Ending Violence Against Women and Girls

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Angela

I think you're right, yossarian. You'll notice that I worded my last post accordingly. I don't think a call for honoring women while continuing to dishonor men is a call that would have integrity or be effective.

Seeker mentioned that it's a very small percentage of men who commit violence against women, but it's a very large percentage of women who have been on the receiving end of violence from men. The author of the article in the OP, I think, had a specific problem of beating on and being angry at gals, not guys. So it makes sense that his focus would be specifically on that perspective. Being an activist against violence towards females does not imply that it's okay to act violently towards men, any more than activists against the war in Iraq are implying that war in Iran is okay. (Unless maybe that's your focus and you feel slighted -- but it's not the intention, I don't think, of the article's author, and certainly not mine.)

I agree with you basically. The point that I've been making is a minor point but has a major effect in the long run, IMO. There is an overall crime of omission when you hear "Never hit a girl" or "End violence against women" over and over. The sum total of all of these statements, in the long run, is to produce a subconscious pattern that says "Only hit the boys" and "Continue violence against men"

This is actually exactly how the culture at large interprets these statements.. so my little game so-to-speak is to inject meaning into the vacuum of a lingering statement.

Society: "Never hit a girl" ...Yossarian: "Or a boy!"

I reckon by doing this the unconscious mind doesn't get the chance to hold a wrongheaded interpretation.

[Brutha]

Should we not hold men to any standard in their actions? It is clear who has to change...anyone who commits violence

You should read the article before you tell other people to do so.
The article says:

5. Become a consistent and reliable male ally to women and girls. More of us men and boys need to take public stands in opposition to violence against women and girls.

That doesn't seem to be only directed to people who commit violence.

In general that kind of articles does push the "Don't hit a girl"-meme.

That supports the stereotyp that men and woman are different in regards to violence.

That leads to men who are abused by their woman to get completly no support from society. I read about one example where a man like this called a domestic violence for woman hotline and got toled that he should go to jail.

There is no question that men shouldn't be violent towards their wifes.
But that doesn't mean that the right strategic choice to focus on domestic violence that happens to woman.
I think it's better to focus on violence in general. Whether it's people beating their children, woman who prefer men who win the local brawls or domestic violence.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by yossarian

It's a cultural issue not a male issue. The demonization of men - declaring that men fight the wars, men commit the violence, etc while women are sugar and spice and all things nice is a fabrication that was created to sow discord among the sexes.

He talks in the article about how some of these men were victims of abuse from their mothers at a young age. I don't think he (and certainly not I) have the idea that women do not commit any kind of violence at all or have nothing to do with why things are as they are. However, I don't see why this means it's somehow bad to hold men accountable for their actions. He is speaking about a specific topic, violence against women and girls. Why is that so hard to understand? Still, he talks about ending violence in general and how that also means between men and boys. I don't get the sense at all that he advocates continuing violence against men simply because he speaks about ending violence against women and girls.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Saying "we must end violence against women and girls" implies that violence against men is acceptable. Violence against men is far more common than violence against women. Probably something like 10,000X more prevalent.

If you refuse to enact violence while still encouraging others to be violent, you aren't truly non-violent.

Dick Cheney doesn't actually kill Iraqis but he does everything in his power to get other people to do so.

Anyway I just wanted to bring some balance to this thread. When people say, "We must end violence against women!" I want to pipe in and say, "and men!!!" with many exclamation marks. Men suffer at the hands of violence far more than women do.

I don't see how wanting to end violence against women and girls in any way implies that violence against men and boys is okay? The article doesn't say that, I've not said that. NO one in this thread thinks that.

I hate all kinds of violence! I simply thought this was a good article by a man who has experienced what he's speaking about.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Dharma

If I end the violence within myself, that will be the change I see in the world.

Thank you. Good point. I've got a lot of violence in me right now so I will work on that.

Originally Posted by Dharma

I hate one-sided men-are-perps and women-are-victims and the MAN has to change. Both are manifesting the violence. No one wants to see that. Either one can stop it.

I don't think we are reading the same article. It's just amazing to me that you see it this way because I heard him encouraging men to stand up and be responsible for their actions and you heard "men are bad." I don't see anywhere that he thinks women have no place in the change, only that he's a man, knows what it's like to be a man who committed violence and wants to show others how to stop it.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Brutha

You should read the article before you tell other people to do so.

Thank you, I did read the article. The men who he calls on to change are the ones who are commiting violence. Having every man (and every woman) be a part of the solution doesn't imply that they are all perpetrators of violence, only that this is a problem that will only be solved in great numbers.

Originally Posted by Brutha

In general that kind of articles does push the "Don't hit a girl"-meme.

I still fail to see why it's wrong to say "don't commit violence against women"??? That's simply the topic of this article! And I also think he did a good job of decrying all violence, however as I said before he's speaking to men as a man who's been in that place.

Originally Posted by Brutha

That leads to men who are abused by their woman to get completly no support from society. I read about one example where a man like this called a domestic violence for woman hotline and got toled that he should go to jail.

That's horrible. I don't agree with that and I don't suspect the man who wrote this article would either. I can tell you for a fact that if my boyfriend called the cops and said I hit him, I would be arrested.

Originally Posted by Brutha

But that doesn't mean that the right strategic choice to focus on domestic violence that happens to woman.
I think it's better to focus on violence in general. Whether it's people beating their children, woman who prefer men who win the local brawls or domestic violence.

I don't understand why we can't do both. There are a lot of people in this world and everyone has a different topic that they are passionate about. Would you say Steve shouldn't write about any topic that doesn't perfectly solve a complex problem in the best strategic way possible? Can I not write about ending the war in Iraq because there is still violence elsewhere in the world? I don't get what the big urge is to shut down people who are writing about violence against women and girls.

And I'll say again, just to be sure that it's clear, I don't advocate any type of violence. I don't think that boys should hit boys or girls. I'd prefer that none of it happened, but this article was about one specific part of the overall topic of violence. I just thought it was well written and had good advice. Caring about one thing (which directly affects me) does not mean I can't care about another (which directly affects men and boys who are important to me).

[Brutha]

Thank you, I did read the article. The men who he calls on to change are the ones who are commiting violence. Having every man (and every woman) be a part of the solution doesn't imply that they are all perpetrators of violence, only that this is a problem that will only be solved in great numbers.

If his solution is to propose that certain people do certain things that they aren't doing at the moment, he is suggesting that those people change their behavior.
He doesn't just say: You shouldn't be violent to woman.
He says more. It's not the "You shouldn't be violent to woman" part that I disagree with.
It's rather the "we also have to make a commitment to questioning the manifestations of sexism all around us" part.
That sentence is targeted at everyone who reads the article. Why do you overread that sentence? Or do you really think that he only addresses violent males with that statement?
If you agree that he tells here everyone to change the sentence: "The men who he calls on to change are the ones who are commiting violence." is wrong.
Regardles of whether you agree with "we also have to make a commitment to questioning the manifestations of sexism all around us".
You can agree or disagree with that statement, but I don't think that you represent the article well when you say that he only tells violent males to act that way. That just not the message that he wants to communicate.

I don't understand why we can't do both. There are a lot of people in this world and everyone has a different topic that they are passionate about.

You are putting energy into a stereotyp based way of addressing the problem and telling other people to also use that stereotyp based way.

If you think that the stereotyps is actually the source of the problem, using stereotyps against the problem is no effective strategy.
Are you really treating the source of the problem or are you only combating the symptoms?

Telling people to go into treatment once they get violent against woman is a good idea, but that doesn't solve the problem of why people get violent against woman in the first place.

Even if you do focus on violence against woman, it might be better to start at the place where woman reward the violent behavior of playing violent sports and men learn that violent behavior is the thing that get woman attracted then focusing on what happens once a man actually becomes violent. You are more likely to get a girlfriend in high school by playing football than by chess. Why do football players have cheerleaders but the chess club doesn't?

Would you say Steve shouldn't write about any topic that doesn't perfectly solve a complex problem in the best strategic way possible?

Steves thinks that raising peoples consciousness is the best strategy to solve all kinds of problems that our world is facing.
His effort is focused on archiving that goal.

If Steve would write posts that didn't raise peoples consciousness, people who would complain about those posts would have a valid point, if they complain that those posts are doing nothing to archieve the strategic goal of raising peoples consciousness.

I think Steve is a perfect example of someone who gets his strategy right.

That's horrible. I don't agree with that and I don't suspect the man who wrote this article would either.

If you only talk about the results of your actions that you intend you blind out other results that is no reason to continue your actions.

I don't understand why we can't do both.

You can't do everything. Human can only have a number of things in their mind.
Doing things always has an opportunity cost.
If you are just talking about changing people who are actually violent towards woman, that not so costly.
If you on the other hand try to implement the questioning of sexism into every activity that costs a lot of mental work.

In our university we for example have an evalution of our courses that we take with 57 questions.
Five of those questions are about whether we learned to overcome sexism and other prejudices.
Math courses just don't deal that much with sexism. Trying to merge that sexism discussion into math classes on the other hand reduces the focus on actually learning the math.
There good reason not to question the manifestion of sexism while you concentrate on a math proof even if you have term like "father nodes".
Human can only concentrate is not endless.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't think that you represent the article well when you say that he only tells violent males to act that way. That just not the message that he wants to communicate.

I think I understand better what you are saying now. In my comment to Playlife (I believe that's who that one was directed at) I was specifically pointing out that he's not saying that all men are bad or abusers. I could have worded that better. Thank you for pointing it out.

Originally Posted by Brutha

You are putting energy into a stereotyp based way of addressing the problem and telling other people to also use that stereotyp based way.

I don't know how it's a stereotype to say that the majority of violence committed against women is done by men. I believe it's a fact. What does asking men to be responsible for that do to create a stereotype? I honestly ask because I guess I don't really understand.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Are you really treating the source of the problem or are you only combating the symptoms?

I don't believe that we have found the one source of violence. If I knew what it was I could target that, but since there are many factors, we can address each one. Some people will focus on one, others another. If we can bring all of the factors into focus together that would be great, but since lots of people don't see how big the problem is, it's hard. I don't know, I really liked what Kevin had to say so I was really surprised at the reaction. I think any effort to end violence is worthy.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Steves thinks that raising peoples consciousness is the best strategy to solve all kinds of problems that our world is facing.
His effort is focused on archiving that goal.

I do believe Steve is doing a good job. I see this article as a piece of the puzzle regarding ending violence. It seems to get people really upset that this particular article talks only about ending violence against women and girls (even though I felt it touched on other things as well) even though that was the expressed purpose of the article. I am sorry, but I still fail to see why an article like this is wrong.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Math courses just don't deal that much with sexism. Trying to merge that sexism discussion into math classes on the other hand reduces the focus on actually learning the math.

That's funny because maths is an area that has been in the center of sexism (men are better at it, innately, etc.). I'm actually not advocating spending math class time on teaching about sexism, but it's kind of interesting that was your example. Maybe you would learn to overcome sexism in a math class if you had several women in a class who did well and made you question the idea that men are naturally superior in math (and I mean you not as you individually, but in general).

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

I don't think we are reading the same article. It's just amazing to me that you see it this way because I heard him encouraging men to stand up and be responsible for their actions and you heard "men are bad." I don't see anywhere that he thinks women have no place in the change, only that he's a man, knows what it's like to be a man who committed violence and wants to show others how to stop it.

I was giving you my reaction to the article. My reaction doesn't necessarily have to do with anything in reality (seldom does it). That's what comes out of me when I read it. You can see, in my reaction, I added some stuff to the content. I could've been clear on that I guess.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Dharma

I was giving you my reaction to the article. My reaction doesn't necessarily have to do with anything in reality (seldom does it). That's what comes out of me when I read it. You can see, in my reaction, I added some stuff to the content. I could've been clear on that I guess.

It's no problem. I understand now. You aren't required anything at all.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

If I knew what it was I could target that, but since there are many factors, we can address each one. Some people will focus on one, others another. If we can bring all of the factors into focus together that would be great, but since lots of people don't see how big the problem is, it's hard.

This is exactly the issue I've been intending to address.

I'm not saying that the conscious logical argument that is being made is wrong, I'm saying that the UNCONSCIOUS EFFECT of that argument is a problem.

The unconscious effect of saying "Never hit a girl" over and over and over is to teach us that it is OK to hit boys.

This is what I called a "crime of omission."

Look at society in general - the general opinion of men in society is that it is OK to hit other men if that man somehow threatens their honor. It is considered every man's duty to stand up for himself with violence in everyday situations.

I'm not a violent guy - I've never been in a fight. And yet just for the simple fact of being male I've had men challenge me to fights because they honestly believe that it is their society-assigned duty to challenge me when I do some little thing that "crosses the line" or whatever.

This is NOT a minority opinion. The majority of men in society believe this. The majority of men will tell you that it is ok to hit a man if he, say, spits on the American flag or insults your mom.

The same man will say, "Never hit a girl" because his violent father and the violent society he grew up him hammered it into his head.

The same man will have a girlfriend who encourages him and rewards him when he starts fights with other men.

So by focusing in so hard with a laser-focus on the line "Never hit a girl. Never hit a girl. Never hit a girl. Never hit a girl." (and it really has become an endless mindless chant in this society) ...repeated over and over and taken as true at face value.. men honestly and truly believe that they should never hit girls but that it's perfectly ok to hit guys. That is the unconscious effect of the "Never hit a girl" line.

Ask yourself this: If you could end 100% of the violence against women, OR end 1% of the violence against men, which would you end?

Numerically speaking, ending the 1% would actually end far more violence than the 100%, because violence committed against men is probably a hundred thousand times more common. So ending 1% of the violence against men would represent a greater growth in peace than ending 100% of the violence against women.

Now of course the question comes up, "Do you think women are inherently more deserving of being treated peacefully?"

The majority of society, the majority of feminists, and the majority of men would say that they are. Is this ok? Is it ok to have 100 men die to save the life of 1 woman?

These are questions that need to be confronted. Most people simply never confront them - as you pointed out when you said this:

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

If I knew what it was I could target that, but since there are many factors, we can address each one. Some people will focus on one, others another. If we can bring all of the factors into focus together that would be great, but since lots of people don't see how big the problem is, it's hard.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Hi, Yossarian, I just wanted to let you know that I've read your post, but I am not ready to answer yet (just feeling kind of drained right now in general, nothing particularly having to do with your post). I appreciate you making your points so clearly (I think that for the most part we agree as well) and I will respond when I feel up to it. Even though I started this thread simply because I like the article I linked, I've enjoyed talking with all of you (perhaps despite appearances).

Peace.

[Brutha]

I don't know how it's a stereotype to say that the majority of violence committed against women is done by men. I believe it's a fact. What does asking men to be responsible for that do to create a stereotype? I honestly ask because I guess I don't really understand.

It also a fact that most people have more than the average amount of legs.
But the ratio of mentioned domestic violence in which females are the victims to that where males are the victims in the media is a lot more onesided than the ratio of domestic violence that actually happens.
That has a lot of negative effects like people who want to do something against domesitic violence complaining that it's seen as a special interest issue.
Or males who are victim finding nobody to turn to because there life doesn't fit into the stereotyp.

There are also people who don't think that it's a fact: http://news.mensactivism.org/files/research_flyer.pdf
Why could that be true.
In public it's generally accepted as okay when a woman hits a man that is a big yerk to her. And the friends of the man who got it will probably laugh about their friend who got rejected by getting hit.
Similar action the other way around would probably lead to someone calling the police.

Now you don't see what happens in private. A man who got victim of domestic violence is a lot less likely to tell someone else about it because people will judge him as weak and people are less likely to believe him than a woman who is in his position.

Then I don't the real percentages, but there are men who become victims of domestic violence.

That's funny because maths is an area that has been in the center of sexism (men are better at it, innately, etc.).

Do you think that it's a stereotyp that "men are better at math"?
It's relativly easier to show that most of the successful mathematicians are indeed men and most people who are interested into math are also manly.
It's a stereotyp that based on a lot of data. But that still doesn't make the stereotyp really right.
Stereotyps let us only see the things that happen the most, here: "More man are good at math than woman."
But even if that's true, the woman who are good at math are still harmed by the stereotyp, just as those men who are victims of domestic violence get harmed by the stereotyp that all domestic violence happens to woman.

Maybe you would learn to overcome sexism in a math class if you had several women in a class who did well and made you question the idea that men are naturally superior in math (and I mean you not as you individually, but in general).

I have to rate each class on a scale between 1 to 10 on such whether I know better know my prejudeges concering woman and foreigners/people of other races (but race is a word you would never ever use if you want to be PC in German).
And how much control does the teacher have (when he traits everyone fairly) over whether girls are good in the class.
The person who teaches the class get more money if he gets a better evaluation than his peers. Telling students about the marks of other students his also none of the business of the teacher because of the right to private data.

But there also the question whether those actions are worth their effort. You can do a lot of things that all have different benefits but in the end you have to decide to do something over other things because your time and ressources are finite.

[SomeRandomGuy]

I am somewhat late coming to this party, but after reading the article and all of the posts in the thread I wanted to add a few things.

One issue I see with this article is that it seems to be speaking out specifically against violence towards women and girls because "it is wrong to hit women". I don't feel this is an accurate statement. As others have pointed out, it is wrong to be violent against others in general. Gender has no role in this conversation; violence is violence. I have never hit my wife, but that is not because she is a woman. It is because I love her. In fact, I have never hit any human being, because I don't think it is right to hit anyone.

One of the arguments for why the author aimed this article at men, is that as a man he was asking for other men to step up. I would like to pose an example of a news story in which someone from Poland with brown hair committed a violent crime. As someone with brown hair, would it be logical for me to go on a crusade to get all brown-haired people to stop committing violent crimes? How about my Polish friend Ben, wouldn't it seem odd for him to start a campaign to get all people of Polish descent to stop the violence? This example may seem to be a totally different situation, but I would argue that it is exactly the same; aiming primarily at a group of people who share some common trait with you (hair color, ancestry or gender). Wouldn't it make much more sense for me, my friend Ben and the author to speak out against violence in general? I think we can all agree that that is what we really want.

I also would like to say that I support this article for the most part. Anyone who speaks out against violence is doing a good thing. I just dont' really understand why it needs to be made into a gender issue.

There was a time when hearing stories of men committing violent crimes against women made me feel ashamed to be a man. I found that this feeling was supported by society. Sometimes this is done in a very overt way. Sometimes it is subtle. And then there are times, such as this article, where the author may not have meant the material in that way, but it comes to be viewed in that way by the audience anyway. I have come to realize, however, that this makes no more sense than me being ashamed to be a human being because of the horrible crimes committed by Adolf Hitler. Crimes committed by others with whom i share one (or many) common traits are no reflection on me.

I would like to pose a question regarding what is and is not acceptable. If titling an article "Ending Violence Against Women & Girls" is acceptable, how about "Ending Violence Against Men & Boys"? Or maybe "Ending Violence Against 35-40 year olds"? "Ending Violence Against People with a Slight Speech Impediment"? I think I have it, "Ending Violence Against left-handed people with red hair, who were born in a Month starting with the letter J on an odd numbered day"? Obviously an author would have the right to title an article whatever he/her chooses, even if it were one of the titles I mentioned above. However, some of these might seem somewhat ridiculous, and would cause the audience to question why only violence against a specific group was being spoken out against. As silly as some of my suggestions seemed, I feel that are all the same in that they are are focused on a group of people who share a common trait (gender, age, etc).

[Angela]

I'll tell you why a specific group was pinpointed in this article: because the author himself was one of that group of men who have been socialized to believe that it's okay to mistreat women, who are more physically powerless, and that it's fine to express your hurt and rage by taking it out by sexual force against women. This author was not overwhelmed with urge to wage war on other men; no, specifically, he was violent against women. So that's what he's talking about -- what he knows. Nowhere does he state that it's okay to be violent towards your own gender, and while I can understand your sensitivity about the issue of nonviolence not extending to men as well as women in this article, it's not a "sin of omission." He is talking about a specific issue which has caused him pain -- the very specific issue of men abusing women. He is specializing, because he has experienced it. This would be like me writing an article titled, "Why Women Would Benefit by Taking 100% Responsibility." It's not to say that men wouldn't also benefit by taking 100% responsibility. It's not a sin of omission, it's a narrow but non-exclusive focus.

Why did he become that way? He says he was abused by his mother, who had been abused by the men in her life. He also lists some of the "causes" he's heard from other men, of why they hurt women. Maybe at some point he will write an article about mothers abusing or fathers abandoning their children, and that won't mean that it's okay for fathers to abuse or mothers to abandon their kids.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Angela,

I see where you are coming from, and one part of me wants to agree. The author was writing based on his experiences, and is trying to prevent others from following the same path. The other part of me, however, wants to argue that he was not violent against women; he was violent against another human being. I am just struggling with understanding why this is a gender issue, when it is evident that we all agree that perpetrating violence against anyone is wrong. I guess this all goes back to my issue with living in a society that claims sexually equality, yet continues to support the idea that men and women are different. It just seems that gender (like race, sexual orientation and a variety of other attributes) are often centered on in situations where they have no real bearing.

With that being said, I don't necessarily feel the author is wrong for writing this article (as I agree with what he is trying to achieve). I also do not feel that anyone who has presented their opinion in this thread are wrong. I guess I just wish that we could move past the point where gender is an issue, and arrive at a point where the genders are truly treated equal and we address issues on the whole, rather than one gender at a time.

[Angela]

Well, it's a hot point for both genders, that's for sure. There are a couple of male posters on these forums with whom I'm walking on eggshells: I can't write "Women love Jane Austen" without a guy jumping all over me with "what, you're saying men don't love Jane Austen? So men are inferior?" And there's the opposite, too .... women getting up in arms about a comment by some guy who claims that men are natural leaders or whatever, and making it mean that women aren't. Maybe sometimes the implication is exclusive or demeaning, but in most cases, and certainly this one, I really don't think it is.

I mean, who is going to get upset at Aristophanes for not also suggesting that men stop sleeping with women unless the women stop fighting with each other?

[Brutha]

I can't write "Women love Jane Austen" without a guy jumping all over me with "what, you're saying men don't love Jane Austen? So men are inferior?"

He does more than that. He says that other people too should say: "Woman love Jane Austen" and those people should change the way they life their daily life based on that knowledge.

The controversial thing isn't him saying what he thinks is right, but him saying other people in general (not only those who are violent to woman) should do certain things in their life.

I'll tell you why a specific group was pinpointed in this article: because the author himself was one of that group of men who have been socialized to believe that it's okay to mistreat women, who are more physically powerless, and that it's fine to express your hurt and rage by taking it out by sexual force against women.

Maybe writing that thing really has a good therapeutic effect on him. If that the criteria to evaluate the article it's a good article.

But that doesn't mean that it is a good thing for everyone (especially the people who aren't violent to woman) to act based on the ideas in his writting.

because the author himself was one of that group of men who have been socialized to believe that it's okay to mistreat women, who are more physically powerless, and that it's fine to express your hurt and rage by taking it out by sexual force against women.

The real question is whether it better on focusing on treating the hurt and rage or whether it's better to block out the channel of expressing that hurt and rage.
If you block out on channel the person might well express their hurt and rage in other unhealthy ways.
Isn't it better to focus on giving them something against their hurt and their rage?
The hurt and rage seems to be the root of the problem.

6. Challenge other males about their physical, emotional, and spiritual violence towards women and girls.

He doesn't say: Be there for other people when there are hurt to help them overcome their problem that make them become violent.
He focuses on challenging other people. He want to solve the problems through conflict.

Another of his claim in the article

While this may be true in a few cases (and I do know some men who have been attacked or beaten by women), there is not even a remote comparison between the number of women who are battered and murdered on a daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly basis in America and the number of men who suffer the same fate at the hands of women.

If we take the claim about the murder rate:

Source: REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands.

Even when more man kill woman the numbers are a lot different than "no remote comparison". It's not that clear cut as he suggests.