Amazing public reaction experiment - you have to watch this

speedboatchase

Just watch. The difference in reactions is eye-opening.

CrinkElite

I agree with what the film maker is saying but it's hardly experimental data.

It's too heavily edited.

Red Nissan

In any event a woman being hostile and violent to a man will usually not end up with as severe a consequence [with exceptions obviously] but a man even just restraining a woman can leave massive bruises and soreness for weeks.

MagicMarker

Red Nissan wrote: »

In any event a woman being hostile and violent to a man will usually not end up with as severe a consequence [with exceptions obviously] but a man even just restraining a woman can leave massive bruises and soreness for weeks.

Do you think the people stepping in did so because the woman might have been bruised for a few weeks?

Dtp1979

If a jack Russell has aggressive behaviour nothing is done about it...
If a Rottweiler has aggressive behaviour, it's put to sleep

CrinkElite

Red Nissan wrote: »

In any event a woman being hostile and violent to a man will usually not end up with as severe a consequence [with exceptions obviously] but a man even just restraining a woman can leave massive bruises and soreness for weeks.

That's entirely beside the point. I know a guy who's baby momma used to beat him over the head with a buckfast bottle.

Severity of violence is mostly about intent.

Red Nissan

MagicMarker wrote: »

Do you think the people stepping in did so because the woman might have been bruised for a few weeks?

Absolutely not, they stepped in because women are perceived as having certain rights that men don't.

Red Nissan

CrinkElite wrote: »

Severity of violence is mostly about intent.

We are in the pathological element at this stage, this is medication and a visit or two to the FG ward. We have transgressed male v female v male in a normal relationship and we enter the realm of mental illness ~ not normally associated with bust ups and occasional loss of temper violence in a relationship.

BrianD3

I'm just surprised that white knights didn't get involved during the second incident. I have seen arguments where the woman was clearly the aggressor yet idiots still got involved, telling the man to "leave the girl alone".

Lemming

What I found quite disgusting was all the shots of people who appeared to be "enjoying the show" when it was the woman being aggressive. Mostly all women too ...

Granted it's quite heavily edited so could be out of context that those shots were captured.

hfallada

When you see a man getting hit by a women you generally think what did he do. But if a women is getting hit by a man. You generally think poor women. I have seen men getting punched by women in front of garda and them just staring and doing nothing.

Violence between a man and a women is only considered violence if the women is getting hit. Even in the video everyone laughs at the man getting hit( although I'm guessing the video is staged as not a single person doesn't have their face blurred)

speedboatchase

Obviously it's been edited - no one would watch this clip if it was 6-7 mins long for each scenario, and multiple cameras were used, so the only 'unedited' version would be to watch every single camera's uninterrupted recording, one-by-one for each scenario.

As the person above me mentioned, however, editing can't disguise that a. people only intervened in one scenario (which became more extreme because of the lack of intervention) and b. only the female-on-male scenario elicited smiles from both sexes, "enjoying the show" as one poster put it.

iptba

Regarding the editing, here's a video where 160-odd people see a woman being violent to a man and there's only one intervention

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

beano345

BrianD3 wrote: »

I'm just surprised that white knights didn't get involved during the second incident. I have seen arguments where the woman was clearly the aggressor yet idiots still got involved, telling the man to "leave the girl alone".

I've posted this before,the problem with white knights is they basically enable this behaviour,watch as the female aggressor slinks off into the background after causing a s*it storm were the victim is beaten and has himself and his family insulted.the victim sued the TV show and won after this as far as I know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4akMaeZ0-k

Rossin

omg that is horrific

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Lemming wrote: »

What I found quite disgusting was all the shots of people who appeared to be "enjoying the show" when it was the woman being aggressive. Mostly all women too ...

Yes. Says it all doesn't it.

CrinkElite

Rossin wrote: »

omg that is horrific

Holy ****! I thought that was just gonna be sexy.

I don't think Indian T.V. is relevant. While I respect their achievements, I don't think they should even colour the debate on gender equality in a western world frame of reference.
They're just too far off the scale when it comes to human rights.

It was sexy at the start though.:D

Barely There

The reaction of the crowd was awful but he really shouldn't have slapped her back - he seemed to smack her really hard - a lot harder than he's been slapped.
He should have just walked after the slap and then sued the show.

Maguined

Barely There wrote: »

The reaction of the crowd was awful but he really shouldn't have slapped her back - he seemed to smack her really hard - a lot harder than he's been slapped.
He should have just walked after the slap and then sued the show.

True it would of been the more intelligent thing to do however after being ridiculed and humiliated and then finally physically assaulted I would not blame anyone for instinctively striking back in the heat of the moment. Fear, adrenaline and then pain really kicks the body into instinct, fight or flight.

Hindisght is great but in the heat of the moment human beings are still animals with instinctive responses, it does not condone physical violence but it is understandable unlike her initial attack on him.

Barely There

Maguined wrote: »

Hindisght is great but in the heat of the moment human beings are still animals with instinctive responses, it does not condone physical violence but it is understandable unlike her initial attack on him.

Well that's the thing.

No idea what kind of show it was, but did it have a set format where 2 guys come out and are ridiculed and slapped around by a dominatirx type woman every week?
In which case I presume he knew what he was signing up for.

Maguined

Barely There wrote: »

Well that's the thing.

No idea what kind of show it was, but did it have a set format where 2 guys come out and are ridiculed and slapped around by a dominatirx type woman every week?
In which case I presume he knew what he was signing up for.

According to the Wikipedia entry for the incident.

In Dadagiri: Beat the Bullies, the bully "Esha, the Goddess" used to put up her challenge at the last and used to humiliate the contestants most (even asked the contestants once in an episode to rub their noses on her boots). In one episode, she slapped a contestant Ravi Bhatia (an unscripted physical attack), after instigating a brief, antagonistic verbal exchange. In response he slapped her, and then kept saying 'How can she slap?". This resulted in the male host (and several other members of the crew) attacking Bhatia, with the crew appearing to be slow in breaking them up. The male host also used offensive and threatening language toward Bhatia. Bhatia subsequently sent a legal notice to the producers, asking for a public apology

So while they knew they were signing up for verbal abuse as part of a TV show it seems physical abuse was never part of the show.

Pawwed Rig

Barely There wrote: »

The reaction of the crowd was awful but he really shouldn't have slapped her back - he seemed to smack her really hard - a lot harder than he's been slapped.
He should have just walked after the slap and then sued the show.

I agree in general but were he to have done that we would have heard no more about it. I think this is a good example of the acceptance of female on male violence along with the 'white knight' notion where a man can be subject to unprovoked assault by multiple people for merely defending himself.

Barely There

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I agree in general but were he to have done that we would have heard no more about it. I think this is a good example of the acceptance of female on male violence along with the 'white knight' notion where a man can be subject to unprovoked assault by multiple people for merely defending himself.

I'm not excusing what happened, but it didn't seem like he was defending himself. He'd been slapped but did he slap her back because he believed he was about to be attacked again or was it more of a 'retribution' slap?

I think it was the latter.

It comes down to what one considers to be an appropriate response to the situation he found himself in and I don't think his actions were at all justified.

Female on male violence should be exposed and condemened when it occurs, but I wouldn't be going to war on the issue over that guy.

Pawwed Rig

But who is most at fault there?

Maguined

Barely There wrote: »

I'm not excusing what happened, but it didn't seem like he was defending himself. He'd been slapped but did he slap her back because he believed he was about to be attacked again or was it more of a 'retribution' slap?

I think it was the latter.

It comes down to what one considers to be an appropriate response to the situation he found himself in and I don't think his actions were at all justified.

Female on male violence should be exposed and condemened when it occurs, but I wouldn't be going to war on the issue over that guy.

What level of physical response would you of considered justified? To me this was not a patiently planned reprisal to get even over time but an instinctive emotional reaction in the heat of the moment.

On the same show they pit men versus women teams. If the male host of the show had of slapped a female contestent and she had responded in the same way would you also consider that a retribution slap and feel she acted incorrectly? Or would you just write it off as an emotive heat of the moment reaction to unexpected violence?

Barely There

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

But who is most at fault there?

Her obviously.

Maguined wrote: »

What level of physical response would you of considered justified? ?

I've already stated that no level of physical response was required or justified.

Maguined wrote: »

To me this was not a patiently planned reprisal to get even over time but an instinctive emotional reaction in the heat of the moment.

Quite possibly - but it doesn't make it right - many defendants use this excuse - I believe this was the defences' main argument in a recent murder trial.

Maguined wrote: »

On the same show they pit men versus women teams. If the male host of the show had of slapped a female contestent and she had responded in the same way would you also consider that a retribution slap and feel she acted incorrectly? Or would you just write it off as an emotive heat of the moment reaction to unexpected violence?

I'd prefer she reported the incident to the relevant authorities and pressed assault charges/sued the show.

Maguined

Barely There wrote: »

Her obviously.


I've already stated that no level of physical response was required or justified.



Quite possibly - but it doesn't make it right - many defendants use this excuse - I believe this was the defences' main argument in a recent murder trial.

I'd prefer she reported the incident to the relevant authorities and pressed assault charges/sued the show.

You are dealing with this situation in hindsight, ie you have the luxury to know that she would not of continued. At that very moment in time, in the heat of the moment when someone has been physically violent towards you I would never label someone at fault for defending themselves to the same level as the violence that has been shown to them. He did not take out a knife and stab her, he did not produce a gun and shoot her. He did not patiently wait in the car park and run her over with his car, he reacted with the same violence that had been dealt to him.

What you are basially suggesting is that people are not allowed to defend themselves.

Barely There

Maguined wrote: »

What you are basially suggesting is that people are not allowed to defend themselves.

I'm not 'basically suggesting that people are not allowed to defend themselves' - that's what you're saying and attributing to me.


Rather than repeat myself you can read my previous replies where I stated my position on the matter pretty clearly I feel.

If you think that guy is some kind of hero of the mens rights movement, you're entitled to your opinion.

I think he's a bit of an arsehole to be honest.

Maguined

Barely There wrote: »

I've already stated that no level of physical response was required or justified.

I'd prefer she reported the incident to the relevant authorities and pressed assault charges/sued the show.

No level of physical response was required or justified is what you said. So when a man or woman is physically assaulted you believe they should go to the cops and they are not justified in using physical violence to defend themselves.

I do not think the guy is a hero at all, I would like to think that in the same situation I would not respond the same way he did at all but I cant say that for sure as I was not in his situation and any human being who is physically assaulted has the right to physically defend themselves so I will not hold it against them if that is how they instinctively react in such a situation.

Barely There

Maguined wrote: »

No level of physical response was required or justified is what you said.

Correct.

Maguined wrote: »

So when a man or woman is physically assaulted you believe they should go to the cops

Correct

Maguined wrote: »

and they are not justified in using physical violence to defend themselves.

Incorrect.

Maguined

So this example of physical violence towards someone is not allowed to be physically defended against but others are? Where do you draw the line then? 2 slaps? 3 slaps?

Barely There

Maguined wrote: »

So this example of physical violence towards someone is not allowed to be physically defended against but others are? Where do you draw the line then? 2 slaps? 3 slaps?

I understood we were discussing the issue in the posted video - no physical 'defending' was required - he just slapped her back because he was pissed off that he'd been slapped.

I don't have any problem with someone using appropriate physical violence to defend themselves or others from an on-going assault.

Maguined

Barely There wrote: »

I understood we were discussing the issue in the posted video - no physical 'defending' was required - he just slapped her back because he was pissed off that he'd been slapped.

I don't have any problem with someone using appropriate physical violence to defend themselves or others from an on-going assault.

Yes but on-going assault is easy to define in hindisght. If you are in a pub and a man came up and punched you in the face who long do you take to react until you choose to defend yourself? If you are attacked will you only ever wait until you are punched a second time before you classify it as an on-going assault and then choose to defend yourself? Why is 2 strikes ongoing and not 1? Or for that matter why not wait until the 3rd blow before you classify it as on-going?

That is a lot of conscious decision making to be done in a slit second reaction when someone hits you.

drumswan

Barely There wrote: »

I understood we were discussing the issue in the posted video - no physical 'defending' was required - he just slapped her back because he was pissed off that he'd been slapped.

I don't have any problem with someone using appropriate physical violence to defend themselves or others from an on-going assault.

Someones never been in a physical fight. You dont get to take notes and analyse things while someone is hitting you in the face

Seriously?

The returned slap looks more instinctive than something they put any thought into, unlike the female who assaulted them.

Barely There

drumswan wrote: »

Someones never been in a physical fight. You dont get to take notes and analyse things while someone is hitting you in the face

I got slapped in the face pretty hard by a crazy ex-girlfriend once - quite a while ago now.
Didn't deserve it either:(

I didn't slap her back though.


Presumably I should have smacked the crazy-bint as hard as possible - just in case like :rolleyes:

Nobody was hitting anyone btw - somone had been hit and decided to hit back.

Barely There

Maguined wrote: »

Yes but on-going assault is easy to define in hindisght. If you are in a pub and a man came up and punched you in the face who long do you take to react until you choose to defend yourself? If you are attacked will you only ever wait until you are punched a second time before you classify it as an on-going assault and then choose to defend yourself? Why is 2 strikes ongoing and not 1? Or for that matter why not wait until the 3rd blow before you classify it as on-going?

That is a lot of conscious decision making to be done in a slit second reaction when someone hits you.

Yep it is. Each situation must be assessed in it's own rights, there's no hard and fast rules - I'm commenting on the situation in the posted video.

And btw - In a court of law, you better be damn well able to say that you did assess and consider the sitation before resorting to violence - you won't get far pleading that your 'instintive reactions' just took over.

drumswan

Barely There wrote: »

And btw - In a court of law, you better be damn well able to say that you did assess and consider the sitation before resorting to violence - you won't get far pleading that your 'instintive reactions' just took over.

If you, unprovoked and without warning, strike me in the face and I strike you in return that is simple self-defence. I am entitled to use physical force to prevent you striking me a second time. You are grasping to make a point, Im not sure even you know what it is.

TimeToShine

Barely There wrote: »

I got slapped in the face pretty hard by a crazy ex-girlfriend once - quite a while ago now.
Didn't deserve it either:(

I didn't slap her back though.


Presumably I should have smacked the crazy-bint as hard as possible - just in case like :rolleyes:

Nobody was hitting anyone btw - somone had been hit and decided to hit back.

A girlfriend is different from a random bimbo who has been berating you publicly for the last 10 minutes.

Panda_Turtle

Dtp1979 wrote: »

If a jack Russell has aggressive behaviour nothing is done about it...
If a Rottweiler has aggressive behaviour, it's put to sleep

Jack Russells are awesome.

Barely There

drumswan wrote: »

If you, unprovoked and without warning, strike me in the face and I strike you in return that is simple self-defence. I am entitled to use physical force to prevent you striking me a second time. You are grasping to make a point, Im not sure even you know what it is.

I'm quite aware of my point thanks.

Can you point out where the bolded part of your post is contradicted in any of my posts though?

Presumably in the scenario you've outlined you'll have no trouble demonstrating in court that you had a reasonable expectation that the assault would continue and that your response was warrented, reasonable and appropriate?

I doubt that guy in the video could.

Barely There

TimeToShine wrote: »

A girlfriend is different from a random bimbo who has been berating you publicly for the last 10 minutes.

Please elaborate.

Maguined

Barely There wrote: »

Presumably I should have smacked the crazy-bint as hard as possible - just in case like :rolleyes:

I expressly said I do not think it was an intelligent decision, I said I would not blame someone for reacting in such a way as it's an instinctive thing in do. It's hard coded into us, fight or flight.

It is not as black and white as attacking back is good or attacking back is bad, it's a very grey area and hence I do not lambast someone for striking back, nor do I praise them for it as you seem to have implied on more than one occassion which I personally find quite discourteous from you.

Barely There

Maguined wrote: »

I expressly said I do not think it was an intelligent decision, I said I would not blame someone for reacting in such a way as it's an instinctive thing in do. It's hard coded into us, fight or flight.

It is not as black and white as attacking back is good or attacking back is bad, it's a very grey area and hence I do not lambast someone for striking back, nor do I praise them for it as you seem to have implied on more than one occassion which I personally find quite discourteous from you.

Well, I apologise for that and accept that you didn't.

2Mad2BeMad

Nothing worse

On a night out I have seen it plenty of times, a women(child) beating a man , slapping him quite hard and punching him, as soon as the man raises his hand, then every f*cking white knight from dublin comes crawling in to defend the women

Its not like the movies, women are as bad as men.

If anything I want to punch around the white knights for been idiots getting involved
Fair enough if the man is beating her to a pulp then by god intervene, but if its an argument why do people especially "white knights" jump in to defend the women straight away,

My mate used to get boxed around by his girlfriend, only reason he stuck with her was because he has 2 kids with her, out in tescos 1 day and she smashed a glass jar of those baby carrots on him, he was bleeding quite badly, in reaction to this he boxed her square in the face, and started saying sorry. Thats how much control over him she had, and guess what as soon as he touched her, 2 lads jumped him.
Video evidence shows what she did and now hes in court trying to get to see his kids.

drumswan

Barely There wrote: »

Presumably in the scenario you've outlined you'll have no trouble demonstrating in court that you had a reasonable expectation that the assault would continue and that your response was warrented, reasonable and appropriate?

My concern would be self defence no matter who had assaulted me (having been in a row before, as have most people), not the nuances of some Walter Mitty court scenario. Some people are just born victims I guess - 'I better not defend myself in case I get in trouble' is a pretty pathetic reaction to an assault.

jackofalltrades

Barely There wrote: »

And btw - In a court of law, you better be damn well able to say that you did assess and consider the sitation before resorting to violence - you won't get far pleading that your 'instintive reactions' just took over.

Do you have anything to back this up with.
It would seem strange to me for a court to dismiss an action that is instinctive, given that they are hard-wired and very difficult to consciously overrule.

Barely There

drumswan wrote: »

My concern would be self defence no matter who had assaulted me (having been in a row before, as have most people), not the nuances of some Walter Mitty court scenario. Some people are just born victims I guess - 'I better not defend myself in case I get in trouble' is a pretty pathetic reaction to an assault.

Well, If you're going to resort to personal insults there's no point continuing the discussion with you.

Barely There

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Do you have anything to back this up with.
It would seem strange to me for a court to dismiss an action that is instinctive, given that they are hard-wired and very difficult to consciously overrule.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-gets-life-for-murder-of-nanny-30-269803.html

This one springs to mind as it's quite recent.

His main defence was that he 'snapped/saw red/lost control'

Didn't work though.

Pawwed Rig

Ok so your girlfriend smacked you in the face when you did not deserve it right? What did the gardai and court say about this scenario? Or do you see assault within a relationship as not worthy of reporting?

Pawwed Rig

Barely There wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-gets-life-for-murder-of-nanny-30-269803.html

This one springs to mind as it's quite recent.

His main defence was that he 'snapped/saw red/lost control'

Didn't work though.

Mod note - Do not drag the thread off topic. Noone is discussing murder here.