Hypothetical male vs. female confrontation questions

[Vort]

Strictly hypothetical, of course.

A man and a woman, strangers to each other, are involved in a dispute (maybe road rage or parking anger). The woman is cursing at and berating the man, with the man trying to respond and perhaps yelling. The man turns to walk away, and the woman swings at him and hits him from behind on the side of the face. The man turns around and throws a straight right into her face, which does not knock her over (not a bonecrushing punch).

1. Justified? (Absolutely/Guess so/Can't tell/No way)

2. Ideal response? (Punch her/Stern lecture/Don't respond/Weep with sadness and plead for mercy)

After she gets hit, the woman turns away. At this, the man grabs her from behind and "suplexes" her onto her head. The whole hitting incident, from her initial punch to his suplex, takes maybe two seconds, with the grabbing/suplex essentially a continuation of the straight right.

3. Justified? (Yes/Depends on whether she's paralyzed/No way)

4. Which, if either, should face battery charges?

5. BONUS QUESTION: Reverse the sexes and answer the above questions again.

[LDSGator]

1. Probably justified, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. If someone turns the corner and only sees you slugging her, it’ll give them the wrong impression. 
 

2. walk away. Not worth your time. Do you want to deal with being arrested, charged, maybe going viral, attacked by an angry mob, sued….

3. Probably not. If you paralyze her do you want that on your conscience? You might not care at the moment but you will in ten years. 
 

4. Probably the girl for starting it.  But that doesn’t mean you can’t be the bigger person by just walking away. 
 

5. If you absolutely have to defend yourself, you already made one mistake. How do you know the guy isn’t armed and might blow you away? Relax. 
 

 

Edited February 19 by LDSGator

[Just_A_Guy]

[None of this is legal advice, in case you were wondering!]
 

1.  Absolutely justified.

2.  He has no duty to keep getting hit.  Most likely (depending on jurisdiction) he does have a duty to retreat if possible.  If counterattacking gives him a window for a safe retreat, IMHO, he should take the opportunity for a counterattack.

3.  Seems excessive, but I’m not really into martial arts/combat and shouldn’t be second-guessing those who are.  I suppose it’s justified if reasonably necessary to incapacitate the attacker while making his escape/retreat.

4.  The woman.  She attacked him from behind as he was de-escalating.  

5.  No difference.  (Nor, for that matter, in cases where both parties are the same sex but have vastly different sizes.)

[LDSGator]

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m not really into martial arts/combat

Third Dan in TKD here. Some boxing experience too. All amateur and I’m nothing to write home about in either sport.  
 

As a general rule, the more experience you have on the mats/in the ring, the less you go around looking for reasons to fight outside of the ring.

 

Again it’s all a generality, but 90% of men grossly overestimate their ability in hand to hand combat. I’ve heard the “I just go red and black out bro!”  saying so many times that it’s no longer funny. Just tiresome. 

Edited February 19 by LDSGator

[Carborendum]

There's "getting hit" and "GETTING HIT!!!"  It all depends on the situation and details.

But in the world we live in, a woman hitting a man is "being serious."  A man hitting a woman is "being a bully."

I'm not saying that is correct.  But that is the way the world is today.

I wish I could link to it, but Barbara Walters once interviewed Sean Connery and asked about a statement he made where he felt that men can be justified in hitting a woman.  You can guess how well that went over.  But, to his credit, he did not back down.  Men understood that he was talking about the situation indicated in the OP.  Perfectly justified.  But women all over took it to mean that men are allowed to beat their wives.

It's all about the framing.

Edited February 19 by Carborendum

[mirkwood]

 

Edited February 19 by mirkwood

[NeuroTypical]

I've seen the video prompting these questions.  Wasn't the man with a female, and the aggressor woman started by making threatening advances towards the female?

In general, my thinking is once there's a clear threat, you don't stop reacting until there is no more threat.  So that added suplex between #2 and 3 could absolutely be warranted, unless the woman is clearly retreating.  Endless ways for a threat to temporarily increase distance while planning the next attack.

Edited February 19 by NeuroTypical

[NeuroTypical]

 Yep, Mirk's video.  

- Yes, the woman was aggressing towards the female driver of the car.  Dude wasn't just defending himself, but the female driver as well. \

- No, the woman doesn't "turn away".  She is punched backwards.  There is no indication given that she's done attacking.  Dude is totally justified.

 

Afterwards, the aggressor lady actually owned up to the altercation on social media, and commented on the video.  Someone asked her "did you learn your lesson?", and she answered in the affirmative.

 

My local small-town police chief tells the story about the only time he had ever been injured by a suspect in handcuffs.  It was a 15 yr old girl.  He had the cuffs on her and was firmly escorting her by the arm to his squad car.  She used his arm as leverage to lift her ~80 lbs person up into the air, where she brought her entire weight down with her heel into his knee.  He said he had a period of recuperation before returning to duty - I forget how many months.  

Edited February 19 by NeuroTypical

[JohnsonJones]

13 hours ago, Vort said:

Strictly hypothetical, of course.

A man and a woman, strangers to each other, are involved in a dispute (maybe road rage or parking anger). The woman is cursing at and berating the man, with the man trying to respond and perhaps yelling. The man turns to walk away, and the woman swings at him and hits him from behind on the side of the face. The man turns around and throws a straight right into her face, which does not knock her over (not a bonecrushing punch).

1. Justified? (Absolutely/Guess so/Can't tell/No way)

2. Ideal response? (Punch her/Stern lecture/Don't respond/Weep with sadness and plead for mercy)

After she gets hit, the woman turns away. At this, the man grabs her from behind and "suplexes" her onto her head. The whole hitting incident, from her initial punch to his suplex, takes maybe two seconds, with the grabbing/suplex essentially a continuation of the straight right.

3. Justified? (Yes/Depends on whether she's paralyzed/No way)

4. Which, if either, should face battery charges?

5. BONUS QUESTION: Reverse the sexes and answer the above questions again.

I'm more from the older school of thought where (unless you are a soldier in war and ordered for combat, or an officer of the Law in the process of enforcing the law and doing their duty) you never hit a woman.  In that way, the following may also sound extremely...none PC for those who trend for these things these days.

So...some of these answers should be self explantory.

1.  It is not justified.  A Man should never hit a woman.  Only a Coward would hit a woman.  It's the same reason why Transgendered individuals (Male to Female) should not be allowed in Woman's sports (I have no problem with any of them competing in Men's sports, however).  Men have biological advantages that put them physically superior (one reason why we have women's sport's in the first place) in regards to body strength.  It's not a fair situation when comparing relative strength.  Men should never hit women (unless, with the exceptions noted above).

2.  Proper response is to move away from the woman.  If he is lacking physical ability to actually run if needed (men can also normally run faster then Woman) then he is allowed to defend himself (not hitting her, he can block any more punches tossed at him, however.  That does not mean striking her, it literally means blocking her punches or kicks if she decides to do more).  Moving away from her is the better option.  If it is severe enough, file a police report.  However, try not to engage physically with her.  That is a losing proposition if one does so.

3.  Absolutely not acceptable.  If the first situation was questionable (he hits her after she punches him), even though she is the aggressor, at this point, his response is far outweighing her actions.  If she is severely hurt and he is caught, the charges are going to be far worse for him. 

4.  She may, in theory, be able to be charged with battery in situation #1.  Depending on the situation, she may be able to be charged with other items (for example, spousal abuse).  It would depend on what he could prove (does he have photographic evidence, bruises, anything?).  In the next situation, if she can show bruising or results from his punch (far more likely) it is probably the man who is going to suffer far more and be more likely to be charged (just how society is...another reason to refrain from ever hitting a woman, even if you do not believe in old values).  In the situation where he suplexes her, if there is any evidence whatsoever, I think that man is going to jail.

5. A man hits a woman?  The woman is absolutely justified at hitting back at him.  In fact, if he hit her first, I'd let her take a hammer or a  tool an hit him back (legally...don't do that.  That's a good way to get charged with some pretty bad things).  I'd say the best thing for the woman is to try to get out of there (same as I'd advise the man to do in the prior situation), but I have no problem with a woman hitting back at a man.  If she can actually suplex the man (that's going to be far more rare than the opposite), that could also bring serious charges against her.  Depending on how hard he hit her with his fist (most woman cannot kill a man with a punch, but many men could kill a woman with punches), it may fall under self defense.  In general though, since he turned his back on her, it is also unjustified that she does that. 

 

I imagine many would consider my responses very old fashioned and out dated.  That may be true, but I think being a gentlemen should never be outdated. 

Edited February 19 by JohnsonJones

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

imagine many would consider my responses very old fashioned and out dated.  That may be true, but I think being a gentlemen should never be outdated. 

Dude, I’m willing to bet that the majority of men in all generations still feel that way. 

[mirkwood]

I have been assaulted numerous times by females at work.

[Backroads]

On 2/18/2025 at 6:38 PM, Vort said:

Strictly hypothetical, of course.

A man and a woman, strangers to each other, are involved in a dispute (maybe road rage or parking anger). The woman is cursing at and berating the man, with the man trying to respond and perhaps yelling. The man turns to walk away, and the woman swings at him and hits him from behind on the side of the face. The man turns around and throws a straight right into her face, which does not knock her over (not a bonecrushing punch).

1. Justified? (Absolutely/Guess so/Can't tell/No way)

2. Ideal response? (Punch her/Stern lecture/Don't respond/Weep with sadness and plead for mercy)

After she gets hit, the woman turns away. At this, the man grabs her from behind and "suplexes" her onto her head. The whole hitting incident, from her initial punch to his suplex, takes maybe two seconds, with the grabbing/suplex essentially a continuation of the straight right.

3. Justified? (Yes/Depends on whether she's paralyzed/No way)

4. Which, if either, should face battery charges?

5. BONUS QUESTION: Reverse the sexes and answer the above questions again.

1. Justified.

2. Probably not ideal, but the de-escalation/escalation scale isn't always so clean. Ideal isn't the right word. Probably necessary.

3. Unacceptable.

4. No idea. My husband actually teaches classes in this sort of thing but he went to bed so...

5. Honestly, this turned into Person A and Person B in my head, so same answers.

[Just_A_Guy]

10 hours ago, mirkwood said:

I have been assaulted numerous times by females at work.

Well, women have a thing for a man in a uniform . . . 

[Vort]

10 hours ago, mirkwood said:

I have been assaulted numerous times by females at work.

Yes, but have you ever suplexed them onto their head? That's the burning question.

[Carborendum]

49 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, women have a thing for a man in a uniform . . . 

Let me take the topic a step further.

Is it worse for a man to grope a woman than for a woman to grope a man?

Edited February 20 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

35 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yes, but have you ever suplexed them onto their head? That's the burning question.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[mirkwood]

38 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yes, but have you ever suplexed them onto their head? That's the burning question.

 

No.  I've neve suplexed anyone.  I have assisted people to the ground.

[mirkwood]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Let me take the topic a step further.

Is it worse for a man to grope a woman than for a woman to grope a man?

 

No.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, mirkwood said:

 

No.  I've neve suplexed anyone.  I have assisted people to the ground.

That's very gentlemanly of you.

[NeuroTypical]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Is it worse for a man to grope a woman than for a woman to grope a man?

In the eyes of the law, I'd say no.  Through the viewpoint of actual negative impacts like emotional or trauma, I'd say maybe?  On average yes?   

I read a statistic years ago about the percentage of rape victims who experienced major diagnosable psychological harm like PTSD or major depression.  Women had those in far higher percentages than men.  This was like 30 years ago, I don't remember how the data was gathered or what the biases or agendas were from the folks reporting the statistics, but it seemed reasonable at the time. The WWII vets and their notions of "tough it out, buttercup" were still dominant in the culture, and there was a bias against men needing help with mental health at the time.  So I dunno.

Edited February 20 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

That's very gentlemanly of you.

Lol. 

I’m no white knight, but I do cringe a bit at the thought of assaulting a woman, even in the “best” circumstances. Yes, it’s different with cops, and if she pulls a knife on me of course I’ll defend myself. But it’s not something particularly pleasant. I’d feel the same way if a male senior citizen tried to mug me. 

Isn’t that at least partially why most of us here, including myself, are very uncomfortable with the idea of transgender men fighting women or competing in sports against them? 

Edited February 20 by LDSGator

[Vort]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

I do cringe a bit at the thought of assaulting a woman, even in the “best” circumstances.

Just ftr, self-defense is not assault. But I understand what you mean.

[LDSGator]

Just now, Vort said:

Just ftr, self-defense is not assault. But I understand what you mean.

I do agree that self defense is not assault. 

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I do agree that self defense is not assault. 

Technically, I think we are talking about “battery”, not “assault”.

[LDSGator]

https://torontosun.com/news/world/woman-body-slammed-in-road-rage-incident-says-she-learned-her-lesson
 

Is this what brought the thread up? She sounds lovely. 
 

I’m glad it didn’t escalate further, and I feel sorry for her man and children. Nasty piece of work. 

Edited February 21 by LDSGator