The Student Room Group

Woman on man violence vs man on women violence

I recently saw a social experiment on YouTube where a woman abuses m her boyfriend for thirty seconds in public, whereby no one intervenes, then the man starts fighting back and immediately guys come and help. My question is, why you think people are more likely to intervene if the violence is against women, and do you think this is right? peraonamly, I think the reason is that people believe that men have the capability to defend themselves, whereas women do not, as men are generally the stronger sex.
I'm not saying it's ok, but it's the same kind of thing as when an adult hits a child and a child hits an adult. The adult is allowing it to happen, whereas if the child fights back, they know it's likely the adult will hit them twice as hard. Women are scared to fight back, men choose to not fight back.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by kristen2
I recently saw a social experiment on YouTube where a woman abuses m her boyfriend for thirty seconds in public, whereby no one intervenes, then the man starts fighting back and immediately guys come and help. My question is, why you think people are more likely to intervene if the violence is against women, and do you think this is right? peraonamly, I think the reason is that people believe that men have the capability to defend themselves, whereas women do not, as men are generally the stronger sex.
I'm not saying it's ok, but it's the same kind of thing as when an adult hits a child and a child hits an adult. The adult is allowing it to happen, whereas if the child fights back, they know it's likely the adult will hit them twice as hard. Women are scared to fight back, men choose to not fight back.


No, it's not the same thing at all. The reason we treat children differently is because we appreciate that children have a much greater lack of understanding and will likely resort to violence very quickly. We sympathise because you shouldn't fight back against someone who isn't even by law considered accountable for their actions. I think you have to be 12 before you are considered accountable under the law but it could be younger. When a woman hits a man and a man hits her back, I don't care quite frankly whether the woman ends up in a coma. If she resorted to physical violence, she has initiated conflict at least physically and thus the man or woman is then entitled to defend themself. The idea that men are capable of defending themselves is a load of rubbish. There are women stronger than men, and all men are aware of other men being stronger. If I hit a man who is stronger than me and he hits me back harder, I was in the wrong for hitting him in the first place, regardless of my condition when the conflict ends. What you are speculating upon is not really to do with violence equity. Women have been shown in the media that they are not all damsel's in distress and are reminded regularly that they don't need a man etc. Paradoxically, men are still told the opposite. Pretty much every hit action film for the last 3 decades has revolved around a man killing or fighting other men in order to win the love of some damsel in distress, it even crosses over into video games, Mario rescuing Peach from Bowser etc, massive hits like James Bond. Now 2 things come into play here, because first and foremost it teaches men that violence against other men is fine, it's literally everywhere in the media, the most powerful man wins or the man who defeats the other etc, and it also teaches men this white knight phenomenon whereby men feel as though it is their responsibility to protect women against other men - this appeals to their savior complex and their own delusional hopes of being some revered hero that society has in an almost Pavlovian way taught them to expect. So in your example that means that A) men are much more likely to think they have a right to conflict with other men in order to protect a woman, they do not feel the same right to ever conflict with a woman as that is seen as socially condemned, and B) Men are more likely to try to protect a woman than a man, not because of the ability of men to defend themself but because ultimately there is no gain for them, maybe a slap on the back, whereas with a woman their is an underlying expectation of gratitude, and the sensation that you are somehow some sort of hero for defeating another man for a woman.
Reply 2
Avatar for kristen2
kristen2
OP
12
Original post by Dear Agony


No, it's not the same thing at all. The reason we treat children differently is because we appreciate that children have a much greater lack of understanding and will likely resort to violence very quickly. We sympathise because you shouldn't fight back against someone who isn't even by law considered accountable for their actions. I think you have to be 12 before you are considered accountable under the law but it could be younger. When a woman hits a man and a man hits her back, I don't care quite frankly whether the woman ends up in a coma. If she resorted to physical violence, she has initiated conflict at least physically and thus the man or woman is then entitled to defend themself. The idea that men are capable of defending themselves is a load of rubbish. There are women stronger than men, and all men are aware of other men being stronger. If I hit a man who is stronger than me and he hits me back harder, I was in the wrong for hitting him in the first place, regardless of my condition when the conflict ends. What you are speculating upon is not really to do with violence equity. Women have been shown in the media that they are not all damsel's in distress and are reminded regularly that they don't need a man etc. Paradoxically, men are still told the opposite. Pretty much every hit action film for the last 3 decades has revolved around a man killing or fighting other men in order to win the love of some damsel in distress, it even crosses over into video games, Mario rescuing Peach from Bowser etc, massive hits like James Bond. Now 2 things come into play here, because first and foremost it teaches men that violence against other men is fine, it's literally everywhere in the media, the most powerful man wins or the man who defeats the other etc, and it also teaches men this white knight phenomenon whereby men feel as though it is their responsibility to protect women against other men - this appeals to their savior complex and their own delusional hopes of being some revered hero that society has in an almost Pavlovian way taught them to expect. So in your example that means that A) men are much more likely to think they have a right to conflict with other men in order to protect a woman, they do not feel the same right to ever conflict with a woman as that is seen as socially condemned, and B) Men are more likely to try to protect a woman than a man, not because of the ability of men to defend themself but because ultimately there is no gain for them, maybe a slap on the back, whereas with a woman their is an underlying expectation of gratitude, and the sensation that you are somehow some sort of hero for defeating another man for a woman.

I'm talking about comparing the physical strength, not the mental intelligence. There's such a term as using 'reasonable force' to defend themselves. If someone slaps you in the face, slapping them back is acceptable. However, if you get slapped and then you beat them into a coma, that isn't using reasonable force.
Most of the time men are stronger, there are exceptions of course.
Original post by kristen2
I'm talking about comparing the physical strength, not the mental intelligence. There's such a term as using 'reasonable force' to defend themselves. If someone slaps you in the face, slapping them back is acceptable. However, if you get slapped and then you beat them into a coma, that isn't using reasonable force.
Most of the time men are stronger, there are exceptions of course.


Apologies, I was assuming that a fight would happen in this hypothetical, if we are literally just talking about a slap and then a return slap, then everything I wrote still applies regardless, so ignore this particular hypothetical.
Violence is wrong whoever is giving it out.
One rule for me is if you hit somebody , don't complain if they hit you back,whether it's man on woman or woman on man. Nobody should expect to be able to use another as a punch bag.
Women shouldn't expect to be immune from retaliation.
Reply 5
Avatar for A5ko
A5ko
3
Not violence related, but I saw another one of these were a guy was wearing a billboard saying '**** the Poor' and it seemed the whole world and it's dog were lining up to have a go at him.

30 minutes later he is back with another billboard, saying 'Help the Poor' with a donations box. Not one person gives him the time of day.

We're a ****ed up race.
Reply 6
Avatar for MAINE.
MAINE.
3
Cant wait for the day a woman hits me in public. Will unleash the Texas Rattlesnake Stone Cold Stunner on her, and if anyone comes running to her rescue they'll get a Tombstone Piledriver :lol:
Original post by A5ko
Not violence related, but I saw another one of these were a guy was wearing a billboard saying '**** the Poor' and it seemed the whole world and it's dog were lining up to have a go at him.

30 minutes later he is back with another billboard, saying 'Help the Poor' with a donations box. Not one person gives him the time of day.

We're a ****ed up race.


I saw that video, it was amazing. It really made me think.

To the OP: Violence is not OK in either situation. I think the different perceptions of male-against-female and female-against-male violence are down to many things. Mainly, there are a lot more recorded incidents of the former than the latter. I'm not denying that there are many men who do not report domestic violence for a variety of reasons, but these statistics portray an image that domestic violence is a women-only problem to society. Unfortunately, this contributes further to domestic violence against males not being reported and so the cycle continues.

Another reason is gender roles. Male = strong, female = weak. In society's eyes, a man can defend himself and a woman cannot, which leads to what happens in that video.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you