Quote:
Originally Posted by katiuska
^^ This.
I started thinking about this a while back when I was browsing through someone random person's blog about someone else's abusive girlfriend and an incident which resulted in the guy getting slapped with the handcuffs, even though she was the aggressor, because she acquired a mark in the process of him defending himself. The person writing lost points for suggesting that the father of her child (not the current boyfriend) was right in abandoning said child because the woman was a bitch, but I was basically with him until he started blaming the women's movements for situations like the one he described. It's like, look, the women's rights movement advocated domestic projection/justice for women because there was a time when domestic abuse towards women was condoned or at least not addressed, while violence toward men was much more likely to be punished. If the justice system is now skewed so that men are unfairly suspected of assault even when they were not the ones being abusive, we can all agree that's wrong and should be dealt with, but I don't think the solution is to reenact some kind of Rule of Thumb.
I'm more knowledgeable when it comes to women's issues, but I think the same principle would hold toward other minorities.
|
And you know, a lot of times, when guys get abused by women, there are OTHER factors in the system. It's not just a matter of guys being seen as more likely to hit women than vice versa. If a guy is emotionally abused by a woman, good luck getting anywhere with that, and be prepared to hear a lot of people telling you to grow a pair of balls. If a guy is actually RAPED by a woman, and it happens, it's even harder to convict than the other way around, because of all the abuse people will give the guy if he talks about it, the misconception that a woman raping a man is impossible, and the idea that if he got it up, he "must have liked it" and it therefore doesn't count.