It's not okay for a woman to hit a man

[ANARCHit3cht]

At least I explained why there were hypocrites here, are you just trolling at this point? What am I saying that's hypocritical, because your attempt at being funny doesn't really count. It honestly sounds like you don't really understand my perspective, which is alright, but that's no reason to call people names, unless you can actually back that claim, of course. oh, debate~


I'm not saying they do not, I'm saying that they have a political leaning towards a specific agenda. Honestly, in terms of seeking statistics, organizations like RAINN should only be used for locating the sources of those statistics. In addition, they are the source of some statistics that are derived from those statistics, and unfortunately unlike mine, they do not go through and show how these statistics are derived. Without this knowledge, you cannot make a claim about the value of its truth either way, although refusals can appear suspicious,

I never claimed any individual institution wasn't credible. If you expect to get anywhere in this debate, do not shove words into people's mouths for upvotes.

Then what does telling someone that they're pulling numbers out of their ass or that their claims have no validity mean? The claims that were made were based off sources(RAINN) that used those institutions to gather their information from. Those institutions such as the US Department of Justice arguably got their information from the same place the FBI would.

Except I never addressed you, it's just a general problem that I notice a lot. Since I studied statistics and often use mathematical models in my job and for hobbies, I try to at least educate others about common interpretation mistakes. If that makes you feel upset, then so be it, I apologize, but the comment is a general comment towards people in general, which is why I didn't address you. It's simply that your quote reminded me of it.

If you want to take that personally then be my guest.

You quoted me, you said "this statement is false because of this reason" and then followed it up with "as such." So if you weren't talking to me I don't know who you were talking to. You can't make a general statement that speaks specifically about things I said. This is also getting off-topic, so we can continue it in VMs or PMs if you'd prefer.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

At the very least, I can debate and post ideas without spewing vitriol and ruining the overall discussion by trying to shout over everyone else.

No you can't, you're actually being incredibly immature. In your last post you acted like as if my opinion was part of a staunch conservative agenda ("My bad, gender equality in the United States is obviously a liberal communist lie because some editorial and opinion pieces from foreign newspapers say they are.") and responded to my understandable offence by claiming I was "putting words in your mouth" and "throwing ad hominems at you". It's right there, please don't be so immature. In addition, your entire post has an extremely confrontational, aggressive attitude, full of heavily interrogative language; On the contrary, I write these long posts in an attempt to ease readers into my opinion as painlessly as possible. With the reactions of some people in these threads, I sometimes lose my patience, and I apologize.

I feel like a lot of your perception of my attitude comes from your own, very highly opinionated feelings on the subject, which is fine, but please respect others.

At least when I called you a hypocrite I had a clear logical path to why.

In addition, I've been pretty reserved in this discussion, I'm not entirely sure where you're getting the idea of "shouting over everyone else". I'm simply responding to your posts and acknowledging your individual points.

If you're trying to preach equality and such, you're doing it wrong. You don't know what I think, so quit acting like you have any idea whatsoever as to what I believe or think on the matter.

Do you care to clarify why you feel this way about me? I think it's pretty clear what I think - I think that statistics should be reported in an unbiased manner and that doing so will reflect a more accurate representation of discrimination in the sexes.

I agree with this. It shouldn't matter what your gender is, but what your charachter is and what you bring to the table, talent wise. That's all I think anyone is trying to say here. But if you don't want to recognize the fact that men and women are treated unfairly or face institutionalized discrimination solely because of their gender, some more than others, then I can't help you.

I would be inclined to agree, except you spent most of your post talking about how since women aren't in even numbers in very small populations of high power (CEOs and politicians), that women were segregated against completely in culture. You were heavily implying that achieving equal ratios were far more important than being judged on ones credentials. My "gibberish" was suggesting other possibilities besides pure misogyny for these discrepancies.

Then what does telling someone that they're pulling numbers out of their ass or that their claims have no validity mean? The claims that were made were based off sources(RAINN) that used those institutions to gather their information from. Those institutions such as the US Department of Justice arguably got their information from the same place the FBI would.

If they cannot replicate the results of their statistical findings, then that claim for their evidence unfortunately means nothing. I can say that 2 million people are murdered in the United States every year, claim I got my statistics from the FBI and BJS, but if those statistics cannot be replicated, then they are worthless. In science, this is a fundamental part of progression and it's called peer-review - people should be able to replicate the results of your work.

You quoted me, you said "this statement is false because of this reason" and then followed it up with "as such." So if you weren't talking to me I don't know who you were talking to. You can't make a general statement that speaks specifically about things I said. This is also getting off-topic, so we can continue it in VMs or PMs if you'd prefer.

Well then I apologize but I honestly believe you are getting incredibly defensive over nothing.

I'm also not going to entertain the rest of your gibberish with a response.

Well this explains a lot

 

[Polar Spectrum]

I wouldn't phrase it so that male or female was on either end of this statement. I'd go with circumstantially appropriate for either way as well. There are both men and women I know could kick my ass right upon meeting them; and there are women and men whom I perceive as no likely threat. I wouldn't hit anybody unprovoked; but if a six foot tall chick in peak physical condition swings at me, I'mma resist that ass beating yo. Same as if some three foot tall weak lookin' man pulls a knife on me and tells me to undress. Either one is a violent physical aggressor, either gender - and warrants resistance imo.

Now if a 90 year old unarmed old man / lady tries to beat me up... No way in hell I'd hit them. That'd be wrong. Even if they were trying to kill me with their bare hands - there's almost no way (unless they're superhuman) they could accomplish that, or pose any sort of serious threat.

 

[lloebet]

It's always the gender equality things that breeds bigger posts.

 

[Kanzler]

I'm still amazed there are some articles here and there online with discussions in the comments about people actually defending domestic abuse towards men.

No man should a woman and no woman should hit a man. Why is that so hard to understand? Why does such a double standard exist?

I don't think the double standard is taken seriously by most people, other than the old-fashioned and the entitled and the self-loathing.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

I'm disappointed this thread spiraled into a debate on sexism completely irrelevant to the actual topic. Really what we should be debating is domestic violence information because that is where any misconceptions on who hits who and who the victim is stem from.

Let's be clear on one thing first, assault is always assault regardless of the gender and will lawfully be treated as such. There is a societal stigma surrounding men reporting assault from women, which means it is underreported. As a result people generally don't acknowledge it as a problem because they don't see or hear about it. However, statistics gathered from surveys in Australia show that at least 1 in 3 victims of domestic abuse are male.

A few years back there was a national domestic abuse campaign with the slogan "Violence against women. Australia says no". This campaign greatly diminished the fact that the issue affects men as well and is stereotyping women as being the victims because historically that's usually how it's been. I think a similar campaign needs to be undertaken to showcase the portion of men as victims. Perhaps with education the female stereotype will go away and with it the perception by some that it's okay for women to hit men.

 

[twocows]

ONE IN SIX WOMEN IS RAPED IN THEIR LIFE, and of those one in six, 2/3's are raped subsequent times.

This number is dubious at best, even if it can be sourced (which I'm not going to bother looking into after seeing how the rest of the thread devolved into lies, damned lies, and statistics). There are several factors that may lead to this being inflated, including:

1. Failure of men to admit they are victims of rape due to a culture that often trivializes or even mocks male victims of rape.
2. As a result of 1, if they're going off of reported cases, it's widely believed that male victims of rape are significantly underreported to law enforcement. Female victims of rape also have this problem, though it seems to be to a lesser degree (and is offset somewhat by a seemingly higher degree of false reports).
3. Vague or nonstandard definitions of what rape is. It would be useful to see what their definition of rape was for whatever study produced this number.

So what does that mean? Not really much, I think. The point isn't (and shouldn't be) who has it worse, the point is that it's bad and we should be working to make things better for everyone. I feel like quibbling about who has it worse just serves to trivialize what are very real and very important problems.

Maybe the lack of women elected to political office across the country despite making up a majority (by however slim of a margin) of the 320 or so million and being preferred to male candidates in some instances. Maybe the fact that at our current pace, it would take half a millennium for equal representation in houses of government across the country.

Men and women are different. As much as a lot of people want you to believe we're exactly the same for all intents and purposes, we're not. We're generally interested in different things and usually pursue different lifestyles and different jobs. Some positions, such as a lot of STEM positions, political positions, and a lot of blue-collar labor jobs, tend to be dominated by males. For the most part, this isn't because women are excluded from the fields but because they don't care to pursue careers in these fields. Likewise, men make up a far lesser portion of primary school teachers, secretarial positions, nurses, and (if I remember correctly, don't quote me on this) accountants. I'm sure it's not limited to those positions either, I just haven't bothered investigating it and I'm going off memory here.

I don't really think that says anything important about who we are, especially since it's just aggregate data. What it does mean is that men and women tend to pursue different things and that having different numbers of men and women in a field is expected, normal, and perfectly fine.

 

[Kanzler]

Men and women are different. As much as a lot of people want you to believe we're exactly the same for all intents and purposes, we're not. We're generally interested in different things and usually pursue different lifestyles and different jobs. Some positions, such as a lot of STEM positions, political positions, and a lot of blue-collar labor jobs, tend to be dominated by males. For the most part, this isn't because women are excluded from the fields but because they don't care to pursue careers in these fields. Likewise, men make up a far lesser portion of primary school teachers, secretarial positions, nurses, and (if I remember correctly, don't quote me on this) accountants. I'm sure it's not limited to those positions either, I just haven't bothered investigating it and I'm going off memory here.

I don't really think that says anything important about who we are, especially since it's just aggregate data. What it does mean is that men and women tend to pursue different things and that having different numbers of men and women in a field is expected, normal, and perfectly fine.

To add on this, equality takes time to unfold. The women students of today will become the women professors of tomorrow.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

With all this argument about the definition of rape and how this skews numbers, why not use the rape and sexual assault numbers combined? Seriously, people, you are arguing over stupid technicalities.

In the link I posted regarding the number of victims of domestic violence being men, it breaks these down into the types of violence, including sexual assualt (which may include rape). In a 1999 survery this was reported at 19% of victims of this were male. In 2006 another survey was undertaken that found 29% of victims of sexual assault were male, and 26% of victims of sexual abuse before the age of 15 were male. Feel free to look through those numbers since you can't decide on your own.

Here's a nice infographic on it all.

 

[twocows]

With all this argument about the definition of rape and how this skews numbers, why not use the rape and sexual assault numbers combined? Seriously, people, you are arguing over stupid technicalities.

The same problems affect both sets of numbers. All three of my earlier points also apply to sexual assault statistics.

 

[Saki]

I agree with the other responses in this thread that hitting or any sort of violence is only permitted when it's consensual and in very specific circumstances. I actually despise the fact that day time television and films market a women slapping a man as "wow, she was really upset, good for her" instead of "wow, that is abuse if it truly hurt him or not". It's terrifying to see that sort of thing. I am a women and it saddens me to see violence against women, but I don't want to see it against men either (by men, or women, or whatever). This includes physical violence and mental abuse (although that is a story for another day).

Men should never "deserve" or just "take" abuse, slapping, hitting, etc.

 

[The Amazing Justin]

I don't believe in hitting women period. I've always felt that when a woman really makes me mad whether it be by lying to me or disrespecting me which I see striking me as doing, I've got to be the man and walk away without making things get worse.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

There is a time and place for everything. I dunno about others, but in my world you better be prepared when hitting a man, or have a damn good reason to slap a woman. Being careful with your hands is really the best advice I can give... it's best to avoid it wherever possible. I seriously can only imagine a light slap for something unforgivable with a partner of mine, as a gesture. I don't fight men because it's a waste of time. And it's no fun hurting people anyways. There's a lot of reasons.

 

[gimmepie]

I don't believe in hitting women period. I've always felt that when a woman really makes me mad whether it be by lying to me or disrespecting me which I see striking me as doing, I've got to be the man and walk away without making things get worse.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of chivalry but it is ridiculous to put women on some sort of pedestal, especially when I can guarantee you're exaggerating.

1. "I've got to be the man and walk away without making things worse" - Gender here is irrelevant. Unless you don't have a choice, walking away and avoiding conflict is pretty much always the smartest move. The woman in this hypothetical situation is just as obligated to avoid violence as you unless you attack her first, and of course vice versa.

2. "I don't believe in hitting women period" - An appropriate degree of violence for the sake of defending your own safety or that of someone else is acceptable and in most places (although don't quote me on most) there are legal allowances for that. It is one thing to claim that you'd never hit a woman, but I can say with certainty that if you were backed into a corner and woman was coming at you with a knife you'd fight for your life. If a grown woman was beating your child senseless, you'd probably defend the child in an instant. Violence against anyone - man or woman - is rational and acceptable in these circumstances. You can claim you wouldn't respond with violence in dangerous situations like these, but human instinct says otherwise. Besides, the question raised here is "why on Earth should you only believe in non-violence towards women?" Men are equal to women in their value, you have no right to hit either outside of dangerous situations where people are at risk. Don't put women on a pedestal, they're just human beings with different genitals to you.


This tendency for men to feel violence against women is worse than violence against men, and to think woman on man violence is more acceptable, is rather ridiculous. Unwarranted violence is bad. Period. Perpetuation of this stupid belief has to stop. The "Australia says no" thing was already mentioned before, that's a prime example of how narrow-minded society is. Stereotyping and gender-discrimination are damaging to society and only perpetuate feelings of inequality.

 

[The Amazing Justin]

There's nothing wrong with a bit of chivalry but it is ridiculous to put women on some sort of pedestal, especially when I can guarantee you're exaggerating.

1. "I've got to be the man and walk away without making things worse" - Gender here is irrelevant. Unless you don't have a choice, walking away and avoiding conflict is pretty much always the smartest move. The woman in this hypothetical situation is just as obligated to avoid violence as you unless you attack her first, and of course vice versa.

2. "I don't believe in hitting women period" - An appropriate degree of violence for the sake of defending your own safety or that of someone else is acceptable and in most places (although don't quote me on most) there are legal allowances for that. It is one thing to claim that you'd never hit a woman, but I can say with certainty that if you were backed into a corner and woman was coming at you with a knife you'd fight for your life. If a grown woman was beating your child senseless, you'd probably defend the child in an instant. Violence against anyone - man or woman - is rational and acceptable in these circumstances. You can claim you wouldn't respond with violence in dangerous situations like these, but human instinct says otherwise. Besides, the question raised here is "why on Earth should you only believe in non-violence towards women?" Men are equal to women in their value, you have no right to hit either outside of dangerous situations where people are at risk. Don't put women on a pedestal, they're just human beings with different genitals to you.


This tendency for men to feel violence against women is worse than violence against men, and to think woman on man violence is more acceptable, is rather ridiculous. Unwarranted violence is bad. Period. Perpetuation of this stupid belief has to stop. The "Australia says no" thing was already mentioned before, that's a prime example of how narrow-minded society is. Stereotyping and gender-discrimination are damaging to society and only perpetuate feelings of inequality.

I'm not exaggerating. It's not in my character to go out and have some woman hit me and then feel the need to do it back because I have in the past and been reprimanded for it. I've resolved to not allow myself to get to the point of anger where genders start getting blurred as does reason and I retort a woman putting her hands on me by doing something aggressive, similar in manner to what she had done to me.

I don't believe in hitting women, which I've just established, but I also believe that not ever man is going to be like me and that's fine. If a woman hits you and you feel the need to maybe push her off of you or use physical force in anyway that is beneficial towards you, then you have that right and I'm not against you doing that. I'm against me doing that and it's why I don't. Because I really believe that me walking away is the best way for things to not escalate.

So I'm not really trying to fault you or say that what I do and how I handle abuse is what every male should do, but I am saying that it's just how I think things aren't going to get any worse. You have some women that will accuse you after they put their hands on you of having or at least attempted to assault them. Some of these claims are valid and others are not, but I think it really has to do with what we define as "physical retaliation." I would never outright throw a fist at a woman, but if I push her off of me then I don't feel as though I've physically abused her because I'm trying to get her off or away from me.

 

[gimmepie]

I'm not exaggerating. It's not in my character to go out and have some woman hit me and then feel the need to do it back because I have in the past and been reprimanded for it. I've resolved to not allow myself to get to the point of anger where genders start getting blurred as does reason and I retort a woman putting her hands on me by doing something aggressive, similar in manner to what she had done to me.

I don't believe in hitting women, which I've just established, but I also believe that not ever man is going to be like me and that's fine. If a woman hits you and you feel the need to maybe push her off of you or use physical force in anyway that is beneficial towards you, then you have that right and I'm not against you doing that. I'm against me doing that and it's why I don't. Because I really believe that me walking away is the best way for things to not escalate.

So I'm not really trying to fault you or say that what I do and how I handle abuse is what every male should do, but I am saying that it's just how I think things aren't going to get any worse. You have some women that will accuse you after they put their hands on you of having or at least attempted to assault them. Some of these claims are valid and others are not, but I think it really has to do with what we define as "physical retaliation." I would never outright throw a fist at a woman, but if I push her off of me then I don't feel as though I've physically abused her because I'm trying to get her off or away from me.

I've gone through and bolded what I'm replying to for convenience

1. You don't think you're exaggerating.
I find it hard to believe that if your life was in danger you wouldn't do everything in your power to preserve it - including violent means regardless of your aggressors gender. Women are not weak and helpless like you seem to want to believe - if they are inclined to hurt you they can. If they want you dead, they can make that happen just as easily as any man. In an adrenaline fuelled state where you're life is in danger, you are not going to hesitate to beat the crap out of anyone assaulting you.

2. I'm not talking about retaliation, I'm talking about self defence. Retaliation is never acceptable.

3. Separation of the genders is the last thing we need. It only creates more tension regarding gender equality issues and only gives feminists more fuel for their hypocritical crusade (please don't rage at me for my feminist hate, if you want that debate I'll just make another thread for it). What I find amusing is that your resolve to be ridiculously chivalrous and to "defend" woman (since you know they're apparently defenceless and harmless) is ironically sexist towards them because it means you view them as weak and needing protection.

4. This directly contradicts what you say later

I would never outright throw a fist at a woman, but if I push her off of me then I don't feel as though I've physically abused her because I'm trying to get her off or away from me.

5. Walking away is definitely the best way to prevent escalation, but I'm talking about situations where that isn't an option. Before someone says "it's always an option" if you're jumped by a knife-wielding woman in an alleyway with a dead end at your back, your only way out is forward through her. She'd try to stop you, you'd have to resort to violence or you'd die. Situations like that do exist, they are rare but it happens and like I said before, in those situation you don't give a damn about chivalry.

6. You are of course right, in a a heated situation walking away is the smartest and safest option. However flight isn't always available, and when that is the case your choices are fight or die (see point 5). I appreciate that you are only sharing your views and don't expect others to abide by them, so I hope you don't take offence at me picking your arguments apart, but this is a debate thread so I'm going to continue to assert my view. Isn't that the point? xD

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I think that the only time a person should hit another is if it's in a sport that involving hitting, or if the other person is attacking you and you need to defend yourself.

 

[The Amazing Justin]

I've gone through and bolded what I'm replying to for convenience

1. You don't think you're exaggerating.
I find it hard to believe that if your life was in danger you wouldn't do everything in your power to preserve it - including violent means regardless of your aggressors gender. Women are not weak and helpless like you seem to want to believe - if they are inclined to hurt you they can. If they want you dead, they can make that happen just as easily as any man. In an adrenaline fuelled state where you're life is in danger, you are not going to hesitate to beat the crap out of anyone assaulting you.

2. I'm not talking about retaliation, I'm talking about self defence. Retaliation is never acceptable.

3. Separation of the genders is the last thing we need. It only creates more tension regarding gender equality issues and only gives feminists more fuel for their hypocritical crusade (please don't rage at me for my feminist hate, if you want that debate I'll just make another thread for it). What I find amusing is that your resolve to be ridiculously chivalrous and to "defend" woman (since you know they're apparently defenceless and harmless) is ironically sexist towards them because it means you view them as weak and needing protection.

4. This directly contradicts what you say later



5. Walking away is definitely the best way to prevent escalation, but I'm talking about situations where that isn't an option. Before someone says "it's always an option" if you're jumped by a knife-wielding woman in an alleyway with a dead end at your back, your only way out is forward through her. She'd try to stop you, you'd have to resort to violence or you'd die. Situations like that do exist, they are rare but it happens and like I said before, in those situation you don't give a damn about chivalry.

6. You are of course right, in a a heated situation walking away is the smartest and safest option. However flight isn't always available, and when that is the case your choices are fight or die (see point 5). I appreciate that you are only sharing your views and don't expect others to abide by them, so I hope you don't take offence at me picking your arguments apart, but this is a debate thread so I'm going to continue to assert my view. Isn't that the point? xD

I suppose the best way to respond would be to give some background. I have made the choice to retaliate to girls hitting me first or women when I was younger and this resulted in me being reprimanded and told of how wrong I was for what I felt was me trying to defend myself before they could inflict more harm on me. The reason I'm mentioning this is because I believed that hitting women back after they've hit you and are continuing to, was more beneficial since you were defending yourself. Every time I did this however, I had them claiming that I had hit them needlessly after they lightly touched me or something preposterous.

I guess it might sound contradicting, but when I stated my initial comment, I really was speaking to the rules that I have set about for myself and not others. Like I mentioned earlier and you acknowledged, the rules which I have set up for myself are much different than that which I expect other men to follow, which is that we are all different and you're probably going to choose something or some action slightly different from me.

I hate to sound like some anti-feminist, but I really do agree with you that there are times when you really have no choice but to fight back and you always have women that will go out and say you hate women because you would reason they deserve to be hit and I've never said that. You've never said that. We're referring to women that put their hands on men and assault them, not women in general. But see they would take that statement right there and claim otherwise which is why I don't really allow myself to be put in many situations where I can't take flight.

It's because they always are going to say that we didn't even try to get away and took joy in hitting a woman. So this really brings me back to why I said what I said. I don't believe in hitting women, but I believe there's a difference between the men defending themselves and the abusers that don't deserve to be called men. It just bothers me that there's this double standard with who can harm who.

 

[gimmepie]

I suppose the best way to respond would be to give some background. I have made the choice to retaliate to girls hitting me first or women when I was younger and this resulted in me being reprimanded and told of how wrong I was for what I felt was me trying to defend myself before they could inflict more harm on me. The reason I'm mentioning this is because I believed that hitting women back after they've hit you and are continuing to, was more beneficial since you were defending yourself. Every time I did this however, I had them claiming that I had hit them needlessly after they lightly touched me or something preposterous.

I guess it might sound contradicting, but when I stated my initial comment, I really was speaking to the rules that I have set about for myself and not others. Like I mentioned earlier and you acknowledged, the rules which I have set up for myself are much different than that which I expect other men to follow, which is that we are all different and you're probably going to choose something or some action slightly different from me.

I hate to sound like some anti-feminist, but I really do agree with you that there are times when you really have no choice but to fight back and you always have women that will go out and say you hate women because you would reason they deserve to be hit and I've never said that. You've never said that. We're referring to women that put their hands on men and assault them, not women in general. But see they would take that statement right there and claim otherwise which is why I don't really allow myself to be put in many situations where I can't take flight.

It's because they always are going to say that we didn't even try to get away and took joy in hitting a woman. So this really brings me back to why I said what I said. I don't believe in hitting women, but I believe there's a difference between the men defending themselves and the abusers that don't deserve to be called men. It just bothers me that there's this double standard with who can harm who.

Same things as before, I've bolded for convenience.
You seem a lot more reasonable, but I'd still recommend you re-evaluate your ideology a little. It is however good to see that you acknowledge you would do what is necessary to survive, it's good to be honest with one's self.

1. That is an example of females taking advantage of the stereotypes that ideologies such as your own actually help perpetuate. Although you seem to have changed your view point slightly which is something.

2. It doesn't sound contradicting, it is contradictory; both times you were taking specifically about yourself. At first you said that you'd never use violence towards a woman, then you said that you were okay with shoving them away (which is still violence). It's not too relevant now though because you've altered your position to suit the second statement with your latest post.

3. Exactly, and in those situations chivalry is out the window.

4. True, which is why walking away if it is at all possible is smart. I am going to also point out here though that "deserve to be hit" is also irrelevant. I know a lot of men and women both who deserve to be smacked very hard in the face but I wouldn't hit any of them unless they attacked me first. Whether or not a person deserves to be hit isn't important, only that men shouldn't feel bad for defending themselves with reasonable force from any aggressor - male or female.

5. You'd be hard pressed to find anybody who'd willingly put themselves in a dangerous situation with no way of escaping. The point here - and like you yourself have admitted - is that it doesn't matter how careful we are, we can't always prevent ourselves from being cornered and in these situations men shouldn't be mistreated for using reasonable violence towards a woman when they had no choice.

6. Two problems here. Firstly, you say that you don't believe in hitting women, but you think there's a difference between abusers and those defending themselves. I agree, however the way you put it makes it sound like you just feel self-defence is the lesser of two evils.Self-defence is justified whilst abuse is seeking to hurt and torment and of the two only abuse should ever be punishable. Secondly, "don't deserve to be called men". Being male means you have a penis, that's about it. Being a man is about gender and not about status and we shouldn't act as though it is. That's just as harmful as kidding ourselves that women are always the victim.

7. I just highlighted that bit because it is extremely contradictory to the rest of your arguments. For the most part you have been strictly about keeping rules separate based on gender and against "blurring genders" but now you're saying you want more equality. I understand that your view seems to have shifted slightly but outright contradictions are just asking to be picked apart. Right now I feel like you're backtracking a lot, which is fine, but I'd avoid saying things that completely undermine your own view.

If the double-standard really does bother you, it's quite ironic that you help perpetuate it with your "I don't believe in hitting women" stance. It would be far better to go with "I don't believe in unnecessary violence against anyone".

 

[Kenna18155]

It isn't okay for ANYONE to hit ANYONE, unless it's in self defense. Period. End of story.

I don't care if you're ten or thirty, male or female, short or tall. You don't hit someone unless you're protecting yourself (in which case, smack 'em upside the head all you want). Today, it is considered worse for a man to hit a woman than it is vice-versa. Perhaps this is because women are supposedly weaker than men, but that's a whole 'nother debate in itself. Just remember: girls aren't always the fragile little butterflies some people think they are.

Anyway. Back to the debate. So if a woman hits a man, is he just supposed to summon his magical testosto-healing superpower and not be harmed? It's just as bad for a man to be hit as it is for a woman to.

And let's think outside the box for a while here. When you say "man" and "woman", what do you mean? Does the term "man" include transgender people who identify as male? Or do you have to have a special set of genitals (possibly for the purpose of activating the magical testosto-healing effect) to be considered a man? In this case, does the transgender person have to get a sex change for the rules to apply? BUT WAIT. What if a woman hits a woman? Or a man hits a man?!

That's just my thoughts on the matter. Agree or disagree, up to you.