Video of the Day - Excessive Violence?

So I was over at Spearhead earlier and came across a story about two women jumping over the counter at a McDonalds and attacking the cashier. This cashier got his hands on what looks like a metal rod of some sort and beat them to the point that one has a fractured skull. You don't actually see the hits due to them being on the floor and behind the counter but you can hear them screaming so tread carefully. (Sorry for no embed of the video, for some reason I couldn't get the embed code to work.)

My question is this. Bearing in mind that a lot of people will say that when attacked they should fight back should he face the felony assault charges he is staring down the barrel of now? I ask this because if this were a video of an attempted male against female rape I don't think people would be so quick to charge said female no matter how violently she fought back. Should he be charged? Is this a matter of self defense? Would we react differently if the situation were reversed?

Let's talk.

Blog Carnival: Domestic Violence Awareness Month

I came across a link at Clariss's that goes to anytime yoga who is trying to organize a blog carnival for this month being Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

Just though I'd share in case someone wants to chime in on it.

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month: Open Thread

(This is a thread about domestic violence and abuse. Tread carefully.)

As the title says this is a month to recognize victims of domestic violence. Terrible that we even need a month to remind ourselves of things but that's another story. I wasn't sure what type of post to write so I've decided to make an open thread.


Domestic Abuse Help Line for Men and Women
This one has depictions of violence in it.


News Video: Abused Men

Toy Soldier: I've linked him a lot in my posts on violence. Give him a read and check out his side bar for links to sources for support for victims of violence.

Strictly Moderated: October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month: Ozy with her own post on this month. Check out the side bar over there too.

Reinvention of the Wheel: This is a post I did last year about a gender neutral Power and Control Wheel. Unlike the version made famous by The Duluth Model this one actually recognizes that not all domestic violence is male against female.


This one doesn't have any depictions of violence but it is of a victim showing the wounds from the abuse he suffered.

Please come and share your stories, links to lines of support, and anything else on the subject. Well not anything else.

1. Please don't try to question or deny the validity someone else's experiences of DV.

2. Please don't engage in arguing over "who has it worse". The fact that one type of violence may happen more than another does not erase that other type of violence. Victims quite literally come from all walks of life and they all need help.

Should a rape victim have to pay child support?

I put this up over at my place a few days ago and since April is out of the office I'll share it over here in the meantime.

(I'm talking about rape here. Tread carefully.)

I'm in the final stages of studying for a certification exam (tomorrow morning at 11a) but I didn't want this to get lost in my Weekly Mashup.

Kris Bucher is being held up for child support. However he says that he was raped by the mother of the child and should therefore not be held responsible for child support.

Alright we've seen cases before where under aged boys were held up for support of children they had with adult women. Or even worse sometimes said under aged boy's parents would be held responsible to pay it (can you imagine being ordered by a court to pay child support to a woman that statutorily raped your son?). In this case though Kris is saying that the age difference is not the issue (and I'm inclined to agree since he was 17 and she was 18 at the time of conception) but rather that he said no to the sexual encounter that conceived the child.

As a quick reference I've laid out before that a woman can rape a man, so there is no need to try to question that.

The hard part to think about is was he raped (he never pressed charges) and should he be held responsible for supporting a child that was conceived through rape?

I think its pretty obvious that if the genders were reversed and we were talking about a man raping a woman, getting custody, then trying to hold her accountable for child support most people would realize that that would fail as soon as the child was born because who would let a man that raped a woman keep custody of a child that was produced by rape (about the only way I can think of that working is if the fact that it was rape never came up).

Another thing to bear in mind is that so far this is an alleged rape. So there's no conviction to point to.

The best I can say is the outcome of holding him responsible for child support would have to depend on her being put on trial for rape and being found guilty or not guilty. But that's going to be a tough road considering that most people simply don't take rape seriously and even then most of those same people don't even acknowledge that female against male rape can even happen.

Oh and one more thing. Why is she asking for child support when she's already got another guy in her life? And it doesn't help that Kris himself is married to someone else and has become a step dad of two.

So what do you think?

Edit: Clarissa has posted her take on the matter.

I'm not completely buying it

So it would seem that the women of The Talk issues an apology for their commentary last week about Catherine Kieu Becker allegedly drugging her husband, tying him to a bed, chopping off his penis, tossing it in the garbage disposal and turning it on, and then telling the cops "he deserved it". As you recall I was, not happy about that.

Well it looks like either enough people were also not happy about it or those women grew a conscience in the last week.

Here's a link to the apology. (Embedding is disabled.) It starts about about 1:15.

Simply put I'm not fully buying it. Yeah its nice they apologized but hear me out for a bit.

1. She couldn’t start the apology on her own because she was fighting off the urge to laugh, and the crowd was laughing with her. You’d think they ask the audience to be serious. But on the real if you start laughing before you even begin your apology you really shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

2. That apology was so generic you wouldn’t think they were laughing at it because it was a man despite Osbourne even saying that it was "different" because the alleged victim was a man. My money still says if that had been a woman that had her genitals mutilated that 4 minutes of laughter would not have happened in the first place. In fact I bet a few hosts of shows would have even done a "special episode" about domestic violence against women. As someone at NSWATM noted this line of logic basically means that making fun of female rape victims with the implication that rape against women is funny is bad only because you're joking about rape. The problem with their commentary wasn't just they were making fun of genital mutilation. The problem with their commentary was that they were acting under the notion that genital mutilation against men is funny because they're men. That is the conversation that needs to go down.

3. And speaking of that four minutes of laughter one of them gave a sob story about how hard it is to keep the conversation going on a live show. She also said they don’t always say the right thing all the time. Okay I understand no one’s perfect and we say the wrong thing at times but is that supposed to explain or excuse why they went on making fun of that man for FOUR MINUTES. Not 20-30sec, FOUR MINUTES. Can you imagine Dane Cook trying to defend his rape jokes by saying its hard to do live stand up for 10min. and sometimes the wrong thing comes out?

So while I do like that they apologized I'm just not feeling the love. Hopefully Beckers' alleged victim does.

But in the end it does show one thing. If this apology was the result of people sending in letters, complaints, facebook messages, and tweets then it means that there people out there that actually do care about men.

Outing assholes on the internet

A while back, a girl made a Facebook page accusing a guy at her school of being a rapist.

A longer while back, the website Girl Don't Date Him was used not to post pictures of pink bras on large boobs or as a place to house articles (pink ones) about cheating men, but as a place where women could post stories, pictures, and full names of their terrible exes, as a sort of "we're in it together, sisters" warning to other women.

Legitimate guerrilla warfare against injustice, or terrible idea for a million possible reasons? Well, my answer depends partially on whether or not the accusations are true. If a guy gets drunk and turns into a violent psychopath and sprains his girlfriend's wrists and leaves her unable to walk for days and makes her fear for her life, I think he deserves to be called every goddamn name in the book, in public, with everyone imaginable given access to it and made to read it. I think he deserves to pay for his motherfucking terrible actions in all ways possible.

But if I don't know the victim, and I therefore have no reason to believe that either person is lying or telling the truth, I might respond with something like, "Well, this is a very bad idea. It could hurt the victim in court [in the case of rape, domestic assault/abuse, etc.], it could cause hostility toward the accused, who hasn't been convicted of a crime. And also, that's probably illegal in some way or another, as well it should be, if you can imagine being the 'asshole outed on the internet' who is actually innocent. The very nature of such a thing harms the spirit of "innocent until proven guilty."

But when I know the victim, that less vindictive, more rational, more practical side isn't very loud. And then, I only wish I knew how to make a kickass website that everyone would read with pictures and links and addresses and phone numbers and directions to houses.

The unreality of politically-motivated crimes in the Millennial Generation

I was born in 1983, making me too young to remember (or have been alive for) any American political assassination or assassination attempts. Hell, I wasn't even around when John Lennon was killed, and only barely remember Selena's murder, and I couldn't be bothered to care about Nirvana until a couple years after Kurt Cobain's suicide, because when grunge really started to become influential, I was still young enough that I was still listening primarily to whatever my mom played in the car, and hadn't yet started to develop my own musical tastes.

So today, when I saw that a US Congressperson had been deliberately shot on my Twitter feed on my phone this morning, while half asleep, I thought, "oh my god, things are really getting out of control. This shit is scary. The Tea Partiers are inciting violence all over the country. I live a couple of blocks away from the very people who are responsible for Michele Bachmann's continued employment, what if I look too 'progressive' in the checkout at Cub? It's finally come down to it; people like me are going to be targeted as 'the enemy'!"

Then I realized that that's just a little melodramatic, and that in real life, even if people voted for Michele Bachmann, they're more likely to be simply misguided rather than malicious, if one were to attach a judgment to their political ideologies, which I'm wont to do. They'll probably still help you push your car out of a snow bank or let you go ahead of them in line when you only have a head of lettuce and they have a months' worth of groceries in their cart. People aren't that bad, usually. But sometimes, they really are.

I posted a link to (one of) the NPR story(ies) about the shooting on my Facebook page, noting, "This is becoming a scary place." But it's not, really. Becoming one, that is. If it's scary, it's been that way, and we've just had a three-decade or so long break from it. And of course, the years since the assassination attempt on Reagan haven't been free from controversy related to (alleged) political assassinations, but for the most part, they've been free from events that shake our collective trust in our fellow citizens. Until today, I did not consider a politician to be terribly in danger when they walk around in public or hold speaking events or town hall meetings; I expect this of presidents and presidential candidates, and people in higher offices, but I didn't think that a member of the House of Representatives would have to worry for their lives about simply being in public. It's a terrible thing for the future of the accessibility of government, too, as others have noted.

And a lot of people are quick to blame violent Tea Party rhetoric for the motivation behind the shootings, and a lot of other people are quick to condemn those who are doing it because they're supposedly politicizing a terrible, tragic event. In my opinion, which I think is pretty well in line with most people's opinion at this point, the shooting was clearly politically motivated, regardless of the mental state of the suspect, and that makes it open to political analysis and debate. And the claims that Tea Party rhetoric is going too far is completely warranted, in my opinion. Even though Keith Olbermann is being the king of double-standards here*, he explains his views on the shooting, and his insistence that Palin & Co. take responsibility for the possibility that their violent rhetoric was a motivator in the shooting.

My generation, having not yet dealt with the collective blow that happens as a result of the assassination (or attempted assassination) of a political figure, can use this opportunity as a reminder that people can get fucking out of control, which is all the more reason to keep fighting (PEACEFULLY! NON-VIOLENTLY!) for civility and tolerance, as well as accountability, transparency, and access to information.

Tragedies like this don't need to happen, and really, we all know that. None of us needs to be reminded of that. But we can help make sure that they don't keep happening, by leading by example and not contributing to discussions that alienate and ostracize groups of people, people of certain religions, genders, biological sexes, skin colors, sexual orientations, or any other superficial difference. We can encourage our friends and family to stop perpetuating these damaging behaviors, too, and we can actively work toward a more peaceful future. Hopefully, those of us with differences can come together on the point that none of us wants bloodshed to be the way we resolve our differences; there must be a better way.

*more on that later.

Gender and Genitals

Wow its been a while I since I last posted here. With N bowing out I need to make sure April doesn't get discouraged. Here goes.

Okay in kind of in tune with my last post I want to talk about gender and violence but this time instead of rape I want to talk about genitals (as the title says).

I'm going to go straight to the point.

Why is it socially acceptable for a female* to hit a male* in the genitals regardless of the circumstances?

Now I want to start from the get go by saying that I'm not talking about the actual justifiable instances such as fending off an attacker.

I'm talking about how like in the Beverly Hillbillies movie when Ellie Mae Clampett in that wrestling match blatantly hit her opponent in the testicles. I've yet to hear of any high school wrestling association where intentional hits to the genitals were allowed.

I'm talking about all those movies and media where when a female is simply pissed off at a guy she responds by kicking him in the testicles. If he says something she doesn't like kick him in the testicles. If he does something that she doesn't like (but not including physical contact with her person) kick him in the testicles. If she does something as innocent as swing a bag the wrong way and hits him in the testicles she seems to be split between laughing and being concerned for him.

Now some will say that its acceptable because the violence that females commit against males is not taken seriously because of the belief that a female really can't hurt a male but I think there is more to it than that.

The reason I say there is more to it than that is because when a female attacks a male in this manner its often not simply just written off as not serious but said female is actively encouraged and praised for attacking in such a painful manner even when its not called for. (And allow me to assure you. As a person who carries a pair of testicles getting hit in them HURTS A LOT.) Like when Ellie Mae stomped on her opponents testicles during that match all you hear from the crowd is the "oooooo!" and then praise for her winning the match, despite using very dirty moves.

Now given how she performed in that match I think it was pretty clear that she was on par with him. So why is such an attacked allowed to go unquestioned?

Maybe it has something to do with being a "real man" (as The System says that those who carry testicles must be men but that's another story for another day) meaning not responding to pain so therefore if a male doubles over after such a hit its a sign of his weakness aka proof that he is not a man and thus the greenlight to ridicule him lights up. Ergo when Ellie Mae won that match, even with illegal moves, it was still passed off as a humiliation on his part.

Moving on from Ellie Mae look at how a hit to the testicles is often used as a comic device. Need a quick laugh? Hit someone below the belt. And beyond the whole thing about how females can't really hurt males this seems to be a way for a quick random laugh whether its done by a female, male, animal, or inanimate object (extra points if said male does something that causes a chain reaction that ends with a hit to their own genitals).

Are you by chance familiar with America's Funniest Home Videos? It was (or is I'm not sure if its still running) a weekly tv show in which people sent in funny clips in hopes of winning a $25,000 cash prize. You would not believe how many "guy gets hit in the nuts" videos aired on that show during the years. Whether by men, women, children, pets, or fault of their own can you really imagine videos of females getting hit in the genitals being up for cash prizes on prime time television?

So I suppose the question should be:
Why is it that a male* getting hit in the genitals is not just socially acceptable but seen as funny and is encouraged and praised, regardless of the circumstance?

Just wondering.

* - I'm using male and female here instead of boy/man and girl/woman because I'm breaking this down by genitals we carry, not by the presentation that we go by. And for the most part those who carry testicles, those who are made fun of for getting hit there, are male

Gender and TV/Movie Violence

Hey people its Danny again. Its been a few weeks since my last post so let's get to it.

I'll warn you now this post mentions rape. Tread carefully.

Okay recently I've been milling over two posts by Pelle Billing about male disposability. Well one thing that I've noticed about male disposability is that it can and sometimes does lead to the belief that a man's life is worth less than a woman's and from there can lead to the impression that violence against woman is somehow worse than violence against a man.

Case in point I was watching an old western movie called "Five Savage Men". Basically five bandits rob a stagecoach that is carrying a load of gold. When they catch up to it the men are killed immediately and after resisting one of the two women was killed (one of the five bandits was actually on the coach meaning it was an inside job). The other woman was taken hostage. I noticed that as the men on the coach were killed I really didn't feel any concern for their fate. However when the one woman was killed I suddenly cared about the fact that they killed a woman.

After taking the other woman to their camp and after attempting to escape she was chased down and gang raped by the five bandits. Again I felt the expected concern for such a situation. Well like with the killing I began to wonder how I can see a crime be committed against a man and a woman but somehow think that the crime against the woman is somehow worse.

At first I was thinking that desensitization was the answer. On the whole when it comes to seeing murder on tv/movies I frankly I see men killed more often than women.* So maybe the reason I felt more when seeing a woman killed than a man was because I had just gotten used to seeing men killed left and right. Well that really doesn't fly because of two reasons. One even though they aren't killed quite as often as men there are still A LOT of women killed in movies and television. The second reason that thought fails me is that when looking at a crime in that happens to women more often than men I still feel more concern for the female victim.

Let's talk rape for a bit. After being taken to the bandit camp the second woman was gang raped. Now there is no question that when it comes to movies and tv the majority of rape victims are women. Now going by the thought of seeing it so often that it no longer strikes a cord it would stand to reason that seeing a woman raped on tv or in a movie would not illicit much of a response like my reaction to seeing men murdered. But that is not the case. Even comparing that rape scene to say the one in American History X it feels odd to react that way.

For the scene in "Five Savage Men" imagine a camera laying on the ground the five guys doing pushups with their faces going up and down into the camera. The scene ended with showing her unconscious and tied to the ground to five stakes (one on each wrist and ankle and one with her hair tied around it). In American History X two guys are holding him face first against the wall while the rapist penetrates him and you could see everything except the actual penetration itself (I mean as in the four men in this scene were actually naked and the rapist was at least forcefully grinding against his victim giving the allusion of sex). That scene ends with the victim lying on the ground crying with a pool of his blood washing down the drain (it happened in a prison shower). But even with the differing depictions I had more of a response to the scene of the woman being raped.

So I'm left wondering why whether the crime is more likely to happen to a man or woman I'm still inclined to have more of a response to the woman victim.

Any ideas?



* - No I am not trying to say/insinuate/imply or whatever that women are not killed that often in entertainment but frankly men are killed more often. If you look at most of your shows and movies that involve death you'll see it. In fact the movie that made me think of this is a western. I dare you try to say that women are killed more often that men in westerns.

You know what's not okay?

This

Cross Posted

I have received this picture through company email twice in the last 3 days and I think it's worth talking about because of one simple reason.  This goes to show just how people think female against male DV is not just okay but funny.

Yes you can argue that male against female DV happens more often but that does not justify this type of reaction to female against male DV.  You can argue that there are more pictures making light of male against female DV but that does not explain why mainstream media ignores female against male DV and such photos can be openly circulated in the workplace with no problem (and while I don't watch any of the late night shows I'm willing to bet that the likes of Leno and Letterman and their audiences had plenty to laugh at on this week).

Time and time again when there is the slightest hint of female against male violence the immediate reactions are to either say he deserved it and make fun of him, assume that she did it in self defense, or simply stay silent about it because male against female DV is the "real" issue that needs to be dealt with because it happens more often .  Not very much thought goes into why this type of DV happens, what to do about it, or how to help its victims.

You can't expect to make the world safe for everyone when you base your reaction to DV on the who and not the what (which seems to be a common failing in many a discourse).  There is no denying that such treatment of male victims of female abusers is sexist and such treatment is a serious problem.  It silences men who are abused in this manner and it creates excuses to justify the actions of abusive women.