Quote:
Originally Posted by christiangirl
*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.
|
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.