So Vox Day would not help a battered woman

Shot from ABC’s What Would You Do?: “Would You Help A Battered Woman?”

I could probably build an extensive website devoted solely to tearing apart the crap that my favorite punching bag, Vox Day, comes out with on a daily basis. Here’s today’s glimpse into Vox’s mind: why you shouldn’t help abused women.

Unsurprisingly, some women are upset that most people are inclined to stay out of a domestic dispute, especially if the woman is lower class:

Last night, ABC used hidden cameras and actors to see what regular people would do if they saw an obviously abused woman being harassed by her boyfriend. A lot of regular people failed the test.

Failed the test? I'd say they passed it, assuming that the test is of their intelligence. Only a white knighting gamma or a clueless fool doesn't know that many women are aficionados of the "let's you and him fight" game. If I don't know the couple involved, there is very little chance that I am going to risk injury or jail on behalf of a woman with a taste for the thug life. And since women are so strong and independent these days, why should they expect help from anyone of either sex? I respect the right of women to not only make their own decisions, but also to experience the full consequences of those decisions.

Shorter Vox: “It’s stupid to help abused women, especially if they’re dressed more promiscuously, ’cuz they’re worthless sluts who like being beat up and aren’t worth the trouble, anyway.”

Honestly, I could’ve phrased that in any number of ways to carry across just how appalling Vox Day’s attitude is. Really? So refusing to help people who get beat up, even if they’re what you may call “less fortunate in life”, is the intelligent thing to do? First of all, intelligence has nothing to do with it; it’s about plain human compassion, a sentiment that Vox has shown himself to be just about entirely devoid of. There’s a word for refusing to help people solely based on their looks, Vox, and it isn’t intelligence. It’s heartlessness.

And, before anyone claims that by my logic, those who “failed the test” by not coming to the woman’s aid were heartless (and thereby, a large chunk of people in general is all for letting promiscuous women be beat up), that is not what I meant. I was talking about people whose sole (or perhaps, primary) motivation for not helping someone being abused is due to them being of a “lower social class”. People like what Vox just described. As you can imagine, a lot of those who choose not to help others in cases of abuse do so out of plain fear that these situations could escalate into nasty confrontations and possibly violence. (I will admit, with both sadness and shame, that I am often one such person, myself. Or, at least, have been in the past before gradually growing bolder.)

Another reason for people not to act is peer pressure, something that was made blatantly and horrifically clear in the event last October where a 15-year-old girl was brutally gang-raped on school grounds (on prom night, I believe), right before the eyes of a veritable crowd, none of whom did anything to help – not even call the cops. This wasn’t a case of barbarians watching on with cruelty or lust; this was a group of people who were too shocked, scared and confused, and especially, intimidated at the idea of being the only one to act in a whole crowd (the old “standing out” complex), to really do anything. Such is one painful limitation of the human condition and social psychology.