Should women be treated more leniently in regards to violence (especially against men)?
Yes, men are generally bigger/stronger/tougher. They should be held more accountable for violence than women.
1.4% (6)
1.4% (6)
Yes, women are more likely to be victims and shouldn't be punished for being proactive and asserting themselves.
0.2% (1)
0.2% (1)
No, violence is violence and should never be tolerated regardless of physical traits.
53.8% (224)
53.8% (224)
No, women shouldn't have any more rights than men. It's biased and unfair.
27.4% (114)
27.4% (114)
Maybe, depending on context (size/strength, alcohol, emotional distress, weapons, provoked/unprovoked, etc).
12.5% (52)
12.5% (52)
I'm a drooling fuckwit and I don't care.
3.8% (16)
3.8% (16)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Biased Gender Politics and Violence

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Matthew94:

No, that's not what I meant.

What I meant is that feminists are clawing to get to the top but they don't seem to want to fix what is going on in the bottom.

In the UK men account for 97.4% of workplace deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_safety

This source says men comprise almost 2/3 of all homeless people.

http://www.humanneeds.vcu.edu/Page.aspx?nav=29&scope=0&source=13

True, but those things aren't caused by feminism.

The workplace deaths thing is caused by societal expectations which dictate that these more dangerous jobs are "male." The same expectations that feminists oppose and seek to remove, so I don't really see what point you're trying to make? According to feminist ideals, women would be just as acceptable as, say, construction workers, as men. No feminist is trying to keep women away from these jobs, quite the opposite in fact.

The homeless statistic is more relevant however. I'm obviously not an expert, but I'd imagine the lack of male shelters is a factor, so yes that's something that should be addressed.

Of course, the real priorities in these cases should be to reduce workplace deaths and homelessness, regardless of gender.

Good lord... How about "real life violence is bad, end of story?"

A woman beating a man is the same as a man beating a woman. If you're about to tell me how wrong I am, give me a minute.

It's the same in the vaguest sense; it's violence. Each case should, of course, be judged on it's own. There are reports of women doing horrible things to men. And yeah, statistics show that more men are violent and I believe that. All the same, though, violence is bad! It's bad! No, violence! BAD VIOLENCE! Violence, of any form, should be left to fiction (in an ideal world).

But this is NOT and ideal world so if a woman tries to stab you, you do what you'd do if a man tried to stab you; get out of the fucking way and hit them until they stop moving. Or run away. I don't know, something to save yourself.

Matthew94:

occamsnailfile:

The fact that underclass men continue to hold the majority of the scraps even at that level is in fact considered part of the problem. It means that women at the lowest rungs of society have even less support or ability to escape an abusive relationship.

Wow. Did you just say because more men are at the bottom rungs of society, they need more help and that is a problem for women?

That's not what I read.

What I see here is "Because even at the bottom rungs of society, men tend to have more of the money and power. Women at the same rung have even fewer resources than women of "higher" stations, so it's that much harder for them to escape abusive relationships."

Nothing was said against men. Seems to me it's simply stating that in lower socioeconomic groups, the power differential between men and women tends to be more dramatic.

(If I have a million dollars, and you have ten million dollars, it's numerically a huge difference... but in terms of status, it's not big at all. I have all the money I need to do what I want, regardless of the fact that you have ten times as much money.

If I have five hundred dollars, and you have a thousand, though. Sure, it's only twice as much, and even then only in the amount of $500 difference... but the difference is far greater in terms of who has the power. I could afford rent, and that's it (if even). You could afford rent and a car payment.

That's the principle I believe Occam is talking about)

Matthew94:
No, that's not what I meant.

What I meant is that feminists are clawing to get to the top but they don't seem to want to fix what is going on in the bottom.

In the UK men account for 97.4% of workplace deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_safety

This source says men comprise almost 2/3 of all homeless people.

http://www.humanneeds.vcu.edu/Page.aspx?nav=29&scope=0&source=13

Not usually directly, no.

The citations given for workplace safety didn't work so I can't really say where they got their stats from. But feminists have been quite active in ending the discrimination against women working in more dangerous professions (mining and the military come to mind) and also dealing with the sort of mindset that says men should be willing to put themselves in danger. With mixed success, though.

As to homelessness in the US, I can't really say. I had thought there were more veterans in there though.

Colour-Scientist:

Since when does complaining about men being evil equate with feminism?

Because that's usually the first thing they say when you ask why they think the way they do. They see anyone with a penis as pure evil in human form until they can prove otherwise, and seem to think they should be treated as second-class citizens because of that.

They're no better than the male-centric sexists of 20-40 years ago.

Colour-Scientist:

So, I identify as a feminist and I want gender equality but by your broad interpretation of what feminism is I'm obviously lying to myself.

You'd be in the former group then. The definition of feminism has changed 100% thanks to the extremists, and if you truly believe in equality for women you probably shouldn't identify yourself as one of the radicals that think having a Y chromosone makes you the devil incarnate and want to make men second-class citizens because of that thought.

Contrary popular belief, women are actually worse than men when it comes to abusing their partners or stalking people. Which is another reason why women shouldn't be treated any different from men when it comes to stuff like this.

Violence is violence. End of story.

I_am_a_Spoon:

My mum is a die-hard feminist, and used to yell at me as a little kid if I ever touched my sister even a little roughly (as kids do).

If your sister was acting like you say she did and your mom said there was no defending yourself "cuz she's a girl", then she's not a feminist. She the female equivalent of man-chauvinist. Two VERY different things.

TestECull:

Colour-Scientist:

Since when does complaining about men being evil equate with feminism?

Because that's usually the first thing they say when you ask why they think the way they do. They see anyone with a penis as pure evil in human form until they can prove otherwise, and seem to think they should be treated as second-class citizens because of that.

They're no better than the male-centric sexists of 20-40 years ago.

Colour-Scientist:

So, I identify as a feminist and I want gender equality but by your broad interpretation of what feminism is I'm obviously lying to myself.

You'd be in the former group then. The definition of feminism has changed 100% thanks to the extremists, and if you truly believe in equality for women you probably shouldn't identify yourself as one of the radicals that think having a Y chromosone makes you the devil incarnate.

As corrupted as the term "feminism" has become for people like, say... yourself, I'd say it's about time it got replaced with something like "equalist", or whatever sounds the best.

Eamar:

True, but those things aren't caused by feminism.

The workplace deaths thing is caused by societal expectations which dictate that these more dangerous jobs are "male." The same expectations that feminists oppose and seek to remove, so I don't really see what point you're trying to make? According to feminist ideals, women would be just as acceptable as, say, construction workers, as men. No feminist is trying to keep women away from these jobs, quite the opposite in fact.

The homeless statistic is more relevant however. I'm obviously not an expert, but I'd imagine the lack of male shelters is a factor, so yes that's something that should be addressed.

Of course, the real priorities in these cases should be to reduce workplace deaths and homelessness, regardless of gender.

They said men dominate every rung of society. I was simply pointing out that the reality was less than peachy and it isn't straight up "men have the power, women don't". I never said it was caused by feminism.

I do agree with your last sentence. My overall point is that feminists don't seem to care that much about the lower rungs of society as there is little to gain for women by improving the conditions of those who inhabit the "lower class".

Soraryuu:

As corrupted as the term "feminism" has become for people like, say... yourself, I'd say it's about time it got replaced with something like "equalist", or whatever sounds the best.

I'd be fine with that. Seperates the extremist fuckwads from the sensible folk that just want gender equality quite nicely.

Matthew94:

That sounds like the "no true scotsman" fallacy to me.

I'm just saying, when it comes to the news and feminists on television it's always "men are the aggressor, females are the victim" for everything. If men are the party doing worse like in education the blame is put on men and people say that women are much better when it comes to education.

"No true scotsman" isn't always a fallacy, as it were. The term "feminism" originated as meaning someone fighting for gender equality, not for a matriarchy. It's only more recently that the term has come to mean that, and even then it's not true to the actual movement.

In my opinion, the actual movement really should be called something along the lines of "equalism", as now a lot of people are of the false belief that feminism = "men are pigs".

Matthew94:
I do agree with your last sentence. My overall point is that feminists don't seem to care that much about the lower rungs of society as there is little to gain for women by improving the conditions of those who inhabit the "lower class".

Not entirely true. Like most activist groups, far too many feminists care about the lot of people like themselves. Middle class white feminists tend to care about middle class white women, for example.

However, although there are more of them than there should be, they aren't really representative of feminism as a whole.

Hell, if nothing else, there's plenty of feminists on the bottom rungs of society as well, they've certainly got an interest in what happens there.

There's feminism and then there's women who think they've been mistreated and should therefore have more rights than anyone else, all under the guise of feminism.

Feminism= GOOD
That other one that's not feminism but pretends it is (needs a name)= BAD

I_am_a_Spoon:
I recently read an article on domestic violence, and was a little annoyed to see that every case mentioned involved violence by a abusive husband against a defenceless wife.

Growing up on Marine Corps bases, I can tell you that domestic violence against men is every bit as common as violence against women. But there are a number of societal norms that perpetuate myths to the contrary.

1. Especially among groups like Marines, a man would be incredibly embarrassed to come out and say, "My wife smacks, bites, and scratches me, and I need help." So, in most cases, they don't. The unexplained marks are just attributed to "guy stuff."

2. When they do open up about, they're told things like, "Man up," or "Just do something about it," or simply laughed off. No one recognizes that it creates a hostile and stressful home environment, or that the physical harm is in any way serious.

3. Because of society's view that women are more apt to be victims, they more actively search out violence against women. And it's happening, so if you look for it, you will find it. And it's awful. But we're not as actively searching out the violence against men, so we don't seem to see as much of it.

4. What's more, when a guy does speak up, too many people see it as a man trying to "steal attention" away from violence against women. He's shot down as faking, lying, whining, or he's made out to be the abuser (emotionally or physically) in order to preserve the status quo. That means the guy is being marginalized and ridiculed by both sides (the "man up" side, and the "only women get abused" side).

5. Alongside this, there seems to be a major cultural assumption that if a woman hits a man, it's because of something he did. He cheated on her. He forgot something important. He mentioned her weight. Something, surely -- I mean, why else would she be so mad she'd hit the guy? We don't just "not believe" him, we pre-blame him for the violence.

These factors ensure that fewer men come forward, which means there are even more eyes watching the few that do, which makes the backlash against them even harder, which means even fewer want to come forward, which means... you get the idea. It's a cycle that works via the exact same mechanism as the horrible "Blame the Rape Victim" mentality, and the emotional reactionism makes any intelligent discussion of the matter impossible.

Here's some interesting facts about the other side of this (and this is from back in 2005):

Myths about Domestic Violence Against Men

Should not, but they are.

occamsnailfile:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

occamsnailfile:
Wow, what a complete and total misunderstanding of "feminism" or what the word actually means to people who use it. It's true that a lot of feminist discourse discusses issues of power through the term "patriarchy" but that's because men do still hold a great deal more power, money, and influence in society than women, and the reasons for this are not based on merit but on gender constructions that cause problems for everybody.

So, why do they hold a great deal more power, money and influence? This should be fun.

Educate yourself, don't ask a woman to do your work.

You made an assertion, somebody called you out on it. Back it up, explain it. It's so arrogant to assume that everyone else is going to come to the same conclusion as you did.

Evilpigeon:
You made an assertion, somebody called you out on it. Back it up, explain it. It's so arrogant to assume that everyone else is going to come to the same conclusion as you did.

Er, she wasn't called out on the accuracy on what she said, someone demanded that she explain the reasons for things being they way they are.

That's not the same thing at all.

Personally as an egalitarian I believe that NO ONE should hit anyone else regardless of gender identity/sex organs UNLESS it is all consensual and something in like BDSM. However getting into that exception there will derail so quickly... I believe that either women need to get harsher punishments in the legal system or men need to receive less harsh punishments. It isn't fair that two people can commit the same act of violence and one receives a harsher punishment because of their gender. Because they are supposedly the "stronger one". That's horseshit. Yes, some men are stronger than women and some women are stronger than men. And I don't believe race should ever determine sentencing either because I KNOW it does sometimes. I wish the definition of rape was worded in a way that said a woman can rape a man or another woman. The official definition says only men can. Or anyone with male genitalia.

I think violence should only be used in self defence and people who use it as such shouldn't get sent to prison if they are trans (yes it happens, look it up). And yes, I know, anyone can claim self defence but facts should be looked at not just if they are a minority, a woman, a man, etc. I do NOT believe that one gender or one race is genetically more violent. I believe everyone is capable of the same amount of violence but what will usually bring it out is their situation.

ninjaRiv:
There's feminism and then there's women who think they've been mistreated and should therefore have more rights than anyone else, all under the guise of feminism.

Feminism= GOOD
That other one that's not feminism but pretends it is (needs a name)= BAD

I've always called them feminazi's.

Equalist= Equal rights for all.
Feminist= Equal rights for women (not sayings others don't needs them but it's just focusing on one thing at a time).
Feminazi= The outspoken sexist man hating group.

Saying all feminist are bad because of one outspoken group is like saying christianity is represented by the Westboro Baptist Church.

OT: You shouldn't hit a girl because you shouldn't hit anyone. If someone does hit you, you should be allowed to defend yourself and they should be punished the same regardless of gender.

occamsnailfile:
Educate yourself, don't ask a woman to do your work.

I'm just going to assume you don't have a point.

Don't make posts on internet forums stating claims if you refuse to back them up. I am well educated, thank you very much.

By the looks of it, I'm probably more educated than you on this particular subject.

thaluikhain:

Evilpigeon:
You made an assertion, somebody called you out on it. Back it up, explain it. It's so arrogant to assume that everyone else is going to come to the same conclusion as you did.

Er, she wasn't called out on the accuracy on what she said, someone demanded that she explain the reasons for things being they way they are.

That's not the same thing at all.

"and the reasons for this are not based on merit but on gender constructions that cause problems for everybody."

As I read it she was called out for this assertion. The bit about there being more men in high end jobs is true but the quoted part is open to debate (I don't have an opinion to be honest, this isn't a subject about which I'm knowledgeable. The arrogance of the statement annoyed me.)

A few months ago, while in the library of my Christian college, I said something a girl didn't like and she slapped me across the face. We aren't friends, but we move in the same friend circles. Regardless, she thought she had the right to lay hands on someone she barely knew. My blood boiled, but I stayed my hand and my tongue because I knew that if I did anything in retaliation, the people in the talking circle would instantly side with the small, cute, South Korean girl over me. I never brought it up to her, hoping I could just finish school and never give her the opportunity to disappoint me again.

A couple of months later, I ended up in a conversation with her about how wrong it was for me to touch another girl's hair without her permission (which I agree with, it was wrong, not THAT wrong, but I shouldn't have invaded her personal space). We went back and forth in a discussion about rights and then disengaged to get back to what we were doing. The next day she sends me a Facebook message telling me to read her latest status update about a guy who hit on her at the grocery store, saying it's indicative of how men should treat women better. I wrote a reply saying I didn't think it was wrong for a man to ask a woman out, that she acted like men owed women something by virute of their gender differences alone, and that it was funny that a girl who slapped me had a problem with me touching another girl's hair.

Her reply? "I will admit that it was perhaps less than appropriate for me to slap you, however, should you wish to avoid being slapped by girls, you should probably be less rude/provocative." So, pretty much the same as, "Why does my wife make me hit her?"

I'm opposed to all violence. All of it. Never solves anything. Don't use violence to stop or prevent violence. But feel free to educate, harshly, those that believe they have the right to use violence to get what they want, be they male or female. And yes, the fact that I've never heard of a feminist lobbying for harsher penalties for female domestic abusers, never heard of one arguing that rape laws should be changed so that women could be charged with raping a man, never heard of a woman marching on Washington for her right to be required to register for Selective Service so that she might be drafted into a war she doesn't want to fight and possibly die in, is what makes me reject the label of "feminist". I'm pro equal rights instead.

Also, Andrea Dworkin said that women deserve their own country as recompense for the evils visited upon them by men, so I'm never going to be a part of the movement she was in when she spoke those words.

thaluikhain:

Evilpigeon:
You made an assertion, somebody called you out on it. Back it up, explain it. It's so arrogant to assume that everyone else is going to come to the same conclusion as you did.

Er, she wasn't called out on the accuracy on what she said, someone demanded that she explain the reasons for things being they way they are.

That's not the same thing at all.

Why things are the way they are is the most important thing in this debate, because it also helps solve the problems.

TehCookie:

ninjaRiv:
There's feminism and then there's women who think they've been mistreated and should therefore have more rights than anyone else, all under the guise of feminism.

Feminism= GOOD
That other one that's not feminism but pretends it is (needs a name)= BAD

I've always called them feminazi's.

Equalist= Equal rights for all.
Feminist= Equal rights for women (not sayings others don't needs them but it's just focusing on one thing at a time).
Feminazi= The outspoken sexist man hating group.

Saying all feminist are bad because of one outspoken group is like saying christianity is represented by the Westboro Baptist Church.

OT: You shouldn't hit a girl because you shouldn't hit anyone. If someone does hit you, you should be allowed to defend yourself and they should be punished the same regardless of gender.

You said it better than I ever could. Would you mind being my communicator from now on? lol

aprilmarie:
I wish the definition of rape was worded in a way that said a woman can rape a man or another woman. The official definition says only men can. Or anyone with male genitalia.

Ummm... no it doesn't? A quick visit to Wikipedia reveals to me that:

United States Federal Law [Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 47X, Section 920, Article 120] defines rape as:
(a) Rape.- Any person subject to this chapter who causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by-
(1) using force against that other person;
(2) causing grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnaping;
(4) rendering another person unconscious; or
(5) administering to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;

What definition are you using?

EDIT: I posted the US law because you're American according to your profile, but I'm pretty sure other Western nations use similar definitions.

aprilmarie:
I believe that either women need to get harsher punishments in the legal system or men need to receive less harsh punishments. It isn't fair that two people can commit the same act of violence and one receives a harsher punishment because of their gender. Because they are supposedly the "stronger one". That's horseshit. Yes, some men are stronger than women and some women are stronger than men. And I don't believe race should ever determine sentencing either because I KNOW it does sometimes. I wish the definition of rape was worded in a way that said a woman can rape a man or another woman. The official definition says only men can. Or anyone with male genitalia.

Probably in part just the usual knee-jerk reaction.

Massive amount of sexual violence by men against women, so they rev up the punishment for any violence by men against women in lieu of reducing the amount of crimes.

Same thinking that sees politicians calling for harsher penalties for, say, grafitti, because the police are too busy dealing with real crimes to chase grafittists.

On top of that, "benevolent sexism" (a technical term, though it's ultimately malign) thing based on the idea that women weak and powerless.

Eamar:

aprilmarie:
I wish the definition of rape was worded in a way that said a woman can rape a man or another woman. The official definition says only men can. Or anyone with male genitalia.

Ummm... no it doesn't? A quick visit to Wikipedia reveals to me that:

United States Federal Law [Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 47X, Section 920, Article 120] defines rape as:
(a) Rape.- Any person subject to this chapter who causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by-
(1) using force against that other person;
(2) causing grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnaping;
(4) rendering another person unconscious; or
(5) administering to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;

What definition are you using?

The new FBI definition made in January 2012 is:

The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim

It used to be.

the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will

The old definition is the one people traditionally used and seeing as it was only changed this year it's clear why some would still use the old one.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/attorney-general-eric-holder-announces-revisions-to-the-uniform-crime-reports-definition-of-rape

Dastardly:

I_am_a_Spoon:
I recently read an article on domestic violence, and was a little annoyed to see that every case mentioned involved violence by a abusive husband against a defenceless wife.

Growing up on Marine Corps bases, I can tell you that domestic violence against men is every bit as common as violence against women. But there are a number of societal norms that perpetuate myths to the contrary.

1. Especially among groups like Marines, a man would be incredibly embarrassed to come out and say, "My wife smacks, bites, and scratches me, and I need help." So, in most cases, they don't. The unexplained marks are just attributed to "guy stuff."

2. When they do open up about, they're told things like, "Man up," or "Just do something about it," or simply laughed off. No one recognizes that it creates a hostile and stressful home environment, or that the physical harm is in any way serious.

3. Because of society's view that women are more apt to be victims, they more actively search out violence against women. And it's happening, so if you look for it, you will find it. And it's awful. But we're not as actively searching out the violence against men, so we don't seem to see as much of it.

4. What's more, when a guy does speak up, too many people see it as a man trying to "steal attention" away from violence against women. He's shot down as faking, lying, whining, or he's made out to be the abuser (emotionally or physically) in order to preserve the status quo. That means the guy is being marginalized and ridiculed by both sides (the "man up" side, and the "only women get abused" side).

5. Alongside this, there seems to be a major cultural assumption that if a woman hits a man, it's because of something he did. He cheated on her. He forgot something important. He mentioned her weight. Something, surely -- I mean, why else would she be so mad she'd hit the guy? We don't just "not believe" him, we pre-blame him for the violence.

These factors ensure that fewer men come forward, which means there are even more eyes watching the few that do, which makes the backlash against them even harder, which means even fewer want to come forward, which means... you get the idea. It's a cycle that works via the exact same mechanism as the horrible "Blame the Rape Victim" mentality, and the emotional reactionism makes any intelligent discussion of the matter impossible.

Here's some interesting facts about the other side of this (and this is from back in 2005):

Myths about Domestic Violence Against Men

I just wanted everything you said to be put up twice because THIS is how you write a post on the subject.

Personally, I'd say that the punishment should take into account the circumstances and the result of the violence. What sort of injury, or damage is done to the victim. I don't think that a person's capacity for doing injury should be the deciding point, it should be what injury which is done.

Of course, when it comes to domestic violence, men are probably going to be more likely to do greater injury to those they attack, so in the end, all of the issues balance out.

Matthew94:

the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will

The old definition is the one people traditionally used and seeing as it was only changed this year it's clear why some would still use the old one.

Holy crap, THAT was the official definition that recently? Man...

I really hope the UK doesn't have any similarly archaic definitions knocking around...

The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if-
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

WHAT??!

*hangs head in shame* That's fucked up.

EDIT: also, more people should know about this. I'm pretty ashamed that I didn't :S

Matthew94:
The new FBI definition made in January 2012 is:

The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim

It used to be.

the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will

The old definition is the one people traditionally used and seeing as it was only changed this year it's clear why some would still use the old one.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/attorney-general-eric-holder-announces-revisions-to-the-uniform-crime-reports-definition-of-rape

Yeah, they kept it archaic for quite some time, it was very welcome in feminist circles when it got change, for obvious reasons.

Though, is that not just how the crimes are reported for statistical purposes, not how they are prosecuted?

I live in Sweden. Supposedly most equal country in the world. A chick hits me here, I'm gonna hit her back, and if she says "You can't hit me, I'm a girl", I just say "Equality bitch, suck it". This has happened too. I'm so proud of myself and my country...

mrblakemiller:

Dastardly:

I_am_a_Spoon:
I recently read an article on domestic violence, and was a little annoyed to see that every case mentioned involved violence by a abusive husband against a defenceless wife.

Growing up on Marine Corps bases, I can tell you that domestic violence against men is every bit as common as violence against women. But there are a number of societal norms that perpetuate myths to the contrary.

1. Especially among groups like Marines, a man would be incredibly embarrassed to come out and say, "My wife smacks, bites, and scratches me, and I need help." So, in most cases, they don't. The unexplained marks are just attributed to "guy stuff."

2. When they do open up about, they're told things like, "Man up," or "Just do something about it," or simply laughed off. No one recognizes that it creates a hostile and stressful home environment, or that the physical harm is in any way serious.

3. Because of society's view that women are more apt to be victims, they more actively search out violence against women. And it's happening, so if you look for it, you will find it. And it's awful. But we're not as actively searching out the violence against men, so we don't seem to see as much of it.

4. What's more, when a guy does speak up, too many people see it as a man trying to "steal attention" away from violence against women. He's shot down as faking, lying, whining, or he's made out to be the abuser (emotionally or physically) in order to preserve the status quo. That means the guy is being marginalized and ridiculed by both sides (the "man up" side, and the "only women get abused" side).

5. Alongside this, there seems to be a major cultural assumption that if a woman hits a man, it's because of something he did. He cheated on her. He forgot something important. He mentioned her weight. Something, surely -- I mean, why else would she be so mad she'd hit the guy? We don't just "not believe" him, we pre-blame him for the violence.

These factors ensure that fewer men come forward, which means there are even more eyes watching the few that do, which makes the backlash against them even harder, which means even fewer want to come forward, which means... you get the idea. It's a cycle that works via the exact same mechanism as the horrible "Blame the Rape Victim" mentality, and the emotional reactionism makes any intelligent discussion of the matter impossible.

Here's some interesting facts about the other side of this (and this is from back in 2005):

Myths about Domestic Violence Against Men

I just wanted everything you said to be put up twice because THIS is how you write a post on the subject.

I second that. Again, living in Sweden, you basically have to call yourself feminist if you want anyone to take you seriously. Saying that you're not a feminist makes it sound like you're against equality and a misogynistic asshole. I kinda dislike feminism, a lot. Because it's not about equality. It's about bringing men down and raising women up, as if it's that simple. And as if equality is all about your gender. Fuck that bullshit. I believe in egalitarianism/equality, across every ethnicity or socioeconomic class, regardless of gender. A bunch of women getting together to protest about how wrong it is that we're living in a society controlled by men that systematically and intentionally disfavors women, saying that it will all fix itself if you do as they say...Yeah right.

How can you expect to fix anything if you're not allowing a debate by shooting down anyone who disagrees at all and brand them misogynist and all their opinions invalid? Or even more fun, when a woman says something "un-feminist", she's apparently indoctrinated and unfit to decide her own opinions. "Poor you", they say, "you've been so abused by the patriarchy that you can't even see how repressed you are. Anything you say that contradicts our view is obviously lies that you've been spoon-fed by this repressive man-dominated society". Like when a woman says she WANTS to stay at home with her kids and be with them, and isn't interested in a career. "You are a disgrace to us all and all the ideals that so many women have fought for." So much for equality and freedom of choice...More like "We decide what is equal and what is freedom". Dogmatics...

Matthew94:

Eamar:

aprilmarie:
I wish the definition of rape was worded in a way that said a woman can rape a man or another woman. The official definition says only men can. Or anyone with male genitalia.

Ummm... no it doesn't? A quick visit to Wikipedia reveals to me that:

United States Federal Law [Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 47X, Section 920, Article 120] defines rape as:
(a) Rape.- Any person subject to this chapter who causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by-
(1) using force against that other person;
(2) causing grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnaping;
(4) rendering another person unconscious; or
(5) administering to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;

What definition are you using?

The new FBI definition made in January 2012 is:

The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim

It used to be.

the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will

The old definition is the one people traditionally used and seeing as it was only changed this year it's clear why some would still use the old one.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/attorney-general-eric-holder-announces-revisions-to-the-uniform-crime-reports-definition-of-rape

Even the new definition from the FBI doesn't include the idea of a woman forcing vaginal intercourse on a man. Think about this: you're not able to give consent for sex when you're intoxicated. A lot of sex happens between men and women who are both intoxicated. So if a guy and girl meet at a bar, get drunk, go home, and have vaginal intercourse, she has the right to claim that he raped her (insertion into an oriface without consent, right?), but he can't say that she raped him. That's what needs to change, in my opinion.

TestECull:
Because that's usually the first thing they say when you ask why they think the way they do. They see anyone with a penis as pure evil in human form until they can prove otherwise, and seem to think they should be treated as second-class citizens because of that.

They're no better than the male-centric sexists of 20-40 years ago.

You'd be in the former group then. The definition of feminism has changed 100% thanks to the extremists, and if you truly believe in equality for women you probably shouldn't identify yourself as one of the radicals that think having a Y chromosone makes you the devil incarnate and want to make men second-class citizens because of that thought.

That's a more extreme branch of feminism, they happen to be the ones given the most coverage because they're more sensationalist and make for better media fodder. Arguably they aren't feminists at all but that's up to the individual to decide, it shouldn't change people's perception of the movement at large. The definition of feminism hasn't really changed, people just choose to interpret it in different ways. I have and always will identify as a feminist.

If some people choose to believe a negative stereotype of what it is to be a feminist, that's not really my problem. I mean, I can try to convince people otherwise and I find it unfortunate when what I'm saying is basically ignored in favour of an exagerrated stereotype but there's not a lot else I can do.

Matthew94:

That's good, I applaud them for doing that. It's a shame very little has actually been done and you rarely if ever, hear about it. It's almost as if it's an extremely small minority who care about the rights of both genders.

What a shame...

Yeah but that blame seems to be largely placed at the feet of feminists. I've frequently heard people say 'here are some feminists who don't like men, look at what they've done', 'I don't like that I can't hit girls, stupid feminists', 'feminists don't care about men's rights' etc... Like I said earlier to the OP, if you feel victimised you need to speak up, if you feel that domestic violence ads are too centred on male-on-female violence make some noise about it and I don't mean just on a gaming forum. If there was more co-operation and less shit-slinging, surely more progress would be made.

Yes, feminism has been and still is, dominated by women's issues but many are advocating the need for more balance with regards to marital issues, children, domestic violence and other issues affected by traditional gender roles. Instead of recognising the progress that is being made, a lot of people choose to drag their heels and complain about how feminists don't like penises. It gets incredibly frustrating.

thaluikhain:

Though, is that not just how the crimes are reported for statistical purposes, not how they are prosecuted?

Yes, it's just a change of how they are reported.

Well "rape" seems to be taken much more seriously than the alternative which was just "sexual assault". The change in name might make people take all forms of rape more seriously than just the traditional male on female.

Colour-Scientist:

Yeah but that blame seems to be largely placed at the feet of feminists. I've frequently heard people say 'here are some feminists who don't like men, look at what they've done', 'I don't like that I can't hit girls, stupid feminists', 'feminists don't care about men's rights' etc... Like I said earlier to the OP, if you feel victimised you need to speak up, if you feel that domestic violence ads are too centred on male-on-female violence make some noise about it and I don't mean just on a gaming forum. If there was more co-operation and less shit-slinging, surely more progress would be made.

Yes, feminism has been and still is, dominated by women's issues but many are advocating the need for more balance with regards to marital issues, children, domestic violence and other issues affected by traditional gender roles. Instead of recognising the progress that is being made, a lot of people choose to drag their heels and complain about how feminists don't like penises. It gets incredibly frustrating.

On the topic of "speak up", I'll direct you to this post:

Dastardly:

Growing up on Marine Corps bases, I can tell you that domestic violence against men is every bit as common as violence against women. But there are a number of societal norms that perpetuate myths to the contrary.

2. When they do open up about, they're told things like, "Man up," or "Just do something about it," or simply laughed off. No one recognizes that it creates a hostile and stressful home environment, or that the physical harm is in any way serious.

4. What's more, when a guy does speak up, too many people see it as a man trying to "steal attention" away from violence against women. He's shot down as faking, lying, whining, or he's made out to be the abuser (emotionally or physically) in order to preserve the status quo. That means the guy is being marginalized and ridiculed by both sides (the "man up" side, and the "only women get abused" side).

5. Alongside this, there seems to be a major cultural assumption that if a woman hits a man, it's because of something he did. He cheated on her. He forgot something important. He mentioned her weight. Something, surely -- I mean, why else would she be so mad she'd hit the guy? We don't just "not believe" him, we pre-blame him for the violence.

These factors ensure that fewer men come forward, which means there are even more eyes watching the few that do, which makes the backlash against them even harder, which means even fewer want to come forward, which means... you get the idea. It's a cycle that works via the exact same mechanism as the horrible "Blame the Rape Victim" mentality, and the emotional reactionism makes any intelligent discussion of the matter impossible.

Here's some interesting facts about the other side of this (and this is from back in 2005):

Myths about Domestic Violence Against Men

I think this post makes a good point about why men can't just "speak up".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked