Central London mob attacks people in Hyde park

teuchter said:

The fact is, that there remains a culture amongst many men (and women for that matter) that respects physical strength and fighting ability as desirable qualities in a man...

Click to expand...

Very good post teuchter.

My old man, who was brought up in pubs and then managed pubs and bars himself for years, taught me some 'rules' as a youngster, such as: you're a bigger man if you walk away; only a coward uses a glass; and, of course, never hit a woman. It wasn't so much that fighting ability was respected, more an acceptance that as a boy/man, the chances are that you'll get in the odd scrape so, if and when it happens, you handle it the right way. Old fashioned it might be, but I don't see much wrong in what he told me.

STFC said:

Very good post teuchter.

My old man, who was brought up in pubs and then managed pubs and bars himself for years, taught me some 'rules' as a youngster, such as: you're a bigger man if you walk away; only a coward uses a glass; and, of course, never hit a woman. It wasn't so much that fighting ability was respected, more an acceptance that as a boy/man, the chances are that you'll get in the odd scrape so, if and when it happens, you handle it the right way. Old fashioned it might be, but I don't see much wrong in what he told me.

Click to expand...

I don't see anything wrong in what he told you either. I'm sure that managing pubs makes you pretty wise about how to deal with male aggression. All those rules are a pragmatic way of dealing with living in a situation where physical violence is not unusual. The "you're a bigger man if you walk away" is the important one and the one that not everyone in those kinds of situations follows, or is taught, though, unfortunately.

teuchter said:

The "you're a bigger man if you walk away" is the important one and the one that not everyone in those kinds of situations follows, or is taught, though, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

True - it can be a tough one to follow but I have put it into practice myself a couple of times fairly recently. I admit to having nagging doubts about whether I should have 'done something', but know that in the grand scheme of things, walking away was the best thing to do.

editor said:

I've made my belief about not hitting women crystal clear, but I'll be buggered if I'm going to go along with any wildly improbable "ah, yes, but what if...." scenarios to entertain whatever point scoring flight of fancy is currently being pursued.

Click to expand...

All you've made crystal clear is the fact that you'd never hit a woman. What you haven't made at all clear is when you/wouldn't hit a man. I'm not asking that in an attempt to suggest you are some sort of violent thug who goes about knocking people about. I'm asking because I suspect that the answer is that it would be only in very rare circumstances and as a last resort. In fact I'd guess your criteria are probably much the same as mine. In which case I'd ask you why you wouldn't apply the same criteria to a (possibly even more rare) circumstance involving a woman. And it seems that your only response to this is to say that it's so unlikely that it's not necessary to think about it, and accuse me of "point-scoring".

Whereas, as several (female) posters have pointed out, in actual fact it's not a flight of fancy that there should arise a situation where a woman might be stronger than a man.

In any case the only reason I'm pursuing this is in defence of my position (ie. that there is no reason why gender in itself should affect the rights and wrongs of hitting someone) which you and others, earlier in the thread, appeared to be attempting to portray as somehow unreasonable. Or to quote chico enrico, people who hold my attitude are

chico enrico said:

...invariably cowards and shit-bags ... or plain psychotic

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can understand why I might want to defend my position if that is how some people appear to regard it.

The other thing you haven't been crystal clear about is why you were so interested to know whether I was equating what I described as "fighting culture" with "working class culture" although that seems to be a separate discussion, really.

Of course, you are under no more obligation than anyone else to explain the reasoning behind your attitudes and if you don't want to go into it any further then that's fair enough. But it does seem that I've gone to considerably more effort to answer your questions than you have mine.

Moronic prick said:

And the way she was laughing and trying to mock me.

Click to expand...

This says it all about youth violence today ...

actually teuchter, i don't really think you're are:

Originally Posted by chico enrico
...invariably cowards and shit-bags ... or plain psychotic

i just think you're being a bit of a dick - suspect you're possibly an anarcho type - and essentially talking about stuff you don't have a clue about as you've never been in that positions.

n'est ce pas?

STFC said:

If she wants to act like a bloke, she'll get slapped like a bloke...

Click to expand...

Indeed. Drunken women at chucking out time can be an absolute fucking nightmare - starting catfights, encouraging their men to get involved, trying to rescue prisoners, etc. - and they seem to think it's wrong when they get restrained / struck (like the gobby cow who kept trying to pull me away from a prisoner for a stabbing (the only other officer present was also restraining him with me) and didn't listen to several warnings that things were about to get notched up a bit ...

"You can't fucking hit me you cunt, I'm a woman ..."

"Ow..."

detective-boy said:

This says it all about youth violence today ...

Click to expand...

yes. wee spunk-bubbles like thaat should be put in the stocks on the high street so they can be laughted at and mocked till everyone get bored. and hopefully someother equally brave chaps will take a good few boots at his head along the way. I know it wouldnt really work as a 'deterrant' as nothing punitive really does , but i don't really care, he deserves a healthy booting.

chico enrico said:

i just think you're being a bit of a dick - suspect you're possibly an anarcho type - and essentially talking about stuff you don't have a clue about as you've never been in that positions.

Click to expand...

Fucking pacifists - they'd just as soon hit a woman as a man . . .

teuchter said:

All you've made crystal clear is the fact that you'd never hit a woman. What you haven't made at all clear is when you/wouldn't hit a man.

Click to expand...

The answer is: where appropriate.

I don't feel inclined to produce a list of highly improbable scenarios for your delectation.

detective-boy said:

Indeed. Drunken women at chucking out time can be an absolute fucking nightmare - starting catfights, encouraging their men to get involved, trying to rescue prisoners, etc. - and they seem to think it's wrong when they get restrained / struck (like the gobby cow who kept trying to pull me away from a prisoner for a stabbing (the only other officer present was also restraining him with me) and didn't listen to several warnings that things were about to get notched up a bit ...

"You can't fucking hit me you cunt, I'm a woman ..."

"Ow..."

Click to expand...

mate of mine got stabbed in the head by a woman.

hasn't changed his opinion about it being out of order hitting woman though, and doing the door at loads of clubs for years i'm sure he's had more provocation than most.

8ball said:

Fucking pacifists - they'd just as soon hit a woman as a man . . .

Click to expand...

actually, from my experience pacifists - like 'non-sexist men' - never seem to have any problems with hitting women as long as they live with/are in relationships with/can psychologically control them well enough so their right-on mates don't find out. Not that they generally do anything about it if they do.

The non-sexist men I know aren't like that.

cesare said:

The non-sexist men I know aren't like that.

Click to expand...

You wouldn't know because they beat their girlfriends up in secret, see.

8ball said:

You wouldn't know because they beat their girlfriends up in secret, see.

Click to expand...

The b/f hasn't beaten me up yet, maybe he's secretly sexist.

chico enrico said:

actually, from my experience pacifists - like 'non-sexist men' - never seem to have any problems with hitting women as long as they live with/are in relationships with/can psychologically control them well enough so their right-on mates don't find out. Not that they generally do anything about it if they do.

Click to expand...

The only guy I've known to make a huuuuuge fuss about a man hitting a woman hit me minutes later when I tried to stop him hitting the guy.

A smokescreen for a bit of macho posturing.

cesare said:

The b/f hasn't beaten me up yet, maybe he's secretly sexist.

Click to expand...

Or he's cheating on you and beating her up!

8ball said:

Or he's cheating on you and beating her up!

Click to expand...

And keeping her and me psychologically controlled

chico enrico said:

actually teuchter, i don't really think you're are:

Originally Posted by chico enrico
...invariably cowards and shit-bags ... or plain psychotic

i just think you're being a bit of a dick - suspect you're possibly an anarcho type - and essentially talking about stuff you don't have a clue about as you've never been in that positions.

n'est ce pas?

Click to expand...

Anarcho type. Yup, that's me. You are quite an insightful fellow, I must say.

What do you mean "never been in that position?" What position exactly? Why should it affect my opinion? Have you considered the possibility that not finding myself very often in situations where violence might flare up might have some relation to my approach to violence/physical confrontation in general?

chico enrico said:

yes. wee spunk-bubbles like thaat should be put in the stocks on the high street so they can be laughted at and mocked till everyone get bored. and hopefully someother equally brave chaps will take a good few boots at his head along the way. I know it wouldnt really work as a 'deterrant' as nothing punitive really does , but i don't really care, he deserves a healthy booting.

Click to expand...

Is this supposed to be taken seriously? Is this part of the answer to the question which you've been evading, namely when it is acceptable to hit a man?

chico enrico said:

actually, from my experience pacifists - like 'non-sexist men' - never seem to have any problems with hitting women as long as they live with/are in relationships with/can psychologically control them well enough so their right-on mates don't find out. Not that they generally do anything about it if they do.

Click to expand...

This is a lot of complete nonsense.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your experience with pacifists - and what exactly you mean by "non-sexist men"? Do you exclude yourself from that category? How did you find out about all these wife-beating pacifists, while they managed to hide their evil ways form their "right-on" mates?

editor said:

The answer is: where appropriate.

I don't feel inclined to produce a list of highly improbable scenarios for your delectation.

Click to expand...

Question:

When is it appropriate to hit a man?

Answer:

When it is appropriate.

Um...

cesare said:

The non-sexist men I know aren't like that.

Click to expand...

don't believe it's possible to be such a thing and everyone i have ever met in my entire life who has claimed to be one has been a total creep and it has invariably transpired to have beaten up or psychologically tormented a partner.

i always think it's one of those freudian transferrence things like folk who go on about how much they hate gays being repressed.

those who doth protest too much

there's a great book about the phenomenon by caroline walton called 'i, claudius'.

as i dont hang about in politico circles any more the last instance i encountered of it was when i was at uni (where i studied post 70s feminism as my sociology degree and also 'the language of sexism' for linguistics). there was some creeping jesus type who was always winding me up with his slimy attempts as portraying himself as some paragon of sexual liberation and non-sexism, but at some disco in the students union grabbed his girlfriend by the hair and started shaking her during an argument.

that 'i claudius' book is full of examples and anecdotes like that.

ymu said:

A smokescreen for a bit of macho posturing.

Click to expand...

yea, that is often ture.

chico enrico said:

don't believe it's possible to be such a thing and everyone i have ever met in my entire life who has claimed to be one has been a total creep and it has invariably transpired to have beaten up or psychologically tormented a partner.

i always think it's one of those freudian transferrence things like folk who go on about how much they hate gays being repressed.

those who doth protest too much

there's a great book about the phenomenon by caroline walton called 'i, claudius'.

as i dont hang about in politico circles any more the last instance i encountered of it was when i was at uni (where i studied post 70s feminism as my sociology degree and also 'the language of sexism' for linguistics). there was some creeping jesus type who was always winding me up with his slimy attempts as portraying himself as some paragon of sexual liberation and non-sexism, but at some disco in the students union grabbed his girlfriend by the hair and started shaking her during an argument.

that 'i claudius' book is full of examples and anecdotes like that.

Click to expand...

I'm glad my experience has been better than yours then.

This thread is making me feel angry again. I'm going to go and get a sandwich. I hope I don't end up hitting anyone in the process.

I used to know a bloke who liked to think of himself as a bit of a right-on type, he was always very very quick to accuse people of racism, sexism or any other -ism you care to mention. But he was an absolute bastard to his wife, not to the extent of slapping her about (that I'm aware of) but he was very controlling, a right bully. Totally at odds with the sort of persona he projected to the outside world.

Not that it proves anything of course, it's just my experience of one person.

teuchter said:

Question:

When is it appropriate to hit a man?

Answer:

When it is appropriate.

Um...

Click to expand...

yes. and what's wrong with that? Lots of folk deserve a smack.

if i was harder and there wasn't the risk of getting nicked i'd probably hit someone every week. usually for being an ignorant prick (ie folk who barge into you and don't apologise) and stuff like that.

but obviously i'm not some sort of nut job so i don't do stuff like that. generally folk who do are fairly unhinged.

last time i had a go was at some wanker on the tube who was abusing a beggar. not big or clever and felt well shaky afterwards but sometimes you just lose your temper. doesn't everyone? sometimes it just happens in a split second and obviolusly you wouldnt do it if you had time to reflect.

cesare said:

I'm glad my experience has been better than yours then.

Click to expand...

well , so am i. wouldn't wish it on anyone.

chico enrico said:

well , so am i. wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should do a poll to get an idea of how representative your experience of non-sexist men = women beaters is?

cesare said:

Maybe you should do a poll to get an idea of how representative your experience of non-sexist men = women beaters is?

Click to expand...

No. that would not make sense.

and to be fair i'd imagine it is a very, very small percentage of the posters here and even then i'd expect only those who have experience of political groups during the 80s who would ever have come across the bizarre phenomena.

but anyway, my experience of 'women beaters' outwith political circles is (to the best of my knowledge, i hasten to add) absolutely zero. Obviously it would be patently absurd to base an empirical data model on that but in my experience it is true that the only folk i have personally ever found out to beat up their girlfriends have been those amongst anarchist groups who would describe themselves as 'non sexist men' and been most vocal in denouncing others for being 'sexists' or 'macho'.

i don't want to even have to meet people like that now so i'm afraid i can't comment, thus my hypotheis cannot be supported.

still think any man who would describe himself as 'non-sexist' is a definite wrong-un tho.

chico enrico said:

still think any man who would describe himself as 'non-sexist' is a definite wrong-un tho.

Click to expand...

And these 'non-racist' white people get on my wick and all . . .