Quote of the Day
The answer to that is based in the psyches of men for whom violence is a form of power, a means to force respect; who view guns as symbols of manhood, and manhood as requiring power over women. Machismo, male supremacy, guns, violence, power, and respect are all interlinked, so that, for such men, neither respect nor power nor manhood can be achieved without violence, and the use of violence against those—especially women, but also nonwhites and other minorities—over whom they demand power. (Without which, to complete the circle, they cannot truly be men.) And guns, with all their phallic force, are the best possible means.
Abigail R. Esman
July 6, 2023
The Most Egregious Case the Supreme Court Agreed to Hear Next Term
It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!
An opinion writer on Slate demonstrating Markley’ Law is unusual. I expect it as a matter of course in a Twitter debate. But an opinion writer doesn’t have to fall back on childish insults because they have lost the debate. She invokes it as part of her main arguments. That’s really demonstrating how weak their case is.
Other things to point out are:
- No apparent concern about constitutional law.
- No mention of why, if the defendant is so dangerous, which I’m inclined to believe he is, why he had not already been placed behind bars due to his crimes other than being a domestic abuser in possession of a gun.
- No apparent awareness criminals will continue to acquire firearms or substitute other weapons and commit violent crimes whether they are prohibited from owning a firearm or not. Only the physical removal of these thugs from public life can make the public safe.
But what do you expect from someone so ignorant, stupid, and or evil they insist gun ownership is an indicator of compensation for inadequate masculinity?
Also don’t forget the tacit assumption that all violent men are white – how could they be anything else? Black men are never violent towards each other….
It’s actually wonderful. One can develop the proper attitude toward such people because of the baseline argument.
“If that’s where your argument starts? Your done. Nothing more to consider.”
Just like one doesn’t need to hear why you voted for Joe Biden.
Anything they might say is unconceivable.
One might consider that close minded. But your not going to have an intelligent conversation with a drunk or a meth-head on a three day runner, either.
One cannot have a civil discussion with a communist.
Um, so, machismo is a white value? Asking for an amigo.
The answer to that is based in the psyches of men for whom violence is a form of power, a means to force respect; who view guns as symbols of manhood, and manhood as requiring power over women.
Where does she meet these guys? I’ll admit I’m not particularly social, but I’ve been in quite a few places and met quite a few people, and I don’t believe I’ve ever met anyone like this.
For myself and the men I choose to associate with, violence is a tool — not a tool of manhood, “machismo”, or dominance over others (including women). It is a tool of power and respect, but only as far as I have the power to require others to respect my personal boundaries. Not the “pillar of the community” type of respect she implies.
But mostly, it is a tool that I hope to not use, but want to have in case it’s needed.
But that is the primary difference between people like us and people like her, isn’t it? She sees criminal violence and assumes anyone who practices violence has the same goals: subjugation of others for personal gain. We see criminal violence, realize the only practical way to make it stop is to counter it with justified violence, and practice violence with the goal of not becoming a victim.
She sees violence as a tool of control — nothing else. We see violence as a tool of control when used wrongly, but ALSO as a tool of protection and freedom when used righteously.
What a sad and fearful existence she must lead….
———
Addendum: What definition of “manhood” is she using, that “manhood” requires dominating power over women? Where I’m coming from, a man should be willing and able to protect his family — including his wife. As above, violence for us isn’t a tool of domination; it’s a tool to prevent domination.
If she cannot tell the difference, then there’s no discussion, no common ground. If she believes “manhood” requires domination over women, she’ll never see masculinity or manhood in a positive light.