I’ve decided to try and seek out people with opposing, but polite views, and try to address them with views that are just as polite, as a break from the general snark that most of my blogposts are. Since lately, we have had quite a few MRAs, I thought that was a good a place as any.
It is surprising to me that MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) are in the “opposing viewpoint” category to me. To me, there should be a MRA movement that runs parallel to the feminist movement, to directly address the problems that patriarchy has for men. An MRA should be like a homosexual activist, or an anti-racism: a movement that doesn’t directly have to do with feminism, but aligns with the philosophies and end goal of feminism*. But this isn’t generally what happens with MRAs, as near as I can tell. But, then again, perhaps I didn’t know what the problems of MRAs are, and it was time for me to find out.
In the comments, I was sent to a presentation of a quick overview of what the MRA’s issues were. The issues stated in the clip were as follows:
Chivalry
Political Correctness
Drafting
Men’s Suicide Rate
Men make up a greater percentage of on-the-job deaths
Men make up a greater percentage of military deaths
Women get custody more often
Lack of Men’s Health organizations
Men’s lack of reproductive rights (unable to stop or compel a woman to get an abortion)
“Duped dads”- Men paying child support for children that aren’t biologically theirs
Violence against men being played as “funny”
Circumcision is wrong
The problem of false rape accusations
Sentencing disparity between men and women
Domestic violence against men
Title IX being unfair to men
Men specific health problems not getting as much funding as female specific
Men not graduating from high school and college as much as women
Lack of “Men’s studies” where young people “can learn about all the good things men have done”
The presentation does not go into what causes these problems, or possible ways to address them, so I will stick straight to the issue itself, without offering what causes it or possible answers, and saying what I do consider to be legitimate issues, and illegitimate issues.
Legitimate Issues:
Chivalry- This is a damaging mindset.
The Draft
Suicide Rates
On-the-job deaths
Military deaths
Violence against men being played as “Funny”
Circumcision
Sentencing disparity
Domestic violence against men
Men specific funding for health problems
Men’s lack of graduation
Illegitimate problems (and a quick overview of why I don’t think they’re legitimate)
Political Correctness- I always get a little nervous when someone says that political correctness is this arduous task. I don’t understand why something, that basically boils down to respect and politeness is that big of deal. Because at the end of the day, the consequences for being politically incorrect is mainly social. It’s true that you can’t go around calling people racial, religious, and sexual epithets at work without suffering legal sanction, but you can’t say a lot of things at work without getting into trouble (for instance, I’m not allowed to call someone “fucking stupid” at work, but I really don’t see it as that hard). I’m hard pressed to see where “political correctness” is a violation of human rights, much less a particular task for men.
Lack of Men’s Health Organizations: Men’s health is the default. The reason there are “women’s health” at all, is to address the presumption that women are just smaller men, as opposed to having different issues and cues for problems. (EG: people are still told that a symptom of a heart attack is pain/numbness in the left arm, when for women it is normally pain in the chest).
Lack of Men’s Reproductive Rights: I cannot see why anybody should have the right to compel someone to use their body against their will. The idea of being forced to abort is just as abhorrent is being forced to give birth. It is a biological fact that men cannot get pregnant. If a man could get pregnant, I would be right there with him if he wanted to get an abortion. Child support (a “paper abortion”) is a little bit muddled for me, because in an ideal world, it wouldn’t be an issue to me. If an individual did not want to be beholden to a child, there would be a strong social net for the other to raise it in peace. (Heck, ideally it we would have a strong social net for two people who wanted to raise a child). It’s really difficult to get child support from the non-parent, anyway, and if we stepped in socially, we could avoid the whole mess. That being said, we don’t live in that ideal world, and the next best thing for a child is to have the two people responsible for the child to take care of it. And, remember, if the woman gives the child up to the man, or is the non-custodial parent, she has to pay child support as well.
“Duped Dads”- I don’t see this as an issue, because of this nice little thing called a “paternity test”. If a man suspects that a child is not his, he can get this paternity test and not have to pay child support. I have a hard time seeing women wanting to lie to guys in record droves, anyway (which the presentation seemed to imply) simply because child support payments are not that much. There are probably some women who do, but I think in most cases, if a paternity test turns up false, it was probably ignorance, not malice. In the presentation, it had the quote claiming that “30% of all paternity tests” show the presumed father is not the biological one. The flip to that quote is, of course, that 70% are.
False rape accusations: The FBI has false rape accusations at 3-4%, which is about the average for false filing of any other case. I have no idea where the 40% statistic from the presentation came from, but since they used the Duke rape case as the background, my suspicion is that they are conflating “not guilty” convictions with “false rape accusations”. Those are not the same thing. False rape accusations are wrong, but there are already penalties in place for women convicted of doing that.
Title IX being unfair to men: This is one where I just can’t see how giving women an equal amount of money as being unfair to men. In the presentation, it blamed Title IX on some men’s sports teams being cut, but that was a decision of the respective schools: they did have the option of cutting the budgets of more popular sports, and elected not to. It is not oppression to give up privilege, and getting way more money for sports was a privilege.
Lack of “Men’s Studies”: This is the same problem as men’s health organizations. All studies default to “men’s studies”. My history, philosophy, science courses are absolutely filled to the gills of the contributions of dead white men. Quick poll: name three important male scientists. Now do it with females (no googling). If you’re being honest, I bet you can name the men much more quickly than the women, and this isn’t because women haven’t done a lot to contribute to science. “Women’s studies” programs should be a stop-gap: I would rather see them mostly integrated into the mainstream curricula, and keep the rest for “gender studies”.
Hard to define:
Women getting custody more often- I think this a problem, but only because it means that women are still overwhelmingly the primary caregiver (the legal standard for custody when it is in dispute). If men were more often the primary caregiver, women wouldn’t be getting custody more often.
This, of course, is just my opinion, and shouldn’t be taken as a consensus of the feminist movement (if there ever is a consensus between feminists). Since this post covers A LOT of material, I would ask, instead of getting a multiple-hundred long comment thread, that people just vote on what topic they would like to discuss on a different thread, and I would write a more in-depth post on that narrow topic. This can include what I consider to be a legitimate issue, if MRAs would like, because I suspect rather strongly that our diagnosis and prescription of the problem will be widely different.
*Let’s ignore for a second that feminism hasn’t always been anti-racist, and there are some hetero-centrist feminists. By the same token, let’s ignore for a second that anti-racists, and homosexual activists haven’t always been the most stalwart of allies. In general, feminism is not opposed to the ends of ending racism and hetero-centrism, and are generally willing to ally ourselves with their goals.
I’m not aware of any other Feminist bloggers who consider the lowering graduation rates of men to be a “legitimate issue”. It’s typically countered with out-of-college income disparity. I’d like to see that discussion.
“I am torn: there seems to be a lot of desire to talk about false rape accusations, but on the other hand, I was kind of hoping to start out with a place where we had some more cross-over (highlight something we had in common, as opposed to where we keep fighting).”
I guess it would be better to start on something a little less divisive than false reporting on abuse and rape as it’s a pretty polarising topic and one that overwhelmingly affects men (depending on how far you stretch the subject – PA, for instance, is a game the WHOLE family can play).
I’m going to risk Antigone’s wrath (for being a royal pain) and ask to go back to the treatment of male DV victims as my vote.
I’m not aware of any other Feminist bloggers who consider the lowering graduation rates of men to be a “legitimate issue”.
I agree. Most feminist bloggers that I’ve seen just say that pointing out the lower graduation rates of men is “whining”.
Faith,
If in your opinion men are permitted to rape and sexually assault women and children with “impunity” because it is “next to impossible to get a conviction”, then I suppose the advice you would offer to any woman or child who came to you asking what to do if they said they had been raped or sexually assaulted would be akin to the following:
“Sorry… you can’t do anything… men are allowed to sexually abuse you… the legal system won’t help you, so don’t even bother”
If you would give any sort of other advice, such as going to the police, or seeking criminal charges, then you immediately would be admitting that these sorts of crimes are not permitted in our society the way you suggest they are.
For example, I am allowed to get a tatoo… I can get tatoo’s with “impunity”… no other adult anywhere is allowed to stop me, there are no laws on the books which can prevent me from getting on, no one can press charges against me if I decide to get one.
That is what it means to be allowed to do something with impunity. It doesn’t mean that sometimes people who commit crimes get away with it.
That is why I am saying you are dealing in hyperbole here.
There is a HUGE difference between people being able to sexually assault others with impunity… and some people getting away with those crimes without being caught.
The things you talk about are illegal, and I strongly suspect that you would advise any victim of such a crime to report it to the police… wouldn’t you?
If you honestly and truly believed that these activities were permitted in our society you’d never suggest any victim ever going to the police to report the incident.
As it so happens by the way, male sexual assault victims aren’t believed either and are often blamed for their own victimization… so by your logic women are allowed to rape and sexually assault with impunity too.
I guess in your opinion we just live in a civilization where everyone is allowed to assault one another like it is a huge free for all.
I’m glad I don’t live in that society and the one I am in actively tries to punish criminals… even if it doesn’t always succeed.
Essentially what I am trying to get across is that there is a big difference between people getting away with crimes… and something not being considered a crime in the first place.
People get away with murder too… but that doesn’t mean that people get to “murder with impunity”.
Archivist,
I’m really inclined to agree with you here. To a certain extent I’m not even sure what there is to discuss. Any reasonable person will immediately acknowledge that rape is wrong and that false allegations of rape are wrong.
What usually happens in such discussions is it becomes a “debate” about which is worse, and which problem *really* deserves our attention (as if we have to pick one or the other).
When it really boils down to it though, everyone should be in agreement that both are terrible things and that it isn’t some sort of a competition between the two.
If that subject is discussed I forsee more “oppression olympics” type of discussion where people try to figure out who has it worse instead of just acknowledging that both are awful and need to be handled properly by the authorities.
That last point is actually where a decent conversation could emerge… what is the proper handling of a false allegation?… many opinions exist ranging from equal punishment for the crime that was falsly accused to merely a slap on the wrist. This is where reasonable people can have differences in opinion. However I don’t forsee this being the subject of the discussion.
Jason does make a good suggestion about the handling of false accusations. We know they happen (don’t get bogged down in what percentages of accusations are false). We know they are bad (don’t get bogged down in whether rape or a false accusation is worse). But one thing that I almost never see addressed (except by MRAs) is how to handle false accusations. Should they be arrested and charged? Should they be investigated? Should there be sufficient eveidence should there be a trail? If there is a trial how would it be handled (and I say this because when it comes to rape trials the rules change a bit so should they also change in a false accusation)? If there is a conviction how should punishment be handled? A lot of material to discuss.
Jason,
Actually, if someone came to me and told me they were raped, I wouldn’t necessarily counsel them to go to the cops (particularly around here). There are too many consequences for rape victims that I would feel obligated to tell them about before they went to the cops.
And just because there’s a law on the books doesn’t make it enforced. And we have to make a distinction between legal rape and ethical rape.
BUT, AGGG, look at this freaking THREAD! It’s huge, and the comments might as well be assignments in and of themselves!
Final count:
1 for “duped dads”
1 for “On-the-job-deaths”
2.5 for DV against men
2 for chivalry
3 for ralse rape accusations, 2 against
1 for graduation rates
That’s right, in a comment thread that’s 50 posts long, we had all of 10 people vote. *Sigh*
Anyway, I guess that means we’ll start talk about Domestic Violence against Men, and maybe later on, we’ll talk about “false rape accusations”.
Also, I do have to say this: it is possible to say that some things are worse than other things. It’s not productive to figure out if racial minorities have had it harder than women, or if homosexuality is worse than religious bigotry because they manifest themselves as entirely different.
It is perfectly acceptable to say that killing someone over religious beliefs is worse than having that religious belief mocked (even if the Scientologists say otherwise). We are capable of drawing distinctions, making a spectrum, and arguing where a moral “wrong” falls on.
Although it is perfectly true that you can be against more than one thing at a time.
Sure. Switch me to DV for now…
Antigone,
My main point boils down to the following question:
“Why is the comparison being made?”
For example, whenever someone broaches the topic of false rape allegations… the topic of rape itself is brought up as a means to basically say “rape is worse… so shut up”.
It isn’t brought up as a means to actuall discuss the issue… it is brought up to prevent discussion of the issue.
So yes, while I agree that we can make an honest attempt to rate the relative horribleness of certain actions… how would it be productive if every time you tried to bring up any legitimate issue, the response you got was “well there are starving people in third world countries who have nothing… so stop complaining”?
Ultimately we have to realize that we are ALL a privlidged bunch to a certain extent, we have computers, internet access, enough food to survive, etc…
So if that sort of logic is allowed to prevent discussion then we better all pack our bags and be quiet because we’ve got it better than 80% of the worlds population.
If however we are still allowed to have legitimate issues, then comparison to other problems as a means to divert the conversation is not reasonable.
That is all I’m trying to say.
Jason,
Fair point.
I’d be interested in seeing you write on workplace safety (and its intersections with masculinity, maybehaps).
Also, I do have to say this: it is possible to say that some things are worse than other things. It’s not productive to figure out if racial minorities have had it harder than women, or if homosexuality is worse than religious bigotry because they manifest themselves as entirely different.
It is perfectly acceptable to say that killing someone over religious beliefs is worse than having that religious belief mocked (even if the Scientologists say otherwise). We are capable of drawing distinctions, making a spectrum, and arguing where a moral “wrong” falls on.
Although it is perfectly true that you can be against more than one thing at a time.
I can get with that.
I’m sure whatever you go with will be just fine and I hope it is actually a fair minded discussion.
“Actually, if someone came to me and told me they were raped, I wouldn’t necessarily counsel them to go to the cops (particularly around here). There are too many consequences for rape victims that I would feel obligated to tell them about before they went to the cops.”
What Antigone said. And there are other factors besides the difficulty of getting a conviction to be considered. There’s also the fact that so many perpetrators are relatives (like, oh, her dad) or her husband who she may be financially dependent upon. This means that if she tries to bring charges she could very well end up being ostracized from her entire family, end up with no place to live and no way to survive, or worse…do you know anything about honor killings by any chance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
I’d like to see a post on the lack of Men’s Studies as a component of Gender Studies. I feel that there is a case to be made for training the gender-studies lens on the development of the ideas of masculinity and the roles for men in society, and that the argument that traditionally, everything has been men’s studies doesn’t take into account that we’ve developed an entire toolbox for looking at gender roles in society, and we don’t necessarily apply those tools to men and masculinity.
OF course, I’m slightly biased, because one of my sekkrit goals, for if I ever go into academia, is to develop a “Maleness and Masculinity in Western Society” course,
Faith and Antigone,
I’m sorry, but none of the excuses you offer for why in a western society like the unites states someone who is raped shouldn’t be encouraged to goto the authorities really strike me as making any sense.
Honor killings that take place in countries like Pakistan or Jordan simply do not apply here any more that it would be applicable to tell me that I shouldn’t shave my beard because men in Saudi Arabia are killed if they are clean shaven.
We all have to function within the society we live in which in this case does not include Pakistan or Jordan… when advising someone what to do about being raped in those countries then I agree with you.
I almost feel like a bait and switch is being pulled here. I ask about reporting a crime in the United States… I’m then told how that it wouldn’t be advisable to report it because women get killed for that kind of thing in Pakistan.
That point constitutes a nonsquitur… it simply doesn’t follow that behavior in another country should dictate the advice we offer to anyone in this country.
Personally I liken this sort of advice as being identical to having a child come to you and say that their parents physically abuse them… and you not advising them to get help… or not insisting upon getting help for them.
I could generate similar excuses to the ones you’ve generated… including discussion of negative consequences for having the child’s home investigated, the negative consequences of being separated from their family even though it was an abusive environment, etc…
The point is we all know that the advice you give is for that child to get help and to escape from the abusive environment.
That same advice applies to men and women who have been abused or assaulted… in particular the argument being made that “There’s also the fact that so many perpetrators are relatives (like, oh, her dad) or her husband who she may be financially dependent upon.” applies doubly so to an abused child… but we still don’t advise them to stay there and deal with it.
It’s not always easy to leave an abusive situation, but we should never encourage anyone to just stay put and say nothing.
Basically this started off by Faith suggesting that men get to rape women and children with “impunity”… I now know why she said it… because she doesn’t believe that in this country a victim should fight for their rights. If I was ever assaulted to the extent that it would be psychologically crippling to me (the way most women say rape is) then you can be damn sure that I’d be on the police door step within hours… and I’d advise anyone I knew to do the same thing… I’d go with them if they needed support.
The way I see it, you’ve basically locked yourselves in the trap that you complain about being locked in… I say just let yourself out and use the tools available to you if someone is a legitimate victim of abuse or assault of any kind.
Is it easy?… no… but acting like we are dealing with a situation akin to “honor killings” in countries that function entirely differently to how we function here is a disingenuous argument.
I didn’t bring up honor killing, so I’m not going to say anything to that effect. I’ll let Faith deal with that.
I am talking about the US.
The difference between child abuse and (adult) rape victims is that children have somewhere to go: women may not. And the first person that quite possibly re-victimize the rape victim is the cop.
And saying “a victim shouldn’t fight for their rights” is getting DANGEROUSLY close to victim blaming. So, as someone who was raped and didn’t report it, I would be very careful with what you say.
Lack of the male contraceptive pill also needs to be tackled.
The actual gathering information of for the wage gap need, I’d like to see tackled. In all the jobs I have ever had the pay is the same for men and women, I’d like to see discussion of how time worked, risk of job, hour flexibility decreases this gap that I have never seen in real life through 4 full time jobs.
Sally,
I respectfully submit that feminists have as much right to discuss male BC as MRA’s do to discuss the Pill.
However that one falls out.
Hi anitgone. Since there seems to be common ground on some issues (DV, circumcision, on the job deaths, etc.) it might be more worthwhile to talk about the MRA concerns that are in question. My vote goes for lack of male reproductive rights. I think feminists and MRA’s probably have more common ground then they think here (at least I hope). In an earlier comment Jason made some points that I think would be constructive to such a conversation. First, I don’t think many MRA’s (I could be wrong) want to take away a woman’s right to choose. As Jason put, there isn’t a desire to compel a woman to have an abortion. Along with some (maybe not all) I think this could be a constructive starting point to a discussion on this issue. Also, thanks for the taking up this task.
Jason,
Unfortunately so-called ‘honour’ killing isn’t only restricted to the Tribal areas of Pakistan or to some of the other more fundamentalist Islamic countries. It’s a growing problem in the UK (and I am sure in other European countries with large Pakistani immigrant populations). It’s enough of a problem that the Police forces in areas with large Pakistani populations have specialist units dealing with it.
The problem is reinforced because of the tradition, still very widely practiced, of UK men and women of Pakistani origin marrying cousins or extended family members from Pakistan. Thus, rather than the majority of the Pakistani population in the UK becoming ‘Westernised’ through the generations, you get a situation where third or fourth generation UK citizens are marrying and bringing over native-born Pakistani spouses.
What that serves to do is to keep reinforcing the traditional customs and practices of the community (especially when it’s the husband coming over) and at the same time bringing women into the country who can be very isolated, don’t speak English to any great degree, and are consequently placed in an ideal position to be bullied and subjugated by the new UK-based MiL and extended family.
It’s one of the reasons that the UK Government introduced stricter English-speaking requirements as a condition of entry (and boy, did that stir up the pot).
Women placed in such situations are in an unenviable position. They might get a kind and caring set of in-laws, or they might get unlucky and face the prospect of being an unpaid house-slave for their husband’s parents, brothers and any unmarried sisters still living at home (not to mention the children she’ll be expected to keep supplying).
If they’re unfortunate enough to transgress against the ‘rules’ (for instance by having an affair or by attempting to leave their husband) then they can run the risk of being found face down in a local river for having embarrassed the family. It’s often their own blood-relatives (uncles or brothers for instance) that have committed the murder, in some cases with the active participation of female relatives or in-laws.
“Honor killings that take place in countries like Pakistan or Jordan simply do not apply here any more that it would be applicable to tell me that I shouldn’t shave my beard because men in Saudi Arabia are killed if they are clean shaven.”
What is typically labeled as an actual honor killing typically take place in the Middle East, you are correct about that. BUT women and children are often killed in Western cultures as well to keep them from reporting the crime.
“The difference between child abuse and (adult) rape victims is that children have somewhere to go: women may not.”
Actually, since the perp. is often a parent (typically the father), children also quite often have nowhere to go.
And Jason,
This is NOT about not fighting for rights. This is about recognizing the very real reality that exists for victims of sexual abuse and rape. A reality which makes reporting a victimization often nearly as bad, or possibly even worse, than the victimization itself.
Respectfully, You do NOT understand what you are talking about.
“First, I don’t think many MRA’s (I could be wrong) want to take away a woman’s right to choose.”
You are wrong. I’ve encountered MRAs that want to take away a woman’s right to abortion, birth control, destroy the VAWA, and even abolish the 19th amendment.
“As Jason put, there isn’t a desire to compel a woman to have an abortion.”
Oh, yes, there is.
“We all have to function within the society we live in which in this case does not include Pakistan or Jordan… when advising someone what to do about being raped in those countries then I agree with you.
I almost feel like a bait and switch is being pulled here. I ask about reporting a crime in the United States… I’m then told how that it wouldn’t be advisable to report it because women get killed for that kind of thing in Pakistan.”
Actually, I don’t recall you saying anything about the United States. Even if you did, why is it that men always seem to want to focus solely on what occurs in Western societies as if what happens in Eastern societies is completely irrelevant to the conversation.
The only boundaries that exist when it comes to discussing these types of things are the boundaries that exist in your mind. I’m just as concerned about what happens to women in Pakistan as I am about what happens to women in the good ole US or A.
Faith:
First, thanks for the reply. I do think there are MRAs do want to take away a woman’s right to choose. What I don’t know is how representative of the movement they are. I think any worthwhile conversation on the male reproductive rights issue should start with the idea that women must have the right to choose. There are definitely MRAs that believe women should have the right to choose.
VAWA issue and DV
It’s interesting that you mentioned this. The main problem I think MRAs have with the VAWA is one of resource allocation. There are very little public resources for male victims of DV. Interestingly California just made a ruling on DV that would help men that need it get more access to DV resources. I made an earlier vote for reproductive rights, but I also think it could worthwhile to talk about DV in light of this ruling. I’d still be interested in talking about the male reproductive issue but I could understand if DV should have a little priority here because of this recent development.
Antigone, are you still taking votes? I know you said earlier that you had a final count, but other posters, myself included, have added some to the tally since then. If not then I’d like to add some info on the DV topic here.
“It is surprising to me that MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) are in the “opposing viewpoint” category to me. To me, there should be a MRA movement that runs parallel to the feminist movement, to directly address the problems that patriarchy has for men.”
I likewise think that feminism and masculism should be complimentary movements that fight restrictive gender roles together. However, I don’t think this will ever happen as long as either side chooses to put the blame for gender depravity on scapegoats like patriachy, matriachy, men, women, feminism, masculism, etc.
The following is an article about uniting “masculism” and “feminism” in a constructive and non-judgemental manner:
http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.345
Sorry for spelling “patriarchy” and “matriarchy” wrong in my last post.
P.S.
Speaking of male disposability and men in the military, there was a documentary by john huston in the 1940′s about PTSD in WW2 veterans. The film was called “let there be light.” Anyway, the government actually banned the documentary from the public for a long time on the grounds that it dared depict men as human beings with emotion who were vulnerable to the harsh realities of war. The government apparently wanted to protect the “warrior myth”.
~”Over here, over there, it is the same everywhere, a boy cries out for his mama before he dies for his home.”-Billy Bragg
~”Man is not the enemy. He is the fellow victim.”-Betty Frieden
~”The strength of woman is her facade of weakness; the weakness of man is his facade of strength.”-Lawrence Diggs
Antigone,
“And saying “a victim shouldn’t fight for their rights” is getting DANGEROUSLY close to victim blaming. So, as someone who was raped and didn’t report it, I would be very careful with what you say.”
First of all you have misquoted me in a manner that I find offensive. I am assuming it was a mistake, but I just want it clarified.
I am saying that victims of any crime should fight for their rights (you quote me as saying they “shouldn’t”… as if I think they should just sit there and accept it).
Secondly… my actual position isn’t even remotely close to “victim blaming” any more than suggesting that someone who has been mugged should report it to the police and try and get the criminal arrested.
No one is being blamed here… I am about empowering victims of crime.
If you want to interpret as anything else that is your mischaracterization and misunderstanding of my purpose and motivation… again that is offensive.
This whole “you’re getting DANGEROUSLY close to victim blaming” routine is actually rather appaling given that I’ve done no such thing… you’re the one whose suggesting that a victim shouldn’t bother going to the police in many instances.
I should be able to dissagree with that position without you acting like I’m blaming a victim for anything.
Faith says in response to Antigone,
“‘The difference between child abuse and (adult) rape victims is that children have somewhere to go: women may not.’
Actually, since the perp. is often a parent (typically the father), children also quite often have nowhere to go.”
I agree with you that children often have fewer places to run than an adult women (by virtue of the fact that children have absolutely no means of self support).
However you are actually wrong when it comes to the statistics of child abuse.
Mothers are more often the perpetrator of child abuse than are fathers. You can look that up under government collected statistics.
As I have said before, you seem to have a real desire to always place the position of bad person upon men… even in cases where the majority offender is women.
In other situations I can at least say that the statistics back up your argument (in terms of who is in the majority and who isn’t)… in this case you are dead wrong.
I suspect that you are talking about child sexual assault… and that may indeed typically be the father. However in terms of child abuse in aggregate, mothers are the typical perp.
Faith,
“Actually, I don’t recall you saying anything about the United States. Even if you did, why is it that men always seem to want to focus solely on what occurs in Western societies as if what happens in Eastern societies is completely irrelevant to the conversation.”
It’s not that I want to focus “solely” upon Western Societies.
It is merely that we need to discuss one society at a time. We can’t discuss all societies in aggregate as each society treats different groups of people differently.
Here is a good analogy for my perspective:
Let’s say we were discussing a certain type of disease (this is the analogue to discrimination and poor treatment).
It wouldn’t necessarily make sense to lump children, young adults, and senior citizens all into the same pool when trying to figure out if men/boys or women/girls were more susceptible to that ailment.
It is entirely possible that more male children were killed by that disease than female children while at the same time more old women were killed by that disease than old men.
The moment we lump everyone together we lose sight of the variation and prevalance within each subset. This is detrimental when it comes to proscribing treatment or isolating where the problems reside.
For example, there is a recent incident where a woman was sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia for “practicing witchcraft”. If you haven’t heard about it please watch this video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=702HBLlOzY
Now if you are then allowed to act as if because this kind of thing happens in Saudi Arabia that it is a problem for you personally in the United States that would be an outright lie.
No American woman will EVER be sentenced to death for being a “witch” because our society has developed the sense not to do that kind of stuff anymore (it did occur during the Salem witch trials though).
By forcing us to discuss everything in aggregate it enables you to mask our own social progress with the lack of progress in other societies.
I do not find that to be constructive at all. If anything it is destructive as you would force the United States to make up something to women because of mistreatment in an entirely different nation.
That is what I mean by looking at things in aggregate as distorting the correct treatment. No American woman needs to be granted special consideration because a Saudi Arabian woman suffered this kind of an injustice. The same way if we just look at the aggregate statistics of the hypothetical disease I was talking about and discover that more men/boys die from it than women/girls… it might lead us to offer more treatment options to male senior citizens even though they suffer LESS than female senior citizens.
If you want to discuss these other cultures that is fine, but we should do it in the context of those cultures, just as we should discuss our culture only in the context of our culture.
Mixing it all together leads to problems diagnosing where issues remain and where they have been resolved.
“It is merely that we need to discuss one society at a time. We can’t discuss all societies in aggregate as each society treats different groups of people differently.”
Jason,
That makes sense if you view people as being separated by boundaries and “societies”. I do not view it that way. I do not see it as a matter of what happens “over here” and “over there”. I view people as being connected…what happens to a woman in Pakistan, or Asia, or Australia has some type of impact on all of us. Taking that into consideration, it doesn’t make any sense to try to focus simply on one society at a time, at least not in the whole scheme of things.
The other issue at hand is that patriarchal culture is a phenomenon that occurs global. There’s barely a society that is not heavily patriarchal. Ignoring that fact won’t help us to actually do the work that needs to be done to help empower women and stop the scourge of male violence.
“No American woman will EVER be sentenced to death for being a “witch” because our society has developed the sense not to do that kind of stuff anymore (it did occur during the Salem witch trials though).”
Possibly not legally executed. But as someone who practiced Wicca for over 10 years, I can tell you that prejudice against women who practice witchcraft in the USA is still very real. Women still occasionaly lose their children for practicing witchcraft even though Wicca is now a legally protected religion. Wiccans and Pagans also still suffer from physical attacks by people who fear them if it is known that they practice.
Faith,
“That makes sense if you view people as being separated by boundaries and “societies”.”
I do view people this way. The fact that society works a certain way in the middle east doesn’t affect me the same way as it affects someone who actually lives in the middle east.
For example, there are nations over there that would require that I have a beard… if I didn’t I could be severely punished even though I’m not even Muslim (let’s not get into the fact that based upon my actual religion they would probably kill me).
I can’t act like I live under the same constraints that people over there live under for the simple fact that I live under an entirely different set of laws and social customs. I’m free to be clean shaven and to practice whatever religion I want… these are things which MUST be acknowledged when considering how free I am.
If I just make a blanket statement like “some men don’t have freedom of religion and need to wear a beard” and apply it to myself even though I don’t live under those constraints that is unfair and disingenuous.
“I do not see it as a matter of what happens “over here” and “over there”.”
Well then, so long as some woman somewhere in the universe suffers legal and social injustice… then you also suffer legal and social injustice EVEN if the society you are in bends over backwards to ensure things are fair for you?
That is not a reasonable stance in my opinion… you are using other peoples suffering as a means to assert your own victim status even if you aren’t a victim of that injustice yourself.
It is perfectly fine and reasonable to acknowledge the suffering of other groups without trying to act as if we are suffering from the same injustices.
I can feel for the plight of starving people in Chad without declaring that I need food stamps or assistance to avoid my own starvation for example.
It IS a matter of what happens “over here” and “over there” because when trying to solve a problem it is kind of important to know where the problem is. If there are human rights abuses in one corner of the world for example it makes no sense to spread resources uniformly over the globe to address the problem when it makes more sense to focus the effort on where the problem actual is.
“I view people as being connected…what happens to a woman in Pakistan, or Asia, or Australia has some type of impact on all of us. Taking that into consideration, it doesn’t make any sense to try to focus simply on one society at a time, at least not in the whole scheme of things. ”
Of course it has some impact on all of us… but that impact isn’t that we are ALSO victims of what they are suffering. It impacts those who care because we can empathize with their suffering even though we are not dealing with the same atrocities.
It makes lots of sense to focus on one society at a time in the same way that when you goto a doctor with a broken arm he doesn’t put you in a body cast. It makes sense to only put a cast only on your arm even though the rest of your body is aware of the pain that your arm is in.
“The other issue at hand is that patriarchal culture is a phenomenon that occurs global. There’s barely a society that is not heavily patriarchal. Ignoring that fact won’t help us to actually do the work that needs to be done to help empower women and stop the scourge of male violence.”
Except that the scourge isn’t merely “male violence”, and the problems we see aren’t the result of “patriarchal culture”.
In fact if “patriarchal culture” were really the source of the problems you wouldn’t be able to solve it.
How do I know this? Let’s think critically for a moment here… the feminist assertion is that patriarchy has dominated culture for literally thousands and thousands of years to the detriment of women. Now what exactly occurred in the 1900s that suddenly gave women the ability to start to accrue their own power? Did the patriarchy let it’s guard down or something?… why did it happen in the 1900s and not somewhere else in the 50,000 year history of human kind?
What happened was that about that time is when people began to stop having to work all day long in order to survive, technological advancements began to free people from having to do absolutely everything to survive. The more free time people received the more time they had to advocate for other things they wanted.
It was never the “patriarchy” holding women down… it was the fact that life was so hard that no one had the time to really complain about anything. As soon as time opened up it opened up first for rich upper-class women… these women were the first suffragists and their first “complaint” was to get the vote (a reasonable complaint in my opinion)… they then got it in a historical blink of an eye. Humanity had gone for millennia and millennia without every man having a vote… democracy wasn’t common in the history of humanity. Yet within a few years of women requesting the vote they got it, pretty amazing by comparison to how long men had to wait for the vote, and they fought and died for it in war.
Women aren’t under the boot of some patriarchal oppressor as you suggest… if you were you would have to agree with me just because I said so. In fact I wouldn’t even be here chatting with you because your opinion would mean absolutely nothing.
However, your opinion DOES mean something in this society, which is precisely why I am here talking with you. If we were so patriarchal you wouldn’t have the freedom to express views contrary to my own on the basis of your gender and mine. You have more freedom than about 99% of all men who have EVER existed in all of human history, yet you still insist upon your own personal oppression due to comparisons to women in entirely different cultures.
This minimizes their suffering as well as the historical suffering of generations past.
“Possibly not legally executed. But as someone who practiced Wicca for over 10 years, I can tell you that prejudice against women who practice witchcraft in the USA is still very real.”
I am talking about legal executions. There will always be hate filled individuals who are out to kill people who are different than they are. The question is if the inmates are running the asylum or if the doctors are. In some countries the inmates seem to be running things and that is very scarey and very dangerous. At least in a society where the more reasonable people are running things you can be assured that if someone does try to murder you for the religion that you practice that you have somewhere to run for help… the law.
Also, why are you again saying that there is “prejudice against women who practice witchcraft”?… are the men who practice wicca somehow free from that prejudice?
I know I keep bringing this up, but seriously, you have this really huge habit of acting like prejudice and discrimination is only suffered by women.
Is this discrimination based upon these peoples religion or their gender?… the way you make it seem is that it is only based upon both… male wiccan’s would be perfectly safe… ONLY the women who practice witchcraft suffer prejudice.
Can’t you see how that position makes no sense? Why would someone who is prejudice against the wiccan religion give a free pass to men? Wouldn’t they be prejudiced to both male and female practitioners?
Jason-
Sorry to take so long to respond to you, but I sort of figured this thread should be dead.
You said, as I interpreted it, that victims should fight for their rights, and that they get what they deserve if they do not (locked themselves in their own box). That, to me, sounds like victim blaming. If someone violates my rights, I shouldn’t have to fight to get them back, and be re-victimized in the process.
I didn’t report my rape. I will never report it. I don’t even feel ready to talk about it. I shouldn’t feel like I can’t report it; but I know I won’t be believed, I know my name will get dragged through the mud, and I know that I’d be isolated in this community. Why? Because I’ve seen it happen to other women who did report it.
And that what needs to change. Not the victim, the victim-blaming.
Antigone,
I said that victims should fight for their rights… I specifically did NOT say that if they don’t fight for them that they deserve to have been victims.
There is a difference. I advocate for victims of any crime making an attempt to bring the criminals who victimized them to justice… that does NOT mean that if they select not to that they are at fault for anything.
It’s merely that my sense of justice is such that I like to see criminals be held accountable for their actions.
Listen, it’s okay that you didn’t report your own victimization… that doesn’t make you a bad person, it doesn’t mean you deserved to be a victim of anything.
But I would hope you can understand that I would personally feel better knowing that whoever did victimize you was held accountable for the crime.
Of course you shouldn’t necessarily be concerned with how I would feel about it, you’ve got to do what would make you feel comfortable… BUT if you and I were friends and you came to me asking for advice on what to do, I’d advise you to goto the police. If you chose not to go I wouldn’t think any worse of you or anything, it’s just the advice I’d offer.
I’ve gone with a male buddy of mine to the police before when he was raped (by two women actually… but I’d have advised him the same if it was a man)… so I’m not talking out of my ass about this. I was there to give a statement when the police arrived at his apartment, I was there when they told him to college up all his clothing from the night and put it into a paper bag (apparently plastic bags do something which makes evidence collection more difficult), and I went with him to the precinct the next morning so he could file the official report.
I think you interpreted my statement as “victim blaming” because in your situation you didn’t goto the police and because of that you think I’d blame you for something. That isn’t true though… while I personally would have perferred if you went and filed a report, I can still understand you not doing it and don’t blame you or anything.
See the difference?
I don’t know exactly what I would do if I were in that situation… I’d like to think I would goto the police and I’m pretty sure I would given how I tend to be about things.
Anyway, I hope that clarifies things.
Antigone—
Hey, it’s American democracy in action! :p
zingerella—
Sweet! My girlfriend took a course like that, and really liked it. (Also: you should read We Cool. I haven’t read it yet, but I feel confident recommending Belle Hooks for all situations.
Jason—
So when Faith says,
In the UK, the rape conviction rape is less than 5%, for fuck’s sake. It’s virtually impossible to get a man convicted of rape in the UK as it is in most parts of the world.
It’s like she’s speaking some strange moon language? Come on. Rape survivors who report are unlikely to have their cases prosecuted, and if they are, they’ll find their sexual history gutted on the courtroom floor, they’ll find hostile lawyers and media, and frequently they’ll find their friends’ and family members’ views ranging from dismissive to hostile. And after all that, the case is pretty likely to end in an acquittal. And regardless of how the case goes, the rapist is likely to rape again.
Which is why, amongst other factors, the percentage of rapes that are reported is so low.
“Globaliz-what-huh? No, no, baby, see, those brown people are over there. And over there is, like, really far away.”
“It was never the “patriarchy” holding women down… it was the fact that life was so hard that no one had the time to really complain about anything.”
Ok, that right there is my cue to stop responding to you all together. You and I are done discussing anything for any reason.
You’re quite clearly only interested in trying to prove the feminists are just wrong man-hating meanies who need to get a grip. You might make your arguments a bit more civil and sophisticated than other men, but scrap off the layers of civility and you’re arguments are exactly the same.
Violet,
“So when Faith says,
In the UK, the rape conviction rape is less than 5%, for fuck’s sake. It’s virtually impossible to get a man convicted of rape in the UK as it is in most parts of the world.
It’s like she’s speaking some strange moon language?”
Conviction rates are not an accurate measure of what you are acting like it is.
Our legal system is founded upon the following propositions… the first being that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty. The second being that in order for them to be found guilty, evidence must be provided which establishes this guild beyond a reasonable doubt.
Our legal principles purposefully stack the deck against the prosecution in ALL criminal cases (not just rape cases). It is done this way on purpose in order to protect the innocent.
It is virtually impossible to get a murder conviction as well. Take a look for yourself:
Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime and Justice in the U.S. and England and Wales: Convictions per 1,000 population
In fact, according to this data, the conviction rate for murder in England is almost identicle to the rape conviction rate.
Robbery only has about double the conviction rate of murder and rape.
None of this is evidence of what you say it is. It isn’t about poor treatment of women (more men are murdered than women are for example)… it is a result of the legal system trying VERY hard to keep innocent people out of jail.
Sometimes that means guilty people go free, but that is the price we pay by trying to save the innocent from undue punishment.
Faith Says,
“You’re quite clearly only interested in trying to prove the feminists are just wrong man-hating meanies who need to get a grip. You might make your arguments a bit more civil and sophisticated than other men, but scrap off the layers of civility and you’re arguments are exactly the same.”
Translation = I don’t care if you are polite, civil, or formulate sophisticated argument… you don’t agree with me therefore I’m not going to bother talking to you.
Listen Faith, feminists ARE wrong on a number of things… they are also right on a number of things.
If you think I’ve got to agree with feminism on all counts in order to be someone worth talking to then you are exactly the fundamentalist I’ve pegged you to be.
Something feminism got right was the fact that men and women should be treated equally by the law and by society in general.
Something feminism got wrong was the source of the inequality.
I’m surprised that you seem to be far more interested in blaming someone for inequality than you are in resolving inequality.
You aren’t even willing to admit it that by comparison to 95% of the world you’ve probably got it pretty good… instead selecting to hide behind the shield of perma-victimization provided by the suffering of women abroad.
Those women need help… those women are victims… just because they are being victimized doesn’t allow you to assert your own victim status because you’ve got the same genitalia.
As I said, just because you’ve got a broken arm doesn’t mean that the doctor should put you in a body cast… only the arm is broken, the rest of the body is fine by comparison.
I want to isolate where problems exist and resolve them in precise ways… you instead want to act like if there is a problem for women in Saudi Arabia that you suffer similar levels of inhumane treatment and are an equivilant victim.
Sorry… I’m not buying it.
Sorry Violet, for some reason my link got broken… here is it again along with another link to help put things in perspective
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/cpp.htm
http://www.ncsconline.org/wc/CourTopics/FAQs.asp?topic=VioCri
In particular look at table 5.
Note how ALL of the conviction rates are substantially lower than the arrest rates.
Low conviction rate is a symptom of being innocent until proven guilty and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of evidence.
It isn’t some vast conspiracy against women… unless you also want to assert that more women are murdered than men (which isn’t true)… and that more women are physically assaulted than men (which also isn’t true).