Central London mob attacks people in Hyde park

[STFC]

should the police apologise to the children they peppersprayed?

Where did you get that information from? I don't think I've heard anything about that happening.

I've read an eyewitness report of one person being tasered, after he started punching coppers.

 

[STFC]

Hitting anyone is not OK and hitting someone weaker or vulnerable is despicable - no matter they are male or female.

Generally, women are physically smaller, weaker, and therefore more vulnerable than men.

I don't get the "demeaning to women" argument. Surely it's a good thing that there are still men around who think it's wrong to hit a woman?

 

[editor]

I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think his parents should be prosecuted instead?

No, I mean where are they? He's a child - and therefore their legal responsibility - yet they're letting this violent prick chat to the press and give the idea that it's just dandy to go around lamping women in the face over extremely trivial things.

Hitting anyone is not OK and hitting someone weaker or vulnerable is despicable - no matter they are male or female.

I grew up with a very strong sense that it's always wrong to hit a woman, and I still stick by it. I've never met a woman who found that stance "anachronistic and demeaning" but if you think it's more modern to slap a woman around, you go right ahead. I won't be joining in. Ever.

 

[Crispy]

I have never hit someone in anger (well, not since primary school), but if I ever do, I don't think the gender of the other person is going to matter. If I'm hitting someone, I'd have a really really good reason for it.

 

[ymu]

I feel quite strongly that the "don't hit a woman" thing is both anachronistic and demeaning to women - it is divisive, perpetuates stereotypes and helps maintain the "battle of the sexes".

There is, as far as I can see, nothing intrinsically worse about a man hitting a woman than there is a woman hitting a man, a man hitting a man, or a woman hitting a woman..

Hitting anyone is not OK and hitting someone weaker or vulnerable is despicable - no matter they are male or female.


Woof

I agree, more or less (it's maybe "old-fashioned" but not so anachronistic - husbands had a right to beat (and rape) their wives until not so long ago).

I just think it's strange that anyone would genuinely need to ask why many people think it's worse when a man hits a woman. It's very obviously because (most of the time), the victim is physically weaker. Having said that, I have known men who could get incredibly physically intimidating and remain entirely oblivious to it - even incredulous when I showed fear, or accusing me of acting - so maybe they just don't know quite how big the difference in strength is, even if the size difference appears small.

Women who hit men safe in the knowledge that they won't get hit back are also "worse" than some other types of hitter, IMO; a different kind of power imbalance, but an abuse of that power all the same.

This just reminded me of trying to calm down an incident at a party where some guy was going nuts because a bloke had hit a woman. Lots of macho posturing, then he tried to hit the bloke and then hit me for trying to stop him.

 

[teuchter]

Women tend to be smaller and less muscley than men so we usually have very little chance of defending ourselves against a physical attack by a man. This is why people tend to get particularly upset when a man hits a woman. It's not because they think that hitting a man is OK - they just think it's especiallly vile when the victim has little chance of defending themselves. Pick on someone your own size etc etc.

If this is the reasoning, then people should say "I would never hit someone weaker than myself" instead of "I would never hit a woman".

The whole "I would never hit a woman thing" irritates me because by implication it means that sometimes it's OK to hit a man. Well, if there are situations where it is OK to hit a man, then there must be situations where it is OK to hit a woman.

Firstly, not all men are stronger/bigger than all women. They tend to be, but that doesn't mean there is never a situation where a woman is physically stronger than a man.

Secondly this whole attitude seems to suggest that relative strength or size are the only factors in someone being able to defend themselves. Well, they aren't. So making a judgement on whether someone can defend themselves based entirely on their size is flawed in the first place.

Thirdly: why should someone's ability to defend themselves be all that relevant anyway? This all assumes that they will fight back in the first place, and not everyone will. Even if I was large, strong and adept at fisticuffs I wouldn't want someone using that as a reason to excuse injuring me. Besides, if you are going to stick to the logic of "never hitting anyone weaker than you", then anyone bigger than you is prevented by these rules from hitting you back, therefore giving you an unfair advantage.

Fourthly there are lots of other factors which affect a judgement of whether or not hitting someone is OK, including for example provocation. If we are to stick to a strict "never hit women" (or even "never hit people smaller than you") rule we end up with nonsense situations. What is "worse": a small woman injuring a large man entirely without provocation, or a large man injuring a small woman having been deliberately and heavily provoked? I would say that the latter is "worse" but the silly "never hit a woman" rule would not allow this conclusion.

Personally I don't think it's ever OK to injure another person unless necessary in self defence or you have some kind of agreement between the two of you that you are both happy to engage in physical violence. Just before anyone pipes up saying that I am happy to hit women.

 

[editor]

Do some people really think that it's OK to punch a woman in the face if she's roughly the same size as you?

The only way I'd ever show any kind of violence towards a woman would be if she was physically attacking me and I had to defend myself from harm.

Back on topic, that publicity-courting unrepentant prick in Hyde Park is sending out a hideous message to his peers.

 

[teuchter]

Do some people really think that it's OK to punch a woman in the face if she's roughly the same size as you?

I would say the same as you, I think:

The only way I'd ever show any kind of violence towards a woman would be if she was physically attacking me and I had to defend myself from harm.

Which seems to contradict what you said earlier:

I grew up with a very strong sense that it's always wrong to hit a woman, and I still stick by it. I've never met a woman who found that stance "anachronistic and demeaning" but if you think it's more modern to slap a woman around, you go right ahead. I won't be joining in. Ever.

 

[quimcunx]

The only way I'd ever show any kind of violence towards a woman would be if she was physically attacking me and I had to defend myself from harm.

But surely this is the only way you'd ever show any kind of violence towards a man too?

 

[teuchter]

But surely this is the only way you'd ever show any kind of violence towards a man too?

Exactly. If not, then there is a major inconsistency somewhere.

 

[claphamboy]

"She just came out of nowhere and threw juice straight in my face. And the way she was laughing and trying to mock me. I admit I'm in the wrong. I mean fair enough, I hit a girl. But I had to take off my top and put it in the bin."

Why throw the t-shirt away, does he do that with all his cloths when they get dirty, hasn’t he heard you can wash cloths?

What a brainless prick.

 

[editor]

I would say the same as you, I think:



Which seems to contradict what you said earlier:

The 'violence' I was describing is trying to physically restrain a woman from hitting me, not going on the offensive and smacking them in the face.

To repeat: I would never hit a woman.

 

[d.a.s.h]

teuchter: you have put logical arguments forward, but the reluctance or disgust of many men at the prospect of hitting a woman amounts to a taboo, hence doesn't necessarily have an obvious rational foundation to grapple with.

There is a similar taboo about killing in warfare: it is generally thought OK to kill the other side's soldiers, but not their civilians. It is not obvious to me at least how young men are in any sense more expendable than old people or babies.

But when such taboos are done away with in wartime, i.e. when there is an acceptance of the principles of 'total warfare', then the result is likely to be an increase in the numbers of people killed. That's what seems to happen in practice.

By the same token, dissolving the 'don't hit women' taboo would in practice probably mean more violence. It wouldn't come about through people calmly accepting the logic of equal opportunities, but through a general decrease in self-control and a greater readiness to use violence from the start to get one's own way.

 

[teuchter]

The 'violence' I was describing is trying to physically restrain a woman from hitting me, not going on the offensive and smacking them in the face.

To repeat: I would never hit a woman.

Would you ever hit a man, though?

 

[quimcunx]

..the reluctance or disgust of many men at the prospect of hitting a woman amounts to a taboo, hence doesn't necessarily have an obvious rational foundation to grapple with.

I think the 'logic' lies in evolution. Men are more expendable than women, OR, your cheap sperm is more expendable than our precious eggs.






Though following that logic, come the menopause, it's a free for all...

 

[editor]

Would you ever hit a man, though?

Yes, if I absolutely had to. But I wouldn't hit a woman. Is there a point to this?

 

[teuchter]

By the same token, dissolving the 'don't hit women' taboo would in practice probably mean more violence. It wouldn't come about through people calmly accepting the logic of equal opportunities, but through a general decrease in self-control and a greater readiness to use violence from the start to get one's own way.

Well, exactly.

But I'm not arguing to dissolve the "don't hit women" taboo - I'm arguing to extend it so it becomes a "don't hit people" taboo.

 

[teuchter]

Yes, if I absolutely had to. But I wouldn't hit a woman. Is there a point to this?

What are your "absolutely had to" criteria?

The point is, that if there are a set of circumstances that would make you decide it was OK to hit a man, then I don't see why, if there were an identical set of circumstances, but involving a woman, you should act any differently.

 

[chico enrico]

The point is gender is irrelevant.

what the fuck you talking about mate?

 

[chico enrico]

Ruined a designer top - worth a punch imho.

You don't think or believe that for one moment, so what was the point in saying it?

 

[teuchter]

what the fuck you talking about mate?

You don't think or believe that for one moment, so what was the point in saying it?

Read the thread.

 

[chico enrico]

Read the thread.

I have read the thread.

i also recently discovered who Attica actually is and he is someone i have met numerous times.

Most certainly NOT some 'thug' and i'd have thought more likely to attend a conference on 'Post feminism and Sexual Politics' than entertain thoughts of committing or even justifying violence against women.

Which is why i find his comments on this thread utterly bewildering and as out of character as if i had suddenly decided to adopt some crusty peace convoy or sloane ranger type personna.

Sometimes winding people up can achieve a purpose - in exposing nasty reactionary attitudes (in particular regarding race/gender/class) that ostensibly liberal 'right-on' types, including many on here, often harbour, but this instance does not fall into that category, and in another media context (added as a comment on youtube for example?) would only serve to validate and legitimise the attitudes held by the sort of worthless shit-bag who would assault a woman. For whatever reason.

 

[editor]

The point is, that if there are a set of circumstances that would make you decide it was OK to hit a man, then I don't see why, if there were an identical set of circumstances, but involving a woman, you should act any differently.

Because it's a woman.

I don't hit women. I don't treat them the same as men. Understand?

Are you more or less likely to intervene if you saw a bloke repeatedly smacking a (similarly sized) woman hard in the face in the street than if it was two guys?

 

[chico enrico]

Are you more or less likely to intervene if you saw a bloke repeatedly smacking a (similarly sized) woman hard in the face in the street than if it was two guys?

well, as folk who hit women or hold attitudes like teuchter's above are invariably cowards and shit-bags* i'd expect he wouldn't intervene eitherway.


*or plain psychotic

 

[teuchter]

Because it's a woman.

I don't hit women. I don't treat them the same as men. Understand?

Fair enough. I'm glad you don't hit women. But you avoid the question about in what circumstances you would hit a man.

And your explanation doesn't explain why you make the distinction, beyond "just because".

If someone were explain why they didn't employ a woman, by saying:

"Because it's a woman.

I don't employ women. I don't treat them the same as men. Understand?"

Then that wouldn't seem like a satisfactory answer to me.

Are you more or less likely to intervene if you saw a bloke repeatedly smacking a (similarly sized) woman hard in the face in the street than if it was two guys?

Well, that is a good question. I would like to think that all things being equal (i.e. in both cases the attack was an equally unprovoked one, and in both cases the person being attacked seemed equally unable to defend themselves) then my response would be exactly the same.

In reality, there is a chance I might be more inclined to help the situation where the woman was being attacked, possibly because of built-in prejudices or some kind of evolutionary instinct. That wouldn't make that inclination a "good" one though, any more than, say, any racist inclinations that might be lurking inside of me somewhere.

 

[teuchter]

well, as folk who hit women or hold attitudes like teuchter's above are invariably cowards and shit-bags* i'd expect he wouldn't intervene eitherway.


*or plain psychotic

That's all very nice but maybe you could explain why you think this, exactly?

And the same question to you: would you ever hit a man, and if so, in what circumstances?

 

[quimcunx]

well, as folk who hit women or hold attitudes like teuchter's above are invariably cowards and shit-bags* i'd expect he wouldn't intervene eitherway.


*or plain psychotic

Perhaps you should invite him outside, tell him to put his dukes up?

 

[editor]

In reality, there is a chance I might be more inclined to help the situation where the woman was being attacked, possibly because of built-in prejudices or some kind of evolutionary instinct.

So you only might consider helping out a woman getting her lights punched out by a bloke in the street, and even then it wouldn't be out of any sense of moral duty - it would only be down to some deep seated 'prejudice' that you were unable to shake off at the time.

*shakes head

 

[chico enrico]

So you only might consider helping out a woman getting her lights punched out by a bloke in the street, and even then it wouldn't be out of any sense of moral duty - it would only be down to some deep seated 'prejudice' that you were unable to shake off at the time.

haahaha...i think he's some pseudo ultra looney tunes politico type who thinks (or rather thinks it's a cool pose to espouse the belief that) it is in some way 'sexist' or 'unegalitarian' to differentiate between people because of their gender/sex. as such can't be bothered to respond to his foolishness.

 

[teuchter]

So you only might consider helping out a woman getting her lights punched out by a bloke in the street, and even then it wouldn't be out of any sense of moral duty - it would only be down to some deep seated 'prejudice' that you were unable to shake off at the time.

*shakes head

You're completely evading my point by focussing on the question of whether or not I personally would intervene in a specific situation, which is an entirely different matter.

And misrepresenting what I said. If I did help, it would be a mixture of moral duty and instinct (if the two can be separated), just as it would be if it were a man I was trying to help.