Woman Punched in Front of Her Kids by Husband

[cyclone24 1,914]

Staggering responses even somewhat justifying his response........explains a lot.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Staggering responses even somewhat justifying his response........explains a lot.

 

No kidding. Following this thread makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills or something.

[naomi 356]

And this is a great point... I reiterate - it's simply a "snapshot" - we don't know what transpired beforehand nor do we have any idea what occurred afterwards.

 

Ultimately, the bottom line is this, they both had ample opportunity to handle it the "right way" based upon the snapshot. The bias that exists has people immediately jump to offer the man more blame and more responsibility, often simply due to his "size." This is flat-out wrong and it's what allows women to get away with the abusive sh!t they get away with as often as they do. (And it's a LOT.)

 

I used to be of the mindset, too, that you never hit a woman ever. This also gives women the "balls" to provoke, attack, assault, and expect the neanderthals who still subscribe to that old school mindset to get freight-trained in greater situations. But my mindset changed a long time ago that no one is to hit anyone ever, unless in self-defense, and even then, use only enough force to extract yourself from any given situation.

 

Once you lose the belief that you're going to get your ass kicked for starting a physical confrontation... bad things happen...

 

Maybe when the world starts accepting that mindset that a women "never, ever hits a man ever" - the BS we see like in the video happen with far less frequency.

 

I know you're smart enough to understand how people will have a problem with your approach, not just because you point out a socially conditioned bias that downplays the gravity of the woman's actions, but because you express the equal and opposite reaction to that thinking, while calling it out

 

If your message is 'don't be quick to jump to conclusions about who's in the wrong or more in the wrong (because society fosters doing that to the detriment of men)', you can't land it successfully if you're quick to judge in the same fashion. That's such a simple principle that I figure you get it completely. So you must then just reject that you do that.

 

What you're talking about reiterating wasn't in your first post. It was all 'I see this woman really pissing a guy off, essentially asking to be hurt by physically pressing him, and then they get into a situation where his natural response is doing just that.'

 

What a tragedy, especially with those two kids right there in the room.

 

1 I see a video of woman barreling into a room that was first occupied by dude, who appears to be packing up stuff to leave.

 

2 She prevents him from taking a television and a play station.

 

3 He kicks the television in anger.

 

4 She initiates physical contact by taking not one, but two swings at him which he blocks. He asks her what she is doing and she says, "defending herself."

 

5 He tries to get to the television again and she punches him in the face.

 

6 He punches her in the face back.

 

I see mutual engagement domestic violence initiated by the woman and the usual level of one-way outrage at what transpired.

 

That is the equal and opposite reaction to doing what you're railing against, right?

 

First sentence of your breakdown- it looks like she's continuing an already heated, active fight. The best you and I can do is speculate on this note. And I know you agree with that.

 

Second- in the event she owns or partially owns any of that stuff, we can sympathize with her not being down with that. It's a hypothetical, but one that's worth being recognized.

 

Third- anger and threat maybe? It struck me how it struck Jerry with the "you'll be next message." And it's worth noting that he maybe just busted her/their TV.

 

Fourth- does she? And are those "swings" or more like swats so he'll move out of the space she put herself in. Common sense tells us the person literally coming at the other is the one on the offensive.

 

Fifth- not sure from that video that she ever punched him in the face.

 

Sixth- it may not be 'back.'

 

You put that out there as how you believe it went down. Arguably, though you don't condone the guy hitting her, your post seems to assume the woman was the provoker along the way. None of what he's doing should upset her. That's where the suspicion you hold a grudge against women generally comes in. Personally I sense an even greater drive in you to be intellectually consistent. That will trump the general grudge, if you do have one (and I have to admit I sense you do).

 

You and I both have quick inclinations to certain interpretations, but for the integrity of your overall message, when you offer the breakdown you did with your first post, without the snapshot reiteration you talk about later, it's hard for me to trust (not that I need to) that your inward most potent reaction to stuff like this is as neutral as the response you advocate.

[OldMaid 2,130]

That would be great if she came after him and then he hauled off and hit her. That didn't happen. He came at her, had her backed into a corner, had already ripped something out of her hands, and kicked the TV a few inches away from her. She thought she was defending herself because he was in her face and had already turned the situation violent. I probably would have taken a swing at him to to try to get him away from me. But I guess according to your thoughts it would be justifiable for me to end up with a broken jaw because of that.

From my perspective, he didn't back her into that corner, she put herself there trying to keep him from taking a t.v. that he clearly stated that was his. She doesn't seem afraid of him in the least. We see her reach out (and it's not entirely clear from the angle) and either punch or slap him. But we do here him say "You wanna punch me in the face?" then he hits her.

 

I'm not condoning what he did, but I won't condemn him either. I firmly stand on the belief if you want to hit a man, then you should be ready for any and all of the consequences.

 

And then there is the matter of who was taping this little incident? Of course we will never know, but my money is that she was the one to set up the recorder and this is exactly what she had in mind when she did.

[OldMaid 2,130]

OldMaid is sounding like those women who defend their abuser because really, she was at fault for mouthing off and anyway you don't understand what a sweet guy he can be sometimes!!!

No, my BF does not hit me.

 

For the record... I feel absolutely horrible for battered women. But I also don't think that every instance where a man hits a women constitutes a battered woman.

[naomi 356]

From my perspective, he didn't back her into that corner, she put herself there trying to keep him from taking a t.v. that he clearly stated that was his. She doesn't seem afraid of him in the least. We see her reach out (and it's not entirely clear from the angle) and either punch or slap him. But we do here him say "You wanna punch me in the face?" then he hits her.

 

I'm not condoning what he did, but I won't condemn him either. I firmly stand on the belief if you want to hit a man, then you should be ready for any and all of the consequences.

 

And then there is the matter of who was taping this little incident? Of course we will never know, but my money is that she was the one to set up the recorder and this is exactly what she had in mind when she did.

Mine too.

 

I think her body language showed fear though. She wanted to take a firm stand somewhere in the midst of the conflict, so she chose the guarding the TV angle...the safest way for her to be defiant.

 

The safest thing would have been to walk away, to resist the urge to remain engaged in the conflict. Both of them are complete ###### for scaring the crap out of their kids. She more so if she went into the situation hoping it would happen as it did.

[Mephisto 15]

But she didn't really do that.

 

She said, "How did all this stuf get on the floor?" and walks over towards the TV, saying, "You need to just leave." She doesn't say it mean, at least in my opinion. She's not screaming or cussing at him and he's gathering stuff and the kid is helping him out.

 

It's not until she pulls out the controller for the PS that he gets pissed and kicks the TV.

 

I'm not going to sit here and argue over this minutia. It's fairly clear that he was already packing up stuff to "leave" for whatever reason he was leaving.

 

She came in and started chirping at him about leaving and about the PS and TV. Without knowing what transpired beforehand and looking only at that snapshot - that's when the confrontation starts and escalates from there.

 

Root cause analysis (with the understanding that we can only go back as far as the beginning of that excerpt of the video).

 

If I call you an @sshole "nicely" - it doesn't mean I haven't initiated a confrontation. If I tell you when you're packing up your sh!t to leave that you "just need to leave and..." what you are or aren't taking... I'm starting a confrontation. I'm not engaging in simple friendly conversation. I'm begging you for a reaction.

 

Had he called her into the room to chirp about the PS, then he would be initiating the confrontation.

[Mephisto 15]

Do you ever think that's because biologically most men are stronger than women and can seriously hurt them? This guy is what a foot and a half taller than her? Probably a good 70 pounds or more heavier? And she should just accept the consequences that her little slap to his face resulted in a full fist punch to her face, then him grabber her wrists and dragging her around the room in front of the kids?

 

Yes.

 

I know it's hard to comprehend because you're too busy (justifiably) hating on the man for blasting her in the face with a right cross. But the REALITY IS... if she was going to initiate a physical assault on her husband, SHE SHOULD EXPECT THAT THERE MAY BE UNEXPECTED OR UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FOR HER ACTIONS. The fact that she likely assumed that he wouldn't blast her in the face is probably what made her think that she could take several swings at him, shove him in the chest, and then punch him in the face.

 

YOU'RE TRYING TO FOCK UP A SIMPLE CONCEPT. Saying that if you assault someone, no matter what your size or gender, should be done with the expectation of retaliation is ABSOLUTELY NOT justifying what he did. It's the normal course of combat. Initiate an attack, expect an answer. And if you don't - you're stone focking dumb.

 

This is not a gender concept. It's a real life HUMAN concept. You don't get special dispensation because you're a woman when it comes to violence.

 

I might also add, if the size and strength of the genders were reversed, most people here would probably be saying the same thing... Spare me.

 

You are absolutely saying that he should have hit her back.

 

No, I'm not and it doesn't matter how many times you or anybody else says that. He was a total jitbag for blasting her the way he did. I can't be anymore clear... claiming that if she is going to get physically violent with someone that she should expect retaliation is not, and have never been, "saying he should have hit her." Again, I can't be anymore clear. He shouldn't have hit her. She shouldn't have hit him.

 

I've never wavered on that position.

 

 

She hit him right? So, if she wants that 'equality' that women are always b!tching about then he should have the right to hit her back, because that's what two guys fighting would do, right?

 

No. He shouldn't have the "right" to hit her back anymore than she should have the "right" to hit him in the first place. But if she wants to attack someone with physical violence, then she should equally be prepared for the consequences of such an attack.

 

Try to keep up here, honey.

 

The greater point on equality here is not that they both get to hit each other. It's that they both face the same consequences for their actions. But no one here seems to grasp that most of you are saying that they SHOULD NOT be treated equally simply because she's a woman and she's smaller. That's wrong. It's especially wrong since she initiated the physical violence.

 

This couple is likely not treated equally under the law because he's bigger than her. I know it sucks, but that's just how it is right now. Doesn't he kind of have "hand" in this situation because he's bigger?

 

Nope. The law doesn't say that you should be punished less, if at all, for the same infraction just because you're a woman and you're smaller. And "that being the way it is" is precisely what's wrong with all of these situations.

 

They should both be arrested for domestic violence. They should both be judged the same. They should both be sentenced the same. But the real world doesn't operate like that and it's WRONG because people like you are the ones who keep throwing out the same excuses and justifications and obfuscations.

[Mephisto 15]

I edited my post, but...

 

define, "threat" - that's the gray area.

do you think he was "in danger", was he really going to get hurt?

 

I understand that we can all have a different interpretation here, but I don't think he was in danger- - he could have walked away and had her in a bad position (legally) for her behavior.

 

That's the question - when is the threat or danger enough to warrant such violent retalitation.

 

 

LOL... she wasn't in danger either. And I have to laugh at Nikki BSing about him "pinning her up against the tv."

 

She voluntarily went and BLOCKED the television so he couldn't take it or the unit. But that doesn't fit in the nice tidy "blame the man for it all" mindset that often accompanies these situations.

[Mephisto 15]

Exactly.

 

Aside from him punching her, he literally looms over her, puffs his chest out. He knows she's smaller and he's trying to intimidate her with his size.

 

And it clearly didn't work. She kept right on chirping at him AND starting her physical assault.

 

You want to know when she actually became scared? When he blasted her in the face in response. Then she said to herself, "OH SH!T!!!"

[Mephisto 15]

That would be great if she came after him and then he hauled off and hit her. That didn't happen. He came at her, had her backed into a corner, had already ripped something out of her hands, and kicked the TV a few inches away from her. She thought she was defending herself because he was in her face and had already turned the situation violent. I probably would have taken a swing at him to to try to get him away from me. But I guess according to your thoughts it would be justifiable for me to end up with a broken jaw because of that.

 

Then you're just as dumb as she was. The smart play was to take the kids and leave. Not start b!tching about the PlayStation. But it's okay to excuse what she did. He was bigger, right?

 

If she was scared, she says, "I'm sorry, honey. Take the TV. Take the Playstation. I'm going to take the kids outside so you can finish your packing without interruption."

[Mephisto 15]

 

You put that out there as how you believe it went down. Arguably, though you don't condone the guy hitting her, your post seems to assume the woman was the provoker along the way. None of what he's doing should upset her. That's where the suspicion you hold a grudge against women generally comes in. Personally I sense an even greater drive in you to be intellectually consistent. That will trump the general grudge, if you do have one (and I have to admit I sense you do).

 

You and I both have quick inclinations to certain interpretations, but for the integrity of your overall message, when you offer the breakdown you did with your first post, without the snapshot reiteration you talk about later, it's hard for me to trust (not that I need to) that your inward most potent reaction to stuff like this is as neutral as the response you advocate.

 

Your analysis of my original posts clearly stretches what is written. You're making assumptions about what I think or feel by inserting your own biased information into what is written.

 

If you cannot see that the moment she entered the room - she became the "provoker" then there is no debating with you because it's absolutely irrefutable. He didn't summon her. He didn't start talking to her. She voluntarily came into the room. Made an off-handed remark about all the crap on the floor, and started the argument about the Playstation.

 

Those are facts that no one in this thread can dispute.

 

Further, most people are making a GIANT LEAP from my position which is, "she should have expected that response was possible given her actions" somehow equals justifying what he did.

 

Nope. It doesn't. He had no business even LOOKING at her. He should have finished packing up his sh!t and left without word one. And he should have left without the TV and the Playstation.

 

Simple concept, people. If you're going to physically attack someone, no matter how weak, feeble, or female you may be... you must expect the possibility of being hit back.

 

That's not justifying anything he (or she) did. That's flat out reality, unless you're dumb.

[MDC 7,484]

I'm glad I was raised at a time when it was not okay to hit women, serve your family a bucket of KFC and grape soda for dinner, wear you jeans down past you ass and a baseball cap with an unbent bill and the sticker still on it, etc. No wonder this country is going to sh1t.

[naomi 356]

If she was scared, she says, "I'm sorry, honey. Take the TV. Take the Playstation. I'm going to take the kids outside so you can finish your packing without interruption."

 

If I was scared, but not mad beyond rationality trumping my anger (which she was), I would just walk out with the kids. Not going to appease him on the note of taking the stuff though. No reason for that.

[MDC 7,484]

If she was scared, she says, "I'm sorry, honey. Take the TV. Take the Playstation. I'm going to take the kids outside so you can finish your packing without interruption."

 

Does she fix him dinner and send him off with a goodbye beejer too? Dear lord man, you have been scarred.

[penultimatestraw 473]

No, you call me out because of my penchant for holding women accountable for their actions and pointing out how the system is far easier on women than on men with all things being equal... whether it's in family court or in criminal court.

 

"Targeting" woman? You're funny. Now, I'm not only a misogynist for the expectation that women be treated equally and have equal responsibility and equal accountability... but I'm "targeting" them by having these expectations.

 

You're an idiot.

 

 

 

I have a problem with violence by commenting that if someone physically assaults someone that they need to do so with the expectation of retaliation? I would ask if you're serious, but I already know you are.

 

You're an idiot.

 

 

 

I agree with you. How does that fit in your misogyny, targeter-of-women, probably with violence mindset? I mean, my position has been very clear throughout this thread, but like so many others like you, you're in such a hurry to excuse/ignore the woman's behavior in that video segment.

 

At least I have justification for considering calling you misandrist... and an idiot.

The funny thing about this discussion is we agree on the propriety of resorting to violence only if you or your loved ones are threatened.

 

We differ in determining what constitutes a threat. As the vast majority of time women are not physical equals to males, both the danger posed by their force and the need to retaliate are not equal, but less. This may explain why most of the other posters aren't getting upset by her physical display and using it as justification for his actions - except you. I also disagree that her "barreling" into the room starts the conflict - we simply do not have enough information to know who started it. From what we can see, he is the first to use physical intimidation when he kicks the electronics and backs her up to the TV.

 

If you had just said she was being a b!tch and contributed to their conflict escalating, the discussion may have ended. But you took it a step further and blamed her for the violence that ensued. When others disagree, some going so far as saying men should never hit women, it does not mean they absolve her from all blame. We just think he is way more over the line than she. Not because we think women shouldn't be treated equally, but because we are aware of the physical difference between the two genders. We'd say the same thing if he were picking on a child, elderly or disabled person, or even a weaker male. Could any of them be black belts or wielding concealed weapons? Sure, but it isn't likely enough to justify his use of force.

 

And unless you think think physical violence is evenly split between the genders, it appears many women are held responsible for their abuse - about a fourth of the time in the article I posted earlier. Do women get the benefit of the doubt in these situations? Probably, though I suspect the number of women "getting away with it" is far less than male abusers who go unreported.

 

Your word choice creates the impression you have a problem with women, not always the sentiment I suppose. For the record, did you ever hit your ex? As a fellow divorcee I'll go first - never. Amazingly, I haven't hit a human being, period, since adulthood. I must be a lucky idiot to have avoided all those abusive b!tches, right?

 

EDIT: I see almost all these points have already been made, but you are sticking to your interpretation of the events in the video. I'd still be interested in what has shaped your viewpoint, and I'm guessing the answer lies in a personal history of abuse - either as abuser or abusee.

[naomi 356]

Your analysis of my original posts clearly stretches what is written. You're making assumptions about what I think or feel by inserting your own biased information into what is written.

 

If you cannot see that the moment she entered the room - she became the "provoker" then there is no debating with you because it's absolutely irrefutable. He didn't summon her. He didn't start talking to her. She voluntarily came into the room. Made an off-handed remark about all the crap on the floor, and started the argument about the Playstation.

 

Those are facts that no one in this thread can dispute.

 

Further, most people are making a GIANT LEAP from my position which is, "she should have expected that response was possible given her actions" somehow equals justifying what he did.

 

Nope. It doesn't. He had no business even LOOKING at her. He should have finished packing up his sh!t and left without word one. And he should have left without the TV and the Playstation.

 

Simple concept, people. If you're going to physically attack someone, no matter how weak, feeble, or female you may be... you must expect the possibility of being hit back.

 

That's not justifying anything he (or she) did. That's flat out reality, unless you're dumb.

 

To your credit, I had to edit my post here because what you say in the bolded would be a good answer back to it.

 

What I don't get is how what you say later in this thread matches up with your first post. It wasn't as objective. It skews toward minimizing how he dealt with his agitation by a consistent way you chose to see it., ie...kicking the TV is simply venting his anger, you don't see a physical threat component to it. You could be right (we're not in their heads) but if everything down your summary skews like that, suspecting you're bias, on account of that, winds up being a hunch a neutral observer would get.

 

If we grant the possibility the TV kick was taken as a physical threat by her, we understand how her actions at that point are acts of defense, not offense. He was violent in the space she put herself in, she wants him out of it so she does stuff to get him out of it. That's offensive defense.

[Mephisto 15]

We differ in determining what constitutes a threat. As the vast majority of time women are not physical equals to males, both the danger posed by their force and the need to retaliate are not equal, but less. This may explain why most of the other posters aren't getting upset by her physical display and using it as justification for his actions - except you.

 

And I will say to you the same thing that I've said to others making that great leap - I've justified NOTHING on the part of EITHER of them.

 

Unless you're stupid, too... making a claim that the woman should EXPECT that a byproduct of a violent act may include many responses, up to and including a violent response is not the same as "JUSTIFYING" that response.

 

Learn the difference.

 

I've made no presumption about what constitutes a threat and I would surmise that our opinions won't differ on that. But you've already decided what my position is on what constitutes a threat without my ever having made a comment on the subject.

 

I also disagree that her "barreling" into the room starts the conflict - we simply do not have enough information to know who started it. From what we can see, he is the first to use physical intimidation when he kicks the electronics and backs her up to the TV.

 

I agree that we don't know what happened prior to that snapshot and therefore can't truly figure out what started the conflict. I've been clear from near the beginning that it's only a snapshot and any number of things that occurred prior to that would tell an entirely different story.

 

It's also a convenient argument about using "intimidation." That's not the issue nor should it be. The confrontation as displayed in that snapshot starts with her verbal confrontation of a guy who appears to be quietly packing up some stuff in a room.

 

And the first "violent act" is her attempting to yank the controller out of his hands.

 

If you want to disagree with me about those facts as so clearly shown in that segment, that's okay with me. It doesn't change what we see.

 

You won't see me arguing that she can intimidate him in any way given her size as compared to his. But we're not debating "intimidation." We debating actions, consequences, and responsibility. The "intimidation" factor is another one by which people like you try to cloud the issue.

 

I don't think he fears her even a little bit. That has nothing to do with her actions and what responses they ultimately elicited and it further has ZERO bearing on what legal culpability she should have under the law if the law was applied equally.

 

If you had just said she was being a b!tch and contributed to their conflict escalating, the discussion may have ended. But you took it a step further and blamed her for the violence that ensued.

 

And I'm still doing that. There were steps that led to the ultimate outcome that started when she entered the room to start harping on what he was doing. They escalated from there and that's an indisputable fact, in so far as that snapshot is concerned. She hastened the violence by yanking the controller from his hand and choosing to defend the honor of a television set and playstation game system. She made it worse by taking swings at him, shoving him, and then ultimately hitting him the face.

 

When others disagree, some going so far as saying men should never hit women, it does not mean they absolve her from all blame. We just think he is way more over the line than she.

 

I know that. You're saying his violence is worse because she is smaller, she is a woman, and he can do more damage. I'm saying, they're both guilty of the exact same domestic violence. You disagree based upon old school gender expectations. I get that.

 

Not because we think women shouldn't be treated equally, but because we are aware of the physical difference between the two genders. We'd say the same thing if he were picking on a child, elderly or disabled person, or even a weaker male. Could any of them be black belts or wielding concealed weapons? Sure, but it isn't likely enough to justify his use of force.

 

I never said his use of force was justified.

 

And unless you think think physical violence is evenly split between the genders, it appears many women are held responsible for their abuse - about a fourth of the time in the article I posted earlier. Do women get the benefit of the doubt in these situations? Probably, though I suspect the number of women "getting away with it" is far less than male abusers who go unreported.

 

I doubt that, but we'll never know. "Probably?" No, the answer is definitely.

 

Your word choice creates the impression you have a problem with women, not always the sentiment I suppose.

 

Which "word choices" would those be? You see, because a lot of "choices" have been attributed to me that were never uttered, including by you.

 

For the record, did you ever hit your ex?

 

Nope. But I took a fair share of physical abuse and sustained minimal damage. That said, I'm not sure exactly what relevance that has on the situation except for you to attempt to find ways to support the false conclusion that I have in any way justified what that dude did.

 

As a fellow divorcee I'll go first - never. Amazingly, I haven't hit a human being, period, since adulthood. I must be a lucky idiot to have avoided all those abusive b!tches, right?

 

Convenient.

 

You must be really lucky, then. I don't have a problem with women. Most of my friends are women. I'm in an amazing relationship with a wonderful woman.

 

WE also teach ALL of the kids, including the females in the family, that it's never okay to strike out in violence against anyone except in self-defense situations about which we are very explicit and that have a very high standard to qualify as such. They're ALL taught that if you commit violence against another, expect violence in return... and neither gender nor size matter.

[Mephisto 15]

Does she fix him dinner and send him off with a goodbye beejer too? Dear lord man, you have been scarred.

 

Exaggeration for effect, dumbass. If she was fearful, she doesn't do what she did. I can only guess from what I saw... that she had no expectation of that outcome.

[Mephisto 15]

If I was scared, but not mad beyond rationality trumping my anger (which she was), I would just walk out with the kids. Not going to appease him on the note of taking the stuff though. No reason for that.

 

I believe most good mothers and fathers would have focused on the children and not a playstation and television. Alas, neither of those are depicted in that video.

[Mephisto 15]

I get that you believe neither of them have a right to hurt the other. I agree with you there. But you also seem to see reason for him to be agitated and express agitation (short of the hit) as things unfolded, but why there's agitation coming from her in the different moments we do see, you reckon only she owns that. If he's agitated, she owns that. That is what your breakdown seemed to bleed.

 

No, and again, you're commentary is based on assumptions on YOUR part and NOT based on any view I have expressed in this entire (excellent) debate. I can keep doing this with everyone as long as you want to keep creating things I said. I didn't reckon either of them "own" anything (to this point) and when it comes to unnecessary level of agitation, they both own their own. It's totally over the top and unnecessary.

 

I don't see a reason any legitimate reason for either of them to be agitated, quite frankly. The agitation is a byproduct of their dysfunctional relationship. The ENTIRE SITUATION is completely unnecessary and the behavior of BOTH parents is WAY over the top.

 

I can't explain the reasons for either of them to be agitated except that their marriage/relationship is a tremendous clusterfock.

 

What I can say is that as things escalate, and especially when it comes to physical violence, if you lash out, you best expect some retaliation. That's the way of violence.

[Mephisto 15]

 

What I don't get is how what you say later in this thread matches up with your first post. It wasn't as objective. It skews toward minnimizing how he dealt with his agitation by a consistent way you chose to see it., ie...kicking the TV is because he needs to vent his anger, you don't see a physical threat component to it. You could be right, but if everything down your summary skews like that, suspecting you're bias, on account of that, winds up being a hunch a neutral observer would get.

 

Another assumption. Talking about the things she did is not minimizing anything he did. But if makes you feel better, here's what the guy did wrong:

 

- He yanked back at the controller.

 

- He stood up and got in her face.

 

- He kicked the television set.

 

- He punched her.

 

Feel better now?

 

You and those like you are suspecting that I'm biased because of your own. The guy who takes on the established mindset is always going to be perceived as the one with the "issue" because he's in the minority.

 

I didn't just make these realizations overnight. They came with growing up, seeing and having my own experiences, and seeing and knowing a WHOLE LOT MORE experiences of others... and so much more.

 

I've "skewed" nothing. You and others have done all of the skewing of what I've written because being cold and analytic about what is portrayed in the video doesn't fit all neat and tidily with the common mindset... "He's a man, he's bigger, he should never hit a woman, oh... pooooooooooooooooooor mother."

 

It's uncanny how so few of you have taken exception to much, if anything, that the woman did simply because of:

 

a - She's a woman.

 

b - She's smaller.

 

c - He's a man.

 

d - He's bigger.

 

At least I can sit here and say, "I understand, because that's what you've been taught." The thread is full of people who want to hold the man accountable for his actions and as well he should. The only issue here is that I'm holding out for the woman being accountable for her actions and that doesn't sit well with too many because well... she's small and she's a woman.

[nikki2200 4]

Holy wall of text. We get it. You hate women. That's all you had to say.

[Mephisto 15]

Holy wall of text. We get it. You hate women. That's all you had to say.

 

Another canned response when someone wants to hold a woman accountable for her actions. Welcome to the club.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Another canned response when someone wants to hold a woman accountable for her actions. Welcome to the club.

You hate everyone equally?

[naomi 356]

No, and again, you're commentary is based on assumptions on YOUR part and NOT based on any view I have expressed in this entire (excellent) debate. I can keep doing this with everyone as long as you want to keep creating things I said. I didn't reckon either of them "own" anything (to this point) and when it comes to unnecessary level of agitation, they both own their own. It's totally over the top and unnecessary.

 

I don't see a reason any legitimate reason for either of them to be agitated, quite frankly. The agitation is a byproduct of their dysfunctional relationship. The ENTIRE SITUATION is completely unnecessary and the behavior of BOTH parents is WAY over the top.

 

I can't explain the reasons for either of them to be agitated except that their marriage/relationship is a tremendous clusterfock.

 

What I can say is that as things escalate, and especially when it comes to physical violence, if you lash out, you best expect some retaliation. That's the way of violence.

 

 

Gotcha. What are your thoughts about the last sentence of my last post (#137)?

 

That's probably my biggest disconnect with your breakdown (not that either of us should present ours as fact, we would have to have been inside their heads).

 

She should expect retaliation, not that it's justifiable. That's one of your points. What she was doing around the TV was attacking him. To me, it's offensive defense. And the intimidation with the kick to the TV lets us understand her employing it. If someone approaches another, does something violent in their space, and they get met with slaps, swats, feeble punches in return...whatever that was she did a couple times, before he punched her, that really isn't the same as her approaching him and laying one into him.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

What do you get when you multiply anger issues with a hatred towards women?

 

Mephisto, apparently.

[MDC 7,484]

Exaggeration for effect, dumbass. If she was fearful, she doesn't do what she did. I can only guess from what I saw... that she had no expectation of that outcome.

 

You have way, way more riding on this discussion than anyone else Meph. Unless you or your lived ones are physically threatened there is no excuse for punching a woman in the face - none, ever. Period. End of story. It's not so complex.

[TD Ryan2 316]

Poor Meph - he's actually right - he's winning this thread - but the tone he uses to deliver his message is so angry that nobody can see how right he is.

 

It's one thing to be right but you've got to deliver the message - Meph is punching posters in the face while (correctly) exclaiming, "It is wrong to punch people in the face".

[TD Ryan2 316]

You have way, way more riding on this discussion than anyone else Meph. Unless you or your lived ones are physically threatened there is no excuse for punching a woman in the face - none, ever. Period. End of story. It's not so complex.

You are not reading mephs posts. He has repeatedly said what you just posted.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Meph is definitely not winning this thread. That's like saying GFIAFP won a gambling thread.

[MDC 7,484]

You are not reading his posts

 

You're right, too many words.

[Mephisto 15]

Poor Meph - he's actually right - he's winning this thread - but the tone he uses to deliver his message is so angry that nobody can see how right he is.

 

It's one thing to be right but you've got to deliver the message - Meph is punching posters in the face while (correctly) exclaiming, "It is wrong to punch people in the face".

 

There's no way to soft-shoe one's delivery in the face of so much ignorance regarding accountability for one's actions, ESPECIALLY if the subject matter is a woman.

 

Take it from me. I hate women.

 

 

Seriously, though. I'm the furthest thing from angry. I find it hysterical that when I get involved in these types of discussion, the same common theme arises when I talk about responsibility and accountability for women.

 

1 - I'm a misogynist. (Check.)

 

2 - I hate women. (Check.)

 

3 - I have anger issues. (Check.)

 

I'm not sure what "tone" you read from my posts other than simple opposition to the claims that have been made about what I've said or written that I clearly have not.

 

I've been rather businesslike in my delivery except to those who have outed with the programmed, canned, BS responses.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Poor Meph - he's actually right - he's winning this thread - but the tone he uses to deliver his message is so angry that nobody can see how right he is.

 

It's one thing to be right but you've got to deliver the message - Meph is punching posters in the face while (correctly) exclaiming, "It is wrong to punch people in the face".

It's hard to take him seriously when his message and tone are so incongruent. Also he makes assumptions while simultaneously faulting others when they assume differently.

[TD Ryan2 316]

You're right, too many words.

Obviously Meph is pretty fired up about this topic - I can only speculate that some personal experience made him this way. Lemme sum up for Meph:

- it is wrong for either to hit

- he is wrong

- she is equally wrong

- violence begets violence it cannot be allowed from either gender

 

After that you can spend hours debating the minutia of who blocked who, who said what to who , who "started it ", etc. So long as you recognize that they are both at fault.

[Mephisto 15]

Meph is definitely not winning this thread. That's like saying GFIAFP won a gambling thread.

 

Meph isn't trying to win anything. There is nothing to win in this thread.

 

All I've done is point out that the woman should be held as accountable for her domestic violence as the male and this upset all of the misandrists in this thread.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Obviously Meph is pretty fired up about this topic - I can only speculate that some personal experience made him this way. Lemme sum up for Meph:

- it is wrong for either to hit

- he is wrong

- she is equally wrong

- violence begets violence it cannot be allowed from either gender

 

That's where he's losing everybody. First off, she didn't start the episode--he did. He is the one that violently kicked the television directly behind her. That escalated the incident from a verbal battle to a physical altercation.

 

Meph's contention that she started it by entering the room is ludicrous. Or that she "badgered" him into hitting her.

 

Second, even if she did start it (which she didn't), he did not respond in kind. She posed absolutely no threat to him and yet he decked her like you would an out of control drunk in a bar fight. This is why you don't hit women even if they "started it".

 

I really have to question the sanity of anyone that can't see this.

[Mephisto 15]

It's hard to take him seriously when his message and tone are so incongruent. Also he makes assumptions while simultaneously faulting others when they assume differently.

 

Feel free to point out where I've made any assumptions (serious ones, not my mocking claim of misandry) about what someone has written. I do make apologies for my mistakes.

 

At the same time, feel free to coherently point out where my message and "tone" are incongruent.

 

(Whatever it is you mean by tone, you know, because I gather you have a camera on me right at this very moment and can "see" my tone. And yes, I know that your assumptions about what my alleged "tone" is will trump whatever I claim is my actual "tone" or mood as I discuss this topic with the group.)

[MDC 7,484]

Obviously Meph is pretty fired up about this topic - I can only speculate that some personal experience made him this way. Lemme sum up for Meph:

- it is wrong for either to hit

- he is wrong

- she is equally wrong

- violence begets violence it cannot be allowed from either gender

 

Well then I'm glad I didn't read all of his posts, because I got his argument and agree with all of it except "she was equally wrong." It's at least possible she was physically threatened and acted out in self-defense.

 

There was NO plausible reason for this guy to belt a woman half his size other than anger. She posed no threat. That is why, in the overwhelming majority of cases there is no good reason to hit a woman.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Obviously Meph is pretty fired up about this topic - I can only speculate that some personal experience made him this way. Lemme sum up for Meph:

- it is wrong for either to hit

- he is wrong

- she is equally wrong

- violence begets violence it cannot be allowed from either gender

 

After that you can spend hours debating the minutia of who blocked who, who said what to who , who "started it ", etc. So long as you recognize that they are both at fault.

Good summary. Agree with everything except the bolded, which is the crux of Meph's pantywad.

 

Let's say his hit caused a closed head injury which resulted in permanent disability - would they still have equal blame?

 

EDIT: Fvck you guys type fast!