Equal rights, equal... hitting?

-gem- said:
that got a giggle... but im glad there appear to be some men with morals out there.. or at least those that actually see that 99% of the time, its flat out wrong!
Click to expand...
You appear to be indicative of the problem with feminists. You want all the rights for yourself, and none for the other sex. Whilst I realise this isn't essentially an issue of rights, it boils down to the same thing. Treat everyone equally in everything, or not at all.

And the fact that you completely avoid the situation of a woman hitting a man shows me that you think it acceptable. Why is it?

For the record, I would avoid hitting anyone if at all possible.
 
This makes me think back to an interesting set of events whilst I was out on the town with some friends...

We were all quite drunk and we were walking back home after having quite a few. Anyway, there was a young cheeky in front of us and one of the chaps was trying it on, even though she was with another man. I think he must have asked her who the bloke was, and she replied with "he's my uncle" or something to that equivalent. Anyway, this tickled another of the group so he shouted out "incest". The young cheeky, now classed as chav, decided that she was not amused and proceeded to go around the group asking who piped up with the comment. Anyway, everyone said no and I happened to be the last person she asked. I said no as well, but she decided in her upper class manor to headbut me. Wow, she nutted me in the mouth and managed to chip one of my teeth. I thought, "the little beehatch" so before I could do anything I just grabbed her round the throat, as I couldn't hit her being a women. Even though she started on me, I restrained and continued to grasp her by the throat. I didn't do anything else apart from stand there holding her trying to think of my comeback. However, before I knew it, her "uncle" decided he wanted a go. The problem was now, that her "uncle" was vertically challenged and apparently mentally as well. So what did he do? He jumped up and bit me on my arm.

So there I was.... with my hand around a girl's throat and a midget hanging from my arm.

Possible one of the strangest moments in my life....! :confused:
 
platypus said:
You appear to be indicative of the problem with feminists. You want all the rights for yourself, and none for the other sex. Whilst I realise this isn't essentially an issue of rights, it boils down to the same thing. Treat everyone equally in everything, or not at all.

And the fact that you completely avoid the situation of a woman hitting a man shows me that you think it acceptable. Why is it?

For the record, I would avoid hitting anyone if at all possible.
Click to expand...

exactly, it even says in the thread title "equal rights" yet that does not appear to be what the OP was hoping for!!

i agree 99% of time you shouldnt hit anyone. However, if someone hits you, or tries to harm you/your family/friends then if you need to retaliate it will happen.

As i said, if the woman is a lady, she wouldnt be hitting anyone to begin with and wouldnt offer anyone any excuse to get hit. If that was the case, it would be wrong to hit her...these days its pretty tough to find a lady!
 
wordy said:
Lol! don't stop there mate, what happened then?!
Click to expand...
Not much. I had to let the "lady" go because blood was coming through my shirt. I have teeth marks on my arm now thanks to that night. When i lets go of her, the midget and her ran off.

My mates, were all wetting themselves at the incident! :D
 
if i found myself in that situation(being attacked by a woman or the other half being attacked i'd quite merrily offer a smack in the chops followed by a swift kick in the ovaries :)
 
I would never hit a lady, however up here in Newcastle they are few and far between.

A mate of mine was bottled by a girl in a nightclub for chatting up her mate. He hit her under the chin with an open hand and knocked her onto her arse. The bouncers chucked her out and helped my mate.
 
Angilion said:
Imagine a scenario in which you've gone out for a fun night out with a man and some thug attacks you in the street. This particular thug happens to be a woman. She's punching you in the face. You're bleeding. You're going down. Do you want the man you're with to stand by and do nothing while you're being beaten, perhaps to death, because the person beating you is a woman?

If you can honestly answer "yes" to that scenario, I will have some respect for your consistentcy to go with my contempt for your position.
Click to expand...


if it were my fight for whatever reason, i would not expect him to do anything, i honestly wouldnt. and i would DEFINITLY not expect the 'him' in question to hit her back, at all. but whether the friend with me was male or female, you would naturally restrain the attacking, not lay into them. either im not entirely getting your post, or youre assuming that by restraining, a guy would have to hit? or whoever i was with, would have to hit, too?
 
You make no sense whatsoever -gem- and your arguments are based on an long gone fallacy. The issue of sex is no longer of any concern. The concern should be whether it is socially acceptable to hit a person, which it is not.
 
-gem- said:
if it were my fight for whatever reason, i would not expect him to do anything, i honestly wouldnt. and i would DEFINITLY not expect the 'him' in question to hit her back, at all. but whether the friend with me was male or female, you would naturally restrain the attacking, not lay into them. either im not entirely getting your post, or youre assuming that by restraining, a guy would have to hit? or whoever i was with, would have to hit, too?
Click to expand...

it's been a while since i've posted in this thread, but i still stand by all of my previous posts

you have your answer

society is divided - there are those men who would never hit a woman, those who strike a female in defense of a friend, loved one, or someone who very much looked like they needed defending, and third section (the idiots) who respond with posts like 'i'd hit that'.

your posts are mixed, you do not stick by a stand point, you give anyone who believes in 'equal rights' a bad name. the fact that you bring the issue of gender into an argument which is meant to be about equality, means you do not believe the sexes to be equal.
if you aren't going to use your 'femininity' against which ever men you are around, then you cannot put yourself in a position of aloofness BECAUSE of your gender
 
-gem- said:
if it were my fight for whatever reason, i would not expect him to do anything, i honestly wouldnt. and i would DEFINITLY not expect the 'him' in question to hit her back, at all. but whether the friend with me was male or female, you would naturally restrain the attacking, not lay into them. either im not entirely getting your post, or youre assuming that by restraining, a guy would have to hit? or whoever i was with, would have to hit, too?
Click to expand...
You would take an unnecessary beating as a matter of principle. I respect your commitment to your ideals, though I find your ideals contemptible.

If "sexual equality" is not equal, it is not equality. I llike sexual equality. I think it's a beautiful and noble concept, as well as being fair and rational.

Swap your position for any other groups, e.g. it's always wrong for "blacks" to hit "whites", whatever the circumstances. But explicitly only that way around.

I'm assuming that sexism is unfair and unethical. If someone advocates different but balanced roles for men and women, that's bad enough (because it's sexist, albeit against both sexes), but when they want people of one sex and only people of that sex to have all the advantages of both traditional roles and none of the disadvantages of either, I consider it intolerable. If women are to have a greater degree of protection, like children, they should have a greater degree of restriction to go with it, like children. Personally, I think it's past time we learned from the past and entirely stop treating women as being partway between children and adults.

Frankly, I see all this talk of restraining as nothing more the textual equivalent of sleight of hand and misdirection - I think its purpose is draw attention away from the main point, which is sexist double-standards. You are not arguing that people should restrain attackers rather than hit them. That's a completely different argument and one I will not mistake for the sexism argument.

Have you ever had to restrain an adult determined to make an attack? It's pretty much impossible for one person to do it without hurting them a lot (which takes skill and knowledge in itself) or injuring them severely. Women are adults, not toddlers.

An example...some while ago, I was in a club. A coworker was attacked by her girlfriend, who held some metal object in her fist and repeatedly punched her in the head. It took five people to be sure of restraining her without simply injuring her severely enough to make it impossible for her to continue her attack.

Another example...a coworker was abused by his girlfriend. It was rare that a week went by without her beating him. She put him in hospital three times. Most of the assaults had a sexual component. She used a baseball bat in the last one. She was blocking the only exit, maybe because she'd finally realised what to do after he'd managed to escape her beatings previously. He slapped her, which shocked her long enough for him to stagger past, moving on adrenaline. Even then, he only used a fraction of his strength. I suppose he was lucky, in a sense. After he collapsed in the road from his injuries (arm broken in two places, 3 ribs broken, genital injuries and various cuts and bruises), he wasn't run over. He was arrested, though. In the hospital, if I recall correctly. He was lucky again, in a sense. The judge wasn't sexist enough to believe it is always wrong for a man to hit a woman.

He didn't feel able to defend himself, because he'd been conditioned the normal way - women can freely abuse men as they please in any way they please, men aren't allowed to defend themselves. It's always wrong to hit female people, you know? Or the feminist more sexist repackaging of old sexism - there's never an excuse for violence against women, but there's always an excuse for violence by women.

Personally, I am very happy to see people rejecting such attitudes in favour of sexual equality.
 
I saw a guy take a really brutal beating from a woman. His face was cut and bleeding- she was not holding back. He took it for a good five minutes... and it really was relentless. After 5 minutes he upper cutted her and knocked her over. Within seconds a group of about 5 lads were acting very "moral" by kicking his head in some more whilst screaming "you never hit a woman."

You should never hit anyone, but when you have to defend yourself, the sex of the attacker is not important. The "never hit a woman" notion is outdated and completely retarded.
 
Last edited:
platypus said:
You appear to be indicative of the problem with feminists. You want all the rights for yourself, and none for the other sex. Whilst I realise this isn't essentially an issue of rights, it boils down to the same thing. Treat everyone equally in everything, or not at all.

And the fact that you completely avoid the situation of a woman hitting a man shows me that you think it acceptable. Why is it?

For the record, I would avoid hitting anyone if at all possible.
Click to expand...

avoid what situation? i dont think a woman hitting a man is excusable, either...
 
Hellsmk2 said:
I saw a guy take a really brutal beating from a woman. His face was cut and bleeding- she was not holding back. He took it for a good five minutes... and it really was relentless. After 5 minutes he upper cutted her and knocked her over. Within seconds a group of about 5 lads were acting very "moral" by kicking his head in some more whilst screaming "you never hit a woman."

You should never hit anyone, but when you have to defend yourself, the sex of the attacker is not important. The "never hit a woman" notion is outdated and completely retarded.
Click to expand...

BUT that sounds like chavs to be honest. or just people without morals in the first place..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom