Is male violence against women ever acceptable?

[LoafersOrLouboutins]

I'm not sure how to articulate this and my 'evidence' is purely anecdotal. Just dipping my toes in the feminism board.

I used to be a keen polo player 16 years ago and regularly played with my boyfriend. On the morning of one match we had a fairly serious argument. He seriously injured me (broken nose, fractured cheekbone and two chipped teeth) during the game. I accepted this as polo is a VERY dangerous sport and people seemed to accept it without asking any questions as to why he was SO determined during that particular game. Most people aren't so competitive they would risk this.

With hindsight, I wonder whether violence against women in sport is a way men conduct their violent fantasies?

People would be horrified if I said my boyfriend did this to me during an argument but in the course of sport it was accepted.

This was many years ago and I probably don't make any sense but it has started to play on my mind that he may have used sport as a cover for his desire to hurt me.

Zazzles why do you list as being wrong violence against women, and against children, but then specify men's violence against men. Does women's violence against men not count?

I think violence against anyone unless in self defence, or defence of a vulnerable person or a child is totally unacceptable and sport should never be used as an excuse for behaving violently.

So sorry this happened to you and disgusted that others in your sport thought it was ok.

Because if you have done your homework, then you would know that women's violence against men is the very smallest proportion of these - the others rank as far, far, far larger problems. Now if you didn't know that, off you trot, you've got some googling to do

Of course I know that. I am just wondering why it doesn't even warrant being in a list of types of violence which are wrong. The fact you deliberately excluded it by listing other types of violence is like saying you either think it's ok, doesn't happen or that it effects too few people to be of any consequence.

Please don't tell me to "off you trot" it's incredibly patronising.

Yes it patronising, and it was meant to be. Good for you, your reading and comprehension is better than many of the iffy posters we get here. If you know all of this, why are you here, challenging me with this? What do you get out of this personally? Are you one of those 'professionally offended' on MN who trawl around looking for threads to be arsey on??? What's in this for you? And lastly, are you a handmaiden of the patriarchy?

Eh?? I certainly don't look out for threads to be arsy on and am not one of the professionally offended - check my 8 year posting history if you like. And am PMSL at being a handmaiden of the patriarchy. What on earth have I said to deserve that insult?

I am not getting at you personally, i gave no idea who you are. Your list of "unacceptable violence" struck me as odd and I asked you about it and followed up with another question. At which point you insulted me, (after patronising me).

Anyway, here is where I am. Violence is wrong unless defending yourself or another vulnerable person. And of course men's violence to women is a far, far bigger problem than vice versa and i am not making a comparison, but it still doesn't make women's violence to men acceptable does it? I have always seen myself as a feminist but I apologise if that viewpoint makes me a handmaiden to the patriarchy. Best get my coat.

Between 25 to 40% of domestic violence victims are male which I think is a pretty significant ratio, even though zazzles doesn't appear to think so.

I don't think violence is ever acceptable except in a self defence and reasonable force scenario.

Not according to the British Crime Survey, or police data or this publication from the NSPCC or women's experiences, zippey. Stop gaslighting.

Best get my coat.

Thank god for that.

I would seriously question the type of feminist you are, if you knew the stats, and yet you needed to come on this thread to challenge me, on my own opinion. An opinion is just that, an opinion, everyone has them, and if you go around in life challenging every single opinion that troubles you, it would would be a very irksome day for you. Do you do this in real life? Do you find that you don't get much done in a day because you are so busy challenging people on what they think? Again, what do you stand to gain on a personal level when you do this?

As a long-time student of psychology, I would ask that you seriously consider the questions I have posed to you. For me, they are rhetorical. For you they are deeper questions which will lead you to some insight as to who you are, and why you need to challenge someone else's opinion on a topic, particularly when you know relevant information. There is a serious lack of rationality and reasonableness to what you have done. My understanding of psychology allows me to pose a theory as to why you have done this, but it would be far, far, far more fruitful exercise for yourself if you ponder the much deeper implications of why you have a need to do this. I can assure you it will lead to some personal growth for you. Good luck.

Oh and zippey, you always seem to appear when someone is here challenging the FWR posters. Why is that? Are you a male who doesn't like and respect women a great deal? What is your axe to grind? You should also look at the questions I have posed twofalls and have a think about them yourself. My psychological understanding of men that don't like women very much is that they feel that their mother didn't love them enough as a child, and so they irrationally take that hatred of their mother out on all of womankind. Kind of irrational, don't you think? Do you have a hatred of women in that way? Why do you need to post in defense of someone like twofalls? Do you not have the self-confidence to post your about your own convictions? Or are your convictions not worth you standing up for?

Wow, Zazzles, really you are blowing this way out of proportion. I didn't "come on this thread to challenge you". I opened the thread as it was in active conversations and it interested me. I didn't even realise what the topic was and your post struck me as being odd, that is all.

I haven't insulted you, patronised you or suggested you ask yourself some serious questions about your life. I haven't made sweeping judgements about your character, value judgements or beliefs. I have not been personal at all. You on the other hand have done all those things.

I simply asked why you thought woman on man violence was not worthy of being listed as unacceptable. I was not being provocative, I was genuinely interested.

Anyway apologies OP for hijacking your thread. I hope you are in a much happier place now.

No I'm not 'blowing this way out of proportion'. It is inappropriate and rude of you to try and gaslight me in that way. I have provided psycho-analytical questions for you to ponder, and I suspect that your ego is having trouble digesting these questions, and so sees them as an 'insulting'. What a shame that you don't question your own life in the way that I have done for you. Didn't someone famous say 'A life unexamined is a life half-lived'? Should I conclude that your unexamined life is only half-lived? And btw, I have been posting in FWR for a few months now, and no one else had commented that my posts have been 'odd' - perhaps this is more a reflection of you, than it is of me? Something else for you to ponder.

Scallops - your link didn't lead anywhere, plus the NSPCC deals mainly with children. Here are a couple of links that I have seen, namely the NHS www.nhs.uk/Livewell/abuse/Pages/domestic-violence-against-men.aspx
and Gaurdian www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

The articles claim between 25 to 40% male victims. Some perpetrators could be men, if the victims are in same same sex relationships.

Zazzles - I've ignored your post in the main because I find it either doesn't make sense or it's too complex for me to answer, probably a bit of both. Something seems to have irked you and I'm not interested in an argument with you I hope that doesn't offend you. My point is that incidents of DV are significant for both sexes and violence is just not acceptable unless under extreme circumstances.

Here's an article you may be interested in, Zippey:

kareningalasmith.com/2013/04/29/this-thing-about-male-victims/

Zazzles you still haven't answered the question why.

You are like a politican on newsnight doing everything you can to dodge the question.

Buggy I totally get all those arguments and totally agree with them. I didn't come on here and say "but what about the menz". I asked why a type of violence was actively left out of a list of what was deemed unacceptable. That is all. Having searched through some other threads however I see how some have been detailed in that way. I never post here so didn't realise that would be the effect of my question. For that I apologise.

Zazzles, I didn't ask you to pose all those "psycho analytical" questions to me and didn't find them insulting, presumptuous perhaps. However i did find being called a handmaiden to the patriarchy insulting. I have in no way gas lighted you. You were the one who got very personal and I find this statement "what a shame you don't question your own life in the way I have done for you" arrogant in the extreme. And yes, I believe your response to me is completely disproportionate to the point I was making.

I can only assume that gaslighting is what rugby players do on tour after a baked bean eating competition. (Yes, I'm sure I could google it, but I cba.)

LoafersorLouboutins, if you're still on this thread, can you tell us exactly what happened on the polo field? Of course, if you'd prefer not to relive a traumatic moment, please don't do so on account of some random internet idiot like me. I ask because I'm struggling to see how you could end up with a broken nose unless someone whacked you in the face with one of the big pole things, and I can't see how anyone could do that without deliberately trying to hurt someone. But perhaps it happened some other way.

Sorry - Buffy, not buggy! And "derailed" not "detailed".

Well zippey my link leads somewhere for me. Google 'Partner exploitation and violence in teenage intimate relationships'.

The article that Yonic linked to explains the British Crime Survey results.

Stats in context. Obviously context & women's lived experiences etc are just minor aberrations for MRAs. Unimportant. Not real.

Men as a class are not scared of women. Women as a class do fear men and alter their behaviour accordingly. The report by the NSPCC/Bristol University is especially revealing in how DV affects teenage girls in a different way to teenage boys.

So stop gaslighting us.

Thank you Buffy.

Bobby, I think facial injuries in polo are quite common - either from getting whacked in the face with a ball or whacked by the polo stick mid swing as two players go for the same ball. I have only ever seen one game of polo and winched the whole way thorugh - its incredible aggressive. Imagine ice hockey on horseback! You can totally see how someone who wanted to take out his aggression on his partner could do so on the polo field and pass it off as "part of the game".

Apologies if I misunderstood your question.

Not at all twofalls, thanks for the insight, especially as I was a bit unclear.

What I mean is - how could it even have been accidental? Could you really accidentally smash someone in the face with a polo stick?

Scallops - I notice you have used the accusation of gaslighting twice on this thread in order to halt debate. If you are saying the information I presented is false, the information is available freely online.

Yonic - That's an interesting link, but Id argue that the writer is biased in the same way that MRA's are biased to push their own agendas. For example, the article says men are more likely to call the police and support prosecution etc, but this is just her opinion. I don't see how she can know either way.

I think the answer to the ratio of domestic violence is somewhere in between those statistics.

With regards to polo, It might be that the OP got whacked by a waving stick or might have fallen off a horse. I remember playing mixed football amongst adults once and there was one individual who was being aggressive when challenging the female players. He was told to calm down by a lot of the players. It might have been more difficult to do in polo, and it probably only took one instance of violence for the OP to receive her injuries. I would imagine that the ex made it look accidental and any subsequent prosecution would have been hard to prove.