Women's Rights.

[Mumbo]

*Suzie hits Jimmy*
*Jimmy Hits Suzie*
*Jimmy gets in trouble*

I'm not saying anything against women, but if they fought so hard for "Equal rights", they should have the SAME rights as everyone else. Meaning, the "No hitting Girls" rule is a violation of what the origonal idea of female rights meant.

Not that I want to go around beating the shit out of girls.

Thoughts?

[saqwert]

Women should be chained and sent to the coal mines

[SKHM]

Women are nothing but machines for producing children. -Napoleon Bonaparte

[RacistBassist]

Well you see the problem with stuff like that is that it also applies to males. If you're trying to go for self-defense, you are not allowed to use too much force, unless it's inside your home and your state has castle laws. Girls are inherently much weaker then males. Picture if the average male were to strike some scrawny little hipster teen. When the females are obviously a lot more aggressive then the male or bigger, the man rarely gets in trouble for hitting back.

[Mumbo]

At 1/2/12 05:26 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Well you see the problem with stuff like that is that it also applies to males. If you're trying to go for self-defense, you are not allowed to use too much force, unless it's inside your home and your state has castle laws. Girls are inherently much weaker then males. Picture if the average male were to strike some scrawny little hipster teen. When the females are obviously a lot more aggressive then the male or bigger, the man rarely gets in trouble for hitting back.

An average simpleton would say something along the lines of "Survival of the fittest, hurrr", however, I am not a simpleton.

[Entice]

What an original idea!

[Emma]

At 1/2/12 05:23 PM, SolidToad wrote: *Jimmy Hits Suzie*
*Jimmy gets in trouble*

This is women's rights.

[Mumbo]

At 1/2/12 05:39 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 1/2/12 05:23 PM, SolidToad wrote: *Jimmy Hits Suzie*
*Jimmy gets in trouble*

This is women's rights.

Taking part of the whole situation and using it to unjustly persecute another? Yeah, that sounds like modern women's rights.

[Quinny]

<INAPPROPRIATE AND HILARIOUS JOKE CONCERNING WOMEN'S RIGHTS>

God I'm just the worst.

[Emma]

At 1/2/12 05:42 PM, SolidToad wrote:

At 1/2/12 05:39 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 1/2/12 05:23 PM, SolidToad wrote: *Jimmy Hits Suzie*
*Jimmy gets in trouble*

This is women's rights.

Taking part of the whole situation and using it to unjustly persecute another? Yeah, that sounds like modern women's rights.

No, taking the part of the situation that would have been ignored in the past.

[RacistBassist]

At 1/2/12 05:48 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: No, taking the part of the situation that would have been ignored in the past.

And this folks, is why I hate how things have turned up in todays world.

"Bad shit happened to this group by that group in the past, so let's persecute that group today for things they didn't do to this group"

[Emma]

At 1/2/12 05:52 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 1/2/12 05:48 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: No, taking the part of the situation that would have been ignored in the past.

And this folks, is why I hate how things have turned up in todays world.

Yeah, it's not fun being the scapegoat is it?

[RacistBassist]

At 1/2/12 05:54 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Yeah, it's not fun being the scapegoat is it?

Who's being the scapegoat? So many of our problems today center around on deflecting blame or unjustly persecuting somebody for something they didn't do.

[Entice]

You know there are women out there that believe in true equality between men and women, and going on about how they all want more rights than men isn't really helping anything.

[MaartenC]

If she hits you, it's time to leave her. Obviously she doesn't deserve you.

[Wagggs]

Gee, OP, I wonder what convinced you to make this topic. Were you just in your room and thought, "Hey, I think Ima say equal rights isn't fair on the internet!"

Can women vote? Yes. Can women speak freely? Yes. Can they own land? Yes. Equal rights does not mean everything has to be equal, but seeks to create equality where gender does not play a role. Men and women are different, you can't expect them to be 100% under every circumstance.

And Jimmy wouldn't always get in trouble. If Susie just started hitting Jimmy, Susie would get in trouble. If Jimmy beat the livin' shit outta Susie because Susie slapped Jimmy on the shoulder, then it'd be a different story.

Jimmy is an asshole that hits girls.

[InsertFunnyUserName]

From what I've seen, it's mostly men who make a big deal over the "Don't hit girls" rule. The great majority of the people who I've heard advocating in favor of the rule have been male. So, I'm inclined to think that the rule comes from the remnants of chivalry that still exist in guy culture more than it does from women wanting extra rights.

My personal opinion on the rule is that it's a moot point, because hitting anyone with an amount of force that exceeds the amount needed for self defense should be considered immoral regardless of gender. So, in a fight wherein you could easily just restrain your opponent, you shouldn't hit the person, regardless of whether that person is weaker because they're a woman or because they're a weaker man. Conversely, if a woman is attacking you and is for whatever reason stronger than you (whether be that she has better fighting skills or that she has a weapon), fighting back is justified in order to ensure your safety.

[Winrar1337]

At 1/2/12 05:23 PM, SolidToad wrote: *Suzie hits Jimmy*
*Jimmy Hits Suzie*
*Jimmy gets in trouble*

Regardless of someone's gender, if you hit someone who is much weaker than you, you're going to look like an asshole, and there is a good reason for this. There is no denying that women are usually not as physically strong as men, so unless a woman looks something like this, you shouldn't hit her.

[BrockManson]

Men's Lefts.

[TwistedPersonality]

Women generally want the benefits of equality without the obligations or downsides. That's the problem. It's just take, take, take.

[Mumbo]

At 1/2/12 06:38 PM, TwistedPersonality wrote: Women generally want the benefits of equality without the obligations or downsides. That's the problem. It's just take, take, take.

Take, Take, Take is what most of 'Merica wants.

[Gasthecar]

At 1/2/12 05:23 PM, SolidToad wrote: origonal

At least women can spell

[Sensationalism]

Considering the man's slap has much more force behind it he should get in more trouble. Obviously they both get charged with assault.

Seriously how can you argue that men should be allowed to hit women? What the fuck is wrong with you? Why would you want to be allowed to beat women?
Are you really afraid some weak female is gonna slap you and it's gonna hurt so bad you just have to defend yourself?

Wow idiocy.

[Sword-of-Kings]

At 1/2/12 05:25 PM, Natick wrote: This is the 90th time this has been brought up...

You counted?

[Sword-of-Kings]

At 1/2/12 05:24 PM, saqwert wrote: Women should be chained and sent to the coal mines

You are so sexist.

[Light]

At 1/2/12 09:30 PM, Sensationalism wrote:

Seriously how can you argue that men should be allowed to hit women?

No one is seriously arguing that men should be allowed to hit women just for the sake of it. Some have merely stated their irritation at the fact that there currently exists a double standard that allows women to hit men without justification, while men cannot hit women for any reason, no matter how warranted it may be.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Why would you want to be allowed to beat women?

Self-defense. If I couldn't restrain a woman to defend myself, but I could hit her to accomplish this, then I should be able to do so without being judged.

Are you really afraid some weak female is gonna slap you and it's gonna hurt so bad you just have to defend yourself?

No.

It's not about that at all....

Wow idiocy.

I think it's idiotic to think that there exists no possible circumstances where it is reasonable to hit a woman.

What circumstances should allow a man to hit a woman? Self-defense.

I really shouldn't have to reiterate the word "self-defense," but I feel that if I don't, you'll just ignore me and continue to condemn those who you think have no grasp of chivalry or respect because they feel that they have a right to physically defend themselves from women who may attack them in such a way as to make mere physical restraint unviable.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

There is nothing more cowardly than hitting a girl. But I don't agree that when a man hits a woman, he is doing so because of patriarchal tendencies thrust upon him by a woman-hating society. I just think he needs to grow up.

[AlexDecay]

Well, in your scenario, Suzie would be just as liable to get in trouble as Jimmy.

[AlexDecay]

At 1/2/12 09:42 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: There is nothing more cowardly than hitting a girl. But I don't agree that when a man hits a woman, he is doing so because of patriarchal tendencies thrust upon him by a woman-hating society. I just think he needs to grow up.

When I send my girlfriend into your home to cut off your dick so we can play with you, you better keep that silly ass mantra, ya hear.

[Mumbo]

At 1/2/12 09:41 PM, Light wrote:

At 1/2/12 09:30 PM, Sensationalism wrote:

Seriously how can you argue that men should be allowed to hit women?

Reason

Well said, Light.