I tend to think that most people would not know what to make of this.
What does it mean for a woman to not be a woman? Or, put another way, not a real woman?
Of course, a less subtle (and possibly less effective meme) is this:
Maybe she's not considered a strong woman. Maybe she's considered unruly. Misbehaved. But is she considered a bad person, a person of low character, because she has not always kept her temper in check?
Do you remember that episode of COPS where the man had hogtied his irate wife with a phone cord until the police could show up? Did you feel sorry for her? Did you wonder what whether that was necessary? I don't know if there was such an episode. I do remember an episode in which a skinny man had been trussed up by his larger wife, and the cops had a difficult time stifling their laughs. I wonder whether it would have seemed as comical to either the viewers or to the police if the situation had been reversed. Would they have rushed to cut her free?
Aaron Norris writes here:
According to a Penn professor who studies these things, every American man has about a 28 percent chance of being struck by a woman at some point in his life (in related news, the number of girls ages 10 to 17 arrested for aggravated assault has doubled in the last 20 years). And yet no one seems to take the phenomenon that seriously.Girl power, yo. If you accept the progressive viewpoint that men and women have no fundamental differences--that their anatomical differences are incidental-- do you think of both of these as equivalent: (1) A man strikes a woman, and she strikes him back. (2) A woman strikes a man, and he strikes her back.
Are they the same?
Is it always the larger or stronger of the two that is morally bound to not hit on danger of being a bad person?