Based on this thread and an apparent gender divide on the issue.
I intentionally left out an “other” option because I feel most people would choose something like “I don’t think people should be hitting each other at all” if that was an option.
I chose three, but with the obvious caveat of “under the same circumstances, and with enough force to cause the same amount of harm to the other person”.
I can see your point but I personally feel that the general rule should be based on general cases. The reality is the average man is going to be bigger than the average woman.
The same. Presuming neither is acting in self defense, a man who shoves a woman out of the way is just a bully & a jerk; a woman who gouges out a man’s eye is a psycho. Why they do it and how much damage they cause matters, not gender.
That just means a man can more easily do damage unarmed. That doesn’t mean that a man who shoves a berserk woman away from him as gently as possible is worse than a woman who kicks him in the crotch with her full strength. Or a woman martial artist who trips him and crushes his throat with a heel stomp, for that matter.
Consistent with my answer in the other thread, I voted for option 1. But as has been noted, no one should be hitting anyone else, regardless of gender.
I chose three. But practically speaking, I get more concerned when I see a man hitting a woman, than a woman hitting a man. The potential damage is generally worse.
I wouldn’t even try to qualify it. Intent is the primary concern and that swings both ways.
Why can’t the general rule be neither should be hitting the other? Actually, the law says just that. I’ll side with the law.
Morally, I think it’s the same, but then of course you’d have to go into the specifics.
I am not this crazy (yet) but I have some sympathy for the view that it’s worse for a woman to do the hitting, because she does so with the knowledge that society tends to view it as not that bad, or certainly not AS bad as when a man hits a woman. It’s like hitting someone and being smug that you can get away with it at the same time.
Gender should have zero weight on the morality of violence. It is always wrong to use violence unless it is in self-defence, and it can even be wrong then if one knowingly uses excessive force.
Sure, there are generalities about men being stronger than women, but why muddy those waters with the genders of the two. And, as I mentioned in the other thread, though a man is generally stronger and will cause more physical harm, if in a relationship, the idea that someone that you care about and is supposed to care about you would want to hurt you affects both men and women the same. And, of course, there’s the social issues that men are less likely to be believed in they mention their wife or girlfriend is physically abusing them and if he needs to use force to protect himself, it’s likely that he’ll be blamed for instigating.
So, yeah, they’re morally equal.
Morally, it’s exactly the same. Yep, I’m a woman, and I predict, Little Nemo, that this poll will demonstrate that your impression of a gender divide is correct. And if so, I think the reason may be this:
Girls, in general, are taught that hitting is wrong. Period. End of story. (Maybe, if they’re lucky, there will be some addendum about self-defense in extreme situations. I was taught to turn the other cheek, no matter what.)
Boys, in general, are taught that hitting is wrong… but it’s important to stand up to bullies, and a little horseplay is perfectly natural and a good way to work out aggression, and real men can take a punch, etc… but under no circumstances should you ever, ever hit a woman. Period. End of story.
So I think a lot of men come to see physical violence as much more of a grey area than women do, with the one clear, inviolable exception being hitting a woman. The obvious conclusion, then, is that it must be more wrong than other kinds of hitting.
In my mind, what’s wrong about hitting is not so much the physical harm itself, but the fact that this harm is intentional. If I punch someone in the face (and it’s not in self-defense or defense of others), I’m just as wrong in doing so as a man would be. Even if my “victim” shakes it off and laughs at me, I was still trying to hurt that person, and that is wrong.
Incidentally, I posted a similar poll a while back. My question was not “Which kind of hitting is more wrong?” but “Which kinds of hitting are ever acceptable? (man-on-man, woman-on-woman, etc.)” Although men may well see a man hitting a woman as more wrong than vice versa, at least in that thread, they seemed to be less accepting of women doing the hitting than of men doing it, regardless of who was being hit. Make of it what you will…
Morally exactly the same. No one should be hitting anyone, especially in any form of relationship.
As someone who was violently assaulted in his sleep and routinely “accidentally” hit or pushed by his (now ex) wife, it seems absolutely assinine that people excuse women slapping their husbands but vilify the reverse.
You seem a little confused on what the term “average” means.
Can you say more about that?
I’m a gay man so maybe my perspective is different but I find it laughable and indefensible that anyone could think it would be worse for one gender to hit another, average strength be damned.
Violence is bad no matter which gender is perpetrating it.
Voted 1. The way I was raised, a man never hits a woman. Ever. Period. Doing so is one of the most dishonorable things you can do as a man, and is social suicide with extremely few exceptions.
People are raising all kinds of exceptions about self defense situations, crazy attacks, etc. The way I interpreted the question without muddying the waters was: “Is a 5’10” 180lb man hitting a 5’7" 130lb woman with their fist the same as the woman doing the same to the man?" And the answer is hell no. I doubt the woman could more than superficially hurt the man with even multiple punches. The man could quite literally kill the woman with one thrown punch. The man knows this, and DID IT ANYWAY. That to me screams moral failing if they proceeded to do it anyway. Is the woman also wrong? Yes. But I just don’t think on the same level in this situation.
I think a man hitting a woman is worse, but not a million times worse. Just “somewhat worse”.
I voted 1, for the same reason that it’s worse for a car to break traffic laws than a bike, or that it’s worse to threaten someone with a gun than a knife.
They’re all wrong, but the damage is probably worse in some cases, and therefore the responsibility to control oneself is higher.
No; I was pointing out that “average size” doesn’t mean a great deal when the smaller person is willing to be violent & brutal and the other isn’t. Especially since this question is artificially limited in that it assumes that the smaller person hasn’t picked up a weapon as an equalizer.
You owe me a new snark detector. 