Here's what one writer wrote about the Tiger Woods incident: "For one moment, imagine the situation reversed. Suppose he had scratched his wife for infidelity, and she had been in the accident. We would expect him to be charged like a thousand other athletes. Should Elin be charged, if she did scratch him?"
It is astounding that anyone would even think it's necessary to ask that question in 2009. Last time I checked, someone can be injured by a loved one even if he has a penis. Why on earth is a person's victimization judged on the basis of his or her genitalia?
Of course we all know why. Because issues that ought to be looked at purely in terms of criminality have become embroiled in gender politics, where the sex of the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator is far more important than the act in question. Crimes and allegations of crimes take on meanings far beyond the facts of the particular case -- they become symbolic of purported male oppression of females, and that symbolism becomes more important than the facts.
In this case, the facts don't fit the preferred gender metanarrative, so one of the unwritten laws of gender politics is that it's OK to ignore the entire incident, or to lie about it.
If the genders in this case were reversed, feminist activists would be calling for a police investigation and, if warranted (and even if not warranted), charges. They would be trotting out the usual arguments that absused women often protect their absuers, etc.
All well and good. But the fact is, when the victim is male, it's even more likely that he will not report -- reporting isn't consistent with the macho role women have assigned us to play.
Here's the bottom line: if the feminists want credibility, if they want people to believe they truly are concerned with gender equity and are not just a lobby for certain women, they would call for a police investigation in this case.
And here's the important part: if the facts play out that Tiger was attacked by his wife, she needs to be punished, and the feminists ought to be holding Tiger out as a feminist icon. You heard me right. An icon. Because Tiger, I would bet every dollar I own, could have flattened his wife the moment she laid a finger on him -- but he didn't. And one would think that's the kind of man feminists would be putting on a pedestal, if their fancy words had any meaning.
But, ladies, if you want us to "take it like a man" as Tiger apparently did, you need to insist that our abusers take their punishment like a lady -- a lady who's committed an assault. If not, don't screech and squeal the next time a man defends himself because the law won't.