Search Results: emotional abuse in children

I asked a question regarding stay-at-home motherhood, & a lot of people said "that's sexist!!! What about stay-at-home fatherhood?"

But stay-at-home fatherhood *isn't* as practical as stay-at-home motherhood. Unless a family is fine losing income whenever the mother needs to take off work for morning sickness during pregnancy:

"70% of women experience moderate to severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy... Half of pregnant women end up having to miss work due to nausea and vomiting, 74% of which miss at least 3 days."

And even when you're in work, it's understandable it'd be harder to work as efficiently when you're in so much pain from nausea, body aches, heartburn, etc. So the man could probably get income more efficiently.

After the birth, men don't have the breasts necessary to breastfeed for the 2+ years recommended by doctors the optimal physical/emotional well-being of the child.

Someone pointed out that mothers rarely keep breastfeeding for that time, which is true, but that's because most mothers have to go back to work, which wouldn't be the case in stay-at-home motherhood.

Some people advocated breast-pumps, but that's still depriving the child of the unique hormonal benefit of oxytocin that comes from latching against the mother's breast.

Anyway, even from a feminist perspective, stay-at-home fatherhood isn't ideal because studies show that women do most of the housework even when the man doesn't have a job.

It's true that SAHM means women make less money economically, but the greater bond with the children also means that the children will be more willing to financially support them later.

Before the kids have jobs, it makes it harder for the woman to escape an abusive relationship, which is why we should advocate for available/suitable shelters/services for abused women, rather than advocating more women in the workforce.

How do you feel seeing this:


Does she seem so strong, independent and confident smacking her disrespectful ex husband?

"He deserved it for how he treated her!"

What if the roles were reversed? Would he be a strong, indepent, confident man for hitting her while confined / disabled in a wheelchair?

In fact, when I went to find images of men hitting a woman in the same manner, the only things that mostly appeared were "abuse" or sexual oriented BDSM type things.
The serious slaps were still women hitting men - (though my search words were 'man hits woman'.)

Its glorified for a woman to hit a man, but unequal in a sense that men can not slap the hell out of some rabid shrew, in the same manner.

I use "shrew" to indicate women who are being abusive / unruly in a sense of being a threat to him or his family. Or, who "deserves" it for treating their male counterpart so disrespectfully.

Issues of this double-standard:

1.) "Women are taught to fear men"

*Impressing that men can not hit a woman, reinforces the idea that women should fear men.
*Women would learn to defend themselves, not assuming all men will keep that pseudo-boundary.

2.) Encourages violence against men, takes away their voice:
*Even police officers have defended a shrew for assault, assuming it was the man at fault.
*Men are judged as always wrong for hitting a gal, even if it was necessary.

"A real man NEVER hits a woman."

3.) Men suffer psyche / emotional difficulty in dealing with abusive wives but having no leverage.

"Women are WEAKER so if she hits you it doesn't matter - be a MAN."

So its okay for a man to take abuse, but not a woman? In what dimension is that ethical and fair?

4.) Women are a dangerous threat too.
*A woman killed her SO by pushing him down the stairs /stabbings /shootings/head trauma etc...
*A woman can hurt or threaten a man's wife, child, pet or home.
*She is a FAKING SHREW.

All opinions welcome :)
see update too -