White Ribbon Campaign - Do any of the male posters support this ?

[Blistory]

Given that this is high profile following on from the horrible Roast Busters stuff going on in New Zealand, I was curious to see if this campaign really generates any attention in the UK.

White Ribbon

This campaign has linked up to organise a Reclaim the Night March in York. Reclaim the Night is a specifically female only event - that's the point of it. The York event will NOT however be a women only event because this campaign is involved. I am VERY uncomfortable with this. So tbh no I'm not convinced by the campaign.

Blistory a while ago - I read about the change in definition adding words to action in DV/DA

After an interesting discussion here, I realised I had been a long time victim of Domestic abuse. While in its way surprising and while still serious, I didn't then and still don't now think it as serious as women being knocked about by inadequate men.

If you want to run a campaign about the largest victims of male violence - it is then, of course, men who are the most frequent victims.

If you want to run a valid campaign against male violence against women, why go on and push the change in definition.

It is far and away men who are violent to women (and while the verbal stuff is serious the broken bones, hospital admissions and deaths might be a better area of focus) rather than the other way round.

[As an aside, I gather physical attacks on men by women are increasing and the proportion of family annihilators that are women is also rising; which means nothing compared to the number of male perpetrators on female victims]

Whole thing strikes me as a bit of attention seeking by some men who want to seem right on.

It's really not. In our NHS area, the events are being organised by the (all female) GBV team in conjunction with men's health groups. It's very much seen as a partnership, recognising that violence against men does exist - and although nowhere near to the same level it isn't helpful to say that it's just attention seeking

JFC, it's says "Violence against women"

Keep it as violence (not words) against women (not men) otherwise it's let's all be nice to each other.

What says Violence against women?

We're having something a bit similar over in Dadsnet on one or two threads - quite a few male posters wishing to 'throw a blanket' over all inter-personal violence and say "Oh it's all so awful, we shouldn't highlight one dynamic, lets tackle it overall." So how exactly are you going to do that?

Well, that just isn't good enough, chaps. That approach utterly ignores any analysis of how any of it happens and pretends it's all the same in dynamic, intensity, consequence, repetition etc. We can be inquiring of all sorts of socio-economic issues, physical geography, astronomy, chemistry, best way of making a cup of tea etc. BUT mention any analysis of Domestic Violence as a gender issue, it's "wah fucking wah - it's all dreadful, stop talking about it and certainly stop doing anything about it about from talking quietly amongst yourselves."

In MN parlance it really boils my piss.

I'll be supporting the campaign.

oh and thanks Blistory for commencing this. I've been out of touch recently with folk who would have raised this with me and it would have passed me by.

Ah Pan, a lone voice in the wilderness, it would appear.

I must confess I'm surprised, not at the lack of awareness, but at the complete rejection of the campaign by some male posters. I genuinely hadn't realised that even a relatively soft approach by other men to recognise the harm men can do as a class would be so vehemently opposed.

Thank you to all for responding and respect to the two (?) posters who can see the point.

I agree with you too, Blistory. Having a small break from arguing with derailers and watm's here. For my health.

Thanks, too, pan. I'm a firm believer in naming the problem of gender violence.

What says violence against women?
Err, the site
"Most men are not violent towards women, but many of us ignore the problem, or see it as something which doesn't have anything to do with us. We need to join women and women's organisations in taking action to end the problem."

"Whole thing strikes me as a bit of attention seeking by some men who want to seem right on." OMC

Wow, anything to undermine and deflect comes to hand there, doesn't it? Attention-seeking, yes. Attention to a dreadful activity that compromises the quality of life for a large proportion of the female population. The the more effective because it comes from men. Some men may think it's the PC/right on thing to say, but to actually invest time and energy to contribute to such a campaign leaves that sort of cynical view where it belongs. Unless you want to cling onto it?

Yes I kind of made assumptions about male posters on MN over the years, who are just about all dads and some with daughters. But recently a bit of scratching of surfaces has dispelled those assumptions.

Enjoy the break Sabrina. I had enough a while back and had to stay away to stop being overwhelmed by how bleak things seem.

Looks like a positive idea to me, I don't understand why people would question its worth on the basis of it being selective in its parameters, seems rather bizarre, like complaining about dolphins being left out of 'Save the Whales'.

"quite a few male posters wishing to 'throw a blanket' over all inter-personal violence"

Its the same in any group.
"violence against women" is a blanket term.
some campaign against DV whilst some campaign against rape.

others campaign against violence against women. IMO none of them are wrong.

This is rather the point - the campaign isn't focussed enough - the DA/DV. I'm no apologist for violence against women; rather the opposite.

The tenor of the campaign seems odd, to me - and I was asked did I support it. No.

It's there to be supported or not, but I'm pleased that it's been taken up here by the GBV team and the men's health groups here.

Hands are quite important here I think. Hands - we can sit on them. Or wring them together in the face of the enormity of it all. Or use them to cover our eyes.

Or we could use them to access the site shop and order at least one ribbon for a paltry amount, and then use them to put it on our jackets. Then when someone asks what it's for (and they will), our mouths can take over.

Well, I am wavering now. I read Albert's post on the previous page, and I kind of get the focus on a particular section of DV. You have to start somewhere, I guess.

It does feed into some of the prejudices and views within feminism that I don't like, but fundamentally it recognises a problem that is out there. But someone else asked a pertinent question - what is the ultimate aim?

'Raising awareness' is an odd phrase in this context. As 100 people on the street what is meant by domestic violence, and I am sure you will not get a single 'don't know'. Most will probably say 'man hitting woman'. And as someone else said, you aren't going to get many wife-beaters signing up. Nor, contrary to what some here might believe, do men chat about punching their wives/girlfriends over coffee and a fag. I am not saying 'don't run the campaign'. I am asking 'what will it achieve'?

Well, presumably if they're interested in Take Back The Night, for example, some men might be promoted to examine their reflexive victim blaming when it comes to sexual violence against women. Let's face it, they sure refuse to listen to/engage with women on the topic, so maybe some leadership from other men is necessary?

Not all take back the night marches allow males.

What is the point? what will it achieve?

People have to start somewhere on their awareness. And I don't mean in a linear way, just being prodded to think a bit more broadly, and how the 'dots join up' on wider issues. If you think something doesn't affect you, or you are not part of a problem, it's easy to switch on then tune out.
One very effective way to start a conversation is by a visual cue eg badges, banners etc, which get people curious, eg my first cue to wear on my person was this in the mid/late 70's. People not into music or 'social issues' were curious and asked about it.

Yes Biggedy there are some bits about feminism that we all don't subscribe to, but that fact needn't separate men out from the issue in hand - otherwise it looks like a cop out, tbh
Apocalypse - I'd think leadership shown by men is utterly essential, and would at the very least be an accelerant. There's a fab clip from a man I've used a few weeks ago at a seminar in leadership that crystalises for me the responsibility for the Y chromes amongst us. It;s done the rounds in the past few months but it's prob worth posting if anyone has missed it and sees a male leader authentically stepping up,

I think there is a bit of reluctance amongst some feminists to actually 'allow' men to take a lead on this, perhaps through mistrust or a feeling that a grip on the 'agenda' is slipping.

"there are some bits about feminism that we all don't subscribe to, but that fact needn't separate men out from the issue in hand - otherwise it looks like a cop out, tbh"

I agree

"I'd think leadership shown by men is utterly essential, and would at the very least be an accelerant."

Again I agree

"I think there is a bit of reluctance amongst some feminists to actually 'allow' men to take a lead on this..."

Most definitely agree.

Not all take back the night marches allow males.

For excellent reasons. But that wasn't the point I was making. The point is, that there is a hard core of men who blame women for sexual violence perpetrated against them and they're unreachable to women's activism. Of this campaign can speak to these people, then the focus is valuable and achieves something women can't.

Having said that, I actually agree that women shouldn't be trying too hard to recruit men in all cases for support. Because this will mean compromise of aims and women being forced to earn cooperation. Men should be feminists because of the justice of the cause, and if that doesn't convince them, they're as bad as the rapists and the MRAs and the apologists and the harassers.

I don't get some of these arguments against it. Does the pink ribbon re breast cancer imply that lung cancer is hunky-dory? Does the blue ribbon re human trafficking imply that wildlife trafficking is okay? No reasonable person thinks so.

I don't understand being egalitarian in a world that is fundamentally not egalitarian. The whole pink ribbon thing arose because funding for breast cancer was woeful compared to diseases that primarily affect men. Calling special attention to certain things is what you do when they're not being addressed seriously enough.

"ending male violence" is, sadly, meaningless. That means ending war, dictatorships, terrorism, drug cartels, mafias everywhere, etc and so on.