Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
This is video in response to two videos from TJ Kirk also known as The Amazing Atheist.
In the video "the B-Word" he argued that it's not sexist for him to call a woman *** because
he would call another man ***, so he exhibits perfect gender equality in contrast to someone
who would call a man ***, but on the other hand would not call a woman ***, because
he thinks that a woman could not handle such insult. So in TJ's words, this man would be
a sexist for belittling women as being weak and overly sensitive, and of course he would
not show gender equality, as he would treat men wose than women.
Now in another video TJ discusses the incident where Chris Brown hit his now ex-girlfriend
Rihanna. But when you consequently finish that thought on verbal offenses, wouldn't
you have to apply that same standard to physical altercations. Please note that I'm not saying
that we should all beat up our girlfriends and wifes. In fact, in a perfect world, we
wouldn't beat up anybody. Now most men will instantly say "I would never beat a woman!",
but I think that's ***. I mean, what would you do, if a woman was running towards
you with an axe in her hand, ready to slice through your neck? Would you just stand there
and say "Okay, kill me"? No, you would beat the living crap out of her...well, given that
you're physically able to do, which cannot be taken for granted anymore.
Today, women are physically stronger and overall tougher, than they were 50 years ago. The
statement "I would never beat a woman" might be gentlemanlike, but it bears some sexist
value. It's like saying "No woman is ever able to step up to me". Maybe back in the
50s or 60s we could safely assume a woman to be weaker than a man, but that doesn't
hold anymore. Still the legal status on this issue has shifted more and more in favor of
women and in some cases, this is taking outright bizarre forms. It is widely known that both
men and women can initiate violence in a relationship. In fact some forms of domestic violence are
more likely to be initiated by women than by men, although violence against women generally
yields the more serious injuries.
Regardless of who is the offender and who is the victim, law enforcement is practically
everytime in favor of the female partner. Many cases of domestic violence against men
are not reported at all in the fear of social stigmatization. And when they are, charges
are less likely to be filed an prosecuted than charges form women against men.
The current legal situation offers no help to men suffering from a violent relationship.
They can't call the cops, as they probably won't help them, and they can't fight back,
as it would make them the offender. So obviously, when your wife snaps and starts attacking
you, you are supposed to just stand by passively and wait to be beaten up. You can't even prevent
you her from blowing punches, because the moment you touch your wife, you are the offender
even in cases where you acted in self-defense or mutual combat.
In summary: To promote the idea of gender equality, the notion that it's "morally wrong
for men to beat women" should be changed to "It's morally wrong to beat someone who is
apparently weaker than you, regardless if they are male of female, or if you are male
or female". I'd really like to know what you think about this idea, especially what feminists
think about this idea, so feel free to comment!