Many Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter dedications are making it out to be funny that Tiger Woods was beaten by his own wife. He is suppose to be a strong male and not let his wife mistreat or put a finger on him right?

Look at Chris Brown.

But are we taking Domestic Violence Seriously. What if Elin Woods hit Tiger Woods? Would that make it okay because he cheated?

While listening to Tiger Woods Remixed Love Song, I came across a comment from one of the users:

XmXFLUXmX (32 minutes ago) Show Hide

its a shame that a billionaire like this has testicles the size of raisins

if my wife hit me with my own clubs, shed never be found again unless you can identify a toothless fingerless skeleton at the bottom of the ocean

Wow!

I'm not saying that cheating on your wife multiple times, calling the mistress to erase the voicemail, and crashing your car is the best character personality traits, but what if the man was hit, does that make it right?

According to Jezebel.com, "Wendy Muphy, writing for the Daily Beast, puts forth a compelling argument that if Woods was in fact a victim of domestic violence, Nordegren Woods should be prosecuted and jailed:

Even if the couple wants it all to go away, the secrecy alone will keep the matter alive in the court of public opinion as we all speculate about whether a seemingly sweet mother of two babies beat up her mega-athlete husband. [...]

It's an odd scenario, but not impossible to imagine. Jackie Fryar infamously stabbed her husband, New England Patriots football star Irving Fryar, during a domestic incident in the 1980s. And while famous male athletes are rarely in the news for being victims of abuse, research shows that at least 10 percent of domestic violence is perpetrated by women against men. One controversial study even purports to prove that women are just as violent as men are-though the study is widely criticized for failing to consider that men's violence is usually far more harmful.

But, What if he was domestically abused, would society treat him the same as if it was a woman?

According to Jezebel.com, "An interesting analysis comes by way of Elie Mystal at True/Slant, who proposes that Tiger Woods is getting the short end of the stick due to his gender:

In the wall-to-wall coverage of Tiger Woods and the incredibly slow moving traffic accident, one rumor is getting lost. Obviously, we don't have nearly all the facts.

But so long as we are slinging unfounded rumors around about Tiger's alleged tryst with Rachel Uchitel, can we also stop for a moment and reflect on the allegation that Woods was a victim of domestic violence? If some reports are to be believed, Elin Nordegren went after her husband with a golf club. A golf club. With that - serious - allegation out there, shouldn't this story be covered in completely different way?

Okay, Wait. We get angry and protest when a woman is domestically abused, but we scorn, laugh, and pass judgment when a man is beaten by a woman, what do we want? Is is unacceptable for a man to take a hit from a woman, but it is not okay for a woman to take a hit from a man? I know that the strong vs. weaker sex argument has been passed around, but does it make it right on both sides?

The Media wants to make fun of Tiger Woods because he was "supposedly" hit by his wife, but doesn't want to stop and think that it's not okay, because he is male and he's suppose to be the stronger gender. What if he had hit Elin? The Media would have a field day, but what if she hit him?

Is there truly a double standard?

According to Jezebel.com, "Unfortunately, this point was lost on another columnist over at the Daily Beast. Rebecca Dana seems to be under the impression that if Elin Nordegren Woods was really wielding a golf club with malicious intent, it's was all part of a big girl power pop culture meme!

Even before Tiger Woods' wife, Elin Nordegren, took a golf club to his Escalade on Friday, 2009 was already shaping up to be the Year of Women Not Taking Shit.

Gone, for the moment at least, are the tearful press conferences where a puffy-eyed political wife stares at her feet while her husband confesses his carnal sins. Gone are the cheerful sham marriages held up as totems for the rest of us to emulate. Gone is the nobility of quietly carrying on. We are now fully in the season of not standing by your man.

Whether you should throw a nine iron at him-if, in fact, that's what the delicate Mrs. Woods did-is not the question. As with all things, there are good, bad, and potentially dangerous and illegal ways of fighting back. The point is: Women are fighting back.

WOW!

Mystal then takes the opportunity to point out how the double standards in this situation are completely informed by a sexist view of men and women:

For some reason certain people think that affairs give them the right to go to town on their cheating significant other. When these people are men, we call them "criminal assholes" and sincerely hope that they go to jail. When the female victims claim that they "fell down the stairs" and try to prevent criminal prosecutions of their attackers, we (or at least I) get very angry at the system and the society that lets these scumbag wifebeaters off the hook.

But when it is women accused of committing the violence, we treat it entirely differently. I know that, biologically, men tend to be bigger than women, but the whole "opposable thumb" evolution can really level that playing field. When a woman picks up a knife or a gun or a freaking professional golf club, they are significantly more dangerous than a man who spends his life watching precisely how the grass grows around a little cup. If a woman as famous as Tiger was in this situation, her Nordic husband would be in jail already pending further investigation.

At least many people (including myself) would argue that the man should be. But with Tiger, where is the outrage at his alleged attacker?

Why the double standard? Well, it's not really sexism against men. It's sexism against women that has been taken so far and is so socially ingrained that it comes back around to stab men in the ass in the woman-on-man domestic violence situation:

Sexist premise A: Women are weak, fundamentally irrational, and prone to emotional outbursts.
Sexist premise B: Any "real man" can defend himself against an emotional, weak woman.
Conclusion: It's no big deal when a woman strikes a man for cheating. She's just a girl, what else was she going to do?

And that is BS. We don't accept it when a man abuses an allegedly cheating woman. And we shouldn't accept it in the reverse because women are more than capable of exercising rational self-restraint. When women don't, they are just as dangerous as any guy you know. Newsflash: women do know how to kill. Suggest otherwise at your peril.

What are your thoughts?

To read more of the Jezbel.com article, click here.