The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Feminist Theory, Human Nature and the Punch Seen ‘Round the World

Posted on | September 11, 2014 | 44 Comments

It’s all so calculated.
She’s got a calculator.
She’s my soft touch typewriter
And I’m the great dictator.
Two little Hitlers
Will fight it out until
One little Hitler
Does the other one’s will.

Elvis Costello, 1979

Watching the video in which Ray Rice knocked out his fiancée (now wife) Janay, the thought occurs: What was she so angry about?

Everybody has focused on the obvious horror of Rice’s punch — the brute force of a 200-pound professional athlete used against a woman — and nobody seems interested in what Janay did immediately before the punch. The couple were in a confined space, inside an elevator, when Janay “got in his face,” screaming and lunging toward Rice. Of course, Janay’s behavior does not justify Rice hitting her, but one wonders why she acted that way, just as one wonders whether the circumstance of being trapped in an elevator with this enraged woman in some way explains Rice’s reaction. That is to say, if her angry rage triggered Rice’s fight-or-flight instinct, he couldn’t flee from her while they were on the elevator, and his adrenalin surge produced an autonomic reflex: BOOM.

That’s one possible reading of the scene, at least, but I’m sure that any attempt to explain what Ray Rice did will be condemned as an attempt to defend or justify what Ray Rice did, so that political correctness erects a wall obstructing access to a knowledge of the motives involved.

There is exactly one acceptable interpretation, a feminist interpretation that construes Ray Rice as an agent of male supremacy and Janay Rice as a victim of oppression. This interpretation prohibits any effort to view Ray Rice and Janay Rice as individuals responsible for their own behavior. Having spent the past few months up to my eyeballs in radical feminist theory, including lesbian psychologist Dee Graham’s claim that female heterosexuality is a PTSD-type response to male “sexual terror,” I am aware that every woman who has ever taken a Women’s Studies class in college views the Ray Rice incident through a prism of theory. There are no individuals in feminist theory; everything is a social construction and everything must be interpreted in a context of male supremacy and female oppression:

The prosecutor offered Rice the ability to participate in New Jersey’s pretrial intervention program (PTI). Supposedly this decision was reached “after careful consideration of the information contained in Mr. Rice’s application in light of all of the facts gathered during the investigation.” What facts? What information? Is it the same sort of information that has anchored a culture that seemingly normalizes and accepts domestic violence? Is it more of “domestic violence is a private matter?” — which is very nineteenth century. Tell us what sort of facts, and while you are at, how might you clarify whether or not the NFL was given the tape. Because right now, it is hard not to see this case as yet another moment where the power structure goes to every length to protect and serve patriarchy.
In a nation where 24 people experience intimate partner violence every minute, most of them women, Ray Rice is a mere microcosm of a larger systemic injustice.

See? From the feminist perspective, this isn’t about one man hitting one woman. This is about a “culture.” This is about “the power structure” of “patriarchy.” Individual responsibility disappears and the conversation is about “a larger systemic injustice.”

The world is full of “systemic injustice,” if you want to look at it that way, and almost everyone can somehow claim victimhood.

Does anybody remember O.J. Simpson? I just re-read Tammy Bruce’s account (in The New Thought Police) of her experiences as president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) during the O.J. murder trial. Bruce organized protest marches and rallies focused on Simpson as a perpetrator of domestic violence against his slain wife Nicole. Astonishingly, NOW’s national leaders denounced Tammy Bruce by name, falsely accusing her of making “public statements that clearly violate NOW’s commitment to stopping racism.”

Nicole Brown Simpson could not be reached for comment.

Readers may be curious as to what “public statements” by Tammy Bruce led to this false accusation of racism. Here you go:

“What we need to teach our children,” Ms. Bruce said on ABC’s “Nightline” the day after the verdicts, is “not about racism,” but “about violence against women.” She added that her domestic violence message provided “a needed break from all that talk of racism.”

Exactly right. As everyone can now see, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, (a) O.J. was guilty as hell, and (b) O.J.’s defense attorneys cleverly manipulated the case to make it appear that O.J. was an innocent victim of white racism, with the result that (c) O.J. was acquitted and (d) public opinion was unnecessarily inflamed by what Tammy Bruce characterized as “all that talk about racism.”

What we can also see with hindsight was that Patricia Ireland was fearfully envious of Tammy Bruce’s success. Ireland was the perfect stereotype of feminist leaders as rigid humorless ideologues (and/or mindless stooges for the Democrat Party), while Tammy Bruce was the feisty young host of a popular radio talk show.

Furthermore, while Ireland and national NOW leaders were throwing Nicole Simpson’s body under the bus of a cynical “alliance” with the NAACP and other black liberal groups, Tammy Bruce had the wisdom to see what was really happening in the O.J. case and the courage to call it what it actually was: A cruel perversion of “civil rights” that treated the murderer as a victim, and treated O.J.’s two victims (including Ron Goldman) as if they had no rights whatsoever.

Tammy Bruce was getting booked on Nightline, not Patricia Ireland. Tammy Bruce told the truth, and Patricia Ireland lied.

Darkness and lies always hate the light and truth.

What does this have to do with Ray Rice? Everything.

Collective Victimhood and Conspiracy Theories

Feminists were willing to defend the murderer O.J. Simpson because their “allies” (e.g., Jesse Jackson) insisted that the case was about racism: All white people (as a collective group) oppressing all black people (as a collective group). Viewed through the prism of collectivist thinking, what mattered about O.J. was not whether, as an individual, he had murdered his wife, as an individual. All that mattered was that O.J. was a member of an Official Victim Group whose support the Democrat Party needed. Nothing so proved the sold-out phoniness of national feminist leadership as their refusal to condemn O.J. Simpson as a perpetrator of domestic violence, after recordings of 911 calls and photos of Nicole’s battered face exposed the truth of the ex-football hero as a wife-beater. The reality of Democrat Party coalition politics required feminists to ignore this truth — and to denounce Tammy Bruce as “racist” because she had the courage to tell the truth.

Fast-forward two decades: The elevator surveillance camera images make it impossible to deny that Ray Rice punched Janay and, because both of them are black, it is also impossible to claim that Ray Rice is a victim of racist oppression. His guilt is clear, and there is no white cop like Mark Fuhrman to serve as the racist scapegoat in a conspiracy theory about how Ray Rice was framed.

Because progressives view humans in collective groups, the problems of Ray Rice and his wife Janay are not personal, but political. The fact that Janay’s husband has lost his lucrative employment, and that an African-American family has thus suffered economic harm — an outcome that seemingly contradicts progressive “social justice” goals — is ignored because, as the feminists say, these two people are “a mere microcosm of a larger systemic injustice.” Whereas the O.J. Simpson trial was viewed through the prism of race-based “injustice,” the case of Ray Rice is viewed through the feminist prism.

Whatever the context, this collectivist worldview lends itself easily to paranoid fears. Instead of viewing humans as individuals, capable of acting rationally in their own self-interest and harmonizing their actions in voluntary cooperation, progressives insist that human life is “socially constructed,” and that our behavior is influenced — if not actually controlled — by impersonal forces.  That is to say, everything we do is viewed by progressives not as our individual action, but rather in terms of what our actions mean for our membership in collective groups. Are we male or female? Black, white, Hispanic, Asian? Native or immigrant? Rich or poor? The psychological effect of this worldview is to tell us that we lack personal agency, and are not in control of our own destiny. The collectivist worldview encourages us to externalize responsibility, to blame others for our failures and hardships, so as to exempt ourselves from criticism — “Don’t blame me! It’s not my fault! I’m a victim!”

Protecting the Blameless Self from responsibility becomes a full-time occupation for people who buy into this worldview, and the ironic result of collectivist thinking — which claims a deep concern for “society” — is to encourage extreme selfishness. If we succumb to the paranoid belief that the world is controlled by sinister forces of greed, racism, sexism and homophobia, so that the whole world is in one way or another plotting evil against us, then our pursuit of selfish goals is justified by our need to protect ourselves from these evils. In a Hobbesian war of “all against all,” we can disregard the harm we cause others as individuals if we can construe our actions in the context of “social justice.”

“I woke up this morning feeling like I had a horrible nightmare, feeling like I’m mourning the death of my closest friend. . . . No one knows the pain that the media . . . has caused my family. To make us relive a moment in our lives that we regret everyday is a horrible thing. . . . To take something away from the man I love that he has worked his a– off for all his life just to gain ratings is horrific.”
Janay Rice

Feminists have spent the past four decades proclaiming that “the personal is political,” so nobody cares about the personal harm to Janay Rice of a political crusade to destroy her husband’s career.

Do we have any evidence that Ray Rice is a chronic menace to women? Is there an established record of Ray Rice as a habitual perpetrator of domestic violence? Was this horrific incident caught on video part of a long-term pattern? Who benefits, and who is harmed, by dropping him from the Ravens lineup and indefinitely suspending him from the NFL? Insofar as Ray Rice is suffering the legitimate consequences of his own wrongful behavior, I have no complaint. But it seems to me that Ray Rice — and Janay Rice, and everyone with a direct stake in Ray Rice’s NFL career — is being made to suffer an extraordinary penalty because (a) feminists have turned this into a political cause célèbre, and (b) the NFL is run by cowardly swine who care more about their image than they care about human beings.

Toward a Philosophy of Human Dignity

Each of us is responsible for our own actions, and the measure of human greatness is how we respond to hardship, struggle and crisis. Every man and woman must deal with problems which are not entirely their fault. Each of us is to some extent a victim of injustice, wrongs and injuries. We are all sinners, and all of us suffer because of our own sins and the sins of others. The challenge is not merely to survive these injuries, but to maintain our dignity while coping with injustice and hardship.

“Boys don’t hit girls” — my wife and I have insisted on that moral maxim in raising two daughters and four sons. This was what our parents taught us and, in transmitting this basic code of civilization to our children, we expect them to live up to it and pass it on to future generations.

Instilling this code into young people requires boys to understand that the male’s general superiority of physical strength should never be used to harm or threaten women, but rather to protect women from harm. And it requires teaching girls that under no circumstance should they tolerate male violence against them. No man will ever get a second chance to hit you, because the first time he lays a hand on you, it’s over — and he had better pray to God your brothers never find out. (The best scene in The Godfather is when Sonny Corleone beats up Carlo, who had beat Sonny’s sister Connie. The second-best scene is when Michael Corleone forces Carlo to admit his complicity in Sonny’s murder, and then consigns Carlo to death by strangulation.)

This stringent zero-tolerance policy — “Boys don’t hit girls” — sets up a problem: What happens if a woman loses her temper, behaves in an insulting manner, and even acts violently against a man? Some women are simply crazy, and some women have been spoiled rotten by over-indulgent parents who put up with tantrums. The “Daddy’s Precious Darling” Syndrome, as I call it, involves an entitlement mentality that makes it impossible for some women to admit wrongdoing or to accept criticism. If she can’t get what she wants, or if her bad behavior exposes her to criticism, Daddy’s Precious Darling can’t deal with it. She flies into a rage, and whoever she blames for thwarting her will — failing to kowtow to imperious demands or daring to criticize her selfish attitude — will become the target of unrestrained hatred. “Hell hath no fury,” et cetera.

The most famous example of “Daddy’s Precious Darling” Syndrome is the character of Scarlett O’Hara in Gone With the Wind. Scarlett is the protagonist of the novel (and movie), but it’s hard to describe her as the heroine, because her attitude and behavior are far from heroic. She is vain, petulant and selfish, a rotten brat, and if the narrative arc of the story brings her toward maturity, highlighting her admirable qualities — determination and resourcefulness — this is small gain, compared to all the harm she cruelly inflicts on those around her as a consequence of her selfishness. She becomes romantically fixated on Ashley Wilkes, and this leads to a dramatic scene in the library at Twelve Oaks:

SCARLETT: “Why don’t you say it, you coward? You’re afraid to marry me. You’d rather live with that silly little fool who can’t open her mouth except to say ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ and raise a houseful of mealy-mouthed brats just like her!
ASHLEY: “You mustn’t say things like that about Melanie.”
SCARLETT: “Who are you to tell me I mustn’t? You led me on, you made me believe you wanted to marry me!”
ASHLEY: “Now Scarlett, be fair. I never at any time…”
SCARLETT: “You did, it’s true, you did! I’ll hate you till I die! I can’t think of anything bad enough to call you.”

Scarlett then slaps Ashley’s face and — in a gesture that ought to elicit more admiration and commentary than it generally has — Ashley responds in the only way a gentleman should. Having been falsely accused of cowardice and dishonorable deceit (“You led me on”), having heard his beloved fianceé insulted, and having finally been slapped in the face, what does Ashley say? What does he do?

He says nothing. He stiffens his shoulders, raises his chin and, after fixing Scarlett with a cold glance that mingles wounded pride with contemptuous pity, he silently turns and walks out.

Bravo, Ashley!

One’s own dignity is at stake in such an encounter. Scarlett’s willfulness and immaturity led her to disgrace herself in a shameless display of emotion, a string of insults and slanders, culminating in a physical assault. Knowing very well that he has done nothing to deserve this humiliating mistreatment, Ashley refuses to lower himself to Scarlett’s level. She slaps him and . . . he walks away.

The film version of Gone With the Wind gives an impression of Ashley as a wimp, contrary to the authorial intent of Margaret Mitchell. She hated the casting of Leslie Howard in that role. In Mitchell’s novel, Ashley is entirely masculine; his character’s conflicts are rooted in the chivalrous code of behavior that prevents him from pursuing erotic satisfaction with Scarlett, as this would be not only sexual immorality, but also a betrayal of family loyalty. (The Wilkeses always marry their cousins the Hamilitons.) When war destroys the civilization to which Ashley belongs, he is lost and adrift in the post-war world, whereas Scarlett’s shrewdness (and her contempt for antebellum concepts of honor) make her a successful businesswoman in bustling Atlanta.

Rhett Butler Still Doesn’t Give a Damn

Gone With the Wind is nowadays condemned as racist (and if you think the movie is racist, you should read the book, which is much worse in that regard), but we ought to notice that Gone With the Wind — the most popular book ever written by a woman — is also profoundly sexist. Scarlett longs for “the elegant Mister Wilkes,” but yields to Rhett Butler’s animal magnetism. Indeed, one of the crucial scenes between Rhett and Scarlett is what feminists nowadays condemn as “marital rape.”

Scarlett has disgraced herself, caught in a compromising situation with Ashley. Forced to “face the music” — Rhett compels her to attend Ashley’s birthday party — she returns home to find Rhett drunk. Scarlett has humiliated him, and he is in no mood to endure further humiliation. He is not a man of words, but a man of action.

RHETT: Observe my hands, my dear. I could tear you to pieces with them. And I’d do it, if it’d take Ashley out of your mind forever. But it wouldn’t. So I’ll remove him from your mind forever this way. I’ll put my hands so,
one on each side of your head, and I’ll smash your skull between them like a walnut. That’ll block him out.
SCARLETT: Take your hands off me, you drunken fool.
RHETT: You know I’ve always admired your spirit, my dear, never more than now, when you’re cornered.
SCARLETT: I’m not cornered. You’ll never corner me, Rhett Butler, or frighten me! You’ve lived in dirt so long, you can’t understand anything else, and you’re jealous of something you can’t understand. Good night!
RHETT: Jealous, am I? Yes, I suppose I am, even though I know you’ve been faithful to me all along. How do I know? Because I know Ashley Wilkes and his honorable breed. They’re gentlemen, and that’s more than I can say for you or for me. We’re not gentlemen, and we have no honor, have we? (Scarlett walks out. Rhett pursues and grabs her.) It’s not that easy, Scarlett. You turned me out while you chased Ashley Wilkes, while you dreamed of Ashley Wilkes. This is one night you’re not turning me out.

Now, there are at least two ways of viewing Rhett’s action in that scene. At the point that Scarlett walks out and Rhett pursues her, we may believe, this is a sudden impulse — a spur-of-the-moment urge on his part. But this reading of the scene requires us to overlook the threat implied when Rhett tells Scarlett she is “cornered.”

A husband’s conjugal rights under common law were not to be taken lightly in America circa 1870. At least for the “honorable breed” of civilized men, it was considered wrong to impose sex on the wife by brute force, but at the same time a wife who consistently refused sex with her husband thereby gave him legitimate grounds for divorce. And in this context, Scarlett’s romantic pursuit of Ashley Wilkes had left her doubly exposed, because after the birth of their daughter Bonnie, Scarlett had excluded Rhett from the marital bed. However, after Melanie’s sister caught Scarlett and Ashley together — only hugging, but that was scandal enough — everyone in Atlanta’s respectable society knew the secret Rhett had known ever since that day in 1861 when he eavesdropped on the library scene where Scarlett slapped Ashley.

Thus, at the moment she returns home, Scarlett is truly “cornered” as a matter of custom and law, utterly at Rhett’s mercy and, although she claims to be unafraid of her “drunken fool” husband, he has apparently been thinking while he was drinking. The way this confrontation between them ends, I suggest, is pre-meditated.

Having tolerated his wife’s refusal of sex, for the sake of maintaining the respectable façade of their marriage, the public exposure of her betrayal has inspired in Rhett a merciless appetite for revenge. Whatever happens — whatever he says, whatever she says — Rhett knows exactly how the scene will end, before Scarlett ever walks in the door. He has made up his mind, and her consent is irrelevant.

He is not an honorable gentleman. Scarlett is indeed cornered: “This is one night you’re not turning me out.”

Rhett does this “with malice aforethought,” as the lawyers would say.

Women’s Studies majors must recoil in horror at the thought of how Rhett imposes his will upon Scarlett and how Margaret Mitchell scripted this “marital rape” scene as being not only what Scarlett deserved, but what she psychologically needed. (Shame on you for suspecting Women’s Studies majors need it, too.) This scene expresses the most primal understanding of male supremacy, and we must ask whether the enduring popularity of Gone With the Wind — including Rhett Butler’s iconic status — is because this understanding is a basically accurate view of human nature. The story resonates because what it tells us about ourselves as male and female is true.

Ah, but human nature is a “social construct,” as every Women’s Studies major knows, and Rhett’s sexual violation of Scarlett’s equal rights therefore is a hate crime. The personal is the political, and if there had been feminist “consciousness raising” groups in Atlanta in 1870, Scarlett would have recognized how Rhett had oppressed her.

Turning from feminist theory to rock-and-roll, we can understand the dynamic of Rhett and Scarlett through the lens of Elvis Costello’s 1979 song “Two Little Hitlers.” This is a clever take on happens when romantic relationships turn into power struggles by two people each equally determined to have their way. The must “fight it out until one little Hitler does the other one’s will.”

This power dynamic pre-supposes a selfish desire for dominance. People who are selfish are also usually merciless. There is a totalitarian quality to this kind of unmerciful selfishness, as “Little Hitlers” invest their egos in the struggle to gain the upper hand over their partner. Voluntary cooperation is impossible if, by cooperating, we feel that we are being humiliated by the surrender of power to our partner. This selfish attitude leads people to hate the people they’re supposed to love, resorting to deliberate cruelty in attempts to control those who are supposed to be partners, but who actually become their rivals for power.

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”
I Corinthians 13:4-8 (NIV)

The Greek word agape that the New International Version of the Bible translates as “love” is translated in the King James Version as “charity,” and it behooves a Christian to think about what this means in the context of marriage. If Christian love “is not self-seeking,” if it is synonymous with charity, how does this affect our interpretation of the constant conflict between those two selfish characters, Rhett Butler and Scarlett O’Hara? Rhett says it best:

RHETT: You know, I’m sorry for you, Scarlett.
SCARLETT: Sorry for me?
RHETT: Yes, because you’re throwing away happiness with both hands and reaching out for something that’ll never make you happy.

He is not an honorable gentleman, but Rhett is honest enough to admit that his attempts to make Scarlett happy are futile, if she is intent on “throwing away happiness with both hands.” She is her own worst enemy, and Rhett cannot save her from herself.

From this analysis of culture, then, we return to the case of Ray Rice, Janay Rice and the Punch Seen ‘Round the World.

It should go without saying that love — agape, which is patient and kind — cannot be expressed by punching your wife in the face. But what no feminist will allow us to ask is, what was Janay doing that preceded her husband’s illegal (and un-Christian) violence?

Feminism erects a wall that prevents us from examining this. To ask very simple questions — “Why were they arguing? Why did she ‘get in his face’ that way?” — is to risk the accusation that you are “blaming the victim” or seeking to justify Ray Rice’s violence. It is analogous to the way feminism forbids us to point out how alcohol is so often involved in “date rape” on college campuses.

Feminism is at war with human nature, so our common-sense understanding about such things is condemned as hateful misogyny.

Common sense tells us that when people get drunk, bad things happen. Common sense tells us that drunk college girls are prime targets for bad things that drunk college boys are prone to do. But to say this is impermissible in feminist discourse. Our common-sense understanding of human nature is anti-female bigotry, we are told.

Feminism’s hostility to human nature is equally evident in the context of the video where Ray Rice punches out Janay. Obviously, Ray Rice violated what we teach our sons: “Boys don’t hit girls.” We need no feminist lectures to understand this.

OK, what if Janay was not a girl?

What if, instead of going to the casino with a date, Ray Rice had gone to the casino with a male buddy who got drunk and caused a scene? What if, after Ray and his buddy got on the elevator, the buddy had started yelling angrily at him, “getting in his face”?


There’s your equality. How do you like it?

Of course, feminists don’t believe in this kind of equality, an equality which would make women and men equally vulnerable to the consequences of “getting in the face” of a 200-pound pro athlete. However, as a skinny man who doesn’t enjoy pain, I can absolutely guarantee you that I would never make the mistake of engaging in a face-to-face shouting match with a guy like Ray Rice.

Here’s some helpful advice: Just walk away.

This advice applies to anyone who is tempted to provoke a confrontation, and it also applies equally to anyone who finds themselves confronted with a helpless fool looking for trouble. It especially applies to any man whose girlfriend or wife loses her temper, goes into a rage and begins insulting or threatening him.

Just walk away.

She’s challenging your manhood. She’s calling you every insulting name she can think of, accusing you of every kind of evil.

Just walk away.

That was what was so glorious in the way Ashley Wilkes responded after Scarlett O’Hara slapped him. Just two minutes earlier, she had been gushing about how much she loved him, but when he insisted that he loved and intended to marry Melanie Hamilton, the evil in Scarlett’s heart came pouring out in a torrent of hateful insults. And when she slapped his face, the conversation was over.

Just walk away.

A good man doesn’t deserve to be treated that way. And a good man doesn’t have to hit a woman to prove his point.

Just walk away.

Alas! “We’re not gentlemen and we have no honor,” as Rhett told Scarlett, and no feminist has any respect for honorable gentlemen. Nor can feminists tolerate Christianity and its ideals of unselfish love. Feminist theory views all male/female relationships as a power struggle, wherein men oppress and subjugate women, so that there can be no possibility of voluntary cooperation between them.

No love. No courtesy. No kindness. No mercy.

None of this makes sense in the context of radical equality, where the selfish quest for power turns man and woman into rivals.


There’s your equality. How do you like it?


This essay is part of the “Sex Trouble” series about radical feminism’s war against human nature, a reader-supported project that began in July.

Among the entries in this series are “Feminists Worry That Disney Movies Are Making Girls Heterosexual” (July 26), “A Lesbian Feminist Horror Movie” (Aug. 19), “Reading Feminist Theory” (Aug. 23), “Kate Millett’s Tedious Madness” (Sept. 1) and “Is Rachel Maddow’s Haircut Waging War Against Heteronormative Patriarchy?” (Sept. 6).

To support continuing research for this project, which I plan to turn into an ebook, readers are encouraged to remember the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:





44 Responses to “Feminist Theory, Human Nature and the Punch Seen ‘Round the World”

  1. Wombat_socho
    September 11th, 2014 @ 9:18 pm

    Countdown to radlib feminists screaming about this “justifying” and/or “excusing” Ray Rice’s actions in 3…2…1…

  2. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    September 11th, 2014 @ 9:59 pm

    Another great post.

  3. DaTechGuy on DaRadio
    September 11th, 2014 @ 10:03 pm

    There is a comic book scene from the 80’s that should be more famous. During a fight with a group of villains a hero from the future (the 53rd century to be exact) named Booster Gold is paired up against this female villain who instantly strikes a schoolgirl pose and says: “you wouldn’t hit a girl would you?

    The next three panels are interesting you see him scratch head in the first saying: “Well, you see…”

    the second panel is the word BAM! in very large Batman TV show letters

    and in the 3rd panel he is bending over said villain and finishes his sentence:

    “…in the 53rd century equality is a given so we can hit whoever we want.”

    and from the floor the villainous lady answers “thanks for explaining that”

    That’s actual equality between the sexes, I wouldn’t recommend it

  4. CPAguy
    September 11th, 2014 @ 10:35 pm

    Damn…might sell a few copies of that book.

    Gotta get this article trending w/ the fems.

  5. Zohydro
    September 11th, 2014 @ 10:41 pm

    You lost me at Tammy Bruce…

  6. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    September 11th, 2014 @ 11:09 pm

    You know what they say: “God created man but Samuel Colt made them all equal.”

    Or as Heinlein said: “An armed society is a polite society.”

  7. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    September 11th, 2014 @ 11:15 pm

    While we are living in a society that has become more vulgar and courser than things were several generations before, from a broad historical perspective things have never been better for women than they are now (at least in the west). We have a myth of chivalry from the Middle Ages, but the truth is life was terribly brutish and rape and violence were often the norm.

    What feminists miss is that it was Christianity that greatly improved the lives of women from where they stood in the Roman Empire (it was one of the great draws to Christianity how the Church treated women).

    The irony of radical feminism today is how determined it is to make women and every one around these women miserable.

  8. Zohydro
    September 11th, 2014 @ 11:19 pm

    Wasn’t it “God made big men and little men…”?

  9. DeadMessenger
    September 11th, 2014 @ 11:35 pm

    There’s no “rule of thumb” in the Bible either, for that matter. Christianity has improved the lives of its practitioners since its inception, but you can’t tell a feminist that. They think they know more about those created in the image of God than God does. Feminists are little tin gods, come to think of it.

  10. DeadMessenger
    September 11th, 2014 @ 11:35 pm

    It IS a good one, isn’t it? Brilliant even, I’d say.

  11. NeoWayland
    September 11th, 2014 @ 11:44 pm

    All white people (as a collective group) oppressing all black people (as a collective group).”


    It’s one of the things I absolutely hate. People are individuals first. It’s never about all (insert hated group here. We’re not group collectives, we’re individuals who choose our associations.

    Bonus kudos for using Tammy Bruce and her story.

  12. DeadMessenger
    September 11th, 2014 @ 11:50 pm

    Submissive women + men who just walk away = people who never get all up in somebody’s face, or get knocked senseless in elevators.

    I know, that “submissive” thing is a little hard to take sometimes.

    God taught me a lesson about that once. My husband and I were having a blistering argument about something one time, and I just wouldn’t back down. So I stomped off to our room and fell to my knees in tears praying to God, asking Him what I was supposed to do. He said one word: “Submit.” I asked Him why I had to submit to such an awful man? He gave me a vision right then of my husband at about 13 yo or so, being beaten up and bullied by some other boys. Then God asked me, “How are you any better than them?” So I went back to my husband and asked him if once he had gotten bullied by some boys who looked like this and were wearing that, and was he wearing this other thing at the time. My husband said, “Oh yeah, I remember that. Those guys were assholes. How’d you know about that?”

    So I submitted. Lesson learned.

  13. MikeSoja
    September 12th, 2014 @ 12:17 am

    “Boys don’t hit girls”

    Speaking as a feminist (still male after all these years) who knew what feminism was before the feminists did, that’s crap.

    There are some very dangerous females out there, and with some of them the quaint aphorism would make a nifty epitaph.

    How about: Proportional self-defense.?

    It doesn’t let Ray Rice off the hook, but it also doesn’t hide the context. Was the future-Missus wielding a knife? No? A gun? No? Her little toothpick arms? Hmm.

    The same sort of individual inspection of conflicts could apply to non-females as well.

  14. maniakmedic
    September 12th, 2014 @ 2:10 am

    As a girl who can actually throw a punch as opposed to just flailing my hands in front of me, I fully expect that if I haul off and punch a guy he’s going to hit back. And I wouldn’t blame him for doing so. But as I’m not the type of person who tends to hit people due to having the emotional maturity of a three year old, this has never been an issue.

    I agree with proportional self-defense. I don’t care who you are, you don’t try to subdue a tomeboy the same way you would subdue a girly-girl. The girly-girl you can probably bear hug until she tires out. Try that with a tomboy and you’ll probably end up with a broken nose, a sore shin, and possibly swollen family jewels.

    This is one of those things it’s hard to come out on the right side of. On the one hand, yes, men are stronger than women and will almost certainly win any physical altercation with a woman. On the other hand, people are entitled to protect themselves and I can’t join with the sisterhood in crying victim if I see another woman taking brawler swings at a guy who responds by throwing his own fists. If the feminists want true equality, they shouldn’t be surprised or upset that a guy will knock a woman out if that’s what they’d do to a guy who took a swing at them. Of course, that almost never seems to happen absent alcohol because smaller guys know that if they pick a fight with a bigger guy they stand a very good chance of getting their asses beat. And most guys seem to be pretty gentlemanly even when dealing with a “daddy’s little princess” bitch.

  15. K-Bob
    September 12th, 2014 @ 3:54 am

    That’s why they call ’em “bodice rippers.” And they sell like hotcakes.

  16. RS
    September 12th, 2014 @ 8:18 am

    I’ve never worried about what “submission” means in the context of Ephesians 6. Rather, I always figured I have enough to worry about trying to love my wife “as Christ loves the Church.” That injunction is enough to occupy my time for the rest of my life.

  17. Dana
    September 12th, 2014 @ 9:01 am

    It’s obvious that Miss Palmer — now Mrs Rice — was yelling at Mr Rice, and perhaps even attempted to assault him, but it doesn’t matter: real men don’t hit women, even in self defense.

    And it could hardly have been self-defense: Mr Rice was used to getting hit by NFL linebackers, and there was nothing Miss Palmer could have done to hurt him, not with her bare hands.

    But, also very telling, is that Miss Palmer chose to go ahead and marry Ray Rice, even after this incident.

  18. Friday Linkfest: This, That, and T’other | Andrew J. Patrick
    September 12th, 2014 @ 9:18 am

    […] Stacy McCain Links Ray Rice and Gone With the Wind, and it’s a Full Read the Whole Thing. Ashley Wilkes becomes more manly than Rhett Butler in his formulation. I know, I know. Just go with it. […]

  19. Bob Belvedere
    September 12th, 2014 @ 10:46 am


    It’s one of his best.

  20. Quartermaster
    September 12th, 2014 @ 10:50 am

    They were doing it before he published it. It lets them get more propaganda licks in before they get called on it.

  21. HamOnRye
    September 12th, 2014 @ 11:09 am

    @Dana – while agree with most of you post I do not agree with the blanket statement “real men don hit women”

    If we as a culture are going to return to a more harmonious interaction between the sexes, some of us are going have to drink deeply from the bitter cup of disaster.

    In other words the same people who support and advocate feminist theory will need to become well acquainted with the underpinnings of chivalry. Why deny these people the hard lessons they so desperately need?

  22. darthlevin
    September 12th, 2014 @ 11:14 am

    Because if we don’t turn the Ray Rice case into a Trial Of All Men In All Times, the world will become a place where women are dragged away by their hair into slavery and perpetual rape.

  23. slp
    September 12th, 2014 @ 11:38 am

    I am not sure that putting this incident in a feminist context or all the ill-informed pontificating here and in the media is at all helpful.

    Policemen, emergency rooms, juvenile courts, divorce courts, social workers, and psychologists see this pattern all the time.

    A male or female physically and/or emotionally and/or sexually abuses their spouse or girlfriend or child because many times the abuser was abused as a child. That is the social context that they know.

    The spouse or girlfriend enables the abuser by not leaving, and by forgiving the crying and reformed abuser, giving the abuser another chance, and defending the abuser against those outsiders who do not understand.

    In the repentant role, the abuser is filled with tears, “Help me. I do not what happened to me. Give me another chance. I will never hit you again.” and so on.

    The enabler does not leave because when the abuser, when in the abuser role, says “If you leave me, I will hunt you and the children down and kill you.”

    And with each repetition of the cycle, the violence often becomes more dangerous until the enabler is actually killed.

    Alcohol and drug abuse by one or both is often involved.

    I am not sure that there is any answer for the violent abuser other than prison.

    Al-anon type support groups sometimes help the victims get away and live a healthy life.

  24. Dana
    September 12th, 2014 @ 12:04 pm

    Mr Rye, I’m striving, mightily, to think of a scenario in which a real man would hit an (unarmed) woman, and just plain failing to come up with anything. A real man would be allowed to fend off blows, as far as I am concerned, but that’s it, that’s the limit.

    Maybe, maybe!, if a match was arranged between Ronda Rousey or some other professional female fighter, I could see that, because it would have been agreed upon in the first place, but that’s the absolute limit.

  25. RS
    September 12th, 2014 @ 12:16 pm

    Your comments about the dynamics in abusive relationships are certainly instructive and dovetail with my (professional) experience.

    That said, it is possible to break that cycle, but it takes an extraordinary amount of self awareness on the part of both parties. Abuse can take many forms. Perpetrators must come to a realization of the nature of their behavior. Victims must realize that demure acceptance and naive belief in change is not enough. Without both parties coming that understanding, the end results can be horrific. At best, one will see children who, having grown up without the proper example of loving and forgiving parents, will continue on.

    The problem, as our host discusses, is that the current political climate does not allow a complete and frank discussion of the problem. Modern feminism determines that the male in any relationship is always at fault; the female is always the victim. That is not true, as those of us who’ve dealt with these situations can attest. Yet instead of addressing the issue as one of human interaction, it is simplified for political purposes: Men Bad; Women Good. Thus, we see a video (which I refuse to watch, BTW) and must accept the narrative. We are not allowed to ask questions. We are not allowed to probe the dynamics of that relationship. Inquiry is closed, because the current socio-political agenda demands it.

  26. Wraith
    September 12th, 2014 @ 12:17 pm

    The prosecutor offered Rice the ability to participate in New Jersey’s pretrial intervention program (PTI).

    Interesting. They’ll give you this option for being a violent domestic abuser, but not so much for being a woman nonviolently exercising her God-given human rights.
    What was all that about a #WarOnWomen, again?

  27. Eleanor D.
    September 12th, 2014 @ 12:59 pm

    I’m not sure exactly where you arrived, having made some points along the way. One reason the wife was mad is her husband spit on her as she was walking toward him. She does not take it kindly and reacts with a tipsy flick of a tap. In the elevator Rice retaliates and does it again by the buttons. She has had enough of that and gets loud and in his face. If she HAD attempted to scratch his eyes out, he was quite capable of holding her at arms length with one arm extended while she windmilled away.

    Why was he spitting? Why was she tagging along with a man who just spit at her? I don’t care. She didn’t make him spit. She didn’t have to go with him. And he had not only no right to punch her out, but no possible reason except he’s a brute with no control who wants to feel powerful.

    I don’t think his punch is explained by anything else.

  28. HamOnRye
    September 12th, 2014 @ 1:26 pm

    Dana – perhaps I buried the point of my response too deep. Let me try again.

    Your statement “real men don’t hit women” is part of a social contract that has requirements for both men and women.

    Imagine you are hired to work for a difficult manager but are going to be paid well for you efforts. Then imagine that you manager stops paying you, begins to undermine the best interests of the company, and he then begins to tell you what a shitty employee you are. Last he expects you to show up promptly on Monday morning to give a presentation on what a wonderful boss he is.

    When you say “real men don’t hit women” is essential saying continue to abide by the (social) contract, even though the other partly doesn’t see an issue with not living up to their half of it. It simply breeds resentment.

    Furthermore it does nothing solve the issue, as rewarding bad behavior, not punishing those who do not live up to there end of the agreement. It simply gets you more abuse.

  29. Dana
    September 12th, 2014 @ 1:43 pm

    Mr Rye explained:

    When you say “real men don’t hit women” is essential saying continue to abide by the (social) contract, even though the other partly doesn’t see an issue with not living up to their half of it.

    Your explanation is one based upon a “social contract;” my position is based on right and wrong. Just because another person is in the wrong does not give you license to do the wrong thing yourself. Just because another person has lowered standards does not mean you ought to lower yours as well.

  30. Dana
    September 12th, 2014 @ 1:55 pm

    Mr Rye explained:

    Imagine you are hired to work for a difficult manager but are going to
    be paid well for you efforts. Then imagine that you manager stops paying you, begins to undermine the best interests of the company, and he then begins to tell you what a shitty employee you are. Last he
    expects you to show up promptly on Monday morning to give a presentation on what a wonderful boss he is.

    When said manager stopped paying me, that would have been when I stopped going to work. But, assuming that that wasn’t part of your argument, and all of the rest was, then said employee would have a decision to take: am I going to continue to work for this piece of feces, or am I going to quit?

    We are all free people, and that freedom includes the freedom to leave an abusive or unsatisfactory situation. Sometimes it’s difficult to leave, but, in the end, anyone who remains in such situations has taken the decision to stay.

    In the case at hand, Janay Palmer decided to marry Ray Rice, even after he struck her. Well, dude was an NFL running back, and signed a 5 year / $35 million contract with the Baltimore Ravens, including
    a $15,000,000 signing bonus, $15,000,000 guaranteed, and an annual average salary of $7,000,000.
    I don’t know that Miss Palmer decided to marry Mr Rice for his money, but it is my guess that it played a fairly significant part in her decision taking.

  31. Mind Your Own Business | Something Fishy
    September 12th, 2014 @ 1:55 pm

    […] smear a couple of people having a (pretty bad) moment all over the internet, and the feminists, in their Marxist obsession over treating people as faceless members of oppressed classes instead of real human beings with agency and feelings of their own, have run with it. Despite the […]

  32. Dana
    September 12th, 2014 @ 2:01 pm

    The thing is that Mr Rice, whatever he did to anger Miss Palmer, did it to Miss Palmer, not to his wife, because they weren’t yet married . . . but she went ahead and married him anyway.

  33. Dana
    September 12th, 2014 @ 3:40 pm

    Just to be clear: this only applies to women who were actually born female! Castrated males don’t count!

  34. maniakmedic
    September 12th, 2014 @ 3:58 pm

    As a woman I fully expect that if I haul off and deck a guy, I’m going to get hit back. I hit hard. I can break things. I may not hit as hard as somebody who can bench 300 lbs, but I certainly have the strength to knock somebody out; if all you’re trying to do is end the fight, that’s plenty. Any strength on top of that is just added insurance.

    Also, I’ve been taught to fight dirty. I’m not above eye-gouging, dirt-throwing, nut-kicking (repeatedly if given the opportunity), and any other idea that might cross my mind in the middle of a fight. Even if I never pick up a weapon, I’ll be a whirling dervish of fists and feet until you put me down hard. And given what I’ve seen on YouTube, there are quite a few girls who are the same way; the only difference between me and them is that I have control of my emotions and I don’t decend into a violent rage at the drop of a hat. There is a huge difference between a girl that does the flail-slap or the declawed-cat-paw-punch and a girl that balls her fist up and swings like a brawler. The former might get in a lucky slap or knuckle graze, but the latter have a better chance of breaking teeth or a nose or just flat out laying somebody out, guy or girl.

    To be honest, I’m glad I don’t have to deal with that “don’t hit girls” BS. As a woman myself, if another chick takes a swing at me I will knock her out and I’m glad I don’t have to jump through the hoops a man would explaining it. For all that guys hitting girls may be a matter of right and wrong, I have very little sympathy for female animals that decide it gives them a free pass to wail on a guy. Right or wrong, I don’t expect anybody to take that. At that point I think the social contract holds more weight and if she wants to go there, she better be prepared to accept the consequences.

  35. you'reblamingthevictim
    September 12th, 2014 @ 4:05 pm

    Holy shit! Are you actually blaming her for getting punched in the mouth because she married him? You asshole know no bounds of stupidity. The “personal responsibility” trolling is exhausting, especially when it’s applied to female victims of violence.

  36. K-Bob
    September 12th, 2014 @ 4:39 pm

    Your Evylyn Woodhead Sped Readin’ Course has let you down, badly.

    If you read the article before responding, you won’t look like such an idiot.

  37. Geosystem
    September 13th, 2014 @ 12:21 am

    Literacy isn’t your strong suit, is it, cupcake?

  38. Bob Belvedere
    September 13th, 2014 @ 1:36 am

    Why do you hate cupcakes?!?

  39. K-Bob
    September 13th, 2014 @ 5:20 am

    I had to get a glass of water after readin’ that. Made a paper fan, too.

    Hoo, boy!

  40. maniakmedic
    September 13th, 2014 @ 6:35 pm

    I’m definitely not your typical girl, that’s for sure.

  41. neshobanakni
    September 13th, 2014 @ 7:11 pm

    I saw the surveillance footage. That was no “tipsy flick of a tap.” She backhanded him right in the face.

  42. FMJRA 2.0: Not Now John : The Other McCain
    September 14th, 2014 @ 12:34 am

    […] Feminist Theory, Human Nature and the Punch Seen ‘Round the World […]

  43. Robert What?
    September 15th, 2014 @ 3:38 pm

    I’ve really come to the conclusion that Leftism and Progressivism are no more than attempts by skill-less, talentless, lazy people to gain the fruits of a productive life without having to put in any effort, by co-opting the work-product of the productive classes. So, what do you do if you were majoring in “Womyn’s Studies” or such, and have absolutely nothing of value to offer anyone? How do you gain the nice home, the pool, the power, the prestige when you can’t offer anything that anyone would want to pay you for? The answer: become a progressive and commandeer the output of the actually productive. Of course the major problem you have to deal with is: what happens when more and more of the productive classes catch on they are being fleeced and cut back on production? The progressive infighting will be something to behold.

  44. Eleanor D.
    September 15th, 2014 @ 5:24 pm

    I saw it and yes it was just that – a tipsy flick of a tap. In response to being SPIT ON. She somehow “made” him do this? He calmly gave her a roundhouse punch to the face.