Should Men Hit Back?
Here's an e-mail I got the other day. What would your answer be?
Hi Amy, I have a question about men, and hitting their wives - for any reason.I have been married to a guy I have loved for the last 5 years. This is my first marriage, and I am 49. He's 58, self-made, good worker, smart, clever, well thought of by most everyone I know. Quite creative. He's been married before though, and that wife died about 10 years ago of cancer. He has always been very sweet, although, I do think when he was a kid it was tough for him growing up, and he wasn't treated very well - and kind of raised himself.
As much as I would like to understand him about this, it is really making me uncomfortable and completely distracting me from going forward. He has a nephew who is in his early 20's, who married a girl, who turns out to be a rage-aholic. She's 5' 2", and he's 6' 6". She sucker punched him, a few times, and hit him in places that are not the best on a man and he didn't defend himself by hitting her back. They agreed to get counseling, and then turns out, it happened again - so he divorced her, because he didn't think she would change.
The problem for me is that my husband's response was he should have hit her back, and that would have been the end of it. He has told me this, he is proudly promoting his view on this to his older sisters. To me, he has eventually, without remorse, said his first wife hit him, and he hit her back and knocked her down, and they both ended up agreeing that they wouldn't hit each other anymore. He shows no remorse, or embarrassment, or an explanation of how he was "too upset" or "not thinking clearly" and it would never have happened again, etc...whatever you might say to explain how something like that he should never have done.
I don't think women should hit men, believe me - and I don't see myself hitting him, but right now, I think of him so differently. I don't think a man who is bigger than a woman should swing back because they are "equals". I believe it is immoral for either to hit each other, but men if they are bigger, can do much more damage, very easily, and don't know their own strength at times, and should know better than to entice something by striking back - they should walk away, or hold on to the person who him them to get them to calm down - even that is better than swinging back. They have the ability to hold the other person, without having to swing at all.
I am not able to speak to him now without anger and fear of our relationship being completely ruined, and am starting to believe I have totally made the wrong choice because he is unwavering on this -- almost proud that this is his position. Am I way off base? I am sick over this.
UPDATE, May 6, 11:19 a.m. -- Now, I'll post my response to the woman:
If a child hit me, I wouldn't hit the child back because the child is smaller than I am. My neighbor, when her son hit her, grabbed him and held him so he couldn't move his arms and talked to him. That said, I can understand that men feel anything goes against them and are enraged that women can hit them and go unpunished.A simple accusation of violence against a man -- even if the woman was the actual perpetrator and he didn't lay a finger on her -- can result in jail time for him, financial loss, possible loss of custody of children, etc. This is a ploy in divorce cases -- women accusing a man of domestic abuse where none has taken place -- and completely decent men who have never hit a woman have been devastated by it, and devastated by how the system is stacked against them.
I wouldn't be with a man who would hit a woman -- and I wouldn't hit anyone. It's uncivilized behavior. Of course, I didn't ever need to ask my boyfriend if he'd hit a woman -- because I know his character and chose him because of it. He'd just leave if a woman hit him. At most, he'd raise his arm to defend himself. I confirmed this with him this morning -- just called him and asked to be sure.
You feel what you feel - and if that means the end of your marriage, that's the way it'll be, I guess. Sometimes people find things out about people that can't be taken back. You can't un-know this. And if you can't come to terms with it, you can't come to terms with it.
So to recap his wife hit him once and he defended himself once - I fail to see the problem.
He's not an abuser, the new girl says shed never hit him, so he obviously wont hit her.
He's also given the new girl something everyone calims to wnt but regrets the moment she gets it - honesty
Is the new girl, full of "anger and fear" aware that in most state he could be charged with assult and kidnapping for holding the person. Or that, thanks to feminists, raising your voice, asking for sex, or denying a request for sex, money or material goods is considered abuse these days?
Maybe her real problem is she has never been with a man who stands up for himself and doesnt know how to cope with a guy who has his balls somewhere other than her purse.
Why should he be embarrased for defending himself by the way? And in what universe is it a bad thing when a guy FAILS?? tolose his temper when attacked without warning?
She'd prefer a guy who cant control himself?
I think that little kernal of truth says far more about her than she'd care to reveal.
Good thing for her though is feeling are subjective - if she really cant stand the thought of her husband defending himself on the off chance she decides to break her vow and assult him then she should leave.
Because accoording her, that would be the only time he lays his hands on her, not in anger though(and I still cant figure out why she is so disapointed by that fact)
lujlp at May 6, 2009 2:38 AM
Sometimes "hitting back" can be the right answer. The way she describes the situation, I don't see a problem here.
Here's another example: lots of small kids, especially boys, go through a "hitting phase". My son tried this: "Gee, I wonder what happens when I hit dad in the face with my fist?" He found out: I hit him back in his face with my fist. Immediately but carefully, just hard enough to hurt.
Some people might be shocked, but I think he learned an important lesson in the most useful possible way. Certainly his "hitting phase" ended before it had really begun.
bradley13 at May 6, 2009 3:04 AM
I'm a man, and for my part I don't see myself hitting back if my wife/girlfriend hit me. But I'd certainly be angry enough to consider leaving her. So I'm sympathetic to the writer, but at the same time I don't see why she's getting so upset over a hypothetical. But if it means so friggn much to her, then leave him. Problem solved.
hanmeng at May 6, 2009 3:34 AM
Women will be equal to men when they can take a punch.
brian at May 6, 2009 4:42 AM
I think a guy takes a huge risk in hitting back because still in most cases the cops would side with the female if she called...and if she is going to revert to hitting him then she would prolly call the cops too.
Another point to this is that if the payback slap doesn't inspire appropriate behavior, then the violence will escalate....which always ends badly.
Still, if she has been pretty great up until this one issue, it might be worth a try. I believe if you hit someone, you should expect to be hit back.
kg at May 6, 2009 5:25 AM
It has always been my policy that if I'm struck, I'm going to strike back.
I think the guy did the right thing. There are many different kinds of strikes, and if the ex-wife had used a balled fist punch, then she intended to hurt him, and he made it clear that she wasn't going to get away with that. Physical abuse is unacceptable from both men AND women. If you're in a relationship, you should have the respect for your partner not to deliberately try to physically harm them.
However, had it been a 'slap,' I would've sided with the woman in question. Slaps are more for attention getting, when used sparingly. They sting a bit but aren't going to cause major damage, and as such the man has no business striking back.
Cheesecake at May 6, 2009 5:43 AM
A guy hitting back is not a good idea for the sole reason that when the police come they guy will be the one going to jail, the courts will believe that the guy is the aggresor and society in general will shun the guys for his actions.
As a guy, philosophically, I have no qualms hitting a woman back. However given the climate today I would just leave. If I had kids in the mix...I don't know what I'd do, probably try to surreptitiously document/record all incidents of abuse to take to court later when I did decide to finally leave and take my kids with me.
Dale at May 6, 2009 5:45 AM
Anyone who hits another person should be prepared to be hit back. End of story. Gender and size don't matter. If you can't take a punch, then you better think twice before you deck someone else.
Amy (not Alkon) at May 6, 2009 5:45 AM
Yes, she's way off base.
Its one thing if a woman "slaps" a man, the worst that will do is sting, and make her appear infantile.
A punch however, takes her out of "infantile woman" territory, and puts her squarely within "assault" territory.
A man who simply "takes" a punch, without doing anything, is guaranteeing he will be punched again.
Strike back, and that first time being struck will likely have been the last time.
The writer's problem seems to center around the idea that her sex entitles her to a "protected" status, if you will, which would allow her to strike without serious consequences.
Essentially an elaboration of the old idea that women are incapable of doing real harm to men.
Robert at May 6, 2009 5:48 AM
*To me, he has eventually, without remorse, said his first wife hit him, and he hit her back and knocked her down, and they both ended up agreeing that they wouldn't hit each other anymore.*
I fail to see the problem with that. His wife him, a clear case of domestic violence, and he solved it by hitting right back.
Wife got her proverbial bell rung, realizes that she cant knock him around and abuse him, decides that it isn't going to work. He agrees and they go their separate ways like mature responsible adults.
Somehow I have the feeling that if the situation were reversed, the woman would be shouting "Grrl Power", despite her claims to the contrary.
And for the record, I was raised that you NEVER hit a woman, at all. However, I feel that if she's gonna throw the first punch, all bets are off.
Successful relationships are based on respect. That has to be earned- and it applies to both sides. No woman should tolerate an abusive man, and no man should tolerate an abusive woman.
Just my two cents worth.
akornzombie at May 6, 2009 5:49 AM
Am I way off base?
Yes.
If a man hits a woman who hasn't hit him, he is in the wrong.
If a man hits a woman who has hit him, she is in the wrong.
There is no gender exemption on assault- the same standard applies regardless of the plumbing of the individuals involved. Whoever initiated the violence is in the wrong, end of discussion. Seriously, ask a cop if you don't want to trust the word of some anonymous guy on the internet- violence is serious business.
Oh, and if a woman does not consider the basic fact that most men can hit her a hell of a lot harder than she can hit him until after she's hit the man, the woman is a damn fool.
rosignol at May 6, 2009 5:54 AM
I went through this once, blocking, asking her to stop, and finally did hit the girl back. That was the end of that behavior forever. As a matter of fact, she told her mother exactly what had happened, and her mother said, "He should have hit you harder and sooner."
That said, I would never do this again. Ever. You lose your second amendment rights for misdemeanor domestic violence, and it will be the man who is charged. It just makes more sense to be ready for defensive moves in more serious situations than the assaults of a spoiled and infantile woman. Change the locks.
Simon Kenton at May 6, 2009 6:01 AM
Maybe in the 1970's and before a man could fight back if a woman hit him or assaulted him. And she would probably only do it once, because she would quickly come to the conclusion that she made a big mistake.
Today, you are better off leaving as almost assuredly if there are no witnesses the guy will be arrested.
Where as in part of the above story where the woman hit the man and he hit her-Then they agreed not to hit each other,problem solved.
Today I would advise any man that is hit to get out of the house, call the police secretly on your cell phone, and file a restraining order so there is a record of her assaulting you.
This will give you the greatest protection from the legal system that can drag you into your worst nightmare.
David M. at May 6, 2009 6:08 AM
How about this rule: If a woman punches you, the first time, you tell her, "If you hit me a second time, I will hit you back. If you do it a third time, I will leave." Then make good on your pledges, if necessary. If she has sense and if you have previously shown yourself to be a man of your word, it will never happen again.
The reason you give her the one free punch, and don't set forth the rules in advance, is that I think we should try to avoid making domestic violence pre-nups widespread. Don't bring it up until it happens.
MG1 at May 6, 2009 6:08 AM
For such things did the Lord God make pain locks and submission holds.
It's amazing how civil a conversation quickly becomes when one party is pressed down against the ground with their arm twisted behind them. Suddenly people want to *talk*.
Pragmatix at May 6, 2009 6:09 AM
LW: "men [...] don't know their own strength at times"
I think men know their own strength. It's women who don't realise how strong men are in comparison. I see women's arms, for instance, and there is no sign of biceps at all. It seems like it's only got enough muscle to move the arm about, but not much else.
http://realwomensfitness.com/upper-body-exercises/toned-thin-womens-arms-dont-forget-the-triceps/
http://www.mens-health-magazine.co.uk/supplements/get-bigger-arms
Norman at May 6, 2009 6:11 AM
I think the hubby is an ass for staying with the first wife. Had the gender roles been reversed you'd all be calling his first wife a fucking moron for not leaving.
As far as hitting back that a grey area that depends on size, training and experince. If your 5'2" wife punches you and you are a Super Heavy weight UFC champion giving her a full force strike to the head would be uncalled for and probably fatal. Soldier that kill unarmed civies in a drunken bare hand brawl even if the civy started it are held to a high standard due to training. If a guy shoves you in a street dispute pulling your gun and killing him would make you guilty. Now if some biker chick behemoth takes a swing at you laying her out is fine. Size and strength should be taken into account to judge your response not gender.
vlad at May 6, 2009 6:11 AM
Here's my real life experience to guide your own opinion. In my first marriage, during a bad fight my wife kicked me, hit me and scratched me across the face so it bled along 3 lines from her 4 nails. I did not hit back; I grabbed her hand, with some force, and kept her from continuing. Her rage did not subside and she called the police. When they arrived I told them the scratches on my face were from the door jamb when I tripped. They clearly knew I was lying but I figured police were not going to fix this problem long term. There were fingernail scratches on my ex's wrist from when I restrained her hand, but no break in the skin. I was cuffed, arrested, charged and later convicted of domestic assualt (no jail, the judge was unconvinced of my self-defense argument since I was much larger physically). We had no children, and that incident and its aftermath was the end of the marriage. It sounds laughable, but in truth I'm not leaving out any relevant details; I was criminally convicted for scratching my wife's wrist. Perhaps if I did not lie to the police at the time there would have been a photo of my scratched face, but I did not have one to show the judge so self-defense was no defense for me.
Years later my girlfriend got drunk and slapped me for not wanting to wait in a long nightclub line. She never hit before and was never a nasty drunk. It didn't hurt, but I turned away without saying a word and left that night for good. Her teenage daughter (from her earlier marriage) saw it all and begged me to forgive her mother.
It's not about forgiving, its about self-preservation. Women do not understand how the legal deck is stacked against men. If I hit my ex back I may have been sent to jail for years. Hit or not, the man goes to jail if the woman chooses to call the police, no exceptions.
So, what would you have done?
Anonymous at May 6, 2009 6:16 AM
Also if some 5'2" guy at a bar took a swing at me grabbing him by the ankle and pounding in fence posts with his head would be equally inappropriate. If he or she is armed it's whole different story.
vlad at May 6, 2009 6:18 AM
My now ex-wife used to emotionally push and push me, what would be considered emotional abuse by a man. She would get in my face and raise her voice and nag and nag at me. If I were on the couch she would get inches from my face.
I would always leave the house.
She would say, "Why do you always leave?" I told her you wouldn't like my other response.
Humans still have a fight or flight response. Through out evolution this is one of our most basic instincts and how we learned to survive.
David M at May 6, 2009 6:20 AM
I decked a girlfriend once when she tried to stab me. Wasn't my fault; she was a bit mentally ill, we found out later. Anyhow, once she was down, my path to the door was clear and I got the hell out of there.
I guess that makes me a domestic abuser in the eyes of the law. I'd probably do the same thing over again if it came down to it. I'm glad it wasn't a gun 'cuz I'd have probably had to kill her to get out of there alive. If she was just hitting me? Depends. I'd have used the minimal amount of force necessary to get out of there, whether that meant a light shove, or a haymaker to the jaw. I'd rather not be in that kind of situation, given my druthers.
Joe at May 6, 2009 6:22 AM
Always hit back- legally. Get a domestic violence protective order, and have her ejected from the house for ten days. Watch as the police follow her through the house for 5 minutes while she gathers her things, and then follow her down the driveway.
Do not tolerate domestic abuse, ever. Being a woman is no defense.
MUCH more effective than the other "hitting back". It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Les at May 6, 2009 6:27 AM
For such things did the Lord God make pain locks and submission holds.
It's amazing how civil a conversation quickly becomes when one party is pressed down against the ground with their arm twisted behind them. Suddenly people want to *talk*.
Posted by: Pragmatix at May 6, 2009 6:09 AM
---------------
Yes if you are skilled at these or not blind-sidedthis is possible.
If she hits you by suprise with an object, frying pan, iron, chair, then what?
David M at May 6, 2009 6:28 AM
"She would say, "Why do you always leave?" I told her you wouldn't like my other response." My question would be why come back?
vlad at May 6, 2009 6:32 AM
I wouldn't hit a woman unless it was my life in the balance. It's unnecessary. Unless there is a major disparity in size of the woman over the man, the man is in physical control of the confrontation. Same reason I would never strike a child. Now restraint is another matter, but even that i'd be very careful (see the sadly common horror story above). Just walk away, the relationship is over. Same advice i'd give a woman hit by a man- if they hit once theyll hit again.
Mark at May 6, 2009 6:33 AM
If a woman hits a man, there is nothing wrong with him smacking her back in return. But then just leave, for crying out loud. End the relationship. However I can see that the LW's husband is probably way past the threshold of annoyance with the constant promotion of his views. I'd be a little tired of hearing about it by now.
Pirate Jo at May 6, 2009 6:34 AM
One other important fact to add to my post above; my ex never wanted to press any charges. The law in that state was that the victim's cooperation is not needed. I guess that makes sense when you think of serially abused victims too afraid to leave, but it puts everything on autopilot from the time the police are first called.
Anonymous at May 6, 2009 6:35 AM
I absolutely agree with the husband. ABSOLUTELY. I don't think men should hit women, but I also don't think women should "put themselves in a man's position" to quote my daddy. To translate - if you ball up your fist and hit a man, then you're putting yourself in a man's position and can / should expect to be hit back. Exceptions were made for slapping - once, and only if the woman was greatly insulted, and what I call the chest pummel, which is if the woman is greatly upset and does those little ineffectual hits against the man's chest, usually accompanied by crying. If you think about it, though, neither exception is likely to bring about physical harm. And yeah, that probably sounds old-fashioned, but my father is 88, so he is pretty old-fashioned in some things. He also told me to go to college and work hard so I'd never be dependent on a man, so he was amazingly progressive in some areas.
Oh - if the letter-writer really wants to feel sick - my husband's father counseled him that if he ever did have to hit a woman, to never hit her face or stomach. I think his reasoning was that back then, a woman pretty much had to get married. If you messed up her face or the baby factory, she was ruined.
To sum up - a lot of women hit men just because they think the man won't hit them back. That's not right.
TL;DR: Yes, the man should hit her back instead of being her punching bag.
Anne at May 6, 2009 6:36 AM
Its obvious the woman her boyfriend hit wasn't terribly hurt...so the guy DOES know his own strength.
And since he hasn't hit anyone since then he isn't a bully.
Not bully + Knows his own strength + Not a pushover = Keeper
Mama73 at May 6, 2009 6:37 AM
"Women do not understand how the legal deck is stacked against men."
Yes, they do. Yes,...they...do.
Spartee at May 6, 2009 6:40 AM
I think the woman's response in this article is typical. I want equality in everyplace that is favorable to me-but don't want it when I don't think it's beneficial to me.
The National Organization for Women is for equality right? Wrong!
They are for the favorable treatment of women.
Are they marching in the street to make sure they are registered with the selective service? No.
Are they marching to make sure men get equal custody of their children? No.
Are they marching because their sons are more likely to drop out of highschool? No.
I bet if this woman had a thirteen year old daughter that came up and swung on her and gave her a black eye, she would be all about beating the little b*tches ass.
David M. at May 6, 2009 6:42 AM
I have 3 sisters. Without irony I can say that I had the "never hit a girl" philosophy beaten into me when I was a kid. No matter what my sisters did, I knew that if I hit one of them I was going to get my ass kicked. By my mother.
Looking back on it, I think that was a good lesson to learn. As mad as I've gotten at a few of my GF's, the thought of hitting them has never crossed my mind. I think guys who hit women are cowards. Although I could understand losing your temper once, but only once.
Having never been in the situation of getting hit by a GF I can't say for sure what I would do but I know it wouldn't include hitting her back.
I'd probably tell her that she used up her only free pass and the next time she did it there would be consequences. The consequence being whatever would hurt her the most, short of me hitting her. Likely me leaving since I'd never want to live in the type of relationship where she's hitting me.
sean at May 6, 2009 6:42 AM
When I was in second grade in 1972, there were a couple weeks when I came home from school angry every day, and refused to talk about it.
Finally, my mother got me to explain. One of the girls in my class was going around hitting the boys during recess because she knew she could get away with it. She knew the boys would be punished if they hit back.
After I explained, my mom said, "As your mother, I'm telling you that if she hits you again, you get to hit her back - once. If you get in trouble for it, I'll back you up."
The next time the girl hit me, I decked her and she never bothered me again.
There are as many female bullies as male ones, and the only thing bullies understand is force - whether you can hit them back harder than they hit you. How much damage in the long run results from boys not being allowed to defend themselves against female bullies in the only way female bullies would understand?
Joshua at May 6, 2009 6:44 AM
Robert wrote: "His wife (hit) him, a clear case of domestic violence, and he solved it by hitting right back."
I think there is a difference between domestic violence, which is about control and manipulation, and fights. In a fight, both people hit and fight, it is mutual. I also think it is inane and lame, but it is a fight.
In domestic violence, one partner uses violence to intimidate and control the other, that to me is very different.
Trey
Trey at May 6, 2009 6:48 AM
It worked for me, nearly forty years ago. My wife of the time had slapped me on several occasions. One time, i responded with a measured slap; not to injure but to chock and cause mild pain. She was shocked.
"You hit me."
"I did. And if you hit me again, I will hit you back again."
That crap ceased right then and there. The marriage survived another 25 years. With today's stupid laws, I would not dare do so. I'd have to taunt her into injuring me and then file criminal charges against her, and ruin her life.
Violence can be a good thing.
Dennis at May 6, 2009 6:54 AM
Haven't read the comments, but no. It's never ok for a man to hit a woman back. Any man who does so wasn't raised right. You leave. You don't hit back. Nor is it smart to hit back. haven't we had plenty of discussions here on the justice system favoring women?
That of course is assuming it's not in immediate defense of your life, and this clearly wasn't in either case. It's like hitting a kid smaller than you-you just don't. If you do, you're a rather pathetic bully.
momof3 at May 6, 2009 6:54 AM
Let me correct your words, you obviously mistyped:
"It's never ok for a [person] to hit a [loved one]. Any [person] who does so wasn't raised right."
There is absolutely no need to qualify by gender, is there?
Sparteee at May 6, 2009 6:56 AM
Agree with the others, women do think they can get away with more & be protected because of just being a woman.
A man should never hit a woman, but if she hits first, she gave up her right to claiming to be smaller & weaker. She tried to put herself in a position of physical power & should accept the consequences of it.
Use your words like a big girl.
Being equal brings the bad with the good. Equal pay for equal work, also means equal consequences for striking someone else.
(Not counting being attacked in a dark alley)
Also agree that the man is taken to jail when the police are called, claiming self defense or not. They'd rather haul everyone off, than to stand there & listen to he said she said.
Letter writer has nothing to feel threatened about, she wouldn't hit him, so he wouldn't hit her. He's not saying he struck first, he's proud he defended himself & apparently, that's what the first wife needed to know.
This new information doesn't change who he was yesterday. He's still sweet & creative & a good worker. She's just upset because his answer doesn't match her's. If he was hitting people left & right, & boasting about it, it'd be different. But, once, 20 years ago he stood up to his wife. He's not an abuser.
MeganNJ at May 6, 2009 7:00 AM
It's like hitting a kid smaller than you-you just don't. If you do, you're a rather pathetic bully. -MoMof3
Sorry, I have to disagree. Adamantly. If a larger child hits a smaller child who has done nothing to him, then yes, he's a bully. If the smaller child hits him first, then sorry, no. That's not a bully, that's someone standing up for themselves.
Anne at May 6, 2009 7:05 AM
Had a neighbor whose wife started smacking him around. Odd, since he was a foot taller and almost 100# heavier than her, but a very sweet man, devoted dad, and a gentle giant. He couldn't understand where these attacks were coming from. She finally snapped and yelled at him "Hit me, damn you!" He took the kids and went outside to play with them in the yard. She called the cops and told them he'd slapped her and run off with the kids. They believed her. He lost his house (her boyfriend lives there now) he lost his kids (cops and DCFS wouldn't believe them when they said dad never hit mom) and he lost his job. He lives at a campground now.
I think he finally understands why she was picking a fight. I hope the kids figure it out too.
Juliana at May 6, 2009 7:13 AM
When we were first married, my wife had violent rages which included hitting and throwing things that could have caused injury (but fortunately never did). Finally, one time she came at me, and I just shoved her away. She stumbled back and fell over a coffee table, and that was the end of it--she never did it again. And she readily admits that knowing she couldn't just attack me and know that I wouldn't do anything is what stopped her.
Should I have walked out and called the police instead? Keep in mind that it never happened again and we're still married more than 20 years later. It seemed like the right call at the time and still does.
But that was the 1980s, and the legal environment has changed a lot to the disadvantage of men. Would I advise my son to do the same? Or to walk out and never come back at the first signs of violence? Hard to say.
Anon at May 6, 2009 7:14 AM
personally i solved this one early on in my marriage. I forget the circumstances but a conversation we were having turned to this and i told my wife very simply that since i dont hit her, she doestn hit me. I doubt we would have a problem and my wife would definately get the one free punch (she has a temper, not abusive but raised with all boys so you do that math) but after that i would restrain her. My biggest reason for taking this line is that i am literally almost twice her size and if i misjudge the swing back i could really hurt her, especially with adrenaline from the fight or flight kicking in. In short, i think that a man has the right to hit back, with equal force that he recieved, but be aware of yourself, if you are much larger, just restrain, or walk away.
Tyler at May 6, 2009 7:18 AM
We can pose answers to these sorts of situations all day, but truthfully, we don't really know for sure what we'd do until we're in that situation.
I say cheers to the husband in question for standing his ground on his opinion and for being honest. His young wife lives in her head full of hypotheticals way too much for anyone's good.
skipkent at May 6, 2009 7:22 AM
Simon Kenton is right.
The system is rigged against men.
If this happens, get out. Don't hit back. Keep your rights to all sorts of things, most especially your Second Amendment rights. The legal system will crucify you.
Get a lawyer and get out before you hit back.
And, file for a judicial order of restraint immediately. That way you have evidence in the system of (1) her behavior and (2) your willingness to be above the hit-back game.
Hitting back might feel good and it might fix things, but it will not fix things in all situations and you make yourself vulnerable to the ruin of the rest of your life.
Don't hit back. Get a lawyer. File for a restraint order. Move out. Dump her ass.
Paul A'Barge at May 6, 2009 7:39 AM
A domestic parter of either gender who throws a punch has waived their "non-combatant" status and is going to have to live with the results. If women deserve equal rights (and they do) then they have to be willing to accept equal consequences for their actions. A man who sucker punches me is getting decked, even if he's smaller and weaker. There's no reason a woman should deserve or expect unequal treatment.
James Felix at May 6, 2009 7:44 AM
"Women will be equal to men when they can take a punch."
OMFG, I agree with brian! (Mark calendars!) ;D
As a longtime karate student, I believe in this position. Anyone who dishes it out should know what it feels like to be on the receiving end. It's better for them as human beings, because it apprises them of their limitations. I now know what is effective AND ineffective for a woman my size to do in a fight for my life, and that is crucial knowledge.
In the real world you do NOT start something without being able to finish it, and one must defend one's physical body against assault, male or female. Yes, it would make him "the bigger person" to walk away from it. It would not do a damn thing to improve her character, however.
Melissa G at May 6, 2009 7:47 AM
A society in which one gender has far more rights than the other is a very sick society. I truly fear a backlash that starts small but ends up with a militant patriarchy, very probably religious and backwards. Don't think it can't happen in America. The madnesses of the crowds can be vicious.
The only thing a man can do now is walk away and file charges against the woman as fast as he can, and hope the woman doesn't do the same and just lie about who struck whom, because the odds are that the pigvermin will choose to fuck over the man, regardless.
I seriously think that the trend of seeking wives from overseas who have some semblance of sanity will accelerate, leaving militant American feminazis increasingly isolated and left to marry only mental weaklings or fools. Certainly, prenuptial agreements will become virtually mandatory for men, so they can protect themselves financially somewhat from predatory, amoral feminazis.
In a final note, I wonder how many of these men who have been in the news recently as having killed their families and often themselves, did so in large part because of a sense of powerlessness in the legal system against abusive females.
Crafty Hunter at May 6, 2009 7:52 AM
Don't hit someone if you're not prepared to be hit back. It's not cute. If a woman is close-fisted punching a guy, or throwing hard objects at him, he should be allowed to defend himself.
"Should," though, is the tricky part of it all. It's not advisable for him to defend himself, because it's likely that he'll end up in jail.
Anyway, I don't see why a 110-pound woman thinks she should be treated any differently than a 5'2" 110-pound guy with a Napoleon complex, if she attacks a guy.
ahw at May 6, 2009 7:54 AM
I think key is this: but men if they are bigger, can do much more damage, very easily, and don't know their own strength at times, and should know better than to entice something by striking back -
If she thinks men should protect women, perhaps by keeping them barefoot and in the kitchen, or in other patronizing and condescending behaviors, than she makes sense. If she thinks women are fragile, emotional, hysterical and incapable of policing themselves. Okay.
But I suspect she doesn't believe that (and neither do I). There is no reason that a man "should know better" in a situation when a woman "should know better" but didn't.
jerry at May 6, 2009 7:55 AM
Women and men, at this level, do NOT have equal rights. A woman is slower, weaker, and less combat oriented and skilled (although more ruthless). At the level of 'being Human' we're all equal before God, but at the level of Man and Women, there needs to be double standards because you're measuring two different things.
I admit to having no solution to the legal issues, and so I will not speak to that.
Physically, the average man should be able to overpower and subdue the average or even the above average female if she decides to be violent without weapons. I essentially agree with Pragmatix although I don't really know pain holds.
Grab their hand, shove them, and dump their butt into a chair. Smile condescendingly at them as you hold them down with casual ease with one hand. It gets the message across pretty well.
Now granted, I'm a big guy, over six foot and well above two hundred pounds so what works for me might not work for others.
All that said, I can't really complain about this particular guy's actions. And I do think the writer of this letter needs to take a chill pill.
NiceTopictobe Anonymous at May 6, 2009 8:14 AM
I have to say I am amazed at all the good sense people are showing on this thread. If this is how so many citizens feel, why are the laws and the courts so screwy?
Jim at May 6, 2009 8:15 AM
The answer is rather simple really.
Some women know the system and use it against men.
Men for some reason, will not generally do the reverse. Take the gentle giant example from Juliana, the law may hold a bias against the male gender in general. None of us disagree with that.
However it is no less true that the law has a tendency to take the safe approach and believe the complaining party.
If the gentle giant had file the first complaint, he might have had a harder time than she in a DV complaint, but the law has little discretion and the prosecutor in many states, less than none.
My point is simple men, fight fire with fire. File the first complaint, document the incident occurences, and protect your rights with the same system that some women will use to violate them.
The most common stories of victimization I see here are about men who never saw the system coming, didn't know how to protect their rights or themselves.
Robert at May 6, 2009 8:16 AM
Force should be met with equal force.
The abusive wife should be in jail, no questions. But for him to punch her back would probably render her unconscious and in need of stitches and possibly a nose job. That's no equal.
Now, if we're talking about two people of the same weight and height then it's a fair fight. There is a reason fights are divided into weight classes and people dehydrate and starve themselves before the weigh-in. It's no fun to watch a fight b/w a huge person and a tiny person, at six-six the guy is easily 225 lbs. At five-two, even if she's fat she's prob under 150 lbs. Hold her down. Call 911 and have her put in jail. Or open hand slap her, it won't break her nose but it'll hurt.
Gretchen at May 6, 2009 8:17 AM
"Let me correct your words, you obviously mistyped:
"It's never ok for a [person] to hit a [loved one]. Any [person] who does so wasn't raised right."
There is absolutely no need to qualify by gender, is there?"
Yes. The letter was about a man hitting a woman BACK. Ergo, in answer to this question, it is never ok for a man to hit a woman. Unfortunately, men are becoming a rare breed. Very few here, for sure. In martial arts they teach you physical moves so that you never use them. They teach you how to get away without getting physical yourself. It's a lesson more should learn.
I am reading a lot of braggadocio here: "Hell yeah I'd hit back! She'd deserve it!" Grow up. Man up. If a situation is not to your liking, leave.
momof3 at May 6, 2009 8:18 AM
And before the whining starts on being told to man up, I was raised by a marine and was told it frequently. And I am not a man. I am, however, registered for the draft.
I am under no illusions here that I could do the same things as a male soldier. We recognize quite frankly that men are stronger when it comes to military, so why shouldn't you recognize it when it comes to relationships? Have you actually misplaced your balls?
You know where the phrase "be the bigger person" came from? Bigger guys never felt a need to fight to prove themselves, they'd walk away.
momof3 at May 6, 2009 8:21 AM
And I have to disagree, a 110 pound man is far more dangerous than a 110 pound woman. He's faster, stronger, and more skilled. He's also probably more used to taking damage, and is willing to trade his pain for your pain.
A 110 pound woman? I'd be tempted to grab her hand, hold it sky-high, at the end of my arms length, and watch her squirm futilely while being ready to dodge a kick. I would never treat a 110 pound man so cavalierly. I might not attack with my full force, but I would regard him as a serious threat.
NiceTopictobe Anonymous at May 6, 2009 8:22 AM
I am pregnant and we don't know yet what sex the baby is...if it's a boy I've already decided to teach him to defend himself. I remember too many times being on the playground as a little girl (and yes I was a bully) hitting guys or kicking them in the jewels and totally getting away with it. It was wrong and I should have been decked.
If we have a girl I'm telling her the same thing. If someone hits you - defend yourself if possible. And if you hit someone (girl or boy) be ready to be hit back. And I won't be on her side if she hits first.
megscole64 at May 6, 2009 8:22 AM
"If this is how so many citizens feel, why are the laws and the courts so screwy?"
Because, women who think it's not OK for a man to defend himself (and who think it's fine to punch a guy) aren't commenting here. Or, rather, most aren't.
ahw at May 6, 2009 8:24 AM
"Call 911 and have her put in jail."
Lots of folks her suggesting the guy call the police first.
I'm not an expert, (Glenn Sacks is), but my understanding is that can backfire. Under "primary aggressor" doctrine, even if the woman did ALL the hitting, the police are encouraged to determine who the primary aggressor is regardless of gender. That can involve determining who is most at risk, and then arresting the other person.
This is from a 1999 article: " Women's groups campaigned heavily for primary aggressor laws, which were designed to prevent battered women from also having to go through the trauma of being arrested for fighting back.
New York Gov. George Pataki made note of that in 1997 at the signing ceremony for his state's law. "Women who are the targets of domestic violence should not be victimized again by being arrested simply for defending themselves," Pataki said.
That is one reason the increase in the arrests of women under primary aggressor laws is surprising.
"This is geared to the prosecution of men," said Deputy Public Defender Lidia Stiglich, who handles arraignments in San Francisco's domestic violence court.
Whoever calls the police first wins, she said. And that is usually the woman. "If you are a man, you are toast," she said.
The guidelines police in California use to determine who is mainly responsible for domestic violence suggest she may have a point. It asks such questions as "Have you ever called a battered women's hot line?" and "Has he hit you before?""
Here is the first google for "primary aggressor"
Roanoke Police Department
Determining the Primary Aggressor
On July 1, 1997, Virginia law enforcement officers, upon finding probable cause an assault and battery against a family/ household member has occurred, must arrest the primary aggressor and include in the written report how the primary aggressor was determined. The primary aggressor is the party posing the most serious threat. The primary aggressor is not necessarily the first disputant to engage in assault behavior, but the one with the most ability and inclination to inflict physical injury.
When deteriming the primary aggressor, officers gather all relevant information.
Guilt is not assumed based on visual evidence.
The following information is used to determine the primary aggressor:
· History of service calls to the home.
· History of domestic violence between the parties.
· Prior assault convictions of either party.
· Current or previous orders of protection filed against either party.
· Height/weight of parties.
· Proportional nature of injuries inflicted on each person.
· Injuries - offensive and defensive.
· Evidence one party acted in self-defense (bites, scratches, use of a defense "weapon").
· Presence of fear in one party.
· Presence of other normal responses to trauma (crying).
· Presence of controlling behavior in one party.
· Need for protection.
· Potential for future injury.
jerry at May 6, 2009 8:27 AM
I have to wonder if crafty hunter doesn't have a good point. When a pendulum swings to far one way, it has a tendency to swing rather far the other way eventually. I doubt such a militant patriarchy would be "backward" or "religious" in the sense I suspect she means...but insofar as the rest, well it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
------------------------
Nice also has a point with regards to the physical capabilities of men vs women, the average man if he's in even mediocre shape, can take care of himself against unarmed female assault.
There was one occasion my wife lost her temper with me, so I just put her over my shoulder like an undignified sack of potatos. At first I'll grant you, that just made her madder, eventually though, she settled down and was able to actually laugh about it.
No marks, no pain, no injury except to her dignity, but the point was made.
Robert at May 6, 2009 8:35 AM
but men if they are bigger, can do much more damage, very easily, and don't know their own strength at times,
Like after being pummeled in the face a few times by some shrieking harpy?
Men don't typically lose it until they've really been hurt, or are under a dire threat.
The LW clearly expects that she should have the prerogative to assault men. She doesn't even want to grant us the ability to defend ourselves by restraining our attacker.
She resents her husband for having defended himself, after repeated abuse, and for not feeling the abject shame she thinks he should. So while she claims to love him, she obviously doesn't care for his welfare.
I hope that she expresses her opinions to him candidly, and is prepared for a divorce.
The fact of the matter is that women are much more prone to domestic abuse than men, especially when you factor their abuse against children and old people. If you allow them to beat you, their attacks will escalate. So a little reciprocity may be your best bet, and may save the lives of your kids.
But, as others have pointed out, men have no legal right to self defense against women. We're lucky if they get a few years for killing us.
Jacko at May 6, 2009 8:38 AM
This thread got me thinking of my last GF. She says she'd been beaten by an ex-husband and in one of our first really big arguments she tried to goad me into hitting her. I couldn't fucking believe my ears. Stunned, I stopped arguing. She later even used that against me. She accused me of thinking I was better than everyone else since I wouldn't hit her.
Man, she's twisted. If it hadn't been for the property we owned together I would have ended it a lot sooner than I did.
The fact that I was right in the arguments (it was always about her slacker kids and how she dealt with them) I'm sure is what drove her to try and get me to hit her. If I'd ever done that, she'd have held it over my head forever.
sean at May 6, 2009 8:39 AM
"Unfortunately, men are becoming a rare breed. Very few here, for sure."
"And before the whining starts on being told to man up..."
People can disagree with your views on this topic, and any other, and still be a man.
Spartee at May 6, 2009 8:43 AM
I served on a jury once, an assault case in which a male and a female coworker got into a fight at work. The woman had been found guilty of disorderly conduct, but because his punch had cut her lip, he was charged with 2nd degree (if I recall) assault. The trial made it clear that he did not hit the woman till she had followed him quite a ways, confronted him, and kicked his shins. The reason his charge was more serious was that his blow had cut her lip against a tooth, and a cut that requires stitches falls into a special category of assault in this state.
The jury was about half and half, men and women. We mulled the evidence over and found him innocent of assault, simply because the cut seemed to us a byproduct of the brawl, not a wound intentionally inflicted. We would have convicted him of disorderly conduct if that charge had been on the table, but it wasn't. So he walked.
If the incident had been a case of domestic violence instead of workplace violence, it seems to me the same principle should apply. But as so many have said above, it does not seem to these days.
Axman at May 6, 2009 8:49 AM
The emailer states the nephew's ex was a rage-aholic, counseling didn't work, she continued to hit him and now they're divorced. Her own husband sees firsthand that course didn't work, and states he'd hit back which is the only other reasonable response. Maybe he thinks that since the nephew's course didn't save his marriage, hitting back might get a different outcome. Amy's emailer just doesn't get that. Should he instead tell her he wouldn't hit back but they'd go to counseling and if she hit him afterwards they're done (like the nephew)? I think Amy's emailer would like that answer even less.
So this poster's short answer to Amy's emailer is no, he should not hit back; he should primarily cover is ass from a legal perspective, whether that's a police report or leaving. What he's telling his wife now, in the hypothetical, is the best way to help make sure it never happens. But her obscessing over it is undermining what he's diplomatically trying to protect.
Anonymous at May 6, 2009 8:49 AM
Well said, Spartee. Thanks.
jerry at May 6, 2009 8:49 AM
Physically, perhaps, you are men. You don't sound or act like them, and I imagine you'd be ostracized around groups of real men. You know, the kind who don't sit around saying how shit upon they are by women, trying to do group therapy. There's a reason I-and women in general-love the cop/firefighter/military man.
momof3 at May 6, 2009 9:02 AM
Wow. Well, it's a good thing that guy divorced his rageaholic wife instead of waiting for her to decide to frame him for domestic abuse if he did try to defend himself.
This is obviously a really touchy subject. Clearly, our legal system is broken when it comes to dealing with domestic violence. Very few people will take a guy's word over a woman's in an abuse situation, and even in self-defense, if a man hits his wife or girlfriend, he's more likely to be arrested than she is. I don't think the police or courts take domestic violence seriously when the perpetrator is a woman, and that's horrible, particularly when there are children involved.
I have a really horrible temper, and up until a little while ago I was prone to lashing out when I got really angry (usually just breaking stuff). I've worked really, really hard on having more self-control and I am much better than I used to be. I'm not proud of it at all, I think it's a really awful personal failing, but I've learned strategies for expressing anger in more constructive ways.
I did once punch a boyfriend. Now, I punched him on the shoulder. I weighed less than a hundred pounds at the time and I have *no* upper body strength. So it was like being punched by a mad little hamster and I didn't even leave a mark, much less a bruise. He was 6'5" and weighed well over 200 pounds and could have bench pressed two of me. Would he have been justified in hitting me back? I don't think so-he could have easily done serious damage with one punch, nor was I going after him with a weapon or intent on doing any serious damage (which I don't think I would have been capable of anyway). Instead, this really awesome boyfriend just hugged me until I calmed down enough to talk about it.
I absolutely do think a man should be able to defend himself against a woman, but clearly there is a difference between how much damage one person can inflict versus another. I think I understand where the e-mailer is coming from, and while I think defending yourself should be everyone's right in a dangerous situation, the reality is that if this guy did, he'd probably land in jail. Divorcing her was smart. Having a record for assault, no matter how undeserved, is not going to help him. I think the e-mailer needs to stop thinking in terms of "man hits! man bad!" and instead look at the reality of the situation-a guy in an abusive relationship who needs to be able to protect himself.
hamsa at May 6, 2009 9:15 AM
What about all those old black and white romance movies where the woman slaps the man and he slaps her back and then they kiss?
Women will be equal to men when they can take a punch. - Brian
Women will be equal to men when they can weigh three hundred pounds, have uncontrollable body hair, and still think every man in America wants them.
He's faster, stronger, and more skilled.
More skilled? If she's been taking karate for years and he was raised by peaceniks, who's more skilled?
Conan the Grammarian at May 6, 2009 9:18 AM
What about all those old black and white romance movies where the woman slaps the man and he slaps her back and then they kiss?
Women will be equal to men when they can take a punch. - Brian
Women will be equal to men when they can weigh three hundred pounds, have uncontrollable body hair, and still think every man in America wants them.
He's faster, stronger, and more skilled.
More skilled? If she's been taking karate for years and he was raised by peaceniks, who's more skilled?
Conan the Grammarian at May 6, 2009 9:18 AM
Ugh. A blow in a relationship, from either sex, is pretty much a dealbreaker for me. I can understand the natural impulse and "fairness" of hitting back, but, well, two wrongs don't make a right, people. For a man to hit a woman back risks serious injury to the woman and a jail sentence for the man. That is not worth proving that you're not to be trifled with, in my opinion.
Obviously the LW's husband's relationship with his first wife survived the hitting-back scenario with no further violence, and other commenters on this thread have claimed similar experiences... but was hitting back the ONLY way to solve the problem of the wife's violence in those situations? I doubt it. If the relationships went on to survive decades, then the women couldn't have been that unstable. A frank discussion or ultimatum would probably have been as effective. In situations where the women were truly nuts and the relationships ended, then hitting back didn't help anyway.
Don't get me wrong, it is NEVER okay for a woman to hit a man. Dump her ass. Or if you think there's hope for her, give her one pass, but really follow through and dump her ass if she does it again. And I am absolutely sickened by the women who abuse men, falsely accuse them of assault and rape, steal their finances through the corruption of child support, etc. I have nothing but compassion for the many, many, men who have suffered at the hands of spoiled, crazy women encouraged by the disaster of "feminism." The system is broken, and I wish I knew how to fix it. But hitting back a woman who hits you will not advance your cause.
That said, I think hitting back is very human. That doesn't make it right, but it's a lot more forgiveable than initiating a blow. So if the LW's husband is otherwise a great guy and she really loves him, I would counsel her to overlook this one thing that's bothering her. If she never hits him, then she will never ever find herself in that situation. So why worry about it? My best advice would be to find some way they can agree to disagree and not to bring the topic up anymore. No point needlessly bothering one another over a hypothetical situation.
Debra at May 6, 2009 9:29 AM
The current state of the legal system is a backlash against what some men seem to think of as the good old days: when men could put their wives and daughters and girlfriends "in their place" with a solid punch to the face, with no repurcussions, because nobody talked about it.
The modern way isn't right, either, but I'm an optimist: I think the ship will right itself.
MonicaP at May 6, 2009 9:32 AM
That Roanoke definition of 'primary aggressor' is so laden with appearance and intent, but NO ACTUAL physical violence in it's definition, that the male will almost always be the primary due to his size, build.
I should think that this would be unconstitutional, but as it is used against men, the last minority, it's obviously just and fair.
Peh. No one should hit anyone else. But if you do, you have lost your right to stay un-hit. Choose your victims wisely.
Bill Johnson at May 6, 2009 9:50 AM
it's subtle, but there is another way to think about this...
when walking down the edge of this sword there is threat, and there is follow through.
In LW's case, the husband has established the threat that he could, at his discretion, use force if he thought it necessary to defend himself. And he has told everyone without ambiguity that he would do so.
That takes care of anyone believing that they could hit him with impunity, primarily his current wife. So? End of story, she won't hit him, because she knows the consequence.
Following through on the threat is another matter. If a woman decides to hit without using a weapon, legally you should leave. There ain't no justice in this, the odds of losing in court are totally against you.
So the threat takes care of setting the boundries. Most people will stay within them anyway. For those that don't, walking away is far better.
IF she comes at you with a weapon, you will need to be more serious. If you can leave, do so, if not defend yourself and do so. If it's a pattern you have to document it. Best bet is to walk away and never come back. And hope like heck she doesn't come after you, because she knows the law is on her side.
Here's the weird thing. There are women out there who paradoxically will tell you to defend yourself. Unless you are defending against them. What is key in my experience is that you aren't passive in your decision. In life a lot of people will SEEK a boundry. If you don't give them one, they push farther. That is why once they start hitting, they don't stop. My ex hit me one time, and I told her it would be over if she ever did again. She didn't. I should have left anyway, in hindsight. I found out that there was a pattern in her life of abusing, even if it was emo only. But at least the physical boundry was set. When I was younger a potential girlfriend slapped me multiple times, and I just took it, because I was raised that way. But after the 3rd slap I stopped the 4th, twisted her hand around in a lock, and said "Don't hit me." Her response to that was to say: 'I just wanted to see if you'd react...'
There are a LOT of women out there that will assume that you will "Man Up" as momof3 says and take it. The way to man up, is to realize there is no gain to staying with them, they will always treat you poorly. They will also always have the law on their side. The fact that they are willing to hit you first means there is something wrong already.
To man up, is to realize that there is no reason for you to be abused. You would be far better off alone.
The guys who would follow through on the threat to hit back are playing russian roulette... the odds are against you. Most police will ALWAYS arrest the guy, sometimes after he gets out of the hospital she put him in.
SwissArmyD at May 6, 2009 9:57 AM
I'm with momof3.
Ppen at May 6, 2009 10:24 AM
Conan,
I met one girl as tall as I am, and she had an energy level that a rabid ferret might envy. Another female I met was a prison guard who sadistically enjoyed water blasting prisoners. I sat on a grand jury, and listened to the tale of a one woman crime wave...she got tasered twice, kicked out the back window of a police car, struggled with a couple cops (and the cops around where I live are BIG.)...That's one woman I don't want to meet in a dark alley.
There are some few, very few, females who are a serious threat to the average man.
Robert,
Thanks for the kind word. Perhaps Crafty Hunter's world might arrive with a Darwinian atheist backdrop. After all, Old Chuck was firmly convinced of the inferiority of women. His theory told him so.
Momof3,
As a gentleman, and one raised on King Arthur's tales, and taught in college that men are supposed to walk on the outside of the sidewalk, I would like to request for you to 'Lady Up'.
Chivalry is a good notion. I'm glad to hold the car door for my wife, and hold other doors for women, to say 'ma'am', and so forth. Its Neccessary IMO. Its a man's job to protect his woman even at the cost of his own life. But he is to protect her from herself at times as well. How is it good for a woman to allow her to become a monster?
Chivalry is a good notion. But it requires its opposite which is Ladylike behavior. Without both, the social equation is unbalanced.
NiceTopictobe Anonymous at May 6, 2009 10:27 AM
"Women will be equal to men when they can take a punch."
Oh please. You might as well say men will be equal to women when they can bear children. We can have legal equality while still recognizing basic biological differences.
Anyway, I don't think the issue is that "women should never be hit," it's the huge disparity in size and physical strength. I don't think that a 6'6 man should hit a 5'2 man either, especially one that has much less muscle mass and fighting ability. And since women are almost always smaller, less muscular, and have less fighting ability/experience than men, men should just make it a policy not to hit women, period. When my younger sister and I fought when we were little, I was the one who got in trouble, even when she started the fight, because I was bigger and could/did do more damage. Result? I learned not to beat up on my sister. If I could figure this out and exert self-restraint at age 6, then a grown adult should be able to.
Second graders fighting on the playground is a totally different story, since at that age there's no real difference in size or strength between boys and girls-in fact girls tend to be larger! That doesn't mean that boys should be taught to hit back, just that girls should absolutely be held accountable and punished for their actions.
Shannon at May 6, 2009 10:34 AM
On the moral matter. A man can hit back to defend himself. This means to prevent himself from being hit again. This is the law, both moral and statutory, most everywhere for most everyone. These laws exist because a man reasonably expects that law enforcement and courts will equally enforce the laws against assault and protect him from harm and the threat of harm.
On the practical matter. Most law enforcement and courts are as stupid as momof3. Women are weaker than men. Moral ingrates, like momof3, want to make this fact into a license for mayhem and assault against men. Many in law enforcement and on the bench are just as morally deficient as momof3. Hence, when a woman hits you - run. Under VAWA and the prevailing standards of our time, women can assault and even maim or kill men with weapons, with little consequence. Ours is a society of female supremacy at law. Momof3 is our Dear Leader.
Jeff at May 6, 2009 10:36 AM
Unfortunately, men are becoming a rare breed. - momof3
Is it really that unfortunate? I mean its fairly obvious that the rarity of men is something that happend in fairly visible stages, you may find it unfortunate momof3 - but is seems to me that the silent majority of woman stood by and let femminists direct the the state of thing to this juncture long ago.
The thing about men is, most of us anyway, are slaves to the happiness of women, and the reason you cant seem to find real men anymore is because we adapted to most of you saying you didnt want us.
Its like the woman in her thirties finally ready to settledown with a nice guy and start a family and cant seem to find any. That because the dumb nice guys married the first woman how showed them any kindness even though they got treatd like crap the moment the marrige certificate was signed. And the smart nice guy transformed themselves into douchbags in a sad atempt to get your attetion for the last 15 yrs. Of course by the time your ready to settle down ther is a fresh crop of 20somethings looking for Mr Wrong so why should they settle down with you?
lujlp at May 6, 2009 10:37 AM
vlad at May 6, 2009 10:38 AM
That's my take on it but someone has to get that pendulum moving in the other direction before it over swings and over corrects.
vlad at May 6, 2009 10:43 AM
If I hit a guy, I would expect to be hit back. And for those that think a smaller women cannot fight.. well, I took martial arts (still do) and size doesn't always mean the smaller is at a less advantage. It is easier for me to knock a bigger person down - if you know what you are doing. And I do. I would never hit anyone.. unless I was at risk, hit first. However, being a woman, if I hit anyone..man or woman, I would expect that person to defend themselves. Anything less is not respecting yourself enough to take care of yourself. The laws being what they are are totally unfair I do agree with that.. that being said... you do what you feel best for yourself, but it is not unreasonable to defend yourself against an aggressor, male or female.
Melody at May 6, 2009 10:48 AM
You know, me and vlad have had bad times. But we've also had some good times. This is one of them good times.
I agree with you vlad. I'm not gonna' take warm showers with you in the wee hours of the morning, but I do agree with you 100%.
The ability to take loads of shit from a woman is not a measure of manliness. And you're right, the chivalrous man gets the worst of it in the end.
Jeff at May 6, 2009 10:50 AM
SwissArmyD, you said clearly what I tried to in an earlier post.
The husband TELLS his wife he'd hit back. This helps prevent her thinking she can hit continually without repurcussion.
If the wife DOES hit, he doesn't hit back but either leaves or covers for the adverse legal landscape that awaits if things go badly later.
No bigger guy hitting the smaller gal, & no legal ambush for the guy, so everybody wins, right?
No, the wife that is the casue of this thread is now obscessing over what the husband TELLS her he'd do. If she'd put herself in his shoes for a minute, she'd see that a) his nephew's marriage broke up when he did not hit back; and b) his own earlier marriage continued after he did hit back once, which ended the problem. In his experience only one way saved the marriage. Would he actually hit back in this second marriage? Maybe, maybe not, but his answer is the only one that in his experience will not lead to divorce. The wife wants him to choose the option that in his experience leads to diverce. If she would see the big picture his answer is actually pretty good news for her, relationship-wise.
Momof3, you're way off base. You seem to see it as self respect if your husband would 'man up' and hit you back. Now I'll hit any male back, there's no reservation in general about physically mixing it up. Most of the comments on not hitting back center on avoiding legal ambush. Maybe one day you'll decide your husband has manned up too much on you and you'll sick the law on him. Since the woman always has that option, I'll pass on your version of manning up.
Anonymous at May 6, 2009 10:55 AM
If your view of women is based on the fact that most women are like momof3. I may disagree with the view that they are the majority but the logical view based on this is 100% correct. If I'm wrong and most women do actually see us as wallets and punching bags then not only are you correct but we are all very very screwed.
Um, um lost for words is understatement.vlad at May 6, 2009 10:57 AM
When a women says man up what she means is drop troue and assume the position. These are particularly dangerous when your SO is a Don King or a babies mama. These tend to lead to dirty bar fights and clean bank accounts.
vlad at May 6, 2009 11:13 AM
Anonymous, you need to brush up on your reading comprehention - momof3 has said a man should never hit a woman
lujlp at May 6, 2009 11:26 AM
heh, Vlad...
when a woman says "Man Up" she has her own definition of what that means... but you can imagine the firestorm that would happen if I told someone to "WOman Up." After all, whould things could that mean?
Each man has to decide for themselves how much suffering in silence they can bear. This is what a woman means by Man Up.
SwissArmyD at May 6, 2009 11:29 AM
... but you can imagine the firestorm that would happen if I told someone to "WOman Up." After all, whould things could that mean?
Not just a firestorm, Swiss, try a veritable shitstorm. Cue segue into Harry Enfield's videos on how women should behave....
Juliana at May 6, 2009 11:41 AM
I don't believe that momof3 was arguing that hitting the man was OK, I believe she was advocating that the moral high ground was not to retaliate with violence. That acting physically violent after an attack was an inherently immoral and "UNMANLY" fashion, inappropriate for use (whether only against women or in general I'm unsure).
Unfortunately I grew up under teachings like that, walk away, don't hit back, that shit made my freshmen-junior years of high school into hell. Sometimes when you turn the other cheek, you just get slapped twice.
There are times to walk away sure, but there are also times to make a fist and put it to a face, one solution does not work for every situation. momof3's suggestion might work if a woman is simply prone to annoying hysterionics, but a violent woman out for blood, walking away gets you hit in the back of the head. Bad juju that.
However at the same time, alright lets be reasonable, 5'2 105 lbs woman strikes 5'11 209 lbs carved out of wood me, a single blow and she's in the hospital, wheras her strikes to me will just hurt her hands. Now if I hit back with all my strength just because she hit me with all her strength...bazooka vs bb gun. That is not a reasonable and measured response. It is reasonable to hit back, but it is not reasonable to cripple. It is reasonable to ensure that the consequences of hitting me are such that that one response acts as a deterent against future physical aggression, as well as ends the threat that is ongoing against me while she hits.
In short:
Defend yourselves guys, but do so within reason, don't cripple the wench because she gave you a bloody nose, but don't stand there and let her give you two of them either. Act with the minimum force necessary to end the threat and deter future aggression.
Robert at May 6, 2009 11:45 AM
Momof3, I owe you an apology. Re-reading your previous posts, your version of man-up is to walk away. Sorry.
But the point remains. In the heat of the moment women can escalate it to a legal metter where the guy always loses, facts be damned. We don't much care for that, so we take that into account in dealing a woman who can't control her own emotions.
Anonymous at May 6, 2009 11:45 AM
I met one girl as tall as I am, and she had an energy level that a rabid ferret might envy. Another female I met was a prison guard who sadistically enjoyed water blasting prisoners. I sat on a grand jury, and listened to the tale of a one woman crime wave...she got tasered twice, kicked out the back window of a police car, struggled with a couple cops (and the cops around where I live are BIG.)...That's one woman I don't want to meet in a dark alley. - NiceTopic...
Okay, Nice.
One, the topic was whether a man is automatically more skilled at martial arts than a woman. The answer is no.
Two, wherever it is you go to meet women, you need to go somewhere else.
Conan the Grammarian at May 6, 2009 11:52 AM
As far as the relevance of skill vs physical power goes...that will be rather relative.
Most forms of martial arts that I'm familiar with rely on a combination of leverage & balance, which is fine, but generally relies on say...her multiple muscles being stronger than his single 1 to throw off balance or gain leverage against an opponent.
Sometimes...that is plenty, a fit woman with sufficient training can at least do enough harm to a proportionally fit male to deter him or allow herself to escape.
HOWEVER, against a very physically fit man, technical application of training matters a bit less, if my forearm has sufficient muscle development, it by itself is enough to fling her around no matter her knowledge of hand grips that would otherwise give her leverage.
But that puts us into a whole different discussion.
Robert at May 6, 2009 11:56 AM
vlad at May 6, 2009 12:00 PM
Pray tell what is wrong with tall girl and more energy than a rabid ferret??
I think Gregg would tell you that pretty much describes me.
Amy Alkon at May 6, 2009 12:11 PM
I don't approve of men striking women except in extraordinary situations. But neither do I find the disparity of force, or capacity, argument persuasive.
You could just as easily argue that mens' greater facility with violence makes them better suited to wield it. That is, a man will be better able to administer violence in a measured fashion and so should in order to prevent a violent encounter from escalating.
That said, here's a thought experiment ..
Let's say that a 12 year old boy has the habit of punching and scratching his father in the face. Would the father be warranted in hitting him to stop this behavior?
Or what if a 10 year old boy did this to his mother. Would she be justified in hitting him?
And lets assume a reasonable degree of force in response - enough for the parent to demonstrate that they could impose harm if they chose to, but less than what would severely injure the kid.
----------
I'd had a nasty encounter with an ex girlfriend which I think demonstrates that sometimes force against women is necessary.
She'd cheated on me with one of her prior boyfriends and was upset that I didn't want to take her back. So she decided to attack my face with a kitty litter rake. She was trying to hit me in the eyes. The crap on the rake had blinded me and as I went to cover my eyes, I reflexively kicked her in the sternum. This threw her across the kitchen and knocked the wind out of her. It also scared the crap out of her and she tore out of the kitchen like she was on fire. That stopped the attack, saved my eyesight, and didn't result in any serious injuries to her.
Fortunately I know a few things about her past that would get her into serious legal trouble, and so was able to ensure that she didn't go to the police. I'd likely have faced assault charges if she had.
Real Man 2.0 at May 6, 2009 12:18 PM
If a child hit me, I wouldn't hit the child back because the child is smaller than I am.
The reason you don't retaliate when a child hits you is not just that he's smaller, but that he's immature and thus not fully responsible for his actions, so the comparison to an adult woman is not really valid.
Like Amy, I can't imagine ever being in this position, b/c I wouldn't get together with a woman of such poor character to begin with, but if it ever happened, I'd walk away.
kishke at May 6, 2009 12:24 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/06/no_defense_at_a.html#comment-1646793">comment from kishkeI find it completely uncivilized and wrong to ever hit another person unless you're in war or defending yourself from harm. My first line of defense is my feet - as in to book out of wherever I am.
The problem is, men don't take domestic violence against them seriously -- despite the fact a woman could seriously injure or kill them -- and the system tends not to, either. Shelters and domestic abuse resources often do not accommodate men. And men tend to feel embarrassed by the abuse, and laugh it off -- which can lead to a point where they are injured or killed.
One thing that would be most helpful is for people to spread the word that men are victims of domestic abuse, and need to be helped and believed in this and not automatically turned into the criminal simply because they're bigger, in a domestic disturbance. Please pass this information on. Tell a couple people about the reality of this this week and ask them to tell a couple people. It's a little lame, but it's a start. And it's an issue I've written about in the past and will continue to write about.
Amy Alkon at May 6, 2009 12:32 PM
Her version of playing ping pong was to bounce it off all the walls of the very big room, and chase it for an hour straight without hardly any breaks. After an hour of this, I'm dripping sweat, and panting for breath, and she's pretty much telling me to Man Up. I quit at that point.
Unfortunately, she was less of a model, and more of a young titaness. Kinda cute if you're into girls that could juggle twenty pound bowling balls.
As to these three girls, well, that was in fifteen years. These are the extreme outliers. I probably ran into three guys today that could kick my head in. And thats the comparison.
And Conan you're making the point that I assumed was understood. After which I clarified it for you. I never said the average guy could beat EVERY girl, just the average and above-average ones. Lucy Liu could probably dance on my skull. That's understood by all, I hope.
As to whether masculine mass, reaction speed, and so forth can beat a trained female martial artist. I'd say the artist is at greater disadvantage than commonly shown on TV. I'd also say that at some point the scales tip.
But I'd also point out that there are probably far more male martial artists than female.
And last, I am in no way an expert on the martial arts, and this is only my opinion from watching on the outside. And so that uninformed opinion is that a lot of female practtioners would be greatly surprised if they were so foolish as to attack some random guy.
And really last, even though I kinda disagree with Melody on this, I think the rest of what she has to say is quite good. And I could be wrong on the rest.
Nicetopic tobe anonymous at May 6, 2009 12:41 PM
I've always wanted to open up a chain of strip mall marital arts studios, complete with funky white pajamas and colorful belts.
jerry at May 6, 2009 12:43 PM
"I can't imagine ever being in this position, b/c I wouldn't get together with a woman of such poor character to begin with" Kiske...
I used to believe that too, until my ex hit me. This is all a thought experiment. Until it's not.
SwissArmyD at May 6, 2009 12:47 PM
"Physically, perhaps, you are men. You don't sound or act like them, and I imagine you'd be ostracized around groups of real men. You know, the kind who don't sit around saying how shit upon they are by women, trying to do group therapy. There's a reason I-and women in general-love the cop/firefighter/military man.
Posted by: momof3 at May 6, 2009 9:02 AM"
But I thought men should be more open with their feelings, get more in touch with themselves and their women? Is the reason you love the cops/firefighters/military men because you can control them better via chivalry? Whats the divorce rate of cops and soliders these days eh? WestPac widows are a myth?
Sio at May 6, 2009 12:55 PM
Most forms of martial arts that I'm familiar with rely on a combination of leverage & balance, which is fine, but generally relies on say...her multiple muscles being stronger than his single 1 to throw off balance or gain leverage against an opponent.
The question isn't whether brute force can defeat a weaker but more skilled opponent. Sometimes it can.
The question is whether the man is automatically the "skilled" party in the dispute.
I maintain he is not.
That doesn't mean a black belted 110lb woman can automatically triumph over a 270lb walking steroid.
But to assume the man is automatically the more "skilled" party is excuse whatever fighting tactic or weapon the woman uses and to assume the man should always triumph because of his superior "skill."
That's the assumption that gets woman-on-man domestic violence dismissed as wimpy whining.
An unskilled man has one weapon, brute force (and no experience to guide him in moderating that force). That gets him thrown in jail.
A martially-skilled man can deflect blows, disarm opponents, and avoid a knock-down fight - which may also get him thrown in jail.
Conan the Grammarian at May 6, 2009 1:03 PM
"Unfortunately, men are becoming a rare breed. Very few here, for sure."
"And before the whining starts on being told to man up..."
People can disagree with your views on this topic, and any other, and still be a man."
"Physically, perhaps, you are men. You don't sound or act like them, and I imagine you'd be ostracized around groups of real men. You know, the kind who don't sit around saying how shit upon they are by women, trying to do group therapy. There's a reason I-and women in general-love the cop/firefighter/military man."
Momof3, do you klnow how stupid it looks when a pussy attacks someone else's manhood?
Momof3, grow up. GET A JOB and contribute something to society for once in your life.
These are plain old, cheap old shaming tactics she is using. In a relationship they are emotional abuse. And as we all know emotional abuse is the first step to physical abuse. Someone has just outed herself as an abuser.
Is momof3 ready to have me tell her that she's not a real woman? Would she care about my opinion? Why should any man care what she thinks about who is and isn't a real man?
And notice what here solution to the problem is, how self-serving it is. He just has to move out. And his abuser gets the house he is paying for. After all, he's just paying for it; it's really her house by rights, she's the lady of the house, 'cause she cleans it or something. That ought to put a sparkle in every illegal housemaid's eye.
Let's review the rules of chivalry:
1) A gentleman does not strike a lady.
2) A gentleman does not tolerate insolence from peasants or other livestock, male or female. He kills incorrigibly an insolent peasant.
3) Common women are not ladies. Ladies are born of noble blood.
Any other interpretation is just a vulgar distortion of chivalry. How many here want to go back to this system? I don't. I think it's immoral.
Jim at May 6, 2009 1:03 PM
Comparing women to children in this case is really very insulting to women. Unlike children adult, grown, mature women possess the critical facilities necessary to know that what they are about to do is wrong, violent, and (as you say) uncivilized. Mere size or strength disparities do not lessen this important moral fact. Responding to force with force is perfectly acceptable in my books. I don't feel myself under any obligation to risk further harm to myself just because I'm bigger and stronger than a woman who is currently hitting me.
Pierre
Pierre Honeyman at May 6, 2009 1:37 PM
Jim- You're right. I don't think anyone wants to go back to this system; you can't really live at the Renaissance Fair, no matter how anachronistic someone wants to be. You still have to go back to reality where people are selfish, pass gas in your presence, insult your kids or your parentage.
Maybe what we really want is common (read: two-way, non-gender-specific) courtesy. This Battle of the Sexes/ who hit who first/ who hurt who's feelings worse/ who has a better psychological diagnosis (read:excuse) for bad behavior/ litigious crap is "chicken or the egg" reasoning. Nothing gets solved. Apparently it's too much to ask anyone to be responsible for their own actions these days. But God help you if you're toe to toe with a pathological liar who wants more than a pound of flesh out of your hide.
Juliana at May 6, 2009 1:47 PM
SwissArmy: I hear ya.
kishke at May 6, 2009 1:53 PM
Self-defense is self-defense.
It should be reasonable. Should he hit back hard enough to deck her? Not unless she's hitting him hard enough to deck him.
Should he be able to his her hard enough to make her stop. Definitely.
Jack at May 6, 2009 1:57 PM
Self-defense is self-defense.
It should be reasonable. Should he hit back hard enough to deck her? Not unless she's hitting him hard enough to deck him.
Should he be able to his her hard enough to make her stop. Definitely.
Jack at May 6, 2009 1:57 PM
"But God help you if you're toe to toe with a pathological liar who wants more than a pound of flesh out of your hide." Juliana...
how sad does it make all of us that this is true, J?
In consideration of everyone who has boys that will grow up to be husbands, I hope you will never find out how easily a shrew can destroy their lives. I hope you never find them in the hospital with a fractured skull from a lodge frying pan. Or on your front doorstep with the clothes on their back, because their supposed wife now has a restraining order, and they haven't a clue what they did.
We tell women to be strong and do what they need to do. Why are we telling men to be strong and do nothing?
SwissArmyD at May 6, 2009 2:18 PM
What stops aggressors like the woman in the article?
Almost always, whether it be wars or personal situations, violence stops violence.
That is to say aggressors love being violent until someone is equally or more violent than they are.
David M at May 6, 2009 2:25 PM
We can choose to go back to a system of Chivalry and Ladylike Behavior for all... the Americanized Egalitarian Version and update it for modern situations, or we can choose to go the barbarian route and give up chivalry to balance out the loss of ladylike behavior.
Its harder to be civilized, to take natural instincts and refine them, and create culture. Its easier to be barbarian. I'm not sure the current situation which is half one and half the other will survive. But if women aren't willing to Lady Up, we're likely heading toward the Crude, Rude Future.
NiceTopictobe Anonymous at May 6, 2009 3:01 PM
I honestly don't see the problem - he won't hit her if she doesn't hit him. So she just shouldn't hit him. It sounds hypocritical to me - like maybe she really wants that option to be able to hit him 'just in case' she feels like doing it at some point, and wants to know he'll just take it - I don't see why else would it bother her.
The argument that women can't hurt men is balderdash. Men do have a right to self-defence.
DavidJ at May 6, 2009 3:10 PM
For the record though, I would definitely not hit a woman if she hit me, *unless* I genuinely felt I was in danger and had to hit back in order to defend myself. Otherwise, I'd most likely just leave, or try restrain her.
DavidJ at May 6, 2009 3:12 PM
Incidentally, my last girlfriend was the same height as me, but much stronger than me. Surely it's wrong to make "rules" based on size or gender about who may hit who ... these things are not absolute measures over superiority in a conflict situation, only generalizations that apply in most cases. If a big, strong woman were to attack a small, weak man, why shouldn't the "rule" be automatically "inverted"?
DavidJ at May 6, 2009 3:16 PM
momof3: 'saying how shit upon they are by women, trying to do group therapy. There's a reason I-and women in general-love the cop/firefighter/military man'
Gee, can I criticize women who sit around and cry after they've been raped or when they have PMS or are just 'feeling emotional' or whatever? "Toughen up, women"! Yeah right. Nothing wrong with preferring tough men, but don't pretend you're not being a hypocrite if you criticize "weak" men but don't apply the same standards to women.
Jo at May 6, 2009 3:20 PM
"But if women aren't willing to Lady Up, we're likely heading toward the Crude, Rude Future."
Nice, I couldn't agree more.
I am a 5th degree black belt and have been teaching martial arts for many years. This situation is a bit like teaching someone to keep their hand (at least one) up to protect their face when sparring: one punch in the nose will teach that lesson more effectively than being told a thousand times. Nonetheless, I still tell my students, and don't actually punch them.
Women SHOULD know what it means to take a punch if they are going to dish one out. But, in today's man-hating, woman-loving climate, we will continue to treat women like children -- and they will continue to deserve it until they start to "woman-up."
BTW, a skilled smaller woman can beat a larger man without skills ... but the smart money still doesn't bet that way ... .
Jay R at May 6, 2009 3:42 PM
I'm too lazy to hit anyone. And if anyone hit me, I would run away. I guess that's just stoner mentality for ya.
(You gonna eat that?)
Happy 4-20! Oh, oops, I guess 4-20 was over a few days ago. Okay! (Rolls over ...)
Pirate Jo at May 6, 2009 4:35 PM
What do I think is the best thing to do? If she's got a feminine entitlement complex "I have the right to hit men without being hit back
and men and children are property and resources" then the best thing to do is apologize, that's right, suck it up like a man and apologize.
Then call a DV shelter and the other help lines. They'll tell you to bugger off, of course, but make sure to make the call and then wire up the house with cameras and microphones (where legal). Also,
get a lawyer on call and/or a witness.
Then be on your best behavior. The neat thing about abusive people, violent or otherwise, is that they take niceness and appeasement as an invitation to get more aggressive. They will eventually snap over the most stupid thing OR the guy can pick a certain, appropriate time to make his move to get her to snap. (if she can't stand macaroons, serve them when her favorite program is about to start and wait for the fireworks.)
THEN call the police and your witness/lawyer!
She'll lie through her teeth, of course, and the police will side with her. Wait until JUST before the nice police officers are about to cuff you and then mention the tapes in front of the lawyer/witness. The police, red faced, will have a real difficult situation on their hands but at that point they're in pretty deep. "It's just a big
misunderstanding" they'll say. "Great", respond, "Let's just make sure there aren't any in the future!"
Does it sound like I'm pulling this advice out of my butt? I had a crazy biological clock ticker I was dating and I told her no a few times when she asked me to buy her things and she got angry and nasty and
showed a bad side to herself. Then she revealed she was seeing a psychiatrist. I said "bye bye".
Then the drunken phone calls and threats began (against my cat.) I unplugged the phone and sent calls to voicemail. Waited a few days. And then called a friend of hers and said if she didn't stop bugging me, I'd call the police.
End of problem.
PolishKnight at May 6, 2009 6:43 PM
My ex was violent to me twice. The first time I tried to hold her down and she bit me - through a heavy coat and it still left the clear outline of her jaw on my arm. The second time I simply blocked her blows until she tried to kick me, then I hit her. I didn't think about doing it and it wasn't anger, simply a reaction. I remember being ready to strike again and saw fear in her eyes and walked out. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of this. Those who state you should just walk out aren't thinking of the fact that you are much more vulnerably being attacked from behind. My ex used to brag about beating guys up and I wasn't that much bigger and stronger than her. I know if I had tried to walk out earlier, she would have been all over me. When I did walk out, I knew she wouldn't do anything. I don't recommend hitting a women, and if I had a choice, I would walk out, but I don't see the point of taking abuse either.
William (wbhicks@hotmail.com) at May 6, 2009 7:17 PM
Women are not children. Adult women have a well developed sense of cause and effect and are generally capable of dealing out lethal violence if unopposed.
Those folk who explicitly compare women to children lack respect for the adulthood of women.
The letter writer is indeed way off base. Her husband is in no way a bad person for being adult enough to stand up for himself and hold other adults to the same standard of behavior that he is.
scott at May 6, 2009 8:02 PM
Morally a man is obviously entitled to hit back - all this crap about the size difference is misandry at its worst as nobody would argue that because im 5'10" 230 i should be able to thump a 6'6" 300lb wrestler and he shouldn't hit back because of the size difference.It's all just part of the woman good/man bad ethos of western patriarchies. That said, legally youd have to be a fool to hit her back unless she's going after you with a weapon - get her charged, but dont hit back as no one will believe it was self defense. Also, the woman who wrote in is an awful person and i hope her husband dumps her.
Porky at May 6, 2009 8:10 PM
"Man Up" as momof3 says and take"
Sweet jesus will you people learn to read? Man up as in don't hit back. I said leave. I never said it was ok for women to hit. No more than it's ok for a man to hit back to prove some pathetic point about not being willing to take shit from anybody. You know how to best prove that? Leave, and take no more shit by virtue of not being there. .
Don't get me started on the dad who punched his toddler to prove his point. You one are fucking winner of a dad, and such a big bad man!! Ooooo!!!!!
Vlad. I think your post just revealed more about your fantasies than anything coherent to the discussion. Women cornholing manly soldier men.....what sites do you frequent other than this one??
I would never hit my husband, he would never hit me, back or otherwise, nor would either of us tolerate it. We're adults, not kids on the playground saying "but she did it first!"
I thought Amy's response to LW was great. Oh, and for you "men" who are saying now she'll behave because LW knows she'll get decked if needed, you've got one twisted view of people. Normal people in normal relationships don't need threats. Get some counseling or something.
momof3 at May 6, 2009 9:00 PM
Well momof3 would you prefer the dad hit the boy hard enough to drive hoe the point that hitting hurts, or would you prefer that he learned it at the hands of someone he hit on the playground who wouldnt hold back and didnt have a life lesson in mind?
lujlp at May 6, 2009 9:13 PM
Violence is Violence, no matter the gender. In the real world there is "fight or flight", and that is also gender neutral. In the wild, whoever is physically attacked must respond with a force equal to or greater than that of the attacker until the attack ceases and they are safe from injury. Alternately, they can just run away and hide.
I was reared to be a "gentleman", in a time when females were schooled in behaving like "ladies". Now we've all gone feral, but we like to have our little fantasy of civilized behaviors and prosecute those who will not "live the dream". The facts are that the very concept of gentlemen and ladies is scorned by all those who screech about men as inherently bad actors. What should we expect but a steady spiral down into the muck of our animal natures?
It is sheer stupidity, and the depth of hypocrisy, to demand one human being sacrifice their safety and well-being to another, even to a weaker opponent, in a "natural" world.
I've never hit a woman, but have been struck by several who immediately warned me that I would go to jail if I responded in like. In one instance, I was significantly injured and required medical attention. What does that say about me, and them? Well, in terms of nature and our new jungle, it makes me a classic "pussy". And, it makes them vicious "bitches". Very civilized, no?
It's all well to talk about how we "should react" in the face of violence. It's quite another to be in the moment where it's all rage, fear and pain. Each case of "domestic violence" is unique and who is victim and perpetrator should be determined by facts in evidence, not by some nebulous, gender-based formula established by relationship experts. Or worse, divorce lawyers and social workers.
Best regards to all
PS - Physically restraining another person against their will is just as much physical assault as striking them. And, for evidence purposes, can leave marks and bruises that work well for allegations criminal assault too. + Guys. Don't be saps. You're going to go to jail and lose your children if she wants it - whether you touch her or not. It's in her "nature".
Michael Reed at May 6, 2009 10:27 PM
Democracy must be stopped.
And then Eugenics imposed.
Sean MacCloud at May 6, 2009 11:00 PM
Look momof3 is right.
If a crazy woman hits you (and any woman who does is probabbly unstable) and you hit back what will you gain from it? Think of the ways she can use that against you (and she probabbly will because she's unstable). The basic argument I hear is "well she DESERVES to be hit back" is mistaken. What a person DERSERVES in a violent situation is not for you to decide. Anyways she could say you hit her first and she hit back in self-defense. See how things can get out of hand?
If my husband/boyfriend hit me you know what I would do? Walk away. Simple as that.
"that he learned it at the hands of someone he hit on the playground who wouldnt hold back and didnt have a life lesson in mind"
Jesus Christ lujlp. Dont you think children are smarter than that and generally target people who are weaker than themselves, especially on the playground?
Ppen at May 6, 2009 11:06 PM
Westerns are hilarious.
That you even talk about this at all is too much.
Sean_MacCloud at May 6, 2009 11:06 PM
And how exactly does one become an advice columnist?
LOL.
Sean_MacCloud at May 6, 2009 11:09 PM
lujlp writes: "Well momof3 would you prefer the dad hit the boy hard enough to drive hoe the point that hitting hurts, or would you prefer that he learned it at the hands of someone he hit on the playground who wouldnt hold back and didnt have a life lesson in mind?"
Thanks - that's exactly the way I saw it. Small children can only be reasoned with to a certain degree, and which means that sometimes immediate, physical feedback has its place. As they get older, and can be reasoned with, physical feedback becomes unnecessary.
FWIW I am no fan of spanking - that's delayed, and hence misses the moment. If a toddler wants to stick a fork into an electrical socket, you can take the fork away and talk till you're blue in the face - he'll try again in 10 minutes. Or you can whack his knuckles once (gee, sticking forks in electrical sockets hurts), and it's over.
bradley13 at May 7, 2009 2:29 AM
"Well momof3 would you prefer the dad hit the boy hard enough to drive hoe the point that hitting hurts, or would you prefer that he learned it at the hands of someone he hit on the playground who wouldnt hold back and didnt have a life lesson in mind?""
He was 2, if I read it right. The concept of empathy is sketchy at best until about 3. And quite frankly yes, a playdate with another 2 year old probably would have been better than a grown man hitting a toddler. Or, better yet, retrain and say "No!". I've never had problems with mine continuing the hitting experiment.
Or, you could cover the electrical outlets until he is old enough to understand why not to do that. I do spank some. And it is immediate to the crime, not delayed. I see a difference in swatting a bottom and punching a face. I don't think I'm alone there.
momof3 at May 7, 2009 5:50 AM
Well momof3 as far as what happens to soldier who man up.
As soon as you tell me how to be a moron I'll share it with you. Oh and I'm not westerner cloud. However why not enlighten us on you wise noble eastern ways.http://www.americanretirees.org/horrors.htm
That's from just a quick Google search.
vlad at May 7, 2009 5:52 AM
However I have buddy who's one of those many men momof3 is all hot shit about who get slapped around hardcore by his GF. So it's the ones who man up that get the worst screwing. They just can't get their heads around women doing shit like that.
vlad at May 7, 2009 6:09 AM
Sorry manly men
vlad at May 7, 2009 6:10 AM
A girlfriend of many years ago had an acquaintance through another girlfriend, who used to knee or kick her boyfriend in the balls as a joke.
Why he continued to date her I don't know.
After seeing this numerous times, my girlfriend fiegned a kick in the balls to me one time. I think to get my reaction.
A couple years before I had had a testicular cancer scare and she knew about it.
She laughed after she feigned a kick to my balls.
I told her, "If you ever decide to really kick me there, run to your car and drive away as quickly as possible. You will probably have about 30 seconds to a minute before I catch up to you. In that time I would try to get away as far as possible."
We dated for another couple years and she never feigned that manuever again.
David M. at May 7, 2009 6:54 AM
Clearly, no one should allow someone to seriously hurt them. Even people who are smaller can have ridiculous strength when they're crazy. A few years ago, I and a man twice my size had trouble restraining a scrawny 10-year-old having a meltdown.
But there's a difference between self defense and "teaching someone a lesson," and comparing women to children in this regard is insulting. I don't have a problem with physical punishment with children (within reason) because they are children, and, as a parent, it is your job to teach them how to behave. Nobody has any business "teaching" a grown woman how to behave.
Defend yourself if you have to, then walk away from the crazy. It's not your job to civilize her.
MonicaP at May 7, 2009 7:11 AM
"Physically, perhaps, you are men. You don't sound or act like them, and I imagine you'd be ostracized around groups of real men. You know, the kind who don't sit around saying how shit upon they are by women, trying to do group therapy. There's a reason I-and women in general-love the cop/firefighter/military man."
"Oh, and for you "men" who are saying now she'll behave because"
among others...
nice shaming tactics there momof3 - you could give feminists lessons. you make valid points in your posts; too bad you can't do it without the putdowns and sexist double-standard garbage. if the "men" here can't express an opinion then they should just leave you and the other women to your little echo-chamber and go elsewhere i guess
theOtherJim at May 7, 2009 10:19 AM
BTW momof3, i'm 6'2" 220 pounds, served for 20+ years in our military, a mixed martial artist (at the international level), still on my first marriage (happily) to my true equal, and raised 2 beautiful strong women
do i qualify as a "man" in your f**d up little world?
theOtherJim at May 7, 2009 10:29 AM
The problem, and the reason you are seeing gentleman disappear, is that gender feminism teaches girls from a young age that gentlemanly behavior is a weakness to be exploited. Today's feminism regards traditional men as chumps, and has nothing but contempt for them. And you know what? In a way, they are right. A civilized man does not stand a chance against a woman whom feminism has taught and given permission to be feral.
The thing you are all missing in this contest about who can beat who is this: the advantages of surprise and superior weaponry overcome *all* other factors. I think it was here, a couple of years ago, that we discussed an incident where a guy was in a bar, minding his own business, and a woman cold-cocked him in the face with a beer bottle. He had to go through reconstructive face surgery, and for his trouble, *he* was charged and convicted of assault, despite the fact that he never laid a finger on her. What happened to her? She walked. Wasn't even charged.
He had no choice to walk away. He didn't realize that a threat existed until it had already happened. Why not? Because he was probably raised as a gentleman, and it never occurred to him that the woman constituted a threat. He was raised to believe that women do not do stuff like that, ever. Now, back in the day, for the most part, they didn't. Oh, occasionally one did, but any woman who did so could count on spending the rest of her life in a mental institution, and this was back when such places were not very pleasant, to put it mildly. So one sufficied as an example to everyone else. But nowdays, when a woman does something like that, the only consequences are generally positive. The behavior is reinforced.
So what advantage is there in being a gentleman? Save the chance to associate with extraordinary ladies like Amy, it does not appear that there is one. Similarly, we advise men that when women take a swing at them, the proper reaction is to restrain. But in the eyes of the law and modern feminism, that constitutes assault every bit as much as hitting back does. And the fact of the matter is, if the woman takes a swing at the man, he's probably already screwed no matter what he does. So why not hit back? You're already in trouble anyway; you are going to jail and society is going to condemn you no matter what. So why not take down your opponent and get that one moment of satisfaction? What have you got to lose?
Cousin Dave at May 7, 2009 11:10 AM
"What have you got to lose?"
self-respect?
theOtherJim at May 7, 2009 11:18 AM
Crafty Hunter wrote: "I truly fear a backlash that starts small but ends up with a militant patriarchy, very probably religious and backwards. "
This pretty much describes the current state of Islam. And I can't help but wonder if one of the reasons that Islam is spreading so fast among young men is because it offers them a defined role and a place in society, where they know what is expected of them and what their privileges and responsibilities are. It may be a sick, perverted role, but it's a role nonetheless. As opposed to gender feminism, which would like very much for young men to just go away.
Cousin Dave at May 7, 2009 11:46 AM
It is the women like the one in the article, and momof3 that is causing American men not to want to marry American women.
More American men are choosing foreign women to marry.
Go to nomarraige.com/faq.html
When finished click on- back to nomarraige.com at the bottom of the page. Lots of good information about most (not all) American women.
David M. at May 7, 2009 12:04 PM
theOtherJim: You are right, of course. But in practical terms, given the situation, what good is that? It's not like you are championing a cause that is unpopular but everyone knows is morally right. Compare it to the people who were fighting slavery in America in the early 1800s. At the time, there was still a national concensus that wanted slavery to continue. A lot of people knew in their heart of hearts that it was morally wrong, but they fought to preserve it anyway because they had so much invested in it. History vindicated these people because eventually everyone had to admit that they were right.
Those crusaders against slavery had self-respect too; they had to in order to accomplish what they did. But they also got positive reinforcement from society, in that a lot of people were secretly supporting their cause even if publicly they were opposed. And they got reinforcement every time they entered a debate and their opponents were unable to put up a logically and morally strong argument in opposition. Those were the things that helped them keep going, assuring them that they were doing the right thing, and helped them face the angry crowds and the lynch mobs, without cracking under the pressure.
Today's defenders of what we might call "traditional men" don't get any positive reinforcement. The vast majority of the public either supports their opponents, or just doesn't care. Gender feminism has brought about the raising of a generation of girls (and a fair number of boys) to view men as sub-human, no more worthy of moral consideration than insects or bacteria are. Insects and bacteria have their uses, but when you find them troublesome, you eradicate them; you don't worry about how they feel about it. Because, of course, we don't regard insects and bacteria as capable of having feelings. I'm noticing that a lot of young girls these days regard the men in their lives in the same way; they don't worry about how men feel about things. Asking these women how they think a man feels about something is like asking them how they think their kitchen sink feels about it; it's a nonsense question. They may claim to love their fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons, but their love is not that of one human being for another. It's the love of a person for their pets or possessions; with that moral system in place, it cannot be any more than that.
Under those conditions, even the most self-assured crusader is eventually going to start questioning their own sanity. When the real world gives them no reinforcement at all, either they will change their views, or else they will turn into cranks that everyone ignores. After all, a working definition of the word "psychotic" is a person whose thoughts are way out of step with reality. And individuals don't get to define their own reality; there is only one for everyone.
That's why I don't think the self-respect argument goes very far. Feeling like a chump is a sure destroyer of self-respect. If everyone that you come into abuses you and takes advantage of what you consider civilized attributes, then eventually the self-respect argument loses potency. I personally have no desire to be a martyr, and I think that's true of most people.
Cousin Dave at May 7, 2009 12:12 PM
"History vindicated these people..." Sorry, should have proof-read better; that sentence refers to the anti-slavery crusaders. Apologies for the dangling reference.
Cousin Dave at May 7, 2009 12:14 PM
Had a grandmotherly looking lady show up to our fathers rights group a while back.
Her 6'6" 350lb son was living with a woman that was 5'2" and 115 lbs. She would get extremely violent and hit him with her fists and throw thing at him.
He would never touch her because he was big and she was small. After he told his mom his girlfriend gave him the blackeye, the mom told him to move out and fast.
A few days later mom called and told the girl that her son was coming to pick up some of his things. The woman said no problem and was cordial on the phone. Mom asked him if he wanted her to go with him to the girlfriends house. He said no as that might set her off and he just wanted to get his stuff and leave.
He got some of his stuff and apparently she went into a rage and grabbed a large knife from the kitchen. She stabbed him and he made it to the entryway of the front door before he collapsed. She had stabbed him in the heart. He died in the entryway.
The girlfriend called police and said he abusing her.
The mother showed up to the fathers rights meeting because she thought some of the guys had dealt with female violence before.
Many guys had and advised her to contact an attorney. She said the county attorney refused to press charges against the woman.
If everything she says is true the woman got away with murder.
David M. at May 7, 2009 12:51 PM
Cousin Dave: i respect your argument. well crafted and you've obviously put a lot of thought into this issue
ultimately, all a man (even momof3's "men") have at the end of the day and at the end of their lives is their self-respect. IMO, self-respect is the only really important thing that we own. regardless of how we lived our lives or what other's think of us. it's the only thing that can't be taken from us, unless we take it away ourselves
as you can see, i place a very high value on my self-respect. i would rather die, and yes, allow a woman to hit me without hitting her back, than give it up
what other's do with their self-respect is their own business and none of mine
theOtherJim at May 7, 2009 12:58 PM
i would rather die, . . ., than give it up
-theOtherJim
That not self respect dude, thats pride and its stupid.
You only have one life, and you would throw it away? You wont get any respect from the living as they will be told you were abusive, and how can you respect yourself if your dead?
lujlp at May 7, 2009 1:06 PM
call it what you like
i would rather be dead than live my live ashamed
it beats me how a person who betrayed a child's trust and abused them or a wife who sent her husband to prison on a fake rape charge can live with themselves...i couldn't
who gives a flying rat's testicles what anyone else thinks of me? as you say: i'll be dead
theOtherJim at May 7, 2009 2:03 PM
theOtherJim: Actually, I partway agree with you. All of the stuff I posted above was a hyphthetical calculation in self-interest. Look, I'm a pretty strong guy; I'm not huge, but I'm in good shape and I've always had fast reflexes. So yeah, the 50th-percentile woman is not going to do any serious harm to me in a fair fight. Ergo, my response is going to be shield and/or restrain as needed, and then get the heck out of there.
However, if she comes at me with a weapon and/or tries to blindside me, all bets are off. At that point, reflexes and self-preservation take over, and higher-level concepts like self-respect just have to take a back seat until the action stops. Don't get me wrong; I highly value self-respect, but I value my life too. I've got a wife and family who love me and depend on me, and part of my responsibility to them is to not let myself be seriously harmed unless it's absolutely unavoidable.
Cousin Dave at May 7, 2009 2:06 PM
So let me see if I get this. Women can be violent and abusive and pay no immediate price. What ever happened to old fashioned spanking (Kiss Me Kate anyone)?
I think such rules will lead to more violent and abusive women.
You know I learned at the age of 10 to stop instigating fights and to avoid fights I didn't instigate. I don't like getting punched. Or kicked in the wedding tackle.
Duty is different. And it is the male's job to die to protect the mate and children if need be. And I am ready.
M. Simon at May 7, 2009 2:17 PM
"it is the male's job to die to protect the mate and children if need be..."
i had this same conversation the other day. as far as i'm concerned, yes i would lay down my life for them but not out of duty; their lives are no more important than mine
i would do it out of love for them but that's not the same thing. i would hope that they'd do the same for me but given my experience of women in general, i'm skeptical
one is an obligation; the other is a choice
theOtherJim at May 7, 2009 2:36 PM
"She laughed after she feigned a kick to my balls."
That's frickin childish, what was she 6?
David at May 7, 2009 7:33 PM
"as far as i'm concerned, yes i would lay down my life for them but not out of duty; their lives are no more important than mine"
Ah, but the law says different. You do have a legal duty to protect spouses and children. And you can go to jail for failing to do so, although I'm not sure how often they prosecute the "grieving" whoever.
The last part of your above statement belies your claim of love.
For the rest of you claiming that I-and every other woman-are man-hating feminist ballbreakers (what's wrong with spanking women??? What are we, 4?) well, you're just fucking sad. And you can't read. If you are adults, which I doubt, then you really ought to grasp the "no, it's not ok to hit OR hit back if your life isn't in danger, just leave. permanently" argument. That you can't speaks volumes about you. It says nothing about women.
If a woman hits you, and you hit her back to solve it and you both stay together, you're both mentally deficient and deserve your sick relationship.
momof3 at May 7, 2009 8:15 PM
I'm shocked that you are all missing the point.
All those laws were to protect women from abusive men.
Hitting a woman after she hits you, isn't abuse! It's just fighting!
Are you seriously saying that men and women can't FIGHT each other? Did someone remove that piece of humanity out of us when I wasn't looking?
ErikZ at May 7, 2009 8:47 PM
The funny thing is that all of the 'real men' that I know are single.
What's that tell you?
The married guys seem like a bunch of neutered beaten-down drones.
-------
Ah, but the law says different. You do have a legal duty to protect spouses and children. And you can go to jail for failing to do so, although I'm not sure how often they prosecute the "grieving" whoever.
No they don't, and no one's going to put you in jail for failing to do so. I mean, I hope that a man would protect his family. But there's no legal compulsion to do so.
Mike at May 7, 2009 10:08 PM
momof3: again with the sexist putdowns? what are you - 5?
"The last part of your above statement belies your claim of love"
i'd love to know how you arrived at the conclusion that because i consider my life as important as theirs that therefore i don't love them enough to take a bullet meant for any of them
i guess you have to be woman to "get" that. no wonder it's only men who go down with the ship
theOtherJim at May 8, 2009 6:43 AM
"Hitting a woman after she hits you, isn't abuse! It's just fighting!" ErikZ
The law doesn't look at it that way, Erik, and I implore you to never try to find that out, unless you are in fear for your life. For self preservation, you need to walk.
On the other hand, Momof3, you can afford to make the putdowns because you are not the one that will ever be in the position, face down on the floor being handcuffed on the say so of a woman. I hope you don't have any sons that ever are on the wrong end of the equation. You might have a hefty dose of reality. This will never apply to you, but your children? It's easy to say nobody should hit, and it IS correct. But it only takes one person to do so, NOT two. It only takes one person to start the divorce, as well. You can imagine what percentage of those are started by women. It's 75+% You are right Momof3... for all the wrong reasons.
This isn't whining for men, just Forewarned is Forearmed. Choose wisely or suffer the consequence, and remember that the consequence is larger than you think.
SwissArmyD at May 8, 2009 12:33 PM
females need to be controlled. There is nothing "perverted" or "immoral" in that.
"Self respect" would be to win the fight and have the power to prevent it from happening.
british and american males are simpleminded and conformists children. They are chumps and destined for extinction.
democracy is a disaster. Like practically everything philosophy from britian.
Christianity too.
The fact you all don't see it for yourselves is indicative of your pig headed doltishness. Truly.
How slowly reality permeates you skulls.
And when one factors in your inability to _understand_ so called Darwinism, while fighting to keep your enemies in power over you... Really just kill yourselves already.
There is nothing more offensive than when a chivalrous white male dunce talks.
Dunces.
I know my post is just vitriol. But I have no energy for converting the doomed.
Sean MacCloud at May 9, 2009 7:28 AM
"i guess you have to be woman to "get" that. no wonder it's only men who go down with the ship"
Why do men go down with the ship? Because they want to! Like the famous quip: "Sir, if you were my husband, I would give you poison." ... "If I were your husband, I would drink it."
"There is nothing more offensive than when a chivalrous white male dunce talks."
Real men stand up for themselves, they don't just let themselves be walked over, abused or attacked ... that is precisely the opposite of any sensible concept of a "man".
Mouse at May 9, 2009 11:43 AM
well, what if I was trying to get away from a nagging husband but he still follows me anywhere i go. I begged him to stop following and to please stop talking to me but he still does so i threw the remote control on him then he slapped me...my question is, was it my fault i got slapped or he just doesnt respect me?
bianca at February 12, 2010 7:23 PM
Ya learn something new everdayy. It's true I guess!
Rocky at June 22, 2011 6:56 PM
Hi again it seems that my first comment hasn't been approved it was maybe too long so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I submitted and say, I really enjoy your blog.
rulet oyna at July 5, 2011 5:01 PM
Leave a comment