@pmvines Hitting someone back to defend yourself doesn't have to involve all the force you can muster. Enough force to convey "Stop that! Or this will get worse" is all you need to provide initially. Her choice to back off or continue the attack will determine what you'll do next. And I'm not hiding behind equal rights as an excuse to hit a woman. I'm not itching to hit one at all. Maybe you overlooked in my post where I said "I'm not saying guys should be trigger-happy to beat up women". What I'm saying is that if I'm attacked, the gender of my attacker will not save them from my response. I don't see why I should willingly be someone's punching bag.
@Frankincense your opinion or not, why spend so much time justifying the use of violence on women? Seems a strange topic to keep on about.
@pmvines And why did you feel the need to suggest I'm not a man simply because on this topic I have a different opinion than yours?
@Frankincense I am not suggesting, but stating a fact, that hitting a woman and justifying violence against a woman does not make one a man.
More and more, women on dating sites include in their profile "do not contact me if you're not a feminist." While I believe in equality, feminism isn't equal even among itself.
My sister is the head of diversity of a YWCA in an all-Caucasian city. When she started she immediately saw that Black women weren't treated the same as Caucasian women. When she brought up the issue with the 'feminists' who worked there they were outraged. Luckily common sense prevailed and the higher uppers made changes that were fair to everyone. So while feminism is meant to empower - it needs to empower all women. Interesting that all women who didn't want men to contact them if they weren't a feminist were of the same race.
I accidentally found MGTOW about 6 months ago. While a few things are far-fetched I can resonate with most of it and have been unknowingly living the MGTOW lifestyle for the past 10 years. I'm not extreme just extremely aware of what fits in my life and what doesn't.
As with anything in life it really just comes down to what makes you happy.
I think a lot of the misunderstandings around feminism is that some people understand feminism as egalitarianism while others understand it as female superiority. If this ambiguity in the term "feminism" was somehow corrected, there would probably be fewer arguments. It wouldn't change the fact that some people want equality while others want superiority, but it would make communication around the subject much clearer.
@Mailleweaver, that is well-said and practical. Probably to no avail though.
It's a bit of a bummer that the "battle of the sexes" shows up so regularly here, on a site devoted to empathy and comfort among people in search of platonic intimacy with each other.
The emotionally charged nature of discussions like this make them needlessly combative and insulting. For example, only two things make someone a man: having both X and Y sex chromosomes, and reaching physical adulthood. Of course committing violence against women doesn't make one a man. Neither does defending the abused or having impeccable feminist credentials. Only age and biology matter to the definition. A particular set of practices, beliefs, or behavioral/ethical standards may make a man more honorable, admirable,or worthy of respect from society. But _manhood itself _is not contingent on having desirable character traits. Manhood is not "earned" by living up to certain standards or expectations, and it cannot be forfeited by falling short of them. The same is true of womanhood. Redefining terms like "man" or "woman" to include or exclude certain behaviors is just an inflammatory way of shaming those who disagree with us. It attacks the very core of their identity. If the goal of discussion is to persuade someone to adopt a different opinion, the tactic of insulting and shaming them doesn't help. If people could agree on at least that much, there would be a possibility of moving conversations forward. Absent that basic agreement, people just choose up sides and talk past each other.
Such hair splitting over whether or nor its admissible for a man to hit a woman. Never knew it would draw such philosophical waxing.
In all seriousness, I don't view it as hairsplitting. I think maintaining a distinction between an argument from emotional conviction and an argument from facts and logic is of primary importance. I deliberately did not weigh in on who can hit whom. That wasn't my topic. I only brought up the widespread tactic of saying or implying things like "real men don't do X," or "anyone who does X is not a man." My goal was to remove one single emotional impediment to rational discussion. Wishful thinking on my part, perhaps.
A lot of interesting stuff has been brought up so far. But I have exceeded my time allotment for the forums for this month. RL is demanding my attention. Carry on.
@chococuddles I've not yet come across dating profiles with "don't contact me if you're not a feminist", but if I did I'd be happy to oblige, and grateful that she revealed this aspect of herself right upfront.
@quietman775 Well said!