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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Rob: Your sweeping generalizations and well-worn gender stereotypes elicted my terse response.