Should a man be allowed to physically defend himself from a woman?


Basically what the title says. If a woman is physically attacking a man, can he defend himself?

Also, this was in the comment section of an article about an NFL prospect, Joe Mixon, who was expressing his regret of his assault of a woman (idk the context of his assault, but based on the comment I’m assuming the woman attacked first).

If a woman attacks a man first, he should have every right to defend himself. A woman becomes a man as soon as she lays hands on one. This is a country of “equality” and this should be treated that way.
Let’s get this straight you snowflakes, I’ve never hit a woman, I never will. But if someone else is in danger from a woman, I have no problem with him defending himself.

Focusing on the first part, does this make society more equal?


Yes yes yes

If a woman hits me I’m going to hit her back st full force


spank her and piss on her to show dominance


Well basically if he isn’t, then women are allowed to beat men without repercussions, but self defence law and castle doctrine in most countries is pretty clear on this issue, you have the right to defend oneself regardless of your transgresser, and in most countries it’s a natural right that is at constitutional level, ie overrules most other laws


Of course. It’s rapidly changing to be this way, but the conservative past notion that women are untouchable was bullshit.


It depends on the extent.


Of course, it’s self-defense, not assault.


This is in self defense though; if someone hits you and walks away, call the police, don’t be a jackass.
This goes for all situations.


Anyone should be allowed to defend themselves. If a woman physically assaults a guy, I would support the man in him defending himself.

It’s not fair on any level for a male to be attacked and there to be an expectation for him not to retaliate.


I still go by what I said last time I brought this up:


I just watched the video (skip to 34 seconds in) of the Joe Mixon case I mentioned in the OP. I don’t know how/why it started, but he probably went overboard, especially since it looked like he could barely feel what the girl was doing.
Do you agree with that sentiment? How much punishment do you think he deserves?


I would be on his side, but agree he went further than he had to. First thing, people (except in moments of blind rage) are in control of their hands, and it was pretty clear she hit him didn’t not look like it was out of blind rage (otherwise it would have been more like a punch to the nose). Second thing is self-defense is about disabling the person who hit you first as so they don’t hit you again. However, he did more than he needed to, to disable her. All he needed to do is grab her arm and twist it behind her back, like this .


Of course, but only with reasonable force (which is determined by the “defence” of Self-Defence or Prevention of Crime). Just like a colossal powerlifter would be using excessive force suplexing a little 5’4" dude attacking him, if a guy uses excessive force on a weaker female then that is wrong to do so. Of course how much force is reasonable also depends on the crime - if it’s a battery then you don’t need to smash their teeth out, but if they’re trying to murder you then you might want to smash their teeth out.


No fucking shit, if something attacks you, you have every right to defend yourself and use violence to achieve such means. It doesn’t matter whether the assailant has a penis or a vagina. If you are attacked you have every right to defend yourself.


Excessive force in most us states only apply if the person already surrendered, up to that point you can use lethal force to react to the individual attacking you, ie shoot them.


Pretty in the dark on US law but from that text I disagree with the way they go about self defense in comparison with the UK


So your against castle doctrine/stand your ground laws?


The castle doctrine isn’t being attacked by another person in a public place. For property defense I am for the use of force if it is just and reasonable - for example Tony Martin in the UK was unjust as the invaders were retreating, however, if they persisted even after warning, then it is their risk knowing the now possible danger, in which case he would be justified.

As for stand your ground law I disagree with the escalation of deadly force unless the assailant is using an equivalent amount of force upon you, if they are committing a battery against you there is no reason to shoot them. However if the defendant truly believes they are at risk of death or serious injury then they could be justified in stopping the assailant with a deadly weapon (just like police officers may shoot people running towards them with weapons (ignoring police brutality guff)).

Either way I am for these two situations being judged objectively by a Jury as what constitutes reasonable force in a self defence situation is a matter of what a reasonable man would do in the defendant’s situation in respect to how society feels about the law.


Meh, your going against the grain with most conservatives on that issue. The reason why you can escalate is because you don’t know how much the person who’s attacking you wants to or can escalate to, so you can assume this person wants to severely harm you if not kill you. The stance is the self defender ie the innocents life should not be below that of the assailant, which your restrictions effectively make it so. The assailant controls the situation when you have weak stand your ground laws.


Honestly in regards to it being a self defence, then every person, not only men can defend on such an attack towards their life and safety.

But the problem is judging ‘within reason’ because some people abuse this vague and grey area. Like the police powers of arresting an individual and using ‘reasonable force’. Thus, it’s really hard to determine to what extent they may need to defend themselves. For example, a woman slaps a man really hard and the man punches her face till she is knocked out. I wouldn’t call that self defence. That was unnecessary brute force. However if a woman is threatening with a knife or beating a man down onto the ground, then that man has every right to attack back to fight for his life.

Really, the old age ‘men don’t hit women’ should be revised to ‘we should not hit anyone unless they threaten our lives and safety’ and we should treat each case by a ‘case by case’ mentality because each event varies so much.