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

[Lazier Than Thou]

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'll get back to this.

I read the first few studies and they were just random people's websites, and the only proper study had this:

You mean the website for California State University is just a "random [person]'s website?" Funny, I thought were an accredited University. My bad. Guess all those people that have degrees and diplomas have been conned. I mean, the study that came from that "random website" only contained the following

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.

But who is funding CSU!? Who knows? It doesn't say on their website! Oh, wait, no it does. They're funded by the government, tuition fees, and alumni.

Whatever, it's still very shady if you ask me.

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.

So they're not the views of the CDC. What does that matter when what I posted had nothing to do with views and had everything to do with statistics?

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.

Uh huh. Wikipedia is a better source than the government and multiple Universities(I decided not to go into the University of Pennsylvania as that would have just been beating your stupid point to death and beyond). I'll keep that in mind.

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.

Gender-specific campaigns are not a useful tool when you're fighting against something that is not gender specific. Why? Because you're cutting out half of the people that need help.

You want to use gender-specific campaigns to fight feminine itch and prostate cancer? Great, sounds like a fantastic idea. You want to use gender-specific campaigns that effect both men and women? Sounds like a great way to cut men out of getting recognition and funding, which is misandric and shows a complete lack of empathy for the pain and dignity of men in violent situations.

But back to your first "point." The "point" about you trying to discredit RADAR because it has no information about who's funding it and is commonly quoted by Men's Rights Organizations?

Why does it matter who's funding it? Does their stated goal of bringing to light the truth about domestic abuse somehow get tarnished if you find out someone bad is funding them? In what possible way could anyone have a problem with a group that's trying to end violence and lies in the media?

Why does it matter that MRA's cite it? Are MRA's inherently bad? Are MRA's liars and cheats? What possible reason would you have for connecting MRA's and RADAR?

You're a misandrist. I didn't want to say it in the beginning because I don't know you and there's no reason to call you out for your hatred of men and boys without at least dialoging a bit. But your adamant refusal to recognize the problem men face in Domestic Violence is proof that you don't care when men and boys suffer from violence. This is reprehensible and I hope everyone sees you for what you are.

Good day.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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?

Depends what you mean by "the same issue". If the problems, and causes for those problems aren't the same, the solutions shouldn't be either. I'd agree that both should be solved, but not necessarily by the same group the same way.

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.

I'd disagree. Feminism is only part of the bigger picture, yes, but shouldn't be condemned for that reason.

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?

You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good there.

Yes, it absolutely would be better if the social causes of the problem could be dealt with. But this is not going to happen any time soon.

In the real world, all people can do is try and deal with the consequences, as best they can. Yes, the solution is deeply flawed, but it's better than no solution at all.

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.

For that individual, yes, but the problem isn't limited to that one individual. Failing to protect male victims of violence is terrible. It is less terrible than failing to protect both male and female victims of violence.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Three things:


1. Affirmative Action, by its very nature, is discrimination. "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex."

Not that I don't think it isn't "necessary" (And I use that term extremely loosely) in some areas, but it's still discrimination. Discrimination on the basis of Majority vs Minority, but discrimination all the same.



2. The OP has it right. Violence against either gender is deplorable.

However, I think there's an emphasis on womenfolk because, well, they're the "weaker" sex. At least in society's eyes. Other points have been mentioned several times already, gender and societal conventions/stereotypes interfering with reality being chief among them.

It's all well and good to fight for equality for all, I'd love that, but it's, sadly, not plausible in the current society in which we live. Give it time though. We're moving in that direction, in spite of naysayers and obstacles thrown in by any and all one-dimensional groups.


3. You could have a place set up for Abuse Victims in general. All you'd have to do is separate the men and women. Think of it as a rather depressing parallel of single-sex college dorms. Or, better yet, tailor the experience to the specific victim.

You're going through the trouble of providing therapy and a place for that person to stay. Why the fuck wouldn't you give them a personally uplifting experience?



But yes. Society sucks, men suck, women suck, etc. Whatever keeps you going, folks.

Just don't let me catch you harming someone else (without damned good reason) or...well, I'll tell on you. Failing that, I'll look on sternly in a manner befitting a physically unimposing fellow like myself.



Seriously though, I'd kick your ass if pressed.

 

[Schadrach]

Repost from previous VAWA thread, with some addition and editing:

According to an awful lot of studies, most domestic violence is reciprocal. According to one study (Whitaker DJ, Haileyesus T, Swahn M, Saltzman LS. Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. Am J Public Health 2007) about half of all DV is reciprocal, and ~70% of non-reciprocal DV has a female aggressor. The International Dating Violence Study showed similar rates of violence except in cases where hospitalization was necessary or broken bones were involved, at which point it does slant towards male perpetrators (by about 2:1) -- presumably this is a size/brute strength difference, as women are at least as likely to engage in violence and do so with greater frequency. Interestingly, the single best predicter for the degree of harm a given woman will sustain from DV is the degree of her own violence (and there are a couple of theories as to why this is). As for nonphysical DV (emotional or psychological abuse), it also tends to be reciprocal though some specific forms and approaches are explicitly gendered.

A few choice quotes from Erin Pizzey ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey ), who literally started the first DV shelter ever, and was a major part of making DV shelters a "thing" in the first place:

"Thirty years later, when feminism exploded onto the scene, I was often mistaken for a supporter of the movement. But I have never been a feminist, because, having experienced my mother's violence, I always knew that women can be as vicious and irresponsible as men."

"They were vicious words that I have heard repeated over and over by mothers everywhere. Indeed, when I later opened my refuge for battered women, 62 of the first 100 to come through the door were as abusive as the men they had left."

"Many years later, when feminists started demonising all fathers, these stark images continually reminded me of the truth - that domestic violence is not a gender issue."

"Feminism, I realised, was a lie. Women and men are both capable of extraordinary cruelty."

"Harriet Harman's insidious and manipulative philosophy that women are always victims and men always oppressors can only continue this unspeakable cycle of violence. And it's our children who will suffer."

It's worth noting that she had two abusive parents, but I didn't use any quotes with direct reference to her father's violence, because no one even suggests that men can't be seriously and destructively violent and abusive.

I have a theory regarding the tendency to gender the ability of people to be horrible. I think it's a form of confirmation bias, and in the "men are terrible, women aren't" case it's supported by studies funded through sources that encourage those kinds of results (kind of like "cigarettes aren't addictive" studies funded by the tobacco industry, or "stevia is a dangerous drug and should not be allowed into food" studies funded by NutraSweet).

Essentially, since most people have romantic interactions primarily with one gender [IOW, bisexuals are a minority of the set of all people], are generally decent people, and people tend to hang out with people like themselves in various ways [thus skewing demographics within a given social circle], it creates a skewed perspective in which they are more likely to hear about and/or interact with horrible people of a specific gender and thus lean towards that group having more terrible people (for various values of "horrible" and "terrible").

IOW, "most bad people are men" and "bitches be crazy" come from more or less exactly the same root, observing from a social context that tilts the number of "bad" examples of a given gender encountered. It then gets colored by social memes, hence why women get referred to as "crazy" rather than some of the words used to describe similarly behaving men. There's also a tendency to minimize women's agency when they do wrong lumped in with that.

Speaking on agency for a moment, I find it truly interesting how central the importance of women's agency is to feminism, except when women do wrong. If a woman does something terrible, there's suddenly a rush to make it not her fault, often to find a way to blame it on a man. Women get shorter sentences for the same crime, for example.

Also:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1925is/pdf/BILLS-112s1925is.pdf

Apparently, the current VAWA re-authorization bill includes explicit anti-discriminatory language. See page 16. Specifically:

??(13) CIVIL RIGHTS.?
??(A) NONDISCRIMINATION.?No person in the United States shall on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code), sexual orientation, or disability be excluded from participation in, be denied the ben11efits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103?322; 108 Stat. 1902), the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (division B of Public Law 106?386; 114 Stat. 1491), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (title IX of Public Law 109?162; 119 Stat. 3080), the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011, and any other program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds appropriated for grants, cooperative agreements, and other assistance administered by the Office on Violence Against Women.

Unfortunately, the very next paragraph then says, in essence, "but if you *really* want to discriminate, you can with respect to gender and gender only, so long as you present an alternative that's "reasonable." Specifically:

??(B) EXCEPTION.?If gender segregation or gender-specific programming is necessary to the essential operation of a program, nothing in this paragraph shall prevent any such program or activity from consideration of an individual?s gender. In such circumstances, alternative reasonable accommodations are sufficient to meet the requirements of this paragraph.

Which does, in essence, allow transphobic and/or misandric programs to continue to operate as though (13)(A) is not present, so long as they offer some alternative in some form that they can pretend is 'reasonable'.

Before you note that a transwoman's gender is the same as that of a ciswoman, I'd be quick to point out "actual or perceived", and guess what the variety of feminist (and I feel a need to make a point that some feminists are not all feminists, not a monolith and all that -- the problem with "not a monolith" is that it also means "no consistent beliefs") who drove Erin Pizzey out of her own movement are the same variety who perceive transwomen to be men, which is why they have trouble getting DV services as it is.

 

[Aprilgold]

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.

I honestly don't think you get how this works. Supporting stopping violence doesn't make you solely feminist or solely against racism. It might make you a pacifist but you are there to stop violence, not to stop it solely against woman.

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.

I agree with this slightly. As far as I know, woman and Men are essentially on equal grounds in regular society, such as you won't see a dude beating a chick in town center like its the meal of the day. Other then the occasional bigot, which we can't end anyways, I think everything is best for everyone right now.

There will always be someone who likes men more then woman or woman that like woman more then men. But right now, I only see both genders as equal.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

That was a great post. I'd also like to just add this video to it.


That pretty much sums up a big part of the double standard relating to domestic violence that is prevalent in the western world.

Thank you for your support. Want to see a fantastic video on the subject of the history of domestic violence that really sheds a lot of light on why people reacted that way in the video you embedded?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHkGZvC0z4I&feature=plcp&context=C45b272cVDvjVQa1PpcFOxrw8WWNbZZ6hcUQLFAhkSA0uGlks156g%3D
(I don't know how to embed)

Girlwriteswhat is absolutely brilliant in my opinion. I've watched all of her videos, most of them multiple times, and they're all treasures. Just about all of her videos are on the subject of gender and I agree with almost all of what she says.

She's very wordy and sometimes meanders a bit, but that's something I very much value in a speaker. However, I understand that listening to someone for 21 minutes can be boring or monotonous to a lot of people so if you're not as smitten with her as I am I wont take any offense.

Still, I absolutely recommend you listen to what she has to say. Genius, pure and simple.

 

[Dense_Electric]

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?

You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good there.

Yes, it absolutely would be better if the social causes of the problem could be dealt with. But this is not going to happen any time soon.

In the real world, all people can do is try and deal with the consequences, as best they can. Yes, the solution is deeply flawed, but it's better than no solution at all.

Fair enough, but that's no reason to not try and improve the solution. Where we can identify simple, specific steps that can be taken to end such discriminatory practices, we should take them.

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.

For that individual, yes, but the problem isn't limited to that one individual. Failing to protect male victims of violence is terrible. It is less terrible than failing to protect both male and female victims of violence.

Of course the problem isn't limited to one individual, but you deal with the problem on an individual level. To tie this into what I've been getting at, it shouldn't even be a matter of dealing with male victims and/or female victims, it should be a matter of dealing with victims - helping individual victims as they appear and as they require support.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Fair enough, but that's no reason to not try and improve the solution. Where we can identify simple, specific steps that can be taken to end such discriminatory practices, we should take them.

Oh, certainly you should try to improve things as much as you can.

Of course the problem isn't limited to one individual, but you deal with the problem on an individual level. To tie this into what I've been getting at, it shouldn't even be a matter of dealing with male victims and/or female victims, it should be a matter of dealing with victims - helping individual victims as they appear and as they require support.

For the people on the ground, yes, but on the level of writing and passing legislation, you have to make some level of generalisation based on statistics, and people are going to be overlooked. This should be minimised as much as possible, of course, but it's always going to be a problem.

 

[Esotera]

You mean the website for California State University is just a "random [person]'s website?" Funny, I thought were an accredited University. My bad. Guess all those people that have degrees and diplomas have been conned. I mean, the study that came from that "random website" only contained the following

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.

But who is funding CSU!? Who knows? It doesn't say on their website! Oh, wait, no it does. They're funded by the government, tuition fees, and alumni.

Whatever, it's still very shady if you ask me.

But you didn't link to the University of California. You linked to a website that aggregated a load of links in favour of your argument, which doesn't explain what the organisation actually is. They could quite easily be cherry-picking studies that support their claims, so I'm not going to bother reading their literature.

Uh huh. Wikipedia is a better source than the government and multiple Universities(I decided not to go into the University of Pennsylvania as that would have just been beating your stupid point to death and beyond). I'll keep that in mind.

Yet again, the website is potentially biased as it doesn't explain what the organisation is, or what their agenda is. The studies in themselves might be absolutely fine, but represent a small part of a bigger picture. Wikipedia has been shown to be as accurate as any encyclopedia for most articles, and this study was carried out several years ago when it was still in its infancy.

Gender-specific campaigns are not a useful tool when you're fighting against something that is not gender specific. Why? Because you're cutting out half of the people that need help.

I have never said that we should use exclusively one gender-specific campaign. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've said multiple times that we should use gender-specific campaigns for both men and women, and also non-specific campaigns.

You want to use gender-specific campaigns to fight feminine itch and prostate cancer? Great, sounds like a fantastic idea. You want to use gender-specific campaigns that effect both men and women? Sounds like a great way to cut men out of getting recognition and funding, which is misandric and shows a complete lack of empathy for the pain and dignity of men in violent situations.

See above...

But back to your first "point." The "point" about you trying to discredit RADAR because it has no information about who's funding it and is commonly quoted by Men's Rights Organizations?

Why does it matter who's funding it? Does their stated goal of bringing to light the truth about domestic abuse somehow get tarnished if you find out someone bad is funding them? In what possible way could anyone have a problem with a group that's trying to end violence and lies in the media?

Because I won't believe what they're saying unless the source is relatively impartial. You get charities & foundations lying/exaggerating the truth all the time to bring awareness to an issue. Kony 2012 is a good example of this.

You're a misandrist. I didn't want to say it in the beginning because I don't know you and there's no reason to call you out for your hatred of men and boys without at least dialoging a bit. But your adamant refusal to recognize the problem men face in Domestic Violence is proof that you don't care when men and boys suffer from violence. This is reprehensible and I hope everyone sees you for what you are.

Good day.

You realise I'm a guy? And if I'm anything like that, I would probably be classified as more of a misogynist.

And also where did all this come from? I've said that we should keep gender-specific campaigns because domestic abuse is a bigger issue for females, and I clarified that we should continue campaigning both in gender-specific & gender-non-specific ways. I'm not saying that male domestic violence isn't a real problem, I've just said that domestic violence against females is a bigger one.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Girlwriteswhat is absolutely brilliant in my opinion. I've watched all of her videos, most of them multiple times, and they're all treasures. Just about all of her videos are on the subject of gender and I agree with almost all of what she says.

She's very wordy and sometimes meanders a bit, but that's something I very much value in a speaker. However, I understand that listening to someone for 21 minutes can be boring or monotonous to a lot of people so if you're not as smitten with her as I am I wont take any offense.

I don't suppose you could give me a TLDR summary of what she has to say? I don't have sound at work, and I'm curious.

As to the video...I hate to say it, but I probably wouldn't rush to the defense of the abused guy either, in the same way I wouldn't rush to the defense of a parent who was getting smacked by a young child. My presumption would be that he's more than capable of protecting himself and he just doesn't want to.

Not saying that's RIGHT. But that's how it would go in, to me. I've been hit by women before, and I never felt particularly menaced, or that the situation was outside of my control, and I imagine if the tables had been reversed her interpretation of the danger of the situation would've been VERY different.

AGAIN though, not saying it's right for women to hit men, it's very clearly wrong. I'm just rambling, because obviously I share the same societal biases about this as most people, which is why I'm curious to know what the video you're talking about has to say on the subject.

 

[Bertylicious]

snip

You know if we're going to keep having theese tete-a-tetes then you're going to have to change that avatar.

I don't think there's much mileage in getting into a debate about violence versus non-violence. I can't be bothered, to be honest.

The cultural stuff is, I reckon, a very real problem that needs to be worked on simply because we've only really had equal rights for, what, 30 years? I think that particular drum is going to need banging for a long old while. I do agree though with your sentiment; that domestic violence is a problem no matter the gender.

Perhaps I could summarise my position by saying abuse is different from violence but abuse can involve violence and all abuse is bad.

 

[Something Amyss]

I am open to the idea that something in our culture may specifically encourage violence against women and needs to be specifically addressed.

And there are. And as long as there are, there will be groups specifically devoted to it.

 

[Kahunaburger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHkGZvC0z4I&feature=plcp&context=C45b272cVDvjVQa1PpcFOxrw8WWNbZZ6hcUQLFAhkSA0uGlks156g%3D

This video makes highly selective historical arguments. I guess it might be persuasive to someone who really wants to believe its conclusions, doesn't know much about the historical periods discussed, and labors under reductive concepts of sexism.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

This is also why im against the idea of a feminist movement being CALLED feminist. I support the AIMS of such a movement 100% all the way but WHY is it claled feminist if it calls for the equality of all? Discrimination occurs both ways, its like if i made an "all races should be equal group" and called it the blackenists. It doesnt make any sense. I personally will always idenity is an equality for all person and i think its stupid how two groups with the same aims, male and female action groups, are thrown almost against eachother simply of principle of the name implying they only stand for the rights of one. If both groups fused, changed the name to Equality for all genders and worked together maybe something better would happen.

 

[slypizza]

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.

Yes conflict does add some spice to life but not when its the SAME CONFLICT over and over and over over and over and over over and over and over... etc for- no as long as humans existed its forever been a gender thing and a race thing no one can do anything without being discriminated to some degree and its always a touchy subject because if you voice your opinion on a matter people automatically throw you in a category even if thats not the point you were trying to make. people have yet to rise above these petty matters and think men is everything and women are just sacks that walk around you can play with and reproduce with.

 

[Schadrach]

This is the problem with feminism and I know there will be an army of feminists ready to take a dump on me because I dare say that feminism isn't the shining beacon of free thinking society that so many people will insist it is.

Feminism was not about equality. Lets get that straight. It was about getting rights for women. Something that needed to happen. But double standards affect both sexes, it wasn't about taking both the bad and good things that come with equality, it was solely about getting all the same rights (good things) that men had.

Like I said, that was clearly something that needed to happen, but it wasn't about equalising men and women like so many people seem to insist it was.

Feminism did it's job, it got women the rights they were being denied. It's over, the movement needs to die.

What we need now is an equalitism movement. Something that actively tries to address double standards on all sides of the gender line. Female, male and everything in-between and make no mistake, they are a problem for everybody.

Feminists can say they're about equality now all they want, and most people who call themselves feminists probably do want true equality. But the fact of the matter is the movement itself, feminism, is a reductive movement that is always going to alienate people by name alone. Women don't have exclusive rights to sexism, double standards affect all of us. And it's about damn time people took their head out of their assess and addressed that as the issue it so obviously is.

There's a blog you might find interesting: http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/

It's a blog run by a few moderate feminists about men's issues. It gets a pretty broad spread of commenters, including an older 2nd wave feminist, a couple of moderate MRAs, a woman who frequently uses typical late 2nd wave/early 3rd wave feminist rhetoric but doesn't claim the title, a couple of trans people (including a gamer transwoman who tends to favor discussing the advantages of being female that cisfemales don't necessarily notice because privilege blinds and all that), etc. Unlike a lot of feminist run sites they try very hard to have a spread of opinions among their commenters rather than making disagreeing with them a bannable offense (see: Shakesville).

 

[Thyunda]

snip

You know if we're going to keep having theese tete-a-tetes then you're going to have to change that avatar.

I don't think there's much mileage in getting into a debate about violence versus non-violence. I can't be bothered, to be honest.

The cultural stuff is, I reckon, a very real problem that needs to be worked on simply because we've only really had equal rights for, what, 30 years? I think that particular drum is going to need banging for a long old while. I do agree though with your sentiment; that domestic violence is a problem no matter the gender.

Perhaps I could summarise my position by saying abuse is different from violence but abuse can involve violence and all abuse is bad.

Good summary. Let's use that.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

You mean the website for California State University is just a "random [person]'s website?" Funny, I thought were an accredited University. My bad. Guess all those people that have degrees and diplomas have been conned. I mean, the study that came from that "random website" only contained the following

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.

But who is funding CSU!? Who knows? It doesn't say on their website! Oh, wait, no it does. They're funded by the government, tuition fees, and alumni.

Whatever, it's still very shady if you ask me.

But you didn't link to the University of California. You linked to a website that aggregated a load of links in favour of your argument, which doesn't explain what the organisation actually is. They could quite easily be cherry-picking studies that support their claims, so I'm not going to bother reading their literature.

They're cherry-picking studies? From 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses. Okay. Whatever you say, man.

Uh huh. Wikipedia is a better source than the government and multiple Universities(I decided not to go into the University of Pennsylvania as that would have just been beating your stupid point to death and beyond). I'll keep that in mind.

Yet again, the website is potentially biased as it doesn't explain what the organisation is, or what their agenda is. The studies in themselves might be absolutely fine, but represent a small part of a bigger picture. Wikipedia has been shown to be as accurate as any encyclopedia for most articles, and this study was carried out several years ago when it was still in its infancy.

What is RADARs agenda?

R.A.D.A.R. ? Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting ? is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence.

What do you suspect they might mean by that? Perhaps they want accuracy in domestic abuse reporting. Na, too easy. Must be something sinister. They're a non-profit organization and don't tell everyone who's funding them. Because nothing screams "crazy lunatic fringe element" like a non-profit organization that links to studies done by the U.S. government and respected Universities as the basis for their perspective.

I know! I'll use that Wikipedia thingy. Anyone and everyone can use it with whatever bias they might have, but it's still more reliable than the CDC and CSU. After all, CSU evidently cherry-picks their studies, but a random stranger on the internet with no known ties to anyone and no real accountability is far more trustworthy than an institution dedicated to higher learning.

Gender-specific campaigns are not a useful tool when you're fighting against something that is not gender specific. Why? Because you're cutting out half of the people that need help.

I have never said that we should use exclusively one gender-specific campaign. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've said multiple times that we should use gender-specific campaigns for both men and women, and also non-specific campaigns.

You've said once(and it wasn't even to me so I didn't bother to read it) that you'd be in favor of gender-specific campaigns for men and women. Perhaps you intended to say it multiple times. I'll assume you did, try to give you the benefit of the doubt(which you wont extend to Universities or the U.S. government).

There's no point to gender-specific campaigns. None what-so-ever. Let me explain:

Say Pepsi wanted to market their new drink "Pepsi For Both Genders!" They do some research, find out that both genders want their product, so they decide to market it solely and specifically to men while at the same time demonizing women. Does that sound like a solid campaign to you? I mean, both genders want it, right? So market it to men and hope that women come along as well. Because...? I don't know why, but I'm sure it has something to do with that seedy operation California State University.

They cherry-pick studies, you know?

You're screwing half of the people that could possibly use some help in the event of domestic violence by being gender specific in your outreach. Why would you do that? For what purpose? What do you gain by being gender-specific aside from denying people help that they need?

But let's even take your premise that domestic violence isn't 50/50. Let's change the numbers around to be a bit more comfortable for you. Let's make it 34/66 "in favor" male/female ratio. You're still screwing a solid third of your intended audience. 33% of people that have to deal with domestic violence just aren't welcome. Again, why? What do you gain by gender-specific campaigns? Why would you need them? Why can't you just say things like "no one should have to deal with an abusive spouse" with a picture of both a man and a woman beaten up? That appeals to both. Both genders are now included. Gender-inclusivity! Yay!

There's no point in gender specific campaigns. None. All you do is alienate a percentage of the people who are hurting with absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

You want to use gender-specific campaigns to fight feminine itch and prostate cancer? Great, sounds like a fantastic idea. You want to use gender-specific campaigns that effect both men and women? Sounds like a great way to cut men out of getting recognition and funding, which is misandric and shows a complete lack of empathy for the pain and dignity of men in violent situations.

See above...

But back to your first "point." The "point" about you trying to discredit RADAR because it has no information about who's funding it and is commonly quoted by Men's Rights Organizations?

Why does it matter who's funding it? Does their stated goal of bringing to light the truth about domestic abuse somehow get tarnished if you find out someone bad is funding them? In what possible way could anyone have a problem with a group that's trying to end violence and lies in the media?

Because I won't believe what they're saying unless the source is relatively impartial. You get charities & foundations lying/exaggerating the truth all the time to bring awareness to an issue. Kony 2012 is a good example of this.

You don't have to believe RADAR. All you have to do is take a gander at all the useful links showing that what they're saying is accurate.

But I suppose that CSU is cherry-picking studies. Maybe that's the problem. Or the CDC is playing with their numbers. I don't know, there might be some sort of conspiracy to defraud the public there, but let's ignore it because a random person on Wikipedia linked to a couple studies that couldn't have been cherry-picked. No, random people on the internet don't do things like that. Only Universities and governments.

You're a misandrist. I didn't want to say it in the beginning because I don't know you and there's no reason to call you out for your hatred of men and boys without at least dialoging a bit. But your adamant refusal to recognize the problem men face in Domestic Violence is proof that you don't care when men and boys suffer from violence. This is reprehensible and I hope everyone sees you for what you are.

Good day.

You realise I'm a guy? And if I'm anything like that, I would probably be classified as more of a misogynist.

Misandry: The hatred of men and boys.
Misogyny: The hatred of women and girls.

Precisely how would you be a misogynist by advocating that women are hurt more by domestic violence than men?

And also where did all this come from? I've said that we should keep gender-specific campaigns because domestic abuse is a bigger issue for females, and I clarified that we should continue campaigning both in gender-specific & gender-non-specific ways. I'm not saying that male domestic violence isn't a real problem, I've just said that domestic violence against females is a bigger one.

Because you're ignoring the very real pain that men are in. Instead of accepting the possibility that men compromise half of the victims of domestic violence, you search for reasons to continue believing that women are the bigger victims. Instead of giving it a chance, you libel California State University and a non-profit organization looking to report accuracy in domestic violence reporting frauds. Why? Because of a Wikipedia entry.

By the way, I took a look at some of the sources for the Wikipedia entry(gotta be fair, after all). You know who they link to? Yeah, some of the very same studies that I've linked to. CSU, for example, was one of the links.

However how this:

According to a report by the United States Department of Justice, a survey of 16,000 Americans showed 22.1% of women and 7.4% of men reported being physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime.

squares with this:

Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, has compiled an annotated bibliography of research relating to spousal abuse by women on men. This bibliography examines 275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses that appear to demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners

I can't say I know. But I'm up way later than I should be, I'm tired, so I'm out of this. Even science can't figure this nonsense out.

I probably shouldn't have called you a misandrist, but I'm sick of the world ignoring the pain of men. May have been a bit overzealous on that one. Sorry.

 

[Schadrach]

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.

I think the term your reaching for is gender egalitarianism. Still a hell of a mouthful, but with Google at your side you can find people discussing it.

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.

Really? There's a pretty noteworthy feminist bias to wikipedia. Compare how feminism related articles are reviewed compared to men's rights related articles. Hint: there's a tendency to let things slide in one that won't in the other, and a tendency to make a point of expressing the contrary opinion in one case but not the other.

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

Gender-specific campaigns almost always mean "women targeting campaigns", regardless of the topic, unless it's "gender targeting" for the same reason breast cancer and prostate cancer campaigns are (side note: the Obama health care bill sets aside special funding related to breast cancer, it does nothing of the kind related to prostate cancer despite being similar in terms of frequency and severity). Much like "gender studies" generally means "feminist studies". Even for something that disproportionately impacts men, such as suicide. "Sounds like a great way to cut men out of getting recognition and funding, which is misandric and shows a complete lack of empathy for the pain and dignity of men in violent situations", is actually a pretty good description of how they work in reality, as opposed to on paper.

[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]

Dworkin said more than her share of terrible things. So did Daly, and Solanas, etc. It's really not too hard to find a terrible quote from most of the well known feminists from that era.

A quick introduction to bias would be to look up the Agent Orange files (an MRA dumped a bunch of threads from a private forum connected to radfemhub) and compare how their contents get discussed by MRA sources versus feminist sources (I know Manboobz did a post on them. Spoiler alert: he cherry picked the most innocent of the dumped posts ["My computer is broke! Help!" and the like] and acted like they were typical, as opposed to the "I wish I could murder the male children that I care for professionally" and "the women in that village have been quietly murdering their newborn males for several years now? you go girl!" ones [which are on the other end of the spectrum -- most of them are awful, but not that awful]).

 

[Schadrach]

However how this:

According to a report by the United States Department of Justice, a survey of 16,000 Americans showed 22.1% of women and 7.4% of men reported being physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime.

squares with this:

Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, has compiled an annotated bibliography of research relating to spousal abuse by women on men. This bibliography examines 275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses that appear to demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners

I can't say I know.

My guess is that indicates either under reporting of abuse of men or a difference between the number of relationships that are abusive, and the rates at which people end up in abusive relationships. Perhaps men are more likely to fall into a series of abusive relationships whereas a broader number of women are likely to end up in a smaller number of such relationships each? Perhaps it's a matter of differing survey instruments (for example, women report being raped much, much more often if instead of asking if they'd been raped you ask them if they've ever been in individually described situations that describe various varieties of rape in a semi-clinical fashion and count them as raped if they say yes to any question)?