Lootifer wrote:To me its less about the sex and all to do with the position of power. It is always wrong to assault someone when you are in the position of power. Its less clear when you are fighting against the position of power. In addition, you should attempt to use the least amount of force necessary to attain the position of power. Finally the difference in relative power matters to the "ethics" of the situation. Some examples:
- You are getting mugged. It is ok to defend yourself and knock them down. It is wrong to lay in the boot once they are down.
- Your wife is whacking you over the head yelling at you to do the dishes. It is ok to grab her wrists and disarm her. It is wrong to respond in kind with a punch.
- A drunk guy picking a fight with some random guy (of a similar build) at the pub is wrong. It is "more wrong" for a drunk guy to pick a fight with a much smaller woman, a child, a person in a wheelchair, or a much smaller/weaker man.
On average because woman are smaller than men, a man hitting a woman is "more wrong" than a man hitting a man. But fundamentally the sex is irrelevant.
I think it's less of a position of power so much as "assault" itself (or rather battery). To attack someone, regardless of status, stands in opposition to the right to bodily safety. Therefore, power, authority, sex, etc. are irrelevant when considering when is force warranted. Certainly, in defense of self or others it is warranted, but again this is to preserve the right to physical autonomy which is under attack.
Sure, we can recognize that the 6' 6" 280 lbs muscle man is a dominant threat against the 5' petit woman, but really if the smaller, weaker woman attacked the man it's still a violation of natural rights and should be treated as such. We only think one is worse than the other because of empathy.
And if I'm mugged and I manage to knock the mugger down, you can bet imma boot stomp that motherfucker until he poses no threat.
-TG
