If the one who first laid hands on the other were charged without appeal, the victim's testimony dismissed, and the parties issued permanent restraining orders based on who shoved who first; then I suspect that fewer men would face such charges.

But the law is all to willing to let the battered man remain in a relationship of his own free choice.

Several states have removed discretion not to arrest.

In the press, it's usually hailed as a move, to, well...

the woman's consent always in doubt in such cases

...that. In reality, however, it mostly prevents the police-sposored reign of "domestic violence is okay if you're a girl" - it was a neccesary intervention.

There is, in fact, a slight rational grounds to sexism, both in cases of battery and in terms of serving in the military. If one of the parties is pregnant, battery involves a noncombatant third party, and in case of a war of total eradication, one male can "repopulate" a thousand females far more easily than one female can be impregnated by a thousand males - which is actually sex-linked. The US, conversely, hasn't seen a real war in a long, long time... and these arguments do not apply to "police action," nor is the rampant sexism contained at all to the biological domain - at which point, it's meaningless prejudice. Something which maintained a biological argument would come down equally firmly on female-on-female violence while allowing assaults on the prepubescent or postmenarchal as equally as it allowed other violence - which is definately not the case.

There is no relation between factual arguments and police-sponsored sexism - which is why the decision of prejudicial enforcement was taken out of their hands.

Blessedly, in the states that have it, the "foetal-beating" laws require a pregnancy test. This, plus equality, is probably the best way.

Either its pull them apart for life, or don't treat domestic violence as one-sided by dismissing the order of the actions and just deciding it based on the genders.

I agree, which is why I suggested extending sympathies to Mr. Rice as a battered man who "finally found the courage" to fight back.

Ironically, with a little editing...

of course if he resorts to fists its because he was groomed by seeing louts do it.

...except for the basic fact that "groomed" is not a word unless a hairbrush is involved, I actually agree with that.

They know nothing about fighting for sport or fun or social status. They just know what it takes when the first blow or worse is coming... to aim to cripple or kill.

I also agree with that.

The arguments about the "weaker caste" can easily be dismissed by comparing their weight to the weight of a regulation baseball bat. All force is deadly force; there is no honor in dominating others through violence (although there may be necessity, if the terms of domination are "leave me alone," such as our situation with the occupational state). As you noted, it is right to respond as such - do, or do not, but these are not games.

And again, in the interests of sense, if nothing else, I extend to Mr. Rice my sympathies as a victim of domestic violence.