|
|
|
|
|
|
by bruceb
3437 days ago
|
|
|
> I can't imagine any period in the last 100 years has been >so committed to such extreme sexism. I guess the fact women couldn't vote in a number of western countries in the early and mid part of last century or there were almost no women in charge corporations or govt power until the last 30 years (with a very few exceptions) doesn't qualify as extreme sexism? One can decry the overreach and excesses of some "social justice warriors" without going red pill extremist.
Do some women commit domestic violence? of course. But how many men have killed women vs women who have killed men?
Save the extremism for some outraged subreddit. |
|
|
The truth is, I've seen several articles in the past concerning female domestic violence against men. Such as here: http://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/ and here: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-... So these articles do exist out there.
Generally speaking, I personally think there's a fairly easy biological explanation for the emotive difference in reporting and society: men are biologically stronger than women, and thus will have a greater tendency to injure / harm when they engage in domestic violence. This is noted in the Time article as well as several references in the Wikipedia article on domestic violence against men (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men#...).
This is not to say that domestic violence against men should be ignored (on the contrary, it shows that there is a blind spot, contributed by certain social stereotypes driven by the biological fact that in general, men are stronger than women). But in my view, turning this into a tired "social justice warrior vs. men's right's activists" Internet argument is a great way to get this issue ignored. When this happens, activists tend to entrench in their circles and shout at each other, and the rest of the population ignores them and continues onward with their standard assumptions.