Is it seen as acceptable for women to hit men?

jaffacakesyum

Emily Salty Income wrote: »

That was a particularly sh*tty situation to be in.

As I said in my last post we shouldn't get physical unless we have no other choice. Having an unknown assailant jump on your back and grab your throat puts you in a very weak and dangerous position so you were of course perfectly right to get physical. For all you know the person could have been attempting to kill you.

So what the hell did she expect you to do? It's mind boggling that people expected you NOT to get physical in that situation.

Was she charged with assaulting a Garda or anything similar? I hope she was.

Absolutely.

And by the same logic having somebody grope you and not stop despite you verbally telling them to stop, or pushing them away means sometimes you have to resort to violence. Just because the attack is sexual rather than physical doesn't mean you shouldn't resort to self-defence. Only after trying to resolve the situation without violence though, of course.

I'm talking about situations where someone simply REFUSES to back off, or is threatening/intimidating someone else. And I don't just mean women.
With reference to that video - that girl deserved a thump. It's great that guys are being brought up not to be violent, but there's a big difference between brutishness and self-defence. He had every right to defend himself.
If any of you read the second half of my first comment, you would see that I mentioned a friend that was in an abusive relationship. He let that girl hit him again and again without retaliation. I think if he had just stood up for himself -restrained or stopped her in some way, she would have backed off. Some people just feed off pushing others around and making them feel small; once they see that their target isn't going to take that rubbish, they usually scarper.

Arawn

It's not acceptable at all. I was working on a door one year and this little scumbag one from my local town tried to kick me in the nuts. I grabbed the leg and forced her onto the ground with my knee on her chest telling her to calm down and I was going to get off her and walk back inside and she was to walk away. She spent the next 20 minutes telling everyone that I had beat the crap out of her. She was about 8 and a half stone and 5'4is, I'm 6 foot and at the time was 14 stone and heavily involved in combat sports. The pure hilarity of a wee girl with no bruising at all screaming that I had beat the **** out of her was hilarious. Thankfully as a previous poster has pointed out cctv is a lot more helpful than people think

smoking_kills

Arawn wrote: »

It's not acceptable at all. I was working on a door one year and this little scumbag one from my local town tried to kick me in the nuts. I grabbed the leg and forced her onto the ground with my knee on her chest telling her to calm down and I was going to get off her and walk back inside and she was to walk away. She spent the next 20 minutes telling everyone that I had beat the crap out of her. She was about 8 and a half stone and 5'4is, I'm 6 foot and at the time was 14 stone and heavily involved in combat sports. The pure hilarity of a wee girl with no bruising at all screaming that I had beat the **** out of her was hilarious. Thankfully as a previous poster has pointed out cctv is a lot more helpful than people think

Good for you man. That's exactly the way it should have been handled. Girls are quick to pull the equality card, but even quicker to pull the victim card.

wallycharlo

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

...Now over here looking at it from a male point of view I have been groped in a nightclub but I have to say that there is no way would I hit the woman that did it, and if I did I would be up on assault charges...

I think it's pretty relative to what the girl has done beforehand, e.g. if she has pinched my ass then I may do anything from wince in pain to look bemused, whereas if she hits me over the head with a bottle then I would punch her hard into the face.

Emme

I'm horrified at the antics of some of the women mentioned here. Are women becoming more violent these day? If so, why?

Maybe there was a reason for the chivalric philosophy of men doing the fighting and women swooning while they did it. OK, that's an exaggeration. Anyway, maybe letting men do the fighting was a way of keeping the aggression of the so called "weaker sex" in check. With a big strong man to protect her a woman would feel no need to do any fighting.

In the animal kingdom the males will fight each other, sometimes to the death but they are nowhere near as fierce as a mother protecting her offspring. And rightly so. But we are a bit more evolved than that.

Perhaps female aggression is misplaced rage - ie anger at the man who left the woman when she had his child or a man in authority who abused her. There is no excuse for violence except in extreme cases, say where a woman is fighting off someone trying to attack her child and there is no other way of defending them.

Again, why are women becoming so aggressive?

Arawn

Emme wrote: »

I'm horrified at the antics of some of the women mentioned here. Are women becoming more violent these day? If so, why?

Maybe there was a reason for the chivalric philosophy of men doing the fighting and women swooning while they did it. OK, that's an exaggeration. Anyway, maybe letting men do the fighting was a way of keeping the aggression of the so called "weaker sex" in check. With a big strong man to protect her a woman would feel no need to do any fighting.

In the animal kingdom the males will fight each other, sometimes to the death but they are nowhere near as fierce as a mother protecting her offspring. And rightly so. But we are a bit more evolved than that.

Perhaps female aggression is misplaced rage - ie anger at the man who left the woman when she had his child or a man in authority who abused her. There is no excuse for violence except in extreme cases, say where a woman is fighting off someone trying to attack her child and there is no other way of defending them.

Again, why are women becoming so aggressive?

Women are so ****ing vicious in fights. They will destroy each other with heels, pull lumps of hair out, scratch everything where as I find most men who get into a fight will just box and stop when there is a winner

Rev Hellfire

Emme wrote: »

Perhaps female aggression is misplaced rage - ie anger at the man who left the woman when she had his child or a man in authority who abused her.

Or perhaps it has nothing whatsoever to do with men and they are just aggressive all by themselves.

Emme wrote: »

Again, why are women becoming so aggressive?

Perhaps women where always aggressive it was just unreported before.

enigmatical

It's definitely not taken as seriously.

I saw a guy getting beaten up by his very physically capable girlfriend in London one day and everyone was just kinda giggling at him.

The poor guy was being absolutely pounded. I called the police and to be fair they did respond, cuffed her and took her off. (I was watching from inside a cafe).

Galwayguy35

wallycharlo wrote: »

I think it's pretty relative to what the girl has done beforehand, e.g. if she has pinched my ass then I may do anything from wince in pain to look bemused, whereas if she hits me over the head with a bottle then I would punch her hard into the face.

She grabbed my balls and squeezed them, so what in your opinion should I have done?

wallycharlo

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

She grabbed my balls and squeezed them, so what in your opinion should I have done?

I've actually had that happen to me as well once. Did she squeeze you enough to be in pain? In my case it was a soft type of squeeze let's say, and I snapped at her and told her in no uncertain terms not to do it again.

If it had been hard enough to hurt me badly though, I think I may have clattered her instinctively.

awec

This post has been deleted.

Galwayguy35

wallycharlo wrote: »

I've actually had that happen to me as well once. Did she squeeze you enough to be in pain? In my case it was a soft type of squeeze let's say, and I snapped at her and told her in no uncertain terms not to do it again.

If it had been hard enough to hurt me badly though, I think I may have clattered her instinctively.

It hurt a small bit all right but to be fair that wasn't her intention, it was part of some Hen Party dare thing to go up behind some stranger and grab his crotch.

Personally I would have to feel that I was in real danger of getting hurt before hitting out at someone of either sex.

gctest50

The Corinthian wrote: »

Consider the following example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKbM0KOPrSQ

.

Part of a campaign ~kids that witness violence

http://www.familievold.dk/

iptba

Emme wrote: »

Perhaps female aggression is misplaced rage - ie anger at the man who left the woman when she had his child or a man in authority who abused her.

If one is going to suggest such things, similar points could be made about male aggression e.g. perhaps male aggression is misplaced anger, anger at a woman who left with his child/children (or had an abortion when he didn't want her to or whatever), or woman who got him into trouble for reporting him for something or some other analogous thing.

The Corinthian

Emme wrote: »

Perhaps female aggression is misplaced rage - ie anger at the man who left the woman when she had his child or a man in authority who abused her. There is no excuse for violence except in extreme cases, say where a woman is fighting off someone trying to attack her child and there is no other way of defending them.

I'd be careful going down the road of understanding why, because it quickly becomes the road to justifying why.

One of the things that we've seen in numerous domestic violence, including homicide, cases, whereby the woman is the perpetrator and the man the victim, is the "she was pushed to it" defence, thus conveniently turning the perpetrator into a victim - Lorena Bobbitt being a classic example. Please note the groups supporting her defence, BTW.

Again, why are women becoming so aggressive?

Nobody 'became' anything; they were always like this - female-on-male domestic violence was simply (as with male-on-female domestic violence) seen as part of life, or even humorous:



What happened is that there's been so much propaganda about male-on-female domestic violence with the reverse completely ignored, and this has left us believing that domestic violence is and always been only one-way.

Women have always had a tendency twoards violence, just like men have; the idea that women can only be victims or violent in retaliation or because of male-on-female violence is a myth spun during the latter half of the twentieth century by feminism.

mariaalice

I went to see the Purge, interesting premise but it is a silly film, anyway it did depict woman acting out in a very violent way and women took part in the purge just as much as men, although it did portray the women as following the men in violent behaviour as opposed to women leading the violent behaviour. If you want to see where a topic is culturally in our society look at how it is portrayed in the media.

I would say it is beginning to be acknowledged that women can be as violent as men, but there is a still a subtle undertone that says woman only become violent to protect themselves or their family.

clairefontaine

mariaalice wrote: »

I went to see the Purge, interesting premise but it is a silly film, anyway it did depict woman acting out in a very violent way and women took part in the purge just as much as men, although it did portray the women as following the men in violent behaviour as opposed to women leading the violent behaviour. If you want to see where a topic is culturally in our society look at how it is portrayed in the media.

I would say it is beginning to be acknowledged that women can be as violent as men, but there is a still a subtle undertone that says woman only become violent to protect themselves or their family.

If you are watching American films then you have to consider violence id a heroic glorified activity.

We have always had violence even in our humour. The Honeymooners and The Three Stooges for example.

We are all capable of violence to certain degrees whether we are the abused dog who eventually snaps at their owner or a controlling individual with impulse problems or sadists. Some more than others.

I think as you see women gain more status you Will see them also get more violent. I say this because with more status comes more entitlement. It wont just be the occasional nut like Aries or Bobbit. More women will own guns too. Women are in combat now and gentility is seen less and less as a female trait.

The reason women on films have to be the hapless victims is so that Hollywood can retain the masculine heroic model.

Did you see "Chicago?" Musical theatre but all about violent women.

But you also have to consider how much these things actually reflect reality and how much they are entertaining.

I dont know many women going around with knives and yellow jump suits like Uma Thurman in "Kill Bill."

discus

enigmatical wrote: »

It's definitely not taken as seriously.

I saw a guy getting beaten up by his very physically capable girlfriend in London one day and everyone was just kinda giggling at him.

The poor guy was being absolutely pounded. I called the police and to be fair they did respond, cuffed her and took her off. (I was watching from inside a cafe).

That's horrible... I find it a bit worse in a way, because if the genders were reversed, people would intervene in seconds. I've been in 1 or 2 situations in my life where I was totally overwhelmed and completely helpless, and maybe that's why I, as a man, have a bias of empathy towards that man.

kat.mac

To answer the question in the OP - yes, unfortunately, I think it is often seen as acceptable for a woman to hit a man.

However to me, it is no more or no less acceptable that a man hitting a woman. Most of the women I know would be well able to hold their own, physically, against most of the guys I know, so I'm not sure why there's a difference in the perception of male-on-female violence and female-on-male violence. Violence is violence.

A specific case that I always think of when this issue comes up is the Tiger Woods incident. I found both the media treatment and the public reaction to the news that Elin Nordegren had gone after her husband with a golf club absolutely abhorrent. It was almost seen as comical. If a high-profile man chased his cheating wife with a golf club, he'd be (quite rightly) vilified.

The Corinthian wrote: »

What happened is that there's been so much propaganda about male-on-female domestic violence with the reverse completely ignored, and this has left us believing that domestic violence is and always been only one-way.

I really have to take issue with this. Leaving aside extremist feminism which is laced with misandry, feminist groups and women's advocacy groups have a specific aim - to highlight female issues, of which we know domestic violence is one. I can't see why you would have a problem with them doing a good job on that. I have never once heard a women's advocacy group claiming that domestic violence is, or has ever been, a one-way problem.

Zombrex

The notion that it is acceptable for women to hit men, but not vice versa, is based on the idea that woman cannot harm men by hitting them, they can only annoy them, where as a man can do serious damage to a woman. It is also based on the idea that physical damage to a man is something he should brush off, where as if a woman gets damaged that is more permanently scarring for her.

It is similar to how you might say you are not justified in kicking a toddler across the room because he slapped you on the knee.

Its nonsense of course, there are plenty of women who are more than capable of doing serious harm to a man, and plenty of men who if they did hit a woman would do so in a fashion that does not seriously hurt her.

If a woman hit me I would have no problem hitting her back with the same intensity that she hit me.

For example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mkr3f_Hc_cI

Mollyd90

If another man groped you in a night club what would do?

folan

its definitely seen as acceptable for for women to strike a man, under almost any presence.

the sickening assumption that a man automatically deserves anything he gets is entirely wrong, and the type of sexism that hurts the fabric of equality.

Rev Hellfire

Mollyd90 wrote: »

If another man groped you in a night club what would do?

I wouldn't automatically hit him is what I would do.

The Corinthian

kat.mac wrote: »

I really have to take issue with this. Leaving aside extremist feminism which is laced with misandry, feminist groups and women's advocacy groups have a specific aim - to highlight female issues, of which we know domestic violence is one. I can't see why you would have a problem with them doing a good job on that.

I thought these were organizations that oppose domestic violence, not women's advocacy groups? If they're the latter, they certainly don't identify very often as such.

Is Safe Ireland a women's advocacy group? According to their Web site it is "the only national organisation representing frontline domestic violence services in Ireland (including refuges)." It then goes on to only discuss only domestic violence against women and children.

Or maybe the Rape Crisis Centre? Maybe they only mention domestic violence is mentioned in relation to women because of their focus on rape and rape is something that only women can be victims of - oh, wait, that's not true either...

...ironically the the Rape Crisis Centre does accept that men can be victims of various forms of abuse, but it doesn't appear to recognise domestic violence as one of them.

Even a quick Google on the subject will throw up articles on sites that certainly don't claim to be women's advocacy groups that also only wish to discuss women (and occasionally children) as the sole victims.

So these organizations have seemingly set themselves up to represent all who suffer domestic violence, not just women, effectively blocking any men's advocacy groups from doing the same.

So if "extremist feminism, which is laced with misandry", is the cause of such sentiments, then I'm afraid the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

I have never once heard a women's advocacy group claiming that domestic violence is, or has ever been, a one-way problem.

A lie of omission or obfuscation is still a lie. Feel free to show us examples of such groups that give anything other than the most cursory mention of female-on-male violence. Many don't even mention men, beyond being perpetrators.

And this I take issue with.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

I thought these were organizations that oppose domestic violence, not women's advocacy groups? If they're the latter, they certainly don't identify very often as such.

Is Safe Ireland a women's advocacy group? According to their Web site it is "the only national organisation representing frontline domestic violence services in Ireland (including refuges)." It then goes on to only discuss only domestic violence against women and children.

Or maybe the Rape Crisis Centre? Maybe they only mention domestic violence is mentioned in relation to women because of their focus on rape and rape is something that only women can be victims of - oh, wait, that's not true either...

...ironically the the Rape Crisis Centre does accept that men can be victims of various forms of abuse, but it doesn't appear to recognise domestic violence as one of them.

Even a quick Google on the subject will throw up articles on sites that certainly don't claim to be women's advocacy groups that also only wish to discuss women (and occasionally children) as the sole victims.

So these organizations have seemingly set themselves up to represent all who suffer domestic violence, not just women, effectively blocking any men's advocacy groups from doing the same.

So if "extremist feminism, which is laced with misandry", is the cause of such sentiments, then I'm afraid the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

A lie of omission or obfuscation is still a lie. Feel free to show us examples of such groups that give anything other than the most cursory mention of female-on-male violence. Many don't even mention men, beyond being perpetrators.

And this I take issue with.

It is ironically such groups that only focus on women victims (some times on purpose some times due to innocent ignorance), that only help to re-enforce the notion that gender is an important factor in crime and crime prevention.

If you talk to a male victim of rape or domenstic abuse surprisingly saying he is a statistical anomaly is not comforting. The modern feminist movement really should know better, as they have made a strong push (correctly in my opinion) to focus on individual experience, in the sense that every victim is important not matter what demographic they fall into (this is largely to combat the lack of minorities in feminists groups).

Of course the obvious issue is that this is totally nullified if you only apply it to women. Every victims experience is important ... if you are a woman.

iptba

kat.mac wrote: »

To answer the question in the OP - yes, unfortunately, I think it is often seen as acceptable for a woman to hit a man.

However to me, it is no more or no less acceptable that a man hitting a woman. Most of the women I know would be well able to hold their own, physically, against most of the guys I know, so I'm not sure why there's a difference in the perception of male-on-female violence and female-on-male violence. Violence is violence.

A specific case that I always think of when this issue comes up is the Tiger Woods incident. I found both the media treatment and the public reaction to the news that Elin Nordegren had gone after her husband with a golf club absolutely abhorrent. It was almost seen as comical. If a high-profile man chased his cheating wife with a golf club, he'd be (quite rightly) vilified.

Don't feel I can give the whole post a "thanks" but would have for the bit above. Thanks.

iptba

Zombrex wrote: »

It is ironically such groups that only focus on women victims (some times on purpose some times due to innocent ignorance), that only help to re-enforce the notion that gender is an important factor in crime and crime prevention.

Another related ironic thing, for want of a better word, is they have often used the phrase "end the silence on domestic violence" but have at best not helped male domestic violence victims with their one-sided campaigns and education programmes for professionals, and probably made things worse for some.

The Corinthian

Zombrex wrote: »

It is ironically such groups that only focus on women victims (some times on purpose some times due to innocent ignorance), that only help to re-enforce the notion that gender is an important factor in crime and crime prevention.

Which, I suspect, may be part of the catalyst for recent calls to abolish custodial sentences for women - but that's another discussion.

Of course the obvious issue is that this is totally nullified if you only apply it to women. Every victims experience is important ... if you are a woman.

But only if you're not a lesbian. Another irony of portraying women only as victims and never as perpetrators of domestic violence is that it doesn't help lesbians, in relationships, who are victims of domestic violence.

kat.mac

The Corinthian wrote: »

I thought these were organizations that oppose domestic violence, not women's advocacy groups? If they're the latter, they certainly don't identify very often as such.

Is Safe Ireland a women's advocacy group? According to their Web site it is "the only national organisation representing frontline domestic violence services in Ireland (including refuges)." It then goes on to only discuss only domestic violence against women and children.

Or maybe the Rape Crisis Centre? Maybe they only mention domestic violence is mentioned in relation to women because of their focus on rape and rape is something that only women can be victims of - oh, wait, that's not true either...

...ironically the the Rape Crisis Centre does accept that men can be victims of various forms of abuse, but it doesn't appear to recognise domestic violence as one of them.

Even a quick Google on the subject will throw up articles on sites that certainly don't claim to be women's advocacy groups that also only wish to discuss women (and occasionally children) as the sole victims.

So these organizations have seemingly set themselves up to represent all who suffer domestic violence, not just women, effectively blocking any men's advocacy groups from doing the same.

So if "extremist feminism, which is laced with misandry", is the cause of such sentiments, then I'm afraid the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

A lie of omission or obfuscation is still a lie. Feel free to show us examples of such groups that give anything other than the most cursory mention of female-on-male violence. Many don't even mention men, beyond being perpetrators.

And this I take issue with.

Corinthian, I normally disagree with a lot of what you say, but you've given me serious food for thought here.