If you hit your OH then YES you are as much an abuser as he would be if he hit you.

[QueenGigantaurofMnet]

I have just seen someone on another forum discussing how she couldn't possibly have been an abuser. she has only hit her husband twice (although the second time she hit him twice as she enjoyed the fear and shock in his face) in the 15 years of their marriage.

the rest of the forumn are telling her that it was ok. they are both "headstrong"

other are saying things like "i wish i could hit my oh"

It makes me feel sick.

Violance on a relationship is wrong. It is called Domestic violance, not man hitting wife violance.

if you have hit your partner then you ARE an abuser and you SHOULD be looking at ways to deal with your anger.

Im sorry but i am actually quite angry about this

Yes, and I didn't hit in self defense did I? Hence the anger at being called an abuser. By all your reasoning, he was the victim.

spikeycow Mon 24-Jan-11 16:23:33
It was an abusive relationship, where he was the abuser.

noone is disputing that, as i said, it sounds like it was a very unhealthy relationship, but you also said:

Add message | Report | Message poster spikeycow Mon 24-Jan-11 16:19:15
Yes that's what I meant. I did not hit in self defence, but in rage after being called names for hours. And I'm not sorry at all. If I'm as bad as him so be it

in that moment you were (i presume) in no physical danger. you hit out of rage, not to protect yourself.

I think thats wrong.

Well you might think it's wrong. It isn't though

noone is saying he is a victim at all, but i refuse to see that I am in the wrong for thinking that violence has no gender, and had your ex hit you that would have been just as bad as you hitting him.

you dont have the monopoly on right and wrong you know.

LOL custy. Surely my typos gave it away?

I think that we should remove ourselves from a position where we will ht back before we do: now, I have friends and family who have been so severely absued they are now in hiding and if they hit back it would be perhaps understandable but I don't think that equates to right.

IN a court you might get a reprieve of grounds of MH: again MH doesn;t mean it is right- it is not right when my ASD hits some other kid at school-- it means society understands that the person could not help doing wrong.

Surely?

oh i see - all is clear.

its difficult, but in that moment, yes you were in the wrong i think morally.

reversing the situation, if you had been emotionally abusing him for hours and then he hit you out of sheer frustration, i would still think it was wrong.

I wasn't wrong. Now I'm really leaving

saying you wre wrong, doesn't equate with him being right. he was obviously not right either

Um, suely a court of law would have the right in your life actually?

oh and bye then.

And my ex did hit me LL. I was punished for slapping him by getting punched in the stomach and winded. Equal violence? No.
Bye again!

spikey you hit out in rage, completely understandable under your circumstances. you coudl say you were pushed to it by his verbal assault.

what i am saying is that a man who hits is wife may feel equally as justified and 'driven to it' by his wife being, i don't know, clumsy, arrogant, rude,. regardless of why he felt enraged, he felt enraged and struck out. the same way you felt enraged by the verbal assult you had endured and you struck out.

the fact is in both scenarios you and the man are able to justify your actions to yourself. you feel justified in striking out at your EX. the man in my scenario felt justified in lashing out at his wife. both acts were brought on by rage. what makes him different to you?

You can't compare a Mumsnetter to a court of law

Its wrong the only thing I want to post is the word TITTYNIT that the poster RomonaFlowers said on page one and I am loving it... I dont care about the rest of the thread,its boring....:o

The difference is that he was an abuser, while I was the abused

who was an abuser? teh man in my scenario?

I could spikey but it would be wrong

however, if you take in my previous post you will note I ahd been talking about MH and provocation and how that could mitigate in such circumstances but not change the inherent morality of the act.

I even gave an example of my ASD son. thought you were off?

No mine. You said both acts were brought on by rage what's the difference.

yes both your act of lashing out and the man in my scenario's act was brought on by rage. so what makes him different from you?

I'm trying to be off but people are still telling me I'm wrong so I'm staying to continue irritating people by not taking a word they're saying on board

so a man who is verbally abused by his wife, told he is shit in bed, ugly, a waste of space, cant provide for his family etc would, by your reasoning be entitled to hit her? because he was pushed to it?

you cant just tell me Im wrong. you can say I think you are wrong, but you cant say I am and make it so. I am entitled to my own opinions.

Because, my rage was a natural reaction to being abused. Every worm turns

I didn;t spikey, you must have misunderstood me.

DS1 rsponded that way through frustration and being pushed over the edge,. It was wrong of him to do so and he ahd to say sorry and give the kid a gift as a peace offering; however it was understandable becuase he was urt (physically and emotionally) and scared at the time- he thought he was at risk.

So the ACT is wrong but the circumstances offer mitigation. you can;t even have mitigating circs without a wrong act after all.

And it wasn't pure self defence either: that would be different, he had other recourses (such as shouting to the adults close but out of sight)

You can't have an opinion on my abusive relationship because you don't know anything about it really. My opinion on my own circs obviously has more weight than yours. And I know I wasn't an abuser