Second Amendment and Blaming the Victim
I got a new spin on the 2nd Amendment for y'all.
On Hannity, Eric Bolling, professional male fool, with the racist filanderer Geraldo, cop Bo Deedle, and a former Miss America, the token dumb blonde, I guess, discuss a news commentator's comment about some recent celebrity assault. Some athlete getting suspended for dragging his unconscious fiancee out of an elevator or some such.
The disgust I hope is apparent in my post, stems from the age old mantra, "don't blame the victim!"
The other commentator, while making concessions all over the place, tries to point out, badly, that it's important to teach women to be safe, and how to be safe. To not put themselves in situations where they can be assaulted.
And of course, the dumb blonde trots out the leftist talking point, "I can't believe it's 2014 and we still have to..." blah blah blah...
So, this gorgeous young blonde can walk naked down a dark alley in a bad part of town, and she bears no subsequent responsibility for what happens to her?
Note, I'm not suggesting what happens is deserved, or that she should be prosecuted.
But what do we talk about here in the gulch, when we complain about gun control? Don't we champion the right to defend ourselves? Don't we assert that responsibility for our own safety belongs to us, and not the nanny-state?
Yes, a beautiful young women, even a dumb blonde, has a perfect right to walk stark naked down a dark alley in a bad part of town; I wish she'd exercise that right past my apartment building, I'd enjoy the view, but that's another issue.
People are chastised for building their houses in tornado alley and not putting in storm shelters. They're scoffed at for building homes in fire zones, or flood zones, or on top of mudslide prone hills. No one challenges their right to do these things, but often they are criticized for poor judgment.
Why is it too much to ask women to exercise judgment and be responsible for their own safety?
I have a right to walk through a jungle stark naked. But I can't blame the tiger that eats me for doing so. He's acting according to his nature, as do rapists thieves and murderers. All the laws in the world won't tame them. All the laws on the books won't make you safe (again, isn't this how we argue against gun control? That laws only restrict the law-abiding?)
I had to laugh when she invoked the leftist, "I can't believe it's 2014..." Their attitude about women is 19th century and they don't even see it. it's rude and ungentlemanly to suggest that a woman is in any way responsible for her own safety... in the Victorian mindset.
This is one of the ways moderns drive me crazy. They verbally want to reject better eras, like the Victorian, but reflexively, they still want the advantages those societies offered without the responsibilities and restrictions they imposed. In my book, that's demanding the unearned.
On Hannity, Eric Bolling, professional male fool, with the racist filanderer Geraldo, cop Bo Deedle, and a former Miss America, the token dumb blonde, I guess, discuss a news commentator's comment about some recent celebrity assault. Some athlete getting suspended for dragging his unconscious fiancee out of an elevator or some such.
The disgust I hope is apparent in my post, stems from the age old mantra, "don't blame the victim!"
The other commentator, while making concessions all over the place, tries to point out, badly, that it's important to teach women to be safe, and how to be safe. To not put themselves in situations where they can be assaulted.
And of course, the dumb blonde trots out the leftist talking point, "I can't believe it's 2014 and we still have to..." blah blah blah...
So, this gorgeous young blonde can walk naked down a dark alley in a bad part of town, and she bears no subsequent responsibility for what happens to her?
Note, I'm not suggesting what happens is deserved, or that she should be prosecuted.
But what do we talk about here in the gulch, when we complain about gun control? Don't we champion the right to defend ourselves? Don't we assert that responsibility for our own safety belongs to us, and not the nanny-state?
Yes, a beautiful young women, even a dumb blonde, has a perfect right to walk stark naked down a dark alley in a bad part of town; I wish she'd exercise that right past my apartment building, I'd enjoy the view, but that's another issue.
People are chastised for building their houses in tornado alley and not putting in storm shelters. They're scoffed at for building homes in fire zones, or flood zones, or on top of mudslide prone hills. No one challenges their right to do these things, but often they are criticized for poor judgment.
Why is it too much to ask women to exercise judgment and be responsible for their own safety?
I have a right to walk through a jungle stark naked. But I can't blame the tiger that eats me for doing so. He's acting according to his nature, as do rapists thieves and murderers. All the laws in the world won't tame them. All the laws on the books won't make you safe (again, isn't this how we argue against gun control? That laws only restrict the law-abiding?)
I had to laugh when she invoked the leftist, "I can't believe it's 2014..." Their attitude about women is 19th century and they don't even see it. it's rude and ungentlemanly to suggest that a woman is in any way responsible for her own safety... in the Victorian mindset.
This is one of the ways moderns drive me crazy. They verbally want to reject better eras, like the Victorian, but reflexively, they still want the advantages those societies offered without the responsibilities and restrictions they imposed. In my book, that's demanding the unearned.
And of course there's the question of who gets to define "abhorrent"...
Women bear EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY for their safety as do men for their safety. Get it? I don't go walking down a dark alley in Harlem with a glow-in-the-dark "I hate N*****s" t-shirt on; to do so would be irresponsible and a threat to my health. It's my perfect RIGHT, my 1st Amendment protected RIGHT to do so. But I'm an idiot if I do. But we're not allowed to call women "idiots" for doing the equivalently oblivious act.
Humans are, in fact, animals. Some men choose not to contain their impulses, making them like non-sapient animals.
Like the Terminator, they can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, seldom feel remorse.
As with the tiger, there are only two ways to deal with them when you are on the street in the situation; avoid them or kill them.
I'm convinced this, "she can do anything she wants and its all HIS fault" is at the root of the entitlement mentality.
A woman is feeling 'sexy'. She dresses provocatively to work, hoping the cute office manager notices her.
He may or may not notice her. She's oblivious, however, to the nerdy little IT tech; he's not potential mating material (not "hawt" like the cute office manager, nor empowered like the cute office manager), so he's not the target of her provocative dress.
And you moderns put all the responsibility on the poor little nerd. He's not supposed to be a man, to get an erection, or otherwise notice this sexual invitation openly broadcast, because it's not intended for him (and he should know this psychically....). So if he acts on it... forget rape. In this day and age, if he makes a pass at her he can get fired and/or sued for sexual harassment.
His instinct to acquire a mate is just as strong as the cute office manager's, but he's expected to ignore it.
Which is just, after all. In the age of viagra, men are only supposed to become aroused on the direct command of a woman.
Sorry if I sound a bit bitter, but the injustice of it really pisses me off. Not the injustice of nerdy guys not getting the girl, that's evolution in action. The injustice of making the nerdy guy in my scenario bear all the responsibility for behavior over which he has no control, because it's the behavior of the irresponsible female he's not able to control.
"Some men choose not to contain their impulses, making them like non-sapient animals."
CHOOSE, notice?
And it's not a matter of being able to control your behavior. You think thieves and pickpockets can't control their behavior? You have to take action and be observant to guard against being robbed... unless you're a woman.
Here, let me spell it out for the willfully obtuse:
The cute office manager makes a pass at the girl; result: he gets laid.
The nerdy little IT guy does THE EXACT SAME THING, and get slapped with sexual harassment.
It has nothing to do with behavior control. WHY should the nerdy little guy, who, trust me, HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING that he's not acceptable mating material, NOT make a pass at the girl? How is it HIS fault and not HERS? Guilty of not being psychic? Guilty of not having low-enough self-esteem?
Of course, you've probably never had the dilemma faced by men, of having to make the first assertive move.