If a woman hits a man is the man allowed to hit back?

[Bring4th_Austin]

Im not trying to troll, rather asking questions I sincerely want answers to. No intention to "troll".

I personally would take you at your word regarding your intentions in asking a question like this, but I also can't be surprised that ulterior motives are ascribed. Like Jade pointed out, this type of question very often drips with misogyny. I mean, where does the question even come from? I understand that you sincerely want answers, but why? What makes you want to explore this particular topic? What makes you want to frame the topic in terms of violence? And (like Merrick is implying) why is the violence framed in terms of expanding the boundaries of violence to include women rather than narrowing it to exclude men?

The reason it's easy to assume that the answers to these questions have a basis in misogyny is because this type of discussion is prominent on websites and communities that claim to be "critical" of feminism, but that is just a thin facade for being blatantly misogynistic. If your curiosity is truly innocent and genuine, it is worth considering the effect that even asking such a question has. Such things do not take place in a vacuum, and all such interactions will naturally be colored by cultural temperature.



Something I find a bit ridiculous about the question itself is that it implies that if "equal rights means equal fights," then there will somehow be more violence against women, because the "taboo" of violence against women actually prevents violence against women. Spoiler: it doesn't. Which makes it all the more curious that the focus of questions like this is about the ways feminism will let us be violent towards women rather than how feminism aims to prevent violence against women through changing the culture that perpetuates domestic violence, rape, stalking, etc.

I understand that women are not the only victims of these things. I also have personally witnessed some pretty toxic behavior in feminist spaces when it comes to helping men who are victims of these things. That is certainly something that I think progressive culture needs to wake up to: its attitude about violence towards men and the ability for men to seek help.

But despite that, it still stands that women are far more likely to be victims of domestic violence, victims of rape, victims of stalking, victims murder at the hands of their partner. These statistics are fairly well established. One example. The chivalrous attitude that says it isn't okay to be violent towards women doesn't seem to be doing its job. So if the trade-off is that it's okay for men to defend themselves against women, but the actual violence against women decreases per the statistics, then seems like a good trade-off to me. But why even focus on the first part yet not the second part? That's the thing that makes this question weird.