The domestic violence industry and ‘men are stronger than women’ victim-blaming
As the true state of domestic violence begins to be understood, various bodies start being aware that it isn’t just women who are victims but men and children, too. There is an industry around domestic violence, however which is earning handsome sums of money from those who organise meetings costing over $100 a head per day, to well-paid writers, onto managers of domestic violence shelters with incomes in six figures. This industry has an investment in keeping the narrative in ‘men=abuser, women=victim’ and can be seen to be active in protecting its own interests, regardless of the damage done to households.
Many people who deny that men can be victims of domestic violence claim that it is impossible because “men are stronger than women.”
Firstly, it is important to recognise that this is a generalisation, not a truth for every couple. The average man is stronger than all but the strongest of women but the weakest 20% of men are weaker than the average woman.
That said, physical strength isn’t what domestic abuse is about. When domestic abuse becomes violent, the attacker is rarely thinking straight. After all, they are physically attacking somebody who they would – in a calmer moment – profess to love. Like most criminals, the rational thought process is either restricted or being overridden by emotion. The attacker isn’t stopping to think about what they are doing: they just attack.
Most domestic violence is reciprocal. Much of it builds from some petty dispute or slight – imagined or real – and blows up into an argument. But instead of being a clearing-out-the-issues kind of argument, it descends into name-calling and other verbal abuse and from there into pushing or slapping and from there into a knee in the groin, a punch, a swing with the nearest item as a weapon. It is ugly, unhelpful, damaging physically, emotionally and spiritually. And that is the majority of what domestic violence is about: two people who should be showing love instead having a mutually-hateful and damaging brawl. If anyone asks them later, without first telling them that OF COURSE they are the only victim, then neither of them can usually be sure who slung the first insult, who first made it physical and who first made an attack intended to injure.
In non-reciprocal violence, the victim is almost always at an emotional disadvantage. They don’t want to fight, they are still able to think rationally and just want it to end. It doesn’t matter whether they are a woman or a man, nor does it matter whether the attacker is a male or a female: they simply do not want to fight. Who cares which is tougher of them? The strongest man can be beaten up by an anorexic woman if he does not want to fight. In a street brawl, sure, he isn’t likely to have many problems. In a situation in his home with the woman he loves, it’s a different picture.
Lastly, I just want to highlight what those who say that men cannot be beaten up because they are stronger are promoting. They are as good as saying that if a (weaker) woman that they love does attack them, their correct action is to USE THEIR STRENGTH IN VIOLENCE against the woman. That is the message being sent out to men by those who deny that men might be victims: fight back, hit women, cause more domestic violence. When a man does that, when a man uses his greater strength to his advantage, he is then treated as a violent thug, the woman as a victim and around we go feeding into the feminist narrative that only men are violent, which funds feminist organisations billions of dollars in world-wide revenue.
If we want to improve domestic harmony and cut domestic violence then we must deal with the issues with knowledge, sympathy, accuracy and without bias.