LOS ANGELES, August 9, 2014 — Domestic violence remains a serious issue in America. Radical feminists overstate the problem while misogynists understate it. Between the extremes is the undeniable reality that the problem exists.
Despite a ton of programs designed to educate the public, far too many people who love each other resort to violence. While there are people of the same gender attacking each other and the underreported problem of women abusing men, the traditional domestic violence of men against women remains the norm.
Due to the emotional sensitivity of the topic, attempts to have a logical conversation about domestic violence often become counter-productive. When Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice was suspended two games for abusing his then-fiancee (now wife), opinions raged in both directions. The least sensitive people in society offered nonsense that ranged from castrating and killing him on one extreme to claiming his fiancee got what she deserved on the other extreme.
What Rice did was wrong. He was punished, and offered what appeared to be genuine contrition. Yet away from the fog, one pernicious line of thought keeps cropping up. Even if Rice was defending himself (in this case he clearly was not), he was still wrong because a man should never ever hit a woman.
Tuning out all white noise, is this valid? Is a man ever justified in hitting a woman?
Several all too real scenarios provide clues.
The woman believes that the man in her life has been cheating on her. She storms into his bedroom and begins throwing objects at him. A lamp hits him. He gets up to tell her to knock it off. She throws a punch. He punches back once. Is he out of line?
The couple is arguing because he keeps forgetting the little things. He tells her to stop acting like a synonym for a female canine. She slaps him with an open hand. He slaps her back with an open hand. Is he wrong?
She is hopped up on drugs and throwing punches in a violent rage. He keeps deflecting the punches without throwing any of his own. To get her to stop throwing punches, he grabs both of her hands to restrain her. She tries to knee him in the groin. He moves her backward into the wall. She crumples to the ground and he backs up. She is subdued. Has he committed a violation of her?
Anybody who answers “yes” to any of these scenarios is a sexist who has turned feminism upside down and contributed to the corrosion of American society.
Too many women are trying to have it both ways. They want equality, yet also want special victimhood status based on their gender.
Too many women are “too free with their hands.” They feel justified in lashing out at a man simply because they are offended.
The solution to the argument about domestic violence is so incredibly simple that everybody except the most radical of feminists and misogynists can figure it out.
Physical violence is justified in self-defense or in defense of another if there is an imminent threat. This is neutral.
A man does not have the right to hit a woman just because she “mouths off.” That goes both ways. A verbal insult is called “not being nice.” Adultery is “bad behavior.”
Physical violence when not defending oneself or another is assault and possibly battery. Those are torts, and sometimes crimes.
Nobody is “asking for it,” if their only sin is saying or doing something stupid within the laws of society.
One issue that causes the feminists to froth with rage is the issue of height and weight differential. What if a small woman slaps a much bigger man? Does he have the right to slap her in return?
If we follow the feminist dogma, the answer is absolutely, because if the people were of the same gender or the female was the more physically imposing person, the answer would also be yes.
This is what could be described as the Israeli-Palestinian approach. This occurs when a weaker party deliberately physically attacks a stronger party. The weaker party calculates that the stronger party will ignore it. If the stronger party retaliates and destroys the weaker party, the weaker party will have sympathy for being “bullied.”
In the real world, attacking an opponent who is far physically superior with physical violence is referred to as stupidity. The weaker party may feel justified, but self-righteousness does not make one intelligent.
The war between the sexes in recent years sometimes feels like it is on the verge of becoming a gender-based nuclear holocaust. Far too many people actually want this conflict. Pitting people against each other benefits their agenda.
Most of us would prefer that this conflict be deescalated. There are several ways to “dial it down,” and they are easy as possible to grasp. The common thread is that everything comes down to letting verbally harmful words be the end of the conflict and not the beginning of it. Nasty words do not justify a physical response. A second party does not need to respond physically when the first party never begins getting their hands up or their fists clenched.
Unless one is singing to Olivia Newton-John or working out with Jane Fonda, there is no need to just “get physical.”
Women do sometimes nag about the little things, and men do sometimes forget the little things. The reverse is also true. There is not one emotional characteristic in women that is absent in men and vice versa.
We all feel anger, hurt, and emotional pain.
Walking away or talking it out are the recommended methods when the conflict involves people of the same gender. It has to apply to people of opposite genders.
Domestic violence is 100% avoidable. Those, from other side of the gender divide, who commit acts of violence must be punished.
Prevention is still the best medicine. Educating all people to behave themselves more appropriately is a far better solution than infantilizing women and justifying their behavior when they are at fault.