Would you ever hit a woman?

bunderoon wrote: »

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.

I’m not ignoring anything. I’m saying that I wouldn’t encourage men to hit back thinking they had a right to and claim self defence. That’s unlikely to wash with any Gardaí I know.

I’m not calling men brutes for defending themselves. I think you know I was specifically referring to men who hit women. They can say they were defending themselves all they want, I wouldn’t be any more likely to see that as a justification for their behaviour.

Unfortunately there are men who think it’s ok to beat the shìt out of women, and it’s that small minority of men are used as a stick to beat the majority of men with, when in reality the attitude that it’s ok to hit women would only be shared by a tiny minority of people in Irish society.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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

You are moving the goalposts. Mister Vain asked what happened to the officers who don’t use violence, and you twisted what I said as if I had said officers who don’t defend themselves or use force get hurt badly or lose the prisoner -

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

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

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?

As for your link where a man was stabbed to death by a woman, what’s that supposed to be saying? The man is dead. I didn’t reply that it wasn’t a valid reason because I didn’t say anything about it previously. Clearly his attacker was making sure he would have very slim opportunity to defend himself, let alone attack her -

The 39-year-old was stabbed as he tried to start his car at 7am in the estate.


And for what it’s worth, I don’t need to be an expert either in policing or the Irish law or self defence or any of that stuff to know that men could leave themselves open to being charged with assault if they think all bets are off because she threw the first punch or made the first stab. Am I wrong?

In your case I said I had questions, but none of those would paint your competency in a positive light. You’re not incompetent because you were injured and had to use force on a woman. It’s just that I don’t think you could provide any answers that would paint you in a more competent light given the way you already presented that scenario.

No online expertise or ninja skills required, no blowhard nonsense required either.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Not a single person, not one has said that. Not a single person has mentioned striking a woman for no reason and not a single person has mentioned hitting a woman multiple times without need.

YOU have tried to bring that in, in an attempt to defend your argument. Your argument being that's it's never acceptable under any circumstances for a man to hit a woman.

You have stated that multiple times. You have also repeatedly claimed that a man hitting BACK would have him open to assault charges. That's not true.

You have spoken absolute nonsense here. Not a single other person be they male or female has agreed with you. No one agreed with you when you tried to slag me off either.

Now, as you are not an expert in any area that's remotely connected to the issue, perhaps be more open minded about it because when it's you against the world, it's probable you that's wrong.

I said it could leave men open to being charged with assault, and it could.

I didn’t have to bring it in to defend anything as I’m not declaring my own opinion that a man who chooses to hit a woman is a scumbag has any legal standing in the first place.

As you imagine yourself to be an expert in the area, that’s why you imagine your opinions are the only ones that matter, no need to be telling me to be more open minded when I can provide evidence to back up my opinions, which is why I don’t need to take you at your word.

jaxxx wrote: »

Actually you're speaking a load of old tosh cos you refuse to acknowledge the simple idea of self defence where a man is attacked unprovoked by a woman, and simply trying to defend his own life. You fail to separate this from an case where a man is needlessly attacking a woman. It's all the same coin to you, when it isn't! One is violence for the sake of violence, the other is sufficient violence to defend yourself!

No, you’re trying to draw a distinction as if the only means of self defence is to hit back. It’s not. You can do all the “but what about this scenario, or that scenario, or the other scenario” you want but in reality those are all hypothetical cases, and still the same thing as I’m saying would stand. It won’t matter “who started it” or any of the rest of that nonsense.

jaxxx wrote: »

It's attitudes like this that make it difficult for victims of domestic abuse (both women AND MEN) to come forward and seek help. Or are you that backward that you believe there's no such thing as abusive relationships where the abuser is the woman and the victim the man?

Do you think I’m that backward that I think you’re the least bit sincere about the above? :rolleyes:

OP

Yes, if said woman was 5' 2" and ugly.

No, if she is 6' 2" and pretty.

Mysterypunter wrote: »

If I were fighting her for the world boxing championship and was behind on points needing a good couple of rounds to get back into contention I would, on the serious side of it, there is no advantage to be gained by violence, and in 44 years on earth I have managed to avoid it so far, would not do your brain any good if you did it, and had to think about what you had done, unless I was attacked, and I don't mean physically, I mean with weapons, knives sticks, etc no. If I was attacked by a woman with a knife, I would probably stab her with it, on the basis that if you start it, you are fair game, that's not an action man or rambo reply, just an observation.

My children are both blackbelts in kick boxing so they can defend themselves if required - regardless of gender. My son has been pitched against girls in fights, both in competition and in class, my daughter was pitched against grown men in class, and has been last man standing - it stands to both of them that they can take a punch and defend themselves.
I have been slapped by a man, who got a lovely black eye in return - I won't put up with violence and I wouldn't expect anyone else to either, especially if weapons are involved.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Someday, when he’s a little bit older and more worldly wise One Eyed Jack is going to look at these posts and say to himself “what the absolute **** was I thinking”

For what it’s worth I was in a friends house with my wife and his wife one time. They got into an argument and she hit him over something totally innocuous, but she did.

He said to her “that’s the fourth time you hit me, KH6 and Mrs KH6 are now witnesses. They are going to take photos of the marks you left (which I have and are on my phone, backed up to pc and the cloud) and next time I’m going to the cops.

Her response? “Well what type of man are you to stay with someone who hits you? Your a fkn coward”

Now, Mr Jack. In your mind he shouldn’t hit her?? My itchy ballsack he shouldn’t.

As an aside the next day she rang us to apologise for her behaviour and blamed PMT. And begged me to delete the photos. I told her I was under no circumstances deleting them

I’m fine with my thoughts on this one knucklehead tbh.


No I don’t agree that he should hit her. She sounds like an awful dose Reading your post back, they both sound like an awful dose, and I’d recommend your friend put some distance between himself and his wife if that’s a regular occurrence. Their relationship sounds utterly toxic without dragging you and anyone else into their dramatics. Why wouldn’t you go to the cops now seeing as you have the evidence?

She runs him through with a knife the next time I guess at least you’ll still have the photos (which aren’t the killer evidence you think they are either) -


When a barrister for the accused asked Amy Coughlan if she had kicked him in the face she replied: 'I don't know how that's physically possible - I'm only 5'3".' The Court heard that Purdy is 5'9". Ms. Coughlan's friend Therese took the stand and supported her version of events. Purdy's friend Barry Robinson corroborated the defense's version of events. Photographs shown to Judge Murrough Connellan showed facial injuries on Purdy's forehead, over one eye, and underneath another eye. However both Gerry Maloney and Garda Adam Nolan said that they noticed just one red mark underneath Purdy's eye on the night of the incident. Purdy told the Court that he asked the driver to call the gardai. Judge Murrough Connellan said that the one person who could clear up the start of the altercation was not present - the girl with whom Ms. Coughlan was alleged to have been rowing with. The court heard she was in Australia. 'I cannot come to a fair and accurate conclusion as to how it started,' he said.

'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.


Man fined for attack on woman, claimed it was ‘self defence’

knucklehead6 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

knucklehead6 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

idnkph wrote: »

Equal rights= equal fights

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

Deleted User wrote: »

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

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

Clare Kat wrote: »

The Gentlemen’s Club

Third times the charm....

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

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

skooterblue2 wrote: »

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

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

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

mr_fegelien wrote: »

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

Why are you asking this?

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Literally a whole thread about beating up women. Lovely.

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