NationStates

This injunction sometimes recieves the response, "or anyone". But I disagree: men share a common identity and are therefore obligated to police each other. If, for instance, a man sees a man make an unsolicited sexual comment to a woman he is generally obligated to hit him in order to express extreme intolerance of his conduct.

Does anyone disagree?

Yes. Commentary, however crude or unwelcome, does not warrant violence. Furthermore, I share little common identity on account of my gender. I'm under no more obligation to police them than I am any other marginally connected group.

I wouldn't hit anyone.

While I'm all for people being able to hit each other, no one is ever obligated to do it. If the woman in your scenario needed this guy to be hit she can do it herself.

Nah. Man or Woman, I won't hit anyone. Only if I need to as self-defense.

The Parkus Empire wrote:This injunction sometimes recieves the response, "or anyone". But I disagree: men share a common identity and are therefore obligated to police each other. If, for instance, a man sees a man make an unsolicited sexual comment to a woman he is generally obligated to hit him in order to express extreme intolerance of his conduct.

Does anyone disagree?

I must disagree as to think, unless it is your wife or daughter that you should need to harm another of the same sex over something that he says and he may mean as a compliment. True, guys are crude about how they express themselves. However, you should never jump to the conclusion that it is meant with disrespect. Unless once more the tone of voice suggests that it is meant to be insulting. So once more, like the above individual. I disagree completely.

The hell? This is absolute nonsense. “Oh but men need to keep other men in line”. No, nobody has the right to hit anyone. It doesn’t matter what they say or do. You’re part of the problem, this is like saying it’s okay for women to abuse men because ‘dont Hit a woman’. This sounds pretty sexist to me.

The Parkus Empire wrote:This injunction sometimes recieves the response, "or anyone". But I disagree: men share a common identity and are therefore obligated to police each other. If, for instance, a man sees a man make an unsolicited sexual comment to a woman he is generally obligated to hit him in order to express extreme intolerance of his conduct.

Does anyone disagree?

No he isn't.
Comments however vulgar do not warrant physical violence.

I'll have you know that I respect women to the highest degree 100% no sarcasm

The Parkus Empire wrote:This injunction sometimes recieves the response, "or anyone". But I disagree: men share a common identity and are therefore obligated to police each other. If, for instance, a man sees a man make an unsolicited sexual comment to a woman he is generally obligated to hit him in order to express extreme intolerance of his conduct.

Does anyone disagree?

No I agree with you.

Suffice it to say that if a woman acts in a manner endangering herself and someone else, let alone myself, then I will not be above striking her.

Other than that, it's largely against my convictions.

The Parkus Empire wrote:This injunction sometimes recieves the response, "or anyone". But I disagree: men share a common identity and are therefore obligated to police each other. If, for instance, a man sees a man make an unsolicited sexual comment to a woman he is generally obligated to hit him in order to express extreme intolerance of his conduct.

Does anyone disagree?

I respond with "or anyone"

Two wrongs don't make a right. It's that fucking simple.

Drescauld wrote:The hell? This is absolute nonsense. “Oh but men need to keep other men in line”. No, nobody has the right to hit anyone. It doesn’t matter what they say or do. You’re part of the problem, this is like saying it’s okay for women to abuse men because ‘dont Hit a woman’. This sounds pretty sexist to me.

I agree. People who are feminist are often just as sexist as the people they hate. Equalist/centrist is really the only way to be.

It's not my job to police other's of my sex/gender.

Kaldrassil wrote:

Drescauld wrote:The hell? This is absolute nonsense. “Oh but men need to keep other men in line”. No, nobody has the right to hit anyone. It doesn’t matter what they say or do. You’re part of the problem, this is like saying it’s okay for women to abuse men because ‘dont Hit a woman’. This sounds pretty sexist to me.

I agree. People who are feminist are often just as sexist as the people they hate. Equalist/centrist is really the only way to be.

You are saying exactly what I always do, it’s not right to hit anyone. I call myself an agalitarian because I believe in true equality, not victimizing and empowering one group of people to a point of dominance like some people, like most third wave feminist, do.

It just wouldn't feel right to hit a woman in malice. I have never hit a woman, even when I was younger and I got scratched up by a female classmate's nails. I didn't do anything about it. I've punched dudes though and I've been punched myself. I wouldn't go straight to punching though, especially with strangers, so if I was in a situation where I should "police" someone as the OP describes, I'd probably be more verbally confrontive than just busting the dude in the jaw.

Kaldrassil wrote:I agree. People who are feminist are often just as sexist as the people they hate. Equalist/centrist is really the only way to be.

Equality to both sexes is egalitarian, just saying. Don't know if you know it or not, but figured i would comment on that for those who may not.

New haven america wrote:It's not my job to police other's of my sex/gender.

OP is just having an SJW phase, it'll pass. I hope.

Genivaria wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:This injunction sometimes recieves the response, "or anyone". But I disagree: men share a common identity and are therefore obligated to police each other. If, for instance, a man sees a man make an unsolicited sexual comment to a woman he is generally obligated to hit him in order to express extreme intolerance of his conduct.

Does anyone disagree?

No he isn't.
Comments however vulgar do not warrant physical violence.

Sexual harassment is connected in a way with violence. It is a way to instill fear and carries a subtle threat with it.

The societal expectations of men is a fickle thing.

New haven america wrote:It's not my job to police other's of my sex/gender.

It's not my job to police anyone, period.

You know, some places that sort of stuff is standard, they wouldn't like you telling them how to live/treat people/etc.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Genivaria wrote:No he isn't.
Comments however vulgar do not warrant physical violence.

Sexual harassment is connected in a way with violence. It is a way to instill fear and carries a subtle threat with it.

Calling a woman 'an object for being used' is being an asshole sure, but it doesn't justify assault.

The Parkus Empire wrote:Sexual harassment is connected in a way with violence. It is a way to instill fear and carries a subtle threat with it.

Sorry, but no. That is not true, unless the tone of voice suggests a subtle implication to make it assault sexual harassment. Sometimes it can be just a guy being stupid, but for it to be violent. Something must trigger the violence to begin with. Your above post on a guy hitting another guy over a comment to a women, is obviously that trigger in this case. However, you must understand that not all sexual harassment is meant to intimidate. Most of the time, it is just guys trying to tease females and them taking it the wrong way.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Genivaria wrote:No he isn't.
Comments however vulgar do not warrant physical violence.

Sexual harassment is connected in a way with violence. It is a way to instill fear and carries a subtle threat with it.

That's like saying if someone called your sister a slut, then she's gonna get raped later that night. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way.