What if a woman attacks a man who is physically weaker than she is? Is that still cute?

Or what if a little petite thing uses a bat, knife, or gun against a man?

^^ I was going to ask about the use of weapons. Even something like a frying pan.

*cough*Gritball*cough*

ETA: Thanks for bringing this up, southernbelle14. It's honestly good food for thought. It sounds like you're saying that we should treat M-->W DV differently (i.e., more severely) than W-->DV because the woman will likely cause less damage. In other words, it sounds like the crime should be judged based on the outcome rather than intent. (Let me know if that's not what you meant.) There were some good points posed up there--would you feel the same if a woman assaulted a man smaller or physically weaker than herself? Used a weapon? If the man was larger, but she used her nails to scratch his eyes and blind him?

I'll take it a step further...what if just the intent was greater? Would you still feel the same looking at a man physically assaulting a woman with intent to hurt her vs. a woman physically assaulting a man with intent to kill him? Even if the assaultive woman hurt her male victim LESS than the assaultive man hurt his female victim, there is a reason why attempted murder is punished more harshly than "regular" assault. That being said, there would be a good reason why DV is just as bad on both sides--malicious intent to hurt another person is just as wrong, no matter how extensive the actual damage is. That's why I view W-->M DV as equal to all the other kinds.

You're talking about playful hitting.

Domestic abuse is a lot of things, but playful it isn't. And abuse isn't just physical, it's emotional, sexual, etc. In my experience, women and men both have the capacity to be extraordinarily cruel.

And yes, I've represented male victims of domestic abuse whose spouse was about 1/3 their size. Abuse takes all shapes and sizes and forms.

What if the woman is trained in something and the dude isn't? I'd hate to try some shit on Muhammad Ali's daughter.

I see your point. I didn't really think about it as determining it based on the outcome, but you're right. I guess it's just difficult to see it that way because the way society portrays gender roles and domestic violence.

That's fair. Our society tends to see women as delicate creatures who need male protection, so violence against us is "worse." I don't believe that (and think it's totally stupid, sexist, etc) but I can see why another person would. You could say the same of violence against children. I would wager most if not all people we know would say abusing a child is worse than abusing an adult and thus should be punished more harshly. That is because of how our society views children--they are precious and should be valued and cherished, not harmed. However (as my professor brought up yesteray), there are countries where children have no rights. Adults can do whatever they want to them and dare anyone to say anything about it. To me, that's awful but I have to remember I feel that way because I grew up here. Everything in context.

There should be no difference in the way DV is prosecuted whether the perpetrator is a man or a woman. The degree to which injury occurs should (and is) the basis for the severity of sentencing.

As other posters have said, a gun in the hand of a man or a woman inflicts the same injury.

Definitely, to the bold - the lasting legacies of institutional patriarchy/misogyny can often be pernicious in unseen ways, including playing a role in underreporting abuse of men.

There's no such thing as misandry, but that doesn't mean that specific, individual men aren't abused or abased, or subject to a power imbalance.

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but has it been discussed yet that violence doesn't have to be physical?

I'm going to quote my old post. There are different kinds of domestic violence, it doesn't all center around physical and verbal. I'm just talking based on shit I saw and lived....physical abuse. I remember seeing the shit when I was four, my pops left shortly after that. I could have been older, but I can't remember exactly. I just know I was young as hell, and I remember seeing dude fuck up my mom on occasion. I'm sure dude said some verbal shit, but the physical part of it stood out too much for me to even remember wtf the dude said to her in the process. If somebody is getting their ass beat, that's one thing, but if they stay, that's their decision. I know it's not easy to just pack up and bounce for some. Some it is, but for others it isn't. Either way, if the person decides they want to stay or go for whatever reason, who made that choice for them? With my mom, I asked her why didn't she leave dude, and she told me that we were involved and it's different when you have kids involved. I told her that should have been the very reason for her to leave. My girl for example, who was in an abusive relationship a few years before she met me. She's got some deep seeded issues with it. She fought the dude back, and bounced. Never looking back. It depends on the situation, and the person, but she made the decision to leave. Some folks would bounce and not fuck around with an abusive partner, some wouldn't. If you stay, dude or female didn't make you stay.

Unfortunately, everything we know about psychology says this isn't really true. After all, nobody enjoys getting their ass beat, right?

The victim may fear for his/her life if they leave (believing the abuser will track him/her down and commit literal murder), or may lack the emotional stability or tools to fight back (in a figurative sense), or may rely upon the abuser for livelihood/sustenance, or etc.

Abusive relationships don't just happen - it's a process that ends with the victim in a more or less powerless (or severely underpowered) situation. Because that imbalance is often severe, the victim can't make a decision - often they lack the ability to make a decision. The tools simply don't exist - it would be like me telling you to make a decision to build the tallest building in the state of Oregon.

That's also why it's less than helpful for others to say "I would never find/allow myself in that situation" - it's an implicit blaming of the victim, as if the victim were weak or otherwise flawed simply for being the victim. It reinforces existing anti-female notions pervasive in society - why did she wear that skirt? Why did she talk back? Why didn't she walk out that door?

It's nothing more than a repackaged version of slut shaming, repurposed for grown-ups but no more valid.

Doc -I'm responding to KSigRC first.

Nobody should enjoy an ass kicking, but their are some folks where that's all they know. I'm talking about folks who know that shit is foul as hell. I grew up in it, and to me it was like coming home from school seeing and dealing with the same shit. Same shit different day, same dumbass mofo (my pops). I didn't like it, and sicne my mom wouldn't change it, I knew I had to. I'm not disagreeing with 100% of what you said, I feel you with most of it. But there are some folks who would bounce, and some folks who wouldn't. I feel you on what you said about the person's emotions as far as not being able to make a decision or let alone, a wise one. That's why I was saying it depends on what kind of abuse it is, situation (kids, money, etc.) and the individual person.

I wouldn't compare it to "slut bashing" just because a female decides to wear a short skirt or tight ass pants. She can wear what she wants to wear. Folks can't make her wear what they think it appropriate, just like somebody who is being abusive and whoopin her ass can't make her stay. She decides that. Folks want to know "why" about a lot of shit. Folks make decisions whether they're smart decisions or fucked up decisions that might make sense to them, but not somebody else. The questions is still going to be asked. We all do that shit. Some folks ask the question of why somebody did what they did, and then wouldn't follow what they say they would do in any given situation. Then you have those folks who would do exactly what they said they would do. I've seen it. If it was a female fearing for her life, either way, staying isn't going to make things any better. With the emotional shit, yeah, some folks are mentally unstable, so I understand that. But for the folks who are mentally aware enough to bounce don't have anybody to blame if they've made the choice to stay in it.