Can we talk about female violence? I need to get my response straight

"Sorry, not sure what you actually mean by this."

It's never about what it means to "I", but what it means from "I".

Anyway, it's basically just a instantiation of:

"social roles and statuses exist specifically in relation to one another, so that if some change, or don't change, then it will affect how the rest change or don't change. "

You can't take apart a boat on the sea and rebuild it as it is on the sea and expect whichever pieces you wish to just magically remain in their places for the duration.

"I would not say that male behaviours are caused by female attitudes."

The problem is, men do not exist in a dimension filled with mythical straw-women from which they spontaneously transpose into a feminine dimension to take their actions towards women. That is, inasmuch as women in Western society are closely integrated with the function of men and (taking there to only be men and women) thus the society at large, and inasmuch as women's behavior is caused in some way by women's attitudes, then women's attitudes must indeed be part of the equation.

"I do agree that we need to address both male and female attitudes to male violence and to violence in general."

Just to keep us from getting complacent, I'm going to stir the pot:

"Male violence" sounds an awful lot like "black crime".

2. Little impact on violence overall, as resistance to change on one end fosters the same on the other, such that men and women have an unproductive tug-of-war over the status quo.

Sorry, not sure what you actually mean by this.

"We can't address the symptoms - male behaviors - without addressing concurrently the causes - both male and female attitudes."

I would not say that male behaviours are caused by female attitudes. They're caused by male attitudes and choices.

I do agree that we need to address both male and female attitudes to male violence and to violence in general.

^"You are talking as if women are engaging in violence at the same rate and with the same impact on men as vice versa and I'm afraid the figures simply do not bear you out. Men as a class are far more violent than women are and their violence takes place in a context of a society which has supported their violence while condemning that of women. They are also objectively doing more damage.

You talk about context, while posting stuff which in fact denies actual context. That's why your posts were unclear."^

Well, hold on - the context in which to take my position is with interpartner violence specifically. I'm not commenting on violence in general, everywhere. I'm not claiming we need to focus on the female aspect of bar brawling or even on females in active combat roles (though that's a much bigger discussion than even IPV, to be honest, given for example the far-reaching inherent geopolitical considerations and ramifications). So, it's kind of strange to see you say that I'm not taking context into account. Maybe you saw it that way because I honed in on a single context so finely that it looked like the world from the looking-glass? That is, magnify on a skin cell and it might as well be the whole slide.

"Forgive me if I think that a bit of addressing male violent behaviour might be a more useful and effective deployment of resources and energy."

For the larger picture (i.e. beyond the ambit of my earlier posts), and in the shorter-term, yes. But it still leaves women on the sidelines of necessary change. Furthermore, don't forget that social roles and statuses exist specifically in relation to one another, so that if some change, or don't change, then it will affect how the rest change or don't change.

Take these scenarios for violence regarding male-centric feminism:

1. All male violence is abolished. There is still substantial female violence.
2. Little impact on violence overall, as resistance to change on one end fosters the same on the other, such that men and women have an unproductive tug-of-war over the status quo.

The second is the likelier, of course. There are better approaches. Again, focusing on changing the behavior of men above all misses the generalization that what needs changing are broad human behaviors and values, that may manifest more severely in men due to their typically-greater size and strength.

Here, maybe another cogent way to put it:

We can't address the symptoms - male behaviors - without addressing concurrently the causes - both male and female attitudes.

Do you think JayZ is devastated differentname?

Am I a freak for thinking that male violence against women IS often (not always, but very often) much more devastating than vice versa?

wouldn't call you a freak, but you are wrong. Violence against anyone is devastating.

Right, now I understand where you're coming from Montmorency.

Jeebus with regards to your comments on the other thread, what I took from there is that yes, you're quite right, psychology is far more important than mere strength when it comes to wreaking violence - I don't think that's a huge revelation, but I think it's important to stress that men are socialised to have higher levels of aggression, that the psychology of violence is different for men and women (with the usual caveats, exceptions etc.) So acknowledging the interesting stuff said on that other thread, doesn't negate what's being said here.

Montmorency, the problem with your stance is that of course you're right: "structural, contextual, or raw physical disadvantage does not preclude the disadvantaged party from engaging in the same problematic behaviors as the other party, and at the same rate and with the same detrimental effect to the social fabric." In theory. But in practice, that's not happening. You are talking as if women are engaging in violence at the same rate and with the same impact on men as vice versa and I'm afraid the figures simply do not bear you out. Men as a class are far more violent than women are and their violence takes place in a context of a society which has supported their violence while condemning that of women. They are also objectively doing more damage.

You talk about context, while posting stuff which in fact denies actual context. That's why your posts were unclear.

No-one's against women addressing their behaviour - insight and reflection are almost always good things. The whole of society encourages women to reflect on our behaviour, whether that be if we are feeding our families properly, treating our bodies healthily, or provoking male violence by our failure to satisfactory women, or to "have a temper on us" which provokes men to hit us.

Forgive me if I think that a bit of addressing male violent behaviour might be a more useful and effective deployment of resources and energy.

Montmorency, I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that you will get short shrift on here.

No, it should transform both, or else it is at best incomplete, and at worst ineffectual and irrelevant. Presently, that is why I stress the importance of the considerations I've presented on the issue of IPV.

But - correct me if I am wrong - feminism does not seek to alter women's behaviour/mindset. It seeks to alter men's. Is that a fair summation?

"I find your posts bewildering and opaque."

How? That's unhelpfully vague.

I'm doing my best with each post to articulate the idea very carefully and clearly. Fundamentally, it involves realizing that structural, contextual, or raw physical disadvantage does not preclude the disadvantaged party from engaging in the same problematic behaviors as the other party, and at the same rate and with the same detrimental effect to the social fabric.

More bluntly, refusal to target both male and female behaviors and mindsets in light of empirical evidence that both contribute substantially to the problem at hand is simply an abdication of responsibility and credibility.

There was another discussion on here recently about the minimisation of women's sporting achievements, and how the gap in speed and strength between genders was exaggerated in order to keep focus away from women's sporting abilities and achievements. So, which is it? Are women really massively weaker? Because the other thread did not seem to think so. Which might suggest that levels of physical damage inflicted might come down to levels of aggression, temper and attitude rather than pure physicality.

Why?

I find your posts bewildering and opaque.

Are you here to communicate or obfuscate?

"So you're ignoring all the structural inequality in society which underpins and supports the violence by one of the gangs then?"

I'm claiming that this is what you are doing.

"Better armed?"

Better weapons, better armor. If you really need another instantiation, imagine one has a dagger and street clothes while the other has a mace and Kevlar.

Better armed?

You mean physically, psychologically, economically, legally, socially?

Also acknowledging structural inequality is not relying on gender stereotypes. It simply er, acknowledges structural inequality.

Right.
So you're ignoring all the structural inequality in society which underpins and supports the violence by one of the gangs then?

That sounds like a not particularly valuable or feminist approach to violence.

"What are we to make of that?"

It's really a simple point. To make my earlier analogy less specific, what some might see as a power-structure wherein there is unmitigated victimization of women by men (with respect to DV/IPV) is actually more like the one between a pair of warring gangbangers. It's just that one of them is better-armed than the other.

From my first post: Clearly, a gender-specific approach to domestic violence/abuse must go much deeper than simply targeting or relying upon gender stereotypes.

It matters as to the solution, see?

You do know that the ratio of male/female earnings has changed very little over the past decade? the 'average' (mean) figure is 75c. to every $ earned. In post-grad professional situations, where the male and female have the same degree, same results, same industry, same company, same boss, then men typically earn 7 - 11 % more than their female counterparts. (Forbes)

So when you say 'many' women, how 'many' does it need to be? Because there are some women who earn more than their partners, but the numbers are incredibly small and not on the increase. If by 'many' you mean more than 100, then I would agree. If by 'many' you mean a significant % of the population, there is no evidence for this.

You could argue that living within a welfare state means that no-one is ever in the position to stay in a relationship when they are at risk. The factors which make it hard to leave, even when money isn't the issue, are still relevant. They also apply far more to women than men. If you look at the figures for the relative wealth of women survivors v men survivors, then men are better off.

"My point is that women are not in fact powerless much of the time, and so should not be represented as such. Less power is not equivalent to no power."

And?

What are we to make of that?

What light does it shed on the reality of domestic violence, the consequences thereof (2 men a week are not being murdered by their female partners) and the original subject of the thread, which is exploring the pretence that DV is committed in a contextless vacuum with no differing power relations, physical disparity or psychological aspect?

I think that we are also in some ways saying that nothing has changed in terms of finance and autonomy.

Many women now have the financial wherewithal to leave abusive partners and do not. It is a much larger picture. The same is true for men who are abused. They may be able to leave but the nature of the relationship that they are in is such that they are frozen within it.
There are also many men who stay in abusive relationships because they are frightened of what might happen to their children if they leave. This isn't purely a one way street but a pretty grim cycle with help only really available for men.

When I spoke earlier about verbally abusive women I was not talking about 'nagging'. I was discussing an element of domestic abuse that is felt very keenly and that can be hugely damaging to the recipient.

"Even the studies which you cited clearly state that men hit more frequently, more times and with more impact."

They stated that men are overly-represented in the most severe violence.

"and are less often the instigators of violence."

Well, no, that's one of the main findings in fact.

Here is an interesting and very recent study (2014) that divided up the violence into categories of "Controlling" vs. "Non-controlling/Situational", in addition to the standard severe vs. non-severe injuries. The image has the most interesting results shown. The results for prevalence are basically similar to what the previously-cited studies found. It seems this study captures your narrative for unidirectional M-to-F violence but, as it is incomplete, adds to it.

My point is merely that the fact of men committing the most severe violence should not erase the lesser violence and aggression, which women clearly participate in as often as, if not more than, men. My point is that both sides of the equation must be taken into account when approaching a solution to the problem. My point is that women are not in fact powerless much of the time, and so should not be represented as such. Less power is not equivalent to no power.

Sadly, those are real gangs:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crips

Otherwise thoroughly agree with your post, kickass. And feel that Mont's pulling a gun vs pulling a knife is a false analogy - both can cause fatalities but only one requires close physical contact - hammer vs rolling pin might be closer to represent "disparity of blow strength"

Montmorency - I'm not quite sure what your main argument is. I know that this is a complex subject but I can't quite work out if you're arguing that context should or should not be taken into account. If we only look at the amount of damage inflicted (primarily physically from your pov, I think) then men are the main abusers. there has never been a study which show more women killing men than the other way around. In fact, there is a very consistent figure of 75% of IPV resulting in death being men killing women. So if we ignore context then women are the main victims. Even the studies which you cited clearly state that men hit more frequently, more times and with more impact.

If we do take context into account then your two recent examples are a little misleading (I believe the crips one is from The Clockwork Orange but I'm dredging my memory from decades ago)

If you take into account the context of IPV then you need to remember that we live in a society where women earn less, run less businesses, have less say in politics, are younger than their partners, shorter and weaker than their partners, have more responsibility for children and spend more time running the home. Given how much that makes the woman tied to the home/children (so less able to make independent decisions), and how hard it is for a woman to survive once separated - about 90% of single parent families living in poverty are headed by a woman - then the context of IPV is really important.

To me, it seems laughable that we see a 50/50 split between a divorcing couple as 'fair'. It would seem logical that whichever parent is going to be the main childcarer should get a split which takes into account the number of people who will be living on that money. Only in a case of 50/50 residency would it seem that a 50/50 split makes sense. Yet that is the 'ideal' to which we hold. So a woman with a violent partner looks at her monthly budget and then tries to imagine feeding and clothing her kids on half the amount. If you read any of the information about why women stay the financial insecurity, along with the emotional damage involved, is a huge factor. These issues cannot be ignored with a simple 'but women hit as well' argument. Even in bi-drectional violent relationships, the women are coming off worse, and are less often the instigators of violence.

this doesn't even touch on the other forms of abuse which precede the use of violence by a controlling person.

to the person who mentioned how women nag etc as a form of oppression/control by women - start with reading up on discourse analysis to see the truth of how much men/women speak, about what and in what ways. The nagging wife is most frequently a myth, or when she does exist is actually the result of a controlling man who denies her agency and gives her support. There are some women who attempt to control and oppress their partners, but the consistent findings on this are that they are vanishingly rare. Even where a woman may attempt to do this, the constructs of society are such that men more often walk than remain in the relationship, as it is so much easier for them.

Here's an analogy.

Imagine the Crips and the Bloods are in a turf war (or alternatively, an Orange and an IRA, if that makes more sense). One of them pulls out a knife. The other pulls out a gun. As an officer of the law, do you:

1. Book both of them.
2. Arrest the gun-wielder and provide services to the knife-wielder because they are a victim who was oppressed by the gun-wielder
3. Enrol both of them into a community outreach program to teach them emotional coping and self-control skills, as well as to educate them on the detrimental impact of their behavior on the wider community, their families and friends, etc.

Just saying that in literal examples of the above, Option 2 is never considered and Option 3 produces empirically-supported results.