Would you ever hit a woman?

knucklehead6 wrote: »

For now you are. But someday you'll grow up a bit, get a little wiser, a little more worldly wise and you'll take women down off that pedestal of fair and comely maidens you seem to have elevated them to and realise that they are people too, with all the faults and quirks and foibles of people.

Some of them may well be deserving of that pedestal you've built, most are not.

Most women don't hit their partners, or random people on a night out. Some do.
Most men don't hit their partners, or random people on a night out. Some do.

Not to be rude or anything knucklehead but you’re talking nonsense. You know fannyadams about me personally apart from my opinions on this topic, and it’s obvious you’d use what little you do know to undermine my opinions on this topic if you could. That would be getting away from the point of the thread and turning it into a pissing contest.

In the scenario in which you described, where you’re more worldly wiser and don’t put women on pedestals and all the rest of it, your mate basically said to his wife that had just hit him, that you’re taking photos of his injuries and you and your wife are both witnesses, and his wife is calling you the next morning asking you delete the photos?

I’m not so wise and worldly as you so perhaps that’s why I’d consider people like that were welcome to each other and I wanted no involvement in their dramatics, pair of head the balls. And don’t get me wrong, I’ve known plenty of relationships like that which thrive on attention and drama and involving as many people in their soap lives as possible, it’s easy to get sucked in. I’d just cut them out tbh, but obviously I understand you’re not going to do that to someone you consider a friend whom you obviously care about.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not to be rude or anything knucklehead but you’re talking nonsense. You know fannyadams about me personally apart from my opinions on this topic, and it’s obvious you’d use what little you do know to undermine my opinions on this topic if you could. That would be getting away from the point of the thread and turning it into a pissing contest.

Jack, when just about everyone else is saying one thing and you are saying another, completely opposite thing, it's time to look at your point of view and check yourself, that's all i'm saying.

About the only thing you've said that I agree with in this thread is that a bloke hitting a woman DOES put himself at risk of legal consequences.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Jack, when just about everyone else is saying one thing and you are saying another, completely opposite thing, it's time to look at your point of view and check yourself, that's all i'm saying.

About the only thing you've said that I agree with in this thread is that a bloke hitting a woman DOES put himself at risk of legal consequences.

Yeah I get what you’re saying, and I’d be saying the same thing if the OP had asked is it ever ok to hit anyone in self-defence. No it’s not, self-defence is a justification to assault, and any lads getting the idea that it’s ok to hit someone in self-defence is likely to find themselves in a heap of trouble pretty quickly.

There have been times when I’ve had to defend myself or others but no, I’ve never felt good about it or felt proud of myself afterwards or felt justified about it. I felt like shìt, like I’d let myself down. I’ve never found hitting anyone acceptable. In this case the OP just happened to be talking about hitting a woman. I apply the same standard that it’s unacceptable to hit a man.

That’s why I would always prefer to make people aware that they could leave themselves open to being charged with assault, and the justification of self-defence is not some get out of jail free card that means they have no responsibility and the other person is entirely responsible because they started it. That’s the mistake your friends are making too. Though whether either of them will ever see the inside of a jail cell is unlikely, seems to be mostly petty attention seeking nonsense they go on with.

idnkph

Equal rights= equal fights

idnkph wrote: »

Equal rights= equal fights

How is this called The Geblteman’s Club? Seems the only gentleman is One Eyed Jack.

Clare Kat wrote: »

How is this called The Geblteman’s Club? Seems the only gentleman is One Eyed Jack.

The Gentlemen’s Clun

10fathoms

I'd never hit one but by jasus I'd give one a fair kicking

Clare Kat wrote: »

How is this called The Geblteman’s Club? Seems the only gentleman is One Eyed Jack.

The Gentlemen’s Club

Galwayguy35

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, so long as boards keep allowing the troll to keep threads like this going then I guess they'll have to deal with it. Hate stuff, etc. Not a good look, in my opinion.

Sure start a thread yourself so and get us chatting about what you want to talk about instead of moaning on this one about it.

Airyfairy12

Absolutely disgusting that this thread has been allowed to stay open and half the comments posted have been allowed. Normalising violence and hate speech against women has always been allowed on this site but to allow a thread like this to continue, that is so blatantly sexist and hateful against a group of people?
This really says everything about this site and the people who run it.

Mods you should be ashamed of yourselves!

Clare Kat wrote: »

The Gentlemen’s Club

Third times the charm....

And maybe you are a proper lady, who’d never hit a person, but in the vast majority of posts where a bloke has said “yes I would hit a woman” it’s always in self defence.

Yeah, there are one or two gobshhiites who’ve said they have hit a woman because she was annoying them but the rest have been quite together in their posts.

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Absolutely disgusting that this thread has been allowed to stay open and half the comments posted have been allowed. Normalising violence and hate speech against women has always been allowed on this site but to allow a thread like this to continue, that is so blatantly sexist and hateful against a group of people?
This really says everything about this site and the people who run it.

Mods you should be ashamed of yourselves!

Blatantly hateful against a group of people.... who have struck first.

Don’t forget that little nugget.

DublinWriter

skooterblue2 wrote: »

If you ever feel the need to raise your hand to a woman, you just walk away and let the two of you cool off.

If a woman came at me or my family violently, then yes.

In the context of a relationship, if you feel that urge, then that relationship seriously isn't for you. Anyone that pushes you to that type of red-mist rage is toxic and not for you. Don't walk, run.

SEPT 23 1989

Was brought up to believe you never hit a woman ever

It would really have to be a last resort situation to lay hands on a woman

equal rights = equal fights?

I don't know what size and physical strength the men posting that kind of thing are but I would hazard a guess

ILoveYourVibes

mr_fegelien wrote: »

In self defence? I'm a 5ft 4in guy who's 60kgs so there's little risk of me doing damage to the average woman who might try and attack me. Meanwhile, if you're 6ft, then that's a different story.

Why are you asking this?

ILoveYourVibes

Literally a whole thread about beating up women. Lovely.

Deleted User wrote: »

Or, you know, just ban the troll OP for starting this hateful ****.

I guess he just gets hits and no one has the balls to ban him.

I agree.

Wibbs

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Absolutely disgusting that this thread has been allowed to stay open and half the comments posted have been allowed. Normalising violence and hate speech against women has always been allowed on this site but to allow a thread like this to continue, that is so blatantly sexist and hateful against a group of people?
This really says everything about this site and the people who run it.

Mods you should be ashamed of yourselves!

Although started by one of our hit and run posters it has brought up debate about violence and self defence which has gone a few directions. As for hate speech and normalising violence? Maybe dial back the hyperbole. I don't see anyone a) suggesting hitting a woman just because they're women and b) it's been repeatedly couched in a self defence argument if such should come up and not one poster that I can see has suggested one sided violence on anyone.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Third times the charm....

And maybe you are a proper lady, who’d never hit a person, but in the vast majority of posts where a bloke has said “yes I would hit a woman” it’s always in self defence.

Yeah, there are one or two gobshhiites who’ve said they have hit a woman because she was annoying them but the rest have been quite together in their posts.

Those blokes are the same as the gobshìtes really because one of the things about offering a justification of self defence against a charge of assault is that it cannot have been premeditated. If an act was premeditated, then it’s not self-defence, so knowing that they’d hit a woman beforehand? They couldn’t possibly know what they would do in self defence unless they were in that situation.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that those posters who have said they would hit a woman, are only fantasising about the idea of a woman hitting them first because they think arguing self defence would get them off the hook. It just doesn’t.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Literally a whole thread about beating up women. Lovely.

Well you spent enough time beating up a woman for her career choice in the stripper thread so it's no surprise you get the wrong end of the stick here either.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Those blokes are the same as the gobshìtes really because one of the things about offering a justification of self defence against a charge of assault is that it cannot have been premeditated. If an act was premeditated, then it’s not self-defence, so knowing that they’d hit a woman beforehand? They couldn’t possibly know what they would do in self defence unless they were in that situation.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that those posters who have said they would hit a woman, are only fantasising about the idea of a woman hitting them first because they think arguing self defence would get them off the hook. It just doesn’t.

You really are tying yourself in knots here Jack.

According to what i can decipher from that word jumble up there you seem to think that

IF someone has posted on this thread that they would hit a woman where she has already attacked them and they are acting in self defence,

then that means that

IF that situation arises in, say 5 years time, then their act of hitting the woman is premeditated because they posted it on a relatively obscure forum on a small message board once upon a time????

Okay then.

SEPT 23 1989

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Those blokes are the same as the gobshìtes really because one of the things about offering a justification of self defence against a charge of assault is that it cannot have been premeditated. If an act was premeditated, then it’s not self-defence, so knowing that they’d hit a woman beforehand? They couldn’t possibly know what they would do in self defence unless they were in that situation.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that those posters who have said they would hit a woman, are only fantasising about the idea of a woman hitting them first because they think arguing self defence would get them off the hook. It just doesn’t.

What sort of twisted b@stard fantasies about hitting a woman?

It's all in your head chief

joe40

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Those blokes are the same as the gobshìtes really because one of the things about offering a justification of self defence against a charge of assault is that it cannot have been premeditated. If an act was premeditated, then it’s not self-defence, so knowing that they’d hit a woman beforehand? They couldn’t possibly know what they would do in self defence unless they were in that situation.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that those posters who have said they would hit a woman, are only fantasising about the idea of a woman hitting them first because they think arguing self defence would get them off the hook. It just doesn’t.

I can only speak for myself so personally I think if I was hit by a woman I wouldn't hit back if no further assault was coming or if I could remove myself from the situation.

I certainly don't hold the opinion "she hit so I'm entitled to hit back". That is just scummy behavior.

At the same time there are women who could pose a threat to me by due to been physically stronger than I am, or by using a weapon such as knife or bottle.

I think in those situations I believe I would be entitled to use force as defence. I accept those situations are very unlikely.

Violence against Women is a very real problem in our society. I know domestic violence can happen both ways but the vast majority of victims are women. I'm not trying to diminish that in any way.
But women can be physically strong and women can be aggressive enough to use weapons ( I know men moreso)
So I can imagine situations where a man may need force in self defence.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

You really are tying yourself in knots here Jack.

According to what i can decipher from that word jumble up there you seem to think that

IF someone has posted on this thread that they would hit a woman where she has already attacked them and they are acting in self defence,

then that means that

IF that situation arises in, say 5 years time, then their act of hitting the woman is premeditated because they posted it on a relatively obscure forum on a small message board once upon a time????

Okay then.

You really have to work on that condescending attitude kn.

It’s really simple - I couldn’t care less what blowhards are saying on an internet forum, that they’d hit a woman in self defence or any of the rest of it. That’s not what self defence actually means.

If they were charged with assault for hitting anyone whether that be a man or a woman, and they claimed they were acting in self defence, it wouldn’t be self defence, because the assault was a premeditated act.

Same thing with the “she started it” argument - not gonna wash in reality if the actions used to defend oneself are deemed unreasonable or force used is disproportionate. As an example - if she gave you a split lip, that doesn’t give you the right to knock her teeth down her throat. You can do of course, but I wouldn’t recommend it.

joe40 wrote: »

I can only speak for myself so personally I think if I was hit by a woman I wouldn't hit back if no further assault was coming or if I could remove myself from the situation.

I certainly don't hold the opinion "she hit so I'm entitled to hit back". That is just scummy behavior.

At the same time there are women who could pose a threat to me by due to been physically stronger than I am, or by using a weapon such as knife or bottle.

I think in those situations I believe I would be entitled to use force as defence. I accept those situations are very unlikely.

Violence against Women is a very real problem in our society. I know domestic violence can happen both ways but the vast majority of victims are women. I'm not trying to diminish that in any way.
But women can be physically strong and women can be aggressive enough to use weapons ( I know men moreso)
So I can imagine situations where a man may need force in self defence.

Absolutely there are circumstances where men have used force to defend themselves, so have women, so have children.

The question in the opening post really doesn’t matter one way or the other as all situations and cases will be judged on their own merits.

Yeah violence against women is a real problem in Irish society, so is violence against men, but the perception of men as violent brutes is only helped by lads saying they’d hit a woman in self defence. For what? A couple of thanks on an Internet forum. Meanwhile in other threads about men’s rights the same lads will be complaining about women’s groups getting bucketloads of funding while men get nothing as though it’s somehow “sexist” :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You really have to work on that condescending attitude kn.

Nope. I really don’t. I’m just trying to under stand something about your thought process.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they were charged with assault for hitting anyone whether that be a man or a woman, and they claimed they were acting in self defence, it wouldn’t be self defence, because the assault was a premeditated act.

How do you know it was a premeditated act?? How do you know it wasn’t an instinctive act?

Person F hits Person M, Person M instinctively, having never thought about what would happen if they were hit before, strikes back and prevents further assaults on their person. How can you tell me that’s premeditated??

Do you mean to tell me that if I’m walking down a street and I see a street urchin coming up to me, and IF I decide “if this little gurrier hits me he’s getting a smack back” that that’s premeditated? Codswallop it is. Maybe in your little twisted knotty work it is, but in the real world, nope. It isn’t.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Third times the charm....

And maybe you are a proper lady, who’d never hit a person, but in the vast majority of posts where a bloke has said “yes I would hit a woman” it’s always in self defence.

Yeah, there are one or two gobshhiites who’ve said they have hit a woman because she was annoying them but the rest have been quite together in their posts.

Yes, I am a proper lady and you are correct I have never hit anyone. I have, however, been the victim of domestic abuse at the hands of two ex-boyfriends. It’s absolutely terrifying and I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. It’s never justified... ever.

Clare Kat wrote: »

Yes, I am a proper lady and you are correct I have never hit anyone. I have, however, been the victim of domestic abuse at the hands of two ex-boyfriends. It’s absolutely terrifying and I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. It’s never justified... ever.

Then you are coming at it from a slightly different perspective.

And I respectfully disagree. Sometimes violence is justified. And I’m not talking a beating, I’m talking a push or a shove to get an assailant away from me. I’m talking slightly more if they continue to come at me.

And I’m talking from the point of view of someone who was attacked by a gang of 5 or 6 people the night of my inter results (yes, that’s how old I am)

There were males and females in that group and only for a car taking evasive action my skull could have been crushed. I can still see the wheels passing by about 3 inches from my head to this day.

I lashed out with two kicks from the ground, connected with two people, got up and ran. I don’t care if those two people I connected with were male or female. Either way it was well justified.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Nope. I really don’t. I’m just trying to under stand something about your thought process.

How do you know it was a premeditated act?? How do you know it wasn’t an instinctive act?

Person F hits Person M, Person M instinctively, having never thought about what would happen if they were hit before, strikes back and prevents further assaults on their person. How can you tell me that’s premeditated??

Do you mean to tell me that if I’m walking down a street and I see a street urchin coming up to me, and IF I decide “if this little gurrier hits me he’s getting a smack back” that that’s premeditated? Codswallop it is. Maybe in your little twisted knotty work it is, but in the real world, nope. It isn’t.

Yes, it’s premeditated, you’ve just said it yourself.

That’s why this whole question is actually would anyone here commit assault, because being charged with assault is the only time when a justification of self defence would be relevant. Outside of that, it’s meaningless.

That’s why all the lads saying they would hit a girl in self defence are just talking nonsense. Unless they ever find themselves in that situation, it’s worth nothing to anyone.