Should men be allowed to hit women? This has been a question I've seen/heard a lot growing up and even still today on social media. It's obviously phrased in a way that immediately implies that a man physically harming a woman is taboo. However, if you rephrase the question, you get a less biased inquiry. The question should be, "Should you be allowed to hit someone in self-defense?"
Why do I structure the question this way? It alleviates the need for a complicated answer. The proper answer is either a "Yes" or a "No." There will always be those difficult people who say "Well, it depends on...." Fuck those people. Most people would answer, "Yes" and I would just beat the shit out of anyone who answered "No" all the while reminding them of their answer.
Now that we have set a moral foundation, we can go into specific scenarios. As to not stray too far away from the gender issue from the original question; let's start there. Should a man be allowed to hit a woman in self-defense? I say fuck yeah if it's in self-defense. No one would argue that a woman shouldn't be able to fight back if attacked by a man, so I see no reason why it would be any different if the roles were reversed.
The main arguments I hear are:
1. Men are stronger than women.
So. If anything, that should deter women from initiating altercations with men. Additionally, not every man is stronger than every woman. Also, the attacker normally has ample time to size up their victim before approaching them. If a woman plans on losing a 1-on-1 fight, she is likely to bring a weapon.
2. A woman's attacks won't hurt a man.
Bullshit. I've seen children beat up adults. If that's possible, why would it seem farfetched for a grown ass woman to hurt a grown ass man. Every human has vulnerable spots. It doesn't matter who hits those spots; it's going to hurt regardless.
3. Real men don't hit women.
I'm not even sure how this is a valid argument. I won't get into the definition of a "real man," because I spoke about it in another post. This statement implies that men who don't consider themselves "real men" by female standards are allowed to hit women just as another woman would. So if I renounce my manhood and identify as a woman, I'm allowed to fight women without persecution? That kind of opens the door for men to say a "real woman" would never attack a man. Therefore, if I defend myself against a female attacker, it's OK to beat her as if she was a man, because she isn't a "real woman."
4. Men can just walk away.
Really? To the women that read my blog, are you seriously telling me that if you attacked a man he could casually walk away from the situation unscathed? This sounds like some dumb ass advice a clueless mom gives to her kid who is getting bullied at school. You CAN NOT walk away from someone who is determined to fight you.
5. You wouldn't want a man to put his hands on your mother, sister, daughter, girlfriend etc.
First off, you shouldn't want anyone you know to get into a fight. Second, if I witness any of the females in my life START a fight with a man and end up losing, then they just have to take that ass whoopin. I might step in if it looks like they'll die. Otherwise, I'll respect the art of 1-on-1 fighting. You shouldn't start a fight with a man expecting another man to bail you out if you end up losing. You take that much deserved ass whooping like the grown independent woman you are.
In conclusion, I only advocate violence if it is in self-defense, specifically in the prevention of one's own bodily harm whether it be against a man or a woman. I also advocate violence as an immediate form of retaliation to a prior violent act. The law of the land will forever be "An eye for an eye." You hit me; I hit you back. Playground rules, bitch.
This will be the home of my random thoughts until you really do know the MuffynMan.