I was watching a video recently where a panel of female professors were talking about domestic violence. The topic of the moment was the uptick in domestic incidents as a result of the permdemic. The panelists were focusing on added financial stress and lockdown proximity as the primary reasons for the increase in homegrown violence. Eventually one of the speakers dug into her trope bag and produced the line, violence is never the answer.
Whenever I hear this line spoken I always respond internally with, hang on a second here, what exactly was the question?
In this specific instance I happen to agree with the person who spoke these words. I think that if violence is a component of your relationship then that conjugality is a pending train wreck that needs to be derailed as soon as possible. I can’t grasp the logic that would have you sleep beside someone that thinks a punch to the head is the perfect answer to a difference in opinion.
However.
It seems to me that if someone has the title of professor then it’s safe to assume they have both education and intelligence. So, it’s plausible that these people are aware of the realities outside of academia. That awareness should then provide an abundance of examples that suggest humanity leans very strongly toward believing that violence is almost always the answer.
Like I said earlier, it depends on the question being asked and who’s asking. So, let’s ask a couple of hypothetical questions of Russia, China and the United States. I’ll come back to the Americans in a moment but I’ll start with Russia and China. The first question for these two fine nations is, do you consider your current problems with Taiwan and Ukraine a domestic issue? It appears that the answer to this question is yes, yes you do. The feeling I’m getting is that both Taiwan and Ukraine are like the girl next door that you used to have a relationship with, but that relationship soured and the girls moved on. You’ve been pissed ever since and have done everything in your power to prevent these wayward possessions from having a relationship with anyone else. Right at the moment you’re stalking them and have escalated your behavior to include hanging out at their property line in your wife beaters to make certain they see you flexing your biceps. It’s important to intimidate your ex and any potential suitors of your ex, to make certain they’re aware that at any moment you can become violent. Also, from the look of things it appears that neither the Russians nor the Chinese have any problem at all being in a relationship with someone they have to punch in the head from time to time.
The Russian Duma just recently said to hell with pretenses and went ahead and decriminalized punching your wife or girlfriend. Now it’s a misdemeanor on an equivalency with being drunk in public. Temporarily regrettable and mildly embarrassing but hardly criminal. So, from the look of things the Russians have a different perspective on whether or not violence is indeed the answer to your problems, and so every now and then Russian bitches get stitches. The next question I have for the Russians then is, do you view Ukraine in the same fashion as you view Svetlana from Sevastopol?
I’m not sure how China views the idea of a non- tennis backhand delivered to Peng. They aren’t as transparent as the Russians in terms of approval or disapproval of kicking the shit out of their women folk. However, there are other methods of domestic abuse that include locking the bitches in their rooms until they apologize for speaking out of turn and embarrassing the Emperor. My last question for China then is, do you see Taiwan as your bitch and what’s your next move when you can’t lock or shut her up?
And then there’s the Americans.
Canada and Mexico are the girls next door that the Americans have had an extended relationship with for decades. This relationship has been rocky from time to time like when the Americans Monroe doctrined California and Texas from Mexico. They tried the same stunt with Canada in 1812, but Canada’s big brother Britain was visiting the colony at the time, and with a shitload of help from the first nations they managed to force the Yanks to settle the fuck down. You may wonder how they were able to persuade the Americans to go home? And the answer is, with violence. An equal or greater amount of violence than the Americans were able to generate at the time. Monroe doctrine violence meets Brock and Tecumseh violence.
For the most part the Americans tend to get along well enough with their neighbors that water and oil still flow South to the land of the free, and avocado’s and meth still flow North to the home of the brave.
But in my estimation the Americans are becoming more and more Russianesque every day, and that gives me pause to consider what their behavior may become as they revel in the fact they’re the biggest dick on the block. What I mean when I say the Americans are becoming more Russian is that the idea of democracy and honor has fallen from favor, and been replaced with the desire to join the Russians and Chinese with flexing on their adversaries.
Fat Don the fabulist gave voice to the idea that being a deranged bully was a perfectly acceptable way for a leader to behave, and the Trumpish republicans have taken up that tiki torch and carried on in his absence. The base loves it and supports Ron and Matt and Marge and Lauren as they dispense with any decorum, and instead act like playground bullies. Because the base is pretty basic. There’s no depth of thought other than the idea that if you’re bigger and stronger then you can take and do whatever you want. So whenever any of the Maga bullies flexes on a lib or a Mexican or a scientist, the base feels a quiver of satisfaction. They feel powerful and they really like the feeling. Might is right eventually becomes might is my right, and whether you’re really right becomes irrelevant.
So now I have a question for the Americans. If you decide to elect a gang of maga bullies in your mid-terms are you expecting them to act like Russians and slap around and abuse family that you find disagreeable?
Because if you are then you need to reconsider how you see yourselves. Americans in general have this vision of themselves as saviors. Like Marvel superhero’s or John Wayne led cavalry, the Americans always show up to save the day and help the little guys win a world war or two. I understand that what I’ve just described is Hollywood, but Americans keep making those movies and filling the theaters, so I assumed that the population generally liked and accepted that portrayal. By the way, I should add that being heroic isn’t a terrible way to be portrayed. It’s actually kind of inspiring. But once you cross that Rubicon where it’s not just O.K. but desirable to slap your own family around, then it’s only a matter of time until that attitude transfers itself to the neighbors.
And that behavior is going to mean that Hollywood is going to have to start looking around for a different plot line if American voters have decided they don’t want to be hero’s anymore, and much prefer the schoolyard bully character. I’d suggest though that Americans not forget the most important plotline from their old movies. The plotline where eventually someone emerges to stand up to the bully.
Because that’s not a plotline. It’s how the world works. Eventually the only answer to violence is more violence. Treaty’s or victories to end that violence only happen after both sides noses are bloodied, and you guys have already had one civil war. Do you really want another one over the same damn thing? Because the last domestic dispute you had is identical to the one that’s pending. You’re still fighting about diversity being acceptable.
The characters have changed a bit but the plot hasn’t. It does appear though that Americans in general are a lot more inclined these days to bring their guns to a protest.
That looks a hell of a lot like people deciding that violence is both the answer and inevitable.