Category Archives: Links

Women don’t have the same rights to self-defense.

That article where a law professor argues that battered women are morally entitled to kill their abusers has an interesting quote:
“ Men can kill women with their bare hands, and they do. Women almost never kill men that way. They can’t. […] While very few women kill abusive men who are asleep or passed out, it’s “unfair” to charge them with first degree murder, Sheehy argues. “It’s not fair to characterize it as the most heinous form of murder, because it may be their own route to survival. ”
There have probably been feminist analyses of this already, but it’s worth discussing how the concept of self-defence, especially in domestic violence cases, was designed by men to benefit men. In my country at least, your attack is only considered “legitimate self-defence” if it is a) necessary, b) immediate, c) proportionate.
A concept of self-defence that only applies if you hurt or kill someone while they are attacking you, and if you hurt or kill them using the same weapons as them (your bare hands, if that’s what they are using) only benefits people who are likely to be attacked by people of similar size and physical strength, and is utterly useless to women.

When a bigger, stronger male beats up his much smaller wife, it’s almost impossible for her to kill him in self-defence (immediately and proportionately ie with nothing but her fists), and yet it’s the scenario through which she can hope to be acquitted or get a light sentence. That’s not a coincidence. The other two scenarios (and she will be despised if she picks either) are for her to
1) kill him later (when he can’t use his physical advantage, eg when he’s asleep or has his back turned on her), but it won’t be self-defence because it won’t be immediate. (In the Jacqueline Sauvage case, one of the main arguments against her was that she shot her husband in the back at a time when he wasn’t actively beating her up)
2) use a weapon, but it won’t be self-defence because it won’t be proportionate. Obviously this condition also benefits men, because when a woman gets punched by her husband and she punches him back, it’s seen as a proportionate response but it shouldn’t be, because her punch (typically) won’t do nearly as much damage as his. Anything else she does (like use a weapon) to try and hurt him as much as he hurt her will be considered a disproportionate response and will mean it wasn’t self-defence.

The idea that killing your abuser in a honest face-to-face fight with your bare hands is honourable and forgivable, but killing your abuser in any other way is shameful and wrong, utterly benefits men and protects men. It’s also why poison was historically reviled as a ‘female weapon’ and as the most cowardly way to kill someone. Poison has been described as “a great equalizer” – no wonder men hated it. Men have always hated, and will keep hating, shaming, and outlawing, any form of attack through which women can compensate our disadvantage in strength and size, and they will keep praising as the only valid method of self-defence, the method that presents the smallest risk of being effectively used by women against them.

Moral of the story? Woman leave a man, he kills her, medias romanticized his act as ‘he couldn’t live without her’ ‘he loved her too much’ passion crime

Woman stay, he abuse her and eventually their children, woman is to blame because she stayed

Woman protect herself with a weapon, murder and not self defense

Woman try to protect herself with her own strength, man kills her and probably can argue he defended himself

The only time a woman gets some sympathy is when she dies, kudos if she died protecting her children

Stereotypes against women are projections.

This post is worth reading. It has a lot of graphs and data so there’s not really any point in putting a quote here.

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal on: human exceptionalism, optimistic bias, Star Trek transporters.



From Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal (1, 2, 3).

Wow! Walter Block is still a fucking idiot

Another great quote from the champion of Libertarian idiocy, Walter Block:

Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to “associate” with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory.

Other Walter Block greatest hits:
Walter Block says saving someone’s life is a crime
Walter Block supports child prostitution
Walter Block says secretaries get paid to be sexually harassed

The funny thing is that no Libertarian commentator has ever been able to refute any of his “reasoning.” This is the best proof I know that Libertarians are evil, stupid, and insane.

The Adventures of Gyno-Star on: patriarchy, makeup, and corporate exploitation.



From The Adventures of Gyno-Star (1, 2, 3).

Waiting until beauty standards change?

From Clickhole: Body Positivity Win: Dove Is Offering To Freeze Women Until A Time When Their Bodies Are Conventionally Attractive

Dove is no stranger to running empowering advertising campaigns, but their latest effort is definitely their most ambitious and most inspiring yet. In an effort to give every woman the chance to feel valued, the company has taken body positivity to a new level: Dove is now offering to cryogenically freeze women until a time when their proportions are conventionally attractive.

Can we get a “hell yeah”? This is the breath of fresh air we’ve been looking for!

Women voting for Trump due to anti-feminism.

During an interview, Stephanie Coontz discusses why she thinks so many white women voted for Trump.

Most women do not like to be sexually harassed. Most women now say that they ought to get equal pay for equal work. But the fact remains that women who have the fewest opportunities to compete successfully in the labor market are the ones who are much more likely to support the policies and values that reward a traditional division of labor in the household.

Women with more social, economic, or educational capital are much more likely to support the activities of women making their own way in the world, to be proud when they see powerful women who stand up or who are getting ahead of men in any way, and they’re also much more open to supporting social policies that reward individual initiative even if they know that it’s not always rewarded equally.

Women with less economic or personal autonomy are often drawn to a culture of family values that emphasizes men’s responsibility to look after women. Women who have a shot at achieving or competing on their own emphasize equality, supporting the kind of policies that make it possible for them to move up in their jobs and combine work and family.

Women who want to be protected in the private sphere or need to be protected in the private sphere tend to emphasize the need to protect and privilege women’s special capacities for nurturing. I think it’s a big factor in the debates over contraception and sexuality and abortion. The flip side of women having all these freedoms from male control, they believe, is that it actually threatens women’s entitlement to male protection.

Existential Comics on: Anarchist Monopoly, Cat Philosophy

From Existential Comics (1, 2).