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.

Hopefully that means we can progress and have change. I agree complete equality probably isn't possible but we can do a lot better.

Interestingly, the programme about the school which is trying to remove gender stereotypes from their teaching, highlights the problem.

The girls could describe emotions, in a variety of different ways. The boys however only ever described anger. The programme makers, amazingly, did make the connection between that and the overwhelming proportion of prison inmates who are male.

These children are seven years old.

The programme also explores the reasons why most of the girls, at age seven, have low self-esteem.

So yes, not all the boys are angry, and not all the girls have low self-esteem.

And they are actively trying to raise the girls' self-esteem.

Given that it might be difficult to always single out those boys who are more angry than others, I see little problem in teaching boys, generally, how to manage their anger.

Teaching them respect for women, how to manage their anger and examining why, bloody why they are angry at age seven, would be fantastic.

It was perfectly obvious from the programme that boys and girls are socialised completely differently. And that the smallest action can have a profound and lasting effect.

The teacher was utterly shocked to find out that he picked the boys far more often, than the girls to answer questions. The girls eventually raise their hands less, and less.

So the boys start to subconsciously accept that it is they who will be listened to, they who are entitled to ask, and they who are more important. And the converse for the girls.

If that's not a startling microcosm of society, I don't know what is.

The series has only just started, so it remains to be seen how effective this project actually is. Although, given they are broadcasting it, I imagine it will produce some surprising results.

Yanbu op. It's hard to say because we have dads, brothers, sons and husbands. It's hard to say because we're used to kowtowing to men. It's not fashionable to be a feminist.

It's not about, as someone said, wiping out half of the population. It's admitting the problem and looking at how we can raise the next generation of boys to not be part of the high percentage of men who commit violence.

It's no good saying 'my son never would'. On a population level things aren't working.

Men are conditioned to think it's not really that bad.

^^this. Women too. We seem to have this attitude of "can't blame a bloke for trying".

IfyouseeRitaMoreno

Yes, many men would have little problem with objectification, or mild harassment, but then turn round and totally agree that sexual violence is abhorrent.

With zero dot connection going on.

No Papafran. Let's not try to make an ideological point so soon after an atrocity

So we have to wait until an acceptable period of time has passed until we can acknowledge that these incidents are all carried out by men? Frankly, i am sick to the back teeth of men killing innocent people as they shop, stroll around, enjoy their holidays.

If you think about it, it's actually SICK that we give little children toy guns and swords (and say that they are for boys rather than girls). What the actual fuck? These were things created for the sole purpose of injuring and killing people and we give them to small kids to PLAY with. And don't get me started on violent cartoons, violent computer games and general all-round normalisation of extreme violence.

I think it's hard because those men who would never hurt anyone are deeply ashamed of what a lot of men do. My DH is particularly like this.

I would like to balance this a bit though. Boys are as likely as girls to be the victims of sexual abuse. They're just as likely to be the victims of DV. I think what's different is they're more likely than girls to become perpetrators; girls are more likely to remain victims. That's why those of us who were abused as children call ourselves survivors and not victims.

Women are as involved as men in crimes of sex trafficking. They're the madams in the brothels, they play a huge role in keeping other girls and women captive. Or they become overbearing mothers-in-law in the patriarchal systems. Think about the issue of FGM, too.

I think that's because they have been conditioned to behave that way, because they were victims themselves originally.

I might get flamed here but we do need to look at the whole picture.

the most senior political position in the UK IS filled by a woman. And has been in the past. Neither are MN favourites as far as I am aware.

Yes, out of 75 past prime ministers, 2 have been female. What a strike for women's rights

They're just as likely to be the victims of DV

Do you mean while they are children? Because if you are talking about adults, no, men are NOT just as likely to be the victims of DV, as we debated ad nauseum.

the most senior political position in the UK IS filled by a woman

Yes, what a strike for equality. I have heard that along with 'now we have a female president of the Supreme Court as well' (Lady Hale)- women are running the country. No they are not. Theresa May is the second woman EVER in the entire history of British politics to be PM.

Brenda Hale was the first woman EVER in judicial history to be appointed to the highest court in the land. She remains the only one (although Jill Black will be appointed in October). There are a handful of female judges in the court of appeal. Do we think it is OK that our laws are made and interpreted largely by men?

@Papafran, no that's not what I said! I said that boy victims were more likely to be perpetrators of DV. Girls go on to become victims. Please read my posts. You take issue with every post that doesn't agree parrot fashion with your views.

There's also honour based violence. Mostly men again - fathers, uncles, uncles and brothers - but also mothers-in-law sadly.

Mittens

No, I asked for clarification about what you meant when you said they were just as likely to be the victims of DV. It seems you were referring to childhood, so thanks for clarifying.

I'm curious how stopping DV will stop gang violence.

I do not dispute the facts, I would be a fool to argue that stopping violence is wrong.

But you can't look at violence as one homogeneous mass, and state that it all has the same cause.

I will also point out that there is an issue with labelling all violence as male violence.

Yes indeed, because boy victims of abuse are more likely to become abusers. That happened with my brother. We were all abused, my brother abused my sister and me as when he was a teenager. He was copying what he'd seen. He hasn't done it as an adult, though, he's sadly seriously mentally ill and has buried all his memories (we did too for a long time).

My sister on the other hand was a victim of DV in her first marriage. She's since married someone wonderful though.

I will also point out that there is an issue with labelling all violence as male violence.

That's not what this about though.

It's about actually labelling the vast majority of violence what it is, Male Violence.

Mittens That's horrendous to hear what happened to you and your siblings.

@TinyRick, thank you.

Male violence is a huge problem. I agree that you cannot say that all violence is male violence, but I don't think anyone here is saying that??

My views on the subject are probably unpopular and controversial for MN, which proports to be a feminist forum.... unfortunately I think feminism has let women down on this issue.

My opinions are based on what I have learned during my Psychology degree/MSc where we studied attachment theories in depth as well as cognitive developmental neuroscience, I've also worked in women's health and HV and what I have read and observed in RL... I have also been influenced by my own upbringing (dysfunctional) and my DHs (neglectful and emotionally abusive DM, physically absent and emotional abusive DF) and also from living in the states where as we know - has a very extensive problem with male violence.

My view is thus: the role of motherhood and the maternal relationship in developing into an emotionally well adjusted, secure, empathetic and morally 'good' person is massively downplayed, undervalued and sidelined.

I feel that feminist have played a role here in their campaigning for equal employment rights, shared parental leave, increased nursery funding etc... which indeed, has already been suggested as a solution for tackling the problem in his thread:

More is needed in other areas- e.g. equal parental leave provisions, more state funded childcare for young children, proper state subsidies paid to carers to avoid women becoming financially dependent on men (in turn making them more likely to be DV victims)

Now I'm NOT saying that equal employment rights should be campaigned for (!) but what I am saying is that I feel the prevailing message in western society now is that you have to be 'working' to be a valuable contributor to society. I feel that the work of mothering is almost seen as being able to 'delegate' to child care providers who can do just as good a job. I've been told aevitinea on MN that I should be working to "set a good example for my DD" and that she should see me "contributing equally to or family" (I'm a SAHM in case you hadn't guessed).

The implication is that I am "wasting" my degree and 2x postgraduate degrees and professional career to stay at home with toddler DD.

I strongly disagree.

I think by devaluing the incredibly important, unique and necessary binding relationship of infant and mother we are failing as a society to meet our children's basic emotional needs. Without the appropriate input in the first critical 3 years of development the frontal lobes miss out on forming crucial neurological connections - which are central to developing the capacity for empathy and moral reasoning.

Since living in the states and witnessing the standard practice of putting 5-6 week old newborns into full time nursery care I feel I can see one of the root causes of why America is such a violent and individualistic society.

ALL infants and toddlers (and children as a whole) NEED to feel that above all else they are loved. They need to be cared for in a loving way, they need to be responded to with care and attention and to feel that they are truely 'enjoyed' and cherished simply for being alive.

I know his opinion will offend people and I am really not trying to be antagonist. I know that many women do not have the option not to work, or indeed don't want to.

But I feel like this is an issue that just like male violence, is something that society as a whole doesn't want to acknowledge.

Btw I'm now saying that this is the only and exact cause of male violence... what I'm saying is that the down playing of the importance of the role that the maternal relationship plays in the critical first few years in the context of a patriarchal and mysogynistic society (with all the gender and sex-related socialisation that goes on) is what I believe is at the root of this problem

Argh!!

That should say:

Now I'm NOT saying that equal employment rights should NOT be campaigned for (!)

There are other typos too hopefully you get the gist

Absofriggin although I take all your points and I do believe that the nurturing relationship between mother and child has been devalued.

How do you explain make violence has been going on for centuries, how can you explain male violence in other parts of the world where they parent differently?

Sayhellotothemoomoos

That's very interesting. I don't think anyone doesn't see the profound value in caring, loving relationships with parents.

Can you clarify whether the reason you specify mother is because she is the main caregiver? Or could a dad provide the same foundation are you speaking about?

I'm also thinking that most people who need to outsource childcare try their level best to make sure it is very high quality and that stability is key.

In terms of working, yes this country wants women to be at work and be the main caregiver. Superhero powers not provided by the state!

And male violence is even more prevalent in Asian cultures, too, despite women staying at home to look after their children. Because boys are brought up to believe that women are inferior to men.

So, unfortunately, that argument doesn't work. It's the attitude to women that needs to change, whether they stay choose to be SAHM or go to work.

Datun thanks for the link. That is absolutely horrifying.