Greek woman sets fire to drunken Briton's genitals

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture
Greek woman sets fire to drunken Briton's genitals

ha!

Quote:
A 26-year old Greek woman has become an overnight national hero after setting fire to the genitals of a 23-year old drunken Briton who allegedly tried to sexually assault her in a crowded bar.

 

...the Briton took down his trousers and started waving his genitals at a number of girls. He then specifically "forcefully fondled" the 26-year old Greek woman, asking her to take hold of his genitals.

After asking him to stop harassing her, the police said, she poured the alcoholic drink Sabucco on his genitals (an Italian brand type of Greek ouzo or French Pernod drink).

This again allegedly failed to stop his advances, so the woman seized a lighter and set fire to the alcohol-drenched genitals, local press reports said.

"the magistrate and prosecutor also unanimously agreed to set the woman free pending trial, an indication that they accepted her argument that she "acted in justified self-defence".

h/t EM

Michelle

Well, I guess that's one way to get someone to stop sexually assaulting you!

Stargazer

I am outraged!!! Outraged I tell you...... oh okay...you're not falling for it....

Unionist

Anyone hear about the two-headed goat born in Sikkim?

Michelle

Ha!

martin dufresne

If only he hadn't been obnoxiously singing that old Doors song...

 

Unionist

This thread should be renamed - or preferably closed. Besides providing titillation for some of our residents, it is defamatory against a woman who may have been the victim of a sexual assault. She denies the charge of setting fire to anyone, even though that may reduce her "heroic" stature in the eyes of some here.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8189296.stm]Woman denies setting man on fire[/url]

Or is it ok to libel her on babble because she's a foreigner and a woman?

 

remind remind's picture

Fuck I am so sick of men determining, or thinking they can, what we talk about here, or how we talk or think about it.

And then try to make it as if we are defaming a sexual assualted woman in order to jusify our silencing.

Hey unionist I once punched a guy in the face, with a beautiful right hook upper cut to the jaw, for verally assualting me, he jaw snapeed shut and he cut his tongue.  I guess I have no right to do that and tell of it here as it is sensationalizing my victimhood.

I got an idea... if you do not like it, why do you not stay out of this thread in feminist forum...

Unionist

Just thought I'd point out that this woman denied what you wrote in the title thread. That doesn't seem to bother you. My pointing it out bothers you. Why would that be?

By the way, what does this sexual assault incident from Greece (where the facts are incredibly far from clear) have to do with feminism?

 

remind remind's picture

What do you have to do with feminism?

You wanting it closed and using the word "titliation"  and the whole heroic stature bashing rhetoric, pissed me off actually.

 

Slumberjack

Jerry Lee Lewis's song comes to mind.  Goodness gracious.

remind remind's picture

Women being  and feeling empowered to fight back is a huge thing in my world.

Acts of misogynist hate against women, have been used to keep us in the house and afraid, I reject that forcing of fear, and celebrate those women who take matters into their own hands.

If more  women did perhaps men might stiop this shit.

Maysie Maysie's picture

I agree with Unionist.

Similar to that other thread about the cheating husband, this is a sensationalistic story. It offers no real alternatives for women who may be sexually assaulted in other contexts, far less safe contexts for example. And certainly the way it's being portrayed isn't particularly feminist.

If the woman was defending herself, and I don't doubt that she was, I'm very glad that she fought back, whether she did the dousing only, or anything more. 

But I don't know what kind of progressive discussion we could possibly have about this.

I'm going to consult with the other mods regarding closing this. Please stand by.

remind remind's picture

wonderful now a man gets to set the feminist forum standards

and one just has tpo love those personal axe grindings too

Maysie Maysie's picture

No remind, I'm stating my opinion as a feminist.

While I'm against violence, I support women doing whatever they can and need to do to fight back and/or escape male attackers, up to and including killing their attackers. But I don't think this story is a particularly good example of anything positive that women can take away from.

This story is in the media because this was a young woman, it was a public place (therefore nothing "that bad" could have happened to her, so safe by MSM standards. Please note I don't believe that, but if she had been killed this would not be taken up in the same way) and we are a phallic-centred society. It's a "sexy" story.

The woman who fought back by leaving in the middle of the night, the woman who fought back by punching her abuser and ended up getting charged with assault herself, the woman who fought back by screaming and calling 911, those are real stories that happen every day and far less "sexy" than this one.

You and I will not agree about this and that's fine. But there are multitudes of feminist thought on these and other issues.

Maysie Maysie's picture

martin I doubt the possibility on babble because I've yet to see it happen.

edited to add:

I have two responses to this.

As an individual:What happened is, a doofus who was being an asshole got stopped and was harmed while trying to do harm. We're "happy" it happened and I include myself in that. He was likely a fuckwad who was drunk and being a pig. But I do not delude myself, in being all happy about this, that this is a progressive position. 

So as an individual I can partake in some petty revenge fanatasies through this story. I will cop to that. But it sure as hell ain't progressive.

As a feminist: Stepping back one degree, I see this as the kind of story that makes the news. (see my post above). I'll end with: what's the worst possible thing that could ever happen to a man (whether he's sexually harassing/assaulting a woman or not)? Something happening to his dick. Ha ha. 

Not.

 

P.S. I'm off to sleep.

martin dufresne

Maysie wrote: "If the woman was defending herself, and I don't doubt that she was, I'm very glad that she fought back, whether she did the dousing only, or anything more.

But I don't know what kind of progressive discussion we could possibly have about this."

That seems very strange. If we can celebrate an act of self-defence by an oppressed party, why doubt the possibility of a progressive discussion about it (regardless of what did or didn't happen, which cannot be ascertained, of course, because of conflicting testimonies, the necessities of her defence, etc.)?

It seems to me that Maysie herself went some way into validating such a discussion with her hypothesis that this is merely a "sexy" story with nothing to be gleaned from it. Whether or not we agree, it should be open for discussion, no?...

 

remind remind's picture

 BTW, I am stating my opinion as a feminist too, or do you have a lock on it?

It is not a sexy story, to me,  it is about a woman fighting back, from being groped and a having a guy exposing himself to her. Women get attacked in bars all the time. It is about damn time  the media reported an incidence of a woman fighting back,   and that is regardless if they think it is "sexy" or not.  The "sexy" nature and the msm por others feeling it is, has no bearing on this discussion.

It is the message that other young woman can take from it. "you do not take have tolerate this stuff in public".

I certianly wish, when i was a young woman in the bar ( i was working too) and had a man rip my sundress down, tearing the straps off, so he could see my  breasts, that i knew of  a woman who did fight back in a public place,  as it took me a decade to realize i could.

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

remind wrote:
  BTW, I am stating my opinion as a feminist too, or do you have a lock on it?

No I don't and certainly have not said so. Ever. While it's tacky to quote myself, here's what I said in post#14.

Maysie wrote:
 But there are multitudes of feminist thought on these and other issues.

I think it comes down to you see a message that young women can take from this story. I too see the message, but don't see the same value in that message.

martin dufresne

I have done a lot of work around the issue of women who fight back. A good example is Morag Productions' "When Women Kill", a film by Barbara Doran, which I translated. One point she (and author Ann Jones in Woman Who Kill) makes is the disproportionate moral/judicial/political reaction leveled at any violence exerted by assaulted women, even against the most obdurate and lethal of assaulters, even to save their own lives. As in many situations, we have learned to make excuses for assaulters (or accept theirs, really), and one of these is coming down extra hard on any woman who answers in kind. The unwritten rule remains "Wait Until He Sees the Light". Or appeal to proper channels, but never, ever, dare to use violence yourself. I see this reflected in the tendency to invalidate our natural reaction of solidarity with women who, against all odds, manage to hurt a man back and show another way than moral pleas. (ETA: These are often working-class women.) Haven't we had that discussion a long time ago about the use of violence by oppressed racial minorities, e.g. Malcolm X's "by any means necessary" summation? Don't women qualify?

 

 

remind remind's picture

"but don't see the same value in that message."

Have been thinking about this. And have realized that perhaps there is another sort of continum going on within perceptions of validity and/or applicability, and that it is most likely based upon geographical local, and life experiences, plus neuro-linguistic programing/patterning.

Was just reading one of rexdale's posts, and it, typical of others of his, contained the word "bare".  All of sudden, I realized just what an incredible word usage that is. It is so dynamic of a word, and it evokes many many mental images, of course based upon personal life experiences.

Within my conceptual framework, at the time of my reading that, I saw the "bare" differences between; urban and rural, east west, class distinct life experiences, and assorted other differences, that exist to shape the continuim of feminist perceptions and ideologies, and indeed how it is applied, or not applied.

This seeing was underscored by rexdale's admission that he did not realize white women experienced what they experience, until his participation here. Extending this out to this discussion upon usefulness or indeed what is progressive or not, is that perhaps there is such a continum occuring here.

What is progressive for some, is definitely not progressive for others,  and what is useful for some, is not for others, and of course the opposite is true too.

Take for example the small community I live in. It is my view that many women here have to realize patriarchy exists, before they can escape from it and the effects it is having upon them. If one looks at them outside of this community's framework, from a urban perspective, they would appear to be pretty tough independant women, and they are. They hunt, fish, and do most every outdoor activity going on, they work, raise the kids, look after the yard and house, and they can speak very bluntly, as they percieve very bluntly.  Most urban women simply could not relate to their independance, in life activities. However, that does not diminish the fact that they are being heavily exploited and most often abused, either verbally or physically, by the man in their life.

They are so far away on the continum, from educated feminist urban thought, it might as well be learning a different language, and perhaps it is. Say nothing of a differing realizations brought about by differing life experiences. As such, pictures are worth a thousand words, when it comes to illuminating patriachy to them, so that they can understand this is not the normal lot in a woman's life, and they can do something.

Not saying that  it would be encouraging any negative behavioiur as backlash, of the type to set  a person on fire, because of course most people are not that extreme on the continum. Just as most men do not go around mass murdering women. But it does serve as a "bare" example of patriarchial wrong doings, and what some do in response, and to initiate discussions on how not to let your situation get to the point where extreme actions are taken out of pure reaction. And of course to indicate, patriarchy needs to be challenged so these types of coccurances stop happening.

 

 

 

remind remind's picture

"Don't women qualify?"

In my world they did, and do.

Take for example, my undercut to the guy's jaw, when he told me that he knew what I could use my mouth for. I could have left in a huff, ignored him and/or any other assorted actions.

However, it was a learning curve opportunity for him, and indeed for other men present within that social circumstance, and I took the opportunity to give it. A lecture or yelling word have not have worked. Nor would have walking away.

Tommy_Paine

Fascinating. 

So, remind, you'd reject the proverb "violence never solved anything"?   That sounds pointedly argumentative, but it's not.  It's a question never actually settled in my mind. 

I remember reading T.H. White's book "The Once and Future King" when I was young.  Forget the Disneyfication of "Sword in the Stone", White's book was a treatise on pacifism.  So much so, it's publication was delayed by the British government during the war.

A treatise that says might cannot be used as a force for right.

Which I always dissagreed with when I read it. And still dissagree with today.  Even though the empiricist in me has little evidence to contridict White's idea.  Your example adds a little, however.

And, truth be known, I think a little genitalia burning wouldn't hurt the world when applied to drunken, obnoxious louts in a bar,       ( except where it conflicts with fire codes)  let alone ones that attack women.

But, you know it opens up a big can o' worms.

 

 

 

remind remind's picture

Some pertinent points being made in this thread

Ghislaine

Considering the way our justice systems treats violence against women and rape (stealing a couple thousands bucks is usually taken more seriously), the only chance a woman has for justice is with some self-defense. Our justice system has no interest in protecting women from sexual abusers, violent assholes and rapists.  While I agree that the reasons this story is in the news when others aren't is due to the "sexual" nature of the story from the MSM's perspective (we all know that sexual harassment and rape are not sex, but violence), I still will join in and add my voice to those celebrating this woman's strength in fighting back.
Even though we know this is not in any way a solution and that not all women can or will have the chance to fight back, we can celebrate it can't we?

 

ETA: Tommy: please distinguish between violence and self-defense! Do you honestly think any of these women who have bravely fought back would be violent otherwise?

Unionist

What about a selective right to bear concealed weapons? Surely once the message gets around, assaults will go way down. Think of it also as a way of equalizing an inherently unfair contest of strengths. If we celebrate victims setting fire (although recall that this victim denies it), why not the right to open fire?

"By any means necessary."

- Malcolm X

 

remind remind's picture

Well, tommy...I have only used that sort of learning curve action, about 4 times in my life. So I do not know if that construes, a rejection,  of said proverb, or not. However, in those instances where I did reject it, immediate and sustained learning occured, and that was what I was going for.

In the case of the guy who got the upper cut, if I would have lectured or yelled, he would have repeated the same back to me, as it was  because I had dared "open my mouth"  to him,   that  I got the verbal abuse  from him in the first place.  And if I would have walked away, he would have assumed  that he had a winning strategy with which to abuse/intimidate other women with, as it had been tacitly accpeted.

Saw him a couple of years later, in another setting, but with a wife and new baby. And he apologized to me, and told me that it was a rude awakening that he went away  from  and continued to think about.  He told me it changed his life path and his teatment of women. The reality was, I was just the sexy bookworm school teacherish type of object to him, who was NOT violent, ever, as far as he and others there knew. Thus my  outside of class "behaviour" was shocking to him.

Now  such an action  could just as easily have not  imparted a lesson, with another type of man, as it could have made  him more of a misogynist, but I guess you could say that I knew my audience, and used the appropiate learning mechanism.  All 4 times. ;)

remind remind's picture

Ghislaine wrote:
Do you honestly think any of these women who have bravely fought back would be violent otherwise?

No, I do not.

Maysie Maysie's picture

No Unionist.

If you don't want to be respectful towards the ideas of the posters in this thread, don't post in this thread. This is not a suggestion.

Tommy_Paine

Tommy: please distinguish between violence and self-defense!

I do, and I would. But there are some more orthodox pacifists who wouldn't.  And if I had made the distinction as you have, I'd certainly have heard from them.

Personally, I think the woman in the Creten bar was a genius.  She used what she had at hand, which is what the best self deffence advice for women advocates.

 


Tommy_Paine

What about a selective right to bear concealed weapons?

Not sure about concealed weapons.... I think it's okay that I have one....you....not quite so sure....

BUT I do know, without anyone ever having to tell me, that if I keep my wee wee concealed in public places, and not go waving it around, no one will set it on fire.

 

Unionist

Maysie wrote:

No Unionist.

If you don't want to be respectful towards the ideas of the posters in this thread, don't post in this thread. This is not a suggestion.

That's fine, Maysie, I'll be respectful. But am I allowed to present my opinion (just my opinion), to the effect that the glorification of individual one-on-one violence as a solution to social problems is not a good idea? If that opinion is out of bounds, I'm out of this thread, for sure.

 

martin dufresne

"the glorification of individual one-on-one violence as a solution to social problems..."

I don't think that characterization of previous posters' arguments is accurate or fair.

remind remind's picture

"But there are some more orthodox pacifists who wouldn't."

Is extreme and rigid orthodoxy about anything ever useful?

We are not all the same peg shape, nor can we ever be.

Once I was at a after hours booze can, and this guy from Ontario, whom was in town visiting a mutal friend, was being beaten outside by 3 guys, one of whom had a 4x4. Now there was about 60 people there, all doing nothing about it. The men did not want to tangle with the 3 guys, as they really were not someone you wanted to tangle with and of course the women did not believe they could do something about such a violent attack.

However, when I walked outside and saw what was happening, I quickly realized if this kept up, that ON guy was going to die. I immediately jumped into the mix and stood over top of him, as he was on the ground in a fetal position trying to protect his head, which was being battered by the man weilding the 4X4.

Some might think that was foolish and possibley dangerous to myself, and as such I should not have entertained doing it,  and should have waited for the cops to come, but I realized that these men would NOT dare touch me, and of course there was no time to wait.

I knew it was low risk to me, because if they did attack me too, it would have galvinized all those watching against them. Thus, they were challenged by a passive force against them, and it all ended right there, and an ambulance was called for the fellow, instead of the coroner.

Subsequently, the men were charged and went to jail. And they realized they could have gone to jail for murder, instead of aggravated assault. We still know people who know them, and they all have changed their life patterns after that incident and its rammifications, or potential ones.

IMV, living  life requires courage and within that living, we have to choices to make. Some are acceptable to others, while others are not, but we have to keep in mind they are our own individual choices to make.

Tommy_Paine

Is extreme and rigid orthodoxy about anything ever useful?

Outside of making debating points on babble, I'd say not.

Wink

But, in deffense of a position I wish Unionist would have better articulated, individual action like that can go wrong.  You know we all see things differently.  Eye Witness reports, as studies indicate, can be some of the worst reports of an event, or crime.  Justice should be more than just whose Ox is being gored.  Which is why, I surmise, some take a more orthodox pacifist view.   The only way to get rid of violence is to not be violent.  Even in response to violence.  Jesus, that would be hard.

So I guess we have to evaluate these things case by case.  And what forum would we use for that?  A court, I guess.

.....which lands us right back to where we are.....  dissatisfied with courts that make an increasing amount of people think that self deffence in the eye of the self deffender, is the way to go.

Like I said, can o' worms.

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
...But am I allowed to present my opinion (just my opinion), to the effect that the glorification of individual one-on-one violence as a solution to social problems is not a good idea? If that opinion is out of bounds, I'm out of this thread, for sure. 

Recognizing the legitimacy of last ditch attempts to defend against assault is not glorification.  The argument which describes the sole available option of taking on the means normally employed by dominators as counterproductive, or just another form of dominance is a false comparison, because there are circumstances, as Remind illustrates, where defence and education can only be bought about by employing the same means of persuasion that the dominators are accustomed to.  I would go as far to say that pre-emption in certain situations would also fall within the realm of justified self defence.

remind remind's picture

I don't know, tommy, I believe there is a distinction between violence, and a response measure, or self defense, as Ghislaine points out above.

The way to get rid of intolerance is not always to tolerate intolerance, though sometimes it is. Distinctions are made on a case by case basis. Even here.

Certainly, I do not advocate violent behaviour, nor do I tolerate it, however, I know that I can, and should defend myself, and others by whatever means I can, or  by what is applicable as denoted by circumstance, when needed.

 

 

Unionist

Slumberjack wrote:

Recognizing the legitimacy of last ditch attempts to defend against assault is not glorification.

"Last ditch"? Which news report gave you that impression?

Not one person in this thread has even questioned whether it might have been possible for the victim to leave the room at an earlier stage (when the assailant first started his antics, or when he first assaulted her) and called the police. If that were not possible or practical, then she obviously has the right and even duty to summon whatever immediate means are available - including violence - to defend herself.

By the way, not one person in this thread has criticized her use of violence in this situation - including me. It's not clear whether she did this deed (because the less sensational of the news reports indicate that she denies setting him on fire). But even if she did, no one has said she did wrong.

My problem is not with her. She has a right to use whatever means are necessary to defend herself. My problem is with those views expressed in this thread that necessary evils need to be publicized and glorified - that they represent some positive message to women, or to anyone. When Basil Parasiris came to the armed defence of his family and shot to death an invading police officer, it was found that he acted in self-defence, in a reasonable belief that what he was doing was indeed a last-ditch effort to protect his family against unidentified home invaders. But if I saw a thread on this forum "celebrating" (NOT MY WORD - SCROLL UP) his actions and saying they were a good lesson for other victims of police violence, I'd be expressing very similar views to the ones I'm expressing right now.

Social problems need a social solution. In the meantime, of course, women subject to sexual assault have a right to self-defence, with as much violence as is necessary to repel the attack. Recognizing a necessity is not the same as celebrating it.

remind remind's picture

No actually I am not responding, this is just another feminist forum thread being turned to shit. Perhaps in the attempt to get the thread closed anyway, because of bickering, cause if one action does not work, the other usually does.

All too familiar and sickening of an occurance in the feminist forum.

 

Slumberjack

remind wrote:
  No actually I am not responding, this is just another feminist forum thread being turned to shit. Perhaps in the attempt to get the thread closed anyway, because of bickering, cause if one action does not work, the other usually does. All too familiar and sickening of an occurance in the feminist forum. 

I'm curious.  For future reference, which part of agreeing with your analysis and point of view did you find sickening?

SparkyOne

This woman set a man on fire.

Nothing funny about that.

There isn't much details surrounding the story. If she was pulled into a back ally and threatened with sexual assault then hell ya. I can think of even worse things!

But at a crowded night club or bar? Setting someone on fire in a bar seems considerably extreme to me. Maybe I've read one too many stories about night clubs burning down with people inside but I just can't seem to call her a hero.

No to mention I think the whole Hero angle isn't because A woman defended herself against a sexual assault it's because a Greek defended themselves against a British citizen.  There is a lot of anger and hatred towards British tourists and travllers in that area large inpart to how they behave then their drinking.

 

 

SparkyOne

Oops sorry Remind you're right.

I completely missed that actually!

I still don't think setting another human being on fire is okay but I don't have anything to contribute so I will bow out.

martin dufresne

Interesting how armchair moralizing is so often limited to the aggrieved party's reactions, as in "Well I won't comment on what he did - seeing as how boys will be boys, or he was drunk (or he isn't here to indulge my sermonette) - , but what she did was definitely not okay". Like Driving While Black, the problem lies in the selective application of social censure: some people just aren't entitled to talk/fight back and everyone gets to remind them of it.

 

 

remind remind's picture

It was not in reference to your post slumberjack, and  I am sorry that you would have construed such, your post was very salient and pertinent. And I thank you for your insight and words. ETA: but it kinda smacks of having to pat the  boy on the head to do so. ;)

My comment you responded to was an editory comment, to a posting of mine that was there, but I removed.

~

sparkyone, if you looked at the OP link, you would have observed that the bar is an open air one, right out onto the street even. No walls doorways etc.

And we are not discussing the media's portrayal of this, nor even perhaps anything other than the fact that she had courage to take exception to actions against her, as opposed to leaving and feeling dirty and ashamed, plus anger that she, through no fault of her own, was forced to end her evening.

 

Slumberjack

remind wrote:

It was not in reference to your post slumberjack, and  I am sorry that you would have construed such, your post was very salient and pertinent. And I thank you for your insight and words. ETA: but it kinda smacks of having to pat the  boy on the head to do so. ;)

Understood....but that wasn't what I was on about, just a clarification, which is still and mostly likely will remain a work in progress you know.

remind remind's picture

Well there really is no clarification, nor is one needed, given the way the question was framed in the first place.

Anyhow this is all off topic and I do not believe we need go any further in this direction.

Am going to go back outside and continuing on swede sawing the logs apart into manageable pieces, on my front yard, as I want them moved off my wild blue berries.

Michelle

Just because someone is disagreeing with you in a thread (yes, even a thread in the feminism forum) doesn't mean the thread is being "turned to shit".  It just means that someone's disagreeing with you, and perhaps debating your point of view.  It is quite possible to disagree with your point of view on something and still be a feminist, remind.

remind remind's picture

I believe that was uncalled for michelle.

Michelle

You accused Maysie of letting Unionist "set the feminism forum standards" simply because she agreed with Unionist.  After telling Unionist to stay out of this thread in the feminism forum.  I think that was "uncalled for".  People are allowed to have a different point of view than you, even in the feminism forum.

remind remind's picture

Michelle wrote:
You accused Maysie of letting Unionist "set the feminism forum standards" simply because she agreed with Unionist.  After telling Unionist to stay out of this thread in the feminism forum.  I think that was "uncalled for".  People are allowed to have a different point of view than you, even in the feminism forum.

Actually michelle, I really do not know what you are on about, as you have all that backwards actually. did you read from the bottom up, or the middle out? ;)  Please do go reread the thread.

In your re-reading, you will find that I  called her on letting a man determine the thread conditions before she asked unionist to stay out, NOT after! And then  unionist came back in, after she asked him not to. Which is why I made the subsequent comment, about the thread being turned to shit,  as it  was AFTER he came back, when maysie had asked him NOT to. I no way inferred that maysie had turned the thread to shit.

Moreover, as I explained to slumberjack, it was an editorial on a post that I had removed, as I was going to  fall for the bait and start discussing unionist's being back in the thread, as opposed to discussing what we were discussing.  But I edited it out so the the thread would NOT go to shit the way it could've, and is now, as a matter of fact.

Moreover, it was NOT because she agreed with him, but because she felt she should act upon his insistence in having it closed.

Respectfully, perhaps you should have gotten a better handle on the thread before you popped in and made a comment that was uncalled for, based apparently upon faulty reading?

So... I can't disagree with maysie eh when she is going to close down a thread in the feminist forum when a mans asks her to? Because now according to you,  I can't when a man asks to have a thread closed down in the feminist forum and she is going to comply.

 Okay..so...now I know...it is uncalled for me to question when a moderator feels that a man has the right to shut down a thread in the feminist forum. Alrighty then.

EDT for clarity

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

a few questions...

Why is it up to the woman to leave a bar when being accosted by a man?  Why is it the woman's responsiblity to take the high road?

If she had set fire to his left pinky, would there still be such a reaction, or is it simply she went after what was offending her and we all like to talk about penises (?)?

Is "collective deterant" perhaps a value, since nothing else seems to be working to prevent drunk men from doing what they wish with whom they wish?

Pages