Hitting Women

LEO PARKER-REES says violence is bad, whether or not you have a vagina.

Men must never hit women. Everyone knows it. When a man hits a woman it’s pure misogyny, shameful and barbaric. When a man hits another man it’s just Lads being Lads. And when a woman hits a man? Girl Power!

That attitude is one of the most unpleasant results of half-baked feminism. Women aren’t always the weak, delicate ones. 40% of the victims of domestic violence are men. Men are twice as likely as women to be the victims of violence from acquaintances, and three times as likely from strangers.

Everyone is at risk from assault, and it isn’t just women who should be Reclaiming The Night.

The idea that female victims deserve more attention because they are weaker than men is an unpleasant generalisation. Not only is it frequently inaccurate (imagine a fight between the weakest man and toughest woman you know), but it implies that ‘real men’ should be able to look after themselves. When they can’t, they are failures. Punched by a girl? Lol, wot are you a gay?

Chris Brown: would still be a cunt if Rihanna had a penis

Men hitting women is bad, but so is violence in general. When this is overlooked, it encourages a culture where female aggressors are somehow empowering, making up for past (and present) inequalities. I don’t deny that there is making up to do, but it isn’t up to individuals to dole out corporal punishment, and it shouldn’t be encouraged or forgiven when they do.

TV is full of tough, ass-kicking heroines, who overcome gender stereotypes by beating up men. That’s fine, violence gets viewers, the victims have it coming. The problem is, unlike male ass-kickers, the female ones are often justified in their violence only by being annoyed or offended. That sexist jock makes a crack about Buffy? Boom, broken nose. That’ll teach him for sharing rude opinions.

Men hitting women is a terrible thing, because there’s the idea that women won’t be able to hit back. Well, that’s true of smaller men as well, but nobody seems so outraged when they’re the victims. And now, it’s men who can’t hit back. I could be attacked by a woman twice my size, and all I’d do is lamely try to hold her wrists while she hit me. Why? Because of historic injustice? I didn’t do that. Don’t take it out on me, you hypothetical bitch.

The ethics of violence shouldn’t be based on sex. Whoever you are, if you hit someone you’re a piece of shit and you shouldn’t be shocked by retaliation. I’d still never hit a woman myself, but I’m aware that that just stems from latent sexism on my part. I’m not proud of it.

  • prettyimportanttypo

    I don’t deny that there is making up to do, but it isn’t up to individuals to dole out corporal punishment, and it should be encouraged or forgiven when they do.

    Should be encouraged? (naturally not suggesting you mean this, just seems like quite a thing to overlook)

    • Awkward

      Awkward because you are the one who made the typo… If you look back in the article, it clearly says "shouldn't"

      • More likely

        Or the editor just did their job, albeit after the article was published.

  • Anon

    As an alternative to reading this article, why not try any of the following links (or just google it yourselves!) for some useful information about domestic violence: http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-arthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/health/support/domestic_violhttp://refuge.org.uk/

    • Public School Boy

      Of course anyone who gets to this stage has probably already read the article…and might have their own opinions…but you're right, don't express them, go off somewhere else and read the truth

  • lost for words

    Have you totally lost your mind?! Do you know ANYTHING about the big picture?! If you'd bothered to actually talk about all the forms of gender-related violence and discrimination, rape statistics, cultural misogyny, portrayal of women in the media…to say that TV is filled with empowered women…that men are just as often victims…you're just LYING!!!

    • LPR

      Thanks for the condescending message, friend.

      I am aware of the bigger picture. I am aware of the gendering of society at the expense (mostly) of women. Rape is a terrible thing, that is more likely to affect women than men – but does that make the rape of a woman worse than the rape of a man? No. They're both terrible things, so we don't feel the need to say 'you must NEVER rape a woman'. It's just 'don't rape anyone'.

      You've (deliberately, I think) distorted my point about empowered women on TV. The point I was making is not that there are too many, or more than men, or anything like that. They're a good thing, breaking stereotypes, fighting back against the patriarchy, etc. The bad thing is the frequency with which violence is tolerated and celebrated by many of these heroines – as though in breaking away from their gender role, they are doing something productive by hitting men. That is not healthy, and won't do the feminist cause any good.

      The only situation in which women are more likely to be the victims of violence than men is domestic abuse – but even then, 40% of the victims are male. Attitudes like yours are what make these men feel the need to suffer in silence – because abuse is something women experience, not men. What do the statistics matter? If someone's being abused, it's a terrible thing because they are a human being. It isn't suddenly improved when the victim has a penis. Go tell an abused husband that his beating isn't as important because we live in a patriarchal society.

      • Anon

        This really isn't the biggest problem with your article or your views, but you might want to stop equating gender with genitalia quite so frequently. Last I checked, trans* people exist.

        • LPR

          I apologise for giving that impression, it's actually something I considered discussing, but space didn't allow proper treatment of the subject.

          I'm not ignoring transgender people, but I don't think the gender you identify yourself as will be what determines reaction to violence will be. If a woman self-defines as a man, there would still be more outrage at his being punched by another man than vice versa.

          I'm not saying it's a good thing (I actually think it's deeply unpleasant) but I think that's the way things are.

          An interesting point for those who disagree with me though: is violence against women still worse than violence against men when the victim is transgender? Would violence against a man become as bad if you found out that the man self-defined as a woman?

          • terminology

            I'm not transgender but I'm fairly certain many trans people find this kind of thing offensive:
            the man self-defined as a woman
            a woman self-defines as a man
            Pretty sure that most transpeople feel that they have *always* been the gender that they "change" into… even if their body hasn't always agreed. Rather, I think transpeople prefer "male-to-female (MTF) woman" or "female-to-male (FTM) man".
            Just saying as I think it's an area that needs educating about :)

            • This

              This is true. Otherwise we're telling them 'yeah, but actually you're a man/woman aren't you'.

      • Anon

        Oh, also, condescension is a pretty mild response to a vile article made up entirely of straw men.

        • AnotherAnon

          Er what's vile about it? Hitting men is bad too… that seems fair.

          • Precisely

            Don't have anything to say apart from yes, how is this article in the least bit vile? Surely you have to be extremely ignorant to believe that.

            I suggest people read the article and don't just comment on what they presume the article is about.

    • Tiger blood

      This is the Tab – what did you expect?

  • Leo Parker-Rees

    can hit me any time he wants x

  • Corpuscle

    So what you're basically trying to say is women should also not hit men?

  • amirite

    Equal rights, equal lefts.

  • Guest

    I don't know what you mean about reclaim the night, there is a men's march as well who then meet the women in the centre of the town or city that they are marching in. I know because I've helped organise the one in Cambridge and we invited male speakers too.

    'And when a woman hits a man? Girl Power!' Not sure who you have been taking to but the vast majority of people who campaign against domestic violence hate domestic violence in all its forms. If they don't, they are obviously not really against domestic violence.

    • LPR

      I was under the impression that men do a 'solidarity march' to show that they also want women to be able to reclaim the night. That just seems a bit wrong to me, when it's men who are most likely to be attacked.

      I'm not saying women have it easy, I'm just saying that the division, when it comes to violence, is unhealthy. It encourages the idea that men are tough guys who can look after themselves, which in turn encourages the idea that women are delicate little things that need male protection; in the end, it just reinforces the patriarchy.

      Also, if you follow the link for 'Girl Power', you'll see what I mean. It's an unpleasantly common attitude, that men deserve violence from women, that it's getting even, that that's the way to undo the imbalance in society. It isn't, it's wrong, and should be treated like it.

      • taja

        That 'girl power' video is not really representative of feminist activism though. you said you don't conflate the two, but what you just said above blurs the boundaries between them. it seems like an enormous stretch to go from the sort of productive and historically established gendered language implicit in reclaiming the night to…the 'girl power' video and the reinforcement of patriarchy. in fact those two consequences you suggest seem flatly contradictory

        to emphasise the sameness of all violence (and who could disagree its bad and its great you draw attention to violence against men) would reduce one's ability to understand the varied contexts in which such violence takes place and the appropriate responses.

        for example: a combined reclaim the night march would miss the point that most violence against men outside the domestic context is committed by men, and that reclaim the night is very openly about empowering women against violence, especially sexual violence directed against them. collapsing it into a march against violence in general would divest it of much of that specific, empowering meaning to the point of banality. it wouldn't be so different from a march against paedophiles, or murderers…

        • re taja

          But then to a certain extent your point trivializes the reclaim the night march – being against violence to women is the same as being against violence full stop.

          • taja

            not really. reclaim the night is about both violence against women and violence in general, but it is obviously a more direct response to the former.

            a demonstration outside the embassy of a nation committing human rights abuses is not trivial because it focuses on that first and human rights abuses in general second

  • Boris or Keith

    Top article highlighting an irrational imbalance in what is deemed acceptable. Take the film 'The Holiday' for example; Cameron Diaz's character punches her boyfriend square in the face out of the blue for cheating. It's supposed to be a girl power moment. In reality, its assault. So is a girl slapping a boy if he annoys/insults her. One rule for women, another for men

    • Damn straight

      Yep. Can you imagine if the boyf had hit her instead? It'd be a tragic moment rather than the funny/interesting scene it's supposed to be.

    • hmmmm

      I don't think that ONE punch because your boyfriend has cheated on you equates to domestic violence!

      • Impartial

        So you would also think it would be ok for a guy to throw a punch at his girlfriend if she had cheated on him? There isn't one rule for a woman, another rule for a man.

        • Let's be honest

          Screenwriters don't think about the moral aspect such things. I AM NOT saying its justified for anyone to hit anyone, but I think the general (if unfair and misinformed) logic behind such things is the fact that a woman slapping a man does far less damage than a man punching a woman. I don't know about the kind of girls you're friends with, but the ones I know would do little to no damage if they punched a guy, but would end up on the floor if the situation was reversed.

          • Boris or Keith

            It's got nothing to do with the damage caused, and by the way 'in general' is a generalising argument, which amounts to stereotyping; the fact remains that an unprovoked blow is as bad if thrown by a woman at a guy than if a weaker man punched a stronger man, only worse because social norms dictate that a man couldn't retaliate against a woman. Ask a few of your male friends if they've been slapped by girls for being cheeky, or even downright (verbally) offensive, it doesn't matter. The argument remains the same: a slap is an attempt to inflict physical damage on its intended recipient and the open handed nature/unintended consequence of any ungloved blow can be as serious as putting an eye out. People need to start taking it a little bit more seriously: don't call the police, but do point out that it's unacceptable, whether you're 6 stone or 16

  • fair

    You make a fair point that domestic abuse against men shouldn't be overlooked, however it still stands that there exists a far longer history of violence against women. Also in third world countries there are countless cases of this still happening to women and yet they don't have the same support as us. So, I think it's justified that there are more charities for women out there than there are for men…

    • Really?

      I hate when people make sweeping statements about foreign countries. You ever even been to Africa? Some of the women there have multiple husbands and are big enough to strangle a man with their bare hands.

  • Armchair Critic

    A smashing article with a punchy argument.

    • Amazing.

      Actually, it's a good point, but crudely made.

    • Another Tasteful Pun

      Hard-hitting.

  • Luke = Dunce

    When a woman hits a man, it's girl power?

    Not really, it's assault like it would be for anyone else

    YOU DUMB CUNT

    • CALM DOWN

      who's Luke?

      • Arg!

        You've just got his name wrong, reiterated his point, then called him a dumb cunt…

        YOU DUMB CUNT!

    • idiot police

      congratulations, a sterling effort. You misread the argument, argumentatively agree with it, then follow all of this idiocy with a gendered misogynist insult. give yourself a pat on the back

  • Refreshing

    Excellent article. No one should be hitting anyone but if they do, the treatment of both parties shouldn't matter on which genitals they have.

  • Jeees

    This is gutter churnalism of the best kind = completely free of facts, intelligence, or any knowledge of the subject at hand. This piece is about as accurate as the assertion that the sky is orange.

    How about some background research next time? It's a shame the Tab has such low standards.

    • Jizz

      This is gutter commenting of the best kind = completely free of facts, intelligence, or any knowledge of the subject at hand. This comment is about as accurate as the assertion that the sky is orange.

      How about some citations next time? It's a shame that Jeees (if that is your real name) has such poor counter-arguments.

    • Orange sky

      With citation, as requested.
      http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium/or

  • Matty McBroide

    The beaus from Donegal pack one hell of a punch

  • Droggles' Brother

    Big fan of the article.

    On a side note – have a little read of this:
    http://www.mwza.com/chris-brown-police-report-rih

    Not sure how this guy still has a career, but then again, 'Beautiful People' is a "catchy tune".

    • MouseTrapped

      Have a watch of this:






  • Tricky

    I think I broadly agree with some of the premises of this argument, but I think there are several issues that it brushes over.

    Firstly, violence against me is often very different in type to violence against women. It seems appropriate to have different types of campaigns against different types of violence. Stranger violence against women is very often sexual and is thus a very different problem from theft violence.

    Secondly, women's choices are much more often curtailed by fear of violence (real or imagined). All last year, girls at my college needed to be walked home due to the Sidgewick avenue stalker. This wasn't the case for men (to anywhere near the same extent).

    The argument loses a great deal of its subtlety due to its failure to recognise genuine difference in favour of a 'guys, hitting people is bad' line.

    • Licky

      But surely if the Sidgewick Avenue Stalker had been intent upon attacking men, rather than women, there wouldn't have been the escort issue? You can't base general arguments upon specific examples.

  • taja

    you open by mentioning ‘half-baked feminists’, which yeah, sounds pretty crap. but a comment above suggests, people contributing (intentionally or unintentionally) to violence are unlikely to be feminists (unless we’re going by daily mail definitions). Blame for the absence of coverage of violence against men also seems far more obviously to lie with stereotypes of masculinity and power far more than with a pretty minimal ‘Girl Power’ culture (which has only arisen in local contexts in America and Europe in any case). you don’t even hint at that, instead the blame only seems with feminists.

    in the rest of the article, you implicitly criticise mainstream, not ‘half-baked feminism’ (which seems like weasel-wording) through references to historic injustice, Reclaiming the Night that by dealing specifically with women's disadvantages under unequal relationships of power (individual and structural), feminists unintentionally encourage attitudes leading to violence against men. “When this is overlooked, it encourages a culture where female aggressors are somehow empowering” This implicitly makes for an argument against all kinds of feminist, women-specific campaigning on violence. e.g. where would this leave this well-known organisation: http://www.southallblacksisters.org.uk ?

    Should feminists have more of a duty to deal with violence against men than other groups in society? I don’t think so, but I think you imply it. Why not men’s groups that share knowledge with women’s groups but retain their specific knowledge? That’s how women had to organise, under much less favourable conditions – being realistic – why should they also bear the burden and blame for the opposite problem?

    • LPR

      Did you see the video 'Girl Power' linked to? That's the half-baked feminism I'm talking about. I agree, most feminists won't contribute to violence. I consider myself a feminist (or a pro-feminist man, if you prefer). The half-baked feminism is not the majority (and I never suggested it was) but that's what leads to the attitude of tolerating violence against men, with the (half-baked) idea that it's righting a wrong.

      I don't criticise mainstream feminists, unless mainstream feminists would justify violence based on historic injustice. I don't criticise Reclaim the Night, I just point out that it's something men need to do as well.

      I stand by my claim that ignoring male victims of violence creates a culture where both women feel entitled to be violent, and where men feel unable to speak out against it.

      What you take as implications of my argument are not there. You've assumed I'm anti-feminist, when actually my feminism contributes to my holding this position. I don't think feminists have 'more of a duty', or any blame. I think we all do.

      The society we've inherited isn't our fault, we just need to improve it as well as we can. Tolerance of violence, of whatever sort, isn't the way to do that.

      • taja

        The 'girl power' video shows an unacceptable attitude to violence against men, and I think asserting the sameness of violence is a great argument against it. But I'm not ascribing anti-feminist intentions to you, I'm saying that your argument itself has anti-feminist implications; insofar as it relies on sameness, it suggests specifically feminist campaigning on violence is part of the problem (by overemphasis on one 'side')

        The idea of sameness is unhelpful for understanding the gendered aspects of violence. After all, wouldn't men speaking out about violence against men logically have to refer to the specific (and non gender neutral) aspects of violence against men in order to be heard?

    • SeptimusKincaid

      'Blame for the absence of coverage of violence against men also seems far more obviously to lie with stereotypes of masculinity and power far more than with a pretty minimal ‘Girl Power’ culture'

      Exactly.

      While the author is quite right to condemn violence against men just as much as violence against women, the root cause of a culture where men do not speak about being the victims of violence does not have its role in gender relations.

  • taja

    Interesting timing, given the predictable furore round the DSK piece. Perhaps the Tab should publish something on how International Women’s Day unintentionally encourages violence against men? strictly to help the feminist cause, of course. just the 'half-baked' form we don't like

  • 90s kid

    Largely agree with your points, but – 'That sexist jock makes a crack about Buffy? Boom, broken nose. That’ll teach him for sharing rude opinions'?

    Way to reduce a great show to some sort of lame mindless attempt at female empowerment. Did you ever even watch the show? Buffy didn't go around teaching jocks/lads a lesson, she had more important things to do.

    • LPR

      While I am not now proud to say it, I have seen every episode of Buffy several times. She did have important stuff to do – not least breaking away from gender roles, and encouraging a much better attitude than, say twilight, when it comes to relationships. That said, she still, on occasion, used her superhuman strength to hit men who had only been offensive. My point is that this isn't what a heroine should be doing, and it encourages the attitude that women hitting men are 'finally getting their own back'. That's not how justice works. Buffy should know better.

    • A Vampire

      Why is there no mention of my suffering in all this?

    • rose

      THANK YOU 90s kid.

      At no point did Buffy ever break someone's nose for making a sexist comment. I can think of instances where she judo-flipped a guy in gym class, where she made it clear to a bully to back off from her friend, but she didn't dole out violence simply as a way of asserting herself. Don't try to bring in the portrayal of women in film and television when you clearly have not thought about it beyond backing yourself up.

      • another guy

        I seem to recall at least one occasion where bufy and co were hanging out in that bar where Oz's band played and she hit a guy with her superhuman strength just because he said something rude.
        I think LPR remembers correctly on this one.

  • guest

    Some men like it when women hit them. People shouldn't be so closed minded

  • rose

    also, please take note that almost all the derogatory language you used in this article are gender specific words all demeaning women.

    'Chris Brown: would still be a cunt if Rihanna had a penis'
    'Don’t take it out on me, you hypothetical bitch'

    i agree with you wholeheartedly that domestic violence is wrong in any context, whether it's a man or a woman as aggressor. just don't complain about how violence towards men is celebrated then turn around and call a woman, however hypothetical, a bitch.

    • LPR

      I stand by my choice of language. It's not true to say that it's demeaning to women, any more than 'prick' 'cock' 'dick' etc, are demeaning to men.

      Didn't you read Anna Isaac's column? Cunt is fine. It's a great word. And chosen specifically in this case as slight wordplay, to mirror the coming penis.

      As for the 'bitch', I reserve the right to call her that. She's hypothetically hitting me, hypothetically for no reason at all. If it were a man, I'd call him a prick. I'm not insulting all women, just this one who is hypothetically deserving of insult.

      'Almost all' actually means those two times. I can just see you searching through, hoping for another few to make your point better.

      In your final paragraph, you seem to be equating violence against men with gendered swear words. I hope that isn't the case, because that would be a really stupid thing to do.

      • CRM

        "Didn't you read Anna Isaac's column? Cunt is fine. It's a great word."

        That *really* depends on context, who's saying it, and why. Some people are absolutely fine with using the word 'cunt' in any situation. I'm a feminist – ran the Feminist Society last year, was gender equalities officer in my college until Christmas – and sometimes I agree with you. Cunt can be fine to use. Except that it comes from a historical context where it's been used over and over again to reinforce a misogynistic, gendered and derogatory set of ideas. So I'd argue that the way you've used "cunt" in this article just ties in with that sexist context. You didn't call Chris Brown a dick, you called him a 'cunt' – considering that the word 'cunt' refers to female genitalia, and is by and large considered among the most offensive and insulting swearwords we have, you haven't really reclaimed it here. You're just using it as it has always been used, in a derogatory and unpleasant context.

        It's also an extremely unimaginative use of language, but that's by the by.

        • Grudge Match

          two-star rebuttal. it doesn't make your play good. http://cambridgetab.co.uk/culture/the-tempest-len

        • FFS

          He used cunt simply because it's a more forceful swear word than simply dick or prick. Used because what Chris Brown did was such a bad thing.

          WHY DO YOU FUCKING TURN EVERYTHING INTO A GENDER EQUALITY ISSUE?

          That ONE statement you picked on was condemning and insulting Chris Brown for committing domestic violence.

  • Dereck Chisora

    I'm still going to fucking literally burn David Haye, my bitch and anyone that says I'm not still a competitor.

  • reclaim the night

    are you actually trying to justify buffy's behaviour?

    what's being done about the culture of violence against vampires, mainly committed by womwn in the sunnydale area?

    • A Vampire

      One assault…..ah, ah, ah
      Two assaults…ah, ah, ah
      etc.

  • Spike

    I'm just going to leave this here…
    http://www.btvs-tabularasa.net/essays/DomesticAbu

  • Excellent

    As a man I'd never really thought about it, but you're absolutely right. I've had women hit me before in a totally unacceptable way, when if it had been the other way round it would have been considered serious. I think it's more generally true that "girl power" can be a fluffy name for vile conduct. Not always, but occasionally.

  • Anna431

    Just a reminder that domestic violence statistics are generally considered the least reliable sort of statistic, and that 40% stat is no exception.

    The number comes from the BCS (British Crime Survey), and means one incident or more, of any severity, with any consequences, within a year. More detailed studies show that DV perpetrated by women on men (although of course remaining unacceptable) is generally of lower severity (e.g. not using a weapon), physical violence has fewer physical health consequences (e.g. a bruise versus broken bones), and changing the statistics most significantly, given the repetitive nature of DV, is that violence against men is much less frequent. When a man is slapped once in a year (not that anyone is condoning this) he will become a data point identical to a women who is beaten most days, resulting in broken bones and multiple hospitalisations. There are other complications making the data even more innacurate, some meaning men may be underrepresented, e.g. men don't like to be seen as victims of women perpetrators, but on the whole it seems the BCS stats underrepresent women a lot more than men.

    • statsman

      Where do you get this info? I heard women are more likely to use weapons in DV than men are

      • Gin

        I heard that too…

        • Anna431

          Sorry, just saw this. As I said, every study says something slightly different because of how unreliable data gathering in this area is, and there's also controversy over what counts as a weapon, e.g. if you throw a plate, is that a weapon etc, so I imagine there are studies that do indeed say women are more likely to use a weapon.

          One of the biggest recent UK studies is in the British Journal of Criminology, from 2004, (http://www.brown.uk.com/domesticviolence/dobash.pdf) which basically says all the things I've said, including that men are more likely to use a weapon.

          For more info and stats see the Home Office Research Study, although I don't think it looks at weapons, but repeats that women are subject to more repeat victimisations. (http://broken-rainbow.org.uk/research/Dv%20crime%20survey.pdf)

          (I have picked links that anyone should be able to access, not just those with a Raven login)

    • Nice

      Probably the least frenzied critical response to an article that is good in its intentions but very badly worded.

  • Guest

    Any woman that hits me, i'm gonna hit back just the same.Eye for an eye

    • totally missed

      the point.

  • omg

    There is so much wrong with this article it's hard to know where to begin. so. bad.

    • Debate Judge

      Great comment. Witty, concise, constructive and politely phrased. 10/10

  • Ruth Nicholls

    SOCIAL CONDITIONING!!! AHHH

  • blk

    I think you might be confusing a strong feminist movement with the Spice Girls

  • Woman

    Shocked that this article has prompted such a storm of pseudo-feminist anger! I thought it was a good article, making the point that in a society where we want women and men to be equal, we think it should be equally bad when someone punches them, whichever gender did the punching. No one is saying that a woman slapping a man is as bad as a man raping a woman ffs, the author (I think) is just trying to make the point that men don't like being hit either, and it shouldn't be ok.
    Any feminist who thinks that is wrong isn't really a feminist but some kind of man-slapping nutter.

    • Man

      This is a good point. But some will argue that if you want to reach a society which is equal, it's not always the best strategy to decide what rules (or even just what ways of doing things) you would have in an equal society, and then put them in place. You have to look at how things actually are and work from there. So even if violence is equally bad in itself, no matter who is the victim, in its context we should be more concerned with violence against women as part of the wide ranging inequality which exists.

  • Disappointed

    It's a fair point, but why you felt the need to use such aggressive language escapes me. It's just unnecessary.

    • Don't be a

      Cunt

  • Brian H

    Interesting article. While at A&E a while back with a minor injury I was sat near to a man who had a nasty-looking head wound (he wasn't sat there for long mind, as he was rushed off for scans). I overheard him saying that his wife had hit him on the head with a heavy pan, and that it wasn't the first time. I can fully believe that there are plenty of women who are the perpretators of domestic violence.

  • Some good points but

    Poverty is an issue whoever it affects. Does that mean we should ignore the fact that people in certain places or belonging to ethnic minorities are more likely to suffer from it? Violence is an issue whatever happens but the fact that women are more likely to experience certain types of violence, particularly sexual assault is still a huge issue. Articles like this completely trivialise that fact.

    • A woman

      That's a huge issue, but it isn't the only kind of violence, and doesn't seem to be the main focus of this article. If a woman got angry in the street and punches a man, nobody would care. If a man slapped a woman in the same circumstances, there'd be outrage. That's true, and shouldn't be.

  • TommyW

    I did not hit her, it's bullshit, I did not hit her, I did naaaaaht…. Oh hai Mark

    • bloody

      brilliant.

  • Dichotomy?

    Your points are sound, but I'd like to raise an issue about your polarisation of male versus female, which weakens what is otherwise a good article by setting up an opposition similar to that which it castigates. The demonisation of men by "Girl Power" advocates (and it is unfair to reduce feminism by association) pits bad man against good woman. In telling men to reclaim power against violent women, you're pitting bad woman against good man. I don't believe that this is at all your intention, but choice of language and style have unfortunately presented it this way. Statistics like this "Men are twice as likely as women to be the victims of violence from acquaintances, and three times as likely from strangers." that compare men and women's suffering are ultimately self-defeating – what does it matter who suffers more? Such competition for victim status ultimately just perpetuates the odious 'battle of the sexes'.

    Can we not make the point that domestic violence against men (be this violence perpetrated by a male or a female partner) is underrecognised as an issue, or that encouraging violence against anyone (be they male, female, trans etc) is damaging, without making it a men vs women issue?

  • letsallhavealaugh

    What do you tell a woman with 2 black eyes?
    …….
    ……
    Nothing. You've already told the bitch twice!

    • You are

      A moron.

  • Very complex

    My boyfriend always says he could never, ever hit a girl. No matter what the circumstances, he just couldn't do it. He's a really big guy, so he feels that he'll nearly always out-match a girl. It's sexist yes, but he feels that way because he cares.

    I tried to argue that if I hit him, it would still count as domestic abuse. After pointing out that I punch like a kitten, he argued he would still be unable to hit a girl. He's been brought up to believe that it is abhorrent to do so.

    It's tricky. I stand up for women's rights every single time, but what do I do when my boyfriend is sexist because he's trying to be what he considers decent?

    • notso complex

      No no no I think you might have missed the point. Your boyfriend isn't sexist because he could never hit women. What would be sexist is if he or you thought it was terrible for him to hurt you but totally ok for you to hurt him (I'm not sure that punching him like a kitten counts). Saying he wouldn't hit you back if you hit him is NOT the same as saying that it's ok for you to hit (and hurt) him. Even if he thought that I don't think he'd be *sexist* but possibly he wouldn't realise how unacceptable it is.

  • Guest

    I heard Nazis were in favour of domestic violence.

  • Cantabulous

    Only 1% of women are as strong as the average man. So yeah, sure, imagine a fight between the weakest man and toughest woman you know. And realise how fucking ungeneralisable it is.

    I wonder what the women in your life (mother, sister, girlfriend) think of your attitude.

    • Statistic Nazi

      Your use of statistics is abhorrent. Learn to use them properly or don't use them at all. What you have just said means nothing.

    • A.J.

      He's a lovely person and a fantastic boyfriend as well as an intelligent, well-spoken and thoughtful writer. I also happen to agree with his article.

      So yeah. Back off, bitch.

      • lol

        his actual girlfriend commented. laaame.

        • 'lol' don't get it

          insulting and pointless comment. As a friend of LPR his opinion on this topic has been uttered many times at myself who has personally been hit by mean countless times and the simplest few words to sum it up in would be ' i dont like whats happened men must never hit women nor women hit men, nor anyone hit each other' and WHO can disapprove of that?

        • yeh but

          AJ is great

  • Gordon Rosewater

    Can the tab please go back to writing about things other than feminism?

  • man

    Hitting anybody is always inherently wrong, unless acting in *proportionate* self-defence. Whilst I concur that violence against men is somewhat overlooked, an even more serious matter is violence against children, which many people in this country (unlike most EU countries that have quite rightfully outlawed all corporal punishment) still consider acceptable if inflicted by the parents. Could the Tab *please* run an article on that?

    • woman

      *no*

  • Friend of Leo

    Love this Leo. So true. And well argued comment wise too. Just to add (not suggesting it didn't occur to you in the same way as it did re transgender people but tab editing is crude tstl) women on women violence is a reality too. Be it within a couple or just friends. But with the former, I am shocked when an assault isn't taken seriously because the view is that the pair are in some way "equally matched". If woman A hits woman B- woman A is fucking disgusting and should be treated in precisely the same terms as a man would be. I happen to know this isn't always the case.

  • Rosa Parks

    An article about misandry! Amazing!

    Now where's our white history month?

    • poor from parks

      not a great point:






      and misogyny doesnt excuse misandry

  • Josh and Ben

    We are fully behind this article.

  • BOND HITTING WOMEN






  • Arshad Khan
  • Mr.Mm

    The frustrating thing about articles on this topic is they are written by sensitive, concerned people but the individuals they are talking about generally don't have the same compassion and won't change their behaviour unless a custodial sentence is involved.

  • bonjour

    This article is quite confused and repetitive, but the photo caption is fantastic

  • Dick dodgy

    Tell you what mate, this is an excellent article.

  • hilarious lpr

    The author once tried to set me on fire.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FgMLROTqJ0 Sean Connery

    I think that if a woman has been given sufficient warning, but still goes on, it's OK to slap her.

  • concerned GARDERNER

    more about bonsai trees please

  • leo parker-rees, what you write is embarrassing drivel. it's hilarious, actually, to think that you believe that your argument is not only valid, but interesting, and important.
    what is the point in writing this shit? i prey the tab gets shut down by everyone's dads.

  • Terry Balfour

    Women beating,some so called men treat it as a ‘contact sport’,that is why it is vile…as for sugessting it’s a result of your up bringing,that is a quite atrocious excuse,we are responsible for our own actions,stand up and rectify those that have wronged others…which I doubt much a habitual women beater would have the spine to do… PS: I have no agenda.