> On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 13:47:32 -0400, you wrote:
> >Sorry Nadia, I've never slapped a woman (though one or two probably should have),
> >but slapping is an excellent example of what I am getting at. Its socially ok (or
> >at least marginally acceptable depending on circumstances) in most circles for a
> >woman to slap a man for rude or obnoxious behavior. However it is not at all
> >acceptable for a man to do the same to a woman. As a result, I have seem far more
> >instances of women slapping men in my life than the reverse. I think that this
> >will be the sort of thing that will happen if non-lethal technologies are widely
> >used to replace lethal defensive technologies.
> Yes, Michael I see; it would be sort of hi-tech extension of
> male-bashing, then?
> You often see women slapping men on TV/movies. In your scenario, on
> any given prime time sitcom, you might see women making men the butt
> of jokes by tasering them.
Well, no, thats not my point. My point is that there are two standards we can compare here, and see which results in more violence. We have: a) a case where its ok to use non-lethal, minimally harmful violence against even merely offensive behavior, where the user of force is not held responsible, and b) a case where it is not ok under any but the worst circumstances, and will usually result in a review by others of whether it was responsible action, and the weilder is much more likely to cause actual harm.
In this case, we see that standard (a) results in more violence than (b). It is for this reason that I argue that unless the bar of seriousness in the use and consequences of force is not a high one, there will be the result of more, not less violence, which could trigger even more lethal violence as a retaliatory action against non-lethal violence.