The police and law enforcement officials are supposed to protect everyone who is innocent and arrest anyone who commits a crime, regardless of their gender but apparently, women can get away with hitting men while men can't. This is because women are seen as the weaker gender so if they attack men, people will just assume they're "defending themselves!" If a woman hits a man, she can claim that "she was abused" or that she was "just using self-defense!" If it was a man hitting a woman, he wouldn't even have a chance to say anything because he'd go straight to prison! Is it okay for a female to assault someone and get away with it? NO, IT'S NOT! People really need to stop being so ignorant and realize that violence knows no gender! If violence knew only females, then there wouldn't be men sharing their horrible experiences with rape, sexual harassment, domestic abuse, battery, assault, and more crimes on the internet! If violence knew only males, then there wouldn't be women sharing their horrible experiences with rape, sexual harassment, domestic abuse, battery, assault, and more crimes on the internet! If a woman hits a man just for the sake of it, then she DESERVES to go straight to prison and be sentenced for life, just like a man who hits a woman! Self defense is ONLY okay, unless you're actually being attacked or sexually abused/harassed/assaulted! And anyone who goes as far as to justify a woman who rapes, hits, sexually harasses, or violently abuses a man is definitely sexist, ignorant, stupid, moronic, idiotic, and just 1 billion percent f***** up! I had to rant! Hopefully, people will eventually stop being so sexist and realize that men go through just as much sh*t as women!
Woman hits man: No social repercussions on the woman.
Man hits woman: Seen as severe sexism and totally frowned upon.
In fact, feminism ENCOURAGES this social standard.
Women are seen as the underdog in any violent situation involving a man, a 'damsel in distress' if you will, and so are seen as strong and independent when they attack a man, and the man is villianized when he ultimately retaliates
Yes, there is a double standard when a woman hits a man, because female defendants of assault and battery are not treated as severely as male defendants. District Attorneys, often women, are too quick to judge a woman's actions as self-defense, whereas a man would be charged for the same actions. This is a double standard in law enforcement.
I believe that there is an unforgivable stigma attached to when a man hits a woman, but when a woman hits a man there is a different sort of view on it. I can't explain it very clearly but the idea of a woman hitting a man does not make me as upset.
There is definitely a double standard when a woman hits a man.Society in general tends to see it in a totally different light when a woman hits a man.The woman could be much bigger than the man and cause just as much damage as a man.Society always sees the woman as being weaker.
Of course, there is a blatant double standard when a woman hits a man. By society's rules, a man can't hit a woman back because virtually everyone frowns upon such actions. That man can't defend himself under that logic, which doesn't make any sense. This double standard doesn't look to disappear anytime soon.
I've been saying this for years,Women are seen as heroes if they strike a man but men are seen as monsters if they strike a women even in self-defence.Which is wrong, see women will always get sympathy or guilt in court by either gender of a judge but monster are instantly sent to jail or prison.
If a woman hits a man, the whole incident is often ignored or (even worse) people support the female (you know, the person who actually hit the man in my hypothetical example!). However, if a man lays a single hand on a woman ever, then he is verbally assaulted by everyone who hears about the incident. Is this fair? No. Hitting anyone is wrong, regardless of the victim or the culprit's gender, and there are only a few situations where it would be acceptable (e.G. Someone is attacking you). This is one of the biggest examples of sexism against males.
Instead of saying, "If a girl hits you it means she likes you," fathers these days ought to tell their sons "If a girl hits you, it means fight back or get beaten to a bloody pulp!" because if anyone hits you it does NOT mean they like you.
Of all the double standards, this one really, REALLY grinds my gears. It is double standards like these that have destroyed all of my faith in humanity these days. I mean, when a man hits a woman, everyone loses their shit, but do it the other way around and nobody bats an eye? The 89% of people or so who agree can clearly see a problem with this, but as for the other 11%, they are too far consumed by feminism's toxic allure.
The double standard being debated here has its roots in chivalry. More specifically, this standard has roots in romantic chivalry, the variant associated with a knight and his lady. It is true that one ought to treat the other gender, whether male or female, with the respect that they rightfully deserve, but when a woman hits a man for the heck of it, just to flash their "special privilege" in their face, all notions of chivalry go out the fucking door, and self-preservation takes maximum priority. At that point, if the man fights back, he is acting in self-defence and should not be at fault because the woman is supposedly "weaker" than he is. (And guys, for safety precautions, make sure to have a friend record the interaction. You'll need it as evidence that you were acting in self-defence.)
Simply put: If you want equal rights, expect equal consequences. If you want the same rights as men, expect to be treated like a man. It's as simple as that.
There is no double standard because women are not allowed to hit men any more than men are allowed to hit women. The only time a question of double standard arises is when someone interprets the law or morality improperly. This is not a double standard of the concept. It is an error on the part of the person making the erroneous judgment.