"If you hit a man, don't be surprised if he hits back."

[Space Cowboy]

Points I agree with: Women need to be taught they are not protected by a special bubble of "Just cuz"; No one should be hitting anyone, period, but if you do, do so with expectation of reprisal.




Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

 

[Hellis]

Well yeah. If you hit someone, they may hit back. Neither person is really in his right. Retaliation violence is not ok in itself, and usually said punch is something I can shrug off and laugh at. Diminish the persons efforts. But I mean, if you start slapping me, and leave me no choice. I will put you on your back staring at the sky if I have to. It's called selfdefense.

 

[Razilin]

Hit back? That implies only once.

I say if you hit a man, don't be surprised if he hits back five times. S'what I would do.

Really, if you're going to hit someone, be comprehensive. Hit 'em lots of times.

 

[AetherDream]

This is one of those tricky topics because of various social institutions and stigmas which exist around and informing this issue. The difficulty is navigating those presumptions and injecting challenging thought to it without receiving backlash (What Whoopi was trying to do).

As could be heard during the segment, most of the panel was of the thought that a woman should never be hit because she is physically weaker than a man, that a man should only hit a woman if his life is in danger. Now there are truths within what has been said there; generally speaking, when factoring in muscular makeup, a man does tend to be more powerful than a woman. This is not all the time, I've known women who can put a serious hurt on any man. So what can be said when considering this mix of fact and construct? On one hand we should think one another equal and protected primarily by a pact of non violence, on the other there's the paradigm of inferiority (physical). It's a difficult conversation to have.

Personally, I'm of the frame of mind that if you enter a violent confrontation of your own volition, you should be prepared for a degree of violent response. I also believe that if you are more powerful than your aggressor, then you should exercise a degree of control. Violence towards an person, male or female, as a method of conflict resolution isn't acceptable. But should you engage in that, be prepared. Just be prepared.

 

[☆Luna☆]

Really, this entire argument is undermined by people like me who don't fit into a nice binary gender role, but assuming they mean someone's sex and you ignore the roughly 1% of intersex individuals; no, the idea is kind of absurd.

Having a different type of body has nothing to do with if you deserve to be hit or not. There is something to be said about how much force is appropriate to use, but the general answer is the same. Don't hit people unless that is your only way of dealing with the problem. Violence is generally at best necessary, not justified.

 

[ASTA]

As an adult, you should be capable of keeping your mitts to yourself. If you fail to do so and you end up getting slugged, that's on you.

 

[AetherDream]

Really, this entire argument is undermined by people like me who don't fit into a nice binary gender role, but assuming they mean someone's sex and you ignore the roughly 1% of intersex individuals; no, the idea is kind of absurd.

Having a different type of body has nothing to do with if you deserve to be hit or not. There is something to be said about how much force is appropriate to use, but the general answer is the same. Don't hit people unless that is your only way of dealing with the problem. Violence is generally at best necessary, not justified.

Unfortunately I don't think they are taking into account people who are intersex or trans. And if and when it is brought up in any "official" capacity, the argument will do more to hurt the person who identifies outside of the binary than the (physical) violence may have. As (American) society still operates at large, the question is (typically) based upon the difference in physique.

 

[☆Luna☆]

Unfortunately I don't think they are taking into account people who are intersex or trans. And if and when it is brought up in any "official" capacity, the argument will do more to hurt the person who identifies outside of the binary than the (physical) violence may have. As (American) society still operates at large, the question is (typically) based upon the difference in physique.

I'm curious if it would be the same reaction if some scrawny white boy was hit instead.

 

[Hellis]

Depends on the identity of the attacker.

 

[AetherDream]

I'm curious if it would be the same reaction if some scrawny white boy was hit instead.

Are you asking if the situation was that Ray Rice hit a scrawy white boy? Or are you asking if what would happen if a scrawny white boy was hit by a woman? Those are two very different questions and I'm going to assume that you've gone with the latter. In that case, the response would be quite different as these situations are still judged with the gender and violence paradigm as it currently exists. One punch and down, the guy would more than likely be laughed at by his peers and the case wouldn't be a matter. If it was prolonged and sustained violence over a period of time, then some sort of action would be taken.

 

[☆Luna☆]

Are you asking if the situation was that Ray Rice hit a scrawy white boy? Or are you asking if what would happen if a scrawny white boy was hit by a woman? Those are two very different questions and I'm going to assume that you've gone with the latter. In that case, the response would be quite different as these situations are still judged with the gender and violence paradigm as it currently exists. One punch and down, the guy would more than likely be laughed at by his peers and the case wouldn't be a matter. If it was prolonged and sustained violence over a period of time, then some sort of action would be taken.

I mean a strong adult male beating on a clearly weaker male in response to being attacked. Though, I'd be curious to know about what would happen if a strong adult female beat on a clearly weaker male. I mean, in my eyes all these things are equal, but I can't say I understand how society at large does.

 

[AetherDream]

I mean a strong adult male beating on a clearly weaker male in response to being attacked. Though, I'd be curious to know about what would happen if a strong adult female beat on a clearly weaker male. I mean, in my eyes all these things are equal, but I can't say I understand how society at large does.

The first case would go to trial immediately. The law would see this as assault, aggravated or otherwise. Depending on how long the attack lasts, the charges can increase in severity. That one is pretty cut and dry.

The second one falls into what I said in my last response. This of course can change depending on the circumstances which are unique to the situation. The law can be a bit tricky. Socially speaking, at large, the man would more than likely be made fun of by his peers. It's the same (pardon the jump in tone) as if a man were to come forward and say that he'd been raped by a woman. For some reason, it's a perpetuated misconception in this (America) country that a man cannot be raped. Violence, sexual or otherwise, is more often informed by convention than fact.

 

[☆Luna☆]

The first case would go to trial immediately. The law would see this as assault, aggravated or otherwise. Depending on how long the attack lasts, the charges can increase in severity. That one is pretty cut and dry.

The second one falls into what I said in my last response. This of course can change depending on the circumstances which are unique to the situation. The law can be a bit tricky. Socially speaking, at large, the man would more than likely be made fun of by his peers. It's the same (pardon the jump in tone) as if a man were to come forward and say that he'd been raped by a woman. For some reason, it's a perpetuated misconception in this (America) country that a man cannot be raped. Violence, sexual or otherwise, is more often informed by convention than fact.

Yup. Men can't be raped. Seems logical. Also prison doesn't exist.

 

[AetherDream]

Yup. Men can't be raped. Seems logical. Also prison doesn't exist.

I was referring to cases in which a man has been raped by a woman. Prison is a whole different ball game, we're not even going to be able to touch on that without severely derailing the thread.

 

[Finhawk]

What got to me the most was when one of the women brought up domestic violence and used that as an argument to say that men can never hit women. Yeah, right. A woman can obviously never abuse her husband/boyfriend. Men can never be the victims of domestic violence, the mere idea is simply insane. Just like the claim that the earth is round.

 

[AetherDream]

@Finhawk

It's that knee jerk reaction to violence which, for whatever reason, is paired with feminist thought. What I find curious is how that train of thought often goes to further define gender roles, stereotypes and institutions which feminism takes a stance against.

I had a conversation with a woman who identified as a feminist thinker that went right down that path. I asked her why she was ok with a man being objectified through violence but not ok with a woman being objectified through violence. She insisted that it's bad for a woman to be treated as such because of the examples which exist in popular culture (movies, books, etc) and entertainment media. I suppose it was a matter of focus and immediacy for her.

One day we will be able to figure this all out. One day.

 

[☆Luna☆]

I was referring to cases in which a man has been raped by a woman. Prison is a whole different ball game, we're not even going to be able to touch on that without severely derailing the thread.

I guess that means what you were saying is that the public at large doesn't believe that men can be hurt by women, and that this believe is shared by women and men alike. They are disgusted that a weak powerless woman could be beat up by a strong powerful man, yet fail to recognize that they believe that physically weak men are not worth caring about for the reason that they should have been strong. I think far more disgusting than the fact that people believe women should be allowed to hit people without retaliation is that some women believe they have this privilege because they are weaker than men. Kinda a setback for feminism imo.

 

[redblood]

If you hit someone you need to accept that there might be consequences. No matter if it's a woman hitting a man, a man hitting a woman, a woman hitting a woman or a man hitting a man. If you hit someone ALWAYS be prepared that they might hit you back. Don't go bitch about that they hit you because you're that gender and they're the other, if you hit them first, they might hit you back, and it will at the very least be partly your fault because you initiated that first hit.

Just because someone is physically weaker (which isn't ALWAYS the case when a woman hits a man btw) doesn't mean they should be allowed to hit that person nor that that person should just stand there and take it. Hit someone and take the consequences. As an adult you should realize that every action has consequences, and as we say in Sweden 'som du bäddar får du ligga' (As you make your bed, you will lay. So if you make your bed in a poor way you might not sleep well, and if you make your bed properly so it becomes comfortable you will sleep well, equally if you do something poorly or make a poor decision, you will have to take the consequences for that decision.)

Edit:
Found a better translation for 'som man bäddar får man ligga'
you made your bed, now sleep in it (or literally: as one makes the bed, one has to lie)

 

[AetherDream]

There is definitely more to the conversation, but yeah, in a nutshell, that's how it is in America.

 

[Brovo]

I'm an egalitarian at heart: I view rights, freedoms, and liberties from a human context first and foremost. Regardless of my personal feelings, a human is entitled to self-defense should they be physically assaulted. In the same context that a human--man or woman--vetoes their rights to freedom of movement if they commit burglary, you veto your right to playing the victim card if you started the fight.

My dad taught me a simple lesson growing up. "Don't start fights, but damn well finish them." If someone hits you, you hit them back, and you make it hurt so they think twice before trying to start a fight with you again.

"B-B-But Brovo-sama! They're wimenz! You're not supposed to hit a woman!"

This held credence back in the 1950's when women had more restrictive social ideals applied to them. Women were also expected to be house wives--we don't expect that of women anymore. They were also expected to be given an allowance from their man because they weren't supposed to work jobs--but that's not true anymore either. Equality goes both ways: The more freedom you have as a person, the more responsibility you must shoulder. That's a basic life lesson: If you can drive cars, and use that freedom to drive cars to road rage into small children, get ready to have your right to drive cars fucking vetoed by society.

If you hit someone, whether you are a man or a woman, I feel no pity for you when your ass gets flattened. You were stupid enough to start a fight, and the other person was smart enough to finish it. In any other context, we call this the defender winning: The would-be victim achieving victory. If you seriously find that the context changes merely by swapping the genders of the assailant and the victim, you live in a warped, little world. My rights don't suddenly change based on the gender of the person fucking slugging me across the face.

Deal with it.

If you can't? Prepare to live your whole life miserable. The equality that was so hard fought will not be erased just because your feel bad about it.