Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Would you ever hit a woman?

Options
1…810121314

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Clare Kat
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Clare Kat


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    And the person that she slept with was a man.

    And the woman I married is a woman

    And the children she had with me were girls

    What's your point?

    Let's get this straight; women can be strong, they can be violent and they can hurt men.

    So the question is, if the woman defends herself from attack, is she justified in using force and striking her attacker?

    It’s fairly obvious I’d say


  • Options
    #273
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users Posts: 6,759 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    Clare Kat wrote: »
    It’s fairly obvious I’d say

    Spell it out for us please.

    Most people on this thread have been quite open about their reactions to an attack. It’d be nice if we were all on the same page in terms of clarity.


  • Options
    #274
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    Spell it out for us please.
    The general gist seems to be; you can't ever hit a woman, even in self defence, but women can hit men in extreme circumstances. An odd mix of modern "feminism" and old style chivalry.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #275
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users Posts: 6,759 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    Wibbs wrote: »
    The general gist seems to be; you can't ever hit a woman, even in self defence, but women can hit men in extreme circumstances. An odd mix of modern "feminism" and old style chivalry.

    Given that she’s stated that violence is never the answer I’d be surprised if that was her response tbh.

    Judging by what she’s said on this thread anyone who is attacked needs to roll with the punches and extricate themselves from the situation in as peaceful a method as possible.


  • Options
    #276
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    Judging by what she’s said on this thread anyone who is attacked needs to roll with the punches and extricate themselves from the situation in as peaceful a method as possible.
    Which I would 100% agree with and unless it's someone, anyone coming at you with deadly or wounding intent that's by far the best option.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users Posts: 6,759 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Which I would 100% agree with and unless it's someone, anyone coming at you with deadly or wounding intent that's by far the best option.

    As would I. But in those situations where that option is unavailable to the victim, then reasonable retaliation is justified


  • Options
    #278
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    Spell it out for us please.

    Most people on this thread have been quite open about their reactions to an attack. It’d be nice if we were all on the same page in terms of clarity.


    Irish law is pretty clear in that it allows for a person to defend themselves or others when they are attacked, it doesn’t permit anyone to commit assault. That’s why it could only be determined after someone has been attacked and has defended themselves from being attacked by the use of force, whether the amount of force they used was reasonable as could be considered justified when all the circumstances in the case are considered.

    In the case I linked to earlier, the guy tried to claim he only hit yer one two small thumps and she was “wearing weapons” referring to her shoes. The Gardaí and the Judge obviously disagreed with his assessment and his attempt to portray himself as the victim and his attempt to play down the severity of his reaction -


    She kicked me in the face so I hit her two boxes,' Purdy told Garda Adam Nolan at the scene. 'You nearly drove this girl's teeth down her neck with two savage blows,' a garda inspector put to Purdy during his hearing last week. ' They weren't savage blows,' replied the defendant. ' They were little thumps. She had weapons on her feet.' Purdy, who was convicted of assault causing harm and fined €2,500

    ...

    'But undoubtedly, there was a complete over-reaction by Mr. Purdy. Each blow was a crippling blow. Either blow in itself is classed as an assault causing harm.' Purdy was fined a sum of €2,500. Judge Connellan took into consideration a charge of breaching the peace.


  • Options
    #279
    Tea drinker
    Registered Users Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭Tea drinker


    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.

    You really need a hobby!!!!!!!!!!!!! have you tried trainspotting/baking banana bread/walking the dog/just having a good old toss ?
    Defo you are right if it's a domestic, walk away, better yet stay away.
    But if I am being assaulted by a stranger... yeah no issue defending myself.
    If a kid or baby is getting beaten would you walk away?

    Suppose a large strong woman is being attacked by a small weak man, should she beat him or walk away? I think she should whack him but I am an ageing sexist, who believes in different approaches for men or women.
    Another accolade I can add to my boardsie badge of racist bigot and now self appointed sexist :-)


  • Options
    #280
    knucklehead6
    Registered Users Posts: 6,759 ✭✭✭knucklehead6


    In that case did Purdy not follow her off the bus? That’s not deescalating the situation.

    No one here is using his case as a normal reaction.


  • Options
    #281
    DeanAustin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,784 ✭✭✭DeanAustin


    Wibbs wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    This is a great post but the problem with getting out if there are kids involved is that you will be seen as having left the family home and that could affect your access rights.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,383 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Which I would 100% agree with and unless it's someone, anyone coming at you with deadly or wounding intent that's by far the best option.

    If someone's attacking you, their intent is to at least wound you. If a woman attacks a man with a weapon of some sort and the usual means of restraint or avoidance don't work then fair game. I don't think anyone on here has advocated 'turning the tables' and a man beating the sh1t out of a woman. In Niners case a woman attacked his neck with a knife. She can only have been intending to seriously maim/kill him. So he hit her arm with his baton to disarm her. I see nothing wrong with that in the slightest.

    I've been atracked and assaulted and I defended myself as I could, which was to stomp the sh1te out of his feet as he had my arms restrained. It worked enough for me to break free and run. The fecker gave chase but was limping baddly so I'd obviously hurt him. The cop who took my statement mentioned I could face assault charges but I didn't care. I'd gladly face assault charges. At best I would have been raped if I hadn't fought back.

    If someone is brutalising/violating/attempting to kill you, you would be a fool to not defend yourself in whatever way you can if you can't get away any other way. If it takes a slap or a punch to a female attacker to save yourself then so be it.


  • Options
    #283
    maestroamado
    Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's a terrible thread that should not have been given any oxygen, given the troll who posted it. A few mods with any sense would stop stuff like this appearing.


    I have just seen this thread and have not posted.
    I am curious to know why you make this comment as itmay help me to decide whether to post or not..


  • Options
    #284
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    In that case did Purdy not follow her off the bus? That’s not deescalating the situation.

    No one here is using his case as a normal reaction.


    You’re missing my point.

    I’m making the point that like many of the posters here, he sees his reaction in those circumstances as entirely reasonable, just like many posters here would see their reaction in attacking a person who attacks them as entirely reasonable in a hypothetical scenario.

    In reality, they could find themselves charged with assault in those circumstances, and Gardaí and the Judge may well disagree that their reaction was reasonable when all circumstances in the case are considered.

    That’s why I would never recommend a particular course of action in any given hypothetical scenario as though I have the authority to make any determination that their actions could be considered justifiable. Have at it like, as long as they’re aware that they could find themselves being charged with committing assault.


  • Options
    #285
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Most people don’t hit other people. Most people would only do so if they absolutely had to. There’s a real sense in this thread that some posters think men are looking for any chance to beat the crap out of a woman and will use the self defence excuse. Utter crap. Most men are decent and don’t want to use violence, most men I know probably wouldn’t use violence at all and even then as a last resort.

    It’s a shame this thread has been derailed. It’s pretty depressing that anyone should gave to defend protecting themselves if attacked. I think the OP was probably looking for another type of debate maybe looking for replies from someone willing to admit to domestic violence but it’s turned to ****e

    FWIW fellas I don’t think anyone would think less of you for defending yourself. Anyone who tries to make you look like thugs has their own issues


  • Options
    #286
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    eviltwin wrote: »
    FWIW fellas I don’t think anyone would think less of you for defending yourself. Anyone who tries to make you look like thugs has their own issues


    Nobody is arguing that they would think any less of anyone for defending themselves. You’re being incredibly disingenuous there. In reality it’s men who say they would hit a woman in self defence are practically guaranteed to be viewed as thugs by most people whether you want to think so or not.

    That was the basis of the OP’s question, and of course people are going to have their own issues with men who say they would hit a woman in self defence.


  • Options
    #287
    Clare Kat
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Clare Kat


    Wibbs wrote: »
    The general gist seems to be; you can't ever hit a woman, even in self defence, but women can hit men in extreme circumstances. An odd mix of modern "feminism" and old style chivalry.

    I never for one minute suggested anyone should resort to violence, be it man to man man to woman etc. i have been the subject but have never retaliated because i believe strongly in principles.


  • Options
    #288
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,383 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Clare Kat wrote: »
    I never for one minute suggested anyone should resort to violence, be it man to man man to woman etc. i have been the subject but have never retaliated because i believe strongly in principles.

    So so you think I was wrong to violently defend myself? Would you just have awaited whatever it was he intended for you, based on principles?


  • Options
    #289
    Clare Kat
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Clare Kat


    Sardonicat wrote: »
    So so you think I was wrong to violently defend myself? Would you just have awaited whatever it was he intended for you, based on principles?

    I wouldn’t for one second assume to know what you should/shouldn’t do. I can only comment on my situation and to answer your question what I did was beg to be let out of the car. I know for a fact had I retaliated I wouldn’t be contributong to this post. Of that I’m 100 percent sure.


  • Options
    #290
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,383 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Clare Kat wrote: »
    I wouldn’t for one second assume to know what you should/shouldn’t do. I can only comment on my situation and to answer your question what I did was beg to be let out of the car. I know for a fact had I retaliated I wouldn’t be contributong to this post. Of that I’m 100 percent sure.
    That wasn't a non-violent principle, then, was it? it was your instinctive understanding of what you needed to do to try get out of there alive. Just as I acted on instinct which I equally believe saved my life. When your life is in danger from an attacker it is your instinct that you act upon, not your principles. That applies to everyone be they male or female and regardless of the gender of their attacker.


  • Options
    #291
    Tea drinker
    Registered Users Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭Tea drinker


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Nobody is arguing that they would think any less of anyone for defending themselves. You’re being incredibly disingenuous there. In reality it’s men who say they would hit a woman in self defence are practically guaranteed to be viewed as thugs by most people whether you want to think so or not.

    That was the basis of the OP’s question, and of course people are going to have their own issues with men who say they would hit a woman in self defence.
    |The women in my life would hate to see me attacked by a woman and am sure would fully expect me to defend myself. But none of them are manhaters that would like to beat a man without fear of retaliation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Tea drinker wrote: »
    |The women in my life would hate to see me attacked by a woman and am sure would fully expect me to defend myself. But none of them are manhaters that would like to beat a man without fear of retaliation.


    Good for you?

    I’m just not sure what your point is if I’m being honest. This thread is about discussing whether or not men would ever consider hitting a woman in self defence.

    It’s not about women or whether women would hit men or whether or not those women are man haters.

    FWIW I don’t know many people, either men or women who hate either men or women and would want to beat a man or woman without fear of retaliation either?


  • Options
    #293
    py2006
    Registered Users Posts: 9,847 ✭✭✭py2006


    From my experience/observations, men who are slapped, punched or kicked by a woman generally do not retaliate.

    While some here will say they would, they may actually not in reality.

    Now don't get me wrong, they probably deserve to be hit back but that situation is often manipulated and twisted into the woman being the victim and men face consequences that women often don't.

    Also, there are studies that demonstrate (I think they were linked to on another forum here) that women are more likely to hit a man than vice versa because they know that chances are they won't get hit in return.


  • Options
    #294
    Clare Kat
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Clare Kat


    Sardonicat wrote: »
    That wasn't a non-violent principle, then, was it? it was your instinctive understanding of what you needed to do to try get out of there alive. Just as I acted on instinct which I equally believe saved my life. When your life is in danger from an attacker it is your instinct that you act upon, not your principles. That applies to everyone be they male or female and regardless of the gender of their attacker.

    How is it not a non-violent principle then?


  • Options
    #295
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Sardonicat wrote: »
    That wasn't a non-violent principle, then, was it? it was your instinctive understanding of what you needed to do to try get out of there alive. Just as I acted on instinct which I equally believe saved my life. When your life is in danger from an attacker it is your instinct that you act upon, not your principles. That applies to everyone be they male or female and regardless of the gender of their attacker.


    That’s not true at all though. In most cases where either a man or woman is convicted of assault it’s because the level of force they used to defend themselves was disproportionate. They may well have been of the belief that their life was in danger, but whereas most women will only use what force is necessary to stop an immediate assault, men will generally tend to use disproportionate force to subdue their attacker.

    That’s why in cases of domestic violence while there has been an increase in recent years of the number of women convicted of assault, it’s still only around 7% of women convicted of assault compared to the 93% of men who are convicted of assault in domestic violence cases.


  • Options
    #296
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,383 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That’s not true at all though. In most cases where either a man or woman is convicted of assault it’s because the level of force they used to defend themselves was disproportionate. They may well have been of the belief that their life was in danger, but whereas most women will only use what force is necessary to stop an immediate assault, men will generally tend to use disproportionate force to subdue their attacker.

    That’s why in cases of domestic violence while there has been an increase in recent years of the number of women convicted of assault, it’s still only around 7% of women convicted of assault compared to the 93% of men who are convicted of assault in domestic violence cases.
    You are conflating two very different things here. Firstly, the level of force available to a woman (on average) under attack is limited. If you think your life is in danger you will use what you can muster. In my case it was my Dr. Marten boots on top of his feet. I may have broken a meta tarsal or two, I may have just bruised him, I don't know, I had no way of knowing at the time. I just wanted to get away. If I was able to and strong enough to knock him unconcious, I would have. If I had a weapon on me I would have used it. Assault charge? Bring it on. Better than raped/dead any day. How do you know what is disproportionate for a man to use on a woman intent on killing him?


    Disproportionate use of force in self defence has nothing to do with the disparity between men and women convicted in domestic violence cases. If you are abusing your partner you are not defending yourself. Men are less likely to be believed and under report or are cast as the abuser if they try to defend themselves. That is why there is such a disparity


  • Options
    #297
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    In that case did Purdy not follow her off the bus? That’s not deescalating the situation.

    No one here is using his case as a normal reaction.

    Don't be mentioning that. It kills his argument ya his meany


  • Options
    #298
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That’s not true at all though. In most cases where either a man or woman is convicted of assault it’s because the level of force they used to defend themselves was disproportionate. They may well have been of the belief that their life was in danger, but whereas most women will only use what force is necessary to stop an immediate assault, men will generally tend to use disproportionate force to subdue their attacker.

    That’s why in cases of domestic violence while there has been an increase in recent years of the number of women convicted of assault, it’s still only around 7% of women convicted of assault compared to the 93% of men who are convicted of assault in domestic violence cases.

    No no no, I'm trying to ignore you but you cannot keep this crap up. That's simple not true

    The majority of people convicted of assault are find guilty because they attacked people without provocation or justification.

    You are outright lying now and I can't let that go. People reading this, especially those in abusive relationships don't need you scaring them into inaction when their lives are in danger.

    Folks, this guy is lying. He has no training, experience or knowledge of the law, Criminal investigations or self defence. Do not listen.

    If you are under threat of physical harm, you can defend yourself. Don't be confused and don't let this guy turn you from the defender to the aggressor.

    The case he refers to in an attempt to justify his argument, the male was convicted of assault because he followed the woman off a bus and launched a 2 punch attack on her. He was not convicted for anything that happened in the bus.


  • Options
    #299
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,383 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Clare Kat wrote: »
    How is it not a non-violent principle then?


    So you are saying in one breath you didn't fight (not saying you were wrong there, by the way) because you knew the outcome for you would have been worse and at the same time saying that you acted on principle. You didn't. You did what you had to do to survive. You weren't telling yourself "I cant kick/bite/punch because its wrong". you were saying "If I kick/bite/punch, he will kill me".


  • Options
    #300
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Sardonicat wrote: »
    You are conflating two very different things here. Firstly, the level of force available to a woman (on average) under attack is limited. If you think your life is in danger you will use what you can muster. In my case it was my Dr. Marten boots on top of his feet. I may have broken a meta tarsal or two, I may have just bruised him, I don't know, I had no way of knowing at the time. I just wanted to get away. If I was able to and strong enough to knock him unconcious, I would have. If I had a weapon on me I would have used it. Assault charge? Bring it on. Better than raped/dead any day. How do you know what is disproportionate for a man to use on a woman intent on killing him?


    Disproportionate use of force in self defence has nothing to do with the disparity between men and women convicted in domestic violence cases. If you are abusing your partner you are not defending yourself. Men are less likely to be believed and under report or are cast as the abuser if they try to defend themselves. That is why there is such a disparity


    I’m not conflating two different things. I just wasn’t referring to your case specifically, I was making a general point about convictions for assault in domestic violence cases. I don’t know what is or isn’t disproportionate force for a man or a woman to use in any hypothetical circumstances purely because they are hypothetical - they haven’t happened. Disproportionate force can only be determined in hindsight, considering all the circumstances in any particular case.

    Disproportionate use of force in self defence has everything to do with the disparity between men and women convicted of assault in domestic violence cases. Obviously if a person is abusing their partner they’re not defending themselves, but if a person who is accused of assault is claiming they were acting in self defence as a justification for their actions, then whether their actions were reasonable is a matter for the Jury or a Judge to decide, not their immediate family members and friends who are more likely to defend their actions.

    There is certainly the perception that men who are victims of domestic violence are less likely to be believed, but that perception isn’t peculiar to men who are victims of domestic violence. Women too who are victims of domestic violence often have the same perception that they are unlikely to be believed and therefore also choose not to make a report. It’s simply a fact that women are more encouraged to report because they are more visible in terms of turning up to A&E on a frequent basis where they try and explain away their injuries as being due to their own clumsiness that they walked into a door, or pulled the kettle down on themselves, or some other reason they imagine will lead to them just being treated and being able to get the hell out of there as fast as possible.

    Male victims of domestic violence are less likely to be victims of physical abuse by women. The abuse tends to be mental, verbal and emotional as opposed to physical, and the reason men don’t report their abuse is because they either don’t see the behaviour as domestic abuse, or they don’t see it as a criminal matter, or they just prefer to keep it to themselves as a private matter.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,383 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Or they don't realise that coercive control (which you sneered at earlier in the thread) is a form of abuse and a crime. Or they are afraid of losing access to their children.


Advertisement