The Instigator
Clariceh22
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LayTheologian
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Real men DO hit women....back

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
LayTheologian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,047 times Debate No: 38930
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Clariceh22

Pro

Ok people I am going to discuss something that has been bothering me for quite some time. There are many double standards out there which signifies gender discrimination. One of them is about violence. Before I go any further let me just make it clear to you that I do NOT condone violence when it is NOT needed. Violence is not a problem solver. Violence only makes most situations worse. As adults we should know the simple rule about keeping our hands to ourselves, right? Do NOT initiate violence. Do NOT go picking fights with other people. That just shows a high level of immaturity and it is plain wrong in what is supposed to be a civilised society.

So now that I've got that straight with you, I am going to mention something called SELF DEFENCE. Unfortunately we do not live on a safe planet because some people WILL try to be violent towards you! Whether they are bullies, thugs, drugged up or have a screw loose there are some dangerous people out there....and they are everywhere. Violence can happen anywhere, anytime and to anyone. Violence can even be perpetrated by someone you love or trust e.g a spouse. Sadly there is nothing we can do to stop them but we CAN try to protect ourselves.

Self defence is often mistaken for being VIOLENT. Yes if someone hits you and you hit them back that IS violence but you are not BEING violent, you are DEFENDING yourself. I know that sounds a little confusing but hopefully you at least get the drift. Now when it comes to self defence surely everybody has access to that right? The answer is NO....in some people's opinion. Who does not have this right? Men. Who can they apparently not use self defence against? Women. Why? There are many excuses in the book but the main one is that men are generally stronger than women and should therefore spare her a right hook. You know what I think? SEXIST. Not only sexist to men but sexist to women. This double standard reinforces gender INEQUALITY. It implies that women are weak, fragile creatures whom cannot take a slap off a male (but she can take a slap from another woman) and men are to give special treatment to women in this situation.

It is down right SEXIST. The disturbing thing about it is that the majority of people in the western culture support this double standard. I have spoken to many men online and in real life about this subject and they have told me they would NEVER hit a woman back. No joke one fella even told me that his ex girlfriend STABBED him and he did nothing to stop her. Not only sexist but absolutely ridiculous! I wouldn't just stand there and let someone beat the cr*p out of me or try to STAB me though mind you I'm a WOMAN so no one would bat an eyelid if I knocked some lass out for assaulting me. Yes that's right I'm a woman debating about this totally sexist and absurd double standard. If I hit a man I would expect to get hit back....and I would deserve it. The only other example of using reasonable violence I would consider an exception is if the other person provoked it. Even then you should try to avoid using any means of violence but we are only human at th end of the day and we can only take so much....

Now I understand that unfortunately for men there are sometimes unfair consequences for hitting a female in self defence. Other men may gang up on you (white knights) the justice system may treat YOU as the abuser and the woman as the victim, your social status may become ruined over night. I am aware of these so called defence mechanisms for women. I understand that some men will not hit women in self defence because they are afraid of these negative outcomes. Fair enough. Which is why I think something needs to be done about it. People need to stop having this sexist attitude towards men and women. I thought we were living in an equal society? If things don't change I can honestly say I would rather have my woman's rights taken off me than live in this false reality.

So I wonder if there is anyone on here with some common sense who agrees with me on this matter? If you are one of these white knights who believe in allowing women a p*ssy pass when it comes to assaulting men then please refrain from answering. I want answers from real men and also real women who do not take advantage of men when it comes to this double standard....
LayTheologian

Con

There are several problems with this resolution, and several more with the way you argue for it.

To begin:
What, exactly, is meant by the term "real men?" If you refer to the traditional conception of what it is to be manly, I think it's self-evident that a refusal to be violent towards women is implicit in being a "real man." If you're not referring to the traditional ideal of a "real man," you need to elucidate what you mean by the term.

"Hitting back" and self-defense are entirely different concepts. To hit someone in response to being hit is retaliation. It's responding to assault by assaulting. Self-defense consists of using the minimum force necessary to safely defuse a credible threat. If you are slapped once but there is no reason to assume you will be slapped again, to retaliate is assault.

There is merit to the claim that because men are generally stronger, it is more difficult for a woman to pose a credible threat than a man, and vice versa. For instance, if my girlfriend slapped me, it would hurt a bit. If I slapped her, it might literally break her jaw -- and we weigh roughly the same. It is important that the threat to which you respond is a credible one. To give an extreme example, if a child is about to kick me in the shins, I would not be justified in punching him to prevent that.
Debate Round No. 1
Clariceh22

Pro

Hi there

Your response to this debate in my opinion do contain some valid points but I still stick to what I say. I suppose "hitting back" is retaliation rather than self defence. Can I ask you though would you hit a male back if he hit you? I guess there are some circumstances where it would be better to not retaliate e.g someone who is physically or mentally disabled. Also pregnant women, the elderly and children, however I will stand by what I believe in when it comes to hitting women back. I don't think height or weight should come into it. If a person has the bottle to hit you then they lose all respect and should expect (and accept) to be hit back. If a woman slapped you across the face sure it might not hurt you as much as it would if a man slapped you though I do think you are bordering onto sexism there. Women can be vicious. I once slapped my ex boyfriend across the face and he was standing there clutching his cheek in pain. I needn't bother explaining the reason I slapped him. It was years ago. If a PERSON hits you, whether it hurt you or not doesn't really matter. It's the fact that they chose to do it. They ATTEMPTED to hurt you. Therefore they should receive a hit back, though I will agree that you should only use the same force as they did. Sometimes hitting someone back teaches them a valuable lesson. They may think twice before striking someone again.

In response to your first paragraph, no I am not referring to "traditional" men. I am talking about NOW. Today we are supposed to be living in an equal society. Women fought for equal rights. When women (and men) say that men shouldn't hit women back then they are taking away those rights. I believe a real man will treat everyone with respect just like women should treat everyone with respect. Treat other's how you wish to be treated. Classic saying but true. A real man does not give women special treatment because they are women. If a woman hits a man then he should hit her back to show her he will not be disrespected as a human being. If someone hits me I will hit them back to show them that I will not be treated in such a disrespectful manner.

When you mentioned that men ARE stronger than women you immediately jumped onto the sexist band wagon. No all men are stronger than women but as I mentioned earlier in this post height and weight should not come into it as opposed to strength. If for example your girlfriend hit you, why should you let her get away with it? When it comes to violence in relationships of course you do not have to stay in that relationship. Not hitting her back though will just make her think that she can do it to all of her boyfriends. It is just plain stupid to not hit her back (show her you will not be treated with disrespect remember) it's sort of like correcting a child. If a child hit you no you don't hit them back but you may give them a spanking which will show them you will not be disrespected. I know some people are against spanking children as well but I'm one of the persons who believe that spanking a child (For being violent) will benefit them in the long run.
LayTheologian

Con

"Can I ask you though would you hit a male back if he hit you?"
I would not. I don't feel like going to prison. Claims of self-defense only apply when the purpose is preventing an imminent threat, not retaliation.

"When you mentioned that men ARE stronger than women you immediately jumped onto the sexist band wagon."
I wasn't aware that it is considered sexist to point out a scientific fact that has bearing on the issue at hand. You have the right to defend yourself in response to a credible threat and in proportion to that threat, and it's more difficult for the average woman to pose a credible threat to the average man than vice versa.

"Not hitting her back though will just make her think that she can do it to all of her boyfriends. It is just plain stupid to not hit her back (show her you will not be treated with disrespect remember) it's sort of like correcting a child. If a child hit you no you don't hit them back but you may give them a spanking which will show them you will not be disrespected."
I also don't believe I have the right to discipline another adult (even if I were in favor of corporeal punishment). Hitting someone in response to being hit, rather than to prevent imminent violence by the other party, is needless violence.

In short, violence is an animalistic and brutal behavior. There are occasionally problems that require the use of force, but retaliatory interpersonal violence is unacceptable.
Debate Round No. 2
Clariceh22

Pro

Clariceh22 forfeited this round.
LayTheologian

Con

I suppose I have no choice but to accept your concession.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Stonewall 4 years ago
Stonewall
The instigator fails to realize he is on the debate board, not the discussion board.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
Clariceh22LayTheologianTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that Pro was arguing for retaliation and not self defense. The point was pretty much conceded. Retaliation is not a good reason for violence against women. Con gets arguments and conduct for the FF.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
Clariceh22LayTheologianTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
Clariceh22LayTheologianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF