No, it’s not “violence against women” – it’s “men’s violence against women”

Powerful and insightful stuff from a man whose wife was murdered…

While the vast majority of men abhor violence against women, those dissenting male voices are rarely heard in our public discourse outside of the “monster-rapist” narrative. Indeed, the agency of male perpetrators disappears from the discussion, discouraging male involvement and even knowledge of the prevalence and diversity of male violence against women. Even the term “violence against women” sounds like a standalone force of nature, with no subject, whereas “men’s violence against women” is used far less frequently.

and

The monster myth also perpetuates a comforting lack of self-awareness. When I heard Bayley forming sentences in court, I froze because I’d been socialised to believe that men who rape are jabbering madmen who wear tracksuit bottoms with dress shoes and knee-high socks. The only thing more disturbing than that paradigm is the fact that most rapists are normal guys, guys we might work beside or socialise with, our neighbours or even members of our family.

Where men’s violence against women is normalised in our society, we often we compartmentalise it to fit our view of the victim. If a prostitute is raped or beaten, we may consider it an awful occupational hazard “given her line of work.” We rarely think “she didn’t get beaten – somebody (ie a man) beat her”. Her line of work is dangerous, but mainly because there are men who want to hurt women. If a husband batters his wife, we often unthinkingly put it down to socio-economic factors or alcohol and drugs, rather than how men and boys are taught and socialised to be men and view women.

Advertisements

About dwighttowers

Below the surface...
This entry was posted in feminism. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to No, it’s not “violence against women” – it’s “men’s violence against women”

  1. “… Even the term “violence against women” sounds like a standalone force of nature,…”

    Some would say it is just way of (a) not stereotyping all violence against women as being perpetrated by men (b) not stereotyping all men as being violent towards women (or indifferent to such violence).

    It is the same reason why we say “I was a victim of a mugging yesterday” rather than “I was a victim of a black mugging yesterday” even if the mugger was indeed black. Or we say “My car was a wreck after I was involved in a RTA” instead of “My car was a wreck after I was involved in a female RTA” even if the reckless driver who caused the accident was indeed a woman.

    “..The only thing more disturbing than that paradigm is the fact that most rapists are normal guys, guys we might work beside or socialise with, our neighbours or even members of our family….”

    And normal women too. Don’t forget women commit rape too. Schoolteachers, therapists, social workers, juvenile detention centre staff (like the ones a feminist professor recently tried to make excuses for claiming the underage boys were able to give consent to the adult female staff having sex with them). Women rape. Normal, ‘respectable’ women. They are no different to men in this respect.

    “…Where men’s violence against women is normalised in our society, we often we compartmentalise it to fit our view of the victim. If a prostitute is raped or beaten, we may consider it an awful occupational hazard “given her line of work.” …”

    Yes prostitution is illegal, and that illegality places the men and women working in the sex industry at far greater risk than they would otherwise be in if they could work ‘in the open’.

    But the same is true of men and women who trade (or buy, or use) illegal drugs. It is not that violence against WOMEN is normalised, it is that violence against the men AND women who engage in criminal activities is normalised – even if those activities are not in the slightest bit immoral (they just happen to be against the law). If a man selling certain plant leaves, or selling his body is beaten up most people will consider it an awful occupational hazard “given HIS line of work.”

    I would argue there is FAR MORE empathy and concern directed at women prostitutes being raped or beaten up than is directed at her male counterparts suffering a similar fate. A young man in a poor neighbourhood trying to support his family might deal a it of pot on the side to raise some extra cash . For this he might get beaten up, shot or arrested and put inside a cage where he will endure more beatings and probably be raped many times. In addition his children will no longer have a father figure making them (statistically) far more likely to end up in gangs or some other terrible fate. And the family is not without a breadwinner, a husband and a father.

    Does society show any concern over these men, their wives, or their children? In general women suffering a beating, rape or an accident at work are far more likely to make the news than men suffering the same terrible fate. Men account for 94% of workplace deaths, and yet they never make the news – unless a woman died with them.

    We’ve all heard the headlines “Five workers including two women were among the dead”

    Studies show that if a woman hits a man in public people side with the woman and assume the man is at fault. But if a man hits a woman in public people side with the woman and assume the man is at fault. They have filmed women assaulting men in public (ie actors) and in general most people walking by LAUGH or shout things like “you go girl!” When it’s the other way around everyone is quick to intervene or call the police.

    I’m sorry but the idea that violence against women is normalised in society is preposterous. The FACTS point to the opposite.

    “..Her (a prostitute’s) line of work is dangerous, but mainly because there are men who want to hurt women. ..”

    Nope. Her work is dangerous because it is against the law which means she cannot operate ‘out in the open’. A lot of feminists support prostitution being against the law, and their attitudes are helping put these women at risk.

    “..If a husband batters his wife, we often unthinkingly put it down to socio-economic factors or alcohol and drugs, rather than how men and boys are taught and socialised to be men and view women….”

    First of all domestic abuse victims are split about equally between men and women. But you rarely hear about battered men. You see, we are all taught that men are ‘patriarchal oppressors’ therefore they cannot be victims themselves.

    Secondly, if a man or a woman is sociopathic, abusive, violent and incapable of reason (tending to fly into a violent rage instead) WHO TAUGHT HIM/ HER TO BE THAT WAY.

    Feminists say it is the patriarchal society. A more honest answer is that it is primarily the parents who are responsible for producing such a nasty piece of work.

    90% of mothers ADMIT to still hitting their infants and babies. Hitting a child on the bottom is a sexually humiliating act (humiliation is all part of the punishment). Hitting your children is teaching them to use force, rather than language and negotiation to get what you want. Hitting children causes measurable PHYSIOLOGICAL damage to the child’s brain and body. It literally causes brain damage and puts that child into a permanent state of ‘fight or flight’. It is this state which causes so many men and women to fly off the handle in confrontational situation and assault their wives/ husbands.

    They are just acting out what was done to them during early childhood.

    And yet it is not uncommon to see a group of (feminist) women on daytime TV all casually debating the assault of children as if there was still any debate to be had. And some of them will openly admit to doing it. This is absolutely monstrous in the 21st century!

    Can you imagine a group of men on daytime TV debating hitting (‘disciplining’) their girlfriends and wives and openly admitting doing it?!!!

    Feminism is quick to accuse the imaginary ‘male patriarchy’ of oppressing women and normalising violence towards them. And yet the crime of raping a woman or a girl is probably the most taboo crime in society – and it is taboo among men as much as among women.

    We DO live in a rape culture (a culture which indifferent or apathetic towards rape), but ONLY when it comes to the rape of boys and men.

    Meanwhile, feminists still have yet to condemn violence against infants and children….. no doubt because that would mean 90% of mothers (the one who admit to hitting their children) would have to be thrown out of the feminist movement, along with all those vile women you see on daytime TV.

    There probably isn’t a single assaulter/ rapist (man or woman) who was not beaten and abused by his/ her parents as a child. And women are still the primary caregivers to children.

    One of the saddest effects of feminism’s narrative that women are these poor, helpless, innocent, ‘acted upon’, victims of the ‘patriarchy’ is that it trains women to think they have no agency, no responsibility and no POWER to fix society. But the truth is that simply by encouraging peaceful, compassionate, rational, loving parenting would eliminate most of society’s ills.

    This is a far cry from feminism’s actual message “Hitting children is OK, abandoning them into the hands of minimum wage strangers is OK, denying the children access to their father is OK, and the most important thing is to make sure your infants do not interfere with YOUR RIGHT to have a ‘fulfilling’ and lucrative career in some trendy office”

    Far from being a recipe for ’empowerment’, this is a recipe for total social collapse. Look around you…

    • dwighttowers says:

      Feminism is causing total social collapse? Feminism trains people to think they have no agency, responsibility or power? Really? We’ve clearly been exposed to very different feminisms.

      • “..Feminism is causing total social collapse?..”

        Yes. Feminism promotes bad parenting. Society is generally a reflection of the current generation’s upbringing. The more dysfunctional, damaging or outright abusive parenting is the more dysfunctional, damaging and outright oppressive society will be 20-40 years down the line.

        Feminism tells women that having children and looking after them properly harms their careers….. which is true. But feminism encourages women to abandon their babies/ infants/ children ASAP in order to get back into the ‘fulfilling’ role of trendy empowered office worker (or whatever) as if this is not going to harm the child’s development. Feminist logic is that abandoned careers suffer, but abandoned babies don’t. Putting your brand new startup business in the hands of a minimum wage worker all day, every day, while you spend 5 – 10 years being a full time parent is going to be disastrous for that business…… but somehow putting a you brand new startup human being in the hands of minimum wage workers in daycare centres and jaded state school teachers all day everyday for 16 years is going to produce a healthy functional human being.

        Even rich women who could well afford to be proper parents are celebrated by feminists or dumping their children into the hands of strangers and going back to work a few weeks after giving birth.

        Feminism minimises (or outright rejects) the need for fathers (and to a great extent mothers too). Proper close relationships with fathers are necessary during early childhood development for (among other things) the development of empathy and self restraint / delayed gratification. A fatherless upbringing is the number one determining factor for the majority of ‘childhood dysfunction’ ranging from depression, bullying, unwanted teenage pregnancies, violence, drug abuse, gang culture, criminality etc. Fatherless upbringing for boys makes them for more likely to join gangs. And for girls it tends to result in a self identity based primarily around their female gender. Throw in feminists ‘rape culture’ narrative where all men are genetically predisposed to rape and you’ve pretty much destroyed the capacity for men and women to have healthy relationships – with themselves or each other. Teaching boys they are basically rapists is itself a form of mental abuse – a form of rape even, because you are destroying their natural healthy sexuality and turning it into something dirty and shameful. This ‘rape culture narrative’ and the lack of fathers leads to dysfunctional relationships skills and awful relationship choices which leads to more divorces and broken homes which leads to more single parent upbringing which just creates a vicious cycle.

        While being told all men are rapists and ‘patriarchal oppressors’ girls are also being encouraged to look to the state for special treatment and free stuff, making the state the ultimate ‘alpha male’. Thus feminism actually promotes the very patriarchal society it claims to oppose. The only difference is that throughout history men generally LOVED the women they provided resources for, and they provided resources by creating things of VALUE to society… whereas the state creates nothing of value and creates zero wealth. All the wealth it redistributes, must first be stolen from the productive (taxation), and from future generations via government debt (deferred taxation). The state basically allows women to throw out their boyfriends/ husbands and then steal from their future offspring across time and space in order to get ‘benefits’ (welfare).

        These are just a few of the harmful effects of feminism.

        “…Feminism trains people to think they have no agency, responsibility or power? Really?..”

        Yes. Feminist theory is based on the idea that women have been (and continue to be) oppressed by men throughout history. That narrative (AKA ‘patriarchy theory’) fundamentally defines women as weak, powerless, and lacking agency and thus responsibility. It denies the possibility that women actually defined their own gender role of their own volition, as well as heavily influencing men’s gender roles through (a) the full time parenting of boys (women have always been the primary caregivers) (b) selection of a male partner.

        “..We’ve clearly been exposed to very different feminisms…”

        Yes. You’ve been exposed to the surface feminism of slogans, over simplistic observations, twisted statistics and general propaganda. And I’ve looked beneath the surface at the reality of feminism and its claims.

      • dwighttowers says:

        I’m reluctant to spend much of my limited time and energy engaging with someone who can so confidently state “You’ve been exposed to the surface feminism of slogans, over simplistic observations, twisted statistics and general propaganda. And I’ve looked beneath the surface at the reality of feminism and its claims.”

        How can you possibly know what else besides “surface feminism” that I have been exposed to? Have you bothered to read any of the Dwight Towers posts tagged feminism? I doubt it. Btw, my partner/now wife describes herself as “feminist as fuck.” After I gave her permission to do so, of course.
        Anyway, your statement is clearly not an encouraging basis for a conversation which might shed light rather than heat, and help us both arrive at a better understanding of the world. Still and all a) I have dished it out to climate denialists so should at least try to “take it” and b) this is a blog and there is at least a slight compulsion to try to engage.

        “..Feminism is causing total social collapse?..”
        Yes. Feminism promotes bad parenting.

        Compared to what? What are your metrics? What is your evidence.

        Society is generally a reflection of the current generation’s upbringing. The more dysfunctional, damaging or outright abusive parenting is the more dysfunctional, damaging and outright oppressive society will be 20-40 years down the line.
        Feminism tells women that having children and looking after them properly harms their careers….. which is true. But feminism encourages women to abandon their babies/ infants/ children ASAP in order to get back into the ‘fulfilling’ role of trendy empowered office worker (or whatever) as if this is not going to harm the child’s development.

        Ah yes, the Pat Robertson line – “Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” Is there any part of that you disagree with?

        Feminist logic is that abandoned careers suffer, but abandoned babies don’t. Putting your brand new startup business in the hands of a minimum wage worker all day, every day, while you spend 5 – 10 years being a full time parent is going to be disastrous for that business…… but somehow putting a you brand new startup human being in the hands of minimum wage workers in daycare centres and jaded state school teachers all day everyday for 16 years is going to produce a healthy functional human being.

        There is a point of agreement here – if either of us could be interested, in the harm that long hours that a parent (either parent) works detracting from a child’s needs for attention and love. But there is a HUGE body of work – by feminist scholars on this. And campaigns for paid child care and so on and so forth. I simply don’t recognise the straw-woman (ha ha) “feminism” that you are beating up.”
        Even rich women who could well afford to be proper parents are celebrated by feminists or dumping their children into the hands of strangers and going back to work a few weeks after giving birth.
        Citations? There are lots of feminist critiques of the Sherly Sandberg “lean in” stuff. Have you read any Barbara Ehrenreich, for example.

        Feminism minimises (or outright rejects) the need for fathers (and to a great extent mothers too).
        Really? All of it? Certainly not the kinds that all my feminist friends would advocate. Who on earth have you been hanging around with?

        Proper close relationships with fathers are necessary during early childhood development for (among other things) the development of empathy and self restraint / delayed gratification.

        I’d be really interested to know which declared feminists have argued against this point? They are clearly wrong, btw. There may be some who say “a violent/abusive father shouldn’t have unsupervised access to my child.” That’s perhaps less problematic? (Doubtless you will retort with the “millions of false accusations during custody battles” line)

        A fatherless upbringing is the number one determining factor for the majority of ‘childhood dysfunction’ ranging from depression, bullying, unwanted teenage pregnancies, violence, drug abuse, gang culture, criminality etc. Fatherless upbringing for boys makes them for more likely to join gangs.
        Among other things. There are lots of reasons people join “gangs”.

        And for girls it tends to result in a self identity based primarily around their female gender. Throw in feminists ‘rape culture’ narrative where all men are genetically predisposed to rape and you’ve pretty much destroyed the capacity for men and women to have healthy relationships – with themselves or each other. Teaching boys they are basically rapists is itself a form of mental abuse – a form of rape even, because you are destroying their natural healthy sexuality and turning it into something dirty and shameful. This ‘rape culture narrative’ and the lack of fathers leads to dysfunctional relationships skills and awful relationship choices which leads to more divorces and broken homes which leads to more single parent upbringing which just creates a vicious cycle.
        While being told all men are rapists and ‘patriarchal oppressors’ girls are also being encouraged to look to the state for special treatment and free stuff, making the state the ultimate ‘alpha male’.

        If you had read any DT posts, you’d know I am not a huge fan of an overweening state.

        Thus feminism actually promotes the very patriarchal society it claims to oppose. The only difference is that throughout history men generally LOVED the women they provided resources for, and they provided resources by creating things of VALUE to society…

        And women didn’t create any resources, did they? Just stayed in the cave and waited for Ug and Nug to come back with some woolly mammoth.

        whereas the state creates nothing of value and creates zero wealth.
        Oh dear. Libertarian batshitness here in that last sentence. We are having this communication via computers and the internet. Ever heard of the Military Industrial Complex? Ever thought that maybe the taxpayer footed the bill for all the early research and development for miniturisation, computing, etc etc Loads of other examples, but really, why bother?

        There’s more I could fisk, but really, life is short. Goodbye.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s