Forums / Discussion / General

Interesting study.

If a girl hits you, you have the right to hit her back. Unless you're scared of being a sexist.

Nope.avi
Only if your life is in danger or someone you love is in danger. Only then would it be acceptable.

And Because of that its okay to abuse a man who has done nothing wrong?

Personally, I think women can do just as much damage to a man as a man would do to a women if she wanted to. There is no reason to believe that the female sex is weaker and less threatening than a man. There have been many times on the news (of course, not nearly as many times as there are of men; which could be because of bias or it being unnoticed) of women being accused of violent acts.

Poor male actor, they recorded over 100 hours of him getting slapped, hit, and hair-pulled?

For those who don't think women are capable of seriously harming a man, I don't see how that is any different from believing that women aren't capable of seriously defending themselves from a man. Besides, when a man hits a women he is not usually "seriously harming her". People ignored male violence against women for centuries because "she likely deserved it" or "she isn't get hurt seriously" just as people today overlook men getting hit because "they likely deserved it" or "aren't getting hurt badly".

I'm glad Sweatie Killer posted this.
 
I have so much to say on the matter, but I guess I'll just say a couple of things for now:

• Women may be weaker physically overall, but they are still adult humans: they can generate enough power to injure a man with a well-placed blow and most certainly with a sharp or heavy object.
• A past of abuse against women, physical and emotional, in the context of men having greater privilege overall in many areas of life, all over the world, does not justify a woman's abuse towards a man. No one deserves the kind of trauma abuse from a loved one brings.

Also, to attempt to justify female abuse against men with the terrible and sometimes violent history of sexism is like trying to justify black hate crimes against white people with the terrible and sometimes violent history of racism in the US.

Abuse is okay if it's female on male? There's a Trope for that.

I know that when a women fights another women its traditional for men to pour oil on them.

It's stuff like this that makes me thing of sexual equality being a joke. Women want all the 'benefits' men have while having none of the cons of being a man.

Well some men want the benefits women have. Such an example is boobs. Yet they don't want to deal with bleeding through their vaginas and giving birth.

Idk some men might want to give birth, but still thats pretty messed up.

For example, only men have to enlist in the draft. Women do not. And there are several others, including the societal benefits of being considered the weaker sex, like being able to have aggressive actions perceived as cute, endearing, and relatively tame as opposed to wild, unstable, and dangerous. It's not a perfect world.
 
However, it still doesn't justify abuse. Physical or emotional.

The law, in the US, at least, finds self defense justified if the defense is against any kind of physical or emotional abuse that would cause harm, serious injury, or death to the defendant.

So if someone, regardless of gender, starts punching me, yes I am going to beat their ass until they stop.

THAT'S THE AMERICAN WAY

You could also be a man and walk away. If you are getting abused by a woman don't be a pussy and take it. Leave that person. Just because a woman hits you that doesn't give you the right to hit back. You will both go to jail under most state laws.

The abuse looks bad of course, but the make-up sex is amazing.

Wait until Olivia starts to whip the shit out of your ass. Let's see you let her do that.

That's a pretty stupid argument. "If you fight back, you're a pussy!"

You can't go to jail (in the US), for an extended period of time, at least, if you can provide evidence that it was for self defense. That is what I explained in my first post, in case you didn't read.

If you're going to go into the "be a man", argument, then you are probably jaded. If a person starts hitting you, how does it make you less of a "man" to fight back? It's in our basic human instincts to protect ourselves. Does that make me less of a "man"?

True, but they can follow and abuse you.

Turning the other cheek is fine, but it is not limited to just men. Many women would also find it advantageous to just leave without fighting, although in many instances that would not be the case.
Anyways, someone truly upset or wanting to hurt you will not let you walk away, iow it depends on the situation.

I do think that society seems to accept misandry a lot more. What I want is equality, not bias.

@Taryn
I don't think choosing to fight back or choosing not to fight back is manly in itself, I agree. But I believe that choosing a more peaceful means of diffusing a situation is more admirable than always responding with more violence. Also, I don't agree with your reasoning.
 

• I don't like the reasoning of using "human instinct" as an excuse to retaliate. Human instinct is purely animal. Society, man as an entire being, and the laws governing the two are not that primal. Just because it is instinct does not mean it is the best course of action.
• Furthermore, doing something because you can get away with it does not mean it is the best course of action, and it most certainly doesn't mean it is the right course of action.
   
  Taryn wrote:
  

  You can’t go to jail (in the US), for an extended period of time, at least, if you can provide evidence that it was for self defense

 
 
If you must fight back for your safety, fight back. Don't hesitate to do so, and stop when they are no longer a threat. If you're not in physical danger (i.e., if the man or woman is in no position currently to injure you,) you shouldn't fight back because you're not in danger. If you can just wrap a person up in a bear-hug until they calm down, do that. If you can leave the situation or the relationship altogether without endangering yourself, do that.

There are more than two choices in many instances where abuse is involved. You should choose the best one for each situation.

>>"If you can just wrap a person up in a bear-hug until they calm down, do that."
Wrap up an angry upset person? How about give them space instead of provoking them further and getting kneed inn the groin or having your eyes scratched out.

@ChipBeat
Do you disagree with the entire argument and are using this to debunk it, or are you just pointing out that this may be a poor tactic?

• Either way, I've done that before to an angry person because he was a danger to himself and others, and because I knew had the physical strength to do so. It was the best course of action.
• Please note that I typed, "If you can just wrap up a person up…" If you're able to do that for more than a minute or so successfully, the person will likely calm down and figure out a different and hopefully less violent way of expressing anger. Most people won't stay in a rage for longer than that. Tantrum-based aggression will wear a person out.

If you don't have that kind of strength over a person, then you'll have to take your chances with dodging flying items and a completely mobile adult wanting to hurt you. I'd much rather deal with an immobilized person.
 
Also, in a bearhug, you should pin their their arms down to their sides to prevent eye-gouging. If you can get into position from behind, neither of those will happen.

No, but it has to be proven.
Istant human logic:
Man beating woman:"Poor innocent creature! She must be defended from that dick!"
Woman beating man:"He must have done something nasty to her for deserving that!"
Why? Because in second case it's assumed he could react anytime, if he really wanted (he's a male, he's strngest than her). So the spontaneous deduction is he is restraoned by his sense of guilt. And since he is restrained by his sense of guilt it means he knows he has done something wrong to her, and so we do. Conclusion: he deserves that.

Hypercat-Z wrote:

Woman beating man:“He must have done something nasty to her for deserving that!”
Why? Because in second case it’s assumed he could react anytime, if he really wanted (he’s a male, he’s strngest than her). So the spontaneous deduction is he is restraoned by his sense of guilt. And since he is restrained by his sense of guilt it means he knows he has done something wrong to her, and so we do. Conclusion: he deserves that.

That's an awesome application of symbolic interactionism. People perceive a similar situation with actors and objects being on the opposite side differently because the societal definition of "man" and "woman."

The problem with that statement is that people assume he is restrained by guilt. He may be restrained by the fact that he knows he can hurt the woman if he tried to defend himself. Or by the societal norms…like you said:

Man beating woman:“Poor innocent creature! She must be defended from that dick!”

He may have some psychological issues that prevent him from taking aggressive action against her. Or she may be dominating the relationship emotionally, thereby ruining his self-esteem. If a person has low self-esteem, then he or she may feel as if he or she deserves to be treated like crap (even when they shouldn't be treated so poorly.)
 
It is a logical thought process, but by assuming incorrect information, the conclusion may be completely wrong.

And I think people forget that no one deserves to be truly abused by a loved one. Man or woman. So, again, even if he did cheat, he doesn't deserve abuse.

I'll admit, although I generally abhor sexism, this is something that highlights an area of my mind in which I am sexist and don't know how to get over it. I am pretty much not psychologically capable of hitting a woman, even in self-defense. While I don't think women abusing men is acceptable, I'll also admit my reaction probably would have been similar to those in the video. I probably would assume both that she wasn't likely to do serious harm and that he deserved it anyway. (Actually, as far as the former, while I know it sounds odd, I actually told my wife early on in our marriage that since I'm considerably bigger, stronger, and tougher than her, if she ever felt like punching me, she might as well just do it, because she's not likely to actually harm me, and then I'll know how seriously angry she is. Although she has gotten angry enough that she felt like punching me a few times, I only recall her taking me up on the offer once. I was right, it didn't hurt.) After all, while it may be considered sexist by some for me to say so, I do really believe that in general, men are more aggressive and prone to outbursts of violence than women.

It's very strange. I know I shouldn't be sexist about this, or anything else, but this is an area where I can't seem to help it, and it's not as though (as far as I remember) it's something my parents taught me. If I saw a man hit a woman, even once, I'd step in and physically separate him from her and/or call the cops. If I saw a woman hitting a man any number of times, the most I would probably do is gently ask her to calm down.

I get the impression from his comments that Daniel may be of the same mindset, so it may be a cultural thing from our generation and before that finds it hard to accept that there's something sexist in all of this. So, this is probably another tl;dr post, but for those who don't mind, I can never resist an opportunity to link to my blog.

Also, letting women hit you on purpose? What if she's holding a knife or sledgehammer?!

It is not an opinion that men are stronger then women, it is literal scientific fact.

B.R.A.I.N. wrote:

but for those who don’t mind, I can never resist an opportunity to link to my blog.

I've got to give that a read sometime.
 
As for the "sexist" mindset, it's probably not often that you've seen women who are stronger than most men. There are a few, but not enough to ignore the fact that men are stronger than women on the whole. And you'll very rarely see in any media where a man is weaker than a woman, and it's played for humor if you do see it. Maybe that's where it's coming from.

I'm pretty sure that if the woman was obviously injuring the man, more people would step in. They'd be quicker to stop an obviously stronger man, but I don't think people would just walk by if the man was getting curb-stomped or stabbed by a woman in public just because she was a woman.
 
Now that doesn't bring up emotional abuse, which either gender can deal out, but that's much harder to define and address as an outsider.

I said dont't be a pussy and take the abuse. Big difference.
I have seen friends go through crazy girlfriend / wife problems and fighting back only lands you in jail. No man or woman is worth going to jail for under those circumstances.

Not all abuse is physical and short term, I'd expect the greater majority to be verbal, and over a long course of time.

Again walk away. If someone treats you like shit you're not just going to say
[photo:67706]
Have some self respect.

True, but what if the relationship has children involved, and your worried about your spouses mental health conditions?

Sorry, there is no "but" whatever and no "what if".
[photo:164355]

Not confirmed, bro.

Though certainly plausible.

And, if someone hits me, I'm hitting back. Fuck chivalry. Equal status in ALL areas.

Equal status in equal situations. If a kid 3-year old kid punches you, do you punch them back?

Likewise, if a (assuming you're a guy) a much weaker woman punches you, do you punch them back?

And, if you do punch her back, do you really think that's fair? She may hit you and cause no or little damage. You could punch her and give her a concussion. Even though both of you did the same thing, the result may be different. Retaliation without regard for the aftermath is far more detrimental than blind chivalry (and I don't like the concept of chivarly.)

Men are stronger then women due to their higher testosterone levels and muscle mass.

LOL

YES

Okay, let's insert some scientific facts here to settle some of this (although I'm taking this from Wikipedia, so whatever you think of that…) My emphasis in the following.

Males weigh about 15 % more than females, on average. On average, men are taller than women, by about 15 cm (6 inches).

On average, males are physically stronger than females. The difference is due to females, on average, having less total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass. While individual muscle fibers have similar strength, males have more fibers due to their greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is in turn due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of men's higher levels of testosterone. Males remain stronger than females, when adjusting for differences in total body mass. This is due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-mass ratio.

As a result, gross measures of body strength suggest an average 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes as a result of this difference, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength. This is supported by another study that found females are about 52-66 percent as strong as males in the upper body (34-48% difference), and about 70-80 percent as strong in the lower body (20-30% difference). One study of muscle strength in the elbows and knees--in 45 and older males and females--found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength.

Males, on average, have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.

Male and female pelvises are shaped differently. The female pelvis features a wider pelvic cavity, which is necessary when giving birth. The female pelvis has evolved to its maximum width for childbirth -- an even wider pelvis would make women unable to walk. In contrast, human male pelves did not evolve to give birth and are therefore slightly more optimized for walking.

Males typically have larger tracheae and branching bronchi, with about 56 percent greater lung volume per body mass. They also have larger hearts, 10 percent higher red blood cell count, higher haemoglobin, hence greater oxygen-carrying capacity. They also have higher circulating clotting factors (vitamin K, prothrombin and platelets). These differences lead to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance.

Male skin is thicker (more collagen) and oilier (more sebum) than female skin.

Females have more pain receptors in the skin. That may contribute to the lower pain tolerance of women.

The article I pulled these stats from also indicated that there are differences in brain sizes and structures between the sexes, but this does not equate to measurable differences in IQ, although there are some known differences in the way men and women process information. The article also notes (although in no simple quote) that women tend to have better immune systems.

I'm hoping that we can all agree that abuse of another human being is wrong regardless of the sexes of the parties involved. However, it might also be productive within the conversation if we dismissed the false notion that men and women are physical equals.

@B.R.A.I.N.
I'll throw this in with that (although I don't have statistics to back it:)
The man tends to be the bigger/taller/stronger person in most romantic relationships. I believe most men and women prefer this to solidify identities of masculinity (strong) and femininity (delicate.) Even if someone could debunk all of the above information and prove that men and women are equally strong as sexes…
 
…You'd then have to argue against the claim that relationships tend to be created with the man as the physically stronger unit in most relationships. If one cannot, then there should be an assumption that men are stronger than the women they date (and as such, the women they would abuse in the relationship,) and women date men stronger than they are.

You're so ignorant I'm not even going to waste my time arguing. Go out and tell some women that you're stronger than them. I bet lots of them can kick your ass.

I'm going to ask so I can understand what you're trying to say:
 

• In the midst of B.R.A.I.N.'s well-thought out and researched post, do you still believe women are just as strong as men? Or are you saying some women are stronger than some men?

I don't think anyone is saying that every man on Earth is stronger than every woman. What I'd say is that a large majority of men are stronger than women, and more precisely, men tend to be stronger than the women they date: the main context where the abuse we're talking about occurs.

I know a lot of women stronger than me. But saying a few women are stronger than a few men does not make the statement men are stronger than women false.

The statement "men are stronger than women" hurts both men and women.
-men who are abused by women are often too ashamed to report it because they "should have been able to defend themselves from women", one case a while back in which a teenage boy was kidnapped and held prisoner and tortured and harmed by a random group of girls never reported it, when vids surfaced of his ordeal he first lied and said his kidnappers were guys, and he became extremely suicidal and depressed
-saying that men are stronger than women leads many women to believing that fighting back is futile, when in fact, statistically it almost always results in better outcomes
-it also paralyzes many men from defending themselves. If a girl is comparable enough to a guy to overpower him, but that guy doesn't think that he should be threatened by a girl, and shouldn't hit a girl then he won't know what to do when he should be fighting back.
Saying that X is stronger than Y is meaningless because in real life an aggressor will always attack people who are weaker than them, physically, emotionally, socially, etc. If a girl is a predator then you can be assured that she is attacking someone she feels advantageous against, even if it is a guy.

@ChipBeat (because I don't like quoting longer posts)
I can't disagree with any of that. In fact, I think it's all truth.

So let's see.

• We were discussing why people don't react the same way to abuse from a woman against a man (i.e., Is abuse from a woman towards a man OK), because there was the opinion that women generally aren't a physical threat to men.
  • The opinion males are stronger than females (either by the context of how people choose romantic partners in heterosexual relationships and actual biological differences) should have been shown to all that opinion is generally fact.
    • However, the widespread knowledge of the fact of an edge in physical strength overall for men is detrimental for both in the context of physical abuse, because it prevents people (man or woman) from defending themselves and can cause identity and self-esteem problems if one does not meet the rule (i.e., a man is not stronger than the abusing party.)

However, the argument of physical dominance is relevant to the discussion. Men being generally stronger than women (or at least the perception of it) is the reason why the people in the video didn't react. That's why we were arguing that point, because it was the proposed reasoning to the reaction in the video.
 
I will agree that the knowledge of the fact perpetuates the problem of abuse, but the fact cannot be changed. Since the fact cannot be changed, the perception of the situations aren't likely to be changed. If the perception does not change, then how people act in regards to reality will not change.

And unfortunately, most people identify so much with being a "stronger man" or a "weaker woman" (in relation to an abusive woman or man,) that it overrides the reality of being able (or it being OK) to fight back.
 
 
Sorry about all of the text, but I don't think one can make a half-way decent point in a serious matter without addressing all of the points.

@Verbose
I would argue however, that the fact that in general men are stronger than women is irrelevant. I will respond with a syllogism:
If:
A)Women in general do not abuse/assault/attack men
B)People that generally abuse/assault/attack others choose weaker/vulnerable targets
Then:
C)Women, when they do abuse/assault/attack men choose weaker/vulnerable men.

In the case, therefore, of women attacking men it appears that men being generally stronger than women is irrelevant since women who assault/abuse men generally choose men who are weaker/vulnerable to them. I think that it is thus more appropriate to discuss woman on man abuse in the context of the woman having equal or greater control in a physical confrontation, and not assume that the man has the advantage.

@B.R.A.I.N

Genetically, males are born "stronger" than males, yes.

But this isn't a perfect world. There are mutations in genetics, different life styles, and thousands of other variables that go in consideration for EVERY individual.

Maybe one girl works out, while a man doesn't. The woman will be stronger. Genetics doesn't change that. That is how women can be stronger than men.

Oh Muh Gah wrote:

But this isn’t a perfect world. There are mutations in genetics

[photo:171136]

And also, I made a typo, I meant males are born stronger than FEMALES. Noticed it too late to edit.