quote:

---

Al Jazeera reported (link):
In what it billed as the first-ever systematic study of global data on the prevalence of violence against women and its health impact, the UN agency said on Thursday that 30 percent worldwide faced such abuse at the hands of their partners.

...highest in Asia... 37.7 percent
Next was the Middle East... 37 percent.
Sub-Saharan Africa ... 36.6 percent.
23.2 percent of high-income countries including North America, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

These data really show the tremendous toll violence has on the health of women

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
The UN released a report with the 1 in 3 statistic. I'm quoting Al Jazeera below (are they the new BBC? they sure sound like them), and there are many more links about it via duckduckgo.com*.

So I ask, are 30% of men absolute jerks and worthy of prosecution? Is there any hope for us men?

---

quote:

---

The UN released a report with the 1 in 3 statistic. I'm quoting Al Jazeera below (are they the new BBC? they sure sound like them), and there are many more links about it via duckduckgo.com*.

So I ask, are 30% of men absolute jerks and worthy of prosecution? Is there any hope for us men?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fineline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
The UN released a report with the 1 in 3 statistic. I'm quoting Al Jazeera below (are they the new BBC? they sure sound like them), and there are many more links about it via duckduckgo.com*.

So I ask, are 30% of men absolute jerks and worthy of prosecution? Is there any hope for us men?

---

Well, it doesn't say that the abusers are all males. Females can abuse too.

---

Yeah, unfortunately I was abused by two of my (crazy) ex-girlfriends. When I had various stays at domestic violence shelters in the Seattle area, the heterosexual women were always taken aback that I had been abused by a woman. "But women DON'T abuse other women!". Why, yes, they do. I have the PTSD to prove it.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
The point is that we have, worldwide, a culture of violence against women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The last two words of that post are redundant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fineline:
Well, it doesn't say that the abusers are all males. Females can abuse too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wishandaprayer:

This is the point - I believe in 2012 of all homicides, around 75% were men and 25% were women. We can take any statistic and make it suit our social agenda (maybe the male headship crowd could use the one I just quoted).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

1. This is a report about violence against women. You can't infer anything beyond the subject examined by the report. To do that you will need to look at other papers. I refer particularly of course to data on F on M violence. The report may also include F on F violence, though I would need to read the original report to know if that was so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

Is there any hope for us men?

I would like to hear from everyone, female, male and other on this. But my question is also directed to myself, where I ask, is there something about us, the male gender, that promotes us to be violent? Is the problem male violence, or is the problem violence pure and simple?

---

The reason it's meaningful to talk about a culture of violence against women, and a culture of violence against women by men, is illustrated here. Shucks, maybe men are just made that way. Poor men. Some women hit men! Poor men. More men get murdered, so, y'know. Poor men. Some women hit women, how about that? It's not all mens' fault. Poor men. Poor, poor men.

Nobody here intended to defend violent men. Nobody here intended to prioritise men's self-esteem (for not being abusive! - have a cookie) over women's suffering. Nobody here intended to immediately change the subject to other kinds of violence so we wouldn't have to think about violent men's responsibility for their own actions. Nobody intended to minimise their responsibility for their own actions. Nobody intended to turn the discussion to the far more important suffering of a smaller number of men. Nobody intended to say that only those whining feminists care about this shit. That's just how it came out. That's how it always comes out. Because we have a culture of violence against women by men.

Nobody would say 'maybe white men are just made to kill black men'. Nobody would say 'maybe straight men are just made to kill gay men'. Nobody would say 'more white men get murdered than black men, so, y'know...'. But this kind of violence brings on the mysticism, the minimising, the excuse-making. The important thing is for men not to be made to feel bad about what violent men have done. The important thing is not to forget that some men have it hard. The important thing is to delay taking justice for women seriously until after we've helped the last hurt man. Because we have a culture of violence against women by men.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 


No.

But you seem to be blaming 'men' for violence against women. As a headline, that's as fine as it goes, but it's not the whole story. It's not even half the story.

I fail to see how I'm responsible for violence against women because I'm a man. It's not like men are some amorphous blob, all thinking and feeling the same. You wouldn't say "Jews" or "Blacks" in the same way you're saying "men", so knock it off.
 

---

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

I fail to see how I'm responsible for violence against women because I'm a man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

I fail to see how I'm responsible for violence against women because I'm a man.

---

I didn't say that or anything like it. Thank you for confirming what I was saying.

---

quote:

---

It's not all mens' fault. Poor men. Poor, poor men.

---

quote:

---

The important thing is for men not to be made to feel bad about what violent men have done

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The amount of domestic abuse is ... awful. And it's not gender-specific. A vanishingly small number of men would ever admit to being abused by their partners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
The reason it's meaningful to talk about a culture of violence against women, and a culture of violence against women by men, is illustrated here. Shucks, maybe men are just made that way. Poor men. Some women hit men! Poor men. More men get murdered, so, y'know. Poor men. Some women hit women, how about that? It's not all mens' fault. Poor men. Poor, poor men.

Nobody here intended to defend violent men. Nobody here intended to prioritise men's self-esteem (for not being abusive! - have a cookie) over women's suffering. Nobody here intended to immediately change the subject to other kinds of violence so we wouldn't have to think about violent men's responsibility for their own actions. Nobody intended to minimise their responsibility for their own actions. Nobody intended to turn the discussion to the far more important suffering of a smaller number of men. Nobody intended to say that only those whining feminists care about this shit. That's just how it came out. That's how it always comes out. Because we have a culture of violence against women by men.

Nobody would say 'maybe white men are just made to kill black men'. Nobody would say 'maybe straight men are just made to kill gay men'. Nobody would say 'more white men get murdered than black men, so, y'know...'. But this kind of violence brings on the mysticism, the minimising, the excuse-making. The important thing is for men not to be made to feel bad about what violent men have done. The important thing is not to forget that some men have it hard. The important thing is to delay taking justice for women seriously until after we've helped the last hurt man. Because we have a culture of violence against women by men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
]This is what I'm trying to say. Thank-you. When people leave out the "against women" in this violence discussion, at best their thoughts are aspirational, at worst, in denial.

Yes, we're all this world and life together. The UN report is about violence against women, and it focusses on families and couples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Abuse is about power. Men are physically bigger on average and, in most cultures, have more power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But what is your point? Are you saying power dynamics are completely random?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Because we have a culture of violence against women by men.

---

This is what I'm trying to say. Thank-you. When people leave out the "against women" in this violence discussion, at best their thoughts are aspirational, at worst, in denial.

Yes, we're all this world and life together. The UN report is about violence against women, and it focusses on families and couples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But what is your point? Are you saying power dynamics are completely random?

---

I'm saying it's not as simple as "men have power (and therefore are abusers), women don't (and therefore aren't)".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wishandaprayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Because we have a culture of violence against women by men.

---

This is what I'm trying to say. Thank-you. When people leave out the "against women" in this violence discussion, at best their thoughts are aspirational, at worst, in denial.

Yes, we're all this world and life together. The UN report is about violence against women, and it focusses on families and couples.

---

The point is we ALSO have a culture of violence against MEN by men. We ALSO have a culture of violence against ethnic minorities by ethnic majorities. These are facts. By focussing on one of these facts we minimize the others. I am arguing for a more rounded approach.

Are you saying that a culture of violence against women by men is worse than the other two examples?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Some women hit men! Poor men. More men get murdered, so, y'know. Poor men. Some women hit women, how about that? It's not all mens' fault. Poor men. Poor, poor men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Nearly everyone has the common experience of family when young, and the demonstration of behaviour between the adults is where we learn stuff. If 1 in 3 gets violent lessons, more often than not, the males doing it and the females getting it - and yes the males get it too - that's where the seeds for it all are planted. Sure males get it too, more often from other men than women. Which underscores the directionality of it.

---

quote:

---

If the empirical research is correct in suggesting that between a quarter and half of all domestic violence victims are men, a question follows: why has women's domestic violence towards men been unreported for so long, and what has changed in the last five years to make it more visible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Nearly everyone has the common experience of family when young, and the demonstration of behaviour between the adults is where we learn stuff. If 1 in 3 gets violent lessons, more often than not, the males doing it and the females getting it - and yes the males get it too - that's where the seeds for it all are planted. Sure males get it too, more often from other men than women. Which underscores the directionality of it.

---

The invisible domestic violence – against men

quote:

---

If the empirical research is correct in suggesting that between a quarter and half of all domestic violence victims are men, a question follows: why has women's domestic violence towards men been unreported for so long, and what has changed in the last five years to make it more visible?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You say that, but firstly power isn't just about strength

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, violence isn't the only form of abuse either...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

If the empirical research is correct in suggesting that between a quarter and half of all domestic violence victims are men, a question follows: why has women's domestic violence towards men been unreported for so long, and what has changed in the last five years to make it more visible?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Though I would posit that these abuse reports are rising because incidents are occurring more frequently. As women become gain power, this is an inevitable outcome. We become equals in bastardy as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Though I would posit that these abuse reports are rising because incidents are occurring more frequently. As women become gain power, this is an inevitable outcome. We become equals in bastardy as well.

---

May you please be wrong.

---

quote:

---

There will be a number of circumstances in which this pattern is overridden, with the result that female aggression increases. One is where there are modern secular liberal values together with economic and familial emancipation of women: Most of the studies finding frequent female physical aggression were located in such conditions. These values will have greatest impact in a relationship that can be ended by the woman at little cost and where the rate of male aggression is low. These may represent specific instances of a more general set of circumstances entailing a relative change in the balance of power between men and women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
There was intent 25 years ago between the two of us who started it to have it this way after bailing out of civil and gov't service that was being trashed (still is) as a function of Reaganomics/Thatcherism/Mulroneyism, but it wasn't really fully realized until the women started managing it. What I am saying is that there is a difference when women have the power, and even my intent as a well intentioned man isn't the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
What I am saying is that there is a difference when women have the power, and even my intent as a well intentioned man isn't the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
There was intent 25 years ago between the two of us who started it to have it this way after bailing out of civil and gov't service that was being trashed (still is) as a function of Reaganomics/Thatcherism/Mulroneyism, but it wasn't really fully realized until the women started managing it. What I am saying is that there is a difference when women have the power, and even my intent as a well intentioned man isn't the same.

---

I hear this swill a lot. IME, it is complete BS. I have worked much of my carrer, including the last decade or so, for a company headed by a strong-willed woman. She has many wonderful attributes. But she is a tyrant -- often a benevolent one, and always the smartest person in the room, but a tyrant. The notion that men bosses are alpha males and women bosss are fuzzy consensus-builders is ideological puffery. My experience is that people in power often abuse their power. That's not a man thing -- it's a person-in-power thing.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
But BS? - please go eat some because I'm not having your's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

If the empirical research is correct in suggesting that between a quarter and half of all domestic violence victims are men, a question follows: why has women's domestic violence towards men been unreported for so long, and what has changed in the last five years to make it more visible?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
But BS? - please go eat some because I'm not having your's.

---

Excuse me! Feel free to call tclune to Hell, but do not start making personal attacks here!

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

I fail to see how I'm responsible for violence against women because I'm a man.

---

I didn't say that or anything like it. Thank you for confirming what I was saying.

---

quote:

---

It's not all mens' fault. Poor men. Poor, poor men.

---

quote:

---

The important thing is for men not to be made to feel bad about what violent men have done

---

Did you mean these two quotes unsarcastically then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

As she said, it's like the mere idea that this collection of words might offend some non-violent man is very much more important that the actual physical abuse of fucking one out of 3 women.

---

 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
The point is we ALSO have a culture of violence against MEN by men. We ALSO have a culture of violence against ethnic minorities by ethnic majorities. These are facts.

---

quote:

---

A UK Home Office study reported that 7% of women and 4% of men were victims of domestic violence in the past year, suggesting that a substantial fraction of that one in three are victims of prolonged abuse over months or years.

---

quote:

---

Those who had been victims in the last year were asked to give an exact
count of the number of times they had been assaulted and injured in the
year. The average number of incidents of physical assault per female victim
was 5.2, and per male victim it was 5.0.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
4. Emotional violence. This all too often accompanies physical violence.

---

quote:

---

I do wonder, though, about the male on female violence, whether it is linked to the way the men concerned define themselves. I have noticed in primary school children how most boys seem to define themselves by not being girls. (One of my nephews was influenced on his first day at school into dropping certain activities because they were girly.) If a man grows up with this sort of idea deep inside, without positive male images, then a woman challenging this self image (by doing something he thinks is man stuff, or being in some way what he perceives is mannish) would be an attack on what they believe themselves to be and the violence would be defending their own being. (That is a horrendously long sentence, but I can't see where to break it up.)

For a man like that, a woman has to be not-man, for a man to be a man. (And that could segue into women being not-human, for a man to be a man.)

This hypothesis only applies to the class of men who abuse women. Obviously the majority are real men who don't need to be defined by not being whatever it is they feel they are not.

Does that make sense? She says, humbly, to avoid being challenging.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Or you could argue that some men are resenting any gains made by women, as with the Taliban, and that patriarchy is actually being reinforced in some areas of the world.

But the Steubenville rape case shows that it's not that far away, and that some men won't admit the seriousness of the problem, and some are willing to enforce the abuse (and some to condone it). But there are some who resist it also. So men are not a monolithic bloc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
4. Emotional violence. This all too often accompanies physical violence.

---

It occurs to me that physical violence may also be a response to emotional violence. But of course, any independent person looking at the relationship will only be able to see physical bruises rather than emotional ones...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I'm quoting Al Jazeera below (are they the new BBC? they sure sound like them)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Kelly - I would be a lot more comfortable if the discussion had by now moved towards some sort of discussion of what might be done. But if you go back and re-read the first eight or so posts, they were all because of consequential assumptions that no prophet had made in his OP. That usually happens when people post OP's that do that. If you want to avoid that sort of thing happening, then don't try to draw unsupportable assumptions in your OP. OK, some were questions - but questions invite answers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Or you could argue that some men are resenting any gains made by women, as with the Taliban, and that patriarchy is actually being reinforced in some areas of the world.

But the Steubenville rape case shows that it's not that far away, and that some men won't admit the seriousness of the problem, and some are willing to enforce the abuse (and some to condone it). But there are some who resist it also. So men are not a monolithic bloc.

---

I think it is very significant that the Steubenville case involved teenagers. Many of the most horrific cases I have heard of involved teenagers. They may think this is the only way they can prove their masculinity.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And of course, men are not homogeneous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And of course, men are not homogeneous.

---

No, they are not. And for that reason, I can accept that some of them are permitted to be considered homo sapiens.

---

Imagine that exact exchange, only with the word "blacks" instead of "men". And then try to tell me it's not a statement dripping with prejudice and bigotry.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Or you could argue that some men are resenting any gains made by women, as with the Taliban, and that patriarchy is actually being reinforced in some areas of the world.

But the Steubenville rape case shows that it's not that far away, and that some men won't admit the seriousness of the problem, and some are willing to enforce the abuse (and some to condone it). But there are some who resist it also. So men are not a monolithic bloc.

---

I think it is very significant that the Steubenville case involved teenagers. Many of the most horrific cases I have heard of involved teenagers. They may think this is the only way they can prove their masculinity.

Moo

---

My nephews are being raised deep in the heart of machismo, so my hysteria around the Steubenville case is rather pointed (I'll admit it, it really fucked me up.)

Two of my nephews-- not Neph, thank God-- were given to sharing the kinds of stuff on their FaceBook feed that could have easily been from the sites protested in this
campaign,before they were shut down.
I actually bit the bullet and followed the links to see the kind of content being protested. I do not recommend it. Suffice it to say it sends one past outrage to terror.

What quetzlacoatl says about patriarchal backlash (be it the Taliban or the GOP) and the increase in those arenas of attacks (political and physical) against women makes sense-- before the electronic age, women accomplished things, but it was fairly easy to focus public attention elsewhere. Today, women and girls have easy access to loads of evidence that women are succeeding in all arenas of life, and can reach out to each other and offer support that really does lessen their dependance on the approval of men. For agencies like the two noted above, that must be might scary. One can only hope that such a backlash is more like a death-throe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[/qb]Imagine that exact exchange, only with the word "blacks" instead of "men". And then try to tell me it's not a statement dripping with prejudice and bigotry. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And of course, men are not homogeneous.

---

No, they are not. And for that reason, I can accept that some of them are permitted to be considered homo sapiens.

---

Imagine that exact exchange, only with the word "blacks" instead of "men". And then try to tell me it's not a statement dripping with prejudice and bigotry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Imagine that exact exchange, only with the word "blacks" instead of "men". And then try to tell me it's not a statement dripping with prejudice and bigotry.

---

Except there is a difference. You are conflating actual biological differences between the genders, genetic, and structural.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It. Was. A. Joke.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
Domestic violence against women is accepted in the OT Bible , this was challenged by Jesus when he prevented a woman from being stoned.
The OT standard seems to be that provided a woman behaves in a certain way then there won't be any repercussions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
Domestic violence against women is accepted in the OT Bible , this was challenged by Jesus when he prevented a woman from being stoned.
The OT standard seems to be that provided a woman behaves in a certain way then there won't be any repercussions.

---

This is quite simply not true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
So if negative attitudes towards women haven't originated from the Bible , despite right at the beginning Eve inviting repercussions from God for disobedience, then where have they come from ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And which of those differences mean men have to earn the right to be called human?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

As to why agriculture should lead to patriarchy - the rule of men - this has many answers, but one plausible one is the division of labour, which resulted in women looking after kids and men after crops and animals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Imagine that exact exchange, only with the word "blacks" instead of "men". And then try to tell me it's not a statement dripping with prejudice and bigotry.

---

Except there is a difference. You are conflating actual biological differences between the genders, genetic, and structural.

---

And which of those differences mean men have to earn the right to be called human?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Check your privilege.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
On a farm, the family is behind doors. There is a physical distance from neighbours. Nowadays, the privacy and isolation of couples is even worse. In the past, people might well get to know things - and let people know they knew, with rough music.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[QUOTE]Except, IIRC, the 'farm' as we know it today - an isolated set of buildings set within the farmed land - is a relatively recent (post-Medieval) construct.

Before then, those that worked the land lived together in hamlets and villages, and travelled the short distance to their fields every day, fields that they likely didn't own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Penny S.

Interesting stuff about separation. You could call it the privatization of oppression and misery. The antidote to it is to reach out to others, to talk to others, to share one's own story, and find that you are not alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:
It's hard to see how negative attitudes towards women could have originated in the Bible, given that the same attitudes exist in places and cultures where the Bible was never heard of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Imagine that exact exchange, only with the word "blacks" instead of "men". And then try to tell me it's not a statement dripping with prejudice and bigotry.

---

Except there is a difference. You are conflating actual biological differences between the genders, genetic, and structural.

---

And which of those differences mean men have to earn the right to be called human?

---

In the very distant past, I remember guys popping into otherwise serious ship discussions with witty comments like "For every action there is a female over-reaction" "Dude you must know my ex girlfriend, har har", and I thought that was BS, though people seemed content to just step over comments like that and carry on.. With all due respect, LiL Buddha-- and by now it's probably obvious to everyone that it is considerable-- I feel the same way about your joke. I see a lot of guys who seem to be honestly trying to sort out these issues, and whether a man or a woman is initiating it, the freaking gender wars-- even joking ones-- don't help.

I find myself dwelling in this thread, and as I said, the focus for me seems to be boys. I want to talk about my nephews again. They are good kids. I mean it. decent, affectionate, big hearted guys, and when I think of their masculine qualities, I think of things like their exuberance, their lust for life, their attentiveness to younger siblings and cousins, and their genuine, manifest interest in doing the right thing. (Not that these are strictly masculine qualities, but IMO this is how their animus, if you will, manifests itself in them. And yet, when interacting with peers, these decent, good-hearted guys give themselves permission to make jokes about Rhianna getting beat up, passing around obscene pics and hooting "Ooh, she totally got raped!" making fag jokes, and getting into these marathon long-winded conversations about how every girl they know except the ones they happen to be dating or related to are either sluts or evil. (Not that they do that in front of me a lot-- wisely- but I have stumbled into enough random conversations and ill-guarded Facebook matter to become alarmed. I can only imagine what I don't see.)

If I can brag a bit on Neph, while no angel in this regard, he does seem to be that one guy in the group who will mutter "That ain't right," when certain lines are crossed. He was part of school group organized to protest the football team's refusal to admit a physically qualified female student (I'd like to think that is partly due to the one whiny feminist voice in his family life ) As a teacher and an aunt, I really want to know how to help give boys the strength to be that one guy if they need to be. And I welcome with open arms any feedback that will help me do that.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
As a teacher and an aunt, I really want to know how to help give boys the strength to be that one guy if they need to be. And I welcome with open arms any feedback that will help me do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
With all due respect, LiL Buddha-- and by now it's probably obvious to everyone that it is considerable-- I feel the same way about your joke. I see a lot of guys who seem to be honestly trying to sort out these issues, and whether a man or a woman is initiating it, the freaking gender wars-- even joking ones-- don't help.

---

quote:

---

... I remembered the chill I had reading a tombstone in the Cotswolds, raised to a wife - "The Lord chastiseth those he loves". I couldn't help wondering what the marriage had been like...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Penny S:

quote:

---

... I remembered the chill I had reading a tombstone in the Cotswolds, raised to a wife - "The Lord chastiseth those he loves". I couldn't help wondering what the marriage had been like...

---

I'd hesitate to jump to the conclusion that the husband beat her just from that. It could simply mean that she suffered from chronic illness or died a very painful death. It could even be a great howl of despair at losing a beloved wife.

Depends how old the tombstone was, I suppose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
And separately, after my yell about the Taliban earlier, I heard a piece about a group in the UK reaching out to radicalised Islamist men. The chief speaker was a cage fighter and martial arts teacher who uses Qu'ranic scholarship to teach the men that God is infinite love, and that anything that is not love, like killing people, is against Islam. (And this is effective.) So my assumption that God is not telling people is clearly false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fineline:
People are very aware that men abuse. Not so aware that women abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
My read of that last is, if you are not one of those violent men, why would you read the phrase "1 out of 3 women are abused" as applying to you in any way? And if it clearly does not apply to you, why talk as if it does?

Because for me, it's not the violent behavior of violent men I find chilling, it's the dawning suspicion that a lot of nice guys are less concerned about keeping violence against anyone in check about defending thier own honor? Why? When was it in question?

And it deflects from focusing on the problem-- if one out of three women are being abused, then what is happening that makes that number so high? Why women in particular? Because my suspsicion is that the high focus of abuse on women is less about various types of men but about various attudes about women people of both genders have. And it seems we never get to finish that part of the conversation.

As she said, it's like the mere idea that this collection of words might offend some non-violent man is very much more important that the actual physical abuse of fucking one out of 3 women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

The complaint I have is the use of "men" as a collective noun when it comes to violence against women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Plique managed to deploy it in a way that had anyone done similar with a different noun, be it "women", "gays", "Jews", or whatever, there would have been blood on the board and a queue for a Hell call.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
You're now, on this thread about how one in 3 women are abused worldwide, trying to have a conversation about how you felt hurt and what a great guy you are for not opposing equality. Do you not see how wrong that is?

---

quote:

---

I would like to hear from everyone, female, male and other on this. But my question is also directed to myself, where I ask, is there something about us, the male gender, that promotes us to be violent? Is the problem male violence, or is the problem violence pure and simple?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No one gets to control the conversation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Secondly, your extraordinarily ham-fisted attempt at irony/satire/shaming didn't help in any sense whatsoever. You didn't answer the OP, and you didn't answer any of the points made previously. So well done there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No one gets to control the conversation.

---

Yet you're trying to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Secondly, your extraordinarily ham-fisted attempt at irony/satire/shaming didn't help in any sense whatsoever. You didn't answer the OP, and you didn't answer any of the points made previously. So well done there.

---

You don't get to determine what people think. You don't get to award my words legitimacy or illegitmacy based on how helpful you, an obstructive bully, find them. Your own posts on this thread make your opposition to any real equality manifest. I would have cause to despise myself if I found myself valuing any judgement you might issue. Save the lectures for your poor kids, whose dad thinks feminism was invented to garland his patriarchal windbaggery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
You don't get to award my words legitimacy or illegitmacy based on how helpful you, an obstructive bully, find them.

---

quote:

---

I'd also note that you end as you began on this thread, with fatuous scoffing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:


I've been teaching design technology to 10-11 year olds for the last 4 years. Mixed classes, mixed abilities. I went pretty much off piste wrt the curriculum from day 1, and turned it into a basic engineering course, covering architecture and construction, moving and flying vehicles, use of handtools, stuff like that. And while the boys automatically assume they're going to be better at all the tasks and challenges, they very rapidly learn that it ain't so. Simply because I levelled the playing field and taught the skills (some/most of) the girls lacked. The girls could now win.

---

quote:

---

Every teacher can do that too. And conversely, teachers of non-science, non-engineering, non-maths subjects can do the same for boys. Boys (gross generalisation) don't need much encouragement to turn a pile of wood and wheels into a car, but they do need encouragement to engage in ethics and literature, to craft their self-awareness and self-expression. Boys don't need much encouragement to trash-talk about girls, but they do need it to stand up and speak out when that happens. Boys don't need much encouragement to get into stupid fights, but they do need it to walk away.

And inevitably, if they see someone they respect modelling that sort of behaviour, they're going want to model that for themselves. That's especially true for their peers, for better or worse.

---

(sorry for delay in response)

A couple things come to mind when I read this: one is: I am intimidated by the thought that my female "otherness" might dilute whatever role model I might provide, particularity with teenaged boys. I would love to hear that I am wrong to be thus intimidated.

My primary experience is with the preschool set-- and my insistence on equal treatment of students in that arena has been pretty successful. Maybe one of my preconceived notions is that the preschool age is the optimum time to begin this kind of work, and I worry that by teen-hood, the damage is already done.

But like you, Doc Tor, I have noticed that when boys-- even gender-role rigid boys-- are placed in a situation where they are working with girls with an equal level of responsibility, skill and interdependence, the attitude drops fairly quickly in favor of doing something productive.

(At one school I worked at, I noticed the girls always headed for the dollhouse and dolls, and the boys always used these spaceships and community hero dolls- police, firefighters,etc. One morning I put all the Barbies in the spaceships and put all the cops and firefighters in the dollhouse. The girls responded with enthusiasm, taking Barbie on wonderful adventures in space, but the boys really freaked out Then I said, "Well, they have to come home after their jobs sometime,what do you think they do at home?"
To my delight, one of the boys talked about visiting a fire station and seeing a firefighter fix spaghetti for the crew. So that afternoon became about the community service personnel serving pot after pot of spaghetti to their coworkers. It was great. )

The second though I had was something quetzalcoatl said on the "Consent" thread-- how do you attack specifically, no-question misogynistic attitudes in a situation where boys are using those attitudes as a defense mechanism against feelings of helplessness?
His worry was that pushing too hard would simply drive them further into the behavior. TBH, I don't know if that is a good enough reason for me not to try, but is there a graceful way to navigate that dynamic?
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
One useful technique is to get them on their own. Maybe that's not possible, of course.

I think I was talking about working with violent men in therapy, but I had a great advantage - they were on their own, and not being bullish with their mates down the pub.

So on their own, they might eventually allow their defences to drop.

I suppose some boys might totally clam up as well.

Another technique is to do stuff with them, but you are already talking about that.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
A couple things come to mind when I read this: one is: I am intimidated by the thought that my female "otherness" might dilute whatever role model I might provide, particularity with teenaged boys. I would love to hear that I am wrong to be thus intimidated.

---

quote:

---

My primary experience is with the preschool set-- and my insistence on equal treatment of students in that arena has been pretty successful. Maybe one of my preconceived notions is that the preschool age is the optimum time to begin this kind of work, and I worry that by teen-hood, the damage is already done.

But like you, Doc Tor, I have noticed that when boys-- even gender-role rigid boys-- are placed in a situation where they are working with girls with an equal level of responsibility, skill and interdependence, the attitude drops fairly quickly in favor of doing something productive.

---

quote:

---

The second though I had was something quetzalcoatl said on the "Consent" thread-- how do you attack specifically, no-question misogynistic attitudes in a situation where boys are using those attitudes as a defense mechanism against feelings of helplessness?
His worry was that pushing too hard would simply drive them further into the behavior. TBH, I don't know if that is a good enough reason for me not to try, but is there a graceful way to navigate that dynamic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And this is where being male helps. Because if I call out some particularly egregious sexist language and behaviour , what they see is a man disapproving of them, disagreeing with them, disciplining them and correcting them. In some of these already hard-set attitudes (thankfully rare but not unknown, bearing in mind the children I teach are 10 and 11), a woman doing the same thing can reinforce their prejudices. The only adults they ever have correcting their behaviour are women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carex:

That "macho banter" that young men are exposed to (some from an early age when it runs in the family) distorts their view of the world until it can be corrected. To me it reinforces the need for people - men especially - to speak out to say that such behavior and attitudes are not acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
... I, like other folk have said before, am not sure I see the efficiency of the phrase "rape culture" -- to me, it's like saying the cause of cancer is death-- this sort of thing is what I assume most people are talking about when they use the phrase. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
A thread on violence against women has attracted multiple posts on how much misery men inflict on each other, and how women also assault their partners. It's just another way to silence women by telling them they haven't the right to complain, because a) men have it so much worse and b) women are just as violent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Of course it is violence. but it is a violence that is related to the freedom inherent* in being male.


*Inherent in our current cultural dynamics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukai:
Perhaps I can restart this thread in another direction, which may be particularly suited to a "Christian" group like the Ship Of Fools.

Recent surveys of domestic violence in several Pacific Island countries conducted with assistance from the World Health Organisation, show that in these parts it is not 1 in 3 women who have been abused but more more like 2 in 3! And by abuse, I refer mainly to direct physical violence by their husband (or "partner") at least once in the last year.

The Pacific Island countries are (generally speaking) some of the most strongly Christian countries in the world, with almost everyone attending church on Sundays and often also prayer meetings on weekdays. But the mainstream churches have not only failed to condemn this abuse, but in many cases actively condoned it.

If a woman turns to her pastor for support after being bashed, the most common response is to tell her that it is her Christian duty to return to her husband. This is "justified" by quoting scriptures such as "wives should honour [or obey] their husbands" or that "Eve was created from Adam's rib" and this shows that women are subordinate and inferior to men.

What we need here (in addition to support networks, safe houses, government policies etc) are some other scriptures (and interpretations) to run against this. Because the churches are the main social guides in these parts. Your suggestions welcome!

{Hosts: if you want to make this a new thread, feel free. }

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
The best research now available suggests that partner-on-partner domestic violence is an enormous societal problem independent of gender. How can it be anything but sexist to discard discussion of all such abuse, except man-on-woman abuse, as inconsequential?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
When discussing the dynamics of abusive relationships, why do we focus on the genders of the people involved rather than, say, the contribution that alcoholism and substance abuse make to abusive relationships?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not sure I follow the logic there. Men being beaten up is a sign of how free they are, but women being beaten up is a sign of how oppressed they are? How does that work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Of course it is violence. but it is a violence that is related to the freedom inherent* in being male.


*Inherent in our current cultural dynamics.

---

I'm not sure I follow the logic there. Men being beaten up is a sign of how free they are, but women being beaten up is a sign of how oppressed they are? How does that work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I don't think there is a problem with the differences between the violence done to men by men, and the violence done to women by men signifying different things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
References, please, to this "best research", and how it is that the World Health Organization overlooked this amazing research.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I don't think there is a problem with the differences between the violence done to men by men, and the violence done to women by men signifying different things.

---

There is when the different things being signified boil down to "violence against women is bad, violence against men doesn't matter".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
The best research now available suggests that partner-on-partner domestic violence is an enormous societal problem independent of gender. How can it be anything but sexist to discard discussion of all such abuse, except man-on-woman abuse, as inconsequential?

---

References, please, to this "best research", and how it is that the World Health Organization overlooked this amazing research.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
When discussing the dynamics of abusive relationships, why do we focus on the genders of the people involved rather than, say, the contribution that alcoholism and substance abuse make to abusive relationships?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not sure I follow the logic there. Men being beaten up is a sign of how free they are, but women being beaten up is a sign of how oppressed they are? How does that work?

---

In other words, a) women are violent too, and b) men suffer terribly, so quit complaining, ladies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I'm inclined to give you as much sympathy as you show to the victims of violent abuse who don't share your gender.

---

quote:

---

A report posted on Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board website cites 2003 data that suggested 65 percent of Bangladeshi men believed "it is justifiable to beat up their wives," while 38 percent didn't know what constitutes physical violence.

---

quote:

---

Two high school football stars were found guilty on Sunday of raping a 16-year-old girl last summer in a case that drew national attention for the way social media spurred the initial prosecution and later helped galvanize national outrage.

Because the victim did not remember what had happened, scores of text messages and cellphone pictures provided much of the evidence. They were proof as well, some said, that Steubenville High School’s powerhouse football team held too much sway over other teenagers, who documented and traded pictures of the assault while doing little or nothing to protect the girl.
...

After Judge Thomas Lipps read his decision in Juvenile Court, both boys sobbed. Mr. Richmond told his lawyer, Walter Madison, “My life is over.”
...

Testimony also touched the high school’s football coach, Reno Saccoccia, who had been criticized by some in the community for not doing more to discipline other players present. In one text message, Mr. Mays stated that he felt he had gotten the coach to “take care of it” and that Mr. Saccoccia “was joking about it so I’m not that worried.”
...

The girl also testified that she had come to realize that Mr. Mays — who maintained that he had taken care of her while she was drunk and that their encounter had been consensual and did not involve penetration — had done far more.

“This is the most pointless thing,” Mr. Mays said in one text message to the girl. “I’m going to get in trouble for something I should be getting thanked for taking care of you.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
In other words, it is acceptable for a man to rape any unconscious woman he happens to come across.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There has been quite a bit of arguing against things no one has said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There has been quite a bit of arguing against things no one has said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I would be interested to know what proportion of people holding the greater economic power in a domestic relationship are violent to the person holding the less. And then see whether the proportion was the same for males with greater economic power and females with greater economic power.

Then we'd know whether beating someone who has limited means to escape (or even *because* they have limited means to escape) is a female trait, a male trait or a human trait.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

One other comment struck me on reading it, which was that in several places, both women interviewed and healthcare professionals reported anecdotally that matters had got worse, especially when there are coups and civil unrest, a point also made in the original report.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I would be interested to know what proportion of people holding the greater economic power in a domestic relationship are violent to the person holding the less. And then see whether the proportion was the same for males with greater economic power and females with greater economic power.

Then we'd know whether beating someone who has limited means to escape (or even *because* they have limited means to escape) is a female trait, a male trait or a human trait.

---

Oh, I am pretty sure it is a human trait, not even needing statistics. The only thing that really makes it a gender issue is-- well, y'all tell me. Which gender do you associate with "greater economic power"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is the overall culture at question. Single mums are still part of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is the overall culture at question. Single mums are still part of that.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by that, can you explain?

I was responding to the idea that it is a human trait that economic power makes somebody abuse a dependent with no power to escape. My point is that generally children cannot escape from their mothers but mothers do not abuse children at nearly the same rate that men abuse women and children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sabine:
Any report about 1 in 3 women worldwide have been abused must surely be taking into account the many places where attacks on women are used as a tactic of war. There are places (I'm think of the so-called Democratic Republic of the Congo, to name one) where the use of such a tactic would skew any generalized statistic about female abuse world-wide.

sabine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
My point is that generally children cannot escape from their mothers but mothers do not abuse children at nearly the same rate that men abuse women and children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have seen stats that 1 in 4 women is abused in the UK for example. Also, 1 in 6 men.

---

quote:

---

Most domestic violence includes emotional abuse, which can include such tactics such as:

• destructive criticism, name calling, sulking
• pressure tactics
• lying to you, or to your friends and family about you
• persistently putting you down in front of other people
• never listening or responding when you talk
• isolating you from friends and family, monitoring your phone calls, emails, texts and letters
• checking up on you, following you, not letting you go out alone.

The impact of emotional abuse may be even more devastating than physical assault - and have much longer term effects - yet most of the above behaviours are not crimes, and it's therefore much more difficult to obtain protection, or even to get others to take them seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
My point is that generally children cannot escape from their mothers but mothers do not abuse children at nearly the same rate that men abuse women and children.

---

So we jumped from "it seems ... it seems ... I hear more ... " in your last post to "mothers do not abuse children at nearly the same rate that men abuse women and children". Great.

As one of the half of the population who you've concluded are natural wife-beaters, this gets me really wound up. How about this? You do not throw allegations of abuse or of a tendency to abuse around, unless you have solid data. Hearsay will not do, because you're only starting malicious rumours.

---

quote:

---

Who is most likely to abuse or neglect children?

Percentage of abusers who are someone the child knows (a parent/caregiver, other relatives, neighbors, friends, or persons considered family): 81.2%

Age of most perpetrators of child abuse (36.3% of cases): 20 to 29 years

Of the reports, 45.2% of the perpetrators were male and 53.6% were female.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What is interesting though, is although the ratios of male/female child victims is about the same, the ratio in which adult females/males are abused is not.

---

quote:

---

destructive criticism, name calling, sulking
persistently putting you down in front of other people
never listening or responding when you talk

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm a bit worried about anyone whose reaction to hearing of abuse is not "this is bad, how can it be prevented", but to diminish the information, divert attention to other groups (not to add to the first reaction, but to deny the need for that response), and extend the range of perpetrators to include members of the group initially reported as containing victims (while not having made that first response). Why so vulnerable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
Dinghy Sailor, I don't think anyone has been claiming that the male half of the population are natural abusers, but rather that the male half of the population contains some people who abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
mothers do not abuse children at nearly the same rate that men abuse women and children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... Female on male domestic abuse, on the other hand, was funny. It was rolling-pin, frying pan funny. No one grew up in a house like that. Men simply didn't get abused or hit by their wives. It was a joke. ... On the other hand, that same frame of "men are violent" denies the experience of those men who suffer domestic abuse. Not even denies - negates it. Having a conversation about domestic abuse which does not include an acknowledgement that men can be victims almost as often as women is... wrong? One of my close friends has suffered domestic abuse for years. I think I am the only person he feels able to talk about it to. ... So tell me. How is this "diminish(ing) the information", "divert(ing) attention to other groups", "deny(ing) the need for that response"? This has nothing to do with 'privilege' or 'victim blaming' or 'mansplaining' or whichever word is chosen to close down the discussion and humiliate the speaker, unless acknowledging the statistic that men can be victims as often as women become so incredibly transgressive that it can't even be mentioned?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
Dinghy Sailor, I don't think anyone has been claiming that the male half of the population are natural abusers, but rather that the male half of the population contains some people who abuse.

---

Incorrect. Let's try this again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
mothers do not abuse children at nearly the same rate that men abuse women and children.

---

So most of the abuse is, according to Evangeline (on the basis of hearsay, using a shockingly bad method of evidence gathering), perpetrated by men - hence men are much more likely to physically abuse than are women. You may not notice these sorts of barbs, because they're not aimed at you. I do.

---

quote:

---

SourceFemales made up 70% of victims killed by an intimate partner in 2007, a proportion that has changed very little since 1993. Intimate partners were responsible for 3% of all violence against males and 23% of all violence against females in 2008.
Although rape is considered to be underreported, reported rape rates have declined over time.
The majority of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim, primarily an acquaintance.
Women are at far greater risk than men for stalking victimization.
Women are more likely to commit crimes now than in the past, although women who commit crimes are more likely to be arrested for nonviolent property crimes compared to male criminals whose crimes are more likely to involve violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

Li'l Buddha those stats on child abuse in the US are interesting I note that "neglect" is included in the abuse stats (no problem with this but it does mean you have to interpret the stats more carefully). Given that 30% (I have seen another study that said 24%) of children in the US are being brought up in single female parent households Source and only about 4% in single parent male households then statistically if men and women are as likely to abuse/neglect children then the rate of women doing so would be more likely to be double the rate of men rather than only about 8% higher.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

As for this notion of talking about the relationship between gender and violence being a barb or somehow insulting to all men I find it most peculiar. I'd like to see how far a white person on this forum would get claiming that they were the victim in a discussion of racism against the privileged black/hispanic/asian people who didn't have to suffer such barbs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

Similarly I wonder how far a discussion minimising racism on the basis that if the black/hispanic/asian people had economic power they'd be just as likely to offend would progress?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Evangeline:
[qb]
Li'l Buddha those stats on child abuse in the US are interesting I note that "neglect" is included in the abuse stats (no problem with this but it does mean you have to interpret the stats more carefully). Given that 30% (I have seen another study that said 24%) of children in the US are being brought up in single female parent households Source and only about 4% in single parent male households then statistically if men and women are as likely to abuse/neglect children then the rate of women doing so would be more likely to be double the rate of men rather than only about 8% higher.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
(And incidentally, "checking up on you" as an emotional abuse tactic? That would mean that every man whose wife has phoned him to ask when he's coming home from the pub has been abused...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

What I believe we need to do as a society and a culture is to redefine manhood so that violence against the vulnerable is no part of it, that a real man does not attack the weak. Two initiatives that I`ve seen in my area are Don`t be that guy and Man Up

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
It never ceases to amaze me that these days one cannot say that male violence against women is an issue without someone insisting that women abuse too or that men are also victims.

One issue does not mean another does not exist. It is unfair to hijack a discussion on an important issue just to make it about oneself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Evangeline, there are a couple of matters you do need to clarify. You are trying to compare statistics of abuse by men against women and children, but by women against men alone. You also need to define the abuse to which you refer. Is it simply physical abuse, or is it wider than that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
It never ceases to amaze me that these days one cannot say that male violence against women is an issue without someone insisting that women abuse too or that men are also victims.

One issue does not mean another does not exist. It is unfair to hijack a discussion on an important issue just to make it about oneself.

---

Yes, I have sympathy with that view, but as soon as you begin to investigate male identity and male violence, it becomes difficult to isolate them as pure things sui generis.

Thus, some people argue for a new kind of masculinity, which sounds fine to me; but then what is the old form of it? How is it formed? What does it consist of? As soon as you start to go into that, you will find that some men feel abused. What then? Do we fall silent? Is this considered to be irrelevant?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would have thought that the deeper issues of masculinity are actually the point of crisis. I mean that that's where researchers and others should be looking. Where else should we look, if we want to change things?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
I did not say that all men were natural abusers, gheesh read for comprehension. I do stand by the fact that men are more likely to physically abuse women and children than women are to physically abuse children. Given the following statistics

quote:

---

SourceFemales made up 70% of victims killed by an intimate partner in 2007, a proportion that has changed very little since 1993. Intimate partners were responsible for 3% of all violence against males and 23% of all violence against females in 2008.
Although rape is considered to be underreported, reported rape rates have declined over time.
The majority of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim, primarily an acquaintance.
Women are at far greater risk than men for stalking victimization.
Women are more likely to commit crimes now than in the past, although women who commit crimes are more likely to be arrested for nonviolent property crimes compared to male criminals whose crimes are more likely to involve violence.

---

Those figures are for the USA, the figures in Asia, according to the WHO report referred to in the OP are much worse.

Could you please tell me Dinghy what it is that you are asserting about the relative likelihood of men versus women being physical abusers of women and children?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I can't understand why some people can't accept that (a) a number of women, which is too large, get abused, physically and/or emotionally, by a number of people, usually men, which is certainly a minority, but still too large: (b) a number of men, which is too large, get abused, physically and/or emotionally, by a number of people, including women, certainly a minority, but still too large: and (c) a number of children, which is too large, get abused, physically and/or emotionally, by a number of people, male and female, certainly a minority, but still too large.

Surely the existence of one or the other group does not diminish the suffering of any of the others, and the involvement of the sick individuals in any group does not tarnish everyone else?

---

quote:

---

I'm a bit worried about anyone whose reaction to hearing of abuse is not "this is bad, how can it be prevented", but to diminish the information, divert attention to other groups (not to add to the first reaction, but to deny the need for that response), and extend the range of perpetrators to include members of the group initially reported as containing victims (while not having made that first response). Why so vulnerable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
I did not say that all men were natural abusers, gheesh read for comprehension. I do stand by the fact that men are more likely to physically abuse women and children than women are to physically abuse children. Given the following statistics

quote:

---

SourceFemales made up 70% of victims killed by an intimate partner in 2007, a proportion that has changed very little since 1993. Intimate partners were responsible for 3% of all violence against males and 23% of all violence against females in 2008.
Although rape is considered to be underreported, reported rape rates have declined over time.
The majority of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim, primarily an acquaintance.
Women are at far greater risk than men for stalking victimization.
Women are more likely to commit crimes now than in the past, although women who commit crimes are more likely to be arrested for nonviolent property crimes compared to male criminals whose crimes are more likely to involve violence.

---

Those figures are for the USA, the figures in Asia, according to the WHO report referred to in the OP are much worse.

Could you please tell me Dinghy what it is that you are asserting about the relative likelihood of men versus women being physical abusers of women and children?

---

Those stats don't say anything about children. Nada.

I'm asserting that you're throwing around accusations that you've made up, and are now scrabbling for backing. When the issue is as serious as this, that's well out of order.

---

quote:

---

So what we have calculated thus far is that, IF, according to incident reports, 70% of all child abuse is committed by women, then adjusting for the different statistical populations and applying our stated assumptions, men are 12 times as likely as women to perpetrate abuse against children, or put another way, they are 1100% more dangerous to children than are women.

However, this calculation still errs on the side of being too conservative. We haven't corrected for kind of abuse, or seriousness of outcomes.

In addition, the raw figures actually don't show that 70% of all incidents of child abuse are perpetrated by women -- even when including reported "abuse" such as accomplice abuse, failure to protect, and minor neglect such as leaving a child unattended where no harm has occurred. They don't show that.

The statistics you will see from, e.g. the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect show that child abuse perpetrated by women represents (depending on report) between 50-70% of total abuse, usually closer to 50%. And if we remove from those reports, those minor neglect charges without notable outcomes and charges such as "failure to protect" that women -- and notably battered women -- but very few men tend to be charged with, we probably come down to something closer to 50-50, if it is even that much, if indeed women are the perpetrators of even 50% of total numbers of real abuse and neglect. Which means that in reality, men are not "12 times as likely as women to perpetrate child abuse" but some multiplier significantly greater even than that. In other words Children are at astronomically greater risk of physical abuse in the care of a man than in the care of a woman.

---

quote:

---

Fact: "Children living with their only their mothers experienced maltreatment under the Harm Standard at a rate of 26.1 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 36.6 per 1,000."

Fact: PHYSICAL ABUSE: Children living with only their mothers: 6.4 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 10.5 per 1,000 children. "When specific types of abuse under the Harm Standard are examined, it is apparent that the findings described in the previous paragraph stem from the disproportionate incidence of physical abuse among children in father-only households..."

Fact: NEGLECT: Children living with only their mothers: 16.7 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 21.9 per 1,000 children.

Fact: EMOTIONAL NEGLECT: Children living with only their mothers: 3.4 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 8.8 per 1,000 children.

Fact: SERIOUS INJURIES: Children living with only their mothers: 10.0 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 14.0 per 1,000.

Fact: MODERATE INJURIES: Children living with only their mothers: 14.7 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 20.5 per 1,000.

Fact: ALL MALTREATMENT: Children living with only their mothers: 50.1 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 65.6 per 1,000.

Fact: ALL ABUSE: Children living with only their mothers: 18.1 per 1,000 children. Children living only with their fathers: 31.0 per 1,000.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, in fact, if you only study male violence against women, you are doing something very strange, as you are implicitly (or maybe explicitly) stating that this is sui generis, (i.e. of its own genus), without connections to other forms of abuse and violence.

That is a bad starting point, it seems to me, and not open-minded.

It also seems to be akin to original sin - men somehow have this unique propensity to abuse and violence. Unlikely.

---

quote:

---

One other comment struck me on reading it, which was that in several places, both women interviewed and healthcare professionals reported anecdotally that matters had got worse, especially when there are coups and civil unrest, a point also made in the original report.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
I didn't accuse anybody of anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

Oh, I'm not so sure about that. There are a hell of a lot of children who are economically dependent on their mother and with no father around. One hears often about men who beat their wives also beating their kids. Single Mums have economic power over their children but you don't hear very much about children being beaten by their Mum. Yeah sure it happens and there are awful stories of neglect etc but beating up those who are dependent upon you doesn't seem nearly as common amongst women as it does amongst men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
mothers do not abuse children at nearly the same rate that men abuse women and children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
And if it *is* useful, what are the true categories here? i.e., not woman-on-man, man-on-man, man-on-woman etc but, say, "Higher earning adult on dependent person living with as spouse"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, in fact, if you only study male violence against women, you are doing something very strange, as you are implicitly (or maybe explicitly) stating that this is sui generis, (i.e. of its own genus), without connections to other forms of abuse and violence.

That is a bad starting point, it seems to me, and not open-minded.

It also seems to be akin to original sin - men somehow have this unique propensity to abuse and violence. Unlikely.

---

Is it ever useful to attempt to categorise types of violence? For what - for understanding? For prevention? For consistency in justice/sentencing?

And if it *is* useful, what are the true categories here? i.e., not woman-on-man, man-on-man, man-on-woman etc but, say, "Higher earning adult on dependent person living with as spouse"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Let's go over this again. Whatever statistics you post, this was your original evidence base:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

Oh, I'm not so sure about that. There are a hell of a lot of children who are economically dependent on their mother and with no father around. One hears often about men who beat their wives also beating their kids. Single Mums have economic power over their children but you don't hear very much about children being beaten by their Mum. Yeah sure it happens and there are awful stories of neglect etc but beating up those who are dependent upon you doesn't seem nearly as common amongst women as it does amongst men.

---

i.e. you have no actual idea, just hearsay. From that, you asserted:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
mothers do not abuse children at nearly the same rate that men abuse women and children.

---

Whatever the facts of the matter later turn out to be, it is unacceptable to draw conclusions from something you just made up to suit your own prejudices, as you did here - and then told me to "check my privilege" when I called you on it.

Repeat after me: feminism does not give you license to make stuff up. Do you want to make a difference? Try engaging in the real world.

---

So let me get this straight. Even though there are ample statistics to prove that many more men are abusive scum than women are abusive scum (that one 's for you Marvin) just because I didn't quote chapter and verse in my first or second post that means you can conclude that I made it all up and that gives you a licence to ignore the subsequent facts provided?



Repeat after me three times and you too Marvin: Not all men are abusers but men are much more likely than women to be perpetrators of physical abuse.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
So let me get this straight. Even though there are ample statistics to prove that many more men are abusive scum than women are abusive scum (that one 's for you Marvin) just because I didn't quote chapter and verse in my first or second post that means you can conclude that I made it all up and that gives you a licence to ignore the subsequent facts provided?



Repeat after me three times and you too Marvin: Not all men are abusers but men are much more likely than women to be perpetrators of physical abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
So let me get this straight. Even though there are ample statistics to prove that many more men are abusive scum than women are abusive scum (that one 's for you Marvin) just because I didn't quote chapter and verse in my first or second post that means you can conclude that I made it all up and that gives you a licence to ignore the subsequent facts provided?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
Repeat after me three times and you too Marvin: Not all men are abusers but men are much more likely than women to be perpetrators of physical abuse.

---

quote:

---

According to the most recent statistics, for homicides in which the victim-killer relationship was known, 31 percent of female victims were killed by an intimate partner. Only 4 percent of male victims were killed by an intimate partner.

According to Bureau of Justice statistics, a 1992 survey of women killed showed that their relationship to the killer was known in 69 percent of homicides. Of that percentage, 28 percent were killed by spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend or ex-boyfriend. That same study showed that of men killed in 1992, their relationship to the killer was known in 59 percent of homicides. Of that percentage, 3 percent were killed by spouse, ex-spouse, girlfriend or ex-girlfriend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
And if it *is* useful, what are the true categories here? i.e., not woman-on-man, man-on-man, man-on-woman etc but, say, "Higher earning adult on dependent person living with as spouse"?

---

Is there any problem with simply saying "spouse-on-spouse"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, in fact, if you only study male violence against women, you are doing something very strange, as you are implicitly (or maybe explicitly) stating that this is sui generis, (i.e. of its own genus), without connections to other forms of abuse and violence.

That is a bad starting point, it seems to me, and not open-minded.

It also seems to be akin to original sin - men somehow have this unique propensity to abuse and violence. Unlikely.

---

Is it ever useful to attempt to categorise types of violence? For what - for understanding? For prevention? For consistency in justice/sentencing?

And if it *is* useful, what are the true categories here? i.e., not woman-on-man, man-on-man, man-on-woman etc but, say, "Higher earning adult on dependent person living with as spouse"?

---

'True categories' begs a lot of questions. I find the word 'true' in these situations rather debatable; I prefer 'useful'.

Thus it might be useful to study abuse/violence in terms of sex of the offender or victim; social status of both; age of both; social class of both; and so on and so on.

The question as to whether it is useful at all to do this is interesting. I suppose that is decided according to social policy. For example, if we suspect that many teenagers in an area are involved in abuse/violence, the first thing to do is to find out, and not rely on anecdotes. But then, if it seems correct, we could take steps to counteract it - work with gangs, setting up clubs for teenagers, work with parents and schools, and so on. But why would we do that, if we hadn't first established some hard statistics?

One problem with adult males is that it's difficult to set up courses for them, since the abusive ones tend not to want to know. But I worked myself with abusive/violent people for 30 years, (as a therapist), and I think you can educate people out of it. In fact, anger management is now very widespread.

---

quote:

---

Crimes such as sexual violence and stalking are almost exclusively committed by men - in the case of stalking the rate of victimization is 3 times higher for women than for men. And even then, among male victims the gender of the stalker is evenly split between men and women.

So the situation is really that men are the main perpetrators of violence, and that both men and women are victims of that violence. But women due to being more physically vulnerable suffer more when you break down the figures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:


Spouse on spouse isn't enough, because of generational abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I don't want to enter into any "battle of the statistics", but there's an emerging problem I think needs flagging up.

seekingsister wrote:

quote:

---

Crimes such as sexual violence and stalking are almost exclusively committed by men - in the case of stalking the rate of victimization is 3 times higher for women than for men. And even then, among male victims the gender of the stalker is evenly split between men and women.

So the situation is really that men are the main perpetrators of violence, and that both men and women are victims of that violence. But women due to being more physically vulnerable suffer more when you break down the figures.

---

(sorry seekingsister - several people have mentioned this in passing but yours was most readily to hand). Those stats are drawn from judicial sources. They relate to such things as reported incidents, prosecuted cases etc. The first problem is that they are all under-reported. The second is that they are almost certainly not all under-reported to the same extent.

Bluntly put, if you want to talk about relative prevalence in the community, you cannot do that from justice stats. Collecting prevalence in the community stats. involves a vastly greater effort. The figures are out there if you want to look for them, though I don't want to derail the discussion by introducing them - I simply want to point out that if prevalence in the community is what you want to talk about, those are the stats you'll need.

There's another problem with statistics relating to extreme cases or events, such as murder. Drawing inferences relating to central tendency based on outlying figures is a logical error, at least without some fairly heavy-duty statistics that considers differing variance, even assuming subsamples can be said to be drawn from the same statistical population.

---

quote:

---

We should be talking about violence and abuse, and we should be seeking to prevent it and change the culture that allows and causes it. But we should be doing so for all violence and abuse, not just one subset thereof.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian

quote:

---

We should be talking about violence and abuse, and we should be seeking to prevent it and change the culture that allows and causes it. But we should be doing so for all violence and abuse, not just one subset thereof.

---

I agree with this. And this is a reasonable way to state it.
However, when it is stated as "Women abuse men too!" It is unhelpful to the conversation.

---

quote:

---

I think I addressed this point in my post about "Patriarchy hurts men too." Male victims do not come forwards because they are subject to shaming and humiliation - BECAUSE society accepts as standard that men are physically dominant. Which breeds the culture that leads to women being abused.

Is there any data on the number of unreported domestic violence committed by women against men?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Damn, missed the deadline - I also think you are right, that men are trying to reimpose their dominance. Maybe I am.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Good stuff, Kelly. Just one point about anxiety. In my experience, this is highly contagious. So, one thing that happens is that as women open up about their experience of being abused, their anxiety (and anger, of course), is expressed; and men pick it up. Now, men start getting anxious, both about being abused - as this is highly counter-cultural (big sissy), and as being abusive. Hence men start interrupting. Their anxiety is unknown mainly to themselves unfortunately, I think (unconscious).

I said to Erroneous Monk earlier, that domestic violence courses tend to be single sex, as the danger is of restimulating people - same thing really.

I suppose that's why women have women's groups; men are lagging really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Damn, missed the deadline - I also think you are right, that men are trying to reimpose their dominance. Maybe I am.

---

Er, no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Damn, missed the deadline - I also think you are right, that men are trying to reimpose their dominance. Maybe I am.

---

Er, no.

---

I certainly don't think all men put dominance as top priority. I certainly do think everybody who has human DNA gets into unnecessary dominance battles from time to time.I just think that there is a kind of canon of mysogynist rhetoric that acts as the equivalent of a tourist phrasebook for sexism, that makes it easier for the man inclined toward dominance to exhaust a problematic woman into submission. And that this canon is thousands of years in the making.

There is probably a similar "phrasebook" for feminist rhetoric, but IME all it takes it the application of "man-hater!" to give someone the excuse to dismiss it.And feminists simply do not have as extensive a canon to fight the other one yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

When there's a discussion going on on a public message board, we're not 'interrupting'.

---

quote:

---

We're not in denial about the level of male on female violence. We're not calling you men-haters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
However, the overall impression of this (and other times I've seen discussions on gender issues) is that either we stick to the agreed narrative, or we can butt out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
And feminism is still a thing because it is not particularly rare for women to feel that all of life works that way. I generally have privilege and am not particularly picked on, but I think certainly we all have been trained to be biased. When I am dressed nicely for work and try to walk quickly through the crowd from the train up the stairs to catch my bus, people don't get out of my way. Normal, since I'm not the Queen, and why should they. Except that they do get out of the way of the well-dressed white guys who bustle just the same way. Doesn't bother me because I don't think anyone has the right to expect that, but I find it rather telling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can also work out statistics in non-war situations. I have seen stats that 1 in 4 women is abused in the UK for example. Also, 1 in 6 men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
Ron - I agree that there are difficulties with using outlying events such as murder, but (a) that's what I could find, and (b) more importantly, I understand that police now view domestic violence as more important than it was viewed in the past because it can be an indicator of the way a relationship is going along what is seen as a continuum, and they would like to prevent murder. I would not have presented the stats without that connection.

---

quote:

---

The Statistics Canada data in this link says women outnumber men as victims of abuse by 9 to 1. It's the first one ixquick.com produced for me.

---

quote:

---

Statistics Canada's 1998 report Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile, which analysed data provided by 154 reporting police agencies, shows that:

- women continue to outnumber men nine to one as victims of assault by a spouse or partner;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

The point here is not to somehow prove that women are as bad as men taken on average, which most of us have guessed for quite a while, but rather to show how societal perceptions of violence can be warped. It's all part of the same attitudinal problem that Kelly Alves outlined earlier (here, if I can get the link to work).

---

quote:

---

For example, in the UK, as a male, I am more likely to be the victim of violent crime than a woman, (excluding sexual violence), more likely to be killed via homicide, and more likely to commit suicide. Women are more likely to be victims of sexual assault and domestic abuse.

There are of course many other factors, for example, age seems important, so old people are much less likely to be victims of violence than young people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
Dinghy sailor, I have done sufficient research and reading on this topic in the recent past to justify to my own satisfaction the assertions that I made. I have no problem with you asking for data/proof of this for the purposes of discussion but I found your accusations of malice and the tone of your posts unnecessarily aggressive (which is why I responded with the flippant check your privilege comment.) In post after post you continue to attack me on the technicality that my first post was anecdotal and continue to ignore any data subsequently provided. It is pointlessly repetitive.

---

quote:

---

I feel that you (and others) are justifying/ minimising the abuse of women on the basis that it's some natural human tendency and women do it too or would do it if they had economic power. That upsets me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

We should be talking about violence and abuse, and we should be seeking to prevent it and change the culture that allows and causes it. But we should be doing so for all violence and abuse, not just one subset thereof.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

Is it that difficult to spend a little time allowing a discussion about the experiences of women to happen?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Oh, everyone else on here is being sensible. As you were ...

---

Good start, but it would be nice if people would start engaging with what the sensible people are saying. (and I see no gender monopoly on sensible, at the moment.)

It's like hyperbole versus hyperbole, and the moderate people are crawling around under the artillery blast.

[ 19. July 2013, 19:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Kelly - I've been giving your proposal for considering victimisation as a way of examining this issue, with a view to maybe suggesting a way to take it forward. I wonder if you would like to consider a suggestion - just in terms of structuring things, before anyone tries to load up any more ideas.

(Goes to virual flipchart and turns over a new page)

Draw a circle A. Draw another circle B. Now draw a large oval round both circles. Label the area inside the oval C, and the area outside the oval D.

A is factors relating to the woman. B is factors relating to the man. C will be issues relating to their intimate relationship. D will cover issues concerning external factors.

I am assuming that if a woman becomes a victim, something by definition has gone wrong. We have already had a number of suggestions - for example, Penny S's early suggestion that males experiencing domestic violence by adult males when they are children may go on to model that behaviour when the are adults - that I would put under B.

The advantage of putting some structure to this is that it forces us to ask questions we may not otherwise see.

But it's just a suggestion and it's your shout. Any comments welcome.
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
PS - it goes without saying that this covers only intimate partner violence. Violence external to this relationship won't be covered, nor will same-sex intimate partner violence. Not because I don't think those things are important, but as a starting point, this should cover the majority of cases for most women.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I am quite content with people loading up their ideas. I was just expressing mine, in the hopes that articulating them would spark ideas in other folk.

In other words-- Naw! Ain't gonna do a flowchart!
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
No flowcharts! It was just an idea to get people thinking about things they might overlook.

F'rexample - we might go from male experience of childhood abuse being normative for some adults, and ask if there may be a similar thing at work with women who experience violence as children. I've no idea if there is any effect but it might be worth a look. etc. etc.

But as I say it was just an idea and I'm happy to drop it.
 

---

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Ron, I don't think that was me. But it's been a long thread, so an easy mistake.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Are we going to receive hand-outs of this flow chart? With some space at the side to take notes?
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
We also need some addenda, they always add a kind of magic sparkly dust to the proceedings.
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
Ron, I don't think that was me. But it's been a long thread, so an easy mistake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
However, the overall impression of this (and other times I've seen discussions on gender issues) is that either we stick to the agreed narrative, or we can butt out.

---

And feminism is still a thing because it is not particularly rare for women to feel that all of life works that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
However, the overall impression of this (and other times I've seen discussions on gender issues) is that either we stick to the agreed narrative, or we can butt out.

---

And feminism is still a thing because it is not particularly rare for women to feel that all of life works that way.

---

This reminded me of the above exchange, and our "canon of rhetoric" discussion. Here is a great example of the kind of thing I meant when I was talking about a "canon of rhetoric" that squelches women's attempts to describe their own experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I saw Jim's post, and yes, it's true. It's also true that when one of my writing colleagues went off message, she got a massive and messy twitter slapdown - a woman attempting to describe her own experience, being attacked for doing so by social justice bloggers, because she wasn't sticking to the agreed narrative.

The subject is simply too toxic to discuss on the internet.

---

quote:

---

An impressions seems to be being created across lots of hobbies that hold cons that they’re somehow unsafe for women which puts female attendees off, then those same events are blamed for not having more female attendees.
It’s ‘whack’.

---

This bugged me,in that it seemed that the poster was moving subtly from "It's good to hear that women have postive experiences in Cons*" to saying "Don't talk about skeevy guys at Con because it makes the rest of us look bad." If enough of those kind of comments came up, I can see a certain type of woman losing patience.

I agree that the fact that women seem, on the most part, to mingle comfortably at Cons is a great thing, but it serves no one to tell the girls who get targeted by abuse that they can't talk about it. Both experiences are true.


*(for the record, one of those women would me me-- in my six years of gaming I only encountered one real skeeve, and he was booted out of two games for being skeevy. All the real misogyny I experienced was in my ex-husband's living room, via three of his friends.And I was less traumatized by the idiotic behavior of said idiots than by the craven silence of the guys who witnessed it, and who I knew were way better than that.)

**(especially this guy--"The bottom line is: if we watch out for her other, and care about each other, predators and fucksticks will have a much harder time getting away with their ugly dogshit. A community without awesome women in it — and which does not respect those awesome women — is a community I’d want nothing to do with. Which is to say: THE ASSHOLES CAN’T HAVE IT."

Hell.Yes.)

[ 13. August 2013, 02:38: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Kelly - it's difficult to link to twitter comments, because, you know, twitter. The comments on Sarah's page were mostly excellent, and knowing her, I don't think she moderated any of them (she is indeed, A Force of Nature ).

But she had a whole bunch of comments attacking her for being white, privileged, cisgendered, disrupting the conversation, diminishing the problem of male violence, attacking the victims and being a gender traitor. Obviously, she was, er, robust in her own defence, but what happened to her falls cleanly into a pattern that's arisen over the last few years.

SFF cons aren't even a world I know particularly well - I attended, at the behest of my publisher, my first Eastercon in 2010, and as an unassuming-looking, straight, white male, I'm not going to encounter much, if any, sexual abuse directed at me. I am aware, however, that some serious incidents have taken place (and still take place) and in the past, they haven't been dealt with at all well, if at all. And that being a female con-attender carries with it risks that as a male con-attender I simply don't have to deal with. Even now, with a modicum of notoriety, I don't feel at all threatened when an embarrassed fanboy/girl gushes (and I do it to my heroes too) their admiration for my literary oeuvre.

Given all that, the narrative has grown that cons are a hot-bed of sexual abuse, that women con-goers should expect to be abused and take all precautions against it, and that male con-goers simply can't control themselves. In that context, Sarah's blogpost was deliberately aimed to undermine that narrative. And she caught a world of pain for it.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Hm. OK, I'm beginning to paint a little picture in my head. Basically, fuck Twitter.


I wonder if it is a bit of a pendulum swinging too far thing, though-- maybe the hysteria (and I know that's a sexist word, but if what you are describing happened, it sure fits) comes from experiencing or witnessing too many incidents where women tried to speak up about this kind of stuff and got shouted down. My hunch is that if the sensible people patiently work around the hysteria, the pendulum will reorient itself to somewhere more neutral.

So while I think your friend should be nothing but encouraged to celebrate those gaming men who treat their sister-in-dice as colleagues and compatriots- yes, please, more more more--we in the gaming community need to make sure that is not sued as evidence again ts the women who have experienced bad stufff.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

(Anecdotally, from longer serving fans, the UK is better than the US, but how much better and from what base is moot.)

---

I can believe that. ISTM that American misogyny leaning guys are much louder about protecting their privilege, and much more inclined to see boorishness as male prerogative. As evidence I invite you to Google "American radio morning shows."

Without taking back what I said about my general experience in cons, I can also say that I don't feel I really knew what the term "misogyny" meant until I became a gamer. That was the first time I met men who seemed to genuinely get off on making other women uncomfortable, and (Here's the real problem, I feel) men who were equally uncomfortable, but for some reason didn't have the stones to speak up and say, "Enough." The only evidence I had for a long time of anyone's disapproval was quietly whispered post game things like "Don't let X get to you, he only talks about wet pussy to get a rise out of you." Any attempt by women to set boundaries lead to immediate rebuke-- of the women. Those incidents happened in private homes, among (boy, what generous word I am about to use ) friends.What killed me is that all of the women in the group had been dragged there by their boyfriends, who expected their partners to adapt themselves to their gaming lifestyle, whatever their own interests might be.

And even the nicest of these guys shared the same weird trait-- when the women did get enthused- because gaming is fun, dammit-- and began creating kick ass characters, the guys would suddenly want to switch modules to one the women had never played. It was like they wanted us there, but always two steps behind.

OK, following my own advice, I will now relate the most awesome gaming story in my repertoire. One of the guys in our group wanted to run Shadowrun, and the pre-designed story he wanted to run began with a gang rape that we (a group of cops) were to encounter, He pulled the two women at that game aside ahead of time, and explained what was coming. He said if the motif bothered us at all he would alter it a bit. Because of his sensitivity, we trusted him enough to give him the green light.

So he sat down, and began leading us through the game. "Ok you guys are patrolling the street, and you look down an alley to see four teenage boys raping a girl."

Player Josh:"I get in line."

The other woman and I got up and walked out. My husband said nothing, I remember looking up at one of the guys in the group and hearing him say to me! "Oh come on! and angrily sighing. As we left the room we heard the book slam, but we pretty much thought we'd been successfully bullied out of the game.
Two minutes later Josh came in and mumbled one of those "I'm sorry if I caused offense" kind of apologies. We accepted (such as we could) but declined to return to the game.
Two minutes later the GM (Brian)came back. He was spitting mad. "Did he apologize?" he said, "Because I refuse to run the game unless he apologized."

So, according to my ex, that slam we heard was Brian slamming the book hard and saying, "That's it, game over."

And basically, one story like that can heal so much. I hardly ever think about Josh anymore, but I grew to really love Brian.

(The above is an accidental edit by Kelly Alves, and she composed all of the text except the portion quoted from Doc Tor.)

[ 13. August 2013, 22:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
DAMN!

Sorry, Doc Tor, I accidentally hit "edit" instead of "quote."

PM me what you wrote and I will undo the damage.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Hmmmm that, for a second, expanded my view of Doc Tor.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I was wondering which of my wise ass Admin buddies screwed with my sig.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
DAMN!

Sorry, Doc Tor, I accidentally hit "edit" instead of "quote."

PM me what you wrote and I will undo the damage.

---

You rolled a 1: critical miss

(the substantive part was simply a "hell yes" to the notion it's everyone's job to make sure Cons and gaming environments are harassment-free)
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
It was a quote of Kelly's previous last paragraph with Hell yes - pretty much, wasn't it?
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Also - never, ever, ever encountered a scenario like that in the decade I regularly gamed, in mixed groups. Damn...
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You rolled a 1: critical miss

---

Equal parts and

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Also - never, ever, ever encountered a scenario like that in the decade I regularly gamed, in mixed groups. Damn...

---

Welcome to the teeming world of wildlife that lives under the pretty moss-covered log that is gaming. ( I will say the guys that pull this kind of stunt are the kind of gamer you run into that makes you go,"Damn! This is the kind of freak Rona Jaffe was writing about!" In other words, their expressed attitudes toward women are merely one example of a general disconnect from reality.)


But perhaps that's part of the point-- how can you all help out with situations you haven't heard about? It's not so much the ladies blame you as they are counting on you.(I'll assume everyone is up to snuff, post-wise.)

[ 13. August 2013, 22:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0