“Some of my best friends are black!”
I don’t think its common. The people who do act that way are an emotionally disturbed minority.
But on the subject, I was peeved when I saw this remark about Ronda Rousey committing domestic violence.
Stuff like that gives feminist activists a bad name, refusing to admit wrongdoing when it doesn’t fit your social justice narrative. But who knows how important the NNEDV is, or how important Pentico’s role in it is. I feel that ties into what OP is saying. That may not be misandry, but it is politicization of domestic violence to fit an agenda.
That’s exactly the kind of thing it’s an ironic play on.
This doesn’t seem like a very good case to point to for that purpose–the article itself lays out the case that this was not domestic violence. It wasn’t part of a pattern of violence, and it didn’t function to maintain control or power.
The person you quoted wasn’t saying what Roussey did was definitely okay, she was saying it’s not domestic violence. That’s not a double standard.
I don’t agree. If the genders were reversed I don’t think she would be saying those things, that it didn’t count as domestic violence since it didn’t fit into a pattern.
I think the rationalization she is using (it needs to be a pattern) is secondary to the gender double standards she is using.
Not all feminists are women. Just saying.
…from the article:
It isn’t the “rationalization she is using.” Its the definition of domestic violence, as defined by the Justice Department. If the genders were reversed, if it was a one-off incident that happened in identical circumstances, the incident, by definition, would also not be domestic violence.
Kim Pentico did not, as you characterize it, “refuse to admit wrongdoing.” She clearly stated she wasn’t comfortable with it, but she couldn’t call it domestic violence unless she spoke to the victim to find out if there was a pattern of abusive behaviour. There is no double standard at play here. Kim Pentico has not “given feminism a bad name.”
Representative cites, please?
Are you talking about Valerie Solanas or did you have someone more recent in mind?
Depends on how you define your terms. What most people mean when they say “women can’t be sexist” is that “women can’t oppress men, in this context, by being sexist”. They’re saying that sexism of the conventional variety is a tool for keeping women down within the context of a system where women are, in fact, down. Men aren’t down, as a class, in relationship to the class of women and therefore women being biased or holding unfair generalized attitudes or imputing a set of negative characteristics to men as a class are “not being sexist” because (as they use the word) sexism is a systemic oppressive phenomenon, not a set of nasty unfair attitudes.
I don’t agree with that approach to how to use the words (we have “patriarchal”; and it would make more sense to say “women can’t be matriarchal oppressors in a patriarchal society” rather than “women can’t be sexist”) but let’s not pretend they’re spouting bullshit.
So beating the hell out of your spouse is not domestic violence just so long as you only do it once?
Do you people really, really believe if the genders were reversed that you guys and Kim Pentico would be making this same argument? A guy could knee his girlfriend in the face after punching her several times, but it didn’t count as DV since it maybe only happened once?
…exactly what part of the definition of domestic violence provided by the justice department are you struggling to understand?
Yep.
Exactly what part of the definition of domestic violence provided by the justice department are you struggling to understand?
It would be classified as domestic violence where I live. It wouldn’t happen to be domestic violence where you live. If you have a problem with that, then get the definition changed. Until you do that though what Kim said was entirely correct.
So if acquaintance-abuse occurs in a location that doesn’t categorize domestic violence as a crime at all, then it definitely wouldn’t be domestic violence?
Colloquially, I’d call it domestic violence if someone attacked an intimate partner a single time, without justification. I’m surprised it’s not classified that way. Learn something new every day!
HOLD THE FUCKIN TRAIN, someone is thinking, WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION? WHAT BULLSHIT IS THAT! I can hear you all the way over here.
Yeah, “without justification.” At one end of the spectrum, if someone realizes that their intimate partner is getting ready to murder their child and attacks the partner, I wouldn’t call that attack domestic violence; it’d be justified. That’s what I mean. Sometimes violence is justified, and colloquially, “domestic violence” refers to the other kind.
Rousey just found out that her boyfriend had taken nude photos of her. Was this a crime? Nude photos are often used by bitter exes to commit revenge porn attacks, and these are often really traumatizing to their victims, to the degree that revenge porn attacks are felonies (I think, not looking the laws up right now).
Did Rousey think she was the target of such a crime? Did she think she was about to be? If so, it edges closer to a “justified” attack, although I think I’d still consider it unjustified unless there’s some additional information.
The OP is either describing some sort of fantasy, or is talking about people with zero power to affect the world; in either case I can’t be bothered to care about it.
…I think the context of which the words “domestic abuse” were used in the article was pretty crystal clear.
You are welcome to use the words “domestic abuse” in any way you deem fit. But if you were to use it to make Kim Pentico appear as if she had “given feminism a bad name” I would point out that you were taking her statements entirely out of context. And if you were to use her statement as an example of a “double standard surrounding domestic violence” I would suggest that I’m sure you could probably dig up examples of the “double standard” existing, but this wouldn’t be an example of it.