Hansie Cronje movie

[PAKMAN]

Has there ever been one?

therz bin a bolly wood film called lagaan its bin dubbed in english too good watch

 

[BoyBrumby]

You've sidestepped the central question numerous time, so here is one last stab.

If STRENGTH is the issue here, WHY did you say that hitting a weak woman was somehow more morally deplorable than hitting an equally weak man ?

You have shown no justification to your reasoning here. You have argued on the strength issue which is essentially culturalism more than anything else (like i said, there are women in some cultures who are almost as strong as their male counterparts as there is no compartmentalisation of socio-economical activity throughout history).

If strength is the deterministic factor, then i dont see how a weak puny man deserves any less courtesy than a weak puny woman. Yet you've said that in moral relativism, hitting a woman is far more detestable than hitting a man.
You are yet to explain that, since your 'strength' factor hasnt said WHY it is more detestable to hit a woman that is weak compared to hitting a man who is equally if not more weak.

Oh come on, you obviously aren't an idiot, so do you really need me to spell it out?

Gender recognition is hard-wired into our DNA. Why do you think transgendered people provoke such a mixed responses? We do not know how to respond to them.

 

[Richard]

So gender-recognition is hard-wired in.
So?

 

[Slow Love™]

Yeah, not sure I saw the relevance of that either....

I have no idea what this discussion is doing in the "Hansie Cronje movie" thread, but here's my thoughts on the subject.

The argument that it's more acceptable to hit a man than hit a woman full-stop is far too absolutist. It's already been pointed out, but there is a large variance in physical (and temperamental) characteristics across genders. What if the woman weighs 300 pounds and is pummelling her submissive husband with a closed fist? What if the woman is the male's boss, has the power to take away his livelihood, and physically abuses him, relying on gender assumptions that dictate he can't retaliate? What if the woman is physically weaker than her sixteen-year old son, but her status as his mother allows her to smack him around? Severity of assault should be defined on imbalances of power in relationships, rather than patronizing gender arguments that run contrary to notions of equality. I don't know if people see these notions as being emancipatory - too often they're used just as effectively to prevent women participating in occupations and services that some of them are absolutely qualified to engage in.

None of this is to say that social campaigns to stop wife-beating should be discontinued, because domination of a spouse via violence is completely unacceptable, and wife-beating is definitely a problem worth addressing (as is the other way around, even if it's less common). But the nature of the power relationship, and the nature of the capacity for violence should be the indicators for how acceptable or unacceptable a retaliatory violent act is, IMO.

 

[Richard]

None of this is to say that social campaigns to stop wife-beating should be discontinued, because domination of a spouse via violence is completely unacceptable, and wife-beating is definitely a problem worth addressing (as is the other way around, even if it's less common).

I am absolutely delighted you think so, Jesse - I have been waiting for you on this thread for a while.
I couldn't have put it better myself.

But the nature of the power relationship, and the nature of the capacity for violence should be the indicators for how acceptable or unacceptable a retaliatory violent act is, IMO.

Yes, I see what you mean.
There are plenty of times, though, when a violent act, both retaliatory and not, are committed without a significant power relationship.
This is what I am prinicipally referring to.

 

[BoyBrumby]

So gender-recognition is hard-wired in.
So?

So?

So is that it's the very first thing one recognises in another; if one cannot ascertain another’s gender provokes disquiet.

If one were assailed by a woman one would immediately be aware of the fact. The weakness of a male assailant would not be so immediately apparent unless they were obviously disabled. If one were to then hit a disabled or decrepit man I would agree this would be on a par with striking a woman.

If you allow there is no difference the ultimate outcome is that there is no difference between hitting men & women.

You may be perfectly happy to hit a woman, I'm certainly not for the reasons I've outlined. Male on female violence remains a huge problem; Jesuitical arguments about "puny men" are merely attempts to obfuscate the issue.

 

[Slow Love™]

Yes, I see what you mean.
There are plenty of times, though, when a violent act, both retaliatory and not, are committed without a significant power relationship.
This is what I am prinicipally referring to.

Not sure I totally understand you there, Richard... What are you referring to exactly? My points are made with the assumption that one party is endangered or dominated physically (even if temporarily) by the other, which IMO is a much better guide than assumptions based on the *** of the parties involved alone.

Of course, the preferable situation where domestic violence is concerned, is that the aggrieved party not participate in the violence, and instead, follows our legal system, and reports the offence, allowing the law to deal with it.

However, there are frequent circumstances where people feel they are in extreme physical danger, and feel they must retaliate. Or they've been pushed to the brink by repeated abuse (including threats of abuse). Hell, striking the offender back may well in some situations be a legitimate starting point to restraining the person, in order that the abuse is ceased at that moment so that you can then report it. If my wife is coming at me with a knife in a homicidal frenzy because I looked through the window at my neighbor sunbaking in her yard (oh man, I've got to stop doing that), it may just not be feasible to restrain her without some kind of retaliatory assault - not that I would dream of doing so unless I believed I was in real danger, but that's pretty much my personal attitude to violence in general.

 

[Richard]

I'm referring to a situation that has nothing domestic about it...
You seem to have taken everything in the context of domestic-violence - and the simple fact of the matter is that violence (just singular, never mind repeated) towards a loved one is a terrible, terrible crime. You don't need to tell me that.
But I'm just talking about people outside your family. People that (obviously) you don't really like (because I hope I never hit a friend, personally).

 

[Richard]

So?

So is that it's the very first thing one recognises in another; if one cannot ascertain another’s gender provokes disquiet.

If one were assailed by a woman one would immediately be aware of the fact. The weakness of a male assailant would not be so immediately apparent unless they were obviously disabled. If one were to then hit a disabled or decrepit man I would agree this would be on a par with striking a woman.

If you allow there is no difference the ultimate outcome is that there is no difference between hitting men & women.

You may be perfectly happy to hit a woman, I'm certainly not for the reasons I've outlined. Male on female violence remains a huge problem; Jesuitical arguments about "puny men" are merely attempts to obfuscate the issue.

Rubbish - male-on-female violence remains as much of a problem as parent-on-child violence.
The only problem with any violence is if it's repeated - you can't just use the fact that the most common form of domestic violence is wife-beating to justify the idea that a man should never hit a woman in any shape, form or context.
And from what I can see you seem to be under the impression that basically any male will be stronger than any female - as any able-bodied person will be stronger than a disabled one.
And that is simply a ludicrous assumption.

 

[Slow Love™]

You may be perfectly happy to hit a woman, I'm certainly not for the reasons I've outlined. Male on female violence remains a huge problem; Jesuitical arguments about "puny men" are merely attempts to obfuscate the issue.

With respect, mate, you've avoided some legitimate arguments in order to respond with non-sequiturs. And characterising people making this argument as "happy to hit women" is deliberately perjorative and (quite possible deliberately also) suggests that people are arguing in favor of initiating violence against women.I think you've done your fair share of obfuscation.

I think it's a fair point to say that domestic violence is a bad thing. I think it's a fair thing to say that initiating domestic violence by either gender is a bad thing. I also think it's a fair thing to say that retaliation to physical violence where there's domination or a significant, relevant power imbalance involved can be understandable under certain conditions (you didn't go anywhere near examples of these), and according to your definitions, it's always more acceptable for a female to retaliate/initiate violence than it is for a male to retaliate in all situations. I disagree with the totality of this argument - and I think examples have been provided which support my rationale.

But if you wish to believe that I'm also "happy to hit women", I guess this'll be the last I say on the issue.

 

[Slow Love™]

I'm referring to a situation that has nothing domestic about it...
You seem to have taken everything in the context of domestic-violence - and the simple fact of the matter is that violence (just singular, never mind repeated) towards a loved one is a terrible, terrible crime. You don't need to tell me that.
But I'm just talking about people outside your family. People that (obviously) you don't really like (because I hope I never hit a friend, personally).

Well, if it satisfies the criteria I've outlined previously (I mentioned a workplace situation, which wouldn't be defined as domestic per se), I think there are situations in which I might find it an understandable response (dependent also on a barometer of "reasonable force").

Physical violence is always undesirable though - I just acknowledge that there will be cases where men are forced to defend themselves physically against an assault by a woman (or against an abusive relationship in general), and yes, this may well involve retaliatory violence.

 

[Richard]

I know violence is always undesirable - but the fact is, if someone hits you for no good reason, I see no valid pretext under which you should be disallowed from hitting them back just because they're a female.
Naturally, any form of battering - ie over-the-top violence - is always inappropriate, that's why the laws on GBH and Assault exist. But if someone strikes you just because, say, you knocked their drink over totally by accident in a pub, and immidiately apologise and offer to buy them another one too, I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to hit them back - whether it be a woman or man that hit you.
The only reason, of course, is the "above all that" mentality that it'd be so nice if everyone perpetuated - ie the "turn the other cheek" idea et al. But come on - do many people really attire to that?
Of times, a whack is appropriate and justifiable IMO... as long, of course, as it doesn't go overboard and extend to Assault or GBH. Especially if someone has hit you first.

 

[Slow Love™]

I know violence is always undesirable - but the fact is, if someone hits you for no good reason, I see no valid pretext under which you should be disallowed from hitting them back just because they're a female.
Naturally, any form of battering - ie over-the-top violence - is always inappropriate, that's why the laws on GBH and Assault exist. But if someone strikes you just because, say, you knocked their drink over totally by accident in a pub, and immidiately apologise and offer to buy them another one too, I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to hit them back - whether it be a woman or man that hit you.
The only reason, of course, is the "above all that" mentality that it'd be so nice if everyone perpetuated - ie the "turn the other cheek" idea et al. But come on - do many people really attire to that?
Of times, a whack is appropriate and justifiable IMO... as long, of course, as it doesn't go overboard and extend to Assault or GBH. Especially if someone has hit you first.

Well, taking your pub example, if the woman slapped me once, I'd probably tell her to get snotted (only in more dramatic fashion) and move on. I don't believe I'm in real danger, and providing she doesn't dramatically escalate it, I think I have choices.

If she hit me with a pool cue though, or she ferally laid into me, I'm sure it would be different.

 

[Slow Love™]

Physical characteristics must also play a part. If she's little and can't do much damage to me, that increases my choices.

But if, like an example previously, she's a big' un and knocks my breath out with a roundhouse - again, it changes the situation.

 

[Richard]

The impression I get of you is that it'd be the same with another guy, though...?
I just get the impression that you're generally the sort of guy who'd only resort to retaliation as a defensive measure... I'm talking about less sort of people than you.

 

[Richard]

Physical characteristics must also play a part. If she's little and can't do much damage to me, that increases my choices.

Obviously - there are times when "... was that the wind brushing my face" can be far more appropriate and cause less trouble.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ok.

Tempers are getting heated. I apologise for any offence caused.

I'm not really sure how we got started on this topic & I should've stuck with my original instinct to say nowt.

But, for the record, I have not advocated violence towards men by women. Unprovoked violence (and abuse of power) is unacceptable in any given circumstance. I merely tried to point out in my hysterical way that a different response is, in my possibly ill-considered opinion, appropriate if one were attcaked by a woman than by a man.

Again, I didn't mean to offend anyone. I'm @ work & cogent arguments are difficult to form between bouts of dealing with the great unwashed.

 

[shankar]

As per strength goes- you realise that the recent IAAF simulations show women to be the holders of the 'fastest 100 meter runner' tag by 2075 ?

I remember when that article came out. It was hilarious. Basically what they said was that if the current trends in world records continue for another 150 years, then the fastest runner will be a woman in the year 2156 i.e. they blindly extrapolated the record timings. According to that 'logic', sometime in the future, humans will be able to finish a race before they start!!!

 

[Slow Love™]

The impression I get of you is that it'd be the same with another guy, though...?
I just get the impression that you're generally the sort of guy who'd only resort to retaliation as a defensive measure...

Well, probably, although I'd make exceptions for wartime, rescue situations, etc. If you're asking whether it's OK to slap a woman who's more fragile than yourself because she slapped you, no, personally, I don't think it's on in general - I think the violence has to be more extreme, or the physical situation different (or both).

The fact is that most times, a man has more power in a physical conflict than a woman does. This doesn't mean in all cases, or all cases bar a very select few, even. But it's definitely the situation the majority of the time, and we need to be aware of that fact. And a man is more likely to be socialized to more extreme physical violence, which can also mean it's more acceptable to fight back in more situations when they're the attacker. I just think that there are situations where it's not the case (that don't have to be incredibly rare), and that's why there are better standards to judge unacceptable retaliatory violence by.

There are relationships where both partners in a male/female relationship slap each other where both parties have a genuine understanding that this is an agreed upon aspect of their relationship - in the sense that a domination doesn't exist. While it's not my cup of tea and I think it's unhealthy, in a situation where this is the case, it's much muddier waters than simple "what she did is more acceptable than what you did due to your genders" rules will dictate. That's why judging this on gender alone is a bad barometer.

 

[Richard]

The fact is that most times, a man has more power in a physical conflict than a woman does. This doesn't mean in all cases, or all cases bar a very select few, even. But it's definitely the situation the majority of the time

I'd say simply more often than not.
Possibly 60\40, possibly 65\35 at a push...
And while I'd reiterate that the best situation is always to avoid physical conflict, I simply don't see why someone should be allowed to hit someone else and not get hit back just because the hit-backer has more power... that just means you shouldn't have hit them ITFP.