Gender and Violence and Blame
POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 20:14
VIEWED: 35151
PAGE 18 of 31
Re: Victim Blaming.
In case anyone hadn't noticed...
*cringing slightly*
There's one subfacet of victim-blaming that will instantly, absolutely, drive me round the bend foamy-rabid berserk, and thus may not actually entail a rational response.
"How DARE you defend yourself!"
Seriously, there's just no way in hell or heavens creation I am ever going to be even the slightest bit rational about it, being that I am fundamentally incapable of having any reaction BUT passionate berserk rage to even the mere concept of it.
Take yourself a long quiet moment and think about that a bit.
Consider why that is.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem, maybe be less oblique in your responses. I sometimes have trouble in working out what the point is you are trying to make.
I don't have an issue with people defending themselves, but using violence against violence always strikes me as a bit of a strange one. If you meet violence head on with violence, you run the risk of a lot of collatoral damage.
Don't get me wrong, if anyone comes near hurting a hair on my son's head, they would face the wrath of a lioness. But violence and the extent to which it is used is also a choice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, because only the *Authorities* can rationally & emotionless-ly judge what meets the strict & necessary guidelines for reasonable & constrained self-defence.
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
"How DARE you defend yourself!"
Bull-fracking-cowpies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And you would face the wrath of State prosecutors bent on extracting civil penalties for your actions.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Don't get me wrong, if anyone comes near hurting a hair on my son's head, they would face the wrath of a lioness.
Plus $'s for pain & suffering for the poor perp from your bite-wounds.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
really? sounds like in some states you can blow someone away with imunity on the 'stand your ground' defence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, it seems to work out here that if you KILL someone in a tussle it's BETTER for you than if you simply break their leg with a kick (or claw them Lioness style). I am truly disgusted by the legal (read:money) systems in place all over.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
really? sounds like in some states you can blow someone away with imunity on the 'stand your ground' defence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Regarding the actual article that priest is whacked, he talks about men as inferior beings who can't control themselves, who aren't responsable for their actions and that is stupid and not acceptable to me.
Rape is always bad.
Anthropology is cool Signe.
My little brother loves Mindcraft, as does my little nephew, they like playing it together.
Videogames/violent movies: Our ancestors would go to hangings, watch people get eaten by lions at the Colecium and any number of other barbaric acts around the world historically. So playing a fake game about violence doesn't seem so bad in comparison. The flip side to that though is that if you're watching people get eaten by lions you know its absolutely real, you know the cause and affect and can really understand what that means, whereas when you shoot people up on your game consol you're removed from it, it being pretend. So I think the key here is enforcing the concept of cause and affect, the difference between pretend and real. I also think that making sure kids are playing age apropriate games when they're little is important because that way they can form proper cause and affect understandings and _then play those shoot 'em up games once they have those concepts down..
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I can't even understand where you're coming from.
I'm with ya Byte. Women are every bit as physically violent as men. They just hide it better, engage in different types of physical violence, and/or don't get convicted.
-----
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I can't even understand where you're coming from.
I'm with ya Byte. Women are every bit as physically violent as men. They just hide it better, engage in different types of physical violence, and/or don't get convicted.
-----
As in child abuse? Or self-harm? Or what do you mean by hide it better?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CHRIS, BYTE, HK, CTS, et al
Back in the '30s, tobacco companies wanted more people smoking. So they contracted with the studios to have all of their big-name stars smoke in all of their films: John Wayne, Lauren Bacall, Joan Crawford, Humphrey Bogart... . Smoking was cool, it was sophisticated, it was urbane. All of the scenes were wreathed in cigarette smoke.
Quote:
Glantz and Robert Jackler, MD... used once-secret tobacco industry documents to trace Hollywood-tobacco marketing deals to the early days of movie making, including Al Jolson in the silent film era. The study titled, "Big Tobacco in Hollywood, 1927-1951," published Sept. 24 online in the journal Tobacco Control."Commercial arrangements between the movie industry and tobacco companies were there from the very beginning," said Glantz, director of UCSF's Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.
And yanno what? IT WORKED! People... younger people especially... started smoking.
The tobacco industry did it again in the 1980s...
Quote:http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i81.full
The 1980s saw undertakings by four tobacco companies, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds (RJR), American Tobacco Company, and Brown and Williamson to place their products in movies...[and] television. Each company hired aggressive product placement firms to represent its interests in Hollywood. These firms placed products and tobacco signage in positive situations that would encourage viewers to use tobacco and kept brands from being used in negative situations. At least one of the companies, RJR, undertook an extensive campaign to hook Hollywood on tobacco by providing free cigarettes to actors on a monthly basis.
And yanno what?? IT WORKED AGAIN! Adolescent smoking went through the roof! YAY! for the tobacco industry! Right?
Now think about religion. For a part of the population, it is thumped at them from the pulpit, the radio, the television, the internet, from home. Why do people believe in what is clearly unsupportable by simple daily observation? Because everyone else they know does. Because it's what they see, what they hear; it's thumped at them constantly.
Now think of pornography. If this isn't a content which the makers can claim fills a demand, I can't imagine what does. And yet women are complaining that men's approach to sex... which they once learned by trial and error and maybe a few magazines along the way... has become formulaic and devoid of personal involvement.
Now, imagine an entire visual media soaked with images of guns, shootings, knifings... killings of many kinds. Think of all of those detective shows, spy thrillers, westerns, alien invasion movies, zombie apocalypses, supernatural thrillers, World War II movies, robbery-and-mayhem video games. Wow, images of death multiple times a day, as many times as you want. It's kind of hard to avoid, actually.
Propaganda works. What you're seeing is nothing more and nothing less than a propaganda campaign. Like ALL good propaganda, it taps into at least one essential drive of the human psyche... in THIS case sex, acceptance, and safety. Just look at WULF. The guy could hardly express his righteous rage without resorting to a stirring movie clip. I don't believe that violent images are about catharsis as much as they are about addiction.
So, we are awash in fictionalized violence which (BTW) studies have shown desensitize people to ACTUAL violence. Maybe that is why 40% of the people in the USA think that the answer to gun deaths is MORE GUNS! In my observation, behind every idiocy is a successful propaganda campaign, and this is nothing more than an addiction.
As far as past expression of violence... there is a HUGE difference in actual violence versus fictionalized violence. ACTUAL violence makes people more afraid of it, fictionalized violence creates a kind of numbness. People see death on TV a dozen times a day, but until you have sat with someone w
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME