Because the man is responsible for his woman. I realize most men have had their balls cutoff by the government and let their woman rule over them but in reality HE'S STUPPOSER TO KEEP HIS BITCH UNDER CONTROL. She attacked the person responsibility for the argument because if the man was doing his job he either would have beat up his own woman or already have beat the second woman before she attacked him. Unfortunately, in modern gynocratic societies, men have 0 control over women which is why men should stay clear of women entirely.
Another reason not to go out with women anywhere. Even if you're smart enough not to let her provoke you into starting a fight, she'll still get you into the middle of pointless fights you don't need to be in.
If she was arguing with the wait staff long enough and loudly enough that anyone else in the restaurant was even aware of it, then she was clearly being a top-tier Karen.
Because when the woman you're with starts shit, you end up having to deal with the consequences, not her. And she knows this, which makes her more likely to start shit.
You have no idea how many guys I know who ended up in fights, often against multiple opponents who ended up beating the shit out of them, because their girlfriend started mouthing off.
Because when the woman you're with starts shit, you end up having to deal with the consequences, not her.
That's quite an incentive to prevent her from 'starting shit'.
You have no idea how many guys I know who ended up in fights, often against multiple opponents who ended up beating the shit out of them, because their girlfriend started mouthing off.
That's quite an incentive to prevent her from 'starting shit'.
It really isn't. Women engage in violence by proxy, by manipulating men into doing it for them. They've been doing it for all of human history.
Whether the fight is over a woman directly, or about something she said or did, the fact is that women are the cause of most fights between men. That doesn't absolve the men of responsibility, but women also bear responsibility, and this behaviour occurs so often because they are almost never held directly accountable for it.
Here's a more detailed account from the NY Post, a damn sight better than Yahoo "News," archived or not: https://archive.ph/hBr4a
Because no reporters anywhere bother to indicate the race of criminal suspects, I invite you to arrive at a conclusion based on this description:
"Thompson appeared in court wearing a black sweatshirt, black Adidas pants and blue Crocs, with her attorney Quincy Myers requesting she be put on supervised release or released on her own recognizance since she had no criminal record and was a working mother of two sons, ages 21 and 11."
I figured as much until I saw it was a Ruth Chris steakhouse and not a Waffle House.
Customer Joan Thompson, 41, intervened in the argument between the wife and a worker before grabbing a steak knife and stabbing the man in the lower back and armpit shortly after 10 p.m. at the restaurant on W. 51st St.
The name isn't conclusive, but I'm expecting a white liberal 'dog mom' type.
Simple priority of targets. If she had stabbed the wife first, he probably would have hit her. She attacked the person most dangerous to her.
Women don't think strategically like that.
In situations like this, women are very stupid and emotional - hence her stabbing him.
She stabbed him for failing to control his woman. She instinctively (and correctly) views the other woman as his responsibility.
Because the man is responsible for his woman. I realize most men have had their balls cutoff by the government and let their woman rule over them but in reality HE'S STUPPOSER TO KEEP HIS BITCH UNDER CONTROL. She attacked the person responsibility for the argument because if the man was doing his job he either would have beat up his own woman or already have beat the second woman before she attacked him. Unfortunately, in modern gynocratic societies, men have 0 control over women which is why men should stay clear of women entirely.
Failed to keep his woman under control.
She stabbed him for being a disgusting doormat. There's nothing women find more repulsive than an unassertive man.
Another reason not to go out with women anywhere. Even if you're smart enough not to let her provoke you into starting a fight, she'll still get you into the middle of pointless fights you don't need to be in.
An argument with waitstaff usually doesn't involve a third party stabbing someone.
The other woman is psychotic.
If she was arguing with the wait staff long enough and loudly enough that anyone else in the restaurant was even aware of it, then she was clearly being a top-tier Karen.
So being a "top-tier Karen" is an excuse to stab someone?
Are you psychotic too?
I'm not justifying the other woman's behaviour. My point is that they were both being psychotic and he's the one who paid for it.
He wouldn't have been in that situation if not for his wife.
Because some tard stabbed the husband of another tard in another country?
I think the internets is doing a number on us.
Because when the woman you're with starts shit, you end up having to deal with the consequences, not her. And she knows this, which makes her more likely to start shit.
You have no idea how many guys I know who ended up in fights, often against multiple opponents who ended up beating the shit out of them, because their girlfriend started mouthing off.
That's quite an incentive to prevent her from 'starting shit'.
I really don't, that sounds absolutely crazy.
It really isn't. Women engage in violence by proxy, by manipulating men into doing it for them. They've been doing it for all of human history.
Whether the fight is over a woman directly, or about something she said or did, the fact is that women are the cause of most fights between men. That doesn't absolve the men of responsibility, but women also bear responsibility, and this behaviour occurs so often because they are almost never held directly accountable for it.
Stop deliberately feeding him.
Are people from Massachusetts who go to New York called 'tourists'?
Here's a more detailed account from the NY Post, a damn sight better than Yahoo "News," archived or not: https://archive.ph/hBr4a
Because no reporters anywhere bother to indicate the race of criminal suspects, I invite you to arrive at a conclusion based on this description:
"Thompson appeared in court wearing a black sweatshirt, black Adidas pants and blue Crocs, with her attorney Quincy Myers requesting she be put on supervised release or released on her own recognizance since she had no criminal record and was a working mother of two sons, ages 21 and 11."
Simping for The Imp?
;-)
I figured as much until I saw it was a Ruth Chris steakhouse and not a Waffle House.
The name isn't conclusive, but I'm expecting a white liberal 'dog mom' type.
I think the number of blacks in the world named 'Joan' is zero.
That is, other than Pope Joan...