Did I Just Have An "A-Ha" Moment Or Am I A Misogynist?

I just powered up Mario style (I'll just leave it at that) and I started really thinking about stuff when a thought struck me and I want to share it here and ask if I am on to something or have actually crossed a line and become an actual misogynist.

Basically, in a lot of domestic violence cases, the violence is both ways. I am assuming we agree that in most cases, the man who does hit the woman first does so not literally for no reason (like, woman these eggs are overcooked *bam*); it's not the fucking 1850's, alright? It's usually during an argument. Heated argument. And what do women do during arguments? Insult. Demean. Chastise. Belittle. Provoke. Threaten. Mock.

Insult. Demean. Chastise. Belittle. Provoke. Threaten. Mock.......wait, if a man did that to a woman in their relationship, wouldn't people say that man was an emotional abuser? So isn't what these women are doing actually emotional abuse? Now, you might say that hitting is not justified as a response. I mean, it's HITTING, right? The thing is though, and this where I may lose people, say you slap someone in the face. What actually happens? Their face stings. They may feel afraid. Or enraged. Or ashamed. What's the person being emotionally abused feeling? They may feel afraid. Or enraged. Or ashamed.*

The only real difference is the stinging face, right? So you can do all that shit to people and it's okay, just don't make their face sting?

But how do you stop someone who won't stop emotionally abusing you? What if it went on and on and on? They followed you from room to room? Just refusing to leave you alone. Why can't you make their face hurt for a minute to make them stop? Are you just supposed to take it? Leave your own house? And why is she being portrayed as an innocent victim? That sounds to me like discrimination in favour of women to me.

I'm not saying it's okay to hit a wom- oh wait, I guess I am?

Am I?

Fuck...

But am I right?

*There`s a difference between thinking things out/asking question and defending or promoting something, so save the over the top angry comments/accusations, etc. I've never hit a female and I really couldn't see myself doing so despite what I am saying. I'm not much of a fan of hitting anybody; what I am a fan of however, is dissecting common ideas and logic testing them.

I Attempt To Answer The Age Old Question "Why Am I Me?"

(If I wrote for some big site they would have made me title this "Why Are You You? Here's Why" but thankfully I do not (thankfully in this instance, not in general; let's not get crazy here) and as such it was titled something more appropriate/honest)

Have you ever asked yourself "why am I me?" "Why am I not someone else?" I certainly have. Many times in my youth and adolescence (and once or twice in adulthood) I have wondered to myself this very thing. At 32 years of age I found myelf pondering this once again but this time an anwer came, almost immediately actually. It's that immediacy that makes me think I might have it, but each time I get close to accepting that, I dunno.....it's like an eel escaping a predator's grasp- one second it's there and the next it's gone. I am just about to emotionally connect to the idea that I am right when suddenly I don't feel so sure and I start saying things like "wait, what?" and "No, wh- hmmmm....wait, what?"

Well, I am writing down my thoughts in the hopes that I can finally figure this out and maybe have a good discussion with somebody online.  I will do this as though I were responding to someone.

"Why am I me?"

Well, I think each "us" may ask why am I 'me' (as I have many times in my life) and I think the only real answer is you are "you" because when your parents procreated, your consciousness developed as a necessary result of that process. Each one of us is a 'me' and it's only after we came to be that we would even think to ask this question but the question itself is kind of pointless because rather than a consciousness being dropped into a body consciousness is the result of the biological entity processing information. If you weren't you there wouldn't be a you. In order for you to ask about yourself there must have been a you in the first place. If any conditions had changed, you would not have existed. Therefore, you are you because the conditions that made you were what they were. If your parents hadn't conceived you when they did you wouldn't be, well, you. So to say "why am I not someone else" is to essentially say "why am I, a thing that came to be as the result of my parents being together exactly when they were, not that other thing who is a result of totally different circumstances?"

I think the anthropic principle might be applicable here- the idea being that when one is examining the universe the universe MUST be congruent with that beings' existence and this congruence cannot be used as evidence for something in an argument as it would apply in ALL cases. So for example, if someone wants to point to the remarkable number of conditions that must have come to be exactly the way they are for life to be as we experience it now and use this as evidence for a god the only correct response to that is to point out that in order for life to be here things had to be a certain way, and would be so regardless of HOW it came to be, so you cannot point to this congruence between life and the universe and say "see, god!" If humans came to be 100% without any gods, things.....would be exactly the same, otherwise there wouldn't be an us.

This topic makes my head hurt.

On "Manning Up"

NOTE: This post has now been published (in a more fleshed out format of course) on the website A Voice For Men. The link is HERE is you wish to read it in its updated format.

-Social anxiety?
-Self confidence issues?
-Struggling with something?

"Just get out there and do it."
"Get over it"
"Just be you and start feeling confident."
"Suck it up."
"Deal with it."
"You're x age and still doing this/feeling this way? Come on/it's time to grow up."

Basically, "man up." 

I was just reading a forum post about anxiety written by someone with really bad social anxiety and of course the replies were full of those quotes above and others like them. Any time anyone ever says something to that effect (which includes me at some points in my life, either to others or to myself) I think to myself "okay, can you do the opposite?" When you say "man up" to someone, what you are basically saying is "be not like you."

Well, I have a question for you. Can you "man down?" If you are confident can you be anxious and insecure instead?

No?

So what makes you think someone else can "man up?" If you are who you are why aren't they afforded the same sort of leeway?

Now, I'm not at all saying that people can't get past things, but sometimes I think people (myself included at times) downplay how strongly other people are who they are in the exact same way they are who they are, but just in the opposite direction. Next time someone acts like "manning up" is the easiest thing in the world to do, ask them if they could just as easily "man down." When they invariably say no, ask what the difference is. I've done this before and people usually get totally stumped because they've never thought of it like that before.

The thing is, the part that everyone always misses with this stuff is that most of the time, the anxiety, lack of confidence, whatever, comes from past experience and past experience is instrumental in making us who we are. If you have good experiences with people, you'll be fine looking them in the eye/feeling adequate socially. If, however, you have had bad experiences with people that made you doubt your self worth, you won't. It's not as easy as "being confident" or "finding your balls." You being uncomfortable around them is as much a result of your genetics, psychology and experience as them being comfortable in those situations is a manifestation of their genetics, psychology and experience.

That being said, this isn't necessarily it forever. A series of positive experiences and some practise can change this for the person affected negatively by their past. I know about this from experience and man; it isn't easy to change but it can be done.

Just not by being told to "man up."

P.S. In some instances, people really DO need to 'man up.' I'm just arguing against it being used in situations in which it's really not at all applicable, helpful and most importantly, fair.

In Defense of The Anthropic Principle

As stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle the anthropic principle is the idea that the observations of the physical universe must be compatible with the life observed in it. The principle was formulated in response to the fine tuning/argument from design type arguments, which assert that the universe seems to have been created just for us, as all of the natural laws, and all physical constants contained therein, are conducive to life. The anthropic principle basically counters this contention with a well, duh. Of course it's all conducive to life. If it wasn't, we would not be here to make such observations. You cannot observe conditions of a given universe of you do not exist.