nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Would you ever hit a woman?

mr_fegelien

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Airyfairy12

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

It wasnt brought up as a debate about violence or self defence, it was brought up as a specific discussion about violence towards women in the context of hypothetical situations in which beating a woman is OK!
Read through the comments again, there are plenty insinuating that women that have been hit brought it on themselves outside of the context of self defence, there's also a comment from a self confessed wife beater victim blaming his ex.

One eyed Jack

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Jack, I suspect you and I are never going to agree on this.

As for telling a woman not to use something at her disposal to get out of a situation?? Jeeez dude.

I’ve advised my wife (not that the feisty firecracker needed advice) to kick a guy as hard and square in the plumbs as possible if he was at her, then run the opposite direction.

Ahh look that’s all sound advice and all but it’s largely ineffective tbh as in the heat of the moment your wife has to get over the shock of being grabbed in the first place, then get herself into a position where she’s able to kick the lad squarely in the plums, and the chances of her landing a shot like that with everything else going through her head... well, she has a better chance of winning the lotto. I mean, it’s common sense advice and all, but I think we’d both rather hope she never found herself in that situation in the first place.

Statistically speaking, it’s highly unlikely that she would, and even less likely that you would find yourself in a situation where your safety is threatened by a woman.

Wibbs

SusieBlue wrote: »

If he had ever acted out of self defence I think it would have been quite understandable and justified.

I'd agree, but as a man if it came up and I wasn't in actual fear of my life I would never hit back. It's a near certainty the guy will be blamed and marched off. I've personally seen it happen in two cases, one a friend of mine whose ex wife was well, basically insane and violent on the regular and it was him that had to leave the house(that was his and continued to pay for) and had years trying to gain access to his kids. If he had hit her back... I mean she admitted she'd slapped him a few times and yet..

Another was more an acquaintance and tbh I actually preferred his girlfriend to talk to, though didn't know that she was a street angel and house devil who left him with physical scars after the hits she dished out. One night a neighbour grew concerned and had a fair idea what was what and called the Guards and told them she was the perpetrator and yet again he was removed from the house. I've heard similar many times at more of a remove, including from Guards I knew, whose understandable reasoning went along the lines of if we leave the guy there and something goes very wrong, well there's more physical risk with a man.

The plain fact is that society almost always finds in favour of the woman in this case and others around couple stuff and men need to keep this very much in mind if they find themselves in an abusive relationship, which can also mean emotionally abusive too. I mean look at some of the objections that have come up in this very thread. It's an how dare you not treat women as special cases you sexist you.

The best thing they can do is leave at the earliest opportunity. Of course here again they will find eff all societal supports when they do. Bugger all helplines, no shelters and if things do get to a court they're much less likely to be taken seriously. Triple this if there are children involved.

The woman who set up the first shelters for domestic abuse originally also catered for male victims of which there were many, close to 50%. She also noted and much research has since backed this up, that in the case of abuse going 50/50 in a relationship the woman was just as likely as the man to strike out first and it's usually a pair of them in it. In relationships of non reciprocal violence(one sided) it was more women doing the abusing. The relationship type most likely to suffer abuse? Lesbian couples(but of course that's down to the patriarchy...). This didn't go down at all well with the more militant feminists in the 1970's and as more shelters opened the more male victims were ignored and in the end that same woman who kept stating the need for male supports was banned from entering the shelters she had set up. Put it another way, in the US, Canada and Australia there exists shelters for the pets of abused women, but almost no shelters for abused men. And that's insane on any level.

There is never any excuse for ANYONE putting their hands on someone else, male or female.
But if you do make the choice to do that, you need to be prepared for the consequences of that person defending themselves.
He who throws the first punch loses all moral high ground. Don’t give it if you can’t take it, as many would say.

True S, but again in practical real world situations and very much so if you're a man, leave. Get out. Walk away. Beg borrow or steal, but get out of that ASAP.

PS If you find yourself in a pattern of abusive relationships I'd also suggest counselling to find out why, as most people aren't bastards and some part of you might be picking the personality type more likely to be abusive. A lack of self esteem, seeing it in early family life and seeing that as "normal" and the like. It can be common enough, but it's fixable. I've seen this in men and woman I've known, though more women.

One eyed Jack

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Jack states that planning to defend yourself in the event of being attacked, is premeditation and therefore assault. He states that by being aware of a possible threat and planning your defebce, you have somehow become the aggressor and not entitled to claim self defense.

That’s not what I said. It’s not even close to what I said. I said that if a person is charged with committing assault, they might be able to use self defence as a justification for committing assault. If it’s determined that the assault was premeditated, then their claim of self defence isn’t going to wash. I said a person can of course claim self defence, it doesn’t automatically get them off the hook if they are charged with assault.

knucklehead6

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s premeditated? You’re already thinking about committing assault where you haven’t been assaulted. If you commit assault, then you might be able to argue self-defence.

However if it can be shown that your actions were premeditated, such as if you were carrying your keys intending to use them as a weapon, and did so taking someone’s eye out, then your actions may well be considered disproportionate even though you believed your life was at risk.

It’s why I tell any woman do not carry her keys as though she intends to use them as a weapon.

Jack, I suspect you and I are never going to agree on this.

As for telling a woman not to use something at her disposal to get out of a situation?? Jeeez dude.

I’ve advised my wife (not that the feisty firecracker needed advice) to kick a guy as hard and square in the plumbs as possible if he was at her, then run the opposite direction.

[Deleted User]

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Niner I’m struggling to make head nor tails of what you’re saying here but from what I’m reading, you’re not actually contradicting anything I’ve said already.

I never said anyone that’s taken self defence classes can’t claim self defence if attacked? You’re making up stuff again and claiming I said it when I didn’t?

Hate to read a fcuking witness statement written by you tbh because you’re definitely making up all sorts of nonsense to suit yourself. How about arguing with what I did say and pointing out what you think are the flaws in that, than getting all bent out of shape because I had the temerity to question your nonsense?

I have consistently done that throughout the entire thread. Including the one where you cleaned to have never defined self Defense. I can quote that one again too.

So for the slow in the class;

Jack states that planning to defend yourself in the event of being attacked, is premeditation and therefore assault. He states that by being aware of a possible threat and planning your defebce, you have somehow become the aggressor and not entitled to claim self defense.

This is absolutely, 100% incorrect.

The proof this is incorrect is evidenced in any martial arts or self defence class the world over.

It's evidenced when a homeowner picks up a bat or item and goes downstairs to find a burglar.

It's evidenced when a Garda takes a defensive stance with his baton when facing a hostile crowd.

I shouldn't have to point this out but sadly it appears I do because Jack, who everyone should remember has zero knowledge, training or experience in self defense, martial arts, law or criminal investigations, continuous to make absolutely wrong statements.

Whenever about disagreeing on the subject, please again, stop making these incorrect statements on the legality of self defence.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who was the assailant and who was the defender here horse?

https://m.independent.ie/regionals/braypeople/news/claim-it-was-self-defence-27640046.html

It’s not as simple as you make out, and claiming you’re an expert you would know this, unless you’re purposely choosing to keep it to yourself for your own reasons.

Is that you? It's the one case you go back to. I don't know why you think it backs your argument. You did read the part where he followed her off the bus and proceeded to punch her in the face right? You do realise it's that action that he was convicted for? Not the fight on the bus. The part where he got off a bus with the intention of following the woman so he could punishment her twice in the face.

You think that somehow proves your point? Your away with the fairies.

I can only hope that people reading this thread know when to be sensible and use adequate force to defend themselves and not be afraid to do so because of the fear mongering you have done here. Especially a woman who when attacked, only has her keys to hand.

One eyed Jack

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Thats not what the sensible people are saying though.

The comments here, aside from the juvenile ones, have clearly said they would hit a women IF they were being attacked by a woman. Self defence as they are not the aggressor.

Apart from one dope, most people can see the difference between being an assailant and a defender.

Who was the assailant and who was the defender here horse?

https://m.independent.ie/regionals/braypeople/news/claim-it-was-self-defence-27640046.html

It’s not as simple as you make out, and claiming you’re an expert you would know this, unless you’re purposely choosing to keep it to yourself for your own reasons.

One eyed Jack

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

New level of horse****e right here. You don't know the law, stop pretending you do!

Your argument is so ridiculous I can't even begin to point out the flaws.

Here's two: self defence training for women. Martial arts in general.

No one that's taken those classes can claim self defense if attacked? Absolute bull****.

I'm sorry mods but I can't allow him to make these claims where people might actually believe him, it's dangerous.

Self defense is the use of force to protect yourself. That's it. The only requirements is that it's reasonable under the circumstances and that you were under threat. It is not equal to that which you are threatened. That's not the level. A punch is a punch, the fact that you care now injury to them than you suffered does not mean it was not self defence.

That's it. None of your bull**** rules to justify yourself are accurate. You have no legal training, no police training, no self defence training and no experience in any of the areas.

Please, stop giving bad information

Niner I’m struggling to make head nor tails of what you’re saying here but from what I’m reading, you’re not actually contradicting anything I’ve said already.

I never said anyone that’s taken self defence classes can’t claim self defence if attacked? You’re making up stuff again and claiming I said it when I didn’t?

Hate to read a fcuking witness statement written by you tbh because you’re definitely making up all sorts of nonsense to suit yourself. How about arguing with what I did say and pointing out what you think are the flaws in that, than getting all bent out of shape because I had the temerity to question your nonsense?

[Deleted User]

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.

Thats not what the sensible people are saying though.

The comments here, aside from the juvenile ones, have clearly said they would hit a women IF they were being attacked by a woman. Self defence as they are not the aggressor.

Apart from one dope, most people can see the difference between being an assailant and a defender.

knucklehead6

Clare Kat wrote: »

Well I’m sorry to hear that happened to you, but it would appear to me that you haven’t dealt with it ( the night of your Inter Cert results) and as a result are somewhat bitter. It’s clear from your comments that you have a huge chip on your shoulder and some unresolved issues. Despite having my head bashed against the dash of a moving car while having my hair pulled, I know there are nice fellas out there who know how to treat women with respect.

You’ve gotten that from two lines on a anonymous internet board? Wow. Talk about jumping the shark

1hnr79jr65

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Literally a whole thread about beating up women. Lovely.

You do notice that not everyone agrees with any form of hitting or assault ? In my post i outlined that my health/life were put in jeopardy so i was forced into a position where i had to hit 2 women.

I'm not proud of that fact, however it was a necessity for my welfare and would do again if necessary.

No one should be assaulting anyone else regardless of gender/sex and anyone who takes pride in doing such for ego needs their heads examined.

One eyed Jack

knucklehead6 wrote: »

No it’s not premeditated. Its reactive. If the urchin doesn’t hit me, he doesn’t get hit. If he hits me, he gets hit. Being aware of my surroundings and having an idea of what to do doesn’t make me a perpetrator.

It’s premeditated? You’re already thinking about committing assault where you haven’t been assaulted. If you commit assault, then you might be able to argue self-defence.

However if it can be shown that your actions were premeditated, such as if you were carrying your keys intending to use them as a weapon, and did so taking someone’s eye out, then your actions may well be considered disproportionate even though you believed your life was at risk.

It’s why I tell any woman do not carry her keys as though she intends to use them as a weapon.

Clare Kat

knucklehead6 wrote: »

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.

Well I’m sorry to hear that happened to you, but it would appear to me that you haven’t dealt with it ( the night of your Inter Cert results) and as a result are somewhat bitter. It’s clear from your comments that you have a huge chip on your shoulder and some unresolved issues. Despite having my head bashed against the dash of a moving car while having my hair pulled, I know there are nice fellas out there who know how to treat women with respect.

[Deleted User]

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

New level of horse****e right here. You don't know the law, stop pretending you do!

Your argument is so ridiculous I can't even begin to point out the flaws.

Here's two: self defence training for women. Martial arts in general.

No one that's taken those classes can claim self defense if attacked? Absolute bull****.

I'm sorry mods but I can't allow him to make these claims where people might actually believe him, it's dangerous.

Self defense is the use of force to protect yourself. That's it. The only requirements is that it's reasonable under the circumstances and that you were under threat. It is not equal to that which you are threatened. That's not the level. A punch is a punch, the fact that you care now injury to them than you suffered does not mean it was not self defence.

That's it. None of your bull**** rules to justify yourself are accurate. You have no legal training, no police training, no self defence training and no experience in any of the areas.

Please, stop giving bad information

Beechwoodspark

I still remember the sick feeling in my gut on a Sunday evening knowing that the following morning in work my colleague would be going around regaling us with stories of how he “leveled” women over the wkend - of course in his telling he was fully justified.

Same guy had 4 kids from 4 diff women. According to him they all still were head over heels in love with him.

Glad I am out of his orbit, bar the odd whatsapp message.

SusieBlue

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.

It works both ways, though. My friends ex used to hit him when she lost her temper.
She used to chase him around the house bashing him with a stiletto, she used to drop books on his head when he was asleep on the couch, or pinch his skin till he had bruises. She threw a scalding hot cup of tea on him one day. As well as the usual slaps, kicks and punches.

Bar shoving her off him when she was hitting him in the face with a stiletto, he never hit her back. If he had ever acted out of self defence I think it would have been quite understandable and justified.

There is never any excuse for ANYONE putting their hands on someone else, male or female.
But if you do make the choice to do that, you need to be prepared for the consequences of that person defending themselves.
He who throws the first punch loses all moral high ground. Don’t give it if you can’t take it, as many would say.

knucklehead6

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

No it’s not premeditated. Its reactive. If the urchin doesn’t hit me, he doesn’t get hit. If he hits me, he gets hit. Being aware of my surroundings and having an idea of what to do doesn’t make me a perpetrator.

One eyed Jack

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.

knucklehead6

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.

Clare Kat

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.

knucklehead6

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.

One eyed Jack

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

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

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.

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

knucklehead6

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.

knucklehead6

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

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.

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.

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.