Hitting... Women

[Aramis Night]

Yes let's all talk about how it's right to hit women considering all the women hospitalized or killed for domestic violence. I'm sure they deserved it when they slapped a man across the face.

I need a drink.

Did the man in question deserve the slap, then? Maybe one shouldn't go around concluding arguments or verbal confrontations by slapping/physically assaulting the other party. Kicking the crap out of the slapper in retaliation is a terrible thing, to be sure, and unacceptable. But walking away from a slap can be very, very hard, if it is given as an argument-ender. The slapper should be reminded that the road of physical assault starts here, and should end there as well-and not necessarily with a counter-slap.

...

What are you having? I'll swill some rum, in the meantime.

Sorry but are you saying that if you slap someone you deserve to be hospitalized and killed?
Can you maybe rethink that for a bit... and maybe rethink everything you've ever thought.

Wow... I don't think that's what I meant at all. You should calm down- When I said, it won't necessarily end with a counter slap, I meant you should talk it through, and not slap in the first place.

jeez, I guess I'm now wearing your drink, so I'll just mosey off down the bar before you slap me...

Oh c'mon now. Didn't you realize that advocating for a non-violent solution in the face of female violence is akin to advocating for her death?

Don't worry Strawman Mcfallacy, It's obvious your looking for an opposing view to fight and get your righteousness on. I'll be your ...strawman. I would say that a woman who initiates violence should expect to receive violence in kind. I have the odd notion that equality extends to women. If I ran around slapping things that offended me, I would have 2 bloody stumps starting at the shoulder after the first day. But more likely I would expect to eventually get hospitalized, possibly killed. It's a realistic expectation. But I recognize cause and consequence enough to know that if I open the door of physical violence by slapping people, there will be violent physical repercussions. And I would rightfully deserve to get beaten to death for it. I don't care how much you want to minimize the woman's role in that situation. A situation that wouldn't exist in the first place if the slap had never happened. So how about we start with no slapping. Seems like a pretty modest proposal, no?

Yes, let's all go around nodding our heads in agreement that there's probably a portion of hospitalizations and deaths that were deserved. This is a helpful viewpoint and discussion for us to have. Maybe we should have this talk when severe damage is on both sides of the genders and not use terms like 'equality' with such disregard to the world around us.
Let's go find some good loopholes for when it's okay to hit women, like there's some sort of fucking shortage of women being hit by men in the world.
And trust me, those men all fucking justified in some way, just like everyone here seems to be doing.
Good hustle people.

Wow, you live up to your name. I just love how you can so willingly justify one group of people assaulting another as though its just a given entitlement women deserve to have with no repercussions. And then try to call men out for daring to retaliate in kind.

But hey, ill keep up my end of this as i promised you earlier. Yes, I'm sure there are women who have been hospitalized after initiating physical violence who deserved it. There are men who have also been killed and hospitalized for the same thing and they deserved it as well. That is what equality is. It is judging on the action's of the person and acting accordingly, not basing your actions on what the person is. I'm sorry that someone at some point convinced you that equality = privilege based on what you are, but it just isn't the case. I do not see it as my privilege to assault other people. Yet your advocating that women should be able to do just that. If men can't, women can't. That is equality.

Sorry but maybe someone actually needs to explain to you what equality and privilege actually is. Is it equal that women are more likely to be victims of severe domestic violence? Is it a privilege that we understand this to be a serious issue. That maybe it's enough of an issue that we don't try to come up with as many justifications for it is possible because I'm sure there's plenty of "justifications" people make already.

Also where did I say anyone deserved death or being sent to a hospital. I'm personally on the side of not-murder but apparently you're cool with murder as long as there's a slap involved? Also where did I generalize and say all men do this to all women.

No, but you're all right, let's look for some reasons to hit women, they sure do have it coming don't they.

Actually, I'm only arguing for 1 justification. The only justification for being violent with another human being is if they have chosen to be violent with you or someone you care about. You just take issue with it not lending itself to your belief that women should have the right to initiate domestic violence by hitting men unopposed.

It is not equal that women are more likely to be victims of extreme domestic violence. You would think that being the case women would be less willing to initiate it. I don't see how treating that like a prerogative they need to have, is going to help with that. Actually given how much money and government programs we have for domestic violence, i do think that it is a privilege that domestic violence is seen as an issue considering how many other equally serious issues are not treated with such importance.

Yeah don't worry, I know you think it's justified, you've made it very clear that you think domestic violence can be justified. Like beating your wife half to death is...justified... because she may of smacked her husband. (sorry i may of thrown up in my mouth at that someone can believe that.)

That last sentence is just the icing on the cake of your horrible shitty opinion. That not only can women bring their own abuse on themselves but that we should actually stop supporting abuse victims altogether because apparently getting help and possibly saving their lives is a fucking privilege. You honestly think being the victim of spousal abuse is fucking privilege!? Why because "other serious issues exist?" Like there's some fucking quota of issues, that helping battered women will take away from what? No, what you're saying is that you actively don't want people to care about this under the ruse that "other issues exist." I don't know what horrifying motivation you have for that belief but I honestly don't want to know it.

Honestly, I've read some horrible opinions on the internet, and on this site in particular this may just be the shittiest, and that's really saying something. Congrats! Please don't celebrate by "justifiably" beating up your girlfriend.

I'm actually of the opinion that there is no justification for domestic violence. If you actually read what i wrote, i was justifying physical violence in general for those already on the receiving end. But no problem, feel free to twist my words. I expect nothing else from someone with your forum name. You're the one that seems most interested in defending domestic violence. Domestic violence doesn't start at the point where someone retaliates for being assaulted. Domestic violence starts at the point where 1 person chooses to hit the other. And there is NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT.

And actually seeing as how money is a finite resource. Yes funding domestic violence does take away from funding that would otherwise go to other important issues. Seems pretty elementary. Didn't realize math was so controversial. Funding is basically a statement of prioritizing importance and the government seems to believe that Domestic Violence is an issue that is very important.

Looking at CDC data showing causes of death for the most recent year such data has been confirmed(2011) and then comparing it to federal budget expenditures for the same year, we see that suicide accounts for 38,337 deaths that year(8,086 of which were women). If we then look at female homicide numbers for the same year(we will just acknowledge that every single one of them was killed as a result of domestic violence) which sits at 3,477 in the same year. So we see that there are over 11 times as many people dying of suicide than being killed in Domestic Violence situations. Over twice as many women are killing themselves than dying from domestic violence abuse.

Now lets look at federal funding. In 2011 the federal government spent $150 million on suicide prevention programs, but spent a whopping $649 million on VAWA sponsored domestic violence programs alone. Seems a little lopsided doesn't it? More money for the problem that is actually killing far fewer people. Seems people care about Domestic Violence plenty. Some of us would prefer the violence to go away, not just a particular type of it. That is why i don't advocate or make excuses for women slapping men. It is also why i have no sympathy for a woman who gets violence repaid in kind.

 

[Aramis Night]

Actually, I'm only arguing for 1 justification. The only justification for being violent with another human being is if they have chosen to be violent with you or someone you care about. You just take issue with it not lending itself to your belief that women should have the right to initiate domestic violence by hitting men unopposed.

It is not equal that women are more likely to be victims of extreme domestic violence. You would think that being the case women would be less willing to initiate it. I don't see how treating that like a prerogative they need to have, is going to help with that. Actually given how much money and government programs we have for domestic violence, i do think that it is a privilege that domestic violence is seen as an issue considering how many other equally serious issues are not treated with such importance.

This is one of the most twisted things I have ever read. You think it's a privilege that domestic violence is seen as an issue? What the fuck? So victims should be grateful that any attention is paid to them? Is this because in your own mind some of them had it coming? There are so many things wrong with this. I need a fucking shower after reading your post.

Domestic Violence is an issue. I do not think it shouldn't be. However it is an issue that people should care about in context of the individual events themselves and in a framework of understanding that initiating violence is no more ok then beating someone to death. So yes, in light of that: If a woman initiates violence by slapping or hitting a man, she is not a victim. She gave up that status the moment she decided to physically assault him. At that point she is an aggressor. And i have no sympathy for aggressor's.

 

[the December King]

Honestly, what the hell is going on? I'm not talking about someone wailing away on their wife until she's dead or hospitalized because 'reasons', we're talking about a woman, attacking a man FIRST, and how it is best to react to it! If the slap in question is meant to shock someone into clarity or something, then in no way should anyone retaliate. It's intent should be clear. But an actual attack, a slap meant to antagonize or start a fight, should not be done, period! Because it is actually assault! A woman can seriously hurt or even kill a man if she is determined and the man dosen't fucking defend himself. If the slap is the beginning of a confrontation, there is NO reason to not defend yourself, in that case. Does that mean striking back? Not necessarily. It might involve restraining.

What is so confusing/inflammatory about that position?

 

[Aramis Night]

I'm actually of the opinion that there is no justification for domestic violence. If you actually read what i wrote, i was justifying physical violence in general for those already on the receiving end. But no problem, feel free to twist my words. I expect nothing else from someone with your forum name. You're the one that seems most interested in defending domestic violence. Domestic violence doesn't start at the point where someone retaliates for being assaulted. Domestic violence starts at the point where 1 person chooses to hit the other. And there is NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT.

You literally said there was 1 justification for it and that is if a woman instigates the violence. Like do you eve read what you write?
We weren't talking about self defence by the way, we weren't talking about a fact where to defend yourself against serious injury you fight back. Your argument was that someone is justified in domestic violence if they didn't start it.

Now if you for instance argued that domestic violence in which the man is injured is often not taken seriously, then you might have a leg to stand on. That was not what you were saying, you were saying that women who start violence for who knows what reasons deserve it when they may end up in the hospital.

And actually seeing as how money is a finite resource. Yes funding domestic violence does take away from funding that would otherwise go to other important issues. Seems pretty elementary. Didn't realize math was so controversial. Funding is basically a statement of prioritizing importance and the government seems to believe that Domestic Violence is an issue that is very important.

Wait let me follow down this rabbit hole for a second because we were talking about how apparently battered women have privilege, a word I'm still not convinced that you know what it means. So by arguing that there's funding for women shelters they somehow have a privilege over... people who attempt suicide? That's not how privilege works. by your definition homeless people have privilege over landowners because where's the shelters for them?
yes battered women are so privldge, flaunting it everywhere what with their emotional trauma, take that suicide victims!
Also you have to do a better job then that in saying that domestic violence victims are sucking the budget dry and leaving everyone else out in the cold. I mean we take money from those damned privileged homeless shelters and put it into farm subsidies. Or take money from the privldged school children and put it into ending world hunger.

You can't simply connect the dots and say that because we help victims of domestic violence, that why we don't help suicide prevention.

That is why i don't advocate or make excuses for women slapping men. It is also why I have no sympathy for a woman who gets violence repaid in kind.

But I thought there was no justification for domestic violence. I mean I guess if a slap is involved then wail away.

Honestly, what the hell is going on? I'm not talking about someone wailing away on their wife until she's dead or hospitalized because 'reasons', we're talking about a woman, attacking a man FIRST, and how it is best to react to it! If the slap in question is meant to shock someone into clarity or something, then in no way should anyone retaliate. It's intent should be clear. But an actual attack, a slap meant to antagonize or start a fight, should not be done, period! Because it is actually assault! A woman can seriously hurt or even kill a man if she is determined and the man dosen't fucking defend himself. If the slap is the beginning of a confrontation, there is NO reason to not defend yourself, in that case. Does that mean striking back? Not necessarily. It might involve restraining.

What is so confusing/inflammatory about that position?

Because this thread is about finding ways to make hitting women acceptable and there's folk in this thread who seem to take that as an outlet to justify sending women to the hospital. Not to pull out the Louis CK bit but men kill women all the time, they've been beaten in every culture throughout history. These men all had their justifications for it and only until recently have we realized how awful that is. So making a thread about how maybe it's okay to hit women if they hit you first is a little disturbing given the context and given that some people here seem to all be nodding in agreement that yes, many women deserve to be beaten.

I don't know how much more clear i can make this. Women do not hit men, Men do not hit women. Everyone happy. Why are you arguing that women have a right to slap men in the first place?

 

[the December King]

Because this thread is about finding ways to make hitting women acceptable and there's folk in this thread who seem to take that as an outlet to justify sending women to the hospital. Not to pull out the Louis CK bit but men kill women all the time, they've been beaten in every culture throughout history. These men all had their justifications for it and only until recently have we realized how awful that is. So making a thread about how maybe it's okay to hit women if they hit you first is a little disturbing given the context and given that some people here seem to all be nodding in agreement that yes, many women deserve to be beaten.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I think women should all be beaten to death by men. All I meant was that if a woman, or anyone, starts attacking me, whether it's a slap or a punch or any other assault, then I'll defend myself. Simple as that.

 

[Caiphus]

I really want to address some of the rationalizations for what is an appropriate response for a women physically assaulting a man. People seem to like to bring up weight differences and cry foul based on that. We'll if that is the criteria for why its unacceptable for men to hit women, but perfectly acceptable for women to hit men, then by your own standards a 120 lb man should be allowed to smack 200 lb women with no expectation of physical retaliation. In order for your argument to have any sense of logical consistency, this is in fact what your advocating. It's either that or you simply have to acknowledge that your sexist. If you are that's fine(well not really), but at least be honest about it.

I have a feeling you might have been referring, at least partly, to me there, so I'll just clarify my own opinion (no idea about anyone else's). A woman hitting a man out of anger is absolutely in the wrong as well. And a 200lb woman hitting a much smaller man would be almost (because a 200lb woman is still unlikely to be as strong as a 200 lb man) as reprehensible as if the genders were reversed. And that woman should be punished by the law. And the man would, probably, be justified in responding with force, as being attacked by a larger individual is going to reasonably make you fear for your safety.

However, it's still wrong for the person to hit back out of anger. I wrote this on the first page of the thread, but moral outrage increases the greater the disparity with regards to strength and fighting ability. If a 120 lb woman slaps a man, she's in the wrong (unless she did it out of self-defence). Her actions might have been understandable*, or even relatable (which is currently being discussed in the other thread on hitting people), but she's wrong. There is no right to hit people if they piss you off. There is a right to self defence, but not a right to punish people physically. Furthermore, her wrong action doesn't then justify a punch in return. And this is the same if the genders are reversed.

*This is important, and relevant to the discussion going on in the other thread. If you've been bullied constantly for months, I absolutely understand lashing out in frustration. My best friend in high school had Asperger's. I know how bullying feels. You still don't have a right to hit people, unfortunately.

 

[Aramis Night]

I really want to address some of the rationalizations for what is an appropriate response for a women physically assaulting a man. People seem to like to bring up weight differences and cry foul based on that. We'll if that is the criteria for why its unacceptable for men to hit women, but perfectly acceptable for women to hit men, then by your own standards a 120 lb man should be allowed to smack 200 lb women with no expectation of physical retaliation. In order for your argument to have any sense of logical consistency, this is in fact what your advocating. It's either that or you simply have to acknowledge that your sexist. If you are that's fine(well not really), but at least be honest about it.

I have a feeling you might have been referring, at least partly, to me there, so I'll just clarify my own opinion (no idea about anyone else's). A woman hitting a man out of anger is absolutely in the wrong as well. And a 200lb woman hitting a much smaller man would be almost (because a 200lb woman is still unlikely to be as strong as a 200 lb man) as reprehensible as if the genders were reversed. And that woman should be punished by the law. And the man would, probably, be justified in responding with force, as being attacked by a larger individual is going to reasonably make you fear for your safety.

However, it's still wrong for the person to hit back out of anger. I wrote this on the first page of the thread, but moral outrage increases the greater the disparity with regards to strength and fighting ability. If a 120 lb woman slaps a man, she's in the wrong (unless she did it out of self-defence). Her actions might have been understandable*, or even relatable (which is currently being discussed in the other thread on hitting people), but she's wrong. There is no right to hit people if they piss you off. There is a right to self defence, but not a right to punish people physically. Furthermore, her wrong action doesn't then justify a punch in return. And this is the same if the genders are reversed.

*This is important, and relevant to the discussion going on in the other thread. If you've been bullied constantly for months, I absolutely understand lashing out in frustration. My best friend in high school had Asperger's. I know how bullying feels. You still don't have a right to hit people, unfortunately.

I appreciate your candor. I disagree on some details, but at least your position allows for some consistency. My own personal experience on the subject has shown that sadly, things often escalate. While i have this far advocated for equal treatment on this issue, i must admit to some hypocrisy. When my ex-fiance tried to kill me, i could not bring myself to hit her. I attempted to restrain her much like what others here have advocated. It didn't diffuse the situation. Instead she resorted to using weapons to try to kill me. Almost 2 decades later, i still have obvious scars on my left arm from where she slashed me with razor blades. Thankfully the other scars have all healed up. My point is sometimes self-defense isn't enough. She outweighed me by 10 lbs.(I was 120 lbs. at the time). I found out later she was high on meth at the time. The whole situation was just a mess.

 

[Caiphus]

I appreciate your candor. I disagree on some details, but at least your position allows for some consistency. My own personal experience on the subject has shown that sadly, things often escalate. While i have this far advocated for equal treatment on this issue, i must admit to some hypocrisy. When my ex-fiance tried to kill me, i could not bring myself to hit her. I attempted to restrain her much like what others here have advocated. It didn't diffuse the situation. Instead she resorted to using weapons to try to kill me. Almost 2 decades later, i still have obvious scars on my left arm from where she slashed me with razor blades. Thankfully the other scars have all healed up. My point is sometimes self-defense isn't enough. She outweighed me by 10 lbs.(I was 120 lbs. at the time). I found out later she was high on meth at the time. The whole situation was just a mess.

Wow, well that's one of those things that you learn about people that leave you lost for words. Sorry for what happened. Whether you didn't fight back because she was a women or because she was your fiancee, that's a terrible thing to have happened, and I'm sorry to hear it.

Anyway, there is no doubt that you would have been justified in striking her, pinning her down, whatever, especially after she started using weapons, although I'm sure you realise that now. I have no idea how I'd react in that situation. And I do understand that, when you're attacked by a larger woman, that societal pressures can put you in an awkward and dangerous position. Again, hitting out when in a dangerous position is fine. Hitting out when frustrated, angry or jealous isn't, even if it may be understandable given the circumstances. So yeah.

And even if you do disagree, thanks for being charming about it. It's refreshing, given the rest of this bloody thread.

 

[Ometochtli]

I hate fighting, and would only hit someone in self defense. If someone attacked me, I would fight back, no matter the gender of my attacker, I would do whatever I need to do to ensure my own safety.

 

[Crazycat690]

Suppose there is none, though I don't think you should hit anyone, male or female. Unless they deserve it, I'm all for peace and harmony and all that but I also have the firm belief that not all battles can be won by being passive. If a person, male or female, is provoking you beyond belief, and is swinging at you, they won't back down just because you "take it like a man".

 

[Orinon]

The Old context for not striking a women was back then women were viewed differently and would not (And it was assumed) could not defend themselves. So to strike a woman was wrongful, abusive because you hit her first, and she wouldn't hit back.
I was slapped in the face by a girl, My logic for not hitting back was thus
"Well that girl did just slap me and its stings but I'm bigger than her and its not an equal retaliation."
It's more of a restraint and not giving in, a slap won't endanger you, to basic instinct.
I don't think if a girl wanted to hurt me she'd resort to slapping, and if she is trying to hurt me I'd try to get out of there.

 

[Phantom Kat]

I don't see why their gender is important. If the person slaps you, you only have to use the minimum amount of force (either physical or non-physical) to dissuade them from hitting you again. Ideally, people wouldn't be hitting each other and this wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Chris Moses]

Seeing how I am larger and stronger than most women, the need to demonstrate my ability to physically dominate a situation is moot. I could give two shits about social norms what I am supposed to do or what I am supposed to impotently rant against on internet forums.

I also wouldn't hit a male that is significantly smaller and weaker than me, even if he threw the first punch. I could give two shits about "what I am supposed to do I a fight".

I am 38 years old and this has served me well through life and don't foresee any problems arising from this stance. The likelihood of me being in a fist fight is low enough already.

Sure you can bring up a scenario where I "might absolutely have to", and I can say I was too busy feeding Fruity Pebbles to my pet unicorn named "Pokey". There are ways to restrain people that don't involve hitting... but I would "if I had to".

Remind the smaller, weaker one that they have already lost the argument by resorting to violence against a superior opponent and you can win the conflict without throwing a punch. I also like to remind people that I am allowed to hit them as hard as they hit me.

 

[Elesar]

I'm too lazy to read through the entire thread to see if someone brought up this point, but the important element is this:

When she slaps him, it's not designed to cause damage, it's just another form of insult. When he slapped her back, it WAS designed to cause damage, IE to knock her down. And perhaps it's just my experience, but that wasn't the moment the movie presented as his 'crossing the line' moment (indeed, it just sailed past that particular moment). The moment the movie presented as him going too far was when he punched her in the stomach.

Of course you're allowed to defend yourself if threatened regardless of gender, etc. etc. etc. but that's not the point of that scene. He wasn't threatened by her, by she was by him.

 

[Icehearted]

Curiously, in my state (Washington) any altercation between a man and a woman will always automatically mean his arrest and prosecution by the state. Men are, under absolutely no circumstances, legally permitted to fight a woman, even if she is the instigator (a police sergeant explained this to me when I was trying to report a domestic violence dispute I'd witnessed). The female may or may not face charges, but the laws very specifically protect women and prosecute men only, under all circumstances.

I think this is feminism gone terribly wrong, but what to I know, I'm only a man.

Ironically, most domestic violence, including against women, men, and small children, are perpetrated by women. This is not to say that women are more violent than men, though societally and legally they are permitted to be so, and it is more acceptable, but in a lot of cases because of America's favoritism toward women with regard to child custody women are simply around their children more than men are, so naturally the numbers are greater. Statistically violence happens against men more than women, but again, feminism has stated otherwise (the actual numbers speak for themselves to the contrary).

I'm not for physical violence either way, but legally, even if a woman ambushes me or pulls a weapon on me because where I live it is illegal to harm them because I have a penis and they have a vagina.

So there's your reason NOT to do it, because in the state of Washington my penis means that for me it's illegal under all circumstances.

 

[Strazdas]

When she slaps him, it's not designed to cause damage, it's just another form of insult. When he slapped her back, it WAS designed to cause damage, IE to knock her down.

how do you know this?
because i certainly can try to insult somone with a slap just as well as any woman would. in fact it may be even more effective as it would be a hard one to swollow for her. im not talking about slaping to knock out, but slapping so she would feel the contact.

P.S. im not saying i support this stance, merely taking the quoted logic and proving it false.

 

[Yuuki]

As long as men (overall) hold the biological advantage in size/strength/speed, hitting women will be looked down upon by society. Always. If women were the ones who held the physical advantage, things would be the other way around.

Even in 3rd world countries where women seemingly get disrespected outright (e.g. India, middle-east, etc) it's still considered pathetic and extremely cowardly to bring any physical harm to women. It's not uncommon for such perpetrators to get beaten senseless or KILLED by angry mobs of men (e.g. friends/relatives of the female) if they are found to be doing such a thing.

We live in times where men and women are more "equal" than ever, but that doesn't change the fact that messages like this are still common...and they exist for a reason:

 

[Darkbladex96]

My mother used to say "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." But that's just idealistic crap. My response to said quote has always been "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, if you give them to chance to pluck out your eyes."

I've lived by that since I was about 10 years old and never looked back. If any part of a person moves towards me in a threatening way, they'll get kneed in the gut and punched in the face, hopefully they'll fall down. It's not about them, or their sex (because that's what this is really about it's not about gender). I'm just not going to tolerate people getting aggressive with me and trying to put their hands on me as an insult or to harm, it's just not going to happen.

People talking about, being the bigger person, showing that you're more rational and intelligent, and responding with violence making you just as bad as they are. I don't care.

I don't have to prove my intelligent to the people around me, and definitely not to the bystanders that I don't even know.

Being the bigger person (in the scenario of a physical altercation) doesn't solve problems, it just lets them fester and persist until the problem rears it's ugly head again.

Other men stepping into the fray? Let them, I enjoy a good tussle from time to time. Actions have consequences and I accept the consequences of my actions.

Proving that you're more rational? I'm perfectly rational. Is it so much to ask that people not put their hands on you if they intend to harm or insult you? If they decide to cross that line are they not bullying a dragon? Perhaps you play with fire and don't usually get burn, but should you really be surprised when you do get burned? Should a person be surprised that a lion mauled them when they stood too close to the cage? I don't want people hitting me, so when I see the blow coming, I put them on their ass.

Responding to violence with violence makes you as bad as they are. And? Violence works for a reason. Thinking creatures don't like pain. Violence is easy and usually doesn't take long. Everything thinking being responds to violence and pain; most of those responses are predictable. Either they will fight for dominance, submit then and act up later, prompting more violence (leading to permanent submission or continued problems in which case you just stop associating with that person) or submit permanently. I don't want people starting stuff with me, then the next day starting the exact same stuff, so when it escalates to violence I respond faster and more viciously than the original threat.

And none of that is out of anger. None of it. I don't like violence, but it has a place and a purpose. Could I respond in other ways? yes. But I chose to take the easiest and quickest road.

 

[King Aragorn]

I'm all for equality and also a feminist *actual one, not FeminiNAZI*, but I acknowledge that we can't get equality down to nature and biology. The reason why it's looked down upon is the strong attacking the weak, thus this was born. Also admittedly there is some sort of cultural influence when it comes to this taboo as men are seen as being the protective, more dominant sex thus attacking a woman is seen as taboo.
But, one thing I must address is ''more males are raped than females'' a year this is flat out incorrect. Male rape cases, while being a serious thing that needs to be addressed *especially the fact that so many reports go unheard of due to the stigma that would generate from a man saying he was sexuality assaulted* form almost 1% of rape cases out there. Rape/abuse on woman is significantly larger when it comes to numbers.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Because you shouldn't go around hitting people. Also, I highly doubt that it is worth spending a night in jail for.