Hitting A Woman?

[BobTheDonkey]

Skeptic
Men, being stronger and larger than women, are -- quite correctly -- usually taught that while violence in general is bad, hitting women (and children) is particularly to be frowned upon as a cowardly and unmanly act. There are of course exceptions, life and death situations -- say, a woman is going to attack you with a gun, etc. -- but I don't think that's the point of Eyeron's question.

His point is this, I think: there are many daily-occurring situations where a man probably would hit another man. Do you think that, in some of those situations, hitting a woman would be justifiable? The old gentlemany answer was, "no, never". I don't think that's bad. I think it is in fact better than the claimed "it won't matter to me if it's a man or a woman" indifference expressed by some people here. I don't think the people here who are shouting for "equality" in the treatment of men and women in this case thought it through.

Suppose you are a man, and a woman shouted at you with "fighting words", telling you what a worthless piece of scum you are. Or suppose a woman slapped, or attacked you with her fists, or threw her drink in your face. If a man did that, you'd hit them back, probably trying to knock them out. But if a woman did that, I hope and trust most men here would control themselves and not do that. They would perhaps try to restrain the woman from hitting them again (say, by holding her hands), but I trust they won't punch her in the face and knock her out.

What's more, I would be deeply suspicious of someone whom I see punching a woman and knocking her flat, and then saying, "well, she attacked me first, and if she were a man you wouldn't think it's wrong". Even if -- technically -- they are correct, I would think such a man as cowardly, of not acting like men should. Men should, within reason, prefer not hitting back women even if they are hit first, and should attempt to restrain, not hit back, their assailant.

(Again, there ARE of course exceptions and extreme cases -- I am presuming we are not dealing with extreme circumstances where punching the woman is the only way to avoid grave bodily harm to yourself or others, etc. I mean in the typical case.)

This is the correct answer.

You, sir, are wrong.

For the bolded part. For the same reasons you were wrong before - it's incredibly sexist. There are plenty of women out there who abuse their spouses. And you choose to ignore that because it doesn't fit the stereotype and are all too willing to label those who would defend themselves as "woman-beater" rather than "victim".

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You, sir, are wrong.

For the bolded part. For the same reasons you were wrong before - it's incredibly sexist. There are plenty of women out there who abuse their spouses. And you choose to ignore that because it doesn't fit the stereotype and are all too willing to label those who would defend themselves as "woman-beater" rather than "victim".

Get off the "sexist" thing. You're wrong, and the more you keep repeating it, the more foolish you look. I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[Skeptic]

You, sir, are wrong.

For the bolded part. For the same reasons you were wrong before - it's incredibly sexist.

Oh, please.

Some virtues are more manly (courage, self-control, etc.) and some are more womanly (compassion, modesty, etc.) This doesn't mean that only men have courage or only women can be compassionate, of course. But shouting "sexist!" after any sort of attempt by a man to follow the manly virtues, or for a woman to follow the womanly virtues, merely ends us with what we see today all around us: men who, "discovering their feminine side", are wet noodles who cry and break down after any little crisis and then have no idea why women find them pathetic, and women who, "being against the double standard" and having been "sexually liberated", sleep with anything in pants and then wonder why they are lonely and unhappy.

The result of the attempt to "end sexism", not by equal opportunity under the law, but by the idiotic brainwashing of obliterating the manly and womanly virtues, ended us up with, as the Latin poet wittingly said, "men without courage and women without shame". Just look at any college campus today.

(Well, except for some of the small, religious ones, unsurprisingly. Apparently, the "stupid" and "backward" and "primitive" education in such colleges -- I do not mean bible-college diploma mills, but those small liberal-arts colleges founded by religious or traditional societies, mostly in the late 19th / early 20th century -- still creates men and woman of character, go figure.)

 

[qayak]

Get off the "sexist" thing. You're wrong, and the more you keep repeating it, the more foolish you look. I'm embarrassed for you.

Wouldn't it work better if you put up an argument that could explain why he should disregard the obvious sexism in your posts?

 

[qayak]

Oh, please. Some virtues are more manly (courage, self-control, etc.) and some are more womanly (compassion, modesty, etc.) This doesn't mean that only men have courage or only woman can be compassionate, of course.

Oh! The White Knight defence. That explains it!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Wouldn't it work better if you put up an argument that could explain why he should disregard the obvious sexism in your posts?

Others have posted my argument. I choose not to retype it.

 

[Rairun]

Get off the "sexist" thing. You're wrong, and the more you keep repeating it, the more foolish you look. I'm embarrassed for you.

No one is going to "get off the sexist thing." It's sexist. Deal with it.

No, I wouldn't hit a woman if she shouted "fighting words" at me, but I wouldn't hit a man either. I also wouldn't hit them if they threw their drink in my face, unless they threw the glass along with it, in which case I might hit them back. But I would not try to knock them out. It baffles me how you guys are so willing to be violent to men, yet if I ever touch a woman I'm a women-beater.

Seriously, do you think knocking someone out is okay under ANY circumstances other than when someone is trying to seriously injure you or kill you? And by "seriously injure" I don't mean just any sort of violence. It's just plain scary how you would render someone unconscious for throwing beer at you, or for trying to push you out of their way.

 

[Skeptic]

The young guy said to me, "And all this time I thought you weren't supposed to hit people because it was wrong when really, you aren't supposed to hit them because you will end up in anger management classes!"

Here we once more see what Aristotle already knew. Virtue and doing the right thing is not just a matter of principles or laws, it is a matter of training.

This young man is quite correct that the reason to not hit your girlfriend is because it's wrong, not because of the BS pseudo-utilitarian excuse "you then will have to go to anger management classes".

But obviously, merely knowing that it is wrong didn't stop him from doing it -- for the same reason that fat people know it is bad to overeat just as much as thin people, but do it anyway.

A well-educated person is not merely one who knows intellectually that hitting their girlfriend is wrong. It is someone whose education and training gave him self-control to not do what they think is wrong.

Of course nobody is perfect, and the best-trained person sometime slips and loses control. But at least they are far less likely to do so than the untrained person.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Oh, please.

Some virtues are more manly (courage, self-control, etc.) and some are more womanly (compassion, modesty, etc.) This doesn't mean that only men have courage or only women can be compassionate, of course. But shouting "sexist!" after any sort of attempt by a man to follow the manly virtues, or for a woman to follow the womanly virtues, merely ends us with what we see today all around us: men who, "discovering their feminine side", are wet noodles who cry and break down after any little crisis and then have no idea why women find them pathetic, and women who, "being against the double standard" and having been "sexually liberated", sleep with anything in pants and then wonder why they are lonely and unhappy.

The result of the attempt to "end sexism", not by equal opportunity under the law, but by the idiotic brainwashing of obliterating the manly and womanly virtues, ended us up with, as the Latin poet wittingly said, "men without courage and women without shame". Just look at any college campus today.

(Well, except for some of the small, religious ones, unsurprisingly. Apparently, the "stupid" and "backward" and "primitive" education in such colleges -- I do not mean bible-college diploma mills, but those small liberal-arts colleges founded by religious or traditional societies, mostly in the late 19th / early 20th century -- still creates men and woman of character, go figure.)

So, you're telling me there are no manly men anymore? Interesting, given the overwhelming love of NASCAR, football (American football, that is), beer, etc.

Explain to me how it's not sexist to determine certain virtues a person should exhibit based purely on their gender?

 

[qayak]

Here we once more see what Aristotle already knew. Virtue and doing the right thing is not just a matter of principles or laws, it is a matter of training.

This young man is quite correct that the reason to not hit your girlfriend is because it's wrong, not because of the BS pseudo-utilitarian excuse "you then will have to go to anger management classes".

But obviously, merely knowing that it is wrong didn't stop him from doing it --

There is some question as to whether he did it as evidenced by the fact that he is in anger management and not in jail.

for the same reason that fat people know it is bad to overeat just as much as thin people, but do it anyway.

Logical fallacy.

A well-educated person is not merely one who knows intellectually that hitting their girlfriend is wrong. It is someone whose education and training gave him self-control to not do what they think is wrong.

Logically fallacy. You have not demonstrated that it is indeed wrong to hit a woman in all circumstance and you have not shown that this is the position of all "educated" persons.

Of course nobody is perfect, and the best-trained person sometime slips and loses control. But at least they are far less likely to do so than the untrained person.

Logical fallacy. You have not shown that the "best trained" people are those who would never strike a woman under any circumstance.

Your argument is sexist and wrong.

 

[Skeptic]

Oh! The White Knight defence. That explains it!

Yes, indeed so.

Being a "White Knight" -- a man who considers honor and courage to be important virtues -- is better than being one of those pathetic folks who, not seeing the importance of courage or honor themselves, belittle those who do.

Of course it is always possible to parody and ridicule "White Knights", as it is possible to parody every virtue. It is of course always possible to make oneself ridiculous by overacting one's virtue over trivialities, or by fanatically thinking (like, for instance, Islamic terrorists) that "honor" and "courage" are the ONLY thing that matters, regardless of what code of honor one follows or to what purpose one employs one's courage.

But just because virtue can be perverted or ridiculed hardly means it is not virtue. As Epictetus said, the brave man is always called a fool -- by the coward.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yes, indeed so.

Being a "White Knight" -- a man who considers honor and courage to be important virtues -- is better than being one of those pathetic folks who, not seeing the importance of courage or honor themselves, belittle those who do.

Of course it is always possible to parody and ridicule "White Knights", as it is possible to parody every virtue. It is of course always possible to make oneself ridiculous by overacting one's virtue over trivialities, or by fanatically thinking (like, for instance, Islamic terrorists) that "honor" and "courage" are the ONLY thing that matters, regardless of what code of honor one follows or to what purpose one employs one's courage.

But just because virtue can be perverted or ridiculed hardly means it is not virtue. As Epictetus said, the brave man is always called a fool -- by the coward.

So, you're implying that I'm a fool lacking in honor and courage? Interesting that you would think so simply because I'm willing to defend myself against anyone who would harm me and only when it's absolutely necessary (which, btw, is not very often, if ever, for most people).

It's telling that you believe men who would defend themselves are lacking in honor and courage whereas women are expected to lack in honor and courage. And you don't see the sexism in that?


ETA: So, does that mean women who don't defend themselves have honor and courage, therefore it's expected of women to defend themselves (because defense is cowardly and womanly, I suppose?)?

 

[Skeptic]

So, you're telling me there are no manly men anymore? Interesting, given the overwhelming love of NASCAR, football (American football, that is), beer, etc.

Who said there are no manly men? But there are less than there were, now that the manly ideal became some sort of androgynous "connected with his feeling" and "sensitive", well, wimp.

What makes men manly is not NASCAR or football, but self-control, courage, and similar virtues. I don't count those who get drunk in a football game or burn down cars when their soccer team loses (or wins) exemplars of "manliness", but of "spoiled bratiness".

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Who said there are no manly men? But there are less than there were, now that the manly ideal became some sort of androgynous "connected with his feeling" and "sensitive", well, wimp.

What makes men manly is not NASCAR or football, but self-control, courage, and similar virtues. I don't count those who get drunk in a football game or burn down cars when their soccer team loses (or wins) exemplars of "manliness", but of "spoiled bratiness".

So, women shouldn't exhibit self-control and/or courage?

 

[Skeptic]

So, you're implying that I'm a fool lacking in honor and courage?

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.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

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.

But, what about self-control?

 

[Cavemonster]

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.

So which definition of honor are you using?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/honor

And which of Courage?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/courage

 

[qayak]

Yes, indeed so.

Being a "White Knight" -- a man who considers honor and courage to be important virtues -- is better than being one of those pathetic folks who, not seeing the importance of courage or honor themselves, belittle those who do.

Of course it is always possible to parody and ridicule "White Knights", as it is possible to parody every virtue. It is of course always possible to make oneself ridiculous by overacting one's virtue over trivialities, or by fanatically thinking (like, for instance, Islamic terrorists) that "honor" and "courage" are the ONLY thing that matters, regardless of what code of honor one follows or to what purpose one employs one's courage.

But just because virtue can be perverted or ridiculed hardly means it is not virtue. As Epictetus said, the brave man is always called a fool -- by the coward.

Oh! The Persecuted White Knight defence!

There is a reason knights went the way of the Dodo bird. It turns out they were just humans with the same human foibles as everyone else.

I am not ridiculing courage and honour but I am ridiculing your understanding of what they mean.

 

[Skeptic]

There is a reason knights went the way of the Dodo bird. It turns out they were just humans with the same human foibles as everyone else.

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

 

[Skeptic]

But, what about self-control?

Virtue means feeling the correct emotions, and doing the correct thing: feeling the correct degree of love to those who do good, the correct degree of hate to those who do bad, in proportion to their virtue or vice.

Courage is a middle virtue -- between rashness and cowardice. Rashness means to feel and act based on too much hate. Cowardice means to feel and act based on too little.

Here, courage means to be angry enough to punch someone who deliberately spills his drink in your face, since you are feeling the right amount of anger towards an appropriate target. To kill them would be (apart from everything else which would make it wrong) rashness, not courage; to do nothing would be cowardice.

Now, what about self control? Well, self control means to force yourself to act according to virtue. The idea is that self-control eventually becomes second nature, resulting in virtuous persons.

In this case, to force yourself to act courageously. That is, hitting back even if you are afraid you would be punched in return, instead of sitting around meekly and taking it, which is cowardly; and, on the other hand, not pulling out a gun and shooting them, which is rash.

Some people are naturally cowardly. To be courageous, they would have to force themselves to act courageously in this case and punch the sonofabitch despite being afraid. Some people are naturally rash. To be courageous, they would have to restrain themselves and not shoot the sonofabitch, but only punch him, despite being really angry.

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.