Lets you and him fight.

In my post on Chivalry and protecting the weak commenter Sean was troubled by the example I gave of a woman who put a group of families walking on a dark road at risk by calling out a group of nearby thugs on their language.  She felt that not only was the woman in the right by creating a confrontation, but that any men she was with were in the wrong for allowing anyone in her vicinity to curse:

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

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…

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.

While I disagree with her position on this, I will do my best to break down her case for you:

  1. Women need the protection of men because they are smaller, and therefore less able to defend themselves.
  2. A lady should never have to hear foul language, even if the alternative is to put the group’s physical safety at risk.
  3. The woman in the story should not have had to decide if it was her place to confront the thugs, or if one of the men would do so on her behalf.  She shouldn’t have been left wondering about this.
  4. The men she was with should have acted in such a way that she would know that everything would be ok.

In summary, if you find yourself in a similar situation:  Make sure the little lady knows her place and everything will be ok.

Marc ‘Animal’ MacYoung of No Nonsense Self-Defense describes a similar situation which he experienced many years ago.  His drama queen girlfriend put him in a very bad spot:

my then-girlfriend had nearly put me into a situation where I would have to bust more than just a few heads. In fact, the odds were good I’d have to kill someone in order to save our hides.

She did this by plowing through a crowd of rough characters on a crowded sidewalk one night on Hollywood Blvd:

She whirled and literally charged through the crowd — in a straight line. At this time I’d like to remind you that it wasn’t the daylight crowd. This was the nightcrew and the ’boys’ were out in force. I watched in horror as she blew straight through a group of seriously not nice dudes. They reeled back in shock and confusion. Before they could regain their composure I can hot-footin’ after her — right through their midst’s. As I was moving hard to catch up with my sweet beloved I looked back over my shoulders and saw a look I knew all to well … predators deciding whether or not to go to work.

The combination of the fact that I was obviously armed and my ’I know she’s wrong, but you really want to let this one go’ expression convinced them that maybe a few more minutes off the clock wasn’t a bad idea.

What she didn’t understand is the reason the men she was antagonizing didn’t immediately physically stop her was they saw ‘Animal’ as the responsible party:

And once again, guess who was getting the hard looks? See along with that cultural bias about how women should behave in public, also comes the assumption that it’s the male who is responsible for a woman’s bad behavior. So although she had just insulted them, they’d be wanting to discuss the insult with me.

Fortunately having grown up on the street he knew what needed to be done:

I finally broke into a short dash and grabbed her by the shoulder and spun her around to face me. KNOCK IT OFF! I snarled. Giving our ethnic audience a “I’m handling this so you don’t have to” look, I grabbed her by the arm and dragged her towards the theatre.

As we walked side by side for a short distance I began to discuss her behavior under my breath: “We’re on the *%^$%!!! Boulevard! IF we &^%$*!!! need to cut through the *&&^^%$!! crowd, you *&^%$^&$!! follow me!!!! Now get behind me and don’t say a *&^%$!! word!”

He did this not just for his safety, but for hers as well:

In their little pea brains it was a simple equation, that was one hell of a woman, and they’d not hesitate to try take her. And if she objected, they’d take her by force. What was keeping her safe among the predators was the fact that they looked at me and figured that they could cut me off at the knees and call me a tripod. I numbered among those who you didn’t mess with without good reason.

However, what she had done by first moving ahead of me — is in their eyes — lessened my status.

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

151 Responses to Lets you and him fight.

  1. sean says:

    Dalrock nice subtle misrepresentations of what I asserted. 1. Never said women should never hear foul language (that’s just stupid). In the context of a FAMILY event w/ kids present you have the reasonable expectation that the men around you won’t let other men hurl foul langauge at you and your kids. The example you gave was an apples & oranges comparison. Any woman w/ sense knows that when you are in the presence of rough characters you stay w/ your man. Its unfortunate that M didn’t realize his woman wasn’t street smart and educate her before they got into the situation. I am not for women putting men in stupid situations. However if you take your woman or family around dangerous situations w/out giving them the proper instructions that’s your fault. My husband comes from a rough world of which I was not up on. Before I meet his family he made sure I knew the basics b/c he loved enough to protect me from my own ignorance. Again stop blaming women for your inability to be manly.

  2. sean says:

    Let me clarify something here:
    1. You all claim that you will protect the women and children under your authority. I am just wondering when that protection begins? How close does danger have to be before your magical protection instinct kicks in? Am I supposed to believe it kicks in once the posturing starts, or the groping starts, or maybe when the actual weapons get pulled out? It’s okay for people to hurl insults and vulgarities at your family in your presence at a family event?

    2. Stop asking me what the woman’s responsibility is. You all claim that you will protect the women under your charge and that is what I am talking about. I am not talking about white knighting, we are assuming that if these women are under your protection they have already done what is necessary to earn that status.

    3. I have never advocated that women should put their men in a bad situation. You all like to claim that women are oblivious to the danger around them; my question is “Who put them in that danger to begin with?” I am sure those women and kids did not park their own cars down a dark dangerous street with the men held hostage. I am also sure M’s girlfriend didn’t take herself to an unsafe street fair, with him bound and chained behind her, given that she didn’t know the code of the street.

    4. I am emphatic about this because while women may control the rules of relationships; men control the rules of safety. Men control the boundaries of acceptable behaviors in public places. How many of you have actually educated the women you are responsible for on safety and what they need to do in certain situations? How many of you have taken your wives and children into dangerous areas or around dangerous people and not let them know what to expect or what to do? If you guys are really serious about your protection role, you need to do a lot more then just complain about and blame women for the danger that is out there. Here’s a news flash, even without anyone acting stupid dangerous people still are out there and looking for targets.

  3. My Name Is Jim says:

    That first quote is classic manipulation through shaming language. The only “manliness” way to deal with that is to find your principles and stick with them, and never abandon them just to please a woman. That never ends well.

    My principle of this, having dealt with plenty of bigmouths in my time of frequenting watering holes, is this: Never threaten to fight anyone because of what he says. If he’s mouthing off, have him evicted, or call the cops, or leave, or just mouth off right back. If he starts shoving then fine, it’s on. But don’t be the one to take it there.

    You can’t make somebody shut up and be polite, it’s just the limitations of your options. All else fails, leave. She’ll survive the walk to the car. I’d just explain to her why I decided to do as I did and she’s going to blame me, just don’t go out with her again. But never escalate just because you don’t like what he says.

  4. Mitchell says:

    “Men control the boundaries of acceptable behaviors in public places. How many of you have actually educated the women you are responsible for on safety and what they need to do in certain situations? How many of you have taken your wives and children into dangerous areas or around dangerous people and not let them know what to expect or what to do? If you guys are really serious about your protection role, you need to do a lot more then just complain about and blame women for the danger that is out there. Here’s a news flash, even without anyone acting stupid dangerous people still are out there and looking for targets.”

    Sean raises a good point here, one that could be summarized as

    “Make sure the little lady knows her place and everything will be ok.”

    Oh, wait. That’s just what Dalrock said. Sean, the first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is STOP DIGGING.

  5. modernguy says:

    If people are out there looking for targets maybe you should not make yourself the obvious one. Of course women love to do that to pit men against each other and see who comes out on top. Just another way to create some drama. Maybe once in a while we should just let the thugs have these women when they make themselves targets and see how audacious they are when no one’s there to save them from their stupidity. When your “woman” is the kind of girl who thinks men are created for her amusement she’s just taking advantage. In that case, chivalry is definitely outdated.

  6. paige says:

    These antiquated ideas about manliness are what put men in the grave younger than women. The high-stress and high risk of being a “protector and provider” is unnecessary and harmful.

    Maybe back in the cave days this was necessary because a woman can only be so effective with a club. Now we have more effective weaponry. Women are just as capable of using a fire arm as a man.

    I think women should stop depending on men as much as they do to keep them safe. Keep yourself out of trouble and learn to carry concealed for the few times when trouble finds you.

    I wish all women would carry a fire arm and be willing to use it if attacked.

    My grandmother raised me to be extremely independent. She was not married and she never depended on a man for anything. She was one tough cookie (with the biceps to prove it). I don’t believe women are entitled to *anything* in this modern culture other than basic dignity and respect by virtue of their humanity. Women really can manage their own lives. It may mean they use a modicum of self-control and lift-weights so they aren’t frail little flowers but so what? This isn’t the 1800’s. If we are going to have all the rights and privileges equal to a man lets act like we actually deserve it.

  7. dragnet says:

    @ Paige

    Those are admirable sentiments, and I agree wholeheartedly. However what you are proposing will never happen. Men have to deal with the world as it is, not as it should be.

  8. John Dias says:

    If a woman is to be protected — and if her man is responsible for her survival — then what are the implications of this? In my opinion there are two prevailing views:
    (A) The chivalrist’s view: A man must lay down his life — full stop — and expect nothing in return for his bravery or bravado.
    (B) The independent male’s view: If a man is responsible for your survival, then the price you pay is that you must submit to his authority. If he requires you not to provoke someone, then you must comply. Failure by you to comply is grounds for him to exercise his independence from you by revoking his provision and protection. Provision and protection — and the revocation thereof — are such a man’s leverage to enforce his standards. He need not impose his standards on the woman by force, but rather simply withdraw. Control over himself is the only leverage that he needs over her.

    The trouble these days is the feminist laws. Even if a relationship started out being modeled after scenario (B) above, the woman could always get a divorce, and thereafter exact alimony and child support from her ex-husband, and all at the point of a police officer’s gun. No longer can such a man simply threaten to revoke his provision or protection as a method of reinforcing his standards. Rather, in divorce he is expected to both fund the State’s protection and also fund his ex-wife’s economic survival — full stop — while expecting nothing in return.

    As a man, you can certainly provide and protect for your family. But if you do, then make sure that you attach the condition of her submission! If you are responsible for another person’s survival needs, then claim your right to be the authority, and legitimize your authority with your provision and protection. But whatever you do, don’t just give it away for free. Respect yourself, and remind those for whom you provide that you can walk away at any time if they disrespect your authority.

    If, on the other hand, you simply refuse to provide or protect as a matter of principle, then consider yourself:
    * liberated – you refuse to be a beast of burden, nor anyone’s security guard
    * disempowered – you no longer have any leverage to shape your relationship or your family according to your own values and standards.

    I won’t tell a man what he should do with his life. But I will point out what is in his best interest. If he provides and protects, then he must require submission, and he enforces this requirement by making it clear to those under his authority that he most certainly will walk away if they don’t submit. In this way, a man’s greater size becomes an asset to him, rather than a burdensome obligation as Sean made it out to be.

  9. Omnipitron says:

    “Men control the boundaries of acceptable behaviors in public places. How many of you have actually educated the women you are responsible for on safety and what they need to do in certain situations? How many of you have taken your wives and children into dangerous areas or around dangerous people and not let them know what to expect or what to do? If you guys are really serious about your protection role, you need to do a lot more then just complain about and blame women for the danger that is out there. Here’s a news flash, even without anyone acting stupid dangerous people still are out there and looking for targets.”

    i guess the more appropriate question is just how many women are willing to listen? Because contemporary media is always stating that women can do just what guys can do, and some are even stating that they can do it better does a woman even ‘need’ to be told what’s safe and what’s not? Hollywood has G.I. Jane and Scarlett Johansson’s character in Iron Man2 leveling a cadre of guys single-handedly, female empowerment is ubiquitous. Some women would look at that sort of ‘advice’ as ‘cave man’ or ‘outdated’ and some would give the reply; “I’m a big girl, I can take care of myself.”

    The reality that some do not comprehend is that men are bigger, stronger, and faster. Sure, there are some women that even I won’t mess with (and I have had my fair share of scuffles assisting bouncers in altercations when I was younger) but the bottom line is that none of those bad @$$ babes could ever beat most of the male bouncers that I have met in my own life. They think that they can handle it or that if they can’t someone else (their S.O.) can.

    I’ve seen women who’ve gotten right into the faces of cops and security guards thinking they where tough, women spitting on officers and bouncers and even scratching men twice their size. No joke, one woman was ejected for viciously scratching one security guard I work with p/t and this dude is 6’3″ and weighs 240lbs. He’s a defensive lineman in a men’s football league and luckily has a cool head. He restrained her in a soft bear hug, and carried her outside, he didn’t man handle her and trust me, it could have been a lot worse.

    She was beside herself. Why? Because as a woman, he shouldn’t have laid a finger on her.

    She starts a fight, bouncer asks her to stop, she doesn’t and scratches him, he carries her out and she’s p!ssed off that he even touched her, unreal.

    As for the first of Sean’s questions, that imaginary protection starts the moment other men are present. Heck, you could be taking the bus with your girl and notice some ‘unpleasant’ people may get on the bus. You keep an eye on them and the situation and I can promise you this; that there isn’t a married man on the manosphere who hasn’t noticed that sort of situation. Theater, concert, subway, movie, shopping, fast food, it doesn’t matter, most men are always sizing up the situation and the people in it.

  10. Dalrock says:

    After reading this post my wife reminded me of this scene from Joyride.

  11. Omnipitron says:

    In addition, I would just like to point out that in this day and age, that starting an altercation due to the use of foul language by an independent group in public IS putting my family in danger. Just as Jim stated above, it isn’t worth it. It would be nice if behavior such as that didn’t occur, but Men by and large where also in charge of the conduct of their young males. Men have been all but stripped of the position so the misbehavior of our male youth is the product of the lack good male examples.

  12. aspiringlady says:

  13. sean says:

    Paige,
    The truth is the truth no matter how antiquated. As a woman who has weight lifted since the 8th grade, grew up in a predominantly male family, went to college in a predominately male environment, and worked in predominately male fields, what I know is to respect the power of men. I have seen what happens to neighborhoods and communities when men set a protective tone and when men abdicate that responsibility. The fact of the matter is that women can’t set up the same secure environment that men can. I don’t care how many laws and “equality” ideas are shouted from the rooftop. The bottom line is men respect men and no woman can do what they do. I still maintain that a wife and kids should be able to go to a family event with their men and expect not to have vulgarities yelled at them. It is very sad that that idea is so preposterous to so many of you. And again Dalrock you are comparing apples to oranges. What you expect at a rough bar with your girlfriend/wife is different than what should be expected at a family event. The second example is hilarious. My husband would not have gotten out the car. He would have simply told me we are going to a different ATM and left.

  14. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sean, you seem to be saying that men should be willing to die for you at any moment, not just when you are in physical danger, but any time you are even slightly offended. Is that what you meant to say?

  15. tspoon says:

    Sean no female has the protection of any male except that he decides to. HE decides to. Not you. Likewise the decision to escalate a situation is his. Not yours. Never yours. If you want to set the standard of what proper deference street thugs should show you, then the enforcement of that standard is likewise your responsibility.
    The blood of your male partner and relatives should be precious to you. And not just because you can only spend it once. That doesn’t really show in your writing.

  16. Anonymous Reader says:

    I still maintain that a wife and kids should be able to go to a family event with their men and expect not to have vulgarities yelled at them.

    There’s a lot of things in the world that should be true, but are not true. I should be able to walk down any street in any major city at any hour of the day in total, utter safety. But I cannot do so. I’d like to be able to police the language around me with a stern word, as was more or less true in some earlier times and places, but I’m aware how much that trying to do so could cost me. You don’t seem to realize what you are asking for.

  17. paige says:

    Unarmed men do tend to respect unarmed men…especially when such a man has an imposing presence. However, a group of armed thugs don’t respect some family man walking with wife and kids. Thugs don’t even respect police officers (hence there are areas where even police fear to tread).

    Thugs rule because they don’t value their life or that of anyone else’s. Anyone who values their life doesn’t confront a thug.

  18. Deborah says:

    Sean also is misrepresenting the situation Dalrock cited. The men were using vulgarities and foul language in their conversation *amongst themselves.* They were not hurling foul language, vulgarities, threats, or anything else *at* the woman or her child. Yes, the woman and child heard them. The unfortunate reality is that they both probably hear those words all the time–at work or school, on the playground, on TV. It isn’t polite for men to curse in front of women or children, but these are *thugs.* Even if you’re willing to defend your woman’s and your child’s physical persons, it’s just plain stupid to risk serious injury, death, or jail time just so they don’t have to hear some unpleasant words. If the man had pulled out his concealed carry weapon after he–or his wife–had verbally started the altercation, the likelihood of him ending up in jail would have been very high. How’s he supposed to protect them from there? I have no doubt that a man with a CCW would have used that weapon to protect his wife and child, or his friends’ wives and children, from physical harm, but it’s just plain stupid to start a fight that will make him have to decide between letting the stupid woman get beat up or using lethal force to stop it. The woman was stupid and endangered the entire group. Lesson for men: Don’t hang out with stupid women, and if you friend marries one, hang out with him in a guys-only context or in the safety of someone’s home, nowhere where she could possibly interact with the public. Her stupidity makes her dangerous.

  19. uncleFred says:

    @Sean:
    “I still maintain that a wife and kids should be able to go to a family event with their men and expect not to have vulgarities yelled at them. It is very sad that that idea is so preposterous to so many of you.”

    Sean – you have raised a strawman here. The incident that brought up this entire thread of debate was described as follows:
    “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. ”

    There is a very large difference between the potential threat inherent in having vulgarities yelled at a family or families minding their own business on the street and presuming to take offense at a vulgar conversation that simply occurs within ear shot. Most men would intervene in the first if they determined that the threat was sufficiently grave or escalating. I doubt many men would acknowledge the second because, assuming that the vulgar conversation is not about their family, it’s not their business to be politeness police.

    What is a bit preposterous is that you set your expectations, based on what you maintain should be, rather than recognize reality. You refusal to acknowledge reality will not change it. If you want reality to conform better to your desires you must ask yourself, what price are you prepared to pay to change it. Certainly there are gatherings where such behavior is not tolerated. A church picnic. Perhaps a memorial day parade in a small town. Any number of other events where like minded people basically civil people gather in large numbers. In these settings, thugs generally keep a low profile. It’s not their turf. But an expectation that you will find a highly developed sense of propriety in conversations between young males on a dark urban street is far removed from the reality shared by most of us.

  20. uncleFred says:

    Sorry Deborah commented while I was writing. She bet me to the punch!

  21. Omnipitron says:

    “How’s he supposed to protect them from there?”

    Thanks Deborah, my point exactly. The main point is also this Sean, if you believe that your request is realistic, then you have proven the point that some women do not realize some of the consequences of certain situations.

  22. Leonidas says:

    @Sean:
    “I still maintain that a wife and kids should be able to go to a family event with their men and expect not to have vulgarities yelled at them. It is very sad that that idea is so preposterous to so many of you.”

    Even if the price is somebody ending up seriously injured or even dead? Because that’s ultimately what you’re asking for – your Protecter Males to initiate a conversation that they know, instinctively and from experience, may turn violent. And any violent confrontation between grown adult men has a non-zero, non-trivial possibility of ending in severe injury or death. Add in the fact that in the scenario described the Protector Male was substantially outnumbered, so the severely injured or dead people are most likely to be him and/or the wife and kids he’s supposed to be protecting.

    I like the idea of having my wife and kids protected from obscenities. I like the idea of them being healthy, whole and ALIVE even more.

  23. JM says:

    “Thugs rule because they don’t value their life or that of anyone else’s.”
    This seems to me to be the natural endpoint of societal devaluation of male life. How am I supposed to remain part of society and value my own life if society doesn’t? And how am I supposed to value someone else’s life if I can’t value my own?

  24. Dalrock says:

    Others have suggested that Sean may have misread the situation, confusing the walk on the dark street to the cars for the initial event. I had originally wondered if this wasn’t the case, but after I responded to her first comment pointing out the danger she doubled down on her position, as she has done each time since.

    The more I consider it the more I think her key mistake is this:

    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.

    Every man should be able to intimidate all other men, who should not be cowards who can be intimidated by another man. The flaw in logic is so obvious that it is easy to assume she can’t really mean it. But the deeper she digs the more I think she really does. And the issue about the other men knowing they are in the wrong speaks to a gross misunderstanding of human nature. Quite often aggressors see themselves as victims. I have little doubt that from the perspective of the thugs on the dark street, they were just minding their own business having a conversation when Mrs. Empowered suddenly challenged their manhood.

  25. Omnipitron says:

    “I have little doubt that from the perspective of the thugs on the dark street, they were just minding their own business having a conversation when Mrs. Empowered suddenly challenged their manhood.”

    My man, have you any idea how many times ejected patrons display that exact same attitude? Replace Mrs. Empowered for any sort of authority figure and you pretty much have covered the reaction of most ‘Thugs.’

  26. sean says:

    Gosh you guys must live in a constant state of fear. For your information, I have never asked the men in my life to put their life in jeopardy for me, they provide protection because that is what they were taught to do. And the situations you guys described is not deadly. Since some of you think it’s a big deal to ask people not curse around your family let me give you what my husband usually says that works fine ” Yo dog, my kids?” or he has said ” can you tone it down? my kids?” to which the answer has always been “aww dog, sorry man” and guess what the foul language stops. We don’t run into these situations often, but the men in my family usually handle it without any prompting. You people have been watching too many movies. I guess most of you would have allowed the teenagers smoking pot on the beach next to your family. My husband, on the other hand, without my even realizing the teems were smoking, went over and talked to them and they put the weed away. Maybe because the men I know have lived in truly dangerous situations they are better able to handle and protect their family, they pass this info to their sons, so even though my brothers weren’t brought up in a dangerous environment they know how to handle themselves.

  27. John Dias says:

    What is relevant here is how will all the “shoulds” that are coming out of Sean’s mouth will be enforced. If she expects her man to challenge another man’s profanity, what’s she going to do if he doesn’t? If she provokes another man with some variation of the “let’s you and him fight” manipulation, what if her man simply doesn’t take the bait and tells her that she’s on her own?

    If you have control over yourself, and if another person depends on you, then you are the one who sets the terms. You only need to have the backbone to tell them no when you deem necessary, and thwart manipulations before they suck you in. All this talk about who and what is right, and who gets to expect what from whom, is all dependent upon an enforcement mechanism. That mechanism is a man’s sense of personal independent judgment. That’s it. All other considerations are secondary, because they can’t be enforced if a particular man refuses.

  28. paige says:

    There is a big difference between living cautiously and living in fear. Accept that some people are as safe as a wild animal and avoid triggering them to attack. If they do attack one must analyse whether odds are better in a fight or in running in the opposite direction.

  29. Eric says:

    What also clouds the issue is that the thug you might be defending the ‘lady’ against could well be her ‘man’ (that’s about the quality of males most women go for these days); so you could end up have her accuse you for defending her.

  30. Medic says:

    Reminds me of responding to a psych pt. who had already nailed a male and female nurse. As we prepped to go into the room after mister Pumped Up and Ready for More Nancy Nurse told us, “Our rule is only four people can go in.” My reply,”Fine. You’re one of the four and you’re the the first one through the door. Rule still hold?” (Nope!) My wife’s mouth ever gets me into a fight, she won’t be anywhere safer than right beside me. Funny how dealing with the consequences of your actions results in self control and maturity.

  31. Eric says:

    Dalrock:
    The actual flaw in the logic that you mentioned isn’t the part about ‘making other men back down’. Women in our culture are so reflexively drawn to bully-boy types that a real man, asserting himself in her defense, would likely only be the recipient of her contempt.

    Most of these bullies, punks, and thugs, DO, as you say, see themselves as victims (they’re never to blame for anything), which is probably the psychological common-ground they share with most females.

  32. Anon says:

    And the situations you guys described is not deadly.

    How the HELL do you know? If you stride up to a bunch of thugs and demand they shut up, that is a situation that can BECOME deadly in an instant.

    Deborah at 2pm had it exactly right:

    Even if you’re willing to defend your woman’s and your child’s physical persons, it’s just plain stupid to risk serious injury, death, or jail time just so they don’t have to hear some unpleasant words. If the man had pulled out his concealed carry weapon after he–or his wife–had verbally started the altercation, the likelihood of him ending up in jail would have been very high. How’s he supposed to protect them from there? I have no doubt that a man with a CCW would have used that weapon to protect his wife and child, or his friends’ wives and children, from physical harm, but it’s just plain stupid to start a fight that will make him have to decide between letting the stupid woman get beat up or using lethal force to stop it. The woman was stupid and endangered the entire group.

    Bingo. Exactly.

  33. greyghost says:

    The example in the current article is easily handled now a days. The guy was with a girl friend that pulled that stunt on those guys standing on the corner. You turn to them and let them know if they feel they need to kick her ass go ahead. And then keep walking to the theater. The example of the wife going off on the guys talking amongst themself I would have actually started cussing at my wife for that. A good question for her would be if she was interested in one of those guys coming over to screw for the night. yes? “there they are pick one, see you later”. No? “mind your business bitch they weren’t talking to you”. Then turn and start walking to the car..
    The day of the white knight is over. Any woman the initiates action with somebody thinking other people (me) are going to step in is in big trouble. I’ll watch my wife get her ass beat. Now on the other hand we are minding ours and some clown approaches us ,he and all of his friends will die that night.
    Sean you’re weight lifter, kick your own asses. In other words you step up and intimidate the neighborhood to safety. Women can do anything a man can do.

  34. Eric says:

    Sean:
    Remember that Paige enjoys bragging about how sexually turned on ‘real women’ are by such thugs; and has written that her realtionship with her husband is barely more than a business deal. Don’t be surprised that her attitude about needing a man for protection is what it is. Like most American women, protection from thugs is considered counterproductive to a good roll-in-the-hay with a dysfunctional lout.

  35. Omnipitron says:

    “You people have been watching too many movies.”

    I live in Canada and I work in a bar part time for extra cash. The bar I work at isn’t in a dangerous part of town whatsoever and I can tell you that the things I’ve seen aren’t hyperbole. Sure, your man’s approach may seem reasonable, but I’ve also personally seen this same approach go wrong….horrifically wrong. You want the deal, you let your man deal with those sitches all by himself and let him make the judgement calls. Do not ever say to another man what he should and shouldn’t do in such and such situation as you don’t know where they live or what sort of circumstances it could entail. It can turn ugly, and some of the very same things people have ‘seen’ in movies I’ve seen in real life and for less than your man has done.

    By the verbiage you have used it seems that you are black, well this is a website where whites mostly congregate. Right there, right from the jump, you are missing a very large piece of the puzzle. If Dalrock or Badger had tried to say “Hey, my kids, please show some respect!” How would that go? Let’s be honest (and I’m black so it isn’t if I don’t know what I’m talking about.) sadly most ‘thugs’ are black. Now we have racial tensions on top of everything as well. Could things go harmlessly? Possibly, probably, maybe, but who is willing to take that chance?

    All it takes is the wrong sentence in the wrong place, that’s it. We all don’t live where you live Sean, just as Anonymous Reader has stated. I also have to agree with another poster here, your digging yourself deeper in this sitch, honestly, as great that your man can stand up like this, there are many times where it isn’t warranted nor even prudent. What works for you may not work for everybody. Why do people wear helmets when they ride motorcycles? Not because of the 80% of the time that nothing happens, but for the 20% of the time where something could.

  36. paige says:

    Have I ever used the term “real women” at all in my comments here? If so please show me. I said women are turned on by displays of confidence such as the men in the movies (Hugh Jackman as Wolverine comes to mind). I also have said that it is not always wise for women to follow their tingles because their instinctual attraction bias is not going to lead them to the men who are best fit to build a family with.

    I have NEVER implied that my relationship is a business deal. EVER. I had very passionate feelings towards my husband when we met and I still do.

    A woman does not need a man to protect her assuming she is 1. armed and 2. uses common sense and avoids trouble. The fact that this attitude is being used to accuse me of being a thug-chaser is awful.

  37. Anonymous Reader says:

    sean
    Gosh you guys must live in a constant state of fear.

    Can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t. Nor do I live in a dream world where I’m Superman.

    For your information, I have never asked the men in my life to put their life in jeopardy for me, they provide protection because that is what they were taught to do. And the situations you guys described is not deadly.

    How do you know the situation described could not become deadly?

    Since some of you think it’s a big deal to ask people not curse around your family let me give you what my husband usually says that works fine ” Yo dog, my kids?” or he has said ” can you tone it down? my kids?” to which the answer has always been “aww dog, sorry man” and guess what the foul language stops.

    That’s great. But tell me, what would your husband do if the answer was “F*** you, muthah*****, we f****’ well talk the *****’ way we want to, understand?”, followed by posturing in an aggressive manner by four or five “youths” or “teens”. Given that response, he would have to either up the ante, or back down. Which would you want him to do?

    We don’t run into these situations often, but the men in my family usually handle it without any prompting.

    Gee, that’s great for you to live around such manly men. I can see why you are so quick to condemn other men that don’t measure up.

    You people have been watching too many movies.

    That’s one possible explanation. Another one is that your experiences are quite different than ours, your knowledge of the legal system and the laws of self defence are deficient, and your sense of entitlement is pretty high.

  38. zed says:

    I have little doubt that from the perspective of the thugs on the dark street, they were just minding their own business having a conversation when Mrs. Empowered suddenly challenged their manhood.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if a jury saw things pretty much the same way if things escalated to the point where someone got seriously hurt. Unless it was a private street, owned completely by Mrs. Compulsion-to-Control-Everything-and-Everyone, anyone else there at the same time has as much right to be there as she and her White-Knight-Goon-Enforcer do.

    And,I don’t think it has anything to do with “challenging their manhood.” From what I have seen lately, teenage girls and even grown women get quite offended, and sometimes violent, when anyone tries to order them around. (slutwalks, anyone?)

    I think John Dias hit the nail on the head –

    What is relevant here is how will all the “shoulds” that are coming out of Sean’s mouth will be enforced.

    A point I make over and over is that women have thrown away all moral authority they once had over the past 40-50 years. Slurs against Dalrock’s (or anyone else’s) “manliness” by an unknown person on the web constitute nothing more than a temporary bit of extra noise against the background thrum of man-bashing which is to men in this culture today as rain is to a resident of Seattle. Perhaps Mrs. Control-Compulsion would like to sick her W-K-G-E on some of the slutwalkers for offending her delicate sensibilities.

    Or, perhaps not.

    Regardless of Mrs. Control-Compulsion’s assessment of Dalrock’s “manliness”. I have gotten no hint that Mrs. Dalrock is anything other than quite satisfied with it.

  39. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    “I have little doubt that from the perspective of the thugs on the dark street, they were just minding their own business having a conversation when Mrs. Empowered suddenly challenged their manhood.”

    +1 on that. And if the disagreement happened to cross a color line, that amps up the the “challenge
    to manhood” a whole bunch. Something I’m beginning to suspect sean doesn’t fully understand.

    Omnipitron
    My man, have you any idea how many times ejected patrons display that exact same attitude? Replace Mrs. Empowered for any sort of authority figure and you pretty much have covered the reaction of most ‘Thugs.’

    My own experience working a bar agrees with the first sentence, very few drunks asked to leave a bar have ever done anything at all wrong in their eyes, although they might have been “funnin” or “kidding” or “just playin a little bit”, etc. The experience of people whom I know that are police officers, sheriff’s deputies, or other uniformed officers agrees with the second; those people have uniforms, body armor, get to carry guns and have shotguns in the car, can call for a whole bunch of friends on the radio — and they still wind up getting in physical fights with thugs from time to time who decide their manhood demands a fight right here and now. If thugs are sometimes not at all impressed by an armed man in uniform with backup, how impressed are they going to be by a middle aged guy wearing a photo vest with an old lady and two small kids tagging along?

  40. Omnipitron says:

    “If thugs are sometimes not at all impressed by an armed man in uniform with backup, how impressed are they going to be by a middle aged guy wearing a photo vest with an old lady and two small kids tagging along?”

    Anonymous Reader, you read my mind. That’s it precisely and by watching that tableau which you described repeated over and over again I realized that in the end, it isn’t worth it to unnecessarily antagonize men I don’t even know. Heck, there have been ‘Thugs’ which wheren’t even drunk but just like you said, Bouncers, Security, whatever you wish to call them tell them that they have to leave and what is the answer these guys give back?

    “No, I ain’t leaving.”

    And sometimes these guys aren’t even drunk, they’ve got egos the size of the Titanic and they aim to even the score. Someone stepped to them sideways and the only way out for them is to put up a front, even if it means they leave in an ambulance, or you do. What happens if there is no one to back you up? What happens if it is just you and your children and you unfortunately encounter SuperThug?

  41. Dalrock says:

    @Sean
    Since some of you think it’s a big deal to ask people not curse around your family let me give you what my husband usually says that works fine ” Yo dog, my kids?” or he has said ” can you tone it down? my kids?” to which the answer has always been “aww dog, sorry man” and guess what the foul language stops.

    Others have done a good job of pointing out why that specific exchange might not work for another man, or in some cases might not work for your husband. But beyond that I’m surprised that you characterized this as your husband “making the other man back down”. There is a lot tied up in just those few words, but I would characterize the exchange more as him offering the other men respect and asking for it in return. If you aren’t clear on the distinction that would explain a great deal.

  42. dragnet says:

    “There is a lot tied up in just those few words, but I would characterize the exchange more as him offering the other men respect and asking for it in return. If you aren’t clear on the distinction that would explain a great deal.”

    That’s exactly what this is. The fact that Sean completely misreads this situaton doesn’t surprise me in the least.

    This is, in my view, another reason why women just need to keep their mouths shut around situations and topics like this. 99 percent of them have absolutely no knowledge of the male social dynamics that are actually taking place. Their intrusion all too often introduces violence and discord where it may not have otherwise made an appearance. It didn’t matter that Dalrock was white—he instinctively understood what was taking place there, as any man would.

    Sean–when you’re 6 ft deep you need to stop digging.

  43. dragnet says:

    Here’s a comment I left at Roissy’s about the use of force last year. Slightly off topic, but it fleshes out a bit more how I feel:

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/greatest-pimp-slap-ever/#comment-166174

  44. Dalrock says:

    @Zed
    A point I make over and over is that women have thrown away all moral authority they once had over the past 40-50 years. Slurs against Dalrock’s (or anyone else’s) “manliness” by an unknown person on the web constitute nothing more than a temporary bit of extra noise against the background thrum of man-bashing which is to men in this culture today as rain is to a resident of Seattle.

    Agreed, at least for those of us who are past our 20s. Someone said on another thread that men don’t fear being called a coward, they fear that it would be true. I think that is a pretty good summation of the issue. I do think younger men and hopefully many women will benefit from reading the larger exchange here though, and it was for the younger men especially that I felt the need to push back on Sean’s accusations of cowardice, real men do X, etc.

  45. Deepthought says:

    Dalrock,

    Did not know you allowed folks from the short bus to join in adult conversation. Nice of you to allow Paige and Sean time off from their trips.

    Btw, did you notice how none of them ever reply to any of your arguments. Many women do this when confronted with the weakness of their points.

  46. zenpriest says:

    it was for the younger men especially that I felt the need to push back on Sean’s accusations of cowardice, real men do X, etc.

    Each of us pushes back in our own way, Dalrock. My own personal opinion is that a RealMan™ doesn’t waste much time or energy worrying about what some nameless, faceless, doorknob on the net thinks of him.

    On the very same day that Mrs. Control-Compulsion tried her “y’all just aren’t manly enough” mind game, Dr. Helen had a post about Christiane Amanpour bashing men for being too manly. http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-about-perils-of-too-much-estrogen.html

    A man’s choice these days boils down to which group of women he would rather have pissed off at him and bashing him. Personally, I think young men will benefit from regarding it all as meaningless noise and ignoring it. It’s probably a generational thing – wave after wave of young men were sent to their deaths by women who handed them white feathers and older men who kept telling them “One more time, over the top, boys.” My generation came along and quite objected to being regarded as nothing but cannon fodder, and unpaid bodyguards, while the people for whom we provided those services regarded and treated us with unmitigated contempt. Fragging such people seemed to be a completely appropriate response. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging

    Historically, men have kept the behaviors of other men in check, and women kept other women in check. Beginning about 50 years ago, women totally dropped the ball on their side of the deal and have relied on their White Knight Goons and Enforcers to continue to enforce behavior restrictions on men. It is a short-term strategy at best.

    As John Dias pointed out, Mrs. Control-Compulsion can wag her finger all she wants and try to lecture men about what they “should” (women’s favorite word) do, but without their White Knight Goons to enforce those dictates on other men they are doing nothing but blowing hot air which is easily ignored. When women start showing as much concern about reining in the out-of-control behavior of women like the slutwalkers, I might consider taking them a tiny bit seriously again.

    Until then, I will just take their hypocrisy at face value and consider it to be an accurate reflection of their character. Guys my age who resisted conscription to shore up France’s failed colonial strategy had Federal Marshals sent after them to hunt them down and drag them to the induction center in handcuffs and leg irons. I figure that the White Knight Goons who want to enforce women’s “shoulds” can do the same.

  47. Paige says:

    I don’t respond to his arguments? Umm..I have come back over and over to address peoples arguments to me.
    In this particularly case I actually agreed with Dalrock, he just chastised me for my “tone”. So why are you even lumping me in with Sean when our arguments are completely different?

    I am inclined to agree that I must ride the short-bus. Anyone else with half a brain would have given up on arguing at this blog. I get to be called thug-chaser and accused of all sorts of unsavory things simply for calmly disagreeing (or in this case- agreeing!) with the main post.

  48. Dalrock says:

    @Paige
    I think women should stop depending on men as much as they do to keep them safe. Keep yourself out of trouble and learn to carry concealed for the few times when trouble finds you.

    I think this is generally a good idea (some people don’t have the right makeup, but that isn’t a male or female thing). If we can get a sitter when I take the CCW class next month my wife will probably join me. As I and others mentioned before, being armed also tends to change your mindset on what is important vs what really should be just let go. It also (for me at least) is an excellent reminder of the importance of being polite and minding one’s own business. Heinlein was right about an armed society being a polite one.

    BTW, I wouldn’t worry about Eric calling you a thug chaser. If he didn’t, it would be tantamount to accusing you of not being a woman. ;)

  49. Dalrock says:

    @Dragnet
    That’s exactly what this is. The fact that Sean completely misreads this situaton doesn’t surprise me in the least.

    This is, in my view, another reason why women just need to keep their mouths shut around situations and topics like this. 99 percent of them have absolutely no knowledge of the male social dynamics that are actually taking place. Their intrusion all too often introduces violence and discord where it may not have otherwise made an appearance.

    As painful as it was getting here, I think there is much value in having done so. Sean’s attitudes aren’t that uncommon outside of the manosphere, so in a way she did us a favor by representing that point of view. I actually was surprised that more women didn’t join in the conversation on the first post at least. They must have sensed that this was a sensitive topic. I know the pages are getting viewed because the hits are there. There are far more people reading this discussion silently than are participating in it. I would guess upwards of 10x.

  50. Clarence says:

    Paige:

    I like and respect you. I’m sorry you get so much crap. Yeah, sometimes I think its earned but often it’s not or at least not entirely fair, and I should say so more often. I guess I just take it for granted you’ll hang around.

  51. sean says:

    Wow, reading these posts it strikes me that all the violence and hatred spewed here is for the woman & at women. You guys are really ready to eviscerate a woman whose only crime was to expect that she could walk her kids to the car and not have her kids have to listen to vulgar language the whole way there. The fact that the men around her did nothing to try to alleviate the situation and make a safer environment for their kids and family is completely excused. I mean even simply holding their families back and allowing the thugs to pass a safe distance in front of them.
    1. Yes I believe my husband displays manliness b/c most of the guys here have gone through GREAT pains to explain how they would do nothing to try to change the situation. As a matter of fact they would leave there women and children to stomped in the ground for thinking that there father, uncle, brother should do anything at all. The men on this blog have made it perfectly clear that they would simply scurry away due to an extreme state of “cautiousness.” The fact that my husband, brothers, father would do something and have done things to alleviate these types of situations sets them heads and shoulders above you.
    2. You guys keep railing that women should keep their mouths shut in any situation involving men. That is my point exactly. A woman would keep her mouth shut if the men around her were displaying even a basic ability to handle other men. I am not talking about women in a bar or any other situation that certain standards of behavior should be expected. As a matter of fact I do keep my mouth shut b/c the men around me handle these situations.
    3. We will simply have to have a disagreeing of the minds. You can call me whatever names you want to, it doesn’t bother me, b/c thank goodness I don’t have to depend on any of you for my protection. I will go back to the short bus for daring to have a different view.

  52. Twenty says:

    Dear Sean,

    In the hypothetical situation in which you put me in the sort of situations discussed here, I guar-an-dam-tee you that, should we both survive, the last ass I would kick would be yours, right to the curb.

    If a woman expects a man to defend her, she owes him her obedience, especially in the matter of “don’t pick fights with thugs”. Otherwise, she is simply expecting him to tidy up whatever mess she makes of her life. Screw that.

    You’re a liability.

  53. John Dias says:

    Sean, in my opinion you are overlooking the fact that it is a man’s prerogative whether to accept risks, whether to lay down or jeopardize his life. You’re not filling that role on his behalf, are you? And so your argument that the man’s mere prerogative to defend a woman somehow — some way — equates to his outright refusal to exercise that prerogative simply illustrates the point that many have already made in this thread. Your satisfaction as a woman is not really the point. It is HIS standards that matter — his criteria — when he’s the one who accepts the responsibility for your survival. Don’t say that, “I wouldn’t have to shame you guys if only you behaved according to my whims,” because your whims aren’t really the point if you’re exempt from the requirement of doing what you expect him to do.

  54. modernguy says:

    sean’s husband must be the guy that shot Bin Laden.

    (Group of thugs walking down dark street talking among themselves):
    Blah…blah…blah…f*ck this f*ck that…hahaha…

    (sean’s husband, noticing his beloved’s nose in a twist):
    Yo dawgs, my family!

    (Group of thugs, noticing vulnerable family defended by a middle aged white guy):
    What the f*ck! You got a problem b*tch?

    (They advance on him)

    (Group of thugs are lying dead, each with a bullet hole in the center of their forehead, sean’s husband stands by with MP5 slung from shoulder):
    Just like in Afghanistan babe.

    (sean, with panties extremely wet):
    Oh, baby, you’re such a man!

  55. Omnipitron says:

    “I will go back to the short bus for daring to have a different view.”

    Then stay there because you are proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that many women need men’s protection and that they haven’t a aolid grasp of reality. You still don’t understand that you sound like a child being explained how things actually work and are disagreeing because it doesn’t fit in with your personal experiences. If after all of this time you still don’t get it, it’s obvious that you don’t want to. Your doing your best to prove men wrong, but only serving to prove us men right.

    It’s sort of funny though, you’ve been told that you are only digging yourself deeper and all you do is get a larger shovel.

  56. Anon says:

    You guys are really ready to eviscerate a woman whose only crime was to expect that she could walk her kids to the car and not have her kids have to listen to vulgar language the whole way there.

    A perfect example of the modern American woman’s attitude of entitlement!

    What you “expect” and what you get in the real world are two different things, baby.

    The fact that the men around her did nothing to try to alleviate the situation and make a safer environment for their kids and family is completely excused.

    You are STILL missing the point. The environment WAS safe until the woman started making it unsafe by mouthing off to the thugs. Thugs talking loudly in foul language to themselves does NOT constitute a threat to women and children who hear them. The thugs were not even cursing, or talking to, the family in front of them! Turning around and confronting the thugs CREATES a threat it does not make the environment safer.

    A woman would keep her mouth shut if the men around her were displaying even a basic ability to handle other men.

    If a woman is with a man who CANNOT “handle” thugs, that is MORE of a reason for her to keep her fucking yap shut for her own safety not less of one.

    thank goodness I don’t have to depend on any of you for my protection.

    Thanks goodness my woman is smarter than you and doesn’t expect to decide what fights I should be in.

  57. uncleFred says:

    @Dalrock
    ” If we can get a sitter when I take the CCW class next month my wife will probably join me.”
    I HIGHLY recommend that you two find a sitter. My late wife was an avid shooter. I suspect you will both enjoy the experience more if you share it. Knowing that she is also trained in the defensive use of a firearm will give both of you greater peace of mind and a mutual understanding of what is involved.

    After your class, I hope that you will blog on your experience.

  58. Clarence says:

    modernguy nails it!

  59. zenpriest says:

    Don’t say that, “I wouldn’t have to shame you guys if only you behaved according to my whims,” because your whims aren’t really the point if you’re exempt from the requirement of doing what you expect him to do.

    Well, Dalrock’s silent audience certainly seems to be getting their money’s worth with this thread. Lots of different viewpoints being tossed around here, and lots of different points being made.

    One of the main points I am making is that Sean isn’t shaming us – or at least not all of us. She keeps trying, and failing miserably – doing nothing except proving her own cluelessness and irrelevance. There is a lot of talk in the manosphere about “shaming language” – which is women’s primary weapon to use against men. However, it only works against men who participate in their own shaming – men who buy into the value system that women use against men. As Dalrock said above – the power in calling a man a coward comes from his fear that it could be true. To a man who has the self-knowledge to to know that it isn’t, the insult has no more power than telling him he has green skin – he knows he doesn’t, and completely discounts the person claiming that he does. The moment a man stops buying into it, all the attacks and personal insults become nothing but noise spouted by the clueless.

    Within the broader context of the gender war, I believe that men have to make the point to women that “You can’t have it BOTH ways, Bayyyyyybeeeee!” Either they are “strong, independent women who DON’T NEED NO MAN” or they aren’t. They don’t get to play at being whichever one suits their whim of the moment, and then get to exercise the woman’s prerogative to change her mind at any time.

    My personal strategy is to call women’s bluff, hold them accountable, and make them backup their bullshit. Unlike the soft bigotry of low expectations of the White Knights and manginas – “Oh, you can’t expect any better of her, she’s just a woman” – I think there are women who are capable of rising to the expectations placed upon them.

    Dalrock’s post which started this exchange was titled “Chivalry and protecting the weak.”, not “Mindless White Knightism and protecting the stupid, obnoxious, and mouthy.” Sean damn well better be getting down on her knees and thanking God that she doesn’t have to depend on many of us for protection, because the mouthiness she has demonstrated here is characteristic of what women have been doing at the cultural level for years. No, she sure as hell cannot depend on me for any of her protection, because I took all those women who claimed that they didn’t need it at their word – while she sat around silently and nodded her head in agreement like a bobblehead.

    Joni Mitchell sang, in “Big Yellow Taxi” – “Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone.”

    Women have been able to get away with bashing men for years because they foolishly felt confident that “dumb old men” would keep doing what women wanted them to do no matter how much women bashed them for doing it. I guess they sort of expected that men wouldn’t take them seriously no matter how loudly they screamed or how much they stamped their little feet demanding to be taken seriously.

    All in all, I consider this conversation a public service to Sean’s husband. Should she ever get the impulse to go “Eat, Pray, Love”, it is a harsh dose of reality that maybe she should appreciate her own marriage and husband a little more, because she is damned unlikely to find another as good to her as he is, and doesn’t stand one chance in a million of finding one a great deal better.

  60. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    ” If we can get a sitter when I take the CCW class next month my wife will probably join me.”

    She should do that. Because even if she does not carry, it would make your lives simpler if she has a CHL because you are in Texas, where illegal carry is still a felony (3rd degree if I recall right). In the event she somehow were to wind up with a briefcase or book bag that contained a firearm, she’d be covered. Yes, I know, nobody should do off-body carry, and nobody should ever lose track of a firearm. It happens. At least Texas finally made guns in cars legal. And if Texas still has that revolver-only CHL, don’t bother with it, get the semiauto version, both of you. That way both are totally covered. There have been cases where someone with a revolver-only permit somehow winds up with a semiauto – technically, that’s illegal carry. Felony, remember?

    Both of you should get the CHL. If nothing else, the course is illuminating on legal aspects of self defense.

  61. J says:

    Wow, reading these posts it strikes me that all the violence and hatred spewed here is for the woman & at women.

    Yep, the manosphere gets like sometimes.

    You guys are really ready to eviscerate a woman whose only crime was to expect that she could walk her kids to the car and not have her kids have to listen to vulgar language the whole way there.

    As a woman myself, I wouldn’t call it a “crime,” but it’s not a reasonable expectation. I’m old enough to recall the “Leave It to Beaver” days in America, and what you propose has NEVER been the case in my memory. The 50s and 60s had their thugs too. Smart people steer clear of thugs, and a bright guy knows that discretion is the better part of valor.

    The fact that the men around her did nothing to try to alleviate the situation and make a safer environment for their kids and family is completely excused. I mean even simply holding their families back and allowing the thugs to pass a safe distance in front of them.

    I would agree that a man should hold back a family if they are not aware enough to avoid both physical contact and eye contact with thugs. I would expect my husband to teach my kids about that sort of things as a normal part of their upbringing. (I myself recently had such a teaching moment. I got cut off on the road while driving my sons somewhere. To the dismay of my sons who thought I should cut the guy off as payback, I gave the moron in the other car the right of way though legally it was mine.) I explained to the boys that the safest place for an a-hole was in front ot me where I could easily keep an eye on him–not in back of me forcing me to constantlhy watch my rearview mirror.)

    I would NEVER encourage my husband to engage a group of thugs though–despite the fact that he has had success in confrontations. When we were newlyweds he successfully talked an armed, disgruntled veteran from “going postal” in a public place. He took a huge risk then that could have made me a widow, and I have no desire to become a widow over some imagined insult to the virgin ears of my sons who probably swear like sailors when I’m out of earshot anyway. It’s just not the hill I want us to die on.

    One thing that no one here has considered is that we no longer in the Wild West. While I don’t want to debate the right to bear arms–my father was a gun owner though my DH is not– I would assert that in this day and age the biggest thing a guy can do to keep his family safe on a day to day basis is earn enough money to live in a safe enviornment and send his kids to safe schools. Yeah, one should know how to defend oneself in the case of emergency, but the safest course is avoid places were emergencies are a part of the daily landscape.

  62. Legion says:

    Sean,
    Someone may take their family to an event but that doesn’t make it a family event unless only families are there. When groups of young rowdy people (the girls too) attend these events and can drink, you are no longer at a family event. Act accordingly and you and your loved ones will make it home alive. Unless you are the only one you love and are not concerned about others in your group.

  63. uncleFred says:

    @J
    “I would assert that in this day and age the biggest thing a guy can do to keep his family safe on a day to day basis is earn enough money to live in a safe enviornment and send his kids to safe schools”

    Seeking a generally less violence prone environment is certainly a prudent course, and one that I support. There is still a need to deal with the reality of a mobile society which can visit horrific mindless violence for no apparent reason literally anywhere in this nation. The biggest thing anyone can do to keep their family safe is to instill vigilance, preparation, and the means to respond to threats as appropriate for their age in every member of the family.

    While it is far less dangerous than a typical urban setting, I submit that if Mount Vernon is not a “safe environment” there probably isn’t one left. http://www.wmur.com/news/21213678/detail.html

    I was unable to find a still valid url to a follow up story in which the perps admitted that they entered with the explicit intention of killing every one inside, and selected the target in part based on its remote location.

  64. Omnipitron says:

    Sean
    “Wow, reading these posts it strikes me that all the violence and hatred spewed here is for the woman & at women.”

    J
    “Yep, the manosphere gets like sometimes.

    Yup, however, one must also realize that this attitude displayed by the manosphere still falls short of the exact reverse men deal with on a daily basis. Men aren’t trying to turn this whole situation into a p!ssing contest, just that society at large seems dead set on insulating women from their own actions. If you ladies are as equal as you claim you are, then when you are in the wrong, and you are, acknowledge it and try to change. The manosphere is one of the only places not afraid of airing the truth about women’s true behavior. Until women who claim they can hang with men clean up their act in regards to this situation, they are in no position to point fingers about how men act in such a small place on the internet.

    Dalrock’s blog vs Hollywood, The Lifetime Network, and a polarizing movement supporting only one gender. The manosphere is nothing in compared to the Misandry spewed by the Lamestream media in society at large.

    With that said, kudos to J and her position.

    “I would NEVER encourage my husband to engage a group of thugs though–despite the fact that he has had success in confrontations. When we were newlyweds he successfully talked an armed, disgruntled veteran from “going postal” in a public place. He took a huge risk then that could have made me a widow, and I have no desire to become a widow over some imagined insult to the virgin ears of my sons who probably swear like sailors when I’m out of earshot anyway. It’s just not the hill I want us to die on.”

    ^^^^^THIS…this right here. ^^^^^

    Take it for what it’s worth but I’m pretty passionate about this because I’ve seen the unfortunate outcomes from confrontations and I know that I’m not the only one. This is not a joke nor a game, one misunderstanding in the wrong place or at the wrong time could mean disaster for your family. Your local watering hole could have one patron who is a loose cannon and a misunderstanding there could be the end. Naseball game, movie, concert, heck, there could be a ‘Jam’ next door which you know nothing about and you step outside looking for a cab home and suddenly, your life changes forever. Yes, J is absolutely correct that men have to watch for danger and avoid high risk locations, but as I stated earlier, ‘low risk’ locations can change in a heartbeat depending who decides to walk in and when.

    I’ve been knocked out, kicked in the head by three different guys at once, and also seen the same thing happen to a friend of mine. You think this is something which only happens in the movies? Think again, issues can happen everywhere and besides locking yourself in your house and never leaving, you only have the choice of navigating the risks as they come. If I had to die protecting my family, it’s not going to be because some loudmouth dummy was speaking in slang to his boyz on the side of the road. if you come at my family sideways expecting to do damage, THEN its you or me come what may.

    “It’s just not the hill I want us to die on.”

    Damn Skippy!!!

  65. OhioStater says:

    I think what Sean is REALLY saying is her husband shouldn’t allow miscreants and criminals on her streets, as if a world free of bad elements is the only world you CAN bring kids into.

  66. Anonymous Reader says:

    The other day a family member pulled out the classic disk “Heavy Weather” by the band Weather Report. Arguably the best bassist of the 70’s was Jaco Pastorius, who was also bipolar. And that brings me to this thread, again.

    Pastorius was having problems, living on the streets for weeks at a time, then getting into the hospital, then back out on the streets again. In September of 1987 he got kicked out of a Santana concert for getting on the stage during performance. He went to a night club, where he wanted to get in, but was turned away. Then he got angry, kicked in a glass door, and got in a fight with the club bouncer. Long story short, Pastorius wound up in the hospital with multiple fractures on his face, injuries to his eyes, fell into a coma, got put on life support, and a few days later died.

    That’s what can happen in a real fight, not the ones on TV. It could well be that one reason Pastorius got so badly hurt was because he would not stop fighting, due to his mental condition. But any time someone gets hit on the head a lot, they may have a life changing experience. It’s strange that humans are on the one hand incredibly tough, and can survive really horrible damage, and on the other hand pretty fragile and can die just from slipping and falling down on a hard floor. I’ve known a couple of people, not that old, who went that way.

    A wise man chooses his fights carefully. That includes not allowing someone else to choose for him, if possible.

  67. J says:

    @Uncle Fred

    I hear what you are saying. I live in a neighborhood where 90% of police calls involve stray dogs or kids skinny-dipping uninvited in the neighbors’ pool, but so, I suppose, did Sharon Tate. Nonetheless, we are much safer then most people. That’s a good thing.

  68. zed says:

    As a woman myself, I wouldn’t call it a “crime,” but it’s not a reasonable expectation. I’m old enough to recall the “Leave It to Beaver” days in America, and what you propose has NEVER been the case in my memory. The 50s and 60s had their thugs too. Smart people steer clear of thugs, and a bright guy knows that discretion is the better part of valor.

    An incredibly sensible position, J.

    Back in the “bad old 50s and 60s”, when all women were kept chained to the stove, barefoot and pregnant, the “American Dream” of home ownership did allow a great many people to create their own little islands within the larger culture where they could have things exactly as they wanted to have them, and anyone who was a guest in their house who violated their expected customs of behavior was obviously not invited back. That is a very far cry from the expectation of a woman that her husband will be such a hunk of man that he can extend her desires and preferences to the world at large.

    There are several reasons why this is such a sensitive and inflammatory topic. I’m sure that I could go out on the web right now and find feminist screeds beating up men in general for the fact that in many middle eastern countries and Islamic cultures women are not allowed out of their houses except in the company of a male relative – strictly in recognition that the entire world and all the people in it cannot be controlled in such a way to make it suit the preferences of a particular woman.

    Now, on to this –

    “Wow, reading these posts it strikes me that all the violence and hatred spewed here is for the woman & at women.”

    J – “Yep, the manosphere gets like sometimes.

    Yup, fer shure, look at all the “violence” – why there is blood spattered and body parts strewn just everywhere! :roll:

    Distortion of firm disagreement into calling it “violence” or “hatred” is a prime example of what might be called the “hysterification of the dialogue.” It’s a bit like Female Masculinist’s post “If you won’t go along with me killing my baby, you must hate women.” The power of such hyperbole to sway discussion is simply getting worn out from overuse.

    It’s true that many of the men here have absolutely no use for mouthy, angry, aggressive women. And, particularly no use for a woman who sets up her man to have to pass a pointless shit test that there is almost no way he can win, and hundreds of ways he can lose.

    Several years ago I witnessed a confrontation in a similar vein to the one Dalrock quotes “Animal” describing. Only this one turned out much worse for the woman and her male companion. A woman decided to see how well her man could “handle” other men by mouthing off to a group of guys in a bar. They shrugged it off for a
    while, but she just would not let it go. Finally, one of the guys said to her companion “Shut your bitch’s mouth, or (I will do your job and) shut it for you.” At that point it was too late for the guy to flash the “I’m handling this” look – because he wasn’t. His only choice was to take on Bad Bad Leroy Brown and his 5 buddies, or be totally diminished in his woman’s eyes. He obviously figured it was better to lose face with her for backing down than to get beaten up and lose face for getting beaten up.

    In my opinion, this woman obviously chose the wrong hill for her respect for her mate, and her marriage, to die on. Clearly J is not such a woman, which is why I give her marriage better odds for surviving than the marriages of many other women.

  69. Dalrock says:

    @J
    One thing that no one here has considered is that we no longer in the Wild West. While I don’t want to debate the right to bear arms–my father was a gun owner though my DH is not– I would assert that in this day and age the biggest thing a guy can do to keep his family safe on a day to day basis is earn enough money to live in a safe enviornment and send his kids to safe schools.

    While I agree entirely with your point about moving your family away from the violent and the dysfunctional, in the real world my tax dollars are constantly being used to move violent and dysfunctional people next to me. It isn’t as bad now that we live in a home in the suburbs and not an apartment, but even so we are blessed with our share of section 8 dirtballs. Fortunately the last really bad group in the section 8 rental house down the street a bit were finally evicted because one of my neighbors raised hell after one of said nice poor downtrodden fellows raped a young girl in the neighborhood park.

  70. Dalrock says:

    @Zed
    hysterification of the dialogue

    Brilliant

  71. J says:

    @zed

    An incredibly sensible position, J.
    A manosphere compliment!! Thanks!

    Back in the “bad old 50s and 60s”, when all women were kept chained to the stove, barefoot and pregnant,,,

    You and I are roughly the same age, right? In our 50’s? I really don’t recall my mom and aunts not working, at least part of the time. They just had crappier jobs. Anyway, I don’t idealize those days. I’m happier now than I was then. My husband and I have a better relationship than either of our parents did.

    That is a very far cry from the expectation of a woman that her husband will be such a hunk of man that he can extend her desires and preferences to the world at large.

    Actually, I found Sean’s comment rather old fashioned. My mom, who just passed away oin her late 80s, always enjoyed a good round of “Let’s you and him fight.” My dad, who was as Alpha as a guy could get generally obliged. Typically, he was the meanest MF in any given environment, but even he was aware when he was outmatched.

    His only choice was to take on Bad Bad Leroy Brown and his 5 buddies, or be totally diminished in his woman’s eyes. He obviously figured it was better to lose face with her for backing down than to get beaten up and lose face for getting beaten up.

    Wise choice. The woman sounds like a nutbag. The thrill’s not worth the risk of losing your SO. If she thought it was, then there was something wrong with her.

    Clearly J is not such a woman, which is why I give her marriage better odds for surviving than the marriages of many other women.

    So far, so good. We’ve been married over 20 years, a couple for almost 25. My husband’s too big an investment on my part for me to be careless with him. ;-)

  72. J says:

    @Dalrock

    Fortunately the last really bad group in the section 8 rental house down the street a bit were finally evicted because one of my neighbors raised hell after one of said nice poor downtrodden fellows raped a young girl in the neighborhood park.

    Cripes!

    We have some housing for the developmentally disabled near us, but no one dangerous so far. But then again, there are loads of lawyers living in my neighbor. That keeps us all safe. ;-)

  73. Eric says:

    Paige:
    You’ve stated such things on MANY occasions. Need I remind you that you that you’ve described thuggish men as ‘female kryptonite’ who ‘make women melt’ and really ‘know how to get inside a woman’s head’? or describing your past relationships as men who were nothing short of chronic abusers?

    I’m not accusing you of being hypocritical; i’m pointing out that your attitudes are exactly typical of the majority of women; who detest good men and pursue losers and lowlifes.

    Statements like this one: “I don’t need a man for protection” just shows how little any of you women value anything positive from men in relationships. The fact is, you don’t believe that you need us for protection, or anything else for that matter. Women want to feel superior to men; and they want bullies, because bullies and thugs are cowards whom you CAN”T depend upon.

  74. Pingback: Sean Bean Stabbed for White Knighting « Gaming My Wife

  75. Eric says:

    Dalrock/Sean:
    I know a good number of both kinds of males: the kind who rush to the aid of a damsel in distress; and the kinds who get off on distressing damsels. The main difference between the two is that the first group is made up of bachelors and divorcees; and the second; men with harems of girlfriends and lots of kids, all born out of wedlock, of course.

    You’re right when you say that thug-chasing and contemporary womanhood go hand-and-glove together. To argue that women seriously WANT protection from these louts is laughable; when they practically kill themselves to be with males exactly like the ones Sean described.

    Speaking for myself, though, I would probably intervene on the woman’s behalf; not because I think that she either wants it or deserves it; but because I hate thugs LOL.

  76. Paige says:

    @ERIC

    You are misquoting me. I never said “thuggish” men are female kyrptonite. I said that ALPHA men are kryptonite. You are the one who insists that alpha=thug. I find men with criminal tendencies to be a turn-off.

    I also made it abundantly clear that I do not have a history of dating thugs. My longest relationship before I got married (2 years) was with a 25 year old VIRGIN. I have never ever dated a criminal.

    My husband is a good man. He is the father of my soon-to-be 6 children. We have been married 10 years. As far as I know he has always been faithful. If I am not attracted to good men then why did I marry one at age 19 and stay with him and have a bunch of children with him?

  77. Paige says:

    And I value a man for the same reasons I value a woman…based on whether they are a good person with a good personality. I don’t expect a man to provide me services in order to be worthy of my respect.

    The fact that I don’t believe that I NEED a man is not the same as saying that I don’t WANT one. Obviously if I want to have sex and make babies and build a family a man would be a necessity. I would think this would actually be preferable since most men (according to my understanding) greatly resent being “used” by women for things such as “protecting and providing”.

  78. Anonymous Reader says:

    “sean”
    Wow, reading these posts it strikes me that all the violence and hatred spewed here is for the woman & at women.

    J
    Yep, the manosphere gets like sometimes.

    For years feminists have engaged in redefinition of words. It’s akin to the Marxist habit of renaming streets (Wasserstrasse becomes Karl-Marx strasse, etc.). As zed pointed out, there’s no violence here. It’s impossible, at least for now, to do violence in a comments box. Claiming that criticism, disagreement, argument are “violence” is to re-define the term “violence” in such a way as to make it so broad, it loses much of its meaning. Let me be specific: “sean” has equated men disagreeing with her, with some person threatening or causing physical harm to another person. It is like calling a man staring at a woman “visual rape”, another feminist trope that is troubling. And why is that?

    Because words mean things. Calling disagreement “violence” is a double edged attack; it cheapens one word, while blurring the lines between it and other words. The same goes for “hate”, a word that I expect to become about as meaningless as “Fascist” in the next few years, due to deliberate misuse. Employing words like “hate”, “violence”, etc. as weapons toward political ends has the effect of rendering them useless for normal people, because the political semantic loading overlays other definitions. It’s basically a form of Newspeak, which as we all recall from reading Orwell was intended to make it impossible to engage in thoughtcrime. I respectfully submit that this is what feminists have been engaged in for years; making it impossible to even think thoughts that would be contrary to the ever-shifting dogmas of feminism, by rendering some words into political meanings.

    Now, me just one dumb knuckle-dragging man, and thus without any ability to think, but it appears to me “sean” has just tipped some cards, and revealed a bit of an agenda that isn’t the same as the “gosh, guys, why don’t you want to protect women?” approach previously displayed in this thread (and the previous one). Which suggests that “sean” is just another individual trolling for replies that can be displayed elsewhere with the usual “Gosh! Look how horrible and bad and narrowminded teh menz are!” commentary. I could be wrong on this one, but the continuously moving goalposts, and the arrival of a standard bit of feminist boilerplate does arouse my primitive suspicions. On the other hand, it is totally predictable that J would go along with the deliberate equating of words with physical violence, and disagreement with women equating to “hate”. She’s a feminist, and that’s how feminism rolls: men bad, women good; women’s anger deserved, men’s anger “hate” and therefore bad. I doubt she joined in on purposed, it’s just that “men hate, men violent, men bad” is part of her mindset.

    PS: Maybe it’s just me, but I find it odd that “Butterfly Flower” stopped posting right about the time “sean” began.

  79. pb says:

    What do you all think about actor Sean Bean getting stabbed in the arm after getting into a fight for defending the “honor” of a Playboy Bunny?

    [D: Leonidas just did a post on this. The entertainment media is getting tingles over it.]

  80. zed says:

    A manosphere compliment!! Thanks!

    I really don’t consider myself part of the “manosphere”. There are large scale cultural trends which I have opposed for a long time, in which both sexes seem about equally culpable. My preferred appellation is “The Grand Curmudgeon.” ;)

    You and I are roughly the same age, right? In our 50′s? I really don’t recall my mom and aunts not working, at least part of the time.

    Roughly. I’ll be in my 50s for a few more weeks until I pass the big “six oh” milestone.

    I’ve maintained for a long time that the real division in the culture is not men versus women, but urban/suburban/agrarian. In farm country, everyone “works” – dads, moms, kids, dogs. No one gets a free ride – everyone has to “earn their keep.” My folks were married right at the beginning of the Depression, and there was a lot of sigma against married women working in those days because any job was better than no job and a family who selfishly held on to two jobs was seen as taking at least one of them from a family who had none.

    If one studies the history of employment at all, it is fairly apparent that the social class to which the husband as sole breadwinner model applied were maybe the upper 10% at most. Employment in the garment districts of the major US cities was predominantly female in the early part of the 20th century. Only during the post-WWII period of industrial prosperity was it possible for the average man to earn enough to support an entire family in the middle-class lifestyle solely on his income alone.

  81. Anonymous Reader says:

    Duh, who is Sean Bean? Does he call himself “Mister” and drive a beat up blue mini?

  82. J says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    On the other hand, it is totally predictable that J would go along with the deliberate equating of words with physical violence, and disagreement with women equating to “hate”. She’s a feminist, and that’s how feminism rolls: men bad, women good; women’s anger deserved, men’s anger “hate” and therefore bad. I doubt she joined in on purposed, it’s just that “men hate, men violent, men bad” is part of her mindset.

    Oh, yawn. More of this crap, again?

    To tell you the truth, I DON’T equate verbal “violence” with physical violence, and I probably should have read Sean’s comment more carefully, but your jumping in on this point with a bunch of ad hominem nonsense only proves Sean’s point that many of you guys get your undies in a bundle over nothing . I’ve never subscribed to the views– “men hate, men violent, men bad”– you are attributing to me. I merely admitted to advocating “equal pay for equal work” thirty years ago and questioned your assertion that some tradcon loon who supported deceiving men about paternity was a feminist. Apparently, questionnning you is the moral equivalent of eating 1000 fetuses or something.

    Go take your estrogen; you’re more menopausal than I am and far more hysterical than any woman I know. Vent your anger elsewhere. I’m not interested.

  83. J says:

    . My preferred appellation is “The Grand Curmudgeon.”

    LOL

    Roughly. I’ll be in my 50s for a few more weeks until I pass the big “six oh” milestone.

    Ah, your older then.

    I’ve maintained for a long time that the real division in the culture is not men versus women, but urban/suburban/agrarian. .. .Only during the post-WWII period of industrial prosperity was it possible for the average man to earn enough to support an entire family in the middle-class lifestyle solely on his income alone.

    Exactly. That’s an incisive analysis. Working women are nothing new. I just feel that if a woman is going to work, she might as well make decent money doing something reasonably enjoyable. Which is BTW also what I’d wish for any man.

  84. tspoon says:

    Sean: “Wow, reading these posts it strikes me that all the violence and hatred spewed here is for the woman & at women”.

    J: “Yep, the manosphere gets like sometimes.”

    J, you quoted it in your own post, and explicitly agreed with the equivocation made. I would struggle to define that as anything other than an endorsement of that view.

    ARs comment revealed a point commonly made in ther manosphere, that the vast majority of females can never fully conceal or overcome the biological fact of their true innate attitude toward males, despite a conscious effort. For a society to function smoothly, males are required to ignore those flags to an extent, consciously or not. Except that in this venue it doesn’t occur, those flags go on to be examined in some detail.

  85. Anonymous Reader says:

    j
    To tell you the truth, I DON’T equate verbal “violence” with physical violence, and I probably should have read Sean’s comment more carefully,

    The use of the term “verbal violence” is telling in and of itself. How are you on “lookism”, “laughism”, and other feminist isms?

    but your jumping in on this point with a bunch of ad hominem nonsense

    Would you please go and look up ad hominem? I’m not saying “J is a feminist and therefore wrong”, or some other form of that fallacy. You are a self-described feminist. I’m holding you to that, and showing you exactly what you have decided to support. If that bothers you, maybe you should bear in mind what the last 40 years of feminism has included — a whole, heaping helping of real, live, hatred. Not that “you disagree with me, you mean man, therefore you hate”, but feminists such as McKinnon equating all heterosexual sex with rape, feminists like Dworkin equating maleness with murderousness, and so forth. You can play No True Scotsman all day, it won’t change what feminism is, what it has said, and what it has done.

    only proves Sean’s point that many of you guys get your undies in a bundle over nothing . I’ve never subscribed to the views– “men hate, men violent, men bad”– you are attributing to me.

    You’re a feminist, right?

    I merely admitted to advocating “equal pay for equal work” thirty years ago

    But as has been pointed out to you more than once, equal pay for equal work was enacted into Federal law over 40 years ago (mid 1960’s), so you were advocating what was already the law.

    and questioned your assertion that some tradcon loon who supported deceiving men about paternity was a feminist.

    Oh, ok. And the various insults, that was just for free?

    Apparently, questionnning you is the moral equivalent of eating 1000 fetuses or something.

    Apparently, questioning the authority of feminism in the equivalent of raping 1,000 teenaged girls, or something, so far as you are concerned. Well, get used to it. Your empress ain’t got no clothes on.

  86. Anonymous Reader says:

    J
    Go take your estrogen; you’re more menopausal than I am and far more hysterical than any woman I know.

    Thanks for the free shaming language. No disagreement of any kind with a feminist is complete without it, in my experience. In order to make this a learning experience for you, I’m holding your own sneering insult up as a mirror to the way you think about men that dare to disagree with you. Because this little sentence above is typical feminist debate style, and has been since the 60’s. It’s just the default mode. Do you have any idea how tiresome it is after a couple of decades to have junk thought like that served up as some sort of argument?

    Again, I’m holding up the face of feminism to you, as I and many other men have seen it for a long, long time. And your response is — more of the same, tired, worn out shaming language. You’ve just proven my point for me.

  87. uncleFred says:

    @Zed
    My my. Another curmudgeon and one who is a few months my senior! Well sir, while I appreciate your desire for recognition as the grand curmudgeon. I feel obligated to give you a run for your money.

    But, as Dalrock point out, your brilliance coining “hysterification of the dialogue” does leave me at a disadvantage. Perhaps we can go for best of seven?

    @J
    What happens in this corner of the Manosphere is that everyone, regardless of gender, is held to what they say/write. You can’t have it both ways. If you think you misspoke or simply made an error, acknowledge it and everyone moves on. Most of Dalrock’s commenters are careful to be civil but there is no slack here, hand waving and smoke cuts no ice.

  88. namae nanka says:

    reminded of this incident from last year:

  89. Octavia says:

    At the end of the day, I suspect there are millions of men who feel burdened by the expectation to be a de facto protector. I fully support your right to self-preservation.

    Now, I believe a guy I’m with should be able to defend me. With that said, because he matters to me, I’d not be careless. I’d have situational awareness and do everything I could to avoid inviting danger over to either of us. Once children came into the picture, it would be even more important to know what to address and what to leave alone.

    There are some expectations that aren’t reasonable. I don’t believe that a person must automatically put his/her life at risk in any and every situation. There are some people, regardless of gender, who cannot handle escalating circumstances. I urge them to choose the flight option from the “fight or flight” menu. When the ones who aren’t willing/able to manage a situation are out of the way, it makes it easier for those who have a commanding presence to control the outcome. Ideally, the ones with that type of presence are also ethical.

  90. PT Barnum says:

    People are really tip-toeing around the real issue here.

    Sean wants an attack dog. She doesn’t like some man-animal, she sicks her dogs on him.

    I don’t care that she makes the oh-so-trivial effort to find a pretext before doing so. As Sean has so eloquently pointed out, if there isn’t a pre-text, she will simply be an unbelievable b*tch until she is “provoked”.

    And that’s pretty much it. She can dance around, “clarifying” her position as much as she wants. I don’t care at all. I would view any and all “offense” her dogs took up with me as an aggressive attack. And given the kind of men I expect her dogs to be, I probably wouldn’t have to back down either.

  91. Butterfly Flower says:

    PS: Maybe it’s just me, but I find it odd that “Butterfly Flower” stopped posting right about the time “sean” began.

    No, I’m not Sean.

    …Dalrock put me on probation. I can take a hint so I decided to just stop posting here. Or at least take a break and only comment on posts where my chaste teenage girl perspective would add something of value.

    I agree with everything Paige has said so far in this discussion. I’m not sure how I can elaborate on her spectacular commentary. *gives Paige a thumb’s up*

    [D: Looking at the IP addresses for the two they don't appear to be the same.]

  92. mjay says:

    Shit Test x ∞
    If your wife/GF is constantly putting you in harm’s way to show how you can “protect” her, the message is clear: you need to dump her ASAP.

    A civil or criminal suit coming from a fight can ruin you for life. No woman is worth that risk if she puts you in harm’s way so lightly.

  93. Anonymous age 69 says:

    Absolutely correct. With 3 billion women on this planet, there is no woman worth one minute in jail, or one minute in the ER getting patched up because the self labeled princess couldn’t tolerate a bad word spoken by a thug. What a loser!

    Anonymous age 69

  94. Zatarra says:

    @Sean
    “Since some of you think it’s a big deal to ask people not curse around your family let me give you what my husband usually says that works fine ” Yo dog, my kids?” or he has said ” can you tone it down? my kids?” to which the answer has always been “aww dog, sorry man” and guess what the foul language stops.”

    I went to the Chicago Bulls game a few weeks ago. A friend had really good tickets. There were about 10 black people behind us swearing, being loud, and rude (not sure how they got the tickets they were at least $700–maybe some affirmative action ticketing program). The guy next to us with a kid asked them to stop cursing. I honestly feared for the guys life. The blacks told him to shut the fuck up and this black lady kept saying “I che-un, I che-un” (cheering I guess).” The foul language ESCALATED after they were politely asked to stop.

  95. greyghost says:

    Dalrock this was a neat topic and shows basic female traits. You would think these modern women would fall back on the girl power thing and kick the asses that need kicking. But they are getting bent up over guys making judgements and actually weighing the cost of fighting for a female.

  96. Octavia says:

    @ Zatarra says: June 15, 2011 at 9:57 am

    Why did you find it necessary to mention the race of the 10 people behind you? What does affirmative action have to do with their ability to afford the ticket?

    Yes, some situations will escalate. That’s why it’s important to do a risk assessment. Also, the likelihood of escalation doesn’t have anything to do with race.

  97. Zatarra says:

    I guess I mentioned the race of the individuals for a couple of reasons. I, after years of experience and knowledge (FBI statistics) have come to the conclusion that I agree with Jesse Jackson– If I see a group of certain black individuals walking towards me at night, I have good reason to be scared and on guard. And I sure as hell am not going to ask them to stop swearing. If I saw a black guy in a suit walking towards me I would not be on guard. If I saw a group of individuals with their pants closer to the knees than the waist, I would be on guard. The group behind us was in the second category–ghetto thugs.

    Normally, these thugs cannot afford $700 tickets. Sure they could have been drug dealers, but I doubt they were doctors, lawyers, accountants or whatever. My point is that the likelihood of escalation DOES have something to do with race. Does the likelihood that a random black has committed a violent crime differ from the likelihood that a random Asian has committed a violent crime? Yes it does. I’m guessing by a lot. Those that commit violent crimes are more likely to escalate. Blacks commit more violent crime. That is a fact.

  98. Eric says:

    Paige;
    It doesn’t matter whether you call them ‘alphas’ or ‘thugs’ or whatever; the point is that, like most women, the only real archetype that applies is the one that considers all men as pigs. And that most of you women think exactly that is proven repeatedly by statements like:

    “If I want to have babies and make a family, a man would be a necessity”. How, exactly, is this any different than the feminists, who claim men are only valuable as sperm donors? Or;

    “The fact that I don’t need a man is not the same as saying I don’t want one”. Fish and Bicycles, right? If you don’t need a man, why would you want one? A realistic relationship is one of mutuality and interdependence; not like in your feminist dystopia where women are wholly independent and men are inferiors.

    Just as an aside, I don’t know how your husband feels about reading statements from you about being turned on by thuggish men, and how little you need a man for anything else but donating sperm; but I know how I would feel about it. Not that a man’s feelings actually matter to the average female— that much is obvious— but I think that you should show the man a little more of the respect that you say that you have for him.

  99. Anonymous Reader says:

    Octavia
    At the end of the day, I suspect there are millions of men who feel burdened by the expectation to be a de facto protector. I fully support your right to self-preservation.

    While I can’t speak for hypothetical millions, I can state that I do not feel burdened by duties that I voluntarily assume to protect some people. Nor do I see any men in this thread saying that. What this boils down to is a disconnect between authority and responsibility. If I have the responsibility for getting people safely through a given city, than I must have the authority to tell them not to do some things, and absolutely to do other things. The example given, of a married woman deciding to chastise young men for their language, is an example of a woman assuming authority she does not have, and that she won’t be taking responsibility for. That’s what other men meant when they wrote she was “writing checks her husband would have to cash”.

    Hypothetical:
    If I am guiding a group of people down Michigan Avenue in Chicago, and I suddenly demand that everyone in the party needs to turn around right now and start walking quickly towards the nearest large store, that is not the time for whining about sights unseen, or a harangue about strong, independent women who can take care of themselves thanyouverymuch, or a lot of “Why? I don’t want to! We were going go down there!” debate, because the flash mob that I just spotted forming on the next block is moving in our direction, and may soon be here, which won’t be good for anyone. At that moment, I need people to follow instructions, there will be time for debate, and sight seeing, and shopping later on. People who are in the ER getting their injuries patched up don’t get to sight see or shop for a while.

    This insistence on “protect me, but don’t tell me what to do” is an example of entitled thinking. It is also childish, the sort of thing that one might expect from a 13 year old girl, not from a 25 year old woman. The decoupling of authority from responsibility leads to bad situations all across society. Men as a rule have responsibilities pretty much every where they go; all of the old ones and new ones added. Women, all too often, have authority but they are not held responsible for the outcomes of their decisions.

    Now, I believe a guy I’m with should be able to defend me. With that said, because he matters to me, I’d not be careless. I’d have situational awareness and do everything I could to avoid inviting danger over to either of us. Once children came into the picture, it would be even more important to know what to address and what to leave alone.

    That’s all very well, but it leaves out the issue of authority/responsibility. If you wish a man you are with to be able to defend you, then sometimes you will have to do what he tells you to do, when he tells you to do it, without hesitation, without argumentation, without debate. Including being silent, and stifling anger over insults, or even being groped, in some cases. Plus bringing children into the picture does not change that, in fact it may simply rachet up the requirements. Modern women, with the whole “You Go, Grrl”, the “I am a strong, independent woman and no one tells me what to do” and the entitled “men owe me their protection when I want it” mindset are not well suited to the realities of protection, so far as I can see.

    This does require women to trust that men know what they are doing. And that in turn suggests to me that women should be rather particular about the men that they choose to associate with. Which is a whole ‘nother topic entirely.

  100. Kai says:

    Eric – you’re taking the need vs want to a silly extreme. She’s not saying a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle. More like a woman without a man is like… (any analogy i pick here won’t be good..) maybe a person with one arm. They don’t strictly *need* another. They can get by and do pretty much every daily task with one arm. They can even get a prosthetic arm that can do some of what a second arm would do. But that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t *want* one.
    Everyone is independent. Most people *can* survive without others.
    Even in a much earlier time, widows sometimes had to fend for themselves, and some of them did well.
    These days, it is very possible for a woman to get a job and support herself. Or to carry a gun (at least in the states) and learn to shoot well to protect herself. She doesn’t *need* a man to provide for or protect her.
    But that doesn’t mean it’s her preferred situation. Just like a 16-year-old *can* often get a job and support himself, but would probably rather have parents.
    She’s simply pointing out (or at least, since I don’t know what’s behind her post, it could be pointed out) that a man is not an absolute necessity. He’s obviously still a very nice asset – and not just in the sperm-donor-arm-candy way. There’s also a difference between a woman who wants a man to raise a family (help her support it financially, provide a second different parent, be a strong father for children to look up to, support the other parent and give each other a break from the stresses, show kids what a happy relationship can be, etc) and a woman who just wants some sperm to fertilize her egg.
    I don’t *need* a man. I did okay on my own before I met him. That doesn’t mean that I’m not extremely happy to have my husband. I don’t *need* friends. But I sure value mine for adding a lot to my life.
    If my husband died tomorrow, I could survive. Strictly speaking, I don’t *need* him. but I am aware of the incredible value he brings to my life, and I value him for many areas beyond just protector and co-procreator.

    (I don’t know exactly where Paige is coming from, so I can’t be sure of her intentions in the phrases, but I suspect it is not the extreme manner in which Eric is reading. And even if Paige (or someone else) did mean that extreme, I would like to point out that that is not the only way to read it.)

  101. Paige says:

    Kai- You are correct. I did not mean it in the extreme way Eric read it. But he tends to insult me a lot and misinterpret everything I say so continuing the discussion seemed pointless.

  102. Kai says:

    “Dalrock says:
    I actually was surprised that more women didn’t join in the conversation on the first post at least. They must have sensed that this was a sensitive topic. I know the pages are getting viewed because the hits are there. There are far more people reading this discussion silently than are participating in it. I would guess upwards of 10x.”

    I’m female and have been silently watching this from the beginning. It seemed pretty straightforward to me, so I saw no reason to add in. I also have some experience with internet trolls, and figured the chances of getting anywhere were low (as appears to have been the case).
    I was surprised to see more people defending Sean’s position though.
    It seems simple: you have the right to start whatever you plan to finish.
    If a woman has an issue with the language of the thugs around her, she can tell them to knock it off – if she’s planning on enforcing it. That might be incredibly dumb, but it’s her right. It is not her right to start something and expect her man to finish it. If she really wants to put herself under the protection of a man, then as many have said, she needs to stand by his judgement as well. And she does not get to jump ahead. She can say ‘oh manly man, those thugs over there are saying bad words in front of our children. Please handle this situation!’ – but if he’s expected to do the handling, she doesn’t get to disagree with how he chooses to handle it. Even if his choice is ‘I’m not going to be dumb enough to escalate this – the kids can handle hearing a bad word’.

  103. Dalrock says:

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this Kai. I agree with your position, with the caveat that if a woman is in the company of men it isn’t practical for her to expect to “back it up” herself (even if she can) because the kind of men you will have trouble with don’t tend to be all that enlightened and are almost always going to look to take it out on the men the woman is with. We can see this in the example of ‘Animal’ and his girlfriend or Jakeman’s comment on the other thread.

  104. zed says:

    Eric: “The fact that I don’t need a man is not the same as saying I don’t want one”. Fish and Bicycles, right? If you don’t need a man, why would you want one? A realistic relationship is one of mutuality and interdependence; not like in your feminist dystopia where women are wholly independent and men are inferiors.

    Paige: I did not mean it in the extreme way Eric read it. But he tends to insult me a lot and misinterpret everything I say so continuing the discussion seemed pointless.

    You may be unaware, Paige, that you are spouting a feminist cliche that is a decade older than you are – “Well, I’m a strong independent woman who don’t NEED no man, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want one.”

    I certainly don’t “need” a $27,000 Bass Boat, even though I might “want” one (perhaps not badly enough to shell out the money for it). Nor do I “need” a $45,000 luxury SUV, although I might “want” one – but, again, maybe not strongly enough to pay the price required to get one.

    With 5 small children at home, is having someone to pay all the bills and keep a roof over your head really just a “want”, or is there some small possibility that you might actually “need” your husband?

    Things that we want but do no need fall into the class of luxuries. When women communicate to men that is how they regard us, it would be pretty silly for us to regard them in any manner except the same way, don’t you think?

  105. Paige says:

    Zed,
    When I say the word “need” I mean I don’t need a man for survival. To have any kind of enjoyable life now that I have a large family a man would be a necessity as supporting my family on my own would be an extremely stressful endeavor. I still am hesitant to describe the dependency I feel on my husband for a content life as a “need” as I tend to attribute needs to only those things which contribute to my actual survival…NOT my comfort.

    But I was raised to not *depend* on men because 1. its wrong. Men do not exist to serve women. 2. Even if you do depend on men you might end up alone anyway.

    Do you really prefer to live in a world where women need men? Is this preferable to one where women are capable of living on their own?

  106. Paige says:

    All that said…
    unlike most feminists I think the odds that a woman can live a *happy* life without a man are less than the odds that a man can live a *happy* life without a woman.

    It is just a fact that women are more vulnerable creatures than men. I don’t like it but I am not blind to that reality. Women have to be trained to be strong and wise because it generally doesn’t come natural.

  107. zed says:

    When I say the word “need” I mean I don’t need a man for survival.

    By the same token, people don’t really “need” Vitamin D, either, because rickets is seldom fatal.

    Like it or not, Paige, you are entering a war zone where the war has been raging for 5 decades. When you say exactly the same thing as “the enemy” has been saying for years, it is more likely that you will be seen as the enemy than for someone to dig down and appreciate all the nuances of exactly what you do mean.

  108. Kai says:

    “Dalrock says:
    Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this Kai. I agree with your position, with the caveat that if a woman is in the company of men it isn’t practical for her to expect to “back it up” herself (even if she can) because the kind of men you will have trouble with don’t tend to be all that enlightened and are almost always going to look to take it out on the men the woman is with. We can see this in the example of ‘Animal’ and his girlfriend or Jakeman’s comment on the other thread.”

    Good point. In fact, I would amend my comment even a little further. When you’re with a group of people, you don’t have the right to start something without either separating yourself from your company, or getting their assent. Because whatever sort of group you’re in, regardless of the genders, they’re very likely to be pulled into it, and you don’t have the right to bring them in against their will.
    Since men will tend to take it out on men, the rule is especially strong if you are a woman with men, looking to start something with men.

  109. Omnipitron says:

    “Do you really prefer to live in a world where women need men? Is this preferable to one where women are capable of living on their own?”

    In reality we do and always have. The vast majority of ‘independent women’ really cannot survive if not for Government intervention and alimony taken from other men. It’s part of the modern day fallacy that women can exist side by side with men and do everything they can. Yes, with the inventions men have created and the excess wealth harvested by marriage minded men, it seems that way, but in truth, nothing much has changed from our hunter-gather ancestors with the exception of the entitled attitude most modern women display.

    As an aside, Anon Reader, you the freakin man, you should start a blog, seriously.

    [D: He is, and he should. I suppose that would make him Anon Blogger if he chose to.]

  110. Kai says:

    “zed says:
    With 5 small children at home, is having someone to pay all the bills and keep a roof over your head really just a “want”, or is there some small possibility that you might actually “need” your husband?”

    there is also a difference between a general statement of “A woman can make it though life without needing a man” and “in my current life situation, I don’t need a man”.
    I think Paige was looking at a more general ‘a man is not critical to the life of a woman’.
    It may still be true that now that she has happily had a man in her life, and made decisions based on the assumption that he will continue to be there, she may need him.
    Now, Paige’s husband could die tomorrow, and she’d probably be able to find a way to survive again without him – perhaps through work, government/family assistance, and a much lowered standard of living, but survive.
    But again, I think it was intended as a general possibility not ‘no woman will ever need a man’.
    And I think that disproving her statement on a small scale (with your five and a half kids, you need a man now) does not invalidate the broader statement (A woman doesn’t *need* a man to get through life, though they can be a valuable and desirable asset).

  111. zed says:

    A woman doesn’t *need* a man to get through life, though they can be A woman doesn’t *need* a man to get through life, though they can be a valuable and desirable asset).

    LOL, just what I have always aspired to be in life – “… a valuable and desirable asset” – right up there with a few thousand shares of Microsoft stock, eh?

    Funny thing, though – shares of Microsoft stock don’t have to pay you to put up with them.

  112. Paige says:

    Single mothers often need government help or alimony/etc but to simply survive a woman with no children *shouldn’t* need the help of a man or government unless she is living in a very dangerous or destitute society. Even in hunter/gatherer societies..a woman could learn to hunt small game and gather edible plants/bugs.

  113. Paige says:

    Zed- answer my question. What exactly is your preference when it comes to women in society? Do you think women *should* be dependent on men for survival?

  114. Zatarra says:

    “Should” has nothing to do with it. Notwithstanding the protection aspect, men create every road, building, and probably build 98% of every car. Who cuts down all the timber, works on oil wells (very dangerous and arduous job. 70% of men could probably not do it), does all the fishing, build planes and the railroads? .

    But technically, I think you are right. The cat lady down the street has never had a man. Yet she survives–in her house built by men, on the street built by men, and protected by a police force consisting largely of men.

  115. zed says:

    Paige:
    In the Lord’s prayer there is a line “.Thy will be done.” Notice that it does not read “My will be done.”

    I leave what “should” be up to God, and myself deal only with what is.

    I know that all these women who claim they don’t need no man don’t seem to think it applies if that man works for the government and his job is to extract tax money from other men (and women) to go toward propping up the fiction that these women don’t need a man. A sizable portion of my gross income goes toward providing government services to all those women who don’t need me – as long as they have the government as a substitute husband and daddy.

    If they actually walked their talk, I might be able to retain enough of my income to afford that Bass Boat that I don’t need, but want.

    I’m still giggling at a thought I had in response to Kai’s last post. I wish I had artistic skills because I would love to draw a cartoon of a woman with a man standing beside her saying to another woman – “I would like to introduce you to my ‘valuable and desirable asset’, Fred.”

  116. Kai says:

    I knew the word ‘asset’ would cause people to compare to stock options, but I’m not aware of another word for ‘something that brings value to one’s life’.
    What would you call a wife (assuming you had any interest in one) other than an asset to your life?
    I’m just taking issue with the semantics here. Strictly speaking, a husband is not a *need* in a woman’s life. Can you really not concede that?
    The discussion has never been about the existence of any men in the world, but as to whether a woman needs an individual ‘man’ in her life – perhaps it would be better phrased as whether a woman needs a husband – but then I’m sure someone will nitpick on that word instead of the relevant idea.
    If you want to question whether all members of society require men to be part of that society for the society to function, that is a completely different question, and not relevant to the point of whether a woman needs an individual man in her life taking care of her.
    And yes, that is society and time period specific. The entire point was an ‘in this day and age’, in which an individual doesn’t have to do a lot of the hard work, because others do it, and where there is a legal infrastructure that means women don’t constantly have to live in danger of rape while walking down the street, and where women are able to get gainful employment in exchange for money to purchase food and shelter and other needs instead of having to do the direct work themselves. No one ever tried to claim that all women everywhere have no use other than for men. And I was very specific in my first post about the kind of value a woman can seek from a man – not just as comparable to a stock portfolio.
    Is it necessary to push a point to absurdity just to disagree?

  117. Zatarra says:

    I actually don’t think that the word “asset” is wrong. The unit of a family (in its many various forms) itself developed through evolution because it was a mutually beneficial union. However, the beneficial union (or asset ) was based on a division of labor which modern feminism has rejected.

  118. Kai says:

    And I agree that modern feminism has screwed that up. I think the traditional union and the division of labour therein didn’t work for quite everyone, but did work very well for most people, and the traditional division of labour (or hell, any division of labour) works a lot better than trying to have everyone do a bit of everything.
    I would also suggest that a woman who wants children, *does* need a man. And not just for some sperm, but as a father and husband (as stated above). And a woman with children who loses her husband and father to her children will probably be in need of another man to fill the role, unless she wants to leech off of all of society. A woman who doesn’t want children (rare) or is willing to go without, has a little more leeway.
    My only point was in the semantics – a person can *want* something, but not *need* it, as they can get by without it, even if that sort of existence is not the preferred state.

  119. Omnipitron says:

    “Single mothers often need government help or alimony/etc but to simply survive a woman with no children *shouldn’t* need the help of a man or government unless she is living in a very dangerous or destitute society. Even in hunter/gatherer societies..a woman could learn to hunt small game and gather edible plants/bugs”

    And when they are older what happened then? I remember you stating how able your grandmother was, she was the exception, not the rule. And just how many women really wish to forgo children? Just as D posted about the economics of Sex and grandmothers where discussed, the spearhead had a post about it too. Looks like some older feminists are getting a little upset about the fact that they may not be grandmothers after all, but hey, they didn’t need a man.

    This is the truth which cannot be denied by ignoring it or semantics. For a woman to achieve her Biological Imperative, she needs a man, period. She could ‘possibly’ make it in life on her own in the old days…possibly, but her chances where greatly increased with a provider as a man. You explaining the exceptions simply proves the rule, time to acknowledge this.

    It has been stated before that women sometimes become desperate as their bio clocks start to ring in their ears. In all honesty, your argument sounds good on paper, but reality is much different. Sure an older woman may be able to hunt like you said, but how many where able to?

  120. Omnipitron says:

    “I’m just taking issue with the semantics here. Strictly speaking, a husband is not a *need* in a woman’s life. Can you really not concede that?”

    Semantics, sure if that is what you really wish to break it down to, I guess my question is why? Why are we breaking this down to this level at all? Now we are examining the definitions of words, why, so one can find a way out, or bolster their position that women don’t need men? Why is that so important to women, or is it just the programming of contemporary society?

    In the past, despite Paige’s breakdown, there was no semantics. Now in today’s society, sure, it may seem that way, but just how many people are going to argue about ‘preferred states’ when their livelihood hangs in the balance? Why where women so terrified that their husbands would leave them back in the day when women didn’t work? That sound like a preferred state to you? It made life much more comfortable, I find the fact that so many are splitting hairs on this interesting.

    Sure, I can agree that you want these a husband, but Zed’s statement still stands. What I also meant was that when you used Paige as an example, guess who funds those things like the government?

    You guessed it, men.

    You either take from your hubby, or you take from the collected labors of other men, it’s an ugly truth, but a truth nonetheless. Today’s independent women don’t even see or recognize the level of assistance they receive from men which make husbands a ‘luxury’ instead of a ‘necessity’. Semantic play isn’t going to change the fact that Zed can live without buying a bass boat and his life won’t be altered too much, but a woman losing the resources of a man, especially if she has children and with cutbacks to government funding?

    Semantics don’t pay bills.

  121. Kai says:

    I brought up the semantics because people seemed to believe that Paige’s assertion that a woman doesn’t *need* a man meant that she thought they were useless – which was clearly untrue. She was simply disagreeing with ‘need’.
    I think we can all agree that more lives are easier in a society, and that women’s lives are generally better if they have a man in it to help them out.
    It doesn’t have to be acrimonious.

  122. Kai says:

    *and also that Paige’s original statement WAS prefaced by the note that it was only possible due to modern society (that a woman can survive without harnessing the direct labour of an individual man) – neither of us ever suggested that this was a universal state.

  123. Kai says:

    “Omnipitron says:
    And when they are older what happened then? I remember you stating how able your grandmother was, she was the exception, not the rule. And just how many women really wish to forgo children? Just as D posted about the economics of Sex and grandmothers where discussed, the spearhead had a post about it too. Looks like some older feminists are getting a little upset about the fact that they may not be grandmothers after all, but hey, they didn’t need a man.”

    Yes, when women get old, they can’t fend for themselves any more. But neither can old men. That’s (care for the elderly) generally one of the first benefits provided by living in society. So I’m not sure I see the relevance.

    Old feminists realizing that they really wish they had grandchildren is a case of reaping what they sowed – in this case, the idea that men, kids, and all weren’t worth it. These women were sold a false line on what mattered, and many listened, to ‘not forego the gifts for which their mothers sacrificed!’ instead of looking at what might actually be fulfilling.
    I can only hope that young women today get a chance to see the regrets of some ageing feminists and understand the real costs to their actions, and can make informed decisions based on what they will actually be giving up*.

    *note that this is a hope, not a delusional reality. We can always have hope.

  124. Omnipitron says:

    “She was simply disagreeing with ‘need’.”

    Now in all honesty, I’m not a woman so I can’t fathom what being one is like. While I don’t agree with what the vast majority of what North American Women do currently, I can’t imagine not being able to meet my biological imperative without someone else to essentially provide the raw materials in order for me to do it. Tough road to hoe in reality and I can see why it is that some women decided to get more assistance from the government in case men did up and leave.

    Let’s be honest, in the past that very thing did happen.

    Maybe it’s a cultural thing, perhaps it’s a woman thing that people don’t want to admit it or try to split hairs. As I said, never been in the situation and I most likely can’t relate. It could be that to admit ‘need’ is a large thing for women, I don’t know, and I really don’t care to push this discussion any further to find out. See, the issue I had was the whole argument with the word need as I have seen this sort of thing before. Growing boys don’t ‘need’ their fathers and yet all one has to do is Google the statistics on children in single parent homes to see that the ‘preferred state’ of their father being at home doesn’t quite cut it.

    That’s a need, no other way to explain that. Children NEED their Dads.

    To me, splitting hairs is one of the means Feminists used to redefine the meanings of words which assisted in the decline of society. Also, using exceptions to prove points also is a Feminist Ploy. Paige isn’t a feminist, far from it, but like Zed stated, that approach is the well worn practice of Feminists and easy to spot. Make a point, split hairs in attempts to gain ground and/or the use of exceptions. Due to possible sensitivity of the topic, I will back off, but all I’m saying, is when you asked why it was so hard to accept the lack of the term ‘need’, we could ask you and Paige the very same question why not?

  125. Omnipitron says:

    “Yes, when women get old, they can’t fend for themselves any more. But neither can old men. That’s (care for the elderly) generally one of the first benefits provided by living in society. So I’m not sure I see the relevance.”

    Once more, that’s the benefits of younger men marrying and then contributing to society. Women benefited from a monogamous relationship in the past because they exchanged sex for resources. This also benefited women in that did take care of her in the later years, the only health care available so to speak. If he died, there where hopefully grand kids to take over, so if a woman took care of herself and didn’t meet her Biological Imperative, she was missing out on more than just children and grand children. She was missing out on late stage care in her life. Sad, ugly, but true, young bucks don’t chase after over the hill women. You may mention cougars, they are the exceptions, not the rule.

    “I can only hope that young women today get a chance to see the regrets of some ageing feminists and understand the real costs to their actions, and can make informed decisions based on what they will actually be giving up*.”

    You and me both. I’ve a friend that’s going through this very thing right now and I feel sorry for her. Late 30’s and NO prospects. The best chance she most recently had after a dating drought of about 4 years was a newly divorced man (his choice to leave) with two grown kids and a preteen who always stated he was never getting married again….and he’s had a vasectomy. As Terry@BreathingGrace says, Feminism hurts both men and women, but contemporary women will not listen to men. Any attempts to tell them otherwise is seen as ‘enslaving them with lies of the patriarchy’.

  126. Kai says:

    I agree that there are multiple ways to define ‘need’, and the main issue was probably one of different people using different definitions.
    My original reason for jumping in was in disagreement with the way people assumed that Paige’s assertion of not *needing* a man meant she thought they were of no more worth than sperm donors. I suppose I let myself get sucked into defending the entire question of need by being on that side.
    Really, what I’m aiming for is recognition that a person can not ‘need’ something, yet still have their life vastly bettered by it, and fully respect it,.
    I concede that (when we define ‘need’ as ‘without it, life is vastly more difficult and doesn’t go well’ rather than ‘without it, you die’) children need their fathers, mothers need fathers (to co-parent) and women need a man, or a society (including a lot of men) to help them out. (And that generally, it’s a lot better to have a man than to depend too hard on the society).

    I appreciate (omnipitron), that you have actually engaged the issue. I don’t feel any sensitivity on it, but do find it frustrating when people jump right into belittling a minor point rather than actually discussing.

  127. Kai says:

    “Omnipitron says:
    Once more, that’s the benefits of younger men marrying and then contributing to society. Women benefited from a monogamous relationship in the past because they exchanged sex for resources. This also benefited women in that did take care of her in the later years, the only health care available so to speak. If he died, there where hopefully grand kids to take over, so if a woman took care of herself and didn’t meet her Biological Imperative, she was missing out on more than just children and grand children. She was missing out on late stage care in her life. Sad, ugly, but true, young bucks don’t chase after over the hill women. You may mention cougars, they are the exceptions, not the rule.”

    I think that one is pretty sex-equal, actually. I suspect that an old woman can gather longer than an old man can hunt – especially in a traditional society when an older man (already prepared to provide) married a younger woman (with plenty of fertile years left). I would say that in that case, the man and the woman need each other, to produce young, who can then care for them both.
    Except I don’t think monogamy is the clear point here either. I think women benefitted from a committed relationship exchanging sex (and children) for resources. But there is no reason that needed to be monogamous. Monogamy actually doesn’t benefit women. When you’re trying to get the best genes for your children, and the richest provider once their born, polygamy is much more effective. Monogamy only comes into play once you develop notions of love being involved. A very rich man can comfortably support many women, and each of those women does well for having good genes and solid support. Men also compete more to get good women, since there are an excess of them (since a man never actually goes off the market, while a woman does). A woman in a traditional society is better off getting a third of the resources of a rich man than all the resources of a poor man. Monogamy most benefits lesser males, who, in a traditional society, would get no woman (nor offspring), but in a strictly monogamous society, is pretty guaranteed one.
    From a strict business model of marriage (or similar commitment, whatever called by the society) polygyny benefits most of the society more – every man gets as many women as he can support, and the second-best woman can still get part of the best man instead of having to step down the scale.

    As for cougars, they are definitely irrelevant. As far as I’ve heard, a cougar is an older woman who *seeks* younger men – not necessarily with any success.

  128. Pingback: Do not make a girlfriend out of a drama queen « comminate

  129. Stephenie Rowling says:

    I’m not afraid of bothered for admitting that I needed a man and I got one that is why I got married. I wonder how feminists will react if we changed the motto to : “If you don’t need a man you don’t deserve one”. Hell will break lose for sure, YMMV.

  130. Paige says:

    Kia- I appreciate that you engaged them and represented my point better than I could. My frustration level was reaching its peak and I can’t articulate myself well when frustrated.

    Others-
    According to my understanding of men (which is limited to what I read on the internet and hear from those few in my life) men prefer women to have a sense of independence. They don’t want women to depend on them directly for their sustenance. Look at Paul Elams outrage against traditionalist womens desire to make men “beasts of burden”.

    It is true that society functions because of the efforts of men and without men we would live in grass huts….this is not something I have ever denied.

    But what is it that men really want? Either the problem can be defined as women being too independent or not being independent enough. Some…such as Elam..say that women are too dependent on men and they need to learn to be more like men…strong, stoic, self-sufficient, etc. This is the same philosophy my grandmother takes.

    If we establish that women need men…either an individual man or men as a collective providing the modern infrastructure we depend on….then can we ask the question which of these is preferable to MOST men…because I am genuinely curious. It might impact my world view significantly if there was some kind of collective agreement on this issue. As I see it..as I have been raised…A woman should strive to not impose too significantly on a mans sense of freedom.

  131. zed says:

    “I’m just taking issue with the semantics here. Strictly speaking, a husband is not a *need* in a woman’s life. Can you really not concede that?”

    Far more than conceding it, I fully accepted, internalized, and even embraced it a long time ago – more than 40 years, long before Paige was born. The first time I heard women talk about how “oppressive” marriage was to them, I made a solemn vow – not that John Barelycorn must die, but that I would never, under any circumstances, “oppress” a woman into a living situation where most if not all of her expenses were underwritten by the fruits of my labors.

    Besides, if I really am a “valuable and desirable asset”, why would I want to destroy the value of my portfolio by offsetting that asset by taking on an expensive and undesirable liability?

    Now, if I had not had the government picking my pocket to subsidize all those other “strong independent women who don’t need no man” (just the contents of their wallets) I would be an even more valuable asset today.

    If all this boils down to semantics, shouldn’t we be talking about what the meaning of “is” is?

  132. Kai says:

    Last I saw, there was no disagreement as to the meaning of ‘is’, nor did anyone’s statements depend on one of the possible-but-disputed meanings, so no, I see no reason to talk about it.

    I can see that there will be no actual discussion with you, but out of curiosity, are you referencing women getting direct governmental help (welfare, child subsidies, or other handouts) or women getting the benefits of a society with a government (army, police, fire, ambulance, commerce, etc.)?

  133. uncleFred says:

    I suspect that most of you have not had fate rip your partner out of your life through a quirk of chance. Since there are a large number of commenters here, who are spread across multiple generations, I realize that some of you have dealt with similar losses as mine. My wife fell walking the dog, hit her head, and was brain dead in under 90 seconds.

    I do not “need” a woman to survive. I can provide for a, more or less safe, place to sleep, heating and cooling as required, sustenance, and entertainment. I can entice attractive women to my bed. I know this because after losing my wife, I did all these things. Had I children, this task would have been far far more difficult, and even had I been able to manage it alone, I would have sought someone, because I believe rightly or not that children raised by a man and a women are better off than not. In any event, since I have no children, my “survival” was pretty much assured.

    Still, for me, a life that is shared is far sweeter than a life alone. So I am perfectly willing to admit that, to live a life beyond survival, I NEED a woman. I also need the RIGHT woman and after more than a decade alone happenstance brought us together. She is an adult. She takes responsibility for her actions, as do I. Most of the things debated and discussed here simply don’t come up. She has learned that just as I don’t compete with the woman in my life, she doesn’t compete with the man in hers. She extends herself to be sensitive to my needs and concerns as I do to her for hers. She does not compromise her life for mine, nor I for hers. We selected each other because beyond an attraction and bond that is visible to all who meet us, our lives are such that we can generally blend them without compromise. Neither of us settled, but our criteria was far from superficial. I find her very attractive. She claims the same of me. We had both given up meeting someone. I was very tired of dealing with airheads or self entitled “strong women”. Most of whom were among the most insecure weaklings I have ever met. She was tried of putting up with “bad boys” who tried to game her or control freaks who felt intimidated by her intelligence and her low six figure income. She is everything I could want, smart, tough yet gentle, intelligent, pretty, attractive, high sex drive, independent, and at the same time empathetic and supportive when i need that. She tells me that I am the same for her. I have boundaries and deal breakers as does she. I am no beta. While I am there for her when her NEED is real, I accept no shit tests. She is there for me when I NEED her, but would take no shit from me. I don’t give her shit, but I do tease her to remind her of the difference. Romance is balanced by reality.

    Since she started building her career before feminism took hold she has little patience with it. She is unconcerned about “equal pay for equal work” because she knows it’s BS. She isn’t even concerned about “the same pay for the same work”, because she has been successful letting the market set her pay head to head with anyone for more than three decades. She knows that if someone thinks they are under paid they can find out by putting themselves on the market and letting the market set their compensation.

    There are a lot of wounded warriors here, in the manosphere, of both genders, some married, some divorced, some remarried, serial daters, PUAs of both genders. In some cases the pain is palpable, In some cases the denial is so dense that we could use it to line a blast furnace. Defenses constructed from the remains of broken dreams, or the ash of litigation. We live in a huge mess, legal, emotional, social, familial and it all gets conflated.

    Dalrock, (bless you sir) is attempting to shine a light on the damage that feminism has done. A noble task. I would ask those of you who have bothered to read all this to pause and set aside all the angst and tenderness of soul, and thoughts of insufficiency for a moment. Men and women evolved to need each other. Humanity can’t set aside 50,000 or 100,000 years of evolution simply because in the last 50 or so years a political movement has bent the system so that women can, for the most part survive, without a specific man in their life. So perhaps we should all look at the fact, that in the vast majority of cases, absent homosexuals which is a topic for another time, men and women need each other. Not just want, need. The problem of course is that we need the right person, not just someone we find hot who happens to have the right plumbing. Hence Dalrock’s advice to marry only if you are head over heels in love.

    Excellent advice by the way. Why in the world would I join my life to someone that I did not love and need? Why would she join her life to mine? If you can’t admit that you need each other, you sure as hell shouldn’t marry let alone have kids. It takes courage to admit a need that is dependent on something or someone other than yourself. It’s foolish not to admit a truth even when it puts you at risk. Fools and cowards shouldn’t marry, life is hard long and capricious. It is not for the weak nor faint of heart.

    So I NEED this woman that fate has gifted me. If it doesn’t work out, I’ll survive and having met her I’ve gained the heart and space to try again. She is in the same space, she NEEDS me as well, and should it not work will survive, Still I and she prefers that this works out, and that by admitting our need and love for each other, we’ve defused the uncertainty of dependance.

    A long screed to say that depending on who or what you need, needing is not necessarily a bad thing.

  134. Kathy says:

    Well. I do need my husband to survive (I’m a kept woman..Lol. ) I don’t mind admitting to that. If he left me tomorrow, I ‘d be up the creek without a paddle.

    It’s not something that I ever contemplate though, because we are on the same page. (ha could not resist that pun) We are a team . I could not adequately look after the kids without his hands on help (we have an autistic son who is 10) so I don’t plan on leaving and taking the kids with me anytime soon. ;) For my part, as well as keep house I help in the business that he has established, doing bookwork.

    Most importantly though,I love my husband and want to share my life with him. :)

    That was a top post btw, Uncle Fred.

  135. Kai says:

    UncleFred,
    So you are saying that you don’t *need* your wife, but you need her. That’s exactly the sort of multiple meanings that caused the disagreement. I think you’ve neatly summed up both parts.
    I think many of us feel similarly, and I really like the way you expressed it.

  136. Pingback: So… why are women not afraid? « Traditional Catholicism

  137. Zatarra says:

    She didnt put him in this situation but the money quote “”She was screaming, ‘help, help me, my husband just had back surgery and he can’t do anything,'” Then another man came in and protected her.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2011/06/16/2011-06-16_pirates_catcher_chris_snyder_hobbled_after_back_surgery_unable_to_help_as_his_wi.html?r=sports/baseball

  138. Octavia says:

    @ Anonymous Reader says: June 16, 2011 at 11:17 am

    Thanks for your remarks. I’m not under the impression that my comments and your point of view are at odds. However, I could be wrong.

  139. jack says:

    Sean-

    You are dangerous and arrogant.

    If you want to start wars, then go ahead. Be prepared to reap the outcome of your adolescent girl-logic.

    This guy would let the predators have you. Darwinistically, you are not worth preserving.

  140. jack says:

    By the way Sean, the world does not belong to you, though your arrogance lead me to believe you think it does.

    If you don’t want to see the world as it really is, or hear profanity in public, perhaps you should keep your prissy little ass in the kitchen where it belongs.

    The street belongs to those who are willing to possess it. You have no right whatsoever to dictate to your environment.

    If a chicken is dumb enough to march right into a group of foxes, perhaps it is best for the evolution of the species that it is eliminated in favor of smarter chickens that don’t think they have a permit to escape the realities of how this world works.

  141. jack says:

    By the way Sean, the world does not belong to you, though your arrogance lead me to believe you think it does.

    If you don’t want to see the world as it really is, or hear profanity in public, perhaps you should keep your prissy little ass in the kitchen where it belongs.

    The street belongs to those who are willing to possess it. You have no right whatsoever to dictate to your environment.

    If a chicken is dumb enough to march right into a group of foxes, perhaps it is best for the evolution of the species that it is eliminated in favor of smarter chickens that don’t think they have a permit to escape the realities of how this world works.

    To use an analogy, Sean also probably thinks that she should be able to spend any amount of money, and if her husband can’t outearn her spending, he is “unmanly”.

    This goes to the key point I wanted to make about women of her low character – at the core, she is a relationship liability.

    Now perhaps Sean is very hot, in which case a guy may be willing to carry the cost of her being a liability. Just like a vintage car that requires endless repairs. If the joy of ownership is greater than the costs, then fine.

    Very few women are that hot. Mostly they get by on the white-knight tendencies of men.

    Having seen the light about the very base actual nature of most women, I am a skeptic.

    Essentially, Sean thinks she should have limitless ability to be a giant liability, and her husband needs to cover it.

    Okayfine, but then she needs to admit that she is just a selfish consumer of resources that she herself lacks the ability to produce.

    She takes pride in her ability to be a liability, rather than taking pride in her ability to be an asset in the relationship.

    This, then, is mind of the modern feminist – wholly unfamiliar with either humility or gratitude.

    Darwinistically, unworthy of the effort to protect.

  142. uncleFred says:

    @Kai
    Thank you.

  143. Pingback: Trapped working like a man! | Dalrock

  144. Pingback: Don’t Hit Me I’m A Girl! | Dalrock

  145. pm76 says:

    Dalrock, You might want to check out this video of what happens after a woman slaps a man on a Indian game show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF8M6ggJkBE. The infamous “How can she slap” video. It’s a little different culturally, but there’s a lot of themes that you have discussed before: entitled woman, woman’s lack of knowledge about the application of violence, a man pushed to the edge, and white knighting/chivalry. If you have any questions regarding the cultural aspects, feel free to hit me up.

  146. “A woman in a traditional society is better off getting a third of the resources of a rich man than all the resources of a poor man. Monogamy most benefits lesser males, who, in a traditional society, would get no woman (nor offspring), but in a strictly monogamous society, is pretty guaranteed one.”
    I don’t remember where I read it, maybe it was even one Dalrock wrote that I read a while ago, but I read an excellent article somewhere that this isn’t an ideal for society as a whole. The reason is that it leads to dissatisfaction with those males that don’t have mates to then challenge, wound, and/or kill those males with multiple wives so that they can have one. Then you have lots of women and children suddenly fatherless (what man that just killed a man to have a wife would want to then raise said mans kids?)

    Far better for everyone to have a stable society. Each man has a reasonable chance to find a wife. Each woman has a reasonable chance to find a husband. There’s a reason majority of the people on the planet operate this way – most societies were Poly in some way – the monogamous won that evolutionary war. Many reasons for that, but I’m sure it played its part.

  147. @ Paige

    On the subject of Independence and what kind of women men prefer – I explored my own thoughts on my blog a bit over the last couple days.

    I think most men would say they want their woman/mate/whatever, to be a Lady.

    I think its hard to quantify what WOULD make a woman a Lady, and maybe it changes from one guy to the next. My list is on my blog, but my main thoughts on it boil down to this.

    A Lady is feminine, knows her limits, respects herself, her limits, and the world around her. She knows and respects the worth of the men in her life for the value and security they add to it. She demonstrates this respect constantly and it is this demonstration that makes her worth the respect and security we give her.

    Men, any thoughts on my definition of a Lady? Feel free to throw in, I’d love to hear differences.

  148. Venom Froggy says:

    @Paige:
    “My grandmother raised me to be extremely independent. She was not married and she never depended on a man for anything. She was one tough cookie (with the biceps to prove it). I don’t believe women are entitled to *anything* in this modern culture other than basic dignity and respect by virtue of their humanity. Women really can manage their own lives. It may mean they use a modicum of self-control and lift-weights so they aren’t frail little flowers but so what? This isn’t the 1800′s. If we are going to have all the rights and privileges equal to a man lets act like we actually deserve it.”

    ===========

    I understand what you’re saying about not needing a man. But you’re putting it in a way that sounds very similar to what most entitlement princesses and feminists would say.

    “Men: amusing, but expendable ^_^”

    Men are hard-wired to protect and to be needed by women in some capacity. Even if that need isn’t physical protection or for doing things, most of men need to be needed for SOMETHING, even if that something is intangible.

    To tell a man, “I want you, but I don’t need you” or even “I love you, but I don’t need you” is to tell him he is unnecessary. Lots of fun, lots of laughs, but irrelevant nonetheless.

    Not a good idea.

    Telling a man, “I’m independent, I don’t need you for anything” essentially lowers him to PET STATUS.

    And since you boast how you don’t need a man to protect you, he’s doesn’t even qualify as a guard dog anymore.

    And in other cases, men don’t even qualify as lap dogs, for that matter; you’d be amazed how many girls are quick to lavish TEN TIMES more affection on a Pomeranian than their man.

    Win!

  149. Binky says:

    Late To The Discussion, But…. My principle (lived in many & various urban & rural situations) has always been “Forestall the possibilities.” Late-night ATMs in bad neighbourhoods or situations? Walking late night in dodgy or isolated areas? Thinking that the onus falls on thugs to make nice? Not avoiding thugs & thugtown as a general policy? Sheesh!

    These all show a failure to plan, prepare, and properly advise & protect yourself & loved ones. Fighting or shooting is a last ditch option (and yes, folks should be ready to so to do), but heedlessly getting into needless trouble? Too often a sign of failing to avoid danger in the first place, or failing to TALK your way out of things in an unplanned confrontation. Nobody has an innate right to go anywhere at anytime under any circumstances in the presence of any type of person. That’s just Common Sense 101. Women or men who are fans of creating such situations are stupid, unwise, and/ or evil. Any woman who expects her man to go gladiator on command (to prove her high value) is not worth the trouble.

    [D: Well put. Welcome to the blog.]

  150. Pingback: Nice Like Me «

  151. Casey says:

    Twenty nailed it !!
    Sean is a liability.

    She will strut about shooting her mouth off, all the while letting her man know ‘I don’t take orders from you and can do whatever I please’.

    In true chick form, she will immediately pass the mop & bucket to clean up the mess she’s created to her husband, after ‘volunteering’ him into a dangerous situation.

    Sean, while you are strutting about with your feminist merit badge………start pre-arranging your siginificant others funeral.

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