The Myth of Gender Equality in Physical Altercations

The concept of gender equality often overlooks the role of physical altercations, either initiated or responded to, in real-world interactions. This article explores the blurred lines between chivalry and equality, examining the unrealistic expectations placed on women and the practical considerations faced by men.

Unrealistic Expectations: Women in Physical Altercations

Any woman who thinks she can hit a man and expect no reciprocation is gravely mistaken. The expectation that women can assault men without facing consequences is a form of delusion. It ignores the harsh reality that some men may respond legally or physically, especially if they discover a woman has a firearm or is trained in martial arts.

Chivalry, often cited as a virtue in the age of gender equality, becomes a contradiction. Those who claim to be equal often demand that men adhere to a higher moral standard while failing to meet those same expectations themselves. This double standard can lead to women being treated unfairly, even when they provoke such reactions from men.

Men's Reactions to Physical Provocation

Men do not refrain from hitting women due to a sense of moral righteousness; they do so for practical reasons. They may avoid hitting women because:

The women they hit could have weapons or be capable fighters, posing a danger. They do not wish to get into legal trouble. Their relationship to the woman makes violence an unacceptable way to resolve conflict.

Personal anecdotes, such as the author’s experience with his wife, illustrate that even in highly aggressive circumstances, not all men resort to violence. However, the thought of violence against an unprovoked woman is a very real and urgent one for many men. It underscores the need for mutual respect and understanding in such scenarios.

Misunderstandings and Hypothetical Scenarios

The article presents a series of hypothetical scenarios where a man imagines his reactions if he were ever to be attacked. This exaggerates typical responses to illustrate a point: men (and women) tend to escalate in the face of unprovoked aggression, emphasizing the importance of preventing such situations in the first place.

The article also touches on the idea that men not hitting women is more about common sense rather than a higher moral standard. Women often provoke men into hitting them, knowing the consequences can greatly favor them. This manipulation can lead to the assumption that men are cowards, especially if they do not retaliate, whereas the reality is that they are avoiding potential legal and physical harm.

Ethical and Practical Considerations

Equity in interactions does not require one party to sacrifice personal safety, legal rights, or moral integrity. The author argues that not hitting a woman when she hits first is not a moral choice but a practical one. Moral righteousness in such cases would involve actively discouraging future aggression, whether through dialogue or more forceful means.

The article concludes that society’s treatment of women does not adequately reflect their contributions to society. The expectation of women to be controlled and subservient reflects a double standard that diminishes their perceived value and equality.

In conclusion, the argument presented here highlights the complexities of gender equality in real-life interactions, acknowledging both practical and ethical considerations.