Subject: Re: poor Matthew Vaudreil, killed by a woman.

From: [email-masked] (Chris Auld)
Date: 13 Dec 1994 16:28:40 GMT

[email-masked] (Muhanned Al-nuaimy) writes:

Some *remarkably* sexist stuff.  He starts out by making factually
incorrect statements (``the reverse is occasionally true...'') based, no
doubt, on the sexist stereotypes I've commented on at length.  He then
proceeds, amazingly enough, to assert that female violence is basically
just fine, since women have ``little sense of empowerment'' when striking
a man (recall 43% of spousal homicide victims are male -- those women
certainly struck with a hell of a sense of empowerment).  In short, Mr.
Al-nuaimy has encapsulated the very core of sexist stereotypes: strong men
frequently beating weak women, with the converse occurring rarely and to
little effect. 

Again, I don't mean to assert that this is conscious sexism.  It is clear
that Mr. Al-nuaimy believes he is actually being commendably egalitarian.
However, the fact remains that the notion that one gender is
overwhelmingly more violent than the other in physical relationships is
empirically false, contrary to his, and popular, conceptions.  Moreover,
it is *not* acceptable for woman to strike a man, particularly when the
average woman makes up for her lower strength by being much more likely to
use a weapon.  Perpetuating sexist stereotypes cannot lead to a lower
level of violence in our society. 

>Both men and women have been using phycological abuse for eons, and in that
>respect we are matched opponents; but men have an extra weapon in our
>armory. We are stronger than women (in general). Often, when an arguement
>between a man and a woman gets out of control the man end it with violence;
>because he _can_. The reverse in occasionally true, but not nearly as often.

>When a woman strikes a man, it is often a (conciously) futile expression of
>anger and frustration - there is little sense of empowerment. When a man
>strikes a woman, he is very empowered. He knows that he is stronger
>(physically) than the woman and can therefore end the arguement by force. A
>man generally hits someone to establish their dominance over them. The
>winner makes the rules. The man that has just struck his wife/lover/etc is
>laying down the law - winning the arguement by refusing to argue right or
>wrong, refusing to dignify the woman's opinion by debating it, and asserting
>his physical superiority over her.

-- 
Chris Auld                               Department of Economics
Internet: [email-masked]       Queen's University
Office:   (613)545-2269                  Kingston, ON   K7L 3N6