On the instant messages, because I know how much people love to read other peoples’ IMs…
Published by Sid January 6th, 2008 in Stop the insanity, General. Tags: No Tags.http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/06/missing.hiker/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
10:50 AM my new blog post:
10:50 AM dear dudes: cut this shit out/ Kthxbai.
10:51 AM Seriously, aside from that chick in the southwest, who had the help of a bunch of dudes, women don’t do this shit.
Shas
10:51 AM so is the number one killer of women, men?
sid
10:51 AM um, yeah
10:51 AM think so
Shas
10:51 AM sounds like glaxo needs to work on a vaccine
sid
10:51 AM if you’re pregnant, they kill you
10:51 AM if you’re too mouthy, they kill you
10:51 AM if you’re “too pretty” and don’t give them the attention they “deserve” they kill you
Shas
10:52 AM not giving up the pussy…they kill you. and when you do, you’re a slut, and they kill you.
sid
10:52 AM if you make more money? kill you
10:52 AM if they go into gambling debt? They take out a life insurance policy on your ass and kill you
10:52 AM I mean, seriously.
Shas
10:53 AM thats not supposed to be funny, but uh…
sid
10:53 AM i know
10:53 AM i was looking at that too
10:53 AM funny. because it’s true. and so, so ludicrous
Sighs. So dudes? Talk to your dude friends, spread the word: Stop fucking murdering us!
Kthxbai!
You know, this whole conversation felt vaguely familiar to me. Here’s why–the ever-thoughtful Ding said it all (more seriously, and better) ages ago, so h/t to that.
Seriously! I’m so tired of this shit! But couldn’t have said it was wittily as you and Shas… um. I’m sure wittily is a word, somewhere.
Lol, I’m sure you could say it JUST as wittily, if not moreso. I’m pretty sure there are lots of women saying the same thing these days, too. Wish it weren’t so common that we end up thinking this way.
If I can talk them out of murdering me, I’ll put in a good word for you too.
Can you two come visit my women’s studies class? Those kids don’t seem to think there’s a problem. . . .
This is just symptomatic of a persistant and continually reinforced cross-cultural meme that not just accepts but normalizes male aggression, female submission and violence against women, despite decades worth of “social service” programs attempting to dismantle it.
There’s no clear answer to solve it, but *this* is why feminism exists.
You can’t get rid of violence against women without getting rid of violence period. If there’s going to be murder, women are going to be the victims sometimes.
I don’t think this is so much a feminist thing so much as a humanist thing.
Why can’t it be both?
There are THREE separate headlines on CNN today, all discussing the murder of women by men:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/07/poisoned.wife.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/06/texas.slaying.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/07/georgia.hiker/index.html
How many times do you see three headlines in one day about male violent fatalities at the hands of women?
I don’t see how it can’t be seen, by men and women, as a feminist/gender issue.
K: I know. I know. I find it horrifying so many people consider “feminist” an insult, or feminism somehow exclusive of male interests. What, did half the population spring fully formed from rocks?
You know how we can reduce violence against women? If we all stop saying dumb shit like “boys will be boys” and pretending you can’t address any part of a problem without addressing all of society’s flaws as a whole.
“If there’s murder, women are going to be the victims, sometimes.” Sure. It just so happens that those “sometimes” you talk about? Usually at the hands of men who are their intimate partners, or family members, or acquaintances. Of course men are also victims of violence, at the hands of their male peers. And we should probably also have concurrent conversations about that. That does not mean male-perpetrated violence against women can’t be affected by more discussion of pervasive, violent, negative attitudes about women between men. Especially considering the default attitude for many men is that women are inherently overreacting and/or hysterical regarding these issues, or again, in fact directly to blame for whatever befalls us. Men listen to each other in a way they don’t often listen to women. So yeah, I’m asking men to be a part of changing the discourse. Please and thanks.
Sid: This so directly connects to our conversation this weekend, doesn’t it. *sigh* Only now it’s gender, rather than race.
@Sid: I had to reread your comment a couple of times because I’m not so bright.
If your point is that the root-cause of women being murdered by men is because men value women, as a whole, less, I’ll buy that. Not because it’s true necessarily, but because I believe you know your stuff and are probably much better read than I on the subject. And if it is true, addressing those attitudes will result in fewer women getting killed. And that is the feminist angle–men’s attitudes towards women is responsible for the lion’s share of women getting murdered (as opposed to men who are murdered because…well that’s another discussion).
Furthermore, getting men to value women more is a worthy pursuit and has many benefits not related to murder rates at all. As such, you shouldn’t have to advocate this change in attitudes in a thread concerning violence against women. It should be the prevailing desire of this society to do so.
Do I have the basic outline here?
Dragonslayer: I still don’t understand why you seem to think acknowledging the disproportionality of violent acts against women by their male partners somehow negates the humanist approach of preventing violent acts as a whole. It’s true, the belief systems and institutional structures that perpetuate the idea that men must show aggression in order to be “strong,” hurt and oppress women *and* dehumanize men.
But when you’ve got multiple studies and reports that say somewhere between 12% and 25% of women worldwide will experience some form of sexual violence and that 4 of 5 stalking victims are female, then we’re talking about more than individual “attitudes,” we are talking about intertwining institutional, cultural and societal norms that devalue the lives of women.
“Furthermore, getting men to value women more is a worthy pursuit”
Sounds less like a worthy pursuit and more like an imperative task to me. But what do I know? I’m just a chick.
“Getting men to value women is a worthy pursuit and has many benefits not related to murder at all.” True.
“As such, you shouldn’t have to advocate this change in attitudes in a thread concerning violence against women. It should be the prevailing desire of this society to do so.” This is where you lose me. That’s a lot of shoulds and not a lot of action. Obviously, “should” isn’t working. People need reminders to do all kinds of things they should do, often, and loudly, until they start actually doing them.
And you still haven’t explained to me why that negates the need to have a discussion about gendered violence.
I have to hope you’re just trying to get a reaction. I forgive you.
I’m saying in many cases in which violence is committed against a woman, it is directly related to the fact of her gender, whether or not the perpetrator is an intimate or a stranger. I’m saying too often men use violence against women, or casual/joking threats of violence against women, as a bonding exercise. I’m saying I see a lot of men treating women and our bodies as meat to be hunted, gamed, penetrated, and thrown away rather than as human beings, let alone equals. I’m saying I hope those men not inclined to treat women this way start talking amongst themselves, often, about why so many of their brethren seem to think beating or killing or raping women is a legitimate recourse to rejection/debate/ financial instability, and maybe will even influence a few guys “on the fence” in the process.
But tell me this: Sarcasm aside, assuming you are not a misogynist, not inclined to reacting with violence toward women, how are you harmed by addressing negative attitudes when you encounter them (or in fact hindered from addressing violence in general on other occasions)? Or are you arguing you’ve just never heard a man use the phrase “Bros before hos!” or complain about how women are “bitches,” jokingly assert a woman should be beaten, raped, or otherwise threatened with gendered violence? In which case, lucky you. Must be nice.
@K: I’ll answer you first. I don’t. I find it fascinating that most violent crimes against women are committed by someone they know while men are more likely to be attacked by a stranger. Originally, I didn’t know that aspect was the focus of the discussion.
To me the humanist question is “why are men so violent?” That addresses the role of the attacker.
The feminist question is “why are women subject to violence from men?” That addresses the role of the victim. My original answer, though flippant, seemed on the surface correct: if men are violent, women will sometimes be victims. However, what I didn’t know, and apparently everyone else does, is the demographics and relationships to their attackers of female victims is markedly different from that of male victims. If women were just “victims sometimes”, you’d expect female victims to look roughly similar to male victims.
Sid is the one who got me to thinking about the gender differences in victimization is rooted in attitudes of men towards women. While it may seem obvious to you, because you read about and think about this stuff more often and with a more critical lens, it wasn’t quite obvious to me.
@Sid: My “should”s were my attempt to further understand your point. A wasn’t just trying to get a reaction. I don’t troll very often.
Honestly, I don’t know any guys who talk like that with respect to women. “Bros before hos”? Really? I’ve got a friend I grew up with whose language is rather salty, as they say. “Niggas” and “bitches” fly out of his mouth on the regular. And, yes, I have had to ask him to chill. We only hang once a year or so, so I don’t think I have much influence. I don’t know anyone stupid enough to suggest beating and raping women in even a joking fashion. Maybe I need to hang out with more guys.
But even among those who do not hold this attitude (or would ever express it), these gendered violence discussions do not take place. Let me give you a couple of concrete examples. Most of the women responding to this post know me personally and have had some level of face time with. Have any of us ever had this conversation face-to-face? I don’t recall it. Why am I the only guy in this virtual discussion now? Are no guys reading this thread? Are the already on the same page and therefore don’t see the need to respond. not even to smack me down? I suspect that most men, like I, have learned not to get involved in such discussions. Most men reading this thread think I’m a complete idiot and think I should shut the fuck up, not because of the content of my responses, like most women, but because I don’t belong in this conversation. Few subjects bounce a man out of a conversation faster than gender and feminism.
You are doing fine in the discussion Dragonslayer. I might have chimed in sooner had I seen the discussion sooner. I agree that men, in general, have no interest in entering a discusion about gender and/or feminism as they feel they do not belong there. There’s not much insentive to engage in a discourse where every listener will view your thought as wrong, typically before it is vocalised and attack it from their own view point right down to your word choices. It gets worse in this type of discussion when the media is involved as the root. You cannot tell me that media is not biased/flawed/inequal. Sadly alot of this discussion is based off media reports and the bias is compounded. No one has mentioned woman on man violence here, I assume it is statistically less significant but it does exist, even as soemthing like passive agression or crying which is largely viewed black mail these days. Only man on woman and man on man violence is mentioned here. That said, in one possible view, unless you are a total Bible thumper, it is worth weighing that humankind is in fact animal kind. As enlightened or educated as you are or would like to think of yourself as you cannot divorce yourself from that base no matter what your degree of civility. How quickly does man devolve to his base in say the New Orleans, post Hurricane Katrina Saint’s Superdome as a micro example. Sex in and of itself is also violent. It should not be considered else. Penetration is a requirement. Blood is always present in the coupling even if you cannot see it, even in the most gentle and loving of embraces. A partner is always persued. Initially becuase the potential partner looks like that which will satisfy a craving. Humankind would have to uncreate iteslf and reform itself as asexual beings to trully solve this issue to the noble satisfaction of the ideal being discussed. Men do discuss this too, men are compassionate to it, we have mothers and sisters that we think of, worry over, look out for and care for. Perhaps wrongly men see feminism as an attack on their roles to do just that as feminsim asserts that those provinces are womens responsibilities. Feminism says woemn do not need men to do (insert thoguht) for them. It is the resultant unraveling of traditional roles that feminsim requires that are largely objectionable to men as they also seemingly unravel the interconnected portions of the family structure that connects it to society as a whole. Men used to open doors for women, they used to think of their role as protector, provider, supporter and so on, they had a purpose to fulfil. Some how the wrong message came out of feminism to men that they no longer were wanted to do that. An attitude that men are little more than sperm donors came about. Without that sort of purpose being handed down to them from their fathers, or fathers who are no longer present, no longer required they have no role model for what a man is supposed to do in relation to a woman or part of a family. They just become free range males, they eat, they sleep, look to get layed, they fight, take insane risks, over indulge on intoxicants, as that is seemingly all they have to do. It shouldn’t be that surprising that men find it acceptable more than ever to say “bros before ho’s” and act out things like drinking a fifth of whiskey and then bragging about the ass they tagged last night or laughing about the bitch who was too good to give it up to them but went home with some metrosexual or bi-sexual who probably “eanted to be held” instead of him to their buddies before riding their motorcycles off to the diner for a garbage pale omlette and bloddy mary the next day so they’re feeling right to play pool that afternoon orpick up their kid from their baby momma. Argumentative I know, wholely true perhaps not, but to some degree right on the mark, definitely.
“No one has mentioned woman on man violence here, I assume it is statistically less significant but it does exist, even as soemthing like passive agression or crying which is largely viewed black mail these days.”
vi·o·lence
Pronunciation: \ˈvī-lən(t)s, ˈvī-ə-\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
a: exertion of *physical force* so as to injure or abuse (empahsis mine)
“Sex in and of itself is also violent. It should not be considered else. Penetration is a requirement.”
oral sex
Function: noun
Date: 1973
: oral stimulation of the genitals
“Feminism says woemn do not need men to do (insert thoguht) for them.” (sp)
fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests.
I’m done. My head hurts. Tomorrow I will be contacting the feminist men in my life and telling them just how much I appreciate them.
@Rob: I don’t believe that anyone in this discussion is using headlines as the basis of how violent men are toward women, but just in case I went and took a look at the numbers again. 2005 is the last year the DOJ published the violent crime stats.
If we look at violent crimes against women as a total, as of 2005, violent crimes rates against women are at an all time low coming off a 35-year peak in the early 90’s. Contrary to Sid’s assertion that whatever we are doing “isn’t working”, violent crimes rates against men and women have both fallen since 1994, but men leveled out after 2001 while rates against women continued to fall. In fact, the overall decrease in violence the greater population since 2001 is nearly entirely attributable to the decrease in violence against women.
If we look at murder in particular, the murder rates for women are down slightly over the last 30 years, with 2005 having the lowest rate ever. Women, overall, represent ~20% of all murders in 2005.
Still the oddball thing that sticks out to me in the data is, of the women that get killed, they are more likely, sometimes far more likely, to get killed by a spouse, boyfriend, parent or child compared to male victims. That bolsters Sid’s point that the underlying reasons why men kill women are different than why men kill other men and refutes my point that by addressing male violence overall would have the same effect on violence toward men and women. Instead, it suggests, as some of the women here have said all along that each gender victimization requires a different solution.
Thank you to K for providing the prefect example of exactly the thought I was proposing about why I felt men in general find no value in engaging in a discussion about feminism. Honestly, cherry picking concepts as targets, editing them to purpose and attacking them with dictionary like verbage that in some cases was potentially over 500 years old? Discounting the concept of the aggresive/predatory and violent aspects involved in female to male sexuality by using a single element of same sex coupling alone as the tool? The elements to the over all conversation I wished to add for consideration were that these types of tacts have the ooposite effect of what feminism is supposed to accomplish, instead of crossing a devide or building a bridge they build a wall where they intend to break down a barrier.
Thanks for the additional data Dragonslayer. I’ll add that to my thoughts. Off the bat I kind of feel like the reason for violence to women being perpetrated by a male in close proximity to her social circle is similar to the statistic that most car accidents happen within 5 miles of the home. It’s where you drive most. My thoughts on the media being worth keeping a suspect eye on in discussions in general and specifically here was not based on headlines but more on the bias of media to only use and sensationlise stories they can make the most money from, the media does not, in my view, reflect the reality of society on the whole. Not by a long shot.
Long time reader, first time commnter, blah blah.
I read the first few lines in Rob’s reply (sorry, but the big-ass chunk of text made my eyes tired) and I will say this. We all have a place in his discussion. As a guy married to a fine wife, a brother to an older sister, uncle to a niece, son of a mom, and friend to women young and older, I have an inherent interest in doing what I can to ensure those women I know live relatively safe lives, because I love them and don’t want to see them harmed. And dude, you did yourself a disservice with equating the female-on-male violence (which I’ve seen firsthand) with male-on-female murder. “Passive aggression or crying” does not equal female on male violence.
I am aware of the undercurrent of feminism, and embrace it for its goals. K already put the definition up, and I commend DS for coming in and participating, although you ARE bailing a bit quick, my man. These ladies aren’t attacking you, far as I can tell. You seem to be looking at it from a priviledged position, but you’re hearing it as to how you are.
There seems to be a pervading issue with violence towards women by men they know, love, and otherwise trust; the crux of the IM convo. No one denies that violence between individuals sucks, but the point that’s alarming to the women who are posting comments and such is that, when it affects women, it disproportionate carried out by men they know. No amount of stats really ahs an explanation, but feminism and other sociology points to a culture in which men aren’t really taught to value women as equals. You and me may be fine with women getting good jobs, equal pay, and all of that in the public sphere, but we both benefit from being dudes in not seeing that there’s as deep of a problem as there is because, well, we have a better chance of getting killed by complete stranger. I’m worried about that.
Sid’s issue is that the violence is not only tied to the relationship of men to the women they act out towards, but perhaps we need to figure out why women seem to be such a target for men. Do we see them as weaker? Is there something in the water that makes us think that it’s okay? And even with us and people like DS’s friend, we may not articulate it, but just what’s out there that’s making it okay for so many others to think that way?
As for why these discussions haven’t taken place between you and the ladies that you know, maybe it’s never come up? I’ve had this conversation with the one young lady who’s posted here that I know. I’d agree with Rob’s statement of “men have no incentive to be involved in these discussions” to this point: When you come into a discussion and you don’t feel you have the moral high ground, the bully pulpit, or otherwise outnumbered, you shouldn’t be arguing. You should be listening. Are not these comments valid? DS is responding and listening, and I have nothing but respect for that. Keep on discussion: talking about feminism should never be a “women win!” or “men lose!” It should be “we all win!”
How do we win? I have a couple of ideas, being that our current pervading cultural sociology doesn’t seem to be working in the aggregate. Every dude reading this could love women, but we that’s small crumbs compared to the population of dudes who have internalized and act out on these “women are below me” thoughts.
Forgive me. I typed a lot, and may not have actually come to the crux of my point. But I’ll throw this out there anyway.
*clap clap*
my sincere thanks Troyal–a well thought out post/statement.
Have you seen the latest? Not only are they killing us, now they are boiling and eating us. Great.
TRoyal, you are one of the men of the men on my list that I wanted to thank. So thank you, especially for your well thought out and reasoned post.
Rob: Your sweeping generalizations and well-worn gender stereotypes elicted my terse response.
@Sid - thanks for the shout out. and thanks for this post on gendered violence. the comments here have been really thoughtful and really succinct in laying out the questions.
kind of sideways to this discussion was a conversation i had with a man who worked in the chicago hate crimes commission. his job was to intervene in community situations where a hate crime had been committed. currently, hate crimes cover religion, sexual orientation, race and national origin but not gender. in our conversation, the agent told me that he’s always wondered why gender wasn’t covered by hate crime law. he said that, like sexual orientation or race or national origin, being a woman ain’t going away.
and, as with other hate crimes (whose main purpose is to intimidate or terrorize other members of the attacked group), don’t all these attacks on women serve as ‘warnings’ to the rest of us? for instance, wouldn’t the recent article about the D ramp at NY Jets games, and the widespread harrassment of women on that ramp, ‘teach’ women to stay away from that area? when reading an article about a woman disappearing or being assaulted or being killed, i can’t tell you how many times i’ve read comments that have said “well, what was she doing out so late?” or “she should have known not to go alone,” all of which puts the onus of the violence on the female victim, rather than the predator.
how many times have we seen a male victim of (male on male/woman on male) violence castigated for walking out too late or coming home drunk or being alone in a room? when has a man’s gender justification for the crime acted against him?
certainly, even on the blogosphere, guys flame on guys all the time. but if one compares the nature of their male/male vitriol to the filth that female bloggers or online personalities get, there’s no comparison. the threats(whether implied or stated starkly) attacks us in the most graphic and gendered of ways: with violent rape (and maybe a little murder thrown in).
anyway, clearly i digressed. but good post!
uh, that was supposed to read “when has a man’s gender been justification…?”
Jeebus, nothing is more frustrating than being too busy to take part in the conversation on your own damned blog.
K: Thanks for articulating so succinctly where this conversation frequently goes wrong: with a fundamental incomprehension of the terms and concepts being tossed around.
D: It’s a good thing you posted your follow-up, because honestly, my initial reaction to your assertion that you were ignorant of the statistics everyone else seems to know was: not everyone does know them, but a quick Google search can pull up the information in less time than it took to type your initial response. It’s by no means a substitute for in-depth research, but it has saved my ass a number of times when I thought I knew what I was talking about but wasn’t absolutely sure.
This brings me to my next point: Please take a moment to think about why you didn’t think any research would be merited before charging into this conversation to tell us wimmens we were wrong. I realize the tone of our IM was pretty flippant, but the subject is literally deadly serious. Would you have come off with that attitude in a group of your peers? Because that moment when you decide to tell me I’m foolish admittedly without having done any of the research yourself smacks of male privilege, and it’s insulting as fuck.
Point three: please direct your attention to Rob’s response to your comment, and his response to Keidra’s. You both presented facts that showed him to be blatantly in error in his…assessment. K didn’t pad out her response with niceties like you did, but she didn’t respond nearly as aggressively as she could have (and frankly should have, but I’ll get to that later). She was dismissed out of hand. You were dismissed as well, but with a degree of respect. And THAT is why I ended my post by asking men to fucking talk to their friends about this. There are plenty of men who WILL NOT listen to a woman’s argument if that argument ends with him being wrong.
As for your claim that you don’t know any men who would even consider talking about assaulting women, I’ll wager you do. They just haven’t leveled any of the misogyny at you because, you know, you’re a guy.
It is possible that none of the men of your acquaintance ever have or would, in which case, again, lucky you.
But thank you for at least bothering to reexamine your position. Incidentally, I wonder how much of the spike and subsequent declining stats for male-on-female violence have to do with how recently said violence has been criminalized. For instance, the first state law criminalizing marital rape wasn’t passed until 1976, and it took more than a decade for the other 49 states to follow suit. Anti-stalking legislation dates to the 1990s. Was the spike the result of an increase in punishable offenses? The decline is great. I’d like to think that’s a result of feminism raising awareness, but there’s a wonderful chance it’s more to do with stiffer penalties. Either way, I’ll take it. And now I have more reading to do.
Ding: Sigh. Anytime, lady. The shout-out was deserved. On the rare occasion I feel I can handle anything heavier than celebutards, I’m all up in your biz.
TRoyal–welcome! And thanks. What I perhaps should have clarified in my initial IM and subsequent posts is that I do believe there are plenty of men who love and respect women, and who have no problem relating to a woman as an equal. These are the men I want having a sit-down with their brethren.
Rob: Have you ever heard of a “come to Jesus” talk? We are about to have one of those.
I’m going to quote you in full and address your comments point by point. Rest assured, anything I say regarding your points are directly related to their merits, not my hormones, or your protrusions. I strongly encourage you NOT to look at what I am about to say and give up two responses in because your feelings are hurt. Reread what you said, and then read each and every one of my responses. This is not going to be pleasant for either of us, but it is abundantly clear we need to talk this through.
“You are doing fine in the discussion Dragonslayer. I might have chimed in sooner had I seen the discussion sooner. I agree that men, in general, have no interest in entering a discusion about gender and/or feminism as they feel they do not belong there. There’s not much insentive to engage in a discourse where every listener will view your thought as wrong, typically before it is vocalised and attack it from their own view point right down to your word choices.”
TRoyal explained it better than I could have. “As a guy married to a fine wife, a brother to an older sister, uncle to a niece, son of a mom, and friend to women young and older, I have an inherent interest in doing what I can to ensure those women I know live relatively safe lives, because I love them and don’t want to see them harmed.” You have a place in this discussion, because you have YOUR place because some woman gave you life. None of us exist without women. That alone should be incentive enough for you to listen, carefully, to what we are saying. That does not mean you have to agree with everything on its face, but you should at least be curious as to how so many of us could have the same things to say. Every listener will not view a man’s thoughts as “wrong before it is vocalised.” And if they attack what you say from their viewpoints, it’s probably because they have a viewpoint that comes from personal experience as opposed to, say, talk radio shock jocks.
As I said, rest assured, what I’m about to say is directly related to what you have in fact vocalized, and anything I disagree with, I’ll disagree with because it makes little to no sense, based on the evidence, history, and statistics, and not because I just like to call people with penises wrong. Pinky swear.
If I attack your word choices, it will be because those choices reveal an attitude that you claim you do not hold and yet the words you choose reflect that you do. We use words to express ourselves. I cannot see your noble shining heart or whatever; I can listen to what you say and how you choose to say it. If, for instance, you say you love and respect women and yet immediately dismiss the facts a woman presents you and tell her she’s wrong because you have a feeling she is and, by the way, you don’t want to play anymore? That’s you valuing your male hunch and ego over her daily lived experience and years of data backing her up. Full fucking stop.
“It gets worse in this type of discussion when the media is involved as the root. You cannot tell me that media is not biased/flawed/inequal. Sadly alot of this discussion is based off media reports and the bias is compounded.”
I can tell you that media is, at times, biased, flawed, AND inequal, regarding all kinds of things. See? We agree on something.
I’m assuming here that you are suggesting media disproportionately report on cases of men attacking women. Or that you are assuming that because we started this particular conversation due to one of the many recently publicized incidents of male-on-female violence, we aren’t basing it on anything else. I regret to inform you that it is in fact based on my own experiences with violence, my friends experiences with it, and the sad fact that I do not know a single woman who has had NO experience with violence in the form of rape, groping, battery, or stalking or worse, murder or attempted murder. I would love if this were all unfounded hysterics. It ain’t.
No one has mentioned woman on man violence here .
Male on female violence, particularly as it relates to relations between gender, is the only thing being discussed here right now. (In other words, I do not include a woman being gunned down as collateral damage in a male-executed drive-by in this discussion.) That does not mean I don’t believe female-on-male violence exists, and it does not mean I have no interest in discussing it. Feel free to start talking about that in informed, enlightening terms. Do not, however, live under the misguided impression that the fact that may also exist means that male-on-female violence does not, or that such petty shots will have a chilling effect on this discussion.
I assume it [female-on-male violence] is statistically less significant but it does exist,
1. It does exist. Yes, it is statistically far less significant, in terms of the number of men battered, and in terms of the number of men murdered by women. I think the reasons for this incongruity could come to bear on our current discussion, were anyone inclined to research and provide statistics. Look at that! Homework.
even as soemthing like passive agression or crying which is largely viewed black mail these days. Only man on woman and man on man violence is mentioned here
2. Please, reread that sentence. Your words. Your word choice. Crying and passive-aggression versus murder, rape, and physical abuse. (You stand by that? Because I am giving you a chance to admit that was possibly the most inappropriate, ridiculous, off-the-wall thing said on this blog, possibly ever, and I would like to remind you it used to host a talking slice of bread.)
Blackmail is not violence unless it involves, um, VIOLENCE. When you hear of anyone, male or female, being FUCKING CRIED OR “PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVED”
to bruising, to blood, to fucking death, you let me know. Okay? Until then, never, ever make this comparison again. Ever.
I can’t stress enough how goddamned offensive that comment was, Rob. The biggest thing you have to worry about is withstanding tears and a cold shoulder and you’re telling me to frame a discussion about murder, rape, and battery in a way that makes you comfortable? That is what we mean when we talk about your “privilege,” son.
That said, in one possible view, unless you are a total Bible thumper, it is worth weighing that humankind is in fact animal kind. As enlightened or educated as you are or would like to think of yourself as you cannot divorce yourself from that base no matter what your degree of civility. How quickly does man devolve to his base in say the New Orleans, post Hurricane Katrina Saint’s Superdome as a micro example.
What? No, seriously, what? You want to make the “man is nothing but an animal” argument? Is that what this is? And if so, what exactly are you arguing in the context of this conversation? That men are incapable of controling their urges? Wrong. We base our laws and society on the idea that we are capable of agreeing upon and understanding right and wrong, and acting accordingly, and the people who do not are called “children” or “mentally disabled” (and possibly also “drunk”). Next.
Sex in and of itself is also violent. It should not be considered else. Penetration is a requirement. Blood is always present in the coupling even if you cannot see it, even in the most gentle and loving of embraces.
and
Discounting the concept of the aggresive/predatory and violent aspects involved in female to male sexuality by using a single element of same sex coupling alone as the tool?
Do you realize you are arguing that all of your sexual encounters are not only predatory, but apparently exclusive of oral sex because you portrayed that as “same sex” coupling? Oh my Christ.
I’ve never same-sex coupled, but I’ve enjoyed non-predatory and oral sex, sometimes at the same time! Your perception of your sexual behaviors is not definitive acceptable practice to anyone but you. Remember when we were talking about being challenged for your word choice? I want you to think about why you feel non-predatory sex is not possible. For you. Because I categorically reject your assertion that it doesn’t happen for anyone.
A partner is always persued. Initially becuase the potential partner looks like that which will satisfy a craving.
Uh huh. But pursuit does not equal violence. Pursuit can become violent, but it is not inherently violent.
Humankind would have to uncreate iteslf and reform itself as asexual beings to trully solve this issue to the noble satisfaction of the ideal being discussed. Or we could, you know, sit down and talk about why some of us not only have but accept such fucked-up views of the act of sex, of the opposite sex, and of our potential as a species. I for one do not believe that effort and improvement is pointless because perfection is nearly impossible. But hey, do you.
Men do discuss this too, men are compassionate to it, we have mothers and sisters that we think of, worry over, look out for and care for. Perhaps wrongly men see feminism as an attack on their roles to do just that as feminsim asserts that those provinces are womens responsibilities. Feminism says woemn do not need men to do (insert thoguht) for them.
See Kiedra’s definition of feminism here. Feminism does not mean I don’t want a man to care about me. It doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate a held door, or the occasional dinner, or that I want to dress him in pink aprons and make him do my laundry. It means I want him to do those things because he respects and values me as a person, because I would do the same for him, not because it means I will fuck him after he does it three times. I went to great schools and I work. As a result, my worth, my ability to survive, will not hinge upon ironing your clothes and keeping my opinions to myself. It means I want to make the same money a man makes for doing the same job. It means that if I am harmed, I want people to ask what my attacker did, not what I did to bring it about.
It is the resultant unraveling of traditional roles that feminsim requires that are largely objectionable to men as they also seemingly unravel the interconnected portions of the family structure that connects it to society as a whole. Men used to open doors for women, they used to think of their role as protector, provider, supporter and so on, they had a purpose to fulfil. Some how the wrong message came out of feminism to men that they no longer were wanted to do that. An attitude that men are little more than sperm donors came about.
In my response to D, I mentioned how recently states criminalized spousal rape. Just over 30 years, Rob. In your lifetime, it was assumed that a woman had no legal right to deny sex because at some point, a man gave her a ring and his name. That’s not how you treat people. That’s how you treat property. Those are the good old days you’re recalling. It’s an extreme example, but it should illuminate pretty clearly why a lot of women aren’t in a rush to move back there. Those traditional roles you talk about didn’t work for a lot of people. And you know what? It did work for others, and nothing is stopping you from going out and finding one of them.
Without that sort of purpose being handed down to them from their fathers, or fathers who are no longer present, no longer required they have no role model for what a man is supposed to do in relation to a woman or part of a family.
Or you could engage the woman you’re interested in in conversation to find something that works for both of you. I’m just sayin’.
They just become free range males, they eat, they sleep, look to get layed, they fight, take insane risks, over indulge on intoxicants, as that is seemingly all they have to do. It shouldn’t be that surprising that men find it acceptable more than ever to say “bros before ho’s” and act out things like drinking a fifth of whiskey and then bragging about the ass they tagged last night or laughing about the bitch who was too good to give it up to them but went home with some metrosexual or bi-sexual who probably “eanted to be held” instead of him to their buddies before riding their motorcycles off to the diner for a garbage pale omlette and bloddy mary the next day so they’re feeling right to play pool that afternoon orpick up their kid from their baby momma.
So, your argument here is what now? That men are stupid, shiftless creatures who devolve into violence and vice if they don’t take on a stay-at-home wife and a couple of kids? That you lot cannot function without a carefully proscribed life trajectory? You’re incapable of adapting to shifting social roles? Seriously? I’m going to go out on a limb and ask you to step down as spokesman for men after that one.
Argumentative I know admission is the first step!
wholely true perhaps not Uh no.
but to some degree right on the mark, definitely. Which mark was that, exactly?
In painful conclusion, I say this: try entering these conversations with your mouth shut and your ears open. I have more to say, but I am genuinely fucking exhausted.
@Sid: Wow, and wow. This has turned out to be one of the bestest comments threads I’ve ever participated in.
I don’t have a lot of time, so I’m just going to address a couple of points.
I didn’t jump into the mix completely without looking at the numbers. After reading the IM post, I asked two questions: “Has there been a sudden uptick in women getting murdered?” and “Are women getting killed a lot?” So I went to the internets to find out. That’s how I found the DOJ. They make pretty graphs from the numbers. Anyway, the answer to both questions was “no”.
I couldn’t figure out the angle of the IM conversation, so I tossed off a flippant comment. I figured if the conversation was just idle chatter, it would drop, if there was something else there, we would engage. And engage we did.
My fault is that I didn’t look beyond those two questions and I didn’t think about the numbers at all. Since then, due to some pushing and prodding by the commenters here, I’ve spent a lot of time with the numbers and the white papers on gendered violence written by the DOJ and FBI. This is where these types of conversations get productive. The DOJ and FBI reports are all about interpreting the numbers but not about the “why”. I’m ready to pull back another layer. Now, I’m curious about the “why”. I know you ladies have some suggested reading on the subject, so feel free. Like, TRoyal, I have a vested interest in this.
The other point I wanted to address is the why the rates of violence against women peaked in ‘94 or so. I don’t know if it’s due to states changing the laws so much as women reporting it (of course, there to be a law for someone to report against). People in my age group were on the bleeding edge of “no means no”. When they first started preaching that, Sid, you were in what? First grade. I was in high school. Remember when they turned the spotlight on date rape? Remember when Dwayne Wayne nearly jumped through the sunroof of that dude’s car on A Different World when he was trying to date rape one of his female friends? I’m pretty certain I watched that episode in my dorm room. That shit had an effect on us.
You know when the kids affected by that preaching starting to hit the “real world”? About 1990. By the time ‘94 came around, we’d had a good decade of “no means no” and adults infiltrating the greater society who had been bombarded with it.
Dammit, I’m supposed to be on a conference call.
Dragonslayer: I know you’re looking for numbers, since you seem to respond stongly to logic, but I’d think engaging in conversation with the women that you know is just as useful. The fact that you can have this heated discussion without feeling personally attacked is heartening.
Hi Sid & Co. Thank you all for clearly pointing out your thoughts on what I wrote, that took alot of time and energy and thought and I appreciate it. I am going to review them more closely. I am sure there is more there for me & all of us than what I got out of it the first time through. I apologise to you & the gang for not taking the appropriate amount of care in crafting my comment more carefully, I did not guage the serious depth this discussion would we be taken at. That was inappropriate though I am glad I/we have come this far with it. When I wrote it I had finished reading DS’s comment where additional male thoughts seemed to asked for. I wrecklessly threw together some text on some broad generalizations that I had seen in and of the general male communities I have experienced. I meant to put forth for consideration a bunch of wrong thinking that I saw as obsticles and is sadly a reality of thinking in a note worthy portion of the male community, I think I suceeded there. One of the best methods for learning in a discussion is to debate on the side you least agree with was also my motive. I am not trying to distance myself from what I said, I said it and I will work with it here, however I do want to state that I do not personally think as or act on or own to the things I said in the comment. I am sincere in that I attempted to put out what I saw as obsticles, but then, obviously they came from somewhere inside of me which indicates some level of ownership on my part which disturbes me too. I thank you for pointing that out. I’ll get back to you on what my thoughts are on that one. If you or anyone feels it would be helpful or beneficial I will be happy to reply to Sid’s responses to my comment from where I felt they were coming from, but it will most likely just become a series of justifications or denials and become that which I was trying to illuminate as becoming an obsticle. This is a great topic, I think I know less on it or am less engaged with it than I thought I was, have picked up some good things here about it as well as with myself and am glad to be a part of the discussion. That aside, I am going to take your advice and take more of a listeners role in the discusion from here.