SEPT 29 — To date, some 250,000 viewers (on Youtube and stomp.com.sg) have watched a clip of a Singaporean woman repeatedly assaulting a man’s privates with the heels of her shoes. With the car pulled up against the grassy verge of a residential compound, the woman leans against the Lexus for support while hitting the man.
Unsatisfied with merely assaulting him on the groin with her shoes and hands, she also whacks him on the head with her shoes. The man, meanwhile, does little to retaliate. At times he even obediently allows her to hit him.
Stories later emerged that the man is a high-ranking property agent with an international firm and the woman, the firm’s former receptionist. Fired for inappropriate dressing, she has been jobless since. The pair have been dating for two years with the man supporting her. Their income disparity is not the only difference. Between them is also a 20-year age gap.
This video garnered a range of interesting comments. Some speculated about the reasons for her outburst: from being given cheap shoes to expressing her anger over his visits to prostitutes. Other responses questioned the manhood of the man, who obediently allowed the attack.
And, of course, there were the purely lewd and suggestive comments that bordered on being disrespectful towards women. It was unanimously agreed that violence was wrong and many saw the woman as being psychopathically violent. Then there were also the odd few that stated that he was lucky to have his organ intact.
Not like the 28-year-old Turkish man in a recent Reuters report. Tired of false promises of marriage and faced with abuse, his 39-year-old lover decided to shorten his reproductive organ while he was drunk. Not only that, she discarded the body part on the rooftop of a neighbouring building.
In writing about these occurrences, I am not trying to portray women as violent beings nor do I condone violence. Rather, these incidents reveal gender differences in opinions. Despite the nondisclosure of gender identities in Internet chat forums, there is a distinct divide in the nature of the comments received in response to the Singaporean couple.
Those responses that speculated on there being a prequel to the episode were least likely to condemn all women. The responses that contained suggestive remarks and condemned all Singaporean women were more likely to question the manhood of the victim and call the act a crime.
Applying Criminology to explain things further, studies have shown that women are guilty of more premeditated murders than men. The murders are often meticulously planned with a sizeable amount of history behind it.
It could be tales of deceit, abuse, lies and passion. Meaning women are capable of enduring more emotional stresses before being driven to a reaction. When a woman reacts violently, it is a reflection of a host of underlying issues, as reinforced by the case of the Turkish couple.
That applies similarly to the Singaporean woman pummelling her boyfriend. Without discounting the possibility of an underlying psychopathological predisposition, his philandering may have worsened her basic insecurities. Hence she vented her frustration at what she perceived to be the offending part. Inexcusable behaviour that is pitiable at the same time.
Violence is universally regarded to be deplorable behaviour. Whatever reasons those women may have had for lashing out, people the world over have seen or heard of their deeds. The men have also had their tales of humiliation travel around the globe.
With the audience of men and women displaying different opinions, there are plenty of possible conclusions to arrive at. Nevertheless the tales and studies echo the underlying truth of that Shakespearean phrase: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
