Once, I nearly got lynched in a sociology class.
We were discussing domestic violence (because that is, ultimately, the point of most sociology classes run by women in general and feminists in particular). After much throwing around of angry bromides and accusations against men for the wretched crime of their existence, someone invoked the “no excuse for domestic violence” cliché, which was then echoed and repeated by nearly all present.
I was a youth mentor between 1989 and 2014, and was familiar both with the statistics and culture of domestic violence in the US. So I threw in the fact that, according to official reports from the Dept of Health & Human Services, women in general and mothers in particular were responsible for about 2/3 of violent child abuse.
Naturally, “it’s not the same thing!” They began to venture all kinds of reasons why we needed to “understand what was happening first” before “rushing to judgment” on female abusers. They began to rationalize, and after a couple of them I began to write them on the whiteboard:
- the child was being disobedient and needed discipline
-
the definition of “abuse” is too broad and easily misinterpreted
-
sometimes kids are just egging you on
-
you don’t know, you weren’t there!
-
kids lie because they know CPS will act on unfounded claims
…and so forth.
Then I pointed out that ALL OF THOSE could just as easily be used to justify a man slapping a woman around:
- the woman was being disobedient and needed discipline
-
the definition of “abuse” is too broad and easily misinterpreted
-
sometimes a woman is just egging him on
-
you don’t know, you weren’t there!
-
women lie because they know police and social agencies will act on unfounded claims
…and so forth.
The women got REALLY quiet… then exploded like Vesuvius. There was talk of having me kicked out of the class, and I was labeled all manner of horrible things. But I stood my ground, since the facts were on my side and–unlike Duke or U of VA–could be readily produced and objectively assessed.
Happily nothing came of it other than a lot of ugly looks and various snide comments about my undisguised “misogyny” (which is Feminist for “he who wants to protect children, even from women”). But what an excellent demonstration of Michael Crichton’s statement about a role-reversal scenario being a powerful instrument for determining where our rules and ethics REALLY lie.
The premise behind their objection to man/woman violence was that it’s unfair for a big person to hit a small person. This is true. But the premise falls apart under simple observation: there is nothing more out-of-control than a person who knows that her actions will not reap any real consequences. In this, women own a two-way advantage. A woman accusing a man of abuse will be assisted without concern to the man’s side of the story, as demonstrated in microcosm by the episode in the Sociology class. But a woman accused of abusing a child will be allowed to defend herself–often in the judgment of other women of similar background and sympathetic leaning–before any corrective or disciplinary action comes around. Further, she will enjoy (and I do not use that word lightly) the assistance and defense of other parties who lean forward to her defense without solicitation. And this is partly what informs the 2/3 majority in violent child abuse: a woman knows she will be the sympathetic party, and acts accordingly.
And this–I must add here–is merely what they DO report. There’s a glut of violence committed by women that’s either ignored, denied, excused, rationalized, or blame-shifted by women or sympathetic male social workers, teachers, and others in positions of authority. And woe to the man who reports it as violence, for he shall be cast out for “misogyny” by those protecting the woman.
