There will be no progress until we name the problem

[TinyRick]

worldnewstrust.com/there-will-be-no-progress-until-we-name-the-problem-mickey-z

AIBU to think this article should be shared far and wide?

There is a real problem with Male Violence being swept under the carpet and not addressed fully on news sites and papers.

If we don't say what it actually plainly is then we can't address the real problem.

Women are the only sex that can gestate, give birth to and breastfeed their infants. Infant physiology is innately tied to the mothers. They are hard wired through millenia of evolution to need their mothers peawnce to regulate breathing, heart rate, temperature and emotional response.

I don't disagree with you on this. Women do have a head start but there are many men who have stepped up and become loving involved fathers.

There are also many women who do not find motherhood natural and who like so many of us, learn as we go along.

However I'm not sure how any of that backs up your argument.

If the child is 4 years old, are you still saying that s/he is dependent just on the mum for heart rate, breathing etc?

No of course not.

I really am stepping away now. Back later!!

You just did it there. You just devalued the role of the mother after saying you didn't

how? I said nurturing can be shared. I never said men can breastfeed, but they can administer food to their child, allowing the mother to get some rest for example.

I am strongly in favour of revaluing care and nurture by the way- I just don't believe that women are biologically predestined to do it because that seems to really suit society very conveniently because we get all this essential work performed for free.

Abso I do see what you're saying, and yes attachment theory is important to cognitive, social and emotional development.
However the research does indicate that it is the primary caregiver and their interactions with the infant that facilitate this.
That does not have to be the mother- fathers (or indeed, non related caregivers) are just as good at facilitating this development. The research does indicate this- the only reason Winnicott, for example,calls his theory 'the good enough mother' is because women have traditionally performed this role.

It's worth pointing out here that an abused, powerless woman will find it impossibly difficult to exert authority over her children, unless she too resorts to violent punishments, which is not unknown.

What has given women options is the right to participate safely and fairly in the workplace and the right to have her relationship with her children protected.

Both these things were a harrowing nightmare before feminism, and still are for many women in other countries.

Either way, the problem is still male violence.

The paternity arrangements in Sweden have shown that an initial stage where fathers bond from birth, lasts a lifetime

That's a really good point, Datun.

@IfyouseeRitaMoreno, it's not western patriarchy. Asian cultures are very patriarchal and we see there how our society used to be. Western society has changed because feminists fought hard for those changes. And now there are Asian women who are fighting for change as well.

And as an adoptive mum I definitely agree that breastfeeding is not necessary for bonding so men and women are equally equipped to nurture babies and young children.

I think it does have something to do with the toys that small boys are encouraged to play with. Boys are encouraged to play with toy guns, for example, and enjoy dressing up as soldiers. And they're encouraged to play fight. The films that boys are encouraged to watch as well don't help matters

I think it has very little to do with that and far more to do with whether or not a boy is growing up in a house where violence and cruelty is seen as normal family interaction.

@abso I do agree with you about the importance of motherhood. When I first had DS I felt it was the first time I was doing a job that society believed I could be good at.

However what happens in this world is a kind of tit for tat exchange. Women are seen as nurturers so somehow they can't be strong. Women are hard-wired for empathy so somehow they can't be good at maths, science etc.

That is why, IMO, so many feminists are so willing to point out that biology is not destiny and to provide examples of men and women who run counter to the biological divides we've set up.

But it's entirely possible to be good at many things.

TBH I'm not sure how this fits in with your argument which seems to be: if we valued motherhood more (and it is feminism that is to blame for this devaluing) there would be less male crime when it is clear that in societies where motherhood is valued (but contained to the private sphere) male crime is just as, if not more, rife.

A better argument would be to take the values that we associate with motherhood and women: empathy, nurturing, altruism, elevate their status and extend them across society so they are considered desirable traits for both sexes.

But that will never happen as long as boys see "girl" as an insult.

"the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always
recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and
destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's
protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and
delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for
many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the
family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance
as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic
sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and
functions of womanhood"

This a quote from a judge in an American court case in 1871. Many judges and philosophers described motherhood as 'divine' and 'noble' and 'sacred', but it has never been seen as valuable in terms of giving the person who performs it financial freedoms and choices.

A better argument would be to take the values that we associate with motherhood and women: empathy, nurturing, altruism, elevate their status and extend them across society so they are considered desirable traits for both sexes

This

I am hugely unconvinced by the argument that women working are the cause of male violence. I see the poster who suggested that hasn't answered the question about why it existed when women didn't work outside the home and exists in societies now where women are kept at home.

'A better argument would be to take the values that we associate with motherhood and women: empathy, nurturing, altruism, elevate their status and extend them across society so they are considered desirable traits for both sexes'

Yes, absolutely.

Many judges and philosophers described motherhood as 'divine' and 'noble' and 'sacred', but it has never been seen as valuable in terms of giving the person who performs it financial freedoms and choices.

Precisely Papafran. It is no coincidence that the "angel in the house" philosophy arose at the time when women were agitating for rights outside the house.

It is quite simply the patriarchy spinning women a monumental lie: "you are so valued in the domestic sphere that you'd better stay there. We'll take care of the running of the country so you don't have to"

The modern day equivalent is of course "you're so much better at multitasking that you'd better do all the housework".

I meant that the games that boys play don't help, and it's telling that boys are very easily sucked into violent games. Obviously it's the case that they are copying the violence that they have seen in their own homes growing up. I also said that boys who suffered abuse or witnessed DV in the home are likely to copy that behaviour.

Absofrigginlootly - don't you think that if men were (brought up to be ) more (read: equally as) involved in the early nurturing of children - this would mean the home-based, care-giving role would cease to be devalued?

And it might also have a knock-on effect on the rates of male violence?

You completely obliterate the role of men in the early nurturing of children. And then don't join the dots as to the impact of this.

Encourage men to be just as caring and nurturing as women - from childhood (as girls are). Expect fathers to play the same role of caring for children as mothers.

And see what impact that has on male violence.

Essentially - we need men to be more like women.

We - fathers and mothers - need to raise boys more like we raise girls.

We (society) actually do quite a good job of raising girls. We're not so good at raising boys, as unfortunately they seem to go on to cause most of the problems in the world.

“We've begun to raise daughters more like sons..but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters"

GLORIA STEINEM

RitaMoreno

BoneyBackJefferson

Is that really the only point that you take out of my post

Considering that's what half your post was about, then...yes.

Interesting to note that (not just here, elsewhere on the internet too) that mothers working outside the house gets blames and then you also get thread after thread of blaming over-mothering MILs that their sons have turned out emotionally abusive.

TinyRick

Just reiterate.

I said that tackling male violence in as a single homogeneous mass as the causes are different.

But take what you want from it.

I have not blamed and do not blame mothers working outside the home for male violence!! Clearly I have not communicated my point well enough because more than one person appears to be under the he same misapprehension.

If you read my posts again you will see I talk about the very important role of fathers and they context of a wider patriarchal and mysogynistic society.

I also never said that feminists were to blame for the lack of value placed on mothers. I said they had not helped the issue/done a disservice to mothers.

I feel that the very necessary steps to tackle world inequalities inadvertently sent the message that careers were more important than being a mother. SAHMs are often accused of not contributing or letting the side down etc.

I will try to find the time later to explain what I really mean later I really will. I'm not trying to be evasive. My dyslexia means I find it hard to write down and get across my thoughts. It takes me a while to get them ordered and written down. Can't do that with DD around and I feel I need to be clear so I'm not misinterpreted again

*work inequalities

Not world