A feminist defense of spanking women

Valerie Curnow argues for the female right to initiate violence:

I have to admit: I don’t think that a woman hitting a man is the same thing as a man hitting a woman. Don’t get me wrong: I’m anti-domestic violence (physical and emotional), or any violence for that matter, but I just don’t believe that if a woman hits a man, the ramifications are the same as when the reverse happens.

Now, I’m not talking about slugging your boyfriend or husband with a brass-knuckled left hook. Or smashing him over the head with a portrait painting. Or bludgeoning him with a blunt object. Obviously these acts are wrong, violent, and possibly a felony. I don’t mean pulling a Lorena Bobbitt or a Phil Hartman’s wife or a Francine Hughes in The Burning Bed (although the latter was found not guilty by a jury of her peers). I’m not talking about drawing blood, using lethal weapons, or murder. I’m talking more about smacks and slaps to the upper-body region when a gentlemen is behaving badly: Shoulders, chest, that kind of thing.

If Curnow believes that “smacks and slaps” are acceptable when an adult is behaving badly so long as no serious physical damage is delivered, then clearly she should have no problem whatsoever endorsing men administering spankings to adult women. After all, a spanking doesn’t have the same ramifications as a punch to the jaw. What Curnow is arguing, although she clearly doesn’t realize it, is that it’s okay for a man to strike a woman so long as he doesn’t do her any actually injury.

Of course, we’ll need some sort of guideline on what sort of spankings are permissible. Perhaps a limitation on the spanking rod to about the width of the man’s thumb?

Here we go again

Somehow, I doubt that the third time will prove the charm:

U.S. and British warships have reportedly launched the opening salvo of the intervention in Libya — called Operation Odyssey Dawn — firing some 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Qaddafi anti-air defenses, mostly on the coast of Western Libya and extending between Tripoli and Benghazi. Word is that U.S. AFRICOM will run the first few days of the operation in an effort to “shape the battlefield” before turning over command to another member of the coalition.

The initial launch also included the launching of American electronic warfare aircraft.

Nothing spells decline and fall like a bankrupt, demographically dying empire getting entangled in one unnecessary military conflict after another.

UPDATE – This is certainly an amusing development: A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

I told you that the Democratic elders want to get rid of Obama a while ago. There is absolutely no way they want him leading them into the 2012 electoral campaign. And it would be absolutely hilarious to see Democrats leading the impeachment charge against this lamest of first-term lame ducks.

Abercrombie’s inquisition

So, I finished reading Abercrombie’s The First Law series. I quite liked it despite the various criticisms I’ve mentioned in the past, but I wanted to mention something that struck me about the book’s most interesting character, the torturer of the Royal Inquisition, Sand dan Glotka. Abercrombie devotes a great deal of time and attention to Glotka and it shows. His backstory is involved and interesting, his descent from superficial hero to deeply introspective anti-hero is compelling, and he manages to come off in a sympathetic manner despite the many awful deeds he consciously elects to perform. There is only one significant problem with the character of Glotka.

The greater part of the Inquisition as portrayed in The First Law is a load of historical bollocks.

Read the rest at the Black Gate.