24 March 2011

The Eternal Adolescence of the Female Mind

Gucci Little Piggy notes the hypocrisy of women:

So while “violence is not the answer” it becomes more of a legitimate answer when someone is acting like a douchebag and spitting things at you while you’re performing on stage.  Just because this douchebag is a woman doesn’t mean that we should all of a sudden have sympathy for people who behave obnoxiously.  We should hold her in the same regard as the thousands of other people who have befallen the same fate:  “shouldn’t have spit at him” is the usual treatment.
When feminists compose their Gender Neutrality Wish List they only expect things like jobs, better pay, respect, voice, etc.  But they don’t realize that bumps and bruises come with that.  ‘Cafeteria feminism’ is what that’s called, I believe.

For what it’s worth, I have no principled opposition to hitting a woman,* particularly if she is “acting like a douchebag.”  The way I see it, if we are truly equal, than I should treat her the same way I would treat a guy doing the same thing.  Plus, I also view this sort of thing as “teachable moment,” in that I plan to teach her why acting like a douchebag is a very bad idea.  In fact, one might argue that I’m actually doing her a favor.

Anyway, the rank hypocrisy exposed by GLP demonstrates how women are stuck in a perpetually adolescent state of mind.  For, like all adolescents, women want the privileges of adulthood without any of the responsibilities.  Thus, the difference between men and women is that men eventually transition from adolescence to adulthood.

The desire for privileges without responsibilities is very dangerous, for it must fundamentally ignore reality.  Furthermore, women must be taught that this desire is absurdly unrealistic, and must be taught in much the same way that parents teach adolescents that having a car means paying for gas and insurance and so forth.

The worst thing that parents can do for their adolescent children is fail to prepare them for the realities of adulthood.  In the same vein, it is also a disservice to women to spare them from the consequences of their behavior, for it is certain that reality will eventually catch up with them.  And when it does, it will be quite painful.

* If you’re obtuse, or otherwise incapable of understanding this point, I’m simply stating that there is nothing inherently immoral about hitting a woman.  The rightness or wrongness of hitting a woman (or man) is contingent on the situation.  It is acceptable to hit someone else in the act of self-defense; it is not acceptable to instigate assault.  This rule applies equally to men and women.


  1. Our culture is changing, and the Old Ways that once said "don't hit girls" are fading away. Those that persist in letting women get away with accosting those larger and heavier than they are exposing those women to a steadily greater risk as time goes on. One day, she will get her face bashed in, and she will truly be surprised. But she shouldn't be.

    Rhianna started hitting Chris Brown with a phone. She got schwacked in return. Lesson 1: don't hit a person bigger than you. Lesson 2: if you're going to hit a man, as a woman, hit a white guy.

    Whenever I discuss domestic violence stats with women, and bring their attention to the large share of DV incidents in which a woman gets hurt in a fight that she threw the first blow, women usually get offended. As if hitting a woman is somehow verboten, even if she hit first.

    Seems to me that the lesson is simple: if you attack someone else, you are taking a chance that they may or may not respond in kind or even escalate. That so many women seem not to grasp this lesson is astounding.

  2. Plus, the old ways that once said "don't hit girls" also said "behave like a well-mannered lady," which usually cuts down on men's tendency to hit girls.

  3. I always thought the old saying is "don't hit a lady." Women who spit on people at concerts are not ladies.

  4. So men have to teach women how to grow up and take responsibility for their actions? Is that your job in our new enlightened age? I agree with you on the hitting thing, although I don't generally smack people on purpose. But I think you take it out of context. I am a woman, and like so many of my contemporaries I support myself and my entire existence responsibly, and this has nothing to do with my gender. "A woman must be taught...." really? Isn't that a little antidiluvean?

  5. @ ameilie- I believe it is the parents' duty to teach their children how to grow up and take responsibility for themselves (also, i never asserted that men must teach women). Men can certainly teach women why it's a bad idea to hit a man (i.e. hit back when assaulted). The specific complaint, though, is that it is hypocritical for women to demand equality with men except when said equality has negative side effects. This demand is untenable over the long term, and so women, particularly feminists, would do well to realize that they must either accept the negative consequences of their actions (in this case, getting punched when acting like a douchebag) or they must accept a position of inequality. Women cannot have it both ways, at least on a permanent basis.

    And yes, women must be taught, because they haven't learned. Would it be better to let them live in ignorance?