Domestic Violence

[Psi U MC Vito]

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

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

^^ 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.

[southernbelle14]

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.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by southernbelle14

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.

[preciousjeni]

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by southernbelle14

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.

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.