Espi said:
I just don't share in this view Danger. Yes I get the point about White Knights, etc. But physical violence is very likely never going to be excused or reasoned with when it's a man who is initiating it or returning it upon a woman.
I would rather LAUGH in the face of any woman who slapped me than risk going to jail or losing my status, or my wealth, or even my reputation.
Even if she were able to exact some kind of nasty violence with her hands, I would probably do everything in my power to keep from lashing out. I'm 6'2 200 lbs. Who are the judge and jury going to believe?
And besides, how badly can a woman physically hurt me? Certainly not bad enough for me to risk losing what I've worked so hard for!
A woman can cry to a judge and jury and she will get the verdict. If a man cries in court, he's done. The judge and the jury will bury him with scorn.
Ray Rice could have thought about it before he chose to beat his wife. He didn't step back and think the situation through. He could have left her and paid the financial cost of a nasty divorce. Far better for him to pay financially than risk losing his fortune.
One bad decision (or in Rice's case, several bad decisions) can ruin a man's life.
You can't force someone else to take that risk. Over the top violent would be following up with more punches when she was down. It isn't the lion's fault that they're a lion, it's the zebra's fault for poking the lion when it's just a zebra. You can say he hit her too hard, but I'm assuming you've never boxed. Reactionary punches are fast and fast punches are hard.
If this was a case of two male friends or strangers or whatever with equivalent sizes, there wouldn't be a person on the planet who would say the smaller guy wouldn't be stupid to hit a drunk guy many times their size in the midst of an argument. It's stupid, plain and simple. It's not saying it's right for bigger guy to knock them out in return, but if you value your life, you don't do something that might jeopardize it.
Make the little guy a woman and all of a sudden everything is about what he did, and you can't say "hey, maybe it wasn't the smartest thing in the world for her to hit a big buff drunk guy in the middle of an argument" because holy shyt, you're a victim blamer.
After watching the video, he totally had the right to defend himself. The woman hit him and then went for him again, he defended himself the same way he would of defended himself if it was a guy attacking him. (Although it was more forceful then perhaps others would of used)
My biggest bug bear with woman's physical violence toward men is that people on the outside see it as not relevant and that they can get away with it because they are woman. They see it as men are stronger so therefore are not allowed to hit back/it shouldn't even hurt them.
If a small weak man were to walk up to a huge bodybuilder/super strong guy in the street and then start hitting him, can he be pissed off that he hit him back and knocked him out? He is a lot stronger than him, and most likely knows that, so should he refrain from hitting him? I feel this is really similar to the way woman think when talking about men hitting back.
I've always told SO's that if they ever get upset with me in an argument or whatever, and then they slap me as hard as they can, that i'd slap them back as hard as i can.
Ideally, the hypothetical strong man should refrain from hitting back, but ideally, the weaker party should have refrained from battery in the first place. Logic dictates that should you initiate an attack, be prepared to defend against a counter attack.
Are you trying to be ironic?