Every time I see this topic come up online, it feels like walking into a strange, uncomfortable space.

We say (rightfully) that nobody should have to be a “perfect victim” to deserve empathy or protection. But when it comes to men in abusive situations, that principle seems to vanish. The expectation often shifts into something like: you should be able to avoid being hit, take it without responding, or prove your maturity by not defending yourself at all.

I recently came across a post where a woman asked men about this, and the replies were telling. A lot of men and women said things like, “Well, if a weapon is involved, he should be able to stop the attack without hurting her”—as if men are supposed to be Batman, able to neutralize violence flawlessly, without ever crossing the line of “hitting back.” That expectation seems almost superhuman, and it reinforces the idea that men aren’t allowed the same basic right to defend themselves.

At the same time, media and real life often normalize women slapping, hitting, or destroying property when upset—as though those actions are less serious.

At the end of the day, no one should put their hands on anyone. And I can’t imagine raising either my son or daughter to believe they shouldn’t defend themselves if they’re being assaulted.

What makes this topic so tangled, I think, is how it sits at the crossroads of traditional gender roles, feminism, biology, and social conditioning—at least here in the U.S. It exposes double standards about power, protection, and who’s allowed to be vulnerable.

Why do you think this conversation stays so “weird” whenever it comes up?