Let's avoid sexism in general, if we can

[jpgray]

I hate to post about this, since (like reverse racism) it is hardly worth bothering about. So above all don't mistake me--the truly dangerous sexism today is limited to misogyny. Currently the cultures which are most violent and have the worst record for human rights are patriarchal. Without the sort of direct oppression experienced by far too many women today, sexism aimed at men doesn't really have a lot of teeth. That much is indisputable. Since we're ostensibly a board of progressives, I thought I'd bring up this peripheral issue a bit anyway, since I assume we all agree misogyny is the only truly dangerous sexism right now.

I did, however, read a thread today where a surprising number of folks argued for the superiority of women as far as lacking a capacity for cruelty, violence, etc. There's no way to "prove" it either way, but I just ask that no one buy into that too easily. Historically, female rulers have had a vast capacity for violence, usually having their violent policies carried out by men. That's hardly preferable, and I wouldn't call it superior. Might we all just keep in mind the OED defines sexism as "the assumption that one sex is superior to the other?"

To my mind, assuming women are naturally predisposed to kindness and understanding while men are predisposed to violent, bigoted aggression is a massive oversimplification. There is no question that patriarchal societies are vastly more responsible for violence and death in this world, and that men are personally far more aggressive and physically capable of violence in general, but you might remember large societies have been almost exclusively patriarchal, and the few female leaders we've had haven't done a great deal better. If they've done better at all (which is impossible to prove).

Don't be too eager to separate out and measure cruelty in leadership by gender--the number of well-known male leaders dwarfs the number of well-known female leaders, and makes such a comparison difficult. When men have such a massive sample, the most beneficent and the most malevolent rulers tend to fall under the male category. That to me doesn't indicate men have more ability both to be kind and to be cruel. Perhaps a better example would be to ask high school kids which gender they think is more capable of basic cruelty. I think you'd wind up with an even split. In my view, men just have far more power to put that cruelty into action--on a personal level due to different levels of strength and aggression between the genders, but also on a larger scale due to the overwhelming majority of our societies being patriarchies. So before you write off -all- men as naturally predisposed to violence, keep in mind that in too many cases we're the only game in town, and have natural advantages to enforce cruelty on an individual scale.

That doesn't necessarily mean that men are more violent than women--the strange, violent fantasies some female posters have towards men that I've occasionally seen on this board from an infinitesimal minority make me think we aren't as radically different in that regard as most assume. Given the power to act out their cruelty, a similar number of both men and women will unfortunately leap at the chance. After all, the nasty boss stories I hear are about 50% of the time male, and 50% of the time female. It's true far more violence today results from the actions and ideas of men, but far more of anything today results from the actions and ideas of men--it's what happens in an unequal society. I just want to point out that there is no way to prove that men are naturally violent and women are naturally benevolent based on those statistics, so it's best to just take them for what they are and not make any sweeping generalizations.

You would be right to point out that I have no way of proving that the genders have a similar capacity for violence. I don't. But just remember your own social experiences, and ask yourself if you've experienced general cruelty in plenty from both genders. I think most people have. Now imagine that being magnified by ultimate societal power, such as men have. In other words, let's all not be too quick to judge, yeah?

I'm really not trying to complain about misandry, because it's a waste of time. And I really don't want to belittle all the violence women have suffered at the hands of men. And I really don't want to sound like a white male crying about being persecuted. I just want people to consider things carefully and not to judge too easily. You may well find that for you men are inarguably more cruel and violent and that's that, but I haven't been able to prove that to myself as yet. And certainly misogyny is the first priority to fix, as it does by far the most harm.

And now I run away to hide. :D

:hide:

[rockymountaindem]

1. You'd better hide well

:popcorn:

[jpgray]

7. Nah. If you're longwinded and banal enough, you can avoid a bad flamewar

I've had lots of practice at it. :P

[NMDemDist2]

11. ROFL

:rofl:

[NMDemDist2]

2. Empress Wu of China and Katherine the Great of Russia

both women ordered brutal mass killings


and both got their positions by killing their children


yeah, men don't have the market cornered on brutality by a long shot

[jpgray]

6. But of course even basic comparisons between heads of state are hugely flawed

You have to account for different cultures, different systems of gov't, different bodies of advisers and legislatures, the military--all those influences which make a huge sort of inertial difference in how a ruler behaves. If we're going to go there, there are probably more "good" male rulers than female just by virtue of sample size alone, and I don't think -anyone- would argue that means men are smarter, more able or have a greater capacity for kindness than women. So it's another dead end. But hopefully people will at least recognize it's a dead end.

[HardRocker05]

24. would one man in a group of 100 women act differently than he would in a group of 100 men?

of course he would, especially if those 100 women were very powerful, and he lived in a world where women wielded almost all the power. you can't really tell a lot from how a few female rulers operated in a world that was still almost entirely controlled by men. they had to play by man's rules, or they wouldn't have been there at all. imagine if those same female despots you mentioned had been in power at a time when 95+% of all other rulers were also female; do you think that they would have behaved the same way? seems unlikely.

[jpgray]

25. That's another reason why these piecemeal analyses don't really work

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. also under Indira Gandhi, india commited a lot of violence against its citizens.

[uppityperson]

3. I read that thread also and decided I was too tired to duke it out.

I used to believe that the difference between males (as a group) and females (as a group) was sociological, then I had a son. I still believe a lot of it is sociological with many differences between individuals, but also there is a difference between the sexes as a whole generic general group.

Dixie Lee Ray, gov of WA back around '80, Reaganish beliefs. I would like to see more women in powers of position because it would provide a balance, but each of those people is an individual, which means more than the "group mentality" must be taken into account.

Edited to add that I didn't list my sex in my profile for a long time, wanted to be taken as a person, not m/f.

[jpgray]

5. Your last line is an indication of how far we have yet to go

I think as equality increases, we can get a clearer picture of these things. I may turn out to be very wrong, but if we at least have an equal playing field for me to make my amateur judgments from, I'd still die a happy man. :D

[Jed Dilligan]

4. What you're arguing against is essentialism

which in my view is turning a cultural idea of "the Feminine" (rooted in patriarchal culture, oddly enough) into some sort of natural law. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy: patriarchal values are bad and belittle their stereotype of femininity, ergo, that stereotype must be what is good, so we should cling to it. To me this is an intellectual abyss.

On a more personal level, I have knife wounds in my body from a very violent woman I once knew. They still hurt sometimes. I did nothing to provoke her--just tried to stop her from hurting someone else. Her world was a world of perceived wrongs and projected negativity. If she's still alive I hope she's found peace.

[jpgray]

10. Lots of anecdotal evidence exists for cruelty from both genders

But in terms of physical violence and abuse, I have little doubt that males would make up the lion's share--the male gender has more ability to act out cruel and violent acts by nature. That's another opinion that's impossible to prove, but I think the statistics bear it out on an individual level.

[IChing]

15. violence of the mind or body is a power

that each sex has.

However the essence is still
a human flaw that is indispensable
which we makes us cling to a God that may save us
from ourselves and our actions.

Male or Female is not to blame
it is our total humanity.

[jpgray]

26. Which hexagram is that, exactly?

:P

That's the way I like to see it. Whether or not I'm right in thinking that I don't really know.

[BoneDaddy]

37. Wise words

thanks

[Madspirit]

8. Wacky Silly Women

**jpgray...You may well find that for you men are inarguably more cruel and violent and that's that, but I haven't been able to prove that to myself as yet.**


Maybe we wacky women were thinking about this...ya think:

Violence Against Women in the United States

MURDER. Every day four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence, the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends. That's approximately 1,400 women a year, according to the FBI. The number of women who have been murdered by their intimate partners is greater than the number of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War.

BATTERING. Although only 572,000 reports of assault by intimates are officially reported to federal officials each year, the most conservative estimates indicate two to four million women of all races and classes are battered each year. At least 170,000 of those violent incidents are serious enough to require hospitalization, emergency room care or a doctor's attention.

SEXUAL ASSAULT. Every year approximately 132,000 women report that they have been victims of rape or attempted rape, and more than half of them knew their attackers. It's estimated that two to six times that many women are raped, but do not report it. Every year 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by their current or former male partners, some more than once.

THE TARGETS. Women are 10 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate. Young women, women who are separated, divorced or single, low- income women and African-American women are disproportionately victims of assault and rape. Domestic violence rates are five times higher among families below poverty levels, and severe spouse abuse is twice as likely to be committed by unemployed men as by those working full time. Violent attacks on lesbians and gay men have become two to three times more common than they were prior to 1988.

IMPACT ON CHILDREN. Violent juvenile offenders are four times more likely to have grown up in homes where they saw violence. Children who have witnessed violence at home are also five times more likely to commit or suffer violence when they become adults.

IMPACT ON HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES. Women who are battered have more than twice the health care needs and costs than those who are never battered. Approximately 17 percent of pregnant women report having been battered, and the results include miscarriages, stillbirths and a two to four times greater likelihood of bearing a low birth weight baby. Abused women are disproportionately represented among the homeless and suicide victims. Victims of domestic violence are being denied insurance in some states because they are considered to have a "pre-existing condition."

LEGISLATION. In 1994, the National Organization for Women, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, and other organizations finally secured passage of the Violence Against Women Act, which provides a recordbreaking $1.8 billion to address issues of violence against women.

(There's .....more...below these sources....)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES:

http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html:

"Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report", U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., January 1994.
"The National Women's Study," Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 1992.
"Five Issues In American Health," American Medical Association, Chicago, 1991.
Bullock, Linda F. and Judith McFarlane, "The Birth Weight/Battering Connection," Journal of American Nursing, September 1989.
McFarlane, Judith, et. al., "Assessing for Abuse During Pregnancy," Journal of the American Medical Association, June 17, 1992.
Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics, 1992.
Sheehan, Myra A. "An Interstate Compact on Domestic Violence: What are the Advantages?" Juvenile and Family Justice Today, 1993.
Sherman, Lawrence W. et al. Domestic Violence: Experiments and Dilemmas, 1990.
A study of five cities -- New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and Minneapolis -- by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, published in 1992.



http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm

The National Crime Victimization Survey found that 85% of Intimate Partber Violence victims were women (Rennison 2003).
Young women and those below the poverty line are disproportionately victims of Intimate Partner Violence (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000b).
In 2002, 76% of Intimate Partner Violence homicide victims were female; 24% were male (Fox and Zawitz 2004).



http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=20316

Homicide is the second most common cause of injury-related death among pregnant women and new mothers, according to a... CDC study. Second only to car accidents.
Several health experts "lauded" the CDC study for "recognizing an overlooked phenomenon," the Post reports. "I think it's a very important first step," Jacquelyn Campbell, a domestic homicide researcher at Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, said, adding that additional research is needed "to really understand how widespread it is" and determine "how best to intervene to prevent these deaths."

[jpgray]

9. First of all, I never accused women of being wacky. And that type of analysis cuts both ways

I admitted in the OP that men have more opportunities for violence on a personal level just by nature. We are more aggressive and physically stronger than women. And yes, we have committed horrible crimes and will unfortunately continue to do so as a gender. Does that mean men are naturally more cruel? Perhaps. But you can't prove that with those statistics.

And an argument that proves the problem with the logic of behavior by volume would go as follows:

The top providers by volume of charity, human rights, and benevolent leadership would include almost infinitely more men than women. Is it because men are naturally kinder or more disposed to generosity than women? Nope. Men just have far more opportunity to put those qualities into action. Just as they have more opportunity to put violent cruelty into action. You can't generalize about an entire gender based on these statistics. It's another dead end.

[Madspirit]

12. Nope

The way people behave in their most intimate of relationships is THE most telling. The pregnancy homicides make me want to puke most of all.
...and of course I can generalize. A generalization exists because it's generally true. Thus the definition of it....
You know, I wouldn't complain nearly so much about Straight White Boys Whining if you ever even once showed as much concern for these facts laid out as you do for a possible mischaracterization of YOU. Why don't you write a long and impassioned post with hurt feelings and sighs and groans about men beating their pregnant wives to death? Why doesn't THAT upset you? Indeed. Why did you make the abuse, rape and murder of women about your hurt feelings?
Lee

[jpgray]

14. I assume that's taken for granted on a progressive board--maybe I shouldn't

But if you need me to tell you that I feel awful about the horrible violence men commit toward women on an hourly basis, this is me telling you that I do.

But do you understand what I mean about statistics by volume? When men have a stranglehold on power in society, it stands to reason that their behaviors, both good and bad, will be magnified by that power. That's true to a lesser extent in individual relationships, but it's true to a massive extent in society. For example, the same logic you use above would argue that since the vast majority of wars are caused by men, men are more warlike than women. Would you agree with that? Now let's turn it around. Since most Nobel Peace Prize winners are men, men are more peaceful than women. Both are fallacies--they ignore the fact that men have vastly more power and therefore vastly more opportunities to exert their influence, in both good and bad ways.

I'll give you the point that the statistics of individual violence denote a greater ability in men to act out cruelty than women, but we must disagree that this means there is an essential difference in the genders when it comes to -capacity- for general cruelty. I just don't think you can take those statistics that far.

[Madspirit]

16. You need to read

Go to medical sites and read about testosterone and come back and tell me that men are not more violent and aggressive by nature. Go to Harvard Medical School online or Cornell or take your pick. Go read about testosterone and come back and look me in the eyes and tell me men are not, by nature, more violent than women. There are some essential differences in the genders.
Lee

[jpgray]

17. I said in the original post that men are more individually aggressive by nature

I'm just arguing against the idea that we can make sweeping generalizations about each gender's capacity for cruelty based on faulty statistical analysis. I don't think there's any question that men are naturally more capable of -carrying out- violence on an individual level.

[Madspirit]

19. So

So you admit that statistically men do commit more violence against women than women do against men, in intimate relationships and that the violence perpetrated against the women is MUCH more often fatal and that men do beat their pregnant wives to death at alarming rates and women never beat their pregnant husbands to death because...hey... and you agree that men are, by nature, more violent and aggressive than women but ....but....you wish we would quit saying it?
Lee

[jpgray]

21. Remember we're talking about a capacity for cruelty here

Not the ability to carry it out. Just by nature, men have more capacity to carry out violence--they are physically stronger in general than women, and more aggressive.

But again, with more -opportunity- comes more -volume- of behavior. I note carefully that you don't say women aren't capable of certain types of violence. You don't say that, because based on these statistics of course they are, though always at a lesser rate than the men. The question is, can this gap be explained away by men being stronger and more aggressive (in other words having a greater opportunity to carry out cruelty), or by a fundamental difference in -capacity- for cruelty? It's impossible to prove either one. I'm not looking for you to submit to my viewpoint, but to explain why I don't think you can write the male gender off on this basis.

Again, I would point out that in figures for world charity, Nobel Peace Prize winners, historical lists of greatest world leaders, etc., that most of the top names would be male. Is that because men have more -capacity- for kindness and intelligence? Of course not. It has to do with men having vastly more opportunities to express those qualities.

So in other words, to my mind this is more about a difference of opportunity than a fundamental difference in capacity for certain emotions.

[Madspirit]

18. We Feminists

We feminists quit pretending humans are all just androgynous beings with nothing beyond the surface differences, a long time ago.
Lee

[jpgray]

20. I just wish people wouldn't be so quick to write off an entire gender/race/whatever

It's a completely peripheral issue to talk about sexism coming from women, because without the accompanying obscenity of oppression it doesn't have any teeth. But I figured since everyone here -presumably- acknowledges that misogyny is the only actively oppressive sexism out there today that we could at least have a polite chat about it. Oh well.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

27. The behaviors that testosterone influence do not exist in a vacuum

Testosterone levels and effects are impacted by any number of physiological and psychological variables. In other words it's not the thing itself, it's what you do with it that matters; and what you do with it is more a matter of social conditioning than a biologic imperative.

Although higher levels of testosterone have been linked to aggressive and violent behavior, it is not the "violence" hormone. Current science takes into consideration its impact on an array of behaviors, including competitiveness and rising to a challenge - which also encompasses altruistic response and other risk-taking behavior, both positive and negative. For example, animal research suggests that low levels of testosterone enhance the fear response, as in frozen with fear, which prevents an aggressive (and potentially life-saving) reaction to attack. But testosterone itself - all by itself, at normal levels - has not been linked to antisocial behavior.

Testosterone, like estrogen, is a growth hormone. Its levels fluctuate with your age, your environment and your levels of other hormones. And by "you" I mean you, because both genders possess the exact same hormones, albeit in differing amounts. One study implicated increased testosterone levels in violence among women in jail - an excellent example of environmental impact, because few places are more challenging, and a competitive challenge is likely to result in violence. Maybe if they were at home they would have just slammed some doors.

That is some of the information I gleaned by taking your challenge and reading about testosterone. If I could look you in the eye I would tell you that men are not more violent by nature just because they possess more testosterone. I agree with the OP that, while statistics show that men commit more violent crimes, it is not because one gender has a monopoly on cruelty, a human trait that all humans share.

I have always enjoyed my own allotment of testosterone. It has helped me be competitive in business and, as impacted by my social conditioning, eager to reach out and help someone in need. Not to mention its impact on sex. As I get older, not so much. Just like the other growth hormone, it's fading away. Maybe I'll get myself a patch.

[jpgray]

63. Thanks so much for this

I think it goes to show that even though it's very tempting to force admittedly very pleasing simple interpretations on chemicals, social systems, statistics, etc., it's almost impossible to make a broad statement about causes for human behavior without including myriad qualifications. Maybe Goedel was right to say no system can explain itself.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. no one is denying that men commit the vast majority of crimes against women/humanity

however i find it very hard to believe that women are magically just better creatures. i think we are socialized into better ways and have less power in society.

[BoneDaddy]

38. You are missing the point

The point isn't made to deny patriarchy or to attack women. The point is to challenge the sexism towards men by women. The mass generalizations, the stereotyping and the often irrationality of so called feminists who continually attack men (in general) on these boards is ridiculous. The pervasive anti-male comments by women often go unchallenged and are regularly supported by the administration.

The point was that white men do not have a corner on violence. Women, minorities and the "oppressed" have just as much potentiality to do the same.

If the same kind of illogical statements were made about any other group (especially if they fall into an "oppressed" category) you and others would flip, but it seems to be ok to do that towards men.

[hfojvt]

65. also, I might point out

Violence against men in the United States

Homicide victims in 1998 - 4,081 women, 13,580 men

violent crime rate in 1999 - against men 37.0, against women 28.8

aggravated assault - against men 8.7, against women 4.8

suicide rate 20 - 44 year olds men 23.5, women 6.0

women are not the only victims. It is not men vs. women.

[Scout]

75. women are not the only victims

who are the perpetrators in most of the violence against the men?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. It's possibly worth scaling these, to put them in perspective.

There are about 1.5 x 10^8 women in the USA.

1400 murders a year is about 1 in 10^5 women dying as a result of domestic violence. That's about 1 in 1000 female deaths being attributable to it.

572,000 women being battered a year = 1 in 262 women.
2,000,000 = 1 in 75 (I am somewhat sceptical that this is "the most conservative estimate, though).
4,000,000 = 1 in 37

170,000 is one in 880 women being hospitalised as a result of battering every year.

132,000 women reporting having been raped is one in 1136 every year.

1,200,000 being raped by current or former partners would be 1 woman in 125 every year, but I'm very sceptical indeed about the accuracy of that claim (for one thing, in the preceding line it's claimed that the number of women raped is between 2 and 6 time 132,000, giving an upper bound of 792,000...). I think this one is almost certainly just a guess without much to back it up, and probably but not certainly an over rather than an underestimate, possibly by quite a lot. I think the implied claim of "between 1 in 190 and 1 in 568" is a more probable range. I haven't done enough research to be confident about that, though.

1.8 billion dollars being spent on violence against women is about 6 dollars for each citizen of the US, or about 12 dollars per woman. That's the total for one specific 1994 initiative, though, not the US's total spending on things related to violence against women.


Per capitas are almost always easier to think about than absolutes, I find, especially when the absolute statistics refer to a country with a population 5 times bigger than the one I live in.

[Kiouni]

13. . . .

:smoke:

[HardRocker05]

22. you are wrong on the 'if women had equal capacity for violence, they would commit the same

the same amount.' how much strength does it take to pull a trigger? do women commit the same number of gun murders as men? Or how about violence against children, invalids, old people, etc., where women would have plenty of capacity? do they commit the same amount of violence there? and maybe most tellingly, how about violence and cruelty to animals? certainly they have the capacity to commit violent acts against animals, and in our society one can do this with virtual impugnity, but, now i haven't seen any scientific studies here, but i'm guessing females commit far fewer acts of violence and cruelty to animals than males do. and you know what? it's not about 'bashing' men, it's just about wanting to see a change in the behavior, but you have so many men who refuse to even admit that there is a problem.

[jpgray]

23. I'm not saying I know the answer here--you may be exactly right

I'm only saying let's not write men off as intrinsically worse just yet. Let's turn it around from violence to something positive--most of the greatest advances in human rights, science, philanthropy, etc., have been brought about by men, just considering sheer volume as you have above. Does this mean in -any- way that men have more capacity for those qualities than women? No. They just have had infinitely more opportunity to express those qualities in our societies throughout history. I'm just saying let's at least -consider- that it isn't a fundamental malevolence in males that females lack completely which causes this violence.

[LostinVA]

28. Chemically, women AREN'T as violent as men

Of course, I'm excluding sociopaths of both genders. People forget testosterone is a dangerous drug...

People who doubt this should read first-hand accounts of what happens when both FTM and MTF transgendered people go through hormone therapy. fascinating. And kinda scary.

[jpgray]

48. I've always been curious about that sort of thing

And it's another indication that it's hard to know anything certain about human behavior and the causes. Is the increased testosterone actually changing one's compulsions and desires, or does it just increase aggression and the proclivity to carry out violence? In any case it's completely true that the gap between personal violence as it concerns men and women bears explaining. Maybe I'm bending over backward to try to avoid conceding men have an inherently greater capacity for cruelty, but the best I can offer is simply that it's impossible to prove.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

60. I invite you to read #27

It is the summary of what I read about testosterone in the space of about 90 minutes researching online at medical and government sites, and reading the summaries of studies involving testosterone.

In and of itself, testosterone is not dangerous and has not been linked to antisocial behavior. But researchers who have studied prison populations have linked high levels of testosterone to aggressive and violent behavior in both men and women. Both genders share all the same hormones but in differing amounts. But regardless of what amount of testosterone occurs naturally in either gender, high levels create problems for both genders.

It's important to note that low levels have been linked to other undesirable effects. This is true of any hormone, no matter what physical function or behavioral action it impacts. Abnormal levels create problems.

I don't like to see an entire gender indicted because of its biological make-up. Saying men are more violent because of testosterone is no different than saying women are less capable of leadership because of estrogen. I agree with your original point concerning cruelty, a human trait that exists in all humans regardless of whatever biological differences shape its expression.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. i think women are just as capable of violence if socialized in the same manners as men

also women, socialized as they are today, are better at obeying instructions, which makes things like Abu Ghraib, with women oppressors possible.


i think the vast majority of differences in men and women lie in socialization, and hence arguments that women are by nature any better is highly implausible to me.

[porphyrian]

30. I'm not sexist, but I'm a product of a sexist system and a guy.

I'm working towards freedom and justice for everyone.

[H2O Man]

33. The focus should

be on violence. Violence should be viewed as the problem to be confronted, rather than attempting to make issues of violence a confrontation between the sexes. And that includes violence from the level of international relationships to family relationships.

Violence tends to occur when a person attacks someone who they believe is "weaker" than they are. It frequntly has been -- on the family level -- men attacking others, including women, children, and other men. Yet there can be no rational argument that denies the reality of women being active participants is family violence. The most glaring example that involves single mothers who neglect and/or abuse their children.

As a society, our goals should be to reduce the amounts of violence from the White House to our own house. That must involve finding unity rather than focusing on differences, and working together to reach a higher ground.

[blondeatlast]

35. As usual, excellent post. Thanks. nt

[noamnety]

41. That approach avoids examining the systemic causes of misogyny.

You can either deny that misogyny exists, and deny its relationship to the oppression of women, or you can confront it head on.

Confronting it head on does NOT diminsh the need to reduce ALL violence.

But willfully ignoring the role that misogyny plays in gendered violence is like trying to address lynchings without ever saying the word racist - as if, so long as we don't say that word - racism isn't related to lynchings.

This is why language has weight. Those who control language are those in power. It's why there's always a backlash when those who don't have power attempt to control language - we end up with a gut level anger about someone else creating words and language - because it upsets the power structure. So much anger over African American Vernacular English, you know, or immigrants using their native language - all related to who is or isn't allowed to control speech.

This is why there are so many words to degrade women, and not so many to degrade men. It's why if you confront someone on using "bitch" - they'll often come back and defend themselves by saying "if it were a guy, I'd call him a "bastard" - as if that isn't part of the system of oppression itself, as if that word isn't an insult because it attacks the mother, specifically, in a gendered way, for not following the rules set forth by men for appropriate sexual behavior.

I've seen racism and misogyny whitewashed into "political correctness" in an attempt to remove the uglier - and more accurate - words that apply from the debate.

As for who is, by nature, more violent? Combo of chemicals and gendering as part of our culture, I'd say. Who is more moral? Nobody. Who is oppressed in this SYSTEM because of their IDENTITY? Women, and people of color.

There are always, and will always be, random acts of violence. But violent crimes done because of a person's identity in a group because of our cultural devaluation of those people - and contempt of them - is done by privileged people against oppressed people, and I don't see the value of avoiding that fact in discussion.

[H2O Man]

42. In response to

your use of the words "deny" and "ignoring," I will only say that I am retired after a career in human services that included directing community-based programs that dealt with family violence, and co-facilitating groups that dealt with those were found guilty of domestic violence. One of my last tasks was to work on a coordinated multi-service program that provided treatment for the most difficult cases of abusive parents that the family courts in our county had to deal with. I stand by my earlier post.

[noamnety]

45. Abusive parents come in all races.

That doesn't mean that racism isn't a real problem that needs to be addressed.

Abusive parents come in all genders.

That doesn't mean that misogyny isn't a real problem that needs to be addressed.

There is a system of power in this country, and every one of us here knows it ain't the women of color running that system, and every one of us here knows who benefits the most and who is hurt the most by that system.

I don't see a reason to avoid that discussion. The fact that it may not be a discussion that incorporates ALL causes of violence does not negate the need to have that discussion.

[goodgd_yall]

55. I find your post on this subject to be the most clear-headed

intelligent, and aware. Thanks.

[BoneDaddy]

34. Excellent post

It gets real tiring hearing the same illogical irrational memes about how white men are the devil and anyone of color, female or poor do not have the capacity to abuse power, be cruel, or be violent.

If people cannot see that that mass generalizations are the same dynamic that was done to the oppressed then we cannot even begin to have a conversation.

Sadly, there are a good number of people on this board who are just as bigoted, prejudiced, hate filled and irrational as those they criticize for "oppressing" them.

Edited: Funny how quickly we forget the men who have died in service of protecting the weak, the oppressed and who have perished in wars protecting the populace from the more evil characters of history.

[bettyellen]

71. wow you're against the troops now if your a (hysterical) feminist! thanks for the laugh!

what idiocy... see JP, why we get disgusted with guys making this whole thing about them?

[ananda]

36. sexism is pervasive

USA society is sexist, very sexist.. worse than ever.

All you have to do is watch Oprah, which is rife with
internalized sexism.. be glam and cute, you know..
fix yourself.

All you have to do is watch tv or look around and you'll
see the distress women have around their bodies and
having to be nice. It's horrible.

All you have to do is look at roles women have to play,
and the discrepancy in pay... at single parenthood..
at abuse and violence... etc.

Sue

[Beelzebud]

39. If you are never offended, you aren't living in a free society.

[Hidden Stillness]

40. Count to Five and Here It Is... The Backlash

"Let's avoid all sexism"--starting with avoiding the real oppression, and just shutting up women instead; easier. I always wonder how long it will take: 1) Another outrage against a woman by a male who never had a long prison sentence for any of the other attacks against women; 2) Women are outraged...; 3) Male backlash--"You bitches aren't paying any attention to ME," disguised as windbag social/philosophical lecture; 4) All the males who post "I hate 'bitches' " posts jump on and agree that they are so neglected, and that women are so unfair. You start by minimizing our oppression, "since I assume we all agree misogyny is the only truly dangerous sexism right now," (I don't "agree," like the recent poll where 90% of males said they believe there is no such thing as "the glass ceiling" and discrimination at work, and since somebody or other is doing this to us, we are not oppressing ourselves), continue with more orders to women, "Don't be too eager to separate out and measure cruelty in leadership by gender," continue with a bizarre threat, "So before you write off -all- men as naturally predisposed to violence, keep in mind that in too many cases we're the only game in town, and have natural advantages to enforce cruelty on an individual scale," and end with the usual taunt, "And now I run away to hide," complete with picture indicating that women are "attacking" you, so I assume any defense of ourselves will be muddled as "sexism," your typical, here-presented routine.

Blah blah blah, I will not go through the dreary rest of it as all women have heard it a million times--you paid attention to WOMEN, you "bitch," etc.--and this OP was not unusual, did all the typical "ran down the list of historical National rulers" list, a tactic I have never understood, etc.--hey, "liberal," just try reading ordinary crime statistics, and lack of sentences for male woman-beaters and rapists. If you want to remove "all"sexism, then why do males like you never write these things for males to confront THEIR attitudes with? I guess it isn't "all," after all.

[Madspirit]

43. Exactly What I Said

Exactly what I said above:

"You know, I wouldn't complain nearly so much about Straight White Boys Whining if you ever even once showed as much concern for these facts laid out as you do for a possible mischaracterization of YOU. Why don't you write a long and impassioned post with hurt feelings and sighs and groans about men beating their pregnant wives to death? Why doesn't THAT upset you? Indeed. Why did you make the abuse, rape and murder of women about your hurt feelings?"


...and yes, if these were truly compassionate caring men they would be a lot more concerned about the violence toward women perpetrated by men than in just whining and trying to shut us up with accusations.
Lee

[jpgray]

47. I think women have a perfect right to be angry, defensive, and offended

All I can say is that I really wasn't trying to go there with this post, and certainly I can't remember asking women to shut up. As I asked the previous poster, what would you like me to say? Or is there really anything I can say?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

50. Being upset about violence against women would be a given, right?

I would think just because the OP didn't specifically mention being upset about it (in the OP) doesn't mean that he isn't.

[jpgray]

46. I wish I understood where you get "I hate 'bitches'" from this post

I also can't understand how acknowledging that sexism against women is the really dangerous kind somehow proves my guilt as a sexist male. I'm not sure that there's anything I can say to you to prove otherwise if that's the way you feel. What would you like me to say?

[blondeatlast]

53. It comes from exactly what you are discussing in the OP.

That kind of mentality makes the legitimate complaints women have "mockable." It makes men who do make an honest effort feel foolish and question why they try (I'm married, fwiw, and many zealots find that to be reprehensible in itself).

It's zealotry/us vs. them/etc.

We're in this messed up world together and we need to work together. I am raising a son and I know that the sexism is so ingrained it's hard to keep up, but I refuse to go around looking for insult when none was intended.

I'm with you, JP. I refuse to sink to the level of the worst male oppressors when I see day after day that there are males who "get it." they are too few and far between and the world needs all of them it can get.

I appreciate the effort and I will do my level best to avoid any kind of bigoted -isms, though I claim up front not to be perfect.

[jpgray]

59. That's what it's about, isn't it? More than anything it seems we're meant to work together

The real obstacle to that is of course the patriarchal system of male preference--if an even playing field existed, a lot of these basic questions would be far easier to sort out. And while I don't like bigotry towards males, I can understand very clearly where it comes from and why people think it is silly and selfish to want to discuss it, even on a forum where ostensibly everybody is behind equal rights. Even to me it seems silly and selfish.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. Great Post JPGray. Definitely Very Thoughtful. K&R

The only disagreement I have is the assertion that sexism against men doesn't have any teeth. Tell that to any man, especially with kids, who has been before a divorce court. There are other issues as well where sexism is somewhat rampant, such as with juries and punishment. For example, that preacher's wife who only was found guilty of manslaughter because she claimed the typical cookie cutter excuse of abuse. This is even though she shot him in the back with a shotgun while he was in bed. A man saying the same thing would be found guilty of 1st degree murder in a heartbeat.

So sexism most definitely goes both ways and does have its effects on each gender, but without argument of course is far more prevalent and dangerous towards the female side.

Good post.

[jpgray]

49. To me it's like the white guy complaining about the black comic's "white people can't dance" routine

There comes a point where it just feels so trivial to even bring up, and you feel very selfish and silly. The cases you bring up are sadly an instance of bias that can do a bit of good--such as age of consent laws, and removing the father from legal rights in abortion cases. It's sad, because there are cases where innocent people will get very hurt, but on the whole it likely protects more people as is--have to draw the arbitrary line somewhere.

[bettyellen]

51. wow, i have to ask you some stuff but not now...

because it's friday.
i think you're at least half right, women can be every bit as violent as men- we've really just had less opportunity, and less capability.
if we could all be kicking ass like skittles, we would be.
nice OP, interesting

[jpgray]

64. Be gentle

:P

[bettyellen]

74. like a lamb

what i'm wondering about your point in the OP, you're not trying to deny that men actually do commit more violent acts (against women as well as men). but making a point that the potential is there in women, ok, as much as i agree with that. isn;t it incredibly unlikely we are ever going to find out? i think we'd somehow have to take over a whole society in order to enact our evil plots against men. so is this potential we have relevant if we never get near testing this theory? and to be honest, i think the theory itself feeds some of these delusions of persecution that some men are harbouring. although that's not really your fault- the delusions are quite readily aroused.
you can't convince some men that being a feminist doen;t mean a hysterical hatred of men.

[jpgray]

77. It's kind of irrelevant, isn't it? Without a level playing field it's all pure conjecture

The reality is that men are far more violent in their actions than women, and deciding whether it's because they have a greater natural capacity for cruelty or because they have more opportunity doesn't really do anything to address the essential problem of actual violence and oppression. It's difficult to bring up because writing a really long thread to explain that while men may possibly be inherently worse, it isn't the -only- conclusion to draw is very peripheral to the real problem.

[bettyellen]

78. i know a lot of guys seem concerned that feminists are broadbrushing all men and your OP was

a good way of addressing that without jumping on to a thread about women's issues to do so. because when guys do that, they are really trying to derail and devalue the discussion - and feel vinidicated doing so, they explain. because of a single run in with an exceptionally abusive woman.

being pack animals, i think the day to day capacity for cruelty or goodness is to a large extent socially regulated. there's been cultural shift in attitudes towards women since we have entered the workplace and gained some reproductive freedom. A lot of the 'respect' women were accorded back in the day was hard earned for playing the assigned roles of wife and mother. it was like a protection racket. but all bets are off as to what roles people will assume these days, and the respect has often been replaced with confusion, resentment and fear. and that's a little bit understandable because a level playing field will require some sacrifices from men.

it's interesting what people post about their own experiences here- because on every thread some have never seen behavior that others find commonplace, to me, that's facinating. everyone's experience differs based on the group of people around them, but also how that group perceives them. yet, DUers are so quick to blame that people are bringing on negative attention or whatever, and assume everyones surrounding culture is just like their own. actually i've seen that more with women, the wtf you talking about/ never seen sexism in my life, men treat ME with respect so maybe you're doing something wrong. i guess it's our way of sticking our fingers in our ears and saying "la la la la la", much like the men complaining about that one controlloing bitch who it seems, has made a level playing field a non starter.

[philosophie_en_rose]

54. Men commit far more violent crimes than women.

The Department of Justice and several other entities keep statistics of violent crimes. And Men commit far, far more violent crime than women.

You ask people to look at anecdotal evidence to measure perceived "cruelty," but high school gossip is an entirely different breed of hate than the systematic abuse and oppression of women that occurs in this country and abroad.

Regardless, viewing women as equally or more violent than men will not make men less collectively violent.

[jpgray]

58. I'm just asking people not to take for granted that men are inherently more cruel

I don't at all want to dispute that there's a massive gap in violence committed by males and violence committed by females. I guess what I'm sort of bending backwards to try and argue is that males being inherently more malevolent doesn't -have- to be the only conclusion one can draw to explain that gap. However it may well be exactly the reason--I have no way of proving anything on that one way or the other. I want to try to separate the desire to be cruel and the capacity to carry it out (on a personal and certainly on a social level men have far more capacity to do so), but maybe that's impossible and a dead end anyway.

[HardRocker05]

67. more importantly, it shouldn't matter either way. violence is usuallly bad and wrong and should be

discouraged whether the cause is nature or nurture. i think that many people intuitively sense that violence is somehow inherantly more prevalent in the male gender, and hence the hesitation to criticise it, because it is perceived as criticising men for 'being men.' similarly, there is controversy about criticising misogyny in rap music, because it is considered to be criticising people for being *black* rather than for being misogynistic. these distractions must not be allowed to cloud the real issue, which is that violence and domination built on threats of violence is wrong, and it should be called as such by all people, regardless of who is committing it.

[pink-o]

56. I'm old now, so my individual experiences with sexism are fewer

...but the social sexism is still rampant, and young women are no different than I was at their age. Sexism limits us, makes us aware that we have to modify our behaviour in order to gain social approval. As an embryonic spirit in my 20s and 30s, I was pretty well concentrating on the unfairness to women, but now I understand that men are oppressed as well, since The System demands everyone's obeiscence. We need our underclasses a pecking order where we all know our places. Men may seem like the Top Dogs, but their instincts, driven by testosterone, are repressed and channeled into acceptable aggressive outputs--like violence, killing, soldiering, or even cutthroat activities in the boardroom. I used to think men owned their sexuality and we didn't, but socially that's just not true. Men have to conform to a rigid standard, or they get nothing out of society. Gay men are so reviled because they're traitors to The System--the religious and cultural judgements are just a smokescreen. It's really all about economics.

Once you regulate sexuality in a society, make it dirty and shameful, use that shame to create a very lucrative sub-culture, you're gonna get a lot of strange manifestations. Violence, rape, fetishism, serial killers, and dissatisfied, unhappy people. Check it out: Benobos, the pygmy chimps of Africa, live in harmonious social groups because whenever one of their members gets stressed, another benobo will come over and start having sex with him/her. Doesn't matter if it's a male or a female benobo, they use the act to calm each other down. Whereas the Jane Goodall chimps are territorial and aggressive, beat each other up and fight for dominance. It might just be a coincidence that Benobos are matriarchal and chimps are ruled by the Alpha males. But those apes are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom.

We coulda been Benobos. Instead we're chimpanzees.

So...summing up the long disertation, sexism comes from sexual oppression. If we were free to be intimate with each other--no standards, no judgements, but to come together with mutual respect instead of anger and resentment--if men and women could OWN our sexuality--it would go a long way towards elimating the violence and pain.

[jpgray]

57. I've read a lot about the split between chimps and bonobos--the book "Demonic Males" for instance

As you say it's hard to stop oneself from making these analogies because the possibilities are so tantalizing. Unfortunately the need to humanize primate behavior can sort of minimize essential differences, and ignore the fact that while we scarcely understand the motivations of some ape behavior, we're if anything less sure about our own motivations. But the social system of bonobos is really fascinating and encouraging--maybe it's a symbol of what a level playing field in terms of a society can accomplish insofar as limiting violent competition, etc.

[pink-o]

70. Demonic Males? I don't believe that for a minute

...although probably if I were a man I'd have the equivalent to white guilt ("Y" guilt??) seeing all the violence and destruction in the world. But there is a place for violence--aggression and territorialism were our survival techniques when we were a new species. You better believe the peaceful negotiators died like genetic inferiors in the harsh Steppe environments or other wild landscapes of Cro-Magnon--where humans had to fight animals and each other for every scrap of food and every place to sleep.

Women couldn't be aggressive: we were too busy making or nursing babies, who because of our Big Brains needed a lot more time to become independent than other animals. What we see as sexism now was necessary in our nascent existence--women couldn't protect the progeny and defend their environment at the same time, so men took on that role.

The problems we have today in defining our social positions all come from the instincts that have no place in "civilised" society. Women no longer need to be perpetually pregnant, giving birth to 10 children in hopes that one might live. They no longer need men to protect and fight for them.

So what becomes of all the skills that helped us survive in wilder times? Where do men manifest that adrenaline and testosterone?

The System wants you to channel it into wars, cutthroat competition, angry sex and he-man-woman-hating, and just basic lack of impulse control. Because that helps keep the economy strong--there are huge industries built around male sexuality and aggression. Keep it coming, Boys--keep our pockets lined!!

But neither men nor women win anything in this environment. It just isolates us from each other, when all we want is to grow closer. Our intellect gives us the power to change sex from just a (rather fun) reproductive act to real intimacy and satisfaction. But as long as The System dictates how we should manifest that sexuality, we will remain its prisoners.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

61. It'd be better if we avoided it in particular.

[jpgray]

62. Very true--I have absolutely no quarrel with anyone who regards this thread as trivial

In almost all ways it is.

[Chovexani]

66. ...

And I really don't want to sound like a white male crying about being persecuted.

Too late.

[jpgray]

73. Yeah. Is there any getting around that, do you think?

Or is broaching this subject always going to sound a bit selfish and silly?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

68. I think of Karl Marx, when he said BOTH the rich AND the poor were slaves of the system

and needed to be freed.

[rug]

69. Oh, bitch, bitch, bitch . .

[treestar]

72. IA, people are conditioned and trained from birth to be one way

or the other - Women can be as violent as men, and men can take care of children as well, in theory. We just get it trained out of us sort of like the sounds for languages other than our own that we don't use.

I always find it annoying when someone, usually men, claims something is "biological" when it really only is just what works to their advantage and give them control.

I am sure we will hear from the RW how Hillary can't be president because no woman can be tough enough to protect us from our multitude of "enemies." I love it that Hillary is the one running - she was the same one the same right wing found to be such a barracudda who was controlling Bill just because she wasn't a homemaker only and wore a headband. :rofl:

[Blue-Jay]

76. You are a bad bad man.

And by that I mean that you're even worse than the average man. (most of which are evil, and should be stabbed in the head to prevent future potential violence)

[JVS]

79. I was really hoping to see a greater number of flames when returning from DU after my 2 day hiatus

Paris Hilton killed this thread!