So, I saw a video posted by Cristina Rad in which a woman defends men who beat women. Her justification? The woman might be nagging him. I recall thinking to myself that this was a lone nutjob preaching to nobody and proceeded to ignore her.
Turns out she has a following. I mean, it’s probably a following of men who want to feel justified in hitting a woman, but it’s still a following. Just…wtf? I read this article linked by Ed Brayton and about had my head asplode. Watching this woman try to use reason is like watching a toddler trying to dunk a basketball.
Here is the quote from her. She’s defending a piece titled, no shit, A Domestic Violence Manifesto which is based on the thesis that, “Women should be terrorized by their men; it’s the only thing that makes them behave better than chimps.” (trigger warning for domestic abuse below the fold)
I used to live under a young couple with a baby. I’d listen as she followed him from room to room upstairs, stomping, slamming things, throwing things, screaming. After about an hour, he’d eventually hit her, and everything would go quiet. An hour after that, they’d be out with the baby in the stroller, looking perfectly content with each other.
A man I know who has experience with men in abusive relationships would get his clients to answer a questionare. Things like, “after the violence, did you have sex?” “If so, how would you rate the sex?” 100% of men in reciprocally abusive relationships said “yes” to the first, and “scorching” to the second.
He also posited that the much-quoted cycle of violence–the build-up, the explosion, the honeymoon period–correlates with foreplay, orgasm and post-coital bliss.
Erin Pizzey called it “consensual violence”, and said in the main, that was the type she’d see at her shelter. It is also the type that results in the most severe injuries in women, surprise surprise, likely because our “never EVER hit a woman” mentality has those men waiting until they completely lose control of their emotions before giving their women what they’re demanding.
The DV in Sleeping with the Enemy is the most rare form out there, half as common as “matriarchal terrorism”, and injuries are typically less severe. It’s seriously foolish to treat all cases like the most rare type, and refuse to address women’s instigation and participation in violence.
I don’t really find too much in the article that strikes me as seriously ethically questionable. DV isn’t pretty. Neither is the article.
So, if you’re annoyed at a woman, that justifies hitting her? In fact, you should hit her early in your annoyance, lest you beat the living shit out of her later when you’re really mad? Of course, the fault will be hers for annoying you, not yours for having the physicality of a grown man but an infant’s mastery of your emotions.
Pro tip: if you’re dating someone who annoys you, the solution is TO STOP FUCKING DATING THEM!!! The solution is not to hit them. This is going to blow your fucked up little mind, but it’s actually possible to have good sex without beating your partner. Even if I were to grant the premise that beating a woman against her will resulted in awesome sex (I don’t, that premise is stupid), that’s like saying you should stab yourself because it releases endorphins. No, it’s not: it’s like saying you’re doing someone else a favor by stabbing them because it releases endorphins. The response is simple: try bowling, it releases endorphins without the pain you didn’t get permission to inflict. Also, you’re a terrible human being.
I wonder if the same strained reasoning works on children. After all, kids annoy their parents and our “never EVER hit a child” mentality has those parents waiting until they completely lose control over their emotions before giving their kids the ass-kicking they’re demanding.
So why not give them a good thrashing when they don’t wash the dishes to keep them from getting pregnant later (that’s when you’re so mad that the crowbar comes out, and nobody wants their child to make them do that)? That’s why the children of abusive parents always turn out so well-adjusted and happy, right?
Wait, every psychologist on the fucking planet says that’s not the case? Well I’ll be damned. What about men hitting women? Ditto? But…I knew a couple one time where the guy regularly lost control and beat the woman and they looked happy in public, even though I’m fully aware that the woman in the relationship frequently displayed signs of unhappiness (screaming, crying) because I could hear her in the apartment above me. I’m going to believe they really were happy, that it was on account of him smacking her, and that psychologists don’t know shit. Men’s rights, woooooooo!
If you need a psychologist to tell you that being beaten doesn’t lead to psychological health, you have an immunity to the obvious that makes me wonder how you manage to turn on the computer so you can type stupid shit on reddit. The idea that you’re a good person because you hit someone smaller than you when you’re aggravated is repugnant and could not be a greater inversion of reality. As much as it annoys me though, I won’t hit anyone over it, because I’m an adult with a conscience.
Who the fuck argues that it’s their right to harm another human being because they’re upset? Shitty people, that’s who.