Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Social ScienceGender & Women's Studies · 2 months ago

Should feminists be prevented from committing acts of violence towards men?

14 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    Violence against men by women is generally permissible in western societies.   Only violence against women is seen as a problem.  That’s why we have a violence against women act, rather than a violence against men act.  

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    How weak must you be to allow yourself to get hurt by a 👩 

  • Foofa
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Of course. All acts of violence toward anyone by anyone should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

  • donnie
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Uhhh yes assault is assault 

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Yes, I think we already have assault and battery laws which prevent that.

  • U Wish
    Lv 5
    2 months ago

    If a feminist becomes violent with me....I will prevent her actions with equal rights... and lefts. She'll be bruised and bloodied for her efforts.  

  • Bill
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    @DCMD: if you actually read your history books you would know the US government was openly discriminating against the southern states with efforts to undermine their economy and force them to obey the way of life of the north. Communists like you would have been violent in such a situation well before the south was. For that matter, Lincoln was openly violating the constitution with his efforts to stop states from leaving the nation. 

    And lets be clear, the north was being discriminatory with southern states since day one. Liberals are still this way towards red areas in the country believing that their will is all that matters, while conservatives should just shut up. The fact is the wrong side won the civil war. If the south won the civil war the north would have gotten the wake up call to behave itself instead of believing that everything was fine and that they were free to just keep doing what they were already doing. The civil war should have also been a wakeup call that one size fits all solutions on the federal level are exactly how not to do things in a divided nation. 

    ----

    In any event, countries generally don't put much effort into preventing crimes and put zero effort into preventing crimes towards men. 

  • ?
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    if they are bigger and stronger they shouldn't.

  • 2 months ago

    No. "Preventive detention" or other punishments without a crime having been committed, and without a conviction in a *publicly* argued JURY trial, are strictly the province of primitive, backward states with no right to exist.

    And yes, I know to which states that can be applied. I'm an American, and I am *very* well aware of both the U.S. prison at Guantanamo, and common British legal practices.

    I stand by my statement. NO RIGHT TO EXIST.

    Your opinions of their gender politics are irrelevant. So is your judgment of the likelihood of them committing such crimes.

    CRIME FIRST. THEN punishment.

    ANYTHING else? That government's officials need to be standing on a scaffold saying their last words, the way we SHOULD have done to the "confederate" gangster leadership.

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    they already are.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.