The lack of a Ray Rice thread speaks volumes about FCB

hive17 said:

You are not even interested in the feminist point-of-view, so it follows that you have the most misogynistic take on it.

The feminist movement wasn't about removing gender from the equation; it was about treating them the same when reason dictates. Pay, hiring/firing, sexual harrassment, not punishing women for childbirth, giving equal support to women's issues, or in most cases, addressing them at all. It was about actually forcing society to admit they treated women differently to the detriment of women (and plenty would argue, to society itself).

It wasn't about treating every single instance the same, irrespective of gender. There are plenty of issues that you cannot ignore the gender difference; taking a punch is one of them.

Click to expand...

Of course they want to be treated equally when it is beneficial to them and unequally when that suits them better. All you need to do is look how one side divorce courts are to see this in action.

tpeichel said:

Of course they want to be treated equally when it is beneficial to them and unequally when that suits them better. All you need to do is look how one side divorce courts are to see this in action.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding that when it comes to legal matters, or social matters, equality is preferred; BUT when it comes to someone not wanting to take a punch they physically cannot withstand, they rather the difference be taken into consideration. It's not "equal" or "unequal"; it's common sense. You'd understand that if you didn't hate women. A mans' physical dominance over a woman has nothing to do with divorce, Title IX, equal pay, or any other social/legal matter. Your stance is basically: "if you want to be treated like a man, you need to take a punch like a man!"

Well it looks like Steven A. Smith put his foot in his mouth on the subject.

I think what he was trying to say is "Ladies shouldn't instigate disputes if it can be helped."

Now that is a valid point. And I've actually been with women who would try to get in your face and mess with you just because they want to see how far you will go. Because they wanted for you to slip up and have something for them to hold over your head.

But at no point in time is it ok, under any circumstance, to hit a woman. Unless she is trying to kill you or harm your family. There just is no other circumstance it would be ok under.

You simply need to walk away. So while Smith was trying to make a point, and did a very terrible job of actually expressing it...it has zero bearing on the topic at hand. But as usual the media sharks are circling him now tearing him apart. I think a lot of people understand what he means. They just want somebody to roast. It's stupid. If anything tell the man his point has nothing to do with the topic and move on!

And I'll add that even if it's another man trying to start a fight with you, you still need to walk away. The only time you can't is if they are trying to harm you or your family. The police might be the better option depending on the circumstances though.

As you get older, you stop trying to prove anything to people, especially people who won't care anyway, and realize you've got enough problems. People trying to start crap are easily walked away from.

SAS is on an opinion show on ESPN. The show routinely "stirs up stuff" just for the sake of stirring stuff up.

I certainly don't condone raising your hand to a woman, but I also don't think he should have been suspended.

Nate Colbert 17 said:

SAS is on an opinion show on ESPN. The show routinely "stirs up stuff" just for the sake of stirring stuff up.

I certainly don't condone raising your hand to a woman, but I also don't think he should have been suspended.

Click to expand...

Well his point was so poorly made that I guess they felt he offended to many people to let it go?

hive17 said:

I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding that when it comes to legal matters, or social matters, equality is preferred; BUT when it comes to someone not wanting to take a punch they physically cannot withstand, they rather the difference be taken into consideration. It's not "equal" or "unequal"; it's common sense. You'd understand that if you didn't hate women. A mans' physical dominance over a woman has nothing to do with divorce, Title IX, equal pay, or any other social/legal matter. Your stance is basically: "if you want to be treated like a man, you need to take a punch like a man!"

Click to expand...

It's simple, if you don't want to take a punch, don't physically attack someone, especially if they are bigger than you. Women should not get a free pass for violent attacks. The police report had both Rice and his fiancee arrested for simple assault. I am still not clear on exactly what happened, but in a small, enclosed space like an elevator, if you get attacked, you don't have the option of walking away.

If feminists want equality, then why shouldn't women have the same consequences for violent attacks as men?

tpeichel said:

It's simple, if you don't want to take a punch, don't physically attack someone, especially if they are bigger than you. Women should not get a free pass for violent attacks. The police report had both Rice and his fiancee arrested for simple assault. I am still not clear on exactly what happened, but in a small, enclosed space like an elevator, if you get attacked, you don't have the option of walking away.

If feminists want equality, then why shouldn't women have the same consequences for violent attacks as men?

Click to expand...

Men (especially someone like Rice) have the ability to control the situation. At what age can I knock my kids out if they hit me?

tpeichel said:

It's simple, if you don't want to take a punch, don't physically attack someone, especially if they are bigger than you. Women should not get a free pass for violent attacks. The police report had both Rice and his fiancee arrested for simple assault. I am still not clear on exactly what happened, but in a small, enclosed space like an elevator, if you get attacked, you don't have the option of walking away.

If feminists want equality, then why shouldn't women have the same consequences for violent attacks as men?

Click to expand...

Also, you're showing your ignorance and misogyny if you think the feminist movement included physical violence.

Are YOU getting beat up by a woman and feel bad that you can't defend yourself?

hive17 said:

Men (especially someone like Rice) have the ability to control the situation. At what age can I knock my kids out if they hit me?

Click to expand...

Got it. So you do give women a free pass for violent attacks. Domestic abuse is initiated by women nearly as often as men and attitudes like yours perpetuate a system where men can be removed from their home and children simply because a woman feels threatened, while men are expected to "control the situation" and take it when they are violently attacked.

It's the reason that people look at the Rice situation and think he should get a maximum penalty no matter what. They don't need to know the details of what happened because it doesn't matter. All they know is that a man struck a woman, and in there one-sided minds, that is never justified.

If he knocked her out without being physically attacked, then he deserves the maximum penalty. If he was defending himself, then the NFL should keep their noses out of it.

hive17 said:

Also, you're showing your ignorance and misogyny if you think the feminist movement included physical violence.

Are YOU getting beat up by a woman and feel bad that you can't defend yourself?

Click to expand...

Would that make me a bad person if I did? The reasons men stay in abusive relationships are no different that the reasons that women do. Trying to shame men for being abused is despicable. It's no different that Child Abuse, Elder Abuse, or Female Abuse. Abuse is abuse.

And once again, I don't hate women, I just think feminism is poisonous and 50 million dead babies would agree.

Tim, here in Texas if a woman does strike you, you are allowed to defend yourself. But defending yourself doesn't mean beating a person to a pulp. Most likely, the best thing you can do is grab an arm or block punches, then walk away as soon as possible. You don't have to hit back and you shouldn't.

I get your point about the double standard but it exists for a reason. There are a nice chunk of women out there who could whip a grown man quite easily(ever watch women's MMA?). But in most cases, it's not a fair fight and no matter how you go about it or what you say, it won't be. So you have to treat the situation for what it is. Being upset that it isn't fair is a waste of time.

Women wanting to be equal isn't about them thinking they can kick your butt and get away with it. Women don't want to be treated like dogs or slaves or property that serves your every whim. And they shouldn't be treated like that. As a man, you've got to respect them for who and what they are and call it a day. I think that's the gist of feminism.

Come on guy...

tpeichel said:

Would that make me a bad person if I did? The reasons men stay in abusive relationships are no different that the reasons that women do. Trying to shame men for being abused is despicable. It's no different that Child Abuse, Elder Abuse, or Female Abuse. Abuse is abuse.

And once again, I don't hate women, I just think feminism is poisonous and 50 million dead babies would agree.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the standard tpeichel issue plug just to stir the pot.

Classic.

tpeichel said:

Got it. So you do give women a free pass for violent attacks. Domestic abuse is initiated by women nearly as often as men and attitudes like yours perpetuate a system where men can be removed from their home and children simply because a woman feels threatened, while men are expected to "control the situation" and take it when they are violently attacked.

It's the reason that people look at the Rice situation and think he should get a maximum penalty no matter what. They don't need to know the details of what happened because it doesn't matter. All they know is that a man struck a woman, and in there one-sided minds, that is never justified.

If he knocked her out without being physically attacked, then he deserves the maximum penalty. If he was defending himself, then the NFL should keep their noses out of it.

Click to expand...

You're making a straw man argument now. You want to make this about general domestic violence and your minimizing male-victim stats. What your position this whole time has really been though, is that because of feminism, 5'8", 212lbs, 400+ lbs-bench-pressing Ray Rice can hit a woman who hit him first, doing totally unequal damage.

predatorkj said:

Tim, here in Texas if a woman does strike you, you are allowed to defend yourself. But defending yourself doesn't mean beating a person to a pulp. Most likely, the best thing you can do is grab an arm or block punches, then walk away as soon as possible. You don't have to hit back and you shouldn't.

I get your point about the double standard but it exists for a reason. There are a nice chunk of women out there who could whip a grown man quite easily(ever watch women's MMA?). But in most cases, it's not a fair fight and no matter how you go about it or what you say, it won't be. So you have to treat the situation for what it is. Being upset that it isn't fair is a waste of time.

Women wanting to be equal isn't about them thinking they can kick your butt and get away with it. Women don't want to be treated like dogs or slaves or property that serves your every whim. And they shouldn't be treated like that. As a man, you've got to respect them for who and what they are and call it a day. I think that's the gist of feminism.

Come on guy...

Click to expand...

To be clear, I never said anything about beating someone into a pulp, but a man should be able to defend himself. If they can do it by pushing a woman away, then fine. But if the woman keeps attacking, hitting, kicking, gouging eyes, then a pop to the mouth may be necessary.

Feminists and their supporters certainly think woman can kick butt just like men. In fact, a woman can do anything a man can do. Why do you think we have women eligible for combat positions? How many times in the movies do you see 100 lb woman destroy multiple men twice their size? The Warrior Woman myth is most certainly alive and well.

As far as treating women like slaves or property, I hope you aren't suggesting that is something I believe.

hive17 said:

You're making a straw man argument now. You want to make this about general domestic violence and your minimizing male-victim stats. What your position this whole time has really been though, is that because of feminism, 5'8", 212lbs, 400+ lbs-bench-pressing Ray Rice can hit a woman who hit him first, doing totally unequal damage.

Click to expand...

Everyone has a right to defend themselves.

Feminism doesn't want equality, they want good things for women at the expense of men. For instance, many colleges have instituted rules that anyone drinking cannot consent to sex. Guess who gets brought up on sexual charges almost exclusively? Of course, our sons. You'd think that two drunk college students would be committing mutual assault, but not in the eyes of most colleges where feminist ideology rules the day. Men are brought up on charges and are forced to defend themselves time after time.

See here: http://patterico.com/2014/05/21/campus-sexual-assaultrape-epidemic-or-hysteria/
And here: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510

The rules have changed, if men aren't going to stand up to fight for the rights of our boys and other men, who will?

tpeichel said:

Everyone has a right to defend themselves.

Feminism doesn't want equality, they want good things for women at the expense of men. For instance, many colleges have instituted rules that anyone drinking cannot consent to sex. Guess who gets brought up on sexual charges almost exclusively? Of course, our sons. You'd think that two drunk college students would be committing mutual assault, but not in the eyes of most colleges where feminist ideology rules the day. Men are brought up on charges and are forced to defend themselves time after time.

See here: http://patterico.com/2014/05/21/campus-sexual-assaultrape-epidemic-or-hysteria/
And here: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510

The rules have changed, if men aren't going to stand up to fight for the rights of our boys and other men, who will?

Click to expand...

You know nothing of feminism. You're not a real man. You can't take responsibility for who you are; you just want to play the victim. "Whoa-is-me, it's so hard being a white male in this country." Your mere mention of the alcohol-removing-consent idea and you having a problem with it is why rape and sexual crimes are allowed to persist. You complain about colleges, but you'll be happy to know that the Department of Defense (not exactly a bastion of feminism) abides by the same consent rules you're belittling. You live a sad and sheltered life and I hope you A) never have daughters and B) keep your little rapists-in-training away from MY daughters. "Fight for the rights of our boys." are you ******* kidding me? Men have ALL the rights; and you're pointing out that they have to defend themselves in the area of sexual assault, where men are far-and-away the aggressor? Sad...

tpeichel said:

To be clear, I never said anything about beating someone into a pulp, but a man should be able to defend himself. If they can do it by pushing a woman away, then fine. But if the woman keeps attacking, hitting, kicking, gouging eyes, then a pop to the mouth may be necessary.

Feminists and their supporters certainly think woman can kick butt just like men. In fact, a woman can do anything a man can do. Why do you think we have women eligible for combat positions? How many times in the movies do you see 100 lb woman destroy multiple men twice their size? The Warrior Woman myth is most certainly alive and well.

As far as treating women like slaves or property, I hope you aren't suggesting that is something I believe.

Click to expand...

No, I know you didn't say those things and I'm not insinuating you did. I'm just pointing out some of the ideology behind feminism as it's been explained to me.

As for your point about not being able to get away after having pushed a woman off of you, I don't think that's going to happen. If so, it might be time to reconsider who you're with.

As for your argument about the rape charges being brought up after a drunken night of intercourse...when was the last time a woman tried or was successful at raping you? That kind of stuff happens to women. They can get held down and forced into something. Have you ever been held down and forced into doing something with a woman?Has a woman ever had to get you drunk to do things with you?

Because that stuff happens to women. But I've yet to hear of a man having it happen to them.

The point is, yes some laws lean heavily towards one side or the other. But you're not stupid. You know about the laws. You also understand that life isn't always fair and the only thing you can expect for free is a hard time. I think you'd be better served by accepting this and acting accordingly. You're at college and want to have a relationship with a woman, do so sober. You know if you hit a woman it'll be your rear end in a sling, then walk away.

It is what it is. So do what you have to do. It's not that hard really. The rest of us play by these rules. You can too.

cgilmo said:

Why blame the lack of a thread on fcb? Instead of complaining do things to fix it. Yeah it would take work to build a football base butnif enough of you tried it would be possible.

Click to expand...

Chris is right. This is a forum we should participate in, not wait for another guy to start a thread. I'm as guilty as the next guy worried if I start a thread someone will think it's dumb or not worth responding to. It's up to the members to supply the content. It's up to us to keep things lively and I for one plan to start adding more content. Can I get an Amen?

bcubs said:

Chris is right. This is a forum we should participate in, not wait for another guy to start a thread. I'm as guilty as the next guy worried if I start a thread someone will think it's dumb or not worth responding to. It's up to the members to supply the content. It's up to us to keep things lively and I for one plan to start adding more content. Can I get an Amen?

Click to expand...

Preach