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

[Kahunaburger]

EDIT: If you REALLY wanna dispute that no sexism toward men occurs without being rooted in female gender roles answer me this: Why is it acceptable on live TV to laugh at and mock the brutal sexual torture of a man involving dimemberment? Is this a female gender role causing this? Id love to know. Ill provide a video if you arent aware of the incident in question.

You mean the guy who got his dick cut off? IMO, it's all part of the same messed-up social dynamic. To over-simplify, you have social norms that equate power with violence and treats men as the sole purveyors of power/violence, which encourages a wide variety of shitty behavior like wife-beating, not female violence against male victims seriously, etc.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

EDIT: If you REALLY wanna dispute that no sexism toward men occurs without being rooted in female gender roles answer me this: Why is it acceptable on live TV to laugh at and mock the brutal sexual torture of a man involving dimemberment? Is this a female gender role causing this? Id love to know. Ill provide a video if you arent aware of the incident in question.

You mean the guy who got his dick cut off? IMO, it's all part of the same messed-up social dynamic. To over-simplify, you have social norms that equate power with violence and treats men as the sole purveyors of power/violence, which encourages a wide variety of shitty behavior like wife-beating, not female violence against male victims seriously, etc.

I understand that with respect to hitting men. But actively dismembering and torturing them? Seriously? Men can be viewed as powerfull. But not so powerfull as to make torture amusing for them or any less appauling than for a women.

Its also odd when you think of it in terms of who commited the offence. If a man did this to a man it would be appauling. These people wouldnt laugh. They wouldnt do anything. It would just be a sick thing. I feel that when a woman did it some of these people viewed it as "a get back" at men. Some kind of revenge. Which provoked the laughter. Despite the fact this man did nothing whatsoever.

 

[Galletea]

There is a lot of talk about only focusing on the one side of the issue and I feel I should point out that men have been the sole focus and importance in society for quite some time before women decided they wanted equality. I don't know that it's really relevant to this argument, but I thought I'd point out the obvious.

Anyway, the thing here is that you can't treat it all the same because we are not the same. Men and women are different and tend to experience different things from different people. I'm not saying the sort of violence that all the campaigns relate to doesn't ever happen to men, but those men are in a very small minority it is difficult to start a help group for a tiny number of people who probably won't come forward. Women have experienced brutality at the hand of men in many cultures for a very long time, and part of the issue is overcompensating for this.
I don't agree with 'positive discrimination' and I find it ludicrous that some companies will overlook a skilled white man in favour of a woman, or someone of Afro-carribean origin, for instance, just to fulfill quotas to avoid accusations of discrimination.
I don't think we're ever likely to achieve a balance, as we're imposing laws that make the majority resentful, and eventually they will probably turn the tables and we'll be back to being decidedly un-equal.

 

[Kahunaburger]

EDIT: If you REALLY wanna dispute that no sexism toward men occurs without being rooted in female gender roles answer me this: Why is it acceptable on live TV to laugh at and mock the brutal sexual torture of a man involving dimemberment? Is this a female gender role causing this? Id love to know. Ill provide a video if you arent aware of the incident in question.

You mean the guy who got his dick cut off? IMO, it's all part of the same messed-up social dynamic. To over-simplify, you have social norms that equate power with violence and treats men as the sole purveyors of power/violence, which encourages a wide variety of shitty behavior like wife-beating, not female violence against male victims seriously, etc.

I understand that with respect to hitting men. But actively dismembering and torturing them? Seriously? Men can be viewed as powerfull. But not so powerfull as to make torture amusing for them or any less appauling than for a women.

Its also odd when you think of it in terms of who commited the offence. If a man did this to a man it would be appauling. These people wouldnt laugh. They wouldnt do anything. It would just be a sick thing. I feel that when a woman did it some of these people viewed it as "a get back" at men. Some kind of revenge. Which provoked the laughter. Despite the fact this man did nothing whatsoever.

That's why it's a messed up social dynamic. It's similarly messed up when men think it's okay to hit women. This is why I'm confused when people who are ostensibly against anti-male sexism get up in arms about feminism, because negative social dynamics are everyone's problem.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

EDIT: If you REALLY wanna dispute that no sexism toward men occurs without being rooted in female gender roles answer me this: Why is it acceptable on live TV to laugh at and mock the brutal sexual torture of a man involving dimemberment? Is this a female gender role causing this? Id love to know. Ill provide a video if you arent aware of the incident in question.

You mean the guy who got his dick cut off? IMO, it's all part of the same messed-up social dynamic. To over-simplify, you have social norms that equate power with violence and treats men as the sole purveyors of power/violence, which encourages a wide variety of shitty behavior like wife-beating, not female violence against male victims seriously, etc.

I understand that with respect to hitting men. But actively dismembering and torturing them? Seriously? Men can be viewed as powerfull. But not so powerfull as to make torture amusing for them or any less appauling than for a women.

Its also odd when you think of it in terms of who commited the offence. If a man did this to a man it would be appauling. These people wouldnt laugh. They wouldnt do anything. It would just be a sick thing. I feel that when a woman did it some of these people viewed it as "a get back" at men. Some kind of revenge. Which provoked the laughter. Despite the fact this man did nothing whatsoever.

That's why it's a messed up social dynamic. It's similarly messed up when men think it's okay to hit women. This is why I'm confused when people who are ostensibly against anti-male sexism get up in arms about feminism, because negative social dynamics are everyone's problem.

Would you be equally confused if a man who was against anti female sexism got up in arms about the feminist movement seeming exlusive to women since negative social dynamics are everyone's problem?

EDITED for sense.

 

[Kahunaburger]

EDIT: If you REALLY wanna dispute that no sexism toward men occurs without being rooted in female gender roles answer me this: Why is it acceptable on live TV to laugh at and mock the brutal sexual torture of a man involving dimemberment? Is this a female gender role causing this? Id love to know. Ill provide a video if you arent aware of the incident in question.

You mean the guy who got his dick cut off? IMO, it's all part of the same messed-up social dynamic. To over-simplify, you have social norms that equate power with violence and treats men as the sole purveyors of power/violence, which encourages a wide variety of shitty behavior like wife-beating, not female violence against male victims seriously, etc.

I understand that with respect to hitting men. But actively dismembering and torturing them? Seriously? Men can be viewed as powerfull. But not so powerfull as to make torture amusing for them or any less appauling than for a women.

Its also odd when you think of it in terms of who commited the offence. If a man did this to a man it would be appauling. These people wouldnt laugh. They wouldnt do anything. It would just be a sick thing. I feel that when a woman did it some of these people viewed it as "a get back" at men. Some kind of revenge. Which provoked the laughter. Despite the fact this man did nothing whatsoever.

That's why it's a messed up social dynamic. It's similarly messed up when men think it's okay to hit women. This is why I'm confused when people who are ostensibly against anti-male sexism get up in arms about feminism, because negative social dynamics are everyone's problem.

Would you be equally confused if a man who was against anti female sexism got up in arms about the feminist movement seeming exlusive to women since negative social dynamics are everyone's problem?

EDITED for sense.

Well, I'm definitely of the opinion that the feminist movement isn't and shouldn't be exclusive to women.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Well, I'm definitely of the opinion that the feminist movement isn't and shouldn't be exclusive to women.

Can you see how that scentence may come across a tad confusing?

 

[Kahunaburger]

Well, I'm definitely of the opinion that the feminist movement isn't and shouldn't be exclusive to women.

Can you see how that scentence may come across a tad confusing?

No - do you find it confusing?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Well, I'm definitely of the opinion that the feminist movement isn't and shouldn't be exclusive to women.

Can you see how that scentence may come across a tad confusing?

No - do you find it confusing?

I dont find it confusing persay but it seems rather... strange...

Lemme retype it for you again and maybe you can see where im coming from:

"the feminist movement isn't and shouldn't be exclusive to females"

It doesnt make the group sound welcoming or inclusive to men as the actual aims of the movement you described above suggest.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Well, I'm definitely of the opinion that the feminist movement isn't and shouldn't be exclusive to women.

Can you see how that scentence may come across a tad confusing?

No - do you find it confusing?

I dont find it confusing persay but it seems rather... strange...

Lemme retype it for you again and maybe you can see where im coming from:

"the feminist movement isn't and shouldn't be exclusive to females"

It doesnt make the group sound welcoming or inclusive to men as the actual aims of the movement you described above suggest.

Hey, I think there's a Privilege Denying Dude about this exact hang-up some people have.

If women can deal with it when I call them "dude," I can deal with it when the "hey, everyone, let's stop letting society tell us to be short-sighted dumbasses" movement is called "feminism."

 

[Relish in Chaos]

OP: You probably would?ve had a better case if you?d argued that there should be more shelters for male victims of domestic or sexual violence. It?s like arguing for civil rights for everyone, rather than just black people, when many black people in various areas of the worlds are still ostracized and oppressed.

The fact of the matter is that women are more likely to get abused than men, and understandably, a woman would feel frightened if she was forced to share a shelter with men, a gender she wouldn?t have the highest opinion of in light of her experience, and may even attack them in frustration, taking an opportunity to tease them for being victimised by a woman. ?Balance out the stakes?, they may say. Same goes vice versa, with men possibly being frightened and angry at having to share a shelter with women.

However, I am against the whole ?Men shouldn?t hit women? chivalrous bullshit ?rule? that many people in the 21st century still abide by. I don?t care who you are, but if you attack me and I don?t feel it?s justified, damn right I?m going to hit back in self-defence. So what if men are stronger than women on average? Punches, kicks, scratches and slaps still hurt, and I know a lot of women at my kickboxing club that could royally kick my arse.

And even aside from that, my friends and I, two of which were women, used to play ?Take-Down? at the park, and they didn?t get any special treatment. I mean, I may subconsciously hold back on them, because of society?s influence that I just can?t shake out of my system, but I wouldn?t do it intentionally.

 

[Terminal Blue]

That's absurd. Let's consider this hypothetical scenario - eight men and two women are violently attacked. I offer my support to all of them equally and split $1000 dollars between them evenly (so $100 each).

Now all of a sudden I'm sexist, because I gave the men 80% of my support and money and the women 20%.

Firstly, let's assume that's right. It's not what I said, but let's assume it's correct.

Let's assume two men, one of whom has been slapped in the face and the other of whom has been stabbed eight times. You wouldn't take the same amount of money you used to pay for emergency medical care for the stabbing victim and just hand it to the guy who has been slapped in the face, you don't assume that every "violent attack" is the same. You allocate resources based on need.

You can't simply allocate an equal amount of resources to tackling every form of crime, because some form of crimes require more resources to investigate, prosecute or to spend on victim support. The types of violence disproportionately suffered by women do require specialized resources in some regard.

If it emerges that more men than expected are suffering the same forms of violence with the same overall needs, then it might necessitate developing a different infrastructure to deal with them specifically. However, this hasn't happened. Even the experience of "domestic violence" amongst men and women remains highly asymmetrical.

Secondly, as I have said. This is not correct anyway. Even relative to those numbers, a disproportionate amount of time, financial investment and political will is already allocated to tackling the kind of public crime in which male victims form the overwhelming majority. Moreover, police and courts are already pretty good at tackling these kinds of crimes. There is not the kind of institutional neglect which has traditionally existed (and still does exist) when it comes to things like domestic violence or sexual assault.

What you're suggesting is that we should allocate specific percentages of resources before the violence has even been committed, which is only going to lead to discrimination.

Not really. Like I said, the only real problems here are semantic, the law cannot discriminate.

The only area in which resources are allocated ahead of time is in infrastructure, and the only forms of infrastructure which are gender-segregated are women's shelters.

I don't know what image you have of women's shelters. Maybe you think they're places where women go to take long baths and get a nice hug. The truth is that they're basically a cross between psychiatric hospitals for rape victims and sheltered housing for people whose partners may try to murder them (potentially by recruiting or paying people to do it), or who have no means to support themselves because their partners had complete control of their finance. The reason so many exist is because these situations are actually not that uncommon amongst women, although they are fairly uncommon amongst men.

The reason women's shelters are single sexed is not to give women nice things, but because there is a good argument that they could not perform their intended function as a mixed sex environment.

I don't call giving fewer resources to a full half of the population insignificant.

Me neither. But that's exactly what has traditionally happened.

It might be easier to ignore, because it's an unacknowledged bias, but it's still a bias, and it is explicitly sexist. It exists because men have traditionally held a clearer social voice on these issues, and therefore the types of crimes they suffer are more visible in the public gaze than hugely under-reported trends like domestic and sexual violence.

I don't agree with the identity politics which often gets pulled into the violence-against-women label, but it's sure as hell better than having nothing.

 

[Hagi]

I think the problem with your statement wasn't the "Shouldn't it be end violence against everyone?" part.

It was the "This whole end violence against women thing disgusts me." part.

Likely it wasn't your intention but it sounds a lot like "Time and money is being spend to fix problems that I personally don't have! This is so unfair! I totally deserve some of that time and money to be spend on my own problems!".

Seeing the amount of violence against women I don't see how a campaign to fix that is a bad thing. Certainly, a campaign to fix violence against everyone and cure cancer and AIDS whilst we're at it would be much better. But that doesn't make a campaign to end violence against women a bad thing.

And seeing as we don't have unlimited resources I'd much rather see a successful campaign to decrease violence against women than an unsuccessful campaign to stop all violence against everyone everywhere and cure cancer and AIDS in the process.

One problem at a time. Small steps. One campaign to decrease violence against women now. One campaign to decrease violence against homosexuals later. Eventually a campaign to decrease violence against men. And in good time we'll cure cancer and AIDS.

Because we don't have unlimited resources. Because statistically women face many more violent situations in which they can't defend themselves. Is that fair? Not really. But it should be pretty obvious by now that we're not living in a fair world.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Well, I'm definitely of the opinion that the feminist movement isn't and shouldn't be exclusive to women.

Can you see how that scentence may come across a tad confusing?

No - do you find it confusing?

I dont find it confusing persay but it seems rather... strange...

Lemme retype it for you again and maybe you can see where im coming from:

"the feminist movement isn't and shouldn't be exclusive to females"

It doesnt make the group sound welcoming or inclusive to men as the actual aims of the movement you described above suggest.

Hey, I think there's a Privilege Denying Dude about this exact hang-up some people have.

If women can deal with it when I call them "dude," I can deal with it when the "hey, everyone, let's stop letting society tell us to be short-sighted dumbasses" movement is called "feminism."

Im not saying calling it feminism is sexist. Not at all. I just feel it alienates people to a group that really needs everyones support. Makes it sound like the "girls club". Sure im not put off from its ideals because of it but the idea that invisible lines are being drawn in the sand, to the points where we have two groups, named oppositely, striving for the same thing which i think is silly. Why not combine them and call it equalitist? I just see so reason why not. Humankind is also a perfectly good substitute that i tend to use :3

I have to concede talking to you is making it seem far more reasonable. It doesnt really do any harm to be honest... i think im arguing a moot point. I know we dont have infinite resources. And i know we cant solve all problems at once. But these issues are so firmly intertwined in society because of gender roles and assumptions made on gender that to not combine the two seems silly...

 

[Terminal Blue]

"the feminist movement isn't and shouldn't be exclusive to females"

"Jake is a very effeminate man."

"John is getting in touch with his feminine side."

"Young men in modern society have become feminized."

The "fem" prefix does not imply that something cannot apply to or has no relevance to men.

"Fem" is not exclusive to women at all, it's certainly not something only women can hope to understand or think about. I'd even go so far as to say it's a pretty useful thing for men to think about, especially if you want to make any claim to understand what "masculinity" (as the opposite of femininity) actually is.

 

[blackrave]

"Stop violence" tendency can really shoot us in the foot
"Stop violence against the weak"- yes
"Stop violence at all"- no
It is in nature of all men to find biggest, toughest, meanest SOB and find reason to punch him (or make up reason)

And in some sense it is the reason we are where we are
What sane female would attack 10 tons of fur, muscle, fat, bone, tusks and anger armed only with stone spear?
Do you really think mammoths (and other large/dangerous animals) were hunted for meat?
No, there were other less dangerous ways to get meat.
But it was challenge for a group of men (although meat WAS nice bonus).
Risk and price of failure was high, but so was the reward (and biggest part of reward was knowledge that you did it).
Currently it is science where the manliest man works.
Because it is basically punching the reality (and proving that you are right)- the biggest and strongest enemy anyone can have.

But there are bad side to this of course- excess of violence
That's why we need fights, sports and military conflicts to vent it
And unfortunately there are man-like cowards who prefer to vent their violence on the weaker ones (kids, women and elders)

I personally think advantages of this outweighs the disadvantages
But I understand that it is hard to see it that way when you are regularly beaten by someone who simply can do it :/

 

[Zeckt]

I both agree and disagree in that yes women are just as likely to promote violence as men but there is the factor that every straight male naturally undress every woman they find attractive. Sexual assault is a big issue and does need help.

On the other hand, I get kicked in my back by someone twice my weight who I never even knew and have chronic backpains for 2 weeks and nobody gives a shit yet women deserve special treatment. Violence HURTS and helping women exclusively or just way, way more is indeed sexist.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

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?

My first thought on the matter is that your awesome, and I fully agree. Also, what your talking about is egalitarianism if you want to look that up. Personally, I would describe myself as an egalitarian.