Hitting A Woman?

You know those guys in that picture could actually be two gals in drag.
 
Eyeron said:
Is there any circumstances in which hitting a woman would be considered acceptable? And by hitting I don't mean just a slap, I mean with a fist.
Click to expand...

I am going to say "no".

It is pretty much not playing fair because of simple physics and statistics and biology etc. Men on average out weigh women on average. Men on average have more upper body mass than women on average. Men on average have and so on and so on.

But then, is there any circumstances in which hitting a person would be considered acceptable?

Apart from something very rare, like they are coming at you with a knife and you cannot back away, I think the answer is "no".
 
Bill Thompson said:
I am going to say "no".

It is pretty much not playing fair because of simple physics and statistics and biology etc. Men on average out weigh women on average. Men on average have more upper body mass than women on average. Men on average have and so on and so on.
Click to expand...

Individuals aren't averages. According to the average every man is equally big/strong as every other man, so apparently every male-male fracas would be justified at least based on size differential--since on average there's no difference. To further expose that logic, since the question is "ever" justified--surely a 125 five foot male who's never been in a fight would be justified in trying to defend himself by punching a 220-lb female judo champion if she stated she intended to kill him and had cornered him? If the answer is yes, then we can start narrowing that difference until it's not justified.

There's also an unreasonable surety by people to associate pure mass/strength with potential danger. Women can conceal weapons just as easily (as per your exception), or learn martial arts as easily, or bite/scratch just as easily as men. Or be very experienced in brawling. Size and power isn't everything in a fight. And in the milliseconds of response time between someone punching you and a response I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to carefully weigh risks, look for weapons, estimate height/weight/body muscle %, or obtain a history of the assaulter's skills or experience. If anyone gets hit by anyone I think it's justifiable to hit them back.

Finally, if a woman assaults a man she isn't exactly playing fair is she, so why shouldn't she be hit back, particularly if allowing her to keep hitting or attempting to subdue her by other means brings more danger to the victim?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
Aristotle would agree that not hitting back is sometimes the courageous act (that is, hitting back might be rash). But my problem here is we are dealing with people who claim it is, in effect, never correct to hit back. This, indeed, rules out rashness -- or, as they say, mean they never react "irrationally" -- but only at the price of embracing cowardliness as, as it were, a default position, what the "rational" person should always do.
Click to expand...

We are? Who has claimed it's never right to hit back? I haven't seen a single person in this thread argue against self-defense or the defense of others, it's your insistence that violence is "courageous" when defending your sense of "manly honor" that most people have a problem with.

Last year while at a bar I made a (what I thought was friendly) joke at another's expense, and he threw his drink in my face. As a reaction, I threw mine back in his face, then after a few seconds of angry glaring he walked away, apparently to cool off, it never escalated to violence and there was no need for it to. But I guess neither of us are man enough to join Skeptic's frat. :'(
 
Skeptic said:
You are telling me that you would not hit back a man who deliberately threw his drink in your face and slapped you publicly. Yes, in my book, that is most definitely lack of honor and courage.
Click to expand...
I would avoid putting myself in a situation where someone was that angry at me.
 
Skeptic said:
That is self control. Self-control not only is not against acting courageously, it is for it. You are simply confusing self control with cowardice. What you are asking me is, "but what about doing nothing, like a coward?". Well, what about it? It's cowardly.
Click to expand...
I choose not to respond to this.
 
slingblade said:
My test of manhood is to note which men feel no need to "test their manhood" because they know this is a stupid, caveman sort of way to think, and which men seem to think their manhoods are real and need defending. I consider the former group to be critical thinkers, and the latter group to be ignorant and immature.

Is it mere coincidence that the men who think they need to hit people to prove they are manly are often also the men who routinely abuse women?
Click to expand...
This.

Listen to Slingblade. Slingblade is wise.
 
Dragoonster said:
Finally, if a woman assaults a man she isn't exactly playing fair is she, so why shouldn't she be hit back, particularly if allowing her to keep hitting or attempting to subdue her by other means brings more danger to the victim?
Click to expand...

OK, I say screw hitting back no matter who hits you. If you can get away, it is the best choice. But that is just my opinion. I have found that sometimes turning the other cheek causes more damage psychologically (it is like letting go durring a tug of war and the other side falls to the ground). As a teen I was only in one fight and it was only because there was absolutely no other option.

If it had been a girl... humm.... there are not too many she-bullies. I never considered what I would have done. And I cannot imagine what a girl would gain from bullying a guy day after day until he finally had to fight. It does not seem like a very bright girl.

Dude, I have not come across a woman with the same amount of upper body strengh as me. But, I am a pretty big guy. So, it is one of those things where it is not a problem that I have ever had to face. So, I just don't know.
 
Skeptic said:
You are telling me that you would not hit back a man who deliberately threw his drink in your face and slapped you publicly. Yes, in my book, that is most definitely lack of honor and courage.
Click to expand...
In my own life and my own experience, when someone punches me in the face, it is because he doesn't like what I'm saying, and he can't compete with me in argument, so he'd like to alter the nature of our dispute to the question of who can hit the hardest, rather than who is right.

Well, really, why should I indulge a person like that in his desire to evade an argument? Why should I grant his wishes? Instead, I continue to explain to him why he is wrong, and point out to him why violence does not prove that he is right, while he punches me repeatedly in the face.

You and I obviously have different ideas of what the "manly virtues" are. My idea is that I should never be afraid, and that I should never run away, and that I should never back down out of fear. Your idea is that I should always resort to physical violence when challenged. Well, that would work too, I guess. I guess it works for you.

But I behave in the way I do for the same reason that Aristotle cited. The dancer loves dancing. I love being myself. For me, honor and dignity and courage consist of not even noticing, except as a faux pas or as a fallacy, that someone is trying to engage me in a fist-fight instead of an argument.

Perhaps one day I shall die for my idea of virtue. You may think that I am a fool for behaving as I do. But will you deny that this is courage?

This is my courage --- that when someone hits me again and again in the face and screams: "Why won't you FIGHT?!?", I reply: "Because I wouldn't waste my time hitting a piece of **** like you".

And then I stand there and wait for the next blow. You who call this cowardly --- could you do that, rather than fight in self-defense?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
Some virtues are more manly (courage, self-control, etc.) and some are more womanly (compassion, modesty, etc.)
Click to expand...

Huh ?

Because, as we know, if you cannot be perfectly virtuous, there's no point in trying, is there?
Click to expand...

Interesting how you cut out the rest of his post, now.

Virtue is done for its own sake.
Click to expand...

Then it's useless. It should be done for a reason.

Don't believe me? Imagine if you hide and walk away, and just go to another bar, meekly and silently, as to not provoke the man who mocked and assaulted you further. How would you feel? Would you feel proud of yourself -- "hooray, I did the thing the rational cost/benefit analysis declared is the correct choice!"? Or would you feel, quite correctly, that you were a malingering coward and feel ashamed of yourself?
Click to expand...

You have a weird definition of courage. Certainly not a modern one.
 
Belz... said:
Huh ?
Click to expand...

Interesting question: Skeptic thinks it is praiseworthy and manly for one guy to punch another guy for throwing a drink in his face. What if a woman threw a drink in the face of another woman? Would it be unacceptably for to start a fight because it is too manly?
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
I've spoilered the picture below. While it is technically safe for work, I don't want the ladies to swoon at the sheer unalloyed MANLINESS therein. By my calculations, it radiates 358kilobatmans (or 11 standard Chuck Norris units for those that prefer Americanized measures).

Remember, don't stare directly into the virility:



[qimg]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01428/pistols_1428753c.jpg[/qimg]



Are you OK? Feeling dizzy? That's to be expected. Go watch some pacifists to balance it out. Don't watch them too long or you'll turn gay.
Click to expand...

Dude, you're supposed to put that warning before the picture. What if I had watched them too long and become gay? That would be a loss of manhood and I'd have to hit you.

Belz... said:
In self defense, sure. Same as baby seals.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Those baby seals, always attacking and eating our fish. Those are OUR fish. OUR FISH.


In all seriousness, I've been punched in the face twice and blind side tackled once (all in high school, home of all manly men) and my reaction each time was to laugh. Each time they wanted to start a fight and each time I thought it was greatly funny. That made them look like bigger fools than if I had curb stomped them. Don't get me wrong, if any of them had continued to attack or it had been in a more dangerous situation (like a city street at night) I would have defended myself, male or female. But what who do you think is the bigger badass? They guy who beats another fool into the ground, or one who literally laughs the fight away?
 

Attachments

  • leca922711bb935392c3b2eon5.jpg
    leca922711bb935392c3b2eon5.jpg
    21.3 KB · Views: 6
Originally Posted by slingblade
Is it mere coincidence that the men who think they need to hit people to prove they are manly are often also the men who routinely abuse women?
Click to expand...

mortimer said:
Did you just make this up?
Click to expand...

Perhaps she be a mind reader . . . or one of them there astro-projectionists! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom