Can we talk about female violence? I need to get my response straight

risagburst Can I ask you a genuine question? Do you come on feminist sites to troll, to annoy feminists because you think harassing women is funny, or are you really as stupid as the things you are posting? Genuine question, do you believe the shit you post? Because being a wind up artist is one thing...being so incredibly stupid however..

rolling pin? (what is this an episode of I Love Lucy?) I'd thought you love a rolling pin in a woman's hand, making you some cookies to go with your sandwich.

BTW, you're absolutely right. Guns do even the playing field. And yet women (half the population) are only responsible for 14% of homicides involving guns in America.

Hmm.

walter its not a problem.

It's fine for women to hit men but not fine for men to hit women.

That certainly isn't patriarchy. That's feminist.

That's a terrific post, OutsSelf.

Ugh, grammar and predictive mistakes, you can spot em for yourself.

Ooo this is very interesting. My knees jerk reaction is that the gender issue is nearly always in service of patriarchy. So when we're asking ourselves whether or not it would be worse for a man to be hit by a woman, or whether it's inherently worse for a woman to be hit by a man, we're actually working with implicit assumptions about gender, power and agency: you only pose the question in the case that you assume there are inherent qualities of female and male that make violence more tolerable, likely, damaging or whatever.

FWIW I'm female and a trained fighter. I trained in martial arts and am very senior in my form, I got to black belt as one of two women but the other dropped out and so all my subsequent peer training (10 yrs, more or less) has been with men. I'm relatively small even for a female. I'm stating this as context for my assertion that if you are made of bones and organise your boney appendages (arms and legs) with speed and precision, the relative difference in muscular strength matters more psychologically than it does physically. Took me years to work that out (and I developed a fine line in punch avoidance in that time, ha ha) but it is the case. JayZ has not just physical weight but psychological advantage in that fight. He did not believe himself to be at threat and neither did Solange, if we are being honest. That psychological advantage is socially constructed and very difficult to recognise and act against but basically if you don't think you can win a fight, you never commit to an actual attack, and exhaust yourself over defending things you easily could take. It takes a huge effort to work against that conditioning, which I see as the basic operation of patriarchy subscribing powerlessness on female.bodies, not just symbolically but as experience. Bones are incredibly hard through certain planes (a straightening leg) and incredibly fragile through others (floating rib, temple, jaw, nose) whoever you are. If you straighten your leg through his floating rib, he is massively at risk even if he doesn't believe himself to be. These basic physiological facts are almost entirely obscured by discourses of gender in relation to power. Every discussion I have seen of this incident is clouded by the warped thinking about strength, power, vulnerability etc.

So I'd say that minimising is not a feminist strategy but a patriarchal one because it underscores the ways in which men are constructed as powerful and women are constructed as powerless. This video does nothing except shore up the mythology of agency, power and vulnerability that fuels our sexist culture and facilitates DV, at the same time giving MRA s ammunition against feminism; as if this drunken, uncoordinated lunge means that feminism has concluded its struggles and men can legitimately be described as victims because one man (nearly) got hurt. This man is one of the 6% of all victims of violence who was subject to female violence. I do not think this in any way warrants the end of all struggle against male violence, or the critique of a masculinity which requires violence or it's potential to realise itself as masculine.

Solange should be sent to anger management classes and prosecuted under the proper section of law.

Views on domestic violence from a feminist perspective:

1. Women can hit men anytime they want and for any reason they want. The man should act chivalrous and not retaliate or react in any way. If a woman hits a man, all other woman shall cheer "you go girl!".

1. If a man lays a finger on a woman, he shall be thrown into prison (and be beaten up by every other man as punishment).

This is why we don't need feminism.

If guns are involved then physical strength counts for nothing.

I'm deliberately going to ignore most of what has been posted and just give my own views. There has been a tremendous amount written on this topic, and if anyone wants to educate themselves they can easily use Google to find out more. Having decided that I care enough about male/female interaction that I am doing an MA on this, I have the following to say:

1. In an ideal world we would never lose our tempers or use shouting or violence of any kind, but would be able to use calm rational discussion to resolve all conflict. Pah!

1. When looking at the use of force within conflict, the balance of power between the varying parties is highly relevant. It isn't just about which is stronger, but about about the impact on the recipient of violence.

1. The motive for the violence also needs to be considered. There is a huge difference in how a person should be dealt with who has knowingly used force to get their point across, rather than someone who has finally snapped and has very little control left over their own actions.

1. Alcohol and drugs are a complete red herring. There is a magnitude of studies which demonstrates that people will act according to how they think will be deemed acceptable once they have indulged. Therefore all that alcohol and drugs do is provide an excuse - if someone thinks they can get away with violence after several drinks, then the drinks become irrelevant as they had previously, soberly, made that assessment.

1. Mental health is a game changer. Anyone with genuine mental health problems (not just anger management or drunk) is in a completely different set of circumstances and all of the above should be ignored. This is why the motive for violence is important, not just an excuse.

I skimmed through the thread. Looks like you all want to maintain the right for women to have a "free pass" and be able to hit men whenever they want for whatever reason they want and for the man to take it like a punching bag

^^then you are crap at skim reading. Go back and try again.

by the way, do you think more wives shoot their husbands than vice versa, if we are talking about weapons?

or a glass bottle

Well whatever's available. What if a woman attacks a man with a knife? Should the man stand there with his hands behind his back because he is stronger than she is?

A woman couldn't possibly cause any injury to men with a knife in her hand. Because men are stronger than women.

Right?

Why a rolling pin or a fire poker (a fire poker?? - I think my Grandmother had one of those!)? Why couldn't a woman use a baseball bat? Do you think she might be hoping to trick a future judge into thinking that a rolling pin is less dangerous than a baseball bat? Those cunning feminists!!

Plus, can I use my Bingo card for the sarcastic use of "Newsflash" ?

I skimmed through the thread. Looks like you all want to maintain the right for women to have a "free pass" and be able to hit men whenever they want for whatever reason they want and for the man to take it like a punching bag.

Female privilege much?

Noone has a right to be assaulted

I should have stopped reading right there, shouldn't I?

You all bring up the fact women are weaker than men, but ignore the fact a weapon is often involved which more than compensates for strength difference.

AND a lot of women KNOW if they hit a man he will be unlikely to hit back, and use that to their advantage.

Correction- Chris Brown, not Jay Z

So.... not going to bother then? Just here to shout loudly at the silly wimmen?

How original of you.

A woman with a rolling pin or fire poker in her hand can easily inflict more injury to a man in one strike than he could to her without a weapon.

risag nobody has said that and JayZ has never hit Rihanna.

MissManattee apologise if I took you out of context.

I've been reading far too much drivel surrounding this so it's possibly colouring my view.

"I always assume that people who pretend there's no difference between a man hitting a woman and a woman hitting a man, are domestic violence advocates tbh.

It's like pretending there's no difference between a child hitting an adult and vice versa in terms of the damage that can be done."

Newsflash- grown women are not children. Grown women are more than capable of causing injury (especially if a weapon is used or objects are thrown which is often the case)

just to add- there are plenty of women who are stronger than a lot of men. And if a weapon (such as a pointy shoe) is used then that means even less strength is needed to inflict severe injury.

Thanks for joining MN to post that. Maybe you;d like to actually RTFT now?

I took 2 things away from this whole thing.

1. It made me incredibly sad that yet another person is trying to solve their problems through violence

and

1. That this hit the headlines almost immediately, whereas the disappearance of over 200 Nigerian schoolgirls took over 2 weeks to hit the mainstream media.

I guess violence only matters if you're rich and famous then.

Not terribly feminist maybe, but this is how I feel.