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

[Panthera]

I agree. When you hand wave every opposing or conflicting point of view, the world must indeed seem "really simple".

When you think that anyone showing you why your suggestions don't work is them hand waving things, naturally it looks like everyone who isn't you is stupid.

This is absolutely ridiculous.
...
That said, I'm not a mind reader, and communication through text is tricky at best.

The situation in the OP is "a woman attacks you with real violence". Nothing I have said remotely contradicts that premise. A hard surface, you mean like we're in a public place like a sidewalk, parking lot, or maybe inside a mall where the floor isn't cement/concrete but is still pretty nasty to hit your head on? You know, all those public places where being you're probably going to be if someone attacks you? Now, the woman is violent and unpredictable, whereas I am innocent? Uh, no shit? This is a discussion about self-defense. Why would the assumption be that the man is *not* innocent, and why would anyone assume someone who is attacking them is *not* dangerous and unpredictable? I have not changed anything. I have started with the premise of a man (myself, potentially) defending himself from a woman who is attacking him with "real violence", as stated in the first post. I have explained various ways this could play out depending on my reactions. Nothing has been added. Nothing has been changed.

If I sound like I have a victim complex, it's because I am responding to a belief that is contemptuous of my right to safety. You started with suggesting that a man who defends himself in a way that prioritizes his own safety is being irresponsible, and have now moved on to claiming that because I have assumed that someone being violent with me is violent, I'm being unreasonable and crazy. Yeah, guess what? Your position is upsetting. You have reached the point where you are arguing that me thinking I can assume I don't deserve to be attacked (ie, that I'm innocent - you claim my assumption that I am is bad) is wrong, and that assuming someone who attacks me might actually be violent is wrong, even though the question you're accusing me of ignoring directly specifies that she is using "real violence". No kidding I sound a tad defensive, you are warping everything I say to look bad and seem to ignore how your assumptions always point to me deserving any abuse I might suffer.

Here's one last try. Address the following question, and the following question only. Don't speculate as to where you are, or what anyone's motives are. Simply answer the following question, so we can be on the same page for once:

If a person *punches* you (with real violence) is the most appropriate response to *punch* back (with real violence)?

Yes or no?

Misleading question, given that the motives utterly define the situation. If someone punches me because I was abusing them, that's a hell of a lot different than if someone punched me because I didn't let them eat my cat. And punching isn't inherently the best course of action. But putting aside the problems, I'll assume you're not going to try to invent a scenario to assign to it after the fact and say:

Yes.

If someone is genuinely trying to hurt me (that is what real violence is), the most appropriate response (barring any highly situational things that might allow you a higher chance of safety) is to hurt them enough to make them stop. That is the most effective, and least risky, way of defending myself, and I have no problem saying that if I have to inflict minor harm to them to prevent potentially major harm to myself (I have zero reason to assume someone who initiates the conflict will have the same restraint of "stop when he stops trying to hurt me", given that they would never have attacked me in the first place if they followed that philosophy), I will do it. I have a greater right to safety than they do in this scenario.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

If I sound like I have a victim complex, it's because I am responding to a belief that is contemptuous of my right to safety. You started with suggesting that a man who defends himself in a way that prioritizes his own safety is being irresponsible...

Historical revisionism. You entered this thread responding to no one in particular, ranting at the empty air about how women have a free license to hit men. Which they obviously do not. They definitely have some more societal leeway, for fairly obvious reasons. Unless you're grinding an axe, I suppose, at which point I'm sure those reasons would appear ominous and conspiratorial.

...and have now moved on to claiming that because I have assumed that someone being violent with me is violent, I'm being unreasonable and crazy.

No, I suggested you have worked backwards to manufacture a scenario that supports your conclusion.

Yeah, guess what? Your position is upsetting.

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea what my "position" is. I agree that the position you have invented for me is very upsetting, yes. I hate that guy.

Yes.

If someone is genuinely trying to hurt me (that is what real violence is), the most appropriate response (barring any highly situational things that might allow you a higher chance of safety) is to hurt them enough to make them stop.

Okey doke. You and I have different views on the use of violence as a solution. You view non violent solutions as "highly situational" and violent solutions as the appropriate reaction. Fair enough. Perhaps something in your personal experience or upbringing supports this, I can't say. I find the idea of "hurting someone until they stop", especially if that person is smaller than me, abhorrent. But that's just me. Certainly if I was an onlooker and some crazy person went off on you in a public space and you popped them one, I'd probably be first in line to defend your reaction, regardless of the assailants gender. I would probably be the person saying "If she didn't want to get punched, she shouldn't have attacked him!". However, if I was the puncher, and I concussed or broke some drunk or mentally ill woman's jaw because she punched me, I'd feel nauseated. So I'd do everything I could to avoid putting myself in that situation.

And yeah, I believe that if you're like one of the meat heads in the thread who have said "Oh fuck yeah, I'd punch that ***** back as hard as I could!" (and for the record, I don't believe you are, I just think you have a persecution complex) then you totally deserve to go to jail. Which you will, as soon as you're finished, because the law tends to be a little hazy on the "they started it" defense and the use of appropriate force. There are people who use altercations and confrontations as excuses to Hulk out and start smashing heads. I'm sure you've met some on your journey through life. You've likely rubbed elbows with a few in this thread.

I'll assume you're not going to try to invent a scenario to assign to it...

I honestly couldn't even believe what I was reading when I saw this. I'll give you points for unbelievable chutzpah, though. I am reminded of the jape where you hold someone's arms and slap them with their own hands while crying "stop hitting yourself".

 

[Auron225]

If the answer to this was "No he should sit there and take it" then gender equality demands that I can smack around whatever woman I want.

No. In any case under the sun it is acceptable for a human to defend themselves from harm.

 

[Panthera]

Historical revisionism. You entered this thread responding to no one in particular, ranting at the empty air about how women have a free license to hit men. Which they obviously do not. They definitely have some more societal leeway, for fairly obvious reasons. Unless you're grinding an axe, I suppose, at which point I'm sure those reasons would appear ominous and conspiratorial.

I entered this thread addressing the way that several people have laid forth arguments that would give women a free license to attack men. Not that it they already do, although the prevalence of that belief makes it easier for a woman to get away with it. That the people saying "you need to restrain her" are calling for men to take responsibility to a degree that the woman's safety trumps their own.

No, I suggested you have worked backwards to manufacture a scenario that supports your conclusion.

In what way? The scenario is "she attacks you". With real violence. As opposed to fake violence. No pro wrestling here. Every single thing I have said is based on the idea that a woman tries to hurt me, because that's the actual question. Everything else is showing how my responses can play out and/or built from that. Restraint is dangerous to both of us because we're probably not on a soft surface, I can assume she's a threat to me because she's attacking me for no reason (or else it wouldn't be self-defense), etc. Those are entirely reasonable assumptions, because they're probably true in any situation where I might need to defend myself.

So I'd do everything I could to avoid putting myself in that situation.

I need to address this. This is about self-defense from someone who has already attacked you. You are in that situation. Case closed. I believe in avoiding needing to use violence. I believe that if I'm in a place where someone else has made it so I need to use violence to keep myself safe, it's okay to do so. That does not mean I wouldn't have avoided it if I could have. Avoiding the situation is only an option if the discussion is about someone who might attack you, not someone who is already in the process of doing so.

I honestly couldn't even believe what I was reading when I saw this. I'll give you points for unbelievable chutzpah, though. I am reminded of the jape where you hold someone's arms and slap them with their own hands while crying "stop hitting yourself".

Well, you've already turned me saying "use the minimum force needed" into "you want an excuse to be as violent as you can" and repeatedly ignored my explanations of why I can't avoid the situation as "thinking it's madness to not get violent if I'm poked". Then you throw a question at me that demands a universal answer, requesting I ignore any details of the actual situation, even though the answer is 100% situational and details are always going to determine what's right or wrong. Assuming it wasn't a set up, but acknowledging that the thought crossed my mind, is not exactly unreasonable, given that you posed a question that specifically makes me look like an idiot no matter what I say unless I step outside your given parameters.

 

[SeanSeanston]

Definitely. I suppose we need a context but when you're asking a question like this, I suppose it's implicit that you're in a situation where you would be at least justified in hitting a man in the same situation.

I guess it's only natural to have a higher threshold for some sort of joking around and whatnot... fringe cases like that... but if I'm robbed by a woman or something, I'm going to do whatever I can to beat the **** out of her and neutralize her threat/get my stuff back or what have you as the case may be. I don't see why I should have any pity just because she's a woman, not that necessarily... violence is ever justified if one is into that kind of thing... but I can't see gender being an issue.

Of course, best be able to beat away... or at least intimidate the possible hordes of white knights running to the thief's rescue ;D

Well, it's saying that men and women should be treated the same, which sorta is what feminism is all about.

No it isn't, not even close. Don't be ridiculous, there's no excuse for such blatant naivety and ignorance in this day and age.

After all, these are the people who think it a travesty that they imagine women being paid less for the same job (no motive or explanation is ever given), but have no problem with over 90% of occupational fatalities being male.

More men at the top = bad.
More men at the bottom = probably no opinion at all because they'd have to care enough to find out about it first in order to form an opinion.

It's egalitarianism or something.

feminism is in essense for equal rights for women, and in this case equal rights mean both should be able to defend themselves.[/quote]

To be fair though... even the phrase "equal rights for women" is either an oxymoron or redundant >_>.

Equal gender rights or something would be much more accurate, though not to describe the ideology of feminism, if you were going for equality.

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

Of course the sad thing is... nobody really is at all ._.

He hit her before she could stab him, and he knocked her out.
The music went down and everyone standing around him went quiet. His first words upon seeing that he'd just hit a woman were, "Oooooh shit." Both the bouncers and the cops roughed him up on the way out.
So whilst he was more than justified in laying her out, the social reaction was not positive.

Typical.

So great to be a man, isn't it? ^_^

While some women still demand to have the special right to never experience any form of violence whatsoever under any circumstances, without knowing the feeling that you could find yourself in a situation where someone is trying to kill you... be able to defend yourself... but not be allowed to defend yourself :|

On a purely hypothetical level do you have the right to defend yourself if a woman attacks you? Absolutely. But unless there are witnesses what will actually happen after? It's your word against theirs and you will be seen as the guy who hit a woman, not the victim of an assault. It happens all of the time with domestic abuse cases where women are perpetrating violence against their spouse/boyfriend. Even when they're beat up and don't hit back, police and prosecutors frequently blow off any claims of abuse because how could the woman be abusing the man?

And I believe they say that most non-reciprocal domestic violence is caused by women.

This whole ridiculous idea that women are fragile little creatures who need special treatment is outdated to say the least. Yes, we are different from men. So what? I'm all for gender equality, just not ridiculousness.

Exactly... it's one of those many ideas that fall under the term "feminism" where it just looks like absolutely out and out patronization because... "Jesus Christ! They're only women! Someone needs to protect them, just in case!".

It's not like a woman could be a threat to anyone, after all ¬_¬...

Their hands aren't dextrous enough to use knives efficiently, perhaps

Actually, I think the worst, most inaccurate part of this whole thing is the idea that men have some sort of advantage in violence vs. women because they're stronger (usually/almost always, certainly not always, or more broadly... not even stronger but more able to fight might be a better phrasing), implying that somehow... THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE A MAN CAN BEAT A WOMAN AND GAIN AN ADVANTAGE. Which isn't really true, is it? So what if you can beat her to a pulp? You'll go to jail and/or at least wind up losing out. Greater strength, or more importantly, greater perceived strength... is more of a liability in this case than anything else.

 

[SeanSeanston]

Jeez, if you thought that any other rule applied, the earth would already have been overrun by whichever clever despot was the first to think up the "army composed entirely of women" idea.

You know... I'd almost be afraid of that actually working

Then we'd need to call on our most courageous women to defend our societies... because men would be socially incapable of going >_>. It would be downright sexist to conscript anyone but women for combat roles in such a hypothetical scenario ^_^.

We can't have men killing women now...*

*Unless it's from a Stealth Bomber or something like that, natch.

Why do these threads have to be "Er MA gerd, I can't punch girls, if they want equal rights I have to be able to beat them up, they're so privileged', it's retarded.

Well in fairness... I think the crux of the issue was pretty much dealing with the privileges of women when it comes to violence.
e.g. being able to hit men with some degree of social acceptability without fear of reprisal, meanwhile men are being murdered by their partners and nobody cares.

I mean it's kinda ****ty if you can be attacked by someone and not be taken seriously when you complain about how your life is in danger, and if you try to protect your life then it becomes YOUR fault because of people's inaccurate prejudices due to disingenuous reporting by the media.

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.

Doesn't sound like any feminist I know of.

Sounds more like gender egalitarianism.

Which I should imagine not to be such a fringe idea as to justify giving someone a specific label because they DO believe in that, as though they were some kind of radical thinker. That's one thing that pisses me off about people who self-identify as feminists and go on to tell you how it's about gender equality, as though there is some sort of open alternative movement in society that has any degree of traction.

Maybe people hate feminists because they're sexist, ignorant, self-centred, misandrists who practice historical revisionism?
(Oh look, misandrist is apparently not even a word by this forum's standards)

Here's a nice little video that I think about covers most of it:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LkYDpQQVJ0

And if someone isn't willing to watch a video like that because it's too long... I don't see how I can take their beliefs seriously, especially when it's a rarely-heard perspective on a very important issue.

(Males complaining about how hard they have it seems to be something of an emerging internet thing.)

Yeah, Christ, it's so unambiguously great being a man isn't it?

There are never massive disadvantages that nobody is allowed to discuss in public without being called a misogynist while some people complain about the difficulties women face when given exactly 100% of the opportunities that men have.

It's not like society is trying to push women ahead at the expense of men or anything like that.

Women (and anyone in general) get to say all kinds of things about men that would never be allowed the other way. It gets annoying, especially when it gets into serious things like rape and domestic violence.

 

[SeanSeanston]

As far as I can see, all the feminists in this thread agree with you. So text-screaming about how FEMINISTS DON'T REALLY BELIEVE IN EQUAL RIGHTS THEY JUST WANT RIGHTS FOR WOMEN doesn't really hold up unless you can actually find a feminist (or, to be more accurate, a majority of feminists) who are saying that men should never hit women in self defense.

I'm just saying in general.

I also find it pretty disturbing that believing in gender equality, even in this day and age where women have at least as many rights as men (and sometimes more), constitutes something called "feminism" as though only women had or have problems, or that women's problems are bigger than men's.

You can't discriminate against women now in the West. You just can't. If a woman ever experienced such a thing, which is very very unlikely, she could complain and have it changed virtually immediately. Not so for men, where sexism against men isn't even considered sexism and in some cases constitutes "equality".

 

[Beffudled Sheep_v1legacy]

Yeah he is.
Not much else to say really. Fuck I;ve been in plenty of fights with teh wimminz types and I've lost a fair few to them as well. Women are humans too and humans are dangerous. Ever get floored by a 4feet 10inch 90pounder? I have and I'm 6'5 and well over 200lbs.
Take proper steps to defend yourself no matter the size, gender, or age of the attacker (unless they;re children cuz they're not a threat) because you don;t know if they have training, or a weapon or are just really damn good at kicking ass.

I'd rather be safe and be known as that guy the floored a women than seriously injured (or injured at all). Don't go out of your way to harm the person (like if they punch you in the face don't break their spine) but don't just let someone beat the crap out of you.

Although take my above statements with some salt. I grew up in a violent environment and have a violent mentality. My first "solution" to any problem is to smash the problem and my thoughts are always tinted with anger and violence.
I am trying to be as reasonable as possible though.

 

[Childe]

No, he should just stand there and let himself get beaten up.

Jesus Christ, is this actually something to be debated?

Well, that's the problem. I frequent a number of entertainment sites (think EW.com for example) where this episode gets a lot of discussion (Grey's Anatomy is a popular show still). And I see a lot of people, mostly women, voicing their support for the stance that a man should never hit a woman, not even in defense.

Well then they shouldn't attack someone. If a girl attacks you then the gloves are off and you have the right to defend yourself. That being said the best thing to do is avoid violence against anyone of any gender period.

 

[Olas]

As a feminist, I say feel free to smack that ***** if you have to.

You can't afford special rights to women if you're a feminist.

 

[NestorES]

I voted 'other' - if she is hot then I would treat it as a come-on and deal with her accordingly.

If she is a fugly nutter then yeah, headbutt and kick her off the pier...

 

[Thaluikhain]

No it isn't, not even close. Don't be ridiculous, there's no excuse for such blatant naivety and ignorance in this day and age.

After all, these are the people who think it a travesty that they imagine women being paid less for the same job (no motive or explanation is ever given), but have no problem with over 90% of occupational fatalities being male.

More men at the top = bad.
More men at the bottom = probably no opinion at all because they'd have to care enough to find out about it first in order to form an opinion.

So, all those women fighting for more representation in the workforce in general and dangerous male-dominated roles such as the military or mining in particular don't count?

 

[Reaper195]

If someone unjustifiably hits you, yu have every moral right to hit them back, irrelevant of gender. In fact, there are a few offences that I consider punchable, irrelevant of gender.

 

[Zhukov]

(Males complaining about how hard they have it seems to be something of an emerging internet thing.)

Yeah, Christ, it's so unambiguously great being a man isn't it?

Yes, pretty much.

Well, except when you catch the end of your foreskin in the zipper of your jeans.

There are never massive disadvantages that nobody is allowed to discuss in public without being called a misogynist while some people complain about the difficulties women face when given exactly 100% of the opportunities that men have.

Oh, they're allowed to discuss them all they want. I for one won't call them misogynist for it.

I will call them a joke though.

It's not like society is trying to push women ahead at the expense of men or anything like that.

No.

There's been a push for equality in recent decades (one could even say centuries), yes. However, as a guy I do not feel that this is happening at my expense.

 

[Panthera]

Yes, pretty much.

Well, except when you catch the end of your foreskin in the zipper of your jeans.

...

Oh, they're allowed to discuss them all they want. I for one won't call them misogynist for it.

I will call them a joke though.

So it's a joke that when a university tries to open a men's center to offer support to men with issues that are hard to find support for elsewhere, much like the myriad women's centers that exist, there's a big controversy about it and the campus women's center says things like:

"What is the men's centre? The simple answer is that the men's centre is everywhere else."

Which can be rephrased as "Have you been raped? Don't worry, go to the mall"

But it's a definite joke to think that maybe there is anything negative men have to deal with. Because sexism is clearly a one-way street, and so long as misogyny exists, there is no such thing as misandry, and if you suggest that misandry is present at all, you must somehow think misogyny isn't a thing.

 

[Gunjester]

Sure he can. He just can't brag about it.

If we're really into equality than women have the potential to be equally as dangerous. So yes, he can defend himself, but if he brags about it he'll get chastised. Simple as that.

 

[shadowstriker86]

I think we can all agree that the safest defense is an effective offense, no?