Monday, January 16, 2012

ZenTiger I am a man, so my opinion counts [UPDATED]

Lucia Maria did a post a few days ago (True Grown Ups...) that certainly upset an author called "John the other" on the blog/website of "A voice for men": Real Men are Disposable, so says Maria.

Only problem is, I think his interpretation of her post is a little off, and the subsequent extrapolations made by him and others on that thread about what they think she meant are way off the planet. And I'm not talking Earth or Mars. They could be right out by Pluto or coming out of Uranus. Lucia may be from Venus, but they think she's from Planet Man-eater! (I use "they" in the sense I lump most of the commenters in with John's post. Those comments though do not necessarily represent John's opinion. Just read the whole thread and take what you will from it.)

John starts off:
Lucia Maria recently explained in her January 13 article that grown-up men should quit trying to have human rights, and go back to dying for her convenience.
I don't know how John got that interpretation from what she wrote, but she is not making that argument at all. I use the evidence of around 1000 other posts she has done on this blog, and never noticed a single one on that nature. It's a ridiculous thing to say, I think. Do such people seriously think that mothers enjoy losing their husbands in war? Do they think Lucia would want to lose her sons? Generally, do parents, brothers and sisters think their brother/father/son is disposable? We can all imagine how the stereotyped femi-nazi might think of men, but it is dangerous to start extending this belief towards all women, as seemed to be the trend of comments back at the Voice for men site.

John goes on to interpret Lucia's post:
According to Maria, men arguing for the non-disposability of males are the equivalent of children
She does not say this directly in her post, and it's a bit of a long bow to draw that men are disposable. For a start, Lucia talks about the differences between children (not just boys) and adults (not just men) and how you tell that they have "grown up". That definition, in essence: thinking about more than just yourself. That applies to men and women and in the context of men, can be demonstrated (ie ONE example) by those men that go to war to protect their families.

That does not mean that she is arguing that men are disposable. Any regular reader of this blog should understand John's interpretation just doesn't stack up. All she is doing is recognising a great sacrifice, one to be honoured, not spat upon, and not, ever, ever, considered "disposable". On the other hand, any mention of self-sacrifice as a virtue seems to be shunned by many of the commenters on that blog, possibly having decided that is a terrible idea to promote in society. Fine, they are entitled to that opinion, but that still doesn't mean that they can draw the inference that Lucia thinks men are disposable.

A key to their vitriol would have to be in Lucia's definition of "grown-up". Her definition immediately excludes people that act solely in their own self-interest. A quick scan of his site, and I can see why that would get John going, but we need to look deeper before deciding Lucia thinks men are disposable.

Lucia provided this definition:
A grown up is a person who does not put their needs, wants and desires first. They are more interested in looking after those they are responsible for than looking after themselves, even to self-sacrifice. In short, they die to themselves so that others might live.”

and John's response:
I think Lucia Maria has it backwards; an adult is an individual who takes responsibility for themselves.
John's counter-definition has value, but I think he has set up a false choice (it isn't a case of one or the other) in critiquing Lucia's definition. I'd argue that his definition is a good foundation to describe adulthood, but falls short when considering the bigger picture of family. Lucia's posts often focus on the fundamental importance of the family unit, and it is in that context she speaks of fathers that look after their wives and children; of mothers that look after their husbands and children; of children that grow up to look after their aged parents. To Lucia, the commitments and responsibilities created by becoming a family (a joint decision for the man and women) then requires a "step up" by both parties.

I don't know about John's background, but for me, I'd buy his definition of adulthood for when I was single. When I married, I still largely thought that way too, and it wasn't completely wrong (just limiting IMHO). However, when children came along, I think I finally "grew up" as per the definition Lucia provides. My life become much bigger than being just about me. I needed his foundation definition, but I'd be a selfish bastard if I didn't at least put some serious thinking about Lucia's proposition.

The thing is, I don't think these two definitions need to be seen in competition with each other. Some may take that "responsibility of self" John mentions to automatically include concepts like "honouring commitments"; like love being something bigger than a feeling; and to borrow a popular motto, "to protect and serve" as a natural outcome of a morally sound individual who becomes a father.

So John might not get where Lucia is coming from, and people don't necessarily have to buy into the importance placed on the family unit as something bigger than the individual, but it doesn't need to be mocked or attacked either. The responsibilities fathers inherit are seen by the Lucia's of this world as a recognition of the sacrifices a man might make compared to when he was single. Fidelity, faithfulness, committment from the man are actually being appreciated by Lucia. Men that commit to the family are seen as real men. Men who walk out are wimps, or selfish. Equally, you'll find posts from Lucia condemning the types of feminists that demean men, that have the attitude that husbands are optional in a family. There may be a war of the sexes going on, but Lucia isn't part of it. She's part of the war to preserve the family unit, and that takes a husband and a wife.

However, I should note that I am choosing a generous interpretation of John's definition. The danger of focusing on pure self-interest, as argued along the lines of libertarian thought, is that selfishness can become a virtue that then opposes the more traditional virtues. This is the essence of Lucia's criticisms on such definitions - that they lose their gloss when they are not built on a moral foundation, and self-interest can all too quickly give way to selfishness, which in turn diminishes the individual as much as it destroys social cohesion. See the first principle of conservatism.

Lucia did accuse the blog of not being "grown-up", and that led to return fire, but whilst they used shock and awe tactics and a bunker buster or two, they missed the target I think. Being accused of being childish did not logically flow to making the argument that she thinks men are disposable. That's a different species of woman/feminist they want to argue with.

John said:
The author doesn’t leave much room for doubt about who are deemed lesser human beings in her rhetoric, or in the accompanying illustrations. In her article, an included drawing titled “the weaker sex” depicts four women poking a finger-sized man with a knitting needle.
Boy, he really missed the point with that whole part of the post. The author wasn't expressing her opinion, the author was showing that the "war between the sexes", in one form or another was also expressing itself back in the early 1900s, as it is today. She cited an example. That doesn't mean she supports it - she was noting that propaganda was at play even back then, and changed markedly during the war.

Readers need to reconcile phrases Lucia made like below, against John's interpretation of Lucia's post:
Men obviously don't go out to fight in wars because women are poking them with knitting needles, they go out to fight because they love us and their families and will do what it takes to protect us and what they value.
Lucia thinks wives and children are loved by those men. That is not saying they are disposable, it is seeing a noble purpose in that action of violence. John might want to assure her that not all men care enough about their families to fight a war, or that there are other ways of caring for the family than volunteering to fight, but I think we will find she gets that there are not blanket rules for everything, and that this is not a post about the disposability of men.

That is partly why she says later:
Considering that both men and women working together is what makes a strong culture, this cultivation of a war between the sexes seeking to show how one dominates the other from the past was most disturbing.
Let's read that again: "Men and women WORKING TOGETHER is what makes a strong culture." and "This CULTIVATION of a WAR BETWEEN THE SEXES...was most disturbing." [emphasis mine]

From where I stand, I see radical feminism as a swing too far on the pendulum, but John's apparently hasty and over-zealous interpretation of Lucia's comments as being about the disposability of men, and some of the rather virulent and misogynistic comments it has spawned on that thread, looks a bit like the mirror image of those radical feminists they rail against. Radical menists. Well, great, all power to them and their cause. They just don't need to come across as women-haters to win their rights.

One comment on John's thread (from "Stu") kind of sums up my point about a misogynistic sentiment running through the thread. The comment was in response to the sinking yesterday of a cruise ship off Greece:
So orders were given that it was to be women and children first……typical. I would kill anybody without a seconds thought that tried to stop my progress getting off a sinking ship for the sake of protecting some bitch or her womb turds that I don’t even know.
A fine a comment as any of the femi-nazi comments I've ever read.


[Update - Accidentally published my draft copy at 11pm. The version after 12 is hopefully good to go]
[Update 10am - Moved one paragraph.

52 comment(s):

Truth said...

Perhaps it would be more informative if Lucia understood and addressed the human rights issues facing men instead of ignoring them and telling men to grow up.

For a person concerned about those issues, there isn't much difference between the opposition of a gender feminist and that of a traditional women.

Truth said...

"So orders were given that it was to be women and children first……typical. I would kill anybody without a seconds thought that tried to stop my progress getting off a sinking ship for the sake of protecting some bitch or her womb turds that I don’t even know."

I don't see what the issue here is. Not many man would put their lives in danger for a stranger and if they did then it would affect their ability to protect their own families. I think your response illustrates the depths of male disposability and the valuation of male worth as lesser than that of all women and children.

Don't you even recognize that women's traditional responsibilities to their husbands and children are entirely optional and that men's responsibilities are legally enforced?

ZenTiger said...

When I look at things from my perspective, I don't see this as a man being worth $3 and a child $4 and a women $5. All lives are of equal value in a philosophical sense, because they are all people before they are men and women.

The fact that this commenter would "kill anybody" and describes women as bitches and children as turds indicates the reverse. His life is worth the most, and others deserve to die if they impact in anyway on his chances. That is an immature response, IMHO.

For a person concerned about those issues, there isn't much difference between the opposition of a gender feminist and that of a traditional women.

Sure there is. The problem is this "you are either with us or against us" mentality. By lumping all people that criticise your approach in with those that criticise you for your sex, you are making enemies of people that aren't necessarily against rights and justice - you just need to do it in a way that doesn't make enemies of all women. It hints at misogyny rather than a defence against misandry.

Truth said...

It's not a matter of "you are either with us or against us" mentality but rather a severe neglect of those very issues of the family that conservatives pretend to care about but have stood by and watched crumble over 40 years because of traditional deference to women. If you're not angry about what's happening then what's wrong with you?

To focus on perceptions of anger and ignore the very issues is further confirmation of this pattern of avoidance. You might appreciate these more philosophical viewpoints:

"Feminism has enjoyed remarkable success, in an historically short period of time, reshaping society to eliminate the disadvantages suffered by women under traditional gender norms. This success has been possible only because feminism preys on a powerful, natural inclination of deference to women that is bred into both men and women alike. If women feel passionately about wanting something, it just isn't manly or prudent for men, individually or collectively, to deny it to them. In the ideological battle of the sexes, it is of the first importance to understand the origins and power of this innate inclination of deference to women."
http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2742

ZenTiger said...

This excerpt from a post on a Voice for Men:

The real reason men and women cant be friends is that women lack moral agency.

Moral agency is a person’s ability to make moral judgments and take action that comport with morality. A moral agent is “a individual who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.

I’m not suggesting here that women, as a demographic, are immoral, although a surface reading of behavior might sometimes lead to that impression. Rather, they are amoral – simply lacking in a moral or an ethical compass.



Still not quite with you on this.

Psycho Milt said...

I don't think the misogyny from these guys is "hinted" so much as "bellowed." Men's rights groups tend to be full of guys who couldn't cope with the fact that their wife/girlfriend wouldn't make them the boss and want to let the world know just how mad they are about it. This lot seems to be no exception.

KG said...

Way to go, to completely avoid the substance of what they're talking about.

ZenTiger said...

Hi KG.

I assume you are responding to my post, and not PM's comment?

I'll say this anyway, just in case.

Firstly, you are correct.

My sole intent was to counter the inaccuracies in John's assessment of Lucia's comments. I think he was too quick to lump her in with the radical and man-hating feminists that he blames on the current state of affairs.

His post was a clear attack on Lucia, by linking her to this archetype, and the core reason rested on declaring Lucia treats men as disposable. This is obviously a key issue to John. My argument is this particular criticism is incorrect.

With respect to me avoiding the substance of what they are talking about - you may note I asked them on their blog for a summary of what rights they are fighting for, and was pointed to two good links.

In terms of issues they raise and rights they seek, at first glance there is an overlap of issues Conservatives would support.

However, this is predicated on fighting injustices, and not by denigrating all women and lumping them into the same basket as the mythical or stereotypical radical man-hating feminist. We all have wives, sisters, mothers that we respect and love, surely?

My concern was after reading that comment thread, that some of those comments are clearly anti-women, and could never be repeated to their own wives and mothers without generating either horror or confusion. Ultimately, those sorts of comments become a very big distraction to whatever their core issues are. If hatred of women prove to be their motivating force, then the quest for better rights for men would be a mirror image of the extreme radical feminists they denigrate, and no different from the "all men are rapists" rhetoric.

KG said...

No, Zen I was responding to PM's comment. Sorry about that.
But in any case, I surely don't disagree in any respect with your response to my comment.
It's all too easy to fall into the same trap radical feminists have made for themselves and although I'm harshly critical of a lot of women I don't ever want to lump them together. As you say, we all have wives, sister mothers that we respect. (well, in my case, a beloved wife. My sisters and mothers are and were a waste of oxygen.)
And perhaps for those readers who haven't read the original comment in CR, I did not in any way attack Lucia Maria, somebody I have a great deal of respect for.

Chris Key said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
truth said...

@Zen,
What you are doing is searching for a single point of disagreement and offense to justify ignoring all of the issues. It's simply an avoidance tactic. I could very well do the same and find an offensive conservative quotation, but it would be foolish for me to assume that is representative of the whole.

ZenTiger said...

@KG: Thanks KG. Beaut response.

ZenTiger said...

Chris Key, your response contravenes our comment policy, and was thus deleted.

I have edited it and re-posted below, but others who post need to consider their words.

Thanks.

ZenTiger said...

Chris Key's comment [EDITED BY ZEN]
----------------------------------
"However, this is predicated on fighting injustices, and not by denigrating all women and lumping them into the same basket as the mythical or stereotypical radical man-hating feminist. We all have wives, sisters, mothers that we respect and love, surely?"

Hi ZenTiger,

I think the reason some MRAs have a tendency to speak negatively about women is because very few women are tactful enough to acknowledge the existence of men's issues when MRAs speak about them. Whenever I've spoken to women about issues that are important to me I've been told (by most of them) that they're not examples of sexism, are not harmful to men, are not issues at all, Etc. When I provide irrefutable data from reputable sources to support my argument they change their position a little bit, but only because they don't want to look like complete idiots. It's not unusual for them to then say that the issue(s) only have a minimal effect on men or are unimportant because men are dispoable.

How has this affected my outlook on women?

I've come to the conclusion that most women are either stupid and indifferent to men or get off on enforcing a misandristic system that causes men to suffer in silence.

Can you now see why I and other MRAs who've had similar experiences find it hard to see good in women?

If you want me and other MRAs to think women are genuinely on our side then tell them to stop being so ignorant, tactless, obnoxious, selfish and arrogant when men talk about men's issues.

Why?

Because I'm sick and tired of women assuming me that they're in a better position than a man to decide whether issues such as testicular abuse, paternity fraud, domestic violence against men and false accusations of rape are harmful to men and boys. The fact they think they're more qualified to weigh the worth of men's issues is downright arrogant.

I'm sick and tired of having to provide tactless women with scientific evidence to prove testicular abuse can cause psychological problems such as PSTD and irreparable damage to the testes -- damage that can cause physical, psychological and cognitive problems if it inteferes with testosterone production. I'm sick and tired of vile, man-hating bigots telling me that there's no need to tell schoolboys to stop hitting one another in the groin -- a claim that they're brazen enough to make after I went to the effort of providing them with statistics that show it's a widespread practice and has led to a lot of boys having to undergo surgery to excise testicles that were ruptured by a punch, a kick, a slap of the wrist to the groin, etc. That's the sort of indifference I encounter when I discuss these issues.

The braindead [women] who think it's okay to abuse testicles in every which way are the same ones who think it's vital to allow perverts to marry. One of the braindead [women] that I know reckons teen pregnancy is a "far worse issue" because if a teenage girl gets knocked up then it might prevent her from taking drugs and getting drunk, which is horrible in her opinion because she believes the sole point of life is to have "fun", which she thinks cannot be had if drugs, alcohol and and endless amount of sex aren't available on demand!

So yeah, I do find it hard to take women seriously. I do find it hard to believe women have any ability whatsoever to empathise with men.

Another thing that makes it hard to take women seriously is the fact they tend to ignore men who are not alphas, especially if those men are ill, shy, short, unemployed, victims of female violence/false accusation, etc.

ZenTiger said...

@Chris - I think I get what you are saying.

Tell me though, why your comments are any different to a radical feminist who might write the same thing out, just swapping "man" for women" and vice versa, with a suitable women's issue. And how should I react to them saying that?

@Truth - I am providing a few direct quotes to support my posts, but I am NOT doing this to justify my ignoring the issues; I've only said that such rhetoric will ensure many people will not get past this barrier that is being placed in front of the issues.

Some of those issues have been discussed on this blog previously, and certainly I've spent many hours on feminist and leftist blogs providing a counter-point to some of their arguments which cross over into those issues you care about.

And if I get time, I might do a post outlining what I think might be a really positive way of achieving a solution to helping rid us of those issues, and will be interested in the critique I get (providing it's rational)

Lucia Maria said...

Chris Key,

"I've come to the conclusion that most women are either stupid and indifferent to men or get off on enforcing a misandristic system that causes men to suffer in silence."

I think I missed where women are in total control of society and men are just our willing slaves.

I don't know about where you live, Chris, but over here mostly men make and enforce the laws. Sure, there are some women around in Parliament, in the justice system, in business, but on the whole it's mostly men in control. Therefore, I would have to conclude that most men are quite happy with a "misandristic system".

"Because I'm sick and tired of women assuming me that they're in a better position than a man to decide whether issues such as testicular abuse, paternity fraud, domestic violence against men and false accusations of rape are harmful to men and boys. The fact they think they're more qualified to weigh the worth of men's issues is downright arrogant."

I'm sure all these issues are harmful, the question is, what can be done?

"I'm sick and tired of having to provide tactless women with scientific evidence to prove testicular abuse can cause psychological problems such as PSTD and irreparable damage to the testes -- damage that can cause physical, psychological and cognitive problems if it inteferes with testosterone production. I'm sick and tired of vile, man-hating bigots telling me that there's no need to tell schoolboys to stop hitting one another in the groin -- a claim that they're brazen enough to make after I went to the effort of providing them with statistics that show it's a widespread practice and has led to a lot of boys having to undergo surgery to excise testicles that were ruptured by a punch, a kick, a slap of the wrist to the groin, etc. That's the sort of indifference I encounter when I discuss these issues."

You know, you've just identified a market for discreet groin guards for boys. Cod pieces used to be in style, maybe they can come back? Don't just leave this for women to organise, hop to it!

"The braindead [women] who think it's okay to abuse testicles in every which way are the same ones who think it's vital to allow perverts to marry. "

LOL! I think you've wandered into the wrong site for that. We're totally against the redefinition of marriage.

"One of the braindead [women] that I know reckons teen pregnancy is a "far worse issue" because if a teenage girl gets knocked up then it might prevent her from taking drugs and getting drunk, which is horrible in her opinion because she believes the sole point of life is to have "fun", which she thinks cannot be had if drugs, alcohol and and endless amount of sex aren't available on demand!"

You are seriously hanging out with the wrong women. Probably a lot of that around though, due to the disgusting sex education that most children are subjected to these days. Parents really need to step up here and demand that their children are exempted.

But really, it's not just women you have a problem with - it's most people that are brought up in our modern society. Don't make women the scapegoat.

Chris Key said...

"I think I missed where women are in total control of society and men are just our willing slaves.

I don't know about where you live, Chris, but over here mostly men make and enforce the laws. Sure, there are some women around in Parliament, in the justice system, in business, but on the whole it's mostly men in control. Therefore, I would have to conclude that most men are quite happy with a "misandristic system"."


So you're more or less saying that if most politicians are men then women have no control over social issues and law reform, no?

Most politicians and CEOs are men, but that does not mean that all facets of the law system and corporate sector are designed for the average man.

The men who are successful at winning a seat in parliament are the ones who convince women to vote for them: over 50% of the voting sector is female, and; women are more likely than men to prioritise gender issues over other issues.

I don't think I'm wrong in saying that most of the men who campaign for office are fearful of being accused of favourtism towards men because it has the potential to mark the beginning of the end of their political career. I base this on the fact feminists have successfulrun decent men out of their jobs for merely stating a truth that they found unpleasant. For example, a few years ago the bloke that ran Harvard University stated that the disparity between men and women in science is probably due to innate biological differences. There is evidence to support his claim, yet he was eventually forced into resigning because the feminists camapaigned against him. He apologised and threw a great deal of money behind women's programs after he made the comment, but it didn't stop the feminists from campaigning until he was forced into resigning.

Policians rarely grovel to men and almost never focus on men's issues because it's unlikely to win them extra votes. For example, women's health receives far more funding than men's health, even though men die earlier and are more prone to developing most of the major diseases. Politicians go out of their way to spread wicked lies about men in order to appease women and feminists -- see their propaganda on domestic violence -- because the average bloke is not going to form a vendetta against them and vote for the opposition. This isn't a coincidence, Lucia Maria. It happens because men, as a class, are raised to believe it's their duty to be independent. The average bloke does not ask for help because he's been raised to believe it's unmanly. Women do not wish to aid men because they believe men are meant to be strong and resourceful. Those very same women believe it's men's duty to pamper them and protect them from danger. The result is women believe they're entitled to government handouts and special provisions.

Chris Key said...

"You know, you've just identified a market for discreet groin guards for boys. Cod pieces used to be in style, maybe they can come back? Don't just leave this for women to organise, hop to it!"

I'm from Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

I don't know if you're being serious or not, but I'll respond. Boys could wear a protective apparatus over their generative organs as a short-term solution to the issue, but it does not tackle the problems of why it happens and how it has been allowed to happen.

Boys grow up in a society that glorifies testicular abuse. It is a common theme in some video games, children's programming, television commercials, television programs, music lyrics, movies, etc. The result is boys and girls grow up thinking it must be acceptable.

The first solution is to educate children about the consequences of testicular abuse and testicular trauma. If it's a necessity to teach children about STDs then I cannot see how it's not a necessity to let boys know that certain acts can leave them sterile, mentally ill, afraid of socialising and deficient in testosterone. If boys were aware of the danger then most of them would be less likely to expose themselves to it.

The second solution is to set strict punishments for persons who perpetrate testicular abuse. A North American school was able to curb the problem altogether by reporting offenders to the police. The schools that do not punish the perpetrators adequately still have the problem.

The third step is to prohibit the media from glorifying the subject.
That means taking it out of slapstick comedy and not using it to promote the violent grrl power agenda. Far too many programs involve the female characters kicking "bad guys" in the groin in situations where such an attack is unnecessary. The only reason I can think of to explain why the producers do this is because they wish to emasculate the male character and portray women as strong and empowered. I don't have a problem with them promoting a woman's character as strong, but they do not need to do it in a way that humiliates and devalues men. If it's considered cool and sassy to humiliate and dehumanise a man then young, impressionable minds that are exposed to that nonsense will enact that message in real life. The increasing number of serious assaults involving boys, men, girls and women assaulting boys and men in such horrific ways suggests there is a link.

Would a television producer dare to make a habit out of "good boy" and "good girl" characters teaching the "bad girl" character a lesson by giving her a kick in the vulva?

If the answer is no then why is it acceptable to do it to men?

I think I've done a lot to raise awareness about this issue. I haven't left the work to women. Here's a page I've created on the issue:

http://www.mens-rights.net/law/violence/testicular_abuse.htm

Chris Key said...

LOL! I think you've wandered into the wrong site for that. We're totally against the redefinition of marriage.

I wasn't accusing you (or anyone else on this website) of trying to redefine marriage. I was trying to explain why MRAs take a no nonsense approach when they deal with all women.

Chris Key said...

"Tell me though, why your comments are any different to a radical feminist who might write the same thing out, just swapping "man" for women" and vice versa, with a suitable women's issue. And how should I react to them saying that?"

How can you equate what I said to radical feminism?

All I'm advocating for is justice for all.

What's radical about that?

Radical feminazis lobby for women to have special provisions to make them exempt from responsibility, and, argu for men to live under a strict regime that punishes them excessively when they fail to meet the standard.

The only extreme punishment I've advocated was the death penalty or sterilisation of women who deprive the unborn of life for reasons other than the risk of the pregnancy harming their health.

Radical feminists and a few women believe rapists should be given a penectomy and castrated.

I think it's fair to presume that abortion is infinitely worse than rape. The only people who hold onto the belief that rape is equal to murder are the braindead morons who were raised to believe the Victorian-age rhetoric about rape being a "fate worse than death".

ZenTiger said...

Boys grow up in a society that glorifies testicular abuse.

I don't think that's the case at all.

Boys grow up knowing a kick in the nuts hurts. Everyone knows this. It's a known Achilles heel, so it's reflected in movies and general culture. Facing a bigger guy that can pound you to dust? Kick him in the nuts, and you might win the fight before it starts.

That is not talking about glorification, that is talking about traditional knowledge passed down since the first ever fight.

Chris Key said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chris Key said...

ZenTiger,

If that's the case then how come vulval abuse is rarely reflected in movies and general culture?

The vulva is the most sensitive region of the female anatomy. A good hard kick in the vulva will leave a woman writhing in agony. If you don't believe it then I'll be more than happy to provide links to videos on YouTube of sportswomen writhing in agony after taking a kick to the vulva.

How come eye gouging isn't reflected in the same light? It's more effective than a kick in the testes. If a man's andrennalin is high then a kick in the testes is only going to enrage him.

I notice you refused to acknowledge the use of testicular abuse/trauma in slapstick comedy and situations that do not require an attack of that nature.

For example, there are numerous scenes in movies, television commercials and television programs that show women kicking men in the testes for no other reason than they're angry with them.

Why did you overlook that?

Do you have an anti-male agenda that you're trying to promote?

"Kick him in the nuts, and you might win the fight before it starts."

So you advocate violence against men when violence hasn't been used by those men?

Lovely.

I think you know just as well as I know that television programs and movies wouldn't dare to show men or women using extreme violence against women who've spoken aggressively or are angry. They wouldn't dare to show it because they know it would lead to feminazis saying it will incite violence against women. But here you are saying it's okay to portray violence against men as "common knowledge". That's disgusting.

I'd like to point that a woman kicking a man in the testes is far more harmful than a man punching a woman in the face. A kick in the testes can result in death via neurogenic shock and other problems that require surgery.

Are you going to write to your local TV networks demanding they show women taking a kick in the vulva when they're aggressive?

I bet your stance on that matter is a hell of a lot difference to your sexist acceptance of testicular abuse.

The other day you deleted one of my posts because I used the c word. Here you are referring to testicular abuse as "kicked in the nuts".

Can you not see the hypocrisy?

Referring to testicular abuse as "kicked in the nuts" is as derogatory as referring to rape as "unwanted c*ck in the c*nt". Are you going to start referring to rape as "unwanted c*ck in the c*nt"?

ZenTiger said...

Thanks for the comment. I'll respond to it in pieces, as it's getting late now.

ON HYPOCRISY: The other day I deleted one of your comments because you used the C word to describe a person.

I used the slang "kicked in the nuts" to describe someone being kicked in the testicles. That, to me is very different to calling some-one a testicle.

Thus, it was not a question of hypocrisy.

ON TERMINOLOGY:
The C word, especially when used to refer to a person, is meant in a derogatory way, whereas "nuts" as far as I can tell is just an alternate word for testicles, I certainly didn't mean it in a derogatory way.

I refer to rape as rape, because I already know exactly what it means, which, to an extent is a shortened form of your alternate description.

"Testicular abuse" might mean many things, and no doubt it's a fair point that it's not well advertised in the same way other types of assault are. However, rape is a form of sexual assault, and testicular abuse is generally not - it's a physical assault to a specific body part, like being punched in the nose, or twisting some-ones wrist etc. The level of reporting in fights normally extends to simply "man bashed and in hospital", and they don't always list the full extent of injuries, but could I suppose:

Man bashed: suffers bruised kidney, ruptured spleen, broken jaw and testicular abuse.

If a man is sexually assaulted in this way, then it would be as relevant as rape to mention I guess.

Raising awareness of this form of assault sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if it is as common as you think.

KG said...

"Kick him in the nuts, and you might win the fight before it starts."

So you advocate violence against men when violence hasn't been used by those men?

You don't understand self-defence very well, do you Chris? When violence threatens and somebody judges it to be inevitable, then waiting for the person initiating it to make the first move is a sure way of losing the encounter.
Waiting for someone to hit you first only gives a warm and fuzzy feeling of righteousness until you lose a few teeth or get carted off with a fractured skull.

Chris Key said...

"Testicular abuse" might mean many things, and no doubt it's a fair point that it's not well advertised in the same way other types of assault are. However, rape is a form of sexual assault, and testicular abuse is generally not - it's a physical assault to a specific body part, like being punched in the nose, or twisting some-ones wrist etc.

Point 1.

The feminazis say that rape is about power and control, not sex. Rape is considered a sex crime.

Testicular abuse is about power and control.

There are a lot of sadistic perverts in this world who gain arousal from inflicting pain upon men's genitalia. The fetish they subscribe to is called ballbusting. The fetish is supported by men and women. The freaks who subscribe to the fetish act it out in real life and by enjoy seeing it happen to other men. The freaks are so obsessed by it that they've compiled an online database about the television programs and movies that have contained the scenes. Their database is located at http://www.bbdatabase.com/

Therefore, I believe that testicular abuse is a sex crime. I also believe that most of the people who perpetrate it do so for no other reason than they find it arousing. Many of them do it to friends under the guise that they're just "mucking around", but they're actually perverts who gain arousal from it.

If you're going to say that testicular abuse is not a sex crime because it doesn't evolve intercourse and genitals touching one another then please explain why a man viciously grabbbing a woman's breast can lead to him being charged with sexual assault?

Breasts are erogenous, but they're not sexual organs. Lips are also erogenous, but no one would be foolish enough to say that a punch in the mouth amounts to a sex crime.

Unwanted touching of a man's testes, whether it be in the form of a gentle fondle or a violent kick, is a violation of the victim's sexual integrity. No one has the right to touch a man's genitalia unless he gives them his consent or if it's out of protection during an assault that he initiated.

I think you know just as well as I know that an injury to a testicle is far more embarrassing and disturbing than a sprained wrist. If my wrist was sprained during an attack then I would be angry, but I wouldn't be embarrassed. Nor would I find it emotionally disturbing that some one decided to single out my wrist. But if some one were to target out my testes and inflict injury upon them then I would find that very disturbing.

Chris Key said...

The level of reporting in fights normally extends to simply "man bashed and in hospital", and they don't always list the full extent of injuries, but could I suppose:

I don't know what things are like in New Zealand, but when testicular abuse is perpetrated during an assault that is covered by the media then it is usually mentioned. So, I cannot and will not agree with your unsubstantiated claim that reportage is conducted in the way you specified.

It seems you think that a "sex crime" is worse than physical assault. I'm sure the men who've had their testes ruptured by a kick from a female stranger would gladly trade that in for a gentle fondle of their scrotum. Rupture or no rupture, they'd still take the latter over the former.

If a woman was held hostage and told the only way she would leave alive is by agreeing to be kicked hard in the vulva or having her vulva gently fondled, then she would choose the latter.

You don't understand self-defence very well, do you Chris? When violence threatens and somebody judges it to be inevitable, then waiting for the person initiating it to make the first move is a sure way of losing the encounter.
Waiting for someone to hit you first only gives a warm and fuzzy feeling of righteousness until you lose a few teeth or get carted off with a fractured skull.


Is that how it's done in New Zealand?

If so then it explains why so many of the New Zealanders who migrate to Australia are so violent.

In Australia and North America, a person can expect to be charged and labelled the aggressor if they inflicting the first blow.

Chris Key said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
KG said...

"Is that how it's done in New Zealand?"
Only among grown-ups who know how the real world operates.
And I'm not in New Zealand, whatever difference that makes.
And we have plenty of violence of our own here in Australia to go round, so Kiwis aren't bringing anything new as far as that's concerned.

Grow up and do try to avoid the reflexive idiot nationalist slurs.

Chris Key said...

Only among grown-ups who know how the real world operates.

Blah blah blah. Go on, go hit some one and then tell the cops you thought they were going to start a fight with you. See how that works.

Imagine if an employee were to hit a customer just because the customer was irate?

They'd lose their job!

So no, I wouldn't say you have a clue about the real world.

"And we have plenty of violence of our own here in Australia to go round, so Kiwis aren't bringing anything new as far as that's concerned."

ROTFLMAO!

You know nothing!

Go to Logan some time and then try convincing yourself that the violence in the area isn't attributed to the Polynesians and Maoris who live there. Hell, the other day I read that 60%of the women who are serving time in New Zealand prisons are Maori.

"Grow up and do try to avoid the reflexive idiot nationalist slurs."

You mean the "reflexive, idiotic nationalistic slurs?"

Ciaron said...

Chris, I suspect you think you are dominating this argument, but from what I pick up in your tone, you are simply on a mission build as many strawmen as possible. I am disinclined to engage with, or support you stance simply because you do read like the very ball busting extremeist feminazi fruit-loops you abhor.

KG said...

"Blah blah blah. Go on, go hit some one and then tell the cops you thought they were going to start a fight with you. See how that works."

You confuse the requirements of effective self-defence with the legalities of self-defence.If the legalities ever become the subject, I'll be pleased to engage you on those.

"Imagine if an employee were to hit a customer just because the customer was irate?"

Imagine if an employee were to hit a customer because the customer was laughing? So what's your point? Nowhere in my comment did I suggest that a person simply being irate was reason to assault them. The relevant line in what I wrote is: When violence threatens and somebody judges it to be inevitable

I don't need to go to Logan to try and convince myself of anything. One or two areas with a high Polynesian population in no way invalidate what I said about us having our own violence in Australia.
And If I "know nothing", sonny, then at least I'm old and gnarled and beat-up enough to be aware of how little I know. Perhaps you'll get there one day, too, with Zen's help. :)
So now I'll stop dragging his comments thread off-topic.

ZenTiger said...

@KG - You are not taking the conversation off thread - I wanted to reply to the issue of self defence separately to answering the charge of hypocrisy.

@Chris - From what I can tell, you are now trying to link sexual attacks concerning testicular abuse, with physical assault concerning a kick in the testicles, and they are two very different things.

Can we please keep those arguments separate; I think you'll find most people will be in agreement with most points you make about sexual abuse against males - it's wrong, it is illegal and if awareness needs raising, go and raise it.

If I kick some-one in the nuts, or punch them in the throat, or break an arm, it is in self defence. My decision on what I do is motivated by my desire to win the fight in the most efficient and safest means possible, relevant to the threat level.

It is incorrect to equate a self defence situation where I might kick some-one in the nuts as sexual assault. If forced to fight, I fight to win. With more than 8 years martial experience, winner of multiple full contact fighting tournaments, and having being involved in street fights, I cannot stress enough how dangerous it is to get into those situations.

Go on, go hit some one and then tell the cops you thought they were going to start a fight with you. See how that works.

That comment seems to think that I would arbitrarily go out and look for a fight.

The flip comment needs to be made: Explain to the police why you are dead.

I know which position I'd prefer to be in.

As for trivializing a serious issue, I don't mean to - kicking some-one in the nuts and putting them in hospital is a serious issue. So is rupturing some-one's spleen or breaking their jaw.

With self defence one needs to be careful not to use excessive force, but if it comes down to dead or in front of a judge, I can only deal with one issue at a time, and preserving my life is the issue at hand.

Lucia Maria said...

Chris Key,

Your 1:53 AM comment on January 20 contained disgusting words that have resulted in it's deletion. ZenTiger was nice to you the first time he warned you when he copied and blanked out a previous comment, but that was a warning for the first offence. All further comments with words of that nature will be deleted from now on without explanation, no matter what arguments of merit they might contain.

ZenTiger said...

Where the slang "nuts" came from:

Nutty sayings

Chris Key said...

"Your 1:53 AM comment on January 20 contained disgusting words that have resulted in it's deletion. ZenTiger was nice to you the first time he warned you when he copied and blanked out a previous comment, but that was a warning for the first offence. All further comments with words of that nature will be deleted from now on without explanation, no matter what arguments of merit they might contain.
11:26 AM, January 20, 2012" [sic]


Lucia Maria,

The only reason you deleted the comment is because it exposed the flaws in ZenTiger's faulty argument. The fact you stooped to the point of censoring anything that does not support your agenda proves you're every bit as intellectually dishonest as the radical liberal movement.

I'd like to point out that ZenTiger removed my comment because I referred to a specific type of person as the 'c word'. I never referred to anyone as a 'c word' in my previous post. I merely used the 'c word' in reference to a crime. The reason I used the word in the post is because your little mate ZenTiger minimise the severity of testicular abuse by referring to it as "kicked in the nuts". I note that he's still doing it, yet you have yet to remove his posts. If you think you're a woman of integrity then you sure as hell aren't acting like one. If you have an ounce of integrity left in you then you will apologise for your deplorable actions.

For the record, there's a difference between "it's" and "its". The apostrophe that is used to denote possession of the subject in question does not apply when the subject is referred to as "it". For example, you would say "Fred's shoes are red" or"Its shoes are red.

KG said...

Oh no! It's the Grammar Police!
I recall a quote, something about "...the hobgoblin of little minds."
Not to mention ill-mannered...

Chris Key said...

"Chris, I suspect you think you are dominating this argument, but from what I pick up in your tone, you are simply on a mission build as many strawmen as possible. I am disinclined to engage with, or support you stance [sic] simply because you do read like the very ball busting extremeist feminazi fruit-loops you abhor." Ciaron

Ciaron,

If you're going to accuse me of building strawmnen arguments then you need to provide evidence to substantiate your claim.

The "I am discinlinced to engage with or support you stance" [sic] is just an excuse you're using to avoid acknowledging arguments that you're incapable of refuting. It's on the same level as a schoolyard bully saying "I won't fight you because I don't want to beat you up" when he/she is confronted by some one who would thrash them in a fight.

It's intellectually dishonest to make a accusation and then say you will not provide any evidence to back it up.

"You confuse the requirements of effective self-defence with the legalities of self-defence.If the legalities ever become the subject, I'll be pleased to engage you on those." KG

KG,

My original comment about the glorificaton of testicular abuse was based on the media promoting it in situations that do not warrant such actions. I was referring to situations such as slapstick comedy or a woman kicking a man in his generative organs for no other reason than she was was angry with him or disliked a joke that he made. In other words, I was referring to situations where the victim of the kick was not acting aggressively and was not posing a threat to the perpetrator.

You went off on a tangent by talking about situations where a person is kicked in the testes because they were threatening some one in a way that was bound to be followed by violence. What you did qualifies as a strawman. It's funny how Ciaron missed that one...

If I wanted to be as rude, arrogant and sarcastic as you've been then I'd mock you for failing to stay on topic.

"I don't need to go to Logan to try and convince myself of anything. One or two areas with a high Polynesian population in no way invalidate what I said about us having our own violence in Australia." KG

You argued that Polyensians and Maoris are no more violent than Australians. I refuted your claim by pointing out that Polynesians and Maoris are more likely than Australians to engage in violent crime.

I supported my claim by pointing out that 60% of convicts in New Zealand's female gaols are Maori.

If you're going to argue that Australians are just as violent as Maoris and Polynesians then the onus is on you to prove it. All I need to do is point out that the Polynesians and Maoris living in Australia are, on a per capita basis, more likely than Australians to engage in violent crime.

KG said...

"You argued that Polyensians and Maoris are no more violent than Australians."
I made no such argument.
My exact words were:
"And we have plenty of violence of our own here in Australia to go round, so Kiwis aren't bringing anything new as far as that's concerned."

"If I wanted to be as rude, arrogant and sarcastic as you've been then I'd mock you for failing to stay on topic.
And you'd be wasting your time and making a fool of yourself, since Zen--one of the owners of this blog--has already said:
"KG - You are not taking the conversation off thread.."

You'll have to do better than that.

Chris Key said...

KG,

"And we have plenty of violence of our own here in Australia to go round, so Kiwis aren't bringing anything new as far as that's concerned."

That's akin to saying that New Zealanders are no more violent than Australians. If New Zealanders are more violent than Australians then they are bringing something "new" to Australia. Especially when you take into consideration that the Polynesians and Maoris who live in Logan have formed gangs that are based on American gangs such as the Bloods and Crips. I'd also like to point out that violence in Australia is usually committed by ethnics. Australians should not be blamed for what is done by the ethnics.

"And you'd be wasting your time and making a fool of yourself, since Zen--one of the owners of this blog--has already said:"

A review of the conversation proves I'm right. Your little mate ZenTiger started talking about "self-defence" when I said:

"Boys grow up in a society that glorifies testicular abuse.:

That comment did not mention acts of testicular abuse that take polace in situations that require self-defence did it?

Therefore, ZenTiger went off topic when he argued that a kid kicking a bully in the testes during a confrontation is "proof" that the media isn't glorifying testicular abuse when it shows a woman kicking a man in the testes for making her angry.

You also went off topic by accusing me of not understanding self-defence.

So why did you accuse me of not understanding self-defence when I never stated my opinion on the matter?

Your mate ZenTiger was trying to divert attention away from the glorification of testicular abuse in the media because he could not refute it. You foccussed on it afterwards because you did not want to acknowledge the points I made. That right there proves that you and him are intellectually dishonest. You don't respond to the argument. You just derail the subject and talk about something altogether different.

A bit foolish on your behalf, no?

ZenTiger said...

Chris, Both KG and I were refuting your comment about glorification by providing ALTERNATE reasons of WHY we see images of people being kicked in the gonads. That is not a diversion from your point.

There is no "glorification" of such abuse, except in your mind.

The media promoting it in situations that do not warrant such actions. I was referring to situations such as slapstick comedy

Additionally, what do you mean by "promoting it"?

Do you ever watch those ridiculous "funny video" shows? People get hurt all sorts of ways and those situations have a perverse sort of humour to them. Personally, I hate those shows, but they seem generally popular. In amongst all of the ways people manage to hurt themselves in a spectacular way, there will be a few ball breaking incidents. To you, that appears to be "glorification" and "promotion".

I suggest it's not seen that way by the vast majority of people. Most go "oh, that would hurt, I hope they survived."

There's a bit of empathy going on, and a bit of realisation that each of those incidents have consequences to actions, often to an unpredicted level.

There's a lesson there for all of us, which might be one of the reasons people are fascinated with those shows.

I think you need to explain what you mean by glorification, because I don't see that in any of the examples you've stated. The standard dictionary definition is "a glorified or more splendid form of something."

Your mate ZenTiger was trying to divert attention away from the glorification of testicular abuse in the media because he could not refute it.

...That right there proves that you and him are intellectually dishonest.

Please, don't look for reasons that do not exist.

You said:

Boys grow up in a society that glorifies testicular abuse. It is a common theme in some video games, children's programming, television commercials, television programs, music lyrics, movies, etc. The result is boys and girls grow up thinking it must be acceptable.

I don't accept that proposition. It's not seen as "acceptable", it's seen as painful.

The only issue is that some people don't realise how much damage a kick to the groin can do, but that is not "glorification".

Well, people can die from a single punch to the head. We don't go around "glorifying" punches to the head though in that context.

I'll agree that there can be a general glorification of war and violence, but it covers all forms of violence. You seem hung up on a kick to the balls, others might really hate punches to the head. Those attacks aren't the things glorified though, it's more the concept of beating the bad guys and dealing justice, often against overwhelming odds.

We could rule out all forms of TV violence completely. But that will not make violence go away. Your singling out testicular abuse as something "glorified" doesn't stack up, as far as I can see.

So why did you accuse me of not understanding self-defence when I never stated my opinion on the matter?

Because you said things like:

Do you have an anti-male agenda that you're trying to promote?

"Kick him in the nuts, and you might win the fight before it starts."

So you advocate violence against men when violence hasn't been used by those men?

Lovely.


That was your response to my comment that kicks to the groin are more about fighting, about exploiting a point of vulnerability RATHER THAN any sort of glorification. Me suggesting it could be used as a method of striking an aggressor resulted in you accusing me of promoting an anti-male agenda, and of being an immoral person and promoting violence. If you want to read all of that into my comments, it makes it very difficult to have a reasonable discussion.

Chris Key said...

"Chris, Both KG and I were refuting your comment about glorification by providing ALTERNATE reasons of WHY we see images of people being kicked in the gonads. That is not a diversion from your point.

There is no "glorification" of such abuse, except in your mind."

I hate to break it to you mate, but you failed to refute my argument. If you think you were successful then you obviously do not understand the definition of "glorification" or "refute".

Let me explain.

Neither of you explained why testicular abuse is used in slapstick comedy. Neither did either of you explain why it is portrayed as an acceptable reaction when a woman is angry at a man.

The ONLY thing that you and your little mate KG spoke about was self-defence. You said that kids grow up knowing that testicles are sensitive and target the testicles in self-defence. That is not an "alternate reason" that explains why testicular abuse is included in scenes where the kicker is not acting in self-defence and the recipient is totally innocent.

I can think of many television programs, commercials and movies that have included scenes of women kicking the male characters in the testes for no other reason than they were angry with the man or did not like them. The women were not portrayed as contempuous -- some times they were the so-called "good character". The victim of their abuse was not treated as a victim. On many occasions there was canned laughter played after the kick and other characters on the program joked about the victim's pain. If you you're going to say, "so, how does that equate to glorification?", then ask yourself to name the times you've seen a TV program show the "good guy" charcter laugh at a woman who was raped?

What would you call it if a woman was portrayed as a hero or "in the right" for kicking a man in the testes for no other reason than she was angry with him?

Wouldn't you say that she was lauded for kicking him and not villified like she should have been for committing a serious assault?
When a person commits violence and is either lauded or treated as if they did nothing wrong then their violence was glorified. Scenes of this nature are very common.
Are you going to deny their existence?
If so then just ask for examples and I'll provide them.

I abhor the aforementioned scenes because they send out the message that men deserve to be kicked in the testes by a woman if she's angry with them and that she's not wrong for doing so.

Television programs and movies are prohibited from portraying violence against women as acceptable. Go read the codes of practice for broadcasters and commercial networks if you don't believe it. No program is allowed to portray a woman-beater as a hero. Victims of man-on-woman violence are never to be shown as if they deserved the violence.

If a television program were to portray a man as a hero (glorify) for punching a woman in the head or kicking her in the vulva for no other reason than she said something to anger him then it would be classified as a glorification of violence against women. If you went to work and laughed at a woman who was a victim of domestic violence and then made jokes about violence against women then you would be reprimanded -- hell, you might even lose your job. So please don't tell me that showing men getting kicked in the testes for no justifiable reason and then trying to use that to elicit laughter from the audience is not glorification.

I'll repeat what I said above:

I've seen many television programs and movies, especially comedies, that have thrown in the canned audience laughter after a man was kicked in the testes for no justifiable reason. You know very well that they would not do this if the roles were reversed (a man kicking a woman in the vulva). So why are you being so disingenous?

Chris Key said...

"Do you ever watch those ridiculous "funny video" shows? People get hurt all sorts of ways and those situations have a perverse sort of humour to them. Personally, I hate those shows, but they seem generally popular. In amongst all of the ways people manage to hurt themselves in a spectacular way, there will be a few ball breaking incidents. To you, that appears to be "glorification" and "promotion".

Those segments often involve choreographed segments that feature men and boys getting hit in the groin in a violent and intentional manner. For example, I've seen segments where angry girls kicked their fathers in the testes -- not accidentally, but on purpose. I've seen segments where boys ran up to their sleeping fathers and punched them in the testes.
Can you honestly say you've ever seen an episode that contained a woman who was intentionally kicked in the vulva?
I've seen one segment of a girl taking an accidental kck to the vulva while dancing. That's all. Never seen one where they were kicked on purpose.

Wouldn't you agree that it's irresponsible to promote testicular trauma as "funny"?

When programs like Australia's Funniest Home Videos tell the audience that it's okay to laugh at a man/boy when his testes are severely injured then they're telling him that it's harmless. Programs like Funniest Home Videos, South Park and Jackass lead to crazes such as the sack-tapping (boys willingly punching each other in the groin) taking hold across schools. Boys have had to have testicles excised as a result. I think you know just as well as I know that if the networks were to glorify something that has the potential to cause girls to endanger themselves then it would be considered a serious issue. Case in point is all the fuss over photoshopping glamour models. The Australian government has intervened to stop it because they believe the flawless images of glamour models in Australian magazines causes girls to develop eating disorders.

Can you honestly say that you cannot see a link between programs like Jackass, South Park and Funniest Home Videos and the sudden increase in boys willingly punching each other in the testicles since these shows were broadcast?

Chris Key said...

"I suggest it's not seen that way by the vast majority of people. Most go "oh, that would hurt, I hope they survived."
That's not how the impressionable minds of young children see it.
"There's a bit of empathy going on, and a bit of realisation that each of those incidents have consequences to actions, often to an unpredicted level."

If that's the case then how come I've had to explain to people that those sort of injuries can cause long-term injury?
I've had to "educate" fully grown men and women, many of whom thought that the only side-effect of man straddling his testes on a horizontal bar after falling 10 feet or getting hit in the groin by a paintball was extreme pain. They didn't know that the tunica albuginea can rupture when it is exposed to just 50kg of force. Go to YouTube and look at how many videos there are of boys and girls hitting their friends in the testicles. Obviously they don't think it's harmful.

glo·ri·fy
tr.v. glo·ri·fied, glo·ri·fy·ing, glo·ri·fies
1. To give glory, honor, or high praise to; exalt.


Isn't that what a TV program/movie is doing when it plays back canned laughter after a woman kicks a man in the testes for no other reason than she was angry with him?
Many of the programs that show women doing this do not portray the woman as being in the wrong -- they portray her behaviour as a justified response for having her feelings hurt. You'll see this sort of crap in soaps such as EastEnders and other programs that are aimed at women. That is glorification of testicular abuse. It encourages young, impressionable minds to believe that if a man upsets a woman -- or if a woman is upset at a man who did nothing to her -- then she has the right to kick him in the testes. I've seen videos on YouTube of girls doing or talking about times they've done it and then arguing that they were in the right because they were upset. So don't tell me that it's all in my head!

"That was your response to my comment that kicks to the groin are more about fighting, about exploiting a point of vulnerability RATHER THAN any sort of glorification. Me suggesting it could be used as a method of striking an aggressor resulted in you accusing me of promoting an anti-male agenda, and of being an immoral person and promoting violence. If you want to read all of that into my comments, it makes it very difficult to have a reasonable discussion."
The reason I made that comment is becausse you intentionally overlooked the comments I made in the following message:

1:48 AM, January 19, 2012

Are you trying to tell me that you've never seen a program where a woman is portrayed as strong and justified for kicking a man in the testes for no other reason than he said somethiing to upset her or she was upset with him about something he didn't even do?

Can you honestly say you've never seen a movie that portrays testicular trauma as harmless and funny?

Your comment about "self-defence" overlooks the obvious: how do boys grow up knowing that testes are sensitive? Not all boys hurt their testes, so you cannot say they all know from personal experience. The only thing they have in common is the media exposes them to it by treating it as a joke and portraying it as acceptable.

Chris Key said...

"Chris, Both KG and I were refuting your comment about glorification by providing ALTERNATE reasons of WHY we see images of people being kicked in the gonads. That is not a diversion from your point.

There is no "glorification" of such abuse, except in your mind."


Telling me that kids target the testes of their opponents during a fight because they know testes are sensitive is a diversion from my point because I was referring to slapstick comedy and "grrl power" agenda.

Do you know the general definition of slapstick comedy/humour?

Scenes that portray violence, pain, bodily wastes and other unusual subjects as comical. Think of programs like The Benny Hill Show, The Goodies and sketch programs. Programs like Jackass show men willingly kicking one another in the testes or portraying testicular trauma as a joke. Many cartoons do the same: Family Guy, The Simpsons, South Park, Beavis and Butthead, Etc.

There are many television programs and movies that depict innocent men getting hit in the testes or kicked in the testes by an angry woman as humorous and acceptable. I'm not talking about women who are defending themselves from an attack or trying to negate a possible attack. I'm talking about women who kick a calm, non-threatening man for no other reason than he failed to meet her demands or said something that she did not like. The general theme of the scene is to poke fun at the male character who was kicked and portraying the woman who performed the kick as "cool". I've seen scenes of this nature that involved the third-party characters laughing at him. Quite a few of them play back canned laughter straight after the kick. The purpose of these scenes is to elicit laughter from the audience and to portray the woman as being justified in using excessive violence to inflict extreme pain and humiliation on a man.

No matter how you try to cut it, the fact remains that your little comment about boys kicking one another to stop fights does not explain the aforementioned points. I was referring to these points when I first mentioned society glorifying testicular abuse.

"Additionally, what do you mean by "promoting it"?"

-- Portraying Person A as "cool" and "righteous" for kicking Person B in the testes for no other reason than Person B failed to meet Person A's demands or said something to upset Person A.

-- Portraying testicular injuries as something to laugh at. The purpose behind this is to mock the fallability of men's sexuality. It's misandry at its finest. It's no different to laughing at rape. I'd like to add that the media also makes a mockery of men who have their penises mutilated (penectomy) by women. The Cahterine Kieu Becker case is a glaring example. Same happens when men are castrated by women. We all know that the media wouldn't dare to make light of a situation if it involves a clitorectomy or vulvectomy. Starting to get the picture?

-- Mocking the sensitivity of testes while covering up the fact that the vulva is almost as sensitive as them so that boys and girls grow up thinking that the female anatomy is invulnerable to "low blows" and is superior. The purpose behind this is to encourage girls and young women to kick boys and men in the groin while discouraging men from returning the favour to their attackers. Testicular abuse is commonly used in domestic violence by abusive women. Women and girls are far less likely to kick a man/boy in the testes when they know that a) he's aware that the vulva is a sensitive target and b) he will kick her in the vulva if she kicks him in the testes.

KG said...

"That's akin to saying that New Zealanders are no more violent than Australians."
Only in your mind.
"akin to saying" is not saying and if that's what I'd wanted to say, I would have. Don't try putting words into my mouth.
To reduce this to the dreaded "ad hominem", I reckon you're an angry little man and full of shit.As well as being rude and boorish towards your hosts.
As Ciaron said "..you do read like the very ball busting extremeist feminazi fruit-loops you abhor."
I'm done with it.

ZenTiger said...

The only reason you deleted the comment is because it exposed the flaws in ZenTiger's faulty argument

We delete relatively few comments, and we explain why. I deleted your earlier comment for use of the C word and had the uncommon courtesy of taking the time to re-post the comment after editing. I do not do that often. It should have been seen as a warning.

When you repeated that exact same word on another comment in contravention of our comment policy, we deleted the comment.

Your reaction is to ignore your failure to act responsibly and instead you come back and accuse us of being liars and dishonest.

The fact you stooped to the point of censoring anything that does not support your agenda proves you're every bit as intellectually dishonest as the radical liberal movement

Again, obviously false or we would have deleted your previous comments and many others by now.

Now let me put this into an example you may understand.

YOU are glorifying the use of the C word in describing women, which is meant as a derogatory attack and slur on women. You therefore treat them collectively with disrespect. We chose NOT to support your glorification of the C word on this blog, so we remove it and do not tolerate people using it here.

ZenTiger said...

Wouldn't you agree that it's irresponsible to promote testicular trauma as "funny"?

Sure, but those shows "promote" all sorts of types of trauma, and in that sense, they are equally culpable for treating painful situations as being funny. You are picking out one form of abuse as having special significance, amongst all the other forms. It's all crass.

Those programs rely on such "humour" and they continually overstep the bounds of decency. Maybe you need them to exist though to prove your point, in your campaign efforts.

Programs like Funniest Home Videos, South Park and Jackass lead to crazes such as the sack-tapping (boys willingly punching each other in the groin) taking hold across schools.

Wasn't aware of any crazes, but glad to see you are acknowledging here that boys are hurting other boys, rather than making it just about women. I have not heard of this craze, but assuming its there, I think it will be short lived. It wont take long for the message to spread that hurting oneself is a pretty stupid thing to do, no matter what body parts are targeted. Maybe if there were more fathers around, boys would pick up wisdom such as this.

Do you remember the James Bond movie with some deliberate torture in that area? I don't think that was glorification, and every man and boy who watched it would be left in no doubt of this.

-- Portraying Person A as "cool" and "righteous" for kicking Person B in the testes for no other reason than Person B failed to meet Person A's demands or said something to upset Person A.

The problem, as I see it, is that the way people interact with each other has a tendency to generate conflict, and people get angry and then the anger is expressed. If those people are being portrayed as cool and righteous, it's often because the other person has had a big part in generating that anger and people feel they are getting their just desserts.

For example, if you come to this blog and accuse us of deliberately deleting comments simply because we are losing the argument, use bad language, and make various debatable accusations, then we might get angry, and we might give you a metaphorical kick in the balls. Some people would say we were too harsh, and others would say "he deserved it".

Equally, to flip this around, perhaps we've got it completely wrong about your argument, and we deleted a comment that we shouldn't have. Do you think giving us a metaphorical kick in the nuts is justified?

Why do you campaign to reduce physical violence of this particular nature, and (based on your comments on this blog) seem willing to engage in a very confrontational and aggressive debating style?

I think you've made a few good points, and I've debated the points in particular that I disagreed with. I don't think I can add anything further to this discussion, but its up here for our readers to find and consider.

So 'm going to leave you to continue your campaign for more awareness of this problem, and I'm going to ask you consider my campaign to improve the level of conversation in society in the way we interact with people so that it doesn't come to low blows.

Peace.

Chris Key said...

”Sure, but those shows "promote" all sorts of types of trauma, and in that sense, they are equally culpable for treating painful situations as being funny. You are picking out one form of abuse as having special significance, amongst all the other forms. It's all crass.”

There are many reasons to explain why my focus is raising awareness about testicular trauma and testicular abuse:

1. The testes are probably the most vulnerable and sensitive area of the male anatomy – along with the eyes -- thus meaning any form of trauma to them is usually going to have a greater likelihood of causing long-lasting damage.

Only 50kg of force is required to rupture the tunica albuginea. A ruptured testis requires surgery to debride (remove) the damaged tissue.

Trauma to the testes can cause irreparable damage to the leydig cells. The leydig cells produce over 97% of a man’s testosterone. Low testosterone in men can cause the following health problems: increased risk of developing coronary disease; fatigue, weight gain, loss in muscle mass and erectile dysfunction; mood swings, impaired cognitive ability, loss in body hair and increase risk of developing osteoporosis.

Torsion of a testis can arise from a forceful blow. The restricted blood flow to the affected testis needs to be resurrected within a matter of hours otherwise the testis will die.

A testis can be displaced into the abdomen by a forceful blow.

A blow to the testes can induce neurogenic shock. This is a fatal condition and there is no treatment for it. Quite a few men have died of neurogenic shock almost instantaneously after receiving a blow to the testes.
I’d like to point out that David Finkelhor PhD and Janis Wolak JD found that boys exposed to testicular abuse are more likely than the general population to develop social phobias and PSTD.

If you do not believe me then read the following article Dr Dr Richard A.Santucci [MD, FACS] wrote about the subject: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/441362-overview#a0112

Here are some links to articles that document neurogenic shock caused by testicular abuse and the links between coronary disease and low testosterone:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617124020.htm
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/tech/medicine/AnomaliesandCuriositiesofMedicine/chap13.html
http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/1995/6.html
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1152624/

Here’s a link to the study produced by Finkelhor and Wolak:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/274/21/1692.abstract

Lucia Maria said...

Chris Key,

"Lucia Maria,

The only reason you deleted the comment is because it exposed the flaws in ZenTiger's faulty argument. The fact you stooped to the point of censoring anything that does not support your agenda proves you're every bit as intellectually dishonest as the radical liberal movement."


No. I just don't like rude words. Use any more and I will delete your comments, no explanations. However, you will be able to tell that the comment was deleted, unlike comments that are treated as spam and just not posted.

Speaking of which, I've just let two of your comments out of spam, including the last one.

Chris Key said...

ZedTiger,

I've responded to your comments here:

http://news.mens-rights.net/index.php/nz/response-to-nz-conservative-s

Ciaron said...

Ciaron,

If you're going to accuse me of building strawmnen arguments then you need to provide evidence to substantiate your claim.


I don't have all day but here we go:
Zen said:Boys grow up knowing a kick in the nuts hurts. Everyone knows this. It's a known Achilles heel, so it's reflected in movies and general culture. Facing a bigger guy that can pound you to dust? Kick him in the nuts, and you might win the fight before it starts.

That is not talking about glorification, that is talking about traditional knowledge passed down since the first ever fight.


Then Chris said:Do you have an anti-male agenda that you're trying to promote?

"Kick him in the nuts, and you might win the fight before it starts."

So you advocate violence against men when violence hasn't been used by those men?

Lovely.


I don't think I've ever seen a more blatant attempt to redefine someone elses argument.

And BTW, like Zen, I have also spent a considerable time practicing martial arts and the answer to your question How come eye gouging isn't reflected in the same light?, if taken in the context of a self defence scenario, the kick is obviously prefered, as to gouge out someones eye, you'd need to be well inside their guard... not easy when you're the little fella.


oh, I just spotted this:The other day you deleted one of my posts because I used the c word. Here you are referring to testicular abuse as "kicked in the nuts".

Can you not see the hypocrisy?


one is a word you can use in front of your mother, the other is not. I assume you will have equal objection to the term "plums"? I think you would have a point if terms like "road map" and "plucked turkey" had been used.

I don't have time to trawl through every comment but I'd wager a virtual chocolate fish that there would be at least one deliberate misconception in every one of your posts, which is a shame because otherwise I think we'd all be on a similar same wave length.

I do hope that your campaign is successful(you have made me aware of a problem I had never considered)and that you can hone your argument from this exchange.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.