Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

guys hitting their gf
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rollo



Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China

PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox : no one is saying violence is good whether male on male or what ever. what we ae talking about is protecting those who are being attacked by someone stronger than themelves.

Furthermore it is not always easy for an adult to escape violence. D.d. mentioned the woman held at knifepoint. Go to an emergency room talk to a woman who has had her face broken by an unexpected punch from an abusive man and tell her how easy it should have been for her to get away. I understand your feelings about violence. I understand that you read a website. There are thousand of websites.

I think you have read some things and think everything that is written by an academic can be applied in the real world. D.D. walks on, the Korean man walks on, the woman continues to be beaten. that is the real world. Protection of the weaker from the stronger is the glue that holds society together at least in the West. It is the social contract!


AArontendo glad that you think like you do. This is why so many many Korean women chase Western men. Well one of the reasons not the BIg reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rollo wrote:
Fox : no one is saying violence is good whether male on male or what ever. what we ae talking about is protecting those who are being attacked by someone stronger than themelves.


I don't know if you have read what MB3 has typed, but no, that's not what he's talking about. I asserted hitting a man is no worse (and no better) than hitting a woman. He contested that.

If you really believe a man beating a woman and a woman beating a man are equally bad, we are in agreement. If you don't believe that, then that is what we disagree about.

Protecting people who are being attacked by those stronger than them is not being debated (at least by me), and I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to construe my arguments as against it. In short, please stop trying to straw man me.

rollo wrote:
I think you have read some things and think everything that is written by an academic can be applied in the real world.


You think wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GreenlightmeansGO



Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Location: Daegu

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am a calm turtle in the tranquil sea of innocence and beauty. Let not the realities of the world enter the peaceful domain of my shell.











Hippy fucking bullshit.[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
3MB



Joined: 26 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Things arent equal as much as you would like to believe in some utopia. yes, assaulting a man is bad but assaulting a woman is worse. It has nothing to do with women being more valuable than men, and everything to do with the fact that women are more vulnerable and less able to defend themselves. That extends to children as well. The reason we treat pedophiles with extra contempt is because kids are the most helpless members of our society and preying on them is an extra vile thing to do. Not everything is black or white, this isnt a binary world where its 0 or 1. There are shades of gray to all sorts of crimes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

3MB wrote:
Things arent equal as much as you would like to believe in some utopia.


Which is why I put that forth as my agenda when you asked, rather than some current statement of fact.

3MB wrote:
yes, assaulting a man is bad but assaulting a woman is worse. It has nothing to do with women being more valuable than men, and everything to do with the fact that women are more vulnerable and less able to defend themselves.


A simple enough claim. You say it is not as bad for a woman to harm a man as it is for a man to harm a woman, because the woman is (generally) physically weaker. You don't care that tools and technological implements largely level this playing field (anti-male domestic abuse is generally achieved through the medium of weaponry). You don't care that society can and often does intervene (on behalf of women; it intervenes on behalf of men far, far less frequently, exactly because of your sort of thinking). You don't care that ethical views like this cause results like this (which you still haven't responded to). In your world view, it's a simple strength equation: weaker person, worse to harm them.

The sad thing is you really don't seem to realize what you're doing. You're not favoring women with this view, you're just making out violence against males to be not as big an issue. It's bad, you say, but it's not as bad, which makes it more acceptable (why did I use bolding for one emphasis but italics for the second? I don't really know, it just seemed appropriate). I think my favorite implication of your argument is that, given I am an exceptionally weak man, and doubtlessly weaker than you, by your logic it would actually be ethically worse to assault me than to assault you.

3MB wrote:
Not everything is black or white, this isnt a binary world where its 0 or 1. There are shades of gray to all sorts of crimes.


There are all sorts of shades of gray, and not everything is 0 or 1, I definitely agree. This is not one of those issues. There is no social benefit gained to making anti-female abuse out to be worse than anti-male abuse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
3MB



Joined: 26 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

a man who is domestically abused isnt really a man, now is he...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pkang0202



Joined: 09 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not condoning violence against women. I just want to point out that Korean women won't hesitate to hit, beat, and throw things at their boyfriends.

I've seen a Korean girl pick up a small folding chair and hit their boyfriend on the head with it, because he accidentally dropped her $2000 chanel purse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rollo



Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox with all due respect. What you wrote does not make one iota of sense! What is being discussed is not whether violence is acceptable between the sexes. whether male on male or male on female. what we are discussin is that a male should stop another male from beating a woman. No one is saying that male on male or female on male is acceptable. Your argument seems to be that as long as we see as a greater wrong for men to hit women than there will be more violence. Considering the greater muscle mass of men the lighter bone structure of women it is the strong picking on the weak and that is just wrong. That is what is being discussed. A strong man hitting the average woman , the woman is just a punching bag, she really doesnt have much chance of defending herself. That is why we judge this behavior to be worse . A man hitting a man at least their bone structure can take the punch, at least their muscle mass percentage is close to being the same.

You are talking about weapons and police, forget that we are talking about someone being pulped, who has realistically no chance of defending themelves. If a women pulls a weapon most likely it will be used on her.

And no those tae kwond do kicks that in the movies that the heroine uses to knock the badguy out, well in the reall world the guy walks through it and knocks the womans lights out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rollo



Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox with all due respect. What you wrote does not make one iota of sense! What is being discussed is not whether violence is acceptable between the sexes. whether male on male or male on female. what we are discussin is that a male should stop another male from beating a woman. No one is saying that male on male or female on male is acceptable. Your argument seems to be that as long as we see as a greater wrong for men to hit women than there will be more violence. Considering the greater muscle mass of men the lighter bone structure of women it is the strong picking on the weak and that is just wrong. That is what is being discussed. A strong man hitting the average woman , the woman is just a punching bag, she really doesnt have much chance of defending herself. That is why we judge this behavior to be worse . A man hitting a man at least their bone structure can take the punch, at least their muscle mass percentage is close to being the same.

You are talking about weapons and police, forget that we are talking about someone being pulped, who has realistically no chance of defending themelves. If a women pulls a weapon most likely it will be used on her.

And no those tae kwond do kicks that in the movies that the heroine uses to knock the badguy out, well in the reall world the guy walks through it and knocks the womans lights out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

3MB wrote:
a man who is domestically abused isnt really a man, now is he...


I'll let you respond to yourself:

3MB wrote:
What a ridiculous statement that overlooks the basics of biology and anatomy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rollo wrote:
Fox with all due respect. What you wrote does not make one iota of sense!


I know you can't understand. I'm okay with that.

rollo wrote:
What is being discussed is not whether violence is acceptable between the sexes.


Look man, I'm sorry, but I don't care what you think is being discussed or want to be discussed. I am having (or more precisely had) a conversation with another poster about an abstract issue related to domestic violence.

If you want to take part in that conversation, fine. If you don't, then stop responding to me; you're more than welcome to have a parallel discussion with other people in this thread about things other than what MB3 and I were discussing.

rollo wrote:
No one is saying that male on male or female on male is acceptable.


No, but someone is saying one is more acceptable than the other, and that is the person I am conversing with.

rollo wrote:
Your argument seems to be that as long as we see as a greater wrong for men to hit women than there will be more violence.


Then I'm sorry, but you lack the reading comprehension to converse with me, because that is neither my argument nor entailed by my argument.

The rest of your post is claiming weapons and police can't help in domestic violence cases and implicitly asserting that I think women can beat up men with casual ease because movie heroines do it. I think it's understandable that I have nothing to say in response to that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
3MB



Joined: 26 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think what you are saying has merit, Fox. However I still can't quite agree with you on the qualitative difference between man-on-woman vs woman-on-man violence. While women can indeed be abusers, how wide spread is this phenomenon? I would also argue this: a man who stays in an abusive relationship is not doing so for the same reasons as a woman. What I'm getting at is that a man who stays in an abusive relationship probably has more control over the outcome of both the individual episodes of abuse and also on the outcome of the long term relationship. Meaning that were a man attacked by a woman, in most cases he would have the tools necessary to defend himself as to prevent any serious physical injury. In essence a man is not going to become (in most cases) a limp punching bag for his wife the way a woman would for an aggressive male attacker. Like it or not, our physiology makes violence between the sexes a very unequal affair. There's no equality here and to pretend there is , well, its a misguided attempt to implement some feminist philosophy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Underwaterbob



Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This thread reminds me of the Korean couple down the hall from me. She's close to six feet and he's more like five-four. If they got in a fight, she'd hand his ass to him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

3MB wrote:
While women can indeed be abusers, how wide spread is this phenomenon?


As the site I posted mentioned, it's hard to get real data on that due to the stigma associated with being a male abuse victim. If I find a more detailed or informative site during my down time at work today I'll post it.

3MB wrote:
I would also argue this: a man who stays in an abusive relationship is not doing so for the same reasons as a woman.


What reasons would a man have for staying in an abusive relationship such that they are so dissimilar to a woman's reasons?

3MB wrote:
What I'm getting at is that a man who stays in an abusive relationship probably has more control over the outcome of both the individual episodes of abuse and also on the outcome of the long term relationship.


While it might be possible to make a case for a stronger man having more control over the outcome of an individual episode of abuse than his weaker but abusive girlfriend (I assert this shouldn't be considered an ethical factor, for reasons I outline at the end of the post), I don't see the case for having more control over the long term outcome. For both a male and a female domestic abuse victim, control over the long term outcome can be achieved through either leaving, engaging socia protections, or pursuing legal action.

3MB wrote:
Meaning that were a man attacked by a woman, in most cases he would have the tools necessary to defend himself as to prevent any serious physical injury.


I'm not sure this is as true as you think it is, particularly once tools and weaponry become involved. An angry woman with a frying pan could do some serious damage, much less a baseball bat or otherwise; this is doubly true if you as the man want to avoid harming her in return. Perhaps as a strong, physically capable man yourself you are filled with confidence your ability to diffuse the situation while entirely avoiding meaningful injury, but I certainly would not be.

A further complication in such a situation is that should a man physically defend himself, it's entirely possible that (due to this type of thinking which considers male on female abuse worse than female on male abuse), he will be considered in the wrong (this happens). Consider even the case mentioned earlier in this thread: a man sees two women and a man fighting, automatically assumes it's the man that is the aggressor, and reacts accordingly. People on juries are just as prone to reactions like this, unfortunately, and it's another example of the damage done by the ethical ideal you put forward.

3MB wrote:
In essence a man is not going to become (in most cases) a limp punching bag for his wife the way a woman would for an aggressive male attacker.


Perhaps or perhaps not (if I were struck with a bat a few times I have no idea how I'd react, it's never happened to me; I doubt I'd react well, personally). Regardless of that, though, both a man and a woman can terminate the relationship at that point, or even pursue legal action.

In short, I'm not trying to argue that, in general, men and women are equally strong. Rather, I argue that difference in strength alone is insufficient to create an ethical difference regarding domestic violence against them, since they are both autonomous adults with access to solutions to the problem at hand, and construing male on female and female on male violence as qualitatively different creates social problems (such as the male abuse victim stigma, or the "male is automatically in the wrong in a fight" stigma), while construing them as equally bad creates no equal social problems, but rather allows us to simply judge each situation on a case by case basis and in an objective fashion. That's why I'm for ethical equality on this matter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yu_Bum_suk



Joined: 25 Dec 2004

PostPosted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Yu_Bum_suk wrote:
D.D. wrote:
As kids tell it like it is " Pick on someone your own size" If you can't do that you are a coward.


Bingo. Unless you're dating someone who's 180lbs and can bench her body weight, it's not the same. Is hitting a 14-year-old boy the same as hitting a 24-year-old man?


Because people keep bringing up bodily strength, I thought I would articulate this outside of a post responding to 3B.

How strong a person is is totally unrelated to how morally acceptable it is to physically harm them. Harming children isn't worse because they're physically weak, it's worse because they're emotionally, intellectually, and socially less able to defend themselves in any way, both because of how our society treats them and because their brains are still developing. An adult who is struck can get help or escape the situation fairly easily if they choose. A child who is physically struck -- particularly by family members -- cannot do so anywhere nearly as easily.

Harming people (outside of self-defense, arguably) is just plain bad. It doesn't become less bad if the person you harm is stronger. It doesn't become more bad if the person you harm is weaker. It's just plain bad, dangerous, anti-social behavior.

It's this type of thinking certain people in this thread are articulating that causes the problems with female on male domestic abuse mentioned in the link I posted.


OK, so hitting a 14-year-old boy who's psychologically weaker may be arguably worse than hitting a grown woman of about the same size and strength who has more agency to do something about it. But an average-size man hitting either an average size 14-year-old or average-size woman is still if nothing else a very cowardly act.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International