comment: >
  
  
  I don't think they're inherently more likely to do something violent than women.
  
  My point isn't that they will, it's that they can.
  And also, now that you bring it up, they are much more likely to statistically speaking.
  
  But consider this: a weak skinny guy throws a punch at a buff UFC champ, and both are men. By your logic, the skinny guy isn't as capable in a fight, so the buff person should show restraint because it's not a fair fight.
  
  Different topic, but I agree. With power comes responsibility, everything needs to be judged in proportion.
  
  To me, if you start a fight, you have to be ready to finish it.
  
  Sure, but that doesn't mean it's okay for a UFC fighter to cause serious harm to someone who they could take down without harming them.
context: The reason why double standards based on gender are never okay is because they fail to account for the root cause of the issues they're covering.
  You say that a man can hit harder than a woman in general, so they gave the responsibility to exercise restraint. That's true and I generally agree, but that's not because of gender or sex, it's because one party has much more capacity for violence than the other.
  For instance, what is a very large man's responsibility ~~with~~when confronted by a very small man? Does the large man have a similar responsibility to exercise restraint? Why? Should a butch woman exercise restraint against a petite woman? 
  If you said no to any of those examples, your goal is not equality or even equity, it is sexism. >
  
  This exactly. Men shouldn’t be held to a different standard than women, rather the person with more power in the situation should be held to a different standard than the person with less power. Whether it be a strength imbalance, a power imbalance at the office, etc. >
  
  Would you agree that if you're advocating in favor of double standards between men and women you are also advocating against equal treatment of men and women by society? >
  
  I suppose, that in the type of scenarios that I described, yes I am advocating for different treatment. >
  
  Acknowledging that there are various definitions of "fair" if someone defines "fairness" between men and women as "equal treatment by society" (and likely the law a well), wouldn't that mean that to them double standards are not fair? >
  
  I don't really mean fair in that sense, I sorta overlooked that fair can also mean equality in a sense.
  I see how that's confusing, my apologies for the poorly worded title.
  I mean fair more so as it's acceptable or reasonable. >
  
  Wouldn't that just change my argument to say that some people define unequal treatment of men and women by society as unacceptable and unreasonable? >
  
  Sure, plenty of people disagree with me. >
  
  So what would you say to social egalitarians that might convince them that treating someone more poorly than someone else based on their immutable characteristics is actually a good thing?
  I don't think there is one. This appears to me to be a difference of basic moral values. People who believe some groups of people are inherently superior to others are going to support your position. People who believe people should be treated equally will oppose. >
  
  
  treating someone more poorly than someone else based on their immutable characteristics is actually a good thing?
  
  Where did I advocate treating anyone poorly?
  
  People who believe some groups of people are inherently superior to others are going to support your position.
  
  You're trying to equate me saying that strong people have more responsibility for physical violations over weak people than vice versa to some sort of fascistic moral system.
  I think this is quite an exaggeration. >
  
  
  to some sort of fascistic moral system.
  
  I don't think I implied anywhere you're a fascist. There's about a billion degrees between a vague sense of superiority and literal fascism. 
  
  You're trying to equate me saying that strong people have more responsibility for physical violations over weak people
  
  Say that, then. We don't need a rule that says a man hitting a woman is worse than the opposite. The rule should be a strong person hitting a weak person. If you're generalizing you're going to have problems. Take for example the pretty common situation of an altercation between a man and a weaker man. >
  
  
  I don't think I implied anywhere you're a fascist.
  
  And I never implied I thought you had called me one. 
  Hence the words
  "Some sort of"
  instead of
  "literal fascistic" or just "fascistic"
  
  Say that, then. We don't need a rule that says a man hitting a woman is worse than the opposite. The rule should be a strong person hitting a weak person. If you're generalizing you're going to have problems. 
  
  With very few exceptions, men are much stronger than women. 
  It's a fair generalization to make.
  
  Take for example the pretty common situation of an altercation between a man and a weaker man.
  
  My post just isn't about this topic, it's about a specific social phenomena. >
  
  Is there a situation where you would be in favor of a double standard for women and men that is unfavorable to the women?   
  There are strength discrepancies between men and women for sure. If a police or fire department said they refuse to hire woman because they aren't as strong as men, would you say that is fair? >
  
  
  Is there a situation where you would be in favor of a double standard for women and men that is unfavorable to the women?
  
  Unrelated to my argument.
  
  There are strength discrepancies between men and women for sure. If a police or fire department said they refuse to hire woman because they aren't as strong as men, would you say that is fair?
  
  I would say they should hire based on the physical requirements of the job. >
  
  It is totally related because you are talking about what is "fair" but it clearly isn't fair if the double standards only favor one group. 
  Men should never hit women, because they are stronger than women. But why we can't use "men are stronger than women" as a justification to benefit men?   
  
  I would say they should hire based on the physical requirements of the job.
  
  Why? Even if a woman meets the minimum, men are stronger than women. Men could outperform any minimum requirement that women are able to meet. If we wanted the strongest firefighters and cops, we should, by your logic, only hire men. >
  
  if you're going to equate the two why not say allow female firefighters and cops but those are the only women men can hit because they're the only one strong enough for it to be equal >
  
  
  a girl will do something like set their hand on a guys shoulder to flirt or as a joke and someone will say "imagine of a guy did that, it would be considered sexual assault."
  
  I don't think this is true. The girl could try to claim sexual assault but wouldn't be successful... unless of course she has directly asked the guy to stop and he repeated the behavior... but it that case the same would apply if the male female roles were flipped >
  
  
  because when a guy does it there is a much more serious threat of a physical follow through or escalation.
  
  I can definitely understand why it might seem that way, but I don't think I agree with this. While men are physically more capable of "winning" an altercation, I don't think they're inherently more likely to do something violent than women.
  As for the "equal rights equal fights" thing : Your argument seems to rely on the fact that men are biologically larger and more capable in a fight than women. But consider this: a weak skinny guy throws a punch at a buff UFC champ, and both are men. By your logic, the skinny guy isn't as capable in a fight, so the buff person should show restraint because it's not a fair fight.
  To me, if you start a fight, you have to be ready to finish it. Using any kind of violence (aside from self-defense) against another human voids your freedom from that same kind of violence - especially if you're foolish enough to attack someone larger than yourself.