Anti feminist meme.(65 Posts)
Saw this and was initially quite annoyed but it got me thinking about it. What is actually expected nowdays for treatment of women? Would we still consider it worse to hit a woman than to hit a man? Are men still expected to hold doors open to women? And if that sort of thing is expected, isn't it hypocrytical to say we want equal rights while expecting special treatment? I don't know, I'm all confused now. Thoughts?
I'd like to know why men won't let a woman hold the door open for them. I've tried it loads of times, but each time they wouldn't let me. It became quite embarrassing, just two people staring at each other waiting for the other to go through.
So I gave up and now I just don't bother opening doors for men unless they're holding something. It's a shame. Cos holding doors for people feels nice.
listen to mere women AP?
I am sorry OMC, but if you had been willing and able to actually think through the explanations women have given up thread of why they find that threatening, it wouldn't be hard at all. What you seem to be saying is that you do not intend it as a threat, ergo it is not. That is simply not true.
No-one's told you to walk on by OMC but you're making a choice to read it like that.
Where did someone say "walk on by"?
People have said you should phone the police first and then any intervention you take is up to you.
But you have chosen to read that as "walk on by".
I suppose it may be a generational thing.
Well, educated in a boarding school, worked overseas, volunteered for the armed services, still work as a volunteer for the emergency services, which means putting yourself iin harm's way.
I suppose it's all rather silly and Boy's Own to talk about things like duty or service, in rather the same way that giving blood or being an organ donor is a bit pi-jaw.
So yes, next time I will call the police...
... and walk on by.
I add saying I don't hit women is hard to parse as a threat to women, but san fairy ann.
I'm not going to get involved with the silliness of the debate with OneMoreChap, but I do find it interesting to note that when men start pointing out what jolly decent chaps they are, not hitting women, happy to pummel other not so decent chaps etc, how their language significantly changes. They start using rather ladish yet salt of the earth type slang such as "bobbies" for police and "shoeing" for hitting.
What if it was a group of girls beating up a young man? Would you use the same amount of force to stop them as you would on a group of guys in that situation?
Hang on. What the hell does "I would step in to help someone I saw being attacked" (gender neutral, whether it is a smart idea or not) have to do with "I don't hit women" (which carries an implicit threat to women)? Isn't this argument just a distraction from the point - which is that claiming to differentiate violent behaviour by gender is really just a veiled reminder of physical power?
However, taking the sidetrack, this idea that you can intervene and 'save' a woman in trouble. Yes, sometimes you can. Other times the man has a knife or a gun, or is just plain stronger or luckier than you, so I'd go with LRD's point that you want to be sure you have help on the way, even if you then do decide to intervene. And hopefully you'd do the same thing whether the person doing the beating up was a woman or a man. And if a woman was being attacked by another woman, would it then be ok to hit a woman, or do you just sit on her?
Yes, it is wrong.
I'm sorry, but it honestly is.
Don't think I don't feel the same way - I want to hit people too, sometimes. Especially if they're beating someone up.
But please call the police first another time.
I am not being feministy here at all, just absolutely serious it's the right thing to do.
* BertieBotts Sat 02-Feb-13 21:32:30
Right, but OMC, you sat on him.
After I'd physically pulled him off the woman, he'd tried to smack me and I'd belted him. Hard.
I hit him.
Which is wrong.
Right, but OMC, you sat on him. You didn't beat him to a pulp. You used the amount of force/violence which was necessary for the situation. That's not really the same as hitting someone because they're winding you up and they "deserve to get hit".
Please do. It is hugely important. There is a much higher chance of success if you ring the police.
After you ring, you can do whatever you think is appropriate - but you must ring first. Because then, no matter what happens, you know help is on the way.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive but it really is the best way.
So now we get to read endless tales of OMC's heroics? Thrills.
I'll bear that in mind.
Next time I see a woman being kicked on the floor, I'll ring the police, and wait for them to arrive.
Incidentally, if some twat was giving my wife, mother or daughter a shoeing, I'd hope someone might do something more than... oooh, where's my phone... I wonder if it has any battery left.
Since you ask, I've also smacked a couple of guys on Aytoun Street in Manchester, for no other reason than they were kicking a young Pakistani boy on the floor.
I should have rung the busies then, too.
kim - no, you must ring the police first. I know it seems unnatural but you must. You don't know if they have a knife or a gun - they could kill you or disable you and then no-one would come to help. You must call for help first. It is really important.
Sorry, this isn't feministy at all (it's not relevant what gender anyone is) but it is really important.
OMC - my brother works in the area of London with the highest rates of violence across the country, and I take my advice from him. Since you ask.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
For what it is worth, you should never try to intervene if you can call the police. You should always call the police first. Same if you saw a house on fire.
I know it seems counter-intuitive but it is the right thing to do.
You can try to intervene then, but it mustn't be the first thing you do, as I understand it.
As I've said before.
Once, it took the bobbies 25 minutes to arrive.
Still, I shouldn't have grabbed the bloke off the woman, knocked him down and sat on him.
Because it's wrong to use violence
I have no idea where some of you live...
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Are you serious?
Please do. You could save someone's life.
You really, really want men to walk away and ring the polis when they see a women being smacked?
Rest assured, I won't.
I thought I was the only one who saw behind OMC's oh-so-reasonable online persona, glad to see others are catching on.
It's like that question about whether you'd like to be beheaded with an axe, which might take a few blows for the head to come off but you might be unconscious from the first blow, or with a guillotine where your head will come off immediately but you might remain conscious for 10 seconds afterwards or whatever it is (knowing that your head is disconnected from your body).
We just think de-capitation is a bad thing, don't we?
I don't understand what the question means tbh.
What is this "it's equal"?
It's not equal, it's not not equal, it's just all wrong.
I don't want my DS beaten up either.
But it's simply meaningless to say: "would you rather your daughter was in a DV relationship where she was beaten up once a month or your son was mugged and beaten up on his way home from the pub one night?"
It's just silly. Nobody wants either, do they?
And of course it's equally wrong to beat someone up if they have a penis, or if they have a vagina.
Talking about being mugged on the way home as if it is the same as DV and involves the same dynamics and interactions, is meaningless though and I don't really know what the point is.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.