Hitting... Women

WaltherFeng

New member
Oct 1, 2012
8
0
0
Call me Baz said:
"You shouldn't ever hit someone unless your life depends on it .." Guess what, emotional responses happen ALL THE TIME and they will always win out against ideals you have unless you have been conditioned to accept ridiculous amounts of stress or antagonisation which isn't emotionally healthy.
Doesn't matter if it happens or not. They are absolutely right regardless and punching someone "as emotional response" is not going to make you emotionally healthier.
 

michael87cn

New member
Jan 12, 2011
922
0
0
All I can say is the reason for the audiences reaction was because they were taught not to hit women just like you were.

Really nobody should be hitting anybody, if it ever comes to that there is not real love present. People who love other people don't hit them. The desire to hit something is tantamount to the desire to see it die, even if, briefly for a moment.

And, a single punch can kill. Houdini died from a punch to the stomach. Internal bleeding.
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
delta4062 said:
Lieju said:
Yan007 said:
Men don't simply beat weaker victims because they are weaker. Anything that is not a man will most likely be a woman (duh) and be weaker. On the other hand, males are the gender most likely to be assaulted, to die from violence and more male than female are molested/raped every single year.
I have been assaulted twice in my life.

Once by a guy who was just having a bad day and he happened to see me alone in an abandoned corridor where he could take out his anger and frustration on someone weaker.

The other time it was someone who wanted to teach a lesson for someone who is openly gay. And for some reason they didn't attack a burly gay guy one on one.

It is human nature to prey on those weaker than you.

Also where do you get your 'fact' than men are more likely to be molested and raped?
But that doesn't necessarily mean that every, or even most acts of violence like that are to someone who is weaker.

Most fights in my life have been with someone who was either the same build as me, bigger, or more than one person. Believe or not, those who enjoy violence doesn't always necessarily care who they fight. I wouldn't say I'm violent per se. But when I'm in an incredibly shitty state and actually feel like fighting at that point I wouldn't care who it was with.
Not necessarily, no.

But he was saying that 'men don't simply beat on weaker victims because they are weaker'.

Which I disagreed with. Most violence I've seen was with people attacking those who were weaker, either by ganging up on them, or choosing weaker victims.

And in either of the cases I mentioned it wasn't a 'fight'. It was a one-sided assault, where they specifically went after me because I was physically weak.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Eamar said:
It's a hangover from when women were considered the weaker, more delicate sex who needed to be protected.

In terms of domestic violence I would imagine it also has to do with disliking the idea of a (stereotypically) much larger, much physically stronger man taking out his anger on a smaller target who couldn't realistically fight back, plus there are connotations of a husband "owning" his wife and being allowed to do whatever he wants to her (bear in mind that until relatively recently it was largely believed that it wasn't possibly for a man to rape his partner, for example).
That wasn't just a belief, it was enshrined in the very legal definition of what rape was. - And the outcomes of modern rape trials statistically still show all the same biases that this archaic definition would imply...
(By it's original legal definition, you could only be raped if you were married, and by definition your husband could not rape you. - That's because the definition of rape was originally the theft of a man's exclusive conjugal rights... Meaning that, on top of every other insulting implication of that definition, to top it all off, the 'victim' of a rape, was the husband, and not the woman that had actually been raped...)

That said, as a woman I have always found the "never hit girls under any circumstances" rule insulting. If a woman starts a fight she shouldn't be able to waltz off without any consequences solely because of her gender. Not that it's something to be proud of, but I've been in fights with people of both genders. The man I fought with was perfectly justified in hitting me back, even if he was in the wrong overall (from my point of view, anyway :p ).

*standard disclaimer about how ideally no one should be hitting anyone in the first place*
I agree. The idea that you should be able to get away with violent behaviour without suffering any consequences simply because of gender alone is pretty messed up.

On the other hand, the old idea it was based on is reasonable enough in some regards...
Someone who is physically powerful shouldn't be using that advantage to abuse or intimidate those much weaker than they are. (The assumption that that's actually always true between men and women is another issue of course...)
An extreme example of this kind of thing is if an adult gets in a fight with a child...

Even if the child started it, and is being quite violent, it's still not really ok for an adult to just hit them back with no regard for the difference in strength...

If you are clearly more powerful, you have a duty to show some restraint towards those weaker than you. This should apply in ALL circumstances really, and for any kind of power (physical, mental, political, social, wealth... etc.)
But, all too often it's forgotten about, and instead you have those who can overpower others just doing as they please with little regard for others.

Not that this really has anything to do with men & women anymore, because the assumption that a man is always stronger than a woman is just... Not really a fair assumption...
 

Aramis Night

New member
Mar 31, 2013
535
0
0
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.
 

Eamar

Elite Member
Feb 22, 2012
1,320
5
43
Country
UK
Gender
Female
Baffle said:
What kind of lives are people living that women are whaling on them all the time? Does this seriously come up that often?
Hopefully no one here's living with a constant threat of violence, but obviously you never know...

I think the main reason this comes up is because in the media it is not at all uncommon to show a woman slapping a man, and for audiences to not think it's a big deal in any way. A lot of the time it's even made out to be a good, "empowering" thing.

[sub][sub]This is actually problematic for reasons other than the one being discussed here too (it implies that women are weak and their pathetic attempts at violence could never cause any real damage to a "real" man)[/sub][/sub]

On the other hand, if a man hits a woman in a similar way in a film or on TV (as described in the OP), it's considered shocking.

This leads to lots of people coming up with hypothetical arguments and moral positions that most of them will probably never actually have to test in real life.
 

Aramis Night

New member
Mar 31, 2013
535
0
0
Strawman McFallacy said:
Aramis Night said:
Strawman McFallacy said:
Aramis Night said:
the December King said:
Strawman McFallacy said:
the December King said:
Strawman McFallacy said:
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.
 

TekMoney

New member
Jun 30, 2013
92
0
0
Aramis Night said:
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.
 

Aramis Night

New member
Mar 31, 2013
535
0
0
Strawman McFallacy said:
Aramis Night said:
Strawman McFallacy said:
Aramis Night said:
Strawman McFallacy said:
Aramis Night said:
the December King said:
Strawman McFallacy said:
the December King said:
Strawman McFallacy said:
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

New member
Mar 31, 2013
535
0
0
TekMoney said:
Aramis Night said:
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

Member
Legacy
Mar 3, 2010
1,580
1
3
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

New member
Mar 31, 2013
535
0
0
Strawman McFallacy said:
Aramis Night said:
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.

the December King said:
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

Member
Legacy
Mar 3, 2010
1,580
1
3
Strawman McFallacy said:
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

Social Office Corridor
Mar 31, 2010
1,181
0
0
Aramis Night said:
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.