By : We’ve known for some time that women carry out domestic violence against their male partners at rates equivalent to, or even in excess of, the rates at which women are the victims. The fine female specimens at Jezebel, who openly and gleefully admit to beating male partners, are by no means exceptions. And of course, the most violent relationships of all are those between two women.
So why is it so hard to get politicians and the media to stand up and speak out against all domestic violence, and not just domestic violence aimed at women? The #WhiteRibbonDay hashtag on Twitter is filled with furious harpies, absolutely irate that women are capable of, and perpetuate, their fair share of domestic violence. If you add violence against children to the paradigm of domestic violence, women are by far the largest perpetrators of violence within the family. Given that domestic violence represents a public health crisis, and given the enormous amounts of time and money consumed by police, the courts and the counselling industry, it would seem rather pressing to come up with solutions that address all the domestic violence.
Existing treatment programs don’t seem to work, possibly because these programs are aimed at men, and only men? It doesn’t help to train men in conflict management skills, and then send them back into a family environment where the missus’ idea of conflict management is to throw stone crockery. Just looking through PubMed data, there is an entire journal dedicated to the issue of elder abuse, and the abuse of elderly men is an issue of some concern.
Teenage girls are more violent to their boyfriends than vice versa. The evidence is overwhelming: women are just as likely to engage in violent physical altercations with their partners as men are. Why the hysterics over discussing this?
I think it comes down to sexism. The reality is that women who decide backhanding their husbands is a good idea are much more likely to get hurt, should he decide to fight back. On average, women are smaller and weaker than men, and they will sustain the more serious injuries, on the whole. It’s a really dumb idea to beat on men. A lot of women rely on pure chivalry to get away with it: 70% of domestic abuse cases where only one person threw a punch, the assailant is a woman.
Women count on men to not hit them back. How is that not a sexist assumption? The feminist writers at Jezebel reported not a single case of men fighting back, yet seem utterly oblivious to the fact that they make a profoundly sexist assumption when they hit men, and furthermore, that assumption contradicts the entire narrative of feminism! The Jezzies hit men, men did not hit them back. Whelp, there goes the whole toxic masculinity narrative. It seems to me that these women assume men are good, kind and decent, and then abuse the inherent goodness of men by hitting men, knowing full well they can generally do so safely, because most men won’t hit women.
That’s some pretty toxic masculinity right there. I suppose, in a way, it is toxic. Men should not have to accept physical violence from women in order to define themselves as men. I fully support Bash a Violent Bitch, and keep your eye on that ‘violent’ word. Any adult who hits another adult should expect to get hit right back.
Australian feminists are eager to point out that x number of women are killed by their partners every y number of days, but absolutely refuse to discuss what number of women threw the first punch, and found a man who didn’t share their sexist assumptions about men, women and violence. Yes, women are much more likely to be killed or seriously injured in domestic violence, which is precisely why we need to talk about women’s violence. If feminists in Oz genuinely cared about the safety and well-being of women, they would be backing programs to train women not to hit men. Whether or not a woman hits first is the best predictor of whether she will experience domestic violence, and here is the most interesting part of that study:
So if feminists in Australia and elsewhere are not interested in discussing women’s violence, even if this puts more women at risk of death and serious injury, then what are they interested in? It’s clearly not ending domestic violence or protecting women, never mind protecting men and children. They are interested in peddling a narrative of fear to women: men are the enemy. Australian men hate, and want to hurt, Australian women for no reason other than ‘men are bad’. Why do feminists do this? Well, a lot of them earn a paycheck based on that narrative, whether they work in the media or in the domestic violence industry, and I would guess a lot of them have had bitter, acrimonious relationships with men, to which their own toxic personalities contributed nothing, naturally.
You would think feminists would be proud so many women are violent! At rates equal to men! But I guess that’s not the kind of equality feminists are interested in – it’s always about equality of outcome, and when it comes to getting into fisticuffs with men, women’s outcomes are bad. Sane people can see that perhaps discussing that reality with women tempted to solve problems with their fists is a reasonable strategy to address those unequal outcomes, but not feminists. Nope. Men are to blame, full stop. All men must accept violence from women because apparently, chivalry isn’t dead.
Hitting men on the assumption they will not hit you back is sexist. It’s also really stupid. Wanna end domestic violence? Teach women not to hit. Not children. Not other women. Not men. Not anyone. Refusing to even think about this possibility means more women will be injured, and more women will die. Feminists are more interested in hating men than protecting women?
Gosh, who knew?
Lots of love,
JB
Source
So why is it so hard to get politicians and the media to stand up and speak out against all domestic violence, and not just domestic violence aimed at women? The #WhiteRibbonDay hashtag on Twitter is filled with furious harpies, absolutely irate that women are capable of, and perpetuate, their fair share of domestic violence. If you add violence against children to the paradigm of domestic violence, women are by far the largest perpetrators of violence within the family. Given that domestic violence represents a public health crisis, and given the enormous amounts of time and money consumed by police, the courts and the counselling industry, it would seem rather pressing to come up with solutions that address all the domestic violence.Existing treatment programs don’t seem to work, possibly because these programs are aimed at men, and only men? It doesn’t help to train men in conflict management skills, and then send them back into a family environment where the missus’ idea of conflict management is to throw stone crockery. Just looking through PubMed data, there is an entire journal dedicated to the issue of elder abuse, and the abuse of elderly men is an issue of some concern.
I think it comes down to sexism. The reality is that women who decide backhanding their husbands is a good idea are much more likely to get hurt, should he decide to fight back. On average, women are smaller and weaker than men, and they will sustain the more serious injuries, on the whole. It’s a really dumb idea to beat on men. A lot of women rely on pure chivalry to get away with it: 70% of domestic abuse cases where only one person threw a punch, the assailant is a woman.
Women count on men to not hit them back. How is that not a sexist assumption? The feminist writers at Jezebel reported not a single case of men fighting back, yet seem utterly oblivious to the fact that they make a profoundly sexist assumption when they hit men, and furthermore, that assumption contradicts the entire narrative of feminism! The Jezzies hit men, men did not hit them back. Whelp, there goes the whole toxic masculinity narrative. It seems to me that these women assume men are good, kind and decent, and then abuse the inherent goodness of men by hitting men, knowing full well they can generally do so safely, because most men won’t hit women.
That’s some pretty toxic masculinity right there. I suppose, in a way, it is toxic. Men should not have to accept physical violence from women in order to define themselves as men. I fully support Bash a Violent Bitch, and keep your eye on that ‘violent’ word. Any adult who hits another adult should expect to get hit right back.
Australian feminists are eager to point out that x number of women are killed by their partners every y number of days, but absolutely refuse to discuss what number of women threw the first punch, and found a man who didn’t share their sexist assumptions about men, women and violence. Yes, women are much more likely to be killed or seriously injured in domestic violence, which is precisely why we need to talk about women’s violence. If feminists in Oz genuinely cared about the safety and well-being of women, they would be backing programs to train women not to hit men. Whether or not a woman hits first is the best predictor of whether she will experience domestic violence, and here is the most interesting part of that study:
The study found that a young woman’s IPV was just as predictive of her male partner’s future IPV as the man’s own past IPV. In other words, whereas we often think of men as the only abusers and also as serial abusers, the OYS found that a woman’s violence against her man was as predictive of his violence to her as his own history of violence.A man who hits a woman because she hit him first, will generally go on to have peaceful, loving relationships with women, as long as those women are not violent. Why? Because the vast majority of men are good. Being good doesn’t mean they will take abuse from women, though. And why should they? Because women are delicate creatures who tend to get really hurt? Too bad. Don’t hit men.
Moreover, the study found that men’s physical aggression changes significantly when they find a new partner. Instead of a man being either a batterer or not, often it was his female partner’s violence or nonviolence which heavily influenced whether he would be violent to her.
So if feminists in Australia and elsewhere are not interested in discussing women’s violence, even if this puts more women at risk of death and serious injury, then what are they interested in? It’s clearly not ending domestic violence or protecting women, never mind protecting men and children. They are interested in peddling a narrative of fear to women: men are the enemy. Australian men hate, and want to hurt, Australian women for no reason other than ‘men are bad’. Why do feminists do this? Well, a lot of them earn a paycheck based on that narrative, whether they work in the media or in the domestic violence industry, and I would guess a lot of them have had bitter, acrimonious relationships with men, to which their own toxic personalities contributed nothing, naturally.
You would think feminists would be proud so many women are violent! At rates equal to men! But I guess that’s not the kind of equality feminists are interested in – it’s always about equality of outcome, and when it comes to getting into fisticuffs with men, women’s outcomes are bad. Sane people can see that perhaps discussing that reality with women tempted to solve problems with their fists is a reasonable strategy to address those unequal outcomes, but not feminists. Nope. Men are to blame, full stop. All men must accept violence from women because apparently, chivalry isn’t dead.
Hitting men on the assumption they will not hit you back is sexist. It’s also really stupid. Wanna end domestic violence? Teach women not to hit. Not children. Not other women. Not men. Not anyone. Refusing to even think about this possibility means more women will be injured, and more women will die. Feminists are more interested in hating men than protecting women?
Gosh, who knew?
Lots of love,
JB
Source