Video: The obligatory “SNL goofs on Tiger getting beat up” clip
posted at 8:04 pm on December 7, 2009 by Allahpundit
It’s nice to see the media in high dudgeon over this given the tendency to treat domestic violence as male-on-female only, but I have to confess: This didn’t bother me 1/100th as much as it would have if the golf club was wrapped around a woman’s head. Whether that’s because I’m inured to the cartoonish image of the angry wife chasing her husband with a frying pan or because the strength disparity between the genders makes it hard to grasp the danger at a gut level, I don’t know. But let the record show that whatever happened that night outside Tiger’s house, he was hurt bad by it. How bad? This bad:
When Tiger Woods was brought to the Health Central Hospital in Ocoee, Fla., his condition was more serious than previously reported. According to a person with knowledge of Woods’ hospital admission, the star golfer had to be admitted directly to the hospital’s intensive care unit, where he was immediately intubated and his breathing stabilized.
Also, there’s clarification about the police interview with Woods’ neighbors, who called 911. At the time of the 911 call, neighbor Jarius Lavar Adams told dispatchers that Woods was asleep on the lawn, snoring. “Although the body can snore in any state of unconsciousness, it’s unlikely he was snoring,” said the source. “That was the sound of an airway that wasn’t stable. That’s part of the reason there was an intubation when he got to the hospital.”
After Woods underwent treatment, he was extubated, then immediately released home. One physician from the hospital said that discharging a patient directly to his home after being admitted to the ICU was “highly unusual.” The doctor, who did not treat Woods, said standard protocol “usually involves some sort of step-down — if your condition is serious enough to be admitted to ICU, you don’t go straight home. It points to some extreme privacy measures being taken for that decision to be made.”
The director of the National Council Against Domestic Violence told TMZ she’s “horrified” by the skit. Part of the problem here, I think, is that Tiger’s so rich, so powerful, and so, er, smooth that it’s hard to imagine anyone posing a threat to him, let alone his wife. But make up your own mind. Sounds like we may be nearing the end of the road for this horror show anyway.
Update: Oh, one not-so-fun fact that I forgot to mention: The musical guest this week was … Rihanna.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
If you beat somebody up, that person is the victim. Even if that person has a penis.
How about I knock your teeth out? Ha ha, get it?
Jim Treacher on December 7, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Ah. Only women can be victims.
Ha ha!
Jim Treacher on December 7, 2009 at 10:12 PM
I’m sorry, if a woman steps out on a man is he entitled (if indeed it happened) to beat the crap out of her or her vehicle with a golf club? C’mon, he’d face all kinds of charges if he were just some average citizen. If Tiger was attacked by his wife and was seriously injured she needs to face the music. We’ll never really know what happened so it’s all speculation. But if she assaulted him and caused him bodily harm, she’s a criminal.
scalleywag on December 7, 2009 at 10:18 PM
I don’t understand. Are you offended at a SNL clip? That hardly makes sense with your history. Or you offended or all the shots at Tiger? That hardly seems to make sense either, since the only evidence of any wrong-doing so far is on his part.
I don’t get it…Or are you put off by the perceived double standard? Just not a hill I’d picture you fighting on.
Spirit of 1776 on December 7, 2009 at 10:21 PM
My history of laughing at spousal abuse, you mean?
Well gosh, why would that be?
Jim Treacher on December 7, 2009 at 10:24 PM
As for the hospital sources speaking out about Tiger’s condition, aren’t we protected by a privacy act as far as our medical records are concerned? What kind of idiot talks openly about that? That spells lawsuit. And with Tiger, that spells big lawsuit.
scalleywag on December 7, 2009 at 10:24 PM
No, I would have said your (my perception) of no-sacred-cows humor.
I don’t know. I guess it would seem like water off a duck’s back.
Thanks for answering though. I couldn’t tell if you were upset, or it was some judo-joke I was completely missing.
Spirit of 1776 on December 7, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Glad we cleared that up, then.
Jim Treacher on December 7, 2009 at 10:28 PM
You tend to accumulate double standards when you cut these Absolute Moral Truths from whole cloth. The silly notion that, “no-one deserves to be hit, ever” has no basis at all in fact or history. None. But once you start down that road, you can’t just walk back and say, “Oh, gosh, I was wrong, some people are pretty big asses & probably do deserve a good smack.” I mean, you know, unless you’re willing to just admit that you’re wrong.
fronclynne on December 7, 2009 at 10:41 PM
The skit making fun of the fact that Tiger Wood’s spouse is beating him up, and he’s afraid to tell people about it. I don’t see how that is funny. I find it pretty tawdrier.
Frank T.J Mackey on December 7, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Nothing matters, so who cares anyway?
Jim Treacher on December 7, 2009 at 10:47 PM
That’s not a fact, that’s a speculation.
And the skit is also making fun of the fact that his statement only created more speculation and more women out of the woodwork. And the rumor that his wife was getting financial concessions out of him. Though now perhaps she threw in the marital towel with the additional numbers and the alleged moving out. Situational humor.
Spirit of 1776 on December 7, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Why are all the leading male personalities in the 21st Century ALL BETA OR GAMMA MALES? Just why?
TheAlamos on December 7, 2009 at 10:52 PM
So from what authority is the principle that, “No-one should ever strike another person.” derived?
fronclynne on December 7, 2009 at 10:53 PM
The same authority from which the principle that “It’s okay to strike whoever you want, if you want” derives, I guess.
Jim Treacher on December 7, 2009 at 10:56 PM
So, sullen, straw-man-laden one-liners till 4am it is.
fronclynne on December 7, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Considering the circumstance I don’t think domestic abuse was involved. If she went upside his head with a nine iron it was justified.
A longer iron like a three iron would be assualt but a shorter iron or wedge is not. Elin has much better contol of the short irons.
DeweyWins on December 7, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Do what you want.
Jim Treacher on December 7, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Very good. Men do not equal women.
And though I wouldn’t kick my husband’s a** if he humiliated me the way that Woods has done to his wife but…I ain’t mad at her.
baldilocks on December 7, 2009 at 11:05 PM
As this sordid drama wears on, Tiger’s endorsement worth is going to drop like a rock.
I’m hearing the smart money says to
DUMP NIKE,
DUMP AMERICAN EXPRESS,
AND DUMP BUICK (yeah, the Government Motors Company Buick)
bannedbyhuffpo on December 7, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Whatchu talkin bout Willis?
None of them are Thai either. That’s what he is mostly. Does that mean he hates Thais?
baldilocks on December 7, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Have you made some vow to gophergirl?
baldilocks on December 7, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Would her breaking it give me license?
Jim Treacher on December 7, 2009 at 11:17 PM
That’s only one of the conditions that do not exist between the two of you that makes your comment
a nonsensical one. There are others but that’s the main one.
This is obviously a very sensitive topic to you.
baldilocks on December 7, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Tiger endorses and uses Nike golf equipment on tour. Perhaps
Callaway should now step in and sign Elin Nordegren to endorse their golf clubs with ads along these lines:
“We brought you the Big Bertha club, now we are proud to introduce the Big Elin Club. For precision window smashing by lady golfers there is nothing like the Big Elin”
“For greater accuracy on the golf course, your driveway, or your neighbor’s yard there is nothing for the ladies like the Big Elin”
“Ladies, drive those balls a mile with the Big Elin”
Basil Fawlty on December 7, 2009 at 11:26 PM
[groan] That’s pretty clever.
Spirit of 1776 on December 7, 2009 at 11:28 PM
You lost me there.
The double standard when it comes to spousal abuse? Yeah, it’s pretty irritating.
Jim Treacher on December 7, 2009 at 11:36 PM
I’m trying to understand: Under what conditions would it be okay for me to knock her teeth out?
Jim Treacher on December 7, 2009 at 11:37 PM
“How about I knock your teeth out? Ha ha, get it?” In order for that to be a mirror of what she said, you’d have to be married to her.
It’s a double standard because men and women are not the same.
The reason that domestic violence against women perpetrated by men became in the last generation such an issue is because women were weaker both physically and financially (that last not so much anymore). Men who had/have violent spouses were and are in a much better position to escape, Phil Hartman notwithstanding.
Question: why isn’t parental abuse by their minor children an issue?
baldilocks on December 7, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Some cheating millionaire getting the crap knocked out of him? Not abuse. Assault? Yes. Battery? Sure. Violence? Definitely. But not abuse.
If she had done this with no justification? That’s abuse. If she had done this on numerous occasions? Probably abusive, yes. If she were just taking out general frustrations on him this way? Yeah, okay, that’s abuse. But I would hardly dare that beating the snot out of him for porking a dozen other women is abuse.
fronclynne on December 7, 2009 at 11:50 PM
No, I’d just have to think joking about it is as funny as joking about it happening to a man.
Seriously? No way, dude.
I’m not sure how this is even knowable.
It isn’t? I, for one, am against it.
Jim Treacher on December 7, 2009 at 11:51 PM
Don’t know. I didn’t contend that it was. There might be conditions under which there might a funny joke made about it, but one of them did not exist when you said you said.
Back up. Gophergirl was joking about the situation between the Woodses, a married couple.
You don’t think it’s funny. Gophergirl does. You two are arguing about it.
You say, for counterexample’s sake: “How about I knock your teeth out? Ha ha, get it?” I say, “well, no that counter/retort is nonsensical since you and Gophergirl aren’t married to each other.”
The retort doesn’t make sense for other reasons also, but that’s the main reason.
baldilocks on December 7, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Treacher,
You don’t know that men are on average physically stronger than women?
baldilocks on December 7, 2009 at 11:54 PM
So it’s only abuse if he’s faithful and doesn’t have any money. Gotcha.
Justification as defined by…? People justify all sorts of behavior.
Dude, he was in the hospital. Now, we don’t know how much of that was her. But if she did that to him, that’s straight-up spousal abuse. I don’t care if you’re worth 10 times what Tiger Woods makes and bang 100 times as many women. “It was only the one time.” Listen to yourself.
Jim Treacher on December 7, 2009 at 11:55 PM
I don’t even know what you’re babbling about.
And? That makes it okay?
Jim Treacher on December 7, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Jim, we don’t know if any of that was her. [independent of fron's argument]
Spirit of 1776 on December 7, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Yeah, she was probably practicing her putting at 2:30 in the morning. Which was a lucky thing, when she had to break out the windows, huh?
Jim Treacher on December 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Just so I’m not misunderstanding: Men are generally stronger than women, so it’s not abuse when a woman sends a man to the hospital. And it’s okay to joke about a man getting beat up by a woman, but not about a woman getting beat up by a mean, because that’s just the way it is.
Am I oversimplifying things?
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:01 AM
I found the skit to be darn hilarious and never once saw something to be offended by. So why is the media treating this as something offensive? Maybe they’re looking for a racially motivated hate crime.
jediwebdude on December 8, 2009 at 12:02 AM
Excuse me, I’m not babbling. I’m trying to tell you that you’re not being arguing or even joking cogently.
You’re also burning a strawman for everyone who disagrees with you.
baldilocks on December 8, 2009 at 12:03 AM
You know what? You could be right, she could have been trying to murder him with those clubs.
But we don’t know. Why would I assume guilty till proven innocent? Especially if Tiger & the neighbors back her story?
Both stories seem feasible to me – that she was chasing him, though the police indicate his physical injuries are in congruent with being beaten with a golf club; and it’s feasible to me that he left the house over a domestic argument, got in a crash and she tried to get him out.
Spirit of 1776 on December 8, 2009 at 12:03 AM
More than that, you’re putting words in people mouths.
baldilocks on December 8, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Well then, why don’t you dumb it down for me? Obviously I just don’t understand how men and women are different when it comes to cleaning clocks.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:04 AM
So what point are you making with “Men are physically stronger than women”?
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:05 AM
I don’t either, Jim, because that’s not what I said or implied.
baldilocks on December 8, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Well, you’re half right, at least.
I’m not sure how the legal definition applies, but to me, abuse necessarily implies misuse. Which is what Tiger was definitely doing to her in re his humping of the strange. I simply fail to see how returning the favour with a golf club counts reciprocally as abuse without some kind of premeditation on her part. & I also suppose I don’t entirely grasp how physical violence is so much more abusive than infidelity.
fronclynne on December 8, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Okay, now we know what you’re not saying. That narrows it down somewhat, I guess.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:08 AM
This comment was in response to this:
baldilocks on December 8, 2009 at 12:09 AM
So it’s about the money. Huh.
Hope you never have to find out.
Wow. You are just weird.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Okay.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:11 AM
So abuse is on a sliding scale of severity. To you does that correspond to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs? I mean physical abuse is worse then mental abuse but not as bad as starving someone?
I am interested to understand.
Spirit of 1776 on December 8, 2009 at 12:16 AM
I’m not sure which one of these he’s supposed to have done. I thought beating him up was supposed to be justified because his infidelity is considered even worse abuse.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:18 AM
You actually got the G rated version of what I was thinking.
Weaker beings being abused by stronger beings will illicit more sympathy than the reverse. That’s because the stronger being is perceived to have more means of defense and/or means of escape. Sure there are men who get their a** kicked by the wife and she should go to jail. But most guys can hold their wives off or outrun her.
And people will joke about the weaker beating on the stronger because usually the stronger person doesn’t get hurt. of course the odds are reversed in the opposite situation.
baldilocks on December 8, 2009 at 12:19 AM
It’s okay to go after somebody with a stick with a big weight on the end of it if they hurt your feelings, is that the idea?
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:19 AM
illicit=elicit
baldilocks on December 8, 2009 at 12:20 AM
So we’re talking about two different things. You’re talking about perception and I’m talking about reality. I’d prefer to talk about reality since it’s, y’know, reality.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:21 AM
Well, so now we know that experience is the only way of knowing something. You might have asked, though, before assuming inexperience or ignorance on my part.
Well, from experience, I’ll take the good solid smack to the face with a golf club in preference any day. Broken bones heal much more quickly. Nights in hospital are cheap comparatively.
fronclynne on December 8, 2009 at 12:21 AM
No, I’m not adopting someone else’s argument. But fronclynne said he/she didn’t see how physical abuse was worse then infidelity – which is abuse of a different sort, of course. You said he was weird – which I took to mean the idea was weird. That’s independent of what Tiger or Elin may or may have not done.
I was just curious, then, if you view various types of abuse on a different scale of ‘worseness’ or severity.
–
I’m not justifying her if he was abused. I just don’t have enough facts on that yet.
Spirit of 1776 on December 8, 2009 at 12:22 AM
In other words, I think it sucks that SNL jokes about Tiger Woods getting beat up by his significant other, and I would also think it sucked if SNL joked about Rihanna getting beat up by her significant other. I think it sucks in both cases, even though only one of them belongs to the appropriate Designated Victim Class.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:23 AM
I’m talking about reality also, Jim, and you know it. :)
Good night and may your dreams be peaceful.
baldilocks on December 8, 2009 at 12:24 AM
In your case, I wonder if even that would help.
Live and learn.
I take back the thing about you being weird. You are very weird.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Scripturally? Paul singles out sexual immorality to the exclusion of all other sin because “the immoral man sins against his own body.” In Leviticus, God calls for both the adulterer and the adulteress to be executed. I don’t find any equivalent condemnation of fisticuffs, though I dare say I could be mistaken on that count.
fronclynne on December 8, 2009 at 12:26 AM
No, you’re talking about identity politics.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Hm. True. If Tiger was seen visually beat up by her, it would have been met with more outrage. That point is taken.
Spirit of 1776 on December 8, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Chillingly weird.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:27 AM
I can’t resist but ask if anyone remembers the “Pirates of the Caribbean” controversy, sometime back in the early-mid ’90s…
It seems that someone(s) unknown complained about the obscene violence in the “Pirates…” ride at Disneyland. (For those who haven’t been there, it’s a boat ride through a maze of swamps, tunnels and waterfalls, filled with mechanical pirates doing whatever pirates do.)
At one point comes a tableau where pirates are pillaging a town and some rapacious pirates are chasing the young wenches in circles, all the while the older women are chasing the pirates & cracking them in the skull with rolling pins.
So to be politically correct they changed the rolling pins to pies…. and immediately insulted feminists :-D
cane_loader on December 8, 2009 at 12:32 AM
So because I’m a black woman I’m automatically talking about identity politics.
I except this crap from lots of people, Jim, but I didn’t from you.
Sayonara.
baldilocks on December 8, 2009 at 12:36 AM
I can’t even believe you went there. No, you’re talking about identity politics because you’re talking about identity politics.
Right back at ya.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:39 AM
Here you go, a perfectly ante-(& anti- for that matter)post-modern view on personal injury & tort.
If you have any further questions or loaded questions, I’m sure that you will ask.
fronclynne on December 8, 2009 at 12:40 AM
“You’re only judging me by the words I say because I’m a black woman!” I mean, it’s parodical.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:40 AM
Whatevs, Bible Boy.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:41 AM
If Elin Nordegren considers herself to be under the Mosaic Law, Tiger and his 10-12 babes will have to go into hiding.
Basil Fawlty on December 8, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Shut up, he explained.
fronclynne on December 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM
When I tell you to shut up, you’ll know it.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Do you view various types of abuse on a different scale of ‘worseness’ or severity.
Spirit of 1776 on December 8, 2009 at 12:55 AM
If you want to argue that all sin is equal, you may, of course. But we don’t treat all sin, or all crimes as equal. The argument that Treacher seems to be so coyly presenting (though not in so many words) is that striking another human being is a worse act than forswearance and infidelity. Treacher is entitled to his learned opinion, but seems to offer no authority beyond his own. I offer precisely one offsetting authority for my argument (that is my own) and one additional authority, the Bible, and offer examples from both covenants.
The force of law is hardly an argument, since we do not require juries to convict and as yet I am not aware of any charges being pressed, though if & when, that may become germane.
fronclynne on December 8, 2009 at 12:59 AM
What’s coy about it? It is worse. Unless you think a man is entitled to send his wife to the hospital for cheating on him. Think the cops would buy that one?
“You see, officer, it’s all explained here in the Good Book…”
If anyone can decipher this nonsense, the rest of us would be much obliged.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 1:06 AM
Is this a Yes/No? Yes, I guess. How could there not be?
So is what he did worth sending him to the hospital? Would the same apply if his wife were the one cheating, and wound up sprawled out on the lawn in the middle of the night with cuts all over her face?
(That’s where the identity politics comes in, baldilocks. One standard for one identity group, another standard for the other. It has nothing to do with you as a person. Unless you’re determined to make it that way, I guess.)
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 1:07 AM
Well, I don’t know. It seems to me that sexual abuse of children or mental abuse of children might be worse. But that’s neither here nor there. I was curious if you viewed them as different. As I said, I was surprised by your response, and wanted to understand it.
I would think from that the physical abuse from man to woman would be worse then a woman to a man on that scale, because statistically men are stronger. So physically, I don’t think it’s a double standard (to react viscerally that man ag woman is worse then wm ag man), but it certainly is morally. I just wanted to walk through both mindsets and see where they met. I’m done.
FTR: No, what he did isn’t worth sending him to the hospital. Yes, same applies to his wife.
Spirit of 1776 on December 8, 2009 at 1:18 AM
On whose authority? Yours? The State’s? Ike Turner’s?
What does that have to do with right & wrong? What more does it have to do with better & worse? You’re not seriously stuck on the police as the final arbiters of truth and justice, are you? Our heroes in blue should have just blown off the back of her skull at the first hint of ominous Skandiness?
Do you really think you’re making an intellectually honest argument (a) for the Law As It Is (hitting people is against the law) & at the same time (b) decrying the Sexist State Of Affairs As They Stand (she’s totally not going to jail for even a minute even if she did beat him like the proverbial cliche)?
Again, arguing the force of law is specious both generally, because we actually have to have a trial & a conviction before there is any determination of guilt & juries have certainly considered infidelity as a mitigating factor in similar assaults*, and specifically, because she hasn’t been tried for any crime.
* though I can’t argue against there being a sex bias there: I think that those forms of unfairness make us more civilised, not less.
fronclynne on December 8, 2009 at 1:23 AM
Well one of the things I can decipher is that fronclynne wrote to me not to you what you quoted from him, so why are you babbling about what was written to me?
Basil Fawlty on December 8, 2009 at 1:28 AM
I think he caught the gist of it. I wasn’t being very fair to you, though, since your joke was pointed & deserved & I was using it as a springboard instead of appreciating it for itself.
fronclynne on December 8, 2009 at 1:32 AM
Probably not — but I’d bet he likes breasts.
unclesmrgol on December 8, 2009 at 1:58 AM
He couldn’t bring himself to leave me out of it.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 1:58 AM
Yours, I guess. Yours is the only one that counts.
So that’s a “No.”
They’re the ones with the rooms with bars on them, and the legal authority to keep you in one. So yeah, kinda.
What are you even talking about.
I don’t think you’d know an intellectually honest argument if it sent you to the ER.
Next Bible verse, Bizarro.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 2:01 AM
Did you know that talking about it in blog comments has no bearing on any possible legal procedings? It sounds like maybe you don’t know that.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 2:07 AM
Just when you think you have heard it all:
“Officials at Playgirl Magazine confirm that they have been approached by someone willing to sell Tiger Woods nude photos.”
Basil Fawlty on December 8, 2009 at 2:29 AM
I think the debate about male victims of Domestic Violence would be helpful if people actually read the statistics. Please read here, here and here.
The fact that men are just as likely to be victims of domestic violence is well documented.
I think people need to see that domestic violence happens to men in the same frequency as women. The stats back it up.
It takes two to tango. The reason why the men and the woman are stoned is because the adulterer is cheating on his wife while adulteress is cheating on her husband.
Hence, the punishment is a two way street. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Even when one of the consenting adults is not married, the person is still guilty of adultery.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Tiger is a jerk for being unfaithful to his wife. And Elin Nordegren was wrong for attacking him.
The proper way for Elin to get revenge was to hire a lawyer. But swinging the golf club at him was unacceptable even if Tiger was a cheating scumbag.
The funny thing is…Tiger wasn’t playing the victim. He WAS the victim of domestic violence.
I find that statement offensive. How would you like it someone said that women playing the victim were unattractive?
Read this.
Conservative Samizdat on December 8, 2009 at 2:55 AM
Maybe it’s just not wrong to joke about philanderers getting the beans knocked out of them. D’ja ever think about that? With your head? Under your hat?
Let me put it simply for you: Your golf buddy, Tiger, done ate hisself a big ol’ bowl of stupid flakes. Your post-modern whinging about double standards is pointless. And your cowering behind simplistic bons mot is weak.
fronclynne on December 8, 2009 at 2:56 AM
It’s the way things are, yes. But, never minding Revenge, I disagree with the basic premise that we should cede all Justice to the State. There are many cases better handled with a simple, clear, & immediate beating to be followed by the beaten member showing contrition. Beatings getting out of hand and ending in death can of course be handled by the State.
fronclynne on December 8, 2009 at 3:06 AM
Is it wrong if the philanderer is a woman? I sure don’t know. I seem to have misplaced my hat.
It was nice of you to leave him some.
No, you’re a poopy-head.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 3:07 AM
Might makes right, and mass makes might, so I guess you win this round Doctor Treacher.
fronclynne on December 8, 2009 at 3:12 AM
I disagree. Beatings within the context of relationships are unacceptable. PERIOD.
There’s no justification for it. EVER.
But based on your logic, you would have no problem with the Islamic justification for husbands beating their wives?
After all, a male Muslim would simply say that “there are many cases better handled with a simple, clear, & immediate beating to be followed by the beaten member showing contrition.”
Is that ok with you?
Conservative Samizdat on December 8, 2009 at 3:14 AM
Asked.
Answered.
fronclynne on December 8, 2009 at 3:15 AM
I don’t understand why isn’t not acceptable for a man to point out a double standard here?
Why is it not acceptable for men to stand up for their right to be free from abuse just as women have every right to demand that they be free from domestic violence?
Its not pointless. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
If you want a better society, both genders are gonna have to learn how to treat each other better. That’s the point.
Any double standard undermines the integrity and goal of achieving equality.
Conservative Samizdat on December 8, 2009 at 3:22 AM
Based on what? I’ve been hit before. By women. With whom I was in a relationship. The world didn’t end. I didn’t cry myself to sleep night after night trying to make peace with my love for my abuser. I laughed at her and warned her that if she did it again I’d be happy to return the favour.
Good Muslim men don’t beat their wives when their wives cheat on them.
fronclynne on December 8, 2009 at 3:24 AM
No, they don’t. They just kill them.
Conservative Samizdat on December 8, 2009 at 3:28 AM
Because we’re supposed to be men. If she hits you, either knock her down or suck it up: she’s either nuts or you deserved it. There is no middle course. Bawling about it over tea is something women do.
Don’t worry, you’ll have your better society just as soon as everyone achieves equality. Trust me. With enough diversity we can make this work.
fronclynne on December 8, 2009 at 3:30 AM
That’s right. & in Muslim societies they execute women for the crime of being raped. I guess I think that’s a good idea too, according to my logic.
fronclynne on December 8, 2009 at 3:32 AM
So there’s no point discussing it because the Bible tells you so. Can you believe the cops arrest people for breaking laws that may not precisely conform to Leviticus?
Yes: You’re just being an ass.
Jim Treacher on December 8, 2009 at 3:32 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »