Skip to content

“Domestic Violence” (Fabricated Domestic Violence) Against Heterosexual Men is Hilarious!

December 8, 2009

All you nice little women lined up to campaign for the poor menz, the line for cookies is over to the right. Bon appétit.

God sende hem soone a verray pestilence! –Chaucer’s, The Wife of Bath

How in the hell is what Chris Brown actually did to Rhianna compared to what is speculated that Elin Nordegren did to Tiger Woods? Key words to compare are actually did and speculated, the former collective (Rhianna as a female victim of male violence) denotes proof reinforced by history, the latter collective (Tiger Woods as a male victim of female violence) denotes no proof with little to no history. Place in context with reality and in the imaginations of male identified whiners, we have men actually beating women equal to women occasionally communicating outrage.

Alert Homeland Security, men are in jeopardy of getting bruised egos because a few women lose their patriarchal constructed feminine composure and animatedly express how they did not particularly like a male partner sticking his fucking dick in not one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, but nine and counting other women after promising not to.

She raised her voice, –and ran after him, ——————“AH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE! YOU FEMALE DEMON, YOU NEED ANGER MANAGEMENT LIKE YESTERDAY!”

There is nothing wrong with laughing at an unreality.

“Domestic violence” (fabricated domestic violence) against heterosexual men “inflicted” on him by his heterosexual female partner is hilarious because it is a FANTASY that patriarchal institutions will never allow to become a reality! If you have not noticed, men have the power. Humor seekers are free to consume harmless fantasies that do not reflect reality. In other words, ripe apples and plastic oranges. Domestic violence against women is not “domestic violence” against men. To interchange the two is a disservice to all the women who have been battered by men.

That is why when an opportunity arises to laugh, it is an opportunity that I have no shame partaking. As a child, I laughed my ass off at Andy Capp when his wife met him at the door. After sucking down suds after suds that he could not possibly afford, Andy Capp went home wasted every single night. Hark, the luxury of stumbling home drunk without being molested. Each break of dawn that Capp staggered home meant an inferred morning that he would not be up and looking for work, –an activity that provides men with more money than it does for women. Yes, it is hilarious watching his dispirited wife get a good lick in with a heavy patina-perfect skillet on his big fat singular-minded head. If she is going to be stuck with him (and often stuck is the operative reality), she needs a coping mechanism. How is it that he can drink money away, not work, and insist on being emotionally unavailable, and it is side splitting when he falls off a bar stool or reacts bug-eyed at her hair rollers. Yet, suddenly, it is not funny when she mitigates her pain and suffering? If he had hit her (which would always be more violent and severe than anything a woman ever does to a man), the first assumption would be that she provoked him. It would be surmised that she deserved her fate because she was not cleaning or cooking well enough, or economizing properly, and/or that she had committed an indiscretion.

Little skits about Tiger Woods on Saturday Night Live pleading for help are hilarious. It is hilarious because the reality of it is an unreality. Tiger Woods has over a billion dollars. Tiger Woods had his wife sign a prenuptial agreement. In a patriarchy, Tiger Woods can get up and leave any minute he pleases and not for once worry about where he is going to live, how he is going to pay for food, shelter, and clothing, nor does he has to worry about the social stigma of leaving his children with the female parent.

“And and and and everyone knows that nothing is considered important or a worthy cause unless it centers around men, so all you should stop laughing and let the world think that men get beaten up by women as often and to the same degree as women get beaten up by men, and then just maybe, just maybe, the menz might give a rat’s ass.”

Yeah, men will care enough by getting charges dropped against them by counter accusing women, and the patriarchal institutions will be on their side more so than they are now. Why? Because they are patriarchal institutions. Duh! People’s cries about the menz infer that domestic violence is not a worthy cause unless male victims can be identified in order to legitimize and justify public concern. In a male dominated society, public concern will always be utilized to benefit men first. Therefore, the act of worrying about men does nothing but preserve the status quo.

6 Comments
  1. December 9, 2009 4:11 am

    I think it’s funny too. I don’t know what it will take for women to realize that women’s liberation from male supremacy isn’t about being “fair and balanced.” Fucking male supremacy isn’t “fair and balanced,” so I don’t understand why they think the solution would be. It might also behoove them to understand that “fair and balanced” is a male-born concept insofar as it is used to further the pretense that the disadvantaged and the oppressors ought to be given an equal platform to air their perspectives.

  2. joankelly6000 permalink
    December 9, 2009 1:55 pm

    “I don’t know what it will take for women to realize that women’s liberation from male supremacy isn’t about being “fair and balanced.””

    Thinking about this, I don’t really know what I believe anymore. Sometimes it seems like the only women who will even consider that (in my view anyway) what women as a class need is liberation from male supremacy, not equality to males in a male-run system, are the women who are getting the absolute worst deal of all. Except, plenty such women also don’t see it that way – plenty of women getting the worst of it from males do go along with and insist on propagating male supremacy themselves.

    But the getting-some-benefits from white male supremacy women, they seem perfectly content to pipe up about “more rights” and “equality” (versus freedom) while cluck-clucking about how they “have” to take care of grown male spouses when said spouses get sick, and what a drag that is. I mean, someone in their own life who won’t just say “hi I’m sick too so no you don’t get to be the 200 pound toddler I’m expected to take care of as well” – what meaning would her participation in women’s liberation have anyway? She wants *more* maleness, in a sense, not less – that’s what I think of with the “equality” business – it’s not even more *for* females as a class, but more *maleness* for individual female people, whatever they can get their hands on.

    I know we’ve talked about it before, Margie, and I am still stumped. And sad, and weirded out that I even think about these things – this worry I have that, what if there is something inherent to femaleness that is actually okay with male supremacy? How the fuck am I supposed to come to the conclusion that any female people who are against male supremacy, and actively stand against it, aren’t just aberrations, when the overwhelming majority of female people seem to be as invested in male supremacy as males are?

    As to the Tiger Woods thing and violence – I don’t know why people are speculating or joking that he might have been attacked by his wife. I’m personally not comfortable with anyone physically attacking someone else out of just being angry that they realize they’re stuck with a jackass. But what bothers me about the whole “domestic violence is more insidious against men because they’re ashamed when it happens to them so it doesn’t get talked about so it’s not funny!” business is this:

    Women also are ashamed, and also don’t talk about it or seek help, not that anyone would fucking notice. That whole paralyzing-shame thing is only real when men feel it I guess.

    and

    One reason at least that I believe men don’t report/seek help – one reason for *their* shame, is plain old misogyny – men are understood to be EXTRA ashamed when beaten by female spouses because it is considered a feminizing thing, to be beaten. I’m not fooled by the fact that no one says it out loud, they don’t have to – when you say that “men are more ashamed when it happens to them and so much less likely to report it,” what you’re saying is “because it’s something that’s only supposed to happen to WOMEN.” Which means, it’s SUPPOSED to happen to women.

    So cry me a fucking river with the “oh my god are we women turning into callous monsters” business.

  3. December 9, 2009 2:42 pm

    Women enforce, reiterate, and perpetuate their socially assigned roles as caregivers when they attempt this fair and balance crap. It is like saying, I’m going to give a rich man five dollars and a poor man five dollars. See, all is fair!

    If I had witnessed many men, actually just a significant increase, take the initiative to talk about domestic violence inflicted on women by men, before a potential case (not even an actual case) of such popped up with the victim being male, I may have entertained this equality pursuit. But in the last fifteen years that I have been paying attention, I’ve only seen men speak up when it happens to one of them. Any other time they are more than happy not to talk about the topic.

    Now that tyrannies have invaded the feminist movement, undercover males are pressuring women to not dare think of women first, but again, think of men first. What about the menz!

    And not for a second do I think it is innate for a woman to be caregivers to men. It is socially demanded. Obviously, she gets more points when she complains about having to take care of a pathetic ass than if she left him to his own devices. As I complained before about a friend who likes the words “my husband,” regardless of what follows those two words, she is superior to the husbandless women simply because she can say “my husband.” In her little church group those husbandless women have learned to feel inferior.

  4. atheistwoman permalink
    December 9, 2009 3:45 pm

    Most women I know, when they get together *only* talk about the men they know. If it’s not their husband it’s their brother or their father or their “fuck buddy” or their “bff.”

    • December 9, 2009 4:50 pm

      Ugh.

      I am happy to say last Saturday I spent six hours with a group of women at a volunteer function where not one woman mentioned a man. The topics were all about other things. One woman did mention how she is being pestered to have more than one child. I don’t think she said by who though. She went into the expense and from there the topic went toward money.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      December 9, 2009 6:43 pm

      It must have been a Christmas miracles! Lol. At the moment I am very lucky, and the friends I have now are not male-lovers, and are interested in a wide-range of topics which have little to do with men. But it took me twenty years to find them!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: