Real-life implications of "abuse is okay when female on male"

Abuse Is Okay When It Is Female on Male

This describes two components to this Double Standard.

The first is the idea "that men are tougher, stronger and as in Made Of Iron, whereas women are weak and fragile." This reasoning would NOT be considered justification to bar women from jobs requiring toughness like military or police work, so if it's a significant component, then the anti-discrimination activists don't seem to be anywhere near as opposed to the use of that same logic in the context of domestic abuse issues.

The second is the idea that serious female-on-male violence is justified because, "in many works, women are morally superior, meaning they only use violence reasonably, as opposed to men's inherent evil-inclined nature..." Frankly, it strikes me as willful ignorance that this idea would still be so popular. You don't see people claiming that the vicious 8 were justified in what they did, so if people acknowledge that women use unjustified violence against other women why don't you see as much acknowledgement that they'd use unjustified violence against men?

Recently I was watching this video comparing people's reactions depending on the sex of the victim and that of the aggressor. So many people were inclined to assume the man being abused "cheated on her" despite having no basis to conclude this. Again, one has to wonder why you don't see near as much of this assumption when the sexes are reversed...

edited 12th Feb '11 10:49:48 AM by neoYTPism

It's because a vast majority of human beings are worthless retards that should be gotten rid of quite soon.

"Who wants to hear about good stuff when the bottom of the abyss of human failure that you know doesn't exist is so much greater?"-Wraith

Something strikes me as rather defeatist about that approach.

I think a few things are in operation here.

The first, which the OP mentioned, is the assumption that a woman can't actually hurt a man, because he is strong and she is weak. Thus, ironically, sexism against women backfires onto men.

The second is a conviction that women are naturally non-violent, thus if a woman is resorting to violence, her target must have done something outrageous to deserve it. The OP touched on this with the "morally superior" bit, but I think the "moral superiority" often ascribed to women in this context is specifically gentleness and a preference for resolving things non-violently. (I hope we can all agree that, morally speaking, non-violence is to be preferred over violence unless absolutely necessary.)

In any case, female-on-male abused definitely is not okay, and I think almost anyone would agree. The issue is less that people think female-on-male abuse is okay, and more that they think female-on-male violence isn't really abuse, because a) it's not like she can actually hurt him, and b) he probably deserves it anyway.

Stuff what I do.

I think there's a third problem in that people assume that female on male abuse is rare, for whatever reason. When according to numerous studies, both genders are equally responsible.

My other signature is a Gundam.

"I think there's a third problem in that people assume that female on male abuse is rare, for whatever reason. When according to numerous studies, both genders are equally responsible." - Commando Dude

Well, it wouldn't be the only issue in which people dispute the findings of studies.

As for the distinction between thinking it's "rare" and thinking it's "justified" it's a very blurry distinction, if only because the idea that a woman hitting a man is justified would seem to contradict the idea of considering it "abuse" in the first place.

edited 12th Feb '11 11:45:46 AM by neoYTPism

True dat, CD. The sexes are ultimately Not So Different, and our culture provides both with plenty of violence-enabling narratives. For men, it's the whole "lords of creation" thing wherein no one—especially not a social inferior such as a woman—must be allowed to get away with disrespecting them. For women, it's all the above stuff. The assumption that female-on-male abuse is rare ties back into the "women are naturally non-violent" thing, and makes it easy to brush off any single abusive woman as a lone nutcase instead of examining those violence-enabling narratives.

Of course, abusive men tend to be brushed off as isolated cases too... It's like we never really accepted that we're all jumped-up monkeys, and sometimes the monkey wins.

Stuff what I do.

I recall reading an article from an angry feminist claiming that saying women abuse men as often as vice-versa is anti-feminist and is incredibly damaging to women's rights. I think her reasoning was that this argument is sometimes used by men who oppose women's rights, as a way of saying "see what these bitches are doing when we give them freedom!? They need to learn their place!"

Still, just because some small group of retards would use this to try to deny women their rights doesn't mean it isn't a problem and that we need to sweep it under the rug. I think people like this are operating under the bizarre assumption that, unless all women are perfect angels, then no women deserve rights (or at least they think other people think this way, and so they're overly desperate to put women forward as being morally superiour to those evil boorish men).

edited 12th Feb '11 5:06:25 PM by zoulza

If using that argument, mayhap it would be wise to raise the point that given their current freedoms, males abuse it as much as females. If this damages the female's freedom, than rip that freedom from the breast of the male population, also.

When nobody is free, everyone is.

Chagen@ Please dont bring your teenage nihilism into this, grownups are talking.

As for the topic itself, its just a reuslt of the attitude that any man who gets beaten up by a women is a "weakling" and deserves it. Nevermind that it doesnt cover emotional abuse, or that a guy cant fight back against a woman without taking crap for hitting a girl. But double standards arent exactly new when it comes to matters of sexism.

I dont know why they let me out, I guess they needed a spare bed

"As for the topic itself, its just a reuslt of the attitude that any man who gets beaten up by a women is a "weakling" and deserves it." - Silent Stranger

"Weakling" nothing, the video I cited shows all the bystanders saying they thought the guy cheated on the girl. One doesn't have to think he's a weakling to think he deseves it.

And like you said, if he fought back he'd be in trouble for hitting a girl.

Yes, but if people, say, knew that the girl getting beaten up had cheated on her boyfriend, they still would have been outraged at his behaviour. Consider: man cheats on woman: it's okay for her to hit that dirty scumbag. Woman cheats on man: he's a dirty scumbag for hitting her. So yes, I think "weakling" does play a huge role in whether people think it's acceptable to strike someone or not.

"Consider: man cheats on woman: it's okay for her to hit that dirty scumbag. Woman cheats on man: he's a dirty scumbag for hitting her. So yes, I think "weakling" does play a huge role in whether people think it's acceptable to strike someone or not." - zoul

Even that Double Standard isn't necessarily about the "weakling" part. It could be that it's considered "worse" for a man to cheat on a woman than for a woman to cheat on a man. (How often have you heard of the "cheat on your man to show him he doesn't own you" idea, in comparison to its gender-flip?)

I've... never heard that idea, to be honest. I always thought this was simply an extension of "don't hit girls ever because they're obviously weaklings who are incapable of defending themselves."

If that were the argument, how would you explain how said argument is not as popular in discussions of the idea of women in the police and military?

there's an extension of the "men are tougher than women" view that implies women are incapable of hurting men, and any kind of abuse they attempt will result in the guy shrugging it off. In this case, if the woman comes out of the scuffle unscathed, it's only because the man chose not to hit her back.

I don't follow. Exactly what discussions are you talking about? Do you mean stuff like women serving in the front lines? What exactly does that have to do with female-on-male abuse?

You must hang out with some pretty strange people if you think that "women need to cheat on men to show them they don't need them" is a common belief, because as I've said, this is the first I've heard of such a thing. I have heard the opposite belief of "every man's goal should be to have twenty girlfriends at the same time," but only among the douchy frat types whom no one likes anyway. I'm pretty sure cheating is in general held to be completely repugnant regardless of which party did it, and people have very little sympathy for women who cheat on their boyfriends/husbands. The same is not true for women who abuse men.

Question: In a relationship fight, how much is acceptable? Normal couples usually have at least some fights and they don't stay quiet sometimes. In fiction, a slap is usually not seen as abuse (especially if the woman does is). Does this hold up in real life? And what about the reverse?

I would consider a slap from my girlfriend abuse, and she would consider it abuse if I slapped her.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

It depends a great deal on the people, and the force applied. My gaming group on board, the redheaded chick will smack several of us on the arm or hand for making crass or crude comments, and we'll play it up for laughs - but only if we agree that we deserved it  ^*

or we'll retaliate in kind. \ In none of the fights I've ever had with my wife have either of us ever hit each other, but I do tend to spank my children more than I probably should.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

^^^ The problem is that in fiction, women slapping men translates to "you go girl!" or "he deserved it". I think anybody hitting anyone without their consent is abuse. Additionally, I've heard the statistic that while men do more damage than women in domestic abuse, women tend to hit more times.

"Without a fairy, you're not even a real man!" ~ Mido from Ocarina of Time

Used to what kind of thing since high school? @ Blue Ninja

One of the consequences of women being considered inherently more harmless and less aggressive than men is that girls are not taught how to manage their anger. We're not supposed to get angry at all, you see; teaching us how to manage our anger would be like teaching people how to calculate a safe dosage of heroin. Boys learn not just how to fight but how not to fight; most girls are taught neither.

Stuff what I do.

Used to getting a  ^*

^{normally playful and usually flirty}

smack to the arm or hand after making a crass, crude, or otherwise sexually-charged comment. It was, like, stage 2 of flirting or something.

edited 14th Feb '11 12:52:44 AM by BlueNinja0

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

What do you base this on?