Prof busted in Columbia gal 'punch'

I'd say the woman will come out on top. Society will do anything to ensure she does, including reverting to the "big bad black guy" racist stereotype of old, if necessary.
If women trump children, why not a black guy?

Of course the media and public will ultimately dump on the white guy. "Couldn't he have done something to prevent the situation?"...etc...

-ax

I have to agree with Matt, "I do not believe it is any more wrong to strike a woman in this or any other situation than a man - to do so in any case is equally wrong and should be prosecuted in the same way*."
That being said it will be interesting to see how this plays out. At least he was an equal opportunity bully, and he did show gender deference, he struck the woman first! I bet someone complains that he was acting as a gentleman! Sorry, couldn't help myself. As I said it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

David A. DeLong

Whenever you discuss what is "more wrong" you will get interesting perspectives. As long as your foundation is that "hitting another person is wrong" I think just about any perspective could be justified.

My perspective: hitting another person outside of self defense is wrong.

My next thought is to question wether hitting someone that is smaller and weaker than you "more wrong" than hitting someone that is your equal? Women's bones are not as dense and break easier, women also bruise easier. A man hitting a woman in the face will do more damage than a man hitting another man.

Is it the 'act of hitting' that is wrong or is it the 'potential or actual damage to the other person'? If it is the actual or potential damage to the other person then generally a man hitting a woman is "more wrong" and so would be a large man hitting a smaller man; or a professional fighter hitting a non-pro.

Some other questions about which is "more wrong"?

Is it "more wrong" to beat up a retarded person than a normal person?

Is it "more wrong" if during a fight you hit a person, but they get back up and are fine versus hitting a person and they trip and fall into a glass table and cut up their face?

It is always interesting when people ask what is "more wrong".

I had to leave my last post before I completed all my thoughts on the subject.

I only think gender is considered because of 'actual damage' is usually more when a man hits a woman, but the same is true when a large man hits a small man, etc.

I think intended damage, unintended damage, actual damage, and potential damage all play a role in my opinion. (well really in my personal opinion, I don't think potential damage should matter much because I hate when people refer to what 'could have' happened)

If a man throws a punch, but misses. There was only intended damage.

If a man throws a punch and hits another person and causes bodily harm there was intended damage plus actual damage.

If a man throws a punch and he hits another person and that person falls down a flight of stairs, lands on a glass table and further damages some pre-existing condition. Then you have intended damage, actual damage plus unintended damage.

I think 'actual damage' should be what is considerred the most. The article indicated that the woman had black eyes, I don't think it mentioned the condition of the man. I assume he did not have any damage or marks. So it is because of the 'actual damage' that I believe it was more wrong to hit the woman.

Not "person", you notice. Nice example of the kind of male wimp that litters academia.

----------------------
Rise, Rebel, Resist.

"My next thought is to question wether hitting someone that is smaller and weaker than you "more wrong" than hitting someone that is your equal? Women's bones are not as dense and break easier, women also bruise easier. A man hitting a woman in the face will do more damage than a man hitting another man. "

that really just amounts to logic, perhaps subconscious on your part, to penalize more for hitting women generally. Otherwise, we'd have to do post-trauma bone density scans to assess who has a glass jaw and who doesn't. Maybe we can even all wear computer chip badges containing pre-trauma facial (and fist) bone density information.

On further reflection, that thinking is really just a regurgitation of the DV 'prize-fighter' mentality.

-ax

Ax,
In anatomy and histology classes many times you are asked to identify a single bone as 'male or 'female'. The density is a telltale sign. Men also have more muscle mass around their bones which protect them better, they have stronger ligaments for keeping bones in place, etc.

I know this from my education and work experience, but also from being around fighters. Do you ever watch boxing? There is no way a woman could take hits like that without being black and blue, broken bones, etc.

A man will do far more damage by hitting a woman versus hitting a man. This is common knowledge to anyone that has ever been in a physical alteration or who is familiar with body types. There is no reason for "computer chip badges containing pre-trauma facial (and fist) bone density information".

Read my comments. I indicate that the level of "wrongness" has more to do with the actual damaged caused rather than gender. But because of anatomical gender differences, hitting a woman will usually result in more damage. I also indicate that the whole concept of what is "more wrong" is kind of silly.

But if I had to keep up with the "which is more wrong" concept, I would say that hitting a 85 year old MAN is "more wrong" than hitting a 25 year old WOMAN for the same reason: because it will cause more damage to the old man.

Nowhere in my comment did I say that in general, a woman's face is as 'hard' as a man's, but rather, what is problematic about your philosphy is that if you going to apply it under the law in a sense of 'greater relative harm' or 'greater potential for harm' or some such thing (and we are talking about the law, since the bottom line issue is how the professor should be punished), then in fairness you would have to consider all the other related factors, for example relative age, individual bone hardness (which is the point of my comment), etc. etc.

And, if feminists or others are going to use your argument to say the man in this case should be punished all the harder, since he hit a woman, then by using this argument they are effectively giving the very reasons that women should not be allowed in front line combat, not be allowed on men's contact sports teams, or not even be allowed to box each other.

If women are going to walk the walk, they have to walk the entire distance.
-ax

He should NOT be punished more for hitting a woman.

He should be punished more for hitting victim #1 because he caused more damage to victim #1. (lets remove the gender).

(I already stated that I am assuming victim #1 had more damage because it described her black eyes, and made no mention of injuries to victim #2. My opinion was based on who had more damage)

Ax: > "if feminists or others are going to use your argument to say the man in this case should be punished all the harder, since he hit a woman..."

That is not my argument at all. Sometimes I don't think you read my stuff before you disagree.

I also am not putting it in the legal sense as much as you are. I felt that the "more wrong" question was more on a moral level not legal level. But even still, I think it is common to determine legal punishment based on the amount of "actual damage".

On a moral level...

Quick definition of morality: How something makes you feel. No logic needed to explain your personal feelings (that's what separates morals from ethics).

I think it is more immoral to hit someone that is weaker or less able to defend themselves.

In my previous posts I gave non M to F examples such as a large man hitting a smaller man, normal person hitting a retarded person, etc.

Here is a fragment from your first post above:

"My next thought is to question wether hitting someone that is smaller and weaker than you "more wrong" than hitting someone that is your equal? Women's bones are not as dense and break easier, women also bruise easier. A man hitting a woman in the face will do more damage than a man hitting another man. "

How is that not introducing gender?

If you then say the reason the prof. should be more severely punished is because he 'did more damage' or something, that statment does not 'un-introduce' gender.

---------------------------------------

Saying how moral something is = 'how it makes you feel' is ludicrous. Please check the dictionary. The law is generally based on what is considered morally right or wrong. If your definition held, each person would therefore have his 'own law', and total chaos would ensue.

-ax

Your upset that I mention gender when the whole discussion is based on gender?

And you think its ludicrous that I bring up morals when the question is what is "more wrong"?

Here is what I have expressed in my posts:

Legally:

(1) Hitting a person outside of self defense is wrong: It is just as wrong to hit a woman as it is to hit a man.

(2) Generally, in a situation like this, a person should be punished based on the amount of damage he/she caused.

Morally:

(1) IMO, it is "more wrong" for a bigger, stronger or experienced person to hit a smaller, weaker or less-able-to defend-themselves type person compared to hitting a person more your equal.

(I am not sure what your definition of morals are but my definition only has to do with personal feelings.
Characteristics that make you *feel* like a good person. Two ethical people can have very different morals. Think of a pot-smoking stripper that has never hurt or imposed on anyone vs. a prudish church lady that has also never hurt or imposed on anyone)

********************************************
I am really not sure where we disagree. You just seem to be upset about that first quote where I mention gender. And I explain women are generally smaller, weaker and less able to defend themselves which fits my description of what I believe to be morally wrong in regards to hitting.

And I don't think 'morality' should enter into legal decisions. Since morals are based on personal feelings, I am not asking or arguing with anyone about having different morals than I do.

what are you talking about? It sounds to me like you're just going about rationalizing the 'male as brute/female as victim' model.

-ax