The Like/Hate Thread

[Josh]

Not really. It's an unspoken rule of society

That does not make it less sexiest.

Women working in the kitchen was also an unspoken rule, same as them being the weaker sex.

and it's also called being a gentlemen. If my life feels threatened her ass is toast, though.

Being a gentlemen means not hitting people without good reason, period- whether they are a man or a women is besides the point.

But to strike a woman for being a bitch is like striking your wife or girlfriend because she's in a bad mood or PMSing. You don't do it.

This is a strawman argument. I am not saying that hitting someone because they annoy you, or in a bad mood is okay. I said that it's sexist to exclude hitting someone solely on the basis of them being a women. To say "You don't hit women" is sexist because it puts them on a level lower than men.

[Vad]

This is a strawman argument. I am not saying that hitting someone because they annoy you, or in a bad mood is okay. I said that it's sexist to exclude hitting someone solely on the basis of them being a women. To say "You don't hit women" is sexist because it puts them on a level lower than men.

And yet when they get hit they cry abuse and we get fucked for it. You're spinning a sad tale here but 80% of sexism arguments are complete bullshit.

[Victoria]

If I got hit I wouldn't act that way, i kind of agree with what josh is saying.

but, its ok to believe what you think is right to you. If you think it's wrong to hit a woman, then thats ok too ^^

[Josh]

And yet when they get hit they cry abuse and we get fucked for it. You're spinning a sad tale here but 80% of sexism arguments are complete bullshit.

It is a sad tale, but nothing changes if we simply accept it for what it is and do nothing about it.

[Vad]

I'm good on this argument. Continue it among yourselves.

[Victoria]

um...

i like vad

i hate work

^^

[Ashe]

If you specifically exclude hitting someone just because of their sex, then it is sexist in the same way as if you specifically targeted them. The fact that you are making your decision entirely around that aspect is the key.

Same as if you specifically deny a man a job because of his race, that is a racist choice. Choosing him for the job over other more qualified men just because of his race is also a racist choice.

Same goes for religion and other aspects.

EDIT: I get into disagreement with a few people because my stance is that if a woman decides to hit me, then I have full right to respond in equal fashion. This does not mean if she slaps me in an argument that I maul a bitch, but that if she starts wailing out on me with fists of fury, I'm going to restrain her, throw her across the room, or whatever I have to do to defend myself. Hypothetically. I shouldn't be expected to just stand there and take it "because I'm a man" and get my ass beat. I know a girl at work that frequently would make the claim that "Yes, you should, because you are a guy, and that's the end of it". She also was a constant instigator, would slap co-workers every time she lost her temper, and given that she was half Korean, she lost her temper over damn near everything. So... of course I found the situation unamusing that she was highly bitchy and would get physical in half a second over the stupidest shit without proof, but then felt that "gentleman's rules" should exclude any guy from doing a damn thing about it.

I also liked when she would make these claims to me, given how I'm actually a lot skinnier than most girls out there. Yes, that's right, the fact that I have a penis means that her argument "that guys can take more than girls" overrides my lack of muscle and fat. Penis = innate tanking abilties, apparently.

I think that you should respond in equal force IF the situation calls for it, and here is where that claim is key. You shouldn't always KO the guy that shoves you over something stupid because there are better things to respond to. You shouldn't Chris Brown some girl just for getting in your face. But if either of them put you into a defensive position, I don't see why you should get owned by one and defend the other.

To put my comments into context, I haven't hit anyone... pretty much ever. I'd say since first grade, but THAT was ME getting jumped and it ended with the guy pinned down on the ground by me with me unable to actually throw a punch. I'm more or less pacifistic, in terms of actions till now, but I've never been in a situation where its "defend yourself or else" either. If I am, I will do so, without stopping to check if the person has a penis or not.

In the past I'd say hitting women was unacceptable.
However they seem to be slowing down with the cooking, cleaning and reproducing and attempting to think for themselves and find gainful employment. With great power comes great responsibility to be punched in the face.

I wanted this gem to get quoted. Will, you teach us all daily.

In light of the comments, this is worth a laugh:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/apr...-cook-book

[Vad]

If you specifically exclude hitting someone just because of their sex, then it is sexist in the same way as if you specifically targeted them.

Now that I've cooled off a bit, I can say this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard for the topic being discussed here.

As stated by Josh, sexism is lowering the woman to a standard below men. Well...have you ever considered that I was raising the woman to a standard above me? A man who physically attacks a woman in anger does not deserve any respect.

You're pulling out technical definitions and twisted liberal examples of sexism that make me seem like a monster. Fact of the matter is that I hold them to a higher standard than myself. Call it the Italian side in me.

Call it what you want. They deserve equal treatment, but this social norm is not sexist. You're a fool to say otherwise and you're just looking for argument.

I'm done. I just wanted to defend my stance with more than just two sentences.

[Josh]

Now that I've cooled off a bit, I can say this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard for the topic being discussed here.

Tell that to the feminist movement.

As stated by Josh, sexism is lowering the woman to a standard below men. Well...have you ever considered that I was raising the woman to a standard above me? A man who physically attacks a woman in anger does not deserve any respect.

No, no one would consider that because it's not borne from reality. The idea that we should not hit women comes from the belief that they are fragile, delicate creatures- when the reality is that pound for pound a women is nearly as strong as a man.

You're pulling out technical definitions and twisted liberal examples of sexism that make me seem like a monster. Fact of the matter is that I hold them to a higher standard than myself. Call it the Italian side in me.

They aren't twisted liberal deffinitions, it's the very foundation of human rights that everyone is created equal. By holding them to a high standard, while you may think it is good, is still putting them out of the category of everyone else.

It's like saying black people are naturally well-endowed, or better at sports, and that all Asians are good at math.

They sound like compliments but they aren't.

Call it what you want. They deserve equal treatment, but this social norm is not sexist. You're a fool to say otherwise and you're just looking for argument.

It is sexiest, and wrong, and unfair.

[Saz]

I know this is funny coming from me... but I actually felt bad for Snooki. Yeah she was getting in that guys face, but him and his mates were pricks. I got the impression that they were set on starting shit that night.

Also it's one thing to punch a woman who attacks you, it's another thing to punch one that's mouthing off.

[Kazuya]

I think if you're man enough to get up in someone's face and/or punch them, regardless if you're male or female, you deserve to get punched back. Exceptions being domestic abuse where its unwarranted, etc. etc.

IE: If you go up in a club and you're a chick, and you punch some dude in the face for bullshit reason, then you deserve to get punched back. If you are a chick and walk up in a club and spot your dude hanging on another chick, and you beat that dude down, and that chick, and he punches you, that's not cool on his part, because it was warranted.

That is all.

[Sigfried Hunin]

Like: Being out of Basic.

Like: Having my shit back.

Like: The intrawebz being at my beck and call once again.

Hate: I'm still here. I'm STILL. FUCKING. HERE.

[Majicka]

I think the point should be that if a man gets punched by a woman and can refrain himself from punching said woman, he deserves a lot of credit.

I'm going to go with what Vad says, and that a woman should not be hit by a man, regardless of what they do. I mean, unless your life is being threaten. If you hit a woman, in a normal situation, at a party around here you are looked down upon as being a, well, I shouldn't say on this forum. It's sexist, but as the "stronger" gender as you put it, you shouldn't hit a woman. Completely sexist, but it's how I feel. Odds are, around here, you will get jumped on the way out simply because it is in such bad taste.

Things aren't equal, deal with it. I think I deserve the right to not be punched in the face as I'm a member of the gender that has to go through months with a parasite in her stomach. <3

Edit: Note, this isn't in discussion of the picture in the slightest. This just involves hitting a woman like you would a man.

[Kazuya]

Hate: I'm still here. I'm STILL. FUCKING. HERE.

Bwahaha. WE HAVE YOU NOW. Your soul...so delicious.

[Sigfried Hunin]

Bwahaha. WE HAVE YOU NOW. Your soul...so delicious.

Well, I suppose I'll have to give into your power, no matter how hard it will be to post while living in a bay full of 80 men.

...God I hate the Army sometimes.

[Piper Juunanagou]

My girlfriend the feminist wanted me to give her full-endorsement to everything Josh has said.

And on the overall topic: I hate having term papers to write and finals to do. I also hate working at Starbucks and having to serve ingrates all night long >_<;

[Dehan]

Uh...stop watching 'reality' television. It aint gud fer ya. But I do like how it has shown me how stupid motherfuckers are on campus. I've seen people go from 'What's wrong with our society where we think this is appropriate? OMG did you watch *insert generic stupid fucktard of a 'reality' telvision show name here> last night?' but hitting a woman is wrong...though I don't really see many folks in 'reality' shows as people so...I'm going to save that clip get my pal to add a Falcon Punch caption to it and watch it every time I'm sad.

Like: Root Beer. Cha!

[Vad]

Hate: Being laughed at in class today because they over heard I wanted a law degree. I was less than thrilled.

[Ashe]

Vad, you just informed me that treating someone differently rather than equal is "the twisted liberal definition" of racism, sexism, and other forms of hypocrisy. I find that to be self contradicting.

I pointed out that its equally wrong to promote someone just for their race as it is to deny them a promotion for reasons of race. The same is with promoting someone due to their sex OR denying them over their sex. You are making your decision entirely due to sex or race. This isn't a twisted definition. Your claim of the actual definition is analogous to saying "Racism is the act of a white person holding down a black person", when in actuality it affects anyone of any race treating another individual differently based on said race.

The arguments that you are actually putting forth are those of chivalry, not sexism. Chivalry and non-sexism are two entirely different concepts. Chivalry is the concept of "being the bigger man" and the righteous defender.

EDIT: Also, keep in mind that there is a difference between striking someone and beating the shit out of them. If a situation must get physical, in general it should be limited to attempting to remove the other person's ability to fight, not to the point of leaving them a pile of blood on the ground. I would apply this to anyone trying to attack you.

Put it this way. A woman comes up and hits you with a baseball bat. You feel you should jump up and try to run away despite having a clean chance to take her down and disarm her. A man does it, some would feel that you should take the chance to take them out rather than get hit additional times. Now put a mask on this figure. You get hit with a bat. You turn around and nail them in the face hoping to knock them out so they can't hit you again.

You take off the mask and find out this person was female. Your decision was made on an equal non-hypocritical reaction to the situation, regardless of the sex. Should you then feel terrible for doing this afterwards to the person that attacked you "just because she was a woman"? If so, that is sexist, because you are STILL treating them differently for being a woman.

Again, we are not talking chivalry here, because that isn't the discussion.

[Vad]

Vad, you just informed me that treating someone differently rather than equal is "the twisted liberal definition" of racism, sexism, and other forms of hypocrisy. I find that to be self contradicting.

I pointed out that its equally wrong to promote someone just for their race as it is to deny them a promotion for reasons of race. The same is with promoting someone due to their sex OR denying them over their sex. You are making your decision entirely due to sex or race. This isn't a twisted definition. Your claim of the actual definition is analogous to saying "Racism is the act of a white person holding down a black person", when in actuality it affects anyone of any race treating another individual differently based on said race.

The arguments that you are actually putting forth are those of chivalry, not sexism. Chivalry and non-sexism are two entirely different concepts. Chivalry is the concept of "being the bigger man" and the righteous defender.

Thanks. I'd appreciate it if you dropped me from the conversation. I took my beating already...