Equal Rights and Lefts

Came across a post recently that, frankly, is becoming more common as time progresses. Essentially, a 14 year old boy tried to get some girls (presumably of a similar age) to stop attacking another boy at his table. Things escalated, and the girls started punching / slapping him. So he fought back. They were overwhelmed and a Vice Principal finally saw fit to intervene. The boy was suspended. Although the post does not make mention, this author hopes the girls involved were also suspended. 

The boy's father elects to allow the school suspension to be the only punishment, but the boy's mother feels the boy should be punished more. 

This is the dark side of the pussy pass. The mother wants more severe punishment because he hit girls. There is still a pervasive mindset in our culture that one should not hit females. And that mindset is antiquated. And our culture needs to move away from it, fast. Why?

Caveat

Let's start with a caveat - nobody should hit anyone else. Of course, this is an idealistic notion. Violence continues to abound, and the only way to stop it is counter-violence. 

The Origin of the Problem

A great many sources of needless drama in the US stem from females who absolutely face no accountability or consequences to their actions. Some of these females openly strike others from time to time. This is one such case. 

This stems from the idea to "not hit a woman." But where did this concept originate? 

"Back in the day," women and children were viewed similar to property. A man was expected to guide them, including with a stern hand when need be. 

Because a woman who was not your wife or daughter was the wife or daughter of another man, you did not strike her as that was his property (in a manner of thinking) and that was his duty. 

When a woman said or did something that would get a man hit, she knew it was against norms for another man to hit her, so the phrase "that's just woman talk" was born, as the man was justified in striking someone, and he was being placated by the thought that her father or husband would deal with her later. 

And it was presumed that a man who did not deal with it later, would be deserving of the strike / punishment she had earned. Meaning, the offended man might deservedly punch him out later, if he found out he had not dealt with the matter. 

Make no mistake, if a woman in that era laid hands on (got violent with) a man or his property, she would likely have paid for that error with her life. At the very least, there would have been a severe beating. There was no restraint expected when it came to real violence. And women knew they could not trade blows with a man and expect to survive. They had heard of or had seen that one woman who just had to try it out. 

The restraint "don't hit a woman" was expected for:

- Women who mouthed off. 

- Women who committed acts of insult that were not direct threats (ie, spitting on a man). 

The Problem

With the passage of time, and the revision of our view on personal rights, women and children are no longer viewed as property, and this dynamic ceased. 

However, the mantra "do not strike a woman." did not cease. 

And now, many women flaunt it as a perverted sort of shield to do whatever they want. 

Not realizing that the societal contract of old was that had this been 200 years ago, she would never think of laying hands on someone for fear she would pay for that mistake with her life. 

And what's worse, many (most?) in our society let them get away with it. Including the legal system! 

The Solution

The only way to stop abuse of the lack of accountability is to hold people accountable. Yes, that includes (GASP!) women, as well. 

The only way to stop violence is with counter-violence. 

Therefore, in the mind of this author, if an unruly woman wishes to throw hands, she deserves equal rights... and lefts. It is the only way to be sure. What say you?