Why is the "but women are weaker!" facade still trotted out to defend violent women?
I mean seriously, a child could see through this. Recently, a user asked the following question:
Two of the answerers were caught red handed asserting that women should be allowed to assault men with impunity because men are "inferior" in their eyes. It has NOTHING to do with being "weaker", given the first scenario. It's about hate, not strength/size.
Do they really think we're dumb enough to fall for this?
SMUG: I get where you're coming from, but do you really think that the 150lbs. guy will do more damage to the woman than the 250lbs. guy to him? The answerers proved that "damage" is irrelevant and that they are driven by a view of men as inferior.
SMUG: True, but that wasn't the reasoning if you read their posts.
SMUG: Sarah was one I was referring to, as well as Savannah but her answer was "the first one" and then she went on to say how the second guy was worse so I was rather confused.
LINDA: That has to be the most bafflingly incoherent thing I've ever read. "Attack on our sex" is a childish shaming tactic, and this has nothing to do with sexual harassment. Hitting men is abuse two, but your sick man-hating excuse for a soul can't fathom that.
- Anonymous9 years agoFavorite Answer
It's sad but true, most MEN are dumb enough to fall for this quasi logic.
- ?Lv 79 years ago
Some people are obviously under the impression that a woman will ALWAYS sustain more damage when hit by a man than a man will when hit by another man, no matter the difference in weight among them, hence they believe a man hitting a woman is ALWAYS worse.
That assumption is wrong, of course.
About the other question...how can we tell the amount of strength Guy A or Guy B are willing to put in the punch, what kind of kick will they implement, what is their current fitness level, who is a boxer, who is a couch potato...as I said on the other question, it's impossible to tell what will really happen and who will sustain more damage before it happens, we can only speculate.
But weight lifting for a long time and knowing many other people, with different profiles, who do too, I can tell you that the upper body strength difference between the 250 lbs man and the 150 lbs man is significantly higher than the difference between a 150 lbs man and a 120 lbs woman, IF they are on the same training and fitness level.
- judithLv 44 years ago
Minimal force is always the pleasant rule. If that you may restrain anybody or stroll away this is absolutely the quality thing to do. In case you have just acquired punched within the face i will have an understanding of it being rough to preserve your temper. I am a woman of 5 ft 9 and used to be equipped to preserve a drunk lady of 5 toes 2 faraway from me by simply pushing her through the shoulder each time she received close. I didn't hit her after which when she sobered up and apologised i did not have something to apologise for. As you say a person will probably be ready to restrain a girl. This doesn't imply she shouldn't be accountable for her moves tho. If a person selected to finish a relationship or press expenditures he would be completely within the right.
- 9 years ago
This is sexual harassment and abuse, and is very serious and a crime. I don't believe women fight like men, even in the military except if they have a gun or something to defend or attack. Actually women have weaker frames and the really fat ones don't have muscle, so I don't get your abusive derogatory attack on our sex. So we are the weaker sex, but we've done as much harm to our sex as any man knows, by all the bimbos and porno feminists in the world. So, whenever I women is beaten up, I really don't think even a fat hog of 250 lbs or more is strong as a man of muscle who weights 200. Well, my opinion and I've been there and wish I knew karate.Source(s): Bible
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- SmugleafLv 79 years ago
Those answers didn't say that it was alright for the women to hit them men, just that it isn't alright for the men to hit the women. The question didn't even ask about the morality of the one who hit first, it was asking about the person who hit back. Furthermore the question specifically said the answers had to choose one, and they couldn't say they were equally bad. It was pretty much a loaded question.
Edit: I don't much much about how this stuff works, but I don't think weight alone can determine how strong someone is. Most men, even smaller men, are stronger than women.
Edit2: Actually only one of the two answers that said the one hitting the woman was worse neglected to mention the strength difference. Meredith flat out said men hit harder, specifically referring to the damage. Sarah on the other hand probably did what you said though, since she didn't say why she thinks men shouldn't hit women.
Edit3: I'm an idiot, I missed SAVANNA's post, which was hidden due to low rating. Same thing as Sarah.
most men have figured out that it is bs. if it has nothing to do with gender but instead with size then why is it that if a small man were to hit a stronger and much larger man everyone will just say he deserved it?
- Anonymous9 years ago
You're right, women are just as capable of violence as men are. Hell, we could go back in time and look at Lizzie Borden's capability if need be.
- Anonymous9 years ago
women always see themselves as victim.
Brainwashed by feminists
what do you expect more?
Just ignore them
- 9 years ago
Feminists can't have it both ways. Either you want us all to be equal and the exact same or not. They pick and choose when it applies.
- Anonymous9 years ago
and the number of women arrested for violent crimes is skyrocketing
but beyond that, if women really were Innocent victims, why would there be domestic violence in lesbian households?