« | Main | Watch Out Where the 'Piskies Go... »

December 05, 2009

Tiger Woods: Victim of the Matriarchy

OK, what am I missing here?

I don't really have a whole lot of interest in Tiger Woods' marital issues. What I do find just astounding is how emotionally invested so many conservatives seem to be in turning him into a victim.

Now I will be the first to admit I haven't followed all the ins and outs of the story. But then I have yet to see a single blogger or commenter out of the scores who have accused Elin Woods of bashing Tiger in the face with a golf club offer ONE SINGLE SHRED of evidence - not a link, not a quote, nothing - that she actually hit him.

Of course in the larger scheme of things, minor details like this are completely irrelevant.

It seems to me that when you're so wrapped up in perpetuating a narrative that you have to exaggerate wildly or make stuff up to maintain your sense of outrage, something is amiss. This is my understanding of what has come out. Feel free to correct me - with links:

1. The guy cheated on his wife - not once, and not just with one woman, but over a prolonged period with several women.

In what moral universe - conservative or otherwise - is this acceptable behavior? Oh. I forgot. Tiger is an "alpha male" who is just doing what comes naturally. It's the way he's wired - you see, real mean have no brains and no morals. They literally can't control their body parts when an attractive woman walks by - their Johnsons have been known to levitate right out of their pants and penetrate female passersby at random! And the poor man is utterly helpless. He can neither prevent nor control the irresistible force of nature. And don't you dare suggest there might be something wrong violating your marriage vows! Don't you get it? Tiger is rich. Any man - married or otherwise - who doesn't cheat on his wife when the opportunity presents itself is just insane. And if you don't agree, you're a dirty, man hating feminist. If you're a guy and you have a problem with his behavior, you're either a self hating beta male or totally gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Yeah. Sounds pretty stupid when you say it out loud, doesn't it?

2. There is no evidence that she hit him with a golf club or anything else.

The next door neighbors - the ones who called 911 - said he had "a cut lip" with hardly any blood. Again, I don't know what universe you all live in, but when someone gets whacked in the face with a nine iron by an angry assailant, there is more damage than a cut lip with no visible blood.

3. To call this "domestic violence" - absent one single shred of evidence that his wife hit him (or even evidence that he suffered injuries consistent with the alleged "domestic violence") is delusional behavior bordering on the Andrew Sullivan-esque. And to think we always thought only women acted that way.

I will freely stipulate that IF she had hit him with a golf club or anything else then yes, it would be domestic violence and yes, it would not only be wrong, but wrong/bad and evil and we should probably burn her at the stake like the evil witch we all know she is. But there's no evidence that this is what happened.

On the other hand, there's considerable evidence that Tiger Woods repeatedly cheated on his wife with not one but several women. There is no evidence that he did not wear a condom, but something in me says that a man who is reckless enough to cheat on his wife repeatedly and sext them from his own home isn't displaying what I'd call due diligence with regard to his sex life.

When a spouse cheats and doesn't take precautions, he or she essentially forces his or her partner to assume the risk of catching an STD or even AIDS. This is no trivial matter. It's one thing for Tiger Woods to take that risk.

It's entirely another for him to subject his wife to it without her knowledge or consent.

In many ways, the men's rights movement is sounding more and more like the feminists they constantly complain of -- whiny, shrill, and knee deep in the victim mentality. When conservatives co-sign this nonsense, it becomes just too weird for words. Here's a giant hint: there are actually men out there who have been battered. Why not find one of them, instead of making stuff up to fit your narrative?

You're rapidly losing any sympathy many of us have had for you. But then maybe that's a big part of the problem with these gender warriors - male or female. A thing is either wrong or right. It's not more wrong because you're male or female. Why not just plead your case on the merits instead of allowing your resentment of the opposite sex to force you into intellectually untenable (not to mention morally indefensible) positions?

Posted by Cassandra at December 5, 2009 09:13 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3427

Comments

I thought he was in an accident? What really torqued me was the backpedaling his friend did: "I regret introducing Tiger to ______. He disappointed me." Uhhh...sure. You had no idea he was cheating on his wife.

Tiger is a twit for doing what he did. We call the fallout 'consequences.'

Posted by: Cricket at December 5, 2009 09:37 PM

MAN HATER!!!!

DENIER!!!! You're defending domestic violence, you joyless harridan :p

Posted by: Cassandra at December 5, 2009 09:46 PM

You know, I could almost have some sympathy for the guy if they were considering separation or had 'irreconcilable differences' prior to this and both parties were legally separated or something. But to cheat?

I am a joyless harridan. It is what I live for...it is what I do.

*goes off cackling madly*

Posted by: Cricket at December 5, 2009 10:14 PM

You know whose opinion on this is even less popular than yours? Mine.

"You're rapidly losing any sympathy many of us have had for you."

The "you" in this case is a kind of man who refers to my kind as 'the chivalrous,' and means it as a slur. The idea is that women/feminists (the terms are too often blurred) maintain gender solidarity, whereas we sometimes take women's side. Thus, women always win, having solidarity among their own and a certain number of 'race traitors' on our side.

It's an interesting fact that neither the radical feminist, nor this particular type of man, has an interest in "chivalry." It's an anathema to those who advance the interest of either sex, as it is an ethic of willful service of the one to the other.

Posted by: Grim at December 5, 2009 10:58 PM

Da hell are people defending Tiger for? I was thinking that if the wife did try to club him like baby seal, its understandable. From the shrinking Alpha male majority

Posted by: Foxx at December 6, 2009 12:33 AM

I have no sympathy for Tiger. What he's going through is all his own doing because he couldn't keep his pant on outside his marriage. I don't really care to hear anything more about it. It's not important in the grand scheme of things, if yet another celebrity (male or female) has been unfaithful to their SO. Sadly, too many in this country ARE more concerned about Tiger's troubles than the truly important issues, like the socialist agenda of too many in power in Washington and the fight against Islamist terrorists worldwide.

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at December 6, 2009 12:48 AM

Cassandra,

Just curious which conservatives have taken the position you describe. I haven't run across any and would be curious to read them, because it sure sounds like an indefensible position.

I defend Tiger only in the sense that I think peoe shouldnstop prying and leave him and his family alone.

Posted by: Deuce Geary at December 6, 2009 12:52 AM

No evidence that she hit him?? I guess you must have missed the "live" video captured by a Chinese spy satellite clearly showing Elin's abusive wife-fu against poor, defenseless Tiger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV85rD0gfqo

Speaking of harridans, looks like they got her dead to rights on this one.

Posted by: Scott in OC at December 6, 2009 01:00 AM

Good for you, Cassandra. Said it better than I could have! Tiger is just a sleazy alley cat. The alpha male arguments always make me want to run away and barf. We are creatures of our biology to begin with, but God and our characters can stop us being blind animals...

The thing that really gets me is when the sites like Dr H's endlessly spotlight female sins and cruelties (presumably in reaction to loathsome feminazi PCers). Of course, some of us females are jerks. But on domestic violence, it is still primarily women and children who are its victims. My personal opinion is that she may have waved around the club in a fit of justified rage. Who among us would not feel like doing so if our spouse were cheating on us? It's not right to rant, rage, or threaten, but wronged people aren't always rational. No, I do not excuse real violence. But I agree with you that he doesn't seem to have sustained any real injuries that would confirm the accusations of her as some avenging Valkyrie.

Mostly, in this case, I feel sorry for the kids. Who will grow up either being told to forgive all their father's peccadilloes (men like this are usually rotten fathers too, as someone who breaks promises to their spouse is usually also prone to with their kids). Or else cynically that everybody does it, and that money and a good publicist can save anything. The chidren are the forgotten victims of adult shenanigans.

Am sending you a funny pic I was sent at work about the whole thing...

Posted by: retriever at December 6, 2009 07:39 AM

I've been reading a lot of things over the past few weeks.

This, on Glenn Sacks' men's rights blog, struck me as eminently reasonable:

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4428

I have no problem whatsoever with wanting to correct the record when another blogger or columnist gets it wrong. He was writing in response to a Hannah Rosen column that seems to have torqued a lot of folks off for suggesting that female domestic violence is nothing to worry about or doesn't really exist.

I think what I was reacting to in general was the continual accusations by male commenters in the comments sections of numerous posts that "domestic violence" was being glossed over, or that "of course" Woods cheated - after all, he's a man! The comments here are just one example I can recall:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/12/02/tiger-woods-phone-call-to-mistress/

Now I suppose if I wanted to go all womyn-y, I could get all outraged about the fact that so many guys were approving of infidelity/lying and minimizing his exposing her to STDs but frankly I don't even think they thought that hard about it.

The other thing that was in the back of my mind was several posts by Glenn and Helen Reynolds, also implying that domestic violence had occurred/was being minimized or ignored.

As I said in the post, I completely agree that the same standard should be applied in domestic violence cases regardless of gender.

But when people start calling the wronged wife a prostitute for having a pre-nup (HINT TO THE CLUELESS: who do you think asked for that pre-nup?), saying it's her fault for not keeping her man at home, etc., I really have to wonder. Also, more than a few bloggers on the right have been linking to those idiotic pick up artist sites.

The stupid and hateful rhetoric at these sites has to be read to be believed. Just one example I loved: "I'm married but read PUA sites all the time."

I don't get the fascination with the whole "alpha male" syndrome. The way I was raised, those men would have been ostracized by any self-respecting man. Somehow I'm not thinking that men who openly brag about screwing anything that walks on two legs and being rude and borderline abusive to control her (wow - can you say 'manipulative', boys and girls?) are "real men".

They sound more like selfish little boys. I don't like women who brag about abusing or controlling men and I sure don't like men who do that. It used to be that good men despised players. Now they link to them.

*sigh*

Posted by: Cassandra at December 6, 2009 08:00 AM

That was kind of my take, retriever.

I also can't equate hitting a car during an argument as "domestic violence". I dated a lot before I was married. Men will often, in the midst of an argument, turn and punch a nearby object as an alternative to hitting the woman.

To call this "domestic violence" is just plain dumb. Under extreme provocation (and finding out your partner has been screwing multiple people behind your back surely qualifies as extreme provocation) I can understand maybe throwing something, slamming a door or even possibly hitting a car. I don't necessarily think that's a smart response, but come on!

The thing that gets me here is that if you hit the nearest window (side) or one in front of the driver's face, you are going to shower him with broken glass and/or risk having the golf club come right through the glass and hit him in the face!

So the SMART thing is to break a REAR window. Which she says she did. That way the headrest is between his head and the club/glass.

To say that she hit him in the face with a golf club you have to dismiss his word, the neighbors' testimony, and the conclusions of the police. And then there's the inconvenient fact that in no way do his injuries resemble being hit in the face with a golf club.

But hey, it makes such a convenient narrative.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 6, 2009 08:09 AM

It's an interesting fact that neither the radical feminist, nor this particular type of man, has an interest in "chivalry." It's an anathema to those who advance the interest of either sex, as it is an ethic of willful service of the one to the other.

Yeah. "Beta male" is the last thing on earth I'd call my husband or any of my male friends, and yet they all - ALL of them - display gentleness, compassion, and the willingness to compromise when these things are called for.

They can also stand up for themselves without going overboard and being a**holes. To me, that's what a real man is - someone who is secure enough in his strength and masculinity not to be afraid of acting human. I respect a man far more if he can respond appropriately than if he thinks he has to manipulate or control women to preserve the upper hand.

Respect must be earned. It's not something you trick someone into. I married my husband precisely because he *does* stand up to me. And I don't take shame in deferring to him when the situation warrants it.

The really amazing thing is that he's confident enough to return the favor. There's no doubt as to whether he's a "real man". I know it and he knows it. He doesn't have to play silly games to earn my respect. He has it because of the kind of man he is. I suspect Grim's wife feels exactly the same way about him.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 6, 2009 08:17 AM

on domestic violence, it is still primarily women and children who are its victims.

I think I have read that male and female domestic violence is different. I don't think domestic violence is right no matter who does it, but the reason (IMO) that male domestic violence is treated more seriously is that serious injury more often results from it.

I remember old movies where a man would slap a woman or a woman slap a man during an argument.

Is this "violence"? Sure. Does it require the intervention of law enforcement? I'm not so sure. Let's face it - sometimes consensual sex features some of those same elements.

I think at some point we have to step back from the bedroom or living room window. Serious violence, no matter who perpetrates it, is bad for obvious reasons.

But I'd hate to see the cops on my door for a single slap (unless the full force of someone's arm were behind it). Seems like overkill - before you know it the cops will be showing up if you spank your wife (or husband) during sex.

*rolling eyes*

What do you think?

Posted by: Cassandra at December 6, 2009 08:27 AM

Cass,

As one of my former Ranger Sgts. liked to say "Let's not cloud the issue with mere relevant facts."

Mr. Woods has a stunningly attractive wife, more money than he could ever spend and the morals of....a liberal.

He's lucky his S.O. is not a hot blooded passionate woman, a la Lorena Bobbit. His magic johnson would be a filet of johnson and she would have legions of barristers defending her right to take possesion of property that she felt was hers and hers alone.

BLUF. He can swing a golf club, but that should be the limit of his sport endeavors.

KP

Posted by: Kbob in Katy (back) at December 6, 2009 09:37 AM

I will admit that I'm more than a bit surprised she hasn't left him.

But then I don't know much about her. I did read that he pestered the hell out of her after they met. She did not want to date him and repeatedly turned him down. That doesn't sound as though she's a gold digger to me.

Apparently his persistent wooing won her over.

I think I've already said that if this were me, I'd have left skid marks in the family driveway on the way out the door with my kids. This wasn't a casual or unintentional affair - it's a deliberate and reckless decision to pretend he wasn't married. I could never trust a man like that regardless of what he said after the fact because obviously promises mean nothing to him and he has only a casual acquaintance with the truth.

I'm a bit suspicious of all the accusations that she's staying for the money. If I were her, I'd be feeling as though my entire world had fallen apart. A shock like that takes time to absorb and I don't like to make major life decisions while in the grip of strong emotion.

Anyway, as several commenters have said, that's their business. I did think more of Woods for refusing to emote or give out explicit confessions publicly.

But I could never trust him again.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 6, 2009 10:15 AM

Well, if one takes the position that cheating justifies assault, then I guess that's that. I would just point out that you're saying that every woman who cheats, also "deserves" to get beaten up. In fact, you sound like a woman who's all for "honor killings", which is just an extension of your philosophy - if cheating justifies assault, then why stop at just assault?
As a guy, I'm horrified at your position. By the way, my ex assaulted me from behind (blunt object to back of neck), and also assaulted our kids (knocked down from behind, punched out). I never hit back, I got restraining order, took the kids and divorced her. You don't fight evil by copying it... So I know of what I speak, and I walked the walk. Can you say the same???

Posted by: Ken at December 6, 2009 11:05 AM

Ken, you have some serious reading comprehension problems.

GO BACK AND READ WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID (AS OPPOSED TO WHAT YOU WANT ME TO HAVE SAID):

1. From my post:

I will freely stipulate that IF she had hit him with a golf club or anything else then yes, it would be domestic violence and yes, it would not only be wrong, but wrong/bad and evil and we should probably burn her at the stake like the evil witch we all know she is. But there's no evidence that this is what happened.

2. Comment 1:

As I said in the post, I completely agree that the same standard should be applied in domestic violence cases regardless of gender.

3. And again:

I don't think domestic violence is right no matter who does it, but the reason (IMO) that male domestic violence is treated more seriously is that serious injury more often results from it.

4. And again:

Serious violence, no matter who perpetrates it, is bad for obvious reasons.

Again, if you have to make things up to gin up your sense of outrage, something is amiss.

There is absolutely no reasonable interpretation of what I wrote that justifies a conclusion that I would think cheating justifies assault OR that I would condone your wife hitting you with a blunt object from behind.

But then you're not really interested in addressing what I did say, are you? So go ahead - flail away at that straw man :p

Posted by: Cassandra at December 6, 2009 11:15 AM

Here's another one:

Here's a giant hint: there are actually men out there who have been battered. [Since you obviously don't get it, that would be YOU.] Why not find one of them, instead of making stuff up to fit your narrative?

... maybe that's a big part of the problem with these gender warriors - male or female. A thing is either wrong or right. It's not more wrong because you're male or female. Why not just plead your case on the merits... [IOW, as I said before, domestic violence IS WRONG NO MATTER WHO DOES IT].

*sigh*

Excuse me now. I have an honor killing to attend. Because, you know, I defended murder and assault exactly ... umm... zero times in this post and said assault was wrong at least 5 times :p

Posted by: Cassandra at December 6, 2009 11:26 AM

You should go over to NPR.org and click on 'Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me.' It is the show for yesterday, December 4th. Tiger Woods isn't treated very sympathetically, and neither is his wife. We have manners and a facade to maintain.

For the children.

That said, he is a total sleazebucket and his wife, while innocent of any marital infidelity on her part, nonetheless did have an understandable reaction in slashing his tires.

Or so I've heard.

Posted by: Cricket at December 6, 2009 12:39 PM

"Excuse me now. I have an honor killing to attend. "
Careful M'lady, this snark will grow legs to become yet another legend in the scrolls of the Villainous hoard.

Me, I'm off to see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Mistresseseseses. Rated M for Mendacious while considering conservative litmus test percentages, grading on curves and all that.

Posted by: Bt_Kwi-Chang_of_Pitching-wedge_Fu_hun at December 6, 2009 12:41 PM

I'm not going to get too carried away here after having a look at these posts as st...bah, never mind. Nice writing though. Well-stated set of arguments and a quality use of a few simple visual elements for your layout. Lately, I have been asking myself how we as a culture could go about using the sociobiological elements of these stories (the run away and barf alpha male argument, in this instance, in an oversimplified one-way street sort of interpretation) to re-interpret and re-construct our social institutions to improve the success rate of said institutions and limit the impact of faltering social codes (you're a bad ass golfer, of course it's somehow ok for you to seriously threaten the wel-being of someone you 'love') on the overall mental health of people around the world. Good on you for pointing out the potential health consequence as danger, as assault. I'm going to check in on your site more often.

Posted by: Timidancer at December 6, 2009 02:08 PM

Thanks :)

And Bt Kwi-Chang: you and spd are in the penalty box for causing me to snort liquids :p

Wow. Did she really slash his tires? Will check it out. I haven't been defending her so much as pointing out that people are trashing her on no evidence. If she does something then obviously she ought to be held responsible for her actions too.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 6, 2009 02:11 PM

Real men, regardless of political persuasion keep it zipped up. This serial promiscuity is, I believe it is up to 6 women now, indicative of a male with no self-respect, no respect for responsibility, and no respect for women. Not to mention the exposure to STD's he is putting his family at risk for.

Further, the people who package his persona apparently have been selling the public a fantasy. This is the commercial equivalent of BHO's message of hopeandchange, no basis in fact and totally reliant on what people are desperate to hear. Projection at it's finest!

Posted by: vet66 at December 6, 2009 02:53 PM

"Real men, regardless of political persuasion keep it zipped up. "
That reminds me of something I've heard somewhere, some time... Oh yeah, Semper Fidelis.

Some get it, some don't. Some live it, some won't.

Posted by: bthun at December 6, 2009 03:24 PM

No, she didn't slash his tires; that was me being a gossip. It serves to underscore what she has been accused of; breaking the glass with the club to get him out of the car versus hitting him.

She doesn't sound like she is vindictive; just tired of it all.

Posted by: Cricket at December 6, 2009 05:59 PM

Speaking of harridans, looks like they got her dead to rights on this one.

OK, that was funny :p Probably where a lot of the commenters got their information from, too by the sound of it.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 6, 2009 09:12 PM

It is difficult to keep your bearings when everybody around you tell you you how great you are. - of cause I seem to remember a certain king (Canute or Knud- if you you speek the tongue of the gods - danish) making a quite distinct point in this regard.

Nevertheless, if you are a real man, you keep your commitments until released, damn the torpedoes. That is at least what I was taught.

But what do I know about relationships, I am still trying to figure this one out after 45 years.

As I can best figure out, getting married means you are creating a new nuclear family (all for one and one for all etc.) - if you betray that very basic tenet, you deserve to be quartered and drawn etc.

Just my 2 cents.


peace

hejde

Posted by: Hejde at December 7, 2009 12:03 AM

I am a joyless harridan. It is what I live for...it is what I do.
*goes off cackling madly*
Posted by: Cricket at December 5, 2009 10:14 PM

You crack me up, milady.

Regarding Mr. Woods, like many "celebrities" he doubtless receives his share of attention/opportunities from members of the opposite sex...and we're all human, therefore subject to giving into temptation. Judge not, etc.

I am not condoning or excusing what he did, mind you, but he's not the first nor will he (in all probability) be the last person to cheat on a spouse.

Of course the media likes to sensationalize the "scandal of the week", there being no shortage of candidates for that category.

The whole debacle is just sad...

Posted by: camojack at December 7, 2009 01:24 AM

Men will often, in the midst of an argument, turn and punch a nearby object as an alternative to hitting the woman.

This sounds like the threat of violence to me, as in "careful woman - I can use this fist on you if you don't watch it" - violence deflected away from the woman who "provokes" it.

Posted by: I Call BS at December 7, 2009 03:30 AM

... an understandable reaction in slashing his tires.

Someone who (allegedly) takes a swing at a car with a golf club, or (allegedly) slashes tires in anger is someone who has lost control of him/herself.

Posted by: I Call BS at December 7, 2009 03:33 AM

I think you're projecting.

Certainly such an act could be meant that way (to intimidate). It's pretty obvious from the way a person acts, which it is.

And that said, I have never felt one second of fear with any man with whom I've been involved. And I've never been threatened.

Ever. By anyone.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 7, 2009 03:34 AM

Someone who (allegedly) takes a swing at a car with a golf club, or (allegedly) slashes tires in anger is someone who has lost control of him/herself.

If they actually do it, yes. But the point here is that there is zero evidence that that's what happened. And the slashing tires thing was a joke aimed at those who have been accusing her of everything from prostitution to attempted murder on no evidence.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 7, 2009 03:36 AM

Regarding Mr. Woods, like many "celebrities" he doubtless receives his share of attention/opportunities from members of the opposite sex...and we're all human, therefore subject to giving into temptation. Judge not, etc.

I'd be willing to bet he's received MORE than his share of opportunities. But as Cass so kindly points out (to our great benefit), men are NOT animals. We have control over what we do, we are not helpless to the ravages of every pretty young thing that flashes her thong at us (contrary to what some former Presidents might say).

Disclosure time, I've had opportunity and offers to cheat thrown at me, and I'm neither a looker, rich or particularly charming. But I turned them down. It's a decision, not a struggle. Heck, it's not even particularly hard. "I'm very flattered, but no." I cannot for the life of me imagine any woman trying to push the matter past that.

And let me stress, I KNOW you're not making excuses for him, just reiterating my position on the matter.

Posted by: MikeD at December 7, 2009 11:22 AM

I think you're projecting.

Certainly such an act could be meant that way (to intimidate). It's pretty obvious from the way a person acts, which it is.

And that said, I have never felt one second of fear with any man with whom I've been involved. And I've never been threatened.

Ever. By anyone.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 7, 2009 03:34 AM

I'm not accusing the lovely Mrs. Tiger Woods of anything. I'm suggesting that golf-club swinging (in general) and tire-slashing (in general) as responses to (alleged) philandering or other conjugal (or other) crises is violence. Normal, responsible adults do not destroy property when they are angry. People who destroy or damage a specific person's property when they are angry with that specific person are IMHO diverting violence they'd like to inflict on that person to something else. In general it is better to do something to a thing rather than to a person ... but why not just walk away, or [parental guidance suggested on this next one] "use your words".

Posted by: I Call BS at December 7, 2009 12:23 PM

I'm suggesting that golf-club swinging (in general) and tire-slashing (in general) as responses to (alleged) philandering or other conjugal (or other) crises is violence.

Oh. I totally misunderstood. I agree - it's always better to walk away. But then it's also better not to yell and show me the married person who has never yelled :)

Actually, I used to be one of those people. I didn't lose my temper. And I try not to lose my temper now, but I can no longer say I've never gotten mad and yelled even though that's not how I like to resolve problems. I've also been known to slam doors :p

So *dramatic*! Satisfying, too. Not too grown up, though.

I guess having screwed up myself made me less judgmental for other responses I might not approve of, but can understand better now.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 7, 2009 12:46 PM

Violence is not bad or wrong per se. When it is introduced into a conjugal relationship, it IS bad. Defending oneself is a good thing; assaulting someone is a bad thing. The woman whose "man" is beating her is within her rights to defend herself, using physical violence if necessary to successfully defend. The man whose "woman" is beating him is within his rights to defend himself, using physical violence if necessary to successfully defend. Simple, really.

Posted by: I Call BS at December 7, 2009 12:51 PM

But then it's also better not to yell and show me the married person who has never yelled :)

Despite what the old saw says ("sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me"), words can cause harm too ... ya know, the guy screaming at his wife or SO that she's "an ignorant slut" (apologies to Dan Akroyd) ... too many words like that can chip away at self esteem of the target. Again, it is best to just "get the f**k" out of a situation like that.

Posted by: I Call BS at December 7, 2009 12:59 PM

But sure ... the mother of my children and I yell at each other sometimes ... it's not great to do that, but it is better than swinging blunt or sharp objects at each other, and it can let off steam (festering thoughts needing to be expressed).

Posted by: I Call BS at December 7, 2009 01:01 PM

Trust me - I'm a big believer in fighting fair/fighting civilized :p

I've just found that as I've gotten older, my temper frays a bit faster than it used to and my patience is definitely not what it once was.

*sigh*

I try not to say hurtful things. Not sure how good I am b/c what one person thinks is hurtful isn't always what the other does. But I try really hard.

Posted by: Cassandra at December 7, 2009 01:10 PM

I have had the most success getting through to people (the mother of my children, for example) when I calmly say that I am not going to continue an argument and I just walk out of the house for a while. Get's 'em every time! They actually MISS me and come looking for me! I'm so effing manipulative!! Ha ha ha!!

Posted by: I Call BS at December 7, 2009 02:28 PM

Except that the club swinging was spin (as in she bashed in the rear window as opposed to her husband's head), and the tire slashing, as I said, was me being a gossip. Just because you hear something doesn't mean you knee-jerk in response.

There is no physical evidence that she whacked him with a 9 iron or anything else.

So, what caused the cuts on his lip? A vampire attack? Glass in the lipstick or chapstick? Glass flying from the back window being clubbed in?

Sounds like it to me.

I call BS on you.

Posted by: Cricket at December 7, 2009 03:28 PM

I Call BS, you are, as they say, a target-rich environment.

Posted by: Cricket at December 7, 2009 03:32 PM

????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Posted by: I Call BS at December 7, 2009 03:57 PM

A serial philanderererer is not a victim. Deficient in loving, honoring and cherishing the mother of his spawn? Yes. A victim? No.

Unless Bush/Cheney are behind this dastardly degradation of a, a... A HERO to duffers everywhere!

Come to think of it, the whole affair is a bit suspicious when one considers how the fire hydrant and tree just happened to be placed where they were. Tiger's lip spontaneously erupting in a bloody fissure, the abrupt halt of the vehicle due to the suspicious fire hydrant and tree placement notwithstanding...


And then there is the issue of Tiger being asleep when the LEO arrived, as if some black op had allegedly stuffed Ambien and Vicodin down his gullet, snatched him from his peaceful slumber in his home, busted his lip, crashed his SUV and laid him on the ground.

Yup, gotta be DA MAN aka Bush/Cheney behind this.

Watch your grocery store publication row and the major media for updates. Since there is nothing more important going on at the moment.

Posted by: Edward R. Murrow's ghost at December 7, 2009 04:33 PM

Along the lines of the great Mr. Murrow's prosaic remarks, wonder what the chances would be of our most famous bi-racial pResident facilitating a "Chardonnay" or more possibly a politically correct "Pinot Noir" summit to arrive at an amicable, yet obvious peace wherein the fair haired lass of Nordic ancestry could only be found at fault in the assault upon both the person and personna of the second greatest bi-racial figure of partial african heritage.

What a sad commentary on so many levels......

Posted by: Kbob in Katy (back) at December 7, 2009 05:03 PM

In many ways, the men's rights movement is sounding more and more like the feminists they constantly complain of -- whiny, shrill, and knee deep in the victim mentality. When conservatives co-sign this nonsense, it becomes just too weird for words.

[This may not make it though moderation, but what the heck...]

Being a manly man does not include boffing anything in skirts. It includes keeping your promises, taking care of your wife and family even to the loss of your own life. It means deferring what you may want at the time in favor of that which is best for the woman you promised to love for as long as you both shall live, and the children the two of you produced together.

It means having the strength to say "down, Johnson!". It's the strength to bring your wife's face into focus immediately after appreciating a lovely stranger, who loses in comparison to the love of your life.

I'm going to say this as simply as possible.

"Men's rightists" are invariably whiny pussies.

Every single one I've spoken to bemoans the fact that men are mistreated in divorce court, they're forced to pay child support for children they didn't want when women are allowed (and many times encouraged) to abort.

I've told them, that they never have to pay for a child they don't want by simply keeping their pants zipped and saying a single word when required: "No". If you do say "Yes" and father a child, man up and at least work to support your progeny.

But those spoiled, bundles of arrested development don't want to hear that. Taking care of business is what a man does. That business included doing what it takes to provide for your family (even if that family is unintended).

Posted by: Tony at December 10, 2009 01:12 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)