Author: Hannah Wallen
Ask
a
feminist
what
feminism
is
about,
and
the
answer
you’re
most
likely
to
get
is
a
statement
about
fighting
for
equality.
Look
carefully
at
the
combination
of
stances
which
mainstream,
established
feminist
groups
take
on
intimate
partner
violence,
and
“feminism
is
about
fighting
for
equality”
is
quickly
exposed
as
a
bald-faced
lie.
In
response
to
discussion
on
reciprocal
intimate
partner
violence,
and
men
defending
against
assault
by
a
female
partner,
the
feminist
position
is
that
there
is
never
any
circumstance
that
justifies
a
man
“hitting”
a
woman.
For
context,
I
should
point
out
that
in
this
type
of
discussion,
any
use
of
any
kind
of
physical
force
or
resistance
by
a
man
ends
up
getting
described
by
feminists
as
“hitting,”
regardless
of
the
context
of
the
action.
If
a
woman
throws
a
punch
at
a
man,
and
he
puts
his
arm
up
to
take
the
punch
with
his
forearm
instead
of
his
face
or
his
chest,
that’s
him
“hitting.”
If
she
jabs
at
him
with
a
sharp
object,
and
he
takes
it
from
her,
that’s
him
“hitting.”
If
he
can’t
flee
from
her
assault
without
going
past
her,
any
touch
she
feels
or
imagines
as
he
goes
by
is
him
“hitting.”
If,
to
stop
her
attempt
to
hurt
him,
herself,
or
anyone
else,
he
physically
restrains
her
with
a
bear
hug,
that’s
him
“hitting.”
The
sheer
hypocrisy
of
the
assertion
that
there
could
be
any
reason men
should
have
no
right
to
physically
defend
themselves
from
female
abusers
is
evidenced
by
the use
of
“battered
women’s
syndrome”
as
a
defense
for
women
who
kill
their
partners.
Place
the
two
assertions
side
by
side,
and
reduce
them
to
their
most
basic
nature,
and
you
have,”it’s
acceptable
to
escalate
domestic
abuse
to
a
more
violent
level,
as
long
as
the
person
escalating
to
greater
violence
is
a
female
claiming
self-defense.”
Adding
to
that
hypocrisy
is
that
part
of
the
battered
woman
argument
is
based on
treating
the
woman
as
if
she’s
trapped
in
the
relationship.
Feminists
do
not
afford
abused
men
the
same
consideration,
even
in
light
of
the
gender
difference
in
ability
to
escape
an
abusive
environment,
where
women
arguably
have
it
easier.
Abused
women
(or
even
allegedly
abused
women)
who
decide
to
leave
an
intimate
partnership
have
resources
every
step
of
the
way,
especially
in
the
U.S.
where
domestic
abuse
law
is
based
on
the
idea
that
abusers
are
men,
and
victims
are
women.
Even
without
alleging
abuse,
a
woman
has
advantages
in
leaving
a
marriage
or
a
partnership
which
has
produced
one
or
more
children.
In
the
legal
arena,
the
default
standard
for
her
to
get
at
least
primary
residential
custody
of
the
children,
and
there
are
many
areas
in
which a
divorcing
man
is
expected
to
at
least
in
part
continue
to
financially
support
his
ex-wife
after
she
no
longer
lives
with
him
even
if
there
are
no
children
(alimony).
Once
abuse
is
alleged,
she
has
additional support
from
police,
criminal
courts,
and
domestic
violence
victim’s
advocacy
organizations,
who
are
all
geared
to
think
of
the
accuser
as
“the
victim”
from
the
moment
she
states
her
accusation.
A
woman
with
victim
status
is
afforded leniency
regarding
her
own
behavior,
and
aggressively
protected
from
conditions
to
which
she
might
be
averse.
In
the
U.S.,
she
is
even
provided
an
advocate
paid
for
with
federal
funding,
to
see
her
through
the
process
of
prosecuting
her
alleged
abuser.
The
combined
resources
dedicated
to
abused
women
will
provide her
with
legal
protection,
recourse
within
the
criminal
justice
system,
shelter,
and
financial
assistance where
needed.
Many
domestic
abuse
victim’s
advocacy
organizations
will
support
an
accuser
in
her
effort
to
get custody
of
and
financial
support
for
her
children.
Her
case
will
be
addressed from
the
position that
she
is
a
victim
recovering
from
trauma,
with
related
needs
and
quirks
that
must
be
taken
into
account.
She’ll
be
offered
therapy
to
help
her
in
her
recovery.
In
other
words,
there
is
plenty
of
government-sponsored
support
for
an
abused
woman
to
gain
freedom
from
her
abuser.
A
man
doesn’t
get
the
same
benefits.
In
addition
to
the
bias
against
him
in
civil
court
which
translates
into
a
woman’s
ability
to
punish
him
financially
if
he
chooses
to
abandon
a
marriage,
as
a
direct
result
of
feminist
activism
in
the
area
of
domestic
violence,
despite
existing
evidence
that
intimate
partner
violence
is
not
a
gendered
issue, systems
intended
to
assist
victims
are
designed
to
exclude
those
who
are
male.
Policy
at
these
organizations
and
agencies
is
built around
a
male
aggressor/female
victim
model.
Resources
are
dedicated to
accommodating
female
victims,
with
little
or
nothing
left
for
male
victims.
Instead
of
the
consideration
and
compassion
that
gets
offered
to
female
victims,
the
male
victim
faces
marginalization
and
false
labeling.
He
has
a
strong
chance
of
being
told
that
victim’s
advocacy
organizations
are
funded and
designed
to
serve
only
women,
and
being
given
a
number
for
a
hotline
for
men
that
leads
to
a
system
designed
to
handle
abusers
seeking
psychological
treatment,
where
he’ll
be
treated
as
such
instead
of
offered
assistance for
his
actual
situation.
Organizations
which
do
offer
help to
men
do
not
offer
them
assistance that
equals
what
they
offer
women.
Men
cannot
stay
in
the
same
shelter
because
as
men,
they’re
considered
dangerous.
If
housing
is
offered,
it’s
usually
a
short
stay
in
a
hotel
room,
which
doesn’t
help
men
trying
to
escape
abusive
partners
with
their
children
in
tow.
Abused
fathers who
don’t
want
to
leave
their
kids
with
abusive
mothers
are
shit-outta-luck.
They
may
receive
some
legal
assistance if
they’re
poor
enough
to
qualify,
but
they
won’t
receive
the
same
level
of
support
in
establishing
custody
of
and
support
for
their
children
as
is
offered to
abused
mothers.
If
that
lack
of
support
leaves
the
abuser
with
custody
of
the
children,
then
the
burden
of
making
child
support
payments
will
be
added
to
the
hurdles
the
abused
man
faces
in
his
effort
to
leave
the
relationship.
Law
enforcement
is
often
no
help
to
them,
and
can
even
present
added
danger.
In
the
U.S.,
mandatory
arrest
and
primary
aggressor
policies
lead police
to
respond
to
female-perpetrated
partner
violence
by
arresting
the
victim.
In
many
counties,
mandatory
prosecution
policies
guarantee
that
the
injustice
begun
by
arresting
the
victim
will
continue
with
dragging
him
into
court,
and
putting
him
through
a
trial
in
which
he
will
be
accused
of
violence
and
face
potential
jail
time.
It’s
rare
for
a
man
abused
by
his
female
partner
to
find
adequate
assistance
within
either
system,
and
the
law
enforcement
and
justice
system
may
actually
add
to
the
abuse
instead
of
helping
him
to
escape
from
it.
Feminists
support
the
battered
women’s
syndrome
murder
defense
as
if
violence
were
the
only
option
available
for
an
abused
woman
to
escape
her
abuser.
The
same
group
has
fought
to
create
an
environment
that
punishes
men
for
leaving
a
relationship
with
a
female
partner,
and
to
deny
assistance
to
male
victims
of
female
violence.
After
all
of
that,
now
they
argue
that
an
abused
man
genuinely
trapped
in
his
environment
should
not
have
the
right
to
defend
himself
from
his
abuser,
and
they
call
any
statement
to
the
contrary
“apologia”
and
“endorsement
of
violence
against
women.”
If
the
mere
suggestion
that
a
trapped
male
victim
of
female
violence
should
be allowed
to
defend
himself
is
endorsement
of violence
against
women…how
much
more
is
the
effort
feminists
have
made
to
establish a
woman’s
“right”
to
abuse
her
male
partner
with
impunity,
with
the
power
to
make
him
stay
and
take
it,
an
endorsement
of
violence
against
men?
But
of
course,
feminism
is
about
fighting
for
equality…as
long
as
we
all
understand
that
some
people
are
more
equal
than
others.
Original Story on AVFM
These stories are from AVoiceForMen.com.
(Changing the cultural narrative)