More sexist double standards

[Loren Pechtel]

Assault can be verbal. Whether or not a shove could be considered self defense following a verbal assault, I don't know.

Without knowing exactly what transpired it's impossible to say.

But whatever started it, his response was all out of proportion. No need to put someone in the hospital over a slap. The cops made the right call.

Unless the verbal part of it constituted a threat of violence that the shove was an attempt to escape it's not justified.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Okay. You do realize you are not everyone.

Violence is the use of physical force intended to harm. Slapping someone on the face that you are arguing with is definitely physical force and it is definitely intended to harm the slapped person.

Not necessarily. It may be intended to divert their attention or to make them snap back to reality. Context matters.

Nothing in this situation justifies Mixon's reaction. If the woman was constantly shoving and slapping him, the self-defense argument would make sense. But that didn't happen. Nothing in that video indicates Mixon was in any danger under any reasonable interpretation.

It's reasonable to use force to stop even a single slap. It's just not reasonable to use the amount of force he did. Grabbing her arm so she can't slap again would be an appropriate response.

 

[Horatio Parker]

That doesn't make their decision free from sexist biases.
From what we know about the video it is clear that she initiated physical violence. As such she is the primary aggressor and should have been charged.

We don't know what happened. He may have threatened her. Her moves may have been defensive.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that her moves were "defensive"? Other than the presumption of male guilt of course.

I have as much evidence as you. I'm not excusing or justifying her actions. I don't know what happened.

What it is clear is that his reaction was grossly out of proportion. He is the guiltier party, no matter who started what.

And if he was somehow manipulated, that's a consideration they can factor in at sentencing.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Assault can be verbal. Whether or not a shove could be considered self defense following a verbal assault, I don't know.

Without knowing exactly what transpired it's impossible to say.

But whatever started it, his response was all out of proportion. No need to put someone in the hospital over a slap. The cops made the right call.

Unless the verbal part of it constituted a threat of violence that the shove was an attempt to escape it's not justified.

Yes. My point is that it could've been justified. We don't know.

Would you charge a woman with assault and battery for slapping you? An acquaintance or personal relationship, not a stranger or someone in the workplace.

 

[bleubird]

It's her fault for slapping a football player,she should have known better.

 

[Toni]

Okay. You do realize you are not everyone.

Not necessarily. It may be intended to divert their attention or to make them snap back to reality. Context matters.

Nothing in this situation justifies Mixon's reaction. If the woman was constantly shoving and slapping him, the self-defense argument would make sense. But that didn't happen. Nothing in that video indicates Mixon was in any danger under any reasonable interpretation.

It's reasonable to use force to stop even a single slap. It's just not reasonable to use the amount of force he did. Grabbing her arm so she can't slap again would be an appropriate response.

He did not stop any slap. He retaliated when she slapped him.

Of course he would have been justified in stopping her slap by putting up his arm to block her or even grasping her arm. Or by walking away. That was a choice he had at every step.

 

[Metaphor]

As you said, it is the intent. And the severity. According to you, if I lightly touch you while I am angry, it is violence.

No, the use of physical force with intent to harm is violence. Touching someone isn't force. Slapping them is.

People wish to be accurate. Categorizing any touching while angry as violence simply makes violence meaningless as a concept.

I didn't do that. I was quite clear: physical force with an intent to harm. I didn't pull this definition out of thin air, I looked it up. I never described 'touching' as physical force.

No. Do you wish to call any touching - no matter how slight - when people appear angry as "violent"?

No, I don't wish to do that, so it's a good job I haven't.

But I don't know anyone who calls being flashed "sexual violence".

You don't read enough feministing.com.

 

[Toni]

Assault can be verbal. Whether or not a shove could be considered self defense following a verbal assault, I don't know.

Without knowing exactly what transpired it's impossible to say.

But whatever started it, his response was all out of proportion. No need to put someone in the hospital over a slap. The cops made the right call.

Unless the verbal part of it constituted a threat of violence that the shove was an attempt to escape it's not justified.

Which it could have been. He contends she used racial slurs. She contends he was making threats. We don't have access to the video which had no audio or any transcripts of who said what or when. I would hazard a guess that they are both telling the truth but we don't actually know. There were witnesses. Surely police took their statements. Perhaps someday there will be a trial transcript but right now, we're all just guessing.

 

[laughing dog]

No, the use of physical force with intent to harm is violence. Touching someone isn't force. Slapping them is.

Touching requires some force. Pointing at someone requires some force. Anyone who has been a parent to multiple children knows the "you're not touching. you're hitting me" "game".

I didn't do that. I was quite clear: physical force with an intent to harm. I didn't pull this definition out of thin air, I looked it up. I never described 'touching' as physical force.

So described shoving as violent. It may be violent or it may not be violent.

No, I don't wish to do that, so it's a good job I haven't.

Actually, touching with the intent to harm, no matter how light, is violence according to you.

You don't read enough feministing.com.

So, there are people who wish to misuse "violence". Apparently that club is bigger than you think.

 

[Metaphor]

Touching requires some force.

violent

adjective vi·o·lent \-lənt\

: using or involving the use of physical force to cause harm or damage to someone or something : showing violence

: caused by physical force or violence

: trying to physically attack someone because of anger

Pointing at someone requires some force. Anyone who has been a parent to multiple children knows the "you're not touching. you're hitting me" "game".

If you're determined to call fights that get physical 'not violent', then there is nothing I can say to stop you.

So described shoving as violent. It may be violent or it may not be violent.

This is getting silly. The woman's culpability or not does not change whether we describe her actions as violent or not (though I firmly believe they qualify, as described). In the same way, the moral character of waterboarding does not change, whether you call it 'torture' or not. (It is.)

Actually, touching with the intent to harm, no matter how light, is violence according to you.

No, it's not. It's not "physical force".

So, there are people who wish to misuse "violence". Apparently that club is bigger than you think.

Yes. It includes people who describe non-violent things as 'violent' (probably every single writer on feministing), and people who refuse to characterise violent actions as violent (let's say -- some people on this board).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's reasonable to use force to stop even a single slap. It's just not reasonable to use the amount of force he did. Grabbing her arm so she can't slap again would be an appropriate response.

He did not stop any slap. He retaliated when she slapped him.

Of course he would have been justified in stopping her slap by putting up his arm to block her or even grasping her arm. Or by walking away. That was a choice he had at every step.

He retaliated in a fashion that was out of line. It would be perfectly reasonable for him to restrain her at that point.

 

[Toni]

A reasonable working assumption would be Mixon whom she summoned to her table, perhaps using racial slurs (as she is alleged to have used those).

And she alleges he threatened her friends. My guess is that both are correct. But the big question is: If she was using racial slurs and motioning him over, why did he go over to her? Why not just ignore her?

The police report said she was drunk (I haven't read a BAC so don't ask). Why would any reasonable person go over to talk to a drunk girl using racial slurs? It's a real question. I don't get it, actually. I wouldn't have. I don't know anyone who would have.

This is not a justification of anything that happened. It's just me wondering. And also pointing out that Mixon wasn't just an innocent victim of random violence who had no choice but to defend himself from a drunk girl a little more than half his size.

Mixon comes over and there is a verbal exchange. We don't know the contents of that exchange but it seems that it was contentious according to journalists who report the incident.

And that must the man's fault why exactly?

What does gender have to do with anything?

She pushes him away. Why? We don't know why. There is no audio. Maybe she is just a nasty person. Maybe he made lewd comments. Maybe he threatened her. Maybe he refused to pay back the $5 she loaned him. We don't know the contents of that conversation. In a later report, she says he threatened her friends.

And he said she and her friend used racial slurs. I wonder what the witnesses say. In any case, I do not see what would justify her pushing and slapping him.

Again, they both make accusations and none of us have ANY way at all of evaluating the claims of either. We're all just speculating and making shit up.

If we believe her: he made threats, perhaps was leaning in to her space. If I understand things correctly--and I may not as I haven't seen the video any more than you have--she was seated. He's a tall enough guy that even standing, he'd tower over her. Sitting, it would be pretty dramatic a difference relative height. She pushes him away from her space (Again: I am just speculating/making things up. I don't know and neither do you.) Maybe she felt intimidated. You see it as aggression. Maybe it was but even for a drunk person, it seems a little unlikely that anyone would just push some guy who is so much larger and muscular for no reason. Maybe she was trying to disengage from what was probably a pretty pointless argument. Or maybe he leans in and makes a threat. Which would make sense if she called him a name. But for whatever reason, she feels a need to push him away. There is no description of this push. Was it a slight push, fairly ineffectual? It doesn't seem likely that she could have actually caused him any physical harm or to feel physically threatened, because of the size/build difference. For whatever reason, he doesn't leave. According to those who have viewed the tape, he lunges at her. According to some, his fist is clenched at the time. She slaps at him. Because the slap landed on his neck, I would suggest that a)it points out the large difference in height and b) the slap was very ineffectual. It couldn't have harmed him, or caused him fear. He decks her. She drops to the ground, unconscious and bleeding.

For the most part, I believe that people behave in a way that seems logical to them and that usually, we can see the logic.

I don't understand why he came over in the first place. Maybe he didn't realize she was drunk. Maybe he thought he could quiet her down. I don't know. But after she pushes at him, tries to push him away (in other words: tries to disengage), he does not leave. He does not de-escalate. No. He lunges at her, fist clenched at his side. She's drunk and likely didn't notice the fist. She smacks at him, defending herself (in her mind at least. As far as I know, up until the smack, he had no intention of striking her.) I'm not defending her. I'm trying to make sense of what she did and why. The only thing that makes sense is that she felt threatened, even if there was no real threat at that point.

What does not make any sense to me at all is that he doesn't just walk away.

He's an athlete. Surely he's traded insults, shoves, etc. with opponents and even team members for years at this point. A good coach--and surely, he's had good coaches--will tell players to just walk away. At this point: college, he should be able to keep cool, manage his temper and keep control over his emotions, especially when the 'threat' is a drunk person much smaller than he is.

If she called him or anyone else racial epithets, she was very wrong. I do not defend that in any way. It is completely indefensible.

I'm not even really defend her pushing him away or slapping at him. I'm trying to picture it in my head, based upon what is described by journalists who viewed the tape multiple times.

I don't get him not just walking away. At all. I'm not just saying that. It's what we taught our kids, what their coaches taught them. Keep your mouth shut and walk away.

A police report describes her as bleeding. It is reported that her nose and other bones in her face were broken.

Losing a fight does not confer righeousness, even though assuming that is very much "liberal" instinct.

This is not about winning or losing a fight. Neither behaved well. Only one committed a criminal act.

Everything else you've said about the case is just stuff you've made up.

What have I made up exactly?

Well here goes (all quotes are you):

I.e. women should be allowed to use violence against men with impunity and any man who objects is a "coward" and a "pussy"?
All this proves that feminists do not have true equal rights in mind, but only sham "equal rights" where they are only demanded when they go in their favor but vociferously opposed when they do not.

When feminist women stop rewarding such sexism with free sex. That's the only explanation I have for holding such self-hating positions but perhaps the resident male anti-male sexists on this board can elucidate their motives further

If a smaller, weaker person wants to attack a bigger, stronger one they have nobody but themselves to blame for being on the losing side of the fight. The loser is not necessarily in the right, the winner is not necessarily in the wrong. Even though that goes against faux-liberal (aka "modern American liberal") sentiments, especially if it involves women (who automatically get 50 free righteousness points just for having no penis).

The problem with radical feminists is that they support traditional gender roles when they benefit women but fight against them otherwise. Examples are military service vs. draft/selective service, divorce laws and lifelong alimony, double standard when it comes to use of violence ("violence against women act", Marissa Alexander, Mary Winkler, Nikki Redmond and this very case), double standards with sex - feminists want women to be able to be more free to engage in sex, but if she regrets a sexual encounter they blame the sex on men and retreat to traditional roles and calling for protections of a woman's sexuality. And many more.

The one sided double standard is clearly the fault of radical feminists, as the true traditionalists want all traditional roles (whether they favor men or women) whereas radical feminists embrace traditional roles that favor women. A true traditionalist might think that "men should not hit women" but would also be against women fighting at all. That second position moderates the first. A radfem thinks that "men should not hit women" but is in full favor or women fighting. They just think they deserve special protections when they attack men.

He didn't exactly knock her out. She was able to get up and leave the scene under her own power. And whether or not his response was disproportionate doesn't change the fact that she was the primary aggressor and should have been charged and convicted.

I'm too bored to continue with this but Derec, you continually undermine whatever point you may have by bringing in a laundry list of grievances about how men are victims of women and radical feminists and get off scot free, even when they are actually convicted. You would make much more valid points if you actually stuck to the facts of whatever case you have dragged here and actually were better acquainted with the facts. It took me less than 5 minutes to find descriptions of what happened which contradict your allegations--descriptions of journalists who actually viewed the videotype VS your complete speculation/men are victims soapbox screed.

I don't think a single person here thinks that if Molitor engaged in racial baiting that such behavior can be excused in any way.

Her allegations are that Mixon had been harassing and threatening a group of her friends. I don't know if this is true or not and neither do you.

Mixon was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. Possibly that is because Molitor did use racial epithets. Possibly because she was drunk. Possibly because the police felt she bore some responsibility for what happened. Generally, a punch that results in loss of consciousness and multiple fractures also results in felony charges. He got off lightly. Possibly because the police believe she bore some responsibility.

I wish I believed that was the explanation. But I believe it is much more likely that he got off lightly because he was the star running back.

As for why she wasn't charged:

We've discussed on this board over and over that police are unlikely to make arrests for charges they don't believe will hold up in court. I find it hard to imagine a jury would look at a person (any gender) who is 5'7/130 lbs who is accused of slapping someone as being deserving of criminal conviction if that person was then punched so hard that they lost consciousness and had multiple bone fractures in their face. It just isn't likely to happen without a whole lot of some other kind of extenuating circumstances. But as far as I've been able to read, she wasn't armed in any way.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If violence is physical contact with intent to harm, then I can see how a woman slapping a man could be see as not violence but a symbolic gesture based on tradition, which is what sharpedon appears to have been saying above

But by that same logic, does that make a man slapping a woman to discipline her, lightly and because he is expected to, say a muslim man using a toothbrush, and "keep her in line" not violence? That is also often a symbolic gesture based on tradition.

Both are sexist and both shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Toni]

If violence is physical contact with intent to harm, then I can see how a woman slapping a man could be see as not violence but a symbolic gesture based on tradition, which is what sharpedon appears to have been saying above

But by that same logic, does that make a man slapping a woman to discipline her, lightly and because he is expected to, say a muslim man using a toothbrush, and "keep her in line" not violence? That is also often a symbolic gesture based on tradition.

Both are sexist and both shouldn't be allowed.

Years ago, I was with a friend in her apartment. She and I had had some drinks and frankly, I was a bit drunk. But it was just the two of us, we were of legal age so why not? Her boyfriend came home with a friend of his. My friend and her boyfriend left the room and the other guy sat next to me and after a short while, began to lean over to me, attempting to kiss me. I pushed him away. He kept up his attempts, I kept pushing him off of me. Eventually, I smacked his hands away as they attempted grabbing various parts of my body. My friends came out of the other room and the incident was finished.

According to some in this thread, I was the one who initiated violence by pushing him and smacking him. In my view, I was defending myself. I still think I was defending myself against his very much unwanted attentions.

I am not suggesting that the guy in this instance was attempting to kiss or sexually assault the woman in this case but I can see why, if Molitor felt her personal space was being invaded, she pushed at him and smacked him away. But I certainly see context based in gender differences. Women tend to use lesser force, at least initially. For the record, if I had been attempting to kiss him and attempting to grab his crotch, I definitely believe that he would have been justified in pushing me away and smacking my hand away. And that it would not have qualified as 'violence.'

I am suggesting that gender doesn't really matter in this entire case.

There was a verbal argument.

One person A pushed another person B. We haven't seen the video and cannot see the video for 8 months or so but from the description, it does not sound like a violent push, but more like A pushing B out of A's physical space. If it is later revealed that A violently pushed B with great force, I will retract my statement that it was not violent.

B does not walk away.

B lunges at A, fist clenched by side.

A smacks at B (I say smacks at as it is unlikely A intended to smack B on the neck. Who does that? It seems that the smack did not land where it was intended to land). The smack lands on B's neck. Nothing about the description indicates that the smack was anything but a slight, glancing blow.

B does not walk away.

B decks A, breaking multiple facial bones and causing A to lose consciousness.

Gender is not relevant. Physical size is somewhat relevant and definitely makes B look less sympathetic.

Did either of these two behave well? No, especially if the claims of each (racial slurs, harassment/threats) are accurate.

Was B harmed by A's push or smack? No. Could B have been potentially harmed by A's push and smack? No, given their relative sizes and the lack of oncoming traffic or a cliff. Could B have been seriously injured by A's punch? Yes, and was.

A is not charged and is taken for medical treatment. B is charged with a misdemeanor and suspended from an athletic program and then reinstated in far less time than the original year long suspension.

My prediction is that if the case ever comes to court, at most B will be found guilty and sentenced to probation for whatever the amount of time that happens between the assault and the sentencing date. But I don't think B will be found guilty. Perhaps because A shares some responsibility for the altercation but mostly because B is the star running back of the university football team.

Note:

If Mixon had walked away, would Molitor have been charged with assault? I don't think so and I don't think charges would have been justified.

If Molitor had thrown a punch at Mixon, I would feel differently and feel he was at least somewhat justified--maybe completely justified-- in punching back although if the punch did not land, he could have easily walked away. If the hypothetical punch thrown by Molitor had landed, both should have been charged or neither.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't know (or really care) about the facts of the particular case in the OP. I was responding to the very generalized statements people were making above.

In your case, if you had a reasonable expectation of physical contact from him (and in this case of sexual physical contact), you were justified to push him away. But you would not have been justified to push him very hard, slap him, or push him after he has already backed off and the reasonable expectation of physical contact from him is over.

In the case I was referring to, one of a woman slapping a man, it usually happens after he says something verbal (sometimes crass or rude) and makes no physical action towards her, doesn't it?

 

[fromderinside]

So she's sitting at table talking about her date last night. She motions a guy over to tell then how hot it was. He says "yeah you sure are hot enough to eat". Flustered she pushes him away. He lunges at her as if to grope. She slaps him. Stunned that this isn't just a bunch of student fun he pops her and stomps out of the room.

Yeah, Derec, the poor guy was victimized./kkk OK

 

[Toni]

I don't know (or really care) about the facts of the particular case in the OP. I was responding to the very generalized statements people were making above.

In your case, if you had a reasonable expectation of physical contact from him (and in this case of sexual physical contact), you were justified to push him away. But you would not have been justified to push him very hard, slap him, or push him after he has already backed off and the reasonable expectation of physical contact from him is over.

In the case I was referring to, one of a woman slapping a man, it usually happens after he says something verbal (sometimes crass or rude) and makes no physical action towards her, doesn't it?

I think it can be a gray area. I can understand and perhaps justify a slap if she has no avenue of escape and if she has credible fears his behavior will cross into physical advances.

The other reason it can be gray is what if he continues? Eventually it does cross line onto physical assault. Questions will be asked: why didn't she stop the situation before it got that far. Most guys will stop if they are turned down. Some guys won't. If you know the guy you are dealing with wont stop , stronger action may be justified.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Years ago, I was with a friend in her apartment. She and I had had some drinks and frankly, I was a bit drunk. But it was just the two of us, we were of legal age so why not? Her boyfriend came home with a friend of his. My friend and her boyfriend left the room and the other guy sat next to me and after a short while, began to lean over to me, attempting to kiss me. I pushed him away. He kept up his attempts, I kept pushing him off of me. Eventually, I smacked his hands away as they attempted grabbing various parts of my body. My friends came out of the other room and the incident was finished.

According to some in this thread, I was the one who initiated violence by pushing him and smacking him. In my view, I was defending myself. I still think I was defending myself against his very much unwanted attentions.

You're mixing two things here.

Leaning--doesn't warrant force. Unwanted touching--does warrant force.

 

[Toni]

Years ago, I was with a friend in her apartment. She and I had had some drinks and frankly, I was a bit drunk. But it was just the two of us, we were of legal age so why not? Her boyfriend came home with a friend of his. My friend and her boyfriend left the room and the other guy sat next to me and after a short while, began to lean over to me, attempting to kiss me. I pushed him away. He kept up his attempts, I kept pushing him off of me. Eventually, I smacked his hands away as they attempted grabbing various parts of my body. My friends came out of the other room and the incident was finished.

According to some in this thread, I was the one who initiated violence by pushing him and smacking him. In my view, I was defending myself. I still think I was defending myself against his very much unwanted attentions.

You're mixing two things here.

Leaning--doesn't warrant force. Unwanted touching--does warrant force.

Leaning in can be intentional intimidation which could warrant pushing away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're mixing two things here.

Leaning--doesn't warrant force. Unwanted touching--does warrant force.

Leaning in can be intentional intimidation which could warrant pushing away.

It doesn't matter if it's intentional intimidation, you still don't get to use force when neither force nor a threat of force was used against you.