> While domestic abuse from women against men is important please don't make the mistake of saying the levels of severity of violence is the same.
The parent wasn't. S/he said:
> The aggressively anti-male prejudice baked into domestic violence law is entirely the work of feminists
which is true regardless of the statistics; under the US rules (AFAIK), police must arrest someone as a result of a domestic violence call, and the guidance is that they must arrest the "primary aggressor", the person who is bigger, stronger, etc. - deemed more dangerous (i.e. the man), regardless of who's actually being violent.
Even if men were attacking women in 90% of the cases, arresting men in 99% of the cases is sexist anti-male prejudice.
> under the US rules (AFAIK), police must arrest someone as a result of a domestic violence call, and the guidance is that they must arrest the "primary aggressor", the person who is bigger, stronger, etc. - deemed more dangerous (i.e. the man), regardless of who's actually being violent.
There's several errors in this:
(1) There aren't really one set of "US rules" on this level of specificity for domestic violence calls,
(2) Under the Constitution, arrests without probable cause are forbidden, and the mere fact of a call will not always support probable cause, so insofar as there are "US rules", they prohibit the form of "must arrest" rules described,
(3) Where rules do require arrest of the primary aggressor in cases of mutual combat in domestic violence, the rules for determining who the "primary aggressor" is generally do not consider "who is bigger, stronger, etc.", but instead consider the actual injuries that have been inflicted in the particular case, past history of domestic violence of domestic violence complaints, and whether one party's violence was in self defense or defence of others. A few also include consideration of the potential future injuries as well as those other factors, which is the closest thing to the "deemed more dangerous" standard you propose that might way against men. [0]
None allow arrests of one party regardless of who is actually being violent, as you claim.
A result of the weapon of choice in domestic abuse. Men favor fists, while women favor improvised weapons (the legal term as in sticks, stones, or whatever is reachable).
Weapons in untrained hands do generally less damage than fists, so men in general cause more damage in fights. However, if the weapon do cause damage, that damage has a higher risk of being major.
So which one is more server, a untrained knife wielding attacker or someone going for you with their fists. The legal system has one view, the statistics has one.
Ou don't think it has anything to do with the vast numbers of women killed by men? Very few men are murdered by their wives.
While domestic abuse from women against men is important please don't make the mistake of saying the levels of severity of violence is the same.