SO VOX WANTS TO RUMBLE -- UPDATED

Oh, dear. This lil' ol' blog seems to have come to the attention of this dude.  Who is either missing the point again (see my prior post) or obfuscating. 

First, he wants to quibble by stating that his suggestion of "throwing a punch" at a woman who touches him involves less force than shoving someone up against a wall.  Of course, his initial suggestion  was to "punch out" such a woman.  I guess he is backing off his original point (the one I supposedly missed), which was clearly intended to suggest that a woman's right to self-defense carries with it a corresponding right of men to use, in self-defense, their generally superior size and strength to inflict serious injury.  If not, if he's just talking about a weak little punch (only a tap if you will), then his point is, well, rather pointless.

But then we have even more missing of points:

. . . [M]en, be sure to note that if The Happy Feminist ever happens to touch you, she won't complain if you toss her against the nearest wall.

Of course, if I just happen to touch you, you don't have a right of self-defense.  You only have the right to defend yourself against my touching you if it is unlawful touching, i.e. (1) touching that you have given me reason to know is unwelcome or that I ought under the circumstances to know is unwelcome, OR (2) sexual touching without consent, or (3) touching intended to cause injury.  Krissy's assailant didn't just "happen" to touch her. Rather he attempted to touch her after repeatedly making rude and obnoxious plays for her attention despite her making it clear that she wanted nothing to do with him. 

So to Vox and his readers: I am sorry to disappoint, but you do not have a right to throw me against the wall if I just "happen" to touch you.  But you can rest easy, because the likelihood of my ever touching you is approximately nil.

UPDATE:  Vox offers a further response here.  I have to admit his post is actually kind of funny. (You can never say I don't give credit where credit is due).  And if his post is kind of funny, that means the guy has at least a glimmer of a sense of humor.  Which means that maybe he could become a feminist one day.  Because it's kind of hard for a person with a healthy sense of humor to maintain the "I'm a big strong man, women should know their place" shtick with a straight face.  So I feel pretty good -- I'm looking forward to the day when I can welcome Vox into the feminist fold, funny hair and all.

Comments

[evil_fizz]

I can't decide whether or not I read the last part of his post as a threat, although I am going to go and giggle for a bit about the idea of "you and me, outside, now" as possibly operating in cyberspace.

I vote for Amanda as your second for the duel, btw. =)

[Sara]

I vote for making fun of his hair again.

[Antigone]

Oh Happy. Why did you link to him? I compulsively clicked (and then less compulsively clicked his omment button) and now I need to bleach my fingers.

I love all the chest-beating going on in the comments over there. These men seem to labor under the delusion that physical strength = superiority. In which case my neighbor's cane corso would be their superior....hey, maybe these boys are on to something....

[L.]

As I said in the last comment thread, commenters like that are exactly why I signed up all of my kids, boys and girl alike, for KARATE.

[Joel Monka]

Happy, am I correct that a threat to do bodily harm is assault also? If so, couldn't Vox's comments be running the ragged edge of illegal?

L. - GOOD on you. Trying to convince my sister to do the same with my niece and nephews. (the oldest boy doesn't want to b/c he's afraid he'll hurt one of his younger brothers, lol).
-CT

[The Happy Feminist]

A threat can be considered criminal if the person making the threat has the intent to place me in fear. Here we have no such intent -- just poor form and silliness.

[David Thompson]

Bored now. Can I play with the puppy?

[Richard]

But, Happy, regarding what I think is Vox's point ... seriously now ... do you agree that if Kissy's situation were sexually reversed, that is the woman grabbed the guy after he had made it clear to her he was not interested, he would be quite within his right (in your jurisdiction, anyway) to, "shove [her] up against a wall, jam [his] arm into [her] throat and say, 'I have had enough of you being rude and disrespectful towards [men]. The next time I see you, you will be polite and show respect.'"

You're okay with that, right?