Sexist comedian

@Shme How do you revive zombie threads?

He's a fairly un-funny and very very misogynistic man - his 'epidemic of gold-digging whores' routine is a real treat 😲

Want another example of what some women are capable of? :
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/16/controlling-girlfriend-first-woman-convicted-new-domestic-abuse/]

Thankfully, she was convicted

Oh dear lord. And I wonder how many 100s of cases of abuse and violence by men there were in the same week she was convicted?

LassWiADelicateAir: There is always a reason why people behave in certain ways. We need to consider these reasons

Oh my - how reasonable you sound. Even down to the nice inclusive use of "we"

You and Bill are playing with words. You know it and I know.

"Reason" in the context of the phrase "no reason to hit a woman" (or a man or a child or a dog for that matter) is used in the sense of "justification"/"good cause". You and he know perfectly well that is how the phrase is heard.

That is why your knife analogy fails because no one is going to argue that hitting someone attacking you with a knife is not justified.

He turned it into meaning "reason" in the sense of analysing the cause of what might make a person harbour the idea of a violent , physical reaction. I grudgingly concede it was a manipulatively clever use of language.

It's having one's cake and eating it. He's saying there might be a reason, in a purely analyitical sense, where actions might lead to a build up of irritation, but hitting is not justified, oh no, he'd never agree with that- whilst knowing that the bone heads guffawing at his joke are not making that distinction.

His wife smacked his headphones off his head whilst he was wearing them and he finally lost his cool. But he did not hit his wife. He had a reason to do so, but chose not to. You really can't expect more than that in the circumstances

No he did not have a reason to hit her. He had no justification for hitting her.

Fwiw, in the absence of you being totally obnoxious, I don't yet think you're a misogynist. I think you probably think you are being quite even handed, as I've said. I think you are dead wrong, but I'm not someone who will call someone a misogynist unless they show that they really hate women. So far, I think you're just a bit sexist and somewhat misinformed. So we'll see what transpires if the conversation continues. Good night.

Oh, and just as an aside, you are going to get your arse handed to you if you are going to argue that men are more hard done by in the justice system than women when it comes to violent assaults.

Ok, your point is getting very diluted now. It's quite late here, I'm not sure where you are in the world, but I'm in the wee small hours here so may call it a day very soon.

You say that men have other reasons for wanting to hit women than 'being provoked'. What other reasons do you have in mind? And what good would it do to examine them?

The example you use is of a man who was violently attacked and hit back. It's a very muddy story no doubt, and I haven't read the link and even if I did, an anecdote is just that, and somewhat difficult to make a broader point from. There was violence from both sides, but to posit a different perspective, there is a difference between self-defence, which is justifiable, and retaliation, which mostly isn't.

So I will try and briefly address the point you bring up asking if it's ok to hit a man. The answer is no, it's not. Not for a woman, and not for another man. We call it assault, and it's against the law.

The reason a man hitting a woman is so significant is largely due to what I alluded to earlier - women and men are physically different, and a man punching a woman will generally cause a hell of a lot more damage than a woman hitting a man. Neither situation is a good thing.

No reason to hit a woman" is not intended to apply when someone is at risk from physical violence? Well why say it then? Seems fairly all-encompassing to me

Another disingenuous statement. He was not talking about being in danger of physical violence. You know that perfectly well. He was talking about irritating behaviour, nagging, being unhelpful, serving tuna casserole.

One of Bill's points (which he does expand on) is that in cases of domestic violence if the man hits the woman he is automatically in the wrong, even if the woman attacked him first

Says who ? You and Bill? Certainly isn't what the law says.

Colleen, is there a physical difference between men and women? In general terms, I mean.

But I keep saying, I'm not advocating that anybody hit anybody else. I'm just saying that we should accept that there may be reasons for doing so, such as my knife analogy

Your knife analogy fails miserably. The response of hitting someone coming at one with a knife is acting in self- defence. That is not remotely comparable to hitting because of irritation or frustration no matter how irritating the other person's behaviour is.

There is no reason for any person to hit anyone other than in reasonable self-defence to ward off a physical attack

Then perhaps you should stick around and read a few threads on FWR, because no one here is saying that men don't think they have 'reasons' to want to hit women. We know they do. We prefer to use 'excuses' or 'justifications' but we know they exist.

But examine what you're saying here, because I think you think it sounds reasonable, and it really isn't. By saying that we need to 'examine the reasons men want to hit women' you are implicitly suggesting that at least some of those reasons have a rational basis, and your reason in the context of the 'comedy' clip, appears to be that women 'provoke'. Therefore the conclusion to be drawn from what you've said is that if women didn't provoke men, the men would not want to hit them.

Which is going to be pretty roundly condemned by feminists, not because women are 'saints' but because it is the essence of blaming a victim for being assaulted.

I think my knife analogy stands. If you say there can never be a reason for a man to hit a woman then I say that is a reason

Bet you think that was a real gotcha , sucker punch.

You and that painfully unfunny man are confused about the meaning of the word "reason" albeit the confusion is of course feigned and disingenuous.

You and he know perfectly well that "no reason to hit a woman" is not intended to apply where someone is at risk of physical violence.

You actually lose braincells debating on YouTube. True fact.

You brought up saints. You're talking to a Catholic. Use a religious analogy with a religious pedant, it'll come back and bite you. But sure, if you want to move away from that which you don't get, fair enough.

I'm not denying there are some men who get so cross with women they want to hit and hurt them. Many, many men follow through and do just that.

But, sorry to break it to you, round these parts we take a dim view of anything which normalizes a violent response to a woman 'misbehaving'. Even unfunny comedians. No one here will be saying that women are always kind or nice or accomodating. Most of us will encourage women to be the exact opposite very often. And still we wouldn't ever think it was appropriate for a man to consider hitting us.

Do you think men should be applauded for not hitting uppity women?