Friday, December 16, 2011

So Much More Satisfying Than Shooting the Bad Guy

I'm guessing when the heckler sobers up, he's going to be suffering from more than just a hangover.

I guess women are not inherently 'victims', nor do they require a gun for self defense when threatened in order to deal firmly with their harasser.

Anti-gay heckler tackled by female victim, arrested
Police in Bellingham, Wash., say a weekend reveler who yelled slurs at a lesbian couple, was thrown and pinned by one of the two women, then arrested and booked for malicious harassment, according to the Bellingham Herald, which first reported the story on Monday.
Officers responded to a call reporting a fight in downtown Bellingham at about 1:30 a.m. on Sunday, public information officer Mark Young told in a follow-up call.
When police arrived they were told that the suspect, William Adam Lane, 22, had confronted two women outside a bar early Sunday, yelling anti-gay slurs at them when he saw them embracing. The subjects attempted to ignore Lane--who is suspected of intoxication--Young said, citing the police report. Then then he smashed the rear window of a nearby Toyota that belonged to one of the women, and was approaching them in an aggressive manner.
“One of the women threw him to the ground and pinned him,” said Young. “A local nightclub owner came out to help.”
Lane was booked into Whatcom County Jail on four counts including malicious harassment -- a hate crime and felony -- on $2000 bail. On Wednesday, he was no longer in the jail.
The women were not identified, and it was not clear whether they were pursuing charges.
Bellingham, a coastal city located 90 miles north of Seattle, has a permanent population of about 80,000, is home to Western Washington University — with about 15,000 students — as well as several smaller colleges.
It was unclear whether the women, ages 23 and 30, according to the Herald, would be pursuing charges. Young said the two were not hurt, but they could press assault charges because Lane allegedly acted in a threatening manner toward them.


  1. So you know what's best for womens' self defense? Sounds pretty antifeminist to me.

  2. Antifeminist how?

    The women were not victims, despite the apparent attempt by this guy to target them.

    And no one died, unless you count the back window of the car.

  3. Gun control is anti feminist because it restricts the choices women have to defend themselves.

  4. And so much more legal. Responding with deadly force to heckling would not have been considered self defense. Not sure what your point here is.

    On the plus side, I applaud the lesbians for standing up for themselves. Bravo!

  5. Great image of the loud mouth being put in his place. Thank god he didn't have a gun.

  6. "Gun control is anti feminist because it restricts the choices women have to defend themselves."

    WTF are you smoking? He didn't have a gun. He was apparently drunk. The women were near a club which they had just left. He was an asshole; and for that he should be gunned down?

    You're a bloodthirsty asshole.

  7. Well said democommie.

    As a feminist, as a woman who has regularly done things that a lot of women do not traditionally do, I resent the notion that gun control is anti-feminist.


    Women can just as easily qualify under stricter gun control for a firearm as men can. Further women can use other less lethal methods to deal with crime, including domestic violence, as men. I would argue that we are in fact, as a demographic, BETTER at it, because we don't have the complicating aspect of aggression and fluctuations in testosterone and cortisol.

    Here is the summation of that study from the WSJ, which suggests a perallel to me in the statements of gunloons about fear and also overconfidence:

    Among males and females, testosterone is a natural component in the chemistry of competition, animal and human studies have shown. It enhances persistence, fearlessness and a willingness to take risks. Among athletes, it rises in victory and falls in defeat.

    In daily trading activity, Dr. Coates and his Cambridge colleague Joseph Herbert looked for evidence of what endocrinologists call the "winner's effect," in which successive victories boost levels of testosterone higher and higher, until the winner is drunk with success -- so overconfident that he can no longer think clearly, assess risk properly or make sound decisions.

    "I wondered whether the same thing was happening on Wall Street," said Dr. Coates. Too much testosterone might make traders foolishly overconfident, exaggerating a market's rise. Too much cortisol, secreted in response to stress, might in turn make them overly shy of risk, making a market's downward slide even more precipitous"

    @hat it found was that testosterone levels were on a rollercoaster compared to normal non-stress situatons, and that cortisol levels could fluctuate as much as five times normal levels.

    Women could be just as successful, but didn't go through the same hormone fluctuations of testosterone and cortisol in response to risk taking, success and failure, in the study.

    When you cross reference that pattern with differences in the amygdala, a more primitive part of the brain's limbic system, relating to emotion, as well as psychological studies of conservatives relating to fearfulness and authority, you get an interesting picture that explains a great deal of the biology of our responses, including marked differences in response by gender.

    Women despite some of the sleazier assertions by men, are on less of a hormonal rollercoaster in a challenging and stressful situation than men, and their responses are more intellectual and measured and less emotional.

    This is obviously true between groups by gender, rather than individuals, there can be quite a lot of individual variation and exceptions.

  8. Dog Gone,

    Now we have caught you being an elitist. You think that women are better than men--that's the implication of what you said, and it's an implication that's close to the surface. Bullshit. It's bullshit both ways. Neither men nor women are slaves to hormones. This is good evidence why mental health professionals shouldn't be trusted to make decisions about us. They make sweeping statements such as the one that you quoted. That's evidence that they would disqualify a large number of good gun owners.

    This comment of yours also makes me wonder if you don't have some repressed hatred of men in general.

  9. GC, not at all. I happen to have more knowledge of how testosterone functions, particularly in animals, than most people,

    It has some wonderful effects on human behavior, and some which are not so wonderful, particularly in the objective evaluation of and response to risk.

    Testosterone can be a wonderful facet of biology - it is essential for example, in high normal proportions, for women being able to be orgasmic. But it has its downside as well.

    There are strong correlations to testosterone levels in males that correlate to evaluating and responding to risks, and there are strong correlations to aggressiveness and competitiveness and increases in testosterone.

    I don't think you can call seeking an objective measurement and understanding of endocrine differences contributing to judgment and behavior 'elitism', unless you think anyone who seeks and objective and scientific understanding of gender differences is an elitist because they don't rely on purely subjective ideas on the subject.

    If perusing scientific articles makes me an elitist - count me in. Otherwise, NO. For example:
    Animal studies show clear evidence for a causal link between testosterone and aggression. This review assesses studies involving androgens, principally testosterone, and human aggression. Evidence for a possible effect of prenatal androgens is inconclusive. In adults, higher testosterone levels are found in groups selected for high levels of aggressiveness. Correlations between testosterone and aggression were low when hostility inventories were used, but higher (r = .38) when aggressiveness was rated by others. Regression analysis data and studies of boys at puberty were inconclusive. Other studies show that the outcome of aggressive and competitive encounters can alter testosterone levels, thus confounding interpretation of the correlational evidence. The design of future studies to reveal evidence of a causal link is considered. Suggestions concerning two important methodological problems, the experimental manipulation of hormone levels and the nature of the dependent variable, are made."

    It is not elitist to point out that while men and women are equal, we are not the same.

    But hey, Greg, if you'd like to provide something more objective and factual, please do so to refute what I've written.

  10. MAgunowner said...
    So you know what's best for womens' self defense? Sounds pretty antifeminist to me.

    MAgunner, you demonstrate repeatedly that you are an idiot.

    I applaud these women for attempting to avoid a confrontation, and I applaud the way it was dealt with when the bad guy persisted and escalated his actions.

    I think they handled this very well with less than lethal violence.

    I'm applauding the less-than-lethal violence aspect of this, based on the content of the article. I DO believe that women can be quite capable of defending themselves against a male assailant, even when that male assailant is larger or stronger.

    How you get 'anti-feminist' out of that or that 'I think I know what's best for women's self defense' is just another example of you failure to come to a correct conclusion about anything.

    As a woman who has taken a number of self defense classes, I do know something about it. I;m pretty comfortable that I do in fact know more than you do, although I do not consider myself an expert.

    I do consider you a nut job, and an idiot, based on your comments however.

  11. Here is another passage that supports the existence of these differences and that our endocrine system is a part of it:

    Experimental evidence shows that, on average, women tend to be more risk averse, less competitive, and more prosocial than men (13). Hormones affect the brain by binding to specific receptors, and previous work suggests that differences in the organization of brain areas in males and females depend on hormones (14–16). Hormones may affect cognition, mood, well-being, sexuality, and social behavior (16–19).

    The above was from a randomized trial of testosterone, estrogen, and a placebo on post menopausal women.

  12. GC wrote:You think that women are better than men--that's the implication of what you said, and it's an implication that's close to the surface. Bullshit. It's bullshit both ways. Neither men nor women are slaves to hormones.

    And I think there are some respects where men as a group tend to exceed women. This means we are different, not that one is better than the other.

    I repeat; we are equal, we are not the same.

    For those areas where women in some respects do better than men, you might want to start with Ashley Montague's 'The Natural Superiority of Women'.

    Geeze you make it fun to yank your chain and at the same time educate you.

  13. "This comment of yours also makes me wonder if you don't have some repressed hatred of men in general."

    No, Greg Camp. dog gone doesn't exhibit anything that looks like repressed hatred. She does exhibit something that looks a lot like disdain for whining crybabies like you. Well, I'm not sure that there are actually that many like you; you're sort of the ne plus ultra of whining crybabies. Do not get me started on the "FUCKING LIAR" thing, we'd be here all night!

  14. Dog Gone,

    You have yet to educate me on anything, other than the innate stubbornness of gun grabbers.

  15. Greg Camp:

    You have, otoh, educated all of us here about the boneheaded intransigence of the gunzloonz.