An open challenge to Amicus

[Brute_Force]

I once chanced upon a man beating the hell out of his wife in the parking lot of an apartment complex where I lived. I was sitting in my living room having a glass of wine and I heard a woman pleading for help. She was screaming and crying, so I ran outside on my balcony and saw the man thrusting her face into the concrete. I knew he was going to kill her, so I yelled at him to stop. I threatened him within an inch of his life. His comment (screaming at me) was, "She's my woman. I'll do to her whatever I want." To which, I replied, "Not as long as I'm alive, you fuck." I jumped off the balcony and ran toward them. The coward ran away, and I gathered up the poor woman in my arms, took her to my apartment, cleaned her up, and got her a Sprite. The police came, and sadly, she was too frightened to press charges. A report was filed, but nothing happened to the man.

What is my point, you ask? It is simply this: Abuse of women hurts EVERYONE, not just the individual woman. I was hurt by her pain. I never forgot her and to this day, I carry with me the image of her wounded body and spirit. Of course, my anguish does not compare to hers, but I was awakened by it, not as a man, but as a human being. Any time that someone is beaten unjustly it is a slap in the face of all humanity.

 

[amicus]

At the risk, perhaps even, 'certainty', of being accused of offering 'stereotypical', conclusions about human nature, in terms of the innate proclivities of the species, I offer another perspective to the 'abuse' tack this thread seems to have taken.

The issue of men abusing women is so emotional and essentially so one-sided, that I know it will be difficult if not impossible to tender another viewpoint...however...

Gender equality, protected and enforced by law, is a relatively new thing in the world of human relationships. Mankind is still in the 'toddler' stage, stumbling towards the ability to comprehend the changes.

How to even begin? Gotta start somewhere...

I 'know' women, from growing up among them, mother, sisters, girlfriends, acquaintances, the same way we get to 'know' of those around us through interaction and, might I add, competition.

By saying that I 'know' women, and the number is in the thousands, as it is with all of us, does not imply that I know 'all' women, a physical and mental impossibility, but I do state that I have known many.

That enables me, on a 'personal', subjective level, to draw certain conclusions about, 'women' in general and as in all things, that accumulation of 'knowledge' and experience, guides my further learning process about women and about everything else that serves as 'input' to my mind that eventually forms basic concepts and more abstract conclusions.

That is how 'knowledge' is gained by all humans; the way the human mind works.

Now in the big, wide and wonderful world, the numbers of separate subjective opinions, while not infinite, is beyond the scope of a single mind to know and to weigh.

Thus we move to a sifting and weighing of ideas and opinions; we discuss and debate and try to arrive at mutually acceptable concepts that mesh with each individual concept of what is 'real' and what is not.

If the mutual, majority opinion concludes that the 'world is flat', then that becomes the accepted 'norm' but it does not challenge the 'truth' or the objective reality of the issue in doubt, for that exists, independent of our conclusions.

"Men are abusive of women and always have been because they are, by nature, larger and stronger..." Seems to be the 'accepted norm' of the majority at this time, is it objective truth?

All women begin life as little girls, just to establish a base here.

Little girls soon learn that stomping their feet and throwing a tantrum if they do not get what that want, can be replaced by a tactic of a different nature. They become daddy's little girl, sweet adorable little creatures that wheedle and coax the object of their desires into compliance with their wishes.

The 'learning' process all over again, from a social and subjective sense. And it works! It works so well that little girls turn into bigger and bigger girls and use those same tactics to gain their desired ends on all males, all men, and, once again, it works.

Then what happens, one fine day in this wide wonderful world, when it does not work? When the male of her lifelong held modus operandi simply ignores her ministrations, turns a blank eye and a deaf ear to her pleadings and says, "No!"

The poor little girl, the grown woman, following a procedure that has never failed, is completely devastated, her basic understanding of the world around her, shattered.

Now how it works between girl and mother/woman, or between girls growing up, I cannot speak to. But I do know, as a boy and now a man, how males approach a situation that involves a conflict of desires.

When two equally stubborn males are nose to nose, with the 'No's' ringing loud and clear, threats and violence naturally follow.

I think you can see where my premise leads.

When the female confronts the intransigent male past the 'coaxing and wheedling' stage, beyond even the promises of sexual favors that she can bestow in return and still, "No!", is the result...it is then the problem of 'abuse', begins to emerge.

When the female is confronted beyond the verbal range, when even her bitching, and nagging and complaining fail, she may, and has, reverted to spitting in his food, disrupting his plans, interrupting his intentions, far beyond the continued quest to gain her desired ends, she begins a process of destroying that which she cannot conquer.

Slapping the living shit out of an intruding female at this point becomes an attractive and perhaps the only option left to the harried male.

Howdoya like them apples, Cloudy, et al?

Yeah, I know, stereotypically Amicus, no doubt your immediate response.

Such as it is,


I remain...

Amicus...

 

[BlackShanglan]

When the female confronts the intransigent male past the 'coaxing and wheedling' stage, beyond even the promises of sexual favors that she can bestow in return and still, "No!", is the result...it is then the problem of 'abuse', begins to emerge.

When the female is confronted beyond the verbal range, when even her bitching, and nagging and complaining fail, she may, and has, reverted to spitting in his food, disrupting his plans, interrupting his intentions, far beyond the continued quest to gain her desired ends, she begins a process of destroying that which she cannot conquer.

Slapping the living shit out of an intruding female at this point becomes an attractive and perhaps the only option left to the harried male.

Howdoya like them apples, Cloudy, et al?

Yeah, I know, stereotypically Amicus, no doubt your immediate response.

Such as it is,


I remain...

Amicus...

I'd just like to be perfectly clear on this matter, Amicus.

You're suggesting that a physical attack is a natural and supportable male response to a woman making verbal complaints and "disrupting his plans"?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I actually made the effort to read that.

It's so bizarrely thought out, and so trivial, that I know I can go for another year before reading another of your posts, Ami.

 

[lisa123414]

Amicus – Is it possible that you have misinterpreted women? Search your soul. Since I was two, and was taught by my parents that all the cuteness and tantrums in the world would not get me what I wanted, I learned to work for and yes, earn, what I wanted in the world. I have never traded upon my sex, perhaps I am fortunate to not have had to. It is unfortunate for you that you have not encountered women like this, but I think it is not because they were not there, it was because you did not see.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

When the female is confronted beyond the verbal range, when even her bitching, and nagging and complaining fail, she may, and has, reverted to spitting in his food, disrupting his plans, interrupting his intentions, far beyond the continued quest to gain her desired ends, she begins a process of destroying that which she cannot conquer.

Forget that. She'll carve him open with a knife when he's sleeping.

Slapping the living shit out of an intruding female at this point becomes an attractive and perhaps the only option left to the harried male.

Oh real smart, Amicus. It's one thing to challenge the obvious and overwhelmingly misandrist double standards regarding abuse, but to challenge it by violence against women?

That's what separates you from me when it comes to challenging society's absolute permissiveness toward female violence; you feel justified in pummeling sense into a woman.

I say walk the fuck away or file for divorce and get a men's rights attorney to keep her from taking you to the cleaners in court.

My way results in a 50-50 chance of victory and your way will 100% land your ass in prison where your abuse will come from your well hung cell mates.

 

[rgraham666]

http://bestsmileys.com/freak/2.gif

I do so wish I hadn't read that.

 

[Brute_Force]

No man is ever under any circumstances justified in beating a woman. Period. I will defend that position to the death. I have seen too many senseless abuses of women in all modes of society. It makes me sick to death to think that any man thinks he is right to hit, kick, hurt, abuse, rape or take advantage of any woman in some fashion.

In jail, the men definitely have a way of executing a particularly gruesome form of justice on men who use women as punching bags.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=BlackShanglan]I'd just like to be perfectly clear on this matter, Amicus.

You're suggesting that a physical attack is a natural and supportable male response to a woman making verbal complaints and "disrupting his plans"?[/QUOTE]

~~~

Et Tu, Shanglan?

When I hold or participate in discussions with those possessing a rational, logical mind, a foundation of human history and a knowledge of how the mind acquires knowledge and the extent of that knowledge, when broaching a new subject, or if I have a complex extension or abstraction to communicate, the usual procedure is to briefly touch bases on the underlying conclusions and rationality of those conclusions.

The cognitive level of this forum, in general, might be generously referred to as 'Kindergarten' level. Except that it is tainted, terribly, with relativism and non absolute subjectivism.

Thus, I attempt, as in this post and most of my essays, to provide a brief 'thumbnail' of the thought processes that bring me to a concluding statement.

You, of all posters here, I expected to comprehend, not just my conclusion, but the necessity of providing an alternative to a very one sided condemnation of violence between male and female.


"...You're suggesting that a physical attack is a natural and supportable male response to a woman making verbal complaints and "disrupting his plans"?

"...Slapping the living shit out of an intruding female at this point becomes an attractive and perhaps the only option left to the harried male..."

I usually choose my words quite carefully, as in this case, "attractive and perhaps, and 'option'.

None of which implies an 'approval' on my part, merely an acknowledgment that in the real world a man may be 'driven' to violence by the female. Now I do have 'opinions' on that subject, and may indeed have expressed or will express them in the future.

That, to me, offers a new 'starting point' for the discussion of abuse, if indeed women are/can be/may be, the source of the violence, perhaps equally responsible for emotionally going beyond the boundaries of civility, the perhaps a resolution, in terms of understanding, might be forthcoming.

Amicus...

 

[lisa123414]

For Brute Force - I also remember, many years ago, being the one to call the police, when I heard the man upstairs beating his mother. After the police left - by the way, no charges were filed, the police were very familiar with these two - the man went yelling through the building, accusing the landlord of calling the cops.
I went out and told him that I was the one who had called the police, that his beef was with me. The man immediately lost his anger, then tried to justify to me his actions. I think I was lucky, in that this guy realized his justifications for hitting his mother (he was thirties, she fifties, although their shared alcoholism made them both appear older) did not stand up to the light of day. I was also lucky that he did not see a reason - (due to my nagging harridanism, no doubt) to hit me.

 

[Brute_Force]

Yes, Lisa, I know how rough it is when one chances upon violence like that. I have never seen anyone as devastated or sad as the woman I helped retreat from her homicidal husband. The look in her eyes shook me to the core, and nothing in this world could she have done to deserve that beating.

For Amicus, I don't know you, mate. But, I'm getting an idea of how you "think." I suspect you have never been on the receiving end of a good beating. I don't want to get too personal here. However, I would conjecture that if you had been beaten to a pulp before you might feel differently. Then again, you might not, given your views?

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=lisa123414]Amicus – Is it possible that you have misinterpreted women? Search your soul. Since I was two, and was taught by my parents that all the cuteness and tantrums in the world would not get me what I wanted, I learned to work for and yes, earn, what I wanted in the world. I have never traded upon my sex, perhaps I am fortunate to not have had to. It is unfortunate for you that you have not encountered women like this, but I think it is not because they were not there, it was because you did not see.[/QUOTE]


~~~

lisa...two things...you grudgingly seem to admit that 'some' women do use the methods I referred to.

Secondly, I am always disappointed when a poster fails to address the idea's I present but reverts to a personal attack, accusing the poster of a character fault.

Such a deal.

Amicus...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

None of which implies an 'approval' on my part, merely an acknowledgment that in the real world a man may be 'driven' to violence by the female. Now I do have 'opinions' on that subject, and may indeed have expressed or will express them in the future.

'Driven' implies he has an excuse. That's like saying I'm driven to run his ass over when he's done beating his wife and he wanders out on the street.

That, to me, offers a new 'starting point' for the discussion of abuse, if indeed women are/can be/may be, the source of the violence, perhaps equally responsible for emotionally going beyond the boundaries of civility, the perhaps a resolution, in terms of understanding, might be forthcoming.

Amicus...

Earth to Amicus, repeat, Earth to Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Yes, Lisa, I know how rough it is when one chances upon violence like that. I have never seen anyone as devastated or sad as the woman I helped retreat from her homicidal husband. The look in her eyes shook me to the core, and nothing in this world could she have done to deserve that beating.

For Amicus, I don't know you, mate. But, I'm getting an idea of how you "think." I suspect you have never been on the receiving end of a good beating. I don't want to get too personal here. However, I would conjecture that if you had been beaten to a pulp before you might feel differently. Then again, you might not, given your views?

~~~

Once again, the personal attack.

Just because you do not comprehend my point of view, does not automatically indicate that I am at fault. It may well be you, my friend.

In terms of childhood events, none of which I will share, the impetus of modern psychology is to learn how to overcome the trauma's, not to sweep them under a carpet.

Let me just offer, that what if 'some' women, do, purposely, drive a man to violence, by intent? To ameliorate or satisfy some of those childhood events that perhaps she underwent such as abuse and molestation, and the engendering violence, satisfies and deep and urgent need.

And no, that is not my theory, it be rampant in the ranks of those attempting to comprehend the issues and there are many.

Amicus...

 

[lisa123414]

lisa...two things...you grudgingly seem to admit that 'some' women do use the methods I referred to.

Secondly, I am always disappointed when a poster fails to address the idea's I present but reverts to a personal attack, accusing the poster of a character fault.

Such a deal.

Amicus...

Amicus - I also grudgingly admit that some men use the methods to which you have referred. Sorry if you feel I am personally attacking you. I just cannot comprehend your point of view at times. And, I have been on the receiving end of some of your personal - lets say - assumptions as to my nature and personality. You have been wrong, every time, this is where I get the basis for questioning your assumptions about all humans.

 

[amicus]

'Driven' implies he has an excuse. That's like saying I'm driven to run his ass over when he's done beating his wife and he wanders out on the street.


Earth to Amicus, repeat, Earth to Amicus...

~~~

Got a little close to a 'sore point' with you, eh, LT?

It happens a lot on this forum as I dare challenge the prevailing wisdom and it does not trouble me that you defensively 'pretend', not to comprehend my logic.\

No biggee...


Amicus...

 

[BlackShanglan]

"...Slapping the living shit out of an intruding female at this point becomes an attractive and perhaps the only option left to the harried male..."

I usually choose my words quite carefully, as in this case, "attractive and perhaps, and 'option'.

None of which implies an 'approval' on my part, merely an acknowledgment that in the real world a man may be 'driven' to violence by the female. Now I do have 'opinions' on that subject, and may indeed have expressed or will express them in the future.

That, to me, offers a new 'starting point' for the discussion of abuse, if indeed women are/can be/may be, the source of the violence, perhaps equally responsible for emotionally going beyond the boundaries of civility, the perhaps a resolution, in terms of understanding, might be forthcoming.

Amicus...

I think it, Amicus - and I am sorry not to mince words here, but I won't - a despicable conclusion for anyone to claim that someone else's rudeness, emotional behavior, or ugly words are "the source of" any violence on his part or anyone else's. The source of the violence is the person behaving violently, and his or her decision to attack another person rather than walk away, exert self-control, take the matter to the authorities, or any of the other options available. The problem is the attacker's inability or unwillingness to control his or her own impulses, and the concurrent decision to use violence to resolve non-violent threats or challenges.

I've heard many times, including from people who beat their spouses, the excuse that the attacker simply could not control his or her temper in the face of the other's incitement to violence. To that I say flatly, hogwash. I've seen the same bony fellow who gave that excuse for beating his pregnant wife somehow master his theoretically ungovernable temper when the person offending him was a six foot four linebacker from the local college's football team. Suddenly he discovered that there were indeed other ways in which to settle even heartfelt and humiliating differences of opinion - even ones that involved him being ridiculed in public before a large group of people. When the person sparking that terrible, monstrously uncontrollable temper of his was also capable of feeding him his teeth, he found that his temper had a bridle after all.

Surely your own conception of human liberty - that faith in human self-will and self-direction that leads you to declare that even ignorance cannot override it - must lead you to see what an outrage and flat contradiction of personal free will and responsibility it would be to lay the onus for violence on someone other than the person taking the violent action. Are we marionettes, helplessly at the whim of whoever pulls our strings? Or are we men and women with our own minds and wills, people capable of good and bad and for that very reason with responsiblity of choosing the good and of owning the bad that we do?

 

[amicus]

Amicus - I also grudgingly admit that some men use the methods to which you have referred. Sorry if you feel I am personally attacking you. I just cannot comprehend your point of view at times. And, I have been on the receiving end of some of your personal - lets say - assumptions as to my nature and personality. You have been wrong, every time, this is where I get the basis for questioning your assumptions about all humans.

~~~

lisa...I do not need to do this for my own gratification, nor do I apologize for expressing an opinion.

I have spent a lifetime pursuing understanding. I consider it a 'copout' to use the cliche, the more I learn the less I know, but indeed, it seems that way sometimes.

I can only make, 'assumptions on your nature and personality' based on the words you choose to share. And I do misinterpret the words and intentions of those who post, from time to time, I try not to, but it seems to occur nonetheless.

The point of the post that raised the ire of all it seems, we merely to present a foil to the single minded direction of previous posters.

Amicus

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I think it, Amicus - and I am sorry not to mince words here, but I won't - a despicable conclusion for anyone to claim that someone else's rudeness, emotional behavior, or ugly words are "the source of" any violence on his part or anyone else's. The source of the violence is the person behaving violently, and his or her decision to attack another person rather than walk away, exert self-control, take the matter to the authorities, or any of the other options available. The problem is the attacker's inability or unwillingness to control his or her own impulses, and the concurrent decision to use violence to resolve non-violent threats or challenges.

I've heard many times, including from people who beat their spouses, the excuse that the attacker simply could not control his or her temper in the face of the other's incitement to violence. To that I say flatly, hogwash. I've seen the same bony fellow who gave that excuse for beating his pregnant wife somehow master his theoretically ungovernable temper when the person offending him was a six foot four linebacker from the local college's football team. Suddenly he discovered that there were indeed other ways in which to settle even heartfelt and humiliating differences of opinion - even ones that involved him being ridiculed in public before a large group of people. When the person sparking that terrible, monstrously uncontrollable temper of his was also capable of feeding him his teeth, he found that his temper had a bridle after all.

Surely your own conception of human liberty - that faith in human self-will and self-direction that leads you to declare that even ignorance cannot override it - must lead you to see what an outrage and flat contradiction of personal free will and responsibility it would be to lay the onus for violence on someone other than the person taking the violent action. Are we marionettes, helplessly at the whim of whoever pulls our strings? Or are we men and women with our own minds and wills, people capable of good and bad and for that very reason with responsiblity of choosing the good and of owning the bad that we do?

Well said.

 

[cloudy]

My way results in a 50-50 chance of victory and your way will 100% land your ass in prison where your abuse will come from your well hung cell mates.

no, his way will wind up with his hands superglued to his cock while he sleeps.

Come slap me, ami. Let's see what happens.

dickhead.

Real men don't ever hit women. Women don't "make" men hit them; some "men" aren't really men, and blame their bad behavior on someone else.

Now we know which group you're in, don't we?

 

[Stella_Omega]

~~~

lisa...I do not need to do this for my own gratification, nor do I apologize for expressing an opinion.

I have spent a lifetime pursuing understanding. I consider it a 'copout' to use the cliche, the more I learn the less I know, but indeed, it seems that way sometimes.

I can only make, 'assumptions on your nature and personality' based on the words you choose to share. And I do misinterpret the words and intentions of those who post, from time to time, I try not to, but it seems to occur nonetheless.

The point of the post that raised the ire of all it seems, we merely to present a foil to the single minded direction of previous posters.

Amicus

The more you learn the less you know, indeed. One wonders what you are learning.If only the corellary were true, that you would know more by learning less. If you are continually learning as you claim, than you should be utterly ignorant any day now-- judging from the words you post here, it may well be tomorrow.

In this conversation you serve the same purpose that Dworkin does; you make statements so preposterous, so ignorant, so fictional, that you remind everyone else of the value of actual, meaningful, dialogue-- minus the polemics that you lampoon (one hopes) so well.

 

[amicus]

I think it, Amicus - and I am sorry not to mince words here, but I won't - a despicable conclusion for anyone to claim that someone else's rudeness, emotional behavior, or ugly words are "the source of" any violence on his part or anyone else's. The source of the violence is the person behaving violently, and his or her decision to attack another person rather than walk away, exert self-control, take the matter to the authorities, or any of the other options available. The problem is the attacker's inability or unwillingness to control his or her own impulses, and the concurrent decision to use violence to resolve non-violent threats or challenges.

I've heard many times, including from people who beat their spouses, the excuse that the attacker simply could not control his or her temper in the face of the other's incitement to violence. To that I say flatly, hogwash. I've seen the same bony fellow who gave that excuse for beating his pregnant wife somehow master his theoretically ungovernable temper when the person offending him was a six foot four linebacker from the local college's football team. Suddenly he discovered that there were indeed other ways in which to settle even heartfelt and humiliating differences of opinion - even ones that involved him being ridiculed in public before a large group of people. When the person sparking that terrible, monstrously uncontrollable temper of his was also capable of feeding him his teeth, he found that his temper had a bridle after all.

Surely your own conception of human liberty - that faith in human self-will and self-direction that leads you to declare that even ignorance cannot override it - must lead you to see what an outrage and flat contradiction of personal free will and responsibility it would be to lay the onus for violence on someone other than the person taking the violent action. Are we marionettes, helplessly at the whim of whoever pulls our strings? Or are we men and women with our own minds and wills, people capable of good and bad and for that very reason with responsiblity of choosing the good and of owning the bad that we do?

~~~

Ah, Shanglan, some thoughtful points as per usual, if if presented a little bit more emotionally than is typical for you.

You appear to be a rational man, capable of controlling your emotions when they approach violence, I claim to be likewise.

I suggest that this 'aversion to violent behavior', is a generational incident, (again, not my original theory, the credit goes somewhere in the field of professional psychiatry.)

I offer, 'spanking a child', as a small illustration, the use of physical violence or restraint in the raising of a child. Once upon a time, very commonplace, as indeed, was the use of violence against women to discipline them.

There are always, 'bullies' in this world, males of intimidating size and demeanor as to threaten those not acquainted with violence.

I discount that, as anecdotal, and rather look to the source of violence.

Not all men or women, for that matter, are well educated, rational, thoughtful beings, some function emotionally based only on their childhood and what they have learned, perhaps, 'the hard way'.

And yes, a rational man, will control his temper and walk away from anyone purposefully attempting to incite violence, even to the point of the typical woman in the kitchen with a butcher knife.

There is a typical 'Utopian' concept of all people living together in peaceful harmony that seems to prevail in modern thinking; I think it is a wonderful fantasy, while the world remains as it always has, violent, combative, competitive, with snarls and tooth and nail defending one's own turf, whatever it may be, protecting the essence of the individual existence.

As you may surmise, as other clever ones have, I suggest some of the current attitudes derive from militant feminists who, over the past half century, will purposely bait men to violence in hopes of police support of their efforts.

To be fair, I think the genders share equally in bringing about violence.

And if there is a 'real' point, besides offering alternative thoughts, then that be it.

Amicus...

 

[Chantilyvamp]

http://bestsmileys.com/freak/2.gif

I do so wish I hadn't read that.

I'm with you on this one rob I wish I had never read this last page. *sighs*

 

[rgraham666]

His comment (screaming at me) was, "She's my woman. I'll do to her whatever I want."

It's long been my observation that English needs other terms for 'my'.

'My car' is not the same as 'my wife'.

I can take a hammer to my car. It would be stupid, but it wouldn't be evil.

I can't take a hammer to my wife. That is evil.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I suggest that this 'aversion to violent behavior', is a generational incident, (again, not my original theory, the credit goes somewhere in the field of professional psychiatry.)

You are incorrect in this suggestion. My personal resistence to the use of violence owes roughly equal parts to Christ, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. Christ teaches me that it is wrong; Gandhi and King teach me that it also fails to work.

I offer, 'spanking a child', as a small illustration, the use of physical violence or restraint in the raising of a child. Once upon a time, very commonplace, as indeed, was the use of violence against women to discipline them.

There are always, 'bullies' in this world, males of intimidating size and demeanor as to threaten those not acquainted with violence.

You're throwing together radically unlike things here, but then perhaps they have some similarity after all. The chief things leading to the rejection of regular and severe violence in disciplining children and women was recognition of them as human beings with rights. So long as they were treated as animals or chattel in the eyes of law and society, indeed, violence was common. However, that only tells us that humans abuse whatever they are free to abuse - not that it is right, and not that it is the fault of the abused object. Idiots punch walls, kick dogs, or smash their keyboards when they are frustrated as well; that doesn't mean that those things are the source of the problem.

I discount that, as anecdotal, and rather look to the source of violence.

Not all men or women, for that matter, are well educated, rational, thoughtful beings, some function emotionally based only on their childhood and what they have learned, perhaps, 'the hard way'.

And yes, a rational man, will control his temper and walk away from anyone purposefully attempting to incite violence, even to the point of the typical woman in the kitchen with a butcher knife.

This passage indicates clearly that the responsiblity for violence lies in the irrational actions of the actor. The fact that he or she is irrational and in poor control of his or her impulses doesn't make resulting violence someone else's fault.

There is a typical 'Utopian' concept of all people living together in peaceful harmony that seems to prevail in modern thinking; I think it is a wonderful fantasy, while the world remains as it always has, violent, combative, competitive, with snarls and tooth and nail defending one's own turf, whatever it may be, protecting the essence of the individual existence.

This has - and I rather suspect you know it - absolutely nothing to do with the question of who is responsible for violence. Whether the world be a peaceful Utopia or bloody of tooth and nail, the nature of existence tells us only how often stressful and potentially violent circumstances will arise, not who is to blame if violence does erupt. I'm not such a fool as to imagine that all people will live rationally and peacefully together, but then, that's why I'm interested in the question of who is to blame when violence does erupt. I know that it will, and I think that every civilized person has a vested interest in placing the blame for violence squarely on the person who committed it.

As you may surmise, as other clever ones have, I suggest some of the current attitudes derive from militant feminists who, over the past half century, will purposely bait men to violence in hopes of police support of their efforts.

There are loudmouthed and unpleasant people of all genders and descriptions in this world. We all have to learn to live with that fact. Alleging that such "baiting" renders one incapable of anything but a violent response is simply silly, particularly when you seem to be suggesting that this is some sort of society-wide feminist movement to bait all men in existence. Really, what fragile creatures are we all if we're helpless before something that clownish?

To be fair, I think the genders share equally in bringing about violence.

And if there is a 'real' point, besides offering alternative thoughts, then that be it.

Amicus...

To be a loudmouthed and unpleasant person is certainly to make the world a less pleasant place. It is not, however, to share equally in the violence when someone punches the loudmouth in the face, any more than the puncher is sharing equally in the mouthing off. They are seperate things, and to suggest that saying things someone else might not like is to be an equal participant in a violent response to it is an sad commentary upon human willpower and reason.