Jump to content
IGNORED

Decriminilizing domestic violence


Lillybee

Recommended Posts

Kelya, thanks for these links, that expresses what I meant much better than I could (would quibble with the use of the term classism, but that is wildly OT so will refrain.)

The example of the black woman who had water thrown on her is what I meant too. That woman, it sounds like, was basically supposed to comfort and reassure the white woman that no, she wasn't a racist. Because the function of all minorities is to reassure the majority...

I have an example where this was handled, I think, in a good way. I was in a meeting where there were very few women and a lot of men. The (male) chair introducing the next speaker made a joking reference to pornography. Instantly a hand shot up on a point of order. It was the woman next to me. She said "can we leave out the blokey references to pornography? It is not appropriate and is making female comrades here uncomfortable." The chair said "That's noted. I am very sorry about that, it wasn't my intent. Won't happen again." A lot of men round the table were nodding and making notes. Her point was taken seriously. It was a case of the people with privilege not getting how their words could be seen as offensive and trying to rectify their mistake.

Personally, I don't agree with the comrade in question about porn, but I would 100 times rather she felt comfortable in a meeting than I get to hear a joke I find amusing. Likewise, the white woman can still have a laugh with the black woman, but now she should be better informed and know flinging water is a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Blackhawk, rather than nesting even more quotes, I'll reply here but I'm sure you remember what you wrote. I am really sad you accused me of sensationalising. Believe me, I did not. All I posted here about my relative's fate and her family life was the bare minimum. If I went into detail you'd have nightmares.

I think we are basically in agreement. But I respect deelaem and her POV. She is a radical feminist and her posts to FJ are blunt but bring an important perspective.

What I got from her post was that she felt really frustrated because nothing gets labelled important until men suffer. There's also a bit of the Sympathy Olympics in some of the responses to her. She is focusing on female sufferers of DV (still the most likely by a country mile to end up dead) and a lot of the replies she's getting are "You narrowminded cow, why don't you advocate for men too?"

I see this a fair bit in activism and we call it "whataboutery".

"Hi, I'm collecting to send medicines to Palestinian kids and...."

"Well what about Israeli kids who might be blown up! You don't care about THEM, do you! Personally I care about everyone so I won't be donating, goodbye."

Deelaem said she has no sympathy for male victims. That's more than just feminist advocacy against domestic violence. That is exactly what she said, show absolutely no sympathy for certain victims just because they have a damned penis! It's exactly the kind of feminism that is going to get us jack shit, how the hell is there going to be equality when we argue in favour of unequal treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deelaem said she has no sympathy for male victims. That's more than just feminist advocacy against domestic violence. That is exactly what she said, show absolutely no sympathy for certain victims just because they have a damned penis! It's exactly the kind of feminism that is going to get us jack shit, how the hell is there going to be equality when we argue in favour of unequal treatment.

How is it unequal treatment? This is the same issue Kelya pointed to. Men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence. They just are. Deelaem isn't interested in male DV victims...I don't agree with her, but she's allowed to not be. And, like her, and having stood over my relative's grave as she was buried, I focus on female victims too.

Another argument is...imagine the terms changed. Imagine you were telling black people "until you admit how much whites suffer you'll get nowhere" or "this is the sort of thing which puts whites off, this emphasis on black suffering, and you need their support". Those arguments sound weird and horrible, but it is the same thing. I don't mean at all to insult you or your character, so please don't think that is my intent. I just don't get why it is always the less powerful group's role to appease power and reassure power in order to get things done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come no one has said this yet?

Men are physically stronger than women. I couldn't beat up my husband if I wanted to. On the other hand, he could do serious injury to me, or even kill me, if he were a violent person instead of the gentle man he is.

A woman beating up a man. . . .well, the man can generally stop her. Disarm her. Walk out of the house. A battered woman doesn't have these options. If her man is blocking the door, she is going nowhere.

I am sure there are men who are so beaten down by emotional abuse that they allow the women in their lives to physically abuse them. But I rarely hear of a man being beaten to death by a woman, or being put into the hopsital by a woman.

I grew up with domestic violence so I know the subject well. Believe me, if my mother had been as tall and as strong as my father, there'd have been little or no abuse in our house. Nor would there have been abuse towards the kids.

It's like having a chld who is hitting you. Yes, they can hurt you, if they get a few good shots in. But it's unlikely they can do serious damage. The power differential is just different.

It is the physical strength difference that makes DV so terrifying and so disempowering. Come on, ladies, would you rather take a punch in the face from a man or a woman? It's just not the same.

You don't have to be weaker, you have to think you are weaker.

Go take a look at a self-defence class, if you don't get out with the feeling you can defend yourself from anyone (not pointing a gun at you), I'll take that back. you don't need to be stronger to defend yourself, you need to be in the right state of mind.

Not only men can be socialized to not respond to violence by women, but violence rarely happens out of the blue, there's a process of mental belittlement that happens.

A good friend of mine went from being a perky self confident woman to a total loser addicted to gambling games. Guess who knew all along she was gambling? Yep her nice husband that was belittling her at every opportunity : you're agrown woman why don't you work? you don't take care of our daughter like a normal mom does! My mom thinks you're such a failure, etc, etc. Once you get to this state, hitting this woman is easy. she has no self-worth left. Not an ounce. And when it would have been possible for her to stand up for herself, she ends up getting beaten from time to time, because he absolutely took all her self worth out of her.

If your mom had been physically stronger the same thing would have happenned. I'm sorry, it sucks what you went through, but maybe you can now realize that being a woman does not make you weaker, but being mentally abused does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come no one has said this yet?

Men are physically stronger than women. I couldn't beat up my husband if I wanted to. On the other hand, he could do serious injury to me, or even kill me, if he were a violent person instead of the gentle man he is.

A woman beating up a man. . . .well, the man can generally stop her. Disarm her. Walk out of the house. A battered woman doesn't have these options. If her man is blocking the door, she is going nowhere.

I am sure there are men who are so beaten down by emotional abuse that they allow the women in their lives to physically abuse them. But I rarely hear of a man being beaten to death by a woman, or being put into the hopsital by a woman.

I grew up with domestic violence so I know the subject well. Believe me, if my mother had been as tall and as strong as my father, there'd have been little or no abuse in our house. Nor would there have been abuse towards the kids.

It's like having a chld who is hitting you. Yes, they can hurt you, if they get a few good shots in. But it's unlikely they can do serious damage. The power differential is just different.

It is the physical strength difference that makes DV so terrifying and so disempowering. Come on, ladies, would you rather take a punch in the face from a man or a woman? It's just not the same.

Hisey, first of all, I'm sorry that you had to grow up in that environment. I grew up in a family affected by DV, and I know it is a terrifying experience.

I hear what you're saying, and everyone who has responded has covered a lot of how I would respond. But one thing I want to add is that domestic violence is rarely just the physical aspect, even though that is usually what leads to an arrest. Domestic violence is about power and control, and women can exert those over men in a variety of ways, including emotional control, threats to the children (including harming the children or taking them away), threatening to call the police if he fights back (since who would believe that he is the victim?), etc. The attitude of "well he could just walk away" or "only a weak man would be abused" helps keep abused men in these relationships - just like the same attitudes towards abused women keeps them from leaving their partners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this happens to minorities (women are a minority in terms of power if not numbers) ALL THE TIME. Issues that disproportionately effect minorities don't get attention until they're given legitimacy through the majority emphasizing. I'm gonna link to a friend of a friend of a friend's blog right here: http://radfemles.wordpress.com/2010/05/ ... ersations/

It's a classic, "I have a black friend and now understand what racism feels like!" move.

In my opinion, sexism is inextricably linked to why women are abused significantly more. Since I don't believe you can be sexist against men, (just like you can't be racist against whites and straight people aren't discriminated against, reverse -isms do not exist), whenever it is moved to include abuse against men in non specific domestic violence discussions, I feel that we get further away from addressing the root cause of domestic abuse and its disproportionate effects on women.

I'm trying to think of another example- okay, at a summer job, a white woman threw water on a black woman's hair. The black woman explained that black hair requires different care and that water damage to her hair was not a simple matter of blow drying and that she'd appreciate other forms of horsing around instead of water when necessary. (We were a summer camp.) The explanation was simple and concise and the black woman indicated she was welcome to questions. Instead of accepting the discussion and moving on, or asking more questions about black hair care or the history of black hair, the white woman immediately began to complain about how she didn't know and felt so bad and didn't mean to be so racist and on and on and on. The discussion was brought back to the white woman's emotions and feelings on the discussion, and the woman of color was put in the position to feel guilty or somehow obligated to comfort the white woman. The black woman's offer to educate and her feelings on the incident were shut out of the discussion.

That's what I feel happens with domestic violence discussions that are moved to include male victims without clear explanations of the numerical and root differences- we're brought around to focusing on men's emotions and men's positions in what is a predominately female victim group, shutting out those who who make up the majority in numbers, but the minority in power.

I'm trying to be as clear here as possible while explaining my post third wave/new wave approach. Please let me know if I can explain it better or in a different way. I'm not saying that other approaches are wrong, just that this is my approach.

Also, here is a link on reverse isms and why they don't exist, because this concept is a big barrier to many people: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com ... wards-men/

This is a great post, Kelya. And you're spot on with your sympathy olympics and whataboutery going on.

I especially agree with what you wrote here:

It's a classic, "I have a black friend and now understand what racism feels like!" move.

In my opinion, sexism is inextricably linked to why women are abused significantly more. Since I don't believe you can be sexist against men, (just like you can't be racist against whites and straight people aren't discriminated against, reverse -isms do not exist), whenever it is moved to include abuse against men in non specific domestic violence discussions, I feel that we get further away from addressing the root cause of domestic abuse and its disproportionate effects on women.

Also, when a woman kills a man in a dv situation, it's often because she's been subjected to ongoing, protracted abuse and at some point she "can't take it any more" and whacks him upside the head with a frying pan or shoots him or sets his bed on fire - you name it. That doesn't make it right, and it is possible that there were options that were available to her that she didn't take, or didn't feel she could take ("If I go to a shelter, he will track me down", or "An order of protection means nothing to him and he beat me the last time I got one") and hopelessness sets in and she ends up committing a terrible crime.

Now I'm specifically talking about murder in the context of dv here, not murder out of sheer evil which may have nothing to do with dv but more to do with money (getting life insurance $$) or freedom from the marriage (murder is preferable to divorce in some mindsets), or wanting custody of the kids without a fight in court, or whatever. Both men and women perpetrate these sorts of crimes.

My point was that domestic abuse has all sorts of victims, especially if we include the elderly and children, and we should be pushing hard to end it all. and that should be a common ground with which we all agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we also have to mention that sometimes it's more complicated than the man hitting the woman and thus the woman is the victim. In france I had neighbors like that... except the wife is constantly attacking him verbally all day long, she does not get medical help for her health (unrelated to be being hit - she nearly died of breast cancer because she waited for the last minute to get to the doctor her own doing not his) on time even if he keeps telling her he will take her to the doc. Some relationship are mutually toxic. Those couples would be better off divorcing, but they're old and it's not something they're supposed to do. Plus she never worked officially so no retirement for her! You just learn to take everything they say with a grain of salt, and try not to encourage the victimizing attention she is striving for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, in a large number of domestic violence cases, I can guarantee that there is a male victim, and this victim gets overlooked so much - a child. No matter if the abuser is male or female, if they are abusing their spouse, the statistic show they are more than likely abusing children in the home. If not physically, then the act of witnessing their mother/grandmother/father/grandfather/other caretaker getting abused is emotional and psychological abuse. Children who are abused or witness abuse are more likely to perpetuate the cycle.

Also, any statistics we have on domestic violence are never going to be the whole picture, especially when it comes to a situation where it's not the traditional man/woman dynamic. The APA and the DOJ both admit that domestic violence between gays and lesbians rarely gets recorded as such. Not to mention that families of higher economic backgrounds tend to get reported less often due to a myriad of causes, including simply they fact that they have better insulated houses or don't share walls with neighbors.

Arguing over some of this stuff is all well and good, but it doesn't do jack shit for the person who is BEING abused. To me, sometimes these arguments are kind of like saying you will pray for someone - all it does it make you feel good and superior for your POV and doesn't do jack shit for the victim. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that somewhere out there, while we are arguing, some woman went back to her abusive husband because a fundie pastor told her to be submissive. Some man likely is starting to engage in abusive behavior patterns because that's what his fundie church teaches is proper behavior for a man. Some gay adult son is being abused by his family because of his sexual orientation. And lots of men and women are not leaving abusive relationships because of fundie teachings of marriage.

If we have lost sight of that? Gods help us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to be weaker, you have to think you are weaker.

Go take a look at a self-defence class, if you don't get out with the feeling you can defend yourself from anyone (not pointing a gun at you), I'll take that back. you don't need to be stronger to defend yourself, you need to be in the right state of mind.

Not only men can be socialized to not respond to violence by women, but violence rarely happens out of the blue, there's a process of mental belittlement that happens.

A good friend of mine went from being a perky self confident woman to a total loser addicted to gambling games. Guess who knew all along she was gambling? Yep her nice husband that was belittling her at every opportunity : you're agrown woman why don't you work? you don't take care of our daughter like a normal mom does! My mom thinks you're such a failure, etc, etc. Once you get to this state, hitting this woman is easy. she has no self-worth left. Not an ounce. And when it would have been possible for her to stand up for herself, she ends up getting beaten from time to time, because he absolutely took all her self worth out of her.

If your mom had been physically stronger the same thing would have happenned. I'm sorry, it sucks what you went through, but maybe you can now realize that being a woman does not make you weaker, but being mentally abused does.

Sophie, trust me, I know this subject.

Obviously, being beaten down mentally affects your ability to defend yourself. But being beaten down physically does, too.

My mother entered her marriage beaten down mentally. That made it far more likely that she'd tolerate my father's abuse.

What I find interesting is this--no one is willing to acknowledge that physical strength, and being physically overpowered, is a significant factor in these relationships. You point to the less common situations--women that outweigh their husbands, shrimpy men, etc, and act like they are the norm.

Have you spoken to any women who experienced domestic violence? Many of them have experienced broken bones, aborted pregnancies, knife slashes, endless bruises--that is what they fear. And I know my mother did not fear being screamed at (that happened all the time) as much as she feared the physical repercussions that could land her in the hospital.

I think it is good to look at why you pretend that men and women are on an equal physical playing field. You pretend that being outweighed by 50 pounds in a violent relationship doesn't matter. You pretend that women fear being belittled, but don't fear a broken collarbone. Between the two, I would always choose the beltittlement.

Again, if you were being abused right now, would you rather be punched by a 180 lb man or a 130 pound woman? Size matters. It's not the whole story, but it is certainly a crucial factor. Experience it yourself before you say for sure.

I'm not that interested in convincing you, but I am interested in why we deny such an obvious and important factor in DV relationships. If my 7 year old was being beaten by a 14-year old bully, I'd certainly be upset about the size difference. I wouldn't think it was OK because he'd taken a self-defense class. I wouldn't tell him to be stronger mentally. I'd say, "Hey, that kid is 40 lbs bigger and is beating up on my son!"

Edited to add one last thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Come on, ladies, would you rather take a punch in the face from a man or a woman? It's just not the same.

:roll:

I have a black belt in martial arts; you wanna take a punch in the face from me or my computer game-playing brothers? Cause I'm damn sure I can do more damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bull, I'm white, and have been discriminated against because of it. An African American supervisor repeatedly tried to fire me. why, because the two guys she hired to work with me (both black) repeatedly physically threatened me and I dared to complain about it. Got to where I was afraid to go to work. The guy would actually stand there and brag about how he beat his wife, and wouldn't put up with anything from a woman. It wasn't until these guys threatened her, that anything was done. Found out later from a co-worker (black) that said supervisor had talked about trying to fire me because she wanted to replace me with someone black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hisey I'm not saying they're not fearing the big punching them, I'm saying the powerlessness does not come from being lighter, it comes in a big part from being belittled and mentally abused on a regular basis.

If the woman does not know how to throw a punch because she has not been socially "trained" to it, then yeah I'd rather be punched by the unsocialized woman. now if she took any lesson teaching her how to move her hips correctly to put power in her punches I may just pass on that ;)

You know, your discourse is exactly why men are often laughed at when they go to the police to make a deposition. The men think it's laughable that he could not defend himself against a woman and the women just keep in mind other women who feel powerless in front of a man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, it's true that SOME women are pretty strong, and possibly stronger than SOME men. But I still think that bringing up martial arts in this context is kinda bullshit. I'm a second degree black belt in tae kwon do. I can break a two-inch thick board with my fist. I'm also taller than the average woman and have longer legs and arms and broader shoulders. My TKD master used to say (with pride) "She can kill the average man!" Yep, I probably could. BUT. I still look around carefully when I go out in public. I don't want to be stuck in a room with a man I don't know. I use a lot of situational awareness.

Because the fact is, you can be as cocky as you want about your martial arts skills. You can still find yourself in a bad situation, as a woman. There are men I couldn't beat in a TKD match, that's for sure. If they have the same training I do, and they outweigh me by 50 pounds and are six inches taller than me, they are going to hand me my head. When you talk about martial arts outweighing physical size and strength, you're counting on the other guy not having any training and not being armed. You don't know that to be true in any random situation. The very first rule they teach you in a good martial arts school is to RUN AWAY. Avoid confrontation if at all possible. The best fight is the one you don't have to win because you don't ever get into it.

The subject at hand here is abuse by a husband or boyfriend. How many women in that situation are going to have martial arts training? I'd say the chances are slim to none. Abusers don't pick powerful women in the first place. Many men in such situations are ARMED. They have guns and make a point of telling the woman they will use them. My sister's ex was one such. He wore his gun at all times. True, a really good martial artist might be able to disarm a shooter. But fer cryin' out loud . . . abused women cannot be expected to be Jackie Chan. And abusers count on elements of surprise and shock. If they live with you, they can jump you when you aren't looking. And you can't be awake and vigilant 24/7.

Furthermore, abusers often use hostages. They threaten to kill your CHILDREN, your pets, your mother, your sister, anyone else who tries to help you. So are you gonna punch him in the face if the penalty might be the life of your child?

Martial artists are also taught to go for a one-strike victory, if possible. You don't want to get into those elaborate grapples and battles they love to show in the movies. You want to take him out with one blow. I could probably defend myself against a larger, stronger opponent--if I wanted to KILL him. Because that's what it might take to get away. Halfway measures will probably only make things worse. I hope no one is suggesting that most domestic violence victims are willing and able to kill with their bare hands.

And one more thing--abusers are often the ones who have some form of combat training, just as they are usually the ones who have the gun. There are many sad stories of men with some martial arts knowledge using that very thing to maim and damage their victims in ways that don't show.

Sorry for the rant. It's just something I happen to have personal knowledge about. The TL;DR version: I'm a black belt too, and I can't see how martial arts is relevant to the situation of the average domestic violence victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the fact is, you can be as cocky as you want about your martial arts skills. You can still find yourself in a bad situation, as a woman.

No shit. My point, specifically addressing Hisey, was that it's bull to say "men are stronger than women" and that you can safely assume a woman can't do as much damage as a man. Or that, because you rarely hear of men being put in hospital by a woman, it somehow doesn't matter as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it unequal treatment? This is the same issue Kelya pointed to. Men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violence. They just are. Deelaem isn't interested in male DV victims...I don't agree with her, but she's allowed to not be. And, like her, and having stood over my relative's grave as she was buried, I focus on female victims too.

Another argument is...imagine the terms changed. Imagine you were telling black people "until you admit how much whites suffer you'll get nowhere" or "this is the sort of thing which puts whites off, this emphasis on black suffering, and you need their support". Those arguments sound weird and horrible, but it is the same thing. I don't mean at all to insult you or your character, so please don't think that is my intent. I just don't get why it is always the less powerful group's role to appease power and reassure power in order to get things done.

She's allowed to be uninterested in male victims, and I'm allowed to call it what it is. Sexism. Just because a victim is male does not mean they don't deserve sympathy or help. Just because men are more likely to be perpetrator, does not mean the male victims need to be punished by being ignored.

Why the hell shouldn't we focus on all the victims, instead of just the subgroup we want to? What is that going to do? Nothing. It's like setting out to clean a room and only mopping the floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
Why the hell shouldn't we focus on all the victims, instead of just the subgroup we want to? What is that going to do? Nothing. It's like setting out to clean a room and only mopping the floor.

This is really close to home for me and I've typed up several responses and deleted them.

All abuse is wrong and I want there to be support and help and a way out for all victims, but most people have a finite amount of money and time. I don't see anything wrong with people directing their own resources to the places that they feel most passionate about.

A lot of resources that are available to women who are victims of domestic violence are there because other women advocated and raised money and lobbied and kicked and screamed for them. I don't think that women are sexist if they choose to help other women. I would like to see more men (some men already do) advocating for male victims of domestic violence instead of complaining that female feminists aren't doing it for them. I am not saying that is going on here, but it's not uncommon in other spaces that I frequent. No one person or group can clean the entire house alone, it's too big and too overwhelming. I think it's okay to pick a section that you're familiar with and clean it.

If a man has been a victim of domestic violence and he chooses to devote his time and money to helping other men who have been through similar experiences, I don't think he's being sexist for not helping women instead.

Some people focus their energy on working with abused children, some with women, some with men. I volunteer most often at an animal shelter and I get flak for that sometimes because I'm not helping humans. But I think that all of these things are worthy and deserving of time and devoted volunteers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really close to home for me and I've typed up several responses and deleted them.

All abuse is wrong and I want there to be support and help and a way out for all victims, but most people have a finite amount of money and time. I don't see anything wrong with people directing their own resources to the places that they feel most passionate about.

A lot of resources that are available to women who are victims of domestic violence are there because other women advocated and raised money and lobbied and kicked and screamed for them. I don't think that women are sexist if they choose to help other women. I would like to see more men (some men already do) advocating for male victims of domestic violence instead of complaining that female feminists aren't doing it for them. I am not saying that is going on here, but it's not uncommon in other spaces that I frequent. No one person or group can clean the entire house alone, it's too big and too overwhelming. I think it's okay to pick a section that you're familiar with and clean it.

If a man has been a victim of domestic violence and he chooses to devote his time and money to helping other men who have been through similar experiences, I don't think he's being sexist for not helping women instead.

Some people focus their energy on working with abused children, some with women, some with men. I volunteer most often at an animal shelter and I get flak for that sometimes because I'm not helping humans. But I think that all of these things are worthy and deserving of time and devoted volunteers.

People don't have a finite amount of sympathy though. Except for Deelaem who apparently doesn't have enough sympathy for all victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I don't believe you can be sexist against men, (just like you can't be racist against whites and straight people aren't discriminated against, reverse -isms do not exist)

I don't understand this at all. Just because society, taken as a whole, does not tend to discriminate against straight people, white people and men, does not mean that there are not situations, circumstances, places and areas where males are discriminated against versus females, whites are discriminated against versus minorities, and straight people are discriminated against. It happens. Just because it's not the dominant type of discrimination doesn't mean that those who are discriminated against in these cases don't face the same problems, on an INDIVIDUAL level, as those who are discriminated against in the usual ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is reference to groups, NOT individuals. And about history. Historically, women and people of color have been the groups who were marginalized, and therefore powerless, and still have not gained power on equal footing with white men. Powerless groups cannot discriminate against the group with the power, obviously. I'm reasonably sure that's to what Kelya was referring.

A discussion of groups vs. individual anecdata is apples and oranges. Of course, there are going to be exceptions, especially in a time of transition such as now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Demgirl, who on the thread has denied individuals may be personally discriminated against? We are talking about groups of people who face persistent discrimination against them in society, and it's a fair bet that none of these groups include straight, white, middle class American men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is reference to groups, NOT individuals. And about history. Historically, women and people of color have been the groups who were marginalized, and therefore powerless, and still have not gained power on equal footing with white men. Powerless groups cannot discriminate against the group with the power, obviously. I'm reasonably sure that's to what Kelya was referring.

A discussion of groups vs. individual anecdata is apples and oranges. Of course, there are going to be exceptions, especially in a time of transition such as now.

Pretty much exactly this. The idea that an "ism" needs both prejudice (which everyone can have) and power (which everyone can't have) gives a good framework.

Racism=Prejudice+Power. White people can be racist because they can be prejudiced against people of color and historically and currently had the power to shape a culture that reflected this. People of color who hate white people are prejudiced, not racist, because they lack the power to make a culture that discriminates against white people, due to current and historical power imbalances. So if Sexism= Prejudice+ Power, women can most certainly have the prejudice, but also certainly lack the power to make that prejudice an institutionalized part of society and culture.

This is a third wave/post wave feminist concept and it relates heavily to intersectionality, which I think is a bit outside of the goal for this post, but anyone who is further interested should look at the shakesville, especially their feminism 101 posts: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/ ... m-101.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read this whole thread but I think at some point in every discussion like this, some needs to post this. "But what about the men?"

Selected probably applicable quotes.

What’s wrong with saying that things happen to men, too?

Nothing in and of itself. The problem occurs when conversations about women can’t happen on unmoderated blogs without someone showing up and saying, “but [x] happens to men, too!†(also known as a “Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too†or PHMT argument, or a “What About The Mens?†or WATM argument). When this happens, it becomes disruptive of the discussion that’s trying to happen, and has the effect (intended or otherwise) of silencing women’s voices on important issues such as rape and reproductive rights.

What it boils down to is this: Men, not women, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss men’s issues. There are a lot of feminist allies who do this, in fact, and there also a lot of non-feminist (or anti-feminist, if you really want to go there) spaces that are welcoming to this kind of discussion. Thus, the appropriate response to a thread about women is not to post a comment on it about men, but rather to find (or make) a discussion about men
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read this whole thread but I think at some point in every discussion like this, some needs to post this. "But what about the men?"

Selected probably applicable quotes.

But this post in it's originality was not about women or men. It was about the decriminalization of misdemeanors, of which Domestic Violence is considered. It was not about how they are only decriminalizing DV against women, it was not about how they are taking away woman's rights or anything directly about women.

This board is not a full female only board, it should not be and hopefully never will be. The issues discussed here are not solely female issues. I'm sure there are many boards for that, this one, as far as I understand it, is not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only that, but it was never a "but what about the men" argument, it was pointing out that men also suffer from the same thing. As others have pointed out, there's a real lack of resources to help men, and sexist, patriarchal attitudes also hurt men who are in this situation. This isn't like the "but white people experience racism too" arguments that turn the real situation around so you don't focus on who is really the victim, this is something where both men and women can suffer from the same thing. No one is ignoring women and the fact that most victims are women, it's just that we don't have to limit who we can feel sympathy for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, in a large number of domestic violence cases, I can guarantee that there is a male victim, and this victim gets overlooked so much - a child. No matter if the abuser is male or female, if they are abusing their spouse, the statistic show they are more than likely abusing children in the home. If not physically, then the act of witnessing their mother/grandmother/father/grandfather/other caretaker getting abused is emotional and psychological abuse. Children who are abused or witness abuse are more likely to perpetuate the cycle.

I know someone whose mother was in charge (mental illness, verbally abusive at times, sometime even physically abusive toward the husband) and the fear of becoming someone like that affected her so much that she actually overcompensated for it in her own marriage. She sometimes let her husband be disrespectful and mean because she didn't want to end up making those same mistakes. She has a hard time standing up for herself without feeling like she's an asshole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.