The "End Violence Against Women" Debate (and sexism in the 21st century)

[Dense_Electric]

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know this topic has come up a dozen times in the last month, if that's all you're going to point out then please don't bother.

So anyway, I was at my campus today, and a debate sparked up with a few friends of mine over a Facebook status I had posted that read something like: "This whole end violence against women thing disgusts me. Shouldn't it be end violence against everyone?"

Apparently, this status means I am somehow pro-violence against women. I shouldn't even have to point out how fallacious that logic is (to the contrary, did I not just state I was anti-violence against everybody? Or does "everybody" suddenly only apply to men? (Because that totally wouldn't have sexist implications or anything) ), but it got me thinking: how sad it is we live in a world where affirmative action isn't considered to be discrimination when it blatantly is, but opposing special protection is considered a form of discrimination.

Yes, that's right, I am considered sexist by some people because I believe discrimination against men is wrong. At not point did I say that I condoned discrimination against women, or that either sex was more deserving of anything than the other (in fact in the ensuing debate, I stated my opinion that the sex of the victim and the attacker in cases of violence should not even be a factor), but apparently while special treatment of women is just the way things should be, wanting equal treatment for men is sexist.

What I'm saying is that shelters should not be provided for female victims of violence, shelters should be provided for victims of violence. There should not be an "End Violence Against Women Act," there should be an "End Violence" act. Funds should not be allocated for female victims of domestic abuse, funds should be allocated for victims of domestic abuse. Surely I'm not the only person who thinks this madness has GOT. TO. STOP.

Your thoughts on the matter?

 

[Aidinthel]

While I agree with you in principle, last I checked women were much more likely to be the victims of such abuse and I am open to the idea that something in our culture may specifically encourage violence against women and needs to be specifically addressed. Shelters and such should provide services to both men and women, but I won't raise a fuss about activism focusing on the more pressing need.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I think you need to stop trying to justify yourself to morons to get their validation; it's plain to see, to any semi-functioning person, that you weren't discriminating.

Other than that I don't do the whole end violence thing, I even posted recently how I don't want world peace. Conflict and, as an extension, violence make for an interesting existence and I don't want life to be boring and peaceful. But it's in a state's best interest to support an end violence campaign, regardless of gender.

Edgy as fuck y'all.

 

[burningdragoon]

It's okay to have a more focused goal. It's okay to acknowledge that Group A has it worse than Group B (for whatever the reason) and give a bit more attention and support to Group A.

To be slightly more specific, just like being for ending violence against "everybody" doesn't mean you are for violence against women, being for ending violence against women doesn't mean you are for violence against non-women.

 

[SuperNova221]

My thoughts are you're completely right. Not much else to say, to be honest. People who say "Stop violence against women" annoy me as much as my primary school, mother and variouso ther people teaching me "You shouldn't hit women" when I was a child. I just see no reason to specify a gender when disapporiving of violence. Gender is not an important aspect of the issue, the violence is.

 

[requisitename]

What I'm saying is that shelters should not be provided for female victims of violence, shelters should be provided for victims of violence.

A lot of the women who end up in "women's shelters" have been abused by men. If they knew that they were going to have to live in the same room(s) with men they didn't know from Adam, they might not opt to get help. I don't know if it's this way in EVERY shelter, but the ones I've been in don't have individual bedrooms for people. There are one or a few dorm-type rooms that women (and their children) sleep in. That would make separating by sex problematic. While I agree that there should be shelters for both men and women, I am not in favor of putting them in the same shelters for this reason.

 

[Total LOLige]

I have a fun fact(hmm fun not an appropriate choice of word) about domestic abuse in Scotland there is a higher percentage of men being physically abused by their female partners, than women being a abused by male partners. I read that in the SUN a few months ago. That's reported cases I imagine there are a lot of un reported cases of women getting abused.

 

[Melon Hunter]

I have a fun fact(hmm fun not an appropriate choice of word) about domestic abuse in Scotland there is a higher percentage of men being physically abused by their female partners, than women being a abused by male partners. I read that in the SUN a few months ago. That's reported cases I imagine there are a lot of un reported cases of women getting abused.

I guess the problem stems from how society treats it. When a women is abused by a man, we (quite rightly) are furious, and help the woman while punishing the man. However, men are generally expected to stand up for themselves, and are made to feel emasculated if their wives or girlfriends have any great power over them at all (even if this is something completely innocuous like asking her permission before heading down the pub), let alone something like admitting to being abused by them. There's a fear of being mocked for asking for help or protection.

So, some see the problem as 'men abusing women' only. While this is only one part of the problem, it is the one that strikes a nerve the most and is also the most common situation, and therefore has the most coverage. It is definitely something that needs to be fixed, but we mustn't lose sight of the other side of the coin; namely, men who suffer domestic abuse. The OP is right in that stopping violence in general should be the case, but I can see how others would get touchy in a discussion about such a sensitive topic.

 

[Slayer_2]

I love how sexism/racism is justified if it is against the "majority". So legit.

 

[Bertylicious]

I have a fun fact(hmm fun not an appropriate choice of word) about domestic abuse in Scotland there is a higher percentage of men being physically abused by their female partners, than women being a abused by male partners. I read that in the SUN a few months ago. That's reported cases I imagine there are a lot of un reported cases of women getting abused.

I'd take anything you read in the Sun with a pinch of salt. Frankly, I'd take anything you read anywhere with a pinch of salt. It's some dude's interpretation of some other dude's interpretation of data.

to the OP: There's not really a debate to be had here. Ending violence against women is addressing a cultural problem of mysoginy/patriarchal privelidge. I mean if you think violence against women is cool then I guess there is a debate to be had.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

, but it got me thinking: how sad it is we live in a world where affirmative action isn't considered to be discrimination when it blatantly is, but opposing special protection is considered a form of discrimination.

What is more sad is your misunderstanding of what affirmative action is. The end violence against women thing is not AA. Are you just grasping for whatever unpopular name you can throw at it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group "in areas of employment, education, and business", usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination.

Yes, that's right, I am considered sexist by some people because I believe discrimination against men is wrong. At not point did I say that I condoned discrimination against women, or that either sex was more deserving of anything than the other (in fact in the ensuing debate, I stated my opinion that the sex of the victim and the attacker in cases of violence should not even be a factor), but apparently while special treatment of women is just the way things should be, wanting equal treatment for men is sexist.

If someone is attacking the larger of two problems, it's pretty silly to say "Omg why you only care about women?" when the obvious reason they're doing it isn't special treatment, it's that one thing is a larger problem than another. Whether they're right to think it is larger or not, the logic clearly stands as not being special treatment.

There aren't two problems. There's one problem that affects two groups of people. People don't beat their spouses because of sexism. I believe the issues that create the problem are more or less the same for both groups: some people are just violent pricks.

If you want to address the problems of discrimination than in this case it's males that are being discriminated against, mostly unfairly. If a woman is getting beaten by his man than it is highly unlikely for most western countries to not sympathise with her. Such is not the case with men. It is very easy to come up with a scenario where a man is getting beaten by his wife and gets mocked for it in a lot of places, and this is a SEPERATE issue that needs to be dealt with. However the issues that create the problem of abuse are more or less the same for both men and women.

 

[Scarecrow1001]

The world is horribly racist and sexist. But not the same way that it was 100 years ago. Now? It is the opposite of that.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

, but it got me thinking: how sad it is we live in a world where affirmative action isn't considered to be discrimination when it blatantly is, but opposing special protection is considered a form of discrimination.

What is more sad is your misunderstanding of what affirmative action is. The end violence against women thing is not AA. Are you just grasping for whatever unpopular name you can throw at it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group "in areas of employment, education, and business", usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination.

Yes, that's right, I am considered sexist by some people because I believe discrimination against men is wrong. At not point did I say that I condoned discrimination against women, or that either sex was more deserving of anything than the other (in fact in the ensuing debate, I stated my opinion that the sex of the victim and the attacker in cases of violence should not even be a factor), but apparently while special treatment of women is just the way things should be, wanting equal treatment for men is sexist.

If someone is attacking the larger of two problems, it's pretty silly to say "Omg why you only care about women?" when the obvious reason they're doing it isn't special treatment, it's that one thing is a larger problem than another. Whether they're right to think it is larger or not, the logic clearly stands as not being special treatment.

There aren't two problems. There's one problem that affects two groups of people.

Rhetoric. On its own only useful for convincing those who have no particular stance in the first place. It need substance behind it. Violence is a vague problem. Is its expression indeed the same towards both men and women? Looking at the views of society I highly doubt it.

Mind reading my post again? I elaborated about 45 seconds later. (please do respond, I'm bored and I could use an argument)