Because.

The last time I played with Lego must have been 10 years ago, we still find lego around the house. Mostly in the dark when you have to piss.

Living with the parents, fuck yeah

 

I'm not a fighter to begin with, but I have grown up around some rough men and I learned a very valuable colloquialism from them- don't poke the bear. Once a punch is thrown, you're in a fight and you deserve what you have coming to you, regarless of who is more likely to win. If I spit in the face of a biker, I would do it knowing that was about to likely take the beating of my life. This is one of the many reasons why I don't go around spitting on bikers. I do not see how the above is any different for a 100 lb. woman who throws punches at a significantly larger and stronger male.

*I chose jab specifically because jabs are not likely to destroy anyone. A jab will surprise someone, however, and a good one makes people not want to fight anymore.

 

See, that was part of my (unexplained) rationale for not cleaning my room too much. Since I didn't have a lock on my door for the longest time, and my sister had a major double standard about entering other's rooms or taking other people's stuff, I found it handy to leave a few laying around. As a bonus, I have very light/quiet steps, despite being 6'4 and 240lbs.

 

I would think the answer here is obvious.

If Tiger is getting attacked by his wife, I think most people would assume that he's not in any real significant danger, and he can probably handle the situation himself until she calms down and stops being violent. Now if the reverse were to happen, his wife would likely find herself in much more significant physical danger, and it would be more necessary for other people to step in. (Of course that's not always true and there are times when female on male violence gets out of hand and tragedies like what happened to Steve Mcnair happen, but that's much more rare.)

The point I'm trying to make is that, it's not the same. A woman beating up a man, in most cases, is doing so because the man cares too much to fight back. I hate to put it in these terms, but for lack of a better way... hes almost voluntarily taking the abuse. Whereas when a girl's boyfriend decides to throw her around her options are much more limited, and that's why it's a much bigger problem.

 

The problem that arises from this is that people pick and choose when to use this rationale. In this case people will say physical abuse by a male is more likely to cause harm, but ten minutes later you'll get yelled at because "oh you don't think I can do that just because I'm a woman." As with most things people pick and choose when to apply different rationales to support their side of the argument.

 

I might have the facts wrong (as I don't really give a shit about celebrity gossip), but wasn't she pretty much trying to swing a golf club at his head? A child could do some serious damage with that, let alone a strong healthy woman. In such cases I think we should show due consideration for level of damage she could have wrought. Unless of course, Woods was also armed with a club and was about to duel her.

The fact of the matter is that even if women are generally less physically strong than men, they can still do a lot of damage if they so choose. Instances of abuse should be treated equally no matter what the source, particularly since what makes a long term abusive relationship so terrible is the emotional abuse that comes with it (people often feel trapped in these situations). The power to manipulate someone like that is available to both sexes. This is a double standard that should be done away with.

 

One time I got pissed at my dad for throwing out my Nerf Boomerang (they rocked) so I flipped the cheap-o plastic hallway runner over so the Nazi-spikes that grip the carpet were sticking straight up instead of underneath.

Yeah, I did that ONCE. And now I still feel it when it rains.

 

Stepping on Legos in the dark is the worst. Somehow your foot always finds one of those impossibly sharp corners.

 

Based on your statements, I'm guessing you haven't spent much time around someone in an abusive situation. I'll make three points on this:

1. The argument I keep seeing again and again with this is that a woman is less likely to cause physical harm than a man in an abusive situation. I'm specifying physical abuse because I'll address other abuse later on. This argument stands up if you have two people bare-knuckle boxing sure, but it discounts one major point: opposable thumbs. Tiger's wife was coming at him with a fucking golf club. When you make the fight a man and his fists vs. a woman with anything she can get her hands on, you level the playing field at least, if not tilting it in her favor. Suddenly the man's ability to walk away from the fight is seriously diminished.

2. Abusers of any kind tend to show a pattern of escalating violence. If she's resorted to golf clubs this time, who's to say that she's not going to pick up something bigger next time, or a gun if it's available? If I knew that somebody's level of anger was already at code level: golf club, I'm sure as shit less likely to do something to up the ante with them.

3. Any time you have a discussion of physical abuse, it's very likely that there is other types of abuse in the mix as well. Male victims of abuse tend to deal with a tremendous amount of psychological and emotional abuse at home as well that's totally different from what women victims deal with. While you're unlikely to see Tiger's wife hold the family income over his head as a way to keep him from leaving the relationship, she could be using the knowledge that accusing him of infidelity (as the media already has done) could almost definitely grant her sole custody of their two children if it went to court. Holding that kind of stuff over his head definitely qualifies as emotional abuse. I'm not even going to begin to go into the possible self-esteem issues that she may have manipulated. Plus, there's a tremendous stigma that comes with admitting that a little ole girl was beating you up or making you feel bad about yourself. The dread of dealing with that kind of stigma in a public way has kept more than one man in an abusive marriage, and that's discounting the fact that Tiger would be dealing with scrutiny in a way that most people are incapable of even imagining.

Domestic violence has a tremendous amount of double standards involved regardless of the sex of the abuser and the victim, but I feel like this is a case where sexism against men is really at play. If Tiger's not a "man enough" to defend himself or just walk away, then, like you said, he's assumed to be "voluntarily taking the abuse", while there's likely a lot more at play than that.

 

I'm going to try and clarify, because I was not trying to make the point that a woman beating a man was not domestic abuse or that it wasn't an awful thing. The point I was trying to make was that female on male domestic abuse is not seen as as serious a situation as male on female abuse, in general, because the abuser-abused dynamics are seen as being fundamentally different. Obviously if the woman uses a weapon she is capable of doing serious physical harm to her partner, that much is inarguable. I'm also purposely ignoring the presence of emotional abuse, because that is a much more complicated subject that I don't want to begin to address here, so I'm focusing on physical abuse. What I was getting at was the reason the double standard came about because of the perception of power in a physical confrontation. The reason that the public is so quick to jump on a Chris Brown, while turning a blind eye to an Elin Nordegren, is the same reason that a male teacher who has sex with his underage female student is perceived as being so much worse than a Mary Kay Letourneau. The standard of victimization is in itself a double standard.

I recently had a good friend call me and tell me that his girlfriend had gotten drunk and hit him. Personally, I didn't feel like he had been victimized physically by this crime because he was more than capable of defending himself if he had wanted to, and instead tried to discuss with him what led to her getting so upset she got physical with him. Had he told me that he got drunk and beat his girlfriend we would have had a much different conversation, and that's where the double standard lies.

If you disagree with me, ask yourself what you would do if your best female friend told you her boyfriend got drunk last night and punched her. Then compare that to what you would do if your best male friend told you his girlfriend got drunk last night and punched him. That difference in perception is the reason the public is not out for Tiger's wife's blood.

 

Yeah, you think it's all fun and games with her until she cuts your dick off at 3AM while you're taking your nap. Bitches are shady. Don't trust them.

 

The reason it's a double standard is because men and women are different. I don't see the physical abuse without weapons as a double standard because of the reasons many people have put forth, I just think they are different situations and should be dealt with as such.
With weapons it becomes a different story because it goes from man beat woman or woman beat man to woman shot man or man shot woman, the results of the two latter situations will be the same usually, therefore judging them differently would be applying a double standard.

 

I don't like stupidity either.

"All black" colleges aren't all black. They are Historically Black Colleges and Universities or HBCUs. All non-black students are encouraged to enroll. Unfortunately many Caucasian, Latino and Asian students choose not to attend HBCUs as millions of dollars of full minority scholarship money available to them go unused every year. It is true, once upon a time (i.e. before 1964) HBCUs were all black, but that was only because at that time black students weren't allowed to attend all white universities like Ole Miss.

So yes, if today in 2010 somebody opened a university that disallowed any group based on race, I'd be standing right behind the ACLU demanding they make it open and available to all, as I hope we all would.

 

You're one of the few people here that I have a great deal of respect towards, so please hear me out.

I'm sure you know I'm not a racist dimwit, but even after 5 years of living in the south I'm still trying to understand the racial divide. I was raised in the west and even though the town I grew up in is semi famous for having the Aryan Nation compound just south of it, everyone pretty much got along. At the very least we were civil towards one another. I've had absolute hatred directed at me for doing something as simple as ordering a cheeseburger. I know you've dealt with this kind of thing your entire life, but when I went through it it really opened my eyes as to how stupid people really are.

It's very different down here and sometimes it makes my head hurt trying to figure out what the hell people are thinking. I've never before been forced to think in terms of race, creed, or color...someone is either a good person or they're not and it doesn't matter their ethnic background.

It really shocked me when I moved down here that certain people hated me right off the bat because of the color of my skin and made all sorts of assumptions about my personality based on my pigmentation.

I'm likely babbling, which after a few years of seeing me post things you should know that I'm prone to do.


Things were just much different where I was raised and I'm still trying to wrap my head around the way things are down here. I was born in the south, but I still don't understand why folks want to separate themselves from others simply because of their genetic make up.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

I like the double standard which allows me to grill steaks while the women of the house make the salads & other non-meat sides, spend all day in the kitchen cleaning & fetching me and my other male relatives beers and then I can spend the rest of the week bragging how I kick ass as a cook and that women don't know anything about how to prepare food because of the wicked job I did standing in front of fire, smashing beers and talking shit.



The hypocrisy of discussions regarding domestic violence do aggravate me somewhat - I've had a girlfriend throw a couple of right crosses to my eye, yet me retaliating by grabbing her and pinning her on the floor until I could see she would no longer attack me made her tell all her friends "what an abusive monster" I was - but the fact I was twice her size meant I could have broken her in half if I chose to do so. Which would have been great as I could have just kept the half with the pussy since the other half talked too god damned much but "snapping bitches in half" doesn't look great on your resume if "with my dick" is missing from the end of it.

I want nothing to do with the discussion about Tiger Woods, though.

 

Double standard on being single

Heres a double standard that changes with age.

A guy in his teenage years/twenties who is a virgin or has never had a girlfriend is considered a loser or in extreme cases, a "faggot" by his peers.

A girl in the same situation is "just saving it" for the right person.

then...

A single/non-married man in his mid thirties isn't anything out of the ordinary,
probably working on his career or business.

A single/non-married woman past the age of 30 is put under immense pressure by family and/or friends depending on the views of the culture that she comes from. Terms such as "old maid" or "cougar" start to get thrown around.

Obviously this double standard has a biological basis with maturity and fertility changes at different ages between the two sexes but its there.