>

This is actually a very, very interesting discussion. I haven't watched the video but based on peoples' descriptions, it sounds like he retaliated with equal force. I'm going to base the following statement on that understanding...
Our society is constantly preaching that men and women should be equal and equitable across all measures and at all times. If this is the case, then a man should have every right to retaliate with equal physical force if he's attacked by a woman.
If you believe that men and women should be treated as equals in all ways and at all times, but also have a problem with a man retaliating and believe he shouldn't have "hit her back," then you're really talking out both sides of your mouth. You cannot have 100% equality except for when deem it to be "unfair." It's all or nothing.
If you believe the man shouldn't have retaliated, the underlying assumption is that you believe the man is somehow "physically superior" to the woman...or else you wouldn't see it as an unfair fight. For instance, he was struck *first* by his wife, but not a single person is accusing her of being abusive. Dana is being treated as an abuser because he  retaliated. You can see where this gets really muddy right?
Personally, I believe that there are distinct, obvious differences between the sexes and these differences are what make us great. Maybe I'm old school but I don't think a man should ever put his hands on a woman, primarily because of these distinct differences. People will probably not spend much time really thinking about the question posed in the OP but it's actually a very, very interesting intellectual problem to think about. And one which can really challenge your beliefs on the differences between men and women and what "equality" actually means.
/u/Forever_Changes (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

So in order to properly raise the legal defense of self-defense, you must be in present threat of serious bodily harm or death and your self-defense must be sufficient to protect yourself from the harm, but not go beyond that.  This can sometimes be difficult to identify, but the capabilities of the belligerents matter, not because of their gender, but because, well, they matter.
Here is an example:
Suppose someone starts attacking you with their bare hands (they don't have a weapon), you push them away, they then stop attacking you.  You then punch them in the face.
Your first push was completely defensible, however, once they stopped attacking you, you were no longer justified in punching them in the face.  This means that you can be prosecuted for assault and battery for punching them in the face even though they attacked you first.
This obviously can get a bit complicated.  For example, how do you know that they were no longer attacking you and you were no longer threatened?  It can sometimes be difficult and that is what trials and juries are for.  But as I said, the capabilities of the participants matter.  If the attacker is Mike Tyson, you're probably going to feel a bit more threatened than if the attacker is a five year old and the force required to push back Mike Tyson is way different than the force required for a five year old.
Here, it is not sexist to suggest that Dana White's wife is not particularly imposing or threatening.  Rather, it is fairly clear that Dana White hit her out of malice or some other non-self-defense motivation.  Dana White's wife, Anne, went to hit him.  He clearly stopped her from doing that.  He was not particularly threatened by her and yet he hit her anyway and it looks like he hit her more than once.  It isn't that Anne is a woman, it is that she is clearly not a threat to Dana White. >


So in order to properly raise the legal defense of self-defense, you must be in present threat of serious bodily harm or death and your self-defense must be sufficient to protect yourself from the harm, but not go beyond that. This can sometimes be difficult to identify, but the capabilities of the belligerents matter, not because of their gender, but because, well, they matter.

Can you give a legal source for you claim?
Also, two additional questions:


What is it called if I'm attacked by someone, don't fear for my life, but use minimal force to defend myself from the attack?


Would I be wrong for defending myself as described in 1.?



Your first push was completely defensible, however, once they stopped attacking you, you were no longer justified in punching them in the face. This means that you can be prosecuted for assault and battery for punching them in the face even though they attacked you first.

Right, I understand this.
Is the first push an instance of self-defense? Because someone attacking you with their bare hands does not give you a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death?
That's something I would describe as an instance of self-defense.

This obviously can get a bit complicated. For example, how do you know that they were no longer attacking you and you were no longer threatened? It can sometimes be difficult and that is what trials and juries are for. But as I said, the capabilities of the participants matter. If the attacker is Mike Tyson, you're probably going to feel a bit more threatened than if the attacker is a five year old and the force required to push back Mike Tyson is way different than the force required for a five year old.

Sure, but my argument is that Dana clearly regulated his use of force such that it was proportionate to his wife's. If he gave her a full-force slap, she would've fallen down. It's clear that he understood that he's stronger than his wife and regulated his force accordingly.

Here, it is not sexist to suggest that Dana White's wife is not particularly imposing or threatening.

Agreed.

Rather, it is fairly clear that Dana White hit her out of malice or some other non-self-defense motivation.

This doesn't seem clear to me. It seems to me that Dana would be reasonable in believing he may be slapped again by his wife given that he was slapped once. While it's true that she likely wouldn't cause him much injury, that doesn't seem to nullify his right to defend himself from that injury.

Dana White's wife, Anne, went to hit him. He clearly stopped her from doing that. He was not particularly threatened by her and yet he hit her anyway and it looks like he hit her more than once. It isn't that Anne is a woman, it is that she is clearly not a threat to Dana White.

From what I saw, he hit her once and then they had a small struggle. I didn't see a second hit. If he did hit her more than once, then I'd agree that that would be slightly disproportionate and thus unethical.
But this doesn't explain why we should focus on Dana's wrongful actions to the exclusion of his wife's wrongful actions. >

I respond to the legal questions below, but I think this is the heart of the issue and maybe your misunderstanding:

Sure, but my argument is that Dana clearly regulated his use of force such that it was proportionate to his wife's. If he gave her a full-force slap, she would've fallen down. It's clear that he understood that he's stronger than his wife and regulated his force accordingly.

Dana hitting his wife was not self-defense in any way because his wife had already hit him and wasn't going to hit him again, so any retaliatory action was just that, retaliation.  Self-defense is only justified if it prevents further harm.  If you've already been hit and you won't be hit again hitting someone back is not self-defense.
​

Can you give a legal source for you claim?

Here's an excerpt from the Washington Practice Manual:

A person acting in self-defense may use the degree of force that a reasonably prudent person would use under the circumstances appearing to him or her at the time.1 To justify the use of force in self-defense, four elements must exist: (1) there was appearance of danger,2 (2) the danger appeared to be imminent,3 (3) the degree of force used was reasonable,4 and (4) the defendant was not the aggressor.

§ 41:3. Judicial interpretation—Self-defense—Generally, 13B Wash. Prac., Criminal Law § 41:3 (3d).  You should note that this is only one paragraph and the full chapter on self-defense is 15 sections long.
The big thing we're looking at here is that second and third part where the danger needs to be imminent and the force must be reasonable.

What is it called if I'm attacked by someone, don't fear for my life, but use minimal force to defend myself from the attack?  
Would I be wrong for defending myself as described in 1.?

That's also self-defense and you'd be fine as long as you follow what I quoted above.  I accidentally used "death or serious bodily harm" because that's the standard for homicide so I say it the most, but the rest remains the same.
​
As far as focusing on Dana over Anne, that also doesn't have to be sexist.  If Mike Tyson punched a five year old boy who punched him first the news is still that Mike Tyson punched a five year old.  Nobody cares that the boy hit him first because nobody thinks Mike Tyson was remotely hurt by that child.  Same thing here. >


Dana hitting his wife was not self-defense in any way because his wife had already hit him and wasn't going to hit him again, so any retaliatory action was just that, retaliation. Self-defense is only justified if it prevents further harm. If you've already been hit and you won't be hit again hitting someone back is not self-defense.

I know that. But how was Dana to know, in the moment, that his wife was not going to slap him again?

The big thing we're looking at here is that second and third part where the danger needs to be imminent and the force must be reasonable.

Alright, so this refutes your claim that self-defense can only be appealed to in ceases where one fears serious bodily harm or death.
Given that his wife had just slapped him and that he responded by a similar slap, I don't see how it doesn't meet those criteria.
If Dana had punched her in the face or was sure he wouldn't be slapped again, then I'd agree it was disproportionate.

That's also self-defense and you'd be fine as long as you follow what I quoted above. I accidentally used "death or serious bodily harm" because that's the standard for homicide so I say it the most, but the rest remains the same.

Alright, this is the part that threw me off, because it'd seem odd that one would have to fear serious bodily harm or death to make a self-defense claim against less severe attacks.

As far as focusing on Dana over Anne, that also doesn't have to be sexist. If Mike Tyson punched a five year old boy who punched him first the news is still that Mike Tyson punched a five year old. Nobody cares that the boy hit him first because nobody thinks Mike Tyson was remotely hurt by that child. Same thing here.

Sure, my argument isn't that the criticisms have to be sexist, just that in the case a lot of the framing is influenced by sexism (and not by everybody just a large number of people).
I also think there's a big disanalogy with your analogy. Mainly, that a 5 year old boy isn't a responsible agent like an adult is. So if a 5 year old hits you, it is very unlikely that it will cause you much harm and the 5 year old can't be really blamed as he hasn't developed to the point where we could consider him a rational agent.
When it comes to Dana's wife slapping him, although she is a woman and weaker than he is, she is still capable of hurting him. Just because someone is smaller and weaker than you doesn't mean they can't injure you when they hit you in the face.
So even if we grant that Dana didn't act as good as he could have, it still seems odd to me that we don't mention and place weight on his wife's wrongdoing that prompted the slap in the first place. >


Given that his wife had just slapped him and that he responded by a similar slap, I don't see how it doesn't meet those criteria.

It doesn't meet those criteria because nothing is imminent because it has already happened.  "Imminent" means that we are only concerned with what will happen in the future.  She wasn't going to slap him again, so there is no imminence.
It also might fail the "reasonable" standard because "reasonable" is not the same thing as proportionate.  One can probably argue that there are more reasonable responses such as restraining her because he's obviously capable of doing that.  If there were an imminent attack then restraining her is also much more likely to prevent a further harm to both of them than hitting her across the face.  That's arguable, so you'd want to stick mostly with the imminent point.
For example, if I deliver the biggest haymaker possible straight to your face and then run away before you can do anything, you may not legally attack me in retaliation.  Your recourse is to call the cops or sue me.  Same thing here, just because his wife hit him does not make him hitting her self-defense.
​

Sure, my argument isn't that the criticisms have to be sexist, just that in the case a lot of the framing is influenced by sexism (and not by everybody just a large number of people).

Your OP seems to suggest that we ought to criticize both Dana and Anne equally.  I think this is incorrect.  Stronger people owe a duty to use their strength responsibly.  For example, when Juliana Pena got in trouble for getting in a fight with a man a few years back, I think it was correct to criticize her more than the man.  That is not sexist, it is reasonable. >


It doesn't meet those criteria because nothing is imminent because it has already happened. "Imminent" means that we are only concerned with what will happen in the future. She wasn't going to slap him again, so there is no imminence.

I know that. But the issue is that in the moment he couldn't've known whether another slap was imminent and given that he was just slapped, that would not be an unreasonable belief.
But I think it might be better to move off the self-defense argument, because I don't think I think it's wrong (I think he could've used less force), and I don't agree with it (even if the slap wasn't self-defense, I still think a slap was justified).

Your OP seems to suggest that we ought to criticize both Dana and Anne equally. I think this is incorrect. Stronger people owe a duty to use their strength responsibly. For example, when Juliana Pena got in trouble for getting in a fight with a man a few years back, I think it was correct to criticize her more than the man. That is not sexist, it is reasonable.

I think stronger people owe a duty to use their strength responsibly by not using excessive retaliation. I think that a strong person is justified in slapping a weaker person if the weaker person slaps them first and the stronger person slaps them with equal or lesser force (assuming the weaker person is healthy and mentally competent). >


I think stronger people owe a duty to use their strength responsibly by not using excessive retaliation. I think that a strong person is justified in slapping a weaker person if the weaker person slaps them first and the stronger person slaps them with equal or lesser force

Did you honestly look at that video and think that Dana slapped her with equal or lesser force?
This is just the first hit on Google, so just watch the first 20 or so seconds you can ignore the rest of the video.  I don't see how anyone can think that Dana responded with equal force.
She's knocked completely to the side, out of view of the camera, and he appears to follow up with at least a second slap and then a shove.  Even on your own standards Dana White clearly fails.  This was monstrous behavior. >

It looked to me as though she was walking away, not that she was pushed by the slap. As for the second slap, I agree that one was wrong.
I still think pointing out his wife's initial slap serves as a mitigating factor and should be included as relevant context in any media coverage of this event. >


It looked to me as though she was walking away, not that she was pushed by the slap. As for the second slap, I agree that one was wrong.

But doesn't that second slap show why the coverage here focusing on Dana over his wife is warranted?  Your post is about people focusing on Dana over his wife.  Dana clearly acted worse than her if for no other reason than that second slap (he also appears to actually initiate the whole thing as well), you can't just choose to ignore it and pretend like it proves some sort of sexism.  That second slap happened and it is all a part of the criticism you talk about in the OP.
Moreover, your own stated standard is that "a strong person is justified in slapping a weaker person if the weaker person slaps them first and the stronger person slaps them with equal or lesser force" Dana's first slap is clearly way harder than Anne's. >


But doesn't that second slap show why the coverage here focusing on Dana over his wife is warranted? Your post is about people focusing on Dana over his wife. Dana clearly acted worse than her if for no other reason than that second slap (he also appears to actually initiate the whole thing as well), you can't just choose to ignore it and pretend like it proves some sort of sexism. That second slap happened and it is all a part of the criticism you talk about in the OP.

I agree that Dana deserves some level of criticism. My main issue is the fact that Dana's wife slapped him first is not being considered as a mitigating factor, and that is what I take issue with.
And I think it's not taken as a mitigating factor, because woman on man violence is seen as less serious than man on woman violence. That is what I am considering to be the sexism.
And this is why I think it's left out by the media in many cases. Because it's seen as a trivial detail.

Moreover, your own stated standard is that "a strong person is justified in slapping a weaker person if the weaker person slaps them first and the stronger person slaps them with equal or lesser force" Dana's first slap is clearly way harder than Anne's.

It's not clear to me that his first slap was harder than Anne's. If it was, then I don't think the force of his slap was justified. And I don't think the second slap was justified. So those are reasons to criticize him. I just think the criticism should include who slapped who first. >

It seems like you're assuming that people criticizing Dana White aren't also criticizing his wife. I don't think it's sexist or logically inconsistent to say that they were both in the wrong and deserve criticism. An eye for an eye makes the world blind, so him being slapped doesn't mean he has free reign to then hit her. >

That's fair. The part I disagree with is that, especially in the media, it does not seem as though they are both being criticized. It seems like only Dana is being criticized without acknowledging the mitigating factors, such as the fact that his wife slapped him first. >


The video clearly shows Dana's wife slapping him first.

The video clearly shows Dana grabbing her wrist as she's trying to walk away.  Her reaction to being physically assaulted by Dan is to slap him for assaulting her and to let her go.  At which point he repeatedly slaps her.
The only thing "sexist" about this are the men with fragile masculinity attempting to defend Dana and claiming he did nothing wrong by assaulting and besting his wife. >

Slapping someone in the face seems disproportionate to being grabbed by the arm, especially because other means of deescalating the situation were not used. Even asking would've been better.

The only thing "sexist" about this are the men with fragile masculinity

I don't care at all about the "masculinity' you think I care about. Also, no need for the insults. If you can't engage respectfully and maturely, then don't.

attempting to defend Dana and claiming he did nothing wrong by assaulting and besting his wife.

Did you mean to say, "besting"?
And my main point isn't that Dana didn't do anything wrong, but it's more than the coverage of the interaction is solely focused on Dana's wrongdoing but completely leaves out the context which is that his wife slapped him first. This is clearly a mitigating circumstance that should be considered.
And I think this is the case because we don't take a woman slapping a man as bad as a man slapping a woman (using equal force). >


Slapping someone in the face seems disproportionate to being grabbed by the arm,

She was physically assaulted and restrained from leaving.  A slap in the face is well within a reasonable, proportional and legal self defense.  

especially because other means of deescalating the situation were not used. Even asking would've been better.

She is being physically assaulted and restrained.  She's under no obligation to de-escalate or politely ask.  

I don't care at all about the "masculinity' you think I care about.

Riiigggghhhtttt

Also, no need for the insults. If you can't engage respectfully and maturely, then don't.

It wasn't an insult.  It was a fact.  That you took it personally tells me my assessment was spot on.

Did you mean to say, "besting"?

Clearly a typo that should have read beating.  Don't be obtuse.

but it's more than the coverage of the interaction is solely focused on Dana's wrongdoing

Because he was the only one in the wrong

but completely leaves out the context which is that his wife slapped him first. 

AFTER HE PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED AND RESTRAINED HER

This is clearly a mitigating circumstance that should be considered.

....that she was acting in self defense

And I think this is the case because we don't take a woman slapping a man as bad as a man slapping a woman (using equal force).

Because she was acting in self defense
For all of your "mitigating factors" talk, you seem to ignore the actual mitigating factor.  He physically assaulted and restrained her first. >


She was physically assaulted and restrained from leaving. A slap in the face is well within a reasonable, proportional and legal self defense.

Is your claim that she didn't have non-violent options, such as telling him to let go, asking someone for help in dealing with the situation, or yanking her arm? Your claim is that hitting someone in the head is the same level of force as grabbing someone's arm?

She is being physically assaulted and restrained. She's under no obligation to de-escalate or politely ask.

But she is under an obligation to not escalate which is exactly what she did.
Also, she was held by the arm for a few seconds and did not make any non-violent attempts to deescalate. I take that to be an issue.

Riiigggghhhtttt

Continue with the insults and nonsense and you will be blocked.

It wasn't an insult. It was a fact. That you took it personally tells me my assessment was spot on.

It wasn't a fact. I have no issues with masculinity. I do have an issue with childish insults.
Again, once more and you're blocked. I don't have the desire to put up with Aholes.

Clearly a typo that should have read beating. Don't be obtuse.

More insults. I was genuinely asking, as he did physically best his wife and I thought that'd be odd wording. But no, he didn't beat his wife. By that standard, she also beat him. Unless you're claiming that he caused her significantly more damage than she caused him which is not clear to me.

Because he was the only one in the wrong

I take slapping someone in the face in response to your arm being grabbed by your husband to be wrong as that's a clear escalation in the level of violence occurring.

AFTER HE PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED AND RESTRAINED HER

And you're aware that proportionality is an issue?

....that she was acting in self defense

So your claim is that slapping your husband in the face in response to being grabbed by the arm is a proportionate exercise of self-defense?

For all of your "mitigating factors" talk, you seem to ignore the actual mitigating factor. He physically assaulted and restrained her first.

He grabbed her by the arm for less than 2 seconds, and she immediately proceeded to slap him in the face. So sure, him grabbing her for 1 second is a mitigating factor on her part, but it does not justify her slapping him in the face.
Imagine if a woman grabbed a man's arm and he immediately proceeded to slap her in the face. You would not be making the arguments you're making now. This does indicate some sexism imo. >

u/ExistentialReckning – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: 

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards. >

Other people have already made the point that him being slapped doesn’t mean his slap is somehow permissible. They are both wrong. 
Your response in each case is that it is “in self defence”. What your response fails to note is that there are many different ways of defending yourself. Most of those ways don’t require Dana to attack his wife. Proper self defence would concentrate on preventing her from attacking, not from attacking her back. For example, by restraining her. He’s a big guy, and perfectly able to restrain a much smaller woman, which would have been a much more reasonable act of “self defence”. >


For example, by restraining her. He’s a big guy, and perfectly able to restrain a much smaller woman, which would have been a much more reasonable act of “self defence”.

That's harder to do and also put you in a dangerous position if you fail to do so. 
He may be able to restrain a smaller woman in a normal environment (for example during training), but this is a special event where someone you trust hit you and there's no rules on what could happen to you if you don't make the best decision in the smallest amount of time >

Like…she might slap him again? Are you suggesting he was scared for his life? >

You can be big and strong but still freeze and scared. When you get hit, your world could crumble no matter of your physical constitution >

So your argument is he had to hit her because otherwise he could have mentally crumbled? It’s not a strong argument >

You need to display that you're willing to fight back, otherwise you will become a punching bag. This one time a slap, and maybe another slap, next week is a punch and so on.. 
And also, your argument: "he is big and strong he must man up" is not a strong argument >

I didn’t say any of that. I said that there are alternatives to hitting her. >

It's not solely about him slapping her, but the fact that the context seems that he was grabbing her, she hit him to get her off, and then he hit her, which means that he started it.

I'd understand the criticism if Dana's reaction was very disproportionate. Like if he punched his wife in the face and gave her a black eye, broke her nose, or knocked her out. He literally gave her a slap like she gave him.

Now that brings up an issue on the other end of the spectrum. What, if he was abused like you think he was, he has to be fair to someone who wasn't? >


It's not solely about him slapping her, but the fact that the context seems that he was grabbing her, she hit him to get her off, and then he hit her, which means that he started it.

He shouldn't've grabbed her first, but that was for less than 2 seconds and she responded by immediately slapping him in the face. That can be considered disproportionate.

Now that brings up an issue on the other end of the spectrum. What, if he was abused like you think he was, he has to be fair to someone who wasn't?

Because if he responds disproportionately, then he's in the wrong as well. >


I'd understand the criticism if Dana's reaction was very disproportionate.

Hitting your spouse in any scenario that isn't self-defense is disproportionate. And this wasn't self-defense, it was retaliation.

He literally gave her a slap like she gave him.

He continued to hit her after she tried to leave. It wasn't equal.
He's also a boxer who hits her hard enough to knock her off her footing, so the use of force isn't equal either. 
And even if it was equal, you shouldn't fucking hit your spouse. Domestic violence is not a game of tit-for-tat. >


Hitting your spouse in any scenario that isn't self-defense is disproportionate. And this wasn't self-defense, it was retaliation.

How do you know it wasn't self-defense? How do you know he didn't expect his wife to slap him again?

He continued to hit her after she tried to leave. It wasn't equal.

I saw one slap and then a small struggle.

He's also a boxer who hits her hard enough to knock her off her footing, so the use of force isn't equal either.

It didn't appear to me that he knocked her off her footing. It looked like she was moving.
He's a boxer, but he was clearly regulating his use of force.

And even if it was equal, you shouldn't fucking hit your spouse. Domestic violence is not a game of tit-for-tat.

Okay, so why is she not receiving similar criticism? Why is everyone focusing on Dana and completely ignoring his wife's initial slap? >

I'm confused. You've said elsewhere you understand that Dana is getting more coverage due to his fame. That's why everyone is focusing on Dana, and you've accepted this rationale. Nothing to do with sexism.
Another thing that keeps coming up is that second slap. You claim not to see it, other people claim they do. Nothing to do with sexism.
Another thing is the self-defense angle. Lots of people don't see his retaliation as self-defense. Nothing to do with sexism. 
These 3 things taken together would obviously point to heavy criticism of Dana and more coverage of it vs. his wife, and none of them have to do with sexism. In fact, you really only need to accept points 1 and 3 to come to the conclusion that the coverage is not necessarily sexist. Your point is that the criticism is sexist, but that's only if we accept that he only hit her once, and/or it was completely justified. It doesn't take a sexist to reject that.
Do you see how people are reaching their conclusions without sexism? Whether they're incorrect or misguided on these other points is irrelevant to whether or not they're sexist. >


I'm confused. You've said elsewhere you understand that Dana is getting more coverage due to his fame. That's why everyone is focusing on Dana, and you've accepted this rationale. Nothing to do with sexism.

The issue isn't with Dana getting more coverage. It's that the context of the incident is left out. There's little mention of Dana's wife slapping him first. That is what I am taking to be sexism.

Another thing that keeps coming up is that second slap. You claim not to see it, other people claim they do. Nothing to do with sexism.

I never claimed a second slap had to do with sexism.
But most of the criticism I hear about Dana is, "He slapped his wife," not, "She slapped him first but he slapped her twice so he's worse."

Another thing is the self-defense angle. Lots of people don't see his retaliation as self-defense. Nothing to do with sexism.

Ahh, I see now. You're confused. You think I'm claiming that every single argument anyone makes that Dana did something wrong is based in sexism. That is not my claim. My claim is that the media coverage that leaves out the context that Dana was slapped by his wife first is motivated by sexism.

These 3 things taken together would obviously point to heavy criticism of Dana and more coverage of it vs. his wife, and none of them have to do with sexism. In fact, you really only need to accept points 1 and 3 to come to the conclusion that the coverage is not necessarily sexist.

For 3, even if we accept that Dana's retaliation is not a form of self-defense, I think the failure to include obvious mitigating factors, such as the context of his wife slapping him first, is motivated by sexism.

Your point is that the criticism is sexist, but that's only if we accept that he only hit her once, and/or it was completely justified. It doesn't take a sexist to reject that.

Sure, not everyone who criticizes him is sexist. I wouldn't go that far. All I'm saying is that the way the situation is being generally described in the media ignores a lot of the context, such as his wife's wrongdoing, and I think that is motivated by sexism.

Do you see how people are reaching their conclusions without sexism? Whether they're incorrect or misguided on these other points is irrelevant to whether or not they're sexist.

In some cases, yes. But I've never claimed that sexism is required in all cases to criticize Dana. My claim is that sexism is widespread in the media, and it is causing important facts to be left out of the picture. Had a man slapped Dana first, I think that would be very relevant to the story the media tells. >

This is not consistent with your original post. You said that people, not media, are sexist for their criticism "as if it were unjustified." My counterpoint is that it does not take sexism to reject the idea that it was justified. 
Being slapped first is not a mitigating circumstance to many people, myself included. This has nothing to do with sexism. They're both in the wrong, but one of them is famous and relevant as the president of a major sporting institution. It is not in any way important to my or many other's judgment of him that she slapped him first. It is also not important that it was a woman he slapped.
What he did was, as far as I'm concerned, unequivocally wrong. The preceding slap is as irrelevant as who slapped him. It is not a mitigating circumstance in any way.
Not to mention, it's not true that people aren't mentioning it. Her slapping him is mentioned in every article I've read about it. It just isn't the focus, which is obviously due to his fame.
I say the following with all due respect. What are you expecting? Longer headlines to include it? Investigations into her mental state? Outright acceptance because "she started it"? That would be ridiculous. What more would make this fair? Because it looks like they've done everything short of shifting focus to her entirely. ESPN, TMZ, and CNN all include the fact that she slapped him. It kinda sounds like you want people to be like "See? It wasn't THAT bad." Which is just wrong. >


This is not consistent with your original post. You said that people, not media, are sexist for their criticism "as if it were unjustified." My counterpoint is that it does not take sexism to reject the idea that it was justified.

People, as in some people, not all people.
I never made the claim that all people who criticize his behavior must be sexist.

What he did was, as far as I'm concerned, unequivocally wrong. The preceding slap is as irrelevant as who slapped him. It is not a mitigating circumstance in any way.

I don't agree here. If someone slaps you and they are healthy and mentally competent, then I think it's justified to slap them back using equal or lesser force.

I say the following with all due respect. What are you expecting? Longer headlines to include it? Investigations into her mental state? Outright acceptance because "she started it"? That would be ridiculous. What more would make this fair? Because it looks like they've done everything short of shifting focus to her entirely. ESPN, TMZ, and CNN all include the fact that she slapped him. It kinda sounds like you want people to be like "See? It wasn't THAT bad." Which is just wrong.

Personally, I'm of the view that if one person slaps another, it's not much of a problem if the victim slaps back. >

Your personal thoughts on violent retaliation are not relevant to your original point. You said that people were criticizing him, and it was sexist. You have now clarified that the media was unfairly covering it because of sexism.
My counterpoint is that sexism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. You disagree on when violent retaliation is acceptable and have perceived this disagreement as sexism. Looking at it from the perspective that the retaliation was unjustified, the coverage makes perfect sense. Widespread sexism is not a necessary component at all for this event to be covered or discussed as it has. It is possible that most people just think that retaliation is not an acceptable reason for violence and that this was not a case of self-defense. 
Can you please tell me why my counterpoint isn't sufficient to change your view at all? I'm not really understanding your view at this point. >

Right, the part that I'm saying is sexist is the fact that his wife slapped him first is not being considered as much of a mitigating factor, and I believe this is because woman on man violence is not considered serious. It's trivialized. But the second a man slaps a woman in retaliation, that's a terrible thing. That's what I'm arguing is sexist.
This is most pronounced in the media's coverage, but it is also expressed in many people's replies. >

And I'm arguing that it isn't sexist that it's not being considered. It's not because she's a woman, but because most folks think that kind of violent retaliation is only acceptable as self-defense, and this doesn't qualify. Whether or not you think otherwise is irrelevant. My argument is simply that most folks disagree with you on an ethical basis, not a sexist one. If Dana had had this altercation with some random man, he'd be similarly perceived. If 2 women had a similar altercation, the more famous retaliator would get the same coverage. Just look at how celeb bar fights get covered. When famous people get violent, nobody cares who started it. The only exception is self-defense, and even then only sometimes. In this particular case, most people reject that this qualifies as self-defense, and that's not necessarily sexist.
Was Chris Rock's joke about Jada perceived as mitigating? Did anyone say that either Drake or Chris Brown were justified when they got into a fight? No. As a celeb, if you get violent for anything short of self-defense, you get dragged. To most people, this didn't qualify. The coverage is consistent with similar incidences when no woman is involved. >


And I'm arguing that it isn't sexist that it's not being considered. It's not because she's a woman, but because most folks think that kind of violent retaliation is only acceptable as self-defense, and this doesn't qualify.

I don't agree. I think it would definitely be mentioned if he got slapped by another man first.

My argument is simply that most folks disagree with you on an ethical basis, not a sexist one.

Sure, but I don't think you're correct. Had Dana first been slapped by a man, I think the coverage would look much more favorable for him.

If Dana had had this altercation with some random man, he'd be similarly perceived. If 2 women had a similar altercation, the more famous retaliator would get the same coverage.

Yeah, I don't think that would be the case.

Just look at how celeb bar fights get covered. When famous people get violent, nobody cares who started it. The only exception is self-defense, and even then only sometimes. In this particular case, most people reject that this qualifies as self-defense, and that's not necessarily sexist.

Do you have any cases of a celebrity getting slapped by someone of the same sex, slapping back, and getting similar criticism?

Was Chris Rock's joke about Jada perceived as mitigating?

No, because Will Smith's slap was physically unprovoked.

Did anyone say that either Drake or Chris Brown were justified when they got into a fight? No.

Let's see those examples compared to the coverage Dana is getting. >

Internalized misandry is very possible >

Dana White is and always has been a piece of shit. I’m just taking the side his dumbass would have taken had somebody else done it. >

Sounds like Ariel Helwani lol >

He grabbed her first. 
Plus he is a trained fighter and they're held to higher standards. >


He grabbed her first.

Did he? I didn't see that part. If so, then perhaps his wife's slap was justified.
For the sake of argument, let's say she slapped him first.

Plus he is a trained fighter and they're held to higher standards.

Sure, and he didn't use much force or high level fighting technique. It was one slap by her and a relatively soft slap by him (a full force slap would've likely knocked her down). >


For the sake of argument, let's say she slapped him first.

I mean...doesn't the entire argument fall apart because she was grabbed?  Like, you said people who are criticizing him are sexist, but that requires  a set of facts those people don't see him grabbing her first. >


I mean...doesn't the entire argument fall apart because she was grabbed?

That doesn't necessarily get you where you want to be, as it's not clear that slapping someone in the face is a proportionate response to being grabbed on the arm.
We could agree that he shouldn't have grabbed her arm, but if she were acting appropriately, she could've told him to let go instead of slapping him in the face.
If a woman grabbed a man on the arm, would you be okay with him slapping her in the face (with the same force) as an appropriate response?
If not, think about why. >


If not, think about why.

Because in most cases, a man can break free with a yank of his arm, but a woman can't necessarily do the equivalent, especially against Dana White.  I don't know if I could get my arm free in that situation. >

Sure, and do you think there was a way, in that situation, that she could've gotten her arm out without resorting to slapping him in the face?
Also, let's say, hypothetically, that a man couldn't free himself from a woman's grip. Would this man then be justified in slapping the woman in the face? >

You think a little petite woman is gonna be able to just get her wrist free from a trained mma fighter whi excelled at grappling lmfao >

Dana was a boxer, not an MMA fighter or grappler. And there were other options, such as asking someone for help or yelling at him. She didn't have to slap him in the face. >

Are... are you serious rn...
You don't even know the guy you're talking about lmfao 
He's a trained jiu-jitsu and trained with and also helped manage the training of Chuck Lidell among other mma fighters 
You find me a boxer who can kick like dana but you won't because he's a mma trained fighter not a boxer 
Also him being a boxer would just throw more credit towards the fact that a slap from his wife doesn't condone a few slaps back as his career would have literally been taking punches to the face by grown trained fighters. >

He knows some jiu jitsu, but the main thing he trained in is boxing. Btw can you show me some of Dana's MMA fights? >

My mother always said to me "two wrongs don't make a right." Both of them are wrong in this situation and the criticism is coming for Dana White because of his standing as CEO of a major sports company (UFC). Dana has also come down hard on UFC fighters involved in domestic disputes so he is getting criticized for not holding himself to the same standard he expects his employees to follow. 
"Their reaction implies that only a man should be held responsible when a man and a wife slap each other." - Wrong. The reaction is one, as stated above Dana White is one of the most famous people on the planet, while his wife is far removed from the public eye. And two, there is never a justified reason for a man to hit a woman, nor a woman to hit a man.
"He literally gave her a slap like she gave him." - So under your reasoning this is purely an "eye for an eye" scenario? What if she did pull back and punch him as hard as she could? Would Dana be justified in your eyes in punching her back as hard as he could? >


What if she did pull back and punch him as hard as she could? Would Dana be justified in your eyes in punching her back as hard as he could?

Yes. If you use violence that is the normal and expected reaction >

I guess it depends what they were arguing about its known he's cheated on his wife and his own mother says he doesn't treat his family right so perhaps in that case the wife slapping him is justified with a context(he's a man with a lot of money inter personal fuckups aren't usually rare with that type of crowd) we are not aware of.Im clearly speculating because I don't know but if they are having that kinda of heat in the moment public conflict its probably over something serious.
I do think it's silly to say it's sexism that causes bais here and not reputation and public persona I know alot of people in to wrestling who already thought he was a bad bloke long before this. >


I don't know but if they are having that kinda of heat in the moment public conflict its probably over something serious.

They were also drunk (and maybe more drunk than they should've been) which made their actions less calculated.

I do think it's silly to say it's sexism that causes bais here and not reputation and public persona I know alot of people in to wrestling who already thought he was a bad bloke long before this.

So if a man slapped Dana, you think he'd be receiving as much backlash as he is now? >

Yeah I forgot about the new years part but to the last bit if he were gay maybe I feel like the optics of people in a relationship doing are big part here but like I said I think you overlooking the fact alot of people don't already like him and view him as sexist before hand for saying shit in the past this is more confirmation bais which you may not like but people have had this opinion of him at least a decade before this. >

I cannot change the sexism which you are clearly projecting onto others, and many others have already stated why Dana White should not have hit his wife. Besides, he is the same person whom refused to seriously punish Conor McGregor for his violent offense. Why would you trust him? >


I cannot change the sexism which you are clearly projecting onto others

What sexism? I acknowledge Dana didn't handle the situation great, but he was slapped first. That is simply a fact.

and many others have already stated why Dana White should not have hit his wife.

Right, and I don't agree with most of the arguments. I agree he shouldn't've grabbed her or slapped her twice, but I think one slap is fine in response to being slapped. >

Are we litigating if his slap can be considered justifiable or whether those criticizing his actions are sexist?  Those are two separate discussions.
According to the original post, the issue is the second. >

It IS actually quite disproportionate. On average, men are significantly stronger and more physically capable than women, and that’s not sexist, It’s a fact. It’s not okay to abuse or hit anybody in a relationship whether you feel like it’s justified or not, but It is very obvious that Dana is 10x stronger than his wife. A slap from her and a slap from him are not the same and it doesnt matter if you think “he held back” or not. >


It IS actually quite disproportionate.

Not from what I saw.

On average, men are significantly stronger and more physically capable than women, and that’s not sexist, It’s a fact.

Agreed.

It is very obvious that Dana is 10x stronger than his wife.

Sure.

A slap from her and a slap from him are not the same and it doesnt matter if you think “he held back” or not.

If he held back such that the force of his slap was equal to the force of her slap, then what's the issue? >

What gives you the authority to determine if his slap was of equal proportion? And what are the chances that it was actually completely equal? >

The video is there for you to see. It didn't seem to me that his slap was much more forceful than hers. >

Did Dana need to slap his wife to defend himself? No? Then it's worth criticising. You don't get to hurt people just because they hurt you first. >

Was Dana supposed to assume his wife wouldn't slap him again?
Also, why criticize Dana for slapping his wife back when she slapped him first? Seems like an odd double-standard. >

Was Dana ever in danger of anything more than a red face and a bruised ego? Was his wife going to actually hurt him? 
And, sure, she shouldn't have hit him either. But that has nothing to do with whether he should hit her, which was your actual complaint. >


Was Dana ever in danger of anything more than a red face and a bruised ego? Was his wife going to actually hurt him?

Same applies for him slapping her. Why is it okay for a woman to give a man a red face and a bruised ego, but it's wrong for a man to give a woman a red face and a bruised ego?

And, sure, she shouldn't have hit him either. But that has nothing to do with whether he should hit her, which was your actual complaint.

Part of my complaint is that he is being criticized as if she did not hit him first when that is clearly a mitigating circumstance. And I think this is done because of our sexist culture's views on woman on man violence. >

It's not okay for her to hit him, except in self defense. It's not okay for him to hit her, except in self defense. And no, 'they hit me and I wanted to hit them back' is not self defense. >

Yeah, I think this is where I disagree. I think it's fine to hit someone who hits you first with proportionate force. >

What is the actual advantage to doing that? Why would you want to do it? Is it just as simple as 'you caused me pain so I get to cause you pain'? >

Immediately after getting slapped, most people don't think entirely rationally. I'd expect anger to be an overwhelming emotion for at least a few seconds.
I don't think retaliation is justified after a few moments as emotions should begin to settle down. >

Why is retaliation only justified if emotions are high? Why is it okay to hurt people if you're mad? >

Because it's in response to what was done to you. I don't take the view that if someone slaps you, you can't slap them back because it's wrong. If the initial aggressor was worried about retaliation, they shouldn't've attacked you in the first place. >


"She started it" is an illegitimate excuse that should die on the playground.

I see people say this and I think, geez, what level of prison abolition are you at? Cause I'm pretty opposed to prisons, but the idea that negative action can not ethically justify negative response is just wild in the context of any justice system. Even a rehabilitative or restorative justice system is going to entail controlling the behavior of a guilty party in a way that would be unethical if they were innocent. And retributive justice? That's just straight up evil in literally all contexts. I say all this because I am rather skeptical you apply this dictate with any degree of consistency, but, if you do apply it consistently, I'd love to see your brochure. >


the idea that negative action can not ethically justify negative response is just wild in the context of any justice system

Sure, take this sentence out of context and I guess you could say this is what I meant if you stretch it far enough and include a lot of assumptions. But I explicitly stated that self-defense is justifiable, so obviously I don't believe what you've stated here. >

I'm not talking about self-defense. If someone stabs someone else, and you put them in jail over it, it's not self-defense. It's doing something bad to a person (putting them in jail) because they first did something bad (stabbing someone). >

Got it, and I see where you're going now. Again, I don't think that conclusion follows re: the justice system because I was applying it to a situation between two individuals. 
I do not see it as inconsistent to believe that in a modern society the role of responding to bad behavior should rest with some judicial system and not with individuals. >

That seems fairly arbitrary. Why should behavior justify a response exclusively in the context of a state? Reads like outsourcing. Like we're telling this massive institution, "We don't want to say, 'she did it first,' so you do it for us." >

The state is more able to provide a process (including the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial) and more consistency in outcome. The state is also able to act in a more objective way than the person who was directly harmed. Those don't really exist if we leave it to individuals. Not arbitrary at all. >

It is arbitrary though. The presumption of innocence is moot in this case, as well as in cases like this one. The dude that got slapped knows full well who slapped him, as well as that the slapping occurred. The notion of consistency too can be rendered pretty important as long as we apply some basic notion of proportionality. From an ethical perspective, we can understand various reactions as good or bad depending on how proportional they are.
You may ultimately prefer that these sorts of responses be provided by the state rather than the individual. Which is fine. But the logic underlying the state's response is necessarily that it is justified in taking certain negative actions because a negative action was first performed. >

It's pretty apparent to me that a system that puts justice in the hands of individuals is going to be a lot more fucked up in terms of outcomes and fairness.
Whether you see it as arbitrary or not, it's not inconsistent or hypocritical, and what I wrote does not necessarily lead to the conclusions you claimed it does. So we can move on from that.
Have a good one! >

I feel like you're missing the point a bit. Your claim wasn't that, "She did it first," is a suboptimal system. It was that such a claim is outright childish. Which, given it's an ethical claim, implies that you consider such a reaction unethical. I'm not here to tell you about the optimal way to structure society. Least not at the moment. What I'm saying is that a bad action can serve as the ethical justification for behavior that in other contexts would be bad. Are all such responses ethical? Of course not, and maybe you think fewer of these responses would be ethical than those administered by some system. But some such responses would be ethical, and they would be ethical because, again, "She did it first." >

Find the full video. 
He goes up to her and confronts her, and she moves to leave. He grabs her wrist and she slaps him. Then he proceeds to slap her a few times and then continues pushing and shoving her. 
That is why he is being criticized. 
He even said that people need to stop defending him, and that there is no defense for what he did. And that the criticism he has received is fully warranted. 
So it may be a good idea to stop defending him. >

He was squeezing her arm not letting her leave before she slapped. >

For 1 second. I don't think that justifies a slap to the face. >

You oddly seem to be using exact opposite reasoning to defend the point that you arrived with.
On one hand, you state that being grabbed "for 1 second" doesn't justify escalation to slapping.  You looked at the video and determined that the wife shouldn't have been scared, and thus any action on her part was unwarranted because it didn't look scary to you.  It was just a second.  Elsewhere in the thread, you also assert that Dana White was acting in self defense because his wife slapped him first and thus he is the defender. 
The logical implication of these two concurrent opinions is that you judge that Dana White could be harmed by an average, untrained woman who is significantly smaller than him slapping him on the face. And that, as a person who is trained in a sport in which the goal is to be repeatedly punched in the head, he would be fearful of additional damage based on the violence and power of the first strike.
Regardless of gender, people generally judge someone who physically retaliates against a significantly weaker opponent that clearly does not pose an actual threat as asshole on some level. If the neighbor's 10 year old son slaps me across the face and I slap him back, I'm not going to be seen in a positive light just because I'm a woman.  If an 90 year old grandad in the supermarket cracks me on the shin with his cane, people are not going to think I'm a badass if I return fire. >

This is spot on. OP inconsistent logic is so apparent. And when he finally comes around to accepting Dana grabbed his wife first, his response is “we’ll assume for the sake of argument that she slapped him first. It’s okay to hit a woman right!?” >

Yeah these types of very specific arguments always boil down to "how can I loophole my way into people not thinking I'm a complete shithead because I want to hit a woman". 
It's incredibly weird because there are situations that you could pose these questions about, that don't require 10 "well we'll assumes", that could be used to discuss societal-level sexism. >

If he slaps his wife in public, what the hell does he do in private? >

To be fair, she slapped him in public first. >

HOW CAN SHE SLAP? >

I just know a man wrote this thread 😑😑 >

Please read Why Does He Do That. It will explain you the distinction between a man and a woman’s slap better than any of us here can. >

I know men are much stronger. Dana clearly used reduced force to hit her with similar force she hit him. >

Both were unjustified. Slapping in retaliation is still abuse. You can only use physical force to defend yourself, which this wasn't. >

So you think retaliation is always wrong? I don't think I agree there. >

What purpose does it serve? (I'm not talking about a situation where someone is repeatedly attacking you and you have to put a stop to it) >

It's not about serving a purpose. If someone hits you, you have the right to hit back. >

If you are hitting someone to punish them it's abuse. Man, woman, child whatever.
If you are hitting someone just because you can it's even worse. >

If you want to say it's abuse to slap someone who slapped you with equal force, then I'm okay with that form of abuse. >

The dude hit her 3 times, the last one she was recoiling from the hits and he grabbed her arm and pulled her back to hit her again. 
He is twice her weight and her husband. You know if he goes after her in full view of the public like that, that he is an abusive as hell at home. >

I haven’t seen the video nor do i know these people. But. 
Did he actually need to slap her? So she slapped him…why does he need to slap her back exactly? Is it for vengeance? To make himself feel better by hurting her back?
Are those good reasons to slap a person? >

Most people aren't going to think entirely rationally right after being slapped. As long as he didn't go overboard, I don't think there's a big issue with a retaliatory slap. >

Well I don’t know what the criticism has really been but I think “hey I don’t think you had any good reason to slap your wife and so you shouldn’t have done it” is a pretty reasonable response to this action. >

I take being slapped by her first as a good reason to slap her back. >

Can you explain why that in itself is a good reason? As far as I can tell it basically boils down to a desire for retribution which, while an understandable human reaction, is not exactly a good reason to do something. There is a reason why do not permit vigilante justice. >

It fulfills a desire. Desire satisfaction is a good reason to do anything. >

Do you think we should always fulfil our desires, regardless of consequences? >

Nope. In some cases we should, in some we shouldn't. >

And in the case where fulfilling a desire involves slapping someone in the face? >

Depends on the context. If one desires to do that unprovoked, it's wrong. If that desire is spurred in someone immediately after being slapped, it's not wrong. >

Agreed - this was self defense!!!! 
What if Dana slapped her first and she responded - do you think she would be hauled over the coals, of course not. If feminists want equality they just got it in my opinion. >

Call it self defense or retaliation it doesn’t matter - society today expects us to stand around like pussies when we are attacked and he was attacked, I don’t care if it’s a chick or a guy….if a tiny skinny guy punches a big dude do you think he doesn’t deserve what he has coming. What we saw there was equality in action you feminists! >

She is much weaker than him, and her slap cannot seriously harm him.  He is much stronger and his slap can harm her.
This is why men hitting women has been seen worse than women hitting men for all time. >

Sure, but men are able to regulate their use of force. Not every slap is full-force. Dana clearly regulated the force behind his slap to match his wife. >

People who respond to conflict with violence are not people who I believe often regulate their emotionally violent outbursts. >

Then why didn't he beat the shit out of her? >


People are criticizing Dana White like he abused his wife for no reason. 

Abusers always have a "reason" to abuse. 

The video clearly shows Dana's wife slapping him first. Dana slapped her as a reaction to her slap.

She shouldn't have slapped him and he shouldn't slap her. Her slapping him doesn't make him slapping her ok. >


Abusers always have a "reason" to abuse.

So if I slapped you and you slapped me back in retaliation, is that abuse?

She shouldn't have slapped him and he shouldn't slap her. Her slapping him doesn't make him slapping her ok.

So do you not accept that self-defense is morally permissible? >

I accept self-defense is morally permissible.
I also accept that it should be proportional, and this is the reason why many of these "double standards" between men and women for hitting each other exist.
Because men's arms tend to have more mass and more strength behind it, so a man slapping a woman can do more damage (on average) than vice versa, and it appears that these averages likely hold true in the case above.
That said, if you look at the video, he A) waits a second, evaluates, then retaliates B) slaps her multiple times, and C) looks like it happened after he physically interacted with her.  to me it looks like she was about to leave, he grabbed her, and she slapped in response.  And after the first slap, it appears like he's still holding on to her.  It's tough to tell, because it's far away and lot of flashes, but I can easily see how people reach a conclusion of "he's in the wrong" and I can also see how people reach the "he only retaliated" part. >


I also accept that it should be proportional, and this is the reason why many of these "double standards" between men and women for hitting each other exist.

I agree. But from what I saw, Dana's use of force was proportionate. He didn't do a full-force slap. That likely would've knocked her down. He regulated his use of force, and I don't see how it was disproportionate given what his wife had already done.

Because men's arms tend to have more mass and more strength behind it, so a man slapping a woman can do more damage (on average) than vice versa, and it appears that these averages likely hold true in the case above.

Sure, I'd agree if we were talking about a full-force slap from a woman vs. a full-force slap from a man. My argument is that Dana appropriately regulated the force of his slap such that it was not full-force and was appropriate given his wife's actions.

That said, if you look at the video, he A) waits a second, evaluates, then retaliates

Sure, he may be seeing if she's backing off vs. continuing her aggressive behavior. It didn't seem like she was done after her first slap.

B) slaps her multiple times,

I saw one slap and then a minor struggle. I can actually see her attempt to slap him again while he's holding her hands, but I don't see multiple slaps by him.

C) looks like it happened after he physically interacted with her.

Sure, putting his hand on her arm may have been wrong.
But according to your own standard of proportionality, is it okay to slap someone for putting their hand on your arm? Shouldn't you ask them to stop instead of immediately attacking them? Especially if it's your spouse who you know likely poses no danger to you (there's no indication of any slapping or abuse before this incident).

And after the first slap, it appears like he's still holding on to her.

To me, it looked like a little bit of a struggle between them at that point.
But I'll give you a Δ for pointing out that it looked like she was about to walk away first because I didn't see that. >

Honestly, the more I look at it, it looks like she tries to leave multiple times, but he is holding on to her.
I view a slap that clearly won't risk harming a person on par with physically grabbing a person to restrain them.  SO I don't necessarily see that as escalation due to the strength and mass of the people involved. >


Honestly, the more I look at it, it looks like she tries to leave multiple times, but he is holding on to her.

I did see her try to leave once at the beginning before the slap when he held her by the arm. At other points it becomes difficult to see if she's trying to leave. It looks like at one point when they are struggling a bit that she tries to slap him again but he prevents it.

I view a slap that clearly won't risk harming a person on par with physically grabbing a person to restrain them. SO I don't necessarily see that as escalation due to the strength and mass of the people involved.

I do see slapping someone in the face as an escalation of being held by the arm. Had she not slapped him, she probably could've freed herself from his grip without violence. >

When a person is physically restraining you, why is it "escalating" to use physical force to free yourself (and in this case at a level that appears not to even have done that). >

If you have non-violent ways of freeing yourself, slapping someone in the face to do so is escalatory. She was in a room with a bunch of people. She could've asked someone for help, yanked her arm, screamed at him, etc. She opted to slap him in the face. That is an escalatory used of violence. >

You are clearly here defending physical abuse. Dana got physically violent, you are mad that she responded. Do you not realize how much pain a man can cause a woman just from a grip? >

Idk if I'd consider grabbing your wife's arm for less than 2 seconds to be violence that warrants a slap to the face. >

The way he grabbed her hand first gives a very strong impression that he is used to her being abusive (if a wife regularly slaps her husband whenever she's angry that is abuse). I have seen the statement he's given and it's pretty much regurgitating the brainwashing and conditioning men go through their entire lives being told its never okay to defend themselves when their abuser is a woman, and to just ignore and apologize for a woman abusing them. >

Never heard of these people >

I am female.  Women are fighting for equal rights.  You slap, you can be expected to be slapped in return.  No violence is justified by either party. >

There is no need to change your mind. Society has a twisted way of thinking. They want everyone to be a victim of something. She slapped him, and he slapped her back,  it's a natural reaction. Women want equality, let them have it.  No one should think they can put their hands on someone without immediate consequence. >

Slapping her back isn’t self-defense because it doesn’t prevent her from continuing her assault. Self-defense has to be defensive - aimed at stopping (not just returning) aggression.
If he had held her hands to her sides or pushed her away that would have been self-defense since that would have ended the threat. >

Okay, I think I accept retaliation as a justified action in this case. >

You can do so - but surely you can see why his action would be controversial. After all, it is illegal! >

This whole time I thought they were saying Diana White and I was so confused lol >

I don’t think what he did was right, but it’s not abuse nor is it necessarily wrong. Should he have, no but she slapped him first >

Any man who puts hands on a woman isn’t a real man. Your average man is much stronger than your average woman. When a woman slaps a man, he is not afraid for his life. He is not afraid that if things escalate she might kill him. When a man slaps a woman, it does make her fear for her life. It does make her worry that if things escalate he could seriously harm her or kill her. Your average man can easily overpower your average woman and kill her. The reverse is not possible unless a weapon is used. The point is: pick on someone your own size. If a child kicks you with minimal force because they’re a small child with no physical strength, would you think it’s acceptable to kick them back using your adult strength? I sure hope not. >

But he didn't slap her with full force. It was clear he slapped her with about the same force she used. >

How do you know? You weren’t in her body to feel the force. You can’t tell the force of something by how it looks. That’s not how you scientifically measure it. 
However, the force of the slap isn’t the only factor here. The point is that you shouldn’t hit someone much smaller and weaker than you. When a man hits a woman, he puts fear in her even if the slap barely hurt. She has no way of knowing that he’s not going to snap and start beating the shit out of her. By hitting a woman, you’re putting her in a powerless situation. >

If those are your standards for why men shouldn't hit women, then women should go out of their ways to not him men so as to not justify men hitting them back. It seems absurd to argue that because women are weaker than men, when they hit men, it's wrong for men to hit back (with similar force). >

I’m not condoning female violence against males. If a woman hits a man, she should be charged with physical assault. That being said, that doesn’t give a man the right to hit her back. It’s not self defense. It’s physical assault. 
You didn’t address the most important point I made. Even if the slap doesn’t hurt, male violence puts fear in women and renders them powerless. An average man is much bigger and much stronger than an average woman. A man can easily overpower and even kill a woman. When a man becomes violent, a woman has no way of knowing that he won’t escalate and beat the shit out of her or kill her. Thus it is wrong for a man to exert that kind of power over a woman. I would say the same thing if a man beat up a guy half his size even if the short guy started the fight. >


I’m not condoning female violence against males. If a woman hits a man, she should be charged with physical assault. That being said, that doesn’t give a man the right to hit her back. It’s not self defense. It’s physical assault.

I'm fine with an immediate retaliatory slap to someone who slaps you first.

You didn’t address the most important point I made. Even if the slap doesn’t hurt, male violence puts fear in women and renders them powerless.

I did address this point. If a woman is so fearless as to slap the man in the first place, she doesn't get to claim she's too "scared" and "powerless" for his slap back. If she was that fearful, she wouldn't've slapped in the first place.

An average man is much bigger and much stronger than an average woman.

Agreed. That's why it's good that Dana only used a fraction of his strength to match his wife.

A man can easily overpower and even kill a woman.

Sure. That's not relevant to this situation where she slapped him first and he slapped back with restraint.

When a man becomes violent, a woman has no way of knowing that he won’t escalate and beat the shit out of her or kill her.

Yeah, you're just talking about this like there's no context.


They're married. She knows he won't seriously harm or kill her.


They're in public and surrounded by people. Even if he wanted to kill her, there were many people who would've stopped him.


She slapped him first. She should expect a retaliatory slap.


So sure, if it was a stranger, then it's a different story. But she knows her husband is not a threat to her life or safety.

Thus it is wrong for a man to exert that kind of power over a woman.

In general, I agree. But as retaliation to her initial slap? I disagree.

I would say the same thing if a man beat up a guy half his size even if the short guy started the fight.

He didn't beat her up, though. He slapped her like she slapped him. Maybe you could argue the extra slap was bad and sure, that's fine, but the main issue I take is that he slapped her with similar force that she slapped him and that seems justified to me given that she slapped him first. >

They were abusing each other. It's called an abusive relationship. Dana White doesn't get an excuse because he got hit too. He's never come across as the friendliest guy in the world imo. >

First off, I’d rather not argue about the incident itself, as I firmly believe Dana genuinely battered and arguably assaulted his wife following her response to his restraint of her, since I’m sure neither of us will change or views. However, would you mind expounding on your view that the coverage of this is sexist. I’m so lowkey confused about why you’re so fixated on that. >

obviously she shouldnt have hit him first but yall gotta learn what self defense means >

Men are treated with more authority so they are held to a higher standard. >

The use of force is never ok. So she slaps him and he gets one back….. ok np but he claps back with multiple multiple hits, was he in danger anting beyond the first slap is unnecessary >

I agree, nothing beyond the first slap was necessary. >

My crazy ex-girlfriend slapped me once. I turned around and walked out of the house just like I should have right? She wasn't having that. She smacked her own face against the door and called the cops anyway. That was the one and only night I spent in jail.
She calmed down and decided not to press charges because I didn't do anything but just wanted me to know that she always had the option of taking me down. 
I walked away from that abusive relationship. I was done with her. I knew if I stayed I would wind up getting abusive with her because she was a psycho.
She found another man. They started getting serious. She married the guy. He actually does beat the hell out of her regularly. They are still together. They deserve each other. >

A person (no matter their gender identity) should be the better and bigger person and not hurt someone unless they absolutely have to in self defense. If they’re able to get away from whoever slapped them they should and not retaliate. Not a matter of gender for me as it is a matter of character and being a good person. >

He grabbed her arm and restrained her before she slapped him. He is an abuser. >

He didn't restrain her. He touched her arm, she didn't attempt to leave, and she immediately slapped him in the face. >

All of these comments are sexist women 💀 >

He did nothing wrong.  She fucked around and found out >

I mean is his wife famous in her own right?  Generally speaking, even if you viewed his actions the same as his wife's, it would only be natural to focus your outrage toward the person with the higher profile.  Not because his wife's behavior is any better but because we naturally hold people who occupy a space in the public eye to the highest standard.  If you think you deserve to be famous, you should follow the basic rules of human decency. Focusing your criticism on someone famous is not really the same as giving everyone else a pass for the same crime. >

Should, it makes sense that people and the media are focusing on him. But I think the framing is a bit sexist because it acts as though he wasn't slapped first, and I think this is because woman on man violence is trivialized. >

Convention is a difficult beast. Many call it a blemish/many think of it is as a safety jacket.
Honestly, my first reaction wasn’t of Dana slaps being that of a physical remark of sexism and more of him showing his willingness to abuse.
Say what you will about the weaker sex etc (which I think is ultimately something instituted by society and it’s low expectations of how women should be), the average women tends to be weaker. In the case of a man who represents the  UFC, much weaker. 
The conversation around men who hit women I think is less rooted in sexism and is more based in their willingness to hurt those weaker than them: be it their wife, a child, a pet, etc