It's Okay to Hit Girls, as long as you're a Nice Guy.

Seth wrote:
Kier wrote:

Are you some how suggesting that no girl ever, anywhere deserved to be hit?

Or are you suggesting that no girl ever, anywhere should be hit despite the fact that they might deserve it?

wow. Please tell me that my interpretation of this as you using extreme examples to justify domestic violence is way off.

I think you misunderstand. I am not talking about domestic violence at all. I am not justifying anything.

My only point is that the decision to apply violence should not include gender as a factor in the decision. There is no action that would provoke me to violence if done by a man, that would not provoke me to violence if it were performed by a women. Let me also add that violence should always be a last resort.

It's not okay to hit anyone in an argument. Man on woman, woman on man, man on man, woman on woman. It's especially not okay to hit children or animals. I broke up with someone once after I saw him kick a dog. Gross.

As for Rihanna and Chris Brown, I hate to judge because I wasn't there, I don't know all the facts, etc. All I know is that domestic violence is rarely as black and white as person hitting=evil, person being hit=victim. They're both adults, capable of making rational choices. Whether they choose to do so or not, well, that's a different story.

Seth wrote:

I'm surprised to see the endorsements of violence against women here. I tend to side with MrDeVil in that there's a huge amount of emasculation regarding the idea of hitting a woman. Whether that's chivalric or chauvinist I'll leave up to other people to decide.

Seth wrote:

Robear my response wasn't directed at Paleocon, and paleocon my apologies if you viewed it as such. I've never had a woman put a cigarette out on my neck in Taiwan, but something tells me the rules of social order there are a little different than they are here. It's also a very off-topic anecdote.

I was just voicing surprise that when a man beats a woman against a car window and bites her arm, there seems to be a roughly identical amount of people here in GWJ that think Rihanna "had it comin'" as Boston school kids.

Seth wrote:
Kier wrote:

Are you some how suggesting that no girl ever, anywhere deserved to be hit?

Or are you suggesting that no girl ever, anywhere should be hit despite the fact that they might deserve it?

wow. Please tell me that my interpretation of this as you using extreme examples to justify domestic violence is way off.

You need to back off on personalizing the debate in these forums. The point is to discuss the arguments being made, not the people making them.

Kier wrote:

I think you misunderstand. I am not talking about domestic violence at all. I am not justifying anything.

You do need to forgive misunderstandings, the OP is specifically about domestic violence and I think people are losing sight of that.

Paleocon wrote:

When I looked back, it was a South African skank who started laughing once she saw me holding my hand to my neck. I, being the equal opportunist that I am, hit her with an overhand right that made her nose explode across her face.

I fully expected the room to erupt in violence, but when I turned around again, the Israelis had choked out all the seated South Africans.

Epic win.

shihonage wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

When I looked back, it was a South African skank who started laughing once she saw me holding my hand to my neck. I, being the equal opportunist that I am, hit her with an overhand right that made her nose explode across her face.

I fully expected the room to erupt in violence, but when I turned around again, the Israelis had choked out all the seated South Africans.

Epic win.

OK, when we're talking about real violence against real people, can we avoid using gaming terms?

Thank you for sharing, Luna. It's difficult to write those things out, and I appreciate your courage in doing so.

Big Sister System Message:
1. It is never okay for a male to hit a female
2. If you strike out at someone, expect them to hit you back
3. 1 and 2 are always true
4. Sometimes it is necessary to hit back, regardless of gender. Necessary does not equal okay, just necessary.

What makes the survey in Boston so disturbing to me is they seem to have forgotten or dismissed rule #1. That, or they were never taught it in the first place.

Either way I see it as an enormous failure to our young girls that half of them think Brown's actions are in any way excuseable.

LobsterMobster wrote:

OK, when we're talking about real violence against real people, can we avoid using gaming terms?

Hell no. What kind of world would that be ?

I had a really difficult discussion with my baby sister on the way back from the beach. She was still in High School and she was expressing frustration over a friend who was in an abusive relationship. From the outside looking in, things look crystal clear. From the inside, the view isn't nearly as black and white.

The first time happened and he was so contrite over it. He swore it was an accident and it would never happen again. She's sure she loves him and he's really a nice guy. She couldn't love the type of guy who would really be able to hit her on purpose. Now she has a choice to forgive him for what he's done or she has to learn to forgive herself for choosing to love someone who has a taboo character flaw. She forgives him because he's a nice guy and she believes his apology.

The second time it happened, he apologizes, but not as much. She isn't as sure that it will never happen again. But he's a really nice guy who would never do that unless he was provoked. Maybe it was her fault. He doesn't discourage her from thinking it was her fault. She knows he's under pressure. If she loves him, she'd be more aware and everything would be fine.

The next time it happened, he said it was her fault. She knows it is wrong, but how does she forgive herself for choosing to love someone who could hurt her? Is there something wrong with her? There must be something wrong with her. If there is something wrong with her, is she going to find something better? She is flawed, it is her fault and he's usually a nice guy. People always say he's a nice guy. If she breaks up with him, she has to admit she is flawed. He'll say she's not telling the truth. He says she's a lier, she says she's flawed. People will know she's flawed. No one will believe her. She'll be completely alone.

The next time...

I've been she. I was a Senior in High School. He was a nice guy. An off-duty police officer saw me get hit in the parking lot of the library. The awful thing I did that day? My AP English class had pen pals in another AP English class in the state. I'd gotten a short letter from my pen pal that day. I hadn't written my pen pal, I'd gotten a letter via my teacher that day. That day 2 things happened. First, I hit back. Second, the driver side door flew open. He was yanked from the car and slammed against the rear door. The officer made sure I wasn't badly injured, then took my driver's license and told me to stay put. (I'd been hit in the shoulder and though I bruised, I wasn't badly hurt.) The officer came back with him about 30 minutes later. We were across the street from the police station. The officer had taken him to the station and processed him while I sat in the car. The officer told him to take me home. The officer told me that if my parents didn't call the police station knowing that I'd been hit within the next hour, he was going to call them. I told my parents, I shook the whole time, but I told them. I will always be thankful to that officer. I don't remember his face, but he saved me when I couldn't save myself.

I told my sister this story and then I told her I learned 4 rules as a result of the whole situation.

Big Sister System Message:
1. It is never okay for a male to hit a female
2. If you strike out at someone, expect them to hit you back
3. 1 and 2 are always true
4. Sometimes it is necessary to hit back, regardless of gender. Necessary does not equal okay, just necessary.

I hope this helps someone to understand a little bit of how someone can get caught in such a cycle. I know now that I could never be in another relationship like that, but I'm older now and I've learned a lot since that happened. It is still difficult to go back to that place in my mind, but if it helps someone else, it is something I'm willing to do briefly.

Edit: added a missing word "that"

What makes the survey in Boston so disturbing to me is they seem to have forgotten or dismissed rule #1. That, or they were never taught it in the first place.

Theirs also the difference is cultures, African American women perceive domestic violence differently then white women.

Seth wrote:

Thank you for sharing, Luna. It's difficult to write those things out, and I appreciate your courage in doing so.

Big Sister System Message:
1. It is never okay for a male to hit a female
2. If you strike out at someone, expect them to hit you back
3. 1 and 2 are always true
4. Sometimes it is necessary to hit back, regardless of gender. Necessary does not equal okay, just necessary.

What makes the survey in Boston so disturbing to me is they seem to have forgotten or dismissed rule #1. That, or they were never taught it in the first place.

Either way I see it as an enormous failure to our young girls that half of them think Brown's actions are in any way excuseable.

First a thank you to RedJen for the moving and personal post, I appreciate it as I am sure everyone does.

However, I have to disagree about point number one.

Why can #1 be : It is never ok to hit your lover, or It is never ok to hit anyone else.

Why bring sex into it?

Kier wrote:

However, I have to disagree about point number one.

Why can #1 be : It is never ok to hit your lover, or It is never ok to hit anyone else.

Why bring sex into it?

Because the average male has a vast physical advantage in realms of :

a) upper body strength
b) weight
c) experience with violence in upbringing while bonding with other males, i.e. natural ability to throw hooks

over the average female.

In short, average male can beat the crap out of average female, which makes this a no-contest fight. Just straight abuse.

Why can #1 be : It is never ok to hit your lover, or It is never ok to hit anyone else.

Why bring sex into it?

At surface level, it's a good question. Couching the rules in gender specific terms could, I suppose, be construed as sexist. They leave out the instances of female-on-male domestic violence as well as domestic violence among the gay/lesbian community.

I think the problem is that female-on-male violence and gay/lesbian violence is such a tiny, tiny, TINY portion of the DV in America that it really and truly does battered women a disservice by not acknowledging that this is a problem about men hurting women.

There's a difference between assault and domestic assault. And I think that when speaking of domestic assault we need to be extremely clear about that.

Man, for all of you dudes who say you'd never hit a girl, you just haven't met the woman you'd beat the crap out of (justified or not).

I was raised to believe no one should ever hit a lady, but some women aren't that... Many women know about this tradition and they abuse it. I never hit one, but I've been too close, and all it takes is a second to lose your cool. I've shaken the sh*t out of one, and screamed at some enough to make them cry, I'm not sure it's much better but they deserved it.

The worst are the girls who know that they have some cultural protection ("No man ever hits a girl!") and they take advantage of that and abuse it.

The sad thing is that the ones that really need it don't make use of the laws against domestic violence (the ones that never talk about it)

Anyway, some people are just really f*cked up so I try not to look down on anyone, at most I try to understand them, I'm probably more screwed up than they are anyway... but at least I'm having fun

Kier wrote:

However, I have to disagree about point number one.

Why can #1 be : It is never ok to hit your lover, or It is never ok to hit anyone else.

Why bring sex into it?

I agree with modifying #1 to be "It is never okay to hit anyone else" or "It is never okay to hit someone you love"

I brought sex into my discussion with my sister because I'm her big sister and so far she's only shown signs of appreciating the male form. So the chance of her being in a romantic relationship with a female who then hit her is less likely.

If a random man hit me, I would never have an issue striking back in my own defense. I would not be conflicted on whether I ever wanted to see that person again.

If another female were to strike her, she would not be conflicted about whether or not she should hit back.

It is the confusing mixture of love & violence that starts the cycle. That is why I brought sex into the discussion.

Mex wrote:

Good stuff

You just explained exactly where rule #2 came from. I've never hit someone first, but anyone who throws the first punch and doesn't expect to be hit is a fool.

Mex wrote:

Is Mex gonna have to choke a Female Doggo?

I didn't know Wayne Brady was Mexican. And plays TF2.

shihonage wrote:

Because the average male has a vast physical advantage in realms of :

a) upper body strength
b) weight
c) experience with violence in upbringing while bonding with other males, i.e. natural ability to throw hooks

over the average female.

In short, average male can beat the crap out of average female, which makes this a no-contest fight. Just straight abuse.

Isn't that still generalizing? I stand firm in my belief that people shouldn't generally hit each other regardless of sex unless its absolutely necessary for someones safety. The upperbody strength and weight comparison is invalid because the same does not hold true if a big dude wacks on a little dude. Its bad behavior but nowhere in the same leage as a man hitting a women.

Violence begets violence...... sex has nothing to do with it. But its our culture and wont ever change.

people should just stop hitting.

Cobble wrote:

Isn't that still generalizing? I stand firm in my belief that people shouldn't generally hit each other regardless of sex unless its absolutely necessary for someones safety. The upperbody strength and weight comparison is invalid because the same does not hold true if a big dude wacks on a little dude. Its bad behavior but nowhere in the same leage as a man hitting a women.

Violence begets violence...... sex has nothing to do with it. But its our culture and wont ever change.

people should just stop hitting.

This was about "You should never hit a woman in particular", and I listed the reasons why. A small dude, by the way, still stands more of a chance against a big dude than an equally framed woman does.

Yeah, people should stop hitting. Period. I agree. Congratulations on ... pointing that out.

shihonage wrote:

Yeah, people should stop hitting. Period. I agree. Congratulations on ... pointing that out.

How rude, I made a perfectly valid point and you have to get all snarky. I would like to know how a small dude still stands more of a chance than an equally framed woman. That does not make any sense to me.

Cobble wrote:
shihonage wrote:

Yeah, people should stop hitting. Period. I agree. Congratulations on ... pointing that out.

How rude, I made a perfectly valid point and you have to get all snarky. I would like to know how a small dude still stands more of a chance than an equally framed woman. That does not make any sense to me.

Bruce Lee?

Until statistics like these show more parity between violence against women and men, I have a very hard time buying any argument made that Domestic abuse terminology should be phrased in gender neutral terms. I find the very notion disrespectful to women.

Seth wrote:

Until statistics like these show more parity between violence against women and men, I have a very hard time buying any argument made that Domestic abuse terminology should be phrased in gender neutral terms. I find the very notion disrespectful to women.

So the objection is a marketing thing then?

You seem to agree that violence in general is bad but are fixating on man->woman violence in particular because it is a bigger threat?

I can get down with presenting it this way, especially if it will help reduce the problem. That makes sense to me.

My only quibble is that I seem be sensing a disagreement about the moral equivalency of man->man violence to man->woman violence.

To make it plain, do you agree with the following statement?

Assuming everything else is equal, gender alone does not affect the ethical considerations of violence against another individual.

Cobble wrote:

How rude, I made a perfectly valid point and you have to get all snarky. I would like to know how a small dude still stands more of a chance than an equally framed woman. That does not make any sense to me.

If there was a fight between your average small dude and your average "equally framed woman", I'd put my money on the dude. Wouldn't you ?

Politically correct fantasy doesn't always match reality.

As for your "point", it was the equivalent of a college "Let's stop the violence !" speech, a no-brainer that can be inserted into any context, which has little to do with specifics of this thread (to which my reply, which you addressed, was geared), which is why you got a sarcastic reaction from me.

You know, I, too, want to "stop the violence". Everywhere.

Kier wrote:

Assuming everything else is equal, gender alone does not affect the ethical considerations of violence against another individual.

The "weak" do not fall strictly into "female" category, and ANY person who preys on the weaker-than-them-physically is equally disgusting, whether they prey on men or women.

However, gender, as a combination of biological and societal factors, inherently predisposes female to be on the "victim" end of a violent encounter, by a LARGE margin. Males generally stand more of a chance, and are also conditioned to handle defeat better.

Thats why males hitting females is lower-level behavior. They go after those who are not just LESS LIKELY, but those who are LEAST LIKELY to be able to fight back. What they perceive as a "sure thing".

Kier, for me there is a marked difference between violence "in general," and domestic violence. Domestic violence is almost solely a crime against women, and it's the subject of this thread, which originally asked whether the horrific survey showing that half of Boston teens think Rihanna is at fault for being assault by her boyfriend is proof that feminism has a long ways to go or the dark underside to years of teaching that men and women are equal in every way.

I think we can agree that hitting people is bad, "in general."

Seth wrote:

I think we can agree that hitting people is bad, "in general."

Everyone can tell you that violence is never a good thing. We can even generalize that violence should only be used in extreme circumstances, and even then, violence is still wrong because whatever originated the violence was wrong to begin with.

The very appalling thing here is Boston pollees (he who has been polled) have shown that DV has become such an integral part of their upbringing that they now see it as a normal. Deplorable, but something that can be dealt with and coped, and therefore acceptable.

To answer Seth's question, I believe gender equality has nothing to do with this, not even to a very small degree. Forgive the wording: Men that see women as their equal at work, sports, etc, will usually still open the door for women and do similar chivalrous gestures: Society has tried to teach us that men are gentlemen and women are ladies. Treating a woman like a lady is one thing, DV involves preying on the weaker spouse.

Boston's survey shows --IMHO-- that the people polled ignore the equality between men and women, but see the difference between the strength and power belonging to men and using to prey on weaker women. Equality has nothing to do with it, quite the opposite.

--------EDIT--------

My original post included RedJen's story as support for a point, but didn't make it to the final draft that's posted. I still wanted to thank RedJen for sharing herself in that way, it's hard to share personal stuff, let alone such a life-changing experience.

Seth wrote:

Domestic violence is almost solely a crime against women

I actually know about as many men that have been victims of domestic abuse as I do women. However, I think it's far more easy for a man to escape an abusive relationship, so the consequences of such abuse aren't necessarily as far-reaching. That said, I think the issue here is with domestic abuse in general, not only against either women or men.

Seth wrote:

Domestic violence is almost solely a crime against women

Completely untrue.

http://www.abanet.org/domviol/statis...

Before we get too far into anecdotal evidence.

Maybe you're both (all?) right or... wrong? 1.3 million cases against females and 800k against men (this was in 1996). So, many more against women, but the word "solely" is probably wrong.