why is it "wrong" to hit a woman?

[Vera]

(06-01-2013 10:45 AM)bemore Wrote:  When I split up with my first love she attacked me in the town center where we lived. I tried asking people for help as they went past but nobody would stop and intervene. She kept trying to knee me in the balls and I had to keep twisting my hips to avoid them. So in the end, to get her away I had to shove her hard and follow up with a punch to her knee so I could scarper.

If she was a bloke or if she had been doing me damage the punch would of been in her throat (not that I reccomend anybody punch anybody in the throat)

You know what bemused me the most in this... not sure what adjective to use... story? That you still called a woman who has physically attacked you "love". This so not the word I would've gone for...

[bemore]

(06-01-2013 10:51 AM)Vera Wrote:  You know what bemused me the most in this... not sure what adjective to use... story? That you still called a woman who has physically attacked you "love". This so not the word I would've gone for...

Well she was the first woman I ever loved, so therefore she will forever be my "first love"

We get on really well with each other nowadays, all water under the bridge and all that.

[Vera]

(06-01-2013 10:59 AM)bemore Wrote:  Well she was the first woman I ever loved, so therefore she will forever be my "first love"

We get on really well with each other nowadays, all water under the bridge and all that.

I guess it's just that I find aggression in a woman particularly abhorrent. Like, degrading. Even a slap is just... well, degrading.

Which is not to say I like violent men, of course

[Nappa]

It's not wrong, it's just a moral construct devised by men who viewed women as inferior and thus would treat them with reserved aggression.

[namiloveyou]

(05-01-2013 07:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 07:31 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  It is wrong to hit a woman (or another man) because hitting results in pain which is a negative experience for the conscious mind.

You could also ask, why is it wrong to go around cutting off peoples ears?
As if any of these questions don't have obvious answers, I often wonder why they are asked at all...

Edit: I don't agree with the posts that use the law as a reason. If the only reason we don't do something is the law, then that's not much better than a christian saying we would all kill eachother without god. This resembles psychopothy, and worries me greatly.

We have evolved with this understanding, it is beneficial to our species as a whole.

The OP is a troll. The answers are deflections.

I think morals are subjective. So to me, morals are only "true" in given contexts.

if you're citing that some moral traits stem from evolution, then morals are thus objective, which to me is silly. I think this anti-hitting women thing stems from chivalry/male supremacy of past centuries. Women may think that men treat them better as a favour or kind deed, but it's ultimately based on male supremacy.

[Logisch]

(06-01-2013 09:03 PM)namiloveyou Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 07:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  The OP is a troll. The answers are deflections.

I think morals are subjective. So to me, morals are only "true" in given contexts.

if you're citing that some moral traits stem from evolution, then morals are thus objective, which to me is silly. I think this anti-hitting women thing stems from chivalry/male supremacy of past centuries. Women may think that men treat them better as a favour or kind deed, but it's ultimately based on male supremacy.

You're wrong. They're burritos.

[Erxomai]

Carne Asada?

[Logisch]

(06-01-2013 09:46 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Carne Asada?

Tis a good dish. In fact we had some the other night. I had some lovely burritos with some beef for dinner. Call me a sucker for steak and beef. Mmm mmmmmmmm good!

[Aseptic Skeptic]

(06-01-2013 10:37 AM)kim Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 10:33 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Because they'll kick you in the balls.

Wow, for some reason I read this as "because they lick you in the balls."

Two excellent reasons. I shall add both reasons to my list of reasons for not hitting women, straight away!

[Aseptic Skeptic]

(06-01-2013 09:03 PM)namiloveyou Wrote:  if you're citing that some moral traits stem from evolution, then morals are thus objective, which to me is silly. I think this anti-hitting women thing stems from chivalry/male supremacy of past centuries.

How is this mutually exclusive?

You do realize, don't you, that our evolution is 4 billions years old. Our evolution as mammals is maybe a hundred million years old, give or take. Our evolution as primates is still tens of millions of years old.

Our code of chivalry is only a few hundred years old. Where do you think that code of chivalry came from, anyway? Do you think one day some guy woke up and said "Today I shall be chivalrous; I shall no longer batter women."?

Or is it possible that the code of chivalry is a social extension of our evolutionary bias to protect rather than batter the weaker (sorry ladies, but I only mean in terms of musculoskeletal development) gender?

And while you're pondering this question, if you do, also consider this one - why did almost every culture on earth develop similar codes of chivalry despite having no interaction with each other? Some of the most notable examples are Europe/Japan - when the first Europeans discovered the orient, the Japanese had a very strong "chivalrous" code of Bushido that expressly forbids aggression toward women. Or Old World/New World - clearly the Native American tribes in the New World had no influence from the Old World, but when Columbus first discovered them, and all subsequent discoveries, just about all Native American tribes had "chivalrous" behavior and even laws (such as they were) to protect women from being assaulted by men.

Even in cultures where men regularly punish their wives by beating them, they don't walk around town beating other women - something about the way they treat wives as property allows them to beat only those women, but even those cultures significantly frown on assaulting other women who aren't direct property of the assaulting male. (Ug, that practice disgusts me far more than my dispassionate explanation would make it seem).

(06-01-2013 09:03 PM)namiloveyou Wrote:  Women may think that men treat them better as a favour or kind deed, but it's ultimately based on male supremacy.

Now that is probably true, as I've already pointed out. Supremacy in the sense of bigger, stronger, deadlier. We wouldn't have been very viable from an evolutionary standpoint if the bigger, stronger, deadlier gender habitually assaulted the weaker, often pregnant, gender. So we evolved an instinctive avoidance of it as an evolutionary imperative.

Our male superiority in this regard, which took hundreds of millions of years to evolve, is exactly why our social morals which took a few thousand years to evolve proscribe assaulting women.