Violence against women - how we tune out of it..

[Pan]

Interesting TED Talk about this issue and how we see such violence as women's issues.
It's about 17 mins long BUT your attention will be grabbed within seconds.

It covers the whole matter much in the way as I see it.

Also:

• I was under stress, it was out of character. (well it's just been evidenced that it's actually part of your character...)

not a mis-thread but perhaps a correct identification of a pejorative (if unintended?) use of the noun, assuming that partridge interprets Husband's use of 'Miss' in a 'silly young woman' kind of way?
Not to heap more criticism on Husband, but it does seem to be thus.

oh I seeee! Missed that. Thanks Paleo.

What Paleo said. (but in a cleverer way)

thanks, but not cleverer (had to google correct spelling pejorative....)

see: *of pejorative

If anyone's got further stomach for it, here's the other TED I'd lost.

I like esp. the bit 2 mins in where he asks 'what do men do on a daily basis to ensure they aren't molested'.

A sceptic could say 'well these are rich successful m/c men spouting off to the less successful in life'. One defensive posture, yes. But,

• they are doing it when they could be doing something else/earning more money.
• they are speaking up and as likely getting judged and insulted on-line for it.
• it's more effective when a man says it, for lots of reasons.
• importantly, it doesn't change the message whatsoever.

Back to "working at home for the day". Ha.

I had to google cleverer!

I wrote it then it looked just like clevererererer in my head. And I wasn't sure if I wanted to say more clever. Wiki answers assures me my cleverer is right though.

not to derail, but 'cleverer' does just look/sound just wrong doesn't it, i checked too.

It's an interesting talk, Pan, and one I have seen before. However, I think this one gets closer to the root of the problem;

Let me know what you think.

Well that was hard-hitting wasn't it Biggedy!

I'd agree with a lot of it, especially the alexithymia notion, that men are prone to not be able to produce a description of how they are feeling esp at times of high emotion and will rather walk away from that challenge. And certainly that a cause of that is a discouragement to not reflect on our own feelings, and so not have a 'vocabulary' for them. I'd recognise that in me from time to time, where I'd take a time-out and order myself better when others have an easier avenue to how they express themselves.

The first 3 elements he talked of (sports achievement, money and sexual prowess) are a bit tricky, in that overall, women often give credence to those things too, with other things being equal. And those 'validations' are immediate and gratifying so become rather attractive, imo. They don't require much emotional effort, or challenge, but the 'rewards' are satisfying in the short term and when young that's the time period people tend to think in.

I'd also question the 'team' ideal of mutual respect and dignity bit. Successful teams do not have to even like other team members. Conflict is a useful engine to manage improved performance. As a manager/leader I'd spent waaay too long under this illusion, and wasted time in trying to resolve differences etc (and these are/were female-dominated teams). Until realising I don;t care too much about how/what you think of each other, only at how any of that impinges on the quality of service our client group gets.

Hey pale,

I see you and pan are of the same mind in that aggression in males is totally socialised. Whilst I would agree that the level of aggression a population may have will be affected by their society I still believe males on average have a higher tendency for aggression.

This is because hormone levels between the sexes differ and hormones have a huge impact on behaviour. Many people think that humans are on some higher plane we are not virtually all our basic behaviour and actions is similar to other mammals.

In virtually all mammals the males of the species are more aggressive. You then have the fact that the males are on average larger than the females for the sole purpose of aggression and generally against males of their own kind.

Now I am not saying violence is enivitable just that we should set up a plan with the right goal and not go for an unrealistic and unobtainable goal.

Hey pale,

I see you and pan are of the same mind in that aggression in males is totally socialised. Whilst I would agree that the level of aggression a population may have will be affected by their society I still believe males on average have a higher tendency for aggression.

This is because hormone levels between the sexes differ and hormones have a huge impact on behaviour. Many people think that humans are on some higher plane we are not virtually all our basic behaviour and actions is similar to other mammals.

In virtually all mammals the males of the species are more aggressive. You then have the fact that the males are on average larger than the females for the sole purpose of aggression and generally against males of their own kind.

Now I am not saying violence is enivitable just that we should set up a plan with the right goal and not go for an unrealistic and unobtainable goal.

Hey pale,

I see you and pan are of the same mind in that aggression in males is totally socialised. Whilst I would agree that the level of aggression a population may have will be affected by their society I still believe males on average have a higher tendency for aggression.

This is because hormone levels between the sexes differ and hormones have a huge impact on behaviour. Many people think that humans are on some higher plane we are not virtually all our basic behaviour and actions is similar to other mammals.

In virtually all mammals the males of the species are more aggressive. You then have the fact that the males are on average larger than the females for the sole purpose of aggression and generally against males of their own kind.

Now I am not saying violence is enivitable just that we should set up a plan with the right goal and not go for an unrealistic and unobtainable goal.

Hey pale,

I see you and pan are of the same mind in that aggression in males is totally socialised. Whilst I would agree that the level of aggression a population may have will be affected by their society I still believe males on average have a higher tendency for aggression.

This is because hormone levels between the sexes differ and hormones have a huge impact on behaviour. Many people think that humans are on some higher plane we are not virtually all our basic behaviour and actions is similar to other mammals.

In virtually all mammals the males of the species are more aggressive. You then have the fact that the males are on average larger than the females for the sole purpose of aggression and generally against males of their own kind.

Now I am not saying violence is enivitable just that we should set up a plan with the right goal and not go for an unrealistic and unobtainable goal.

Hey pale,

I see you and pan are of the same mind in that aggression in males is totally socialised. Whilst I would agree that the level of aggression a population may have will be affected by their society I still believe males on average have a higher tendency for aggression.

This is because hormone levels between the sexes differ and hormones have a huge impact on behaviour. Many people think that humans are on some higher plane we are not virtually all our basic behaviour and actions is similar to other mammals.

In virtually all mammals the males of the species are more aggressive. You then have the fact that the males are on average larger than the females for the sole purpose of aggression and generally against males of their own kind.

Now I am not saying violence is enivitable just that we should set up a plan with the right goal and not go for an unrealistic and unobtainable goal.

Omg stupid phone sorry some major mishap there.....

I agree with you Daddy that a lot of factors come into play. And I've heard a lot about DV in soldiers: I agree too that there needs to be lots of help for people returning from war zones. I think PTSD isn't well supported in the main, and I'm sure that contributes to the number of ex-service personnel becoming homeless.

I don't think there are any easy answers.

Accepting it will lead to a greater understanding rather than trying to hide it or believe it is not an issue.

I personally feel for something like this you would need to target boys earlier. Its a bit like when elderly people make racist comments, people tend to ignore it and say they are stuck in their ways.

But how can you reduce violence against women without trying to reduce violence in general. Men assault and kill other men in greater numbers than they do women. Would it not be best to aim to reduce violence overall?

I'm an old-fashioned soul. I think violence against anyone regardless of their gender is unacceptable.

I would also question the motives of anyone who considers violence against one particular section of the population is worse than violence against any others too.

lostdad evening!

yeah of course any violence is unacceptable, irrespective of gender.

I'm a bit curious about wot you mean about the last bit - I'm failing to see anywhere here where there is a competition for importance being set up?

Can I guess at what you mean? Is it because the video didn't address female violence? Or violence in general?

I'd think the video maker was pretty straight-foward about what he was looking at, and not looking at. As I was when I saw it. He had 20 mins max ( I think that's the TED limit) and so did his stuff on one aspect.

or have I guessed utterly wrongly?

RE the 'importance' I would say that violence where most damage is caused would appear on a hierarchy of violence. Where children are hit or witness abuse, where it is done by someone much bigger onto someone much smaller, where other more vulnerable people suffer, and where it is regular and 'hidden'. I'd wouldn't be 'suspicious' of the motives of people who wish to prioritise on gender lines once they have explained themselves perhaps.

Am I catching your drift at all? < 70's refugee here..>

In fact, to add, I wouldn't mind commencing a thread about female violence and it's profile. I've been subject this, and one accusation of committing an act of violence on a female partner, so if/when I have the space yes.
Violence and the fear/threat of it is so compromising of a good quality of life.

Daddy, it isn't just the feminists who raise the 2 women killed per week by an ex or current partner. It;s raised by anyone who works in the field of violence and general abuse. The stats are clear and not 'owned' by anyone.

and no to be honest. Who will kill you isn't random. We aren;t all equally at risk from the 'mad violent fuckers'. It's fairly specific. Women, for example, don't get killed by other women. They get killed by the men they know. That's pretty plain isn't it? Hence the video, and who is responsible and who has to change,

So yes really difficult socio-economic circumstances are challenging. But when you say "like a tinder box waiting to go off" who actually 'goes off'??