The Question of Female Violence
by Kelly
A recent case has been covered by the views in which a woman is accused of raping and murdering a female child. While this is no doubt a tragic case, it is also the source of much controversy. Many people are in disbelief that a woman – and a mother, no less – could brutalize a child in such a way. Many claim she must have had a male accomplice (despite strong evidence to the contrary).
It is interesting to me that our society cannot accept the notion that women are capable of violence and cruelty equal to that of some men. Certain kinds of violence are associated primarily with women (like hitting, pinching, biting, scratching, and so on), whereas other forms of violence are often associated with men (such as punching, head-slamming, kicking, and rape). Rape in particular is usually defined as a sexual crime committed by a man on a woman or man, but women are rarely found to be sexual aggressors. Yet, just because it is rare doesn’t make it impossible.
When a woman kills we cannot begin to fathom her motives. We are uncomfortable with the very idea of a mother harming a child, let alone sexually assaulting that child. Yet at the same time, we hear of fathers sexually abusing children all too commonly. At what point do we abandon our preconceived notions of gender and behavior? Do statistics on violent crimes and who commits them prove that there is an essential difference between men and women? Or do we just chalk it up to the fact that some people (no matter their gender) are just majorly fucked up?
Female violence is all too often eroticized for male pleasure (“catfights” and bikini mud-wrestling, anyone?), yet woe be the woman who raises a hand against a man. Female violence, in reality, is often thought to provoke male violence (in other words, male violence is justifiable if a woman hits first; it is appropriate to retaliate). For example, many rumors circulating around the Chris Brown/Rihanna domestic abuse case perpetuated the idea that Rihanna provoked her beating by hitting or slapping Chris Brown. This brings up some important questions:
1) Is there ever a situation in which violence is acceptable and/or justifiable?
2) Is there any instance in which male violence towards females is justified? What about female violence directed toward a male? Male to male? And so on.
Ideally, in the Chris Brown/Rihanna case, one or both parties would have walked away before the situation escalated. However, I think it is important to note that Chris Brown was in the car’s driver’s seat and therefore had more power to stop the situation and/or allow Rihanna to leave peacefully. Whether Rihanna started the physical fight or not, I do not think he was right to retaliate with more violence. Not only is Chris Brown stronger than Rihanna, but his punches definitely did more damage than any alleged hitting or slapping (which we can see from the gruesome pictures spread on the internet in the recent months). Of course, I am not advocating female violence against men either. Unfortunately, there seem to be countless grey areas when it comes to domestic violence and other violent situations.
What are your thoughts on violence (either towards women or perpetrated by women?) Do you have an answer to any of the questions I posed above? I’d love to hear your thoughts, as this is a complicated topic with perhaps no right answer.
- Dollface
P.S. I highly recommend “A Question of Silence” by Dutch filmmaker Marleen Gorris. It is a provocative film about three women who kill a male shopkeeper for no apparent reason. It centers around the female psychologist who begins to empathize with the women. Raises so many interesting questions about women and violence, patriarchy, the sisterhood of women, and subverting the social order.
