If someone were to question why men and boys are told not to hit women and girls, even in self defense, then most likely the most frequent answer would be that men and boys are, in general, physically stronger. In some cases, the same can be said about why violence against males in general should be taken less seriously than violence against females. However, this does not appear to be the sole reason. In reality, feminists want female privilege and extra protection.
For those of you who are not yet properly aware of the double standards, allow me to elaborate:
[unordered_list style=”arrow”]
- In general, violence against men and boys is taken less seriously than violence against women and girls;
- Men and boys are not allowed to hit women and girls, but the reverse is considered acceptable;
- Men and boys are not even allowed to defend themselves against women and girls. A man or boy could be punished severely for defending himself while the woman or girl could receive little to no punishment for a severe form of violence;
- In mutual violence, the man or boy is punished more severely and the woman or girl may not even be punished at all.
[/unordered_list]
BULLYING OF WEAK MALES
First of all, I’d like to ask you all a question. Which of these two groups is given extra protection and biased support? Is it “females” or just “people who are less physically strong?”
Why is it that the men and boys who are most prone to violence and bullying are those who are less physically strong than the average male? This is true not only in real life, but it is also portrayed the same way in the media. How often have you seen or heard of the common trope where a mean bully actively picks on, beats up, and destroys the well-being of “nerds” and other weak boys for the sheer pleasure of it?
Although this form of violence is usually male-on-male (though there may be infrequent cases of female perpetrators) one can argue that this contradicts the feminist excuse that the reason that violence against males is taken less seriously is because they are stronger. These “nerds” and other weak boys have less physical strength than the average boy and some may even have the same amount, or in some cases even less, physical strength as the average girl. Do they receive any more sympathy because of this? Usually not! Like most violence against males in the media, it is portrayed as not only acceptable, but funny. The fact that they aren’t physically strong doesn’t change that.
So, if the reason females are given more protection from violence is because they’re less physically strong, then why aren’t these weaker males given the same protection and support?
So in conclusion, the answer is “females,” and not simply “people who are less physically strong.”
MALE-vs.-FEMALE SELF-DEFENSE
We now know that in order to receive sympathy and protection from violence when you are not physically strong, you must have female genitalia. Oh wait a minute…I think part of what I just wrote is questionable. More specifically, the part that says “when you are not physically strong” may not be properly fact-checked. The question here is: does a female even need to lack the physical strength of a male to receive access to this special privilege? Another question is: in a fight between a male and female, does the female need to be weaker than the male in order to throw out the gender-biased “men/boys can’t hit women/girls” excuse, even when the male is only defending himself?
The answer to both these questions is a flat-out no. The excuse can be used regardless of the relative physical strength of the male and the female. One particular example of this, and remember that this is only an example, is how this biased rule is applied to prepubescent children. Before puberty, boys and girls have the same amount of natural strength [1], and any additional strength one has is purely socially constructed. Yet, boys of that age are still dressed down for hitting girls, even if done in self defense.
I have even personally witnessed strong teenage girls physically attacking weaker teenage boys and when the boy does anything in self-defense, the excuse that “boys shouldn’t hit girls” is still called out.
So in conclusion, the actual strength of the individuals has no effect. While they say the reason violence against males is taken less seriously because males are in general stronger, individual exceptions to the stereotype seem to make very little difference, if any. The excuse is based solely on the general traits of the genders, and not on the actual traits of the individuals.
VIOLENCE WITHOUT PHYSICAL STRENGTH
So now we know physical strength doesn’t really make much of a difference in the matter. It’s really based solely on gender, and the excuse of physical strength is just something used by feminists and other gynocentrists to justify discrimination against men. There is, however, another thing to debate. What if the case in question doesn’t involve physical strength?
One does not need to be physically strong to be violent; they can simply wield a weapon or throw an object. Not only are the effects no more harmful to women than they are to men, but some studies have actually shown women tolerate pain better than men. [2][3] It looks like the feminists have some explaining to do.
If a man were to say that violence against women that doesn’t involve physical strength should be taken less seriously because of this, it would be no less chauvinistic than any of the suggestions feminists have driveled out of their mouths. Not that I truly believe that should be the case, however, as what feminists say is in no way logical. There is some debate to these studies, [4] but whether or not the study is correct, the realistic thing to do is have all forms of violence punished the same way, depending on how serious the individual case is, regardless of gender.
REFERENCES
1. Physical Development in Boys: What to Expect – http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/gradeschool/puberty/pages/Physical-Development-Boys-What-to-Expect.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token
2. ‘MythBusters’ confirms whether women tolerate pain better than men – http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/04/23/mythbusters-confirms-whether-women-tolerate-pain-better-than-men/
3. A New Study Proves That Women Handle Pain Better Than Men – http://ksfm.radio.com/2011/03/22/a-new-study-proves-that-women-handle-pain-better-than-men/ (for reposts: “)
4. What’s Your Pain Tolerance? – http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/features/whats-your-pain-tolerance
