E
This is something that many people believe in. People get way more outraged by a man mildly slapping a woman than a man viciously beating another man. The phrase "never hit a woman" instead of "never hit anyone" is stupid and it is benevolent sexism. In case you don't know, benevolent sexism is a form of sexism against women that cherishes them but in a way that marginalizes them, typically by infantilizing them. The idea that men need to be protect women or provide for them. The idea that men should pay the entire bill. The idea that women are unsafe walking alone at night unlike men, even though statistics show men are far more likely to be victimized in the streets or by a stranger. These are examples of benevolent sexism. Most sexism is benevolent sexism.
In fact, many criminals refuse to attack women due to "chivalry". Even the Mafia had their "women and children are off limits" code of honor, but lots of evidence shows they actually secretly broke that code of honor and used it as a facade to look like good guys to society. In fact, in many interviews with street robbers and muggers, many mentioned they refused to rob or mug women. Apparently in street robbery culture, it was considered "badass" or "masculine" to attack men in the streets and steal their wealth/resources because of hunter-gatherer mindsets they had and women were excluded from the street game because women historically weren't supposed to do that. In fact, sometimes they believed even hitting a woman was wrong. One even mentioned how they'd rob a couple, but they attacked the man but left the woman alone. Inmates also had a code of honor, and a woman who worked with inmates in Australia says many inmates told her they think it's wrong to hit women and men who attack a random woman on the street are hated in prison. Inmates, at least nowadays, will give domestic violence offenders a pass, but back in the day, domestic violence was a frowned-upon crime in prison, too. Men who frown upon hitting women might still give an exception for their girlfriend/wife.
In fact, not only is intimate partner violence a gender symmetrical crime, but men are more likely than women to beat up people of the same gender whereas women are more likely than men to commit intimate partner violence. Research shows men are more likely to beat up other men than beat up their girlfriend. In fact, a lot of evidence shows that men who commit domestic abuse often have criminal records, and many were found to be generally violent, including towards other men. Men who were only violent towards their girlfriend/wife were found instead to be more remorseful about their actions, less accepting of violence, progressive in their attitudes toward women, and were a lot less violent than most domestic abusers. They often had usually satisfactory relationships with her. The more severe abusers were often generally violent and almost a third of them had antisocial personality disorder. The ones who were only violent towards their wife had a low acceptance of violence typically. That's why they did not attack other men or even other women, not because they're "cowards". The more violent male domestic abuser, however, isn't some coward who is afraid to pick on people his own size. He often does. He's just a generally violent criminal.
This shows that these guys usually have attacked other men, too.
If you refuse to attack women but you attack men, you are a HYPOCRITE. Either both are bad or both are fair game. You cannot argue "but women are vulnerable and it's cheap" for refusing to attack a woman, because many of your male victims could've been vulnerable. These same criminals don't mind attacking a small, scrawny guy. These same guys will attack a guy with a gun. If you use a gun on a big muscular dude with MMA fighting skills, he's 100% vulnerable. He moves a muscle, he dies. He's more defenseless and helpless than attacking a woman with your bare hands. Hell, if you attack a bigger guy with a knife or an object, he's vulnerable, and this is certainly true if you use weapons and objects against a guy your size. If you AMBUSH someone, they are vulnerable or if you attack a drunk guy, or a guy when he was caught off guard (e.g.: suckerpunching) or kill him in his sleep, they are completely defenseless/helpless. CIRCUMSTANTIAL VULNERABILITY IS EVEN MORE OF A PREDICTOR OF VULNERABILITY THAN PHYSICAL VULNERABILITY. In fact, even if you have a 50/50 chance of winning because he's your size, completely awake and sober, facing you, and prepared to fight with both of you unarmed, he was still vulnerable during that very specific, individual fight where you won because he needs to be vulnerable for you to win, so you're still a hypocrite. He still was brutally attacked and it's still just as injurious as the same exact thing happening to a woman, which means it's just as bad. The brutality of a crime determines how bad it is, not the likelihood of success, so that "unfair fight" argument is dumb. In fact, if a woman attacks a man and he's afraid to fight back because he cannot hit women, he's vulnerable as it gets. That's circumstantial vulnerability.
Many people will argue that women are more likely to be victims of crime, but if you look it up, MEN are more likely to be crime victims. Not to mention that not only is domestic abuse gender symmetrical, so is rape. Women rape men just as much as vice versa, but male victims of rape are so much less likely to report a rape or even tell ANYONE about it, that whenever we hear about rape, it's always a man raping a woman. Just as many men are forced to penetrate a woman each year as women are raped.
Many people will argue that if you hit a woman you could inflict worse injuries. Nope. It depends on how hard you hit them. Just like how if you attack really violently, you can easily injure a guy. The only reason people think women will suffer more injuries is due to benevolent sexism and people viewing women as fragile. Although some evidence shows female domestic abuse victims are more likely to suffer injuries, some studies show male victims are more likely to instead and victims who suffer injuries often can be male, but many male victims might not admit their injuries were done by a woman like their girlfriend. In fact, many female domestic abusers use weapons/objects to compensate for size differences.
TL;DR
I can understand not wanting to hurt young children (I MEAN REAL CHILDREN NOT SOME TEENAGER IN HIGH SCHOOL). That's because young children are actually innocent and are supposed to actually be protected more than men and women. But refusing to attack a woman? As long as you frown upon attacking a man JUST AS HARSHLY as you frown on attacking a woman, whatever, but otherwise, you're a benevolently sexist hypocrite. The reason society frowns upon hitting a woman is NOT because they are weaker. they don't give a fuck if you beat up a small scrawny guy. The phrase "don't hit women" exists SOLELY due to benevolent sexism. Don't be a hypocrite. If you attack men, you must also attack women. But don't attack little kids.
In fact, many criminals refuse to attack women due to "chivalry". Even the Mafia had their "women and children are off limits" code of honor, but lots of evidence shows they actually secretly broke that code of honor and used it as a facade to look like good guys to society. In fact, in many interviews with street robbers and muggers, many mentioned they refused to rob or mug women. Apparently in street robbery culture, it was considered "badass" or "masculine" to attack men in the streets and steal their wealth/resources because of hunter-gatherer mindsets they had and women were excluded from the street game because women historically weren't supposed to do that. In fact, sometimes they believed even hitting a woman was wrong. One even mentioned how they'd rob a couple, but they attacked the man but left the woman alone. Inmates also had a code of honor, and a woman who worked with inmates in Australia says many inmates told her they think it's wrong to hit women and men who attack a random woman on the street are hated in prison. Inmates, at least nowadays, will give domestic violence offenders a pass, but back in the day, domestic violence was a frowned-upon crime in prison, too. Men who frown upon hitting women might still give an exception for their girlfriend/wife.
In fact, not only is intimate partner violence a gender symmetrical crime, but men are more likely than women to beat up people of the same gender whereas women are more likely than men to commit intimate partner violence. Research shows men are more likely to beat up other men than beat up their girlfriend. In fact, a lot of evidence shows that men who commit domestic abuse often have criminal records, and many were found to be generally violent, including towards other men. Men who were only violent towards their girlfriend/wife were found instead to be more remorseful about their actions, less accepting of violence, progressive in their attitudes toward women, and were a lot less violent than most domestic abusers. They often had usually satisfactory relationships with her. The more severe abusers were often generally violent and almost a third of them had antisocial personality disorder. The ones who were only violent towards their wife had a low acceptance of violence typically. That's why they did not attack other men or even other women, not because they're "cowards". The more violent male domestic abuser, however, isn't some coward who is afraid to pick on people his own size. He often does. He's just a generally violent criminal.
This shows that these guys usually have attacked other men, too.
If you refuse to attack women but you attack men, you are a HYPOCRITE. Either both are bad or both are fair game. You cannot argue "but women are vulnerable and it's cheap" for refusing to attack a woman, because many of your male victims could've been vulnerable. These same criminals don't mind attacking a small, scrawny guy. These same guys will attack a guy with a gun. If you use a gun on a big muscular dude with MMA fighting skills, he's 100% vulnerable. He moves a muscle, he dies. He's more defenseless and helpless than attacking a woman with your bare hands. Hell, if you attack a bigger guy with a knife or an object, he's vulnerable, and this is certainly true if you use weapons and objects against a guy your size. If you AMBUSH someone, they are vulnerable or if you attack a drunk guy, or a guy when he was caught off guard (e.g.: suckerpunching) or kill him in his sleep, they are completely defenseless/helpless. CIRCUMSTANTIAL VULNERABILITY IS EVEN MORE OF A PREDICTOR OF VULNERABILITY THAN PHYSICAL VULNERABILITY. In fact, even if you have a 50/50 chance of winning because he's your size, completely awake and sober, facing you, and prepared to fight with both of you unarmed, he was still vulnerable during that very specific, individual fight where you won because he needs to be vulnerable for you to win, so you're still a hypocrite. He still was brutally attacked and it's still just as injurious as the same exact thing happening to a woman, which means it's just as bad. The brutality of a crime determines how bad it is, not the likelihood of success, so that "unfair fight" argument is dumb. In fact, if a woman attacks a man and he's afraid to fight back because he cannot hit women, he's vulnerable as it gets. That's circumstantial vulnerability.
Many people will argue that women are more likely to be victims of crime, but if you look it up, MEN are more likely to be crime victims. Not to mention that not only is domestic abuse gender symmetrical, so is rape. Women rape men just as much as vice versa, but male victims of rape are so much less likely to report a rape or even tell ANYONE about it, that whenever we hear about rape, it's always a man raping a woman. Just as many men are forced to penetrate a woman each year as women are raped.
Many people will argue that if you hit a woman you could inflict worse injuries. Nope. It depends on how hard you hit them. Just like how if you attack really violently, you can easily injure a guy. The only reason people think women will suffer more injuries is due to benevolent sexism and people viewing women as fragile. Although some evidence shows female domestic abuse victims are more likely to suffer injuries, some studies show male victims are more likely to instead and victims who suffer injuries often can be male, but many male victims might not admit their injuries were done by a woman like their girlfriend. In fact, many female domestic abusers use weapons/objects to compensate for size differences.
TL;DR
I can understand not wanting to hurt young children (I MEAN REAL CHILDREN NOT SOME TEENAGER IN HIGH SCHOOL). That's because young children are actually innocent and are supposed to actually be protected more than men and women. But refusing to attack a woman? As long as you frown upon attacking a man JUST AS HARSHLY as you frown on attacking a woman, whatever, but otherwise, you're a benevolently sexist hypocrite. The reason society frowns upon hitting a woman is NOT because they are weaker. they don't give a fuck if you beat up a small scrawny guy. The phrase "don't hit women" exists SOLELY due to benevolent sexism. Don't be a hypocrite. If you attack men, you must also attack women. But don't attack little kids.
