A black female read a book called “Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls” for a class assignment and was required to do a presentation on the subject of aggression.
The book was about educator and bullying expert Rachel Simmons giving girls, parents, and educators proven and innovative strategies for navigating social dynamics in person and online, as well as brand new classroom initiatives and step-by-step parental suggestions for dealing with conventional bullying.
During her presentation about the book, the black female made a connection to the authors findings by sharing her personal experiences growing up in an urban community with bullying and aggression in correlation with what the author of the book states about girls and aggression in urban communities.
A second black female, relates to the first black females personal experience in relation to the book and shares that she was taught to confront issues head on and if someone puts their hands on her then she should defend herself and put her hands on them.
A white female who grew up in a working middle class family also agreed with the two black women about how to respond to aggressive behavior.
The rest of the white females present in the class looked at them puzzled, as if what the black females were saying was abnormal and barbaric. Each person commented, but as a whole the concluding argument was that they did not understand this logic. That they grew in environments where people did not physically fight. There was a mixed black female who also grew up in the suburbs that found the two black females personal relation to the book offensive because she never fought growing up. Sigh*
What aspect of the black females logic was confusing? Even if you personally never fought or had to resort to fighting, If someone is physically attacking you, then you defend yourself and physically retaliate. Why is that confusing? Because based on the scientific theory of fight or flight, what the black females are saying is more than adequate. The black women were simply stating that they were not going to tolerate that type of behavior or play the victim to bullying, and they shouldn’t. A person has the right to defend themselves against their attacker, and in many US states, stand their ground. It doesn’t mean they’re ghetto or barbaric for defending themselves against a physical attack.This response sent out an important message. Especially when reflecting over the verdict of the Martin vs Zimmerman trial. That upper middle class white people feel a black person, or any person for that matter, has no right to fight and defend themselves when they find themselves in a threatening situation.
The book, “Odd Girl Out” also talked about how suburban females dealt with bullying and aggression. Based on what was documented in the book many white females in suburban areas avoided conflict, internalized it, and, unlike the urban females who address aggressive behavior and bullying, developed health and physical issues such as depression, resulting in suicides.
Very important commentary. From a white suburban male perspective I grew up with the mentality that fighting is not the answer. Granted when we think of fighting we think of males but female fights are often put aside or considered odd. These reactions make sense, but at the same time they do not justify silencing other perspectives. Self defense is legitimate and hopefully there can be ways that these altercations can be judged a bit more fairly. It is funny how Stand Your Ground laws defend these actions, yet at the same time for only certain segments of the population.
Everybody has the right to defend themselves, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. If another person initiates a physical conflict with you, you have every right to defend yourself up to and including deadly force (though deadly force is heavily restricted).
Violence should always be your last resort and should never be used lightly, it is something everyone has a right to exercise in the right situations.
I think the difference between those in the suburbs and those in urban environments stems from society. Society tells us “keep your hands to yourself” and “violence is never the answer” but then glorifies violence in movies, music and video games. The stigmatization of violence is more ingrained in affluent communities whereas violence is seen more as a fact of life in less affluent communities. Neither are wrong, but both typically refuse to see the other side as true.
There is a time and place for pacifism, but there is also a time and place for violence. In a society where women are targets more often, they must know when and, more importantly, how to employ both. Society is not perfect, but with a little common sense and personal responsibility, we can all make it a better place.
Tool or Toy? Why Carrying A Concealed Handgun Makes You A Giant Pussy
With an act of gun violence gripping the nation’s attention every few months, the American public has been forced to at least consider the issue of gun control. I use the word “consider” because it implies a significant lack of action.
As young children are gunned down in cold blood by weapons designed for the battlefield
Actually, there’s more children being gunned down by handguns similar to those in use by police officers, meant for the lawful defense of self and others. Mainly on major cities, more related to poverty than actual legislation. As cities like Chicago show.
, our national dialogue has consisted of: “Should we do something about this? Should we limit or regulate more strictly the sale of firearms? Or should MORE guns be made available to the public? Oh look! Football’s on.”
We completely ignore the facts about gun violence
Which is that it’s been on the decline for two decades. Fact.
The fact is you’re more than ten times more likely to die from gun violence in the US than in the UK.
And in the UK you are more likely to get shot NOW than before gun control.
And a majority of gun deaths in the US aren’t from mass shootings or crime at all, they’re from suicide. Two-thirds of gun deaths come from suicide in fact.
And as someone who has seen a loved one die slowly for 8 years and who has a small chance of having the same thing in the future with no cure in sight, any legislation you might want to pass to curb suicide by gun will only lead people into other methods.
Japan and South Korea. They do their suicide thing just fine without guns.
"But how does any of this make me a giant pussy if I’m carrying a concealed handgun?"
Yet the modern handgun (and assault rifles) are weapons engineered to kill people. That’s their sole purpose.
If I want to carry a gun, I am obviously not expecting it to talk my attackers down and give them an inspirational speech.
That’s it. It took years and technological advancement of every kind to construct weapons that could be easily concealed (in the case of pistols), have high ammo capacity, rate of fire and accuracy (in the case of assault rifles)
You know that the so-called “assault rifles” aren’t that well-renowned by their accuracy, right?
Sure, you can get a really accurate AR15. But your standard ball ammo won’t make justice to it, you’ll need consistent high quality ammo.
The glorification of these weapons has led to them becoming desirable symbols of power , and there’s nothing the weak desire more than to feel powerful. 
At least show your diploma in Psychology before making statements like that.
So that is why if you carry a concealed handgun or fetishize assault weapons you are a giant pussy and I’d frankly be surprised if you can keep from voiding your cowardly bowels at the sight of a tiny, baby mouse.
Handguns serve no purpose other than to end life, and if you’re a fully grown man who needs a pistol to defend himself then you are no man at all.
WOW SUCH MAN
1/10 for getting me to reply
and now I’ll leave this here
This… is beautiful.
Navy Yard shooter entered with a shotgun, stole an AR-15 off of one of his victims
It didn’t take long for liberals to use today’s dead victims as a platform for taking away citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights. Senator Feinstein, immediately and predictably, called for a ban on “assault weapons.”
But today’s shooting wouldn’t have been avoided with a ban on AR-15s because the shooter didn’t enter the Navy Yard with that weapon. He entered with Vice President Joe Biden’s weapon of choice: a shotgun.
from NBC Washington:
When it was over, the suspected gunman lay dead amid an armload of weapons. Sources told News4 that surveillance footage showed that he began his attack with a shotgun, but was found with a 9mm pistol and an AR-15 assault rifle.
NBC News correspondent Pete Williams is reporting Alexis purchased a shotgun in Lorton, Va. during the past week or so.
The suspected gunman appeared to have seized firearms from two of his victims as he moved through the building along the Anacostia River in southeast Washington, where 3,000 Navy employees go to work each day, many of them carrying authorized firearms.
Guns are inanimate objects. We don’t blame the alcohol or the car when a drunk driver kills innocent people. We blame the drunk driver. The same should apply here. Blame the psychopath, not his weapon.