Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Is there a rational reason why it's wrong for a man to hit a woman? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Well obviously morality is subjective. For me if the woman is attacking you then you should be able to respond with reasonable force (equal to hers) but it is best to restrain her. This goes for both genders. But I don't think people should be going round throwing punches because of something someone said to their gf, this for me is the definition of a *******. If my bf did this I would not be pleased, I can sort my own problems. If a man is threatening me I wouldn't even want him to hit him unless he physically touched me.
    So why are you citing near absolutes?

    I don't believe in "restraining" an attacking woman, as one should meet force with equal measure. Self-defence is absolute.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baleworldclass)
    I find this is infantile logic. Anti-violence attitudes really are Biblical in form, and surely hold no place in a secular society.
    I think lots of secular philosophies would support the view that it's wrong to hit people typically.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baleworldclass)
    So why are you citing near absolutes?

    I don't believe in "restraining" an attacking woman, as one should meet force with equal measure. Self-defence is absolute.
    But that's your believe. I clearly stated what I believe and that morality of subjective. If you think that physically hurting people unnecessarily is a good thing then that is your prerogative, however I think many people would judge my stance as being 'kinder'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    But that's your believe. I clearly stated what I believe and that morality of subjective. If you think that physically hurting people unnecessarily is a good thing then that is your prerogative, however I think many people would judge my stance as being 'kinder'.
    I don't subscribe to bandwagon fallacy-type thinking.

    I generally see no reason why it's "wrong" for a man to hit a woman.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Self defense is the only reason to strike someone outside of sports in my opinion.

    If someone male or female attacks me and poses a serious threat to me, my family or my friends then i will strike them. Be that a drunk 200 Lb male or a 110 Lb female with a weapon. A threat is a threat.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Discouraged One)
    Speak for your pansy self but I sure as **** wouldn't NEED anyone to look after me whilst I do something entirely natural that billions upon billions of women (and animals) have done since the beginning of time.
    well evolutionary speaking, a pregnant woman is going to have a hard job hunting her own buffalo
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    I think lots of secular philosophies would support the view that it's wrong to hit people typically.
    lol.. how so?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baleworldclass)
    I don't subscribe to bandwagon fallacy-type thinking.

    I generally see no reason why it's "wrong" for a man to hit a woman.
    Well then why is it wrong to kill someone? Or rape someone? Why isn't it wrong to have an abortion? Why isn't it wrong to be atheist or homosexual?

    Most people who don't believe it is wrong to hurt others get locked up at some point in their lives
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    well evolutionary speaking, a pregnant woman is going to have a hard job hunting her own buffalo
    Times have changed, son.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baleworldclass)
    Morality is individualised, and no absolutes ever exist.

    I see no reason why persons should adhere to morals at all.
    Then you didn't read my post. I gave you a reason. Self-preservation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by baleworldclass)
    lol.. how so?
    Take any popular normative theory these days:

    Utilitarianism - not hard to get to a general prohibiton on none-state violence via rule util

    Contractualism - person being hit can reasonably object

    Violates right to bodily integrity and so on.

    And so on.

    Are these normative theories the right ones? Well, that's a difficult question. But any normative theory that doesn't generate a reasonably general prohibition on violence is pretty awful imo.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ironandwine)
    It's wrong just like it's wrong for a woman to hit a man. Hitting is wrong, period.
    Period is wrong, hitting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A there a rational reason why you would just want to hit a woman?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rolos12345)
    A there a rational reason why you would just want to hit a woman?
    If she threatened your life and the safest way of escaping (with your life) was by hitting her. This also applies to men as well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Discouraged One)
    You are pathetic and so is your argument. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    "...if she wants to pass on her genome she will have to depend on other people to help her."

    Biggest pile of bull**** I've ever heard. A woman doesn't need to depend on anyone whilst she's pregnant, she isn't debilitated. Woman are (or should be) stronger than that. Speak for your pansy self but I sure as **** wouldn't NEED anyone to look after me whilst I do something entirely natural that billions upon billions of women (and animals) have done since the beginning of time.

    I find your 'argument' insulting. The human mind and body is more powerful than you're giving it credit for.

    Grow a pair you pathetic excuse of a woman.
    I agree that I didn't fully consider the abilities of the human mind and body, they are stronger than my post indicated. There are probably many factors I didn't consider.

    However, a pregnant woman is to some extent dependent and at disadvantage. The pregnant woman of this century is likely to have an emotional connection to the father of her child. The other animals that have been doing this for centuries may not, especially the animals that do not raise their young into adulthood, and those who take different mates every year. With early humans, it may have been 'normal' for a male to impregnate many females without emotional connection, and the woman would be dependent in that someone would need to catch a buffalo for her. Today, we have supermarkets, but many women won't even have sex without an emotional connection, let alone a child. She is not physically dependent, but in society she is restricted, she might have to give up her job or other aspects of her life, and if her man were to leave her for whatever reason, she'd be crushed with a billion different hormones because of the emotional dependency she has conformed to having. In the meantime he could have had a great time with 20 other women.

    If you're comparing today's women to all animals across time - I'm not sure how women gave birth before central heating and midwives were around, but I can imagine those women were fairly different. To attempt that, I'd probably have to be alive, but for starters, without my glasses I probably would have been mauled by a bear before I saw it coming. So maybe I am a pansy organism. Think about it next time before you say humans today can do things in the same way animals have since the beginning of time.

    I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve by your post, as you said you were insulted, whilst trying to insult someone you don't even know, over a topic you obviously can't say you have considerable experience with. You can not consider all the variables in one short message, so the fact that you hold yourself so much higher than me, to the point where you insult who I am, is rather petty.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The energy that you extert from that temper in your head to the hard knuckles of your fist and that you embed in to the soft skin of someone else?

    That energy is then converted in to either cowering submission by the victim (nobody would gain sexual pleasure from that particular kind of violence) or a desire by the victim to right the wrong by reporting the matter to authorities.

    Even if you never incur any legal consequences as the result of hitting someone, you incur guilt and guilt has a way of attacking you itself making you a less humourful person and therefore less attractive to the very kinds of people (in everyday life, not health professionals) who might have slowly aided you to resolve your anger. It's like a natural justice.

    Or just think of it this way- every action might have an equal and opposite reaction in ways other than just physics - it just doesn't necessarily appear in the same form or in the same period of time.

    If you hit someone, you end up getting metaphorically hit yourself in one way or another.
    If you ignore someone, you end up getting ignored - just not necessarily by the same person.
    If you love someone, you end up getting loved - just not necessarily by the same person.
    etc.

    These matters would still be true if there were no laws nor legal penalties, nor even any way for your action to be discovered, at all.



    As you can see, I've steered clear from making it specifically be about hitting a woman, just about hitting a person. After all, there are some bullying women who hit, or at least look down on / verbally belittle , kind, gentle men. They might regard that such men will never be either a threat nor particularly a monetary aid to them and , making up for perceived or real slights against them by other people, take it out on such men.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I've been raised to be chivalrous towards women so naturally, due to socialisation, I think it's wrong.

    That aside, I still believe it's fundamentally wrong anyway. It is a sign of a weak man if he raises his hand towards his woman. If I deserved a slap, I'd take it like good ol' Jack Sparrow and certainly wouldn't retaliate in kind.

    I'm all for equality I really am, but I draw the line right there.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redpanda41)
    Not exactly true, domestic violence used to be a lot more acceptable then.
    Oh yeah, good point. It's more complicated than I made it out to be. I guess that's part of the thing of how women were seen a bit like their husband's property?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It is because ingrained in the human psyche is the motivation to protect women from harm.

    None of this "oh they are weaker" bull****.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    It is because ingrained in the human psyche is the motivation to protect women from harm.

    None of this "oh they are weaker" bull****.
    For a considerable period it was quite acceptable and in some places still is to slap or beat a women who stepped out of line, even in public.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.