Suppose a woman is seirously attacking a man (for example, she's hitting him with a baseball bat, or she's grabbing his private parts and won't let go, or she's trying to bite a chunk out of him, etc. Why isn't it ok for a man to hit her back to prevent serious injury to himself? If he doesn't, he (an innocent man) gets seriously injured. If he does, a violent woman (who chose to seriously attack the man) gets hit. Why is the former option better than the latter?
Personally, I think it's better for the violent woman to get hit than it is for the innocent man to be injured, since the man didn't attack anyone and doesn't deserve to be hurt.
For the women who believe the man has no right to hit back, how can you demand that he not protect himself? If a man was attacking you, wouldn't you have the right to fight back to stop the man's attack? Why isn't it OK for a man to do the same thing if it's necessary?
2006-09-17
18:48:25
·
23 answers
·
asked by
john
3