I agree. I’m talking more morally and less legally. I’ve seen countless videos where a woman is feebly tapping or shoving a man, the man is clearly physically unbothered and unhurt, but his ego is bruised, so he KOs her with one punch. Then the comments come flooding in about how she deserved it, “equal rights equal fights” etc.
It’s not a fair fight. Of course there are exceptions, there are exceptions to everything. But for most people most of the time, a woman hitting a man is nowhere near as physically impactful as a man hitting a woman. The ‘toolset’ is undeniably different.
If a 5-foot man slaps a 6-foot man, and the 6-foot man laughs and then beats the shit out of the smaller guy and stomps on his head, most people would look down on the bigger man for taking it too far with someone he could easily beat and who presented no real physical threat to him. It’s like that. I’m not denying the agency of the woman, or saying that her assaulting a man is fine, it’s that the response to it from the man is usually an order of magnitude more severe with half the effort. And again, I know there are exceptions to this. Men can be abused and beaten by women, domestic violence against men should be taken more seriously.
In street/bar fights, where a woman is picking a fight with a man, the man is rightly restrained by societal pressure to not unload on her the way he would if it were a man picking a fight with him. This isn’t sexism or baseless gender roles or any of that, it’s because most of the time, untrained men are wielding a sledgehammer to an untrained woman’s carpentry hammer (untrained in combat sports, I mean). So in that way, it’s not a double-standard despite sounding like one, no more than it’s a double standard to not beat the shit out of another man half your size when you would beat the shit out of him for the same offence if he were your size or bigger. Not that we should beat anyone up, of course! But it happens and will always happen, so it’s nice to have at least one broad rule in an otherwise-ruleless endeavour: men shouldn’t beat the shit out of women unless they really need to, to defend themselves from an actual threat, a threat to something more than their ego or temper.
P.S. Thanks for replying without calling me a misandrist or telling me to kill myself 💗 Genuinely appreciate it!
Well stated! But to build on that, that should be already known and understood by everyone, so at some point isn’t it a case of “fire hot, don’t touch?”
Like with the facts stated as is, it sounds like a woman would have to be stupid to attack a man with such a power discrepancy, so from this moral argument, you just have an attacking woman being controlled by their feelings of anger vs an attacked man being controlled by their feelings of self defense. Why does the physical facts matter at that point? Might makes wrong? Just because the man is born stronger his feelings aren’t valid?
The reason we speak legally is to remove the feelings from the equation and make it as dispassionate and logical as we can.
But obviously it’s a big murky mess because the law isn’t wholly blind to feelings and motives.
It’s more common for a woman to hit a man as a self-defense, but this doesn’t mean women are not capable of an assault, it does happen and is no less violent.
We should look at the exact circumstances, not genders.
So, if I hit Rhonda Rousey with my weak-ass jab and she uppercuts me through the ceiling in response, I should still be the one who gets the harsher punishment, right?
Dumbass misandrist logic. Just accept that no one should be hitting anyone and punish violent abusers equally.
Men hitting women is different from women hitting men.
Bullshit. Nobody should hit anyone, and it’s illegal both ways.
I agree. I’m talking more morally and less legally. I’ve seen countless videos where a woman is feebly tapping or shoving a man, the man is clearly physically unbothered and unhurt, but his ego is bruised, so he KOs her with one punch. Then the comments come flooding in about how she deserved it, “equal rights equal fights” etc.
It’s not a fair fight. Of course there are exceptions, there are exceptions to everything. But for most people most of the time, a woman hitting a man is nowhere near as physically impactful as a man hitting a woman. The ‘toolset’ is undeniably different.
If a 5-foot man slaps a 6-foot man, and the 6-foot man laughs and then beats the shit out of the smaller guy and stomps on his head, most people would look down on the bigger man for taking it too far with someone he could easily beat and who presented no real physical threat to him. It’s like that. I’m not denying the agency of the woman, or saying that her assaulting a man is fine, it’s that the response to it from the man is usually an order of magnitude more severe with half the effort. And again, I know there are exceptions to this. Men can be abused and beaten by women, domestic violence against men should be taken more seriously.
In street/bar fights, where a woman is picking a fight with a man, the man is rightly restrained by societal pressure to not unload on her the way he would if it were a man picking a fight with him. This isn’t sexism or baseless gender roles or any of that, it’s because most of the time, untrained men are wielding a sledgehammer to an untrained woman’s carpentry hammer (untrained in combat sports, I mean). So in that way, it’s not a double-standard despite sounding like one, no more than it’s a double standard to not beat the shit out of another man half your size when you would beat the shit out of him for the same offence if he were your size or bigger. Not that we should beat anyone up, of course! But it happens and will always happen, so it’s nice to have at least one broad rule in an otherwise-ruleless endeavour: men shouldn’t beat the shit out of women unless they really need to, to defend themselves from an actual threat, a threat to something more than their ego or temper.
P.S. Thanks for replying without calling me a misandrist or telling me to kill myself 💗 Genuinely appreciate it!
Well stated! But to build on that, that should be already known and understood by everyone, so at some point isn’t it a case of “fire hot, don’t touch?”
Like with the facts stated as is, it sounds like a woman would have to be stupid to attack a man with such a power discrepancy, so from this moral argument, you just have an attacking woman being controlled by their feelings of anger vs an attacked man being controlled by their feelings of self defense. Why does the physical facts matter at that point? Might makes wrong? Just because the man is born stronger his feelings aren’t valid?
The reason we speak legally is to remove the feelings from the equation and make it as dispassionate and logical as we can.
But obviously it’s a big murky mess because the law isn’t wholly blind to feelings and motives.
Nope, exactly the same.
It’s more common for a woman to hit a man as a self-defense, but this doesn’t mean women are not capable of an assault, it does happen and is no less violent.
We should look at the exact circumstances, not genders.
I agree that violence is violence, however, the legal repercussions are very often not the same, the public repercussions are often not the same.
So, if I hit Rhonda Rousey with my weak-ass jab and she uppercuts me through the ceiling in response, I should still be the one who gets the harsher punishment, right?
Dumbass misandrist logic. Just accept that no one should be hitting anyone and punish violent abusers equally.
deleted by creator
Hahaha you chose the only argument that could’ve sounded dumber than the OP comment🤣