505
Sean Connery in 1964 (on the set of Goldfinger) and Thomas Brodie-Sangster in 2024. Both age 34 in their respective photos. (thelemmy.club)
submitted 5 days ago by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
150 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -9 points 4 days ago* (15 children)

Describing an "openhanded slap" as "justified," Connery also said it could be used "if all other alternatives fail and there has been plenty of warning," adding, "If a woman is a bitch, or hysterical, or bloody-minded continually, then I'd do it."

I mean… it’s based? Beating anyone is wrong, of course - but if you have to do it, for example, for a defence, should you stop just because it’s a woman?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    Could be worse is a shitty sentiment. Just stop at beating anyone is wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    These hypotheticals always boil down to 'I just want to hit women'. It's not based. You're just telling on yourself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -3 points 4 days ago*

    No, I don’t want to beat anyone. But I can imagine the situations, so do you.

    And, you know, gender here don’t matter at all. It’s bad to use any kind of physical force to another human, especially on weaker one. But there can be situations where it’s justified.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago (6 children)

    If a woman is a bitch, or hysterical, or bloody-minded continually

    Which one of these is grounds for self defense again?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    I already wrote about my opinion in another root. Any physical force applied to another human is bad, especially to a weaker one. But we live in a crazy, mad world.

    For example, If I’d see someone dangerous on a stree, in a state of psychosis (or just aggressive), approaching me - I would not look at gender. And, in general, if anyone is aggressive to me, I would be aggressive in the return - that’s all.

    I agree that Sean words seems very misogynistic, but personally I’m doubting that he meant “I would beat woman that annoyed me”.

    Or maybe he was, we’ll never know.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

    Connery’s stance on violence as a means of control, not self defense, is documented in a pretty famous Barbara Walters interview.

    Connery: I think it depends entirely on the circumstances, and if it merits it.

    Walters: What would merit it?

    C: Well, if you have tried everything else. And- women are pretty good at this. They can’t leave it alone. They’ve got to have the last word, and you give them the last word. But they’re not happy with the last word. They want to say it again. And get into a really provocative situation. Then, I think it’s absolutely right.

    You may not be familiar with all of this, which is entirely fair because it’s not reasonable to have watched every celebrity interview in history, but I would encourage you to watch it as context. He was inarguably talking about hitting women in his life to shut them up.

    First time I saw that interview, I remember being shocked by how blunt and honest it was, because like most people I liked Connery as a movie star. He did not sanitize his opinions. Outside a card game with the boys on a Thursday night, you’re not going to hear a more honest endorsement of violence in a relationship.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago

    I judge his words based on what he actually said instead of using them to make an entirely unrelated point justifying violence.

    In no way does what he said about striking a woman for being disagreeable suggest he's talking about self defense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago*

    He very much did mean he beats women who annoy him.

    1987, he elaborated on his quotes to Playboy. "I haven't changed my opinion... If you have tried everything else – and women are pretty good at this – they can't leave it alone. They want to have the last word and you give them the last word, but they're not happy with the last word. They want to say it again, and get into a really provocative situation, then I think it's absolutely right,"

    Six years after THAT

    "Sometimes there are women who take it to the wire. That's what they're looking for, the ultimate confrontation—they want a smack."

    Stop trying to defend him, mythologise him or bring fcking self defense into this. It's disgusting

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    In a world of Cornell predators, I have to agree, there’s primal elements of his comment I do not sit well with.

    Then I look at Israel - a case of someone playing a World’s Biggest Victims card so hard they get away with the most reprehensible thing (to the point they’re harming the rest of said victims)

    Chances are, none of us will ever run into a person acting so horrible, so evil, they deserve violence even though they’re enacting none. But I don’t think it’s impossible. I think some really evil people bank on everyone thinking such a person/situation is impossible.

    And yeah, as a side note, said evil people could be women. I agree in almost any plausible situation anyone can come up with, even to the point of yelling, arguing, and slinging insults, violence is just about never justified, regardless of the person’s gender. But I will not say “never” - not 100.00% of the time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •