• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Women of DP - I ask you

Pick one

  • Yes, I expec the same in kind if I partake in aggressive behavior

    Votes: 15 78.9%
  • No, I believe my gender excuses me from paying consequences

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • I don't like either of the above options - here is my answer

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • It depends on what aggressive behavior I am taking part in

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Total voters
    19
I would dispute that men hitting women without provocation is actually the bigger problem.
I think saying "nobody should initiate violence in a family dispute" IS addressing the bigger problem.

If somewhere between 30% and 70% of domestic battery of women by men, is a result of the woman initiating the violence by striking the man first, then eliminating that would likely eliminate 30 to 70% of the male-on-female violence.... how can that not be a win, unless you're just determined to frame this from a males-are-the-abusers context?

Why can't we say both things?

Never initiate violence in a family dispute and never hit a woman. Both pretty solid rules. Both have exceptions, but IMO, it's better to start out with that baseline as your instinct and work from there.
 
Why say both? Never initiate violence in a family disupte pretty much covers it. If a woman violates that rule, I don't have sympathy for her when she gets the inevitable result. If a dog is growling and barking and some idiot decides to poke it with a stick, when that idiot inevitably gets chunk taken out of him, who is at fault? The dog who gave plenty of warning to stay the hell away or the idiot who knowingly provoked that dog?
 
If she went for a dude's junk, she's lucky that all he did was break her face. It's quite simple - you don't go after a dude's junk. Almost anything else is fair game. That is not.
 
If she went for a dude's junk, she's lucky that all he did was break her face. It's quite simple - you don't go after a dude's junk. Almost anything else is fair game. That is not.
The thing of it is, the testicles are an organ located outside the protection of the body. Lots of women don't seem to understand this. Imagine if a person were to open someone's abdominal cavity up and strike that person directly in the intestines, liver, kidney, etc. Think how bad a hard strike to the kidneys are, then consider how much worse it would feel to remove the skin and muscles protecting the kidneys. Would you expect a person to simply shrug off such a blow?

I can't seem to gin up much sympathy for a woman who had her face broken after striking a man in the 'nads. It's not a joke.
 
Back
Top Bottom