This is a comment by Transhuman on the post “Providence Girl Beaten While Neighbor Videotapes“.
Men being called on to be protectors is gone along with the 20th century. Men, simply because of their sex, face false accusations, public shaming, imprisonment and long-term loss of income if they intervene in something like what this article describes. When men are deliberately discouraged, by women, from pursuing employment that puts them in contact with children, the idea that a man would deal with girls who are strangers to him is naive to say the least.
It is easy to say you would intervene when you don’t understand what you can lose from what you think is a normal act of a responsible adult. Even if you get a day in court, that too costs you money and your reputation will be slurred in the media regardless of the outcome of the trial.
Consider what occurred concerning the two women jumping the counter at McDonalds and the outrage directed at the man who defended himself and his co-workers against their criminal assault. Sure, he was cleared of wrongdoing after being shamed by the media and losing his job.
Photo credit: Flickr / limaoscarjuliet
About the Editors
Men can no longer protect women when feminism calls on the genders to enter into competitive relationships: http://goo.gl/obiC
yup…protect me, die for me, kill for me.. and evidentally we “dont” count at all when it comes to cancer because “only” women get it..
http://files.medi-cal.ca.gov/pubsdoco/CDP_main.asp
why isnt it “every person counts” or why do we even have to point it out shoudnt it be obvious!!
jake
That is effed up. Men can screen themselves for testicular cancer, and everyone can screen themselves for skin cancer. Men can certainly screen themselves for testicular cancer better than women can screen themselves for cervical cancer!
Not to mention the fact that there are some MEN who develop breast cancer….
I believe acts of goodness would reverse the negative stereotypes placed on men. The more we see of it, the more it becomes a social norm, and the more people will strive to do good deeds and become good role models. The opposite of this is true as well. When we allow negativity, inaction and apathy to trump goodwill — we are allowing evil to co-exist. This comes from a place of cowardice and ego.
People tend to attach themselves to “trends” and behaviors of the moment…and how they do this, is they OBSERVE. Children observe parents; parents observe their parents and other parents. it could be a very sick cycle or we can break it, and create a healthy cycle and a system of caring. Goodness can spread, so can evil — it depends on which one you want to support. Every action and inaction pulls you closer to either one of those poles. Doing nothing is just as evil.
“Men being called on to be protectors is gone along with the 20th century.” With this type of attitude growing, I have much, much greater gratitude and appreciation for those who “serve and protect” us; such as police officers, fire fighters, soldiers, peace keepers, Block Parents. As well as all those who work to heal humanity; through volunteerism, working for human rights for the disenfranchised, feeding the poor and homeless, putting smiles on children’s faces…so on. Without these people, our world would be chaotic — it would be hell on earth. I’m grateful for these forces of good!
I believe acts of goodness would reverse the negative stereotypes placed on men. The more we see of it, the more it becomes a social norm, and the more people will strive to do good deeds and become good role models.
I know you’re talking in good faith but as a guy something hits a sore spot for me. We have a stereotype cast on us but we’re supposed to be the ones that have to act in a certain way to break it? When I look at other stereotypes cast on other people I often see the recommended solution is for the people who are casting the stereotype need to get their minds right. Why the swap?
“Men being called on to be protectors is gone along with the 20th century.” With this type of attitude growing, I have much, much greater gratitude and appreciation for those who “serve and protect” us; such as police officers, fire fighters, soldiers, peace keepers, Block Parents. As well as all those who work to heal humanity; through volunteerism, working for human rights for the disenfranchised, feeding the poor and homeless, putting smiles on children’s faces…so on. Without these people, our world would be chaotic — it would be hell on earth. I’m grateful for these forces of good!
Agreed. The things done by the people listed here are considered acts of heroism/valor/merit for a reason. They are supposedly going above and beyond in order to good. Well when people shame those who don’t go above and beyond doesn’t that cheapen the acts of those who do?
“I believe acts of goodness would reverse the negative stereotypes placed on men. The more we see of it, the more it becomes a social norm, and the more people will strive to do good deeds and become good role models.”
Hell Danny, as a woman reading that, it struck a sore spot with me too. It’s like when people tell me that if I want to reverse the crap stereotypes about lesbians, I shouldn’t shove it in people’s faces, etc. That’s utter pants…the onus for changing stereotypes isn’t (and shouldn’t) be placed on the people who are being stereotyped in the first place.
For example.
When a person can’t cook and starves their children — that is a problem, rather than a stereotype. When a lot of men are seen to be unable to cook and starving their children, that becomes a stereotype AND a societal problem. People need to take personal responsibility, and especially when you have dependents.
Lesbians have different stereotypes which lie in sexual orientation— your stereotypes are entirely different than men’s. Close your sore spot! People here need to respect your sexual orientation. It is them and their prejudices that need to change.
Yeah I think you misunderstood me…I’m saying that it “struck a sore spot” with me too because it placed the onus of reversing stereotypes about men onto men, and that’s wrong. I only mentioned the lesbian bit as a parallel.
I’m not quite sure what cooking has to do with this? I don’t know of any man who literally doesn’t know how to cook (actually I know quite a few who love to cook). And I certainly don’t know any man who wouldn’t be able to learn to cook to feed their kids.
I fully understood your point. You’re conflating all stereotypes…lesbian stereotypes are different than men’s; that’s why I wrote that example. You just see what you want to see. That’s fine…you come from a group that’s still looking to be accepted. I can understand angst.
“You just see what you want to see. That’s fine…you come from a group that’s still looking to be accepted. I can understand angst.”
Oh dear…that’s not condescending at all…
“lesbian stereotypes are different than men’s”
Well yeah, I mean obviously…or do you mean that the nature of stereotypes about men is different than the nature of stereotypes about lesbians? i.e. that the stereotypes about men are somehow based on reality whereas the stereotypes about lesbians aren’t or something? Like…the idea that men can’t cook is somehow based on fact?
“Lesbians have different stereotypes which lie in sexual orientation— your stereotypes are entirely different than men’s.”
And here we have an example of justifying ones sexism by claiming it’s “different” for men, with no explanation. Presumably, it’s “different” for women too, because we all know how much feminists don’t like women being stereotyped and demand men change.
“Close your sore spot! People here need to respect your sexual orientation.”
But apparently you don’t need to respect my gender. I see.
“It is them and their prejudices that need to change.”
But not you and yours, right? because your prejudices against men are “different”.
“Pants” is the perfect word for it.
“Well when people shame those who don’t go above and beyond doesn’t that cheapen the acts of those who do?”
Why would that cheapen the acts of those who do? Who would have that negative attitude anyhow? Those who spread goodness, embrace and encourage goodness…they are humble. And how many times in one’s lifetime, do people get a chance to change someone’s life — to be a hero to them? How many times does one get a call to go “above and beyond”? Rarely right? So for this argument, then, indeed people need to be shamed! I’m even more particularly ashamed of the GROUPS of witnesses who do nothing! I thought there were “strength in numbers”. Pathetic.
Seems to me, people are looking at even the smallest acts of change as being “above and beyond”…it’s pathetic. I’m so glad for police officers and fire fighters…I’m glad for unselfish people whose job and desire is to work for the greater good of mankind, rather than individualism.
Why would that cheapen the acts of those who do? Who would have that negative attitude anyhow?
People who see a man’s inactions and instead of questioning his humanity they question his manhood.
When “what kind of man are you?” becomes “what kind of human are you?” then I’ll be satisfied that people aren’t expecting men to to do good just because they are men.
“Why would that cheapen the acts of those who do?”
Because when doing the “good” thing becomes an expectation, it is no longer the good thing, it is simply the expected thing. When someone does what is expected of them, it has no value. When someone goes beyond what is expected of them, that has value. So creating an expectation cheapens the value of the actions of those going beyond.
And as Danny notes, the fact the expectation remains solely on men is sexist. It also perpetuates and enforces the male as protector gender role, and I though feminists claim they are about breaking down gender roles, not enforcing them?
“I believe acts of goodness would reverse the negative stereotypes placed on men. ”
Negative stereotypes placed on men by whom? The negative stereotypes men suffer now are largely a result of gender feminist theories like male privilege and “The Patriarchy”. And given those gender feminists and their theory’s have taken great pains to turn all the goodness men have done in the past into negatives like control, oppression and “benevolent sexism”, not to mention the efforts by these gender feminists to portray the men taking up the father/childcare role as just more ways to abuse their wives/ex’s, I doubt very much men doing good would be met with anything short of more blame and shame.
“The opposite of this is true as well. When we allow negativity, inaction and apathy to trump goodwill — we are allowing evil to co-exist.”
Exactly, and this story is an example of what the gender feminist negativity against men has wrought.
“This comes from a place of cowardice and ego.”
This is an example of a shaming designed to help enforce the male as protector gender role. So much for feminist’s being about breaking down those gender roles.
This is a fundamental principle of feminism. Men are no longer the protector gender. I don’t know how you have full equality without accepting this. Due to technological advances men haven’t needed to be protectors for a while. What I don’t see is enough emphasis by the feminist movement on female self-protection. Your own security begins with knowledge and skills you obtain to defend yourself. This is a significant failing up to this point. If the movement is doing more I would like to hear about it. I also know a former martial arts world champion who loves teaching women’s self-defense. She spends a lot of time making women safer and demands that all women in her family get training. So far it’s saved two family members from serious harm. Rubber meets road here…
“This is a fundamental principle of feminism. Men are no longer the protector gender. I don’t know how you have full equality without accepting this.”
Agreed. Mind you, I’m a feminist and I am agreeing that men are no longer the protector gender.
“What I don’t see is enough emphasis by the feminist movement on female self-protection.”
Well…I think it depends on where you’re looking. At my university there was a big push for women to take self-defence classes, and that push was by feminists. (Mind you, we could talk about the problems in those classes of assuming an attacker is male…but that’s another conversation). And a lot of the less-organized/political/etc feminists I know definitely take the position that they should be able to protect themselves.
Excellent! I hope that this continues and even more strongly. We can work and hope that male behavior continues to change, but the only guarantee of positive change is what we effect in ourselves. I really believe that the more women we have who have learned self-defense, the less women we have who will be assaulted. And that includes acquaintance assaults.
When feminists push for self-defense classes for females — that says a lot about the level of crime committed by men on women/girls. What a shame that it has come to that. Soon we will be asking educators to implement self-defense classes for school children — because you know…there’s a lot of bullying going on, and hey, maybe a kid could defeat a would be kidnapper/abuser…because we’re such an independent/individualistic driven society, “nobody owes anyone anything”…least of all, strangers.
“When feminists push for self-defense classes for females — that says a lot about the level of crime committed by men on women/girls.”
No, it says a lot about how feminists perceive the levels of crime against women, and their apathy for crime against men. There have been about 15 honour killings in Canada over the last 12 years, but because these are perpetrated against women, people are all up in arms claiming that charging these people with murder isn’t good enough, we need a new classification for honour killings specifically. Of course, the fact that twice that number of men are killed each YEAR in intimate partner homicides still isn’t enough to convince the government to fund even a single men’s shelter, despite all the women’s shelters available.
Feminists make their money by turning all women into victims waiting to happen, so the only thing that’s surprising about them encouraging women to take self defence, is the fact doing so will actually result in less victims for these gender feminists to exploit.
Really? Does it not say anything about the differences in defence tactics based in gender? Having taken a self-defence course for girls in high school (back in the day), alot of it centered on the best tactics to use based on factors that were often gender-determined (stature, upper versus lower body strength, dress).
Taking out the feminist-backing of your statement, can it not be seen that both boys and girls should be taught self-defence, and in different ways that reflect the best options to protect oneself/get out of harmful situations?
“This is a fundamental principle of feminism. Men are no longer the protector gender. I don’t know how you have full equality without accepting this. Due to technological advances men haven’t needed to be protectors for a while. What I don’t see is enough emphasis by the feminist movement on female self-protection.”
That is an interesting statement. There are men on here who’d argue and throw stats around, to show that men experience more violent crimes than women. Could it be, that men commit more crimes than women? So for argument’s sake, going by your line of thinking — men should be able to protect themselves from other men. YET, time and time again, I hear that when these men come to harm — the men’s movement argue for the women’s movement to be inclusive of them, and for feminists to work toward ending violent crimes caused by men towards men. HOW can it be, that feminists need to protect men, yet at the same time, these men argue that women should be able to protect themselves? Don’t you see the HYPOCRISY in this? Why does the issue of protection become US vs THEM? It should be GOOD vs EVIL regardless of gender.
“HOW can it be, that feminists need to protect men, yet at the same time, these men argue that women should be able to protect themselves?”
Ohforgoodnesssake. I think you’re viewing this as a heck of a lot more black and white than it’s meant. He’s saying the burden of protection shouldn’t fall onto men. Similarly, we have to acknowledge that men can be victims of violent crime. This doesn’t mean that women should suddenly become the protector class, or something…it’s more that we should all take responsibility for our own protection, and of course help stop violence when we can.
Exactly, right on almost every count. I feel men even more so than women need these types of training for the reasons you are laying out. This is not an us versus them on any level really, but a me versus a situation when it comes to self-defense. And actually men need the discipline, structure, and learned respect for others that comes from some of the martial arts instruction more so than even the skills of self-defense that come with it.
In a just and GOOD society, nobody should f*ckin need to learn self-defense. We should promote goodness, not self-defense. Goodness is the best defense above all.
For most women, unless they have a black belt, it won’t matter how much muscle building or self defense workshops you take, women are not built to defeat men. And when men are kidnapping a female, for instance — they seek someone they can OVERPOWER, get it??? They’re not going to go after a 300 lb woman. Have you ever heard of a 300 lb woman kidnapped??? Come on, let’s be realistic and truthful — instead of playing off gender and sexism.
I’ve taken self defense classes, and unless you weigh 100 lbs and not armed, I can probably protect myself, otherwise I’m dead meat. Sure self-defense lessons are good to have, so is learning to fix your own car — but most women don’t go into mechanics, because it requires a level of strength and testosterone to lift up tires, shift and shove things around, crank bolts and tug on chains etc.
I think you underestimate women. Self-defense involves many parts including weapons, both lethal and non-lethal. And the final reality is that only parts of society are good and just. We all have to deal with the other parts. I agree that goodness is the most important thing to teach, but then you are asking people to put their lives on the line to support that philosophy solely. How about both. Self-defense is all about goodness and keeping the good people in control.
Sad to say, but in some styles a black belt is literally just that, a piece of clothing dyed black. A black belt is not a magical talisman, and there is NO universal standard about what that rank actually means. You can actually go to a supply store and just buy one, put some stripes on it and make yourself a 9th degree BB….
Mass and strength do have a role to play. Men tend to be stronger on average than women. However, self-defense is about much more than physical technique, and physical technique is much more than just muscle strength. No matter how much the attacker pumps iron, he will never build muscle on his windpipe, his eyeballs, or his scrotum. The bigger he is the bigger these targets are. The taller he is the easier it is to find his groin. His knee will only bend one way. His joints only go so far in any particular direction. An elbow dislocates with 9 lbs of pressure. A shoulder dislocates with 15 lbs of pressure.
Physical self-defense isn’t primarily about defeating the attacker in a fight. It’s about escaping the attacker. You don’t have to be superwoman to be able to do that.
“Mass and strength do have a role to play. Men tend to be stronger on average than women. ”
Ignoring the implications that an attacker will be male (because the kid getting attacked was attacked by all guys, right?), I’d like to add that several forms of self defence actually teach you how to use those attributes against your attacker. Akido and jujitsu for example. They are very much about redirecting an opponents mass and energy to push them off balance and throw them around with their own strength. And as you noted, it isn’t about defeating an attacker, just creating enough of an opportunity to get away.
Very good points about mass and strength. I would also add that an attacker with a long reach is sometimes at a disadvantage in close-in fighting. Attackers who rely on their size and strength too much are at some disadvantages.
The girl was being attacked by other girls. I would add that even being outnumbered doesn’t necessarily mean that she couldn’t have used some more effective self defense techniques, though I haven’t seen the video. Being outnumbered is not the end of the world.
Self preservation is the first law of nature. Why get into trouble trying to be a hero??? What it would get you?? Police is paid for the job and not civilians.
“Self preservation is the first law of nature.”
That’s most observed by the Animal Kingdom…that’s why they got smaller brains, and humans have larger ones — so we can do more with it. I don’t think we should stoop to animal levels. Animals don’t have the rationality to preserve their own species…I wonder if homo sapiens do? Even in the bible, Noah’s ark came to the rescue of animals and preserved them — Noah had a big brain and heart. He would have been a PETA supporter today lol.
Humans have bigger brains, therefore, they should use it wisely to protect themselves from unwarranted troubles. You know “Where angels fear to tread, fools jump in.”
Capitalism has seeped into people’s consciousness, lifestyle and behaviors. In some people, this is on auto-pilot; it has become their way of living. I don’t even think the norms, attitudes or stereotypes of some groups come from gender equality — it comes from living in a highly capitalistic society. Our values and way of living reflect capitalism — we see competition and threats; we view that all people are responsible for their lot in life; the only people we should care about are within the first generation of our family tree and within driving distance; friends are disposable…girlfriends are replaceable. What matters is our status and financial wealth and well-being…because other men will be judging other men — that is the paranoia.
I wish you would use more gender neutral terms then when you wrote “girlfriends are replaceable. What matters is our status and financial wealth and well-being…because other men will be judging other men — that is the paranoia”
Women are social climbers too.
This isn’t a gender issue at all. Both genders are capable of picking up the phone and calling the police from the safety of their homes. I can understand anyone, regardless of gender, hesitating to physically get involved, but standing by and simply videotaping is deplorable. Consider your own safety first, but don’t turn your cheek if you can help it. Bottom line is the guy should have at least dialed 911 and let the police handle it.
Especially since, from what I understand, the guy in RI used his phone to videotape the event. If you have to choose between camera and phone, or choose between YouTube and 911, call the police, for heaven’s sake.
I wonder something, didn’t a Toronto cop suggest that women be carefull about where they go and what they do and that lead to the world wide SlutWalks.
Janet — Your comment seems a bit off-topic, but I’ll provide a quick explanation for you. The officer told the girls at a Toronto university that if they stopped dressing like sluts they would not have to worry about being raped. That’s paraphrasing, of course, but the main point he was trying to make is that women should be careful how they dress if they don’t want to be raped. The SlutWalks arose to protest the notion that the way women dress has anything to do with rape or sexual assalt.
” The officer told the girls at a Toronto university that if they stopped dressing like sluts they would not have to worry about being raped. That’s paraphrasing, of course”
Of course it’s paraphrasing, because that particular interpretation is far more beneficial than the truth. And for that reason, the truth is hard to find. It is near impossible to find a direct quote of the officer, because what he said was intentionally misconstrued to promote yet another “i’m a victim” march by feminists.
” but the main point he was trying to make is that women should be careful how they dress if they don’t want to be raped.”
Because a woman taking responsibility for ones own safety is anathema to gender feminists, and is, instead, a man’s responsibility, as we see in this very article.
I think Janet is aware of those details. She is politely pointing out the hypocrisy of a male cop recommending females dress differently; he had forsaken women and female victims by this ill advice, and by way of this, he exonerated men from bad behavior and crime. The hypocrisy: the men committed the crimes, but blamed placed on women.
When are men going to make other men accountable for bad behavior or inaction? Men don’t want to hear from women; when women do this, it’s seen as shaming/whining and NAGGING them…not appropriate behavior, not ladylike! Stop it bitches! It seems to me, only men can have a stronger and influential effect on boys and other men…be the same sex role models and mentors.
We know that men judge other men on status, financial wealth and loyalty…they’re competitive, so I feel that to effect change, men need to do the same thing — judge/pressure each other on building better values/family values, support — raise the bar. Women don’t have as much effect on certain behavioral changes on men (because we’re seen as a different species
), as the pressure from peers/other men. It’s still a patriarchal society, so I think a lot of the work (left) needs to be done by men. There, that’s my belief. Women/feminists can only do so much. It’s time that more men shined.
yeah, you really need to quit with this “man up” stuff. I tried doing the whole “protector” role and all it ever got me was taken advantage of. So you know what? I’m not doing it anymore. all these “strong independent women” can go protect themselves.
I’m done.
MichelleG writes:
“Women don’t have as much effect on certain behavioral changes on men (because we’re seen as a different species ), as the pressure from peers/other men.”
I would disagree with this. Something like 80% of men in prison from violence hail from fatherless homes (despite fatherless households only being about 30% of all households).
I would say women have a GIGANTIC influence in the next generation of criminals. It involves stop thinking children don’t need fathers.
“She is politely pointing out the hypocrisy of a male cop recommending females dress differently; he had forsaken women and female victims by this ill advice, and by way of this, he exonerated men from bad behavior and crime.”
By that logic, telling a child not to talk to strangers is forsaking children and exonerating child abductors. Or do you deem children to be more capable of being responsible for their own safety than women? Suggesting things that can increase ones risk of being noticed by a bar predator (and I do hate the use of dress as one of these factors, there are so many more significant elements that increase ones risk) is in no way exonerating the perpetrator, it is attempting to prevent the victimization in the first place.
“When are men going to make other men accountable for bad behavior or inaction?”
What are our laws for? given the gender discount women receive with regards to charges laid, sentencing and prosecution, they are clearly made to hold other men accountable. So, when are women going to start being accountable for their own safety (like we do with children) instead of insisting, as you do right here, that men act as their protectors?
“judge/pressure each other on building better values/family values, support — raise the bar. ”
Men have been killed by other men because a woman claimed (false or not) he raped her. How much more do you want to raise the bar? You are aware granting the accused due process isn’t not caring about rape, as much as you gender feminists like to portray it.
Regarding the bulk of your last paragraph, the same can be said about custody and false accusations, and it is women and feminists that need to speak out against this… but when any such thing is suggested, the vast majority of feminists will turn on men, making them out to be monsters, as you have very nearly done in this post to promote your men as protector gender role enforcement.
“Consider what occurred concerning the two women jumping the counter at McDonalds and the outrage directed at the man who defended himself and his co-workers against their criminal assault. Sure, he was cleared of wrongdoing after being shamed by the media and losing his job.”
According to this link: http://concreteloop.com/2011/10/news-update-mcdonalds-worker-appears-in-court-nyc
The issue is excessive force, not gender or right to defend yourself. The male employee used excessive force; he wielded a 3ft long metal rod (for cleaning the grill) to beat the two women, and cracked the skull of one of them. Remember the Rodney King controversy, where people got up in arms and accused the police officer of using excessive force, even though Rodney was the criminal and attacked first? So the former has a black man against two black females; the latter: a black man against white officers. The common denominator, is a black man; in the restaurant scenario, the black man is using excessive force, in the other… excessive force is used on the black man. So are we FOR excessive force or not?
Not sure how you can compare the training of police officers with a McDonald’s fry cook trying to defend himself. Pretty sure the officers actually had training and the McDonald’s guy didn’t.
But, to answere your question, apparently, we are FOR excessive force. Cite Trayvon Martin.
If the McDonald’s guy had a prison record I suspect he too was trained by the system.
His training would have consisted of being beaten by police and prison officials until he quit resisting or was no longer capable of being a threat to those who were “defending” themselves.
But I see them as completely different situations anyway. Rodney King was beat a group of police that were not directly threatened by him. The cops basically behaved like a gang of thugs doling out street justice.
The McDonald’s guy was defending himself from a direct aggressor. Should he have stopped sooner? Yeah probably, but I’m sure he wasn’t thinking rationally when he was defending his life (or thought he was).
MichelleG, you’ll find a court found the McDonalds cashier acted appropriately. he was facing two opponents who were acting aggressivelyt towards him, one had already struck him. He repeatedly instructed them to remain on the ground. When they attempted to rise to continue the fight he subdued them again with a single blow. He showed restraint, in the face of two attackers bent upon injuring him. It has already been found he did not use excessive force. The fact that two women got injured due to their own blind aggression and stupidity doesn’t make the cashier’s actions wrong.
Bear in mind, the cashier was struck first by one of the women attackers. The women entered the employee-only area to confront the cashier to render more physical attacks and they lost the confrontation.
You illustrate my point though, very well. Feminists are still trying to smear the cashier’s reputation by misrepresenting what happened. Even the initial news report skewed the events to make it look like it was an unprovoked attack upon two women patrons by the male cashier, they even modified the video they included as a link when it was pointed out that it contradicted the feminist babble of alleged journalist.
Also, the Mcdonalds worker did his due diligence (if a defender can ever be said to be responsible for the safety of their attackers). He retreated time and time again.
It was clear that the women were intent upon a violent resolution. The Mcdonalds worker had no way of knowing if they were on drugs, or had hidden some kind of weapon.
To suggest he acted differently is to suggest that when women attack men, the defending male is responsible for the safety of his female assailant and has to stand down and pray that she will be merciful and not slit his throat. If she then turned out to be on drugs she would get a reduced sentence, but he would still be dead.
The same things that creates a mitigation to legal culpability during sentencing of a crime (drugs and alcohol) are the same things that make assailants MUCH MORE DANGEROUS physically.
I remember reading a case of a man trying to breakup a fight at a party. The girl friend of one of the altercators thought that the breaking-it-up guy was trying to pile on to her boyfriend in an unfair 2vs1 thing. She broke a beer bottle, jump on his back and gouged the broken end into his face.
She permanently blinded him in one eye. Due to her innebriation and drug use (and ever-present female sentencing discount) she got 80 hours of community service and a $5000 fine.
The courts will not protect your life and safety. There is no way to know what is in a persons heart, what drugs they are on, or what weapons they have on their person.
What is clearly discernable from the video is that the two females are clearly angry and on the warpath. In my estimation the mcdonalds employee did everything in his power to de-escalate things and when that failed he appropriately defended himself.
Men are biologically programmed to defend others. It’s that simple. It’ll probably never change.
I choose to surpass my biology, it is why I chose the pen name I use.
The truth is, if you are lucky (and I’m speaking of both men and women) you will never be a witness to a violent or dangerous situation where you have to decide whether to intervene or not to help a stranger. But if you are ever faced with such a situation and you do nothing to help, ultimately you are the one who will have to live with your decision and decide later whether your reasons for inaction were good or bad. So if you don’t want to be a good Samaritan, then don’t. Under American law, there is no duty to render aid to another unless you created the peril or you have a special relationship with the victim. Just remember you will have to look at yourself in the mirror every day so be sure of your decision.
Amen to that.
I must lived a charmed life, I have encountered several incidences where I had to decide to intervene or not. Each one was a specific set of circumstances and each decision was made with full cognizance of the possible consequences and the certain knowledge that I did not know all the facts. So far I am not maimed, imprisoned nor does my conscience bother me.
Just to be clear, sometimes I have intervened and sometimes I have not. My body, my choice.