Pericles, out of the 6 men who have responded to this thread, you are the only one who is supportive of the right of women to use violence. While the sample is small, the result is clear: far from my view being "unique", it seems to be quite well supported, whilst your quaint notions are uniquely yours, it seems.

You base your view on the idea that men are stronger and that the woman, as the weaker person, can therefore use force that would see a man carted off to the watchhouse.

Tell me, do you also support the right of small men to use violence with impunity against larger ones? Should a bigger person always be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a smaller one? On what grounds?

As for insults, when you stop old boy, so will I. It's not often you find your standard fare of snide insinuation challenged, is it? Perhaps you'd do best to stick with Arjay's conspiracy threads: you seem to manage OK there. It's clear you're out of your depth when it comes to genuine discussion.

As one who has taken the white ribbon pledge,in a heart felt way.
As one who has time and again seen the worse side of SOME men SOME women I am baffled by the denials.
We all, the hard way, learn we get only trouble interfering in domestic fights, yet I have and will ,in defense of women.
I need not leave my family, for evidence of female abusing men,controlling them, hitting them.
We are not debating truth here.
But an insistence! that women are special, and better! than men.
Special? I agree, better?
Well than SOME MEN.
Antiseptic stay solid this is bad today but if we can not even talk about the need for fairness balance and change?
Why not a Blue ribbon day for men, a day the trouble and strife agrees to not hit kick or even takes the chain of for a day!

There is no "genuine debate" happening here, R0bert.

>>I most definitely don't tar the entire gender with the same brush. I don't think Antiseptic or Belly do that either (at worst we may use wording that can be misconstrued by those wanting to shut down genuine debate).<<

Just a couple of males generalizing about female-on-male "violence" - I put that in quotes, because as you point out, "the majority of domestic violence does not involve major physical injury to either party."

And as you go on to make clear, "More women are seriously injured than men"

So we have a situation which is pretty unbalanced from the start. Added to which, the example that we are invited to discuss involves no apparent injury. If it had, I am sure Waterstreet would have reported it, in the same mega-dramatic fashion... "before long, he was a mess of blood and tissue, spread across the floor".

From that less-than-injurious start, we have been invited to join a chorus of complaint as to how jolly unfair it all is, and how these ladies should exercise more restraint.

I stand accused of being "the only one who is supportive of the right of women to use violence". I'm clearly wasting my breath trying to point out that no-one, male or female has such a "right". Making the Waterstreet-reported event equivalent to being assaulted in your own home by a physically aggressive wife is not at all realistic.

I don't personally condone violence of any kind. I am only looking for some minuscule sense of perspective to be evident here. So far, I haven't seen any at all.

It has been an "all or nothing" approach, where the playing field is artificially levelled in order to satisfy some impractical notion of "justice".

Mountains. Molehills.

"I don't personally condone violence of any kind. "

No of course not.

"Awwwwww, the poor dear.

"Each blow to the face came from a hand launched from behind her hipline with a thud."

Being slapped by his lady.

I speculate that his crime was the oldest in the book, hence his protests...

"It was nothing, she was a friend."

Yeah, we all know what that means.

Sounds like he took his punishment like a man, though.

"He stood with his arms by his sides, like a soldier..."

It's all you can do, when you know you are in the wrong. Suck it up."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4912#131166

Quite clearly you do condone violence of at least one kind.

R0bert

I see that Pericles has skulked off without answering my simple questions:"do you also support the right of small men to use violence with impunity against larger ones? Should a bigger person always be held to a higher standard of behaviour than a smaller one? On what grounds? "

Hardly surprising: when the innuendo and insinuation doesn't work and the cheer squad is absent, he's got nothing to say. 'twere ever thus with those who prefer to jerk the knee than consider matters.

Of course, it may be that he has realised his basic error and prefers to hope that it won't be noticed by anyone, but that doesn't seem very likely.

The entire point as far as I am concerned, R0bert, is the mammoth fuss being made over the trivial incident, as reported.

I do not condone violence. It would clearly have been preferable if the young lady in question had said "now look here, old chap, let's sit down and have a nice little chat about your philandering ways". He would have hated that much more - you know, the dreaded "we need to talk" talk.

As far as I'm concerned, she gave him a slap. I do not consider that to be violence worth any serious consideration whatsoever. Certainly not the context in which it was subsequently considered on this thread.

You saw it as "violence", a generalization that allows you to give it the same weight as being attacked with a knife in your own kitchen by a vicious harridan who then makes off with your worldly goods. I do not consider that to be a reasonable parallel

Particularly as Waterstreet is not exactly famous for understatement.