The Giant Noodle
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,332
- Reaction score
- 2,011
- Location
- Northern Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
We have 27 women on DP?
If you haul off and hit a person (female OR male) do you expect to be hit back?
Ah, well. Never means never. Women never can develop the upper body strength of men.
It's also worthwhile to note that women tend to be more mentally and emotionally aggressive than physically aggressive. Unfortunately, the law is only capable of punishing the latter.Research on domestic violence suggests that more often than not, women play as aggressive a role as men do. Women feel entitled to be physically aggressive towards men, but expect men to hold their punches.
It even tickles me more when the guy says, "I'd just turn around and walk away". Yeah, that's what you do - turn your back to a woman that pissed-off. Do that and see how well it works for you.
She wasn't pissed off enough, unless you're impervious to a barstool across the back.
Research on domestic violence suggests that more often than not, women play as aggressive a role as men do. Women feel entitled to be physically aggressive towards men, but expect men to hold their punches.
I call b.s. on that behavior. Domestic violence is domestic violence. IT doesn't matter what gender is doing the hitting. If you're hitting your romantic partner, there's a huge problem.
Not a woman, but I personally believe in the concept of proportionate response. If someone gets physical with me, my reaction depends on the threat the person represents. Strength, training, presence of weapon and aggressiveness are all important factors. I see no moral difference between a man or a woman of equal danger to me.
You need to add in a variable for how much damage your response would do to that particular person before you can say whether that response would be proportional. You can potentially hit two people with the same force and just bruise one of their cheeks while breaking the neck of the other. If you were to punch Mike Tyson as hard as you could right in the head you'd probably barely get his attention, but if you were to punch a 90 year old or a 4 month old baby in the head as hard as you could, you might very well kill them. Where the person falls on that spectrum is a huge variable in determining what kind of force, if any, is appropriate.
Including that variable, in theory I would agree with your general principle, but the reality is in real life that the vast majority of times a woman hitting a man is likely to do fairly limited to no damage and a man hitting a woman is likely to do a great deal more damage, potentially permenant damage, so that would not be a proportional response. And, the reality is that people don't think through this whole calculus about what kind of threat they face and what kind of response would do what sort of damage and whatnot in the heat of the moment. They respond more out of instinct. So, if you're going to set your instinct one way or another, better to set it to "don't hit women period" than "hit back" because the vast majority of the time hitting back would be disproportionate.
Good post, and a number of good points.
Now, please don't think I mean this flippantly, because I dont, BUT: If women would refrain from hitting men, they wouldn't have to worry about being HIT BACK "too hard".
Just interjecting -- the rule is that a man should never strike a lady. Not all women are ladies. Men should assume that a woman is a lady, but if she shows that she is not, all bets are off.
I disagree. If a woman hits me first, I'm going to do everything in my power to defend myself and ensure she commits no further violence against me. No matter her class or behaviors.
A vagina is not a license to commit assault or battery.
Good post, and a number of good points.
Now, please don't think I mean this flippantly, because I dont, BUT: If women would refrain from hitting men, they wouldn't have to worry about being HIT BACK "too hard".
Just interjecting -- the rule is that a man should never strike a lady. Not all women are ladies. Men should assume that a woman is a lady, but if she shows that she is not, all bets are off.
A lady would not initiate physical violence. If a woman did so, she is definitely not a lady. Thus, your viewpoint does not really contradict mine.I disagree. If a woman hits me first, I'm going to do everything in my power to defend myself and ensure she commits no further violence against me. No matter her class or behaviors.
A vagina is not a license to commit assault or battery.
That is precisely my point.If someone's a 'lady' (behavior wise) then she wouldn't be shoving or hiting to begin with.
Thanks for posting that.
I've been saying this for some time, that it had been my experience that many cases when a man is charged with CDV, it was a reaction to having been screamed at for half an hour then hit repeatedly by the woman. (Many... not all. I'd say at least 1/3rd).
A lady would not initiate physical violence.
I live in a college town with a lot of stupid drunk young girls
Another way to look at it is that if you were able to see 1,000 random incidents of a man hitting a woman, how many of them do you think you would think the man was justified? 10? 1? None? But presumably in most of those situations the jackass guy thinks he is justified. So, should we really be sitting around trying to come up with rationalizations for hitting women or should we be trying to squash rationalizations people use to justify abuse?