There's so much that's screwed up about this that I don't know where to start.
Mrs. Professor really doesn't like women, does she?
These folks need their outrage sights realigned. Wingnut logic is internally inconsistent.
This coming from a woman who can't spell a name correctly when it's repatedly presented to her.
Um, Rick, if you're talking about Krissy's name, it's Roy who has it wrong. Not that it's the crime of the century, just fyi.
Mrs. Twit responds in an update:
Why is it that lefty bloggers can never understand the difference between self-defense and a bar room brawl? Could it be that in the former instance, a person is puting into practice their second amendment rights and in the latter one (at least in the above instance) a woman is humilating a man?
Indeed and heh. Because, say, shooting someone's balls off would simply be an exercise of constitutional rights, and not the least bit humiliating.
I guess those " no duty to retreat" laws are only for the well-armed.
Meanwhile, Dean "Let's Execute Journalists" Esmay is as nuttily confused as usual.
Um, Rick, if you're talking about Krissy's name, it's Roy who has it wrong.
By Hera, she's right! Thanks for the tip.
So if I have DrHelen down right, Dems are wimps and we need to invade brown people countrys to show the islamofascists that we aren't weak and we're going to bash their asses right? But when Scalzi doesn't bother to ignore the situation and/or doesn't call the police then she's accused of being psycho.
Do I have it right?
"Why is it that lefty bloggers can never understand the difference between self-defense and a bar room brawl? Could it be that in the former instance, a person is puting into practice their second amendment rights and in the latter one (at least in the above instance) a woman is humilating a man?"
Um, he's only humiliated because he thought he could get away with being an asshole by picking on a "mere" woman. Maybe next time he'll think twice about taking that for granted, eh?
Or maybe Ms. Scalzi should have considered the guy's feelings and let him grope her so his ego wouldn't be hurt?
What? Was she supposed to offer him therapy? We all know how the right loves that...
The comments on that thread are unbelievable. It's a real pileon, with maybe one exception. I guess the barroom skeez community is gathering its forces over at the forensic psychologist's place. They gotta protect their rights to be skeezy.
Or maybe Ms. Scalzi should have considered the guy's feelings and let him grope her so his ego wouldn't be hurt?
Mnemosyne
Nah, she's supposed to be a good conservative woman and spread her legs for any man that wants her. Otherwise, I can't understand gal perfesser's reasoning.
I think it is a case of "When you want to beat a dog any stick will do."
Why they are so mad keen to beat the dog is the question that keeps puzzling me.
And a friend pointed out the almost surreal absurdity of this passage:
If a man lost his self control and put his hand to a female admirer's throat, think of the repurcussions. He might be arrested for assault or at least thrown out of the bar.
Who knew setting up false equivalencies is encouraged on the postgraduate level?
Mrs. Professor really doesn't like women, does she?
Chad
Glenn Reynolds is Norman Bates. He/She loves women.
So pushing off some drunk because he's grabbed your body (or, as we in the reality-based community express it, committed a, you know, crime) in a bar is a "brawl" while shooting someone is a lofty expression of principle?
Sometimes I wonder if in his secret heart of hearts the perfessor doesn't wish he'd passed on the corporate welfare for his wife.
Do you think Dr. Helen would have had the slightest reaction if it had been John who went after the drunk (one of those "lay off my woman" things)?
(I mean, other than wondering why Instapundant never defends her like that.)
Note to self if situation ever arises: Dr. Helen thinks it's rude to stop strange men from pawing her body in public.
Jesus tits. I thought after Dr. Phil no one with any self-respect would label themselves "Dr. [insert name here.]"
Oh wait.
All good radical Islamists... er, I mean Republicans know that a married woman has no place being in a bar without her husband or a male relative to defend her!
And I thought all those chicks in the:
"GO ON, COP A FEEL, IT'S ONLY FAIR SINCE I'M OUT WITHOUT MY MAN"
T-shirts down at the Jolly Libertarian were being ironic or something.
I like the fact that the commenters on that site seem to think what she really should have done was go find a big strong man (bouncer or manager) to defend her feminine honor.
Why does this remind me of one of Dr. Mike Adams' columns where he retrospectively thinks about how he MIGHT have defended the honor of his wife, daughter, or lady acquaintence from an uncouth male?
"She decides that a man in an open public place just trying to touch her warranted shoving him against a wall and putting her hand to his throat."
I feel the same way. Sometimes I just want to put my penis in a girl's mouth; I don't know why she has to have a shit fit over it.
"Could it be that in the former instance, a person is puting into practice their second amendment rights and in the latter one (at least in the above instance) a woman is humilating a man?"
Offensive touching = boys being boys
Putting man in his place = humiliating
I wish women would learn their fucking place. Kee-rist.
Hi. This is very OT, but I loved your Glenn Reynolds the Cyborg post so much, the one where he ends up kicked around the street by naked disheveled kids a hundred years from now. Your skill at dialogue dwarfs anything I could come up with, so I thought I'd throw a suggestion your way, and ask if you might think up something with it, if it tickled your fancy.
Has to do with this pathetic GOP meme that Clinton was slow in responding to the Al Qaeda threat because he was distracted by Monica.
The gist of the skit would be a side-by-side comparison of Clinton and Bush, with you freely assuming Clinton was every bit as distracted as they want to claim.
And then going on to contrast what a day inside the Oval Office with a 'distracted' Bill Clinton would be like, given his intelligence, work ethic, and just basically his overall understanding of what a President of the United States IS SUPPOSED TO DO WITH HIS FUCKING DAY, as opposed to our current farter-in-chief.
Anyway, thanks for listening.
There has always been a sort of double standard for retaliatory violence of men vs. women among gender traditionalists. Way before the Dixie Chicks had their Iraq War controversy, they put out a song called "Earl Must Die," where an abused wife and her friend kill the hubbie. Country radio stations clutched their pearls and got all morally outraged and refused to play it. There was also lots of controversy about the Garth Brooks song, "The Thunder Rolls," about the same thing--much clucking about how violence is not the answer for personal problems, etc. But when Kenny Rodgers made "Coward of the County," where a guy revenges the gang rape of a woman by mass murder, it was a huge non-controversial hit. Go figure.
Actually, Dr. Mrs. OP's reasoning is very consistent. Our mistake has been believing this has something to do with gun rights or general self-defence, when in fact it is simply a case of a woman defending/explaining/deciding for herself. As far as Repubs and fake Libertarians are concerned, such behavior must be stopped.
Why is it that lefty bloggers can never understand the difference between self-defense and a bar room brawl?"
How is it the rightie bloggers are able to type with so few functional brain cells? Talk about a million monkeys.
Let me get this straight: Dr Mrs Ole Perfesser is a psychologist?
Wow. The TN Board must license practically anybody.
Is there a bigger douche than john scalzi, whining about people making "ad hominem" attacks on Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser?
Yeah, I guess I'm a douche for thinking that there's more than enough to discuss on the substantive points without going for the cheap and easy shot.
That's why you're a douche, John, because there is actually nothing to discuss. That you fail to recognize this is odd.
When people enter the bizarro world of Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser they should quickly recognize that derision and mockery is the only way to deal with it. To discuss is to engage, to engage is to legitimize.
If you think there's a legitimate argument over whether or not your wife responded appropriately feel free to have it, but to me it just makes you a douche.
Scalzi and wife have now decided to pretend the guy touched her, so they can justify the assault. Rather dishonest, but perhaps no surprise.
None of this has anything to do with the Second Amendment. Even as lefties go, you guys need some help in the reasoning deprtment.
Bluto-"To discuss is to engage, to engage is to legitimize."
Smug stupidity has found its champion. Congrats, Bluto!
I certainly don't think there's much discussion to be had regarding whether my wife acted appropriately: She did, and I've said so a number of times. I'm extremely proud of the way she handled herself in that situation. So you'll have to find another reason to consider me a douche.
That said, there's lots to discuss, among them Dr. Helen's set of assumptions regarding what is appropriate action in situations like my wife found herself in and what is not. If you want to leave that discussion untouched, that's fine, but saying that derision is the only option seems rather limiting.
There's a lot of crap on Dr. Helen's comment thread, but there are also at least a few people making good points countering Dr. Helen's general argument, and I've been finding those interesting and worthwhile. Dropping in yet another attack on Dr. Helen is just adding to the crap.
Rather than attacking an innnocent party (Dr. Helken) you people should go after the assaulter and her enabler. How a guy can be proud of his wife who hits people with no justifiable provocation (he didn't touch Krissy) is beyond belief.
Mr. Salmon, you haven't the slightest idea of the events in that bar, save what little information I've posted on my site about the event. So I find it deeply amusing that you appear to think you do, and are now wandering about the Internet, calling me and my wife liars. Unless you were there, have pertinent witness testimony, or verifiable proof of your psychic abilities, you're just talking out of your ass.
All I learned from Dr. Helen is that she is unfamiliar with bars.
I don't get what scalzi is upset about on this thread--the lefties all think his wife was perfectly entitled to defend herself. Its in the best tradition of feminist action and self respect. It is "dr" Helen who thinks that its ok for women to kill in self defence, but not ok for them to rough someone up in self defence.
Of course, as a feminist, I prefer reason to blows any day but as dr helen and her followers have assured me you simply can't reason with some people. I understand I'm supposed to nuke them but since I never go into a bar with my tactical nuke is it ok if I just deck them?
aimai
Hey, drunks have rights too!!!!
Tee more martoonis tarbender!
Aimai:
"I don't get what scalzi is upset about on this thread--the lefties all think his wife was perfectly entitled to defend herself."
I'm not upset at all, and of course I'm thrilled everyone here agrees my wife was entitled to defend herself -- I agree entirely. I was merely responding to the suggestion I was a "douche" for saying I'd like not to see ad hominem attacks on Dr. Helen and Glenn. Please note that I don't define "ad hominem" as "addressing the precepts of Dr. Helen's argument, now with extra bonus snark." That's entirely different.
Scalzi: Yur story has been changed, to protect the guilty. And I'd be concerned about a habitually violent wife. Especially now that you're encouraging and in fact glorifying that violence.
This has been, by far, the most schitzoid thread in history of the Internets.
As someone who's seen enough time in bars to have memorized bathroom limericks from coast to coast, I don't see the big deal of a woman getting tough with some perv who got inappropriate with her. Now, maybe I run with a different crowd, but it's usually warranted and it's usually greeted with cheers from the rest of us enlightened, rum-soaked, curs.
In the old days, sure, a drink in the face was the normal action -- but drinks cost too much these days and to waste good gin on just another idiot approaches a sin.
But the outpouring of emotion over the guy who got his is something to behold. It's the woman's fault she was pawed and took offense? "Assaulter and enabler"?! Holyjeebuschrist.
Equally absurd is the defense of Doc Helen. Her post is pure reactionary bullshit. "Imagine if a guy did it!"
Piffle. If a guy did it, he would have gotten the tar beaten out of him by a bouncer and/or a feral pack of drunks looking to strike a blow for chivalry. Only someone being a willful idiot misunderstands the power dynamic of the situation .
Per usual, I'm with aimai -- the situation is often better handled with a putdown, or reason, or whatever, but sometimes a douchebag can only understand a more direct message.
Again, to clarify, Scalzi has a picture of a woman wielding a baseball bat pictured on his site, with the comment that some guy "actually tried to touch her." He now, for legal reasons, has changed the story, though the original "tried to" phrasing is still there.
Great. Using baseball bats to deflect unwanted attention. That's social progress.
BTW, JayB, any physical contact that's not in self-defense is assault. You may not like the word, but that's what happened here.
I'm starting to suspect that John Salmon is the one who got beat up by Mrs. Scalzi.
It's looking like a better and better decision with every post he makes.
Ciocia if you think "Coward of the County" is bad, try "Tomb of the Unknown Love," which glamorizes Rogers killing his cheating girlfriend because he was driven by "the awesome burning power of love" and thereby becoming a local legend. Amazingly (OK, not really) it didn't trigger any of the outrage rap songs get for covering the same material.
Salmon, I think repeatedly attempting to touch her is more than enough justification for Krissy's response, even if he hadn't actually put his fingers on anything.
Mrs. Professor's response reminds me of an old Suzanne Field column about a study that found a lot of high-school girls had been grabbed (butt or boobs) by guys passing them in the corridor. Field, who likes to pose as a champion of traditional values and old-fashioned relationship demanded to know why the study's authors were picking on guys for engaging in typicaly high-spirited teen fun.
For that matter, National Review once blasted NOW for suggesting that girls shouldn't get drunk at frat parties then go off with guys they didn't know--my god, can you believe how anti-fun, anti-men those feminists are? Do they want to take us back to the days of single-sex dorms or something?
No use arguing with lefties, I suppose, but Mmemosyne, consider what actually happened here.
John Salmon:
"Scalzi: Yur story has been changed, to protect the guilty."
As I've noted before, as you know next to nothing about the event, your thoughts on the matter aren't especially relevant or factual, and I find it interesting that you've decided to persist on suggesting that you have knowledge of the situation that you don't in fact possess.
If you have evidence that Krissy made the first strike, Mr. Salmon, I invite you to provide such evidence here. But as you cannot, and since if necessary my wife could furnish a bar full of people who will attest to her take of events, I suggest you stop asserting "facts" which are not in evidence.
John Salmon,
Okay, what actually happened there. You seem to know. Was the guy Mrs. Scalzi completely innocent of any sort of improper behavior? How do you know for certain? What's your evidence that John Scalzi is, as you insinuate, lying and not, as he says, clarifying with his update that the guy actually did paw his old lady? Why bring up the picture as a piece of evidence that Mrs. Scalzi is violent and dangerous, when it's obviously a joke? You don't think Mrs. Scalzi actually brings a baseball bat to a bar, do you? What should, in your estimation, she have done, when ignoring the dude didn't work and he decided to step it up? Was she just playing "hard to get"?
And again, how do you know any of this? This isn't a matter of scientific debate, it's a personal annecdote, so unless you were actually in the room when it went down, I have to question your motivation, frankly. In other words, what's in it for you to claim Scalzi is a liar and his wife is violent?
This is such an odd brou-hah-hah. I've spent the better part of my adult life inside bars, night clubs and 100-person music venues, and if a, shall we say, "enthusiastic suitor" just gets shoved for overstepping his bounds and grabbing a woman, he should consider himself lucky. I don't condone violence, either verbal or physical, but I also don't think a woman of any stripe should have to put up with that nonsense in meek submission. That seems to be the argument put forth.
And Scalzi's blog is mainly about his writing career, right? It's hilarious that he posts this after posting a fairly harsh criticism of the Bush Administration, and the wingnut trolls come a-runnin'. Figgers, donnit?
And what's really funny to me about all this is that some dope in Ohio went to bed Friday night thinking not that he'd provided internet dorks wanking material for a solid 24-hour time period at the very least, but something probably more along the lines of "Man, that bitch must've been on her period. And she was probably a lesbian, too." I imagine there was a thought in there about "nice guys", as well.
Man, I love the internets. Where else can you scold the actions, in real time, of people you'll never meet and have no connection to whatsoever and, despite that, be taken at least somewhat seriously.
Salmon,
Physical contact that's not in self-defense is assault.
Hey, thanks Matlock. I'm sure the guy is filing charges to that effect as we speak. Right?
Then again, the idea of self-defense is a little more elastic, no? Shit, your Boy President started an entire war for some amorphous definition of 'self-defense' -- that the guy could have had a weapon that at some point in the future could possibly cause the death of an American somewhere. Another example of 'self-defense' is the recent spate of laws that pretty much allow you to shoot first and ask questions later if they so much as step onto your lawn.
Isn't it a fact, counselor, that if you feel threatened, you are entitled to act in self-defense?
Well, whatever. I sense this hits a little close to home for you. What was her name and how many teeth did you lose?
I'm late here to Scalzi's response to my remark. I'd just like to say
a) Ignore John Salmon, whoever he may be, his bizarre obsession with the events in the life of Scalzi's wife lead me to think that if he hasn't been knocked on his ass by a woman in a bar before, he soon will be.
b) There is simply no fun that can be made of dr helen or her spouse that wouldn't be fair game, and totally reasonable. dr helen is only slightly less stupid than altmouse. If we didn't make fun of her there would be no way that reading her posts could be excused. I lose a few brain cells every time I go over there and there has to be some recompense.
aimai
"This regressive behavior is typical of the violent youth I see who have so little impulse control that they beat someone up for "dissing them.""
in international relations this is called "having credibility" hence israels recent actions in lebanon - blowing the shit out of a country because 2 soldiers were kidnapped - is cheerleaded by these same people.
So, what part of "Don't tread on me" don't they understand? (If it had been Malkin or Coulter or any other member of the tribe, there would have been congratulations all around.)
Jay B - I hadn't seen the "Matlock" line before - thank you.
BTW, JayB, any physical contact that's not in self-defense is assault. You may not like the word, but that's what happened here.
Well, no, it's battery. Now, continually harrassing someone in a public place, despite repeated requests to be left alone, up to and including making unwanted physical contact with them . . . that's assault.
Jeezuz what a loopy couple of threads. I thought I'd seen it all.
new jersey casinos new jersey casinos new jersey casinos // proctor and gamble products proctor and gamble products proctor and gamble products
debt help reduction service debt help reduction service debt help reduction service. online ordering tramadol online ordering tramadol online ordering tramadol.
Commenting by HaloScan
