Hitting a woman cannot be considered morally worse than hitting a man

[African_Love]

I think this attitude is superstitious and outdated. I'm not saying that it isn't very wrong (for a man) to hit a woman, I just don't see why it should be considered morally worse for a man to hit a woman than to hit another man. The common argument against gender equality (on this issue) is that most men are stronger than most women. 1) This may be true, but it cannot be considered morally wrong for an unusually weak man to hit an unusually strong women because most of the other members of his group are stronger than most of the other members of her group. Individuals are not anonymous statistics, they should be judged on their own individual merit. 2) Hitting anyone is only morally wrong because doing so will cause that person stress, men are no more or less capable of stress than women are so they deserve no more or less consideration than women do. The fact that the average man is more capable of defending himself from another man than the average woman is is irrelevant to the stress that they will feel if hit and a man's intention to cause someone stress cannot be considered any less wrong because most other men are more capable of preventing them from doing so. The only rationalization for this attitude would be if women (and this would apply to anyone in any specific scenario who had a lower threshold for pain than their attacker or most people) were more emotionally vulnerable and sensitive to stress than men are. For this reason, I think it's worse to hit a child than to hit an adult, not because children deserve more consideration but because they can more easily be harmed. Even then, given the option of hitting a child and causing them 5 points of stress versus hitting an adult and causing them 10 points of stress, it would be worse to hit the adult.

[Silas Thorne]

I agree with the line you started this thread with, in general.
However,
You said: 'Hitting anyone is only morally wrong because doing so will cause that person stress'. I think this is a very limited perspective. Hitting ANYONE (yes) is morally wrong because it can cause stress, yes. It can also cause violence to escalate, affect other peoples' quality of life- it could also, quite easily, kill someone. That's why most martial arts that train people to defend themselves usually stress that violence is a last resort, only to be used when they have no other choice, and that the level of violence must be justified in the circumstances and carefully controlled.
As I want to have some lunch, I won't take up that point you made about children 'not being worthy of more consideration' than adults yet, or in your notion of 'points', which I see as rather distasteful.

[OrphanPip]

I think the point is moot.

People understand implicitly that the reason we say it is wrong for a man to hit a woman is because in the vast majority of cases a man will be much stronger than a woman, not because we think it is a universal truth. Not to mention the historical implications of women being economically dependent on their abusers.

Not that it is ever right to hit anyone for a reason other than self-defense or the defense of others.

[Virgil]

I agree with O-P. It is never morally right to hit anyone except for self defense and perhaps some weird situation that I can't think of but might require aggression, like stopping a robbery or something. And it's not because it causes stress. Come on. There are disagreements every day and they cause stress. Stress is part of life. The reason violence is morally wrong is because it causes damage and harm to another person.

[Lokasenna]

Boxing, anyone?

But on a serious note, I'm not sure you know. For me, the idea of striking a man is much easier to countenance than striking a woman. I've been placed in positions before where I have had to deal with both male and female aggressors, and while confronted by an aggressive male my instinct has been to fight back, while with a female I've either just taken the abuse or else run away; I cannot bring myself to strike a woman.

Furthermore, the law is very much biased to the woman's side of things. A friend of a friend of mine went through hell for years with his wife, who was a raging alcoholic and used to violently beat her husband; whenever the police where summoned, they were instantly on her side, and it took months of visits for them to be convinced that he was the victim of abuse, not the other way around.

Ah well, who knows... :boxing_smiley:

[FaederStole]

I've been struck in the face numerous times and have experienced situations of the other party expressing high aggression towards me and the state of my person.

Regardless of the sex of the other party in any of these situations, I never felt a consequent need to strike them. Then again, I've had advantages of both physical strength, and better awareness of the situation. That coupled with speed has always kept me distanced from any true conflict.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

This is really simple:

Rule one: Nobody has the right to strike me.
Rule two: If anyone does, I will defend myself by using as much violence as it takes, regardless of whom the attacker may be.

I have never started a fight in my life, and have no intention of ever doing so. I have, however been forced to defend myself several times during my fifty years. On most of those occasions I have been able to duck and/or get out the attackers reach (as per FaederStole's very good advice), but not every time: On a few of those occasions this proved impossible, and on two of them things turned so ugly that I had to apply rule two very thoroughly indeed. I am not proud of that, but if you have no alternative...

/Claes

[The Comedian]

Interesting point -- seems mostly based on the physical act of hitting and of the physical/emotional feelings of receiving the hit. That's fine. But I still disagree with the conclusion.

I think it's morally worse for a man to hit a woman than another man. And I'll not offer a complicated justification -- under the conditions that the act of hitting itself is wrong (i.e. not self-defense. . .et al). To me it's a gut feeling.

Example A: I see some dude hitting a woman.

Example B: I see some dude hitting a man.

Both of these guys are doin' wrong. But I ask myself these questions: "who's the bigger coward? Who has the least honor?" And to me, it's the guy behind example A.

[Ecurb]

How about hitting ON a woman? Is that OK?

[MSDGreen]

I don't think this can be divided simply down the gender line. Instead of a Male v Female, look at it as the physically strong vs the physically weak. I believe that most would agree that the average male would be physically stronger than the average female. This strong v weak would also apply to children. It is safe to say that a 10 year old would normally be weaker than a grown man/woman, thus making a larger moral discrepency for a grown man to hit a child, than it would be for two "average" 10 year olds getting into a fistfight. Sure, it is, in most circumstances, morally wrong to use violence to solve your problems, but that does not mean that in order to be morally right one must abstain from violence entirely.

[Cat Square]

What MSDGreen said.

I believe it's morally wrong to knowingly use any obvious advantage against someone who has a corresponding disadvantage.

This applies to:
the rich bullying the poor
the knowledgeable bullying the ignorant
the strong bullying the weak
and so on.

[JuniperWoolf]

Yeah, it's a bit weird to talk about physical violence from an emotional point of view. It's physical violence, stress really has nothing to do with it. On average in humans, women are a lot smaller than men. You get the odd woman who's stronger than the average man and the odd man who's weaker than the average woman, but it doesn't happen as often as the alternative. So, because most times a woman is smaller than a man and hitting someone who's smaller than you could damage their body a lot, in general that means that when a man hits a woman it will cause a lot of damage. The idea that a man hitting a woman is wrong isn't based on sexist or cultural ideas, it's based on reality.


Rule one: Nobody has the right to strike me.
Rule two: If anyone does, I will defend myself by using as much violence as it takes, regardless of whom the attacker may be.

Even if the hypothetical woman who hits you is like, 90 pounds and will barely leave a bruise whereas your retaliation could potentially dislocate a limb (she's fragile, remember?). In those circumstances if I were you, I'd just take it.

[BienvenuJDC]

This is really simple:

Rule one: Nobody has the right to strike me.
Rule two: If anyone does, I will defend myself by using as much violence as it takes, regardless of whom the attacker may be.

I have never started a fight in my life, and have no intention of ever doing so. I have, however been forced to defend myself several times during my fifty years. On most of those occasions I have been able to duck and/or get out the attackers reach (as per FaederStole's very good advice), but not every time: On a few of those occasions this proved impossible, and on two of them things turned so ugly that I had to apply rule two very thoroughly indeed. I am not proud of that, but if you have no alternative...

/Claes

I totally agree. That doesn't mean that you have to hurt someone to defend yourself, but if that "90 pound" woman that was mentioned decides to use a weapon (even if it is a a pencil), then it may take a physical action to remove the threat. That doesn't mean that you have to put her in the hospital. I can't stand it when people over exaggerate the conditions of a comment.

[JuniperWoolf]

I totally agree. That doesn't mean that you have to hurt someone to defend yourself, but if that "90 pound" woman that was mentioned decides to use a weapon (even if it is a a pencil), then it may take a physical action to remove the threat. That doesn't mean that you have to put her in the hospital. I can't stand it when people over exaggerate the conditions of a comment.

Hypothetical Woman isn't using a weapon. And she's a grandma. With emphysema.

Claes did say if anyone struck him and he had no way to get away (he and Hypothetical Woman are driving in the car), he'd use violence.

And really, is my example so mindblowingly unlikely? 'Cause I can think of others where I would rather sit there and get hit than retaliate, if you want me to.

[Delta40]

Furthermore, the law is very much biased to the woman's side of things. A friend of a friend of mine went through hell for years with his wife, who was a raging alcoholic and used to violently beat her husband; whenever the police where summoned, they were instantly on her side, and it took months of visits for them to be convinced that he was the victim of abuse, not the other way around.

Ah well, who knows... :boxing_smiley:


I agree that the law is often on the females side but the irony is that men who choose to remain in such relationships for whatever reason, are lauded by society. What a sacrifice the guy has made compared to the abused woman who is constantly asked 'why don't you just leave?'

[ClaesGefvenberg]

I rather expected a bit of debate when I wrote that :ihih: Ok, here goes:
Even if the hypothetical woman who hits you is like, 90 pounds and will barely leave a bruise whereas your retaliation could potentially dislocate a limb (she's fragile, remember?). In those circumstances if I were you, I'd just take it.Nope... :hand: I would not take it, but it should be noted that I said "using as much violence as it takes", which in this example would mean nowhere near dislocating anything. It could mean deflecting a blow, for instance.


I totally agree. That doesn't mean that you have to hurt someone to defend yourself, but if that "90 pound" woman that was mentioned decides to use a weapon (even if it is a a pencil), then it may take a physical action to remove the threat. That doesn't mean that you have to put her in the hospital.Precisely what I meant. "using as much violence as it takes" should also be interpreted as "no more than it takes", which as it happens is exactly the intent of the law regarding self defence around here: One single blow more than strictly necessary to fend an attacker off, and you will find yourself in court. The problem is of course to be able to draw that line in the heat of the moment.


And really, is my example so mindblowingly unlikely? 'Cause I can think of others where I would rather sit there and get hit than retaliate, if you want me to.Retaliate? But that was not the word I used, was it? There is a world of a difference between retaliation and defending yourself.

For the record: I am a devoted pacifist, but I will defend myself when necessary.

/Claes

[African_Love]

It's physical violence, stress really has nothing to do with it.

In my view, 'violence' is any act of aggression intended to harm another and I define 'harm' in emotional terms. What we think of as 'physical pain' is just an emotional reaction to physical injury. I make no moral distinction between causing someone 'mental' stress and causing them 'physical' stress, 'stress' is any aversive or unpleasant experience.

[Virgil]

In my view, 'violence' is any act of aggression intended to harm another and I define 'harm' in emotional terms. What we think of as 'physical pain' is just an emotional reaction to physical injury. I make no moral distinction between causing someone 'mental' stress and causing them 'physical' stress, 'stress' is any aversive or unpleasant experience.

Oh really. Break a few bones and tell me that is still the case.

[African_Love]

Oh really. Break a few bones and tell me that is still the case.

I don't understand. Wouldn't breaking a few bones make me very sad?

[OrphanPip]

I don't understand. Wouldn't breaking a few bones make me very sad?

Nonsense, emotional responses are as is immeasurable and entirely subjective. We can see the damage physical hurt causes, we can see how broken bones can cause life long damage, and we can see how head injuries can often result in lifelong damage or even death.

[billl]

I (like a lot of people) actually like to feel some pain in my muscles the day after a workout.

[Emil Miller]

I ( like the majority of people ) do not like to feel pain anywhere and at any time. That doesn't mean not being prepared to inflict it if the occasion warrants it.

[keilj]

How about hitting ON a woman? Is that OK?

"Are you from Tennessee??"


"Are you from Tennessee??"


"'Cause you're the only ten I see"

[oshima]

The Immortal words of the great sage Chris Rock:

"I would never ever hit a woman, but I'd shake the **** out of one."

There it people, if you HAVE to defend yourself from a woman, place both hand firmly on her shoulders and commence the shaking.

[Fat Mike]

The answer is very simple. *****slap. That's why it was invented so men could defend them against women without causing too much harm and committing a morally reprehensible act.

[Seasider]

As has been said in most cases women are not as strong or as aggressive as men so, unarmed, they rarely pose a physical threat.
The man who chooses only to hit women or men who are weaker than he is, is a coward.
Usually men fight with the women they are in relationships with. Not in self defence, but because of loss of self control. So they are doubly flawed, by cowardice and the inability to control themselves. If the law is on the woman's side and I very much doubt that, it is to give her the protection that she cannot provide for herself.

[Red5]

you are right.

[keilj]

Not in self defence, but because of loss of self control. So they are doubly flawed, by cowardice and the inability to control themselves.

women can say some cruel, cruel, cruel sh*t. Some women are experts at heartlessly assaulting men with words


I'd never hit a woman - but if you want to post comments delving out stuff about "flaws" and "cowardice" - be sure to tell both sides of the story

[Seasider]

women can say some cruel, cruel, cruel sh*t. Some women are experts at heartlessly assaulting men with words


I'd never hit a woman - but if you want to post comments delving out stuff about "flaws" and "cowardice" - be sure to tell both sides of the story
Then assault them with words in your turn.
Of people in intimate relationships killed by their partners in UK, 3/4 are women. That's both sides of the story.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to why this topic appears in a thread dedicated to philosophical literature.

[Ecurb]

I once hit a woman with whom I was in a relationship.

I was three years old, and the relationship was "mother - son". I believe seasider is correct that I suffered from an "inability to control (myself)", perhaps more accurately described as a "temper tantrum".

[keilj]

Then assault them with words in your turn.

so first you were railing against reprehensible actions, and now you are condoning other reprehensible actions. What a joke

[Seasider]

so first you were railing against reprehensible actions, and now you are condoning other reprehensible actions. What a joke
Railing is not my style. Neither is ignoring the argument and attacking the person. That's called ad hominem, ironically.

@ecurb 3 year olds are allowed temper tantrums. Adults usually put away childish things.

[keilj]

Railing is not my style. Neither is ignoring the argument and attacking the person. That's called ad hominem, ironically.

@ecurb 3 year olds are allowed temper tantrums. Adults usually put away childish things.

way to completely skip commenting on the fact that you condone some f*cked behavior while rebuking other f*cked behavior. I'm consistent - verbal abuse and physical abuse are both wrong

[Seasider]

I find your tone abusive. Swearing, in my opinion, is one of the first signs of losing control.

[Fat Mike]

I think the physical differences between men and women are pretty much irrelevant concerning violence. Hitting a stronger person than yourself isn't a bit more just than hitting a weaker one. I mean, I'm sure I can beat someone in the right circumstences who is 10 times stronger than me, but it doesn't make it right, does it? I think the crucial point is the cause and reason for hurting someone.

[The Comedian]

I think the physical differences between men and women are pretty much irrelevant concerning violence. Hitting a stronger person than yourself isn't a bit more just than hitting a weaker one. I mean, I'm sure I can beat someone in the right circumstences who is 10 times stronger than me, but it doesn't make it right, does it? I think the crucial point is the cause and reason for hurting someone.

To a degree sure. . .but hitting someone physically weaker than you, or at least someone that you think that you can hurt more than she can hurt you, suggests far more strongly of a moral weakness on your part, in this instance.

Sure while physical violence on the undeserving is corrupt regardless of situation, the players involved can color the tone, elevate or reduce the tenor of the situation, don't you think?

[Fat Mike]

Sure while physical violence on the undeserving is corrupt regardless of situation, the players involved can color the tone, elevate or reduce the tenor of the situation, don't you think?

Yes, of course. But then what matters is the use of necessary violence. I agree that you can cause a lot more harm to a weaker person which in turn is a more reprehensible action, but only because of the bigger amount of pain recieved, not because they were weaker.

So if we put it in context: Let's say you give a tiny little girl a slap on her face. And later you face a lot stronger and bigger girl, probably stronger than you, and you resort to more violence to be able to cause the same amount of pain as for the weaker girl. Both are innocent, you just felt for hitting someone. So what is the difference? Is it morally more defensible to hit a stronger person because you give them a fair chance to self-defence? What I'm trying to prove is that there is no intrinsically wrong, as you put it, in hitting weaker persons. Maybe we can argue about honor and idiotic stuff like that, but what does honor have to do with ethics?

[Emadattely]

First , Women are not more or less stronger than Men ..
Second , I think this question is basically wrong !
cuz before being men and women , we are Human beings and no one has the right to hit anyone , unless the latter hits him .

you know , this whole issue came out from the narrow perspective by which we look and see eachother .. we don't understand eachother , and look to eachother as enemies and everyone tries to reach 'Power' regardless of the rights of the other party .
We should clean our minds and our hearts and think of everyone on this planet as of a brother or sister .

[Ecurb]

"No mas" -- Roberto Duran.

[The Comedian]

Yes, of course. But then what matters is the use of necessary violence. I agree that you can cause a lot more harm to a weaker person which in turn is a more reprehensible action, but only because of the bigger amount of pain recieved, not because they were weaker.

So if we put it in context: Let's say you give a tiny little girl a slap on her face. And later you face a lot stronger and bigger girl, probably stronger than you, and you resort to more violence to be able to cause the same amount of pain as for the weaker girl. Both are innocent, you just felt for hitting someone. So what is the difference? Is it morally more defensible to hit a stronger person because you give them a fair chance to self-defence? What I'm trying to prove is that there is no intrinsically wrong, as you put it, in hitting weaker persons. Maybe we can argue about honor and idiotic stuff like that, but what does honor have to do with ethics?

I'm not saying it matters if they are or aren't weak. . .the moral problem is hitting someone whom we simply think is weaker than us.

As I noted hitting an innocent is morally bad, regardless of gender. But morality, for me at least, is not an either/or code. Immoral actions can be mild to severe.


Hitting an innocent = bad

Hitting an innocent, whom the hitter thinks to be weaker than himself = bad bad.

And if you don't want to talk about honor, that's fine. Personally, I think honor has a lot to do with ethics and character. But, you are right, such a discussion here would get the conversation off its stated topic.

[Seasider]

Maybe we can argue about honor and idiotic stuff like that, but what does honor have to do with ethics?
Codes of Honour, such as were practised by, for example, Samurai Warriors, Mediaeval Knights etc. were the ethical systems practised by members of these groups. Unlike modern legal systems they were upheld by the conscience of the individuals concerned. The punishment for a breach was to be stripped of membership and held in contempt by everyone who knew about it. It was concerned with reputation, both of the individual and the group..

Honour codes can be corrupted and, sorry to harp on about women, but there are many cultures who see women as responsible for the honour of the family.If she steps out of line by disobedience or other breaches of family rules, she may be punished even as far as death. This, in my view, corrupt Honour Code says that the disobedient woman's behaviour brought dishonour on the Family, but that of her killers did not.A clear case of,so called, Honour trumping Ethics.

[mike thomas]

Its is no worse to stand on a mouse than shoot a lion, its just that a pure **** coward would choose either.

[pravdaveritas]

I think that this has to deal with the traditional view that men don't hurt their wives, as well as chivalry(the strong protect the weak). We see several shows nowadays that portray men hurting their girlfriends & wives to feel superior, which makes us mad at the man.


Individuals are not anonymous statistics, they should be judged on their own individual merit.

Very nice point, African_Love.


How about hitting ON a woman? Is that OK?

NO. Men are to respect women!!!:mad:

[Cunninglinguist]

What if I say it is so wrong, I hold a loaded gun to your head, and will pull the trigger if you do not affirm my contention?

[Sancho]

I hold a loaded gun to your head, and will pull the trigger if you do not affirm my contention?

Hmm, I’d probably go along with you.

I once had a dog who could be devastated by a harsh look. I had another dog who couldn’t be hurt with a two-by-four. (I just made that up. I’d never beat a dog with a two-by-four, or with anything else for that matter.)

Here’s a lousy joke:
A sadist meets a masochist on the street. The masochist falls to his knees and says, “Beat me! Oh, please, please, please – beat me.”
The sadist says, “Heh-heh-heh…No.”

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait . . . . wait. Men aren't supposed to hit women?

[Derwind]

I think if any human being assaults me, I'll defend myself. The last thing I'd ever want to do to another human being is put them in a hospital regardless of gender or genetic makeup.

The idea that men shouldn't hit women is right but it shouldn't end there. Men shouldn't hit other men, children, seniors...ect...

And vice versa, women shouldn't do the same.

I agree, there is a lack of parity when it comes to this issue but I certainly hope this changes in the future.

Though, I understand the sensitivity of the issue, I mean it wasn't more than 60 years ago that men hit women without regard or any punishment. Its quite sad to think about all the misogyny that was rampant back than. :(

[Sulla]

What about the weird class of people who enjoy being hit?

Have you ever met a couple, that is abusive, and they LIKE it?

I don't believe in gender equality. We're not the same. Women are better at some things (like being hit) and men are better at others (like doing the hitting). No, I'm just kidding. But I seriously don't believe in gender equality. I agree with some of the basic notions, like that men and women should be paid and treated in generally the same way. Other aspects don't hold up though. Gender isn't equal. That's not to say one is better or worse, it's just not equal.

[Dark Muse]

I used to get into arguments with a friend of mine in high school about this issue, because he was someone that believed a man should never hit a woman in any circumstances (including self-defense) so he believed that even if a woman were to violently assault a man for no good reason or if a woman were to try and start a physical fight with a man and throw the first punch, the man should not strike back.

I would tell him that personally I found that insulting, and sexist, because I am not a double standards kind of person, I believe in equality across the board. If a man has the right to defend him against another man, and if the woman has the right to defend herself against a man, or against a woman, than a man should have the right to defend himself against a woman.

I do not agree with this idea if there was an instance in which a guy was acting like a total jerk, and so another guy hits him, most people would applaud it.

But if a woman were acting like a total (you know what) and a man slapped her, everyone (or most people) would act like he was this horrible awful person.

On that same note it should be viewed as being just as horrific if a man were to be abused either by another man or by a woman, as it is when a woman is abused by a man.

While domestic violence against men is not as prevalent as domestic violence against women, there is this tendency to take domestic violence against a man less seriously than domestic violence against women. Men are made to feel ashamed of it and in fact to actually be laughed at in some instances if they say they are physically abused by their wife/girlfriend.

[jocky]

I used to get into arguments with a friend of mine in high school about this issue, because he was someone that believed a man should never hit a woman in any circumstances (including self-defense) so he believed that even if a woman were to violently assault a man for no good reason or if a woman were to try and start a physical fight with a man and throw the first punch, the man should not strike back.

I would tell him that personally I found that insulting, and sexist, because I am not a double standards kind of person, I believe in equality across the board. If a man has the right to defend him against another man, and if the woman has the right to defend herself against a man, or against a woman, than a man should have the right to defend himself against a woman.

I do not agree with this idea if there was an instance in which a guy was acting like a total jerk, and so another guy hits him, most people would applaud it.

But if a woman were acting like a total (you know what) and a man slapped her, everyone (or most people) would act like he was this horrible awful person.

On that same note it should be viewed as being just as horrific if a man were to be abused either by another man or by a woman, as it is when a woman is abused by a man.

While domestic violence against men is not as prevalent as domestic violence against women, there is this tendency to take domestic violence against a man less seriously than domestic violence against women. Men are made to feel ashamed of it and in fact to actually be laughed at in some instances if they say they are physically abused by their wife/girlfriend.

Mrs Jocky would probably beat me up if she heard this. :biggrin5: We actually live in a culture of domestic violence. However, as this is the literature thread it is maybe best to consider it in these terms. The best example I could give is ' The Great Gatsby ' Tom is quite happy to give his girlfriend a slap and this seems to be acceptable as of all the reviews I have read the critics rarely give it a mention . My point being that great literature reflects a reality. What we may consider to be horrific is a fact of life for thousands of ordinary people. Solution, I havn't got a clue.

[Delta40]

While domestic violence against men is not as prevalent as domestic violence against women, there is this tendency to take domestic violence against a man less seriously than domestic violence against women. Men are made to feel ashamed of it and in fact to actually be laughed at in some instances if they say they are physically abused by their wife/girlfriend.

I agree that domestic violence against men is not taken as seriously. However, the man that chooses to stay with a woman who beats him is considered heroic whereas a woman is considered stupid. Why doesn't she just leave is not a question a man has to face because of his strength and love for her is apparently all the explanation required to give him a medal.

[Cunninglinguist]

What about the weird class of people who enjoy being hit?

Have you ever met a couple, that is abusive, and they LIKE it?

I don't believe in gender equality. We're not the same. Women are better at some things (like being hit) and men are better at others (like doing the hitting). No, I'm just kidding. But I seriously don't believe in gender equality. I agree with some of the basic notions, like that men and women should be paid and treated in generally the same way. Other aspects don't hold up though. Gender isn't equal. That's not to say one is better or worse, it's just not equal.

Haha!

Yeah. we're certainly equal in some ways, but not in all ways. If this were true then we would not be able to make any distinction. But the question is not really are we equal in general, but are we equal as moral agents? Do we share the same rights and capacities as moral agents?

[rajeevrnair]

I dont know if this is the right place to discuss this but since it has been discussed here goes....a woman is not just physiologically different from man in terms of strength but also in terms of appearance. It is wrong to hit a woman also because it is not gentlemanly..if there is a thing like that..it is a matter of respect..some consideration shown to a woman also because she is the one who concieves. As far as children are concerned scolding a child is ok..even a slight pinch or nudge to set him or her in place is ok...they should know what is right and wrong..beyond that it is really questionable..