Poll: Biased Gender Politics and Violence

[mrblakemiller]

I recently read an article on domestic violence, and was a little annoyed to see that every case mentioned involved violence by a abusive husband against a defenceless wife.

Growing up on Marine Corps bases, I can tell you that domestic violence against men is every bit as common as violence against women. But there are a number of societal norms that perpetuate myths to the contrary.

1. Especially among groups like Marines, a man would be incredibly embarrassed to come out and say, "My wife smacks, bites, and scratches me, and I need help." So, in most cases, they don't. The unexplained marks are just attributed to "guy stuff."

2. When they do open up about, they're told things like, "Man up," or "Just do something about it," or simply laughed off. No one recognizes that it creates a hostile and stressful home environment, or that the physical harm is in any way serious.

3. Because of society's view that women are more apt to be victims, they more actively search out violence against women. And it's happening, so if you look for it, you will find it. And it's awful. But we're not as actively searching out the violence against men, so we don't seem to see as much of it.

4. What's more, when a guy does speak up, too many people see it as a man trying to "steal attention" away from violence against women. He's shot down as faking, lying, whining, or he's made out to be the abuser (emotionally or physically) in order to preserve the status quo. That means the guy is being marginalized and ridiculed by both sides (the "man up" side, and the "only women get abused" side).

5. Alongside this, there seems to be a major cultural assumption that if a woman hits a man, it's because of something he did. He cheated on her. He forgot something important. He mentioned her weight. Something, surely -- I mean, why else would she be so mad she'd hit the guy? We don't just "not believe" him, we pre-blame him for the violence.

These factors ensure that fewer men come forward, which means there are even more eyes watching the few that do, which makes the backlash against them even harder, which means even fewer want to come forward, which means... you get the idea. It's a cycle that works via the exact same mechanism as the horrible "Blame the Rape Victim" mentality, and the emotional reactionism makes any intelligent discussion of the matter impossible.

Here's some interesting facts about the other side of this (and this is from back in 2005):

Myths about Domestic Violence Against Men

I just wanted everything you said to be put up twice because THIS is how you write a post on the subject.

 

[Loonyyy]

Personally, I'd say that the punishment should take into account the circumstances and the result of the violence. What sort of injury, or damage is done to the victim. I don't think that a person's capacity for doing injury should be the deciding point, it should be what injury which is done.

Of course, when it comes to domestic violence, men are probably going to be more likely to do greater injury to those they attack, so in the end, all of the issues balance out.

 

[Eamar]

the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will

The old definition is the one people traditionally used and seeing as it was only changed this year it's clear why some would still use the old one.

Holy crap, THAT was the official definition that recently? Man...

I really hope the UK doesn't have any similarly archaic definitions knocking around...

The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if?
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

WHAT??!

*hangs head in shame* That's fucked up.

EDIT: also, more people should know about this. I'm pretty ashamed that I didn't :S

 

[Thaluikhain]

The new FBI definition made in January 2012 is:

The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim

It used to be.

the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will

The old definition is the one people traditionally used and seeing as it was only changed this year it's clear why some would still use the old one.


http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/attorney-general-eric-holder-announces-revisions-to-the-uniform-crime-reports-definition-of-rape

Yeah, they kept it archaic for quite some time, it was very welcome in feminist circles when it got change, for obvious reasons.

Though, is that not just how the crimes are reported for statistical purposes, not how they are prosecuted?

 

[mrblakemiller]

I wish the definition of rape was worded in a way that said a woman can rape a man or another woman. The official definition says only men can. Or anyone with male genitalia.

Ummm... no it doesn't? A quick visit to Wikipedia reveals to me that:

United States Federal Law [Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 47X, Section 920, Article 120] defines rape as:
(a) Rape.? Any person subject to this chapter who causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by?
(1) using force against that other person;
(2) causing grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnaping;
(4) rendering another person unconscious; or
(5) administering to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;

What definition are you using?

The new FBI definition made in January 2012 is:

The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim

It used to be.

the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will

The old definition is the one people traditionally used and seeing as it was only changed this year it's clear why some would still use the old one.


http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/attorney-general-eric-holder-announces-revisions-to-the-uniform-crime-reports-definition-of-rape

Even the new definition from the FBI doesn't include the idea of a woman forcing vaginal intercourse on a man. Think about this: you're not able to give consent for sex when you're intoxicated. A lot of sex happens between men and women who are both intoxicated. So if a guy and girl meet at a bar, get drunk, go home, and have vaginal intercourse, she has the right to claim that he raped her (insertion into an oriface without consent, right?), but he can't say that she raped him. That's what needs to change, in my opinion.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Because that's usually the first thing they say when you ask why they think the way they do. They see anyone with a penis as pure evil in human form until they can prove otherwise, and seem to think they should be treated as second-class citizens because of that.


They're no better than the male-centric sexists of 20-40 years ago.


You'd be in the former group then. The definition of feminism has changed 100% thanks to the extremists, and if you truly believe in equality for women you probably shouldn't identify yourself as one of the radicals that think having a Y chromosone makes you the devil incarnate and want to make men second-class citizens because of that thought.

That's a more extreme branch of feminism, they happen to be the ones given the most coverage because they're more sensationalist and make for better media fodder. Arguably they aren't feminists at all but that's up to the individual to decide, it shouldn't change people's perception of the movement at large. The definition of feminism hasn't really changed, people just choose to interpret it in different ways. I have and always will identify as a feminist.

If some people choose to believe a negative stereotype of what it is to be a feminist, that's not really my problem. I mean, I can try to convince people otherwise and I find it unfortunate when what I'm saying is basically ignored in favour of an exagerrated stereotype but there's not a lot else I can do.

That's good, I applaud them for doing that. It's a shame very little has actually been done and you rarely if ever, hear about it. It's almost as if it's an extremely small minority who care about the rights of both genders.

What a shame...

Yeah but that blame seems to be largely placed at the feet of feminists. I've frequently heard people say 'here are some feminists who don't like men, look at what they've done', 'I don't like that I can't hit girls, stupid feminists', 'feminists don't care about men's rights' etc... Like I said earlier to the OP, if you feel victimised you need to speak up, if you feel that domestic violence ads are too centred on male-on-female violence make some noise about it and I don't mean just on a gaming forum. If there was more co-operation and less shit-slinging, surely more progress would be made.

Yes, feminism has been and still is, dominated by women's issues but many are advocating the need for more balance with regards to marital issues, children, domestic violence and other issues affected by traditional gender roles. Instead of recognising the progress that is being made, a lot of people choose to drag their heels and complain about how feminists don't like penises. It gets incredibly frustrating.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Even the new definition from the FBI doesn't include the idea of a woman forcing vaginal intercourse on a man. Think about this: you're not able to give consent for sex when you're intoxicated. A lot of sex happens between men and women who are both intoxicated. So if a guy and girl meet at a bar, get drunk, go home, and have vaginal intercourse, she has the right to claim that he raped her (insertion into an oriface without consent, right?), but he can't say that she raped him. That's what needs to change, in my opinion.

Depends on your interpretation, it doesn't actually say it has to be the victim's vagina or anus being penetrated.

 

[Dastardly]

Even the new definition from the FBI doesn't include the idea of a woman forcing vaginal intercourse on a man. Think about this: you're not able to give consent for sex when you're intoxicated. A lot of sex happens between men and women who are both intoxicated. So if a guy and girl meet at a bar, get drunk, go home, and have vaginal intercourse, she has the right to claim that he raped her (insertion into an oriface without consent, right?), but he can't say that she raped him. That's what needs to change, in my opinion.

Depends on your interpretation, it doesn't actually say it has to be the victim's vagina or anus being penetrated.

Actually, the definition you're talking about equates "rape" to "(the act of) penetration." This phrasing means the rapist must be the one performing the penetration, thus the victim is the one being penetrated.

This definition allows that men can be raped by other men, or by woman using an object or appendage. It does not, however, allow the possibility of a victim being forced/coerced/tricked/etc. into said act of penetration. That idea is precluded by the structure and wording of the definition.

 

[Naeras]

Even the new definition from the FBI doesn't include the idea of a woman forcing vaginal intercourse on a man. Think about this: you're not able to give consent for sex when you're intoxicated. A lot of sex happens between men and women who are both intoxicated. So if a guy and girl meet at a bar, get drunk, go home, and have vaginal intercourse, she has the right to claim that he raped her (insertion into an oriface without consent, right?), but he can't say that she raped him. That's what needs to change, in my opinion.

I don't know about how it is where you come from, but here in Norway it's perfectly possible to charge a woman for rape in that scenario.
It doesn't have to be vaginal sex either. There was a case where a woman had been blowing a guy who was sleeping on a friend's couch, where her "yeah but it was just a joke" didn't save her from having to pay some pretty hefty damages.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Snip

Yes, I read it and I mentioned that in my earlier posts.

Men should be encouraged to come forward when something like this is bothering them and it's normally that 'boys don't cry'shit that holds them back. Most modern feminists push for female-on-male domestic violence to be more recognised

I said before that many feminists are striving against the negative effects of traditional gender roles, including the discouragement of men from coming forward about domestic abuse.

What I meant by speak up is that in order for this to change it needs to become a more public issue and that isn't going to be done by making snide remarks about what you think a feminist is. I didn't mean that men who feel that they're being abused should just get over it and come forward, I mean that society as a whole needs to make moves towards encouraging them to come forward. Again, going back to what I've already said, these kind of ideal based social issues take a lot of work to change. The ideas of both men and women need to be altered and that isn't going to just suddenly happen, there's a huge set of tradition-based ideas holding men back but it needs to be brought to the public arena.

It seems in these threads sometimes that people are trying to make me trip up and admit that I think women are awesome and men are shit or something.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

Domestic violence is a serious problem and a lot of statistics I've seen show that it does happen more to women than men, I'm talking about serious, long term physical and emotional abuse here. Note, this is not me saying it doesn't happen to men, OF COURSE it does, it happens more than the statistics show and it does deserve more recognition.

Actually, there is an enormous body of peer reviewed research (mostly conducted by psychologist and sociologists) which contradicts this. The most recent and reliable data I have seen for the US showed parity in initiation of reciprocal violence and women initiating 70% of unilateral violence (hardly surprising, given that men are trained no to hit back). The arrest record does not reflect this because quotas limit the gender ratios of arrests for DV to 15% women, 85% men, a number in keeping with no serious academic study in the past two decades (professional activists groups who derive a great deal of money, media attention and political clout have a documented history of misrepresenting data and conducting surveys which deliberately refuse to count DV cases which do not fit their established and highly marketable narrative). Combined with laws requiring an arrest on a DV call and a series of previsions in VAWA which define DV differently for men and women, many male DV victims are actually arrested for sitting there and doing nothing ("primary agressor" laws, in particular, require the arrest of the individual judged to possess the greater capacity for violence, regardless of whether any evidence suggests they have actually been violent). Injuries sustained by men are no less severe than those sustained by women because, while men are on average physically stronger, women are three times as likely to employ a weapon.

This only applies to heterosexual couples. As for the rest, lesbian couples have an alarmingly high DV rate, easily outstripping DV in relationships between homosexual men. I have not seen any definitive studies on domestic violence as it relates to transfolk, but the data appears to indicate that they are at higher risk of victimization than other groups.

As for feminism, several major second wave figures did have a hand to play in this arrangement. Most current DV laws are based on Duluth's "patriarchal dominance" model of domestic violence, which has been repeatedly contradicted and debunked by psychological studies showing women to commit DV for the same reasons as men (desire to control, punish, etc.). They are also responsible for the current state of the shelter movement and other services for DV victims which often explicitly exclude men. In fact, when the woman who founded the shelter movement in the UK decided to open her facility to male victims, she was forced to flee the country by death threats from local radicals modeled after the Red Stockings, who subsequently took over her shelter and established policies that remain in place to this day. These women are not representative of feminism as an ideological movement or even of the second wave as a whole, but they represent a faction which held the largest political and academic influence in its day and whose policies and terminology most shaped the spaces in which third wave discussions of the issues occur.

Even if you still believe that men represent a minority of DV victims, I would remind you that significantly smaller minorities have special services and attention devoted to their specific issues, rather than being legally and socially marginalized. Male DV victims face a culture of pervasive ignorance and victim blaming which stems from social conservativism and the traditional gender roles attached to it. Those outdated structures are afraid to acknowledge either male vulnerability or female agency and the results are mutually catastrophic in our modern systems. Bi-directional oppression is an observable reality and we can never help anyone while looking at only half the problem.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Actually, there is an enormous body of peer reviewed research (mostly conducted by psychologist and sociologists) which contradicts this. The most recent and reliable data I have seen for the US showed parity in initiation of reciprocal violence and women initiating 70% of unilateral violence (hardly surprising, given that men are trained no to hit back). The arrest record does not reflect this because quotas limit the gender ratios of arrests for DV to 15% women, 85% men, a number in keeping with no serious academic study in the past two decades (professional activists groups who derive a great deal of money, media attention and political clout have a documented history of misrepresenting data and conducting surveys which deliberately refuse to count DV cases which do not fit their established and highly marketable narrative). Combined with laws requiring an arrest on a DV call and a series of previsions in VAWA which define DV differently for men and women, many male DV victims are actually arrested for sitting there and doing nothing ("primary agressor" laws, in particular, require the arrest of the individual judged to possess the greater capacity for violence, regardless of whether any evidence suggests they have actually been violent). Injuries sustained by men are no less severe than those sustained by women because, while men are on average physically stronger, women are three times as likely to employ a weapon.

This only applies to heterosexual couples. As for the rest, lesbian couples have an alarmingly high DV rate, easily outstripping DV in relationships between homosexual men. I have not seen any definitive studies on domestic violence as it relates to transfolk, but the data appears to indicate that they are at higher risk of victimization than other groups.

As for feminism, several major second wave figures did have a hand to play in this arrangement. Most current DV laws are based on Duluth's "patriarchal dominance" model of domestic violence, which has been repeatedly contradicted and debunked by psychological studies showing women to commit DV for the same reasons as men (desire to control, punish, etc.). They are also responsible for the current state of the shelter movement and other services for DV victims which often explicitly exclude men. In fact, when the woman who founded the shelter movement in the UK decided to open her facility to male victims, she was forced to flee the country by death threats from local radicals modeled after the Red Stockings, who subsequently took over her shelter and established policies that remain in place to this day. These women are not representative of feminism as an ideological movement or even of the second wave as a whole, but they represent a faction which held the largest political and academic influence in its day and whose policies and terminology most shaped the spaces in which third wave discussions of the issues occur.

Even if you still believe that men represent a minority of DV victims, I would remind you that significantly smaller minorities have special services and attention devoted to their specific issues, rather than being legally and socially marginalized. Male DV victims face a culture of pervasive ignorance and victim blaming which stems from social conservativism and the traditional gender roles attached to it. Those outdated structures are afraid to acknowledge either male vulnerability or female agency and the results are mutually catastrophic in our modern systems. Bi-directional oppression is an observable reality and we can never help anyone while looking at only half the problem.

Why did you direct all of that at me specifically? I've been saying for the entire thread that it needs more recognition and that men need to be encouraged to come forward, I'm confused as to why you singled me out?

 

[Colour Scientist]

Because you said it happens to women mostly and they said it wasn't the case. It was pretty obvious.

I said from the statistics I'd seen and even then that I was aware that male victims are under-represented. It's not like I was claiming I knew definitively that it only happened to women. I also went on to explain that I think men should be encouraged to come forward.

Seriously, are you this rude to everyone?