Feminism: “I’m strong and independent, don’t hit me I’m a girl!”

Posted: November 24, 2013 in Uncategorized

Let me state this extremely clearly – I am an advocate of ending violence against women. It’s truly horrible, it’s not something we should be seeing in 2013 and I’m glad there are like-minded people out there who share my views, it’s heart-warming and helps restore a little bit of faith in humanity.

That all sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Yeah, I deplore violence against women, and I don’t see any reason why, in this day and age, I should be alone in my views. It’s not something that needs a lot of thought, you don’t hit women end of.

But…yes, there is a but, you must have seen it coming. I also deplore violence against men, and children. You see, violence isn’t a gender specific thing, despite what a certain group of people would have you believe. Numerous studies have shown that reciprocal intimate partner violence occurs at extremely similar rates, yet we are constantly bombarded with statistics that prove there is a ‘war on women’, that women are the primary victims of domestic violence, that women need to be protected from evil men who think nothing of getting home from work and beating their wife or girlfriend, just because.

It doesn’t work like that. One of the, many, reasons that it pays to keep the domestic violence myth going is because it brings in a shit load of money. There are women only shelters all over the world, yet it’s extremely rare to find men only shelters, and some domestic violence centres actively refuse to take men. You know things aren’t completely kosher when Erin Pizzey, the woman responsible for opening the first women’s shelter, accuses feminism of ‘hijacking’ the movement and making it all about them.

So, what’s the point of this? Well, for a society that, supposedly, is currently engaging in a ‘war on women’ it would appear that we take violence against women pretty seriously. If the numerous shelters weren’t proof enough, there are advertising campaigns, hotlines and laws that help protect women. It’s a bit strange for a society to both wage a war and protect the enemy at the same time.

But anyway, on to the main point. I’ve already done a blog on domestic violence, so this is more of a companion piece as opposed to something completely different.

There’s been a definite shift in public thinking in the last few months, at least to my eyes anyway. When I was younger, and this has been going on for as long as I’ve been alive, I was surround by the old ‘there’s absolutely no reason to hit a woman’ rhetoric. No matter what the women did it was never ok, never, to hit a woman. Women were to be protected and cared for (which, according to feminists, is massively sexist). However, I’ve encountered a number of videos in the past few months on Youtube that show how the bar is shifting. The argument no longer centres on the ‘you should never hit a woman’ motto but is now more complicated. There are plenty of videos out there of women displaying violent behaviour and people retaliating.

The interesting is the response. Before, I’m sure the majority of people would have automatically blamed the man for being a thug, called him scum for hitting back. Now, though, there seems to be a shift towards the thought that women deserved what they got in return. We live in a culture that demands equality for women, while still trying to hold on to some of the privileges that protects them. We hear feminism claiming women are just as strong, independent and able as men, yet will still balk at the idea of a man retaliating with violence when threatened with violence. It’s a hypocritical stance to take, either women can hold their own with men or they can’t, either they can handle being in the same situations with men or they can’t. When it comes to violence the phrase ‘if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out’ comes to mind.

Below are three videos that show how complex this issue has now become. In all three videos the women are the main instigators of the aggression, often starting with verbal abuse before resorting to physical violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6KFWiidiJo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kyPotqOc0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM7tg0J06ok

We’ll start with the first video, a Cleveland bus driver punching a woman who is verbally assaulting him and, we think although it’s not abundantly clear, physically assaults him. IF you skip to 14 seconds of the video you get my first ‘shake my head’ moment. Ana Kasparian, the presenter, warns us that “It is a difficult video to watch if you’re uncomfortable seeing a man physically assault a woman.” What about if I’m uncomfortable seeing a woman verbally and physically assault a man? Does that not come into it? Am I supposed to just accept the woman being violent but be shocked and uncomfortable when the man is violent?

The second video, a woman punches a man in the nose (causing him to bleed, which you can see later in the vid) and is then herself punched to the ground. Now, you could say that it was a cheap shot by the man, and you’d probably be right, but it’s the entire attitude of the woman that is the problem here. Right before she punches him she says “what are you gonna do, hit a girl?” That right there is a fine example of the impunity women think they have when it comes to violence towards men. She taunts him with the ‘you wouldn’t hit a girl’ mantra before physically assaulting him, possibly breaking his nose. She’s perfectly happy to dish out the violence full in the knowledge that he won’t hit her back, only to be surprised when he, in fact, does hit her back and puts her on her arse. It’s this assumption that still pervades our society, women can hit if they are pissed off but they don’t expect to be hit back. Explain to me how that fits into the ‘equality’ argument.

The third video, a group of people trying to get in to what looks like a cafe or something similar. What’s interesting, again, is the first instance of physical violence is actually by a woman. Skip to around 30 and you can clearly see one of the women kick the man wearing the green hoodie in the balls. His response is to try and punch her. It’s not clear if he actually connected, but what is clear is the response of one of the people behind the camera. “Fuck you, you little cunt. Nah, that wasn’t on man, that wasn’t on. The guy in the green just fucked over some girl.” So it’s perfectly fine for her to kick him in the testicles, but not ok for him to retaliate by trying to punch her in the face? The girl then tries to punch the man in the face, which leads to him punching her and breaking a glass window.

All three videos show 2 things:

1)      Men are beginning to stand up for themselves in the face of female aggression.

2)      People, particularly women, are desperately trying to cling on to the privileges that benefit them.

So what’s caused this attitude that they can fight with impunity? They want equality, but only when it allows them to benefit. They don’t want to be treated as equals when it comes to violence. Seeing a man hit another woman makes him a ‘cunt’ or is deemed ‘uncomfortable’, yet a woman verbally or physically assaulting a man passes by with little comment. Is this another victory for feminism? Draw the focus of the ‘battle’ to wherever they want it to be, point to flawed and inaccurate statistics that help further their cause whilst ignoring everything contradicts them? Sounds like the usual feminist tactic to me.

Those three videos can all be explained away by the feminists though – oh, they were all isolated incidences. That doesn’t mean it’s representative of how society is going. NAWALT, you can’t say all women are violent on the basis of three videos when it’s clear that violence towards men happens rarely and violence towards women happens all the time, etc, etc ,etc

But then we get this video. A clip from Thor 2, massive, multi-million pound film from Marvel, one of the biggest companies in America and, right now, enjoying unprecedented success with film adaptations of its comic books.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ61yFJOH7s

So, in this clip, Thor returns after some time away (I haven’t seen the film so don’t know how long he’s been gone, it’s been 2 years since the first Thor film, but not sure if it’s the same amount of time in the film) and is immediately slapped by Natalie Portman’s character, twice. Why? Because she didn’t get to see him enough, how about that for some narcissistic bullshit. He claimed he would return, but it’s taken him an inordinately long time to do it. His reason? He was saving the 9 realms from war. Not only that, when she bitches that she saw him in New York, he then has to defend the fact he was saving the fucking world! She states quite clearly that she saw him in New York, yet is too stupid to figure out why he was there? Seriously?

This is how accepted violence towards men is in society. She feels she can slap him, not once but twice, because he didn’t come to see her, despite the fact he’s spent pretty much every minute away from her trying to save the world, so she can carry on living. What an ungrateful bitch. At which part of the film do you think it would be ok for Thor to slap her back? Yeah, never. That’s what pisses me off so much about this entire double standard, and I know it’s ‘only a film’, but it’s a film that’s making fucking millions of pounds at the box office, and it’s a superhero that is instantly recognisable to millions and millions of kids. Basically, if you do a good thing and try to save the world but don’t make time go and see the woman you love and spend time with her, well then you’re an arsehole who deserves a slap. Yeah, fuck that.

The good thing to come out of these videos is that the comments are no longer defensive of the women. Perception of female on male violence seems to be changing. There now seems to be an air of ‘well she started it, what did she expect?’ which is quite heart-warming in a way. And no, before you start, this is not advocating violence towards women, not at all. What it is doing is advocating the idea that you can’t pick and choose the bits of equality that you like, the bits that keep you protected, and chuck the rest. If you’re for equality, true equality, then you have to understand that gives a person the right to fight back if they are physically assaulted, regardless of gender. Benevolent sexism is still sexism, and the fact that women are sticking to this sexist double standard in order to commit violence and then get away with it just goes to show how little they actually care for true equality.

What I want to see in the future is not ‘you can’t hit me because I’m a girl’, not ‘she started it, so she deserved to be hit back’, but something along the lines of ‘don’t fucking start hitting people in the first place’. This shouldn’t be about who started it, or who is in the right for retaliating, we should be at a place in society now where violence is seen as the stupid, dumb, pathetic thing it actually is. If you can’t handle being out and about, involving yourself in real life without resorting to violence because a bus driver isn’t going where you wanted, or somebody pissed you off at a party, or you aren’t being let in to a cafe or, god forbid, your boyfriend was off saving the world, then perhaps you should just stay indoors and give the rest of the world a reprieve from your moronic behaviour.

If we are ‘engaging in a war on women’ by shaming a man for defending himself against violence he himself didn’t start, what the fuck kind of war are we engaged in towards men?

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Janet Wilkinson says:

    Another excellent article. I was discussing this very point recently and used some of the same videos that you listed to demonstrate. There was another one that I used with the US female marine that challenged the US male marine to a fight bragging she could take on anyone in the whole camp. He pummeled her and she never got a shot off. Its a good example of what feminism is trying to do. I was also engaged in an argument with a Canadian feminist on youtube who claimed that women were as strong as men and that the reason that men and women have different entry requirements for the military is because of some kind of conspiracy nothing to do with the fact that women are weaker. Its a little sad how ignorant and how easily these women are brainwashed into thinking complete fiction.

    • johnsalmon86 says:

      Thanks Janet, I used those three videos because they seem to be pretty popular at the moment so figured people who read my blog/are friends on Facebook would probably have seen them. There are more I could have used, but I didn’t want to make this entry too long so I picked three that I thought fit the topic of the blog really well.

  2. Adam Frisk says:

    Perfecto! I just wish here in Russia we all would be able to hear that more often.

  3. El says:

    THAT IS NOT WHAT FEMINISM IS ABOUT OH MY FUCKING GOD. It IS about equality, plain and simple, all these people saying otherwise are either ignorant or flat out dumb. I do believe that every gender should be on equal ground when it comes to their own safety and self defense. Abuse, in any form, is awful. If someone strikes you, you should be able to strike back; however, if you can overpower the person and properly defend yourself from them, be it a man woman child ect., simply with force or wit to subdue them with the least violence, then you should absolutely do that. Equal rights and therefore equal consequences for all, but one should live their life as peacefully as possible- not because it’s law but because we are all humans on this earth and we should treat others as such. Violence only breeds more violence.

    • johnsalmon86 says:

      Then I guess I’m both ignorant and dumb, because the more and more I see feminism in action the more I am convinced it is absolutely not about equality.

      There are numerous cases out there of women starting physical altercations with men and then having other people jump in and help out when those men defend themselves.

      Feminism still bleats on about domestic violence while conveniently ignoring recent studies that show, in some cases, parity of violence within relationships. Some studies have shown women are more violent.

      Where are the feminists telling women not to hit their husbands/boyfriends? Tell me one mainstream feminist who has shown they genuinely care about anything other than promoting their own cause.

  4. Jack Den says:

    “At which part of the film do you think it would be ok for Thor to slap her back? Yeah, never.”

    Is it because Thor is a man, or because he’s a huge, jacked, indestructable god who’s been fighting other indestructable monsters and loves it. And if he slapped her she’d probably die while her slap is nothing compared to fighting the Hulk. I imagine you think if they switched genders, this would have been unacceptable. But if they switched genders (more accurately sexes) it would have been a skinny, weak man (he has a penis) who looks like Natalie Portman slapping (in the same way and with the same words) a woman (she has a vagina) who is actually a god, huge, has the frame, musculature, and appearance of Chris Hemsworth, and has been fighting huge indestructable monsters. I think that would have been kinda funny.

    The funny thing about this gender reversal situation is that the patriarchy informs why you think its wrong. You assume because Thor is now a woman and the scientist love interest is now a man, their appearances, strength, and durability have changed. Women aren’t expected to be the size (or appearance) of Chris Hemsworth, or indestructable warrior gods who like to fight. Likewise men aren’t expected to be effeminate (or as beautiful as Natile Portman). So when you say imagine their gender roles were switched, you’re really saying, imagine Thor slapped the scientist. But if just their gender (or more accurately sex) were switched, it would just be a biologically female Thor being slapped by a biologically male scientist.

    • johnsalmon86 says:

      Well in your first line you’ve actually just pretty much solidified what I was talking about.

      Thor is a huge, jacked, indestructible (I don’t know where you got that idea from, he clearly isn’t) God. Does that mean he should just take the physical abuse he receives from Jane Foster? All your gender-swapping stuff aside, you’ve perfectly highlighted what I’m saying.

      If Thor was a huge, jacked, indestructible female it would still be unacceptable for a man to slap her, whether he was a weedy, Natalie Portman-esque man or not. The fact you think that would be funny doesn’t mean anything. Men cannot hit women and get away with it, no matter the size or power dynamic, no matter the reason. Women, as shown here, can pretty much do anything they want because ‘he hurt my feelz’. Fucks sake, grow up a bit and stop behaving like a spoilt child (that was aimed at Portman, not you.)

      The fact you bring Patriarchy into this discussion immediately means I can’t take your comment seriously, but at least I replied. That’s my good deed done for the day.

      • Jack Den says:

        “The fact you think that would be funny doesn’t mean anything. Men cannot hit women and get away with it, no matter the size or power dynamic, no matter the reason. Women, as shown here, can pretty much do anything they want because ‘he hurt my feelz’.”

        How does it being funny irrelevant, if the reason people are so angry about it is because people thought it was funny for Natalie Portman to slap Thor? I think the main question is whether “Men cannot hit women and get away with it, no matter the size or power dynamic, no matter the reason,” is true. I generally agree with you, and I have more sympathy for a skinny woman who hits a huge guy and gets beat up, more so than a skinny man who hits a huge guy and gets beat up (which is a bit sexist of me). But I think appearances, bulkiness, strength, and the amount of damage done are all important factors in how inappropriate people feel something is. If a man who looked like Natalie Portman slapped a woman who looked like Chris Hemsworth, would the audience/general public boycott the movie? I don’t think so, although it probably won’t do so great in the box office because the two main characters are really attractive transvestites.There are also instances, cringe-worthy and usually done by bad guys, where men hit and really beat women. This South Park clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZHidt_hI10) and every domestic abuse movie. The special thing about the SP clip is that Jimmy is usually a good guy. This shows there is some tolerance for men-on-women violence, although the core base of SP fans usually would allow or enjoy this stuff.

        “The fact you bring Patriarchy into this discussion immediately means I can’t take your comment seriously.”

        Ionno, this is a slippery slope to the same tactics radical feminists use to shut down debate. “The fact you suggested that some rape accusations are made up in this discussion immediately means I can’t take your comment seriously,” is as stupid as your comment. We should be open-minded and address the actual argument, and not evade it by basically saying “your opinion is clearly wrong but for some reason I won’t explain why even though its so obvious, and it’s not because I’m dumb.”

      • Jack Den says:

        “The point is that violence towards men by women is dismissed because ‘women can’t do as much damage’. Does the fact that Thor is a God mean that slap didn’t hurt him? No”

        I actually don’t think the slap hurt Thor, given he was able to take Hulk smashes like a champ. Now if we’re talking about morally, I’m a subscriber to the Non Aggression Principle so Jane was wrong in slapping him first. But of course a slap that literally doesn’t hurt Thor physically (emotionally? Ionno what was going through Thor’s head) is much less worse than when a stronger guy beats a much weaker girl. And my point was that some media (albeit few) includes explicit and hard to watch man-on-woman violence (that SP clip disgusted me the first time I saw it, I still like the show and I thought it was interesting they would show that clip) without, as far as I know since SP is still on, doesn’t bring massive boycotts.

        “When it comes to Patriarchy I just don’t believe it exists.”

        This is fair, although I think it’s wrong. We can argue it but its kinda removed from the conversation.

  5. johnsalmon86 says:

    The point is that violence towards men by women is dismissed because ‘women can’t do as much damage’. Does the fact that Thor is a God mean that slap didn’t hurt him? No, it’s sexist towards men and women when we trivialise violence towards men by women. It still treats women as weak and pathetic (and the reason she slapped him in this movie was pathetic) and it treats men as incapable of being victims. Yes there are instances where men hit women and, generally, those instances are taken seriously by the media, with helplines and all sorts given to help women out if they are in the same situation. Men, not so much.

    When it comes to Patriarchy I just don’t believe it exists. Do we hold societal beliefs that are detrimental to both sexes? Yes. Is it because of a theory that says men have actively forced people into gender roles for countless centuries? No. The difference between my statement and yours is that false rape accusations are real, Patriarchy, to me, is not. If men created a system that oppresses women and allows men to thrive then it’s a pretty rubbish system considering most men don’t actually get the benefit of all that power.

    • johnsalmon86 says:

      I just think it’s a little easy to say ‘well it was only a slap by a woman, Thor took punches by the Hulk and didn’t get hurt.’ That doesn’t mean it didn’t hurt, it just means it didn’t hurt him enough to stop. A slap to the face that he wasn’t expecting, in fact two slaps to the face, probably hurt more than we’re giving him credit for. Also, the reasons she did it was pathetic so, regardless of physical injury, it’s also telling young girls that they can slap a man because ‘you didn’t call’.

      I’m sure there is explicit man on woman violence on TV (I actually don’t watch a lot of TV) but I’m also sure it’s treated as a rather dark subject matter. Female on male violence is, often, treated as a joke.

      I wouldn’t read too much into South Park, I’ve seen an episode where Wendy and Cartman beat the shit out of each other, so gender violence isn’t exactly taboo in that world.

      • Jack Den says:

        I still think that a couple of slaps from an ostensibly weak and fragile person for Thor is pretty much not going to register any pain. You are right that the reasons she slaps Thor for are pathetic, it’s actually part of the patriarchy. The idea that Jane would have nothing to do but get upset that her boyfriend/lover hasn’t contacted her back, instead of working on groundbreaking science and stuff (ionno if she did in the film) falls into the idea that women are mainly housewives instead of actual people with their own interests, goals, accomplishments apart from their husband. Also that women are so emotional they can’t go about these things reasonably. And you are right that this also hurts men, in fact you make a great case that feminists (by dismantling ideals of femininity and masculinity) are also fighting for men.

        “I wouldn’t read too much into South Park, I’ve seen an episode where Wendy and Cartman beat the shit out of each other, so gender violence isn’t exactly taboo in that world.”

        But isn’t this the point you were making why Thor was important. That a movie that promotes unreasonable woman-on-man violence achieves huge box office success. Well South Park is a show, admittedly aiming for a more open-minded and unorthodox audience, that included (for me) despicable man-on-woman violence (despicable of Jimmy, it was interesting that South Park chose to include it) and yet achieves huge success and has stayed on air for so long. That a show can show man-on-woman violence and still be a success shows that the American public has accepted man-on-woman violence in the past.

  6. johnsalmon86 says:

    Just to address South Park, that show has been under fire for its themes since pretty much the first episode. I just find it a little too easy to highlight one particular instance and use that to prove a point. South Park has covered numerous taboo topics without about as much grace as someone cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer and has copped a lot of flack for it. Saying ‘it shows brutality towards women yet still has a massive following’ is a little misleading. Like I said, it’s also shown Cartman getting beaten up by Wendy, it’s shown people literally talking shit, it’s shown all sorts of stuff, to use one example out of numerous examples when the whole show is a clusterfuck of offending material is disingenuous.

    As for the Patriarchy, I’m afraid I don’t buy your theory. If feminists truly believe in Patriarchy theory, or if indeed it does exist, then Natalie Portman wouldn’t be in a position to hit Thor, either that or he wouldn’t just take it standing, space alien or not. If feminists are fighting for men (by dismantling idea of femininity and masculinity, which they are doing, but which is also causing great rifts among the sexes) then why are there loads of feminist articles saying how crappy Guardians of the Galaxy is, how sexist it was to have a woman in a bikini in Star Trek, but nobody was calling out this film? In fact, when Natalie Portman gave a ‘I did it for the women’ speech to explain that slap she wasn’t met with outcry at all. If Patriarchy existed, and men ruled it all, Portman would never have gotten away with those comments. This whole ‘patriarchy effects men too’ schtick is just a convenient way of feminism trying to tell men how to behave. Far from it showing she’s overly emotional, it also shows a level of selfishness and arrogance to assume that her man should, above and beyond all else, answer to her whenever he can. I don’t see many feminists decrying that facet of femininity that essentially turns men into personal doormats.

  7. Yousuf Farhan says:

    Feminists want men to serve 63% longer jail sentences for the same crimes that women…… u call that equality bitches…!?

  8. “I still think that a couple of slaps from an ostensibly weak and fragile person for Thor is pretty much not going to register any pain. ”
    The purpose of a slap isn’t bringing the pain, it’s a way to insult the person. It’s a humiliation. So it’s wrong, especially in a relationship violence should never be accepted no matter what. justifying these kind of things promote sexism more.

  9. HugeCockkk says:

    Women are pathetic and weaks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s