December 6th End Violence Against Women

[KingOfLaughter]

The story behind the day.
On December 6, 1989 at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, 14 women were murdered- gunned down- by a lone gunman simply because they were women.

So In Canada (And mayhap else where I'm not sure) December 6th is the anniversary of a tragic act of violence against women and thus has become a day of remembrance and one for change. I fully support this change and am actually the kind of person who wouldn't hesitate to punch his best friend in the face for hitting his girlfriend/wife. Who else is going to help stop violence aginst women?

[Kastanok]

Can't stop because I never started. What a perculiar thing to ask.

Besides, gender is entirely irrelevant to whether or not I enact violence against a person. Male or female, if they truly need to get hit they get hit. Anything else would be sexist.

Not to say that I've found good reason to hit anyone for several years but, you know, hypothetically.

[Savannah]

So In Canada (And mayhap else where I'm not sure) December 6th is the anniversary of a tragic act of violence against women and thus has become a day of remembrance and one for change. I fully support this change and am actually the kind of person who wouldn't hesitate to punch his best friend in the face for hitting his girlfriend/wife. Who else is going to help stop violence aginst women?

So.....your methods for stopping violence against women include being proud of being violent.....:smallconfused:

Violence leads to violence. The way you stop violence against women is by not being violent against them and making it clear to everyone around you that violence against women is not acceptable, even in jokes. You don't do it by being hypocritical and hitting people.

[Spiryt]

So.....your methods for stopping violence against women include being proud of being violent.....:smallconfused:

Violence leads to violence. The way you stop violence against women is by not being violent against them and making it clear to everyone around you that violence against women is not acceptable, even in jokes. You don't do it by being hypocritical and hitting people.

In human fight against violence, gonna bet on violence, by disqualification. :smallamused:

[rakkoon]

I believe it was the international day of Stop-hitting-your-partner last week. I even got the T-shirt.

[Hazyshade]

Violence leads to violence. The way you stop violence against women is by not being violent against them and making it clear to everyone around you that violence against women is not acceptable, even in jokes. You don't do it by being hypocritical and hitting people.

Agreed. If you go around IRL vigilante modding, firstly, people are going to look at what you're doing, miss the point entirely and dismiss your opinion on the grounds that you appear to be a hypocrite. Dismissing your opinion is something the perpetrators of violence against women will be very keen to do, and the accusation of hypocrisy is way too easy and very likely to stick to you. Even if, in your mind, the two situations are different.

Secondly, you're reinforcing the culture of "honourable violence". In a society where male-on-male violence is, if not acceptable, then tolerable provided the other guy deserved it, then you're going to get people making the following argument: because feminism happened and therefore we live in a perfectly equal society,

no we don't

...it ought to be acceptable to apply the principle of honourable violence to women - if they deserve to be hit, they'll get hit. Anything else would be sexist, right? So we sweep under the carpet the power/control issues that lurk beneath the surface of 99% of male-on-female violence. This is not right.

Condemning violence in general, and examining the ways society gives men an expectation of control over women - if you're serious about ending violence against women, the two must go hand in hand.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I fully support this change and am actually the kind of person who wouldn't hesitate to punch his best friend in the face for hitting his girlfriend/wife.

If your best friend was a lesbian, what would you have to do then?

Violence against women may be more common in a domestic sense, but its a hard issue on whether or not gender-focused "end violence" movements are a good idea. By focusing on violence against women, you might for example end up with a situation where a husband and wife are violent towards each other, but the husband gets more blame when both are equally deserving. Or if a wife beat her husband and he didn't hit her back you might get a situation where he didn't report it or do anything about it because society only considers it a problem if a woman is getting hurt. Then there are double standards like "if a girl hits a guy, she's standing up for herself, if a guy hits a girl he's the scum of the earth and must have something broken in him that makes him ireedemable and inferior to real men who never hit anyone".

Okay, so there are strength differances that make a woman more likely to get more hurt if she tries to fight a man, but they're less important if she picks up a rolling pin (to be cliche), or waits until the guy is asleep, or more likely the abuse is verbal or emotional.

[Hazyshade]

Closet_Skeleton:

1) So you've expanded the issue to include violence against men. Why stop there? Why not widen it further to include children, complete strangers, different races, different sexualities? Why just physical violence, why not emotional/psychological abuse too? Why not have an End All Possible Mistreatment Of Anyone By Anyone Else day? (Rhetorical question.)

There is nothing wrong, morally or mathematically, with taking a large problem and breaking it down into easily comprehensible chunks, and then prioritising those chunks by their prevalence in the real world. Examining whether incidents of violence against women, and perpetrators thereof, are likely to share certain characteristics is a useful exercise. If we must look in isolation at the individual circumstances surrounding every act of violence, we fail to see the forest for the trees. If we assume that all acts of violence are equal, we fail to see the trees for the forest. Neither approach teaches us anything that could actually be used to help reduce violence against women in the future.

2) The point of an End Violence Against Women day is not to spread the message that violence against men is acceptable. That would be ridiculous. Violence against men comes with its own set of assumptions that need to be challenged equally forcefully. But when you use an End Violence Against Women day as an opportunity to make your voice heard on this point, then you are straying into "what about teh menz?! (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/)" territory.

[Kastanok]

Alright, violence against women for the sake of being women is wrong and plain stupid. I think we can all agree on that. So... what now? What's to be done? Do we expect people who are violent against women for stupid reasons or no real reason at all to care what we think? Or is it about encouraging people to report it?

You know, I remember those old billboards about 'every week two women escape domestic violence' with a photo of two coffins side-by-side and thought "good for them, better than the status quo." I'm not sure that was the message they intended people to take away...

[Haruki-kun]

If you go around IRL vigilante modding

IRL it's just called vigilante. :smalltongue:

Anyway, I support the whole gender equality thing and "stop violence, period". But I also understand that the point of the day is focused on a specific type of violence and on fighting it...

....or what Sushi Monster said in point number 2. Yeah, that.

[RanWilde]

Well, if he is in a position of power, he should protect those that hold less power. Therefore, he is right to punch said *******. While it may not be the best way of going about it, it is a viable and good option.

This of course brings me to one of my beliefs. Those who have power must always protect those that do not have power, and they must ensure that the powerless become empowered. We work to create an equal and fair society.

[pendell]

I oppose violence against women. I fight against it by coming from a family tradition where husband-on-wife violence was common, and refusing to pass it on.

Ironically, the greatest help to me in achieving this goal was the so-called culture of "honorable violence". For 14 years I have worked and lived beside soldiers, special forces , really tough guys. And what struck me was how little they were like the movies in their personal lives. They were kind, gentle and soft-spoken to their families and to their co-workers. Their fantastic capacity for violence was on a tight leash -- until the day one stupid boyfriend thought it was okay to beat up the daughter of said special forces soldier.

He learned differently in a hurry.

IMO, asking males not to be violent doesn't make them not violent. Because we are. It's in our hormones. But what we can do is teach them to manage and control their violence, to teach them what is and is not a valid target.

You can't teach a dog to be a lamb, but you can teach a dog to be a sheepdog, a protector of the weak and the innocent, and not a wolf. Trying to make dogs into sheep doesn't make sheep -- it just means you've got a very confused animal who doesn't have any appropriate outlet for their violent instincts. Which results in them finding inappropriate ones.

The whole 'violence begets violence' thing is a canard. Perhaps violence begets violence -- but weakness begets violence, too. I have seen with my own eyes what happens when a particular kind of human has power and no one to check them, no one to control them.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that, in the five thousand years of recorded history, no one has ever found a better way of stopping violence of the strong against the weak except violence by police or soldiers. We've tried teaching. We've tried reasoning. We've tried philosophy. We've tried religion. And yet in all our history, the only time there has been something like a 'Pax Romana' is when some bully got big enough to put down all the other bullies, and give the rest of the world peace.

Fire sometimes needs to be fought with fire. It seems strange that *setting* something on fire is a way to fight fire , but it does -- a small, controlled fire to contain the uncontrollable forest fire. With fire as with violence.

So I say: Don't try to make men and boys into something they aren't. Instead, re-introduce the idea of chivalry. For BOTH genders. That strength is to be used to protect the weak, not to abuse or oppress them.

It's not just for men, either. I've seen families where the strong abuses the weak. The strong husband hurts the wife, the wife hurts the kids, and the kids torture small animals. It all flows downhill.

The best way is for the person at the top of the chain to STOP. To turn his strength for the betterment of his family. When the person at the top sets the example, it's remarkable to me how often the people below him in the chain of dominance mimic his behavior.

This ideal has not made me into a gentle, peaceable being. But it has made me a being who will protect and defend his spouse with his life, rather than an abuser and oppressor of the same.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Zherog]

I oppose violence against women. I fight against it by coming from a family tradition where husband-on-wife violence was common, and refusing to pass it on.

Kudos to you!


You can't teach a dog to be a lamb, but you can teach a dog to be a sheepdog, a protector of the weak and the innocent, and not a wolf. Trying to make dogs into sheep doesn't make sheep -- it just means you've got a very confused animal who doesn't have any appropriate outlet for their violent instincts. Which results in them finding inappropriate ones.

This, in my opinion, is a fantastic analogy!

[Thufir]

I basically agree with everything pendell said, though I would add an addendum:
It must be made emphatically clear that the approach he described be taken exactly: "The strong protect the weak." Because if this is not taken precisely enough there is the risk of it devolving into "The men protect the women." Which is the kind of thing which leads to an inherently patriarchal, male-dominated society in which women may be regarded as inferior, which may then circle back round to it being OK to commit violence against them

Oh, additional addendum: Actual violence should be avoided where possible - the threat of retaliatory chivalric violence, implied or otherwise, may be enough in some number of cases to stop the original violence. However, if you make such a threat, you must also be prepared to back it up.

[Hazyshade]

I agree with Thufir that the principle of "men protect women" will only reinforce the male domination of society, which is the last thing we want. I think there are more pernicious problems with this concept of "protection" though. In a society that accepts the possibility of retributive violence as the preferred solution to the potential abuse of the strong by the weak... how does it feel to be one of the weak? Especially if you have no chance of becoming one of the strong? The message that society is sending you is that your physical safety, and indeed your life, have no inherent value, any value they do have is derived from the value other people place on you, as manifested by the number of strong people you can find to stick up for you (and subject yourself to, to ensure that they carry on sticking up for you).

The boyfriend who thought it was OK to beat up the daughter of the special forces officer but learned differently - what did he actually learn? That violence against that particular woman would have negative consequences. Unless the boyfriend was already a closet feminist, which, let's be honest, he wasn't, do you really think he subsequently had a blinding epiphany and realised that all women deserve to live without the fear of violence, for no other reason than that women have rights? Or is it more likely that he went away and found a woman with no-one to stick up for her, maybe a homeless women or a sex worker, that he could abuse in relative peace, if only to prove to himself that his former view of the relationship between men and women is still valid and that the beating-up was an aberration?

Also. What happens when the abuser is Raoul Moat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Northumbria_Police_manhunt)? Who are you going to send round to knock some sense into that guy? If might makes right for the victims, then might makes right for the perpetrators too. (In fact, come to think of it, the first part of the Raoul Moat saga was a good example of “protection” going a bit fail.)

I realise that this isn't the 18th century, and that no-one is suggesting we do away with a well-functioning criminal justice system and a set of authorities that, partly because of repeated awareness campaigns and events like this one, now take the issue of violence against women extremely seriously. But the issue here is ending violence against women, not waiting for it to happen and punishing it, and I think our attitude to preventing violence from happening in the first place also needs to move on from 18th century deterrence through honourable violence. We can do better than that.

I don’t share Pendell’s view that we’re ruled by our hormones. I have never committed intentional violence against my partner. It would run completely counter to all my social programming. It's not because I’m afraid someone’ll beat me up if I do, and it's certainly not because I don’t have hormones. (If I didn’t have my social programming, if the issue was left up to my conscious brain, I’d still reach the conclusion that people have a right not to be attacked, of course). Conditioning people to see certain behaviour as “abnormal” is the most powerful way of changing their own behaviour. How much of our waking life do we spend conforming to social norms?

The denormalisation of violence against women has already happened to a large extent, and that is a wonderful thing, but some people still haven’t got the message. Since we are all part of the society that is meant to be enforcing that message, End Violence Against Women day is about more than just ticking a box that says “I have never personally been violent towards a woman” and then sitting back and thinking “problem solved”.

much love :smallsmile:

[KingOfLaughter]

So I wanted to clear up what I meant by "I would punch my best friend"

In most abusive relationships it tends to be the male who is the abuser and the female tends to either not speak up or she does and her pleas and those of her friends are completely ignored by the abuser. Call me a hypocrite but I feel that the only way an abuser will listen is if they themselves get a swift kick in the rear.


I myself see no reason to hit a woman (blame my protective instincts or call me a hypocritical ass I don't really care) and that if she tries to hit you, you hug her, if she has a weapon but not trying to harm you just leave, if she does try to harm you either call the cops or (this is the only time I see a reason to physically harm woman) twist her wrist so she drops it.

If you're just mad, don't hit her, punch a wall or a pillow or something.

I don't see the sexism behind protecting women, when most are viewed as weaker hen men (I myself do not feel this way) and when most tend to be to scared of further abuse to mention it. I'm a protective guy, I care... If this makes me a sexist person in someones eyes they can go themselves.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I'll go with ending violence against women when my five sisters quit slugging and leaping on me.

*sniff*

Seriously though, first time I was ever in a serious fight was in a gas station parking lot where this guy started trying to break into his ex-girlfriend'ss car because she wouldn't talk to him, he just happened to see her, and was about to take a brick to her windshield. I shouted 'Hey' at him and he launched himself at me. Never raised a hand against him though, just let him wear himself out trying to wrestle. Finally shoved him on his butt and told him to get out of there and sober up.

Now, if he'd actually hurt her I'd probably have been a bit more... aggressive. The words 'teeth' and 'jugular' come to mind.

I don't like bullies and dictators regardless of sex.

[pendell]

In a society that accepts the possibility of retributive violence as the preferred solution to the potential abuse of the strong by the weak... how does it feel to be one of the weak? Especially if you have no chance of becoming one of the strong?


That is why we have police, and soldiers, and to a lesser extent kings. The original tripod of government -- people, aristocracy, king -- existed because a king was needed -- the strongest of the strong -- to hold the merely strong in check.

Those who are strong have an obligation to protect the weak from other strong people. If they do not fulfill this obligation, the bullies will win, because bullies will not be turned aside by reason or by the milk of human
kindness.



The boyfriend who thought it was OK to beat up the daughter of the special forces officer but learned differently - what did he actually learn? That violence against that particular woman would have negative consequences. Unless the boyfriend was already a closet feminist, which, let's be honest, he wasn't, do you really think he subsequently had a blinding epiphany and realised that all women deserve to live without the fear of violence, for no other reason than that women have rights?


While I don't know the end of the story, it is possible he'll realize that women aren't victims, to be abused at will like a child's plaything. If a woman has no other protector, there's always the court system.

The point of having authority figures et al is because there are those who don't have any other defender. Kings etc. were originally instituted to defend the weak and powerless against the strong and powerful. Lots of old legends of the form 'Sheriff-saves-the-villagers-from-the-bandits'. That was how the ancient city of Novgorod got it's first king. They were being harassed by raiders, so they picked the biggest and toughest raider and made him king to protect them from the others, one Rurik. Poacher-turned-gamekeeper and all that.



Who are you going to send round to knock some sense into that guy?


The police, of course, to drag him to jail.

In addition, it should be pointed out that there are times when society breaks down and there ARE no police or soldiers to clean up the mess. It then is necessary for ordinary people to set things to rights. People who retain their capacity for violence will be able to do so. People who have allowed themselves to become society's lapdogs will be helpless in the face of the Zombie Apocalypse.



If might makes right for the victims, then might makes right for the perpetrators too. (In fact, come to think of it, the first part of the Raoul Moat saga was a good example of “protection” going a bit fail.)


There have always been always will be those who are stronger than others. The measure of a just society is the extent to which their strength is channeled to the common good -- to doing for others what they can't do for themselves. An evil society, by contrast, is one where the strong abuse the weak and use them for their pleasure.

These strong people are often called 'heroes'. They're a staple of fiction because ordinary people want and need them. We want strong people to aspire to be Roy or King Arthur, not Tarquin or Sauron. That's why we tell the stories we do, partly in the hopes of encouraging people to emulate that which we show as praiseworthy.

ETA: What I'm proposing is basically the same logic behind martial arts classes. Not teaching kids martial arts does not mean they don't fight. Teaching them, by contrast, allows them to fight A) more effectively B) more control over the damage they inflict C) allows teaching them when and why it would be a good idea, rather than rely on instinct. Make people who are able to channel their violent instincts productively, rather than people who lash out at people who can't fight back.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Thufir]

In a society that accepts the possibility of retributive violence as the preferred solution

I'm going to cut you off right here and point out that I also very definitely made the point that this is not the preferred solution. It's a means of direct intervention when such is necessary, or of enforcing a point to someone unlikely to listen. The preferred solution is for people to just not commit violence against women (Or anyone, for that matter).


The boyfriend who thought it was OK to beat up the daughter of the special forces officer but learned differently - what did he actually learn? That violence against that particular woman would have negative consequences. Unless the boyfriend was already a closet feminist, which, let's be honest, he wasn't, do you really think he subsequently had a blinding epiphany and realised that all women deserve to live without the fear of violence, for no other reason than that women have rights? Or is it more likely that he went away and found a woman with no-one to stick up for her, maybe a homeless women or a sex worker, that he could abuse in relative peace, if only to prove to himself that his former view of the relationship between men and women is still valid and that the beating-up was an aberration?

If you simply lectured him on how women have rights and should not be abused would he listen? Unless he was already a closet feminist, which, let's be honest, he wasn't, do you really think he would subsequently have a blinding epiphany and realise that all women deserve to live without the fear of violence, for no other reason than that women have rights? Or is it more likely he would disregard the lecture and continue to abuse his girlfriend, secure in the knowledge he would suffer no negative consequences for it?

This is what I mean about enforcing the point. If you lecture the guy on how what he did is wrong, there is a significant chance he will disregard it because he doesn't agree. If he is provided with clear negative consequences, they will definitely discourage him from repeating those actions in that case, and possibly in other cases.
An additional point is - violence by a man against a woman is, I believe, often related to notions of dominance, whereby the man is dominant over the woman as evidenced by his ability to physically subdue her. As such, if that man is then subdued by another, it indicates this stronger man is dominant over the other, who should therefore listen to what he has to say.
Note here, I am not saying violence is a better solution than teaching people violence against women is wrong; rather I am saying that in instances where such teaching has apparently failed, violence may assist in driving home the point.


I don’t share Pendell’s view that we’re ruled by our hormones. I have never committed intentional violence against my partner. It would run completely counter to all my social programming. It's not because I’m afraid someone’ll beat me up if I do, and it's certainly not because I don’t have hormones. (If I didn’t have my social programming, if the issue was left up to my conscious brain, I’d still reach the conclusion that people have a right not to be attacked, of course). Conditioning people to see certain behaviour as “abnormal” is the most powerful way of changing their own behaviour. How much of our waking life do we spend conforming to social norms?

Agreed. As I said, this is the ideal solution. However in cases where it has failed to work, and an individual goes against the social norm (Don't commit violence against women),
a) It is apparently less likely that it will work, since it didn't the first time, and
b) The safety of the abusee is more important than that of the abuser.

To provide an example: If a heterosexual couple are seen talking, arguing, the argument becomes more heated until the man attacks the woman, I personally would unhesitatingly support knocking that man the **** out before trying to fix his social programming.

[Vaynor]

I'd prefer if we stopped violence entirely. Also, women abuse their husbands as well, is there a day to end this kind of violence? I wonder.

[KingOfLaughter]

I'd prefer if we stopped violence entirely. Also, women abuse their husbands as well, is there a day to end this kind of violence? I wonder.

Violence entirely is impossible, pointless reckless violence maybe.

Female to male violence is less common and tends to end in a beaten male rather then a dead or extremely seriously injured one. It tends to be males that take things further and put the victim in the hospital or the morgue.

[Haruki-kun]

@Vaynor: I think the problem in such case is that in the admitedly rare case that the male in a male-female relationship is the abused one, he will usually not denounce his partner. It probably makes him feel weak and helpless, or "less of a man".

[Hazyshade]

Vaynor: See my response to Closet_Skeleton.

Thufir, Pendell: OK, some clarification required.

a) You witness a man committing violence towards a woman in front of your eyes. Sure, knock him out. He is a criminal, and the law provides for the use of reasonable force to restrain a criminal at large.

b) You become aware that a man is acting abusively towards a woman of your acquaintence. Report the man to the police. (Pendell - I did acknowledge the necessity of the police in my wall of text.) If you find yourself in a situation where the woman is in clear and present danger, then restrain him. But if the abuse is happening behind closed doors, and the woman is unwilling to stand up in court and testify against the man (who "loves her really" and "just has difficulty controlling his emotions") then you will gain nothing by dispensing your own, purely retributive, justice.

In both of these scenarios, you are reacting to violence that has already happened or is currently happening. I agree, it's probably too late to fix anyone's social conditioning at this point.

c) As a Lawful Good member of society, you are confronted with the question "what does your society do to prevent people from becoming abusers?" In my opinion, "let the strong protect the weak" is not a good answer. At best, it's a cop-out; at worst it keeps society tied into a backward power dynamic. "Construct a society in which people do not develop into abusers" is a more postive, more evolutionary, more human ideal. Yes it will always be a work in progress, and no it does not preclude a) and b).

Of course, the easiest answer to c) is "I'm not violent" *shrugs*. You made a commitment not to be violent? Congrats, this is A Good Thing. But maybe the organisers of End Violence Against Women day want us to consider whether there is more that we can do.


hey tHufir :smallsmile: When I wrote "In a society that accepts the possibility of retributive violence as the preferred solution to the potential abuse of the strong by the weak..." I originally didn't include the purple bits, because I'd obviously got confused myself as to which of a), b) and c) I was talking about. It sounded like a), and it was meant to be c). Clearly my clarifying did nothing, as it often doesn't. Maybe instead of "possibility" I should have written "expectation" or "threat". I still like the rest of that paragraph :smalltongue: I think the point about inherent vs. derived value is a salient one.

[Vaynor]

Violence entirely is impossible, pointless reckless violence maybe.

Female to male violence is less common and tends to end in a beaten male rather then a dead or extremely seriously injured one. It tends to be males that take things further and put the victim in the hospital or the morgue.

I'm aware, I didn't mean that it was reasonable to expect, it's more of a personal hope. Less common, sure. Uncommon, no.


@Vaynor: I think the problem in such case is that in the admitedly rare case that the male in a male-female relationship is the abused one, he will usually not denounce his partner. It probably makes him feel weak and helpless, or "less of a man".

I wouldn't say it was rare, and it's exactly this reason that it seems to be so rare. It's more rare that a man will actually admit to it. Also, there are a large number of organizations to help women who suffer spousal abuse, but next to none (I'm being optimistic here, I've personally never heard of one) to help men who suffer spousal abuse.


Vaynor: See my response to Closet_Skeleton.

I'm not saying that this day should be expanded to include men, children, etc. but more that there should also be a day for men and others on the same subject. Or at least an awareness day of some kind.

This day supposedly came about because 14 women were killed because they were women, why not a day for men who were killed because they were men? People like John Wayne Gacy or Aileen Wuornos? Just curious.

[Hazyshade]

I'm not saying that this day should be expanded to include men, children, etc. but more that there should also be a day for men and others on the same subject. Or at least an awareness day of some kind.

This day supposedly came about because 14 women were killed because they were women, why not a day for men who were killed because they were men? People like John Wayne Gacy or Aileen Wuornos? Just curious.

Organise one! Provided it doesn't consist mostly of complaints about how violence against women gets all the attention, you will have my wellest wishes.

[Haruki-kun]

I wouldn't say it was rare, and it's exactly this reason that it seems to be so rare. It's more rare that a man will actually admit to it. Also, there are a large number of organizations to help women who suffer spousal abuse, but next to none (I'm being optimistic here, I've personally never heard of one) to help men who suffer spousal abuse.

Fair point. Numbers are hard to get. I usually assume there are organizations that just help people who go through abuse, though. One specifically for men wouldn't get much work...

But I live in Mexico. I really don't know how the rest of the world handles it.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The point of having authority figures et al is because there are those who don't have any other defender. Kings etc. were originally instituted to defend the weak and powerless against the strong and powerful. Lots of old legends of the form 'Sheriff-saves-the-villagers-from-the-bandits'. That was how the ancient city of Novgorod got it's first king. They were being harassed by raiders, so they picked the biggest and toughest raider and made him king to protect them from the others, one Rurik. Poacher-turned-gamekeeper and all that.

Its also called a protection racket and is one of the foundations of organised crime.

The first kings were nothing but gangsters, not heroes.



This day supposedly came about because 14 women were killed because they were women, why not a day for men who were killed because they were men? People like John Wayne Gacy or Aileen Wuornos? Just curious.

Men are killed for being men all the time, so its normalised. Its called conscription and drafting.

[Hazyshade]

Its also called a protection racket and is one of the foundations of organised crime.
Agreed. Protection is not a good guiding principle for any society.


Men are killed for being men all the time, so its normalised. Its called conscription and drafting.

I only have five issues with that statement:

1) Being put at a really quite low risk of death by joining an army is not the same as being murdered.
2) Being at risk of dying because of which side you're fighting on is not the same as being at risk of dying because of your gender.
3) This does not happen all the time nor is it normalised. There is no Western country that forces its inhabitants to engage in combat (national service yes, combat no). If there are countries in other parts of the world, in 2010, that do, these countries have big enough issues with basic human rights without needing to shoe-horn anti-male bias into the discussion.
4) If women were being drafted into the military and getting killed, this would not mean that the shooting of civilian women on a college campus was normalised.
5) If the shooting of civilian women on a college campus was normalised, it would still not be acceptable and we would still be right to condemn it and try to stop it from happening again.

Other than that, I agree entirely.

[CWater]

So I wanted to clear up what I meant by "I would punch my best friend"

In most abusive relationships it tends to be the male who is the abuser and the female tends to either not speak up or she does and her pleas and those of her friends are completely ignored by the abuser. Call me a hypocrite but I feel that the only way an abuser will listen is if they themselves get a swift kick in the rear.


I myself see no reason to hit a woman (blame my protective instincts or call me a hypocritical ass I don't really care) and that if she tries to hit you, you hug her, if she has a weapon but not trying to harm you just leave, if she does try to harm you either call the cops or (this is the only time I see a reason to physically harm woman) twist her wrist so she drops it.

If you're just mad, don't hit her, punch a wall or a pillow or something.

I don't see the sexism behind protecting women, when most are viewed as weaker hen men (I myself do not feel this way) and when most tend to be to scared of further abuse to mention it. I'm a protective guy, I care... If this makes me a sexist person in someones eyes they can go themselves.

I can see your point, but let me ask: What if the attacking woman happened to be trained in martial arts? Would you still let yourself be beaten without fighting back?

[Hazyshade]

Can we all agree that when there is a need to defend anyone, including yourself, from the immediate threat of physical harm, the gender of the parties involved is irrelevant?

[pendell]

Can we all agree that when there is a need to defend anyone, including yourself, from the immediate threat of physical harm, the gender of the parties involved is irrelevant?

Agreed.

Be that as it may, I support ending violence against women, because in marriages spousal abuse of women by men is much more common than spousal abuse of women by men.

We obviously have different understandings, but a good , societal notification of 'MEN DON'T BEAT UP THEIR WIVES' seems to me a good thing.

I've seen this myself. Strong men who are confident in themselves and possess self-respect don't harm their wives. The kind of man who beats up a person weaker than himself because he knows he can get away with is a contemptible bully.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[WarKitty]

Some opinions:

There is a certain strain of masculinity that defines itself in a very destructive way. It's a definition where being in charge and in control are fundamental parts of being male, along with being able to "get girls." The problem is this idea bases masculinity in other people's actions. So inevitably, a woman who turns a guy down, or who asserts control over her own life against his wishes, will be seen as a threat to his masculinity that has to be dealt with. It's this underlying cultural construct that has to be addressed, not just the specific behavior.

As far as protecting women: the issue is that it often turns into a woman is only safe as long as she has a protector around. Chances are, the guy learned not that it's not ok to abuse women, but that it's not ok to abuse a girl with a father around. Similarly, many women report being harassed only when they're not accompanied by a man. Obviously in that case they aren't learning respect - they're learning it's not ok to hurt "another man's girl."

[Asta Kask]

December 6th is already taken. It's the day I and CWater will light candles in our respective windows.

[THAC0]

As far as protecting women: the issue is that it often turns into a woman is only safe as long as she has a protector around.

Indeed.

I protect myself.

Among other things, I shoot straighter than my husband does.

[Exeson]

@OP: Ok, so how do you propose we stop this violence? So far you have just given us a date and the reason for the date.

[Ceric]

I myself see no reason to hit a woman (blame my protective instincts or call me a hypocritical ass I don't really care) and that if she tries to hit you, you hug her, if she has a weapon but not trying to harm you just leave, if she does try to harm you either call the cops or (this is the only time I see a reason to physically harm woman) twist her wrist so she drops it.

If you're just mad, don't hit her, punch a wall or a pillow or something.
Might just be me, but if a woman is trying to hit you I think a hug isn't the approrpiate response... if she has a weapon she doesn't want you to just walk away... if I were that pissed at someone I wouldn't want that serious of a threat to be belittled and ignored, I'd want to be taken seriously. I wouldn't get up to actual physical violence unless I felt there was no other way to get a point across, and if someone else would go for violence first then they have a problem that should also be taken seriously. Applies to both genders, by the way. And in a more practical sense, if she's holding a weapon, how are you going to get close enough to grab that wrist without getting shot/stabbed/beat up yourself?

And this line really applies to everyone: "If you're just mad at someone, don't hit them, punch a wall or a pillow or something."


I don't see the sexism behind protecting women, when most are viewed as weaker hen men (I myself do not feel this way) and when most tend to be to scared of further abuse to mention it. I'm a protective guy, I care... If this makes me a sexist person in someones eyes they can go themselves.
"Most women are viewed as weaker than men => protecting women isn't considered sexist"*, I can follow, but if you don't view woman as weaker than men, then why do you still view protecting women as not sexist? :smallconfused: "Most tend to be scared of further abuse", okay, but that's a very general assumption to justify protecting all of femalekind. Not everyone is too scared to protect themselves, as you point out, and not everyone is abused.

* Not trying to put words into your mouth, this is just my rephrased interpretation of what you said.


By the way,
IMO, asking males not to be violent doesn't make them not violent. Because we are. It's in our hormones. But what we can do is teach them to manage and control their violence, to teach them what is and is not a valid target.
I love this entire post. Definitely one of the best ideas I've taken from martial arts is that you never go around using it on other people :smallbiggrin:

[Thufir]

b) You become aware that a man is acting abusively towards a woman of your acquaintence. Report the man to the police. (Pendell - I did acknowledge the necessity of the police in my wall of text.) If you find yourself in a situation where the woman is in clear and present danger, then restrain him. But if the abuse is happening behind closed doors, and the woman is unwilling to stand up in court and testify against the man (who "loves her really" and "just has difficulty controlling his emotions") then you will gain nothing by dispensing your own, purely retributive, justice.

The woman in question, however, may well receive a respite from the violence because the man fears the consequences of him continuing it.
Of course, this varies, and should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
And sure, maybe, as you mentioned in your previous post, maybe the man will simply find some other woman who it will be easier for him to abuse without consequences. But you can't be everywhere, nor can you follow the abusive man around to make sure he doesn't keep abusing people.


c) As a Lawful Good member of society,

Woah woah woah. Firstly, bringing D&D alignment into a topic already subject to debate risks opening up assorted cans of worms. Secondly, who said I was lawful?


"what does your society do to prevent people from becoming abusers?" In my opinion, "let the strong protect the weak" is not a good answer.

Well, of course not, because it's an answer to a different question. Letting the strong protect the weak doesn't stop people becoming abusers, it's a method for dealing with people who already have become abusers.

[Hazyshade]

Bringing D&D alignment into a topic already subject to debate risks opening up assorted cans of worms.
It was a throwaway turn of phrase of no significance.


Well, of course not, because it's an answer to a different question. Letting the strong protect the weak doesn't stop people becoming abusers, it's a method for dealing with people who already have become abusers.
The way I read Pendell's first two posts, he was advocating a society where the "heroes" between them take on the responsibility of protecting all the weak ones, therefore potential abusers are prevented from becoming violent by the expectation that someone would come and kick their butts. Deterrance as opposed to retribution. Pax Romana.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Agreed.
I've seen this myself. Strong men who are confident in themselves and possess self-respect don't harm their wives.

That's because they don't need to. Its equivilant to saying that you've never seen a rich man die of hunger. Okay, so there's bulimia, anorexia and suicide but that's not my point.


The kind of man who beats up a person weaker than himself because he knows he can get away with is a contemptible bully.

That's not really understanding the root of the problem. Like you said, confident happy men don't hit their wives. Unhappy ones with anger problems do.


I only have five issues with that statement:

Yeah, its a crappy statement that's only partially correct and needs elabourating. But I was too lazy.