[Scrapped]

[Hayteria]

So my case is different, but the case where a group of girls tormenting a guy isn't? I've never seen a group of girls torment a guy, hell, I've never seen a group of anyone torment anyone else who wasn't considered an outsider.

So my case is special, but this other case is par for the course because it fits your paradigm of unfair social interactions?

What paradigm, what the hell are you talking about?

I don't recall seeing a group of girls tormenting a guy either, but I don't see any reason why that wouldn't happen. The relevant point isn't about what they would do, but about how people would react.

Also, the anecdote did not imply any relevant special circumstances, and I would think that such circumstances would be taken into account if they were relevant.

[Hayteria]

I personally think it is unacceptable for anyone to hit someone unless in dire need of self defense.

I agree. However, like I was saying earlier, being upset does tend to interfere with one's rationality. It doesn't justify what he did, but presents some form of plausible excuse.

[Gagatron]

I personally think it is unacceptable for anyone to hit someone unless in dire need of self defense.

I agree. However, like I was saying earlier, being upset does tend to interfere with one's rationality. It doesn't justify what he did, but presents some form of plausible excuse.

I find it funny that feminists like to encourage the idea that women are stronger than men, but then get just as pissed when a guy hits a girl. Very ironic.

[Ashmoria]

I agree. However, like I was saying earlier, being upset does tend to interfere with one's rationality. It doesn't justify what he did, but presents some form of plausible excuse.

I find it funny that feminists like to encourage the idea that women are stronger than men, but then get just as pissed when a guy hits a girl. Very ironic.

different kind of strength.

and perhaps you would provide an instance of "feminists" getting unjustly upset over a girl getting hit by a guy.

[Farnhamia]

I agree. However, like I was saying earlier, being upset does tend to interfere with one's rationality. It doesn't justify what he did, but presents some form of plausible excuse.

I find it funny that feminists like to encourage the idea that women are stronger than men, but then get just as pissed when a guy hits a girl. Very ironic.

I find the urge among young men to hit people puzzling. As for you, Matthew 5:38-42 & Luke 6:27-31.

[Ashmoria]

I personally think it is unacceptable for anyone to hit someone unless in dire need of self defense.

I agree. However, like I was saying earlier, being upset does tend to interfere with one's rationality. It doesn't justify what he did, but presents some form of plausible excuse.

explanation not excuse.

there is no excuse for punching someone in the head without being physically threatened.

[Hayteria]

I find it funny that feminists like to encourage the idea that women are stronger than men, but then get just as pissed when a guy hits a girl. Very ironic.

different kind of strength.

and perhaps you would provide an instance of "feminists" getting unjustly upset over a girl getting hit by a guy.

I'm guessing the point Gagatron was trying to make is that feminists don't seem to protest near as much against double standards like "wouldn't hit a girl" as they are against forms of discrimination based on similar reasoning.

[Dakini]

So my case is different, but the case where a group of girls tormenting a guy isn't? I've never seen a group of girls torment a guy, hell, I've never seen a group of anyone torment anyone else who wasn't considered an outsider.

So my case is special, but this other case is par for the course because it fits your paradigm of unfair social interactions?

What paradigm, what the hell are you talking about?

I don't recall seeing a group of girls tormenting a guy either, but I don't see any reason why that wouldn't happen. The relevant point isn't about what they would do, but about how people would react.

Also, the anecdote did not imply any relevant special circumstances, and I would think that such circumstances would be taken into account if they were relevant.

You believe that it is more socially acceptable for girls to hit boys than it is for boys to hit girls. This is part of your paradigm.

You present an anecdote of a group of girls tormenting a guy until he hits one of them and is then demonised for this action. I'm telling you that groups of people do not continually harass one individual without the individual being considered an outsider in some way. He doesn't have to be new to the school, he could be a shy, a nerd, he could be poor, he could have no fashion sense, he could just be unpopular. Either way, something has set him apart from the rest of the student (I assume, I don't think this shit happens outside school-aged individuals) population and he is treated as an outsider, even if he has grown up with the people who treat him this way. If he wasn't an outsider, he wouldn't receive this treatment, he would have friends to back him up, he would have a means to escape this torment (e.g. by hanging out with his friends where he is less likely to be the target of harassment). He is as much of an outsider as I was. People don't bully people who fit in, at least not exclusively or not relentlessly.

So really, no, the situation isn't all that different. However, you like to argue that my case is special and thus invalid just so you can maintain your claim that society's treatment of a member of one gender hitting a member of another gender is unbalanced.

Similarly, you ignore all the posters who have come on here and stated that they don't believe that responding to words with violence is acceptable for anyone because it is not convenient for your paradigm.

Similarly, you ignore the fact that girls are taught from a young age that in order for them to be good, they don't hit anybody at all and simply state that it's only relevant that boys are taught not to hit girls. There is a double standard here: girls are taught that it's never acceptable for them to hit anyone and boys are taught that it's only ok to hit each other. I don't think this is the sort of double standard you're looking for though since you're looking for one that is unfair to men.

[Ashmoria]

different kind of strength.

and perhaps you would provide an instance of "feminists" getting unjustly upset over a girl getting hit by a guy.

I'm guessing the point Gagatron was trying to make is that feminists don't seem to protest near as much against double standards like "wouldn't hit a girl" as they are against forms of discrimination based on similar reasoning.

im guessing that he doesnt know what he is talking about and is arguing from the same ignorance as you are.

unless you can point to situations where "feminists" unjustly got upset over a guy hitting a girl you (and he) are talking out your ass.

[Dakini]

I agree. However, like I was saying earlier, being upset does tend to interfere with one's rationality. It doesn't justify what he did, but presents some form of plausible excuse.

I find it funny that feminists like to encourage the idea that women are stronger than men, but then get just as pissed when a guy hits a girl. Very ironic.

I find it funny when chauvists make claims that are not supported by fact. It's nice when they demonstrate how disconnected their views are from reality.

[Hayteria]

You believe that it is more socially acceptable for girls to hit boys than it is for boys to hit girls.

It is not just me. It seems to be a major cultural concept.

You present an anecdote of a group of girls tormenting a guy until he hits one of them and is then demonised for this action. I'm telling you that groups of people do not continually harass one individual without the individual being considered an outsider in some way. He doesn't have to be new to the school, he could be a shy, a nerd, he could be poor, he could have no fashion sense, he could just be unpopular.

Well, perhaps he might have been gay and/or a dork, seeing as how these were supposedly among the insults they dished out. The question, then, is whether or not a lesbian or geeky girl would get bullied by a group of guys in a similar context, and given no consideration once they resort to violence. (If they do.)

Either way, something has set him apart from the rest of the student (I assume, I don't think this shit happens outside school-aged individuals)

Why wouldn't it? If that level of cruelty is within them, what is to stop it from resurfacing at an older age?

He is as much of an outsider as I was.

Not necessarily. Being new to a place is different from merely being unpopular, especially when it comes to what bullies think they can get away with. (An unpopular guy might at least know how to convince teachers to side with him... the new guy would not know the place as well as those who were around before him do, and bullies would probably expect to have the advantage in that case.)

So really, no, the situation isn't all that different. However, you like to argue that my case is special and thus invalid just so you can maintain your claim that society's treatment of a member of one gender hitting a member of another gender is unbalanced.

Actually, that is not the only way to maintain such a claim. Again, it is a major cultural concept and not just the impression I have to some extent gotten.

Similarly, you ignore all the posters who have come on here and stated that they don't believe that responding to words with violence is acceptable

Bullshit. I repeatedly address their posts, (often checking to see if they would apply the same logic were the genders reversed) and even my initial post in this thread acknowledged that he should not have resorted to violence.

Similarly, you ignore the fact that girls are taught from a young age that in order for them to be good, they don't hit anybody at all

I don't ignore it. I just doubt it is actually applied like it is taught; how often do you see girls who resort to violence being perceived sympathetically in comparison to guys?

There is a double standard here: girls are taught that it's never acceptable for them to hit anyone and boys are taught that it's only ok to hit each other.

Depends on who you ask. I got the impression that violence against each gender was generally condemned for both genders, but that it was considered especially bad for a guy to hit a girl.

[Nobel Hobos]

I got the impression that violence against each gender was generally condemned for both genders, but that it was considered especially bad for a guy to hit a girl.

You really should have just said that in the OP. "I got the impression" is really all this thread is about, and I retain a great contempt for the disingenuous way you started this thread.

[Hayteria]

I got the impression that violence against each gender was generally condemned for both genders, but that it was considered especially bad for a guy to hit a girl.

You really should have just said that in the OP. "I got the impression" is really all this thread is about, and I retain a great contempt for the disingenuous way you started this thread.

Disingenuous? It is only disingenuous if you do not mean what you said. At the time I meant what I said, because I did not see why my interpretation of the anecdote would have been flawed.

To be fair, Ifrean had a somewhat insightful perspective, it is worth another thread to reference it...

[Dakini]

You believe that it is more socially acceptable for girls to hit boys than it is for boys to hit girls.

It is not just me. It seems to be a major cultural concept.

TvTropes is not the only website on the internet. Stop using it as the ultimate guide to reality. Also stop acting like "cultural concepts" are 1. universal 2. static.

You present an anecdote of a group of girls tormenting a guy until he hits one of them and is then demonised for this action. I'm telling you that groups of people do not continually harass one individual without the individual being considered an outsider in some way. He doesn't have to be new to the school, he could be a shy, a nerd, he could be poor, he could have no fashion sense, he could just be unpopular.

Well, perhaps he might have been gay and/or a dork, seeing as how these were supposedly among the insults they dished out. The question, then, is whether or not a lesbian or geeky girl would get bullied by a group of guys in a similar context, and given no consideration once they resort to violence. (If they do.)

I don't think that anyone who escalates verbal conflicts to physical violence deserves any consideration for resorting to violence. I don't care if they were picked on their whole lives by the same people, in a civilized society, this is unacceptable behaviour.

Either way, something has set him apart from the rest of the student (I assume, I don't think this shit happens outside school-aged individuals)

Why wouldn't it? If that level of cruelty is within them, what is to stop it from resurfacing at an older age?

Because people tend to grow up and stop being such idiots. Additionally, after people leave high school, they will often find different social circles to run in where they can avoid people who would torment them.

He is as much of an outsider as I was.

Not necessarily. Being new to a place is different from merely being unpopular, especially when it comes to what bullies think they can get away with. (An unpopular guy might at least know how to convince teachers to side with him... the new guy would not know the place as well as those who were around before him do, and bullies would probably expect to have the advantage in that case.)

The setting for your anecdote was not necessarily at a school, they could have been outside school where the guy would have had no recourse. Furthermore, I'd been at this school for a year. I wasn't quite so new (which is why the other kids were starting to lay off a little) and I knew where the principal's office was.

Similarly, you ignore all the posters who have come on here and stated that they don't believe that responding to words with violence is acceptable

Bullshit. I repeatedly address their posts, (often checking to see if they would apply the same logic were the genders reversed) and even my initial post in this thread acknowledged that he should not have resorted to violence.

Yet you still maintain that this would have been different if a girl had hit a boy?

I've seen a girl hit a buy at a bar, she got called a bitch and left the place really fast. There isn't much sympathy for girls who hit boys either.

Granted, the behaviour of some men at bars warrants some level of physical violence (e.g. I've been groped without my permission [which by the way is sexual assault if that's not clear], I've seen men grab women in what looks like a rough way to prevent them from leaving) so I'm not sure what the circumstances were there and whether she was in the right or not.

Similarly, you ignore the fact that girls are taught from a young age that in order for them to be good, they don't hit anybody at all

I don't ignore it. I just doubt it is actually applied like it is taught; how often do you see girls who resort to violence being perceived sympathetically in comparison to guys?

I don't see girls acting violently nearly as much as guys. Usually when I see guys being overtly violent it's amongst themselves.

There is a double standard here: girls are taught that it's never acceptable for them to hit anyone and boys are taught that it's only ok to hit each other.

Depends on who you ask. I got the impression that violence against each gender was generally condemned for both genders, but that it was considered especially bad for a guy to hit a girl.

I would say that it's especially bad for a bigger person to hit a smaller person, especially if the smaller person presents no other physical threat to the bigger person. I'd probably be just as upset about a guy who's say 6'2" and 200 lbs hitting a man who is say 5'6" and 140 lbs as if he was hitting a woman of the same height and weight, but I'd still think that anyone who feels the need to resort to violence in anything other than self defence (or defence of another) is an idiot.

[Ryadn]

This doesn't really warrant discussion. Obviously if a woman is justified in hitting a man, and man would be justified in hitting a woman in the same situation. Knowing so little about the facts of this anecdotal situation, there's nothing to be gained trying to hash out whether the responses of those present would have been the same had the genders been reversed.

Oh please, we know enough. That the girls were heavily verbally abusing him means we know that they intended to cause him emotional harm. That they persisted in it means we know they wanted to get as much in as they could get away with. That he resorted to violence means we know that either he thought the benefit of hurting one of them outweighed the trouble he'd get in, or he was upset enough not to think it through rationally. That everyone sided with the girls as a result of this means we know that the people around him didn't mind him being persistently verbally abused, but did mind him physically hurting one of them.

And Ashmoria, at least you're being consistent. I just think more consideration should be given to the impact of being upset on their rationality, and at least some blame should be shifted onto them for provoking him in the first place.

Okay, wait, back up. I thought you were the guy who made 5,000 threads about how no one on the internet could 'know' someone's motivations or feelings. But now a short anecdote on the internet has totally changed that, and is backed up by... your imaginary idea of what might happen if the genders were reversed?

Seriously, how does your head not hurt? My head hurts.

[Ryadn]

That doesn't follow. That the alleged victim in this case considered the abuse to be so serious doesn't mean it was intended to be so.

Oh really? Then what was the point of it, if not to cause emotional harm to him?

Allegedly. Do we have an actual time frame?

See disclaimer, plus take into account that he claimed it was persistent and that they would not leave him alone.

You make assumptions about their intents again, with no possibility of hearing their side.

I don't need to hear their side. Their intent is pretty apparent from their described behaviour.

Uh-huh. Let me suggest that if you ever intend to have or work with children, you disabuse yourself of these notions. I've had students come running to me telling me that so-and-so won't leave them alone, to find out that "won't leave them alone" actually meant that the other student kept saying a word or phrase that annoyed the first student---nothing insulting or obscene, just something that bugged him---and the kid who came to me with the complaint had decked the other kid for it.

[Gagatron]

I find it funny that feminists like to encourage the idea that women are stronger than men, but then get just as pissed when a guy hits a girl. Very ironic.

I find it funny when chauvists make claims that are not supported by fact. It's nice when they demonstrate how disconnected their views are from reality.

Oh, so I'm a "chauvist"? Is that even a word? And yes, it is a fact, because I've heard feminists whine and complain about the unjustness about guys hitting girls, yet supporting girls hitting guys. It's a disgusting double standard.

[Dakini]

I find it funny when chauvists make claims that are not supported by fact. It's nice when they demonstrate how disconnected their views are from reality.

Oh, so I'm a "chauvist"? Is that even a word? And yes, it is a fact, because I've heard feminists whine and complain about the unjustness about guys hitting girls, yet supporting girls hitting guys. It's a disgusting double standard.

Chauvinist. Omg, I misspelled a word and it's clearly the end of the world.

No, feminists do not claim that women are stronger than men, despite your initial claim. Nor do we generally support girls hitting guys in anything other than self-defence (or perhaps the defence of others). Have you seen anyone here suggest that it's ok for a woman to hit a man for anything other than a return on earlier violence on the part of the man? I don't think you have.

So please, source your dubious claims or I'll continue to point out how disconnected your idea of reality is from the reality shared by the rest of the world.

[Norstal]

i think that if a tough girl suddenly punched a guy in the head when there was no physical stuff before that that the crowd would not think that she was a hero but some kind of lunatic who would be arrested for battery.

I don't think she'd be regarded as a hero, but I do think a lot more of the blame would be shifted onto the guys for "provoking" her in the first place. In the anecdote's case, everyone sided with the girls despite their heavy verbal abuse directed towards the guy.

What the fuck is it with you and your persecution complex? And how did you really know the story is not skewed?

[Norstal]

go figure.

he escalated verbal abuse into violence that could have killed her.

that makes him wrong. very very wrong.

He's in the wrong whether that applies or not, but what exactly do you base this on? And if a girl resorted to violence that could have killed a guy, do you think people would have reacted the same way?

If a girl pull out a knife and start stabbing guys? The girl will be pushed down obviously. I don't know where you live, but where I do, adults aren't this stupid.

[Hayteria]

Oh please, we know enough. That the girls were heavily verbally abusing him means we know that they intended to cause him emotional harm. That they persisted in it means we know they wanted to get as much in as they could get away with. That he resorted to violence means we know that either he thought the benefit of hurting one of them outweighed the trouble he'd get in, or he was upset enough not to think it through rationally. That everyone sided with the girls as a result of this means we know that the people around him didn't mind him being persistently verbally abused, but did mind him physically hurting one of them.

And Ashmoria, at least you're being consistent. I just think more consideration should be given to the impact of being upset on their rationality, and at least some blame should be shifted onto them for provoking him in the first place.

Okay, wait, back up. I thought you were the guy who made 5,000 threads about how no one on the internet could 'know' someone's motivations or feelings. But now a short anecdote on the internet has totally changed that, and is backed up by... your imaginary idea of what might happen if the genders were reversed?

Seriously, how does your head not hurt? My head hurts.

Calling it "imaginary" isn't the same as refuting it. Picture the scenario in your head here, how do you think it would play out? Based on the dismissive reaction people seem to often have to female on male violence, (at least in comparison to the other way around) I'd be inclined to guess that she'd be looked at more sympathetically than a guy who did the same would be. I could be wrong though.

I was a little surer, however, of the motives of those who would gang up on a guy and taunt him with a long session of verbal abuse. I can understand why it seems hypocritical, but my reasoning was that intent to emotionally hurt him is the only thing that makes sense here. Ifreann suggested alternative reasons, and I've slightly backed off on the overly certain tone, but even then... the alternative reasons include that they were just joking, or that they were just trying to have fun? If that were the case, then even if he himself couldn't tell at the time, wouldn't someone the guy in the anecdote knew have pointed it out to him later on?

EDIT: That said, IF this contradicts my topics about "Internet cold readers" then take those topics as my overall perspective, and treat this thread as the exception, not the rule. Always remember to ask yourself "which of these does not fit with the others" and treat what that applies to as the exception.

[Gagatron]

Oh, so I'm a "chauvist"? Is that even a word? And yes, it is a fact, because I've heard feminists whine and complain about the unjustness about guys hitting girls, yet supporting girls hitting guys. It's a disgusting double standard.

Chauvinist. Omg, I misspelled a word and it's clearly the end of the world.

No, feminists do not claim that women are stronger than men, despite your initial claim. Nor do we generally support girls hitting guys in anything other than self-defence (or perhaps the defence of others). Have you seen anyone here suggest that it's ok for a woman to hit a man for anything other than a return on earlier violence on the part of the man? I don't think you have.

So please, source your dubious claims or I'll continue to point out how disconnected your idea of reality is from the reality shared by the rest of the world.

The "source", my arrogant friend, is my personal experience. If you were expecting something on the internet, I am underwhelmed, and you will be too. Furthermore, you seem to have a serious complex where you think just because YOU'VE only ever done something, that means it's the same for everybody. That is where you are arrogant and wrong. My female acquaintance, who I shall not name for you, supports whole heartedly hitting boyfriends who are rude. This is unacceptable, and feminist in the extreme. And by rude, I mean simply making jokes that offend, as I have seen this view of hers in action. And I have to point out something to YOU. You are pissy. Every time I point out a double standard coming from YOUR arena, you become arrogant and foolish. Do you honestly think that observing something that offends you makes it wrong? Hardly.

[The Parkus Empire]

Gagatron, "feminist", by definition, means someone who thinks men and women should be considered equal, not that women are "stronger". Also, I've heard sexist people say many times that men should take it "like a man" if a woman hits him--because, after all, it's just a woman. But I have never heard this from a feminist, and, in fact, it directly contradicts the fundamental precept of feminism, which means anyone who says it is not a feminist anymore than someone who claims the government should own everything is a capitalist.

[Ashmoria]

The "source", my arrogant friend, is my personal experience. If you were expecting something on the internet, I am underwhelmed, and you will be too. Furthermore, you seem to have a serious complex where you think just because YOU'VE only ever done something, that means it's the same for everybody. That is where you are arrogant and wrong. My female acquaintance, who I shall not name for you, supports whole heartedly hitting boyfriends who are rude. This is unacceptable, and feminist in the extreme. And by rude, I mean simply making jokes that offend, as I have seen this view of hers in action. And I have to point out something to YOU. You are pissy. Every time I point out a double standard coming from YOUR arena, you become arrogant and foolish. Do you honestly think that observing something that offends you makes it wrong? Hardly.

"hitting rude boyfriends" is not a feminist issue.

sometimes a young person new to the idea thinks that feminism means "women are always right". it takes a while of thinking things through to come to a more sophisticated philosophy.

[Gagatron]

Gagatron, "feminist", by definition, means someone who thinks men and women should be considered equal, not that women are "stronger". Also, I've heard sexist people say many times that men should take it "like a man" if a woman hits him--because, after all, it's just a woman. But I have never heard this from a feminist, and, in fact, it directly contradicts the fundamental precept of feminism, which means anyone who says it is not a feminist anymore than someone who claims the government should own everything is a capitalist.

Thanks for clearing that up. Your buddy Dakini couldn't manage to do it politely, so thank you.