Sunday, April 5, 2009

When Retards Speak

Women being able to hit men and it be funny is not a double standard. That assumes that men and women under present social conditions are equal or nearly so. But they are not. The prevalence of male on female rape and domestic abuse is enough of an indicator that men (as a gender) oppress women (as a gender). In this context, an oppressed person striking back at an oppressor esp. in self-defense can be empowering and funny. That’s not to say such violence is free of problems, but it is not hypocritical.

Complaining about women hitting significant others is like privileged white boys whining “why can’t we say the n-word if they do?” So, why not quit whining and start working to end domestic and sexual violence if a comic book portrayal of a women punching her husband bothers you so much?

--"Other Bob"

Other Bob totally nailed it.

We don’t live in a world where domestic abuse figures are equal. Men are the overwhelming majority of abusers. Period. If we ever live in a world where that number approaches anything resembling equal—when men who beat women are as rare as women who beat men—then you can start making a big deal out of things like this story created by men (primarily) for men.

Getting huffy over a fictional “husband-battering” in a medium that is overwhelmingly male-oriented is insulting to real victims of abuse.


More evidence that people are

A) prone to rationalizing their own dogmatic points of view; and
B) stupid.

The above comments come from "mbrady"s Newsarama blog, where he mulls over the seeming lack of reaction to Black Canary decking her husband Green Arrow. (Actually there was some reaction, but not a whole lot as far as I've seen.)

Remember me referencing the "inequality" argument last post? Well, this is a prime example. According to "Other Bob", the fact that women have been oppressed justifies (and makes hilarious) any abuse they dish out to members of the opposite sex.

But by that kind of reasoning, the last Bush Administration and its subordinates were perfectly justified in using methods of interrogation some would call torture. Because, you know, terrorists crashed some planes and killed lots of people, so because of that act of evil, the US should be able to get away with its own morally objectionable acts. (Or, if you're more left-wing than I am, you could say that years of US fiddling in the Middle East justified slamming planes into the World Trade Center.)

Inequality does not automatically grant virtue to the disadvantaged. To think otherwise is the same kind of reasoning used by religious fanatics.

To top it off, look at how "Other Bob" paints the incident: "In this context, an oppressed person striking back at an oppressor esp. in self-defense can be empowering and funny."

Really, this is sanctioned prejudice, a way to label one group of people as "the oppressors" and then justify everything done to harm them as striking some kind of blow for justice. The Israeli kid blown up on a schoolbus, or the Palestinean child vaporized by a tank? Part of the Zionist Occupiers, or the Savage Terrorists, and therefore perfectly acceptable targets.

But wait: Was Black Canary being attacked by Green Arrow? (No.) Did the incident occur because Green Arrow was oppressing Black Canary in some way? (Not from what I've heard.) She was pissed, and she hit him, not because women have been oppressed by men, but because she was embarrassed by his actions.

The lack of parity between genders is a serious issue, but that is not the reason why a man beating his wife is bad, it's because most of us believe (at least in theory) that hurting someone you supposedly love is wrong in an absolute sense. It would be wrong if it were a couple of gay guys or gals, and it's wrong if a woman hits a man. If advantage affects whether or not this is wrong, then if Something Happened and men became the disadvantaged sex, hitting your wife would no longer be reprehensible, but a blow for equality and worth a chuckle.

If you can justify her hitting him on the basis of oppression, you are leaving open the concept that under certain circumstances it's okay to smack your partner around, and that means that you're into the gray area where if you can justify it for the right reasons, it'd be just fine for Green Arrow to haul off and clout her once or twice, too.

If the primary argument against a man beating his wife is that, as a man, his gender has oppressed his wife's gender and he is perpetuating that inequity, then fine, there's no hypocrisy involved. But if that's what you really believe, you need serious counseling. If, like a sensible adult with at least a double-digit IQ, you feel that beating your wife is wrong because it's just wrong to beat people you say you love, then excusing Black Canary's punch is indeed hypocrisy, and can be nothing else.


Andre said...

I know this might be a "retarded" outlook but I do have some double standards that should bother me but do not.

I ask my friend if a girl being raped is funny. My friend looks shocked and says "Hell No" I ask my friend if a guy being raped is funny. He looks introspective and says... I want to say no but I thought the Euro trip rape was funny but the American history X rape was very much not funny.

I always just thought of it as being respectful to someones feelings myself but it could be that I have a little sexist in me.

Anon, A Mouse said...

"but I thought the Euro trip rape was funny but the American history X rape was very much not funny."

I am not exactly sure what you're referring to, there...

But if you are aware of a double standard and admit to having double standards, I don't consider that retarded. Those standards may or may not be a good thing, but at least you're honest about having them.

The goofballs I quoted are trying to rationalize their double standards with the excuse that since women have had some disadvantages as a gender, it's okay (or even funny) when they do something that they wouldn't tolerate in others.

It's when someone attempts to DENY that they have a double standard by applying some half-baked justification that I start to object.

sexy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
James Meeley said...

Guess another retard was speaking, since you deleted their comment, eh, Anon? ;)

Anon, A Mouse said...

What I deleted was some inexplicable spam composed of some densely-packed Asian text fronting about 200 different URLs to disreputable-sounding addresses, most likely porn or viruses.

So, yeah - but of a sort unrelated to the issue at hand...

James Meeley said...

Actually, the more i think on this situation, the more it strikes me as just the "non-hive-vagina" thing I spoke on a while back.

Basically, anything said or done in the name of "the cause" is okay, even if what is done or said would be seen as reprehensible, if it were done to and against "the cause."

It all goes back to what I said about what radical feminist mean by equality. It isn't about what's fair for all, or a compromise between both parties. It's about them setting the rules and groundwork for what equality is and others (i.e. specifically men) falling into line what what they say "equality" is. There is only equality, if they dictate the terms of just what that means. Anything else, is just the patriarchy subjecting them to inequality.

So, the disadvanged being seen as virtuous in ANYTHING they say or do, in the name of their cause-du-jour, when those same things would be evil incarnate if done by the advantaged, isn't really a surprise. It's actually been that way for some time now. Don't expect any radical changes to the program, either.

cheapest viagra said...

Great post. I think one of the basic things that we should know know is that we must always make sure that you are safe in every transactions you wanted to indulge with.

viagra in india said...

Hello I enjoyed yoiur article. I think you have some good ideas and everytime i learn something new i dont think it will ever stop always new info , Thanks for all of your hard work!.