The debate "If a woman hits a man is it okay for the man to hit her back" was started by
February 11, 2018, 2:57 pm.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Slymcfly posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
Slymcfly, Post_it_note, DrMrDaniel, sabrina and 6 visitors agree.
emotions_suck and 5 visitors disagree.
Also, let's not forget women who push men, assuming(usually rightfully), that the man isn't going to hit them back. It's really easy to look brave when you don't feel like there's any threat for being hit. Which is why everyone is so tough on the internet. Because there's no real threat of being hit. Women use this to their advantage, and sometimes, it looks as if they're trying to see what they can get away with, before the guy snaps. If you haven't seen this sort of button-pushing, I would venture to say that you've never been in a long term relationship. All women do it, just some do it purposefully, and more aggressively, to see what they can get away with. You'll notice that somehow, women know EXACTLY what to say in order to get under your skin during a heated moment. This is never an excuse to hit a woman, but with tempers already flaring, and then getting struck by a woman, I don't think that it makes the guy a bad person if he were to "snap" after being egged on and provoked, by swinging one time. If he keeps trying to attack, and is obviously using his strength to overwhelm and frighten the girl, THAT is evil.
Nemiroff, it is incredible to me what you consider to be "bragging". If you think that knowing BJJ or being educated is something I was bragging about, you're insane. I get my a** kicked and humbled on a daily basis at the gym. I'm not even necessarily GOOD when it comes to BJJ OR boxing, nor did I ever say I was. I was expressing where I am and am not qualified to speak. I ONLY discuss things and subjects where I know all of the literature and all of the arguments inside and out, like the back of my hand.
I don't think that I've put anyone down here? And am the only one here who encourages civil political discourse. It is YOU who is constantly trying to have a competition to see who is the most moral, and it's absolutely stupid. Whether you believe it or not, you are NOT morally superior because of the opinions you hold or the politics you support. That is an extremely elementary, shallow way of looking at the world, and you make it very evident that that's how you see the world.
Depending on the age and experience of the targeted male, he might misinterpret being hit on by a woman as hostility. If her physical appearance annoys him, he will probably hit her back, or simply flee.
And the former is called role play
There is a scenario on Earth where a female will attack a man she is attracted to in order to gauge his response.
There is also a scenario where a female or a group of females will physically attack a man that they have no respect for.
The latter is actually entitled to fight back.
based on equal rights, not striking either is also a valid response. of course this is assuming it's an isolated strike and not an ongoing attack. defending one's pride always seems justified to the person in the moment. but having regular brawls breaking out is not functional.
Ill answer the real question.
Based on equal rights, you can hit anyone back that hits you. Personally, I believe it would be immoral and cowardly to hit a woman back that attacks you.
it's hilarious how you label me as the self grandizing narcissist comparing cock length when you have already bragged about your school wide legendary debate skills, your years of bjj professionalism, and repeatedly insulted numerous people here when you disagreed with them all the way from the opening posts!!!! excellent assessment. lol
aside from your bragging, I responded to your first post and last post with the last sentence of my post:
"although if it is truly a life threatening situation by all means defend yourself."
and I already clearly stated the situation is identical regardless of the sex of the offenders. glad to see your still reading just as well. maybe if you spotted my answers to the questions you haven't even asked yet, we could really move this conversation forward.
Also, nobody is "anti-feminism", or not many. We are anti "3rd-wave-feminism", where women are essentially claiming that they're are identical to men, and that gender constructs don't actually exist. And that just isn't true. Hence your outrage at this question even being presented, Nemiroff. If I had asked if it's okay to hit a MAN back, you wouldn't have been outraged. But because I asked if it's okay to hit a WOMAN back, you got upset. Which is proof that you don't think of men and women s the same. Which, by your own definition, makes you an anti-feminist.
Najam, thank you for actually trying to move this discussion forward, instead of trying to have a dick-measuring contest by claiming your moral superiority. As much as I disagree with some of the things you say, some people could actually learn some things from you...
Also, to consider this thread as "evidence of the hateful" ideology of the right. That's just an insane thing to say. I don't know how you are able to conflate politics with woman-beaters, or how you think that this post is pro-womanbeater. But you need to get out of here with that garbage. I'm not going to be intimidated to ask about sensitive topics, just because I know that I'm going to get a guilt trip from you.
It seems, Nemiroff, as if you are incapable of having a discussion without dragging your opposition's name through the mud, and declaring your moral superiority over them. Not only is that extremely obnoxious and make it difficult to have a real debate, but it's incredibly narcissistic and self-grandizing for you to actually hold those beliefs, and not to mention, it's incorrect.
Defending yourself and your life is a different parameter. What about defending your own property and honor? Let's add to the equation. For instance, if the woman striking you is accompanied by male companions of dishonor, they just might take your ignoring the strike of a woman as pure cowardice, and then combine forces with her as she fades back.
Now, you are fighting men who are emboldened.
Nemiroff, you got the intention of this post entirely wrong. You need to stop guessing or assuming what I'm trying to say when I post a question, because so far, every time you've done that, you've been wrong. I wouldn't strike a woman regardless. I was a trained boxer for 8 years in my teen-years, and have been practicing BJJ off and on for the past 15 years. I'm not looking for a reason to be able to hit a girl.
I'm interested in the psychology behind both political parties regarding this issue, and am curious as to whether or not there's any difference. I'm also interested in just seeing what the general consensus ends up being. The debate you brought up, about what the consequences should be if a woman hits a man, have already been established in the rule of law when it comes to assault and battery. We already know what the consequences are.
The question is, what is okay to do BEFORE authorities arrive? How bad would it have to get before you struck back or defended yourself? Would you just not defend yourself and run away? What if you couldn't run? What if the girl was much larger than you, and you actually felt threatened by her?
I in no way said the entire right is guilty of this. I specifically said it is a subculture of the right. but that subculture is in no way small. in fact I could say it has become stream and very common amongst right wing circle. near to, if not more then 50%.
and I agree with the equality argument. but the phrasing is brutish, violent, and angry. considering the general outlook that subculture has towards women and many other groups, it is clearly a symptom of that phenomena. my answer didn't involve amnesty for the women. it just didn't involve hitting her back. although if it is truly a life threatening situation by all means defend yourself.
You just generalized the right nemiroff. I believe Slymcfly was in the question referring to the fact that if the left wants to be treated equally the same as men, then with that should come the idea that punching a woman should be about the same as punching a man. If you're a man, you know it's much more wrong to punch a woman than a man.
If I'm reading too much into the question, correct me please.
What if the woman is a transgender bully?
What if the man is a coward and a weakling?
Best one is, what if the woman is his own mother?
it's not politics I'm conflating to, but the ideology of the right. obviously not universal, but undeniably prominent ideology of disparaging any group that displeases them.
proof: the endless anti feminists posts, all from strongly right wing debators.
it's not politics, it's the soul of this nation. and a certain group that is dividing the nation and spreading hate.
Because this isn't political.
Is your existance not proof that the left conflates every action to politics? (because when everything must be tied to government, everything is politics).
maybe... JUST MAYBE...
the discussion should be what consequences the women should have for striking you. instead of trying to justify striking her back. is that what you see as men's right's?!?!? pathetic.
I'm pretty sure that a fist fight between 2 men is just as illegal and socially unacceptable. and no matter the sex, whether you are justified in punching back depends more on why you were punches, not who is pounding you.
how is this entire thread not evidence of the hateful and generalizing subculture of the right?