So chaps.. men's violence on women. What are we saying?

[Pan2]

As a major on line source of voice via MN do we have a dadsnet view at all?

@KOKOagainandagain

It's really good that men are discussing this. But there are also perspectives from women that you need to hear. There is the obvious catcalling, which is uncomfortable to experience, but there is also real threat from the non-obvious.

For example, decades ago I did a YTS in a firm of accountants. After a work event a graduate trainee gave me a lift home. I was only 16 and after a couple of cinzano's was a little worse for wear.

He drove to a deserted spot and said he was going to rip my knickers off and rape me because I was a prick teasing bitch.

I think there may be a disjuncture between what you think women are dealing with from a knuckle dragging minority and the reality of what women are actually dealing with from what appear to be clean cut regular guys.

To be honest Koko, it's not possible to be on MN and not understand exactly what you are talking about. I'm happy for you to join in here. But one of the things that is a struggle is the next bit - what to do about it. It reminds me a bit of the discussions in other places about terrorism and the Muslim community. There's a certain type of person who will just say 'It's a problem for Muslims to sort out. Why aren't they fixing it?' Ask them how though, and it gets a bit vague. Terrorists don't sit in the middle of the mosque with their build-a-bomb kits and maps.

To be honest Koko, it's not possible to be on MN and not understand exactly what you are talking about.

This. And what to do about it is indeed the hard bit. And that's not a way to wriggle out of it. It really is the hard bit. Strategies, language, tools. I've managed a workplace, and there are things you can do - setting standards, training people so they discuss and understand the standards, making sure you maintain a professional distance from your line without becoming inaccessible, which helps you avoid the issue of male managers going boozing with the men and excluding the women, stopping men talking over women in meetings, treating complaints dispassionately but sympathetically and dealing with them quickly and clearly and so on. But in the world outside work, in the common areas we share with the rest of humanity, it's less easy. And inside the family it can be really difficult, because you think you know what's going on but sometimes you can be completely blind.

No one should intervene with a bunch of drunk marines in a bar going on deployment, but maybe we should if we see something on the bus, on the train or in the street. But I don't see it. Abusers don't abuse in public.

On thing we could do is challenge thoughtless "banter", and that's where the right language and the right approach is necessary. I'm serious about being non-confrontational. Confrontation can escalate into being part of the problem. So, tools. Strategies. Language. How? How do I challenge three young lads on the train, each twice my size and a third of my age?

I'm a woman but just want to say thanks for discussing this chaps, the change needs to come from men.

This is the sort of thing we and the poor women who experience it are up against. A pair of lesbians attacked on a London bus by a gang of lads between the ages of 15 and 18.
If it was up to me, those young men would each be put in prison for ten years. This didn't happen when I was a lad.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-48555889

Well, if men aren't doing the changing, it just ain't going to happen, is it?
Reminds me of the cry from the podium at climate change conferences:

Who wants change?
WE DO!
Who wants to change?
Ermm....wellll..

fwiw, there's a few contexts that I think is useful to get one's head around the basis of the abusive behaviours : nothing earth-shattering but I've found useful to hang things on.

relative value - that some people are assessed by boys and men that some people are of more value than others, and thereby the 'less value' ones have fewer rights and less protections. Opposing sports fans, differing skin coloured people, and every other characteristic available, plus money and status.

dehumanising - that evergreen one, that takes relative value to the very lowest point, and removes any rights, including right-to-life and and bodily integrity.

permission - that as a result of these things men will give themselves the permission and reasoning to take and do what they want.

lack of victim hood - that many many men just fail to see themselves ever as victims in any sense, and so struggle to develop the emotional response of 'empathy'.

How about if men stopped watching porn?

Pan, any suggestions are welcome to move the discussion on, but I admit I'm struggling with that list. Thake this;

lack of victim hood - that many many men just fail to see themselves ever as victims in any sense, and so struggle to develop the emotional response of 'empathy'

I'd have said the opposite. If you read some of the more incel-type subreddits, a lot of blokes see themselves as victims. They think society doesn't value them, because they are poor, unattractive, short etc etc. It's a huge pity party. I don't know that they are necessarily a danger though. They seem very socially awkward, and just about the last people who go outside, never mind approach women or girls.

As for the rest of your list, could you help me out? I get the principles, but how does that lead to direct action? Outside of trained behaviourists, how do you recognise these things, or indeed do anything about them?

Grownupbeans, okay. I think porn needs to be banned. I think it's detrimental to mental health. Saying 'don't watch it' is a bit like saying don't steal. If stealing was legal, that just makes the option available to more people who might not otherwise partake. So, petition the government and make it illegal. And while you're at it, what about violence in mainstream movies. Do we need Bruce Willis or Arnie with sawn off shotguns putting foot wide holes in people's chests? What positive things cabin that possibly lead to? Would you add it to the list?

I agree porn should be banned, it's detrimental to everyone involved. But unless the internet is regulated it will always be available. The Bruce Willis/Arnie films aren't my cup of tea - but I'm not sure there's much evidence linking them with real life harm (I might be wrong on this)?

I was wondering what men can do to change the culture around porn. Would they call out a friend? How to educate teenagers? That sort of thing.

@GrownUpBeans

I agree porn should be banned, it's detrimental to everyone involved. But unless the internet is regulated it will always be available. The Bruce Willis/Arnie films aren't my cup of tea - but I'm not sure there's much evidence linking them with real life harm (I might be wrong on this)?

I was wondering what men can do to change the culture around porn. Would they call out a friend? How to educate teenagers? That sort of thing.

There are things that are illegal now that are not available on the internet. Hard drugs, weapons, illegal porn. All you have to do is change the law. Access to illegal stuff means prosecution if caught. That would stop the vast majority of porn consumption. Just change the law. I'm surprised that you think watching violence isn't as detrimental though. If depicting sex leads to sex crimes, it stands to reason that depicting violence would lead to violent crime.

It's also cuts the problem off at the root. If these things are illegal, men don't have to do anything. Problem solved, or at least hugely decreased. And anyway, do you really want men talking to your kids about porn? Just get rid.

I don't think porn will be made illegal unless public opinion shifts. Hence interested in how much men who are anti porn make their views known. Obviously not suggesting they start up random conversations with teenagers. But what men say to their sons and to their friends. And what they think should be taught in school. etc

Regarding film violence, film censors are tougher on sexual violence than violence or sex separately. There's some interesting stuff on the BBFC website about how sexual violence seems to be more toxic.

It does need to come from us, but I see a couple of issues

Firstly, by nature of this site, you’ll only really get men posing here who are aware, see it as a problem and want to help. As others have said, we won’t hear from those who do it.

And secondly, probably related, I don’t think many of us will have friends who do this. We see a lot on here that you judge a man by his company (dont disagree) so I we probably don’t surround ourselves with men who do this. That means we’re not in a position to call it out as a friend when we see it, and calling it out as a stranger is likely to lead to a kicking

www.traffickinghubpetition.com

notbuyingit.org.uk/take-action-prostitution-2/

Signed x2

Signed.

I think there are a number of reasons men are violent towards women. My dad was one of the nicest people you'd ever meet, till he had some whiskey in him, then he'd use my mum as a punching bag. It went on for years until one night he came close to killing her. He never touched drink again after that night and didn't raise a hand to my mum again either. Wierdly though, no matter how angry and drunk he was, he never once touched us kids. I've always wondered about why that was.

Oh well. It's a pity this fizzled out. I guess there just aren't enough people passing through here to make for much of a discussion.

The problem with saying that NAMALT can't be used is it takes away the part of the discussion that you don't like. (it does however detract from the discussion but proves a point with name calling)

That aside

In order to tackle male violence it would require a complete rebuild of society, from how children (male and female) are brought up to the deifying of stars (movie, sports etc.) that get away with this and other things because they are stars.

And a whole load of issues in-between. Including the romanticising of the 'bad boy' image.

And you would also have to tackle violence as a whole, otherwise it leaves far to many holes for people to divert and distract the discussion.

I take NAMALT with a pinch of salt now. I know it isn't me doing the headline stuff related to violence and assault. But I'm prepared to look at my behaviour in other areas. I aim to treat my interactions with women the same as those with men. So that includes manners and physical contact. I also treat the 'Men, sort it out!' attitude in a similar manner. I don't screech at the nearest Muslim if there's a terrorist attack somewhere, because I can see the difference between an individual and a group. In both cases, sometimes people say these things in anger and frustration. Sometimes they have ulterior motives.

There was a documentary on tv this morning about the Iraq war. You had young men on both sides willingly walking into situations where loss of life and limb was pretty likely. They saw and heard some awful things. Those that aren't harmed physically are damaged mentally. If you want people prepared to enter these situations, there are going to be some pretty nasty side effects within society.

JurgenKloppsCat

It should be taken with a "pinch of salt" but at the same time the use of the term "thin skinned" shows that the problem is endemic.

An insult used to against those that don't hold the same views. in the second post by the OP isn't helpful.

And this isn't just going down a rabbit hole, but going down a mine.

From 'boys will be boys' to the stereotyping of what men and women are by those that are enforcing gender descriptors on to people.
It is a part of the whole problem.

We need to be bringing up boys to be able to show their feelings and not bottle them up whilst continuing (in the case of some countries start) to bring up girls to know that they can do anything they want.

We also need to show boys that there is a place for them in the world where women's rights are (and should be) continuing to evolve.

I'm a lazy sod. So when I encounter a problem, I can either go around the houses and rack my brain to come up with an original solution, or I can go looking for someone who has already solved the same issue. Option 2 wins every time. So who in the world is closest to minimising the issue of violence? (I don't think it can ever be removed entirely). There's an interesting article here;

carnegieendowment.org/2018/11/19/why-are-some-societies-so-violent-and-can-they-be-made-safe-pub-77749

I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts.

But isn't this what is already happening?

Its predominantly male violence so males should solve it.

It tacks along with 'we get the government that we deserve'.

We shouldn't be looking for others to come up with the solution.
We should be putting aside our differences to come up with a solution.

Sorry I've not responded sooner - just...stuff!

JKC - I think I can help you out, where requested: I did indicate that what I was saying were things to 'hang thing on'. By that I meant as sort of totems. So the relative value, and othering explains Why people discount other people (here women and girls) and thereby provide a thought process to justify doing certain things. When questioning other;s behaviours, things like that give an assistance to them to explain to themselves why they do these things. And obvs the murder of Sarah Everard is the extreme consequence.

A more prosaic e.g. - I knew a DVer who left crumbs under the sofa deliberately to see if wife cleaned properly. If she didn't, he would beat her. She had no value over above being a domestic appliance for him to control. It's quite hard to challenge with 'just don't do it' - it usually needs a basis, and relative value/othering does that.

Isn't what already happening? Of course most places have a government, but what makes for an effective one? What makes for a society where violence is minimised? What would take the UK from the current situation to one that was most closely aligned with the least amount of violence possible? And then what actions are those countries taking to make things even better?

It is predominantly males that commit violent acts. But then most governments are male dominated. So I don't see this as passing the buck. As a very simplistic view, the more equal a society, the happier it tends to be. Equality of opportunity, distribution of wealth, access to services, education, healthcare. All of these things help to create a better place to live. You mention coming up with a solution. That goes back to my point earlier - do you reinvent the wheel, or do you put into practice ideas that are already working?

@Pan2

Sorry I've not responded sooner - just...stuff!

JKC - I think I can help you out, where requested: I did indicate that what I was saying were things to 'hang thing on'. By that I meant as sort of totems. So the relative value, and othering explains Why people discount other people (here women and girls) and thereby provide a thought process to justify doing certain things. When questioning other;s behaviours, things like that give an assistance to them to explain to themselves why they do these things. And obvs the murder of Sarah Everard is the extreme consequence.

A more prosaic e.g. - I knew a DVer who left crumbs under the sofa deliberately to see if wife cleaned properly. If she didn't, he would beat her. She had no value over above being a domestic appliance for him to control. It's quite hard to challenge with 'just don't do it' - it usually needs a basis, and relative value/othering does that.

Interesting re the justifications aspect. The DVer who leaves crumbs must have an internal explanation as he inflicting harm. But how many of these men would ever consider mentioning their activities in casual conversation? These guys don't just take a chair at their desk in work in the morning and start telling someone that they beat their wife last night, because they know just how wrong it is. They know that they will be met with incredulous looks, horror, anger. It just doesn't happen. People know the difference between right and wrong. They know the rules of our society. But they do it to satisfy some horrific internal need. Why? Someone on here mentioned a brother who is their polar opposite - hateful, racist, angry. And this is someone who was raised in the same household by the same parents. So what is it - biology?