To report my colleague for hitting me

[QueenyLaverne]

Colleague (quite substantial guy) who's job is to bring supplies up to our floor, brought some stuff up. He came to find me, I was on break, to tell me and did so in a very sarcastic way. Not unusual, he is a sarky bastard and we don't like him much, but hey ho we tolerate him and are nice to him. I jokingly pulled him up on it and said something like, 'oh, who do you think your talking to!' 'Laugh laugh' he said something else and I was holding a newspaper which I pretended to hit him with, it tapped him with as we were having banter.
He then comes at me and walloped me on my arm, it really hurt, my arm was still hurting at the end of my shift and I felt really quite tearful, not from the pain, (although it did really hurt) but more because I felt really violated.
Can you tell me if I'm being overly sensitive or if this is unacceptable behaviour and should be reported?
AIBU?

snot "It's true that, sadly, many men are violent but does that mean they all are?"

I do not think I have ever spoken on line or in person to anyone who thinks all men are violent. It is a total red herring. Men generally are more violent than women, you only need to look at crime stats to see that.

And when violent, men have the potential to do more harm than women. These are general facts.

For the record if anyone hit me and caused me pain at work I'd report it, male or female.

So in one sense the sex of the person who hurt the other is not relevant to me from a reporting factor.

And when another poster said (up thread) she was slapped by a female at work. I felt the female who did the slap was responsible for that violence, and that it was unacceptable (and should be reported if necessary). Although in that situation both women ended up apologizing to each other! So I think the situation was effectively drained of its aggressive and fearful elements. It reminds me a bit of the time a female colleague almost shut the car boot on my head! It really hurt but I knew it was a total accident and she was very apologetic.

So in one sense the sex of whoever does the violence is not relevant.

But in another sense it can be I think more scary for women to be hurt or fear being hurt by a man. Because in society we know for a fact men are more aggressive than women. Again, if a man accidentally hurt me then apologized profusely I would probably feel differently!

I'd love to live in this nice place where men and women were all equally calm and pleasant and non-violent. But it doesn't exist. And to pretend it does exist seems to me to be quite dangerous.

“Surely an hr dept would be neutral? I can't see why they'd pick anyone apart. They would just want all the facts before the formed their own judgement. The only time she would be picked apart is if she went to court and it would be by someone working for him”

Well, she’s been picked apart on this thread, hasn’t she?

I don’t believe an HR dept is neutral. I think they think they are and they strive to be. But like juries, they are just made up of people, albeit, usually better educated ones than the average jury. They are subject to exactly the same prejudices, assumptions and myths, as everyone else and a little bit of inadequate equalities training isn’t going to have addressed that.

“Surely sex is only relevant when it makes a difference to a situation”

In a male supremacist society, sex makes a massive difference to any interaction between men and women, which is contested. By definition, men’s words are taken to be more reliable, more honest, more well-meaning; women are held to be less trustworthy, less honest and more manipulative than men. Women are not believed like men are. By definition, that makes sex relevant to this situation.

And even if we didn’t live in a society which holds men’s words to be worth more than those of women, by definition, a situation where a man has used an amount of force that if used by an average woman, would hurt much less, means sex is relevant.

Because in society we know for a fact men are more aggressive than women. this isn't true, wether more men are aggressive than women, or not, does not make men more aggressive. Stop with this hating men shit.

My step mam went through this, my dads best friend and colleague went up to see her in the office to tell her an order had come through. She was actually on her way down to the factory to see my dad and met him on the stairs. He was apparently in a "bad mood" according to him, he was "stressed with work" and she jokingly bumped his arm and told him to cheer up whilst smiling and laughing. It wasnt with her fist, she had her hands in her pockets and bumped him on the elbow with her elbow kind of like a nudge. He then full pelted her in the face, leaving a black eye the next day. He was my dads best friend and my dad had known him for 20 years, me and my brother grew up calling him our uncle. He wouldnt hurt anyone unless he was defending himself, my step mam wasnt my favorite person back then but even i will admit that she couldnt hurt a fly let alone hit someone. She went on the sick a few weeks later down to having panic attacks because of what had happened, she got the police involved and the company tried to cover it up. Because she tried to report what had happened, she was sacked without severance (that was the type of company they worked for). She took the company AND the man who hit her too court, with cctv footage and everything & medical reports of her mental health after what happened, and the court said it was her fault for "hitting him first". I have literally bumped into a door harder than she bumped his arm, it could easily have happened just by not seeing him and bumping into him. Because there was physical contact, she got no money and he didnt get punished. Moral of the story is, you probably havent got a leg to stand on which i think is so stupid if he hit you. But because you did hit him with the newspaper, you'll be seen as instigating it. I think its stupid especially if you didnt mean any harm, but unfortunately thats how it is x

It isn't particularly man hating, to say men are more aggressive than women.

If you believe it is, you must believe all the biologists, economists etc., are man-haters.

Men are regularly described as being more aggressive than women in mainstream media, it's not a particularly controversial thing to say. Right wing sexism-deniers, even put forward men's greater aggressiveness in negotiating their pay, as the reason for the continued wage gap.

Didn't know because that's how they are portrayed in media, that that makes it true. Mind, blown..

My point is that sexism-deniers promote the idea that men are more aggressive than women when they want to deny sexism and then they promote the opposite when they want to deny sexism.

I think most people agree that as a group, men are far more aggressive in public than women.

Take any situation - nightclubs on Saturday night, football matches, violent crime, road rage etc. - the majority of perpetrators of aggressive and violent behaviour, will be men.

It's not man-hating to point out that fact. It would be man-hating to say that that's just how it is, that's their nature and they can't help it, so we should all just accept it.

Why do you think most violent criminals are men?

Why are most assaults and murders committed by men?

Do you think women are assaulting and murdering men on a grand scale and getting away with it because we're so good at disguising our aggression?

Or what?

It's not the media portraying men as aggressive; they actually are more aggressive than women. If they're not, then women are incredibly good at hiding the bodies.

You do have to be very careful to make the distinction between men, due to societal factors and traditional gender roles and cultural norms, being statistically more violent (which is true ofc), and men being naturally more violent/unable to overcome innate aggression.

I know you have, but sometimes in our outrage at the way women can be treated in the world, we do need to remember that the factors involved in mistreatment are very complex, compunded by millenia of cultural and societal structures and are not simply down to men being simply more violent. They also effect men extensively as well.

My friend who I care a lot about has posted articles about the "not every man" argument etc, and I find them very troubling. I'm worried it will if anything drive a wedge even further between gender equality and the mainstream media fuel it relentlessly, with no regard whatsoever for the potentially devastating consequences.

By definition, men’s words are taken to be more reliable, more honest, more well-meaning; women are held to be less trustworthy, less honest and more manipulative than men. Women are not believed like men are.

I'm interested in this - are there facts and stats to back this up? I've always thought it's predominantly other factors, not sex, that affect a person's perceived credibility.

BorrowedHeart if the man-hating comment was to me, I can assure you I do not hate men. I love men. I love my husband and my son, I loved my dad when he was alive, I love my brother-in-law and nephews.

I love my male friends and even some of my male colleagues who I am pretty close to as we have a brilliant and supportive team. I hate the fact that men are also the victims of male aggression and violence. That men are victims of other men in many different ways too.

But I see no need at all to cover up the fact that men are more aggressive than women, more violent, much much more likely to commit violent or sexual crimes etc etc. Just look at prison stats or read a paper, or look at the headlines on BBC news, or listen to the radio honestly, why would I make this shit up! To pretend that this is not so does no one any favours.

harleysmammy your story is heartbreaking and an example of how inequality is further ingrained in society by efforts to undermine women.

Ask your average woman whether she would feel safer in a room with 100 women or a 100 men? I know what she will say. Ask your average man whether he would feel safer in a room with 100 women or a 100 men? I know what he will say.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/27/why-are-some-men-so-angry

Please wake up and stop undermining women! It is not doing men any favours and sadly consigns them and us to continue to live among the violent and aggressive men too.

AskBasil

In a male supremacist society

By definition, men’s words are taken to be more reliable, more honest, more well-meaning; women are held to be less trustworthy, less honest and more manipulative than men. Women are not believed like men are. By definition, that makes sex relevant to this situation.

What do you mean "by definition"? I don't know a single one which means this. Do you have a single scrap of evidence?

And even if we didn’t live in a society which holds men’s words to be worth more than those of women, by definition, a situation where a man has used an amount of force that if used by an average woman, would hurt much less, means sex is relevant.

Why would the same amount of force used by a different sex hurt less or more?

Again, have you confused 'definition' with a different word?

Right wing sexism-deniers, even put forward men's greater aggressiveness in negotiating their pay, as the reason for the continued wage gap.

Firstly, what does political leaning have to do with thinking sexism exists or not? Can you not be a left-wing anti-feminist/sexism denier?

I think negotiating ability can be used as a reason for increased salaries. A fairly insignificant factor in the reason men on average are paid more that women but that's more to do with the type of work they do, the hours they work and the lack of leave they take. There's no such thing as the wage gap.

It's not man-hating to point out that fact.

Is it racist to point out black people are 6.6 times more likely to murder, 3.7 times more likely to rape, 7.3 times more likely to commit firearms offences, 12 times more likely to rob, 5.9 times more likely to have a weapon in a school than white people?

Perhaps it isn't racist. You would question someone's motives when they spend their time talking about it and always look at things from a perspective which looks to point out how these statistics unfairly affects you and what you can do to ensure you get a better deal, are safe etc.

This thread has nothing to do with sex but somehow it's become all about oppressed women and misogynistic society.

Italiangreyhound

Did you see The Office where the defence for sexism was "I can't hate women, my mother was one"? Stupid arguement, wasn't it!

Ask your average woman whether she would feel safer in a room with 100 women or a 100 men? I know what she will say.

That's because some stupid people, mostly on the internet, proudly describe themselves as a feminist, the point of which is spending their lives telling women how bad men are, how downtrodden women are and that if they don't agree they are wrong and need to 'read more feminist literature'.

If you told me you weren't a racist, would you expect to be told it was because you haven't read enough of the right kind of books?

sadly consigns them and us to continue to live among the violent and aggressive men too.

Jesus fucking Christ. You really believe this, don't you!

SansComic you could do your own research, just Google. It is all out there!

www.huffingtonpost.com/damon-young/men-just-dont-trust-women_b_6714280.html

This second article references the first... www.rawstory.com/2014/12/are-women-inherently-less-trustworthy-than-men-answer-no-but-people-believe-it/

If you adjusted your black crime stats for poverty etc I think the stats would be different and anyway, they are no where near the massive difference between male aggression and violence and that of women.

Maybe women want to talk about how oppressed they feel/are in society and how misogynistic society is. Have you got any evidence society is not misogynistic?

If you want to look to wider society the picture is even bleaker!

www.marieclaire.co.uk/reports/the-world-s-10-worst-anti-women-laws-how-do-these-still-exist-111460

SansComic you do not need to answer this but are you male or female?

Did you read my links, how does this make you feel about the world and about how women are viewed? Feel free not to answer if you prefer not to.

wettundinee your tone is aggressive and unpleasant. Of course I believe this or I would not bother typing it up. If you don't believe it, fine, you can believe as you like. You can also believe I hate men, it's your call. But I have no interest in engaging further with your unpleasant comments.

And it is boring and irrelevant to keep throwing 'racism' in as an accusation, no one is talking about racism here. That comment is to no one in particular!

When I say racism is 'irrelevant' I mean to the debate at hand.

And again of course 'boring' in this context, because to mention it here is a way of silencing women who complain about misogyny.

Racism it is very real for people suffering from it but that is not what this thread is about.

ha - was such a long post I had a tea break in the middle

Men have fewer rights in the U.S. and the UK in sexual assault cases than in other criminal prosecutions.

What rights are denied alleged sexual offenders that other alledged offenders get?

DioneTheDiabolist

rape defendants prior sexual misconduct can be admitted as evidence. In any other case, uncharged misconduct cannot be.

mandatory arrest policies in the case of violence or sexual assault whereby alleging something has happened should always lead to an arrest, ignoring the fact that in other criminal cases, probably cause is necessary.

I the US, the OCR said that universities only needed to use a preponderance of the evidence standard ie. 50.0000000001% chance. No proof. Just that they thought it slightly more likely that such a serious crime occurred. 'More likely than not'. To be kicked out for plagurism they need a far higher standard of proof than that!

SansComic I think the stats were made up as a joke! I am sorry if those articles were not helpful.

I do think men are less likely to believe women and possibly women are also less likely to believe women too. In some cultures and times women's word has not been accepted as a witness.

I also know that men question me as a woman more than I question them as a man. When my husband tells me something I accept it unless I know it to be wrong. (My husband is lovely and I trust him etc). However, he does question me about things. And I think you will find that this is very common. It's so common that you don't start to notice it until you begin to be aware.

There may be more pieces of evidence on the Internet but I am getting tired. If you think men and women are equally believed then fine, but I'd love to see some evidence for that because it is not my experience of life.

This article is interesting... www.independent.co.uk/news/science/women-scientists-less-likely-to-receive-funding-study-finds-8994234.html

Why do you think the women are getting less funding for science?

Your views on feminism "They clearly do although the numbers are ever-decreasing. 7% in the UK. Why do you think that is? I suspect it's for 2 reasons. 1. feminism has achieved its goals 2. feminism is a nasty way of thinking that has driven away people from it who actually believe some of the ideas."

Do you think feminism has achieved it's goals of smashing patriarchy? I don't see it myself.

"a nasty way of thinking" It's either a true or not true way of thinking, I think a lot of society is pretty nasty, the way people get treated is pretty nasty, commenting on it is just how it is. You can agree or disagree. I can't see how pointing out that most violence and crime comes from males is nasty!

"It's about complaining that a man called you 'love' when he was fixing the dishwasher or took up too much space on the train or ... well, you get my point." That may be your view of feminism but it is not mine. I think that is a stereotype.

"Feminism has run it's course." That's your view and you are welcome to it.

What do you think men need saving from? I do agree men need saving but I am interested what you think it is.

"I'm a woman, by the way. Why did you ask?" Just curious. I like to know where people are coming from and of course an anonymous forum is anonymous so we don't know. I'm always happy to tell people I am a woman, although I may be a trucker called Dave from Slough!

"Turning everything that happens into a feminist issue is monomania which hurts society at large." I don't know if that is directed at me but I can assure you I do not turn everything into a feminist issue. I am active on behalf of a variety of people, writing protest letters, donating to charity or doing whatever I may do for anyone where it is relevant. I've clearly stated up thread how I would react to an act of violence from a woman too (exactly as I would from a man)!

"find it frustrating that despite you coming across as pleasant, you still question if I'm a woman because I disagree with you."

Well, I am pleased if I am coming across as pleasant. I did not question if you were a woman because you disagreed with me, I asked you if you were a woman! That is all. I am pretty sure I also said (as I usually try and remember to do) that you don't need to answer that. I respect people's anonymity and if you didn't want to say what sex you were, that would be fine.

I guess I am always a little surprised by women who defend men's rights in a world which I see as being hopelessly biased in favour of men. i am trying to understand. And if you said 'I am a man' (if you were) it would make more sense because men in general do not see things as some women do. My husband is the most loving and kind man I've ever met. Yet if I draw attention to the fact that almost all films and books and stories centre men (regardless of who writes them) or I draw attention to the news and the fact that many of the victims of crimes are female and almost all of the perpetrators are male, he doesn't see it as significant of anything.

I'm talking to you because we disagree, so it is more interesting to talk to someone who you disagree with. But please be assured you do not need to reply or speak to me and if you find my tone offensive or unpleasant at all I would not want you to feel you needed to respond. And I would apologise because that is not my intention. You appear to be* clearly upset that I asked you whether you were male or female and I am not sure why that is when we are discussing this topic.

"We aren't all the same you know." When did I suggest all women would be the same? You are reading way too much into my musings!

I hope I have explained why I asked your sex. "...why MRA is equally thrown as a negative comment if I disagree with someone on a thread like this?"

I do not think I have not mentioned the word MRS once so I am afraid I really can't answer that as it is not something I can really get my head around.

I hope you liked your cup of tea (I am a total tea addict)

I don't want to de-rail this thread so please do feel free to PM me if you want to talk further, I really mean that and I am sorry if I have offended you in some way, it was not my intention.

Night Night.

Wettundee here's some links:

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11874380/Why-are-women-still-not-being-taken-seriously-at-work.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11948057/Lady-pains-Are-doctors-not-taking-womens-pain-seriously-enough.html

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201504/can-women-ever-be-taken-seriously

www.washingtonian.com/2016/09/25/should-women-talk-like-men-to-be-taken-seriously/

nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/03/19/google-chief-blasted-for-repeatedly-interrupting-female-government-official/

www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/11294611/Why-are-men-incapable-of-listening-to-women.html

www.huffingtonpost.com/damon-young/men-just-dont-trust-women_b_6714280.html

www.vogue.com/article/bill-cosby-uva-rape-campus-assault

That's just from a quick internet search. There are also masses of studies showing that when women talk in meetings, both men and women over estimate the amount of time they talk for, that women's words are not as believed as men's etc. Up until about the 80's, judges in the West used to tell juries in rape cases, that however damning the evidence seemed, they had to remember that it was well known that women lie about rape: on no evidence whatsoever, this instruction to juries was based purely on misogyny and on discredited studies which Comic Sans quotes, where police figures were taken as gospel. Real research has shown that the rate of false allegations of rape, is probably around 2%, much lower than for most crimes.

And of course, in patriarchal religion with a codified system of law like Shariah, the worth of women's words is set at 25% that of a man.

Surely you can't be so entirely unaware of the history of women's words being characterised as not so valuable as those of men?

"" So, that's a law aimed at stopping violence and at it's very heart is the belief men are entirely to blame and women are nothing but victims.”

No it’s not, it’s nowhere near as simple-minded as that. It has at its heart, the belief that men are influenced by the entitlement our patriarchal society gives them. And er, FYI, men are entirely to blame for their own violence, just as women are entirely to blame for their much lower level of violence. And it doesn’t say women are nothing but victims, but it does acknowledge that in the context of a society which sets women up to be less powerful in their personal relationships than men, a woman who is being coerced and controlled and subjected to violence, is a victim of that violence. I know these are quite nuanced ideas very difficult to grasp if you see things in black and white, but Mumsnet isn't Reddit, so I trust you'll be able to grasp them.

“A study in the US found that 60% of rapes were false. 27% of the allegations were confirmed as false as the women admitted them to be so. here. That's from a forensic journal not Ihatewomen.org” Bullshit. That's from a men's rights activism site. You are an MRA and I claim my five pounds. These dodgy studies have been debunked over and over again and nobody believes them except rapists and their supporters and credulous people who don't look further than the internet site they came from.

As for your declaration that there's no such thing as the pay gap and feminism has achieved its aims, yeah, sure, that's really credible. So now 50% of judges, CEO's, top surgeons, MP's and other people with power, are women? And men have stopped murdering the 2 women a week they were murdering up to now? And men have stopped raping and assaulting the 25% of women they've been raping and assaulting up to now, and stopped violently attacking the 1 in 4 women in their own homes that they've been attacking up to now? And the Daily Mail has stopped running articles pointing out where women have failed in their primary function of giving men boners? And men now do 50% of the housework and childcare and no longer have an average of 15 hours per week more leisure time than women? Fantastic! Oh, hang on, none of that has happened, has it. So maybe feminism hasn't achieved it aims yet.