AIBU to think that just as a male should not slap a woman's face ,a woman shouldn't slap a man ?

[peridito]

Son slapped in face by girlfriend . Night out ,son went outside club/bar to speak to friends ,girlfriend offended and came out and slapped him.

Appreciate there may be more to it than I know ,but is it ever right to slap someone round the face ?

Son seems ok with it ,but I'm not .

I think someone down the thread said to hit back.

One or even a couple of posters say it, that's not the 'the advice' is it?

The poster claimed the advice for women, was to defuse, her to safety etc

And the advice for men is to hit back or restrain.

One of 2 posters on mn saying something doesnt make it the advice.

On the issue of provocation. People can either be provoked to violence or they cant.

To teach certain groups can be provoked and others cant is ridiculous.

Men use she made me do it as an excuse all the time

Do you really believe no women use this as an excuse. Not just with men. But when they are violent against other women aswell?

When men ever claim that, on MN it's never accepted. Ever.

I cannot see anywhere on the thread the circumstances of this incident. I absolutely do not agree with her slapping him. However, how old are they, how long have they been together, what is the third persons interest in telling you this? What was the reason she allegedly did this?? We’re there witnesses?

Me personally, if my DH cheated on me, I would be packing his bags for him and filing for divorce. happy to do that too, afterwards.

I've never been attacked by a woman, only men.

The provocation was words.

This is a reasonable excuse, then?

The man who knocked the woman out was justified (I know below the line type people would say yes, she asked for it, not sure mn view).

To be clear, pretty much everyone in the thread had said no one should hit anyone and of course women can be violent and cause a lot of injury and kill.

This seems to be not enough though, for some reason.

I think we need more detail of the circumstances, how old they are, witnesses, any underlying gains/motive from the person providing the info. I do not condone her slapping him (howver, if I found out my husband had slept with someone I think I would slap him(cut his clothes up and chuck them up the drive-psycho-yes indeed under these circumstances)

A lot of people (usually men sometimes women) in society revel in the idea that men should once again be allowed to show women who's boss/ put uppity women in their place etc.

I don't think we need more encouragement for men to attack women do we? They attack each other and us quite enough.

All this
Oh the level of injury is a poor way to measure harm
Men should hit back if they are hit
Provovation should be taken into account
And then combine it with
The actual stats around vawg and
The new defence of 'She wanted it'
And where do we end up

Everyone, pretty much, in the whole thread has said no one should hit anyone, what the gf did was assault, its very wrong. Why is this not enough?

I dont think provocation should be a defence for anyone. Wether someone has cheater, called names whatever

If you become violent, that's on you.

That goes for men or women.

Unfortunately plenty of us have come into contact with violent women and men. And personally the violent women, have excuses that are just as piss poor as the violent men I have come across.

I think it’s generally viewed as worse if a man does it because a man physically has more force so the impact will be harsher (GENERALLY SPEAKING- of course some men are small and some women are huge, some women are MMA fighters etc too).

It’s still assault if a woman does it to a man though of course and still morally not right either.

But there is such a thing as physical aggression as provocation. You can get right into a woman's face, intimidate her with your body and this may provoke her into self-defence. He may not have touched her, but the threat of violence can provoke self-defence.

Oh the level of injury is a poor way to measure harm

No one said that. I said you were talking about potential injury. Men have the potential to injury more. That doesnt mean in individual situations they do harm m1ore. If you are an abuser you should be charged with abuse, plus extra charges of actual harm that you cause.

It doesnt seem you know the difference between potential and actual.

Men should hit back if they are hit

One, maybe 2 posters said this. It's not 'the' advice nor is it mainstream advice. Even in real life it's not mainstream, in my experience.

Provovation should be taken into account

No, the rules around provocation should be the same for both men and women.

The new rules about consent to be hit, sound bat shit. But that's not been confined by anyone on here.

Everyone, pretty much, in the whole thread has said no one should hit anyone, what the gf did was assault, its very wrong. Why is this not enough?

Plenty have said 'it's wrong but.....'

The but is the signal of minimising and justifying why it's not that bad.

And can we remember OP was asking legally if one was worse than the other. She was asking about peoples points of view.

I really should stop reading these threads on here. Having been in an abusive marriage, and been assaulted twice by my ex wife, I should have learned by now that there will always be people on Mumsnet who hide behind "nobody should hit anyone", and then go on to explain how it doesn't really matter when men are victims because of wider trends.

Women are affected more. Men have power. Men can do more damage. Women must have been provoked. Men are naturally more violent. Men are stronger. It's a problem when men are attacked because it distracts from the real problem of women being attacked. Some of those things are true (women experience abuse more than men. Often the offences result in more serious injury. Yes, all true). Some are clearly not (the provocation argument is utter bullshit). But when those reasons are used to qualify NSHA to explain why my experience, and that of the OP's son, really isn't that important, because we should really be talking about female victims, it is not okay.

It's nonsense, as any man who has experienced this can tell you. It doesn't matter that I'm physically stronger. I could never have brought myself to hit her, or do anything else to hurt her. She knew it. She used it. She had the power, and she wasn't afraid to use it to keep me in my place. But Mumsnet thinks I had the power. Because, penis. Well, bollocks to that.

I'm sick of the whatabouttery from people like @bertrandrussell who decide that a man being assaulted is little more than an opportunity to talk about men assaulting women.

We're people, too. We deserve to be supported without people deciding that we should actually be talking about women.

Women abuse. A lot. Not as much as men, I recognise. But that isn't a reason to silence male victims, or tell us that we should really be talking about male abusers. When you play in all that wider societal stuff (and I recognise that it's all valid) to silence the experience of male victims, you're participating in the abuse.

And, sorry - I should say that many on here have said far worse than @bertrandrussell. It's just so depressing to see skmeone who otherwise seems pretty reasonable posting pure whatabouttery to explain to male victims why we shouldn't really be focussing on male victims.

then go on to explain how it doesn't really matter when men are victims because of wider trends.

I don't think anyone has said this. One person did say that a woman slapping her partner once in a blue moon or something is not that big a deal but I think that person was rightly challenged.

There is a movement that says if a woman hits you then she's fair game, and it's absolutely right that that is challenged, because it means if not it means men don't have to worry about proportionate response and can knock a woman out or kill her.

I'm very sorry that you experienced domestic abuse and I'm glad she's your ex.

The OP was the one who started comparing male victims and female victims. She was the one who opened up the floodgates to the debate. If you have a problem with that then you need to take it up with the OP.

Might I remind you that two women a week die as a result of domestic violence? The police are often blamed in these cases for not doing enough to help the victims. Anyone who thinks domestic violence against women is taken anywhere near as seriously as it should be or that female victims are never silenced is living in a fantasy land.

I don't think anyone has said this.

They have. The stats about violence against women have been quoted alot in the thread, to try and explain that its mot quite as bad when women hit men.

Abuse is abuse. Men can be abused. That's not changed by the fact, that statistically victims are more likely to be female.

Stats doesnt change what abuse is.

One thing that does piss me off however is that people only ever seem to care about male victims of domestic abuse is when the topic of female victims comes up.

Why is it so hard to talk about male victims without trashing and minimising the experiences of female victims? I don't think it is or has to be but I am yet to see anyone want to discuss or do anything for male victims without making pointless comparisons to female victims.

If you want to help male victims then do it. But don't you dare start minimising the experiences of female victims. When you do that you lose all of my respect.

Men can be abused.

Yes. We know.

Stating that women are more likely to be victims does not equal saying male victims are not as important.

Do you think you're being clever?

I used to have a friend who would hit her husband whenever she didn’t get her way, then brag about it. On top of that she had been cheating on him for years and years (without him knowing obviously).

And he’s regularly posting on social media what a wonderful wife he’s got, pics of them hugging and kissing, rather than calling the police.

'The new rules about consent to be hit, sound bat shit.'

Not hit so much as consent to be strangled to death / raped to death etc.

Plenty in the news at the mo and lots of threads on here.

The diffetence in the number of men dying at the hands of women in' Sex games gone wrong ' vs the other way around is intetesting. Can't think why it would be.

Poster upthread said that level of injury was a poor way to measure harm.

Their point was that a woman hitting a man is a bad as man hitting a woman, and dv against men is not given enough attention. That it's always wrong and saying who gets hurt more detracts from the fact that is always wrong.

It was way earlier in the thread and I quoted it as well. It was not about potential harm but actial.

Might I remind you that two women a weekdieas a result of domestic violence? The police are often blamed in these cases for not doing enough to help the victims. Anyone who thinks domestic violence against women is taken anywhere near as seriously as it should be or that female victims are never silenced is living in a fantasy land

You can agree with this and still believe women abusing their partners is wrong full stop.

One thing that does piss me off however is that people only ever seem to care about male victims of domestic abuse is when the topic of female victims comes up.

You mean like this thread? Talking about violence against males has become 'but what about female victims'

As though you have to pick a sex. You apparantly cant be award the there is a problem with Male violence and acknowledge that women who hot their partner is an abuser.

'it doesn't really matter when men are victims because of wider trends.'

No one but no one has said this.

It was not about potential harm but actial.

The legal term is the eggshell skull rule or 'take your victims as you find them'.

Evidently the law does differentiate between the levels or implied harm and the actual harm inflicted, despite what many on this thread seem to believe.

It’s quite dangerous to say that it’s the level of injury that dictates (level of harm).

This is not in step with our legal system and will be disastrous for women, if actual physical outcomes are put to one side in order to give more attention to woman in male dv.