Now that the Left Has Disarmed Women

Now that the left has disarmed women on campus in Colorado, they have great advice for them on how to deter attackers. Vomit on them, or if they want to rape you, urinate on them or just tell them you are menstruating. Maybe just blow a hole in their evil hearts with 9mm or 22 is more effective.

This entry was posted in Stuff by David Anderson. Bookmark the permalink.

About David Anderson

Councilman David Anderson is a citizen activist who has served the community in several areas. He is a member of the Academy of Dover Charter School board of directors, a former Dover Human Relations Commissioner, past Chair of Delaware Right to Life PAC, Proud member of the Delaware Army National Guard, former Because We Care Inc. alternative school board member, Republican committee person, and co-founder of the Delaware Initiative and Referendum Coalition. He is currently Huck PAC state coordinator.

50 thoughts on “Now that the Left Has Disarmed Women

  1. Jon, Since missing the point is evidently your core competency, I will deign to spell it out for you. No farmer in Sussex, chemical operator in Delaware City nor anyone east of the MD-DE line cares about a Colorado school’s code of conduct pertaining to guns.

  2. Ahhh! So you think this is only in Colorado?

    I don’t think any conservative believes that it is limited to Colorado, because they have seen how the Left pushes the same buffonery everywhere.

    Conservatives conclude, from experience, that if liberals are doing something anywhere, it is “coming to a city near you.”

    However… why should anyone in Delaware care about what Todd Akin said in Missouri? Why should anyone in Delaware care about what the Virginia legislature did on regulating abortion clinics?

    These things are offered as examples of what all conservatives are supposedly like, However, for some reason the same logic is never applied to liberals.

    One action by a conservative anywhere smears all conservatives everywhere.

    One action by a liberal is an isolated incident.

    That’s the game liberals play.

  3. For that matter, why is it that politicos of all parties in every State nationwide want to analyze and discuss and draw lessons from the 2010 Delaware US Senate race, but Delawareans (and Christine) think it is nobody else’s business?

    When decisions are being debated and made in the halls of Congress, PAC’s, and Republican institutions around the country, it seems that everyone else is allowed to dissect and draw conclusions — except me. (That’s because the wrong conclusions are welcome, when they support the expansion of government, more spending, higher taxes, more regulation, and more authority concentrated in the hands of the few.)

  4. So… women can’t carry guns on campus, but men can? Silly, untrue headline.

    If this is your attempt at the woman’s vote, you’re in big trouble. Here’s a hint: Stop talking about rape. Seriously, just stop it. You guys are horrendously bad at it. You’re welcome.

  5. ” why should (emphasis added) anyone in Delaware care about what Todd Akin said in Missouri? Why should (emphasis added) anyone in Delaware care about what the Virginia legislature did on regulating abortion clinics?”

    Whether anyone in Delaware should care about those issues or guns on Colorado campus’ is a separate question.

    What matters at the polls is what Delawareans do care about. The fact is, people generally care only about issues that do or could affect them personally or people close to them. …and unless you’ve a kid attending a Colorado school, it’s code of conduct pertaining to guns does not.

    But, hey! If come election season, you don’t care if your issues are not relevant to a farmer in Sussex, a lab tech at Astra Zeneca or a single mom in Dover, the D-party won’t stop you.

  6. So, Democrat Colorado State Representative Joseph Salazar says that women are too emotional to own a gun. But that’s okay because he’s a Democrat. RIght? Salazar says that women will let their emotions run away with them and just shoot anyone or everything.

    Without hypocrisy, liberals couldn’t be in politics at all.

  7. Jon is still talking about Liberals? They don’t exist anymore… For the past 20 years, there have been only normal people versus those possessed by extreme Conservatism.

    When Jon is expressing Conservatives’ fear of Liberals “coming to a town near you”, it needs to be interpreted as simply being afraid of normal people…..

  8. Why do you think Delaware voters should support a bill based on a shooting in New England? Delcrat, your point is flawed.

  9. So, Kavips you think normal people believe a woman should just be raped instead of defending herself? That to you is normal?

    Pandora, is the entire Democrat party rejecting Salazar and demanding that he resign?

  10. Pandora doesn’t want women to CHOOSE for themselves whether to defend themselves with a gun.

    Notice how Delaware liberal Pandora’s philosophy is even more misogynist than Colorado Democrat Joseph Salazar.

    Democrat Salazar argues that women are too emotionally unstable to wield a gun when their lil ole hormones are racing around their pretty little heads.

    Pandora argues that women should not even make their own choices about how and when to defend themselves.

    So Salazar argues that in an emotion-charged situation women can’t handle their emotions.

    Pandora argues that even in a calm moment with no immediate danger, women can’t be trusted to make their own decisions about whether to own a gun to defend themselves.

    So women want to carry a gun to protect themselves against a stranger who threatens them, or even other situations.

    Pandora argues that — oh, no — women can’t make those decisions for themselves. The paternalistic, misogynist, liberal government has to tell women what to think and do.

    Pandora tells us that rape from strangers is not a significant danger. Sex with people the woman knows is the ONLY danger according to Pandora.

    But don’t you think women have a right to make that decision for themselves?

    If a woman thinks that she wants to be protected against a stranger, why can’t Pandora trust the woman to make her own decisions?

  11. If a woman thinks that she wants to be protected against a stranger, why can’t Pandora trust the woman to make her own decisions?

    I would trust Pandora with a gun. She seems to be a responsible citizen… more responsible than others. For instance, she’d probably be more responsible with it than many policemen incorporated into fraternal orders and secret societies.

    And more caring in reality than the dual citizen scum that seem to tend to conglomerate around epicenters of the bankster’s paper ponzi.

    Comment in the decentralized media:

    TheFrankKarlS 1 month ago
    Joe biden is a moron. He has not yet confirmed that those poor kids in CT were murdered with a sling shot, a hand gun or a rifle. Was that f*cking rifle** in the trunk or not you asshole? Never let a good crisis go to waste! Yet that moron turns every wedding in Pakistan into a funeral with Obomba’s drone attacks. Half of those murdered are women and children, the other half, any male over 14 years of age is an enemy combatant.

    **Actually that was a shotgun. But I don’t even remember what the final official story supposedly is on that situation now. I’m not sure there is one. Keep an eye on the school itself to see if it’s scheduled for demolition, I guess.

  12. Relevant, given that people don’t really mean that no one should have guns in America. I.e., ironically lemmings usually mean that only the central banksters and those in their employ should have central control over guns. Yet meanwhile:All Wars Are Bankers Wars

  13. “Why do you think Delaware voters should support a bill based on a shooting in New England? Delcrat, your point is flawed.”

    School shootings happen in Delaware too. Consider the Delaware State University shooting on September 21, 2007.

  14. There’s a reason that any ruling class* always chooses a predatory animal in order to represent itself. And then it takes the claws and so on away from other animals, etc.

    It used to be that the swords of the serfs and debt slaves could only be a certain length. For their own good, of course. Seriously.

    *There was almost an exception to this once. E.g. Ben Franklin wanted the national bird to be a turkey, etc.:

    For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen the Representative of our Country. He is a Bird of bad moral Character. He does not get his Living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labour of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him.
    …the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America… He is besides, though a little vain & silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on.

  15. School shootings happen in Delaware too. Consider the Delaware State University shooting on September 21, 2007.

    If it was really a big issue (It’s more likely that you fall out of bed and die tomorrow morning. Ban beds! Regulate their height!!!)… then people would do something about it at a local level in reality instead of entertaining themselves with the theatrics of the mainstream media or relatively meaningless signing ceremonies by politicians. But it’s not really a big issue in reality, unlike the issue of central power over a form of national debt that could never be repaid by design.

    If people really decided to do something about the risk of mass shootings and were more interested in reality than mainstream media events then they would have some form of decentralized weaponry at current “gun free zones” like schools or wherever all the risk* of shooting is. People interested in reality would do something along those lines instead of giving up their Second Amendment right to maintain some type of balance between themselves and the bankster’s growing police state (inc.) and the central/corporate media that has generally been incorporated with banksters too.

    *Unless it was in black communities, then other law abiding citizens might tend to just let it go on while trying to make sure that law abiding blacks couldn’t own weapons… if history is any measure.

  16. mynym on February 22, 2013 at 06:40 said: “I would trust Pandora with a gun. She seems to be a responsible citizen… more responsible than others.”

    But Pandora does not trust other women with making the decision whether or not to own a gun.

    At Delaware Liberal, Pandora criticizes Colorado Democrat State legislator Salazar for saying (in Pandora’s view not mine) a good thing badly (my interpretation and presentation) but then Delaware’s Pandora goes even further than Salazar.

    Salazar questions a woman’s presence of mind when she is feeling like she is being followed, and suggests that women are so emotional they will just start shooting up everyone in sight, like Jamie Lee Curtis in “TRUE LIES” losing control of a true Uzi submachine gun so that it shoots everywhere.

    Pandora scoffs at a woman’s decision to buy a gun when that decision is made in the calm, safe, light of day. Because Pandora thinks that there is no danger of being raped by a stranger, rather than those awful men Andrea Dworkin warned us about, owning a gun won’t protect a woman from an attacker, Pandora argues.

    And the topic here is a PROHIBITION BY LAW against people being allowed to own guns on campus. So this is not a mere opinion, but DISARMING those women who make their own choice to have a gun.

    Pandora rejects the right of a woman to buy or own a gun on campus because…. don’t those (Pandora argues not me) stupid chicks know that women don’t get raped by strangers? Per Pandora, women are (in Pandora’s view) too stupid to know that buying a gun won’t protect the silly chicks against rape.

    So Pandora wants to over-ride a woman’s decision to own a gun as well as a woman’s own decision how best to protect herself. Pandora’s opinion should trump the silly chicks whom Pandora derides.

    Indeed, a woman’s evaluation of her own circumstances and the risks the woman perceives — which can be different in different people’s lives and locations — Pandora scoffs at.

    If a particular woman evaluates her own risk as being from strangers — or perhaps an ex-husband or ex-boyfriend — well the woman’s view should be ignored in favor of Pandor’s superior, more-enlightened thinking.

    When that charming boyfriend whom a woman invites over for a wine cooler turns into a werewolf, no gun will protect the poor girl. So Salazar is correct, Pandora argues, that women should be FORBIDDEN to own a gun on campus.

  17. Correct me if I’m wrong. I do read the chopped up blocks at Delaware Liberal as attributing those argumetns to Pandora. If they are being made by a different liberal at Delaware Liberal, I stand corrected.

  18. Falcor, it’s right there on Delaware Liberal. It’s not a matter of opinion.

    However, the tactics of DIVERT, DISTRACT, DISPARAGE, DISCOURAGE and BELITTLE are a constant. When confronted with facts, the Left tries to scoff and sputter and distract people from noticing that the Left’s arguments were just blown into a million pieces. So don’t think that anyone is affected by belittling conservative arguments beyond giving conservatives a good chuckle.

    Pandora writes — yes it was Pandora –
    http://www.delawareliberal.net/2013/02/21/to-v-with-love/

    Mike’s view of rape is the same as his need to be armed – stranger danger. But the fact is, when it comes to rape, strangers are the least of women’s worries. Mike’s idea of woman shooting a stranger intent on raping her is the same fear he nurtures about a stranger coming into his parents’ Hockessin home with guns blazing. Rape is a huge problem, but not in the way Mike envisions.

    So Pandora argues that women who want a gun to protect themselves from rape are just too stupid to understand that a gun won’t protect them against the charming nice boyfriend Andrea Dworkin warned us about.

    The context here is a rule saying “NO, YOU CAN’T” if a woman wants to have a gun. Pandora makes it clear that she knows this is about BANNING women who want to have a gun from having a gun:

    Mike uses women and rape for his own self interest. The Colorado ban isn’t about female students and rape. It’s about all students. It’s about college/universities not wanting guns on their campuses. That’s it. And that’s enough.

    So if a woman wants to have a gun to protect herself, PANDORA KNOWS BETTER: NO! You are not allowed to have a gun, you silly littlle girl, is Pandora’s argument.

    If a woman reaches a different conclusion than Pandora, that woman is not allowed to disagree with Pandora. Silly chicks who want to defend themselves with a gun, Pandora argues, don’t understand what the danger is.

    Of course, Pandora uses the non-think of the Left in referring to the campus as a monolithic block of uniform opinion.

    Clearly, the ban exists only if some women want to have guns and the banners are saying no. If nobody wanted a gun on campus, the ban would be futile and pointless. It is precisely because some DO want a gun to protect themselves.

    And in that context, Pandora’s argument is that a woman who wants a gun to defend herself is STUPID because she is really not in danger from strangers, but from charming clean-cut men who stop by for a wine cooler. Thank God for male-bashing feminist Andrea Dworkin telling us how evil men are.

    Pandora offers a false contrast between strangers and dangerous people whom a woman might know all too well: Ex-husbands or ex-boyfriends. They are not strangers.

    While it is true that – in my opinion — most women vastly exaggerate and inflate those concerns for a variety of reasons, including justifying in their own minds their anger at a man by painting him as a monster in their imagination, or seeking support from friends and families by telling ever-increasing tales of woe that grow bigger at each retelling, it is still the woman’s choice, no matter what anyoen else thinks about her choice. If a woman might sleep better at night knowing she can defend herself, that’s her decision.

  19. “While it is true that – in my opinion — most women vastly exaggerate and inflate …”

    No comment.

  20. “While it is true that – in my opinion — most women vastly exaggerate and inflate those concerns for a variety of reasons, including justifying in their own minds their anger at a man by painting him as a monster in their imagination, or seeking support from friends and families by telling ever-increasing tales of woe that grow bigger at each retelling, it is still the woman’s choice, no matter what anyoen else thinks about her choice.”

    Speechless.

    The first 8 words of that paragraph are comedic gold, the rest of it is one giant face palm.

  21. Yes, the dishonesty of the Left is amazing, Falcor.

    You left out the words ‘THOSE CONCERNS” — specifically ex-husbands and ex-boyfriends.

    And the fact that I support a woman’s right to defend herself if she chooses. If a woman wants to sleep better at night with a gun in the house or whatever she wants to do, that’s none of your damn business. Yet you on the Left want to make your own decision about whether YOU think a woman needs to be protected and FORCE YOUR decision on all women.

    So who should be speechless?

    I say a woman has a right to decide for herself what makes her feel safe. The Left feels that it is the liberal government’s decision what women are allowed to do to protect themselves, based on your judgment, not hers.

    If a woman feels unsafe, arguing with her about her feelings is wrong and stupid. She has a right to do whatever makes her feel safe, whether you agree with her or not.

    However, I have dealt with “THOSE CONCERNS” — exboyfriends and exhusbands — as a lawyer, and am doing so even now with some clients.

    The cultural stereotype is exaggerated. Feminism’s male-bashing creates fear where it does not belong. Society screams at women nonstop that their exboyfriend or exhusband will be violent toward them. Why wouldn’t they be afraid? But it is a much-exaggerated issue.

    Meanwhile, a person gets sympathy and support from friends and family So there is an incentive to make one’s stories sound worse and worse, and startt to believe them. If friends and family give emotional support for what someone has been through, then there is a built-in incentive to tell an ever-increasing tale of woe. When most people tell their friends and family what happened, they don’t share both sides of the story. (I do, but that’s not typical.) They hype how bad it was to get sympathy. . And then they start to believe what they hear themselves saying to their friends and family.

    The greatest danger from 99.99999% of ex-husbands and ex-boyfriends is when they get tired of being slandered by their ex-wives and ex-girlfriends.

    I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that WE CAN NEVER FORGIVE THOSE WHOM WE HAVE WRONGED. Down deep, we know that we are guilty (at least partly) and that feels uncomfortable. We also fear that the other person would be justified in responding and wait for the other shoe to drop. So when we (male or female) wrong someone, we cannot forgive them. It is necessary psychologically to DEMONIZE the other person in order to make ourselves feel good about our anger and our actions.

    Someone else I think Mark Twain said “WE NEVER TRUST SOMEONE WHOM WE HAVE CHEATED.” Psychologically, (a) we deal with the guilty of having cheated someone by demonizing them and telling ourselves how bad he is so he deserved it, and (b) we are afraid that the victim will either respond or treat us the same way. So we can never trust someone we have cheated.

    When a woman goes through the trauma of a divorce, emotionally it helps to justify her own actions and decisions and the perceived “failure” of the relationship to make the man out to be a horrible caricature in her own mind. That is a defense mechanism that both men and women engage in, but differently.

    I helped an otherwise wonderful and smart businesswoman who tells everyone that her ex-husband “KILLED” her grandmother (because they were shouting at each other, although the ex-wife wasn’t even there, and the grandmother died shortly after). The ex-husband is a jerk without a conscience who is going to hell. But even so the fish in the fish story gets bigger with each retelling.

  22. See, there is a huge cultural difference in this discussion:

    The collectivist mind of the liberal automatically assumes that if X is true, then ALL PEOPLE must be FORCED to conform.

    So the collectivist mind can only think in terms of what everyone must do.

    The conservative thinks completely differently.

    So to the collectivist liberal, if a woman has been hyped up by a hysterical anti-male culture into believing that she is in danger from her ex-boyfriend — when in fact she is not in danger at all — then she must be FORCED to conform to the collectivist liberal government’s judgment.

    So when we discuss any scenario, the liberal can only think in terms of a collectivist respond.

    The conservative thinks in terms of personal autonomy and independence.

    So if I disagree with someone’s judgment of their own circumstances, it is incomprehensible to me or other conservatives to impose my views on them.

    A conservative is baffled by the thought. I can sit there and think that person is mistaken. But it would never cross my mind that they have to do what I think. Conservatives don’t think that way.

    So, for example, if I say that the only way to heaven is X. Liberals immediately imagine that this means suggesting that “everyone must be forced to do X.”

    To the liberal, if X is a good thing, everyone MUST do it.

    To a conservative, if X is a good thing, we’re just talking about it.

  23. To make this more clear: When conservatives discuss the merits of X, liberals “hear” this discussion as meaning “We are all going to do X.”

    Liberals don’t think in terms of you are going to do x while I do Y. The world they exist in psychologically requires that if X is best, then everyone MUST do X whether they want to or not.

    The conservative is perfectly comfortable saying to a person doing Y “Here are the reasons why you might want to do X instead” while respecting that person’s decision at the same time.

    To a liberal, discussing why X is better is a psychological attack upon the person who is doing Y. It is abusive and mean and nasty to talk about why X is better in front of someone who is doing Y.

    So if we talk about whether women really are in danger, to the Left this translates into whether a woman has a right to defend herself. To the RIght, this means the woman has a right to make her own decisions.

    But here’s the problem: If I would make a different decision than she would, to the Left that means she MAY NOT make a decision different from the liberal’s own judgment. To the conservative, it is totally irrelevant. It is her decision, not mine. In fact that is why conservatives feel comfortable discussing what the best decision might be, because we strongly believe that everyone is ultimately free to decide for themselves and we do not equate TALKING with making anyone do anything.

  24. Jon, I beg you, please keep this up.

    While it is true that – in my opinion — most women vastly exaggerate and inflate those concerns for a variety of reasons, including justifying in their own minds their anger at a man by painting him as a monster in their imagination, or seeking support from friends and families by telling ever-increasing tales of woe that grow bigger at each retelling, it is still the woman’s choice, no matter what anyoen else thinks about her choice. If a woman might sleep better at night knowing she can defend herself, that’s her decision.

    In your world, how could most women ever be proved innocent of defending themselves, since your view of most women are people who “vastly exaggerate and inflate those concerns for a variety of reasons, including justifying in their own minds their anger at a man by painting him as a monster in their imagination, or seeking support from friends and families by telling ever-increasing tales of woe that grow bigger at each retelling.”

    So if most women vastly exaggerate and inflate concerns due to anger (revenge?) then why would we believe most women shot a man out of fear for their safety?

    Oh yeah, please keep talking.

  25. Because Pandora “in my world” people get to make their own decisions.

    In your world, there is only one collectivist, monolithic decision that everyone must conform to.

    In my world, it is irrelevant whether I agree or disagree with another person’s decision. They have the right to make their own decisions.

    That is the difference between the conservative world and the world of the colllectivist Left.

    If I stand there and feel that a woman is making a mistake owning a gun, it is not my decision. It is hers.

    But the paternalistic, condescending Left believes that you should impose your decisions on everyone else.

  26. You see, being a liberal is a lower developmental stage.

    Slowly a developing child becomes aware that other people exist, but the child looks at other people as important only in terms of what the child wants or needs or perhaps doesn’t like.

    With maturity comes the recognition that other people are EQUALLY VALID and EQUALLY VALUABLE individuals, whose opinions and own desires are EQUALLY important to one’s own.

    Maturity allows me to hold a strong opinion of my own and stand right next to someone who holds an equally strong but opposite opinion. And that doesn’t bother me in the least. That’s because having matured psychologically to the level of a conservative, I see the other person as equal in value to myself. Of course, I am convinced that my opinion is OBJECTIVELY “right” and I believe it is important to explain to the person next to me why I believe I am right.

    But I understand that the person standing next to me is no less valuable or important than I am.

    Liberals, on the other hand, cannot cope with disagreement on anything significant. When confronted by someone who disagrees, they are compelled to HATE the person who has a different point of view. They must ATTACK, SMEAR, DISCREDIT, and SLANDER anyone who has a different opinion than they do.

    One must be confident in themselves and in their own opinions to be able to co-exist with people who believe differently than you do.

    Liberals, on the other hand, demand CONFORMITY because they are unable to cope with differences of opinion.

    To a liberal, disagreeing with the wolf pack is equivalent to an affront, insult or attack on the group.

  27. “You see, being a liberal is a lower developmental stage.”

    Actually, Jon, you see being a woman as a lower developmental stage.

    While it is true that – in my opinion — most women vastly exaggerate and inflate those concerns for a variety of reasons, including justifying in their own minds their anger at a man by painting him as a monster in their imagination, or seeking support from friends and families by telling ever-increasing tales of woe that grow bigger at each retelling, it is still the woman’s choice, no matter what anyoen else thinks about her choice. If a woman might sleep better at night knowing she can defend herself, that’s her decision.

    I will never get tired of cutting and pasting that.

    Also, in your world, a woman can have a gun and then go to jail if she uses it (at least most women) because why should anyone believe someone who vastly exaggerates and inflates concerns because she’s angry?

    Keep typing yourself into circles. No one is going to forget how you’ve shown your true colors. Seriously, keep typing.

  28. Pandora asks: “In your world, how could most women ever be proved innocent of defending themselves, … So if most women vastly exaggerate and inflate concerns due to anger (revenge?) then why would we believe most women shot a man out of fear for their safety?”

    Because there is more involved in a shooting to defend oneself than simply a woman’s self-serving claim. ALWAYS there are more factors that the police or a court look at.

    If totally out of the blue a woman shoots a man with no record or pattern or prior indication of any problem, the police and the courts would ALWAYS look for more clues one way or the other.

    Pandora, if a MAN shot a man and claimed it was in self-defense, shoudl the police simply take his word for it? WILL the police simply take his word for it? NO.

    What I clearly said was that a woman’s perception of whether or not she should buy a gun to protect herself against an ex-husband or an ex-boyfriend is often exaggerated both because our society hypes the supposed danger and because a woman is psychologically “rewarded” by tellling a tale of woe to her friends and family, which she then has to believe herself to sustain the complaint.

    That concerns a HYPOTHETICAL danger at the stage of deciding whether or not to buy a gun (or presumably put in a security system or buy an attack dog or whatever).

    You are talking about a totally different situation where things have moved light years (a measure of distance not time) beyond a hypothetical perception of danger. You are talking about when a person has actually been shot.

    Police are NEVER going to take a man’s word for it or a woman’s word for it on a claim of self defense, without examining all the circumstances.

    They would ALWAYS look at a history or pattern. Let’s say the woman takes out a life insurance policy for a million dollars on the man, and for the last 6 weeks witnesses see them kissing and hugging and having a wonderful relationship and then out of the blue the man is dead. Suspicious.

    On the other hand, let’s suppose that witnesses say the man and woman have been fighting for months, the woman has told the man to leave her alone, a witness saw the man banging on the woman’s door at her home and breaking the door down, and the man was shot INSIDE the woman’s home.

    It doesn’t matter whether we believe the woman’s internal emotional experience. It is clear that the woman shot the man in self defense.

    On the other hand, if the woman goes to the man’s office after hours and shoots him inside his own office, no one is going to believe that was self defense.

  29. Pandora asks: “Also, in your world, a woman can have a gun and then go to jail if she uses it (at least most women) because why should anyone believe someone who vastly exaggerates and inflates concerns because she’s angry? ”

    And how is that different from a man who uses a gun?

    You posit the false scenario that if a man shoots someone, everyone believes him, but a woman is viewed differently.

    HELL NO. A man is not automatically believed if there has been a shooting. Not at all.

    In fact, quite the contrary. Because or society hypes the FALSE MYTH of the dangerous ex-boyfriend or ex-husband, men are ASSUMED to be dangerous, out-of-control monsters. There are two streams of feminism: Equality feminists, of which I am one, who believe in treating all people equally. And so-called “gender feminism” which exist for bashing men and hating men and portraying men as primitive and dangerous monsters.

    The dominant image of American society is that a woman would be believed far more easily than a man on a claim of self defense.

    If a woman claims that she was defending herself, everyone up and down the line, from the (probably male) cop to the jury to the judge is going to believe the woman, yet disbelieve the man. That’s because men are falsely assumed to be violent while women are falsely assumed to always be innocent.

  30. Decades ago a police officer told me father (he worked in the emergency room so the police would often chat with the E.R. staff when time permitted) that if you have to shoot someon breaking into your home, make sure you drag him all the way inside the house before calling the police.

    You are assumign that the question is decided by someone’s internal emotional experience.

    The question of a shooting in self defense is NOT depended upon one’s claims of their internal emotional state. Police look at all the surrounding circumstances, not just what you say.

    You also offer a false difference between men and women. You assume that women are somehow treated differently than men. I woudl say that to the extent that a woman is treated any differently, women are given the benefit of the doubt far more than men.

  31. Oh, crud. Someone delete the earlier version. Horrible typing:

    Decades ago a police officer told my father (he worked in the emergency room so the police would often chat with the E.R. staff when time permitted) that if you have to shoot someone breaking into your home, make sure you drag him all the way inside the house before calling the police.

    You are assuming that the question is decided by someone’s internal emotional experience.

    The question of a shooting in self defense is NOT dependent upon one’s claims of their internal emotional state. Police look at all the surrounding circumstances, not just what you say.

    You also offer a false difference between men and women. You assume that women are somehow treated differently than men. I woudl say that to the extent that a woman is treated any differently, women are given the benefit of the doubt far more than men.

  32. Dear Lord, keep typing.

    It doesn’t matter whether we believe the woman’s internal emotional experience. It is clear that the woman shot the man in self defense.

    On the other hand, if the woman goes to the man’s office after hours and shoots him inside his own office, no one is going to believe that was self defense.

    These are pearls, Jon. Pearls, I tell you.

  33. The fact that you are surprised by the reality is the pearl.

    What I am telling you is the way it is, and the way it should be.

    The fact that you don’t “get” that is the real pearl, Pandora.

    If a man shoots someone and says “I was afraid for my life” NO ONE is going to assume that the man is telling the truth. They are going to examine all the facts and circumstances.

    Same with a woman.

  34. “If a man shoots someone and says “I was afraid for my life” NO ONE is going to assume that the man is telling the truth. They are going to examine all the facts and circumstances.

    Same with a woman.”

    Except with most women they’ll have to factor in the fact that “most women vastly exaggerate and inflate those concerns for a variety of reasons, including justifying in their own minds their anger at a man by painting him as a monster in their imagination, or seeking support from friends and families by telling ever-increasing tales of woe that grow bigger at each retelling.”

    So… in your world, Jon, it isn’t the same with women.

    (Still not tired of cutting and pasting that comment!)

    Seriously, Jon. Just retract that comment about most women being basically liars, and move on.

  35. No, Pandora, there is NO factor of assuming what someone believes or does not believe.

    This is one reason why I am exploring this.

    The law routinely INFERS subjective mental state from objective, external facts and circumstances.

    So you are assuming that prejudices or assumptions are important.

    I disagree. I say it doesn’t matter what you assume or I assume. It matters what the facts show.

    Pandora, why is a MAN, Oscar Pistorium being prosecuted for murder?

    Here is a MAN who says he thought he was shooting an intruder in his house. It was in his own house.

    But prosecutors don’t believe him. This is a famous, well-liked, beloved Olympic athelete who has a great heart-warming live story of overcoming adversity.

    Yet authorities don’t believe him. They are prosecuting him for MURDER.

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/blade-runner-oscar-pistorius-makes-bail-18573653

    But your assumption is that if a woman shoots someone, she won’t be believed

    Your assumption is driving your perspective on this.

    Your assumption that a woman isn’t believed is not based on reality.

    A shooting in self defense is not based on believing or not believing, but is based on all the facts.

  36. Pandora, I did not say that women are basically liars. You are being a cliche by saying that.

    Fear is an emotion. Having an exaggerated fear from a broken relationship is entirely different from intentionally choosing to say something that isn’t true.

    And my comment was explicitly limited to fears about ex-husbands or ex-boyfriends. WHen it comes to trauma in relationships, yes, women tend to exaggerate their emotions about a break-up.

    And if you don’t admit that you are not telling the truth.

    Pandora, it has usually been other women throughout my life warning me not to be too gullible or naive about women. It is women who will be quick to warn that not everything a woman says is necessarily true.

    Men tend to be gullible and believe what a sweet-seeming woman has to say.

    I have often had women tell me not to fall for what other women are saying.

    While in Eastern Europe, my friend Juli would frequently tell me how I was being taken in and fooled by another woman, Irina.

  37. I did not say that women are basically liars

    Uh, no, you said that (1) women habitually “exaggerate” about break-ups [to a significantly greater extent than men]; (2) women admit on a regular basis that that not everything a woman says is necessarily true [you make that point 3 times]; and (3) men are stupid to believe that women tell the truth [Men tend to be gullible and believe what a sweet-seeming woman has to say].

    But, no, you never said that women are basically liars, you just said that men should never trust what they say.

    I can that there is a gigantic difference here. Or, wait, no I can’t.

  38. No, Steve, you have a comprehension problem. Which may be because you are a liberal.

    Steve: “Uh, no, you said that (1) women habitually “exaggerate” about break-ups [to a significantly greater extent than men];”

    No, you ASS-U-MEd a difference between men and women. I said nothing about a greater extent than men

    The discussion was about whether a woman should decide for herself whether to buy a gun or whether Pandora and other liberals should make that decision for all women.

    There is absolutely nothing in that discussion about all the times that men lie. We were not talking about all the times that many men lie.

    Steven, do you want to wade into a conversation about men lying to get women into bed?

    Shall we have a discussion about men lying about their exploits with women?

    Shall we talk about politicians – most of whom (sadly) are men — lying?

    How about all the lies and frauds by business, which historically has been dominated by men?

    Where are you getting a gender distinction? There is absolutely no difference between men and women when it comes to lying.

    Only liberalism could even entertain the absurd and crazy idea that men lie and women don’t or women lie and men don’t. You gotta be kidding me.

    You really want to go out to the public with the message that men lie and women don’t? Be my guest. the Democrat party will never get another male vote again.

    In fact, you won’t ever get a female vote again, either, because women won’t stop laughing at you.

    Now, society does HYPE the issue of ex-husbands and ex-boyfriends, driven by feminist male-bashing, which is not a gender issue, it is a political liberal issue.

    So it is a cultural theme that is drummed into everyone’s brain, as feminist Andrea Dworkin promoted, that men are evil monsters who are violent. There is a gender difference in terms of the HYPE that women are subjected to their entire lives in our society.

    Steve writes: “(2) women admit on a regular basis that that not everything a woman says is necessarily true [you make that point 3 times]; ”

    Not “admit.” Women have often WARNED me not to be fooled.

    There is nothing to “admit.” Again, the idea that women don’t ever lie is laughable. There is nothing to “admit.”

    Women have often WARNED me out of concern that men will be easily deceived by a beautiful women.

    Women are lied to and lied about by other women. Therefore, women know that many women — just like men — sometimes lie.

    Again, if you want to claim that women never lie, women will be laughing at you for hours. Women are often the VICTIMS of other women lying about them.

    Steve writes: “and (3) men are stupid to believe that women tell the truth [Men tend to be gullible and believe what a sweet-seeming woman has to say].”

    That’s what women have said to me.

    You do understand the difference between what I am saying and what other people are saying, right?

    Women have often said that they are afraid that gullible men will be fooled by a beautiful woman and not see through it when women lie.

  39. Jon

    Reading comprehension problems? Pot meet kettle.

    There is no reason to make an issue out of your contention that women exaggerate about relationship break-ups if men do so to the exact same extent. You know that. You just got caught. No biggie.

    There is also no reason to pass on your anecdotal comments about women telling you not to trust other women unless you believe them and believe them to be representative. In backing off from your own words, you reveal yourself as not just ill-informed but unwilling to stand behind your own insinuations.

    Besides that, you really lose it when you call me a liberal (because only liberals could defend women, apparently) since I’m not, which you know well.

    In fact, 90% of everything you’ve written tonight is an attempt to squirrel your way out of what you’ve said yourself. Good going, old boy.

  40. Jon,

    The U of D has prohibited firearms on campus at least since I attended there decades ago. There was never any discussion over allowing firearms on campus then and I have not read or heard of any since. Clearly, prohibiting firearms on campus’ is well-accepted in Delaware. So why do you think Delawareans would object to prohibiting firearms on Colorado campus’ ?

  41. Steve Newton on February 23, 2013 at 21:39 said: “There is no reason to make an issue out of your contention that women exaggerate about relationship break-ups if men do so to the exact same extent.”

    Steve, if society rewards exaggeration, you will get more of it.

    Men and women exaggerate to the same extent and for the same reasons, but not necessarily about the same things because their life experiences, social settings, and circumstances may not be the same.

    When there is an emotional pay-off or social advantage for exaggeration, there will be more exaggeration.

    When a person gets away with exaggerating their whole life, they will do more and more of it over time.

    We live in a society that does not value the truth.

    While women also fish, the “fish story” comes from a cliche of the MAN who goes out fishing… and LIES about “the fish that got away” — meaning there is no proof as to how big the fish really was.

    The traditionally MALE teller of the fish story gets social status and social rewards by boasting about how big the fish was that he caught (but can’t prove). So there is an incentive and reward for making the fish bigger and bigger each time the story is retold. And if one man caught a fish “this” big, the next men has an incentive to tell how he caught an even-bigger fish “THIS” big.

    So the only way in which women exaggerate more about break-ups than men is the same extent to which they are REWARDED for exaggerating by friends and family, by getting more sympathy or even (perversely) social standing for having been through a terrible story — somewhat like the school kid who shows off his “wicked” scar and gets lots of attention for having the nastiest scar.

    Socially, women get more attention and emotional reinforcement by playing the damsel in distress. Socially, women are taught to believe — consider the horrid book “THE RULES” (and then be sure to burn the book lest it ruin someone’s life) — in which women are TAUGHT that they will be perceived as more valuable if they are being chased by lots of men. (Women really don’t understand any more about men than men understand about women.) So a woman is TAUGHT to believe that she will be more attractive to the man she really wants by playing up all the men who are chasing her. ’cause there is nothing a man wants more than to hear a woman talking about some other man instead of him. Sure.

    Does this mean that reports of abuse are never true? How could anyone even ask that question with a straight face? How could anyone talk about “never” or “always” without breaking down laughing at themselves and apologize “Sorry. I was putting you on. I know that’s completely absurd: Never. Always. Sorry. My bad.”

    Why do criminals counterfeit $20 bills and not $9 bills?

    Because there actually are REAL $20 bills. They don’t counterfeit $9 bills because there are no real $9 bills.

    Of course some men DO mistreat girlfriends and wives.

    I’ve mentioned before the joke (observation) among Protestant Christians of a competition to have a worse “testimony” than the next person: I was worse than you were. The before / after story can tend to grow bigger and bigger so that my “before” life was more dramatic and more horrible than anyone else’s. I win. My “before” life was the worst. So my story of how God changed me is better than your story. (Obviously, someone doing this has totally missed the whole point of Christian salvation, which is why it is a joke among some Protestants.)

    However, predictably, you see a distinction where none was made.

    And that is because you – like nearly everyone — are stuck deep in a rut of social propaganda. So you see things that aren’t there. You see what you expect to see, after years of conditioning.

    But is there a genetic basis for lying? What would explain a gender distinction? Is there something about being a man or a woman that makes one more likely to lie than the other?

    I mean, what explains the idea that propagandists even want to talk about this? Really? Someone woudl really seriously contemplate this topic?

    The only factor in whether a person is more likely to lie is whether they habitually succeed.

    The most important thing in someone’s life might be the moment when someone stands up, says NO, you’re not going to get away with that any more. STOP. You’re lying. You’re caught red-handed. It’s time to STOP and turn around and take the high road.

    As long as a person keeps getting away with it, they will sink deeper and deeper into sin and their conscience will be seared, as the Bible says, as with a hot iron.

    As for the idea that women lie in the context of the law is preposterous. When a woman accuses a man of rape, the very natural question hsa been very simply “Is it true?” Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.

    But it is just as laughable to argue that women (or men) NEVER lie as to argue that they always lie. How can anyone say such things with a straight face?

    Quite simply, someone who is trying to push the argument that women never lie is… lying.

  42. Steven Newton writes: “Besides that, you really lose it when you call me a liberal (because only liberals could defend women, apparently) ”

    What makes you think you are defending women? Now, you might feel you are running to the sound of a clash, only to arrive and find that it wasn’t what you thought. So it might have been your instinct.

    I say you are probably a liberal because you instinctively react with liberal propaganda themes. Even the idea that you are defending women is an example of liberal brainwashing.

    How exactly are you defending women? I mean it is good that you are eager to do so. And it is a noble thing that you want to at the drop of a hat.

    But reading Pandora’s posts at Delaware LIberal, Pandora argues — falsely — that no one ever believes a woman if a woman shoots someone in self-defense (and presumably in other situations). Nothing could be further from the truth.

    We have a beloved Olympic athelete, a man, currently being prosecuted for shooting a woman in his own home. He has no legs. He has overcome adversity. He tells a convincing story about hearing an intruder in his house. (People described how this is a big problem in the city where he lives, and it is very much on people’s minds, cause there really are a lot of intruders.)

    He’s a man. So do prosecutors just believe him because he is a man? NOPE. He is being prosecuted for murder.

    Pandora’s theme is simply false that men are believed and women aren’t believed.

    But in pushing her male-bashing feminism, Pandora has to push the theme that women ALWAYS tell the truth. That’s laughable. Neither men nor women “always” tell the truth.

    But what women have warned me over my life is that THEY (women) see other women being deceitful and getting away with it because they are pretty, bat their eyelashes, flirt with a dumb guy, and the guy — flush with hormones — falls for it. Women have made it clear (not exactly saying it) that it burns them up to watch other women getting away with exaggerating, manipulating, and even lying. Women are mad that other women lie and succeed at it because men are dumb and are thinking about the woman’s, er, assets, rather than rationally evaluating what the woman is saying.

  43. Jon says: “But reading Pandora’s posts at Delaware LIberal, Pandora argues — falsely — that no one ever believes a woman if a woman shoots someone in self-defense (and presumably in other situations). Nothing could be further from the truth.”

    Of course, I never said any such thing. Please provide a link to where I said, “that no one ever believes a woman if a woman shoots someone in self-defense (and presumably in other situations).” Go on. I’ll wait.

    As far as the Oscar Pistorius case… I thought your point above was that the police would settle these things. You did say:

    “Because there is more involved in a shooting to defend oneself than simply a woman’s self-serving claim. ALWAYS there are more factors that the police or a court look at.

    If totally out of the blue a woman shoots a man with no record or pattern or prior indication of any problem, the police and the courts would ALWAYS look for more clues one way or the other.

    Pandora, if a MAN shot a man and claimed it was in self-defense, shoudl the police simply take his word for it? WILL the police simply take his word for it? NO.”

    Isn’t that what’s happening in the Pistorius case? Why would you have a problem with that? And it’s obvious you have a problem.

    Jon says: “Pandora’s theme is simply false that men are believed and women aren’t believed.”

    Never said this.

    Jon says: “But in pushing her male-bashing feminism, Pandora has to push the theme that women ALWAYS tell the truth.”

    Never said this. It is pretty interesting that this is a discussion about lying, no?

    As far as what the women in your life tell you about other women, perhaps it’s the company you keep.

Comments are closed.