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

[Thaluikhain]

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.

Gender specific things equating to female specific things is because the default tends to lean the other way. You have "women's studies" because most fields of academia disproportionally feature males.

As for prostate vs cancer, I think that's because people find boobs to be sexy, you get "Save the tatas" campaign and little boob stress balls. IIRC, lung cancer kills more women than breast cancer, but lung fetishism isn't popular enough to make a campaing out of it. Fucking disgraceful.

 

[Slayer_2]

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

Yes, because clearly they're doing this to spite the majority. They go through the trouble to do these events supposedly because they're concerned about women, but we all know they're out to get you. It can't possibly be that they think it is a more urgent problem for some absolutely unfathomable reason.

When did I say the minorities where the ones doing it? It's usually the majority, trying to push some stupid idea of unequal equality. Stop trying to twist my words to make me seem like a paranoid asshole, and open your eyes.

 

[Terminal Blue]

snip

One more time. That's what I say every time this comes up. God knows why I can't just let you sit there and impotently whine your little lives away, but let's do this.

The actual trends in violence against women and violence against men are completely asymmetrical.

The vast majority of men who suffer violence are attacked by other men, usually in a public setting as a one-time event. Men are more likely to be attacked for the purposes of robbery or financial gain, but are also more likely to suffer racist or homophobic attacks. This kind of male-on-male violence constitutes the vast majority of (reported) violence in society overall, but has a proportionately low rate of injury or death (though men are still more likely to be hospitalized or to die from violence overall).

The vast majority of women who suffer violence are attacked by men, usually people they know, and in a domestic setting. Attacks are more likely to be sustained or repeated, rather than a lone incident. The motive is more likely to be sexual assault or humiliation. This type of violence is quite rare, but leads to proportionately high rates of hospitalization and death.

Now technically, it's true that men are just as likely to suffer intimate partner or domestic violence as women, if we count violence as any kind of physical contact without regard for severity or repetition. However, women are more likely to suffer more severe domestic violence, are hugely more likely to be hospitalized or killed by domestic violence, and are more likely to be suffer multiple instances of violence before reporting it to police or trying to leave their partners.

Now, here's the point:

Violence against men actually constitutes the vast majority of violence in our society. However, even relative to this fact, the police, courts and services spend far more time dealing with, investigating, prosecuting and supporting cases involving male victims, because they focus excessively on the kinds of public crimes which men tend to experience disproportionately. Violence against women, meaning the specific kinds of violence disproportionately suffered by women, has traditionally been under-reported, under investigated, seldom prosecuted, almost never convicted and generally given very little in the way of time and resources.

So yes, you are condoning discrimination by suggesting that a system which (in practice) focuses disproportionately on violence against men is neutral and completely fair. When politicians and lawyers talk about "tackling violent crime", they actually tend to mean the kinds of public violent crime disproportionately suffered by men and specifically not the forms of violence disproportionately suffered by women. That's why simply being "anti violence" hasn't worked and isn't going to work.

Yes, there are problems with calling this phenomenon "violence against women", but they are tiny, insignificant problems in comparison to those which existed when such violence was not acknowledged as a distinct phenomenon requiring specific, targeted resources. They are also largely semantic. Anti-discrimination laws means that the law will never treat you differently if you're male or female, all the law can do is to allocate resources based on what clear statistical trends suggest is needed.

There is so much more to say here, particularly on women's shelters, but I've said it so many times now that I'm kind of burned out. So yeah, take that for what you will.

 

[Freechoice]

You were in the right, but there is only one way to win an argument like that. You go on an epic fucking rant where you get pissed off, swear and call some people festering assholes for being such narrow minded bitches.

In this day and age, it's the loudest, angriest fuck who wins. So you be the most intelligent, well thought out, articulate angry fuck there is.

[img=220x220]http://1d4chan.org/images/thumb/f/f8/Angry_Marines_Pauldron.png/220px-Angry_Marines_Pauldron.png[/img]

Here [http://www.king-cart.com/store/oknight/IF_403515_Chainsword.jpg] is a chainsword. Please clean it when you're finished.

 

[zefiris]

This is also why im against the idea of a feminist movement being CALLED feminist.

Yes, how dare people try to support the group that is in a worse position right now and say so publically.

See, your little trick there is cute, but has been exposed for what it is 100 years ago. You guys tried it during segregation, you're trying it against gay rights activists (Baww what about straights),and you try it here.

But it's nonsense. It doesn't make sense as an argument.

Nobody can solve all problems at once. People, instead, do the sane thing and focus on one problem at a time. The problem feminists are chosing to focus on first are problems that rise from sexism against women.

Fun fact: Sexism against women also directly causes most things that badly affect men. If women are not seen as the inferior, weaker sex, then male victims of violence by women aren't shamed. If rape gets seen as the crime it is, and rapists don't get excused, then male victims benefit by default. That women are child rearers and men are earners is a nonsensical stereotype that is the prime reason for a)the wage gap and b)men getting denied access to children in divorce cases.

The cause is sexism against women. Thus, only someone who didn't think about things would whine about people fighting specifically against sexism against women. Unless they are sexist, of course, and want feminists to go away so he can continue to be sexist against women.

Yes, feminists should be called feminists, because the problem is sexism against women. Similarly, gay rights activists are not evil just because they don't also explicitely include straight people. If you want to be in a better situation, why not work on it yourself, instead of whining that other people aren't working to improve your life?

How did I determine that the issues are more or less the same? Well I'm not a psychologist

This is how you sound:

"How did I determine that the health issues are more or less the same? Well, I'm not a doctor, but it totally sounds the same to be, so it must be entirely the same.

Therefore, the plague is really the same thing as a pimple. Why is everyone always freaking out about the plague when it happens? People should treat it just like pimples. Problem solved. I'm a genius. Similar things are the same thing."

 

[Erana]

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).

That's not their fault. And my point wasn't just for abuse against women, but any humanitarian campaign. Are animal shelters bad because they aren't taking care of sick human children?

Nothing stopping you from starting a campaign to end abuse towards men yourself, if you care that strongly.

 

[Slayer_2]

You're hilarious because I never specified that the people acting were the minority. "Open your eyes"? Really? If you want to avoid the image of paranoia then that is not the right phrase to use.

Thanks, I know I am, but not quite as amusing as your lack of attention to basic grammar conventions, or your apparent lack of knowledge about implications. Really, I don't know how many ways you'd take "Yes, because clearly they're doing this to spite the majority." Lets replace "they're" with "the majority are". "Yes, because clearly the majority are doing this to spite the majority." Sounds awkward, anyone could see that.

"Open your eyes" was meant to mean that you should learn to read properly, not to insinuate that "THE END IS NEAR, MINORITIES WILL KILL US ALL", I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to twist my words to make me seem like a crazy hobo standing on the side of the street holding a sign and screaming about the end approaching.

 

[Slayer_2]

snip

Was going to reply, then realized I don't care about your opinion enough to bother. Dunno why I bothered typing this, really.

 

[Slayer_2]

I'm not surprised you'd run from admitting that it made no sense to assume I was referring to either the minority or majority. That kind of behavior is what allows this bizarre idea that people are discriminating against the majority.

Okay, I was gonna drop this (note, not run, I just don't care what contrived ideas you might have of me), but your blatant playing stupid intrigues me. Is having a class that only allows first nations people to participate racist or not. Don't give me any bullshit, say either "yes" or "no. There is no wiggle room here.

 

[Slayer_2]

yes

So racism against the majority is not a fucking "bizarre idea" it's a FACT. Sure it's not as bad, I'm not claiming that, but it's no more a "bizarre idea" than the sun rising and setting. For now, I'm done with you, you're either being deliberately stupid to annoy me, or just really are not that with it (which would explain your jumping around like a rabbit). Either way, I'm not interested, nor do I have one iota of interest or respect for what you think, hence nothing to be gained from wasting time with you. Good day.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Spoiler: snip

One more time. That's what I say every time this comes up. God knows why I can't just let you sit there and impotently whine your little lives away, but let's do this.

The actual trends in violence against women and violence against men are completely asymmetrical.

The vast majority of men who suffer violence are attacked by other men, usually in a public setting as a one-time event. Men are more likely to be attacked for the purposes of robbery or financial gain, but are also more likely to suffer racist or homophobic attacks. This kind of male-on-male violence constitutes the vast majority of (reported) violence in society overall, but has a proportionately low rate of injury or death (though men are still more likely to be hospitalized or to die from violence overall).

The vast majority of women who suffer violence are attacked by men, usually people they know, and in a domestic setting. Attacks are more likely to be sustained or repeated, rather than a lone incident. The motive is more likely to be sexual assault or humiliation. This type of violence is quite rare, but leads to proportionately high rates of hospitalization and death.

Now technically, it's true that men are just as likely to suffer intimate partner or domestic violence as women, if we count violence as any kind of physical contact without regard for severity or repetition. However, women are more likely to suffer more severe domestic violence, are hugely more likely to be hospitalized or killed by domestic violence, and are more likely to be suffer multiple instances of violence before reporting it to police or trying to leave their partners.

Now, here's the point:

Violence against men actually constitutes the vast majority of violence in our society. However, even relative to this fact, the police, courts and services spend far more time dealing with, investigating, prosecuting and supporting cases involving male victims, because they focus excessively on the kinds of public crimes which men tend to experience disproportionately. Violence against women, meaning the specific kinds of violence disproportionately suffered by women, has traditionally been under-reported, under investigated, seldom prosecuted, almost never convicted and generally given very little in the way of time and resources.

So yes, you are condoning discrimination by suggesting that a system which (in practice) focuses disproportionately on violence against men is neutral and completely fair. When politicians and lawyers talk about "tackling violent crime", they actually tend to mean the kinds of public violent crime disproportionately suffered by men and specifically not the forms of violence disproportionately suffered by women. That's why simply being "anti violence" hasn't worked and isn't going to work.

Yes, there are problems with calling this phenomenon "violence against women", but they are tiny, insignificant problems in comparison to those which existed when such violence was not acknowledged as a distinct phenomenon requiring specific, targeted resources. They are also largely semantic. Anti-discrimination laws means that the law will never treat you differently if you're male or female, all the law can do is to allocate resources based on what clear statistical trends suggest is needed.

There is so much more to say here, particularly on women's shelters, but I've said it so many times now that I'm kind of burned out. So yeah, take that for what you will.

Exactly.

Spoiler: snip

This is also why im against the idea of a feminist movement being CALLED feminist.

Yes, how dare people try to support the group that is in a worse position right now and say so publically.

See, your little trick there is cute, but has been exposed for what it is 100 years ago. You guys tried it during segregation, you're trying it against gay rights activists (Baww what about straights),and you try it here.

But it's nonsense. It doesn't make sense as an argument.

Nobody can solve all problems at once. People, instead, do the sane thing and focus on one problem at a time. The problem feminists are chosing to focus on first are problems that rise from sexism against women.

Fun fact: Sexism against women also directly causes most things that badly affect men. If women are not seen as the inferior, weaker sex, then male victims of violence by women aren't shamed. If rape gets seen as the crime it is, and rapists don't get excused, then male victims benefit by default. That women are child rearers and men are earners is a nonsensical stereotype that is the prime reason for a)the wage gap and b)men getting denied access to children in divorce cases.

The cause is sexism against women. Thus, only someone who didn't think about things would whine about people fighting specifically against sexism against women. Unless they are sexist, of course, and want feminists to go away so he can continue to be sexist against women.

Yes, feminists should be called feminists, because the problem is sexism against women. Similarly, gay rights activists are not evil just because they don't also explicitely include straight people. If you want to be in a better situation, why not work on it yourself, instead of whining that other people aren't working to improve your life?

How did I determine that the issues are more or less the same? Well I'm not a psychologist

This is how you sound:

"How did I determine that the health issues are more or less the same? Well, I'm not a doctor, but it totally sounds the same to be, so it must be entirely the same.

Therefore, the plague is really the same thing as a pimple. Why is everyone always freaking out about the plague when it happens? People should treat it just like pimples. Problem solved. I'm a genius. Similar things are the same thing."

Also exactly.

And I can sympathise with getting fed up of the same flimsy arguments being trotted out by new people as if they've thought up something momentous.

 

[Christopher Burdohan]

its a double edged sword isn't it they want the discrimination to stop but deep down the people in question dont want the special treatment to stop. as far as them attacking you on this debate thats just them being stupid they probably didn't even read all the status post let alone how short it was.

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?

 

[Dense_Electric]

So yes, you are condoning discrimination by suggesting that a system which (in practice) focuses disproportionately on violence against men is neutral and completely fair. When politicians and lawyers talk about "tackling violent crime", they actually tend to mean the kinds of public violent crime disproportionately suffered by men and specifically not the forms of violence disproportionately suffered by women. That's why simply being "anti violence" hasn't worked and isn't going to work.

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%.

Do you see the problem with this logic? I didn't set out with the goal of give 80% of my support to males and 20% to females, I simply dealt with the ten victims as they arose and helped them all equally.

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.

Yes, there are problems with calling this phenomenon "violence against women", but they are tiny, insignificant problems in comparison to those which existed when such violence was not acknowledged as a distinct phenomenon requiring specific, targeted resources. They are also largely semantic. Anti-discrimination laws means that the law will never treat you differently if you're male or female, all the law can do is to allocate resources based on what clear statistical trends suggest is needed.

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

And still no one has told me why we need to allocate resources based on sex. I say again, you wouldn't allocate resources differently based on what sort of toothpaste they used even if there was a discernible trend, you would just give them the resources as they need them. So why do you make a distinction based on sex to begin with?

This is also why im against the idea of a feminist movement being CALLED feminist.

Yes, how dare people try to support the group that is in a worse position right now and say so publically.

Oh don't give me that, men are plenty discriminated against in other ways. Here's a very short list of ways in which men are discriminated against from our friends at Wikipedia. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights] (And that's just legal stuff, it doesn't even get into social biases and double standards). Men don't have it any better than women right now.

See, your little trick there is cute, but has been exposed for what it is 100 years ago. You guys tried it during segregation, you're trying it against gay rights activists (Baww what about straights),and you try it here.

See, people like you are the cause of this problem. If I try to help the group that's historically been discriminated against, that's all fine and dandy by you, but the second I point out some kind of double standard or "reverse discrimination" (as much as I hate that term) then I'M A SEXIST ASSHOLE WHO HATES BLACK PEOPLE AND GAYS AND RAWRAWRAWR.

Discrimination against men exists, stop pretending it doesn't.

Nobody can solve all problems at once. People, instead, do the sane thing and focus on one problem at a time. The problem feminists are chosing to focus on first are problems that rise from sexism against women.

No one person can, of course, but other people can. So feminists focus on discrimination against women, why can't masculinists (the fact that Firefox is telling me that's not a word pisses me off as well) focus on discrimination against men? Or better yet, why don't we just do what I've been suggesting all along and fight discrimination whenever, where ever it occurs?

Fun fact: Sexism against women also directly causes most things that badly affect men. If women are not seen as the inferior, weaker sex, then male victims of violence by women aren't shamed. If rape gets seen as the crime it is, and rapists don't get excused, then male victims benefit by default. That women are child rearers and men are earners is a nonsensical stereotype that is the prime reason for a)the wage gap and b)men getting denied access to children in divorce cases.

The cause is sexism against women. Thus, only someone who didn't think about things would whine about people fighting specifically against sexism against women. Unless they are sexist, of course, and want feminists to go away so he can continue to be sexist against women.

Once again, that's not sexism against women, that's sexism. Suggesting that women are inferior is of course sexist against women, but suggesting that men are expendable is sexist against men, period.

Yes, feminists should be called feminists, because the problem is sexism against women. Similarly, gay rights activists are not evil just because they don't also explicitely include straight people. If you want to be in a better situation, why not work on it yourself, instead of whining that other people aren't working to improve your life?

Complaining about a real problem =/= "whining." Unless you're going to suggest that blacks should have quit whining and gotten back to work on the plantations, or that women should have quit whining and gotten back in the kitchen.

Therefore, the plague is really the same thing as a pimple. Why is everyone always freaking out about the plague when it happens? People should treat it just like pimples. Problem solved. I'm a genius. Similar things are the same thing."

That's also absurd. You can hardly compare medical condition to a social problem.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

This is also why im against the idea of a feminist movement being CALLED feminist.

Yes, how dare people try to support the group that is in a worse position right now and say so publically.

See, your little trick there is cute, but has been exposed for what it is 100 years ago. You guys tried it during segregation, you're trying it against gay rights activists (Baww what about straights),and you try it here.

But it's nonsense. It doesn't make sense as an argument.

Nobody can solve all problems at once. People, instead, do the sane thing and focus on one problem at a time. The problem feminists are chosing to focus on first are problems that rise from sexism against women.

Fun fact: Sexism against women also directly causes most things that badly affect men. If women are not seen as the inferior, weaker sex, then male victims of violence by women aren't shamed. If rape gets seen as the crime it is, and rapists don't get excused, then male victims benefit by default. That women are child rearers and men are earners is a nonsensical stereotype that is the prime reason for a)the wage gap and b)men getting denied access to children in divorce cases.

The cause is sexism against women. Thus, only someone who didn't think about things would whine about people fighting specifically against sexism against women. Unless they are sexist, of course, and want feminists to go away so he can continue to be sexist against women.

Yes, feminists should be called feminists, because the problem is sexism against women. Similarly, gay rights activists are not evil just because they don't also explicitely include straight people. If you want to be in a better situation, why not work on it yourself, instead of whining that other people aren't working to improve your life?

Im afraid they shouldnt. It doesnt make sense with their aims. If their AIM was publicly to make things better for women then id agree. Thats a good name. But it isnt. They claim they want equality for all. But use a name thats gender specific?

Im not trying anything. It isnt a trick. And you condescending attitude toward me isnt exactly pleasant. I havnt tried anything.

Are you trying to tell me 100% of all sexism against men, all these common problems, are because we look down on women? Why would we shoot ourselves in the foot so hard?

I care equally about men and women and i want equal rights for all. I just think that groups should work together to remove ALL gender roles rather than having two groups usually shown at odds with eachother working on gender roles for only a section of the population.

Its 100% true to say most sexism is toward women. But again look at my example. If i lived in a world where all races suffered some sort of descrimination (i know this isnt true in real life and also with the gay rights movement so your comparison isnt very good) and i wanted quality for all of them, even if the majority were black calling it the blackenist movement is just odd. Why not have a movement for everyone? I deny your claim that im just "whining about someone to make MY life better" im just arguing, as i always will, that everyone work just as hard to remove gender roles for everyone. Im not saying its wrong to admit most sexism is toward women. Its that if youre going to try and improve rights for everyone dont use such an odd tagline.

I dispute that sexism against women is ALL the causes of inequalities toward men as well. Why does prostate cancer recieve such little funding compared to breast cancer? Why are men so forced by society to conform to strong and emotionally blunt or otherwise appear weak? Because its a MALE gender role. Sure it cooincides with the female gender roles but its male specific and isnt caused by the action of sexism toward women?

If we take YOUR definition of feminism that only works to help women sure feminism is a good label. But its also hiliariously unproductive. How on EARTH are we going to break down barriers between two halves of the population by only focussing on one? Its nonsensical. Surely to remove barriers and gender steriotypes set up by EVERYONE we need to involve and target EVERYONE not just women. Men might be more involved in the gender equality subject if "feminism" and its connotations didnt scream a "girls only" club. Be inclusive. The issue cannot be so easily broken down into two halves of "male" and "female". Its a single issue of gender roles and it requires both genders to remove. I think the focus on one is a waste of time as it only tackles half of a greater issue.

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.