Roissy Rocks.

He’s got two recent posts that are made of win. Well, most of his posts are made of win, but these especially.

There’s today’s: Great Scenes Of Game In The Movies, where he posts a clip of Cary Grant putting his palm into Katharine Hepburn’s face and shoving her onto the floor. In the end, they get together.

Roissy rants a bit about how most men these days don’t have the balls to confront women, especially not physically, even in the harmless way it’s done in the movie clip, where she’s not at all hurt, only embarrassed. And outside of elementary school classrooms, he’s right. But this made me think of a couple of things.

If you go to the post and watch the clip, you’ll see that first Cary Grant pulls back his fist as if he’s going to punch her, but immediately stops himself and instead puts his hand on her face and gives her a shove. I think the dramatic purpose here was to remind Hepburn’s character as well as the audience of who is the truly powerful one here, and then to show us that the hero is in control of himself, but it is only because of his self-control that she is spared a punch in the jaw after having provoked him so much.

If movies of the time are any indication, it used to be fairly routine for men to give the women in their lives little reminders of the male capacity for violence. Nowadays, a man who shoved a woman to the floor or pushed a grapefruit into her face would be labelled as an “abuser”, which is pretty silly considering the kind of pain men routinely inflict on each other, or that allegedly loving parents inflict on their children. So most men who have the capacity to plan ahead – that is, who can restrain themselves on the spot in order to stay out of jail – are never going to give a woman any such painless indignity.

This is, in fact, a problem. Because feminists, which is most women these days, have no clue what men are like. They either believe that men are monstrous Neanderthals ready to rape and pillage like Genghis Khan at any moment, or that they’re just like women, only hairier. The fact is, women aren’t nearly as violent as men, both because we’re too small and because our hormones don’t motivate us to it. Most female violence that does occur is aimed at helpless targets, such as children or civilized men who won’t fight back (see the “Battered Men” links in my sidebar), and we all know that women are capable of a lot of nonphysical sadism.

So by sheltering women from the usual social customs that used to restrain women from provoking violent retaliation that they couldn’t handle, and the unpleasant but harmless reminders like in that movie clip that men are capable of violence, we’re basically telling women a lie, that they can provoke men all they want and not expect a physical assault when eventually some man’s had enough.

Camille Paglia is often crazy, but she understands this. Some years ago, she told an interviewer about a woman who led her on to believe she was going to sleep with Paglia (who’s bisexual), then changed her mind when it came to the crunch. Paglia said, “I wanted to hit her. If I had been a man, I would have hit her.” The interviewer, no doubt shocked, said, “Would you have been right to hit her?” Paglia replied, “That’s not the point. The point is that I would have.”

Remember when I posted about the Errant Wife a while back? She quoted someone as pointing out that her kind of behavior is likely to provoke some men to kill their unfaithful wives, and she commented, “Seriously?” Is she not aware that infidelity has been one of the leading motives for murder from time immemorial? Does she not understand that a proper marriage is one of the rewards society offers men for restraining their antisocial impulses? No, silly me, of course she doesn’t. Probably she, like most feminists, believes that men commit violent acts because society has brainwashed them into believing that this is how they prove their manhood. Has nothing at all to do with their inherent testosterone or neural structure, no sir. Force all boys to spend their childhoods locked up with silly women who tell them about warm fuzzies and cold pricklies and they’ll grow up to be as pacifist and nurturing as women!

(Exercise: look at the crime rate since boys were subjected to that kind of training.)

I’m not saying that men don’t have any responsibility to control their violent impulses. Of course they do. But actions have consequences. Friends should be loyal to you through thick and thin, but if you keep saying nasty things to your friends and telling their secrets to others, eventually they’ll kick you out of their lives. Children should obey their parents, but if their parents regularly abuse them, it’s more than likely that once they’re big enough, they’ll one day get fed up and brain Mom and Dad with the toaster. If you keep on violating hardwired principles, there will be consequences, later if not sooner. Sure, in a civilized society the man you’ve treated so shabbily will be put in prison for beating or killing you, but how much good will that do you? You’re already dead. Or in traction.

The women I’ve posted about recently, who thought they could go to Taliban-controlled countries unmolested, would probably not have gone through what they did if a couple of their boyfriends had applied a grapefruit to their faces or put their fist through the drywall, as one of Roissy’s commenters suggested.

In related news: Men Are Hard-Wired to Suspect Infidelity

Roissy’s post has, at this moment, 117 comments. I’ve only read about the first ten, but two of those defend Roissy’s charge that most “beta males” today are too afraid of women to shove her onto the floor as Cary Grant did. One called Z says:

I also honestly believe if it weren’t for what modern prison is (gang beatings and gang-rapes of non-underclass non-gang member men by connected lifetime-underlcass thugs) thatt you’d be very suprised at how assertive beta males would be. They dont fear women at all. They fear prison and the wrecking of their lives professionally and financailly that would be imposed upon them by the state upon their release (try to get a decent job if you have been in the joint and have to state that on an application) . They also fear the incident’s record abetting the taking of their children at any divorce proceedings. If knocking out a few of your girlfriend’s/wife’s teeth were only punished by having to work on road-work crews during weekends for 12 hour shifts for one year, or some other non-penal penalty that didn’t affect a man’s employment ($5,000 fine perhaps?), but simply made him work it off for 4-500 hours, dentists would be quite busy (and plastic surgeons) fixing knocked out teeth and broken jaws. Women have -no idea- how violent merely ordinary men can be when not restrained by the state’s *truly* cruel and unusual (HIV from prison rape) countermeasures actually are.

Completely true. Draconian laws that allow men to be jailed for obviously trivial or imaginary “abuse” is a big part of what allows women to get away with the outrageous behavior this blog is devoted to venting about.

The other Roissy post I want to share is The Self-Made Beta. He relates having spotted a beta male talking to a sexily clad young woman, not flirting or in any way acknowledging that she was obviously out to attract men, because he knew she wasn’t the kind of man she was hoping to ensnare.

Here is my call to arms. I believe it is every man’s duty to impolitely flirt and pass sexual judgement on each attractive woman who crosses his path. I believe it is every man’s right, no matter what his age, to refuse to apologize for his natural desires, to make no excuses for his deviant wants, and to grab any opportunity to hit on women in his field of view. I believe it is every man’s mission statement at birth to disturb a woman’s banal self-satisfied sanctuary — her cultivated immunity from unsettling intrusions of the psychologically erectile form – whenever she cavalierly insults his primal urges with naive overtures toward tepid, desexualized friendliness. I believe in all this because a man is happiest when he is demonstrating by his actions a proper respect for his masculine prerogative. I want there to be no mental safe haven for sexually enticing women in public places where men are present. I want them forced to confront what men are truly feeling and visualizing underneath their threadbare civility, and to understand there is no walling off the ever-encroaching predatory chaos of the jungle. I want them to be psychologically groped, everywhere there are men like me at ease with our voracious sexuality.

Lately it seems that I have been seeing a lot of feminists protesting the idea that wearing sexy clothes makes men think about sex. I grant you this is counterintuitive. (Note: irony.) There’s Isis the Scientist, insisting that women who wear brightly colored spike heels shouldn’t have to endure the horror of men lusting after them, for example.

Then there’s a female friend of mine, a mostly intelligent and sane person, but her head has been filled with the usual feminist claptrap. Naturally, she knows nothing of my own convictions. She keeps quoting very reasonable articles by men saying, “I wish women would stop wearing miniskirts and plunging necklines to the office and then claim I’m sexually harassing them when I can’t help looking,” and then denouncing these demonic men for not controlling themselves more.

Maybe I shouldn’t be quite so hard on her. Like I was saying above, feminists have no clue what men are really like. As a lesbian, I have more insight; I have some male qualities, so I understand the other sex better. I know what it’s like to see sexily dressed women in public places and have to restrain my ogling. I used to be very annoyed because a moderately attractive woman I worked with often wore tight, short skirts to the office, which was very distracting in an environment where I was supposed to be thinking about business stuff, not about sex. She was only somewhat attractive, and had she dressed properly I never would have had any such thoughts about her, but her inappropriate attire made her sexy.

Now, if I see a pretty girl in a skirt that covers her knees and isn’t too tight and a shirt that isn’t clinging and doesn’t show much cleavage, I’ll enjoy the sight. But put that same girl in tight clothing that shows more skin, and I’ll be fantasizing about going Conan on her before I’ve had time to blink. There is a definite difference. And if the effects are that different for a dyke, what must it be like for someone with six or seven times as much testosterone as I have?

And by the way, lesbians who wear makeup or feminine clothing take a lot of flak for it from other dykes. Never mind if it’s just their personal inclination; they get accused of “wanting to be attractive to men”. In the gay community, a man who wears makeup and dresses will get much more acceptance than a woman who does. My point here is, since lesbians don’t want to attract men, most of them very sensibly dress in such a way as to discourage it. Who knows what they would say if I quoted some of the articles my straight friend has been denouncing, but in their hearts, they know the truth about how men work. Go to any lesbian bar or other gathering and most of the women will be wearing jeans or even overalls, baggy shirts, no makeup, short hair, construction boots or Birkenstocks, etc. There are exceptions, but that’s how most dykes dress. Some of us will even allow ourselves to become obese to make ourselves unattractive to men – this is unconscious, but I do think it’s a big part of the reason. We know perfectly well that if we put on the spike heels and the tight clothes, men will lust after us.

I call myself a misogynist, but it’s feminists who keep putting women in harm’s way by lying to them about what men are like. I’m offering women a chance at a decent life by remembering a few simple facts:

1. Men are capable of violence. Push them too far and you will experience this.
2. Wearing sexy clothes will make men lust after you. Honest. This is not an old wives’ tale.
3. Your behavior has consequences. You cannot count on 100% of men to have infinite self-restraint.

Advertisements

33 Responses to “Roissy Rocks.”

  1. Alphadominance Says:

    It always shocks me that women will be only too happy to punch a guy but then be shocked if he'd hit her back. I could care less what gender someone has, if they hit me they're gonna get a broken jaw. What absurd hubris. I do think we need to move toward the latin model of gratuitously calling attention to women who dressy like sluts. They're asking for it.

  2. Alphadominance Says:

    It always shocks me that women will be only too happy to punch a guy but then be shocked if he'd hit her back. I could care less what gender someone has, if they hit me they're gonna get a broken jaw. What absurd hubris. I do think we need to move toward the latin model of gratuitously calling attention to women who dressy like sluts. They're asking for it.

  3. Alphadominance Says:

    It always shocks me that women will be only too happy to punch a guy but then be shocked if he'd hit her back. I could care less what gender someone has, if they hit me they're gonna get a broken jaw. What absurd hubris. I do think we need to move toward the latin model of gratuitously calling attention to women who dressy like sluts. They're asking for it.

  4. Alphadominance Says:

    It always shocks me that women will be only too happy to punch a guy but then be shocked if he'd hit her back. I could care less what gender someone has, if they hit me they're gonna get a broken jaw. What absurd hubris. I do think we need to move toward the latin model of gratuitously calling attention to women who dressy like sluts. They're asking for it.

  5. Derek Says:

    All this reminds me belting my sister in the nose back when I was 11-12 and she was 8 or so. I was home sick with the chicken pox and down to my underwear (much to itchy for clothes) watching TV.

    She came in with her friend and proceeded to make fun of me being in my underwear. As a kid I simply did what was natural. I socked her in the nose and that stopped her from berating me. I immediately felt horrible and apologized.

    The long and short of it she got a bloody nose, I was grounded for 3 weeks and she never fails to point out I was an ass to hit her. She always brings it up and I spent the next 12 years or so apologizing for it every time she brought it up.

    Couple of years ago she was again bitching about it I thought, what could I have done differently? She attacked me with something I can't fight with (words, verbal abuse) and I reacted in a very natural way.

    I find it sad that I spent so many years apologizing for such a minor thing when in reality, she had it coming. I was trained from and early age that you have to take abuse from girls and women and not attack back in the way that is most natural for men.

  6. Derek Says:

    All this reminds me belting my sister in the nose back when I was 11-12 and she was 8 or so. I was home sick with the chicken pox and down to my underwear (much to itchy for clothes) watching TV.

    She came in with her friend and proceeded to make fun of me being in my underwear. As a kid I simply did what was natural. I socked her in the nose and that stopped her from berating me. I immediately felt horrible and apologized.

    The long and short of it she got a bloody nose, I was grounded for 3 weeks and she never fails to point out I was an ass to hit her. She always brings it up and I spent the next 12 years or so apologizing for it every time she brought it up.

    Couple of years ago she was again bitching about it I thought, what could I have done differently? She attacked me with something I can't fight with (words, verbal abuse) and I reacted in a very natural way.

    I find it sad that I spent so many years apologizing for such a minor thing when in reality, she had it coming. I was trained from and early age that you have to take abuse from girls and women and not attack back in the way that is most natural for men.

  7. Derek Says:

    All this reminds me belting my sister in the nose back when I was 11-12 and she was 8 or so. I was home sick with the chicken pox and down to my underwear (much to itchy for clothes) watching TV.

    She came in with her friend and proceeded to make fun of me being in my underwear. As a kid I simply did what was natural. I socked her in the nose and that stopped her from berating me. I immediately felt horrible and apologized.

    The long and short of it she got a bloody nose, I was grounded for 3 weeks and she never fails to point out I was an ass to hit her. She always brings it up and I spent the next 12 years or so apologizing for it every time she brought it up.

    Couple of years ago she was again bitching about it I thought, what could I have done differently? She attacked me with something I can't fight with (words, verbal abuse) and I reacted in a very natural way.

    I find it sad that I spent so many years apologizing for such a minor thing when in reality, she had it coming. I was trained from and early age that you have to take abuse from girls and women and not attack back in the way that is most natural for men.

  8. Derek Says:

    All this reminds me belting my sister in the nose back when I was 11-12 and she was 8 or so. I was home sick with the chicken pox and down to my underwear (much to itchy for clothes) watching TV.

    She came in with her friend and proceeded to make fun of me being in my underwear. As a kid I simply did what was natural. I socked her in the nose and that stopped her from berating me. I immediately felt horrible and apologized.

    The long and short of it she got a bloody nose, I was grounded for 3 weeks and she never fails to point out I was an ass to hit her. She always brings it up and I spent the next 12 years or so apologizing for it every time she brought it up.

    Couple of years ago she was again bitching about it I thought, what could I have done differently? She attacked me with something I can't fight with (words, verbal abuse) and I reacted in a very natural way.

    I find it sad that I spent so many years apologizing for such a minor thing when in reality, she had it coming. I was trained from and early age that you have to take abuse from girls and women and not attack back in the way that is most natural for men.

  9. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    And see, I've never presumed that I had the right to smack men around, because I figured it was dishonorable to take advantage of the taboo on men hitting women back. Your parents were right to punish you, of course, but you hardly needed to spend years apologizing.

    A couple of the antifeminist books I've reviewed mention that thanks to feminism, women use the weapons of emotional and verbal attack against men, and this is especially bad because men just don't have the same knack with these weapons, and they can't use their own weapons (violence) to defend themselves.

  10. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    And see, I've never presumed that I had the right to smack men around, because I figured it was dishonorable to take advantage of the taboo on men hitting women back. Your parents were right to punish you, of course, but you hardly needed to spend years apologizing.

    A couple of the antifeminist books I've reviewed mention that thanks to feminism, women use the weapons of emotional and verbal attack against men, and this is especially bad because men just don't have the same knack with these weapons, and they can't use their own weapons (violence) to defend themselves.

  11. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    And see, I've never presumed that I had the right to smack men around, because I figured it was dishonorable to take advantage of the taboo on men hitting women back. Your parents were right to punish you, of course, but you hardly needed to spend years apologizing.

    A couple of the antifeminist books I've reviewed mention that thanks to feminism, women use the weapons of emotional and verbal attack against men, and this is especially bad because men just don't have the same knack with these weapons, and they can't use their own weapons (violence) to defend themselves.

  12. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    And see, I've never presumed that I had the right to smack men around, because I figured it was dishonorable to take advantage of the taboo on men hitting women back. Your parents were right to punish you, of course, but you hardly needed to spend years apologizing.

    A couple of the antifeminist books I've reviewed mention that thanks to feminism, women use the weapons of emotional and verbal attack against men, and this is especially bad because men just don't have the same knack with these weapons, and they can't use their own weapons (violence) to defend themselves.

  13. MarkyMark Says:

    FM,

    That was GOLD! That was good stuff! I might post that over on my blog…

    MarkyMark

  14. MarkyMark Says:

    FM,

    That was GOLD! That was good stuff! I might post that over on my blog…

    MarkyMark

  15. MarkyMark Says:

    FM,

    That was GOLD! That was good stuff! I might post that over on my blog…

    MarkyMark

  16. MarkyMark Says:

    FM,

    That was GOLD! That was good stuff! I might post that over on my blog…

    MarkyMark

  17. The_Editrix Says:

    I think I could respect feminists if they were able and willing to REALLY compete with men on a par. Look at "our" Angela Merkel. She has a doctorate in physics, one of those "hard" topics mostly shunned by women. She dresses neither butch nor markedly feminine (no exposed cleavage at work), she never draws attention to herself, she gives the impression that she thinks she has a job to do. And she never ever gives the impression either that feminism is something she finds worth discussing. But she is as rare as hen's teeth and that is only natural.

    Fact is, feminists are, like the majority of women, vain, shallow, footling, lacking the ability to form coherent and objective thoughts, and attention-seeking — just worse. I repeat: They are neither able nor do they want to compete with men on a par.

    Disclaimer: This is a purely personal assessment. I neither condone nor support Merkel's politics.

  18. The_Editrix Says:

    I think I could respect feminists if they were able and willing to REALLY compete with men on a par. Look at "our" Angela Merkel. She has a doctorate in physics, one of those "hard" topics mostly shunned by women. She dresses neither butch nor markedly feminine (no exposed cleavage at work), she never draws attention to herself, she gives the impression that she thinks she has a job to do. And she never ever gives the impression either that feminism is something she finds worth discussing. But she is as rare as hen's teeth and that is only natural.

    Fact is, feminists are, like the majority of women, vain, shallow, footling, lacking the ability to form coherent and objective thoughts, and attention-seeking — just worse. I repeat: They are neither able nor do they want to compete with men on a par.

    Disclaimer: This is a purely personal assessment. I neither condone nor support Merkel's politics.

  19. The_Editrix Says:

    I think I could respect feminists if they were able and willing to REALLY compete with men on a par. Look at "our" Angela Merkel. She has a doctorate in physics, one of those "hard" topics mostly shunned by women. She dresses neither butch nor markedly feminine (no exposed cleavage at work), she never draws attention to herself, she gives the impression that she thinks she has a job to do. And she never ever gives the impression either that feminism is something she finds worth discussing. But she is as rare as hen's teeth and that is only natural.

    Fact is, feminists are, like the majority of women, vain, shallow, footling, lacking the ability to form coherent and objective thoughts, and attention-seeking — just worse. I repeat: They are neither able nor do they want to compete with men on a par.

    Disclaimer: This is a purely personal assessment. I neither condone nor support Merkel's politics.

  20. The_Editrix Says:

    I think I could respect feminists if they were able and willing to REALLY compete with men on a par. Look at "our" Angela Merkel. She has a doctorate in physics, one of those "hard" topics mostly shunned by women. She dresses neither butch nor markedly feminine (no exposed cleavage at work), she never draws attention to herself, she gives the impression that she thinks she has a job to do. And she never ever gives the impression either that feminism is something she finds worth discussing. But she is as rare as hen's teeth and that is only natural.

    Fact is, feminists are, like the majority of women, vain, shallow, footling, lacking the ability to form coherent and objective thoughts, and attention-seeking — just worse. I repeat: They are neither able nor do they want to compete with men on a par.

    Disclaimer: This is a purely personal assessment. I neither condone nor support Merkel's politics.

  21. The_Editrix Says:

    I just watched again John Ford's cavalry trilogy. I have that "thing" for strong men in uniform, probably because I am insecure and self-loathing. It's a German edition, three DVDs in a box. On one of them is, as an "extra", a feature produced by the German public TV channel ZDF about John Wayne not too long before his death. It contains each and every anti-American cliché in the German book, not to speak from the feminist and leftist ones. They let Wayne look like an idiot in an interview and only those people talk at length (except Howard Hawks) who had to say not too many kind things about him. The other exception was Maureen O'Hara because, I suspect, the idiot woman (Yes, a woman was responsible for all that!) didn't twig the implications. When asked about Wayne's (negative) "superman-image" O'Hara replied sweetly (I quote from memory): "But a superman is the easiest, sweetest man. It's the complicated, weird ones who are difficult and get nasty." She very politely reminded the interviewer as well that they were actually ACTING in "The Quiet Man" and that Wayne wasn't really mistreating her. The filmmaker stated that it (the violence in "The Quiet Man") probably was what "both men" (Ford and Wayne) liked, insinuating sexual perversion.

    I am being dead serious if I say that I am amazed that Shakespeare's "Taming of The Shrew" has not yet been banned.

    No wonder that women grow up with such a warped image of reality. Those who were toddlers when that vile little feature was made are now in their early thirties.

  22. The_Editrix Says:

    I just watched again John Ford's cavalry trilogy. I have that "thing" for strong men in uniform, probably because I am insecure and self-loathing. It's a German edition, three DVDs in a box. On one of them is, as an "extra", a feature produced by the German public TV channel ZDF about John Wayne not too long before his death. It contains each and every anti-American cliché in the German book, not to speak from the feminist and leftist ones. They let Wayne look like an idiot in an interview and only those people talk at length (except Howard Hawks) who had to say not too many kind things about him. The other exception was Maureen O'Hara because, I suspect, the idiot woman (Yes, a woman was responsible for all that!) didn't twig the implications. When asked about Wayne's (negative) "superman-image" O'Hara replied sweetly (I quote from memory): "But a superman is the easiest, sweetest man. It's the complicated, weird ones who are difficult and get nasty." She very politely reminded the interviewer as well that they were actually ACTING in "The Quiet Man" and that Wayne wasn't really mistreating her. The filmmaker stated that it (the violence in "The Quiet Man") probably was what "both men" (Ford and Wayne) liked, insinuating sexual perversion.

    I am being dead serious if I say that I am amazed that Shakespeare's "Taming of The Shrew" has not yet been banned.

    No wonder that women grow up with such a warped image of reality. Those who were toddlers when that vile little feature was made are now in their early thirties.

  23. The_Editrix Says:

    I just watched again John Ford's cavalry trilogy. I have that "thing" for strong men in uniform, probably because I am insecure and self-loathing. It's a German edition, three DVDs in a box. On one of them is, as an "extra", a feature produced by the German public TV channel ZDF about John Wayne not too long before his death. It contains each and every anti-American cliché in the German book, not to speak from the feminist and leftist ones. They let Wayne look like an idiot in an interview and only those people talk at length (except Howard Hawks) who had to say not too many kind things about him. The other exception was Maureen O'Hara because, I suspect, the idiot woman (Yes, a woman was responsible for all that!) didn't twig the implications. When asked about Wayne's (negative) "superman-image" O'Hara replied sweetly (I quote from memory): "But a superman is the easiest, sweetest man. It's the complicated, weird ones who are difficult and get nasty." She very politely reminded the interviewer as well that they were actually ACTING in "The Quiet Man" and that Wayne wasn't really mistreating her. The filmmaker stated that it (the violence in "The Quiet Man") probably was what "both men" (Ford and Wayne) liked, insinuating sexual perversion.

    I am being dead serious if I say that I am amazed that Shakespeare's "Taming of The Shrew" has not yet been banned.

    No wonder that women grow up with such a warped image of reality. Those who were toddlers when that vile little feature was made are now in their early thirties.

  24. The_Editrix Says:

    I just watched again John Ford's cavalry trilogy. I have that "thing" for strong men in uniform, probably because I am insecure and self-loathing. It's a German edition, three DVDs in a box. On one of them is, as an "extra", a feature produced by the German public TV channel ZDF about John Wayne not too long before his death. It contains each and every anti-American cliché in the German book, not to speak from the feminist and leftist ones. They let Wayne look like an idiot in an interview and only those people talk at length (except Howard Hawks) who had to say not too many kind things about him. The other exception was Maureen O'Hara because, I suspect, the idiot woman (Yes, a woman was responsible for all that!) didn't twig the implications. When asked about Wayne's (negative) "superman-image" O'Hara replied sweetly (I quote from memory): "But a superman is the easiest, sweetest man. It's the complicated, weird ones who are difficult and get nasty." She very politely reminded the interviewer as well that they were actually ACTING in "The Quiet Man" and that Wayne wasn't really mistreating her. The filmmaker stated that it (the violence in "The Quiet Man") probably was what "both men" (Ford and Wayne) liked, insinuating sexual perversion.

    I am being dead serious if I say that I am amazed that Shakespeare's "Taming of The Shrew" has not yet been banned.

    No wonder that women grow up with such a warped image of reality. Those who were toddlers when that vile little feature was made are now in their early thirties.

  25. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    I have that "thing" for strong men in uniform, probably because I am insecure and self-loathing.

    I LOL'd!

    And I'm so glad Maureen O'Hara contributed some sensible remarks. Does my heart good.

  26. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    I have that "thing" for strong men in uniform, probably because I am insecure and self-loathing.

    I LOL'd!

    And I'm so glad Maureen O'Hara contributed some sensible remarks. Does my heart good.

  27. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    I have that "thing" for strong men in uniform, probably because I am insecure and self-loathing.

    I LOL'd!

    And I'm so glad Maureen O'Hara contributed some sensible remarks. Does my heart good.

  28. Male Chauvinist Woman Says:

    I have that "thing" for strong men in uniform, probably because I am insecure and self-loathing.

    I LOL'd!

    And I'm so glad Maureen O'Hara contributed some sensible remarks. Does my heart good.

  29. The_Editrix Says:

    "I LOL'd!"

    You were supposed to!

  30. The_Editrix Says:

    "I LOL'd!"

    You were supposed to!

  31. The_Editrix Says:

    "I LOL'd!"

    You were supposed to!

  32. The_Editrix Says:

    "I LOL'd!"

    You were supposed to!

  33. xacidx99 Says:

    I agree that women should NEVER strike a man just because “she can” and if she does, she should expect violence in return.

    However, your post seems to make it acceptable and even heroic for grown adults to hit eachother. There is no excuse for attacking your partner over cheating, lying, relationship issues, etc.

    An adult whether male or female DESERVES to sit in jail for abusing their partner. Whether it’s a shove, throwing something, a slap across the face, or an actual punch….it should be treated seriously. Men who hit women ARE cowards. Women who hit men are children.

    There is no time that you can blame someone else for becoming physical in a domestic relationship (outside of self-defense). You cannot “make someone angry enough…..” to hit.

    Adults are responsible for having control over their reactions and if they choose to become violent, it’s a CHOICE and if they make that choice, they deserve punishment. Period.

    Basically your post reads as “boys will be boys” which is total horseshit. You can add all the sunshine on top of it like Cary Grant if you want to, but no real man needs to be violent to make his point. If he does, he’s lacking in important areas of life and character.

    You’re excusing the behavior of adult men in your tone here. If all adults were allowed to give into their natural impulses, we’d be back in barbaric times. Rape, murder, violence, and addiction would be even more rampant.

    We all have “instincts” to act a certain way, but that does not make them natural, healthy, or beneficial to anyone just because it gets the job done.

    It’s like saying that doing Cocaine is fine BECAUSE IT WORKS. Doesn’t mean that there is any good that comes out of it.

    Adult domestic violence is an excuse for a person to not take responsibility for their actions. Hormones and biology are no excuse for actions that affect another person. Only children live that way and that is why they need an adult to guide them.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: