Jump to content
The Corroboree
Halcyon Daze

Top 5 reasons why I Hate women

Recommended Posts

Ballzac: Let's be clear, I'm not calling you a misogynist, I just think you're misguided in your blaming feminism for problems that are inherent to a male-dominated, primarily male-developed society and culture.

 

I thought I had already made my position on this clear, but let me reiterate. I am not blaming feminism for the genesis of these problems. Most of the problems that face men have been around since the dawn of civilization. What I am blaming feminism for is the refusal to acknowledge that men's problems are worthy of consideration, that the average man is not in a position of privilege compared to his female neighbours, the fact that feminists continue to fight for women's rights at the expense of men's rights.

The most acknowledgement you can usually get from a feminist that men suffer from sexism too is just lip-service. "Patriarchy hurts men too" is a way of turning the issue around to blame men, to say that if we support feminism then our rights will be improved too. But the improvement of men's rights is not even a secondary concern of mainstream feminism, it is incidental at best, and more often than not, feminist ideology actually supports politics that make things worse for the average man.

I also have to question what you mean by "male-dominated" and "male-developed". A literal interpretation of "patriarchy" would mean that the head of state is male - a patriarch. Well, this is certainly not the case in much of the western world, so obviously it is more metaphorical than this. I think I may have already mentioned that I think, although the role of provider and protector for men and the child-like role of women, traditionally, was not ideal, there was some balance to this dynamic. But that's not the world we live in anymore, so even if you disagree with me about that, how do you determine that our society is "male-dominated"? Women comprise maybe 53% of the population and have the same voting rights as men, so politically, democratically, it could be said that women, as a group, have more of a say than men.

Women have a lot of power that everyone acknowledges in a joking way, but people seem unwilling to acknowledge that this power is real. Men often refer to their wives as "SWMBO" (she who must be obeyed). Women will joke about how their husbands are "pussy-whipped", and about how they use sex to get what they want. Men, on average, earn more money than women, but women spend the majority of the disposable income. If men were really in control, wouldn't they be spending the money they earn?

If a woman asks a man to go punch another man, that man who commits the act of violence still has a choice, and is still the agent in the act. But I've never met an active feminist who condones that sort of violence, anyway. All the feminists I know, and much of the feminist literature I've read, has been about reducing the sum of violence. Asking a man to do your dirty work isn't exactly in line with feminist praxis.

 

My point is about the fact that feminism ignores female perpetrated violence, and one of these forms of violence is violence by proxy. I'm not saying that feminists actively condone this sort of violence, but by ignoring its existence, they are implicitly allowing it. You're right that men who commit such violence have a choice, but there are very strong societal pressures for men to act to protect a woman's honour, and this includes being violent on her behalf. I can't think of anything more indicative of a female dominated society than that women can manipulate men into putting themselves in danger of physical harm, and then men are given sole responsibility for the violence than ensues.

Your abusive relationship sounds really shitty, I'm sorry to hear about that. Domestic violence is a huge problem that feminists have tried to deal with for many decades in many different ways. Unfortunately there isn't an easy solution, and that kind of abuse happens all the time. I don't see, however, how a feminist who wants equal rights, could support that kind of thing. In fact, I would dispute anyone's claim to being a feminist if they perpetrated domestic violence. To me, it is too antithetical.

Good point about size not being a majoy factor in abusive relationships. You're right that it is more about wearing someone down, than having the brute strength to do something about it. And you're also right that going to the police could land the victim in trouble, rather than the perpetrator. It can also lead to violence after the complaint.

 

But mainstream feminism completely ignores the fact that men can be victims of domestic violence. I've told my story in comments on feminist blogs, not radical feminist blogs, but ones associated with universities and mainstream political groups, to explain that they're dismissing my experiences by saying that domestic violence only happens to women, and I've had my comments deleted or never approved, presumably because they either don't believe that I, as a man, could really have been a victim, or because my experiences are at odds with their blinkered view of the world.

I am not saying that most feminists actively support female perpetrated violence. What I'm saying is that they allow it by refusing to acknowledge its existence. The studies mostly show the number of perpetrators are 50/50 when it comes to gender. This is not was feminism tells us.

You can say that someone who isn't for true equality isn't a real feminist, but it begs the question of why you are using some abstract dictionary definition to define a movement, rather than defining it based on what the overwhelming majority of the self-identified members support.

It is, however, completely relevant that the main perpetrators of personal violence in our society are males. If you don't feel safe walking a woman home because a man might attack you on the way back while you're alone, don't walk her home. But blaming women for men being attacked by men is just purely illogical. If I was walking somewhere to meet a woman (because she didn't want to meet at my home or whatever) and a man robbed me on the way, I would not blame the woman I was going to meet for the guy's actions, or my missing watch. Can you imagine doing that? Would you ask her for a replacement watch?

 

I never said that a woman should be held responsible for violence perpetrated by a man against a man. I was pointing out that while society expects men to protect women, under the assumption that women are more likely to suffer from a crime when they're out alone, the truth is that men are more at risk. The perpetrators may be more likely to be men (I don't know the figures on this but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) but you can't blame the victim for the gender of the perpetrator, so I really don't think it's relevant. If we want equality, then we have to treat the victims as though their gender is irrelevant, and saying that men are the perpetrators therefore male victims are less deserving of acknowledgement is absurd.

I'm not blaming individual (innocent) women for what happens to men. I'm saying that, in our society, there is a fallacious assumption that women are more at risk. Go to any popular feminist blog or discussion forum, and you will see the prevailing notion that men do not know what it's like to be afraid of being attacked, and this is just false.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*facepalm* ... people's concept of feminism is so far off the mark in this thread.. Not to mention the attempt at moral equivocation so poor.

Edited by SYNeR
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*facepalm* ... people's concept of feminism is so far off the mark in this thread.. Not to mention the attempt at moral equivocation so poor.

 

Maybe you can give some specific examples and provide rebuttals to some of the points made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I had already made my position on this clear, but let me reiterate. I am not blaming feminism for the genesis of these problems. Most of the problems that face men have been around since the dawn of civilization. What I am blaming feminism for is...

You know, your whole throwing around of the term 'feminism' is a poor use of a very broad brush. It also startlingly resembles the stupid arguments I hear from ( usually straight chicks ) about 'men do such and such' or 'men are all the same' etc. If you could provide actual quotes it might strengthen your case by making individuals responsible for their statements

I think I may have already mentioned that I think, although the role of provider and protector for men and the child-like role of women, traditionally, was not ideal, there was some balance to this dynamic.

Balance? For whom? I can't ever imagine choosing the right to be fed and sheltered at someone else's economic expense alongside the inability to have any kind of legal comeback in the event I was raped by my partner. Or, more traditionally, being deemed unfit to provide any kind of legal witness. Etc. You really need to get a grip about this balance thing. If the tradeoffs were so great for women no-one would have bothered to change them

Personally I take my equality *very* seriously. I was starting to take notice of public events around the time of equal work for equal pay, and the start of the Reclaim the Night marches internationally. I grew up knowing that, even as a Western woman, serious inequality wasn't too far behind me historically speaking. I talked to a lot of the people who were on the wrong end of that alleged 'balance' and saw how it shaped their lives for the worse til they stood up to it ( and sometimes still does- one woman I know still hasn't told her husband she wasn't a virgin when they were married, she had a kid before they met, put him up for adoption and lives in total fear that her kid will find her and her husband will flip. She's 65. That's a legacy of your tradition )

And many, many of the people who stood beside me were blokes ( including my lovely dad ). I take their equality every bit as seriously as mine. And I'm as pissed off as you are ballzac about the inequalities they face. And I'm as sick as you are of public presentations of men as inadequate. It's not cute, fuck knows why it sells cleaning products or movies or anything. I'm sick of the silence about men as victims of domestic and sexual violence, I seriously wish the campaigns would shift towards an emphasis on responsible and respectful behaviour from all parties, reguardless of gender. I'm sick of hearing chicks getting away with sexist stuff blokes would be called out on. And I'm a feminist. I have no idea how you're managing to include my politics in your diatribes, you really need to narrow your focus

We need a dialogue, not this random shit slinging, if you want actual progress. Provide examples for discussion

Edited by Darklight
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexist ads from the 50's

ads-2.jpg

ads-7.jpg

ads-8-476x1024.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I had already made my position on this clear, but let me reiterate. I am not blaming feminism for the genesis of these problems. Most of the problems that face men have been around since the dawn of civilization. What I am blaming feminism for is...

You know, your whole throwing around of the term 'feminism' is a poor use of a very broad brush. It also startlingly resembles the stupid arguments I hear from ( usually straight chicks ) about 'men do such and such' or 'men are all the same' etc. If you could provide actual quotes it might strengthen your case by making individuals responsible for their statements

 

The trouble with providing quotes is that the position of an individual cannot be representative of a group. I could quote a whole heap of radfems to 'prove' my point, but it would be a dishonest tactic, and I'd be called out on it. But, your claim that it is like saying people who say "men do such and such" is not fair, because feminism is a movement, and while there are undoubtedly individuals who label themselves as feminists and fall anywhere on a large spectrum of different values, I think it can be fair to use a broad brush to discuss a movement, even though there may be variation within that movement. This is particularly relevant when talking about the way society is influenced by a movement, because the actual influence a movement has on society is usually rather narrow compared to the actual variation within the whole movement itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that feminist theory relies on the belief that society has been set up by men in such a way as to benefit men and oppress women. I believe this assumption is fundamentally flawed, and therefore any activism based on this assumption, no matter how well-intentioned, will have negative outcomes on the group who are seen as the oppressors.

I think I may have already mentioned that I think, although the role of provider and protector for men and the child-like role of women, traditionally, was not ideal, there was some balance to this dynamic.

Balance? For whom? I can't ever imagine choosing the right to be fed and sheltered at someone else's economic expense alongside the inability to have any kind of legal comeback in the event I was raped by my partner. Or, more traditionally, being deemed unfit to provide any kind of legal witness. Etc. You really need to get a grip about this balance thing. If the tradeoffs were so great for women no-one would have bothered to change them

 

I can't imagine ever choosing the right to work in coal mines or die in a war either, but that's what men were faced with. Perhaps using the term "not ideal" was not strong enough, because I think the conditions were terrible for both men and women. If you were going to be transported back to the mid-ninteenth century and could choose to be either a man or a woman, would you choose to be a man, because it was so much better to be a man than a woman? I think the decision would be extremely difficult because both men and women had difficult lives to lead, and I don't think the ability to vote trumps everything else.

The reason people bothered to change these things, is because they only went to the effort to change the aspects that would benefit women. Life has become better for both sexes, but it has been disproportionately in the favour of women. You mention rape. Most men still do not have any legal comeback in the event of being raped by a woman, regardless of whether they're married or not, because in many countries rape is defined as forced penetration using a penis. How many feminists have actively campaigned for equality in the wording of the law to make rape inclusive of sexual assaults perpetrated by a woman against a man?

Personally I take my equality *very* seriously. I was starting to take notice of public events around the time of equal work for equal pay, and the start of the Reclaim the Night marches internationally.

 

Reclaim the Night Marches? The marches that were about ending violence against women, implicitly ignoring the majority of victims of violence? I don't think that's helping to support the idea that feminism is about true equality.

I talked to a lot of the people who were on the wrong end of that alleged 'balance' and saw how it shaped their lives for the worse til they stood up to it

 

Maybe you would have had the chance to talk to the people on the 'right' side of that balance if so many of them hadn't been conscripted at the age of 16 and killed in combat while your friends whose lives have been shaped for the worse were at home sewing uniforms.

And many, many of the people who stood beside me were blokes ( including my lovely dad ). I take their equality every bit as seriously as mine. And I'm as pissed off as you are ballzac about the inequalities they face. And I'm as sick as you are of public presentations of men as inadequate. It's not cute, fuck knows why it sells cleaning products or movies or anything. I'm sick of the silence about men as victims of domestic and sexual violence, I seriously wish the campaigns would shift towards an emphasis on responsible and respectful behaviour from all parties, reguardless of gender. I'm sick of hearing chicks getting away with sexist stuff blokes would be called out on. And I'm a feminist. I have no idea how you're managing to include my politics in your diatribes, you really need to narrow your focus

 

I'm glad you feel that way, but I have to ask what feminist activists have actually done to stand up for men's rights? I see and hear comments like that a lot, but it seems like lip-service when there doesn't actually seem to be any concrete effort on behalf of feminism (as a movement) to change policies or social norms that affect men negatively. As I have said, I am well aware that not all feminist have the same views. In fact, one of the people I posted a video of early on in this thread identifies as a feminist. I have also stated that there seem to be a lot of 'sex positive' feminists who have a more balanced understanding of these issues. But what I have issue with is what seems to be the majority position of feminism as a movement, that blames men for all the problems women face, and refuses to acknowledge the problems that men face. This is the brand of feminism that fights to prevent punishment of false rape-accusors, and gets laws passed that give harsher sentences to men who are violent towards women while ignoring the fact that there are no specific laws to protect male victims.

We need a dialogue, not this random shit slinging, if you want actual progress. Provide examples for discussion

 

Well, until now I haven't had a worthy adversary :devil: . I think you've provided enough examples to get the ball rolling. Like I said, I don't want to provide a list of radfem arguments, only to be told I'm strawmanning. I'd much rather discuss topics that are actually of disagreement between members here, and then we actually have something to talk about, which we do now. I really appreciate your input :)

Edited by ballzac
typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The most acknowledgement you can usually get from a feminist that men suffer from sexism >too is just lip-service.

>Reclaim the Night Marches

 

This is an instance where the action, if successful, would benefit men as well as women. The actions are about reducing the number of violent assaults in populated areas at night, so that vulnerable people feel safer about being out after dark. If the action was at all successful (and it was, at the very least on the level of increasing awareness of the problem) then the upshot would be that men are safer at night also, because of that feminist action. Men were also welcome to participate in those demonstrations, it was not separatist or exclusionary.

>feminists continue to fight for women's rights at the expense of men's rights.

 

We don't agree on this to begin with, but in my opinion men definitely hold privileged positions in society, in the overt ways I've mentioned, and in subtle ways like 'boys clubs' in business and social life, being allowed to take your shirt off in public, balances of micro-level power and whose voices are heard. The levels of significance vary greatly. If men are serious about sex equality then yes, it means that we're going to have to relinquish some of the advantages we've collectively taken over women. That doesn't meant that problems specific to men should be ignored, but the approach to them should be in an order of significance, just as the way in feminist history voting and property rights were taken on before, say, sexist advertising.

>I also have to question what you mean by "male-dominated" and "male-developed".

 

What I mean is that globally men hold far more positions of power (as I've said), higher ability to make decisions that affect everyone's lives (think law), are better paid, have an easier time with workplace relations, are the main perpetrators of violence, so on, and so on, and so on. My examples of what I intend when using terms like patriarchy or male-dominant are scattered through this thread.

>Women comprise maybe 53% of the population and have the same voting rights as men, so politically, democratically, it could be said that women, as a group, have more of a say than men.

 

But it isn't just this simple, is it? If you've grown up being treated like a second class citizen, you don't feel that your opinion is valued as much as by others. I've actually heard women in Australia say that Julia Gillard shouldn't be running the country because women can't think clearly under stress, a chestnut obviously hatched by men, and one which is unfounded and irrelevant in the context of the assertion.

>very strong societal pressures for men to act to protect a woman's honour

 

There is also really strong pressure against making the decision to beat up some bloke who looked at your girlfriend in the pub, namely Australian law. The pressure cuts both ways. Regardless, the point is that men are creating the violent situation (from a non-violent one where they stand to lose face) and perpetrating the violence.

I know that it happens that some women will ask their boyfriend to attack someone on their behalf, but it also happens that women as their boyfriends to calm down and just leave it. I've seen the latter more often than the former.

>I've told my story in comments on feminist blogs, not radical feminist blogs, but ones associated with universities and mainstream political groups, to explain that they're dismissing my experiences by saying that domestic violence only happens to women, and I've had my comments deleted or never approved, presumably because they either don't believe that I, as a man, could really have been a victim, or because my experiences are at odds with their blinkered view of the world.

 

Sorry to hear that, I disagree with their view completely and know that it is empirically demonstrable that men are victims of domestic violence. I would expect academic/university feminists of even the most blinkered kind to at least know about domestic violence in gay relationships. I would not expect feminists in general to take serious discussion of issues like domestic violence as a non-issue.

>what feminist activists have actually done to stand up for men's rights?

 

Darklight is right that we've been painting feminism with really broad brush strokes, which has led to some confusion since the movements are so diverse, and vary greatly by region, political affiliation, historically etc. However, I do think there's evidence for feminism taking up issues that are not specifically relevant to women. Take a look through some random issues of the International Feminist Journal of Politics, for instance. In the most recent issue there are articles on civilian casualties in Afghanistan (NOT focused on women), one on how feminist praxis has affected issues of governmentality within the UN, the US derivative of the Occupy movements, a review of a book that analyses common ground between oppression of women and both male and female African Americans (so the intersection of race and sex, and how it affects both men and women)… You'll also find articles dealing more directly with women, of course, among those is a discussion of the burqa.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could quote a whole heap of radfems to 'prove' my point, but it would be a dishonest tactic, and I'd be called out on it.

 

I appreciate the hell out of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With radical feminism I see parallels to a similar form of psychological abuse in religious talk, with men being accused of being unholy and having original sin, with only women being the righteous and where the slightest foot wrong will land you with eternal damnation. Criticism of the dogma brooks an immediate response of scorn and accusations that you must be a sinner if you don't agree with everything said. fortunately mist feminists do not appear to agree, but many of the more popular works and publications follow this line, after all there is an agenda to push (womens rights) and the imperative to sell. As with so many ideas, sadly the mist extreme seem to be the most popular. A movement needs an opposition and in this case it is men whatever our belief or position.

I urge everyone to try and watch the latest Compass on ABC iview regarding the divinity if women, and then try to imagine the response if a man had made the same documentary about male divinity and see if your response differs in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I urge everyone to try and watch the latest Compass on ABC iview regarding the divinity if women, and then try to imagine the response if a man had made the same documentary about male divinity and see if your response differs in any way.

 

Yeah. Male divinity defined by a man.. Wow that would be out of the ordinary! lol :P

It is like responding to a video on aboriginal history by saying now imagine the same documentary by a white person about white history.. no need to imagine because there are already so many of those that it has defined society at every level! :rolleyes:

It is because of the dominant white paradigm that a focus on aboriginal traditions by aboriginal people is necessary and good and welcome. In the same way, the dominance of patriarchy in the definition and limitation of women has necessitated a focus on women by women... hasn't it? :scratchhead:

After thousands of years of religion being dominated by males talking about male divinities and killing women who dared to speak of god as female I think that it is pretty fair we give the idea of the divine feminine a go... Women ruling humanity doesn't sound so bad anyway, we can be like the bonobos and have sex with everyone all day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballzac I keep forgetting to recommend that you read bell hooks' We Real Cool for another example of feminists writing about mens' problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck me chilli am I to blame for thousands of years of this shit? Turning it around and giving men several thousand years of the same is not a reasonable approach to dealing with historical problems we are doing our best to solve

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit- don't post while wasted.

Edited by incognito
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an instance where the action, if successful, would benefit men as well as women. The actions are about reducing the number of violent assaults in populated areas at night, so that vulnerable people feel safer about being out after dark. If the action was at all successful (and it was, at the very least on the level of increasing awareness of the problem) then the upshot would be that men are safer at night also, because of that feminist action. Men were also welcome to participate in those demonstrations, it was not separatist or exclusionary.

 

You're kidding, right? These marches were an action to oppose violence against women. I don't think I've ever seen anything to suggest that they were about ending violence against everyone. In fact, for about thirty years, most of these marches actually exluded men from being allowed to march, even when the men in question were wanting to march solely for the purpose of supporting the women. When men were finally allowed to march, they still had the marches lead by a women-only group. If you're right that these actions would benefit men, it would be totally incidental, and not be a specific result desired by the organisers. This is exactly what I have been claiming, that where actions borne of the feminist movement have benefited men, it has been a by-product of actions intended solely to benefit women.

We don't agree on this to begin with, but in my opinion men definitely hold privileged positions in society, in the overt ways I've mentioned, and in subtle ways like 'boys clubs' in business and social life, being allowed to take your shirt off in public, balances of micro-level power and whose voices are heard. The levels of significance vary greatly. If men are serious about sex equality then yes, it means that we're going to have to relinquish some of the advantages we've collectively taken over women. That doesn't meant that problems specific to men should be ignored, but the approach to them should be in an order of significance, just as the way in feminist history voting and property rights were taken on before, say, sexist advertising.

What I mean is that globally men hold far more positions of power (as I've said), higher ability to make decisions that affect everyone's lives (think law), are better paid, have an easier time with workplace relations, are the main perpetrators of violence, so on, and so on, and so on. My examples of what I intend when using terms like patriarchy or male-dominant are scattered through this thread.

 

To support the claim that society is "male-developed", you need to provide evidence that the way society is constructed is a result of the choices of men, without any significant input from women. I would contend that the traditional gender roles evolved culturally over a long period of time, beginning even earlier than the human race emerged. I don't think this is actively due to the choices of one gender, even though it traditionally placed men in the positions of power.

We have a female head of state. We have a female prime minister. There are many female judges and CEOs, and any woman with money is just as entitled to start her own business as any man with the same amount of money. On a domestic level, women are most often the ones bringing up children and instilling values in them, whether it's as stay-at-home mums, or as childcare workers. Women also have a lot of power over the men in their lives that they can exercise using sex and emotional blackmail. My main problem with this is that the idea that women are oppressed is essentially like saying they are a minority, when that's not at all true. Women make up just over half the population, and it's very naive to think that they have very little power, particular in todays society where they have the ability to vote and are afforded every other right that men have, with the possible exception, in a lot of countries, of things like being involved in combat.

But, regardless of the actual figures, in order to show that men in general are in a privileged position, you would have to show that the men who are in those positions of power, are acting on behalf of men, and in ways that benefit men at the expense of women. I don't think that is the case. If you look at the top fraction of a percent of people with power, it is probably fair to say that men have more power than women. But is this really a fair metric to determine how much power men have in general? What if you look at the bottom fraction of a percent instead? Then, instead of seeing men as being powerful and controlling society and being privileged, you will see men as being homeless, in prison, suicidal.

And when you look at law, there are a lot of laws that specifically protect women without corresponding protections afforded to men. Sometimes this is due to the wording of the law itself, and other times it is due to the way it is applied. An example of the former would be the definitions of rape that I have already talked about. An example of the latter would be the fact that women are sentenced to less time for committing the same crimes as men. This is well documented. There are also things like parental rights and alimony laws that, on the whole, benefit women over men. If the majority of positions of power held in the context of law are held by men (I don't know if this is true, but for argument's sake), then it is clear that this system run by men benefits women at the expense of men in a lot of ways. This buys into the whole paradigm of women being weak and needing protection, but rather than fight against this sexist bias, feminist thinking inspires actions that aim to further benefit women in these regards, hence reinforcing these stereotypes.

But it isn't just this simple, is it? If you've grown up being treated like a second class citizen, you don't feel that your opinion is valued as much as by others. I've actually heard women in Australia say that Julia Gillard shouldn't be running the country because women can't think clearly under stress, a chestnut obviously hatched by men, and one which is unfounded and irrelevant in the context of the assertion.

 

So what you're saying is that women are too stupid to have their own opinions about who should be running the country? If you meet a woman who thinks that a woman shouldn't be running the country, she is obviously just repeating something she heard a man say? This is the problem with patriarchy theory. It explains everything in a way that seems to support the theory, regardless of the observation. Seriously, can't you give women the credit as human beings to be responsible for their own political beliefs without blaming them on men?

There is also really strong pressure against making the decision to beat up some bloke who looked at your girlfriend in the pub, namely Australian law. The pressure cuts both ways. Regardless, the point is that men are creating the violent situation (from a non-violent one where they stand to lose face) and perpetrating the violence.

I know that it happens that some women will ask their boyfriend to attack someone on their behalf, but it also happens that women as their boyfriends to calm down and just leave it. I've seen the latter more often than the former.

 

True, but I'd like to see consistency in this sort of view, and if we are to ignore the effects of societal pressures, then we also should be ignoring some of the staples of feminist theory, like 'rape culture'. But my point is essentially that women are presumed to have little to no power when it comes to coersion within society, and it's just not true. And one example of this is female perpetrated violence by proxy. Just because there are many counter-examples, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It's something that should be acknowledged if there is to be any honest discourse about violence and gender differences.

Sorry to hear that, I disagree with their view completely and know that it is empirically demonstrable that men are victims of domestic violence. I would expect academic/university feminists of even the most blinkered kind to at least know about domestic violence in gay relationships. I would not expect feminists in general to take serious discussion of issues like domestic violence as a non-issue.

 

Thanks you.

Edit- don't post while wasted.

'Liked' after the edit :wink:

Edited by ballzac
unfinished sentence :S
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck me chilli am I to blame for thousands of years of this shit? Turning it around and giving men several thousand years of the same is not a reasonable approach to dealing with historical problems we are doing our best to solve

 

Who said anything like that? Not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with many of the sentiments expressed in this thread, but i can't help but agree somewhat with chilli. i think it's important that males speak up & express these issues & i don't want to discourage anyone in this thread from expressing themselves (not that i think i would). i feel it's equally or in light of historic trends maybe a lot more important for women to have a voice at this point in time... point is, feminists aren't the problem. misogynists aren't the problem. ARSEHOLES are the problem, plain & simple... but, though i think the discussion is important & it SHOULD be had 100%! i can't help but feel that men feeling hard done by in regards to gender issues is like a white person complaining about racism. racism of any kind is abhorrent as is sexism, but in light of the history of the last two millennia or so it's a little hard to take it seriously. this doesn't mean it is not just as valid as any other persons concerns & i think over the next century this will probably change & these discussions will be taken a lot more seriously as cultural & racial boundaries become more blurred & complex.. i'm not saying i think it's not important at all but i can certainly see why some may not take it too seriously at this point in time.

can i just reitterate that it's simply & entirely dumb shits & arseholes that are the problem... separating people into factions may be helpful in the short term for political tactics & practical benefits of some kind & it's a hard model to break out of when it is so deeply entrenched in culture but it's ultimately futile insanity. you can't fight dualism with more dualism... anyways dualism is inherent in any social paradigm so 'equality' as a whole will at best be a fleeting moment on an ever fluctualing spectrum... unless we all become fully realised buddha's perhaps :P

Edited by paradox
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Male divinity defined by a man.. Wow that would be out of the ordinary! lol :P

It is like responding to a video on aboriginal history by saying now imagine the same documentary by a white person about white history.. no need to imagine because there are already so many of those that it has defined society at every level! :rolleyes:

 

No, it's the emphasis on female divinity I have issues with. We are trying to wipe out an apparent male-dominated paradigm and impose a female-dominated paradigm instead. Can't you see that, and can't you see why it's just as stupid? People have divinity, we are all people and we should focus on the similarities not the differences, if we wish to enjoy equality. It's like saying white people enslaved black people for xxx years so now lets reverse the polarity and that'll make things alright. Well, no it won't.

It is because of the dominant white paradigm that a focus on aboriginal traditions by aboriginal people is necessary and good and welcome. In the same way, the dominance of patriarchy in the definition and limitation of women has necessitated a focus on women by women... hasn't it? :scratchhead:

I don't agree if the focus suggests that indigenous people and their culture are better than white people, much as I dislike the suggestion that white people or culture are better. This is going back to that good versus bad religious morality I mentioned earlier.

After thousands of years of religion being dominated by males talking about male divinities and killing women who dared to speak of god as female I think that it is pretty fair we give the idea of the divine feminine a go... Women ruling humanity doesn't sound so bad anyway, we can be like the bonobos and have sex with everyone all day.

If you knew your history you would see that religion is much more diverse than you suggest, men were and still are more frequently killed than women in the name of religion (among other things) and I don't really wish to be ruled by anyone, no matter what their gender, skin tone, or height is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with many of the sentiments expressed in this thread, but i can't help but agree somewhat with chilli. i think it's important that males speak up & express these issues & i don't want to discourage anyone in this thread from expressing themselves (not that i think i would). i feel it's equally or in light of historic trends maybe a lot more important for women to have a voice at this point in time... point is, feminists aren't the problem. misogynists aren't the problem. ARSEHOLES are the problem, plain & simple... but, though i think the discussion is important & it SHOULD be had 100%! i can't help but feel that men feeling hard done by in regards to gender issues is like a white person complaining about racism. racism of any kind is abhorrent as is sexism, but in light of the history of the last two millennia or so it's a little hard to take it seriously. this doesn't mean it is not just as valid as any other persons concerns & i think over the next century this will probably change & these discussions will be taken a lot more seriously as cultural & racial boundaries become more blurred & complex.. i'm not saying i think it's not important at all but i can certainly see why some may not take it too seriously at this point in time.

can i just reitterate that it's simply & entirely dumb shits & arseholes that are the problem... separating people into factions may be helpful in the short term for political tactics & practical benefits of some kind & it's a hard model to break out of when it is so deeply entrenched in culture but it's ultimately futile insanity. you can't fight dualism with more dualism... anyways dualism is inherent in any social paradigm so 'equality' as a whole will at best be a fleeting moment on an ever fluctualing spectrum... unless we all become fully realised buddha's perhaps :P

 

I agree with most of what you've said here in regards to "arseholes" being the problem, but I strongly disagree on the comparison with racism. There is a big difference between, for example, the black/white dynamic in America's recent history, and the male/female dynamic. Women have been traditionally under the command of their husbands, much like slaves were under the command of their masters. Women had no legal right to vote, much like slaves. But the parallels are limited. Women have always been provided with a lifestyle comparable to that of their husband's, financially. Slaves were not. Women were protected from having to fight in wars. Slaves were not. Although women traditionally did not have their own income, they were provided for on the proviso that they stay home and tend to the house and the children. It may be reasonable to say that a mother who stays home and looks after three children, while her husband works in an air-conditioned office, is doing a tougher job, but when most jobs were arduous, back-breaking labour, with long hours, I don't know if this still holds. Again, this is something slaves did not have. Men have always been expected to open doors for women, to go down with the ship for women, and yes, to not hit women. These benefits were not available to slaves. Making this comparison relies on the assumption that the system benefited men and oppressed women. I maintain that this was never the case because you have to ignore all the 'perks' that women have had that men did not.

I don't think it's easy to weigh the pros and cons of being a member one or the other group that have had such different roles in society, but to state categorically that women have always had it tougher than men in the same way that blacks in America, or Aborigines in Australia, or gays and transgenders just about anywhere, have had it harder than others, is false. And if you are adamant that women have had it harder than men, I invite you to explain the metric that you use to calculate this, including the weightings you apply to each pro/con, and what arithmetic you use to sum these up. I very much doubt that it would work out 50/50 on any fair metric, and I personally feel that it would have been better to be a woman for most of history. I'm also open to the possibility that it would have been slightly better to be a man. But to proclaim it as though it's a scientific fact, and to compare the position of women to the position of minority groups like the aforementioned is, in my mind, ludicrous. But that's the prevailing assumption, and is exactly what I'm arguing against.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-for about thirty years, most of these marches actually exluded men from being allowed to march, even when the men in question were wanting to march solely for the purpose of supporting the women.

 

by the time I got to them, feminists had fought for mens' acceptance in those demonstrations, and there were discussions/workshops on gender and violence before one of the demos. I guess that's another example of feminism improving itself and being aware of and concerned about issues that affect mens specifically.

-Women have always been provided with a lifestyle comparable to that of their husband's, financially. Slaves were not. Women were protected from having to fight in wars. Slaves were not. Although women traditionally did not have their own income, they were provided for on the proviso that they stay home and tend to the house and the children.

 

Women were NOT always provided for on the proviso they looked after the children, and even when they were, it was a deal they had no authority over. In the period we're talking about (pre US civil war) there are plenty of sources that document women's part in the war (a major part of which was rape, when an army was defeated and an area taken, but also active roles in the army as spies etc, and also active roles in public political life). Harriet Beecher Stowe, a (proto-)feminist abolitionist, wrote a novel that has been (perhaps aprocyphally) credited by Abraham Lincoln as "the book that started this great war" (ostensibly against slavery in the south). She was also an activist against slavery (and for other issues) in ways other than her writing. Joan Hedrick's Harriet Beecher Stowe: A Life demonstrates Stowe's connections to feminism (among other things).

If you want a glimpse into how various slaves and wives were treated in the era, The Planter's Northern Bride shows how the difference between being a slave and being a woman in the era was not always a life world's apart. It also complicates our perspective on how slavery worked in practice in the south of the US.

If you think women were well looked after by their husbands, and so didn't have to worry much about not having property rights, read basically any expansion narrative from 1800-65 that includes women and you'll see that women were often abandoned by their husbands and left alone to take care of their family without any legal right to the land they were living on. There is also a strong division between mens' and womens' experience of colonial America, with men clearly having much more control over their own lives and destinies (see Kolodny's Land Before Her). Go back a little further and women were literally used as bargaining chips between men during periods of violent conflict (see: colonial American capitivity narratives).

-We have a female head of state. We have a female prime minister. There are many female judges and CEOs.

 

Yep, and these are great examples. Our head of state is nominal, and our PM is the first female one in Australian history, that's not enough to convince me that the tables have turned. There are female judges and CEOs, as I indicated, but what bothers me is the vast difference in numbers. In Australia's high court we've had 44 male judges, and 4 female. Pretty big difference. Right now there are more male judges, and the Chief Justice is male. The total percentage of females in Australian parliaments is around 30%. The average percentage of female CEOs globally is 8%.

- Women also have a lot of power over the men in their lives that they can exercise using sex and emotional blackmail.

 

Men can do the same thing. If you're in a relationship where sex is a bargaining chip, that's not a healthy relationship anyway.

- the men who are in those positions of power, are acting on behalf of men

 

How about the fact that men in positions of power employ more men around them than women? Look at directors boards of any company with a male ceo and the pattern won't take long to find.

-So what you're saying is that women are too stupid to have their own opinions about who should be running the country?

 

You know I'm not saying that. I'm saying that being oppressed/a second class citizen means that you eventually internalise that degradation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you cant live with them, you cant live without them bit of a catch 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

by the time I got to them, feminists had fought for mens' acceptance in those demonstrations, and there were discussions/workshops on gender and violence before one of the demos. I guess that's another example of feminism improving itself and being aware of and concerned about issues that affect mens specifically.

 

And how many of those workshops involved the discussion of gender parity in domestic violence, and the fact that men are more often the victims of violence outside of the domestic context? It's not difficult to google "reclaim the night" and see how much equality there is here.

The first result is the homepage of "Reclaim the night, Australia":

Reclaim the Night is a global women’s protest against men’s sexual violence

...

RTN is able to draw together women from diverse backgrounds and experiences to work together in addressing issues of men's sexual violence against women and children.

...

Reclaim the Night is an annual march for women held on the last Friday in October to allow women to come together to speak out against violence and to celebrate strength...

- women and men – please be respectful of RTN events as women’s spaces -

- it really is ok for women to gather together in public without men –

 

The second result, from wikipedia, covers some exceptions that seem to prove the rule:

Events typically consist of a rally followed by a march and often a speak-out or candlelight vigil on violence against women. The marches are often deliberately women-only in order to symbolize women's individual walk through darkness and to demonstrate that women united can resist fear and violence. (Other marches include men; the organization differs as each event is organized locally.) The women-only policies have caused controversy on some campuses; activists argued that male allies and sexual assault survivors should be allowed to march in support of women. Some activists believe strongly that all Take Back the Night Events should be open and inclusive of all genders and not segregated.

Wesleyan University in Connecticut notably allows men to participate in speaking on their own experiences with sexual assault. Men are invited to speak about their own experiences relating to sexual assault. The march at Wesleyan University includes performances by acapella groups. Until 2012, when an all male group was also invited to perform, these performances were done by two of the university's all women groups.

While the march began as a way to protest the violence that women experienced while walking in public at night, the purpose of these marches was to speak out against this violence and raise community awareness as a preventive measure against future violence. The movement has since grown to encompass all forms of violence against all persons, though violence against women is still the movement's main focus. The word night was originally meant to be taken literally to express the fear that many women feel during the night but has since changed to symbolize a fear of violence in general. This helps the movement incorporate other feminist concerns such as domestic violence and sexual abuse within the home. The march has grown from a widely publicized event taking place in major cities to an event happening internationally from large metropolitan areas to small college campuses, all advocating for the right of everyone to feel safe from violence.

Considering men have significantly more to fear when out at night, why would there even be a slight focus on violence perpetrated against women if it's about gender equality?

The third result is from the age:

"We're pissed off and annoyed that women are being blamed when they're the victim of an assault."

..."We have an institutionalised culture of prejudice towards women. This is not about sexism, it's about misogyny.

"We still have cases of killer men being found not guilty of murder because 'she provoked him' is still a defence."

 

Again, it's women as victims, men as rapists and murderers.

The next result is a repeat of that article, then we have reclaimthenight.org:

National women-only march against sexual violence and for gender equality, organised annually by the London Feminist Network.

 

This year it’s not all about the Olympics! Close down central London for women, put your feet on the streets to shout a loud NO to rape and all forms of male violence against women.

 

Do I need to go on? Clearly, the right of women to be safe from violence is an important one, but it's equally important that men have that same right, and I think it's a serious stretch to say that these marches are, in any significant way, attacking this problem too.

Women were NOT always provided for on the proviso they looked after the children, and even when they were, it was a deal they had no authority over. In the period we're talking about (pre US civil war) there are plenty of sources that document women's part in the war (a major part of which was rape, when an army was defeated and an area taken, but also active roles in the army as spies etc, and also active roles in public political life). Harriet Beecher Stowe, a (proto-)feminist abolitionist, wrote a novel that has been (perhaps aprocyphally) credited by Abraham Lincoln as "the book that started this great war" (ostensibly against slavery in the south). She was also an activist against slavery (and for other issues) in ways other than her writing. Joan Hedrick's Harriet Beecher Stowe: A Life demonstrates Stowe's connections to feminism (among other things).

If you want a glimpse into how various slaves and wives were treated in the era, The Planter's Northern Bride shows how the difference between being a slave and being a woman in the era was not always a life world's apart. It also complicates our perspective on how slavery worked in practice in the south of the US.

If you think women were well looked after by their husbands, and so didn't have to worry much about not having property rights, read basically any expansion narrative from 1800-65 that includes women and you'll see that women were often abandoned by their husbands and left alone to take care of their family without any legal right to the land they were living on. There is also a strong division between mens' and womens' experience of colonial America, with men clearly having much more control over their own lives and destinies (see Kolodny's Land Before Her). Go back a little further and women were literally used as bargaining chips between men during periods of violent conflict (see: colonial American capitivity narratives).

 

While I'm sure there were men who abandoned their wives, there were legal and social forces resisting this, not the least being that divorce was not as easy as it is today. There would be research on this, and I'd be much more convinced by actual figures citing peer-reviewed, scholarly articles than by vague assertions. But the stability of a society where women are not expected to work relies on families staying together, so I'd be surprised if the actual percentage of married men who abandoned their wives was very high, but nonetheless I'd be interested to see the figures if you have them.

I haven't read "The Planter's Northern Bride", so forgive me if I'm wrong, but it appears to be work of fictional, anti-abolitionist propaganda. If this is the case, then I would imagine the writer would have a vested interest in portraying the lives of women and slaves to not be worlds apart. Besides, I think fiction can give some insight into the era it was written in, but it can't be interpreted without first having a largely complete understanding of the context already, especially when the author has a political agenda.

Yep, and these are great examples. Our head of state is nominal, and our PM is the first female one in Australian history, that's not enough to convince me that the tables have turned. There are female judges and CEOs, as I indicated, but what bothers me is the vast difference in numbers. In Australia's high court we've had 44 male judges, and 4 female. Pretty big difference. Right now there are more male judges, and the Chief Justice is male. The total percentage of females in Australian parliaments is around 30%. The average percentage of female CEOs globally is 8%.

 

Those figures are interesting, but it's simplistic to assume that these differences are due to institutionalised sexism. You also have to take into account the different choices being made by men and women. Is it at all possible that fewer women actually want to be CEOs, high court judges and politicians? Or that women are choosing more flexible working schedules so that they can be home with their children more, which results in less experience and less output, which results in fewer promotions and job opportunities? Slightly different, but related topic: I'm not sure who first said it, but people have made the point that if they truly believed women were earning 75c on the male dollar for the same work, they would start a company that hires only women and save a fortune in salaries.

I think one of the problems with making the assumptions that these numbers are due to sexism is that it forces companies to combat this perceived problem by choosing more women from a smaller pool of applicants, reducing the overall quality of the human resources. And where employers are forced to pay equal salaries to men and women, if women continue to make choices that would otherwise harm their career, they are not penalised for it. This means that women can have their cake (more flexible lifestyle and more time with the kids) and eat it (high salary), while men have to work hard to get the same salary.

Men can do the same thing. If you're in a relationship where sex is a bargaining chip, that's not a healthy relationship anyway.

 

Maybe, but I don't know if it's as successful for men. I don't know how many men have been able to get out of a speeding ticket by fluttering their eyes, or how many men have improved their chances in job interviews by undoing the top couple of buttons on their shirt. I know it's a fairly cheap shot, and it doesn't apply to all women, nor to all men, but if we're going to list all the ways men have advantages, I think it's only fair to list things like this that work in women's favour too.

How about the fact that men in positions of power employ more men around them than women? Look at directors boards of any company with a male ceo and the pattern won't take long to find.

 

Again, how can you be certain that this is due to sexism and not due to the choices made by women? What about companies with a female CEO? Do they also employ more men than women? Or is it the other way around?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q. Why do women fake orgasms

A. They think we care

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are to see men and women are equal, we must first understand what that equality refers to.

Well, clearly it's not physical because we are different (even if not as much as we like to think) and so the equality must refer to equality of the mind, the spirit, the actual person - not their body.

Which might help clarify a few misunderstandings for those who always seem obsessed with the fact that women are marginally weaker and tend to be less physically aggressive. This is meaningless when we are discussing our minds, but purely for the impact that our bodies (hormones) have on our physical awareness. Therefore, men, who are more prone to physical aggression, need help to control that using the power of their minds. Whereas women, whose hormones tend them to want to have children and build a family, need help to overcome that.

Women do like their differences; it helps them pick a mate. Try asking a women to stop using make-up or beautiful clothes to see just how much they are in the grip of biology. If they want to know how difficult it is to control things our bodies try to make us do, they should start right there - perhaps they would have more respect for the amount of control needed by men who are under extreme pressure and stress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair play on your argument that RTS is targeted for women who have suffered violence at the hands of men - so we move from a position where feminist actions have ignored men as victims of violence, to one where violence against men is often overshadowed by violence against women (I have much less of a problem with a statement like this). However, if women were the main perpetrators of violence, the situation would likely be reversed. If men were to magically change their behaviour and not violently target anyone, this would be a non-issue. It's easier to blame women for not sticking up enough for male victims of violence than it is to blame men for being the chief perpetrators of violence. It's called "kicking down".

there were legal and social forces resisting this, not the least being that divorce was not as easy as it is today. There would be research on this, and I'd be much more convinced by actual figures citing peer-reviewed, scholarly articles

 

I'm not talking about divorce, I'm talking about abandonment, fairly separate issues in the context of requiring legal approval. It is, of course, difficult if not impossible to cite figures from the period I'm referring to, partly since the social sciences barely existed then, even in prototypical forms. Also partly because no men in those societies cared to produce figures about their behaviour affected women. However, if you look at historicist analyses of fictional works like the Planter's Northern Bride you'll see that although it is a fictional narrative, and a biased one at that, it isn't by any means solely fictitious. It stages social anxieties of the time that were relevant to its author and her community, it has remained an important text because it is one of the best (among many) sources we have about the cultural anxieties and debates of the time. In fact, it doesn't at all make a connection between the treatment of women and the treatment of slaves (and was indeed anti-abolitionist, and you're correct in identifying its political motives, but has had its claims assessed by various kinds of historians who haven't AFAIK found any major discrepencies in its description of slavery and servitude), but you can easily see the connections yourself by comparing the two. There is also a strong division between how male and women slaves were treated as evidenced in other literature from the time (which, in fact, would support some of your arguments about men being the primary victims of violent abuse). But there are, of course, plenty of ways to find figures for modern spousal abuse, as we've discussed. An article from last week's (or so) Newsweek that I read at lunch today was on Italy's "Stiletto Murders". Some quotes:

"Vanessa Scialfa, 20, made a fatal mistake last spring when she accidentally called her 34-year-old boyfriend, Francesco Lo Presti, by the wrong name. In a fit of jealous rage, he took the cord from the DVD player and strangled her to death in their home in Sicily. A few days later in Milan, Raffaele Fratantonio beat up his 64-year-old wife, Leda Corbelli, then doused her with gasoline before setting her alight because she went shopping without asking permission. The following week in Turin, Alfina Grande, 44, was thrown off a top-floor balcony by her boyfriend after arguing about what to watch on television. A month later near Naples, Carmela Imudi, 52, was shot with a Beretta 7.65 in the stomach when she asked her husband for a separation after years of his abuse, for which she had been hospitalized with broken ribs, a broken nose, and fractured wrists. Around the same time near Rome, Annamaria Pinto, 50, was shot in the head with a Smith & Wesson by her husband who thought she was spending too much time in church with a women’s group—he thought they were making her question his authority. Outside Milan, Antonia Bianco was beaten senseless and then stabbed through the heart with her own stiletto heel by her ex-boyfriend after he discovered she had found a new lover."

"Femicide in Italy has been increasing by around 10 percent a year for the past three years… Nearly 70 percent of the women were killed by men they lived with; most of the rest were killed by former boyfriends and ex-husbands"

My point is that I see a long history of violence against women and institutionalised abuse of women through marriage, one that isn't just historical but it still occurring. It is also that if you look up instances of women murdering their husbands, the figures will be far lower than their opposite.

- if they truly believed women were earning 75c on the male dollar for the same work, they would start a company that hires only women and save a fortune in salaries.

 

I think companies are aware that if they took up this kind of business practice they would be sued for discrimination. It isn't that women consistently and universally make less money than men, it is more subtle and complex than that. Women make less on average, that's an average of a lot of salaries, which might not be obvious in the context of a single company, which is one of the reasons it is so easy to get away with.

- women can have their cake (more flexible lifestyle and more time with the kids) and eat it (high salary), while men have to work hard to get the same salary.

 

(1) assuming women have kids or want more time with them at the expense of their work

(2) assuming that leaving and returning to work with the burden of a child is easier than working through

I don't agree with either assumption.

That said, where I live men are also given parental leave benefits and are expected to care for their offspring in a capacity more serious than jsut as breadwinner. It is a system that seems to work pretty well, and I know it isn't something that everyone has access to. You're also implying that raising a child isn't hard work.

-how can you be certain that this is due to sexism and not due to the choices made by women?

 

because women are human beings too, and we all run on pretty similar chemistry, and within similar cultural formations. the majority of both women and men want success in their career/occupation, both men and women desire power or influence, both men and women want to have a job that provides for them, not uncommonly to provide them with wealth and status symbols. i find it hard to swallow that women are categorically making choices that harm their careers, and choose occupational mediocrity instead.

- What about companies with a female CEO? Do they also employ more men than women? Or is it the other way around?

 

Same deal. It's tough for women to get into a boy's club, and if they do make it in, they probably had to make some serious sacrifices to get there. Say you're a female CEO with a board of directors that is entirely male, can you imagine a proposal like "we need to get more women on this board, some of you men are going to take the fall to make space for equality" going down well? Not i.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, if women were the main perpetrators of violence, the situation would likely be reversed.

 

Maybe. Maybe not.

If men were to magically change their behaviour and not violently target anyone, this would be a non-issue.

 

If *the small minority of men who are violent offenders were to magically change their behaviour...

The fact that more of the most violent crimes like murder are committed by men than by women should not have any impact at all on the way victims are perceived due to their gender.

Besides, the rate of murder perpetrated by women is about 15% (source: "Men, women, and murder: gender-specific differences in rates of fatal violence and victimization", Kellermann AL, Mercy JA). There is a substantial difference in the number of murders committed by men and women, respectively, but 15% is still a non-trivial percentage.

When women commit homicide, the victim is three times as likely to be male as female. When men commit homicide, the number is four times (source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm). If it is at all fair to say that homicide is 'gendered', then the fact has to be faced that the people being victimised are most often male. It is absurd, in light of these facts, to claim that men target women for violence. Both genders target men more than women, and men do so even more than women do.

It's easier to blame women for not sticking up enough for male victims of violence than it is to blame men for being the chief perpetrators of violence.

 

It's clearly not, otherwise more people would do it. The vast majority of people blame men for violence and treat women like they're all victims. Besides, I never said I blame women for not sticking up enough for male victims. I blame society, and some of the influences feminism has had on society. Feminism does not equal women! I am identifying something that is ignored by society, the media, and the law. I'm not focussing on this aspect because I think it deserves more attention that other aspects of the issue. I'm focussing on this aspect because it seems that society is largely incapable of recognising the problem of violence against men. If society was focussing on violence perpetrated by women against men, and ignoring the fact that there are male perpetrators and female victims, I would be arguing about that instead.

I'm not talking about divorce, I'm talking about abandonment, fairly separate issues in the context of requiring legal approval. It is, of course, difficult if not impossible to cite figures from the period I'm referring to, partly since the social sciences barely existed then, even in prototypical forms. Also partly because no men in those societies cared to produce figures about their behaviour affected women. However, if you look at historicist analyses of fictional works like the Planter's Northern Bride you'll see that although it is a fictional narrative, and a biased one at that, it isn't by any means solely fictitious. It stages social anxieties of the time that were relevant to its author and her community, it has remained an important text because it is one of the best (among many) sources we have about the cultural anxieties and debates of the time. In fact, it doesn't at all make a connection between the treatment of women and the treatment of slaves (and was indeed anti-abolitionist, and you're correct in identifying its political motives, but has had its claims assessed by various kinds of historians who haven't AFAIK found any major discrepencies in its description of slavery and servitude), but you can easily see the connections yourself by comparing the two. There is also a strong division between how male and women slaves were treated as evidenced in other literature from the time (which, in fact, would support some of your arguments about men being the primary victims of violent abuse).

 

But marriage and divorce cannot be removed from the equation because if a couple were still married, the woman was still entitled to live on the land owned by her husband, even though she didn't have legal ownership. Divorce would have to take place if the man wanted the woman to literally have no rights to the property. In addition, divorce would have had to have taken place in order for him to remarry, so he either had to remain 'unmarried' after abandoning his wife, or break bigamy laws. Social circles were much smaller back then, and it would be pretty difficult for men to abandon their wives and remain in the same location without suffering social and legal consequences.

There are records from the era. I recently read a study that was about this topic, but the analysis was qualitative, so it doesn't help much with this discussion, but basically abandonment and bigamy was usually perpetrated by men who had jobs that forced them to travel, and in cases of the latter, they would change their name to avoid being caught. I find it unlikely that this was an extremely common occurrence, but I don't see why a different analysis of the same data couldn't be more quantitative. I remain unconvinced by works of fiction. If historians believe that the portrayal in a certain work of fiction is supported by other evidence, then that other evidence should be able to stand on its own feet, otherwise how can it support a work of fiction? Again, I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, but you would have to provide stronger evidence to convince me that you are right.

Ultimately though, we're talking about an era that was well over a century ago, and my arguments about sexism in modern society do not rely on my assertion that men had it as tough as women, in different ways, over 150 years ago. I can understand a movement gaining momentum and taking a while to slow down once it has achieved its aims, but how long do you allow this to go on? Should we be compensating the descendents of the victims of the Salem witch trials and giving special protections to those who identify as wiccans? Should we be focussing on prejudice that was perpetrated against the left-handed?

"Femicide in Italy has been increasing by around 10 percent a year for the past three years… Nearly 70 percent of the women were killed by men they lived with; most of the rest were killed by former boyfriends and ex-husbands"

My point is that I see a long history of violence against women and institutionalised abuse of women through marriage, one that isn't just historical but it still occurring. It is also that if you look up instances of women murdering their husbands, the figures will be far lower than their opposite.

 

One of the problems in understanding these issues is that violence perpetrated by women simply isn't looked at in the same detail, so the overwhelming majority of studies look at the problem of the murder of women by men, but don't even look at the murder of men by women. There is also the fact that when domestic homicide occurs, it is very easy for people make the assumption that it was the end result of spousal abuse when the victim was female, but that it was self-defense, or battered woman syndrome, when the victim is male. Investigators, courts, judges, and juries are not immune to this kind of prejudice either, and this can sway the statistics, with men being more often found guilty in the event of homicide. It is also common for abusive women to use the system to her advantage throughout a relationship, which includes painting a picture of her partner as an abuser. This means that when she actually kills him, there is a police record of violence by the man that the woman has suffered, which can increase the chances of it being seen as self-defense or battered woman syndrome.

The representation of male and female homicide

victims varies depending on the type of homicide

(Table 10). In 2007–08, 144 victims were killed by an

offender with whom they shared a principle domestic

relationship. Sixty percent of these victims (n=87)

were female, while 40 percent (n=57) were males.

Within the category of domestic homicide, female

over-representation was greatest in intimate partner

homicides (n=62, 78%), whereas male representation

was highest in sibilicides (n=6, 86%). Of those

victims killed by an acquaintance or stranger, the

overwhelming majority were males (n=92, 84%).

 

source: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/8/9/D/%7B89DEDC2D-3349-457C-9B3A-9AD9DAFA7256%7Dmr13_003.pdf

We're not talking about a tiny minority of victims here. Statistics like those above (from the Australian Government) put it at roughly 60/40, and I would not be surprised if the factors I mentioned above would close the gap once accounted for. But let's assume the figures are accurate, because they're the only figures we have to work with. So what? Almost 40% of the victims of intimate partner homicide are male. This is an interesting statistic, and research into the different motives for men and women may help to prevent homicide in the future by identifying patterns that can be used to educate potential victims as well as law enforcement and counselors. But the difference is not large enough that it should, even remotely, affect the focus that is placed on one set of victims over another, nor the portrayal of the role of gender in media reported domestic violence.

I find it interesting when people cite marriage as an example of men's control over women. If this was the case, you would have hoards of men lining up to get married so that they have a woman they can control. What you actually see is quite the opposite. Men in the West are avoiding marriage like the plague these days, and a lot of women complain about that.

I think companies are aware that if they took up this kind of business practice they would be sued for discrimination. It isn't that women consistently and universally make less money than men, it is more subtle and complex than that. Women make less on average, that's an average of a lot of salaries, which might not be obvious in the context of a single company, which is one of the reasons it is so easy to get away with.

 

So it might not be wise to employ only women for this reason, but it would make economic sense for a company to employ a lot of women, and I think it would be hard for a man to sue a company because he feels he was refused a job based on his gender, precisely because of the stereotype that misogyny is the only type of sexism. If the difference was literally 25% (on average), then this would definitely show up even in a company with only a dozen employees, because for every woman earning the same as a man, there would be, on average, another woman earning half as much. You don't need a very large sample size for a 25% difference to be noticeable.

(1) assuming women have kids or want more time with them at the expense of their work

(2) assuming that leaving and returning to work with the burden of a child is easier than working through

I don't agree with either assumption.

 

We can take these two assumptions out of the equation by looking at the figures of only single, childless individuals:

gender_earnings.jpg

Source: "Why Men Earn More", Warren Farrell

Well, whadaya know? :wink:

You're also implying that raising a child isn't hard work.

 

I'm not saying that at all. It makes no sense for employers to have to pay women more simply because they've chosen to put more focus on their home and family life. There are lots of things that individuals do at home and in their own time that are hard work, none of which the employer has a responsibility to pay for.

i find it hard to swallow that women are categorically making choices that harm their careers, and choose occupational mediocrity instead.

 

It may be hard to swallow - sometimes the facts are - but when one looks at research that attempts to disentangle these factors, rather than blindly and simplistically looking at overall figures, I don't see how any other conclusion can reasonably be drawn.

Edited by ballzac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×