It's socially acceptable for a woman to hit a man because women are seen as much weaker than men and are therefore, unable to inflict as much (if any) damage.
People aren't concerned about him because they think he's in no danger. Social rules prevent him from hitting back and they know this and trust that he'll follow them.
Him hitting her is different because in their eyes, she doesn't stand a chance unless someone intervenes. Then you have the whole issue of him being a coward because he's attacking a person that couldn't possibly win the fight unless there's outside intervention.
It's socially acceptable for a woman to hit a man because women are seen as much weaker than men and are therefore, unable to inflict as much (if any) damage.
People aren't concerned about him because they think he's in no danger. Social rules prevent him from hitting back and they know this and trust that he'll follow them.
Him hitting her is different because in their eyes, she doesn't stand a chance unless someone intervenes. Then you have the whole issue of him being a coward because he's attacking a person that couldn't possibly win the fight unless there's outside intervention.
And that right there is the real misogyny.
I do not buy into the belief that women are weak and unable to defend themselves at all.
It's socially acceptable for a woman to hit a man because women are seen as much weaker than men and are therefore, unable to inflict as much (if any) damage.
People aren't concerned about him because they think he's in no danger. Social rules prevent him from hitting back and they know this and trust that he'll follow them.
Him hitting her is different because in their eyes, she doesn't stand a chance unless someone intervenes. Then you have the whole issue of him being a coward because he's attacking a person that couldn't possibly win the fight unless there's outside intervention.
bullshit....violence is violence and its wrong whatever way you look at it
a woman can easily damage a man ...nails in the eye ..kick in the testicles ...don't talk blatant bollocks
bullshit....violence is violence and its wrong whatever way you look at it
a woman can easily damage a man ...nails in the eye ..kick in the testicles ...don't talk blatant bollocks
I don't think Pencil was disagreeing, rather (s)he was just explaining the likely point of view from the onlookers, and society in general.
It is an unfortunate fact that FoM domestic violence isn't taken seriously by society. Anything which raises awareness that it exists (yes, some people don't think it could ever happen), and the support available for those affected, can only be a good thing.
I do not buy into the belief that women are weak and unable to defend themselves at all.
I think you will find that's called nature not misogyny. Women are far from defenseless but to suggest that men aren't physically stronger is pc lunacy.
It is not about who would win an arm wrestling match, is it? It is about whether women can inflict damage towards the health of a man in a legal sense - which they can and do, 40% of the time..
So therefore, the reaction of those women watching, should not be laughter as it was in the video, but concern for the man's health.
Radio 5 played 2 clips one where a man is abused by a woman and one where a woman is abused by a man. No one stopped to help the man. Disgusting I thought.
I think you will find that's called nature not misogyny. Women are far from defenseless but to suggest that men aren't physically stronger is pc lunacy.
Men may be physically stronger, but they have been socialised to "never hit a woman".
So female-on-male violence can be a bit like AQT fighting NATO - where NATO are bound by the Geneva Conventions....
The first part of your post is largely true. But it's clearly not always the case, or MOF violence wouldn't even exist. There are plenty of men who have no qualms about hitting women. In any case, no one should be socialised to believe it's wrong to defend themselves.
The second part is a bit of a poor example, in a world where NATO nations are carrying out torture, detention without trial for years on end, and double-tap drone signature strikes.
I feel quite annoyed after watching that. This double standard irritates me beyond belief. I wish that the same people had been around to watch her hit him and see how they'd react to that. It's absolutely disgusting that society doesn't take this seriously - it's a key reason why men suffering from domestic abuse refuse to report it.
It's socially acceptable for a woman to hit a man because women are seen as much weaker than men and are therefore, unable to inflict as much (if any) damage.
People aren't concerned about him because they think he's in no danger. Social rules prevent him from hitting back and they know this and trust that he'll follow them.
Him hitting her is different because in their eyes, she doesn't stand a chance unless someone intervenes. Then you have the whole issue of him being a coward because he's attacking a person that couldn't possibly win the fight unless there's outside intervention.
Well I think that's absolute bull. If she's prepared to hit him than she should be prepared to be hit back. I think that rule applies to everyone, regardless of gender.
The first part of your post is largely true. But it's clearly not always the case, or MOF violence wouldn't even exist. There are plenty of men who have no qualms about hitting women. In any case, no one should be socialised to believe it's wrong to defend themselves.
The second part is a bit of a poor example, in a world where NATO nations are carrying out torture, detention without trial for years on end, and double-tap drone signature strikes.
Point taken - I was trying to use the analogy to apply where the "stronger side" was bound by rules of engagement that the "weaker side" ignored.
But it's only the most reprehensible who would beat down a weaker opponent without conscience. And they are often called out for it.
I feel quite annoyed after watching that. This double standard irritates me beyond belief. I wish that the same people had been around to watch her hit him and see how they'd react to that. It's absolutely disgusting that society doesn't take this seriously - it's a key reason why men suffering from domestic abuse refuse to report it.
Well I think that's absolute bull. If she's prepared to hit him than she should be prepared to be hit back. I think that rule applies to everyone, regardless of gender.
Imo, that's absolutely right. If a woman attacks a man then he shouldn't feel that he can't defend himself. In fact, most men could easily restrain an attacking female or give as good as they get.
There is an ongoing and current debate in combat sports as to whether she could beat Floyd Mayweather Jr in a fight. (not boxing but a MMA match). Many people actually think she could take the worlds number 1 pound for pound pugilist.
Personally I'm not so sure that she could, but she could definitely rag-doll the majority of men out there (not me obviously cos I'm hard, innit ;-)). She is one heck of a fighter that woman.
faliro
Posts: 364
Comments
It does suggest that FOM violence is not taken as seriously as MOF violence which is just plain wrong what ever way you look at it.
People aren't concerned about him because they think he's in no danger. Social rules prevent him from hitting back and they know this and trust that he'll follow them.
Him hitting her is different because in their eyes, she doesn't stand a chance unless someone intervenes. Then you have the whole issue of him being a coward because he's attacking a person that couldn't possibly win the fight unless there's outside intervention.
And that right there is the real misogyny.
I do not buy into the belief that women are weak and unable to defend themselves at all.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1965782
bullshit....violence is violence and its wrong whatever way you look at it
a woman can easily damage a man ...nails in the eye ..kick in the testicles ...don't talk blatant bollocks
I don't think Pencil was disagreeing, rather (s)he was just explaining the likely point of view from the onlookers, and society in general.
It is an unfortunate fact that FoM domestic violence isn't taken seriously by society. Anything which raises awareness that it exists (yes, some people don't think it could ever happen), and the support available for those affected, can only be a good thing.
I think you will find that's called nature not misogyny. Women are far from defenseless but to suggest that men aren't physically stronger is pc lunacy.
So therefore, the reaction of those women watching, should not be laughter as it was in the video, but concern for the man's health.
On soaps when a man has cheated on his female partner what happens? she belts him and everybody thinks "good on ya girl", now reverse the roles...
Imagine what people would think if someone told a guy to give his gf/fiance/wife a slap? they would probably be considered sadistic or something.
Guardian 'journalists' writing tripe like this certainly doesn't help matters
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/18/solange-jay-z-beyonce-fight-assault-domestic-violence-men-women
It would explain a lot
really, somebody better tell this person,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronda_Rousey
She's not actually your average female though, is she? ;-)
So female-on-male violence can be a bit like AQT fighting NATO - where NATO are bound by the Geneva Conventions....
Yet two women a week are killed by a current or former partner.
Sheesh! Are you really that scared of us?
The first part of your post is largely true. But it's clearly not always the case, or MOF violence wouldn't even exist. There are plenty of men who have no qualms about hitting women. In any case, no one should be socialised to believe it's wrong to defend themselves.
The second part is a bit of a poor example, in a world where NATO nations are carrying out torture, detention without trial for years on end, and double-tap drone signature strikes.
Well I think that's absolute bull. If she's prepared to hit him than she should be prepared to be hit back. I think that rule applies to everyone, regardless of gender.
But it's only the most reprehensible who would beat down a weaker opponent without conscience. And they are often called out for it.
Imo, that's absolutely right. If a woman attacks a man then he shouldn't feel that he can't defend himself. In fact, most men could easily restrain an attacking female or give as good as they get.
Interesting to see Ronda Rousey mentioned.
There is an ongoing and current debate in combat sports as to whether she could beat Floyd Mayweather Jr in a fight. (not boxing but a MMA match). Many people actually think she could take the worlds number 1 pound for pound pugilist.
http://msn.foxsports.com/ufc/story/the-ronda-rousey-vs-floyd-mayweather-talk-needs-to-stop-042914
Personally I'm not so sure that she could, but she could definitely rag-doll the majority of men out there (not me obviously cos I'm hard, innit ;-)). She is one heck of a fighter that woman.