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

[Zack Alklazaris]

Women can be just as violent as men. working at a news station I have come across 3 separate cases of a women slicing off a mans penis within a years time. There was also a case where a woman beat the crap out of a guy on a bus. (there is video of it somewhere)

I do believe that as a guy we are sometimes treated unfairly. We can not let our emotions get the better of us. This includes everything from crying, to fighting, to sex. Having sex with a drunk girl can be rape, if a woman attacks us we are suppose to just block her blows with our arms and not try to subdue her, and we can not break down when things get bad.

That is starting to change now, but I still see too much of it. Yes we are stronger than women, but that shouldn't mean if one of them starts punching me I can't tackle her to the ground.

Thats my opinion anyway.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Everybody needs to be fought for. Not just women. This is not a patriarchy.

Again, feminism is what we call the movement that protects the rights of women, who are part of everyone.

If you support everyone's rights, this means you support women's rights. Which makes you a feminist.

 

[zehydra]

OP, it stems from this idea that our society has that women are a "minority" (which they aren't)

"Minority" in the context of social demographics refers to those who are not in the dominant group. The best example of this is how during colonial times, the Indians were technically minorities in India.
Pet peeve, sorry.

Still, I really am rubbed the wrong way by the attitude of "you should be doing it for everybody."
These sorts of movement are for a specific problem. Not every one problem can be solved by a blanket attitude, and no one organization can be superman. Hell, Superman can't even be the proverbial "superman" in this context. People involved in orchestrating these sorts of things have chosen to attempt to tackle, in this case, violence against women. This is probably because they've been there, (and thus have a level of comprehension on the matter that's kind of hard to get otherwise) or are just a humanitarian who found a niche doing good with that group.

Are they pro violence against men? Of course not. But right now, they're specializing in stopping a different issue. You wouldn't call a doctor anti-penis for being gynecologists, would you?

Your argument would satisfy me if there WERE campaigns for domestic/sexual abuse against men (there aren't really).

 

[Thaluikhain]

This is my entire issue. I am not a feminist, that is a reductive bracket to put yourself in. I am an equalitist. I do not support womens rights, I support everybodies rights. And as I expanded on, rights are no longer the issue. In the western world we all have equal rights.

What we currently have is a mass of social conventions that are leading to double standards on all sides of the gender line. Man woman and everything in between.

Feminism was about getting women rights they were being denied. They are no longer being denied those rights. It is a superfluous movement.

That is not to say women are no longer the victims of sexism, but that would be covered by an equalitism movement.

Ah, ok, I seem to have misunderstood. I'm not sure that feminism has to be about purely legal rights, as opposed to the way those rights work in society, though, but using that definition that seems fair enough.

However, I would challenge the assumption that the fight for women's legal rights has ended (in the civilised world). You still have issues regarding, for example, abortions and military service.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

I'm sorry, that's blatantly not true. I don't blame you for not knowing it's not true, but the point stands.

http://www.mediaradar.org/research.php#waj

Women are just as likely to initiate violence as men in relationships and for exactly the same reason: control. Violence is a great way to intimidate people, even if you are 110 pounds.

Any individual that resorts to violence to get their way is sick and needs help. If that help means bars and three squares a day, so be it. If that help means forced anger management, that's cool, too. But ignoring half of the victims of domestic violence just because they're men is sexist and that needs to stop now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_abuse#Gender_aspects_of_abuse

The level of violence against female victims is higher than for males, which makes it more of a problem in my opinion. I'm quite surprised the estimated level of domestic abuse in men is near to the level against women though.

Oh, Wikipedia disagrees. My bad, I was clearly wrong. No, you're right. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention probably lied about their statistics because they're clearly woman hating monsters. And the fact that those results have been duplicated by many different studies conducted at many different Universities is just evidence of systemic hatred for women.

Seriously, did you even bother looking into the link I provided?

Objectives. We sought to examine the prevalence of reciprocal (i.e., perpetrated by both partners) and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence and to determine whether reciprocity is related to violence frequency and injury.

Methods. We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury reported by 11 370 respondents on 18761 heterosexual relationships.

Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

Conclusions. The context of the violence (reciprocal vs nonreciprocal) is a strong predictor of reported injury. Prevention approaches that address the escalation of partner violence may be needed to address reciprocal violence.

Two things need to be addressed in that.

#1: In relationships where there was no reciprocity(also known as "hitting back") women were more than twice as likely to instigate violence. In relationships where there was reciprocity, women were more frequently violent

#2: Women sustain more damage in reciprocally violent relationships. Please note that this means "hitting back" and not "being a jackass and just beating someone for no reason." Please also note that men are physically larger than women on the average thus contributing to the degree of damage sustained.

The mere fact that you can shrug off the level of violence directed at men does nothing but make the point for the original poster. Violence against anyone(domestic or not) should not be tolerated. To suggest that men aren't as important as women is to propagate a sexist notion.

Are we striving for equality or not?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

This is my entire issue. I am not a feminist, that is a reductive bracket to put yourself in. I am an equalitist. I do not support womens rights, I support everybodies rights. And as I expanded on, rights are no longer the issue. In the western world we all have equal rights.

What we currently have is a mass of social conventions that are leading to double standards on all sides of the gender line. Man woman and everything in between.

Feminism was about getting women rights they were being denied. They are no longer being denied those rights. It is a superfluous movement.

That is not to say women are no longer the victims of sexism, but that would be covered by an equalitism movement.

Ah, ok, I seem to have misunderstood. I'm not sure that feminism has to be about purely legal rights, as opposed to the way those rights work in society, though, but using that definition that seems fair enough.

However, I would challenge the assumption that the fight for women's legal rights has ended (in the civilised world). You still have issues regarding, for example, abortions and military service.

Abortion is a whole other issue that has to deal with the subjects of babies, murder, death, and the right to live.

 

[Mayhaps]

[

Ah, ok, I seem to have misunderstood. I'm not sure that feminism has to be about purely legal rights, as opposed to the way those rights work in society, though, but using that definition that seems fair enough.

However, I would challenge the assumption that the fight for women's legal rights has ended (in the civilised world). You still have issues regarding, for example, abortions and military service.

Should a man not be able to suggest abortion, and if the woman decides to keep it, should he not be able to cut his ties entirely?
Men do also have issue with military service, it wasn't long ago men were forced to go into military training. I was obliged to answer questions in my country, and if they had chosen me, I would have had to go into military service.

So both of those are equality issues, not women's rights issues.

The fight for human rights will (probably) never end, but a person limiting themselves to form a political opinion that neglects half of the population doesn't sound like a great ideology to me.


Now I'm not arguing that everyone who labels themselves feminists only care about women's rights, I used to call myself a feminist. But I think they'd receive wider support and have more leverage if they didn't lock their name to a gender while fighting things like sexism.

 

[Esotera]

Oh, Wikipedia disagrees. My bad, I was clearly wrong. No, you're right. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention probably lied about their statistics because they're clearly woman hating monsters. And the fact that those results have been duplicated by many different studies conducted at many different Universities is just evidence of systemic hatred for women.

Seriously, did you even bother looking into the link I provided?

What, you mean the biased third party source that has no explanation who's funding the website anywhere on the internet, and is commonly quoted by men's rights organisations? I read the first few studies and they were just random people's websites, and the only proper study had this:

Note. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I trust wikipedia far more than your link as it has multiple citations from journals, but most importantly, it is peer-reviewed and probably a hell of a lot more impartial.

Two things need to be addressed in that.

#1: In relationships where there was no reciprocity(also known as "hitting back") women were more than twice as likely to instigate violence. In relationships where there was reciprocity, women were more frequently violent

#2: Women sustain more damage in reciprocally violent relationships. Please note that this means "hitting back" and not "being a jackass and just beating someone for no reason." Please also note that men are physically larger than women on the average thus contributing to the degree of damage sustained.

The mere fact that you can shrug off the level of violence directed at men does nothing but make the point for the original poster. Violence against anyone(domestic or not) should not be tolerated. To suggest that men aren't as important as women is to propagate a sexist notion.

Are we striving for equality or not?

I haven't shrugged anything off, I simply said that gender-specific campaigns are a useful tool & we should continue to use them.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Should a man not be able to suggest abortion, and if the woman decides to keep it, should he not be able to cut his ties entirely?
Men do also have issue with military service, it wasn't long ago men were forced to go into military training. I was obliged to answer questions in my country, and if they had chosen me, I would have had to go into military service.

So both of those are equality issues, not women's rights issues.

I disagree. Those issues affect both men and women, but in different ways. The solution to the problems faced by one might not have any bearing on the ones faced by the other.

The fight for human rights will (probably) never end, but a person limiting themselves to form a political opinion that neglects half of the population doesn't sound like a great ideology to me.


Now I'm not arguing that everyone who labels themselves feminists only care about women's rights, I used to call myself a feminist. But I think they'd receive wider support and have more leverage if they didn't lock their name to a gender while fighting things like sexism.

That's assuming that on the whole they do. I'm not sure that's the case, it seems more something done by their enemies.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

Violence against women is as cool as violence against anyone. If you make a habit of randomly assaulting your male friends, you're as bad as if you make a habit of randomly assaulting your female friends. If a gay man lays into his partner, is he as bad as a straight man attacking his?
Bizarrely it was very hard to type that. I've grown up practically indoctrinated with the 'Protect Females' command. I think I'm mentally incapable of treating a woman on equal standing with a man where violence and conflict is concerned.

But I also don't consider a one-off backhand out of anger to be 'abuse' no more than I consider punching a very verbally aggressive man in the mouth abuse. I mean, yeah, you shouldn't start hitting people because you don't like what they're saying, but sometimes words can really cut deep, and if it's the only way to make them stop...you just have to.

The concept of 'patriarchal privilege', while somewhat accurate, also makes it so very easy to manipulate. On a societal scale, sure, men have the upper hand. On an emotional, personal level...well. You try telling the false accused rapist that he has a privilege in society simply for being a man. Try getting an abuse or bullying victim to talk to somebody about it. People are far less inclined to trust a man than they are a woman. Maybe because women are the 'inferior' gender - but hey, maybe Jeremy Kyle just wants to get laid at the end of the show.

 

[Carbonyl]

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?

The reason it's important that we have exclusive Women's Shelters is because the majority women who are victims of violence are victimized by a male, and quite a few of them won't feel safe or comfortable around men for a decent stretch of time afterward. Men are larger and stronger, and no matter how much women want to feel equal, we still have a lot of fear for our physical safety. A sizable number of the women in women's shelters are also victims of sexual assault or rape, and they have every right to need a space where they aren't triggered by the presence of a male.
The logistical problems involved in organizing a gender-neutral shelter are also far more complicated, and required larger premises and more staff to deal with the unique issues that each group faces, both emotionally and physically.

I agree that there needs to be acknowledgement and funding and support for victims of violence, indiscriminate of gender, but the needs of males, females, and trans-gendered individuals are different, and they need support that is relevant to those needs.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Still, I don't see the need for a gender reductive movement, both of those are something that would probably benefit more from a completely gender neutral equality movement. Because more people would be willing to accept what such a movement was saying over feminism. Which even the staunchest feminist would have to admit is a word that comes with a lot of baggage.

Whether that's fair or not is besides the point. It's synonymous with lunatics like Dworkin and Solanas. Most people don't make the distinction between batshit crazy radical and vanilla feminism.

Oh, I tend to agree with that, getting rid of gender roles completely would be better than trying to fix them. But that's something that's not likely to occur, tinkering with them is probably the best that can be hoped for.

[small]I would say, though, that Dworkin tends to be unfairly maligned, and that radical feminism is about doing away with gender constructs (or would be if it could get anything done), but that's another issue[/small]

 

[Mayhaps]

I disagree. Those issues affect both men and women, but in different ways. The solution to the problems faced by one might not have any bearing on the ones faced by the other.

I don't get it. Do you agree that both genders have problems tied to the same issue, but disagree that it'd be better if the movement had it's mind set on solving it for both sexes?

That's assuming that on the whole they do. I'm not sure that's the case, it seems more something done by their enemies.

Per definition they do.
Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.

Which was the argument I was making, I think feminism is a bad brand for a movement that really fights for gender-equality and human rights (assuming they do). It potentially alienates people, and because of that, they'll gain less power.

 

[Susan Arendt]

You know your opinions would probably get through to the other party if you beat her a few times.


With a belt.


Other than that I agree; I read a thread once somewhere where a man was denied help because support centers only exist for women.

How motherfucking hysterical you are.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Yeah, I do hope sexism ends. I'm all for liberal feminism.

But I think that women must accept that they can NEVER be equal to men in some respects, in the same way that men will never be treated the same as a woman.

It's a double-edged sword. Men get abused, segregated, and victimized almost as much a women now that it's evened out a bit.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Everybody needs to be fought for. Not just women. This is not a patriarchy. Women are no longer an oppressed social minority with fewer rights than men. We all have the same rights. The issue now is social conventions resulting in double standards that affect everyone.

I considered replying to about a dozen posts, but this one sums up all of my replies so perfectly.

A question for some of you - why are we on about statistics, now? Why does it matter if women or men are more likely to be victims of violence? Or for that matter, why do we even consider the sex of the person involved? If I could find some statistic that showed users of Crest toothpaste were ten times as likely to be killed as users of Colgate, would you start CREST-USERS ONLY shelters? Isn't the fact that the person was a victim of violence more relevant than their sex or their preferred brand of toothpaste?

This post makes a good point as well:

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.

My thoughts exactly. Is violence not violence? I understand what some of you are saying, that certain social notions contribute to violence against one sex or the other, and you're not wrong about that (both the "it's only acceptable to hit men" and "women are bitches it's okay to hit" mindsets piss me right the fuck off) - but in that case, why don't you deal with that social attitude as a separate problem from the actual crime that was committed? Why would you punish the victim by saying, "we can see that you're seriously hurt, but you can't stay at this shelter you were born with a penis and that's more important" (as blood drips out of the huge gash on his head), rather than offering support to someone who needs it in some attempt to combat one particular sexist attitude?

At the end of the day, when the difference between one individual (sex being irrelevant) getting support might be life and death, statistics about who's more likely to beat who mean exactly shit.