comment: >
  
  That could potentially but you at risk, but you do you.
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. >
  
  
  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. >
  
  
  But the threat of violence always exists between any two people.
  
  Does it not exist significantly more when one person is far more likely to be violent and is also more capable of enacting violence?
  
  men and women are about equally likely to be victims of violent crime.
  
  Certainly, but that figure doesn't matter.
  The figure that matters is that men overwhelmingly commit almost all violent crime.
  
  they should not expect to be free from a reasonable amount of retaliation based solely on their gender.
  
  What a person should expect from starting a hostile situation is a different discussion than whether or not a more powerful person is wrong for dealing disproportionate violence in return. >
  
  
  Does it not exist significantly more when one person is far more likely to be violent and is also more capable of enacting violence?
  
  You're making the assumption that individual men are more likely to be violent, which I will again disagree with. 
  Try seeing the problem through the lens of race: you don't treat black people differently than white people just because the stats say that black people commit more violent crime per capita than white people. To do that would be racist. In the same sense, treating men differently based on your perception of their capacity to commit a violent action is sexist.
  
  What a person should expect from starting a hostile situation is a different discussion than whether or not a more powerful person is wrong for dealing disproportionate violence in return.
  
  I completely agree with this. Violent retaliation should be for self-defense only, but I think it's still fair for a man to retaliate against a woman provided he's doing so in self-defense. >
  
  
  You're making the assumption that individual men are more likely to be violent, which I will again disagree with.
  
  No, it's not an assumption, it's a conclusion based on overwhelming statistics.
  
  Try seeing the problem through the lens of race: you don't treat black people differently than white people just because the stats say that black people commit more violent crime per capita than white people.
  
  What you're describing is a class issue at heart. And yes, it's a little insensitive but I am more cautious around people who I know are statistically more likely to cause me harm. In poor areas or around poor people I tend to have my guard up.
  It has nothing to do with black or white, like MLK said. >
  
  
  And yes, it's a little insensitive but 
  
  But don't you think you're acknowledging that, to some degree, you are wrong to be doing that? That, yes, it seems reasonable to have your guard up around certain groups of people but it's still wrong and unfair to the individuals within that group?
  I think it's the same for men. I get why some women might have a guard up, I really do understand that POV - but that doesn't necessarily make it right. >
  
  
  But don't you think you're acknowledging that, to some degree, you are wrong to be doing that? 
  
  How is it wrong?
  Are you telling me when you drive through a rough part of town that you aren't a little more wary? 
  
  That, yes, it seems reasonable to have your guard up around certain groups of people but it's still wrong and unfair to the individuals within that group?
  
  It is completely reasonable, not in any way unfair. 
  
  I think it's the same for men. I get why some women might have a guard up, I really do understand that POV - but that doesn't necessarily make it right.
  
  Not wanting to get raped or murdered and cut into pieces justifies some statistically supported generalizations. >
  
  Treating people differently based on the group of people they come from, whether it is race or gender or whatever, is wrong.
  
  Not wanting to get raped or murdered and cut into pieces justifies some statistically supported generalizations
  
  I vehemently disagree. This thought process is what allows people to be racist, xenophobic, etc. Your fear does not justify your choice to treat people differently.
  If you disagree with me on that, then I probably can't change your mind on this matter. Thank you for a good and civil discussion though. >
  
  Speaking as a dude, it seems awfully weird for you to justify ignoring my preferences regarding who touches me because sometimes other men pose a serious threat to women when they ignore those weapons preferences? >
  
  Read a post before replying lmao >
  
  I did.
  
  Mainly with somewhat minor inappropriate behavior, 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."
  A lot of times they are correct, if a guy had taken that action then they would be seen as a creep or even charged with something.
  But it's fair that such small interactions between guys and girls are treated differently, because when a guy does it there is a much more serious threat of a physical follow through or escalation. >
  
  No no no, read the whole thing.
  Never did I argue for ignoring the preferences of men, or downplaying how they feel about physical violations. >
  
  
  No no no, read the whole thing.
  
  I did.
  If a strange woman touches me in a flirty way, that's fucking creepy. I should be able to call it creepy. >
  
  Absolutely, I never said otherwise. >
  
  M'kay. Have a good one. >
  
  Learn to read and have a good one >
  
  Will do! Thanks! >
  
  
  But it's fair that such small interactions between guys and girls are treated differently, because when a guy does it there is a much more serious threat of a physical follow through or escalation.
  
  Hmmmm. Yes... Lets judge guys (and only guys) for something that hasnt even happened. Thats a completely reasonable and logical viewpoint, and not at all crazy and sexist. 
  Sexism =/= acceptable or reasonable... >
  
  Well we aren't accusing a touchy guy of rape here, we are just saying that a touchy guy is creepier than a touchy girl.  While a double standard, it's rooted in solid historical and social facts.  It shouldn't be that way and those that advocate for equality definitely don't want it to be that way, but it would be unreasonable to claim it already is that way. >
  
  
  While a double standard, it's rooted in solid historical and social facts.
  
  Make the same argument about Blacks and Crime. Or Muslims and Terrorism. Then tell me if its unreasonable...
  Discrimination = Discrimination... >
  
  It's not the same though.  With men and women it's not about crime and terrorism, it's about small culture nudges.  Telling someone to not get near your car because they are black is a culture nudge in the exact opposite direction.  In this case the black is a victim of racism.
  In the case of telling a male that unwanted touches to a female is creepy, the potential victim is the female.
  Of course taking it to an extreme is stupid, and many organisations have done this. >
  
  
  In the case of telling a male that unwanted touches to a female is creepy, the potential victim is the female.
  
  Why not tell black people to stay out of stores? The potential victim is the store owner who can lose valuable property. >
  
  The difference you're talking about is equality versus equity.
  Let's bring that to physical fights. Even in boxing you have different weight classes! A 220 lb fighter is not in the same class as a 145 lb fighter.  That is equity. >
  
  If you want equality, you also must accept equal responsibility. >
  
  Wonderfully put. >
  
  So you don't want equality then? >
  
  No, I want proportional treatment. That is the closest to equality anyone can actually get. >
  
  So if a woman is attacking you (a male), can you fight back as long as you make sure not to hurt her too much? Just because you are more powerful doesn't necessarily mean that you must always flaunt that power and cannot hold back. >
  
  If a woman attacked me I'd just put her in a headlock until she calmed down (without applying enough pressure to choke) or just walk away because I'm not a dickhead.