If that's the case then I say whack that ho with a tire iron. She wants equal rights she can get an equal ass beating.
Other than that, society has such a fucked up view about who can hit who and what I can put where/consume in regards to MY body it's fucking ridiculous.
Why come into a debate section, have someone reply to you with an opposing view, and respond with such a childish attitude?
If a woman wants equal rights, wants to be treated as a man, etc. and then she hits you, why shouldn't she be hit back? Why is it still 'wrong' for the man to defend himself against a woman who wants to be treated like a man? Why would she get to choose what she wants and doesn't want as a result of her decision of wanting to be treated like a man, as well as her actions if she hits a man?
Why come into a debate section, have someone reply to you with an opposing view, and respond with such a childish attitude?
If a woman wants equal rights, wants to be treated as a man, etc. and then she hits you, why shouldn't she be hit back? Why is it still 'wrong' for the man to defend himself against a woman who wants to be treated like a man? Why would she get to choose what she wants and doesn't want as a result of her decision of wanting to be treated like a man, as well as her actions if she hits a man?
So, Ive seen a couple videos of guys getting hit by girls that think they are the boss and nothing can ever touch them. And finally the guy just hits them to get them the fuck off of them. Then they act like he is the devil for hitting a girl. A lot of girls want equal rights and want to be able to do everything me can do, however, when it comes to being hit they are still "NEVER hit a women." Which I dont understand at all. If you are going to be hitting a guy, there should be not discrimination. And if you want equal rights for girls why is it so bad to hit a girl? If you were in a situation where a girl was being a jackass and hitting you, what would you do?
I agree man. Ive seen so many videos on world star of just girls viciously attacking a man hitting him and everything in that scenario is it ok? IDK But I don't think it is ever okay to just hit a woman when you are mad or anything.
They say not to because they are smaller then us and we can do damage to them lol. I don't think it's right but if one hits me and is acting tough, I'll fuck her up
Firstly, you shouldn't be attacking anyone regardless of their sex; the only time (with a couple exceptions) anyone should hit someone is when it's an act of self-defense. It's silly that it's generalized just to women. Why make the thesis an address to a certain group, when you can address them all and have a main focus on the neediest group?
Primitively, we put woman (and children, however, this is irrelevant) first priority in life-threatening and dangerous situations, because we needed woman to bore our children and we needed those children to continue the ancestry. It was rare for them to live very long, with only having 25% of the first homosapiens reaching the age of 40; they lived in groups and inbred with each other, and were not always sympathetic when a male was endangered. However, now we no longer need to follow this recipe, code of conduct on what to do in these dangerous situations, because the average life expectancy has increased significantly since then and the population and increased astronomically, although, we continue to use this ideology of safety first for women (and children). When the Titanic sank, they declared woman and children first onto the lifeboats and let the majority of the men die by either drowning or freezing.
This graph unfortunately only begins at 10,000 BCE, however, the firsts humans arose over roughly 150,000 years ago, although, I was referring to the era of around 40,000 years ago in the first paragraph.
This image is a little erroneous and misleading, however, it's accurate enough.
We have a bias to be more sympathetic towards woman (and children), essentially those who are viewed as vulnerable, such as the injured, disabled and mentally handicapped, due to this long line of primitive ideology. It's not necessarily a bad thing, however, it can be the basis of the genesis of an opposite adverse bias to those who don't fall under the category of vulnerable.
Whether the woman wants equal rights or not is irrelevant from the situation. If a woman attacks you, it's well within your rights to defend yourself. Don't 'take it like a man', it's physical abuse and a double standard. When we allocate toughness as a priority, it defeats the feeling of empathy and ultimately makes you a more selfish being.
Firstly, you shouldn't be attacking anyone regardless of their sex; the only time (with a couple exceptions) anyone should hit someone is when it's an act of self-defense. It's silly that it's generalized just to women. Why make the thesis an address to a certain group, when you can address them all and have a main focus on the neediest group?
Primitively, we put woman (and children, however, this is irrelevant) first priority in life-threatening and dangerous situations, because we needed woman to bore our children and we needed those children to continue the ancestry. It was rare for them to live very long, with only having 25% of the first homosapiens reaching the age of 40; they lived in groups and inbred with each other, and were not always sympathetic when a male was endangered. However, now we no longer need to follow this recipe, code of conduct on what to do in these dangerous situations, because the average life expectancy has increased significantly since then and the population and increased astronomically, although, we continue to use this ideology of safety first for women (and children). When the Titanic sank, they declared woman and children first onto the lifeboats and let the majority of the men die by either drowning or freezing.
This graph unfortunately only begins at 10,000 BCE, however, the firsts humans arose over roughly 150,000 years ago, although, I was referring to the era of around 40,000 years ago in the first paragraph.
This image is a little erroneous and misleading, however, it's accurate enough.
We have a bias to be more sympathetic towards woman (and children), essentially those who are viewed as vulnerable, such as the injured, disabled and mentally handicapped, due to this long line of primitive ideology. It's not necessarily a bad thing, however, it can be the basis of the genesis of an opposite adverse bias to those who don't fall under the category of vulnerable.
Whether the woman wants equal rights or not is irrelevant from the situation. If a woman attacks you, it's well within your rights to defend yourself. Don't 'take it like a man', it's physical abuse and a double standard. When we allocate toughness as a priority, it defeats the feeling of empathy and ultimately makes you a more selfish being.
I remember watching a youtube video where the bus driver beat the crap out of a girl and said something like if your gonna act like a man imma treat you like a man
