How to know that you hate women

[ismnotwasm]

Here’s a sure-fire way to know that you hate women: when an incident of intimate partner violence in which a man knocks a woman unconscious gains national attention and every question or comment you think to make has to do with her behavior, you really hate women. Like, despise.

There is no other explanation. There is no “I need all the facts.” There is no excuse. You hate women. Own it.

Now, you probably don’t believe you hate women. You probably honestly think you’re being an objective observer whose only interest is the truth. You are delusional.

We have this problem in our discourse around the most important challenges we face where we feel we have to be “fair to both sides.” But sometimes, one of those sides is subjugation and oppression. If you’re OK with legitimizing that side in the interest of “fairness,” you’re essentially saying you’re OK with oppression as a part of the human condition. That’s some hateful shit.

Violence against women doesn’t deserve a “fair” hearing. There should be no justifications offered, no rationalizing, no equivocating. Violence against women should be intolerable. But every time we are called upon to collectively denounce that violence, there’s a section of the choir that starts singing from a different set of sheet music.

“Well, I don’t believe he should have hit her, but she also shouldn’t have…”

“Hitting women is wrong, but if you’re going to step to a man like a man…”

“She has a responsibility to her family…”

“She stayed with him, so obviously she’s condoning that behavior…”

“It’s none of our business what happens between…”

“What did she expect?”

Hate. It’s all hate. Because if you can look at the history of women being beaten and battered into silence and second-class citizenship, and still ask if they are at all to blame for the violence visited upon them, there’s nothing else to call that.

http://feministing.com/2014/09/11/how-to-know-that-you-hate-women/

[Ohio Joe]

1. K&R - nt

[billhicks76]

127. I Agree Too

Glad it was a good article. At first I thought the text would be terse and sarcastic..."because you don't support Hillary Clinton". But I'm sure that's on the horizon. Wall St and the military industrial complex squeezes their hidden ace republican backup Plan B by inserting fake progressives as Democratic nominees by getting us to cling to an Obama or a Hillary because of their politically groundbreaking gender or race while giving us the same old republican fallacious policies. Let's hope people in our party aren't as stupid in 2016. The stakes are to high for pet peeves or pet causes.

[niyad]

140. could you comment on the actual subject of this article?

[billhicks76]

151. I just did. That's my comment

The article is stating the obvious.

[niyad]

158. no, you posted about something that is clearly on your agenda,

but has nothing to do with the article. as for stating the obvious, clearly, it needs to be repeated frequently. it is obvious that many people simply do not get it.

[sheshe2]

2. Thank you.

[valerief]

3. Yeah, it's like when a cop shoots an unarmed teen and remarks are like,

"The teen must have reached for the cop's gun," and "The teen should have obeyed the cop." Cuz it has to be the kid's fault.

[calimary]

120. Indeed.

[MadrasT]

4. K and R and fuck yeah. n/t

[treestar]

5. K&R

[ismnotwasm]

6. This article was pointed out to me by a friend

I thought it was great

[johnp3907]

7. Yes it is!

Thanks for posting it.

[johnp3907]

8. “She stayed with him."

And have you noticed how many people follow this statement with something like: "That's all I have to say about it." Like that says it all, or something.

[raven mad]

29. +1

Thank you for the article, johnp, and for this as well.

[johnp3907]

33. I didn't post the article.

[ProfessorGAC]

103. Well Put

Now, i don't fully understand the pathology of marrying someone anyway after that has happened. I hear the explanations and they are logical, but it still doesn't make total sense to me.

Guy is a giant punk who hits women. Women should get the hell away from a guy like that. The faster the better and the more alone he ends up the better.

[merrily]

179. Because they know if they elaborate, someone might call them out.

[brer cat]

9. It is a great article, ism.

What is killing me are the women who make excuses for him. It is hard to get my mind around it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. Stockholm Syndrome.....

[TheVisitor]

54. Totally... nt

[mindwalker_i]

10. The word "hate" in this case

Seems like it lacks detail, and buries the problem under a large rock. This uy who knocked his girl out probably has control issue, or needs to feel like he's in control. But saying he hates women seems like a hugely generalized statement.

[ismnotwasm]

12. Interesting point

Now read the article, you'll find that point there.

[mindwalker_i]

20. I don't see my point there at all

It hints around other, more detailed issues, but still comes back to calling it "hate." I've seen people here call other people (here) "Obama haters" when they disagree with what Obama is doing, specifically with regards to spying. Calling them "haters" is imprecise and, really, inaccurate - it's kind of an umbrella statement. I'm not saying the two issues are similar, I'm saying that the misuse of language is similar and has the consequence of clouding the issue, thus making it more difficult to deal with effectively.

[ismnotwasm]

25. I disagree

Civilized people don't like the word "hate"-- it's too strong of a word to internalize. Thus, it's regulated to the dustbin terms of "broad brush" Rage and hate often go together, and yes they can be directed to a specific gender. Easily.

[mindwalker_i]

28. I'm not saying hate is a word that should be avoided

I'm saying that it's inaccurate, at least, in this case.

[ismnotwasm]

31. Why?

[mindwalker_i]

35. I think I've explained that already, but I'll try to add some detail

Does this guy go around to women and tell them he hates them? Does he go around and do things to hurt women? Is this something he does as a regular part of his life? I don't think so. What he did was hit his wife/fiancee/whatever, and I think he did that to make it clear that he wouldn't "take any guff" from her - that she was "his woman" and would treat with with the respect he believes he's entitled to. To him, being violent in order to enforce that was fine, if not a good thing. Calling him a "hater" plasters over this entire set of details. My impression is that sports, specifically this one, glorify violence to a non-trivial extent, and the people in charge really should do everything to make it clear that violence is not ok. By calling him a hater, it takes the focus away from the idea that violence is ok and gives the officials of the sport a pass.

Consider this: ISIS may hate us. They may hate America. Calling them haters might even be correct, but it's an easy way to gloss over the details of the issues surrounding them. Maybe they hate us because our foreign policy screwed them over, or meddled in their society in ways they really don't like. Using a simple concept like hate, that's easy for people to buy, kind of prevents them from looking at the details, considering the causes, or forming an opinion that is accurate. When Bush said "they hate us for our freedoms," that was a nice, easy, simple sound bite that people could swallow and feel like no further effort was required of them. Similarly, calling this guy a "hater" makes it to easy for people to not feel like anything more is required of them. Maybe they need to stop supporting a sport that glorifies violence, by not watching it, by not buying tickets to games.

Calling him a hater makes it too easy for other people to not have any responsibility.

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. If he only shot one woman....would you ask if this was "a regular part of his life"?

and you miss one point in YOUR theory.....

You seem to think that it is an excuse for hatred if he simply thinks women are beneath him and should show him proper fealty.....in my mind...that IS hate. He considers women BENEATH him....he is their superior...ALL of them!


Let me make a comparison for ya....the Nazi's hated the jews....considering them subhumans and beneath them. That's hatred.

the members of the KKK hate blacks and other minorities....they consider them subhuman and beneath them....and hate they are not shown the proper fealty. That's hatred


The only difference is gender......

[mindwalker_i]

40. Huh?

I don't understand what you're getting at.

If a person shot one other person or one woman, would I call him someone who shoots people, like that's what he does, just sort of in general? He goes around shooting people? With only one event, it's hard to extrapolate a habit or consistent behavior. Obviously, he murdered someone (assuming they die), and needs to be imprisoned.

Are you trying to argue that, because I'm saying calling him a "woman hater" is inaccurate, that I'm on his side?

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. it was just pointing out the irony of that statement....please read the new text I added to

clarify my point...

[mindwalker_i]

64. I think bacteria are beneath me

I'm not going to consider their need, care whether they get killed, care about how happy they are. I don't hate them. They aren't worth the time hating. Likewise, this dude doesn't hate his girl, he just doesn't think much of her beyond a place to stick his acorn. So when she does something he didn't like - or maybe he thought that he had to "be a man" or the other guys would make fun of him - he did what he was trained to do, be violent. Being a geek, I've been on the ass-end of that enough to know what violence is about.

By calling him a hater, you absolve everyone else either in the "sport" or consuming it of having any responsibility for supporting violence, and hence, you make it easy to brush aside this issue.

[SylviaD]

115. I agree with you, mindwalker_i

I agree that the word "hate" is trite and overused. I also doubt that Ray Rice hates women. He doesn't respect us at all and has no problem physically attacking us. His ideas about us are probably reprehensible and backward. But "hate" is the wrong word.

My second point is that many of the commenters here are being ridiculously racist and sexist. Sexist in that their attributions of Janay's motives and thought processes are infantilizing her. "She has Stockholm syndrome" is a terribly sexist thing to say. The fact is that the writer of that comment needs to seriously unpack their own sexist attitudes before they comment on this story further.

Racist in that people are denying/minimalizing/ignoring Janay's heritage as an African-American woman. She has a set of life experiences and cultural experiences that a white observer has no access to and is most likely ignorant of. You don't know "why she is staying with him". You can't, because at least part of the reason she is staying with him is beyond your capacity to understand. Or mine. So don't comment on her motives or possible reasons. To do otherwise is to act in a covertly racist manner.

That's really all I have to say on this subject.

[mindwalker_i]

133. Thank you, I appreciate this comment

I haven't read a lot of other people's comments aside from those replying to me, so I can't yet comment on them. It does make me a bit sick that Janey is staying with him, but you're right in that I don't have all the history.

[Veilex]

119. "he just doesn't think much of her "- I actually disagree with this point... here's why:

Anger is quite often expressed when someone is unable to control the actions of others... thereby, ironically, losing control of themselves.

He quite clearly cares about her... at least enough to care about what she does... and enough to marry her.

(slight sidetrack)
I think he actually cared a great deal... and had a complete lack of ability to express himself in a healthy manner. <--- this right here is the important part... this is what allows us to potentially understand why he acted the way he did... and to understand what needs to change... not necessarily with him (he's pretty much done)... but this can be used as a guiding light... for example: - If we know men being unable to properly communicate how they feel could lead to unhealthy actions... then we can reasonably assert the need to help them be able to express themselves in a manner that is healthy... to circumvent/avoid such action in the future.

Perhaps this is a bit of an over simplification... but instead of glossing over the reasons for violence, it is important to study and understand why it happens... so that we can then work to prevent it from happening. Which I think might have been your point? more or less? Or maybe I'm just putting my own spin on it.

[mindwalker_i]

134. I can see your point

That he did care for her, enough to marry her. I guess I should amend my statement to say that he didn't care enough for her to not hit her. The other way of looking at it is that his anger overpowered his caring.

Men, especially those like Rice, need to find better ways to communicate - I think that's hits it on the head. Football doesn't teach them that and in fact, teaches the opposite. Someone at work pointed out that American football is only played here, and I kind of think the problems of football, specifically glorifying violence, really is an American problem. We all need to find better ways of dealing with stuff.

[Veilex]

138. "We all need to find better ways of dealing with stuff" - Absolutely!!!

And I think, discussing these issues help to do exactly that!
No one here would disagree that Rice is absolute filth.
That was never in question.
The important question is: how can we prevent future occurrences like this from happening?

[Jamastiene]

121. In other words, football has a violent culture overall,

and that needs to be dealt with too. I think I understand your larger point and agree that culture of violence needs to be dealt with as well. Those higher ups who knew should not get off the hook so easily. They knew about this and did practically nothing about it for all this time.

The reality is that the only way to get anything done legally in recent times is to categorize something as hate. It doesn't get taken seriously otherwise. It only marginally, barely gets taken slightly seriously even if categorized as hate, but at least *something* gets done about it. Unfortunately, the laws are made and not really enforced unless the communities raise hell about hate and that seems to be the only way to get anything at all done.

I do agree about the higher ups and others who knew and the culture of violence overall in sports needing to be dealt with as well.

As a side note: I think it is sort of weird how domestic violence is only considered a crime as an option. If she is is willing to press charges, the police will arrest the guy. If not, they'll let him keep on keeping on. In other words, domestic abuse is only optionally a crime. They don't ask children who've been beaten to a pulp if they want to press charges against whoever did it. They just arrest the jerk. They don't hold seances to ask murder victims if they want to press charges. They just arrest the jerk. With domestic abuse, the woman has to stand there in front of the person who just beat the shit out of her and say she wants to press charges, knowing full well that when his family and/or friends or he, himself, posts bail, he's coming straight back to her for revenge. It is an impossible situation that victims of domestic abuse are placed in to begin with.

[mindwalker_i]

136. Very interesting points

I hadn't considered that calling it hate, as in being a hate crime, could get it noticed. And I see your point about it being an optional crime - that'll give some food for thought.

[VanillaRhapsody]

125. He IS a hater!!!!

I didn't say people were equal to bacteria did I?

Why would you say such a thing....men who beat women DO hate them! PERIOD....stop defending them...you are starting too sound like this is hitting a nerve!

[mindwalker_i]

137. So where did I defend him?

Now you're making assumptions about my intent as well, which run contrary to everything I've written.

[VanillaRhapsody]

149. by saying...."Maybe it wasn't hatred of women"

I have met plenty of men who REGULARLY beat women....who will SWEAR to you they don't hate women....BECAUSE they think saying that makes it sound like you don't like "poonanny" if you know what I mean.....So they will NEVER fess up and admit THAT!!!!

"They don't hate women....they LOVE women"


Yeah right!


I bet you dollars to donuts right now....this is not the first time he has beaten this woman. I know because I have been on the other end of those punches......you work your way UP to hitting your women like that......you don't accidentally do that just once...

want to bet your donuts on it?

[mindwalker_i]

150. Uhm, that doesn't show that I defended him

By saying, "maybe it isn't hatred of women," I'm getting at the real and deeper issues of why Ray hit his gal, in an effort to find a better way to deal with it. That isn't defending him.

[VanillaRhapsody]

152. to someone who HAS walked several miles in the shoes of an abused woman....

you damn skippy its defending him....its trying to find "cause" for his outburst.....THAT is the defending the indefensible.

There is no cause other than needing to feel superior in his manhood than ALL females.....ONLY a man like that does something like this....PERIOD...I know...I have been on the other end many times....its sociopathic. Did you not notice HOW he treated her unconscious body...AND YOU need to "understand why" he would treat a human being that way? That lack of empathy and lack of remorse and callous lack of concern for her condition afterward said it ALL!

NOW just stop it before I start assuming you are just looking for absolution for some personal past transgression by finding a "cause" for this man's obviously hateful (to anyone but you it seems) behavior.

[mindwalker_i]

154. You're going to have your opinion regardless

of whether I "defended" him or not. It seems like you have a conclusion you want to reach, and not a whole lot is going to get in your way.

But the reality is that, while you are assigning "hatred of women" to Ray, I'm doing the hard part, asking the questions and not accepting an easy, pat answer. Find out the truth is what will lead to better dealing with the situation and effecting changes. The more you cling to your easy answer, the further you get from solving the very real problems. In short, you hurt yourself.

[VanillaRhapsody]

155. there IS no other reason......

did you not see HOW he treated her AFTER? He literally dropped her on the floor....then nudged her with his foot like a corpse.....UGH! What other POSSIBLE cause could there be to do that to someone particularly someone you supposedly love?

[mindwalker_i]

160. That actually is a good point

I still don't think it's as easy as, "he just hates women." There are a whole lot of other things going on there, some of which I've written about already in this thread. Particularly, my impression is that he's full of himself - thinks he's the greatest thing to grace the Earth since sliced bread - and won't allow someone to "disrespect" him. After knocking her out, he probably still has that feeling of anger at her "disrespecting" him. In the background, he's been taught that violence is perfectly ok as a way to deal with things that piss him off.

Looking at the causes, like how American society likes violence (hence why American football exists). how we praise football players, is the key to developing an accurate picture and formulating strategies to combat the culture that people get hit it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

161. No you are WRONG!

and your obstinance tells me that maybe you are seeking absolution from past transgressions....me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Some straight men cannot admit that they hate women....for fear of being called homosexual by other straight men. They assume because they want to have sex with them....they cannot possibly hate them.

Trust me on this....having been IN IT for half my life...both childhood and adulthood.....and having had years of therapy to overcome it....it is EXACTLY as I described.

Or are you a better authority than psychiatrists who treat patients who are recovering from such abuse are?


What the fuck gives YOU such bona fides on this subject? Are you a psychiatrist, victim or abuser?

And YES he DOES feel superior....who the fuck do you think he feels SUPERIOR to? Racists ALSO think they are the superior race....does that give them an out with you too?

If you have a history of beating women....or get caught knocking one out and treating her with such lack of remorse or concern for her condition...YOU too hate women!

[mindwalker_i]

163. It's become very clear that you have a strong desire

to cast me as some who is defending Ray, and also someone who is abusive to women. I have not defended Ray at all, and feel free to go over anything I've written and show where I did defend him. The only reason you seem to think that I'm abusive to women is that I'm not agreeing with your blanket statement that he just "hates women," and what's even more interesting is that, as you keep saying that I'm defending Ray, that's your basis for your claim that I also hate women and are abusive to them.

So essentially, you're making something up about me as justification to claim that I'm abusive, and it all seems to be because I'm not agreeing with your simple explanation that Rice hates women. Why is it that you need to do that - what need in you is it filling? I'm guessing that, having been in an abusive relationship, it's easier to see people as being totally with you, or totally against you. Seeing the shades of grey, or even seeing someone's argument against you belief that Rice just hates women, would complicate things greatly - kind of like when Bush said, "You're either with us or against us." In that case, he said that to give people an easy choice, to either support him or be a terrorist, such that most people would blindly follow him and not question what he was doing. It seems like you are also trying to divide people up as being either totally and unquestioningly supportive of you and your positions, or totally against you and hating women.

The problem with that thinking is that there are a lot of grey areas. A lot of men don't hate women, but feel threatened by them. Sometimes it's because the man's worth is determined by how well he can take care of his woman, so if she's earning money, her need for him is less. Some men are threatened by that. I imagine Rice feels like his physical strength is his self-worth. But there are a lot of different causes for men to be violent, and there are a lot of cultural aspects that cause men to be violent. It's not simple hatred of women, and calling it that prevents us from dealing the the real causes and actually making progress.

[VanillaRhapsody]

165. It should have become very clear that I know what I am talking about....

and YOU do not...

I ask you again...WHAT bona fides do YOU have?

The guy dropped the woman's body like a sack of potatoes like she wasn't even a human being...WTF else do YOU fucking need to see?

Again...thou dost protest entirely too much....you are indicting yourself.

[mindwalker_i]

167. So you just know

because you're, like, right and stuff?

So you "have bone fides" because you've been in an abusive relationship? What you seem to be saying is that, because of your past, you just know stuff and don't need to argue logically about it. Incidentally, I was in an abusive relationship to a decade. It was emotionally abusive rather than physical, but I can see all the reasons why people stay with abusive partners in myself. At no time would I ever consider saying that, because I was in such a relationship, that my arguments, or really, assertions, hold more weight than someone else's logical arguments. And I'm not going to accept it from you either.

[VanillaRhapsody]

168. I have them because I was married to a man JUST like this for 16 yrs.....and I

and I grew up with the same violence at home which made me a victim for a sociopath that cannot feel empathy JUST like this guy.....I have them because I have been seeing world class therapists that are helping me understand WHY I had Stockholm Syndrome and believed I loved this man regardless of how he treated me...these therapists have helped me to understand why some people do these things....its how you help someone overcome it....you have to get them to accept that it wasn't because of THEM....it was because this person just hates and resents women in general....NOT JUST YOU! You come to understand....the hatred of women....is not so unusual at all.....now....

...again I ask...WTF are your bona fides?

What makes YOU an authority?

[mindwalker_i]

170. I've been through some of the same stuff

Doesn't matter. Bona fides don't mean anything when they either conflict with data or attempt to pull an answer out of a lack of data.

[mindwalker_i]

164. I've been thinking about this...

A while ago, I was in an argument where someone said they didn't appreciate being psychoanalyzed but someone on the Internet who doesn't know them at all. I didn't reply with the obvious, "Yeah, you should find someone better qualified," because I wasn't trying to win, I was trying to understand the person and why they would come up with the argument they did.

What you are doing is the same thing - trying to understand why I'm arguing against Rice just "hating women." So, actually, you're psychoanalyzing me. Now, when I say stuff on the Internet and people read it, I don't really have any claim that they shouldn't try to understand why I'm making my arguments. In fact, I have no problem at all with you psychoanalyzing me.

But you're doing a really bad job of it!

You're analysis - that I have something in my past that's causing me to defend Rice - is based on a persistent and incorrect interpretation of what I've been writing. I'm not defending Rice. You can read my other posts and find that out for yourself. I'm, in fact, psychoanalyzing him! Trying to find the deeper reason why he punched his gal - and yeah, that makes him a total asshole.

so go ahead and psychoanalyze me, but do a better job of it!

[VanillaRhapsody]

166. NOOOOO I am doing a whiz bang job of it.....

what BONA FIDES do YOU Have on this topic?

Please enlighten us!

though something tells me its striking a nerve with you....

[mindwalker_i]

169. See my above post on bona fides

So you're argument as it stands is that you are a woman, a feminist, were in an abusive relationship, and therefore I should just accept what you say. Your version of father knows best?

Here's what that gets you. You have some experience, you've probably read a lot from other people and know, know their feelings, know how these relationships go in terms of what people say to control other people, how they act, and how know a lot of history. All that's great, but when it comes to making an argument, you need reasons and logic. Just saying "I know this stuff" isn't going to cut it.

Another factor is that, because you went through an abusive relationship, it's locked you into certain ways of thinking. It's like, if someone has always done something a certain way and knows that way really well, they will tend to see other things in the same way. If someone has solved a problem the same way many times, they'll always solve it the same way until somethings comes along and forces them to do it differently. Maybe the problem is too different to apply the same solution. If someone comes along with different experience, there's a good chance they'll have a different angle - a different way of thinking, or a different perspective.

Another aspect is that, if many people get together and talk, it's easy to form a homogenized view. We're on a political board, so a good example is that if Democrats all get together and talk about issues, the group will come to a consensus, to some extent at least. It's easy to then miss aspects that other people see. One reason I like Discussionist is that it exposes me to other perspectives. Some suck, not to put too fine a point on it. But some are interesting and cause me to modify my opinion or at least the reasoning that I have for my opinion. This is kind of part of evolution in that, when you mix stuff up, whether it's genes or ideas, the best will win or a new gene or idea that works better will win.

So in summary, experience is great and provides a good starting point for many discussions. But having experience doesn't absolve you from needing to make rational, logical arguments, and it doesn't override facts. It also doesn't provide an answer in the absence of facts. Given that our knowledge of Rice's history is severely limited, there's some room for possible explanations of his behavior, and your insistence that's it's purely hatred of women is unsubstantiated.

[VanillaRhapsody]

171. No you accept my answer as ONE who is RECOVERING from PTSD.....

who has had lots of therapy...and who knows what FACTS victims of this kind of abuse are given in order to overcome the condition...because its brainwashing that they have to overcome. Not only at the hands of a husband....but also with a father who was very much the same....

Sociopaths who HAVE no empathy for their victims...ACT LIKE THIS GUY DID after he hit her....


BELIEVE it or NOT.....there are many men who hate women....many.


again I ASK WTF are YOUR Bona fides?

[mindwalker_i]

172. One of the posts in another subthread

talked about the possibility of "pigeonholing." When someone has had an experience and come to a conclusion about why something happened, when they see a similar situation, they believe it's the same reason. So in your case, you are applying the same conclusion to a situation that has some similarities but for which you lack all of his history. There are many possible causes for Ray hitting his gal, and you simply lack the information to be able to say you know what the cause is.

Oddly enough as I was thinking about it last night, I realized that I'm doing the same thing. What I see in Rice is every fucking bully to beat me up and harassed me in school, so I'm applying the same conclusions I came to about them, to Rice. Since I also lack history about his history, my beliefs about why he hit his gal are probably also not correct.

So we're probably both wrong - since neither of us have sufficient information. And both of us are in danger of actually being limited by our experiences. With a lack of information, it's far too easy to fill in the (huge) gaps with what we want them to be and I'll go a step further: both of us have an emotional need to fill those gaps with our pasts, and the more traumatic our experiences were, the deeper the need.

Your last several posts have translated rather well to, "I've been through stuff, so you need to believe me," and in fact you've made an effort to avoid any reasoned arguments I've put forth. That's not an argument, it's not even a discussion, but but it shows that you have an emotional need to have at least me just believe you. It's like when people say that God exists, they know it, and you just have to believe them, but the entire religion, not argue about the glaring inconsistencies, and basically shut up. For the same reasons I'm incapable to accepting that, I can't accept your beliefs.

[VanillaRhapsody]

173. funny when therapists tell me much different....

YOU need to stop thinking YOU have some inside knowledge about this...obviously you don't.

If someone NEEDS to feel superior to another class of people THAT my friend is hatred....



Since you cannot accept...let me suggest a book for you!. A New York Times Best Seller in fact...

Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them : When Loving Hurts and You Don't Know Why Paperback – January 2, 2002

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Hate-Women-Love-Them/dp/0553381415

For your research and edification...NATCH!

Since you won't take MY Word for it...

From Library Journal
Forward is a therapist, author, and talk-show host whose specialty is abusive relationships. This book grew out of her realization that her own marriage as well as those of many of her clients followed a pattern. Many men need to control their relationships completely and consequently are mentally (if not physically) abusive. They denigrate their partners, resent them if they have any outside interests, and become furious for trivial reasons. Women with low self-esteem are drawn to these men because they can also be charming and devoted. Forward devotes the first half of the book to an analysis of the problem, the second half to breaking the pattern and getting outside help. No bibliography, but competent and interesting, and sure to be popular. Recommended for public libraries. Margaret B. Allen, M.L.S., West Lebanon,
Copyright 1986 Reed Business Information, Inc. --

YOU WERE SAYING?

[mindwalker_i]

175. So your argument has changed from

"I know this stuff cuase it happened to me," to "I know this stuff and other people agree with me." That's a slight improvement. However, you haven't refuted anything I've brought up, like how each situation is different, and not every situation is the same. Or that there are many different things that can be happening, but we have very little knowledge of what was happening in Rice's situation. Or, that we tend to see out own situations in others that, from the limited information we have, bear some similarities - the pigeonhole effect.

It's also odd that a lot of your belief in being right vs. me is your claim to have been through it. You don't know what I've gone through, whether there are similarities, or that my experiences may be relevant. It's like you are staking an absolute claim to knowing everything about abusive situations and denying that anyone else - who doesn't come to the exact same conclusions as you - knows anything. It's like there's an ownership problem.

The books you linked to describe a specific type of situation. That's good, and I believe they have a lot to offer, but it's one specific type of situation. It doesn't cover everything, as there are a lot of different situations out there. There are different reasons men are violent and that Rice's gal was the target of his violence does not mean that she had low self esteem and got into the type of relationship described by the book or the type that you had (or I had).

In fact, it seems unlikely that Rice's gal - Janey? I should use her name rather than a her position relative to him - has low self esteem. I'm guessing she's a stronger woman, in terms of self-esteem, ego, etc. in order to have been able to have a relationship with someone who's definitely got a big ego. I'm guessing, but there is some reason at all for that guess, unlike you're assumption she has low self esteem and sought out someone to bully her around.

I keep writing all this stuff, with analyses, reasoning, logic, and I keep creating theories as to why this all happened (between Ray and Jane). You are responding with little or no reasoning, just statements to the effect that you know stuff, some people agree with you, and that your therapist agreed that every situation was the same so the cause was the same for all cases (I doubt he or she meant that). I think you're looking more for agreement, more like a support group than an argument or discussion, if that discussion disagrees with your conclusions.

[VanillaRhapsody]

177. No that is YOUR interpretation of what I said....

I have said from the beginning. Men that do this hate women....END of discussion of what I have been saying. THAT is it!

I do not stutter nor do I mince words.....


and somehow you seem to be afraid to label a man that punches a woman in the head and knocks her the fuck out cold and drops her on the floor like a bag of dirt as not a "hater" of women...and you go on and on and on about it....I mean WTF over?????

as I said before....me thinks thou dost protest too much...

[mindwalker_i]

178. I've explained why a bunch of times

There's more to it than, "just hates women." You, on the other hand, keep insisting that there is nothing else to it. He simply hates. No cause, nothing else could possibly be going on, and anyone who is unsatisfied with your simplistic interpretation just doesn't know what they're talking about. Or worse yet, someone seeking deeper answers must be hiding something.

Any you aren't responding to my arguments, you aren't pointing out why they are wrong. All you can do is insist that they are wrong, and that because I am not you, I should just believe what you're saying. That indicates that we are deep into a religious issue - one that, at this point, is based on faith rather than analysis of available data.When I first read the article from the OP, it struck me as a simplistic answer for an event - an answer that aims to evoke a specific emotional response. Your "arguments," which are essentially just assertions, strongly indicate that this is a belief to you, something that you accept without question.

I can understand how and why that would happen. But acting on beliefs that don't match reality causes a lot of damage. Take the Christian fundamentalists that keep trying to get teaching of evolution out of schools and replace it with religious dogma. That puts the students who learn dogma instead of science at a disadvantage to the rest of the world and probably does damage just by virtue of teaching something that is provably wrong and telling them to believe it. In the same sense, spreading this faith does a lot of damage as well.

[orleans]

57. AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

do you really feel the need to split hairs here with this?

really?

hum...let's see what alternatives our friend thesaurus has that you might prefer instead of that blunt, candid, straightforward, direct, no-nonsense, plain-spoken four letter word "hate"...

dislike very strongly, abhor, despise, loathe, scorn, shun, abominate, curse, deprecate, deride, disapprove, disfavor, disparage, allergic to, can't stand, be hostile to, be repelled by, be sick of, feel malice to, have an aversion to, have no use for, look down on, not care for, shudder at (i skipped a few)
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hates?posfilter=verb

would some of these other choices make you feel better?

[VanillaRhapsody]

126. Me thinks guilty consciences are at play here....

[orleans]

156. me thinks what you thinks is quite right n/t

[ismnotwasm]

46. I think we have a bit of disconnect here

Now, a man who tosses his baby down the stairs killing it, in a rage might have a moment of hate,but probably doesn't "hate" babies.

When you have a systematic oppressive situation, whether it's race, gender, sexual orientation and violence occurs on a regular basis, "hate" is quite apt a term. Whether it's a individual situation or not.

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. OH he just hated THAT baby is that your contention?

you are comparing apples to oranges.....

So your theory is....IF he still thinks women are beneath him and should and should be kissing his ass....if she doesn't and he hits and knocks her the fuck out.....that's not hatred? For crying out loud....he thinks she is subhuman compared to him....and DESERVES to get cold cocked like that!

THIS is what you are defending....

As a survivor of that kind of violence...I beg you to rethink your position.....

Its hatred....it just makes you uncomfortable because it indictment towards men.

[ismnotwasm]

60. Nope, I agree with you

I was trying, perhaps poorly to come up with an an analogy for a specific poster who doesn't understand it's hate.

[ZombieHorde]

113. I liked your analogy.

It helped me understand some of your earlier posts in this thread.

[jen63]

51. It is hate.

Men who don't hate women don't knock them out in elevators, no matter what she has done to "deserve it". I imagine there's a pattern with this guy in regard to violence against women. That's hate.

[mindwalker_i]

63. Like I've been pointing out

It let's people off the hook to easily. Just calling this guy a "hater" keeps them from having to consider the sport that glorifies violence, and it says, this is just one bad apple - one guy who "hates" women. Then, people who keep buying tickets or watching it on TV get to dismiss this as one "hater" and not have to consider all the rest of it. They don't have to stop supporting the game that makes violent people.

You're letting then off too easy. Why is that? Why would you rather just call him a hater than get to the core of the issue?

The NFL initially suspended him from two games. Why? So everybody who watches it can say the matter was dealt with and not have to take responsibility for their part in supporting violence against women. By saying he's just a guy "who hates women," you are also giving people a free pass from their responsibility.

[ismnotwasm]

65. No

This is part of systemic hate. It's an individual case, but the numbers of crimes against women are shocking and all to often dismissed in one fashion or the other. This man hated.

It is hate. And more even common, an enjoyment of degradation of women. It's every where, very frequent and needs to be called out each and very time

[mindwalker_i]

66. No, you're still taking the easy way out

Like Bush saying, "They hate us for our freedoms," it sidesteps all the details and shoves them all of under the umbrella of "hate." You just said this is a systematic thing, and I'm agreeing with you in that the whole system that made this asshole needs to be dealt with. Don't deal with the one guy, call him a hater, and shove him off in the corner, deal with the whole system that produces and supports this kind of f-ed up behaviour.

[ismnotwasm]

68. And you are ignoring a systemic problem of hatred

I'm not using the common, modern vernacular "hater" as in "don't be a hater" I'm talking about genuine hatred of women. It's serious problem, not the easy way out. The man hates women. Whatever other 'issues' he may have is the 'easy way out' --this is both an individual and societal problem.

[mindwalker_i]

70. Actually, let me change tactics here

Why is it that you think this dude hates women? Does he have a history of showing that, in general, he hates women, or is it based on just this incident that hit hit and knocked out his fiancee/wife? If it's just this event (him hitting her), then there is insufficient evidence to discern whether he hates women in general vs. he's basically full of himself, isn't going to allow his woman to disrespect him, and thinks violence is a perfectly good way to enforce it.

I don't know his history, and I don't think anything has come out about it that would indicate a pathological hatred of women. If I'm correct, then assigning hatred of women as the cause then ignores the other possibility, which I do think is likely, that the system and all those who support it make people who are violent. And that causes a lot more harm to women.

So in a nutshell, provide some reason why it's hatred against women vs. a system that promotes violence.

[ismnotwasm]

73. This is a much longer conversation

It includes both historical precedent, a study of the classics, the knowledge of the various roles of women throughout history. A history of sexuality of women to the present time. The expectations I'd childbearing. The various rebellions, predating suffrage. The economic dependency of women on men.

Bring on, then, the "sexual revolution" where women didn't gain as much as they thought at the time. Bring the expanding roles of women, the lessening economic dependence (although 2 parent incomes are often what keeps family afloat)

So much change. Women, historically chattel, learned to have a voice. I could give you laws, less than 100 years old, requiring women to have a husband co-sign or approve any financial transaction. Raping ones wife was legal 50 years ago. Less in some states

I can't give a full overview of how historical fact affects emotion. Suffice it to say, women were not considered fully autonomous. The hate comes from a variety of places--expected privilege of sexuality, fear of women's sexuality, resentment of financial independence, the historical value of women being what it was. Toxic masculinity.

Without background, my words will mean nothing.

[mindwalker_i]

100. What you ar describing or alluding to seems to not be hatred

It's more a cultural - what do I call it? - sort of a deep idea or feeling that women are inferior to men, that they can't do what men do, aren't worth of the same consideration. That women couldn't vote prior to women's suffrage was a very direct reflection of that idea. The, unfortunately current, idea that women shouldn't serve in the military or in certain parts of the military is also a reflection of the idea that in some way or ways (physically, or that women just aren't aggressive enough, or some such crap) is a reflection of that idea.

What I disagree with is that it's hatred of women. It's not that (certain) men hate women, but that they have these preconceptions that women are inferior in some way and are incapable of doing certain things. There may be some disdain. The difference is important because one can't do a whole lot about hatred, but one can definitely confront and change cultural notions that women are inferior. If this football dude hates women, there isn't a lot we can do about it, but if the NFL makes men into assholes, we CAN do something about that. Calling it "hatred toward women" absolves us from having to take any action - to stop watching football or supporting a system that tells men violence toward women is ok. That's where my argument that calling it "hatred toward women" is the easy way out for us in that then we don't have to do anything about it.

[nomorenomore08]

83. "...why it's hatred against women vs. a system that promotes violence."

Why does it have to be one or the other? Seems like a false dichotomy.

[mindwalker_i]

98. Getting the cause correct will determine the action to take

If it's this one guy who hates women, then what action do we take to correct it? Actually, probably nothing - we can't change one person's mind. However, if, as I believe, the system - meaning the NFL in this case - generates men who are full of themselves and are trained to believe that violence is a perfectly appropriate way to deal with issues like their women "disrespecting" them, then the action we take is very different. In that case, we actually can take action. We can demand that the NFL fire assholes who hit their wives/fiancees, or if they don't, we can stop watching football and supporting that system.

Maybe that isn't the action people want to take - they don't want to have to accept responsibility for supporting a sport that creates violent people and therefore, have to stop supporting it. They want to watch football. Personally I hate football (I'm a hater in this case), but can sort of understand that people don't want to have to make that change and stop watching it. It's fun (for them). But in order to correct this problem, we've got to address it.

[Veilex]

122. "you are ignoring a systemic problem of hatred" - I realy dont think Mindwalker is

Mindwalker seems to be asking the hard question: Why does he hate? What is that hatred in response too? Is it an internal or external issue? How can we go about preventing this form of hatred from happening in the future?

Most people who use "hate" as a label, cease to ask these kinds of questions... and it is so vital and important that they are asked!

[VanillaRhapsody]

128. Who the fuck cares WHY he hates women?

it is immaterial to the fact that he does.

She MUST respect his AUTHORITAY....or she gets Knocked the Fuck Out!....

Having lived with a man EXACTLY like this guy....having taken beatings like the one this woman experienced....I can tell you ....why that person hates women doesn't matter....you are looking for a way to absolve him and blame her is all!

[Veilex]

129. "Who the fuck cares WHY he hates women" - You should

At least insofar as to figure out what motivated him to get to that point. The reason why? Because you can't fix a problem if you don't know the root cause... so there is a real need to ask the hard questions.

*On Edit*
"you are looking for a way to absolve him and blame her is all" - Yeah, cause, ya know, people looking to absolve criminal acts are always like "How can we go about preventing this form of hatred from happening in the future" ...

[VanillaRhapsody]

130. I don't give a fuck why my ex husband hates women.....it doesn't matter

he does and he will never get over it.....

You need to understand that you will NEVER fix them. They feel superior and will next to never give that up...

You need a reason? THAT'S all you need to know....they NEED to feel superior to someone...so they pick on those they can beat up....ALSO they look for women with low self esteem....who can be convinced of their superiority through brute strength. Then all they have to do is get these women with low self esteem to begin with....to accept that they don't deserve any better...OR that they cannot survive without them because they are just not like everyone else...they are not smart enough....AND they isolate them from anyone that might tell them differently.

They are sociopaths....

I've walked several miles in HER shoes....

What else do you need to know?

[Veilex]

131. You're thinking rather single-mindedly about this...

This isn't about "fixing them". It never was. Its about understanding the why, and preventing other non-offenders from becoming offenders. Simple as that.

I'm sorry you went through what did. Your experience is exactly the sort of thing I'm proposing we work to avoid... and, like it or not, fully understanding the situation helps to identify the root cause... and knowing the root cause equips people to dismantle this sort of thing BEFORE it happens.

[VanillaRhapsody]

132. Lots of therapy has helped me to "understand" this....

this is what you have to accept to overcome it....

PERIOD.

I just told you the fucking root cause....

Sounds like we might be hitting too close to home for ya!


She has been with this man since High School.....you want to bet whether or not it was the first time he hit her?

[nomorenomore08]

78. What you're describing... Refusing to call it "hatred" is the worst kind of hair-splitting IMO.

Sure you can call it dislike, contempt, a sense of superiority to another human being. But what is so objectionable about using a word that's a virtual synonym?

[mindwalker_i]

101. There isn't a lot anyone can do about someone hating someone else

However, if the system - meaning the NFL in this case - teaches men that violence toward women is ok, then we CAN do something about that. Getting the cause right (hatred vs. dislike, contempt, etc.) determines whether we all just do nothing, or whether we can do something.

When the action we take or don't take depends so much on the cause we assign, it's definitely not splitting hairs.

[nomorenomore08]

141. We can at least show them that venting that hatred on another human being is totally unacceptable.

Rice's attitude is probably unlikely to change, at this point. But harsh consequences for his behavior - like a lifetime ban from football - will hopefully demonstrate to him, and to others, that openly expressing such violent contempt won't be tolerated.

[mindwalker_i]

147. Agree completely

The NFL tried to just give him a slap on the wrist, but I'm really glad they were forced to ban him completely. Especially in a sport about violence, they have to make it clear that the violence doesn't extend outside of the sport.

I still hate football.

[Veilex]

116. To add to your point...

If he truly hated women, why would he marry one?

Like love, hate requires an intense amount of invested emotion toward someone... or a group. It would take a significant amount of effort to hate an entire gender.

I wholeheartedly agree that the word hate, often (though not always), detracts from the root of the problem. It is so much easier to say "That guy hates women", because it instantly otherizes that person... and ignores that, though he may indeed be the villain in this case, he has depth of personality, just like anyone else.

People like easy... people like to dehumanize offenders... and we do that ALOT...
both in the US, and on this site.

[nomorenomore08]

76. If nothing else, how can you know a stranger's psychology well enough to say who he does

or doesn't "hate"?

[mindwalker_i]

102. And I can turn that argument right around

and say, how can anyone here know his psychology well enough to determine that it is hate? If there were any history of him doing mean things to women, other than this one instance, we could make a more informed theory. With there only being this one instance, we don't have enough information to determine which of several possible explanations is correct.

My own personal feeling is that this guy has been taught by society that football players are, in some sense, better than other people. They earn a lot of money, they have crowds cheering for them, people pay attention to their lives. My experience as a geek who got his ass kicked a lot when I was younger is that people who are looked up to - because they're "popular," or are football players or of other sports, or whatever - get really angry when anyone "disrespects" them and react violently. That's not hatred. If it were, there would be very little anyone can do about it. However, if it's not hatred but instead is a feeling that they can be violent toward other people, we can deal with that. We can teach bullies that, first, they aren't better than other people, and we can teach them that violence is not ok.

So calling them "haters," in some sense absolves us from the responsibility of taking action. It's our easy way out.

[Jester Messiah]

36. Just putting a point on a "bingo card" doesn't actually address it. [nt]

[ismnotwasm]

47. Meaning?

[Jester Messiah]

53. It's a common tactic.

You've seen those bingo cards, I'm sure. "Stuff that people who argue with us ALWAYS say." Then, when someone raises such a point in discussion, the card-writer says "Haha! That's square B2! See, I'm right!"

But it doesn't actually address the point, which may or may not be valid. I feel like that's what you did when you referred that other poster back to the article about the point he raised, because what the article does is basically lay out a "bingo card." It says "if you say any of the following, you are wrong and a hater, end of discussion" without supporting that assertion. It may even be correct, but it doesn't provide any reason why that would be so, just makes the assertion and leaves it hanging.

[ismnotwasm]

61. I disagree.

Completely

[Jester Messiah]

82. Great. On what grounds?

Discussion can't advance, minds can't be persuaded, without solid arguments based on logic and/or evidence. It isn't enough to simply disagree or get offended and exit in a huff. (Not suggesting that's what you've done, just something that often occurs.)

[mindwalker_i]

67. I agree

completely.

In this case, this incident gets shoved into a ready-made category (bs), and nobody has to deal with the fact that the NFL creates violent people. No one has to stop watching football because they're supporting the system that creates violent people.

B2: easy peasy.

[ismnotwasm]

69. You realize not only did you segway

But are not making sense in context of the problem.

I happen to agree about certain aspects of football though, but it's not the same conversation, or perhaps a larger one.

[mindwalker_i]

71. Fair enough

I admit to somewhat hijacking this idea, as I think it's similar or relevant to the one I've been arguing for.

Ina more general sense, it's easy to create classifications of things that people do so that each time something like this happens, one sticks the event in a slot (B2 in this example) and, to an extent, considers the issue solved and the appropriate action determined. But then, the nuances, complications, or any number of critical aspects get ignored and not dealt with.

[shaayecanaan]

18. the guy who knocked his girl out

could be fucking flayed alive for all I care. That prick deserves all he has coming to him and more.

No idea why people feel the need to equivocate on this. I might disagree that simply looking at a girl amounts to street harassment (as has been posted here) but people who want to take contrary positions on an incident like this are just being arseholes.

[mindwalker_i]

21. I'm not equivicating at all here, nor am I taking a contrary position

And I agree that he should be flayed alive.

[locdlib]

22. the word "hate" in this case

seems to lack in detail only to those who are trying to find a way to redefine it. stating the obvious, "this guy who knocked his girl out probably has control issues," is like telling us that water is wet. we already know that. your statement really carries the same attitude as the one demonstrated by those who told the girl who was raped on campus to explain to them what it was like to be raped anally. in short, it's hateful.

[mindwalker_i]

34. '"probably has control issues" is line saying water is wet.'

Good point. I'll try to explain this in more detail: this guy probably believes that he needs to keep his woman in line and can't allow her to show him any disrespect, or he'll feel like he isn't being a man. It also seems likely that he's learned from his choice of career that violence is not only ok, but is a good thing, at least on some level. That's very different than "hating" women. Calling him a hater of women plasters over the deeper issues and prevents or distracts from having a debate over those issues.

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. it doesn't matter what HE believes.....

AND if he considers her his to do that to.....considers her NOT his equal....its HATRED! Pure and simple....

I am sure there are some men who claim to be enlightened that will continue to defend this position as if it were defensible....its simply NOT. No matter WHAT he believes....

[locdlib]

56. you've typed a lot of words, but still said nothing.

i'm not going to respond to you anymore beyond this point as you are giving the impression that you enjoy engaging in circular arguments. it doesn't matter what he learned. when he became old enough to determine that what he was taught was wrong, he had the capacity to get his mind right, because that's what a person does. just so you know, there are athletes who have managed to have successful, happy, non fiance/wife-beating relationships.

[ReRe]

23. Hate must have detail?

Tell us, what are the details of hate? How many shades are there to hate? Like one might say "I hate this hairdo." or "I hate that they did that."? And hat is the problem buried under the rock?

You didn't get it. Go back and click on the link and read the article over again, slowly.

Yes, if a man hits a woman, whether he knocks her out or not, hates ALL women. If he does it to one, he will do it to all women. Period.

[Dustlawyer]

41. A man should never, ever, hit a woman, but should they all be punished the same?

Should a man who hits his wife only when she has physically assaulted him be punished as another who, just for fun, hits his wife so hard she bounces off the wall? I am talking about degrees of punishment. No man should ever lose his cool enough to strike a woman, regardless of circumstances up to the woman being armed with a deadly weapon.

[7962]

48. By your last sentence, a man COULD hit a woman and be fine.

And I agree. Look at some of the videos of violent women these days. I would say a man should NEVER hit a woman, unless he's being physically assaulted and has to defend himself.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. OMG....AGAIN with this shit....HOW is it always always always men around to make sure to remind

you that SOME women are abusive....when we are SPECIFICALLY talking about the horrible conditions WOMEN are exposed to....on a GRAND scale....because of domestic abuse. NO ONE has said that there are NO women who are also abusive. That is not the topic of discussion at the moment.

How many men are KILLED by women in domestic violence? Yes it happens.....but no where near as often as it happens to women. AND it is related to the fact that we are also discriminated against in a multitude of OTHER ways that this is all a part of that. And THAT is what we are discussing here.....

[Dustlawyer]

74. Really! My post is on topic, you just don't like what I had to say. My main point is,

if this guy (don't follow football) hit her after she assaults him, he is still in the wrong. But if he hits her for fun, or doesn't like what she wore or some other inane reason, should the punishment be the same? Some women here believe both should be put to death!

[VanillaRhapsody]

123. NO it isn't

We were discussing Domestic Violence and discrimination AGAINST WOMEN...

I stand by my contention.....

Would you remind Micheal Brown's parents that cops also kill White people when they are discussing what is happening to Black young men when approached by cops too?

[nomorenomore08]

85. I thought it was pretty clear we were talking about beatings, not self-defense.

The man being the one who initiates, the one who attacks. And a man who doesn't hate women - on some sort of level - would never (or virtually never) behave that way.

[VanillaRhapsody]

124. EXACTLY!

[chrisa]

88. Please stop with the hyperbole. It's ridiculous.

Obviously there are situations where hitting someone is okay (life is in danger, etc.). This hyperbole is ridiculous and has nothing to do with spousal abuse. All it does is minimize real man-on-woman violence.

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. He is trying to defend Male Priviledge! The privilege to STILL believe women are beneath you

are lesser beings......

That position IS NOT defensible.

You do not get a pass because you still believe in archaic traditions like that....

[ReRe]

58. I agree, VR n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

77. There are books about this concept - one with Hate in the Title

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Hate-Women-Love-Them/dp/0553381415
Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them : When Loving Hurts and You Don't Know Why
It's by Susan Forward. Anyone who has been with an emotional/verbal abuser can read this book and see it is a play by play of how this type of man behaves.


Another one that was a real eye opener for me?
Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0425191656/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2?pf_rd_p=1535523722&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0553381415&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0QP4XCW93GR494PS5Q5K




I think - it helps a woman who is in this situation to understand - This man is your enemy and he hates your guts. Nothing you can do is ever right. He will always needle, dismiss, rant, rave and eventually hit.

It's the same way every time.

And I think the first book? By Ms. Forward - the title tells it all.

[mindwalker_i]

107. Just off the top of my head...

I have not read those books, but it would probably be highly beneficial to do so, so thank you for pointing them out. Now, from my admittedly less-than-informed point of view, I'm thinking that for thousands of years and maybe hundreds of thousands, society and survival depended on men being able to hunt food, fight off other tribes who were trying to take what one had, etc. In contrast, women had to take care of babies, keep them alive, and deal more with keeping the tribe working. There are physical reasons - like feeding babies - for why women didn't hunt. So developed the different roles and different feeling about women vs. men in society.

Things have changed. A lot. The old model isn't necessary, and it doesn't work. But changing these ideas that were developed over thousands of years isn't a fast process. So these ideas that women are "weak," unable to be the main breadwinners, or even moral ideas that women shouldn't be the breadwinners, are still parts of our cultures. Changing that is hard, and to some extent it's hard on the people forced to change.

I have a wife and two cats, and a very deep sense that I need to provide for them. A couple years ago, I quit the job that I'd had for more than a decade because it was driving me crazy, and things are definitely better now. And I had another job within two months, so that went fairly well. However, in those two months, it was hard to deal with not providing for my family. I can see how those feeling could manifest in different ways in different people. For some, I could see how, at a deep level, they might feel like they're inadequate and can't provide for their families, and how that could come out as them being violent.

Understand that I'm not condoning it or making excuses for it, I'm just understanding how it could happen. When it does, those guys need to have their asses kicked hard, and we need to make it clear that violence is not ok. That two-game suspension was a farce, and fortunately has been replaced by something better.

[JustAnotherGen]

108. You should read the books

It starts with a breaking down of the woman emotionally and verbally.

It happens to well educated, successful, professional 'strong' women that are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves too.

And what you will get from these books -

It's fun for these guys. It's where they live.


More important -they canNOT see the woman they are involved with OUTSIDE of themselves. They'll say things like - put yourself in my shoes.

That's a dead give away.

It's impossible to know another human beings mind - but god damn her to hell if she doesn't live her life from ONLY his point of view.

This is really much bigger than one pro athlete. I worry more about the mild mannered accountant that everyone thinks is just a swell guy - that terrorizes his wife the nurse. And there are a lot more of those than there are athletes.

[mindwalker_i]

110. You bring up some really good points

Not being able to "see the woman" as outside of themselves makes a lot of sense, and yeah, it's a big issue. I still have the feeling that calling it "hatred of women" is incorrect, that it's more a feeling that women are not worth as much and not worth of the same consideration. That's different than actively not likeling women, not wanting to be around them, or wanting to do things specifically to make women unhappy. And that difference leads to different ways of dealing with the problem.

Anyway, thank you again for the book references! I think they will have a lot to offer.

[JustAnotherGen]

111. I've been on the receiving end

Of Verbal and Emotional Abuse -

Hatred is appropo.

When you've seen it and heard it with your own 'heart' - you know.

It's hatred. They haaaaaaaaaaaaaate you. It's palpable. The only thing they love about you is your ability to 'take it'. They show their hatred by inflicting pain.

Never this way pass again - and it's important for those of us who HAVE been on the receiving end to let the woman who maybe finds this thread on a simple google search -

It's hatred honey.

Run hard and run fast. He does not love you. He hates you.

Because once she understands that - she can walk away.

My hope is she does as I did and leaves the relationship before it turns violent.


On the ground, real time, tactical - she needs to understand there is NO LOGIC or reason. She just needs to get away from him as quickly as he can.

And that's what I offer on this thread - Who cares why - to that woman. He hates you - so leave!


One thing this type of person does - they 'rationalize'. . . I guarantee you one of these people could use your words to rationalize his behavior. And to his wife/partner/girlfriend again I say - watch the buzz words - listen - HEAR them. And get out.

[BrotherIvan]

146. Your posts in this thread are so important

And yes, I truly hope those who need help will find it perhaps by reading what you have written. It's the truth.

[JustAnotherGen]

157. Thanks so much

It feels like folks want to rationalize bad behavior. Not excuse or find acceptable - but rationalize.

Why? That makes no sense to me and doesn't help a woman whose world has gone wobbly and insecure. It will only help her make excuses for his behavior that has NOTHING to do with her.

Abusive men are NOT rational human brings. They simply are not.

For every abusive man there are three or four kind men.

Run lady run. The first time you see it - run. Run over him if you must. There is someone awesome standing behind him.

Now lets have a conversation about "rationalizing" kind men.

[BrotherIvan]

162. Rationalization is a habit of those who are unaffected

It's a mental game, having no feelings one way or the other. I don't think anyone means harm, they just have no idea what it's like to live in terror. It's like talking about life on another planet.

Running "the first time you see it" is something that could save a lot of lives I think, but is contrary to all the messages women are given culturally from the time they are small. They are bombarded with messages of "true love" and perfect families, and so when faced with an abusive man, it is very hard to recognize that and get out of there. It would seem that the longer she stays and the more embroiled their lives become, such as children, the more dangerous it is for her to leave. Plus, the longer she stays, the more he destroys her self-confidence,--it's all part of the game.

I have seen that pattern a few times. First girlfriend doesn't fall for his shit and gets away pretty fast; he calls her names but does not escalate. Second girlfriend becomes wife and mother within four years, no one knows about the abuse until she tries to leave, and he beats her very badly. It's almost as if these guys get their hooks into you deeper and deeper as time goes on. Or the crazy movie that's playing in their head gets written and rewritten so many times, it becomes reality. So your message should become a part of our conversation when raising both boys and girls, perhaps a new approach to relationships, though I doubt it because the current message sells so much. Even young women in high school are putting up with abuse, most likely stemming from experience abuse at home. It's just awful.

[Dont call me Shirley]

118. Hmm, let me think, ummmmmm..............yep, hate is the correct word to describe violent males'

attitudes toward women. Loathe is also accurate and despise is too.

[yuiyoshida]

11. K&R

WTF is wrong with these people??? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025522490

[ismnotwasm]

27. I think some projection

And When a women has experienced abuse to that extent defends an an abuser, it's much like Stockholm syndrome.

[freshwest]

13. Excellent piece by a brilliant young man who sees the context. We need leaders like these!

[ismnotwasm]

15. We certainly do

[mcar]

14. Nothing more need be said

Thank you for this. I don't get why it's so hard to understand.

[SunSeeker]

16. K & R

[shenmue]

17. Truth

[SunSeeker]

19. By the way, there's lots of other great stuff on that site.

I love the article about the Columbia students helping the rape survivor "carry the weight" of her mattress protest.

http://feministing.com/2014/09/11/photo-of-the-day-students-show-solidarity-by-helping-columbia-rape-survivor-carry-her-mattress/

[bullwinkle428]

24. You don't need an Enigma Machine to sniff out the

"'b-word' had it coming"-driven comments regarding this case, with a not-insignificant number of them happening right here at good old DU.

K&R.

[Dirty Socialist]

26. There Seems to Be Some Self Loathing

Female Raven fans. The NFL sux.

[ReRe]

30. K&R

Excuses. If they don't like women, then they must like men.

[happyslug]

32. I hate to say this, you need to cut your thread - it is against DU rules

Under DU rules you can cite ONLY four Paragraphs, you have 12, you have to cut out 8 of those paragraphs. If people want to read the whole paper they have to go to the site.

This is to keep DU within the concept of "Fair Use" of copyrighted material and we have assume it is copyrighted unless we know otherwise.

[ismnotwasm]

62. Is a quoted sentence a paragraph?

I've gotten a notice before and I do try to be careful

[steve2470]

174. I asked Skinner a question similar to that once

I asked him, paraphrasing, if a sentence counted as a paragraph, since many news articles break up into individual sentences. His rough response was, four paragraphs is four paragraphs. He didn't explicitly define a sentence as a paragraph, but he didn't say it wasn't, either. I took his meaning to be that, in a news article, a single sentence could count as a paragraph, if the article was formatted that way. I just searched DU3 for that answer, and it must have been way back on DU2 that I asked it.

[Jester Messiah]

38. Rice is an animal.

And he gave an excellent demonstration of why you shouldn't jump into a cage at your local zoo and take a swing at the occupant.

[NewJeffCT]

43. good article - thanks for sharing

there really shouldn't be discussion beyond he punched her and knocked her out, then dragged her out of the elevator, unless it's how do we stop these sorts of things from happening in the future.

[freshwest]

49. Yes, you have expressed the progressive view. The other way is not progressive. Thanks for clarity.

[nomorenomore08]

86. Sort of like sexual assault, in a way. People don't want to believe it can happen to them or

someone they care about. Therefore, the inordinate focus on what the victim did or didn't do.

[TheVisitor]

55. This is epic

Thanks for sharing

[BlancheSplanchnik]

59. ^^^ this^^^

Sad and solemn respect:

[blkmusclmachine]

72. How to know that you hate women: You are a Bible thumping Republican

Because Eve caused the downfall of Man.

[McCamy Taylor]

75. That was a scary video.

[CTyankee]

79. "He didn't kill her."

That was a response to me just now.

I am utterly speechless.

[riqster]

80. Fantastic article. Kicking.

[unblock]

81. even "men shouldn't hit women" is problematic.

yes, of course, men shouldn't hit women. but *no one* should be hitting *anyone*.

throwing gender into the mix creates an artificial distinction and implies that violence is just peachy in other circumstances.
implicitly endorsing violence, even if nominally in the protection of women, serves no one and ultimately harms all of us -- women included.

you can't teach people that violence in certain situations is fine and not expect it to spill over into situations where it's not.

if a man thinks he's justified in punching another man in a bar because the victim made a pass at the attacker's date, then his date is in danger herself. eventually, the attacker will think he is justified in hitting her.

[Jester Messiah]

84. That's a good point.

I would think that the feminists who once said "don't hold the door open for me" and "I'll pay for my own meal, thanks" would object to the notion that hitting a woman is somehow worse than hitting a man. It builds up the notion that women are weak and in need of special protection. If it had been a weaker man who had stepped up to Rice, started something, and got flattened, there would be no outcry at all, just "look at this idiot tugging on Superman's cape." It doesn't seem like it on the surface, but that's some fairly anti-woman sexism.

[chrisa]

89. I agree, but hitting a woman is especially vile, as men are physically stronger.

Women have a much tougher time defending themselves from an angry male attacker. Also, due to their physiology, they are more prone to horrible injuries when attacked. Nobody should hit anybody else, but a man attacking a woman deserves it's own distinction due to the physical strength inbalance and potential for injury.

[unblock]

93. even there, i would say the emphasis on the gender distinction does more harm than good.

sure, there's very often a physical strength for the man over the woman, but the problem is primarily the physical strength imbalance, not the gender difference.

[chrisa]

143. The issue is innate physical differences that are sex-specific. The two cannot be separated.

[unblock]

145. sure they can. gender is but one element of physical strength difference.

again, my view is all violence is bad.

but if we want to go about making a distinction about which forms are even worse, then among the more relevant factors would be if the attacker has a substantial physical strength advantage. that usually means the man, but if there were a situation in which a much stronger woman attacked a much weaker man, i don't see why that should be spared the extra condemnation.

yes, i understand there are physiological differences, i've heard it's easier on average for men to build up muscle mass in the arms and upper torso, easier for women to build up muscle mass in the legs, and even that one pound of male muscle is a bit stronger than one pound of female muscle. but those physiological differences across the entire population may or may not translate to any particular case. i mean, it doesn't do me any good as a man -- i'm short, 145 pounds, haven't exercised in ages. if a big, athletic woman 195 pound woman were to attack me, i would be on the losing end of a completely "unfair" fight.

[Jester Messiah]

94. There are wimpy men, and there are buff women.

The crossfit that my wife attends is run by this tough Ecuadorean lady who I would never in my wildest dreams consider tangling with, and I'm not a weak specimen myself.

[chrisa]

144. Women on average have 52% the upper body strength of the average man.

It isn't just about size either. A "wimpy" man would likely be physically stronger than a brawny woman due to muscle differences.

[Jester Messiah]

148. Not terribly relevant in terms of precedent. (nt)

[LanternWaste]

96. Then stating "don't hit children" is problematic for you too?

Then stating "don't hit children" is problematic for you too?

[unblock]

105. i think "don't hit anyone" covers all the cases.

[chrisa]

87. I wouldn't call it "hate," though labeling it as such isn't necessarily wrong.

"Hate" makes the issue more simplistic than it should be, imo. Most of the backwards responses to this issue are so ingrained to the responder that they see nothing wrong with what they're saying. They don't think that they're being hateful at all - they're just parroting the values they've always known.

Want things to change? We need to admit that this is a cultural problem first and foremost. Like it or not, this is a problem for American culture as a whole. Until we own it, it won't get better.

[CaptainTruth]

90. The dynamics of these relationship situations (power, oppression, violence) ...

... are so similar to cases like the Michael Brown killing, & other cases of white police violence toward black people. You can change a few words & call it (for cops) "how to know that you hate black people."

Pro Tip: If you donated to a fund to help Darren Wilson, but not to a fund to buy body cameras for police, you hate black people.

[Threedifferentones]

91. If violence against women is intolerable, what does that imply about violence against men?

Would it have been tolerable for Rice to knock me, a 150 lb average guy, out for no reason? If Michael Sam were caught knocking out his boyfriend?

Practically speaking no one can deny that women tend to be much more vulnerable. There's no doubt that many shelters and other forms of aid need to be dedicated to women and kids, because they make up more of the abused population and are understandably uncomfortable around strange men.

However, from a perspective of feminist theory I don't think "stop violence against women" works out. Feminism is also about equality. If women are exempt from violence and men are not, where is the equality?

If men continue to be violent amongst themselves, how on Earth can we expect them all to be peaceful at home with their families?

How about we just start calling spousal abusers what they are? Fucking bullies. It is never okay to hurt someone in order to use fear as a mechanism of control. Bigger people can gain power over smaller people because size wins fist fights. It is not okay for Ray Rice to go around hitting other people.

Finally, to preempt what I believe is a likely reply to this comment, I must point out that AFAIK no feminist ever denied that the phrase "all men are created equal" implicitly excludes women even though it does not mention them explicitly.

[hughee99]

92. I think one part of this is just a little off

"man knocks a woman unconscious gains national attention and every question or comment you think to make has to do with her behavior, you really hate women."

It shouldn't be "EVERY question", it should be "ANY question". If you think about posting 50 different things about the attack in the elevator and ANY of them have to do with her behavior, you hate women.

[DesertDiamond]

95. Well said! REC!!!

[Stonepounder]

97. At the risk of getting trashed

and to inject a touch of levity, while not disagreeing with the OP in the slightest, I think the Dixie Chicks put the message out there in no uncertain terms with 'Goodbye Earl'. (See

for a spot on video.)

It drives me to distraction that our judicial system still doesn't take domestic violence seriously, so men feel they can beat on women with impunity, knowing that nothing is going to happen to them. But it seems that men are taught from childhood that picking on those weaker then they are is a OK and is a way of showing that they are 'real men'. And nobody really does anything to stop it. Until we, as a society, decide that this type of behavior is wrong, until our courts decide to treat it seriously, until repeat offenders are subject to three-strike laws, then women will remain the one group that impotent little pricks can bash with impunity.

[Mr Dixon]

99. Funny

Regardless of the situation I'm going to question everything

[niyad]

142. so you think this kind of violence is funny??? wow. . . . just. . . .wow.

[alp227]

153. message kept 2-5.

On Fri Sep 12, 2014, 10:49 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Funny
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5525051

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Wow. Responding to a Ray Rice/domestic violence thread with "funny"? Seriously? Seriously? Extremely insensitive trolling.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Sep 12, 2014, 10:56 PM, and voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No, poster was responding to OP. I'm sure they don't hate women, and don't like being accused of it which the OP is insinuating.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Get a life-- it's only words on a screen and you don't know what he really means.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I not sure in what context the word "funny" was used but at the least it's bad taste. The rest of the comment is fine. As for the Funny part it's to close to being irresponsible.

Thank you.

Juror #5 must be a deep cover Freeper. Again with the typical dismissive remark, in this case "it's only words on a screen". Just like "it's just an opinion" or "discuss, don't hide".

[niyad]

159. thank you for showing that. there are days I despair of this site.

[Mr Dixon]

180. yeah i said funny

because the OP is a blanket statement pretty much labeling anyone who doesn't agree as a woman hater, so yeah that is funny that someone is trying to bully me into agreeing with them or be labeled a women hater. No one can force me to agree with them and that is what i take issue with.

[niyad]

181. denial is not a river in egypt.

[Mr Dixon]

182. SMH

If your agenda was to informed people of the horrors and DV then there would be no issue, but if your agenda is to shame ppl into agreeing with your point that tactic is flawed.

[niyad]

183. reading coomprehension is helpful. the OP is not mine, but keep

trying to explain your response, despite the fact that most of us understood it perfectly.

[Mr Dixon]

184. SMH

I could careless what most of you thought, i how read that statement dictated how i responded Nuff said, now go find someone else to troll.

[whathehell]

104. or just really love Male Privilege.

My perspective being that, the guys getting 'defensive' may not necessarily beat up women or approve

of such, but they hate feeling 'guilty' by association, and dislike being held "accountable",

to women, perhaps especially. It's all part of being 'top dog' for eons. This 'equality' thing

is still new to them and they feel kind of 'uncomfortable' with it, not that I think that should

be indulged.

As for when 'defensiveness' signals real hate, yes, well, it's a matter of DEGREE, of course.

If the dolt says something like 'the bitch deserved it", then yes, they definitely hate women.

[azmom]

106. While at physical therapy yesterday

I overheard one of the male therapist talking to a male patient and he used every excuse in the article to excuse Rice's action. I finally had to tell them to stop talking because I could hear them. I don't think I can have this therapist work on me anymore. His comments told me a lot about him.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

112. DU Rec. (stockholm let me go home ...)

stockholm let me go home ...

I've heard love songs make a Georgia man cry
On the shoulder of somebody's Saturday night
Read the good book studied it, too
But nothing prepared me for living with you

Locked me up tight in these shackles I wear
Tied up the keys in the folds of your hair
And the difference with me is I used to not care
Stockholm, let me go home

Once a wise man to the ways of the world
Now I've traded those lessons for faith in a girl
Across the ocean, a thousand years from my home
In this frozen old city of silver and stone

Ships in the harbor and birds on the bluff
Don't move an inch when their anchor goes up
And the difference with me is I'm falling in love
Stockholm, let me go home
Let me go home

And the night, so long
I used to pray for the daylight to come
Folks back home surely have called off the search
and gone back to their own

Ships in the harbor and birds on the bluff
Don't move an inch when their anchor goes up
And the difference with me is I'm falling in love
Stockholm, let me go home
Let me go home

[NYC_SKP]

114. I learn more and more every day on the DU about this.

This morning, for example, I learned that the NFL should "get rid of cheerleaders" to improve their image.

Now, without taking a position one way or another on cheerleaders as good role models, etc., I think the suggestion is moronic.

If the NFL wants to improve their image, maybe they should develop and enforce standards for their players.

Maybe they should own their complicity and make amends and support real efforts to fight abuse.

I can't stand it.

[Egnever]

117. Strawman how I love thee!

Yipee!

[quakerboy]

135. Don't hit anyone who isnt hitting you.

And probably dont hit anyone who is hitting you.

And dont make excuses for anyone else who does.

And then your probably doing the right thing.

Hating women is wrong. I suspect that hating any non-optional group is wrong.

[niyad]

139. k and r + several gazillion.

[ann---]

176. That's quite a lot of

exaggeration. The ones who exhibited HATE towards a woman were Ray Rice - and the NFL gang that covered it up.