Like grabbing the drink being violence meriting self-defense.
Sure. But its also pretty clear to me that if the gender roles were reversed, you're entire critique would no longer stand. And thats at the core of the issue. Does getting a drink thrown in your face give you carte blanche to escalate to physical violence?
If a man went to grab a woman's drink, and she threw that drink into the mans face as it began to spill, who would you side with?
I would side with the woman, because its never appropriate to grab someone else's drink, really under any circumstances. I actually think a woman throwing a drink into a mans face if he's trying to grab it out of her hand, I think its a pretty reasonable response.
He throws her back with enough force to topple over the bench and lose her glasses.
Again. Lets switch up the gender roles. A man stands up after getting a drink thrown in their face, and comes in to slap a woman who is in a seated position. The woman, remaining seated, both feat remaining on the ground, butt remaining in seat, defends themselves and pushes the man back, causing them to fall backwards over a bench.
Who would you side with in this scenario?
I would side with the woman. You are always allowed to defend yourself. If someone stands up and comes in to slap you, and you have to push them back, it is what it is. Everyone has the right to self defense.
He literally has to take two steps to throat punch her with enough force to throw her several metres back when she is “brandishing a weapon”
If a man comes at a woman with a weapon, I think the woman has the right to do anything and everything within their power to defend themselves. And sometimes that might result in an excess of force being used. And a woman absolutely should not be constrained to limit that force in the moment. If a man is threatening a woman with a bottle, which is absolutely a lethal weapon, she has any and all rights to defend herself in any manner she sees fit.
I think you show a very particular kind of sexism here when it comes to gendered violence. I think if you swapped the roles, we would be praising the woman for the level of restraint they showed. And materially, I suppose, this probably came from local news or was elevated in some manner because this will be going to court, and a decision about who was right and who was wrong in this scenario will be made. We can back test these evaluations.
There is of course the potential for more evidence to be made available. Other angles, maybe more time on either side of the clip. It could dramatically change the context. But if this were the evidence being submitted to court, I think it pretty clearly supports one side over the other, and if I were the mans lawyers, I would put the exact gendered test I've done here as a test of the evidence. If a woman would be found to be justified in doing what the man here does, then what the man here has done is justified.
No one is or should be allowed or permitted to use violence against other people. They do not get a "soft pass" on the escalation ladder because of their gender.