Poll: Is it sexist to think it's worse (as a man) to hit a woman than another man?

Charley

New member
Apr 12, 2008
254
0
0
So, I've just had a brief tangential 'argument' in another forum thread on here about violence against women. The whole thing started based on someone's comment that they'd happily hit a man or a woman.

Now, I personally think that's pretty wrong from the outset, I'm not a fan of actual (i.e. non-fictional) violence (against anyone) - it's unnecessary. One thing that particularly bothers me is the idea of actual male violence against women. Not because women are weaker, or need protecting or any of that nonsense, but because we're supposed to have evolved past men throwing their physical weight around. In my opinion, it's abhorrent. I was raised that you never raise a hand against a woman, and to be honest I've never questioned that - it just seems like the right way to think.

Whilst that may well be an old-fashioned approach for a man to take, I don't know. However, I think it's unfair to brand me as sexist because I think it's wrong to hit a woman. I'm not looking for any arguments (or to make any digs following the thread that's prompted this) but I am curious as to what other people think - hence the dreaded poll.

One thing I'd like to know, is that if you think it's sexist, please do say why.

For the record, I'm happy for the person I was disagreeing with to join the discussion - like I said, I'm curious as to whether or not my stance on this is considered out-of-line rather than trying to prove who's right or wrong.

==

EDIT - I thought of a way of expressing what I mean that might make it a bit clearer. I think, if I hit a woman (for whatever reason), I would be significantly more ashamed of myself than if I hit a man (again for whatever reason). Assuming the act itself is equally wrong in both circumstances (i.e. you shouldn't hit anyone) that's how I'd feel about it.
 

omicron1

New member
Mar 26, 2008
1,729
0
0
I think this falls not under sexism, but chivalry. Racism/sexism/otherism tends to be applied to negative attitudes towards those deemed inferior, while positive attitudes/actions don't fall under the same label. If you're not hitting a girl because "it wouldn't be worth it" or similar, that might be sexism, but if you're not hitting a girl because you're trying to be nice - even if you're just trying to be nice to her because of her gender - it's not really sexist at all.
 

Biosophilogical

New member
Jul 8, 2009
3,264
0
0
Well ... a little I guess. I'm more of the 'qualities of the person' rather than 'sex of the person'. So if there is some buff as woman, and I had a reason to hit her (and a really good one; I tend to avoid unnecessary violence), then I'd hit her the same as I would hit a man of equal stature. Same rule applies to how I feel about hitting less-buff women and men. It's about how warranted the violence is and how much harm the violence would cause on the person (as in, an equal force on different people produces unequal results), sex is never really a factor (not that I'm ever actually violent, so this is all just how I feel in an untested hypothetical situation).
 

Kortney

New member
Nov 2, 2009
1,960
0
0
The only reason you should ever hit somebody is to protect yourself.

Is it more socially acceptable to hit a male over a pointless bar fight than a female? Yes, of course. I don't think that is sexist. Most women are physically weaker than most men.
 

Charley

New member
Apr 12, 2008
254
0
0
The 'qualities of a person' is an interesting way of thinking about it. I'll be honest, I'm not going to change the way I think for fear of appearing sexist - I don't think that not wanting to hit women is a bad thing (nor do I expect to convince anyone that disagrees that I'm right).

It's a shame that seven people think it's sexist but didn't deign to say why.
 

trueluigi7

New member
Nov 22, 2009
206
0
0
I would never hit a woman, except if it was Self-Defense of myself or another person, but that's me as many others, why though...I don't know, but I just wouldn't hit a woman

I do not think it is a sexist thought to see it immoral to hit a woman if you are a man, if it is not for the reason thinking women are weaker which is a sexist thought
 

interspark

New member
Dec 20, 2009
3,272
0
0
i think violence is never justified (unless you count sporting events), but i don't think it's any worse hitting a woman than a man, unless you actually take advantage of a woman's (for want of a better word) weakness to have your own way, that's just dispicable! in cases of domestic violence i think those people are the lowest kind of scum, but if a man were the victim of domestic violence, that would be equally bad
 

Blackjack 222

New member
Dec 2, 2009
386
0
0
Doesn't matter much. Either way you would get a law suit, lose loads of money in legal fees, and if it was a woman the jury would eat you alive.
 

Charley

New member
Apr 12, 2008
254
0
0
interspark said:
i think violence is never justified (unless you count sporting events), but i don't think it's any worse hitting a woman than a man, unless you actually take advantage of a woman's (for want of a better word) weakness to have your own way, that's just dispicable! in cases of domestic violence i think those people are the lowest kind of scum, but if, hypothetically (because i dont actually think it's ever happened) a man were the victim of domestic violence, that would be equally bad
Actually, it happens a lot - the statistics are very low because of the social norms that pressure men into not reporting it. That's not supposed to justify anything, just thought I'd let you know.

The question here isn't whether it's sexist to not hit women, but to think that doing so is wrong - I think they're different things, but I don't know how other people consider it.
 

Charley

New member
Apr 12, 2008
254
0
0
Here's an interesting side question - I wonder how many men think it's sexist vs. how many women do?
 

Richter_Kleiss

New member
Nov 2, 2010
35
0
0
I think the thing is people tend to associate that sort of violence with outside factors. Like interspark noted "to have your own way". I think that it's not necessarily 'worse', but it might be the addition reasons surrounding it which have people think "this is worse!".

Although, do you suppose 'woman hitting man to assert dominance' is less worse than 'man hitting woman to assert dominance'?
 

TWRule

New member
Dec 3, 2010
465
0
0
It's not necessarily sexism, but probably sexual discrimination (there is a difference).

If you don't hit a woman merely -because- she is a woman and for no other reason (let's say she was the exact physical proportions, disposition, etc of a man that you'd hit), then yes you are discriminating based solely on sex.

It's not sexism as long as you don't make some sort of value judgement than women are inherently inferior to men in some way (at least, according to wikipedia).
 

Imat

New member
Feb 21, 2009
519
0
0
omicron1 said:
I think this falls not under sexism, but chivalry. Racism/sexism/otherism tends to be applied to negative attitudes towards those deemed inferior, while positive attitudes/actions don't fall under the same label. If you're not hitting a girl because "it wouldn't be worth it" or similar, that might be sexism, but if you're not hitting a girl because you're trying to be nice - even if you're just trying to be nice to her because of her gender - it's not really sexist at all.
Many say that chivalry is, itself, sexist, a statement which I, myself, reject outright.

Chivalry in the Middle Ages may have been sexist as many claim, I really can't put myself in the mindset of an 1100's knight with nothing better to do than chase after women using the power of charm and subservience (to an extent), but I can say that I try to be what I believe to be "chivalrous" towards women, and not all of them appreciate it. Chivalry isn't about "protecting the weaker sex" or "helping women do things they couldn't possibly do on their own, because they're women," the objective is to help for the sake of being a gentleman, to do something which may not be in any way directly beneficial to yourself because you want to be a nice guy or a good person. Chivalry is not sexist, nor is it dead. There are simply noticeably fewer practitioners of this worthy art.
 

Charley

New member
Apr 12, 2008
254
0
0
TWRule said:
It's not necessarily sexism, but probably sexual discrimination (there is a difference).

If you don't hit a woman merely -because- she is a woman and for no other reason (let's say she was the exact physical proportions, disposition, etc of a man that you'd hit), then yes you are discriminating based solely on sex.

It's not sexism as long as you don't make some sort of value judgement than women are inherently inferior to men in some way (at least, according to wikipedia).
So (no judgements here) are we saying that if someone was actively sexually discriminating -not- to hit someone that would be a bad thing?

Would the same apply if you chose not to hit a child or an elderly person (from an age perspective)?
 

NeedAUserName

New member
Aug 7, 2008
3,803
0
0
No. Men are in general built to be stronger then women, its fact, not sexism. Its the same reason that almost all sports are segregated by gender.
 

Richter_Kleiss

New member
Nov 2, 2010
35
0
0
Imat said:
omicron1 said:
I think this falls not under sexism, but chivalry. Racism/sexism/otherism tends to be applied to negative attitudes towards those deemed inferior, while positive attitudes/actions don't fall under the same label. If you're not hitting a girl because "it wouldn't be worth it" or similar, that might be sexism, but if you're not hitting a girl because you're trying to be nice - even if you're just trying to be nice to her because of her gender - it's not really sexist at all.
Many say that chivalry is, itself, sexist, a statement which I, myself, reject outright.

Chivalry in the Middle Ages may have been sexist as many claim, I really can't put myself in the mindset of an 1100's knight with nothing better to do than chase after women using the power of charm and subservience (to an extent), but I can say that I try to be what I believe to be "chivalrous" towards women, and not all of them appreciate it. Chivalry isn't about "protecting the weaker sex" or "helping women do things they couldn't possibly do on their own, because they're women," the objective is to help for the sake of being a gentleman, to do something which may not be in any way directly beneficial to yourself because you want to be a nice guy or a good person. Chivalry is not sexist, nor is it dead. There are simply noticeably fewer practitioners of this worthy art.
I think it's just a way to describe a man being polite to a woman.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,528
0
0
Imat said:
omicron1 said:
I think this falls not under sexism, but chivalry. Racism/sexism/otherism tends to be applied to negative attitudes towards those deemed inferior, while positive attitudes/actions don't fall under the same label. If you're not hitting a girl because "it wouldn't be worth it" or similar, that might be sexism, but if you're not hitting a girl because you're trying to be nice - even if you're just trying to be nice to her because of her gender - it's not really sexist at all.
Many say that chivalry is, itself, sexist, a statement which I, myself, reject outright.

Chivalry in the Middle Ages may have been sexist as many claim, I really can't put myself in the mindset of an 1100's knight with nothing better to do than chase after women using the power of charm and subservience (to an extent), but I can say that I try to be what I believe to be "chivalrous" towards women, and not all of them appreciate it. Chivalry isn't about "protecting the weaker sex" or "helping women do things they couldn't possibly do on their own, because they're women," the objective is to help for the sake of being a gentleman, to do something which may not be in any way directly beneficial to yourself because you want to be a nice guy or a good person. Chivalry is not sexist, nor is it dead. There are simply noticeably fewer practitioners of this worthy art.
I agree. Chivalry isn't just directed towards women either, at least I don't think it is? I hold doors open for men and women, both young and old and it's amazing how many people don't thank me for it (not that I do it for the recognition).
 

Berethond

New member
Nov 8, 2008
6,474
0
0
Imat said:
omicron1 said:
I think this falls not under sexism, but chivalry. Racism/sexism/otherism tends to be applied to negative attitudes towards those deemed inferior, while positive attitudes/actions don't fall under the same label. If you're not hitting a girl because "it wouldn't be worth it" or similar, that might be sexism, but if you're not hitting a girl because you're trying to be nice - even if you're just trying to be nice to her because of her gender - it's not really sexist at all.
Many say that chivalry is, itself, sexist, a statement which I, myself, reject outright.

Chivalry in the Middle Ages may have been sexist as many claim, I really can't put myself in the mindset of an 1100's knight with nothing better to do than chase after women using the power of charm and subservience (to an extent), but I can say that I try to be what I believe to be "chivalrous" towards women, and not all of them appreciate it. Chivalry isn't about "protecting the weaker sex" or "helping women do things they couldn't possibly do on their own, because they're women," the objective is to help for the sake of being a gentleman, to do something which may not be in any way directly beneficial to yourself because you want to be a nice guy or a good person. Chivalry is not sexist, nor is it dead. There are simply noticeably fewer practitioners of this worthy art.
I'd always thought that chivalry was just a different strategy for getting as much sexin' as possible.