NationStates Jolt Archive

People say hitting chicks is bad but hitting guys is ok, but the thing about that is that its sexist(I don't hit, I slap I gotta protect myself somehow)

it's jsut a personal preference, i suppose. personally, i still got a thing for chivalry, adn the concept that it is the sex's differences that makes them wonderful, and that stamping those out in favor of an absolutely equality is perhaps not the way to go. besides which, i have been hit by my girlfriend (never seriously), and i know that she has to try very hard and for a very long time to hurt me. i also know that if i ever decked her, she would be in a great deal of pain. and i would not enjoy it in the least.

if a guy hit me i'd be in absolute agony and sobbing my little heart out, if i hit a guy (which i would never do because it isn't very ladylike) he would hardly even notice that I'd hit him

if a guy hit me i'd be in absolute agony and sobbing my little heart out, if i hit a guy (which i would never do because it isn't very ladylike) he would hardly even notice that I'd hit him

This is why guys shouldn't hit women. Look --- They're not gonna be nearly as strong as you, so amplify the pain of your fist hitting your own leg by ten, and there ya go.

Hurts, doesn't it?

The thing is it's not just in this area that sexism has double standerds it seems that some women only want equality in the areas it suits them.It's more persoanl pride than anything else for example i use to carpool with with a girl to and from work and one night it was quite cold and our lift was late and she had no jacket so i offered her mine, she said "god your so sexist" but still accepted my coat and wore it leaving me cold.She wasn't even kidding when she said it either.Also guys are still normally expected to pay for meals in restaurants ask girls on dates not hit them but their allowed hit us i mean don't get me wrong i prefer it that way but equality of the sexes has turned into prefered equality it's like biased netrality.

I guess I'm old-fashioned ,or it may be that my parents were much older than my friends parents, but I was taught from the earliest not to hit women. I never have and I was once hit with a hot frying pan by an ex-girlfriend.

hmmm... i remember catching hell from my stance on this in college.

in general, im against males striking females. in general, im also against violence.

granted, if i had to, i would use violence to defend myself against a female, but the odds of that are very slim.

in my experience, females tend to be less physically intimidating then men, and dont get involved in so many of the 'pissing contests' that tend to be a prelude to violence.

secondly, aside from looking at it from a male/female perspective, try looking at it from a power distribution perspective. not only is the average male stronger then the average female, but he is usually built a bit more robustly, and capable of sustaining more damage.

i know its going to come, so go ahead and call me sexist/whatnot. and i admit im not allowing for skill, speed, martial arts, other training, etc. i guess i just feel people should act civilized, which means trying to avoid violence as a means to settle problems, and also, people should try to avoid using violence to coerce those who may be weaker then themselves(and in a strictly physical/muscle stance, this would parallell male/female violence)
plus, women tend to be more sensible then males.

(now i know im going to catch hell from both sides....)

The thing is it's not just in this area that sexism has double standerds it seems that some women only want equality in the areas it suits them.It's more persoanl pride than anything else for example i use to carpool with with a girl to and from work and one night it was quite cold and our lift was late and she had no jacket so i offered her mine, she said "god your so sexist" but still accepted my coat and wore it leaving me cold.She wasn't even kidding when she said it either.Also guys are still normally expected to pay for meals in restaurants ask girls on dates not hit them but their allowed hit us i mean don't get me wrong i prefer it that way but equality of the sexes has turned into prefered equality it's like biased netrality.
this is why feminism bugs me a lot. I'm all for equality for men and women but i think we had it before feminism became such a huge big deal, a lot of women seem to think that women should be treated better than men and disguise this by saying they just want men and women to be seen as equals.

i determined in a conversation with a friend of mine that it would take about 3 straight days of her beating beating me for me to slug a woman. perhaps there is such a thing as too patient.

This issue has should have nothing to do with feminism or gender. One should not commit physical violence against others as it is a violation of the law, illegitamate, and accomplishes nothing(excluding self defense). Why is this even being debated, who likes to be hit or the victim of violence?... Nobody...

Sex, Gender and Feminism have nothing to do with it!

People say hitting chicks is bad but hitting guys is ok, but the thing about that is that its sexist(I don't hit, I slap I gotta protect myself somehow)
Well I think if it's slapping in fun or whatever (I tend to do it to emphasis a point...) is OK as long as the person doesn't mind. It's more of a personal thing, than a gender thing.

And as for hitting people fo real, maybe it's just best not to do it... Guys, or girls.

People say hitting chicks is bad but hitting guys is ok, but the thing about that is that its sexist(I don't hit, I slap I gotta protect myself somehow)Hitting is not OK, not for chicks, not for guys. If a chick ever hit me, I wouldn't slap. I'd leave her so fast there'd be a vortex. Just to let you know, hitting can escalate and there have been cases of men getting seriously hurt by women because they didn't think they should hit back and they weren't smart enough to leave. Abuse is one thing that is --er-- gender neutral.

getting hit by a woman is the pain equivalent of getting hit by an 11 year old boy. if you, as a man, would punch an 11 year old boy, then i guess you could punch a woman. but, as was pointed out, you hit very much harder than she does. when you break a bone in her face, you are going to feel pretty bad about over reacting to that slap.

yes, women can abuse men. it happens more frequently than you think because few men will admit it. escalating the violence is not the answer. getting out and getting help is.

as regards sexist/feminist things, if you are too "gentlemanly" to take full advantage of feminism then you shouldnt whine about it afterwards. its not manly. if you give a woman your jacket, you have done the chivalrous thing whether she appreciates it or not.

This issue has should have nothing to do with feminism or gender. One should not commit physical violence against others as it is a violation of the law, illegitamate, and accomplishes nothing(excluding self defense). Why is this even being debated, who likes to be hit or the victim of violence?... Nobody...

Sex, Gender and Feminism have nothing to do with it!

What he/she said /\

Doesn't matter what gender the person you're hitting is. It's not right.

There's hardly ever a reason for a man to hit a woman. You should do so only if you are being attacked by a criminal or psychotic chick and you have to hit her to protect yourself from serious bodily harm.

If some broad slaps you or seriously insults you, you should counter by either reducing her to tears through insults and verbal abuse, or just sue her. Hitting her will only make you look like a dickhead and get you arrested and prosecuted.

Ladies, you also must understand that you don't have the right to hit a guy except in self defense. You're protected because of the fact that you're weaker and more delicate, but abuse that protection and someday you'll stumble upon a guy who will hit you back.

But what if a really butch women who has the potential to kick your ass good and proper takes a swing at you?

But what if a really butch women who has the potential to kick your ass good and proper takes a swing at you?
well if she's gonna kick your ass i wouldn't waste your time trying to fight, you should run!

this is a bit like something Maddox said (god...im quoting him)

11. React so cutely when you hit him and it actually hurts.
See, this is what pisses me off about women: they expect special treatment at their discretion. They want equal rights, equal pay, and equal treatment for everything EXCEPT when it comes to shit like this, then they want you to "react cutely" instead of, say, putting them in a head lock and making them eat ants and/or spiders while you give them carpet burn. Why don't women react "cutely" when men hit them for a change? Oops, I forgot, that's domestic abuse.
source (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.com/26_things.html)

hes right though (apart from the headlock bit)

You could just ignore everyone, and solve the problem.

You could just ignore everyone, and solve the problem.
Ignoring problems doesn't solve them. Distancing yourself from the person who's causing the problem might, but just ignoring it and hanging around with the problem person is just inviting more trouble.

No one should be hitting anyone.
No one should stay with someone who thinks that hitting is funny, or OK.

this is why feminism bugs me a lot. I'm all for equality for men and women but i think we had it before feminism became such a huge big deal, a lot of women seem to think that women should be treated better than men and disguise this by saying they just want men and women to be seen as equals.
Oh Tink, I'm disappointed! After all the times I have talked about feminism, trying to dispel this very myth, and you're still repeating it! Feminism is about gender equity, not one gender over all others. If someone comes to you, calling themselves a feminist, saying, "I hate men, let's beat them and castrate them for fun and profit," then you go right ahead and tell them they're no kind of feminist at all. To blanket statement the rest of us, who work damn hard (men, women and transgenders) to advance gender equity is demeaning, and incorrect. The extremists always seem to get more attention than the rest of ANY group...please don't judge those groups by them.

No one should be hitting anyone.
No one should stay with someone who thinks that hitting is funny, or OK.
Exactly. No matter the gender of the person doing the hitting.

Oh Tink, I'm disappointed! After all the times I have talked about feminism, trying to dispel this very myth, and you're still repeating it! Feminism is about gender equity, not one gender over all others. If someone comes to you, calling themselves a feminist, saying, "I hate men, let's beat them and castrate them for fun and profit," then you go right ahead and tell them they're no kind of feminist at all. To blanket statement the rest of us, who work damn hard (men, women and transgenders) to advance gender equity is demeaning, and incorrect. The extremists always seem to get more attention than the rest of ANY group...please don't judge those groups by them.
don't worry, you have tamed my views on feminism a lot, but i still come across so many that just seem to hate men and i just want to kill them, but i know you're a good kind of feminist

this is why feminism bugs me a lot. I'm all for equality for men and women but i think we had it before feminism became such a huge big deal, a lot of women seem to think that women should be treated better than men and disguise this by saying they just want men and women to be seen as equals.

Do you know where the phrase "Rule of Thumb" comes from?

don't worry, you have tamed my views on feminism a lot, but i still come across so many that just seem to hate men and i just want to kill them, but i know you're a good kind of feminist
Ok, Jolt is really getting on my last nerve...I've lost this post three time! RAR!

Well thanks, Tink:). But really...how many 'feminists' have you really met that hated men (or at the very least, wanted to be 'above' them in status) that actually had the faintest idea what feminism is? People can run around calling themselves communists, anarchists, punks, elves, hippies or whatever...but if they know nothing about the movement or history of the group they claim to be a part of (which one of these names just doesn't belong?), it's all a load of crap. And did any of these women you speak of actually call themselves feminists? Or were they just lousy bastards, period?

Please, please don't smear feminism when I think you KNOW those of us who really ARE feminists don't deserve it. And people start to internalise these stereotypes and believe it of us all...meaning I spend too much of my time debunking the myths instead of getting my work done:).

I'll repeat myself.

No one should be hitting anyone.

And I'll add:

This has nothing to do with feminism, sexism, or equality. It is a boneheaded thread started by someone with an axe to grind.

Very probably someone who would like to hit women and get away with it.

Bad news: every woman I help gets a pistol and training from me

I'll repeat myself.

No one should be hitting anyone.

And I'll add:

This has nothing to do with feminism, sexism, or equality. It is a boneheaded thread started by someone with an axe to grind.

Very probably someone who would like to hit women and get away with it.

Bad news: every woman I help gets a pistol and training from me
You're right. Thank you.

And again, I have a tonne of new respect for you for what you do to help women. Thank you again.

Ok, Jolt is really getting on my last nerve...I've lost this post three time! RAR!

Well thanks, Tink:). But really...how many 'feminists' have you really met that hated men (or at the very least, wanted to be 'above' them in status) that actually had the faintest idea what feminism is? People can run around calling themselves communists, anarchists, punks, elves, hippies or whatever...but if they know nothing about the movement or history of the group they claim to be a part of (which one of these names just doesn't belong?), it's all a load of crap. And did any of these women you speak of actually call themselves feminists? Or were they just lousy bastards, period?

Please, please don't smear feminism when I think you KNOW those of us who really ARE feminists don't deserve it. And people start to internalise these stereotypes and believe it of us all...meaning I spend too much of my time debunking the myths instead of getting my work done:).
In real life I've only known 3 feminists, they were at my old school and they all called themselves feminists and they all gave me reason to think feminism is completely stupid, though like i said, you and a few others on here have since tamed my views on feminism and i don't think it's all that bad

In real life I've only known 3 feminists, they were at my old school and they all called themselves feminists and they all gave me reason to think feminism is completely stupid, though like i said, you and a few others on here have since tamed my views on feminism and i don't think it's all that bad
Well, after all...HerPower was based on a real person I grew up around:). I think the time of the feminist/lesbian/man-hater faded back in the late 80s. I don't think anyone would let that type get away with it anymore.

So screw this thread...it's misnamed.

I think its a tad too pacifistic to say that no one should hit anyone regardless of gender. Yes, you should not hit a woman that you know is weaker than you, but if you have beef with another man, and you fracture his face in three places, then that's fair game. By man, I do not of course mean little boys or men of substantial inferiority concerning physical strength. Like dwarfs or something.

Well, after all...HerPower was based on a real person I grew up around:). I think the time of the feminist/lesbian/man-hater faded back in the late 80s. I don't think anyone would let that type get away with it anymore.

So screw this thread...it's misnamed.
yeah, i thought that when i first read it, and i agree about the not hitting anyone, it isn't ladylike or gentlmanly to hit and it's downright mean

I think its a tad too pacifistic to say that no one should hit anyone regardless of gender. Yes, you should not hit a woman that you know is weaker than you, but if you have beef with another man, and you fracture his face in three places, then that's fair game. By man, I do not of course mean little boys or men of substantial inferiority concerning physical strength. Like dwarfs or something.

I disagree.

Just because you 'have a beef' with another man, doesn't in any way equate to it being 'fair game' to 'fracture his face'.

I 'have a beef' with your assertion... would that make it okay for me to strike you violently?

I don't believe so... perhaps you think that makes me 'too pacisfistic'?

I think its a tad too pacifistic to say that no one should hit anyone regardless of gender. Yes, you should not hit a woman that you know is weaker than you, but if you have beef with another man, and you fracture his face in three places, then that's fair game. By man, I do not of course mean little boys or men of substantial inferiority concerning physical strength. Like dwarfs or something.
Yes, because brutally beating another human being during an argument is the mature, macho thing to do :rolleyes: .

This is a gender stereotype I seriously hope I can help any sons I might have to avoid falling into. Violence, REGARDLESS of your gender, is not appropriate except in extreme instances (and even then, with training, you can avoid seriously hurting someone else even in self defence).

Fair game? Because you're a man, and your victim is a man? No. Don't use your gender or his as an excuse.

I think its a tad too pacifistic to say that no one should hit anyone regardless of gender. Yes, you should not hit a woman that you know is weaker than you, but if you have beef with another man, and you fracture his face in three places, then that's fair game. By man, I do not of course mean little boys or men of substantial inferiority concerning physical strength. Like dwarfs or something.
There's a dwarf who lives in Bordentown NJ who is a former "midget wrestler". His name is Frankie "Third Degree" Burns. He's been known to beat up full sized guys who think they can push him around because of his height.

Yes, because brutally beating another human being during an argument is the mature, macho thing to do :rolleyes: .

I've always thought that man or woman, you should never offer violence - but if someone offers it, you have an obligation to finish it.

Yes, because brutally beating another human being during an argument is the mature, macho thing to do :rolleyes: .

This is a gender stereotype I seriously hope I can help any sons I might have to avoid falling into. Violence, REGARDLESS of your gender, is not appropriate except in extreme instances (and even then, with training, you can avoid seriously hurting someone else even in self defence).

Fair game? Because you're a man, and your victim is a man? No. Don't use your gender or his as an excuse.
There are lines people can't be allowed to cross. I've been in situations where people have thought that they can get away with verbal abuse and destruction of my property and there was nothing I could or would do about it. I proved them wrong. I have no regrets for those fights.

there is a bit of s double-standard, just as there is with racism (at least in the united states); if a white person says anything bad about a US minority -- validly critical or otherwise -- that person is branded a racist. Conversely, a member of a minority group can make completely racist remarks about white people, and the statements are ignored or even said to be comments concerning the state of "social/racial justice"... such racist statements are often said to be actually excusable or even correct.

As long as any racism (in any form, but especially blatant racism...) is excused, there will continue to be racism. Two wrongs do not make a right, and allowing one group to exhibit racism without recourse or negative comment will guarantee that racism will live. Imagine the consternation of the group A, who, whenever they say ANYTHING negative about group B (whether meritous or thoughtful) is branded a racist, while those of Group B may make any racist comment about Group A without recourse.

This is an example of a double-standard. A related paradox is that we try to end racism by legislating racism (see affirmative action in the US).

If we want to end sexism, we must treat each other (men and women alike) as equals -- equal (or highly similar) expectations except where obviously (due to inherent differences between the sexes) impossible.

If we want to end racism, we must look at each other as people instead of colors and treat each other thusly.

There are lines people can't be allowed to cross. I've been in situations where people have thought that they can get away with verbal abuse and destruction of my property and there was nothing I could or would do about it. I proved them wrong. I have no regrets for those fights.
And that is your right. That is part of your beliefs, and I don't fault you for it. However, I am not 'pacifistic' (using the negative connotation that this label generally comes with). I grew up around physical violence, and engaged in a lot of it myself. However, I abhor violence, and I have made a conscious decision to avoid it whenever possible. Even in situations where someone else might think that it is inevitable. If someone is verbally abusing me, or destroying my property, violence (to me) is not going to improve the situation. Who is verbally abusing me? A stranger? What do I care? A friend? Not so for much longer. My property is being damaged? There are laws to deal with that, and frankly, getting violent over it not only hurts your case, but is much less satisfying than the fines and/or jail time that can be meted out if you access the law.

Not even in self-defense would I willingly harm another person if I could at all help it. Would I let myself be raped or beaten? If the only other option was my death (if I struggled), then yes, I might, if there was no way to stop my assailant short of killing them. Would I allow someone to harm my children? Absolutely not. But if I could at all avoid causing serious harm to the attacker in the process of stopping them, I would.

What this boils down to is not fear...not 'passivity', not acceptance of violence, but rather a negation of such. Just because someone 'starts' it, does not mean there is the inevitability that you must 'finish it' with violence. In my opinion.

Repeat after me:

Hitting people is bad. Period.

Violence is bad. Period.

There are rarely, if ever, circumstances where the harm of violence is necessary to prevent greater harm.

Repeat after me:

Hitting people is bad. Period.

Violence is bad. Period.

There are rarely, if ever, circumstances where the harm of violence is necessary to prevent greater harm.
If violence is so bad then why do I and many others like a good fight? Hell, I've been beaten up and felt good afterwards because I put up a good fight.

People say hitting chicks is bad but hitting guys is ok, but the thing about that is that its sexist(I don't hit, I slap I gotta protect myself somehow)
question is, why are girls always hitting you?

If violence is so bad then why do I and many others like a good fight? Hell, I've been beaten up and felt good afterwards because I put up a good fight.

Is the only standard of right and wrong whether the perpetrator enjoys an activity?

*shudders*

What this boils down to is not fear...not 'passivity', not acceptance of violence, but rather a negation of such. Just because someone 'starts' it, does not mean there is the inevitability that you must 'finish it' with violence. In my opinion.

In my personal experience, and in the experience of those I help, any submission is interpreted as an invitation for more and worse. Just because you finish it doesn't mean that you actually engage in violence, either.

For these women, the fact that the men know that they are armed, and willing to kill to defend themselves, seems to have worked without firing a shot, or even pointing a gun at anyone.

A man who gets off on beating a woman is a coward at heart. Show him that you have the legal means to shoot him down like a dog, and he won't show his face.

And that is your right. That is part of your beliefs, and I don't fault you for it. However, I am not 'pacifistic' (using the negative connotation that this label generally comes with). I grew up around physical violence, and engaged in a lot of it myself. However, I abhor violence, and I have made a conscious decision to avoid it whenever possible. Even in situations where someone else might think that it is inevitable. If someone is verbally abusing me, or destroying my property, violence (to me) is not going to improve the situation. Who is verbally abusing me? A stranger? What do I care? A friend? Not so for much longer. My property is being damaged? There are laws to deal with that, and frankly, getting violent over it not only hurts your case, but is much less satisfying than the fines and/or jail time that can be meted out if you access the law.

Not even in self-defense would I willingly harm another person if I could at all help it. Would I let myself be raped or beaten? If the only other option was my death (if I struggled), then yes, I might, if there was no way to stop my assailant short of killing them. Would I allow someone to harm my children? Absolutely not. But if I could at all avoid causing serious harm to the attacker in the process of stopping them, I would.

What this boils down to is not fear...not 'passivity', not acceptance of violence, but rather a negation of such. Just because someone 'starts' it, does not mean there is the inevitability that you must 'finish it' with violence. In my opinion. thats disconcerting to read. what are you going to do when they get out of jail, and come back for you?

Repeat after me:

Hitting people is bad. Period.

Violence is bad. Period.

There are rarely, if ever, circumstances where the harm of violence is necessary to prevent greater harm.
explain yourself. what about self defense? what about getting attacked? what about getting murdered?

If violence is so bad then why do I and many others like a good fight? Hell, I've been beaten up and felt good afterwards because I put up a good fight.
Because people often do wrong things (sleeping with their neighbour's wife for instance) and feel good about it after. Feeling good about it doesn't make it 'good'.

Because people often do wrong things (sleeping with their neighbour's wife for instance) and feel good about it after. Feeling good about it doesn't make it 'good'.
So would you say people who fight in the ring in boxing or martial arts fights are doing something bad?

If violence is so bad then why do I and many others like a good fight? Hell, I've been beaten up and felt good afterwards because I put up a good fight.
you are reconnecting with your primal urges and tendencies through an andrenaline rush. humans, whether you think they were hunters/gathers, or whatnot, still have biological structures that trigger the fight or flight syndrome. its a natural feeling. people that abhor violence, thats fine. but domt you feel great when you punch the proverbial pillow during times of stress? of course you do.

explain yourself. what about self defense? what about getting attacked? what about getting murdered?

Those are, rather obviously, circumstances where violence is justified. That it is justified does not make it good -- merely necessary and excusable.

"Self-defense" and "getting attacked" are fairly broad concepts, however. They should not be abused to excuse aggression.

Legitimate self-defense is a necessary evil. Only in the rarest of occasions is it "good."

In my personal experience, and in the experience of those I help, any submission is interpreted as an invitation for more and worse. Just because you finish it doesn't mean that you actually engage in violence, either.
Which is my point. I misinterpreted what you said to mean that you would finish it with violence. Passifism (non-violence) is not submission. In fact, it is active non-submission, and a heck of a lot more dangerous than submission.

For these women, the fact that the men know that they are armed, and willing to kill to defend themselves, seems to have worked without firing a shot, or even pointing a gun at anyone.
And probably stops a lot of violence from happening. I'm not against people being able to defend themselves. I am against them agressively seeking violence. However, on a larger scale, ideas like MAD don't gel with my philosophy. And I could never bring myself to kill someone I could disarm, or stop any other way. It would have to be the ultimate, last resort, and in some cases, my own death might be preferable.

Is the only standard of right and wrong whether the perpetrator enjoys an activity?

*shudders*
I tend to feel guilt and regret if I do something bad. I've stolen before, used violence and the threat of violence to collect money that was owed, and other unethical things. I felt guilt for that. I never felt guilt for fighting when the opponent was just as willing as I was or when I was standing up for myslef or my friends against an unwarranted attack.

So would you say people who fight in the ring in boxing or martial arts fights are doing something bad?

Consensual, regulated combat of that kind is a different case.

It still can cause harm -- both the individuals involved and to society. It also has some benefit.

Which is my point. I misinterpreted what you said to mean that you would finish it with violence. Passifism (non-violence) is not submission. In fact, it is active non-submission, and a heck of a lot more dangerous than submission.


And probably stops a lot of violence from happening. I'm not against people being able to defend themselves. I am against them agressively seeking violence. However, on a larger scale, ideas like MAD don't gel with my philosophy. And I could never bring myself to kill someone I could disarm, or stop any other way. It would have to be the ultimate, last resort, and in some cases, my own death might be preferable.
iasked you a question on the previous page. and have you ever been in an actual life or death situation? has anyone actually tried to harm your kids?

And probably stops a lot of violence from happening. I'm not against people being able to defend themselves. I am against them agressively seeking violence. However, on a larger scale, ideas like MAD don't gel with my philosophy. And I could never bring myself to kill someone I could disarm, or stop any other way. It would have to be the ultimate, last resort, and in some cases, my own death might be preferable.

Some of the women tell me, after the shooting classes, that they don't think they could kill their abuser if he shows up.

I make it very clear - it is the abuser you need to convince, not yourself. If he's convinced you'll kill him, he'll leave you alone. If it comes down to it, and you have to kill him, you will, whether you want to or not.

Consensual, regulated combat of that kind is a different case.

It still can cause harm -- both the individuals involved and to society. It also has some benefit.

The government also sanctions forms of combat (the military, the police), and some forms of self-defense (depending on your jurisdiction).

Doesn't make it morally right. But any day above ground is a good day. Better to be alive and well, than raped, abused, and dead.

thats disconcerting to read. what are you going to do when they get out of jail, and come back for you?
I love how these thread get so sidetracked! (and I really mean that...it's fun!)

Occ, I know we've kind of discussed this before, but I'll try to explain my views on this. Keep in mind...these are MY views, and I don't advocate forcing others to believe the same.

There is submission. There is fear. There is meekly accepting punishment that you do not deserve, physical, verbal, emotional or other. That is not non-violence.

Then there is passive-resistance. If I am protesting, and police choose to start beating protesters, I will avoid being beaten as much as I can, but I will not be deterred or intimidated. I will not fight back, and give them the satisfaction and the justification to be harsher. I can only hope that when they see that their victims are offering no resistance, but are unafraid, that their shame will stop them. But I pick my battles. If this was a protest about tuition hikes, would I let myself be beaten to a pulp? Probably not.

A woman was brutally raped and tortured in India a few months ago by soldiers in a nearby garrison. The women of the town, in protest, stripped themselves naked and wore placards daring men to rape them as they walked down the street in silence. Is this submission? Is this fear?

When it comes down to a less political struggle of a mugging, for example, again, I choose my battles. If giving up my purse saves me a beating, I'll do it. What value does my purse have over my health? If this person really needs my money, they can have it. If I'm going to be beaten anyway, I need to make a decision. Can I disarm my attacker and escape? Would offering no physical resistance deter him or her? If I CAN CHOOSE NON-VIOLENCE, I will.

Nothing for me is set in stone. I live my life by a set of values that have to be adapted to the particular situation. We could discuss specific scenarios all day, but at the core of my actions will be the belief that violence is wrong.

I have hit a woman before ... its called sparring :D she hit me back as well ;)

So would you say people who fight in the ring in boxing or martial arts fights are doing something bad?
The point of boxing or of martial arts is not violence. It is the demonstration of a skill. Now, if a boxer or martial artist went out and used their skill to be violent, then it would be wrong. Most martial artists are extremely cognizant of the difference between a match, and a fight, and laws reflect that someone's skills in this area constitute an unfair advantage. For many people who practice the martial arts, AVOIDING real violence is the point of them learning their skills. Being able to disarm, rather than kill.

The point of boxing or of martial arts is not violence. It is the demonstration of a skill. Now, if a boxer or martial artist went out and used their skill to be violent, then it would be wrong. Most martial artists are extremely cognizant of the difference between a match, and a fight, and laws reflect that someone's skills in this area constitute an unfair advantage. For many people who practice the martial arts, AVOIDING real violence is the point of them learning their skills. Being able to disarm, rather than kill.
Thank you ... the distinction is there some people dont see it

As a martial artists that has had to use their skill in a fight, people just dont understand how much it hurts to use such a beautifull skillfull thing for hurting another. I was backed into a corner twice and forced to use it and it hurts like no tomarrow.

Anyways sorry for my rant

iasked you a question on the previous page. and have you ever been in an actual life or death situation? has anyone actually tried to harm your kids?
I missed it with all this damn lag...

Have I been in a life or death situation? We'll narrow that down to immediate threats of violence from other human beings, rather than other causes. Yes, I have, and have managed to escape unscathed, without using violence (which in these cases would only have gotten me killed anyway).

My children have never been in any danger, yet, and hopefully never will be. However, I've outlined my philosophy in an earlier post, so I'll leave it at that.

The way I see it is if a woman wants to go off and slap a guy, then she should be willing to accept the consequence. Now im not saying that guys should deck a girl. lets just say a girl gets upset with this guy and out of no where socks him right in the nose and breaks it. we all know that the AVERAGE female isnt as strong as the AVERAGE male (as posted earlier) but all guys arent superman either. Guys should just stop, with out saying a word, call the police a file out an assault charge against her and sue her for any medical bills and what not. if girls want to be equal than let them get charged just like a guy would if he hit a girl. its ok for girls to go crying to the authorities but if a guy does its wrong, a guy can take the pain! Molarky!!! we are all subject to the same laws and its time to act like it. i dont care if its a guy or girl! Justice is the key to a civil nation. Stop letting certain people off the hook. if they can commit the crime than they can face the consequence. Justice has no bias, it dont care if youre white black male female rich or poor. the law is the law
So you see its not about just hitting a girl but it is about true equality which in the end means true justice.

I tend to feel guilt and regret if I do something bad. I've stolen before, used violence and the threat of violence to collect money that was owed, and other unethical things. I felt guilt for that. I never felt guilt for fighting when the opponent was just as willing as I was or when I was standing up for myslef or my friends against an unwarranted attack.

you are reconnecting with your primal urges and tendencies through an andrenaline rush. humans, whether you think they were hunters/gathers, or whatnot, still have biological structures that trigger the fight or flight syndrome. its a natural feeling. people that abhor violence, thats fine. but domt you feel great when you punch the proverbial pillow during times of stress? of course you do.

I'm sorry, but neither ethical conduct nor what it means to be human turns on expressing primal urges and tendencies. A car accident causes one to have an adrenaline rush and even can create temporary euphoria -- still not a good thing to go around ramming people with your car.

I am not a pacificst -- although I think there is much to admire about that point of view.

But one need not be a pacificist to see the glorification of violence as harmful.

DCR, whether or not you feel guilty is obviously not a good measure of whether your actions were right. One can commit wrongs out of ignorance that one is doing so. And many of the worst type of criminals and villians either feel no guilt over or postitively enjoy heinous acts.

Self-defense or defense of others may be necessary and even righteous. If you have engaged in multiple fights, however, I suggest there is more to the situation than innocent defense on your part in case after case.

Some of the women tell me, after the shooting classes, that they don't think they could kill their abuser if he shows up.

I make it very clear - it is the abuser you need to convince, not yourself. If he's convinced you'll kill him, he'll leave you alone. If it comes down to it, and you have to kill him, you will, whether you want to or not.
Well, as with so many things in life, she who hesitates, is lost.

i still got a thing for chivalry, and the concept that it is the sex's differences that makes them wonderful
Ditto. Also, if you get beaten up by a girl then at least you can say "I wasn't hitting her back."
My friend got beaten up by a girl :)

Abuse is one thing that is --er-- gender neutral.
Bullsh*t
In general men are far more violent than women. That's not sexism, it's fact. However, violent women are proven to be more violent than most men (I wouldn't want to work in a women's prison!) But they are normally violent towards other women, not men.
Men are responsible for over 80% of all domestic abuse in the U.K. (I think).


Soz for double posting there...

The point of boxing or of martial arts is not violence. It is the demonstration of a skill. Now, if a boxer or martial artist went out and used their skill to be violent, then it would be wrong. Most martial artists are extremely cognizant of the difference between a match, and a fight, and laws reflect that someone's skills in this area constitute an unfair advantage. For many people who practice the martial arts, AVOIDING real violence is the point of them learning their skills. Being able to disarm, rather than kill.
1 If you're competing in the ring you'll use all the agression and power at your disposal along with your skill while still obeying the rules of the fight to win, or you'll lose.

2 Yes, there's a difference between a fight in the ring and a fight in the street, but some street fights though unregulated, still involve two very willing participants.

3 It's true that most martial artists will avoid violence when possible, but don't kid yourself. When they have to use violence, most will use as much force as they need to in order to win. It's hard to disarm an opponent without doing serious harm to him or taking an unacceptable risk to yoursef. If you have to fight an armed opponent you go for the quickest method. Kill him or incapacitate him.

good points, everyone. nice to have a discussion with every one behaving themselves.

DCR, whether or not you feel guilty is obviously not a good measure of whether your actions were right. One can commit wrongs out of ignorance that one is doing so. And many of the worst type of criminals and villians either feel no guilt over or postitively enjoy heinous acts.

Self-defense or defense of others may be necessary and even righteous. If you have engaged in multiple fights, however, I suggest there is more to the situation than innocent defense on your part in case after case.
I used to be a criminal. When you hang out with certain people in certain situations violence is more common. Plus I used to box and practice martial arts, so I got some fights in the ring. Nowadays I don't fight because I'm not in situations where it's appropriate or necessary.

1 If you're competing in the ring you'll use all the agression and power at your disposal along with your skill while still obeying the rules of the fight to win, or you'll lose.

2 Yes, there's a difference between a fight in the ring and a fight in the street, but some street fights though unregulated, still involve two very willing participants.

3 It's true that most martial artists will avoid violence when possible, but don't kid yourself. When they have to use violence, most will use as much force as they need to in order to win. It's hard to disarm an opponent without doing serious harm to him or taking an unacceptable risk to yoursef. If you have to fight an armed opponent you go for the quickest method. Kill him or incapacitate him.
1) not nessisarlily ... sometimes the detachement can be the best tool you have
2) willing to fight but not willing to injure in martial arts at least

3) true but the easiest is not always killing ... incompasitating yes

I have been in the situation before (4th degree black belt) and had a friend who got attacked while I was in viewable range
I had to break his arm but I got the knife away from him

But it HURTS to do it ... for me it hurt for a long time.

I have hit a woman before ... its called sparring :D she hit me back as well ;)

Hehe, when I took Karate (for a whole semester, but it was something at least), there was always the option for a girl that she didn't have to spar/wrestle/etc. with a guy (or the instructor, who was a guy). That pretty stayed until you got to higher levels. I was one of the few beginners who had no problem getting in there with a guy. =)

As to the original post - unwarranted violence is always wrong - no matter who is doing it. The person who begins the violence is pretty much always in the wrong, regardless of gender.

I do get a little, although not too, miffed at the "stop violence against women" commercials. They seem to reinforce the stereotype that its ok for boys to hit other boys, just not girls - which I think is idiotic. Whatever the conflict, one should try to resolve it without violence.

I've always thought that man or woman, you should never offer violence - but if someone offers it, you have an obligation to finish it.

I disagree, I am a fairly fit man (6ft & 190Lbs) who has trained for many years in Martial Arts, this means that I can be fairly sure that I am not going to be on the losing side.
I have had several people (mainly men) think they had reason to fight me, I disagreed and walked away, BECAUSE I was strong enough not to need to prove my masculinity by having a fight.

Hehe, when I took Karate (for a whole semester, but it was something at least), there was always the option for a girl that she didn't have to spar/wrestle/etc. with a guy (or the instructor, who was a guy). That pretty stayed until you got to higher levels. I was one of the few beginners who had no problem getting in there with a guy. =)

As to the original post - unwarranted violence is always wrong - no matter who is doing it. The person who begins the violence is pretty much always in the wrong, regardless of gender.

I do get a little, although not too, miffed at the "stop violence against women" commercials. They seem to reinforce the stereotype that its ok for boys to hit other boys, just not girls - which I think is idiotic. Whatever the conflict, one should try to resolve it without violence.
I took it through an out of school association (central minnesota) It was not an option to opt out :)

But I also started at about age 11 ... at this point the girls were as big if not bigger then me :)

I would like to know what in the world this smiley is :gundge:

I took it through an out of school association (central minnesota) It was not an option to opt out :)

But I also started at about age 11 ... at this point the girls were as big if not bigger then me :)
It takes a little while to get used to it, doesn't it? The first time I sparred against a woman she was getting seriously offended because I was too reluctant to try to hit her. She was faster and technically better than me, so I can see why she took offense. Still, she was small, and a woman, so it took me a couple of rounds to get used to it.

It takes a little while to get used to it, doesn't it? The first time I sparred against a woman she was getting seriously offended because I was too reluctant to try to hit her. She was faster and technically better than me, so I can see why she took offense. Still, she was small, and a woman, so it took me a couple of rounds to get used to it.
At that age I dident know any better LOL and she had like a 3 inch reach advantage ... I got my ass kicked :D I was too busy trying to avoid the slopy punches (at white belt what do you expect) then worry about the specifics of who was throwing thoes punches (technicaly at that lvl no contact alowed but we were so in experienced that we ended up contacting about half the time lol)

This man: :gundge:is obviously showering the children-folk of his small European town with delicious Lemon-Lime Popsicle "Shotz" (R). I don't know why he uses uzis to distrubte this tasty frozen treats though.

I think that in an organized enviroment, much like karate, in which the whole point of the exercize is to kick the crap out of the other participant, then it is all well and good. If, though, you are just wailing on a girl for no reason, thats only considered "messed-up" because our society still operates on the 1950's view that girls can't take care of themselves. I happen to know many females who could effectively kick my ass.

I find it very interesting how the whole 'hitting' part of the discussion became rather obsessive. The beginning of the discussion was that sexism seems to go both ways. I think this is actually true.

I think everyone needs to remember that actual egalitarianism for men and women is less than four decades old in Western culture. While before that there was the struggle for the vote, for the right to have jobs outside the home and things like that it was not really true egalitarianism. The idea of it is actually at odds with most of human history, in which a huge majority of civilizations and countries regarded women as to one degree or another subservient to men. The truth is, we don't know how to treat this situation; it's new in our history and we're feeling our way through it.

Here's an interesting example: the one about who pays in a restaurant, which I think was brought up at the start. When I used to work for a fast food chain, I noticed that about half the time when there were couples the woman paid. But the impression still exists that the man OUGHT to pay. I'm not really sure what this means in the grand scheme of things but it's awfully interesting to notice it.

I think that it is best to keep an open mind, but I understand how some guys must feel; it must be awfully confusing. However, I would say this word of encouragement: women don't really know how they feel about equality either. Everything is experimentation and theory.

I would like to make it clear though that i don't agree with men abusing their girlfriends/wives. That is messed up.

I think that in an organized enviroment, much like karate, in which the whole point of the exercize is to kick the crap out of the other participant, then it is all well and good. If, though, you are just wailing on a girl for no reason, thats only considered "messed-up" because our society still operates on the 1950's view that girls can't take care of themselves. I happen to know many females who could effectively kick my ass.
Ummmm, i think if you were wailing on anybody for no reason, that wouldbe construed as "messed up".

I think that in an organized enviroment, much like karate, in which the whole point of the exercize is to kick the crap out of the other participant, then it is all well and good. If, though, you are just wailing on a girl for no reason, thats only considered "messed-up" because our society still operates on the 1950's view that girls can't take care of themselves. I happen to know many females who could effectively kick my ass.
You sir or ma`am do not understand karate at ALL
The WHOLE point is about focus and skill ... why do you think the KAHTA(spelled a variaty of ways) is the most prevelant exersize

That whole paying jazz totally depends on both the woman or the man. Some women like to pay. Some men don't. That isn't descrimination, since it is considered being cordial for a man to pay for a woman

You sir or ma`am do not understand karate at ALL
The WHOLE point is about focus and skill ... why do you think the KAHTA(spelled a variaty of ways) is the most prevelant exersize
I was just using that as an example, i wasn't diminshing the importance of good focus in karate. You totally misinterpreted my post.

I think that in an organized enviroment, much like karate, in which the whole point of the exercize is to kick the crap out of the other participant, then it is all well and good. If, though, you are just wailing on a girl for no reason, thats only considered "messed-up" because our society still operates on the 1950's view that girls can't take care of themselves. I happen to know many females who could effectively kick my ass.

My Martial Art was a contact sport and i found that my weight/height/strengh advantage would be equal to an extra grade or so. If you look into the martial arts arena you will see that they do have at least weight divisions and more often than not sex divisions. This is due to the role strengh plays.
In ju-jutsu (my preferred MA) the emphasis is on the technique and in a controlled environment I can be thrown by a 12 year old. When you have a bout it doesn't work as well as it should, so the divisions are needed.

Often Women try to replace power with speed, but it rarely a sucessful match.

I was just using that as an example, i wasn't diminshing the importance of good focus in karate. You totally misinterpreted my post.
No I dident you used a flawed example therefore negating any conclusions you draw from that example

You could just ignore everyone, and solve the problem.
hiding, running away solves all problems [sarcasm]

My Martial Art was a contact sport and i found that my weight/height/strengh advantage would be equal to an extra grade or so. If you look into the martial arts arena you will see that they do have at least weight divisions and more often than not sex divisions. This is due to the role strengh plays.
In ju-jutsu (my preferred MA) the emphasis is on the technique and in a controlled environment I can be thrown by a 12 year old. When you have a bout it doesn't work as well as it should, so the divisions are needed.

Often Women try to replace power with speed, but it rarely a sucessful match.
You all misinterpret me, I don't care about karate. This is about sexism. It is not sexist to do karate, ju-jitsu with a girl, that's just competeing in the sport.

My Martial Art was a contact sport and i found that my weight/height/strengh advantage would be equal to an extra grade or so. If you look into the martial arts arena you will see that they do have at least weight divisions and more often than not sex divisions. This is due to the role strengh plays.
In ju-jutsu (my preferred MA) the emphasis is on the technique and in a controlled environment I can be thrown by a 12 year old. When you have a bout it doesn't work as well as it should, so the divisions are needed.

Often Women try to replace power with speed, but it rarely a sucessful match.
We seperated by sex more then weight because (mutt karate ) we were not contact (tae kwon do simmilar) reach was the biggest issue

Besides once you got into wepons their speed could often make the difference :p

Am I being ignorant to say that this discussion has devolved into a conversation about martial arts. A sport that I willing to bet half of the people who are saying they do really don't.

I find it very interesting how the whole 'hitting' part of the discussion became rather obsessive. The beginning of the discussion was that sexism seems to go both ways. I think this is actually true.

*snip*

I think that it is best to keep an open mind, but I understand how some guys must feel; it must be awfully confusing. However, I would say this word of encouragement: women don't really know how they feel about equality either. Everything is experimentation and theory.

Oh, for the love of Bob, not again!

I'm having flashbacks. UpwardThrust? Sinuhue? Are you there? Is this real?

I'll go take my thorazine.

Am I being ignorant to say that this discussion has devolved into a conversation about martial arts. A sport that I willing to bet half of the people who are saying they do really don't.
Don't know about where you live but there are hundreds of martial arts schools in my area. Someone has to attend to keep them in business. A whole shitload of people have had some martial arts training in the course of their lives. Most of it is in "McDojos" where the instruction is lousy, but it's martial arts training none the less.

Am I being ignorant to say that this discussion has devolved into a conversation about martial arts. A sport that I willing to bet half of the people who are saying they do really don't.
Any basis for that assumption? and it desolved into such because it is an organized form of "fighting" that involves both sexes on an equal level

So it addresses sexism and fighting ... the two main points of this topic

Logical following of topic wandering to me

(edited meant the non grapple rather then non contact)

I've been in situations where people have thought that they can get away with verbal abuse and destruction of my property and there was nothing I could or would do about it.
Your ex-wife?

No I dident you used a flawed example therefore negating any conclusions you draw from that example
His example, although ruggish, was still plausible. I think that he was saying that society thinks that women are not able to defend themesleves as well as a man, so in every single case a man should never hit a woman. He was saying that if men and women can spar as equals in karate, maybe people shouldn't be so quick to assume that women as such a weaker sex. He also added that senseless beatings are wrong, which i whole heartedly agree with.

Here's an interesting example: the one about who pays in a restaurant, which I think was brought up at the start. When I used to work for a fast food chain, I noticed that about half the time when there were couples the woman paid. But the impression still exists that the man OUGHT to pay. I'm not really sure what this means in the grand scheme of things but it's awfully interesting to notice it.

At the beginning, whoever instigated the date should probably pay, or they should split it. After that, it tends to even out.

I think the "a man ought to pay" comes more from the older generation, where this whole "going dutch thing" was a new concept.

We seperated by sex more then weight because (mutt karate ) we were not contact (tae kwon do simmilar) reach was the biggest issue

Besides once you got into wepons their speed could often make the difference :p
I am sorry to say this but unfortunately that had nothing to do with women. That was all karate. What is that called? The basis for my assumption. That wouldnt be true if those circumstances couldn't be applied to both sexes.

If a woman attacked me I'd put her on the floor and walk off.

I am sorry to say this but unfortunately that had nothing to do with women. That was all karate. What is that called? The basis for my assumption. That wouldnt be true if those circumstances couldn't be applied to both sexes.
IT was covering the roals of sex seperation in a combat envyroment? it had everything to do with women

Your ex-wife?
Actually no. I've never made the mistake of getting married. Almost did once, but thankfully she cheated on me and spared me the trouble.

So would you say people who fight in the ring in boxing or martial arts fights are doing something bad?Thats different,
1) both figthers want to box, cos they are to make money/prizes.
2)they are both trained and of the equal weigth.
3) there is a judge/doctors who are to stop the figth when necesary.

... but if you have beef with another man, and you fracture his face in three places, then that's fair game. By man, I do not of course mean little boys or men of substantial inferior strength. Like dwarfs or something.

interesting...if he is of "no-so substantial inferior strengh" ...you are willing to fracture his face.

but what about if he/she is of "superior strength"...

I dont think ...Whispering legs, or Drunkcomms, or BastardSquad etc ...I just dont see them engaging Mike Tyson with their naked hands.(no matter how bad their mama's "honor" was insulted)

Oh, for the love of Bob, not again!

I'm having flashbacks. UpwardThrust? Sinuhue? Are you there? Is this real?

I'll go take my thorazine.
*passes Cat Tribe some water to wash his pills down with*
I get a lot of deja-vu on General, but that's just because people that weren't involved in the earlier discussions and didn't even know those discussion were taking place, are airing ideas that we have already done to death, but are new for them:). It's okay...it happens to us all.

Your ex-wife?
DC is saving himself for me in case my husband dies, or we break up. So hush.

*passes Cat Tribe some water to wash his pills down with*
I get a lot of deja-vu on General, but that's just because people that weren't involved in the earlier discussions and didn't even know those discussion were taking place, are airing ideas that we have already done to death, but are new for them:). It's okay...it happens to us all.
Yeah but at least we have had practice :-D One of these days I am going to get smart (and motivated) and record all this so I can re argue it

The problem with that is it gets so long that no one reads my posts then :p

DC is saving himself for me in case my husband dies, or we break up. So hush.
jaja, Y que edad tiene tu marido?

*passes Cat Tribe some water to wash his pills down with*
I get a lot of deja-vu on General, but that's just because people that weren't involved in the earlier discussions and didn't even know those discussion were taking place, are airing ideas that we have already done to death, but are new for them:). It's okay...it happens to us all.

*splashes face with water -- washes pills down with tequila*

I know. But the horror, the horror!

Oh, for the love of Bob, not again!

I'm having flashbacks. UpwardThrust? Sinuhue? Are you there? Is this real?

I'll go take my thorazine.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what this means. Are people not allowed to express themselves here or something?

*passes Cat Tribe some water to wash his pills down with*
I get a lot of deja-vu on General, but that's just because people that weren't involved in the earlier discussions and didn't even know those discussion were taking place, are airing ideas that we have already done to death, but are new for them:). It's okay...it happens to us all.

The sad thing is when you get the same people bringing up the same arguments that have already been debunked numerous times before in thread after thread after thread. It seems to happen more in the religion-based threads, but then that may just be because I tend to go into more of them.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what this means. Are people not allowed to express themselves here or something?

Long story short: Cat hates me.

{{Just kidding Cat!!}}

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what this means. Are people not allowed to express themselves here or something?

Sorry. Joke based on another thread that got pretty heated. It was not aimed at you in anyway -- but I can see how it could be taken that way.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what this means. Are people not allowed to express themselves here or something?
Us 4 had massive like 3 day arguement on this in the masculism (sp?) thread

Bad flashbacks lol

Long story short: Cat hates me.

{{Just kidding Cat!!}}


:p

Since I believe that anyone who uses violence to settle a dispute is the scum of the earth, I really don't think gender roles with regards to who can hit whom is really an issue I need to worry about. I don't care who you are, if you believe in hitting people to resolve arguments, then I despise you.

True and it is intensely annoying when one gender gets blamed for all the violence, child molestation etc in the world. People of either genders are capable of incredible mental violence too and sometimes that can be worse as it is persistent, long term and is perpetrated by self righteous creatures who claim to be pacifists or religious or vegetarians or politically correct, to give a few examples.
I cannot see any value in state violence, be it police, army, security or judicial. However it is understandable though not totally excusable that one may lash out in the heat of the moment 1:1, especially when someone tries to attack you physically or by playing power games with your mind.

True and it is intensely annoying when one gender gets blamed for all the violence, child molestation etc in the world.
Not all. The majority of. And are you seriously saying that accusation is not justified?

(caveat...we are not the sum of our genders)

I cannot see any value in state violence, be it police, army, security or judicial..
Police, security, judicial, ???

their job (when done rigth) is to protect the weak...of any sex or age.

without them...its law of the Jungle.

True and it is intensely annoying when one gender gets blamed for all the violence, child molestation etc in the world. People of either genders are capable of incredible mental violence too and sometimes that can be worse as it is persistent, long term and is perpetrated by self righteous creatures who claim to be pacifists or religious or vegetarians or politically correct, to give a few examples.
I cannot see any value in state violence, be it police, army, security or judicial. However it is understandable though not totally excusable that one may lash out in the heat of the moment 1:1, especially when someone tries to attack you physically or by playing power games with your mind.

1. Those who commit the overwhelming of violence and child molestation in the world are justly blamed for it.

2. Violence in response to "power mind games" is pathetic.

3. How can you justify individual violence but not state violence?

Police, security, judicial, ???

their job (when done rigth) is to protect the weak...of any sex or age.

without them...its law of the Jungle.

...and no...i dont think they can do their job without "violence".

and yes. I think they have to use violence against women too(if necesary)...regardless of all the sexist myths.

I never have and I was once hit with a hot frying pan by an ex-girlfriend.
Now that's got to be a story worth sharing!

this is a bit like something Maddox said (god...im quoting him)
Maddox is great! Surely Utah's finest!

Bad news: every woman I help gets a pistol and training from me
"pwn3d"

woman dont want equal rights. They have much more power over men being oppresed then with equal rights.

woman dont want equal rights. They have much more power over men being oppresed then with equal rights.
Oh hi, 'just joined'...nice of you to pop in with such a sweeping statement, backed up by absolutely no facts of examples of men 'being oppressed'. Care to fix that?

I don't say this as a proof of male dominance, nor do I say it to be sexist, or mean in any way - men are stronger than women. We have an extra muscle in our arm, for one thing (can't remember the name) hitting a woman is considered..I dunno, an easy thing to do by many I supose, so it's considered wrong, perhaps if you could determine the strength of the man and woman, and handicap given that, let em fight it out...

It's not fair because it's been unfair for a long time, it's engraved into our culture, and probably isn't the same in others (if anyone knows if it isn't please post with info) I supose the only thing about this that bothers me is that some females take advantage of this when hitting a guy, which is wrong.

Then again, I know of way too many guys who've hit girlfriends/spouses, and half of the guys who complain about getting beaten up probably deserved it, but instead decides to twist it to make out they're some form of victim.

This site is censored. I tried to post some answers to my earlier thread but was not allowed to submit, perhaps I touched too much on societal lynch mob mentality as betrayed by so caled civilised nations egged on by politicians, the press and "ordinary people". Sorry for having my own opinions

This site is censored. I tried to post some answers to my earlier thread but was not allowed to submit, perhaps I touched too much on societal lynch mob mentality as betrayed by so caled civilised nations egged on by politicians, the press and "ordinary people". Sorry for having my own opinions
*falls over laughing*

Right...it couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the server problems we've ALL been experiencing today. Does it make you feel more important to believe it's censorship?

Wow...when did they mods get the power to read your posts and delete them BEFORE you submitted them?

Im probably beating a dead horse because i skipped about 5 or 6 pages but.

The thing is men hit alot hard then women. Example a friend of mine is a boxer/martial artist Hes really really damn strong ( like crushing a golf ball in his hand, breaking cinder blocks etc) and has the worst damn temper ive ever seen, He broke two of my friends ribs after he punched him as hard as could for beating him at halo, so this man at a bar causes problems. We were at a local club and were waiting in line, we finally get called through the door we walk past a couple of chicks talking to the bouncer ( they are in the way of the door) my friend says exscuse me and the one chick doesnt move( i know she heard him too) so he pushes her and is starting to walk by and the chick starts screaming insults at him and getting in his face and punching him and finally hits him with his purse. At this point he explodes, he winds back and throws a vicious punch that knocks her out cold and breaks her nose.
We ended up running away before the cops came. Moral of the story is. Equal Rights Equal fights


Not entirely relevant, but im posting it anyway

;)

Wow...when did they mods get the power to read your posts and delete them BEFORE you submitted them?
Never, because if they did we wouldn't have such problems with trolls and flamers.

...or maybe that's what they WANT us to think!!!
:eek:

Never, because if they did we wouldn't have such problems with trolls and flamers.

...or maybe that's what they WANT us to think!!!
:eek:
Well, I think the more important question is where they got their time-travelling capabilities...I mean...to have the TIME to read all our posts before we submit them, some serious temporal tinkering must be going on!

People say hitting chicks is bad but hitting guys is ok, but the thing about that is that its sexist(I don't hit, I slap I gotta protect myself somehow)

Well, like everyone said, men are stronger and can endure more. Plus, in reality, using the term 'chick' as a synonym for 'woman' is also quite sexist... I mean, it's demeaning and usually is describing young women who arouse men. -_o it's not like women go around using 'hottie' as a synonym for 'man'...

Mikilla, I'm replying to the first post, so don't feel bad. ;) :D

People say hitting chicks is bad but hitting guys is ok, but the thing about that is that its sexist(I don't hit, I slap I gotta protect myself somehow)

Haha, I just had to point out that this thread went on for nine pages, and the original poster hasn't responded once. I love it. Continue on.

I may have just thought of something relevant. My girlfriend is taking a rape awareness class, where she learns to defend herself against rape. They don't allow men in this class, and she is not allowed to show me what she has learned. How sexist is that? ;)

It is fundamentally an issue of strength. If you were Arnold Schwarzeneger and a two-year old child punched you, would you punch them back? If you did you'd probably end up killing the little kid, because that's just the nature of strength disparities. People have different physical strengths, and stronger people who use force should be cognizant of how physically powerful they are.

Men are stronger than women on the average. There are of course exceptions. A woman bodybuilder shouldn't strike a male computer programmer on the same premise.


But there's a flip side to it all. If you are not as strong as someone else, for God's sake don't hit them! You're just asking for painful retaliation if you do. I figured that one out when I was in second grade and decided to fight a fourth grader.

Oh yeah, here's my stance on the issue:
http://www.pinscentral.com/images/pins/large/stop_violence.gif
Hitting anyone, male or female, for some reason other than self-defense, is not right.

Well, I think the more important question is where they got their time-travelling capabilities...I mean...to have the TIME to read all our posts before we submit them, some serious temporal tinkering must be going on!

You are just a wicked apologist. :mad:

Admit it. You are a brain-washed tool of the vast Mod Conspiracy! :p

You are just a wicked apologist. :mad:

Admit it. You are a brain-washed tool of the vast Mod Conspiracy! :p
prove it. PROVE IT! MUAHHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

woman dont want equal rights. They have much more power over men being oppresed then with equal rights.

Is that so?

Would you like to explain it to us all?

Besides, what makes you think women (as a whole, not as certain individuals) want more power over men?

Is that so?

Would you like to explain it to us all?

Besides, what makes you think women (as a whole, not as certain individuals) want more power over men?
Na. He/she hasn't responded yet, and likely won't. Seems like an in/out type of poster.

At this point he explodes, he winds back and throws a vicious punch that knocks her out cold and breaks her nose.
We ended up running away before the cops came. Moral of the story is. Equal Rights Equal fights


Not entirely relevant, but im posting it anyway

;)

Jesus man! Where were the bouncers when all this was happening?? Those guys are there to make sure customers don't hurt each other.

I knew a girl from Hillside in Durham, North Carolina who was like that. Brought a boxcutter to school and sliced up a girl who'd "stolen her man". Whipped the thing out and went right for the face.

In my experience a bully is for life. For instance, all the bullies at my old high school have gone on to be wife beaters. They're drunk on their gender-endowed strength and use it to abuse anyone woman who's foolish enough to take it. But the truth is they'd never dare strike someone who was stronger than they, for fear of reprisal. They only hit those who it's safe for them to hit.

It takes courage to stand up to someone who's stronger than you, whether physically or metaphorically. But abusing or seriously harming only those who are weaker than you is the definition of cowardice and the antithesis of fighting the good fight.

Don't get me wrong. How many times you let someone weaker than you strike you is certainly a reflection on your self-esteem. But so is how many times you strike those who are weaker than you.

Strength brings with it responsibility. In my estimation the most dangerous people in this world are those who can't handle the latter and yet indulge themselves in the former.

Strength brings with it responsibility. In my estimation the most dangerous people in this world are those who can't handle the latter and yet indulge themselves in the former.

At the risk of derailing a bit, I know a guy who is a black belt in, well, actually more than one form of martial arts if I remember correctly. He isn't a huge guy, but you can tell from looking at him that he's very strong. Between strength and training, he probably knows more ways to break bones/kill someone than I want to even think about.

I have yet to see him actually get violent over anything. I've seen him close - and that was disturbing enough - but never actually there. The only times I have heard of him ever using violence at all were in self defense or defense of others. In fact, the only time I have ever seen him come close to violence is when he followed me when I went to stop a guy from drunk driving (by threatening to call the cops). He was pretty sure that the guy might get violent and well, let's just say if the guy in question had laid a hand on me (and I am fairly weak physically) - the question of whether or not he *should* drive home would have been much less important than whether or not he could.

... when I went to stop a guy from drunk driving ...Interesting...

should violence be used to stop a girl who has been drinking and wants to drive?

should violence be used on women to "protect" them when they dont know what is good for them...?

--disclaimer: all my posts here are bi-generic...they aply to both sexes

should violence be used to stop a girl who has been drinking and wants to drive?

I personally wouldn't use violence - I just threatened to call the cops and that did the trick. That's a hard one though. In my mind, it would be violence to prevent harm coming to other people, so it would be justified if you didn't take it too far.

For instance, if you simply wrestled her enough to get her keys away, that might be justified. If you punch her in the face and say "No driving!" that would be too far.

should violence be used on women to "protect" them when they dont know what is good for them...?

Depends on exactly what you mean here. This could be construed so many different ways.

That's a hard one though.I know...
many times...I am the guy asking the tough questions... :cool:

Depends on exactly what you mean here. This could be construed so many different ways.
like in the DD example...or like a Dad telling her daugther she cant go toppless to the rave....or telling her she cant jump from the 3rd floor..

I have yet to see him actually get violent over anything. I've seen him close - and that was disturbing enough - but never actually there. The only times I have heard of him ever using violence at all were in self defense or defense of others. In fact, the only time I have ever seen him come close to violence is when he followed me when I went to stop a guy from drunk driving (by threatening to call the cops). He was pretty sure that the guy might get violent and well, let's just say if the guy in question had laid a hand on me (and I am fairly weak physically) - the question of whether or not he *should* drive home would have been much less important than whether or not he could.


Your friend's actions were very commendable. There seems to be a severe shortage of people in this world who know how to use power responsibly (let's just say many of the black belts I know haven't put their talents to very honorable use).

I'm obviously just basing this on the contents of your post, but I'd say you've got one hell of a good friend!

like in the DD example...or like a Dad telling her daugther she cant go toppless to the bar.

So, use violence to keep someone from doing something fairly stupid.

Well, I think that depends on several factors:

(a) Is the person in question an adult? If they are, and they are not putting anyone *else* in danger, you have no right to do anything other than try and talk them out of it. If not, then I would say that physical restraint could be ok, but beating/etc. wouldn't.

(b) Will their stupidity put anyone else in danger? If yes, more physical means may be justified.

(c) Can you physically restrain them without causing bodily harm to them? If not, you probably should opt for another way.

Damnnnn boys, mann, equal rights is TIGHT. I so support it.

dis one time, i was sittin on the curb when my girl comes up to me and is like...

"Im sick of you ch eating on me!" and slaps me across da face.

i was like. "Oh."



then i was in jail for manslaughter. well, personslaughter.

........


anyway, yeah, SEXISM Is stoopid. we should all fight!

(c) Can you physically restrain them without causing bodily harm to them?You dont know that in advance...most of the time either-one gets hurt...or both of them.

In your karate-Kid example...there was a 95% posibility of someone going to the hospital, or even the morgue.

You dont know that in advance...most of the time either-one gets hurt...or both of them.

In your karate-Kid example...there was a 95% posibility of someone going to the hospital, or even the morgue.


Yes. If you are interested, Ju-jutsu, Judo, Aikido all teach restraining techniques.
I Do do Ju-jutsu and have done for more than 10 years, its the basis of the UK poilce training. This I know from the vast numbers of police that take it up as they dont find the short period of training they get sufficient.
It does also teach how to hospitalise, And kill, but the emphasis is on not doing that unless you have multiple attackers and would be likely to be killed yourself. one action that will disable an attacker that is suitable for a group attacking you is eye strikes, this will blind but not kill.

Re Womens Self defence, Many of these classes are ineffective. I would really recommend that you and/or your partners go to quality martial arts club. TG me if you want any links for the UK.

I've seen this topic before...

1 If you're competing in the ring you'll use all the agression and power at your disposal along with your skill while still obeying the rules of the fight to win, or you'll lose.
Allow me to point you to the greatest evidence that you are wrong:

http://www.chriseubank.tv/home.htm

If you followed his career, you know that he was a master craftsman in the ring, using, as you say, all of the 'aggression and power' at his disposal... seeing him take the title from Nigel Benn, it was scary how much power and aggression he exhibited, and it made him a winner.

Then - in 1991, he defeated Michael Watson, but, Watson was hospitalised and remained in a coma for more than a month after the fight. Eubank appeared devestated.

http://www.theforgivenessproject.com/stories/?id=19

Watching Eubank fight from that day on, he never 'commited' in the same way - no more wild power, no more uncontrolled aggression - just further refinement of the exquisite technique that had always been the underpinning of his prowess.

And yet - until the (somewhat controversial) loss against Steve Collins, Eubank continued winning... 12 more wins, and 2 more draws, over the next 3 years.

http://www.chriseubank.tv/statistics.htm

Eubank is an example of a boxer choosing NOT to display aggression, or to use all the power at his disposal. He is also an example of a boxer winning, despite that.

Re Womens Self defence, Many of these classes are ineffective. I would really recommend that you and/or your partners go to quality martial arts club. TG me if you want any links for the UK.

Here in the US a pistol is a much better self-defense method than martial arts.

Here in the US a pistol is a much better self-defense method than martial arts.
That all depends on where you live. I don't take martial arts, but basically everywhere but in big cities, it is quite possible for women to protect themselves without guns.

That all depends on where you live. I don't take martial arts, but basically every where but in big cities, it is quite possible for women to protect themselves without guns.

The women I work with have to defend themselves against men who beat them.

None have the time to learn how to effectively fight a man who outweighs them by 50 or more pounds, and none are willing to take one more hit.

The gun has an effect that martial arts do not. The men know about it, are afraid, and stay away.

Well that is their situation, in people who live near me... scare tactics aren't necessary. On another note, are you saying that women in general should carry around guns just to make sure their men don't beat up on them.

The women I work with have to defend themselves against men who beat them.

None have the time to learn how to effectively fight a man who outweighs them by 50 or more pounds, and none are willing to take one more hit.

The gun has an effect that martial arts do not. The men know about it, are afraid, and stay away.
yea, as someone posted before, women can try to use speed and agility, but you can't really use speed to your advantage when you're knocked out. a gun is undoubtedly better protection. But yea, i think that only if a woman is being harrased, she should arm herself. i'm not saying that everyone should have a gun. i think that guns should be used exclusively for protection/self defense.

Well that is their situation, in people who live near me... scare tactics aren't necessary. On another note, are you saying that women in general should carry around guns just to make sure their men don't beat up on them.

I work with women who are victims of domestic abuse. In this case, although scare is the effect, there are also other steps taken to make it a legal shooting in the event that the abuser shows up again. So the scare has very frightening teeth behind it.

It's very hard to kill someone with martial arts. Even if I want to subdue someone, I'm probably going to take a few hits myself, unless I'm a master. If martial arts were as effective as they promise, then the police would have no use for Tasers, pepper spray, or guns. So it's not particularly effective, unless you are already quite powerful physically, and well trained for at least a few years. It also leaves out all the people who through no fault of their own can never become effective martial artists - people who are just physically weak, or handicapped.

That being said, my first gift to my wife when I was dating her was a pistol.