Tee hee hee, violence is funny when the victim is a man!

Well, that first bit is silly. I'm not even going to get into the debate that's going to pop up about that.

I enjoy the second message though. I think it's important to remind people that if you see someone in trouble, do something! I'm not saying try to fight the attacker off alone and put yourself in danger, but simply calling the police can help. Tell other people around you and form a group that can intervene safely. I hear about crimes all the time that could have been brought to a halt or at least prosecuted but weren't because bystanders chose to not even report it.

SiF, you're a real treasure. Between the 'tee hees' and rape apologism, you're like the most perfect troll ever.

Well, I don't know if SiF is a troll or not, but I'm serious about this question (also, I wasn't aware of the earlier time you posted this, so I'm sure my question has already been asked in this fashion. Please humor me, just this once!):

"Careful! Men answer back!
If you stupidly stare at a man, talk rubbish or touch him, you have to be aware that he might insult you loudly, a glass of beer is emptied over you or you might be hit in the face. We strongly advise you to refrain from this kind of harrassments."

Is this warning less acceptable, more acceptable, or about the same as the one you posted?

Seriously, I want to know. I know men act boorishly, heck I used to be guilty of that myself. Assuming it is therefore acceptable for a woman to smack a man for acting loutish toward her, I'm asking if the opposite is also acceptable: if I'm in a bar, and a drunk idiotic woman starts acting loutish toward me, I should be able to smack her, pour beer on her, etc., right?

Roll your eyes, call me troll, whatever: I really want to know. If you think you've explained it 1 million times before, please understand that I wasn't a member of the audience at that time. Seriously -- I see a double standard here. Please tell me why there isn't one, if you indeed think there isn't one.

Thanks.

Let me put it simply, Scarbo. Women are victims of acts of violence perpetrated by men every minute, they live with the threat of rape and sexual violence. However, I am not aware of any rampant woman-on-man violence. Unless I missed the hordes of rabid hairy-legged lesbians terrifying men all around.
This poster is a joke because men are not usually afraid of female violence. The opposite is NOT true. I hope it was clear enough.

I don't support violence of any kind. BUT I do like this sign -- I'm not taking it literally, but I appreciate its message. I think Scarlet is correct; women are VERY frequently victims of violence and harassment, and in many cases they feel too scared and alone to know what to do. There's a lot to be said for standing up for yourself and saying back, "HEY! That's unacceptable."

So no, I wouldn't smack someone. But I would try to fight back in a productive way.

where do I get one in english? Fuckin' right mood on.

Hi Scarbo. Go to the Feminist 101 blog (finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com), read "Please Read This First," click on the link by #1 (Sent here by feminists?), read that, then go to the FAQ Roundup and read to your heart's delight. I recommend the FAQs about "why do you feminists hate men?" and "aren't feminists just sexists towards men?" You might also want to check out the stuff about defining patriarchy, because your comment sounds like you don't know what that is. Checkitout. (BTW, I'd link you, but my last comment got eaten because I included too many hyperlinks. So I guess you'll have to do a little work to answer your questions. Awww.)

Maybe this is where being an English major comes in handy. Oh, those whacky parallel constructions! Try reading it this way (as it is clearly grammatically structured to be read):

Leering at someone? Watch out, you might be loudly insulted for doing so.

Talking shit to someone, calling her frigid or a dyke because she won't go home with you? Watch out, you might get a pint of lager dumped over your head (though hopefully not good lager, because that stuff should not be wasted... yum!)

Groping or fondling strangers? Watch out, you might get a smack in the mouth.

When you take into account the obviously parallel structure, each one of those reactions is arguably proportionate to the provoking action. It would be proportional whether the party doing the reacting was male or female, but the sign is addressed to men because by and large, they're the ones doing the leering and not the ones telling the leerer to go fuck off.

I just love my liberal arts education.

Nice poster.

Next time a woman annoys me, I'll smack her. Hard.

Great message. I don't see what's to like.

Yes, UCLA, I'm sure you get groped by women all the time. And don't forget the hairy-legged hordes, they're out to get you.

Must be nice to be shielded by all that privilege.

I think this poster is hilarious and awesome. I was going to defend it but Scarlet pretty much summed up my thoughts.

"Groping or fondling strangers? Watch out, you might get a smack in the mouth."

Tbat sounds find to me, especially if it is repeated.

What doesn't make sense to me is celebrating violence against someone who stares at you or annoys you (the first two thinks listed in the poster). Not how I was raised, anyways.

Also note that the highest level of violence mentioned in this poster is "a smack in the face", yet UCLA likens it to "smacking down a woman (hard)".

"Yes, UCLA, I'm sure you get groped by women all the time. And don't forget the hairy-legged hordes, they're out to get you. Must be nice to be shielded by all that privilege."

First off, you have no idea what level of privilige I have because you don't know my personal circumstances.

Second, responding to violence with violence is okay in my book.

Responding to non-violent behavior with violence is not. Which is what the poster supports.

UCLA, the reactions mentioned are, in that order: insulting, pouring a glass of beer over you and slapping you. I think we can safely assume that a stare is met with an insult rather than a slap in the face. Unless you're afraid that you're going to get your arse kicked by all these out of control women.

(kmg's post above makes a lot of sense, but I wrote this before that was up and still think it's worth posting. Also, the image on the poster still focuses on the slap as a response, and shades the reading of the text somewhat.)

I'm referring only to the first paragraph, and the illustration, here—I don't think there's anything particularly controversial in the second.

Arguments why this is acceptable: A "double standards" accusation here is overly simplistic, because it doesn't take into account the prevailing power dynamics in (most) Western cultures. "Laddishness", or whatever you prefer to call an indulgence of harrassment of women on the part of many men, is very present and widely accepted. The notion of women as display pieces is deeply ingrained. The idea that any woman in a public place is "fair game" for unsolicited commentary/critique/sexual propositioning is similarly ingrained. Given such a situation, it makes sense (and is moral) to break other social taboos in order to highlight the fact that these behaviors are, in fact, unacceptable. Hence a slap to make sure nobody thinks it's all "in good fun" makes perfect sense.

Arguments why this is unacceptable: Violence is simply wrong as a response to anything less than actual or threatened violence ("being touched", however, when it's unwanted, seems like it could be a violent act itself, and responding to it as such seems reasonable). Lots of people (including plenty of women) regard eye contact or looks as valid markers of interest, and making an extremely subjective criterion like that (is it that easy to distinguish between various kinds of looks and where they become "stupid stares"?) into a valid reason for a violent response is quite dubious. The same goes for "talking rubbish", although something important may have been lost in translation there. Wouldn't an assertive response of "Stop staring at me" or "Go away" be better, at least as step one, rather than going right to the beer-dumping or face-slapping?

Furthermore, the idea that face-slapping is acceptable when it's a woman hitting a man is tied in to all kinds of other cultural assumptions, many of which appear to be linked to the underpinnings of patriarchy. Nobody in Western cultures would view a man slapping another man in the face as anything other than a violent act that would (very likely) provoke a violent response. That a woman slapping a man is viewed differently is predicated on the idea that women are the "weaker sex", that they are simply unable to challenge a man physically, and (to a lesser but still present extent) that they cannot deliver a challenge to a man's "honor" or "social prestige" in such a way—you're not likely to hear a man called "chicken" by other men after presenting no physical response to a slap from a woman, whereas you would hear that a lot if the slap were from a man.

I don't think that's a trivial consideration, because that poster looks to me as if it's encouraging women to assert their rights while still relying heavily on a whole host of conceptions tied in with sexist constructs of gender. I understand that not everyone would see it that way, that some people do not think equality means that gender is considered irrelevant in violent situations. In addition, presumably some support the poster's sentiment on the grounds that relying on those patriarchal conceptions is just fine, a judo-like turning sexism against itself. If so, I think that still needs to be explicitly recognized and called out, and the dangers of such an approach admitted.

Plenty of food for thought and discussion, which is presumably why it's so controversial.

First off, you have no idea what level of privilige I have because you don't know my personal circumstances.

Well, I think you mentioned in another thread that you are a man. So if you are, you certainly enjoy the privilege of not being fondled by strangers and of not being afraid of sexual violence.

SCARLET: "Also note that the highest level of violence mentioned in this poster is "a smack in the face", yet UCLA likens it to "smacking down a woman (hard)".

Scarlet, notice how I described exactly what the poster displays.

The poster display one person smacking another in the face. I'm going out on a limb and assuming that huge bright red star on the face indicates that the smack is hard.

Hence the reason I described it as smacking hard. Because that's exactly what the poster shows. Clear enough?

UCLA, when was the last time you were threatened or harrassed by a woman?

I thought the red star was to show that it was a smack and not a loving caress.

"UCLA, the reactions mentioned are, in that order: insulting, pouring a glass of beer over you and slapping you. I think we can safely assume that a stare is met with an insult rather than a slap in the face."

That's not how I interpret it. Not as a progression from one to another, but as possible acceptable responses. Especially given the visual representation.

Even if we go with your interpretation, I don't see how being stared at or annoyed merits violent response.

Further, 12% of men in relationships are hit by their partner each year. Usually this is a rare occurrence, but I don't see the benefit in promoting more of it.

I'd like to point everyone back to KMG's post.

It seemed very clear to me upon firsting reading that they're saying if you touch or group someone you may get hit.--not in response to leering or verbal harrasment.

also difference between how something "might" happen and how something "will" happen.

"Well, I think you mentioned in another thread that you are a man. So if you are, you certainly enjoy the privilege of not being fondled by strangers and of not being afraid of sexual violence."

I'd say it's much more complex than that.

First, as a man, obviously I'm more likely to be assaulted.

Second, as a disabled man, my ability to defend myself is somewhat limited, particulary if a serious fight was to break out.

So in those senses, it is in my personal interest to discourage physical violence as an acceptable response

Going the other direction, however, I have quite a large body frame, which can be intimidating and dissuade an assault. In that sense, and the sense that you mention, I am priviliged.

My having that privilege though doesn't change my attitude about violent responses to non-violent threat. As a guy, certainly I have faced situations where someone tuants you or tries to taunt you into a fight. In my opinion, it's best not to respond with violence to those non-violent situations.

That's my opinion.

UCLA, don't tell me you can compare man-on-woman violence to woman-on-man violence. Your statistics don't change anything to the fact that women live in fear of male violence, while the opposite is NOT true. (We're not talking about domestic violence here, but harrassment by strangers. And even in the realm of domestic violence, the tremendous majority of cases concern male on female violence).
The poster is only saying that men shouldn't behave in crass ways because they don't expect women to retaliate (hence the title of the poster "Be careful! Women can defend themselves!").

SCARLET: "The poster is only saying that men shouldn't behave in crass ways because they don't expect women to retaliate (hence the title of the poster "Be careful! Women can defend themselves!")."

Just so we are clear about what I am saying:

A) I do think that a physical response is acceptable when faced with a physical assault (e.g., groping).

B) I do not think that physical response typically is acceptable when faced with a verbal harassment or being stared at.

C) I interpret the poster as advocating both part a and part b.

D) In some extreme situations, I could see a violent assault being appropriate as a response to continued unending up in your face harassment. But certainly not as a typical response.

I want one. Everything sounds more intense in German.

UCLA: You just need to chill out and quit trying to suppress free speech, man.

Who cares if it advocates violence? It's just an opinion. Chill dude, don't try and run all over the constitution.

SCARLET: "UCLA, don't tell me you can compare man-on-woman violence to woman-on-man violence."

I didn't tell you that. I was, in fact, treating them as two separate things (I never mentioned female on male violence).

Obviously female on male violence is much lower and, on average, is less severe. My point is to not encourage more of it.

I think the main issue you and I are having is that we differ over what the poster is saying.

If you think it is saying to respond to groping and other physical invasions with violence, then that seems uncontroversial.

If you think it saying to respond to verbal harrassment with violence, then that seems more controversial to me.

MIRANDAJAY: "UCLA: You just need to chill out and quit trying to suppress free speech, man.

Who cares if it advocates violence? It's just an opinion. Chill dude, don't try and run all over the constitution."

Dude, did I ever say it should be censored or banned?

No, I didn't think so.

UCLA, I'm wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse here. Given three levels of offense, and three levels of response, and you starting a statement "even if we go with your interpretation", why are you matching level three to level one? Her point is that level one matches level one.

Let me spell it out:

"Being stared at" (all of these are bad translations; I'll write my own further down, but even going with these...) = Insulting

"Talk rubbish" = beer poured on you

"touch her" = slapped

These are, in fact, proportional responses even as stated, but it might become clearer with a better translation (I used to live in Germany, though I didn't grow up speaking the language -- if there's a native speaker here who feels improvement is possible, please don't let me slow you down):

Warning! Women defend themselves!

If you leer at, verbally harass, or grab a woman, you need to deal with the fact that you might be loudly insulted, have a glass of beer emptied over you, or get slapped in the face. We therefore strongly recommend that you refrain from these kinds of harassment.

Women, migrants, the homeless, transgender people, gays and lesbians are often victims of assault. Don't look away, confront it!

If you grab a woman, and all she does is slap you in the face, you got off easy. Once you make it clear that you are a physical threat, I wouldn't fault her for bringing her knee up into your crotch as hard as she can.

And yes, before you ask, this goes both ways. If you get cornered by a woman who is (as most men are to most women) substantially larger and stronger than you are (or is otherwise obviously a physical threat), and she starts grabbing you, and you decide to hit her to get clear, I've got no problem with that, either.

But only when you end up with the same threat level that women get to deal with on a regular basis.

UCLA: Miranda was being sarcastic. There was a discussion in "Um, Wow," that provides the context for her comment. She was actually agreeing with you.

I saw these posted in the bathrooms at Oktoberfest in Munich last year. Never have i witnessed women fondled, groped, and sexually harrassed so intensely as during the festival. However many of the people there were really cool about helping women get away from gropers and fondlers which was awesome.

It's a metaphor, guys. Can you please put yourself in our position instead of being so f***ing sensitive about our concerns?

Do you know how it feels to wonder whether the male on the other side of the street is a good guy or a bad guy? That's not man-hating, that's justifiable anxiety. You'd feel the same way if you were us. That doesn't mean we think you're all like that, or even most of you.

Sure, there are bad women, too, but men have a monopoly on violence in our society. And the thing I can't understand is why even the good men don't seem to be with us on this issue. Any time we try to take action to protect women from domestic violence -- action against the BAD guys -- it's always led by womens' advocates. Where are you good guys??? We're your girlfriends, wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, and we're being hurt by this. You ought to be helping us instead of getting bent out of shape over a poster. You help us and we'll embrace you.

So, no, guys, I don't interpet this as advocating some man-hating female-on-INNOCENT male violence. But instead of getting all angry about this, the good men ought to be advocating adding a man's figure next to the woman's -- and having him fight the metaphorical bad guy with us.

Sweet. The next time a woman stupidly stares at me, talks rubbish, or otherwise irritates me I get to dump a beer over her head and hit her in the face? Of course not.

Obviously, this get placed in the "women are children" category as women have tantrums, throw things, and hit people when they are irritated because they are actually little girls without self-control and are not expected to behave like reasonable adults. Brings to mind the wifey trowing pots and pans stereotype.

Thoughts:

This doesn't offend me because 1) I don't identify with leerers or gropers, and 2) the first part is obviously meant to be a silly attention-grabber as opposed to last line, which is the real and nonviolent message.

I do see how it could be interpreted as anti-male rather than anti-harasser, but I'd say that interpretation is overly defensive. Although I'm guessing that most of the people defending it would be quick to take the defensive about a poster showing anything negative happening to a woman...

Analysis: why is it ok to laugh at violence here? Harassment by a male furthers a real societal power imbalance, while responding to and laughing at retaliation lessens the imbalance. That's the idea if I understand correctly, and I agree.

However, there's more to the story. The poster plays on the stereotype that men are abusive to women. "But wait!" you say, "it's true." Most abusers are men, yes, but just because there is some truth to a negative stereotype doesn't make it ok. The point is that negative stereotypes aren't as damaging to white males as they are to others. White males don't get passed over for promotions (etc.) because of stereotypes nearly as often as others, because the people doing the passing over are usually, yeah, white males.

The issue is subtle, and although making snarky comments about guys who honestly see a double standard and want to understand the issue is easier than trying to explain it, it's even harder for us guys to understand the issue from women's perspective when the only input we're given is how much of a tool we are for asking questions.

Sincerely,
Typical male bullshit asshole tool of the patriarchy etc.

"Do you know how it feels to wonder whether the male on the other side of the street is a good guy or a bad guy? That's not man-hating, that's justifiable anxiety. You'd feel the same way if you were us. That doesn't mean we think you're all like that, or even most of you." - MsPitt

This is why I have no qualms about saying that most men don't see women as people. If they did, they would feel empathy for us - especially when it comes to male-on-female violence.

But they don't.

"Being stared at" = Insulting

"Talk rubbish" = beer poured on you

"touch her" = slapped

(1) and (3) are fine. (2) escalates verbal harassment to assault. Not advisable. There is definitely a trope in popular media of female on male violence being okay and amusing. It can be cast at either spectrum, the prissy girly girl slapping an uncouth suitor or the harsh virago pushing around the effete male. Not cool or funny.

That said, the message of the shirt is the final line. It's an important message. Presented overzealously? Maybe a little. Important, nonetheless.

Am I the only one who took the "slap on the face" suggestion as a joke or exaggeration?

In movies and popular culture, it's a common joke to have a woman slap a sexist man. I don't see how this is any different. I doubt the poster is meant literally.

"(2) [Talk rubbish = beer poured on you] escalates verbal harassment to assault."

Johan, do you know what normally happens right after a "rubbish" comment? Probably not, since you're a man. Let me enlighten you: no matter what the woman's verbal response (including silence), often the very next thing from the man is a THREAT OF VIOLENCE. Because the original comment included, by default, an UNSTATED threat of violence. This is the reality that women live with every moment of every day.

Posting this sign levels the playing field, by implying that threat of violence against men, from women.

ed, great post.

Obviously female on male violence is much lower and, on average, is less severe. My point is to not encourage more of it.

And the point of this poster is to discourage the prevalent, socially acceptable and more common form of man-on-woman harassment.
Why you feel the need to cry 'What about the MEN!" about a situation where's it's not even relevant to the poster is baffling.

Why discouraging the most common form of gender-based abuse is just of secondary interest to you, is also telling.

"Posting this sign levels the playing field, by implying that threat of violence against men, from women."

That's rubbish. The assumption here is that the man is non-violent and will NOT react violently as a beer is poured on his head and even after he is struck in the face - both of which are criminal assaults. The other assumption is, that the woman, like impulsive children, are permitted to have violent outbursts and even commit crimes because, after all, they are just little girls.

Probably not, since you're a man. Let me enlighten you: no matter what the woman's verbal response (including silence), often the very next thing from the man is a THREAT OF VIOLENCE.

It seems a little odd that you would assume that, because I'm a man, I don't know how men behave.

Besides that, your comment doesn't address the fact I originally stated -- that escalation is not a good idea. Please ENLIGHTEN me on why escalation is a good idea?

I've been in situations where my personal safety has been threatened and which involved a disparity of force. Violence is the last route I want to travel. If a man grabs a woman's ass, a slap is self defense. If a man makes a rude comment, assaulting him is not self defense, it's escalation.

As I stated originally, I think the ultimate message of the shirt is important and I support it. However, I stand by my analysis of it as a bit overzealous.

I think it kind of depends on the comment. If after I tell him to quit fucking staring at me, he tells me that I'm a cunt that needs a good hate fuck, I think I can throw some water in his face. And if I told a man that he's a worthless excuse for a human being and a total prick and that he deserves to get hate fucked, I would appreciate some ice water (or a cold beer if its the only thing around) to bring me to my senses.

However, if after I tell him to quit staring he just predictably calls me a bitch, then I'll roll my eyes, and tell him he's super classy, and then walk away.

This sign is obviously a warning to men (i.e. anyone who would harass a woman), not a recommendation to women.* Plus, it's probably geared toward the Oktoberfest crowd (which a commenter suggested and I further inferred), which generally has, yano, quite a supply of beer (hence the beer comment).

So I dunno what's got all these other posters' panties in a wad.

*Also a recommendation to bystanders to look out for fellow humans who might be victims of assault.

*adds "bisexual" to the sign just after "gays and lesbians"*

SiF, you're a real treasure. Between the 'tee hees' and rape apologism, you're like the most perfect troll ever.

I don't know. There's 45 replies. Maybe Jessica is the most perfect troll ever.

And what happens if the man retaliates against the slap or the pouring of the beer? Keeping in mind that this is a drunken, insulting lout, who is unlikely to say, "Oh, good one, you got me there!" In the real world, violence tends to escalate, and generally it's the weaker person who gets hurt. In this instance, most likely the woman. Is that something to promote? In that light, I don't find this poster funny.

Violence is not the answer, unless you have absolutely no other choice. It's definitely not the answer to an insult or even a grope, not unless you're the Bionic Woman. Yes, I do understand that this is a warning to men, but the real effect is only going to stir things up. It's a bad idea all round.

JOHAN: "I've been in situations where my personal safety has been threatened and which involved a disparity of force. Violence is the last route I want to travel. If a man grabs a woman's ass, a slap is self defense. If a man makes a rude comment, assaulting him is not self defense, it's escalation."

Exactly.

JOHAN: "As I stated originally, I think the ultimate message of the shirt is important and I support it. However, I stand by my analysis of it as a bit overzealous."

Exactly, again. The ultimate message, that violence against non-heterosexual males must be stopped, is an important one.

The message that violence against heterosexual males is okay, on the other hand, is not a good one.

ZED: "UCLA, I'm wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse here."

lol, what's with the sudden popularity using "deliberately obtuse" as an insult on this board? First MsPitt, now me :-)!

Maybe I was being unintentionally poignant, but definitely not deliberately obtuse.

ZED: "If you grab a woman, and all she does is slap you in the face, you got off easy. Once you make it clear that you are a physical threat, I wouldn't fault her for bringing her knee up into your crotch as hard as she can."

Sooo... as far as I can tell, everyone on the board has agreed with that position, so I'm not following your point.

If we assume that this poster is promoting an eye for eye, that doesn't seem controversial. The translation in the original post, however, suggested otherwise.

KMP: "UCLA: Miranda was being sarcastic."

Good to know, thanks! Go Miranda!

MSPITT: "So, no, guys, I don't interpet this as advocating some man-hating female-on-INNOCENT male violence. But instead of getting all angry about this, the good men ought to be advocating adding a man's figure next to the woman's -- and having him fight the metaphorical bad guy with us."

I think that is a great idea.

JIX: "So I dunno what's got all these other posters' panties in a wad."

My panties got all wadded because I interpreted the poster as saying that violence is okay if someone offends you. Which may or may not be what the poster is actually saying, as people have pointed out. To me, it's sexist rail against male-on-female violence but not against female-on-male violence, even taking into consideration differences in relative rates and severity.

I certainly can see why people who have been continually sexually harassed would feel a rush excitement/glee/power/justification/satisfaction in pummeling asshole number 23 who has harrassed them that night in the face.

As a fantasy, I definitely understand that.

Violence is not the answer, unless you have absolutely no other choice. It's definitely not the answer to an insult or even a grope, not unless you're the Bionic Woman.

I understand what you're saying. However, when some jerk at a bar grabs my breast or my ass, I am not going to just close my eyes and try to edge away. I am going to slap that fucker in the face. I would just shove, but I'm tiny, and that would be ineffectual. You grab my breasts or ass against my will? That's assault, too. Women are treated like this far too often for us to just sit back and take it. If he reacts to my warning slap by grabbing me again or by the arm, I'll knee him so hard, he won't be able to walk for a week.

okay honestly...without getting too far into this...

i know violence isn't okay when its a woman hurting a man, there shouldnt be double standards. but honestly, if a guy fucking grabs me like that, theres a good chance he gets slapped. i'd rather not sit there and giggle, or look frightened and run away. you need to be assertive. this ad isnt advocating senseless violence, it's advocating self-defense.

and is anyone else at least marginally delighted at the fact that the woman-icon has on pants? instead of a skirt, like they always do? lulz.

Two words kept coming to mind as I read the comments from the "ZOMG violence against MENZ!!1!one!" brigade:

Slave revolt.

Specifically, the fear of one, which has caused you to inflate having a drink poured on you to violence-against-women proportions, as if a guy with a beer-soaked shirt is going to feel his heart race every time he sees an unknown woman in the future. As if he's going to quickly look around and judge whether he could outrun her if she decided to douse him, just for the hell of it. As if the guy who gets slapped for grabbing a woman is going to start planning his whole life around the threat of marauding, slap-happy females. As if he's going to have to ask his female friends to walk him home after dark because he's so worried about being loudly insulted the way I am every goddamn day when I walk to class by random men on the street.

You're all so willing to tell us to lock our doors, turn off the lights, dress in burqas and cower in our house-cum-bunkers out of a fear of rape, but when we suggest fighting back against the lesser violations on the sexual violence continuum, against behaviors you all no doubt engage in, all that understanding of how women live their lives around the threat of rape disappears.

Remember your reactions to this poster the next time you want to tell women how we should just carry guns and shoot any would-be rapists. Everyone would totally believe we were acting in self defense, right? You don't believe that we can act in self-defense when it comes to a wayward drink. Why the hell would you believe us when the dude ended up DEAD?

I agree with derrp, the poster who said that men don't see us as human, because if they did, they'd empathize with us on this topic. Clearly, the only person you boys can identify with is the groping, threatening drunken man. So fcuk you.

Shira: Excellent post. And the phrase "marauding slap-happy females" will make me smile until the day I die.

UCLA:

Re: "deliberately obtuse" -- that's a phrase I've used for years when I feel that someone is going out of his way to miss the point. It's not new to the board. Would you prefer "disingenuous"?

Sooo... as far as I can tell, everyone on the board has agreed with that position, so I'm not following your point.

When the word "privilege" is brought up with respect to your comments, it's because you are privileged not to be routinely threatened and sexually harassed when you go out to a bar. The first two elements on the poster (the sexual harassment) are early warning signs of possible impending sexual assault in this context, and the third generally involves battery.

Certain issues of racism aside, when a man walks into a bar, it's highly unlikely that someone is going to try to treat him as helpless property. The point of the poster is to try and bring about that pleasant state of affairs for women.

My panties got all wadded because I interpreted the poster as saying that violence is okay if someone offends you.

When you continue to interpret it as absurdly antisocial even after the analogies are explained to you, you cause people to question whether you have an ulterior motive in pushing your interpretation.

Or are you honestly of the opinion that most of the commenters here are advocating serious injury as a response to being offended?

Perhaps the difficulty is with the definition of the word "violence" in this context. Being slapped is a social response several hundred years old, causes no injury, and is frankly lower on the threat level than being firmly grabbed around the wrist. If you're considering being slapped as "violence" worthy of complete revulsion, you are defining the word in such an extreme way that only hardcore pacifists will probably agree with you.

But otherwise, I have a hard time understanding your persistence.

Y'know ... there are many many guys who have gotten in serious trouble for domestic violence shoving/slapping-type incidents that don't involve injuries and often even women who don't want to press charges. HBO's Chris Albrecht, who lost his job. Red Sox outfielder Wil Cordero. And a lot of less-famous men.

And honestly, I don't have a lot (or really any) of sympathy for these guys. There's really never any excuse for hitting someone, except in self-defense, no matter how provoked you are or how badly they've cheated on you or whatever.

So it's in that kind of context that I find that ad so disturbing. If you want men as allies you need to convince us that you're actually for the issues and are not just going to knee-jerk defend females accused of sexual harassment, domestic violence, or whatever.

Sure, there are bad women, too, but men have a monopoly on violence in our society. And the thing I can't understand is why even the good men don't seem to be with us on this issue.

Umm... seriously? A monopoly? Men are never battered by their spouses? It's kind of mind-boggling to me, honestly, that you'd write something so insensitive Ms. Pitt. David Gest? Ryan Haddon? It really doesn't matter whether these cases make up 33% or .033% of the total - if you want more "good guys" as allies, you need to do more to convince them/us that you're not going to be condoning the issues you're advocating when the alleged assailant is a woman. (Which is how I read this ad, grammatical attempts to explain it notwithstanding).

Also I want to state that I am not "all angry" about this ... just slightly disturbed. And confused why any women would be surprised that men would be disturbed about it, after you've done such a good good job educating us about domestic violence.

Alaric, I thought this had already been addressed pretty well, but I don't think anyone is advocating unprovoked violence. If a man is physically threatening me, I will react in order to defend myself. I'm pretty small, and I'm not going to wait for one breast grab to escalate into his preventing me from leaving, grabbing me by the wrist, or worse. It's about committing violence against men who just talk shit. Some of the insinuated verbal threats (calling me a cunt who deserves to get hate fucked) and all of the grabbing is about a man (not representative of all men) asserting his power and sense of entitlement over me, and I know where that leads. So yeah, I think a quick slap is a good warning shot in reaction to being threatened physically.

And women are the one's disproportionately without power. A man needs to gain my trust and convince me that he is not going to hurt me before I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Systematic domestic violence perpetrated by either women or men is not being defended here. Shira put it pretty nicely. MRA's are all about telling us how the onus is on women to protect themselves from their attackers, but the moment a woman does, apparently she's advocating all violence against all men. That simply isn't true.

If I was out with Mr. KMP and he witnessed someone grabbing me the way women are so often grabbed when ever they go to a crowded public place, he'd consider the grabber lucky if I got to him first and only gave him a quick slap. Mr. KMP (and most of my male friends) would be more likely to want to throw an actual punch.

UCLAbodyimage,

As Zed has stated very clearly, your persistence in pushing the idea that the poster suggests violent responses to non violent encounters is putting a dent in any credible intention you may have.

The poster offers three separate and distinct scenarios. In phrasing and obvious intention, the responses to those scenarios are also distinct and separate.

Does it advocate escalation? In response to escalating harassment, yes. Would you prefer the woman to simply defer, while her harassment increases in both severity and potential violent outcome? I would say that if "rubbish talk" is interpreted by a woman to likely precede a physical attack, it more than likely will. Give her the benefit of intuition and personal awareness. Beer over the head is completely appropriate in those cases as she fears for her safety, and is engaging an aggressive yet appropriate response. That is an underpinning of self defense. You never wait for the response to get worse. If you are met with a physical assault, any response less than the initial assault, is in most cases counterproductive to the goal. That being halting the assault and returning to a safe and fully autonomous stance.

I also have to question the intention in your "female on male violence" comments. Yes, I'm sure it does occur. But when you state "even taking into consideration differences in relative rates and severity", you really are avoiding the central issue. 88% vs. 12%? 95% vs. 5%? We can play percentages all you want, but the imbalance is clear, as well as relevant!

Considering that the majority of sexual violence against men is not female on male, but male on male, the dynamics are simply not comparable. I don't leave my house and consciously consider my personal sexual safety as a gay man. In normal day to day activities and mobility, my lack of concern would be considered appropriate, as men are not being raped with a frequency to even suggest a comparison. Though often, women DO consider things such as mobility and potential threat, as the reality is there is a demonstrated dynamic of physical and sexual oppression by men against women in this culture. To not acknowledge that context doesn't make it go away.

KMA, I think a very small percentage of domestic violence is "unprovoked." Usually it is provoked, often in an argument that gets physical. The point that anti-domestic violence advocates make, I think correctly, is that violence is never acceptable to provocation, no matter how good it would feel. I remember reading this recent story about this guy Allen Steele who was testifying about his marriage to his 14-year-old cousin. Okay, he in deep trouble for that, and rightly so, but one thing he said rung true:

"It hurt really bad," Steed said of [his wife's] affair, dabbing his eyes with a tissue. "I had a weakness flare up when I had a strong desire to get a gun, feeling robbed ... but no, I knew that was wrong so I just left it at that."

You write,
It's about committing violence against men who just talk shit.

Uh... look. If you really feel like you are being verbally threatened and the best way to protect yourself is to escalate things and slap a guy, then I don't think too many people are going to condemn you for it. But that's a pretty complicated message, and that's not what that German ad said. And anyone thinks it's okay to slap a guy just because he's "talking shit" and has insulted you, then you are just as wrong as Christopher Albricht and deserve to be arrested.

AL: "As Zed has stated very clearly, your persistence in pushing the idea that the poster suggests violent responses to non violent encounters is putting a dent in any credible intention you may have."

First off, I've said my *initial* interpretation was that it was advocating escalation. A number of people clearly had that same interpretation, as evidenced from the posts.

Your opinion that it was meant to be a series of parallel reactions seems reasonable too, but obviously that wasn't the only intepretation people had. So please don't pretend that there was some crystal clear interpretation that somehow a number of people missed.

Since I can't read German, I don't see the value in quibbling about what it actually says in German.

Therefore I feel comfortable sticking with my statements: if it promoted escalation, I'm against it, if it didn't, then I'm not. Doesn't that seem pretty straightforward?

Alaric, I apologize, I meant for that to say that it's *not* about committing violence against men who just talk shit.

But, really? You think the vast majority of domestic violence is provoked? I have to assume that means you've never been abused and have never been present when abuse has occurred. There's no way anyone who has experienced that could say that most domestic violence is the result of arguments that have gotten out of hand.

AL: "Yes, I'm sure it does occur. But when you state "even taking into consideration differences in relative rates and severity", you really are avoiding the central issue. 88% vs. 12%? 95% vs. 5%? We can play percentages all you want, but the imbalance is clear, as well as relevant!"

My point was that regardless of the rates and frequency, it is still worthy of condemnation and should be discouraged. I'm assuming you don't really disagree with that.

AL: "Considering that the majority of sexual violence against men is not female on male, but male on male, the dynamics are simply not comparable. I don't leave my house and consciously consider my personal sexual safety as a gay man. In normal day to day activities and mobility, my lack of concern would be considered appropriate, as men are not being raped with a frequency to even suggest a comparison. Though often, women DO consider things such as mobility and potential threat, as the reality is there is a demonstrated dynamic of physical and sexual oppression by men against women in this culture. To not acknowledge that context doesn't make it go away. "

That all makes sense to me.

AL: "Does it advocate escalation? In response to escalating harassment, yes. Would you prefer the woman to simply defer, while her harassment increases in both severity and potential violent outcome? I would say that if "rubbish talk" is interpreted by a woman to likely precede a physical attack, it more than likely will. Give her the benefit of intuition and personal awareness. Beer over the head is completely appropriate in those cases as she fears for her safety, and is engaging an aggressive yet appropriate response. That is an underpinning of self defense. You never wait for the response to get worse. If you are met with a physical assault, any response less than the initial assault, is in most cases counterproductive to the goal. That being halting the assault and returning to a safe and fully autonomous stance."

Okay, I see what you are saying, that makes sense.

If you want men as allies you need to convince us that you're actually for the issues and are not just going to knee-jerk defend females accused of sexual harassment, domestic violence, or whatever.

BINGO!

(And no, that's not a statement of support.)

ZEDL "Re: "deliberately obtuse" -- that's a phrase I've used for years when I feel that someone is going out of his way to miss the point. It's not new to the board. Would you prefer "disingenuous"?"

Stop being deliberately obtuse. I think you can figure out that there are better ways to address a situation where people are genuinely having different interpretations of the same material.

UCLA:

Stop being deliberately obtuse. I think you can figure out that there are better ways to address a situation where people are genuinely having different interpretations of the same material.

If you really want to make the argument that the poster really was designed by sociopaths intent on increasing the amount of disproportionate violent response in the world, you need to have some pretty good evidence lined up. That's a nasty accusation you're going with, there.

"If you're considering being slapped as "violence" worthy of complete revulsion, you are defining the word in such an extreme way that only hardcore pacifists will probably agree with you."

Yes, I absolutely do, whether the person being slapped is male or female. If that somehow makes me a hardcore pacifist to think that a slap is a humiliating and painful form of assault, please, by all means, sign me up as a hardcore hippie.

"Well, that's the issue, isn't it? I'm not currently convinced that this is the case, and that you are in this discussion in good faith; others here are apparently having similar doubts."

Well I was just joking before, but if you really think that than you really are being deliberately obtuse.

It seems as if I misread/misinterpreted the intention of the poster, which strongly colored my response to it and my reading of other peoples comments.

Would you prefer the woman to simply defer, while her harassment increases in both severity and potential violent outcome?

Of course not, and it's nonsensical to attribute that viewpoint to those who are against escalation. There are any number of ways to address the situation that don't involve assaulting the other party. Seek out a third party. Anecdotally, I was in the pit at a Godsmack concert with my mother when she was approached by a fetid and obviously inebriated man. She made a beeline for the nearest security officer and told them there would be an issue if the man didn't stay away from her. They pulled him aside and we never saw him again. This is just one example.

As the brother to a sister who has thrown many a drink, I think it is an act of empowerment in popular culture. How many times have we seen the woman fling the martini into the face of the pompous jerk and then storm off triumphantly? I'm not against empowerment or fighting back. I simply think that escalation serves no party well, whether male or female. Actually, it may serve certain parties well psychically, in the moment at least. It feels good to "set people straight". All that said, it's still not advisable.

I fear one day my sister will toss a drink in some guy's face and he will grab her by the throat and beat her to a bloody pulp(this is the same reason I wouldn't toss a drink, I don't want to get jumped in a parking lot). This does not mean I want her to suffer idly a menacing jackass. Deal with it in a way that doesn't involve initiating a physical altercation.

To imagine holding such a viewpoint would have me likened to a slave master! Glad to know open discourse is encouraged around here.

"If you really want to make the argument that the poster really was designed by sociopaths intent on increasing the amount of disproportionate violent response in the world, you need to have some pretty good evidence lined up. That's a nasty accusation you're going with, there."

Speaking of incorrect interpretations, that is not a correct interpretation of my thought process.

I certainly didn't think the poster was created by sociopaths.

Rather, I assumed it was created by woman who were so pissed off by being routinely verbally harassed and leered at that they decided the only way to combat that and make it stop is with a clear smack down on the next guy who pulls that nonsense. And, that several people on the board felt a connection to that message - similar to the way people might feel a connection to other vigilante justice fantasies.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9681/whataboutthemenvs7.jpg

Thought this thread merited some illustrated bingo-squares.

So, let's talk about double standards here.

I agree that KMG's interpretation of this poster is the most appopriate one, but let's take the "worst" interpretation of this poster, and look at the implications-- If a man leers at a woman [a minor act of aggression] she may respond with a slap to his face [a low-medium act of agression, depending on forced used and the strength of the slapper].

Now let's look at the messages that women are sent every day-- from our well-meaning parents, from concerned friends in email forwards, from paternalistic Guardian columnists: "If you show too much skin/walk alone/come home from work after dark/drink too much alcohol [all completely NON-AGRESSIVE acts] you may end up brutally raped [a MAJOR act of aggression].

So here's the double standard:

Leering=Slap
If a man commits a minor act of inappropriate aggression, he may be punished with an act of low-middling aggression. This is interpreted by many as anti-male.

Short skirt=rape
If a woman does any of a number of completely non-aggressive things, she may be raped. This is considered to be common-sense by the world at large.

I fail to see how the double standard is creating a climate where men have to live in fear of aggressive females.

Some people here obviously didn't understand the sign. Maybe it's a language thing. Let me try to explain.

It says:
If you stupidly stare at a woman, talk trash to her or grope her she might yell insults at you, empty her beer over your head or smack you in the face.

This means:

She will yell insults if you stupidly stare at her.

She will empty her beer over your head if you talk trash.

She will smack you in the face, if you grope her.

It all makes perfect sense.

Just to add another favourable voice, Id say that this doesnt give off the impression women can use violence on men when it isnt necessary. Id say rather that it gives women (and other people) who deal with harassment often, a confidence boost and the message that they dont have to accept it. I think it’s a great poster. Ive never seen or experienced that kind of harassment myself, being a guy, but contrary to what some feminists will think, I can put myself into that position so to speak, and see that its obviously a horrible thing to experience

I was going to write something about the feminist response of “what about teh menz� (however annoying that attitude is) sometimes makes me feel like the problems in my life are meaningless. And not in a good, self-admonishing “oh Im so privileged and lucky arent I!� way. I figured if I did that though, Id be playing right into it. Plus I suppose if I did, I would be a bad “ally� or “supporter� of feminism (or however the fuck feminists would categorise me).

So Ill just leave at thinking the poster is good, and given the circumstances, I think it addresses a bigger problem than an unwarranted (apparently?) slap for a guy harassing a woman (verbally). After all, I believe things people can say to you can be answered just as well with “violence� anyway (a slap wouldn’t normally fall under that category for me).

UCLA: you have no language skills!

Read the poster correctly! It nowhere indicates that a woman will slap a man if he verbally harasses her! Where do you get that from?

Let me repost the translation (I'm german by the way);

It says:
If you stupidly stare at a woman, talk trash to her or grope her she might yell insults at you, empty her beer over your head or smack you in the face.

This means:

She will yell insults if you stupidly stare at her.

She will empty her beer over your head if you talk trash.

She will smack you in the face, if you grope her.

I thought the english language worked similar?!

Kissmypineapple--

Oh yeah, I totally hear what you're saying. In the real world, I'd do the same. But then, I'm 6' and muscular. A drunk guy once walked up to me on the street in Manhattan, in broad daylight, and grabbed my breasts (I have rather nice, large breasts, if I do say so myself.) However, admiring a nice rack does not give anyone the right to grab them. I knocked the guy down, and proceeded to kick the shit out of him, until my friends dragged me off. His friends just laughed. It was an instinctive reaction on my part. However, if it had gone another way, I could have gotten myself and my friends hurt quite badly. What you mean is that you'd react against a man, but you'd expect the people around you to back you up and not let the guy really hurt you, which is a distinct possibility. If it were just the two of you in a dark alley, I bet you wouldn't retaliate like that. That's what I meant in the original post.

One more thing, I think it's perfectly fine the other way around too.
If a woman gropes a man then she deserves to be slapped in the face. And know please, nobody say that that's not right, because the woman is the weaker one. There are tons of women that are stronger than men. Just look at the Oktoberfest waitresses!
One of them just won a beerholding contest against a famous body builder.

Men and Women are supposed to be equal in every case.

I'm also thinking of situations like this: If a neo-nazi woman talks trash to a migrant, then I hope that migrant dumps his beer over her head!

But, really? You think the vast majority of domestic violence is provoked? I have to assume that means you've never been abused and have never been present when abuse has occurred. There's no way anyone who has experienced that could say that most domestic violence is the result of arguments that have gotten out of hand.

I haven't seen any studies, so maybe I shouldn't say "most." But I've certainly been in court on a number of DV cases and most were "provoked" or started with a verbal argument that got physical, yes, absolutely. In my experience, most cases that make it to court are not the classic case of a woman who has been battered for years ... they are in fact arguments that got out of hand. That's still domestic violence.

Zwillingsmama, No. "If you stupidly stare at a woman, talk trash to her or grope her she might yell insults at you, empty her beer over your head or smack you in the face." UCLA is correct: In English, that means a smack in the face is a possible consequence of "stupidly staring" at someone. If you're saying German works differently, then that's good to know.

Beppie, while leering is offensive to some people, it's not violent. You badly mischaracterize the Guardian author's point. He never said that it was justifiable to rape a woman just because she was wearing a short skirt, any more than it is OK to burgalarize someone whose house is left unlocked.

This sort of thing is a slippery slope.

Violence begets violence begets violence... into perpetuity. Someone has to stop the cycle. lm not sure that verbal or visual assaults justify actual physical violence. That sort of provocation as a defence to violence is very open ended and again, is a rather slippery slope.

As a man, l can tell you, that the threat and fear of violence as a man is very real. Not sexual violence, just plain nasty bottle across the head, or piece of wood over the skull or attacked by a bunch of wild-eyed hoods whilst l walk home alone at night, type of violence. Strangely enuff, as a guy, you get used to this reality and learn to deal with it phsychologically, preferably in a way that doesnt initiate a cycle of violence in response to my own insecurities, fears or paranoia.

Men start fights with each other all the time in silly bars and clubs, when ya accidentally bump into another guy, or say the wrong thing that triggers some cry baby's insecure ego. Some pathetic looser will start violence just becasue of how you look at them. l know this forst hand, as l have been told many times that l have an 'evil stare'. l mean, l just look at people and some fellas wanna prove their manhood as compensation for their rank sense of self. l learnt to overcome that, but l resent having to change how l look at the world and the people in it because its full of insecure duffers who need to confront their issues instead of lashing out at the persons upon which they project their hangups. Thats life, flying under the radar has huge advantages l have come to appreciate.

What can ya do. They world is full of trouble making fools who need to be in therapy before they go out into public, lest they stomp on everyone in their midst. l prefer to avoid these types, which unfortunately doesnt leave many decent folk.

l think its very problematic to rationalise the initiation of physical violence. Many people dont respond well to being physically attacked, loose their sense of proportion and reason, become irrational and emotional and then lash out. Next thing they know, they're explaining themselves to police, lawyers and judges. Ah well,thats their problem. The slip lip and a chipped tooth is mine.

The privilege taunt is a curious one too. Expecting to hit a person because of how you feel (fearful, paranoid, insulted, disgusted)... without them reponding in kind is a privilege which goes beyond gender. Thats exactly how pathetically insecure men justify physical violence in response to a look or a word. They think they can lash out and you should take it. Heck, l was at a bbq recently an a cry baby with short man complex attacked me, pinned me to the ground and started choking me, after an afternoon of political wrangling. He's a confused property owning communist who saves whales whilst hunting pigs, so it just too hard not to taunt the guy. Plus he doesnt respond to logic, reason nor intellect to well. Anything beyond a grade 10 level of intellect scares him and he gets all insecure. Hence his propensity to violence. All in all it was pretty funny tho. He's only small and lm not so l just smiled at him whilst he tried to choke me, removed his hand, had a good larf and, not surprisingly, he went at me again. What can l say. l cant help being my non-violent visually and vocally threatening and mocking self in the face this half witted, beligerent agitator. This time he was raging mad, looked like his eyes were gonna pop out of his head, a friend pulled him off and l left. l was however mature enuff to ring him and apologise. Just to soothe the situatio, he's a moron and l have no guilt nor shame for his inability to control his frail ego, low self esteem and wanon projection of insecurities.

In fact l feel nothing but disdain for his type. They are the one, due their violent dispositions who create all the trouble in the world.

Violence is not a way to fix things. Neither is fighting fire with fire, or in this case, with petrol.

Things dont get better by making them worst. It just drives the crap deeper and when it finally surfaces is much worse and much harder to deal with.

Sure, give someone an ear full, but dont advocate violence. And using person fear and isecuroty to rationalise violence looks very bad. Better still, rise above it, dont respond in anyway and let the worlds idiots stew in their own irrelevance. It grieves them deeply to be ignored.

"You badly mischaracterize the Guardian author's point. He never said that it was justifiable to rape a woman just because she was wearing a short skirt,"

You, and all the other 'what about the menz!!' commenters, are equally badly micharacterising the poster-maker's point. Nowhere does the poster claim that any of the listed responses are justifiable. Just as the Guardian writer does, it merely warns that they are possible consequences. Why is that somehow acceptable when the warnings are addressed to women, but unacceptable when the warnings are addressed to men?

Ash, what are trying to say? That women should just let men grope them and not respond and walk away?
Sadly that's the way it goes most of the time.

I have been groped in clubs or bars several times and I have always answered that kind of behavior with a slap in the face. Men don't seem to expect this sort of response because they usually look frightened, never has anyone tried to slap me back. But maybe I'm just lucky? Anyway, I would always stand up for myself in this way, I don't see why I should just shrug it off and turn away??!

It's already bad as it is, women seem to tolerate verbal and physical harassment by men way too often. They need to learn how to defend themselves and to take action and not be shy about it! This poster is excellent.

As someone posted earlier, the poster was seen at the Oktoberfest.
I haven't seen it there yet but that's exactly where it belongs!
If people here have witnessed all the sexual harassment that goes on there I'm sure they wouldn't be so opposed to this poster anymore!

Leering may not be violent in a physical contact sense, but it IS a form of aggression-- it's an attempt to intimidate an individual into a weaker subject position.

And I did not mischaracterise the Guardian article at all. The author is saying that women should take care to consider that being raped may be the consequence of being drunk/wearing a short skirt/going out at night etc: basically, it's saying that for women, being "responsible" means passively having our behaviour limited on the basis of our gender, while not thinking too much about the agential role that the actual RAPIST plays in a rape. I don't accept his arguments, of course, but if that WAS the case (you seem to agree with him anyway) then why is it so bad that men have to accept that there may be consequences for leering at women (not to mention verbally and physically harrassing women)? At least the leering many is actually doing something wrong.

And again, I have to stress, that I agree with those who have said that the most appropriate reading of this poster is that the appropriate response to a leer is to laugh at the guy. I'm just pointing out that if the worst a leering lad faces as a consequence of his actions is a slap, given that women are constantly told that we face rape as a consequence of totally non-aggressive actions.

Just to make a further comment on the Guardian article-- Cox makes the tired and offensive old point that women should avoid miniskirts and alcohol because people lock up their belongings to protect against theft. But people do other things too-- they put up signs like "This place is electronically protected by an alarm," "Beware the dog" and "Armed guards patrol these premises". I don't see anyone arguing that these are anti-burglar, a sign that property owners are attempting to oppress thieves by using these signs. How is that any different from letting a man know that if he treats a woman disrespectfully, he will face consequences, the WORST of which is a slap? It seems like being "responsible" is only acceptable for women if we take the passive route.

"I fear one day my sister will toss a drink in some guy's face and he will grab her by the throat and beat her to a bloody pulp(this is the same reason I wouldn't toss a drink, I don't want to get jumped in a parking lot). This does not mean I want her to suffer idly a menacing jackass. Deal with it in a way that doesn't involve initiating a physical altercation.

To imagine holding such a viewpoint would have me likened to a slave master! Glad to know open discourse is encouraged around here." [Johan Botemill].

"What you mean is that you'd react against a man, but you'd expect the people around you to back you up and not let the guy really hurt you, which is a distinct possibility. If it were just the two of you in a dark alley, I bet you wouldn't retaliate like that. That's what I meant in the original post." [BluePencils]

I agree with both of these posters.

Speaking as someone who has had a very long interest in martial arts and its philosophy, I would have to say that at no point should one be the first to begin violence. Speaking as a man in a world where violence to men is usually done by other men, I feel that there is more similarity in the dynamics than most people seem to think. This is ESPECIALLY the case when the person who starts the violence INTENDS to harm.

Someone earlier mentioned that men wouldn't get jeered by other men if he didn't retaliate a woman who slapped him across the face (for whatever he did to deserve it).

However, this is dangerous, as it relies on the assumption that the man actually has some sense of morality in not hitting somebody, who is, on average, weaker than himself. The question then needs to be asked is: what happens if the guy that was slapped had no reservations about hitting back and seriously hurting the woman. As mentioned by Johan, what if the next guy the woman slaps happens to retaliate back and turn her into a bloody pulp? When a man (or woman) is enraged, adrenalin flows through the body, and if he REALLY intend to do you harm, a kick in the testicles will have hardly any effect, as adrenaline staves off the effects of pain momentarily. Sure, a kick to the groin will stop some lame ass jerk who's harrassing you at the bar, but against someone who intends to really pound you to bits, its going to do jack squat.

Someone questions my sexuality, I say I'm an eunuch and leave. Someone calls my mother or sister a whore, I say I am one too and leave. If I see a dark street that is a shorter distance to my homne, and a lighted one which takes twice as long, I take the longer route.

I'm also Asian by the way, so I get thrown with frequent racist insults. People call me a chink and make slanty eye jokes and tell me to go back to my own country while shouting and jeering at me, I say I speak no English and leave.

Some may see this as a form of cowardice; I just see this as a matter of self preservation. Also, while I do believe in not beginning violence, one should always be alert for it. If someone attacks you first, then forget the law and do whatever you have to do to survive and get yourself out of the situation.

You know what, I absolutely can't believe that we're still having this stupid "What about the mens!" conversation. Stop nitpicking, everyone knows what this poster is really about, everyone knows it's not advocating unjustified violence against anyone. So shut it.