Another opportunity for non-violent discussion of gender violence

[omega minimo]

“For us to have any hope of truly preventing not only extreme acts of gender violence, but also the incidents of rape, sexual abuse and domestic violence that are a daily part of millions of women's and girls' lives, we need to have this conversation. And we need many more men to participate. Men from every level of society need to recognize that violence against women is a men's issue.”


We are ready DU, to discuss the topic and not to pick away at each other. This article from Counterpunch offers great food for thought and a different angle on the subject of gender violence-- a male author comments on how overlooked the fact of gender based hate crime is.

This invisibility has been brought up often on DU. It disappears in flamewars between those willing to see it and those insisting if they can't see it, it doesn't exist. Donsu introduced the article on a thread that got ginormous-- bulked up with some familiar repetitive hysteria that obliterates discussion of the topic.

The logjam of flames may have run its course. DU can handle the concept: "Men from every level of society need to recognize that violence against women is a men's issue." Violence against women is also inextricably entwined in the violence of war and violence against the planet.

Violence against women because they are women -- the definition of a hate crime -- is a fact of life, of ALL our lives. This author says "we need to have this conversation."

Are we ready to look at different snips, actually read the article and discuss what is being said-- in this case coming from a man?

:thumbsup:

Jackson Katz is the author of "The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help" (Sourcebooks, 2006).

http://www.counterpunch.com/katz10112006.html

Coverage of "School Shootings" Avoids the Central Issue: Gunning Down Women
By JACKSON KATZ

In the many hours devoted to analyzing the recent school shootings, once again we see that as a society we seem constitutionally unable, or unwilling, to acknowledge a simple but disturbing fact: these shootings are an extreme manifestation of one of contemporary American society's biggest problems -- the ongoing crisis of men's violence against women.
<>
Just after the Amish schoolhouse massacre, Pennsylvania Police Commissioner Jeffrey B. Miller said in an emotional press conference, "It seems as though (the perpetrator) wanted to attack young, female victims."

***How did mainstream media cover these unspeakable acts of gender violence?

*The New York Times ran an editorial that identified the "most important" cause as the easy access to guns in our society.

*NPR did a show which focused on problems in rural America.

*Forensic psychologists and criminal profilers filled the airwaves with talk about how difficult it is to predict when a "person" will snap.

*And countless exasperated commentators -- from fundamentalist preachers to secular social critics -- abandoned any pretense toward logic and reason in their rush to weigh in with metaphysical musings on the incomprehensibility of "evil."

Incredibly, few if any prominent voices in the broadcast or print media have called the incidents what they are: hate crimes perpetrated by angry (_____) men against defenseless young girls, who -- whatever the twisted motives of the shooters -- were targeted for sexual assault and murder precisely because they are girls.

What is it going to take for our society to deal honestly with the extent and depth of this problem? How many more young girls have to die before decision-makers in media and other influential institutions stop averting their eyes from the lethal mix of deep misogyny and violent masculinity at work here?

************

C'mon DU, we can also stop averting our eyes "from the lethal mix of deep misogyny and violent masculinity at work here." There is no shame in looking honestly at that lethal mix. To do so is not an indictment of one gender in favor of the other. It is a necessary step to heal ourselves, our communities and our Mother Earth.

[Horse with no Name]

1. Most excellent.

K&R

[omega minimo]

2. Bless you

:toast:

[Horse with no Name]

I have to share a story

I was at the Goodwill a few weeks ago. There were 2 little boys talking. They were sitting at a table reading books while their parents were shopping. Both were very well behaved.
There was a REALLLLY annoying little girl that kept coming up and hitting the one little boy and running off. Methinks she was flirting,lol.
Anyway, one little boy asked him why he didn't just haul off and hit her back and the other boy said that he wasn't allowed to hit girls.
I really wanted to say something to this little boys parents because it was so refreshing to hear that.
When I was growing up, that was a standard reply. Nowadays...not so much.

[omega minimo]

7. You were in the right place at the right time

:hi:

[hfojvt]

32. you approve of this unequal treatment?

Couldn't that be part of the problem? It allows girls to behave badly towards boys with impunity. That a boy like this is likely to suffer mistreatment and violence (which you think is somehow funny because it is a twisted way of flirting (lol? - imagine how you would react to a boy who expressed his affections that way, this is like what Scott Adams said - man hits dog is not funny, dog hits man, that's funny. In the same way on Seinfeld, George lies to Marissa Tormey and she hits him in the face. Then he gets home and his fiancee finds he is lying and she hits him in the face. Men or males getting hit, particularly in the balls (see 'America's Funniest Home Videos') is always funny.)) He is not allowed to respond to this violence. Isn't that likely to build up rage and resentment, perhaps against an entire gender that he has suffered a lifetime of attacks from, until he finally snaps.

Last weekend where I work there was a young boy hiding in the bathroom from his cousin who had just gotten married and was trying to get him to dance with her. Some young girl, sister or cousin, was also yelling in at him, telling him how bad he was being. It reminded me of when my sister was a HS freshman and she was hiding in the bathroom because she did not want to dance with our cousin at his wedding. My sister got us all to back off by crying. The young boy does not have that option even in the 21st century. He was removed from the bathroom by his grandfather's threat of violence.

Finally I am reminded of Schopenhauer as Kung wrote, he "despised human beings and especially (AFTER (emphasis mine) some liaisons and frustrated marriage projects) women and yet throughout his life longed for recognition and a wife;..." ("Does God Exist?" p. 362) That hatred is learned more ways than one. In our culture, for men, the only acceptable emotion is anger, and so pain is converted into anger because it has no other outlet.

[omega minimo]

37. Seems odd, doesn't it?

Hello dear :spray:


"it is a twisted way of flirting (lol? - imagine how you would react to a boy who expressed his affections that way"

Generations of girls experienced boys "expressing affections that way" and -- despite the pain, abuse and/or humiliation-- were expected to endure as "boys will be boys" or "he LIKES you." Talk about twisted.

And in correcting these existing inequalities, there will be some messes along the way like this story. "Don't hit girls" is better than "girls are fair game" but it isn't an equitable solution. Maybe those parents aren't able to take another (non-violent) step and teach their children not to hit anyone. A progressive view might teach that child to look at the other one not as a girl, but a kid acting out. "Don't hit someone just because they hit you."

Maybe that little girl knows that men are still in charge in her world (and boys just for being boys) and it pisses her off. Like the cliche "angry white man" you invoked, the violence against her is built into the system and "s/he is not allowed to respond to this violence. Isn't that likely to build up rage and resentment, perhaps against an entire gender that s/he has suffered a lifetime of attacks from, until s/he finally snaps."

Maybe that little girl snapped. Maybe she was a kid having dinner with the family in that place while Tansy_Gold was being assaulted and everyone stood by and watched.

[hfojvt]

50. who is Tansy Gold? Another Kitty Genovese?

Just saying that my perspective is that it ain't always easy being a white male. The biological fact of the matter is at that age the girl could probably more than hold her own. As in the Peanuts cartoon when Lucy challenged Charlie Brown to a fight. Linus wondered why he did not slug her. Schroeder said 'Charlie Brown would never hit a girl.' and Charlie replied 'no, I was just afraid of getting beat up'.
The 'don't hit girls mantra' is pretty traditional, rather than some kind of progress. However, I am a person who often touts the values of the old traditions. Some of them, anyway.

[Horse with no Name]

38. You just had to be there

The little girl was flirting. She wasn't out and out slugging the kid.
She was just tapping him and running off giggling. Annoying. Absolutely. Violent. Not at all.
Most little boys don't like girls at that age--however, little girls like boys, so, to the one little boy, getting rid of the pest meant hauling off and hitting her back.
All children should be taught not to hit--not selective to boys.
It is something that isn't taught much anymore.

[hfojvt]

40. I was taught to

"never tease a weasel
the weasel doesn't like it
and it isn't very nice."

and

"I don't like spiders and snakes
and that ain't what it takes to love me..."

the MYOB principle may be more important than
'not hitting'. If hitting is not allowed that allows
carte blanche to the most annoying provacateurs who know
just how to push buttons.

[Horse with no Name]

41. Well I live in a very redneck part of Texas

where men beat their wives and "ole ladies" with regularity.
Seeing ONE little boy spout anti-violence towards a girl is a start.
Changing the world--one child at a time.
I was still refreshed to hear it. Piss on my parade all day long if you want, that is the world I live in. Luckily your world doesn't show violence to women.

[cally]

74. your post here scares me

are you so far into your cute sayings that you can't distinguish reality. I think I know what you mean in your last paragraph, and I'm sickened. I don't know what the little girl did and neither do you, but it is refreshing that anyone is told that violence is not allowed. I'll turn the cure phrase back to you: if hitting is allowed (in this case a child), then you will not allow the annoying provacateurs (a child in this case.)

[omega minimo]

75. When I read that

it seemed like hfojvt (one of the cool ones, btw) was at the point of another dilemma:

How do we teach children to use a non-violent approach and not automatically respond to violence with violence......

and also teach them to distinguish when someone is a Real Bully. Which is what I though hfojvt meant by "the most annoying provacateurs who know just how to push buttons."


IMHO FWIW

[hfojvt]

80. actually I was kinda the other way

That we are wrong to make physical violence the ultimate sin. Which is worse, to get hit on the arm, or to have somebody make fun of the way you walk, or to have somebody say to you 'you are ugly and your mother dresses you funny' and then a group of people laugh at that. As Queen said "there's many a way you can hurt a man, and bring him to the ground. You can beat him, you can cheat him, you can treat him bad, and leave him when he's down."

Bullies and tormenters are not always using or threatening violence. I am not sure what is sickening about teaching kids to leave other people alone. If one kid is pestered and pestered and finally hits another, I am not always gonna say the hitter is the bad guy. Who started it?

[omega minimo]

81. Point well taken. That's another way of looking at schoolyard society

I picked up before on your comment:

"it is a twisted way of flirting (lol? - imagine how you would react to a boy who expressed his affections that way"

and answered in #37:

"Generations of girls experienced boys "expressing affections that way" and -- despite the pain, abuse and/or humiliation-- were expected to endure as "boys will be boys" or "he LIKES you." Talk about twisted.... Maybe she was a kid having dinner with the family in that place while Tansy_Gold was being assaulted and everyone stood by and watched."


Maybe you're unfamiliar with the type of physically assaultive "teasing" that generations of girls have had to endure (ordered to by their teachers and/or families). Believe it.

That violent "teasing" ("it means he LIKES you") and the mindfucking that supports it is one way that the culture conditions children to male dominance.

See the connection? "Maybe she was a kid having dinner with the family in that place while Tansy_Gold was being assaulted and everyone stood by and watched."

This is how we are conditioned by society and our elders, "superiors" to accept "that's just the way things are" and then-- when women and men try to communicate about these realities on an open forum, some folks don't even SEE it.

There it is. We are not making this shit up. And yes, one thing does lead to another.

Your point (a different angle) is well taken. And this point about abusive "teasing" teaching boy and girls that boys have the right to humiliate and pound on girls and even get "twisted" reinforcement or praise for it, is part of the twisted conditioning we have all grown up with.


edit: correct "Point weel taken." :spray:

[Bonobo]

92. Here's my story:

I was at my Karate dojo assisting as an instructor. A 6 tear old girl came in and started telling/bragging to he teacher about she had used her karate on another kid during recess. She said she kicked a boy in the penis as if it was the "right thing to do". It's pretty clear the mother has instructed the daughter that this is what to do to protect against pervasive male violence...

So my question is, what place does this incident have in the debat? Is it okay that this 6 year old girl is already preconditioned to see boys as a threat and to target their penises as the culprit and the weak spot?

I want to bring both sides together on this and I remember Donsu's original thread with regret at my quick and dismissive response. But women need to bring up this issue with some sensitivity (as the OP of this thread did!) to the fact that it can be offensive to some men to be called or even considered "potential rapists".

Let's keep talking :)

[Swamp Rat]

3. Please take out the "white" from the "angry white men."

Men of many cultures and skin tones abuse and murder women worldwide. To reduce it to one so-called 'race' is to ignore a greater gender problem - men in general who commit violence against women.

Great thread,btw. :hi:

[omega minimo]

8. I know, SR, that jumped out at me too

And thanks :hug:

[Swamp Rat]

10. Makes me wonder why Katz put it in there.

It detracts from the rest of it - it is a distraction that hinders the discussion. Maybe Jackson Katz should go to Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or Mali, or China, or Somalia, or Sudan, or Ethiopia, or Papua New Guinea, or Brasil ad infinitum...

:hug:

[omega minimo]

11. Another cliche

Yeah, you're right. It detracts and I edited for (_____).

Angry blank men. :kick:

[alittlelark]

18. Color means nothing in regards to misogyny

It seems that soooo many have not yet reached puberty/ age of reckoning.

[AngryAmish]

48. Domestic abuse statistics vary by race

There is no causitive factor but the fact that it does vary by race probably means domestic abuse is more accepted in some cultures than others.

[melnjones]

4. k & r

That's all for now...i'm too tired to discuss.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Ok, Please Provide Us With Your Insights.

You framed the issue and posted other's words, and have asked for discussion of this topic. I couldn't find your views or suggestions on it however.

So where do you stand on this issue? What are your proposals for solutions? What are these necessary steps? What are your own feelings in response to your OP?

[alittlelark]

17. See post #6

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. Why? It Was Completely Irrelevant.

I think you erred in thinking I was talking to you. I was actually addressing the OP directly, and asking for their contribution to the context. Since 'Post #6' was not written by the OP it is completely irrelevant to my questions.

I figure if someone is going to post such a heavy topic of discussion and declare it to be so important to discuss, the least they could do is actually provide some, or any, insight into their take on the subject or solutions to the problem. I think the questions I asked were fairly valid ones, though I have yet to see the OP address them anywhere in the thread.

The questions for the OP were:

Where do you stand on this issue? What are your proposals for solutions? What are these necessary steps? What are your own feelings in response to your OP?

I guess we'll have to see if they'll be answered or if the OP was just done for the sake of "Hey! Look at me! I'm talking about women's rights and the wrongs of men again! I haven't put forth anything new or given any solutions, ideas or explanations as to my view even though I'm claiming the discussion is really really important but give me a bunch of recommendations anyway!"

[omega minimo]

39. Here's some insight for you: Nobody loves a bully

and no one is obligated to answer a bully's demands.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. Nice Drama. But No One's Being A Bully. They Are Simple Questions.

Where do you stand on this issue? What are your proposals for solutions? What are these necessary steps? What are your own feelings in response to your OP?

This isn't being a bully to ask such things so it is quite disingenuous to characterize it as such. In fact, I'm quite surprised with the seemingly serious tone of your OP that you didn't also provide your viewpoints on the subject. It isn't unreasonable to ask for your views on your own OP is it? Do you truly consider it bullying to do so?

I think it's a fairly responsible thing to do for a poster to provide their own insight into a heavily charged topic that they are requesting others supply their insight towards, don't you?

You started the OP for God's sake. Calling someone a bully because they asked what your stance on the issue was is pretty sad.

[omega minimo]

47. They are demands, not questions. No, thank you.

"I couldn't find your views or suggestions on it however."

That, apparently, is your problem.


"33. Why? It Was Completely Irrelevant. I think you erred in thinking I was talking to you. Since 'Post #6' was not written by the OP it is completely irrelevant to my questions."

"I figure if someone is going to post such a heavy topic of discussion and declare it to be so important to discuss, the least they could do is actually provide some, or any, insight into their take on the subject or solutions to the problem."

"I guess we'll have to see if they'll be answered or if the OP was just done for the sake of "Hey! Look at me! I'm talking about women's rights and the wrongs of men again! I haven't put forth anything new or given any solutions, ideas or explanations as to my view even though I'm claiming the discussion is really really important but give me a bunch of recommendations anyway!" "





Hey. Look at you. If you find others willing to take this crap and pretend it is "discussion" then bully for you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. No, They Are Clearly Questions. Why You Are Avoiding Answering Your Own

OP is pretty perplexing. I have demanded nothing. I have merely asked that you give your insights into your own topic of discussion. Take it and twist it however you want, but it is quite simply just a request for your viewpoint.

The fact is that you once again posted a heated discussion topic while claiming it's deep importance, yet completely failed to offer your own insight into the issue whatsoever. If you are going to post a thread on such a topic, the least you could do is offer your own take on your own request. Is it really so offensive to you that someone has asked you to do this? Do you not find it reasonable for you to do so? If this topic is so important to you, I'm certain you must have some opinions on it and details of how you feel the situation can be resolved, explored or what your feelings are as to its causes. Is it really some violation to ask from you what those things are, in your own OP? The fact I even have to argue this with you is immensely laughable in my opinion. I mean seriously, you post an OP declaring a topic that is so so important to get to the bottom of, yet refuse to offer your views on it for discussion. Talk about the epitome of irony.

Were you serious about discussing this topic? Or was this in fact just a "Hey! Look at me! I'm talking about women's rights and the wrongs of men again! I haven't put forth anything new or given any solutions, ideas or explanations as to my view even though I'm claiming the discussion is really really important but give me a bunch of recommendations anyway!"" type thread? I'm not saying it was, as only you can answer that.

[noamnety]

60. This comes across as bullying to me also

and it is a typical method of dominating/controlling a conversation (although I will admit to using it as a tactic very specifically one time on DU myself, and once on another forum a woman decided to go this route with me - I put her on ignore, in the end). The idea is to coerce another person into having YOUR conversation, demanding that they speak in response to your demands - and it is bullying because it attempts to use aggression as a means to manipulate their behavior.

The way the internet is supposed to work (imho) is that we each throw out bait. Others can accept or ignore the bait - or as one of my friends puts it, he throws stuff out there, and sees what sticks. We're supposed to have free choice in a forum to respond or not respond, depending on if we think we have something meaningful to add at the moment.

Ideally, conversations here should be a little like a quaker meeting or wedding in a way, where people have that time that they are allowed to talk if they feel moved to, but nobody demands that they do.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. Don't Care. They Are Simple Questions.

This isn't about asking anyone to have MY conversation nor is it about dominating anything. You can characterize it as whatever the heck ya want but the fact is that it is nothing more than a request from the OP to provide insight into THEIR OWN DAMN TOPIC.

I'm not asking questions that twist the OP into a discussion I want to have, I'm merely asking the OP for their own assessment of THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION THEY CHOSE TO HAVE.

I think it's ridiculous when someone posts a heavily debatable topic that is sure to cause some heated argument, but refuses to provide anything from their own viewpoint. Is it too much to ask that they do so? I wouldn't think so. I'd think it was the responsible thing to do. So once again, why you would think for a second that by doing so I'm attempting to 'Dominate' or twist the discussion into 'MY' discussion is quite an enigma, since all I've done is ask questions DIRECTLY related to the OP about how the person who POSTED the OP felt about their own damn topic.

Pretty damn clear cut, I'd say.

[noamnety]

64. Here's the difference as I see it

The OP asks an open-ended question for anyone who feels moved to respond. Maybe they have an opinion on how to fix things, maybe they don't. They're asking for interested parties to toss out ideas. This last series of posts, in contrast, seem more like an attempt to say "you have no right to ask these questions unless you meet a moral obligation that I have arbitrarily put into existence for you."

One is an open-ended invitation to any interested parties to discuss. The other is coming across as an angry demand at an individual, with an undercurrent that the OP is negligent in their "duties" (as if there are any) in starting a discussion here. They apparently haven't met your criteria for thread initiation.

[Annces]

65. Why don't you just let people start their own threads in peace

instead of trying to take them over for your own issues. I have seen you jumping on Omega's threads, and she asks you to go away, and yet you keep coming back.

[VelmaD]

66. awwwwww...let him stay...

in for no other reason than it's just so funny every time he accuses someone else of posting just to say "hey look at me!" *snort* You can't make shit up that funny on purpose. :rofl:

[omega minimo]

67. .

:rofl:




"Pretty Damn Clear Cut I Say. Who You Calling A Bully?"

[omega minimo]

68. "Don't You DARE Tell Me I Am Trying To Dominate!!!!!1!"

The OP insights you missed:

== "...a different angle on the subject of gender violence-- a male author comments on how overlooked the fact of gender based hate crime is.

== "This invisibility has been brought up often on DU. It disappears in flamewars between those willing to see it and those insisting if they can't see it, it doesn't exist."

--Like the insights you didn't see and insisted were not there And Damn Well Should Have Been!!

== "The logjam of flames may have run its course. DU can handle the concept: "Men from every level of society need to recognize that violence against women is a men's issue." Violence against women is also inextricably entwined in the violence of war and violence against the planet."

== "Violence against women because they are women -- the definition of a hate crime -- is a fact of life, of ALL our lives."

== "There is no shame in looking honestly at that lethal mix. To do so is not an indictment of one gender in favor of the other. It is a necessary step to heal ourselves, our communities and our Mother Earth."


Pretty Damn Clear Cut I Say.

====================================================
"I think it's ridiculous when someone posts a heavily debatable topic that is sure to cause some heated argument, but refuses to provide anything from their own viewpoint."

So far only you are "sure to cause some heated argument." The main insight of the OP was that DU can handle the concept and is ready to have the discussion. We're doing it.

[Quantess]

70. what's that barking I hear?

:boring:

[alittlelark]

6. Rambo et al have led us here.

in my opinion.

Macho virile men that always know the RIGHT thing to do, and are always adored by women who throw themselves at them....

Our society deems them superior. Men want to be them. Most are not. PS-Rambo et al is nauseating to most females I know.

The only way misogynistic violence will stop is if MALES (all of them) REFUSE to laugh at the jokes, stop going to the misogynistic movies, see women around them as being of the same gender as their mothers, sisters.... Basically, they need to GROW UP.

I am speaking as one who has been assaulted twice. One is still in prison in NM (TJ McGrath), the other is livin' free in Montgomery AL last time I checked.

[omega minimo]

9. Yeah, the images have gotten extreme

"The only way misogynistic violence will stop is if MALES (all of them) REFUSE to laugh at the jokes, stop going to the misogynistic movies, see women around them as being of the same gender as their mothers, sisters...."



I'm very sorry. Life experience makes this more than a theoretical discussion for many.

"I am speaking as one who has been assaulted twice. One is still in prison in NM (TJ McGrath), the other is livin' free in Montgomery AL last time I checked."

[alittlelark]

12. You need to understand that misogyny is a cross party issue

Many men here on DU are VERY uncomfortable w/ discussing issues of violence against women. On conservative boards it is laughed off and ignored.

Sadly, here on DU it is often shrouded and obfuscated.

It is a red/blue issue.

[omega minimo]

15. Yes

[snot]

13. Well done. I have to say, this issue seems to be the biggest blind spot

in the world.

[omega minimo]

16. Hidden in plain sight

:hi:
ty

[Nikki Stone 1]

14. K & R

:kick:

[tblue37]

19. Everyone who cares about this topic should read

Old Jules, Mari Sandoz's biography of her pioneer father. A major theme in the book is how women were devalued and violently abused on the frontier by their husbands, men who were not pathological. The men were simply acting within the norms of their patriarchal belief system, which were inculcated and upheld by their entire society.

Unfortunately, I believe that our society is being reinfected by these same values, by way of our debased political discourse and popular media. We had made some progress away from such general beliefs, but it is like the Red Queen's Race in Through the Looking Glass. You have to run as fast as you can just to stay in the same place.

[Tansy_Gold]

20. It's so easy to ascribe violence to pathology, but in reality

much of the violence against women is not pathological. Their abusers, rapists, killers are not psychopaths at all, but their fathers, boyfriends, husbands, etc. Often, these abusers believe, at some level, that their behavior is permitted by society, and often, it is.

I hesitate to post more, because I've already seen some familiar names on this thread and I don't want it to be hijacked. . . . . even here on DU, psychological "violence" against women seems to be tolerated.

A few months ago, I was verbally assaulted in a bar by one of my boyfriend's friends. The guy was very, very drunk and he always gets obnoxious when he's drunk. I tried to avoid getting into a conversation with him, but he was persistent to the point of shoving himself in my face and . . . . well, enough of that. At any rate, the conversation deteriorated to the point that I left the bar and he followed me out, screaming names at me that aren't permitted to be typed on DU under any circumstances and also threatening to beat me up. He is about 6'2" and 250 lbs; I'm a smidgen over 5 feet tall.

No one in the management at the bar said a thing to him about his behavior or even mentioned that the bar is part of a family restaurant and there were families having dinner there at the time.

I've only been back to the bar once since then, and only after making sure this obnoxious SOB wasn't there. This past Wednesday, however, he showed up after we had already sat down and ordered dinner. When he came over to offer his drunken and insincere apologies -- insincere because he has done this over and over and over -- and promises never to do it again, I just told him to leave me alone and never bother me again. But he insisted, and no one around us, not even my own boyfriend, told him to go away. Instead, *I* was told to politely accept the apology and "be nice."

Fortunately, his wife managed to get him away before he launched into one of his tirades. He was already drunk, and there was no way in hell I was going to tangle with him.

He's not a psychopath; he's perfectly normal. He doesn't stalk strangers because he knows that's sick and violent and not acceptable behavior. But even when sober, he sees nothing inherently wrong in his behavior beyond the fact that it makes him look bad . My refusal to be his willing victim makes him look bad, and he doesn't like that. See, it's my fault. "If you wimmen wasn't so goddamned touchy. . . . . "

Sorry. I really didn't intend to get suckered into this again.

Tansy Gold

[Jed Dilligan]

22. Just curious--what made him so mad?

It sounds like he's more than an obnoxious drunk.

I think it's weird when people contrast "psychopaths" with "family members." Everyone is a member of someone's family.

Also weird: bar/family restaurant that didn't 86 this clown? I've seen people 86'd from bars that are just bars for spilling beer. Either you live in a very tolerant place or the guy has some kind of weird clout (like, owning the restaurant).

I'm really surprised he didn't land up in jail for being that drunk in public and making threats!

[Tansy_Gold]

24. Yes, he is more than an obnoxious drunk

But no, he's not the owner of the bar/restaurant. He does spend a lot of money there, however, as do the members of his extended family. (I don't spend a lot of money there, so I'm not "worth" as much.)

What set him off that particular time -- not the first, by any means, but worse than others -- was a combination of factors, primarily spurred by the fact that I am intelligent and educated and openly liberal, and he is none of the above. Because of the comments and the context, I also suspect that there are sexual over/undertones. This is not a man I would EVER be alone in a room with.

He is also a man who would put the blame on any woman he harmed, and blame alcohol for any man he harmed.

He has already spent time in jail for DUI and has a suspended license. This does not stop him from drinking; he is opening defiant of the police as well as women.

He is considered a normal guy by most who know him.

[Nobody]

49. A normal but obnoxious guy

I'm with you on not wanting to be alone with a creep like that. He seems to have the Lord of Entitlement role down pat.

I'm not sure what the right thing to do with someone like that. He really does need to have his ego thoroughly stomped on and sent to Arthur Anderson to be shredded, preferably by someone small and female, but even that won't teach him a thing.

Hopefully you won't have to deal with him more than you have to. Civilizing the guy should have already been done.

On the other hand, if it were me, I'd have a hard time resisting the bait. See my post a little lower. He presents a scrumptious bait that my wiser self has to struggle to hold the barbarian self in.

[Tansy_Gold]

26. "Psychopaths" and "family members"

I think the distinction is made in the context of crime/violence.

We tend to think of "psychopath" (or sociopath) as one who is seriously mentally ill, who may not have a grasp of reality, who has no real control over her/his actions and/or sees those actions as normal and acceptable and necessary.

And while it's true that every psychopath is still a member of some family, so much of the violence perpetrated against women and girls is done by a member of their own family, and by someone who would not normally (sic) be considered a psychopath, we use the distinction.

Most of the women murdered in this country are killed by someone they know -- family member, boyfriend, husband/ex-husband. Their killers are overwhelmingly male.

Although more men are murdered in this country than women, most of the men are murdered by people with whom they do not have a family or intimate relationship, and most of their killers are male.

Of the men who are killed by women, many have been abusers or have instigated violence that escalates to killing "in self defense". Women who kill men in the context of abusive intimate relationships tend to be convicted at higher rates and receive longer prison sentences than men who kill women with whom they have had intimate relationships.

There are exceptions to the above, but statistically, the overwhelming percentage of violences is male-to-female.

About 30 years ago, a friend of mine killed his wife. All of us thought, because he had kind of a warped sense of humor and she was so quiet and unassuming, that he had been the aggressor. But it turned out that there had been a long history of "domestic disturbances," and it was the wife who was the abuser. The killing was not pre-meditated; it occurred when she attacked him with a large kitchen knife and in the struggle to get it away from her and protect himself, she was fatally stabbed. He served a brief prison sentence and did not appeal his conviction (manslaughter?? I don't remember the details) because he felt he was partly to blame for not making sure she got the mental health care she needed.

Tansy Gold

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. Excellent post, thanks for sharing.

When I read the story of your friend, it seems apparent that the reason that one co-combatant died and one survived is because one was physically bigger and stronger. There's little that can be done about that, but what can be done is to recognize that domestic violence is usually either untreated mental health problems or a cycle of escalating agression that culminates in violence or death.

[Lars39]

27. The police should have been called,

and your BF...grr...you might want to rethink that one.
You deserve much, much better,Tansy Gold.:hug:

[omega minimo]

42. Sounds like everyone's intimidated by that bully

"But he insisted, and no one around us, not even my own boyfriend, told him to go away. Instead, *I* was told to politely accept the apology and "be nice.""

Do you have the option to leave next time? Maybe your BF will need to choose b/w Drunken Abuser and you.

Thank you for sharing your story. Do you have support in your community?

[Nobody]

44. That's the kind of thing that pisses me off

Your story about the guy in the bar reminds me of a similar story that happened to me. Yes, this too was a bar and restuarant, and yes I DO like a little wine with my meal. Or whatever else I feel like drinking.

Lesson #1: Women over 21 who eat out at restaurants are allowed to order something with alcohol to go with meals.

Lesson #2: Women are allowed to be in all female groups. (Mine was a group of two.)

We were sitting in our booth waiting for our food to be delivered and sipping our wines. And talking about whatever it was that interested us that day. About 20 feet away at another table was a group of 4 guys I didn't notice until one of them wandered over to our table.

He sat next to me. "Do you mind if I sit down with you?"

Me: Yes I do mind. Go away." (I'm very direct. My friend was speechless. I was rude, mainly because he asked to join us AFTER he just sat down and sat WAY TOO CLOSE to me.)

Him: It's only for a minute."

Me: I said GO AWAY. (I can project. I've performed on stage. By now I've noticed his buddies silently cheering him on. I saw red. I made sure that everyone within 30 feet could hear me clearly. My friend was speechless.)

Him: (Slinking back to his table.)

My friend told me that she was embarrassed. We continued our conversation and I noticed that the guys were goading him to try again. Like I was even going to let him get that far.

Him: (approaching table.)

Me: I told you to go away.

Him: I just want to--

Me: (projecting voice out to 50 feet or more) I said I told you to go away and stop bothering us, and if you don't I'm going to MAKE A SCENE. (that last is loud enough for the entire restaurant to hear. Had he not slunk back to his table. I'd have called for a manager)

My friend was not amused. She was embarrassed at how I was handling this situation. What else was I supposed to do? Let the schmuck sit next to me, derail our conversation into one he chose, and touch me whenever he felt like it? Hell no! I explanined to my friend that nothing less than making a scene was effective with guys doing this on a dare, and I saw that he was doing this on a dare.

I do not appreciate being the subject of a dare. I also do not appreciate people refusing to take "no" for an answer.

Was I too harsh? I don't think so. If the guy politely waited for a "Yes, come join us." we might have allowed him to join us for a short while. But he acted like Lord Entitlement exercising Droit de Signeur, and that ends all consideration and politeness on my part.

By the way, Tansy, you don't owe that guy any kind of apology. Only the insincere kind that goes like this: I'm SOOOOO sorry your fragile little ego was crushed to smithereens by my tiny little no. That guy deserves to look bad. He might actually learn that other people don't exist solely for his lordship's pleasure.

[ThomCat]

46. For what it's worth, I think you handled that very well.

Your friend may be timid, but being timid doesn't protect anyone from overbearing assholes.

[Nobody]

53. Thanks. I'd do it again in a heartbeat

Being timid brings out more bullying, I've noticed. When you refuse to be intiidated, the bullying stops. I've also learned how a small, wimpy-looking woman can be as intimidating as a 6'5 guy built like a linebacker.

Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude is that women who stand up for themselves loudly are embarrassing themselves and the harasser gets ignored and forgotten.

[ThomCat]

54. There is an obvious double standard

and people love to blame the victim. I'm sure people felt bad for him that you were mean to him and didn't let him dominate your evening. How dare you turn away his attention!
x(

[omega minimo]

56. If a stranger barged in and sat in your personal space

you handled it perfectly, within your rights to tell him to back off.

You help your friend by showing her it is possible to be brave enough to be "embarrassed" and stand up for your self.

[distantearlywarning]

71. I hate that shit too.

That kind of thing is one of the worst parts about being a woman.

Guys are allowed to stand up for themselves, but women are expected to be "nice" and not "make scenes" (i.e., let other people manipulate you, especially men).

I can't tell you how many times in my life I stood up to someone trying to bully me and was told that my behavior was inappropriate.

One time I had a male roommate who got verbally agressive with me, and I got verbally aggressive back. My actions stopped the confrontation from going further. Later my boyfriend (who was in the room) chided me for not letting him "handle it". When I probed that statement further, it turned out he meant that he thought I should have cried or backed down and let him step up to take care of the other guy. In other words, be a victim so both of the guys could feel more masculine.

This was in the mid-90's. So much for feminism and equal rights.

So I get to have any job I want and wear pants, but I still have to appear helpless, nice, and give in to the random demands of men in public places? Fuck that.

I won't be a victim. And I don't care if my non-victim actions are embarrassing to others or make men feel inadequate. I have the right to defend myself, vagina or no.

[omega minimo]

72. After the self defense is conditioned out of women

then they need self defense training. Even saying "NO!" or screaming has to be re/learned..........................

[Nobody]

77. I just can't stand coddling fragile egos

And if I made that guy look bad in front of his buddies, I am unrepentant. I don't do helpless very well and I refuse to try.

We all have the right to defend ourselves, and for that reason I support martial arts training for as many as want to learn. The crap they tell you about looking behind every bush and holding your keys between your fingers is not effective in self defense, but makes it plainly obvious that you are afraid of your own shadow. Might as well wear a neon sign that shouts "I AM PREY. COME GET ME."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

90. Oh yes, the male ego, the precious little male ego

Funny how all these guys who fancy themselves so tough have egos of glass that shatter at the slightest show of strength from a woman.

I'd be much more sympathetic if all those men who told me to my face that I was "too smart," "too independent," "too tall," "intimidating" or "ungainly" had ever given a damn about my ego.

They get to insult me directly and I can't even just be myself in their presence, lest their egos crumble to dust? Not a fair bargain.

[Annces]

21. This subject is something we are all enveloped in

so it is hard to really get to the roots of it. I think that we grow up with the power relations all around us, and we adjust. Some people question it and try to change it. If you live in a certain system, you have to participate to an extent. Anyway, I know a lot of women also go along with a lot of BS, and that is my point. Just as one example, many women automatically give men the higher status because they see that is how the system is, regardless of whether it is true or not. They play the system.

There is a lot to this topic, but that is one thought I have on it.

[aikoaiko]

23. Thats the thing about katz, you have to edit him to make him palatable.

Whenever I read him or hear him talk, I have to qualify what he is saying in my head or place his words in better context than he is willing to do.

Male violence against women is quantitatively and qualitatively significant enough to warrant to its own discussion, but I also like to see it contextualized within the larger context of violence and sex. BTW. one of my pet peeves is the conflation of gender and sex. Most of the time Katz talks about men and women, which are sexes, but calls them gender and once in while talks about gender (i.e., masculinity and femininity). Its that type of sloppy thinking that makes me have to "translate" his work into something consistent.

Overall, I agree with his promotion of bystander intervention (not his idea, but he promotes it well) and think that violence of all kinds, including male violence against women, is best confronted by all. Confronting the small acts as well as the big ones will reduce the frequency of violence, but, of course, it will never eliminate it or reduce it to an insignificant level.

[Annces]

25. A little bit about Jackson Katz, the author

I found it interesting that he comes from the sports world, a very macho place. So he knows these macho men on the most personal level.


""Katz is a former all-star football player who became the first man at the University of Massachusetts Amherst to earn a minor in women's studies. He holds a Master's degree from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, where his research concentration was the social construction of violent masculinities through sports and media. He is currently a doctoral student in cultural studies and education at UCLA. ""

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. Here's what distresses me about this persistent conversation.

Many posters here have been the victims of violence or abuse. They make the case that their experiences are a result of a pair of mutually-exclusive phenomena;
a) the patriarchal society represses women systematically and promotes violent and demeaning behavior by men in general and,
b) right-thinking men are insufficiently chivalrous to defend the honor of defenseless women.

Am I the only one who sees the inherent contradiction?

Systemic western abuse of women is proven by either anecdotes of irrational drunks/psychopaths/perverts, 100 year old (often apocryphal) tales of female misery on the US frontier OR the suffering that women in other cultures experience.

I agree that gender equality is not here yet. Patriarchy, however, is a sword that cuts two ways - ask any father who has faced a divorce court.

Also, I think it is unrealistic for people to expect a stay-at-home dad helping his three sons with their homework to not take offense at the implication that they are responsible for the conduct of the nut who killed the girls in PA.

[Annces]

30. I for one would not hold you or any other individual man

responsible for what the man did to the Amish girls. I think it is valuable though to look at the whole subject of violence against women, with the case of the Pennsylvania man, a far extreme of the phenomenon, but also part of it.

There is a huge number of women who are beaten or killed by intimate partners, and this needs to be changed. One of the ways to change it, is to look at it from every angle, and understand what its roots are and what feeds it.

I don't see why some men consider these discussions a personal attack. You don't have to defend the whole male gender.

Also I am not so sure about the premise that men talking to other men about abusive behavior is going to have a big effect, unless it is used as a yardstick in fitting in or not. I mean, if a man that denigrates women in social discussions was ostracised by a whole group, then he would feel it. Whereas a single person calling him on it, he could just shrug it off.

Since violence against women is to a large extent a behavior that occurs in social circles or families, it is hard to get at.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

59. Yes, the attitudes of men who say "I'm not like that"

seem overly defensive, as if every time someone posts about a horrible racial incident, all the white people start jumping into the thread and saying, "But I'm not like that. I'm not racist." And I think people of color would be rightfully offended at such self-serving behavior.

"Why do you hate all men?"

I don't, and if the shoe fits, wear it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I ask you men of good will to help enlighten your fellow males, especially those of you who have sons. Teach them that women are full human beings, not their servants, not decorative items for their world, not property, and not convenient scapegoats for their own inadequacies.

[omega minimo]

36. "Patriarchy, however, is a sword that cuts two ways"

Yes, it seems the OP and replies here acknowledge that. "Patriarchy, however, is a sword that cuts two ways" is a good starting point for a "non-violent" discussion of gender violence.

The main point of this article IMO was that the M$M had many different ways to direct the public's attention regarding the Amish school shootings-- and none of them addressed the fact that his was a hate crime perpetrated by a male on females because they were female.


*

Do you really think that? "Many posters here...make the case...of a pair of mutually-exclusive phenomena;
a) the patriarchal society represses women systematically and promotes violent and demeaning behavior by men in general and,
b) right-thinking men are insufficiently chivalrous to defend the honor of defenseless women." ?

If you are referring to Tansy_Gold's personal story here, I thought she was relating how NO ONE in the bar or her family/social group spoke up about it. She wasn't calling for a "suffiiciently chivalrous" man-- but for someone in the bar to act like a human being and correct this brute. Even out on the street a stranger might have helped her somehow.

Condoning his behavior (by inaction) allows it to continue. The "patriarchal society" is inside the bar and even out on the sidewalk, where women "know their place." There seems to be no "mutually exclusive" problem with your point that "Patriarchy, however, is a sword that cuts two ways."

"

"Systemic western abuse of women is proven by either anecdotes of irrational drunks/psychopaths/perverts, 100 year old (often apocryphal) tales of female misery on the US frontier OR the suffering that women in other cultures experience."

May I ask if you see this as irrelevant? You need something to be "proven"? Something you doubt the existence of? Would it help if women told you that "systemic western abuse of women" is a part of their daily lives? And the lives of men as well, under the "sword that cuts both ways"?

If we don't start from a point of acknowledging the existence of "systemic abuse of women" then we have a problem. That is one reason I raised the article again-- it is a good opportunity to acknowledge it for those who may not accept that it exists. (OP: "If they don't see it, it doesn't exist.")

*

"Also, I think it is unrealistic for people to expect a stay-at-home dad helping his three sons with their homework to not take offense at the implication that they are responsible for the conduct of the nut who killed the girls in PA."
 
Thank you for being here, LJJ. It will help a lot if you can tell us where in the thread you find "the implication that they are responsible for the conduct of the nut who killed the girls in PA." No offense is intended.

The last paragraph of the OP is about simply looking at these matters honestly and the reasons it is important to do.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. Finding a non-combative way to have this conversation...

... is a good basis, but don't underestimate how hard it is.

Condoning his behavior (by inaction) allows it to continue.
If his behavior was illegal (and it sounds like it was) then someone should have called the police, imho. Generally speaking, it's not the job of bystanders to enforce politeness through direct confrontation. If I, as an uninvolved bystander, were to confront participant "A" in a disagreement solely because participant "B" was a woman, then I'm a part of the patriarchal system - my intervention is predicated on the assumption that the woman is not up to the task of disagreeing with a man. A confrontation which appeared likely to degenerate into violence would cause me to call the cops, regardless of the genders of the participants or who the more belligerent party is.

Either I assume that women are my peers or I assume that every woman in a disagreement with a man is someone who needs my help. I don't see a middle way. This is why it cuts both ways.

May I ask if you see this as irrelevant?
If you don't see why tales of the american frontier or anecdotes of oppression in Afghanistan have limited value in how/why to change 21st century US society, I don't know what to say. I'm honestly willing to listen to personal experiences of oppression in this society, but those discussions always, and I do mean always, veer off into the discrimination faced by GBLT people, pre-suffrage women, or genital mutilation in Somalia, and how white US men must have the responsibility to fix everyone else.

The tragedy in Pa has been used relentlessly here to serve as a disproportionately broad brush against a systemic misogyny. They say that the first reaction of a drunk is denial. Unfortunately, it's also the first reaction of a not-drunk.

Thank you for the rational, non-combative response. There have been previous OP's prior to this one decrying men's failure to dissuade crazies.

[omega minimo]

73. I see the dilemma you find yourself in

"If I, as an uninvolved bystander, were to confront participant "A" in a disagreement solely because participant "B" was a woman, then I'm a part of the patriarchal system - my intervention is predicated on the assumption that the woman is not up to the task of disagreeing with a man."

And in this case, doing something is better than nothing (which the majority of folks are capable of doing: nothing):

"A confrontation which appeared likely to degenerate into violence would cause me to call the cops, regardless of the genders of the participants or who the more belligerent party is."

So you have a common sense handle on it. And yet maybe there is a "middle way." What if we look at the situation and consider the actions rather than the gender or social status involved?

Some women and men hold a door for someone out of courtesy and not gender. Some folks notice someone in need and move to help and some continue on their way.

There are subtle ways to help in an abusive situation. It doesn't have to be a confrontation "HEY YOU! FUCKHEAD! CUT OUT THAT SHIT!"

Years ago a man had a little boy backed up against a pillar at an amusement park, bellowing in the child's face. That boy would be around 20-30 now-- maybe he's a DUer.

His father kept screaming and yelling, leaned over with his face inches from the boy he had trapped against the pillar. On and on and on and on. No one was helping, no one was moving to help the child or calm the father.

I went and leaned on the other side of the pillar. I didn't look at them or say a word. I was just there. My physical presence was enough to bring the father out of his homicidal rage after about a minute, as he became aware of where he was (in public) and what he was doing.

And it stopped. For the moment.

In Tansy_Gold's story, a manager could have approached and provided a distraction or a deft waitre/ss could have maybe stuck something on the table to break the tension between them and distract the drunken lout.

"Generally speaking, it's not the job of bystanders to enforce politeness through direct confrontation."

We are not talking about "enforcing politeness" -- we are talking about preventing abuse. Unfortunately, the scene as described is one where that sort of behavior is condoned, supported and considered "normal."

That is the sort of hellhole that some women live in -- and many women some version of it every day -- and the sort of nightmare that women have experienced for centuries.

Which is one reason those old stories of our mothers and sisters may come up and mystify you. The connection is this: the condoned and "normalized" behavior has been reinforced and supported down the centuries. And THAT is why SOME men don't see what we are talking about.

Sometimes they don't see us at all.

[undergroundpanther]

76. I myself refuse to by-stand

I swore to myself long ago I will do what it takes to stop a situation in front of me. Because even if I die I can say to myself I TRIED. I saved my moms life when my father had a gun against her head.I helped a little girl who was being beaten by her father at the mall.I have threatened scared the crap out of a bunch of boys I saw chasing a cat, which they cornered in an alley and were going to beat to death when I was going to my poi class.. I try and my conscience can rest with that,I acted.. Nothing in this world is certain or a guaranteed success.But I can try.. Except one thing,which IS in my own power always,will I stand by my own conscience or not?.I choose to stand by my conscience.

And yes ,refusing to by-stand has gotten me into some shit,but ultimately it was worth it,for I could rest with myself after all was said and done..My own wrath at myself is far worse than what any bully could dish out.But than again I have faced torture.And I am not afraid anymore.What is my life worth anyway if it's selfishly lived in a fruitless race for self preservation in a body that will die someday anyways??

[omega minimo]

78. You go, UGP

:grouphug:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. Let's look at the "male escort" phenomenon

It is common for kindhearted men to escort women through areas perceived as dangerous, because they know that a rapist will not attack a women who is evidently being "protected" by a man.

The kinds of brainless lugs who taunt passing women with crude remarks and gestures have no hesitation about getting nasty with lone women or even groups of women, but they fall silent when a woman walks by with a male escort.

Women friends who have traveled in the Middle East report getting groped and hassled by local men--but not if they are in the company of a male relative.

A woman going to buy a car or furniture or any other big ticket item where negotiation is possible is likely to be quoted a higher than average price--unless she has a male relative or friend along.

What are these phenomena saying? As I think about it, it seems that the boorish, violent, misogynist types see women as property. A woman who is not obviously any man's "property" is fair game.

[Scout]

34. A woman who is not obviously any man's "property" is fair game.

I think this is an important point. It's one of the roots of the problem with patriarchy. People need to know whether or not you "belong" to a man so that they know how they will be allowed by society to treat you. It's part of the reason for the outward signs of marriage, such as rings, and women changing their names upon marriage and being labelled "Mrs. Him."

[raccoon]

91. Another problem with patriarchy,

most men think that any woman they can bed is fair game.

But if some other man beds their sister, or worse, their daughter...watch out!

[omega minimo]

35. 3/5 of a person? A non-entity? Invisible?

"What are these phenomena saying? As I think about it, it seems that the boorish, violent, misogynist types see women as property. A woman who is not obviously any man's "property" is fair game."

Insert here also the harmful media images that alter the society's perception of women and the behavior of men and women: images of women as Less Than men and valued based on their relation or relevance to men.

[The2ndWheel]

45. We attempt to control nature

Controlling humans is only the next logical step. Want to get rid of hierarchy? Get rid of civilization. Not willing to take that step? Then get ready to never see the end of the exploitation of all life.

http://www.counterpunch.org/engel08122006.html

[Karenina]

57. Thanks for that link!

[Hidden Stillness]

55. A Total, General Attitude of Bigotry

A whole mindset and attitude of hatred and contempt for women shows itself long before the stage of violence, and is generally denied every step of the way until then. Then, when it does happen, it is described wrong, the emphasis shifted, and for the official record, only by males.

Have you ever been talking with a mixed group, where the males are monopolizing the conversation, doing all the talking, and when a woman, (maybe yourself), asks or says something, the male you said it to turns away, doesn't even answer--like nothing even happened--and there is silence, until another one of them picks it up again, gets a response, (unlike you), and THEIR conversation resumes. Every women who ever lived has been similarly snubbed a million times. How many times has it happened: you say something, ignored, then they start talking with each other again? Why do they do that? Yet no male I have ever heard comment on it cares one whit how humiliated they make us feel. Maybe you make a comment and get the overly-loud, snorting laugh, "Oh, come ON!" treatment, as if you are just such an asshole.

Most males are such bigots that they don't even recognize, and will never admit, how completely slanted their judgments are. When Nicole Brown was stalked and murdered, the very FIRST comment I heard from a male family member was, I kid you not, "Well, she was probably a bitch." What do you THINK that makes us FEEL like?... When a male friend of mine at a job I used to have, was trying to get a date with a woman who already had a boyfriend, and the story started going around work, the way these things do with the people you know, and the friend kept trying, and she was friendly but said "No," every male I heard talking about this story accused her of "leading him on," when this was not even what was happening. She said she had a boyfriend, and this male friend kept trying for a while. Yet, according to males I heard talking about it, it was "her fault," "she started it." They had never even had a date. Then of course there are these male "experts on women"--they know all about why we act the (always stereotypical, as only males would describe it) way we do; yet we don't.

Sometimes male manipulators use pseudo-"psychology" to embarrass or intimidate women. All feminists have gotten the vicious "frigid," "lesbian," "you need to be fucked good," "you are so full of shit" (as I was told by a male who was just defended on another thread by another male as "nice" and "sweet"), "you don't know what oppression really is," and then they proceed to describe situations that are actually exactly like what women experience--targeted violence, censorship, lower pay for the same job, discrimination, no victories in the court system, etc.--except that it is being described about males.

Part of the problem is that most males do not really consider us their equals, and so fair treatment of us is not "ordinary" or "logical" to them, but instead is "an attack" on "their masculinity," "taking away their rights," (?), or of course, is just an annoying nuisance. So many are so deeply motivated by an egomaniacal "I am the knight who will rescue you (if you put out, that is)" fantasy-attitude, that they feel pissed off, offended, if they are not praised and praised, given a medal, every time one of them expresses even a lukewarm toleration of us. If we do not immediately praise and cheer them for any expression of "support," then they launch off on their "you militant feminist, no wonder males hate you," etc., routine. The whole point was they THEY be held up as the glory.

They also trivialize bigotry against us. I was just listening yet again to the "liberal" Keith Olbermann, who went over the story of Mel Gibson's "anti-Semitic" tirade, and...? No; nothing else ever even happened. The "other part" is never even referred to anymore; I guess we are just shit. (Waiting for the next round of "Who Gives a Fuck About the Dead Raped White Girl?" threads.)

Have you ever heard males that you know, singing along with violent and abusive, anti-woman lyrics, and grinning with hate? I have, and it is at once scary and infuriating. Their society, not ours. The whole male corporate media gets more and more violent, ugly, exploitive, and hysterical all the time, as I hope everyone has noticed by now. There is violence, suggestion of rape, and laughing at women victims, even during commercials now...and you don't know why we are angry? Where are the male marchers against male oppression of women?

Then of course, all the usual attitudes: if she was raped, "the slut deserved it/ was asking for it/probably liked it," "what was the bitch doing out at that time anyway," "why was she in a bar alone," etc., etc. None of them ever says, "Why did that prick attack her?"--and I don't mean, just to shift the blame onto some other (fictional) "bitch" either. I'll never forget the news story I heard about ten years ago, where a male was beating a woman, a girlfriend, in a shopping center parking lot, as people were walking all around, middle of the afternoon, telling her, "Nobody's going to help you, bitch." Nobody did. Most people think they would jump on it immediately and either call the police or attack the male attacker, and maybe most would. Yet over and over, you hear reports about how no one helps her.

FBI and Justice Dept. criminal profiles show that males who rape women have a consistent set of attitudes, which are generally, a real and profound contempt for women, vicious spitting hate, and desire to badly hurt and humiliate, etc., combined with a sense that they are not getting what they deserve in life, they are being "cheated," and that they are entitled. Put these things together, and you have a very angry male who blames women for what they themselves claim they do not have, and who are being supported by a violent male society, when they express this fantasized rage. Criminal profilers are finally now agreeing with long-term feminist studies that showed a link between phony "fundamentalist" "religious" violent male anti-abortion groups, and abusive males who beat women and children in their own families. Phil Donahue used to cover this issue a lot, and on one program I remember, there were statistics showing an extremely high percentage of anti-abortion, "fundamentalist" males had verified criminal backgrounds as woman-beaters, and abusers of girl children. One of the recurrent routines from males is "they are obviously insane," etc., which means "It ain't me, bitch," when really there is no such pattern at all. There is, though, a pattern of increasing hatred against women, and a society that supports it and also hates women.

The clearest story I ever read on this came from a rapist, who later developed a conscience toward the victims, and started helping with rape-groups, anger management/ take responsibility for the crime groups. This person, who had raped a woman, told of how the (male) police treated it, remembering that the male knew that the attack had happened, and was now lying to police. "I couldn't believe it. They believed everything that I said." The woman was treated as a liar, and the male rapist was treated as the "good one." These are life-long attitudes.

This reminds me of the case of Quincy, Massachusetts some years ago, reported on "60 Minutes." Their police department finally decided to get serious about battering and domestic abuse, after several cases where males who had been coddled, "poor guy/you're a good guy" and released, then murdered the women they had just attacked. They took a unique approach: they treated it as a crime. They believed the woman reporting the crime, as with all other crimes, and stopped pretending she was a "nuisance bitch," they arrested the male at the scene, rather than saying "Poor guy, we know how bitches are, go cool off somewhere," they prosecuted rather than TRYING to drop the charges, and they sought and got longer prison sentences, as if this were serious violent crime or something. I can't remember the statistics now, years later, but it was an tremendous drop, with very little of the kind of "revolving door" repetition, arresting over and over, letting out over and over, etc.--because at last they responded to the crime. It also increased, by the way, the number of women who left their abusers--both because, now that police were actually doing something about it, the women had time to get themselves organized and move out, and also because, for the first time., the women felt as if THEY were the ones being supported by the law, and that the MALE was the criminal. It gave them hope.

[noamnety]

61. Thank you for mentioning Olbermann in this context

He does an amazing job of pointing out the criminal actions of the Bush administration. But at the same time, it's also true that his attitude toward women is quite often not even remotely respectful, but rather focuses on objectification of women, and mocking those that don't hit some magic mark on his "fuckability" scale (witness his coverage of "the runaway bride").

[omega minimo]

62. The first time that happened, I was shocked

that two guys would own a conversation as if the two girls sitting there were invisible. Eye candy. Seen and not heard.

That invisibility (and the entitlement) is the gist of the conflict-- the challenge of helping people understand that everything you said (well) is true and it is in our common interest to deal with it.

The thing that makes some people see red is the inability to acknowledge the truth in your post without it being an indictment of all males. Your anger is palpable. Your courage in facing down abusers (trolls?) here is obvious. Your generalizations are valid.

And we are all swimming around in the same big fishbowl full of crap, which is where I try to draw attention to some common ground, if possible. Or point to the distinction between the societal forces and individual behavior. To encourage more men to face the truth in the generalizations with some perspective, not paranoia.

We all have bigotry in us and the first step in dealing with it is recognizing it. The system reinforces behavior and attitudes that DENY the subjugation of women. For many, esp. since the clock was turned back forcefully on the social progress of previous generations, it is a non-issue, a joke or a threat.

So much propaganda and brainwashing. Just as the current power brokers used "1984" as a template for governing, all the literature and studies documenting the truth of which you speak were turned around and used to undermine the fledgling "Great Society."

"Part of the problem is that most males do not really consider us their equals, and so fair treatment of us is not "ordinary" or "logical" to them, but instead is "an attack" on "their masculinity," "taking away their rights," (?), or of course, is just an annoying nuisance."

"Have you ever heard males that you know, singing along with violent and abusive, anti-woman lyrics, and grinning with hate? I have, and it is at once scary and infuriating. Their society, not ours. The whole male corporate media gets more and more violent, ugly, exploitive, and hysterical all the time, as I hope everyone has noticed by now. There is violence, suggestion of rape, and laughing at women victims, even during commercials now...and you don't know why we are angry? Where are the male marchers against male oppression of women?"

Walking down the street with cars rolling by pounding out lyrics about hos and bitches and fuck you. Commericals showing female corpses dressed up and face down in muck, ugly white guys poking at them with sticks. People we might be fans of like Jon Stewart or Olbermann making comments that show that women are still sort of Other appendages of men, an afterthought or even the butt of a joke.

To their credit, IMHO a lot of young people and some of the more -- dare I say -- hostile men here have really no idea how much they are being programmed by major media to undo the social progress of the past, to turn it upside down and turn society into a Lord of the Flies spectacle.

================

And that "men do the talking" thing? Happened at a MoveOn.org house party I attended in Jan. the week the 2nd stolen election was certified. THANK YOU BARBARA BOXER FOR HAVING THE COURAGE TO STAND UP FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

A group of about 45 people. A group leader (middle aged white male, former Repug scared by thugs in the state party and went Dem.) directing discussion (i.e the Man In Charge) and a group leader (nice middle aged middle class female) standing at an easel, waiting to put Post It's on it (i.e. the Secretary).

Maybe that's not such a Big Deal. Here's what happend though. It happened over and over again and was impossible to ignore.

During group discussion, the man called on people as they raised their hands. When males spoke, he responded to what they had said and he moved the conversation in that direction.

When females spoke, he looked at them and waited for them to stop talking and reverted the discussion to whatever track he had been on before.

PRETTY FUKKIN BIZARRE.

Here is a good example of some themes in the thread. How we behave in groups, how people "go along to get along." How, of the two faciliators, the man assumes control and the women is delegated to assistant to him. And how many noticed that? If they did, we're supposed to be "nice." How the man completely IGNORED what women said, he "let" them talk and didn't even respond AT ALL. And we all sit there and act like that's normal, that's "fine" because, well, he's the man in charge, so it MUST be.

Nobody wants to rock the boat. We're going into a new group, an open house party for MoveOn.org and shown right away that men are in charge and women who would like to participate in a more egalitarian group, well-- this ain't it.

No one wanted to rock the boat about the stolen election either. It was already time to "move on." Status quo. SNAFU.

[Karenina]

69. Violence against women

subtle or gross, psychic or physical is ubiquitous and global. Rather than taking descriptions of its manifestations personally, conscious men would do well to recognize it in all its glory. In my nearly 6 decades on this planet, I recall but ONE INCIDENT where a conscious male calmly and politely staved off the assumption of superiority of a colleague. It was stunning to me and renewed my faith in mankind ;-) .

[bobbieinok]

93. men TALK, women LISTEN

I can remember this happening over and over in social groups with my ex-husband's colleagues (this occurred in the 70s and 80s). They were all very nice guys, some helped me a lot professionally ....BUT

We'd be talking, and pretty soon it was only the men talking....they'd talk over us and around us. Part of it was their voices were louder, part of it was (maybe) like my husband they'd been on debate teams. Part of it was what seems/seemed often to happen in academic groups: the one who can/could talk louder, longer, over the others is the one who is listened to. Males use this rhetorical tactic against other males to take charge of the discussion, to become the 'leader.'

An older woman friend went into politics; she was one of the first women on the city council and was later a county commissioner. She had been in the League of Women Voters and had spent some years as a League 'observer' at city council meetings. And then she realized, as she often told her friends, she knew just as much about the issues as the council members and often more; so she ran for office.

She said a constant irritation on the council (and I assume it continued at the county level) was that what she said was rarely followed up. That is, until a MAN said exactly the same thing; THEN it was discussed and acted on or dismissed. She was really irritated but could see no way around it (she was talking in the 80s about events in the 70s and 80s). She was just glad that there was a loud-mouthed man on the council who shared her political views and put the ideas out there. (He was a good friend and political comrade; she said it was a waste of time to point out the 'discussion dynamics' of the meetings----he just didn't 'get it.')

[omega minimo]

94. Must be why women are so much better at listening

:eyes: :evilgrin:




"She said a constant irritation on the council (and I assume it continued at the county level) was that what she said was rarely followed up. That is, until a MAN said exactly the same thing; THEN it was discussed and acted on or dismissed. She was really irritated but could see no way around it (she was talking in the 80s about events in the 70s and 80s). She was just glad that there was a loud-mouthed man on the council who shared her political views and put the ideas out there."

Yup. The pecking order. Sounds familiar. People don't respond at all when the woman says it and then when the man repeats the Same Thing moments later it gets comments and feedback AS IF NO ONE HAD SAID IT PREVIOUSLY. Which she did. :crazy: It also happens in the pecking order of women (and men) supervised by other women. The underling says it and no one hears it til the "boss" presents it as their idea.


"(He was a good friend and political comrade; she said it was a waste of time to point out the 'discussion dynamics' of the meetings----he just didn't 'get it.')"

And even so, he might have thought it's "all in her head."

[smirkymonkey]

82. Excellent post - Thank you.

[omega minimo]

83. and unmolested!

Lookes like DU WAS ready to have non-violent discussion :woohoo:

[Dragonbreathp9d]

58. We men have ab inherent unearned privelage

Not only must we realize that we have it, but we must also be willing to give it up in order to create true gender equality

[undergroundpanther]

79. Hey!

Thanks saying that in such an unambiguous way, that took courage.
Alot of guys these privileges to them are invisible yet they think it's necessary to being a "Man" like a person needs air. Some men are so used to the privileges they do not realize how they abuse others with it.And when it is pointed out,the messenger is attacked, because some men LIKE the privilege so they'll try to switch the topic or use controlling tactics, all to protect the sickness the "feel good" privilege only they partake in which is a cultural sickness that,privilege.

It's kinda strange how sick things are the most defended,minimized or denied just to avoid making real changes or growth in a personality or in a culture.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

86. I sometimes feel like more of a feminist

than my female-friends are. I often get chastised for it as it makes me look "weak" or "gay," neither of which I am, I just believe in equality.

[lukasahero]

89. You're suffering from the backlash to very thing you support:

Feminism. People who use "gay" and "weak" as insults against you are simply vilifying the feminine. Nothing new but the target. :(

Thank you very much for "getting" it.

[Swamp Rat]

84. kick

Any angry, potentially abusive men show up on this thread yet, to bully women (and men) for questioning the status quo? :eyes:

[omega minimo]

85. Well, almost

but He got a Different Answer than He Expected and Went Away. :spray:


AND the really cool thing is the cool men who took the time to be here and discuss so we learn from each other :thumbsup: and keep the ideas going...........



SR :hug:

[Rex]

87. Being non-violent goes against mans basic nature.

When women leave the nurturing role for more aggressive professions or men stop dominating and become submissive - then you see our society ridicule them or label that behavior as abnormal.

Our bigotry is institutionalized from the day we enter the public/private school system. Society and consumerism plays on these basic roles. Money is made of our expected behavior. For any of this to change; the majority of men would have to become domestic, nurturing caretakers and women dominant in all government positions.

[Trillo]

88. I really can't answer your questions,

there are so many dovetailed issues involved, it strikes me as a complex problem. I believe that some very young males do have issues with tormenting others, but not all males. This is based upon experience instead of study, and the experience was of the tormenting of males by other males. Generally, females of the same young age group didn't participate, that I recall. In later years it seemed that females had learned to play games of their own, perhaps as a result of the few tormenting males?

The reason I'm posting is simply that I believe (I know that word is viewed with contempt by some here on DU) that a world in which all people, children particularly included, and whether male or female, do not suffer first physical violence, and a close second, mental violence, otherwise often referred to as psychological abuse or extreme types of coercion and even sophisticated manipulation schemes, would be a much happier, and therefore more fulfilling, place for all of us to call home.

That world is a long trek from the one we have today. If one is lucky in today's world and doesn't directly suffer a non-fatal rape or other forced physical violence; gender specific, sexually oriented, or otherwise; surely, those who are around one who has suffered will undoubtedly also be affected themselves. Therefore there is a domino effect of misery that is directly brought to one that in turn affects the other humans nearby indirectly. Those indirectly affected humans themselves may negatively affect others they know, though perhaps in more minor ways.

So many seem to just bury themselves in work to avoid thinking about all the bad that's happened, perhaps that is one of those indirect type of effects. I wonder if those tormenting males I knew are now in positions of either authority or the execution of various kinds of economic predation.

Anyway, good luck to all the people who've suffered, may your pain be lessened over time.