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

[moretimethansense]

1) Yeah, because your wrong for reasons I've explained many times. And I said I will never agree with you on this 3 times already.

2) How am I advocating the stoning of gays? Like I said before, I was talking about the tradition of a gentlemen being polite and what not, and I said that as my reasoning that the OP and are not sexist.

3) No it isn't, look it up. Heh, all the points are the same now.

4) It is, hitting women is worse than hitting a man because they are generaly more frail, this is fact. I will never understand how you could think that way.

5) No where near as much as men. It's a fact that men bully more, way more, to the point where they could strip a women of all their rights if they had the power. They do in Afghanistan and for many years before women had any rights.

OK, that's the last from me.

1) I'm not wrong you are it IS sexism it IS discrimination in the literal sense of the terms
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

2) HYPERBOLE do you even know the meaning of the term!
for fucks sake I explained this often enough, this leasds be to believe that you can't fucking read for fuck's sake.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole

3) I did, it is
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

4) How is hitting a woman in self defence in any way worse than doing so to a man?
How is hitting a woman for no reason in any way worse than hitting a man?
Assault is assault

5) your point being?
So if I were to torture a Jock it'd be okay since jocks have been torturing geeks for decades?

You arte obviously too stupid to see the blindingly obvious, IT IS SEXIST, IT IS DISCRIMINATORY, believing otherwise is the height of willful ignorance.
You can argue that it isn't wrong, but you can't argue that it isn't sexist, it'sd be like claiming that water isn#t made of hydrogen and oxygen, some things are just fact no matter how you feel about them.

 

[CatmanStu]

If a woman hits a guy, either he has deserved it (not taking a hint or being overly vulgar) or it is in the heat of an argument (which will usually be quickly regretted).

This is the exact fucking reason o many cases of female on male abuse goes unreported/prosocuted I sincerly hope that you die in a fire you sexist backwards ass pig.

I sincerely apologise for not saying 'In most cases when a women hits a guy...' and ignoring the multitude of males out there suffering at the hands of women.
Please don't take an understandable generalisation out of the context of an entire post. If you had read the next line you would have seen that I likened the idea of hitting a women to hitting someone smaller than myself. Does that mean every woman and guy smaller than me is weaker and incapable of defending themselves? Of course it doesn't; what it does mean is that as I hate victimisation in all it's forms, I prefer to stay on the side of caution.
I also looked at the two definitions (sexism and discrimination) that you kept using to justify your point of view; the definition of sexism, although it did use the word discrimination, was referring to the act of ignoring a persons RIGHTS as an individual. Are you saying that every woman has the right to be hit? I would argue that most people would consider being hit more a violation of their rights than not being hit.

If I choose not to hit a women it does not impinge on her rights as an individual, ergo it isn't sexism, ergo I am not being sexist.

PS - Discrimination usually arises from social conditioning and narrow mindedness that in turn leads to (un)justified prejudice and (ir)rational hatred; you might want to remember that before you go labelling someone you've never met and wishing them a fiery death.

 

[moretimethansense]

If a woman hits a guy, either he has deserved it (not taking a hint or being overly vulgar) or it is in the heat of an argument (which will usually be quickly regretted).

This is the exact fucking reason o many cases of female on male abuse goes unreported/prosocuted I sincerly hope that you die in a fire you sexist backwards ass pig.

I sincerely apologise for not saying 'In most cases when a women hits a guy...' and ignoring the multitude of males out there suffering at the hands of women.
Please don't take an understandable generalisation out of the context of an entire post. If you had read the next line you would have seen that I likened the idea of hitting a women to hitting someone smaller than myself. Does that mean every woman and guy smaller than me is weaker and incapable of defending themselves? Of course it doesn't; what it does mean is that as I hate victimisation in all it's forms, I prefer to stay on the side of caution.
I also looked at the two definitions (sexism and discrimination) that you kept using to justify your point of view; the definition of sexism, although it did use the word discrimination, was referring to the act of ignoring a persons RIGHTS as an individual. Are you saying that every woman has the right to be hit? I would argue that most people would consider being hit more a violation of their rights than not being hit.

If I choose not to hit a women it does not impinge on her rights as an individual, ergo it isn't sexism, ergo I am not being sexist.

PS - Discrimination usually arises from social conditioning and narrow mindedness that in turn leads to (un)justified prejudice and (ir)rational hatred; you might want to remember that before you go labelling someone you've never met and wishing them a fiery death.

I apologize for my reactionary response but far too many do in fact ignore that women are just as capable of violence and needless cruelty as men, it's something I take very personally.
As for my dictionary definition, the point is that it treats women as different, something that requires special treatment, and it discriminates against men, the idea that only men abuse is far too deeply ingrained in the public consciousness for my liking.

 

[CatmanStu]

If a woman hits a guy, either he has deserved it (not taking a hint or being overly vulgar) or it is in the heat of an argument (which will usually be quickly regretted).

This is the exact fucking reason o many cases of female on male abuse goes unreported/prosocuted I sincerly hope that you die in a fire you sexist backwards ass pig.

I sincerely apologise for not saying 'In most cases when a women hits a guy...' and ignoring the multitude of males out there suffering at the hands of women.
Please don't take an understandable generalisation out of the context of an entire post. If you had read the next line you would have seen that I likened the idea of hitting a women to hitting someone smaller than myself. Does that mean every woman and guy smaller than me is weaker and incapable of defending themselves? Of course it doesn't; what it does mean is that as I hate victimisation in all it's forms, I prefer to stay on the side of caution.
I also looked at the two definitions (sexism and discrimination) that you kept using to justify your point of view; the definition of sexism, although it did use the word discrimination, was referring to the act of ignoring a persons RIGHTS as an individual. Are you saying that every woman has the right to be hit? I would argue that most people would consider being hit more a violation of their rights than not being hit.

If I choose not to hit a women it does not impinge on her rights as an individual, ergo it isn't sexism, ergo I am not being sexist.

PS - Discrimination usually arises from social conditioning and narrow mindedness that in turn leads to (un)justified prejudice and (ir)rational hatred; you might want to remember that before you go labelling someone you've never met and wishing them a fiery death.

I apologize for my reactionary response but far too many do in fact ignore that women are just as capable of violence and needless cruelty as men, it's something I take very personally.
As for my dictionary definition, the point is that it treats women as different, something that requires special treatment, and it discriminates against men, the idea that only men abuse is far too deeply ingrained in the public consciousness for my liking.

Apology accepted.
I completely agree that the concept of female on male abuse is something that is considered laughable by society in general, but that is not the fault of chivalrous males wanting to give preferential treatment to women, it is a result of society not reacting to the change in attitude of many modern women and an outdated understanding of the word strength.
This has lead to not only to this type of violence being dismissed, but also the notion that a women has to forgo femininity and embrace masculinity to be considered strong, which in turn has lead to an increase in female aggressiveness.

I believe that strength comes in many varieties with empathy being the strongest and physical might being the weakest.

 

[moretimethansense]

snipped for brevity

The thing is that preferential treatment allows far too many injustices to happen, allow me relay a story and ask a hypothetical.

Let's say there's a man, and he has a daughter, he abuses this daughter daily, beats her if the tea isn't ready exactly when he asks for it, nearly deafens her, leaves her outside while he goes in to a pub to pick up women and get drunk and even allows his male friends to use her sexually while she is underage no less, would I be justified in beating this man to death?
Would I be justified in beating him half to death?
How do you think the courts would react to this story?

Well now I'm going to tell you the truth, that is a true story, except that it was her mother, she beat her daughter, nearly deafened her, left her outside in the burning sun while she went inside to pick up men and get drunk, and of course allowed her "gentlemen" callers to sexually abuse her.
Would I be justified in beating this woman to death?
How 'bout half?
You wanna know how the courts reacted?
They didn't, she got no punishment, her daughter (and son) were taken away but she received no further punishment, if this was a man there would be a public outrage, but because she is a woman, nobody cares.
And I would be the arsehole for killing her.

That is why I hate the idea that women somehow deserve special treatment make me violently angry.

Also don't kid yourself it's about sex, not about physical strength.

Another story if you'll indulge me?
This one is about me, Once, back when I was 17 I assaulted a 60+ year old man by throwing him against the wall.
Hate me yet?
He was weak, I still remember how light he felt as I did it, and I enjoyed the fuck out of it.
Now if I told you it were a 24 year old woman would that make you less angry or more?

Well it was a sixty plusser, but don't feel bad for him, he was my mam's second husband, he was mentally abusive and he'd often get physically violent with both her and my less-than-ten-year-old self, she finally got rid of him when he throttled me till my face went purple!
Continuing, even after she had kicked him out he'd come round and mentally abuse us both and my mother was too scared of him to tell him not to come back, if he ever got violent at someone else's home they'd come round and get my mother to deal with him even after the divorce, one day he decided he'd et violent and he attacked my mother, but at that point I was 17, a good foot taller than him and about three times his weight, I puck him up, I threw him and I felt damn good doing it.

Now was I justified in doing that?

one more, a short one,

My mother is also mentally abusive, she screams and shouts at me for no reason(literally), she constantly belittles me and once beat me around the head with a pool cue.

Would I have been justified in striking her?

I tell you this to show that I talk not from some, self imposed higher position of morality, but to show that I have seen men as abusers, and women as abusers, both from personal experience, and from learning of my friend's family situation, I have seen the different ways that abusers of both genders are treated, and it makes me sick.

I apologize for the long post, and If you have read this far I thank you for doing so.

Edited for spelling.

 

[feycreature]

I'm a pacifist, but I will defend myself in a fight. Still, I've never hit a woman even though they've started fights with me. It just feels wrong, more wrong than hitting a man. So basically, I never hit women, and I'd rather not hit men. Maybe it's sexist if you only look at the action itself, but I think we need to look into the reason behind it. It's deeply rooted in our culture and instincts. I consider myself a gentleman, I always hold the door open, pull out the chair and so on. Again, sexist, but for a good reason. The world is full of double standards, this is one of the nicer ones, so just be happy it's there!

Something being deeply rooted in your culture is not in and of itself a good reason to keep it. Slavery was a deeply rooted tradition, goes back about as far as recorded history.

That's a good point, but I still say that any tradition that abhors violence, regardless of the sexist way it does it, is good.

It's a start, but I still think tradition that abhors violence to half the population based on assumed weakness is only half good.

 

[GeorgW]

I'm a pacifist, but I will defend myself in a fight. Still, I've never hit a woman even though they've started fights with me. It just feels wrong, more wrong than hitting a man. So basically, I never hit women, and I'd rather not hit men. Maybe it's sexist if you only look at the action itself, but I think we need to look into the reason behind it. It's deeply rooted in our culture and instincts. I consider myself a gentleman, I always hold the door open, pull out the chair and so on. Again, sexist, but for a good reason. The world is full of double standards, this is one of the nicer ones, so just be happy it's there!

Something being deeply rooted in your culture is not in and of itself a good reason to keep it. Slavery was a deeply rooted tradition, goes back about as far as recorded history.

That's a good point, but I still say that any tradition that abhors violence, regardless of the sexist way it does it, is good.

It's a start, but I still think tradition that abhors violence to half the population based on assumed weakness is only half good.

True, but at least it somewhat works. What other kind of pacifist policy do you think would work, especially between testosterone filled adolecant young men?

 

[feycreature]

I'm a pacifist, but I will defend myself in a fight. Still, I've never hit a woman even though they've started fights with me. It just feels wrong, more wrong than hitting a man. So basically, I never hit women, and I'd rather not hit men. Maybe it's sexist if you only look at the action itself, but I think we need to look into the reason behind it. It's deeply rooted in our culture and instincts. I consider myself a gentleman, I always hold the door open, pull out the chair and so on. Again, sexist, but for a good reason. The world is full of double standards, this is one of the nicer ones, so just be happy it's there!

Something being deeply rooted in your culture is not in and of itself a good reason to keep it. Slavery was a deeply rooted tradition, goes back about as far as recorded history.

That's a good point, but I still say that any tradition that abhors violence, regardless of the sexist way it does it, is good.

It's a start, but I still think tradition that abhors violence to half the population based on assumed weakness is only half good.

True, but at least it somewhat works. What other kind of pacifist policy do you think would work, especially between testosterone filled adolecant young men?

Firstly I wasn't talking specifically about adolescent men. The discussion appears to be about the rule in general and whether it's sexist, not about the social life or hormonal issues of teenagers. Secondly, testosterone is not an excuse. Estrogen is not an excuse for me to scream at people or be cruel and catty, no matter how much I want to. Impulse is not action, and hitting people of any gender, nationality, religion, orientation or other classification is just generally inappropriate behaviour. We recognize this legally, unless there is some very good reason such as self-defense, hitting people is assault.

 

[GeorgW]

I'm a pacifist, but I will defend myself in a fight. Still, I've never hit a woman even though they've started fights with me. It just feels wrong, more wrong than hitting a man. So basically, I never hit women, and I'd rather not hit men. Maybe it's sexist if you only look at the action itself, but I think we need to look into the reason behind it. It's deeply rooted in our culture and instincts. I consider myself a gentleman, I always hold the door open, pull out the chair and so on. Again, sexist, but for a good reason. The world is full of double standards, this is one of the nicer ones, so just be happy it's there!

Something being deeply rooted in your culture is not in and of itself a good reason to keep it. Slavery was a deeply rooted tradition, goes back about as far as recorded history.

That's a good point, but I still say that any tradition that abhors violence, regardless of the sexist way it does it, is good.

It's a start, but I still think tradition that abhors violence to half the population based on assumed weakness is only half good.

True, but at least it somewhat works. What other kind of pacifist policy do you think would work, especially between testosterone filled adolecant young men?

Firstly I wasn't talking specifically about adolescent men. The discussion appears to be about the rule in general and whether it's sexist, not about the social life or hormonal issues of teenagers. Secondly, testosterone is not an excuse. Estrogen is not an excuse for me to scream at people or be cruel and catty, no matter how much I want to. Impulse is not action, and hitting people of any gender, nationality, religion, orientation or other classification is just generally inappropriate behaviour. We recognize this legally, unless there is some very good reason such as self-defense, hitting people is assault.

I completely agree with you, but that is not the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying that violence is impossible to completely prevent, especially within the group I mentioned. And both testosterone and estrogen makes you act violently. It's no excuse, but it has effect, and needs to be considered.

Can't we both agree that violence will never disappear, and that this atiquated, sexist, stupid rule does help a little bit, even if it's for the wrong reason? And that that's a good thing?

 

[feycreature]

I'm a pacifist, but I will defend myself in a fight. Still, I've never hit a woman even though they've started fights with me. It just feels wrong, more wrong than hitting a man. So basically, I never hit women, and I'd rather not hit men. Maybe it's sexist if you only look at the action itself, but I think we need to look into the reason behind it. It's deeply rooted in our culture and instincts. I consider myself a gentleman, I always hold the door open, pull out the chair and so on. Again, sexist, but for a good reason. The world is full of double standards, this is one of the nicer ones, so just be happy it's there!

Something being deeply rooted in your culture is not in and of itself a good reason to keep it. Slavery was a deeply rooted tradition, goes back about as far as recorded history.

That's a good point, but I still say that any tradition that abhors violence, regardless of the sexist way it does it, is good.

It's a start, but I still think tradition that abhors violence to half the population based on assumed weakness is only half good.

True, but at least it somewhat works. What other kind of pacifist policy do you think would work, especially between testosterone filled adolecant young men?

Firstly I wasn't talking specifically about adolescent men. The discussion appears to be about the rule in general and whether it's sexist, not about the social life or hormonal issues of teenagers. Secondly, testosterone is not an excuse. Estrogen is not an excuse for me to scream at people or be cruel and catty, no matter how much I want to. Impulse is not action, and hitting people of any gender, nationality, religion, orientation or other classification is just generally inappropriate behaviour. We recognize this legally, unless there is some very good reason such as self-defense, hitting people is assault.

I completely agree with you, but that is not the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying that violence is impossible to completely prevent, especially within the group I mentioned. And both testosterone and estrogen makes you act violently. It's no excuse, but it has effect, and needs to be considered.

Can't we both agree that violence will never disappear, and that this atiquated, sexist, stupid rule does help a little bit, even if it's for the wrong reason? And that that's a good thing?

Maybe it isn't possible to prevent, but to specify that only girls are off-limits condones violence against men and implies weakness for all women. And besides, "don't hit girls" is a social rule, not a reality. People do hit girls, so it doesn't even stop that violence. I just figure it's not worth aiming halfway as far as you want to go. I've never met anyone who lives up to their personal code of conduct all the time, but to limit the rule itself according to gender in a mildly (yes, mildly, I do acknowledge it's not a terrible terrible thing) insulting way just strikes me as settling for less than we deserve from each other as human beings.

I can't make predictions about the long-term future of the human race, my guesses vary depending on how much people have annoyed me on any given day from nuclear annihilation to heaven on earth. I still maintain that this chivalric rule is half of a good, working social mechanism. But I wouldn't buy half of a car. And I'm not buying half of a good rule, I have no reason to settle for that. My goal is respect and consideration for all (and believe me, I don't always live up to that either). I may never see it, but it's sure as hell never going to happen if people don't work, and argue, for it. If it's all hypothetical anyway, why settle for second prize?