Is Hitting Ever Okay?

My personal policy has always been basically that violence is never the answer, and it’s not okay for anyone to hit (or otherwise hurt) someone else, unless it’s self-defense and it’s their only option. I wonder, though, if it might be easier for me to hold this position as a female than if I were a male.

I’ve often heard boys and men say that they’d never hit a girl. What I don’t know is whether this means:

a) they would not hit another guy unless it were in self-defense (as per my own policy), or

b) they would be okay with, or see a need to, hit another guy offensively in some cases, like defending someone’s honor.

I also know some people think it’s okay for girls or women to hit another woman, or hit a man, for various reasons that seem to boil down to “Women are too weak to actually hurt anyone.”

I’d like to hear your opinions. And if you feel hitting or otherwise initiating physical violence is acceptable or necessary under certain circumstances, please do explain, even if the circumstances are just, “I feel like it.”

Though I’d think twice about hitting a woman, I’d do it. But I’d only do it in self-defense.

You left out something along the lines of “I’m a woman/man and I think it’s ok for a woman/man to hit anyone* regardless of gender under certain circumstances.”

I am hard pressed to name a situation, other than self defense, where it would be ok to hit another person, but I figure hypothetically there could be another damn good reason to do so.
*To keep it simple when I say “anyone” I mean “adults” and I’m assuming “hitting” means hauling off and either punching or slapping someone in the face.

Try explaining “I was just defending someone’s honor” to the police officer that’s cuffing and stuffing you for battery. On a couple of different occassions I’ve seen people get arrested because they started throwing punches when someone goaded them into a fight by insulting their wife or girlfriend. One cop said, “Yeah, the guy was a jerk, but that doesn’t mean you can hit 'em.”

The secret is to not throw the first punch, and to give just enough of a beating to get your point across without putting them in the hospital.

I thought of that, but then there’s also, “I think it’s okay for women to hit anyone, but men should never hit”, and “I think it’s okay for men to hit men, and women to hit women, but no opposite gender hitting,” and so on. It got too unwieldy. That’s why I made it multiple choice. So if you feel it’s okay for anyone to hit anyone, you’d select all four of the “I’m a [whatever] and I think it’s okay…” responses appropriate to you.

If someone is endangering himself or others, then hitting is kosher. For instance, if someone tries to get into a car and drive when they’re too drunk to stand straight,
then they should have their keys taken away by force, even if that means decking them.

Also: I realize now that what I did leave out is finer detail on the “self-defense” angle. So if you feel, for instance, that it’s only okay for men to hit women in self-defense, but that men can hit other men offensively, there’s no real good way to convey that. I’ll just have to leave it to the discussion.

Hitting- that is a broad subject and has not been defined enough for an honest answer-
Would it be ok for anyone to hit anyone who was trying to choke a child to death?
Would it be ok to disable someone trying to poison the municipal water supply?
Define woman- If someone changes their sex and you can not tell, does this change their category as far a hitting or getting hit? I do not see what gender has to do with this topic. Someone who needs hitting should be the topic as I believe most would attack to defend a child. So, what is appropriate physical violence? A wake up slap? Punch in the nose? Judo chop to the nerve center? Broken collar bone? Gunshot in the leg? In the head? Burning at the stake? Hanging? A talking to? Silence? Rebuff? Violence has many forms and all of us have used it since childhood. What is the law?

That’s what I’m asking. In your opinion, would it be okay to hit someone in those circumstances?

I can’t see why it would. What do you think?

People’s views on hitting, and what (if anything) gender has to do with them, is the topic.

…the hell?

Again, huh? Talking-tos, silence, and rebuffs are not violence. Not all of us have used violence since childhood. Some of us have never used it, because we think it’s not okay. Some of us think it is okay in certain circumstances. That’s what I want to know about. The law is irrelevant; I’m looking for people’s opinions.

Other than self-defense (or defense of a loved one), I can’t think of a situation where it’d be right to hit someone. Gender has nothing to do with it.

I go along with much of your attitude about hitting/fighting. However, I need to clarify the situation of self-defense. Proper self-defense does not mean waiting until you are under attack. It means reacting BEFORE the threat can become imminent. This takes experience, focus and attention to your surroundings. When the action begins, I advise women and everybody to go ballistic at the earliest opportunity. Don’t give an adversary the chance to ramp up. Expect to get hurt yourself in any physical confrontation. Don’t be afraid of hurting the other person either. We’ll sort it out later when the threat passes.

You single best thought is to avoid such situations in the first place.

Woman here. I chose all the ‘ok’ options except for the self-defense ones (since I think the other options pretty much covered that). I think violence in general is to be avoided if possible – which is not the same at “at all costs”. And certainly anyone who decks me is getting it right back at them, assuming I’m still standing.

I think that once in a while you meet a person whose behaviour really demands a shot in the face. Their gender is not a factor (though I find women often behave more obnoxiously because they have less of an expectation of getting hit).

I see it as six separate questions that each need an answer.

[ol]
[li]What is your sex? [/li][li]Is hitting in self defense acceptable? [/li][li]Is a man hitting a woman ever acceptable? [/li][li]Is a woman hitting a man ever acceptable? [/li][li]Is a man hitting a man ever acceptable? [/li][li]Is a woman hitting a man ever acceptable?[/li][/ol]

I regard “violence is always wrong” as being about as irrational as “violence is always the answer”. Violence is neither right nor wrong in itself, what matters is the end result. It’s just that violence is a limited tool, so for most situations it isn’t the answer, which is how people who say “violence is always wrong” can function - they can usually avoid situations where their philosophy breaks down.

Gender doesn’t matter. Defense of yourself or others? Sure, and I don’t see why them being a"loved one" makes it more or less just. And under some circumstances aggression is justified; killing anyone involved with an occupying enemy army, for example. Or killing anyone involved in supporting slavery in the Old South. Or killing people who attack or try to rob you in a situation where order has broken down; you can’t call the cops if there aren’t any cops, or if they are so corrupt as to be as dangerous as the criminals.

And…? What would be your answers?

Striking a human of either gender is perfectly fine in cases of self defense. It is never the best option; in fact it usually is the a poor one. Occasionally though it is the best of the worst, and thus you must make a distasteful decision or allow yourself to be beaten or killed.

Okay I’ll go first.

Male
Yes.
In self defense, yes.
In self defense, yes.
In self defense or in expectation of the need for self defense, yes.
In self defense or in expectation of the need for self defense, yes.
Redundant but yes, and see above.

I don’t usually agree with you but you speak the truth. I would add that I don’t understand why some people consider the physical body to be a temple rather than other aspects of a person. If you are being needlessly bullied mentally and emotionally, you are being hurt even if the people doing it are just using words or non-physical threats. Sometimes the best way to quickly level the playing field is just to deck on of them if you think it will lead to be quickest resolution. There is nothing special about physical aggression over other types of aggression if the law isn’t involved.

I agree with the above and have stated before. Ultimately they are both sensations within the brain. One of them is causing unpleasant sensations within the brain by using vocal stimulus (words). The other is causing unpleasant sensations in the brain by physically stimulating nerves in the body. Who’s to say one is always worse than the other? I’d prefer a punch to the face over the pain of a bad breakup or the emotional stress of a panic attack.

I will hit anyone at all in self-defense - elderly, female, infirm, child, whatever - if it’s genuinely necessary to ensure my own safety, and I can deliver a blow proportional to the threat. If an old and frail man is trying to punch me, I’ll accept the blow rather than defend myself with a strike that may inflict serious injury. On the other extreme, if a small child had somehow grabbed Daddy’s gun and was pointing it at me, I would deliver as hard a blow as required to make him drop the gun; at last resort, I’d attempt a fatal one.

All of the above, though, pre-supposes that every other option has failed. Flight (leaving), evasion (dodging), persuasion - all have either failed or are clearly unworkable. As a last resort, hitting can be “okay” against anyone, provided the hitting is proportionate to the theat posed. But I don’t believe hitting is ever okay as anything other than a last resort.

As to the idea of hitting someone for reasons relating to honor: I’m a civilized man, and was raised to believe that honorable, civilized men abhor violence. I can’t imagine the slight to my honor that would be redeemed or mitigated through the use of violence. Oh, it might make my friends and family understand why I’d used violence - but it would still be a lapse of character.

Slight hijack, but isn’t this a bit broad? I have no problem with killing slaveowners - even the “humane” ones claim to exercise absolute ownership over another human being, and act on that belief. They deserve whatever they get. But what constitutes “supporting” slavery? I may abhor the beliefs of a pro-slavery newspaper editor, but so long as he doesn’t own slaves himself, I can’t support killing him for speaking his mind. More, I’d feel a moral obligation to defend the man if I could.

Further - do the family members of slaveholders “support” slavery, by refusing to reject their slave-holding family members? This takes us down an ugly road fast. There were women who owned slaves in their own right, I’m sure, but most women (especially wives) had little agency of their own in the antebellum South - I’d hate to see them killed for the sins of their husbands. And as for children - well, they’re children.