A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
This is obviously very upsetting. But I'd also like to know what y'all's answers would be to the question on this meme. This is not something I advocate for I'm going to be transparent about that, I've just noticed things like this a lot on the internet and want to gain some perspective.
Nobody should be allowed to hit anybody without consent. And men shouldn't be afraid of speaking up; abuse of men does happen.
That said, it's not the primary direction in which abuse happens, so I'm not sure this is a healthy way to highlight the issue.
it's not the primary direction in which physical abuse happens
FIFY. There's plenty, maybe not complete parity but not that far off, of abuse going in this direction too, it just tends not to result in unaliving people when it escalated. I think it's important to recognize it so that people feel comfortable to speak up.
No one should be hitting anyone. Damn. Your parents didn’t teach y’all not to hit?
The parents which hit us? 🤔
(That said, no physical attacks should be allowed without permission)
IMO there isn’t much to discuss about. Hit me, I hit you back. I don’t understand why I have an obligation to take care of an aggressor who hit me first. I’m not saying immediately kill the other person but it should be at least equal to what I had to take.
It doesn’t matter if it’s a man, woman or even another species.
One exception: The person has obvious reasons reasons like alcohol or substance abuse and is not able to think clearly what he/she is doing.
My parents teached me to not hit people in the first place. This is also a very good strategy to not get hit 😉
it should be at least equal to what I had to take.
Problem with the general philosophy there is that if that's universalized so that everyone adopts that philosophy, and you ever have someone injure someone else where the injuree felt it wasn't warranted, then the whole system goes to hell as each party feels like they need to do to the other what was done to them, and each just goes back and forth dealing out the other's just desserts. At some point, for the situation to deescalate, someone is going to have to accept what they consider to be greater harm.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/27/eye-for-eye-blind/
An eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth would lead to a world of the blind and toothless.
Oh man it didn't take long for the reddit rage bait to arrive :D
can we maybe not import the "equal rights, equal lefts" arguments from the dark half of reddit?
We all have a right to defend ourselves, but also an obligation to deescalate. It's all contextual. Following black and white rules is not the way to operate in a complex world.
Memes like this serve to stoke anti-feminist sentiment among men. I don't think we should post them, but it's useful to discuss.
This! Asking "under what circumstances am I allowed to hit women" sounds like you're itching for it.
If your only train of thought regarding domestic abuse is "ohh. Does that mean I can hit back now?" then you're not a victim, you're just a closeted abuser.
If your only answer to a public assault is fighting back you're not concerned with solving the situation, you're just spoiling for a fight.
Sure, there are situations where fighting back IS the only viable solution. But jumping to it immediately means we're not talking about a hypothetical situation - we're talking about a fantasy of yours.
I think it’s only useful to discuss it with the right nuance behind it. And for the record, I feel the same way about all discourse.
Very little of value can come from a conversation that starts with a sweeping generalisation or a broad statement, and most of the time, we will find much more valuable insights in nuanced debate that doesn’t try to stroke an emotional chord with an audience.
The logic is simple: “men feel society treats them unfairly when they’re in a violent situation with a woman, so I will make a post appealing to that feeling, but removing any sort of nuance that might explain some of the reasoning and potential exceptions in those situations, all with an excuse of gender equality.”
If someone is being battered, they have the right to defend themself with appropriate / proportional force, regardless of the gender of the assailant.
However, that said, you can be in the right and still be arrested, and public opinion tends to side with the woman in cases where the situation is nebulous, so maybe factor that into your decision.
The answer is exerting the minimum amount of force required to end combat. If a woman is beating the shit out of a man, I would not fault him for striking but he MUST stop the moment he is no longer on the defense and GTFO.
Always try to defuse the situation before it gets physical, defend yourself when necessary only AS MUCH as necessary (the best defence is not being where the fists are), never assault anyone. Pretty simple rules to live by no matter who you are.
I agree and think it should be emphasized that the whole Man vs Woman aspect is a red herring.
I'm not going explode the skull of a child that is trying to hit me in the balls. At the absolute worst I'll give the kid a firm shove to demonstrate that I'm not fucking around, and more likely I can just harmlessly pin them down without much of a struggle.
Conversely if a massive bear of a man grabs me by the throat I will resist however I can with no regard for his life or well-being, because it's my only hope of survival if he's as hostile as he seems.
Sex/gender, age, these things don't matter. Size and ability matter. Treat each danger for threat that it is. Anything else is just stupid gender war bait.
"Sex/gender, age, these things don't matter. Size and ability matter. Treat each danger for [the] threat that it is. Anything else is just stupid gender war bait."
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Domestic violence is intrinsically bad, and justice should be served to abusers. If a victim has a legitimate fear for their life and is physically unable to escape their abuser, violence in kind is morally justified. Whether the victim is male or female is irrelevant.
None, nobody should hit anybody as it violates the NAP, "Dont hit people and dont take their stuff". With that said if someone aggresses against you i feel that you are justified in defending yourself with the minimum amount of force required to end the aggression. If a woman hits a man the first thing should be to attempt to walk away. If that does not work and the man is physically capable of restraining this woman he should do so as restraining would be enough force to stop the hitting.
I as a teen (31 now) used to say "hits like a man, gets hit back" and I still believe this I suppose, although, most people aren't trying to fight or hit me.
Hitting back is an escalation