25 November is White Ribbon Day or, to use its full and official title, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. By wearing a white ribbon, men demonstrate their opposition to rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.
While almost every man is opposed to violence against women, we don’t say so as often or as loudly as we should. We need to make sure other men take issues like rape seriously. Some people would prefer to change the subject, deny that there is a problem, or (most disturbingly) pretend that men are the real victims. That’s not good enough, because it creates an environment that encourages and protects the perpetrators of violence against women. We need to make it clear that the so-called men’s rights movement doesn’t represent us.
The Australian White Ribbon Day committee offers some good reasons for men to wear white ribbons:
-
We have heard about the pain and suffering that violence inflicts on women. We know that a fist in the face, a kick in the ribs, being forced into sex, having one’s daily life controlled and policed and tormented, we know that these are horrible things that should never happen;
-
We care for our wives, our girlfriends, our sisters, daughters, our female friends, our co-workers;
-
We know it is men’s wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, and friends whose lives are limited by violence and abuse; and, whether we know about it or not, many of the women we know have been subject to men’s violence;
-
We know that men don’t have to be violent, that men can do better, that men can be and often are loving, caring, and nonviolent;
-
We want girls and women, and boys and men, to be free from the threat of other men’s violence;
-
We know that we, and all men will benefit from a world free of violence against women, a world based on gender equality: in our relations with women, instead of experiencing distrust and disconnection we will find closeness and connection. We will be able to take up a healthier, emotionally in-touch and proud masculinity.
So this Friday, every Australian man should wear a white ribbon. You should take the opportunity to inform yourself about the problem, and think about what you can do (pdf) to prevent violence against women. And most importantly, if you are concerned about a friend’s behaviour — or your own — you should call the confidential 24-hour hotline on 1800 200 526.
Violence against women will only cease when men join with women to put an end to it.
[Cross-posted at Red Rag.]
Due to the risk that this thread will be railroaded by men who would rather play the victim than help solve the problem (as this one was), I’m going to have to disable commenting. Sorry, but people like Evil Pundit spoil things for the rest of us.
After consulting with the Larvatus Prodeo Steering Collective (there, now it’s official) I have decided to open comments in the hope that certain people will by now have taken the hint, and that others will make their usual interesting contributions.
Excellent post, Rob.
Lefty E’s probably taking a well earned rest after marking exams, but it makes me think of our days together in Men Against Sexual Assault in the early 90s at Uni. It’s an absolutely vital thing for pro-feminist men to take a stand on, and for all men of good will in fact whatever their politics or position on gender issues.
Ooh. I actually wanted to link to MASA in the post, but the link wouldn’t load earlier.
While I’m at it, I might as well post the lyrics to a song I like:
Thanks for the post Rob. Good to know. I’d like to think this issue is one we can (finally) look forward to unified support for.
And don’t take too long with those exams, LE. We miss you.
Thanks Rob.
I hope people ask what your ribbon is for all day.
Just thought I’d share a small observation that I made the other day.
Over the past week we’ve had ads highlight the issue of violence against women. A few days back I also heard an interview (or maybe the tail-end of an advertisment – I can’t quite remember) about the problem of male emotional immaturity; such as an inability to express feelings. It finished off with a comment something like “unfortunately there are a lot of 30, 40, 50 year old little boys out there”. I presume this was aired in connection with highlighting the issue of violence against women.
What I found interesting was that at the same time we were subjected to the important revelation that James Packer cried in front of Lachlan Murdoch when apologising for getting him involved in OneTel. Out of all the things that Murdoch must have said in court regarding OneTel, the one thing the media focused on was James Packer crying. Other considerations, such as the large sums of money involved, seemed almost inconsequential to the headline.
Ok, you might think I’m drawing a slightly flimsy link in connecting the news of Packer crying and violence against women, but to me it just screamed “mixed messages”. Certainly the message I got out of the Packer/Murdoch story was that: 1) never show emotion, 2) its a greater sin to cry then it is to lose large amounts of money. In any case I think it really highlights how deeply ingrained is the idea that men showing emotion implies weekness; its so pervasive we rarely see it. And I think this is deeply connected to the problem of violence against women.
Did anyone else make the connection between the different stories, or am I off in my own world?
Opps. That should be “weakness” not “weekness”.
Christ, you’re a preachy bunch.
I thought exactly the same thing, Dave. But if you’re a daily reader of crikey.com.au you’ll know that there is a thriving culture out there of blokes who would think this was indeed the biggest news, and another thriving culture (whoops, typed vulture — silly me) of blokes who regard the likes of David Pemberthy as their hero. (NB — am confident you’re not him.)
I don’t think it’s a sin to lose large amounts of money. I think it’s a sin to lose large amounts of other people’s money. Especially if you only had access to it in the first place because your daddy is rich.
Hint to EP and all others looking for a nice girl: my tough 72 year old dad cried at my mother’s funeral and all my friends and all my sister’s friends fell in love with him on the spot.
I think that’s a very good point you make Dave.
there will always be violence agianst women and men for that matter just as there will always be murder etc.
for the same reason there will always be lawyers.
We humans do not do the right thing all the time.
It is called sin the the bible.
I am all for trying to reduce violence against anyone but get real you will never get rid of it just as you will never get rid of wars.
Just so people know, my hope that certain people would take the hint was unfounded. EP tried to post a comment claiming “this is a sexist hate campaign against men”. This is the kind of attitude that must be overcome before any progress can be made. People who deny the problem and try to change the subject are turning a blind eye to horrific crimes, and it disgusts me that they claim to represent some kind of “men’s rights” movement. I don’t want the right to be stupid, ignorant and insensitive, any more than I want the right to do violence to women.
It has happened with the ribbons, it has happened with the wrist bands, why can’t charity or other causes use something original to promote their ‘day’. Use of the ribbon motif has become quite cliched and people are tired of it. Some people may still ask what it is about but the majority of people don’t care and won’t be enlightened.
The reason why Red Nose Day, Daffodil Day, Canteen and even Prosh succeeded because they used a unique motif to promote awareness of their cause. The more the ribbon motif is used, the more it dilutes it down to ‘just another charity day’.
This subject is too important to get swallowed up into a cliche.
Homer: That’s a very defeatist attitude. Nobody believes that we will ever stop all violence against women, any more than we will stop all burglaries or all traffic offences or all of any other crime. But the point is that we need to change our culture so that violence against women isn’t simply swept under the carpet or put in the “too hard” basket. This is an awareness-raising campaign that will hopefully contribute to a reduction in violence by changing people’s attitudes.
Craig: You’re right, it’s hard to keep up with all of the different ribbon days. I think the pink/purple bras for breast cancer research was a good alternative. But I’m not sure what innovative symbol IDEVAW could have adopted. If there’s half-decent media coverage and even a handful of people talk to each man who is wearing a ribbon, then that’s still worthwhile.
Homer, we won’t ever get rid of it all, but even if we stop one woman being bashed then it’s a good thing.
Homer you’re a defeatnik.
I think the campaign is great.
Yes, ribbons are a bit overdone but the White Ribbon campaignstarted in 1991, well before the current craze for ribbons for everything.
Ribbons are also cheap to produce, easy to wear, and clearly symbolic.
Anyhoo, thanks for the post Robert.
and EP would be right.
I agree that women cop a lot of the brunt but the emotional wreckage of the male psyche that is often provoked can snap at times.
And when it appears that you can’t talk, the woman won’t listen or ignores you, you lash out. Its called provocation and there’s nothing you can do.
Its a common psychological affliction. Effectively what the campaign does is lump all men in one basket despite the passing mention of boys and men but the focus is on women.
Just as that government ad stereotypes men.
you lash out aka fight then the sympathy card is played or you run in fright and become an emotional wreck which can also be a cause for male suicide, drug addictions and so on.
The situations I’m referring to are not deliberate acts of violence, they’re lashing out in frustration. If they connect with their partner they didn’t mean to. They just needed to lash out. Why didn’t they turn away and do it then cos that never occurs and the things around them are not the source of their frustration.
Now watch as I’m either moderated or tragically dumped in the broad category of the Right
Would he? I don’t think EP’s point is valid at all. Is saying that men should stop hitting women really sexist and unfair? Considering that it is overwhelmingly men who abuse women?
So Vee you’re saying that all violence against women is just a result of men being misunderstood?
I think you do have a genuine point about men not being able to (or allowed to) express their emotions and a society which expects men to be stoic and unemotional is looking at a lot of men who do feel frustrated and repressed.
However. That doesn’t give anyone the right to commit violence against anyone else.
Good point Vee. What these campaigns always focus on is the physical violence, what about the psychological aspect to all of this.
I read somewhere that if you included cases of psychological abuse into domestic abuses the female to male split goes to about 60:40. I know this is no excuse for lashing out and committing acts of physical violence but there needs to be more work to eliminate the causes of the violence.
Just like the war on terrorism, marginalising large groups of people won’t fix the problem.
More thoughts.
Vee, if you think a campaign against domestic violence which focuses on men making appropriate choices about what is acceptable behaviour — when it is men who are abusers, in the vast bulk of cases — is somehow sexist, who should it focus on?
Women? Okay, so we’re getting back to what the victim does. Again, which bothers me for reasons I’ve gone on at in some length in other threads.
An ad which just says “violence: bad”?
Craig, do you have some evidence for that figure?
Vee
Men shouldn’t feel marginalised by this at all, the point is to involve them in it as part of the solution as men and part of a common humanity. The choices are simple, don’t do it or get help – “unless” and “but” doesn’t come into it.
If you’re sympathetic to helping men perhaps consider keeping them the hell away from “men’s rights” groups which are using hate and denial as therapy.
Vee you have a point about people lashing out without meaning to, but most of us learn to channel those feelings into something other than violence. At times I feel like smacking my partner up the chops, but I know it wouldn’t solve anything so I go and do the dishes noisily or something to work off that agression. So does my partner, although he’s more likely to annihilate some Zerg than do housework. The vast majority of men I know do the same. They don’t hit women full stop. If they can do it, anyone should be able to. It’s all about self control. Provocation is no excuse.
Kate, I can’t find it now. I remember reading it when the government’s anti-male domestic violence campaign was in full swing.
But I did find this account of a violent situation (I feel it may have been written by a mens advocate group):
The woman is mildly distressed and upset. The man notices her distress and then worries she may become angry. The woman attempts to communicate and discuss her feelings. She wants to talk, feel supported and feel less alone. She initially attributes some of her distress or problems to him. The man begins to feel defensive, shuts down emotionally and attempts to deal with the problems rationally. He feels a fight is coming on. The woman feels uncared for, ignored and then gets angry. She wants him to share the problem and he doesn’t feel he has a problem. The man will attempt to remain unemotional and stay in control of himself. He avoids accepting any blame for how she feels. He is also worried that she may explode at any moment and that she will certainly do so if he talks about his feelings. The man will start talking about her problem as if she could feel better if she would only listen to him and stop acting so upset. He fails to understand how she feels and tries to remain calm. He tells her to calm down and ends up looking insensitive. She begins to wonder if he has any feelings at all. She tells him that he thinks he’s perfect. He says he is not perfect. She calls him insensitive. He stares at her and says nothing but looks irritated.
The woman is frustrated that he won’t reveal his feelings and that he acts like he is in control. On the other hand, the man feels out of control and like there is no room for anybody’s feelings in the conversation but hers. Communication breaks down and the woman begins to insult the man. When the man finally expresses his disapproval and attempts to end the fight. The woman becomes enraged and may throw something. The man will usually endure insults and interactions like this for weeks or months. This whole pattern becomes a recurrent and all too familiar experience. The man becomes increasingly sensitive to how the woman acts and becomes avoidant and unsupportive. The man begins to believe that there is nothing he can do and that it may be all his fault. His frustration and anger can build for months ike this.
This risk of violence increases when the woman insults the man in front of their children, threatens the man’s relationship with his children, or she refuses to control her abusive behavior when the children are present. She may call him a terrible father or an awful husband in front of the children. Eventually he feels enraged not only because of how she treats him, but how her behavior is harming the children. At some point the man may throw something, punch a wall, or slam his fist down loudly to vent his anger and to communicate that he has reached his limits. Up till now she has never listened to what he had to say. He decides that maybe she will stop if she can see just how angry he has become. Rather than recognizing that he has reached his limits, expressing his anger physically has the opposite effect. For a long time the man has tried to hide his anger. Why should the woman believe he really means it? After all, he has put up with her abuse for a long time and done nothing. Instead of realizing that things have gotten out of control, the woman may approach him and say something like, “What are you gonna do. Hit me? Go ahead. I’ll call the police and you’ll never see your children again.” Once he expressed his anger physically, the situation became dangerous for him and for her. The door to violence has opened wide. He should walk away. When he does walk away, she ends up more angry than ever, will scream obscenities at him and strike him repeatedly. She may even strike him with an object.
I was thinking of posting about the reverse situation (ie abuse of a man by a woman which happened to someone close to me) but then realised that this wasn’t the time or the place for it.
It would be like someone suffering from a rare liver disease talking about their experiences when the topic is about skin cancer or some other topic that is wide spread. (I wouldn’t mind going into it at another time and place though.)
A few random thoughts and comments then.
Vee, I can understand where you are coming from but surely a civilised man can either walk away or deal with their anger and frustration in other ways. I remember being hot headed in my youth but I’ve learned how to control the flow of testosterone. How to recognise the danger signals when everything turns red.
There is a reptile in all of us that would lash out if given half a chance. What seperates us from the animals is that control.
Craig, I saw a representative on Sunrise talking about how women can also be psychologically abused. And I’ve seen it happen. It’s a lot harder to stop then physicla abuse (if you as a bystander see a man about to hit a woman it’s pretty obvious what to do. However if he’s being a shit in a verbal exchange it’s more difficult to know how to respond.)
As for the focus on women, unfortunately it’s a matter of resources. It’s wrong when anyone is abused. However the problem of male violence is much much higher than female violence.
And that’s why the resources need to be dedicated to helping the female victims of violence. That’s why the resources need to be dedicated to getting violent men to change their ways.
Finally, on stats. I can’t quote any official stats but in the 30 years I’ve walked this planet 8 of of every ten female friends I’ve had have told me (or in a couple of instances I’ve seen) they’ve been victims of violence or abuse.
In all but one case the perps were all men.
In my 30 years I’ve only known of one case of female to male violence.
Noone says that female to male abuse doesn’t occur. It’s just that in the wider world one is commonplace, the other is a rarity.
(BTW has anyone seen those great ads on TV about domestic violence? The one where the guy goes next door and offers the guy beating his wife a baseball bat? Funny and to the point. Half the reason domestic violence occurs is due to men refusing to steop in. And if you don’t step in you may as well be doing it yourself.)
Craig
Read through and ask yourself at various points what could be done to fix this situation.
Then ask yourself where does “no excuse for violence full stop” interfere with any solutions you’ve come up with.
Here’s a kind-of relevant question. With all the uproar over the Fed Government’s advertising for the IR changes, what do people think about the “Australia Says No” series of ads. I think generally they have been quite good. But I guess it’s hard to measure the effectiveness of these things.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for any male to be in any way violent towards any female. Eliminating violence against women is a noble cause, and should be shouted across the nation. Maybe the Government could sponsor a $50m campaign.
(I’d also like to see the constant stream of beer TV commercials that portray men as alcoholic, wife-deceiving boofheads eliminated.)
In my primary school one teacher had a sign of the wall with the quotation, ‘Manners maketh the man”. Maybe we need to have etiquet lessons in schools which train young men in the gentile arts of treating women and girls properly. Education is more effective when it begins with children, not adults, who may be in a cycle of abuse, which is difficult to reverse.
So we also need to look at the many homes which have a history of domestic violence, where young boys, and girls, grow up knowing no other way.
Well said, tssk.
Facelift, I think the MSM’s portrayal of men is deeply flawed and I agree.
Men are portrayed as beer-drinking boofheads or useless husbands with nagging wives (see any american sitcom ever). Violence is a norm in the media, and on shows like CSI and what have you the men are either Stoic Heros or psychopaths, while women are sexy assistants or sexy corpses.
I honestly think both sexes in high school could do with some classes on communication in relationships and I think basic respect for others is so key to all human relationships.
I would have thought that Society would have moved on by now, the Federal Gov’t adverts are of little help.
Its about INDIVIDUAL responsibility – NOT FEMALE OR MALE Violence – Its about a maturation in personality of both female and male/individuals.
I can verify Craigs 60:40 statement. I am assisting in a Family Court Case and during my research have repeatedly read authorised Australian & Overseas references to the increase in female violence and the above ratio is the one referred to.
When is the International Violence against Men, Day please?
I am a woman who was very involved in Womens Rights in the 70’s, and have an ongoing interest in Societys evolution. Its not about making one sex the goodie or baddie its about examining why behaviours happen and working towards understanding and eliminating negative behaviour in our Society.
Lots of good discussion. Some quick thoughts.
The issue of “blokey” culture being one of repressed emotions, alcohol and a tolerance of violence (against women and other men) is, in my mind, the most important issue in this area. The cultural change required to eliminate violence against women will also eliminate violence against men.
Psychological violence is a serious issue, which is why reputable studies like the IVAWS (pdf) include physical, sexual and psychological violence. But I don’t believe the claim that women disproportionately resort to psychological or emotional abuse. Although women are more likely to resort to it than they are to violence, the same is true of men.
So I don’t buy the 60:40 figure Craig offered, at least until he can track down the source. And while the fictional story is probably representative of a real problem, it is presented by men’s groups as if all domestic violence was provoked by women, which is simply not true. And those same groups are loose with the truth about gender violence statistics.
And as to the Australia Says No campaign: the hotline is worthwhile (that’s why I referred to it in my post!) but the Government’s record is not so good. Still, it’s a start.
Is this from the same school of thought that when someone was bashed, their lover really didn’t mean it and they love them anyhow?
Abuse is abuse. If you are frustrated, go for a run, work out with a punching bag – one that isn’t living but there is NEVER any excuse for violence. Batter your own body but don’t dare do anything to someone elses.
One of the key issues is of the differences in the socialisation of girls and boys in dealing with anger – boys are taught to externalise it whilst girls are taught to internalise it. If we can move away from this “be a man” or “have the balls” crap, we would be all the better for it IMO.
What is also key about gaining from days such as this is that men as not being violent towards women simply because they are women but because they are human. I don’t need ‘protection’ because I am a women but I need protection because I am human.
I think this is the same as asking when is International Men’s Day or when is it International Advancement of White People Day.
Some statistics about domestic violence can be found here: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/Dom_violence.htm
On average, males are the largest victims of violent crime such as assault, and the perpetrators are almost always other males.
So while I agree violence against males is a huge problem, it’s almost universally perpetrated by other men. A 1995 study by the University of Sydney’s Criminology department found that over 90 percent of all violent crimes were commited by men, including murder, assault and armed robbery. I can’t find a link on-line but I have references to the figures in a couple of articles I have lying around.
Also, I can find no evidence of the 60:40 claim of domestic abuse (60 percent male and 40 percent female) apart from one telephone survey in the 1980s, the results and methodology of which have been largely discredited.
Now, I’m not saying that domestic violence againts men isn’t a problem. In fact, one of my uncles was involved in an abusive relationship with a woman who was physically violent towards him, so yes, it does happen. It is as inapprporiate for a woman to hit a man as it is for a man to hit a woman.
However, the statistics I’ve seen floating around the ‘Net indicate that at most 8 percent of the cases of domestic violence are of female to male or female to child violence.
There’s a really good discussion of this issue at a (pro-feminist) blog here:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2004/06/26/on-husband-battering-are-men-equal-victims/
Ampersand rocks. And that is a nice, thorough take-down of the “equal victims” hogwash.
Ha ha – International Whites Day. To paraphrase an old comeback, ain’t that every day?
To an extent I empathise with some of the arguments above, because to lecture all men about violence against women is to mirror (to some extent) what I find a frustrating habit of the Right. All muslims get slapped with the stigma of terrorism because “all terrorists are muslims”.
There could be more specificity when it comes to educating people about domestic violence. Why imply that we’re all at fault because we share a gender? For instance, there’s a lot of people working in Human Services agencies (and related non-profits) that can act at the source. As opposed to chaps like me whose male friends are mostly like-minded lefty wusses.
“Half the reason domestic violence occurs is due to men refusing to steop in. And if you don‚Äôt step in you may as well be doing it yourself.”
Not wanting to get involved and actually hitting a person are two totally different things. That is a very established section in law. Hence seperate charges and penalties for murder and criminal negligence.
what do people think about the “Australia Says No” series of ads.
They’re good, but the original ad camapign was focussed on stopping violence against women before it happens, rather than telling people where to get help after it has.
While they are both important, I believe the first one would have been a better approach, as it’s one that’s usually ignored.
Adam, that’s fair enough, and clearly not all men are abusers — the vast majority aren’t, of course.
It is a tough question and one I don’t know how to answer.
Can you look at the white ribbon campaign as specifically saying: “I am not this, not all men are this, we’re standing up to say that most men are not violent” and as specifically addressing this? Or am I stretching too far?
adam: To a certain extent you’re right, but just as I expect most Muslims to stand against terrorism (which they do) so do I expect most men to stand up against violence against women. And seeing as the latter is far more common than the former, I think it’s an important issue.
Craig: They are certainly different, but it is regrettable that people don’t get involved and it allows people to get away with crimes and if it is pervasive enough it legitimises those crimes. Refusing to dob on someone who parks without buying a ticket is one thing, but standing by while a man beats his wife is another.
For sure Kate, that’s why I’m wearing a ribbon today. Basically saying “I support the right of women not to be subjected to violence”.
To quote David Brent, “how could I hate women? My mum was one!”
I will admit it’s so hard to know what to do in domestic violence cases.
I used to live next door to a couple who seemed okay, every now and again they’d have a barney but it didn’t seem too serious.
And then one day I came out of my flat and saw the boyfriend sitting in the car and hitting the girlfriend again and again around her face.
I started to walk towards the car and the boyfriend saw me and took off. They moved out not long afterwards.
I don’t know what I was going to say when I got to the car — and I never found out — but I was terrified that he’d get out and lay into me as well. For the record, I’m not a very imposing figure and yet I couldn’t not do something.
Oh, and I agree with amanda about the ads. Prevention is the key, isn’t it?
no
happy??
Adam, the distinction is that what is being said is that it’s possible to be a male and not violent and that perhaps males can influence other males behaviour as part of a culture, not imposing collective responsibility. We are part of the solution.
Seeing Muslim communities as part of the solution for terrorism can be a valid strategy done well, saying that they are the problem simply for being a Muslim is where I have a problem.
On a more complex leve which I can’t begin to explain properly, there’s a question about how groups are portrayed in the media. With minorities there’s a problem of this is all they’re portrayed as. It would be difficult to argue men don’t have a counterbalance of positive roles in the media.
Razor:
Good on ya.
Craig. What you say is correct legally.
However morally it’s a whole different ball game.
I reckon if you were walking along the street and you saw some random guy punching a girl you’d do something even though you might not be obliged to legally.
Even if it’s ringing the police on the mobile and reporting it.
I’m not sure I can fully agree with tssk’s endorsement of the baseball bat advertisment and the comment that “if you don’t step in you may as well be doing it yourself”. While the add is certainly attention grabbing I think that in painting such a simple scenario you risk having people completely disconnect. Its like the adds portraying all drug users as all being on the certain path to addiction and/or death; the party pill popping crowd simply switches off.
In real situation it seems to me that things are rarely clear cut, “is he hitting her or are they just shouting alot?”, “is that a door slamming or something else?”. The third party would be experiencing all sorts of complex emotions; guilt, powerlessness, anger, and simply trying to decide the appropriate action to take. Black or white advertisments, or comments like “if you don’t step in you may as well be doing it yourself”, just don’t help. Surely it would be better to have something more educational that looks at real scenarios and discusses appropriate responses to specific situations.
Good points Dave but sometime you have to make the call.
There was this old couple upstairs that argued a lot. When she started shouting for the police in Polish we decided it was time to call the cops.
Turned out it wasn’t domestic abuse. Just a sad case of an old man trying to look after her confused older mother who was suffering from dementia.
Having lived next to firey couples and abusive ones I can tell you that while it may be difficult to work out if a door slamming is an assualt or one of the parties shutting themself in another room to cool down, once it crosses the line you’ll know.
Generally my rule of thumb is
-infrequent arguements, do nothing.
-frequent arguements, keep an ear out.
-loads of bangs and crashes followed by a woman crying or calling for help ring the police.
As for anything above that, common sense dictates that domestic violence aside, punching or hitting someone is assualt and needs to be reported.
Dave, I think that’s right. If someone actually has a baseball bat, then you’d naturally be afraid they’d beat the crap out of you too. Now that may not stop you stepping in, but it’s a natural reaction.
In 1992, I was involved in a situation where leaving a nightclub, I saw a bouncer perpetrating violence against a young woman. I spoke to him and he picked me up and threw me down the stairs then kicked me repeatedly in the ribs. I had two broken ribs and some serious bruises. Now I don’t regret having intervened – but it has certainly made me think twice. The guy was a serious dickhead – wanted for assault – using a false name – and on roids.
When we were kids, this army bloke lived in some flats next to our house. One night, he was throwing stuff out the window – including his tv. His de facto ran down to our place and asked to come in. We called the cops – it took four cops to restrain him. As a 12 year old (my sister was 9), I was scared shitless.
I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t intervene – but agreeing with you that these situations are complex and people need to know how best to act.
Nice one, Rob. And an excellent discussion too.
I thought that would do the trick.
Ack, Mark, nasty.
Of course, violence isn’t just an issue between couples — I was attacked by a guy on the street once, just outside my work at 5pm one Friday afternoon, and he tried to drag me into an alleyway by grabbing me and screaming about protecting me. Yes, he was nuts. Had a co-worker not intervened I don’t know what would have happened.
Turns out he was a day-release mental patient who’d tried to rape (unsuccessfully) about five other women that week.
Of course, the whole issue of mental illness is yet another can ‘o’ worms when it comes to violence and the criminal justice system.
In all the discussion we had yesterday, I’d completely forgotten about that incident, and only remembered last night when discussing this issue with my partner.
As a man, I feel patronised by this campaign. Yeah, I know, who cares, and I have no quibble with anything practical that is going to reduce violence against women. I don’t like the undertone that men as a group bear collective responsibility for what is criminal behaviour that is reviled by any civilised person. I expect that none of the blognescenti at LP are in favour of collective guilt for other groups. My only personal contact with domestic violence is being punched in the head by a drunken girlfriend, breaking my glasses are requiring surgery to my eye. One nurse at the hospital thought it was funny and said that my girlfriend must be a feisty one. No-one offered support or asked if I wanted to speak to the police (I didn’t, of course). So, I have plenty of sympathy but my sense of personal responsibility for violence against women is zero.
My condelences Bismark, you know more than most about domestic violence.
The sad thing is that you were mocked by a healthcare professional. The good news is that this will change eventually. Back in the old days people used to laugh about violence against women in much the same way.
I do think that violence as a whole in Australian culture needs to be addressed. It’s a major problem. I guess the emphasis is on men at the moment because overwhelmingly the violence is generally caused by men.
However there seems to be an expectation for men in Australia to just laugh off any violence done on them. I’ve seen the damage done to a close friend of mine by a girlfriend, and seen (and been the victim of) acts of violence by men.
This is off topic though I’d love to see an open topic on violence and culture in Australia in the near future.
Bismarck I think the message is losing something in translation if men are feeling that it’s a collective responsibility thing. I see it as men saying loud and proud that they don’t agree with any violence against women. Maybe the campaign should be broadened to be against violence in general.
As you say it’s still a big issue that violence against men is treated so poorly too. Perhaps some of the stereotypes that we were discussing about victims on another thread apply here too. Is there a perception out there that any bloke that gets beaten up must have done something to deserve it?
Reading the pdf I noticed the old “if you are walking alone at night near a woman give her lots of space or cross to the other side of the road.”
It’s also a good idea if you do cross over to the other side of the road to either slow right down or (if she’s a slow walker) walk (don’t run) so you are also ahead of her.
In my experience I’m more comfortable seeing someone’s back in the darkness rather than hearing their footsteps behind me.
Bismark’s story reminded me of a fight in a Canberra Night club in 1992 when a couple of my mates were punching on with a couple of civvies and one of their girlfriends decided to throw a glass ashtray from behind her boyfriend at one of my mates. The look on her face when she was floored by a straight left to the jaw over her boyfriends shoulder by the guy who copped the ashtray was priceless.
I thought she deserved it – equal rights and all that stuff. They started it.
no
No
NO
nO
no
Not many other ways of saying it really
Mindy, I don’t want to go into it here but when someone close to me was attacked (quite seriously) by his girlfriend my first question was ‘What did he do to her?’ It was my second and third question as well, I was sure he must have done something.
I’ll go into it more if another thread is set up. But not today.
Generally in Australian society ‘real men don’t cry.’
In other words if you get hurt by someone you don’t complain about it. You keep silent. You laugh it off. (Or you try to ‘even the score’. And this isn’t frowned upon too much.)
This is why the campaign is important to men in a way. It’s the tip of the iceberg. Start by making violence against women seen as ‘a bad thing.’ Which it is. And then hopefully bring it across to cover everyone. After all, if violence against women is bad then so is violence against the elderly, etc etc until of course violence becomes unacceptable in real life full stop.
Excellent. When is International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Men? I assume such a day exists because evidence suggests — see here, for example — that men are as likely to suffer abuse at the hands of women as vice versa. Further, community awareness of the incidence of the abuse of men at the hands of women needs to be heightened because as things stand, men are immediately assumed to be at fault whenever domestice violence occurs.
I’m all for preventing violence against women.
I’d like to see a ribbon day to prevent violence against men.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics in almost all cases, men were more likely than women to be victims of crime: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/76c8926bd8a12e1fca2568a9001393f2?OpenDocument
More males than females were victims of robbery (67% of victims were male), blackmail/extortion (66%), attempted murder (73%) and murder (63%). For kidnapping/abduction, more females were victims than males (69% of victims were female).
Homer is closer to the truth than any of us would like to admit. While it is a noble idea to prevent violence towards anyone, it is totally impossible to stop without a change of the heart, mind, spirit and conscience which only the individual can do.
– Nora
Are you stalking me JF?
– Nora
tssk,
Women’s violence against men is more common than people realise.
My husband was beaten and was once stabbed by his first wife. He had a lot of trouble trying to defend himself because if he had struck her in self-defence, she would have had him charged with assault.
Nick tried to go to the woman’s parents to let them know about their violent daughter but they wouldn’t believe him.
15 years later, well and truly after Nick and I married, I was sought out by this woman’s brother who asked me to pass on his family’s heartfelt apologies to Nick.
They had just discovered that she was schizophrenic…
Sad, but more common than people admit.
– Nora
Friday afternoon plus drinks plus group conversation equals a really odd question…
Could this day have been dreamed up by a bunch of men to seem compassionate and score the politically active females of the world? Or is this just an added benefit?
Do politically active females* like men?
*By which, I take it you mean left-wing politically active females
– Nora
A great thread, and well done for nipping the Eeepee rot in the bud. I could not tolerate any form of physical violence and I find it difficult to understand women who resume relations with physically violent men.
What I put up with for a limited time though was psychological violence and emotional abuse, the scars from which run deep. Psychological violence and emotional abuse is very much more difficult to quantify as it is an unseen, subjective experience. Prolonged emotional abuse followed by intense and unrelenting provocation certainly unleashed an angry vicious animal in me. During one abusive row, I contemplated whacking this person with a nearby umbrella – I was beside myself (or more correctly outside myself) with rage. I stopped myself from doing this, I noticed my self control (such that it was) My instincts perhaps told me ‘do not take this person on physically’ a sense of self-preservation somehow continued to pervade me. Instead, to repel my attacker I put my head down and screamed for all the world and all the neighbours to hear. It worked and he finally backed away. At other times I slammed doors, punched walls and at one stage head butted a railing. My attacker feigned fear of me and I had to defend myself against accusations of being violent. This was galling, as I could never fully convey what I had suffered through this man’s remarkable cruelty, his insults and his intense provocation. Several months later and (clearly) I’m still ropeable! Had he simply been physically violent it would have been a whole lot easier to deal with.
I’ve started reading Erin Pizzey http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-12.htm. Fascinating woman. She opened the first modern shelter for battered women. http://www.speakers.co.uk/Retro/5307.htm – her bio.
As a result of their failure to acknowledge emotional terrorism or a propensity for violence in their clients, shelters are totally ineffective in dealing with such women. To recognize such behavior in females would violate deeply held convictions and defile feminist dogma. A basic human response to such contradictions is an attempt to deny they exist. One way to do that is to cover up the operation.
– Nora
Nora Charles: ‘Do left-wing politically active females like men?’
Well, meow.
Could this be Evil Pundit showing his feminine side?
Yes, Nora, this left-wing politically active female has always liked men. I’ve got a number of good male friends, some of whom are old lovers. I’m also very attached to my gay male friends, my dad, my female friends’ partners (well, most of them), and most of all to my current bloke, who is a tough ex-cop and I can assure you I have never tried to hit him so nyerdy nyer.
Most of the left-wing politically active females I know have a similar tale to tell. (OK, maybe not the tough ex-cop, but all the other stuff fits.)
SO not taking your point about the hubby’s first wife. I would have thought the diagnosis of schizophrenia completely invalidates your argument. She was violent because she was gravely ill — NOT because she suffered from testosterone surges, poor impuse control, and/or pop-cultural validation of her behaviour.
I know Evil reads those dotty RWDB American male-supremacist survivalist thingies cos I’ve had a look at his blog — but what demented stereotypes are you getting YOUR information from?
And BTW, said it before, say it again: there’s nowhere near as direct a correlation between feminism and “the left” as the Right seems to want to think.
I must admit I thought this was too important a topic to open to sidetracking and two wrongs make a right bullshit. Nice to see I was wrong, apart from a couple of pricks.
Domestic abuse (mental or physical) is a male over female power issue. Until our culture is equitable, it will remain.
But what is anyone doing about the root causes?
Considering that I met many a politically active female I’d say the answer is most definitely yes.
How about if I phrase the question this way:
Do politically active females* dislike being women and want to be men?
*By which, I take it you mean right wing politically active females
Just as perfectly valid as your original question. Explains Ann Coulter. Actually it doesn’t but then nothing explains Ann Coulter.
Unwilling to address the issues, eh flute? Oh yeah, why the switch from “fuckwit” to “prick”? Regardless, keep it up and you’re gonna ruin this place’s nice-nice image.
Andrew Norton’s good on this.
Flute
Congratulations, you have simplified the whole domestic abuse argument down to a power issue and equality will fix it. Bull-shit! Domestic abuse will only go away when society as a whole collectively agrees that violence is a bad thing and works to support those in need.
Chatting to a 12 year old cousin of mine at the time Bush, Blair and arse licker invaded Iraq really made me sit up and think about what sort of world we live in. He had gotten into trouble at school a few weeks earlier for taking revenge on a bully at school. Nevermind that the bully had harassed him for months, he got suspended for 3 days when he snapped and clobbered him with a squash racquet. His question to me was “Why do I get in trouble for hitting someone who picked on me when America can go into Iraq, kill lots of people and not have to do detention at least?”.
When the people running this joint resort to violence to sort out their problems is it any wonder domestic conflicts use the same solution…
Flute, it is not just a power issue. It is a mixture of societal beliefs, misguided parentage, education, inability to express feelings and communicate, psychological disorders, etc. Sure power issues can be part of it too, whether it be lashing out to dominate over the victim or lashing out to stop from feeling powerless.
Sure I may have been a little glib in some of my previous comments, but I always support the push to end violence against anybody, female and males equally.
Simplifying domestic abuse to just a power issue is incredibly ignorant and does not help those in need of help or help eliminate the root causes.
I must say, I think the decision to ban EP has been vindicated by this thread. Plenty of right-wingers have managed to make their points (insofar as they can be described as points) without being complete cockheads. Thanks.
Nora argues that men are more often than not the victims of crime, including violent crime. That’s true, but violence against men is almost always perpetrated by other men, and also by strangers. Women’s experience of violence is fundamentally different.
J F Beck argues that men are “as likely” to be the victims of female violence as women are to suffer from male violence. Perhaps he ought to read some of the links provided in the other comments to learn how the “evidence” he refers to (based on Geddes and others) is based on bogus statistics. I’d especially recommend the links in Kate’s comments.
Rob says Andrew Norton’s good on this. Maybe. Andrew thinks it’s about “conspicuous compassion” (a hobbyhorse of his). The reason I chose to wear a white ribbon today is to remind myself that I have made mistakes in the past, and to encourage other men to think about their actions. If you want to accuse me of being “preachy” and say “I support practical measures”… well, whatever. As if wearing a ribbon means I don’t support other initiatives. Meanwhile, you feel superior for not supporting a good cause, and in fact for arguing against it. Well whoop-de-doo for you.
I think our views on this topic are influenced by our experiences, and as it happens, I have seen both males and females abuse their partners. While I do not think it is the intention, I am cautious of statements that bind the behaviour of the few to a much larger group. A very small proportion of men or women are abusive. It makes sense to focus resources on violence against women because it is far more common. For all the problems of male culture, I find the idea that male culture is accepting towards violence against women far fetched.
I think what we have to do as individuals is keep an eye out for domestic violence and help people where possible in these situations. There are no simple causes. There are no easy solutions. These are complex matters.
Robert,
First up, I find it difficult to take anything posted at his site seriously when an affiliated blogger steathily delete posts (cs) and another (flute) calls commenters who do not share his opinion pricks and knuckle-dragging fuckwits.
That said, you’ll note that I wrote that the evidence “suggests” when commenting on domestic abuse rates. Okay, let’s assume that men are far more likely to abuse women than vice versa. That doesn’t change the fact that some men do suffer physical or psychological abuse, or both, at the hands of women. Further, police, medical staff, psychologists, social workers and anyone else who might become involved, immediately assumes that the man is responsible for the violence. This puts the man in the in the unenviable position of having to prove that he was not the instigator of the violence and was, in fact, provoked. This happens, and far more often than people might suspect.
Where is the ribbon day for these men?
My apologies for the typos — I have a savage head cold at the moment and my concentrations even worse than usual.
I don’t mind that you find it hard to take this blog seriously. I find it hard to take your comments seriously, so it’s swings and roundabouts I suppose.
Do men need a ribbon day? Maybe. There is an international men’s day, you know: 19 November. Wear a ribbon if it takes your fancy. Unfortunately, I think your desire to raise the issue here is less representative of a genuine concern for the relatively few male victims of domestic violence, and more a cheap debating point and an attempt to change the subject.
“Simplifying domestic abuse to just a power issue is incredibly ignorant and does not help those in need of help or help eliminate the root causes.”
Correct. If we assume that the correctable root-cause of violence is solely in the attitudes of men or the inequality of the sexes, then we have already lost, as it will require a totalitarian government unparalleled in history to redress either. You cannot “equalise power” nor brainwash people out of their attitudes…unless you’re Joseph Stalin multiplied by Genghis Khan.
However, the most easily solved “root cause” of violence is more straight forward. It lies in the failure to deter violent individuals from assaulting others, and, by that fact, their belief that no consequences will follow from their actions. We can remedy this simply by hitting them regularly (I would extend this to school children). Thus, we must make violent criminals fear the consequences of their actions, to the point of total paralysis – whereby a combination of harsh corporal punishment and the right of women to defend themselves with greater-than-proportionate force could be easily established.
Please excuse my garbled writing – I haven’t slept all that well lately.
I note this: “I find the idea that male culture is accepting towards violence against women far fetched.”
Dead right. But it must be remembered that men, who tend to be bigger and scarier than women, necessarily have the means to cause untold misery if they want. That would explain why men tend to hit women more often than the reverse…because they can. Thus, men, who have not already done so, have got to come to the conclusion at some point that there is no game in hitting somebody half your size.
I don’t think we should understate the serious problem of domestic violence, nor ought we just label one “politically correct” for stating the obvious fact that men tend to be more violent than women. Nevertheless, you cannot “solve” this through “making people equal” (which will never happen) or through government-sponsored brainwashing (nobody trusts the government anyway). You must give free people the legal right to defend themselves using disproportionate force, and to encourage law-abiding citizens to band together against thugs, hooligans, rapists, and other such reprobates.
Robert, I was approaching you with the respect experience told me you deserved. Since you aren’t willing to extend me the same courtesy, all bets are off.
In a post some time ago, cs from the outset incited EP by stipulating that further comments from him would not be allowed. When I joined the discussion cs immediately made some comment about me living under a rock and soon thereafter, and without notification, removed two of my comments. I emailed MB about this; he fobbed me off with some waffly bullshit and didn’t even want to discuss cs’s actions.
Now we have flute resorting to name calling because he’s either too lazy or ignorant to argue his case. If that’s how you guys want to run this site, that’s fine by me but it certainly isn’t the home of enlightened civil discussion it’s made out to be. Your comments policy is obviously there solely for use against those — like EP — who disagree with you.
As you are aware, Robert, there have been some ongoing domestic dramas at this end. What you are not aware of is that a male member of my family was falsely accused of physically and psychologically abusing his significant other. Naturally, the system being geared up to protect the rights of women, this male family member was subjected to several years of what amounted to official harassment by police, medical staff, psychologists, social workers and anyone else who felt like getting in on the action. Take it from me, this male family member wasn’t too happy to be in a position where he could be, and sometimes was, questioned by the police as the result of his significant other making a call because her nose was out of joint. Happily, after several years of torment, it emerged that this unfortunate male had in all instances been defending himself, shamelessly provoked or had been groundlessly accused of doing things he simply had not done. Of course, no action was taken against the person making the accusations.
So, Robert, unless you’ve lived it, please save the lectures. If you guys think your little white ribbons do anything other than make you feel good about yourselves, you’re even more naive than I thought.
You had clearly said you couldn’t take my post seriously. Why should I interpret that as a respectful approach? I’m sorry if I misinterpreted you, and I unreservedly apologise for my rudeness.
False accusations are, sadly, a product of any criminal justice system, and they are obviously unpleasant for the people who are subjected to them. I haven’t lived it, and you are right to say that I don’t know what it feels like. (I was, once, wrongly prosecuted for a crime I didn’t commit, and after several court dates and a lot of wasted time and energy the matter was dropped. So I do have some understanding, though it was not nearly so serious a matter nor as protracted or intrusive.)
But the number of unreported rapes and assaults by men against women far outweighs the number of false reports (of which the number that go on to the extent you described is an even smaller number).
Now, I don’t want to treat your friend as “just a statistic”, but on the other hand it would not be right to treat the two problems as equal. So please don’t use the small number of false accusations as a shield to defend abusive men.
What is abuse then if not the abuse of power? Domestic violence is usually just more than a man slapping a woman. It is a man using his power in the relationship unfairly. He might get set off by something big or something petty, but the woman fears that, so the abuse is usually of a mental nature too.
Where does this picture come from that it’s ok for men to do this? Why is it a far more male phenomenon that female? Something must be around that makes it this way. So in answer to some crticisers of my earlier statement I believe this is a very dire situation that can only be fixed by a rebalancing of gender roles in society. Unfortunately that is not going to happen any time soon.
I say no to violence against women. I didn’t hear about the white ribbon campaign until I read about it on Andrew Leigh’s web-site.
I think we have to go back to the Bronze Age to see the roots of this worldwide phenomenon, despite new agey pipe dreams about supposed changes in consciousness male and female psychology has changed little.
Mornin’ Shaun,
Do politically active females* dislike being women and want to be men?
*By which, I take it you mean right wing politically active females
Nope take a look at the Cotillion Ball – http://www.cotillionball.mu.nu/
– Nora
What is abuse then if not the abuse of power?
You are right flute, it is about the abuse of power. But to ignore the fact that women do have and exert power is not understand the complexities of human relationships.
While men, generally speaking have greater physcial power than women, women exert greater psychological and sexual power over men.
The opportunity for abuse of one form or another is equal on both sides. As other posters have said we need to address the whole issue before we can find a way to put an end to it.
Robert: Plenty of right-wingers have managed to make their points (insofar as they can be described as points) without being complete cockheads. Thanks.
Gee, thanks for the backhanded compliment dear chap. Could you please elucidate where I failed meet the Robert-benchmark(TM) of point proving?
Do I fail to make a point with you because you disagree with what I am saying?
Whatever happened openness, inclusiveness and tolerance of dissenting opinion in the search of the objective truth?
– Nora
To clarify, I think the standard of discussion improved immeasurably when EP was excluded. What I meant by that comment was that EP ought to look at how people like you have put your points, and learn from it. EP wasn’t excluded for his disagreement, but for his repeated bad behaviour. That’s all I was saying.
Very interesting threads here. I posted a while ago under the title “Don’t Beat Women is the Wrong Societal Rule.” My basic premise is that even though such rules are well-meaning, they reinforce the differences between the sexes instead of arguing for absolute equality. After reading the comments here I am certain that I haven’t made as strong an argument as I could have… and that there are many holes in my theory… but I thought that I’d put it out there. Here’s the link: http://www.joereger.com/entry-logid1-eventid3358.log. Best, Joe
Ok. Perhaps I was a bit rash but good to see some constructive things have come of it.
Civilisation is an illusion. In reference to civilised men and women but it does also explain as someone said men punching the wall.
Men do appear to be the prominent perpetrator of domestic violence but such a campaign stereotypes all men.
If this is a day and age of political correctness as so many claim then domestic violence against men (where you include psychological abuse) is probably more prominent. But you can’t see emotional scars.
It is the same effect of Family Law being biased towards mothers no matter what.
Facelift, when is an excuse not a reason and when is a reason not an excuse, saying there is no excuse ignores contributing factors.
If I’m out and about I’ll buy a ribbon I support the cause but it is stereotypical hogwash – men=bad women=good and sexist claptrap to boot
Women cop a lot of flak especially the feminists but the men do too and this often goes unrecognised.
I’d go as far as to say men are more emotional than women, they just don’t express it.
Well I did my bit for the cause last night by refusing to empty my glass of wine over a woman who claimed that “Japanese Story” was a great film.
“There is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for any male to be in any way violent towards any female.”
Is there actually any need to have the words “male” and “female” in that sentence?
Reality is that people aren’t morally offended by two guys fighting. Reality is that the sexes simply aren’t equal. Women are weaker, and therefore we have created social norms that discourage physically picking on the weaker sex.
The vaste majority of people already have lots of sympathy with female victims of violence (as they should). The same is simply not true of male victims of violence. Male victims of female violence are more likely to be joked about. And if they respond in kind — they will be identified as the evil party.
‘when is an excuse not a reason and when is a reason not an excuse, saying there is no excuse ignores contributing factors.’
You’re right! I missed out the occasions when a big woman might be beating up a small man or any sized boy and you might have to restrain her or even fight back, or have a man, or men, intervene.
If you want to put ‘no reason’ in place of ‘no excuse’, go ahead. Same deal, apart from when a woman is being violent and the only recourse is violence back, which, I suppose, negates ‘no reason’. OK then, ‘”Except in extenuating circumstances when a man might be under extreme threat, there is no excuse or reason for a man to be violent to a female”.
‘Is there actually any need to have the words “male” and “female” in that sentence?’
Not if you don’t want too. You can just say, ‘”Except in extenuating circumstances when a (enter preferred gender here) might be under extreme threat, there is no excuse or reason for a (enter preferred gender here) to be violent to a (enter preferred gender here)”
I missed out the occasions when a big woman might be beating up a small man or any sized boy and you might have to restrain her or even fight back, or have a man, or men, intervene.
Facelift, you miss an important point here.
A man physically defending himself against a woman of any size risks his defense being misconstrued. What is a large, or even an average sized man to do if a woman starts hitting, biting or using a weapon on him? If he uses his physical advantage of all, he could be accused of assault.
It reminds me of the famous grapefruit scene in Public Enemy (1931) between Jimmy Cagney and Jean Harlow. What would have today’s domestic advocates made of that?
I suppose I should add the disclaimer: “I, Nora Charles, utterly condemns domestic violence in always, shapes and forms, regardless who perpetrates it, who enables it and who ignores it.”
There, I hope that helps establishe some of my non-violent, non-misogynist and non-misandrist credentials.
– Nora
I hadn’t gone out on Friday so I hadn’t seen other people wearing them.
However, today when I was at work, there was a little girls who was wearing it – I was really taken aback by it. Sure, one of her caregivers may have put it on her but to see this girl of about seven illustrated to me what the change is about – it’s realising that we want to change the now but primarily, we want to change behaviour for these young people, so they don’t have to experience it or see it. That may sound idealistic but so be it!
I don’t think we should deny people their opinions because they haven’t specificially experienced it. I’ve experienced it and can talk ‘firsthand’ but I don’t think it invalidates other people’s arguments and opinions.
Joe I totally agree with your sentiments. Maybe in this thread or one of the other ones of the same topic, I mentioned that I want to be protected not because I’m a woman but because I’m a person. I remember growing up, playing games with the boys (yes, that horrible term, a ‘tomboy) and we were being rough but the guys wouldn’t hit me because I’m a girl – not because they shouldn’t hit someone but because they shouldn’t hit girls
But I don’t think women are weaker – we are just socialised to believe that. I work with children and it is a constant and active study of the socialisation of children to not only fulfill social norms but especially gender roles.
One of the things that the feminist movement wasn’t/hasn’t been able to achieve it the standard of so-called “feminine” or “womanly” things – it is alright for a girl to do traditionally ‘guy’ things and traditionally ‘girl’ things but boys aren’t able to wear a dress or *shock horror* wear pink.
I could go on about this but I’m rambling and heading OT!
Why? Anyone has the right to defend themselves against assault with reasonable force. Your objective should be just that though – not to hurt the other person unnecessarily.
I’ve been attacked twice in public by people I didn’t know. That’s not too often for 37 years! In both cases, my objective was to protect myself from harm. It’s sensible to take some basic self defence courses which should also include training in how to react calmly and proportionately.
You don’t need to be as physically strong as someone to be more physically effective in self defence – as anyone who’s ever done any martial art could tell you.
Can’t comment on the Jimmy Cagney film because I’ve never seen it.
Why? Anyone has the right to defend themselves against assault with reasonable force.
You’d think so Mark, but I know a number of men who’ve taken the assault conditioned by the fact that they should not hit a woman under any circumstances or afraid that the woman will have them charged with assault regardless of justified self-defence, also afraid of being ridiculed or disbelieved.
The point to all of this I guess, is domestic violence is wrong regardless of who perpetrates it.
– Nora
Following on from Nora’s point, I know a guy who has for about 15 years endured severe physical and psychological abuse from his wife, and usually in public, in front of their friends. To the point where other women say it’s a lucky thing for her that he’s not the violent type – and they are not taking her side. And believe it or not, his male friends genuinely actually admire him for handling it as he does.
Off topic but somehow appropriate to this thread:
Link.
Well, exactly, Nora.
But that doesn’t mean that men shouldn’t try to eliminate domestic violence perpetrated by men – particularly since most is and it’s legitimised or condoned in some quarters.
But that doesn’t mean that men shouldn’t try to eliminate domestic violence perpetrated by men Рparticularly since most is and it’s legitimised or condoned in some quarters.
::big sigh:: Where have I said otherwise Mark? The additional points I wanted to bring to this discussion are:
1. While most reported cases of physical domestic violence is by men, women are more than equal in perpetrating psychological violence and indeed some physical violence.
2. To ignore the nature of toxic relationships is to see domestic violence continue as a societal problem
3. We all need to be reminded that people have choices. If a person has a violence problem, do something about it, if a person stays with someone with a violence problem, then they too need psychological counselling because they are enabling the violence to continue.
Just as an aside, your comment there reminded me of a story told to me by a friend.
He was walking back to his office after lunch when he saw go by a group of a dozen people who were obviously together. Two of their number, a man and a woman were arguing violently and the man started hitting the woman. My friend phoned 000.
At the same time, another passerby who was not a part of this group intervened to stop the man from hitting the woman.
All 12, including the woman who had been assaulted started laying into this Good Samaritan forcing him bloodied and bruised back into a cafe.
Fortunately the cops arrived soon after. But when the police arrested the ‘boyfriend’ among others, the woman started screaming and assaulting the police.
– Nora
Oh, I love those: “True story, it happened to a friend of a friend of mine.”
Robert, I have a confession to make I was not there, I was working in another city at the time.
It was my husband Nick who witnessed the event and who phoned 000. If you’re looking for further verficiation ask Jai Normosone at his blog here – http://www.spanishredneck.blogspot.com/, he was walking back to work with Nick when the incident occured.
It happened in Brisbane in 2001 off Albert Street. The group of people were Aborigines. The cafe was not really a cafe, it was a Sushi Train.
Anything else you want to know Robert? I would get Nick to post on this himself, but tells me he doesn’t waste his time talking to lefties.
I strongly resent your inference that I would make up a story.
– Nora
I’m sure you didn’t make it up. But everyone’s got a story to tell. Did I tell you about the train ride I was on yesterday? An argument between a middle-aged couple escalated until he punched her. Several passengers intervened and made it clear that he should disembark at the next station, which he did, and they made sure she was looked after.
You see? It’s tit-for-tat and utterly meaningless.
(I’d also give your story greater credence if you and your husband weren’t fictional characters. Although it would explain some of your offerings here if you are as well-lubricated as they were.)
Nor is your reputation for truth-telling enhanced by this claim that you’ve been banned from LP.
“From which it seems, I’ve now been banned…” 24 Nov (TTMR)
“Apparently I’m not banished from the LP site….” 25 Nov (EP)
Nora thought she had been, then realised she hadn’t. Good thing, too. More, please, from Dashiell Hammett’s most memorable character.
Oh, I get it. If I make a wrong statement on my blog, I can go and correct it in the comments thread of another blog. Gotcha.
Seems reasonable to me, Robert. The global blogos and all that. We all read 15 or so blogs more or less simultaneously, and the same characters keep cropping up.
…in the same old conversations.
Well, seeing as I read neither EP nor Nora on a regular basis… but oh well. Never mind. Not worth the bother.
Incidentally, I much prefer this blog, by another Dashiell Hammett character.
But see, I saw that dog picture at Kate’s just the other day. Oh, the sheer interconnectedness of things.
I have the misfortune of receiving many chain e-mails from young relatives. I noticed one today that had this included:
>Article 2:
>
>The Three Steps
>
>1. Girls: If any guys gets fresh with you, slap him.
>
>2. Guys: If any girl slaps you, her intentions are still good.
…
I have seen this trash before, it has been doing the rounds for years. Young people read it and pass it on without thinking twice…
Oh Robert can’t we kiss and make up?
I’ve updated TTMR here http://thethinmanreturns.blogspot.com/2005/11/and-act-like-regular-lady.html with the appropriate correction
And to Rob – More, please, from Dashiell Hammett‚Äôs most memorable character. – thank you for rising to a lady’s defence.
I might comment from time to time, although I’m not as prolific or masochistic as Evil Pundit.
– Nora
“The reason I chose to wear a white ribbon today is to remind myself that I have made mistakes in the past, and to encourage other men to think about their actions.”
Anything we might need to alert the police about, Rob?
Just for the record, John Humphreys and I were involved in an action in Hong Kong that actively prevented violence against a woman. You know, as in actually stopped it, rather than wearing a stupid ribbon and repeatedly suggesting that all men are animals.
Your preachy tone and complete unwillingness to hear dissenting views is absolutely pathetic. It’s reassuring to see that the left are still willing to respond to their opponents by removing them from the game. That’s why I never come to the Perth blog meets, I’m afraid that Rob might bring his ice pick.
To the girl on here who claimed “It wasn’t so long ago that a woman would have been laughed at for getting treated for being beaten” – you really need to flush out your brain, it doesn’t seem to be working. Violence against women has never been acceptable since, say the renaissance in Europe. In other words, over 500 years.
It’s still considered a great joke though, when a bloke is beaten up by his wife. It happened to one of my friends last year and we all had a good laugh – he had a broken nose but no serious damage was done. The fact is that domestic violence goes both ways, it’s just that men are better at it than women. If he had have hit his wife back the way that she hit him, she’d likely be dead or disfigured.
I take absolutely no responsibility for the actions of men who are violent towards women and refuse to acknowledge that not wearing a ribbon means “I might as well lend a hand”. That entire concept is disgusting and the government lackey that approved that slogan should be sacked. (Preferably after the new IR laws are passed so she has no legal recourse).
“The issue of “blokey” culture being one of repressed emotions, alcohol and a tolerance of violence (against women and other men) is, in my mind, the most important issue in this area. ”
If you find yourself part of a blokey culture where violence against women is tolerated then I suggest you remove yourself from that environment immediately. It’s actually quite sad that you lefties really believe this to be the case. Nobody I know would tolerate anyone in their circle beating their partner, even if it was a close friend, and even if it required hospitalising him to prevent it happening.
If people you know would tolerate it then I’m even gladder than I was before that I don’t hang around with people like you.
Yobbo – if you took the time to read the thread above your comment (I know it’s a long one so I’m giving you a heads up), I’ve also been involved in physically interposing myself when violence was being done to a woman. That doesn’t in the slightest stop me from thinking that men signifying on one day a year that they oppose and don’t condone violence against women – with the main aim in mind to get other men to think and talk about it – is a good idea.
I remain totally astounded that this is being treated as a “left/right” thing. What arguments does the right have against standing in solidarity with other men and trying to educate our fellow men about why violence against women is wrong?
Please enlighten me.
I’m thoroughly fed up with the RWDB habit of attacking the messenger as some sort of reflex action. Not that it proves anything whatsoever in this case – Rob’s post is a credit to him.
Come up with some arguments, or shut up.
If you can’t do better than “you’re a Lefty and you must therefore be wrong and you’re fucked” then don’t ever start blithering on about the blogosphere as some sort of new vista for sophisticated political argument.
As a refresher, nobody is arguing that people should not “educate our fellow men why violence is wrong”, but I would suggest that it is unlikely to change much. We all know stealing is wrong, we all know lying is wrong, and I bet most people here have nicked something in their youth, and lie to this very day. The fact is that almost every male in Australia already knows that violence is wrong, suggesting the only thing left to do is enforce what is already understood. And of course, the harder you enforce something (preferably using violence) the sooner any left-overs finally get the clue that hitting girls is out.
I also note that at least one commenter on this thread has basically made the totalitarian argument that you must “eradicate inequality” and “end power imbalances” before you can “end domestic violence”. I’m afraid this will have about as much success as President Bush’s Inaugural Address pledge to “end tyranny”, and for the same reasons – you shall have to create an unlimited fascist state to ever achieve such a goal, and in doing so, you will actually ensure it remains a distant, unachievable objective.
Try this true/false quiz to assess your own attitude to domestic violence:
It is OK for a man to hit a woman under extreme provocation.
It is OK for a woman to hit a man under extreme provocation.
It is OK to physically assault someone even if you know they have a moral or legal obligation not to retaliate.
It is OK to slap someone in the face in response to an unwelcome (but physically non-threatening) proposition.
It is OK to lock a partner out of the house if he/she comes home drunk.
It is OK to damage or destroy your partner’s property (including dumping it outside the house) if they have pissed you off.
It is understandable/acceptable/amusing to mutilate or injure your partner’s genitals if they have been unfaithful.
Men are unfaithful because they think with their dicks.
Women are unfaithful because their partners have been incapable of meeting their emotional needs.
FWIW, I would answer ‘false’ to all of the above, but I can’t recall the last time I saw someone chuckling in amusement at a bloke taking the scissors to some woman’s wardrobe because she flirted with someone at a party.
I’m surprised sometimes by the quantity of virtiol hurled in these discussions, although not often surprised by the sources. I’d venture that there is indeed a power imbalance at work, but one rooted in selfishness. The idea that any action should be taken to the benefit of others and even the appearance of being at the expense of these individuals seems only to instigate a temper tantrum, and often one as contradictory as claiming to oppose all violence between men and women but having a good laugh at the expense of a mate with his nose broken. (He could have killed her if he’d responded in kind, so it’s all right, seems to be the way such contradiction is balanced.) Such sentiments seem often to come from a particular side of the social divide as represented by political affiliation, and that’s suggestive of why arguments presented there need to be carefully examined: they come from a sense of disenfranchisment; call it the “what about me” school of political thought. It’s a dangerous propensity we all have, one not limited to any particular “wing”, left of right, since it has been espoused over the years of human history from either side, but for the last twenty years the purview of the Right. And something I find especially galling in this particular time is how often it comes from people claiming some special status as Christians. From “yobbos” I expect it.
Mark: Didn’t you read what Rob wrote? In his culture, violence against women is tolerated. In which case I wish to have nothing to do with him.
Greg: Since Yobbos are overwhelmingly the socio-economic group who are vilified by anti-domestic violence campaigns, we have every right to be angry.
“and often one as contradictory as claiming to oppose all violence between men and women but having a good laugh at the expense of a mate with his nose broken.”
I’m not the one claiming to be opposed to all violence. In fact I’m a big supporter of violence in a lot of forms. Im dead against people beating up their husbands or wives, but the fact is that most people still think its funny when a bloke is beaten up by a girl, no matter how volatile the situation may be.
Just to follow up on the “being beaten up by a girl” thing. The recent “Jackass” movie featured 1 sketch involving one of the guys getting into the kickboxing ring with the female world champion from Thailand.
The woman absolutely kicked the shit out of the guy – he never got a single hit in – and at the end of it he had concussion and was vomiting everywhere.
The cinema was in tears of laughter.
So if anyone tries to say that people consider women assaulting men the same way as the reverse then you should automatically know that they’re lying.
The fact is that almost every male in Australia already knows that violence is wrong, suggesting the only thing left to do is enforce what is already understood.
I think this is what the confusion comes down to (the confusion amongst sane commenters anyway).
White Ribbon Day isn’t about just saying violence is wrong, and educating men that violence against women is wrong. It’s about removing that attitude, which is thankfully much less common now, that putting the word “domestic” in front of violence makes it somehow less wrong.
It’s about raising people’s awareness of just how common violence against women still is, and alerting friends, family and neighbours to the signs. And it’s about changing people’s attitude toward involving themselves in “private behaviour”, and encouraging them not to ignore domestic violence if they think it’s occuring.
So while a white ribbon by itself may do very little, it’s pretty clear from the posts here that the day itself has gone some way to raising awareness of the issue.
I believe one of the important issues of violence in any form comes back to the family and how we learn to behave in relationships. We see how our parents behave towards one another which inturn shapes our own personal values and effects how we’ll behave in our future relationships.
It’s sad to say but there are children who think that it’s normal for Mum and Dad to abuse one another physically or emotionally and it’s where we need campaigns like this one to say it’s not normal and it’s not right.
Otherwise the cycle of violence in the home will continue.
Greg,
’something I find especially galling in this particular time is how often it comes from people claiming some special status as Christians’
‘It’ being what? The quality of vitriol? Promotion of violence towards women? I don’t know what you’re talking about, and neither do you.
Most of the Christians, male and female, I associate with are working strongly against violence against women, and doing what they can to support the raising of dignity amongst women, and to enhance male culture by encouraging them to support and encourage women, and to see men and women as equals. You need only go to the average contemporary church and ask for CD’s or books of their teaching on relationships, marriage, parenting, and related subjects to find out what is really being taught in the 21st century. Try ‘Focus on the Family’ for a starters.
What special status? We’re all responsible for our thoughts and actions. We all have to follow the law of the land. We all have to vote. We’re all subject to responsibilities towards other people, whether we agree with them or their lifestyle or not.
Facelift, this is a website of the crazy left. Anything evil is most often committed by middle-class white Christians. It’s best you learn that if you want to stay here, if you disagree you could get banned.
The disassociation of one statement made by public figures prefaced by ‘As a Christian . . .’ from other statements made by the same person on another topic but in contradiction to general Christian principles is too easily perpetrated by the general public, apparently yourself included, ‘Facelift’. If someone’s going to claim the mantle of Christianity, let them be held to account when they fail to act or speak accordingly. The Pope demands that of his church, why shouldn’t I? Whereas you and your friends may be upholding Christian principles, there are many others who are not, and who are public figures, often in the media, many of them right-wing ideologues preaching the politics of divisiveness, selfishness, and hatred on selective topics.
And if ‘yobbos’ are the overwhelming ’socio-economic group being vilified’ in discussions of domestic violence, maybe the anger they employ in presenting their counter-arguments and the abuse they spew is indicative of the reasons why. Not that I expect much self-reflection from people who still laugh at their friends’ black eyes.
Greg, you need to do two things.
1) outline what you believe the christian beliefs are. Beware Mark pontificates on this subject and he is yet to show any understnding of christianity.
2) specifcally who these ‘christians’ are.
Greg,
You need to name some names and frame your claims, and we’ll see if your aim is true or if you’re talking out of the blue, remembering the subject of the thread is NO to violence against women.
All right, yes, I did get off topic, seguing into general violence and general principles and general hypocrisy. Fine, I withdraw my comments from the discussion.
Why is it that me and all my evil right-wing friends (and apparently yobbo’s friends) have no experience with violence against women except for stopping it… and we have overwhelming social norms against such behaviour?
Is there a link? Are lefties more likely to be in violent relationships? Does that make lefties christians?
If our social norms aren’t reflective of objective reality in any direction — I think it is to the benefit of women. Whether people will admit it here or not, we all know that the general view on male-to-female and female-to-male violence is a world apart.
I actually think this pro-women social norm is a good thing… but let’s not pretend it doesn’t exist.
Greg – I don’t see any reason why you should have to retreat from your comment. You might like to answer FaceLift, but the segue seems perfectly acceptable to me.
‘Greg – I don‚Äôt see any reason why you should have to retreat from your comment.’ Quite. If your comment is valid it should be commented on.
‘If someone‚Äôs going to claim the mantle of Christianity, let them be held to account when they fail to act or speak accordingly.’ Of course, but let’s not bag all Christians because some fail to act or speak according general accepted practices, or place them all in the same bag.
Yobbo
I think you’ll find that most people here have been very civil to FaceLift, which is not to say he doesn’t deserve, because he’s a fine fellow who argues in a spirit of civility and rationality despite being a creationist. Which is more than can be said for you throwing your little temper tantrums all over the blogs.
To be fair Jason, if you feel like you are the nominated “enemy” you are less inclined to be friendly. As you have mastered the art of cuddling up with lefties* you are less likely to feel the exclusion that goes with being the enemy.
* hey, nothing wrong with cuddling lefties… I’ve even gone so far as to defend your left-cuddling ways!
John, who nominated you “the enemy”? The post had bugger all to do with left and right, as has been remarked. I’d distinguish between RWDBs and righties, and within those two categories. Am happy to engage in civil dialogue with all who reciprocate. However, that’s encouraged by people making substantive points not ideological bitches.
I wasn’t talking about me Kim — I was defending yobbo’s over-eager sense of confrontation with the left. There is a considerable amount of scorn from the left poored onto the yobbos of the world, and Sam feels (with some justification) that this undermines the left call for mutual respect.
And regarding making substantive points — I think yobbo does do that. Sure, he adds a few punches. But there’s normally a point in there somewhere. I agree that some RWDB don’t do that and I’m sure you would admit the left is guilty occasionally too.
I don’t regard myself as a RWDB. As a libertarian, I am categorised as anti-left on the left blogs (and therefore a right-winger) and anti-right on the right blogs (and tehrefore a leftie). It’s confusing being a communist fascist… but somehow I manage.
Why be civil? In over 3 years of blogging not a single left-winger has even come close to even considering any rational argument that anyone on the right has put forward.
The lefties who blog are simply not interested in dialogue, but in advancing the agenda and banning anyone who disagrees.
In the absence of any hope of getting a point across I prefer to have a bit of fun.
again John I fail to see what any of this has to do with the ‘left’ and why you would choose to give ‘the left’ a monopoly on being against domestic violence.
yobbo kicks up a fuss everywhere he goes, threatens to beat people up or accuses everyone of being anti-male or anti-rural – whether on catallaxy, LP or Troppo. and he seems to have gotten it in his head that i’m running some sort of campaign against him. it’s big chip on the shoulder blogging.
I don’t think I gave the left a monopoly on being against domestic violence.
As for you & yobbo fighting — I consider you both friends. But then again, I always had low standards.
I must say it’s tempting to set up a filter that stops all comments related to the blogging practices of the “left” and “right”. The resulting discussion is almost always boring and an endless rehash. It’d be so much nicer if people discussed the issues.