker
    Hedonistic Pleasureseeker June 27, 2007 at 4:51 pm |

    Tony, are you so entranced by your own racist, sexist, classist delusions that you didn’t even get her point? Your white (male I presume?) privilege is showing, and yours is particularly ugly.

    Battered women are TERRIFIED. Terrified of being homeless (many have nowhere to go), of being KILLED (a goodly percentage are threatened with death if they try to leave), and of putting their much-loved children at risk. They are also DEMORALIZED. Leaving and facing homelessness is bad for a child (duh), especially when said children are in school or if the abuser is legally entitled to visitation/partial custody. But these women can’t/won’t leave without their children. They won’t leave the kid with their abusers because (duh) they’re ABUSERS. It’s a catch-22 for the women who might be estranged from her support system (family), has been isolated by her abuser (par for the course) has few job skills and/or resources of her own (also par for the course).

    Of course, you imagine that if these women only had INTESTINAL FORTITUTDE and MORALS they’d just be RESPONSIBLE and leave the bastard(s).

    Of course you’re talking trash because you don’t know much about spousal abuse at all. Or if you do, you just don’t give a shit because “it will never happen” to you.” You’re “smarter.” You have “intestinal fortitude and MORALS.” Oh, and a paying job. And your own money. And class privilege. And built in respect from society. It’s like that joke someone made about GW Bush: “He was born on third base and thinks he hit a home run.”

    Tony, four words: Shut The Fuck Up. You are not entitled to speak to women’s experiences, abused or not. Unless you (Tony) are a woman, in which case I’ve never met one more self-loathing.

  49. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 4:51 pm |

    Jill,

    In your opinion, what do you think people should do as individuals AND society as a whole, to prevent this kind of act from happenning?

  50. zuzu
    zuzu June 27, 2007 at 4:53 pm | *

    How about not kill people, Kenneth?

  51. zuzu
    zuzu June 27, 2007 at 4:55 pm | *

    Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the fact that sperma is the Latin word for seed, and seed is an acceptable synonym for sperm in literature. Onan “spilled his seed.” Onan was not black. I fail to see the racism, but perhaps you can help educate me.

    Sheesh. Another one who doesn’t know what the whole story of Onan was about.

  52. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 4:55 pm |

    Zuzu,

    How do you get people to stop killing? It has been against the law for thousands of years already.

  53. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 4:58 pm |

    Jill ? Are you upset with me?

  54. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 4:58 pm |

    Tony talking about Minstrels—and whatever else he’s drivelling—is almost as offensive as the original piece.

    Talk to the Crouch, because the Tony ain’t listening:

  55. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 5:01 pm |

  56. zuzu
    zuzu June 27, 2007 at 5:02 pm | *

    How do you get people to stop killing? It has been against the law for thousands of years already.

    Damned if I know.

    But you sure don’t stop it by blaming the murder victim for having unapproved sex.

  57. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 5:04 pm |

    My attempts to link to an arcticle here: http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=16623 have failed thus far. My apologies for the empty post.

  58. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 5:05 pm |

    Jill,

    It has made no difference in the “Intimate Deaths” of White women in the last 30 years.

    “The intimate homicide rate has fallen for blacks in every gender and relationship category while the rate for whites has not declined for all categories
    The intimate homicide rate –

    for white girlfriends was about the same in 2004 as it was in 1976

  59. Bunny
    Bunny June 27, 2007 at 5:08 pm |

    Oh, Tony, how you scare me.

    My aunt married a man who, when they met and for the first few years, was the kindest, gentlest, most loving man you could meet. He was charming, intelligent, and we all adored him. He was also amazing with the children in our rambling family and doted on them.

    Shortly after they were married he started putting her down verbally. Nothing overt, just little comments, like “have you put on a bit of weight?” and little tones of voice to suggest she wasn’t as smart as him, that she’d let herself go, that she just wasn’t good enough any more. This wasn’t done in front of us,but in the home they shared, so we didn’t know it was happening. It gradually got worse, but of course it started out so slow she didn’t realise what was happening at first, although her self esteem did drop. I don’t know when he started hitting her, but from little things I’ve found out now it was probably around the time she fell pregnant with their daughter. She didn’t “get off on the drama”. She didn’t tell anyone that this was happening. She was ashamed, scared and trapped. When someone tells you every day that you’re fat, disgusting, ugly, lazy, worthless and stupid, eventually you start to believe them.

    What could she have done?

    They owned a house together, but she earned more and the mortgage was in here name. If she threw him out, do you think he wouldn’t come to her door and start threatening her? If she left, she would still, by law, be required to pay for this house she no longer lived in. How many people do you know who have the financial clout to do that and find somewhere for themselves to live? The rest of the family were either living abroad, living in student accommodation or living in a retirement complex, so she couldn’t have moved in with any of us however we tried to fit it, and in any case he knew where we all lived, too. Should she have run out and lived on the streets, pregnant? And what about her baby, when it was born? How would she take care of it if she had to leave her hometown, her job, her life to get away from this man? How would they live?

    The truth is that, thankfully, when she could take no more, my aunt did tell us what was happening. She couldn’t stop crying throughout her confession, apologising to us for “burdening us” with her problems; he’d manipulated her that much. We all stood by her and supported her to help her get rid of her husband. My dad and grandad helped her throw him out, because she was so scared of doing it alone. And yes, he did go to her house afterwards and he did threaten to kill her, their baby, our entire family, if she didn’t take him back. He waited for her at work. He broke into the house and messed it up, doing the worst damage in the nursery. He did this even after he was given a restraining order. He stalked her and made her life a living nightmare, when she was busy trying to cope with a newborn child. After the police became more heavily involved, he would turn up at our houses and threaten us, demand that we call “call that filthy whore and get her down here now!”.

    My aunt is a police woman. She works out and is physically very strong. She has always been a very independent, capable woman, but this man broke her.

    It is not simply a case of women being too “stupid or weak, or getting off on the attention”. Who the FUCK gets off on having their arms broken because their friends go “awww, poor you” afterwards? Or because it’s “edgy and cool” to live with the constant threat of a savage beating?

    And no, this isn’t the inverse of “men just can’t help themselves”. Notice I said that both men and women suffer abuse in the home. Both genders can be abusive, manipulative and cruel, and both genders can feel isolated, terrified and vulnerable even when they have a loving and supporting network of friends and family members to back them up.

    Oh, and the whole racism thing? No one here is saying “oh the poor black man, let him off, he’s been victimised”. No one here is saying that a person of any particular race or colour deserves special treatment. We aren’t even focusing on the race of the people involved except in reaction to the racism in the original post.

    What we are saying is that referring to mixed couples as “animal husbandry” is disgustingly racist. Please, feel free to offer your own, non-racist interpretation of that phrase. I’d be extremely interested to read it.

  60. zuzu
    zuzu June 27, 2007 at 5:10 pm | *

    Oh, I think we can just roll up and go home here, people.

    Tony has busted out the STANLEY CROUCH!

  61. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 5:15 pm |

    Jill,

    I cut and pasted that stat from your link at the top of the page. This case is a “white girlfriend” case, and like I said, all that has been done in 30 years has done absolutely nothing to lower the number.

    Jill, the amount of white girlfriend deaths has not improved at all, that is considered “nothing has changed”.

    You made a comment above…

    “As individuals, we can forgo violence. Men can not hit or otherwise harm women”

    As I said to Zuzu, this has been illegal for a long, long time.

    So, how do we stop people from committing violence? That is the core question is it not?

  62. Cola Johnson
    Cola Johnson June 27, 2007 at 5:26 pm |

    I know I should have asked first. I wrote it and intended to ask permission but hit publish without meaning to.

    I wanted to ask if I could quote you at some length on my own blog.

    If I’m using too much, I won’t hesitate to remove it. Just wanted you to know that you so perfectly framed what I’ve been thinking lately.

  63. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 5:29 pm |

    Tony, are you so entranced by your own racist, sexist, classist delusions that you didn’t even get her point? Your white (male I presume?) privilege is showing, and yours is particularly ugly.

    Battered women are TERRIFIED. Terrified of being homeless (many have nowhere to go), of being KILLED (a goodly percentage are threatened with death if they try to leave), and of putting their much-loved children at risk. They are also DEMORALIZED. Leaving and facing homelessness is bad for a child (duh), especially when said children are in school or if the abuser is legally entitled to visitation/partial custody. But these women can’t/won’t leave without their children. They won’t leave the kid with their abusers because (duh) they’re ABUSERS. It’s a catch-22 for the women who might be estranged from her support system (family), has been isolated by her abuser (par for the course) has few job skills and/or resources of her own (also par for the course).

    Of course, you imagine that if these women only had INTESTINAL FORTITUTDE and MORALS they’d just be RESPONSIBLE and leave the bastard(s).

    Of course you’re talking trash because you don’t know much about spousal abuse at all. Or if you do, you just don’t give a shit because “it will never happen” to you.” You’re “smarter.” You have “intestinal fortitude and MORALS.” Oh, and a paying job. And your own money. And class privilege. And built in respect from society. It’s like that joke someone made about GW Bush: “He was born on third base and thinks he hit a home run.”

    Tony, four words: Shut The Fuck Up. You are not entitled to speak to women’s experiences, abused or not. Unless you (Tony) are a woman, in which case I’ve never met one more self-loathing.

    Allright, help me out here – I never said that the battered should “get over it” and leave – I never really addressed this in depth, I just wrote that they probably stay for a multitude of reasons that we will never be able to sort out in any single situation. Additionally, I don’t think that all battered women really want to leave, even knowing that they are risking their lives by staying – there is a good deal that goes on between the ears and between the legs that we don’t understand and we probably wouldn’t be comfortable with if we did. The only thing that I did say that you seem to be taking issue with is that I criticized a statement of another that seemed to deprive women of all moral agency (I use moral in the philosophical sense, if you are capable of thus understanding) by saying that they are so ruled by emotion that their minds are categorically overwhelmed. It seemed more than a bit infantilizing to me, and the kind of thing that would be deemed misogynistic but for the inability to describe the behavior of the battered in other terms.

    Don’t you – maybe – see that some women are a little fucked up and think that battering equals virility and masculinity for whatever reason, and these are the only men that they can feel a strong attraction towards? And so the dance of “he hits me – he loves me” is not something that admits of linear analysis like you propose? My experience has been with women who were dating their batterers, not cohabitating, childless, and without any economically dependent relationship, but together with the batterer for years – this does not adhere to the “she would leave if only there were social programs” because, well, she didn’t have to go anywhere to not see the man.

    As for “Shut[ting] the Fuck Up,” I don’t find that a particularly effective argument. Maybe it works for you, but I find it highly uncivil.

  64. evil fizz
    evil fizz June 27, 2007 at 5:34 pm | *

    Oh, I think we can just roll up and go home here, people.

    Tony has busted out the STANLEY CROUCH!

    Yes, we should hold up as a paragon of good behavior a man who physically assaults his critics in public.

  65. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 5:35 pm |

    Oh, I think we can just roll up and go home here, people.

    Tony has busted out the STANLEY CROUCH!

    I’m sorry, I’m not up on the standard dismissal of Crouch – is he an “oreo” or otherwise inauthentically black, or summarily dismissed for another reason altogether?

  66. evil fizz
    evil fizz June 27, 2007 at 5:35 pm | *

    Don’t you – maybe – see that some women are a little fucked up and think that battering equals virility and masculinity for whatever reason, and these are the only men that they can feel a strong attraction towards?

    Actually, no.

  67. zuzu
    zuzu June 27, 2007 at 5:37 pm | *

    As for “Shut[ting] the Fuck Up,” I don’t find that a particularly effective argument. Maybe it works for you, but I find it highly uncivil.

    OOOOOH, and he’s busting out the incivility lectures, too!

    Tony wins the thread!

  68. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 5:39 pm |

    Yes, we should hold up as a paragon of good behavior a man who physically assaults his critics in public.

    I don’t recall “holding him up as a paragon of good behavior,” but I did cite his ideas and use of the term “minstrel” to describe the self-parody of hip hop and urban culture.

    Link to the physical assault, kindly?

  69. evil fizz
    evil fizz June 27, 2007 at 5:42 pm | *

    Link to the physical assault, kindly?

    More than once, no less.

  70. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 5:46 pm |

    Jill,

    I cut and pasted that stat from your link at the top of the page. This case is a “white girlfriend” case, and like I said, all that has been done in 30 years has done absolutely nothing to lower the number.

    Jill, the amount of white girlfriend deaths has not improved at all, that is considered “nothing has changed”.

    You made a comment above…

    “As individuals, we can forgo violence. Men can not hit or otherwise harm women”

    As I said to Zuzu, this has been illegal for a long, long time.

    So, how do we stop people from committing violence? That is the core question is it not?

  71. beidran
    beidran June 27, 2007 at 5:50 pm |

    What do you think we could do, Kenneth?

  72. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 5:51 pm |

    Beidran,

    I would be happy to provide insight when I am done speaking with Jill.

  73. dnA
    dnA June 27, 2007 at 6:03 pm |

    Very well Jill, then count me a racist. You should also define the term so I know exactly what you intend by it. You’d better add Stanley Crouch and others to the list, who have made the identical argument for some time, although not in the context of this event. “Urban culture” is a minstrel show of brown clowns and eternally adolescent boys, of “baby mammas” and “creeping,”

    I’ve got news for you Tony, everything you’re criticizing about what you refer to as “urban culture” is just as prevalent in the rest of society. Those kinds of patriarchal codes of honor based on violence and the exploitation and subjigation of women are the guiding philosophies of the Republican Party (Iraq) and the now conservative Supreme Court. (abortion ruling.)

    But don’t let me interrupt your racist tirade thinly disguised as a “criticism” of urban culture. If you’ll excuse me, I have to go home and share multiple orgasms with my white girlfriend while we listen to Outkast.

    Oh yeah, and Jill, you’re doing the damn thing. Thank you for this post.

  74. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 6:07 pm |

    As for “Shut[ting] the Fuck Up,” I don’t find that a particularly effective argument. Maybe it works for you, but I find it highly uncivil.

    OOOOOH, and he’s busting out the incivility lectures, too!

    Tony wins the thread!

    So what is the point of telling me to shut the fuck up? I won’t, so you’ll either ban me or not, and probably claim a halo for slaying a “fundie” if you do. Yawn.

  75. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 6:10 pm |

    Link to the physical assault, kindly?

    More than once, no less.

    Feh. I guess he has nothing important to say then.

  76. Lorelei
    Lorelei June 27, 2007 at 6:12 pm |

    As we all know, every man here coming in from Riehl’s site have never made a SINGLE BAD CHOICE or done a SINGLE STUPID THING in their entire lives. But I guess it doesn’t matter because some stupid fuck didn’t decide to MURDER THEM FOR IT.

    Maybe someone should get around to it or something. Jesus fucking Christ.

  77. beidran
    beidran June 27, 2007 at 6:12 pm |

    Kenneth,
    Why wait? I don’t think the comments section on a blog is a good place to conduct personal, one on one conversations. Email seems to be a more appropriate electronic medium for that. And I have faith in your ability to conduct more than one conversation at a time.

    You seem to think that making murder illegal is not enough, and I agree with that. Making an action illegal is a band-aid that doesn’t address the reasoning behind the action. So what is the reasoning that leads individuals to kill, and how does society combat that reasoning?
    In the case of men murdering women, I’d say the reasoning is a belief that women are not people the way men are, and I would further say that our society does little if anything to combat that belief. Actually, society promotes that belief. So what do you think we could do as individuals to change society, to end that misogynist reasoning that allows so many men to justify to themselves murdering women?

  78. zuzu
    zuzu June 27, 2007 at 6:13 pm | *

    Dude, he writes for the Daily News and physically assaults his critics (and coworkers — that’s what got him fired from the Voice).

    Touch uncivil, I’d say.

  79. Lorelei
    Lorelei June 27, 2007 at 6:13 pm |

    Ugh sorry I double posted, can someone fix that for me?

  80. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 6:19 pm |

    Dude, he writes for the Daily News and physically assaults his critics (and coworkers — that’s what got him fired from the Voice).

    Touch uncivil, I’d say.

    If we were in Court I would object for lack of relevance, his “minstrel” criticism of hip hop and urban culture being at issue. If Charlie Manson said “hey, its one o’clock” at one o’clock, he’d be correct, despite being Charlie Manson – I wouldn’t have to disagree and say it was three simply because he was Charlie Manson.

  81. Lorelei
    Lorelei June 27, 2007 at 6:21 pm |

    And funny thing, I’m dating a married man and he’s managed not to kill me. Maybe it’s because I haven’t gotten pregnant, or because he’s more on the suicidal side of the fence than homicidal one.

    MAYBE HE JUST ISN’T REALLY A MAN AT ALL! Or maybe he condones my immoral choices and has decided to spare me! Oh, man!

  82. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 6:25 pm |

    As we all know, every man here coming in from Riehl’s site have never made a SINGLE BAD CHOICE or done a SINGLE STUPID THING in their entire lives. But I guess it doesn’t matter because some stupid fuck didn’t decide to MURDER THEM FOR IT.

    Maybe someone should get around to it or something. Jesus fucking Christ.

    You know, I didn’t come in from Reihl/Rieh’s site, becuase I don’t know who he is – I was checking the general outline of my sanity against a virtual Bedlam at Pandagon (affirmative).

    That being said, there is a difference between a “single stupid thing” and a relationship numbered in years, and even so, when a man does a stupid thing, I pretty much say “boy, that was stupid.” My Marine buddies used to make great sport of this.

  83. Kristen from MA
    Kristen from MA June 27, 2007 at 6:27 pm |

    Battered women are TERRIFIED. Terrified of being homeless (many have nowhere to go), of being KILLED (a goodly percentage are threatened with death if they try to leave), and of putting their much-loved children at risk.

    not to mention the fact that this particular abuser is (or was until recently?) a COP. with a gun, a badge, and lots of cop friends.

  84. zuzu
    zuzu June 27, 2007 at 6:30 pm | *

    So I guess you’d agree that a man who made stupid choices over years deserves to be killed as well, right, Tony?

    After all, the wages of sin, yadda yadda.

  85. Lorelei
    Lorelei June 27, 2007 at 6:35 pm |

    I’m still waiting to be killed, though.

    :(

  86. Lorelei
    Lorelei June 27, 2007 at 6:41 pm |

    and even so, when a man does a stupid thing, I pretty much say “boy, that was stupid.” My Marine buddies used to make great sport of this.

    Hey, hopefully one of you will be killed for your bad decisions, huh? And then that’ll be great fun! Am I right?

    So let’s say I became a college professor, and I had a student who repeatedly stole other people’s papers to pass off as his own and cheated on tests. Let’s say he did this for three semesters. Could I kill him? Please?

  87. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 6:48 pm |

    Beidran,

    Statistics are not on your side.

    “Males experienced higher victimization rates than females for all types of violent crime except rape/sexual assault.
    According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, most murder victims were male, 79% in 2005.

    See also Homicide Trends in the United States and Data Online for characteristics of homicide victims by State and large locality.
    Men were more likely than women to be the victim of a carjacking (2 men and 1 women per 10,000 persons). ”

    You said “So what do you think we could do as individuals to change society, to end that misogynist reasoning that allows so many men to justify to themselves murdering women?”

    Since men kill men 400% more than women, one could argue that misogynism saves 4 out of 5 women. Silly? Sure.

    This is not a Men vs. Women issue (murder) since men die 4 times more.

    This is a violence issue. Period.

    Like I said, I want to hear what Jill has to say, I want to know her opinion, this is her blog and I am curious about her wisdom.

  88. zuzu
    zuzu June 27, 2007 at 6:51 pm | *

    This is not a Men vs. Women issue (murder) since men die 4 times more.

    This is a violence issue. Period.

    And who’s perpetrating all that violence? That would be, overwhelmingly, men.

    So something is broken about the way that men are raised and socialized, because they victimize both women and other men.

    So. Seems to me the problem we should be looking at is not “Why do women get themselves killed?” but “Why are so many violent criminals men, and what do we do about it?”

  89. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 6:57 pm |

    Zuzu,

    Being that my forte’ is Psychology, specifically under Dr. Paul Vitz at NYU (Jill stomping grounds), let me clear up a mistake you just made.

    It has been a matter of fact in the physical sciences for many, many years that testosterone is the culprit when rage is involved. Socializing people statistically makes no difference in murder.

    This is about FREE WILL. Choice. Murder.

    How do we stop it?

    That’s my question

  90. Lorelei
    Lorelei June 27, 2007 at 6:57 pm |

    Or here’s another one! For five years, you keep your DVD player and Very Expensive Collection of Something Or Other visible through the window. A burglar sees the stuff in your window, which, again, you’ve had for five years in the same location. He breaks into your home to steal the items seen through the window, and you walk in just as he’s doing so, so he shoots you to death.

    You deserved it, yeah?

  91. Lorelei
    Lorelei June 27, 2007 at 6:59 pm |

    Kenneth,

    I guess we don’t stop murder at all, then! Let the bitches die, it’ll be a great time. :D

  92. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 7:01 pm |

    Lorelei,

    I assumed you wanted to stop the murders?

    How would you approach it?

  93. beidran
    beidran June 27, 2007 at 7:02 pm |

    Yes, Zuzu. That’s what I was going to try to say in this post, but you said it much more succinctly than I would have been able to manage.

  94. Sarah in Chicago
    Sarah in Chicago June 27, 2007 at 7:06 pm |

    Kenneth -

    Given that my PhD work is in sociology, I have to agree with Zuzu on this one. Yes, testosterone is associated with aggression, but so what?

    Testosterone is far from being the be-all and end-all of behavioural aggression, particularly when you seem to be ignoring a trigger-reaction connection, and more so when you look cross-culturally to look at how masculinity and violence operate.

    Behaviour has far more to do with the socio-cultural construction of behaviour expectations than anything to do with hormones. Socialising people differently DOES actually impact tendencies to violence across groups.

  95. Lorelei
    Lorelei June 27, 2007 at 7:08 pm |

    Kenneth,

    how do YOU propose we stop murders? how about you not sit on your ass about it and think of something? unless you don’t particularly want to stop murders, which i guess is your business. but i don’t know why feministe should give you the answers. we’ve also had other posts on stopping murder and rape on this and other major feminist blogs, you might want to poke around.

  96. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 7:08 pm |

    Beidran, Jill, how would you stop the murders?

  97. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 7:09 pm |

    Lorelei,

    Since none of you know the answer, I shall tell you.

  98. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 7:10 pm |

    So I guess you’d agree that a man who made stupid choices over years deserves to be killed as well, right, Tony?

    After all, the wages of sin, yadda yadda.

    Mmmm . . . thanks for putting the words in my mouth, zuzu, they were tasty, like pie.

  99. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 7:14 pm |

    Kenneth -

    Given that my PhD work is in sociology, I have to agree with Zuzu on this one. Yes, testosterone is associated with aggression, but so what?

    Testosterone is far from being the be-all and end-all of behavioural aggression, particularly when you seem to be ignoring a trigger-reaction connection, and more so when you look cross-culturally to look at how masculinity and violence operate.

    Behaviour has far more to do with the socio-cultural construction of behaviour expectations than anything to do with hormones. Socialising people differently DOES actually impact tendencies to violence across groups.

    Except for the male gorillas, and elephants, and wolves and lions and on and on. Social construction and behavioral expectations? Or testosterone?

    At a certain point, if you care, you will come to the fact that most of us men take great efforts to suppress quite a bit of our impulses, and the vast majority of us do quite a good job not killing one another or women. I don’t want medals, and I don’t want money, just a little head nod’ll do.

  100. evil fizz
    evil fizz June 27, 2007 at 7:20 pm | *

    Since none of you know the answer, I shall tell you.

    Oh! A deity troll! We haven’t had one of those in a while.

    I’m sorry, where were we? Oh, right, yes, our esteemed Kenneth is about to tell us how to stop murders. (I call dibs on handguns featuring somewhere prominently in the answer!)

  101. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 7:21 pm |

    Or here’s another one! For five years, you keep your DVD player and Very Expensive Collection of Something Or Other visible through the window. A burglar sees the stuff in your window, which, again, you’ve had for five years in the same location. He breaks into your home to steal the items seen through the window, and you walk in just as he’s doing so, so he shoots you to death.

    You deserved it, yeah?

    I’m quick on the draw, so the question would be “would he deserve it for breaking into my house?” Note aslo, it was a “he” and not a “she” in your hypothetical.

    To your point, there is a bit of nuance here that you are failing to recognize, preferring as you do to keep a binary “deserved it or no” frame so that you can call us all misogynists. The correct question is “if I kept the hope diamond in my front yard, unguarded all day, should I reasonably expect it to be there every evening?” The answer, of course, would be no.

    The day I say “Bobby Cutts should be released because she made him do it,” then you may properly say that I am “blaming the victim.” Being the stone aged, cold-hearted savage that I am, I’d see him hanged. Not much nuance there.

  102. evil fizz
    evil fizz June 27, 2007 at 7:23 pm | *

    Tony, if you’re not clear by now on the fact that there is no meaningful distinction between “She should have reasonably expected this” and “She deserved it”, then you’re on the wrong blog.

  103. Erin PD
    Erin PD June 27, 2007 at 7:27 pm |

    What, Kenny isn’t gonna share? Damn. I was so excited.

  104. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 7:36 pm |

    Tell you what, I just spent a lot of time typing a response in a Word doc.

    I have only been respectful to the utmost degree to the participants here, and it seems in my absence, Evil and Erin would rather disrespect me, than be patient enough for my response.

    And this is condoned here?

  105. beidran
    beidran June 27, 2007 at 7:40 pm |

    Yes, Kenneth, please do tell us. I know that my solution involves teaching children from as early as possible that women are people, that there is no such thing as the “other,” that everyone is of value; providing people with a social safety net that allows them to get help and support when they most need it; and tearing down the twisted thinking that values violence as manly and encourages a hierarchical approach that means your self-worth comes from someone else’s being worth less, but since I am a lowly woman with no understanding of statistics, obviously my solution is doomed to failure.

  106. MikeEss
    MikeEss June 27, 2007 at 7:45 pm |

    beidran, if you don’t talk nicely to Kenneth, he’ll take his solution to violence in men away and you’ll never hear of it again.

    And then you’ll be sorry…

  107. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 7:46 pm |

    Lorelei,

    Over the last 60 centuries, mankind has wrestled with murder and rape. It is in every culture, far and wide, none exempted. It is simply, a fact of life.

    The only statistically known deterrent is justice. The higher a price paid for a crime, the lower the incidence of said crime. Aside from that, not all the wishful thinking, government programs or money will help.

    I think the argument that started this thread, was some hard core right wing bloggers claiming “she deserved it”.

    From a psychological standpoint, they are trying to avoid “projecting” and at the same time, they are being overly simplistic.

    If one concludes that murders are going to happen when people lose their temper, want power, want sex, want money, want land or anything else that seems “worth” the deed, then in an attempt to address “prevention”, one must look for a causation or make a risk assessment to mitigate these outcomes in the future.

    From a crude standpoint, one could say that she put herself in a statistically high risk situation. This is true, we all put ourselves at risk in our lives, but her situation is more complicated than a one liner, indeed. It appears the adversaries of this blog are reaching for the simple, obvious mitigating circumstance they can find, and hitting it with a sledgehammer.

    As I said before, women are on the receiving end of violence 400% less than men. This is because men put women on pedestals. Women are not as feared by men as men are. Women are literally worshipped, misogynists excluded.

    This type of crime happens every day, in every country. My suggestion would be ultra high penalties for violent crimes and for people to empower themselves, fully.

    To empower oneself is to deny victimhood status. Bad things happen to all people at one time or another in their lives, some people, repeatedly. Claiming to be a victim not only prolongs the pain, defers the healing, but makes one an easier target at a later time, for a multitude of psychological reasons.

    To empower oneself, we all need to say, I am not a victim, never have been, never will be. It is that inner strength that brings with it self esteem, the will to fight back and the power and understanding to accept our realities, then move on to more important things, like enjoying life to its fullest.

    So, in short, more justice, less victimhood. This will not solve the problem, but it will make a statistical difference in dealing with the free choices of others, a free choice we can never control.

  108. Bunny
    Bunny June 27, 2007 at 7:46 pm |

    Tony, I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make, here.

    So, are you saying, for example, that a woman who wears a low-cut top should expect to get wolf-whistles, cat calls, gropes by strangers?

    See, if that is along the lines of what you’re trying to say, the yeah, this is true. Women, generally, experience that sort of thing from really quite early on in puberty, so we do anticipate that, if we do X, there is a risk that Y might happen. That doesn’t make it right, of course.

    If I wear a top that shows off my cleavage, I know I might get approached unwelcomly. This doesn’t mean I should never wear another low cut top. It means that I should a- be sensible about how I behave in public so that I send clear signals of “no-touchy”. It also means that we need to teach men (and women, they do it too) that you don’t have the right to approach a complete stranger and grab them for your jollies.

    Either way, saying that “if I do X, I increase the risk of Y” still isn’t much use, or very relevant, to the situation we’re discussing.

    Once again, some one who has been ground down, gradually but interminably, to the point where they no longer value themselves, where they are scared of their partner, wracked with guilt at the supposed things they did to invoke the abuse (cooked dinner wrong, came home late, complained too much, put on weight), worried for the wellbeing of their child, that person isn’t exactly going to be in a frame of mind to make a detatched, informed decision. They will probably know perfectly well what needs to be done ultimately (ie, get the hell away from the person abusing them) but they might not be able to see a clear path to doing this that isn’t full of massive risks (homelessness, invoking worse beatings, invoking beatings/murder/maltreatment of their loved ones).

    Take a hypothetical scenario.

    Woman has no family. They are either deceased or living so far away she has no practical, everyday means to gain access to them. She gave up work to raise a family and has since lost touch with her friends- they have moved away, or otherwise become inaccessible. Woman has a small child and/or is pregnant. Woman lives in house with husband, upon whom she is dependent. The mortgage is in his name, he works to pay the living expenses, etc. Woman is being abused by her husband. Woman is able to emotionally detatch herself from her situation, and sees the following options.

    1- Stay with husband, continue to suffer abuse which may, or may not, get worse. This also carries the risk of abuse towards the children as they get older, if it isn’t already happening.

    2- Throw husband out of house. Change the locks when he is at work, throw his clothes, etc out onto the front lawn. Husband is known to behave violently- likely to smash his way in via windows etc, proffer more savage beating on wife with increased restrictions on her life following this event. Remain trapped in same situation.

    3- Go to the police. Unless this is done immediately after a beating, where evidence (injuries, blood/other evidence still on husbands clothes etc) this will be a case of “his voice against yours”. Unlikely to result in immediate freedom from the situation. Failure to have husband successfully arrested and kept in jail will likely result in husband returning to threaten. Possibility of extremely increased violence from husband if he does return.

    4- Run away, leaving the child behind. Child is left to suffer the abuse as woman is no longer around to field the beatings. Woman has been out of work for an extended period of time, has no money of her own and no means to support herself. Immediate homelessness with little chance of recovery. Possibility of suffering further abuse on the streets, as homeless people are often treated as subhuman. Possibility of ending up raped/prostituted/addicted to drugs.

    5- Run away, taking the child. Both mother and child are now homeless. Again, possibility of abuse on the streets, this time with an additional risk of loss of child or abuse of child on the streets.

    Which of these isn’t a stupid or risky option?

  109. Kristen
    Kristen June 27, 2007 at 7:57 pm |

    Kenneth,

    lulz

  110. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 8:00 pm |

    Kristen,

    lulz?

  111. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 8:03 pm |

    Lorelei,

    Did I adequately answer your question?

    Do you have other questions?

  112. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 8:10 pm |

    Tony, if you’re not clear by now on the fact that there is no meaningful distinction between “She should have reasonably expected this” and “She deserved it”, then you’re on the wrong blog.

    Not unless you want to treat women like people capable of drawing the conclusion, you know, from being beaten, that things might escalate to serious injury at some point. But I know that you see the distinction, could drive a semi through it, but choose to pretend it doesn’t exist, as if that would win the day.

  113. matttbastard
    matttbastard June 27, 2007 at 8:10 pm |

    I’m veryn pleased Kenneth decided to share his groundbreaking exegesis with us. I thought for a moment the poor dear was going to need a few moments on the fainting couch.

  114. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 8:11 pm |

    Matt,

    If you have an opinion I am most interested to read it.

  115. Lorelei
    Lorelei June 27, 2007 at 8:12 pm |

    Kenneth,

    No shit, dude. But juries tend to not want to issue guilty verdicts for violence against women. Please check the ‘sexual assault’ tag for instances where rape is gone unpunished. The reason rape tends to not be prosecuted is… wait for it… misogynist ideas!!

    So when the crime goes unpunished, it doesn’t even fucking matter if there’s an ultra-high punishment. What do you suppose we should do about THAT problem?

  116. Bunny
    Bunny June 27, 2007 at 8:13 pm |

    Tony, I’m still curious.

    What is your enterpretation of

    As far as the touchy subject of inter-racial breeding (AKA Animal Husbandry). Again, ever seen what kids do to mixed-race kids? They are, IN-MOST-CASES, usually shunned by both parties, or have to be unusually extreme (behavior-wise) to be accepted by one or the other!
    WHY the fuck would you do this to a kid nowadays? Life’s hard enough without handicapping them from the get-go!!!

  117. Bunny
    Bunny June 27, 2007 at 8:17 pm |

    And, um, I think I’ve missed something here re: Kenneth. Some of his shorter statements above looked a little rude (but then, I remember that you can’t accurately show tone of voice when typing so I might be misconstruing what hes saying), but his suggestion re: solving violence seemed, whilst incomplete, quite positive. I disagree that increasing penalties decreased the rate of crime (look how well that’s working for drug-related crimes) but I’m not really sure where the animosity is coming from. It is quite late now so I apologise if I missed a clue here!

  118. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 8:20 pm |

    Tony, I’m still curious.

    What is your enterpretation of

    As far as the touchy subject of inter-racial breeding (AKA Animal Husbandry). Again, ever seen what kids do to mixed-race kids? They are, IN-MOST-CASES, usually shunned by both parties, or have to be unusually extreme (behavior-wise) to be accepted by one or the other!
    WHY the fuck would you do this to a kid nowadays? Life’s hard enough without handicapping them from the get-go!!!

    Interpretation? I think he/she meant what he/she said. I don’t agree, as I have interracial friends (one is a black jew) and you really can’t tell them apart from other black people – at least not enough to say “he’s not black, he’s interracial, let us torment him.” On the other hand, some interracial people say that they never felt fully accepted by either race, so maybe there is something to it, apart from the Animal Husbandry bit.

    I don’t see the relevance to the deserved it/didn’t deserve it dynamic.

  119. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 8:25 pm |

    Lorelei,

    I am a proponent of polygraph tests. They are not admissible in court since statistically they only “catch” 92% of people lying. They have yet to show a person telling the truth, to be a liar.

    People claim they can be beaten, problem is, I have never met a person that beat a lie detector test, neither has anyone in here.

    If a test is double blind, both parties taking it, the statistical reliability goes up to 99.6%.

    Rapist = Failed Person Raped=Passed (100% guilty)
    Rapist = Passed Person Raped=Failed (100% innocent)
    Rapist = Passed Person Raped=Passed (Jury Trial)
    Rapist= Failed Person Raped=Failed (Test “witnesses”, retest primaries)

    I will not argue for the justice system for letting people go, it is a complete travesty to see the guilty walk away (another reason people murder).

    We can only make the laws to apply Justice, if the legal system does not evenly apply the Justice we voted for, petitioned for, or paid for, we are cheated.

  120. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 8:27 pm |

    Bunny,

    I am never intentionally rude.

    I have not claimed raising the penalty(ies) reduces all crime, I only stated it was the only verifiable, statistically positive influence on lowering violent crime occurances.

  121. matttbastard
    matttbastard June 27, 2007 at 8:30 pm |

    Ken: I have no desire to fill a troll’s belly with treats and tidbits, even one that took the time to type out a word document (ok, fine, you get a digestive biscuit for that).

    I will however touch upon your contention that women are objects (key word) of worship to (most) men. I found it telling that you claim men inherently place women upon a pedestal. One puts a vase on a pedestal, or a stuffed owl, or a bust – not a living, breathing, human being with full independent agency.

    The fact that you apparently view women as objects (that word again) of either worship or derision (and have repeatedly offered the tired trope that it’s teh menz who iz teh REAL victimz of teh violence, dammit!!!1) and not, you know, people, speaks volumes about your motivations in this thread.

    As for Riehl, he’s the male Debbie Schlussel, minus the heavy foundation and hair extensions.

  122. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 8:32 pm |

    All,

    I must go now, my wife has prepared a wonderful dinner and I have not eaten 3 bites all day.

    (I am a lucky man, indeed)

    I will check in tomorrow at some time and read this post in case someone is still talking to me.

    Have a wonderful evening, have some fun, laugh all you can and may God bless you and all the people you love.

    -Ken

  123. From My Cold, Dead Hands « Reality-Related Program Activities

    [...] don’t care what these mofos say: Feministing Shakes’ Sister Pandagon Sadly No Feminist [...]

  124. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 8:33 pm |

    Wait

  125. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 8:35 pm |

    Matt,

    Women are not objects, I never said they were.

    Pedestals referring to one being higher than another, in admiration (adore).

    I adore women, I adore my wife. My wife is my co-equal.

    I can not be more simplistic than that.

    You have heard it from the source, direct. Changing my words does not make you accurate, just wrong.

  126. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 8:39 pm |

    Now I go, goodnight!

  127. Bunny
    Bunny June 27, 2007 at 8:42 pm |

    I don’t see the relevance to the deserved it/didn’t deserve it dynamic.

    The reason we keep mentioning this is because that’s what your comments seem to imply. You keep stating things like

    Some people are just stupid, others are weak, and yet others need the physical drama to get off

    and

    It is simply beyond credulity to hold that Jessie was beaten for the first time on the day she was murdered, or that the behavior (which Cutts shared with his other lovers) was not a defining aspect of the relationship which she chose to maintain

    also

    Not unless you want to treat women like people capable of drawing the conclusion, you know, from being beaten, that things might escalate to serious injury at some point.

    and to me, at least, this implies that you think that, a- choosing to continue a risky relationship means that some of the blame for the murder falls to Jessie and b- not being murdered was simply a matter of choosing to end the relationship. and c- this choice was obvious.

    I’m trying to point out that the choice is rarely that easy- especially when there are children involved.

  128. Bunny
    Bunny June 27, 2007 at 8:43 pm |

    and yeah, I’m off too- it’s almost 2am here and I’m really getting bad at this whole not-being-nocturnal thing.

    Nighty night, everyone.

  129. matttbastard
    matttbastard June 27, 2007 at 8:49 pm |

    Not to put more words in your mouth, Ken, but you could’ve saved yourself a lot of time and effort if, instead of writing :

    This type of crime happens every day, in every country. My suggestion would be ultra high penalties for violent crimes and for people to empower themselves, fully.

    To empower oneself is to deny victimhood status. Bad things happen to all people at one time or another in their lives, some people, repeatedly. Claiming to be a victim not only prolongs the pain, defers the healing, but makes one an easier target at a later time, for a multitude of psychological reasons.

    To empower oneself, we all need to say, I am not a victim, never have been, never will be. It is that inner strength that brings with it self esteem, the will to fight back and the power and understanding to accept our realities, then move on to more important things, like enjoying life to its fullest.

    you had just said ‘suck it up, crybabies’.

    Enjoy your dinner.

  130. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 9:03 pm |

    The reason we keep mentioning this is because that’s what your comments seem to imply. You keep stating things like

    Some people are just stupid, others are weak, and yet others need the physical drama to get off

    and

    It is simply beyond credulity to hold that Jessie was beaten for the first time on the day she was murdered, or that the behavior (which Cutts shared with his other lovers) was not a defining aspect of the relationship which she chose to maintain

    also

    Not unless you want to treat women like people capable of drawing the conclusion, you know, from being beaten, that things might escalate to serious injury at some point.

    and to me, at least, this implies that you think that, a- choosing to continue a risky relationship means that some of the blame for the murder falls to Jessie and b- not being murdered was simply a matter of choosing to end the relationship. and c- this choice was obvious.

    I’m trying to point out that the choice is rarely that easy- especially when there are children involved.

    Some people are stupid, weak willed, and attracted to violence in a partner – my point here was despite all our combined best efforts, more women will follow Davis’ path – even if Jill got to “socialize” every child born from this day forward. There will be others, the only open question is whether they will be more or less based on Cutts’ and Davis’ example.

    You (all) keep conflating blame with predictability. If a good man stands beneath a piano on a block and tackle dangling like a Sword of Damocles, and I say “pal, that ain’t safe, that piano fell three times this half hour” but he says “bullocks, I have every right to stand here without a piano falling on my noggin,” and persists in standing there it is predictable that he will die, it is true that he could have avoided his death, true that the piano mover is fully at fault, but it is not true that a good man “deserved” to die. I don’t think that this is a slender nuance.

    The point is to be made for the next girl, going forward, who thinks it is exciting to live the way that Davis did, for whatever reason. The better course is a reciprocal relationship of mutual respect and admiriation, with a sprinkling of fidelity and a decided dearth of “bitch I ain’t gonna tell you again.”

    The real elephant in this room is whether women ought to moderate their behavior to minimize the risk of being beaten, abused, and ultimately killed – it applies to this circumstance in relationships, just as it applies to rape. Is a young woman in a micro-mini, six inch heels, and garters walking drunk and alone down a dark alley at 3 a.m. “aking” to get raped? Of course not. Is it likely that there is a criminal opportunist in the shadows of that alley saying to himself “Who wants to get raped tonight?” There is an unjustifiably high risk that there is. And apparently, all he hears is “I do” when the opportunity presents itself, and there isn’t much any of the rest of us can do to prevent the assault at that point.

  131. Raincitygirl
    Raincitygirl June 27, 2007 at 9:09 pm |

    This is the coolest thread ever. I made Bingo twice over. That never happens in a single thread. Hugs and kisses to Tony, Kenneth, etc. for providing such great material for us keen players.

  132. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 9:16 pm |

    This is the coolest thread ever. I made Bingo twice over. That never happens in a single thread. Hugs and kisses to Tony, Kenneth, etc. for providing such great material for us keen players.

    No problem. Glad I could help. I really do believe that you are sooo ultra smart that if you posted in this thread, we would all tremble and change our opinions to conform to yours, what with being the most erudite Hot Topic retail associate ever. Really, I do.

  133. Lauren
    Lauren June 27, 2007 at 10:11 pm |

    You know, guys, Tony is right. Nothing gets women hot like a good beating.

  134. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 10:20 pm |

    You know, guys, Tony is right. Nothing gets women hot like a good beating.

    Mmmmm – more delicious words that I never said. But you know, I see how you could get that, being that Bobby had three hot and cold running “bitches” throughout all the beatings. Maybe human sexuality is more complicated than feminist pleasantries would allow . . .

  135. Lauren
    Lauren June 27, 2007 at 10:24 pm |

    Clearly feminine (and feminist!) whimsies are the real culprit here, and I thank Tony for setting us straight.

    By the way, Tony, I like how you put “bitches” in quotes. You’re down with the jive, T! Slap me some skin, bro!

  136. Katherine
    Katherine June 27, 2007 at 10:32 pm |

    At a certain point, if you care, you will come to the fact that most of us men take great efforts to suppress quite a bit of our impulses, and the vast majority of us do quite a good job not killing one another or women. I don’t want medals, and I don’t want money, just a little head nod’ll do.

    Wow, I guess it must be hard to suppress those manly homicidal tendencies all the time, huh?

  137. Katherine
    Katherine June 27, 2007 at 10:37 pm |

    If a good man stands beneath a piano on a block and tackle dangling like a Sword of Damocles, and I say “pal, that ain’t safe, that piano fell three times this half hour” but he says “bullocks, I have every right to stand here without a piano falling on my noggin,” and persists in standing there it is predictable that he will die, it is true that he could have avoided his death, true that the piano mover is fully at fault, but it is not true that a good man “deserved” to die. I don’t think that this is a slender nuance.

    Bullshit. Pianos =/= people.

  138. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 10:37 pm |

    Clearly feminine (and feminist!) whimsies are the real culprit here, and I thank Tony for setting us straight.

    By the way, Tony, I like how you put “bitches” in quotes. You’re down with the jive, T! Slap me some skin, bro!

    Allright then, the new game is “I’ll tell you when what you wrote, and criticized me for, comes close to what I wrote.”

    But maybe we’ll all deny that playful reluctance, power plays, and dominance and submission aren’t part of mainstream heterosexual sexuality. No – lets pretend, instead, that sex is a “special hug” politely exchanged after a signed, notarized waiver, and then hold our collective jaws agape when some fucked up people don’t conform to the Marquis rules. And lets not try to understand what drew Davis to him, so that maybe we can separate the destructive stuff and actual abuse from the play.

    Word to your mother.

  139. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 10:41 pm |

    At a certain point, if you care, you will come to the fact that most of us men take great efforts to suppress quite a bit of our impulses, and the vast majority of us do quite a good job not killing one another or women. I don’t want medals, and I don’t want money, just a little head nod’ll do.

    Wow, I guess it must be hard to suppress those manly homicidal tendencies all the time, huh?

    Well, at first – now I’m an old pro, and not all that dangerous to random people. Thanks for the empathy.

    When you’re finished ineffectually mocking masculinity, I’ll have the blueberry pie, Katherine. I guess old dogs do the same old tricks though, huh?

  140. XtinaS
    XtinaS June 27, 2007 at 10:42 pm |

    Tony:

    Part of the problem is also that you know, holy shit, I’ve never ever heard “Maybe you shouldn’t do [thing], that totally leads to [some guy doing bad shit]!”.  This thing about making careful risk assessments?  Shockingly new information.  I hadn’t considered!

    I’m heartily sick of the usual “You should have existed better” bullshit.  “You shouldn’t have been wearing whatever it is that you’re wearing – if you get attacked, you should have expected it!  How could you get yourself in this situation?  God, anybody would know you shouldn’t do that.  And don’t show that you’re upset!  How weak!”  As though you’re providing new information.

    Be original.  Talk about how Cutts got to be the man he is today.  Talk about how in the hell it got into his head to kill Ms. Davis and their child.  Talk about what anyone can do to prevent that kind of shit in the future.  Talk about the facts of the case, if you have any, and discuss whether or not Cutts is guilty.

    But goddamn, that “She shouldn’t have been in that situation!” shit is boring.  I’ve heard variations on that theme a million times, and I’m willing to bet I’m not alone in that.  “Ask a different question!”*

    * JTHM reference.

  141. evil fizz
    evil fizz June 27, 2007 at 10:45 pm | *

    Did you say you wanted a head not for not committing felonies? Take your blueberry pie and go the fuck home.

  142. evil fizz
    evil fizz June 27, 2007 at 10:46 pm | *

    *Nod.

    Arugh, typos.

  143. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 10:49 pm |

    Did you say you wanted a head not for not committing felonies? Take your blueberry pie and go the fuck home.

    Intelligent people might have considered that sarcasm. Yeah, intelligent people.

    You’re all really grasping at straws at this point, and instead of engaging me, you’re becoming bad stereotypes and acquitting yourselves rather poorly. Yawn.

  144. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 10:50 pm |

    I am back for a moment before I go to bed.

    If Jill around? Does anyone know?

  145. Lauren
    Lauren June 27, 2007 at 10:54 pm |

    No – lets pretend, instead, that sex is a “special hug” politely exchanged after a signed, notarized waiver, and then hold our collective jaws agape when some fucked up people don’t conform to the Marquis rules.

    Are we at Antioch now? Jill? What’s going on?

    And lets not try to understand what drew Davis to him, so that maybe we can separate the destructive stuff and actual abuse from the play.

    Based on your comments above, it appears you think that only a white woman with low self-worth would stoop to sleeping with a black man, who is invariably a lawless cad spreading his seed about the community in order to prove street cred. She likely finds sleeping with a negro exotic and enticing, so enticing that she’d put up with a little abuse just so she can maw on his cock and have his illegitimate babies. Clearly the two of them are victims of the dangers of rap music.

    Have I summed things up correctly?

    While we’re at it, what is this “abuse” and “play” you speak of? In this sentence I read “murder” and “fucking,” based on your assessment, which leads me to wonder how you assess the inbetweens. Or are we still Exoticizing The Negroes?

    Word to your mother.

    Word to your blockquote skills.

  146. evil fizz
    evil fizz June 27, 2007 at 10:54 pm | *

    Wait, you expect your sarcasm to be responded to with deep, sensitive soul-searching posts about the nature of females and their irrational love for drama and abusive men?

    *laughs*

    Oh, Tony, baby doll, I really do think you should head to bed. You’re exhausting the rest of us.

    *Yawn.*

  147. evil fizz
    evil fizz June 27, 2007 at 10:55 pm | *

    p.s. Lauren: I heart you.

  148. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 10:57 pm |

    I thought feminism was intended to empower women?

  149. Tiki
    Tiki June 27, 2007 at 11:04 pm |

    Kenneth, if you want a definition of feminism, there are several available online for your perusal. To go to a feminist website and request a definition that satisfies you smacks of intellectual laziness.

  150. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 11:09 pm |

    Tiki,

    I have read the technical definition before. I am really provoking a discussion on why I do not see it displayed or executed in this thread?

    Where is Jill? She has been absent most of the day.

  151. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 11:10 pm |

    And lets not try to understand what drew Davis to him, so that maybe we can separate the destructive stuff and actual abuse from the play.

    Based on your comments above, it appears you think that only a white woman with low self-worth would stoop to sleeping with a black man, who is invariably a lawless cad spreading his seed about the community in order to prove street cred. She likely finds sleeping with a negro exotic and enticing, so enticing that she’d put up with a little abuse just so she can maw on his cock and have his illegitimate babies. Clearly the two of them are victims of the dangers of rap music.

    Have I summed things up correctly?

    While we’re at it, what is this “abuse” and “play” you speak of? In this sentence I read “murder” and “fucking,” based on your assessment, which leads me to wonder how you assess the inbetweens. Or are we still Exoticizing The Negroes?

    Word to your mother.

    Word to your blockquote skills.

    Bobby Cutts DNE “a black man” as in any black man – but a black man who embraced a certain manner of being, including, you know, beating his bitches and making babies with no intent to raise them. If she was fucking Carlton Banks exclusively, I doubt we would be having this pleasant back and forth. Slipping the “all black men are bad” rabbit into the “she deserved it” hat must still be fun for you.

    The play would be the feigned reluctance and pretend resistence between established partners that is pretty common kink. Tell me that you never play wrestled with a man in bed to test his strength as foreplay.

    The abuse would be, pretty much, beating the bitch because you can’t support another kid, or just ’cause. I don’t think it is a hard distinction to make.

    Once again, I apologize for not being the blockquote wizard that I ought to be, what with doing things besides blogging during my days.

  152. zuzu
    zuzu June 27, 2007 at 11:11 pm | *

    Why is Tony reminding me of Ralph Fiennes in that scene from Schindler’s List where he goes around forgiving inmates after Liam Neeson, trying to get him to, like, stop killing inmates randomly, tells him that it’s a greater exercise of power to forgive than to punish.

    But we know what happens next.

  153. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 11:13 pm |

    Wait, you expect your sarcasm to be responded to with deep, sensitive soul-searching posts about the nature of females and their irrational love for drama and abusive men?

    No, but how about we start by recognizing sarcasm and not attributing it to me as if I made a literal statement to that effect.

    You feigned superiority is rather transparent.

  154. Tiki
    Tiki June 27, 2007 at 11:13 pm |

    Hey Kenneth, if you get to be disingenuous, then so do we. Jill has a job, and other demands on her time, as she has already stated.

  155. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 11:15 pm |

    Tiki,

    Do you know who wrote her bio on this site?

  156. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 11:16 pm |

    Why is Tony reminding me of Ralph Fiennes in that scene from Schindler’s List where he goes around forgiving inmates after Liam Neeson, trying to get him to, like, stop killing inmates randomly, tells him that it’s a greater exercise of power to forgive than to punish.

    But we know what happens next.

    Yes zuzu, I’m a Nazi about to kill all the independent women. If that helps you process a complex world full of grey in your Manachean little mind, go ahead and believe it.

    The cutting edge of feminism seems like it might have considerable trouble with warm butter tonight.

  157. Tiki
    Tiki June 27, 2007 at 11:20 pm |

    nope.
    I can speculate all day for you if you like. Try asking Jill, and waiting politely for her response, or you can email her at the e-mail address she so kindly provides on said bio.

  158. Lauren
    Lauren June 27, 2007 at 11:20 pm |

    If she was fucking Carlton Banks exclusively, I doubt we would be having this pleasant back and forth.

    …and we’re back. To blaming the dead.

    The play would be the feigned reluctance and pretend resistence between established partners that is pretty common kink. Tell me that you never play wrestled with a man in bed to test his strength as foreplay.

    Is anyone else amused that the guy that’s squicked out about interracial sex wants to give us a lesson on sexual practices?

    The abuse would be, pretty much, beating the bitch because you can’t support another kid, or just ‘cause. I don’t think it is a hard distinction to make.

    I’m with the “just ’cause” line of argument, because any sorry bastard on a power trip can find an excuse to beat his partner if it fits the mood.

    Once again, I apologize for not being the blockquote wizard that I ought to be, what with doing things besides blogging during my days.

    Luckily we installed a preview function at the bottom of the page for the tired and overworked commenter. It’s pretty cool.

  159. Lauren
    Lauren June 27, 2007 at 11:21 pm |

    The cutting edge of feminism seems like it might have considerable trouble with warm butter tonight.

    I saw that one. With Marlon Brando?

  160. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 11:26 pm |

    Tiki

    Thanks anyway, I thought you knew her.

    Have a great evening everybody!

    God Bless Everybody

  161. Reclusive Leftist » Blog Archive  » Jessie Davis and the eternal mystery of wingnut thought processes

    [...] of Jessie Davis, Dead Woman. I only know this from skimming other feminist blogs, namely Feministe and Pandag [...]

  162. zuzu
    zuzu June 27, 2007 at 11:32 pm | *

    Where is Jill? She has been absent most of the day.

    Punkin, Jill is not at your beck and call. Do try to remember that.

    You’re a big boy, too, with no need to have Jill hold your hand while you dribble forth your grand theories. Or do you really need her to clap and smile and praise you for making a boom-boom?

    And really, “She shoulda just sacked up and done something to prevent being murdered” isn’t exactly a message of empowerment. Because, dear Kenneth, your whole theory of crime prevention depends on the victims not getting themselves kilt daid. Arent’ we missing someone here?

    Tony, darling: please explain how Laci Petersen, nice white married lady with a nice white husband, wound up dead. Scott made a lifestyle choice that entailed killing his bitches like a white guy?

    And, seriously, “cop” is not exactly the most ghetto-fied, street-cred-ful job description.

  163. zuzu
    zuzu June 27, 2007 at 11:33 pm | *

    Do you know who wrote her bio on this site?

    Now you’re just being creepy.

  164. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 11:35 pm |

    If she was fucking Carlton Banks exclusively, I doubt we would be having this pleasant back and forth.

    …and we’re back. To blaming the dead.

    The play would be the feigned reluctance and pretend resistence between established partners that is pretty common kink. Tell me that you never play wrestled with a man in bed to test his strength as foreplay.

    Is anyone else amused that the guy that’s squicked out about interracial sex wants to give us a lesson on sexual practices?

    The abuse would be, pretty much, beating the bitch because you can’t support another kid, or just ‘cause. I don’t think it is a hard distinction to make.

    I’m with the “just ‘cause” line of argument, because any sorry bastard on a power trip can find an excuse to beat his partner if it fits the mood.

    Once again, I apologize for not being the blockquote wizard that I ought to be, what with doing things besides blogging during my days.

    Luckily we installed a preview function at the bottom of the page for the tired and overworked commenter. It’s pretty cool.

    Yup, you win Lauren – saying “its a bad idea to be in a four-way relationship with a serial batterer” is “blaming the dead.” I’m certain you would encourage Lauren Jr. to find her very own Bobby Cutts for some bitch learnin, right?

    I don’t think I’ve ever been “squicked,” even by teh interracial sex. I’m pretty cool with Clarence Thomas fucking a white woman. Jungle fever – catch it!

    I’m doubt I’m schooling you on sex practices – I’m certain you’ve had plenty of that boring, mutually androgynous earth-mama hairy clinical sex that leftists seem to enjoy, assuming heteronormality, of course.

  165. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 11:36 pm |

    Zuzu,

    “Her dislikes include Everybody Loves Raymond, network news, Tucker Carlson and other bow-tied right-wing pundits, Aerosmith, bad puns, California rolls, people who refer to themselves in the third person, and the smell of baby powder. She really, really hates donuts. And she is thrilled to be blogging at Feministe. ”

    Actually, your paranoid. I wanted to ask her if she was being IRONIC or SARCASTIC being that it appears she wrote?

  166. Tiki
    Tiki June 27, 2007 at 11:41 pm |

    Okay, delurking was more fun than I expected!

    I’ve always felt the victim-blaming in cases like these has an element of “well she did this, and I (or the people I love) don’t act in this manner, therefore by avoiding said manner we will be safe”. It’s a reflection of our own fears of violence and death, and a way to reassure ourselves when our bubbles of safety are popped by cases like these.

    Still, responsibility for the commission of violence is the sole province of the person committing it. It is not all right to suggest that the choices one person makes (staying with a potentially dangerous partner, in this case) are responsible for the choices anther person makes (killing the other person). No one’s actions but the person who killed her caused this person’s death.

  167. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 27, 2007 at 11:41 pm |

    Zuzu,

    You’re a big boy, too, with no need to have Jill hold your hand while you dribble forth your grand theories. Or do you really need her to clap and smile and praise you for making a boom-boom?

    And really, “She shoulda just sacked up and done something to prevent being murdered” isn’t exactly a message of empowerment. Because, dear Kenneth, your whole theory of crime prevention depends on the victims not getting themselves kilt daid. Arent’ we missing someone here?

    Zuzu, I did not say that. I said that murder was unpreventable. It always has been.

    I never said crime was preventable.

    I never said the lady that got murdered should have “sacked up” or anything. I never even mentioned her.

    Zuzu, from where are you reading?

  168. Lauren
    Lauren June 27, 2007 at 11:44 pm |

    …responsibility for the commission of violence is the sole province of the person committing it. It is not all right to suggest that the choices one person makes (staying with a potentially dangerous partner, in this case) are responsible for the choices anther person makes (killing the other person). No one’s actions but the person who killed her caused this person’s death.

    Yep. Which is why all the focus on who and how people are fucking is tiresome.

  169. Tiki
    Tiki June 27, 2007 at 11:46 pm |

    Well Mr. Hodges,

    if you want to ask someone something specific to their biography, and not related to the comment thread at hand, you can use an *email* program to *email* them at the *email* address they have conveniently provided for just such an occasion.

    I side with Zuzu, in that I thought it was a creepy question to ask also.

  170. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 11:47 pm |

    Tony, darling: please explain how Laci Petersen, nice white married lady with a nice white husband, wound up dead. Scott made a lifestyle choice that entailed killing his bitches like a white guy?

    And, seriously, “cop” is not exactly the most ghetto-fied, street-cred-ful job description.

    My guess is that Scott Peterson was an abusive cad as well, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he beat Laci on the body to ‘scape being found out. If that is the case, the same rule applies. Let us also note that Laci probably knew he was “creepin” as well – same behavior, different culture, identical result. There are probably one or two Asian batterer/murderers as well, but that doesn’t make “urban culture” better than its products. Ultimate equality? Hang them both from the same fucking yardarm post haste. Play “ebony and ivory” for yucks for all the fuck I care.

    As for the cops, perhaps you have little to no experience with big city cops? I come from a family of cops, and know more than a few personally, as well as the people that they work with. There are, in fact, hip-hop-cops, as in cops who listen to hip-hop and see police work as just a job – no real dissonance there.

  171. Tiki
    Tiki June 27, 2007 at 11:47 pm |

    whoops, from now on I’ll refresh before hitting submit. sorry all.

  172. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne June 27, 2007 at 11:48 pm |

    Yup, you win Lauren – saying “its a bad idea to be in a four-way relationship with a serial batterer” is “blaming the dead.” I’m certain you would encourage Lauren Jr. to find her very own Bobby Cutts for some bitch learnin, right?

    Ah, yes, the old standby: “It’s her mom’s fault!”

    Interesting that Tony is full of excuses for a murderer. Nice morals there.

  173. MadMonk
    MadMonk June 27, 2007 at 11:50 pm |

    Tony, you are a shining voice of sanity and reason. Though your logic is often over the heads of many of those here, keep fighting the good fight! With luck, you will open the mind of at least one person here and set them on the path of truth.

  174. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 27, 2007 at 11:52 pm |

    Still, responsibility for the commission of violence is the sole province of the person committing it. It is not all right to suggest that the choices one person makes (staying with a potentially dangerous partner, in this case) are responsible for the choices anther person makes (killing the other person). No one’s actions but the person who killed her caused this person’s death.

    Causation does not equal “avoidable,” and therefore “girls, don’t do X, it isn’t healthy” is an understandable result.

    I’m not certain what you all think the outcome of the next one just like this will be? Are you all going to say “well, it was entirely his fault, so I’m totally surprised?” A lot of good that will do the next one/

  175. Gayle
    Gayle June 27, 2007 at 11:57 pm |

    Except for the male gorillas, and elephants, and wolves and lions and on and on. Social construction and behavioral expectations? Or testosterone?

    Do female lions have an over-abundance of testosterone? ‘Cause they do the vast majority of the hunting. Although, in truth, lions would much rather scavenge.

    Male and female wolves hunt together in packs.

    I see where you’re going with the male gorilla reference except they’re act, like all territorial dominance games in the wild, including that of male elephants, is mostly for show. Elaborate games of chicken, they are. Resulting serious injuries are very rare. Inter-species murder is practically non-existent.

    Oh, and the intentional murder of females by males in just about every mammal species outside of our own IS non-existent.

    For the most part animals -male and female alike -kill because they’re hungry and need to eat to survive. They will also lash out in self-defense or in defense of their young against perceived threats.

    How does any of this explain the murder of a woman by her boyfriend? It doesn’t. And neither does your testosterone theory.

  176. Lauren
    Lauren June 28, 2007 at 12:03 am |

    I’m not certain what you all think the outcome of the next one just like this will be? Are you all going to say “well, it was entirely his fault, so I’m totally surprised?” A lot of good that will do the next one/

    And the rape rate of women decreased because miniskirts went out of style.

  177. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne June 28, 2007 at 12:04 am |

    Causation does not equal “avoidable,” and therefore “girls, don’t do X, it isn’t healthy” is an understandable result.

    Just out of curiosity, what message did Kevin Haines miss? I mean, if everyone killed by someone they know had clues beforehand, then Kevin Haines is just as culpable in his own murder as Jessie Davis is, right?

  178. zuzu
    zuzu June 28, 2007 at 12:05 am | *

    Oh, and the intentional murder of females by males in just about every mammal species outside of our own IS non-existent.

    Except chimpanzees, from what I understand.

    Tony, even if one stops doing X, it doesn’t guarantee that Y will not happen. Because Y isn’t in one’s control. It’s in someone else’s control.

    In fact, if we want to prevent Y, logic dictates that we, say, look at the person who does Y and get them to stop doing Y. It’s quite simply more efficient.

  179. Tiki
    Tiki June 28, 2007 at 12:10 am |

    Wow. I think you, Tony, are missing the point quite badly.
    It is so easy to look at the outside of a situation and say “yup, that girl died (or stood a higher chance of dying) ‘cuz she was f*cking a black man who was married to someone else”. Even if that weren’t a laughable cause of death, it isn’t true. A person may not commit a violent act in a vacuum, but that person alone chooses to do harmful things.

    It does not surprise me at all when men who are known to be violent escalate that violence further. You cannot infer from one murder case what will “cause” another person to kill in a different case. Telling your loved ones to stay away from married black men will not keep them from being harmed by other violent persons in other circumstances. Stopping people from committing harm, rather than pretending we can avoid harm is, I feel, the key.

    and zuzu, you’re my hero, a veritable misstress of succinctness!

  180. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 28, 2007 at 12:15 am |

    Except chimpanzees, from what I understand.

    Tony, even if one stops doing X, it doesn’t guarantee that Y will not happen. Because Y isn’t in one’s control. It’s in someone else’s control.

    In fact, if we want to prevent Y, logic dictates that we, say, look at the person who does Y and get them to stop doing Y. It’s quite simply more efficient.

    Can’t we agree that killing pregnant women won’t get you invited to dinner parties? It is not like there is mainstream tacit approval of beating your female intimates.

    Here’s a concept – if the beaters couldn’t get laid quite so easily, maybe there would be some introspection instead of an apparent bonus for being a really bad mofo. Bobby had access to at least three women, recall?

    Punish Y, discourage X, and perhaps we won’t be having this conversation in a few weeks.

  181. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 28, 2007 at 12:24 am |

    Except for the male gorillas, and elephants, and wolves and lions and on and on. Social construction and behavioral expectations? Or testosterone?

    Do female lions have an over-abundance of testosterone? ‘Cause they do the vast majority of the hunting. Although, in truth, lions would much rather scavenge.

    Male and female wolves hunt together in packs.

    I see where you’re going with the male gorilla reference except they’re act, like all territorial dominance games in the wild, including that of male elephants, is mostly for show. Elaborate games of chicken, they are. Resulting serious injuries are very rare. Inter-species murder is practically non-existent.

    Oh, and the intentional murder of females by males in just about every mammal species outside of our own IS non-existent.

    For the most part animals -male and female alike -kill because they’re hungry and need to eat to survive. They will also lash out in self-defense or in defense of their young against perceived threats.

    How does any of this explain the murder of a woman by her boyfriend? It doesn’t. And neither does your testosterone theory.

    You confuse prey drive with aggression. Male lions fight each other for the right to breed. There is one Alpha wolf, and all the other wolves get in line or get bitten. Prey drive requires relatively little aggression – the animal wants to avoid a fight, preferring ambush, stealth, etc., and will beg out instead of suffering debilitating injury. Aggression is undeniably linked to testosterone, and requires a different level of commitment. Other than the female hyenna, which as a high level of testosterone and ridiculously large clitoris, all the other higher social mammals are led by the male of the species by means of physical dominance.

    What does this have to do with the issue at hand? Nothing, other than to note that there are endocinological reasons for the disparate distribution of aggressive behavior between the human sexes. That is all.

  182. zuzu
    zuzu June 28, 2007 at 12:26 am | *

    But Tony, X doesn’t always lead to Y. Y has other causes unrelated to X. In fact, the risk of Y may be somewhat greater with X than it is with not-X, but it’s still not any kind of certainty that Y will occur if X does not stop. In fact, Y has a relatively low risk of occurrence even when X does not stop.

    So if X does not guarantee that Y will occur, and Y has lots and lots of other causes than X, and stopping X does not guarantee that Y will not occur, and X has benefits as well as risks, and the incidence of Y occurring because of X, or solely because of X, is relatively low, and the person doing X does a cost-benefit analysis of the relative risks involved…

    Then, punkin, you’re Monday-morning quarterbacking this in a very twisted way.

  183. zuzu
    zuzu June 28, 2007 at 12:27 am | *

    There is one Alpha wolf, and all the other wolves get in line or get bitten.

    Actually, there’s an alpha pair. Male and female.

  184. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 28, 2007 at 12:32 am |

    There is one Alpha wolf, and all the other wolves get in line or get bitten.

    Actually, there’s an alpha pair. Male and female.

    Not in the way that you think – when Alpha male gets offed by Beta Male, he is number one. The Alpha female keeps the other females in line, and is indeed chosen by the Alpha male.

    I do not even know why we are doing this, because we ought not to be comparing ourselves favorably or unfavorably to animals, but we ought not deny the power of hormones to influence behaviors and inclinations.

  185. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne June 28, 2007 at 12:36 am |

    Here’s a concept – if the beaters couldn’t get laid quite so easily, maybe there would be some introspection instead of an apparent bonus for being a really bad mofo. Bobby had access to at least three women, recall?

    Wow, I’m glad Tony wasn’t on Edmund Kemper’s jury. After all, if Mary Anne Pesce and Anita Luchessa didn’t want to be murdered, they shouldn’t have been hitchhiking.

  186. zuzu
    zuzu June 28, 2007 at 12:39 am | *

    As for the cops, perhaps you have little to no experience with big city cops? I come from a family of cops, and know more than a few personally, as well as the people that they work with. There are, in fact, hip-hop-cops, as in cops who listen to hip-hop and see police work as just a job – no real dissonance there.

    I’m quite familiar with the NYPD. And I know that just because a cop listens to hip-hop doesn’t mean he has street cred. Which, if you thought about it for half a second, you might get, too.

  187. zuzu
    zuzu June 28, 2007 at 12:45 am | *

    BTW, Ken, I don’t write for this blog anymore, so I don’t control the moderation queue. But I can still see it, and I can see your creepy posts under two different screen names.

    You’re laying on the faux-sympathy for my “fear” rather thick there, Ken. And if you’re really a psychologist, I would think there’s a wee bit of an ethical problem with trying to diagnose and treat someone you’ve never met over the internet.

    So, I will decline your invitation to open up to you about my “fear” and tell you what’s “troubling” me.

    Incidentally, changing your screen name will do nothing more than simply keep you in the mod queue, since all new users are held in the queue the first time they post.

    Ta! I’m off to bed.

  188. zuzu
    zuzu June 28, 2007 at 12:58 am | *

    And, no, Ken, Jill is not avoiding you, or hiding from you. You got caught up in the modbot, and it seems to be greatly distressing to you.

    Do you want to talk about how you feel about Jill having a job and a life and not being available to check on the mod queue at one in the morning just for you?

    Why, Ken — are you crying?

  189. Roxie
    Roxie June 28, 2007 at 1:29 am |

    Wow, these are like some of the same things I heard over at http://www.outpostnine.com/forum.

    We were discussing rape..and they kept insisting to me that woman has a responsibility for what happens to her if she gets too drunk to not consent. That she’s “asking for trouble”. That there’s no difference between ‘responsibility’, ‘provoking’, and ‘contribute’. That a girl does all these things when she gets TOO drunk. But when I point out those aren’t the same, then I’m arguing “semantics” and I’m a “self-righteous blowhard” who, like other feminists of my “ilk” want “all the privileges and none of the responsibilities.”

    I wonder if some of them commneted on that blog.

  190. maja
    maja June 28, 2007 at 1:46 am |

    Zuzu, I heart you.

    Thanks for standing up to these, um, people.

  191. StarWatcher
    StarWatcher June 28, 2007 at 3:11 am |

    Tony says — The point is to be made for the next girl, going forward, who thinks it is exciting to live the way that Davis did, for whatever reason.

    You keep doing this — you are making the sweeping assumption and generalization that this woman (or any woman) chose an abusive man because it was an “exciting” way to live. You have no valid reasons for making such an assumption; as you say, it is contrary to self-preservation.

    A couple of people have detailed how a man can — and does — start a relationship with a woman by being kind and considerate, then gradually allows his true behavior to show. By the time the woman realizes how dangerous he is, she is (a) trapped by circumstances and (b) has been so psychologically torn down that she is even less able to overcome her circumstances and escape.

    Why do you continue to assume that a woman — any woman — chooses an abusive relationship, rather than assuming that an unscrupulous man trapped her? There may be a few who seek excitement, but they are far outnumbered by the ones who are trapped. The fact that you keep ignoring the masses of trapped women (documented in many statistical sources) to focus on a few (possibly hypothetical) excitement-seekers indicates to us that you’re not interested in examining the true problem. If a large sub-set of men would stop abusing a large sub-set of women, then there wouldn’t be a problem at all, regardless of whether or not a handful of women seek the ‘excitement’ of knowing a dangerous man.

    In other words, you see one apple in a barrel of oranges, and you keep talking about the texture of the apple, and how all the oranges should stop being like apples. But the apples are acting like oranges only in your mind. Open your mind and pay attention to what people are telling you; it really isn’t that hard to understand.

  192. Grouchy’s Liberaltopia™ » Danish Pastry - Beat Up By Girls

    [...] ow the girls are getting their claws into him. Jill at Feministe linked to the pastry boy: [...]

  193. Bunny
    Bunny June 28, 2007 at 6:42 am |

    Damn, looks like things got interesting while I was away.

    Okay Tony, I have explained this above (and so have several other people, far more eloquently than me) but you seem to keep ignoring us each time we make this point and focusing on everything else.

    Is this what you imagine when a woman ends up with an abusive man… (please excuse my awful use of outdated terms- I’m a hideous geek)

    Girl walks into a bar and sees the most badass gansta looking man she’s ever seen propping up the bar.

    “Oh! He looks exciting!

    Girl is enamoured by this man’s use of the word “bitch”, and his sleazy suggestions.

    “Oh, I do feel like such a naughty girl!”

    Girl goes home with man. Man shags her, demands soe have breakfast for him the next morning, and goes to sleep. That morning she is beaten by him for not cooking breakfast right, before he goes to work.

    “Oooh, that wasn’t very nice, but the sex is great! He’s just such an animal, and he really is a real man!”

    Because, y’know, that isn’t exactly what actually happens. Men who abuse women do not show their abusive side until late in the relationship, at a stage where they have, or feel they have, a hold on the woman, whether it be a child, marriage, financial control or anything else. At that point, saying she should leave him is true, but not very helpful unless you can suggest a risk-free way of leaving him. So far all you’ve said is that she got killed because she chose to stay with an abusive man, and that some women want to be with men who hit them and tell them they’re disgusting, lazy fat cows.

  194. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 28, 2007 at 7:25 am |

    As for the cops, perhaps you have little to no experience with big city cops? I come from a family of cops, and know more than a few personally, as well as the people that they work with. There are, in fact, hip-hop-cops, as in cops who listen to hip-hop and see police work as just a job – no real dissonance there.

    I’m quite familiar with the NYPD. And I know that just because a cop listens to hip-hop doesn’t mean he has street cred. Which, if you thought about it for half a second, you might get, too.

    WTF does street cred have to do with anything? Just becuase you’re the 5-0, and people are wary in your presence doesn’t mean that you can’t order your affairs in the rapper/athlete model.

  195. Tony Palmyra
    Tony Palmyra June 28, 2007 at 7:55 am |

    Tony says — The point is to be made for the next girl, going forward, who thinks it is exciting to live the way that Davis did, for whatever reason.

    You keep doing this — you are making the sweeping assumption and generalization that this woman (or any woman) chose an abusive man because it was an “exciting” way to live. You have no valid reasons for making such an assumption; as you say, it is contrary to self-preservation.

    A couple of people have detailed how a man can — and does — start a relationship with a woman by being kind and considerate, then gradually allows his true behavior to show. By the time the woman realizes how dangerous he is, she is (a) trapped by circumstances and (b) has been so psychologically torn down that she is even less able to overcome her circumstances and escape.

    Why do you continue to assume that a woman — any woman — chooses an abusive relationship, rather than assuming that an unscrupulous man trapped her? There may be a few who seek excitement, but they are far outnumbered by the ones who are trapped. The fact that you keep ignoring the masses of trapped women (documented in many statistical sources) to focus on a few (possibly hypothetical) excitement-seekers indicates to us that you’re not interested in examining the true problem. If a large sub-set of men would stop abusing a large sub-set of women, then there wouldn’t be a problem at all, regardless of whether or not a handful of women seek the ‘excitement’ of knowing a dangerous man.

    In other words, you see one apple in a barrel of oranges, and you keep talking about the texture of the apple, and how all the oranges should stop being like apples. But the apples are acting like oranges only in your mind. Open your mind and pay attention to what people are telling you; it really isn’t that hard to understand.

    I don’t know – it could be the fact that battered women seem to wind up with battered men time after time. Unless they have statistically impossible bad luck, there might be something else at work there.

    I don’t even think that Jessie was cohabitating with Cutts, who was running around with at least two other women, one his wife, stretching his time to be an omnipotent controlling abuser a bit thin. Also, I’m not at all convinced that Davis’ two full term pregnancies were unintended accidents, rather than hooks into Cutts in her competition with the other women to make certain he couldn’t just walk on her.

    Maybe I also understand that human sexuality doesn’t fit your narrow concepts, and that self-destructive behavior can be exciting for people, regardless of what you say. Some people like to be strangled to get off, etc. It is my observation that others – some women – feel irresistable attraction to the hyper-masculine with misdirected aggression to feel they are with a “real man,” but personally, I don’t find slapping women around to be very sporting. So be it – it is what is, explaining and understanding it doesn’t condone or promote it, and it may help explain a lot of behavior on the part of women that would otherwise have to fall into your infantalizing theme that “they just can’t figure a way to get out” against the efforts of a mastermind abuser. It sure as hell would explain why battered women keep finding batterers time after time.

    There appears to be a good few more apples than you would like to admit.

  196. Jillian
    Jillian June 28, 2007 at 7:58 am |

    Here’s the thing that I really, really don’t get when guys – presumably heterosexual guys, who aren’t planning on waiting until marriage to have sex – make arguments like this.

    Their argument is some sort of variation on “there’s a killer that lurks in the heart of all (most, some) men, and women have an innate knack for bringing that killer out”. Their argument stands in contrast to the argument that says “We’ve created a society that allows – and sometimes encourages – men to view women as chattel to such a degree that lots of them act like sick fucks, and even the ones who don’t feel compelled to make excuses for those who do”.

    The second argument encourages both genders to work together to try to change that situation. The first argument – that all (most, some) men have killers lurking in their secret heart of hearts, just encourages women to stay as far away from men as humanly possible.

    Do straight men think about this before they say these things? Because I can tell you that if I thought the first argument were correct, I would move to a women’s only Lesbotopian enclave tomorrow, and never, ever leave it. And so would every woman in the whole country. And none of us would ever have sex with any of them ever again.

    I hope that a little bit of tongue-in-cheek levity in the middle of this discussion doesn’t rub anybody the wrong way….that’s not my intent. And heaven knows that guys not getting any is perhaps the least important thing on the planet when placed next to women getting murdered. But the sheer incongruity of the fact that STRAIGHT MEN make an argument whose natural conclusion is that no woman should ever have sex with a man again just never ceases to bowl me over.

  197. EG
    EG June 28, 2007 at 8:17 am |

    it could be the fact that battered women seem to wind up with battered men time after time. Unless they have statistically impossible bad luck, there might be something else at work there.

    Indeed. It might be that abusive men seek out women who are already injured in some way, as it makes them more vulnerable and less able to resist such abuse.

    Nah. It’s clearly all the women’s fault. They must like it, right? Otherwise they wouldn’t stay. It couldn’t be a constellation of economic, social, physical, and psychological factors. That…makes too much sense.

  198. Bunny
    Bunny June 28, 2007 at 9:21 am |

    You know what? Some people do like being strangled to get off, or being whipped, or being tied up.

    Personally, I love a good spanking with leather cuffs any day of the week, but you know what? It’s not actually about being beaten up.

    When you’re engaging in risky play with a lover, whether it’s auto asphyxiation, blood-play, knife-play, bondage, electrocution, suspension, isolation, you are playing. It’s an act between 2 consenting people.

    When you’re tied up and helpless you have to put all of your trust in the other person that they’re going to respect the limits you’ve previously agreed, that they won’t push too far, that they won’t have an accident and harm you. They might well do things which are extremely risky and you’re at their mercy. There’s an element of excitement to that, granted, but there’s also this incredibly warm feeling of absolute trust. When someone is playing with a potential weapon against your skin and you feel absolutely no fear at all, just a slight sense of excitement. Why do you think people who engage in such acts have things like safe-words? It’s all just a game.

    When there’s no trust, there’s no fun. Just fear, worry, nervousness. Maybe there are a few people in the world who get off on that level of extremity, but how many do you really think there are? The likelihood that any given battered woman is an extreme fetishist who wants to live in fear and pain is quite small, I would say.

    I think you misunderstand the nature of abusive relationships. You also misunderstand the nature of alternative relationships and fetishes.

    And your assumption that some women seek out abusive men is still based on a basic misunderstanding that abusive men show their true colours from the offset. Mostly they appear to be very gentle, caring people at the start, so presumably any woman interested in that sort of thing would be put off.

  199. Aeryl
    Aeryl June 28, 2007 at 10:23 am |

    “Here’s a concept – if the beaters couldn’t get laid quite so easily, maybe there would be some introspection instead of an apparent bonus for being a really bad mofo. Bobby had access to at least three women, recall?”

    How many times can this bit if pop psychology be refuted. Abuse and rape are not about the pussy!!! They are about the power. If Bobby hadn’t been getting laid by three women, his lawful wife would have gotten the full brunt of his abuse. If he had never gotten married at all, his profession gives him a pretty good outlet.

  200. Aeryl
    Aeryl June 28, 2007 at 10:25 am |

    “Here’s a concept – if the beaters couldn’t get laid quite so easily, maybe there would be some introspection instead of an apparent bonus for being a really bad mofo. Bobby had access to at least three women, recall?”

    How many times can this bit if pop psychology be refuted. Abuse and rape are not about the pussy!!! They are about the power. If Bobby hadn’t been getting laid by three women, his lawful wife would have gotten the full brunt of his abuse. If he had never gotten married at all, his profession gives him a pretty good outlet.

  201. mythago
    mythago June 28, 2007 at 10:46 am |

    Shorter Tony: You man-hating uptight bitches need to admit the murder victim got what she really wanted.

  202. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne June 28, 2007 at 11:01 am |

    Maybe I also understand that human sexuality doesn’t fit your narrow concepts, and that self-destructive behavior can be exciting for people, regardless of what you say.

    So according to Tony, Mary Anne Pesce and Anita Luchessa really were responsible for their own murders, because of their self-destructive behavior.

    Tony, I think you’d better start campaigning for Edmund Kemper’s release from prison. After all, he was just doing what the murder victims secretly wanted him to do, so he shouldn’t have been prosecuted for it, right?

  203. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 28, 2007 at 11:17 am |

    Tony:

    Men kill their mistresses. Men kill women who’ve left them. Men kill their wives. Men kill their girlfriends. No matter WHAT choice a woman makes, she is at risk. The only way to truly avoid rape/sexual harassment/abuse is to avoid men. Avoiding mini-skirts doesn’t keep a gal safe from rape. Ask the burqua-wearing women in Afghanistan.
    And no, women don’t know they’re about to be murdered. You think Lacy Peterson (who married a white man and got pregnant with his baby) saw it coming? Even when women DO suspect their partners want to kill them, the authorities don’t take them seriously.
    What’s it called when we socialize men to view women as autonomous people – more than punching bags with a collection of fuckholes? When we respect their reproductive choices? When we level the playing field and make it easier for women to financially support themselves and their children? When we take women and women’s concerns seriously? Why, it’s called feminism.

  204. Kristen
    Kristen June 28, 2007 at 11:40 am |

    The real elephant in this room is whether women ought to moderate their behavior to minimize the risk of being beaten, abused, and ultimately killed – it applies to this circumstance in relationships, just as it applies to rape.

    Ultimate equality? Hang them both from the same fucking yardarm post haste. Play “ebony and ivory” for yucks for all the fuck I care.

    Tony,

    Let me try to explain your mental hiccups. (1) You’re not distinguishing between stupidity and immorality. (2) You’re not recognized the underlying forces of why something happens to be stupid.

    (1)

    I will grant that from our (extremely privileged) perspective, a woman staying with an abusive man appears down right idiotic.* However, staying with an abusive man is not immoral. It does not cause harm (excepting for the moment the fact that she had children).

    His behavior was immoral. He caused harm. No caveats. No excuses. Just immoral.

    Those two things are not equal. Hanging them both is not the ultimate equity. Being stupid is not the equivalent of being an immoral person.

    (2)

    Why is the behavior stupid?

    Walking down to the local frat house naked and then passing out drunk on their couch appears stupid and showing up in Tehran in a miniskirt appears stupid.

    Growing up my mom (a victim of date rape) and my dad had rules about dating. You should always drive yourself, pay for your own things, never go to a non-public place alone, never accept a drink, never drink out of anything without a cap, never ever drink alcohol, etc. Doing these things is SMART.

    But is there anything wrong with drinking an alcoholic beverage per se? Is there anything wrong with wearing a miniskirt per se? Come to think of it is there anything wrong with being naked per se?

    The answer is no.

    The reason doing these things appears stupid, is because a person may choose to do something immoral (i.e., cause harm) as a result of the person’s non-harmful (innocent) behavior. This is an important distinction in feminism, one that we as feminists often don’t talk about because its completely duh.

    In many cases women are systematically required to modify their behavior because of the supposed immorality of men, whether that modification requires us to wear a veil, avoid alcoholic beverages or leave a relationship is irrelevant. The motivation behind the insistence that women change is in any event sexist.**

    So my answer to your first question “whether women ought to moderate their behavior” is NO. Some men should modify theirs.

    * This is of course our perspective with 20/20 hindsight and no understanding of what her alternatives were. Keep in mind that your value judgment of her idiocy is based on your belief that she had the freedom to choose. That is not necessarily so.

    ** To men as well as women. I’m sure many of the guys I dated in High School were truly offended that I would not get into a car with them or go to a private location with them – since the vast majority of them were probably nice, decent human beings.

  205. pdrydia
    pdrydia June 28, 2007 at 12:08 pm |

    “Nothing is sacred anymore, no actions are scorned and looked down upon”…

    … ‘except what -I- want to do! Come ooooon, why can’t I just kill the bitches?’

  206. ginmar
    ginmar June 28, 2007 at 1:11 pm |
    Feminism was invented so that stupid, ugly women could get attention.

    I let this comment through only because it is so totally true.

    It’s not even original. Rush Limbaugh—surely no hottie himself—-is the source for that.

    I see Tony is still going on and on. Has he managed to say anything original yet?

  207. StarWatcher
    StarWatcher June 28, 2007 at 1:25 pm |

    Is anyone else amused that the guy that’s squicked out about interracial sex wants to give us a lesson on sexual practices?

    I’m not amused, but boggled, by the way he assumes to know everything about their relationship and the way they conducted their sex lives by just a few facts — the man sired babies with several women, he was abusive, and he murdered one of the women. That just tells Tony everything he needs to know about the woman in question — all bad — while he never questions the morals of the serial male fucker who doesn’t use condoms to prevent pregnancy, and murders women who are inconvenient to him.

    But, obviously, it’s all HER fault. And I have some lovely ocean-front property in Arizona to sell you.

  208. StarWatcher
    StarWatcher June 28, 2007 at 1:47 pm |

    it could be the fact that battered women seem to wind up with battered men time after time. Unless they have statistically impossible bad luck, there might be something else at work there.

    You meant “batterING men”, didn’t you? And of course there’s something else at work — men who have decided that aggression is the mark of a “real man”, and look for women, who are usually smaller and weaker, to enact their violent tendencies upon. Maybe not you, or my friend’s husband, but statistically there’s enough of them — one for every woman who’s being battered. But again, you’re blaming the woman for not being able to escape an abusive relationship (after he has carefully stripped her of any resources other than him), instead of blaming the MAN who’s doing the abusing. It’s getting very tiresome. And makes you look REALLY stupid.

  209. MuscleDaddy
    MuscleDaddy June 28, 2007 at 2:15 pm |

    Jill wrote:

    …these crimes aren’t the natural consequences of a live-and-let-live society — they’re the consequences of a society in which certain classes of people feel that they have the right to punish others when those others don’t behave according to the social rules. If we truly lived in a non-judgmental society, Jesse’s murderer would have had no reason to kill her.

    I may be confused.

    So what you’re saying here is that if we only lived in a society where it was considered okay to screw around on your wife, getting children on other women – a society wherein someone like Cotts could indulge in his proclivities of doing his part to create a generation of fatherless children with as many women as he could lay…hands…on, without having to suffer the ‘judgemental’ slings and arrows of the people around him, then everything would have ‘been all right’ – because then there would have been no societal scorn to serve as the “Reason” for Cotts to have killed Jesse?

    In essence – ‘It’s not Cotts’ fault that he murdered his pregnant mistress, it SOCIETY’S fault’ ?

    Because if I’m reading that correctly – that’s just weak.

    – MuscleDaddy

  210. Alara Rogers
    Alara Rogers June 28, 2007 at 2:42 pm |

    The testosterone theory of aggression — that is, men are naturally aggressive, and some men are just going to be violent, and there is no way around this — has an unfortunate but obvious solution that, so far, I have never seen a *man* who proposes the theory come up with.

    If it is true that men are just naturally violent, and some men will kill, and there is no way around that, then men must live under strict control, similarly to how women live in Saudi Arabia. I would say that if men are naturally aggressive, then men need to live under the control of women. Men should not go out without being fully covered, because the sight of other men might inspire them to aggression, and because women need a warning that they’re there (I’d suggest mandatory bells on men.) Men should live with their mothers until they marry, at which point they live with their wives. They should not engage in any profession that inspires aggression, such as police work, or any profession which works with children, such as schoolteaching, or any profession that leaves them alone with women, such as medicine unless they are specifically practitioners for men only. (Even then men are safer if women are the doctors, because men should not be alone with other men — men are even *more* dangerous to other men than they are to women.) They should be forbidden to work in politics or other professions where aggression could cause serious harm to the world. In other words, the only acceptable professions for men are entertainment, sports, science, and service professions where they are never left alone with other men or alone with women unless the women outnumber them. Men should not be permitted to drive, should have an evening curfew, and should generally be treated like dangerous animals.

    I find it telling that no man who suggests that male violence is just normal and we just have to live with it ever comes up with an idea like this, because if we lived among natural violent predators of *course* we would have to do something like this to protect ourselves. It’s because male violence is *not* natural and inevitable that we can afford to treat *men* as people. The majority of men are not violent, and the less violent a culture, the less violent its men.

    Can we ever eliminate murder? Probably not. But we could decrease murder and all other crime considerably by teaching *men* that violence from them is unacceptable. Not toward women, not toward other men, not toward anyone. It’s not glamorous and exciting and manly. In fact if we could teach men that violence isn’t manly, we could make murder and rape and domestic violence about as rare as men in skirts are today, because men will go to *enormous* lengths not to do whatever culture says isn’t manly, even when that’s ridiculous (cf the fact that although men dominated science, philosophy, poetry, the arts, and every other intellectual endeavor for a gazillion years, boys nowadays avoid using their brain too much in school and certainly avoid writing poems because that’s a girly thing to do.)

    So there is, in fact, a fairly simple solution to the problem of murder, and violence in general. Change the dominant paradigm that men use to define themselves as “men” from “not women” to “not beasts/not children”. (It’s been done before, after all.) Then tell men that violence is outside the definition of manhood. By being violent you prove yourself an animal, and an animal is not a man. Don’t valorize animalism in men, valorize reason and control (again, this has been done before, but the mistake made at that time was putting the animal traits on women and on anyone the dominant culture didn’t like.) Make boys prove themselves manly by being responsible and in control of themselves, so that rape and violent attacks on other people prove that you are not a man. I guarantee you that if we tell men that men are responsible, and then we back it up by never, ever telling men that it is okay to hit someone for any reason other than self defense, and no, it is *not* understandable that you hit the bitch because she wouldn’t stop nagging, and no, we will *not* let you off lightly for raping her because she was dressed provocatively, and no, you do *not* get a lighter sentence for a crime of passion because you killed her after finding out she was cheating on you… if we tell men they are expected to be responsible for their own behavior, all the time, and any deviation in the direction of violent loss of control is not manly… we will seriously decrease violent crime.

    Of course, care must be taken to make sure women don’t then get the message that it’s okay to be totally irresponsible! Right now all the messages about responsibility are going to women, but the last time we taught men to be responsible we told women not to worry their pretty little heads and let men run things because they’re so responsible. We need to teach *women* as well that being a woman means being a responsible adult. But it’s more important to teach it to men, because irresponsible behavior from women usually results in children being born who need help getting fed, but irresponsible behavior from men usually results in rape, violence and people getting dead.

  211. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 28, 2007 at 3:07 pm |

    Fuckin’ brilliant, Alara.

  212. Bunny
    Bunny June 28, 2007 at 3:07 pm |

    Alara, there’s another option besides controlling them.

    Take sperm samples from all men once they reach the age of 16, then remove their testes. We have full and flourishing sperm banks to help us sire the next generation, and men will be less aggressive, live longer lives and be more affectionate.

    Well, it worked on my cat, anyway.

  213. Thomas
    Thomas June 28, 2007 at 3:10 pm |

    Race ‘em as they near maturity. Breed the fast ones. Nut the rest.

    Isn’t that what they do with thoroughbreds?

  214. Linnaeus
    Linnaeus June 28, 2007 at 3:32 pm |

    Shit, Thomas, I’d have been gelded according to that standard.

  215. MuscleDaddy
    MuscleDaddy June 28, 2007 at 4:08 pm |

    Heh.

    Alara,

    That whole bit about turning the Saudi-thing on men (Sorry, *men*)? That’s the cutest little straw arguement I’ve ever seen.

    However abhorrent I may find much of Saudi culture, the purpose of those restrictions on women is supposed to be to protect women from men – who are seen as incapable of controlling their ‘testosterone agression’ and, as such, largely uncontrollable.

    But we could decrease murder and all other crime considerably by teaching *men* that violence from them is unacceptable. Not toward women, not toward other men, not toward anyone.

    Actually, that only works on people predisposed to listen to it, carefully indoctrinated and sheltered from circumstances that would test that teaching – of course, under those circumstances it works very well, which is why whenever there’s another mass shooting you invariably find out that the victims were considered ‘good citizens’, well-educated, and curled up in a corner and waited to die. (or rather, ‘waited for someone else to come and deal with the problem for them – which tends to amount to the same thing)

    You’ll probably do better without the broad-brush ‘violence-is-never-the-answer’ meme.

    I used to volunteer as the legal advocate at our local domestic violence shelter, the location of which was one of the worst-kept secrets in the county. Periodically, some drunken wife-beater would show up to ‘claim what’s his.’ Someone would hit the panic button, sending an SOS to the sheriff’s office and locking down all the doors on the residence and the main office, As my office was in a building detached from those, I would hit the common yard just as ‘he’ was putting a bench through a window (we eventually bolted everything down). I usually started off trying to talk & stall until police responded (5-7 min), but most often violence ‘became the answer.’

    Sometimes it just is.

    My bit of advice: Work on the problem if you really mean to – I’ll applaud your effort – but steer clear of the sweeping generalizations and such alienating language as ‘treating *men* as though they were human’.

    It really doesn’t help.

    – MuscleDaddy

  216. Sean Clayton
    Sean Clayton June 28, 2007 at 4:16 pm |

    Word, Alara.

    Although I was still in the process of formulating the thought to anything approaching the level of eloquence you’ve just achieved, I cannot help but feel that I have been utterly ninja’d.

    My heart is a choking morass of admiration and envy.

    Hats off.

  217. Bunny
    Bunny June 28, 2007 at 4:22 pm |

    Ah MuscleDaddy, your grasp of irony astounds me.

  218. Kristen
    Kristen June 28, 2007 at 4:30 pm |

    MuscleDaddy,

    You’re assumption is unproven. There is no proven causal link between testosterone and aggression.

    Some interesting correlations, but no evidence of causality.

  219. the beth zone  » Blog Archive   » Flea Collar Entitlement Act of 2007 Dept.

    [...] iniste blog that first Dan Riehl and then Emperor Darth Misha I made the observation that lying do [...]

  220. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 28, 2007 at 4:47 pm |

    However abhorrent I may find much of Saudi culture, the purpose of those restrictions on women is supposed to be to protect women from men – who are seen as incapable of controlling their ‘testosterone agression’ and, as such, largely uncontrollable.

    Wow. You completely missed her point, didn’t you?
    If MEN are the ones who are so uncontrollably violent, why shouldn’t MEN’S actions be restricted?

  221. MuscleDaddy
    MuscleDaddy June 28, 2007 at 4:59 pm |

    A couple of other bits here:

    Jill wrote:

    His comment section pretty clearly demonstrates just how moral and enlightened his readers are. When they aren’t jerking off to images of dead and mutilated women (for real — I’m not going to post it, but there’s a detailed description), they’re referring to interracial relationships as “breeding” and “animal husbandry.” I generally shy away from comparing conservatives to the Taliban, but read the post and the comments about how she bears the responsibility for her own demise, how slutty women need to make a choice between shaping up or being killed, how men basically have no responsibility for anything, and tell me the comparison isn’t kind of apt.

    I went and read those – to quote Indigo Montoya: “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    1) No one was “jerking off to images of dead and mutilated women ” – Those were forensic technicians and retired cops using (powerfully) graphic images to demonstrate why people need to make better relationship decisions based on something other than ‘screw-you-you-don’t-judge-me-I’ll-do-what-I-want’.

    It was coment #6

    2) The animal husbandry comment was made by ONE poster, who was then roundly ignored through the 180-odd comments – I took the time to search his comment stats (easy on that site) and THAT GUY is a nozzle.

    3) I suggest taking Misha’s comment #23 as how he feels about ‘men have no responsibility for anything’ – in fact, don’t go – here it is:

    With that said, I am a bit disturbed that the comments here seem to be blaming the victim for her own murder.
    She was obviously an idiot, but do you really think she deserved DEATH for her immorality?
    (question from other poster)
    (Misha’s response)
    Absolutely not, and even though I tried to make it clear in the post itself, it can never be brought up too often: If you’re the victim of a crime, the sole responsibility for the criminal act itself rests with the perpetrator, and nobody else.

    My point isn’t that she “deserved” anything, even if she’d been 100 times more of an impulse-driven, instant gratification, think with her ovaries slut than she already was, she’d STILL not deserve to be murdered for it (Cutts’ wife might think differently about it and I, for one, can’t blame her, but that’s a different subject).

    My point IS that if you set yourself up for failure and tragedy, failure and tragedy is much much more likely to be what you end up with. There’s no way around the laws of probability, and having a “right” to behave in a certain way isn’t going to get you out of the morgue when you’re busy being dead.

    She wasn’t responsible for Cutts murdering her, that was HIS decision, but she WAS responsible of piss poor prior planning which, as we all know, increases the probability of a highly undesirable outcome.

    And right now, even as we speak, young girls and women are doing everything wrong that Jessie did, setting themselves up for exactly the same end, encouraged by an overly permissive society that would rather their daughters are raped and murdered than run the risk of being called “strict” and/or “judgmental.”

    That doesn’t actually sound terribly male-absolving or Taliban-like.

    – MuscleDaddy

  222. MuscleDaddy
    MuscleDaddy June 28, 2007 at 5:16 pm |

    Hi Kristen,

    I was just referring to Alara’s reference – don’t really want to add to the whole ‘testosterone debate’ (Ctrl-F ‘testosterone’ and an you’ll see what I mean)

    Sarah…and Jill,

    Didn’t miss the point – I’m saying that the analogy doesn’t stand on it’s head well.

    And to ‘If men are uncontrollable, why not control them’, my response becomes:

    ………..?

    Who would do that? How would you do that? How would you get these uber-monsters to submit to that?

    If the answer is, on it’s face, unrealistic – it’s not a good answer and you need to look for a better one.

    – MuscleDaddy

  223. shfree
    shfree June 28, 2007 at 5:36 pm |

    Honestly, I don’t care if she literally asked for it. He was still the one that ultimately made the decision to kill her, so it is all on his head. Just as it is not your job from keeping me from hitting you over the head with a hammer, it is my job to not do it, no matter how angry I might be, no matter that you are wearing a shirt that says “please hit me on the head with a hammer” and are dancing around doing the “hit me on the head with a hammer” dance”. I am the boss of my behavior, and it is MY job to make sure I behave reasonably and respectfully to others, not their job to convince me to do so. Being that I am an adult and all.

  224. MuscleDaddy
    MuscleDaddy June 28, 2007 at 6:06 pm |

    shfree,

    But you see, that’s part of it – when you KNOW that there are people walking around with hammers, looking for someone to hit in the head, then it BECOMES your job to keep them from hitting you over the head with a hammer.

    Not hitting you in the head with a hammer may be their job in the first place, but they’re not doing their job.

    We would all prefer that it were not so, but to suggest that it is NOT is to both deny the reality of our flawed world and exponentially increase the chances of being hit in the head with a hammer.

    – MuscleDaddy

  225. Kristen
    Kristen June 28, 2007 at 6:09 pm |

    Just as it is not your job from keeping me from hitting you over the head with a hammer, it is my job to not do it, no matter how angry I might be, no matter that you are wearing a shirt that says “please hit me on the head with a hammer” and are dancing around doing the “hit me on the head with a hammer” dance”.

    Is there a hit me over the head song to go with the dance? Perhaps set to the tune of “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow.” This may be the funniest mental image I’ve had all week. (Which is not to detract from its absolute trueness…just that it also made me laugh). Thanks!

  226. Kristen
    Kristen June 28, 2007 at 6:12 pm |

    But you see, that’s part of it – when you KNOW that there are people walking around with hammers, looking for someone to hit in the head, then it BECOMES your job to keep them from hitting you over the head with a hammer.

    Nope. See Post 214 above for an explanation of how to correctly assign blame and responsibility.

  227. shfree
    shfree June 28, 2007 at 6:41 pm |

    MuscleDaddy, it is more about how we look for a solution. For far too long it has been the potential victim’s task to constantly be on the watch for how others might harm them, and ways to lessen that risk. Like self-defense classes. In high school all the girls took a class to protect us from vile lurking men, but I don’t recall classes being taught to the boys on how to NOT be a vile lurking man. Or just how to own their actions and take responsibility for their own choices, especially with how they treat others.

    That is all I really would like to see. Some serious work on teaching males en masse to NOT be violent dicks lacking self-control, because a huge chunk of that population hasn’t grasped that.

  228. Astraea
    Astraea June 28, 2007 at 7:28 pm |

    It’s more like women are being asked to run around NOT KNOWING WHO has the hammer, but knowing that some man out there has a hammer and wants to use it to hit us over the head, and he could be anywhere, any time, and it’s our job to constantly do this or that solution-of-the week which puts incredible restrictions on our lives, all the while living in fear because we know that there is a very good chance that one of these days we will be hit and that it will be deemed our fault for not doing whatever the solution-of-the-week was.

  229. Delftsman
    Delftsman June 28, 2007 at 8:00 pm |

    See what’s funny is that these crimes aren’t the natural consequences of a live-and-let-live society

    UM…yes they ARE, unless you (unfathomably, given all of history)presume that there are no predators within the society taking advantage of the naivet’e of their victims.

    The FACT is that every action DOES have consequence(s). This is not to say that ANY victim deserves their fate; BUT when we don’t take the victim’s prior actions into account, we fail to learn what actions to avoid to try to not share their same fate. If you lay down with dogs, you will more than likely wake up with fleas; and all your wishing to let everyone do what they will with no consequences is nothing more than living in a fantasy world with no bearing on the Earth where the rest of us live.

    As for your implication that “you would not be surprised about being raped if it was Misha you were walking down a dark alley with”

    I thought that the Progressive side were tolerant of all people and nonjudgemental (live and let live) ? Seems I was incorrect in that thought. Misha is one of the most gentlemanly men I have ever had the great honor to meet and that aspersion made against a person that you know on the basis of a single post is most UNprogressive, by your own “live & let live” belief.

    Also, I find it most humorous that you and your commenters seem to accuse Misha of racism, when in point of fact HE never mentioned race at all in his post; then you call him a misogynist, for pointing out that there are consequences to poor life choices, thus seemingly making him defend a black man in murdering a white woman…..pretty strange type of racist!

  230. Bunny
    Bunny June 28, 2007 at 8:12 pm |

    MuscleDaddy, what exactly do you think we can do to protect ourselves?

    It doesn’t matter what precautions you take. If someone wants to hurt you they will hurt you. If someone takes it into their head that they want to hit women over the head with a hammer, learning the “no hammers please” dance, wearing the anti-hammer t-shirt and avoiding men with hammers won’t stop them. Because they will have already decided to use that hammer, and to use it on you.

    Most women know what is and isn’t safe. We know we are safer if we don’t walk around the streets after dark. We know abusive men should be avoided. We know certain behaviour attracts attention. We know all of this. Sometimes, however, you can’t avoid walking down a dark alley after dark. Sometimes the abusive man pretends not to be. Sometimes we aren’t actually behaving “badly”, but people may assume that we are the “sort” who would.

    Most of us are already doing everything that we can to protect ourselves. And it KEEPS. ON. HAPPENING.

    So, at this point, is it really so unreasonable to assume that the men might take some responsibility for their own actions? Or that we might be able to at least try educating them about this sort of thing?

  231. blix
    blix June 29, 2007 at 12:09 am |

    Murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant women in the United States.

    This is not because pregnant women are more likely to be murdered than non-pregnant women. It’s because pregnant women are so healthy that they hardly ever die of natural causes. Complications from pregnancy used to be big killers; they aren’t any more. And women who become pregnant and carry to term are on the whole healthier than the general population so they don’t die from disease very often.

    The cable teevee wants you to think that if you have a baby your partner will kill you. That’s hype. The data doesn’t show that at all.

  232. zuzu
    zuzu June 29, 2007 at 12:56 am | *

    blix, do you imagine that pregnant women are somehow protected from the things that kill non-pregnant women, like car accidents and the like?

  233. zuzu
    zuzu June 29, 2007 at 12:58 am | *

    And I’m not even touching your statement that pregnant women don’t die from pregnancy-related causes. Right.

  234. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 29, 2007 at 2:26 am |

    Good morning Zuzu,

    Get that BOT problem fixed yet? :)

  235. Kenneth Hodges
    Kenneth Hodges June 29, 2007 at 2:36 am |

    Oh wait, I forgot, the BOT isn’t the one with the problem.

    BOTs have no choice in accepting reality.

    My error, I apologize.

  236. blix
    blix June 29, 2007 at 4:14 am |

    Zuzu- of course pregnant women die from pregnancy-related causes. I didn’t say they don’t. Hemorrhage, embolism, preeclampsia – they all kill pregnant women. But they are no longer ‘big killers.’ Pregnancy is a safe activity now for most women. In the US in 1930, maternal mortality (death from a pregancy-related medical cause) was 670 deaths per 100,000 live births. It was about 24 in 1970. It’s now 7.5 deaths per 100,000 live births. So today about 1 in every 13,000 live births ends in the death of the mother from all types of medical complications. That’s not zero by any means. And I shouldn’t have said “hardly ever” – 1 in 13,000 is more than ‘hardly ever.’ But it’s not the sort of odds that keep people up at night. Most pregnant women today don’t go into labor fearful that they will never come out of it. That wasn’t the case two generations ago.

    And of course pregnant women are killed in car crashes. But not more frequently than non-pregnant women. Being pregnant is not a risk factor for death in car accidents. The reverse is true – because on average pregnant women spend somewhat less time in cars than non-pregnant women. Why? Because many women stay at home more before delivery. So the death rate from accidents is a bit lower for pregnant women than for non-pregnant women.

    But this is all beside the point. The point is that the cable teevee assholes are running around screaming, If you get pregnant your boyfriend will kill you!!! Well, no, he won’t. There is no evidence that pregnancy significantly increases the risk that your boyfriend will kill you. It’s a scary hoax, no different from the other lies that cable teevee tells – like the lepers pouring over the border from Mexico. Same shit.

  237. Coldorderful
    Coldorderful June 29, 2007 at 4:16 am |

    Based on your comments above, it appears you think that only a white woman with low self-worth would stoop to sleeping with a black man, who is invariably a lawless cad spreading his seed about the community in order to prove street cred. She likely finds sleeping with a negro exotic and enticing, so enticing that she’d put up with a little abuse just so she can maw on his cock and have his illegitimate babies. Clearly the two of them are victims of the dangers of rap music.

    Have I summed things up correctly?

    No, you forgot the part about how white people are too busy polishing their spats and knitting new bobby socks (because there’s a sock hop this weekend, and they might meet some nice, repectable and of course white college boys! oh, heavens to murgatroyd they’ll be supercolossal, maybe they’ll even play lacrosse for Duke! swoon!) to commit crimes or any type of bad acts, what would the Beave do, but if any deviant black whoops I mean urban influenced white person does transgress the community’s moral code, well then, right after the barn raising you’re going to break away long enough from building up your mortgages, drinking milk and having proud American babies who might grow up to be Superman to hold a shunning. Because that’s what happens in white America, there will be consequences for violating the community norms. And after that you’re going to move right into the It’s A Small World ride at Disneyland (well, no, that’s a little too scarily ethnic, but you’re going to move into some ride that features jaunty music and pure white values of decency and thrift etc).

  238. Dianne
    Dianne June 29, 2007 at 6:03 am |

    It’s now 7.5 deaths per 100,000 live births

    Actually, that’s out of date. As of 2004 (the last year for which figures were available) it’s 11.3 per 100,000, after age adjustment. Source.

    So, somewhat worse than 1 in 10,000 women will die due to complications of childbirth. Sounds pretty low risk, doesn’t it. Perhaps, but it’s actually higher than the risk a person planning to fly on 9-11-01 would be taking. (Most flights didn’t ever take off, so it’s lower than the risk for actually flying on 9-11, but higher than the risk of scheduling a flight for that day.) Completing a pregnancy is neither safe nor easy.

  239. Lauredhel
    Lauredhel June 29, 2007 at 7:28 am |

    blix:

    One of the major points of the “pregnant women are more likely to die from partner violence than any other cause” datapoint is not to terrify women, it’s to advocate for appropriate allocation of care resources. Routine antenatal care spends hundreds or thousands of dollars on early detection and mitigation of physical perils that are far, far less likely to kill a woman than domestic violence – while ignoring the elephant in the room.

    As an aside, One study in the USA found a significant relationship between pregnancy, domestic violence, and suicide: pregnant women who attempt suicide are very likely to have been abused. There is more than one way to kill a woman.

  240. MJ
    MJ June 29, 2007 at 8:33 am |

    Had an affair and baby/babies with the married person so she deserved to be murdered? That’s twisted. If a man were to have an affair with a married woman and she got pregnant with his child, should his murder be called “he deserved it”?

  241. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 29, 2007 at 9:57 am |

    Why are the victim-blamers assuming that only women who “lie with dogs” are murdered? “Good, upstanding family men” murder their wives/girlfriends/lovers. If you really want to protect women, you’ll encourage them to stay away from men, period.

  242. Aeryl
    Aeryl June 29, 2007 at 9:58 am |

    blix,

    Do you know any pregnant women? Every pregnant woman I know worked until delivery, on top of the many dr’s appts they have to go to. So it would seem they also have a higher chance of dying in car accidents.

  243. MuscleDaddy
    MuscleDaddy June 29, 2007 at 2:07 pm |

    Bunny,(sorry so late)

    It doesn’t matter what precautions you take. If someone wants to hurt you they will hurt you. If someone takes it into their head that they want to hit women over the head with a hammer, learning the “no hammers please” dance, wearing the anti-hammer t-shirt and avoiding men with hammers won’t stop them. Because they will have already decided to use that hammer, and to use it on you.

    That’s just not true.
    What you can’t prevent is someone deciding to hurt you – there is no precaution for that.

    Take appropriate precautions, and you can prevent that person from being successful at it.

    What can you do? Be aware. Think ahead (plan out the going, being and returning to avoid the dark alleys). Be aware.
    Watch people closely – especially the people you let get close to you; anyone who says of an abuser ‘he gave no indication beforehand’ wasn’t paying attention
    - does he get angry at other people easily, react strongly to plan-thwarting-conditions (eg. bad traffic), -does he drink to excess when he’s with his friends (the mask often slips around friends), how does he treat his family?

    Too often, people overlook/ignore/refuse-to-see indicators that are right in front of them, even allowing the discrepencies that would expose the sham to ‘become’ part of their early reality (he isn’t that way with me)

    Sometimes, however, you can’t avoid walking down a dark alley after dark.

    True – sometimes, despite the best planning, you find yourself broken down on the side of the road somewhere between ‘No Where’ and ‘Somewhere Else’ – Part of your preparation, then, needs to involve internalizing the universal truth that ‘Predators Want Easy Prey’ – make yourself a hard target, too much trouble to bother with.

    Frankly though, it seems like I’m preaching to the choir, here – I spent some time yesterday trapped in the moderation filter, so I went to check out your blog – where you say, among other things, that you’ve never been in an abusive relationship.

    That’s not divine providence, Bunny – You’ve avoided them.

    So, at this point, is it really so unreasonable to assume that the men might take some responsibility for their own actions? Or that we might be able to at least try educating them about this sort of thing?

    Who ever said that men shouldn’t take responsibility for their own actions? Pretty sure that wasn’t me.

    In fact, reading back over the original post and comments, it wasn’t Misha, either (he’s wished all manner of lingering death on Cotts for his actions).

    What’s unreasonable, however, is to assume that any particular unknown-to-you man is going to take responsibility for his own actions – just as it’s unreasonable to assume what those actions are going to be in the first place – and that those actions will not impact you, leaving you to behave in an manner you wish – whatever that may be.

    I’ve read enough ‘STFU-you-can’t-speak-on-this-unless-you’re-a-woman’ in these comments to understand that folks here have a grasp on ‘don’t-speak-on-what-you-don’t-know’ – guess what? that applies to Every. Single. Individual. On. Earth.

    Until you know them, don’t presume to know them – good or bad.

    As far as trying to ‘educate them’ – now you walk a fine line, if you’re going to be dedicated to Jill’s ‘non-judgmental-society’, because it will mean applying concepts of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ – not just to the actions themselves, but to the underlying reasons and motivations – to the very thought processes behind those (and all other) actions. And how, then, will you deal with imposing something like that, as an objective concept, in some situations and not others? How will you answer the question of ‘How can Good & Bad be concrete, universal concepts…except when they’re not?’ when it comes up?
    You can’t teach someone to make such binary judgements and then expect them turn off judgementalism only when it suits you.
    How do you say, in the same metaphorical breath, that the misogynisticly-violent tendencies inherent in fundamentalist Islam are objectively Bad, but that the anti-semitically-violent tendencies inherent in a suicide bomber in a Tel Aviv day-care center is just a legitimate expression of rage at the oppression of The Man?

    Not to mention that such teaching would have to also involve critically examining the differences between men and women – combine that with teaching that some actions are Good and some are Bad, and you’ll find yourself teaching that differences do not exist in a vacuum – that some ‘differences’ are ‘better’ than others in a given situation – and then suddenly, everyone’s not ‘Equal’ anymore…
    Something’s got to give.

    I would love it if all men behaved with honor and chivalry (I have an 8-year-old-daughter, believe me – I would love it)and I have no problem with teaching a generation of men to behave thusly, with all of the critical teaching of judgement and morals that would perforce go along…but then, I’m an evil and judgemental conservative who, out in the everything’s-okay, everything’s-as-valid-as-everything-else popular culture, makes up a small part of an ever-dwindling and increasingly less-correct minority (don’t think so? what else is the talk-radio screaming and periodic attempts at ‘decency legislation’, if not frantic desperation?) – so I won’t get the chance to do that teaching.

    At the end of the day, assignation of responsibility is the outcome of the culture.

    Assignation of blame is a meaningless waste of time, better spent dealing with what is.
    Like it or not (and I often don’t), the world/reality is what it is – adapt or disappear.

    – MuscleDaddy

  244. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 29, 2007 at 2:40 pm |

    Muscle Daddy:

    When liberals like Jill talk about being “non-judgemental” they mean towards actions that don’t cause harm to others. Say: Pre-marital sex, gay sex, tattoos, smoking pot, etc.
    NOT actions that do cause harm to others. Say: Rape, murder, DWI, child pornography. Get it?

    And why is chivalry something to admire? Chivalry is when men put women on a pedestal (while treating them like mental midgets) in exchange for subservience.

    I’d much prefer to interact with a feminist man than a chivalrous man. But I’m weird.

  245. MuscleDaddy
    MuscleDaddy June 29, 2007 at 2:43 pm |

    Looks like we have different definitions of ‘Chivalry’.

    That’s all right, though – I’m okay with agreeing-to-disagree.

    – MuscleDaddy

  246. MuscleDaddy
    MuscleDaddy June 29, 2007 at 2:52 pm |

    Also – when teaching or excercising critical-thinking skills, concepts of ‘Good & Bad / Right & Wrong’ don’t isolate well – trying to get them to only apply in a iron-clad way to some situations but then making other situations ‘off-limits’ to the same application just doesn’t follow logically.

    And that’s even before calling up whatever studies/anecdotes are out there showing examples wherein any those ‘not-harmful’ activities…have been.

    The overlap is then the rub. So to speak.

    – MuscleDaddy

  247. Bunny
    Bunny June 29, 2007 at 3:09 pm |

    Muscledaddy,

    Educating children against violence, whether towards men or women, doesn’t need to include a list of “this is bad, this is good”. In fact, we already have that to an extent. I imagine there are few people who would say “rape is good”, for example. Such facts are ingrained within us by society.

    I know how I was educated against violence. I was never permitted to mis an opportunity to learn. Any act of violence, any nasty comments, any prejudiced assumptions on behalf of the participants were picked apart. Any time we witnessed abuse in public my mum would stop me and point it out to me, and would explain why what was happening was hurting the people involved. There was never any “this is bad” but lots of “do you think this is good or bad? How would you feel if it was done to you?” relentlessly, until the message stuck. That sort of debate can and is done in schools, but it is generally oversimplified, and I don’t think there is nearly enough of it.

    I grew up knowing that there is never an excuse to lash out at someone, unless you are defending yourself, and that defense stops once the attack does and you escape. I was taught to see the non-violent alternatives in everything. I was taught to not only listen to the views of those I disagreed with, but to really compare their view to mine and see whether there might not be something worth keeping in their ideas, or something worth discarding in my own.

    I think possibly the best lesson involved making me consider even people who do bad things as people. Some one in school is bullying me? That is wrong. But I was required to think about that person, and I knew that whatever happened, I could defend myself, I could tell that person to stop, I could tell someone else it was happening, but I could never retaliate.

    “Do you think that bully is a bad person? Really? Do you think they never kissed their mum goodnight, cried when they lost someone dear to them, or loved another person? Don’t you think it’s more likely that this bully is as scared of the world as you are, but they were never told that fighting is wrong? They only feel the same things that you do, but they react to them differently. If they were taught differently, taught to control that violent urge even when their whole body is shaking with anger, perhaps they would be the same as you?”

    Obviously this lesson was something of an over simplification, but it served it’s purpose. I am incapable of seeing other people as things now, as animated sprites reacting to stimuli. I see them always as being another me. It’s hard to hurt someone when you find yourself imagining the aftermath for your potential victim.

    Of course I can still be an obnoxious, pretentious ranty little bitch when I want to be, obviously! :)

  248. Coldorderful
    Coldorderful June 29, 2007 at 3:10 pm |

    but then, I’m an evil and judgemental conservative who, out in the everything’s-okay, everything’s-as-valid-as-everything-else popular culture, makes up a small part of an ever-dwindling and increasingly less-correct minority (don’t think so? what else is the talk-radio screaming and periodic attempts at ‘decency legislation’, if not frantic desperation?) – so I won’t get the chance to do that teaching.

    Well, you’ve got a point. you conservatives have such minimal influence on public policy in America–what on Earth can you do? I hear there’s some guy from Texas, former guv or something, who’s tried real hard to show us that random, unnecessary violence doesn’t accomplish anything, and constant macho posturing is bs, but he’s just one lone man screaming into the wilderness, no hope of ever achieving these worthy goals.

  249. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 29, 2007 at 3:10 pm |

    It’s pretty easy, actually. “Bad” is when you do something to hurt another (even if they’re not aware of it – like with cheating). Or when you do something that will result in harm to another. Obviously that’s a very simplified explanation. But it makes more sense than “It’s bad because the bible (or what-have-you) says so.”

    What’s YOUR definition of chivalry?

  250. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 29, 2007 at 3:17 pm |

    And that’s even before calling up whatever studies/anecdotes are out there showing examples wherein any those ‘not-harmful’ activities…have been.

    Like when someone smokes pot or drinks (not immoral) and then gets behind the wheel of a car (immoral) and kills someone? It was the act of getting behind the wheel while while high/drunk that’s immoral, not the smoking/drinking.

  251. Bunny
    Bunny June 29, 2007 at 3:22 pm |

    Ah sorry, spent so long waffling I missed your most recent comment.

    Right and wrong? I go by the tenet “do no harm, when harm is unavoidable, choose the path of least harm.”.

    Homosexuality does no harm to the people involved, or those outside it. Some may chose to take offense at it, but they are not harmed by the existence of happy gay people.

    Premarital sex between consenting adults does no harm, unless the people involved are foolish and don’t use contraception, or don’t get regular health checks to guard against a disease which could be passed on to others. It has the potential to do harm, but certainly no more than sex within marriage.

    Rape causes harm. Always. Whether the victim is conscious, tied up, beaten and abused in a number of ways or whether consent is withdrawn mid-way through and the sex continues.

    Anything done to another person without their consent is harmful.

  252. Kristen
    Kristen June 29, 2007 at 3:26 pm |

    Also – when teaching or excercising critical-thinking skills, concepts of ‘Good & Bad / Right & Wrong’ don’t isolate well – trying to get them to only apply in a iron-clad way to some situations but then making other situations ‘off-limits’ to the same application just doesn’t follow logically.

    Bad is an intentional act that causes unjustifiable harm to another person where the harm was reasonably foreseeable.

    I have not yet found a scenario where this does not give the “correct” result.

  253. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 29, 2007 at 3:27 pm |

    Anything done to another person without their consent is harmful.

    Well not anything, Bunny. Sex without consent, yes. But sending your child to school without her consent, no. Just wanted to say that to avoid a derailment by someone else.

    Anyway, I’m curious about the method Muscle Daddy uses to determine right from wrong.

  254. Bunny
    Bunny June 29, 2007 at 3:32 pm |

    Ah, but Sarah, that just comes under the option of doing the least harm.

    Sending your child to school? Maybe they feel intimidated by other students or are being bullied a bit.

    Not sending your child to school? Denying your child access to knowledge that could help your child to learn and grow.

    This, of course, is revised in extreme cases where the child is being horrendously bullied, or being mistreated by teachers or other people in a position of authority.

  255. MuscleDaddy
    MuscleDaddy June 29, 2007 at 3:36 pm |

    Bunny,

    Of course I can still be an obnoxious, pretentious ranty little bitch when I want to be, obviously! :)

    I dunno – I’m getting to like you more as time goes on ;-)

    Coldorderful,
    That guy from TX can’t even get it right for the purpose of keeping his own base from wanting to string him up, much less impact the reinforcement of the ‘values’ with which the pop-culture media is bombarding the population.

    SarahMC,

    Chivalry is dealing with people honorably, it is moderation and measure, it is personal strength (in whatever guise) exercised in service of those weaker and against injustice, it is the strength of character to do what is right even in the face of personal sacrifice, it is courtesy. And underlying all of this (and this one is personal to me), it is endeavoring to treat women as the precious light that they are.

    That’s as complete and honest an answer as I have.

    – MuscleDaddy

  256. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 29, 2007 at 3:37 pm |

    Still, I thought that last part was too simplistic and vulnerable to attacks that might derail the thread, even though I know what you were trying to say.

  257. Bunny
    Bunny June 29, 2007 at 3:45 pm |

    good point.

  258. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 29, 2007 at 3:51 pm |

    “Chivalry is dealing with people honorably, it is moderation and measure, it is personal strength (in whatever guise) exercised in service of those weaker and against injustice, it is the strength of character to do what is right even in the face of personal sacrifice, it is courtesy.

    OK, I like this. This is good.

    And underlying all of this (and this one is personal to me), it is endeavoring to treat women as the precious light that they are.”

    Whaaaaa? The precious light that they are? And this brings us back to my definition.

  259. MuscleDaddy
    MuscleDaddy June 29, 2007 at 3:58 pm |

    I suppose it would depend on how you interpret ‘precious light’.

    I believe that women have inherently more potential than men.

    I know they make us (men) better than we are – more than we are.

    Better than we are.

    What could be more of a ‘precious light’ than that?

    – MuscleDaddy

  260. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 29, 2007 at 4:06 pm |

    Sorry, I’m not buying your “women are more moral than men” schtick. That tripe has been used against women for ages. It flips the responsibility onto US to control you. You know, “boys will be boys!” if they sexually assault a woman (or whatever the case may be). “She should have known better than to [whatever that particular woman did to 'provoke' him].”

    What’s that phrase that used to be common? “An angel in the house” or something? Basically it held that men needed to be tamed by women. That y’all can’t be blamed for doing the awful things you do – either you just hadn’t been tamed by a wife yet or your wife had done a poor job.

    But your attitude explains some of your other sentiments in this thread.

  261. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 29, 2007 at 4:08 pm |

    Also, it limits women. I am not a fan of strict gender roles. Social pressure to conform to a false “feminine” ideal hurts girls and women and doesn’t allow them the freedom to be whomever they truly are.

    Same goes for boys and men when you substitute the word “masculine” for “feminine.”

  262. bluefish A
    bluefish A June 29, 2007 at 4:22 pm |

    buliding on what SarahMC said, this definition of chivalry is awfully conditional a well, a woman is a “precious little light” as defined by a man when she is acting in a way that the man approves of.
    hence, the Jessie Davis thing, is she less of a “precious little light” because she had an affair with and bore the children of a married (and black, natch) man? some would say yes.
    i tell you, it’s a precarious place, that pedastal that a lot of “chivalorous” men put us up on. it’s real easy to fall off that pedastal and go from being a madonna to a whore in a heartbeat.
    that’s why us feminists prefer to be treated like humans with agency.

  263. MuscleDaddy
    MuscleDaddy June 29, 2007 at 4:59 pm |

    Checking…..checking…..

    Nope. “More moral” never came up. Completely different topic.

    Never said anything about women ‘controlling’ or ‘needing to control’ men, or anything about some ‘feminine ideal,’ either.

    Nor meant it.

    I said ‘inherently more potential’, and I meant it in a much larger sense than you’re attributing to the words.

    That potential can be both palpable and inspirational, capable of allowing men to reach beyond their otherwise largely-self-imposed limitations…on many levels.

    That doesn’t mean that if a man fails to follow/realize that inspiration, it’s the woman’s fault.

    A sunset over the mountains can be inspiring, too – if someone fails to act on that inspiration, is it the mountain’s fault – the sun’s fault? No, that’s just silly.

    It’s a precious light, not a taskmaster….

    – MuscleDaddy

  264. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 29, 2007 at 5:07 pm |

    No matter how you go about rationalizing it, MuscleDaddy, the insistence that women are “above” men has served to keep women “under” men since the beginning of time. You didn’t have to say “more moral.” Your view of us is hardly original. Bluefish A tied it into the subject of this thread perfectly.

    A sunset can be inspiring. So can a beautiful painting. But women are actual people, not inanimate objects that exist to inspire and entertain you.

  265. MuscleDaddy
    MuscleDaddy June 29, 2007 at 5:08 pm |

    bluefish,

    Please refrain from inserting diminutive modifiers into my words – it changes the meaning that I’m already proving to be quite incapable of conveying effectively (or everyone wouldn’t be able to interpret what I’m saying in ways that make them angry).

    – MuscleDaddy

    P.S. I would also appreciate it if you could also refrain from inserting race into places where I have not. 2 of the 4 long-term relationships in my life have been with black women who I love deeply & I don’t appreciate your insertion/implication while trying to find different meanings in words I’ve actually used.

  266. MuscleDaddy
    MuscleDaddy June 29, 2007 at 5:10 pm |

    SarahMC,

    I’m sorry that your need to be angry with me is keeping you from hearing what I’m saying.

    Good on you – be safe.

    – MuscleDaddy

  267. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 29, 2007 at 5:16 pm |

    I don’t need to be angry with you. In fact I’m hardly even angry. What, am I not living up to my role as a precious light? (had to do it)

    You are saying that women are inherently different than men and suggesting that we “better” you somehow. I could accuse you of being a man-hater (which is what feminists are called when we treat men as responsible adults) for saying that men have less potential than women. Perhaps the women in your life illuminate it. That’s certainly valid. But to generalize and say that it’s essentially your world and women are just livin’ in it, lighting it up, is absurd and sexist.

  268. MuscleDaddy
    MuscleDaddy June 29, 2007 at 5:30 pm |

    Allow me to rephrase, then:

    I’m sorry that your need for me to be saying something other than what I am saying is keeping you from hearing what I’m saying.

    I am not a man-hater, I am observant.

    “My world” – *snort*

    Good on you – be safe.

    - MuscleDaddy

  269. bluefish A
    bluefish A June 29, 2007 at 5:32 pm |

    well, i’m not angry either…but, i found the women as “precious light” description a tad…precious. i would not describe actually, living human beings as “precious lights” which is why i choose to modify it. again, as Sarah MC wrote,

    t’s essentially your world and women are just livin’ in it, lighting it up, is absurd and sexist.

    also, i know nothing about you or your personal relationships, nor do i care. i was trying, to tie your description of chivalry with the topic of this post. i’m glad i succeeded, SarahMC!
    race does have something to do with how people are viewing the Davis case- Jesse Davis is being viewed as something less than a “perfect victim” because of her choice of boyfriend which in turn, has something to do with the fact that her boyfriend was both married and black.
    it’s not about you or your ex-girlfriends, Muscledaddy, in other words- i was discussing this case as well as the inherent sexism in the implication and application of chivalry.

  270. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 29, 2007 at 5:32 pm |

    So when women observe that men rape and murder women with great frequency, we’re not man-haters?! Yay!

    If you feel that I’m misinterpreting you that much, you are free to clarify your position on women.

    I’m pretty convinced, however, that your attitude re: this particular murder care is directly related to your women-are-precious-lights viewpoint.

  271. SarahMC
    SarahMC June 29, 2007 at 5:33 pm |

    murder case*

Comments are closed.