The difference, however, is retaliation. If you walk away from a male, chances are that said male would hold a grudge and pursue further conflict at any subsequent encounter. A female, however, after any such incident, would deliberately try to avoid you.

That's based on my observations on typical tendencies, anyway. It's not that women are any different than men regarding physical combat, but rather that they don't normally want to get involved in physical combat (aside from spur-of-the-moment rage, like throwing something at someone who really infuriates them).

I'll explain with an example: in a study, there were two games -- one competitive and one non-competitive -- and three test groups -- an all-male, an all-female, and a mixed. In the competitive game, the all female group and the mixed group were seemingly reluctant to play, but the male group was enthusiastic. In the non-competitive game, the female and mixed groups enjoyed themselves, while the male group attempted to find ways to compete regardless (eg. "Ha, look at this! I'm getting a better score than you!"). While I don't have evidence or a link to back this up, I did see it on the news. Not that anyone can completely trust the news anyway, but I tend to think of that particular channel as reasonably accurate and unbiased.

If I'm sexist to say that I'd never hit a woman, but would hit a man, then by golly, I'm sexist. By nature I don't try to compete with females. I compete with males, and that's that. =P

The whole point is sort of moot, though, since I'd only use violence as a defence. I'm a diplomatic person. In the case of females, however, I'd never use violence aside from any actions necessary to prevent injury to myself, like grabbing hands, pushing away, etc.

This is getting to be a Nature v Nurture debate...

Actually there are a few women in the army who met the requirements, but it's not just physical requirements, it is also mental requirements. It has been proven that women are not as mentally capable of handling a battle situation as a man is(Grats to Discovery channel), and not to mention that women will make a distraction to the men, who are more battle capable, and no government wants 100 men and 100 women on a battlefield and have the women going awry and the men being distracted, because then your army becomes inefficient. So if you think about it, looking at the sex of the person is very important.


<<>>Kusanagi<<>>

Really? In that case nothing is wrong for me and > everything is wrong for you. :P

*You* do not make the decusion on what I consider to be right and wrong. To think otherwise is the height of arrogance.

Right and Wrong are based on, well, Right and Wrong. "It's >Less Wrong To Beat Up Guys" is based on pure sexism, it has >nothing to do with right and wrong.

Granted, it DOES hinge on pure sexism. However, if I was raised sexist and learned that it was wrong to hit girls but not boys, that doesn't make the dichotomy any less valid. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it not so.

Let us do a quick mental exercise. Take these situations:

[snip useless examples]

Imagine yourself in these situations first with a man as >the other party and then with a woman. What actually >changes between the first case and the second case? Does >the male transgressor actually deserve violent >retribution more so than the female one?

Maybe the male doesn't DESERVE it more, but males are generally, by nature, more built for physical combat. Sexist, sure, but whatever god(s) you beleive in decided to make it that way, not me. Sure, women CAN become world-class body builders or whatever, but Joe Average is going to have a higher physical strength than Jane Average. Don't like it, take it up with $DEITY_OF_CHOICE.

It's not a matter of deserving it. My personal morals say I don't hit a woman unless she has a weapon or something else putting me in REAL danger.

If so, is this because women are better than men, or >because they're worse (i.e., you can't expect women >to know better). If your reluctance is based on the idea >that women are generally weaker than men, would you make >exceptions for a woman who's stronger than the norm, and >would you likewise make assumptions for a man who's weaker >than you?

My exception is clearly stated above.

My point here is not to convince the forum to beat up >women, but rather to convince them examine their inherent >sexism and their pointless violent tendencies at the same >time.

Examined and chose to keep it. It's an integral part of who I am.

I purposely picked three situations where no actual damage >is being done and the subject can just as easily walk away,

Which makes your examples irrelevant. There are more ways to hurt someone than physically.

This, of course, parallels the issue of another guy putting >a move on you... no actual harm is done either way until >you take it upon yourself to beat the holy hell out of him.

If I tell him to slag off and he doesn't, he's earned every bit of it.

be two lives wasted (his and the assailant's), all because >of stupid societal teachings about violence and when it's >justified.

Spoken like a true pacifist. Idealistic, yet utterly out of touch with reality.

Take the world as a whole, at least from what I see on the news. a good portion of the world says a diplomatic solution should be sought with Iraq. While I don't agree with the war, I say that's a load of fertilizer. NOTHING should be done to Iraq, but then again that idiot in the white house doesn't listen to me. That pretty much shows a world-wide leaning towards pacifism vs violence.

Here in America (I don't know where you are from) we've lost all but the most basic rights to violence. Some people call it "civilization" to destroy someone's life in a courtroom when a simple fist-fight out back would settle it with a lot less damage. Nope, instead we're supposed to lie back like good little sheep and let cops protect us and die in the line of duty. Glad to know that a patrolman's life is only worth about $20-30k compared to the 'invaluable' cost of any other (American) human life. And lawyers fight our battles for us. Yep, the utter pinacle of honor right there, your so-called 'civilization.' *SPIT*

Right and wrong are personal concepts, defined by the individual. If you want to let others dictate them to you, that's your right, but don't expect everyone else to do the same, or to listen to the same sources as you do.

Hedgemistress wrote:

People like Geminidomino cling to the belief that because
they don't hit women, they can be willing to throw punches
around like they're going out of style but still somehow
be "civilized". That's a total delusion. If it's okay to > hit people, then it's okay to hit people,
regardless of their sex.

Please don't speak for my beleifs. You don't know me, you never met me, and you have precious little idea what you're talking about in the context of what goes on in MY head.

For the record, and to set you straight, I don't beleive in hitting ANYONE who cannot defend themselves. This includes, in my way of thinking: women, children, the elderly, and the handicapped.

If a man is healthy enough to be able to defend himself but does not because he's a pacifist, or because he never bothered to learn to fight, etc... then he's got no business putting himself into a position where he HAS to defend himself against me. If he does, it's his own fault for not being ready to accept the consequences of his actions.

There are more important things to some of us than being considered "civilized" by the likes of you.

Of course, that realization makes "civilized" conduct
seem a lot more savage, as well it should. The ultimate
goal here is to get him to realize how rarely violence is
actually an appropriate response.

I don't need to use violence nearly as often as you seem to think.

In other words, when I say, "Women deserve to be beaten
for trivial reasons every bit as much as men do," I'm not
saying, "Hit women more often," I'm saying, "Hit men less > often."

Be my guest. I'll define my rules of behavior as I see fit, thank you. Feel free to do the same.

Until society can live up to my standards, I don't think I'll be letting it dictate morality to me

I know this topic has gotten *far-fetched* and soon to be closed by an moderator but heres my opinion.

Homoism(thats one way to put it..) is wrong. God(Jehova in my beliefs)put two seperate sex's(male,female) on this planet for a reason.

By all scientific standerds gay-sex just isn't logical. *Don't take offence*

On part of me being uncomfortable around this matter, I am alittle but I don't treat them like thier some diffrent creature. Wer'e all humans gays,homos,christans,gothics,muslims,saddam huessein(uhh throw out the last bit there..).

Treating someone diffrent because of thier beliefs is wrong wich has preivously been said on posts earlier.

~Jake

Works for me!
What exactly could you do back then...

The days when respect was everything, oh damn society!

Humans doesn't have the final judgement. Jehova does.

I'm not trying to dictate morality to you... I'm trying to instruct you in logic, the only way to find a common morality not founded on blind faith. :P As for knowing what goes on in your head, you've told us. You find violence acceptable to an appaling degree. You believe that two fists and a personal code of honor are better than the organized rule of law.

You say that you will not hit anyone who can't defend themselves, but that a man who can't defend himself should know better than to get into a position where he would have to defend himself from you. Are you saying you would or wouldn't attack such a man? If so, then taken withyour comments about women, your stance must be construed as, "I will not hit anyone who can't defend themselves, unless they're a man. This is especially true if they're a woman." In other words, it's still boiling down to, are they a man or are they a woman?

You raise a lot of valid points about society, but your conclusions show your barbarity. "Our bloated tort law system must be reformed... no wait, we'll just settle our disputes by fighting!" Didn't I see you posting something about how many billions of years of evolution it took to produce you? I bet our shared single-celled ancestor would be thrilled to learn how evolved you are. :P