At 6 minutes ago, Im-A-Pirate wrote:
Seriously? Are you trying to imply the only reason we are taking his side is because we're all misogynistic douchebags? Fuck you man, get out.
No, I'm implying that people are taking his side because finding justification for something that would normally cause outrage in the population at large is a fashionable thing for young people to do on the internet. Right now, the popular thing in society is to side with the woman in every case of domestic abuse (from either party or even mutual), with a few extreme exceptions. You're saying "Look at me, I'm the real idealist here!"
The problem is, you're caught up in the idea of "If gender equality is to be expected, then a guy should be able to physically retaliate if a woman strike him." Viewing everything through this oversimplified lens isn't really idealism, it's just a way to excuse yourself from the burden of discretion. Matters of self-defense and proportionate response aren't so clean-cut that as soon as one party escalates to say, physical contact without weapons, that doesn't mean that the other party automatically gets carte blanche to retaliate with any amount of force. This is logical, and recognized by law. To deny that is, again, a way to relieve yourself from the burden of actual thought.
For the record, I'm not blindly siding with the woman here either. It's not right to bait someone into a fight so you can catch it on video. Does that justify the guy punching her in the face in front of their children? I don't think it does.