HOw awesome is it that the pop-up banner ad for this page after the first post has a picture of a bunch of women and says "Find the perfect Indian partner in the US! Bharatmatrimony.com!"
Alright then. At what point does it become alright for a man to defend himself? What objective standard do you apply? Must a man be seriously injured first?
The best part is that if he had simply yelled at her and castigated her the same people would say he's not a gentleman because he shouldn't talk to a woman like that.
WRong. There aren't many here condemning him for slapping a woman. I'm one of about 2 or 3. And I would call her names and say he was right for yelling at her.
When he's in danger. He was not in danger from her. He got slapped. I wouldn't have minded if he caught her hand, and used a restraining hold. What he did was in no way defending himself. It was slapping back because he was mad that he was slapped, and that's how his anger manifested itself. I'm honestly shocked how many people are cheering that this lady was slapped. I don't care how stupid she was or annoying etc. I was raised better than to hit women. I thought more people understood what it meant to be a gentleman. Maybe they do and it's just this a bizarre sample of people who all cheer a woman being slapped.
First off, your argument is most certainly a double standard as others have pointed out. I think we can agree that it was ungentlemanly, but I think cowardly is arguable and it being wrong you just didn't prove. Setting aside the fact that chivalry is subjective and each person has their own thoughts on gentlemanliness, if a person (male or female) has both knowledge (of what could happen) and the means (to act), then he/she is taking a risk of retaliation. This rules out the child randomly hitting someone argument, as they don't have the knowledge to know it's wrong. This also accounts for the dainty argument, as a dainty person doesn't really have the means to injure. From the looks of the video, the hostess had both knowledge and the means to injure so she was taking a calculated risk.
What would you do if let's say you were shopping and a stranger lady just went up to you and b**** slapped you? Same scenario happened in this show, these guys were on the show to play a game, not to get slapped and humiliated on TV. I would have done the same thing.
It is your weakness if you would have done the same thing. I would have laughed in a very macho manner, and said, "Thanks I needed that. I like my women feisty."
This begs the question: What if the woman is physically stronger than the man? Does the man then have a right to retaliate physically?
If he's in actual danger. He has the right to defend himself. If the guy has no gentleman's code, or doesn't care about being a coward and not a gentleman he could hit her no matter what.
So what is to stop the woman from constantly acting in this manner? Is it alright for human beings to go around hitting each other as long as they're smaller/weaker? According to your logic I should be able to go up and repeatedly hit anyone bigger than me and if he hits me back he's a coward? Got it. I'm not saying I'm going to go hit women now or anything but it's ridiculous to say that she should be allowed to slap the hell out of someone else and get away with it because she's a woman. RocketRiver stated before that bad people do bad things because good people allow them to (he stated this in response to a video of a man beating a car with a baseball bat). Looks like he was right.
And what if the next thing she did was open up the bridge of your nose with a right hook? Would you say "Oh yeah, baby. I love to bleed. Makes me feel alive!!!!" or would you consider yourself in danger even though you know you could beat the girl to a pulp if you wanted to?
And, I assume, otherwise he does not have that right. Next question would be if this rule applies only to woman, or if it applies to any physically weaker person, in general. Suppose a much weaker, full-grown man slaps you for no good reason, but you don't feel endangered. Are you a coward if you retaliate physically? I guess I'm trying to understand if this "gentleman's code" applies because she's a woman, or because she's physically weaker.
No I would wipe a drop of blood on my finger and taste it first, then give her a sexy smile and a cavalier wink, while raising my eyebrows in a knowing fashion. Or I would have caught her fist before she through the right hook. But most likely when I saw her getting ready to let go with her right hook, I would have leaped in too close to her to allow her to land the hook. I would have pressed my finger to her lips while whispering, "shhhhhh"
It does apply because she's a woman. With a significantly weaker man it's a matter of degrees. The slapee would be more of a gentleman if he didn't retaliate physically. However, if he gave a non-threatening slap back, he wouldn't be disqualified from being a gentleman. He just could have been more of a gentleman.
WHOA! A "Murder By Death" reference on ClutchFans. You just made my day! Sidney Wang: Oh, there, voice come from cow on wall... Lionel Twain: Moose, moose you imbecile!
