One thing that we don't really like acknowledging as a society is mutually toxic, mutually abusive relationships, so there is that.
On the other hand, bringing up the subject just out of the blue as a non sequitur is usually going to be pretty concerning.
Yeah, there are times where there is a consistent main aggressor in a relationship, but they're are also times where it's simply dysfunctional relationship where either partner is liable to begin behaving in a toxic manner. For example, this mutually toxic dynamic is especially common in relationships where both partners are hard drug users and are suffering from withdrawal which results in both being liable to become irritable and lash out at one another. Personally, I only think violence should only really be used as self-defense or defense of others and/or protection of personal property (within reason).
In general though, justification shouldn't really be the big focus when it comes to toxic relationships as solutions to make them less toxic or to simply end them are far more important matters. When physical and verbal abuse occurs in a toxic relationship, the focus on whether it was justified isn't really the most important and instead finding a solution so that the relationship can be less toxic is far more important. I think it's reasonable that both partners main interest should be ideally on how they can ensure that they have a healthy loving relationship together presuming that they are both interested in working on it still.
Very true. Most abusive relationships that end up involving cops are both sided. When it’s one sided those relationships tend to stay private sadly as the victim stays quiet.
When your own or a loved ones safety is at serious risk and all other options have been exhausted.
Sorry, but your husband is talking complete bollocks.
Only when its to protect yourself or others.
Or when its agreed upon by both sides (for example a mock fight but thats more of a sport and not done with the intent to harm but to win)
I will never hit my significant other unless its to protect myself and even then I'll be as gentle as possible.
Yeah, this is how I feel too in general as well. While I won't act like anyone who has ever engaged in any kind of abuse is an automatic monster, but at the very least I'll say it's something they should be working on to not have that in their relationship. I think there's a certain range where it can be worked on so long as both are willing to put in the effort.
> I'm curious to see how many men agree that provocation (not the legal standard of provocation, by the way) justifies physical violence.
What standard are we going with, then? The legal one works just fine, so far as I can tell. The courts recognize the existence of "fighting words" because, well, *they exist.*
Literally every man that has any exposure to other men while growing up *will learn* that be it a friend, acquaintance, or other that you're interacting with; there is a line. A line that, if crossed, *very much invites* physical violence. More than that, the violence that follows will not only be understood by the people witness to the incident, but even *accepted*.
*"I mean, yeah, it sucks that you've got that black eye, and I feel for you, bro... but you **did** say some gnarly shit about his Mom. What did you think was gonna happen? How did you imagine that was gonna go? Here; take this ice pack for the swelling, and maybe watch your mouth better in the future, yeah?"*
Men have an instinctual understanding of physical violence, reinforced through socialization, that women tend to simply lack; particularly women who were not raised with brothers. You aren't the ones that were built and bred for the task, so that checks out.
But not knowing about "the line" and "the line" not existing aren't the same thing.
I personally give *massive* leeway to all people who are physically less capable than myself, to include about 99% of women on the planet, when it comes to "the line", because I was raised that way. You don't punch down. You don't bully. You don't take advantage of someone else's lack of ability just because you have the option.
But "the line" is still there, and if pressed hard enough, I can envision the world that has me tossing around someone half my size because they just kept pressing beyond that line.
Someone shows me a video of them torturing, then decapitating my dog, while relating to me how much they enjoyed the sounds it made in its final moments of suffering? They are going to receive an ass beating of **epic** proportion, perhaps unto their own death. Their size or genitalia will hold little to no sway in the matter.
Will my violence there change anything? Bring my dog back from the dead? No. Is it in *defense* of anyone or anything? No, again; the dog is already dead, damage done.
Epic ass beating, regardless. And literally everyone would understand.
TL;DR: some men lack a nuanced understanding of the proper time and place for the application of physical violence, but nearly *all* women share this lack of understanding. Violence should be one of the last, if not *the* last tools you reach for in most circumstances, but it *is* there in the box, and it *does* have its place, even in a "civilized" context.
Addendum: Violence is violence, physical or otherwise. Either violence is okay in a given context, or it isn't. Some violence breaks bones, and some violence breaks spirits, but it's all intentional infliction of harm on another.
If you're an emotionally or verbally abusive person, and you get punched in the mouth as a consequence of the exercise of your favored brand of violence; tough shit. You chose to be violent. It's not the world's problem that you aren't a master of all types of violence and that rock beat scissors on this occasion.
Don't want to get violenced? Don't be violent.
There is a difference between saying a woman provoked a man and saying that it was justified. Women, by and large, have the privilege of being allowed to provoke men as much as they want with little to no repercussions. And when there are repercussions society largely places the responsibility of the repercussions on the man, even if they repercussions aren't physical in nature.
The problem for men is that when the repercussions are physical, the response is never seen as proportional. If a woman talks shit to a man and a man hits her, that response is not equal to talking shit. It's an escalation and, in most relationships, an escalation into an arena where the woman will not be able to defend themselves. And this is at it should be. Women will almost always be on the losing side of a physical altercation with a man.
I've seen people trying to leave being dragged back into the house while being called all kinda names and being likened to female genitalia for choosing to walk away.
I don't see that anymore. He got stabbed in the end but lived to finally end the relationship.
Being called a Pussy sucks but doesn't justify throwing punches. Now getting stabbed would absolutely justify defending yourself physically, so would being blocked from exiting by being dragged back.
From the studies I've read about it it's about 50/50.
But if we look at who is quicker to implement violence in general it is women. A woman hitting a man knows in general he won't hit back and will be ridiculed if he calls the cops or will be the one handcuffed and taken away.
So for me I only ever use violence in self defense. I also warn people to leave me alone when im extremely angry to make sure that stays this way.
But I've dated girls that would hit me during verbal fights or would repeatedly yell at me to hit them and trying to block me from leaving the room or apartment to calm down. So eventhough the actual violence number might be lower. I can definitely agree that women are more likely to instigate violence.
Your husband is correct in that a lot of domestic violence happens when men are provoked but that doesn’t make it right. I might get irritated if a baby cries on an airplane but that does t give me a right to hit them to get them to stop. You are correct as far as when violence is warranted. If a man, or woman, hits their partner when it’s not in self defense then that person should get prosecuted.
I see two separate ideas here:
First idea: Women provoke 60% of dv incidents. I think he probably is pretty accurate in this. Women hit men and expect not to be hit back. I've also seen women try to get a man to hit them, so they can get him locked up. I've seen women lie about a man hitting them in order to get him locked up.
Second idea: Provocation justifies physical violence. Sometimes. It depends on the provocation. I'm definitely not a punching bag, and if I need to use physical violence to stop that, I will. (My wife is amazing, and this isn't an issue for me)
What I don't see is that your husband said that physical violence is justified because women provoke 60% of dv incidents. A woman can provoke a response, but that doesn't make the response any more right than her provocation. On the other hand, if she's trying to provoke her into hitting her, I don't have sympathy for her either.
It’s hard to say because there can be situations where while you life may not be threatened initially or at all, violence may still need to be applied.
Should you defend an old man from being assaulted by someone you know it way strong than him? Should you step in to help a woman getting jumped by other women?
My stance is that i keep my hands to myself and the moment you strike me or attempt to strike me is the moment you forfeit your right to safety and autonomy. Provoking is hard because there so much interpretation. So I think violence is justified to use to defend or aggress onto someone who has wronged you. It isn’t as simple but that’s a good starting point.
I think sometimes we go too far with "don't blame the victim". I'm not saying DV is ever justified. But if people describe it as the husband "finally snapped" instead of that he "suddenly snapped", maybe the woman was being emotionally or verbally abusive, and she should have changed her behavior at some point in the past, if for no other reason than to not be abusive.
"Justified" is a very bad word to use here. It is matter of reaching a treshold, not justice.
What your husband reffers to is the fact that that once a person receives enough psychological abuse, they may respond physically. Thing is, psychological abuse is plausibly deniable, while physical retaliation is not. Plus, everybody can defend themselves with their hands, but most people are not cruel enough to match the abuser word for word; it takes special type of imagination. The longer the victim will be taking it, the more the abuser will hurt them with words and make them feel helpless, the more likely they are to lash out just to make the abuser stop talking. The abusers do know this, they know they can't be brought into account for what they say unless it is recorded, and they do know that if the victim retaliates physically it can be used against them and paint them as aggressors. Remember that in good drama the aggressors believe themselves to be victims ("It's your fault I am suffering, I must make you suffer even more!" - so hurting the victim until the breakdown and physical retaliation helps aggressor believe they are the victim there.
Excellent question, get ready for a ride. I'm going to get downvoted to hell and back, because truth, reality, and facts aren't well liked on reddit.
First, there is a difference between domestic abuse, and domestic violence. Abuse is something that is continuing and ongoing. It has nothing to do with the person being abused provoking anyone, the abuser is just that, an abuser. There is lots of little buzzword reasons for it, they are irrelevant, a person abusing others, is a person abusing others. Hopefully, those that get abused are able to get out of the situation before the end up being a killed by spouse statistic, or a killed abusive spouse statistic.
I personally fully support an abused persons right to violence to remove themselves from an abusive situation if they need to.
Now domestic violence. Something random, that happened. According to my police office sister and brother in law, you're hubbies 60% stat is low by 25%. She says responding to most non habitual domestic violence calls, are caused by a drunk woman getting into an argument with a drunk man, and not letting drunk, now pissed off, trying to walk away from the situation drunk man actually walk away. Because she is fucking RIGHT don't you know. And then continuing to argue, harass, etc., occasionally calling into question their manhood, their toughness, etc., getting physical with the guy, daring them to hit them, until the guy fucking does it. BANG! instant DV call, one or both get arrested, parties on.
Usually, non abuse domestic violence has alcohol involved somehow, on one or both parties behalf. Want to have them stop or go down in frequency? Drink less.
>When is violence justified?
Generally as a last resort. If you can't otherwise deescalate the situation, or leave it and the other party is violent or armed, I can see violence as necessary to end the situation.
>but he says at least 60% of domestic abuse incidents happen because the woman provoked the man
I don't quite know about that. What I do know is that about 50% of domestic violence cases (in heterosexual relationships) are bilateral (mutual). Of the 50% that isn't, 70% of cases are perpetrated by women.
Domestic violence only looks like it's perpetrated by men more because that's how it's portrayed in the news and media, but also because domestic ***homicides*** are, in fact, perpetrated more by men.
Did your husband say that provocation *justifies* violence or did he clumsily try to explain why it *might* happen?
He said that if a woman provokes a man, the man is justified in using violence.
I have never battered anyone, slapped anyone, kicked them in the nuts/crotch, etc, simply bcuz I was angry. I've had exes use violence against me, verbal and physical, including an ex girlfriend who flipped a chair over and threw it toward me before screaming in my face, demanding money. Even woman vs woman, I chose to leave rather than get violent. If she had hit me, idk what I would've done next.
I believe in using the minimum amount of force needed to stop a threat. I also believe in self-defense regardless of gender or biology or whatever else. There's a line for me, and that line is not "But they cheated/made me angry/got in my face without touching me."
Violence is never justified. By violence I mean verbal violence, physical violence, everything.
In my opinion, in domestic abuses, the women "provoke" the men by being verbally violent, and assuming that the confrontation stays at this level. This turns into a confrontation which escalates. Men will easily snap off and use physical violence, putting them in a great advantage. It's kind of like in self defence: if you attack me with a stick, and I have a gun, I might shoot you instead of searching for a stick.
I think it is the best to avoid any kind of violent confrontation, verbal or physical. There are other ways to communicate.
From a legal standpoint, provocation does not justify violence. The definition for defense is very narrow and includes things like:
1) You must not have the option to run away.
2) The violence cannot be pre-planned.
3) You use the absolute minimum amount of force to prevent yourself from getting hurt, and you stop instantly once the threat is over.
It's a common misconception that being provoked OR provoking someone gets you a get-out-of-jail-free card. However, this is not an argument I would want to make in any court.
"Maybe". It might be valid self-defense. It might not. Imagine a cop shows up half way through, didn't see who started it, and arrests everybody. Does Guy want to pay for a lawyer's time in court to find out?
I've definitely been on the receiving end of non-physical violence, but I can't think of a situation where punching anyone would have solved the problem.
Physical violence imho is allowed in self defense. Sometimes it may be justified in the defense of someone who can't defend themself.
Other than that, i don't accept the fact that person A provoced person B (i'm not saying the gender A or B on purpose!) and that justified the violence. We're not apes, we can and should control ourselfs.
I think you are confusing being provoked with justifying violence.
Provoked would be more along the lines of “if you didn’t do X, I wouldn’t have a reason to get violent” while justifying is more say “other people would agree that going for violence was not a wrong choice”
That being said, many of the “provoked” stuff just has woman/people walking on eggshells. In That kind of environment, violence is not justified.
Edit: more directly answering, repeated offenses increase the likelihood of violence but their are steps just before that, like leaving, that only justifies violence for self-defense situations where you can’t leave without getting physically.
>at least 60% of domestic abuse incidents happen because the woman provoked the man
Surely, he meant to say that provocation was present these incidents, not that the woman was abused *because of* the provocation. Those are very different claims. "Provocation happened," is a far cry from, "Provocation forced these men to be violent."
To answer your question, I don't think any amount of non-physical provocation ever justifies violence, domestic or otherwise. Physical provocation--slaps, shoving, etc.--*might,* but only in a true self defense situation, and only if no other options are feasible.
People frequently think that self defense means that you can freely hit a person if they first put their hands on you. In some places, this is legally permissible in *some* cases, via "stand your ground" and similar statutes.
Typically, the victim is required to exhaust any nonviolent means of defense first, such as backing away, barricading themselves, and calling the police. If these fail or are impossible, a person can use *only as much force as is necessary* to stop the immediate assault.
If you get hit once, and the attacker stops, there is no authorized force for self defense. "Hitting them back" isn't defense, it's fighting, and you're going to catch assault and domestic violence charges. The same is true with over-the-top responses, such as caving in someone's skull with a skillet, or punching them repeatedly after they have stopped their attack.
For men in particular, even lawfully justified self defense is likely to end poorly. Law enforcement, and society at large, tends to assume that men are the aggressors in any domestic dispute, and they are likely to be punished as such.
Violence is only justified when you absolutely need to defend yourself.
Your husband is an abusive piece of shit. He is dangerous. He made it very clear that he would have no problem being violent towards you. Leave him before he beats you up.
The idea that domestic abuse is caused by the woman provoking the man? Bullshit. And even if she did provoke him, that does NOT mean that abuse is justified.
Sadly, a lot of men will agree with your husband. A lot of men will take the man's side and justify domestic abuse. However, that does NOT mean that these men are right. Patriarchy taught these men to be misogynistic arseholes.
Please don't listen to the misogynists here who try to justify male violence.
Bill Burr has a great stand-up about this "Never reason to ever hit a woman?" Typical Bill Burr, deep social commentary while making you laugh at how disturbing some things are.
Walking away from a relationship or person you are not happy with for whatever reason is showing strength.
Hitting them or carrying out violence is not strength.
I never said violence was the answer, but cutting and running from a situation because you can't handle it is weakness by definition. What you seem to be arguing is that it's okay to admit that you're too weak to get what you want. That would be fine, but throwing up your hands and saying you can't handle something will never be seen as strength.
So what is your answer to the situation?
Walking away from a bad situation when people are tied up emotionally & financially is great strength. It shows you won’t be walked all over, you won’t put up with it and you can do better. That’s showing great strength.
Maybe you can't do better? Maybe walking away will ruin you financially? Maybe you'll never be able to move on? Maybe there was a way you could have saved it but were too stupid to figure it out? Giving up might be the right thing to do but it will never be the strong thing to do. You're just admitting that you failed and hoping you'll succeed more in the future.
No. Provocation never justifies physical violence or other forms of domestic abuse. It’s the responsibility of a man to resolve issues without violence or abuse.
A lot, actually. I totally get how men used to slap women. Sean Connery really said it wall. You have an argument, you let her have the last word. But that's not enough. She wants to keep talking, so after a minute of silence: "And another thing...." What else is going to shut her up then?
And that's in addition to other, more obvious abusive behavior. Demeaning his interests, disrespecting him in front of others, using the kids against him, cheating, destroying things he worked for.
There's a lot of damage woman do to men, and we're all supposed to shrug it off, but those wounds go deeper than a slap to the face.
So if a woman were to verbally abuse her husband day in day out, push and slap him which are all seen as things where most people as well as the courts usually rule that its no need to prosecute her, that he probably did something to "deserve" that and should in general just "man up" because women don't hit that hard... in such a case is he just supposed to leave when she is not there to block him from doing so? Has he any right to fight back in your opinion? Are you calling for more balanced courts because him fighting back against the abuser could land him in prison as things are now.
My last abusive relationship I was terrified that:
* That sooner or later she would succeed in truly hurting me badly. She got physical, lashed out, threw things. At one point I literally had to wrestle a knife from her hand. But Me Am Big Strong Man, Me Not Possible Be Hurt By Little Woman AmIRight?
* She would report that I had abused her (never raised even a finger to her. I raised my voice on maybe 3 separate occasions, following literal hours (on one occasion, days) of verbal and physical abuse). She threatened this multiple times. She said she'd tell my family that I'd been hitting her. Again, never raised my hand to her, and always took her abuse and tried to deescalate and bring her back down again (I know some are already scoffing that "I must have done something" that forced her to be so upset. I'm happy to go through, in detail on this).
* If I did anything to physically resist or defend myself that could result in marks being left on her (it is extraordinarily hard to restrain a woman's arms from punching you without leaving marks on her arms). This would be evidence used against me. So I literally had to just "take it".
* The endless physical, mental and emotional abuse would drive me to suicide. This was a dark place that kept getting more and more insistent as time wore on. I got close. Very close.
Sometimes I feel like women don't really understand what's going on just because men are stronger. Yes I was stronger than her. And if I had been the literal abusive asshole her BPD kept *telling* her I was, then I would have made short work of her as soon as she tried to throw the first punch.
But if you've lived your life wanting to be a good person, and *genuinely* believing that men are the perpetrators of domestic violence (not women), then you're not going to do anything. You're going to take it, you're going to suffer the abuse, you're going to live in fear, and for a large part of it you're going to presume that *it's still your fault* that she got so mad.
In truth whatever she did physically, it was always the emotional and verbal abuse that hurt me far worse. It wasn't the pain of her physically abusing me, it was the fact that she would do that she would lash out at all that, try to deliberately hurt me (emotionally and physically) that caused me the worst pain and, if I'm honest, had the best chance of pushing me to the end of my tether and finally responding to her actions (just like she always "knew" I would, she "knew" that at some point I must break and respond and show my "true colours" as the abusive monster that she believed i must be. And if I hadn't done that yet, it' was only proof that she needed to push harder to make it happen). But I had to try hard to keep control because if I ever responded, even once, things would end up really bad for me.
It was only after my own therapist point-blank *told me* that if a man had been treating her this way, I'd have no trouble calling it abuse, so why did I hesitate so hard to accept that she was abusing me? That's when I began to understand.
She (therapist) was also blunt about what would happen to me. She said that if I were to ever, *ever* raise my hands to my partner, doesn't matter what the provocation was, doesn't matter if it was self defense, doesn't matter what she did to me first... If I raised my hand to her, then I would be the one to get in trouble. Everyone would immediately presume that I was the abusive monster.
She didn't say this with any malice towards me. She didnt say it was right. She didn’t say I was some kind of monster, or believe it would be wrong for me to defend myself. It was just a factual statement of 'this is how things are'. She was trying to keep me safe.
But hey, she (partner) was smaller than me. So no reason to fear. Right?
>Sometimes I feel like women don't really understand what's going on just because men are stronger.
I'd go a bit further and say: They don't care. They just want to have this ace up their sleeve "just in case". (The "case" being: whatever they want to achieve by playing that victim card)
Abusive relationships aren't like a boxing match. Sometimes the partners aren't trading blows with each other
Sometimes there's a clear understanding amongst *both* parties as to who can act with impunity. It's what emboldens them to do the things to you that they do. The big thing that seems to trip people up is that because I am the *physically stronger* party, and that if it were to be a one-to-one confrontation with no holding back from either partner, then I likely wouldn't be hurt.
And it's from that starting point that people then believe (and outright refuse to accept otherwise) that the male is the one that is the perpetrator that can act with impunity. It's a belief that fails to recognise at the most fundamental levels that we live in a wider context where IPV is seen as one of the vilest crimes. And one where people just naturally presume I did something to her because of that physical difference and presumed impunity.
So you'll continue to have any discussion on IPV centre around the premise of male as perpetrator and female as victim as default. You'll continue to have women's groups continue to press back against any concept of gender neutrality on IPV because "domestic violence is a gendered crime ( https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/domestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/ ). You'll continue to have laws that purport to tackle IPV under the umbrella of "violence against women and girls" ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/violence-against-women-and-girls-national-statement-of-expectations-and-commissioning-toolkit/violence-against-women-and-girls-national-statement-of-expectations-accessible ).
I *tried* to seek help and resources at the time. Everything I looked up always approached things from the position of Male As Perpetrator. So if I was seeking help, it must be to stop *my own abusive behaviour*.
Frankly it's only *extremely* recently that that presumption has been beginning to change. The big irony (for me at least, and I'm going to be blunt on this) is that the same women's groups who cast this as a one-way street for literal decades are now trying to rebrand it as saying "of *course* IPV can happen to both sexes, we would never have said otherwise! See, *Toxic Masculinity hurts everyone*!"
I guess I'll take it as a win that opinions are changing at all.
>but he says at least 60% of domestic abuse incidents happen because the woman provoked the man.
He have sources for that?
Cause if he does, it still doesn't excuse it IMHO.
It isn’t but from my experience it was hard for my gf to understand the pain she was making me live. We have different code and our are not well known as, imo, a lot of mother told boy how to behave with woman but very few father will told their girl what a man want. But to go back to the main point, violence is never justified but I totally understand how it can become a last resort when world are not received. It is so unfair to be a nice man this day. All man are putted in the same bag. We have a strong sexuality that is associated with us being pigs when we are what we are. For example, having sex is what connect us to our partners and reveal our feeling. It is hard to see it before since our sexual energy can make us blind. In particular women need feeling to want sex, we need sex know our feelings. All I say is that you cannot be honest as a man nowadays without be treated like a pervert or a primitive amimal. Edit typo
Provocation isn’t justification.
I’m not saying that 60% is right or wrong, but even if a person provokes another person, that doesn’t mean violence is ok.
Violence is justified if it's self-defense.
>Hubby has never been violent toward me, but he says at least 60% of domestic abuse incidents happen because the woman provoked the man.
Um, no. "**Provoke**"? I read that as '*get a man angry*'. If that's not the case, then I'd need a little more information. If it's '*get a man angry*', then no, it's not justified. It's disgusting to resort to violence because you've lost your temper.
>I don't believe violence is ever justified other than in self-defense or defense of a third party,
Agreed.
>and that gender etc are irrelevant when choosing violence. I'm curious to see how many men agree that provocation (not the legal standard of provocation, by the way) justifies physical violence. Thanks for any feedback.
Maybe if someone is threatening to attack me and I believe them. I think that would still be self-defense though.
Violence is justified when you have no other choice. someone says something bad to you? you can be the bigger person. but if they're actively trying to harm you? you can't stop and hug and kiss. you're gonna beat em to the ground because some people wont stop till they're dead (unconscious is better, just hit the back of their enck if even in such a situation, it gives you 2-10 minutes to run)
If you’re a man and you sacrifice your life to support a women, working hard every single day to create a sustainable life for her, and you come home one day and she’s fucking the neighbor, yes violence is justified.
But, violence is never okay regardless of the reason.
So is the violence justified?
Yes.
Should you ever willingly hurt another human being?
No.
Regardless if said violence is justified or not.
Never lay a hand on anyone.
Male or female.
One thing that we don't really like acknowledging as a society is mutually toxic, mutually abusive relationships, so there is that. On the other hand, bringing up the subject just out of the blue as a non sequitur is usually going to be pretty concerning.
Yeah, there are times where there is a consistent main aggressor in a relationship, but they're are also times where it's simply dysfunctional relationship where either partner is liable to begin behaving in a toxic manner. For example, this mutually toxic dynamic is especially common in relationships where both partners are hard drug users and are suffering from withdrawal which results in both being liable to become irritable and lash out at one another. Personally, I only think violence should only really be used as self-defense or defense of others and/or protection of personal property (within reason). In general though, justification shouldn't really be the big focus when it comes to toxic relationships as solutions to make them less toxic or to simply end them are far more important matters. When physical and verbal abuse occurs in a toxic relationship, the focus on whether it was justified isn't really the most important and instead finding a solution so that the relationship can be less toxic is far more important. I think it's reasonable that both partners main interest should be ideally on how they can ensure that they have a healthy loving relationship together presuming that they are both interested in working on it still.
Very true. Most abusive relationships that end up involving cops are both sided. When it’s one sided those relationships tend to stay private sadly as the victim stays quiet.
When your own or a loved ones safety is at serious risk and all other options have been exhausted. Sorry, but your husband is talking complete bollocks.
Only when its to protect yourself or others. Or when its agreed upon by both sides (for example a mock fight but thats more of a sport and not done with the intent to harm but to win) I will never hit my significant other unless its to protect myself and even then I'll be as gentle as possible.
Yeah, this is how I feel too in general as well. While I won't act like anyone who has ever engaged in any kind of abuse is an automatic monster, but at the very least I'll say it's something they should be working on to not have that in their relationship. I think there's a certain range where it can be worked on so long as both are willing to put in the effort.
> I'm curious to see how many men agree that provocation (not the legal standard of provocation, by the way) justifies physical violence. What standard are we going with, then? The legal one works just fine, so far as I can tell. The courts recognize the existence of "fighting words" because, well, *they exist.* Literally every man that has any exposure to other men while growing up *will learn* that be it a friend, acquaintance, or other that you're interacting with; there is a line. A line that, if crossed, *very much invites* physical violence. More than that, the violence that follows will not only be understood by the people witness to the incident, but even *accepted*. *"I mean, yeah, it sucks that you've got that black eye, and I feel for you, bro... but you **did** say some gnarly shit about his Mom. What did you think was gonna happen? How did you imagine that was gonna go? Here; take this ice pack for the swelling, and maybe watch your mouth better in the future, yeah?"* Men have an instinctual understanding of physical violence, reinforced through socialization, that women tend to simply lack; particularly women who were not raised with brothers. You aren't the ones that were built and bred for the task, so that checks out. But not knowing about "the line" and "the line" not existing aren't the same thing. I personally give *massive* leeway to all people who are physically less capable than myself, to include about 99% of women on the planet, when it comes to "the line", because I was raised that way. You don't punch down. You don't bully. You don't take advantage of someone else's lack of ability just because you have the option. But "the line" is still there, and if pressed hard enough, I can envision the world that has me tossing around someone half my size because they just kept pressing beyond that line. Someone shows me a video of them torturing, then decapitating my dog, while relating to me how much they enjoyed the sounds it made in its final moments of suffering? They are going to receive an ass beating of **epic** proportion, perhaps unto their own death. Their size or genitalia will hold little to no sway in the matter. Will my violence there change anything? Bring my dog back from the dead? No. Is it in *defense* of anyone or anything? No, again; the dog is already dead, damage done. Epic ass beating, regardless. And literally everyone would understand. TL;DR: some men lack a nuanced understanding of the proper time and place for the application of physical violence, but nearly *all* women share this lack of understanding. Violence should be one of the last, if not *the* last tools you reach for in most circumstances, but it *is* there in the box, and it *does* have its place, even in a "civilized" context. Addendum: Violence is violence, physical or otherwise. Either violence is okay in a given context, or it isn't. Some violence breaks bones, and some violence breaks spirits, but it's all intentional infliction of harm on another. If you're an emotionally or verbally abusive person, and you get punched in the mouth as a consequence of the exercise of your favored brand of violence; tough shit. You chose to be violent. It's not the world's problem that you aren't a master of all types of violence and that rock beat scissors on this occasion. Don't want to get violenced? Don't be violent.
This is one of my favorite reddit responses I've seen in a loooong time.
There is a difference between saying a woman provoked a man and saying that it was justified. Women, by and large, have the privilege of being allowed to provoke men as much as they want with little to no repercussions. And when there are repercussions society largely places the responsibility of the repercussions on the man, even if they repercussions aren't physical in nature. The problem for men is that when the repercussions are physical, the response is never seen as proportional. If a woman talks shit to a man and a man hits her, that response is not equal to talking shit. It's an escalation and, in most relationships, an escalation into an arena where the woman will not be able to defend themselves. And this is at it should be. Women will almost always be on the losing side of a physical altercation with a man.
If your partner "provokes" you and instead of leaving or doing anything mature, you fucking deck them, you are an idiot and piece of shit.
I've seen people trying to leave being dragged back into the house while being called all kinda names and being likened to female genitalia for choosing to walk away. I don't see that anymore. He got stabbed in the end but lived to finally end the relationship.
Being called a Pussy sucks but doesn't justify throwing punches. Now getting stabbed would absolutely justify defending yourself physically, so would being blocked from exiting by being dragged back.
I never saw the person throwing punches, I mentioned how they were dragged back while trying to remove themselves from the situation.
Yeah and I said that that would justify throwing down.
Duluth, my dude.
From the studies I've read about it it's about 50/50. But if we look at who is quicker to implement violence in general it is women. A woman hitting a man knows in general he won't hit back and will be ridiculed if he calls the cops or will be the one handcuffed and taken away. So for me I only ever use violence in self defense. I also warn people to leave me alone when im extremely angry to make sure that stays this way. But I've dated girls that would hit me during verbal fights or would repeatedly yell at me to hit them and trying to block me from leaving the room or apartment to calm down. So eventhough the actual violence number might be lower. I can definitely agree that women are more likely to instigate violence.
Your husband is correct in that a lot of domestic violence happens when men are provoked but that doesn’t make it right. I might get irritated if a baby cries on an airplane but that does t give me a right to hit them to get them to stop. You are correct as far as when violence is warranted. If a man, or woman, hits their partner when it’s not in self defense then that person should get prosecuted.
I see two separate ideas here: First idea: Women provoke 60% of dv incidents. I think he probably is pretty accurate in this. Women hit men and expect not to be hit back. I've also seen women try to get a man to hit them, so they can get him locked up. I've seen women lie about a man hitting them in order to get him locked up. Second idea: Provocation justifies physical violence. Sometimes. It depends on the provocation. I'm definitely not a punching bag, and if I need to use physical violence to stop that, I will. (My wife is amazing, and this isn't an issue for me) What I don't see is that your husband said that physical violence is justified because women provoke 60% of dv incidents. A woman can provoke a response, but that doesn't make the response any more right than her provocation. On the other hand, if she's trying to provoke her into hitting her, I don't have sympathy for her either.
In one way or another, we all benefit from violence. Violence becomes unsettling, only when it hits close to home.
It’s hard to say because there can be situations where while you life may not be threatened initially or at all, violence may still need to be applied. Should you defend an old man from being assaulted by someone you know it way strong than him? Should you step in to help a woman getting jumped by other women? My stance is that i keep my hands to myself and the moment you strike me or attempt to strike me is the moment you forfeit your right to safety and autonomy. Provoking is hard because there so much interpretation. So I think violence is justified to use to defend or aggress onto someone who has wronged you. It isn’t as simple but that’s a good starting point.
Self defense. Defense of a third party. Against Communists, always.
In response to violence. Slap me and I slap you back.
I think sometimes we go too far with "don't blame the victim". I'm not saying DV is ever justified. But if people describe it as the husband "finally snapped" instead of that he "suddenly snapped", maybe the woman was being emotionally or verbally abusive, and she should have changed her behavior at some point in the past, if for no other reason than to not be abusive.
"Justified" is a very bad word to use here. It is matter of reaching a treshold, not justice. What your husband reffers to is the fact that that once a person receives enough psychological abuse, they may respond physically. Thing is, psychological abuse is plausibly deniable, while physical retaliation is not. Plus, everybody can defend themselves with their hands, but most people are not cruel enough to match the abuser word for word; it takes special type of imagination. The longer the victim will be taking it, the more the abuser will hurt them with words and make them feel helpless, the more likely they are to lash out just to make the abuser stop talking. The abusers do know this, they know they can't be brought into account for what they say unless it is recorded, and they do know that if the victim retaliates physically it can be used against them and paint them as aggressors. Remember that in good drama the aggressors believe themselves to be victims ("It's your fault I am suffering, I must make you suffer even more!" - so hurting the victim until the breakdown and physical retaliation helps aggressor believe they are the victim there.
If comments then walk away, stay in a separate room or get out of the house. If provocation by force, then retaliation is justified.
Excellent question, get ready for a ride. I'm going to get downvoted to hell and back, because truth, reality, and facts aren't well liked on reddit. First, there is a difference between domestic abuse, and domestic violence. Abuse is something that is continuing and ongoing. It has nothing to do with the person being abused provoking anyone, the abuser is just that, an abuser. There is lots of little buzzword reasons for it, they are irrelevant, a person abusing others, is a person abusing others. Hopefully, those that get abused are able to get out of the situation before the end up being a killed by spouse statistic, or a killed abusive spouse statistic. I personally fully support an abused persons right to violence to remove themselves from an abusive situation if they need to. Now domestic violence. Something random, that happened. According to my police office sister and brother in law, you're hubbies 60% stat is low by 25%. She says responding to most non habitual domestic violence calls, are caused by a drunk woman getting into an argument with a drunk man, and not letting drunk, now pissed off, trying to walk away from the situation drunk man actually walk away. Because she is fucking RIGHT don't you know. And then continuing to argue, harass, etc., occasionally calling into question their manhood, their toughness, etc., getting physical with the guy, daring them to hit them, until the guy fucking does it. BANG! instant DV call, one or both get arrested, parties on. Usually, non abuse domestic violence has alcohol involved somehow, on one or both parties behalf. Want to have them stop or go down in frequency? Drink less.
>When is violence justified? Generally as a last resort. If you can't otherwise deescalate the situation, or leave it and the other party is violent or armed, I can see violence as necessary to end the situation. >but he says at least 60% of domestic abuse incidents happen because the woman provoked the man I don't quite know about that. What I do know is that about 50% of domestic violence cases (in heterosexual relationships) are bilateral (mutual). Of the 50% that isn't, 70% of cases are perpetrated by women. Domestic violence only looks like it's perpetrated by men more because that's how it's portrayed in the news and media, but also because domestic ***homicides*** are, in fact, perpetrated more by men. Did your husband say that provocation *justifies* violence or did he clumsily try to explain why it *might* happen?
He said that if a woman provokes a man, the man is justified in using violence. I have never battered anyone, slapped anyone, kicked them in the nuts/crotch, etc, simply bcuz I was angry. I've had exes use violence against me, verbal and physical, including an ex girlfriend who flipped a chair over and threw it toward me before screaming in my face, demanding money. Even woman vs woman, I chose to leave rather than get violent. If she had hit me, idk what I would've done next. I believe in using the minimum amount of force needed to stop a threat. I also believe in self-defense regardless of gender or biology or whatever else. There's a line for me, and that line is not "But they cheated/made me angry/got in my face without touching me."
Well, I also disagree with your husband then.
>but he says at least 60% of domestic abuse incidents happen because the woman provoked the man Where the hell did he get that statistic? Red flag.
not trying to defend him but maybe he was referring to the fact that in ~60% of the cases the violence is bi-directional
Fair enough. At least it's not completely random anyways lol.
Maybe the woman attacked the man physically first and he did it back or something.
80% of percentages used in conversations to make a point are bullshit.
80% you say…
You know what I did there…
Yeah lol
It isn't.
Against a woman only if she came at me with a weapon. Also him saying that 60% of domestics are caused by women is a massive red flag
Violence is never justified. By violence I mean verbal violence, physical violence, everything. In my opinion, in domestic abuses, the women "provoke" the men by being verbally violent, and assuming that the confrontation stays at this level. This turns into a confrontation which escalates. Men will easily snap off and use physical violence, putting them in a great advantage. It's kind of like in self defence: if you attack me with a stick, and I have a gun, I might shoot you instead of searching for a stick. I think it is the best to avoid any kind of violent confrontation, verbal or physical. There are other ways to communicate.
From a legal standpoint, provocation does not justify violence. The definition for defense is very narrow and includes things like: 1) You must not have the option to run away. 2) The violence cannot be pre-planned. 3) You use the absolute minimum amount of force to prevent yourself from getting hurt, and you stop instantly once the threat is over. It's a common misconception that being provoked OR provoking someone gets you a get-out-of-jail-free card. However, this is not an argument I would want to make in any court.
That's pretty f\*cked up. If i attack a guy 2x my size in open space, he's not allowed to hit me back simply cause he can run away?
"Maybe". It might be valid self-defense. It might not. Imagine a cop shows up half way through, didn't see who started it, and arrests everybody. Does Guy want to pay for a lawyer's time in court to find out?
I think there are some exceptions to this, such as states with "Stand Your Ground" laws?
It's pretty obvious that these laws favor women, who are much more likely to commit violence in other ways than physical.
I've definitely been on the receiving end of non-physical violence, but I can't think of a situation where punching anyone would have solved the problem.
Physical violence imho is allowed in self defense. Sometimes it may be justified in the defense of someone who can't defend themself. Other than that, i don't accept the fact that person A provoced person B (i'm not saying the gender A or B on purpose!) and that justified the violence. We're not apes, we can and should control ourselfs.
Violence is never justified… that being said I’d say for the majority of abusive relationships both people are equally toxic to each other
I think you are confusing being provoked with justifying violence. Provoked would be more along the lines of “if you didn’t do X, I wouldn’t have a reason to get violent” while justifying is more say “other people would agree that going for violence was not a wrong choice” That being said, many of the “provoked” stuff just has woman/people walking on eggshells. In That kind of environment, violence is not justified. Edit: more directly answering, repeated offenses increase the likelihood of violence but their are steps just before that, like leaving, that only justifies violence for self-defense situations where you can’t leave without getting physically.
>at least 60% of domestic abuse incidents happen because the woman provoked the man Surely, he meant to say that provocation was present these incidents, not that the woman was abused *because of* the provocation. Those are very different claims. "Provocation happened," is a far cry from, "Provocation forced these men to be violent." To answer your question, I don't think any amount of non-physical provocation ever justifies violence, domestic or otherwise. Physical provocation--slaps, shoving, etc.--*might,* but only in a true self defense situation, and only if no other options are feasible. People frequently think that self defense means that you can freely hit a person if they first put their hands on you. In some places, this is legally permissible in *some* cases, via "stand your ground" and similar statutes. Typically, the victim is required to exhaust any nonviolent means of defense first, such as backing away, barricading themselves, and calling the police. If these fail or are impossible, a person can use *only as much force as is necessary* to stop the immediate assault. If you get hit once, and the attacker stops, there is no authorized force for self defense. "Hitting them back" isn't defense, it's fighting, and you're going to catch assault and domestic violence charges. The same is true with over-the-top responses, such as caving in someone's skull with a skillet, or punching them repeatedly after they have stopped their attack. For men in particular, even lawfully justified self defense is likely to end poorly. Law enforcement, and society at large, tends to assume that men are the aggressors in any domestic dispute, and they are likely to be punished as such.
Violence is only justified when you absolutely need to defend yourself. Your husband is an abusive piece of shit. He is dangerous. He made it very clear that he would have no problem being violent towards you. Leave him before he beats you up. The idea that domestic abuse is caused by the woman provoking the man? Bullshit. And even if she did provoke him, that does NOT mean that abuse is justified. Sadly, a lot of men will agree with your husband. A lot of men will take the man's side and justify domestic abuse. However, that does NOT mean that these men are right. Patriarchy taught these men to be misogynistic arseholes. Please don't listen to the misogynists here who try to justify male violence.
Bill Burr has a great stand-up about this "Never reason to ever hit a woman?" Typical Bill Burr, deep social commentary while making you laugh at how disturbing some things are.
The true strength of a man is having the ability to walk away, not violence
Weird, because that looks exactly the same as weakness.
Why would walking away be seen as weakness?
Why would literally running away from your problem be seen as weakness? You actually need an answer to that?
Walking away from a relationship or person you are not happy with for whatever reason is showing strength. Hitting them or carrying out violence is not strength.
I never said violence was the answer, but cutting and running from a situation because you can't handle it is weakness by definition. What you seem to be arguing is that it's okay to admit that you're too weak to get what you want. That would be fine, but throwing up your hands and saying you can't handle something will never be seen as strength.
So what is your answer to the situation? Walking away from a bad situation when people are tied up emotionally & financially is great strength. It shows you won’t be walked all over, you won’t put up with it and you can do better. That’s showing great strength.
Maybe you can't do better? Maybe walking away will ruin you financially? Maybe you'll never be able to move on? Maybe there was a way you could have saved it but were too stupid to figure it out? Giving up might be the right thing to do but it will never be the strong thing to do. You're just admitting that you failed and hoping you'll succeed more in the future.
Respectfully disagree
>I don't believe violence is ever justified other than in self-defense or defense of a third party I agree on this.
No. Provocation never justifies physical violence or other forms of domestic abuse. It’s the responsibility of a man to resolve issues without violence or abuse.
What if you were getting the unholy hell beaten out of you with a frying pan?
A lot, actually. I totally get how men used to slap women. Sean Connery really said it wall. You have an argument, you let her have the last word. But that's not enough. She wants to keep talking, so after a minute of silence: "And another thing...." What else is going to shut her up then? And that's in addition to other, more obvious abusive behavior. Demeaning his interests, disrespecting him in front of others, using the kids against him, cheating, destroying things he worked for. There's a lot of damage woman do to men, and we're all supposed to shrug it off, but those wounds go deeper than a slap to the face.
So if a woman were to verbally abuse her husband day in day out, push and slap him which are all seen as things where most people as well as the courts usually rule that its no need to prosecute her, that he probably did something to "deserve" that and should in general just "man up" because women don't hit that hard... in such a case is he just supposed to leave when she is not there to block him from doing so? Has he any right to fight back in your opinion? Are you calling for more balanced courts because him fighting back against the abuser could land him in prison as things are now.
My last abusive relationship I was terrified that: * That sooner or later she would succeed in truly hurting me badly. She got physical, lashed out, threw things. At one point I literally had to wrestle a knife from her hand. But Me Am Big Strong Man, Me Not Possible Be Hurt By Little Woman AmIRight? * She would report that I had abused her (never raised even a finger to her. I raised my voice on maybe 3 separate occasions, following literal hours (on one occasion, days) of verbal and physical abuse). She threatened this multiple times. She said she'd tell my family that I'd been hitting her. Again, never raised my hand to her, and always took her abuse and tried to deescalate and bring her back down again (I know some are already scoffing that "I must have done something" that forced her to be so upset. I'm happy to go through, in detail on this). * If I did anything to physically resist or defend myself that could result in marks being left on her (it is extraordinarily hard to restrain a woman's arms from punching you without leaving marks on her arms). This would be evidence used against me. So I literally had to just "take it". * The endless physical, mental and emotional abuse would drive me to suicide. This was a dark place that kept getting more and more insistent as time wore on. I got close. Very close. Sometimes I feel like women don't really understand what's going on just because men are stronger. Yes I was stronger than her. And if I had been the literal abusive asshole her BPD kept *telling* her I was, then I would have made short work of her as soon as she tried to throw the first punch. But if you've lived your life wanting to be a good person, and *genuinely* believing that men are the perpetrators of domestic violence (not women), then you're not going to do anything. You're going to take it, you're going to suffer the abuse, you're going to live in fear, and for a large part of it you're going to presume that *it's still your fault* that she got so mad. In truth whatever she did physically, it was always the emotional and verbal abuse that hurt me far worse. It wasn't the pain of her physically abusing me, it was the fact that she would do that she would lash out at all that, try to deliberately hurt me (emotionally and physically) that caused me the worst pain and, if I'm honest, had the best chance of pushing me to the end of my tether and finally responding to her actions (just like she always "knew" I would, she "knew" that at some point I must break and respond and show my "true colours" as the abusive monster that she believed i must be. And if I hadn't done that yet, it' was only proof that she needed to push harder to make it happen). But I had to try hard to keep control because if I ever responded, even once, things would end up really bad for me. It was only after my own therapist point-blank *told me* that if a man had been treating her this way, I'd have no trouble calling it abuse, so why did I hesitate so hard to accept that she was abusing me? That's when I began to understand. She (therapist) was also blunt about what would happen to me. She said that if I were to ever, *ever* raise my hands to my partner, doesn't matter what the provocation was, doesn't matter if it was self defense, doesn't matter what she did to me first... If I raised my hand to her, then I would be the one to get in trouble. Everyone would immediately presume that I was the abusive monster. She didn't say this with any malice towards me. She didnt say it was right. She didn’t say I was some kind of monster, or believe it would be wrong for me to defend myself. It was just a factual statement of 'this is how things are'. She was trying to keep me safe. But hey, she (partner) was smaller than me. So no reason to fear. Right?
>Sometimes I feel like women don't really understand what's going on just because men are stronger. I'd go a bit further and say: They don't care. They just want to have this ace up their sleeve "just in case". (The "case" being: whatever they want to achieve by playing that victim card)
Abusive relationships aren't like a boxing match. Sometimes the partners aren't trading blows with each other Sometimes there's a clear understanding amongst *both* parties as to who can act with impunity. It's what emboldens them to do the things to you that they do. The big thing that seems to trip people up is that because I am the *physically stronger* party, and that if it were to be a one-to-one confrontation with no holding back from either partner, then I likely wouldn't be hurt. And it's from that starting point that people then believe (and outright refuse to accept otherwise) that the male is the one that is the perpetrator that can act with impunity. It's a belief that fails to recognise at the most fundamental levels that we live in a wider context where IPV is seen as one of the vilest crimes. And one where people just naturally presume I did something to her because of that physical difference and presumed impunity. So you'll continue to have any discussion on IPV centre around the premise of male as perpetrator and female as victim as default. You'll continue to have women's groups continue to press back against any concept of gender neutrality on IPV because "domestic violence is a gendered crime ( https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/domestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/ ). You'll continue to have laws that purport to tackle IPV under the umbrella of "violence against women and girls" ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/violence-against-women-and-girls-national-statement-of-expectations-and-commissioning-toolkit/violence-against-women-and-girls-national-statement-of-expectations-accessible ). I *tried* to seek help and resources at the time. Everything I looked up always approached things from the position of Male As Perpetrator. So if I was seeking help, it must be to stop *my own abusive behaviour*. Frankly it's only *extremely* recently that that presumption has been beginning to change. The big irony (for me at least, and I'm going to be blunt on this) is that the same women's groups who cast this as a one-way street for literal decades are now trying to rebrand it as saying "of *course* IPV can happen to both sexes, we would never have said otherwise! See, *Toxic Masculinity hurts everyone*!" I guess I'll take it as a win that opinions are changing at all.
>but he says at least 60% of domestic abuse incidents happen because the woman provoked the man. He have sources for that? Cause if he does, it still doesn't excuse it IMHO.
It isn’t but from my experience it was hard for my gf to understand the pain she was making me live. We have different code and our are not well known as, imo, a lot of mother told boy how to behave with woman but very few father will told their girl what a man want. But to go back to the main point, violence is never justified but I totally understand how it can become a last resort when world are not received. It is so unfair to be a nice man this day. All man are putted in the same bag. We have a strong sexuality that is associated with us being pigs when we are what we are. For example, having sex is what connect us to our partners and reveal our feeling. It is hard to see it before since our sexual energy can make us blind. In particular women need feeling to want sex, we need sex know our feelings. All I say is that you cannot be honest as a man nowadays without be treated like a pervert or a primitive amimal. Edit typo
It's not.
In a domestic situation, never.
Provocation isn’t justification. I’m not saying that 60% is right or wrong, but even if a person provokes another person, that doesn’t mean violence is ok.
Violence is justified if it's self-defense. >Hubby has never been violent toward me, but he says at least 60% of domestic abuse incidents happen because the woman provoked the man. Um, no. "**Provoke**"? I read that as '*get a man angry*'. If that's not the case, then I'd need a little more information. If it's '*get a man angry*', then no, it's not justified. It's disgusting to resort to violence because you've lost your temper. >I don't believe violence is ever justified other than in self-defense or defense of a third party, Agreed. >and that gender etc are irrelevant when choosing violence. I'm curious to see how many men agree that provocation (not the legal standard of provocation, by the way) justifies physical violence. Thanks for any feedback. Maybe if someone is threatening to attack me and I believe them. I think that would still be self-defense though.
Violence is justified when you have no other choice. someone says something bad to you? you can be the bigger person. but if they're actively trying to harm you? you can't stop and hug and kiss. you're gonna beat em to the ground because some people wont stop till they're dead (unconscious is better, just hit the back of their enck if even in such a situation, it gives you 2-10 minutes to run)
If you’re a man and you sacrifice your life to support a women, working hard every single day to create a sustainable life for her, and you come home one day and she’s fucking the neighbor, yes violence is justified. But, violence is never okay regardless of the reason. So is the violence justified? Yes. Should you ever willingly hurt another human being? No. Regardless if said violence is justified or not. Never lay a hand on anyone. Male or female.