Not hitting women because of their gender is sexist?

[spartan]

After talking to someone about women and violence i was led to thinking that if a man refuses to hit a woman just because of her gender then that makes him sexist?

This person's reasoning was that the man's mentality is one of thinking of women as a weaker sex who must be looked after and not attacked like he would do to a man.

He was not talking about a situation such as wifebeating or anything, what he was talking about is men refusing to defend themselves from violent women or women who are provoking them even though they would happily react violently if it was a man in the same situation.

He said it was a "double standard" on the part of the man refusing to hit women because of their gender.

What do you think?

[Mariner's Revenge]

Err...I have a feeling this topic will end up going nowhere because sexism, while just as bad, does work differently than racism and other social doctrines because there are distinct differences between men and women. From a male's perspective, hitting a woman is much different than hitting a man because of the power involved with. Not only are men generally physically stronger than women, but our society has developed some people, a lot of times unknowingly, in such a way that they get a power trip by taking control over women (rape, many degrading porn, etc). So, when a man does hit a women, even for equality reasons, those two factors have to come into play.

If a woman does attack me and I have to defend myself, I will do it because of self-defense. Other situations I will try to avoid it because of the social factor tied to it. I do not want to go through the trouble of having to justify to myself and others that I hit her out of non-power reasons. It really depends on the situation.

To sum the question up and why I believe this thread will go nowhere is that the answer is both yes and no. This is of course assuming we are talking about an already sexist society. If we lived in a completely non-sexist society where the feeling to get power over women does not exist, the answer will most likely be only yes.

[Saint-Just]

there are distinct differences between men and women. From a male's perspective, hitting a woman is much different than hitting a man because of the power involved with. Not only are men generally physically stronger than women

Men and women are genetically different, and you can say that in general men tend to be physically stronger than women. However, that does not mean a single punch to a woman is going to cause more harm than punching a man. Physical proportions are so variagated amongst men and women that there are many cases where a man would withstand less physical harm than a woman. Although, I think the notion that it is more acceptable for a man to punch another man than punch a woman assumes that the punch could lead to a prolonged physical conflict. In which case, there are probably fewer cases where a woman could withstand more physical harm than a man. Yet, there are still most likely quite a number of women more physically suited to a physical confrontation than a certain proportion of men.

I would suggest that to punching people is signicantly enough detrimental to both genders that regardless of whether they are a woman or man it is generally an undesirable action. In cases where punching is a desirable course of action, I would suggest that the situation would be of such gravity that the gender of the victim would not be an issue. Therefore, anyone who adheres to the concept that is is not acceptable to punch a woman is probably inclined towards committing physical violence quite indiscriminately. That seems to be a greater problem than whether or not they find it acceptable to hit a man and not a woman.

[Mariner's Revenge]

Men and women are genetically different, and you can say that in general men tend to be physically stronger than women. However, that does not mean a single punch to a woman is going to cause more harm than punching a man. Physical proportions are so variagated amongst men and women that there are many cases where a man would withstand less physical harm than a woman. Although, I think the notion that it is more acceptable for a man to punch another man than punch a woman assumes that the punch could lead to a prolonged physical conflict. In which case, there are probably fewer cases where a woman could withstand more physical harm than a man. Yet, there are still most likely quite a number of women more physically suited to a physical confrontation than a certain proportion of men.
Yes, there will be a good amount of overlap but you generalize to make it simpler.


Therefore, anyone who adheres to the concept that is is not acceptable to punch a woman is probably inclined towards committing physical violence quite indiscriminately.
I half agree and half disagree. Being violent usually has some tie to power and hitting a man can give another man a sense of power and hitting a woman can give a man a sense of power but just because someone enjoys dominating over another man doesn't mean they want the same thing with a woman.

[jake williams]

The question is too complex.

First, women are socialized to not fight back and this has more to do with their disadvantage in physical conflicts than do genetic predispositions, which nevertheless to have some effect.

There's also the issue that should come up right away - when "we" talk about "hitting women" as an abstracted participle phrase, we ignore the implied subject - men. In fact, a basic linguistic and social reality of patriarchy is that men are presumed agents, and when women are talked about it's often as on the receiving end of male action. So we should be aware that we're talking about men hitting women.

Then, we have to understand violence against women within the context of heterosexual relationships, and all that that entails. This is where you tend to see violence, physical and otherwise, against women. This is its own special case, and its own special kind of sick because you're violating a special kind of trust.

To be shorter than is likely sufficient to answer the question properly, I think it's sexist to say hitting women is wrong or worse compared to hitting men, but that it might be valid considering the present gendered realities of our world, which unfortunately require some differentiated treatment of men and women, if only in the interest of fighting extant disparities.

[comrade stalin guevara]

eye for an eye tooth for a tooth

[Decolonize The Left]

eye for an eye tooth for a tooth

leaves the whole world blind and unable to chew...

- August

[comrade stalin guevara]

If a woman hits a man i [my opinion only] belive a man has the right to hit back.

In my life the woman beat the men.

august=very smart and funny too aroha nui [big love]

[Unicorn]

I don't hit women. If some violent woman attacks me I can subdue her without hitting (or hurting) her.

It is not sexism to treat women better because of their gender for whatever reason, even old-fashioned gallantry.

[jake williams]

It is not sexism to treat women better because of their gender for whatever reason, even old-fashioned gallantry.
Yes it is, it's gendered treatment of other people. Even were it not a reinforcement of paternalistic, patriarchal notions of women, which it is, it is gendered treatment and is thereby, instantly, sexism.

That's different from the place it finds within the context of a sexual relationship (where our discourse has to be come different), but I don't presume that's what you're talking about.

Also, that's not necessarily a moral evaluation. Maybe you support that type of sexism. But it's still sexism.

[Unicorn]

Yes it is, it's gendered treatment of other people. Even were it not a reinforcement of paternalistic, patriarchal notions of women, which it is, it is gendered treatment and is thereby, instantly, sexism.

That's different from the place it finds within the context of a sexual relationship (where our discourse has to be come different), but I don't presume that's what you're talking about.

Also, that's not necessarily a moral evaluation. Maybe you support that type of sexism. But it's still sexism.
It is stupid to argue that any kind of "gendered" treatment is sexist. Sexism is negative discrimination against women. It is positive discrimination not to hit women.

Positive discrimination is not a problem and it is even progressive. "Affirmative Action" is an example of positive discrimination in the context of race.

[jake williams]

It is stupid to argue that any kind of "gendered" treatment is sexist. Sexism is negative discrimination against women. It is positive discrimination not to hit women.

Positive discrimination is not a problem and it is even progressive. "Affirmative Action" is an example of positive discrimination in the context of race.
I see where you're coming from, but I could say that if I only hire men (supposing, I guess ridiculously, that I would manage a business) and it's okay because it's positive discrimination. So you're left with saying that "positive discrimination" is only "sexism" if it's done to men - which is sexist.

I think affirmative action applied to women is both sexist and valid, but that doesn't make it not sexist, not in my usage of the term. Now if you're defining the term to only apply to things that are bad for women or good for men you're free to do that, but I don't do that. You might also define "sexism" such that it only applies to things you disagree with, and you're free to do that too, but I don't know if that's a useful methodology for defining terminology.

Another alternative, I guess, is defining sexism as supporting male dominance, which is a little more subtle and I suppose a little more useful. This is difficult though, because these sorts of terminological tricky bits can blind us to the fact that we are carrying out gender-differentiated behaviour, and that we have to be aware of.

[Unicorn]

I see where you're coming from, but I could say that if I only hire men (supposing, I guess ridiculously, that I would manage a business) and it's okay because it's positive discrimination. So you're left with saying that "positive discrimination" is only "sexism" if it's done to men - which is sexist.
No, it would be negative discrimination to only hire men as you are at the same time refusing to hire women. Positive discrimination helps women in a society dominated by men. It would be positive discrimination to only hire women though also too discriminatory against individuals and should thus be rejected as excessive.

[Unicorn]

Who defines what better is?
Well, the woman objectively benefits if a man does not hit her.