I’m giving three options since I think they cover all bases.
Choice 1; A man should never be able to hit a woman back.
To me, this operates on the assumption that women are inherently weaker, and even if not, a man should show a certain level of chivalry to women to do the absolute minimum physical damage in self defense, regardless of the woman’s relative size or strength.
Choice 2; A man should be able to hit back, but only if the woman is stronger.
This would be saying that if the man would do more damage to the woman in self defense than her initial attack, and the force he could exert is disproportional, then he shouldn’t hit back. But if we’re dealing with a man who is small and weaker, and a woman who is stronger, then it’s more socially acceptable for the man to hit back.
Choice 3; A man should be able to hit back regardless of relative strength.
This is saying that “fair is fair”, a woman hits a man, he can hit back whether she or he is stronger.
Hitting someone back because they hit you isn’t self defense; it’s vengeance.
Anyone, regardless of gender, can strike someone else if they reasonably feel in danger and that doing so will let them escape the danger. That’s self defense.
If I am attacked, I will vigorously defend myself until I can either safely escape or I no longer feel threatened, regardless the demographic profile of the attacker.
I voted for ‘never hit,’ but that wouldn’t hold for extreme cases. If it’s a sustained assault from a dangerous opponent (armed or abnormally large/strong) and your physical well-being is clearly at risk (meaning serious injury or death, not cuts and bruises), of course you have the right to defend yourself.
Failing that, you’re going to be much better advised to err on the side of restraint. It’s better for *you *-- if you wind up doing damage to the woman no one is going to want to hear about how strong and big she was – and it’s also the right thing to do.
Women have opposable thumbs, which lets them pick up things like knives and guns. I’m not going to willingly just stand there and let them kill me in the name of “chivalry”.
Don’t get into a fight with the new ARMY or the IDF in Israel. That ‘never’ thing could be the death of you.
Nor my wife, if you have made her mad enough to come at you, by then she is cold calculating and very dangerous. And if you get her, I am right behind her or you if you are really stupid I’ll be behind you already.
When I was 16 I had over a thousand lines I would never cross.
By the time I was 40, I had one left and I had bent the hell out of it.
It’s an interesting question, actually. The double standard regarding violence between male and female opponents runs deep. It’s probably hardcoded. This video hammered the point home for me pretty well.
My humble opinion: In an ideal world, the chromosomal makeup of the people in question shouldn’t figure into whether it’s right or wrong to hit someone.
Well, yes. I recall one of my neighbors being arrested after his wife cornered him and nearly killed him with a sledgehammer. But he was the guy, so he not she was the one arrested. And I’ve seen the feminist arguments, that being abused is just rightful collective punishment for the sins of men, or that women never abuse men and if a man turns up with stab wounds he was obviously stabbing himself to make his wife look bad.
I’d strongly prefer to not hit anyone and only have done so a couple times in my life. But I don’t care what gender the person is, if I need to hit them back to protect myself I will. Hurrah for equality!
Not to take this off topic, but I wonder whose side liberals would take in a dispute between a black man and a white woman - assuming they *had *to choose one side, and both parties were equally at fault.