From the article in the OP: “Another person who said they work at the pizza place wrote that “it was just another Saturday night. This literally happens ALL the time. We just put the cameras up so this was the first guy we’ve been able to prosecute.””
Ninja’d.
Oh, you!
Good on her, though. That was the correct and proper reaction. The added bonus is that I can give money to kittehs!
Hell, I can’t even grope my wife without getting body-slammed.
I had wondered that myself - AND it wouldn’t have been right either. She was WORKING.
Coming at this from another angle, this guy better consider himself lucky that her boyfriend, father, husband, etc. wasn’t in the restaurant, and armed.
I also wonder if he was patronizing a restaurant some distance from where he lives because he’s been banned from so many in his neighborhood for doing this elsewhere.
He’s from Palm Bay, Florida, and she’s in Savannah GA. Over 300 miles apart.
That assumes that this argument has no value. I think it does.
That said, I don’t think it’s reasonable to interpret the OP as meaning that some women deserve to be groped because they won’t fight back. It is a common turn of a phrase, and I’ve never seen it mean that. Plus the OP (post) is clearly anti-groping, and the OP (poster) not only has no history of misogyny but also actively fights against it.
And, well, I don’t agree with the logic that fighting back is a male value. Yes, women are conditioned not to fight back, but that’s because the patriarchy is afraid of them if they do fight back. Yes, maybe men are conditioned to fight too much, when other tactics would be better, but that doesn’t make fighting back wrong. And, yes, women do have some barriers to fighting back that men don’t have, but that only means we should be fighting to remove those barriers.
I want women to be willing to fight back against this shit. Maybe not with actual violence, but they should be able to speak up and not just try to smooth things over. That’s fine if there is a misunderstanding, but this was not a misunderstanding.
I think that both men and women should be able to smooth things over, make themselves heard, and fight back. As such, I am very happy with the response this woman got. I don’t see anyone saying “well, if other women would just react like she did, there wouldn’t be a problem.” I’m glad I don’t see that victim blaming bullshit. I just see a woman fighting back and being praised for doing so.
Are you suggesting that he’s been the subject of that much bannination? :eek:
Jeez. Really? You’re now minimising this woman’s reaction and implying she needs protection from armed men?
I had heard different things about where the restaurant was located, and where he lived. Sorry.
And no, I’m not implying at all that this fragile little flower needed a big bad armed man nearby to protect her. I worked in restaurants for many years and experienced comparable things a few times, and in case (generic) you’re wondering, I never looked anything like the woman in the picture (not that this would justify it on any level, either). I don’t remember ever being groped by a patron, but I do remember inappropriate remarks more than once, and in most cases, the people who did this did not get away with it - the manager kicked them out, and in one case did indeed ban the offender from the property. Like I said before, probably not the first time either had done it.
Bless your heart! Your perceptiveness is at a level that most people are never able to experience as the pinnacle of their critical thinking skills; I am truly astonished at how you are able to cope with the rest of us.
Let me clarify…I don’t think the OP meant it that way. I agree it is a common turn of phrase. It should not be.
That’s ridiculous. “You picked on the wrong (noun)” should be struck from the lexicon because it was used with woman and can be misconstrued by those looking for offence? The phrase isn’t the problem.
I’m not in the US. If/when convicted (with the video evidence, it’s hard to see how he won’t be) will this get him on one of those sex offender lists with conditions imposed on him?
Possibly. Depends on Georgia law, and the prosecutors might offer a deal where he stays off the list if he admits guilt (saves the state time and money), and many, many other factors.
You’re doing a bit, right? With your first post I wasn’t sure, but now there’s no chance you’re for real.
Nice work, really— the satire is so close to the mark in these cases, though, so try not to push it. Less is more!
The “armed father or boyfriend” line kinda struck me as sexist, too. Why not just say he’s lucky she wasn’t armed? She’s obviously capable of defending herself.
I think this is clearly correct. It’s very common in pop culture. All kinds of action shows and movies feature a line from the protagonist saying “You messed with the wrong …” It is not meant to imply that there are people that it’s okay to mess with.
This is a weird fucking thing to say. She demonstrated that she knows how to protect herself. Why would you surmise about the presence of a male protector? And why should a male protector be more likely to use a deadly weapon?
This was a situation in which a man committed an act that should have consequences. An attack with a deadly weapon should not be within a contemplatable range of those circumstances. If this is how people really think, then we really shouldn’t allow people to walk around in public armed with firearms.
He disrespected her, he assaulted her, and she gave it back on a level he would understand. I for one, approve.
Apparently you haven’t yet heard about the guy in Florida who was shot for pushing another man to the ground in a parking lot, huh? No charges, btw.
Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of ‘Stand Your Ground’ law.
Had this happened in Florida, Miss Holden could have shot and killed her assailant and it is quite possible there would have been no charges brought.