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

[BloatedGuppy]

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).

Who names a kid "Yummy"? Why, he deserves a beating just for that alone! =P

 

[Panthera]

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.

What I do is directly related to what someone else is doing. I do not have full control of the situation. When you tell me I have to try to minimize harm to the other person, you're putting the much higher responsibility on me when doing so is dangerous to me - which it almost always will be.

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.

To minimize harm to my attacker requires me to put more focus on avoiding harming them than I do on protecting myself. That is a fundamental assumption that I see no reason to disagree with, for reasons I hope are clear already, but I can reiterate it if you want.

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...

You *are* arguing it. You're going to the lengths of telling me that my belief in it is a sign that I'm just dying to beat the hell out of people. There is no big list of hypothetical situations, there's one singular argument - that if someone tries to hurt me, stopping them is more important than protecting them. You can't claim to not be arguing against my stance when you're telling me that I'm a violent jerk for wanting to do the minimum needed to guarantee I'm safe.

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

For the exact reasons I just stated, that they don't actually work? None of them help! I can push someone back and that doesn't actually stop them or hinder them or anything but give them an opportunity to punch me while I'm using my hands for something non threatening. Turn and run? You want me to turn my back on someone trying to attack me, despite the fact that even if I'm faster than them (not guaranteed) the act of turning around is leaving me 100% vulnerable to someone who has already proven they want to hurt me? That's asking me to get myself killed (hopefully figuratively). Calling for help isn't going to help out at all when so many people will never believe that I might need help, and people don't always help out anyway, and might not even be around. They're less preferable to the use of violence to *stop* violence because they don't work and/or put me in greater danger.

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

I'm showing you the implications of your beliefs. You want me to focus on defending my attacker, not myself. That's what "try to minimize harm to the person who is actively trying to harm you and could easily use any opening you provide to do so" means. I'm curious to know why else you'd think my safety is less important than hers, if not because I am more deserving of harm than she is.

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.

No, I'm taking you saying "don't hit" and assuming you mean "don't hurt the other person if you can avoid it", because I feel it's reasonable to assume you'd object to me power bombing some girl even though it's not "hitting". I can't stop reliably defend myself without risking harm to the other person, successfully "restraining" someone is going to require me to take them to the ground, which risks a concussion when their head smacks against the ground. I need to take them to the ground because I can't contain two arms, keep two legs from kicking me and the back of a head from smashing into my nose while standing up without more training than I have.

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

There is no false dilemma. Your positions favours the attacker and criticizes effective self defense. If I can't harm the other person, I can't protect myself. If you're expecting me to turn my back on a violent attacker, you're blatantly telling me to put myself in harms way solely to avoid having to hurt her. If everyone follows your beliefs, women can freely attack men because we can't defend ourselves.

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.

It's not a straw man to actually address what you're suggesting instead of what you seem to wish you suggesting. Saying you don't disagree with someone protecting themselves is bunk when you insist that they're just itching for opportunities to get violent if they do so in a way that might be useful. Which is the actual straw man, for the record. When someone bluntly tells you they believe in only doing the minimum needed to defend themselves, and has never mentioned anything other than self-defense, and you repeatedly declare they just can't wait for an excuse to beat the hell out of people, that's deliberately mischaracterizing the opposing position to make them look bad. Arguing that "You're in the wrong for defending yourself in a way that is harmful to your attacker" is prioritizing the attacker's safety over the victim's is not.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Which is the actual straw man, for the record. When someone bluntly tells you they believe in only doing the minimum needed to defend themselves, and has never mentioned anything other than self-defense, and you repeatedly declare they just can't wait for an excuse to beat the hell out of people, that's deliberately mischaracterizing the opposing position to make them look bad.

You are correct. I apologize.

The rest of your post...I was already pretty clear about my response (or lack thereof) if you came back with more of this. You have invented a position for me and are fully invested in repeatedly knocking it down. I cannot speculate as to why you find this interesting or fulfilling, but I do not.

 

[Panthera]

Explain to me how your position does not imply what I said. I'd be glad to discuss the issue if I could see the actual disconnect, but in my eyes, I can't see how your standard isn't asking men to put their own safety below that of women who attack them. Perhaps you could explain what you actually think I should do if a woman attacks me, beyond "don't hit". Maybe if I know what option I have that you find acceptable that is also effective at keeping me safe, I can figure out where you're coming from.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Explain to me how your position does not imply what I said. I'd be glad to discuss the issue if I could see the actual disconnect, but in my eyes, I can't see how your standard isn't asking men to put their own safety below that of women who attack them.

Alright, let's start with context. Let's look at the OP. OP is discussing hitting. Specifically punching "with real violence". So the context of the thread is "hitting", with "real violence".

Now let's look at your post that I originally responded to. I'm even going to winnow it down a bit, to expose specifically what I was reacting to when I quoted you the first time.

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.

"People keep saying". You're not responding to anyone, so this an argument you have constructed yourself for the purposes of attacking it. You're clearly not unintelligent, so you know why stuff like "people say" is an absolutely terrible foundation upon which to construct an argument. You said this. If you want to debate "people" pick a quote and debate it. Don't debate the people in your head.

Secondly, "protect"? There is a mile of difference between "avoid inflicting harm" and "protect". I think you're aware of that difference, too, but chose the second word because it promotes this fantasy you've constructed in which absolutely ridiculous things are required of you.

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?

"More important". Not even equally important, you got greedy and went straight to "more important". Again, if you see anyone actually saying this, by all means point them out and we will debate them together. Show me the person saying "The attacker's safety is more important than the victim!". I, and others, have simply stated...repeatedly...that if you are being attacked, you DO have a responsibility to measure and control your response. Remember the topic of the thread? Remember the OP? Remember "Punching with real violence"? That's what you voted "yes" to. The OP stated his poll question different than his OP, but anyone reading the OP is going to be aware of what the OP's position on the question is.

Her responsibility for attacking you is utterly disconnected from your responsibility to control the scope of your response. If this thread was entitled "Is it okay for a woman to randomly beat a man?! Yes/no!? LOL!" we'd be having a very different conversation. But it's not. It's about what responsibility the man bears in that situation. Right? It's right there in the thread title. This "they started it" stuff is kindergarten logic.

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.

And there's the false dilemma I responded to.

A) You've constructed another argument out of thin air, attributed it to a phantom "you", and torn it down.
B) You've created an utterly fantastical scenario in which women have "free license" to hurt "people", and strong men are "worthless" and "bad people"
C) You topped it off by extending the parameters of the situation. The man is now an innocent bystander, the woman is an aggressor without cause. None of that was in the OP, you layered that in for the purposes of making your position more emotionally appealing.

The victim of assault is not the one who should bear the greater burden to prevent harm, regardless of who their attacker is.

Not greater. Identical. You have the same social responsibility to prevent harm as anyone, including your assailant. Being punched, especially by someone smaller or weaker than you, is not a license to cut loose.

Perhaps you could explain what you actually think I should do if a woman attacks me, beyond "don't hit". Maybe if I know what option I have that you find acceptable that is also effective at keeping me safe, I can figure out where you're coming from.

Ideally? Retreat or restrain. Just about anything but the "punching with real violence" discussed in the OP. We've already established you think walking away from a woman who took a poke at you is MADNESS.

There you go. There's your explanation. My statement about being done discussing your illusory translation of my position remains. I wrote this for the purposes of clarification, which you requested.

 

[Therumancer]

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).

Who names a kid "Yummy"? Why, he deserves a beating just for that alone! =P

It was his street name actually, coming from his love of junk food. I just put this link up not too long ago (and have done it many times in the past) but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sandifer

That's "Yummy", a fairly good run down, but parts of it seem to be missing. The basic gist is he's a kid who was a member of the "Black Disciples" gang, he ran drugs and had a huge list of felonies and misdemenor charges on his record including violent ones. Eventually he just went berserk with a 9mm pistol and started shooting people, in what was believed to be an initiation for full membership gone wrong. The kid was basically so insane his own gang put him down.

It's not a unique case which is the sad thing, it's just my "go to" for making certain points because the name "Yummy" which works for searches stuck in my mind. The thing being that he was 11 when he went on the shooting rampage, but before that he had quite a rap sheet and a pretty straightforward gang affiliation. Something most people in the US don't even realize children are capable of.

 

[Caiphus]

Law of self defence, in New Zealand at least:

It is a full defence if the defendant used force that was reasonable, in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. [footnote] http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328268.html [/footnote]

I assume that a similar law is in place in America.

So where a woman is threatening you with violence, and you honestly believe that you are in danger, you may use force that is reasonable to protect yourself against that danger.

Since a woman is less likely to be physically capable of damage (unless they are armed), the amount of force that is reasonable to use will be less. The defendant would also need to prove that he believed himself to be in danger.

But apart from those factors, the law doesn't care.

That being said, the law does, in this country, punish non-justified assaults on females more harshly. [footnote] http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329383.html [/footnote]
So that's the law, and it seems pretty morally acceptable to me.

 

[Doclector]

I learnt one goddamn thing in my hellish time in school, and it's that the moment that someone, anyone, regardless of gender, race, or even disability, attempt to physically harm you, you don't give a shit about their rights to safety anymore.

So yes, you're damn right if a women attempts to harm me, I'll do whatever it takes to make her stop.

 

[Valnyan]

You are wrong. It's not misandry. Just read the answers to your thread, most peoples that think it's not ok to defend yourself against a woman think so because they believe women are too weak to cause harm and too weak to sustain one blow from a mighty man.

The idea it's bad to hit girls comes from the common belief that women are inferior beings.

I always have a good laugh at these threads with all the black belt 16th dan martial artists and confirmed super soldier badasses that just go "no, a woman can definitely not harm any man in any circumstance !".

 

[wiz828]

You are wrong. It's not misandry. Just read the answers to your thread, most peoples that think it's not ok to defend yourself against a woman think so because they believe women are too weak to cause harm and too weak to sustain one blow from a mighty man.

The idea it's bad to hit girls comes from the common belief that women are inferior beings.

I always have a good laugh at these threads with all the black belt 16th dan martial artists and confirmed super soldier badasses that just go "no, a woman can definitely not harm any man in any circumstance !".

After reading the entire thread, I'm starting to think you're on to something here. And yes, the amount of "martial arts specialists" in this thread is just staggering.

So your theory is that women are inherently self-hating? That they see themselves as the weaker species and that is why it's never ok to hit a woman in their eyes?

 

[Rednog]

Meh, this has kind of devolved into arm chair politics.
But I will say this, as a person who has been in a lot of fights throughout his life, and has actually been stabbed (2x2x2 inch hole in the back and several hundred stitches) the whole idea of "if someone attacks me I'll totally be able to sit back and assess the situation" is just plain dumb.

In any real fight your main priority is yourself, you disable your opponent swiftly and with force and end the conflict, then you assess the situation. It's akin to people who have never been in a fight telling cops to wing or shoot people in the leg to disable them. If they're in any danger they place a shot in the center of mass, put the person down, and then worry about anything else. The aggressor should never take priority in your mind over yourself.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

One is allowed to defend themselves against any threat to their person regardless of gender.

 

[Valnyan]

So your theory is that women are inherently self-hating? That they see themselves as the weaker species and that is why it's never ok to hit a woman in their eyes?

I am not sure if this answer is serious or an attempt to make fun of my answer. Anyway, I will reply as if it is a serious question.

First, self-hating is a pretty strong word but, without going to "hate" I definitely have this weird vibe about other women. That they think of themselves as inferior by nature. It's more an educational/social construct that any and every woman is inferior to any and every man.

I have to admit, I don't understand other women on this point. Not all women think of themselves as a worthless baby maker though, but it is a very dominant way of thinking in both men and women. Times are changing though, more and more women discard this belief but it is still strong in the medias and thus in the popular opinion.

That's why I voted that you should defend yourself against women and men alike. But I don't agree that it is misandry, because it doesn't stem from a negative view of men but on a negative view on women.

If you want an example of something we could call misandrist there is the child care which is more often given to the mother by default. It is because our society view woman as the child bearer, nurturing, caring entity and the man as the bread winner, so we give child care to women because we think that the man won't care about the child.

But if you talk about it with men you will notice that a lot of men not only believe this to be true, but conform to this expected behavior as much as women conform to their expected weakness. In both case it is sexism and our society as still a long way to go.

In short, my theory is that we live in a society that teaches us that women are weaker than men. And thus many women agree without questionning it's logic and conform to it.

 

[whiskey_hicks]

I voted yes.

Look, violence should never be an answer, no matter the gender. We're supposed to be civilized people for a reason, because we've gone past "we use violence to solve problems." Emphasis on "supposed to be."

So if someone starts swinging away they've clearly decided they don't want to handle things in a non-violent way, doesn't matter if it's a man or woman. And when someone does that you should have every right to defend yourself. And I realize people may say, "You should never hit a woman!" But these are the same jag-offs who will snicker at you as the ambulance carts off your unconscious keester cause you just got knocked out by a woman.

The only time gender equality really begins is when we accept that we are responsible for our actions, regardless of gender, and face the consequences. If you swing, expect to get swung at. Plain and simple.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Look, violence should never be an answer, no matter the gender. We're supposed to be civilized people for a reason, because we've gone past "we use violence to solve problems." Emphasis on "supposed to be."

There are only two ways to resolve a conflict. The first is with words. The second is with force. If the first fails, then you must resort to the second. Becoming 'civilized' doesn't mean throwing away use of force. Not when it's so ingrained into human psyche.

 

[Panthera]

"People keep saying". You're not responding to anyone, so this an argument you have constructed yourself for the purposes of attacking it. You're clearly not unintelligent, so you know why stuff like "people say" is an absolutely terrible foundation upon which to construct an argument. You said this. If you want to debate "people" pick a quote and debate it. Don't debate the people in your head.

Secondly, "protect"? There is a mile of difference between "avoid inflicting harm" and "protect". I think you're aware of that difference, too, but chose the second word because it promotes this fantasy you've constructed in which absolutely ridiculous things are required of you.

...

"More important". Not even equally important, you got greedy and went straight to "more important". Again, if you see anyone actually saying this, by all means point them out and we will debate them together.

Condensing this because most of it boils down to the same thing and long quote wars are hideous.

Here's the thing. People have meanings beyond what is explicitly stated in their words, obviously. That's where I'm drawing the implications from, as I believe I've already outlined. Here is the simple explanation of what I mean:

1. If I am attacked, I am supposed to avoid harming the other person.
2. I cannot avoid harming the other person without putting myself at greater risk than I am already in.
3. Therefore, I am being asked to place their safety above my own, because I am supposed to risk greater harm to myself to ensure I don't harm them.

I don't have a method of stopped them from hurting me that doesn't involve risking their safety that doesn't leave me much more vulnerable to harm than had I used more violent methods of defense. Hell, my most reliable non-hitting method of stopping them puts *them* at more risk than if I just threw a punch (tackling someone has a nasty chance of head injuries if you're on a concrete surface, and my only real chance of restraining someone is if I get them to the ground). If you're asking me to not hurt them, you're asking me to risk myself to avoid harm to them. That means you're asking me to put their safety above mine. Maybe you don't realize it, but you are. You have stated your position in such a way that the only way that I am not being responsible is if I focus more on my attacker's safety than on my own.

Ideally? Retreat or restrain. Just about anything but the "punching with real violence" discussed in the OP. We've already established you think walking away from a woman who took a poke at you is MADNESS.

You really have no place to accuse other people of straw men when you consistently do stuff like this. Clearly, not leaving myself open to attack from someone who is trying to hurt me means that I am arguing that a poke on the shoulder is a declaration of war.

Let's address this again. "Retreat" is not a viable option. You're asking me to turn my back on someone who is trying to hurt me. That is giving them the absolute most perfect opportunity to mess me up. I have to turn away from them, giving them free reign to hit me in the back of the head (obvious risk of injury), and try to run before they can grab me, and still am just praying I can outrun them, and if I can't, they get to hit me in the back of the head and drive me to the ground while I am utterly helpless to defend against it. Something like that happened with skating instead of running in the NHL a while back, involving a guy named Todd Bertuzzi. The victim was practically crippled. Trying to run is vastly increasing the risk to myself, beyond the risk to her if I were to just punch her until she weren't attacking.

Restrain? No. This is an argument that is utterly detached from reality. Neither I nor most people have the training needed to know how to effectively control someone. On my feet, I literally can't do it. Even if I can grab both her arms and keep hold of them, she can kick like crazy and swing her head around, if I'm holding her arms from behind her a quick swing back of the head could break my nose. I have a better chance on the ground, but again, I'm more likely to give someone a concussion taking them to the ground than I am by punching them a few times, and I'm not by any means an expert on grappling anyway. This position is basically punishing anyone who doesn't have training in some form of martial art related to this kind of thing, I can't restrain someone without either risking hurting them quite a bit, or giving them ample opportunity to hurt me.

It's really simple. If someone is attacking you, they are trying to hurt you. You are not in the wrong if you stop them, only if you continue after they're no longer threatening you. Your safety is more important than theirs, being that you're the victim and they're the attacker. Saying otherwise is just blaming the victim of the attack for the whole thing, because you're telling him "You should have been able to get out of the situation". Let's reiterate that: Your idea that the man should simply run or restrain the woman is blaming him for any injuries he suffers, because you are assuming he should be able to do those things without any harm to himself. If you're not making the assumption that any man should be able to avoid harm in those ways, why the hell are you insisting he do it, knowing it's not remotely safe for him to do so?

 

[thesilentman]

Nope OP, you're not. If a man is being attacked and has to defend himself, then he can defend himself all he likes. Women should not be put on pedestals for... for.... Why do we have this double standard again? I can't think for the life of me why men aren't allowed to hit women even out of self defense.

 

[Toy Master Typhus]

Nope OP, you're not. If a man is being attacked and has to defend himself, then he can defend himself all he likes. Women should not be put on pedestals for... for.... Why do we have this double standard again? I can't think for the life of me why men aren't allowed to hit women even out of self defense.

Because women being soft are incapable of wrongly committing violence, if they do the violence is always justified. More over it was long considered that if you couldn't take beating from the wife you have no right to have one.

 

[Lieju]

I don't think it makes any difference whether the assailant is a man or a woman, if they are physically strong does, though, in making them a bigger threat.

That being said, defending yourself is not the same thing as attacking someone who hit you first.

Me? I'd just run away.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

"Retreat" is not a viable option.

Restrain? No. This is an argument that is utterly detached from reality.

It's really simple.

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

You really have no place to accuse other people of straw men when you consistently do stuff like this. Clearly, not leaving myself open to attack from someone who is trying to hurt me means that I am arguing that a poke on the shoulder is a declaration of war.

This is absolutely ridiculous. In YEARS of posting on this site, this is perhaps the stupidest debate I have ever been suckered into, and given some of the stupid debates I have partook in that is really saying something. We're not even discussing the same thing. I am discussing the situation as presented by the OP, you are presenting a situation that exists only in your head, where there's a fucking concrete floor and you were standing there innocently and the woman is violent and unpredictable, etc, etc, etc. Next I expect to discover the woman in question has an AK-47 and 23 years military training and you have a heart condition and you're trying to shield a group of orphaned cancer survivors.

I don't even blame you, I blame myself. I should know better.

I concede, Panthera. I understand the nature of the conversation now. There is no way I can ever make a suggestion that implies people have a responsibility to control their reactions to violent confrontation, because inside your head you will be painting a scenario where doing ANYTHING but responding with appropriate force will result in injury or death to you. It's not even a hypothetical. You're literally sat there telling me exactly what will happen, as if this was an actual event with recorded consequences. Consensus or even understanding is IMPOSSIBLE given the nature of this exchange. I will admit from the moment I first replied to you, given the tone of your original post in this thread, I got the impression you had a bit of a victim complex. That you WANT to feel like a wronged party, here. That you believe your rights/identity are getting trampled by some faceless collection of people, and you're projecting that onto me because I'm stupid enough to continue replying. The fact you will repeatedly change the nature of the scenario presented in order to ensure A) you are victimized and B) no course of action other than your approved course of action can prevent that victimization from continuing would appear to confirm this. That said, I'm not a mind reader, and communication through text is tricky at best.

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?