Would you ever hit a woman?

joe40

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh no, he’d have to be threatening others or putting someone else’s safety at risk, but a fella mouthing off, while he might strike a nerve, I wouldn’t get physical. Lads like that are generally a lot more vulnerable anyway to serious injury and I’d feel guilty if I did. I did once alright cause a fella I worked with serious injury when he made threats about my wife’s safety. He’d been making the same sort of snide remarks for months and I didn’t give a ****e, but that day he just went that one step too far. I felt terrible about it after because the chap was pure weedy. I knew he had the means of making good on his threat, I just wasn’t prepared to give him the opportunity.





Yeah and I can totally get that from any guy that they’d only resort to it as an absolute last resort. For me like when my wife came at me with a knife I just didn’t feel like she was still any threat and I knew I was capable of disarming her without injuring her. Fcuked the knife block in the bin then so she didn’t have the opportunity to try that again, with the knifes at least :pac:

Your wife coming at you with knife isn't normal behavior in any marriage. That is seriously f*ucked up.

How can you possibly say she wasn't a threat. It is actually a really demeaning attitude to women. If a woman comes at you with a knife she is a threat.

What is your opinion of women in the army. Are capable of inflicting damage on a potential enemy?

knucklehead6

Clare Kat wrote: »

While you’re up there be careful not to have too many recollections. You might just fall off.

Clare, I really don't know why you have decided to try baiting me into an inappropriate response. Maybe I remind you of someone, I don't know. But the thing is, I REALLY don't care either. If this makes you feel better, then you feel free to continue to do so. Just know I won't be rising to any attempts at provocation from you.

joe40

Clare Kat wrote: »

My sentiments exactly. Very few gentlemen here.

Could you show me one post where someone has condoned violence against a woman.

Wibbs

Clare Kat wrote: »

My sentiments exactly. Very few gentlemen here.

Pity that the post you quoted is wildly inaccurate and that's being kind.
1) "old time classic thread" suggests forerunners and a regular matter for debate which is a nonsense.

2) "people discuss in detail how they'd hit a woman no problem" vague and leading where in fact people have repeatedly stated quite clearly and with vanishingly few exceptions that no they wouldn't unless in self defence, with a couple saying not even then(but would hit a man).

3) "11 pages of classics with such posts as "i'd break a womans jaw in a heartbeat if one tried to slap me" (50 thanks)". Never happened and a complete fabrication. I even quoted the post this references to show it's a nonsense.

So how does that fit with your sentiments? Genuine question.

It has long fascinated me how people will read what they want to read based on their biases going in no matter what, but some posts on this thread take the biscuit. It also illustrates how some subjects are verboten for some unless the herd think is rigidly followed and that herd think is dug in deep.

Clare Kat

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Clare, I really don't know why you have decided to try baiting me into an inappropriate response. Maybe I remind you of someone, I don't know. But the thing is, I REALLY don't care either. If this makes you feel better, then you feel free to continue to do so. Just know I won't be rising to any attempts at provocation from you.

Baiting you into an inappropriate response? Sorry knucklehead6 but I wouldn’t dream to hold such power as to be able to get you to say something that you wouldn’t normally say.. That’s up there with “ now look what you made me do” after the abuser belts the crap out of the victim. I wasn’t trying to provoke you, simply pointing out how there is a judgement on the victim for making “poor choices”. I sincerely hope and pray that you never have to rescue a family member of friend from a dangerous situation.

knucklehead6

Clare Kat wrote: »

Baiting you into an inappropriate response? Sorry knucklehead6 but I wouldn’t dream to hold such power as to be able to get you to say something that you wouldn’t normally say.. That’s up there with “ now look what you made me do” after the abuser belts the crap out of the victim. I wasn’t trying to provoke you, simply pointing out how there is a judgement on the victim for making “poor choices”. I sincerely hope and pray that you never have to rescue a family member of friend from a dangerous situation.

And i said i wasn't being judgmental, just genuinely curious.

At which point you started on about high horses, and referring back to an assault i was victim of nearly 30 years ago, and now with the associating me with abusing people and the "now look what you made me do" snide comment....

You think what you want Clare, and use whatever justification you want for that.

One eyed Jack

joe40 wrote: »

Your wife coming at you with knife isn't normal behavior in any marriage. That is seriously f*ucked up.

How can you possibly say she wasn't a threat. It is actually a really demeaning attitude to women. If a woman comes at you with a knife she is a threat.

What is your opinion of women in the army. Are capable of inflicting damage on a potential enemy?

Im not going to be smart with you joe but I’m quite aware that a mans wife coming at him with a knife isn’t normal behaviour within a marriage. I don’t encourage that sort of behaviour at all. In my circumstances it was absolutely normal behaviour for my wife because she suffered with ill mental health at the time. She doesn’t any more, and we have a healthy relationship now. You might wonder why I didn’t leave, but it’s no more complex than when I made a vow to be together “in sickness and in health”, I take that seriously.

I can say she wasn’t a threat because I’m speaking for myself. She wasn’t a threat to me, that’s not saying anything about any other woman, let alone women as a whole group. You’ve hit on something that really bothers me though - I’m supposed to think a woman coming at me with a knife is a threat because you say so? I can make that determination for myself whether she is or not. I’ve never felt threatened by a woman whether she was my wife with a knife or anything else.

For what it’s worth though, if you don’t mind my saying so, it’s pretty fcuked up to tell me I have a demeaning attitude towards women because I don’t feel threatened by them. I don’t feel threatened by women, there’s nothing demeaning about saying that. As for women in the army, no strong opinions either way, they’re certainly capable of inflicting damage on an enemy, but whether anyone views them as a threat or not is entirely down to that particular individual. I wouldn’t see them as a threat, you might. I don’t think there’s anything positive or negative in that, it’s just a difference of opinion.

You do raise an interesting point for me though and it’s one that has always bothered me when these issues are discussed, and that is if one doesn’t fit a particular narrative, they’d better be prepared to take an awful lot of shìt. I was reminded of this again last night when I sought to verify for myself claims that Amber Heard shat the bed. I didn’t know that anyone meant she had literally shat the bed. I think we can both agree that’s not normal behaviour in a marriage? :pac:

But anyway, the point was that on this one particular reddit thread (I’m never on there, just clicked in from google), they were talking about the whole case and I’m not familiar with the case as I’ve no particular interest in it one way or the other, but anyway, this particular woman was giving it welly about how “I’m a domestic violence survivor and fcuk you Amber Heard”, I’m not paraphrasing.

She went on about how she was supported on “her journey” by her new partner and all the rest of it. Frankly, nauseating stuff. But that is the narrative that has currency nowadays - an articulate post portraying a particular narrative has more value than the person who isn’t at all articulate and says “the wrong things”, like your telling me I have a demeaning attitude towards women because I don’t view them as a threat and all the rest of it.

It seems that Amber Heard shall be subject to the same sort of treatment on social media while Johnny is portrayed as a lovely man by women crooning over him and all the rest of it, absolutely vilifying Heard at the same time. Why? Not because they think she’s full of shìt (she clearly could prove them wrong on that one at least), but because she doesn’t fit their narrative of a “domestic violence survivor”.

sweet_trip

Wibbs wrote: »

Please point out the 50 thanks post where a poster has said they'd break a woman's jaw in a heartbeat no problem. Oh wait... there isn't one. The most thanked post I can see is the second one. Though 42 thanks, not 50 but we'll allow for exaggeration on your part here and let's have a read of that again for clarity shall we?



Hmmm... No mention of jaw breaking or heartbeats or women. Indeed the poster clearly states regardless of gender.

So you're either misreading to quite the degree for whatever reason, or fibbing for effect in the hope if people just read your post they'll believe the BS, or so fired up on "how dare you even discuss the subject" you're imagining things.

It's called hyperbole. These threads and discussions have been done to the death over the years on this forum and other websites.

Even if it's not literally stated, it's implied and lapped up every single time these threads pop up that there's a lot of men who love fantasising about how much they'd love to strike a woman if they ever got the chance. It's weird and circle jerky.

Bunch of hard men online ranting "regardless of gender hurrdurr if a woman ever came at me I wouldn't hold back pummelling her, hurrdurr I'm 6ft and weigh 15 stone, love to see the look on her face after that!" -50 thanks err I mean 42 thanks or whatever.

knucklehead6

sweet_trip wrote: »

It's called hyperbole. These threads and discussions have been done to the death over the years on this forum and other websites.

Even if it's not literally stated, it's implied and lapped up every single time these threads pop up that there's a lot of men who love fantasising about how much they'd love to strike a woman if they ever got the chance. It's weird and circle jerky.

Bunch of hard men online ranting "regardless of gender hurrdurr if a woman ever came at me I wouldn't hold back pummelling her, hurrdurr I'm 6ft and weigh 15 stone, love to see the look on her face after that!" -50 thanks err I mean 42 thanks or whatever.

That's a no then. You haven't read the thread.

Clare Kat

sweet_trip wrote: »

It's called hyperbole. These threads and discussions have been done to the death over the years on this forum and other websites.

Even if it's not literally stated, it's implied and lapped up every single time these threads pop up that there's a lot of men who love fantasising about how much they'd love to strike a woman if they ever got the chance. It's weird and circle jerky.

Bunch of hard men online ranting "regardless of gender hurrdurr if a woman ever came at me I wouldn't hold back pummelling her, hurrdurr I'm 6ft and weigh 15 stone, love to see the look on her face after that!" -50 thanks err I mean 42 thanks or whatever.

Dead right. Bunch of cavemen.

Wibbs

sweet_trip wrote: »

It's called hyperbole.

No, at best it's called a complete fabrication.

Even if it's not literally stated,

Funny, most people tend to prefer something being actually stated as opposed to invention, "hyperbole" and hysterics. It's called being factual.

there's a lot of men who love fantasising about how much they'd love to strike a woman if they ever got the chance. It's weird and circle jerky.

Again, and I know this may come as a shock, imagining and believing something is not quite the same as reality. Then again as we see more and more on social media for example feelings all too often overpower facts.

Clare Kat wrote: »

Dead right. Bunch of cavemen.

Hmm, you went the cavemen route. Other options can include: "bunch of incels/virgins" and "Basement dwellers". So you just ignore the other posters fevered invention because you agree with them? It would be refreshing to not see the usual tired responses trotted out. God forbid actual debate. One Eyed Jack can get a tad back and forth but the chap is at least discussing the subject and fighting his corner of opinion.

joe40

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Im not going to be smart with you joe but I’m quite aware that a mans wife coming at him with a knife isn’t normal behaviour within a marriage. I don’t encourage that sort of behaviour at all. In my circumstances it was absolutely normal behaviour for my wife because she suffered with ill mental health at the time. She doesn’t any more, and we have a healthy relationship now. You might wonder why I didn’t leave, but it’s no more complex than when I made a vow to be together “in sickness and in health”, I take that seriously.

I can say she wasn’t a threat because I’m speaking for myself. She wasn’t a threat to me, that’s not saying anything about any other woman, let alone women as a whole group. You’ve hit on something that really bothers me though - I’m supposed to think a woman coming at me with a knife is a threat because you say so? I can make that determination for myself whether she is or not. I’ve never felt threatened by a woman whether she was my wife with a knife or anything else.

For what it’s worth though, if you don’t mind my saying so, it’s pretty fcuked up to tell me I have a demeaning attitude towards women because I don’t feel threatened by them. I don’t feel threatened by women, there’s nothing demeaning about saying that. As for women in the army, no strong opinions either way, they’re certainly capable of inflicting damage on an enemy, but whether anyone views them as a threat or not is entirely down to that particular individual. I wouldn’t see them as a threat, you might. I don’t think there’s anything positive or negative in that, it’s just a difference of opinion.

You do raise an interesting point for me though and it’s one that has always bothered me when these issues are discussed, and that is if one doesn’t fit a particular narrative, they’d better be prepared to take an awful lot of shìt. I was reminded of this again last night when I sought to verify for myself claims that Amber Heard shat the bed. I didn’t know that anyone meant she had literally shat the bed. I think we can both agree that’s not normal behaviour in a marriage? :pac:

But anyway, the point was that on this one particular reddit thread (I’m never on there, just clicked in from google), they were talking about the whole case and I’m not familiar with the case as I’ve no particular interest in it one way or the other, but anyway, this particular woman was giving it welly about how “I’m a domestic violence survivor and fcuk you Amber Heard”, I’m not paraphrasing.

She went on about how she was supported on “her journey” by her new partner and all the rest of it. Frankly, nauseating stuff. But that is the narrative that has currency nowadays - an articulate post portraying a particular narrative has more value than the person who isn’t at all articulate and says “the wrong things”, like your telling me I have a demeaning attitude towards women because I don’t view them as a threat and all the rest of it.

It seems that Amber Heard shall be subject to the same sort of treatment on social media while Johnny is portrayed as a lovely man by women crooning over him and all the rest of it, absolutely vilifying Heard at the same time. Why? Not because they think she’s full of shìt (she clearly could prove them wrong on that one at least), but because she doesn’t fit their narrative of a “domestic violence survivor”.

Well firstly fair play to you for the help and support you gave to your wife. From the post I thought you were very been casual about the knife incident, that was obviously wrong and I do apologise. Mental health can be very difficult for a spouse to deal so again, sorry and fair play for doing your best.

I'm still confused with your opinion though. You say didn't feel threatened by your wife and I can fully accept that, you know yourself and you know your wife and I have no knowledge of either.

However you also say "I don't feel threatened by women" well neither do I. I don't feel threatened by men either. My life is fairly safe.

But at the same time it is possible that another person, regardless of gender, could pose a threat.

So are you saying:
1 A woman will never pose a threat to you, or

2 Even if a woman did pose a threat you would not fight back if the threat was serious. Eg armed with serious intent to do harm.

I don't really know enough about the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard stuff to comment.

And in answer to the other posters I would never use violence unless there was a real risk to myself. Been annoyed, insulted, slapped even, are not remotely justification. It would have to be a sustained attack that I could not remove myself from.

Clare Kat

knucklehead6 wrote: »

And i said i wasn't being judgmental, just genuinely curious.

At which point you started on about high horses, and referring back to an assault i was victim of nearly 30 years ago, and now with the associating me with abusing people and the "now look what you made me do" snide comment....

You think what you want Clare, and use whatever justification you want for that.

You might want to review some of your responses to my posts. I seem to “recollect” you referring to a post by Wibbs that “applied to me”, the last paragraph in fact “where some part of me might be picking the personality type more likely to be abusive”. Hmmmm... sounds pretty judgmental to me. It would appear as One Eyed Jack referred to in one of his earlier posts “ the ones who want to dish it out can’t take it themselves”.

One eyed Jack

joe40 wrote: »

Well firstly fair play to you for the help and support you gave to your wife. From the post I thought you were very been casual about the knife incident, that was obviously wrong and I do apologise. Mental health can be very difficult for a spouse to deal so again, sorry and fair play for doing your best.

Oh no need to apologise or anything, I know what you mean and I was being casual about the knife incident. I only mentioned it at all because knucklehead was giving an example of what he would do if he were in that situation. I’m casual about because it’s like you said you don’t know anyone who has a lifestyle of violence, something like that anyway. I didn’t want to get into it because as far as I’m concerned it’s private, but the example I used wasn’t unusual in my experience.

I will admit too I can be a bit too casual about certain things and that absolutely does cause some people to go “dafuq?”, when I thought one minute we were having a relaxed chat and everything was cool, and next thing I realise I said something I shouldn’t have because it was inappropriate, and I didn’t read the situation, I let my guard down. Fortunately in most cases all that happens is I’ll take a bit of shìt for it, be grand.

joe40 wrote: »

I'm still confused with your opinion though. You say didn't feel threatened by your wife and I can fully accept that, you know yourself and you know your wife and I have no knowledge of either.

However you also say "I don't feel threatened by women" well neither do I. I don't feel threatened by men either. My life is fairly safe.

But at the same time it is possible that another person, regardless of gender, could pose a threat.

So are you saying:
1 A woman will never pose a threat to you, or

2 Even if a woman did pose a threat you would not fight back if the threat was serious. Eg armed with serious intent to do harm.

joe I honestly don’t know what you’re looking for there? No, it’s not possible that someone solely by virtue of their gender could pose a threat to anyone. Is it possible that someone regardless of their gender could pose a threat to me personally? It’s never happened, but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that one day I might actually value my life to the degree that I would feel threatened by the possibility of losing it.

That’s why even though a woman wouldn’t pose a threat to me, she might pose a threat to herself or others, but I don’t need to strike her to prevent her from doing harm to anyone else, there are literally an infinite number of ways to render a person harmless without injuring them if you really want to render a person harmless without injuring them. There’s a chance you might injure them anyway, unintentionally, but if it wasn’t your intent to injure them I would say that’s fair enough.

Mister Vain

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh no need to apologise or anything, I know what you mean and I was being casual about the knife incident. I only mentioned it at all because knucklehead was giving an example of what he would do if he were in that situation. I’m casual about because it’s like you said you don’t know anyone who has a lifestyle of violence, something like that anyway. I didn’t want to get into it because as far as I’m concerned it’s private, but the example I used wasn’t unusual in my experience.

I will admit too I can be a bit too casual about certain things and that absolutely does cause some people to go “dafuq?”, when I thought one minute we were having a relaxed chat and everything was cool, and next thing I realise I said something I shouldn’t have because it was inappropriate, and I didn’t read the situation, I let my guard down. Fortunately in most cases all that happens is I’ll take a bit of shìt for it, be grand.





joe I honestly don’t know what you’re looking for there? No, it’s not possible that someone solely by virtue of their gender could pose a threat to anyone. Is it possible that someone regardless of their gender could pose a threat to me personally? It’s never happened, but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that one day I might actually value my life to the degree that I would feel threatened by the possibility of losing it.

That’s why even though a woman wouldn’t pose a threat to me, she might pose a threat to herself or others, but I don’t need to strike her to prevent her from doing harm to anyone else, there are literally an infinite number of ways to render a person harmless without injuring them if you really want to render a person harmless without injuring them. There’s a chance you might injure them anyway, unintentionally, but if it wasn’t your intent to injure them I would say that’s fair enough.

Really? Even for a Jujitsu master that would be a bit of a stretch. Any examples apart from the obvious over powering?

iptba

It might be interesting to have a poll asking who would ever hit a man and who would ever hit women, perhaps with more than one scenario. The interesting thing to me is if people would treat people differently based on gender and/or want others to treat people differently based on gender. Currently it's hard to tell for some posters.

Mister Vain

iptba wrote: »

It might be interesting to have a poll asking who would ever hit a man and who would ever hit women, perhaps with more than one scenario. The interesting thing to me is if people would treat people differently based on gender and/or want others to treat people differently based on gender. Currently it's hard to tell for some posters.

I said it already, but if its a sustained attack or I'm getting badly hurt I'm going to defend myself regardless of the gender of the person. It's just instincts.

Clare Kat

Wibbs wrote: »

No, at best it's called a complete fabrication.
Funny, most people tend to prefer something being actually stated as opposed to invention, "hyperbole" and hysterics. It's called being factual. Again, and I know this may come as a shock, imagining and believing something is not quite the same as reality. Then again as we see more and more on social media for example feelings all too often overpower facts.

Hmm, you went the cavemen route. Other options can include: "bunch of incels/virgins" and "Basement dwellers". So you just ignore the other posters fevered invention because you agree with them? It would be refreshing to not see the usual tired responses trotted out. God forbid actual debate. One Eyed Jack can get a tad back and forth but the chap is at least discussing the subject and fighting his corner of opinion.

So I’m being pulled up on my choice of words and other options suggested. Very interesting indeed.

Wibbs

Clare Kat wrote: »

So I’m being pulled up on my choice of words and other options suggested. Very interesting indeed.

Not particularly, but choice of words is important and a good judge of opinions held. Like I noted god forbid there'd be debate. Calling people "cavemen" is not debate just so you know and almost always demonstrates a lack of a cohesive argument.

Oh and no more of that please. Attack the post(s) not the poster(s) is the biggest rule on this site. If you can't follow that pretty basic rule, then refrain from posting.

knucklehead6

Clare Kat wrote: »

You might want to review some of your responses to my posts. I seem to “recollect” you referring to a post by Wibbs that “applied to me”, the last paragraph in fact “where some part of me might be picking the personality type more likely to be abusive”. Hmmmm... sounds pretty judgmental to me. It would appear as One Eyed Jack referred to in one of his earlier posts “ the ones who want to dish it out can’t take it themselves”.

So you admit you are attempting to get a reaction out of me for some perceived slight. Fair enough.

So far in this thread you have alleged I have PTSD, am a narcissist, condescending, patronising, judgmental, ignorant, made a second reference to allegedly having PTSD, of being high horsey and lumped me in with abusers.

All I've done is try to engage you in respectful debate. But I can see how that is just a waste of time on my part, so I will be not engaging with you any further.

Clare Kat

Clare Kat wrote: »

My sentiments exactly. Very few gentlemen here.

I can assure you that once you are not trying to hurt me or anyone else, I am a gentleman.

I will hold the door, give up my seat, address you as a lady and pull your chair out for you.I treat people fairly and with manners.

I was raised by a gentleman and a lady with the very clear understanding that respect and manners cost nothing.

knucklehead6

iptba wrote: »

It might be interesting to have a poll asking who would ever hit a man and who would ever hit women, perhaps with more than one scenario. The interesting thing to me is if people would treat people differently based on gender and/or want others to treat people differently based on gender. Currently it's hard to tell for some posters.

To be fair I'd say most of the posters on the thread would be of a not wildly dissimilar point of view.

Initially attempt to de-escalate the situation by whatever means necessary, be that walking away, stopping responding etc, but if that fails then to have a stepped approach.

Churchill was right when he said meeting jaw to jaw is better than war. I think most of us would be actively attempting to avoid physical confrontation

py2006

Clare Kat wrote: »

My sentiments exactly. Very few gentlemen here.

Not very lady like to infiltrate a thread, intentionally misrepresent the discussion and insult the majority of contributors.

Airyfairy12

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I can assure you that once you are not trying to hurt me or anyone else, I am a gentleman.

I will hold the door, give up my seat, address you as a lady and pull your chair out for you.I treat people fairly and with manners.

I was raised by a gentleman and a lady with the very clear understanding that respect and manners cost nothing.

What era are you living in?
I dont know about other women but I wouldnt appreciate someone pulling out my chair unless my hands were full or broken and I dont need your seat, women have legs too and are capable of standing on them. Id only give up my seat to someone clearly sick, pregnant, old or on crutches, women arent invalids by default. Holding a door for someone is common decency that everyone should do.
You can pull out a chair for a lady and still be a complete d!ck! it means nothing, other than you hold on to old traditional values that dont relate to a modern society.

Airyfairy12

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

What era are you living in?
I dont know about other women but I wouldnt appreciate someone pulling out my chair unless my hands were full or broken and I dont need your seat, women have legs too and are capable of standing on them. Id only give up my seat to someone clearly sick, pregnant, old or on crutches, women arent invalids by default. Holding a door for someone is common decency that everyone should do.
You can pull out a chair for a lady and still be a complete d!ck! it means nothing, other than you hold on to old traditional values that dont relate to a modern society.

That didn't take long did it? Catch 22



Brian of Nazareth will be along any moment now to haggle

One eyed Jack

Mister Vain wrote: »

Really? Even for a Jujitsu master that would be a bit of a stretch. Any examples apart from the obvious over powering?

You wouldn’t need to be a Jujitsu master to use your brain? You can try and distract your attackers to give yourself an opportunity to get out of there or calm down the situation, or you can shout and draw attention to yourself, would depend on the circumstances like, that’s why I don’t really bother with hypothetical set pieces that are taught to bored middle aged housewives and kids to give them confidence. I really do hope they never find themselves in a situation where they have to rely on what they’ve been taught :pac:

I know it’s so much easier said than done because most people even with the best of training will miss the “obvious” things they’ll only see in hindsight, and keeping your wits about you is easier said than done because the vast majority of people will never find themselves in those circumstances, and theory and reality are very different - you just won’t have control of the situation, your attacker more often than not will have every advantage, and you’ll have fcukall - attackers pick their victims. The victims don’t get to pick their attackers.

Clare Kat

Wibbs wrote: »

Not particularly, but choice of words is important and a good judge of opinions held. Like I noted god forbid there'd be debate. Calling people "cavemen" is not debate just so you know and almost always demonstrates a lack of a cohesive argument.

Oh and no more of that please. Attack the post(s) not the poster(s) is the biggest rule on this site. If you can't follow that pretty basic rule, then refrain from posting.

No worries. I actually feel as if I’ve stepped into a time capsule so I’m stepping out now.

knucklehead6

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

What era are you living in?
I dont know about other women but I wouldnt appreciate someone pulling out my chair unless my hands were full or broken and I dont need your seat, women have legs too and are capable of standing on them. Id only give up my seat to someone clearly sick, pregnant, old or on crutches, women arent invalids by default. Holding a door for someone is common decency that everyone should do.
You can pull out a chair for a lady and still be a complete d!ck! it means nothing, other than you hold on to old traditional values that dont relate to a modern society.

While I can’t say I practice everything Niner mentions here, some of those old traditional values are worth holding onto though. I used address adults formally well into my teenage years. And to this day there are still some people that I address formally. They are (literally) a dying breed as they are all in their eighties now but Mr. Hayes is Mr. Hayes and always will be.

One eyed Jack

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

What era are you living in?
I dont know about other women but I wouldnt appreciate someone pulling out my chair unless my hands were full or broken and I dont need your seat, women have legs too and are capable of standing on them. Id only give up my seat to someone clearly sick, pregnant, old or on crutches, women arent invalids by default. Holding a door for someone is common decency that everyone should do.
You can pull out a chair for a lady and still be a complete d!ck! it means nothing, other than you hold on to old traditional values that dont relate to a modern society.

It’s very gracious of you to admit that from the off. Far too many times on social media there are people who imagine their opinions are representative of whatever group they imagine they are representative of.

It’s absolutely true that you can pull out a chair for a lady and still be a complete dick, but that’s not what was meant and I’m sure you know it. There’s no ill intent behind the practices which are still as common in modern society as they ever were traditionally.

In my experience women have tended to appreciate respect (there are a few women I’ve known who have begged me not to respect them, not something I could ever bring myself to do tbh :pac:), because they understand it’s coming from a good place, it’s not any attempt to subjugate women or put them up on pedestals or any of the rest of it. It’s just as far as I’m concerned and as far as most women in my experience are concerned - basic manners.

Contrary to your belief, traditional values are still very much part and parcel of living in modern society and everyday interactions between men and women. They’re also values which I pass on to the next generation through how I raise my son. Could they be interpreted as sexist? Certainly, that’s exactly what they are!

Mister Vain

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You wouldn’t need to be a Jujitsu master to use your brain? You can try and distract your attackers to give yourself an opportunity to get out of there or calm down the situation, or you can shout and draw attention to yourself, would depend on the circumstances like, that’s why I don’t really bother with hypothetical set pieces that are taught to bored middle aged housewives and kids to give them confidence. I really do hope they never find themselves in a situation where they have to rely on what they’ve been taught :pac:

I know it’s so much easier said than done because most people even with the best of training will miss the “obvious” things they’ll only see in hindsight, and keeping your wits about you is easier said than done because the vast majority of people will never find themselves in those circumstances, and theory and reality are very different - you just won’t have control of the situation, your attacker more often than not will have every advantage, and you’ll have fcukall - attackers pick their victims. The victims don’t get to pick their attackers.

Well you did say there's an infinite number of ways to render a person harmless without injuring them. That's a hell of a lot different to distracting them or calling for help. I was just wondering how you would render someone "harmless" in a situation where you're being attacked.