It is a fact, which has been reproduced several times in western studies, that women not only dominate in emotional abuse, but are also the main initiators of mutual abuse (emotional and physical); and, in seventy percent of cases, are the demographic responsible for unidirectional physical intimate partner violence. When broached, many feminists will not even deny this fact, but will ask which sex incurs greater physical injury from domestic violence, as if this would serve as some proof of the greater culpability of men. One or both of two cases may serve to explain the discrepancy in injuries: either men intend to harm women to a greater extent, or they are merely stronger, larger, and sturdier, and the bodies of women frailer, smaller, and weaker.
The first cannot be accurately gauged, as the perpetrator of violence may be lying or outright deluded; and so, to justify it, we must assume that men are inherently more malicious (they intend to hurt women more). This is already disproven upon considering the fact that men initiate intimate partner violence to a lesser degree, and it is somewhat arbitrary to assume that they might desire to harm women more after they themselves have been harmed, but not before.
The second is a sounder explanation, and if a feminist were to argue that it still makes men the more sickening and immoral sex, then she would also have to agree that a weak midget stabbing a woman and failing to kill her on account of his strength is more moral than a strong man carrying out the murder successfully (though both desire her death in equal measure), lest she reveal the true force which compels her to make such an absurd assertion: that the lives of women are more valuable than men; that they are superior. This is because of the simple evolutionary fact that a population is mortally bottlenecked by a dearth of women, but is often rendered superior by a dearth of men (by positive natural selection), from which it follows that organisms which regard the life of the male sex as disposable and his counterpart as sacred are more likely to endure to the present day. Indeed, such instinctual biases to esteem the life of a woman above a man exists throughout almost all species.
The first cannot be accurately gauged, as the perpetrator of violence may be lying or outright deluded; and so, to justify it, we must assume that men are inherently more malicious (they intend to hurt women more). This is already disproven upon considering the fact that men initiate intimate partner violence to a lesser degree, and it is somewhat arbitrary to assume that they might desire to harm women more after they themselves have been harmed, but not before.
The second is a sounder explanation, and if a feminist were to argue that it still makes men the more sickening and immoral sex, then she would also have to agree that a weak midget stabbing a woman and failing to kill her on account of his strength is more moral than a strong man carrying out the murder successfully (though both desire her death in equal measure), lest she reveal the true force which compels her to make such an absurd assertion: that the lives of women are more valuable than men; that they are superior. This is because of the simple evolutionary fact that a population is mortally bottlenecked by a dearth of women, but is often rendered superior by a dearth of men (by positive natural selection), from which it follows that organisms which regard the life of the male sex as disposable and his counterpart as sacred are more likely to endure to the present day. Indeed, such instinctual biases to esteem the life of a woman above a man exists throughout almost all species.
Last edited:
