Hitting Your Girlfriend Is Never Justified … Period

7030695901_d2a6acb5d0_z

She cheated; I lost my temper; it wasn’t that bad; and I’m the victim: Ousted RadiumOne CEO Gurbaksh “G” Chahal’s classic defense of his attack on Juliet Kakish.

__

It’s always the same story. Only the players are different. This time, it’s Gurbaksh “G” Chahal’s brutal assault of his girlfriend, Juliet Kakish which is all over the news again, now that he worked out a plea deal reducing 45 felony counts based on 117 alleged acts of violence to two misdemeanor charges that got him off with probation and a $500 fine. RadiumOne acted swiftly to fire Chahal, though he still retains a large stake in the company.

♦◊♦

One can approach this sordid story from many angles:

The standards of personal conduct we demand from our business leaders.

The power of information and its rapid spread to topple the powerful.

The irony of a man’s security cameras being used to document him hitting his girlfriend 117 times and threatening to end her life, and the further irony of that evidence being thrown out for unlawful seizure.

The refusal of an intimate partner violence victim to cooperate with law enforcement to ensure full prosecution.

The way we depose leaders who commit crimes but let them walk away with their money.

♦◊♦

Chahal’s argument follows the predictable reframing pattern of every abuser who justifies abuse, and in decoding that pattern, I hope to help abuse survivors recognize what’s happening, shift their perspective, and empower them to change their lives.

But for me, the most instructive part is Chahal’s published defense of his actions, which appears in Kara Swisher’s re/code article and is included below in its entirety. I encourage you to read it carefully, as I did, to tease out the irrationality and inconsistencies. Chahal’s argument follows the predictable reframing pattern of every abuser who justifies abuse, and in decoding that pattern, I hope to help abuse survivors recognize what’s happening, shift their perspective, and empower them to change their lives.

Can You Handle the Truth?

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Right now there are many people calling for my head. I am the recipient of death threats and hateful language aimed not just at what I was accused of, but attacking me for my ethnicity, my social class, and even my gender. Many would gladly lynch me based because of my origin — and not the facts of my case.

I know that I cannot change the minds of those who choose to hate me without cause — and base their hate only on the misrepresentations they have read, but I hope that others will be open minded and give me the opportunity to tell my story and paint a broader and very different picture.

Before I begin, I want to make it abundantly clear that I abhor violence of any kind, most especially against women. I created a foundation to fight hate crimes. I consider intimate partner violence and domestic violence in that same category.

I was charged with 45 felony counts of domestic violence. All of those charges were dropped, and ultimately the case settled when the DA’s office recognized they had no case and offered me a misdemeanor plea. I accepted that plea, because after a lot of soul searching I believed I was acting in the best interest of my company, my employees, my customers, my family, my friends and my investors.

I fully understand the outrage of those who believe I got off “lightly” as asserted by numerous postings on social media sites. But the $500 fine I agreed to pay, the equivalent of a speeding ticket, is simply what those misdemeanors require, and in no way reflects the toll that this ordeal has exacted on me. There can be no dollar value placed on the pain and suffering I have caused my family and friends, my employees and customers my investors, and everyone else who has looked up to me in the past. The humiliation and shame I feel is immeasurable. The dollar cost to my business and my reputation is incalculable.

I could have spent another year fighting the charges against me, which I truly wanted to do for my family’s sake. I would have prevailed in this fight because the allegations by police against me were overblown and grossly exaggerated. They made good press, but quite literally, they did not hold up in court.

I want you to know that this is not an excuse. I know that intimate partner violence is never excusable under any circumstances. I recognize that my temper got the better of me, and I will regret that for the rest of my life. But there is a difference between temper and domestic violence, and the truth of what actually happened is no where close to what the police claimed nor anywhere near what the online chatter and pundits are now making it out to be. I have two sisters, a niece and a mother. I love them all to death, and would never want any harm to ever come their way.

The situation that resulted in my legal case began when I discovered that my girlfriend was having unprotected sex for money with other people. (She testified to this in her interviews with the cops.) I make no excuse for losing my temper. When I discovered this fact and confronted my girlfriend, we had a normal argument. She called 9-11 after I told her I was going to contact her father regarding her activities. And yes, I lost my temper. I understand, accept full responsibility and sincerely apologize from the bottom of my heart for that. But I didn’t hit her 117 times, injure her, or cause any trauma as the UCSF medical reports clearly document. This was all overblown drama because it generates huge volumes of page views for the media given what I have accomplished in the valley.

The tape in question that was thrown was also bullshit. If anything, it actually made the SFPD look bad because they violently assaulted me as I opened my door despite my being fully cooperative.

The girl in question here, was herself so appalled by the false allegations made by the police, that she agreed to be photographed to demonstrate that there were no bruises or injuries. She could have left my apartment at any time during the argument. She felt safe and chose to stay. Those pictures she agreed to take would have been entered into evidence had my case proceeded, and they would have proven that the police claims were egregiously misleading.

Celebrities in sports, entertainment and business, and high net worth individuals in general are all potential targets. It was only a matter of time when I would fall prey.

I have to accept that many will still want to hate me no matter what I say to bring clarity to my legal case which is now over. But the fact of the matter is that they are jumping to conclusions based on falsified allegations. My case could not have settled in the way that it did if the allegations were true. Trust me, the DA’s were like a pack of rabid dogs coming after me. If they had a case, they would have stuck with it.

I only hope for two things: first that people who I work so hard to inspire are not discouraged by the false allegations and blogosphere spins, and, secondly, I hope others who are not in my shoes — and who have jumped on the bandwagon of criticism against me after the conclusion of my legal proceedings — will be open minded and give me the opportunity to tell them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I apologize to my family, my friends, employees, my customers and my investors all who have suffered from this bad publicity related to my personal matter. I have learned a lot from this experience, and I will continue to grow. As CEO of RadiumOne, I vow to make it a hugely successful company, a great place to work, and a wonderful partner in the community.

I’ve always wanted the best for others. I have been a tireless fighter against hate crimes through my Foundation, and a huge supporter of education through my scholarship funds. What I am proudest of in my success thus far in life is that I have created jobs and opportunities for people, while building commerce and strengthening our community. Actions speak louder than words, and it is these actions, not the false allegations and spins that you might have read through these various blogs shine light on my real character, on the person I truly am and always want to be.

What is the American Dream? That you can come from nothing and make something of yourself not once, not twice but three times, only to have all of it come crashing down from misinformation, that is spun wildly out of control into the world of make believe and then goes viral into the blogosphere. We need to hold on to the American Dream, and reject those who would rather make it a nightmare.

Our Founding Fathers believed in the dream, why not the bloggers.

♦◊♦

Every defense of abuse is startlingly similar. They all employ four arguments to frame the incident in the abuser’s favor, absolve him of responsibility, make it seem reasonable, and transfer blame to the victim. These are: 1) the justifying event; 2) the justifiable reaction; 3) the minimizing of the damage; and 4) the unjustified persecution of the abuser. Caveat: I have used he and she here for clarity to refer respectively to the abuser (Chahal) and the abuse victim (Kakish), but this is in no way meant to suggest that abusers are typically male and victims are typically female.

The situation that resulted in his legal case did not begin with his discovery of his girlfriend’s infidelity. It began when he chose to start beating her after that discovery.

1. The justifying event. Chahal explains that Kakish was cheating on him. “The situation that resulted in my legal case began when I discovered that my girlfriend was having unprotected sex for money with other people. (She testified to this in her interviews with the cops.)” His claim is that she not only cheated on him, but also put him at risk for sexually transmitted diseases, had sex for money, and admitted it. Naturally, he was upset; wouldn’t you be? The use of the justifying event masks the real cause of abuse, which is the abuser’s inability to control rage and violence in the face of upset. The situation that resulted in his legal case did not begin with his discovery of his girlfriend’s infidelity. It began when he chose to start beating her after that discovery. And there is no exploration of Kakish’s own situation, of whatever may have led her into the arms of other men for money. Clearly, there is another whole and entirely untold story.

The disconnect between the words “normal argument” and those that directly follow, “She called 9-11,” is staggering. If the argument had been normal, why would Kakish have called 9-11?

2. The justifiable reaction. Naturally, Chahal was hurt, and it follows that he had a right to be angry. He lost his temper. Anyone in his shoes would. And naturally, his pain was so great that he couldn’t help but lash out. “I make no excuse for losing my temper. When I discovered this fact and confronted my girlfriend, we had a normal argument. She called 9-11 after I told her I was going to contact her father regarding her activities. And yes, I lost my temper. I understand, accept full responsibility and sincerely apologize from the bottom of my heart for that.” The abuser always frames his reaction as typical. Anyone would have felt the same way. You might have had the same reaction. But the truth is that cheating occurs all the time, and many couples separate without violence, or go to counseling and work through the trauma without hitting each other. It’s just that we don’t read about these ordinary people in the news. The disconnect between the words “normal argument” and those that directly follow, “She called 9-11,” is staggering. If the argument had been normal, why would Kakish have called 9-11? The abuser’s justifiable reaction, presented as flowing directly from the justifying event, encourages the abuse victim to reframe the harm done to her in the context of the harm she did to her abuser.

If he screamed at her, if he threatened her with words, if he struck her at all—that is not temper but domestic violence plain and simple.

3. The minimizing of the damage. Chahal claims, “I didn’t hit her 117 times, injure her, or cause any trauma as the UCSF medical reports clearly document.” Maybe he didn’t hit her 117 times (though the security camera tape allegedly bears this out), but if he hit her even one time, that’s one time too many. He also writes, “But there is a difference between temper and domestic violence, and the truth of what actually happened is no where close to what the police claimed nor anywhere near what the online chatter and pundits are now making it out to be.” If he screamed at her, if he threatened her with words, if he struck her at all—that is not temper but domestic violence plain and simple. By maintaining that the victim’s reaction is overblown, that what transpired was insignificant, and that he is being unfairly accused, the abuser encourages the victim to question her own account of the events and to hesitate pursuing justice over a “minor incident.” This also sets the stage for the abuser to make the last of the four points in his defense, that he is the victim of someone else’s agenda.

The persecution argument mixes the abuser’s narcissism and paranoia with the prevalence of stories of fallen celebrities in the news to obscure the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

4. The unjustified persecution of the abuser. Chahal writes, “Celebrities in sports, entertainment and business, and high net worth individuals in general are all potential targets. It was only a matter of time when I would fall prey.” Here the abuser reframes his legal troubles as something that happened to him inevitably as a result of his accomplishments and achievements and positions himself as the persecuted victim. This shift enables him to deny all responsibility for his actions and frames the actual victim as the doer, in conjunction with his enemies and the media. The persecution argument mixes the abuser’s narcissism and paranoia with the prevalence of stories of fallen celebrities in the news to obscure the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The idea is, he was set up, the whole thing happened because someone was jealous of his power and out to get him, and what he did would have been ignored and dismissed were it not for his high position.

♦◊♦

The response of the business world to Chahal’s conviction is encouraging—his firing from RadiumOne, Condé Nast’s reviewing its vendor relationship with the company, and TechCrunch dropping them as a sponsor because they “simply couldn’t sleep at night knowing that we were supporting and promoting a company led by someone who does not share our values on the issue of domestic abuse.” Leaders who value both their values and their own companies’ economic survival see through the abuser’s specious defense. Highlighting the pattern that underlies that defense, as I have tried to do here, makes it easier to dispense with in the future.

Photo—Richard North/flickr

 

 

NOW TRENDING ON GMP TV

Super Villain or Not, Parenting Paranoia Ensues
The Garbage Man Explains Happiness
How To Not Suck At Dating

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Thomas G. Fiffer

Thomas G. Fiffer, Executive Editor at The Good Men Project, is a graduate of Yale and holds an M.A. in creative writing from the University of Illinois at Chicago. He posts regularly on his blog, Tom Aplomb, and serves as Editor of Westport's HamletHub, a local online news and information service. He is also a featured storyteller with MouseMuse Productions and is working on his first novel.

Comments

  1. wellokaythen says:

    The editor’s title for this article does not match the article itself. I know that’s fairly common here, and there are good journalistic reasons for editors coming up with titles, but in this case it’s very misleading. (I’m not saying I disagree with the title, just that the title doesn’t match the content of the article.)

    For example, the title makes the article sound much more gender-specific than it really is. It’s quite refreshing to see an article about domestic violence that talks about partner abuse without assuming that assailants are male and victims are female. It’s refreshing to see something about domestic violence that leaves room for the reality that all genders can be violent in relationships. (Notice I didn’t say equally violent, so no one put those words in my mouth.)

    Even though it’s about a specific case of an abusive man, the analysis is readily applicable to all kinds of abusive relationships. Abusers of all genders use these excuses. I think the article makes that point pretty clearly.

    If the title choice is about brevity, then “partner” is even shorter than “girlfriend” and covers more territory.

    If the title is about a good conclusion to draw from the article, then a much better title would be “Don’t Accept Your Abuser’s Excuses”

  2. Whenever I’ve suggested the possibility that Elin Woods attacked Tiger Woods when she found out about his affairs, I’ve heard these same four pro-abuse excuses from (some) women explaining why Elin would be not only justified in hitting him but an inspiration to other women for doing so.

    You see the same four excuses showing up when we talk about women in prison for murdering their husbands – the man had it coming, she couldn’t take it anymore, it wasn’t as bad as what he did to her, and he wasn’t the real victim anyway. Basically the same non-excuses masquerading as excuses.

    “I hit him because he cheated on me.” “I hit her because she cheated on me.”
    Neither one is more justified than the other.

    How about never hitting your intimate partner for any reason….period.

    • Theorema Egregium says:

      Which brings us to a possible excuse #5, which women can use exclusively: “I am a girl, so it is impossible for me to seriously hurt a big strong guy, so I did nothing really bad.”

      This same toxic assumption is also in place when you say that hitting your girlfriend is categorically never justified, because this also precludes self-defence. The advice to men is basically to take the blows quietly; better you end in the hospital than her. Needless to say that this attitude is misogynist and misandric at the same time; yet you find it being touted by people who claim to combat sexism. How about we instead say, physically attacking your partner is never, ever justified?

      Of course even a person who is 5′ with 30kg can lay out a strong man with the help of a golf club, which as far as I remember Woods reportedly used on her husband.

      • My thoughts exactly.

        I can buy the argument that a smaller, weaker person is less of a physical threat than a larger, stronger person. As a large man myself, I accept the idea that if I attack someone then maybe it’s automatically a more serious kind of crime than if a smaller person attacked. Fine.

        What I don’t accept is the assumption that it’s always the man who’s stronger or always has the physical advantage. What I don’t accept is using the gender/sex of either person as a trump card to overrule every other consideration. Especially when there’s a weapon and/or the element of surprise. In that case, all bets are off.

        The ribcage can’t tell if the person with the knife is male or female. The skull cracks the same when a frying pan hits it, whether it was a man or woman holding it. The doctors in the ER don’t ask the patient with stab wounds whether it was a man or woman who stabbed him. Why not? Because it’s not relevant. Wounded is wounded.

        There’s also no reason to discount an assault just because the victim is strong or has self-defense skills. That makes absolutely no difference as to whether it’s assault or not. By the same token, there’s no effing way I would dismiss an assault on a woman because she has a black belt in karate or because she’s a kickboxing champion. No way. Assault is assault.

    • I personally think you are completely justified in hitting someone in the case of self-defense.

    • Any woman who has been brutally abused day after day for years on end, may come to the point in her thinking where her only way out is to kill her abuser. If you’re not a woman, you can’t understand this.

      • “Any woman who has been brutally abused day after day for years on end, may come to the point in her thinking where her only way out is to kill her abuser. If you’re not a woman, you can’t understand this.”

        If you’re not a woman, you can’t understand this????? Because men could never be abused so much to finally snap? I doubt a man in the exact same situation would walk without sentence like quite a few women have after a history of abuse against them. I’d love to be proven wrong to regain faith in humanity. But if you think men cannot understand this then you need to check your gender assumptions.

      • John Anderson says:

        @ Ann

        “If you’re not a woman, you can’t understand this.”

        @ Archy

        “I doubt a man in the exact same situation would walk without sentence like quite a few women have after a history of abuse against them. I’d love to be proven wrong”

        There was a case in Australia of a man who was abused for years by his wife. What caused him to finally snap and kill her was her threat to kill his father. He was acquitted.

        http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/phillip-bracken-found-not-guilty-of-west-footscray-murder-of-de-facto-wife-helen-curtis-in-2012/story-fni0ffnk-1226840986376

        The question I would have for Ann is would you have a problem with this becoming a more normal occurrence? Men have fewer options than women after. There are few to no DV shelters for men. Men are often arrested for being abused by a female partner who then calls the police on him with little to no consequence to her.

        http://www.wesh.com/politics/rep-alan-graysons-attorney-video-shows-he-didnt-push-wife/24817648#!GGnoW

        She faced no charges for filing a false police report. The question was asked on GMP before.

        http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/brand-what-do-you-do-when-a-girl-hits-you/

        So what should a guy do when a girl hits him?

        • So what should a guy do when a girl hits him?
          Oddly enough the answer tends to be a bit different that “what should a woman do when a guy hits her?”

          She should try to get away but if she can’t then fight back.

          He should try to get away. (Seriously how often do you hear someone say that if a man is trapped by an abusive woman he should fight back. At best its “fight back but do it in a controlled manner”. Simply put men are held to a higher standard of how to act when abused by women than the reverse.)

          • Theorema Egregium says:

            The phrase “with great power comes great responsibility” comes to mind, doesn’t it? Except that the power is measured in a statistic sense (on average, men are stronger) and the responsibility in an individual one.

            • Either that or having power means you forfeit your right to consent/not consent to sex.

            • John Anderson says:

              @ Theorema Egregium

              “The phrase “with great power comes great responsibility” comes to mind, ”

              There are different forms of power. One is the ability to abuse and then call the police on your victim. I didn’t get into the details of my assault, but when my ex tried to claw my eyes out, my initial reaction was to duck my head back, which saved my eyes, but got me 4 deep scratches on the side of my face, which caused an awkward situation with my female boss at work the next day.

              After being scratched, I grabbed her wrist and caught her other hand when she tried to claw my eyes out with her left. I’m pretty sure I could have knocked her out. If I did, I’m pretty sure I’d be the one in jail. I’m pretty sure if she had called the police, I’d be the one in lockup even though I’m the one with the scratches. I’m pretty sure she’d claim I hurt her wrists. In balance, I’m pretty sure she had more power than I did.

            • wellokaythen says:

              I don’t know all the legal details, but it seems like an assault is an assault even if there’s no physical injury. The strength of the attacker or the damage done by the attacker are not what makes something an assault. If a smaller, weaker person attacks a bigger, stronger one, then that’s just as much a crime as a larger person attacking a weaker one.

              If I get mad and shoot at someone with a gun, and the bullet misses, I don’t get to say “no harm done, no crime.” Attacking someone with a weapon is assault, maybe even attempted murder, even if there’s no physical damage to that person.

              So, every time a woman assaults a man, it’s an assault, whether there’s a power difference or not. We should never let an abusive husband get away with hitting his wife just because “it didn’t hurt all that much.” So, we should never let a woman get away with any argument like that, either.

            • John Anderson says:

              @ wellokaythen

              “The strength of the attacker or the damage done by the attacker are not what makes something an assault.”

              Idea for a new slogan. Don’t teach men not to hit. Teach men not to hit so hard. It would be the same thing in some people’s minds at least logically.

      • And that attitude is why women can get away with bed behavior, because they know men are socialized never to hit back, regardless of the circumstances.

    • Anonymous says:

      Have you ever been in or worked in a women’s prison? I work with imprisoned women facilitating healthy relationship workshops. Not once have I heard one say he had it coming. Some admit to being the abuser. The vast majority saw no way out of the abuse but to fight back. Statistics bear out the majority of abusers are men. Not all. The majority. When I read vehement protests that male victims are forgotten I find they are rarely witten by survivors.

      • Osborne O'Lughnasa says:

        I’ve worked in both men’s and women’s prisons but I’m also a male victim of domestic violence. One of the main reasons to my mind that there are not more vehement protests from male victims is because unlike our female counterparts, our narratives are open to challenge and disbelief and once you’ve been humiliated and beaten and then arrested as the perp on the say-so of a violent and sociopathic female, one’s appetite for telling the truth is sharply diminished.
        Instead, I now just don’t believe a word that comes out of a woman’s mouth unless she’s being openly selfish and self-serving because since my experience of extreme violence (resulting in broken ribs, pissing blood, infected bites and attacks just after surgery) I’ve found that feminists are the people least likely to treat male victims equally and that feminists are always prepared to excuse female violence (which is clearly increasing whatever metrics one uses).
        My crime? I fought back when attacked. That was enough to create doubt in the minds of every politically correct asshole who’s ever tried to impress the head of the local women’s group with his oh so sensitive and empathetic side.
        My reasoning is simple and remains the same; if anyone punches me in the face, I’ll fight back. That’s equality; when my nose is broken, I’m not going waste time wondering about the genitalia of my attacker, I’m going to give them back the same or hopefully worse.
        Please spare me the trite, ‘hitting women is wrong in all circumstances’ line. Perhaps if the right-on dimplicks who are so keen on sleeping with feminists had woken up in the middle of the night with their scrotums being twisted and their ribs being cracked, they might not be so keen on their absolute position. Frankly, as far as I’m concerned, any man dating a feminist is a bit like a person of color dating a racist and believing them when they say ‘I hate all the others but you’re ok…’ And before the feminazis point out that I might be confusing feminism with misandry…not I’m not. After my experience of women, I really wish homosexuality was a lifestyle choice.

        • You negated your relevant points to be considered because of your immature and bitter use of the word feminazi. People use that word when they really haven’t got a better insult to give other than the usual for derogatory sexual insults. Can’t take anyone seriously who labels anyone who uses the word feminazi

      • Osborne O'Lughnasa says:

        I tried responding to your comment but I was censored….obvious Good Men don’t suffer domestic violence and the others don’t have a say

      • Osborne O'Lughnasa says:

        It’s funny, I’ve actually had several articles published on this website but when I present the perspective of a male victim which doesn’t fit the right-on perspective, my opinions aren’t so gladly received.

      • John Anderson says:

        @ Anonymous

        “When I read vehement protests that male victims are forgotten I find they are rarely witten by survivors.”

        Odd, I’ve found that to be the opposite. Just curious, who do you think is writing that? You must think that the lack of shelters for men is because they don’t need them so why do you think people are complaining? I’ve never worked in a shelter, but I do remember an interview a shelter director gave. She reported that when her shelter decided to start targeting male survivors in ads her male clients went from if I remember correctly about 3% to about 17%. She expressed concerns that it was causing a budget strain.

        I spoke with a shelter volunteer at another shelter. She relayed frustration with trying to get the word out to men. She told me something to the effect of every time we go into the community to talk to male victims of DV, the moment they start to respond, they’re ridiculed and so don’t follow through.

        From what I’ve read, women are about 50% of the DV abusers, but about 70% of the victims if serious DV. Conventional wisdom would suggest it’s because men are on average larger, but I’m not 100% convinced. My sister worked in an ER and told me that they would routinely ask women who were injured if it was a result of domestic violence. It rarely happened with men. My mother would laugh about the times she was asked.

        • wellokaythen says:

          @ Anonymous “When I read vehement protests that male victims are forgotten I find they are rarely witten by survivors.”

          So? Only people who have experienced something firsthand are supposed to right about it?

          In any event, in order for a victim to write about being forgotten, the victim has to survive the abuse. If a man is killed by his abuser, he won’t be around to testify. Perhaps the lack of firsthand accounts is itself evidence of how bad the situation really is….

  3. I know this is kinda off topic but are you going to hold it agents s women if she beats her rapist?

  4. aboutmyexlife says:

    This is where I get uncomfortable… “But there is a difference between temper and domestic violence…” I’d say that’s some interesting sentence crafting. Domestic Violence would be the category, verbal abuse would be the subcategory with “temper” and all of its forms falling under that. So… I’d have to disagree. Temper is a tool/excuse of/for domestic violence.
    I had a spouse with a temper. Never laid a hand on me. But threw things, hit walls, scared me, screamed in my face, insulted me, humiliated me, hurt me… loved me, cried about it, said they were sorry. It wasn’t until I was in marriage counseling for two years that I finally accepted that I was a “victim of domestic abuse.”
    Left the marriage with minor PTSD. Loud noises, panic in confrontations, the sound of pans clanging still gets my heart racing.
    I can’t imagine how much worse it would have been if I had been physically abused. (Though I truly believe that would have been the point of no return for me. I had so much trouble leaving because I always blamed the “Temper.”)

  5. John Anderson says:

    When I read the title two past relationships came to mind. The first was when I broke up with a woman and she tried to claw my eyes out. I was able to restrain her and that was that. The second was when I was dating a junior black belt. She was senior belt and joked that she could kick my butt in a fight. I had a good 30 pounds on her mostly muscle and was a lot faster than I image she’d be used to fighting lower belts. I just smiled and told her she probably could. I wasn’t afraid to fight her in the least not from the standpoint of worrying about winning the fight. Maybe be a little worried about the legal fallout. Bottom line is there would be no way for me to reasonably restrain her or avoid / block her attacks indefinitely if it came down to it. It would either be fight at full capacity or get beaten. In that case, I think I’d fight.

    It’s a very good article. I wonder though about this push to deny people employment when they have done something bad unrelated to their employment or at least something that could reasonably relate to his job. He’s a domestic abuser, but does that mean he’ll create a hostile work environment for women as opposed to everyone. I wish people could be fired for being a–holes. Did he say something misogynistic on the tapes? I mean not something directed at his girlfriend specifically. You can boycott the company, but I wonder how many innocent people it will hurt. Should we deny welfare assistance to people convicted of child abuse, which sounds more “job related” than this? Where do we draw the line?

    • wellokaythen says:

      Another assumption that too many people have, and that you rightly challenge, is the assumption that a man and a woman in a relationship would never have a mutual fight, because a woman would never voluntarily fight a man.

      When, in reality, there is a third situation out there besides “Partner 1 abuses Partner 2,” or “Partner 2 abuses Partner 1.” Sometimes two people have mutual fights. They both abuse each other, or they both engage in domestic violence against each other. The idea that one is strictly an abuser and the other is strictly a victim does not always describe the truth of the situation. (And no, I don’t know the statistics about this, and yes, I assume that this is relatively rare. But, in terms of domestic violence, “relatively rare” could be 100,000 people a year!)

  6. Yes I would hit a woman if I needed to for self-defense. There are plenty of justifications for hitting women, when she’s attacking you without stopping, has a weapon, is causing harm to other people, etc. Hitting a woman unprovoked (by self-defense or defense of others) is wrong though.

    I’ve been hit plenty of times by women and never hit back, it was a single very annoying and painful punch to the arm usually. I wanted to him them back like I would with any guy so they’d know what it feels like but a shitstorm would land at my feet for it. The only time I’d be hitting is when there are no other options, if she’s swinging like Tyson at me and there’s a serious threat to my health or others then she’ll be going down. The sad thing is I am sure people will think I am misogynist for daring to say this, yet anyone who doesn’t hit a woman back in self-defense is actually the misogynist if their reason is that women are weaker. Women have plenty of strength to do major damage, let’s not coddle them like patriarchal fools, if you’re life is in danger or you’re in serious risk then you should stop that risk. Grapple the other person if possible but failing that a good punch or 2 may help, go for the sternum to wind them if possible and hot-foot it to safety. Don’t sit there in a revenge attack beating them up for “daring to hit you” because that’s not self-defense. Self-defense should be a single or series of attacks to temporarily disable the attacker so you can get to safety, or if they are a severe risk then you may need a serious disabling attack against them (knock em the fuck out).

    What this guy described though is NONE of that. Yes she put him at risk and that is inexcusable but his life wasn’t in immediate danger of her violence. Maybe the law could put in a provision of having unprotected sex outside of a relationship and willingly having sex with someone that has no idea you’re cheating is putting them at risk and could carry some form of punishment but that’d be a slippery slope and a hell of a lot of people could be charged. There already is a provision for willfully having unprotected sex without informing the other person that you have an STI though.

  7. Number 3 sounds like gas lighting to me

  8. Can I at least hit the wrist that comes at me with a knife?

Speak Your Mind

*