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

When have you ever seen a girl in the media getting into fights or playing in the mud when she wasn't portrayed as being a tomboy or one of the guys? Women are taught to be bitchy and two-faced, not settle things physically.

What I think is "funny" about the whole thing is how they make the guy a either a wimp, or a moron in order to supposedly justify the girl's abuse. To either toughen him up, or punish him for his stupidity (and some guys do need a slap sometimes. They really do deserve it in some cases). And yet they still manage to completely overdo it, to say nothing of the number of times the guy gets beaten up when he really doesn't deserve it at all, and yet the girl gets away with it completely. Never called out on the shit she's done.

Hell, for all our frustration towards wimps and idiots, it still turns out that they often get "punished" unfairly and excessively. This shit needs to get called out more often.

I agree with Karalora's last bit - my wife has a great deal of trouble in keeping her anger in check once it is aroused, whereas I can more or less keep a lid on it for a longer period of time. She just blows up. My mother and sister were much the same way.

I'll ask my wife about this when I get a chance.

"What I think is "funny" about the whole thing is how they make the guy a either a wimp, or a moron in order to supposedly justify the girl's abuse." - Handsome Rob

Not to mention that the girl being a "wimp" or "moron" probably wouldn't be considered sufficient justification for abusing her...

On the contrary, the man being weaker than the women makes it worse, in a way. Isn't the whole point of Wouldn't Hit a Girl that the strong should protect the weak? That sort of attitude shouldn't go out the door when the stronger partner is female.

That too.

Really, if the perception of women as "weak" is even a major contributing factor to this, then combined with the relative unpopularity of that argument in workplace discussions, I'd say there has to have been some hypocritical input somewhere along the line. Too bad we can't tell who to blame for it...

It's pretty clear that you think women are being hypocritical. You should just state it outright.

Probably the line I've seen most in discussions about women abusing men is that "a man should be able to handle a woman", which is really just so abrasive in really every direction. I'm not talking about just online though, I mean morning radio show D Js saying this about Tiger Woods and the like. The second a guy seems to deviate from the macho/always willing stereotypes when talking about physical abuse and women on male sexual harassment, it's amazing how much people will pile on him.

Edit: I don't think it's so much that women are perceived as weak/unable to do harm, it's just that "above women level strength", whatever the hell that means, is considered the minimum requisite to be considered a man, and the twisted logic goes that if you're hurt by a girl she must be stronger than you, and thus he's not a "man".

edited 15th Feb '11 6:01:00 PM by Kashie

"It's pretty clear that you think women are being hypocritical." - Jordan

Who do you think you are, some kind of mind reader? I'm implying feminists and/or traditionalists are being hypocritical, if the same logic would be so popular in the context of one issue and not in another.

Edit- Well, you're saying "Too bad we can't tell who to blame for it..." sounded to me like Sarcasm Mode given the rest of that post. I do apologize though. I had forgotten your OP referenced job's requiring physical strength and thought your were referring to women being denied jobs in general because they were thought of as weak- in which case I wouldn't think the accusation of hypocrisy was at all fair.

edited 15th Feb '11 6:14:06 PM by Jordan

"Am I wrong to interpret your position as "women are being hypocritical since they get away with abusing men by claiming weakness but then don't want to be discriminated against in employment because they are thought to be weak"?" - Jordan

Well, individual women who would do that are obviously hypocrites, (as are males who do similar things) but I didn't say that all women do that, and of course there are women who condemn this kind of thing too. I'm saying that we as a society seem not to have adequately confronted this kind of hypocrisy if the same kind of logic is so popular in one area and so unpopular in another.

"Edit- reread that post- If you were implying that traditionalists might have been hypocritical as well, then I apologize, but given your focus on men's rights, I inferred that you were only attributing hypocrisy to feminism." - Jordan

If you jump to conclusions that easily, then quite frankly I think that reflects poorly on your judgment and on perspectives formed from it.

edited 15th Feb '11 6:13:25 PM by neoYTPism

Edited my post as you were replying I guess. Anyway, the last sentence of your post sounded like Sarcasm Mode, which is why it sounded like you were implying women were hypocrites.

As to the specific issue, I don't necessarily see the hypocrisy. When a feminist disputes female weakness, they're doing it "across the board", whereas accusations of abuse are in individual cases. So, there's not really hypocrisy in thinking that women in general aren't weak and that a specific woman is physically weak and thus (rightly or wrongly) not an abuser.

Edit2- The Tiger Woods case is a good illustration of why I tend to have problems with accusations of people thinking Abuse Is Ok When Female On Male. What Tiger's wife did was certainly bad, and the fact it was laughed at had some Double Standard involved. However, I think it's also important to consider that it was (as far as I can tell) an isolated incident and Tiger was a particularly unsympathetic victim. I'm not saying that people would react the same if the circumstances were identical but for the gender of the people involved, but I am saying that there's a good reason why people didn't react to the case the way they would to a habitual abuser.

edited 15th Feb '11 6:22:23 PM by Jordan

The thing with the Tiger case is that it becomes a jumping off point for a broader discussion and leads to very generalized statements like "a man should be able to control his woman". Things like that obviously have nothing to do with individual cases and really not even with abuse at all. It underscores societal expectations of gender norms, and any deviation from gender norms is going to be a basis for bullying/humiliation/ridicule. That Tiger is an unsympathetic victim is largely meaningless... if Justin Bieber got abused by whatever 85 lbs girl he's dating right now, you'd still find a ton of people who would use that to bury further into the "he's gay/sissy" type stuff he already gets more than his fair share of. Compare that with the pretty much universal sympathy Rhianna got.

That's the thing though Rhianna got more sympathy because Chris Brown (unlike Tiger's wife- should probably look up her name)was an ongoing abuser, and perception was that she didn't really do anything to "deserve it".

I mean I can get behind the idea that no one should respond with physical violence, but I don't think it helps your case to say that the Tiger and Rhianna situations are identical.

I never claimed anything anywhere near that the Rhianna and Tiger situations were identical... I was using the situations to point out to the generalizations people make when these situations occur. I don't think I ever heard anything that Chris Brown was a long time abuser, but I wouldn't be entirely shocked if it were so. Finally, even if a victim is unsympathetic, that's no reason at all to say they deserved it.

Edit: I was also comparing Rhianna directly with a Bieber thought experiment, not to Tiger.

edited 15th Feb '11 6:34:52 PM by Kashie

I put "deserve" in quotes because no one really deserves to be physically attacked (unless they themselves are using violence, in which case it's self defense). Can someone confirm this- I remember one trope (was it Abuse Is Okay When It Is Female on Male?) actually used Rhianna and Tiger Woods as the picture at one point to illustrate a supposed Double Standard- thus, whoever made that picture and caption was claiming they were identical/equivalent.

edited 15th Feb '11 6:40:00 PM by Jordan

You're right that someone had a demotivational picture contrasting the tiger/rhianna cases, and I think it was the abuse is okay page. I think the header compared the snl skit with stuff too. Regardless, I never made the claim. My point is that if you had equally sympathetic victims of both gender, the woman would get significantly better treatment from the public in general than the male victim.

I apologize. I was more going off the fact that you mentioned both and when I reading the topic, I remembered that page picture/caption. I don't think you were equating the two.

Personally, I wouldn't think it was right if Justin Bieber's girlfriend abused him, but I would probably have some approval if one of Charlie Sheen's wives or girlfriends punched him in the face. The issue is more one of behavior than of gender.

An interesting thought came to me when thinking of a hypothetical Beiber-abuse case. Suppose that Beiber was abused in any relationship. Would his fans then have some kind of sway on public opinion then? Hell, the girl he’s currently dating is getting death threats from his fans from all over, so if he was abused, most would think he “didn’t deserve it” (he may have in this hypothetical case, but that’s not the point I’m making), and would retaliate (most likely verbally) against said abuser in his relationship.

Would popular opinion on such a matter hold any kind of sway over how the issue is viewed? It’s certainly not comparable, but Beiber fans are clearly devoted to him and his well being, so abuse on Beiber is never ok, where as Rhianna is considered to be a pretty cool person on the whole, so abuse is never ok there either. But in the interest of hypothetical logic (though I’ll admit mine’s not the greatest; bear with), Tiger wasn’t considered much of being a “man” in the cliché anecdotal use of the term, and was looked down upon not because he was an “asshole”, but because he played golf (usually associated with being a gentleman’s game), his conduct was considered “un-gentlemanly”, as most would automatically think of his considering his choice in sport.

Looking on it now though, I say in the interest of logic, but logic seems to go out the window (at least mine) when Double Standards are running amuck.

edited 15th Feb '11 7:13:15 PM by Newfable

The other side of it is how Bieber's haters might react.

Celebrity examples aside though, what about the ABC story linked to in the OP? I think it's quite telling that the same behaviours gender-flipped that have a guy interpreted as an abuser would, in the case of a girl hitting a guy, be chalked up to "he must have cheated on her" or something like that. The Unfair Sex probably has more to do with this than perceived strength differences.

I’m not too sure if the linked video is one I’ve seen that performs a similar experiment (has two actors, male and female, taking turns acting an abusive scene in front of random strangers walking past), but for the sake of argument, I’ll assume it is.

I find it terrifying (hell, the entire Troper Tales page for Abuse Is Okay When It Is Female on Male was Nightmare Fuel for me) that one woman who witnessed the female actor beating up the male actor decided to cheer when she walked by. I find that most of the cases like this concerns people operating solely on stereotypes alone. If you asked some of these people if abuse was ok, they’d tell you no in a heartbeat. But you ask them why they thought abuse to others is ok, regardless of gender, and they’d most likely shrug their shoulders. They either don’t think about it, or shelf it as something that doesn’t happen to often, thereby rendering it pretty pointless to think about.

edited 15th Feb '11 7:33:50 PM by Newfable

"I find it terrifying (hell, the entire Troper Tales page for Abuse Is Okay When It Is Female On Male was Nightmare Fuel for me) that one woman who witnessed the female actor beating up the male actor decided to cheer when she walked by." - Newfable

Indeed. Even if you assume she's sincere about her assumption, that kind of gives one an idea as to just the severity of harm a Well-Intentioned Extremist can do.

EDIT: Just how exactly do these assumptions last anyway? On what basis do people conclude those kinds of things?

edited 15th Feb '11 7:42:58 PM by neoYTPism

Huh, I always figured the reason female on male rape was considered "OK", was that men might tend to want abuse, or accept it, whereas a woman is shown as being horrible to hit.

That's kind of sick, yet it looks like it actually tends towards truth. Such absolutely fail to make it OK though, and only highlights the depths of human depravity. Of course, men who actually get abused most definitely won't approve if they have all of their marbles about them, and yet other people they could tell will not have this perspective and be keen on blowing it off.

I dunno if this has been mentioned yet; the OP only referred to men being "stronger" and/or "morally inferior" as the reasons abuse is treated this way.

I keep seeing (and keep writing myself) ‘men’ and ‘women’ being thrown around. Abuse is never ok, regardless of gender. Men and women both aren’t ok with it, and individual people certainly aren’t ok with it, especially if you asked them personally. Of course, there’s going to be a few that either don’t mind it or actually do like it, but they’re exceptions to the stereotype, and since the stereotype is still around, are usually ignored.

@neo I usually just chalk it up as people either not understanding a situation or not wanting to for personal reasons. I would imagine that stereotypical thinking ends when their paradigm is either broken or altered so severely, they can no longer accept the stereotype as the norm.

"I would imagine that stereotypical thinking ends when their paradigm is either broken or altered so severely, they can no longer accept the stereotype as the norm." - Newfable

There have been many examples of women using violence unjustly. What does it take to break the paradigm?