Violence a Double-Edged Sword?

Why do we view violence against women as particularly heinous and violence against men as permissible?

Why is violence in any form simply not contrued as disgusting. Why is it acceptable to see a male victim of violence but not a female victim of violence?

Is a female victim of domestic violence easier to pity when she's attacked by a heterosexual male partner instead of a homosexual female partner? What's the difference. Are not both instances horrifying?

The NY Times ran an article today called Living to Tell (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/books/review/14roach.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) about a book written by a woman who was unforgivably and heinously attacked and assaulted by a man using both a pickup truck and axe on June 27, 1977. The two were camping. There is absolutely no excuse for this attack. None whatsoever.
The following is an excerpt from the article:

"Jentz needs this controlled calm because she is not merely, with this book, condemning her attacker. She is condemning American culture, one of easy violence that glorifies "the badass outlaw," that values "self-gratification, impulsivity and irresponsibility, and rewards preening narcissism." She is condemning violence against women and a society-wide indifference toward its ubiquity, what she calls our "passive complicity."

Sorry - "society-wide indifference toward its [violence towards women] ubiquity..."? And what constitutes indifference? Anyone would be sick to their stomach to read the details of her attack. But how is violence against women any more heinous or repugnant than violence against men?

I would like to ask Ms. Jentz if this instance is any less deplorable:

"Gold Coast woman Jeanette Anne Cameron, 46, pleaded guilty in the Queensland Supreme Court to three counts of fraud and one count of grievous bodily harm with intent.

Supreme Court Justice Margaret White today sentenced Cameron to eight years jail.

The court was told that on April 12, 2004, Cameron's partner, Brian Edwards Spencer, suffered a stroke and entrusted Cameron with $3500 cash to mind from his concreting business.

Instead of banking it, as she promised Mr Spencer she would do, Cameron kept the money for herself.

Furthermore, the court was told, friends of Mr Spencer gave Cameron $2200 that they owed Mr Spencer, but instead of banking it, she kept the money.

When Mr Spencer was released from hospital he went to live with Cameron, who nursed him back to health while assuring him his money wasn't too far away.

During this time, Mr Spencer was giving Cameron rent money for their Gold Coast property, but Cameron wasn't banking it and eventually the pair was served an eviction notice.

On November 26, 2004, the day Mr Spencer was due to pick up his "deposited" money from the bank, Cameron approached Mr Spencer from behind while he was having breakfast and smashed him in the head with a hammer.

She hit him at least twice, possibly three times, the court was told.

Mr Spencer managed to wrest the hammer from her, but not before he had suffered a fractured skull.

"This was a despicable attack on a helpless man," said Justice White.

The court was also told Mr Spencer was not the only person from whom Cameron stole.

In May and June of 2002 she stole a credit card from a previous tenant of the house she was renting and ran up debts totalling $3846 on items of clothing, luxury goods and sporting equipment."