And there are larger men (example: me at 6'5", 275) who can literally wipe the floor with most other _men_. Of course, I have to protect them, because they are weaker and smaller. Can anybody say bullshit?
I'm up for equality, and I mean real equality. We will be equal when a woman hits a man in the face, and the man responds in kind by punching her, and nobody says anything about "hitting a woman".
Lastly, I have a duty to protect all those I care about, male or female. I would just as well die (or kill) for my guy friends as I would my female friends. What you have between the crotch doesn't matter to me.
> And there are larger men (example: me at 6'5", 275) who can literally wipe the floor with most other _men_. Of course, I have to protect them, because they are weaker and smaller.
From other people your size, yes.
> Can anybody say bullshit?
Sure, but it's not coming from ZoFreX.
If person/entity A is being coercive towards (or just randomly assaulting) person/entity B, you should generally intervene to protect person B if possible. This applies to men protecting women from other men, stronger men protecting less-strong men from other stronger men, the police protecting the general populace from violent criminals, the various forms of consumer-protection laws, employment law, civil-rights protesters and some revolutionaries, teachers breaking up playground fights, ....
I'm up for equality, and I mean real equality. We will be equal when a woman hits a man in the face, and the man responds in kind by punching her, and nobody says anything about "hitting a woman".
There's a reason that social moor exists. Until women catch up in physical power, or men regress, most men will have the power to seriously injure a woman and walk away unharmed, unless the woman is trained or armed. As such, it is a man's duty to take responsibility for this difference, and that is where the taboo on striking a woman came about. There's a partner taboo as well- regarding children- that exists for exactly the same reasons.
Would you argue that someone more powerful does not have a responsibility to manage their strength, and using brute force on women and children should not be considered reprehensible?
I agree with some of what you said, but not total equality. There are differences between the genders, and I think some gender roles are more helpful than harmful (and some are undeniable, until we invent male pregnancy at least).
And yes, I would also protect my male friends. As it stands though, they are not the ones being sexually assulted (mostly - and in those rare situations, generally the guy is able to get himself out of it), and the article only talked about male on female assault, so that's all I really addressed.
I'm up for equality, and I mean real equality. We will be equal when a woman hits a man in the face, and the man responds in kind by punching her, and nobody says anything about "hitting a woman".
Lastly, I have a duty to protect all those I care about, male or female. I would just as well die (or kill) for my guy friends as I would my female friends. What you have between the crotch doesn't matter to me.