The Rule of Thumb
Men, I want to ask you something. How many times have you been slapped? By women I mean. How many times has a simple argument or perhaps a bawdy and hilarious joke been countered by a flagrant personal foul?
I myself have been slapped more times than I can count — upwards of eight. But in return, I have never hit anyone that didn’t deserve it.
And women never deserve it.
That’s because women don’t know what they’re doing or saying ever. Women speaking is like giving a teenager a book of French idioms with no translations and a bottle of Cognac. Within ten minutes, they’ll begin spouting complete and inappropriate gibberish at anyone who walks by and won’t be able to remember any of it the next day.
That doesn’t mean they should have their asses kicked for it though.
Irene Frieze has recently published a report on the issue of women and domestic violence. Upon doing so, she immediately took out a restraining order against “Every Psycho Feminist on Earth” who mobilized en masse to prove her findings correct.
Her findings?
Women are way more likely to initiate physical violence in a relationship or in the home.
I should note that I didn’t actually read her findings, but they’re something to that effect. That particular figure was just generated on the fly by me.
Because of Miss Frieze’s ice-cold, sexy findings, I’m officially naming her MenAreBetterThanWomen.com’s Honorary Man of the Month. Easy peasy, way to go Friezey. What Miss July has done here, is taken a big man-step in busting the myth that women are made of sugar and spice and things that are nice. They’re not. Women are made of vinegar and piss and are loud-mouthed and slap-happy.
That’s it. There’s no cute little rhyme there because I’m a man and I hate that manner of shit.
Related Articles:
July 22nd, 2005 at 7:04 pm - IP Man-Hash: aed2e5e49ce2e
I blame menstruation. All those fluctuating hormones make women completely unable to control the slightest emotional distress. I mean, we basically lose our entire personhood and just become bitchy, chocolate-craving entities of hemorrhaging and histrionics, am I right?
And I for one appreciate this philosophy of gender noblesse oblige, that you refrain from retaliating when we do get a little inappropriately slappy. Looking back on it now, I am really grateful of the patience my boss showed the other day when I slapped him after he grabbed my ass in the stock room. I mean, seriously, what was I thinking! I go around asking my girlfriends if my ass looks okay all the time, but when a man lets me know that he thinks my ass is definitely looking okay, I freak out. Hypocrisy, I know. I know. It is a daily struggle, but I shall overcome!
July 24th, 2005 at 10:59 am - IP Man-Hash: ac62c77584632
Vanessa,
Perhaps you should rethink your wardrobe or place of employment. It’s a common female misconception that when you’re in a bad environment you should start complaining as loud as possible to fix it.
-Dick
July 24th, 2005 at 7:48 pm - IP Man-Hash: cc0d45fa29251
I raise a mug for our honorary Man of the Month- women are full of vinegar and slap happy as all get out. What I don’t understand is why women insist of hitting guys when the most they get out of it is possibly hurting their own hand or wrist. You would think women folk had figured out by now the dangers involved with such careless and brash behavior.
July 26th, 2005 at 10:18 pm - IP Man-Hash: c3fbaaa189425
I for one have not hit a woman (unless it was playfully) and I have to agree with the above statement from Dick. Women do cause more domestic violence as far as I am concerned. I have been hit more times by women than I can count this includes: Slaping to the face, Kicking to the balls, Knees to the balls, Slaps to the arm. as you can see I have rarely been punched but it has happened and I would say that apart from maybe 4 times all of these were random hits for no reason because it was found funny by the woman striking me to see me squirm on the floor for a moment while I am on the floor due to a kick to the balls.
I have found when you playfight with a woman, it becomes slappy from her side and I always get brusied… hell I have been play fighting with a woman and been hit with a baseball bat [it was a small kids bat made out of wood]. Now the only times I have ever hurt a woman is by accident, for example and most common, grabbing her wrist to stop her kicking the shit out of me, then her screaming because she hurts herself trying to force herself out of my grip, if I let go I get a worse beating so usually I have to pin them and wait for there violent sore looser attitudes to calm down.
Women stop hitting us, If I hit a woman back that woman would never do it again, but as the gentleman I am, and the non violent person I am, I dont and never will hit a woman.
July 28th, 2005 at 6:47 am - IP Man-Hash: 46d8304bbb9af
Dick, why is it you insist that ‘there has never been anything wrong with any man ever’ which presumably includes spousal abusers, yet you also believe that ‘women never deserve being slapped’.
That’s quite a contradiction, even for you.
August 2nd, 2005 at 9:00 pm - IP Man-Hash: bab1b02bf8db4
I think accountability has a lot to do with this, or rather a severe lack of accountability. To be honest over the years I have noticed less and less men coming to the aide of females when they start shit. The ones do are usually pussies anyways. Ever since I put on 100lbs of rip (took 3 1/2 years) I make sure that when a broad hits a man and some chivarious male steps in for her I make it clear that he hits the man then I’ll hit him. It’s important to note that I sure as hell aint the toughest but at 6′4 295 pounds that fucker better listen to me. My logic is simple, people don’t wanna behave fine with me, I’m a big son-of-a-bitch and I wont behave either. Treat people with respect or we’ll alpha male it mutherfuckers.
NO FAT CHICKS!
August 3rd, 2005 at 6:52 am - IP Man-Hash: db4f4d26fe3ae
My god! This site is awsome. I am serious here.
August 5th, 2005 at 6:42 am - IP Man-Hash: 46d8304bbb9af
Don’t offend us and we won’t hit you. Simple as.
August 5th, 2005 at 5:23 pm - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
Nicole, brava, maddam! Another quote for posterity.
“Don’t offend us…and we won’t hit you.”
Brilliant! Equal rights rolls in its grave.
-Dick
August 7th, 2005 at 6:41 am - IP Man-Hash: 38965e6dfe89d
The main reason why women hit us is because were bigger and stronger and they know this and in knowing this hit us knowing that we barely feel it anyway.
August 15th, 2005 at 6:25 am - IP Man-Hash: b0e7aae980b2e
I think we must be charitable here and allow the women to flail away at us occasionally, as long as they use only their small, soft hands. After all, as men we can absorb a great deal of punishment and physical violence seems to be the only way a woman can articulate her ideas. As Vanessa indicates above, her reaction to her boss’s playful antics in the stockroom was to slap him. Of course, had a woman grabbed a man’s ass in the stockroom he would have handled the situation in the proper way, i.e. he would have dropped his trousers and allowed her to enjoy a tender moment of sharing that would have brought them both closer together as human beings and probably would have boosted their productivity for the company. Since women are generally confused due to menopause and PMS, we can’t seriously expect them to handle situations properly and so must treat them as we would treat a rambunctious llama. Allow them to hit, but if they hit too hard, give them a firm slap with a rolled-up newspaper.
August 20th, 2005 at 5:08 pm - IP Man-Hash: 46d8304bbb9af
Dick, feminist’s whole point is equal rights. Men like you are the only ones who don’t agree with that.
P.S. you probably deserved it when you were slapped.
August 20th, 2005 at 5:24 pm - IP Man-Hash: a0c7c73d83830
Deserved it? I enjoyed it.
-Dick
August 22nd, 2005 at 6:41 am - IP Man-Hash: 841b5a7609141
Nicole,
The point of feminism is to provide women with equal status to men; where the terms of equality are defined by feminism itself.
The focus is clearly on women, not on people in general. This focus is in direct contradiction to its intention of promoting “equality” as it itself promotes a divisiveness between genders through its focus on differing “male” and “female” genders, roles and sexes; as well as the claims that women need special treatment for issues, rather than dealing with the issues themselves in gender-neutral ways (ie: rape, domestic violence).
Although there is litterature in feminism talking about how society works against men; it is generally in regards to how men need to correct themselves or societies in order to benefit themselves; and of course women as well.
PS: “rule of thumb” was claimed by early feminists (printed as fact in women’s studies text books) as coming from an arcane british law saying that men had the right to beat their wives with a stick no thicker than their thumb. (Used as significant evidence for male oppression and violence towards women)
This has since been determined to be a fabrication.
http://www.canlaw.com/rights/thumbrul.htm
August 22nd, 2005 at 11:48 am - IP Man-Hash: 90732515db7b8
The reason that feminism is concerntrated on women is to address the inequalities of the past so that people of both genders can be on a level playing field.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:09 pm - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
That’s bullshit.
-Dick
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:28 pm - IP Man-Hash: 841b5a7609141
*sigh*…
It’s a contradiction. If feminism was concerned with gender equality; it would be promoting gender-neutral solutions to societal problems. Instead, it focuses on gender-specific solutions; while highlighting female-specific attitudes as problems.
Much of feminism doesn’t believe in pure equality of sexes, hence the whole (newer) “equal but different” philosophy. Further, the concept of “equal” is something that is continually defined, and redefined by feminist authors. This provides a mechanism for continuing “special status” claims even if/when statistically equivalent ratios are met between the sexes; perpetrating the exact conditions it claims to resolve. (See comments on Sweden, and circular logic). Don’t kid yourself. Feminism is big business in the modern world; and money talks.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:47 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0363c503d25ea
.
i wouldnt say “completely unable”… buy anywho,
violence doesnt answer anything. what ever happened to talking (or arguing…) things out? ive never slapped a guy, though at times i truly wanted to (just to be honest and all). actually i never slapped anyone except for the ONE occassion. it was another female. though deep down i think she deserved it, it wasnt right. we all make mistakes though, right?
September 25th, 2006 at 5:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0363c503d25ea
i think feminism would be defined as woman being greater than men. not equal. the whole guys are better than girls, girls are better than guys blahblahblah thing is so childish. it makes me think of elementary school, when we thought the other gender had “cooties”.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:58 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Yet only the boys’ belief were congruent with the truth.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:08 pm - IP Man-Hash: fcd0d386eb9be
W-Hortencia you could start off then by presenting examples of these inequalities.
You might also want to define level playing field and also specify whether you prefer equality of opportunity or outcome.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:22 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5b9daf5b1020d
Sounds like affirmative action. Hey cunt you obviously are a stupid harpie and don’t know biology so you’ll have to take my manly word for it.
FEMALES ARE NOT A RACE.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:01 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Hmmm… gwallan’s brand of left-wingism sounds remarkably sensible. Want to come over here and educate a few million Democrats? We’ll put Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Howard Dean in the remedial class.
I think some women are beginning to grasp this fact, though I don’t think feminism will, ever. And that’s too bad, for an inability to think logically about what you even want — and think through the consequences — renders it a singularly destructive force.
-wolfe
September 26th, 2006 at 5:38 am - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
Girls Have the Cooties.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:24 am - IP Man-Hash: 812decc0e5bdf
Hmmm… gwallan’s brand of left-wingism sounds remarkably sensible. Want to come over here and educate a few million Democrats? We’ll put Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Howard Dean in the remedial class.
Actually I find it difficult to view US Democrats as left whingers(oops). The centre point in US politics is way to the right of the Australian equivalent. I know we currently have a conservative federal government but our states(much larger balliwicks than US states) are dominated by the Labour Party.
I really worry about feminists who identify so strongly with socialism. They clearly are blind to how much feminism plays into the hands of capitalism generally and business particularly. I was a kid in sixties Australia. We were working class but got by OK. It took about one average income to support an average family. Apart from generally affordable mortgages most were debt free. Our society was well on the way to making it possible for all mothers to not need to work if they chose. Maybe we could then get a start on reducing the amount of work men needed to do. But something happened. Now it takes more than two incomes to support an average family. Part time jobs are far more the norm. Business has nearly doubled the size of it’s potential labour force and gets it much cheaper as a consequence. And what a great idea putting more wealth in the hands of women. Just check any ad break to see what they spend it on.
September 26th, 2006 at 3:28 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Hmmm… no I don’t buy that business gets its labor pool significantly more cheaply as a result of feminism. Keep in mind these are feminist women you are hiring!
You are correct in noting that the labor pool is hugely larger, and that no doubt there is some downward pressure on wages as a result. But frankly, a billion unionized feminist female clerical workers don’t impact the wages of plumbers much.
Also keep in mind, socialized/public jobs have grown hugely with the advent of feminism, and a great many women are filling those. It’s an interesting perspective though, and I’ll ponder it some more.
My quick answer, though, is that it doesn’t take two incomes to support an average family. It takes two incomes to support a family in the lifestyle to which many have become accustomed: two cars, the fancy mini-mcmansion (even if this is just a rowhouse/townhouse — not sure what the Aussie term is) and all the toys and labor-saving gadgets, including the vacuuming robot.
Much smaller pop and economy though. Kinda like Canadian Provinces. And that also tends to be the Canadian model — to some degree — A federal government of one stripe, and a provincial government of the other.
As for Democrats being far to the right of Labour, perhaps quite true. That said, they are largely creatures of the trial lawyers, unionists, government employees, feminists, and assorted other special interest groups.
I’m not sure what the #$)*#$ the Republicans are, nor, it appears are they. (The easy answer is creatures of the Insurance companies, small business, big business, oil… That appears to be an incorrect answer, judging by their performance).
-wolfe
September 29th, 2006 at 9:23 am - IP Man-Hash: c17d989f3617f
Sorry wolfe I missed your response here.
Please remember that as I work as a tax consultant I see income details for thousands of people every year. I also get to talk to these people about how difficult they find it to get by. My views are obviously slanted somewhat by this.
LOL Wolfe you disappoint me with your lack of belief in market forces. The two really significant changes in our workforce over four decades have been the rate of participation by women and the number of part time jobs(which women are also responsible for). This I do ascribe to feminism. At the same time the average income has declined significantly relative to the cost of living. Whether the two are linked is, of course, debatable.
But those billion unionized feminist female clerical workers do impact on the averages which are predominantly what we have to work with statistically. What I notice in my town is that those clerical workers earn a hell of a lot more than the numerous, and also highly unionised, factory workers. Women are well represented in both those areas.
For interest’s sake the salary and wage occupational areas that are consistantly above average are:-
Tradies both self employed and employee.
Professionals for obvious reasons.
Clerical workers which I find rediculous at times.
Nurses and teachers whom I don’t consider professionals.
Of these four groups the last two are the ones with the greatest proportion of women. Of the clerical workers the government ones significantly outearn those in private businesses but the gender balance is similar.
There are also large numbers of factory workers and retail employees all of whom are really battling.
The remarks I made about the necessary family incomes date from stats I saw in the mid nineties. You’ve identified the obvious problem which is how you define average and lifestyle. One notable thing about those stats at the time was that there wasn’t a political agenda involved and it did seem they had made a genuine effort to take into account the sort of things you mention. Bear in mind also that Aus average incomes seem to be significantly lower than those in the US. Our average incomes have lost significant ground against the cost of living consistantly for thirty years now. The last time income increases outstripped our CPI(Consumer Price Index) was in the early seventies.
Our two largest states have 4 and 5 million people. Also our states have full responsibility for the health and education systems. They are quite large operations.
Definitely. However I reckon the gap has closed in recent years with a fair move to the right by the ALP in the last twenty years and also a sense(possibly incorrect on my part) that the US Dems have gone a bit more left.
True here too and in both major parties. The number of lawyers really irritates me. I can’t respect people who make their living from lies, spin and deception. You must find me a bit contradictory with my involvement in politics alongside my hatred of politicians. I just reckon you can’t change anything from the outside.
Jeez don’t ask me. As for the Liberals in Australia I just get sick of their tendency to play wedge politics. Divide and conquer is the rule.
So now, having waffled incoherently for far too long at 2am, I should really admit that I just like blaming feminists. Any excuse will do. I feel quite justified too. The only thing feminists haven’t blamed men for is entropy and I’m sure they’d blame us for that too if they could find a woman who knew what physics was.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:16 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
@Dick we can take this to politik if you want, but it’s my view that a) we’re not arguing but discussing, and b) we agree feminists are to blame. They are long posts on gwallan’s and my part though.
Ha! Well said. I do believe in market forces, but I’d point out that “men are better than women”. You simply can’t hire a woman to do most ‘male’ jobs. I will grant you this: those jobs you can hire them to do, you have big downward pressure. Anything clerical, some assembly-line work (perhaps more than I realize — see below).
Also, in places like Canada, the government hugely distorts the market — nurse’s wages are a good example, they are artificially low. Surprise, there’s of course a nursing shortage. It’s easier for a dog to get an MRI, and months faster for it to get surgery — than it is for a human being. Gogo socialized medicine! (As a Christian I view the Canadian system as having some definite positives relative to the US system, but it’s pretty dreadful overall).
But women don’t rush out to drive trucks, become plumbers or electricians, engineers, surgeons, or even high-risk litigation lawyers.
That’s an excellent point I’d not adequately considered.
I agree, women are better represented in factory work than I’d given them credit for in my initial thinking (you recalled I said I’d have to ponder it).
The idea that clerical workers are better paid than unionized factory workers? That is odd. Certainly it’s not my experience, but I accept that it is the case in Australia.
This is not so much the case in the US and Canada. In fact, I think nurses are probably underpaid relative to the free market in Canada. (in the US they’re fine since it is a free market). Most nurses in the public health care system are 40-something, tired and burned out. Most young nurses go directly into the private sector where they rapidly earn 50-60% more.
Yeah, I’d agree retail employees have it bad, probably even worse in socialist Canada than in the US, but bad in both cases. You can’t raise a family on most of the wages paid. (This begs the question: increase minimum wage, thereby decreasing employment, or, say “too bad, get two jobs”, or… look at something like a Negative Income Tax. Increasingly I’m liking this idea despite it’s far left antecedents.)
Very similar to Canadian constitution. (US it’s only education). Largest provinces are ~12.5m and 8m (roughly). Largest US state, California, probably around 25m (too lazy to check).
Yeah. US has a higher general standard of living (though we’re hurt on most PPP — purchasing power parity — essentially nominal currency conversion based upon cost of a representative basic basket of goods between two regions/countries).
I have a degree of skepticism on some of this. CPI is a notorious mess in the US that historically includes all kinds of nonsense like the price of first class airline tickets — which tend to remain stable or increase relative to inflation, vs. economy fares which drop. As such, for measuring the burden on the poor, it’s a mediocre system.
One can also play ridiculous games with statistics — for instance, it seems that under Bush, median household incomes have declined. Oh nos, evil Bush. But… per capita incomes are nicely up. Hmmm… household sizes are smaller, with children of a mini-boom in 80’s moving out. More young people are now living on their own than with their parents. Could this be the discrepancy? Probably.
Note that I’m NOT saying to heck with the poor and that you’re wrong in your implication that it’s tougher to raise a family on one income, and that feminists have put downward pressure on wages. I am saying that, based on past experience, the stats need to be examined exceedingly closely and, as you suggest, apolitically.
I also don’t know enough about Australia to speak with great confidence.
Heh. I nearly wound up being Chairman (Finance) of the local district for a party that doesn’t begin with “D”. I’m glad I said no, because I’ve been drifting somewhat away from the party for a while, and there’s the residency/dual citizenship issue, and I really hate, loath and despise retail politics. So you’re either a better man than I, or a worse one. Or, most probably, both. And to be commended even if you are a crazy socialist j/k. You’re dead right: one has no right to complain about how the sausages are made until one tries to improve it.
I think you’re probably right that the Dems have drifted left, partly in reaction.
As for wedge politics, it’s my honest view that the Dems do that much more in the States than the Reps. The Republicans have a couple of giant constituency: white males (to a lesser degree Asian males) and married/employed people. The Democrats assemble bizarre ramshackle coalitions; they play the race card at every turn; they seem a very divisive force to me. In fairness, a Democrat might see it very differently. Wedge issues like racial preferences, union-backing-bills, feminist abortion grist, these are all good for Dems. (In fairness, the Republicans play some games with the religious right).
Points of disagreement? Well, I like John Howard. Loved how he smacked down the media who tried to claim Bali was caused by intervening in Iraq.
Points of agreement? We both like blaming feminists. And I agree, I was overly dismissive on first pass, on the impact of women in the labor force/feminism on wages. (My error was to grossly underestimate their presence in factories, and somewhat to underestimate the effect of governmental unionized clerical jobs, though I put the latter down to the socialists!).
If there were more leftists like you, you’d win a lot more elections.
-wolfe
July 19th, 2007 at 4:56 pm - IP Man-Hash: 9419ffad6ab4f
Hey bitch…dont steal the logic of affirmative action..blacks in this country truly suffered and not in that paris hilton way your so describing….bitch…
July 19th, 2007 at 9:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5fd634f6ed1ed
Exactly. In most countries too including England and France. Black people have been worse treated than any women.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:06 pm - IP Man-Hash: e0f131a688f70
So I guess it’s ok for men to be violent just because the women initiates the fight. Obviously she is wrong. Violent confrontation resulting in serious injuries and possible death are just wrong. It has nothing to do with who started it. It’s like a five year old crying “Wah~ He/she started it first!” It’s still fucking wrong
Grow up
December 17th, 2007 at 7:24 pm - IP Man-Hash: 720a12647a390
You admitting that women act like 5 year olds? Good to see. However, sadly, they’re adults, and therefore ought to be held accountable for their actions like all other adults.
January 26th, 2008 at 7:27 am - IP Man-Hash: 7883c4f2b5c56
That doesn’t sound like affirmative action at all, and he never said females are a race. Sounds like you’re an idiot.
January 26th, 2008 at 7:56 am - IP Man-Hash: e1d053ca78a67
Civilization that you females take for granted was built on the backs of men. Infrastructure that you females take for granted is maintained by men. When women start marching to have 50pct of the garbage, sewage and other cruddy jobs with no status then I will believe they want equity.
Until then, fuck off with your rationalizations on why women are, and have had, the majority vote for over 100 years and are still feeding at the trough of entitlements while screaming victim.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:24 pm - IP Man-Hash: 90850f55d960b
yes Dick, that is bullshit. Women want “special” rights, they dont want a equal playing field.
-the man-space invader-
June 26th, 2008 at 4:46 pm - IP Man-Hash: 8a37b6454e781
That’s how I feel about this site.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah…. Pink Panther style.
Women are way more likely to initiate physical violence in a relationship or in the home?
I’ve never seen this personally in my life. I have seen my grandmother strangled half to death by a man ( her husband) a military man, and watched my aunt get murdered by a man. I have almost been murdered by 2 guys. I was drowned by a man once and almost stabbed, for no reason . I have no sympathy for myself honestly because I learned from it and grew up. It’s life, I take what I get and move forward. If that doesn’t make sense then you have no sense. If that isn’t logical, it makes perfect sense to me why.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:15 pm - IP Man-Hash: 666508dec08b7
Going to go out on a limb here, but maybe you should hang with a different crowd of people…..
June 26th, 2008 at 8:42 pm - IP Man-Hash: ac5e782dab2ad
See this is were you ask the question……..maybe i come from a family of, very unbearable people. Judging by all your posts, i make my case and leave it at that.
How about you ask about every guy that posts here about the subject? ill bet they’ll give you a perfect example of a woman initiating physical violence. I mean its easy to see why, what man would hit a woman in a public setting? or in any setting for that matter? Its waaay more likely for man to not respond physically when a woman hits them then it is for a woman not to hit a man to begin with. Just obvious stuff here, but you have to figure it in when you talk about domestic violence and stupid bitches starting shit at bars. Just because more men are caught beating their wives, does not mean the opposite does not happen muuuch more. “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence” -some MAN