• 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.

Airola

Member
Jun 25, 2015
4,364
3,218
475
Finland
It's the message that women are free to attack men as long as they aren't trying to murder them.
If it sends any message, it says that women are free to attack Tesseract as long as they aren't trying to murder him.

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.
Some see it as beneficial, some don't. Whitesnake here called it sexism first. I anticipated a similar response to what I wrote so I said already that I don't care if it's seen as sexist so that you don't have to bother to point it out. It's now kinda like it's used against this position by trying to claim I'm wrong because it's sexist, but if I say I don't care if it's called sexist it's then used against this position again but this time with "oh, you don't care because it's the good kind of sexism that benefits women."
Makes no sense.

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 refer to my reply above to the previous quote, but even if what you said would be the case, so what? Are you for real telling me that it's good equality to have men fight against women? As I said before, men and women on average are not equal. Men can take beating better than women. Men can make more damage with their punches than women. You criticize that as "sexism that benefits women"?
Me saying men shouldn't fight against little kids either is some ageism that benefits children too?

I wouldn't advocate for fights between men either. If I could stop it, I would. But if a fight happens and I can't stop it, which would be the likely thing to happen, that combo is more likely to get roughed up equally compared to a combo of a man and a woman.

How about a man slapping a woman that slapped him or punching a woman who punched him?
Slapping is better than a punch, wouldn't do that either though and wouldn't recommend it. I wouldn't advocate for punching even against a punch. Goes to both against a man and a woman.
 
Last edited:

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,553
2,198
415
As I said before, men and women on average are not equal. Men can take beating better than women. Men can make more damage with their punches than women. You criticize that as "sexism that benefits women"?
This is the attitude to prevents people from taking domestic violence against men by women seriously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whitesnake

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
22,794
48,810
1,335
USA
dunpachi.com
matt404au matt404au It's pointless to respond when my lengthy posts are written off as "dishonest" for no given reason. After the third or fourth version of "what world are you living on?" instead of a rebuttal, my hopes for my investment in the thread begin to wane. You slap-happy retards couldn't explain your strongly-held opinions so I guess it's clutching pearls in disbelief and strawmanning everyone who starts asking the questions that make you uncomfortable. Tesseract rattled you. I rattled you, and now Airola Airola rattles the cage as well. Back up your beliefs instead of being little shits. Fuck you. I'm not soapboxing. You are. Now allow me to soapbox further. Both Sides™.

Considering the topic, I'm surprised who is derailing the thread this time around. Is this the next phase of "maintaining a healthy community through social ostracization to make sure that subversive elements don't leak in"? Now without enough derailers and slide posters to do it for us, we derail topics (that are hot enough on their own merits) and then accuse completely random GAFers of being dishonest and not engaging with the topic honestly.

Fun carnival of fake, contrived drama. We should probably derail more threads and make MetaGAF thread more awkward, too. Yes, let's make sure everyone tries to salvage their ego after sperging out, that'll make it all especially cringeworthy.
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
22,307
43,368
1,610
Straya
matt404au matt404au It's pointless to respond when my lengthy posts are written off as "dishonest" for no given reason. After the third or fourth version of "what world are you living on?" instead of a rebuttal, my hopes for my investment in the thread begin to wane. You slap-happy retards couldn't explain your strongly-held opinions so I guess it's clutching pearls in disbelief and strawmanning everyone who starts asking the questions that make you uncomfortable. Tesseract rattled you. I rattled you, and now Airola Airola rattles the cage as well. Back up your beliefs instead of being little shits. Fuck you. I'm not soapboxing. You are. Now allow me to soapbox further. Both Sides™.

Considering the topic, I'm surprised who is derailing the thread this time around. Is this the next phase of "maintaining a healthy community through social ostracization to make sure that subversive elements don't leak in"? Now without enough derailers and slide posters to do it for us, we derail topics (that are hot enough on their own merits) and then accuse completely random GAFers of being dishonest and not engaging with the topic honestly.

Fun carnival of fake, contrived drama. We should probably derail more threads and make MetaGAF thread more awkward, too. Yes, let's make sure everyone tries to salvage their ego after sperging out, that'll make it all especially cringeworthy.
Lengthy doesn’t mean substantial; sometimes it just means long-winded. Your posts in this thread haven’t amounted to much more than “hit women bad”. Duh. When you base your arguments on demonstrably absurd claims like “A woman can gain a particular reputation which closes her off to a certain range of marriage partners” and “If the woman was being a cunt, society picks up the responsibility of ostracizing her”, of course I’m going to ask what planet you’re living on. Evidently not this one.

The strawmanning, emotion and soapboxing were all on your side of the fence, by the way. I’ve made no moral assumptions and have rationalised my position. The fuck yous only came in response to the strawmanning and moralising from Airola Airola . I don’t like my arguments being turned into something they’re not, especially when it’s done to position someone else as morally superior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zog

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
22,307
43,368
1,610
Straya
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.
Fine, if that’s your intention then make your point without the thinly veiled implications:


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!
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
22,794
48,810
1,335
USA
dunpachi.com
The strawmanning, emotion and soapboxing were all on your side of the fence, by the way. I’ve made no moral assumptions and have rationalised my position. The fuck yous only came in response to the strawmanning and moralising from Airola Airola . I don’t like my arguments being turned into something they’re not, especially when it’s done to position someone else as morally superior.
I'm not on any side of any fence. In fact, my questions about where the fence lies and how far it goes and what the woman-slapping side believes on the topic were met with extreme defensiveness and misrepresentation of my motives. Not sure why you of all people keep boxing at shadows and fighting the good fight on such an absurd topic :goog_rofl:

Lengthy doesn’t mean substantial; sometimes it just means long-winded. Your posts in this thread haven’t amounted to much more than “hit women bad”. Duh. When you base your arguments on demonstrably absurd claims like “A woman can gain a particular reputation which closes her off to a certain range of marriage partners” and “If the woman was being a cunt, society picks up the responsibility of ostracizing her”, of course I’m going to ask what planet you’re living on. Evidently not this one.
Most of what I've written in this thread has been asking questions. And instead of receiving answers to them, or most of them, or even some of them, I get hit back with accusations of being disingenuous or whatever.

If your "side" can't handle questions without screeching and making assumptions about the person who is asking the questions, then your side is weak and should be poked at until you can explain what you mean. Pretty sure you've made quite a few lengthy and/or substantial posts yourself on that very topic, that if someone sees bullshit they should poke at it and see what it's made of.

Just keeping the community healthy and vibrant by calling it out when I see it, that's all. Didn't think today's argument would be over the right to teach a woman a lesson with my backhand, but let it never be said that GAF is dull.
 

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
22,307
43,368
1,610
Straya
I'm not on any side of any fence. In fact, my questions about where the fence lies and how far it goes and what the woman-slapping side believes on the topic were met with extreme defensiveness and misrepresentation of my motives. Not sure why you of all people keep boxing at shadows and fighting the good fight on such an absurd topic :goog_rofl:


Most of what I've written in this thread has been asking questions. And instead of receiving answers to them, or most of them, or even some of them, I get hit back with accusations of being disingenuous or whatever.

If your "side" can't handle questions without screeching and making assumptions about the person who is asking the questions, then your side is weak and should be poked at until you can explain what you mean. Pretty sure you've made quite a few lengthy and/or substantial posts yourself on that very topic, that if someone sees bullshit they should poke at it and see what it's made of.

Just keeping the community healthy and vibrant by calling it out when I see it, that's all. Didn't think today's argument would be over the right to teach a woman a lesson with my backhand, but let it never be said that GAF is dull.
I’ve clearly explained what I mean, but it’s been mostly ignored or misrepresented. These posts sum up my point:

yo Dodunpanky miss me with that needling shit, you ain’t gonna hit my weak spot by turning Both Sides against me. This isn’t Both Sides anyway.

I’m not talking about legal repercussions, which would be the human equivalent of putting the dog down. I’m talking about social expectations. We’ve undone a lot of the traditional social structures and gender roles that prevented these kinds of things from happening in the first place and are now scrabbling around for a cure. We’ve spent decades simultaneously teaching women that they’re equal to men but also to expect different treatment, so of course they’re going to feel emboldened. “Never hit a woman” only works as part of the greater social custom of chivalry, which itself only works when women respect men and adopt the traditional demure womanly role. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it too. Then there are the biological aspects which I touched on earlier, i.e. that through evolution and sexual selection men have been conditioned to protect women, so women need to understand this power and not provoke men knowing full well that others around her will jump to her aid and provide the physicality that she cannot.
I think they’re intertwined, not entirely separate. If a woman is in the company of men who she knows will jump to her defense, then she instigates a fight, she bears at least partial responsibility for what happens. She is essentially wielding them as a weapon, and it’s an abuse of her social benefits.
TL;DR don’t initiate violence against women, but it’s ok to defend yourself and the woman bears some, if not most, of the responsibility if she initiated. That’s my position and it has been clearly stated throughout the thread.

Again with the dishonest framing:

"Didn't think today's argument would be over the right to teach a woman a lesson with my backhand"
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
22,307
43,368
1,610
Straya
he keeps fighting because he's backed into a corner that makes him look absolutely pathetic
I'm pushing back on the misrepresentations of the argument. That's usually the tactic of the ones who are backed into a corner and not speaking from a reasoned position.

🤷‍♀️
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
48,457
33,939
1,705
The Pentagon
initiation doesn't mean jack shit when it's a bee sting girl slap, which is the nuance of the conversation (or was)

it was ceded from the jump that self defense is acceptable

you got any more of them special cases tho, let the pathologies flow

I'm pushing back on the misrepresentations of the argument. That's usually the tactic of the ones who are backed into a corner and not speaking from a reasoned position.

🤷‍♀️
nothing was misrepresented, you are trying to eat your cake and have it
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
22,307
43,368
1,610
Straya
initiation doesn't mean jack shit when it's a bee sting girl slap, which is the nuance of the conversation (or was)

it was ceded from the jump that self defense is acceptable

you got any more of them special cases tho, let the pathologies flow



nothing was misrepresented, you are trying to eat your cake and have it
Diminishing it to a bee sting girl slap is not nuance; in fact it's the opposite. Like Whitesnake Whitesnake said early on, you're pretending as though the only scenario is a gust of wind vs. an earth-shattering colossus punch. That's not the discussion at all.

Keep strutting around crowing about victory all you like; you've done nothing to address the counter arguments and are relying on idealised scenarios to bolster your own position.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
48,457
33,939
1,705
The Pentagon
fucking rekt

also lol at idealized scenarios, pretty funny coming from the rationalizers who're looking for outlying situations where they can feel okay about hitting a girl
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: matt404au

O-N-E

Member
Jul 11, 2018
1,176
2,678
510


Uh...I'm not going to pretend like I've read all the various essays posted for the past 8 pages (because of one friggin' gif :messenger_weary: ), but from what I've gleaned, everyone in this thread agrees that the idea of absolutely never hitting a woman no matter what the circumstance, is untenable.

That's some common ground.

The difference is some of you believe in the right to equal (or maybe slightly more than equal) retaliation, while others believe that the circumstances must be rather extreme before you reciprocate the violence (life or death). Those are the two ends here.

From my perspective, there are fair points on both ends. Women have weaker builds, so equal retaliation is overkill. Some men have weaker builds than others, does that mean they deserve mercy?

At the end of the day, when someone is assaulted, they have some leeway when it comes to their personal reaction. Adrenaline hits the system and that's when you have to make this decision. Maybe you'll be able to keep your cool and stick to your personal principles (restrain, laugh, retaliate, etc.) or maybe you fail to keep it together and overstep. Under the law, you have a right to self-defense regardless of gender either way. The law and the mob around you will sort it out.

Everyone has their own lines and even now while you debate I guarantee that, during the heat of the moment, some of you would be reacting according to the principles of your opponent rather than your own that you're currently defending.

Consider everyone's positions. Do your own calculations. Move on and pray you never have to get tested.

 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,332
7,169
650
initiation doesn't mean jack shit when it's a bee sting girl slap
One would usually kill the bee that stings them.

And oncemore you’re downplaying the girl’s hit as if they weren’t both equally weak. Yeah dude, I’m sure her jaw got fucking shattered from that slow-ass grazing punch where he didn’t even use his core muscles and just swung his arm around. I don’t know if she’ll ever recover.
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
48,457
33,939
1,705
The Pentagon
One would kill the bee that stings them.

And oncemore you’re downplaying the girl’s hit as if they weren’t both equally weak. Yeah dude, I’m sure her jaw got fucking shattered from that slow-ass grazing punch where he didn’t even use his core muscles and just swung his arm around. I don’t know if she’ll ever recover.
first line reads like something a psycho would say

lol @ posthoc ringsiding of what was because the factors were generous

arguments itt have spiraled and collapsed into a toxic pool of pathological anger, resentment, embitterment
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,332
7,169
650
first line reads like something a psycho would say
So when a bug is biting or stinging you, you never smush it or smack it off of you?

We retaliate against bees.

lol @ posthoc ringsiding of what was because the factors were generous

What the fuck does this even mean? You were literally just “ringsiding” by claiming her hit was nothing.

If the dude threw a genuine haymaker at her I’d say that’s too much, but the kid has clearly never thrown a punch in his life and it shows.

Unless the amount of force exerted suddenly doesn’t matter now?
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
48,457
33,939
1,705
The Pentagon
So when a bug is biting or stinging you, you never smush it or smack it off of you?

We retaliate against bees.




What the fuck does this even mean? You were literally just “ringsiding” by claiming her hit was nothing.

If the dude threw a genuine haymaker at her I’d say that’s too much, but the kid has clearly never thrown a punch in his life and it shows.

Unless the amount of force exerted suddenly doesn’t matter now?
that's stating the obvious, she's a girl who threw a slap

not much analysis required there

welcome back to reality, we'll get your arguments to true level
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
22,794
48,810
1,335
USA
dunpachi.com
My opinion on the overall topic -- both the slapping and believing everything a woman says because she's a woman -- is that social rules will contain exceptions and inequalities by design. These exceptions are often made for pragmatic and benevolent reasons, but dishonest people will inevitably take advantage. When this occurs, the answer isn't always to correct these problems by simply reversing or equalizing them directly. Sometimes in order to solve a problem, you still have to avoid crossing certain boundaries so that you don't run into different problems later. The way for society to move past the delusion of Believe All Women isn't to disproportionately Believe All Men. The way for society to get past low-IQ dumb bitches who slap men isn't for the men to teach them a lesson with a retaliatory slap. The equal and opposite response to a problem isn't necessarily its best solution.

I’ve clearly explained what I mean, but it’s been mostly ignored or misrepresented. These posts sum up my point:

TL;DR don’t initiate violence against women, but it’s ok to defend yourself and the woman bears some, if not most, of the responsibility if she initiated. That’s my position and it has been clearly stated throughout the thread.

Again with the dishonest framing:

"Didn't think today's argument would be over the right to teach a woman a lesson with my backhand"
Have you stared too long in the "disingenuous ideologue piranha pit" and now you think everyone else is a piranha?

What you consider "dishonest framing" is just me re-quoting and poking fun at some of the literal responses I've received to my earlier posts. And if it comes across as sarcastic or biting, perhaps it's because I cannot seem to get anyone to answer any simple questions about their woman-slapping idea when I ask my questions plainly and seriously. I'm not dismissing it. I don't think it will work and I've explained why, but I'm not saying fuck you or taking a morally-superior position. I just wanna know.

If you are uncomfortable with me poking fun at it and you feel the urge to "push back" on misrepresentations, you could always just explain the standpoints. In fact, explaining yourselves is exactly what I keep asking people to do but they get all tryhard super srs and start throwing out accusations of me comparing men to dogs and throwing out absurities and being dishonest. So jokes are the second-best option to stir the conversation and try to get the answers I'm after.

But we're still mired in the post-sperg ego recovery phase I guess. Too many people put all their chips on the table with this woman-slapping thing and now anyone who gets pulled into its orbit gets assigned to a "side". Can I be kicked from the lobby plz? I'm not into serious online rp, just here to learn more about teaching the most effective, highest-retention lesson when slapping women.
 
Last edited:

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,332
7,169
650
he's a boy, she's a girl
And there it is.

You never cared about force, you literally are just hung up over the fact that a guy hit a girl.

They are both young and of similar size and build. Both hits were equally weak.

The fact that you cannot refute this in any way other than deflecting and/or saying “but she’s a girl” makes it incredibly transparent that you literally cannot comprehend this topic beyond “boy no hit girl”.

i'm not gonna go in circles here, it's getting retarded
You’ve said that for the past 8 pages bud. No on cares if you announce your departure, especially if we all know you’re gonna keep going.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
48,457
33,939
1,705
The Pentagon
And there it is.

You never cared about force, you literally are just hung up over the fact that a guy hit a girl.

They are both young and of similar size and build. Both hits were equally weak.

The fact that you cannot refute this in any way other than deflecting and/or saying “but she’s a girl” makes it incredibly transparent that you literally cannot comprehend this topic beyond “boy no hit girl”.



You’ve said that for the past 8 pages bud. No on cares if you announce your departure, especially if we all know you’re gonna keep going.
repeating myself on trodden ground seems the only way to get through to you, not wanting to circle the wagon requires effort

it goes without saying that the key difference is gender, skeletal muscle function and all that

you are flat wrong and i would indeed go so far to call you a bitch
 
Last edited:

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,976
3,187
615
repeating myself on trodden ground seems the only way to get through to you, not wanting to circle the wagon requires effort

it goes without saying that the key difference is gender, skeletal muscle function and all that

you are flat wrong and i would indeed go so far to call you a bitch
Still on your Stockholm syndrome shit i see.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
48,457
33,939
1,705
The Pentagon
i'm not in this thread for an understanding, or to make nice on the issue

middle ground has been established, self defense good where imminent bodily injury is possible

a slap isn't that, not from a woman to a man under nearly any circumstance
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,332
7,169
650
repeating myself on trodden ground seems the only way to get through to you, not wanting to circle the wagon requires effort

it goes without saying that the key difference is gender, skeletal muscle function and all that

you are flat wrong and i would indeed go so far to call you a bitch
Yeah dude I’m sure his skeleton added 3000 newtons of force.

You are pretty clearly flailing here. You cannot pretend there is some huge power gap between when we can literally see both of them and see both of their hits. They’re about the same.
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
2,332
7,169
650
The way for society to get past low-IQ dumb bitches who slap men isn't for the men to teach them a lesson with a retaliatory slap.
Who made the argument that slapping will solve any and all societal problems regarding gender?

Name them.

I know I sure as shit didn’t say that. As I said before, I’m not talking about solving societal issues, I’m simply saying this guy was justified and the girl got what was coming to her.

But do tell, what is your solution to these societal problems? Are you going to continue pretending that the nebulous force of “society” will stop them from doing it?
 

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,976
3,187
615
Yes, your gibberish.
You replied to this
Hi, as a woman myself, I say the "you can't hit me, I'm a woman" excuse is bullshit. I will argue that if a woman slaps you, you shouldn't like, throat punch her in return, but giving her the same force she gave you is perfectly fine.

If you hit someone for no fucking reason, you fully deserve being hit back, regardless of gender. Being female shouldn't give you a pass on being a violent cunt without repercussions.
with this
no it's not fine, sorry

sounds like stockholm syndrome to me
Or did you forget you told a woman that she had Stockholm syndrome for believing that having repercussions for unprovoked physical abuse is ok?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whitesnake
Mar 18, 2018
2,991
2,833
415
I’ll make a statement take this how you want:

I am not sure if a man can or should be expected to restrain their power during a retaliation. A man should not have to be put in that position in the first place by a woman. Building a moral fabric ‘that he should as a man’ will need some receipts on why that should be the case.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Tesseract

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
22,794
48,810
1,335
USA
dunpachi.com
Who made the argument that slapping will solve any and all societal problems regarding gender?

Name them.
Never claimed someone made the argument. I just want to know how slapping a woman will correct the problem of women slapping men. It's not my proposal and I don't understand it. On its face, the notion seems stupid and I have some disagreements, which I've voiced.

I know I sure as shit didn’t say that. As I said before, I’m not talking about solving societal issues, I’m simply saying this guy was justified and the girl got what was coming to her.
You've talked plenty about solving societal issues:


I have never once engaged with the topic of a single guy retaliating or not retaliating with a woman. And I've even done my best to meet halfway by asking "okay, perhaps he was justified, but since we're talking about solving an overall problem... how does this..." and that's about the part where you decided you were no longer talking about solving societal issues.

But do tell, what is your solution to these societal problems? Are you going to continue pretending that the nebulous force of “society” will stop them from doing it?
People who don't have an argument tend to keep resorting to sudden and unexplainable jumps to accusations of "dishonesty" and "pretending" and "living on another planet". Save it for somewhere else.

My overall solution to women slapping men would be multipronged:

1) sue them with impunity.
2) report to police
3) record video evidence and shame publicly
4) reward women who don't act this way with your respect and kindness
5) raise daughters to understand the foolishness of slapping men, and raise sons to understand the foolishness of slapping women

Those are a few off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more ways to address it. Since the problem of "women slapping men with impunity" is just the symptom of a larger problem, it's probably necessary to use multiple approaches at the same time.
 
Mar 18, 2018
2,991
2,833
415
DunDunDunpachi DunDunDunpachi

#4

how do you reward a person for not acting out of turn? Even if you could how would that be healthy behavior? It sounds like trying to teach a mouse that they won’t get shocked if they eat out of bin 2 instead of bin 1. But people aren’t in a controlled environment like a lab rat.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Tesseract

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
22,794
48,810
1,335
USA
dunpachi.com
DunDunDunpachi DunDunDunpachi

#4

how do you reward a person for not acting out of turn? Even if you could how would that be healthy behavior? It sounds like trying to teach a mouse that they won’t get shocked if they eat out of bin 2 instead of bin 1. But people aren’t in a controlled environment like a lab rat.
You can reward them by hanging around those sort of women and giving them your time. Taken to an extreme, you can wife 'em and start a family with them. And the other side of the coin would be avoiding women who slap men and treating them like you'd treat other anti-social people. If women who behaved this way were shunned by their peers as well as excluded from the mating pool by other potential men, the problem would end overnight without a single 100%-justified retaliatory slap needed to make sure the woman learned the lesson properly (or at least had a higher chance of learning it). I don't think this would ever happen in such a magical and clean-cut way, but it's one potential contributor to fixing the problem.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
48,457
33,939
1,705
The Pentagon
Yes, your gibberish.
You replied to this

with this

Or did you forget you told a woman that she had Stockholm syndrome for believing that having repercussions for unprovoked physical abuse is ok?
is what it is, one is not like the other and i stand by what i said
 
Last edited:
Mar 18, 2018
2,991
2,833
415
You can reward them by hanging around those sort of women and giving them your time. Taken to an extreme, you can wife 'em and start a family with them. And the other side of the coin would be avoiding women who slap men and treating them like you'd treat other anti-social people. If women who behaved this way were shunned by their peers as well as excluded from the mating pool by other potential men, the problem would end overnight without a single 100%-justified retaliatory slap needed to make sure the woman learned the lesson properly (or at least had a higher chance of learning it). I don't think this would ever happen in such a magical and clean-cut way, but it's one potential contributor to fixing the problem.
But I am specifically asking how do you reward a woman that hasn’t slapped anyone? Relationships awarded between the sexes already happen without these conditions. You cannot reward for a particular trait someone who is already receiving the reward Edit: for other factors

So you can only punish the ones that behave badly. This type of tit for tat is not very pragmatic since humans are complex beings with complex interactions where behavioral actions cannot be persisted in a way that can be observed by society at all times.

Unless you are in China with a social score...

edit: For clarity
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Tesseract

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
22,794
48,810
1,335
USA
dunpachi.com
But I am specifically asking how do you reward a woman that hasn’t slapped anyone? Relationships awarded between the sexes already happen without these conditions. You cannot reward for a particular trait someone who is already receiving the reward.

So you can only punish the ones that behave badly.
Untrue, I explained plainly that you could distribute your time according to who does slap men and who doesn't slap men. This selective process doesn't have to only be for women who have or haven't personally slapped me, but also applies for women who carry the reputation in my local area as chronic man-slappers or as "safe" women. I mean, I believe this is a smart way to go about things now, isn't it? Outside of our hypothetical solution to the problem, a man should already be leery of a woman who exhibits certain traits. If she's a "maneater", a guy might decide to avoid her. If she's known as easy lay, he might intentionally seek her out. :messenger_beaming: One trait that might cause a man to avoid her would be the propensity to slap someone in anger or indignation. Women who demonstrate the opposite temperament (demure, not given to bouts of slapping, patient, etc) tend to be revered in cultures around the world. These are considered quality traits in lots of societies and I don't see why that would change. Women who are violent aren't exactly rewarded currently. Women who show a hesitation toward violence tend to be regarded fondly for the sentiment.

You could put a stronger emphasis on punishing bad behavior or on rewarding good behavior, depending on how one thinks this overall problem should be solved. It's a mix. I don't see how throwing "slap the woman back" into the mix gets it solved. I agree that it is wrong for a woman to slap a man. I agree that when a woman does this, she is taking advantage of a man's "chivalry" to not respond in kind. But in my opinion it is better to let the blame be fully on her shoulders instead of making excuses for why the man should be allowed to retaliate.

Humans use this same process of inclusion and shunning for transgressions like sexual promiscuity, for example. It can (and does) get used in the topic of violent women. I don't think the trait is considered desirable in any culture? At best, some academic/ideological circles view it as "brave", but that's about it. It's unfortunate that the disparity isn't taken more seriously, but I don't believe in correcting an injustice with uncivilized retaliation.

This type of tit for tat is not very pragmatic since humans are complex beings with complex interactions where behavioral actions cannot be persisted in a way that can be observed by society at all times.

Unless you are in China with a social score...
Very true, tit for tat usually spirals into vindictive record-keeping and the problem never gets solved.
 

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,976
3,187
615
is what it is, one is not like the other and i stand by what i said
No they are both physical abuse. I get you are ok with a man receiving it from a woman. You shouldn't, but you are held hostage by the belief men are too strong to be abused by weak women. And strong men should just take it and laugh it off. THat is your Stockholm syndrome.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Tesseract

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
48,457
33,939
1,705
The Pentagon
No they are both physical abuse. I get you are ok with a man receiving it from a woman. You shouldn't, but you are held hostage by the belief men are too strong to be abused by weak women. And strong men should just take it and laugh it off. THat is your Stockholm syndrome.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
22,307
43,368
1,610
Straya
Had enough of this thread. Will exit by wishing you the best of luck in restraining, gassing and laughing at her if you're ever put in that situation.