Hitting women

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Most of us are not pacifists, so we're open to the possibility of having to resort to violence under given circumstances. Is it just, however, for men to hit women given that men are naturally muscularly stronger than women? Of course not all men are stronger than all women. I have never hit anyone, but I would just as sooner hit a woman as I would another man. And I certainly wouldn't evaluate the person's muscle mass before determining whether or not my actions would be justified. Discuss.

[RedAnarchist]

It depends on a couple of things in my opinion. Firstly, is there need to hit that person, in self defence or in the defence of others? Secondly, is there a non-violent way to prevent harm coming to you/others?

[Red Equation]

I would avoid it if possible, man or woman.

There's no need to cause any unnecessary trouble.

[Marsella]

Threads like this make me wonder...


Is it just, however, for men to hit women given that men are naturally muscularly stronger than women?

The US has a bigger military than Brazil, does that make it right for the US to attack Brazil?

Anyhow, its a naturalistic fallacy; just because something is 'natural' does not make it better or more just.


Most of us are not pacifists, so we're open to the possibility of having to resort to violence under given circumstances.

Yes, given the circumstances. If someone is attacking you, you should defend yourself within limits.


I have never hit anyone, but I would just as sooner hit a woman as I would another man. And I certainly wouldn't evaluate the person's muscle mass before determining whether or not my actions would be justified.

Well, you probably would, subconsciously.

If a female teenager began hitting you, you would probably act quite differently to a male teenager hitting you.

[Lector Malibu]

I don't hit anyone. It would have to be an extreme situation where my safety was in danger. Even then there are still options.

[Red Equation]

Threads like this make me wonder...



The US has a bigger military than Brazil, does that make it right for the US to attack Brazil?


Just pointing something out that is false about that said statement. Look at the Winter War, Finland didn't win, but you have to admit, it did put up a pretty damn good fight considering it's militaristic capacity.

[Unicorn]

Most of us are not pacifists, so we're open to the possibility of having to resort to violence under given circumstances.
So is this question about domestic violence, bar fights, militant anti-Fascism or violent revolution?

There was a company of female soldiers defending the Winter Palace. I don't regret that the Bolsheviks killed some of them.



Is it just, however, for men to hit women given that men are naturally muscularly stronger than women? Of course not all men are stronger than all women. I have never hit anyone, but I would just as sooner hit a woman as I would another man. And I certainly wouldn't evaluate the person's muscle mass before determining whether or not my actions would be justified. Discuss.
Only cowards hit people who are weaker than them. Hitting women is especially despicable since it is not women's fault that they are weaker than men.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The US has a bigger military than Brazil, does that make it right for the US to attack Brazil?

As in most of the cases of violence by men against women, there are other factors involved that make it wrong for the US to invade Brazil.


Anyhow, its a naturalistic fallacy; just because something is 'natural' does not make it better or more just.

I said that men are naturally muscularly stronger than women. Nowhere did I claim that this natural distinction between the genders is "better" or "more just". THat doesn't even make sense. At all. Frankly, I'm confused.


Yes, given the circumstances. If someone is attacking you, you should defend yourself within limits.

That's exactly my argument.


If a female teenager began hitting you, you would probably act quite differently to a male teenager hitting you.

No, I don't think so. In both cases I would probably just walk away. Or run.
Just off the top of my head, a reason that I would hit another person would be if they were submitting me or someone else to harassment or physical abuse that me of that other given person had no choice but to endure. Then I would physically stop that person by any reasonable means necessary, regardless of their gender. I concede that if the person was much bigger than me I wouldn't taken them on alone.

[Lector Malibu]

Are women weaker then men?? Can you explain that statement Unicorn.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So is this question about domestic violence, bar fights, militant anti-Fascism or violent revolution?

It's about any conceivable situation where you would be willing to hit another man. If that man was a woman, would you behave differently based on gender?


Only cowards hit people who are weaker than them. Hitting women is especially despicable since it is not women's fault that they are weaker than men.

Not all women are weaker than all men.

[Marsella]

Just pointing something out that is false about that said statement. Look at the Winter War, Finland didn't win, but you have to admit, it did put up a pretty damn good fight considering it's militaristic capacity.

No doubt, and Vietnam actually won (although at what cost?) against America.

My point was that just because something is bigger does or stronger does not make it any more just...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It depends on a couple of things in my opinion. Firstly, is there need to hit that person, in self defence or in the defence of others? Secondly, is there a non-violent way to prevent harm coming to you/others?

These are obvious measures that anyone takes before resorting to violence. But if a conflict were to escalate into violence, is it okay for a man to retaliate physically against a woman?

[Red Equation]

Are women weaker then men?? Can you explain that statement Unicorn.

Um, well theoretically women should be weaker than men, because when you enter puberty, if you're a man, then testosterone gives you muscles in a kind of free manner.... but if you're a woman, you have to basically workout and gain those muscles manually, so it is usually assumed that men are stronger than women, but not only for that reason.

Consider the fact that men on average are usually taller than women, and that a man and woman's body is different because of it's bodily functions. Those differences lead many to believe that men are stronger than women, and it is probably there that the principle is derived from.

Other than that, it's probably just perceived from chauvanism, and we still believe so because chauvanism has existed for such a long time.

[Marsella]

As in most of the cases of violence by men against women, there are other factors involved that make it wrong for the US to invade Brazil.

True.


No, I don't think so. In both cases I would probably just walk away. Or run.

Very noble...but still :lol:


Just off the top of my head, a reason that I would hit another person would be if they were submitting me or someone else to harassment or physical abuse that me of that other given person had no choice but to endure.

Yeah I agree with that position. I can withstand personal abuse, i.e. name calling.

But I do think that the paternalistic 'Women should not be hit because they are weaker' view is wrong. Humans should not be hit unless they present a real danger to you, irrespective of gender (although generally a middle aged man is going to be more dangerous than a middle aged woman).

[Os Cangaceiros]

These are obvious measures that anyone takes before resorting to violence. But if a conflict were to escalate into violence, is it okay for a man to retaliate physically against a woman?

If someone physically attacks me and I feel like I'm in danger of being injured or even killed, I'm going to retaliate with everything I've got. It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to me whether the assailant is male or female.

Of course, it's important to evaluate your opponent; I certainly don't think that it's justified to knock someone out that you could have easily physically restrained.

[Unicorn]

It's about any conceivable situation where you would be willing to hit another man. If that man was a woman, would you behave differently based on gender?
Yes. Both because of self-interest and morality. It is not socially acceptable to hit a woman and hitting a woman would have consequences: people would consider me a scumbag if I did so.

Also, I support the moral view that hitting women is unacceptable. I would do everything possible to avoid that myself. If hitting women was as acceptable as hitting other men domestic abuse would skyrocket. Conscience and fear of consequences prevents many husbands from hitting their wives as long as hitting women is considered wrong by the society.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yes. Both because of self-interest and morality. It is not socially acceptable to hit a woman and hitting a woman would have consequences: people would consider me a scumbag if I did so.

Also, I support the moral view that hitting women is unacceptable. I would do everything possible to avoid that myself. If hitting women was as acceptable as hitting other men domestic abuse would skyrocket. Conscience and fear of consequences prevents many husbands from hitting their wives as long as hitting women is considered wrong by the society.

Is hitting men "moral"?

To me, whether or not you should hit someone has nothing to do with "morality"; it has to do with your own physical well being.

[Unicorn]

Is hitting men "moral"?
No, but hitting women is a social taboo. It is a good social taboo and it should be preserved.

[Red Equation]

No, but hitting women is a social taboo. It is a good social taboo and it should be preserved.

It exists only because of chauvanism, and the supposedly defined terms of society.

[Lector Malibu]

Um, well theoretically women should be weaker than men, because when you enter puberty, if you're a man, then testosterone gives you muscles in a kind of free manner.... but if you're a woman, you have to basically workout and gain those muscles manually, so it is usually assumed that men are stronger than women, but not only for that reason.

Consider the fact that men on average are usually taller than women, and that a man and woman's body is different because of it's bodily functions. Those differences lead many to believe that men are stronger than women, and it is probably there that the principle is derived from.

Other than that, it's probably just perceived from chauvinism, and we still believe so because chauvanism has existed for such a long time.

This view exist entirely as a result of chauvinism

There are differences between a male body and a female body however there is no ground to support that "women are weaker than men" as Unicorn so boldly stated.

[Unicorn]

There are differences between a male body and a female body however there is no ground to support that "women are weaker than men" as Unicorn so boldly stated.
Why do you think that professional male weightlifters achieve so much better results than female weightlifters?

There are great biological differences between the physical strength of men and women. These differences are confirmed by scientific research. They are also the reason why in the vast majority of domestic abuse cases the perpetrators are males.

[Lector Malibu]

Why do you think that professional male weightlifters achieve so much better results than female weightlifters?

Wrong! Yes because of the way a womans body is designed pitted against a male in a heavy lift competition the results will be different as males have different muscle structures than women. If you where to scale it down though I think you find that there was not a difference.

But how does that make them weaker? That's what I'm asking you.


There are great biological differences between the physical strength of men and women. These differences are confirmed by scientific research. They are also the reason why in the vast majority of domestic abuse cases the perpetrators are males.There is also study that indicates women:

Live longer

Are more likely to survive in a survival situation

Have a much higher pain threshold than men

Are able to grasp concepts such as mathematics easier than men

Learn at a faster rate than men

Are able to multi task, where as men in most instances can't

So tell me how are they weaker?

[TC]

Its chauvinism to think that theres something morally unique about men hitting women because they are women and not men, but its a fact that larger people can inflict more damage faster than smaller people than vice versa and that the average male is about thirty pounds heavier than the average female when adjusted for age.

When there are large gaps in weight, a thirty pound difference being more than enough, the larger 'combatant' can easily subdue the smaller with less violence than hitting them (i.e. a 130 lb person will probably not be able to free their hands from a 160 lb person's grasp), so for the larger to hit the smaller when no weapons are involved is normally an excessive use of force.

Given this, it is generally speaking more serious for a man to hit a woman than another man, if one speaks in general of people of average build for men and women; and often wrong as it normally constitutes a use of force in excess to the force needed for self defense. Is it more serious for a male with dwarfism to hit an adult woman than another man with dwarfism? No of course not; an average adult female is much larger and stronger than an average man with dwarfism. Is it more serious for a 180 lb man to hit a 150 lb woman than a 100 lb male teenager? No of course not.


I think what really bothers me about the 'NEVER HIT A WOMAN' stuff is that, given that these people often think its okay to hit male children or smaller men, its not an issue of women being physically less threatening (although, objectively speaking, women are physically less threatening on average) but of women being somehow purer or sacrosanct and this is dehumanizing. This can be seen even more clearly in the cultural meme that hitting a pregnant woman is even more serious than hitting a normal woman, but hitting a prostitute is less serious. (there is also a cultural meme that its more wrong to hit an old woman but this seems reasonable as old women are on average more at risk for serious injury).

[black magick hustla]

oh cmon malibu, you know that unicorn meant "physically weaker" as in, males can carry more shit and punch harder. it is well documented males have a stronger upper physical body. it doesnt means females are stupid, worthless, etc.it is just that we have biological differences.

[black magick hustla]

Are able to grasp concepts such as mathematics easier than men

There arent studies saying that. studies show males are better at "mathematics", at least in average, and females are better at vocabulary related shit, like writing.

[F9]

You cant hit a weaken person or a person who has done nothing to you.If you defence yourself for ex. against a strong woman who attacks you,you cant sit there and get beatten because she is a woman.You will defend yourself in any way.So i dont see it in general neither in women neither in men for its good at beating.There are also some men which are "weak" you cant hit them either.So it really depends from the person you have against you.

Fuserg9:star:

[Lector Malibu]

There arent studies saying that. studies show males are better at "mathematics", at least in average, and females are better at vocabulary related shit, like writing.

Marmot there are studies that show that in a classroom setting women learn concepts like mathematics faster then men. That's not saying the are better at it. Actually they are better suited for it brain wise.

[Lector Malibu]

oh cmon malibu, you know that unicorn meant "physically weaker" as in, males can carry more shit and punch harder. it is well documented males have a stronger upper physical body. it doesnt means females are stupid, worthless, etc.it is just that we have biological differences.

I at know point said that Unicorn said women were stupid or worthless. He said they were weaker. I'm simply asking him how are women weaker? as he stated.

He could have said that he was referring to muscle development differences between men and women but he did not.

So fair play on my part.

[guevara2093]

Well, women are good at lower body strength things, usualy better than a man. But I think it also has to do with the phsycological aspect that women tend to be regarded as a lot more emotional, and therefore have a hard time trying to fight someone. They tend to just cry when made fun of (the ones as my school at least), though I know some on the softball team who kicked this kid for being an idiot...

[Jazzratt]

Basically, if someone hits you it's best to hit them until they stop trying to hurt you.

[Colonello Buendia]

everyone gets the same treatment, regardless of crotch luggage. if a woman hits a man then the man should have every right to hit back

[Unicorn]

He could have said that he was referring to muscle development differences between men and women but he did not.
Lol, I said that "there are great biological differences between the physical strength of men and women."

Isn't that clear enough?

[Red_or_Dead]

everyone gets the same treatment, regardless of crotch luggage. if a woman hits a man then the man should have every right to hit back

I agree completly.

As for which gender is stronger, well... Im a guy, but I know a few women who could kick my ass with one hand tied behind their back. We might argue about which gender is stronger in average, and go into scientifical debates about it, but at the end of it all its still wrong to be violent to anyone, if one does not have a pretty good cause for it.

[Lector Malibu]

Only cowards hit people who are weaker than them. Hitting women is especially despicable since it is not women's fault that they are weaker than men.

This is your post that I am referring too.

No Unicorn you did not start talking about the difference between women's mussels and men's mussels until you realized your blanket statment that "women are weaker than men" sounded a little chauvinist.

I win again

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

This is your post that I am referring too.

No Unicorn you did not start talking about the difference between women's mussels and men's mussels until you realized your blanket statment that "women are weaker than men" sounded a little chauvinist.

I win again

mmm... mussels

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/999/mussels500tj7.jpg

[Lector Malibu]

You making fun of my great spelling ?? :lol::lol: Your just jealous!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No, I strongly agree with what you said. Men's mussels are identical to women's mussels, and it would be obscenely chauvinistic for a restaurant to serve male customers stronger mussels and female customers weaker mussels. We must unite and take up the cause of equality in the allocation of mussels.

[cappin]

It's not only that women are weaker but they're also less prone to be violent. If I get angry, I do take my anger out on whoever I feel aggressive towards but I also know that I can't do a lot of damage and rather than punch or kick; I prefer a bite or scratch. If I do attack a man, I think it's fairer to be restrained rather than beaten. An average sized woman can easily be fended by an average sized male. Attacking will only hurt her and she shouldn't be viewed as a challenge, but an obstacle easily overcome.

Well, unless you have a gun to your head. Then it's you against a deadly weapon.

[Red Equation]

Statistics can lie. Just because women might "learn faster" than men could be wrong. For example, maybe none of the men actually want to learn, that would make a drastic change in results...

[Lector Malibu]

Statistics can lie. Just because women might "learn faster" than men could be wrong. For example, maybe none of the men actually want to learn, that would make a drastic change in results...

And that could be wrong as well. The question I've asked Unicorn though is how are women weaker then men.

[Unicorn]

And that could be wrong as well. The question I've asked Unicorn though is how are women weaker then men.
Women have less physical strength. When I said that women are generally weaker than men I meant nothing more. Stop being dumb.

[Lector Malibu]

Women have less physical strength. When I said that women are generally weaker than men I meant nothing more. Stop being dumb.

You didn't say any of that actually . This is you post in all it's glory.



Only cowards hit people who are weaker than them. Hitting women is especially despicable since it is not women's fault that they are weaker than men.


See? it's nothing like you just stated. Now obviously you have realized how that came across and have explained it further as to what you actually meant.

Dumb? I'm not the one that is scrambling and re-wording post and waltzing the normal Unicorn song and dance.

Also I'm not the only one who pointed out issue with your post , so please don't take it as me singling you out.

I'm just winning , that's all

[Unicorn]

You didn't say any of that actually . This is you post in all it's glory.

See? it's nothing like you just stated. Now obviously you have realized how that came across and have explained it further as to what you actually meant.

Dumb? I'm not the one that is scrambling and re-wording post and waltzing the normal Unicorn song and dance.

Also I'm not the only one who pointed out issue with your post , so please don't take it as me singling you out.

I'm just winning , that's all
Bullshit. It is indeed not women's fault that they are (physically) weaker than men. What is your problem with that statement?

[Lector Malibu]

Bullshit. It is indeed not women's fault that they are (physically) weaker than men. What is your problem with that statement?

My problem is with this statement.



Only cowards hit people who are weaker than them. Hitting women is especially despicable since it is not women's fault that they are weaker than men.

And not all women are physically weaker than all men . Yes they do have differences in size and muscle mass as we all agree.

See Unicorn your original post did not say that you were referring to that. I just responded to your sentence as you wrote it.

Next time just be more clear

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Not all men are more muscular than all women.

[MarxSchmarx]

Physical strength is only part of the equation. In many societies, it is "un-lady-like" to engage in a brawl, while it is slightly more OK for men. Indeed, there is enormous social pressure on women to NOT fight back, whereas for men there is some social expectation TO fight back. This creates an inequality already, in the ability of men to wield force that women can't.

Of course, any society that labels men "wusses" for refusing to resort to violence to solve their problems has deeply serious problems. Nevertheless, in such societies, women can't fight back as readily as men can. As such, for men to engage in, much less initiate, brawls with women is a serious abuse of male privilege. Not like male privilege is ok if it's not abused, it's just that taking advantage of male privilege is as unacceptable as male privilege itself.

[redSHARP]

is she asking for it? (i.e. nazi/right wing terrorist/attacking me or friend/hillary clinton?) naturally i wouldnt hit anyone in general but sometimes a fist does more than words.

[Unicorn]

Physical strength is only part of the equation. In many societies, it is "un-lady-like" to engage in a brawl, while it is slightly more OK for men. Indeed, there is enormous social pressure on women to NOT fight back, whereas for men there is some social expectation TO fight back. This creates an inequality already, in the ability of men to wield force that women can't.

Of course, any society that labels men "wusses" for refusing to resort to violence to solve their problems has deeply serious problems. Nevertheless, in such societies, women can't fight back as readily as men can. As such, for men to engage in, much less initiate, brawls with women is a serious abuse of male privilege. Not like male privilege is ok if it's not abused, it's just that taking advantage of male privilege is as unacceptable as male privilege itself.
QFT

[Ultra-Violence]

I mean i wouldnt beat my GF or anything but if a gang of girls were coming up to me trying to do some damage ill run and if i cant run ill fight thier asses BUT! id really try to avoid a situtaion like that

[shorelinetrance]

equal rights equals, equal fights.

:D

[professorchaos]

No hitting anyone.
Not on purpose, anyway.

[queerpaganarchist]

If it's bad enough for me to hit somebody, which so far hasn't happened, I doubt I'd be in the state of mind to wonder whether I should be hitting said person based on their gender.

[coda]

justifyingly, only in self-defense.

[Destroy capitalism]

I am anatomically female though i refuse to buy into the designation 'woman' as i don't recognize the splitting of the human race into genders as a meaningful demarcation. I have been beaten up by both men and women on numerous occasions.I have not received satisfactory explanations as to why my assailants didn't simply restrain me -I was around the 8 stone mark in weight when these things happened.My conclusion is that some men and some women ENJOYED the opportunity to beat me up. i have deterred assaults by the method of having all my keys between my fingers so that my fist shows several protruding pieces of metal when i raise it. this is a good tip for women walking alone at night.on another occasion i was carrying a frying pan and said: you're drunk, i'm sober, this is an iron frying pan .He ran away, apologizing as he ran. In a physical fight with a man I can only win it by raising a weapon be it knife, bottle poker whatever and making a menacing grimace. If you look crazy enough the would be assailant runs away.On one occasion i was getting harangued by about 8 young men and got out of it by picking a crow bar out of a skip and putting on a deranged facial expression whilst posturing with the crow bar. They ran away. you have to really look like you mean it.Societal disapproval DOES NOT deter rapists and women bashers. i suggest that all women need to train in self-defense because regardless of whether socialists decide it is or it isn't ok to hit women the fact is that 'domestic' and 'sexual' assaults on unarmed undefended women WILL continue. I have seen no evidence to suggest that socialist men are unrepresented in the ranks of rapists and partner-bashers, or indeed that rape and 'domestic' violence decreased in states that became socialist.In fact this is one of the main planks of opposition to socialist/marxist feminists by other feminists.As a rule it's definitely not ok to hit women -there are a small number of men suffering 'domestic' violence from female partners, but as the other comrade stated generally a man can physically restrain a woman without having to assault her. Do you have fantasies about hitting women or why do you pose the question? Women soldiers, police, prison officers psychiatric staff and other fascistic women -well if it comes to a fight i doubt if in the heat of the moment anyone pauses to think: I won't hit back, it's a woman.I would say as a general rule it's only ok to hit a woman if it's in self-defense and there's no alternative.I wouldn't make it a plank of policy that socialists carry egalitarianism to the point of deciding it's ok to hit women. i would also agree with the comrade who says don't hit anyone if you can avoid it.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I have seen no evidence to suggest that socialist men are unrepresented in the ranks of rapists and partner-bashers, or indeed that rape and 'domestic' violence decreased in states that became socialist.That's not a very fair analysis; have you any evidence to suggest that socialist men are represented in the ranks of rapists and partner-bashers?

I mean, you're saying: there is no evidence that they are not rapists or partner bashers, therefore they are rapists or partner-bashers. :/

By the way, I do agree that we should be trained in self-defence. I actually carry a pocket knife when I catch the late train home. ;)

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid not.

Your experiences are not representative of an entire political tendency, an entire global political tendency.

Edit: Indeed, my experiences are no more representative of an entire political tendency, in that leftist men have always treated me equally and with respect.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Also, my first post might have given the impression that I thought there was no such thing as 'socialist' rapists.

Of course there are.

But on face value I would think that the level of rapists amongst socialist men, compared to apolitical or right-wing men would be lower.

Particularly where feminism and the emancipation of women has a fundamental role in our specific ideology.

[TC]

1. There is far far less violent crime in Cuba than there is in the United States, UK, etc, which in turn have lower violence rates than capitalist societies with economies the size per capita of Cuba's.

2. Soldiers and police officers commit violent crimes against their spouses and violent sex crimes at a much higher rate than the general population; they are also much more conservative then the general population.

3. Although there are a million factors to account for so that this hardly provides conclusive evidence, it seems at least really plausible that socialist men are in fact less inclined to interpersonal sexual violence than men both in capitalist societies and men who are ideologically and professionally committed to defending capitalist society.


And, not to be awful, but individual single-case anecdotes don't provide any counter evidence on a population level especially since it suffers from population bias (a socialist is probably has a more than average chance of being raped or beat up by another socialist than is a member of the general population simply because they're more likely to know lots of socialists socially...Just as if you're Amish and you're a victim of domestic violence its probably an Amish guy only because they're all Amish guys but that doesn't say anything about the Amish domestic violence rate compared to the general population).

[Destroy capitalism]

IT might be lower, it might be the same it might be higher. Neither of us have any data to hand, so it's going to go around in circles as an argument.
You have the luxury of speaking as the unraped unbeaten, you obviously have zero experience of armed paramilitary socialist men. I'm not the only raped female in the socialist movement, we'd be unlikey to repeat our experiences to bourgeoise feminist investigators.Indoctrination into socialism does absolutely nothing to deter say JEALOUS men from getting into violent frenzies, nor does it do anything to prevent them becoming DRUNKEN men on the rampage. I'm glad for you that your comrades are anti-sexist but go to a warzone and then come back and tell me i'm wrong. you've had a sheltered life and you also haven't done the reading about the difficulties of female comrades in male-led male-dominated socialist revolutionary movements.These civilized male socialists you know might change a little if they became used to habitual obedience at the end of the barrel of their guns.In our movement female revolutionaries have had occasion to use their weapons to ward off sexual harassment. Stay safe and sheltered by all means but don't presume to nullify the experiences of those who've been a good deal braver than you.

[TC]

don't presume to nullify the experiences of those who've been a good deal braver than you. Neither I nor manyantsdefeatspiders 'nullified' your experiences by pointing out that they could not be extrapolated into generalized statistical claims. This is just true of personal experiences, in general, whether you're a member of the Real IRA or not.

I also think that your post was, generally pretty presumptuous. Just because people don't use their personal experiences on a public message board with strangers for the sake of making political points doesn't mean they don't have them.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

You have the luxury of speaking as the unraped unbeaten, you obviously have zero experience of armed paramilitary socialist men. I'm not the only raped female in the socialist movement, we'd be unlikey to repeat our experiences to bourgeoise feminist investigators.Indoctrination into socialism does absolutely nothing to deter say JEALOUS men from getting into violent frenzies, nor does it do anything to prevent them becoming DRUNKEN men on the rampage. I'm glad for you that your comrades are anti-sexist but go to a warzone and then come back and tell me i'm wrong. you've had a sheltered life and you also haven't done the reading about the difficulties of female comrades in male-led male-dominated socialist revolutionary movements.These civilized male socialists you know might change a little if they became used to habitual obedience at the end of the barrel of their guns.In our movement female revolutionaries have had occasion to use their weapons to ward off sexual harassment. Stay safe and sheltered by all means but don't presume to nullify the experiences of those who've been a good deal braver than you.

Please do not patronise me.

If you want a list of every time I have been hit then too bad.

I can understand that in a war-environment such things may occur.

We all don't live in a war environment. Or in your country. Or in your shoes.

(And you don't even know me - so please)

Edit: Incidentally, if its come across as me being indifferent to you being raped then I apologise. That wasn't my intent.


IT might be lower, it might be the same it might be higher. Neither of us have any data to hand, so it's going to go around in circles as an argument.Well, as TragicClown stated, there is pretty basic evidence that says that socialist men are indeed less sexist (our ideology being opposed to sexism) which would make it reasonable to maintain that socialist men rape or sexually assault on a lower basis.

[Destroy capitalism]

I'm a trained scientist. go do a study before you claim anything about 'likelihoods'. The only 'likelihood' here is that socialists would not be 'naive' subjects and would be less likely to admit to any form sexism.You are convinced political indoctrination translates into socialist men cleaning the toilet more often than capitalist men too no doubt.BTW i'm sure the RIRA would be stunned to find out I'm a 'member' since they don't know me.They'd also be stunned to find out they're a socialist revolutionary movement.Nobody here in this particular dispute knows anything about social science research and bias. I'm wasting my breath and my energy. If you're starting point is that socialist men have ARRIVED in terms of personal anti-sexist consciousness well, i just have to laugh. There's no room for improvement so, in your view? Well i'm jolly glad to hear it, enjoy your fantasy world. I'm out of this. Got real work to do. Educating the mentally blocked is a non starter.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

If you're starting point is that socialist men have ARRIVED in terms of personal anti-sexist consciousness well, i just have to laugh. There's no room for improvement so, in your view? Well i'm jolly glad to hear it, enjoy your fantasy world.

I never stated such.

The fact that we have rules against sexism here, on a revolutionary left forum, says something in itself about our predominant membership.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I agree with destroy capitalism. Everything indicates that there are no substantial indications of whether or not socialists are more or less less prone to commit physical abuse.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I agree with destroy capitalism. Everything indicates that there are no substantial indications of whether or not socialists are more or less less prone to commit physical abuse.

Wrong.


1. There is far far less violent crime in Cuba than there is in the United States, UK, etc, which in turn have lower violence rates than capitalist societies with economies the size per capita of Cuba's.

2. Soldiers and police officers commit violent crimes against their spouses and violent sex crimes at a much higher rate than the general population; they are also much more conservative then the general population.

3. Although there are a million factors to account for so that this hardly provides conclusive evidence, it seems at least really plausible that socialist men are in fact less inclined to interpersonal sexual violence than men both in capitalist societies and men who are ideologically and professionally committed to defending capitalist society.And what do you mean by 'everything indicates?!'

Re-read what you just wrote: 'Everything indicates that there are no substantial indications...' :lol:

'There is no evidence, so it must be so...'

Does that seem scientific or materialistic to you?!

Edit: Ah, I get what you're saying - I mainly agree - I have never read a paper surveying the sexism of socialists. I doubt there is one. ;)

[the-red-under-the-bed]

No, but hitting women is a social taboo. It is a good social taboo and it should be preserved.

its not always as clean cut as that. often domestic violence is seen as a "family thing", or a whole raft of excuses gets brought out to justify it. "was only a little shove", "she deserved it", "they've worked it out now so its ok, "he gets like that when he's drunk".

Most decent people see it as taboo, which is good and should be preserved, but as long as any violence in our society is truly acceptable then it will continue.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

The social taboo that we 'shouldn't hit women' should not be preserved.

Or rather, it should be reworded.

It draws on the paternalistic and chauvinistic view that 'all women are weak, and it would be unmanly and un-gentlemanly of me to hit a woman.'

That sort of line of thought should be argued against for obvious reasons.

Rather, we should argue that hitting those who are in no position to harm you should be a 'social taboo' - we're already half way there, as this is recognised by the law of self-defence and a proportionate response to defending yourself.

[Awful Reality]

The social taboo that we 'shouldn't hit women' should not be preserved.

Or rather, it should be reworded.

It draws on the paternalistic and chauvinistic view that 'all women are weak, and it would be unmanly and un-gentlemanly of me to hit a woman.'

That sort of line of thought should be argued against for obvious reasons.

Rather, we should argue that hitting those who are in no position to harm you should be a 'social taboo' - we're already half way there, as this is recognised by the law of self-defence and a proportionate response to defending yourself.
Agreed.

How about this: Nobody should hit anybody?

Frankly I find it societally repulsive that it is general procedure for women to slap men when they are pissed off, but when men hit women it is some horrific crime.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

How about this: Nobody should hit anybody?

There are times when people deserve to be hit.


Frankly I find it societally repulsive that it is general procedure for women to slap men when they are pissed off, but when men hit women it is some horrific crime.

I don't find it 'societally repulsive.'

A man hitting a woman has all the hallmarks of a dominative and abusive relationship...

A woman hitting a man does not necessarily indicate such.

We don't hit each other in a societal vacuum...

And of course, a woman slapping a man is far less likely to do serious damage than a man hitting a woman...

[BurnTheOliveTree]

No one should hit anyone, 'cept in playfights. :)

I suppose the implicit question is whether a woman slapping a man gives the man license to hit her. I hope it's not sexist to say that, most of the time, a man hitting a woman is a bit of a heavier thing than a woman hitting a man. It'll probably hurt lots more, do more physical damage... So it's not an equal thing.

Still, no one should hit anyone basically.

-Alex

-Alex

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I suppose the implicit question is whether a woman slapping a man gives the man license to hit her. I hope it's not sexist to say that, most of the time, a man hitting a woman is a bit of a heavier thing than a woman hitting a man. It'll probably hurt lots more, do more physical damage... So it's not an equal thing.

Indeed. Also, not only can men hit harder but can also withstand more physical attacks then females.

It is difficult to conceive of a situation where a well built man could not simply restrain his female attacker rather than deal her a 'knock out punch' which would be disproportionate.

However, it does depend on the circumstances - the relative size of the man and the woman, how the attack is conducted (e.g at night) etc...

[Awful Reality]

There are times when people deserve to be hit. Yes, well, I'm just talking ideologically.




I don't find it 'societally repulsive.'

A man hitting a woman has all the hallmarks of a dominative and abusive relationship...

A woman hitting a man does not necessarily indicate such.

My god that is disgusting. How can you generalize so much? In fact, the only reason one could have for saying that, in my opinion, would be a belief that women are weaker and men should know that it's abuse. Hitting people depends on tons of extenuating circumstances, etc, and men hitting women has in no way at all the hallmarks of abuse. You better back this up well cause that pisses the hell out of me.

[Awful Reality]

Indeed. Also, not only can men hit harder but can also withstand more physical attacks then females. There you go with your equal-but-unequal generalist double-standard.


It is difficult to conceive of a situation where a well built man could not simply restrain his female attacker rather than deal her a 'knock out punch' which would be disproportionate.
Straw man, double standard.


However, it does depend on the circumstances - the relative size of the man and the woman, how the attack is conducted (e.g at night) etc... Vague and meaningless.

No. If a woman hits a man and it's accepted (within reason, of course), men should be able to hit women (within reason, of course).

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

My god that is disgusting. How can you generalize so much?

I can generalise because statistics back up these generalisations.

For example, one 'generalisation' is that on average women are thirty pounds lighter than men.

Quite disgusting, aren't I?


In fact, the only reason one could have for saying that, in my opinion, would be a belief that women are weaker and men should know that it's abuse.It is not a belief that women are weaker.

It is a fact that they, generally, are physically weaker.


Hitting people depends on tons of extenuating circumstances, etc, and men hitting women has in no way at all the hallmarks of abuse.Unfortunately it does.

Statistically, men physically abuse women more than protecting themselves from female attackers.


You better back this up well cause that pisses the hell out of me.Truth hurts, don't it?


There you go with your equal-but-unequal generalist double-standard.Objectively men are bigger then women.

You can measure this via a number of means - weight, height, muscle composition etc...But unless you live under a rock it should be bleedingly obvious to yourself

Because of the greater strength of male's bodies, and because of the fact that women generally have less physical strength than men its fair to say that men can also withstand more physical attacks than females.

Recognising such is not justifying sexism or a double standard.

It is simply pointing out that it is empirically wrong to imagine that men and women are not physically different and hence should be taken into account when discussing whether someone should be hit or not.

The alternative is accepting the liberal nonsense that there is absolutely nothing physically different between the sexes.

There is a fine line between the paternalistic stance of 'we should never hit women' and the liberal stance of 'we are all equal in law, hence we are all equal in our physical make up.'

Communists should reject both the liberal and the paternalistic views.


Straw man, double standard.How is it a straw man?

A large man does not need to punch a smaller woman in order to defend himself; he can restrain her.


double standardIts not a double standard you philistine.

Its taking into account the physical attributes of the parties.

Which is why I said:


However, it does depend on the circumstances - the relative size of the man and the woman, how the attack is conducted (e.g at night) etc...E.g. a large woman is going to be more physically threatening to a tiny man...those things need to be considered when asking the question of whether the punch was justified...


Vague and meaningless.Um no...

When deciding on what is appropriate defence you need to take into account the physical attributes of the people involved.

It is certainly not meaningless.

Liberals like yourself, whom pretend to argue for equality, like to completely ignore the existing social relations and the relative size and physical characteristics of the parties.

Its a liberal and completley unscientific way of looking at things.


No. If a woman hits a man and it's accepted (within reason, of course), men should be able to hit women (within reason, of course).Did I argue otherwise?

Myself:
The social taboo that we 'shouldn't hit women' should not be preserved.

Or rather, it should be reworded.

It draws on the paternalistic and chauvinistic view that 'all women are weak, and it would be unmanly and un-gentlemanly of me to hit a woman.'

That sort of line of thought should be argued against for obvious reasons.

Rather, we should argue that hitting those who are in no position to harm you should be a 'social taboo' - we're already half way there, as this is recognised by the law of self-defence and a proportionate response to defending yourself.The most pertinent thing is the 'within reason' part.

That necessarily means you need to take in the physical attributes of the partners, and dare I say it - consequently their gender!

[Hiero]

It seem some people are just itching to punch a women.

[Awful Reality]

It is difficult to conceive of a situation where a well built man could not simply restrain his female attacker rather than deal her a 'knock out punch' which would be disproportionate.


It is a fact that they, generally, are physically weaker.
Actually, in many mixed wrestling matches, women win (disproportionately if you account for musclularity, body size, etc). Why is this?


Statistically, men physically abuse women more than protecting themselves from female attackers.
...and vice-versa, as well. Because women feel they have the right to cause they're "weaker."


You can measure this via a number of means - weight, height, muscle composition etc...But unless you live under a rock it should be bleedingly obvious to yourself.
Yes, men are taller and weigh more. But women have denser muscles and are more flexible.

Because of the greater strength of male's bodies, and because of the fact that women generally have less physical strength than men its fair to say that men can also withstand more physical attacks than females.

Recognising such is not justifying sexism or a double standard.

It is simply pointing out that it is empirically wrong to imagine that men and women are not physically different and hence should be taken into account when discussing whether someone should be hit or not.

The alternative is accepting the liberal nonsense that there is absolutely nothing physically different between the sexes.

There is a fine line between the paternalistic stance of 'we should never hit women' and the liberal stance of 'we are all equal in law, hence we are all equal in our physical make up.'

Communists should reject both the liberal and the paternalistic views.


How is it a straw man?
Because this:
It is difficult to conceive of a situation where a well built man could not simply restrain his female attacker rather than deal her a 'knock out punch' which would be disproportionate....has nothing to do with my point, which was then that you cannot justify unilateral domestic abuse.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

There are times when people deserve to be hit.

Within the context of a civilized society (that is, outside the context of war or revolution) the law certainly does not recognise any time where someone "deserves" to be hit (I refer to the law here because of your previous mention of lawful self-defence).

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Actually, in many mixed wrestling matches, women win (disproportionately if you account for musclularity, body size, etc). Why is this?

Because wrestling is fake?! :lol:

You honestly don't expect me to take wrestling matches as evidence that women are matched in physical strength to men?!

If you tried that in any university or peer reviewed paper you would be laughed out of the room.


...and vice-versa, as well.

:lol:

How could this statement be a vice-versa:


Statistically, men physically abuse women more than protecting themselves from female attackers.

The vice-versa of that would: women physically abuse men more than protecting themselves from male attackers.

Which is false!


Because women feel they have the right to cause they're "weaker."

The hell?!

Do you have any logic at all behind this statement?

I think it would be reasonable to say that main reasoning behind women hitting another person (not necessarily in order) would be: 1. To protect themselves. 2. A personal fight. 3. Play fighting. Certainly not because they 'feel they have the right to cause they're weaker.'

You are reading into things way more than is necessary or wanted, and reaching wrong and deluded conclusions.


Yes, men are taller and weigh more. But women have denser muscles and are more flexible.

Being able to do the splits it not helpful in a fight.


Because this:...has nothing to do with my point, which was then that you cannot justify unilateral domestic abuse.

It had nothing to do with your point because it wasn't commenting on your point!

It was expanding on Alex's statement.

And how have I justified unilateral domestic abuse?!

You have absolutely no arguments and have resorted to inventing things.

My argument is no different to most in this thread, for example:


Its chauvinism to think that theres something morally unique about men hitting women because they are women and not men, but its a fact that larger people can inflict more damage faster than smaller people than vice versa and that the average male is about thirty pounds heavier than the average female when adjusted for age.

When there are large gaps in weight, a thirty pound difference being more than enough, the larger 'combatant' can easily subdue the smaller with less violence than hitting them (i.e. a 130 lb person will probably not be able to free their hands from a 160 lb person's grasp), so for the larger to hit the smaller when no weapons are involved is normally an excessive use of force.

Given this, it is generally speaking more serious for a man to hit a woman than another man, if one speaks in general of people of average build for men and women; and often wrong as it normally constitutes a use of force in excess to the force needed for self defense. Is it more serious for a male with dwarfism to hit an adult woman than another man with dwarfism? No of course not; an average adult female is much larger and stronger than an average man with dwarfism. Is it more serious for a 180 lb man to hit a 150 lb woman than a 100 lb male teenager? No of course not.

I think what really bothers me about the 'NEVER HIT A WOMAN' stuff is that, given that these people often think its okay to hit male children or smaller men, its not an issue of women being physically less threatening (although, objectively speaking, women are physically less threatening on average) but of women being somehow purer or sacrosanct and this is dehumanizing. This can be seen even more clearly in the cultural meme that hitting a pregnant woman is even more serious than hitting a normal woman, but hitting a prostitute is less serious. (there is also a cultural meme that its more wrong to hit an old woman but this seems reasonable as old women are on average more at risk for serious injury).

That argument is no different to mine. I have argued an objective approach to deciding whether someone should 'hit' someone in defence, and that the chauvinistic line that we should never hit women should be scrapped.

You only responded to my argument because I rebuked you in another thread and have a personal vendetta of some sort.

Unless you come up with some arguments please stop posting.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Within the context of a civilized society (that is, outside the context of war or revolution) the law certainly does not recognise any time where someone "deserves" to be hit (I refer to the law here because of your previous mention of lawful self-defence).

I agree. There is no duty to hit someone.

Although (:D)...there may be a scenario where you owe some sort of protection to someone which requires you to protect them which might necessarily require you to attack a third party in defence of your 'subsidiary'.

For example, a duty of a parent over a child might require a parent to protect a child from domestic abuse - and that might necessarily require them to hit someone...Of course it is doubtful that the law would introduce such a positive right because it invokes a policy which somewhat attacks the protector rather than the criminal...but it could exist where the conduct was negligent or reckless. I mean, it may manifest itself in requiring a prison to protect its inmates, for instance. And by protecting inmates that may require guards to hit attackers...But I'd need to learn more about such an area of law before reaching a conclusion. Of course, the necessary protection would have to be reasonable and not overbearing and harsh to the one whom owes the duty.

Just something to think about though. :D

But, like you mentioned, there do exist 'rights' to self-defence, 'rights' to 'discipline' children (which I don't agree with), and like you said, 'rights' to kill in war...they are not necessarily duties though. :)

[Jazzratt]

So if someone that is weaker than you hits you it is morally objectionable to hit them back?

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

So if someone that is weaker than you hits you it is morally objectionable to hit them back?

No. It depends on the circumstances.

Being 5 foot and 80 pounds is not an excuse to go around hitting people.

But that person's physical attributes should certainly be taking into account when assessing whether the response was a proportionate one. As well as other circumstances.

For example, if a child hits you (someone that is weaker) typically you do not have the right to hit that child back. 1. Because a child can only do so much damage to an adult. 2. Because an adult can do a far greater amount of damage to a child and 3. The appropriate response would be to restrain the child rather than punch him or her. And of course, this ignores the mental capacity of the child but that's another thing altogether.