A TED Talk That Might Turn Every Man Who Watches It Into A Feminist?

(165 Posts)
BuffytheAppleBobber Fri 18-Oct-13 13:27:00

I thought this was quite good.

cherryademerrymaid Fri 18-Oct-13 16:30:57

Thanks for posting this. I'm a fan of Ted talks and really enjoyed this one.

KoPo Fri 18-Oct-13 16:46:35

Fantastic! Now we need to hear him do it in a room full of men and getting those cheers.

Its great that the message is being spoken by men, but so often they are speaking it to women and not enough of the time to other men. This guy does give me some hope though in that he also goes out and takes the message to men. But I wonder how it is then received?

BlingLoving Fri 18-Oct-13 18:20:14

Dh put this in his Facebook once. Didn't get a single like or comment from a man if I recall. hmm

KoPo Fri 18-Oct-13 19:23:23

That's my point Bling. Most men just seem to think it can be ignored.

NeedlesCuties Fri 18-Oct-13 21:59:27

I LOVE Jackson Katz.

I work with a leading charity supporting women suffering domestic violence and I often refer to him and point the women in the direction of him online.

Very thought-provoking and I've been bending my DH's ear about that vid too smile

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Sat 19-Oct-13 09:36:36

It's a good talk. This one's great too:

Where is men's roar?

BuffytheAppleBobber Sat 19-Oct-13 09:50:44

Oh yes, I loved the men's roar one.

DavesDadsDogDiedDiabolically Sat 19-Oct-13 13:28:23

Unfortunately, unless it's people falling off of skateboads or buildings etc. you're not going to get many men that'll sit down & watch it for 20 odd minutes.

I'll probably give it a go next week, but if it doesn't grip me in the first 5 minutes or so it's unlikely that I'll manage to stay the course.

Will let you know how I get on.....

I watched it, just about to watch it again with dh

umpire1 Sun 20-Oct-13 01:58:29

I'm not sure I get his point, men who aren't violent should take responsibility for the men who are violent??

BuffytheAppleBobber Sun 20-Oct-13 11:53:54

No, it's men who aren't violent should speak up against male violence. Rather than think of it as something that's somebody else's problem. Or fail to notice it as a problem.

Backonthefence Sun 20-Oct-13 23:29:28

Maybe try to get the men in your life to watch it? I doubt many men would watch it though.

DadWasHere Mon 21-Oct-13 04:44:03

I watched both. I have never raised a hand to my wife in over twenty years and I believe my daughters will never accept in their lives, silently or otherwise, the violence my mother willingly put up with (in fact sought out) in hers. That is my legacy to them of the minimum a man should be.

That said what is a violent man in my society going to care about what I say to him, given that all men by now know after many decades that such things are a crime?

Violent men can be educated by experts, caught by police and punished by courts but I wonder if they can only ever be made more angry and resentful by amateurs dabbling in their lives. Hence 'where is mens roar' was the roar of the Cuban motorcycle with which he rescued the woman, not from him confronting the beast to educate him that violence is the wrong path.

rootypig Mon 21-Oct-13 05:37:39

I think he misinterprets the Martin Luther King quote confused

Apart from that nitpicky point, though I appreciate the sentiment and admire that he is making this his life's work, for me he fails to break down the very pillars of masculinity that drive abusive behaviour - the sense of ownership of women ("hey, that could be my sister"), a sort of aggressive and exclusively male concept of 'leadership', painting men as being (in his brave new world) solely responsible for positive outcomes, among others. Somehow he excludes women's power, or agency.

I am also interested that at no point does he talk to the men who are the abusers or misogynists. He is talking to all the decent men out there. Ok yes, the bystander effect is important. But for me, it is still secondary to the work that needs to be done to educate men - all men, almost - to understand the misogynist content of many enormously common and widely accepted behaviours. To recognise their own misogyny. For me, that's almost all men. Because they all go about in a world that is dominated by men, run by men for men, and they're all pretty much ok with it.

.....all this with the caveat that this post reflects my relatively privileged position as an upper working / lower middle class woman who is not immediately at risk of violence.

NeedlesCuties Mon 21-Oct-13 08:06:02

rooty just wanted to add a bit to your comment and say that women of all classes are at risk of abuse. I am assuming you meant that you didn't have an abuser in your life which is why you aren't at risk of violence currently.

That isn't anything to do with your social class and more to do with the fact that your DP isn't violent or that you're single.

BuffytheAppleBobber Mon 21-Oct-13 09:28:48

That said what is a violent man in my society going to care about what I say to him, given that all men by now know after many decades that such things are a crime?

What would be really nice DadWasHere is if male violence became totally socially unacceptable. As socially unacceptable as, say drink driving or child abuse. For it to become that unacceptable, men like you who aren't violent and who think violence is abhorrent need to voice your disapproval. Not shrug and say that you aren't violent, so what else can be expected of you.

rootypig Mon 21-Oct-13 11:43:22

Needles I'm sorry if I sounded like I meant I was not at risk because I am a certain class. I didn't mean that. I meant: the material conditions of my life are alright; I am also not immediately at risk of violence.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Mon 21-Oct-13 13:41:18

I like the idea of 'voicing your disapproval' at male violence.

'Excuse me old chap, would you mind awfully not belting your mum/wife/ child etc. It's awfully upsetting' grin

How, exactly?

BuffytheAppleBobber Mon 21-Oct-13 13:44:33

It sounds to me as though you'd let a little social awkwardness put you off expressing your distaste for male violence.

It's not easy expressing an opinion that goes against social convention. But something being difficult doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile. Unless you don't think it's worthwhile?

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Mon 21-Oct-13 13:53:41

I was being slightly facetious, but I was more wondering at the mechanics. If I see a man belting anyone, I hope i step in and prevent it by any means necessary. That includes, as a last resort, retaliation in order to quell him. Is that what you mean?

If this is acceptable, where does that leave me? As just another violent male? And what if it's a woman dishing it out?

The bit about asking people not to make fun of violence, or tell jokes, or treat it lightly is maybe what you meant. But I see jokey 'I could kill my partner' type stuff on AIBU, for example. And while they clearly don't mean it, doesn't that also normalise violence? What do we - all of us - do about that kind of stuff? My mum told me a DV joke recently - what do I say to that?

BuffytheAppleBobber Mon 21-Oct-13 14:02:05

Like anyone else, you'd have to use your judgement in whatever specific circumstances you found yourself.

I think what this piece is arguing is that if more men's judgement led them to condemn verbally male violence, when it is joked about, mentioned in an offhand way, seen on TV, for example, then it would become more socially unacceptable.

You're not actually looking for advice on how I'd tackle these examples, right?

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Mon 21-Oct-13 14:37:32

No I wasn't. I was wondering how you expect men to act. Because all the normal people will say that they would stop somebody hitting someone else, that they would act when they see violence, or that they would tell someone what they thought in no uncertain terms, if that person was boasting about violence. So we are in agreement.

scallopsrgreat Mon 21-Oct-13 14:45:36

It isn't all about stopping violence when you see it happening. How often does that happen anyway? I think it is more about challenging attitudes to male violence.

There was a woman I worked with who was trapped up against a wall by her neck by a male colleague. Not only was this man not sacked many other male colleagues whilst on the face of it appeared disapproving kept mentioning how annoying this woman was. So that plays right into the narrative of how a woman's behaviour is somehow deserving of violence.

It is that attitude and culture that needs challenging all the time.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Mon 21-Oct-13 14:52:13

Hang on, though. You say it isn't about confronting it when you see it - and then quote an incident where people saw it!

Then there is the other problem. I am not aware of any men who discuss their violent activities, boastfully or otherwise - not in front of me, anyway. So, if all you want me and others like me to do is voice our disapproval when appropriate, then you have my full support.

scallopsrgreat Mon 21-Oct-13 14:57:30

No I was talking about confronting the subsequent attitudes of people who had witnessed or knew the people concerned. None of these men discussing this incident were discussing their own violence. They don't have to be discussing their own violence to either need challenging or for their views on violence to be apparent.

scallopsrgreat Mon 21-Oct-13 14:57:40

No I was talking about confronting the subsequent attitudes of people who had witnessed or knew the people concerned. None of these men discussing this incident were discussing their own violence. They don't have to be discussing their own violence to either need challenging or for their views on violence to be apparent.

BuffytheAppleBobber Mon 21-Oct-13 15:02:58

So, if all you want me and others like me to do is voice our disapproval when appropriate, then you have my full support

Yes please, that would be great! Can we talk about whether our understandings of 'when appropriate' are similar?

Have to dash off to collect dd, but am interested in what you think.

WMittens Mon 21-Oct-13 15:11:46

BuffytheAppleBobber

What would be really nice DadWasHere is if male violence became totally socially unacceptable.

What would be really nice is if all violence became totally socially unacceptable.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Mon 21-Oct-13 15:16:29

Well, not when there is a jokey thread in AIBU about 'I am going to kill my DP' etc. So not when my mum tells a joke either, I guess, or other people I know to not be serious. It's about interpreting intent, and assessing the mood.

When to do it? When someone screams "I'll kill you!' at the top of their voice. Or if someone boast about 'giving someone a slap'. Or, in cases like the one scallops quotes. I'd find out what went on and be straight to HR if it was true. I'd also be questioning the other people - men and women - who witter on about it and take no action. And I would have a quiet word with the individual themselves. Or if I witness it. The same as anybody else in here, I guess.

BuffytheAppleBobber Mon 21-Oct-13 15:38:30

WMittens

Yes, that's a given. This thread, however, is about a video that aims to persuade men that speaking up against male violence is very important and worthwhile.

Do you have any opinions on that?

Hullygully Mon 21-Oct-13 15:40:15

It's a shame this wasn't around to post on the thread about men not speaking up before.

Hullygully Mon 21-Oct-13 15:40:59

I liked the "He needs leadership training, not sensitivity training"

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Mon 21-Oct-13 15:48:14

I'd feel very uncomfortable limiting myself to only commenting about male violence. If I heard women going on about it, I would hope my reaction would be the same. However, I understand that this particular discussion is focussed in one particular area.

BuffytheAppleBobber Mon 21-Oct-13 15:55:05

The point isn't that you limit yourself (or that other men limit themselves) to only speaking about male violence.

And the point isn't that the rules of threadique dictate that one shouldn't derail with 'but women do it too'.

The point (for me) that's made with this video is that a great deal of the violence in the world is committed by men, and that some men don't seem that fussed about speaking up about it.

I am not condemning your attitude Biggedy, though I wonder whether it's the very acceptability of making jokes about DV that creates the sort of culture that sees DV as not that big a thing, or a private matter, or whatever.

It's interesting that the examples you gave were of women joking about male violence or using figures of speech like "I'll kill him" etc. Would you think differently if these had been spoken / posted by men? Do you think you might have been trying to get me to trip up by saying that it's OK for women to say these things but not for men to say them?

BuffytheAppleBobber Mon 21-Oct-13 15:56:01

threadique?

threadiquette, I meant.

That'll teach me to try and make up a new blended term, now won't it thlblush

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Mon 21-Oct-13 16:04:27

My point about limiting myself was to WMittens, who raised the point about all violence.

Buffy, there are 'jokes' all the time on AIBU, and probably other places, about wanting to dispose of one's partner. I am saying that I can distinguish between serious threats and lighthearted MN threads. How do you feel about those sort of discussions? Would you ever say anything to someone who had started such a thread?

garlicvampire Mon 21-Oct-13 16:10:16

Biggedy and Dad, a huge part of the message is about semantics: the way that words imply male violence is a normal fact of life, rather like bad weather. "She sought out violent partners" - so it's your mum's fault, then? What about the fact that these partners were violent? Yes, it's wrong for a woman to tolerate violence in front of her kids, and who made her tolerant? A violent man did, I'm 100% sure.

She gets hit.
She got raped.
She got herself pregnant.

Give her a good slap, haha.
She's asking for it.
You want to show her who's boss.
Teach her some respect.

'Violence against women' or violence by men?
'Domestic violence' or wife beating?
'Sex crimes' or rapists?

All of these things can be picked up and corrected in conversation. I've learned to do it myself; it was easy. You may get a split-second of squirmy silence on speaking, but most people get it straight away.

The few who choose to take issue are not people I'd want any more to do with, anyway - if male violence is so ingrained in their psyche that they'll defend it in public, they can't be good people.

garlicvampire Mon 21-Oct-13 16:13:03

Biggedy, were you here recently, under a different name, demonstrating something of an obsession with "AIBU to want to kill my partner" threads?

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Mon 21-Oct-13 16:15:24

Agreed, garlic, with the exception of;

'Violence against women' or violence by men?
'Sex crimes' or rapists?

Not sure about those examples and what you mean by them. You can be sexually assaulted without being raped. Violence by men includes violence against men, which I don't think is being discussed here. So both are important distinctions. Are you saying that they are or they aren't?

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Mon 21-Oct-13 16:15:54

No, I wasn't.

garlicvampire Mon 21-Oct-13 16:54:40

Ah, thanks for that Biggedy.

Violence by men includes violence against other men, yes. It's important to look at violence as originating with perpetrators, not using terms that suggest it floats around by itself. 'Male violence against women' accurately sums up the topic in this thread. But all violence has a perpetrator, whether it be man, woman or dog. Language can make that clear, or obfuscate it.

'Sexual offences' is such a problematic term, it's under almost constant review by the CPS. They're crimes of power & violence; the argument for separate classification when a sexual characteristic's involved is actually pretty weak.

WMittens Mon 21-Oct-13 18:21:16

BuffytheAppleBobber

Only got through half the video as I had to go out, will let you know when I've seen it all.

WMittens Mon 21-Oct-13 19:27:37

So, on the video:

- definitely a route that should be pursued, a culture basically evolves around what your peers find acceptable; destroying the 'acceptability' of violence against women I think will be effective as part of a multi-faceted approach.

- I like the sound of the bystander approach

On the title:

- no, I don't think this is likely to turn any man into a feminist, for several reasons. Already mentioned is getting men who have no interest in the point of view to watch it, but additionally the presenter isn't going to endear himself to men. Obviously this is a sensitive and emotive subject, but he comes across as overzealous, at points he is pontificating, his language connotes (maybe unintentionally) that all men commit violence, quote: "What is going on with men?" "...so many men..." "...why is that a common problem..."

He states that men don't like to be challenged (true) but using language like this is not going to get men to listen, it's going to make them feel defensive. Maybe his delivery is different to a company of marines compared to an audience of (I assume) mostly women.

He talks about "...battle between the sexes and other kinds of nonsense..." but puts women on a pedestal, whereas men are the villains (see above). I'm not going to argue with the facts, the statistics exist that tell the story but he's not going to win over many men with the sort of language he's using in this video.

Flippant remark:
- "Isn't your silence a form of consent?"
Not something I'd want to say to a roomful of feminists.

On changing peer culture:

- There has undeniably been a shift over time, and I don't think violence is seen as acceptable; I believe (without any stats, if someone can direct me, great) the majority of violence against women is behind closed doors where the perpetrators either don't believe they will be discovered, believe they can control their victim such that the violence won't be reported, or even consider that they're not doing anything wrong.

The problem with changing the peer culture is how often are men aware that a friend or colleague has committed violence against a woman? The example of saying, "I don't appreciate that joke" is most likely to be met with, "FFS, it's only a joke." (I believe this may have been discussed in previous posts, apologies, I did only skim-read).

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Mon 21-Oct-13 20:01:16

The problem with changing the peer culture is how often are men aware that a friend or colleague has committed violence against a woman?

This is a huge problem, if this is what we are referring to about men pressurising other men to change their behaviour. It isn't a cabal or a conspiracy. Men don't talk about this like they do about football or cars or their kids.

DebrisSlide Mon 21-Oct-13 20:34:17

Problem is, I wonder how many men would actually like the cloak of the perceived capacity for violence equivalent of Schrodinger's Rapist removed, even if they were never once violent themselves.

I imagine the world would be a very different place for them if it were so.

garlicvampire Mon 21-Oct-13 20:36:48

The example of saying, "I don't appreciate that joke" sounds American to me. I might expect to hear it in Britain from a person whose career revolves around something like diversity training, perhaps, but it's more usual to answer with "That's gross!"

Then someone says "Yeah, but it's funny!" and you say "No, it's just foul."

I sometimes say things like "Did you mean to sound like you approve of wife-beating?" depending on the company (when I want to piss 'em off wink)

But "I don't appreciate that joke" just sounds like an elderly headmistress! Worse, some twat might think you want it explained ...

scallopsrgreat Mon 21-Oct-13 20:39:32

Well DebrisSlide that is a very good question. It is part of male privilege that all men benefit from the oppression that some instigate through violence.

garlicvampire Mon 21-Oct-13 20:41:53

xposted, Debris. I suppose the expectation that "all men" could win a fight, if they had to, is so deeply ingrained it's hard to imagine a world where this didn't feature.

Mind you, I like to think I'd stand a fighting chance (heh) of winning, too. Fighting is actually part of our nature. It's just the bit about needing to prove dominance that buggers things up.

WMittens Mon 21-Oct-13 21:12:20

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

garlicvampire Mon 21-Oct-13 21:43:32

Oh, I thought it was a quote from the lecture. It's a few days since I saw it. Ignore me, then grin

garlicvampire Mon 21-Oct-13 21:44:53

What's "N***a please!" ?

DadWasHere Mon 21-Oct-13 22:36:42

Not only was this man not sacked many other male colleagues whilst on the face of it appeared disapproving kept mentioning how annoying this woman was. So that plays right into the narrative of how a woman's behaviour is somehow deserving of violence.

If they thought violence was applicable to her behaviour they would not have disapproved of his actions. I am sure you have encountered many annoying people in your life you would like to hit and many you thought deserved it, but I assume you did not resort to violence.

You have a problem (being annoying) people agree on with a response (violence) people do not agree with. Many things in life are exactly like this, see the same problem and see how someone reacts to it but class their response as unacceptable.

But what you say has merit, if the woman had been the office darling what he did would have likely provoked a far more extreme response from men than disapproval of the act.

whatdoesittake48 Tue 22-Oct-13 15:14:05

I spoke to my DH about this video and how hard it is to actually do anything when confronted with casual sexism. he encounters it all the time from his family and friends. Never when women are around - but when out "with the boys".

How on earth does a man in that situation stand up to these comments. essentially these a "good" men who say dumb stuff without even giving it a thought. they are not rapists, wife beaters or anything else. they just don't think about women the same way my husband does and they assume it is the norm to say degrading stuff (as long as the wife isn't around.)

men like my husband are in a really difficult place. they want to speak up - but will be ostracised for it. that is a real fear and is very likely to happen. he will become a killjoy, an arse, boring and unliked. Maybe it worth it in the scheme of things - but these are family members.

Must we challenge everyone, every time? I feel for his dilemma.

I pointed out that racism changed because people questioned it. he said it just went underground. possibly making it even more dangerous. You can't change peoples views simply by challenging them on it. Racists and sexists don't consider themselves abnormal.

scallopsrgreat Tue 22-Oct-13 16:30:32

I'm so relieved what I had to say has merit Dad. Phew.

Basically if someone says "I'm not racist but.." or "I don't think men should hit women but..." what comes after the but kind of negates the statement before it. They were saying that they could understand why this bloke hit the woman because she was annoying. They may not have done it themselves but they had a level of empathy with that course of action.

I can't believe that you are arguing/nitpicking about this on a thread asking men to speak out about male violence. You are just being part of the problem. But I suspect you know that.

scallopsrgreat Tue 22-Oct-13 16:43:14

men like my husband are in a really difficult place. they want to speak up - but will be ostracised for it. Yes they could well be. And so are women who speak up about it. Yet they are expected to. They are expected to challenge sexism when it happens in the workplace to them, for example. How often do you hear the cries of "well if it was that bad why didn't she report it". And these are people who are bullied and possibly demeaned who are expected to speak out. Not bystanders who wield more power.

"You can't change peoples views simply by challenging them on it." That's just not true. Are you saying you have never changed your mind on anything when somebody has pointed out a different viewpoint? So yes you can. Especially if you have the back up of systems and structures finding sexism and racism unacceptable. Men can certainly do a lot to change those systems and structures and society in general.

They could perhaps start by accepting that male violence is a major problem and stop challenging feminists/women when they say this.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Tue 22-Oct-13 16:49:53

Whatdoes, I assume your husband is wise enough to spot the difference between someone who is joking and someone who has a darker motive. If his friends are spouting harmless rubbish then there is nothing to be gained by picking up on every comment. Most of us are aware enough to assess the whole context of a comment or statement. If he was truly uncomfortable with what someone was saying, I doubt they would remain friends for long.

I have just been choosing bathroom stuff with Mrs Biggedy. The salesman made a reference to how the final choice of stuff would be hers, and I'd better go along with it for an easy life. Now I could have started a whole diatribe about our equal relationship, shared decision etc etc. But we just smiled and carried on choosing. I don't see any harm in stuff like that. He wasn't malicious or rude.

WMittens Tue 22-Oct-13 17:33:25

scallopsrgreat

"You can't change peoples views simply by challenging them on it." That's just not true. Are you saying you have never changed your mind on anything when somebody has pointed out a different viewpoint? So yes you can.

Easier typed than done; by definition we're talking about bigoted, closed-minded people who are not going to be swayed by an individual (or indeed, several individuals). It is likely they will only change when the vast majority of their social circles pressures them to realise they need to open said minds. Even then, if their beliefs and values were indoctrinated in childhood it may not have enough of an effect.

grimbletart Tue 22-Oct-13 18:07:45

Biggedy: I agree that life is too short to treat everything like the Battle of Waterloo. I too, have smiled and gone along with comments like that e.g. when I arrived home as the man measuring up for our solar panels with my DH, said "ah, so you are going to be spending your husband's hard earned money then?" - having no knowledge of the fact that my husband was retired and I was the family breadwinner. I just could not be arssed to argue and ignored it. I'd had one of those days when I was losing the will to live and just blanked the remark.

The difficulty arises when it is not just the odd remark, which can be shrugged off as ignorance or social ineptitude, but is a frequent occurrence from workmen, customers, social acquaintances etc. I am sure many posters on here could testify to the frequency factor. There are just so many times one can be expected to smile and put up with such twattery before you snap and heavy sarcasm takes over.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Tue 22-Oct-13 19:20:48

The TED talks aren't referring to sexist comments by salesmen - they're referring to male violence and sexual violence against women. Gendered violence.

scallopsrgreat Tue 22-Oct-13 20:08:21

We aren't always talking about bigoted close-minded people WMittens. Take the incident I am talking about. These colleagues of mine aren't particularly bigoted. They just accept male violence as a given and that women can irritate men enough so they hit them. That is a fairly accepted norm but they are mortified when you actually point that out. It may make them rethink.

The HR department just moved the perpetrator to another department. Are they all bigoted lost causes? I don't think so. Male violence is minimised by society. They just went along with that.

Speaking out and naming the problem is conscious raising. It helps make ordinary people who have just accepted some stuff as the norm to question those beliefs. It is a drip drip effect.

I did actually go on to say that changing what is acceptable in an organisation is what reinforces those challenges. But how are you going to change an organisation if you don't challenge it initially? And why should it always be down to those that are being oppressed to challenge?

But tbh we've had these discussions before and the same old things come up every time. Basically men don't want to challenge it. They don't need to. It doesn't affect them.

DebrisSlide Tue 22-Oct-13 20:09:15

Some of you blokes need to practice the hmm face. No-one needs to go into a full run-down of their set-up, but why not register disapproval? What's the payoff for not doing so when the payoff for doing so is...oh. I geddit.

So, if those who are supposedly all for gender equality and all that shizz are not prepared to risk being a bit of a buzzkill, then what? Any suggestions?

And please keep posting. I don't think you realise what a service you are providing.

garlicvampire Tue 22-Oct-13 21:17:01

YY, what Debris said!

This is so annoying - Nobody has to go into a 'diatribe', they can just say "We are capable of discussing things," or even "That was sexist." Don't you understand that the speaker KNOWS he is in the wrong? He mistakenly (I hope) thinks he can form an exclusive bond with you by belittling your wife and/or your relationship. Shut that down with two or three words, and he is shamed. He'll do it less often in future.

But you played along, didn't you, so now he thinks this strategy of sidelining the women opens the men's wallets.

I read a good article explaining why rape jokes are harmful. It applies equally to violence jokes. When you're in your male cluster, one of those blokes may be a rapist and/or wife-beater. You can't know this. The thing about abusers is, the vast majority of them think it's normal. They reckon that men who don't beat/rape women are either lying, or would do it if they had the guts. (This isn't as weird as it sounds - I thought all men beat women until I was 35.)

Now, when somebody tells a rape/violence joke, and everybody laughs, it confirms that man's view of life as lived by men. He doesn't know he's the odd one out. It looks & sounds exactly like he expects: you all beat/rape women, it's a man thing; it's a laugh.

If you stop it with a "That's not funny," or a "hmm gross," the other men will actually agree - unless they're all violent cunts, in which case you've got other problems. Thanks to your tiny action, the real rapist/wife-beater will see - perhaps for the first time - that his ideas are out of whack.

Before anybody asks, this is exactly how I found out. I made some passing comment, which showed I took male violence on women for granted. The man I was talking to looked shocked, and said "Garlic, not all men beat women." It was that simple. Changed my life. I never got hit again.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Tue 22-Oct-13 21:27:21

The men that beat their wives, are sexually aggressive to women in public, who threaten women online with rape/violence - they don't live in a lonesome little bubble. They have friends, brothers, fathers, bosses. Why don't other men actively disapprove? Why don't they lose their friends, their jobs?

I worked in a dept store as a temp when I was a student. Once a woman came in with a huge black eye. I heard lots of mutterings of 'her old man beats her up' and a few 'I don't know why she doesn't leave him' that day. Immediately putting the onus on her to do something about it - I didn't hear anyone saying 'why the fuck does this violent thug beat his wife up?'

This man presumably had male friends, family, colleagues - and it was seemingly common knowledge that he beat her up. Why did none of them challenge him? I wonder if they also thought she partially deserved it for being "annoying"?

Yougotbale Tue 22-Oct-13 21:31:01

Garlic - what are you talking about? Non of my male friends talk about rape/violence jokes. When you say 'your' who are you talking too. It's a weird post, but I expect that from your cluster of white friends, meeting up and making racist jokes lol.

If a man thought every man beat there wife and thought it was normal then he would talk openly about it. As though it was normal.

I, personally, don't think any subject shouldn't be joked about. I also don't think individual victims should be joked about either.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Tue 22-Oct-13 21:33:15

The men that beat their wives, are sexually aggressive to women in public, who threaten women online with rape/violence - they don't live in a lonesome little bubble. They have friends, brothers, fathers, bosses. Why don't other men actively disapprove? Why don't they lose their friends, their jobs?

I worked in a dept store as a temp when I was a student. Once a woman came in with a huge black eye. I heard lots of mutterings of 'her old man beats her up' and a few 'I don't know why she doesn't leave him' that day. Immediately putting the onus on her to do something about it - I didn't hear anyone saying 'why the fuck does this violent thug beat his wife up?'

This man presumably had male friends, family, colleagues - and it was seemingly common knowledge that he beat her up. Why did none of them challenge him? I wonder if they also thought she partially deserved it for being "annoying"?

Yougotbale Tue 22-Oct-13 21:39:45

Sab -

The men that beat their wives, are sexually aggressive to women in public, who threaten women online with rape/violence.

Is this fact? Does it differ for men that beat their partners or girlfriends?

garlicvampire Tue 22-Oct-13 21:48:13

I've had enough of discussing things like this with posters who lack both experience and knowledge.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Tue 22-Oct-13 21:49:52

I'm not biting either baley. Sorry.

Yougotbale Tue 22-Oct-13 21:52:51

Garlic - you have experience of hanging around in all male groups? Sorry, my mistake, I thought you were a woman that had read a 'good article'.

Backonthefence Tue 22-Oct-13 22:18:10

Not sure I agree with the men that beat their wives comment, some that do are aggressive violent men in general who are violent to anyone and everyone these guys are often in and out of jail.

Some seem the nice guy type the one no one can believe could do such a thing everyone likes him him and sees him as friendly but behind closed doors he attacks his partner.

I can see many people condemning the first guy. The second guy it's obviously difficult because no one knows and they certainly don't boast about it.

garlicvampire Tue 22-Oct-13 22:26:58

Some people seem not to have understood Sabrina's correct punctuation.

Just sayin', like.

Yougotbale Tue 22-Oct-13 22:36:42

That was me

Yougotbale Tue 22-Oct-13 22:38:10

Garlic - why don't you explain your post? It's weird

rosabud Tue 22-Oct-13 22:55:42

It's not wierd at all. hmm

I've had enough of discussing things like this with posters who lack both experience and knowledge.

thanks to Sabrina and Garlic for answering them so well and for so long. I admire you, I read with interest but I can't bring myself to undergo the frustration of arguing with people who will not admit that male violence is a serious issue. Are they naive, thick, annoying or are they, in fact, just violent men?

WMittens Tue 22-Oct-13 22:59:28

Sabrina

'I don't know why she doesn't leave him' that day. Immediately putting the onus on her to do something about it - I didn't hear anyone saying 'why the fuck does this violent thug beat his wife up?'

(I really want to stay out of this forum now, but hey, I'll learn to keep my thoughts to myself another day.)

In your view, with whom does the onus lie?

My take on it.
Two very different questions there:
Q1 - leave him
Q2 - reasons for violence

Q1 is around remedial action - what is the solution to the problem? Her leaving is not the only solution: speak to someone, report him to the police, stab him, hit him with a baseball bat until he stops fighting back/moving.

The perpetrator is not going to affect the status quo as he is, well, the perpetrator. The victim is suffering and (making an assumption, based on the question) wants the situation to change. The perpetrator doesn't want the situation to change, and the fear and violence is the way he maintains it, so yes, the onus is on her to do something.

She may be waiting for an external party to intervene, but the inaction leaves uncertainty - it is not possible to determine when an outside party would intervene, if at all. This is not a course of action.

Q2
What does an answer to Q2 give us? He may have been exposed to violent stimuli as a child and he thinks it's normal behaviour, he may have been abused as a child, it might be a hormonal imbalance, there may be no obvious reason and he's just a violent sack of shit.

Great, let's pick an answer. What does it give us? Knowledge. Nothing more. An action is required to make use of that knowledge: arrest and incarceration, therapy, whatever.

I get a feeling of "this is the way things should be" from you (and I agree with you) rather than "this is how things are" - I'd argue the latter is more useful in solving problems.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Tue 22-Oct-13 23:01:45

Male violence is a serious issue, agreed. But, the focus here is male violence against women. And if we want to be harsh, that is your problem as women. Men's focus will be on violence against men (well it should be, but it isn't - men just tend to accept it as a fact of life).

I understand the feminist standpoint. It's driven by self-interest at its roots, which is fine. We all have to look out for ourselves. So, why should men prioritise this? As someone said, it doesn't affect men to anything like the same degree.

rosabud Tue 22-Oct-13 23:08:36

It's a good job William Wilberforce didn't have that mindset.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Tue 22-Oct-13 23:10:36

Because the women you love can become victims to it? Or on a more societal level, because the world is a better place for everyone without toleration of male violence/sexual violence?

Or perhaps I should just turn a blind eye to racism because I'm white and living in the UK?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Tue 22-Oct-13 23:11:32

Last was to bigedy.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Tue 22-Oct-13 23:20:46

Mittens - believe me - I was there. Q1 was not about remedial action. It was about victim blaming.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Tue 22-Oct-13 23:21:08

I thought that would be brought up, because it's a harsh thing to say. It lacks empathy. A couple of points.

My wife wont be a victim of domestic violence. She may be attacked outside the home, but so might I. So might my son. So might my brother. Are you seriously expecting me to prioritise one above the other?

I know most of you would, because women's wellbeing matters more to you. Good for you - seriously. Those are your beliefs. But I don't wish to prioritise solely on the basis of gender.

Wilberforce is a false comparison, because he did something opposite to feminism. He prioritised those outside of his own group. Which is a bit like a feminist prioritising men's rights, and all the more impressive for that.

This is not a pop at feminism. You must do what feels right to you. But, is it wrong to say that it is driven, in part, by self-interest? Women looking after women's rights?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Tue 22-Oct-13 23:39:27

Biggedy -You do realise the TED video isn't purely talking about domestic violence, don't you?? They're talking about sexual violence too.

I can tell you haven't actually watched the video - despite being very vocal on this thread.

Of course - your brother/son is far more likely to be victim of male violence too - he talks about that in his speech too. But of course you'd know that wouldn't you?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Tue 22-Oct-13 23:41:05

Thank you rosabud smile flowers

garlicvampire Tue 22-Oct-13 23:49:29

Thanks from me, too, Rosabud and Sabrina! Honestly, it gets tiring, doesn't it?!

Biggedy, you wrote "the focus here is male violence against women. And if we want to be harsh, that is your problem as women." Rosabud invoked Wilberforce as an example of someone who made a big difference by protecting the rights & safety of people not of his own class, who were being abused by his own class.

That's a direct equivalent of men defending the rights of safety of women against men. It's not the irrelevance you claim.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Tue 22-Oct-13 23:53:53

YY garlic smile

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Wed 23-Oct-13 00:20:26

If you want to be picky, Wilberforce didn't oppose slavery per se. He fought for the abolition of the slave trade - those men and companies who made vast fortunes from selling people. He was primarily fighting against rich white men, rather than promoting rights of Africans. Hence my original point.

I'll give you an insight into a male view of male violence. It happens. Most men don't stress about it. Most of us avoid it where we can, some men are big enough to turn the other cheek when faced with it. I think, if you want to solve the puzzle of why men don't make more of a stand against male violence, you have to look at why we have this attitude of not thinking about it too much.

If you want to discuss this, I am happy to. If it is stressing you out, I'll shut up.

garlicvampire Wed 23-Oct-13 02:09:23

To look at why we have this attitude of not thinking about male violence too much is actually the point of the discussion, Biggedy. Well done, you got there in the end wink

Knowing about something & not being bothered about it = normalisation.

So why is it 'normal'? What can be done about that? The lecture posited that everyday language relating to male violence, and the cultural values which prompt it, feed the sense of violence being so normal that it's pretty much inevitable. Since this is a self-perpetuating cycle, it seems easier to halt it (or slow it down) by addressing the language first. Experience tells us that modifying the language can modify the values. If the values change, we may expect actions to change, too - because the culture no longer normalises such actions.

It's jolly nice of you to let us know you're happy to discuss this. Don't feel obliged, though. Is it an issue you're interested in discussing? How so?

DadWasHere Wed 23-Oct-13 02:48:10

I am sorry garlicvampire that you live in a society where violence is still considered as being normal, what part of the world do you live in?

garlicvampire Wed 23-Oct-13 02:57:32

I probably live in a similar part of the world to where Biggedy lives, given his observations in the post I was replying to.

DadWasHere Wed 23-Oct-13 03:54:15

a huge part of the message is about semantics: the way that words imply male violence is a normal fact of life, rather like bad weather. "She sought out violent partners" - so it's your mum's fault, then? What about the fact that these partners were violent? Yes, it's wrong for a woman to tolerate violence in front of her kids, and who made her tolerant? A violent man did, I'm 100% sure.

Actually in my mums particular case you are 100% wrong about everything, including the snide leap worthy of the Olympics you would insinuate me blaming her for the choices she made. She was deeply mentally ill and it had profound effects on every part of her life and self.

DadWasHere Wed 23-Oct-13 05:16:49

I can't believe that you are arguing/nitpicking about this on a thread asking men to speak out about male violence. You are just being part of the problem. But I suspect you know that.

Over the years I have variously witnessed male violence, stopped male violence, alerted police to it and been a victim of it. Frankly your exhortation that men 'speak out' against male violence means as much to me as you advocating that a slutwalk or 'take back the night' would be an effective mechanism for advancing social change.

Do women want to hear men 'speaking out' because they want men to acknowledge it (yes, we already know) or because they think it will counter violent male behaviour (nope) or because they want to hear the choir sing for them alone?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 23-Oct-13 07:27:25

Do women want to hear men 'speaking out' because they want men to acknowledge it (yes, we already know) or because they think it will counter violent male behaviour (nope) or because they want to hear the choir sing for them alone?

The first two - but I sense some some sarcasm in your post Dad - which is not nice to read when you're talking about violence which affects someone else.

The "do they want men to acknowledge it? (yes we already know)" is also at odds with your earlier statement:

I am sorry garlicvampire that you live in a society where violence is still considered as being normal, what part of the world do you live in?

-where you don't acknowledge at all, and dismiss garlic in one sweep of your hairy manly hand.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Wed 23-Oct-13 09:02:53

You see, this sarcasm thing is all well and good in your head, but in reality it just shuts down debate. I offered in all sincerity to butt out of the conversation, as there were comments that it was tiring for some people here to have to keep rehashing the same points. It may be that my contribution is contributing to this. And what do I get?

'It's jolly nice of you to let us know you're happy to discuss this. Don't feel obliged, though.'

Really?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 23-Oct-13 10:28:47

biggedy have you actually watched the video we're discussing?

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Wed 23-Oct-13 11:11:22

Yes, I have watched it.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Wed 23-Oct-13 11:12:47

And I still stand by your point, Sabrina, that this is not the place for sarcasm. From men or women.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 23-Oct-13 11:22:18

Biggedy: I thought that would be brought up, because it's a harsh thing to say. It lacks empathy. A couple of points.

My wife wont be a victim of domestic violence. She may be attacked outside the home, but so might I. So might my son. So might my brother. Are you seriously expecting me to prioritise one above the other?

The video is not purely about male violence in a domestic setting -it is about all male physical/sexual violence. He also talks about men being more at risk of violence from other males, not females.

So really, your point above (about how you can happily, and without conscience, ignore male violence, because it won't affect you and yours), is a bit redundant in the context of this TED talk.

DadWasHere Wed 23-Oct-13 11:49:28

-where you don't acknowledge at all, and dismiss garlic in one sweep of your hairy manly hand.

Because I asked her what part of the world she lived in? What? I acknowledge the existence of violence, theft, rape, abuse, prostitution, slavery, genital mutilation, female infanticide and all manner of evils. In some places on earth some of those are perfectly normal, in other places though illegal in law they are still practised commonly in society anyway so they have a degree of normality separate from law, in other societies they are both illegal and, to a greater or lesser extent, frowned on by society and not seen as normal at all.

It was buffy earlier in the thread who said she would like to see violence be treated “As socially unacceptable as, say drink driving or child abuse.” It astounds me to think that drink driving could be held as being more socially unacceptable than violence but I know it could be like that in certain parts of the world.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Wed 23-Oct-13 12:11:46

His focus in the video is different to the one frequently expressed on here. My personal views have more in common with those of Katz than with the views on here.

And saying that I happily and wilfully ignore male violence is disingenuous. I said that men put a different focus on it. But I don't think that discussing it on here will do anything other than cause a ruck. I will continue to read with interest.

BuffytheAppleBobber Wed 23-Oct-13 12:18:42

Where I live, today, I think drink driving is held as more socially unacceptable than violence. An example this morning, two radio DJs, after playing Britney's Hit Me Baby song (it was one of those guess the year things) joked about how their show didn't condone violence, except as a "friendly slap before bedtime" said the other DJ. Brief silence, then "did I go too far?" Followed by chuckles and then things moved on.

It was obvious that they weren't "condoning violence" as in explicitly saying that it was OK to slap friends or family members. They really were joking. They would have been very shocked if someone suggested that what they had said was harmful. And yet, these types of jokes normalise violence. They are funny because violence isn't a really serious thing.

It wouldn't be that funny if they'd joked about it being OK to drink drive so long as you only broke someone's legs rather than killing them. Snarf Snarf, now let's hear the travel news.

DadWasHere Wed 23-Oct-13 13:21:30

Well, buffy, I am going to guess its not some country where people would arrest a man for having alcohol (no driving even necessary) and beat him violently for it- yet would pity him for having an unruly and troublesome wife if they saw the black eye he had given her. The world is a mix of many cruel imbalances between good and evil.

I know this is primarily a British board even though its .com not .co.uk in my browser. My daughter wants to go to Britain and study in London for six months next year or the year after. What can I say, I know about the London riots that happened a few years back, I know that like some US cities there are no-go areas. I know about the commonality of concealed knives. Personally I would like to convince her to go to study in Canada for the better chance of safety but she outgrew her diaper long ago and now I can only trust and hope.

BuffytheAppleBobber Wed 23-Oct-13 13:36:10

I am in the UK.

I don't think I follow your point...?

SabrinaMulhollandJjones Wed 23-Oct-13 13:53:46

Really biggedy? Katz is asking for decent men to stand up and be counted against male violence --- your post of 23:01 last night said "And if we want to be harsh, that is your problem as women."

So I don't really think you can claim to be agreeing with him.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Wed 23-Oct-13 14:32:52

Katz is asking for decent men to stand up in opposition against male violence perpetrated against anyone. I agree.

The overwhelming call on this board is for decent men to stand up in opposition against male violence perpetrated against women.

There is a difference, and it is introduced by feminists. And I have already said, it is completely understandable, so please don't anyone turn this into a 'menz telling us how to do feminism' thing. But therein lies the difference between us. That is why I can align to his views more than the majority on this board.

BuffytheAppleBobber Wed 23-Oct-13 14:38:56

The overwhelming call on this board is for decent men to stand up in opposition against male violence perpetrated against women.

I didn't interpret what we were saying in that way.

It's more that the people who seem to have done most of the standing up against specifically male violence (as in violence perpetrated by men) have been feminists.

What I think is interesting about the TED talk is that he's asking us to name the problem and the perpetrators, to acknowledge that violence is a gendered phenomenon, that the perpetrators are mainly male and that it would be nice if men joined in with speaking up against it rather than accepting it as just something that happens.

To my mind, that's different from saying we're only interested in male violence on women.

garlicvampire Wed 23-Oct-13 17:31:41

The points Biggedy and Dad want to make on this thread are entirely unclear to me.

Please will you clarify?

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Wed 23-Oct-13 18:05:37

Katz is saying that all male violence is a bad thing. Some feminists only care if that violence is directed at women. And I have a problem with that distinction.

grimbletart Wed 23-Oct-13 18:57:18

Biggedy: It's not the case that some feminists don't care about violence that is not directed at women. It is the case that this is a feminist board set up to debate women's issues, so talking about violence as it affects women is logical. HTH

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Wed 23-Oct-13 20:38:41

If you want to limit feminist discussion to women and about women, then fair enough. But when discussing male violence, wouldn't you actively encourage male participation? Katz does. And the point about his work is that he doesn't restrict his work or his focus to women. And it's him and his work we are discussing.

HTH indeed - why do people write that on here? Does it make them feel better about themselves? It's snarky and unnecessary.

BuffytheAppleBobber Wed 23-Oct-13 20:57:36

Some feminists only care if that violence is directed at women

Has anyone actually said that on this thread? I lose track, as we seem to cover these issues so very often...

In my view, the reason why some feminists, myself included, become rather exasperated when people (perhaps quite innocently) bring up the "but women do it too" argument.

The reason for that exasperation is because it's actually quite hard to have a conversation about something as it affects women without first covering off a whole list of disclaimers: yes, we know women can be violent as well, yes, we know that sometimes men experience problems as well.

This is a satirical and (in my opinion) quite amusing summary of this problem. Please don't become offended, I am not suggesting that you are doing this on purpose, I am trying to explain what I see happening here.

The reason I posted this video here because I think that the following is an interesting question: if the majority of men are good people who don't believe that violence towards others, particularly those weaker than they are, is a bad thing, why do they not seem to speak out much against the cultural factors that normalise it? Is it because they don't notice the problem, because it doesn't really affect them? Is it because they don't think it's their responsibility to do anything? Do they not believe that language and culture affect behaviour? Do they not care?

As men, you are able to give us your views on these issues and I for one am eager to listen. But currently, you seem more interested in telling us off about various slights you feel we've offered you?

WMittens Thu 24-Oct-13 18:01:02

I've just seen this TEDx talk and I think this is worth watching in addition to the video in the OP, but addresses the core problem (as I see it) and discusses a wide-ranging solution in a much more positive manner.

Biggedybiggedybongsoitis Thu 24-Oct-13 18:27:44

Powerful stuff, Mittens. Many thanks for a TED I can show to my son and daughter.

garlicfucker Thu 24-Oct-13 22:36:26

Oh, god, Buffy, I am so guilty of some of those derailments! I wasn't even doing it on purpose (my 'entitlement', you see blush) To be fair to me, the FWR board cured me of the worst of it. I'd better read the whole site, though, in case I'm still making a tit of myself!

Biggedy - Have you also seen this one? smile

Backonthefence Fri 25-Oct-13 01:36:57

Good video there mittens most of what he said I find agreeable.

DadWasHere Fri 25-Oct-13 03:09:50

Wow Mittens, well found- THAT is the talk men will hear, in stereo at full volume, the other links are talks that resonate with women.

WMittens Fri 25-Oct-13 15:54:09

I'm glad you all found it as moving as I did.

DebrisSlide Fri 25-Oct-13 22:30:47

So, do men want to give up the cloak of potential for violence? To the men on here, what would your lives look like if you didn't have it? Is it possible to step outside of its existence and imagine what life would be like without it?

WMittens Fri 25-Oct-13 22:39:51

DebrisSlide

So, do men want to give up the cloak of potential for violence?

Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. Can you explain?

DebrisSlide Fri 25-Oct-13 23:28:29

Did you read my link ^^?

Males benefit from other men being violent.

WMittens Sat 26-Oct-13 10:31:41

DebrisSlide

Did you read my link ^^?

Males benefit from other men being violent.

Yes I did. I can't see anything about a cloak of potential for violence, and I can't see any reason why a non-violent proportion of men have anything to gain from the violent proportion and their violence. The whole article says to me "men are guilty until proven innocent" (heavily and emotionally paraphrased) - as a man who would is looking to meet his future life partner this is a very big negative.

Anyway, I would be interested to hear your reasoning, as I said, I can't see it. However, I will deconstruct and try to answer your question.

So, do men want to give up the cloak of potential for violence?

potential for violence
There is and will always be a potential for violence in humans; Hell,the article author is a BJJ practitioner! (Most) Humans have four limbs and a head, all of which can be used to do significant damage to another human, other animals, organisms and inanimate objects. That is before we even pick up a tool that can augment these capabilities. The "potential" will not disappear.

do men want to give up
I cannot speak for 3.5bn men; I wouldn't be so presumptuous.

Actually, there's a large assumption there that 3.5bn firstly believe there is a 'cloak of potential for violence', and secondly that they they wear it; I don't know of surveyed figures of violent to non-violent men, but I know that not 100% of men are violent.

Males benefit from other men being violent.
As above, can you give examples? This could be justified in many ways; I could justify that everyone benefits from 'male' violence. I think it's fair to say that the World's militaries and predominantly made up of men, and mostly controlled or directed by men (this is the idea of the Patriarchy, is that right?) so 'male' violence (or threat of violence) provides a safe haven for our nation, guards our borders, establishes us as a nuclear power, gave us microwave ovens, computers, eCommerce, GPS/Satnav, ARPANET (beg pardon: the Internet) etc. etc.

As I mentioned, on an individual scale I do not see how I benefit from male violence; it only brings negatives from what I can see. I may be the victim of male violence (in fact I have been). The article asks:

"Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones?"

Yes, it is part of my daily routine, like every risk assessment is. I may cross the road if I'm approaching a group of people (or they are approaching me); I take note of the clothes and shoes I'm wearing; my surroundings, what escape routes are available; where is my car parked, what areas do I need to walk through to get to it, and what time of day/night will I be doing that?

It's a similar to any principle of risk assessment: when I drive, what is my speed, condition of vehicle, condition of road surface; when it's sunny, what is my risk of getting sunburnt (actually, that's one I usually fail to take into account, but I'm getting better); when I climb, am I capable of the route I'm trying given my skill and its difficulty level?

I don't see how being instantly classified into "criminal! treat with caution" is a benefit to me?

BuffytheAnyAppleFucker Sat 26-Oct-13 10:43:37

I think men benefit from male violence in the way that they can silence women by the implicit threat of it.

For example, if ds's football coach says "don't be a girl" I would feel much much less safe challenging this than I would on here, where the threat of physical intimidation is removed.

Not saying that he would punch me on the touch line for pointing it out, merely that I would be more afraid to speak up in person than when any possibility of a physical response is removed.

That is an example of how men benefit from male violence. Another is that I might be afraid of responding to a "compliment" from a male stranger in the way I'd like to, because I'd be afraid of the possibility of a physical response.

So men get away with behaviour that women would like to challenge them on but are cowed by the possibility that he might just be one of those violent men.

BuffytheAnyAppleFucker Sat 26-Oct-13 10:44:36

This makes men more confident, more secure in their entitlement to behave as they see fit. Because women may not challenge them.

WMittens Sat 26-Oct-13 10:58:16

Buffy

Again, I fail to see how any of that is beneficial, but then my experience has been entirely opposite: I am less confident and more insecure exactly because of this example. I am so desperate not to be "that guy" that my esteem has taken a massive knock and I struggle to form connections with people (obviously this is affected by many other factors, but is compounded by the scenario you mention).

in the way that they can silence women by the implicit threat of it.

That is very much dependent on the man and woman in question - many of the women I know simply wouldn't take that, and let's just say, wouldn't be too shy in the manner in which they expressed it.

For example, if ds's football coach says "don't be a girl" ...

Did you watch the video I linked? What did you think about it?

BuffytheAnyAppleFucker Sat 26-Oct-13 11:30:11

I got part way through and then got called to deal with something. I plan to finish it later. I thought it was good, an example of something we call 'patriarchy harms men too'.

And trust me, I am not afraid to express my opinion and can do so with reasonable force and clarity. I am not shy or to be pitied because I am a timid mouse afraid to speak to men grin. However I am aware of the subtle social forces that are at play when I choose to challenge a relatively unknown male.

It sounds to me as though you're not the sort of person who wants to "be a man" as described in your video. So, these issues affect you too sad

You do seem different to some of the men who post on here. You are not talking down to me, for one thing. Nor are you assuming that your experiences represent a universal "truth" as some do.

...and final,y, do you really think that some of the women you know would front up to an unknown man, who might be a foot taller, and challenge something he's said without it crossing their mind that he might intimidate her physically? Really? Maybe you should ask them. And by the way, I'm not talking disagreement over whether they like Marmite, I am talking stuff that challenges entitled or sexist behaviour. Really?

WMittens Sat 26-Oct-13 22:16:30

Thank you Buffy. I do try to avoid assuming my experience is the only one and see things from all sides (sometimes in a Devil's advocate kind of way), and will try to state whether something is based on limited experience, corroborated data, my own philosophical musings, and especially if I reference Wikipedia (as a caveat against its validity).

do you really think that some of the women you know would front up to an unknown man, who might be a foot taller, and challenge something he's said without it crossing their mind that he might intimidate her physically? Really?

Maybe one or two women I've known in the past (girls really, this was many years ago), probably not any of the women I know now. And you're right, they would still make an internal risk assessment as to a potential outcome of any encounter, and I think even though they were pretty damn tough, they still had a rational sense of self-preservation.

garlicvampire Sun 27-Oct-13 14:08:21

I'm going to post an entirely personal little ramble.

I am not 'afraid' of male violence. Of course I'm aware that an average man is stronger than me so, if push comes to shove, I'll need to resist more intelligently than him. I know various ways to do this. Therefore, I am afraid but don't let it inhibit me.

The reasons for my lack of 'fear' are abnormal; I was raised by a violent sadist. In consequence, I acquired the intelligent fighting skills to equip me for abnormal jobs like being the skinny, 20-year-old, bouncer at a very rough club. I don't notice this abnormality in general life, but now and again it pops up. One tiny example: while drinking with a group of younger women friends, a bloke intruded. The others went along with this and I didn't want to make a fuss - I told him to buy a round, which he did. After a while, he dominated the conversation and was being dismissive of our opinions. I asked him to go away. He got very angry. I held my ground - and made sure the nearest group of men were aware of a problem. There was a very big row, but he left the pub.

Now, the man was a boor, but women everywhere are constantly having their space taken over by men we might call over-entitled. It's an unavoidable hazard of being women in mixed company. Most, like my friends, just put up with it and will even leave the venue to lose the twerp. This is so commonplace, few women would even think of it when describing feminist issues. The twerps enjoy this control over women's spaces & conversations because of underlying fear - the cloak of violence empowers overbearing gits, and silences women.

Men, too, suffer from it. It has further social implications as well. Staying with the simple scenario of a group of women at a bar, let's suppose a nearby man is genuinely interested in their conversation (or one of the women) and has a positive contribution to make? He may not feel awkward about approaching them, because he has male privilege - or he might be sensitive and feel anxious - but he'll have to work at making the women not defer to him, simply because he's male. And part of the reason for that is underlying fear: the 'cloak' that enforces patriarchy by lurking in the background, unremarked and ever present.

mediarek Sun 27-Oct-13 15:37:29

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

BuffytheAnyAppleFucker Sun 27-Oct-13 15:41:39

No it isn't. And non extremist Muslim groups have condemned terrorist attacks committed in the name of their religion. They haven't taken the blame for them, nor should they. But they have spoken out giants them.

BuffytheAnyAppleFucker Sun 27-Oct-13 15:41:59

Giants? Against.

garlicvampire Sun 27-Oct-13 15:42:17

Who said they should?

Many Muslims take on a responsibility to be anti-violence, particularly renouncing/denouncing extremist sects. That's more of a parallel imho.

garlicvampire Sun 27-Oct-13 15:42:45

xpost smile

mediarek Sun 27-Oct-13 15:52:30

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

garlicvampire Sun 27-Oct-13 16:07:15

Nobody here has asked men to apologise for male violence which they didn't perpetrate. You're unsuccessfully trying to twist things.

Do you find the concept of a perceived underlying threat difficult to understand?

kim147 Sun 27-Oct-13 16:08:05

Do you think men should do something about male violence? Or say something when their friends come out with sexist attitudes towards women?

Grennie Sun 27-Oct-13 16:11:38

Misandry doesn't exist.

mediarek Sun 27-Oct-13 16:14:36

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

mediarek Sun 27-Oct-13 16:16:47

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Grennie Sun 27-Oct-13 16:17:52

One women being mean to some men is not the same as misogyny.

Shall I do a link talking about all the baby girls killed just because they are girls? Or the enormous amount of women who suffer female genital mutilation, some who die from it? Honestly, you haven't a clue.

mediarek Sun 27-Oct-13 16:22:02

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

mediarek Sun 27-Oct-13 16:23:26

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

mediarek Sun 27-Oct-13 16:24:29

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Grennie Sun 27-Oct-13 16:25:52

medi - Let's not deal in what ifs. Let's just accept that the whole anti misandrist movement has come out of men who are unhappy with even a basic level of feminism. Oh no, we have to pay child support - even though many still don't. Oh no, if we are violent to our kids we will only get supervised access, how unfair.

They are the disgraceful roots of the anti misandrist movement.

Grennie Sun 27-Oct-13 16:26:26

Medi - I don't know feminists who agree with circumcision.

WMittens Sun 27-Oct-13 16:27:41

mediarek

all men should take responsibility

That's not how I understood it at all; I'm not taking responsibility for someone else committing an act of violence. It's about men taking action to affect a positive change.

WMittens Sun 27-Oct-13 16:28:18

*effect, not affect

Grennie Sun 27-Oct-13 16:30:19

So what are you doing medi to challenged the oppression of women by men as a class?

Oh I know! Coming on a thread about feminism and lecturing us about misandry. Nice one.

kim147 Sun 27-Oct-13 16:35:42

Picking fights and vigilante groups?

Male violence again. You have heard about speaking to your friends. Debating and challenging them with words.

You don't need to use violence to solve problems.

mediarek Sun 27-Oct-13 16:37:20

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Grennie Sun 27-Oct-13 16:38:27

I will book my ticket immediately to visit Sharom and tell her how wrong she is.

mediarek Sun 27-Oct-13 16:39:05

Debating and challenging them with words.

And why is it the responsibility of non-violent men to get involved with violent-men again?

Challenge the wrong person and that would basically be asking for trouble.

Grennie Sun 27-Oct-13 16:39:41

So you leave women to deal with it and to educate men?

mediarek Sun 27-Oct-13 16:40:04

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Grennie Sun 27-Oct-13 16:41:24

No. You just need to talk to the men you are friends with and educate them. Not so difficult if you care about these issues.

mediarek Sun 27-Oct-13 16:42:58

"Educate" them? I'm not a school teacher. And what if my friends aren't violent?

BuffytheAnyAppleFucker Sun 27-Oct-13 16:48:15

We get it. You do not give a shit about male violence.

Um, not sure how you expect us to respond to this?

kim147 Sun 27-Oct-13 16:49:58

Do you ask a new dad if he will be altering his work for childcare? Discuss money in a relationship? Housework? Contraception?

mediarek Sun 27-Oct-13 16:57:33

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

WMittens Sun 27-Oct-13 16:59:38

mediarek

"Educate" them? I'm not a school teacher.

You have a very limited understanding of the word 'educate'.

And what if my friends aren't violent?

Great! Convince them to spread the word too. Six degrees of separation etc. etc. they are going to know someone who knows someone who knows someone who is violent. That is how a cultural change happens.

WMittens Sun 27-Oct-13 17:02:02

mediarek

is not my responsibility

As I said before, 'responsibility for violence committed' is your strawman and not the message of the video.

kim147 Sun 27-Oct-13 17:02:12

You mean you are not responsible for men's violence.

But do you, as a man, want to see a world where there is less male violence - both towards women and towards men?

You don't have to pick physical fights. But campaigning, talking, etc - wouldn't that help make a better world?

Of course you can seem powerless when it's all around you. You think what can I do - it's out of my control. I'm only one person.

But if we thought like that, nothing would change and nothing ever would change.

Male violence exists. It's harmful to society.

Grennie Sun 27-Oct-13 17:11:56

He means he doesn't care about women at all. He just came on to lecture as about the poor menz.

Grennie Sun 27-Oct-13 17:12:23

And he probably thinks it is misandry that we are not all agreeing with him.

garlicvampire Sun 27-Oct-13 18:42:40

In that case, I'm rather impressed by the misandrogenistic speed with which his/her posts were deleted smile

garlicvampire Sun 27-Oct-13 18:47:04

Or should that be misandristic? Misandric? confused
Nice deletions, anyway.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now