Charles Saatchi. Oscar Pistorius, Roman Polanski, John Leslie, Mel Gibson, Charlie Sheen, J Simpson, Jimmy Savile, Chris Brown, Paul Gasgoigne,(170 Posts)
You know the way whenever we discuss DV, the menz crawl out and start the 'women commit DC just as much as men' routine?
Well, can anyone give me a list of high profile / world famous / Olympian women who have been photographed or found guilty or admitted to DV or sexual abuse?
Josef fritzl, Christian Slater, Ryan O'Neil, Marvyn Gaye, Tom Sizemore, Evel Knievel.
In fact out of these 200 famous names, very few are female. I counted 3 at a glance. There will always be a number of exceptions that prove the rule, but DV is a gendered crime, by men against women.
Never mind famous faces, two absolutely non-famous women, leading ordinary lives, in the UK are murdered by their partners each week. There are no such such comparable numbers of men murdered by their partners.
Aren't men responsible for the majority of just about every serious, violent crime? Assault, murder, GBH, ABH, muggings etc etc. Men also cause wars and conflicts all around the globe, and have done since records began. DV is just a part of the pattern, isn't it?
Shees talk about war of the sexes, are we so intent on naming the gender as the issue that we do not address how we stop it.
I think some people just like to get it off their chest, Leith.
There is no "one" problem, there are many problems some of which interconnect with others, if we had to start somewhere though I would start at poverty. Poverty of attainment, as well as wealth based poverty.
Male violence against women is the problem here. I know lots of people have various reasons for wanting to confuse this very simple issue though.
Women as a gender are more affected by poverty worldwide than men - so be my guest. Tackle poverty as well.
But gender is hardly ever mentioned in the media for example. Despite overwhelming evidence that most violent crime is committed by men. It just isn't termed as that. It is all about individuals being violent. People were quick to pick up on the supposed patterns of groups of Asian men raping white girls so they are happy to pick up a racial angle (deserved or otherwise). Yet gender is off limits.
I've just had friends comments deleted last night on CiF for daring to suggest that most violent crime is committed by men regardless of victim and that maybe we should be teaching our sons not to be violent.
People don't want to know because then they will have to address the massive problem that is male violence. And you know why because it threatens male privilege. Saying Asian men rape white girls and demanding something be done about it only affects Asian men's privilege over girls. Very specific and not a coincidence that the villains awre also an oppressed group. The big white chiefs don't have to look towards themselves in that instance. They don't have to curb or lose their privilege over women. That is maintained nicely by all the other men (of whatever race) carrying on being violent to their wives, girlfriends, children, other men.
I want to live in a world without violence but without tackling the problem of male violence that is never going to happen. All the women in the world could stop being violent and men would still be violent because it maintains their privilege, because that is what they have been conditioned to do. If men stopped being violent then there would just be no need for women to be violent. It wouldn't make sense. And that is why we have to name the problem and that is why it needs to be tackled head on.
I would have hypothesised that men are more likely to be victims of psychological than physical domestic abuse.
I want to live in a world without violence but without tackling the problem of male violence that is never going to happen.
Let's move forward on that.
All the women in the world could stop being violent and men would still be violent because it maintains their privilege, because that is what they have been conditioned to do.
Less sure about that; lots of violence between men in schools/prisons and that may be due to conditioning, but don't see quite how that is done to maintain their privilege...
If men stopped being violent then there would just be no need for women to be violent.
Mmm. That would suggest that leads to no female on female violence, and I'm unsure that necessarily follows.
It wouldn't make sense. And that is why we have to name the problem and that is why it needs to be tackled head on.
And the steps are?
I was bullied at school. In the end, after talking to my dad, I hit back hard at the bully(ies) and was left alone. My son was bullied, I told him something similar.
Society as a whole tends towards the most powerful wins... I'm unsure of the next steps. Education helps... but will it overcome the issues of violence:
Primarily male on male, then male on female, then female on female, female on male - or whatever order the greatest good for the greatest number is...
Does oppression of women also suppress their violent tendencies? If the genders were equal, would men be less violent, or would women rise up to be as violent as men? Or would they meet somewhere in the middle?
Isn't privilege a group thing rather than an individual thing; SWM can't hold prvilege of other SWM surely?
Just saw the post, I'm obviously quite literate, just speed typing, and missed out a few words so the sentences are garbled to read, it's quite clear to see. English is not my mother tongue shall we say & I am not a man, I don't see what difference that would make anyway.
The point I was making is that you often read about PA's being treat like shit by their celeb employer's both male and female, they are often treat as lesser people who are simply there to serve,
Hmmm, shall we think who fills that role in 'traditional, common relationships'
Octopus maybe has a point. Men in our society expect to be dominant, they are raised to be in charge. Women culturally are raised as 'caring' and 'nurturing'. Women's equality in the workplace is still a struggle, women struggle to be taken seriously in politics, in the boardroom. Women get get fewer chances to speak in debates, and are listened to less.
Wives and mothers are expected to do the lions share of the housework, childcare - whilst it is still culturally expected that the man continues full time work/career. The man is still considered in charge. I think it follows on from this that men can become violent to women if they don't know their place. If women try to assert themselves. A man maybe tries to reassert control over his wife using his fists. Show her who's boss.
In the past patriarchy meant that women and children were chattel - to their husbands and fathers. Men now still often consider that they own their wives and children. It is well known that leaving her partner is a most dangerous time for a woman - many of the 2 women per week murdered by their partner are murdered in actually trying to escape them.
I think greater equality for women would reduce domestic violence, because a lot of it is a man using his fists to get the control he thinks he should have over the woman. Think Denis Waterman. But the men have to relinquish the control they think they think they should have over their wives - accept women as their equals - and society has to stop victim blaming.
But I don't think it follows that greater equality would increase the violence perpetrated by women, as women have not raised to feel like the dominant sex.
Join the discussion
Please login first.