TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Woman punches (8 times), slaps (11 times), and kicks (2 times) man over 55 seconds. Man finally punches back (5 times) over 6 seconds. Title of story: "Shocking video shows man punching girlfriend to the floor."

AndrewLevin

June 10, 2016
384 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3629593/What-f-k-did-Horrifying-video-shows-man-knocking-girlfriend-repeatedly-punching-face-furious-argument.html
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Woman punches (8 times), slaps (11 times), and kicks (2 times) man over 55 seconds. Man finally punches back (5 times) over 6 seconds. Title of story: "Shocking video shows man punching girlfriend to the floor."
Author

AndrewLevin

Upvotes 384
Comments 146
Date June 10, 2016 10:50 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4nfqx6/woman_punches_8_times_slaps_11_times_and_kicks_2/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/woman-punches-8-times-slaps-11-times-and-kicks-2.947735
https://theredarchive.com/post/947735
Top posts by AndrewLevin

Female probation officer sexually assaults two detained boys (aka caged children). Word "rape" never used, of course.

4277 upvotes
September 30, 2017
/r/MensRights

"Delta passenger claims intoxicated woman groped him before flight" Show picture of victim but not perpetrator? Way to go ...

3157 upvotes
April 5, 2018
/r/MensRights

Viral video: Mom savagely beats 9yr old daughter for "crime" of talking to father. Father begged authorities to protect her from violent mom, but nobody cared (until he got video).

3104 upvotes
January 17, 2017
/r/MensRights

Hawaii proposes "A Feminist Economic Recovery Plan for COVID-19". Contains dozens of women only benefits, including a higher minimum wage (only for women) and better healthcare (only for women).

2902 upvotes
August 5, 2020
/r/MensRights

India executes only men since 1955. Woman hills 7 people (including children) and is sentenced to death. CNN blames patriarchy: "women who violate entrenched norms of gender behavior are more likely to receive the death penalty." If no woman has ever been executed, how do they conclude this?

2175 upvotes
April 26, 2021
/r/MensRights

Just a reminder that governments have always controlled men using their instinct to protect women

1944 upvotes
February 18, 2021
/r/MensRights

"Female physics teacher, 29, accused of sex romp with teen boy student" -- Can you imagine a male raping a child being called a "romp"?

1835 upvotes
April 28, 2018
/r/MensRights

New Covid19 stimulus bill has 15 women-only provisions, ZERO men-only provisions. For example, grants to help small businesses "shall prioritize awarding grants to eligible entities that are small business concerns owned controlled by women."

1738 upvotes
February 21, 2021
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]morerokk 47 points48 points49 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

At least the comments are sensible.

But its ok for a woman to repeatedly punch slap and kick a man isnt it? The double standards are appalling.

[–]Dick-Punch-Man 81 points82 points83 points 10 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

This is just 2 sided DV. The time for self defense had passed. 1 committed assault & then a minute later the other did. Where was that witness during the 1st assault?

[–]blueoak9 38 points39 points40 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

And as usual, the woman initiated it.

[–]Dick-Punch-Man 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Definitely not disputing that.

[–]blueoak9 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

And I am not disputing that he didn't really have to deliver quite that much of a beat down. You're right about that.

But it wasn't impossible for her to predict and avoid.

[–]Dick-Punch-Man 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nope. Both are douches that need to be incarcerated.

[–]Swingerwith_Aviators 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is the correct answer. It appeared she tried leaving or, at least, getting in her vehicle after the first round of DV committed by her. By blocking her from getting in the car and bear hugging her, he became the aggressor. Then you know, him knocking her out and all.

Both belong in jail, you are correct.

[–]Dick-Punch-Man 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you. Let's not be them.

[–]TheObelisk 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You ever been in a fist fight? Did you feel an over-abundance of control?

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheObelisk 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A very plausible scenario.

[–]dungone 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, you don't see her hitting him anymore after the beat-down. Calmed her right down. Had she been a man, people would be rolling on the floor laughing about how he had it coming. It's actually a really sad video. The guy doesn't appear to be very intelligent. Neither of them is. He tried to placate her by hugging her but when she struck him again, he just snapped. Of the two of them, I think he at least wishes to avoid violence whereas she just doesn't seem to give a damn.

[–]blueoak9 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, you don't see her hitting him anymore after the beat-down. Calmed her right down.

I remember you going on this very on-point rant about women thinking they can hit men and do it only because they think there's not chance he'll respond. You called the cowrads. This crystallized something for me and I have always wanted you to thank for that.

Once someone shows themselves to be a coward, the whole calculus changes. Now you are you know you are dealing with a weak and dangerous person.

[–]Florient 24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

People are waking up to this really quickly, just look at the comments. Plenty of men have experience with violent girlfriends or drunken women in public and are starting to get why "never hit a woman ever" is from an outdated era.

[–]Hamakua 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's from an era where it was presumed women never hit.

[–]JebberJabber -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is not so much that he hit a woman, though he should not have. The real problem is that he, being powerfully built and twice her size and with nothing to fear from her, repeatedly hit her insanely hard.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JakeDC 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

And he should. And she should face legal consequences too. Nothing in that video is OK.

[–]umar4812 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And so should the woman.

[–]JakeDC 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Yep. That is what I meant when I said "And she should face legal consequences too."

[–]umar4812 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My bad, I did not read your comment properly.

[–]JakeDC 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I knew, was just having a funny.

[–]locks_are_paranoid -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The guy was defending himself from an attack. A person has the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves from an aggressor.

[–]JakeDC 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

He was not defending himself from an attack. The attack was over. He specifically went after her to retaliate. Even if he was, the amount of force used was not reasonable. I am all for self-defense. This isn't it.

edit: You can downvote me. Does not change reality.

[–]GoldenGonzo 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree, that it's not self-defense, but instead retaliation, and assault, and that they both deserve jail. Where I stop agreeing is when you say the amount of force used was not reasonable (had this actually been self defense). He punched until she hit the ground, until the "threat" had stopped. After that, he did not hit her anymore. That is not unreasonable force (had this actually been self-defense).

[–]Krissam 59 points60 points61 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Lets play the "what would the headlines reach if the genders had been reversed"-game.

My guess: Heroic woman knocks out her abusive boyfriend.

[–]Pokiarchy 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

War hero's wife knocks out rapist

[–]DailMail_Bot 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Non-Daily Mail Mirror

Code on github.

[–]civilsaint 53 points54 points55 points 10 years ago (71 children) | Copy Link

It looks like they are both at fault for assault and battery. He was not in danger when he hit her and he even blocked her escape.

That said, the headline is misleading.

[–]The-Real-Mario 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Could blocking here escape be considered citizen arrest? Then that part would be appropriate, not the revenge knockout part

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (69 children) | Copy Link

He was not in danger when he hit her

You can't say that.

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, you can. He wasn't.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points27 points 10 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

You cannot say that ANY PERSON that is being assaulted is NOT in danger. That's foolish and the type of bullshit that allows women to get away with assault on men.

Assault IS danger. All it takes is one good hit in the right way to a person's head and they can die. Don't believe me? Just google it.

[+]scyth3s -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

He was in danger while he was being assaulted. He retaliated AFTER the fact. This is akin to a less severe version of killing someone who broke into your home after they've already left. Once you are not in danger, you leave it to the cops.

Again, no one here is saying she doesn't deserve some assault charges of her own. She shouldn't be getting away with this. But WHAT HE DID WAS ASSAULT. HE WAS NOT IN DANGER, AND THAT WAS NOT IN DEFENSE.

30 seconds prior, and he could have made a defense claim. But this man absolutely went on the offensive and took the fight to her far beyond what was required to ensure his own safety. Assault.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

He retaliated AFTER the fact.

So, she assaulted him. If you attack someone and they respond, you deserved it. The reason why this shit keeps happening and woman are not accountable is because of people like you.

If that woman was a man, and the same thing happened, you wouldn't even be commenting.

[–]scyth3s 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

Ah, but I would. I've been in a previously abusive relationship. I hit my ex-girlfriend in self defense during our breakup-- and you know why she got charged and I didn't? Because my attack was in self defense. I didn't follow her or hit her while she was on the ground. One hit was all it took to get my message across and for her to back off. She then called the cops, and it backfired.

Now her future medical career is destroyed, I got a year restraining order against her, and my life is completely undamaged.

I say again: THIS MAN ASSAULTED HER. Sure, she assaulted him first, but his actions were absolutely not in self defense in any way. He re-initiated the fight, fully of his own volition, and viciously beat her beyond any justifiable "this was just in self defense" claim.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

You only say this because you are the "big man" and only "big strong men" hit a woman once to show their dominance and get her to back off.

God forbid you snap, get angry, and put down a person who attacks you.

That's what you are saying here, yet another person placating the assault by a woman by admonishing the victim.

I assume you say it's the woman's fault that she gets raped too eh?

[–]scyth3s 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

I assume you say it's the woman's fault that she gets raped too eh?

Bit of a random accusation, eh?

You only say this because you are the "big man" and only "big strong men" hit a woman once to show their dominance and get her to back off.

I'm 5'7". 130 pounds-- small and skinny. All that needed to happen was to show her that she doesn't get free hits. Some aggressors aren't prepared for that.

God forbid you snap, get angry, and put down a person who attacks you.

Oh I was angry, and I was attacked. That didn't mean I needed to snap and go ham-- if I had, I would have rightfully faced charges. This man displayed exactly the same lack of self control that the girl did. He attacked her when his safety was not in question. That is assault, not self defense. Two assaults took place in the video.

yet another person placating the assault by a woman by admonishing the victim.

Both people here alternated roles as victim and assailant. You're blind as a fencepost if you can't see that his safety was not being jeapardized when he attacked.

It's ok to attack someone 5x as hard as they've ever attacked you, when you're not in any danger

Ok so technically you didnt' say that, but you definitely said it in other words.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

Please, tell me more about how the victim of assault should just lay down and not defend themselves, not get mad, nor react in any way and should be the big strong man and just walk away. Please, enlighten me more with your wisdom.

[–]scyth3s 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So, she assaulted him. If you attack someone and they respond, you deserved it.

Absolutely, she deserved some roughing up. However, the law doesn't deal in what's "deserved." In the same way that if someone raped my daughter, and I murdered him before trial, I would still encounter some legal trouble.

But if he wanted to respond, he should have done it when it could have been justified as self defense, and not gone so ridiculously overboard. This guy was stupid in the timing, and reckless in the harshess, of his attack.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Please, keep defending the woman while admonishing the man for fighting back after being assaulted, this entertains me.

[–]SelfimmolationPride -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You are so dense.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I know right? How dare I admonish the attacker and not the victim.

[+]JakeDC -9 points-8 points-7 points 10 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Better - he didn't think he was in danger when she was hitting and kicking him. He didn't leave out of fear. He didnt try to physically stop her. He just stood there. When he finally did go after her physically, he pursued her and certainly was not in fear.

Also, in most of the US anyway, assault/battery merely requires striking or trying to strike someone else. Check out Findlaw. Part two of the definiton mentiomentions fear, but parts one and two are connected by an "or," not an "and." (Of course, this incident did not occur in the US).

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

he didn't think he was in danger when she was hitting and kicking him.

How do you know that?

He didn't leave out of fear.

So you know for a fact that ALL PEOPLE run and flee out of fear and not freeze up?

He didnt try to physically stop her. He just stood there.

How does this indicate not being in danger?

Please, keep on defending her actions why don't you. Please tell us more about how the big bad strong man should restrain himself for the infant that is attacking him because he is the man, and should know better, and should yield to the small, unharming, patriarch oppressed,forgivable assaulting woman. Please tell us more about how much fault he is in for DEFENDING HIMSELF.

I am so sick of people like you, I go through this all too often. IF YOU ASSAULT SOMEONE AND YOU GET HIT BACK, SERIOUSLY INJURED, OR KILLED, YOU FUCKING DESERVED IT.

Oh but you bleeding heart will go on to tell us how wrong it is to defend yourself, please, continue.

[–]JakeDC -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wow. I never said be has no right to defend himself. He does. But he didn't do that.

Fear need not be present to determine whether the crime of assault occurred. (You said to google. I did. Read the definition and try to understand). Fear is only relevant to whether he had a self-defense rationale for hia actions. Suppose he did think he was in danger during the assault. Well, he didn't defend himself during the attack. Since none of his actions occurred during the attack, his state of mind at that time is not relevant. He did retaliate after the attack was over and she was far away. That is not self-defense. I am not a bleeding heart for saying so. The law agrees. Any reasonable moral system agrees. Self-defense requires being under attack. When he hit her, he wasn't. He sought her out to retaliate.

And, self-defense involves proportionality. This is not a bleeding heart position. This is what the law says. This is what any reasonable moral system says. Your idea that any assault allows the victim to kill the assaulter is insane.

So, to sum up, you attacked a strawman of my position, don't understand the law, and appear not to understand what words mean. Are you actually a feminist troll on a false flag mission to make people in this sub seem stupid, irrational, and crazy?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He didn't defend himself? After taking a beating that may have enraged him while he was trying to keep his cool. Did you ever stop to think that maybe he didn't want to walk away and maybe there is more to this couple's issue as to why he didn't leave.

Tell us more about all the other men who are consistently beaten and abused who should have just walked away as well. It's pretty easy to say versus do. It's like telling a smoker of 15 years to just quit.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Go ahead, keep defending her, it's his fault all right, because we the big strong men who are smarter and wiser should always walk away from the tantrum infant and FUCK THAT NONSENSE.

The lot of you, audacious.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You are clarifying that someone he is at fault, oh no, I get it you are flippantly defending him, and I disagree with admonishing victims.

[–]FinleytheHuman -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Homie could've.....left.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yet another defending the action of the person assaulting, yep, it's all his fault all right.

[–]FinleytheHuman -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

See now you're jumping ahead.

I agree with the top comment that this was a case of DV coming from both sides. There was little to no "self defense" she hit him and that's DV, then she wasn't hitting him and he just starts decking her. Both are wrong.

But, here's the thing. Someone will have to ask questions, and if this dude doesn't have an answer for why he didn't try to leave or contact the police then he is wrong in that scenario. It's not his fault, he isn't to blame for this girl hitting him. But he was negligent in defending himself and later chose to assault her. He went from victim only, to being the victim of one assault, and assaulter.

It's plain and simple, don't hit people. Just don't assault people. That's what the lesson should be here, but also, have a plan for if you're assaulted. Know how to defend yourself, flee and call the cops, whatever it is. Because if you do what this dude did, which was stand there, take it, continue to approach the attacker, and then eventually start hitting her himself (at a time where he wasn't being hit anymore)

It's silly and it's hard to defend that. It's not victim blaming, people gotta realize that you gotta do things to prepare yourself for situations. Does that make sense? It's not a persons fault that their house gets robbed, but the insurance company might be asking questions like "did you lock the doors?" "Was the security system that contacts the cops at intrusion armed" and if you're negligent then it's not your fault, but you didn't take the precautions to prepare for such an event. To be blind and say "I shouldn't have to fix me, it's them that are wrong and evil" is just asking for something to happen to you. World is evil, people suck, arm yourself.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Jesus h fuck these white knight beta Bitches are everywhere.

[–]scyth3s 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

At that point in time, what indicated an immediate danger that justified 6 pretty intense punches?

I'm not saying she's not also guilty of assault-- because she is. But what he did, especially given the timing of it, is completely unjustifiable. The physical portion of the fight was over, and he re-initiated it.

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

At that point in time, what indicated an immediate danger that justified 6 pretty intense punches?

Has it occurred to you that he knows something about her we don't?

The physical portion of the fight was over, and he re-initiated it.

That's what it seems like from the video.

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The physical portion of the fight was over, and he re-initiated it.

That's what it seems like from the video.

Yep, that's what it seems like.

Has it occurred to you that he knows something about her we don't?

Someone's past tendencies aren't relevant to what happened, on tape, and whether that was self defense.

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You jump to conclusions far too quickly. Not only in the comment I responded to but also in your response to me. When I said perhaps he knows something we don't can include something happening right there and then.

And yes, past tendencies can also be relevant. For all we know she has a habit of taking out her rage on their kids next and perhaps was threatening to do just that.

Yep, that's what it seems like.

Then say so in the first place.

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

You jump to conclusions far too quickly

You're too eager to paint this man as having done no wrong. You are literally in denial in the face of video evidence.

When I said perhaps he knows something we don't can include something happening right there and then.

You're really reaching there, man. How do I know that he wasn't trying to save her from an offscreen sniper and she simply refused to take cover?

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You're too eager to paint this man as having done no wrong.

again jumping to conclusions.

You are literally in denial in the face of video evidence.

Such as?

You're really reaching there, man.

Here's a flash: Not everything is as it seems and online video doesn't give you a complete picture.

What I'm saying is "I don't know". You should try that too for a change.

[–]Pariahdog119 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

c&p from my comment on this video posted yesterday c&p'ed from my comment on this video posted the day before yesterday:

He has no self defense argument here. Self defense ends when you stop your attacker from attacking you. He doesn't attack until after she's stopped. That's retaliation.

They're both guilty of assault and battery. Depending on the nature of her injuries, he may have committed aggravated assault. And of course, the attack on the witness is completely unjustified.

Only he is likely to be charged, due to the outcome (not gender. If their positions were reversed - he was slapping her around and then she beat the shit out of him and attacked a witness after they'd apparently reconciled - I doubt he'd be charged, too.) He should have limited himself to stopping her attack. Anything beyond that ceases to be self defense. If he'd done that, she'd be the one facing charges.

This probably isn't the first time they've beat the shit out of each other, either. Half of all interpersonal violence is reciprocal.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Only he is likely to be charged, due to the outcome

You're probably right about this, but that's patently unfair if they void her crime because she was the one that ended up on the ground. That kind of thinking will always be punitive against the stronger or more skilled party and is a direct contributor to why people like this woman tee off on men thinking they won't see repercussions ... because they ultimately don't.

Two crimes were committed, two charges should be laid.

[–]repete66219 -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

...but that's patently unfair if they void her crime because she was the one that ended up on the ground. That kind of thinking will always be punitive against the stronger or more skilled party

cf. Israel/Palestine press coverage

[–]under_score16 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If their positions were reversed - he was slapping her around and then she beat the shit out of him and attacked a witness after they'd apparently reconciled - I doubt he'd be charged, too.

Really? I'd bet he'd be charged still.

Either way I agree he can't make a claim of self defense. That was assault.

[–]Azothlike 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

not gender. If their positions were reversed - he was slapping her around and then she beat the shit out of him and attacked a witness after they'd apparently reconciled - I doubt he'd be charged, too

Complete, unmitigated bullshit. Starting with you blatantly ignoring her punches and kicks, because you know it'd sound pants-on-head ridiculous if you implied a guy who punched and kicked a woman unprovoked and on camera wouldn't be charged.

[–]ExpendableOne 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They are both guilty of assault. Both should be in jail.

[–]aChileanDude 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They are one for another. Jail them both or let them walk.

[–]ReunionIsland 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They're perfect for one another, they should be locked in a room together for a month.

[–]evolutionof 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Archive to avoid giving them hits.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've been hit by a girlfriend to the point that I had to defend myself and it became a physical fight. I tried to leave the room, the house, and didn't call the police. I felt like a victim but I didn't call for help because I didn't want a person I cared about going to jail, I didn't want to go to jail for hitting back. This wasn't self defense this was two humans attacking each other.

[–]JakeDC 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I wish people who thought this sub was full of misogynist, woman-haters would stop by and read these comments. They would be shocked to learn that the dominant view is that self-defense is justifiable, but does not cover the brutality he showed at all, both in terms of timing and extent of his actions. They would be shocked to know that most here don't generally support violence of any kind unless needed for self-defense. Nope, just a bunch of shitlords here. Maddening.

That being said, the headline provokes the image of a completely one-sided engagement, that she was just sitting there and he jumped her. This is reciprocal DV, and should be discussed, and legally treated, as such. Definitely a less-than-subtle bias there.

[–][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that subreddit. You may use a screenshot instead.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]ElectricFleshlight 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

God the mods are fucking disgusting for censoring their direct competition.

The link was to / r /menslib, for people curious. You can't directly link to it in this sub.

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No it wasn't. It was to AMR. And no, it's not censoring to not allow links. They're as free as anyone else to come here and share their opinions.

[–]TheDude41 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Throw them both in the clink.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

just to be clear- both people are out of control, and both are wrong. his blows were done in retaliation, but were after the fact which makes them inexcusable- had he retaliated against her blows while still being assaulted, he would be in the right, however aggressively pursuing her when she tried to disengage , and that he went after the bystander is not acceptable.

[–]JakeDC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

To be clear, I think you meant were not done in self-defense. They were done in retaliation, which means he has no leg to stand on.

[–]FFXIV_Machinist 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

whoops i had an extra Not in there.

[–]scruffist 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just to muddle things up, here's a case where a man was cleared of murder after pursuing a dude who punched him. He followed him out of a subway car and up the stairs to the exit, killing him on the upper level.

Assault victim stopped being in danger at several points between being punched and pursuing and escalating, the initial aggressor had disengaged and was trying to leave the scene, but since the man who was punched was a former jail employee, he got a free pass to murder him.

Point being, it's not always clear/fair/consistent what the law will decide. For this man and woman, he'll go to jail. If it was reversed and she knocked him down in the end with a baseball bat and swung at a guy running over to help, he'd probably still be the only one going to jail. That's the root problem people here are upset about.

I don't think it's right that he hit her so many times, but I can't personally condemn him after seeing what she did and wondering how many times she's done it before.

[–]JakeDC 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I knew what you meant ;-)

[–]Swiggy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

They were done in retaliation, which means he has no leg to stand on.

What is her excuse?

[–]JakeDC 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

None. Neither has one.

[–]Swiggy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Exactly, which is why the article and the headline should be more balanced in condemning them both.

[–]JakeDC 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Yep. I made a similar comment earlier.

[–]Swiggy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

They were done in retaliation, which means he has no leg to stand on.

Why do you continue to focus on "he has no leg to stand on"?

[–]JakeDC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Dude, what is your problem? My comments have said that neither party was justified. Read them. Nobody here thinks she was justified, so there isn't much to discuss. There is disagreement about him, so I am discussing it.

[–]Swiggy -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Dude, what is your problem?

Simple, that there isn't enough condemnation of her actions.

[–]JakeDC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nobody here is disputing that she is culpable. Several people have condemned here. Nobody here is defending her. Which is good, as her actions were indefensible. If people were disputing this issue, I would have addressed it. But I didn't, because there is no reason to except to start a circle jerk.

On the other hand, there is some disagreement about whether or not his actions were justified. So I took part in the discussion of that.

I just don't see what the fuck your panties are in a bunch about.

[–]elmariachi304 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't want anything to do with this video, and I'm certainly not holding it up to prove any point. They were both in the wrong. If I'm that guy I'm walking away, or getting in my car and leaving. Really, if I'm that guy I'm not dating that crazy bitch in the first place. But even though he has the right to defend himself, it's a no-win situation for him to do anything but leave the scene without saying or doing anything at all.

[–]RussianLucidGamer 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

no, no, and fuck no! Both should be at fault for violence. You see women, you cant have it both ways, you cant cry and bitch about not being treated equally to man, but at the same time abuse the power of being a WOMAN to dehumanize that man, so you are allowed to bitch slap him, punch him, kick him and expect for that to be ok and without repercussion, and not have him respond back to the vicious attacks by the woman?? so I say step up to the plate woman and get treated equally in court when they pass down the sentence on the man, you shall get yours as well...and finally we can be equally judged, if that's what you want. :) and if not, then STOP with your silly games, we ARE different. Lets WORK together with our differences not fight. But, I do agree that the dude should of eased off the pedal of power when unleashing his fists of fury.

[–]Scottysmoosh 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

sanity in the comments at least.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Defintiely not self-defense. He assualted her well after he was safe. Dude deserves jailtime.

[–]Swiggy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Why only the dude?

[–]JakeDC -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Nobody said only the guy should be punished. Here, both parties are in the same boat in that they committed assault and battery. They should both be punished. The extent and force of his attack, and the damage caused thereby, may mean that he committed aggravated assault while she committed simple assault. This would, and should, have an impact on the nature of the punishment, as should the fact that he also assaulted the witness, the criminal histories of the parties, etc.

When people here are saying that he should be in jail, I think their point is this is NOT a "she started it, he has the right to defend himself" situation. Not by a longshot.

[–]Swiggy 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Nobody said only the guy should be punished.

The comment I responded to was "Dude deserves jailtime". No mention of anything about the woman.

The extent and force of his attack, and the damage caused thereby, may mean that he committed aggravated assault while she committed simple assault.

You can't watch that and tell me that the woman wasn't trying to injure the man. She hit him more times over a longer period. There is also to possibility that he may not have been able to think straight because of repeated blows to the head.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They both deserve it but the guy much more so. You're being just as irrational and biased as a SJW if you think otherwise

[–]Swiggy 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They both deserve it...

So you agree with me but you're calling me irrational and biased?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Because woman punches aren't as legally assault as man punches or something?

The intent is to injure in both cases, both are against the law, and the difference in damage is generally accounted for in the charges laid, ie. assault vs. aggravated assault, as per the injuries reported. So ... there's no need to differentiate who "deserves it more". They both do.

[–]thenecro 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, on the basis of gender equality she deserved to get her ass kicked during her assault of the guy. The fact that he stopped her from getting into the car, they hugged like a bad romance movie, and THEN he decked her a few times? He's just as guilty as she was in the beginning. They both deserve jail time.

[–]Mens-Advocate 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The gynocentric Western legal systems have given women the right to murder men simply by claiming unsubstantiated abuse (battered woman syndrome ).

Were the law consistent, this battered man would have the legal right to kill his abuser. After all, the abuse he suffered is proved, unlike many females' abuse excuse.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A little excessive but she shouldnt have been a cunt wagon.

[–]Sasha_ 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

An accurate headline would be 'two hookers arguing with a pimp who stole some money off one of them'.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nothing, clearly. If she honestly and truly thought that he would retaliate, there's no way in hell she would have instigated it.

[–]scanspeak -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Without doubt this is not the first time she has hit him. It's probably been going on for months or years along with emotional abuse, but every time he walked away. Big mistake! Bullies will keep on bullying until you make a stand. If he calls the cops he will be arrested and kicked out of the home because he has the penis. I totally understand why he finally snapped and he should not face any legal consequences for it.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Without doubt this is not the first time she has hit him.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if she has a history of expressing herself violently.
Maybe that wasn't too much of a problem given their sizes, or maybe it is a horribly abusive relationship.

Or maybe she's just super angry for some special reason and it is the first time she has hit him.

Either way his response was insanely disproportionate and should be punished by the court. She should be punished for initiating repeated assault.

[–]Quintrell -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Seeing as dude knocked her ass on the ground it's no surprise the video is titled the way it is.

[–]Swiggy 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I honestly don't think if this was anything other than a man hitting a woman it would be described as "Horrific". If this was a man knocking down another man or a woman hitting a woman it would just be a regular tko, probably described with a witty headline.

Well that was predictable! Bone-crunching moment bouncer knocks out drunk guy who bets he can dodge his punch

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3594449/Bone-crunching-moment-bouncer-knocks-drunk-guy-bets-dodge-punch.html

[+]Mackowatosc -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Shocking. Should have taken one proper hit to the face. He sucks at combat proper :)

[–]libbylibertarian -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They both commited battery but let's be honest, the man added kidnapping to the mix.

[+][deleted] -26 points-25 points-24 points 10 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

Come on guys, this is the kind of thing that gets MRAs branded as misogynistic, angry virgins.

Women should not be allowed to strike men with impunity. That said, men must never retaliate either. Despite what feminists try to tell us, men are just physically much stronger than women and it's simply not the same.

When you are the stronger party, you back the fuck down. The average woman I see every day could cause a bruise if she hit me as hard as she could. If I did the same, I would probably kill her.

A man hitting a woman in retaliation is taking a gun to a knife fight.

EDIT: and the responses to this comment are why MRAs are seen as a bad joke. All anyone sees is you guys trying to justify beating women. Good luck with that.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Come on guys, this is the kind of thing that gets MRAs branded as misogynistic, angry virgins.

Because we think that someone getting repeatedly punched, kicked and slapped might have some legal standing to defend himself?

Women should not be allowed to strike men with impunity.

Absolutely true. Assault is assault, regardless of who is doing it.

That said, men must never retaliate either. Despite what feminists try to tell us, men are just physically much stronger than women and it's simply not the same.

OK, this is bullshit. The curve for strength actually overlaps between men and women, so ALL men are not stronger than ALL women, and there's plenty of situations where the female is the stronger party, for one.

For two, you don't lose the right to legally defend yourself because your attacker is weaker than you are. You are expected to meter your strength to avoid unnecessary damage, but you are not expected to just stand there and take it. You CAN defend yourself.

When you are the stronger party, you back the fuck down.

No way. You NEVER lose the right to defend yourself, or else we end up in a situation where males at the peak of the curve can be assaulted with impunity.

[–]Pariahdog119 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

For two, you don't lose the right to legally defend yourself because your attacker is weaker than you are. You are expected to meter your strength to avoid unnecessary damage, but you are not expected to just stand there and take it. You CAN defend yourself.

When you are the stronger party, you back the fuck down.

No way. You NEVER lose the right to defend yourself, or else we end up in a situation where males at the peak of the curve can be assaulted with impunity.

You can, and should, defend yourself from physical harm using all necessary force.

But you should try to deescalate first. Physical force is the last resort of the strong and the first choice of the weak. I've seen this all too often, just between men.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But you should try to deescalate first.

Everyone should. We all have a responsibility to avoid violence if we can, but let's face it, if you're even in a position to make that judgement, it's because violence has found you, not the other way around. There's a limit to how much patience and tolerance you can expect when someone's getting battered.

What I find is that the people who tend to preach that men should just take it have never truly had to subdue a woman who is in full blown fury mode. Even a tiny, 110 lb woman can visit some serious damage on people when they totally lose their shit. A bar I was at had to remove a drunk woman from the premises and it took the bouncer, the owner, the owner's son, and the cook all working together to get her out of the premises, and she ended up stabbing one of them in the leg with her nail file to the point where he needed to be hospitalized.

It's not always just slappy slappy.

[–]Swiggy 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Just teach women not to hit. Just because you are a woman doesn't mean you are entitled to hit men. It is not empowering. If men are expected to show constraint women should as well.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Did I say anything about women being entitled to hit men? No, that shouldn't be allowed either.

But the neckbeard contingent here seems to think it's justified to strike her with all your might when she barely tickled you. That's the attitude of angry, entitled, misogynistic men. You know, the kind that feminism tries to paint ALL MRAs as.

[–]Swiggy 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Did I say anything about women being entitled to hit men? No, that shouldn't be allowed either.

No, just like the article didn't say much about that either. That is my point, the primary focus of the article and the sensationalist headline was the harm done to the woman by the man. Men shouldn't have to be punching bags or even forced into retreat into submission just because they are usually bigger and stronger. Both acts of violence should be as strongly denounced. The "Men should NEVER hit back" reinforces the thinking that domestic violence against men isn't a concern and women have the entitlement to hit if they feel they are wronged. Don't hit period, control your emotions with whomever you are arguing with and we will all be better off as a society.

But the neckbeard contingent here seems to think it's justified to strike her with all your might when she barely tickled you.

Come on, "barely tickled". She was slapping him repeatedly pretty hard. Please don't minimize or excuse her violence.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It obviously didn't bother him much because he made no attempts to protect himself. So yes, "barely ticked" is appropriate here.

What she did really is irrelevant, the point is that you don't use force like that unless you absolutely need to do so. Teaching her a (much-needed) lesson about not striking anyone doesn't justify brutal retaliation.

[–]Swiggy 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It obviously didn't bother him much because he made no attempts to protect himself. So yes, "barely ticked" is appropriate here.

That must be why he eventually snapped right?

What she did really is irrelevant, the point is that you don't use force like that unless you absolutely need to do so. Teaching her a (much-needed) lesson about not striking anyone doesn't justify brutal retaliation.

"Irrelevant", again that is the whole problem, you are minimizing the impact of her actions, again.

[–]dork_souls 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When you are the stronger party, you back the fuck down

No, you shouldn't just back down because then the person will think it is okay. After all, a stronger person shouldn't hit a weaker person.

That being said, a stronger person can defend themselves and should, but be mindful. If you're a 6'4" guy against a 5'4" guy, you should only have to hit him once for him to learn that you can and will hurt if you fight back.

Encouraging the 'stronger person' to not retaliate is stupid because it teaches the smaller, weaker person that they will be protected regardless. Also, it creates bullies out of small people who think they are invincible.

[–]10J18R1A 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

This would be never be said if it were two men.

[–]Swiggy 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And on the side menu there is a story with the headline "Bieber starts fight with 6'5" man."

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes it is, hence the gun in a knife fight. Some random dude punches you in a bar and you shoot him, you're probably going to get charged with manslaughter at least.

[–]10J18R1A 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Ok, and if he had shot her, your analogy would be more apt.

What you're doing is advocating inequality. Logic_is_life.

If a 5'7 150 lb man runs up on a 6'2 220 lb dude, starts a fight, and gets dropped, it is what it is.

Why would changing man to woman change that? It can't be physical stature, obviously, the little man is the same size of the woman.

So you're basically saying women can't be held accountable for their actions, they have no agency, and must be treated like infants.

Nobody is advocating beating women, comprehension_is_life. We're advocating not hitting anybody, with the understanding that if you do, you may end up on the ground.

Women are adults too, you may want to figure that out between cape fittings.

[–]scruffist 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We're advocating not hitting anybody, with the understanding that if you do, you may end up on the ground.

Yes. Do not start a fight you can't finish.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So much butthurt here. You guys keep trying to justify beating women because they "started it" and I'll be over here with the rest of civilized society.

[–]10J18R1A 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So why don't you think women are equal to men?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's cute. If you're dumb enough to think men and women are comparable in a physical confrontation, you are stupid beyond words.

[–]10J18R1A 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What about two men?

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's you who is being uncivilized. You're running on emotions not reason. Otherwise you wouldn't be using an exaggerated and dishonest analogy. You know your position doesn't hold without it.

[–]Dick-Punch-Man 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

They both committed DV. If he had smacked her during her assault all would be ok. You do not back down, it reinforces the behavior. Women don't get a pass just because they are weak, that would be misogyny. No defense for this guy as he clearly committed the same crime she did.

[–]Swiggy 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

EDIT: and the responses to this comment are why MRAs are seen as a bad joke. All anyone sees is you guys trying to justify beating women. Good luck with that.

The tone of the responses here are a direct result of the headline and an article that minimizes any responsibility or obligation of the woman not to physically assault a man. He displays "savagery", her "emotions are divided".

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Did you watch the video? Because that's exactly true. He just kinda stood there and took obvious blows because they were causing virtually no harm. Then he absolutely just beats the shit out of her.

This is actually the perfect example of what I'm talking about. You guys are rushing to defend this jerk who was just looking for an excuse to hit her. She was no threat to him.

[–]Swiggy 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Again, you are minimizing and excusing the woman's actions. This isn't about defending the man's actions as it is about defending the man's right not to treated like a punching bag in the first place.

[–]SacredWeapon 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Most of the top comments seem to agree that what he did was wrong, while noting what she did was also wrong.

Question for you: had he hit her while she was still actively assaulting him--and only done so once--would your judgment of his actions be different?

Because I think that's the response the people replying to you are suggesting would've been valid.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Only if it was his only option, which it wasn't. He could have easily just restrained her. He makes precisely zero effort to protect himself.

Causing injury to another person should be your last resort. You only get to "defend" yourself if you have no other options AND you are in real danger.

E.g. hitting a woman because she's got you cornered in the kitchen with a knife is ok. Hitting her because she hit you first is not.

[–]SacredWeapon 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He could have easily just restrained her.

Dude...that's how you get bit and lose a finger.

I do agree that it's best to only harm others as a last resort. Most self defense classes teach you how to knock someone down when they're attacking you, which will mostly just give them a bump on the ass rather than any actual injury.

[–]blueoak9 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The average woman I see every day could cause a bruise if she hit me as hard as she could. If I did the same, I would probably kill her.

So she would use a weapon, as is the pattern in F>M DV.

The species has been using weapons for almost a million years; it's time for you to catch up.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So she would use a weapon, as is the pattern in F>M DV.

Weapons are likely to be involved when a woman injures a man, just due to the strength and reach difference. But in day to day DV no weapon is normally involved, because dominance is more about personality than physical strength.

[–]Mackowatosc 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

taking a gun to a knife fight.

fight is not meant to be equal. fight is meant to be won, without fail.

[–]morerokk 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Despite what feminists try to tell us, men are just physically much stronger than women and it's simply not the same.

Speak for yourself. Not all men are stronger than all women. Besides, women can (and do) reach for weapons.

I'm not very strong at all. I have impaired motor skills. If you automatically assume that I'm stronger, you are sorely mistaken.

[–]JakeDC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the downvotes are because the view you articulate is a bit too simple and not quite right.

I absolutely agree, and most here do, that the man in the video had no justification whatsoever for what he did. But the moral principle is general: Nobody should use violence against anybody, except if absolutely and unavoidably necessary for self-defense and, then, only to the extent that is necessary. This principle isn't gendered. It is a description about how moral people behave.

In the case caught in the video, if the man felt like he was in physical danger, he should have left. Defend yourself by leaving, nonviolently. It looks like he could have done that, but he didn't. If he had no ability to leave, he would have been justified in a physical response. But only to the extent necessary to ensure his safety. And then he should have left. But he didn't do that either. Instead, he waited until all possible danger to him was gone, went after her again, and beat the shit out of her. There is no justification for that. None. But the analysis would be the same regardless of the genders involved. This is OK, though, since self-defense requires a real threat, using options other than physical force whenever possible, and, as a last resort, using the minimum force needed to ensure safety.

[–]AloysiusC 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That said, men must never retaliate either.

And when the woman is stronger? Or are all men stronger than all women.

When you are the stronger party, you back the fuck down.

Greater strength doesn't guarantee your safety and victory in a fight. I'm betting you'd not have such a universal rule with two men with comparable difference in strength. Perhaps you should ask yourself why instead of just calling people misogynists.

[–]mikesteane -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He should have warned her after the first hit and hit back after the second. One punch would have been enough.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter