There has been a myriad of topics I have come across on social media where never-ending arguments spark that just won’t die. Grits: savory or sweet? Trump: Orange Hitler or threat to the status quo? Racism: dead and buried or alive and well? So. many. topics. I, like most people, have opinions on them and will gladly provide them if asked directly. However, I choose a lot of the time to stay out of debating and arguing with people on social media because, you know, I refuse to “cast pearls before swine” and like avoiding headaches. There is one topic however that I will ALWAYS chime in on, without hesitation, regardless of time of day or day of the week. I could be at work with a billion things to do, or chilling with my feet up on a much-needed vacation. I will always have something to say about women hitting men and then getting hit back. Always.
Let me preface this post by stating that I am not referring to situations where a woman is clearly being held against her will, is in imminent danger or otherwise likely to be harmed by a man. If in those cases or others that are similar, she must hit a man to try to escape and save her own life, I certainly think that is more than justified. This post is not about instances like those.
Take a look at the video below:
Now, I want to mention a few things. The video has an anti-feminism slant. And for those who don’t understand why I would post something anti-feminist to defend any point, I will explain something real quick. People get extremely riled up about those who claim to be against feminism and automatically call these people misogynists. Hell, I used to do it too. Until one day, I came across a video that made me see what so many don’t. From my understanding, most people against the modern-day feminist movement ARE NOT against gender equality, rather they are against some of the ridiculous claims that some feminists make. Before you write me off as some undercover woman hater, please take a few things into consideration.
I have a daughter and three sons. I want them all equally to have the same opportunities to live full, successful lives. I don’t think my daughter less capable than my sons and vice versa. I don’t want my sons to have privileges that my daughter cannot have and vice versa. The definition of feminism is supposed to be the following:
If feminism is based upon the equality of the sexes then it should make sense to anyone reading that when people spot stances for inequalities within the feminist movement it seems hypocritical. How exactly does one fight for equality of the sexes whilst allowing preferential, special and unequal treatment for some members of society over others? Like, seriously, how? HOW?!? Doesn’t that invalidate what is supposed to be the goal?
This brings me back to the subject I love chiming in on– Is it okay for a man to hit a woman if she hits him first? My answer is a resounding yes! Even someone like me who identifies with Buddhist and other positive spiritual concepts refuses to “cape” for women who hit men by asserting they don’t deserve to be hit back because they’re women. I’m not here for that ridiculous bullshit and I have no problem explaining why.
Now, I feel the need to state in advance that I believe it is usually best not to match violence with violence. However, I do not think every situation can realistically be handled in that way. There are some folks who could take a slap in the face and be composed enough not to retaliate. Kudos to them! But, I also understand that not everyone can do that and additionally not every situation is best handled by remaining non-violent when violence is inflicted upon you. For example, can you imagine if someone has made it known that they are trying to kill you and comes at you, weapon and all, and you decide NOT to fight for your life in whatever manner you can? Would violence towards your attacker not be justified in a situation like that? Methinks it would.
From what I have seen of those who say men shouldn’t hit women, no matter what, even if the woman threw the first punch, the first argument usually made is that men are physically stronger than women and as such could do far more damage to women than women ever could to them. Additionally, these same people usually state that because of a man’s physical strength, he should be able to endure a woman striking him without resorting to hitting back because hey, she can’t hit as hard as a man can!
I think those two arguments are complete and utter pelican shit. Why? Well, most people cheer on women who excel in sports that are typically dominated by males and there has been many a fight over girls’ rights to participate in sports like football and wrestling with boys. If anyone dares to bring up the fact that a girl is physically incapable of enduring the hits a boy could in football, or doesn’t possess the upper body strength needed to hold a boy down in wrestling like he could her, people would line up to call them misogynistic asswipes who want to repress women and send them back to the kitchen jobless, barefoot, and holding a baby in one arm whilst another grows in their womb. It would seem that when it comes to sports, it’s ok to think outside of the gender box and be more accepting of the so-called “weaker sex” going head-to-head with males. But, when it comes to one-on-one heated interactions and arguments, we’re all supposed to remember how frail girls are and go back to thinking them less equal than boys.
The suckiest thing about the argument that females shouldn’t be hit back if they strike a man because they are weaker than men is the fact that despite this being “common knowledge” women will still choose to hit men! I don’t understand. If a woman knows she cannot match the strength of a man, why would she put herself in the position of getting violent with one, potentially resulting in getting her soul smacked out of her body?
I think I know the answer, though. It’s because men are not supposed to hit women. Let’s examine this for a moment, shall we? It seems to me that the practice of not going around beating women is, in general, a good one. Unfortunately, and I know this from personal experience, there are some men who see nothing wrong with hitting a woman because they’re angry, or to control them or simply to terrorize them. I, of course, am referring to men who hit women without having any violence inflicted upon them that would justify being violent. Teaching one’s son not to go around forcing women to do what he wants by getting physically violent with them isn’t something I’m against. But what are daughters being taught?
I’ve met a lot of women who take to getting violent with anyone they have an issue with, no matter how insignificant. Perhaps, no one taught them it is highly inappropriate to go around using violence to make a point, express one’s anger or coerce someone else into doing what you want.
Women Bitches who act like that are ridiculously childish and do not have a proper hold on their emotions and impulses. It’s bad enough to see them acting out and fighting other women, but it really makes my ass itch when they get physical with men- most of them thinking they should get away with it and be protected because men aren’t supposed to hit them.
You’re not supposed to wear white after Labor Day. You’re not supposed to walk into a neighborhood full of Crips wearing red. You’re not supposed to eat Indian food from a gas station. You’re not supposed to wear white while on the heaviest day of your period. But as I’m sure most reasonable people know, just because one isn’t supposed to do something, doesn’t mean that it won’t get done. It takes a lot of self-restraint not to tear fire to the ass anyone who puts their hands on you and I don’t think it unreasonable for a man being slapped, kicked, punched or hit by someone to protect himself by doing the same, even if the person attacking him is a woman. It may not be what society thinks he is “supposed” to do, but just ask any man with a violently crazy ex-paramour who has put paws on him if he just allowed her to beat his ass. Which brings me to my next point.
Some people say in cases where women are physically attacking men that the man always has the option of restraining the woman instead of punching, hitting or returning the same violence her way that was shown him. In theory, yes this sounds good but I personally think it unfair. If a man was being attacked by another man would you say the same? True, there are sometimes when I’ve seen a man put another man in a UFC hold he couldn’t get out of until he tapped out, but I doubt that is possible in every instance. Not everyone has the skills to grip someone up until they give up. Not to mention, one’s first instinct typically isn’t restraint when being attacked. It’s fight or flight. So in the name of all things equal, why should a woman be spared violence from a man she has opted to get violent with? I don’t find that fair or equal at all.
On a personal note, I am willing to go so far as to say that if I myself chose to hit a man I would expect to get hit back and yes, I would feel I deserved it. I’m not one of those people who thinks stuff like that only applies to others and not myself. I cannot see myself just raising hands to a man without him striking me first, except of course unless it was an extenuating circumstance. I’m saying this because I am notorious in my family for having thrown a pregnant family member’s boyfriend through a wall after he choked her. Now granted, he didn’t get violent with me. I understand that had he been able to get up and hit me after I She-Hulk smashed his ass through his living room drywall, that I would have like we say in Philly “bought that”. Even though I was defending a loved one, I still made the conscious decision to get violent with a man and had it resulted in me getting hurt, it would have been a result of my own actions. Period.
So, what is actually fair when it comes to physical violence between men and women? It doesn’t seem as if most people are on the same page. On Facebook today I witnessed a friend of mine interacting with a woman who maintained that if my friend taught her sons to hit a girl who hit them that she was raising “women beaters”. Ummmmmm, ermmmmmmm….. yeah, NO! This woman claimed that her daughter was more entitled to her right not to be hit by a boy than someone’s son would be to retaliate against a girl hitting him. I cannot begin to tell you the how upset this made me. So, her daughter is supposed to be allowed to go around assaulting boys but should a boy hit her back it’s a problem? I don’t get this logic and funny enough, I wouldn’t be surprised if the woman described herself as a feminist- all for the equality of the sexes yet wants her her child to be exempt from the consequences of starting a fight with another. How is that equal?
Again, I started this post off describing feminism as being the belief in the equality of the sexes. I started it off by describing that I want the same for my sons as I do my daughter. That being said, all of my children, regardless of their sex have every right to defend themselves against ANYONE being violent towards them. That person being a girl should be of no consequence. I am a firm believer in “you get what you give” so if you’re doling out violence I’m with Karma on the consequences.