Return to Gender 101

[Ari]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's about looking like a badass but still being a sexual object Kael. It's all about the male fantasy...which is insulting, but that's the market.

Yep, it's sad when you actually want an badass ass kicking chick and that's all that's offered.

I always think of this when I see chainmail Bikinis


While I do appreciate the lots of skin 'armor' as a costume, it is interesting that we've been trained to think it could be effective.
and how is this not totally sexy?

show spoiler

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by lisarea

There are a few good comments there, which surprises me a little bit.

Plus, they have this awesome story, about Scott Adams has some more pretty great ideas about things. I won't spoil it.

Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Weighs In On Rape

I think he's trying to tell us something about his favourite hobby.

[Ymir's blood]

You know what I think of upon reading of chainmail bikinis?

Lots and lots of metal links embedded into soft flesh, which has been horribly bruised or lacerated. One, chainmail works by dispersing the force of the blow. It needs to be hanging loose to do that so that the force is transferred as much as possible to the surrounding armor and not what's underneath. Second, chainmail is worn with some kind of padding underneath it, to prevent the links from being driven into the skin. Usually this padding is either going to be thick cloth or leather, neither of which is going to be conducive to form fitting. Even if the padding was form fitting, the chainmail can't be, as mentioned in the first point.

Plate armor also relies on the resistance of the sections around it to keep it from being moved. Loose individual pieces may prevent the skin from being cut, but a lot of the damage caused by hand weapons, even swords, is from the mass of the weapon and the velocity with which it's swung. So those breast cups aren't going to do that much. Larger pieces like greaves may be more effective, but they were mostly worn as standalone pieces during periods where pure stabbing weapons like short swords and spears were common. Also, they covered areas of the body comprised more of muscle and bone, denser than the vitals.

[lisarea]

Whoa, this whole story is creepy as a barrel of motherfuckers:

Men’s rights advocates promote terrorism — Feministe

And the MRAs are all up in arms to varying degrees, supporting this violent, stupid terrorist wannabe who set himself on fire to protest paying child support.

Arms and the Men’s Rights Movement « man boobz

[Demimonde]

I am not surprised at the support, given the MRA crowd's fondness for violent and dehumanizing discourse. I don't expect such cowardly bullies to take up organized violent protest though. Unless this is a new trend of suicide by court house as opposed to the numerous tragic cases of abusers killing their entire families before themselves. But that new expression might just indicate that the system is working.

I am actually proud that in this case the courts protected the ex-wife and daughter from a violent, angry, unstable man. He was offered counseling, which could have prevented this tragedy, and given incentive to use it. Courthouses and police stations are designed to be protected. Their purpose is to take the blow instead of the women they protect.

[LadyShea]

Do any of you remember my IIDB nemesis, Derek/UMOC? He was an MRA wanna be (cuz I don't think they offer virgins full membership. One must brave the strange lady places to prove they have a dick). I wonder about him sometimes, like did he full on crazy or did he get laid and calm down?

And what's up with setting yourself on fire? What kind of stupid is that?

Who hasn’t slapped a four-year-old across the face hard enough to cut her lip open because she licked your hand? I also like the passive voice here — “she got a cut lip.” She didn’t get a cut, you hit her hard enough to drive her teeth through her lip. Totally upstanding guy. Definitely a good dad. Nothing here to indicate that he’s at all abusive.

N'mind, it's the kind of stupid I fully support

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

I got into it with that asshole plenty of times. I also encountered another MRA at another forum. One thing about him I didn't understand was that the only sexual activity he would engage in was cunnilingus - anything else was immoral/dirty/I don't even remember the justification.

But I don't imagine a raging misogynist gets laid with any regularity.

[Qingdai]

OK, I can't think of anything, but if more abusers killed themselves, and didn't take out their families at the same time, I would call that a mild improvement.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

More anti-woman crap:
What Draconian Abortion Laws Mean For Real Women's Lives

The real heart is in the comments, where women share their stories:

Okay, so what if fetuses can feel pain? You know who else can feel pain?

Parents who lose a wanted child and are prevented from accessing medical care. Children whose mothers die because they can't access medical care. Husbands whose wives die or are rendered infertile because they can't access medical care. Women who are rendered infertile because they can't access medical care. Women who are forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because their health insurance won't pay for their medical care. Women who are forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, period.

Me. The fact that I want more children desperately and yet I am terrified of getting pregnant because of the potential medical complications that could kill me. Which would be a lot less likely to kill me if I didn't live in fucking South Dakota where I am, you guessed it, prevented from accessing medical care in less than 3 days should I need it. And where my insurance probably wouldn't pay for it anyway, if I even live that long.

GRRRRR.

I wished conservatives would spend half the amount of time they invest in worrying about creating life into improving the life of those already living.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And what's up with setting yourself on fire? What kind of stupid is that?

The pandagon article goes into that a little bit, that sometimes people use suicide and threats of suicide to manipulate other people.

And she was apparently so right that it caused the MRAs to call her the Beast of Babylon and "pure feminist evil."

She's gonna have little badges all over her blog now.

Originally Posted by Feministe

Who hasn’t slapped a four-year-old across the face hard enough to cut her lip open because she licked your hand? I also like the passive voice here — “she got a cut lip.” She didn’t get a cut, you hit her hard enough to drive her teeth through her lip. Totally upstanding guy. Definitely a good dad. Nothing here to indicate that he’s at all abusive.

I've been trying not to say this because it's dickish and beside the point, but that's not the passive voice, grammatically. It's still evasive and passive in intent, but it's not passive voice. Her lip got cut would be, but not She got a cut lip.

[LadyShea]

Oh threats of suicide, and even half-assed "attempts", are a well known manipulation used by narcissists, and passive aggressives, and controlling assholes of all stripes and genders. Actual self immolation...not so much. That's the tactic of a fanatic, or an insane person.

[Vivisectus]

Except for the Peoples Front of Judea, Crack Suicide Squad.

[lisarea]

She's got a couple of examples of that happening, though, like the guy who decapitated himself in his car to get back at his wife.

It's obviously pretty rare for people to follow through, but it's just a progression on the same manipulative and fucked up spectrum. The one narcissist person I'm most familiar with has fucked himself over pretty hard in his attempts to get revenge on people, so I don't think it's super unusual for them to fuck themselves over in the pursuit of fucking over someone else.

This guy looks like he was trying to martyr himself for MRA causes moreso than just to fuck his ex over. I'm not sure if I'm surprised as such that it's actually working, but I am kind of horrified.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Demimonde

I am not surprised at the support, given the MRA crowd's fondness for violent and dehumanizing discourse. I don't expect such cowardly bullies to take up organized violent protest though. Unless this is a new trend of suicide by court house as opposed to the numerous tragic cases of abusers killing their entire families before themselves. But that new expression might just indicate that the system is working.

I am actually proud that in this case the courts protected the ex-wife and daughter from a violent, angry, unstable man. He was offered counseling, which could have prevented this tragedy, and given incentive to use it. Courthouses and police stations are designed to be protected. Their purpose is to take the blow instead of the women they protect.

I agree that the guy was obviously unstable and had issues. I think the mra guys are retarded for championing it. I also think the feministe article is being likewise pretty unfair.

So unfair that a man who beats his wife shouldn’t be allowed to return to “his” home immediately.

accused would be accurate and for this guy yeah he hit his child.

I just don't think we should applaud a man setting himself on fire. he was obviously a very troubled individual who felt powerless in dealing with the system.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Qingdai

OK, I can't think of anything, but if more abusers killed themselves, and didn't take out their families at the same time, I would call that a mild improvement.

I think anyone who slaps a kid hard should be immolated, that makes sense.

[Demimonde]

I liked Amanda's blog on it, though I had to stop reading the comments due to some really gleeful Schadenfreude over this guy's death. Assholes don't deserve to die in my worldview, but I understand how this issue can open wounds for those abused and it is understandable from their POV. I just have a hard time reading that.

Suicide to me is always tragic. Committed by a saint or an asshole, committed in the delusions of noble sacrifice or delusions of no self worth, anyone who feels such despair and hopelessness that they see their death as the only action possible is mentally ill and needs help. I am glad counseling was offered and sad he didn't use it. I am glad he was unable to hurt others, but not glad that he hurt himself.

What makes me particularly angry is that those supporting his act are tacitly encouraging other emotionaly vulnerable and mentally unstable men in despair down the same road. Which is disgusting. I don't see Ball as the victim he saw himself as, I do see him as a victim though.

ETA, while I agree that suicidal threats coincide with abusive situations I disagree strongly that they should be considered empty threats that are only used for manipulation. Threats of suicide should ALWAYS be taken seriously, the only one capable of evaluating that is a mental health professional. In all cases that person should be encouraged to get help. However this in no way makes the partner in the relationship responsible for the other's action.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I agree that the guy was obviously unstable and had issues. I think the mra guys are retarded for championing it. I also think the feministe article is being likewise pretty unfair.

accused would be accurate and for this guy yeah he hit his child.

Read the quote she's responding to closely.

This is what he said:

But if they are living together, then this fellow has a real problem. Bail conditions and then a possible protective or restraining order prevent him from being with her. So he needs to find a new place to live, at least until the charges are resolved. The King of his Castle is no longer allowed into his castle.

See that part about bail conditions and a possible protective or restraining order? That means it takes more than a simple accusation to prevent an accused abuser from returning home. First, they have to be charged, not just accused. Some states also seem to have a default no contact order in domestic violence cases, but he's not talking about that.

And the 'accused' distinction is important legally, and should always be included if you're reporting news on a specific case. However, the fact is that if 'accused' abusers are allowed to return home to their 'alleged' victims, this means that actual abusers are being allowed to return home to their actual victims in a significant number of cases. Or, if you were to put it another way, "a man who beats his wife" would "be allowed to return to “his” home immediately."

And he is speaking in general terms there about domestic violence, rather than his case, as is she.

In this case, he did hit his child hard enough to cut her lip, and he doesn't dispute that. And the police told him he couldn't return to the home that night, then arrested him the next day.

I just don't think we should applaud a man setting himself on fire. he was obviously a very troubled individual who felt powerless in dealing with the system.

Any perceived 'applause' is I reckon for him turning his extreme violent tendencies on himself, rather than on others. And if you read his insane stupid manifesto, it's pretty obvious that the guy was not very smart or self aware, and that he had a lot of pent-up rage and severe cognitive biases that affected his ability to reason. If you just look at his 'math,' it's hard to even determine forensically what sort of bizarre maneuvering he was doing to get the results he was looking for. He was very far gone on the rage thing, and it was unlikely that his situation was going to resolve peacefully. Someone was bound to go down, and the best plausible scenario in his case was that he'd go down alone.

[Demimonde]

Someone was "bound to go down?" I disagree. A better case scenario was that with professional help no one would have. Not saying that counseling is a magic wand that would have saved his relationships, but it might have saved his life. Then three kids might have had a father who was emotionally balanced instead of this horrifying conclusion. I can't think that is for the best.

[Kael]

I have a pretty strong tendency to come down hard on people who strike their spouses or children, men or women (it's true you don't hear about many women abusing their husbands, but it does happen, and there's plenty of women who abuse their children), because to my sense of morality, justice, and parental responsibility there is literally no excuse. But I do think that it would have been better for everyone involved if this guy had gotten the help he needed. He definitely needed help if he thought setting himself on fire was a good solution to a few thousand dollars in child support.

So, my immediate reaction, something along the lines of "fuck that guy," still stands, but that doesn't mean I want to see more abusers kill themselves in protest to the way the law treats them. It can be really tough for a person with some emotional or psychological issues, because it can be hard to climb out of whatever mental pit brought about the abuse in the first place, and society treats them like monsters in the meantime. I'm not talking about sociopaths here, more about people with problems like anger management, alcoholism, etc. In no way would any such problem, to my mind, excuse their actions, but many such problems can be addressed and remedied if they are willing to get help.

This guy wasn't, so as I said "fuck that guy" still stands in my mind, I would just prefer it didn't end in suicide, which can be quite traumatic for those left behind, especially children.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Read the quote she's responding to closely.

This is what he said:

See that part about bail conditions and a possible protective or restraining order? That means it takes more than a simple accusation to prevent an accused abuser from returning home. First, they have to be charged, not just accused. Some states also seem to have a default no contact order in domestic violence cases, but he's not talking about that.

And the 'accused' distinction is important legally, and should always be included if you're reporting news on a specific case. However, the fact is that if 'accused' abusers are allowed to return home to their 'alleged' victims, this means that actual abusers are being allowed to return home to their actual victims in a significant number of cases. Or, if you were to put it another way, "a man who beats his wife" would "be allowed to return to “his” home immediately."

Once he makes bail indeed. A person accused of crime x should be allowed to return home. If there is a danger yes protective orders, family court etc should be used to work it out perhaps having him put out of th ehouse or whatever.

Of if yo uwere to put it another way "a man who didn't actually do anything but was accused of something" would "be allowed to return to his home immediately"

Nice quotes around his, why did you put them there?

I just don't think we should applaud a man setting himself on fire. he was obviously a very troubled individual who felt powerless in dealing with the system.

yeah, perceived, its just in my head. I also don't think something was bound to go down resulting in the loss of life, I guess I do appreciate that you own that you think what happened was the best plausible scenario.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Demimonde

Someone was "bound to go down?" I disagree. A better case scenario was that with professional help no one would have. Not saying that counseling is a magic wand that would have saved his relationships, but it might have saved his life. Then three kids might have had a father who was emotionally balanced instead of this horrifying conclusion. I can't think that is for the best.

That is a better case scenario, no doubt. But it's an extremely unlikely one. The guy was almost 60 years old and, based on the type of thought processes in that manifesto, he was very very emotionally attached to his views, to the point that I can't imagine any argument or appeal was going to change them. So the combination of his age and his extreme cognitive bias made it very very unlikely that he was going to be motivated to see things more evenly. If you look at his reasoning, he was working really hard to fit whatever little facts he could find into his personal theories--much harder than he would have had to work to adopt a more nuanced view. There are some types of personality disorders that are considered pretty much incurable, as I understand it, simply because they include elements of extreme self-assuredness that makes people almost incapable of considering that they might be wrong.

I'm not saying it was impossible, just extremely unlikely. So yeah, I think that, with his state the way it was, it was almost inevitable that he was going to end up hurting someone.

So I'm not glad that the guy killed himself. But yes, I think that, based on the sort of rage and irrational thought in that manifesto, it was almost inevitable that he was going to hurt or kill someone, and I'm glad it wasn't and won't be someone else.

[Qingdai]

My state has had an unusually high number of murder/suicides where in the father takes out the whole family.
I have to say I prefer suicide to murder. You know, the whole choice issue.
I'm for it.

[Demimonde]

"His" home reinforces the notion that he is "King of his castle" and that it belongs to him as opposed to both spouses. As the feminist he referred to in his manifesto said, he abdicated when he abused his family. (Was anyone else creeped out by his reference to "Pence" in his writing? That totally seems to me that is a screen name and it freaked me out that such a thing could have burrowed so deeply under his skin.)

Anyway, I am trying to pick a fight with lisa on one of the few subjects we disagree on.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Kael

But I do think that it would have been better for everyone involved if this guy had gotten the help he needed. He definitely needed help if he thought setting himself on fire was a good solution to a few thousand dollars in child support.

Yes, this would have been better. But he chose to go out in a spectacle. People like that will often choose to take others with them.

A coworker of mine was gunned down by her abusive estranged husband in the parking lot of our workplace, then he killed himself (lisarea this was in Aurora CO in the early 90's, do you remember it?). This happens much more frequently than abusers setting themselves on fire, or even quietly killing only themselves. I don't know how frequently abusers seek professional help or are jailed.

Originally Posted by Demi

better case scenario was that with professional help no one would have. Not saying that counseling is a magic wand that would have saved his relationships, but it might have saved his life. Then three kids might have had a father who was emotionally balanced instead of this horrifying conclusion.

I wonder how many abusive people actually get counseling and become functional? I am really curious as to how successful counseling is for unbalanced people. My very small sampling of observed people indicates that there isn't a very high success rate.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by lisarea

That is a better case scenario, no doubt. But it's an extremely unlikely one. The guy was almost 60 years old and, based on the type of thought processes in that manifesto, he was very very emotionally attached to his views, to the point that I can't imagine any argument or appeal was going to change them. So the combination of his age and his extreme cognitive bias made it very very unlikely that he was going to be motivated to see things more evenly. If you look at his reasoning, he was working really hard to fit whatever little facts he could find into his personal theories--much harder than he would have had to work to adopt a more nuanced view. There are some types of personality disorders that are considered pretty much incurable, as I understand it, simply because they include elements of extreme self-assuredness that makes people almost incapable of considering that they might be wrong.

I'm not saying it was impossible, just extremely unlikely. So yeah, I think that, with his state the way it was, it was almost inevitable that he was going to end up hurting someone.

So I'm not glad that the guy killed himself. But yes, I think that, based on the sort of rage and irrational thought in that manifesto, it was almost inevitable that he was going to hurt or kill someone, and I'm glad it wasn't and won't be someone else.

So the fact that he wrote the manifesto and wet himself on fire means that he is likely to kill others in a blaze of glory or whatever?