“This is not a man who was attacked by a crazy, abusive girlfriend.”
Bull.
The article is confusing as the sequence of events, but it looks like she started the actual violence during this particular incident when she threw something and hit him with it. I guess you think he should have just stood there and taken it - cowering like a dog. How many shots does she get?
This is a classic scenario. The woman starts the violence using a weapon, provokes a response, and then lays the responsibility entirely on the man. Later, her injuries matter, his do not.
If he’d injured her before, why was she still in the house? That’s a second classic scenario. She couldn’t have been that scared of him.
It’s a fashion doll. A child’s toy. No grown man would admit to being “injured” by it. A little boy might, to gain sympathy from Mommy.
At that point, he still had the upper hand. All he had to do was document it, and who looks bad? She does.
He wants her out of the house? At that point, he has reason to do so when he decides to *legally* evict her.
He decides he’s going to act like a little boy, and not like a man.
A boy thinks it is appropriate to beat up a woman because ONE child’s toy was thrown, not a man.
A boy thinks it is appropriate to snatch a woman’s cell phone from her, not a man.
A boy thinks it is appropriate to illegally order a woman from her home, not a man.
Because a man knows how to use his brain and act in wisdom, a boy does not.
A conservative man realizes that her two-year-old behavior reflects on her, not him, and not done anything stupid—under no circumstances would a conservative man decide to also engage the girlfriend in two-year-old behavior.
A liberal boy feels impotent at the act and needs to “teach her a lesson”.
Perhaps that is the problem. A weak, impotent man feels he must beat up a woman because he realizes she is the one person that truly sees how weak and how lacking as a man he really is.