Hitting A Woman?

Certainly not. Because losing an arms-wrestling match is not what Aristotle means when he says one's manhood or honor is threatened, naturally.
 
Skeptic said:
Certainly not. Because losing an arms-wrestling match is not what Aristotle means when he says one's manhood or honor is threatened, naturally.
Click to expand...

But having a drink thrown in your face is? I fail to see how an arm-wrestling match (a contest of strength, very manly, arghhh) is not a test of one's manhood, whereas a drink thrown in the face always is.
 
Because manhood, and honor, for Aristotle, are far more sophisticated concepts than that. Manhood is not the same as physical strength. Losing a fair contest is not a loss of manhood. But to be insulted and bullied without fighting back is a loss of honor an manhood, although, as I said, the fighting back is not necessarily physical.
 
Skeptic said:
Because manhood, and honor, for Aristotle, are far more sophisticated concepts than that. Manhood is not the same as physical strength. Losing a fair contest is not a loss of manhood. But to be insulted and bullied without fighting back is a loss of honor an manhood, although, as I said, the fighting back is not necessarily physical.
Click to expand...

(my bolding)
You definition of coward/manhood appears to me (and probably others reading this thread) to be quite arbitrary.

Interesting. Interesting because in this thread you have stated that anyone who does not throw punches at someone who threw a drink in your face (slighted your 'manhood') is a wimp lacking in courage and honor.


Then you state that the arm-wrestling champ acted in an admirable way when he was actually physically assaulted.

Now you return to stating that a slight against one's manhood (whatever that is defined as...apparently feats of strength have no bearing on one's manliness) without fighting back is cowardly and dishonorable.


I'm pretty certain that you don't really understand what Aristotle was writing/imploring, but use it to pat yourself on the back when you've reacted with physical violence to a perceived slight on your "manhood" (except in those cases where you feel it's not proper - what?)

Make up your mind, Skeptic. Am I a coward when the guy at the bar threw a drink in my face because I decided that it would be more appropriate to simply ask "WTF" and walk away (same as the arm-wrestling champ), or not?
 
Last edited:
Dragoonster said:
Any circumstance one would hit a man in is one that it's acceptable to hit a woman. And any circumstance one wouldn't hit a man would be one where you wouldn't hit a woman. Large or small attackers can scratch, eye-gouge, bite, have a friend about to hit you from behind, have a knife concealed on them, etc. The one being attacked should always respond with overwhelming force against nearly any attacker.

.
Click to expand...
Like I said:D!! (until the attacker ceases the attack):)
 
Cainkane1 said:
In Vietnam a Colonel shot and killed a bomb carrying woman who also had a baby on her back. She hit the street and her bomb blew her and her infant to smithereens. He never got over it. His feelings for the baby haunt him to this day.
Click to expand...

I would feel the same way about the baby, but, like the Colonel, it would not change for a fraction of a second what I would do.:(
 
Skeptic said:
Because manhood, and honor, for Aristotle, are far more sophisticated concepts than that. Manhood is not the same as physical strength. Losing a fair contest is not a loss of manhood. But to be insulted and bullied without fighting back is a loss of honor an manhood, although, as I said, the fighting back is not necessarily physical.
Click to expand...

So, what about it then? Did X, a 6'3", 260 lb collegiate athlete, act in a cowardly fashion when he walked away from the guy who punched him? Really just curious as to your take--
 
BobTheDonkey said:
(my bolding)
You definition of coward/manhood appears to me (and probably others reading this thread) to be quite arbitrary.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is arbitrary. I think Skeptic's definition of manhood is based on acting as if one were in a wild west saloon (or at least the movie version of one).
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
I don't think it is arbitrary. I think Skeptic's definition of manhood is based on acting as if one were in a wild west saloon (or at least the movie version of one).
Click to expand...

But, what about the punch to the face? Shouldn't that deserve a duel at high-noon?


ETA: That's what I say is arbitrary. A punch to the face is somehow less demeaning/less of an attack than having a drink thrown in your face simply because Skeptic decides that to be the case.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Last edited:
He decided that because the punch to the face was an impulsive reaction of sudden anger from the guy, instead of a "deliberate insult". Of course, we have no way to know if the drink in your face isn't also the result of an "impulsive reaction of anger", and his whole premise is just completely arbitrary (not to mention the blind Aristotle-fellating which is quite hilarious), but hey, don't let the details get in the way...

Oh, and, Aristotle.
 
Cavemonster said:
Of course it's a good idea to hit back, if and only if, by doing so you improve the situation for yourself or someone you care about. In the face of some continued harassment, where there's no other good option for ending it, I'd say that's reasonable.

A drink thrown in your face wouldn't qualify though. If you can laugh it off and enjoy the night by walking away, that takes you five seconds. If you start a fist-fight you open up a good possibility to wreck your whole night.
Click to expand...

Or a good deal more than that. People are in jail for one punch that causes a fall, a head injury, and a death. In no way is it courageous to take a trivial situation that could be resolved without further harm and make it into one that can only be resolved by further harm.

Courage has many definitions, but I would suggest courageous actions should inspire respect, and punching someone who merely insulted you gains no respect from me. Walking away proves you are the 'bigger man' in my book. And I am plenty tall enough, strong enough and capable enough of landing some good blows if I really felt it was necessary.

I would be inclined to think that Skeptic's approach is one that would probably require some re-examining and modification in the cells or ER after inadvisedly trying it out. Ego intoxication is a dangerous thing, and something 'real men' should aspire to get over, or simply grow out of. Do martial arts masters and Marine instructors recommend that their trainees get involved in brawls to show their manhood? I think not.
 
Skeptic said:
Because manhood, and honor, for Aristotle, are far more sophisticated concepts than that. Manhood is not the same as physical strength. Losing a fair contest is not a loss of manhood. But to be insulted and bullied without fighting back is a loss of honor an manhood, although, as I said, the fighting back is not necessarily physical.
Click to expand...

I never knew Aristotle cared so much about what other people thought of him. At least, I'm assuming the only reason it's necessary to display manhood is the perceptions of others. If all it is is internal affirmation, then it would seem to depend entirely on each man's evaluation of manhood as to whether they should fight back or not.

Personally it seems like those who insist on punching people who insult them are most likely desperate to impress their peer groups, and not really doing it to maintain any real personal beliefs.
 
When I was in sixth grade, my little brother was in second. On Halloween that year we got to wear costumes to school (I was Darth Vader, clutched as I was in the throes of Star Wars mania). This is back in the good old days when one could still wear masks and carry props as part of one's costume- in my case, my cherished sound-and-light red lightsabre, in my brother's, a pair of cap guns- yes, kids, once apon a time one could bring cap guns to school (many was the recess spent busting a roll of caps with a rock). Much to my disgust, he came as a plain old cowboy.

Anyway, Brother's class got to the bus stop before mine at the end of that day. When I arrived he was sitting on the low wall surrounding the bike racks, crying. Some mean little girl in his class had pushed him down and taken his cap guns. He pointed her out to me, laughing and teasing him with them nearby with a gaggle of her friends. I walked over and asked for them back. She gave me such lip I'd never heard before from a kid that small. Well, after a few escalating exchanges, I finally just grabbed the damned things and wrenched them out of her hands. She unbalanced and fell on her ass. I walked over to Brother, returned his weapons, and thought the whole thing ended.

Minutes later, this ENORMOUS girl my age- but not in my class- was lumbering over. Apparently, she was the sister of the brat, angrily demanding to know why I pushed her little sister down.

Now, understand, when I was a kid I was a tiny, skinny little runt of a boy. A fearful boy, who up until earlier that year had never stood up to anybody before. This girl was three times my size and belligerent as hell. So understand, there was a tiny quaver in my voice when I explained to her her sister's transgression and the events as they had transpited, emphasising I never actually touched her sister directly. This infuriated her, and she thrust her arms forward as if to slam me against the brick wall behind me. Without thinking, I swung at her, catching her square in the left eye. It was not a hard hit, but she dropped like the '29 stock market. She sat in stunned silence for a moment, clutching her eye, then ran off cursing and crying. Little sister was stunned and ashen- I had felled her champion. She ran off after her sibling.

I'd like to say the entire schoolyard erupted into applause, but it was really only a few people clapping and cheering- apparently, this girl was a bully in her own class.

I didn't say anything about it when I got home. I shared very little of my emotions with anyone, and did not think anyone would understand this sense of pride and power I now felt. It also didn't seem appropriate to share the feeling in the principal's office the next day, where he, the fascist Vice Principal in his hideous green polyester pants, the outraged girl's parents (the girl herself- in a dress for the first time in her life, no doubt- sitting glumly with a big shiner), or my mother were all talking loudly. All I did was explain the facts of the incident much as I've related them here, and was sullenly and reluctantly corraborated by the girl, timidly by the little sister, and gleefuly by Brother. I got off with nothing more than a vague admontition to "not hit girls".

This was not the first time I realised that what people said the rule were, and what one could actually do were not the same thing at all, but it was a strong reinforcement of that fundamental guiding princlple of my life.

Unfortunatly, I also learned that hitting people was fun, and a lot of people suffered from that in the next three years, myself not nearly often enough.
 
Last edited:
I agree.

The way the question was phrased, I figured the OP wanted an answer of that nature, and since I can provide it, I did. I don't know why he or she would want such an answer, or would ask such a question, but there it is.

ETA: by the way, Eyeron, "just a slap" can fracture one's nose. Ask me how I know.
Click to expand...

I asked ebcause I have a friend who believes that a man must never hit a woman under any circumstances at all, and doing so makes him a monster, and that the only acceptable way of defending themselves against a woman attacker is to restrain a woman. And this is a guy i'm talking about. So I got curious to see if there were any other people who believed differently.

And I phrased slap instead of fist because I felt that it was more restrained than a fist. And plus I didn't want people to focus on that tiny detail, because someone would've brought up I that had to defined hitting a woman. I wanted the focus to be on the question rather than a detail which is often just too much to ask for on an internet discussion forum..
 
BobTheDonkey said:
I'm pretty certain that you don't really understand what Aristotle was writing/imploring, but use it to pat yourself on the back when you've reacted with physical violence to a perceived slight on your "manhood"
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Seems like a classic case of Internet Tough Guy syndrome to me.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
But, what about the punch to the face? Shouldn't that deserve a duel at high-noon?
Click to expand...

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:



pistols_1428753c.jpg



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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom