Originally posted by NemeBro
Would anyone here hit a girl?
Uh....not unless said girl did something to provoke me. Course I'd be more hesitant that I would be in contrast to a male but would still go for it as a sign of respect.
For instance...I respect yuou enough as an equal human being to be hit like any other male when provoked.
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanI don't know, as I said, I find violence unprovoked distasteful, but if the woman (Or man) provokes me sufficiently, then I can see little difference between getting physical with either, especially when self-defense is considered, the offender, even if a woman, being knocked out is the preferable outcome if they are attacking me.
imo Hitting a man but not a woman has more to do with the fact that a man by nature of being less physically delicate than a woman, has less chance of being injured. The same punch I use to give a man a black eye could knock a woman out.It's in the same vain I think of the idea, that women should not be allowed active roles in professions where lives may depend on your physical aptitude, being more about cold irrefutable logic, than some kind of malevolent sexism.
Or you could just have to, you know, perform a physical aptitude test to prove you physically are capable of performing your job, lol. Not all women are so delicate they should be disallowed to do physical work, through either genetic quirk or effort a woman can be as strong or stronger than a man, and similarly some men are physically below the average women.
Originally posted by Nephthys
A$$hole.Shuddup Rusty.
Ah.
As far as the topic at hand goes, I think the real reason why men are more capable of hurting women by hitting them than hitting another male with equal force is that women would not expect it. When a guy starts shit with you, he basically wants you to hit him. He wants a fight, for whatever reason. A girl wouldn't usually expect it and would probably get knocked out for her it. This isn't a universal law or anything but what I'd think would be the norm in a situation like this.
And, as said, women are generally weaker then men. If a normal person was brought to hitting someone they usually try to no be to damaging, like a bloody nose or a black eye in most cases being good enough to end things. But the same thing could be more severe to a woman, so the guy wouldnt want to risk it. /2 cents
Originally posted by NemeBro
You still sound mad. D:I'm also not sure what your question is.
I'm not sure why you think that cause that's not the case at all. I find this discussion to be rather entertaining, actually.
Well, Blax said that he wouldn't want to rely on someone who gets easily knocked out in a dangerous/combat situation. How do you determine how much it takes to knock out a certain individual?
Originally posted by NemeBro
[B]Or you could just have to, you know, perform a physical aptitude test to prove you physically are capable of performing your job, lol.
There is no aptitude test applicable to gauge someone's ability in many of the situations someone such as a soldier or a firefighter can find themselves in. And that being the case, when it comes to lives being in danger, taking a risk, purely for the sake of morality, is not, imo, a good idea.
There is also a matter of morale, though that's a whole nother can of worms.
Not all women are so delicate they should be disallowed to do physical work, through either genetic quirk or effort a woman can be as strong or stronger than a man, and similarly some men are physically below the average women.
Sure, but there is an exception to every rule. There are some featherweights who can beat a super heavyweight in a fight. We still have weight classes for a reason, though.
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanAh, I actually misunderstood part of your stance, or rather, I wasn't taking into account combat scenarios. Women actually are not allowed to serve on the front lines for a much simpler reason: Psychologically, men are much more damaged/bothered/whatever when a woman dies, rather than a man. Or, morale, as you said. That I actually agree with. Now, firefighters do have to take physical aptitude tests to do their job, man or woman, and if a woman passes these tests and proves themselves physically capable, I see no logical reason for them being disallowed to be a firefighter. Or a soldier, but like I said, morale kind of makes keeping them out of combat a bit more necessary.
There is no aptitude test applicable to gauge someone's ability in many of the situations someone such as a soldier or a firefighter can find themselves in. And that being the case, when it comes to lives being in danger, taking a risk, purely for the sake of morality, is not, imo, a good idea.There is also a matter of morale, though that's a whole nother can of worms.
Sure, but there is an exception to every rule. There are some featherweights who can beat a super heavyweight in a fight. We still have weight classes for a reason, though.
Of course. If a woman is physically incapable of performing a certain duty, obviously she shouldn't do it. Same for men. Women are physically generally not as strong as men, but if an individual woman has proven themselves physically capable, they should not be barred from any profession or role on that basis alone.