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

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.

[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

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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?

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

For me it is a non question because at any stage where I would have reached the point where I would consider using violence - the gender of the person causing this would be irrelevant.

1. In any situation where violence is brewing the first reaction I have is to figure out how best to get the hell out of there. If that means literally turning tail and running then so be it.

2. If retreat is not an option for some reason either due to exit being unavailable or some aspect of the situation I was leaving would be worse without me there than with me there then I would be looking to de-escalate the situation in any way possible.

3. If that fails my next instinct is to look for help / backup.

4. If that fails then I would be looking to use my decade+ of martials arts training to subdue or incapacitate the aggressor and simply hold them in such a state until help does arrive.

5. If all of that fails and I am still looking at being the recipient of violence and only violence would work as a defence - then the gender of the assailant would very likely be of no part of the equation for me given than nearly every aspect that _would_ have been a factor has already been considered and negated in the failure of step 4.

Still the thread has been amusing on a few levels. One user moaning about how some people trying to "justify" violence who has been on other threads supporting hitting kids during discipline. Their own violence is justified to them while deriding others for justifying theirs. Amused me anyway.

I quite like the comments where people say they would only hit out of the woman was bigger or stronger. They are not the only attributes to be concerned about. We are quite hands on in our JuJitsu school actually and when a new lad shows up - especially if he is a big lad - we like to get them on the mat from the get go. Pair them up with someone and say "Just do what the rest of us do and go for it". Drop them in the deep end. And I love pairing bigger lads up with some of our more petite women on their first night. And then watch their initial shock and then awe as those women proceed to manipulate them around the place as if they were puppets on a string.

Half of me is disheartened by the naivety people have when it comes to combat of any kind. As if all you have to do is check off a short list of things like size and strength and you're done.

Firstly training _can_ trump all of that at times. Sometimes quite awesomely so. And while years of combat training can give you instincts and cues to look for to gauge what training someone else might have - how they carry themselves and how they shift their posture to be ready - the reality is generally you have _zero_ idea what weapons or training a person before you has to their name.

Secondly even if you think you're miles ahead - every fight is an emergency situation where you could be injured of die. I often wonder if more of us got combat training in school or otherwise - would those of us who do enter a fight be less inclined to do so. Really good fight training is immensenly and wonderfully humbling. Rather than come out of 10 years of training cocky and arrogant about your abilities - you come out humble and with a massive respect for, and aversion to, violence. You listen to a podcast between Joe Rogan and Jokko Willink for example - trained fighters across the stage of sport and the stage of war - and they openly talk about how anyone can simply die in any fight no matter how much they expect to win and how despite how they are likely the monster in any confrontation - their first move is _still_ to show some tail and bugger off out of there.

The other half of me is happy about it. That we have the privilege of naivety with violence - that so few people in our society actually end up in any kind of physical altercation that most know bugger all about it - how it feels - how they would react - and then throw out nonsense black and white absolutes about "If you do A you are fine if you do B you are a brute" as if there is some one size fits all approach to life let alone life in the heat of sudden violence.

The only "rule" - and even then it is worthy of caveats and exceptions - I recommend following is do everything you can to avoid violence even if it means tucking your ego between your legs and running away wimpering - but be prepared to act if and when you need to. And by the time "need" gets great enough to actually be a factor - I rather expect the gender of the person before you will be the last thing you are concerned with when the reality of it hits in the actual moment.

bb1234567

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.

Nobody on the thread is justifying domestic abuse against women though and I feel like the discussion isn't really about that . Generally the discussion seems to have revolved around the hypothetical situation whereby a woman has initiated a violent assault and whether it is acceptable for him to use similar level of physical force to defend himself rather than running away.

I think it's an interesting discussion and should stay on this topic rather than for example distracting it with the comment about justifying domestic assault when nobody has done that, I would actually be really interested to hear some female perspective on this.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One user moaning about how some people trying to "justify" violence who has been on other threads supporting hitting kids during discipline. Their own violence is justified to them while deriding others for justifying theirs.

Which user are you referring to tax?

eviltwin

bb1234567 wrote: »

Nobody on the thread is justifying domestic abuse against women though and I feel like the discussion isn't really about that . Generally the discussion seems to have revolved around the hypothetical situation whereby a woman has initiated a violent assault and whether it is acceptable for him to use similar level of physical force to defend himself rather than running away.

I think it's an interesting discussion and should stay on this topic rather than for example distracting it with the comment about justifying domestic assault when nobody has done that, I would actually be really interested to hear some female perspective on this.

I’m a woman and have never had any hesitation in defending myself if needs be. I’m small but still managed to break a guys nose so don’t buy into the “women are harmless” narrative some people insist on. Size helps but if someone is armed or has the element of surprise you might not be able to prevent being hurt

I’ve two kids, boy and girl, and I’ve raised them to be able to protect themselves. I certainly am not an advocate of violence as a means of settling any dispute but being calm and rational doesn’t always work. Being able to defend myself has saved me from serious harm in the past, I’d have no hesitation doing it again

One eyed Jack

bb1234567 wrote: »

Nobody on the thread is justifying domestic abuse against women though and I feel like the discussion isn't really about that . Generally the discussion seems to have revolved around the hypothetical situation whereby a woman has initiated a violent assault and whether it is acceptable for him to use similar level of physical force to defend himself rather than running away.

I think it's an interesting discussion and should stay on this topic rather than for example distracting it with the comment about justifying domestic assault when nobody has done that, I would actually be really interested to hear some female perspective on this.

That would be justifying domestic assault when anyone suggests it’s acceptable for anyone to use a similar level of physical force to defend themselves rather than running away, and plenty of posters have suggested that if a woman is going to dish it out, then she’d better be prepared to deal with the consequences. That’s true, and so must the other person be prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions. Nowadays they’re able to claim that they’re the “real” victim.

That’s why there is now this nonsense of trying to suggest that domestic violence is 50/50 by simply broadening the definition of domestic violence, or intimate partner violence, or gender based violence, or any number of other terms for it, and what people even regard as violence is sketchy as fcuk tbh.

Essentially it would simply come down to being decided on the circumstances in each particular case, and with the new laws regarding domestic violence which have been introduced, you’re likely to see less and less straightforward cases of domestic violence involving physical force anyway, and more and more cases like this one -

State's first conviction for coercive control handed down in Donegal Circuit Court

Delight Over Landmark Ruling on Coercive Control in Letterkenny

Annasopra

Keyzer wrote: »

OP is the most curious person I've encountered on Boards...

Next question - Have you ever wanted to have sex with an animal?

Sooooooo many **** stirring trollish questions.

Wibbs

That quite often lead to interesting, if occasionally fractious debate.

Clare Kat

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.

It’s semantics. Violence is violence pure and simple. It’s not a fair fight no matter how you dickey it up. The question is “ Would you ever hit a woman?” Those that choose to hide behind crazy rationalizations for their behavior are bullies plain and simple. Just remember the person who gave birth to you was a woman.

One eyed Jack

Clare Kat wrote: »

It’s semantics. Violence is violence pure and simple. It’s not a fair fight no matter how you dickey it up. The question is “ Would you ever hit a woman?” Those that choose to hide behind crazy rationalizations for their behavior are bullies plain and simple. Just remember the person who gave birth to you was a woman.

This is exactly it.

The question would you ever hit a woman was asked in the gentleman’s club where the majority of posters are men.

Those posters then who say they would hit a woman or have hit a woman, are offended by the notion that they are regarded as a scumbag.

Seems they’re the ones who want to dish it out, but can’t take it themselves.

1hnr79jr65

Clare Kat wrote: »

It’s semantics. Violence is violence pure and simple. It’s not a fair fight no matter how you dickey it up. The question is “ Would you ever hit a woman?” Those that choose to hide behind crazy rationalizations for their behavior are bullies plain and simple. Just remember the person who gave birth to you was a woman.

So the following articles are acceptable to you as long as the man does not raise a hand to a woman ? Absolutely ludicrous.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-30586896.html - Stabbed to death by wife while he begged for it to stop on call to 999

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/dublin-man-may-have-been-stabbed-to-death-by-woman-in-parking-space-row-1.4184214 - Man stabbed to death by woman because of parking space

There are varying degrees of what is considered acceptable, but to brand any defense, especially in extremely violent situations as "rationalizing behavior of bullies" is obscene.

Also you say "the person who gave birth to you was a woman", how many women have murdered their children, even adult children. Is that acceptable they could do that without trying to defend themselves ?

Edit: just noticed you have 8 posts, troll much ?

joe40

Clare Kat wrote: »

It’s semantics. Violence is violence pure and simple. It’s not a fair fight no matter how you dickey it up. The question is “ Would you ever hit a woman?” Those that choose to hide behind crazy rationalizations for their behavior are bullies plain and simple. Just remember the person who gave birth to you was a woman.

"It's not a fair fight no matter how you dickey up"
That is an interesting comment and I agree if the situation wasn't a fair fight, in other words one sided, then no, violence is not justified.

However do you think that a woman could never do me harm. Do you think a woman is incapable of inflicting harm on me. Especially if armed.

And I'm not suggesting just because a woman hits me I'm entitled to hit back, I'm not saying that at all. But I think a woman is capable of inflicting harm on me so I don't understand how there is no circumstance in which I should use force to defend myself.

knucklehead6

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is exactly it.

The question would you ever hit a woman was asked in the gentleman’s club where the majority of posters are men.

Those posters then who say they would hit a woman or have hit a woman, are offended by the notion that they are regarded as a scumbag.

Seems they’re the ones who want to dish it out, but can’t take it themselves.

Now now Jack. Let’s not be calling people scumbags for talking about hypothetical situations.

I must be a mass murderer by the logic you’ve applied in this thread, the amount of times I’ve said “I’ll kill that person” that person being one of my kids, or colleagues, or idiot who’s done something to annoy me.

Saying I’ll kill him doesn’t suddenly bestow magical powers of smiting people upon me.

ObserverOFlife

Have never done & wouldnt, except maybe if confronted in life threatening situation.
I'm 5'11" 15stone stocky build, so i know A it is wrong & B i would inflict damage in an unfair matchup!
However a few weeks back my mother, whom I love, but she is a real life Lydia Soprano! Also headstrong & has the tantrums of a teenage girl even though she's in her early 70s! A one of a kind individual. Been the same my whole life.
Anyways, I had done a big maintenance job on car, as in I applied a gtechniq coating on the paintwork. Left it overnight to cure. Went into shed next day to take it out. Pulled over the shed door & was looking for the key. She appears at the door saying how was she going to get around the shed, (there was the usual cloths, bottles etc. I'd used lying around after such a job). I said just go out I'm taking out the car now. But as always she ignored me & took a few steps into the shed, promptly standing on a floor brush which falls in a murphys law way & knocks a 6x2" plank which then falls on the wing of my car, & as you would expect put a huge dinge in itðŸ˜£
That was a moment where I felt like punching her God forgive me!!!
Instead, I made ****e of whatever was in the vicinity of my steel toecap!!!ðŸ˜

One eyed Jack

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Now now Jack. Let’s not be calling people scumbags for talking about hypothetical situations.

I must be a mass murderer by the logic you’ve applied in this thread, the amount of times I’ve said “I’ll kill that person” that person being one of my kids, or colleagues, or idiot who’s done something to annoy me.

Saying I’ll kill him doesn’t suddenly bestow magical powers of smiting people upon me.

Nobody’s calling people scumbags for hypothetical situations. If a man has an attitude that it’s ok to hit a woman, I can’t help but view them as a scumbag.

That’s not the same thing at all as when I know you’re not serious about you’ll kill someone for doing something stupid or whatever.

But if you come out with “I hit a woman”, don’t expect a medal for it, don’t expect anything for it but to be called a scumbag. Niner knows that’s how society generally does view men who hit women, that’s why he said himself that according to how I’d view him, he’s a scumbag. That’s about the only thing he’s got right.

knucklehead6

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody’s calling people scumbags for hypothetical situations. If a man has an attitude that it’s ok to hit a woman, I can’t help but view them as a scumbag.

That’s not the same thing at all as when I know you’re not serious about you’ll kill someone for doing something stupid or whatever.

But if you come out with “I hit a woman”, don’t expect a medal for it, don’t expect anything for it but to be called a scumbag. Niner knows that’s how society generally does view men who hit women, that’s why he said himself that according to how I’d view him, he’s a scumbag. That’s about the only thing he’s got right.

So how do you know that the vast majority of people who’ve posted in this thread aren’t talking about hypothetical situations, and might behave totally differently in a real world situation?

Niner has hit a woman, in the course of his professional duties, in the act of preventing further injury to himself at her hands. According to your logic, that makes him a scumbag. According to just about anyone else here (apart from the one or two feminazis who’ve wandered in here) in niners situation SHE is the scumbag.