Chivalry and protecting the weak.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

-Attributed to George Orwell

Every time you engage in violence, no matter how small or trivial it may appear to be at the time, it has the potential of escalating into something extraordinarily serious. What is really worth fighting for when you might find yourself spending the rest of your life behind bars, confined to a wheelchair, or trying to dig yourself out of bankruptcy from beneath the crushing weight of a civil lawsuit? It is important to ask yourself, “Is this really worth fighting over?” While in some instances the response could legitimately be “Yes,” more often than not it ought to be “No.”

-The Little Black Book of Violence (H/T Thag)

Our feminized society is horrified by the tendency of men to protect themselves and others using violence.  This comes from the understandable feminine fear of violence combined with a lack of understanding of the realities of violence.  Blogger Delusion Damage addresses the differences in how the sexes understand violence in his post Are You Asking to Get Killed? (link has graphic description of violence):

Those who are furthest removed from violence in their daily lives are the most vulnerable to it when they suddenly run into it on a dark street precisely because they don’t understand it and therefore act stupidly and end up “asking for it” and getting killed. Most churchgoing taxpayers just have no idea how violent people think. Women, especially. If there are any women you give a shit about, you will make sure they know about this stuff. They probably have no clue about any of this, and it may one day save their lives.

Men are usually slightly better prepared. It’s rather difficult for us to get through the mandatory twelve years of school without participating in at least a few scuffles, or at least learning how to avoid them in a male-group dominance hierarchy largely based on the ever-present implicit threat of violence. We at least learn the fundamentals. A woman can go through her entire life without ever as much as punching anyone or getting punched, or even imagining that there exists a threat of running into violence if she behaves badly.

Until that one fateful night when she’s walking to her apartment building through a deserted parking lot and runs into one of the many people who walk the same streets the rest of us walk, but who live a life of violence all day every day.

Women of either sex tend to want to legislate away the possibility of any violence, whether aggressive or defensive.  This pathological fear of all violence (both good and bad) is typically aimed at the potential tools of violence, and the extent of the folly in this regard can be truly breathtaking.

However, this irrational fear of even defensive violence collides with the equally loud demands that men protect women from violence.  The same forces which work so hard to make all good men entirely harmless also demand that good men defend women whenever the need arises.  This gets extremely tricky, because men are also prevented by law and strong social taboo from using violence against women, even to defend themselves or others.  Yet while the taboo against using violence against women is arguably stronger than it has ever been in human history, the historical social restraints against women using or provoking aggressive violence are at their weakest point in human history.

These contradictory rules often put men in truly no win situations, as we saw with the recent highly publicized case of two young black women savagely beating a white transvestite in a McDonalds in Maryland.  The manager of the McDonalds in question has been widely criticized for failing to protect the transvestite from the two women, even though he repeatedly put himself at risk attempting to break up the attack (Warning:  graphic violence):

When I first watched the gut wrenching video the bulk of the comments were condemning the manager for not taking aggressive enough action against the women doing the beating.  After it came out that the victim was a transvestite and not a woman, some of this criticism has died down.  The entire case is like a  PC logic puzzle.  Should a black man use violence against black women who are beating a white woman?  Many saw that scenario and answered yes.  But when the question was Should a black man use violence against black women who are beating a white man dressed as a woman who used the woman’s bathroom?  What if one of the black women is only 14?  Can he use violence against her, or just the one who is 18?   The answer for many was less clear.  I won’t try to solve the entire hierarchy of protected classes riddle this case represents, but hopefully it is painfully clear that the manager in question was expected to make a very complex value and legal judgment in the face of immediate violence and will be given no leeway by those who calmly judge what they think they know about the case at a later date.

When searching on this topic I found one blogger who came down hard with the standard Chivalrous party line (emphasis mine):

To begin with, the manager should have ordered his male employees to stop the girls from beating the victim, and eject the perpetrators. Then, if they persistently returned he should have locked the doors and waited for the police and ambulance if one was needed. The manage also should have stopped the employee from videoing the incident, an act that has since resulted in the employees dismissal. I feel for the owner of this business, because he could very well lose his franchise license with McDonald’s over this whole incident.

My last word on this will be that all the employees who stood back to watch are just as culpable as the girls who did the beating. From the manager on down to the lowly dishwasher who stood around and enjoyed the beating of a man dressed as a woman.

If you are still struggling with what the manager or other male employees should have done, imagine yourself witnessing that scene as a civilian legally licensed to carry a concealed handgun.  You have sufficient violence at your immediate disposal to stop the attack;  would you do so?  Would it be legally wise to do so?  For me and many others the answer is no.  From Ten things you should know about CCW holders:

We don’t think we are cops, spies, or superheroes. We aren’t hoping that somebody tries to rob the convenience store while we are there so we can shoot a criminal. We don’t take it upon ourselves to get involved in situations that are better handled by a 911 call or by simply standing by and being a good witness. We don’t believe our guns give us any authority over our fellow citizens. We also aren’t here to be your unpaid volunteer bodyguard. We’ll be glad to tell you where we trained and point you to some good gun shops if you feel you want to take this kind of responsibility for your personal safety. Except for extraordinary circumstances your business is your business, don’t expect us to help you out of situations you could have avoided.

I’ve framed this deliberately as the choice of using (or at least displaying) deadly force or not, because there is a common misconception that one can use just a little violence in these kinds of situations.  In reality this is seldom true.  Threats of violence only work if you are ready to back them up with real violence.  The manager in the video understood that any use of violence to deter the two women doing the beating would almost certainly have provoked a direct attack against him;  if that happened he would have been forced to either take a beating like the transvestite, or risk legal and career jeopardy by striking the woman and girl in self defense.

Men’s challenge in performing their traditional role as protectors in our feminized society is made even more difficult by the fact that many women now feel justified in provoking and/or antagonizing would be attackers while still demanding the protection of men.  We saw this to a lesser degree with the case of the slutwalks.  Many women passionately argued that men should have no say in the kinds of risky decisions women make;  yet men are still expected to come to their aid if the risks materialize. Again from Delusion Damage:

Most men learn in the schoolyard that there’s a point beyond which it’s not wise to annoy people, but women can sometimes get through their 12 years without acquiring that wisdom. To an outside observer, it can seem like some women just have no self-preservation instinct at all. We’ve all seen a woman just go off like a fire hydrant, running her mouth and spewing out insult after insult at someone who’s visibly getting madder and madder for every second, closer and closer to losing self-control, and yet the stream of bitching just doesn’t stop until eventually the recipient goes over the edge and unleashes a violent outburst. There’s no need to talk about whether short-tempered people “have the right to” get violent when angry – it’s just not going to stop happening no matter who says what. If you want to avoid it, you are going to refrain from pushing them over the edge. That’s it, there is no alternative solution.

The only rational response to this particular form of women’s empowerment is for men to stop feeling a general sense of responsibility to protect women, especially those they don’t have authority over.  This is difficult for men to do however, because of their sense of justice as well as the tendency to see this as a reciprocal act which they would want other men to do for the women they care about.  Tspoon made this case quite well in his comment on my post On gun control and wimpy betas:

Also on another point, that of the expected underwriting of female safety, with that of the males own safety a la :
“If someone hurt me or my mom, he would kill them (not joking in any way — he honestly would find them and remove them from the planet)”

This is a subject that can be approached from more than one angle. Violence gets women wet. Let’s not beat around the bush on that. I’ve been in the company of females who enjoy provoking confrontation in public places, but who then expected that I should bear the fruits of their completely unwarranted aggression toward others. For her entertainment.
Let’s be clear, likely that is not what the writer was referring to. And as a father I know all too well how it is to be protective of daughters.
So yes I’m prepared to underwrite their safety with mine, but like any entity which undertakes to underwrite the risks of another, I have expectations for the behaviour of those I must protect.
Which is where it breaks down somewhat. Outside of my two daughters, it’s been over 20 years since I met or knew a female of whom I knew, without reservation – That I would in fact guarantee her safety as far as I could. Outside of a minor miracle, I have no anticipation of meeting another…

I’ll close with an example I read about on a gun forum several years ago.  One of the regulars on the forum (a very level headed young man) wrote about a conflict he found himself in while walking back from an open air performance with his family and two other couples.  He was legally carrying a concealed handgun, and found himself in a very difficult situation caused by the wife of one of the other men in the group.  While they walked back to their cars on a dark street, a group of thugs were walking behind them loudly talking and cursing amongst themselves.  The woman turned to the thugs and told them to stop cursing and learn some manners, since there were women and children (the gun owner’s son) present.  Many of the men on the forum took a predictable “you go girl” approach, commending the woman for “standing up” to the thugs (which she clearly saw herself as doing).  I and many others saw this differently;  she was creating a situation where the group was at greater risk of violence, and where this man’s son was much more likely to at the very least have the memory of the day when his father was forced to shoot those men.  Fortunately the situation only escalated to verbal threats by the thugs, and all of them were able to get to their cars without incident.

Conclusion

I don’t have a clean cut answer on what men should do given the conflicting expectations being made on them;  each of us must weigh the realities and come to our own decision.  I think Tspoon’s take is the wisest choice, but men need to understand they will still likely face a great deal of criticism if they don’t take on the role of personal bodyguard for today’s empowered women.

So be it.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Chivalry, Feminists, Manliness. Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to Chivalry and protecting the weak.

  1. Anonymous says:

    “For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
    But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country,” when the guns begin to shoot;
    An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
    But Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool – you bet that Tommy sees!”
    –Rudyard Kipling

    And women need to learn that “talk sh*t, spit blood” applies to them and their antics toward other people too (equal rights and all, you know)… maybe they’ll be more appreciative.

  2. PT Barnum says:

    AMERICANS ARE EXTREMELY VIOLENT. 99% of it is socially approved. I imagine this little post is a whine about the lid coming off. Cry me a river. Maybe when police officers go to jail for putting their hands on their guns… threatening to kill you… for “attitude”. And yes, in saner times threatening murder over not immediately handing over your ID would be considered NUTS. Cause that kinda seems like a pretty big escalation of a “disagreement” right there. You would of course point out that police can kill whoever they want. This isn’t violence cause your hamster says it isn’t.

    A lot of women don’t mind men beating on other men one bit. Especially an exciting alpha man… like a police officer… beating on a lesser male. Or shooting him. Cause ya know, once a police officer gets on the scene, he is in control and going to do whatever he wants. Including shooting people he doesn’t like on made up pretexts.

    Or bending her over the car and fucking her. SHE HOPES.

    Women are against Conceal-carried because even non-dominants can have them. They don’t know who to suck up to then. This is very scary. They know they are going to do as they are told with an alpha-dominant, but if even non-dominants have guns, they don’t know who to suck up to.

    On the other hand, the ability to order male family animals to attack men they don’t like is pretty sweet.

    And of course, physically abusing any male child-animal in her care is necessary so the child-animal doesn’t grow up soft.

    As is her right to get physically violent and/or kill any male animal she is dating. What’s the matter, couldn’t handle a girl with a butcher knife? Ha, ha laughs the aww-shucks Conservative.

    She should also be able to have any male animal she doesn’t like severely beaten by the police by claiming rape.

    One the other hand, you know, women don’t like violence. Blah DEE Blah. Women , and you apparently, don’t like the lid on your hyper-violent state coming off.

  3. Country lawyer says:

    There is no legal duty to come to the aid of another unless You put them in jeopardy. Remember police don’t have a duty to resuce and their trained to handle dangerous circumstances, Men should remember that. Always.

    Who gives a damn what other’s think? Men shouldn’t. You want to face criminal charges and have someone like me defend you for several thousands then go rescue morons.

    Women will not become responsible until they are forced to. As you pointed out previously enabling someone, protecting them from their choices is cruel.

    Until women cannot rely upon men to save them from their own stupidity, they will not learn responsibility.

    You want society to change? Men have to do the alpha thing and turn their back and not look back.

  4. PT Barnum says:

    Oh, and one other thing. Delusion Damage post is idiotic. I made fun of it and he refused to publish my mockery because it shows how little he understands how violence in this country actually works. In fact, he understands nothing about it.

    Suffice it to say, that everybody here should know that messing with a “master of violence” who is paid up on his bribes to the Police is a bad idea. Not because you won’t kick his ass… that goes without saying. Its when the police bust down your door for kicking his ass that things begin to become a problem. See your second quote.

    The Jena Six provide a near perfect example of this in action. Admittedly, their “bribe” to the police was nothing more than being socially popular…. and they lost that “protection” when those in charge became annoyed with them. Up until that point, they had good times beating people up and pulling runners to the cops when a “bad person” hurt them.

    99% of violence in this country is socially approved.

  5. Eric says:

    Dalrock:
    I’ve studied martial arts for some time and want to make a brief, somewhat off-topic comment about the use of deadly or violent force. One of the major obstacles to martial arts, CCW training, or self-defense issues of any kind is that, unlike matches or even military combat, the attackers ALWAYS have the element of surprise on their side.
    I bring this up, because I always hear this in connection with mass-shootings. Media types always speculate on what by-standers should or shouldn’t have done; but in real-life, the people attacked lose precious seconds trying to analyse the situation and react to it. The attacker already is moving and operating with a plan; and no amount of training can really correct this, except to minimize the reaction time and formulate an effective counter- attack which can only prevent further damage. In military terms, it’s like the difference between the Battle of Gettysburg and the battle of Pearl Harbor; one is what you’re trained and prepared for and planned; the other is a sneak attack that has to be fought purely on the defensive.
    The point of all this is, we should never be too judgemental about what people do or don’t in these situations.

  6. dragnet says:

    “The only rational response to this particular form of women’s empowerment is for men to stop feeling a general sense of responsibility to protect women, especially those they don’t have authority over.”

    Well and succinctly put. I came to this conclusion sometime ago.

    Yes, it’s going to be hard for men to relinquish the hard-wired impulse to protect & defend women—but this impulse can be gradually unlearned, just like any impulse. I think the first step for many men is to learn to stop deferring to women generally—Game helps with this but sometimes a bit more is required. A couple years ago I decided to stop giving up my seat to women the train (unless they were very pregnant). I then progressed to actively stepping in front of girls to sit down when a seat became free. Initially I was almost crippled by shame and disapproving looks, but once I was able to internalize that there was no concrete penalty for acting in my own interests–even at the expense of the women around me–I was totally fine. This prompted other changes in how I dealt with women, each meeting with some resistance and shame initially…but each time the inevitable endgame was that pursuing my interests at the expense of women incurred no real penalty. And the acquired situational disregard for women has, if anything, enhanced my dating life.

    It’s easy for women to write checks when someone else—usually a man—has to underwrite them. But a lot of this empowerment bullshit would to a screeching halt if enough men had the audacity to force women to bear the full weight of equality. Alleviating yourself of the responsibility to protect women is just that. I think if you can train yourself to stop deferring to women, you are a lot closer to seeing your strength and ability to use violence to defend as a resource to be deployed for you and yours only.

  7. Reality says:

    Well with the nation wide terrorizing rampage being dealt by African Americans on the whole of society just trying to get from point A to point B it’s clear that even leaving the house is taking a huge risk- though the reality hasn’t quite set in yet.

    Consider something else- violence by a male on a female was always considered the worst taboo of all because up until sometime in the 90s women in the western world were mostly relatively normal sized (took care of themselves) and feminine. Since the 90s though, American women especially have blown up to Hulk-like proportions.

    Take for example a normal sized male faced with a 270 pd BUTCH, raging 20 year old bitch – she’s like a rampaging bull!! Why no one ever talks about this is simply beyond me- it’s right there in front of you everyday! It’s the elephant in the room! This also crosses over into the discussion of women battering men- once again, this notion would have been laughable for the most part in say, the 1980′s. Today, looking at these psychotic BEHEMOTH Beasts (with no moral convictions, 0% empathy, 0% accountability, and 100,000% entitlement) it’s not even clear who should be protecting who anymore! You should write an article about this Dalrock. The size and overt Mannishness of today’s U.S. female makes all the difference in the world when discussing women & violence in any context. It’s about time everyone caught up with reality & the 21st century!

    [D: There certainly is a huge disconnect between the presumption that women are always passive and gentle and the reality of the kinds of violent assaults we see women committing. namae nanka's link below is a great example of this.]

  8. Mike43 says:

    First of all, the code of chivalry is a military code. It does not apply to anyone other military personnel. Lastly, as a retired military officer, I would always protect my family and loved ones. Goes without saying, but what about random violence occurring in front of me?
    Tougher question.
    No imminent threat to myself and loved ones, evacuate. Imminent threat, neutralize.
    My first duty is to my family. (I’m retired, remember?) And that includes exposing my self to civil suits, and possible criminal charges. Sorry, my duty lies elsewhere.

    Even though, I always want to run to the sound of gunfire.

  9. jack says:

    Womens’ understanding of the nature and application of all power (including violence) is abysmal in the US and Western Europe.

    They have lived in safety so long, they think that everything can be handled with attitude and sophistry.

    As more men find themselves alone and unwilling to protect women, and as other men find themselves alone and with a propensity to violent behavior, many women will regrettably learn the hard facts about how the world has always functioned.

    Most women are only tough in a tightly controlled environment.

  10. Dalrock says:

    @Mike43
    First of all, the code of chivalry is a military code. It does not apply to anyone other military personnel.

    Hestia has made a similar argument. It certainly started that way, but some time since the expectations have fallen on the average man.

  11. Lugo says:

    Screw those expectations. Every time I have seen a woman being mugged (which is three times) I nodded politely to the mugger and kept right on walking.

  12. namae nanka says:

    where have the vikings gone? (in response to the rapes in Sweden)

    http://www.intercultural.ro/theogs/file/Brave_Girls-Tender_Boys.pdf

    +1 to PT Barnum’s and Reality’s posts.

    “This also crosses over into the discussion of women battering men- once again, this notion would have been laughable for the most part in say, the 1980′s.”

    though I have read accounts of 6′+ men being hit by 5ft something women. Of course not real pounding, but the fear of a simple backhand would have stopped this behavior.

  13. namae nanka says:

    “First of all, the code of chivalry is a military code. It does not apply to anyone other military personnel.”

    Gotta be prepared for the draft…

  14. Paige says:

    I have no use for chivalry. Men should protect their children and perhaps their wives if that is the kind of dynamic that they agreed upon but protecting any woman on the street is a bad bad idea.

    My husband, however, is a bit old-fashioned in this regard and I just pray he doesn’t get his ass sent to jail because one day he decided to play the hero. We don’t live in a world that tolerates heroes so all the men who get their ego-boost from playing that role ought to hang up their capes for their own damn good.

    [D: If men fail to protect a stranger they are accused of being a coward and/or weak. If they take on the legal and physical risk of protecting another they are accused of "playing hero" for an ego boost. As I wrote, it is a no-win situation for men. Best to follow Country Lawyer's advice.]

  15. Paige says:

    I do agree with Country Lawyers advice. When women got the vote and broke the glass ceiling and shrugged off all the societal norms meant to protect them they gave up all the benefits of being a protected class. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too. It is one or the other…if you want to be a protected class (which I don’t actually have a problem with) then allow men to have the bulk of opportunities and privileges in society. If you want equality then accept true equality.

  16. Reality says:

    “You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too.”

    I recently read that the original version of that saying is “have your cake and EVERYONE ELSE’S too.” Which certainly describes Feminism’s insanity.

  17. Bob says:

    The worst, to me, isn’t the armchair generals trying to describe exactly how someone else ought to have acted in an emergency (though that galls me somethin’ fierce). It’s the people saying, “If I were in X situation, I would react by blah blah blah heroics and awesome blah blah…” Some guy claiming “I would straight-up murder anyone who threatened my family,” or some chick saying “Any man tried something, I’d twist his nuts off.” Or, my personal favorite, “If anyone threatened me, my boyfriend would kill him!”

    Never crosses their minds to say, “Unless we were cornered, I would pick up my daughters and carry them away from the danger as fast as I could run,” or “My boyfriend is so good at recognizing and avoiding dangerous situations, and would get me out of their before things escalated!”

    It’s always someone who fails to take into account the possibility that their heroics and awesome will not only fail, but aggravate the situation terribly. And they are always so tied to this self-image of themselves that the best you can do is pray that when something bad does happen, they end up hiding under a table and staying out of everyone’s way.

  18. Höllenhund says:

    I really liked Reality’s comment, LOL

  19. Rum says:

    I would not jump into any situation where someone I did not know was being messed with unless there was clearly a murder about to happen and I could see a really good plan to prevent it. VERY unlikely, however.
    I do concealed carry and I study self defense issues. One conclusion I have come to is that situational awareness or the lack thereof is always the major factor in how things turn out. IMHO, any weapon or fighting skills you might possess should be used only in conjunction with a conscious intent to avoid or escape from dangerous people. Period. More or less.

  20. MarkyMark says:

    If I don’t KNOW the females in question; if they don’t mean something to me; then I will not defend them-end of discussion. Sisters say they can do it themselves? Let them…

  21. MarkyMark says:

    Dragnet,

    I LOVE your approach, man! That’s the way to be. I do the same thing pretty much. Women wanted to be equal? Then, we should give them REAL equality, amen?

    MarkyMark

  22. Badger says:

    Intervening on a stranger’s behalf is madness. Don’t do it. Ever. We’ve talked a lot in the manosphere about white-knighting men who try to “protect” a woman from her abusive partner, it’s common in those cases for the woman to defend her man or even attack the third party outright.

    You really have no idea what the background is to any altercation you walk past on the street.

    And don’t forget that a DA always sees two attackers, not a belligerent and a defender.

  23. CSPB says:

    Situational awareness is very important. Then avoidance, then mental preparation and a open posture that appears non-confrontational, but is actually defensive with the ability to do some damage. The primary goal is always survival, that of yourself and those under your care. Knives are quite scary (guns actually a bit lesser) and you never know if the thug has buddies around and it could be several against you. But the training to react without thinking is very important. Many marital arts trained people are not mentally prepared to react to street situations. It is sudden and there are no rules. If you have never practiced a situation where you are confronted by a knife, gun or multiple assailants, you will freeze and not know what to do. Those with training stand a better chance but know how unpredictable these situations are, so they will avoid, de-escalate or flee, if at all possible.

    An aura of confidence and situational awareness often causes thugs to choose to mess with someone else. It is best to mind your own business. It is subtle, but by not appearing to be an easy target, the majority of situations can be avoided. Obviously not going needlessly into places where violence is more likely, is wise too.

  24. Brian says:

    All of this feminism and violence from women is going to end badly. At some point this “protection” that society has given them is going to fail. (already is IMO) and there is going to be a huge rude (and violent) awakening. The law only applies to people who wish it to apply to them. When there are no other avenues, what else is left? The average out of shape man is stronger than the pretty much the most fit woman. It’s not going to be pretty. when the pendulum swings too far and there is simply no other choice, (as everything else has been “outlawed”) then it is going to snap back.
    The perfect feminist world isn’t going to end in a slow decline, it’s going to end in a violent confrontation and revert way way back to tribalism. (see Africa, Bosnia/Serbia, any middle east country, etc, etc, etc)

  25. Leonidas says:

    “If you are still struggling with what the manager or other male employees should have done, imagine yourself witnessing that scene as a civilian legally licensed to carry a concealed handgun. You have sufficient violence at your immediate disposal to stop the attack; would you do so?”

    In my college years, when I didn’t actually have a concealed carry permit, I might have done so. Now that I actually DO have a concealed carry permit, I’m pretty sure I’d immediately but calmly throw my food away and leave the premises.

  26. namae nanka says:

    “We’ve talked a lot in the manosphere about white-knighting men who try to “protect” a woman from her abusive partner, it’s common in those cases for the woman to defend her man or even attack the third party outright.”

    as this woman finds out in a gender reversal:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1394143/In-terrifying-leading-novelist-Amanda-Craig-describes-random-brutal-attack-left-fearing-shed-blinded.html

  27. Anonymous says:

    Brian said: “The perfect feminist world isn’t going to end in a slow decline, it’s going to end in a violent confrontation and revert way way back to tribalism. (see Africa, Bosnia/Serbia, any middle east country, etc, etc, etc).”

    Yup, pay attention spoiled wenches… we’re goin’ to hell, pack your burqahs. (No offense.)

  28. Anonymous says:

    Uh-oh…

    “‘Slut Walk’ Hits London Streets,” by Marie-Pierre Ferey, AFP via Yahoo! News, 11 Jun 2011

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110611/wl_uk_afp/britainprotestwomensex

    “It’s unusual for us in England to demonstrate like this, but this is too much, what this policeman said,” one protestor expressed, while another went “”I think it’s important that women are not seen as disposable,” adding “I never dress like this in the daytime, of course.”

  29. Looking Glass says:

    I’ve long thought that the elimination of minimal physical violence among men during adolescence is going to take a heavy toll on society. You actually see the results all of the time now. If a situation escalates to violence, the violence is far more severe than it used to be. As much as people don’t think it, there really were rules to guys hitting other guys. It kept the “asshole” quotient to a minimum. But, as there’s no cost to the person for being an asshole anymore in society, the more you’ve seen it happen. The “asshole” is fine until they get that person with an actual short temper, then they suddenly find themselves very dead and wondering why.

    Part of the violence issue, and especially the over-use of Battery charges, comes down to a really simple fact. The “average” man is going to be stronger than any random woman they meet between 80-95% of the time. (I’ve seen stats between 1.5 Standard deviations and 2 standard deviations; so between 80% and 96%; just depends on the study) What this means is that every man, that isn’t physically disabled, is a physical threat to every woman they meet. There are very few women that, sans weapon, are a physical threat to a man. This is why the Feminists push for such over-criminalization of violence. Men are always and forever a physical threat to them. Only the application of “government force” can seemingly limit that issue. (Minus the fact they’re replace a normal man with a government-issued weapon wielding one)

    One side bar to this little fact. Of the recent studies of physically violent relationships, the thing to come out isn’t that there are violent men in relationships; it’s that there is simply violent relationships. But, due to the important physical strength differences between the genders, women simply can’t do that much damage to a guy without a weapon (of any form). But a guy can always do physical damage to a woman. This has lead to a situation that Men have to learn that, if a woman becomes violent, their only option is to call the police. They’re not allowed to return violence for violence, simply due to the fact that more physical damage will show up on the woman. This leads to large evidentiary differences.

    On the issue of how you handle a violent situation: you leave unless otherwise defending kin. It’s just the way it’s got to be from now on, given the way laws are constructed and the way violent situations work. Further, you never resort to violence unless absolutely unavoidable. And if it isn’t avoidable, you better be prepared to eliminate your threats. Most violence is avoidable with situational awareness, but people have to learn what situations will lead to it, which is the crux of the issue.

  30. Anonymous Reader says:

    Good points by Looking Glass and others. For myself, I have decided that those people under my authority get full protection and for everyone else, I’ll be a good witness. If I’d been in that Mcd’s alone, I would have done the same thing the manager did: call the police, and gather video evidence. If I had been there with people under my authority, I would have done as Leonidas suggested, packed up and left. However, I do not go to fast food joints as a rule in part because of the other people who go to them — and I don’t want to be in the middle of someone else’s fight, or a witness to an armed robbery attempt.

    If you carry a concealed firearm, nobody else needs to know. Some in your family will know, and they need to understand that they should never mention it to anyone. That includes most especially in any interactions with thugs or other trouble. The last thing I would want if I were in a stop ‘n rob and a robbery was going down would be someone I know and care about whispering “Use your gun!”, because it marks me as a target. The example Dalrock gave was of bad behavior by thugs being met with stupid behavior by the women in question. If a shooting had actually occurred, there would be witnesses who would testify “Well, those men were talking trash, but those women were trying to get them to start a fight with their talk, too” and the result could put the men who shot in serious legal danger. And that’s leaving aside all the very bad things that could happen, such as one of the thugs having his own gun and shooting someone in the party that was leaving. I’m pretty sure that if one of the children had been hit by a stray bullet, that child’s mother would regret her brave, independent, words for the rest of her life.

    With all the video recording devices in the world today, it is important to act as though there are always witnesses, even if you can’t see any. Someone is just about always looking around any city. This can be useful, though, in the case of being a good witness — and frankly, that’s all I can do for any stranger that is under attack.

    Let’s say I see a man pounding on a woman in a parking lot – is it a robbery, an attempted rape, a drug deal gone bad, a john pissed off at a hooker, two drunks engaging in their usual Friday night fight, a plainclothes police officer trying to arrest a woman on criminal charges, or what? If I get in the middle of a domestic fight, it is very likely one or both willl turn on me – is it worth dying for? I do not think so. Ditto for the pimp and his hooker, or the crack addict and her pusher, or for that matter the robbery attempt. Do I want to deprive those who rely on me of my own self permanently, in order to stop a robbery? That’s a hard one, but I am afraid at this time the answer is “no”. I’ll shout, and I’ll raise a ruckus, and I’ll call 911, and I’ll take pictures if I can, but I’ll do this from behind concealment or better still cover, in case someone decides to shoot at me.

    Ultimately, what Dalrock’s questions boil down to is this: is it worth dying over, or not?

    Women who are strangers to me are not likely to be worth dying over, not in this day and not in this way. I’ll still stop to change tires, I’ll still stop to put out engine fires, I’ll walk someone out to a car in the dark, I’ll still go out of my way to help those in need, but I’m not the personal security service for anyone who is not under my authority as a rule. Nothing personal to anyone, that’s just how it is.

  31. Thag Jones says:

    OT but I couldn’t find a contact email so… Since I know how much you love Liz Jones:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2001457/Liz-Jones-gives-brutally-honest-account-face-lift.html

  32. krakonos says:

    @Eric
    Not always. Someone can shoot you from back or knock you down suddenly (by elbow, fast kick, etc.) when passing you but in many cases there are several stages. First of all the potentional attacker has to tip and test, if it is safe for him/her to attack you so there is a good chance to avoid attack or at least be prepared.

  33. Anonymous Reader says:

    Krakonos
    @Eric Not always. Someone can shoot you from back or knock you down suddenly (by elbow, fast kick, etc.) when passing you but in many cases there are several stages. First of all the potentional attacker has to tip and test, if it is safe for him/her to attack you so there is a good chance to avoid attack or at least be prepared.

    This is largely a cultural thing and to a lesser extent an individual thing. Some subcultures have to build up to a fight with a lot of talk, “Who are you? Who the f*** are you? Do you know who I am? Do you know what I’m gonna do?” etc. and so forth. But there are other subcultures where the only warning of a fight is a few muttered words and maybe a shift in body stance. It can be interesting to see one of the former and one of the latter interact; while the motor mouth is still going on about what he’s gonna do to whom, the other guy mutters something like “git away from me, now” and then the next thing that moves is a piece of whatever furniture is at hand, headed for motor-mouth’s face.

    There are physical cues that often are clues or cues: tensing the forearms, hunching down the head, bracing the legs, and so forth. But there are some real fighters out there, not just in bars, who will start a beatdown from a flat-footed, open handed stance.

    Ditto for weapons. Some people just have to brandish their toys and mouth off. Others will just start shooting, it all depends on what they want. Agree with krakonos that some street thugs will tip/test or probe, often by asking innocent questions to see how you respond. Some call this the “interview”; the thug wants to see if he can get compliance from you easily or if it will be more work. So in some cities, I don’t wear a watch visibly so that if anyone asks me for the time I just keep on walking; no, I don’t have any spare change for you, buddy, no, I don’t smoke so you can’t have a cigarette, dude, no, I don’t know where anything in this town is so I won’t be stopping to give you directions, guy. I maintain a light tread that can be bounced out of in any direction, I am aware of who is behind me, and I literally won’t give anyone the time of day. In this way I can’t be interviewed, or probed, I’m a moving target and I keep on moving. That’s when I’m by myself, or at most with one other person. With a group of people who don’t practice situational awareness, things get more difficult, but the best course is to keep them moving towards known safe / secure places. Sometimes that interferes with sightseeing but oh, well.

    Actually I just recalled an incident earlier this year when I was charged with several people to escort in a large city, and outside of a bookstore we were hit up for spare change by a big 30-ish woman about 5’9″ who had a skinny man hanging around some feet away. I kept myself between the panhandlers and the people I was escorting, while encouraging my party to keep moving towards ground transportation I engaged the panhandlers with eye contact and verbally told them “No, we don’t have any money for you”. Keeping the party moving while telling everyone I could see both verbally and with my body language that I flat out refused to engage in any interaction on their terms may have been more than was needed. Heck, they may well have been just ordinary panhandlers. But it was nearing dusk in a large city in a zone of questionable security, so I chose to act as I did.

    If it was an “interview” then we passed.

  34. Anonymous Reader says:

    Thag — Liz Jones is truly a gift that keeps on giving. Nice find.

  35. Leon Battista Alberti says:

    TSpoon’s quote “So yes I’m prepared to underwrite their safety with mine, but like any entity which undertakes to underwrite the risks of another, I have expectations for the behaviour of those I must protect.” explains the mechanism behind chivalry in the past. Crude to turn human interactions into financial concepts but it is what it is. Behave like a lady and you deserve respect and protection. Act like a harlot and you get what you bring upon yourself. Chivalry was a reward for self-discipline.

    And what you wrote in your other post Dalrock:
    Since real chivalry comes from a position of strength, it can only be offered by a man who is actually powerful and offers his assistance with full freedom and knowledge of his own worth.

    The full freedom part is as critical as the rest, and is the reason chivalry can’t be an obligation of men as so many desperately wish to convince us. It isn’t just that it is a bad idea; making chivalry expected of men removes the graciousness of the act. Chivalry is a special form of graciousness and like all acts of graciousness must be a gift freely given; the instant you think of it as an obligation you have destroyed the very concept.”

    Dead on as usual. Thank you for another great post.
    God bless,

    [D: Thank you.]

  36. Dalrock says:

    I’m floored by all of the great comments here, too many to respond to all of them but I’ll at least respond to some.

    @Eric
    in real-life, the people attacked lose precious seconds trying to analyse the situation and react to it. The attacker already is moving and operating with a plan; and no amount of training can really correct this, except to minimize the reaction time and formulate an effective counter- attack which can only prevent further damage. In military terms, it’s like the difference between the Battle of Gettysburg and the battle of Pearl Harbor; one is what you’re trained and prepared for and planned; the other is a sneak attack that has to be fought purely on the defensive.

    Excellent point.

    @Anonymous Reader
    Agree with krakonos that some street thugs will tip/test or probe, often by asking innocent questions to see how you respond. Some call this the “interview”; the thug wants to see if he can get compliance from you easily or if it will be more work.

    I wrote about what I am nearly certain was my own interview a while back. This may have been before you joined the blog. Scary business, and it reinforced for me what Eric, CPSB, and others said above.

    @Leonidas
    In my college years, when I didn’t actually have a concealed carry permit, I might have done so. Now that I actually DO have a concealed carry permit, I’m pretty sure I’d immediately but calmly throw my food away and leave the premises.

    There is a paradox here that I think many who are unfamiliar with guns don’t understand. I don’t have my CCW yet (will do so in the next month) but I know being armed (but not carrying concealed) has made me more aware of how much I don’t want to become involved in a violent confrontation. I recall thinking specifically about this when was 21 or 22 and bought my first pistol. The “make my day” stereotype is wildly inaccurate for the vast majority of gun owners.

    @Bob
    Never crosses their minds to say, “Unless we were cornered, I would pick up my daughters and carry them away from the danger as fast as I could run,” or “My boyfriend is so good at recognizing and avoiding dangerous situations, and would get me out of their before things escalated!”

    Yes. People need to think of this ahead of time to be more likely to do the right thing if a situation comes up.

    @Country lawyer
    Who gives a damn what other’s think? Men shouldn’t. You want to face criminal charges and have someone like me defend you for several thousands then go rescue morons.

    Good advice. Thanks.

    @Mike43
    Even though, I always want to run to the sound of gunfire.

    This reminded me of the news reports of the shooting of Rep Giffords. One of the men who stopped the attack was said to have run towards the shooting from a nearby walgreens and tackled the shooter. After doing some quick searching it turns out that he was a CCW holder and armed. There are so many versions of the story (the press seems to have lost interest in the story once they found out a woman didn’t single handedly stop the shooter) but it sounds like the first person to tackle the shooter was retired military. Then the CCW holder came on the scene and disarmed the retired military man. Slate did an article where they describe the CCW holder as doing what strikes me as what a police officer would have had to do under the same circumstances. Impressively the CCW holder got it all right under chaotic circumstances. I respect the courage the CCW holder showed, but as others have said the best option for him would have been to stay out of it. He could have ended up dead, in prison, or bankrupt.

    @Paige
    My husband, however, is a bit old-fashioned in this regard and I just pray he doesn’t get his ass sent to jail because one day he decided to play the hero. We don’t live in a world that tolerates heroes so all the men who get their ego-boost from playing that role ought to hang up their capes for their own damn good.

    I appreciate that you don’t think men should be expected to do this, but your lack of empathy for any man who would perform a selfless act is really quite striking. Do you feel the same contempt for the men working in the Japanese reactor? Are they selfishly trying to play the hero for an ego boost? Should they hang up their capes?

  37. sean says:

    Dalrock usually I agree with you, but how is being nasty and petty to women supposed to help a man be more manly?? Do you rush to take a seat from men or not offer your seat to an old man? The example the man used of punks cursing and using foul derogatory language around his family and him doing nothing was appalling. I mean if you are at a little wayne concert okay (no business bringing kids there). However if you are at a family friendly event you should expect your family to be treated with a certain level of respect. I call it a manitude. You should be able to exude enough manliness to make other men back down, especially if they know they are in the wrong. If you won’t protect your own family from punks what good are you? And it’s wrong to blame the woman for wanting to be able to walk back to her car IN THE COMPANY OF MEN, and not have her kids ears assaulted. My father, uncles, brothers and husband were never petty around women but would never have allowed that situation to happen. Granted my dad is a 6’4 black man who looks mean as flint, and my husband is 6’3 black man who grew up fighting for his life to stay out of gangs since he was 5 years old. My uncles, and brothers exhibit the same type of manitude, very few men will step to them much less be disrespectful around their families. The few who have tried usually back down quickly once confronted. And no, the men in my family are not thugs, they are stable, hard-working family men, who know how to protect the women in their lives from predatory men. As a woman, I am grateful for the protection offered me by the men in my family. Were I with some of you (by the way you talk in this thread) I would feel totally insecure in a very mean world with the weakness some you guys exude. Stop blaming women for your inability to establish boundaries with other men and your fear.

  38. Paige says:

    There is a huge difference between putting your life at risk because it is your job and putting your life at risk to help strangers when there are far less protections. I fear he will leave his children fatherless because he defended some girl who was being brutally beaten by her boyfriend.

    My husbands antiquated ideas about masculinity is precisely part of the problem the manosphere complains about. I’d think Dalrock would be even less sympathetic than I am. I actually have great respect for his courage but I am not blind to the fact that it leads to very high-risk behavior that puts our whole family at risk.

  39. uncleFred says:

    I would like to discuss this from the stand point of a civilian who chooses to carry concealed.

    Any number of full books have been written on this subject so I can hardly go into all the details, but I would like to mention a few general points for context and then discuss this.

    1: If you are going to carry a firearm it is critically important that you be trained in it’s use as a defensive weapon in real world situations. In a high stress situation you will react in the manner you have been trained. If you have not been trained you will not react in a predicable manner. Your training helps to prevent inappropriate deployment of the weapon and ensure effective use of the weapon should it be needed. Much of your legal defense will depend on the fact that you used your weapon in a manner consistent with your training. Most professional trainers will appear in court to explain the hows and whys of your training. Part of how you are trained is to ensure that you ONLY deploy the weapon in a fashion which is recognized as legitimate use of deadly force in self defense or in the defense of the innocent.

    2: Never “brandish” a weapon. Your only advantage, if it exists at all, is that the aggressor(s) are unaware you are armed. When a weapon is introduced into a situation things escalate instantly. The decision to reveal the weapon is also the decision to USE the weapon. If you pull it, you have already decided to shoot.

    3: You shoot to stop the aggressor(s). No trick shooting. No “warning shots”. If you start shooting you keep shooting until all aggressors are down and no longer pose a threat. (If you are properly trained this is exactly what you will end up doing).

    4: Using the firearm is a last resort. Attempt to diffuse divert and moderate. Only introduce the weapon when you have no other way to prevent death or life threatening assault. That said you MUST use the weapon before you lose the opportunity. Again proper training makes this virtually automatic.
    ———–
    Why do I carry a weapon?

    I carry a weapon for my protection, the protection of my loved ones, and the protection of the innocent. I am unwilling to ask some police officer to put his or her life on the line to protect me, if I am not willing to do so for myself. I choose not to walk through a violent society, filled with thugs who prey on the helpless, unable to do something about it. I AM NOT seeking to be anyone’s body guard. I am NOT seeking to replace the police. However I recognize that if we allow the thugs around us to run free, we all lose. We all lose big time. This is MY decision. I do not expect it to apply to anyone else.

    When to use deadly force? Some situations are very clear. A direct impending life threatening assault on me or mine that can not be diverted or avoided. Some situations are more gray. For example the beating in the McD’s or some to the situations described here.

    So in the McD’s. Two women are beating the crap out of another woman who did not attack them. I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the recipient of the beating did not start the confrontation. The attackers are NOT using a weapon. I would not attempt to restrain them. Cops are trained to restrain people not me. I would kick each of the attacking women, from behind in the back of a knee (very hard) and leave immediately. Hard to beat the crap out of someone if you are unable to stand, or otherwise disabled. Since I was not in fear for the life of the victim, my introduction of deadly force into the situation would have been inappropriate. You can argue that involving myself at all was inappropriate. There is more about that below, but the primary issue for me would be that it was in the McD’s. Had the altercation began verbally and they had mutually decided to “settle this outside” and the three of them left the place to sort it out, it is very unlikely that I would get involved. What appears to be an unprovoked attack in an establishment that serves the public crosses a different line.

    Adding a weapon, say a baseball bat, to the assault instantly puts lives in danger. I would shoot the person with the bat until they were down and no longer a threat, have the manager call 911, and control the area as I was trained until the police get there and surrender to them. Yes I would be arrested and spend sometime in jail, probably be charged and face criminal prosecution, and get sued etc. No I would not be happy about it, but that goes with the territory I signed up for when I decided to lawfully carry a firearm.

    In both situations I am not coming to the defense of the person getting beaten. I am coming to my defense and the defense of my loved ones. I choose to do what I can to prevent society from tolerating ever greater levels of violence by thugs. I am NOT a white knight, from my perspective I am defending myself. This was discussed a great deal in my training. We were taught that we were not to take the responsibility of going armed lightly.

    How can I be sure how I would react? – It’s pretty basic. Before I decided to carry a weapon I had to decide if I could take someone’s life and the set of circumstances under which I would do so. Then as a responsible adult I sought professional training in the practical employment of a firearm for defensive purposes. My training clarified the legal limits under which society would accept my employing deadly force and made me carefully and throughly evaluate my decisions to carry a weapon and my own personal standards for it’s use.

    —————-
    Why did I write this? Quoting Dalrock:
    “The only rational response to this particular form of women’s empowerment is for men to stop feeling a general sense of responsibility to protect women, especially those they don’t have authority over”

    I agree with this but that is not to underlying question. The question is what kind of a society do we wish to live in? I don’t feel a “general sense of responsibility to protect” anyone man or women. I feel a very specific sense to prevent a thug society. A society that tolerates attacks on people. To be a man is to stand up to thuggery. That a bunch of whiny feminists may take advantage of that to promote general bad behavior on the part of some women is unfortunate, but in my view does not remove our responsibility as men to stop the thugs. I also recognize that there are some women who also take this responsibility. I though about applying the responsibility to all adults. But I think that in the main, this remains primarily the responsibility of men.

  40. Thag Jones says:

    Paige, how likely is that situation to arise anyway? It sounds like you just want something to complain about when you have a decent husband who cares about people (and perhaps, as uncleFred says, the kind of society we live in) and can defend his family – it’s kind of two sides of the same coin that makes him who he is. Maybe you underestimate his ability to assess a situation. There are always plenty of “what ifs” to worry about. Maybe just think instead, “he’s crazy, but he rocks.”

  41. Knuold says:

    Sean. You’re a classic. Have a nice life.

  42. paige says:

    I think it is VERY likely, Thag. Not just that situation but he has also been known to confront teenage kids with their bad behavior. It is only a matter of time before one of them pulls a gun on him.

    I agree that his heroics were attractive but he was in the military at the time. Now he has the same military ethos but none of the respect and legal protections the military provides.

  43. paige says:

    I find it amusing that even when I agree I am chided for something. lol.

  44. namae nanka says:

    “Part of the violence issue, and especially the over-use of Battery charges, comes down to a really simple fact. The “average” man is going to be stronger than any random woman they meet between 80-95% of the time.”
    “There are very few women that, sans weapon, are a physical threat to a man. ”

    The power to deal out physical damage doesn’t depend on who is stronger. If a 160lb man decides to beat up a man who outweighs him by 30lb, he is most definitely a physical threat despite being weaker.
    Betty Friedan’s husband might not have thought of her as a mortal threat, but was surely injured more than her during their disputes(her whackiness).

    “This is why the Feminists push for such over-criminalization of violence. ”

    No no no. That rationality isn’t to be expected of them except when its to their own ends.

    They put up fake statistics of violence(such as proportion of women visiting ER due to domestic violence, the superball myth) and believe religiously in “woman is victim”.
    Erin Pizzey pointed this out long ago, and they also believe that if a woman hit out she must have had good reasons to do so.
    They want to guilt trip men, even boys when they are not busy throwing them in jails. Not only boys are brought up to not hit girls, they are targeted by programmes where they are told to “respect” women. Why? The rabbit hole goes much deeper.

    Even though it is pointed out that women and girls are more likely to be the first aggressor, there is no campaign to teach them to respect men and boys, or to never hit them. Why should men be the criminals just because they can cause more harm in self-defence? If feminists wanted women to be hurt less, they would instead tell them to keep their fists to themselves.

    But no, how can that be, women make sammich for no man.
    Yay for female heroes kicking asses in movies, and repeat the line that women are victims in real life. This is how they operate. Yay for the end of men, and hey we need more representation in STEM.
    Keep the money rolling while we rub your nose in it.

    All the while, western media makes out hitting men as a fun enterprise, for slights which are barely worse than negs. It’s insane.

    “This has lead to a situation that Men have to learn that, if a woman becomes violent, their only option is to call the police.”

    So thought the guy who was stabbed by his wife, and found himself under arrest when the police arrived. His daughter saved him, or else he would have been taken to the station.(presumbaly on the charges of running into the kitchen knife, scaring his wife. Hence committing violence against her, and by patriarchy theorem against all women).

    Police are taught the lies above, the policeman whose comments started off the slutwalk must have been dozing off in the class.

    What do I expect the feminists to say when they finally acknowledge their lies? “See, we told you that gender is a social construct, women can be equally violent. Now give us double the money to help men too.”

    http://www.batteredmen.com/batemerg.htm

  45. Dalrock says:

    @Paige
    I find it amusing that even when I agree I am chided for something. lol.

    I understand better where you are coming from now. The accusation that whenever men are selfless they are actually imagining themselves as some corny superhero is very offensive to me. I wonder how many men are bankrupt or behind bars right now because of that specific meme. There is a difference between recognizing the wisest choice, and belittling those who would risk themselves to protect the weak. I think when you crossed over into the latter it was out of your fear for your husband. I respect the intent, but not the demeaning of self sacrifice.

    There is a huge difference between putting your life at risk because it is your job and putting your life at risk to help strangers when there are far less protections.

    As far as I understand all of the Fukushima 50 volunteered. From the LA Times:

    “I fought back tears when I heard that my father, who is to retire in six months, had volunteered,” @NamicoAoto wrote. “At home, he doesn’t seem like someone who could handle big jobs?but today, I was really proud of him,” she wrote. “I pray for his safe return.”

    @nekkonekonyaa said her mother wept when her father left work to head to the nuclear plant. “Please dad come back alive,” she said in her tweet.

    Power plant employees were running out of food, read one e-mail from a worker’s daughter.

    “He says he’s accepted his fate. Much like a death sentence,” the e-mail said, which was read aloud on the national television network, NHK.

  46. namae nanka says:

    “The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: “No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine.”

    http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html

  47. Opus says:

    As a small child, when on a bus, my mother always made me give up my seat if the bus being overcrowded, a woman happened to be standing. I would not do so now, if for no other reason than this; that I would not want some half-baked allegations of sexual harrassement. I still open doors for women, but in my view that merely shows my superiority – I control the door. I am wary of drinks-whores in Bars.

    I live in the centre of town. I sometimes sees fights. Some verbals and then a punch or two but then it is over. I have never seen any weapon. These arguments are always between men. Women are never the subject of Violence but sometimes the fights seemed to be egged-on by the women present, and sometimes men fight just to impress the woman.

    Violence against women is rare. Violence by women is more common.
    If this seems strange I should say that I am writing from England.

  48. Lovekraft says:

    I think the desire to shoot one’s mouth off is due to either insecurity, a sick desire to have conflict in one’s life, or just plain stupidity (not able to weight pros over cons).

    Advice I’ve given to a nephew who was shooting his mouth of at a random stranger: “boy, you have no idea who that person is, he could have just lost his job, broke up with his girlfriend, or is just plain crazy, and you want to start something with him? He may have nothing to lose and is looking to take his frustration out on the first person he sees.

    However, if you’re minding your business and this stranger is in your face, use the above rule, don’t escalate things. BUT, if it appears he is looking to start a fight, always look him straight in the eye, deadpan, and give him the impression that you are willing to take his shit and throw it back at him a thousand-fold.”

  49. dragnet says:

    I can’t help but a notice a bit of a divide here. It seems like most of the older guys either believe in protecting women or have fairly complex governing principles (a la uncle Fred) regarding the defense of women or innocents. however the guys my age (im 27) or younger here (and in real life) seem to have largely abandoned the idea of any of defense of a woman that isn’t related to or involved with them. This bodes for an interesting future–it’s hard to see this trend reversing itself.

    @ MarkyMark

    I don’t have anything against women and my behavior toward them is generally cordial. The whole train experiment was just part of a rather long process of de-programming–and I say this as someone who grew up with strong male role models and never has had troubling attracting women. Feminist brainwashing is really just that pervasive. My only point was that things that have been learned can be gradually unlearned.

  50. Anonymous says:

    Style + posturing = character for most women (at as far as they’re concerned). This would be the proverbial ‘gina tingle. The Rationalization Hamster (barring second thoughts like morals, values, vows and how going against them would hurt other people and bring other bad consequences) assures how pursuit of such “fun” is healthy and actually good. This is what women expect or are told to expect today.

    In Rory Miller’s book Mediations of Violence: A Comparison of Martial Arts Training and Real World Violence, he talks about living among street hustlers as part a school project: “I was told that any obligation– job, mortgage payment, or family– was a form of slavery. That only the homeless were truly free. That it was stupid to work when others were willing to and would give you money for the asking. There was no distinction between charities, panhandling, and government aid– the smart were given money, the stupid gave it.” This is pretty much where our marriage/relationship world nowadays with women expecting all the “highs” or they’re outta there.

    Rory Miller also describes the downside: “Violence is common with this group for very logical reasons. They fight to defend their territory and possessions because no other authority will do so. They will use violence to secure drugs or money to get drugs. They will fight for reputation because a victim reputation will unsure future vicimization.” That is the dynamic the modern dating/mating game with its mate-poaching, alpha-chasing “fun” buys into.

    Grown up tough where people tried to kill me for doing the right thing and not being a punk, I’m pretty Alpha… clean-living, responsibility and meaning what I say ensure survival. (Miller’s right about all he observes, too.) In college and the first years starting my career, however, most people hadn’t ever been in so much as a fist fight (watched Faces of Death, etc. maybe) and felt it “poh-tential” to be a selfish, impulsive loudmouth and “loser” behavior to be anything else. (“Integrity is a career-killer,” I also got told. Was invisible compared to self-destructive “a lot of fun” partyboys, too.) Now this is the dating/mating world and “tough” people have watched something of the Discovery Channel for all adults today. Women in their 40s are still alpha-chasing on the “carousel” and anybody who’d be a good husband/father gets short shrift. (I’m divorced myself… “I want someone who’s happy all the time” my ex said, after wanting actual heroic qualities first, and is now learning about the pump-and-dump world at 44– met/married her while she was on chemotherapy for cancer, hope it comes back inoperably too.) Having recently been overseas, in a country where they destroyed everything down to the level of what Miller describes above, I can tell you we’re living in a fool’s paradise today.

    When I wrote “pay attention spoiled wenches… we’re goin’ to hell, pack your burqahs” earlier, I wasn’t kidding. Burqahs, beatings and otherwise treating women like property are how our muslim brethren dealt with women who wouldn’t police their hypergamy and be civilized, because the alternative of destructive law-of-the-jungle libido-driven chaos was worse. (At the rate things are going, we’ll be dhimmis begging to live under Sharia in a few years.) I much prefer women who can grow up and police themselves to tyranny any day… one would think they would too.

  51. uncleFred says:

    @Dragnet
    Give yourself some time. As I said I am no white knight, my attitudes in this regard are based in self interest and the interests of those for whom I care. If you were to discuss this with our returning vets in the age range which you think have abandoned the principals that I mentioned, I think you will find another generation of men who have seen the downside of not stopping the thugs. I suspect, and would be willing to make a small bet, that when you see the downside of not protecting civilization from thuggery, you to will take up the cudgel.

    No sane man asks for this, it simply comes with life.

  52. Anonymous says:

    uncleFred said: “If you were to discuss this with our returning vets in the age range which you think have abandoned the principals that I mentioned, I think you will find another generation of men who have seen the downside of not stopping the thugs. I suspect, and would be willing to make a small bet, that when you see the downside of not protecting civilization from thuggery, you to will take up the cudgel.

    No sane man asks for this, it simply comes with life.”

    Amen. Damn straight.

  53. Anon says:

    @unclefred

    So in the McD’s. Two women are beating the crap out of another woman who did not attack them. I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the recipient of the beating did not start the confrontation. The attackers are NOT using a weapon. I would not attempt to restrain them. Cops are trained to restrain people not me. I would kick each of the attacking women, from behind in the back of a knee (very hard) and leave immediately.

    Before you leave, every black guy in the place is going to jump on you and stomp you into a grease spot. You hit a black woman, they will feel justified in (basically) lynching you.

  54. uncleFred says:

    @Anon
    Simple question, would you and your buddies decide to “stomp” an armed man who stopped an assault?

  55. Dalrock says:

    @uncleFred
    I agree with this but that is not to underlying question. The question is what kind of a society do we wish to live in? I don’t feel a “general sense of responsibility to protect” anyone man or women. I feel a very specific sense to prevent a thug society. A society that tolerates attacks on people. To be a man is to stand up to thuggery.

    I respect where you are coming from here. This is the source of my hesitation to flat out tell men never to intervene outside of protecting their own. I too am invested in preventing a thug society. The problem is this is more than a simple tragedy of the commons. It isn’t just that most would allow others to take on the risks while enjoying the benefits. The society which would benefit from your actions is very likely to treat you as badly (or even worse) than it does the thugs for your trouble. As Country Lawyer stated, the risks are very serious. So I think the wise choice is to be very limited in the situations you would intervene. Basically what Tspoon advises. But as I stated in the conclusion this is a choice each man must make for himself. If we lived in a society which didn’t scorn efforts like you are talking about and go after those who would help innocents, it would be a different story.

  56. Dalrock says:

    @Sean
    Dalrock usually I agree with you, but how is being nasty and petty to women supposed to help a man be more manly?? Do you rush to take a seat from men or not offer your seat to an old man?

    I think you have me confused with someone else who’s nickname starts with “D”. Even so, I don’t think Dragnet’s point was to stick it to women per se, but to retrain himself for the reality on the ground which feminism has wrought. His fundamental point is men can train themselves to think differently since feminists and their enablers have changed the rules. This is regrettable but unfortunately hard to argue with.

    If you won’t protect your own family from punks what good are you?

    If she was such a precious flower that she couldn’t handle some uncomfortable words, her husband shouldn’t have let her out of the house. Her psychological comfort doesn’t trump the need of the group for physical safety.

    The example the man used of punks cursing and using foul derogatory language around his family and him doing nothing was appalling.

    They were on a dark street and he was armed. He was prepared to defend himself and his family from any real threats should the need arise. The other man’s wife beaking off at the thugs put the entire group in jeopardy because she couldn’t keep her emotions in check. I’m sure it hurt her delicate feelings, but he had more important things to worry about than that. By her doing that she also put him in legal jeopardy because any claim of self defense just became a lot more murky.

    The man who showed weakness was the husband of the overly emotional woman who put the group in danger. He should have kept her and her mouth under control.

    My father, uncles, brothers and husband were never petty around women but would never have allowed that situation to happen. Granted my dad is a 6’4 black man who looks mean as flint, and my husband is 6’3 black man who grew up fighting for his life to stay out of gangs since he was 5 years old. My uncles, and brothers exhibit the same type of manitude, very few men will step to them much less be disrespectful around their families. The few who have tried usually back down quickly once confronted.

    No matter how big, bad, and tough you are, there is always someone bigger and badder and tougher. If the group you are with isn’t under direct threat it isn’t wise to find this out on a dark side street in a way that would put your wife and child in danger. I’m at a loss as to why this isn’t obvious to you.

    If your husband and father have been successful at intimidating every bad character from so much as using the wrong language in your presence and it hasn’t worked out badly so far, good for them. But risk has a way of eventually appearing for those who insist on repeatedly testing it.

  57. Anonymous Reader says:

    Uncle Fred
    I agree with this but that is not to underlying question. The question is what kind of a society do we wish to live in? I don’t feel a “general sense of responsibility to protect” anyone man or women. I feel a very specific sense to prevent a thug society. A society that tolerates attacks on people. To be a man is to stand up to thuggery.

    Would you willingly engage in a gunfight while holding an infant? While holding a toddler by one hand? While pushing your mother in a wheelchair? I don’t mean “engage people that are attacking you”, that’s defense, I mean “wade into someone else’s fight that turns into a shooting fight”. There are not cut and dried lines here. If you are truly willing to sacrifice your wife, children, grandchildren to being maimed or killed in order to “stand up to thuggery” then you’re a lot stronger in your faith, whatever it is, than most people. As for me, there are times when I’m escorting someone’s elderly mother, or a small child, in a public place and I frankly do not have the authority to risk their lives to make a point, not even the point of standing up to thuggery. My charge is to escort them safely from one place to another. Your position may be different.

    But I really suggest that you think hard about deputizing yourself as an enforcer of social mores, because a lot of society not only won’t reward you, they’ll go out of their way to punish you as hard as possible.

  58. Anon says:

    Fred, you didnt say you were going to draw a weapon before you kicked the black girl, but if you do then you have escalated and they are now justified in KILLING you.

    Either you will get shot, or the thugs will, or both, and then a world of legal and economic hurt will land on your head if you live to get arrested and sued. And WHY??? Why even risk that for a stranger? Thats stupid.

  59. dragnet says:

    “It isn’t just that most would allow others to take on the risks while enjoying the benefits. The society which would benefit from your actions is very likely to treat you as badly (or even worse) than it does the thugs for your trouble.”

    Nailed it. The problem isn’t that you face physical harm by intervening to create a safe society. That’s a given, and shirking that is cowardice. I am not a coward. It’s that those who you would be protecting have come to view you as a testosterone-poisoned threat to be suppressed.

    I also respect your position, Uncle Fred. But I think in some ways you aren’t aware of exactly how much the tide has turned, how foolish and reprobate the masses have become. A society that weakens and punishes good men deserves thuggery. This is what we are coming to.

  60. Anonymous says:

    dragnet said: “… I think in some ways you aren’t aware of exactly how much the tide has turned, how foolish and reprobate the masses have become. A society that weakens and punishes good men deserves thuggery. This is what we are coming to.”

    Really, society undercuts the very thing that keep itself going. It seems to want anarchy and to collapse (hey, feminists, you liked how things were in Mad Max, didn’t you?)…

  61. ElectricAngel says:

    Did anyone notice that these two black women were actually upholding, in some twisted way, what used to be a social and cultural norm? If you think women have an entitlement mentality, what about the gays who insist on flaunting their lifestyles in everyone else’s face. I doubt that these two women would have picked a fight with a real white woman who was using the women’s rest room. But 42 years of “pride” and other such nonsense (can you really imagine Michelangelo or even Raymond Burr being so ridiculous about a personal matter), gays and transvestites have gotten the same “untouchable” feeling as women. These two women rightly objected to the invasion of what is in fact a man into THEIR restroom, as any decent reader of this website would object to female reporters in a male locker room. It might serve to remind some of the other legally-empowered types that reality’s a bitch.

  62. sean says:

    Excuse me, a woman is a “precious snowflake” for expecting to be able to walk back to her car w/ her children from a family event and not get verbally accosted by thugs when she is surrounded by other men? She should not have had to say anything, her husband should or the MEN with her should have handled the situation immediately. I have seen thugs before. Those men put every one of the women and children in danger by allowing the thugs to assert themselves unabated. Thugs look for “punks” people who display weakness and an easy victim mentality. If you let punks be disrespectful around your family they know you are weak and now you are at their mercy as to whether they will escalate. I don’t believe in white knighting per se, but I do believe you should be able to assert that people respect you and vis-a-vi the women and children with you. You guys are so quick to blame women for all your shortcomings, however in this instance it was cowardice pure and simple. Hint, a gun doesn’t make you less a coward. I am sorry, but I will not apologize for expecting men to be able to handle themselves in such a way as to let the women and children under their authority feel safe and protected.

    Given you guys world view, if a woman is in trouble she might as well not scream or call out, none of you would help her anyway. I hope you tell your daughters, wives, and sisters to not yell or try to gain attention or help from men if they find themselves in a dangerous situation, the world you want to construct will make such shouts unbeneficial. Because no matter how careful you are, sometimes you find yourself in a bad situation.

  63. Anonymous says:

    Off-topic, but a book on hypergamy, etc… (link to it on Amazon.com)

    When Women Cheat: A Book About Infidelity, Female Power, Jealousy and the Modern Beta Males, by David Nicosia Longhi

    On the back cover: “The traditional ideals of love such a fidelity, coupledom and loyalty are often dashed against the rocks of brutal reality– with lies, deceit, lack of validation and infidelity. What if you were told that women are encouraged to neither need nor want to be monogamous. That the modern man is actually in the same drawer as the men who willingly become cuckolds. That the women is the alpha and the man is the beta? That mainstream thought for future generations will be that eternal love does not exist and that fidelity is about being true to yourself and your own desires rather than to your partner.”

    He’s from Denmark where things in the Eurosocialist wonderland of the EU are further gone (but not all that much) than they are here.

  64. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, I can’t recall if I read of your ‘interview’ before or not, it seems familiar. In any event, the link you provided is very useful, especially the part of the website that discussed in detail “the interview” and common forms it can take. Ought to be required reading for a whole lot of people.

  65. krakonos says:

    @Sean
    What do you offer in return? This is the same situation as partnership. You can be the only one who gives (and recives nothing in return). It may work for some time because the giver simply loves you. But sooner or later the giver becomes tired and disillusioned. And then quits.
    And no, the fact you are a woman is not enough.
    There is often mentioned the “contract between sexes”. That was the power which kept societies working (from h-g societis up). Maybe you should look at it. But first of all you should realize that men are humans too and have their desires and expectations.

  66. Looking Glass says:

    I think there is conflating “what you would do naturally” with “what you have to teach yourself to do”. Many guys would like to stand up for the weak in society. Society, more specifically the abomination we call Liability Law, has said they don’t want you to do that. If it was just a risk of bodily harm, that’s one issue to judge, but that’s not really what’s going on. It’s the fact that you have no protection from lawyers if you deign to help someone.

    Actually, the real problem, at the very core, is the completely false concept that only the “law” is capable of acting. It isn’t, nor is it rarely capable of acting in a way that isn’t “clean up the mess”, but government officials are the only ones with enough immunity to do much of anything. (Even if we’ve taken that WAY too far) I believe there’s a saying along the lines of “When the revolution comes, shoot the lawyers”; that’s pretty much the issue these days.

  67. Deborah says:

    Can I just say how disgusted I am with the feminazis for messing things up for the rest of us? My husband is very security-conscious, and I’m getting much better about it than I used to be. My first instinct has been changed from “assert and defend myself” to “OFF THE X–OFF THE X–GET OFF THE X *NOW*!” That instinct holds whether getting off the “X” means preventing myself from becoming a target by not standing out any more than I can help/avoiding eye contact/keeping moving/keeping my mouth shut or whether getting off the “X” means that the situation has escalated enough already that I need to use a preplanned escape route (which I often but not often enough formulate by habit now, constantly updating as I move). Situational awareness–which I think of as recognizing that I’m always, in reality, on the “X”–has a long way to go but is improving. Living in the Middle East spurred me to make these changes, but I’m truly disgusted when I realize just now crucial these habits are in the States as well now.

    And I know that this post is about men intervening, but here’s my two cents about if/when I’d intervene as well: I’d intervene to protect a child (a young child, not an almost-adult child), but only so long as I don’t have my own child (or another child for whom I am responsible) with me, or I have someone else with me to whom I can hand my child and say “Get her out of here.” Any other victim … it would depend on the situation and I probably wouldn’t intervene.

  68. uncleFred says:

    @Anonymous Reader
    “Would you willingly engage in a gunfight while holding an infant? While holding a toddler by one hand? While pushing your mother in a wheelchair? I don’t mean “engage people that are attacking you”, that’s defense, I mean “wade into someone else’s fight that turns into a shooting fight”. There are not cut and dried lines here. If you are truly willing to sacrifice your wife, children, grandchildren to being maimed or killed in order to “stand up to thuggery” then you’re a lot stronger in your faith, whatever it is, than most people. As for me, there are times when I’m escorting someone’s elderly mother, or a small child, in a public place and I frankly do not have the authority to risk their lives to make a point, not even the point of standing up to thuggery. My charge is to escort them safely from one place to another. Your position may be different.”

    I agree with you that those entrusted to our care are the first obligation. So the answer is that if accompanied by those for whom I am directly responsible, as long as we are not directly the target, if possible I would get them safely clear and away.

  69. Anon says:

    Excuse me, a woman is a “precious snowflake” for expecting to be able to walk back to her car w/ her children from a family event and not get verbally accosted by thugs when she is surrounded by other men?

    The thugs were not “accosting” the women. The thugs were “loudly talking and cursing amongst theemselves”. That’s a different situation entirely. The best response is to ignore them, get in your car, and go home.

    If you let punks be disrespectful around your family they know you are weak and now you are at their mercy as to whether they will escalate.

    It is also up to them whether or not to escalate if you “show strength” by confronting them, which in fact they may just regard as a weak-ass bluff to be called or a challenge to be gladly taken up. Many thugs want to fight – they live for it – and the best thing you can do is avoid it.

    You guys are so quick to blame women for all your shortcomings, however in this instance it was cowardice pure and simple.

    It is not cowardice to avoid a fight that you CAN avoid. In this case a fight can be avoided by getting in your car as quickly as possible. As a civilized man, you have nothing to gain by fighting if you don’t absolutely have to. If you gladly enter optional fights, then that makes you a thug yourself.

    Ever hear the phrase “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”? It is not going to hurt my woman to hear some cusswords she has heard many times before. If we are physically threatened, then I will respond, but hearing cusswords is not a physical threat, and escalating to physical force just because of some cussing CREATES a physical threat to her where there was not one before.

    Given you guys world view, if a woman is in trouble she might as well not scream or call out, none of you would help her anyway.

    If she is not related to me, she might as well not bother, I’m not going to respond.

    I hope you tell your daughters, wives, and sisters to not yell or try to gain attention or help from men if they find themselves in a dangerous situation, the world you want to construct will make such shouts unbeneficial.

    Damn right, I tell them that they have an obligation firstly to avoid dangerous situations, and secondly not to rely on white knights to get them out of it.

  70. zed says:

    You guys are so quick to blame women for all your shortcomings, however in this instance it was cowardice pure and simple.

    Hey, thanks for the white feather. It will look great in one of my old Stetsons. ;)

    In this instance, like so many others, it was simply the refusal of the man to put himself at risk to cover a check that the woman’s mouth wrote. True cowardice would be allowing the fear of being called names and insulted pressure him into risking his life, well-being, and financial position because some woman is too stupid to keep her mouth shut.

    Vox Day had a post about just such a scenario where a woman mouthed off to a bunch of thugs and her White Knight Marine husband just had to prove he wasn’t a coward and defend his wife’s right to be a mouthy beyotch, and now he is dead. That woman’s inability to control her mouth cost her one husband. I sincerely hope she thinks it was worth it.

    I hope you tell your daughters, wives, and sisters to not yell or try to gain attention or help from men if they find themselves in a dangerous situation, the world you want to construct will make such shouts unbeneficial.

    Damn right, I tell them that they have an obligation firstly to avoid dangerous situations, and secondly not to rely on white knights to get them out of it.

    Same here. I very consistently tell all the women in my life to not put themselves in, or create, a bad situation expecting someone else to jump in and rescue them and fix the mess they helped create – there may not be anyone around willing to do so, and then they will be in a world of hurt. Even guys who might be inclined to do so may have wives like Paige who will make some snotty feminist-inspired comment about “being a hero”.

    Women I care about, I will try to suggest ways that they can take care of themselves. Women like you with entitlement complexes bigger than Texas, I will suggest that you send out a call for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or GI Jane, or one of the monstrous regiment of YuGo grrls out there.

    The really interesting thing about the video above is that it was two women beating the crap out of a creature who was supposedly biologically male. No one could sort out all the paradoxes in that and come up with a course of action which would fit the old social value system that feminists destroyed. If a couple of cops had been around who had been trained by Domestic Violence advocates in the Duluth model, they would probably have had to arrest the transvestite simply because he was male and therefor profiled as the primary aggressor.

    The bottom line is that women are not going to be able to continue to enjoy the benefits of a social value system which they have watched and participated in destroying. If they want to go on slutwalks, fine. Then, if they happen to get into trouble by getting in people’s faces, and all the “cowards” decline to play “let’s you and him fight”, they will have even more reason to bash men and give men even less reason to care what happens to them.

    If you don’t like the results feminism is creating in your life, isn’t it about time you thought about really doing something about it?

  71. dragnet says:

    I can’t help but notice that Sean’s post talks a lot about responsibilities for the men…but don’t say a peep about what responsibilities the women have. If men have a responsibility to put themselves in harm’s way because of a few rough guys laughing and cursing among themselves, then don’t women have a responsibility to not to make decisions that will jeopardize the safety of their men?

    This is why traditionalist women are really no better than the slutwalkers—they’re two sides of the same feminist coin. Both want rights without responsibilities. The traditional women want the right to their husband’s protection, but not the responsibility to shut the hell up when talking could put him in a dangerous situation.

    @ Looking Glass

    “I think there is conflating “what you would do naturally” with “what you have to teach yourself to do”.

    Yes, been trying to make that point this whole thread. Society compels men to unlearn their nobler instincts when it longer has use for them—and indeed, punishes them.

  72. Pingback: Lets you and him fight. | Dalrock

  73. Dalrock says:

    @Deborah
    And I know that this post is about men intervening, but here’s my two cents about if/when I’d intervene as well: I’d intervene to protect a child (a young child, not an almost-adult child), but only so long as I don’t have my own child (or another child for whom I am responsible) with me, or I have someone else with me to whom I can hand my child and say “Get her out of here.” Any other victim … it would depend on the situation and I probably wouldn’t intervene.

    Your comment is entirely appropriate. I wanted women to try to empathize with men in this case. What would you do if you had the force to make it stop? Would you intervene? Your answer shows you took the question seriously.

  74. Dalrock says:

    @Sean
    You guys are so quick to blame women for all your shortcomings, however in this instance it was cowardice pure and simple. Hint, a gun doesn’t make you less a coward.

    It is important to be clear on the distinction between self defense and fighting:

    Fighting is NOT Self-Defense!
    There are many reasons to fight. And usually they boil down to either to gain or to preserve something. Often these goals are both subjective and non-physical (you can’t put self-esteem into a wheelbarrow). Self-defense is only about the protection of your physical body, not your emotional well being. Many people not realizing this, think they are ‘defending’ themselves when they are in fact, fighting.

    What you are wanting here is fighting, not self defense. You want the men to fight to preserve your sense of proper decorum and to avoid being called a coward.

  75. paige says:

    I would never ever ever put my husband at risk by instigating an argument. The few times I did act rashly he wasn’t around to defend me and I wouldn’t have wanted him to if he was. If I get myself killed by acting stupid at least one of us needs to be around to parent.

    The comment about “being a hero” did not strike me as insulting at all. My husband even jokes himself that he has a bit of a hero-complex. Before I had kids I got myself into a few difficult situations coming to the defense of a female friend so I am not unsympathetic towards the impulse.

  76. Oak says:

    Sean, you’re just another coward expecting your men to cash the checks your mouth writes. Disgusting. I hope you never have to look over the corpse of a loved one trying to defend YOU because you couldn’t mind your own business.

  77. Tschafer says:

    I’ve seen statistics that indicate that resisting an attacker with a gun is actually safer than not resisting at all, and the idea that “if you don’t resist, and give the criminal what he wants, you won’t get hurt” has been pretty well disproved. “Delusion Damage” seems oddly respectful of criminals at other places on his site, and I’m not sure that I’d consider this guy a trustworthy source. There’s a lot of other misinformation over there, and I certainly wouldn’t rely on that site for any tips on how to run MY life.

  78. Dalrock says:

    @Tschafer

    I haven’t read much of Delusion Damage’s site or other writings, so I can’t comment on his general credibility. The parts I quoted did strike me as accurate, which is why I used them. He does seem to take a fatalistic approach against violent crime, which I don’t hold. However, I had the No Nonsense Self-Defense site’s definition of a mugger in mind when reading the rest of that post which made me see it in a different light than I likely would have otherwise. I don’t think that the issue is that if you give them what they want they won’t hurt you, but the degree of violence they are ready to wield if you don’t immediately give them what they want. Eric’s point about the attacker having the initiative fits here as well. Some things are very much worth fighting over however. If someone wants to move you that should be a huge red flag and I would say almost always it is better to take your chances fighting or running on the spot than find out what they have in store for you in a more private location.

    Out of curiosity, did you disagree with any of the quotes I used or the context I used them in?

  79. Tschafer says:

    I actually agree with you on this issue, it’s far better to avoid areas where you might be confronted with having to use violence, and the idea that a woman should initiate a fight with someone, with possibly lethal consequences, over “rough language” in 2011 is just beyond absurd, especially since about 50% of the women I know have fouler mouths than your average Marine drill instructor. But I do have to say that I think that “Delusion Damage” is a very odd site, and I certainly wouldn’t do anything to direct people there. The idea that giving in is safer has been discredited by several criminologists, and besides, I saw the consequences of the “Just give in” philosophy in the 1960′s – 1970′s. It raised crime rates, and got a lot of people killed. Yes, it’s good to stay away from human trash like muggers, if you possibly can, and it’s certainly good to know how violent they are. These are not nice people, which is why complying with their wishes is NOT a good idea. And any chick who tries to embroil you with people of this caliber should be dropped like a hot potato.

  80. Tschafer says:

    I’m sorry, I didn’t anwswer your question. No, I believe that your use of the quotes was appropriate, and I agree with them as used by you, especially with regard to women being very naive about violence. I apologize if any of of the ire I felt towards “Delusion Damage” for his….uh… delusions seemed to be directed at you.

    [D: No apology needed. I assumed it wasn't directed at me (I think we are very much on the same page). Thanks for answering the question as well.]

  81. Clarence says:

    Tschafer:

    When is it best to resist? All the time? The one time I was mugged I was in an isolated area, about two blocks away from the nearest person and this guy shoves a gun in my face. I gave him my money, he took off running.
    Whole thing took maybe 30 seconds and my life flashed before my eyes. Are you really saying it’s best to resist someone who has the drop on you and hasn’t tried to move you? Because what I’m picking up from Dalrocks second link is that you should generally do what muggers /robbers want UNLESS they try to move you to a more secluded area.

    I was always taught -at least the self defense courses I took – don’t resist if they have a weapon and you don’t have one unless you really have to and esp not if they get the drop on you.

    Comments, please.

  82. Anonymous Reader says:

    Clarence, the issue of self defense and response to criminal attack is a really big one, there are entire books written about it. The first order of business in such a situation is to go home alive. That may mean doing any number of things, from meekly handing over money to screaming loudly while counterattacking to coldly and carefully shooting someone twice in the chest as quickly as possible, and everything in between. There’s a lot of “what if’s” and just thinking about them is a major task at first, although with practice it can get easier. Situational awareness plays a role. You likely did not see the man who mugged you until he was in your face, but it is possible if you had been looking around you more critically, you would have seen him about the same time he saw you. I’m not criticizing you or second guessing you, here, I’m just saying that it is possible your mugging could have been avoided by using some techniques of awareness.

    What Dalrock is referring to in terms of “moving” has been described by John Farnum as the “crime scene A vs. crime scene B” problem. A thug who wants money isn’t interested in taking you anywhere. A serial killer, a kidnapper, or other criminal who at some point is willing to kill you, on the other hand, will want to move you from where you are to a more private location. Thus, an attempt to get someone into a car, for example, is a big red flag. Because while someone may be hurt, or even killed, at Crime Scene A, it is very likely they will be killed at Crime Scene B, probably bound and gagged. Therefore, the attempt to move you means you are effectively dead already; fighting back with every possible means, such as wrecking the car, jumping from a moving vehicle, shoving your finger all the way into an eye socket, etc. may be required to break contact. But even lying on the road with broken bones can be fixed up, whereas being shot in the back of the head multiple times and being thrown onto railroad tracks is not survivable (the latter example is from an actual carjacking/kidnapping/murder case in Tennessee a few years back).

  83. namae nanka says:

    “They want to guilt trip men, even boys when they are not busy throwing them in jails. ”

    when considering the subject of rape:

    http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/06/13/why-cant-women-prevent-rape-on-their-own/#comment-47804

  84. Dan says:

    After reading the reply’s most people understand that violence is not a thing to be taken
    lightly nor offered up gratuitously unless one is willing to accept all the ramifications and
    consequences that occur subsequent to the violent encounter.

    A few ….like “Sean”…. are just idiots. They truly do not understand the difference between
    reality and what they see on TV, in the movies or read about in fiction.

    Violence is forever….You can’t call back the bullet, unbreak the bone or resurrect the person
    dead from a violent act that could have been avoided save for the fact that ego would not allow
    for such a withdrawal.

  85. Clarence says:

    Anonymous Reader:

    Thank you for your reply. It added a bit more insight into things.

  86. Pingback: Violence Always Escalates « Gaming My Wife

  87. Anonymous Reader says:

    Clarence, you may find this book useful, even if you do not own firearms, and even though it dates to 1986. Defense Training has some other interesting things on its website, dealing with mindset.

    http://www.defense-training.com/pubs/smartbook.html

  88. jakeman says:

    Early in our marriage, my wife and I went into an Irish pub in my hometown and took a seat at the bar next to a guy who looked like Mr. Clean. We engaged him in conversation, he told us all about the tattoo shirt he was working on and how he’d just been released from the state pen for drugs and gun-running. Quite a character.

    Not long thereafter, my now-tipsy wife starts ragging on some drunk. I told her to cool it, but the damage was done quickly: It was clear he was going to clock me. Lucky enough, our friend Mr. Clean saw what was happening and stepped in to tell him to back off. Bottom line, I was very, very fortunate. I’ve been in my share of schoolyard brawls, but as an adult, I’m not real interested in getting carved up with a broken beer bottle, or being visited in jail.

    I simply don’t think women always realize that their fun and games can get serious in a damn hurry if you screw with the wrong person in the wrong place.

  89. Svar says:

    I don’t think that the McDonald’s beating can be seen as a gender issue. It seems more like a racial one.

  90. Svar says:

    Actually, I’m not too sure whether it’s a gender issue or a racial one.

  91. TAS says:

    Good points.

  92. xnook says:

    I know I’m late to the game here, but I thought that for some of you, esp. the near-bottom commenter about “violence is forever” might appreciate the Eric Raymond article “Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun.”

    http://catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html

    The first and most important of these lessons is this: it all comes down to you.
    No one’s finger is on the trigger but your own. All the talk-talk in your head, all the emotions in your heart, all the experiences of your past — these things may inform your choice, but they can’t move your finger. All the socialization and rationalization and justification in the world, all the approval or disapproval of your neighbors — none of these things can pull the trigger either. They can change how you feel about the choice, but only you can actually make the choice. Only you. Only here. Only now. Fire, or not?
    A second is this: never count on being able to undo your choices.
    If you shoot someone through the heart, dead is dead. You can’t take it back. There are no do-overs. Real choice is like that; you make it, you live with it — or die with it.
    A third lesson is this: the universe doesn’t care about motives.

  93. Pingback: Why wasn’t it women and children first? | Dalrock

  94. Pingback: What we need is more chivalry! | Dalrock

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