Hansie Cronje movie

[shankar]

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.

I agree. It's like hitting someone who has his hands tied.

 

[Slow Love™]

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.

I can see what you're saying - but the social rules we live by define our norms. Not only in the sense of whether you'll get criticized for something, but because it informs both genders as to what's generally "out of bounds". So, in a way, a woman is as hostage to this as you are. Presuming that a) the woman doesn't dominate you physically) and b) you consider physical violence a bad thing, I think it's best to aim for objecting to the behaviour and seeking action on it (good luck on that, BTW, but that's a whole other post), because where it's a single slap, you don't HAVE to reply in kind. A slap from a woman in our social environment (for better or worse) means "you've transgressed!". A slap from a man (to a man) is generally a physical challenge, and means "how about it?" (a fight, not a shag ). This may entice different appropriate responses, because the intention of the act varies according to gender (in general).

 

[PY]

I personally thought Carlos Bernard would be a good choice for playing Hansie Cronje.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/faces/carlos_bernard.shtml

PS For what it's worth, I would never hit a woman for any reason. I agree fully that a little aggression is OK ie pushing a lady away or restraining their arms or something along those lines but to full on whack a lady would be pushing my moral code no matter what because to punch a lady would mean that I've taken a violent solution to my problem which isn't me at all.

PPS Richard, you say that you've punched people for making bad taste jokes, I think that says something about your attitude to violence. I would just ignore someone like as long as it stayed verbal and nothing more, they'd just lose respect.

 

[shankar]

PS For what it's worth, I would never hit a woman for any reason. I agree fully that a little aggression is OK ie pushing a lady away or restraining their arms or something along those lines but to full on whack a lady would be pushing my moral code no matter what because to punch a lady would mean that I've taken a violent solution to my problem which isn't me at all.

But why define that along gender lines. Why not just say that 'I would never use violence against men or women except in self-defense'.

 

[Neil Pickup]

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!!!

I found that amusing, too. What's even more amusing is that someone actually believed it!

 

[PY]

I guess that is true but my personal safety would be much more in danger from most men than women. There's odd exceptions but there's exceptions to most things.

I just can't see me lamping a woman. And it can't be passed on as fuddy-duddy because I'm a teenager!

 

[marc71178]

The only problem with any violence is if it's repeated

So it's OK to hit someone once then?

The only problem with violence is the violence itself.

 

[Swervy]

wow...this thread is one of the stranger one in CC...started off very light hearted..now very (too?) heavy.

Sorry that i played a part in it..however I do just want to point out this is the post i was responding to:
' Well I'm perfectly happy to hit females if they hit me, yes.
If a convention strikes me as inappropriate, I'm happy to defy it.'

Richard has since edited it so that it reads:' Well I'm don't find it unthinkably disraceful to hit females if they hit me, yes.
If a convention strikes me as inappropriate, I'm happy to defy it.'(edited almost 2 hours later)

I kinda feel I have almost been made out to be the unreasonable one here...I still stand by what i originally said to the original post...but sorry if this may have ruined a thread about cricketing matters

 

[Swervy]

I guess that is true but my personal safety would be much more in danger from most men than women. There's odd exceptions but there's exceptions to most things.

I just can't see me lamping a woman. And it can't be passed on as fuddy-duddy because I'm a teenager!

same here (unless my well being was seriously under threat)...I just couldnt bring myself to whacking a woman square on the face with a fist or anything that COULD do serious damage....but maybe thats because I am a big fella and know that one punch could do some proper damage (although the last punch I threw..under severe provocation I might add..although that doesnt really excuse it..damaged me more than the punchee)

 

[Swervy]

So it's OK to hit someone once then?

The only problem with violence is the violence itself.

I too thought that was slightly odd...guess we are just a part of the fuddy duddy brigade

 

[chekmeout]

A little off topic here but did you people know Navjot Singh Sidhu has killed a person with a punch??

 

[Slow Love™]

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.

Fair enough - sorry to get so pi$$ed off. But some of the hyperbole (why, oh why, do we on the left abuse the term misogyny so badly???) directed at Richard was OTT, in my opinion. Even though I disagree that a one-off slap necessitates a physical response, I do think that we have strange blanket notions of what's understandable and what isn't, and I think many of these arguments are based on prejudicial ideas and yes, non-sequiturs. For example, "I'd never hit a woman, under any circumstances" or PY's acknowledgement that there are exceptions to the rule, but he wouldn't make any exceptions for the exceptions. It's irrational.

For the record though, if the above comments were directed towards me, I don't think I accused you of advocating violence towards men by women. I do think many people afford it little seriousness though, and an attempt by a man to actually seek action for physical abuse by a woman (no matter what the circumstances) would often likely be met with chortles.

I also think that some of what's going on in this thread is repeated chasing of Richard from thread to thread (not by you, and the following comments aren't directed towards you) and I find it annoying. Though I find many of Richard's theories about the game bizarre, I think there are way, WAY more offensive people posting at this forum who don't get constantly harrassed in the same way, and if I disliked someone that much, I'd probably ignore them.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Fair enough - sorry to get so pi$$ed off. But some of the hyperbole (why, oh why, do we on the left abuse the term misogyny so badly???) directed at Richard was OTT, in my opinion. Even though I disagree that a one-off slap necessitates a physical response, I do think that we have strange blanket notions of what's understandable and what isn't, and I think many of these arguments are based on prejudicial ideas and yes, non-sequiturs. For example, "I'd never hit a woman, under any circumstances" or PY's acknowledgement that there are exceptions to the rule, but he wouldn't make any exceptions for the exceptions. It's irrational.

For the record though, if the above comments were directed towards me, I don't think I accused you of advocating violence towards men by women. I do think many people afford it little seriousness though, and an attempt by a man to actually seek action for physical abuse by a woman (no matter what the circumstances) would often likely be met with chortles.

I also think that some of what's going on in this thread is repeated chasing of Richard from thread to thread (not by you, and the following comments aren't directed towards you) and I find it annoying. Though I find many of Richard's theories about the game bizarre, I think there are way, WAY more offensive people posting at this forum who don't get constantly harrassed in the same way, and if I disliked someone that much, I'd probably ignore them.

I don't have a problem with Richard at all. He's obviously a clever lad; he does remain dogmatically attached to certain views that I don't think can be justified, but that's his prerogative. I hope in time he'll come to appreciate the other fellow's viewpoint a tad more.

However, it was his original comment of

Well I'm perfectly happy to hit females if they hit me, yes.

that I took umbrage at. I bit my cyber-tongue for a while, but couldn't leave it. It may simply be a poor choice of phrase (and to be fair to Rich he did edit his post), but I think it at least deserved comment. He'd had a pop @ Lucky Eddie for making a very slightly-off colour gag (but one that I actually laughed out loud at, horrible sinner that I am) & then opined he'd punched folk for making iffy jokes. Swervy (correctly in my opinion) pointed out the inappropriateness of this response & it all spiralled from there.

Anyway, I'm home, have opened a bevvy and am now more or less fit to rejoin polite society!

 

[Anil]

The simple fact of the matter is that men are stronger than women. If a small child hit you would you hit it back?

what if a female martial arts expert hit a regular guy?

yours is a very general statement, especially in this day and age, there are ample scenarios where this isn't the case...to have some sort of unwritten rule that beating a woman is wrong whatever be the situation doesn't make any sense...rather, a fairer rule is that you shouldn't beat up on people who are physically weaker than you unless there is some sort of extreme provocation like a life-threatening situation or something...

 

[C_C]

Wow..i went to sleep and work and this thread just exploded....
I agree with Richard and Slow Love in almost everything....
And it is interesting case study in cultural indoctrination : BoyBrumbie and PY have views that they have not justified logically but have only repeated the paragons of their cultural indoctrination : men hitting women is much much worse than men hitting men in almsot any circumstance.

 

[Mr Casson]

After considering both parties' arguments, I have reached a verdict...

The argument against Brumby seems to be that hitting a man or a woman with equal absolute strength is equally inappropriate. I think that is perhaps oversimplifying the issue in failing to consider the cultural implications. Brumby said that 95% of men are stronger than 95% of women, which sounds like a fair estimation to me. Because of perception, it is inherent in western society that hitting a woman is always wrong, regardless of relative or absolute strength.

 

[C_C]

C_C, you seem to be arguing that hitting a man or a woman with equal absolute strength is equally inappropriate.

Yes...equally inappropriate or appropriate, given the circumstances.
Thats precisely what i am saying.

I think you've perhaps oversimplified the issue in failing to consider the cultural implications

Culture has nothing to do with facts and truth. It is merely something thats there and developed outta what people THINK is right or wrong.

Brumby said that 95% of men are stronger than 95% of women, which sounds like a fair estimation to me

Trust me it isnt.
Not only is the number far more inaccurate than it actually is ( from what i've seen-and i certainly have seen a LOT of scuffles it is around 70-30 in favour of males) it is directly a product of culture.

You will find that the number of women practicing in strength training is a negligibly small fraction of the number of males practicing it.
Why ? because of cultural indoctrination- it has nothing to do with what women and men are/are not capable of, it is merely a reflection of what society perceives. Women are intersted more in just getting a toned body that will show off their curves because in our society,women are far more of a *** object than males and societerial perception is that a beautiful woman is a toned woman. Since beauty counts for so much, thats what happens.
That is completely irrelevant of whether women are capable of matching men strength for strength.

Not to mention, i have oft mentioned that strength is AT BEST the minor directive in fighting. I can tell that not many of the commentators on this thread have actually had anything more than a highschool brawl for i assure you in real life street fights/bar fights etc., knowing how to fight is 90% of the deal.
I have personally taken down men who have atleast 50 pounds more muscle mass than me and i have been taken down by guys AND a few girls who barely reach 5 feet.

Because of perception, it is inherent in western society that hitting a woman is always wrong, regardless of relative or absolute strength.

That is true but perception is no excuse for a logically flawed standpoint. If perception is proven false, its best for that perception to change- and that is fundamentally documented in human history. Not too long ago there was a perception that black people cannot be as smart as white people...when that was proven wrong, it changed...i see no reason as to why this cant.

 

[Deja moo]

How is it irrelevant?

I used it as a means to demonstrate use of resonable force. Men on average are stronger than women as adults are stronger than children. Surely the correlation is obvious?

No, it isnt. Do you mean to say that if a weaker person attacked you, you wouldnt retaliate? Strength has zilch to do with in such circumstances, degree of provocation is the relevant issue here.

Its simple.
A guy equally strong as me pushes me aside in a drunken state, I may not feel the need to react.
A weaker woman pushes a knife in my face , I certainly might retaliate strongly.

& I agree it would make her at least an aggressive, unpleasent person; at no point have I adovacated women attacking men

What irritates me is your easy willingness to use the word "misogynist" here. So a woman attacking a man makes her aggressive and unpleasant as you put it, but a man giving it back in self defence automatically qualifies him as a misogynist?

 

[BoyBrumby]

No, it isnt. Do you mean to say that if a weaker person attacked you, you wouldnt retaliate? Strength has zilch to do with in such circumstances, degree of provocation is the relevant issue here.

Its simple.
A guy equally strong as me pushes me aside in a drunken state, I may not feel the need to react.
A weaker woman pushes a knife in my face , I certainly might retaliate strongly.

What irritates me is your easy willingness to use the word "misogynist" here. So a woman attacking a man makes her aggressive and unpleasant as you put it, but a man giving it back in self defence automatically qualifies him as a misogynist?

Ok, my absolutely final post in this thread.

I am not suggesting that it is appropriate for women to attack men, nor have I suggested it is wrong in any given circumstance for a man to hit a woman. In my very first post in this benighted little thread I said

Of course if one's in mortal danger it would make a difference, but hitting a woman simply because she hit you first isn't on.

And I stick by that.

What angered me is Richard's use of the expression "happy to hit females". I am arguing for appropriateness of response. I'm not suggesting it is right to hit weak, puny or enfeebled men. I would argue that it is far easier to recognise a person's gender than their physical capabilities. It is my contention that it is then far worse morally speaking to punch back a female who hits you than a weak or puny man who hits you. You do so in the knowledge you are striking someone who is, is all probability, weaker than you.

Suggesting, as C_C & Richard seem to be doing, that no difference in response is appropriate regarding male & female assailants is simply wrong. I've heard nothing to convince me otherwise.

 

[Swervy]

Yes...equally inappropriate or appropriate, given the circumstances.
Thats precisely what i am saying.




Culture has nothing to do with facts and truth. It is merely something thats there and developed outta what people THINK is right or wrong.



Trust me it isnt.
Not only is the number far more inaccurate than it actually is ( from what i've seen-and i certainly have seen a LOT of scuffles it is around 70-30 in favour of males) it is directly a product of culture.

You will find that the number of women practicing in strength training is a negligibly small fraction of the number of males practicing it.
Why ? because of cultural indoctrination- it has nothing to do with what women and men are/are not capable of, it is merely a reflection of what society perceives. Women are intersted more in just getting a toned body that will show off their curves because in our society,women are far more of a *** object than males and societerial perception is that a beautiful woman is a toned woman. Since beauty counts for so much, thats what happens.
That is completely irrelevant of whether women are capable of matching men strength for strength.

Not to mention, i have oft mentioned that strength is AT BEST the minor directive in fighting. I can tell that not many of the commentators on this thread have actually had anything more than a highschool brawl for i assure you in real life street fights/bar fights etc., knowing how to fight is 90% of the deal.
I have personally taken down men who have atleast 50 pounds more muscle mass than me and i have been taken down by guys AND a few girls who barely reach 5 feet.



That is true but perception is no excuse for a logically flawed standpoint. If perception is proven false, its best for that perception to change- and that is fundamentally documented in human history. Not too long ago there was a perception that black people cannot be as smart as white people...when that was proven wrong, it changed...i see no reason as to why this cant.

I think we are all getting a bit too deep here...

CC, if a girl(shall we say of weight 8 and a half stone, 5ft 3,an average woman who doesnt go wieght trianing etc)went up to you in a pub or club and punched you in the face once and walked away (for an unknown reason), would you go after her an deck her?(So no self defense in this situation, this would be a simple act of revenge).

Would you be imclined to refrain from hitting her back?
or would you be inclined to go after her and give her as good as she gave (ie one punch in the face, by you a bloke I will assume is an average 12stone, 5 ft 10)?

A fairly simple answer is required!!!!!