Would you ever hit a woman?

Wibbs

bunderoon wrote: »

This is extremely disrespectable to women. That you would pigeon hole them into a stereotype where they have no control or responsibility for their actions. That they are weak mentally, physically and are brittle beings.
Wake up, this is 2020. You should be empowering women to have courage in their convictions and face the consequences of their actions. You are treating them as children, which is really appalling.

I agree and I'm sure he didn't lick it from a stone. Welcome to the worst aspect of modern so called "feminism" where women are always agentless victims and it's always men's fault. It does my head in and yep it demeans women as much as it demeans men. It's an all too common view and with scary irony apes the view of old style chauvinism. As does the "never hit a woman" taken as read view. Add in men who elevate Women(tm) as some sort or fantasy creature because they've little experience of the world and women. Add in most of us thankfully living in a genteel and safe society who are protected from the worst of society by people like Niner and who have never faced the violent underbelly so are extremely naive about it and here we are with some attitudes. "Violence is never an answer" is an extremely laudable viewpoint, but sometimes doesn't survive contact with the real world.

And no I'd not hit a woman, or a man for that matter, right up to the point where they got violent with me and then all bets are off. I hate to break it to some, but talking doesn't always work.

JJayoo

If I had to use force I could just kick her in the leg a good hard leg kick would make any woman reevaluate things.

One eyed Jack

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree and I'm sure he didn't lick it from a stone. Welcome to the worst aspect of modern so called "feminism" where women are always agentless victims and it's always men's fault. It does my head in and yep it demeans women as much as it demeans men. It's an all too common view and with scary irony apes the view of old style chauvinism. As does the "never hit a woman" taken as read view. Add in men who elevate Women(tm) as some sort or fantasy creature because they've little experience of the world and women. Add in most of us thankfully living in a genteel and safe society who are protected from the worst of society by people like Niner and who have never faced the violent underbelly so are extremely naive about it and here we are with some attitudes. "Violence is never an answer" is an extremely laudable viewpoint, but sometimes doesn't survive contact with the real world.

And no I'd not hit a woman, or a man for that matter, right up to the point where they got violent with me and then all bets are off. I hate to break it to some, but talking doesn't always work.

It’s nothing to do with feminism but yeah, has a hell of a lot to do with chauvinism - I don’t think it’s acceptable that men should think it’s ok to hit a woman. How many times has it been argued that men are generally bigger and stronger than women and all the rest of it. They generally are, and they can do a lot more damage to a woman than the opposite will ever be true.

Niner linked to one case of a woman stabbing a man, he could just as easily have linked to hundreds and it still wouldn’t change the idea that it should never be acceptable for a man to hit a woman. I’ve never argued that violence isn’t the answer, it’s as effective an answer as anything else and I’m certainly not opposed to the use of violence. I understand Niner couldn’t really give the context surrounding the circumstances, but when he just comes out with “I hit a woman”, I’m thinking what does he want, a medal? I’ve only ever met a handful of Gardaí with that jarhead attitude which is indeed useful in war zones, but it’s never done anything useful outside of a war zone.

bunderoon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It isn’t disrespectful to women because I wasn’t making any comments about the behaviour of women in any scenario in any case.

The question was asked in the Gentleman’s Club forum, I’m a man, I’m guessing most of us contributing to the thread are men, and I’m talking about the standards of behaviour and attitudes I expect of men. There’s nothing about “if she hits me first” or any of the rest of it. That’s a child’s way of thinking and it’s the complete opposite of taking responsibility for one’s actions.

How about by your own words you don’t reduce men to mentally challenged individuals who I would more commonly refer to as brutes and scumbags on the basis that they hit women. Those men who say they would are just full of BS, I wouldn’t be the least bit concerned about them either.

It’s so unbelievably simple - leave yourself open to being charged with assault if you wish, you’re entirely responsible for the consequences of your own actions and behaviours and attitudes. It doesn’t matter what you think anyone else “deserves”, society just doesn’t function like that. Just don’t be surprised that the statistics show a greater number of men convicted of assault when a greater number of men actually commit an offence in the first place and the defence they’re offering as a justification for their actions just doesn’t stand up.

The question was asked in the Gentleman’s Club forum, I’m a man, I’m guessing most of us contributing to the thread are men, and I’m talking about the standards of behaviour and attitudes I expect of men. There’s nothing about “if she hits me first” or any of the rest of it. That’s a child’s way of thinking and it’s the complete opposite of taking responsibility for one’s actions.
- The OP's question is a one liner, like all topics on boards. Its to start a dialog and discuss the various factors and opinions that relate to it.

How about by your own words you don’t reduce men to mentally challenged individuals who I would more commonly refer to as brutes and scumbags on the basis that they hit women. Those men who say they would are just full of BS, I wouldn’t be the least bit concerned about them either.
- Did you miss or skip this part of what I wrote:
"You also disrespect men who can be on the receiving end of violence at the hand of a woman where you seem to think that men cannot gauge and administer a proper measured response. Be it de-escalation verbally, avoidance, seek assistance from others or as a last resort, defend himself physically."
Anyone that attacks ANYONE is a brute and a scumbag and someone who should have the full extent of the law brought upon then.
You are being very disingenuous when you reduce all men to a brutes. Even when they may have to resort to defending themselves after all other means have been exhausted..Or maybe you arent.. and its just that this whole concept goes over your head. Dunno.


It’s so unbelievably simple - leave yourself open to being charged with assault if you wish, you’re entirely responsible for the consequences of your own actions and behaviours and attitudes. It doesn’t matter what you think anyone else “deserves”, society just doesn’t function like that. Just don’t be surprised that the statistics show a greater number of men convicted of assault when a greater number of men actually commit an offence in the first place and the defence they’re offering as a justification for their actions just doesn’t stand up.
Don't know where you are pulling that ^^^^^^^^ from? Is that a reply to someone else??
Defence isn't assault. Don't blame the victim.
Everyone knows that there is inequality in the justice system that favour women over men. And if a man is a victim of assault, any sane individual would hope that they get a fair hearing and judgement against the attacker.
Men are more likely to be the perpetrator of violence. No one is denying that. But only an idiot would conflate the two.

jaxxx

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s nothing to do with feminism but yeah, has a hell of a lot to do with chauvinism - I don’t think it’s acceptable that men should think it’s ok to hit a woman. How many times has it been argued that men are generally bigger and stronger than women and all the rest of it. They generally are, and they can do a lot more damage to a woman than the opposite will ever be true.

Niner linked to one case of a woman stabbing a man, he could just as easily have linked to hundreds and it still wouldn’t change the idea that it should never be acceptable for a man to hit a woman. I’ve never argued that violence isn’t the answer, it’s as effective an answer as anything else and I’m certainly not opposed to the use of violence. I understand Niner couldn’t really give the context surrounding the circumstances, but when he just comes out with “I hit a woman”, I’m thinking what does he want, a medal? I’ve only ever met a handful of Gardaí with that jarhead attitude which is indeed useful in war zones, but it’s never done anything useful outside of a war zone.

Sweet divine Jesus.. .. .. Self defence.


If a man attacks a woman, and the woman defends herself in an appropriate manner, would you be spewing the same garbo? I think not. So it's ok then for a woman to attack a man so long as he doesn't try and defend himself? I'm trying to get some sort of sense of logic here.



F*ck me.. .. ..

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s nothing to do with feminism but yeah, has a hell of a lot to do with chauvinism - I don’t think it’s acceptable that men should think it’s ok to hit a woman. How many times has it been argued that men are generally bigger and stronger than women and all the rest of it. They generally are, and they can do a lot more damage to a woman than the opposite will ever be true.

Niner linked to one case of a woman stabbing a man, he could just as easily have linked to hundreds and it still wouldn’t change the idea that it should never be acceptable for a man to hit a woman. I’ve never argued that violence isn’t the answer, it’s as effective an answer as anything else and I’m certainly not opposed to the use of violence. I understand Niner couldn’t really give the context surrounding the circumstances, but when he just comes out with “I hit a woman”, I’m thinking what does he want, a medal? I’ve only ever met a handful of Gardaí with that jarhead attitude which is indeed useful in war zones, but it’s never done anything useful outside of a war zone.

I'm a Jarhead because I used force to disarm a woman that had injured me seriously?

WTF are you smoking?

It's pitiful simple. The use of reasonable force is justified to defend yourself. The use of reasonable force is acceptable to effect a lawful arrest.

Your boneheaded comments that "men never need resort to violence" is exactly that, boneheaded.

You haven't a clue but like so many people that make stupid comments, you won't back down and just keep digging.

Hundreds of cases where women used force to seriously injure and kill men but yet you still claim this same men would be scum had the defended themselves. What utter, utter ****e.

One eyed Jack

bunderoon wrote: »

Don't know where you are pulling that ^^^^^^^^ from? Is that a reply to someone else??
Defence isn't assault. Don't blame the victim.
Everyone knows that there is inequality in the justice system that favour women over men. And if a man is a victim of assault, any sane individual would hope that they get a fair hearing and judgement against the attacker.
Men are more likely to be the perpetrator of violence. No one is denying that. But only an idiot would conflate the two.

It was a response to this part of your post -

bunderoon wrote: »

- Did you miss or skip this part of what I wrote:
"You also disrespect men who can be on the receiving end of violence at the hand of a woman where you seem to think that men cannot gauge and administer a proper measured response. Be it de-escalation verbally, avoidance, seek assistance from others or as a last resort, defend himself physically."

Nobody said defence is assault, I said a man could leave themselves open to being charged with assault, and then rather than me blaming the victim, they’re playing the victim. I’ve met plenty who regard their responses to being provoked as measured, they were only defending themselves, women wanted equal rights, etc etc. Pure bollocks IMO, and their excuses are often seen as just that.

I’m not conflating men who perpetrate violence with male victims of violence. It’s yourself and a few others who are trying to say that men who are only defending themselves when they were attacked by a woman should have a right to a fair hearing. They do. But don’t conflate male victims of abuse with men who hit women and then tell me I’m doing any conflating.

I’ve never been a fan of the “he had a terrible childhood” excuse for adults bad attitudes and behaviour towards others, any more than I wouldn’t entertain a man playing the victim while his girlfriend is in bits in the corner, the “now look what you made me do” line of reasoning to excuse their own behaviour.

One eyed Jack

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I'm a Jarhead because I used force to disarm a woman that had injured me seriously?

WTF are you smoking?

It's pitiful simple. The use of reasonable force is justified to defend yourself. The use of reasonable force is acceptable to effect a lawful arrest.

Your boneheaded comments that "men never need resort to violence" is exactly that, boneheaded.

You haven't a clue but like so many people that make stupid comments, you won't back down and just keep digging.

Hundreds of cases where women used force to seriously injure and kill men but yet you still claim this same men would be scum had the defended themselves. What utter, utter ****e.

Oh give over with the pissing contest nonsense. I figured you for a jarhead on the basis of your “I hit a woman”, and like I said, I was thinking, what do you want, a medal? I didn’t say men never need resort to violence, I said from the beginning of the thread -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nah, and besides there are other means of self-defence besides leaving yourself open to being charged with assault.

I also said -


I don’t care what you do for a living either, there are plenty of people who do your job without ever having to resort to the same ****e, and they’ve faced far worse than the circumstances you’ve described above.


I didn’t claim men would be scumbags for defending themselves, I didn’t conflate them like that. I’ve said there are plenty of ways to defend oneself. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a clue because I don’t share your opinion. I can’t see you backing down either, but if you’re gonna attack something I say, then don’t go making up shìte and claiming I said it.

Mister Vain

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh give over with the pissing contest nonsense. I figured you for a jarhead on the basis of your “I hit a woman”, and like I said, I was thinking, what do you want, a medal? I didn’t say men never need resort to violence, I said -

I don’t care what you do for a living either, there are plenty of people who do your job without ever having to resort to the same ****e, and they’ve faced far worse than the circumstances you’ve described above.

I didn’t claim men would be scumbags for defending themselves, I didn’t conflate them like that. I’ve said there are plenty of ways to defend oneself. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a clue because I don’t share your opinion. I can’t see you backing down either, but if you’re gonna attack something I say, then don’t go making up shìte and claiming I said it.

What's worse than being stabbed and what happened to these heroic guys that didn't resort to violence?

One eyed Jack

Mister Vain wrote: »

What's worse than being stabbed and what happened to these heroic guys that didn't resort to violence?

Sure for all anyone here knows Niner could have been stabbed in the arse with a hairclip. I’m prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t use unreasonable force in subduing his assailant. I don’t need to know the details.

The people who don’t resort to violence generally have better outcomes in policing than those who resort to violence.

For what it’s worth btw I wouldn’t call Niner brandishing his baton violence, it made me laugh to think of a Keystone cops kinda scene tbh.

Strumms

If I’m attacked, im going to use proportional force to defend myself and ensure my wellbeing until the Gardai can arrive.

I don’t care if the attacker is male, female, Spanish, Mexican, Irish, in their teens, twenties or sixties. My goal is to get back home to my house and family, unhurt, alive and ok.

If you are of any demographic of person who wishes to do me harm and compromise my ability to do this, I will just defend myself by whatever appropriate means to ensure my loved ones are not getting a call from a Garda or a hospital. If you are female and wish to do me harm I will wish to defend myself, I will defend myself, that’s all.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sure for all anyone here knows Niner could have been stabbed in the arse with a hairclip. I’m prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t use unreasonable force in subduing his assailant. I don’t need to know the details.

The people who don’t resort to violence generally have better outcomes in policing than those who resort to violence.

For what it’s worth btw I wouldn’t call Niner brandishing his baton violence, it made me laugh to think of a Keystone cops kinda scene tbh.

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

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Niner linked to one case of a woman stabbing a man, he could just as easily have linked to hundreds and it still wouldn’t change the idea that it should never be acceptable for a man to hit a woman

You have said numerous times now, you don't consider anything that's being faced as reason to hit a woman. I linked to a case where a man was stabbed to death by a woman and your reply was, that it was still not a valid reason. The man was murdered ffs!

Is that your opinion and what makes you an expert? What's the background?

One eyed Jack

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No, the ones that's dinner defend themselves or use force get hurt badly and lose the prisoner.

I'll bite, what makes to an expert? What's the background?

You keep shifting the goalposts there. Your anecdote involved you subduing a woman who had just stabbed you until assistance from your colleagues arrived and you could get the handcuffs on her. There’s just so many questions I have, but none that would paint you in a more competent light unfortunately, so I’ll just keep them to myself, and no, I won’t be biting either.

You may well be happy to put your occupation out there as though you’re the only one in Ireland, see a lot of that in online discussions, but I told you already I wasn’t getting into a pissing contest with you.

bunderoon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was a response to this part of your post

Nobody said defence is assault, I said a man could leave themselves open to being charged with assault, and then rather than me blaming the victim, they’re playing the victim. I’ve met plenty who regard their responses to being provoked as measured, they were only defending themselves, women wanted equal rights, etc etc. Pure bollocks IMO, and their excuses are often seen as just that.

I’m not conflating men who perpetrate violence with male victims of violence. It’s yourself and a few others who are trying to say that men who are only defending themselves when they were attacked by a woman should have a right to a fair hearing. They do. But don’t conflate male victims of abuse with men who hit women and then tell me I’m doing any conflating.

I’ve never been a fan of the “he had a terrible childhood” excuse for adults bad attitudes and behaviour towards others, any more than I wouldn’t entertain a man playing the victim while his girlfriend is in bits in the corner, the “now look what you made me do” line of reasoning to excuse their own behaviour.

- And I (and others here) never been a fan of the “she had a terrible childhood” excuse for adults bad attitudes and behaviour towards others, any more than I wouldn’t entertain a woman playing the victim while her boyfriend is in bits in the corner, the “now look what you made me do” line of reasoning to excuse their own behaviour.
^^^^ We are all in agreeance here. There hasn't been any question here.

"Nobody said defence is assault, I said a man could leave themselves open to being charged with assault, and then rather than me blaming the victim, they’re playing the victim."
Of course it's possible for a victim defending themselves when being assaulted to leave them open to being charged with assault if the response is much greater than the original attack. No one here is advocating the greater response. But you prefer to side with a woman more or less regardless of what & why she instigated the violence and the damage she did to the man.
You are, in a round about way, saying that if a man defending himself during an assault, that he himself is assaulting, even if it's measured (which is what we are saying). But you will not agree with the inverse of that.

bb1234567

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don’t know that you’d be dead any more than I do. I don’t care what you do for a living either, there are plenty of people who do your job without ever having to resort to the same ****e, and they’ve faced far worse than the circumstances you’ve described above.

It’s a view that’s neither stupid, naive nor dangerous. I’ve said from the beginning of the thread that there are many more means of self-defence than resorting to hitting a woman.

Why is it so important to you that man doesn't lay a finger on a woman? Do you think every woman is a weak little innocent angel? If a woman is attacking somebody physically and prepared to hurt them, they should be prepared to take anything their victim can give back. There are other means but if your'e assulating somebody you don't deserve this level of sympathy and regard for their well being, she has no regard for his safety whatsoever. I really think this is crazy, I just do not get your point of view on this even a little bit.

"You don't know you'd be dead' yeh good thing he didn't give the bitch the chance to bring it that far . It really seems like you are prioritising the safety and comfort of an attacker because of their gender over a man's life just because he's a man(who you have stereotyped as always being stronger and completely capable of safely subdueing any other woman of any size no matter what weapon she is wielding).

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You keep shifting the goalposts there. Your anecdote involved you subduing a woman who had just stabbed you until assistance from your colleagues arrived and you could get the handcuffs on her. There’s just so many questions I have, but none that would paint you in a more competent light unfortunately, so I’ll just keep them to myself, and no, I won’t be biting either.

You may well be happy to put your occupation out there as though you’re the only one in Ireland, see a lot of that in online discussions, but I told you already I wasn’t getting into a pissing contest with you.

You have said plenty. None of it logical. I'm not moving the goalposts at all. The link shows a man being murdered. You replied that it still didn't count.

In my case I am incompetent because I was injured and had to use force on a woman.

There's a lot of internet warriors ok, your clearly one of them with your online expertise in restrain and police work. Carry on internet ninja

joe40

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You keep shifting the goalposts there. Your anecdote involved you subduing a woman who had just stabbed you until assistance from your colleagues arrived and you could get the handcuffs on her. There’s just so many questions I have, but none that would paint you in a more competent light unfortunately, so I’ll just keep them to myself, and no, I won’t be biting either.

You may well be happy to put your occupation out there as though you’re the only one in Ireland, see a lot of that in online discussions, but I told you already I wasn’t getting into a pissing contest with you.

I'm not really following you, I would have thought a member of the Gardai is perfectly entitled to subdue a prisoner regardless of gender. (I presume the poster is a Guard)

An Ri rua

mr_fegelien wrote: »

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

How's the sponsorship deal with Boards working out? Seriously creative output on your behalf.

Re the OP, depends, Johnny, deppends

bunderoon

I think we are all going around in circles now.
And theres a recent inclusion of bitchy insinuations, anecdotes and segway-ing to shift the narrative.

One eyed Jack

bunderoon wrote: »

But you prefer to side with a woman more or less regardless of what & why she instigated the violence and the damage she did to the man.

You are, in a round about way, saying that if a man defending himself during an assault, that he himself is assaulting, even if it's measured (which is what we are saying). But you will not agree with the inverse of that.

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. Saying that there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman is not “siding with women”. It’s not saying anything about women because as far as I’m concerned the discussion is about men’s behaviour and male standards of behaviour.

I’m not saying anything in any roundabout way either. I don’t have to be an expert either to know that a man could leave themselves open to being charged with assault if they hit a woman. Sure, a woman could leave herself open to assault for hitting a woman too, but that’s an opinion that relates to women who hit women, it has nothing to do with men who hit women leaving themselves open to being charged with assault.

I’d say the same thing to women though if the thread were in the Ladies Lounge if it makes you feel better?

An Ri rua

bunderoon wrote: »

I think we are all going around in circles now.
And theres a recent inclusion of bitchy insinuations, anecdotes and segway-ing to shift the narrative.

When the sh1t gets real, both sexes tend to circle the Segways.

bunderoon

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not really following you, I would have thought a member of the Gardai is perfectly entitled to subdue a prisoner regardless of gender. (I presume the poster is a Guard)

No,

1) Not if the attacker is a woman.
2) Doesnt matter how savage the attack is.
3) Doesnt matter if your life is in danger. Why, because One Eyed Jack heard other instances where the outcome was different but hasnt a clue in the details but that doesnt matter. If you are a female garda, then its OK - I'm guessing.
4) Doesnt matter what size the attacking female is in proportion to the male victim.
5) Men are brutes. Doesnt matter is the responsde to the attack was fair and measured. You dont hit a woman. If you do, well, you are a brute.
6) One Eyed Jack doesnt care how valid you comment is because of points 1->5.

joe40

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. Saying that there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman is not “siding with women”. It’s not saying anything about women because as far as I’m concerned the discussion is about men’s behaviour and male standards of behaviour.

I’m not saying anything in any roundabout way either. I don’t have to be an expert either to know that a man could leave themselves open to being charged with assault if they hit a woman. Sure, a woman could leave herself open to assault for hitting a woman too, but that’s an opinion that relates to women who hit women, it has nothing to do with men who hit women leaving themselves open to being charged with assault.

I’d say the same thing to women though if the thread were in the Ladies Lounge if it makes you feel better?

If you are been attacked by another person, male or female, you are entitled to defend yourself. Especially if there is a weapon involved.

That is the only time I would believe violence is justified.

bunderoon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. Saying that there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman is not “siding with women”. It’s not saying anything about women because as far as I’m concerned the discussion is about men’s behaviour and male standards of behaviour.

I’m not saying anything in any roundabout way either. I don’t have to be an expert either to know that a man could leave themselves open to being charged with assault if they hit a woman. Sure, a woman could leave herself open to assault for hitting a woman too, but that’s an opinion that relates to women who hit women, it has nothing to do with men who hit women leaving themselves open to being charged with assault.

I’d say the same thing to women though if the thread were in the Ladies Lounge if it makes you feel better?

Saying that there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman is not “siding with women”.
So, again, you are saying that there's no circumstance where a man ( we all simply argue they can during defending themselves) can hit a woman, but
you believe there are circumstances where a woman can hit a man, regardless if she is the attacker?

bunderoon

joe40 wrote: »

If you are been attacked by another person, male or female, you are entitled to defend yourself. Especially if there is a weapon involved.

That is the only time I would believe violence is justified.

That's the only time which is what 99% of the posters here have said too.

One eyed Jack

bb1234567 wrote: »

Why is it so important to you that man doesn't lay a finger on a woman? Do you think every woman is a weak little innocent angel? If a woman is attacking somebody physically and prepared to hurt them, they should be prepared to take anything their victim can give back. There are other means but if your'e assulating somebody you don't deserve this level of sympathy and regard for their well being, she has no regard for his safety whatsoever. I really think this is crazy, I just do not get your point of view on this even a little bit.

"You don't know you'd be dead' yeh good thing he didn't give the bitch the chance to bring it that far . It really seems like you are prioritising the safety and comfort of an attacker because of their gender over a man's life just because he's a man(who you have stereotyped as always being stronger and completely capable of safely subdueing any other woman of any size no matter what weapon she is wielding).

It’s important because it says something about a man who would hit a woman that they are a coward. It’s easy for them to justify their behaviour to themselves on whatever basis they like, but nobody has to agree with them, and the vast majority of men don’t. The number of men who openly admit that women are fair game are in a fairly small minority.

The reason I think you don’t get my point of view is because you’re coming at it from the point of view of a man being attacked by a woman, as though he has the right to hit back. He doesn’t, and that won’t immediately amount to self-defence either if there were other means available for the man to be able to defend himself, such as leaving the immediate vicinity and going to the nearest Garda station to make a complaint against his attacker(s).

I’ll prioritise the law every day over some idiots that think they are either above the law, or imagine that they have a right to take the law into their own hands.

One eyed Jack

bunderoon wrote: »

Saying that there are no circumstances in which it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman is not “siding with women”.
So, again, you are saying that there's no circumstance where a man ( we all simply argue they can during defending themselves) can hit a woman, but you believe there are circumstances where a woman can hit a man, regardless if she is the attacker?

What? No. How many times now - I’m speaking of the behaviour of men.

Don’t do Cathy Newman on it and say that I believe there are circumstances where a woman can hit a man. No there aren’t, just the same as there are no circumstances where it’s acceptable for a man to hit a woman.

A man who chooses to do that, they’re a scumbag IMO.

joe40

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s important because it says something about a man who would hit a woman that they are a coward. It’s easy for them to justify their behaviour to themselves on whatever basis they like, but nobody has to agree with them, and the vast majority of men don’t. The number of men who openly admit that women are fair game are in a fairly small minority.

The reason I think you don’t get my point of view is because you’re coming at it from the point of view of a man being attacked by a woman, as though he has the right to hit back. He doesn’t, and that won’t immediately amount to self-defence either if there were other means available for the man to be able to defend himself, such as leaving the immediate vicinity and going to the nearest Garda station to make a complaint against his attacker(s).

I’ll prioritise the law every day over some idiots that think they are either above the law, or imagine that they have a right to take the law into their own hands.

If a woman just slapped me and no further attack was forthcoming and I was in no further danger then no I would not hit back. I would report the incident as assault and follow it up.

If I was under a sustained attack and could get injured I believe hitting back in self defense to stop the attack would be justified.

bunderoon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s important because it says something about a man who would hit a woman that they are a coward. It’s easy for them to justify their behaviour to themselves on whatever basis they like, but nobody has to agree with them, and the vast majority of men don’t. The number of men who openly admit that women are fair game are in a fairly small minority.

The reason I think you don’t get my point of view is because you’re coming at it from the point of view of a man being attacked by a woman, as though he has the right to hit back. He doesn’t, and that won’t immediately amount to self-defence either if there were other means available for the man to be able to defend himself, such as leaving the immediate vicinity and going to the nearest Garda station to make a complaint against his attacker(s).

I’ll prioritise the law every day over some idiots that think they are either above the law, or imagine that they have a right to take the law into their own hands.

Why do you intentionally ignore what has been said here time and time again.
No one advocates violence. The ONLY time people are saying here that they would defend themselves against another person is if they have no other option. That's it. Nothing else.
You were not the only person here that was brought up well and raised to respect people. Do you hate men or something? Were you bullied? Its the only thing that would make sense if you are calling men brutes for defending themselves.

Guna have to leave this nonsensical over and back.
Simply, no one should attack another person. If they do, they must be prepared for the consequences. No one thinks its OK to beat the ****e out of a woman - even if in defence. Period.

DeanAustin

There’s no justification for hitting a woman unless you’re genuinely in danger of being seriously hurt (ie she’s bigger than you or she has a weapon). It’s scumbag behaviour to do otherwise.

However, it’s also not acceptable for a woman to hit a man and I think, generally, society has a lot of growing up to do in relation to that dynamic. I had my ex wife hit me, completely unprovoked, on several occasions and everyone, from friends to family to neighbours to my solicitor, sort of dismissed it as “one of those things”. I’m staggered, when it comes to family disputes, how heavily weighted the law and public attitudes are towards women.