• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Not Hitting Women: Sexist?

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I witnessed an incident yesterday that made me ponder this concept. It was a minor traffic accident and the woman was at fault. She had backed up into someone but was upset and blaming them (guy was in aisle and had right of way). She was screaming at him and getting into face. Incident settled though with no actual violence.

Had she been a male, I had a feeling she probably would have gotten struck. She was in the guys face screaming pointing and even poked him with her finger. So I'm wondering? Is it sexist not to hit a woman in an incident like this? Assuming that if she was a man...she would get hit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I dont think throwing the first punch in that situation is the right move regardless of gender
 
That is a poor example to make your case. If he threw the first punch he would have been arrested.
 

In that situation you probably shouldn't strike them at all, be they a man or woman. IMO, trying to de-escelate the situation would be the most advisable route in that scenario, even if they are being belligerent. Now if they were actively assaulting you, then I could see one fighting back in self-defense.
 

No ... but it's just not worth the drama that follows.
 
If I use physical violence it is because I fear for the safety of me or those around me, not because someone is pissing me off. And if I do use physical force I apportion it to the risk. I am a large man who is a trained fighter and almost always armed. I can defend myself against the average woman or small man without throwing any punches. If someone is just yelling in my face, regardless of gender or size, I wouldn't respond with force.
 

My Wife is about 5-2 ... and I'm 6-3 ... and I still can't get a word in or through
 
blackjack50 said:
So I'm wondering? Is it sexist not to hit a woman in an incident like this? Assuming that if she was a man...she would get hit?
Click to expand...
Like other’s I’d suggest it’s the hitting the man that would be wrong rather than not hitting the women but yes, that attitude is generally sexist. It’s no different to the idea that you don’t hit someone wearing glasses.
 

Getting screamed at is no reason to resort to violence, against either a male or female. However, you poke me in the chest and you've just bought yourself a painful problem, if you're a male, because that's a physical assault from what I would perceive as a true threat to my safety. If it were a woman that did the exact same thing, I would have to say from my experience that I would not perceive her to be the same threat as I would a male. If that's sexist, then I guess it is, although I don't think it is.
 

A poke still wouldn't make a punch a legally advisable action.
 
Henrin said:
A poke still wouldn't make a punch a legally advisable action.
Click to expand...

Defense after a physical assault (which a poke is) using equivalent force (the hands) would be legally defensible and within the four corners of all the statutes I am aware of. However, that does not include verbal assault unless the verbal assault includes threats to your life and you have a reasonable expectation that the person making the threats will carry out the threat.
 

IT is like their not competing with men in sports: Very sexist.

 
Crovax said:
I dont think throwing the first punch in that situation is the right move regardless of gender
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. Especially because I carry a firearm. BUT...as a man...wouldn't you consider the risk to your safety about getting into someone's face? And don't you think you would be more likely to hit a man who is getting too much into your personal bubble? Especially when you were in the right?

I mainly use this as an example because it is what made me think about it. But I feel like there are many women who take that "chivalry" thing for granted. And while it might be out of not wanting to hit a weaker person...I think that men get a lot less leeway in that area than women. And is that sexist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
joG said:
IT is like their not competing with men in sports: Very sexist.

Click to expand...

Depends on where. Florida allows women to compete with men in wrestling. Weight-class is all that matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Henrin said:
A poke still wouldn't make a punch a legally advisable action.
Click to expand...

Probably. I would probably resort to grappling an individual who pokes me...but not if I'm carrying a gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Oh. I agree. But would you understand if they were both male and the one who is getting poked decided NOT to deal with the belligerent individual civilly anymore?

There is a line, and I think MOST men know it. The line is...I can be about |---| this much more of an ass, but anymore and he will punch me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm pretty laid back so i'd probably laugh and walk away. There's no reasoning with hysterics and there's no need to. Just tell the cops what happened. So you might mistake that as sexist even though if it were a guy, unless he's trying to get physical, i would do the same

But there's no question a lot of women take advantage of the fact they're presumed immune from revenge or deserved punishment. So perhaps that was ingrained in her. They get to lash out like little kids, and similar to little kids, you can't hit them, except kids have a better excuse for the behavior. Even if they attack you and you fight back, there are some laws where literally the bigger party is the one held responsible and if not, when the aggressor can't be established quickly, the cops will take the side of the female. Not with a car crash where there's evidence but at a house or something and there's been things thrown and such...who threw what? Who started it?

I also get a sense that if a woman who isn't exactly a model gets hit, it's not as big a deal

I thought women wanted equal treatment?
 
Last edited:

What if the man is the same size as her? You'd still be more likely to strike i bet. You know you can get away with it easier, and you get to perpetuate the whole double standard and the chivalry nonsense

Yeah i have to say it's most likely sexist both from society/law enforcement, the woman lashing out, and the man who lets her
 

Well put about the evidence and size. And about looks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Yea. I think I would be less likely to tolerate the behavior from a man. I think most men would. And I'm all for contact training with women in martial arts too. My girlfriend does kickboxing and wants to do karate now too (street oriented). I have trained with plenty of women in BJJ as well. One of the best to come through our class was a woman. I beat her all the time because I had more time in. Not because of sex or size.

But all that aside. I still think I'm less likely to hit a woman.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

what you are saying is that verbal confrontation is insufficient; that it should 'elevate' to physical confrontation
 
I think it has less to do with sexism, and more to do with whether or not you're a d-bag. Generally men are physically stronger than women, this is a biological reality in the majority of cases. If you're beating up people smaller than you, outside of some kind of consensual or competitive situation, such as a mixed weight class sparring match, that's a d-bag move.

I think equality comes into it when you apply the concept that both men and women should be equally protected from criminal violence. There are places in the world today where this is not the case, and in America it was first made illegal to beat your wife, as an example, in 1920, and then it took another 50 years to treat domestic violence as a serious crime, vs. a private matter. The fact that I wouldn't hit a woman isn't gender driven, it's because violence is wrong. However, if I had to defend myself, or my family, my level of response would not be gender driven either.

All this being said, anyone who gets into a physical altercation over a minor traffic incident is a child.
 
blackjack50 said:
Probably. I would probably resort to grappling an individual who pokes me...but not if I'm carrying a gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I would need to be in the situation to determine my action. More than likely a poke would lead to me looking to walk away.
 
Don't mess with Women, they're Evil creatures .. even in the afterlife :mrgreen:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…