Would you ever hit a woman?

ToddDameron · 25-07-2020 1:27am

Many years ago I was walking back to my brothers place when I was 16 with a takeaway after having some cans with friends when a gang of adult scum snatched my food and pushed me to the ground. I was on me arse and quite confused when a woman in the group ran up and broke my nose with a kick. Of course I was petrified and shuffled off, she definitely deserved a smack though.

Clare Kat · 25-07-2020 2:10am

Does anyone consider their mother’s or sisters when they post these comments??

the_pen_turner · 25-07-2020 10:31am

Sorry about that wrote: »

It's not the point. What I described as unsettling, is a thread where men anticipate and imagine situations where they'd be justified in hitting a woman. I've never seen an equivalent thread where women discuss hitting men, in any context. And men are more likely to physically abuse their partners than women.

I will continue to teach my children not to hit women; I trust their instincts to keep away from the knife-wielding types.

The information below is from women's aid UK.

From April 2014 to March 2017, 73% of victims of domestic homicides (homicides by an ex/partner or family member) were women. This contrasts with victims of non-domestic homicides, where the majority of victims were male (88%) and 12% of victims were female (ONS, 2018).
From April 2014 to March 2017 four in five female victims of domestic homicide were killed by a partner or ex-partner (239, 82%); of which the vast majority of suspects were male (238). 45 male victims were killed by a partner or ex-partner in the same time period; 7 of the suspects in these cases were male, and 38 were female (ONS, 2018).
One study of 96 cases of domestic abuse recorded by the police found that men are significantly more likely to be repeat perpetrators and significantly more likely than women to use physical violence, threats, and harassment. In a six year tracking period the majority of recorded male perpetrators (83%) had at least two incidents of recorded abuse, with many having a lot more than two and one man having 52 repeat incidents. Whereas in cases where women were recorded as the perpetrator the majority (62%) had only one incident of abuse recorded and the highest number of repeat incidents for any female perpetrator was eight. The study also found that men’s violence tended to create a context of fear and control; which was not the case when women were perpetrators. (Hester, 2013)

The reason there is no thread on women having to justify having to hit a man is because it's considered normal and has no stigma to it. It is usually assumed that a woman is defending herself and not attacking. But it's the other way round for men .

Look at any of those you tube videos on the subject
You can often see women assaulting men and the crowd do nothing, once the man has to defend himself the crowd rushes to protect the attacker.

As for the police statistics. Can we trust them to be accurate. If I man rings the police to say his wife ,gf is attack g him he still gets taken away not her.

The domestic violence stats show 50 , 50 Male to female victims

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2020 11:40am

the_pen_turner wrote: »

The reason there is no thread on women having to justify having to hit a man is because it's considered normal and has no stigma to it. It is usually assumed that a woman is defending herself and not attacking. But it's the other way round for men.

Look at any of those you tube videos on the subject
You can often see women assaulting men and the crowd do nothing, once the man has to defend himself the crowd rushes to protect the attacker.

As for the police statistics. Can we trust them to be accurate. If I man rings the police to say his wife ,gf is attack g him he still gets taken away not her.

The domestic violence stats show 50 , 50 Male to female victims

But here we are in a thread where a number of men are trying to justify reasons why they would hit a woman? There’s no assumptions being made when men themselves admit that they would consider hitting a woman. The only assumption I make about those men is they’re full of bs tbh.

Those Youtube videos you’re talking about are set up and edited and all the rest of it, same as that nonsense video of your one walking through New York or wherever it was trying to make a point about sexual harassment, and they had to edit it to make it look like anyone gave a shìte about her. People simply didn’t care.

No we can’t trust police statistics to be accurate, any more than we should trust statistics that suggest domestic violence is 50/50 or that if a man calls the police to complain that he is being attacked or abused by his girlfriend or wife, that he’ll be taken away and not her.

Still the point comes back to there being many means of self-defence for a man other than lashing out or hitting a woman. A man who chooses to hit a woman is doing so because they want to, not because they have to. I’ve no sympathy for any man who would hit a woman, regardless of the circumstances. There’s nothing justifies being a brute IMO.

25-07-2020 11:50am

Sorry about that wrote: »

No, it's not remotely silly. Thankfully for me and my potential daughters in laws and granddaughters (I only have sons), there are still men who wouldn't consider hitting a women.

One of the first things my husband and I taught our boys was to never ever hit a girl or woman. This advice is as much for their sake as the woman's. We never advised them however, to curl up into a foetal position if physically attacked by a woman. We don't anticipate the knife attack. Statistics show that my sons are are potentially a much greater threat than any mad yoke with a knife (we haven't gone into disarmament tactics as they're both under ten, but they do know that they're probably strong enough to get out of physical danger without giving a slap).
Some scary yet revealing posts here; Mr F is quite the poultice.

What absolute manure.

None of that beautiful nonsense faces the simple reality that women do attack men. With weapons.

I do find it revealing that you consider them strong enough to get out of danger without using force. Interesting concept but largely ignorant.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0226/1117771-kingswood/

Women can use weapons and can absolutely injure and kill men. Your training of your sons should consider this and should in reality not be mentioning the sex of the aggressor at all.

Strumms · 25-07-2020 12:58pm

^^^Precisely, if one of your sons got into difficulty on a night out... say in a nightclub... two girls under the influence of both alcohol and drugs accused him in the wrong of taking one of their bags, the bag may have been indeed stolen by a third party, he was seen say near the area to get a seat for a friend... two of them follow him outside, one swings a punch, the other is putting a hand into her bag, he is on his own, Fownes St Lower, a side street in temple bar, the same quiet, dark street where I was attacked all be it by a male... I hope you’d educate him to the point where he is of the mind and want to defend himself, his wellbeing and possibly life. Forget the anatomy, think of the dangers. Defend yourself by any means necessary regardless of who is trying to hurt you.. some points you’ll get for lying on a hospital bed , missing three teeth, and a stab wound... “ohhh isn’t he very much the gentleman, didn’t even fight back !” You want to be off your fûcking head..

FaIIcon · 25-07-2020 1:02pm

Self defence then of course. However I am not a person that would end up in that situation, unless a freak situation.

Strumms · 25-07-2020 1:22pm

FaIIcon wrote: »

Self defence then of course. However I am not a person that would end up in that situation, unless a freak situation.

Ask anyone who has been the victim of an assault, none of us thought that we’d ‘end up in that situation’. I was watching a band in Eamon Doran’s , came outside, said goodnight to a friend who was up early for golf and started making my way towards the quays to grab a cab home, some strange looking dude followed me, mumbling, then attacked me from behind.... ok it was a male but the point stands, you just don’t know, to say you’d never end up in that situation? I thought the same, a&e and years of migraines lay ahead... defend yourself, forget about gender.

bb1234567 · 25-07-2020 1:24pm

Would hit anybody who is trying to physically attack me, as in a sustained continued attack, not a slap or whatever. Then again I'm not a huge guy so maybe I'd feel differently if I was the size of a guy who's punch would put a woman in a lot of danger

the_pen_turner · 25-07-2020 1:54pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But here we are in a thread where a number of men are trying to justify reasons why they would hit a woman? There’s no assumptions being made when men themselves admit that they would consider hitting a woman. The only assumption I make about those men is they’re full of bs tbh.

Those Youtube videos you’re talking about are set up and edited and all the rest of it, same as that nonsense video of your one walking through New York or wherever it was trying to make a point about sexual harassment, and they had to edit it to make it look like anyone gave a shìte about her. People simply didn’t care.

No we can’t trust police statistics to be accurate, any more than we should trust statistics that suggest domestic violence is 50/50 or that if a man calls the police to complain that he is being attacked or abused by his girlfriend or wife, that he’ll be taken away and not her.

Still the point comes back to there being many means of self-defence for a man other than lashing out or hitting a woman. A man who chooses to hit a woman is doing so because they want to, not because they have to. I’ve no sympathy for any man who would hit a woman, regardless of the circumstances. There’s nothing justifies being a brute IMO.

your part of the problem. saying that there is no reason to ever hit a woman perpetuates the problem. hitting a woman as a last resort does not make you a brute.

i cannot rule out hitting a woman. i have no intention of ever doing it but under the right circumstances yes i would. i cannot see how anyone could honestly say they would not.
it would be a last resort after trying to talk my way out or trying to leave and trying to restrain her. . thats exactly the same for a man.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2020 2:07pm

the_pen_turner wrote: »

your part of the problem. saying that there is no reason to ever hit a woman perpetuates the problem. hitting a woman as a last resort does not make you a brute.

i cannot rule out hitting a woman. i have no intention of ever doing it but under the right circumstances yes i would. i cannot see how anyone could honestly say they would not.
it would be a last resort after trying to talk my way out or trying to leave and trying to restrain her. . thats exactly the same for a man.

Part of what problem? The perception that any man who hits a woman is nothing more than a spineless and cowardly brute, or the idea that I don’t think it’s ever excusable no matter what the circumstances are?

I know you’re saying it’s a last resort, but that’s in some made-up hypothetical scenario which you’re unlikely ever to encounter in any case. Before then you would have plenty of options open to you even if your attacker were brandishing a chainsaw and you’d both hands tied behind your back (yes, that’s a purposely ridiculous scenario).

I know it’s the same for a man that your first thought isn’t to lash out either, it isn’t the first thought of most people. Their first thought when they are genuinely in fear of their lives is that they are frozen with fear, and trying to protect themselves or get the hell out of there is their first thought rather than hitting back like a cornered rat. Most people will use their brains before they’ll use their fists.

25-07-2020 2:13pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Part of what problem? The perception that any man who hits a woman is nothing more than a spineless and cowardly brute, or the idea that I don’t think it’s ever excusable no matter what the circumstances are?

I know you’re saying it’s a last resort, but that’s in some made-up hypothetical scenario which you’re unlikely ever to encounter in any case. Before then you would have plenty of options open to you even if your attacker were brandishing a chainsaw and you’d both hands tied behind your back (yes, that’s a purposely ridiculous scenario).

I know it’s the same for a man that your first thought isn’t to lash out either, it isn’t the first thought of most people. Their first thought when they are genuinely in fear of their lives is that they are frozen with fear, and trying to protect themselves or get the hell out of there is their first thought rather than hitting back like a cornered rat. Most people will use their brains before they’ll use their fists.

I hit a woman. With a police issue baton. I hit her on the arm to make her drop the knife she had just stabbed me with.

I then physically put her on the ground and restrained her, eventualky using handcuffs when a colleague arrived too assist.

She was taken to the station and treated for a minor wound from her face scraping the ground while I was in surgery getting my neck stitched up.

Under your view, I'm a scumbag. Under your view I would be dead and a dangerous criminal free. Your view is stupid, naive and dangerous.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2020 2:24pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I hit a woman. With a police issue baton. I hit her on the arm to make her drop the knife she had just stabbed me with.

I then physically put her on the ground and restrained her, eventualky using handcuffs when a colleague arrived too assist.

She was taken to the station and treated for a minor wound from her face scraping the ground while I was in surgery getting my neck stitched up.

Under your view, I'm a scumbag. Under your view I would be dead and a dangerous criminal free. Your view is stupid, naive and dangerous.

You don’t know that you’d be dead any more than I do. I don’t care what you do for a living either, there are plenty of people who do your job without ever having to resort to the same ****e, and they’ve faced far worse than the circumstances you’ve described above.

It’s a view that’s neither stupid, naive nor dangerous. I’ve said from the beginning of the thread that there are many more means of self-defence than resorting to hitting a woman.

25-07-2020 2:28pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don’t know that you’d be dead any more than I do. I don’t care what you do for a living either, there are plenty of people who do your job without ever having to resort to the same ****e, and they’ve faced far worse than the circumstances you’ve described above.

It’s a view that’s neither stupid, naive nor dangerous. I’ve said from the beginning of the thread that there are many more means of self-defence than resorting to hitting a woman.

Wow. I think your opinion can be safely disregarded as that of a knowledgeable person

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2020 2:36pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The views of a buffoon. Thankfully the courts aren't as stupid.

What does that mean? I don’t know what you mean by the Courts aren’t as stupid? Yer one that stabbed you got done for assault or something and you didn’t face any sanctions for using your baton to defend yourself? Sure so what? What’s that intended to prove one way or the other?

Three unarmed officers were able to disarm a man armed with a machine gun when he must have shat out a grenade and you think you’re great because you whacked a woman with a baton when she stabbed you?

#so_brave :pac:

Mister Vain · 25-07-2020 3:30pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don’t know that you’d be dead any more than I do. I don’t care what you do for a living either, there are plenty of people who do your job without ever having to resort to the same ****e, and they’ve faced far worse than the circumstances you’ve described above.

It’s a view that’s neither stupid, naive nor dangerous. I’ve said from the beginning of the thread that there are many more means of self-defence than resorting to hitting a woman.

Ahh c'mon man. He was STABBED FFS. As far as I can see, she got off lightly.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2020 3:45pm

Mister Vain wrote: »

Ahh c'mon man. He was STABBED FFS. As far as I can see, she got off lightly.

Yeah I’m not denying he doesn’t deserve to have been stabbed, but it’s not her behaviour I’m making any point about.

It’s his own attitude and behaviour, or I would say any mans behaviour where they would hit a woman, that I would say they were a scumbag for doing so. Niner is right in the respect at least that his opinion would have more standing in Court than your average scumbag, which is a point I can’t argue with.

bunderoon · 25-07-2020 4:00pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What does that mean? I don’t know what you mean by the Courts aren’t as stupid? Yer one that stabbed you got done for assault or something and you didn’t face any sanctions for using your baton to defend yourself? Sure so what? What’s that intended to prove one way or the other?

Three unarmed officers were able to disarm a man armed with a machine gun when he must have shat out a grenade and you think you’re great because you whacked a woman with a baton when she stabbed you?

#so_brave :pac:

This is extremely disrespectable to women. That you would pigeon hole them into a stereotype where they have no control or responsibility for their actions. That they are weak mentally, physically and are brittle beings.
Wake up, this is 2020. You should be empowering women to have courage in their convictions and face the consequences of their actions. You are treating them as children, which is really appalling.

You also disrespect men who can be on the receiving end of violence at the hand of a woman where you seem to think that men cannot gauge and administer a proper measured response. Be it de-escalation verbally, avoidance, seek assistance from others or as a last resort, defend himself physically.

As I wrote previously, violence is abhorrent, regardless of gender. We are talking about adults here. And if one (regardless of gender) intends to inflict pain on another individual, then they must accept that they run the risk of getting hurt in return.
Don't reduce women to mentally challenged weak individuals. It's disgusting.

Strumms · 25-07-2020 4:02pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s a view that’s neither stupid, naive nor dangerous. I’ve said from the beginning of the thread that there are many more means of self-defence than resorting to hitting a woman.

If a female, through the influence of drink, drugs, psychological issue, latent anger, or a combination of or the above goes to assault you, self defense is imperative. Nobody is advocating getting her on the ground and trying to stove in her cerebellum with a cricket bat. Self... ‘DEFENSE’.. you are defending yourself from assault.

Use whatever force you ‘need’ to prevent yourself getting assaulted, injured or worse. Let it be proportionate force, absolutely.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2020 4:12pm

bunderoon wrote: »

This is extremely disrespectable to women. That you would pigeon hole them into a stereotype where they have no control or responsibility for their actions. That they are weak mentally, physically and are brittle beings.
Wake up, this is 2020. You should be empowering women to have courage in their convictions and face the consequences of their actions. You are treating them as children, which is really appalling.

You also disrespect men who can be on the receiving end of violence at the hand of a woman where you seem to think that men cannot gauge and administer a proper measured response. Be it de-escalation verbally, avoidance, seek assistance from others or as a last resort, defend himself physically.

As I wrote previously, violence is abhorrent, regardless of gender. We are talking about adults here. And if one (regardless of gender) intends to inflict pain on another individual, then they must accept that they run the risk of getting hurt in return.
Don't reduce women to mentally challenged weak individuals. It's disgusting.

It isn’t disrespectful to women because I wasn’t making any comments about the behaviour of women in any scenario in any case.

The question was asked in the Gentleman’s Club forum, I’m a man, I’m guessing most of us contributing to the thread are men, and I’m talking about the standards of behaviour and attitudes I expect of men. There’s nothing about “if she hits me first” or any of the rest of it. That’s a child’s way of thinking and it’s the complete opposite of taking responsibility for one’s actions.

How about by your own words you don’t reduce men to mentally challenged individuals who I would more commonly refer to as brutes and scumbags on the basis that they hit women. Those men who say they would are just full of BS, I wouldn’t be the least bit concerned about them either.

It’s so unbelievably simple - leave yourself open to being charged with assault if you wish, you’re entirely responsible for the consequences of your own actions and behaviours and attitudes. It doesn’t matter what you think anyone else “deserves”, society just doesn’t function like that. Just don’t be surprised that the statistics show a greater number of men convicted of assault when a greater number of men actually commit an offence in the first place and the defence they’re offering as a justification for their actions just doesn’t stand up.

Wibbs · 25-07-2020 4:14pm

bunderoon wrote: »

This is extremely disrespectable to women. That you would pigeon hole them into a stereotype where they have no control or responsibility for their actions. That they are weak mentally, physically and are brittle beings.
Wake up, this is 2020. You should be empowering women to have courage in their convictions and face the consequences of their actions. You are treating them as children, which is really appalling.

I agree and I'm sure he didn't lick it from a stone. Welcome to the worst aspect of modern so called "feminism" where women are always agentless victims and it's always men's fault. It does my head in and yep it demeans women as much as it demeans men. It's an all too common view and with scary irony apes the view of old style chauvinism. As does the "never hit a woman" taken as read view. Add in men who elevate Women(tm) as some sort or fantasy creature because they've little experience of the world and women. Add in most of us thankfully living in a genteel and safe society who are protected from the worst of society by people like Niner and who have never faced the violent underbelly so are extremely naive about it and here we are with some attitudes. "Violence is never an answer" is an extremely laudable viewpoint, but sometimes doesn't survive contact with the real world.

And no I'd not hit a woman, or a man for that matter, right up to the point where they got violent with me and then all bets are off. I hate to break it to some, but talking doesn't always work.

JJayoo · 25-07-2020 4:20pm

If I had to use force I could just kick her in the leg a good hard leg kick would make any woman reevaluate things.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2020 4:50pm

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree and I'm sure he didn't lick it from a stone. Welcome to the worst aspect of modern so called "feminism" where women are always agentless victims and it's always men's fault. It does my head in and yep it demeans women as much as it demeans men. It's an all too common view and with scary irony apes the view of old style chauvinism. As does the "never hit a woman" taken as read view. Add in men who elevate Women(tm) as some sort or fantasy creature because they've little experience of the world and women. Add in most of us thankfully living in a genteel and safe society who are protected from the worst of society by people like Niner and who have never faced the violent underbelly so are extremely naive about it and here we are with some attitudes. "Violence is never an answer" is an extremely laudable viewpoint, but sometimes doesn't survive contact with the real world.

And no I'd not hit a woman, or a man for that matter, right up to the point where they got violent with me and then all bets are off. I hate to break it to some, but talking doesn't always work.

It’s nothing to do with feminism but yeah, has a hell of a lot to do with chauvinism - I don’t think it’s acceptable that men should think it’s ok to hit a woman. How many times has it been argued that men are generally bigger and stronger than women and all the rest of it. They generally are, and they can do a lot more damage to a woman than the opposite will ever be true.

Niner linked to one case of a woman stabbing a man, he could just as easily have linked to hundreds and it still wouldn’t change the idea that it should never be acceptable for a man to hit a woman. I’ve never argued that violence isn’t the answer, it’s as effective an answer as anything else and I’m certainly not opposed to the use of violence. I understand Niner couldn’t really give the context surrounding the circumstances, but when he just comes out with “I hit a woman”, I’m thinking what does he want, a medal? I’ve only ever met a handful of Gardaí with that jarhead attitude which is indeed useful in war zones, but it’s never done anything useful outside of a war zone.

bunderoon · 25-07-2020 5:05pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It isn’t disrespectful to women because I wasn’t making any comments about the behaviour of women in any scenario in any case.

The question was asked in the Gentleman’s Club forum, I’m a man, I’m guessing most of us contributing to the thread are men, and I’m talking about the standards of behaviour and attitudes I expect of men. There’s nothing about “if she hits me first” or any of the rest of it. That’s a child’s way of thinking and it’s the complete opposite of taking responsibility for one’s actions.

How about by your own words you don’t reduce men to mentally challenged individuals who I would more commonly refer to as brutes and scumbags on the basis that they hit women. Those men who say they would are just full of BS, I wouldn’t be the least bit concerned about them either.

It’s so unbelievably simple - leave yourself open to being charged with assault if you wish, you’re entirely responsible for the consequences of your own actions and behaviours and attitudes. It doesn’t matter what you think anyone else “deserves”, society just doesn’t function like that. Just don’t be surprised that the statistics show a greater number of men convicted of assault when a greater number of men actually commit an offence in the first place and the defence they’re offering as a justification for their actions just doesn’t stand up.

The question was asked in the Gentleman’s Club forum, I’m a man, I’m guessing most of us contributing to the thread are men, and I’m talking about the standards of behaviour and attitudes I expect of men. There’s nothing about “if she hits me first” or any of the rest of it. That’s a child’s way of thinking and it’s the complete opposite of taking responsibility for one’s actions.
- The OP's question is a one liner, like all topics on boards. Its to start a dialog and discuss the various factors and opinions that relate to it.

How about by your own words you don’t reduce men to mentally challenged individuals who I would more commonly refer to as brutes and scumbags on the basis that they hit women. Those men who say they would are just full of BS, I wouldn’t be the least bit concerned about them either.
- Did you miss or skip this part of what I wrote:
"You also disrespect men who can be on the receiving end of violence at the hand of a woman where you seem to think that men cannot gauge and administer a proper measured response. Be it de-escalation verbally, avoidance, seek assistance from others or as a last resort, defend himself physically."
Anyone that attacks ANYONE is a brute and a scumbag and someone who should have the full extent of the law brought upon then.
You are being very disingenuous when you reduce all men to a brutes. Even when they may have to resort to defending themselves after all other means have been exhausted..Or maybe you arent.. and its just that this whole concept goes over your head. Dunno.

It’s so unbelievably simple - leave yourself open to being charged with assault if you wish, you’re entirely responsible for the consequences of your own actions and behaviours and attitudes. It doesn’t matter what you think anyone else “deserves”, society just doesn’t function like that. Just don’t be surprised that the statistics show a greater number of men convicted of assault when a greater number of men actually commit an offence in the first place and the defence they’re offering as a justification for their actions just doesn’t stand up.
Don't know where you are pulling that ^^^^^^^^ from? Is that a reply to someone else??
Defence isn't assault. Don't blame the victim.
Everyone knows that there is inequality in the justice system that favour women over men. And if a man is a victim of assault, any sane individual would hope that they get a fair hearing and judgement against the attacker.
Men are more likely to be the perpetrator of violence. No one is denying that. But only an idiot would conflate the two.

jaxxx · 25-07-2020 5:13pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s nothing to do with feminism but yeah, has a hell of a lot to do with chauvinism - I don’t think it’s acceptable that men should think it’s ok to hit a woman. How many times has it been argued that men are generally bigger and stronger than women and all the rest of it. They generally are, and they can do a lot more damage to a woman than the opposite will ever be true.

Niner linked to one case of a woman stabbing a man, he could just as easily have linked to hundreds and it still wouldn’t change the idea that it should never be acceptable for a man to hit a woman. I’ve never argued that violence isn’t the answer, it’s as effective an answer as anything else and I’m certainly not opposed to the use of violence. I understand Niner couldn’t really give the context surrounding the circumstances, but when he just comes out with “I hit a woman”, I’m thinking what does he want, a medal? I’ve only ever met a handful of Gardaí with that jarhead attitude which is indeed useful in war zones, but it’s never done anything useful outside of a war zone.

Sweet divine Jesus.. .. .. Self defence.

If a man attacks a woman, and the woman defends herself in an appropriate manner, would you be spewing the same garbo? I think not. So it's ok then for a woman to attack a man so long as he doesn't try and defend himself? I'm trying to get some sort of sense of logic here.

F*ck me.. .. ..

25-07-2020 5:26pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s nothing to do with feminism but yeah, has a hell of a lot to do with chauvinism - I don’t think it’s acceptable that men should think it’s ok to hit a woman. How many times has it been argued that men are generally bigger and stronger than women and all the rest of it. They generally are, and they can do a lot more damage to a woman than the opposite will ever be true.

Niner linked to one case of a woman stabbing a man, he could just as easily have linked to hundreds and it still wouldn’t change the idea that it should never be acceptable for a man to hit a woman. I’ve never argued that violence isn’t the answer, it’s as effective an answer as anything else and I’m certainly not opposed to the use of violence. I understand Niner couldn’t really give the context surrounding the circumstances, but when he just comes out with “I hit a woman”, I’m thinking what does he want, a medal? I’ve only ever met a handful of Gardaí with that jarhead attitude which is indeed useful in war zones, but it’s never done anything useful outside of a war zone.

I'm a Jarhead because I used force to disarm a woman that had injured me seriously?

WTF are you smoking?

It's pitiful simple. The use of reasonable force is justified to defend yourself. The use of reasonable force is acceptable to effect a lawful arrest.

Your boneheaded comments that "men never need resort to violence" is exactly that, boneheaded.

You haven't a clue but like so many people that make stupid comments, you won't back down and just keep digging.

Hundreds of cases where women used force to seriously injure and kill men but yet you still claim this same men would be scum had the defended themselves. What utter, utter ****e.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2020 5:39pm

bunderoon wrote: »

Don't know where you are pulling that ^^^^^^^^ from? Is that a reply to someone else??
Defence isn't assault. Don't blame the victim.
Everyone knows that there is inequality in the justice system that favour women over men. And if a man is a victim of assault, any sane individual would hope that they get a fair hearing and judgement against the attacker.
Men are more likely to be the perpetrator of violence. No one is denying that. But only an idiot would conflate the two.

It was a response to this part of your post -

bunderoon wrote: »

- Did you miss or skip this part of what I wrote:
"You also disrespect men who can be on the receiving end of violence at the hand of a woman where you seem to think that men cannot gauge and administer a proper measured response. Be it de-escalation verbally, avoidance, seek assistance from others or as a last resort, defend himself physically."

Nobody said defence is assault, I said a man could leave themselves open to being charged with assault, and then rather than me blaming the victim, they’re playing the victim. I’ve met plenty who regard their responses to being provoked as measured, they were only defending themselves, women wanted equal rights, etc etc. Pure bollocks IMO, and their excuses are often seen as just that.

I’m not conflating men who perpetrate violence with male victims of violence. It’s yourself and a few others who are trying to say that men who are only defending themselves when they were attacked by a woman should have a right to a fair hearing. They do. But don’t conflate male victims of abuse with men who hit women and then tell me I’m doing any conflating.

I’ve never been a fan of the “he had a terrible childhood” excuse for adults bad attitudes and behaviour towards others, any more than I wouldn’t entertain a man playing the victim while his girlfriend is in bits in the corner, the “now look what you made me do” line of reasoning to excuse their own behaviour.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2020 5:54pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I'm a Jarhead because I used force to disarm a woman that had injured me seriously?

WTF are you smoking?

It's pitiful simple. The use of reasonable force is justified to defend yourself. The use of reasonable force is acceptable to effect a lawful arrest.

Your boneheaded comments that "men never need resort to violence" is exactly that, boneheaded.

You haven't a clue but like so many people that make stupid comments, you won't back down and just keep digging.

Hundreds of cases where women used force to seriously injure and kill men but yet you still claim this same men would be scum had the defended themselves. What utter, utter ****e.

Oh give over with the pissing contest nonsense. I figured you for a jarhead on the basis of your “I hit a woman”, and like I said, I was thinking, what do you want, a medal? I didn’t say men never need resort to violence, I said from the beginning of the thread -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nah, and besides there are other means of self-defence besides leaving yourself open to being charged with assault.

I also said -

I don’t care what you do for a living either, there are plenty of people who do your job without ever having to resort to the same ****e, and they’ve faced far worse than the circumstances you’ve described above.

I didn’t claim men would be scumbags for defending themselves, I didn’t conflate them like that. I’ve said there are plenty of ways to defend oneself. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a clue because I don’t share your opinion. I can’t see you backing down either, but if you’re gonna attack something I say, then don’t go making up shìte and claiming I said it.

Mister Vain · 25-07-2020 6:14pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh give over with the pissing contest nonsense. I figured you for a jarhead on the basis of your “I hit a woman”, and like I said, I was thinking, what do you want, a medal? I didn’t say men never need resort to violence, I said -

I don’t care what you do for a living either, there are plenty of people who do your job without ever having to resort to the same ****e, and they’ve faced far worse than the circumstances you’ve described above.

I didn’t claim men would be scumbags for defending themselves, I didn’t conflate them like that. I’ve said there are plenty of ways to defend oneself. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a clue because I don’t share your opinion. I can’t see you backing down either, but if you’re gonna attack something I say, then don’t go making up shìte and claiming I said it.

What's worse than being stabbed and what happened to these heroic guys that didn't resort to violence?

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2020 6:25pm

Mister Vain wrote: »

What's worse than being stabbed and what happened to these heroic guys that didn't resort to violence?

Sure for all anyone here knows Niner could have been stabbed in the arse with a hairclip. I’m prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t use unreasonable force in subduing his assailant. I don’t need to know the details.

The people who don’t resort to violence generally have better outcomes in policing than those who resort to violence.

For what it’s worth btw I wouldn’t call Niner brandishing his baton violence, it made me laugh to think of a Keystone cops kinda scene tbh.

Strumms · 25-07-2020 6:26pm

If I’m attacked, im going to use proportional force to defend myself and ensure my wellbeing until the Gardai can arrive.

I don’t care if the attacker is male, female, Spanish, Mexican, Irish, in their teens, twenties or sixties. My goal is to get back home to my house and family, unhurt, alive and ok.

If you are of any demographic of person who wishes to do me harm and compromise my ability to do this, I will just defend myself by whatever appropriate means to ensure my loved ones are not getting a call from a Garda or a hospital. If you are female and wish to do me harm I will wish to defend myself, I will defend myself, that’s all.

25-07-2020 6:34pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sure for all anyone here knows Niner could have been stabbed in the arse with a hairclip. I’m prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t use unreasonable force in subduing his assailant. I don’t need to know the details.

The people who don’t resort to violence generally have better outcomes in policing than those who resort to violence.

For what it’s worth btw I wouldn’t call Niner brandishing his baton violence, it made me laugh to think of a Keystone cops kinda scene tbh.

No, the ones that don't defend themselves or use force get hurt badly and lose the prisoner.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Niner linked to one case of a woman stabbing a man, he could just as easily have linked to hundreds and it still wouldn’t change the idea that it should never be acceptable for a man to hit a woman

You have said numerous times now, you don't consider anything that's being faced as reason to hit a woman. I linked to a case where a man was stabbed to death by a woman and your reply was, that it was still not a valid reason. The man was murdered ffs!

Is that your opinion and what makes you an expert? What's the background?

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2020 6:48pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No, the ones that's dinner defend themselves or use force get hurt badly and lose the prisoner.

I'll bite, what makes to an expert? What's the background?

You keep shifting the goalposts there. Your anecdote involved you subduing a woman who had just stabbed you until assistance from your colleagues arrived and you could get the handcuffs on her. There’s just so many questions I have, but none that would paint you in a more competent light unfortunately, so I’ll just keep them to myself, and no, I won’t be biting either.

You may well be happy to put your occupation out there as though you’re the only one in Ireland, see a lot of that in online discussions, but I told you already I wasn’t getting into a pissing contest with you.

bunderoon · 25-07-2020 6:50pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was a response to this part of your post

Nobody said defence is assault, I said a man could leave themselves open to being charged with assault, and then rather than me blaming the victim, they’re playing the victim. I’ve met plenty who regard their responses to being provoked as measured, they were only defending themselves, women wanted equal rights, etc etc. Pure bollocks IMO, and their excuses are often seen as just that.

I’m not conflating men who perpetrate violence with male victims of violence. It’s yourself and a few others who are trying to say that men who are only defending themselves when they were attacked by a woman should have a right to a fair hearing. They do. But don’t conflate male victims of abuse with men who hit women and then tell me I’m doing any conflating.

I’ve never been a fan of the “he had a terrible childhood” excuse for adults bad attitudes and behaviour towards others, any more than I wouldn’t entertain a man playing the victim while his girlfriend is in bits in the corner, the “now look what you made me do” line of reasoning to excuse their own behaviour.

- And I (and others here) never been a fan of the “she had a terrible childhood” excuse for adults bad attitudes and behaviour towards others, any more than I wouldn’t entertain a woman playing the victim while her boyfriend is in bits in the corner, the “now look what you made me do” line of reasoning to excuse their own behaviour.
^^^^ We are all in agreeance here. There hasn't been any question here.

"Nobody said defence is assault, I said a man could leave themselves open to being charged with assault, and then rather than me blaming the victim, they’re playing the victim."
Of course it's possible for a victim defending themselves when being assaulted to leave them open to being charged with assault if the response is much greater than the original attack. No one here is advocating the greater response. But you prefer to side with a woman more or less regardless of what & why she instigated the violence and the damage she did to the man.
You are, in a round about way, saying that if a man defending himself during an assault, that he himself is assaulting, even if it's measured (which is what we are saying). But you will not agree with the inverse of that.

bb1234567 · 25-07-2020 6:52pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don’t know that you’d be dead any more than I do. I don’t care what you do for a living either, there are plenty of people who do your job without ever having to resort to the same ****e, and they’ve faced far worse than the circumstances you’ve described above.

It’s a view that’s neither stupid, naive nor dangerous. I’ve said from the beginning of the thread that there are many more means of self-defence than resorting to hitting a woman.

Why is it so important to you that man doesn't lay a finger on a woman? Do you think every woman is a weak little innocent angel? If a woman is attacking somebody physically and prepared to hurt them, they should be prepared to take anything their victim can give back. There are other means but if your'e assulating somebody you don't deserve this level of sympathy and regard for their well being, she has no regard for his safety whatsoever. I really think this is crazy, I just do not get your point of view on this even a little bit.

"You don't know you'd be dead' yeh good thing he didn't give the bitch the chance to bring it that far . It really seems like you are prioritising the safety and comfort of an attacker because of their gender over a man's life just because he's a man(who you have stereotyped as always being stronger and completely capable of safely subdueing any other woman of any size no matter what weapon she is wielding).

25-07-2020 6:53pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You keep shifting the goalposts there. Your anecdote involved you subduing a woman who had just stabbed you until assistance from your colleagues arrived and you could get the handcuffs on her. There’s just so many questions I have, but none that would paint you in a more competent light unfortunately, so I’ll just keep them to myself, and no, I won’t be biting either.

You may well be happy to put your occupation out there as though you’re the only one in Ireland, see a lot of that in online discussions, but I told you already I wasn’t getting into a pissing contest with you.

You have said plenty. None of it logical. I'm not moving the goalposts at all. The link shows a man being murdered. You replied that it still didn't count.

In my case I am incompetent because I was injured and had to use force on a woman.

There's a lot of internet warriors ok, your clearly one of them with your online expertise in restrain and police work. Carry on internet ninja

joe40 · 25-07-2020 6:55pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You keep shifting the goalposts there. Your anecdote involved you subduing a woman who had just stabbed you until assistance from your colleagues arrived and you could get the handcuffs on her. There’s just so many questions I have, but none that would paint you in a more competent light unfortunately, so I’ll just keep them to myself, and no, I won’t be biting either.

You may well be happy to put your occupation out there as though you’re the only one in Ireland, see a lot of that in online discussions, but I told you already I wasn’t getting into a pissing contest with you.

I'm not really following you, I would have thought a member of the Gardai is perfectly entitled to subdue a prisoner regardless of gender. (I presume the poster is a Guard)

An Ri rua · 25-07-2020 6:56pm

mr_fegelien wrote: »

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

How's the sponsorship deal with Boards working out? Seriously creative output on your behalf.

Re the OP, depends, Johnny, deppends

bunderoon · 25-07-2020 6:59pm

I think we are all going around in circles now.
And theres a recent inclusion of bitchy insinuations, anecdotes and segway-ing to shift the narrative.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2020 7:01pm

bunderoon wrote: »

But you prefer to side with a woman more or less regardless of what & why she instigated the violence and the damage she did to the man.

You are, in a round about way, saying that if a man defending himself during an assault, that he himself is assaulting, even if it's measured (which is what we are saying). But you will not agree with the inverse of that.

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. Saying that there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman is not “siding with women”. It’s not saying anything about women because as far as I’m concerned the discussion is about men’s behaviour and male standards of behaviour.

I’m not saying anything in any roundabout way either. I don’t have to be an expert either to know that a man could leave themselves open to being charged with assault if they hit a woman. Sure, a woman could leave herself open to assault for hitting a woman too, but that’s an opinion that relates to women who hit women, it has nothing to do with men who hit women leaving themselves open to being charged with assault.

I’d say the same thing to women though if the thread were in the Ladies Lounge if it makes you feel better?

An Ri rua · 25-07-2020 7:06pm

bunderoon wrote: »

I think we are all going around in circles now.
And theres a recent inclusion of bitchy insinuations, anecdotes and segway-ing to shift the narrative.

When the sh1t gets real, both sexes tend to circle the Segways.

bunderoon · 25-07-2020 7:07pm

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not really following you, I would have thought a member of the Gardai is perfectly entitled to subdue a prisoner regardless of gender. (I presume the poster is a Guard)

No,

1) Not if the attacker is a woman.
2) Doesnt matter how savage the attack is.
3) Doesnt matter if your life is in danger. Why, because One Eyed Jack heard other instances where the outcome was different but hasnt a clue in the details but that doesnt matter. If you are a female garda, then its OK - I'm guessing.
4) Doesnt matter what size the attacking female is in proportion to the male victim.
5) Men are brutes. Doesnt matter is the responsde to the attack was fair and measured. You dont hit a woman. If you do, well, you are a brute.
6) One Eyed Jack doesnt care how valid you comment is because of points 1->5.

joe40 · 25-07-2020 7:07pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. Saying that there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman is not “siding with women”. It’s not saying anything about women because as far as I’m concerned the discussion is about men’s behaviour and male standards of behaviour.

I’m not saying anything in any roundabout way either. I don’t have to be an expert either to know that a man could leave themselves open to being charged with assault if they hit a woman. Sure, a woman could leave herself open to assault for hitting a woman too, but that’s an opinion that relates to women who hit women, it has nothing to do with men who hit women leaving themselves open to being charged with assault.

I’d say the same thing to women though if the thread were in the Ladies Lounge if it makes you feel better?

If you are been attacked by another person, male or female, you are entitled to defend yourself. Especially if there is a weapon involved.

That is the only time I would believe violence is justified.

bunderoon · 25-07-2020 7:14pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. Saying that there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman is not “siding with women”. It’s not saying anything about women because as far as I’m concerned the discussion is about men’s behaviour and male standards of behaviour.

I’m not saying anything in any roundabout way either. I don’t have to be an expert either to know that a man could leave themselves open to being charged with assault if they hit a woman. Sure, a woman could leave herself open to assault for hitting a woman too, but that’s an opinion that relates to women who hit women, it has nothing to do with men who hit women leaving themselves open to being charged with assault.

I’d say the same thing to women though if the thread were in the Ladies Lounge if it makes you feel better?

Saying that there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman is not “siding with women”.
So, again, you are saying that there's no circumstance where a man ( we all simply argue they can during defending themselves) can hit a woman, but
you believe there are circumstances where a woman can hit a man, regardless if she is the attacker?

bunderoon · 25-07-2020 7:16pm

joe40 wrote: »

If you are been attacked by another person, male or female, you are entitled to defend yourself. Especially if there is a weapon involved.

That is the only time I would believe violence is justified.

That's the only time which is what 99% of the posters here have said too.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2020 7:16pm

bb1234567 wrote: »

Why is it so important to you that man doesn't lay a finger on a woman? Do you think every woman is a weak little innocent angel? If a woman is attacking somebody physically and prepared to hurt them, they should be prepared to take anything their victim can give back. There are other means but if your'e assulating somebody you don't deserve this level of sympathy and regard for their well being, she has no regard for his safety whatsoever. I really think this is crazy, I just do not get your point of view on this even a little bit.

"You don't know you'd be dead' yeh good thing he didn't give the bitch the chance to bring it that far . It really seems like you are prioritising the safety and comfort of an attacker because of their gender over a man's life just because he's a man(who you have stereotyped as always being stronger and completely capable of safely subdueing any other woman of any size no matter what weapon she is wielding).

It’s important because it says something about a man who would hit a woman that they are a coward. It’s easy for them to justify their behaviour to themselves on whatever basis they like, but nobody has to agree with them, and the vast majority of men don’t. The number of men who openly admit that women are fair game are in a fairly small minority.

The reason I think you don’t get my point of view is because you’re coming at it from the point of view of a man being attacked by a woman, as though he has the right to hit back. He doesn’t, and that won’t immediately amount to self-defence either if there were other means available for the man to be able to defend himself, such as leaving the immediate vicinity and going to the nearest Garda station to make a complaint against his attacker(s).

I’ll prioritise the law every day over some idiots that think they are either above the law, or imagine that they have a right to take the law into their own hands.

One eyed Jack · 25-07-2020 7:20pm

bunderoon wrote: »

Saying that there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman is not “siding with women”.
So, again, you are saying that there's no circumstance where a man ( we all simply argue they can during defending themselves) can hit a woman, but you believe there are circumstances where a woman can hit a man, regardless if she is the attacker?

What? No. How many times now - I’m speaking of the behaviour of men.

Don’t do Cathy Newman on it and say that I believe there are circumstances where a woman can hit a man. No there aren’t, just the same as there are no circumstances where it’s acceptable for a man to hit a woman.

A man who chooses to do that, they’re a scumbag IMO.

joe40 · 25-07-2020 7:22pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s important because it says something about a man who would hit a woman that they are a coward. It’s easy for them to justify their behaviour to themselves on whatever basis they like, but nobody has to agree with them, and the vast majority of men don’t. The number of men who openly admit that women are fair game are in a fairly small minority.

The reason I think you don’t get my point of view is because you’re coming at it from the point of view of a man being attacked by a woman, as though he has the right to hit back. He doesn’t, and that won’t immediately amount to self-defence either if there were other means available for the man to be able to defend himself, such as leaving the immediate vicinity and going to the nearest Garda station to make a complaint against his attacker(s).

I’ll prioritise the law every day over some idiots that think they are either above the law, or imagine that they have a right to take the law into their own hands.

If a woman just slapped me and no further attack was forthcoming and I was in no further danger then no I would not hit back. I would report the incident as assault and follow it up.

If I was under a sustained attack and could get injured I believe hitting back in self defense to stop the attack would be justified.

bunderoon · 25-07-2020 7:22pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s important because it says something about a man who would hit a woman that they are a coward. It’s easy for them to justify their behaviour to themselves on whatever basis they like, but nobody has to agree with them, and the vast majority of men don’t. The number of men who openly admit that women are fair game are in a fairly small minority.

The reason I think you don’t get my point of view is because you’re coming at it from the point of view of a man being attacked by a woman, as though he has the right to hit back. He doesn’t, and that won’t immediately amount to self-defence either if there were other means available for the man to be able to defend himself, such as leaving the immediate vicinity and going to the nearest Garda station to make a complaint against his attacker(s).

I’ll prioritise the law every day over some idiots that think they are either above the law, or imagine that they have a right to take the law into their own hands.

Why do you intentionally ignore what has been said here time and time again.
No one advocates violence. The ONLY time people are saying here that they would defend themselves against another person is if they have no other option. That's it. Nothing else.
You were not the only person here that was brought up well and raised to respect people. Do you hate men or something? Were you bullied? Its the only thing that would make sense if you are calling men brutes for defending themselves.

Guna have to leave this nonsensical over and back.
Simply, no one should attack another person. If they do, they must be prepared for the consequences. No one thinks its OK to beat the ****e out of a woman - even if in defence. Period.

DeanAustin · 25-07-2020 7:24pm

There’s no justification for hitting a woman unless you’re genuinely in danger of being seriously hurt (ie she’s bigger than you or she has a weapon). It’s scumbag behaviour to do otherwise.

However, it’s also not acceptable for a woman to hit a man and I think, generally, society has a lot of growing up to do in relation to that dynamic. I had my ex wife hit me, completely unprovoked, on several occasions and everyone, from friends to family to neighbours to my solicitor, sort of dismissed it as “one of those things”. I’m staggered, when it comes to family disputes, how heavily weighted the law and public attitudes are towards women.

Would you ever hit a woman?

Comments