Should Women Be Beaten?

[Traditio]

I don't agree that punishment is anyone's right. Any more than I'd agree that offensive aggression is anyone right. Both are wrong, yet both will occur. So I think we should deal with them, pragmatically. And I don't think punishment is particularly pragmatic. Redress is pragmatic. But inflicting pain or suffering is a dubious method of redress.

Your opinion is contrary to the pre-modern conception of law, to the Scholastic tradition and to Kant. :idunno:

Furthermore, you allegedly are a Christian. You can't mesh this opinion 1. with the Old Law and 2. with the notion of Hell.

 

[bybee]

I'm tempted to ask how well your search for female companionship is going, how well has it gone in the past?
It is a topic which you yourself have broached on occasion yet it does seem invasive and rude so I won't ask.

 

[annabenedetti]

You're saying a woman should be beaten by her spouse for those three things?

I didn't say that.

Notice the very careful language that I used in my answer to your question. I didn't say: "The man should beat his wife in these circumstances. What I said was: "Here are circumstances which are gravely contrary to the marital relationship and objectively merit punishment on the part of the offender." In so many words.

For all three of those offenses, she deserves to be punished. In abstracto, any number of punishments are conceivable, all of which are just, which can be carried out by any number of different agents.

I would like to remind you that, in the OT, the Law of Moses prescribed stoning for an adulteress. Unless you dare blaspheme and accuse God of injustice, then you must admit that it is potentially just for an entire community to stone an adulteress to death. In concreto, that is, in this or that existentially realized circumstance, it may not be the case that it is just to stone an adulteress, because various circumstances prevent it.

That's why I withheld judgment. If the State reserves the authority to punish, then it's probably unjust for a husband to beat his wife in those circumstances (though, what other man would hold him accountable in a court of law if he did?), since he doesn't have the authority to do so.

But suppose that there are circumstances in which the State dispenses the authority to punish in such circumstances to the paterfamilias. Then yes, I think it would be perfectly just for a man to beat his wife in such circumstances. She deserves punishment. Beating is a proportionate punishment (at least, if it is not too little, it is at least not too grave a punishment), and the paterfamilias would have the authority to carry it out. Therefore, it would be right for him to beat her.

The Law of Moses prescribed stoning. Given the fact that a God whose very name is Justice Itself prescribed this penalty, you can't argue that this is, in principle, out of the question. If the State permits a husband to beat his wife in such circumstances, then by all means, the husband, it seems to me, would have a right to do so.

Got it.

 

[Traditio]

Got it.

Let me be clear, though: Existentially, in concreto, in these actual circumstances (United States of America, 2014), if one's spouse commits adultery, it's seems likely that the offended spouse has no right of corporal punishment (since the State reserves this right). Though, even here, I don't think that a spouse who did beat his wife in such a circumstance should be held accountable to the State (the circumstances may mitigate his guilt).

Spoken another way, if I had a married friend who came to me and divulged that his wife committed adultery, and asked for my advise on whether or not he should beat her, and only accepted a "yes" or "no" answer, I almost certainly would reply in the negative. I would indicate that he should forgive his wife and seek out means of repairing his marriage.

 

[bybee]

Let me be clear, though: Existentially, in concreto, in these actual circumstances (United States of America, 2014), if one's spouse commits adultery, it's seems likely that the offended spouse has no right of corporal punishment (since the State reserves this right). Though, even here, I don't think that a spouse who did beat his wife in such a circumstance should be held accountable to the State (the circumstances may mitigate his guilt).

Spoken another way, if I had a married friend who came to me and divulged that his wife committed adultery, and asked for my advise on whether or not he should beat her, and only accepted a "yes" or "no" answer, I almost certainly would reply in the negative. I would indicate that he should forgive his wife and seek out means of repairing his marriage.

Your scenario is a straw construct. A man who hits, hits out of anger and lack of control. He would not go seek advice from an unmarried friend in a dispassionate way and then, depending on the advice either go home and beat her or not.
In America, regardless of the beliefs of the still existing troglodytes, hitting another person is called assault and it is punishable.

 

[Rusha]

Should women be beaten? Generally speaking, of course not. Are there instances where I would find it understandable to use restraint, including an open hand slap? Certainly.

In a case where a woman is wailing on her husband, I don't see that he is obligated to be used as a punching bag anymore than she is ...

In a case where ANY parent is beating/harming their child, the other parent needs to protect the child even if it means smacking the living tar out of the other parent.

Normally, it is men who are abusive due to their own mental deficiency, however, that doesn't mean that in every instance men should not be expected to defend themselves from harm.

Violence is normally about jealousy and control, and in these cases, there is no excuse.

 

[glorydaz]

If a woman intentionally burns down her and her husband's home, objectively speaking, does she deserve a beating? Presupposing that there are no mitigating circumstances, probably.

If a man intentionally burns down the home, the wife should take the kids and leave while she still can.

 

[glorydaz]

my male professor was teaching us this morning about the menstrual cycle and the periodic hormonal changes associated

but he's not a woman

should he be allowed to teach this material?


who would silly little anna propose should be allowed to teach an ethics class? ghandi?

Stay away from ethics classes....lest you become liberal.

 

[glorydaz]

if a woman is sexually abusing the couple's children, what would the proper punishment be if the husband didn't wish to break up the family?

Instead of talking about what to do when horses fly, get to the point. If the man is sexually abusing the kids.....take them and leave. Do not return.

 

[glorydaz]

that may have ramifications he wishes to avoid

Then he's a chicken pretending to be a man. :nono:

 

[glorydaz]

Notice the very careful language that I used in my answer to your question. I didn't say: "The man should beat his wife in these circumstances. What I said was: "Here are circumstances which are gravely contrary to the marital relationship and objectively merit punishment on the part of the offender." In so many words.

I specifically indicated that I withhold judgment on whether or not a man should administer punishment to his wife in those cases.

But do pray tell, AB, why do you think that a woman doesn't deserve punishment in those cases?

If that's what you think, then when the shoe is on the other foot, the wife should get her brothers to come and beat up the husband when he deserves it. :thumb:

 

[PureX]

Your opinion is contrary to the pre-modern conception of law, to the Scholastic tradition and to Kant. :idunno:

Furthermore, you allegedly are a Christian. You can't mesh this opinion 1. with the Old Law and 2. with the notion of Hell.

I am a Christian, not an ancient Jew. So I have no affiliation with ancient Jewish concepts of moral law or divine retribution.

As to Kant, he's welcome to his opinions.

 

[kmoney]

Spoken another way, if I had a married friend who came to me and divulged that his wife committed adultery, and asked for my advise on whether or not he should beat her, and only accepted a "yes" or "no" answer, I almost certainly would reply in the negative. I would indicate that he should forgive his wife and seek out means of repairing his marriage.

And if he came to you and said that he had already beaten her as punishment?

 

[Traditio]

And if he came to you and said that he had already beaten her as punishment?

Beats me. That depends on way too many circumstances. :idunno:

 

[kmoney]

we've had consensus here and there that there are actions that some men take that deserve a sound thrashing - the upskirts in massachusetts thread comes to mind, and just about any thread that veers into pedophilia or spousal abuse territory

I didn't see anyone talk about a wife beating her husband.

what specific actions would justify corporal punishment of women by their husbands?

Nothing.



Does the husband have the right or authority to give give punishments to his wife? Or a wife to her husband?

 

[kmoney]

Beats me. That depends on way too many circumstances. :idunno:

Such as?

 

[Traditio]

I am a Christian, not an ancient Jew. So I have no affiliation with ancient Jewish concepts of moral law or divine retribution.

1. St. Paul said that the Mosaic Law was good and holy (Romans 7:12). If you're a Christian, you can't disregard the Old Testament, and neither can you disregard the Old Law (though you are not bound to the juridicial and ceremonial precepts). You must grant the justice of these commandments, since they come from a God who is Justice Itself.

2. You dodged my question about Hell. How can you explain everlasting punishment solely in terms of "pragmatic" considerations?

 

[Traditio]

Such as?

Is he planning on beating her again? Is he plotting to do worse violence? Is he visibly upset? What is the present condition of the wife?

I mean, I could go on. But there are a lot of particular (and possibly unforeseeable circumstances) that would probably make a substantial difference.

What would you do?

 

[Traditio]

If that's what you think, then when the shoe is on the other foot, the wife should get her brothers to come and beat up the husband when he deserves it. :thumb:

That depends on the concrete existential condition of the civil society. I don't think that this can be ruled out on principle. In some society, perhaps a suitable punishment for a male adulterer is a thorough beat down by the wife's male family members.

 

[kmoney]

It's an interesting question, though.

If we shouldn't use corporal punishment against a spouse, why is it then OK to use against our children?

I think most who agree with corporal punishment for children only do so for younger children. Even children reach an age where physical pain is no longer used. Beyond that, parents have authority over their children. Does a husband have similar authority over a wife? Or vice versa? :idunno:

And if it's viewed as a reasonable method of correction outside the home, why wouldn't it also be reasonable inside the home?

What are you thinking of when you say outside the home?

If a man can't beat a women, ever, can he beat a girl? Why?

A girl as in a daughter? Or some other girl?