E
i never understood this, they say "never hit a woman" instead of "never hit anyone". some guys might listen to this and think that they can get away with assaulting other men as a result. and why does society react so aggressively to a man even mildly hitting a foid? sure it's bad to hit a foid, but hitting a man is just as bad.
if i were to beat up a scrawny small guy, people would just break up the fight and try to calm me down. but if i even just slapped a woman very mildly or just pushed one very mildly then everyone will try to jump me and they'll act like as if i raped a toddler. that's why i doubt that it's because women are weaker. i don't think thats the real reason this "never hit a woman" rule exists. if that was the reason, why does society shrug if a man beats up a small scrawny guy but freaks out if a small guy hits a female bodybuilder? i think it has to do with the benevolent sexism since ancient times where society viewed women as particularly vulnerable and taught that men are supposed to protect women, and any men who disobeyed this strict teaching was viewed as a threat that men need to protect women against. i think that's the real reason behind "never hit a foid".
and sometimes white knights advocate punishment disproportionate to the crime. If you a hit a woman in a rather mild manner, they think you should be violently beaten until you're in a hospital with broken bones and blind eyes. if you beat one up, they think you need to be killed. yet if i beat up a scrawny small guy, nobody would want me killed. hell, many wouldn't even want me to be violently beaten to the extent of being in a hospital. and honestly, if this never hit a woman rule didn't exist, most men who never hit women would probably do it in wii sports boxing if a woman get verbally abusing them or bothering them constantly.
and society didn't used to tolerate this either. many people (including historians) believe this myth that domestic violence was tolerated before the 70s, but this is actually false. according to information i read, it used to be taken much much more seriously a century ago. vigilante murders and attacks were done from time to time against a wife beater and being a wife beater back then is like being a child molester today.
not condoning hitting a foid, but why don't people react this way to hitting a man. i think hitting a man is just as bad as hitting a foid. whether they're weaker than you or not has no effect on how bad it is. i don't wanna hear "but they can't win the fight" because many men can't win the fight if you assault them either. and some women can win the fight, and plus, when you attack someone your own size, sometimes they still will be defeated by you in the fight. also, i don't think simply hitting someone is difficult for them to fight back against. if all you do is mildly slap them, i don't see how their is some unfair fight where they automatically will lose if all you did was simply slap or push them and nothing afterward. i don't think their vulnerability has any effect on how wrong it is.
@JosefMengelecel @Robtical @Mainländer @ThoughtfulCel
if i were to beat up a scrawny small guy, people would just break up the fight and try to calm me down. but if i even just slapped a woman very mildly or just pushed one very mildly then everyone will try to jump me and they'll act like as if i raped a toddler. that's why i doubt that it's because women are weaker. i don't think thats the real reason this "never hit a woman" rule exists. if that was the reason, why does society shrug if a man beats up a small scrawny guy but freaks out if a small guy hits a female bodybuilder? i think it has to do with the benevolent sexism since ancient times where society viewed women as particularly vulnerable and taught that men are supposed to protect women, and any men who disobeyed this strict teaching was viewed as a threat that men need to protect women against. i think that's the real reason behind "never hit a foid".
and sometimes white knights advocate punishment disproportionate to the crime. If you a hit a woman in a rather mild manner, they think you should be violently beaten until you're in a hospital with broken bones and blind eyes. if you beat one up, they think you need to be killed. yet if i beat up a scrawny small guy, nobody would want me killed. hell, many wouldn't even want me to be violently beaten to the extent of being in a hospital. and honestly, if this never hit a woman rule didn't exist, most men who never hit women would probably do it in wii sports boxing if a woman get verbally abusing them or bothering them constantly.
and society didn't used to tolerate this either. many people (including historians) believe this myth that domestic violence was tolerated before the 70s, but this is actually false. according to information i read, it used to be taken much much more seriously a century ago. vigilante murders and attacks were done from time to time against a wife beater and being a wife beater back then is like being a child molester today.
not condoning hitting a foid, but why don't people react this way to hitting a man. i think hitting a man is just as bad as hitting a foid. whether they're weaker than you or not has no effect on how bad it is. i don't wanna hear "but they can't win the fight" because many men can't win the fight if you assault them either. and some women can win the fight, and plus, when you attack someone your own size, sometimes they still will be defeated by you in the fight. also, i don't think simply hitting someone is difficult for them to fight back against. if all you do is mildly slap them, i don't see how their is some unfair fight where they automatically will lose if all you did was simply slap or push them and nothing afterward. i don't think their vulnerability has any effect on how wrong it is.
@JosefMengelecel @Robtical @Mainländer @ThoughtfulCel
