• 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
TheGirlNextDoor said:
If you haul off and hit a person (female OR male) do you expect to be hit back?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Well, I would hope that if a woman attacks a man who says he would never hit her back, she would bust his teeth out. After all, he would deserve it for assuming that she was weak, fraile, and had no chance of doing any damage to her.

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.
 
RosieS said:
Ah, well. Never means never. Women never can develop the upper body strength of men.
Click to expand...

That's just false. Look up Becca Swanson. Very few men have the same upper body strength as she does.

And even using your own source, there is an overlap of the bell curves. For what you are saying to be true, there could not be any overlap.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Gipper said:
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.
Click to expand...

I did it. Read earlier example. It worked fine for me, but I may be a more intimidating individual than you. ;) :2razz:
 
She wasn't pissed off enough, unless you're impervious to a barstool across the back.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
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.
Click to expand...


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).

It has more impact and is taken more seriously when a woman says it though, for obvious reasons.

Ever seen the bumper sticker: "Real men don't hit women?"

I tend to agree, at least as far as the implication "real men don't initiate violence against women under normal circumstances."

I would add a caveat, that ought to be on that same bumper sticker just under the first statement: "SMART women don't hit men first!" :mrgreen:

It sends the wrong signal, expecially if this happens after a long screaming match and he's already pissed.
 
rathi said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...


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".
 
Goshin said:
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".
Click to expand...

Definitely. Nobody hitting anybody is certainly the best possible situation.

And, there really are serious situations where a woman does serious damage to a man physically. That is a real problem. There are abusive relationships where the woman is the abuser, there are situations with weapons, there are just stone cold crazy chicks that are as violent as any guy. I don't want to minimize that.

But, still, for general purposes, I think having a first instinct that says "don't hit women period" is the best bet. If after thinking about it a bit you think that you really are in danger and need to hit back to protect yourself or something, hey, at least you will have thought it through first before you end up doing something you'll regret.
 
Last edited:
Coronado said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU!

Finally!!
 
Goshin said:
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".
Click to expand...

That's the point.

If you don't want to be hit - then don't hit anyone.
 
Coronado said:
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.
Click to expand...

Define 'lady' - too dainty to bring harm to someone else? Too ditsy to think of a way of handling emotion without physical alteration. Or someone who just dresses pretty?
If someone's a 'lady' (behavior wise) then she wouldn't be shoving or hiting to begin with.

The other day someone in my Law class was telling me how he caught his wife cheating - and how he waged a physical fight against teh guy she was shacking up with.
I honestly questioned why he didn't beat HER ass and not the guy's.

He said 'because she'd have my balls in court if I did that, that's why'

So - he refrained. Was she a lady? No.
But was she in the position to be dominant? Yes.
and note: the REASON why he had to consider her possible power in this situation is BECAUSE she's a female and many people STILL cling to that ancient-taboo.

I, however, don't believe behavior, attitude, personality, clothing or gender acts as a barrier - physical altercation is physical altercation and *only rarely* is it acceptable. In self defense? It is ALWAYS acceptable - tits or no tits.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Looking at the poll it's hard to believe the results only came from females.

I'll base my answer on the fact that I'm not defending myself from an attack. If I were of the nature to start something, then you better believe I should have to back it up.
 
Goshin said:
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).
Click to expand...

You know I worked for a police agency, and you know what population I've worked with. Probably 7 times out of 10, when there was an incident of domestic violence with the population I served, the woman initiated the violence, and the men responded with greater force.

What I told my daughter (and my son): Real men AND real women don't hit their partners. There are circumstances where physical violence becomes the only possible reaction, but it damn sure isn't with the person you love.
 
Last edited:
Coronado said:
A lady would not initiate physical violence.
Click to expand...

Being a lady is overrated anyway. In all seriousness, though...I've had people initiate conflicts with me. I have never sought out a fight, but if someone wants to go there bad enough, I likely would throw down...in explanation, I live in a college town with a lot of stupid drunk young girls who behave badly and expect not to be called on it. I've had a couple of instances (at local shows) where girls have attempted to initiate a fight with me. I was able to give them good verbal reasons not to, but there is a time and a place to stand your grown (even if you're female).
 
Any female "man" enough to throw a punch is "man" enough to take one.

I am all for equality. If a women were to hit or shove me, I'd be just as likely to hit or shove her back as I would if she were a man.

Although I generally prefer to verbally abuse and insult them until their cuckholded husbands are forced to assault me to defend their "honor" at which time I proceed to administer a severe beating to said cuckhold. :lamo
 
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?
 
teamosil said:
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?
Click to expand...

No one here is trying to justify abuse. We are all different and have different levels of tolerance.

They are simply saying if you are a woman, don't use violence as that will beget more violence in some instances. So respect your partner and don't take a chance and then try to use sex as a shield.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom