Equal rights, equal... hitting?
- Thread starter -gem-
- Start date
Hitting is just an extended form of restraint. If you can do it without resorting to a punch, great. But sometimes that might not be possible.
Sure in an ideal world all men would just be able to hook a women off with their little finger and flick them over the other side of the room/street. But if I'm a wuss and she's a big, hardened woman who's been in her share of fights before (quite likely given that she started this hypothetical fight) then that might not be possible.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 8,482
- Location
- England
Probably wouldn't hit a woman, unless she was a psycho-*****-knife-wielding-maniac, though restraining is not out of the question whether it causes them harm.
restrain, actually...
Sounds pretty much spot on. In an equal world, violence is violence, but it shouldn't be done whatever.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 794
- Location
- Warwick
I would never hit a woman. As has already been said, I'd restrain her as necessary but I wouldn't resort to hitting.
What if the women punches you in the face whilst you were sleeping and pulled your hair out in a big fist?
Equality or not, don't hit me in my sleep, she would deserve the exact same back, tit for tat.
It's cheap. I hate women who use their gender to get away with things like that.
Spiteful little rancid so and so's!
For a lot of people, when a guy hits a girl it's a bad thing, yet when a girl hit's a guy, nobody bats an eyelid.
Oh yes...
Believe me, red with fury but I managed to contain it to a quite voilent push (away from me ) onto the bed.
But the inner zen me tells me, it's pointless, revenge that is.
Equality or not, don't hit me in my sleep, she would deserve the exact same back, tit for tat.
It's cheap. I hate women who use their gender to get away with things like that.
Spiteful little rancid so and so's!
For a lot of people, when a guy hits a girl it's a bad thing, yet when a girl hit's a guy, nobody bats an eyelid.
Oh yes...
Believe me, red with fury but I managed to contain it to a quite voilent push (away from me ) onto the bed.
But the inner zen me tells me, it's pointless, revenge that is.
Last edited:
If a woman came upto me or my gf and threw the first punch at either of us then why wouldnt I hit her back? I would use enough force to either render said person unable to hit again or wrestle said person to the ground. To be honest in most circumstances the latter would most likely be sufficient (Being 6ft1 and 17stone) but if a butch bird with tottoos on her shaved head started a fight then i would do what it takes! Same as if a man started.
sums it up for me. I wouldnt hit a lady, but any female throwing punches isnt a lady in my mind and deserves a smack to the ovaries
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,436
- Location
- The Orion Spur
depends on the situation, if a mad psycho woman started aggressively laying into me for no for apparent reason and I had trouble restraining her then I wouldn't think twice back giving her a back hander or more if needed, pretty much 99% of the time violence isn't needed though, I was punched full pelt in the face by one psycho girl once and although it stung I just laughed at her, she nearly had steam coming out her ears, I felt my lol was sufficient at that moment in time.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 10,023
- Location
- London UK
What about women/girls hitting men?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,436
- Location
- The Orion Spur
it's wrong to hit anyone really, being a gentleman doesn't mean you just don't hit woman and fight with everyone else.
If my ex started on the new girlfriend for no apparent reason then she'd get dragged off and taught a lesson in etiquette .
If she started the usual scratching cattiness on me after that, then she'd get a back hander where it will hurt without even a second thought.
If she started the usual scratching cattiness on me after that, then she'd get a back hander where it will hurt without even a second thought.
My basic point of view is
i) Equality is not a pick 'n' mix affair. It has to be in all things at all times, or it isn't equality. If you want greater protection, take an equal amount of greater restriction to go with it. That's arguably equality (although not a form of equality I favour).
ii) A person should never be judged on, or their treatment determined by, their sex except when it is genuinely relevant (and I mean their sex, not averages or sexist stereotypes) and then only to the extent to which it is relevant. In this situation, it isn't genuinely relevant at all.
Cue people talking about differences in size and/or strength. These people are using deception. They are not talking about size or strength, because they would be talking about size and strength if they were talking about size and strength. They are advocating that how a person is treated should be determined by their sex and pretending they aren't doing so.
I'm not sure if I could overcome my conditioning and live up to my own principles, though.
To kill off the idea that it's about relative strength, consider these scenarios.
A woman slaps a woman in the face with a certain amount of force.
A man slaps a woman in the face with exactly the same amount of force under exactly the same circumstances.
A man slaps a man in the face with exactly the same amount of force under exactly the same circumstances.
A woman slaps a man in the face with exactly the same amount of force under exactly the same circumstances.
Anyone who sees any difference between those scenarios is not making judgements based on strength.
A woman slaps a woman in the face with a certain amount of force.
A man slaps a woman in the face with exactly the same amount of force under exactly the same circumstances.
A man slaps a man in the face with exactly the same amount of force under exactly the same circumstances.
A woman slaps a man in the face with exactly the same amount of force under exactly the same circumstances.
Anyone who sees any difference between those scenarios is not making judgements based on strength.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
theres no more wrong with hitting a woman than hitting a man.
as in, really no one should hit you, and you should hit no one. i've never, and will never start a physical fight, its just beyond me why anyone thinks its ok to do that.
but if a man whose a bad fighter and or much weaker than me throws a punch, i won't hit him, i'm restrain him. likewise, if a man whose far stronger and good at fighting throws a punch at me, first option is to leave the situation, back off, keep them away, if there is no choice then self defence is fine.
in the same way, if a woman who is strong, can't be restrained easily and can physically hurt me attacks me and i can't move away from her, she'll get a smack, i'm not the one who started it and i'm not going to get hurt myself because of some ridiculous morality some rich white people decided to install on a population centries ago, while at the same time they spat on the poor and enslaved entire races of people, because yes, those idiots are the ones who came up with all of these "rules" people try to follow today still.
they also came up with the women at home doing nothing thing, and the can't work, can't fight, can't do anything idea's.
there is no be all and end all rule here. theres a common misconception that women are inherently weaker and less able than men, and its bull. in general woman don't tend to put on as much muscle as men, but that doesn't matter, we get hurt fairly easily with pretty frail bodies.
i mean, throw a 1kg rock at someone fast and it can hurt, throw a 10kg rock and it will hurt more, that doesn't mean the 1kg rock suddenly can't hurt you.
in any situation, i'm only looking to stop the fight, not "win" it, i'm not going to use every ounce of force i can muster in a punch unless someones holding a knife/bottle or whatever.
as soon as you raise your firsts, be you a man or woman, you are already in the wrong, morally, and legally, and to claim that at that point its completely wrong for a man to hit you to stop you, you're a pillock.
as in, really no one should hit you, and you should hit no one. i've never, and will never start a physical fight, its just beyond me why anyone thinks its ok to do that.
but if a man whose a bad fighter and or much weaker than me throws a punch, i won't hit him, i'm restrain him. likewise, if a man whose far stronger and good at fighting throws a punch at me, first option is to leave the situation, back off, keep them away, if there is no choice then self defence is fine.
in the same way, if a woman who is strong, can't be restrained easily and can physically hurt me attacks me and i can't move away from her, she'll get a smack, i'm not the one who started it and i'm not going to get hurt myself because of some ridiculous morality some rich white people decided to install on a population centries ago, while at the same time they spat on the poor and enslaved entire races of people, because yes, those idiots are the ones who came up with all of these "rules" people try to follow today still.
they also came up with the women at home doing nothing thing, and the can't work, can't fight, can't do anything idea's.
there is no be all and end all rule here. theres a common misconception that women are inherently weaker and less able than men, and its bull. in general woman don't tend to put on as much muscle as men, but that doesn't matter, we get hurt fairly easily with pretty frail bodies.
i mean, throw a 1kg rock at someone fast and it can hurt, throw a 10kg rock and it will hurt more, that doesn't mean the 1kg rock suddenly can't hurt you.
in any situation, i'm only looking to stop the fight, not "win" it, i'm not going to use every ounce of force i can muster in a punch unless someones holding a knife/bottle or whatever.
as soon as you raise your firsts, be you a man or woman, you are already in the wrong, morally, and legally, and to claim that at that point its completely wrong for a man to hit you to stop you, you're a pillock.
