Domestic Abuse Against Men (DAAM!)

[Crazy Eddie]

I am perfectly fine with the "man up" strategy.

My grandfather had a standard bit of oldman wisdom, which has become one of mine. He said a man should never fight a woman, unless he has a hat. He can put his hat on his head and leave. A man without a hat, can't do that.

Whether or not "men and women perpetrate physical and non-physical forms of abuse at comparable rates," is not really relevant. When domestic violence occurs, women suffer greater injury and are killed more often than men. Speaking about violence against men doesn't have to distract from the greater issue of domestic violence, since any reduction in domestic violence is a benefit to both men and women, but whenever I've seen it raised, it's always as an attack on any special consideration for female victims.

I don't have statistics on how many women go to their partner's workplace and shoot him, but I don't think it is common. In my roughly 40 years of gainful employment, I have been close to such an incident twice. Maybe once every 20 years is not a lot, but both times, it was unhappy husbands who hunted down their spouse and killed her.

Working to reduce domestic violence against men is certainly a noble cause, but the results of domestic violence speak for themselves.

I had a very drunk girlfriend stab me in the chest with a pocket knife because I refused to continue paying her insane, out-of-control cell phone bill. She physically placed herself in the doorway and made it clear to me that if I tried to leave the apartment I would have to fight my way through her, knife or not. So I kicked her, probably harder than I meant to at that, and got the fuck out of there and trooped down the street to a medical clinic where they gave me five stitches and a chest x-ray to make sure it hadn't gotten close to my heart.

When they asked who stabbed me, I told them I got mugged. And I got very lucky that she was too drunk to call the police and try to make a bigger scene of it than it was. Because I knew then, as I fully know now, that a man has no right of "self defense" if his attacker is a female in his household.

Now, I recognize that there are historical and traditional reasons for this. Women in domestic situations were considered property until not too long ago. Men were supposed to be responsible for them and everything they do. Abusing a woman was more like abusing a pet, and it would have to be pretty extreme for the authorities to get involved; more importantly, it was understood (probably incorrectly) that only under EXTRAORDINARY circumstances would a woman do something that would justify violence against her by the man of the house and her protector.

But that's over now. Women are supposed to be equal partners in households, in society, and in the workplace. Chivalry is dead because chivalry is the unconditional patience and respect afforded to a lesser creature by a superior one and in modern terms neither is supposed to be superior. Nor are women supposed to be mindless domestic helpers with no agency or responsibility of their own other than what's given to them by the man. So we have standards that are being informed by traditions that no one follows and standards that are still being upheld after the long-forgotten reasons for them have vanished into history.

How could this be fixed without hampering efforts against violence against women?

Simple fairness would seem to be the common sense answer, but I realize it's more complicated than that.

The relative impacts ARE different. Maybe men and women can both be abusers and mutual abuse is also pretty common, especially in deeply dysfunctional relationships. But a case-by-case basis for that is hard to legislate, which means the simple "there ought to be a law" solution is out of the question.

The best answer I can come up with is, it would require a lot of very qualified and very intelligent people to come up with a set of standards for approaching such situations to determine the truth of the matter, determine which of the two parties is probably the more dangerous one based on state of mind and likeliness of doing harm (obviously more often the male, but hardly always, and that needs to be determined free of prejudice), and determine a solution that is most effective in restoring, if not peace, at least orderly life to the victim and the neighborhood.

In other words, this requires a compassionate and responsible law enforcement response and an apolitical judicial system that doesn't have its head halfway up its own ass in a procedural hamsterwheel that lacks either judgement or clarity of purpose. In other words, we're kind of screwed.

 

[Axulus]

It must be especially hard for a man who is abused, being told his pain doesn't matter and is not the problem we should care about, and that he should "man up". I wonder how many men suffer this and are too ashamed to say anything about it.

It seems to me that it's pretty much the male equivalent of slut shaming. They're not acting the way a "proper man" should act and therefore bad things that happen to them are kind of their own fault and not really the sort of things which decent people need to worry about.

Not only that, but fuck those pussies for not putting up a proper defense and escaping the psycho bitch.

The mentality relates to the vulnerability and responsibility (victim blaming) of the group under discussion.

Children are the most vulnerable and defenseless, thus abuse against them is the most morally outrageous upsetting in general. Rarely are children blamed for their own abuse (although some nut cases do try to do just that). The severely handicapped are vulnerable and defenseless, similar to children. Women, due to their smaller size and lower strength on average, are at the disadvantage vs. a man, and are thus more vulnerable and in need of protection. Abuse against them less morally outrageous and upsetting than children and the severely handicapped, but not significantly so. The reasons why it is less is because of the victim blame mentality. What were they doing in that situation in the first place? Why didn't they learn self defense?

Men, on the other hand, are the bigger and stronger sex on average. They should be able to defend themselves and take the initiative to escape an abusive situation, and learn proper self defense - it's his own fault if he doesn't do that.

This, in a nutshell, is a cheat sheet for how people evaluate situations of abuse that occur.

 

[Togo]

The best answer I can come up with is, it would require a lot of very qualified and very intelligent people to come up with a set of standards for approaching such situations to determine the truth of the matter, determine which of the two parties is probably the more dangerous one based on state of mind and likeliness of doing harm (obviously more often the male, but hardly always, and that needs to be determined free of prejudice), and determine a solution that is most effective in restoring, if not peace, at least orderly life to the victim and the neighborhood.

In other words, this requires a compassionate and responsible law enforcement response and an apolitical judicial system that doesn't have its head halfway up its own ass in a procedural hamsterwheel that lacks either judgement or clarity of purpose. In other words, we're kind of screwed.

Well, it's not just a procedural thing, it's a cultural thing too. We're talking about a country that regularly uses the term 'victim' as a pejorative. This makes it harder to help victims.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But that's over now. Women are supposed to be equal partners in households, in society, and in the workplace. Chivalry is dead because chivalry is the unconditional patience and respect afforded to a lesser creature by a superior one and in modern terms neither is supposed to be superior. Nor are women supposed to be mindless domestic helpers with no agency or responsibility of their own other than what's given to them by the man. So we have standards that are being informed by traditions that no one follows and standards that are still being upheld after the long-forgotten reasons for them have vanished into history.

Well said. The size and strength difference does come into play, but I really think this has a lot more to do with how we view men and women in society, and how we have traditionally done so. Men are seen as caretakers of women. Women are treated as children, under the care of men. Men are expected to act more responsibly, etc.

I wonder if this will change as women gain power and equal status in society. This seems to be the flipside of misogyny, and as one dissipates, maybe the other will as well?