I came across this youtube video recently. It’s a comedian giving his take on why it’s stupid to say “There’s no reason to hit a woman”. I guess he was playing on the word “reason” since anyone who does anything has some reason! It may be a stupid or illogical reason, but it’s still a reason. I didn’t like the general tenor of the act though. While he did say that one should never actually hit someone, he nevertheless comes across as partially justifying violence against women at some level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmMy_XOFbks
Let me put this in perspective. There are some men who feel that a woman “provokes” them. Either with constant nagging, or saying wicked things, or talking about their family or whatever. These are used as excuses to justify hitting her. Apparently they “lost control”. To these men I say – bullshit. You’re nothing but cowards. And here’s why.
Imagine that it’s not a woman in front of you but a huge burly guy fully capable of crushing your head. Or an ill tempered bear! Given the same provocation, would you hit these behemoths of pain in the same way you hit a woman? Or would you hold your hand back knowing full well that they can not only defend themselves but will punish you for trying? If you’ll keep your hands to yourself (and we all know you will), then your justifications of hitting a woman are an eyewash. You do it knowing that they won’t hit you back. In short – you are a coward.
There are those who justify sexual assaults against women in the same way. Apparently the logic goes that seeing a woman wearing “revealing clothing” or out late at night makes them lose control. Let me tell you what “losing control” means. It means your rational brain is no longer able to control your actions. If a person really “lost control”, they would do something regardless of the danger since they’re not listening to their brain anymore.
So here’s a question. If the woman was well protected by bodyguards, would you still “lose control” and attack her? Or if you knew she had an STD! Would you go ahead and rape her? Damn straight you wouldn’t. That means you never “lost control”. Your were fully sane and in complete possession of your senses. No excuses can separate you from your responsibility. You are a coward and a criminal.
Anyone who hits another without fear of being seriously hit back is a coward regardless of the provocation. This also applies to organized thugs like those employed by Bal Thackeray. His goons never assaulted the police commissioner or a politician did they? They only went after helpless Valentine’s day couples, shopkeepers, or anyone else who they knew they could bully.
If you try and draw an equivalence between “emotional violence” and physical violence and claim that one is just as serious as the other, I once again call bullshit. Physical violence removes choice. Emotional pressurizing or blackmailing still gives you the option to do exactly as you please. Saying that “women are just as bad” and using that as an excuse to hit one makes you an asshole, a criminal, and a coward all rolled into one.
Given how the legal system is, it is better not to do anything even if a woman assaults you.
In reply to Sarat
Maybe :) . This is from an ethical perspective…
i completely agree with you. men would never assault their male bosses even if they were provoked; nor would they assault another male who is stronger than themselves. they only go for those who cannot physically harm them in a big way – women and children. They ARE cowards
In reply to tp
“…men would never assault their male bosses even if they were provoked; nor would they assault another male who is stronger than themselves.”
I almost strangled my boss once, when he got very provocative, during a moment of drunken rage. The guy was not only my superior, but was about 30 kilos heavier than I was. In another case – a friend of mine slapped his college principal after the latter provoked his father.There are some people who don’t take shit lying down, no matter how powerful the person dishing it out is.
The idea that men would never strike a superior and someone more ‘powerful’ comes naturally to those men who are used to getting bossed around by the seemingly more powerful. That kind of behaviour is common in middle class India where men never learn to fight and are conditioned to avoid serious confrontation with others AT ALL COSTS, even at the cost of wimping out.
No wonder the country is a gas cylinder of frustration.
In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh
I’m willing to bet that most men who hit their wives or girlfriends are cowards who would never do that were their partners able and willing to hit back.
In general, decent people resort to physical violence only in self defence.
In reply to bhagwad
I am afraid, using “I’m willing to bet” doesn’t make a stronger argument or replace the need of a reasonable justification in the argument.And I didn’t even talk about citations.
In the real world, there is no positive correlation between cowardice and domestic violence. In a survey done by University of Durham (1), it was found that men who are prone to using violence as a form of conflict resolution are highly likely to resort to the same in domestic sphere.
This also explains why, if you prowl police records, you’d find most domestic violence concentrated in the socio-economic underclass. Saying that men who hit women are ‘cowards’ is an expression of moral indignation, unsupported by facts or any rational justification. Not to mention, the term ‘coward’ is by itself an abstract moral concept, like the words ‘immodest’ or ‘shameless’.
To sum it up:
1) Some men who hit women would do so whether she is likely to strike back or not.
2) Some men who hit their women are also violent towards other men.
Also, note that contrary to your assertion, there is no ‘right’ to emotionally abuse someone, any more than there is a ‘right’ to slap someone because you don’t like what they say. Right implies a moral or legal entitlement to do something. There is no moral or legal entitlement to emotionally abuse someone. While the law does not persecute emotional abuse per se (the same way it doesn’t persecute marital rape per se), you can be held criminally or tortiously liable for emotionally abusing someone, if the relevant conditions for such liability are met. (Section 498 of the IPC makes cruelty punishable, if the cruelty implies emotional abuse. So does blackmail or the threat to falsely implicate someone. Nervous shock under the common law of torts makes psychiatric harm a tortious offence. The torts of defamation have an emotionally abusive character). Also, emotional abuse as a provocation is a good mitigating factor in the reduction of sentences in criminal offences. Clearly, it is not a ‘right’.
To put it in perspective, there is no good ‘reason’ to hit a ANYONE except in the context of consensual BDSM relationships OR a consensual game. Pretty much everything outside purview is a justification. And how reasonable the justification is, is a matter of circumstances.
(1) Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, Murray A Strauss, 2009
In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh
* …everything outside the given purview is a justification…
In reply to Akhim Lyngdoh
“I am afraid, using “I’m willing to bet” doesn’t make a stronger argument”
That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it :) . The research you cite doesn’t disprove what I’m saying. The fact that fewer women hit men than vice versa means that it has something to do with strength unless we say that women are sweeter than men by nature – something I can’t bring myself to believe.
In your research, the “men who are prone to using violence as a form of conflict resolution” are also those who are used to beating up others without getting the worst of it. It’s just not normal behavior to repeatedly initiate a fight you think you’re going to lose.
If you can show me some research showing that these “men who initiate violence” also regularly get beat up as a result of their initiations, then there is some merit in the assertion. Otherwise, no.
I’m also willing to bet that if women were as strong as men, there would be far less domestic violence.
As far as emotional abuse goes, I think Indian laws in this regard need to be changed to accommodate emotional abuse. Unlike marital rape, it doesn’t rely on physical force.
I have been saying something similar too. Would a man hit other men who anger/provoke him? No. He knows the woman will not hit him back and THAT is the reason a man hits a woman, because he is a coward.
//If you try and draw an equivalence between “emotional violence” and physical violence and claim that one is just as serious as the other, I once again call bullshit. Physical violence removes choice. Emotional pressurizing or blackmailing still gives you the option to do exactly as you please.\\
That is simply a stupid thing to say. Unless one is bound, gagged and tied to a pole, one has the complete choice to do exactly as one pleases. If you are comfortably seated in a chair and someone starts abusing you, you have the choice to walk away. If the person starts to take out a knife to stab you, you still have the choice to move away. Rather, it would be expected of any sensible person to not just walk but run away from any physical threat unless he is absolutely dumb.
And the only reason to hit *ANYONE* should be self defence. By specifically applying that to women do you mean to say that there can be reasons to hit a man other than self defence?
In reply to Anil
Moving away from physical violence is not always an option as the other person can be stronger than you. Physical size plays a role. With emotional violence, everyone has equal tools to defend themselves.
I didn’t think I needed to mention that you should only hit a man in self defence because most people do that anyway. Men usually hit back and others are far more wary of starting violence against them.
In reply to bhagwad
“With emotional violence, everyone has equal tools to defend themselves.”
And what exactly are these ‘tools’ I would like to know.
In reply to Purple Cloud
The 100% ability to walk away.
In reply to bhagwad
And how does a paralyzed person walk away ? :)
In reply to Purple Cloud
Don’t waste my time by taking everything literally at your convenience. I’ll say this one more time and we’re done.
“Walk away” in this context means the ability to distance oneself. Get a divorce, a new house, a new job, or whatever.
If I suspect that you’re just wasting my time with these useless tactics I’ll have no choice but to delete your comment to keep the consistency of my comment section in tact.
In reply to bhagwad
I asked you a very valid question. I’m refering to those situations where a person is physically incapable of distancing oneself. Even such people can be subjected to emotional violence. So how do they exactly distance themselves ?
““Walk away” in this context means the ability to distance oneself. Get a divorce, a new house, a new job, or whatever.”
I very well knew what context you used ‘walk away’ in. But there can be situations where,
– a housewife cannot “walk away” through a divorce when she has neither the financial independence, nor a family to go back to
– a person cannot afford to loose/give up his job due to his financial conditions
And getting a new house.. If it was only as simple and that too without any financial implications.
So, you see, walking away in whatever context is not merely walking away. It is associated with many factors which put the victim in a situation of loss. Either financial or otherwise. If you can show how a person can simply distance himself from emotional violence permanently without any accompanying losses, your opinion of “100% ability to walk away” may be considered to be valid.
I don’t know why you get so worked up when anyone questions your opinion on a topic. If anyone wanted to waste his time, he could have so many other options to do that instead of conjuring up tactics to waste your time. At least I have no such inclination. If you do not feel that my comments do not relate to the topic of discussion, you have the option of not replying or deleting my comment straight away. Your getting irritated solves no purpose and which isn’t my aim too. :)
In reply to Purple Cloud
If you knew the context in which I used the word “walk away”, then why did you ask if the person was paralyzed?
As for financial problems, that’s part of life. It’s not the business of the law to guarantee a living for everyone. The law has to ensure that everyone has the physical and legal ability to move away. How a person chooses to live their life for financial reasons is not anyone’s business.
If a housewife chooses to stay in an abusive relationship because of financial reasons then that’s her choice. She has the ability to ask for a divorce and try and get a job of her own. The fact that it’s difficult doesn’t mean the choice itself doesn’t exist.
In reply to bhagwad
Okay. Now let me elaborate on this a bit more. You have repeatedly emphasized on the availability of choice to any person who is suffering emotional violence. But it is not that he has complete freedom of having every possible option to choose from.
In fact, in a case of emotional violence, the victim is left with a restricted set of options to choose from to escape from the situation. The emotional abuse automatically discards the best possible choice a person would otherwise would have made in life.
As mentioned above, let us take the case of a person being abused and insulted by his boss at work. The only choices left with such a person are
a. Quit the job and look for another job elsewhere OR
b. Carry on with the same job but while suffering abuse and insult.
The best possible choice otherwise for such a person would be to carry on with his job peacefully. But that choice is taken away by the abusive boss.
In the case of a housewife suffering emotional abuse from her husband or in-laws, the situation is the same. She has the choices
a. To move out of the house and apply for divorce OR
b. To carry on living in the same house suffering the abuse.
The best possible choice otherwise for the housewife would be to continue living peacefully in the same house. Something which is taken away from her by the abusers. So, if she is not employed, doesn’t have any financial savings, nor has a family to go back to, then if she chooses to move out, she may well sleep on the roadside and beg for food till she finds a job and starts earning.
The basic fact is that the abuser may not even physically threaten or touch the victim in either case. But he knows that he is putting the victim in a situation where the victim has to suffer either way. Financially or mentally. It is a win-win situation for the abuser.
I brought the issue of financial loss to the victim as I think you believe that financial loss is at par with physical violence. As I saw your comment on another blog where you said :- “For me morality means only one thing – don’t hurt others physically or financially.”
And in the above examples, the victims are being hurt financially. Something they wouldn’t have chosen were it not for the emotional abuse.
Secondly, everyone’s emotional capacities are different. Much of which is determined by societal surroundings and upbringing. It is common sense to understand that everyone’s emotional strength is not the same. (otherwise we would be witness to a situation of everyone in a cinema hall simultaneously bursting into tears at an emotional scene) Some people are emotionally strong, while some are weak.
Having said that, in a case of emotional abuse, the abuser very well knows the emotional weakness of the victim in order to affect him accordingly. He knows that the victim is emotionally too weak to retaliate or ignore the emotional abuse. And that is why, we see that the abuser is someone who personally knows the victim quite well. It is absurd to expect a stranger to use emotions to affect another stranger.
Why, just take your own example. Do you think any of your relatives or friends who know you well enough would try to pressurize you emotionally ? I don’t think so. So, when you say that :- “You do it knowing that they won’t hit you back. In short – you are a coward.”, the same goes for an emotional abuser. If one knows beforehand that you are not to be affected by emotions, he won’t even try to pressurize you emotionally.
So it is only expected that victims of emotional abuse are those who are actually emotionally weak. They do have choices to escape the emotional hurt, but each of those choices further hurt them either financially or mentally. And that is something which the abuser is always well aware of.
In reply to Purple Cloud
I understand what you’re saying.
Let me say that no one ever has full freedom. If my job is tough, I have the same two choices you pointed out – either quit or continue. That’s my bad luck. Sometimes life isn’t fair and that’s just too bad.
The main question of physical/emotional abuse is when it comes to the law. I’m not denying that emotional abuse can be hurtful. Of course it can. But unlike physical abuse, you can’t get the state and the law involved. The law cannot tell people “Don’t be assholes”. The law cannot dictate good manners and bad manners to anyone.
I’d written a blog post a while ago explaining why in greater detail: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2012/rights-and-freedoms/physical-harm-is-more-serious-than-emotional-harm.html/
The fact that people have restricted choices is unfortunate. But it’s a problem they’re going to have to deal with themselves without seeking help from the law.
As people, we can choose to punish abusive people by ignoring them, not talking to them, even making fun of them or whatever. But we can’t call the police and lock them up. You can only do that for physical violence.
I had mentioned harm to finances as part of a broader principle – “Don’t hurt a person or violate their property”. Finances are the most easily understood form of property. In the case of a job, an employee has no right to future payments made by the employer. He/she only has the right to money they have actually earned. So the fact that they don’t have another job lined up sucks, but it’s not the fault of the employer. This is something they’re going to have to deal with on their own. We can extend our sympathy and support but not call the police or complain to a court.
Though this is a very subjective way of putting it without any equations or so, I do not think that emotional violence is far away from physical. Yes physical violence is more stronger than emotional at grass root level.
But skilled and calculated harm can be done by emotionally targeting someone. Because just like physique some people are strong emotionally and some are weak. Some people can literally stand up to verbal and emotional conflict against multiple people. Some cannot sustain a 1v1. Depends also on how we can communicate when someone targets us emotionally. Sometimes, it also depends on whether the conflict happens in front of bystanders. Insulting someone in public can be more harmful to the person. Then also comes ego, esp. in case of males; a person without ego may just shrug off insults.
On a grass root level I will agree with you, but I do not believe we yet have the self control to make emotional violence any less dangerous.
we have to accept the fact that men and women are created equally in all aspects therefore, women must be treated equally with men. Overall great job with your post bhagwad.
In reply to sam
I really hope that people would take the thing about “Gender Equality” seriously Vicky, but unfortunately not ALL tends to recognize this. The sad thing is that there are still cases of gender discrimination everywhere… whether at school, work or even at the community.
The title hooked me Bhagwad, it’s a great topic ALL of us should be aware with especially men. Indeed a great read, thanks!
Once again you missed the point. I’ll just tell you where you got it wrong.
It is not simply bad luck in the example I mentioned above. Not finding a job is NOT the same as being made to quit the job.
At the most, one may blame his luck IF the ’employer’ suddenly decides to end his employee’s job. But, like in the above example, the boss (who may not even have the power to fire his subordinate) specifically makes conditions intolerable for the person to continue at work, even without needing to fire him directly.
It’s one think for someone to find his job tough, but it’s another when he is forced to quit his job against his choice, that too by not making his specific work difficult but by making the social conditions at work unfavorable.
Not finding a job is bad luck. But someone forcing you out of your job is not bad luck (at least as long as it is not the employer himself).
It is just the same if we compare infertility with infanticide (or even abortion). A person may blame bad luck for his or her infertility, but you cannot blame luck for an abortion or infanticide. Can you ? Abortion or infanticide don’t happen if someone doesn’t specifically chooses to.
“But unlike physical abuse, you can’t get the state and the law involved. The law cannot tell people “Don’t be ********”. The law cannot dictate good manners and bad manners to anyone.”
No. It is not about telling people to behave in a particular way or dictating good manners or bad manners. The law should be about protecting each individual. Since you yourself accepted that emotional abuse can be hurtful, it is only about protecting an individual from hurt.
If a person wants to be bad mannered and feels like abusing, he should be free to shout abuses from a hill top or in the middle or a jungle or in a desert. The law doesn’t care if he is well mannered in his languge.
So, it should be solely about each person’s protection from hurt. If a person wants to hurl abuses to anyone, he should be free to do that as long as the other person doesn’t directly receive them.
To connect it in physical terms, if I want to make stabbing gestures with a knife or if I want to shoot a gun, I should be able to do either as long as don’t push the knife into a person’s body or shoot a bullet through him. :)
The same goes for emotional abuse.
In reply to Purple Cloud
You’re just not seeing the difference between physical and emotional abuse.
When someone’s nose is broken you can see it. You can verify it. You can measure it. A broken nose is something that will always be caused when enough force is suddenly applied and you know that pain is being felt. Broken bones can be examined and measured.
With emotional abuse, there’s no way to verify the truth or falsehood of the claim. If you start protecting feelings, tomorrow a person will claim that his feelings were deeply hurt because someone made a face at him on the road. What are you going to do? Arrest the person he claims hurt his feelings? How will you prove who is feeling something and who isn’t?
A necessary condition to punish emotional abuse is to first measure it and verify the feelings of the victim. Merely taking their word is not enough. Till we have a scientific way to determine whether or not a person is feeling something the law has to ignore emotional abuse.
And even then it’s not enough.
If my employer is abusing me, no one is forcing me to leave my job. I can remain in my job, close my ears and simply ignore him. Some other weak minded person may choose to leave. That is his or her choice. If we start protecting people’s fragile emotional state, some employee will one day complain that his/her employer raised their voice and should be punished!
As adults we are expected to have the ability to look after our own feelings. We are not expected to protect our bodies without help and that is why we have the police. But every person above 18 is supposed to have the tools to protect themselves from so called “emotional abuse”.
I had a boss once who used to shout a lot. I didn’t go crying to the government to help me and put him in jail. It was his right to shout and my right to leave if I wanted. If I left, it would not have been because I was forced to leave but because I chose to leave. If a person’s boss is emotionally abusive, that is not enough to force a person to leave. “Force” means physically taking their body and throwing them out. If a person resigns, that is never “force”. It’s choice.
People have the right to emotionally abuse others. And those on the receiving end have the right to walk away. No one can force them to walk away. If they get fired from a job, that is different. But resigning is always personal choice. With physical abuse however, you are forced to respond. You can’t just close your ears and continue to sit.
“Force” only refers to physical force against a person or their property.
I’ve already explained this in my previous blog post: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2012/rights-and-freedoms/physical-harm-is-more-serious-than-emotional-harm.html/
If you like you can follow up this discussion there since it’s not really relevant to the current topic here.
In reply to bhagwad
I was discussing this here because of your last paragraph in the above article which talked of physical and emotional hurt. However, if you insist I do not continue with this discussion here, I’m replying to your comment under the article you mentioned.
@ Sarat – “Given how the legal system is, it is better not to do anything even if a woman assaults you.”
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking “its better not to do anything”. A woman who can assault you CAN also level a charge of domestic violence against you, if she feels she can get away with it, the same way she got away with striking you. If THAT happens, the system would always presume that you are the abuser and you *might* end up paying for the sins of those men who abuse their wives/girlfriends and get away with it (because in such cases, the woman might be too scared to lodge a complaint).
I have come across many cases where Indian men took the occasional pinch/slap/strike by their girlfriends/partners in jest – pretending its a joke and are too restrained to set the boundaries that physical violence is a no-no; only to be surprised later, when the nature of her attacks makes it quite clear she is no longer ‘in jest’.
Giving an abusive woman the idea that she can bully you and get away with it sets a very dangerous equation in the relationship. In every relationship with a woman, it is VERY important to establish the idea that you’d be decent and chivalrous AS LONG AS she extends that courtesy. Even if you’d otherwise never hit on a woman (because of your moral values), NEVER give her the impression that she can strike/slap you when she ‘feels like’ and stay safe in the idea that you won’t do anything about it.