The Hypocrisy of Domestic Violence in America

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: MarlinGrace

When you say “historical research”, do you mean all those news articles with republicans making unsubstantiated claims as if they were proven fact, to discredit him politically? I don’t know, maybe it’s because I’m just an inferior non US citizen who’s incapable of comprehending anything that happens outside of my borders, but I can’t seem to find any footage of Clinton punching a female in the mouth and knocking her unconscious, or anything close to that.

Fact is you could have used any thousands of different examples that would have been far more comparable to this scenario, if you were actually arguing double standards. But no, you went straight in for the left against right nonsense. At least have the integrity to admit what you did.

Ignorance by choice is stupidity. Remaining in ignorance suits you well. The Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit cost him 850K to get it dropped by her. But you like so many make excuses for bad behavior by being politically selective, he has a long history of it and yet you won't even take the time to investigate. I am not making excuses for anyone, just asking why Rice loses a career and Clinton isn't even mentioned as a footnote. So remain with your head firmly shoved into the sand by your own hand. Unless of course you condone sexual harassment.

That video had a hilarious subtlety -- that poor man (the actor) basically got beat up for HOURS while nearly 200 people randomly walked by, for the take. Geez that guy deserves hazard pay! Even 'for pretend' that must have been miserable.

I believe in human rights, including the right to not be physically assaulted, although I grant there are some grey areas in human relationships (and not just the 50 shades type). This should go for men as well as women.

As a woman, I've known more men abused physically by their women than the other way around. The threat of her male family, of the police if in even trying to defend himself he hurt her, of losing the children, and more, are the 'counterbalance' the woman often has, as opposed to superior strength/speed/reach/etc. that men often have.

That said, the video actually made me think about my reaction. Because I'd have been likely to step in and defend a woman, but not that man. I might have defended a different man, or, from a different woman. But due to their sizes not being very different, and his "ignoring" her by reading a paper (vs. the woman in the initial study who was simply looking away/avoiding), he just seemed more like someone who needed counseling to stand up for himself or get the heck away -- he did not seem, comparatively, like he wouldn't be 'able' to defend himself if he chose. While the woman in the initial video sequence seemed like someone who needed physical defense.

On the news thing, I actually had to go read about it, didn't hear until this thread -- yes, I DO live in a cave, I intentionally avoid news, I only run across it on discussion forums such as this one -- these situations are such a bunch of "immature trashy behavior" that it really just makes everybody look bad and gives the media something to get hyper about. The entire lot of them need to grow up. As for the shockjock comments and results, well, that's the risk of that job I guess but I kinda saw his point, personally. As those on-air personalities go it didn't even seem that inflammatory to me.

Here's my perspective as a certified female:
1. No one should hit anyone for any reason other than defense of self or defense of another.
2. The assaultER should be publicly ridiculed, never the assaultEE.
3. Most of the time, but not always, women are physically weaker than men. Add the fact that women are far more likely than men to be too emotionally weak to leave an abusive relationship. And not that we deserve special treatment, but that should be taken into consideration.
4. I am sick to death of all the 'wah wah I'm offended' 'omg that joke could have hurt someone's feelings, you're fired'. 9 times out of 10 the person's true intent is never true hatred or malice. Lighten up folks. If marijuana gets decriminalized and people are still this uptight, then there is no hope for the human race.

a reply to: burdman30ott6


I never believed in this whole equality scam anyway. The government is just using women to subjugate men, by taking away everything we have, demonizing men even when women were the first to hit them, ridiculing us every way they can and letting them tear us apart in courts. It is hypocrisy at its finest.

Dude I loved your post it really made me think more about what I already had my own opinion on. Let's face it. People make MISTAKES! I myself have a 70% VA disability rating for ptsd and alchoholism in which I've had 2 duis within a month of eachother withing just 6 months after returning from afghanistan. Horrible mistake. I learned from it. The whole ray rice thing. Yeah horrible mistake but we are ONLY HUMAN. The only hypocrisy I see in the ray rice incedent hear me out...he got banned from the nfl BECAUSE he got a slap on the wrist for what would be felony charges against us 1%ers. Its a theory...but it makes sense. So he avoided felony jail time...well now the nfl stepped up and did IMO the right thing. Being in the nfl is a PRIVALEGE not a right. Just like driving...I lost my licesense indeffinately. Its a privalege not a right to drive. And I accept my punishment.

a reply to: charles1952

The thing with seatbelt laws, helmet laws, and drug laws is that to give a person the right of free choice is to take away another person's rights. I am meaning that if I decide to do heroin, not wear a seatbelt ot not wear a helmet and get hurt and I have medicaid then somebody else (taxpayers) are FORCED to pay for it. My choice takes away theirs. If somebody is so dumb that they get hurt not wearing a seatbelt or by doing drugs then why should I have to pay for it?

I was merely bringing this part up. Im not realy sure how I feel about it as the view was just presented to me recently when I argued about my state's right to live free or die.

This is the reason men are often reluctant to come out when they need help, they know that society in general will make fun of them and tell them to just man up.
Only women can be victims, not men and all the bad things that happen to men is because of patiarchy according to feminists and other morons in general.

a reply to: Divin3F3nrus

Dear Divin3F3nrus,

That's an excellent point, and I've heard it before. In fact, that's the only argument for seat belt laws and the like. It stopped me for a little while, then the truth dawned on me. There are two arguments against the "You're making society pay" argument, and either is sufficient for me. Allow me to explain.

The "You're making society pay" argument has no limit. Why not pass laws establishing how many drinks you can have in a week (either alcohol, coffee, or soda)? There could be laws requiring you to exercise a certain number of minutes a day, how many portions of vegetables you must eat, the number of times you wash your hands, and anything else you can imagine. Homosexual activity is bad for your health. Under the "You're making society pay" argument, we could ban homosexuality. You can be expected to live longer if you floss and don't retire, so let's make laws requiring those things.

The second argument is that no one is making society pay. Society decided a long time ago to create Medicare, Medicaid, and require Emergency Rooms to stabilize patients, even if they have no money. "Hey! Society! You passed the laws, not me. You wanted to pay for my medical bills. Don't complain now that you have to pay for my medical bills, you phonies."

If society doesn't like the results, they don't have to pay for seat belt injuries, just rewrite the Medicare and Medicaid laws to not cover it. But there is no reason to ban the behavior.

And, what if I have complete insurance from a private company? What's the argument now for requiring seat belts? I'm not costing the taxpayers a penny.

The "You're making society pay" argument is a simple-minded attempt to justify behavioral control at the national level. That's wrong in so many ways.

a reply to: Divin3F3nrus

You've just made a wonderful argument against socialized healthcare and the welfare state, and I thank you for it. In order to have actual freedom, you must have the chance to fail epically... even to the point of flat out death with no interference. We lack that.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Divin3F3nrus

You've just made a wonderful argument against socialized healthcare and the welfare state

Except for the annoying little fact that a country with no healthcare or welfare is 3rd world, lol.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: MarlinGrace



Fact is he wasn't the one who got knocked to the ground unconscious. People die from being punched in the head all the time and in a civilized society it is unacceptable.

Since when do we live in a civilized society? Worst. Argument. Ever. In my opinion at least. Every time I see someone talking down on people from their "civilized" perch it makes them look the opposite.

I don't care about the whole left right thing. I'm not a part of it so i'll take no part in it. Waste of time.

And personally, I do think it's ok to hit a woman if she hits you first. I even think it should go farther than that. There are extreme provocations that I wouldn't see a problem with hitting a woman if she did it. Like infidelity, or what if a woman lets say, was supposed to pay the bills and had been spending all the money on drugs? Beat downs all around.

Men have been clipped, and some of them to the point that they advocate for the poor woman. Sad.

@furnacefuneral84, You say we don't have the right to travel and that it is a privilege. The opposite is true and it has been upheld in court quite a few times. www.apfn.org...

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Shiloh7

Of abusive relationships that end in murder, 70% of those murders occur after the abused have left. That's why people stay.

Yes. Statistically, women stay gone when they have left for the seventh time. They are at higher risk upon leaving, than at any other time. That's one of the reasons shelters are so important.

Can you imagine someone with that mindset though? It makes them furious! "how dare she leave me! I'll kill her".

....And for the men. Males are not allowed in women's shelters. However, when there is a male client in need of assistance, which does occur, although rarely, the domestic violence agency pays for them a hotel room, and provides for other needs. They are offered the same services as women, but are only at a different location.

It is suspected there are more male victims than is commonly known, but they don't come forward as often due to shame and embarrassment.

a reply to: Bundy

"Hitting a woman is okay for infidelity?"

Wow. You're right, we wouldn't live in a civilized society if everyone had the same mindset as this.

Fortunately, they don't. It's not the norm.

a reply to: Bundy

Anyone who hits a women for any kind of reason is a dog! Anyone who says otherwise doesn't deserve the effort it would take me to write a more intelligent response.

a reply to: Bundy

Whoa... you are one sorry excuse of man.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

And that's exactly what should happen. Men fleeing domestic abuse should have safe places to go and they shouldn't be ridiculed for it. In male-female relationships where the woman is the abuser, often, the man leaves because he refuses to put his hands on the woman even to restrain, that's admirable even if sad at the same time. No one should be abused by their partner, end of story. The preconceptions about male roles, female roles, masculinity and femininity can hurt men as much as they hurt women.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Except America wasn't even remotely 3rd world before the ACA passed. Nor did we become 3rd world when Clinton passed welfare reform... if anything, we've moved more towards the 3rd world since those reforms were ignored and since the ACA was enacted. Most 3rd world countries are socialist dictatorships or currupt populist "democracies."

a reply to: charles1952

I get that, and thats what i said to my coworker when he brought it up. Im not really sure how i feel about it. We SHOULD just be able to make it a common sense thing where if you are grossly negligent in your behavior and end up getting hurt that you shouldnt get free care but really life is complicated and cannot just come down to common sense. Its just kind of sucky about where i live because once you are 18 we have no seatbelt laws, so if you get hurtby not wearing a seatbelt then i have to pay. Its whatever anyways, id rather pay higher taxes than have people die

On tonight, live from 10PM Eastern time!

Show thread with listening information

Maybe I grew up differently than most people. I have a hard time seeing Rice as Mr. Superabuser. Did he hit her way too hard ? Yes - dangerously hard, and that's the only problem I have with this. She clearly was the aggressor and hit him first. When this happens, it is almost always a pattern in the relationship. The popular video that has been run was edited. You don't see her hit him first, and you don't see her spit on him like you do on the the full video.

So he hit her way too hard - no question, but given that he did that, and she hit him first, then what is the message here for prosecuting/persecuting him ? You can defend yourself as long as you don't over do it ? Just hit her less hard ? Allow her to act that way ? Have her arrested because she hit him ( he would be ridiculed for many years by all kinds of people for doing that) ? Tell her thank you ma'am, may I have another ? Don't agree ? Well, it's obvious from the unedited tape, that if he had not struck her back, she could certainly have been arrested if there had been law enforcement intervention.

The clear message here is dangerous IMO. You can hit a man first and spit on him, and if he retaliates, he will be arrested. Once he's arrested, the cards are stacked against him legally. Why ?. 1) Because it has already been inferred by current attitudes that since you never hit a woman, you're automatically at fault. 2) A great deal of these get prosecuted with the assistance of Federal Grant money. If it's FREE to prosecute this case in it's jurisdiction, go after every offender, since even deferred adjudication will be paid for. Those men will have that on their record forever, since it NEVER goes away. He will forfeit his right to own a firearm for the rest of his life, but it's great to go after all of these men because it doesn't cost the jurisdiction any money. In the absence of a video tape, as in most cases, if both people claim the other one struck them first, the police will take the man to jail. Oh, wait a minute, he can prove it in court. Not likely, when she can decline to be involved in the prosecution, and the District Attorney's office will prosecute it anyway. Heck, might as well if it's free.

It was a fairly rough area I grew up in as a kid. I lived across the street from the dump for some years ( it was eventually filled in ), and I was in some unpleasant situations. I have been in situations where I knew if I hit a person that I had a confrontation with, that I was going to experience a beat down. There were a few occasion where I did it anyway. I was expecting the ensuing beat down that came.

I don't watch the television show "COPS" very much, but I did see an episode where a woman call the cops because her husband hit her. When the cops got there, she indeed had a broken nose. During the inquiry, it was discovered that she hit him in the head with a broom FIRST. They hauled her to jail, and did nothing to him