Frump
02-20-2013, 11:57 AM
This is something I was thinking about, ppl are always going on about how men should never hit women, and if you delve in to the reasons WHY, it usually always goes back to the fact that "women are weaker than men".
And I put that in "" b/c it's a VERY general thing to say, while it may be true in MOST cases, it's certainly not true in EVERY case.
So, what I'm wondering is, if there is such a strict rule on men not hitting women (b/c they are weaker **usually**), then why not just say NEVER hit ANYONE who is physically WEAKER than yourself?
For e.g. if a strong 6'4 muscle man hits a smaller weaker man who's around 5'3 and 120lbs, why isn't that looked at as bad as a man hitting a woman?
What's funny is, a weaker man could hit a stronger woman *who's physically stronger than himself* and THAT would be looked at as MUCH MUCH worse than a big strong man hitting a tiny weaker man who's much weaker and smaller than himself AND the other woman who he hypothetically hit.
Also most ppl say it's wrong for a man to hit a woman back even if she hits him first.
BUT if a smaller weaker guy hit a bigger stronger man *who's a lot bigger and stronger than him* FIRST, most ppl would say that the bigger stronger man is WELL justified to kick the smaller man's ass.
Just one of those little social things I don't understand.
It's like there could be a man and woman of IDENTICALLY the same size and strength and they could go up and start harrassing a big strong man, and it would be seen as perfectly ok for the big, strong man to beat up on the smaller weaker man, but he would be looked at as a moster and as pathetic if he did the same to the woman *who's identical to her male counterpart*
Again I think all hitting is WRONG, unless it's your only option.
And I put that in "" b/c it's a VERY general thing to say, while it may be true in MOST cases, it's certainly not true in EVERY case.
So, what I'm wondering is, if there is such a strict rule on men not hitting women (b/c they are weaker **usually**), then why not just say NEVER hit ANYONE who is physically WEAKER than yourself?
For e.g. if a strong 6'4 muscle man hits a smaller weaker man who's around 5'3 and 120lbs, why isn't that looked at as bad as a man hitting a woman?
What's funny is, a weaker man could hit a stronger woman *who's physically stronger than himself* and THAT would be looked at as MUCH MUCH worse than a big strong man hitting a tiny weaker man who's much weaker and smaller than himself AND the other woman who he hypothetically hit.
Also most ppl say it's wrong for a man to hit a woman back even if she hits him first.
BUT if a smaller weaker guy hit a bigger stronger man *who's a lot bigger and stronger than him* FIRST, most ppl would say that the bigger stronger man is WELL justified to kick the smaller man's ass.
Just one of those little social things I don't understand.
It's like there could be a man and woman of IDENTICALLY the same size and strength and they could go up and start harrassing a big strong man, and it would be seen as perfectly ok for the big, strong man to beat up on the smaller weaker man, but he would be looked at as a moster and as pathetic if he did the same to the woman *who's identical to her male counterpart*
Again I think all hitting is WRONG, unless it's your only option.