Help me defend myself

Post Reply New Topic

OK. So a few days ago, I don't know how the convo started, but I stated to a fellow at my course that If a woman/female hit me, I would hit back in self defense, as long as the force is no more than reasonable for the purpose (this goes for either gender). I have a whole page now written down from NZ law which states this is legal. (I've only compiled this writing on paper tonight).

I was then called a woman beater, due to the sexist social stigma of "you don't hit women" even though the NZ self defense law is gender neutral and as long as the force is no more than reasonable for the purpose, it's legal if you are feeling or being threatened.

I'm now the bad guy with the Teachers/tutors and was then told that no laws in the word allow violence, or words to that matter.

Simply, is there's anything I can add to write down to strengthen my argument even more? I'm sure that all the Homosexual's getting the death penalty in foreign countries is a law promoting/legalizing violence. Please tell me if otherwise.

Any help is appreciated. I am not a woman beater, and I do not condone women beaters and every single one of them should be in jail for the horrible things they do.

You're fighting against thousands of years of custom. And there's a point. Women are, on average, weaker than men. Odds are, if a woman hit you, it wouldn't leave a mark. If a man hit a woman, it would do a whole lot more.

Not much defending that, sorry.

I agree with you, and I think most people do.

Just point out that it is sexist to allow women to beat men simply because they're weaker.

http://www.domesticviolencelondon.nhs.u ... t-men.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_v ... gainst_men

Of course, it is not sexist to say that people should never defend themselves against attacks, but few people would claim advocate that degree of restraint.

You shouldn't hit anybody of course there is obviously a difference between beating someone up and defending yourself which all people have the right to. While women are generally weaker than men I know there are women stronger than me, does their genitalia prevent me from defending myself? There a lot of men stronger than me and there are plenty weaker too, what is the difference?

If the option to escape a situation exists, always take it. Otherwise when defending oneself, use restraint, it is always better not to hit someone. But as Jacoby said there is also a big difference between beating someone up and defending oneself. Some women make a life out of robbing and assaulting men and other women, I don't see why they deserve special treatment over their male counterparts. They are equally scum

I have no problem wailing on someone if they hit me first, even if they're smaller.

My opinion is, if you don't want your butt handed to you, don't pick fights with people bigger than you.

This is ridiculous. Let's face it, women's bodies aren't structured like men and they also tend to have less propensity for violence on average. They are actually pretty f*****g vicious when they do get mad enough to fight but if they just simply want to smack some sense into you then chances are they aren't trying to hurt you too much. That sounds like a contradiction, but my point is that it takes much less for a man to fight so when women do fight they've already crossed way more lines. Men are still the heavier hitters though so a man hitting a woman is still much worse than the other way around.

Anyways, if you wanna make a better case for your argument then you should be more conscious about the connotations behind your words rather than just how they sound on paper. The way you're going about using self-defense laws to argue against social norms comes across as dismissive. The way you deliver your argument matters as much as the argument itself. Maybe you should talk about the typical circumstances of self-defense situations themselves?

If someone assaults me, I'm going to respond with whatever force is necessary. Period.

I would ask these people if they expect a woman to allow herself to be assaulted by a man, or if she should be allowed to defend herself.

I hate to sound like a dick, but for Christ's sake I'm trying to say that men have the edge assuming equal physical conditioning and level of provocation, not that every single man is stronger and more aggressive than every single woman. A rule of thumb isn't supposed to be true in absolutely all cases, so there's no need to confuse general guidelines with generalizing. Even in mathematical terms averages are skewed by outliers not ruled out altogether. If you really wanna go there, I didn't say that men are stronger on average, but that women's bodies aren't structured like men's. That means even with physical conditioning on par, a man's body is structured to take more advantage of that. Not to mention testosterone's role in muscle growth. As for propensity for violence, the stats speak for themselves unless you wanna write it off as gender role conditioning which itself is a massive generalization.

As a women I strongly hate men hitting or committing any violence against women (bad cursing to a woman also counts) and I´m in shock to read this topic, to read here from you all how you defend it. Call me sexist, but the fact is men are (at least physically) stronger than women and NO man-to-woman violence I find acceptable. Even if a woman hits you first, you can solve the problem in a different way than hitting her.