Now that you've made up your mind, anything to the contrary is a conspiracy.
Did you actually listen to what Sean said? He starts by saying it's wrong to hit women. He knows it's wrong. What he's saying is if a woman doesn't know when to shut up, they could get themselves slapped and it wasn't beneath him either. He's justifying physical retaliation to verbal abuse. That's very different from straight DV. In fact, maybe he doesn't want any women to be slapped. Maybe they do it to themselves just as he made you publicly shame him?
Which brings us to another nuanced topic. Is public shaming non-violent?
Of course, maybe he hit first or just uses that as an excuse, who knows. His first wife's autobiography has some dirt, but then again, was it PR filler to sell her book? Or maybe he never hit anyone in his life, but just said something he believed which just happened to no longer be in fashion.
My only point is, demonizing or idolizing is all absurd. It's an act that only gets easier when nuance is removed and positions are deemed absolute. Because ultimately that's what it is. Removal of all nuance.
Today it's still okay by most for a woman to hit a man. Tomorrow will men get the justice they deserve? Also my 2yo hits me and I have video evidence. Should I hold on to it?
If someone needs help, let's help them. Public shaming helps no one.
> supposedly enlightened and fair minded Hacker News
>Today it's still okay by most for a woman to hit a man.
The context here is that a woman can't threaten a man with violence due to being unable to injure or harm the man (I'm excluding stinging for a few seconds from a slap).
Whereas a woman is always at a great disadvantage for defending herself against a man, so if a man hits her, even if it's just a slap, it indicates that he is willing to hit her, and might hit her harder next time causing damage. This context makes the difference between a woman slapping a man versus a man slapping a woman. A similar situation is if a very small child slapped an adult.
Note that my statement isn't comparing women to small children, but to illustrate the role of differences in displays of physical power between two people.
None of the above is me endorsing any sort of violence or physical retribution, but I'm trying to explain most people wouldn't be okay with a woman hitting a man in a way that injures him or causes long term intimidation, but why a slap in a sitcom is accepted.
But that's not a true context is it? It's the sexist one that says women are weaker and must be harmless. A woman can absolutely threaten a man with violence. We see it every day in all of the broken marriages, divorce settlements, and situations where children become weapons. The whole situation with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard is one where the traditional roles are reversed.
The truth is that a human being is capable of untold destruction in many forms, and history proves it over and over again. It can be physical, emotional, torturous...you can't make good and evil out of it.
It’s not sexist to say a woman (in general) is physically weaker than a man, it’s a fact due to biology.
I’m just saying that I only see society accepting women hitting a man in the context of a rare slap in sitcoms or movies in the heat of the moment, but I wouldn’t take that to mean society accepts women harming men long term or whatever Depp / Heard thing you’re referring to.
Which is all sexist, but accepted. Which again is interesting.
> might hit harder next time
Pre-crime?
I am not sure if you saw Mr. Connery's interview, but this is far closer to what he was saying than any straight up endorsement of domestic violence:
"None of the above is me endorsing any sort of violence or physical retribution, but I'm trying to explain most people wouldn't be okay with a man hitting a woman in a way that injures her or causes long term intimidation, but why a slap in a sitcom is accepted."
> “ Now that you've made up your mind, anything to the contrary is a conspiracy.”
This is an absurd response. Just look at the article - it is emphatically not a retraction or apology. You can’t just claim I’ve become close-minded and therefore dismiss anything else that’s said. That’s just your own close-mindedness.
> “ He starts by saying it's wrong to hit women. He knows it's wrong. What he's saying is if a woman doesn't know when to shut up, they could get themselves slapped and it wasn't beneath him either. He's justifying physical retaliation to verbal abuse.“
This is not what he said at all. This is an attempt by you to whitewash it and cover it with things that are exposing your own misogyny. Framing any behavior Connery ascribed to these hypothetical women that could “cause” him to slap them as “abuse” perpetrated by the women is directly misogynistic by you!
I shudder that I even have to point this out to you - that your own comments here are pretty morally contemptible but you very blindly and very wrongly appear to think you’re representing some sort of higher plane of discourse where you don’t reduce people to binary good or bad characterizations.
> “ Today it's still okay by most for a woman to hit a man. Tomorrow will men get the justice they deserve? Also my 2yo hits me and I have video evidence. Should I hold on to it?”
What point do you think you’re making here? This is borderline incoherent? Are you claiming a two year old hitting you is somehow the same as a world famous movie star going on national TV and saying he thinks it’s ok to slap women? Because there’s no other rhetorical flair to your comment that could make any sense.
> “ If someone needs help, let's help them. Public shaming helps no one.”
This sounds like a true defender of abusers. You sincerely ought to be ashamed of yourself for the position you’re describing.
You're free to disagree or challenge any statement, but character assassination is something else. This is modern witch hunting. This is bullying. What if I had then gone and killed myself. You don't know me. No context should ever justify bullying.
And if you'd asked me whether I am a defender of abusers, I could have writted how I am not. Yet, you've already made assumptions to the contrary.
> your own close-mindedness.
What I said could also be interpreted as open-minded. You just don't appreciate the context in which it was practiced.
To only be able to see things in specific ways to the detriment of others and yourself is close-mindedness, similar to what you have demonstrated with your views.
> If someone needs help, let's help them. Public shaming helps no one.
Take Bill Cosby, since he's been found guilty of acts, not just speech. Do you think Cosby needs any shaming beyond the facts?
If you're going around spewing hate regarding someone who has already shamed themselves by their own actions, what exactly does anyone need you for? And what exactly are you doing?
Sean Connery is the same. What he said embarassed him enough. People already hated him enough for it and punished him at the time.
If you want to help DV victims then let's help DV victims. Shaming a dead Bond does little for your cause, just as shaming Dr. Huxtable will do little or nothing to protect anyone that needs help now. No DV perp is going to read what you wrote and change their ways.
Now that you've made up your mind, anything to the contrary is a conspiracy.
Did you actually listen to what Sean said? He starts by saying it's wrong to hit women. He knows it's wrong. What he's saying is if a woman doesn't know when to shut up, they could get themselves slapped and it wasn't beneath him either. He's justifying physical retaliation to verbal abuse. That's very different from straight DV. In fact, maybe he doesn't want any women to be slapped. Maybe they do it to themselves just as he made you publicly shame him?
Which brings us to another nuanced topic. Is public shaming non-violent?
Of course, maybe he hit first or just uses that as an excuse, who knows. His first wife's autobiography has some dirt, but then again, was it PR filler to sell her book? Or maybe he never hit anyone in his life, but just said something he believed which just happened to no longer be in fashion.
My only point is, demonizing or idolizing is all absurd. It's an act that only gets easier when nuance is removed and positions are deemed absolute. Because ultimately that's what it is. Removal of all nuance.
Today it's still okay by most for a woman to hit a man. Tomorrow will men get the justice they deserve? Also my 2yo hits me and I have video evidence. Should I hold on to it?
If someone needs help, let's help them. Public shaming helps no one.
> supposedly enlightened and fair minded Hacker News
I almost spilled my coffee.