Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Hitting back

I sometimes run across the slogan that "real men don't hit women". I've seen this slogan in evangelical circles as well. Usually the context involves domestic violence. The abusive boyfriend or wife-beater. Of course, abusive boyfriends and wife-beaters don't pay attention to this slogan.

In classic Hollywood movies there was the trope of the woman who slaps a man. But a man didn't slap a woman in return.

I think the cultural assumption behind this honor code is that because women are weaker than men, a woman slapping a man is physically harmless. A real man is tough enough to take a slap in the face by a woman. In addition, there's the traditional view that men have an asymmetrical duty to protect women. 

Logically, the double standard breaks down in feminism–which doesn't prevent feminists from exploiting double standards so long as they benefit women at the expense of men.

Carried to an extreme, the double standard means a man is supposed to forfeit the right of self-defense so long as the assailant is a woman. Conversely, that puts him in legal jeopardy he exercises the right of self-defense. The double standard creates a presumption of male domestic abuse in a physical altercation between the husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend. 

There are basically two potential standards:

1. A uniform standard

If violence against women is wrong, then violence against men is wrong, and the sex of the assailant is irrelevant. If a woman has a right to defend herself, then a man has a right to defend himself. 

2. Gender-specific standards

There are different rules for men and women. This breaks down in four ways:

i) How men relate to men

ii) How men relate to women

iii) How women relate to women

iv) How women relate to men

However, this honor code only works if both sides play by the rules for each sex. A man should treat a woman like a lady if she acts like a lady. If, however, a woman acts like a man, she's playing by male rules, in which case a man is free to treat her like a man. 

It violates the rules for a woman to play by male rules but forbid a man to play by male rules in return. Even if there are asymmetrical rules, it's cheating unless the rules are consistently applied. 

3. While a man has a right to protect himself from physical harm, if the assailant is a woman, and the man is stronger, then the amount of force needs to be calibrated. It would be inappropriate to use the same amount of force required to repel a male assailant. 

2 comments:

  1. The assymetrical duty of men to protect women seems to me to be axiomatic given the (in the main) physical inequality between men and women in relationships.

    If a woman goes on the attack, a man is perfectly entitled to restrain her (or preferably beat a hasty retreat to the pub - one must grab one's opportunities by the horns!), but he'll hopefully do so using 'reasonable force.'

    Of course, there obviously exists some grey areas, and indeed exceptions to the rule, but these would only serve to establish that general rule.

    Given the rise of the gender lunatics, this presents problems I doubt they'd be willing to consistently face. But since that absurdity lies outside the realm of objective reality, I think we can ignore them.

    ReplyDelete