https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMJo4N6CKTA

Let’s talk about male self defense. The above video is of a few tradcons on fox and friends discussing an incident surrounding Florida state football player De’Andre Johnson and the scuffle he got into in a Tallahassee bar with a woman. The two seemed to have gotten into some kind of disagreement, Johnson claims that the woman provoked him by using racial epithets, but this isn’t verifiable since the video had no sound. What we do know is that there was a bit of a scuffle that occurred and that the woman was the first to throw a punch. Johnson responded by punching her back, and has been demonized heavily for it in social and mainstream media. He has been suspended from Florida state and brought up on misdemeanor charges, potentially ending a promising football career before it even gets started.

Now, I will say this, because we’ve only seen so much video of what happened, I can only speculate based off of what I’ve seen, but let’s assume what we saw on the video, the woman throwing the first punch, and De’Andre punching her back, was the gist of it. Just two drunk people, settling a conflict in a bar with a couple of thrown punches. Why would the person who threw the punch first, in this case the female, not be held accountable for initiating violence? Well we all know the answer to that. Women aren’t held to the same amount of accountability that men are. Had this not been a football player who was likely able to defend himself against attacks from every other man in the bar, I would not have been surprised if a bunch of salivating whiteknights beat him to a bloody pulp for daring to defend himself from the violent attack of a woman.

Again, I do not know what occurred before the video so I cant say I know the full sory, but I will analyze the fox and friends video bit by bit here.

29 seconds in:

Steve Doocy:”We all know a man should never hit a woman, right?”

Wrong. People, women included, should not hit people, men included. If a woman decides to hit someone, then she has opened herself up to retaliatory action and, even if it is a male self defense on the part of the person she attacked. This is a simple concept to understand and is based in the most fundamental aspect of reality. That is, cause and effect.

1:12

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: Dr., I believe that no man should ever hit a woman but what do you say to the people out there that say he (De’Andre) was provoked?

Dr. Keith Ablow: I certainly understand the provocation. He’s drinking, there could be poor impulse control, who knows this guy could have had head trauma as a football player in the past. I get that, and yet it’s so unattractive, it’s so beyond the pale that you’d say, listen, this is an outlying case this is a guy whose supposed to (unintelligible I’m assuming he said “behave”) with decorum. And look if those are facts that need to come out in the legal process they should. I’m not saying the guy should go to jail, I’m saying he’s not a role model and I think that to this extent that we are now saying that boys and girls are no different, listen, equality doesn’t mean equivalent, you don’t hit girls.

They go on to blame this all on the fact that “boys can wrestle girls now” in co-ed sports, or some other such bullshit. This is the hallmark of the traditionalist conservative mentality. If you see a drunk violent woman in a bar being… well, violent and finally she gets a taste of her own medicine, then it is the fault of an agenda to “do away with all gender differences” presumably by the evil leftists they hold responsible for all of the worlds ills.

Now, don’t get me wrong, the left does in fact do this, we all know how much they love to adhere to the notion that gender is a social construct and other feel good fallacies, but this… this wasn’t caused by “the left” it was caused by a woman, being violent. It wasn’t caused, even inadvertently by co-ed wrestling events, it was caused by a woman being violent.

Yes, if women wish to enjoy a night out in a bar, like men, then why wouldn’t it follow that they are held to a standard of non-violence, like men. When men get drunk and start hitting people in bars, they usually end up in a fight, and many times they also end up in a jail cell.

But this, gentleman, is a delicate flower, she can’t be held responsible for punching musclebound football players, she’s a woman, and women are special creatures, who also somehow aren’t special enough to be held to the same standards as men. Let’s tackle the key hypocritical points this Dr. Ablow is expressing here.

I certainly understand the provocation he’s drinking, there could be poor impulse control, who knows this guy could have had head trauma as a football player in the past.

Ah, yes, De’Andre had “poor impulse control”, and he “could have had head trauma”. Isn’t it amazing how male self defense is portrayed as some fault on the part of De’Andre, or even on some neurological malfunction that he defended himself from a violent attack? If you’re a man who acts in his own rational self interest by defending yourself, it can be portrayed as a mental malfunction, so long as you are defending yourself against a woman. Had it been a man that De’Andre hit in self defense, the good doctor would have celebrated it as an act of masculinity. Then again, had it been a man, this wouldn’t even have been news, since it would be chalked up to a simple and justified act of defense and that would be that.

And look if those are facts that need to come out in the legal process they should, I’m not saying the guy should go to jail, I’m saying he’s not a role model and I think that to this extent that we are now saying that boys and girls are no different, listen, equality doesn’t mean equivalent, you don’t hit girls.

Well then, at least this clown doesn’t think he should be thrown in jail, I guess that’s a good thing. Frankly though, the fact that he then goes onto express the exact same sort of gynocentric attitudes that have created the twilightzone-esque legal climate where a man is expected to chivalrously eat a punch from a drunk belligerent female without responding in kind, tells us all we need to know. He draws the line at legal imprisonment for men who defend themselves from women but wishes to uphold the social consequences of doing so, had ten guys jumped on Johnson and beat him to a pulp he would have almost certainly not had a problem with it.

Conservative apologists and other gynocentrists will point to this and say

“Well, he may have these opinions but the left legalizes these double standards into law”

The left does, but not without the social inertia that is required to build this consensus, that a man should never hit a woman, even in self defense, which the conservative right is all to happy to bolster. Social norms, based in biology, inform and precede the implementation of law, and the chivalry that the right perpetuates feeds into the legal climate that the left creates in which women have no agency if and only if it benefits them to have none.

Equality doesn’t mean equivalent, you don’t hit girls.

Does assault mean assault? does violence mean violence? does it matter what gender the person doing the assaulting is? You wont hear them answering those questions of course.

I saw an interesting video the other day, it starts by depicting a giant mountain creature, going about his business, doing whatever giant mountain creatures do. He moves a few rocks around and in doing so, accidentally initiates a landslide. The giant, knowing that a human village lies directly in the path of a giant boulder now careening down the hillside immediately springs into action. In hopes of saving the human village from catastrophe, he throws himself in the path of the boulder. Bracing for impact, the boulder slams into him shortly after and the giant is slowly dragged down the hillside while counteracting the inertia of the boulder.

Slowly but surely, the force of the boulder drags the giant all the way down to the edge of the human village. Despite all of his effort, the giant hits one small minaret with his foot, destroying it, but saving the rest of the village as a result. In reaction to this, the humans perceive it as an attack on their village, and in a feeble attempt at self defense, fire their primitive weapons at the impenetrable hide of the stone giant. After having expended all of his energy stopping this massive boulder, seeing that the humans thanked his good deed by attacking him, the giant decides that such unappreciative creatures aren’t worth saving, and simply lets go of the boulder, which crushes the village immediately.

I believe that society, when it is threatened by certain archetypes of masculinity, will sub-consciously erect control mechanisms for that masculinity. I believe that we justify treating certain demographics of people as societies pin cushions, expecting them to withstand much more abuse than other demographics, we justify violence, particularly violence done in self defense based not only on the facts, things like who attacked first etc., but also in the capacity for harm that the individual defending himself can bring to bear. The larger the capacity for destructive violence the individual can wield, the less forgiving we are toward them, and the less understanding we are toward them acting in self defense, even when it is legitimate.

We don’t care if our metaphorical giant saves our village, the fact that he knocked down our minarets, means that he can knock down all of our minarets, we can’t afford to take that chance so we open fire despite the fact that the gentle giant has never shown anything other than a desire to help us. The same thing applies to men. We would like to think that we are rational and non-biased in the dissemination of justice, but study after study shows us that women are given lighter sentences than men for committing the same crimes.

The sentencing gap can be explained, I think, by an unconscious legislation of our fears of the potential destruction surrounding male criminality. We do this because our society is scared of men, despite the fact that it needs us to keep civilization running. So they grudgingly accept us, repressing the fact that we make them uneasy. Society develops rituals that provide sub conscious “tells” regarding their innate fear of men, and they do this for men of all races and ethnicities, with the most notable being black and white men (but we will discuss the racial aspect at another time).

Take for example the NFL, every year, these physically imposing male athletes take the field to show off their capacity for violence in a modern gladiatorial arena. We love to witness their simulated barbarism, in a controlled way, from the safety of the stands or our television screens. But we also take these men and dress them up in pink for “breast cancer awareness”. This is, of course, bullshit. You’d never see the popular women’s sports teams, the American women’s soccer team for example, being forced to wear blue in their uniforms for “prostate cancer awareness”.

What is being done here is that these men are being paraded around in a manner that is designed to emasculate them, it is designed to show women, that these savages, these 200-300+ pound brutes are “trained”. They know when to be violent and when not to be, they are bears riding tricycles for their human masters, who revel in the sight of seeing such powerful animals doing our bidding, even when it’s humiliating. And so we tell these brutes to put on these pink shoes, to put on these pink uniforms, as a preemptive way of gauging their submission and obedience to the gynocentric status quo. It’s designed to have a psychological muzzling effect, its designed to say to these players, we love it when you’re violent, but only to each other, here’s a pink colored psychological notice that you’d better not visit that violence on society, especially when some curious spectator keeps poking you with her stick just to see what happens.

Yes, that’s how society regards men with a high potential for destructive violence, and yes they regard him as such even if he demonstrates no tendency to act in violence if it is not justifiable under the universal law of self defense. more on this later gentleman.