This comment is from That Guy in response to “A Reader Responds to Chris Brown Post“
I’m glad the article at least mentions some famous cases of female-on-male domestic violence, e.g. Lisa Lefteye Lopez. (I don’t think Rison’s mansion actually burned down, but she did torch it in anger.) I don’t recall much outrage in the media about the death of Steve McNair or Phil Hartman. Granted, these were two different scenarios, but both were victims of types of domestic violence. I don’t recall much discussion about violence against men when it became clear that Elin Woods attacked Tiger Woods with a golf club. I’m guessing the main sentiment out there was that they deserved it somehow, or in Hartman’s case it’s a shame there’s not more support out there for mental health problems.
The ethics have started to flip. A century ago, a husband could often get away with killing his wife if she was unfaithful to him. I think most of us would say that’s reprehensible, that it’s outrageous that infidelity could be an excuse for murder. Totally barbaric. Now, however, the sentiment towards men who cheat is that violence seems perfectly reasonable. During the Clinton sex scandal, someone asked Dick Army what would happen to him if he had cheated. He joked that he would be lying a pool of his own blood, with his wife standing over him asking how she can reload the gun. That sounded really wise and comical at the time, but if you think about it, that’s not all that funny.
Maybe one solution is to stop using the phrase “domestic violence” as if it were some totally different kind of activity than other crimes. The phrase seems to have gendered overtones built into it, but assault is assault. Attempted murder is attempted murder. Murder is murder. Arson is arson. Why not refer to an alleged murderer as an alleged murderer, no matter what the sex of the person is? We already have all the gender-neutral terms we need. Let’s start using them, because they’re pretty accurate already. Hartman and McNair were murdered.Tiger Woods was assaulted. Andre Rison was a victim of arson. Why is that so hard?
–
photo: mike_nelson / flickr
About the Editors
“Tiger Woods was assaulted. Andre Rison was a victim of arson. Why is that so hard?”
Assaults are not categorized like burns — 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree — and that leaves us to do our own judging of the harm done. When men physically assault women, their strength can do much more damage than when a female assaults. Also men can defend themselves much easier, because generally they are bigger and stronger. So I think those are reasons why female victims of assault tend to receive more compassion. Maybe we need to start categorizing assaults like burns.
That’s a good point. Perhaps the laws are not nuanced enough to take into account all the variables, but there actually are some gradations of assault.
Most states have sentencing guidelines that give extra sentencing penalties for particular “aggravated” scenarios – attacker uses a weapon, attacker has martial art training, the victim is exceptionally vulnerable or incapacitated before the assault, the victim is a police officer, etc.
Even with what you suggest, I’m still not sure the laws should have gendered language, necessarily. If “assaulting a smaller, weaker person” is a particular kind of assault, then that should be the language, and that would generally protect women more than men. Of course, being smaller and weaker should not be a get out of jail free card. With a weapon, the difference in arm strength becomes less crucial – a skull cracked open with a golf club is a skull cracked open with a golf club. The hospital won’t treat it differently if the club wielder was male or female, so the court shouldn’t either. And, shooting someone in the back with a shotgun…is shooting someone in the back with a shotgun. The relative physiology seems immaterial in that case. Same with burning down the house while the victim is passed out drunk.
Not to mention that I’m pretty sure theres DV studies out there showing that women are more likely to use a weapon. But aside from all that, its still irrelevant: Victims of DV often stay with their partner when they have a clear choice to leave. Its stockholm syndrome and emotional blackmail can cripple even the strongest person, male or female.
See I think that while that’s not happening on a legal level I do think that is currently happening on a social or cultural level. While when no weapons are involved men are typically able to do more damage to women than the reverse I think this has resulted in people (some directly, some indirectly) to determine domestic violence based on gender more than the violence. A hierarchy if you will where one is actually treated worse than the other.
I recall a story I read a while back (at Fathers and Families I think) in which a woman was attacking her husband and when he called the cops the cops tried to lock him up, spouting the usual stuff about primary aggressor and all that. When he finally got the cops to pay attention (at least to the fact that he was injured and she wasn’t) the cops’ attitudes literally turned a 180, saying he needed to get her some help and left. I’m sure most people will agree that’s messed up but that’s just what male victims are facing these days.
You can even see it in articles. Man attacks woman its called domestic violence, woman attacks man its domestic dispute.
I worry that if some sort of system were to be introduced like the degrees of burns you mention we would somehow end up with nearly all 1st degree DV being female against male, nearly all 3rd degree DV being male against female and a mixture of the two at 2nd degree. Most laws regarding violence are already worded as gender neutral. The problem is they are not being enforced in a gender neutral manner.
Also:
When men physically assault women, their strength can do much more damage than when a female assaults. Also men can defend themselves much easier, because generally they are bigger and stronger.
I’m not trying to point at you directly (in fact I appreciate that you are seeing a problem and saying something about it) but am I the only one that’s ever noticed that when it comes to the differences in physical strength of men and women it seems to come up at selective times? Like on one hand the “men are stronger than women” line is unfair when say talking about something that’s not inherently destructive like working at a dock loading boats, but on the other when talking about something that is inherently destructive like DV suddenly “men are stronger than women” is seen as a valid reason for thinking that male against female DV is worse than female against male DV.
And about that “no weapons” thing I said above. I think people have taken the “men are stronger than women” to the point that it almost seems like people think women aren’t capable of using weapons. It doesn’t take much strength to pull a trigger, swing an axe, trust with a knife, or use drugs/poison (for a while poison was regarded as “a woman’s weapon of choice”) to weaken their target. Also one other thing that I think that’s missing from the domestic violence equation of violence by proxy. People are quick to say that a man that beats his wife to death was committing domestic violence. What would you call a woman that hires a man to kill her husband? Sure its murder but wouldn’t that intent to see her husband dead count for something toward domestic violence?
Yeah that’s enough from me for now.
Strength isn’t nearly as important as surprise and available weaponry.
Add emotional leverage to that and its a pretty even playing field, except for the sexism of the legal system of course.
Danny Writes:
“I recall a story I read a while back (at Fathers and Families I think) in which a woman was attacking her husband and when he called the cops the cops tried to lock him up, spouting the usual stuff about primary aggressor and all that. When he finally got the cops to pay attention (at least to the fact that he was injured and she wasn’t) the cops’ attitudes literally turned a 180, saying he needed to get her some help and left. I’m sure most people will agree that’s messed up but that’s just what male victims are facing these days.”
That story is the story of David Woods. He was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit headed by the National Coalition For Men with Marc Angelucci as the attorney. The lawsuit was over the constitutionality of VAWA.
David Woods is disabled. His wife has extreme bipolar disorder. On this occasion she didn’t have her medication and they were arguing. She tried to stab him with a knife, but the blade stuck in his neckbrace. She pried it loose and tried again, but he punched her to prevent the stab.
She ran and called the cops. When the cops came in they made David lie on the ground and cuffed him. They were about to take him to jail, but the kids came out shouting not to take their dad away–that their mom tried to stab him.
A female cop interviewed the kids in a bedroom, said it was true. So, you have a situation where when the cops thought the issues is: an unprovoked bare-handed assault the solution is arrest.
When they find out that the real crime was an attempted malicious wounding or murder with a deadly weapon, what do they do?
They tell David Woods to get his wife in to see a shrink.
David Woods was denied help from 3 DV shelters for having the wrong genitals, even though he can’t work and his SSI is a pittance. In other words you have a husband who is in the classic female catch-22 that feminists talk about: lack of material resources, physically weaker, can’t leave because the kids would be with the abuser.
Of course David faced the additional burden that shelters refused to help because he is a man. His daughter is only alive because when her mother pointed a shotgun at her face and pulled the trigger it was unloaded.
VAWA specifically states that no funds can be granted to shelters that house men. David Wood’s story was so compelling that this portion of VAWA was struck down as unconstitutional in California.
Shelters that house anywhere from 1% to 100% of male victims can now apply for grants from VAWA funds (in California only).
This just goes to show that feminism really doesn’t care who has to be sacrificed for their religion (even children).
I want to add clarity to my post, because some people are confused about what I’m actually saying.
A person can get burned in various ways: acid, fire, boiling water, an iron, so on; so the same goes with assault: physical assault (punching, kicking…), assault with a weapon (bat, belt, broomstick…)….let’s leave murder aside as that is a different type of crime entirely. Now with burns, you can physically see the damage on a victim, and a professional will assess it as either 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree to categorize the physical damage. In doing this, we can gather and know: 1) the degree of infliction 2) how much pain and suffering the victim is facing and 2) how fast they will heal. The problem with assault is that, it doesn’t identify any of this; there is no rating scale, therefore no accurate and reliable assessment of the harm inflicted and doesn’t take into account the victim’s pain and suffering or healing process.
Now if we can do the same for assault as we do for burns — that is, to remove all the endless variables, in which a person can assault another, and deal strictly with the degree of infliction suffered by the victim — then we would have an accurate and reliable picture to work with. Plus a rating scale would help counter and put to rest…all the inaccuracies, and exaggerations which some people attempt to extrapolate from any given scenario, to raise a person’s victimization profile over another. So for example, using some popular celebrities:
Chris Brown VS. Rihanna
We see pictures of Rihanna suffering from obvious physical assault, likely punching — her face is black and blue everywhere…not sure if she also suffered bodily harm.
Tiger Woods VS. Elin Nordgren
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/28/elin-nordegren-tiger-wood_0_n_372566.html
It was reported that Elin scratched Tiger woods’ face (assault) went after him with a golf club (WEAPON). She smashed a window on his SUV as he drove away; he was medicated and crashed the SUV, minor impact, his other minor injuries were from that crash —air bags went off (cut lip).
———— If we compare the two assaults above and be really HONEST with ourselves, we can see that Rihanna, by far, suffered MUCH more physical harm than Tiger Woods, despite Elin wielding a golf club. There’s no report that Elin actually striked Tiger with the golf club! Though Elin is guilty of scratching Tiger’s face and Chris Brown for punching Rihanna. Now let’s say if we used a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being bloody assault…I would rate Rihanna’s bodily battery at maybe 4 and Tiger’s at 10. So a rating scale for assaults would help identify the degree of harm inflicted and also help us be honest about them case by case. In conclusion, a rating scale would help remove the “clutter” in which one of them is the gender perception that one group is more favorable. Rating scale = gender neutral. We would never argue that a 3rd degree burn victim has it worse than a 1st degree would we?
The one problem I see with the rating for assaults is that, unlike burn victims, bruising and pain doesn’t always show up immediately…sometimes the pain is immediate, but there’s no bruising…but that person could have suffered painfully as someone with visible bruises. Assessing assaults would be much tougher than assessing burn victims (pain and suffering visible to the eye)…and then you may get people who lie too.
I see your point. The level of the offense should be connected to the effects of the crime in some way. I can agree with that. If someone is put into a coma by an assault, that should be a worse crime than an assault that leaves a tiny bruise.
Of course, “assault” also includes an attack that doesn’t physically harm the victim at all. If I shoot a gun in anger and the bullet misses, I am still guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. I think that’s a much worse crime than a punch on the arm, even though the bullet doesn’t hit the person at all.
Caveat: My legal knowledge comes strictly from network TV, so no one consider my ramblings to be legal advice….
With your gun example, we already have a term for it, it’s called “attempted murder”…that’s not assault; my posts deal strictly with assault. With murder, there’s also first and second degree language. I’m also aware that assault can lead to the death of someone…which would bump assault to — murder.
I think “assault with a weapon” actually means using a weapon to physically assault someone with ie. pistol whipping. Shooting someone and missing…that would fall under attempted murder, rather than assault with a weapon.
Caveat: My legal knowledge doesn’t come from TV…it comes from deductions and from a little birdie. So go get your own little birdie.
Sorry, but that doesn’t work. The rating system of burns is a rough and ready system designed to help diagnosis and clinical treatment. The legal system has a much more complicated task: they have to assess the damage to the victim, potential damage to the victim, damage to the victim’s property, the intentions of the perpetrator, the likelyhood of reoccurance, mitigating circumstances (such as temporary insanity and self defence), and whether or not it actually happened… doesn’t lend itself too well to a rating system.
To take the example you gave (Rhianna being beaten vs. Golf club to Tiger Woods), its actually quite difficult to say which is “worse” and which is “better.”
-Rhianna had worse injuries, no doubt about it.
-Tiger Woods had greater potential for injury: I’ve seen the effect of even an accidental gold club to the head, I hate to think what an intentional one would look like.
-Tiger Woods lost his car while trying to escape, don’t know if Rhianna lost anything, either way financial loss is pretty secondary to injury.
-I don’t know what the person who beat up Rhianna intended, it may even have been as part of a consentual BDSM scene (although I doubt it if the injuries were to the face), Tiger Woods’ wife wanted to hit him on the head with a golf club, possibly more than once.
-No idea if either of them are likely to reoccur, Rhianna probably has the choice of leaving, I doubt Tiger Woods does (without loosing his kids).
-No idea what was happening when Rhianna was beaten, maybe she tried to kill someone, maybe someone tried to kill her. Tiger Woods’ wife might reasonably argue temporary insanity, but I doubt that evidence of infidelity would protect her if she were a male and Tiger was a female.
-I’m pretty sure both of them happened.
And thats a highly simplistic comparison. I think its more appropriate to call “assault” “assault” and leave it to judges to determine the severity of the various factors innvolved when considering sentencing. If it helps, going by the conviction rates and sentences handed down, they already seem to think that female perpetrators aren’t really a threat and male perpetrators deserve as much time as can be given.
See, that’s exactly the problem. People extrapolating information to infinity —this could have happened, that could have happened…maybe this, maybe that…ALLEGING this, alleging that…. Why don’t we stick to the known facts, look at the evidence and call on any witnesses??? MRAs are too funny. (BTW, domestic violence is not a gendered term.)
“Tiger Woods’ wife wanted to hit him on the head with a golf club, possibly more than once.”
Umm, and how do you know that? Possibly more than once? What the hell…there was NO report that Tiger suffered any injury from a golf club; Elin only scratched his face. Show me evidence/link where Elin hit Tiger on the head, even once??? People could THREATEN but not assault someone, you know? And that would be classified as a threat.
“Rhianna probably has the choice of leaving, I doubt Tiger Woods does (without loosing his kids).”
Rihanna has a choice of leaving??? LOL. Look at who was on the receiving end of aggravated assault…Rihanna! (I believe the story went that Chris Brown assaulted Rihanna in his car…hard to escape when someone is pummeling you in the face). Tiger was actually the one who escaped with only scratches to his face and jumped into his SUV.
There’s not a whole lot of logic to your post.
Like,
Assault causing actual bodily harm
Assault causing grievous bodily harm
Assault with a weapon
Assault with a dangerous weapon
Aggravated assaults as above
Specially aggravated assaults as above
Attempted murder
etc…
I wonder why no-one has thought of that?
I think Jeannie Suk (Harvard Law professor) is trying to change the law concerning domestic violence and the issues of privacy….Traditionally, law enforcement has been reluctant to interfere in what was considered the sanctity and “privacy” of one’s home (ie., “A man’s home is his castle”)….The tide is changing as the concern has shifted towards protecting lives that may be in danger…Family law has changed greatly as more and more people understand the family dynamics and the seemingly unending cycle of violence…If we don’t try to interrupt the cycle now, the violent behavior gets passed down to the next generation….
Leia,
The problem with this protocol by police departments and prosecutors in their zealous pursuit of DV has to do with the mandatory arrest laws, and primary aggressor laws.
Mandatory arrest laws state that if the cops are called in for a domestic incident somebody has to be arrested. Primary aggressor rules in many PD’s across the country state that if more than 5% of those arrests are women, the officers and departments will have to be reviewed for systemic anti-female bias. This despite 30 years of valid evidence that in DV women attack as often as men.
Mandatory arrest laws take the right of making a complaint away from the alleged victim and put it into the hands of a prosecutor. This leads to absence of citizen rights due to the over-the-top criminalization of very minor shoves or slaps that the couple know (or were likely to conclude) that it was a one-off situation (in other words niether party has a history of violence and there were catalysts like being laid off, death in the family, alcohol or drugs).
Giving the right to THE STATE to criminalize these minor offences AGAINST THE WISHES of the alleged victim is NOT HELPING.
What we are seeing is state-enforced dissolution of families.
I remember a story being linked on glenn sacks sight which detailed the following horror:
A couple was essentially destitute. They moved out of their home and were driving several states away to live with family in which jobs were plentiful.
During the drive they stayed at a couples house (I don’t remember the relationship to this family). While they were eating, the (destitute) couple got into an argument. The man threw a bag of cheetos in the woman’s face. The wife of the hosting couple called the cops.
The result? The man (as of the writing of this story) was STILL in jail 90 days later for throwing a bag of cheetos into the woman’s face.
The problem is that these radical feminists think of DV as a FOR PROFIT business. They want to include EVERYTHING under the umbrella of DV to grow their fat grants, hire more feminists in positions of power.
These radical feminists seem obsessed with giving the state any excuse to come in and dissolve families.
For the record, as a victim of DV, I did not get a bag of Cheetos thrown in my face…it was true physical violence from a man over 6′ tall (and I was a petite young girl who couldn’t believe that this was happening from someone who claimed to have loved her)….I will defer from describing the physical attack in detail….suffice it to say…I would have died if things had made a turn for the worse…In my personal experience, it is very clear that I was the one in danger if you look at the sheer rage and sheer physical power of the raging bull who was attacking me….I was not a radical feminist 20 years ago…and I never reported it….
Of the women that I know, they were all attacked by their significant others and did not fight back….none of them are radical feminists and do not profit from DV….my babysitter was put in the hospital from an attack by her husband (he also struck her child in the same incident)….she is an observant Catholic and never reported her husband to the police, but had to leave the marriage after enduring such violence for 11 years (I’m sure she would have ended up with more serious injuries or death if she stayed….she later found out he was on drugs)….I don’t think you can equate the violence that we all endured as “getting a bag of Cheetos thrown in the face”….It’s sort of like watching boxing….they don’t match a lightweight with a heavyweight…so in DV (overwhelmingly, from my own personal experience) when a man uses physical force against a woman it’s a mismatched fight…and it’s clear who the person is who’s in danger….
Leia writes:
“For the record, as a victim of DV, I did not get a bag of Cheetos thrown in my face…it was true physical violence from a man over 6′ tall (and I was a petite young girl who couldn’t believe that this was happening from someone who claimed to have loved her)”
I wasn’t making a correlation with what happened to you. I was specifically rebutting your presumption that giving greater power to prosecutors and cops to be intrusive (especially with the mandatory arrest and primary aggressor laws in place now) are not automatically GOOD.
In fact, I would say they cause many times more harm than good, because very mild cases of shoving or slapping are no longer in the hands of the alleged victim, they are in the hands of prosecutors. Many states have denied the rights of the claimant to retract their claim.
What this means is that rather than a surgical strike to combat only battering, these overzealous prosecutors are more like a nuclear bomb that also essentially have the right to dissolve happy functional families with very mild (likely to be one-time) issues of a VERY MILD order of slapping or shoving or shouting.
You’re 100% wrong on that point.
Additionally, in the cheetos case it wasn’t the “assaulted” wife who called the cops. It was the wife of the couple they were staying at.
Having citizens callout other citizens as having something wrong with them was the way Nazi’s seized jews and the way MacArthur hearings were conducted.
I think it’s interesting that everywhere when we talk about the need to believe women when talking about rape or DV, that this sentiment DISAPPEARS when the woman wants to recant a complaint (or in the cheetos case, the alleged victims wants to fight the claim from an observer).
If you don’t see the problem with allowing the prosecutor the right to determine if a criminal complaint should be made (over the PROTESTATIONS of the alleged victim), then there is no hope for you.
Very minor issues of slapping or shouts or shoves should not be treated the same as battering (especially with amplifying factors like drug or alcohol use or stress factors like the death of a loved one or being laid off) particularly when neither has a record of violence and it’s likely to be a one-time incident.
Unfortunately, the rad fem DV machine is running full tilt to grow their cottage industry and trying to criminalize more and more natural human behavior (like shouting).
This is utter horse crap.
Leia says:
“Of the women that I know, they were all attacked by their significant others and did not fight back….none of them are radical feminists and do not profit from DV….my babysitter was put in the hospital from an attack by her husband (he also struck her child in the same incident)….she is an observant Catholic and never reported her husband to the police, but had to leave the marriage after enduring such violence for 11 years (I’m sure she would have ended up with more serious injuries or death if she stayed….she later found out he was on drugs)”
Per the study I linked by Dr. Dutton men are only 16% likely to report their own abuse versus 62% for men. If you are mostly seeing abuse of women, that is likely because men are now where women were in the 60′s. A man being abused is more likely to be ridiculed than get help–even from the medical establishment and DV centers.
Despite the 30 years of studies which show women attack just as often as men, researchers and male victims of DV are forbidden to testify at VAWA reauthorization hearings and other IPV (interpersonal violence) conferences.
Your personal experience may be one of male victimization of women, that IS NOT what is happening nationwide.
All victims battering and verbal and emotional abuse need assistance (currently society excludes those 50% of victims with a penis help).
Additionally, there should be some common sense in the application of laws so that obviously non-violent people are not caught up in this ridiculously huge net (as in the cheetos case).
Contrary to your opinion about things being better (maybe they are better for you, but they are definitely not better for the vast majority of men–in fact they are worse) the evidence points to VERY MANY things wrong about the way our society handles DV.
Edit:
Per the study I linked by Dr. Dutton men are only 16% likely to report their own abuse versus 62% for women.
Because statistically men “assault” women at much higher rates an with greater power. Yes it deserves to be separate. Curious if this writer has ever been affected by DV in his own life or had a woman in his life be affected by it…doubtful. Otherwise he would see the importance.
Me again.
I think this message is meant to disagree with me, but I’m failing to see how and why.
I’m not sure why “assault” is in quotes if the point is that men assault women in domestic situations more than the other way around. I bet that’s true. My point is that those men are assaulting those women. The phrase “domestic violence” is a somewhat sanitized phrase that makes it sound like it’s nobody’s business because it’s inside the house or inside the relationship.
But, I don’t see why assaulting someone you’re married to and/or live with and/or have sex with is an absolutely different crime than assaulting someone else in any other context. If Chris Brown beat up some random person he met on the street or beat up his girlfriend, it should be assault in both cases. Perhaps any individual context provides some mitigating factors, but I fail to see why a blanket “domestic” context is so special.
I’m suggesting that Chris Brown is getting away with it precisely because it was his girlfriend and not some random woman on the street. Calling it “domestic” just smoothes over the fact that it is essentially a crime of one person against another.
As for the third and fourth sentences: Presumably because I know women who are survivors of assault in their homes that means that I have to agree with you, or else I really don’t understand. That’s powerful rhetoric, and emotionally quite compelling, but that argument is not a logical or objective counter to the ideas expressed in my post. That’s more of a ‘members only,’ ad hominem, if only he had the life experience we’ve had (wink wink) kind of argument, which in this cases proves to be inaccurate anyway.
According to what statistics? Because there are a considerable number of them that strongly indicate parity in domestic violence victimization between men and women.
Personally I know both male and female victims of domestic abuse, and I don’t use that term lightly. If women genuinely are the greater proportion of victims (and I don’t agree that you’re in any position to say so) so be it. That doesn’t excuse ignoring the remaining male victims. DV is DV and a plate thrown to the face from the person you loved enough to marry doesn’t hurt any less than a punch.
I doubt you know any of the men affected by this issue or you wouldn’t be saying this. Rather, to be more accurate. they’re afraid to tell anyone.
Chris Writes:
“Because statistically men “assault” women at much higher rates an with greater power. Yes it deserves to be separate.”
All of the credible research for the last 20 some odd years shows that women attack as often as men do.
Per this study:
http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DUTTON-NICHOLLS-AND-SPIDEL-2005-FEMALE-PERPETRATORS-OF-INTIMATE-VIOLENCE.pdf
The largest predictor of women’s injury in DV is her own violence. Nobody seems to recall that Chris Brown says he was attacked by Rihanna first and retaliated.
I think it’s interesting that when men attack women, the emphasis is on who attacked FIRST and the woman is even entitled to use deadly force.
When women attack men, men become responsible for the safety of their assailant.
These iron-clad biases in culture that even when women attack, they should be kept safe are rarely addressed by people, and never addressed by feminists.
When Lionel Ritchie was asked by a reporter if it was true his wife hit he responded: “If I say yes I’m a wimp, and if I hit her back I’m a brute. No comment”
This exactly details the catch-22 that men are in when we talk about DV.
And that catch-22 starts early in life. If a boy is attacked by a girl bully in school he faces 2 choices. “If I fight back I’m a brute for fighting a girl. If I don’t then I’m a wimp for getting beat by a girl.” As a result er end up with quotes like the one you have there from Lionel Ritchie. The only difference is that he actually said what many men are thinking when attacked by a woman.
The largest predictor of women’s injury in DV is her own violence. Nobody seems to recall that Chris Brown says he was attacked by Rihanna first and retaliated.
It wasn’t that no one recalled it. It was that apparently the fact that Rihanna attacked first suddenly didn’t matter. And I mean that literally. When that story broke nearly every time I saw someone try to mention that they were actively shouted down and accused to trying to claim that Rihanna deserved it. People are full on demonizing Brown for “assault” when in fact its more of a case that Brown “used excessive force to protect himself”. But that won’t stop people that want to paint up partner violence as some that “men do to women”.
I think it’s interesting that when men attack women, the emphasis is on who attacked FIRST and the woman is even entitled to use deadly force. When women attack men, men become responsible for the safety of their assailant. These iron-clad biases in culture that even when women attack, they should be kept safe are rarely addressed by people, and never addressed by feminists.
Damn straight. I notice this in regular conversation. When a woman attacks a man she is encouraged to fight back and do whatever is necessary to protect herself which for the record I agree with. But for some reason men are encouraged to “walk away”, “to know better than to hit a woman”, “to be the bigger man”.
People for some unknown reason seem to think that being (more likely to be) smaller and weaker means you have less responsibility than people that are larger and stronger. Well to be exact that only applies when talking about responsibility for something like violence. If we were talking about something carry a heavy box then all of a sudden it would be sexist to presume that the larger and stronger person should be the one to do it.
So at the end of the day. Men and women are equals, except when it come to violence. At which time women are suddenly no longer equals and are helpless victims that could never do something like commit violence against men.
Thanks for helping me to inject a little reality into the situation Danny,
Danny writes:
“People for some unknown reason seem to think that being (more likely to be) smaller and weaker means you have less responsibility than people that are larger and stronger.”
Of course this only applies to women and men.
I remember reading in the paper a while back that in one of the Detroit suburbs (I live in Flint) a 5’8″ 120lb man was being beligerent to a 6’4″ 250lb man at a little league hockey game.
For whatever reason, the smaller man actually got physical. When the larger man got angry and punched him, the man fell hitting his head on the concrete.
There were NO CALLS for the larger guy to be responsible for the little guys safety. In fact, there were outright insults calling the little man stupid to taunt the larger guy. This is NEVER the attitude we tell women. I rarely hear anybody telling women to keep to themselves.
I remember the movie Blues brothers in which Aretha Franklin sang her “R E S P E C T song.”
Now, it seems the scripted shows are not content to show women who are mentally strong, but to show they are the equals (or betters) of men in every way and depict very unreal scenes in which 110lb women take down 220lb muscle bound men.
Everywhere you see the message of women attacking men = girrrrl power.
The bad news is that this message seems to be sinking in to many girls. CDC DV studies show teen girls use violence more than boys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVR_JcZ1o7s
Here is teen mom reality star Amber Portwood attacking the father of her baby Gary Shirley.
Fathers and Families contacted the cops to state the cops should arrest Amber as there is clearly recorded evidence of her assault.
Imagine the destructive power that this guy could unleash on this girl if she pushes him over the edge?
The simple fact is if we taught women to keep their hands to themselves women would face much less injury in DV.
80% of DV involves two violent individuals which is more accurately termed domestic combat. When we look at one-way violence which is 1 violent perpetrator attacking a non-violent victim it is 60% women on male. Why? That’s for pyschologists to answer. But, I am sure the bias of men not to defend themselves against a woman is involved.
When we talk about female safety then the number one thing we can do is teach women to keep their hands to themselves.
In the story of two crazed female mcdonalds customers attacking a male mcdonalds employee (because he scanned their $50 bill to see if it was real) is a good example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-abstGkJ-E&feature=related
The two women looked like jackals moving in for the kill surrounding him from multiple angles. He retreated and retreated, but they clearly did not have any kind of good attentions.
He defended himself with some kind of oil cleaning metal rod.
There was a well-spring of sympathy for the violent women with advocates stating the mcdonalds employee should do time. He was found not guilty of any criminal wrong-doing AND the two female customers were arraigned for their own criminal liability and soon face court.
I once read about a party gone wrong in which a man trying to break up a fight between two guys was assaulted by one of the fighting guys girlfriends (maybe she thought he was joining the other guy to make it 2 on 1). She broke a beer bottle jumped on the guys back and dug the broken end of the beer bottle into the guys face blinding him in one eye.
The judge excused the woman’s behavior for whatever convenient reason and charged her $500 and several days community service–for a blinding and disfigurement.
This guy had no knowledge of what drugs these women were on, if they held blades or other weapons. To say you have to treat your assailant with kids gloves is to put YOUR SAFETY into the hands of your assailants mercy. But, you don’t know if they might be impaired or crazy or what.
Luckily the courts and media’s nymphotropism seems to have collided with and lost to common sense in this one case.
@ThatGuy… Hello again. In response to your post… I put assault in quotes just as a reference to your original post stating “assault is assault”. There wasn’t much thought behind it. My goal was not to disagree with your post… I do understand your point about gender-neutral language. However; I do believe that an assault against a random person on the street and between two intimate partners (male or female) is something quite different. In my experience and education, there are many more and/or different factors to consider in domestic violence cases then in a general assault case. Maybe the language is outdated or should be reviewed, but I dont believe assault and domestic violence are exactly the same thing.
As far as my third and fourth sentences… as a female survivor of an abusive relationship there just may be a bit of “members only” tone to that sentence…. and while is may not be the most logical or objective counter to your argument, please understand that your post did read a little like DV cases are not to be handled with the consideration they deserve. The emotional manipulation, cycles and patterns, breaking down of self esteem, threats, and not to mention violence can not be encompassed by a simple assault charge. It could be my personal perception and bias… I understand that… but again that is why a change like you are suggesting should be carefully considered. DV cases do have their own set of circumstances and considerations, in my opinion. Thanks for the reply.
In a way I agree and in a way disagree. When it comes to violence we do need to start using clearer terms. Domestic violence as a term is understood nowadays mostly so, that man is the offender. In Finland we use term “violence in close relationships” and that covers not only married/dating couples but siblings, children and parents etc. I think we do need a term for that, because the violence does become even worst (and it’s effects), when offender is someone you should be able to trust and someone you feel you should know. It also changes the ways of support/help.
In Finland we have had a law from 2011, which says that cases, where there has been violence in close relationships go to prosecutor automaticly, even the minor assaults . I see this as a good improvement as it means, that there is a possibility to intervention in a earlier stage of the circle of violence.
Katri writes:
“Domestic violence as a term is understood nowadays mostly so, that man is the offender.”
Katri: do you mean that the definition is gendered (man=assailant, women=victim) so therefore it’s impossible for investigators to see male victims, or do you men that men are IN FACT the majority of those who assault in relationships?
Because the evidence is that women initiate relationship violence just as much as men. And in terms of psychological manipulation and coercive control women are 50% more likely to do those.
I disagree that very minor pushes or slaps when the victim wants the charge dropped(especially when both partners do NOT have a history of family violence and there is clear evidence of a catalyst like death in the family, being laid off, or aclohol or drugs which means the incident was likely a one-time thing).
Per my story I linked to Chris, a man was in jail 90 days (and still hadn’t been released as of the story) for throwing a bag of potato chips in a woman’s face.
That is not progress. Putting the state into personal matters and enabling them to command the dissolution of WHAT APPEARS TO BE a happy functioning family that had a minor bad experience is NOT PROGRESS.
Assault is assault for the purpose of defining the conduct as regardless of motivation or who the victim is, the State still needs to prove the same elements to get a conviction. However, domestic violence is a distinct form of violence and a factor that adjusts the nature of the sanction imposed upon conviction and is therefore a valid sub-category within the class of crimes called assault.
While I agree that the term should be gender neutral I do not agree that there is no difference between an assault between drug dealers and an assault upon as spouse. This is because assaultive behavior within the confines of an intimate relationship is not based on anger, but rather, it is based primarily on control and power dynamics. Controlling behaviors by one partner often vary in scope and impact and a variety of methods may be used to ensure the continued submissiveness of the partner. This creates a unique psychology and those that ascribe to a rehabilitative view of penal law believe that the sentencing options should be tailored to the nature of the offense; drug treatment for drug offenders, sexual treatment for sex offenders, and DV education for DV offenders for example. One can debate the efficacy of such approaches but in the end it is important to understand, gender bias aside, that DV is an crime with different motivations from other forms of violence and as such is worthy of being a sub-category under the umbrella of assault.
While there are definitely some problems with the way that the law treats dv, it is still a useful term. Domestic Violence very often involves a host of problems other than assault such as emotional abuse, stalking, and battered woman syndrome. These problems make it extra difficult to intervene in, and some would say extra abhorrent. For instance, dv is one of the most dangerous calls a police officer can get. Special dv training can help police stay safe (and see past gendered stereotypes). Dv is also difficult to handle in court, because the accusers safety is often compromised, but the defendant has a right to due process. In places with special dv courts and training for police, the incidence of dv related death is way down. This would not be possible without a special designation for domestic violence or intimate partner violence. Dv is not merely assault. Treating it as such would be inappropriate and ineffective.
Emily writes:
“For instance, dv is one of the most dangerous calls a police officer can get. Special dv training can help police stay safe (and see past gendered stereotypes).”
Actually in many states the reverse is true. The Office on Women’s Violence has a $550million budget. Most of this is for working with police departments and prosecutors to enact A) mandatory arrest protocols (if police are called in for domestic disturbance somebody is going to jail) B) primary aggressor laws (which state IN TOTAL DISREGARD of all credible studies that most DV is male perpetrated and if women are more than 5% of arrests, the officers and department will go under review for anti-female bias, C) no-drop prosecutions (which turns clearly one-off incidents of shoves or slaps (with catalytic factors like death in the family or being laid off or alcohol or drugs) in which neither partner has a history of violence into a harshly penalized criminal matter).
If anything rad fem DV advocates now have an open pipeline to ENFORCE gender stereotypes, not break them. And they give prosecutors and cops the rights to force the dissolution of a happy functioning family who had a minor (likely one-time) incident.
Minor shoves and slaps should not end up on a prosecutors desk (at least in which neither has a history of violence). This is giving too much power to the state.
I see where the author is coming from, but it’s not quite so simple as “just call it assault.”
One problem with seeing it only as assault is that “domestic violence” also covers things that are not necessarily illegal. For example, a mutual fight between/among people living in the same house. The phrase could also cover the use of force in self-defense (also not illegal), although that’s not a connotation that most people associate with the phrase.
My view: “Domestic violence” is literally the use of force within a household or residence or within a “domestic” relationship, however “domestic” is defined. Not all use of force is technically illegal. I would argue that a spouse who shoots another spouse in self-defense has engaged in DV, but it’s justified DV in that case. (I know I’m using the phrase “domestic violence” in a way that many other people do not. A lot of this debate is over what the phrase really means, what counts, and how it’s different from other things. So, it’s crucial for everyone who argues over the phrase to give a working definition for it.) I am naively egalitarian enough that I don’t think the gender of the spouse should make a difference in determining “self-defense” against another spouse.
We’ll need to get this whole gendered spousal abuse thing worked out at some point pretty soon, now that same-sex marriage is becoming a more established reality. Will violence between two female spouses simply never ever exist, but between two male spouses it’s always justified? What do we do with gender difference when there is no gender difference?
When cops are called to a “domestic disturbance,” one of the possibilities they have to be aware of is a mutual fight, in which case the commission of a crime may not be readily apparent. Violence may be readily apparent, of course, but injury does not automatically mean a crime. The police should never ASSUME that violence is mutual or justified, and they should be looking for clues to see if a crime has been committed. I would say they’re still often failing to see what’s right in front of their eyes, and cops still have a long way to go in recognizing abuse, but they shouldn’t totally ignore the possibility that it’s essentially a fight, and they shouldn’t assume a particular assailant/victim situation based on gender alone.
I think, what we need is a clear process on how to treat/face domestic violence. We have processes for murder, homicide, burglary, child abuse, etc. but almost none for domestic abuse and that I think causes confusion, stereotypes and sexism to appear.