To those special privilege types...Are you saying a women who strikes a man should not be arrested ?..or she should just get a lighter sentence ? What about a man who reacts with equivalent behavior...ie gets slapped and slaps back....if the woman gets a blackeye from a slap does that excuse her slap and prosecute his ? Special rules for women is a very slippery slope, but I am not surprised at all of it's defenders.

On the topic of Domestic Abuse (not violence), should a women be arrested for using her sexual power to manipulate a man ? What about maternal gatekeeping and plain old verbal abuse ?

Unfortunately, I am not at all shocked by all the feminist apologists. Women must be held accountable for their behavior. Until we agree on that, gender issues remain static.

What about the flip side to your argument ? Do you agree that a woman who shoots her husband in the back while he lies in bed...and that watches him bleed to death should not go to prison ? He did of course "make" her wear demeaning shoes. She now has regained custody of her children.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/14/preacher.slain/index.html

Sorry the law is suppose to be blind....I don't get all the exceptions for women clauses, all the while fighting for a special brand of equality.

No...I get bad bob's point...I just disagree. DV laws are not like other laws applied to bar fights. There are states that REQUIRE arrests on domestic disturbances. There have been laws written about requiring arrests for the violence initiators. Now that it has become clear that women initiate these violent encounters at least as much as men, feminists are moving to change laws and training to police officers to arrest whoever could do more damage.....that's plain misandry.

So extending your logic, if a woman cannot hurt a man with a slap, does that mean she is legally free to do so ? Does that mean she is legally free to "smack" her husband anytime, anywhere, as many times as she likes and he has no legal recourse ? Incredible.

I think the most revealing part of this discussion, is the idea that women should not be held to the same standard as men is being argued by those who are allegedly supporters of equality.

It doesnt matter if I know any women who do this. Either the behavior is acceptable or it is not. I was always taught it was unacceptable and gender was not a variable.

What a load of rubbish. Men who don't support women hitting them are all wife beaters whining to glenn sacks ? Does this kind of thinking get you anywhere in the real world ?

Nice dodge ? So you agree that it is unacceptable that someone should strike someone else, but you posit it's not a crime ? Back to the drawing board.

I see this discussion really hasn't changed since the first hour of the post, so in summary. anti fems and female fems agree women should not hit men and should be treated equally by the law. Enlightened male fems think we should treat women differently, very instructive.

As long as you tell your girls that hitting is OK, retaliatory domestic violence will continue. A woman striking a man is a provocative act and there will always be some men that retaliate. Teaching girls not to hit will not solve domestic violence, but it certainly would reduce it. The fact that feminists argue its ok for women to hit because they cant hurt is exactly the attitude that prevents progress on this issue and many other so called "equality" issues.

Girls are not taught to hit. They are taught there are no consequences for hitting boys.

Time to get off the nitrous. Men are not cars.

"Peagram meets up for dinner with a long-term friend who confesses to her over wine that his marriage isn't working out, and that she's the woman he should have been with all along. They have sex. Afterward, she is "mortified" that she slept with a married man. She stopped taking the pill after her last long-term relationship ended (which tells us that she's a certain kind of girl -- one who is responsible about birth control but doesn't plan for casual sex). She remembers to take the morning-after pill, but gets to the pharmacy a few days late. Eventually, she discovers she's pregnant. That same week, she loses her job. Suddenly, she's a statistic -- a young, unmarried, unemployed pregnant woman."

Remind me again what about this paragraph makes this girl smart ? Smarts and credentials aren't equivalent. This is an irresponsible woman making bad choices and not being held to any standard of accountability. Ho hum.

So the study does not confirm gender bias, but what is the Broadsheet headline ?

Feminism today is nothing more than a political special interest group. A significant majority of women won't even label themselves feminist because of the association with today's rabid man haters. With the exception of choice, feminism is all about how to get more money from the government to eliminate the need to raise children with their father's present. Just read through the broadsheet blogroll, what passes as feminism today is offensive to 95% of the country....and feminists seem shocked that younger women can't relate. The fact that all the hot button issues of today's feminism (gender pay gap, DV, rape) rely on discredited studies from previous generations reveal the "movement" as nothing more than a propaganda distribution mechanism...and frankly they are more dishonest than the right wing nut jobs they love to despise.

Because it cannot stand up to any level of factual scrutiny. This video captures my thoughts pretty well..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VKUXiD1vFQ

Apologies to those who have seen it before.