After watching tonights Grey's Anatomy. Is a man allowed to defend himself against a woman?

[TheIronRuler]

No. Trust me, take the blow (unless it's for your sensitive areas like nose, throat, crotch), swallow your pride and move along. More often than not, hitting back would cause nearby men to pounce at you like a lioness after a gazelle no matter you were defending yourself. I'm speaking from experience, be aware of your surroundings when you think of hitting back.

 

[FallenMessiah88]

Yes he is. It's a matter of principle. If you hit someone, they have every right to hit you back. Gender is irrelevant.

That being said however, I feel that violence should only be used as a last resort, regardless of gender.

 

[kickyourass]

Well obviously the answer is yes, if someone comes to you and intends you legitimate physical harm damn straight you should give it right back. I mean I'm the type to try and diffuse the situation in other ways, but that's me, if some lady comes up and punches you across the face go ahead and punch her straight back, just make sure the force YOU use doesn't exceed the force SHE uses. That way you'll be in the clear legally.

 

[bafrali]

Yes you should. It is not good to discriminate againt the opposite sex even when it oomes to retaliation.

 

[templar1138a]

My brother got into a situation like this. He was in a bar. A girl he kinda knew was there. She got wind that that was his last night there before he'd go off to law school. She went up to him and slapped him for some transgression he wasn't even aware of. He slapped her back with physical force in proportion to the difference in body size. Her boyfriend punched him. The bouncers threw them out.

My brother's friends were chastising him, telling him that he should never hit a girl. His response: "She hit me first. If she doesn't want me to hit her back just because she's a woman, she needs to relinquish her right to vote."

Then they pointed out that he was bigger than her. "She should have thought about that."

I'm going to point out here and now that my brother is a feminist. He believes in equality between the sexes before the law and society. Equality, however, means relinquishing traditional privileges.

As for me, I've never found myself in a situation where I hit a woman. I rarely find myself in violent situations, after all. But in college, there was this girl in my group of friends who was a self-centered ***** and thought she was the den mother. I said something that pissed her off, so she got up and smacked me on the back of the head. I glared at her and just said, "Be glad that only stung a little. If you EVER do that again, I will floor you. Are we clear?" In my view, I was fully within my rights to hit her back. The only reason I didn't was because I wasn't going to sink to her level.

 

[Zhukov]

"How dare those coniving woman-y types claim immunity from my righteous knuckles? Them bitches pick a fight and I'll go right ahead and feed 'em a big serve of two-fisted equality! That'll show 'em!"

That's a slight exaggeration of the vibe I get from the responses whenever this topic crops up. (That and the usual sprinkling of Oh-I'm-such-a-badass boasts.) Does anyone else find the responses a bit unsavoury? Y'know, a bit... off?

It seems to be less about maintaining ones right to defend oneself from aggression and more about expressing indignation over some perceived inequality. (Males complaining about how hard they have it seems to be something of an emerging internet thing.)

I dunno. I was actually brought up under the "Never hit a woman" rule. Once when I was about five years old my parents sat me down and gave me A Talk on the matter. However, it's less about not hitting anything with a uterus and more about the notion that beating up people significantly smaller than you is decidedly uncool. (Yes, yes, I know, there are some very beastly women out there who could clean my clock without breaking a sweat, but averages are what they are.) Come to think of it, The Talk did not actually cover what to do in the unlikely situation of a woman trying to bash me up. I guess my folks figured I was sufficiently non-retarded to realise that would constitute an exception to the rule.

Eh, I'm rambling.

My point is, guys, is "You really shouldn't hit someone who is likely to be significantly weaker than you" really such an offensive notion?

 

[OldKingClancy]

I heard it best from a friend of mine.

"I would never hit a woman. But if she hits me first I'm gonna smack that ***** out."

 

[Odbarc]

Every feminist in the world should agree that a men is allowed to physically defend himself against a women who is attacking him because equality would see it like this;

A person can defend himself against another person who is physically attack them.

In most man vs man fights, no little guy is ever picking a fight with a bigger person he couldn't possibly beat (except in instances of alcohol). Women really shouldn't be either.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

Of course; the hammer of justice is unisex.

 

[kypsilon]

Always defend yourself in a manner appropriate to the situation at hand. You don't need to drop 'em like sack of dog shit, but absolutely do what you need to do to get some distance from your assailant. Obviously, if you can't get away, then do whatever it takes to pacify the situation that doesn't involve excessive violence or murder.

I personally am a guy that has a hard time reconciling the idea of hitting a girl. I did that once as a small kid in elementary school and I still feel horrible about it, but if the situation ever arose where some woman for whatever reason was throwing punches at me, you can bet I wouldn't stand there like a doofus taking it in the face.

 

[ninjaRiv]

No. Trust me, take the blow (unless it's for your sensitive areas like nose, throat, crotch), swallow your pride and move along. More often than not, hitting back would cause nearby men to pounce at you like a lioness after a gazelle no matter you were defending yourself. I'm speaking from experience, be aware of your surroundings when you think of hitting back.

I'm gonna fuck all those dudes up, I hit all da bitches! Man, fuck dat shit up!

Sorry. You have a good point but I'm not one to swallow my pride, I'd defend myself physically no matter what the gender. I'm not gonna punch full force at all unless I need to but I will stop the fight any way I can. Hopefully that would be with cool dodges and quick wit but if I have to get Physical (physical!) then I will.

I think it's worth pointing out that even if someone is weaker than you, they can cause a lot of damage, some of it irreparable. As much as I'd like to use wit and skilful dodge tactics, it's just not possible in most fights. Heck, unless the fight's fair you're stupid to try that a lot of the time. But full on violence shouldn't be the first thing you try if you can help it.

 

[ninjaRiv]

Legaly - yes.
In our society - no. The society will cling and claim that you attacked her regardless of anything else, because they are blind to woman ability to attack first just like they are blind to woman being able to rape someone.

I couldn't care less what society thinks, if a woman is attacking me with her full force, i'm going to punch her in the head full force.

Everyone is for "equal rights for women", so I will treat her like shes a man attacking me.

do you live alone outside of any city borders making your own food and clothes without the need to "go shopping"? if the asnwer is no then you DO care what society thinks.

What? I don't even understand.

Do I need to clarify?

I don't care what society thinks about me PUNCHING A WOMAN IN SELF DEFENCE, not "I don't care what society thinks" in general.

Just because I don't care about what everyone thinks on a single thing, doesn't mean "FUCK SOCIETY, I'M OUTTA HERE TIME TO LIVE IN A CAVE".

I am not joking, I don't understand why you responded with that.

You will see what i mean when you wont be able to buy things like food because the seller will decide that "you are socially unacceptable therefore gtfo". as long as you live inside a society you care about what it thinks about you to a certain extent.

I think you're confused a little. He said he does care

 

[Panthera]

I voted yes.

To all the people saying that thinking a man should defend himself forcefully is "trying to look badass" (or just looking for an excuse to beat women)...

It's not about being badass. It's the exact opposite. I'm not particularly badass. I'm a below average sized guy who is in more or less average physical condition. I don't have some magical ability to instantly, harmlessly restrain people. People have two arms, two legs and a head, all of which can be used to attack with, and all of which are very hard to control at once, especially without taking the fight to the ground (and I'd probably be more likely to injure you with a take down than a punch). All I want is to be safe.

I really, sincerely feel like I have a right to safety. I believe that other people do not have the right to try to hurt me. And yet, people keep saying that because I'm a tad larger than a lot of women, it's my duty to protect a woman who tries to hurt me. I have to go out of my way to not risk accidentally doing to her what she is intentionally trying to do to me. She is the one attacking me, and yet her safety is more important than mine. I am the victim of a random attack, but who gives a damn? I'm a man, she's a woman, her well being trumps mine and the responsibility is on me, not her, to prevent any harm to anyone. If she gets hurt, it's my fault. If I get hurt, it's clearly my fault too since I should have stopped it, right?

No. Being weaker than someone is not a free license to try to hurt people. You are basically arguing that physical strength makes you a bad person, because being stronger than someone means you are so worthless as to have your safety take less priority than theirs, even though you're the innocent bystander and they're the aggressor. You must risk your own health to not hurt someone who is not doing the same to you. Or...we can be logical, and realize that if you attack someone else for no reason, and you get a bit roughed up...too bad for you, maybe you shouldn't have attacked them in the first place. The victim of assault is not the one who should bear the greater burden to prevent harm, regardless of who their attacker is.

 

[Total LOLige]

"How dare those coniving woman-y types claim immunity from my righteous knuckles? Them bitches pick a fight and I'll go right ahead and feed 'em a big serve of two-fisted equality! That'll show 'em!"

I peed a little at this, very funny.

I too was brought up with the never hit a woman rule(I didn't get a talk though, I haven't even had the 'birds and the bees' one yet) and expressed this the last time I saw a thread like this, it didn't go down well. I was getting quoted for days, telling me I was wrong. But then the response was "we shouldn't hit anyone", it now seems to be "let that ***** feel my righteous knuckles because of equality". Then again we can apply the "I was brought up that way" to a lot of topics such as racism, people should be re educated on such matters, not judged. I'm about to go off on one so I'll stop and try to stay on topic.

Bottom line for me: Only hit as the very last resort, run if you have to. If everyone applies this you'll never have to deal with the "you woman beating piece of shit" thing.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I really, sincerely feel like I have a right to safety. I believe that other people do not have the right to try to hurt me. And yet, people keep saying that because I'm a tad larger than a lot of women, it's my duty to protect a woman who tries to hurt me. I have to go out of my way to not risk accidentally doing to her what she is intentionally trying to do to me. She is the one attacking me, and yet her safety is more important than mine. I am the victim of a random attack, but who gives a damn? I'm a man, she's a woman, her well being trumps mine and the responsibility is on me, not her, to prevent any harm to anyone. If she gets hurt, it's my fault. If I get hurt, it's clearly my fault too since I should have stopped it, right?

No. Being weaker than someone is not a free license to try to hurt people. You are basically arguing that physical strength makes you a bad person, because being stronger than someone means you are so worthless as to have your safety take less priority than theirs, even though you're the innocent bystander and they're the aggressor. You must risk your own health to not hurt someone who is not doing the same to you. Or...we can be logical, and realize that if you attack someone else for no reason, and you get a bit roughed up...too bad for you, maybe you shouldn't have attacked them in the first place. The victim of assault is not the one who should bear the greater burden to prevent harm, regardless of who their attacker is.

Who said anything about free license? You've created a false dilemma. No one said women get cookies for hitting men. Don't hit, period. If someone hits you and your immediate response is "Shit just got real!" and you tear your shirt off and start throwing haymakers, you deserve every bad thing that people will have to say about you in the aftermath. Concerned about your safety? Remove yourself from the situation. If a squad of feral women are chasing you with the intention of delivering a savage beating and they corner you and you have no choice but to fight back aggressively, fill your boots. But you and I both know that will never happen.

 

[Panthera]

Who said anything about free license? You've created a false dilemma. No one said women get cookies for hitting men. Don't hit, period. If someone hits you and your immediate response is "Shit just got real!" and you tear your shirt off and start throwing haymakers, you deserve every bad thing that people will have to say about you in the aftermath. Concerned about your safety? Remove yourself from the situation. If a squad of feral women are chasing you with the intention of delivering a savage beating and they corner you and you have no choice but to fight back aggressively, fill your boots. But you and I both know that will never happen.

You're putting the entire responsibility for the situation on me, the person being attacked. You say "Don't hit, period", but you clearly argue that my safety is less important than hers, because you believe I am supposed to protect her more than I protect myself. Protecting myself means doing the minimum NECESSARY to ensure I'm safe. If she gets hurt in the process, tough luck. I'm not going to go out of my way to injure anyone if I don't need to, but I will do things that can hurt people if they try to hurt me. Why wouldn't I? That's what they're trying to do to me, after all. Again, why is their safety more important than mine?

"Remove yourself" sounds nice but it's also nonsense. Should I...push someone away, even though that doesn't actually do anything to stop them from trying again? Should I turn and run, not knowing whether or not they can outrun me, and if they can I'm even worse off than I was before? Should I call for help, because people will totally help me out against a woman instead of assuming, like you do, that I deserve whatever it is (since you're insisting my well being is less important than hers)? There's no way that works. I have no way to be sure I'm safe that doesn't involve stopping the other person from attacking me long enough to get away, or forcefully restraining them until I'm sure they will stop. And that isn't a harmless process.

You are giving women a free license to attack men (or at least men larger than them) when you say that if she starts punching him, he should be more attentive to her safety than his. Which is what you are arguing.

 

[5ilver]

Depends on the judge and jury you get

In other words, it's all luck. :/

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You're putting the entire responsibility for the situation on me, the person being attacked.

Nope, I'm saying you have A responsibility, and that is to control your reactions and do your best to mitigate any harm you might cause. What someone else is doing is irrelevant. You control your reaction to it. That's personal responsibility.

You say "Don't hit, period", but you clearly argue that my safety is less important than hers, because you believe I am supposed to protect her more than I protect myself.

I don't argue any such thing. I can't determine if this is a straw man or just your confirmation bias. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter, but you kind of go on like this for the whole post.

Protecting myself means doing the minimum NECESSARY to ensure I'm safe. If she gets hurt in the process, tough luck. I'm not going to go out of my way to injure anyone if I don't need to, but I will do things that can hurt people if they try to hurt me. Why wouldn't I? That's what they're trying to do to me, after all.

No one is arguing that. I'm also not sure why you are arguing it. This seems to be a very important distinction for some people. They hear a general mantra of "Don't hit people smaller than you" and come back with a big list of what if's, like they're just DYING to have their ducks in a row so they can feel righteous when they sock someone in the face for steppin' to them. It's especially disturbing when...

"Remove yourself" sounds nice but it's also nonsense.

...they say things like this. Why, exactly, is walking away from a violent confrontation "nonsense"?

Should I...push someone away, even though that doesn't actually do anything to stop them from trying again? Should I turn and run, not knowing whether or not they can outrun me, and if they can I'm even worse off than I was before? Should I call for help, because people will totally help me out against a woman...

Why are any of these options less preferable than violent escalation?

...instead of assuming, like you do, that I deserve whatever it is (since you're insisting my well being is less important than hers)?

I'm INSISTING now! See, you are having this discussion with yourself. I never said that, or anything close to that.

I have no way to be sure I'm safe that doesn't involve stopping the other person from attacking me long enough to get away, or forcefully restraining them until I'm sure they will stop. And that isn't a harmless process.

Again, all I said is "don't hit". You've now extrapolated this to "don't defend yourself at all" so you can continue tilting at the windmill you built that has my face on it.

You are giving women a free license to attack men (or at least men larger than them) when you say that if she starts punching him, he should be more attentive to her safety than his. Which is what you are arguing.

And we're back to your false dilemma, which I pointed out in my last reply to you.

Fair warning...there will not be a third reply in which I AGAIN have go down a checklist of bullshit straw men. Either debate the things I am actually saying, or this will be the end of any further discussion. Life is too short for me to sit here watching you argue with yourself.

 

[Therumancer]

In last nights episode one guy tells another guy that if a woman punches you (real violence, not a friendly punch on the shoulder) you either take it, or you walk away, but you are never allowed to hit her back and if you do hit her back and you end up in the hospital almost losing your life (as was the case in the episode) it's all your own fault.

I'm not gonna bore you with all the details of the episode that lead up to this, but suffice it to say this sort of double standard and, in my opinion, blatant misandry just makes me sick.

Am I wrong in feeling this way?

In the simple sense of being able to defend yourself from an attack I said "yes, always" because honestly that's a universal truth. It does come with needing to use a bit of common sense however. For the most part the continuum of force applies, where in defending yourself you can go one step higher than the person attacking you (two or more if your in authority and controlling a situation, but that gets more complicated). The specifics of how that works can vary from state to state, but it's a good general guideline.

In general though girls are substantially less physically capable than guys are, so while exceptions exist a girl punching a guy isn't any big deal and you should just take it and walk away. Chivalry, self-imposed misandry, or whatever else, pounding some girl into the ground over a blow usually isn't worth it. Now if she's pressing the attack or is in a position where size or training wise she's a real threat, then you do whatever you need to do. I didn'tsee this episode of "Gray's Anatomy" but if this girl was pressing an attack and was capable of doing this to this guy, then yes, he was fully within the right to defend himself.


To be honest I don't think it will happen for a while, but I think society needs to really start re-evaluating it's attitudes about violence towards women and children. The way how the world used to be, I can understand why the current moral conventions exist. On the other hand both are becoming increasingly dangerous and aggressive, and I think a lot of incidents could have been avoided if people weren't operating under social pressure to treat them with kid gloves. Oddly I think it applies more to children than anything, as even in civilized nations like the US we have kids becoming hardened gang bangers and pushing drugs and hurting/killing people at early ages of like 11 or 12. One famous case was some kid known as "Yummy" who was put down by his own gang (do a search for "Yummmy" and "kid" and "gang" and you should find what I'm talking about if your not familiar with it). Oddly I think this is a case where the actual laws are ahead of societal standards when it comes to self defense. Legally speaking your likely to be able to succeed in a defense case against a woman that hurts you, but if you hurt her in the process the social stigma that follows you around could be rather extreme.