"Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?

[Armando]

Re: "Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?

I don't think the saying was ever meant to mean that a guy can't defend himself from a female aggressor. It's more in line with not using violence to "solve" disputes.

[Karinya]

Re: "Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?

But if all the saying means is that you shouldn't hit a girl without a good reason, then it doesn't mean anything; you shouldn't hit a guy without a good reason either.

I think that's what it boils down to - if you have a situation where violence is necessary, you're well past the point where it would matter which sex someone is. People are going to get hurt and men and women bleed the same blood.

On the other hand, if you're just throwing a punch to throw a punch - don't do that, even if they are the same sex and in your weight class. Unthinking violence is dumb and will cause more problems than it solves.

[Armando]

Re: "Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?

But if all the saying means is that you shouldn't hit a girl without a good reason, then it doesn't mean anything; you shouldn't hit a guy without a good reason either.

That is true, but the saying is not recent as far as I know. At the time it was coined, fights between men were probably even more common than they are now and perhaps socially accepted to a certain extent.

[little ninja]

Re: "Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?

Well guys shouldn't hit girls, That doesn't mean you should stand there and get hit.

[Taskmage]

Re: "Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?

Well guys shouldn't hit girls, That doesn't mean you should stand there and get hit.

God help me but well said.

[Murphie]

Re: "Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?

I don't really like to hit anyone, but if necessary, gender wouldn't really be an issue. But it would take a lot for it to be necessary.

[Wise Donkey]

Re: "Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?

That is true, but the saying is not recent as far as I know. At the time it was coined, fights between men were probably even more common than they are now and perhaps socially accepted to a certain extent.

I wouldn't quite call it a saying, and I would replace "can't" with "shouldn't", I think it is more of a cultural/moral belief. Definitely not recent, I think it goes back to times when men were more socially dominant, and women were viewed as more delicate creatures.

Personally, I would hit a woman if I had to to defend myself, but otherwise refrain. Men have no such rule guarding them, they are much more likely to get a fist to the face. When it comes to sparring for sport, there are no pulled punches, no gender exists in the ring.

[Malacite]

Re: "Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?




? Would be nice if we could put an end to this:



EDIT: I like

this

better.

[Murphie]

Re: "Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?

Real women don't either.

[TheGrandMom]

Re: "Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?

The saying goes back to the Victorian era when women were treated like property. No one should put up with abuse, male or female. If you are in fear for your life, then you need to do what you need to do. Other than that, violence is never the answer.

[Feba]

Re: "Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?

Would be nice if we could put an end to this:

Why, it looks like he's about to burn that poor woman.

And he doesn't even have a duck to make sure she's not just incredibly ugly.

[Malacite]

Re: "Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?

lol quite the obscure reference there Feba.

[Feba]

Re: "Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?

Hardly anything is obscure on the internet.


But holy grail? Egads man, what rock have you been living under?

[Kitalrez]

Re: "Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?

what rock have you been living under?

Well, going off his avatar alone, my guess would be [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvNOZegkVXo]This one![/ame]

Heh, didn't think I'd go there, did ya?
.
.
.
.
Somehow we've wandered into "safe" territory with this discussion. We started out with asking if it was Ok to hit a woman period, and we somehow ended up being against domestic violence and in favor of self defense. They're good defensible positions, but they kind of miss the mark Rain_Blade seemed to be making. If I was reading him correctly, he was asking if it was possible a cultural taboo against hitting women period just cost this kid his life. That's kind of the discussion I'd rather be having right now, rather than decrying how awful abuse is or how important it is to defend yourself. If that wasn't where Rain_Blade was going, let's have that one anyway.

What is it about being female that gives you a pass in potentially violent situations?

While you're chewing on that, let's address TheGrandMom's assertion that "violence is never the answer". I don't think we've thought that through entirely, because I can think of at least one example where it's culturally appropriate, if not expected. Let us assume next St. Patrick's Day you're down at the pub having a few. A strange man comes up to your group, clearly drunk, and starts getting verbally or physically abusive with your girlfriend, or mom, or sister... whoever you take to the bar. He turns to you and says "What are you going to do about it?" The guy in question is oh, let's go with 100 lbs., 5'0", relatively skinny looking. No matter how many times I see this, I've never once not seen the injured party turn to their friend and give him a "well, are you going to defend me or not" look. My MA is in Comm, I'm still not willing to go to talking my way out of this as a first resort. Drunk people are not the most reasonable individuals, that's probably out. You already know he's an angry drunk, so buying him another round to smooth things over probably won't help. Really, the only way out of this situation that keeps your hands clean is to get the bouncer's attention and have him deal with the guy. But this still uses either violence or the threat of violence to solve it. Even more oddly, having someone else deal with the offending party somehow makes you lose face in the situation. Unless you plan to escort the guy out in a joint lock, or somehow intimidate him through the haze of liquid courage, you can't really "win" this one.

Even though that's not a winnable situation, I've still pointed out there are ways to lose by a bit less than others. But let's play with that, what happens if the offending party isn't this scrawny, belligerent man, but instead a scrawny, belligerent woman? That changes things, doesn't it? Why? More importantly, why should it?


We mentioned hurting women in self-defense. I think this is a cop-out, really, because it's the kind of argument you can make without risking anything. You can justify just about anything in the name of self-defense. Hell, applying this on a national level is why we have sugar beet subsidies that pay more than the actual worth of the sugar we'll ever be able to extract from that near useless veggie. So let's change it. How about asking instead if it's ever OK to attack a woman unprovoked?

For all of you who just answered "no" without thinking, ask yourself this: what about military uses? I know for a fact that one of the best ways to prevent the US Marines from knocking out your clandestine nuclear facility with an infantry raid is to make sure all your guards are female. A larger portion than you'd expect are going to intentionally miss that first shot. Of those who take it, more than you expect are aiming for somewhere non-lethal. It's actually a small percentage that can pull that trigger center-mass without compunction. Everyone else is secretly hoping if they just show enough potential for force, their target will surrender and give them an out.

Marines are "shock troops", too. They're the force you use when you absolutely want everyone to know what you're doing and don't care how badly you damage the rest of the area. If they're sent in, someone intentionally wants that place destroyed as much as possible, this isn't a prisoner raid. I can say this with confidence because I was an 03, and they're not training 03's to be subtle or overly concerned for the safety of others. Right now, there's a chance I could take that shot, but when I was 19 and fresh out of School of Infantry there was no way I could pull that trigger. When Congress debated putting women into combat roles back when I became a marine, Gingrich made all those wonderful comments against it in Congress. What he and his colleagues never discussed was the unspoken thought that this might somehow be unfair for whoever was on the other end of that rifle scope. Fighting with women in your army is still somehow "fighting dirty", at least IMO.

Look again at the above situation, it is clearly offensive not defensive. It will rapidly become defensive, though, as once that warning shot goes off she suddenly knows you're there and has no compunction about shooting you. She might surrender still, or she could return fire and kill you, or your buddies, or alert people inside and start world war 3. Men will still give her that chance, though. I guess the question is, should we? More importantly, why?

Why can't we harm women? Is it a cultural thing? Is there some kind of genetic component? What is it about women? This is the discussion I'd like us to be having. The rest of this stuff doesn't help me understand myself or my culture any better than when I first read the OP.

[Feba]

Re: "Guys can't hit girls." What are your thoughts?

What is it about being female that gives you a pass in potentially violent situations?

Like we all said, you have a right to self defense. That applies just as much to a 12 year old getting assaulted as a 30 year old.