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

[GrassIsSinging]

I know this is celeb rubbish, but am finding my blood boiling over comments from FB friends and the like over the Solange Knowles -punching-Jay Z debacle.

Lots of seemingly conscious, smart, reasonable people condemning violence of any sort (great, agreed), but then saying things like 'the double standards in society sicken me...Chris brown beats Rihanna and he is a monster...Solange attacks Jay Z and people dont respond in the same way'. Others (people I thought were decent) saying 'You couldnt have blamed him for hitting back...people have a right to defend themselves' etc.

This riles me massively. Am I a freak for thinking that male violence against women IS often (not always, but very often) much more devastating than vice versa? Because men are usually physically stronger...because male violence against women is a huge problem in this world...? And that a decent man will not hit a woman, even if provoked. Is this an 'old fashioned ' view now?

Feminism doesnt mean we now have to accept men punching us, ffs!

Depressed...

Oh I have no argument with you about that WalterMitty, I actually felt a bit horrified when I watched that video. The sheer blind violence of it, the lashing out, it was so disturbing and I have no idea how anyone could watch it and then still think it's funny. That whole giving yourself permission to let rip at a person and rely on someone else (the other bloke who was holding her back) to stop you doing too much damage, is horrendous.

I think we actually agree on the essentials, just have a different emphasis on this particular thread.

I think I'm just hyper aware of the grinding, unending pretence that male and female violence is the same, while you've probably got pissed off with some horrible minimisations and jokes about it - I haven't seen any of that, I studiously avoid most "comment" sections because they'll only piss me off.

I think we actually agree on the essentials, just have a different emphasis on this particular thread

Yes, I think you're right there :)

I also think you're right to avoid comments sections, I have aged about ten years since Monday from the stress of arguing about this

I've also lost/removed some FB friends. I'm surprised by a lot of them. I don't go in for this hundreds of friends business and only have people I genuinely know. Some of their viewpoints have been quite shocking and sad to me.

Facebook is a bummer for that, it can really make you adjust the mental picture you have of people. Very depressing when it's people you get on well with and like and respect. I'm really sorry if that's what you've been experiencing this week and then you have internet randoms like me ranting on at you as well. Sometimes incidents like this can cause a whole reassessment of how you feel about people. I actually avoid discussing things like this on FB except with carefully filtered people, precisely because I suspect that people I like and whose company I enjoy, will force me to recognise some really distasteful attitudes they have and while you can live with suspecting that they might have them, actually knowing they do and being confronted by them, is another matter - I just don't want to deal with it sometimes.

Yes I've learned a tough lesson tbh.

Particularly distasteful in the case of a male inlaw.

After he posted:

"JayZ is a total pussy, letting that crazy bitch go at him. No respect left for the bloke"

What? Just, what?

There is so much wrong with that sentence I just unfriended!

Oh my.

Can't say I blame you.

The implication is that he should be throwing his jacket off and entering into fisticuffs with gusto.

Honestly, what do you do with attitudes like that. And it begs the question, what would he do? You really don't want to think about that...

And it begs the question, what would he do?

This was my first thought.

I don't like this trend of thinking amongst young men, any more than I like this "fair play to you" attitude I've seen with women who think they're being empowered.

God, the minds of our youth are depressing if you let yourself think of them too much.

walter you took my post out of context, I wasn't minimizing.. I was explaining the difference between rhianna and chris brown and solange and Jay Z. Domestic violence is different. And the fact that she was being held back by a body guard did make a difference. The original OP specifically mentioned both situations as mentioned in comments sections. I've also seen people comparing the 2 situations and they aren't the same. I then said people would take a dim view of Beyonce had she been the perpetrator as it would then be DV.

All those who believe that people with vaginas ought to be allowed to dole out violence willy nilly say aye?

buffy I was responding to your post above mine.. Ok not a question as such but yswim?

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.

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

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.

"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)

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.

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.

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

How original of you.

Correction- Chris Brown, not Jay Z

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.

Noone has a right to be assaulted

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

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?

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" ?

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?

or a glass bottle

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?

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.

If guns are involved then physical strength counts for nothing.