Toribash
Originally Posted by Ele View Post
It's not something anyone needs to be overthinking. You don't hit a girl because, in general, there's no real threat to men from women unless they're armed. If there's no real threat, then there's no reason to get physical. You don't hit women because there's rarely justification for using that kind of force against them.


Yeah, no real threat indeed
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...-for-dead-skip

*cough* Harmless
http://www.local10.com/news/police-s...death/26826934
http://www.breitbart.com/california/...rain-platform/

I understand men are just as violent but ruling out female violence completely is rather one-sided.
Women are violent if not just as violent as men, you just don't hear much about women beating up men as much as vice versa.

How the social system works:
You get hit by a girl and beaten the shit up because you refused to fight you get mocked.
You retaliate and hit a girl back you get mocked for hitting a girl.

No matter the situation it always ends up with the man being mocked more than the female.
Life's not a waste of time and time's not a waste of life so let's stop wasting time, get wasted and have the time of our lives - Mr Worldwide 3:18
Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
Yeah, no real threat indeed
*links to stories of women beating men*
I understand men are just as violent but ruling out female violence completely is rather one-sided.=

Slapped my head when I read this - you didn't read what I actually wrote. You know, when I was writing my posts I purposely put in all these qualifications so people like you wouldn't respond with this.

Originally Posted by Ele View Post
Most of the time you're not in enough danger to justify hitting the woman...

I said women who are unarmed generally aren't a threat.

Originally Posted by Ele View Post
You don't hit a girl because, in general, there's no real threat to men from women unless they're armed...

You don't hit women because there's rarely justification for using that kind of force against them.

You are taking Ele's point out of context. I am pretty sure that men are much more likely to do lifting in the gym and to be stronger because of this as well as bigger (generally men prefer woman who are shorter than them) and more experienced in rough physical interaction in a sort of play fighting way. Although women are dangerous, they tend to appear much less threatening when unarmed. It is acceptable to playfully punch a guy in the arm but a girl will tend to complain, this is a result if social conditioning and stuff but just because the cause is unnatural doesn't mean the effect (guys being better fighters) is any less real.

Nevertheless, in contexts where you are defending your self, the gender of the aggressor really doesn't matter.
Good morning sweet princess
Ele, the problem in generalizing everything about it is just that it wont work good on real life. Like if a man get hit by a woman who really represents a threat to his physical condition (taller, thicker, mma figher, armed, whatever) and he responds to it, by your logic he stills wrong because generally women does not represent a threat to men, so we wouldn't care if that reaction was actually balanced.

By showing specific cases where women assaulted men Panda is showing that each case must be analysed so that we can get a better understanding, if it was a legitimate defense or if the guy just used (or tried to) it as a shield to hit a woman.

Adding something, it's still a fact that men tend to get more physical, not because its nature, but because what society expects him to do, a man can't get hit, it's worse if its from a girl <- this is vicious.
Last edited by IIInsanEEE; Jan 28, 2015 at 12:02 PM.
Originally Posted by IIInsanEEE View Post
Ele, the problem in generalizing everything about it is just that it wont work good on real life. Like if a man get hit by a woman who really represents a threat to his physical condition (taller, thicker, mma figher, armed, whatever) and he responds to it, by your logic he stills wrong because generally women does not represent a threat to men, so we wouldn't care if that reaction was actually balanced.

No. Jesus. What?

I said we don't usually hit women because they're not usually any real threats. If the woman is indeed a threat, then yes, you hit her.

Originally Posted by IIInsanEEE View Post
By showing specific cases where women assaulted men Panda is showing that each case must be analysed so that we can get a better understanding, if it was a legitimate defense or if the guy just used (or tried to) it as a shield to hit a woman.

Nope. He posted those because he didn't read what I wrote and thought that I said all women aren't ever threats, and he was going to prove me wrong. That's why he made that post.

Originally Posted by protonitron View Post
Ele, he used these links as his definition for feminism.

I'm going off that broad definition you directed us to talk about in your OP. Not specific US/Western feminist movements in 1880s-10s, or 60-70s' or now. I'm talking about feminism, not specific movements of feminism.
Well about the first quote I think we found an agreement, that's good.

About the second one we'll only get to an agreement once he states what's his intention with that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nah, we could just sort it out now. He could just say whatever so as not to look silly. I mean, I think it's pretty clear..
Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
I understand men are just as violent but ruling out female violence completely is rather one-sided.

This was the basis of his post. Bolded is where he misread me.
That's why I ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ed, he could say whatever suits him.


And about that, I agree with that, it's a fact that the majority of feminists take a woman punching a man like a victim reacting to it's aggressor, despite the fact that they don't have any history, that woman hit that man because man deserve to be hit because they're aggressors, even if he didn't do anything (ofc if he did he deserves a good punch).

But your side is right as well according to my point of view, the majority of women really don't represent a threat and still get harmed by men.
Im kinda late too this but here goes. The law is supose too protect both genders, if somone punches you that is a act of vilence against you aka assult. So yes you hit back in self defence. If you say that a woman can not harm a man you are most likely a sexist and ether thinks woman are not capable of doing anything, or you simply dont care about the men being harmed by women.

A nother thing people were talking about is if feminism means equality?
Well actions speak louder than words, and if you look at what the feminist media and big names have done in the last 10 years it is mostly manhating and almost no equality.
And even if you just want too look at the dictionary definition the right word would be gender egalitarian, since that means equality for both genders and not just one of them.