http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBFJHX7TUgU
Does this strike anyone else as completely inappropriate?
Domestic violence used as comedy?
Women expressing sexuality being abused for it.
It smacks of oppression to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I sent in a complaint and stated this...
ReplyDeleteI object to this commercial for several reasons listed below
1) It isn't appropriate to use domestic violence for comedic purposes within the constructs of a televised commercial
2) Framing it as a soap opera makes it seem dramatic absurd and unrealistic, this potentially furthers public opinion that domesticate violence isn't that serious
3) It portrays the older man as a gentleman and entitled to commit violence as the woman has erred and had sex with another man
4)It leaves the suggestion of further violence about to occur
5) As this is all part of the woman's fantasy it implies that she wants that to happen. Furthering the myth that women really want men who will be men and be aggressive when their women (property) is threatened.
I agree that DV should never be shown as acceptable, but I still have a hard time taking feminist complaints about ads like this seriously, since women's groups and bloggers (I don't know about you yet, since your blog is new) tend to completely ignore the far more prevalent level of violence against men in the media.
ReplyDeleteWe do need to have our priorities, the foremost of which is putting a stop to all violence.
Many radical feminists who complain about 'violence against women' are akin to someone with a scar complaining to a leper.
Or, to put it in a more thematically appropriate context, they are akin to a plantation owner complaining to the slaves about the heat. No perspective.
Also, I don't know that I would call shaking someone's shoulders 'domestic violence'. It's overly broad definitions of DV like that which can lead to such rampant injustice in the police system.
As for the framing of the ad, it is supposed to be a trashy romance novel. My question is: are they actually like that? I never read them. In fact, I make a point of scoffing when I see them on the rack at the supermarket.
And a final note: the young man in the bed is a complete object here. He never says a word, is never named, never has any clothing and never does anything. His only purpose is to satisfy the woman's (adulterous) desires.
@beardreel
ReplyDeleteI think shaking someone and saying you have gone too far and then fading out is very suggestive of esculating violence.
I am disgusted at all violence so trivialised
Yes I noticed that about the young man however has I don't write in to complain every time I see a scantily clad woman, I'm not going to be moved to object on that grounds.
I'm not even going to bother dissecting this ad as it is insulting and immature on so many levels towards both genders, books and public transportation (because the only reason for taking public transport is to catch up on your trash reading).
ReplyDeleteI can think of about six themes off the top of my head to promote positive use of public transport and a dozen different ways to portray to the "read while busing" concept they were trying to convey.
For starters, how about the woman reading an action novel with a heroine swinging across a ravine (perhaps holding a man parodying the famous Star Wars scene) or a scientist realizing her greatest discovery or gymnast winning a medal or a mother saving her child or an officer dying on the battlefield or...
If you're going to use the reading on the bus theme, then all my ideas have better dramatic potential than the simpering "revenge and betrayal" Harlequin Romance plot.
I have a weird idea. Let's try NOT using sexual stereotypes to sell a message.
Cassie - "I am disgusted at all violence so trivialised"
ReplyDeleteFair enough. But surely you can understand that overlooking the multitude of advertising that has trivialized violence against men, and selecting the rare example of it happening to women to finally strip you into action, does seem to suggest a sexist motivation here.
While I've read that you don't believe in monogamy, I am sort of curious about how you, personally, would respond if you were to find your boyfriend having sex with another women? Are you so sure that you wouldn't be tempted to take a swing at him (or similar act of violence)?
Shaking, while it might imply the possibility of further violence, in and of itself does not seem terribly serious - especially given the discovery of infidelity (human beings are notorious for responding poorly when they find themselves the victims of it. I'm sure that Clara Harris is known outside of the US).
I'd contrast that violence to the "humorous violence" committed against a man in a water-conservation add. In that televised add, a man guilty of over-watering was greet at his front door by a woman who delivered a brutal kick to his genitals, dropping him to the ground in agony.
A number of men voiced objection to the ad. Their complaints were mocked by a number of women (likely feminists) chiding them for being "big babies". Too bad you weren't blogging at that time (~ 3 years ago), as you voice against violence would have been a strong counter-balance to that of other women who applauded the violence against a man, even for a rather minor infraction.
"While I've read that you don't believe in monogamy, I am sort of curious about how you, personally, would respond if you were to find your boyfriend having sex with another women? Are you so sure that you wouldn't be tempted to take a swing at him (or similar act of violence)?"
ReplyDeleteMy boyfriend and I play fight, I take a swing at him and he takes a swing at me, or we wrestle about on the ground. I of course always eventually lose, but it is fun anyway, and the aim isn't to hurt each other. As to taking a swing at him in violence over him having sex with another woman well I simply wouldn't do it. We constructed our relationship in such a way to that jealousy doesn't play much of a role. Neither of us are jealous people. I would encourage him to have sex with other women (or men) if it what would make him happy. A lot of people seem to think committment is how to show love for another person, I however think supporting their happiness is the best way.
Compare what you have just seen to this scene from two and a half men (a comedy).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq6ybzxbNmo
This is a program watched by 13-16 million in America (ALONE).
Do/would you complain about that?
Men are even made fun of when they get their penis cut off.
If that isn't trivializing violence then I don't know what is.
It isn't appropriate to use domestic violence for comedic purposes within the constructs of a televised commercial
So if it's outside the constructs of a television commercial it's OK? I don't get this point.
Framing it as a soap opera makes it seem dramatic absurd and unrealistic, this potentially furthers public opinion that domesticate violence isn't that serious
It portrays the older man as a gentleman and entitled to commit violence as the woman has erred and had sex with another man
The man seems positivity calm seeing as his wife is sleeping with his brother.
I think you would have to be shaken much, much harder for any hurt and damage to happen.
We see domestic abuse in soap opera/dramas all the time. It is clearly mocking those trashy Spanish language soaps I've seen been mocked by ugly Betty.
Who thinks domestic violence is more serious men or women
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaMAPiYStf4
Woman are even given awards for domestic violence and murder.
Men have a hard enough time to even get people to recognise men can be victims.
4)It leaves the suggestion of further violence about to occur
Maybe, but we simply don't know, for all we know he could storm out in a huff.
As this is all part of the woman's fantasy it implies that she wants that to happen. Furthering the myth that women really want men who will be men and be aggressive when their women (property) is threatened.
http://www.angryharry.com/esEastendersTheUKwomansFAVOURITEsoapopera.htm
http://www.angryharry.com/esWomenLoveManga.htm
http://www.angryharry.com/esWomenJustLoveViolentMen.htm
http://www.askmen.com/dating/vanessa/27_love_secrets.html
"Do/would you complain about that?"
ReplyDeleteThe sexism in that show makes me quite uncomfortable when it is on. Specifically in regards to the reltionship between Alan and Judith (alimony and such). I can see where it is perhaps useful in pointing out the hollowness of laws regarding alimony. However Complaining about such things is pointless, they are hardly going to take the show off. It makes a lot of money.
"So if it's outside the constructs of a television commercial it's OK? I don't get this point."
Dark comedy has it's place.
"I agree that DV should never be shown as acceptable, but I still have a hard time taking feminist complaints about ads like this seriously, since women's groups and bloggers (I don't know about you yet, since your blog is new) tend to completely ignore the far more prevalent level of violence against men in the media."
ReplyDeleteIf it bothers you, do something about it. Showing DV as comedy will not remedy the problems men experience with DV - and if it's something you care about and you feel you get no help with it, build your own structures, blog about it, make it happen.
BTW, I have NEVER seen or met a feminist in real life or online, who said that violence against men was OK. Just sayin links or you're bullshitting and playing the "what about the menz" card to divert the conversation away from the topic.
The betrayal of the characters on 3 and a half men is misandarist AND misogynist. Both genders are cast in ridiculous, demeaning stereotypes.
Also, "women are given awards for domestic violence and murder"? LOL forever. Links and evidence (NOT from MRA cooked statistics, please, real research published in accepted, peer-reviewed journals), please.
FotC: Here's an interesting article for you, assuming you haven't read it (assuming without ill intent, I want to make clear, since I myself only stumbled across this phenomenon and article recently).
I'm enjoying your blog, and please, feel free to drop me a line at llloranys at gmail.
@zokka:
ReplyDeleteI stumbled through a few of your links. I'd like to focus on your point, but honestly, I couldn't get past the horrible wording of the #3 "rape fantasy" statement on the askmen.com article.
I won't argue that force fantasy is not a dominant fantasy held by many women, but using the word "rape" to describe it is horrific, wrong-headed, and just wrong. Rape describes an act with a complete loss of control and violation to the victim. Forced sex fantasy BY ITS NATURE leaves the woman (or man if it's his fantasy) in complete control at all times.
They are COMPLETELY different things.
Sorry to go off, but I couldn't get past that. And, apparently, neither could a couple hundred of the commenters on that article.
I also read the links. I tend to avoid that blog, his misogyny distorts everything and he ends up with nothing but a bitter rant and nothing of interest to say.
ReplyDeleteDeviant one, that was a good article, it helped my put my finger on just what I resent about the MRA.
ReplyDeleteWhy waste time lobbying against feminism when you can challenge the institutions that cause the actual problems?
So happy you found it useful - I found it quite eye-opening as well.
ReplyDelete"So there is a mindset of female-on-male violence being more acceptable."
ReplyDeleteI am probably going to be torn limb from limb here, but at this point if we want to talk about degrees of 'wrongness', then yes I would say I agree that violence from women directed towards men is more acceptable.
I say this because of the differences in strength. For example if a child is abused it is more serious then when an adult is due to the lack of ability he or she has to defend themselves. Likewise with gendered violence. Women as a general rule are less able to defend themselves then men, making it morally wrong to a further extent then the reversed situation.
I would also point out here that. Physical strength is something the MRA point out is a difference between the genders and want it to be recognised as such.
Gender equality due to the differences in the male condition and female condition can never be clear cut and absolute.
"Probably true. I've never seen the show, but the name alone bothers me. But I don't know why you mention it specifically."
It is brought up in earlier in this blog entry.
"As men fight against, for example, the discriminatory family court system, we also must 'lobby' against the feminist groups who actively oppose chance."
Ah but this is very different to lobbying against feminism in general. I would lobby against anti-abortion bible thumpers, but I wouldn't lobby against christianity in general.
"I am probably going to be torn limb from limb here, but at this point if we want to talk about degrees of 'wrongness', then yes I would say I agree that violence from women directed towards men is more acceptable.
ReplyDelete"I say this because of the differences in strength. For example if a child is abused it is more serious then when an adult is due to the lack of ability he or she has to defend themselves. Likewise with gendered violence. Women as a general rule are less able to defend themselves then men, making it morally wrong to a further extent then the reversed situation."
Ah, now that begins an interesting discussion, and one I have often had before. Now, if we accept the idea that men are naturally stronger then women, that fractures the common feminist belief that the sexes are truly equal.
With that belief gone, it begins to make sense for men to have to take care to not harm women, since they are physically stronger. Chivalry returns.
However, what do the men get for all this? If you put this social code on men without anything like that for women...well then we are living in a 'matriarchy' where men and women are equal, except that women receive special protection, giving them the advantage. That's not equal.
So, to be equal, we would have to give men something to balance it out. The question is, what would this be.
Political power? Superior influence in the family? Business preference?
Or maybe something we haven't seen before, but like what?
I'm still trying to figure that out too.
"I would also point out here that. Physical strength is something the MRA point out is a difference between the genders and want it to be recognised as such."
That is one set of the MRA movement. But you seem to agree with this, so that goes back to my above question. What do men get in exchange for chivalry?
"Gender equality due to the differences in the male condition and female condition can never be clear cut and absolute."
I agree and I hope for a truly egalitarian society, where there is no legal/political distinction between men and women. No special laws, no special programs, no protection. No maternity leave, just parental leave (it would be assumed that women would take some while pregnant, but no more than half).
"Ah but this is very different to lobbying against feminism in general. I would lobby against anti-abortion bible thumpers, but I wouldn't lobby against christianity in general."
Yes, and I only fight against some parts of feminism as an MRA, and there are and were women who dislike(d) Christianity as a whole. I can't say what the average is.
There are flaws throughout your argument. None of it adds up to make any sense actually.
ReplyDeleteI don't think not abusing women counts as chivalry.
""Gender equality due to the differences in the male condition and female condition can never be clear cut and absolute."
I agree and I hope for a truly egalitarian society, where there is no legal/political distinction between men and women. No special laws, no special programs, no protection. No maternity leave, just parental leave (it would be assumed that women would take some while pregnant, but no more than half)."
My statement was intended to mean exactly the opposite actually. It is impossible not to have laws directed towards the difference in genders, because having equal sentencing and equal protection just doesn't make sense. For example take the case of rape. It would make sense to me for rape against women to carry a higher sentence as it is a far more common crime and consequently a deterrent is needed. To make both genders exactly the same is to make sure of inequality, as it ignores the fact different issues effect genders differently.
Also I object to physical strength being used as a basis for class, which MRA appears to promote.
"Yes, and I only fight against some parts of feminism as an MRA, and there are and were women who dislike(d) Christianity as a whole. I can't say what the average is."
Then I wasn't talking about you.
"Now, if we accept the idea that men are naturally stronger then women, that fractures the common feminist belief that the sexes are truly equal."
ReplyDeleteOh I disagree vehemently that not being of the same physical strength and such makes for inequality in genders.
"There are flaws throughout your argument. None of it adds up to make any sense actually.
ReplyDelete"I don't think not abusing women counts as chivalry."
No, but intentionally restraining oneself is what chivalry is all about. Under that code, a man would not, for example, strike a woman in an instance where he would strike a man.
My point is: if men have a code of conduct concerning how they treat women, that means they must exert special effort. When effort is exerted, reward is to be given. What will that reward be?
"""Gender equality due to the differences in the male condition and female condition can never be clear cut and absolute."
I agree and I hope for a truly egalitarian society, where there is no legal/political distinction between men and women. No special laws, no special programs, no protection. No maternity leave, just parental leave (it would be assumed that women would take some while pregnant, but no more than half)."
"My statement was intended to mean exactly the opposite actually. It is impossible not to have laws directed towards the difference in genders, because having equal sentencing and equal protection just doesn't make sense. For example take the case of rape. It would make sense to me for rape against women to carry a higher sentence as it is a far more common crime and consequently a deterrent is needed. To make both genders exactly the same is to make sure of inequality, as it ignores the fact different issues effect genders differently."
In that case, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that a society which dwells on differences can never be equal. My mistake.
"Also I object to physical strength being used as a basis for class, which MRA appears to promote."
But you just said that there should be special protections for women due to physical strength, which makes them a different class (higher or lower depends on the specifics).
""Yes, and I only fight against some parts of feminism as an MRA, and there are and were women who dislike(d) Christianity as a whole. I can't say what the average is."
"Then I wasn't talking about you."
I didn't think you were; I just wanted to note that there are many different views in every group. When I do generalize about feminism (which I try to avoid) I usually just look at the large women's groups, who represent the women's movement politically and economically.
"Oh I disagree vehemently that not being of the same physical strength and such makes for inequality in genders."
ReplyDeleteMaybe not, but it does "fracture" the belief of absolute equality, which opens the discussion on chivalry and reward for chivalry.
We have three options:
1)Ignore the physical differences, treat men/women totally equal: this leaves women disadvantaged due to the lower physical strength which you recognize.
2)Recognize the physical differences and give women protection: this leaves men disadvantaged, since they have to restrain themselves around women, while women have no restraints.
3)Recognize the physical differences, give women protection, and give special some reward: this actually equalizes things, with men taking care around women and then receiving something in return.
"No, but intentionally restraining oneself is what chivalry is all about. Under that code, a man would not, for example, strike a woman in an instance where he would strike a man."
ReplyDeleteAgain I don't think it is chivalry so much as morality.
"But you just said that there should be special protections for women due to physical strength, which makes them a different class (higher or lower depends on the specifics)."
I disagree it makes them higher or lower. I think protecting those who can not necessarily protect themselves (eg children, animals) promotes equality rather then lessens it.
Basically your arguments revolve around the notion that the physical strength of men should be completely disregarded in law. I think I have explained my position on that. As such unless you can bring into the debate any more information in regards to that specific point I think it has reached its conclusion or we can resign ourselves to a circular disagreement.
"2)Recognize the physical differences and give women protection: this leaves men disadvantaged, since they have to restrain themselves around women, while women have no restraints."
ReplyDeleteAgain I will state I don't see this as chivalrous or disadvantaging men, it is merely behaving morally. Am I disadvantaged as an adult because I will treat a child more gently then I would treat an adult? In terms specifically of protecting myself against violence and more generally in regards to pretty much all interactions. Or disadvantaged because I will treat a threat from animals differently to a threat from humans?
Your logic is absurd
"while women have no restraints."
ReplyDeleteThat makes no sense either, nobody said to let women unleash on men unrestricted.
"Again I don't think it is chivalry so much as morality."
ReplyDeleteand
"Again I will state I don't see this as chivalrous or disadvantaging men, it is merely behaving morally."
Ah, but we don't just have a code against strike smaller people. It is still viewed as wrong for a man to strike a woman, even if they are the same size. It is based on gender which makes it chivalry.
"Am I disadvantaged as an adult because I will treat a child more gently then I would treat an adult?"
No, but that is because the children give something up. They must be respectful and (to some extent) obedient of adults, and in return they are sheltered.
Just think if a child was allowed to do everything an adult would do, like working in business, but the adults made the same concessions: their outbursts would be overlooked; people wouldn't shout at them like they would at an adult; they would be able to fall behind the protection of others when things got tough.
Or if you were married to a child. Think if you had to treat your spouse as you 'gently' treat a child, but they would have no such requirements to niceties.
""while women have no restraints."
That makes no sense either, nobody said to let women unleash on men unrestricted. "
I didn't mean restraints on violence. In this discussion, the only difference between genders we are accepting is the one of physical strength. Under chivalry, men would be restrained from being violent due to their gender. However, they would be the only restriction; on all other levels, the genders would be equal. That leaves men disadvantaged by virtue of having a handicap, while women have none.
But, you are correct. I am fine with agreeing to disagree.
My last comment is that such protections for women as a group sets them apart, just like animals and children (as you cited) are set apart. Just as children are not as respected as adults, women will not be if they are receiving special protection.
If you disagree with that assumption, that is fine and we can leave it at that.
"Ah, but we don't just have a code against strike smaller people. It is still viewed as wrong for a man to strike a woman, even if they are the same size. It is based on gender which makes it chivalry."
ReplyDeleteIt is wrong for anyone to hit anyone, where did I say otherwise?
"No, but that is because the children give something up. They must be respectful and (to some extent) obedient of adults, and in return they are sheltered."
I don't see there being a direct trade as you seem to insist there is. My protection of children doesn't stop when they are rude to me, even when they hit me.
"My last comment is that such protections for women as a group sets them apart, just like animals and children (as you cited) are set apart. Just as children are not as respected as adults, women will not be if they are receiving special protection."
I don't know anyone that doesn't have respect for children. Also object to the lack of respect we show animals. I am a vegetarian afterall.
"It is wrong for anyone to hit anyone, where did I say otherwise?"
ReplyDeleteYou didn't, but we were discussing whether women should be protected by virtue of gender, not by size.
""No, but that is because the children give something up. They must be respectful and (to some extent) obedient of adults, and in return they are sheltered."
I don't see there being a direct trade as you seem to insist there is. My protection of children doesn't stop when they are rude to me, even when they hit me."
No, but children aren't free to do as they wish. They have to submit to certain rules, such as where to go, what to eat and when to do things.
""My last comment is that such protections for women as a group sets them apart, just like animals and children (as you cited) are set apart. Just as children are not as respected as adults, women will not be if they are receiving special protection."
I don't know anyone that doesn't have respect for children. Also object to the lack of respect we show animals. I am a vegetarian afterall. "
By respect, I mean 'respect as an adult'. Children are taken as seriously because they lack life experience and because they are sheltered.
As for animals, I am a vegetarian as well and I am in favor of humane treatment of animals. However, that is a WHOLE different issue. How we treat a different species which which we can not communicate is much different then how we treat one another.
“I am disgusted at all violence so trivialised” but... In another post,
ReplyDelete“Dark comedy has it's place”.
I'm sorry but it seems your not as disgusted as you make out!
slwerner said...
“Fair enough. But surely you can understand that overlooking the multitude of advertising that has trivialized violence against men, and selecting the rare example of it happening to women to finally strip you into action, does seem to suggest a sexist motivation here.”
Fotc, please answer this point.
You say this advert, in it's self, is proof positive of oppression against woman. So why aren't the numerous examples of violence against men proof of oppression?
Why are women oppressed but not men?
You say your open to criticism; could you actually answer the criticism?
P.S: Do you ever sleep your posting at 3am!!
"You say this advert, in it's self, is proof positive of oppression against woman. So why aren't the numerous examples of violence against men proof of oppression?
ReplyDeleteWhy are women oppressed but not men?"
When did I say that?
"I'm sorry but it seems your not as disgusted as you make out!"
Please support any statements you make on my blog.
"P.S: Do you ever sleep your posting at 3am!!"
I have a lot of issues sleeping, a blog is a welcome distraction.
@beardreel...moving along now...lol
ReplyDeleteOoookay, let's back up.
ReplyDeleteBeardreel, I'm going Medieval on you and I mean that literally as I am taking us back to the true meaning of the word and conduct of chivalry.
Chivalry has nothing to do with gender or the protection of one gender by another.
Chivalry is a military code carried by knights in the middle ages (and since). It required, amongst other things, that a knight protect and assist those weaker or less able than themselves. This included ALL PEOPLE (sorry, I don't know about the animals, Cassie, though they did care for their horses as property). The modern day evolution of chivalry is the word cavalry, synonymous with getting aid when it is most desperately needed (e.g. "send in the cavalry!").
The concept of caring for others(women, children, elders, etc.), including stronger men of weaker men, is part and parcel of that. No specific separation made for gender, other than to recognize that, often, women are physically weaker than men. And certainly no concept of "payment" in return for following that code. It was considered an honor to do so.
Onto your comments on "restraint." Unless you are going to agree that men are in a constant state of the urge to physically aggress against others, your comments about "men would be restrained from being violent due to their gender" hold no water. You speak of restraint as if it is an onus and difficulty for men to not harm others or act against them. I think this is ludicrous and I hope you will join me in that. I know few men, except those with emotional and/or drug/alcohol problems, who go around hitting people for no reason.
If I accept your logic, then I must accept its reverse, that women are somehow naturally inclined to treat others with care, respect and civility. As you and others have pointed out here, that is clearly not always the case.
"Ah, but we don't just have a code against strike smaller people."
Ah, but we do. It is not considered okay for larger boys to beat on or take advantage of smaller boys. We have a word for them; bullies. If this were not the case and it were considered normal and acceptable, as you suggest, then there would not only be no need for anti-bullying programs, it would be odd to suggest one.
It's also not okay to beat up on dwarfs and midgets, despite the past popularity of those tossing games.
PEOPLE, not men, are bound to promote and lift one another, even where we have differences. Being a good man is part of upholding this tradition of chivalry.
@beardreel:
ReplyDelete"Children are taken as seriously because they lack life experience and because they are sheltered." (I think you meant "not taken" here, so I'm proceeding from that.)
This is true, and does not apply to women who are as capable of gathering life experience as a man and don't require sheltering.
Oh, I understand the historical roots of chivalry. However, in modern context it has come to mean a code of 'gentlemanly' behavior, almost exclusively pertaining to the conduct of men on women (although sometimes it still comes up in competitions between men).
ReplyDeleteIn olden days, the 'payment' was the status of leadership in the community and family. Men stepped up to protect others, and so they were the leaders (not that they all would have wanted this).
As for restraint, a better word would have been effort. Under chivalry, men have to treat women differently than they do men. Who they are interacting with determines how they interact, where as women treat men and other women more or less the same (at least with it comes to courteous behavior).
And to quote myself again:
"Ah, but we don't just have a code against strike smaller people."
Key word is 'just'. It is not 'just' based on size. Gender can and does play a, quite possibly bigger, role than just overall size. At the very least, people's first reactions to physical altercations will be colored by the genders involved. Even if they later changed their view by accounting for size, such as reversing if the female is larger, there is still that first impression. That colors their world view.
And yes, I did mean "not taken seriously".
However, it does apply to a world where women receive special protection, thereby rendering them less worthy of full respect and trust in their ability.
Umm social worker did you mean to post in the chivalry thread?
ReplyDeleteZokka Said:"You say this advert, in it's self, is proof positive of oppression against woman. So why aren't the numerous examples of violence against men proof of oppression?
Why are women oppressed but not men?"
You said: “When did I say that?”
On your first post
“It smacks of oppression to me.”
Unless I am mistaken, you've not once admitted that men could be oppressed.
“Please support any statements you make on my blog.”
Dito for you too. Most of what has been said so far Is just peoples opinion.
“I am disgusted at all violence so trivialised” but... In another post,
“Dark comedy has it's place”.
I would have thought, if you where disgusted by something then you would not just accept that violence has it's “place” within a dark comedy. This is how, I read what you have said. If I am wrong could you please explain what you mean.
"“I am disgusted at all violence so trivialised” but... In another post,
ReplyDelete“Dark comedy has it's place”.
I would have thought, if you where disgusted by something then you would not just accept that violence has it's “place” within a dark comedy. This is how, I read what you have said. If I am wrong could you please explain what you mean. "
I think you must be unaware of the point of dark comedy. I don't think dark comedy trivialises things.
Whoo, missed a hell of a party! Damnit, why can't I just stay awake forevers?
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I'd like to say that violence against another human being is never OK regardless of gender or age. That said, there's a difference between violence and self-defense.
On to specifics:
If you take the time to click on by username, you can see my blog (http://beardreel.wordpress.com) which is, in fact, a blog about the representation of men in the media. I am also an active MRA and a writer with an interest in men's issues. So yes, I am making it happen.
I did click your blog and read some of it, and I agree with what I did read there. Just wanted to make that clear. It’s good that you are doing something about it – I am struggling with the next part of it:
And I never said anything said anything about showing DV as comedy. I said, as you quoted, that 'DV should never be shown as acceptable'. All I said was that many radical feminists complain about violence against women while ignoring that against men. No mention of what to do about it (that can come later).
That’s because of the institutionalized power men have towards women, which pose a greater threat. Also, because it happens to women more – more women are injured, beaten to death, murdered by the men they are in relationships in, than men.
Feminists primarily focus on Patriarchy, and, as I’m getting tired of saying, PATRIARCHY HURTS MEN TOO. This is why I said, if a movement doesn’t address something specific to your own needs, do that part of it yourself – but why villainize that movement for not including every single last wrong in the world? NO one can fight and win a battle on every single front, despite George Bush's delusions.
There ARE legitimate issues which affect men, and there are positive feminist-friendly MRAs out there that address those without being so threatened by women's empowerment that they're needing to break down the work feminism had done. I support them 100%.
I never said I had either. I said:
'since women's groups and bloggers ... tend to completely ignore the far more prevalent level of violence against men in the media.'
You can see that by looking at any such group like NOW or countless women's media blogs.
But, if you want numbers, here's a recent study: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID52%20Draft%20M2.-with-tablespdf.pdf
Page 12: Violence Approval, Gender:
'just over half of U.S. male and female students agreed that there are circumstances where they could approve of a wife slapping her husband, compared to 18% of males and 16% of females who approved of a husband slapping his wife.'
So there is a mindset of female-on-male violence being more acceptable.
I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to call bullshit again.
Did you even READ this study you spout? Because I did, and here are some illuminating quotes for you, copied and pasted DIRECTLY from the study:
Quote: "Gender and Approval of Family Violence. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Approval of Family Violence section of Table 5 is that, although the percentage of men approving these aspects of family violence is greater than the percentage of women, the differences are not large, and in one case there is no difference: Just over half of both the women and the men in this study approved of a wife slapping her husband in some circumstances." *End quote*
Just for the record, I also believe that fighting in self-defense is OK. That certainly qualifies as “in some circumstances”, and the amount there, in case you missed it, is not what you said it was. Not by a long shot. Which makes me question the good faith you are arguing with, frankly.
Also, interesting titbit (one of many, if you’d just read the study) from your study for you:
ReplyDeleteQUOTE: “Gender Differences
There is a vast literature documenting differences in the socialization of boys and girls both within the United States and internationally (e.g. (Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001); Tu and Liaa of China?? and Shimony’s (2005) research in Israel). Gender differences in violence socialization start early in life. Many studies show that parents are more likely to spank do it more often with boys (Newsom & Newsom, 1976: Table 37; Straus, 2001; Straus and Stewart 1999). The phrase, “boys will be boys” reflects a greater cultural acceptance of violence by males than females early in life Sears, Maccoby and Levin (1957: 253) found not only a greater tolerance of boys’ aggression but a greater expectation of aggression by boys.
Indeed, many fathers have explicitly “trained” their sons in violence through their rough, aggressive and competitive play (see Henry,1963).” *END QUOTE*
So this problem of gendering and expecting certain things because one was born with certain genitals? It’s the very FOUNDATION against which feminism is fighting. Tell me again how feminism is evil?
You said: "The betrayal of the characters on 3 and a half men is misandarist AND misogynist. Both genders are cast in ridiculous, demeaning stereotypes. "
Probably true. I've never seen the show, but the name alone bothers me. But I don't know why you mention it specifically.
I wasn’t replying to you on that one, I was replying to zokka, and I meant “portrayal”, though “betrayal” also works here .
You said: "Also, "women are given awards for domestic violence and murder"? LOL forever. Links and evidence (NOT from MRA cooked statistics, please, real research published in accepted, peer-reviewed journals), please."
Not directed at me, but, for a recent example:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-14/meanwhile-back-in-sweden/
Not an award given, but, as a Swedish editor said on his blog:
“Swing it again, Elin! Thank God for girls like Elin. Next time, I hope she uses a bigger club."
Maybe you should look up feminist commentary on this, like this article by well-known feminist writer Amanda Hess.
Quoted for you, the final sentence of the article:
I know that male abusers have been beating the shit out of their spouses for a long time now, but domestic violence is one male-dominated field where inviting more female participation does not help promote gender equality.
This is the woman who was called a man-hating lesbian cunt because she said that the concept of “waiting for a boyfriend” is not necessarily beneficial to women OR to men.
You know, just because someone said something, and that person happens to have a vagina, doesn’t necessarily mean that all or even some feminists approve/share that view, nor does it mean that that person is, by virtue of her vagina, a feminist.
Feminism is not a hive-mind, you know. Women can be idiots too, just as much as men.
This problem with the approval of violence in our society is exactly what the paper you quoted looked at, by the way, and is something problematic, like I said, that feminism is addressing.
When women fought for equality in the work place, they not only had to chance laws but also had to 'lobby' against the corporations who discriminated to make sure the laws were followed.
As men fight against, for example, the discriminatory family court system, we also must 'lobby' against the feminist groups who actively oppose chance.
Pray tell, what “discriminatory family court system” would that be, that feminism actively opposes changing? I’m dying to know.
Ah, now that begins an interesting discussion, and one I have often had before. Now, if we accept the idea that men are naturally stronger then women, that fractures the common feminist belief that the sexes are truly equal.
ReplyDeleteActually, that’s NOT what feminism believes. Once again.
QUOTE: “* Spot-the-strawfeminist: It is often claimed that feminists say there are no differences between men and women, by people who tend to condescendingly point to women’s chest area as they “debate”. Rubbish – feminists are, on the whole, not blind. What feminists say is that neither the size of the fatty glands on one’s pectoral muscles, nor whether one’s reproductive organs are innies or outies, are indicators of deeper essential differences, and nor such indicators of sexual dimorphism relevant when discussing rights, equity and sexual egalitarianism.” *ENDQUOTE.*
With that belief gone, it begins to make sense for men to have to take care to not harm women, since they are physically stronger. Chivalry returns.
Nonsense. It just means that men and women must be socialized to not take or accept VIOLENCE as the first and easiest route out. A believe that’s ingrained in and reinforced by – you guessed it! Patriarchy. Again, something that feminism is AGAINST.
I agree and I hope for a truly egalitarian society, where there is no legal/political distinction between men and women. No special laws, no special programs, no protection. No maternity leave, just parental leave (it would be assumed that women would take some while pregnant, but no more than half).
Are you going to spend 4 months at home caring for a newborn so that your wife goes back to work after recovering from the physical birth, and doesn’t NEED to take maternity leave? If so, that’s wonderful.
However, what if you both decided that breastfeeding, as recommended by the WHO, is better for the baby? That is not something you are able to physically do, and expressing milk at the workplace is ridiculously hard and definitely frowned upon in most workplaces (which is why many women lobby for longer maternity leave). Besides, breastfeeding supply and demand and physiological processes are only properly established after about 3 months. Wouldn’t it be better if you BOTH could get complete “parental” leave?
I strongly believe in the concept of paternity leave, but why take maternity leave away from women to achieve it? It’s not a zero-sum game!
Ah, but we don't just have a code against strike smaller people. It is still viewed as wrong for a man to strike a woman, even if they are the same size. It is based on gender which makes it chivalry.
Actually, it is wrong for any person to strike another person. That’s why it’s called ASSAULT and it is a crime punishable by law.
Domestic Violence is assault with the added and very complex factors of power, financial and emotional control held by the abuser, dependence and fear for the very survival of the abused person.
Gender plays no role in itself there, it's about the distribution of power, and more specifically institutionalized power.
"Am I disadvantaged as an adult because I will treat a child more gently then I would treat an adult?"
ReplyDeleteNo, but that is because the children give something up. They must be respectful and (to some extent) obedient of adults, and in return they are sheltered.
Just think if a child was allowed to do everything an adult would do, like working in business, but the adults made the same concessions: their outbursts would be overlooked; people wouldn't shout at them like they would at an adult; they would be able to fall behind the protection of others when things got tough.
Your argument here is a straw man, and a ridiculous one to boot, as AFOTC pointed out.
Children are not *expected* to do anything to EARN their protection, and CERTAINLY not in the eyes of the law! What do you think will happen if you suggest you took advantage of a child in any way because he was disrespectful and disobedient?.
Children are taught to do things, taught with love, gentle guidance and respect. The reward for this is reciprocated respect and a willingness to follow your guidance.
Except, that’s not what most people do, now is it? See also: Anti-corporeal punishment.
Or if you were married to a child. Think if you had to treat your spouse as you 'gently' treat a child, but they would have no such requirements to niceties.
Wait, what?
The creepiness of that aside (I’m going to ignore the “married to a child” to address the argument).
WHAT? In a relationship, you treat EACH OTHER with MUTUAL respect. As EQUALS. Because that’s what you ARE. Despite the fact that the one party may be stronger than the other, or one party can wield words like a sword to cut deeper than physical wounds: You DON’T DO IT. Because you love and respect that person. Because that person IS a person, a human being. Regardless of which gender is actually the physically stronger/larger one in your relationship, or the one with more command over words.
Also, I wish to strongly emphasize what Social Worker so very succinctly and accurately said.
Also, zokka, seriously?
ReplyDeleteUnless I am mistaken, you've not once admitted that men could be oppressed.
Maybe you should look up the word "oppressed". It does not mean what you seem to think it means.
This explains it quite well
Men can be prejudiced against, but to be oppressed requires a system of institutionalized and sactioned power over a group. Since men as a group are the ones who POSESS the institutionalized power, the word you're looking for is "prejudiced against".
And prejudice against ANYONE is bad.
QUOTE: "When feminists say that women can’t be sexist towards men, (inserted by Deviant One: or that men can't be oppressed) they aren’t saying that women being prejudiced against men is a good thing, or something that should be accepted. Prejudice is bad and should not be accepted." END QUOTE
I would not class "2 and a half men" as a dark comedy.
ReplyDeleteThe dark comedy that I'm most familiar with is a American werewolf in London. Found it more scary than funny. :)
"I would not class "2 and a half men" as a dark comedy."
ReplyDeleteI never said it was.
Thank you, Deviant One, for your elaboration. Also the links to FinFem101; I've been aware of it, but haven't read through most of what's there.
ReplyDelete@zokka: No, I meant to post here. I was engaging in the Chivalry dialogue started by beardreel and FOTC. FOTC then wrote the Chivalry post based out of this thread.
Two points:
beardreel: "In olden days, the 'payment' was the status of leadership in the community and family."
This is wrong. It was a requirement of a trained knight to provide services for a set period of time (I suppose a sort of olden draft, if you will), usually a few weeks. This was at his own cost. The "payment" was that others were doing the same, so all were protected by each other. A society sharing in the duties needed to protect one another.
Now, if you want to discuss King's, leadership, payment and the reward system there, much of that was done through force and conquering. There was no "exchange" of services or rewards. They were simply taken.
Not very chivalrous.
Secondly, I continue to resist beardreel's implication that men must be on some strange kind of constant guard to prevent themselves from acting out on others, men or women. "Ohhhhhh noooo, honey, look out, I'm going to blow! Aaaaaaaahhhhh! Darn it, I punched you again. Why, oh, why can't I make a better effort to hold back my natural inclination to punch you in the face?!!"
Yyeah, that whole idea doesn't work.
What I'm baffled by in this discussion is why YOU are taking the position that men must resist these violent urges (and be paid for them) and that I'm countering that, no, men are perfectly capable of acting like gentle, caring humans at all times.
Thirdly, (more of an elaboration of my first point): THERE IS NO EXPECTED PAYMENT FOR RESTRAINING YOURSELF! No cookie for not hitting. I think the mafia had that and it was called extortion.
You are confusing the natural appreciation that comes from treating others with kindness with expecting a reward for not acting against their interests. The latter is more like Patriarchy, the former is more like...better.
You also seem to be applying a capitalist framework to reciprocal relationships, which isn't a new concept or entirely wrong. But it doesn't work in a "I do this, you do that" direct response way. It works as a "I behave in a way that enhances those around me, and I am therefore enhanced, both by my own better behavior and by benefiting from the same treatment of those around me."
Not to sound like a cliche, but behaving well IS its own reward. I FEEL good when I help others. It's internal capitalism.
Tastes better than cookie.
(I do appreciate you not punching me in the face though.)
As far as the whole child angle, can we focus on, say, weaker men or the elderly as analogies? I do see children who are not very well respected at all on a daily basis and it's unsettling to have them used in this way.
I don't mean to control the dialogue and if you can best make your argument using children as the example, fine. I just wanted to raise the point.
"As far as the whole child angle, can we focus on, say, weaker men or the elderly as analogies?"
ReplyDeleteFair enough, children don't seem to be a convincing argument anyway.
And continued!
ReplyDeleteThe belief I was referring to was not that men/women are the 'same', but 'equal', as in capable of all the same stuff. But then, as you say: "nor [are] such indicators of sexual dimorphism relevant when discussing rights, equity and sexual egalitarianism".
But then some writers here were saying that women deserve protections due to their smaller (average) size, which means it does matter.
Yes, men and women must be socialized not to accept any VIOLENCE, without thinking some violence is worse than others just because of the gender of the victim.
As for childcare, I hope to work out of my home and intend to be an exceptionally (maybe even excessively ;) (kidding)) involved father. And hey, complete parental leave would be great, but that is a BIG leap ahead and would require some major changes to the economy. But I'd be all for it.
And when it comes to politics, zero-sum games are what it's all about. Besides, excessive maternity leave hurts women in the workplace, as some have begun to see in England.
As I said above, I would like to know more about you view on 'institutionalized power'. And, much recent research has shown that DV is not done for control, but due to communication problems.
And back to children!
The law frowns on taking advantage of children because they are protected. In a society (and there have been ones like this) where children enter 'adulthood' earlier, they thereby give up their childhood protections earlier. It is not a trade off, but simply a system which has rules for both sides. The problem is a system with rules for only one side.
Now, allow me to clarify what I said about "married to a child". I meant that as an analogy for being married to a (adult) person whom you were socially expected to treat like we treat children, but one who had the full range of adult rights and privileges. As I said above, when a child becomes an adult they gain rights and lose protections; but what if they didn't lose those protections? You would have to treat them with the same extreme tenderness and care we give to children, but they would treat you as an equal adult. They wouldn't be rude, but they wouldn't be so restrained as you.
(Now, I know some people with disabilities can be like children, but this isn't what I'm talking about. Many of these people find loving partners, but many people wouldn't but up to living with someone with such disabilities. It takes a special heart, so it's not the average Joe's cup of tea)
Yes, relationships should be equal, but under 'modern chivalry' they WOULDN'T be. When one party has an additional code then it's not equal; that's simple math.
And now for Social Worker:
ReplyDeleteI understand your view, but I was not intending to imply that men must restrain themselves. Like I said before, effort is a better word. Forget restrain. These chivalrous rules are piling on extra codes and rules which men must abide to.
Acting kindly is the natural state and does not need to be rewarded. I agree, no cookie for not hitting. But, if you are required to express EXTRA kindness to a group over others, while they are not required to show any extra kindness to you, then it seems a cookie is in order
(This cookie talk is making me hungry.)
Let me put it this way:
Society asks women to be kind to men and other women. Society asks men to be kind to men. Then, society asks men to be extra kind to women.
It would be like men in the military (I'm anti-military, but it's a good analogy, so forgive me) receiving extra strict regulations which the women don't have to follow.
There's an imbalance there, and while you could say acting extra nice will make men feel all warm and fuzzy, any such system is far to vulnerable to manipulation, by both parties.
No, we need to do away with gendered codes of conduct.
And I'm fine with using other analogies. FotC mentioned children, so I ran with that.
Did I miss anything?
@beardreel
ReplyDeleteYou still fail to address what this "extra kindness" thing means. I don't think I am the only one here not seeing what you mean by this.
Okay, I'll be glad to try and clarify:
ReplyDeleteIn the modern context, chivalry is a gentlemanly code pertaining (mostly) to how men should interact with women. Two common manifestation are:
Offering extra assistance (getting the door, paying for dinner, etc.) to women.
And (the more topical)
Not getting as physical with a woman as with a man (the 'wouldn't hit a girl' mindset, people considering male-on-female violence more severe, etc.). This goes along with the 'Titanic mindset' which deems the lives of women more valuable, like those of children.
Now, I will assume that we agree that women don't really have a special code for interacting with men. It's about the same as dealing with other women (different discussion topics aside). And this is no more limited that between men and other men.
Therefor, if my above assumption is accepted, we have this formula for gender interaction:
Woman toward Woman = Equal
Man toward Man = Equal
Woman toward Man = Equal
Man toward Woman = Extra polite
This leaves men at a disadvantage (not necessarily a big one, but it's what the discussion is about).
I'll wait for replies before going any further.
@ Beardreel
ReplyDeleteYou have made those points before and I disagree with them. I just don't see how trying not to hurt someone is a disadvantage.
Secondly, I read your piece on the Titanic (you linked it to the draft didn't you?). Do you think today that would still happen? (not the crash. the sacrifice)
Okay, here I go!
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'll go in reverse: the Titanic.
I don't know if it would happen to such a degree, but it seems like it would happen somewhat. Favoritism of female lives can be seen in the news, in the military and in all ranges of entertainment. So I would say that it would probably happen less, but still happen somewhat. But that is purely an opinion.
Now back to chivalry:
What I am really thinking about are codes of conduct. Societies always have codes of conduct, that's part of what makes for a unified society.
The most basic is what I'll call the Human's Code. It dictates that people should be polite to one another, care about one another's feelings and not be self-centered. What we call being a good member of society.
Now, in the modern West that seems to be the primary code. Once there were codes which dictated how people of different races, creeds and genders interacted, but those have most fallen by the wayside. Except for chivalry, which I'll call the Man's Code.
The Man's Code dictates how he interacts with non-men (women, in practice). Now, for my purposes, we can ignore the contents of the Man's Code. Maybe it says be gentle, or maybe it says don't use the word 'underpants!' around them. That doesn't matter. What's important is the (disagree with this if you like) lack of a Woman's Code.
Again, it wouldn't matter what the contents of this code were, as long as they were fairly balance against the Man's Code in regards to effort exerted and self-sacrifice called for.
But, since there is no Woman's Code, men are left with these extra regulations (not restraints!) to follow. Not only does that mean more work for them, but (again because of the lack of a Woman's Code) they are disadvantaged, at the very least because they are burdened with these extra requirements for social interaction.
Then there is the real problem: men (the ones with the Code) being exploited through the code. They are pushed into military service, they are pushed into breadwinner roles, and (most drastic but perhaps least common) their injury is trivialized, allowing for physical exploitation.
Now, not all women take advantage of the Man's Code (chivalry), but it does happen. And it is also employed beyond the interpersonal arena, to construct a society at large which doggedly protects women over men.
What I would like to know, FotC, is this:
Do you disagree that having an extra behavioral code is a burden?
And, this is just to clarify, do you believe that women deserve (or just need) the sorts of special protections they receive today? And therefor that the Man's Code (chivalry) is beneficial to society?
Wow, there's a lot here. My first thought working backwards about "women and children" first in safety matters does still exist and I grant that.
ReplyDeleteThe rest will have to wait, though I am struck by the idea that those of us in the conversation all seem more centrist from the standard MRA/feminist positions than I typically find. Nice place to be. Kudos all around.
How do you all find time to stay on top of this? I've been sneaking away from work to check on things here, which isn't good.
Back to work.
Also, if someone can educate me on how you include italics, links, etc, in your comments, I'd really appreciate it. I'm old to debate, but fairly new to blogging and a lot of the rules elude me.
Am I allowed to chime in on this or is it FOTC only? I can? Good.
ReplyDeleteI agree that special protections should not exist. Or rather that they should not have to.
Given the current imbalance (far improved, agreed, from 20 years ago), there continues to be a need for certain groups, including women, to receive protection from discrimination. This is not special consideration, just rules/laws ensuring they are not excluded. So, yes, for me, to question one. Though I look forward to a time when it is less and less necessary.
I chafe at these concerns being directed at women, in particular, when there are many groups who receive identical protections, based on race, age or ability, for example.
To throw the question back to you, beardreel, do you think that these other groups deserve or need protection?
On the "Man's Code," again, yes. Any code or set of rules that encourage any people to behave better towards others is beneficial to society. I think there is an analogous Women's Code, though it is not labeled that and is more unspoken. Women are "naturally" looked to to be more care-taking, nurturing, considerate, aware of men's concerns.
There is a phrase I can't recall that describes an underclasses sensitivity to the dominant class and their needs. It is generally subtle, unspoken, and often not even known to the underclass that practices them, but are necessary for them to negotiate through life with the dominant class.
I'll try to articulate this better, but I'm hoping some others can back up what I'm trying to get at here.
In short, yes to both.
@ Deviant One:
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree that all violence is bad. In fact, I think the real solution to this whole problem is disregarding size/gender in that field.
I disagree that disregarding size/gender in that field will create anything but more victims. My proposed solution is to stop teaching boys what we’ve been teaching them for the foreseeable history of the world: That they have a right (and often times a duty, in order not to “loose face” with their peers, to take things by force, and to use force as a form of communication.
This is something that feminism does address through the non-gendering approach, as I have said previously, and in co-operation with and shown by groups that actually fight for men’s rights, as opposed to fighting for the erosion of the rights of others, and DO things like put up battered man shelters, help male victims of rape and domestic abuse, it is obviously possible to socialize boys to do just the opposite of what boys have historically been taught, as well as to re-socialize grown men to reject a teaching that is very damaging to them as a class as well.
I’d like to highlight one quote from this page:
QUOTE: “Despite this, sometimes men are denied custody for the wrong reason. Some are almost certainly convicted using false evidence. Perhaps some courts are biased against men. This doesn’t change the fact that in general, men are favored over women. Victims of domestic violence and sexual assault are subject every day to dual arrest, arrest of the victim only, false prosecution and criminal justice harassment. Despite the many gains made by enlightened members of the criminal justice system, my voice usually carries more weight there than does a woman’s. This is the true conspiracy – one that all genders need to work to change.” ENDQUOTE
I would argue against the idea that there is still 'institutionalized power' for men over women. It seems like the institution is pretty obsessed with protecting women, but I would like to know specifics of how you view this.
I have provided numerous specifics in the comments thread for the “Article” posts comments thread. Link here Repeating them here would be futile and time-wasting.
And while more women are seriously hurt in DV, it's not hugely higher, meaning the male victims shouldn't be disregarded. I never said male victims should take the foreground, but it seems unquestionable that they are currently under-represented and under-assisted.
I would like some references on both your statistics of men being seriously hurt in DV being almost similar to that of women, as well as that men don’t receive support or recourse.
Please see the article I’ve linked to XY-online earlier for a group that works actively and effectively to provide support to men on issues such as rape, DV and custody.
And, I was mostly talking about media there. And in the media, trivialized violence against men is MUCH more common.
This is true, and it’s true for society as well, and it’s wrong. I totally agree.
I agree that " PATRIARCHY HURTS MEN TOO". I do not dislike feminism for not including men's issues; that would be fine if they left it at that; I dislike it for (and here I mean the feminist establishment, not necessarily individual feminists) opposing men's issues. I do not want to undo anything feminism has done, expect where it has harmed others to win empowerment for women.
ReplyDeleteI will link you to an article that clearly debunks this myth.
Feminists don’t fight legitimate concerns regarding parenting and custody for men. Feminists fight a system which causes a rise in domestic violence and deaths for women and children, as this study linked shows.
In cases where domestic violence or abuse was not present, courts should provide primary custody to the primary caregiver. If the father is the primary caregiver, he should get the primary custody. That is the only way that’s fair towards the child. And that is in fact the way it is in many countries.
I agree that " PATRIARCHY HURTS MEN TOO". I do not dislike feminism for not including men's issues; that would be fine if they left it at that; I dislike it for (and here I mean the feminist establishment, not necessarily individual feminists) opposing men's issues. I do not want to undo anything feminism has done, expect where it has harmed others to win empowerment for women.
I will link you to an article that clearly debunks this myth.
Feminists don’t fight legitimate concerns regarding parenting and custody for men. Feminists fight a system which causes a rise in domestic violence and deaths for women and children, as this study linked shows.
In cases where domestic violence or abuse was not present, courts should provide primary custody to the primary caregiver. If the father is the primary caregiver, he should get the primary custody. That is the only way that’s fair towards the child. And that is in fact the way it is in many countries.
I never said it was only women who accept violence against men. It is a widespread cultural mindset. If men didn't accept violence against themselves, they wouldn't stand for it, as so many do now. However, this mindset is assisted and perpetuated by many so called 'women's groups'.
I would like to request an explanation of “this mindset (of accepting violence) is assisted by many so-called women’s groups”, please.
Yes, men are more violent in current society. Yes, their fathers probably do play a role in that. But I never said otherwise. I never claimed women are more violent, just that their (lesser amount of) violence is more forgiven, by the media and by law and by the people (at least once they hit adulthood).
I would like to request a reference for this.
And I don't think you can say feminism is against genderizing soziety when it fights for special laws to protect women.
ReplyDeleteFeminists fight for special laws that protect women because clearly the current laws are insufficient. When a situation is unbalanced or unequal, you cannot use strictly numerical equality to fix this, because this will lead to even more inequality.
In numerical terms: 10 != 30. In order for 10 to equal 30, 20 must be added to the 10, and to the 10 alone. If you add 20 to both the 10 and the 30, you are still left with 30 != 50, which is still unequal.
This is why women are treated “differently”, and “given special laws” to protect them: because the equation was so unequal to start with. Only once the equation is equalled can you start adding the same amount.
So yes, I can say that feminism IS against gendering, which includes the gendering of boys to conform to patriarchal standards and ideals, AS WELL as the advancement of laws that benefit mostly women (because those laws DO benefit male victims of domestic violence too, they just don’t benefit the people perpetrating the domestic violence and claiming “But my partner hit me back!”) because that is part of creating a truly equal (30 = 30) society.
I am sorry if I was misunderstood on the thing about Tiger Wood's wife. I was actually trying to be a bit humerous, since I thought the quote was rather rediculous.
I did not mean to say all feminists feel that way. It was just an example of how some people, in the mainstream media, do feel that way.
I agree that it was ridiculous, and that there are, indeed people who hold that view. My point is that I feel those people are misguided, regardless of their gender.
Yes, feminism is fighting against approval of violence, but largely only against women!
That is because (domestic and sexual) violence occurs mostly against women. See for a fact sheet on this.
For other forms of violence, that it is true, men DO suffer from at a larger proportion, there is already a system in place. It’s called the Criminal Law, and it calls that kind of violence assault and its perpetrators are prosecuted criminally. Now I’m the first one to acknowledge that, depending on country and justice system, those laws could use some challenging and amending, but that is not the responsibility of feminism – who already have their hands full just keeping women safe - but of those who are having problems with those specific laws in their countries.
And again, that would be fine, IF they didn't then oppose the male side by supporting biased DV shelters, continuing to use 30 year old figures on DV which have been debunked and encourage police injustice in DV cases.
I’m going to call for references again, please?
Here are some facts from recent (less than 15 years old) studies:
ReplyDeleteAn Australian study on women’s experiences of male violence QUOTE “Fifty-seven per cent of the women surveyed reported experiencing at least one incident of
physical violence or sexual violence over their lifetime. They were more likely to experience physical violence (48%) rather than sexual violence (34%).” ENDQUOTE
Family Violence Prevention Fund Fact sheet: QUOTE: “Women are much more likely than men to be victimized by a current or former intimate partner.5 Women are 84 percent of spouse abuse victims and 86 percent of victims of abuse at the hands of a boyfriend or girlfriend and about three-fourths of the persons who commit family violence are male 6.” ENDQUOTE. I’m including the reference: 6 Family Violence Statistics: Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances. 2005. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf.
Here’s an interesting one, from a men’s rights activation site Found here, the same article I linked to earlier:
Myth #1: Men Are Abused Just As Much As Women (And Feminists Protect Our Huge Salaries by Covering This Up)
QUOTE: Reality #1: Virtually every study published about domestic violence and intimate partner violence shows that men are the predominant aggressors in most cases. The one study that does not – the Straus and Gelles study from the 1980s – has been assailed by academics as “bad science, with findings and conclusions that are contradictory, inconsistent, and unwarranted (Jack Straton, “The Myth of the ‘Battered Husband’ Syndrome,” http://www.nomas.org/node/107).”
It continues:
QUOTE: “Strategies: Those of us who work with victims of domestic violence know that there are plenty of bona fide male victims – gay, bisexual, transgender and straight. In fact, there is a greater likelihood of male victimization in gay male relationships than in heterosexual ones (see articles below).
Ironically, and contrary to what the “Father’s Rights” groups say, the battered women’s movement is still the best place to go for most abused men. We help men every day with court advocacy, one-on-one counseling, hotline assistance, and even shelter and support groups in some cases. We can be proud of this as a movement – we can talk publicly about our services to men. And we can improve those services, to men and to all people, and create targeted outreach campaigns to male victims and other special populations. “ ENDQUOTE.
For an example of family law reform opposed by feminists, let's go to this blog's homeland:
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4547
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4607
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4045
Women's groups have been opposing these new family law reforms in Australia, and similar opposition has arisen in America, Canada, and elsewhere. All the laws do is make 50-50 parenting the default; not required, not mandated, but the assumed default if there is no reason to do something different.
I have already refuted this: the “assumed default”, the only assumed default that is FAIR and SAFE towards the child in non-DV divorces is to award primary custody to the primary caregiver, regardless of gender. In DV divorces, it is only reasonable for claims of DV (made by either party) to be examined and investigated first, before awarding custody. Automatically awarding 50/50 custody can lead to immense safety issues, whatever the gender of the victim of the DV.
But then some writers here were saying that women deserve protections due to their smaller (average) size, which means it does matter.
ReplyDeleteI believe I have explained this earlier with my equation, the reason why women SHOULD receive extra protection. I do not personally agree with the “smaller size” argument.
Yes, men and women must be socialized not to accept any VIOLENCE, without thinking some violence is worse than others just because of the gender of the victim.
I have explained that, as well. As soon as women don’t make up the vast majority of domestic violence and rape statistics worldwide, then we can start looking at what you’re talking about. Untill then, equality needs to be achieved before it can be applied.
As for childcare, I hope to work out of my home and intend to be an exceptionally (maybe even excessively ;) (kidding)) involved father. And hey, complete parental leave would be great, but that is a BIG leap ahead and would require some major changes to the economy. But I'd be all for it.
I totally agree with this. I would be all for it as well!
And when it comes to politics, zero-sum games are what it's all about.
This is a fallacy. Just because that’s what’s purported, doesn’t make it true. The maternity/paternity leave example is an example of this: Give both parents the SAME amount of “parental” leave, regardless of gender!
Besides, excessive maternity leave hurts women in the workplace, as some have begun to see in England.
This is another example of institutionalized oppression of women. Women are expected to care for their infants, or magically FIND someone to care for the infants on their behalf – and yet they are disadvantaged at workplaces because of the very restrictions placed upon them. Patriarchy in action. And you said it doesn’t exist!
And, much recent research has shown that DV is not done for control, but due to communication problems.
Refer to one of my earlier replies, where I acknowledge that the society we live in is one where boys are taught, and sometimes expected, to sort out “communication problems” by way of violence. This can be changed, and is not a “get-out-of-jail-free” card.
I believe that study of the equality-equation I gave above also addresses the rest of your post here. Favouritism of female lives, all of that can be explained by my equation, and by this very accessible article, explaining the concept of Female Privilege (or its correct term, Benevolent Sexism), and how it is STILL harmful to women and society as a whole.
A quote from that article:
QUOTE: “See, I think that some of the problems that men face now- some of the things that people like Burton complain about and see as examples of female privilege over males- are a direct result of the flaws a patriarchical system. It’s not that women have more power than men, it’s that patriarchy is an inherently flawed system that sets standards that are harmful to everyone. It’s a double edged sword. And as attitudes have changed and feminists have helped to break down some of the systems that have held women back and prevented them from reaching their full potential, some men are finding that, shock of shocks, there are some serious problems with the way things are.
To summarize the point of this section: When it’s called benevolent sexism it’s recognized to be tied to the system of sexism, and can therefore be fought (successfully) with tools like feminism, whereas when it’s called “female privilege” the solutions called for tend to call for strengthening the status quo, which ends up making it harder to end the offending practices.” ENDQUOTE
Last one for now, I promise:
ReplyDeleteSocialWorker, I've heard of that, I'll try to look it up.
As for linking and so on, I use HTML codes.
For links:
[a href=linkhere.com]Text displayed[/a]
Italics:
[i] Text [/i]
Replace the [ and ] brackets with < and > . Hope that helps!
As for linking and so on, I use HTML codes.
ReplyDeleteI'll find out now. Thanks, DO.
@ Social Worker:
ReplyDeleteChime away!
My only problem with anti-discrimination laws is when they are gender specific, which can and does lead to foul ups and exploitation. They need to be more neutral.
You said: “To throw the question back to you, beardreel, do you think that these other groups deserve or need protection?”
What groups do you mean?
As for a Women's Code, I'm afraid that I don't see it. It seems to me that women aren't expected to be anymore considerate of men than they are of other women, which makes it part of the Human's Code.
And if they do have any special code toward men, it comes along with negative assertions against men, just like chivalry used to carry the message of female inferiority.
You said: “In short, yes to both”
But how can you justify lumping on extra burdens to any given group?
Is there no other way?
@ Deviant One
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I am going to have to disregard your arguments based around xyonline.net, for this quote, in reference to the Father's Rights movement (http://www.xyonline.net/content/fathers-wrongs):
“Consider other “backlash” movements: the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, anti-choice activists...”
I can not take any site seriously that compares a movement with valid concerns (the degree being arguable, yes) to the Nazis. Femnists don't stand for such, and nor will I as a masculist.
You said: “I would like some references on both your statistics of men being seriously hurt in DV being almost similar to that of women, as well as that men don’t receive support or recourse.”
From right off wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#Epidemiology):
“A 2006 study showed that women in the United States commit domestic violence against men 33% more often than men do against women, and women commit severe domestic violence twice as often as men.
The rate of minor assaults by women was 78 per 1,000 couples, compared with a rate for men of 72 per 1,000. The severe assault rate was 46 per 1,000 couples for assaults by women and 50 per 1,000 for assaults by men. Neither difference is statistically significant. Since these rates are based exclusively on information provided by women respondents, the near-equality in assault rates cannot be attributed to a gender bias in reporting."”
And, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service grant program (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/sl000734.pdf):
“What will not be funded:
...
4. Proposals for research on intimate partner violence against, or stalking of, males of any age or females under the age of 12.”
And for support: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4560
I believe that is a reputable source, and they claim that the available of DV shelters to men and women in the UK is 13(male):500+(female)
You said: “courts should provide primary custody to the primary caregiver. ... That is the only way that’s fair towards the child”
I'm afraid that is just not right.
There is overwhelming evidence showing the huge positive effect of having both parents involved in the children's lives.
For starters: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31086977
And here are some more:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/05/26/single_mothers_and_the_baby_boom/: “a major 2003 study found that children raised in single-parent homes were at significantly higher risk for addictions and serious psychiatric problems”
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php?PHPSESSID=: Lots of numbers on the effects of non-present fathers on mothers and children.
Now, two notes: First, these numbers are only about single mothers, but that can't be helped since there is so little data on single fathers.
Second, I have not been able to find any information on the effects of no father vs. shared-parenting father. These numbers show that no father is bad, and while shared parenting can bring stress, I would (and this is just an opinion) think that shared parenting would be better.
If you have seen any numbers to the contrary I would love to see them.
And continued:
ReplyDeleteYou said: “I would like to request an explanation of “this mindset (of accepting violence) is assisted by many so-called women’s groups”, please.”
Just look at my above stuff on DV. Compare the numbers on wikipedia to the claims on xyonline.net, which are clearly propegating the myth of DV being perpetrated only by men.
You said: “I would like to request a reference for [women's violence is more forgiven].”
We already covered one study which shows people accept female violence more.
Here is one to do with the law: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100525090554.htm
It finds that men are judged more harshly.
Now, yes, it finds that it is male judges who sentence men most harshly, so maybe more female judges would help, but I'm not discussing solutions (and more female judges would bring its own problems: all that would do is equalize the injustice, which is still unjust).
The article also shows that among non-judges involved in the cases, men were uniformly judged more harshly, so there is more to it than just the gender of the judges.
The fact is, for whatever reason and whose ever fault it might be, female violence is treated more lightly.
And now to your equations
How we apply these numbers of course depends on how we view the genders.
You say (I think) in our culture: women = 10 ; men = 30
Now, to me, that seems to imply that women are naturally lesser. Perhaps we could look at it like:
men = 30 ; women = 30 – 20 = 10
So that would represent the oppression of women. The solution would be to remove the negatives.
However, the problem arises if you then continue to add, bringing women up above 30. That is exactly what special protection laws do.
But, that all assumes that men and women are naturally equal. If that is not the case, if women do require special protection, then it is a whole different issue.
You claim that boys are taught to be violent, but the numbers I showed above indicate equal aggression in men and women. Therefor, if women are at greater risk to violence and rape, there must be some other factor...
You said: “I’m going to call for references again [about feminism opposing support for male DV victims, etc], please?”
See above, or just read any of the stuff on xyonline.net and then read wikipedia.
Now those government studies you referenced:
The Australian study:
Those numbers are out of context, since they don't cover the rate for men.
(Sorry if I'm wrong there, but the time to fully read a 160+ page study eludes me currently).
And for endabuse.org:
I refuted those numbers above, as well as showing that government agencies avoid gathering data on abuse of males.
Also, the studies referenced are no longer online at those locations, so I don't know what their method is. It is common for them to rely on police reporting, which is known to be untrustworthy when it comes to the gender of victims.
And now about maternity leave...
Women suffering for taking maternity isn't sexism, it's economics. If you take time off from work, you will inevitably fall behind those who do not.
Yes, women must have children, but this effect is unavoidable. That's why we shouldn't encourage excessive maternity leave.
And about “Benevolent Sexism”:
I agree! As I said, this chivalrous system harms women by causing them to be treated like children, thereby reducing their standing in society. However, it can not only be fought by feminism, because it is not only the favoring of women, but the expectation for male sacrifice (again, like the Titanic). I have often called for the death of chivalry, the doing of which is largely up to men.
We must not only do away with the practice of chivalry, but the very possibility for anyone to fall back on it.
And, clear!
(Again, sorry if I missed anything; it's alot!)
And now, my fine debating partners, I must say farewell for a few days.
ReplyDeleteI am afraid that I routinely (read: obsessive) go off-line on weekends, so I will not be around until next week.
Don's miss me too much!
Reply to Beardreel:
ReplyDeleteYou said: “To throw the question back to you, beardreel, do you think that these other groups deserve or need protection?”
What groups do you mean?
The ones I referenced in the sentence before; race groups, elders, abled community,etc.
I'll be honest (and this is on all commenters), I read some, not all and not in detail, the links and studies that people post. I prefer to hear common sense arguments, realizing that some of what we speak of sometimes needs the backing of statistics.
Having studied statistics for several years, I find that, unless I'm willing to do the work of looking behind the conclusions of stats, they are sometimes meaningless. The idea that you can produce stats to support a particular point is often true.
So, for me, it comes down to what makes more sense to me, given a combination of the stats, my observations, discussions/debates with people who I know and trust and intelligent discourse like this.
While I continue to see around me (certainly around the world) the evidence of female oppression, it is inarguably, in the Western world, far far better than in the past. This indicates to me that the feminine movement has moved us towards more equity.
I also see the concerns that men have as this progresses regarding family law, military service, perception of being less needed/wanted. I venture, though, that much of this is the creation OF men historically. Many of the complaints/concerns I see discussed on the MRA sites are rooted in historical male-created laws and philosophies.
The "women and children first" concept was created by men, the draft, created by men, being the societal/personal protectors, created by men. I'm not saying there have been NO benefits for women in this, but it has come with a cost to both genders as well.
Women didn't "ask" for men to protect them, however it histo-biologically makes SOME sense as women experience acutely vulnerable times during their lives. However, we have created a society of laws where that immediate form of "protection" (again, in the Western world largely) is not needed as much.
Indeed, I think part of the problem is that some men don't know how to react to this change, feel frustrated (perhaps at an unconscious level) and act out against the perceived "change agent", women.
Some men have taken it upon themselves to shift with the change and are happier for it, others have not. Some men refuse to see that much of what they rail against was created by them and it's up to them to change it to benefit all people.
Okay, I'm being overly wordy and sappy, but I'm saying that men need to focus on men to create the change they want. It's not that women don't care, it's that there is still so much for them to focus on, that men's rights are not part of the focus.
In the end, if full equity is truly wanted by all, then both genders will eventually make those changes together.
I doubt it though. Cause humans suck overall and we'll probably die off as a species before that happens.
Positive nihilism, that's me!
You make a valid point, Social Worker, and I too will try to be brief in my reply.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you mean about too many references, and it is true that they can be found for almost any argument. I often like to give them just as a 'qualifier', just a single example to show that I'm not the only crazy who thinks this way.
As to your main point: yes, it is true that many of men's problems were created by men. But then, many past generations of women seem to have been perfectly happy as housewives. Every generation has it's own tastes and needs.
And the needs of the modern man are changing, just like they changed for women. However, it is unfair to heap the process of achieving either group's needs only on itself.
You say men's rights are men's responsibility because they created the system; but then weren't women's rights women's responsibility because they chose to submit to this system? I'm not saying women were happy during their periods of oppression, but most didn't fight it.
Yet we never expected only women to change in order to achieve feminism. We didn't allow women to enter the workforce by telling them to "take it like a man", we (all) changed the system. Now the same must be done for men.
You said: "I'm saying that men need to focus on men to create the change they want. It's not that women don't care, it's that there is still so much for them to focus on, that men's rights are not part of the focus."
That would be like telling women to solve the rape problem by toughening up and defending themselves. That's fighting the symptom, not the cause, and feminism is part of the cause of at least some of men's problems today.
The fact is, for whatever good it has done, the women's movement has created problems for men.
It has created a family law system which favors women.
It has created a DV support system which ignores men.
It has been a major player in a change in family structure which has led to rampant fatherlessness.
Men's rights are a focus of groups like NOW, but they are the ones fighting against men's rights.
So, yes, men will be the ones to enact change for men, but you can't expect women to just be left out of the process. They (as a group) just aren't that powerless, both to make trouble and to enact good change. To claim that only men can make things better for men is to paint women as helpless and powerless, and I know that's not how you feel.
I don't know where to start on commenting on this.
ReplyDeleteI think that saying men's rights are men's problems is absurd. We should all be trying to help each other. Which is why I created this blog I wanted to find a way we can do that, or at least minimise hostilities.
Beardreel:
ReplyDelete"and I know that's not how you feel."
Mmmmmm, it feels good when someone knows how I feel.
I agree with much of what you say, but, I think, disagree with the attitude behind it.
I firmly disagree that many women were happy to be housewives in the past. As with most of us, they simply accepted the social order and its available options, unless they as individuals were bold enough to step beyond it.
A small group of women over time joined together, made small changes, helped others see the change that could happen and it grew from there. There were men who agreed with this change and helped it along. I am not one to say women did it all on their own with no help from men. No. Men were absolutely an important component of the changes we've all made. In fact, I will say that without men, most of the changes COULD NOT have happened.
Men are now doing the same. And there are many women who agree and are doing their part to support change.
When I say "men need to focus on men to create the change they want," I mean that the work must begin there, just as women began the work of changing the social order to improve things for themselves. Show us what you are advocating for and, if it makes sense, we will support it. Not all, granted.
"You say men's rights are men's responsibility because they created the system; but then weren't women's rights women's responsibility because they chose to submit to this system?"
To be clear, I did not say either that men's rights are men's problems nor did I mean to imply that they are solely mens's responsibility. That is absurd, I agree.
I have a problem with how you worded the above, though. To say women "chose" to submit to this system makes no sense. One does not choose submission (I mean, y'know, unless we're kinda into that, but different subject). There were few choices available. Some of them included being marginalized further or ostracized for stepping out of the acceptable social norm.
Women accepted the responsibility for creating change. That led, in part, to the current system, which will again be addressed and changed by the men upset by it.
And some women will help with that.
I should clarify that in my above post, when I talk about women, I mean women/feminist groups. I meant that THEY are more focused on continuing to level the playing field for women and are less focused on areas of change for men, not women as a body.
I apologize for implying otherwise.
Some women indirectly do both by focusing on a particular area of law that needs to be fairly administered for men and women, like child custody law. They are focused on the needs of the child and, in addressing that, balance is achieved for men and women, though they are not intentionally working for the benefit of either.
There's all kinds of ways to slice this.
"That would be like telling women to solve the rape problem by toughening up and defending themselves."
Unfortunately, that is much of the attitude that does exist now. And I blame both men and women for that.
@Cassie: I hope I am not coming across as hostile. I really attempt to approach things sensitively, even when I may not personally feel that way.
Don't worry Social Worker I wasn't trying to imply anyone was being hostile, I just thought if you were of the opinion men's rights were solely men's responsiblities then it was a little against what I intended my blog to be. Continue the debating! :)
ReplyDeleteSorry it took so long to reply, I was on limited-internet-time-street for a week where I just couldn't reply.
ReplyDelete@ Deviant One
First of all, I am going to have to disregard your arguments based around xyonline.net, for this quote, in reference to the Father's Rights movement (http://www.xyonline.net/content/fathers-wrongs):
“Consider other “backlash” movements: the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, anti-choice activists...”
I can not take any site seriously that compares a movement with valid concerns (the degree being arguable, yes) to the Nazis. Femnists don't stand for such, and nor will I as a masculist.
I understand your knee-jerk response to something like that. I myself find that I tend to feel that way when someone calls out something I hold dear and strongly believe in.
However, I would like to appeal to your “critical” side, if you’ll permit me to call it that (clumsy phrasing, I know!); that propensity to question that which we believe to be a fact in order to ascertain whether our beliefs are, in fact, based upon fact and not propaganda (which is why we’re here, isn’t it?)
Look at why he says what he does about the movement you believe in, and see if you can rationally refute his claims. If you can, then what he says is not true for you/your group nor applicable to you or your specific group and you needn’t feel threatened/insulted. If you can’t, perhaps you need to look at why, and ask yourself whether you are really, actively helping men.
I don’t think you should do it here, or even necessarily public. I’m just saying that this is the stuff people (like feminists, yes, as you pointed out) deal with every day and try to overcome by that very process, if they’re critical, to get to the facts – the true facts, regardless of who says them.
If you choose to not do that, you may find yourself losing a powerful potential ally in your very real and valid concerns over some (very, very real) men’s issues:
Consider whether your specific MRA group does, or can use (or are interested in addressing) the following:
Providing shelters and resources for male victims of domestic violence
Providing resources and assistance for male victims of rape
Doing studies (if what you say later is true, unfunded studies, like feminists had to start with as well) researching male victims of domestic violence?
And if that specific group is not to your liking and you’d prefer not to use their resources or co-operation or tools, there are many others that may benefit or appeal to you more:
MenEngageBoys and Men for gender equality
Men’s Resources International
Men’s Resource Center for Change
Renaissance Male Project
You said that you can’t take anyone who said that about your movement seriously? I can not take seriously an MRA group who claims to be interested in very real, very valid men’s issues but refuse to do anything about them or co-operate with those who do, except play the victim and blame feminism/women for wrongs perpetrated by the very system feminism is fighting. (I’m not saying that’s what you or your group does.)
From right off wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#Epidemiology):
ReplyDelete“A 2006 study showed that women in the United States commit domestic violence against men 33% more often than men do against women, and women commit severe domestic violence twice as often as men.
The rate of minor assaults by women was 78 per 1,000 couples, compared with a rate for men of 72 per 1,000. The severe assault rate was 46 per 1,000 couples for assaults by women and 50 per 1,000 for assaults by men. Neither difference is statistically significant. Since these rates are based exclusively on information provided by women respondents, the near-equality in assault rates cannot be attributed to a gender bias in reporting."”
I read the studies those claims link to. The studies themselves state that they used the The Conflict Tactics Scale (the CTS), and the problems inherent in that methodology. There are huge problems with that methodology for the purposes of comparing gender-violence, as Strauss himself said in his study. The largest one is that it doesn’t discriminate between “self-defence” and “initiating aggression”, i.e. if person A were to hit person B, and person B shoved person A away, they would both get a point on the CTS, despite the fact that person B only responded to the violence initiated by person A.
However, I fear that we are getting off-course: I do not believe that the rates are even close to equal, but it is a true fact that men suffer domestic violence too, and they do not need to suffer 50% of the violence to receive 100% of the support and resources.
That support and resources are available. I have never yet encountered a domestic violence shelter that would not help a man based on gender, and yet, STILL, if you believe that men deserve their own separate shelters, you are certainly well within your rights to hold a fundraiser and erect one. No feminist would attack that.
What feminists WILL attack is an instance where, as a totally random example, someone didn’t agree with the ad campaign of a certain domestic violence shelter, because they felt it didn’t represent male victims, so instead of raising money to pay for an additional ad that does that and would actually help and reach male victims, they felt that attacking the shelter (which served and continues to serve male DV victims, btw) and trying to get the shelter’s funding cut off is a more productive way to help male DV victims.
That is the kind of thing that I, and most other feminists, have a problem with.
I can elaborate further, if you wish, but I’ll leave it there for now.
And, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service grant program (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/sl000734.pdf):
“What will not be funded:
...
4. Proposals for research on intimate partner violence against, or stalking of, males of any age or females under the age of 12.”
That is the document from 2006. Organizations have a right to refuse funding to projects they are not interested in for whatever reason, though there are many other grants programs and funding organizations available to apply to for funding, if that’s something you are interested in researching.
And for support: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4560
I believe that is a reputable source, and they claim that the available of DV shelters to men and women in the UK is 13(male):500+(female)
From the NATIONAL NETWORK
TO END DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE: QUOTE:Domestic violence is a growing problem in our country, and it’s becoming worse. It is heartbreaking to imagine how victims can survive such
circumstances. Our services are provided to everyone, regardless of age, race,
ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or financial or social status, and we do
this work from our hearts." ENDQUOTE
Thus, it seems that women’s shelters and resources are available to be used by men too – although it is not unreasonable to expect that men and women in that case not be housed in the SAME place of safety in most cases.
You said: “courts should provide primary custody to the primary caregiver. ... That is the only way that’s fair towards the child”
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that is just not right.
You are correct, I should have clarified: I assumed we were talking about contested cases, where joint custody is opposed or sole custody is sought by one parent. These were the scenarios I was referring to, since joint custody is the norm in other cases, and in places where it isn’t the norm, it is becoming the norm. In contested cases, where joint custody is not acceptable, I still stand by my statement.
You said: “I would like to request an explanation of “this mindset (of accepting violence) is assisted by many so-called women’s groups”, please.”
Just look at my above stuff on DV. Compare the numbers on wikipedia to the claims on xyonline.net, which are clearly propegating the myth of DV being perpetrated only by men.
First off, that is not what XY says, and I quote:
QUOTE: However, some victims of domestic violence certainly are men. Some of these male victims have been subject to violence by other men - by brothers, fathers and step-fathers, male friends and acquaintances, and gay male partners. And some have been assaulted by women.
Male victims of domestic violence deserve the same recognition, sympathy, support and services as do female victims. And they do not need to be 50 percent of the victims to deserve these. ENDQUOTE
Here is one to do with the law: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100525090554.htm
It finds that men are judged more harshly.
Now, yes, it finds that it is male judges who sentence men most harshly, so maybe more female judges would help, but I'm not discussing solutions (and more female judges would bring its own problems: all that would do is equalize the injustice, which is still unjust).
I would like an explanation for this “all it would do is equalize the injustice”, since, actually, the study found the following:
QUOTE: “
“same-sex penalty effect”: Sentencing evaluators (judges, jurors) evaluated a defendant of their own gender more harshly than one of the opposite gender;” ENDQUOTE
So yes, more female judges would, in fact, seem to be the solution, since they would “evaluate[ed] (a) defendant of their own gender more harshly than one of the opposite gender.”
The article also shows that among non-judges involved in the cases, men were uniformly judged more harshly, so there is more to it than just the gender of the judges.
This is true, and lamentable. And related to “Benevolent sexism” and the strict roles and boxes the Patriarchal system enforces: women are supposed to be pure, good and obedient, men are supposed to be stronger, more aggressive and more assertive. So when raised in a social system that purports this to be true, it is not surprising that this is what most non-feminist men and women believe to be true - the man was the violent one, the woman the victim.
This is part of the Patriarchy, which feminism is fighting AGAINST. Another example of how men will benefit when the patriarchy is dismantled.
The fact is, for whatever reason and whose ever fault it might be, female violence is treated more lightly.
It’s not about “fault”, it’s about finding the root of the problem and addressing that so that the problem itself goes away. And the root of this problem is located in benevolent sexism, damaging patriarchal views of men and masculinity and a clinging to gender stereotypes. All of which are wrong and harmful, and all of which are part of the system that feminism seeks to challenge and disband.
I do, however, concede your point that female violence is given an easier pass than male violence - this is yet another example of a situation where feminism is the cure, not the cause.
And now to your equations
ReplyDeleteHow we apply these numbers of course depends on how we view the genders.
You say (I think) in our culture: women = 10 ; men = 30
Now, to me, that seems to imply that women are naturally lesser. Perhaps we could look at it like:
men = 30 ; women = 30 – 20 = 10
So that would represent the oppression of women. The solution would be to remove the negatives.
That makes complete sense to me, and I thank you for expanding the context and equation. I 100% and without reservation agree that, inherently, without social influence, 30 should equal 30.
However, the problem arises if you then continue to add, bringing women up above 30. That is exactly what special protection laws do.
I disagree with this. The special protection laws are PART of that “removing the negatives” thing, since the special protection laws are created in order to remedy the imbalance in the equation, introduced by societal factors and oppression.
Like I said, you must first achieve equality before you can apply it.
Also, I've been raking my mind, but I cannot find any laws at all that confer special status/protection on women specifically and/or exclusively. Victims of DV, yes, but that includes male victims, which means that this branch of debate is fruitless, since it has no application in the real world that I know of - but I'm happy to stand corrected, if such laws that confer such protection to women and ONLY to women do exist.
You claim that boys are taught to be violent, but the numbers I showed above indicate equal aggression in men and women.
I would like to make it clear that although I do not agree that there is equal physical aggression, you will never find me saying that women cannot be violent, or that an “equality” in violence is even remotely necessary in order to provide male victims support and resources.
The acceptance of violence is deeply ingrained by our society, and that acceptance extends to women as much as men.
Therefor, if women are at greater risk to violence and rape, there must be some other factor...
That other factor is that men/boys are not just “taught to be violent”, but “encouraged and sometimes even expected to be violent and feel entitled to certain things” (See: Male privilege), especially sex. I’m interested in hearing what that “other factor” is according to you, though.
Since the greatest majority of violent and sexual crimes against both males and females are perpetrated by men, that indicates that that is where the addressing of the problem needs to start, without neglecting to address both the (small number of) female perpetrators of such crimes individually and the society which tells people that it’s OK as a collective.
You said: “I’m going to call for references again [about feminism opposing support for male DV victims, etc], please?”
See above, or just read any of the stuff on xyonline.net and then read wikipedia.
I did. I still don’t see any feminists opposing the support for male victims of DV. In fact, I see an organization calling itself “pro-feminist” actually PROVIDING that support and resources, *with the help of* feminists, feminism and feminist structures like the adaptation of existing programs and shelters to cater to the needs of victimized men.
What I DO see feminists and pro-feminist men opposing is the EROSION of and attack on such structures for women. Which I see as perfectly reasonable.
And about “Benevolent Sexism”:
ReplyDeleteI agree! As I said, this chivalrous system harms women by causing them to be treated like children, thereby reducing their standing in society. However, it can not only be fought by feminism, because it is not only the favoring of women, but the expectation for male sacrifice (again, like the Titanic). I have often called for the death of chivalry, the doing of which is largely up to men.
We must not only do away with the practice of chivalry, but the very possibility for anyone to fall back on it.
And I agree fully with all of this! (I would like to add that feminism also fights the “Benevolent Sexism” inherent in the expectation that men have to “sacrifice themselves” for women in any situation, because that is a falsehood that is part of the construct of patriarchy, and is one good example of how The Patriarchy Hurts Men Too.)
True debate joy!
Now those government studies you referenced:
ReplyDeleteThe Australian study:
Those numbers are out of context, since they don't cover the rate for men.
(Sorry if I'm wrong there, but the time to fully read a 160+ page study eludes me currently).
It does not include men, you are correct, but it is but one example of a DV study (one of many) that’s being “touted” that does not come from 30 years ago.
And for endabuse.org:
I refuted those numbers above, as well as showing that government agencies avoid gathering data on abuse of males.
Also, the studies referenced are no longer online at those locations, so I don't know what their method is. It is common for them to rely on police reporting, which is known to be untrustworthy when it comes to the gender of victims.
You did not refute them, as I indicated when I refuted your refutation… and yes, that phrasing made me giggle.
I’ll repeat what I said before: no-one’s denying that men also are victims of domestic abuse perpetrated by females, and further, there’s no need to prove that men abused by women make up 50% of DV victims to secure aid and resources for these men.
I haven’t yet, though, seen your work on police bias when it comes to male victims of DV, but to be honest, it doesn’t matter. It really, really doesn’t. Because if I accept as true your premise that men are abused and raped by women as well *which I do*, (although I don’t agree that it’s as often, but that doesn’t really matter) then in the same way that women and feminism had to take up a fight for female victims when nobody believed it even existed nor that a man’s god-given (literally, given in the Bible) to beat, I mean “discipline” his wife should be challenged, GROUPS need to (and already DO! With the help of feminists and profeminist groups!) get the shelters and support going and utilizing the structures and laws already in place, like the VAWA which, as ver y clearly shows, can be used for violence against men OR against women, and now for same-sex partners too!
QUOTE: “It is true that the statute is entitled the Violence Against Women Act, but other provisions of the Act make clear it applies to conduct perpetrated against male, as well as female, victims,” Mr. Barron wrote.
John P. Elwood, who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, said that he thought Mr. Barron’s analysis was correct as a matter of statutory interpretation.” ENDQUOTE
If there are other structures, like law-enforcement bias, that influence the application of this act, do research into it, even if it is unfunded in the beginning, and work with councillors on women’s abuse and rape to help advise you, because women face those same problems with law-enforcement and The System, i.e. The Patriarchy.
And now about maternity leave...
Women suffering for taking maternity isn't sexism, it's economics. If you take time off from work, you will inevitably fall behind those who do not.
Yes, women must have children, but this effect is unavoidable. That's why we shouldn't encourage excessive maternity leave.
I disagree, and hold up for your inspection a system of 360 days if “parentnal leave” which WORKS, of which at least 2 month of it must be taken by the father while the mother is the one working and the rest can be alternated between the father and the mother – with little to NO serious detriment to the economy.
Now I don’t know about you, but I’d pay double taxes from what I currently pay (which is about 25% of my income, fyi) if that is the result of what can happen. And it further proves that the “it’s economics” claim is just a strawman.
Wow, late night debate reading. Joy, indeed!
ReplyDeleteI am enjoying this, but have to throw in a reaction I had to one thing you both mentioned. Parental leave.
This is a difficult area for me as my professional side and largely moral side supports nearly anything that benefits children, which includes one or both of their parents being as available as possible to raise them, especially in the early years. BUT my personal decision to not bring more children into what I believe to be an already overcrowded and animal-marginalizing world is bothered by being charged higher taxes to support the child-making choices of others.
This is a whole separate discussion, but the amount of support there is for people to have MORE children versus supporting a only-have-what-you-can-support mentality is disturbing to me.
On the rest of it, I agree with DO and await beardreel's response.
Social Worker, I hear what you say, and yet I still like to believe that most people would buy into paying higher tax for a more equitable society regardless of whether they themselves actually *directly* benefit or not (because I am naive and optimistic that way :p).
ReplyDeleteHowever I would even be completely fine and happy with a tax levied ONLY on parents and increasing with the amount of a.) children they have and b.) combined income they receive, with people under a certain bracket exempt.
I add that last part because living in South Africa (as one of the privileged few, I must add, which is in itself unfair) I can tell you with absolute certainty, seeing this and working with people and alongside people living this every single day, that even with NO support at all (and there was a time when there was no support at all, which actually INCREASED the number of children per poverty-stricken woman), people who can least afford it and are poverty-stricken (for that very reason of poverty, in fact, and lack of access to education and medical services, female empowerment i.t.o. birth control and gender power imbalances, to name a few factors) tend to have more children and less and less resources.
However, as you say, that is another debate for another time.
Good to see you back. Deviant One.
ReplyDeleteYou said: "Look at why he says what he does about the movement you believe in..."
I still dislike that site. It is one of many so-called men's groups which are actually radical feminist reform groups for men. It belittles the problems of men, continues to claim they are heavily privileged and piles all the blame solely on men.
Credit is due where due, as is blame, and I continue to stand by my viewpoint that feminism has made mistakes which must be accounted for. It isn't all bad, but it also isn't all good.
You said: "Consider whether your specific MRA group does, or can use (or are interested in addressing) the following:"
Some of those links actually seem far more honest and fair than xyonline.net itself.
I will have to take a more extensive look through them.
MenEngage, Men’s Resource Center for Change, Men’s Resources International, and Renaissance Male Project: All these sites look like great efforts toward social change, but I do not agree entirely with their philosophy. They too put too much emphasis on men having to change. They put too much emphasis on the men's movement being a sub-set of feminism ("Supporting men supporting women"). And they continue to push the one-sided view on domestic violence.
I do like their stance on the genders working together for change, but I feel their priorities are a bit off.
I especially like their focus on ending the viewpoint of manhood being defined by violence, both toward others and yourself.
As for those DV statistics...
Even if that study doesn't take into account defensive acts, that doesn't explain the difference in prevalence. Let's say we have a hypothetical study which shows DV rates are perpetrated 10% by males and 15% by females (close to the study I linked):
If all 10% of the male cases saw the man as the aggressor, then every single female would have to retaliate even to bring their rate to 10%, but it's higher than the male's, so there would have to be female violence which is not in defense.
But then, some male violence would probably be in defense too:
What 8% male violence is aggressive and 2% is defensive.
Then if women were always defensive that would bring their violence...still only to 10%
That higher percentage has to come from somewhere.
But, that wouldn't have to mean that the levels are equal.
That study showed the rates to be 13.66% male and 18.20% female. So, if all the male violence was aggressive and every female victim fought back defensively, that would leave female-aggressor violence at 4.54%.
But, that seems like some extreme math.
You said: " Organizations have a right to refuse funding to projects they are not interested in for whatever reason"
Ah, but when the government is ignoring certain groups...well, that is a much bigger issue.
However, it seems we may have to just agree to disagree. The numbers on DV are unclear, so there is obviously no way to be sure who does it more. I am happy to leave the debate at that, if you are.
Back to that study on how men are judged...
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant was that, while yes, more female judges would decrease the female sentencing-discount, I do not think that would be the right solution since then how harsh a sentence you got would depend on if the judge shares your gender. While it would balance the gender issue, it would still leave the roaring injustices in the justice system.
You said: "...the Patriarchal system enforces: women are supposed to be pure, good and obedient,"
Hold up. No one, short of crazed religious zealots who aren't accepted by their own church, still say women are supposed to be obedient. As I discussed before, the whole problem is that women were freed of such requirements while men retained their shackles.
And: "men are supposed to be stronger, more aggressive and more assertive."
Except that the "men are stronger" thing is refuted, debunked and chewed out all the time by media groups and various women's groups.
As for the patriarchy: under that system, women were not as harshly treated because they were considered lessers, even property, of men. However, I think we can agree that that is not a common sentiment anymore. However, women still retain their privileges. That sounds more like a matriarchy (I'm not saying we are a matriarchy, but I would say that we aren't much of a patriarchy anymore).
And continuing...
Laws (and law practices) which favor women:
* Family courts (on oh SO many levels).
* Many government grants (not just the one I was talking about before) favor women for funding. Many set quotas for ensuring women get a certain percentage, as if they were a minority.
* The sentencing discount I was talking about above.
*'Primary aggressor' rules used by many police which target men for arrest.
Okay, so I will give you that maybe there aren't so many actual laws which officially favor women, but it does happen often in practice.
In the end, what we need to achieve is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Many women's groups (and our president) continue to bandy around the issue of the wage gap. But the wage gap isn't due to discrimination. Women have the opportunity, they just have chosen not to take it. Doing anything more will put women in a favored position.
The same applies to women in higher sciences, and in congress.
You said: "I’m interested in hearing what that “other factor” is according to you, though."
Maybe there isn't one. My thought was that, if women and men are equally aggressive (and as you say, maybe they aren't) then it would probably have to come down to biological differences. But that brings us back to the issue of "do women need/deserve special protections".
And as for that Swedish parental leave system...
Go Sweden!
That sounds fantastic, for everyone involved. That sounds like a great leap in the right direction.
But, what I meant which I said "it's economics" was that men won't be able to help advancing faster and farther in the workforce than women as long as those same women take more time off for raising children.
But, if parental leave was equalized, as we are seeing there, you wouldn't see the gap in career achievement.
That higher percentage has to come from somewhere.
ReplyDeleteWhy yes. Yes it does some from somewhere.
The fact that you are biting someone’s hand to get it to stop pinning you (so that you can escape), kicking them to unbalance them and then shoving them to get them, while they are unbalanced, to back up so that there’s space to escape would count as 3 acts of distinct (and serious) violence on the CTS, while the physical act of holding someone down which necessitated all of those steps only counts as 1.
Further, as is explained in the very study itself, it was found that women’s accounts of their own violence corresponded more closely with that of their partners than the other way around – so women game THEMSELVES a higher score and their partners agreed.
Maybe you should just read the study in its entirety, instead of just repeating stats off Wikipedia? Because that study focused on the effect violence have towards children, and they themselves admit that they don’t have the full information and context:
QUOTE: “This study has a number of limitations. Although it provides evidence that a considerable number of American children live in families in which physical violence between married or cohabiting partners occurs, we do not have data on the frequency, context, or consequences of the violence. Such data would inform our understanding of the violence reported in this study.
However, it should be noted that versions of the violence measure used in this study have also been very widely used in the research documenting links between partner violence and child problems. That is, associations between partner violence and child problems have been obtained regardless of the context and consequences of the violence. Another possible limitation is that
interviews for this study were conducted in individuals’ homes, rather than in a lab. The influence of the home setting on interview data is unknown” ENDQUOTE
However, there ARE, indeed and fortunately, recent studies that study that very thing, including violence against men by intimate parners. Here are a couple, with some quotes:
Gender Symmetry, Sexism, and Intimate Partner Violence
ReplyDeleteQUOTE: “Results indicate that although comparable numbers of men and women perpetrate and are victimized in their relationships with intimate partners, the path models suggest that women’s violence tends to be in reaction to male violence, whereas men tend to initiate violence and then their partners respond with violence.”
Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review.
QUOTE “Women were slightly more likely (d–.05) than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently. Men were more likely ( = d.15) to inflict an injury, and overall, 62% of those injured by a partner were women” ENDQUOTE
Sex Differences in Intimate Partner Violence and the Use of Coercive Control as a Motivational Factor for Intimate Partner Violence
QUOTE “Research argues that coercive control (CC) is a special case of intimate partner violence (IPV)... Significant causal relationships between CC and the latent construct of victimization for both members of the couples were found. In addition, CC, psychological abuse, sexual assault/intimidation/coercion, threats of and severe physical violence were disproportionately reported as perpetrated by men against women whereas reports of physical abuse (e.g., pushing, shoving, scratching) were not.” ENDQUOTE
CDC Understanding Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
QUOTE “Each year, women experience about 4.8 million intimate partner related physical assaults and rapes. Men are the victims of about 2.9 million intimate partner related physical assaults.
• IPV resulted in 1,544 deaths in 2004. Of these deaths, 25% were males and 75% were females.” ENDQUOTE
Last study for now, I promise, and before you say that it’s a study that looks at violence against women alone, please read this:
QUOTE: “This NIJ Research Report presents findings from a survey of 8,000 U.S. women and 8,000 U.S. men about their experiences as victims of intimate partner violence (rape, physical assault, and stalking).” ENDQUOTE
Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey
QUOTE “Approximately 4.8 million intimate partner physical assaults are perpetrated against U.S. women annually, and approximately 2.9 million intimate partner
physical assaults are committed against U.S. men annually.”
Other highlights:
QUOTE “Women living with female intimate partners experience less intimate partner violence than women living with male intimate partners. Slightly more than 11 percent of the women who had lived with a woman as part of a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a female cohabitant, but 30.4 percent of the women who had married or lived with a man as part of a couple reported such violence by a husband or male cohabitant.
Men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner violence than do men who live with female intimate partners. Approximately 15 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.7 percent of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant.
These findings, combined with those presented in the previous bullet, provide further evidence that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against male or female intimates.” ENDQUOTE
However, it seems we may have to just agree to disagree. The numbers on DV are unclear, so there is obviously no way to be sure who does it more.
ReplyDeleteThat’s just it. The numbers are, indeed, VERY clear: the studies that take the context of the violence into account, regardless of what other methodology they use, all agree that male-aggressor intimate partner violence by FAR outweigh female-aggressor intimate partner violence in heterosexual relationships, and that females are much more likely to be seriously injured and/or killed by a male intimate partner.
Back to that study on how men are judged...
What I meant was that, while yes, more female judges would decrease the female sentencing-discount, I do not think that would be the right solution since then how harsh a sentence you got would depend on if the judge shares your gender. While it would balance the gender issue, it would still leave the roaring injustices in the justice system.
Yes. And you already know what my answer to that is: Down with the Patriarchy that shoves those “gender stereotypes” down our throat in the first place.
You said: "...the Patriarchal system enforces: women are supposed to be pure, good and obedient,"
Hold up. No one, short of crazed religious zealots who aren't accepted by their own church, still say women are supposed to be obedient. As I discussed before, the whole problem is that women were freed of such requirements while men retained their shackles.
And: "men are supposed to be stronger, more aggressive and more assertive."
Except that the "men are stronger" thing is refuted, debunked and chewed out all the time by media groups and various women's groups.
Yes, it has been debunked because it is NOT TRUE that men are stronger and women more obedient or whatever. Did you miss that “supposed to be”?
That is just what the P wants people to BELIEVE about each other in order to CONTROL them. Feminists are AGAINST these gender stereotypes, for EVERYONE, including gay and trans and genderqueer people.
As for the patriarchy: under that system, women were not as harshly treated because they were considered lessers, even property, of men. However, I think we can agree that that is not a common sentiment anymore. However, women still retain their privileges. That sounds more like a matriarchy (I'm not saying we are a matriarchy, but I would say that we aren't much of a patriarchy anymore).
Dude, are you forgetting the things I say earlier to make me repeat them again and again? Those “Privileges” women have, which you refer to, is part of the PROBLEM, called “Benevolent Sexism” (remember when we agreed on the point that it needs to be eradicated? That’s the feminist viewpoint, down with Patriarchy/Kyriarchy or whatever you want to call it that force us all into boxes and stereotypes etc.).
As for not being in a Patriarchy anymore, all I can say is it must be so nice to be so privileged that you do not have to acknowledge or live with everyday the oppression of women, by the (still existing, and it can be clearly seen by something as simple as looking around and wondering why men still take up (MUCH) more than 50% of all positions of power, money and influence; laws are written and enforced by men and for men, etc. etc.) Patriarchal nature of our society.
And continuing...
Laws (and law practices) which favor women:
You’re being selective here. I said that favour women and ONLY women. But I’ll play nonetheless.
* Family courts (on oh SO many levels). They benefit men as well as women, and when they DO benefit women for no other reason than that she has a vagina (and not, for example, because she is the one who gave most of the caregiving), that’s called Benevolent Sexism. Feminism is against it, and it’s one more sign of the Patriarchy raging strong.
* Many government grants (not just the one I was talking about before) favor women for funding. Many set quotas for ensuring women get a certain percentage, as if they were a minority. That is because women have been and continues to be systematically oppressed, even though women are not a numerical minority. Black people here in South Africa, where I live, are benefitted by Affirmative Action because they were oppressed in the most heinous ways, not because they are a numerical minority (because they are not).
ReplyDelete* The sentencing discount I was talking about above. This applies to both men and women, depending, as you said, on the luck of the draw and what gender of judge you get, and again. Benevolent Sexism.
*'Primary aggressor' rules used by many police which target men for arrest. What is this? Is this where the person who started the aggression is arrested, or, in a situation where there’s aggression between a male and a female, the assumption is that it’s the male who was the aggressor? And if it is the latter, why do you think that is? Do you think it could have to do with the power men have in our society and the ways they choose to exercise that power? I really, really strongly suggest that you read the book “The Gender Knot” by Allan G Johnson, as well as some books written by experts in the fields of sociology and related disciplines dealing with power-dynamics of oppression if you want to continue this line of debate without looking uninformed, some of which can be found here, and a simple Googling can find many more, I’m sure.
Okay, so I will give you that maybe there aren't so many actual laws which officially favor women, but it does happen often in practice.
There aren’t any “special laws”, but women do need protection, because they are the oppressed class, and without such protection the System, which was made by men for the benefit of men and is enforced judicially by mostly males, would simply not be equitable. Refer to the reading material above and the equations we discussed earlier.
In the end, what we need to achieve is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Many women's groups (and our president) continue to bandy around the issue of the wage gap. But the wage gap isn't due to discrimination. Women have the opportunity, they just have chosen not to take it. Doing anything more will put women in a favored position.
The same applies to women in higher sciences, and in congress.
As I’m sure you are aware, no choices exist in a vacuum. If you are aware of the fact that you will never really make it to the same level a man can without working three times as hard just to prove your worth, and then, if you should fall pregnant and bear children, you’ll be left behind even more, why should you try in the first place?
You said: "I’m interested in hearing what that “other factor” is according to you, though."
Maybe there isn't one. My thought was that, if women and men are equally aggressive (and as you say, maybe they aren't) then it would probably have to come down to biological differences. But that brings us back to the issue of "do women need/deserve special protections".
Not biology. Sociology.
When you argue biology made men the way that they are today, you’re really the one giving men the short end of the stick here, denying men’s autonomy and agency and abilities to choose and respond to situations. For example, to urinate is an innate biological *need*, present in both men and women, however, you don’t see people routinely peeing all over the place whenever they feel the urge to pee. Or at least, I hope you don’t ;)
Those are some very good studies and I thank you for sharing them as reference.
ReplyDeleteI will grant you that the 50/50 figure may well be bloated. Those studies seem to indicate more of a 33/66 ratio (not sure where the other 1 goes ;) ), which I have seen referenced by many men's rights groups. It might have been better for me to use such figures, and in the future I will do so, as they seem like they very well may be more accurate.
However, I do not think that men being one-third instead of one-half of victims means that male violence "FAR outweighs" female violence.
However, my original point was not about the prevalence of female violence, but that it is: (1) underreported (as shown in your own research. (2) underrepresented. And (3) under treated.
Maybe DV is predominantly a female problem, but the male side does NOT get its fair share of attention.
I never said women's DV shelters should be shut down, just that more need to open up to men.
You said: "Dude, are you forgetting the things I say earlier to make me repeat them again and again? Those “Privileges” women have, which you refer to, is part of the PROBLEM,"
And yet, in this very comment discussion, feminist users have argued that women SHOULD retain their privileges. Maybe you don't feel that way, but there seem to be quite a few feminists who do.
You said: "As for not being in a Patriarchy anymore, all I can say is it must be so nice to be so privileged that you do not have to acknowledge or live with everyday the oppression of women"
Please, let's not start accusing one another of being 'privileged'. Let us be civil.
"more than 50% of all positions of power, money and influence;"
This is not proof of oppression.
For example: if men simply weren't as involved with their children as women, that wouldn't be proof of an anti-male family system. However, we know that the courts and child care system DO favor women, which means they are anti-male.
Just the lack of females in higher positions doesn't make them oppressed. There are laws against sex discrimination, and yet there seem to be very few (at least I think so, sorry if wrong) lawsuits over it.
"laws are written and enforced by men and for men, etc. etc "
Written by men, yes.
Enforced by men, yes.
But for men?
Women's councils? Women's ministers? High rate of women reporting DV to police? Higher rates of female usage of divorce and restraining order laws?
I would be curious to know what laws you think ARE enforced 'for men'.
Back to the laws I was referencing, and you responses...
You said about family law: "that’s called Benevolent Sexism. Feminism is against it, and it’s one more sign of the Patriarchy raging strong."
And yet, it was feminism (read: anti-patriarchy) which created these family courts, FOR women. How, oh how, can that be a sign of the patriarchy?
And, again, feminist groups oppose changing this system, actively.
Nothing benevolent there.
You said about the sentencing discount: "This applies to both men and women, depending, as you said, on the luck of the draw and what gender of judge you get, and again. Benevolent Sexism."
Except that it applies hugely more to men. And, as we discussed, non-judges tend to be universally anti-male biased, regardless of gender.
What does that mean for jury trials?
Primary aggressor laws lay out certain rules for who should be arrested, such as physical size and who earns more, which tilts it toward men. Now, even if DV is 33/66, that still leaves a third of victims in sorry shape, which is far too much. And it can leave one-half of a mutually violent couple at large.
"And yet, in this very comment discussion, feminist users have argued that women SHOULD retain their privileges."
ReplyDeleteWhere?
"High rate of women reporting DV to police? Higher rates of female usage of divorce and restraining order laws?"
I don't see the problem here.
"Primary aggressor laws lay out certain rules for who should be arrested, such as physical size and who earns more, which tilts it toward men"
Sounds reasonable to me.
However, I do not think that men being one-third instead of one-half of victims means that male violence "FAR outweighs" female violence.
ReplyDeleteThe most recent and representative study I’ve shown, with the largest group of equal male and female respondents (the violence against women one) shows a very different picture.
I understand and agree to a degree with your feeling that male victims of DV are not getting sufficient attention, and re-assert my contention that this is an area of true men’s right movements to focus on, which they already do. Most DV shelters ARE, in fact, open to men – “regardless of gender”, remember? – and agree that violence against partners are vastly underreported to authorities, which is a problem for both male and female victims.
You say that you do not support the shutting down of shelters. The problem comes in with scenarios like the one I’ve explained above:
QUOTE: “What feminists WILL attack is an instance where, as a totally random example, someone didn’t agree with the ad campaign of a certain domestic violence shelter, because they felt it didn’t represent male victims, so instead of raising money to pay for an additional ad that does that and would actually help and reach male victims, they felt that attacking the shelter (which served and continues to serve male DV victims, btw) and trying to get the shelter’s funding cut off is a more productive way to help male DV victims.” ENDQUOTE
This happens often, and this particular instance was led by the guy you continuously link to; Glen Sacks. THIS is one of the reasons places who actually DO work for men’s rights, like XY online, assert that MRA’s and “Father’s Rights” movements in general tend to be a “backlash”: because instead of *addressing the problem* (the reaching of male victims of abuse, as above), they tend to attack the solution (the availability of a shelter that DOES, actually, cater for men as well, like most DV shelters do). This is not an isolated instance, not by a long shot, and it actively DAMAGES the efforts of people who DO actually work with men’s rights, like XY.
I will buy into the notion that it may be true that heterosexual male victims report even *less* than female victims, and continue to assert that this can be squarely blamed on the Patriarchy and the strict gender-boxes we are all forced into. If your peers (male AND female) are going to ridicule you for being beaten up “by a girl”, well, that problem clearly stems from the erroneous patriarchal belief that men are by default stronger, better and smarter and therefore “letting themselves” be beaten up “by a girl”, who is seen as so much inferior that the male can not possibly be the actual victim, is seen as shameful and contrary to the patriarchal notion of masculinity. Once again, Patriarchy is what Feminism is *against*, and like I said, there ARE, in fact, men’s groups that work with this problem extensively and with the help and co-operation of feminists and women.
What does that mean for jury trials?
ReplyDeleteI personally think that jury trials are an abomination of the justice system, and feel fortunate that the US is the only country who does this, and would support any movement to do away with jury trials.
Now, even if DV is 33/66, that still leaves a third of victims in sorry shape, which is far too much. And it can leave one-half of a mutually violent couple at large.
I see that you missed the studies which showed that the VAST majority of women in a “violent couple” where the couple is heterosexual are REACTING with violence in self defence.
Do male victims of DV deserve support? Absolutely, even if the percentage is only 1% of men abused by their female partners. My point was that that support *is already available*, and I (and most feminists) see nothing wrong with extending that support even more – hold fundraisers, build shelters for DV victims, the whole shebang.
"more than 50% of all positions of power, money and influence;"... However, we know that the courts and child care system DO favor women, which means they are anti-male.
ReplyDeleteJust the lack of females in higher positions doesn't make them oppressed. There are laws against sex discrimination, and yet there seem to be very few (at least I think so, sorry if wrong) lawsuits over it.
Lawsuits are not indicative of what goes on in reality, I’m sorry to say. And we also do NOT know that courts favour females – they favour the primary caregiver which is by default the female in most cases, regardless of whether the female is employed herself or not, she is the one who bears the brunt of the childcare responsibilities in most relationships. Again, IBTP.
As for the existence of the Patriarchy, I’ll leave you with a link to peruse (written by a man), although I’m trying to cut down on my linkspam.
I would be curious to know what laws you think ARE enforced 'for men'.
Well, rape laws would be a good example to start with. Can you be intellectually honest with yourself, think about the fact that men write the laws (and have for millennia) and enforce the laws (and have for millennia) and STILL tell me that, with the laws being written AND enforced by men, it would not benefit mostly men?
How, oh how, can that be a sign of the patriarchy?
I explained above: the fact that the woman is presumed to be the default caretaker and therefore actually DOES most of the care giving regardless of her own ability or desire to do so, is patriarchal. The notion that ALL of the work a primary caregiver does in terms of childrearing and housekeeping is unpaid labour, and that after a divorce, they should have to deal with it on her own and somehow FIND money to care for the child, regardless of their own employability (which women basically, as you so eloquently stated, gave up the moment she got pregnant), is patriarchal.
The notion that a primary caretaker should get the children in a disputed custody case BECAUSE of the fact that they were the primary caregiver, that the non-custodial parent should contribute financially towards the care and costs of said child and that claims of abuse should be taken seriously and investigated is where the feminist movement came in.
This is of course very broadly speaking, since actual laws vary from country to country, and in the US, even from state to state.
And, again, feminist groups oppose changing this system, actively.
The laws feminist groups are challenging are those laws, like in Australia, where children and women are FORCED into contact with fathers and even stepfathers, regardless of abuses that occurred, or the fact that if the custody is awarded to the woman for reason of being the primary caregiver and then contested by the father, the vast majority of courts will give him custody JUST BECAUSE he appealed for it, regardless of former involvement with said children.
Want a fair system? Here’s a suggestion: the amount of time you spent with your children before things got to divorce court should determine the percentage of time/money you get/pay towards that child.
Nothing benevolent there.
You are correct, there’s nothing benevolent in forcing abused children and women into contact with the fathers, even when said father is IN JAIL FOR ABUSE of those very same women and children. There’s nothing “benevolent” about that at all.
And continued...
ReplyDeletePrivilege of Safe Sex - Oh no! Men want to have sex! They want to propegate the species! The cads! And, on the record, male birth control is under development (and some women's journalists have spoken out against it).
Privilege of Relative Safety – And yet, men live shorter lives, die more in every way, including most health problems, violent crimes, work place injuries and military.
The Inviolate Male Body – Except by a knife/bullet/club/stiletto heel.
Privilege of Space – Even Wikipedia doesn't think this is true. Just watch any movie with people going into the wrong restrooms!
Only Male Attributes Are Valued – Obviously this guy doesn't read, watch movies, listen to music, or open his eyes.
Privilege of Harassment – I would think this was written in 1978, not 2008.
Privilege of Failure – Like failing to pay impossible child support and going to prison?
Praise for Mediocrity – Like how women get praise for doing something men can do better and faster? All a woman has to do is compete against men to get awards, she doesn't actually have to win.
Privilege of Control – Tell that to any guy with kids.
Baby Einsteins – Girls get more education, more encouragement and more funding.
Privilege of Women's Labor – Again, let's step away from the 1950s.
Privilege of Extra Free Time – Actually, they have about the same free time. Women just sleep through more of it.
Privilege of Career – We're in the 70s again!
Men in Business – Not proof of oppression!
23% More Pay – Factually incorrect.
Privilege of Tech – Or maybe boys just want more time.
Privilege of Ownership – This guy must have one big ass, cause he's pulling a lot out of it.
Trophy Wives – Yeah, and there are never any trophy husbands. Does the word gold digger mean anything?
Privilege of Good Medicine – Wow. That is no logically, factually and numerically wrong, I don't even know where to start. Maybe he's just smashing his keyboard to get random words.
Privilege of Labor – Maybe because men are better are physically demanding labor!
Women Expected to Please Men – And the role of the husband is what again?
Toys! - Like all the clothing and makeup and similar junk women buy?
The Privilege of Guns – And there I thought feminism was anti-military. Thanks for clearing that up.
The Privilege of Pleasure – Let's go to the disco!
Privilege of Mobility – Uh, women aren't forbidden, they're afraid, rightly or otherwise. And most women would never want to be a sailor.
Privilege to Say "No!" - Ahahahaha! Oh! Ha! He he! That is one of the funniest things I have heard in a long, LONG time. "No". Ha.
@ Deviant One
ReplyDeleteYou said: " I’ll leave you with a link to peruse (written by a man)"
Oh. My. God.
That thing isn't a man. It's a Martian, cause that's the only place you could think that's all real. Allow me to examine his 'list' (in part):
Rape – How do men have a right to rape?
Ownership of Women's Bodies – How on earth!
Privilege of Violence Against Women – How are men 'allowed' to use violence? In what POSSIBLE way?
All Women Are Sexual Prospects – Maybe half a century ago. Turn on your TV and tell me men aren't dehumanized by women.
Male Gaze – This is just plain stupid. Not to mention there are tons of anti-harassment laws.
Pornography – Okay, I don't know about prostitution, but most porn stars are paid. They choose to do it, and in the modern world there are plenty of other choices.
Privilege to Make the Rules – I already talked about this.
Men Own Religion – Religion is optional.
Marriage – Debatable. Endlessly. I could just as easily say marriage is a tool for women to force men to provide for them.
Privilege to Define Women – Baseless, baseless, baseless. Pure conjecture.
Privilege of Not Being Judged – I have already shown proof against this.
Privilege of Unquestioned Majority – That's not just baseless, it's factually wrong.
Primacy of Men's Comfort – What planet does this guy live on? Oh, right. Mars. The entire western world has become knotted up from making itself comfortable to women. Some countries are making women only parking spots.
Freedom From Harassment – Ohh, shirts! How oppressive!
@ Deviant One
ReplyDeleteYou said: "Well, rape laws would be a good example to start with. Can you be intellectually honest with yourself, think about the fact that men write the laws (and have for millennia) and enforce the laws (and have for millennia) and STILL tell me that, with the laws being written AND enforced by men, it would not benefit mostly men?"
So... just because it is done by men, it can't POSSIBLY benefit women.
I guess that means women shouldn't be allowed to raise boys, since what they do couldn't POSSIBLY benefit them.
And just what rape laws do you mean? The ones that allow me to get thrown in jail on nothing but an accusation? The ones that ruin men's lives routinely?
You said: "the fact that the woman is presumed to be the default caretaker and therefore actually DOES most of the care giving regardless of her own ability or desire to do so, is patriarchal."
Except that women have proven exceptionally unwilling to pass the ball of childcare to men.
Call it patriarchal brainwashing if you want, but I'll call it what it is: a matriarchal mindset.
You said: "The laws feminist groups are challenging are those laws, like in Australia, where children and women are FORCED into contact with fathers and even stepfathers"
That is a common fallacy. These laws just set the default outcome as shared parenting. It does nothing to force people into relationships. That is propaganda spread by the anti-father activists. Courts can and still will deny access to abusive parties under these laws.
But, I will say that I think mothers should be 'FORCED' into allowing contact, where appropriate, between children and father. Maternal gatekeeping needs to stop.
@ FotC
ReplyDeleteHere are some of your earlier statements about women needing protect:
"It is impossible not to have laws directed towards the difference in genders, because having equal sentencing and equal protection just doesn't make sense. For example take the case of rape. It would make sense to me for rape against women to carry a higher sentence as it is a far more common crime and consequently a deterrent is needed."
"I think protecting those who can not necessarily protect themselves (eg children, animals) promotes equality rather then lessens it."
""2)Recognize the physical differences and give women protection: ..."
Again I will state I don't see this as chivalrous or disadvantaging men, it is merely behaving morally."
And then...
""High rate of women reporting DV to police? Higher rates of female usage of divorce and restraining order laws?"
I don't see the problem here."
That was in response to Deviant One's statement that laws are enforced 'for men'. Those are examples of how the legal system is used (even abused) by women, and the system supports it.
Sorry, I don't see how that is misandry
ReplyDeleteWow. Your misandry is really showing in calling someone "a thing, a martian" just because you don't agree with what he says. And with that comment from you, I'm heading the fuck out of here.
ReplyDeleteFotc, I am done "debating" with concern-troll over here. His misogyny drips from every word of his latest rebuttal - women refuse to "pass the ball of childcare"? "Maternal gatekeeping" - in laws that are not in his country and he has no clue about? Most women don't want to be sailors? And they're afraid, maybe even rightly so! but that doesn't show the privilege males have in not NEEDING to be afraid? Women are disadvantaged in labour because "men are better at physical labour"? Women "sleep through" their "equal amount of free time"? (Yeah, why do you think that would be, even if it WERE true?)"Women get praise for doing something men can do better and faster"? Higher rates of DV-reporting, divorcing and restraining orders by women means that women are "even abusing" the system"? Rape laws ruin men's lives "routinely"?
Just for interest sake's, here's what would happen if rape laws, as they currently apply to the victim, should be made to apply to those accused (Even if it is falsely accused) of rape. Not that I think that it'll make any difference.
You'll notice how he neatly sidestepped any responsibility for anything throughout the entire exchange, including giving solid scientific references (Wikipedia? Really? LOL), except for blaming any and all responsibility on women as a group or on feminists (and he seem to think that those two groups are exactly the same thing, which couldn't be further from the truth, as I continuously pointed out).
His continuous WILLFUL refusal to see that women need protection, and that said protection is not a "privilege" but a SIGN of women's oppression, EVEN THOUGH THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AGAIN AND AGAIN to him specifically, by me specifically, even using nice mathematical equations and everything, and his insistence on fighting *against* the few avenues of protection that women actually DO have available has NOTHING to do with helping men at all, as he has continuously shown very little concern over things that ACTUALLY trouble men and continue to attack things that don't affect men negatively, only those that lead to the loss of unearned male privilege (like having the wife able to get a restraining order), but benefit women, and thus can be shown to have EVERYTHING to do with keeping women under the control of men and men firmly in the position of unearned privilege and power and in the position to oppress half the human race.
I am inclined to agree with you deviant one. I can't follow his arguements.
ReplyDeleteReporting of DV is a good thing in my opinion, in the past it hasn't really happened, it is hsowing progress!
Deviant One,
ReplyDeleteI can understand your issues with my arguments, so I will just make a few brief comments.
I only referenced Wikipedia once.
I did not lump women and feminists together. When I was blaming, it was directed toward: laws, feminist organizations like NOW, and misandristic women's writers.
As for your last paragraph, my "WILLFUL refusal to see" is just part of debating. Just because I continue to disagree with you does not make me dense or willful, it just means I have a different opinion.
However, if what you mean to say is that we have come to an impasse and so further debating is pointless, then I will be happy to agree with you.
If you wish no further discussion, then I will say goodbye and farewell.
FotC,
ReplyDelete"I am inclined to agree with you deviant one. I can't follow his arguements.
Reporting of DV is a good thing in my opinion, in the past it hasn't really happened, it is hsowing progress!"
If you do not yet wish to see the last of me, I would be happy to try to clarify my arguments, perhaps with some brief summary bullet-points of specific issues you find unclear.
As for reporting of DV, my comment was not meant to say that the high rates of reporting DV is bad. It was just an example of a type of law women make ample use of, even though it is 'enforced by men'.
Also, I would just like to say that my Martian crack was meant humorously.
ReplyDeleteAll I was saying was that I think that blogger is out of touch with reality. I thought comparing him to an alien would be a amusing way to do so.
I apologize if I offended.