Sex and violence

[dialamah]

On the bus the other day I heard raised voices behind me, though not what they were saying.   The voices quieted down, then became louder again - someone said "She's a minor, you can't say things like that to her".   My stop was coming up, and I got up to move to the back door.  I saw a girl sitting in a seat and two people next to her that I couldn't see but seemed to be involved.   A guy stood facing them and was exchanging words, with one of the people sitting next to the girl. It seemed to me he ought to back off, but since my stop was coming up I figured I'd be well away in a moment.    Some more words I can't hear, then suddenly the girl jumps up and kicks the guy standing up hard in the leg.  He steps back, and she moves him, pounding him hard with both fists on his chest; he moves back as far as he can, but bus aisles are not that wide.  Then she connects with his face and he retaliates, hitting her back.  Two or three guys immediately jump on him 'for hitting a girl'; the girl moves away and looks rather smug.   As I get off I see that the guy couldn't have hit her hard, there's not a mark on her face.    

It bothers me that nobody tried to stop the girl when she attacked this guy, but that he was held to be at fault for eventually defending himself.   He certainly had other options before she attacked, but when she did he moved as far from her as he could physically and she pursued him to keep attacking.  This wasn't a small girl attacking a big guy either; she was a bit taller than him and they probably weighed about the same.   It bothers me that this girl has learned that it's acceptable for her to be violent, but not acceptable for a guy to defend himself from her attack.  

What do you think?  Am I wrong here?  Was the guy justified in hitting her back, or should he have let her continue to beat on him?   

[Hal 9000]

I don't think there's anything new or unusual about what you witnessed.  I think I'd have a hard time finding a guy who hasn't been hit by a women because she knew "the rules".  With that said, the comment about her being a minor?...Who knows what the guy was saying, he might have had it coming.  And yes, sometimes people do have it coming.

[dialamah]

19 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

I don't think there's anything new or unusual about what you witnessed.  I think I'd have a hard time finding a guy who hasn't been hit by a women because she knew "the rules".  With that said, the comment about her being a minor?...Who knows what the guy was saying, he might have had it coming.  And yes, sometimes people do have it coming.

I don't think its new or unusual either.  But in a case of domestic violence, with no witnesses, who is going to be at fault if the police are called?  Who is most likely to lose access to his home and his kids, because female violence toward men is more acceptable.  

"Might have had it coming" also bothers me.  He may well have been an asshole, but I don't think that excuses her actions at all.  When she attacked he wasn't even talking to her.  

[Hal 9000]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

I don't think its new or unusual either.  But in a case of domestic violence, with no witnesses, who is going to be at fault if the police are called?  Who is most likely to lose access to his home and his kids, because female violence toward men is more acceptable.  

"Might have had it coming" also bothers me.  He may well have been an asshole, but I don't think that excuses her actions at all.  When she attacked he wasn't even talking to her.  

I have no idea, I wasn't there.  That's why I said "might have".

[Guest]

If one looks at it objectively, no-one ever has physical violence coming because of something they said.  I understand that is not how it works in the real world.

In the example in the OP there were a lot of unknown dynamics in play, I would bet.  I would not have hit her back, but then, I'm almost 60 and I have many years of societal conditioning.  My way might not be the fair way.

[dialamah]

15 hours ago, bcsapper said:

If one looks at it objectively, no-one ever has physical violence coming because of something they said.  I understand that is not how it works in the real world.

In the example in the OP there were a lot of unknown dynamics in play, I would bet.  I would not have hit her back, but then, I'm almost 60 and I have many years of societal conditioning.  My way might not be the fair way.

True, there were unknown dynamics.  

Until she aimed for his face he didn't seem interested in fighting back either.  Do you suppose you have a tipping point even with almost 60 years of societal conditioning?  

Why is it more acceptable for women to be violent?  This has also spilled over into our justice system, where women tend to be more gently treated than men for similar crimes.  If gender equality is to be achieved, shouldn't it also apply to women?

[OftenWrong]

I don't think our society views it more acceptable for women to be violent, but that a man should not strike a woman. If I were involved in an alteration where a woman wants to attack me, I would defend my self and restrain her, but not necessarily hit her. Well, maybe a little if she won't stop. But the point of it would be to end the physical attack, not inflict harm. Most likely this attitude comes from a perception that women are disempowered compared to men, generally, and often physically smaller and weaker.

This cultural attitude (not to harm women physically) is in itself interesting in comparison with that of another culture.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, dialamah said:

True, there were unknown dynamics.  

Until she aimed for his face he didn't seem interested in fighting back either.  Do you suppose you have a tipping point even with almost 60 years of societal conditioning?  

Why is it more acceptable for women to be violent?  This has also spilled over into our justice system, where women tend to be more gently treated than men for similar crimes.  If gender equality is to be achieved, shouldn't it also apply to women?

Pretty much what OftenWrong said.  I don't think it should be more acceptable for a women to be violent.  The law should treat both the same.  Assault is assault.

Edited May 23, 2017 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

44 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I don't think our society views it more acceptable for women to be violent, but that a man should not strike a woman.

That may be, but I think there also needs to be a stronger condemnation of women who push, slap, kick, or punch men first knowing full well that they are constrained from retaliation.  Men hurt too, after all, and some women are plenty strong enough to hurt a man even without a weapon.   Because of this attitude, men will also not report physical abuse by their female partners because men should be able to 'take it'.

If I were involved in an alteration where a woman wants to attack me, I would defend my self and restrain her, but not necessarily hit her. Well, maybe a little if she won't stop. But the point of it would be to end the physical attack, not inflict harm.

Possibly the guy on the bus was trying the same, though hard to be sure.  I saw no marks on her, but he had a bloody lip.  I wonder if anyone would have eventually held the girl back; they sure jumped on him quick enough, but she seemed free to continue punching as long as she wanted.

Nobody should ever resort to violence, IMO, but I think it's fair that women should understand their own violence can result in violence returned and they should take responsibility for that. 

  Most likely this attitude comes from a perception that women are disempowered compared to men,

generally, and often physically smaller and weaker.

Mostly from the chivalrous age, I believe, when women were placed on a pedestal and worshipped from afar.  A woman was a paragon of virtue, in theory, and would never behave in a manner requiring correction.   Imagine a man's surprise and ire when closer acquaintance revealed a less perfect being.  A man's home was his castle and clearly, some women required help to learn their place in it.  The Bible provided plenty of backup for the notion that men should control women and so the Church could only advise women to be a good and obedient wife.  The attitude that women are more virtuous than men is also why courts haven't traditionally imposed such harsh sentences on women as they have on men.  

This cultural attitude (not to harm women physically) is in itself interesting in comparison with that of another culture.

I know of no culture that deems it acceptable to harm women physically.  I also know of no culture that doesn't do so anyway, often under the conviction that their deity or deities made men the authority over women.   

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Pretty much what OftenWrong said.  I don't think it should it should be more acceptable for a women to be violent.  The law should treat both the same.  Assault is assault.

I think that is just starting to happen too.  It seems to have gone from men being free to beat on their wives/girlfriends without legal interference to being automatically assumed to be in the wrong, to a more balanced approach, legally speaking, but there is still a ways to go, IMO.  Socially there is still the expectation that men should be a woman's punching bag without retaliation.

[OftenWrong]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The Bible provided plenty of backup for the notion that men should control women and so the Church could only advise women to be a good and obedient wife.  The attitude that women are more virtuous than men is also why courts haven't traditionally imposed such harsh sentences on women as they have on men.  

I know of no culture that deems it acceptable to harm women physically.  I also know of no culture that doesn't do so anyway, often under the conviction that their deity or deities made men the authority over women.   

That's not how I interpret the Bible, in the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdelene - a key and crucial difference that sets Christianity apart.

It's my perception that Islamic religious writings condone physical abuse of women, but I'm no expert. I'll leave it to others more well-versed in Islam to chime in in they have relevant information.

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

That's not how I interpret the Bible, in the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdelene - a key and crucial difference that sets Christianity apart.

It's my perception that Islamic religious writings condone physical abuse of women, but I'm no expert. I'll leave it to others more well-versed in Islam to chime in in they have relevant information.

Well thanks so much for making the first move to derail this into yet another "Islam is evil" topic.   

[OftenWrong]

That's what I wrote in my status update.

[WestCoastRunner]

I think that if a man finds himself in this situation he should first try and restrain the female attacking him. Men are generally stronger then women and can do more physical harm to a woman. Physical injuries play a big part in assault cases so it would be in the best interest of all parties for these retaliatory attacks to not happen at all. Having said that, I have no idea on the fitness level of these parties mentioned in the OP. 

[Hal 9000]

8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Pretty much what OftenWrong said.  I don't think it should it should be more acceptable for a women to be violent.  The law should treat both the same.  Assault is assault.

But it is more acceptable.  Just watch any movie or TV show, even if a video goes viral on the news they make it ok for women to abuse men in all sorts of ways.  If it's a drama, you'll see a punch to the face, kick to the nads and we know that he had it coming - he's a real bastard after all.  If it's a comedy, same thing... the male antagonist always takes a punch to the face and kick to the nads - this time we're all supposed to laugh - and many do.  

I laugh at the notion that it's not acceptable, in many movies and TV shows, it's often the big finale.  

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

But it is more acceptable.  Just watch any movie or TV show, even if a video goes viral on the news they make it ok for women to abuse men in all sorts of ways.  If it's a drama, you'll see a punch to the face, kick to the nads and we know that he had it coming - he's a real bastard after all.  If it's a comedy, same thing... the male antagonist always takes a punch to the face and kick to the nads - this time we're all supposed to laugh - and many do.  

I laugh at the notion that it's not acceptable, in many movies and TV shows, it's often the big finale.  

Well, I said it shouldn't be, (twice, strangely) not that it isn't.  That said, I meant in the law, not the media. 

Edited May 23, 2017 by bcsapper

[Hal 9000]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Well, I said it shouldn't be, (twice, strangely) not that it isn't.  That said, I meant in the law, not the media. 

Society gets their cues from media.  And as long as movies and TV are made this way and people like Sharon Osbourne are allowed to laugh hysterically when a guy gets his junk thrown in a blender, it will never change.  Not one woman who has murdered her husband has not used the abuse excuse - because frankly, we all simply accept that, conversely, any man accused of assaulting a woman is clearly "controlling".  A man getting assaulted by a women is always considered justified by society.

[Goddess]

My sister was in a violent relationship for about 8 years. Her husband (at the time) used to say to say that it was HER who started some of the fights and HER who threw the first punch. This was probably true part of the times. They were pretty dysfunctional. 

The difference though, was that he weighed at least twice what she did. During the relationship, he broke her wrist, her ankle, her ribs, her eardrum, and knocked her right out many times. While he never went to the ER once.

I imagine this is why weight classes were invented in sports.

She has not been violent in any subsequent relationship while he now beats on his next wife.

I guess I don't believe either gender should have free reign to hit the other. But generally men are bigger and stronger and can do more damage. The potential to kill a woman in a physical fight is higher, I think.

 

[Hydraboss]

So, let's take a look at a much more common situation:

Scenario 1:

Man and woman arguing in a lounge.  It's getting pretty heated.  She stands up and slaps him and then walks out.  Everyone around starts talking about it quietly and continues about their business.

Scenario 2:

Man and woman arguing in a lounge.  It's getting pretty heated.  He stands up and slaps her and then walks out.  Everyone around grabs their phones and calls the police because the woman was just assaulted.  At least one guy follows the first guy outside to confront him and possibly start a fight to "defend women".  First guy ends up charged with assault and, once convicted, loses his job and visitation rights to his kids.

Now consider your own reactions to both situations honestly.  Still think there's equality?