Gender and Genitals

Wow its been a while I since I last posted here. With N bowing out I need to make sure April doesn’t get discouraged. Here goes.

Okay in kind of in tune with my last post I want to talk about gender and violence but this time instead of rape I want to talk about genitals (as the title says).

I’m going to go straight to the point.

Why is it socially acceptable for a female* to hit a male* in the genitals regardless of the circumstances?

Now I want to start from the get go by saying that I’m not talking about the actual justifiable instances such as fending off an attacker.

I’m talking about how like in the Beverly Hillbillies movie when Ellie Mae Clampett in that wrestling match blatantly hit her opponent in the testicles. I’ve yet to hear of any high school wrestling association where intentional hits to the genitals were allowed.

I’m talking about all those movies and media where when a female is simply pissed off at a guy she responds by kicking him in the testicles. If he says something she doesn’t like kick him in the testicles. If he does something that she doesn’t like (but not including physical contact with her person) kick him in the testicles. If she does something as innocent as swing a bag the wrong way and hits him in the testicles she seems to be split between laughing and being concerned for him.

Now some will say that its acceptable because the violence that females commit against males is not taken seriously because of the belief that a female really can’t hurt a male but I think there is more to it than that.

The reason I say there is more to it than that is because when a female attacks a male in this manner its often not simply just written off as not serious but said female is actively encouraged and praised for attacking in such a painful manner even when its not called for. (And allow me to assure you. As a person who carries a pair of testicles getting hit in them HURTS A LOT.) Like when Ellie Mae stomped on her opponents testicles during that match all you hear from the crowd is the “oooooo!” and then praise for her winning the match, despite using very dirty moves.

Now given how she performed in that match I think it was pretty clear that she was on par with him. So why is such an attacked allowed to go unquestioned?

Maybe it has something to do with being a “real man” (as The System says that those who carry testicles must be men but that’s another story for another day) meaning not responding to pain so therefore if a male doubles over after such a hit its a sign of his weakness aka proof that he is not a man and thus the greenlight to ridicule him lights up. Ergo when Ellie Mae won that match, even with illegal moves, it was still passed off as a humiliation on his part.

Moving on from Ellie Mae look at how a hit to the testicles is often used as a comic device. Need a quick laugh? Hit someone below the belt. And beyond the whole thing about how females can’t really hurt males this seems to be a way for a quick random laugh whether its done by a female, male, animal, or inanimate object (extra points if said male does something that causes a chain reaction that ends with a hit to their own genitals).

Are you by chance familiar with America’s Funniest Home Videos? It was (or is I’m not sure if its still running) a weekly tv show in which people sent in funny clips in hopes of winning a $25,000 cash prize. You would not believe how many “guy gets hit in the nuts” videos aired on that show during the years. Whether by men, women, children, pets, or fault of their own can you really imagine videos of females getting hit in the genitals being up for cash prizes on prime time television?

So I suppose the question should be:
Why is it that a male* getting hit in the genitals is not just socially acceptable but seen as funny and is encouraged and praised, regardless of the circumstance?

Just wondering.

* – I’m using male and female here instead of boy/man and girl/woman because I’m breaking this down by genitals we carry, not by the presentation that we go by. And for the most part those who carry testicles, those who are made fun of for getting hit there, are male

This entry was posted in Gender, Health, Violence and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Gender and Genitals

  1. April says:

    Danny… I have absolutely no idea why we’re supposed to think that men being hit in the genitals is funny.

    I read this post expecting to disagree with you on some little point, as usual, but… no, not this time.

    I could offer theories, though. Hitting men in the genitals seems to be seen as humorous because no guy that we see as having his genitals kicked or having something thrown at them, etc., because the consequences of the assault are not portrayed to be serious or permanent– although we know that’s not necessarily the reality.

    And the reason why the abuse of females’ genitals aren’t routinely used as punchlines could be… well, a whole bunch of other things associated with womanhood or our body parts are routinely made fun of (menstruation) or ridiculed (assumed lack of physical strength) or exploited (all sexualized ads, TV shows, etc. involving the female body in a sexual sense).

    None of that, though, negates the fact that those “below the belt” attacks on males being seen as funny or otherwise “okay” is really fucked up.

  2. elementary_watson says:

    A bunch of other things associated with manhood and our bodies also are routinely made fun of: Involuntary erections, premature ejaculation, men losing 90% of their IQ points once a hot woman walks by in slo-mo … (Okay, I admit, my mind probably would also take a time-out should I se anyone walking in slo-mo in real life, but you get the point).

    I do agree that “women’s bodies are icky” is often used for comedy, but so is “men’s bodies are so yuck”; IMO violence against women is hardly used as a punchline (except for shock value) because it is. Not. Funny. At. All.

    Whereas violence against men *can* be made funny (to a general audience, that is), and combining it with a little humiliation and the “men’s bodies are yuck” trope, you get an instant moment of classic comedy and hilarity.

  3. ginmar says:

    Jesus. You’re talking about movies and TV, which means you’re talking about male writers. Why don’t you think about that?

    • Danny says:

      Because like any show or aspect of culture it needs people to buy into it in order for it to continue. So as much as you would like to blame men for all of this that is not the case. Those male writers wouldn’t be able to make a living writing such content if it weren’t for the men AND women who consume such entertainment.

      And besides I didn’t realize that there were absolutely no women writers in the tv/movie business.

  4. ginmar says:

    You’re a disgingenuous fuck. Gee, I’m sure this kind of bullshit serves no male agenda at all. Oh, teh poor victimized FICTIONAL menz!

    I love it! You’re bitching and moaning about men that don’t even exist, in an industry dominated by men, and yet you want women to have half the blame.

    A woman just won an Oscar for Best Director for the first time in history. That ought to tell you something—if you weren’t determined to pile up the strawwomen and light a pyre.

    • Danny says:

      I thought I recognized you and your ranting makes it clear to me that I do.

    • Danny says:

      I love it! You’re bitching and moaning about men that don’t even exist, in an industry dominated by men, and yet you want women to have half the blame.
      Funny I thought feminism in all its wisdom examined all parts of culture not just the ones where the blame can be placed (or in your cased forced) on men. I don’t recall feminist critique of something coming to a sudden halt because said something that’s not real (unless the feminists that properly raise hell over the rape games in Japan quieted down when told, “It’s just a game.”)

      Maybe if you weren’t trying to hold all men guilty by gender association (followed by getting your head out of your ass) you would realize that.

      …if you weren’t determined to pile up the strawwomen and light a pyre.
      Unless you can prove that no woman don’t enjoy such content then its they aren’t strawwomen now are they? But what do expect from someone that probably wants to pile all the men up and light a pyre…

    • ginmar says:

      Look at the spin! No movie titles, no TV shows, NOTHING. Where’s your argument? Where’s YOUR proof that this is some phenomenon? You’ve got a fifty-year-old sitcom that never showed what you claim it showed.

      So, in summation: zip.

    • April says:

      The fact that men are most of the writers/directors/producers responsible for this behavior has nothing to do with the fact that it’s sexist and problematic. I can think of a whole hell of a lot of women who perpetuate misogyny, and other unequal behavior. And Danny didn’t blame women for anything. He quite clearly blamed the system and asked a very simple question:

      Why is it that a male* getting hit in the genitals is not just socially acceptable but seen as funny and is encouraged and praised, regardless of the circumstance?

      While you’re right about the fact that women aren’t equal players in Hollywood, that has nothing to do with what Danny is talking about, at all.

    • ginmar says:

      The system in this case is male. Danny says “Why is it socially acceptable for women to hit men in the balls?” That answers the blame game.

    • April says:

      While I’d rather call it “patriarchy” or even “kyriarchy” instead of male, seeing as how a lot more than maleness makes up the system, let’s just call it male for the sake of this argument.

      The system is male, movies are made within the system, and lots of female characters kick male characters in the balls. Danny talks about how he doesn’t like that, and asks the rhetorical question, “why is it socially acceptable for women to hit men in the balls?”

      I don’t know how often you read the blog, but Danny tends to post about the negative impacts the patriarchy has on men. This would be an example of that. And he doesn’t blame women for this phenomenon, either. I still have yet to see where he blames women.

  5. ginmar says:

    Also: Ellie Mae Clampett? Like, from 50 fuckin’ years ago?! Name names. You’re so upset about this phenom, let’s see some titles that actually take place in this century–and I don’t think Ellie Mae kicking a guy in the crotch would get through the censors of the time, by the way. Do you have any proof that this actually happened on the show?

    • Danny says:

      Also: Ellie Mae Clampett? Like, from 50 fuckin’ years ago?!
      Now that I realize who you are I do remember a distinct tendency to not pay attention to detail (or at least ones that may actually point towards a woman being wrong) before going off the deep end like an angry child. I’m not talking about the original show I’m talking about the remake from about 10 or so years ago.

      Do you have any proof that this actually happened on the show?
      I would like to just say, “Do me a favor you fucking trollish twit and go watch the movie your goddamn self.” but since you are so fucking dead set on declaring that women are the victims of everything and refuse to acknowledge that men are treated unfairly I’ll actually save your horrible ass some effort.

      Oh and yes he did deserve to get put in his place for presuming a woman can’t wrestle but my point is she could have easily set the record straight without that underhanded tactic. But I can’t expect too much from a person that actually proves that evil man hating feminists actually exist.

      So go watch the goddamn clip you fucking trollish twit.

    • ginmar says:

      God, you’re pathetic. It’s got seven writers, all of them men. The director was a woman, I’ll give you that—but that’s seven to one.

      Writing credits
      Paul Henning (television series)

      Lawrence Konner (story) &
      Mark Rosenthal (story)

      Lawrence Konner (screenplay) &
      Mark Rosenthal (screenplay) and
      Jim Fisher (screenplay) &
      Jim Staahl

      That’s all you got? That and your pathetic ad homs. You’re basically trolling your own blog.

    • Danny says:

      Wow you really are a fucking moron. I mean I didn’t want to just say you’re a fucking moron but you really are a fucking moron.

      What exactly does the gender split of the crew have to do with the fact the both men and women find this type of violence acceptable?

      And as for trolling my own blog what can I say. I’ve crossed paths with you before and just had to know if you were still just a silly bitch that’s not worth the corner of cyberspace you occupy.

      And now that I know you are I’m done with you….

    • ginmar says:

      Yeah, seriously, take it up with the men who write this shit and ask them. It’s not socially acceptable for women to do this. But you want to be a victim, whine all you want.

  6. Tamen says:

    River grabbing and kicking Jayne’s groin in Serenity. A film written by admittedly a man, but a declared feminist man: Joss Whedon.
    Ca. 1:11 into this clip:

    Ca 5.24 into this clip of Austin Powers:

    Ca 30 sec into this clip of The Mask:

    Ca 1:30 into this clip of Miss Congeniality:

    which by the way have two female co-writers: Katie Ford and Caryn Lucas

    Ca (.05 into this clip of Private Resort:

    • ginmar says:

      All written by men. Joss Whedon’s feminist credentials are about as valid as Jim CAmeron’s, but with more pretense. So. That’s it? Fail.

    • Klytaimnestra says:

      No one’s perfect, but I think Whedon’s claim to be a feminist is pretty well-founded. An interesting article on that very point showed up just today on, but the link will only work for a week (after that they charge). Have a look here:

    • ginmar says:

      Really? Explain “Dollhouse” to me, then.

    • ginmar says:

      Oh, God, and then there’s the awful shit from the various “Firefly” episodes and movie. Slut shaming for the win!

    • April says:

      Slut shaming? Are you referring to Mal’s comments about Inara’s job as a companion? Mal is a character that Whedon wrote. Inara is a character that Whedon wrote. Mal’s and Inara’s characters– not Joss Whedon– have conversations with one another, and their personalities are much of what informs their conversations. In case you haven’t noticed, Mal’s negative comments about Inara’s job are never left unchecked by Inara and other characters.

      Remember when Sephorra “married” Mal, and he didn’t want to be married to her, and Jayne started to touch Sephorra and claimed that he’d take her if Mal didn’t want her? And how Zoe and others immediately showed disgust and disapproval and didn’t allow it to continue?

      To write a show with a misogynist character, and another character who disapproves of sex work, does not mean that the writer is a misogynist. Especially when all misogyny is countered and called out by other characters. To claim that Whedon is slut-shaming is ridiculous. Whedon obviously did not include those characters and their misogynistic tendencies (Jayne’s, anyway; Mal is quite egalitarian, for the most part) because he appreciated them and likes to exhibit the qualities himself.

    • ginmar says:

      Mal’s slut shaming were so out-of-bounds that they call into question the issues of his writer. Whedon talks a good game, but he never accomplished anything with Inara and Firefly but bashing sex workers. Also, the waifish ninety-pound superhero thing? Yeah, that’s realistic and not pandering to sexist tropes at all.

    • April says:

      Whedon talks a good game, but he never accomplished anything with Inara and Firefly but bashing sex workers.

      Is that why the show has an obsessive cult following? Because all the fans hate women who work in the sex industry? I doubt that strongly.

      Anyway, the relationship between Mal and Inara gets noticeably better and more complex toward the end of the season, and Mal starts showing concern over her potential for staying in business on a certain planet. It’s clear that he was planning on doing a lot more with their relationship in coming seasons, but it was canceled.

      The ninety-pound superhero was a psychic genius with the ability to learn new physical moves in a nanosecond. That was the character. I can hardly imagine that they thought, “Let’s get the skinniest, teeniest girl possible to play a 17-year-old superhero!” In fact, River had very few scenes where she actually fought. The other woman who fought a lot was known for her warrior abilities and was in no way a “waif.”

      Did you actually watch more than an episode or two? It sounds like you’re pulling random bits that you may have caught, and combining it with other people’s opinions.

    • Danny says:

      April this is not the first time that someone tried to put Firefly through a feminist critique. And its also not the first one to fail miserably. The other that I saw actually tried to call foul on the fact that Zoe called Mal sir. The only people that would try to say that is sexism are people who didn’t know that Mal and Zoe are old war buddies and Mal outranked Zoe in their military days (which come on you learn that in the first episode).

    • April says:

      I watched Serenity for the first time last night, after having a Firefly marathon for the previous two nights. I think, in the process of analyzing both of them, we got some parts confused. I was responding to Ginmar’s critique of Firefly, while she was responding to someone’s clip of Serenity. After having watched the movie last night, I see now what Ginmar was talking about with the “superhero” thing, as River keeps randomly beating everyone up, and eventually saves her brother, and kills the Reavers.

      My overall thoughts on Serenity? I wasn’t all that impressed. It was far too Hollywood-action-flick for my taste and there was hardly a plot. There were a ton of overdone and idiotic stereotypes in the movie that are the reason I watch maybe two movies every six months. That crap bores me senseless.

      But Firefly was awesome, and I stand by my defense of the show.

    • Tamen says:

      Since Kathryn Bigelow were mentioned I note that she’s used this trope in her film “Strange days” (,

    • ginmar says:

      Fifteen year old film. Male on male violence.

      Your point?

      Wah, wah, wah, men writing about men getting kicked in the balls. What’s his face is acting like it’s a big deal when it’s (fictional) women kicking (fictional) men in the (fictional) balls, in an overwhelmingly-male dominated industry.

      So what does it do when men portray women as kicking men in the balls? It invalidates women, for starters. The dipshits getting offended at this never get angry at the male writers. They blame women instead. And that right there serves male agendas.

      Case closed.

      I do look forward to watching all the apologists ignore these simple facts, however.

  7. ginmar says:

    Oh, wait, sorry. MC was only directed by a man and written by a man. So…again, that’s it? Somebody wants to whine, apparently.

  8. Tamen says:

    Ahem, I don’t pull stuff out of my ass. Miss Congeniality was directed by a man (Donald Petrie) and written by two women (Katie Ford and Caryn Lucas) and one man (Marc Lawrence):

    Please supply your source of you want to uphold the assertion that Miss Congeniality were only directed by a man and written by a man.

    • ginmar says:

      So….you have ONE movie from ten years ago that had a head writer who was a man, plus a director who was a man, and you have a male-dominated industry. And your point would be….what, exactly?

      God, the dishonesty here is enough to make a person puke.

    • ginmar says:

      Gee, lookie that. No reply.

  9. Paul says:

    Hold on a sec -please point out to me where Danny specifically placed the blame for this at the feet of women, becaus I apparently missed it.

    What he said was that female-on-male violence isn’t seen as a problem, and often seen as humorous, and that this needed to stop.

    I see no “blaming women” in the entire post. Quick trying to distract from the point.

    • ginmar says:

      Hm. He’s whining about how this is a big deal, and he refuses to acknowledge that men dominate the entertainment industry. It’s a simple matter. CAn you read?

    • Paul says:

      Yes, and apparently YOU can’t. I asked where he “blamed women” (as a whole) for this, which is what you accused him of. You then completely failed to point out where Danny actually said this, which is what *I* asked.

      The only thing that Danny says that’s even *close* to blaming women in this piece is to say they’re “not *completely* innocent.” OMG!!!!1! Teh Missoggynee!

      Seriously, go peddle your bullshit on the blogs that are *actually* hostile to women.

    • Danny says:

      Ok limiter off.

      Listen silly bitch* take your head out of your ass and realize that the point I am making is as Paul said female against male violence is presented as funny when its not. Now regardless who who is writing the material there are men AND women who buy into this bullshit.

      It seems that Paul has no trouble reading that since he was able to see that. Tamen and Klytaimnestra seem to be able to read that as well. So that pretty much leaves your whining, bitching, pissing, and moaning as the only thing here which is only trying to redirect this into “men dominate the industry” as if that’s the only problem at hand. So unless women really don’t have the free minds to choose not to laugh at the content they are presented with I highly recommend you take Paul’s advice and peddle you troll shit in places that actually are hostile to women.

      The problem isn’t the people making the content is the people that consume the content and justify making more of it.

    • ginmar says:

      “Listen, silly bitch….”

      So much for your pretenses to legitimacy. What an MRA whiner.

    • ginmar says:

      “Why is it socially acceptable for women to kick men in the balls?”

      Pretty clear to me.

    • Jim says:

      I rest my case. XXX is so pathetic.

  10. ballgame says:

    A fascinating and grimly amusing thread, which raises the philosophical question:

    Is it better to have posted,
    And gotten comments from ginmar,
    Than to have posted,
    And gotten no comments at all?

    • Danny says:

      I shall answer you with a haiku.

      I called for no harm.
      But the bitch came anyway.
      So I let it rip.

    • ginmar says:

      “Bitch”? I rest my case. MRAs are so pathetic.

    • ginmar says:

      Oh, look! One of the most notorious anti-feminist trolls in the blogosphere! Congratulations, your site’s agenda is obvious.

    • April says:

      While repeated use of “bitch” being used to describe a commenter is not something I would typically tolerate, it’s Danny’s post, so he can do as he sees fit here.

      Ginmar, when I’m not hiding in my office bathroom typing this on my phone, I’ll respond to the replies you left on my comments…

    • April says:

      “While repeated use of “bitch” is not something I typically tolerate…”

      Ginmar’s hostile tone from the very beginning is also uncalled for. Can we all please chill?

    • April says:

      Interesting you should call ballgame one of the most notorious anti-feminist trolls in the blogosphere. Even on my most uberfeminist of blog posts, he has always been quite reasonable and even agreeable when commenting. I actually find that to be the case with the majority of the non-feminist men who comment here, with few exceptions, and most of them come from the FeministCritics area of the blogosphere.

    • Well, April, I was banned at Feminist Critics for not kowtowing to whatever ballgame insisted I should kowtow about, so there is that. And I am a nice person who banned Ginmar when she nastily defended TED KENNEDY on my blog.

      To sum up: If ballgame was a liberal senator who simply got too drunk to call 911 and let a (probably pregnant) secretary drown in his car, which he plowed into the drink when he was inebriated… well, Ginmar would excuse that and even extol his virtues. (Ballgame, change that surname to KENNEDY and Ginmar will genuflect accordingly.)

      It all depends on who you are, of course. You certainly don’t believe that “all men are created equal” crap, do ya? 😉

  11. Jim says:

    “One of the most notorious anti-feminist trolls in the blogosphere! ”

    Well, there’s some self-awareness at least. At least she knows what she is. Her pathological bile is exactly the kind of unrepresentative shit that MRAs point to to smear all of feminism. What are the chances she’s really an MRA sock puppet? She damns herself out of her own mouth and saves the rest of you the trouble.

  12. Danny says:

    So as we can plainly see folks ginmar is absolutely incapable of having anything even remotely resembling civil conversation. Not only that but she sees to be totally unable to stay on topic and is more than willing to make assumptions and presumptions (for the folks reading this let me say that despite her insistences, I’m not an MRA, she’s just saying that so that she can play victim) in order to justify going on preprogrammed rants. And it doesn’t help that she is apparently willing to tell a lie then base her spew on said lie rather than actual fact.

    Her unintelligent ranting has given me plenty of pleasure. I mean really I feel like I should pay her. But hell I thought she had already moved on.

    • April says:

      The mix of people who comment here with any regularity was bound to turn into a playground brawl at one point or another.

    • Danny says:

      Its not the “mix of people” that cause this fruit basket upturn. It was one very specific person that caused all this.

    • Adiabat says:

      Danny, I think you did very well in your replies to her. Don’t let her get to you. Ginmar’s just the crazy person on the bus that no-one wants to sit next to. So if she sits next to you, just move away.

    • Danny says:

      I think you’re right Adiabat. But I’d rather think of her as a less than worthless person that actually hurts the ultimate goal of gender discourse, which is to make the world a better place for everyone. And if I cross paths with her again I might offer her a $20 for the pleasure I got from unloading on her.

    • ginmar says:

      Aw, just another angry twentysomething dewd. You guys make me laugh so fucking hard. Hint, sweetie: dismissing women and feminists as crazy and hinting you’d like to unload on them for twenty bucks says way more about you than it does about me.

      Enjoy the persecution, post-adolescent loser!

      (I’m going to borrow one out of Daran/ballgame’s playbook.) ginmar for you to think that about my comment actually says more about you. I’m talking about anger and rage, what in the devil are you talking about? And what more if you actually paid attention to what I say and what I blog about you would know that I don’t dismiss women or feminists as crazy. The owner here is a feminist that invited me to co-blog with her. So do yourself, myself, this blog, and gender discourse itself and huge favor and return from where you came. Oh and before you cry victim no I didn’t edit your comment, wouldn’t want you think that I’m being unfair.)

    • Adiabat says:

      No Danny, if you give them money it just encourages them to keep doing it. There are proper services in place designed to help people like that to rebuild their lives. Just politely say ‘no thanks’ and walk past them. If it makes you feel better later on you can donate your $20 to a local charity that works at getting them reintroduced into normal society.

    • Daran says:


      (I’m going to borrow one out of Daran/ballgame’s playbook.)


      Denouncing someone as “a less than worthless person” is definitely not in my playbook.

  13. SJ says:

    Even setting aside fiction, I think Danny’s point is quite well illustrated by the reaction to actual attacks on the genitals of men and boys.

    For example, I remember the story of a woman who kicked a number of random men in the genitals being treated as a joke item by some of the news sites reporting it, and the pun ridden comments left by readers. Certain feminist blogs were just as bad, or worse (I remember someone celebrating the attacker as a ‘real life Hothead Paisan’). One of the victims lost a testicle due to the attack; I think it’s unlikely that people would react the same way to a women suffering a comparable injury.

    Then there’s ‘ball tapping’ in schools. Again kids have been seriously injured and needed to have testicles amputated due to this utterly stupid game, yet it seems to be taken less seriously than other forms of violence.

    If you look on YouTube you can find hundreds of examples of ‘funny’ videos, whether real or staged, featuring men being hit in the genitals.

    I don’t think it’s anything like as common to see violence against women being used as comedy. I’m not a big fan of violence as the punchline of a joke in fiction, but it’s worse when real people are being hurt.

  14. Jim says:

    “I don’t think it’s anything like as common to see violence against women being used as comedy.”

    Indeed. Can you think of *any* examples withing the last 40 years where it has been used that way? Cat fights have gone out of style. Good thing, too.

  15. Another great blog entry Danny. I’ve wondered the same thing myself with regard to physical assaults on male genitalia. I simply cannot stand the AFHV segment on crotch hits and stopped watching. It isn’t cute and funny. I often wonder how many of those men and boys sustained permanent injuries as a result. So, so funny.

    A woman I was dating once threatened to punch me in the balls when I accidentally brushed her thigh while helping her (at her request) buckle her seatbelt in my car. I wasn’t even looking at her but was concentrating on the belt and lock so I didn’t realize that my forearm grazed her thigh for a split second. The seatbelt on that old Ford Fairmont Futura was a tad ‘wonky’ and took some wiggling and skill to get it to lock. I apologized profusely, because, well accident or not it is required of me to take on the guilt of having an evil forearm that wants to feel up women’s thighs while my brain and eyes are focused elsewhere. She gets to make overt physically aggressive threats in response to innocent accidents and I have to suck it up and be the bad guy.

    Well, that was the last time I took her out or spoke to her again. I also stopped helping women with their seatbelts when in my vehicle. I don’t take threats lightly and I can’t trust a person again after making them.

    Anyway, I feel you on this one.

    • Danny says:

      Thanks for dropping in James.

      It just bothers me that people who claim to take violence so seriously will pick and choose which types of violence to be serious about.

  16. CaliOak says:

    All I know is I have a hyperactive bodercollie mutt that likes to rough house with people, mostly by jumping up and nipping at humans while they swat at it. Now, being a clever mutt, it figure out along time ago, there is only one place that really makes a person stop for a moment. My husband taught the dog to do this by playing so roughly (not that either one minds it) and letting her get away with it. I’ve been snickering ever since.

    (In other circumstance no, this isn’t generally funny. I think it’s a domestic violence thing. Women end up in the morgue so people don’t like male on female violence, but since “women are weak” and “men can take it” female violence isn’t take seriously.)

  17. Pingback: 2010 in review | ethecofem

  18. Danny says:


    Denouncing someone as “a less than worthless person” is definitely not in my playbook.

    It certainly is not. I’m talking about how you sometimes put an italicized comment about someone else’s comment in such as when you strike something out and you explain why.

  19. Pingback: 2010 in review « April Streich

Comments are closed.