***Disclaimer*** Just want to make it very clear that I believe all domestic voilence is wrong whether the perpetrator is male or female but I wish to discuss this out of interest****
Another post has brought to my attention a differing feeling within me, between when a man is abusive vs when a woman is abusive. I've always been opposed to domestic violence and I've always seen it as being where a man is the perpetrator and the woman the victim. Even though I know that the opposite can happen, it's not as common so I don't often think of it. But sometimes I do think about it and this other post has brought it to my attention again how different I feel between the two.
I have this thing in my head and I do believe the law also has a thing about reasonable force. So if someone comes at you with a stick and you get a baseball bat and belt the sh out of him then you're at fault because the balance is wrong. If someone slaps you across the face and you defend yourself by kicking him until he's dead...you're in the wrong etc etc. (reasonable force)
Bearing this in mind, I can't help but feel the same way when it comes to woman abusing men. Most, if not all women are weaker than men and when I hear of a woman hitting a man, although I know it's wrong, I dont' feel as shocked or angered as I do if I hear that the man hit on a woman. In my relationship, if I was to hit my husband, it would be a with my puny fists that would do next to no damage whatsoever, but if he was to hit me...he could injure me severly purely because he is stonger than I am. Yet we would both be in the wrong if we hit each other.
But I can't help but think that he would be MORE in the wrong than I would be because he has the potential to cause a lot more damage than I do. (reasonable force)
I've had this discussion many times with my husband and he's pointed out my hypocricy so I know it's there It's just that I can't help but feel that the size and strength of the person doing the abuse should be taken in consideration when thinking how 'wrong' something is.
I have the same issues in my family...when my 9 year old girl goes to hit my 13 year old boy...it's wrong and I deal with her but when my 13 year old boy hits my 9 year old girl...the difference in their size and strength means that I'm a whole heck of a lot angier at my son because he is bigger and could cause more damage to my 9 year old and I feel well within my rights to be more angry at him, being as how he CAN do more damage than my daughter can...he's also more agressive about it than she is also.
So am I the only one that kinda feels like a self-righteous hypocrite here?? I just can't help but see the two scenarios as being difference based solely on the damage potential one gender has over the other.
(Yes I do know that some men are very small and weak and some women are large and butch. But I'm more talking general where the man is of average size and strength and capabilities (and more) and the woman is of average size, strength and capabilities (and less). Besides which I have met some pretty weedy men in my life and they have all still been stronger and more capable than I am so believe that it would be very very rare for a man to be that much weaker than a women....possible but rare. I'm speaking more general here, for the sake of argument)