Poll: Biased Gender Politics and Violence

[peruvianskys]

Is it just me, or do people automatically expect anyone who disagrees with feminism to be a rabid arsehole?

That's because most are, bud.

I'm sorry to sound rude (especially when you're one of the more polite contributors), but what are you talking about?

Zero-sum game, as in there is only a certain amount of care to go around. What I'm saying is that you can have a huge focus on violence against women AND a huge focus on violence against men. You don't have to allot a certain amount of "caring" points one way or another.

And saying that it's often justified because "it probably has a lot to do with their history of abuse and exploitation" is just a blatantly unfair assumption.

No it's not. Ask the majority of those who come off as callous or "man-hating" and I guarantee you they'll have quite a bit to say about their own personal experiences with male domination. Doesn't excuse it, but it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

That wasn't my mentality or intention at all, how the hell did you come to that conclusion?!

I'm not saying it was. I'm just saying that too many men's rights advocates come from a place of antagonism and hurt instead of compassion and fairness. It's not even your original post, although I still would say that I think you're taking the wrong approach; I'm more referring to the general attitude amongst posters here.

 

[Woodsey]

'Women these days seem all too ready to employ violence against men, maliciously or not.'

Based on what? Your own sister who clearly has something wrong in the head (due to influence from your mother, it seems) and two whole other girls you've met during the course of your life 20-year life?

They were examples. Surely you're familiar with the concept?

Now, there is actual evidence that there is a very large number of male victims of domestic violence each year (it hangs around the 40% mark in the UK) and yes, it is certainly under-represented, but let's not start making grandiose statements about how violent the female population is becoming based on three girls, eh?

I was just conveying my personal experiences. I don't think every girl is a violently maniac, but I do think that our society's perception of gender-specific violence is skewed.

Oh, and your Mum's a sexist, not a feminist.

She's both. They aren't mutually exclusive. She's extremely passionate about women's rights.

Yeah, and two examples are meaningless if you're going to make such a sweeping statement.

 

[Dastardly]

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."

Erm, you grew up in an atypical environment. That hardly gives you the experience needed to claim that it is every bit as common, and that's just a flaw in addition to the typical ones that apply to anecdotal evidence.

You even kind of point out why the environment is atypical with that first point.

Take a look at the article I've posted, and maybe some other sources of your own choosing. There are many who believe domestic violence toward men might account for as much as 40-50% of cases, but so many go unreported. (That sort of statistical conjecture being readily accepted when we speak about rape rates, by the way).

I was simply saying that in the military communities in which I grew up, it was every bit as common, but rarely was any legal action taken. We'd all see it and know it was happening, but the husband would do his best to shrug it off and not report it.

So, I'm not sure if there was a point somewhere near or on the way to your destination. Fairly certain you missed it, though. I provided an example intended to demonstrate the very real possibilities of unreported female-on-male domestic violence, and that it is more common than many people believe.

Here are some more resources, for your convenience:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/01/30/a-hidden-crime-domestic-violence-against-men-is-a-growing-probl/ (summative article on the matter)
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assaultsbib.html (a biblio of surveys to draw from)
http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf
http://www.stopmaleabuse.com/stop_male_abuse/domestic_violence_against_men_almost_50/
http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm

 

[Dastardly]

I am privileged. I admit it. I acknowledge it. I feel like a lot of white cisgendered heterosexuals like myself have a hard time admitting that; like we're saying it's our fault slavery happened, our fault that women are paid less than men, our fault that something like one in seven women are sexually assaulted in their lives. But admitting that you're privileged doesn't admit any of that. All it does is acknowledge that you're aware that you (and me) were born into Easymode. It's a first step to understanding, and it harms nobody.

The blame for this does, in fact, rest on both sides. In too many cases, the 'You are Privileged' is accompanied by telling a white, cisgendered, heterosexual, middle class male that he has no right to feel wronged, to seek redress, or to even speak out when he is wronged (unless it is by another such person).

The problem on both sides is that people see it as competing for a spotlight. As though every ad about domestic violence against females means an ad about domestic violence against men got burned up, or as though ever word spoken about violence against men will be deducted from any future speech about violence against women.

Both sides do this, and that's why there's a problem. Anytime anyone is made to feel attacked, they're going to get defensive. And when both sides are so defensive that they routinely issue preemptive strikes, we all get locked into defensive postures.

I'm willing to admit that my demographic classification started me in a very different spot than others. I'm willing to admit it has made many things easier for me. I will not, however, treat it as an unfair advantage. I will not treat it as cause to dismiss any personal grievances outright, or to group me with "The Oppressors" in any form.

It's not Carl's fault he was born black. It's not Jim's fault he was born gay. It's not Susie's fault she was born a woman. It's not Betty's fault she was born poor. It's not Eric's fault he was born white, and it's not Timmy's fault he was born rich. If it's not okay to blame one, it's not okay to blame another.

 

[Spoonius]

Is it just me, or do people automatically expect anyone who disagrees with feminism to be a rabid arsehole?

That's because most are, bud.

Well hopefully I don't fit the bill.

I'm sorry to sound rude (especially when you're one of the more polite contributors), but what are you talking about?

Zero-sum game, as in there is only a certain amount of care to go around. What I'm saying is that you can have a huge focus on violence against women AND a huge focus on violence against men. You don't have to allot a certain amount of "caring" points one way or another.

Oh ok, I agree.

And saying that it's often justified because "it probably has a lot to do with their history of abuse and exploitation" is just a blatantly unfair assumption.

No it's not. Ask the majority of those who come off as callous or "man-hating" and I guarantee you they'll have quite a bit to say about their own personal experiences with male domination. Doesn't excuse it, but it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Well in cases like my mum's that might be true, but it wouldn't apply to every hardline feminist (or even necessarily the majority). I mean, not every policeman has been a victim of a crime, not every firefighter is a survivor of a fire, not every paramedic has survived life-threatening injuries, not every advocate of freedom has been imprisoned, etc. And like you said, it doesn't justify anything.

That wasn't my mentality or intention at all, how the hell did you come to that conclusion?!

I'm not saying it was. I'm just saying that too many men's rights advocates come from a place of antagonism and hurt instead of compassion and fairness. It's not even your original post, although I still would say that I think you're taking the wrong approach; I'm more referring to the general attitude amongst posters here.

Well what's the right approach then?

two examples are meaningless if you're going to make such a sweeping statement.

And what sweeping statement would that be? Why are my examples meaningless?

 

[Woodsey]

two examples are meaningless if you're going to make such a sweeping statement.

And what sweeping statement would that be? Why are my examples meaningless?

'Women these days seem all too ready to employ violence against men, maliciously or not.'

That sweeping statement, and because your two examples don't back it up at all. Even for anecdotal evidence, it's lacking.

 

[Spoonius]

your two examples don't back it up at all.

I think they do. I don't see why they wouldn't. And surely you've noticed the mentality I'm talking about yourself?

 

[RatRace123]

Violence against anyone is bad, it doesn't matter who's the aggressor and who's the victim.

 

[Phasmal]

I can't decide whether it's funny or confusing that this forum wants to talk about feminism more than me (a feminist) does.

So, as I'm pretty much this-topic'd out- I'm just gonna say this:

As a nerd-girl, I was `one of the boys` when I was younger, and all my friends were dudes. When I was about 11 or so we obviously began being more different, they were all becoming taller and so on.
They also noted that the long walk back from school had a big stone wall running next to the path, and how hilarious it was to suddenly shove me into it, because I was physically small and easy to throw around.
I did tell some adults about that and recieved the standard `boys will be boys` response.
I wouldn't compare that to actual gender-based violence. It was stupid kids being stupid kids, annoying but at the end of the day essentially harmless.

Also, bullshit clichés are bullshit. `Boys will be boys`, `dont hit girls` (well, ideally don't hit anyone, but everybody has a right to defend themselves).

And I would encourage anyone suffering from domestic violence to seek help. I know enough about domestic violence to take it very seriously.

EDIT: Also, the women dishing out violence thing is a stupid generalisation. I would never hit anybody (obviously consensual playfighting aside). I don't know any women who think hitting men/anyone is funny/acceptable.

 

[Woodsey]

your two examples don't back it up at all.

I think they do. I don't see why they wouldn't. And surely you've noticed the mentality I'm talking about yourself?

They don't. They're anecdotal, incidental. You want to back up such a statement then find properly researched figures. I'm not really sure what's difficult to understand about that.

And no, I haven't. The most any girl has ever done is playfully 'punch' me on the arm.

I think you need to recognise that (at least by your description) you have not grown up in a particularly normal environment when it comes to the two women you've been most exposed to. Your mother and sister sound like they need to see someone about their actual anger issues.

EDIT: Also, the women dishing out violence thing is a stupid generalisation. I would never hit anybody (obviously consensual playfighting aside). I don't know any women who think hitting men/anyone is funny/acceptable.

Exactly.

 

[Spoonius]

your two examples don't back it up at all.

I think they do. I don't see why they wouldn't. And surely you've noticed the mentality I'm talking about yourself?

They don't. They're anecdotal, incidental. You want to back up such a statement then find properly researched figures. I'm not really sure what's difficult to understand about that.

And no, I haven't. The most any girl has ever done is playfully 'punch' me on the arm.

I think you need to recognise that (at least by your description) you have not grown up in a particularly normal environment when it comes to the two women you've been most exposed to. Your mother and sister sound like they need to see someone about their actual anger issues.

Except I'm not just talking about them, I gave two school-related examples as well. It isn't just a family environment I'm talking about.

Maybe it's just where I come from, but we're always instructed "never to lay hands on a girl". It's a fundamental social rule. However I've seen many minor acts of violence perpetrated by girls go unpunished, simply because the recipient was a guy.

I dunno... obviously it's different where you come from. Otherwise you'd know the mentality I'm talking about. Although surely you've seen it in movies, games, etc?

 

[Woodsey]

your two examples don't back it up at all.

I think they do. I don't see why they wouldn't. And surely you've noticed the mentality I'm talking about yourself?

They don't. They're anecdotal, incidental. You want to back up such a statement then find properly researched figures. I'm not really sure what's difficult to understand about that.

And no, I haven't. The most any girl has ever done is playfully 'punch' me on the arm.

I think you need to recognise that (at least by your description) you have not grown up in a particularly normal environment when it comes to the two women you've been most exposed to. Your mother and sister sound like they need to see someone about their actual anger issues.

Except I'm not just talking about them, I gave two school-related examples as well. It isn't just a family environment I'm talking about.

Maybe it's just where I come from, but we're always instructed "never to lay hands on a girl". It's a fundamental social rule. However I've seen many minor acts of violence perpetrated by girls go unpunished, simply because the recipient was a guy.

I dunno... obviously it's different where you come from. Otherwise you'd know the mentality I'm talking about. Although surely you've seen it in movies, games, etc?

'I gave two school-related examples as well.'

And again: that's two examples outside of your family over a 20-year period. It's inconsequential, irrelevant.

Yes, of course everyone's come across the 'don't hit a girl', what I'm addressing is your statement about an increasing amount of casual violence being perpetrated by women in general, based on your maladjusted sister and a couple of oddballs you met at two different schools.

 

[Eamar]

I can't decide whether it's funny or confusing that this forum wants to talk about feminism more than me (a feminist) does.

I know, right? Even I'm getting tired of it, and as the last few days have shown I don't seem able to resist a feminism debate...

What brought this sudden onslaught on anyway? Was it the Hitman thing? *confused*

 

[Spoonius]

your two examples don't back it up at all.

I think they do. I don't see why they wouldn't. And surely you've noticed the mentality I'm talking about yourself?

They don't. They're anecdotal, incidental. You want to back up such a statement then find properly researched figures. I'm not really sure what's difficult to understand about that.

And no, I haven't. The most any girl has ever done is playfully 'punch' me on the arm.

I think you need to recognise that (at least by your description) you have not grown up in a particularly normal environment when it comes to the two women you've been most exposed to. Your mother and sister sound like they need to see someone about their actual anger issues.

Except I'm not just talking about them, I gave two school-related examples as well. It isn't just a family environment I'm talking about.

Maybe it's just where I come from, but we're always instructed "never to lay hands on a girl". It's a fundamental social rule. However I've seen many minor acts of violence perpetrated by girls go unpunished, simply because the recipient was a guy.

I dunno... obviously it's different where you come from. Otherwise you'd know the mentality I'm talking about. Although surely you've seen it in movies, games, etc?

'I gave two school-related examples as well.'

And again: that's two examples outside of your family over a 20-year period. It's inconsequential, irrelevant.

Yes, of course everyone's come across the 'don't hit a girl', what I'm addressing is your statement about an increasing amount of casual violence being perpetrated by women in general, based on your maladjusted sister and a couple of weirdos you met at two different schools.

So what, I'm supposed to have been beaten every day for the last 20 years by 365 different women a year for anything I say to be relevant? And those are just examples of cases that have happened to me.

I've seen other guys get slapped, punched, kicked in the balls, etc, not all of it malicious or hard enough to have serious consequences but really out of line on a couple of occasions, I even saw a girl throw an aluminium chair at a guy once, without anyone really giving a shit.

We see this attitude in games, movies, books, etc, girls being assertive by punching, slapping or employing other means of violence against men. Take the ending of Die Hard for example, McClane's wife punches the reporter and the result? She embarrasses him. Imagine if the roles had been reversed.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you.

You're welcome to. Just wish you had well thought out reasons for it.

Being male and white and living in the western world is demonstrably better than many alternatives, and there is a preponderance of evidence to support that. But that is not where your point fails. No, your point fails in counting 'male on male' violence as a thing that deserves to be counted alongside gender-motivated violence. That's a smoke screen.

You missed my point. If you're position rests on the notion that DV against women perpetrated by men deserves more attention and billing based on a higher statistical significance, then surely you understand that more statistically significant violence types deserve even more attention. If you don't, then you're a hypocrit.

If you feel that women and the issues, dangers and difficulties that are unique to them don't deserve top billing, just say so. If you feel that white men are equally as victimized, say so. You'll be wrong, but I will respect you for at least being forthright.

See, this is where your astounding innaccurate misconception of reality shows, and it irks me to no end when people make this argument. Males have always been more violent against others males, and white males have always been equally violent to other white males as much as any other race.

I'm going to say it plainly so there's no confusion; White men have been murdering, raping, subjugating and massacering each other as much as any other demographic throughout history. The sudden influx of specific demographics complaining about their unique situation fails on a the basic premise; their not unique in the slightest. One demographic, of the MANY, does not deserve any more or less attentiong then ANY OTHER demographic.

White men ARE equally victimized by white men, there's nothing wrong in that statement.

Nobody is saying that men are not the victims of discrimination and gender-motivated violence. Everyone is. Everywhere. Every single demographic. The question I want to ask is, what makes you so uncomfortable about women getting a focus? Because frankly, I'm not sure what it is you *are* saying.

I don't have an issue with women getting attention, you're under the misguided impression I am. My issue is you voicing a childish position that because you belong to a contextually derived privileged group, that their issues aren't relevant enough to discuss.

In other words, suggesting they keep silent because of their circumstance is an equally valid position to take against American women. They aren't getting their breasts removed by rival tribes, so what do they really have to complain about?

Women have it hard; on the whole, harder on average than men. It's always been that way, since the dawn of recorded history, pretty much the entire world over with rare exception. Why does admitting and addressing that make you uncomfortable?

Because it's simply not true. History is filled with equal amounts of gender based praise and condemnation. The suggestion that a gender has it harder regardless of context is intellectually dishonest as best and just plain sexist. We've equally endured trails and tribulations, what makes those of men any less relevant? Because we're bigger and stronger? Or because we're the biggest instigators of violence in history? Sure, accept that fact but ignore that we're usually targetting men first!

I am privileged. I admit it. I acknowledge it. I feel like a lot of white cisgendered heterosexuals like myself have a hard time admitting that; like we're saying it's our fault slavery happened, our fault that women are paid less than men, our fault that something like one in seven women are sexually assaulted in their lives. But admitting that you're privileged doesn't admit any of that. All it does is acknowledge that you're aware that you (and me) were born into Easymode. It's a first step to understanding, and it harms nobody.

Are you under the impression slavery never existed prior to the inception of the USA? Are you under the impression that only the white man was capable of slaving black men? What kind of cockeyed reality do you live in? The one where you can't see the context required for your privilige to work and see that you're still using privilege as a fallacy.

I understand perfectly; people are jealous of the status they associate to a white hetero male yet they blame us for slavery, shitty wages and rapes, among all the other terrible shit that is our fault because we're trying to enforce the status quo on anyone who's different. So my response? Grow the fuck up and /ignore.

 

[Woodsey]

your two examples don't back it up at all.

I think they do. I don't see why they wouldn't. And surely you've noticed the mentality I'm talking about yourself?

They don't. They're anecdotal, incidental. You want to back up such a statement then find properly researched figures. I'm not really sure what's difficult to understand about that.

And no, I haven't. The most any girl has ever done is playfully 'punch' me on the arm.

I think you need to recognise that (at least by your description) you have not grown up in a particularly normal environment when it comes to the two women you've been most exposed to. Your mother and sister sound like they need to see someone about their actual anger issues.

Except I'm not just talking about them, I gave two school-related examples as well. It isn't just a family environment I'm talking about.

Maybe it's just where I come from, but we're always instructed "never to lay hands on a girl". It's a fundamental social rule. However I've seen many minor acts of violence perpetrated by girls go unpunished, simply because the recipient was a guy.

I dunno... obviously it's different where you come from. Otherwise you'd know the mentality I'm talking about. Although surely you've seen it in movies, games, etc?

'I gave two school-related examples as well.'

And again: that's two examples outside of your family over a 20-year period. It's inconsequential, irrelevant.

Yes, of course everyone's come across the 'don't hit a girl', what I'm addressing is your statement about an increasing amount of casual violence being perpetrated by women in general, based on your maladjusted sister and a couple of weirdos you met at two different schools.

So what, I'm supposed to have been beaten every day for the last 20 years by 365 different women a year for anything I say to be relevant? And those are just examples of cases that have happened to me.

I've seen other guys get slapped, punched, kicked in the balls, etc, not all of it malicious or hard enough to have serious consequences but really out of line on a couple of occasions, I even saw a girl throw an aluminium chair at a guy once, without anyone really giving a shit.

We see this attitude in games, movies, books, etc, girls being assertive by punching, slapping or employing other means of violence against men. Take the ending of Die Hard for example, McClane's wife punches the reporter and the result? She embarrasses him. Imagine if the roles had been reversed.

Yeah, just imagine if Male Shep were allowed to punch a female reporter and it became an increasing joke throughout the Mass Effect series.

Again, you're moving away from the point I'm addressing. Which is that you seem to think casual violence from women is on a clear increase.

I'm not denying that men are victims of domestic violence (you'll notice I found actual figures to make my point earlier), nor am I suggesting that the perception of genders doesn't change depending on which does what in a given situation (despite the slightly facetious first part of this post).

What I am suggesting is that the odd experiences personal to you are indicative of very little, and nowhere near enough to suggest that there's a growing epidemic of casual violence being committed by women.

 

[NiPah]

Sorry to say but that is what influences the majority of people on feminism. The average person doesn't enroll in a gender studies degree or go on feminist blogs.

And I meant the BBC, not channels like Fox.

Well the BBC is better then Fox to be sure, but if it's painting feminists in such a light maybe they're trying to become a Fox news. Even the most hardcore old school feminist I know acknowledges the issue of men being abused in domestic relationships, but admits it's not a focus of her research.

It's easy to paint the outliers of our society as extremists, it makes interesting news and easy to write stories, the danger comes from actually believing hype.

 

[manic_depressive13]

You blame feminism for your having shitty parents and apathetic teachers?

My mum was a great parent and my teachers were all decent people. And once again, I didn't explicitly blame feminism, I blamed social inequities in regards to gender-specific violence.

They obviously weren't if they let people attack you and did nothing.

Ok smartarse, do you think she'd dismiss it as "how boys show affection" so readily if you were a girl?

I am a girl. My brother used to hit me and no one gave a crap. Perhaps I should have specified but I thought it was easily inferred. Presumably if I were a boy I would know that I am supposed to show affection by punching things and laughing while they begged me to stop.

 

[Sean951]

I just love how Rush Limbaugh's "feminazi" has become mainstream and people who normally would recoil in horror at the idea of holding a similar position to him are using his word.

Note: He didn't technically coin the name, or so he claims, but he is the one who made it big.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

your 'die-hard feminist' mother doesn't represent every feminist in the world. If anyone on this site ever actually talks to a real feminist they'll understand that they do push for gender eqaulity, specifically fighting against the traditional gender roles and, as I just mentioned, these gender roles play a huge part in holding back the recognition of male victims of domestic violence.

That's a nice no-true-scotsman argument you have there. Please tell me why his mother isn't a "real" feminist. From what I am getting from the OP, his mother would fit in with Second Wave feminist. Now while its true that his mother doesn't represent all feminist, its completely inaccurate to say that his mother isn't a "true" feminist.

What feminists? Name one.

I think this guy [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.377125.14710262] can give you some ideas.

I never said she wasn't a true feminist

Yes you did. To quote you exactly, "your 'die-hard feminist' mother doesn't represent every feminist in the world. If anyone on this site ever actually talks to a real feminist". [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.377676.14742726] Your comment clearly states that the OP has a distorted idea of feminism because he hasn't "ever actually talk[ed] to a real feminist", which is a comment directed towards the OP's mother.