Female on Male Domestic Abuse through Cultural Lenses and Personal Theories

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

evilthecat:

chaosord:
Violence Against WOMEN Act, gender neutral?

I guess I didn't make this clear. Gender neutral in application. Not "gender neutral language", which is a whole different (and sillier) issue. You can say "women" in a piece of legislation.

If this act did not apply in a gender neutral fashion, it would be declared unconstitutional. You know this, as does anyone with a brain and an ounce of knowledge about modern politics, so I don't know why we're still trying to make the case that the VAWA is discriminatory. Nothing in it can apply differently to men and women, any advantage or protection it gives women is also accessible to men in the same situation.

"Violence Against Women" is a specific political term. It refers to all the forms of violence predominantly suffered by women. You couldn't have called this act the "Sexual Violence Act" or the "Domestic Violence Act" because it covers a whole range of different types of violent crime. VAWA is concise and covers the objective of the act, which is to tackle those forms of violence predominantly experienced by women. That doesn't change the fact that the laws therein also apply to men to an entirely equal degree.

Yes, it's lazy wording which is easily misinterpreted, and it cuts very close to the reasons why I won't call myself a feminist. But to accuse it of not being gender neutral or imply its existence is somehow discriminatory because the title has "women" in it is incredibly short sighted and does nothing for your position except paint you as massively reactionary.

If you have no evidence for your own discrimination beyond the fact that the title of a particular act which in actuality applies to you doesn't specifically mention that it applies to you, then that tells me everything I need to know about how discriminated against you actually are.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/15xn2w/can_some_one_break_down_the_sexism_in_vawa/
This person breaks it down rather well.

Batou667:

evilthecat:
In a gender-equal society, being feminized would not be a bad thing. In our society, it is.

That's a rather blanket statement. Are you sure that applies to everybody? What about women, they don't seem to do too badly from being "feminised"?

It was a reference to how to society in general, addressing the majority of men, rather than the minority of men views of activities, actions, or ideas that are considered "for women" by men. It is the negativity that is attached by men for anything they see as feminine. Why is it considered an insult to men to be called a "girl"?

For example:
Sissy (derived from sister;[citation needed] also sissy baby, sissy boy, etc.) is a pejorative term for a boy or man who violates or does not meet the standard male gender role. Generally, sissy implies a lack of courage and stoicism, which are thought important to the male role. A man might also be considered a sissy for being interested in traditional feminine hobbies or employment (e.g., being fond of fashion), displaying effeminate behavior (e.g., saying "mua mua" before hanging up the phone or using creams), being unathletic, or being homosexual.

Sissy is, approximately, the male converse of tomboy (a girl with masculine traits or interests), but has none of the latter's positive connotations. Even amongst gay men, behavior thought of as sissy or camp produces mixed reactions. Some men reclaim the term for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sissy

Now see women do not attach nevativity to other women for being a "tom boy", and often use tom boys as good role models for women, however, we do not see men using " sissies" as role models, rather they use this as an insult to ridicule or demean.

It is the idea that males participating in what other males consider to be "for girls" is somehow demeaning to them, that female activities or ideas are " beneath men". This is one of the primary issues that has to be addressed and changed in society if we ever hope to accomplish true gender equality. As long as women or womens activities are portrayed in a bad light for men by the majority of men, it will be very difficult for men to make progress in those areas.

Batou667:
That's a rather blanket statement. Are you sure that applies to everybody? What about women, they don't seem to do too badly from being "feminised"?

Yeah, I'm sure it applies to everybody.

There's no negative association applied to feminized men which is not also applied to all women by default. Women can always be assumed to be weak, to be less able to defend themselves, to lack physical and emotional fortitude, to lack clear judgement. If you feel hatred or disgust for men when they too-closely resemble women, then it's pretty safe to say you consider those behaviours in some way beneath you.

Being a gender non-conformist will always open you up to greater hostility, that goes for feminized men and masculine women alike, but weirdly, feminization remains a component in both forms of hostility. Feminization can be used as a tactic to insult anyone, be they male or female.

Schadrach:
snip

I'm going to step back a bit here and state that I've only skimmed the act, particularly the parts about funding allocation. Bear in mind, the act doesn't apply to me and I don't really care about it beyond the fact that regardless of the wording the actually provisions seem overwhelmingly positive.

But then, I'm somewhat opposed to the notion of gender neutral language, it strikes me as something frequently presented as a way of inhibiting any kind of discussion of the lack of gender neutrality in our society or existing legal frameworks. I suppose on a basic level, if there is a specific problem with certain forms of violence being directed at women, my question would be what is wrong with actually acknowledging and targeting that, particularly when previous procedures have overwhelmingly ignored or fail to respond to particular forms of violence precisely because the victims were women.

Look, I've visited a women's shelter. It's probably the saddest, most desperate place I've ever been to. Worse than a psychiatric ward. Everything I have heard suggests to me that this is not an isolated phenomena, it's a universal fact of women's shelters everywhere. I don't even want to start talking about some of the stories of people there, because it would be gratuitous and would make anyone with a shred of empathy extremely sad. If that environment was not sex-segregated (incidentally, there was a transgirl in the shelter I visited, you can't simply assume that women only is going to mean ciswomen only) then it could not function. It would no longer be able to work for the benefit of most of the people living there.

I have never seen a single shred of evidence either that there are significant numbers of heterosexual men in an equivalent position of need, or that for those who are the current system is enormously failing them.. and no, I don't mean having the expectation that because your partner hit you you should be eligible for sheltered housing, because women don't have that either. There is limited space and limited money, and unless you are likely to die unless you receive provision, it's often very difficult to get onto a particular service.

Sadly, I can see the need for specific funding in this case. I don't like it, I agree it shouldn't be necessary, but I don't really see any other way to do it. I don't think we should be forced to give 50% of the funding for domestic violence to organizations specifically dealing with men if there is no equivalent need, particularly if it would result in women actually dying because services weren't available for them. That for me is the point where we need to stop being "politically correct" (and this is one of the few areas where I think there's a legitimate case for using that term, because there really are significant numbers of people who genuinely seem to feel that we should be able to talk about the fact that people are being hospitalized and murdered in a highly asymmetrical manner because that's sexist) and actual deal with the reality we live with.

To put it very bluntly, I don't want women to die so that men can have shelters there's no significant evidence they need. There are already other forms of social housing and care provision which are not sex-segregated. If those services are failing to meet a specific need, surely that needs to be demonstrated. But I'm not aware of an enormous quantity of men who simply cannot share services with women without putting their safety or treatment at risk.

So yeah.. I was incorrect about the VAWA, neither do I particular support it as opposed to any other theoretical piece of legislation, but I do lose a degree of sympathy when you're advocating measures which will result in death for people over some language you don't like.

Frankly i don't give a shit if VAWA is discriminatory or not. Failing to renew a perfectly constitutional law that saves lives because "it isn't fair to men" is inexcusably cruel and spiteful.

If domestic violence against men is an issue, then let's fund that too. There's no defensible reason to let women die because the disparity in gendered violence hurts your feelings.

cobra_ky:
Frankly i don't give a shit if VAWA is discriminatory or not. Failing to renew a perfectly constitutional law that saves lives because "it isn't fair to men" is inexcusably cruel and spiteful.

If domestic violence against men is an issue, then let's fund that too. There's no defensible reason to let women die because the disparity in gendered violence hurts your feelings.

The issue wasn't that is was saving lives, the issue was it gave a finical incentive to pad Male on Female DV numbers. The more cases the more funding you got. Even if those cases were bullshit. This is taken from the link I posted on the subject, got check it out. "
Note, as shown in the above linked image, that most of the first points in the law are written specifically from the perspective that victims of domestic violence are women. This pattern establishes the rest of the law from that perspective, steering these programs to the exclusive service of women.
That is not gender neutrality.
Further, these grants establish a financial incentive to prosecute - 25% of grant funding must be allocated for this. Offering a financial incentive to prosecute, along with the establishment of two programs designed to use advocacy to pressure law enforcement and prosecutors in favor of the accuser, creates an environment wherein the system will be predisposed to prosecute regardless of the merits of the case.
In fact, refusal to cooperate with these advocates is not a viable option for authorities, as doing so could result not only in a loss of funding, but lawsuits citing the wording of VAWA and its associated laws, and damage to the reputations of elected officials - even when they are right in their refusal. As a result, courts are seeing and have been seeing cases like this one, in which the human element of the various cogs and wheels of the justice system are literally powerless to stop a woman supported by domestic abuse advocates from abusing the justice system as a means of wreaking vengeance upon her ex-husband."

evilthecat:

Batou667:
That's a rather blanket statement. Are you sure that applies to everybody? What about women, they don't seem to do too badly from being "feminised"?

Yeah, I'm sure it applies to everybody.

There's no negative association applied to feminized men which is not also applied to all women by default. Women can always be assumed to be weak, to be less able to defend themselves, to lack physical and emotional fortitude, to lack clear judgement. If you feel hatred or disgust for men when they too-closely resemble women, then it's pretty safe to say you consider those behaviours in some way beneath you.

Being a gender non-conformist will always open you up to greater hostility, that goes for feminized men and masculine women alike, but weirdly, feminization remains a component in both forms of hostility. Feminization can be used as a tactic to insult anyone, be they male or female.

Schadrach:
snip

I'm going to step back a bit here and state that I've only skimmed the act, particularly the parts about funding allocation. Bear in mind, the act doesn't apply to me and I don't really care about it beyond the fact that regardless of the wording the actually provisions seem overwhelmingly positive.

But then, I'm somewhat opposed to the notion of gender neutral language, it strikes me as something frequently presented as a way of inhibiting any kind of discussion of the lack of gender neutrality in our society or existing legal frameworks. I suppose on a basic level, if there is a specific problem with certain forms of violence being directed at women, my question would be what is wrong with actually acknowledging and targeting that, particularly when previous procedures have overwhelmingly ignored or fail to respond to particular forms of violence precisely because the victims were women.

Look, I've visited a women's shelter. It's probably the saddest, most desperate place I've ever been to. Worse than a psychiatric ward. Everything I have heard suggests to me that this is not an isolated phenomena, it's a universal fact of women's shelters everywhere. I don't even want to start talking about some of the stories of people there, because it would be gratuitous and would make anyone with a shred of empathy extremely sad. If that environment was not sex-segregated (incidentally, there was a transgirl in the shelter I visited, you can't simply assume that women only is going to mean ciswomen only) then it could not function. It would no longer be able to work for the benefit of most of the people living there.

I have never seen a single shred of evidence either that there are significant numbers of heterosexual men in an equivalent position of need, or that for those who are the current system is enormously failing them.. and no, I don't mean having the expectation that because your partner hit you you should be eligible for sheltered housing, because women don't have that either. There is limited space and limited money, and unless you are likely to die unless you receive provision, it's often very difficult to get onto a particular service.

Sadly, I can see the need for specific funding in this case. I don't like it, I agree it shouldn't be necessary, but I don't really see any other way to do it. I don't think we should be forced to give 50% of the funding for domestic violence to organizations specifically dealing with men if there is no equivalent need, particularly if it would result in women actually dying because services weren't available for them. That for me is the point where we need to stop being "politically correct" (and this is one of the few areas where I think there's a legitimate case for using that term, because there really are significant numbers of people who genuinely seem to feel that we should be able to talk about the fact that people are being hospitalized and murdered in a highly asymmetrical manner because that's sexist) and actual deal with the reality we live with.

To put it very bluntly, I don't want women to die so that men can have shelters there's no significant evidence they need. There are already other forms of social housing and care provision which are not sex-segregated. If those services are failing to meet a specific need, surely that needs to be demonstrated. But I'm not aware of an enormous quantity of men who simply cannot share services with women without putting their safety or treatment at risk.

So yeah.. I was incorrect about the VAWA, neither do I particular support it as opposed to any other theoretical piece of legislation, but I do lose a degree of sympathy when you're advocating measures which will result in death for people over some language you don't like.

So it is okay for men to die, so women have them?

cobra_ky:
Frankly i don't give a shit if VAWA is discriminatory or not. Failing to renew a perfectly constitutional law that saves lives because "it isn't fair to men" is inexcusably cruel and spiteful.

If domestic violence against men is an issue, then let's fund that too. There's no defensible reason to let women die because the disparity in gendered violence hurts your feelings.

It's worth noting that the failure to renew had nothing to do with it not being fair to men or anything even remotely similar. There's no "market" for law that protects men from abusive or otherwise harmful women, it just doesn't earn you any votes. Instead, it didn't get renewed due to changes involving cases where an abused immigrant spouse is only in the country legally due to a marriage visa. In other words, it wasn't renewed because not being renewed was the way to be tougher on immigrants, specifically immigrant spouses of citizens claiming abuse.

Lil devils x:

Batou667:

evilthecat:
In a gender-equal society, being feminized would not be a bad thing. In our society, it is.

That's a rather blanket statement. Are you sure that applies to everybody? What about women, they don't seem to do too badly from being "feminised"?

It was a reference to how to society in general, addressing the majority of men, rather than the minority of men views of activities, actions, or ideas that are considered "for women" by men. It is the negativity that is attached by men for anything they see as feminine. Why is it considered an insult to men to be called a "girl"?

For example:
Sissy (derived from sister;[citation needed] also sissy baby, sissy boy, etc.) is a pejorative term for a boy or man who violates or does not meet the standard male gender role. Generally, sissy implies a lack of courage and stoicism, which are thought important to the male role. A man might also be considered a sissy for being interested in traditional feminine hobbies or employment (e.g., being fond of fashion), displaying effeminate behavior (e.g., saying "mua mua" before hanging up the phone or using creams), being unathletic, or being homosexual.

Sissy is, approximately, the male converse of tomboy (a girl with masculine traits or interests), but has none of the latter's positive connotations. Even amongst gay men, behavior thought of as sissy or camp produces mixed reactions. Some men reclaim the term for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sissy

Now see women do not attach nevativity to other women for being a "tom boy", and often use tom boys as good role models for women, however, we do not see men using " sissies" as role models, rather they use this as an insult to ridicule or demean.

It is the idea that males participating in what other males consider to be "for girls" is somehow demeaning to them, that female activities or ideas are " beneath men". This is one of the primary issues that has to be addressed and changed in society if we ever hope to accomplish true gender equality. As long as women or womens activities are portrayed in a bad light for men by the majority of men, it will be very difficult for men to make progress in those areas.

Women do not rag on "tomboys"? Bullshit. Tomboys get called dykes, men, and a host of other nasty things. Guess women don't like women who don't act like they think women should.

How many women would fuck a "Sissy" man? How many women would fuck a "Macho" man?

My point is this, Women are less likely to sleep with "feminized/sissy" men (Though studies have shown that men who identify as feminist are 20% more likely to have sex. Food for thought). So men try to have those traits and encourage them in other men in order to have more sex. Those masculine traits, which feminists revile, exist because they increase the likelihoods of survival and sex. For both genders.

My ultimate point is,

Feminism started with a half-truth as a premise, "Women are oppressed by men." While true, in the areas and time-periods were feminism started, it was not the whole truth. The whole truth is, "People are oppressed by other people." Women oppressed women, men oppressed men, women oppressed men, and men oppressed women. Later that premise evolved to "Only men oppress." Feminism chooses to ignore any oppression that does not match that biased and flawed premise.

chaosord:
So it is okay for men to die, so women have them?

Show me where men are dying as a direct result of the failure to provide men-only services, and I'll accept your logic.

I'm not saying men aren't murdered by their partners. It happens less frequently, but it happens. However, very few of those men could not have been treated within a mixed sex environment. There are very few men who have systematically learned to fear the opposite sex throughout their entire lives.

The reverse is not true. There are many women who have never received anything from men but violence, and who simply cannot be treated in a mixed sex environment because they are terrified of men. Not pretend fear. Not some cry for attention, but learned fear which comes from an entire lifetime of experiences you can't even imagine.

If you want to take money away from providing care to those people so you can set up men-only shelters for men who you have yet to demonstrate even exist, then I think we're done.

chaosord:
How many women would fuck a "Sissy" man? How many women would fuck a "Macho" man?

How many do you think?

You're confused. Being "macho" doesn't just mean being masculine, it means succeeding at a particular form masculinity in which sexual promiscuity is an important component. So by default, if lots of women won't sleep with you, you are less "macho" as a result. That doesn't mean you're "sissy" or feminized, in fact you might still adhere to or prize "macho" forms of masculinity, despite the fact that they're prizing a lifestyle and a mode of relating to women which is only available to a very few people, who can get away with it because they're good looking, or rich, or famous, or (most likely) because they're fictional.

..because really, are you suggesting that all women actually want to be treated as disposable objects by men who are incapable of forming meaningful relationships with them, or are you ready to stop fantasizing and admit that this is merely something women will occasionally accept if the rewards are considered to be significant?

See, this whole model of traditional heterosexual conduct is built on the idea that women are sexually passive. That they don't really have preferences when it comes to sex and that all it takes to win them over is for you to to be really forceful or persistent. That's no longer true. Women are incredibly diverse in terms of the personality types they find attractive and actually, almost all women are drawn to some "feminine" traits in men, because often they imply much more rewarding and positive relationship styles when compared to stereotypically masculine traits.

So actually, when you boil it down, I don't think the answer to that question is what you think it is.

chaosord:
Women oppressed women, men oppressed men, women oppressed men, and men oppressed women. Later that premise evolved to "Only men oppress." Feminism chooses to ignore any oppression that does not match that biased and flawed premise.

This is sex role theory. Ironically, it formed the basis of one of the earliest academic "feminist" theories. It's also shit.

It's shit because it implies that the only form of "oppression" is expectation. Thus, everyone oppresses everyone by expecting them to behave a particular way, irrespective of what that behaviour actually is, what it actually does for the person who performs it or how these expectations play out in social life (how they interact, for example).

Imagine if Marx had come out and basically said "everyone is oppressed because we all have to work jobs". Yeah, that would be correct relative to a theoretical fully-automated future economy, for example, but in our society, relative to each other, it's incredibly obvious that some people's jobs are more rewarding than others. The same is true of "roles" (and this brings up the other problem, that the word "role" has been used many times to refer to a whole range of unrelated concepts). Yes, relative to some post-feminist society where there are no expectations placed on a person due to their gender, the existence of roles in our society is oppressive. However, if you're going to acknowledge that these "roles" still exist, then look at what they actually do. Look at the interactions they provoke. Look at how people talk about them and act them out.

Oppression doesn't come from "roles", it isn't limited to expectations, it comes from how the way in which behaviours, actions and states of being are hierarchically positioned in relation to each other in the actual real social world we live in. It comes from the way in which different emotional states and behaviours are ascribed to different genders, and that some of these behaviours (particularly those associated with one gender - guess which) are still hugely more valuable and rewarding in almost every area of public life.

chaosord:

Being constantly mistreated by one gender (male or female) to the point where you are afraid of said gender, is not unique to one gender. Nice false boogieman you have made as well. If a woman is afraid of all men because of the actions of some men, she is a sexist (try doing that with someone's race) with a phobia that needs to be treated. She does need a place to help her get rid of that phobia. She doesn't need a place to free of all men, just a place to be safe from the individual men who hurt her. Creating a women's only shelter, using the logic that men are violent, only reinforces her phobia.

You really don't know what a phobia is do you? A phobia is an irrational and unfounded fear of something which causes disproportionate and abnormal reactions when encountered by the phobic. This irrational fear doesn't have a basis in empiric knowledge but pre-conceptions about what will happen if I expose myself to the thing that I fear.

So, when I see a spider and run out of my apartment and refuse to go back inside until my fiancée has killed it and flushed it down the toilet, that's a phobia, especially since I've never been hurt by a spider.
When a woman who's survived half a dozen abusive relationships and has been seriously injured by the men she thought loved her doesn't want to be alone with men or can't trust men, that's not a phobia. That's a lifetime of traumatic experiences informing her reactions and actions.

I really hope you do see the difference.

Lil devils x:

Batou667:

That's a rather blanket statement. Are you sure that applies to everybody? What about women, they don't seem to do too badly from being "feminised"?

It was a reference to how to society in general, addressing the majority of men, rather than the minority of men views of activities, actions, or ideas that are considered "for women" by men. It is the negativity that is attached by men for anything they see as feminine. Why is it considered an insult to men to be called a "girl"?

[...]

Sissy is, approximately, the male converse of tomboy (a girl with masculine traits or interests), but has none of the latter's positive connotations. Even amongst gay men, behavior thought of as sissy or camp produces mixed reactions. Some men reclaim the term for themselves. [..] Now see women do not attach nevativity to other women for being a "tom boy", and often use tom boys as good role models for women, however, we do not see men using " sissies" as role models, rather they use this as an insult to ridicule or demean.

evilthecat:

Yeah, I'm sure it applies to everybody.

There's no negative association applied to feminized men which is not also applied to all women by default. Women can always be assumed to be weak, to be less able to defend themselves, to lack physical and emotional fortitude, to lack clear judgement. If you feel hatred or disgust for men when they too-closely resemble women, then it's pretty safe to say you consider those behaviours in some way beneath you.

Being a gender non-conformist will always open you up to greater hostility, that goes for feminized men and masculine women alike, but weirdly, feminization remains a component in both forms of hostility. Feminization can be used as a tactic to insult anyone, be they male or female.

So in a nutshell, feminine traits always have the potential to be used in a negative way regardless of gender, and masculine traits are admired regardless of gender. This means women have a wider scope of socially-acceptable behaviours since they have a spectrum of gendered behaviour to choose from, whereas men are restricted to being overtly masculine. Right?

Well, this is interesting because I was recently told the exact opposite by another forum member (society makes more concessions for men, in terms of diversity of image, behaviour, etc), who coincidentally was also arguing that gender roles favour men. Now, call me skeptical, but this sounds a lot like a predetermined conclusion that people are retrospectively trying to arrive at by presenting various pastiches of what "society at large" thinks/says/does.

Yes, there's a difference in perceived gender roles for males and females, but does a difference necessarily imply a disparity? Is "different but equal" really such an impossible idea? Here's my crackpot theory: male traits tend to be prized in men and feminine traits in women. If traits like competitiveness, assertiveness and self-confidence are now being promoted among women, maybe that's a sign that they were never exclusively "male" traits in the first place?

Another thing to consider. This gendered language is often framed in terms of "manly" traits versus "girly". Whenever I hear "girl" I think it's safe to assume there's an unspoken "little" preceding it - so actually it's not a straight-up gendered issue, it's one of maturity, too. And possibly "girly" traits are something that most people should minimise in most situations, unless you want to make a living being an eyelash-fluttering real-life Barbie like Nicki Minaj. Switch "girly" for "womanly" and suddenly feminisation doesn't sound half as demeaning. Sure, most men still wouldn't want to be "womanly", but how many women (even tough, ass-kicking tomboys) would want to be "manly"?

Fuck it, I think attaching male-female labels to behaviour is a complete red herring anyway. It makes about as much sense (and is as socially retarding) as talking about "acting white" or "acting black". Better adjectives, anyone?

chaosord:
You really like to talk out your ass don't you?

If you're down to insulting me because you can't answer my argument, I don't particularly care what orifice you think I talk out of.

chaosord:
Being constantly mistreated by one gender (male or female) to the point where you are afraid of said gender, is not unique to one gender.

Something you have yet to demonstrate or to support with any real reason. Guess what I think of that?

chaosord:
She does need a place to help her get rid of that phobia.

Then listen to the advice of professionals whose job it is to do that. Your self-righteous delusions of authority without a shred of medical knowledge or personal experience is meaningless to this debate, as it should be to any debate in which people's lives are at stake.

chaosord:
And if that spending is predicated on being female, then more men are going to die than women (remember you believe that sexist spending, saves females so its okay).

Think it through for a second.

We have two groups which, contrary to your weird presumptions of symmetry, do not have the same needs. By paying to meet needs which do not exist, we not only divert money from areas in which that money could save lives, we also accomplish absolutely nothing. Likewise, if we spend huge amounts of money trying to fix problems which are extremely difficult to prevent and which only affect a small number of cases, or if we spend money on problems which affect a lot of people but are not very serious, we divert money from much larger problems which may be more cost effective to fix. The problem is very simple, how do we most effectively target the problems which are cost effective to solve in ways which are most cost effective.

Like it or not, more women than men die at the hands of their partners. Also like it or not, more of those deaths are more easily preventable because they are more likely to occur as part of systemic abuse in which there are clear warning signs. Finally, women who do agree to come forward and seek help within these situations often cannot be effectively treated in a mixed-sex environment. You may not like any of this, I don't either, but that is no reason to pretend it isn't true.

So no, it's not a simple equation of pulling money from men to give to women. It's a question of meeting a specific need which it is worth spending money on. By diverting that money elsewhere, we would be failing to meet a specific need and people would die in preventable circumstances. Furthermore, we would not necessarily save any lives in return. If we put our entire national budget into cancer treatment, people would still die of cancer and many people would also die of other things.

It is not about saving women's lives over men's lives. It is about how we can save the most lives using the money we have. However, if you are advocating that we should aim to save fewer lives overall to ensure that more of those saved are men, that would be actual sexism. I hope you can see that.

chaosord:
Sexual selection.

Oh God.. I can feel my expectations of this discussion lowering by the second.

Do you have any idea how fucking tiresome it is to watch people vomit up their personal theories about the evolutionary origins of human culture in a way which merely betrays their weird preconceptions about said culture which have no basis in evidence or reality?

You've already contradicted this yourself in an earlier thread, so rather than wasting my time explaining let me quote:

chaosord:
What you are saying about the genders is only true on a very limited scale, and what each gender is taught is not limited to that gender. It is going to vary greatly from culture to culture, and family to family.

..which it could not do if it was an inherent trait which was being selected for universally.

Not difficult.

chaosord:
Men and women both shaped each other and the societies/cultures they live in. Feminism ignores women's part in that (unless it to reinforce the "good woman, bad man") and lays the blame solely on the male side.

No.

Sorry. Come back when you've read enough to understand what feminism even means. I do not have the patience, given the level of what you've come out with, to waste my time trying to explain contemporary feminist attitudes to the male and female contributions to society when you clearly aren't going to be able to take anything in. Needless to say, you know nothing.

If you're going to try and lecture me on feminism by making grandiose claims, the least you could do is support your argument. Of course I'm being generous and assuming this actually is your argument and not some drivel you parroted from an MRA site.

chaosord:
"These male traits that are valued over female traits means sexism." I must ask what are those male traits and why are they valued?

Already see where you're going with this, but let's play it out anyway. I have nothing better to do at this point, and even if you're proving yourself a waste of my breath others reading this thread might not be.

Strength, fortitude, determination, intelligence, rationality, effectiveness, logic, toughness, independence, honesty, authority, gameness, straightforwardness, dependability, emotional stability and the capacity for self defence, among many, many others. All valued because they are socially useful, of course. Why else would any social trait be valuable?

Batou667:

So in a nutshell, feminine traits always have the potential to be used in a negative way regardless of gender, and masculine traits are admired regardless of gender. This means women have a wider scope of socially-acceptable behaviours since they have a spectrum of gendered behaviour to choose from, whereas men are restricted to being overtly masculine. Right?

Not quite. Keep in mind that as a woman I am expected to be feminine and adhere to feminine traits. I can embrace male traits to some degree, but only a certain subset of male traits. Fine (2010) outlines this pretty well in her book Delusions of Gender, in that a lot of scientific studies suggest that women who exhibit male traits like aggression, "male" leadership-styles and authority are generally considered to be more aggressive and less likable or trustworthy than men who exhibit the same traits.

It isn't as easy as saying that feminine traits are always negative ad male traits always positive. Rather they are positioned in a hierarchy where male traits are at the top and female traits are considered less valuable. This is complicated by the fact that a male with male traits is highly valued, while a man with feminine traits generally isn't. Women often just end up somewhere in-between, never being truly appreciated or reviled because of their traits. I could go into more detail here about "men do, women are", but unless you are really interested in that kind of discussion I'll just leave it at this brief explanation.

Batou667:

Well, this is interesting because I was recently told the exact opposite by another forum member (society makes more concessions for men, in terms of diversity of image, behaviour, etc), who coincidentally was also arguing that gender roles favour men. Now, call me skeptical, but this sounds a lot like a predetermined conclusion that people are retrospectively trying to arrive at by presenting various pastiches of what "society at large" thinks/says/does.

Yes, there's a difference in perceived gender roles for males and females, but does a difference necessarily imply a disparity? Is "different but equal" really such an impossible idea? Here's my crackpot theory: male traits tend to be prized in men and feminine traits in women. If traits like competitiveness, assertiveness and self-confidence are now being promoted among women, maybe that's a sign that they were never exclusively "male" traits in the first place?

I sort of get what you are saying and I sort of agree. Ideally though, wouldn't it be better if everyone was allowed to fully choose from the set of available traits? Instead of being slotted into a specific set of traits arbitrarily determined by the function of your genitals? I mean, it is equally punishing for a capable woman who wants to become the CEO of a company to hit the glass ceiling because of her gender as it is for a man to be constantly called gay because he enjoys caring for people and works as a Registered Nurse.

The problem isn't that it is impossible to break out of your gender norms (which has happened all throughout human history, just look at Cleopatra, Mme De Pompadour, Wu Zetian or any of the queens of Medieval and Reneissance Europe), it is that often the price for doing so in terms of social rejection is very high. I am currently reading a book (War's Unwomanly Face, Alexievich) about female soldiers in the Red Army during WW2 and a recurring theme is that they are told that "No man will ever want you" simply because they choose to join the army and that they were kept away from the frontline because they were considered incapable simply due to their gender.

Batou667:

Fuck it, I think attaching male-female labels to behaviour is a complete red herring anyway. It makes about as much sense (and is as socially retarding) as talking about "acting white" or "acting black". Better adjectives, anyone?

This I can completely get behind. How does it feel to echo the sentiments of many third wave feminists? ;)

Batou667:
So in a nutshell, feminine traits always have the potential to be used in a negative way regardless of gender, and masculine traits are admired regardless of gender.

To an extent, yeah.

There are certain types of masculinity which are very socially maligned in women. Types of masculinity which are associated with lesbianism, for example, are much more likely to be treated with scorn. But yeah, many traditionally masculine traits are now highly socially valued in women, because they're just good or effective traits to have.

Individual men may be intimidated by women who are outspoken, confident, independent, sexually assertive or intelligent, but generally speaking these are good things and they often grant real power to those who can display them.

Batou667:
This means women have a wider scope of socially-acceptable behaviours since they have a spectrum of gendered behaviour to choose from, whereas men are restricted to being overtly masculine. Right?

Masculinity is not just one thing. There are many different ways of being masculine. If you think about how a young black man living on a sinkhole estate in the inner city might expresses his masculinity compared to how a white middle-aged finance worker who lives in a dormitory town with his kids might express his, they're going to be so different in terms of how they behave.

Masculinity is a complicated concept because there's no single manifestation of it which you can look at and say "yup, that's the perfect masculinity". We can talk about how some forms of masculinity are subordinate to others, but even subordinate masculinities are still often accepted as something better than feminine.

The other thing is of course that males behavioural standards have also been changing in the last 50 years, and men's behaviour has changed enormously.

Batou667:
Well, this is interesting because I was recently told the exact opposite by another forum member (society makes more concessions for men, in terms of diversity of image, behaviour, etc), who coincidentally was also arguing that gender roles favour men. Now, call me skeptical, but this sounds a lot like a predetermined conclusion that people are retrospectively trying to arrive at by presenting various pastiches of what "society at large" thinks/says/does.

That's certainly a risk.

However, I think I would probably agree with that forum member. If you imagine a man who wants to be a "good (masculine) man" and a woman who wants to be a "good (feminine) woman" growing up together, the variety of choices open to them which are compatible with their social role are likely to be hugely greater for the man. Even though the punishment for "failing" at masculinity may be brutal, because there are such a wide variety of ways of performing it there's actually quite a wide choice. I can express my masculinity by running a business or I can express my masculinity by joining a gang, they're different forms of masculinity but both might carry social reward within particular communities and allow me to pass as a good man. Meanwhile, my poor "good woman" is limited to a fairly small range of professions followed by marriage and motherhood.

Batou667:
Is "different but equal" really such an impossible idea?

In this case, yes.

You've rather cleverly identified a very important concept, which is that just because masculinity and femininity are not "equal" doesn't mean individuals who embody these traits are equally positioned to each other. If I'm a "good woman" who embodies certain feminine virtues like beauty or seductiveness or a limited range of acceptable talents, I can potentially use those to effect my social environment a good deal. I can make lots of money, I can earn my independence, I can be treated with respect and deference. I can probably do these things to a far greater degree than many men.

However. Any power I have, any authority I have in that position almost certainly rests entirely on my ability to appeal to men. I am in that position because men find me appealing, and because by being appealing to men I provide a role model to women. To them, I am selling a particular mode of appealing to men, and it works because this is the only power which feminity actually accords. The power to use your beauty or charm or sex appeal to bargain things from men who, in actuality, are more powerful than you because their traits, the things which make them valuable are so much more useful.

Furthermore, what happens when you age?

I agree entirely that some women can become very important and even powerful through being "feminine", but that doesn't make "femininity" in itself a powerful position. Femininity is predicated on having men who are powerful enough to do things for you.

Batou667:
Fuck it, I think attaching male-female labels to behaviour is a complete red herring anyway. It makes about as much sense (and is as socially retarding) as talking about "acting white" or "acting black". Better adjectives, anyone?

I agree, and this is why I think it's important even when we must do this kind of analysis to disconnect masculinity and femininity from being explicitly about "men" and "women". Masculinity isn't just "what men do", I guess you could say it's more like a kind of idealized form of what a "good man" should be like.

evilthecat:

chaosord:
You really like to talk out your ass don't you?

If you're down to insulting me because you can't answer my argument, I don't particularly care what orifice you think I talk out of.

chaosord:
Being constantly mistreated by one gender (male or female) to the point where you are afraid of said gender, is not unique to one gender.

Something you have yet to demonstrate or to support with any real reason. Guess what I think of that?

chaosord:
She does need a place to help her get rid of that phobia.

Then listen to the advice of professionals whose job it is to do that. Your self-righteous delusions of authority without a shred of medical knowledge or personal experience is meaningless to this debate, as it should be to any debate in which people's lives are at stake.

chaosord:
And if that spending is predicated on being female, then more men are going to die than women (remember you believe that sexist spending, saves females so its okay).

Think it through for a second.

We have two groups which, contrary to your weird presumptions of symmetry, do not have the same needs. By paying to meet needs which do not exist, we not only divert money from areas in which that money could save lives, we also accomplish absolutely nothing. Likewise, if we spend huge amounts of money trying to fix problems which are extremely difficult to prevent and which only affect a small number of cases, or if we spend money on problems which affect a lot of people but are not very serious, we divert money from much larger problems which may be more cost effective to fix. The problem is very simple, how do we most effectively target the problems which are cost effective to solve in ways which are most cost effective.

Like it or not, more women than men die at the hands of their partners. Also like it or not, more of those deaths are more easily preventable because they are more likely to occur as part of systemic abuse in which there are clear warning signs. Finally, women who do agree to come forward and seek help within these situations often cannot be effectively treated in a mixed-sex environment. You may not like any of this, I don't either, but that is no reason to pretend it isn't true.

So no, it's not a simple equation of pulling money from men to give to women. It's a question of meeting a specific need which it is worth spending money on. By diverting that money elsewhere, we would be failing to meet a specific need and people would die in preventable circumstances. Furthermore, we would not necessarily save any lives in return. If we put our entire national budget into cancer treatment, people would still die of cancer and many people would also die of other things.

It is not about saving women's lives over men's lives. It is about how we can save the most lives using the money we have. However, if you are advocating that we should aim to save fewer lives overall to ensure that more of those saved are men, that would be actual sexism. I hope you can see that.

chaosord:
Sexual selection.

Oh God.. I can feel my expectations of this discussion lowering by the second.

Do you have any idea how fucking tiresome it is to watch people vomit up their personal theories about the evolutionary origins of human culture in a way which merely betrays their weird preconceptions about said culture which have no basis in evidence or reality?

You've already contradicted this yourself in an earlier thread, so rather than wasting my time explaining let me quote:

chaosord:
What you are saying about the genders is only true on a very limited scale, and what each gender is taught is not limited to that gender. It is going to vary greatly from culture to culture, and family to family.

..which it could not do if it was an inherent trait which was being selected for universally.

Not difficult.

chaosord:
Men and women both shaped each other and the societies/cultures they live in. Feminism ignores women's part in that (unless it to reinforce the "good woman, bad man") and lays the blame solely on the male side.

No.

Sorry. Come back when you've read enough to understand what feminism even means. I do not have the patience, given the level of what you've come out with, to waste my time trying to explain contemporary feminist attitudes to the male and female contributions to society when you clearly aren't going to be able to take anything in. Needless to say, you know nothing.

If you're going to try and lecture me on feminism by making grandiose claims, the least you could do is support your argument. Of course I'm being generous and assuming this actually is your argument and not some drivel you parroted from an MRA site.

chaosord:
"These male traits that are valued over female traits means sexism." I must ask what are those male traits and why are they valued?

Already see where you're going with this, but let's play it out anyway. I have nothing better to do at this point, and even if you're proving yourself a waste of my breath others reading this thread might not be.

Strength, fortitude, determination, intelligence, rationality, effectiveness, logic, toughness, independence, honesty, authority, gameness, straightforwardness, dependability, emotional stability and the capacity for self defence, among many, many others. All valued because they are socially useful, of course. Why else would any social trait be valuable?

My tolerance for you has long since ran out. So feel free to straw-man and put words in my mouth as much as you want. Enjoy clinging to a sexist ideology.

chaosord:
My tolerance for you has long since ran out. So feel free to straw-man and put words in my mouth as much as you want. Enjoy clinging to a sexist ideology.

If you feel I'm putting words in your mouth, then correct me. Surely you can do that, surely you can explain how what I've said differs from what you meant, right? I mean, you said it.

If you actually can't do so, then maybe the words coming out of your mouth don't mean what you think they mean.. just like the words "sexist" and "ideology" don't mean what you seem to think they mean.

Or perhaps you just think that posturing and making grandiose unreasonable statements should count for something, and the fact that it doesn't indicates that I'm not understanding you properly. I assure you, this is not the case. I understand the value (or more precisely the lack of value) of such statements perfectly well.

Come back when you have something to contribute, and maybe you'll have earned the right to critique my "ideology".

evilthecat:

chaosord:
My tolerance for you has long since ran out. So feel free to straw-man and put words in my mouth as much as you want. Enjoy clinging to a sexist ideology.

If you feel I'm putting words in your mouth, then correct me. Surely you can do that, surely you can explain how what I've said differs from what you meant, right? I mean, you said it.

If you actually can't do so, then maybe the words coming out of your mouth don't mean what you think they mean.. just like the words "sexist" and "ideology" don't mean what you seem to think they mean.

Or perhaps you just think that posturing and making grandiose unreasonable statements should count for something, and the fact that it doesn't indicates that I'm not understanding you properly. I assure you, this is not the case. I understand the value (or more precisely the lack of value) of such statements perfectly well.

Come back when you have something to contribute, and maybe you'll have earned the right to critique my "ideology".

This is going to be my last post towards you.

You have put implications where there were none. Which I have called you out on, only to have you do the same once again.
As for my points, which you either are deliberately misrepresenting or lack the ability to understand, are just being straw-manned or outright ducked. So feel free to say whatever you like, and I will use my right to call you out on your bullshit. Not that it would do any good but hey, I'm crazy like that.

Gethsemani:

JJMUG:

"Scientists have for a long time been interested in the relationship between testosterone and aggressive behavior. In most species, males are more aggressive than females. Castration of males usually has a pacifying effect on aggressive behavior in males. In humans, males engage in crime and especially violent crime more than females. The involvement in crime usually rises in the early teens to mid teens which happen at the same time as testosterone levels rise. Research on the relationship between testosterone and aggression is difficult since the only reliable measurement of brain testosterone is by a lumbar puncture which is not done for research purposes. Studies therefore have often instead used more unreliable measurements from blood or saliva."

Interesting how the only way to know is a lumbar puncture which we don't all will nilly.

"Many studies have also been done on the relationship between more general aggressive behavior/feelings and testosterone. About half the studies have found a relationship and about half no relationship."
Handbook of Crime Correlates; Lee Ellis, Kevin M. Beaver, John Wright; 2009; Academic Press

It is ok most people are wrong.

So it is a 50/50 toss up whatever or not testosterone really promotes violent behavior? Or more likely, the scientific community is still trying to come to an agreement on the issue.

Something that's important to realize is that violent and aggressive behavior stimulates the production of testosterone in both men and women. Just like intimacy and physical contact stimulates the production of oxytocin, which makes us less aggressive and more relaxed. There are also studies that shows that men who live with children (and particularly sleep in the same room or even same bed as infants) have lower levels of testosterone than men who doesn't live with children. All in all, it should be said that even if men have an innately higher level of testosterone than women, that's not the same as saying that men are innately more aggressive than women. High levels of testosterone correlating with aggression also raises the question which came first, the aggression or the testosterone?

Currently, we really don't know.

Lets review "Research on the relationship between testosterone and aggression is difficult since the only reliable measurement of brain testosterone is by a lumbar puncture which is not done for research purposes"

Don't worry I will explain you see they only way to truly know is by taking a needle and putting it into a man's spine, to get spinal fluid. Now this is not done becuase while its may be "safe" it can cause nerve damage, meningitis, bleeding inside the spinal canal, damge the cartilage between the vertebrae. Which leads to a host of other problems, but who cares thet are only men right?

Another review "Studies therefore have often instead used more unreliable measurements from blood or saliva."
You see the word unreliable very important.

chaosord:
As for my points, which you either are deliberately misrepresenting or lack the ability to understand, are just being straw-manned or outright ducked.

You know. If you could demonstrate or show this, it might strengthen your non-existent argument.

However, what you're doing now is alleging it with absolutely nothing to back it up which, really, is all you've done in this thread. You don't support anything you say at any point. Then when this is pointed out you allege you're being misrepresented but seem incapable of explaining how. You have not even managed to rebuke a single one of the "misrepresentative" conclusions I have come to, you've simply pointed out that I've come to them like that's a bad thing. You can critique my argumentative style all you want, but that doesn't make me wrong.

So what am I meant to believe? That you're deliberately holding back your actual argument so that you can watch me draw the wrong conclusion from the stupid things you've said, or that there is actually no argument and you are just coming out with stupid things?

Because if you lack the ability to demonstrate that I'm getting your point wrong, you've pretty much forfeited the right to say that I'm doing so. Sulking about it and pretending like you don't have to support any of your statements because obviously they're just too deep and special for anyone else to understand doesn't make it true. It's just more pointless bluster and arrogance.

JJMUG:

Lets review "Research on the relationship between testosterone and aggression is difficult since the only reliable measurement of brain testosterone is by a lumbar puncture which is not done for research purposes"

Don't worry I will explain you see they only way to truly know is by taking a needle and putting it into a man's spine, to get spinal fluid. Now this is not done becuase while its may be "safe" it can cause nerve damage, meningitis, bleeding inside the spinal canal, damge the cartilage between the vertebrae. Which leads to a host of other problems, but who cares thet are only men right?

Another review "Studies therefore have often instead used more unreliable measurements from blood or saliva."
You see the word unreliable very important.

So, basically, what you are saying is, once again: Currently there's no scientific consensus on how large a part testosterone plays in male aggression and violence. This is, partially, because the only way to get consistently reliable testosterone values is to perform a lumbar punction.

It is kind of cute how you use really small words to tell me what a lumbar punction is though, considering I've assisted or witnessed several of them.

Lil devils x:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm
Male offender/Male victim 65.3%
Male offender/Female victim 22 .7%
Female offender/Male victim 9.6%
Female offender/Female victim 2 .4%
That isn't a "little tidbit" that is a huge difference in numbers.
When you view the sheer number of male offenders vs female offenders, it is more than apparent that men are more likely to kill than women.
It isn't just murder however:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178904000618
http://www.wikigender.org/index.php/Gender_and_Crime

on an interesting note though. going by the number you posted women made up a total of 12% of the homicides they had 7.2% more male victims than female. while men made up 88% of homicides they had 42.6% more male victims than female. so of all the victims 74.9% were male. with both genders more lily to kill a man than woman. and women were 3 times more likely to kill a man. that is something i don't quite know what to make of right now. just wanted to point that out.

dystopiaINC:

on an interesting note though. going by the number you posted women made up a total of 12% of the homicides they had 7.2% more male victims than female. while men made up 88% of homicides they had 42.6% more male victims than female. so of all the victims 74.9% were male. with both genders more lily to kill a man than woman. and women were 3 times more likely to kill a man. that is something i don't quite know what to make of right now. just wanted to point that out.

That's because women overwhelmingly tend to kill family members, of which a considerable percentage (most common or close to it) are their husbands/partners. This is a large part of the skew towards women tending to murder men. It's also worth noting that most women who murder their husbands have been victims of persistent domestic violence.

Agema:
That's because women overwhelmingly tend to kill family members, of which a considerable percentage (most common or close to it) are their husbands/partners. This is a large part of the skew towards women tending to murder men. It's also worth noting that most women who murder their husbands have been victims of persistent domestic violence.

I have searched for but been unable to find any studies or statistics that confirm the part in bold.
Could you provide some for me if it's not too much trouble?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here