Would you defend yourself against a member of the opposite sex?

[TonyMontana1638]

[QUOTE=GregtheSleeper]It seems to me that Mag and Fable are the only ones not being sexist here...

The assumption that a man hitting a woman is wrong is based on the idea that women are weaker than men...

Is this a valid assumption?[/QUOTE]
Oh please, I'm pretty damn sure Mag's purpose in creating this thread was not to pose a loaded question with the intention of allowing some queried persons to incriminate themselves as sexist: if I had answered "I'm totally cool with it" I wouldn't have been a sexist in your eyes, right? In many cases answering "I'd have a problem with it" has nothing to do whatsoever with feelings that women are physically weaker than men.

As for the Fable's analysis of my believing I was probably guilty of something in order to be attacked, I don't whatsoever mind the question because it is interesting. My answer simply is that the situation Mag has spelled out for us seems very, very unlikely in my meager life experiences: I could totally see myself getting mugged or something by a dude, but I have a hard time imagining that I would be attacked by a woman in such a way without having done something to deserve it. I do understand the hypothetical nature of this question and don't object to it quite as strongly to it as Fiona, but she's right that my real-world experiences and the probability of something like this happening jades my answer, for which I'm sorry. Maybe I shouldn't have answered at all in that case, but you have to admit that Mag has a bit of an edge over some us, myself included, here: he obviously has encountered a situation in his life that mirrors this hypothetical one to a T and therefore has no problem wrapping his mind around it. I, however, have not and so therefore am at a slight disadvantage.

[fable]

I think that is a fault with the original premise of the thread, rather than my own interpretation. And regardless, based on the subject matter and the majority of the responses of the thread - I still think the inclusion of a mother-child scenario is simplification.

Isn't a mother attacking a child a subset of the group, women attacking men? If it isn't, then what is it? If it is, how is calling it so represent a simplification?

Here you are making a plurality of assumptions. A woman with a kitchen knife could engage in an exceptionally brutal attack, but there is no reason for her to necessarily be skilled, strong or an advanced martial artist.

Magrus has explicitly stated that it is a brutal attack, and that your only two recourses are to take it, or defend yourself. There is no other recourse. However you envision such an attack occurinng by someone of the opossite sex that will leave you with the two options Magrus provided, that's what he wants you to choose between. If my efforts to assist arriving at this conclusion--one where you couldn't say Magrus is being too generalized--don't help, then I'm sure you can envision your own circumstances that would leave you with two choices.

Furthermore, I have not at any point said I would "take a brutal attack and stand still". True my comments were generalisations, but a suitable one within the narrow general context of the thread at the time. Taking the scenario you just put forth regarding a female martial artist with a bludgeon (which I must say, similar to Fiona's comments again, is a hypothetical extreme) I would still follow up with the same response I have provided before - do my best to grab her wrists and otherwise overpower her without bestowing physical damage intentionally.

Which is not an option. Since now you're referring to the situation I've defined, let me state it clearly: you are faced with an opponent of the opposite sex who puts you in a situation where you can either accept a brutal attack without recourse, or defend yourself. You cannot grab her wrists. She is far too good. You have a choice of two options, and defending yourself necessarily involves to some extent hurting your opponent. What would you do?

This is very much my own personal response - others have commented on their weakness, I have confidence in my strength. I have weightrained for a number of years, and despite my height of 5'10ish I have considerable body mass. In the past I have pulled apart (well more pushing apart with fists flying above my head) two 6'3" men brawling and restrained one of them on a number of occasions. Similarly I have restrained one of my friends who is easily 16 stone and similarly 6ft 3.

With respect, it seems that you're saying, "My strength is sufficient that I will never face this situation, so I don't have to make such a choice, and will always have a third option." This walks around the issue, and doesn't answer it.

While they have little to do with the scenario of the thread, they are the experiances I draw upon for my response. My instincts are that women are vulnerable, and should be protected. I have had limited physical abuse from females, but in those cases I was drunk or in a rage myself and probably warranted it. While you have experiance in being abused by your mother, I have experiance in seeing my mother abused. Can you see how this will generate two different instincts?

No, because these are the results of personal training and/or experience, not instinctual. There is no instinct in men saying "protect women." You have been educated, either by others or yourself, to believe women must be protected by you, and that your code of honor prevents you from hurting one under any circumstances, if I understand correctly. My mother *did* try to teach me repeatedly in my early years that women were special and should be treated with more courtesy and deference than men, but despite my youth I quickly saw through that, seeing as how 1) my mother was the one saying it, and 2) she was the one physically beating me all the time. What she taught me, instead, was that people with strength over others may abuse this, and that women are no different from men in this regard.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Fiona]I don't agree, unless you think there is something different about a mother attacking a female child? It seems to me to be clearly separate[/QUOTE]

A woman who abuses a child, a wife who abuses a husband: these are subsets of a group in which women abuse men. Just as a father abusing a child, a husband abusing a wife, are subsets of a group in which men abuse women. This is a statement of fact. It's like saying that a person who changes a tire on a car belongs to the subset of those who perform repairs on cars. Nothing else is implied, certainly not that the person changing the tire is a mechanic. As I can attest.

[Fiona]

[QUOTE=fable]Isn't a mother attacking a child a subset of the group, women attacking men? If it isn't, then what is it? If it is, how calling it so represent a simplification?[/quote]

No not as I see it. As I said before, do you see a difference between a mother attacking a male child and attacking a female child? If you do (and it is of course possible) then in what does that difference consist?

Edit. I posted before I saw your last, Fable. I do not think your post answers the question, however

[fable]

[QUOTE=Fiona]No not as I see it. As I said before, do you see a difference between a mother attacking a male child and attacking a female child? If you do (and it is of course possible) then in what does that difference consist?[/quote]

I see no difference. (This is possibly the shortest post I've ever made in these forums, and I apologize if I seem abrupt. )

[Fiona]

[QUOTE=fable]I see no difference. (This is possibly the shortest post I've ever made in these forums, and I apologize if I seem abrupt. )[/QUOTE]

In that case is it not at least possible this is a different phenomenon? That in fact the gender is truly irrelevent in adult on child violence?

You are of course correct in saying that a mother who attacks her male child is an example of female on male violence: I am sorry to say that if that is the only point it falls into the category of "true but trivial" for me. I also mean no offence

[The Balance]

It seems to me that Mag and Fable are the only ones not being sexist here...

Sure i'm not a sexist. i think the same as Fab & Mag. If you have your back to the wall you can just fight tooth and nail to defend yourself whoever is threatening you! and you can't just wait for someone to help you if you have to face a woman, someone who stops her from hitting you ...
... help comes always when it's already too late...

The assumption that a man hitting a woman is wrong is based on the idea that women are weaker than men...

Is this a valid assumption?

Probably it would be a valid assumption if the male and the female had the same age, were in the same condition,... but i would NEVER condemn a child who tryes to defend himself by every possible means from the mother who went off her head nor other similiar condition even less exaggerated / pushed to the limit of an handicap match.
would you ?? ??

[fable]

In that case is it not at least possible this is a different phenomenon? That in fact the gender is truly irrelevent in adult on child violence?

I can easily agree that the sex of an abused child may or may not play a part in their abuse. That's a known fact. But we're considering the issue in the conditions set down by Magrus' question, which specifically defines the conditions of an argument in which the abuser is the opposite sex from the person being abused. So in your case, under that argument, a subset would exist in which men abuse wives, and another in which fathers abuse their children. And in my case, wives who abuse husbands, and a women who abuses a child.

You are of course correct in saying that a mother who attacks her male child is an example of female on male violence: I am sorry to say that if that is the only point it falls into the category of "true but trivial" for me. I also mean no offence

I suspect you might meant personally inconsequential, rather than trivial; but this does bring up another question best answered perhaps in another thread: is the unnecessary pain inflicted upon anyone, for any reason, not pain inflicted on us all?

Sorry to wax a bit metaphysical, here, but I do have tendencies in that direction.

[TonyMontana1638]

[QUOTE=The Balance]Sure i'm not a sexist. i think the same as Fab & Mag. If you have your back to the wall you can just fight tooth and nail to defend yourself whoever is threatening you! and you can't just wait for someone to help you if you have to face a woman, someone who stops her from hitting you ...
... help comes always when it's already too late...



Probably it would be a valid assumption if the male and the female had the same age, were in the same condition,... but i would NEVER condemn a child who tryes to defend himself by every possible means from the mother who went off her head nor other similiar condition even less exaggerated / pushed to the limit of an handicap match.
would you ?? ??[/QUOTE]
This is the problem... I'm not a sexist either, but because I don't agree with Fable and Mag I am apparently.

[Bloodstalker]

I knew a guy once that was abused physically by his wife in the same manner that women are abused physically by husbands. She beat him almost daily, was very possesive and controlling of his actions, and was constantly verbally abusing him as well. And i do mean she beat him, he'd come into work with black eyes, bruises, the whole nine yards. And this is not an isolated instance. He, of course, refused to do anything about it, including divorce or legal action because his ego would not let him go into court and admit he was getting beat by a woman.

This isn't an isolated instance either, I know a few other people who have at one time or another been attacked by a woman. I suspect the problem is more widespread than anyone would think simply because most men it seems will not stand up and claim abuse the same way women will.

In answer to the question, I will put up with verbal bashing, name calling, and other non physical abuse by simply leaving, but I will not allow anyone to put their hands on me in a threatening manner, male or female.

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=TonyMontana1638]This is the problem... I'm not a sexist either, but because I don't agree with Fable and Mag I am apparently. [/QUOTE]

Hmm, I think the comment by Greg was made was on the basis of:

Refusing to hit a person based on gender = sexist

Which...realistically....

[QUOTE=www.dictionary.com]sex·ism Audio pronunciation of "sexist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skszm)
n.

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.[/QUOTE]

Based on that defination, you are sexist by refusing to strike a female simply because she is female and not male.

[TonyMontana1638]

Fine then, would someone who has more objections to hitting a women than a man be sexist even if they'd still be willing to do it (just more reluctant)? I think it'd fit the definition...

[Darzog]

I think that people are either very protected or naïve if they think that only men are capable of mindless violence. Not even taking into account abuse of family memebers, women are very capable of violence. I've never been attacked myself but I have seen women attack other women and men on several occasions. It usually involves a fair amount of alcohol (but most men that attack someone else are drunk/drugged as well) but it does happen.

And the sheer ferocity of the attacks usually more than makes up for any lack of physical strength. The victim of a woman's rage (in my experience) is usually worse off than someone attacked by a man. I've seen people react in several ways: try to run away, trying to do nothing but block the attack, try to grab the woman's wrists (or bear hug them), fight back. The results of each option haven't varied much from when I've seen it happen:
Run: The woman starts chasing and chucking things. Damage is usually minimal unless she has good aim.
Block: Once punches/scratches start getting blocked, the woman has almost every time grabbed something to use instead, or started kicking. This usually doesn't stop until someone pulls her off.
Grab: It's almost like the woman is waiting for this. She immediately knees/kicks the groin (I've only seen men try this so it's always effective) then doubles the attack.
Fight: Toss up, sometimes the woman gets knocked away sometimes they still win.

There is no great solution, but this isn't a far fetched scenario. Women don't just go from "What did you think of the weather today?" to punches. They start by arguing, then yelling, then slapping then all out. The usual response is to back away, but when you are pursued (and she gets more worked up) often you end up backed into a corner by the time she's in a frenzy. At that point you are in the situation that Magrus described; a woman intending you severe harm, no where to run, and facing someone beyond reason.

@Tony, by the strict definition, yes you would. But I have the same feeling. I would hit a woman if she attacked me, but I would be more reluctant. I also would never hit a woman first (but I would start a fight with a guy), and would be more willing to step in to protect a woman that was attacked than a guy. I am also more likely to stop in a doorway to hold it open for a woman that is walking towards it, I will give my seat on a bus/train to a woman more often than a man, etc. If you look at def #3, chivalrous is actually sexist by the strict definition.
chivalrous:
1. Having the qualities of gallantry and honor attributed to an ideal knight.
2. Of or relating to chivalry.
3. Characterized by consideration and courtesy, especially toward women.

And if you really read the def #1 of sexist, that definition is actually sexist. Why is it especially for discrimination against women? Why not equally meaningful for discrimination against either sex?

[Magrus]

@ BS, In regards to the female attacking a male spouse, my father's 2nd wife used to throw things at him and strike him. One night, she did so, and woke my little sister and brother, and they told me the story of what happened. My father, who for his whole life had the idea that it was wrong to hit women, finally came to the conclusion it was a broken concept and said, in a loud enough voice to wake the neighbors, who confirmed the story when my sister told me... "Hit me again and you will be the first woman I have ever struck, and I can sure as hell hit a lot harder than you can dream of." She laughed, hit him again, and he hit her hard enough to toss her into a wall. The neighbors showed up, took the kids outside and into their house for the night. My father ended up leaving, which, why he went back after a night, I honestly have no clue.

Fine then, would someone who has more objections to hitting a women than a man be sexist even if they'd still be willing to do it (just more reluctant)? I think it'd fit the definition...

The defination states "attitudes, conditions or behaviors". I think that would fall into play there by defination. To be honest with you though, realistically, I am going to have more of a reservation against hitting women than men, simply because to be brutally honest, I tend to have more respect for women than men. Which, in and of itself, is a sexist belief.

@ Darzog, Good way of pointing all of that out. I've dealt with that myself from a 3rd person perspective before. Attempting to pull an enraged female away from the target of her violent actions is like trying to restrain a 120lb cat....you get hurt doing so until you have them completely restrained and unable to strike out any longer and calm them down.

And if you really read the def #1 of sexist, that definition is actually sexist. Why is it especially for discrimination against women? Why not equally meaningful for discrimination against either sex?

*nods* Yep, I was thinking that myself. I also have a beef with the definition of "nymphomaniac". It states only women fit it. Frankly, I think that's a bunch of crap, I have an absolutely insane sex drive, and aside from the "woman" part of the defination, I fit it to a "T".

[Denethorn]

You cannot grab her wrists. She is far too good. You have a choice of two options, and defending yourself necessarily involves to some extent hurting your opponent. What would you do?

This is not part of the original conditions of the scenario, which is why this debate is withered. My point is that those that responded with a positive seemed to take a more violent form of defense. I used an example of a woman attacking her husband with a knife: many people have responded with "treat them equally, get what they deserve etc." by this token the husband should then pick up a knife and start skirmishing. Perhaps an exageration, but this is, in effect, what people are saying. Do you agree with that?

With respect, it seems that you're saying, "My strength is sufficient that I will never face this situation, so I don't have to make such a choice, and will always have a third option." This walks around the issue, and doesn't answer it.

This 'third option' is always an option in reality - successful or not in. Again this is because the hypothetical situation is poorly misconstrued: in some cases you are asking me to respond in the case of hypothetical extremes, but in others I am meant to accept a limit. Obviously my strength would not be sufficient to match the mass of a sumo-wrestling woman, but as Fiona said (she seems to be a sole ally) the case of this occuring in my life and social context is almost nil, so I don't consider it.

The original post demanded the use of a situation with a common member of the opposing gender, I responded appropriately. I think the majority of other members have also provided responses based on similar assumptions. I don't think every member considered a Bruce Lee-ette would be what they were facing. If the condition of bestowing intentional and significant physical harm was a requirement of defense (which it surely isn't in reality ) in this thread I maybe would not have responded, since the parameters were too stringent.

I am to limit my options, despite it being realistically possible attributed to my strength, yet I am to accept highly unlikely situations.

No, because these are the results of personal training and/or experience, not instinctual. There is no instinct in men saying "protect women." You have been educated, either by others or yourself, to believe women must be protected by you, and that your code of honor prevents you from hurting one under any circumstances, if I understand correctly.

Firstly I disagee, and secondly I don't wish to start arguing over semantics. As previously stated it is my personal belief that men have an innate desire/reaction/"instinct" to protect women, just as a woman has to protect a child. I know I am not the only male to take this line of thinking, and it has nothing to do with a 'code of honour' since in this society I think social conditioning has very much changed with regards to treatment of women physically - as is exemplified by this thread.

[TonyMontana1638]

[QUOTE=Magrus]The defination states "attitudes, conditions or behaviors". I think that would fall into play there by defination. To be honest with you though, realistically, I am going to have more of a reservation against hitting women than men, simply because to be brutally honest, I tend to have more respect for women than men. Which, in and of itself, is a sexist belief. [/QUOTE]
Thank you, that's all I wanted to hear. Excuse me for getting a bit prickly about this, but I just don't exactly enjoy hypocritically being labeled a sexist for an opinion that many men have today: that many have more reservations about hitting women than men. Those reservations may be stronger in me than others, but it's still the same idea. The self-righteousness of the original comment made me angrier than I have been on SYM in awhile, for which I'm sorry but I can't help it. I find such judgements so glaringly hypocritical and unfair that if I was a stronger man I'd be able to laugh at them and shake my head in wonder. I'm not, however, so I apologize that you all have to put up with my heated ramblings.

@ Dar: :laugh: Good call.

[fable]

This 'third option' is always an option in reality - successful or not in. Again this is because the hypothetical situation is poorly misconstrued: in some cases you are asking me to respond in the case of hypothetical extremes, but in others I am meant to accept a limit.

We seem to be at an impasse, to put the matter politely. Magrus has created a situation in which there are only two possible options. You insist on replying to this thread as well, but insist there's a third. I suspect all further discussion between us on this thread will be useless, since you ignore the conditions Magrus has set, and keep restating your viewpoint.

Firstly I disagee, and secondly I don't wish to start arguing over semantics. As previously stated it is my personal belief that men have an innate desire/reaction/"instinct" to protect women, just as a woman has to protect a child.

And belief has nothing to do with scientific fact. (Which is funny coming out of my mouth, since I'm Craft, but I guess somebody has to say it. ) There is no evidence for your position, and plenty of anthropological research against it. But this is definitely a matter for debate, elsewhere, and nothing semantical about it.

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=TonyMontana1638]Thank you, that's all I wanted to hear. Excuse me for getting a bit prickly about this, but I just don't exactly enjoy hypocritically being labeled a sexist for an opinion that many men have today: that many have more reservations about hitting women than men. Those reservations may be stronger in me than others, but it's still the same idea. The self-righteousness of the original comment made me angrier than I have been on SYM in awhile, for which I'm sorry but I can't help it. I find such judgements so glaringly hypocritical and unfair that if I was a stronger man I'd be able to laugh at them and shake my head in wonder. I'm not, however, so I apologize that you all have to put up with my heated ramblings.[/QUOTE]

*shrugs* I didn't in any way try to offend you or make you feel I was superior for my differing view. Frankly, the reactions I got for being "chivalrous" towards women has caused me to alter my views and stop it. That in turn, caused me problems with some friends. I got sick of being called a chauvenistic pig for holding doors open for femi-nazi females and for a while said screw it, everyone gets a door closed in their face from now on. I tend to do so again, but the thing that angered me was I'm simply nice, and do so to everyone. Calling me a pig for holding a door open is....demented.

[Denethorn]

We seem to be at an impasse, to put the matter politely.

I agree.

Magrus has created a situation in which there are only two possible options. You insist on replying to this thread as well, but insist there's a third. I suspect all further discussion between us on this thread will be useless, since you ignore the simple conditions set, and keep restating your viewpoint.

The ruling out of a third option was not part of the original conditions as far as I'm aware. You don't seem to find my viewpoint satisfactory, which I can understand and so you wish to limit me to two choices. At this I'm afraid your right, I can't really respond. Since the conditions are too stringent to be both realistic and answerable (for me personally).

There is no evidence for your position, and plenty of anthropological research against it. But this is definitely a matter for debate, elsewhere, and nothing semantical about it.

As I'm sure there would equally be research for it Such is the nature of science. If you said the same to a woman regarding mothering instinct would she accept? Instinct is partly self-developed and certainly nurtured to some extent by environmental factors. If you accept the common concept of survival instinct then you deny the idea of pacifism, martyrdom, hunger protests etc. And yet survival instinct is very real, is it not?

[TonyMontana1638]

[QUOTE=Magrus]*shrugs* I didn't in any way try to offend you or make you feel I was superior for my differing view. Frankly, the reactions I got for being "chivalrous" towards women has caused me to alter my views and stop it. That in turn, caused me problems with some friends. I got sick of being called a chauvenistic pig for holding doors open for femi-nazi females and for a while said screw it, everyone gets a door closed in their face from now on. I tend to do so again, but the thing that angered me was I'm simply nice, and do so to everyone. Calling me a pig for holding a door open is....demented. [/QUOTE]
Actually I didn't mean you at all Mag. I'm sorry if you thought you were the one I was mad at, because that wasn't even close to true.

And I know what you mean about the door thing... I used to do that for my girlfriend and she had this really snarky and annoying friend who used to berate me for it. She was one of thoise femi-nazi's too.