Why Violence Against Women is a Men's Issue

[Noa]

It only took two pages for this to start veering doing the misandry road? Really?

 

[freethinker44]

It begs the question whether it was ever patriarchy in the first place.

Well, that was the easy and obvious conclusion. A society run by men is a patriarchy, gender inequalities exist throughout that society, then the patriarchy must be the cause of gender equality. But when we look deeper into the issues and see that the gender inequality is not one gender inflicting inequality on another and instead is both genders inflicting inequality on both genders, it becomes obvious (to me, at least) that it's more of a genderless zeitgeist of gender inequality than a patriarchal or matriarchal society.

 

[freethinker44]

It only took two pages for this to start veering doing the misandry road? Really?

Yeah, who would have guessed that would happen in a thread about violence against women in a men's issues forum? Just like men, always trying to make it about themselves.

 

[Noa]

Yeah, who would have guessed that would happen in a thread about violence against women in a men's issues forum? Just like men, always trying to make it about themselves.

My bad for not realizing this was in a 'Men's Issues' section.

That being said, there is no reason the topic would have to devolve to misandry.

 

[freethinker44]

My bad for not realizing this was in a 'Men's Issues' section.

That being said, there is no reason the topic would have to devolve to misandry.

We're talking about how this effects men. It's a forum exploring men's issues, so exploring if and/or how any topic posted in a men's issues forum, including topics about women, are misandrist should never be off-topic.

That would be like going into the feminist forum and saying there is no reason for it to devolve to misogyny. That statement in itself would be kind of misogynistic, so the inverse would be kind of misandrist.

 

[Noa]

We're talking about how this effects men. It's a forum exploring men's issues, so exploring if and/or how any topic posted in a men's issues forum, including topics about women, are misandrist should never be off-topic.

I should just leave the thread at this point. Cheers.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

When both sexes are effected by sexism and inequalities from both sexes, is it really accurate to call it a patriarchy anymore?

Every society, system, and culture has its aristocracy - the people with true power, influence, privlege, and control - in other words, the wealthy. It's always beneficial for the peasants to be turned against each other, especially in a society where the serfs supposedly have a voice. What better way to divide them than along obvious lines - gender, race? It's actually quite genius that they've managed to convince everyone that, in a time of unprecedented equality and opportunity, that inequities are worse than ever along artificial, surface lines, rather than along the true line of inequity, which is wealth vs. non-wealth. People are just suckers for seeing the wrong target.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Is not every case of violence, between men and women as varied as e very case of violence between men and men?

If we're talking domestic violence, it mostly is the case of the man beating on the woman but more often than not, it's a rash, emotional decision, often regretted and forgiven after. Never mentioned outside the home as it's a family/personal/couple issue.

The great issue is the use of continuous physical, verbal and most importantly, psychological abuse from a man to a woman. I don't wish to offend any men (I'm a man myself) but it rarely the other way around. This then requires social safe keeping, which we are very poor at here in Britain, in the medical profession and by the police. How can it be improved? I'm not entirely sure but there needs to be greater vigilance, greater action and tougher law.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Is not every case of violence, between men and women as varied as e very case of violence between men and men?

If we're talking domestic violence, it mostly is the case of the man beating on the woman but more often than not, it's a rash, emotional decision, often regretted and forgiven after. Never mentioned outside the home as it's a family/personal/couple issue.

The great issue is the use of continuous physical, verbal and most importantly, psychological abuse from a man to a woman. I don't wish to offend any men (I'm a man myself) but it rarely the other way around. This then requires social safe keeping, which we are very poor at here in Britain, in the medical profession and by the police. How can it be improved? I'm not entirely sure but there needs to be greater vigilance, greater action and tougher law.

It's rarely the other way around? I'm interested as to where you've got this impression because I've never seen it that way.

In what I've seen, verbal and psychological abuse is usually a two way street (especially psychological/emotional abuse), in which women seem to be better equipped to handle it than men; this then often spills over into a man unable to manage these stresses which might result in an ugly physical confrontation. It's part of the human condition to elicit a more sympathetic response to a woman in distress than a man which creates a bias and skews the reality.

Sure, this is delving into generalisations and avoiding all the inherent variables but I think to make the statement that physical, verbal and psychological abuse is rarely inflicted upon men by woman is misleading at best. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if more "woman on man" physical violence takes place than the other way around but it is simply overlooked by everyone, including the participants, because everyone agrees that it's trivial. That being said, I've known women who have encountered extreme pressure, emotional distress and physical violence who have got through it and maintained strong, wholesome lives in circumstances that any typical man would probably have killed themselves in very early stages; this leads me to believe that: male physical strength > female physical strength; male emotional/psychological strength < female emotional/psychological strength. Societal intervention should, and does, logically and ethically act in response to a party unfairly exercising their strength over the other party.

I can tell you for a fact that delegating power to police to proceed with assault charges that no other person wants to see proceed is a step in the wrong direction (something that actually happens in countries like Australia); once you open that can of worms, you end up with a lot of destroyed families and traumatised people across the board.

I really stuck my hand back in the cauldron with this post, so I'll restate my ultimate ideal for having the gender roles that have caused these persistently sick environments that entertain almost inevitable abuse of some kind progressively dissipate as western civilization unfolds.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

It's rarely the other way around? I'm interested as to where you've got this impression because I've never seen it that way.

In what I've seen, verbal and psychological abuse is usually a two way street (especially psychological/emotional abuse), in which women seem to be better equipped to handle it than men; this then often spills over into a man unable to manage these stresses which might result in an ugly physical confrontation. It's part of the human condition to elicit a more sympathetic response to a woman in distress than a man which creates a bias and skews the reality.

Sure, this is delving into generalisations and avoiding all the inherent variables but I think to make the statement that physical, verbal and psychological abuse is rarely inflicted upon men by woman is misleading at best. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if more "woman on man" physical violence takes place than the other way around but it is simply overlooked by everyone, including the participants, because everyone agrees that it's trivial. That being said, I've known women who have encountered extreme pressure, emotional distress and physical violence who have got through it and maintained strong, wholesome lives in circumstances that any typical man would probably have killed themselves in very early stages; this leads me to believe that: male physical strength > female physical strength; male emotional/psychological strength < female emotional/psychological strength. Societal intervention should, and does, logically and ethically act in response to a party unfairly exercising their strength over the other party.

I can tell you for a fact that delegating power to police to proceed with assault charges that no other person wants to see proceed is a step in the wrong direction (something that actually happens in countries like Australia); once you open that can of worms, you end up with a lot of destroyed families and traumatised people across the board.

I really stuck my hand back in the cauldron with this post, so I'll restate my ultimate ideal for having the gender roles that have caused these persistently sick environments that entertain almost inevitable abuse of some kind progressively dissipate as western civilization unfolds.

I've studied and been involved in several mental health hospitals in this country and I can assure you, women are far more affected than men. I don't mean in the sense that women are more likely to seek help when compared to men, I mean, in many relationships, such as the ones that precipitate violence, it is men who are the perpetrators.

I'm not saying a woman's behaviour or character is always perfect or that she doesn't verbally abuse men but in many cases, it should not lead to a violent response.

And your last part, are you saying that there shouldn't be gender roles or what?

 

[Timothy Bryce]

I've studied and been involved in several mental health hospitals in this country and I can assure you, women are far more affected than men. I don't mean in the sense that women are more likely to seek help when compared to men, I mean, in many relationships, such as the ones that precipitate violence, it is men who are the perpetrators.

Are we talking specifically about physical violence here? Because my above post stated that women are absolutely more affected when the end result of a physical confrontation of that nature takes place.

Can you please clarify what you mean in your first sentence? Are you saying women are more affected by psychological torment than men? You've confused me; what evidence suggests that men are more commonly the perpetrators of psychological abuse? If so, that's incredibly presumptuous. And there are so many variables involved; how can it necessarily be proven that a woman found making complaints about her partner or husband isn't orchestrating a tactical situation for the sole purpose of psychologically assaulting said husband or partner? It's a messy area and all conclusions are fragile and vague.

I'm not saying a woman's behaviour or character is always perfect or that she doesn't verbally abuse men but in many cases, it should not lead to a violent response.

I would argue that it should never lead to a violent response from a man.

And your last part, are you saying that there shouldn't be gender roles or what?

I'm saying that I've recognised the toxicity of our existing gender roles and that a progression towards an acknowledgement of the illusory aspects of those roles; while also being mindful of the genuine, material apparent differences and not being threatened by them is a form of progress that will benefit everyone and has already proven to do so.

 

[limitedyoke]

It's rarely the other way around? I'm interested as to where you've got this impression because I've never seen it that way.

In what I've seen, verbal and psychological abuse is usually a two way street (especially psychological/emotional abuse), in which women seem to be better equipped to handle it than men; this then often spills over into a man unable to manage these stresses which might result in an ugly physical confrontation. It's part of the human condition to elicit a more sympathetic response to a woman in distress than a man which creates a bias and skews the reality.

Sure, this is delving into generalisations and avoiding all the inherent variables but I think to make the statement that physical, verbal and psychological abuse is rarely inflicted upon men by woman is misleading at best. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if more "woman on man" physical violence takes place than the other way around but it is simply overlooked by everyone, including the participants, because everyone agrees that it's trivial. That being said, I've known women who have encountered extreme pressure, emotional distress and physical violence who have got through it and maintained strong, wholesome lives in circumstances that any typical man would probably have killed themselves in very early stages; this leads me to believe that: male physical strength > female physical strength; male emotional/psychological strength < female emotional/psychological strength. Societal intervention should, and does, logically and ethically act in response to a party unfairly exercising their strength over the other party.

I can tell you for a fact that delegating power to police to proceed with assault charges that no other person wants to see proceed is a step in the wrong direction (something that actually happens in countries like Australia); once you open that can of worms, you end up with a lot of destroyed families and traumatised people across the board.

I really stuck my hand back in the cauldron with this post, so I'll restate my ultimate ideal for having the gender roles that have caused these persistently sick environments that entertain almost inevitable abuse of some kind progressively dissipate as western civilization unfolds.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html here is a link to support his claim, that's all I got