• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Believe all Women is a right wing trap.

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
22,794
48,813
1,335
USA
dunpachi.com
People who think men should just laugh it off. Men can either hit back or report the assault to the authorities.
Instead of a third-person observer thinking that men should laugh it off, would you have them step in? I mean, the man who is slapped can believe whatever they want and respond however they want, suffering whatever consequences that come of it. This is the essence of being a man instead of a boy, following the course of action that you wish and accepting the consequences.

I'm still wondering how a society that "treats men and women equally" will correct this problem. The problem of women's unrealistic assessment of their own physical strength compared to the average physical strength of a male is a central part of this problem, am I mistaken? Does this unrealistic belief come from somewhere.... say.... a particular ideology.... about....

Equality of the sexes?

Why is it that you think that men should literally be dying before they respond to violence against them? Don't you see the bias here?
I don't think men should be dying in the streets before they respond. They can respond now. You even pointed this out above. Seems like my hyperbole-for-effect went over your head.

No double standards. What would you like to see in the end?
I would like women to slap a man and for a man to laugh it off. If the woman was being a cunt, society picks up the responsibility of ostracizing her. If the man was being a dick, society picks up the responsibility of ostracizing him. In serious cases, the man can one of many available non-violent routes of recompense like a police report or a lawsuit.

And this is pretty much the same way it works now. We're just arguing over the particular balance of the scales.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Airola

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
7,101
11,777
950
Men shouldn't hit women unless provoked.



Or requested.
 

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,553
2,198
415
Instead of a third-person observer thinking that men should laugh it off, would you have them step in?
I just don't want double standards. Have you seen those hidden camera videos where people only step in when the man hits the woman but won't step in when the woman hits the man? Here's one:


I'm still wondering how a society that "treats men and women equally" will correct this problem.
Women facing consequences for hitting men will make them stop hitting men, ideally.

If the woman was being a cunt, society picks up the responsibility of ostracizing her.
How about another hidden camera video that shows that women abuse men with impunity?

 
Last edited:

Fun Fanboy

Banned
Jan 16, 2020
556
972
310
My left leaning friend is starting to see why I'm so in the middle and laugh at all this political stuff. He was blown away that the left is saying that this is a right wing thing. Pretty funny. It's like the left is self unaware.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,332
7,169
650
Why must there be in-kind repercussions for her slapping the dude?
All other repercussions would be fruitless. Law enforcement and other other authority figures likely would not care, their peers clearly do not care, no one would take this as seriously as if the roles were reversed.

Saying “oh, society will get root out bad traits” isn’t exactly convincing, as it’s not historically true and can never be universally true. An individual who can stand up for himself in the moment should not have to cower and hope the nebulous ‘society’ will act on his behalf.

In what way does retaliation or comeuppance restore the biologically-guided gender roles between men and women?
Huh? I don’t care about “biological gender roles”, I care about fairness and consistency.

If women are to be treated as equal to men, the they should be treated as equal in all ways.
If women are to be treated as lesser than men, then they should be treated as lesser in all ways.

Right now women have societal advantages that men don’t have, because of the ever-present attitude of “you cannot do/say (X) because I’m a woman”. They are in the very convenient position of having equal rights and opportunities, without having equal treatment and responsibilities.

I don’t care which direction society goes, whether it‘s giving women equal responsibilities or taking away women’s equal opportunities, but it’s gotta be one or the other.

If equality is gained in this realm and men can now hit women without the repercussions, in what manner does this alleviate the underlying problem?
I don’t think anyone should be able to hit anyone without repercussion, that’s the point. If that repercussion must come in the form equal comeuppance, so be it. This guy was owed retribution against the girl for an injustice she had done to him, and that retribution came in the form of an equal retaliation.

The only problem in this situation that is in need of solving is that women feel they can hit men and get away with it. This particular guy efficiently taught her why that was a bad idea. He could truly let his anger out and go apeshit on her, which would be going too far, but he gave her a quick one-and-done and left which effectively resolved the situation. I see that as an absolutely appropriate response, and it hopefully taught the gorl a lesson about respect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zog

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,553
2,198
415
I don’t care which direction society goes, whether it‘s giving women equal responsibilities or taking away women’s equal opportunities, but it’s gotta be one or the other.
Exactly, no double standards.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
22,794
48,813
1,335
USA
dunpachi.com
Nope. Have you seen those hidden camera videos where people only step in when the man hits the woman but won't step in when the woman hits the man? Here's one:



Women facing consequences for hitting men will make them stop hitting men, ideally.
Those consequences already exist. I don't think introducing the consequence of men slapping women will actually correct the problem you seem so concerned about.

And like most ill-conceived plans, the men who take advantage of your idealistic "rebalancing" aren't going to be the intelligent, quietly-spoken types who take the time to explain to the judge that they may have broken her jaw, but it was after being slapped by her which didn't even leave a mark.

How about another hidden camera video that shows that women abuse men with impunity?

Yeah, women who slap men are trash. Still waiting for an explanation as to how slapping them back will reduce the incidence of this behavior, but I've asked so many times already without a response that I may as well stop asking.

All other repercussions would be fruitless. Law enforcement and other other authority figures likely would not care, their peers clearly do not care, no one would take this as seriously as if the roles were reversed.

Saying “oh, society will get root out bad traits” isn’t exactly convincing, as it’s not historically true and fan never be universally true. An individual who can stand up for himself in the moment should not have to cower and hope the nebulous ‘society’ will act on their behalf.
You're arguing possibilities instead of principles, and since you refuse any request for principles with the exuse "well it wouldn't work anyway", I'm not convinced. I'm already convinced it's a real problem. I'm not convinced that a cynical attitude of "okay fine, we'll treat you the same way" is going to solve anything at all.


Huh? I don’t care about “biological gender roles”, I care about fairness and consistency.

If women are to be treated as equal to men, the they should be treated as equal in all ways.
If women are to be treated as lesser than men, then they should be treated as lesser in all ways.
This is nonsensical. Women should be helped in the ways they are lesser, and held to a higher responsibility/standard in ways that they are superior. In ways they are equal, they should be treated equally.

Welcome to society. The rules governing this paradoxical mix of standards is constantly in flux. Good luck, and no one cares if you point out how unfair it is. You can either fix the artifice with a better mechanism, or you can continue to suffer.

Right now women have societal advantages that men don’t have, because of the ever-present attitude of “you cannot do/say (X) because I’m a woman”. They are in the very convenient position of having equal rights and opportunities, without having equal treatment and responsibilities.

I don’t care which direction society goes, whether it‘s giving women equal responsibilities or taking away women’s equal opportunities, but it’s gotta be one or the other.

I don’t think anyone should be able to hit anyone without repercussion, that’s the point. If that repercussion must come in the form equal comeuppance, so be it.
There are examples of injustice where a woman "gets away with it", but overall I wouldn't say that women can hit anyone without repercussion. I disagree with your alarming premise.

"So be it" is the domain of ideologues and partisans. It certainly isn't justice. If you believe that an ideal solution should be sought because we are suffering from injustice, defaulting to "so be it" doesn't exactly make your case. Either we're going to approach it from a principled standpoint or not at all. There's no value in half-assing it and making exceptions to our own standards under the auspices of "things need to be rebalanced. So be it".

The feminist Equality Fighters operate using the same desperate "logic".

This guy was owed retribution against the girl for an injustice she had done to him, and that retribution came in the form of an equal retaliation.
Yes, eye for an eye. Go on. I heard it's a brilliant form of justice. Egyptians and Babylonians and Romans and many other cultures embraced the same sentiment for their justice system. Keeps things really clean, too. Disproportionate punishment for the provoker. Very little protection. Helps to keep dissidents and back-talkers in line.

The only problem in this situation that is in need of solving is that women feel they can hit men and get away with it. This particular guy efficiently taught her why that was a bad idea.
He may have taught that individual woman why it was a bad idea, but maybe not. You're assuming she will learn that lesson instead of playing the victim. You assume that repeating the response hundreds of thousands more times will "get the message across" instead of just making it worse.

I mean, even though retaliation won't solve this individual example, it totally makes sense to slap more women over and over again on a large scale. That would probably solve the entire problem, right? Right.

My big disconnect here is the lofty ideal that "men shouldn't slap women" (or to the topic, that women shouldn't have disproportionate power within the legal system or the court of public opinion). I don't think the way to reach the goal is to slap women more. I don't think the premise that slapping women more will "make the lesson more obvious", nor do I think that the ideologues (who are led by the nose like sheep) will actually see the grand irony of what the woman-slappers are doing. There will not be an enlightenment where they realize that women slapping men is what started this all off.

It'll just lead to more retaliation and escalation.

He could truly let his anger out and go apeshit on her, which would be going too far, but he gave her a quick one-and-done and left which effectively resolved the situation. I see that as an absolutely appropriate response, and it hopefully taught the gorl a lesson about respect.
That's a stupid move to make on the off-chance that the woman would "learn about respect". At best, she might learn it and never do it again, but it has no affect on other women. There's a higher chance that the woman wouldn't learn the lesson at all. Provokers don't tend to learn the lesson, they use the experience to play the victim and provoke others.

Seems like a waste of my own energy and needlessly putting myself at risk to teach some dumb bitch a "lesson" that she probably wouldn't comprehend in the first place. A better lesson would be to call the cops, get her information, file a report, and hopefully land her ass in jail or community service, sending the message that we all have a System in place to resolve disputes instead of individuals needing to take the retaliation into their own hands.

But that is my personal opinion on the matter. The dude made his choice and can live with his choices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Airola

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,553
2,198
415
Those consequences already exist.
No they don't, didn't you watch the videos. The average citizen allows women to abuse men with impunity but react harshly with the genders are reversed. This has been my lived experience as well, how about you? Do you see people coming to the aid of a woman abusing a man?


Yeah, women who slap men are trash. Still waiting for an explanation as to how slapping them back will reduce the incidence of this behavior, but I've asked so many times already without a response that I may as well stop asking.
You been told: 'Women facing consequences for hitting men will make them stop hitting men, ideally. '. Don't pretend the question was ignored.
 

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
4,768
6,635
480
I've only got to page 2 of this thread but im with Tess. Men don't hit women. Pussies do, little boys do, men don't.

Those saying she did/didn't deserve it, we don't know what happened before this video started rolling. Maybe he spat in her face or stole off of her?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Airola

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
22,794
48,813
1,335
USA
dunpachi.com
No they don't, didn't you watch the videos. The average citizen allows women to abuse men with impunity but react harshly with the genders are reversed. This has been my lived experience as well, how about you? Do you see people coming to the aid of a woman abusing a man?
Post some videos doesn't confirm a widespread culture of "hitting with impunity", nor does it erase the other outlets of retaliation that I've mentioned.

The disparity in response to violence against men (by women) and violence against women (by men) is rooted in traditional gender roles and biology. I am being realistic when I suggest we follow different rules as to who should slap who (or who should believe who).

Whether I see people coming to the aid of a woman abusing a man or not doesn't mean that your proposal will work. You've proposed that an Equality of Slapping will fix the issue. I disagree, it will only lead to more slapping, just like unrealistic rules like "Believe All Women" will not be corrected by Believing All Men.

You been told: 'Women facing consequences for hitting men will make them stop hitting men, ideally. '. Don't pretend the question was ignored.
Maybe slap me so that I stop pretending.

I responded to your ideal proposal several times already by rejecting your nonsensical premise: women face consequences for hitting men, socially and legally, and possibly physically. Are you under the delusion that women face no consequences for hitting men? At best, you can link some videos showing me how some individuals got away with it, but that would no more prove your point that showing a police beating of a black man proves the accusation of systemic racism in the justice system.

It would be one thing if the proposal to fight fire with fire (or slaps with slaps) was a novel approach, but it's not.

Sadly this sort of thinking pops up all the time, in all societies, through all of history.

"Maybe if we did the same thing to them, they would stop". Yep, maybe. Maybe this slap will be different. Maybe if I slap a bit harder, that will make my cynical commentary on society's disproportionate response to violence between men and women all the more obvious to the observers. Maybe this dumb bitch will learn the lesson that the last dozen couldn't.

Believe all women. Slap all women. So be it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Airola

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,553
2,198
415
Those saying she did/didn't deserve it, we don't know what happened before this video started rolling. Maybe he spat in her face or stole off of her?

...or maybe she beats on him all the time and this is the day he put a stop to it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gashtronomy

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,332
7,169
650
You're arguing possibilities instead of principles, and since you refuse any request for principles with the exuse "well it wouldn't work anyway", I'm not convinced. I'm already convinced it's a real problem. I'm not convinced that a cynical attitude of "okay fine, we'll treat you the same way" is going to solve anything at all.
The sentiment of “a man has a right to stand up for himself” is a principle unto itself, whether you can appreciate it or not.

If acknowledging the realities of the world we live in is “cynical”, then I suppose cynicism is a label I should wear with pride. There is no world where all bad behaviors are shunned out by “society”. In fact, historically, it does quite the opposite. Our current society’s deeply-held contradictions are the reason women believe it is okay to harm men in the first place.

There's no value in half-assing it and making exceptions to our own standards under the auspices of "things need to be rebalanced. So be it".
Yes, eye for an eye. Go on. I heard it's a brilliant form of justice. Egyptians and Babylonians and Romans and many other cultures embraced the same sentiment for their justice system.

Your insistence that there is no difference whatsoever in hitting an innocent person sitting there vs. hitting a person who just hit you comes off as weak. A man has an unalienable right to fight back against someone who is assaulting them.

If you think this is the same as believing thieves’s hands should be chopped off, that’s your prerogative, but it makes you look foolish.


He may have taught that individual woman why it was a bad idea, but maybe not. You're assuming she will learn that lesson instead of playing the victim. You assume that repeating the response hundreds of thousands more times will "get the message across" instead of just making it worse.
Not many choose to put their hand on a stove twice. Those who do deserve the burns they get.

Seems like a waste of my own energy and needlessly putting myself at risk to teach some dumb bitch a "lesson" that she probably wouldn't comprehend in the first place. A better lesson would be to call the cops, get her information, file a report, and hopefully land her ass in jail or community service, sending the message that we all have a System in place to resolve disputes instead of individuals needing to take the retaliation into their own hands.
I would love to live in your fantasy world where everyone always takes female-on-male violence just as seriously as male-on-female violence, but unfortunately the real world has not quite caught up to that point yet.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zog

Nymphae

Gold Member
Jun 3, 2013
11,253
14,920
970
Canada
She goes from an open mouthed "how dare he" face, to face in hands woe is me in like half a second, woman card pulled. It wasn't a haymaker, laugh it off or go at him harder, you letting one weak punch end this? Finish what you started! It's interesting to see someone go from aggressor to victim in 2 seconds flat. It's very hard for me to have sympathy for that girl here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whitesnake

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
4,768
6,635
480
So don't pick a side based on what you don't know. Go with what you see in the video.
I'm not picking a side. I said what I said because I knew someone would react with the opposite possibility which happens all the time now. Not aiming this at you, but all I see is one person making a statement and other people taking the most opposite stance possible. Nobody seems to consider the middle-ground or rational, logical thought without jumping knee-deep in to emotions. Again, not aimed at you, just an observation of the internet as a whole.

No, I won't go with what I see in the video because there isn't enough evidence to make a decision on why who did what. Though I do believe Men don't hit women.
 

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,553
2,198
415
I'm not picking a side. I said what I said because I knew someone would react with the opposite possibility which happens all the time now. Not aiming this at you, but all I see is one person making a statement and other people taking the most opposite stance possible. Nobody seems to consider the middle-ground or rational, logical thought without jumping knee-deep in to emotions. Again, not aimed at you, just an observation of the internet as a whole.

No, I won't go with what I see in the video because there isn't enough evidence to make a decision on why who did what. Though I do believe Men don't hit women.
You made a biased post to provoke others to answering with the opposite side and then tell us how nobody considers the middle ground. LOL well done.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
22,794
48,813
1,335
USA
dunpachi.com
The sentiment of “a man has a right to stand up for himself” is a principle unto itself, whether you can appreciate it or not.
The sentiment of "a man can bear a heavy burden" is also a principle unto itself. Yay, let's swap platitudes. Still doesn't address how the slap-fest will solve the problem, any more than Believing All Men would solve the problems caused by Believe All Women.

If acknowledging the realities of the world we live in is “cynical”, then I suppose cynicism is a label I should wear with pride.
Zoom, over your head it goes. I'm not criticizing cynicism itself. I'm challenging the cynical viewpoint that slapping a woman back will really show them the errors of their ways. It's self-destructive and will not result in your equality paradise. I also do not believe the premise that women are slapping men "with impunity" because Men won't stand up for themselves and slap them back. This requires the underlying assumption that if we introduced more slapping, it would reduce the attitude in women/society that "permits" this to happen "with no consequences". It's an interesting ideology, but I'm still waiting for the substance. How exactly is this all supposed to play out, in your mind? How many slaps will get the message across? What metrics will you be observing to ensure society returns to proper balance?

There is no world where all bad behaviors are shunned out by “society”. In fact, historically, it does quite the opposite. Our current society’s deeply-held contradictions are the reason women believe it is okay to harm men in the first place.
Three non-sequiturs in one bundle. What are the "deeply held contradictions" that are causing women to believe it's okay to harm men? Are any of these contradictions the equal treatment of women juxtaposed against the ignorance of biology? Maybe slap some equality into them to correct the problem.

Your insistence that there is no difference whatsoever in hitting an innocent person sitting there vs. hitting a person who just hit you comes off as weak. A man has an unalienable right to fight back against someone who is assaulting them.
I'm not insisting on anything. Your brain is fabricating strawmen because you can't even explain your own deeply-felt convictions, so you are going after an argument I never made. I never once made a distinction between an "innocent person sitting there" vs "hitting a person who just hit you".

Why do people have a right to fight back? Does this justify all instances of "fighting back" or are there times when "fighting back" is not appropriate? Opinions differ, so I'm curious how you see it.

If you think this is the same as believing thieves’s hands should be chopped off, that’s your prerogative, but it makes you look foolish.
I'm jogging my victory lap at this point and you still won't explain your own beliefs without dodging. The history lesson was for your own edification.

Not many choose to put their hand on a stove twice. Those who do deserve the burns they get.
Like I said at the beginning, don't grab a dog by the ears. It seems incomprehensible to some of you that "Don't grab a dog by the ears" and "dogs shouldn't bite" can be two congruent moral statements aimed at two different actors in an inherently-unequal power play between a provoker and the provoked.

I would love to live in your fantasy world where everyone always takes female-on-male violence just as seriously as male-on-female violence, but unfortunately the real world has not quite caught up to that point yet.
Have patience with me, I've only slapped 14 women so far and the lesson doesn't seem to be sinking in yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Airola

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
4,768
6,635
480
You made a biased post to provoke others to answering with the opposite side and then tell us how nobody considers the middle ground. LOL well done.
🤷‍♂️ How was it biased? I could have landed on either side.

Anyway, the questions I had have been answered and I don't really care enough about any subject to pick it to pieces.

Thanks for being a Guinea pig.

Take care
 

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,553
2,198
415
🤷‍♂️ How was it biased? I could have landed on either side.
You could have landed on both sides but you gave two examples on one side. See:

Those saying she did/didn't deserve it, we don't know what happened before this video started rolling. Maybe he spat in her face or stole off of her?
That's what I call bias. With the lack of evidence, you just assume the worst of him.

Thanks, you too.
 
Last edited:

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
4,768
6,635
480
You could have landed on both sides but you gave two examples on one side. See:



That's what I call bias. With the lack of evidence, you just assume the worst of him.


Thanks, you too.
Fair point. I could have offered one scenario vs two. Thanks for the feedback :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zog

Nymphae

Gold Member
Jun 3, 2013
11,253
14,920
970
Canada
Still doesn't address how the slap-fest will solve the problem, any more than Believing All Men would solve the problems caused by Believe All Women.
Do we not believe that getting your shit punched in after provoking someone is a decent lesson? Sure it doesn't "solve" the issue of many women engaging in this foolish behaviour, but I don't see how being a bigger man stops that either. One lets someone get away with something they shouldn't be doing and the other doesn't.

It's self-destructive and will not result in your equality paradise
I think he was just saying a punch can be a good lesson for the person who was asking for it.
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,332
7,169
650
I'm challenging the cynical viewpoint that slapping a woman back will really show them the errors of their ways.
Never said they’ll always learn the lesson, I’m saying there is a greater chance they will learn the lesson than if they are allowed to assault people.

I also do not believe the premise that women are slapping men "with impunity" because Men won't stand up for themselves and slap them back. This requires the underlying assumption that if we introduced more slapping, it would reduce the attitude in women/society that "permits" this to happen "with no consequences".
Being hit back is most certainly a consequence.

Other consequences are preferable, but are not reliable due to society not particularly caring about female-on-male violence.

In a world where female-on-male violence is always taken as seriously as male-on-female violence, I would advocate for the strategy of remaining stoic and then going to the authorities.

Do you believe everyone would react to this exactly the same if the roles were reversed?

Would you even be arguing about this if the roles were reversed?

If women are to be treated as equals, then this girl has been treated as an equal. If women are to be treated as weaker, then this woman should have known better than to provoke someone who could very well be stronger than her.

I'm not insisting on anything.
You claimed I was “making an exceptions to our own standards”.

My standards are consistent. You hit somebody for no reason, they are justified in hitting back with equal force.

Like I said at the beginning, don't grab a dog by the ears. It seems incomprehensible to some of you that "Don't grab a dog by the ears" and "dogs shouldn't bite" can be two congruent moral statements aimed at two different actors in an inherently-unequal power play between a provoker and the provoked.
If I put my head in the mouth of an alligator, I can say “the alligator would be wrong to bite” me all I want, but it’s ultimately my fault for expecting nature to make an exception for me.

Similarly, if I suckerpunch Mike Tyson, I can say ”you shouldn’t hit me back because XYZ” all I want, but if I get punched back it’s no one’s fault but mine.

Just as you shouldn’t pull a dogs ear without expecting to be bit, or put your hand on the stove without expecting to be burned, you shouldn’t punch someone without expecting a punch back.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
22,794
48,813
1,335
USA
dunpachi.com
Do we not believe that getting your shit punched in after provoking someone is a decent lesson?
Depends on the recipient. Depends on the giver. And the "best" way to teach an individual a lesson is not necessarily going to apply when scaled up across an entire culture.

Let's take the slap out of the equation. If someone is already so trashy that they slap someone else in public "with impunity", do you expect this enlightened individual to respond positively to any external lessons or instructions?

If your goal is to deliver the most effective lesson with the maximum retention of lesson-learning, such a teacher would carefully consider all tools available. That is, if the goal really is to teach a lesson. Does this method teach the maximum number of women the desired lesson?

To a guy, the hit would probably be a decent lesson, yes. Men are generally familiar with the use of force to communicate intent. Child development scientists realize that when it comes to males (in humans as well as many other mammals) there is a higher incidence of rough-housing

To a woman, the hit carries existing social and biological connotations that do not apply in a slap-fight between men. It's highly unlikely she would learn the "decent lesson" that men and women are equal and that women shouldn't hit men unless they expect to get hit back.

I'm not coming at this moral dilemma from a male vs female perspective. Fundamentally, I do not believe that "eye for an eye" is a viable foundation for justice. I don't believe the desired outcome of "women learning their lesson and not slapping men with impunity" is due ot the lack of men slapping women, nor do I believe that men slapping women more in retaliation (so be it) will resolve the complaint. I mean, it really boggles my mind that people would be so passionate about getting this slapping problem solved while being equally passionate about using the least-likely method to solve it.

Sure it doesn't "solve" the issue of many women engaging in this foolish behaviour, but I don't see how being a bigger man stops that either. One lets someone get away with something they shouldn't be doing and the other doesn't.
I don't think "being a bigger man" stops it either, in a vacuum. But as one piece of course-correcting our misaligned cultural views on males and females, continuing to encourage men to be the bigger man will serve as a very important anchor as we fix the other behavioral mistakes.

I think he was just saying a punch can be a good lesson for the person who was asking for it.
Sure. And I disagree that it would be a good lesson.
 

Nymphae

Gold Member
Jun 3, 2013
11,253
14,920
970
Canada
If someone is already so trashy that they slap someone else in public "with impunity", do you expect this enlightened individual to respond positively to any external lessons or instructions?
Yes, I think so, I do think most people eventually learn their lessons after enough consequences. Respond positively? No. But I bet she thinks twice about hitting that kid next time. I don't know how you can do better than that as an individual, you know? As that kid it seems like you have two options, sit there and take it, or try to make that stop somehow with a deterrent.

It's highly unlikely she would learn the "decent lesson" that men and women are equal and that women shouldn't hit men unless they expect to get hit back.
I don't know, to be more specific, I don't think it's about "learning the lesson" per se, I believe pretty much all women know this already - what I think it's about is receiving your comeuppance. Here's the thing you already knew would happen, hope it tastes the way you expected. And yes I think if you eat enough of that, your behaviour might change. I don't know how else you change that kind of behaviour other than letting the natural consequences beat it into your head.

I don't think "being a bigger man" stops it either, in a vacuum. But as one piece of course-correcting our misaligned cultural views on males and females, continuing to encourage men to be the bigger man will serve as a very important anchor as we fix the other behavioral mistakes
I think that encouraging men to be the bigger man is the ideal choice, and also that getting your face knocked in because of actions you instigated can be a valuable experience.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
22,794
48,813
1,335
USA
dunpachi.com
Never said they’ll always learn the lesson, I’m saying there is a greater chance they will learn the lesson than if they are allowed to assault people.
According to what?

I never propped up the strawman of "always learning the lesson". I pointed out that you have a whimsical and naive belief about a woman having a greater chance to learn the lesson if men are allowed to assault back.



Multiple people in the thread, multiple derailments, multiple strawman, and I have yet to see anyone propose

We must simply accept the paradigm that men should hit back. And it'll fix things. Because. Lessons. They'll be learned.

Being hit back is most certainly a consequence.

Other consequences are preferable, but are not reliable due to society not particularly caring about female-on-male violence.
Violence has a well-documented track record of being an unreliable means of correcting ideological and cultural problems.

But let's try it anyway. This time will be different.

In a world where female-on-male violence is always taken as seriously as male-on-female violence, I would advocate for the strategy of remaining stoic and then going to the authorities.
Yeah, if the Court of Public Opinion would take it more seriously, we wouldn't have these vigilantes running around and taking it into their own hands. Don't blame the vigilantes.

Do you believe everyone would react to this exactly the same if the roles were reversed?

Would you even be arguing about this if the roles were reversed?
I have invested zero thought into this because it isn't relevant. Court of Public Opinion is unfair and whimsical by its very nature. Maybe if we turned the Court of Public Opinion around by slapping people and teaching more lessons, we could correct it, but for the time being we will continue to suffer the great injustice of "everyone" not reacting to different things differently.

If women are to be treated as equals, then this girl has been treated as an equal.
But I reject this ideology, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. You convince me that she should be treated equal in the first place, and to what extent she should be treated "equal". I am not standing in the way of you explaining yourself and defining your own terms.

By all means, please proceed.

If women are to be treated as weaker, then this woman should have known better than to provoke someone who could very well be stronger than her.
Yes, she should have known better. She had no business slapping him, from what we can see.

What does that have to do with his response? Walk me through the moral justification for his choice to exert physical harm on someone else? Is retaliation itself enough of a justification?

You claimed I was “making an exceptions to our own standards”.

My standards are consistent. You hit somebody for no reason, they are justified in hitting back with equal force.
Being justified in your actions and solving the problem that you are seeking justice for are two different things.

Striking her back may be 100% "justified" in your eyes. Help me understand how it solves the problem overall, or are we back to the premise that slap enough women to teach enough decent lessons to change the underlying cultural issue that led to this in the first place? Oh, the underlying cultural issue is that she falsely believed she could slap him "with impunity" in the first place. Problem solved.


If I put my head in the mouth of an alligator, I can say “the alligator would be wrong to bite” me all I want, but most of the blame lies with me expecting nature to make an exception for me.
Yes, which is why we say both at the same time. We tell the idiot not to put their head in the mouth of the alligator, and we do our best to keep alligators away from populated areas (or if it's possible, team them not to bite heads, but now the analogy is straining).

Similarly, if I suckerpunch Mike Tyson, I can say ”you shouldn’t hit me back because XYZ” all I want, but if I get punched back it’s no one’s fault but mine.

Just as you shouldn’t pull a dogs ear without expecting to be bit, or put your hand on the stove without expecting to be burned, you shouldn’t punch someone without expecting a punch back.
The expectation of the provoker has no bearing on the morality of what the provoked person did. You are always responsible for the physical actions you take.

And we are still miles away from how the slap-fest is supposed to reduce women slapping men.

To say nothing of how far we are from Believe All Women.
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,332
7,169
650
Being justified in your actions and solving the problem that you are seeking justice for are two different things.
I agree, but this means you are fundamentally talking about something entirely different from what I am.

You are acting as if I am saying this dude slapping this girl has solved female-on-male violence forever. Indeed, it does not, and I have never claimed it to do anything more than resolve that particular situation and possibly teach the girl some respect.

The entire point I am arguing is that the guy was 100% justified in his action, and the only person who should feel guilt is the girl, and maybe the people filming too. The way this situation played out was fair and just, unfortunately many other similar situations do not play out that way.

I don’t have answer for how to rob women of their societal advantages, and it appears you don’t either, seeing as the entire basis of argument is asking me how to solve it. All you’ve posited is vague phrases about “acknowledging biological gender roles” or some such.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
22,309
43,374
1,610
Straya
DunDunDunpachi DunDunDunpachi not sure I can be bothered putting effort into a long reply when you’re throwing out absurdities and being quite dishonest with some of your arguments. Just a few examples:

“A woman can gain a particular reputation which closes her off to a certain range of marriage partners. Someone who uses violence to attack someone while hiding behind social norms (a provoker) isn't going to be embraced with open arms in all company.”

This is not reality. I’m sure you’re familiar with the Women are Wonderful effect. An attractive woman will have no shortage of suitors in spite of a violent past. We have a regular member with a Casey Anthony avatar, for example. This just reads like wishful thinking on your behalf but is totally divorced from the truth.

“I would like women to slap a man and for a man to laugh it off. If the woman was being a cunt, society picks up the responsibility of ostracizing her.”

What planet are you living on?

“Violence has a well-documented track record of being an unreliable means of correcting ideological and cultural problems.”

You refer to general violence when the argument is about a very specific type of violence: self-defense. It’s ideologically akin to Stand Your Ground laws.

Moreover, I don’t get this obsession with proportionality. Why is the burden of responsibility placed on the defender by virtue of his size? Why does it matter if the person initiating the violence gets back more than they gave? Initiation is the key here. So long as the defensive violence is not grossly disproportional like say death for a slap, I don’t see why proportionality matters. In fact, I think the responsibility lies entirely on me to not swing at Mike Tyson. That the consequences are worse than swinging at someone else is my problem, not his.

I’m not coming at this from an equality of the sexes angle as I don’t believe them to be intrinsically equal. I’m coming at it from a let people learn the consequences of their actions so long as it doesn’t kill or permanently impair them angle. I believe that prevention is better than cure, and the best way to prevent these events from being initiated by women is for women to understand their physical inferiority. If that takes a minor incident like the one in the gif, so be it. I also believe that girls like her who don’t learn this lesson are more likely to graduate to the use of weapons in domestic violence situations. Therefore, getting off lightly like she did with a single, ultimately harmless punch to the face in response to her own initiated violence may teach her a valuable lesson and prevent much worse violence in future.
 

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
4,364
3,218
475
Finland
I've only got to page 2 of this thread but im with Tess. Men don't hit women. Pussies do, little boys do, men don't.

Those saying she did/didn't deserve it, we don't know what happened before this video started rolling. Maybe he spat in her face or stole off of her?
Who knows if the guy was her boyfriend but had been fucking other girls all around.
People defending the punch seem to want to look previous possible causes for the guy punching only in favor for the boy. Like, "what if the girl had done this to him over and over again." Yeah, that's one option but they don't even think to wonder that maybe the boy had been a major dickhead. That's a real possibility too.
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
22,309
43,374
1,610
Straya
Who knows if the guy was her boyfriend but had been fucking other girls all around.
People defending the punch seem to want to look previous possible causes for the guy punching only in favor for the boy. Like, "what if the girl had done this to him over and over again." Yeah, that's one option but they don't even think to wonder that maybe the boy had been a major dickhead. That's a real possibility too.
Sure, but those hypothetical what ifs are in response to the dogmatic “never hit a woman” rhetoric. The operative word is never.
 

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,976
3,188
615
Who knows if the guy was her boyfriend but had been fucking other girls all around.
People defending the punch seem to want to look previous possible causes for the guy punching only in favor for the boy. Like, "what if the girl had done this to him over and over again." Yeah, that's one option but they don't even think to wonder that maybe the boy had been a major dickhead. That's a real possibility too.
Nope the people that think she deserved it are all usingonly the video as evidence she deserved it. People like you are projecting. She slapped he retaliated with like force. No need for previous actions defend his to his action. People saying she didn't deserve it did like you and brought up what ifs, because there is no evidence in the video to excuse her actions.
 

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
4,364
3,218
475
Finland
Sure, but those hypothetical what ifs are in response to the dogmatic “never hit a woman” rhetoric. The operative word is never.
Which even Tesseract didn't really say. He was pretty much clear from the get go that if a woman threatens his life he could punch her.

Nope the people that think she deserved it are all usingonly the video as evidence she deserved it. People like you are projecting. She slapped he retaliated with like force. No need for previous actions defend his to his action. People saying she didn't deserve it did like you and brought up what ifs, because there is no evidence in the video to excuse her actions.
Matt tried to use the exact thing against my viewpoint. To which I had to point out that I had already earlier given her the benefit of the doubt that if that's the case, then she got what was coming.
 
Mar 18, 2018
2,991
2,833
415
Who knows if the guy was her boyfriend but had been fucking other girls all around.
People defending the punch seem to want to look previous possible causes for the guy punching only in favor for the boy. Like, "what if the girl had done this to him over and over again." Yeah, that's one option but they don't even think to wonder that maybe the boy had been a major dickhead. That's a real possibility too.
Both possibilities exist but it sounded like the reactions to it were taking only the situation In video as shown as the talking point, not really the interactions of the real life context around the the two individuals in real life.
 

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
4,364
3,218
475
Finland
This thread is like a Twilight Zone episode.
On the other hand feminism is bad, them claiming sexism in every corner is bad, but now this thread has people telling how sexist it is if a man doesn't hit back if a woman slaps you.
It's like some weird mixture of hardcore male feminism and MGTOW type of chauvinism.

inb4 Matt calls out strawman

EDIT:
By the way, I absolutely LOVE how a discussion like this can happen in this board right now.
This would've been an absolute impossibility just a few years ago!

Both possibilities exist but it sounded like the reactions to it were taking only the situation In video as shown as the talking point, not really the interactions of the real life context around the the two individuals in real life.
Yes. But at some point these "what if" scenarios happened and that was used against the view that in that video's context the boy shoulnd't have punched the girl.
As far as I know, Gashtronomy was the first who even mentioned the possibility of the boy being a dickhead prior to that video. Before that the discussions had turns where possible past actions were used as only for the defence of the boy.

So the fact is that it hasn't been only about the situation in the video, but possible situation outside of the video was used in trying to defend the view that the boy was right in punching the girl back - or oppose the view that it wasn't right.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
22,309
43,374
1,610
Straya
Which even Tesseract didn't really say. He was pretty much clear from the get go that if a woman threatens his life he could punch her.



Matt tried to use the exact thing against my viewpoint. To which I had to point out that I had already earlier given her the benefit of the doubt that if that's the case, then she got what was coming.
Then where is the disagreement? Both sides of the argument are saying "generally don't hit a woman, but in these circumstances it's justifiable".
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
22,309
43,374
1,610
Straya
This thread is like a Twilight Zone episode.
On the other hand feminism is bad, them claiming sexism in every corner is bad, but now this thread has people telling how sexist it is if a man doesn't hit back if a woman slaps you.
It's like some weird mixture of hardcore male feminism and MGTOW type of chauvinism.

inb4 Matt calls out strawman

EDIT:
By the way, I absolutely LOVE how a discussion like this can happen in this board right now.
This would've been an absolute impossibility just a few years ago!
shut the fuck up

Make your points without soapboxing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whitesnake

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
4,364
3,218
475
Finland
This is not reality. I’m sure you’re familiar with the Women are Wonderful effect. An attractive woman will have no shortage of suitors in spite of a violent past. We have a regular member with a Casey Anthony avatar, for example. This just reads like wishful thinking on your behalf but is totally divorced from the truth.
Sorry for jumping in, but I hope you realize that even if a lot of people are into her looks and bad girl nature, it doesn't mean they would think she would be a good actual partner for him, even less a good mother for their possible child.

But on the other hand some people really are like what you suggest. Some men and women really have a thing for violent inmates. I'd assume both male and female inmates get a lot of fan mail and proposal letters.
But that's what the crazies do. Just because someone finds some piece of shit criminal physically hot it doesn't mean they actually think they'd be good actual partners for them.

I'd bet my dead grandmother that the dude who has the Casey Anthony avatar wouldn't actually want to get married to her or have children with her. It's probably mostly just his wank fetish.
 

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
4,364
3,218
475
Finland
Then where is the disagreement? Both sides of the argument are saying "generally don't hit a woman, but in these circumstances it's justifiable".
You tell me. Tesseract laid out his stand and the rules he abides to really early but you didn't want to see that but went on and on with claiming how wrong it is to say "never hit a woman."
You just didn't want to accept that someone would not accept the punch in this circumstance or in circumstances like this and didn't realize we hadn't really said that no-one should ever hit a woman in any circumstance.

shut the fuck up

Make your points without soapboxing.
Chill out, this isn't the end of the world.

We're both on a soapbox here, like it or not, believe it or not.
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
22,309
43,374
1,610
Straya
You tell me. Tesseract laid out his stand and the rules he abides to really early but you didn't want to see that but went on and on with claiming how wrong it is to say "never hit a woman."
You just didn't want to accept that someone would not accept the punch in this circumstance or in circumstances like this and didn't realize we hadn't really said that no-one should ever hit a woman in any circumstance.
He spent most of the thread strawmanning opposing opinions as being about men wanting to bash women instead of what they were actually about: whether retaliation against a woman in self-defence is acceptable and under which circumstances. Most of us were trying to define the boundaries but were instead met with a binary durrr violence against women bad brick wall. We were actually in agreement for the most part once I was able to tease some nuance out of him, but in general he was just defaulting to the never hit a woman logic and blithely dismissing reasoned counter examples.

Chill out, this isn't the end of the world.

We're both on a soapbox here, like it or not, believe it or not.
Nope, I'm not on a soapbox. Don't equalise. I'm making my points without casting vague aspersions about your morality, like "wow, check out these unclean wrongthinkers, I'm in the Twilight Zone but how cool is it that we can have these discussions here now!!". The implication is that we're wrong by default but you're morally superior for even engaging us. Fuck you.
 

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,553
2,198
415
Which even Tesseract didn't really say. He was pretty much clear from the get go that if a woman threatens his life he could punch her.
She would have to threaten his life though, otherwise he would laugh it off and try to charm her.

I am curious, from those who think women should not be treated equally. How do you treat women unequally in your own life? I am looking for examples of how you treat women and men differently in your own life.
 
Last edited:

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
4,364
3,218
475
Finland
He spent most of the thread strawmanning opposing opinions as being about men wanting to bash women instead of what they were actually about: whether retaliation against a woman in self-defence is acceptable and under which circumstances. Most of us were trying to define the boundaries but were instead met with a binary durrr violence against women bad brick wall. We were actually in agreement for the most part once I was able to tease some nuance out of him, but in general he was just defaulting to the never hit a woman logic and blithely dismissing reasoned counter examples.
Post number 18 had all you needed to know about the "nuances" you wanted.

Nope, I'm not on a soapbox. Don't equalise. I'm making my points without casting vague aspersions about your morality, like "wow, check out these unclean wrongthinkers, I'm in the Twilight Zone but how cool is it that we can have these discussions here now!!". The implication is that we're wrong by default but you're morally superior for even engaging us.
Just a while ago you were calling out strawmans and now you're doing that yourself. It's this one damn thread and this one damn issue. I have my views on it, which I think is morally right.

Of course I think I'm morally right in this issue. What is wrong with that? It seems we are allowed to say we are right about things but not that we are morally right.

Besides if you think you aren't doing that all the time with your assertions in what the world should be like and how you know what to do for the world to be right, you have another thing coming. You've stamped the soapbox so much that you don't even recognize it under your feet.

Look, if I think I'm morally right in some issue it doesn't mean I think you are an "unclean wrongthinker". Think back a few years. Do you think ANY claims of a woman being punched being right would've been met with anything else than a ban back then. I'm saying that this is an issue that wasn't allowed to discuss at all here then. That's a fact and you know it. I'm saying it as a point to note how much better this forum has become from what it was even back in 2017. I like the fact that I can read posts in this forum that go against whatever I think is moral. That's not a god damn attack on you, Matt.

The fact that you took its implication to be what you claimed it to be only tells more about whatever warped view you look at my posts in this specific issue than it tells about what I really wrote.

Fuck you.
These fuck yous are right about losing any meaning by the amount you are handing them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
22,309
43,374
1,610
Straya
Post number 18 had all you needed to know about the "nuances" you wanted.



Just a while ago you were calling out strawmans and now you're doing that yourself. It's this one damn thread and this one damn issue. I have my views on it, which I think is morally right.

Of course I think I'm morally right in this issue. What is wrong with that? It seems we are allowed to say we are right about things but not that we are morally right.

Besides if you think you aren't doing that all the time with your assertions in what the world should be like and how you know what to do for the world to be right, you have another thing coming. You've stamped the soapbox so much that you don't even recognize it under your feet.

Look, if I think I'm morally right in some issue it doesn't mean I think you are an "unclean wrongthinker". Think back a few years. Do you think ANY claims of a woman being punched being right would've been met with anything else than a ban back then. I'm saying that this is an issue that wasn't allowed to discuss at all here then. That's a fact and you know it. I'm saying it as a point to note how much better this forum has become from what it was even back in 2017. I like the fact that I can read posts in this forum that go against whatever I think is moral. That's not a god damn attack on you, Matt.

The fact that you took its implication to be what you claimed it to be only tells more about whatever warped view you look at my posts in this specific issue than it tells about what I really wrote.



These fuck yous are right about losing any meaning by the amount you are handing them.
Of course you’re allowed to think you’re morally right, but when you approach the discussion with an appeal to the authority of that assumption, it can go no further. Your mind is closed and you’re simply tolerating us for your own amusement. Come at me with something akin to “of course my mind is closed to violence against women!” and you will only prove my point, because that’s not what the discussion is about and approaching it with your assumption of moral correctness blinds you to opposing arguments.
 

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
4,364
3,218
475
Finland
She would have to threaten his life though, otherwise he would laugh it off and try to charm her.
So what? Why does that bother you so much?

I am curious, from those who think women should not be treated equally. How do you treat women unequally in your own life? I am looking for examples of how you treat women and men differently in your own life.
I tend to talk a bit less crassly when women are around. I do that when children are around too. I think most men have their locker room talks around men than around women.
If I would buy something for a woman I'd most certainly buy different things than I would buy for a man.
If I was single, I would flirt with a woman instead of a man. I wouldn't take a man to a date. Nor would I take a trans woman to a date. There would need to be even a theoretical possibility for procreation.
I also expect men to deal with rough physical situations better than women on average, so I would probably help a woman in a thing that needs more strength more easily than I would help a man. I don't care if that's considered sexist.
If I would have to be in an actual fist fight, I would fight a man much more likely than I would fight a woman. Just as we shouldn't allow trans women to wrestle with women because of the obvious physical differences, we should allow man to man fist fights more than we should allow man to woman fist fights.

Men and women are not and will never be completely equal. That's why we still have sports divided in male and female categories. I don't buy into the thought of men and women having to always be treated equally, and I definitely don't buy into theories that claim that the concept of equality makes it ok for a man to punch a woman who has slapped him.

What comes to punching people, I do not advocate for hitting back as the first response to men who hit you first either. I don't treat getting punched by someone as a start of a fight. So in this punching situation I think I treat women quite much the same as I treat men. I'm avoiding hitting either of them. Me punching back would be only in a case where I think I have to do it. And I don't think one punch or a slap makes it such. I don't have a need to give a punch back to have some whatever sense of equality, and I don't want to escalate someone punching me into a fight either.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
4,364
3,218
475
Finland
Of course you’re allowed to think you’re morally right, but when you approach the discussion with an appeal to the authority of that assumption, it can go no further. Your mind is closed and you’re simply tolerating us for your own amusement. Come at me with something akin to “of course my mind is closed to violence against women!” and you will only prove my point, because that’s not what the discussion is about and approaching it with your assumption of moral correctness blinds you to opposing arguments.
I think I've explained myself quite a bit over and over again in this thread. I've even gone through a scenario where violence against women could be acceptable. I think you think my mind is closed mostly because I don't happen agree with you in this issue, because I definitely have had an open mind to an idea that a man could use violence against a woman in some situations. My biggest point from very early on was that I don't think self defence equals an eye for an eye, meaning that when people say men have the right do defend themselves, I don't think an act of self defence must mean to give back a punch. That's an idea that you and others with your position just don't seem to accept at all, but instead there are a lot of strong attempts to tell how wrong that is.

When you claim to see close mindedness from my/our side, can't you see how much of close mindedness your positions seem to be from our perspective? I mean, it's been 7 pages with quite a bit of circling around the same things over and over again. And sure, I'm quilty of that too. But obviously internet discussions tend to be like that. These arguments rarely get into any conclusion for either side of the argument, and I'm not sure if that even should be the point of the arguments. The point in my opinion would be to present a lot of arguments and counter arguments and let the readers who don't participate in the argument to make up their minds about it based on what has been written. Sure, if there's some conclusion, great! But as that's not often the case, I think attempts to force the correct view out of the argument are most likely futile and filled with blindness from both directions - but as I said, even if they are futile, it doesn't mean the texts written have been meaningless.

Whatever more or less intentionally provocative semi-jokes about feminist Twilight Zones I've said are no worse than any 'fuck yous' seen here. At least there's an attempt for a humorous take, even if it fell completely flat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,553
2,198
415
So what? Why does that bother you so much?
It's the message that women are free to attack men as long as they aren't trying to murder them.
I also expect men to deal with rough physical situations better than women on average, so I would probably help a woman in a thing that needs more strength more easily than I would help a man. I don't care if that's considered sexist.
I know you don't care if it's sexist because it's the good kind of sexism, yeah? The kind that benefits women. Sexism that doesn't work to the benefit of women would concern you I imagine.
If I would have to be in an actual fist fight, I would fight a man much more likely than I would fight a woman.
More sexism that benefits women. Ever notice how you don't treat women unequally when it isn't to their benefit but you do treat men unequally when it isn't to their benefit.
I don't buy into the thought of men and women having to always be treated equally, and I definitely don't buy into theories that claim that the concept of equality makes it ok for a man to punch a woman who has slapped him.
How about a man slapping a woman that slapped him or punching a woman who punched him?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whitesnake