Is male on male violence a feminist issue?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

and should women's rights groups get involved in male on male violence?


A while ago i was reading a thread on DU which argued that feminists are ignoring issues of male on male violence while highlighting issues of male-female violence (DV, rape etc that where overwhelmingly the victims are female, though there have been male victims, however male victims too tend to be with male aggressors rather than female aggressors).

To me male-male violence unless it's in a specific are where feminist are already involved (domestic violence, sexual violence ) is not the domain for feminist groups.

So how do other du'ers feel about this? Should male on male violence be part of the feminist discourse and if so how and why?

[boston bean]

1. No, it is not a feminist issue.

That type of thinking and posting is nothing but a deflection tactic when feminists are discussing domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, etc.

It's an attempt to draw the focus of issue away from those issues and side track it into, well feminists don't care about male on male violence, so......

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. i tend to agree. i dont see people expecting the NAACP to care

about issues that effect only white women or white men.

The HRC is not actively involved in the struggles of straights marriages and rights

so, why the discrepancy when it comes to women's rights? Why the burden on women's group to not only champion not only for the lower status group but also the higher status group?

[boston bean]

9. Inevitably this discussion will lead to

you hate men, for discussing womens issues.

The whole thing is just so turned upside down, and I truly think a lot of it, is a complete lack of understanding of feminism and feminist theory. And throw in some sexism too.

Feminists are seen by many as an enemy to men, because we care about womens issues.

Because feminists do care and advocate for women, that just does not parlay into women don't like men or hate men.

It's twisted, and I am appalled sometimes the effort some go through to try and make that very erroneous, false implication.

[obamanut2012]

175. You are correct

And, I am being frustrated and pissed off concerning the "hate men/blame men" memes.

[hfojvt]

214. no, it is not about "caring about women's issues"

it is about painting issues in a frame of "women vs. men"

Rape - women are victims, men are perpetrators
violence - women are victims, men are perpetrators

except in the real world, men are also often victims, and in the real world, not every woman is a victim.

As for the false implication, well, for some reason some feminists keep making anti-man statements, like

A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
If we can send one man to the moon, why can't we send them all there?
It's a man's world.
Men are afraid that women will laugh at them, women are afraid that men will kill them.
Women live their lives in fear of men.

[bettyellen]

25. control over your body it is not "pretty much" a non issue to any woman.

[DURHAM D]

32. You are exactly right.

Long before I joined the HRC I was a card carrying member of NARAL.

[yardwork]

31. Abortion rights are an issue for any woman, for the reasons you mention. Women get pregnant.

Bisexual women can get pregnant through consensual sex, and all lesbians can get pregnant because of rape. Since the Republicans are seeking to remove all rights to abortion, it's a significant issue for all women.

[DURHAM D]

42. This is just not true.

"Abortion is vastly less important to a lesbian than it is to a straight woman."

[sufrommich]

51. You know, there are many,many women who have no

reason to fear getting pregnant and still are strong pro choice activists.Why would you imagine that being pro choice equals self interest? It's about a woman's RIGHT .

[DURHAM D]

53. Interesting mindset, No?

[dsc]

56. I am so sorry

I forgot that as a gay person I can never tell straights that gays have fought for straight rights. I now know my place, thanks.

[yardwork]

62. DurhamD and I are lesbians, as you know.

[obamanut2012]

179. Yardie and DurhamD are lesbians, which you HAVE to know

As am I, and Priyanka. And, why do you think you have a right to tell STRAIGHT women they are wrong about choice issues anyway?

Are YOU able to get pregnant, and I missed that you're a woman?

[sufrommich]

184. Gay or straight,the implication is that women support

abortion rights for purely "selfish" reasons as opposed to supporting abortion rights because our bodies belong to us. I'm a straight female who is 55 years old and has had a hysterectomy,if I ever get pregnant again you will all hear about it as I'll be naming the kid Jesus and taking my act on the road.

[obamanut2012]

185. I was thinking about postmenupausal women a sec ago

They sure aren't getting preggers any time soon, but a whole lot of them -- including my mother -- are pro choice, and rabidly so.

And, lesbians can get raped and get pregnant from those rapes.

Parceling out rights is just so odd to be, S!

[DURHAM D]

189. So is the poster on record as anti-choice? nt

[Starry Messenger]

191. Did he ever come back to answer these questions?

I saw the deleted post, and it was one of the most breath-taking things I've ever seen here. I've never known a single solitary lesbian who wasn't arm in arm with straight women on fighting against being treated like second-class citizens, which restricting women's health choices obviously *is*. It's not like you order them off a menu depending on your orientation.

[obamanut2012]

193. I don't know, I've been offline

[obamanut2012]

177. I think it's a good thing I missed all of this "live"

Because just reading your responses is pissing me off.

[DURHAM D]

188. It was really shocking

but it also explains a lot about prior experiences we have had on DU.

[DURHAM D]

52. I don't even know what to say to you.

Control of our own bodies is fundamental to all women, gay or straight.

[JackBeck]

69. Whoa. Did dsc really say that?

I guess I should alert my lesbian friends who are trying to have kids that abortion is vastly less important because of their sexual orientation.

I could list other examples but I'm sitting here absolutely stunned by the overt expression of male privilege contained in his statement.

[obamanut2012]

180. I am stunned by the post something just sent me

Of what has been deleted. Just appalled and stunned.

[yardwork]

83. The self-deleted post by dsc in essence says the same thing as Lumberjack Jeff's post downthread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1948179

Both posters are saying that importance of an issue should be determined by the number of people affect. dsc stated that relatively few lesbians (and no gay men) are personally affected by pregnancy, therefore abortion rights are not very important to gay people. Lumberjack Jeff states that most victims of violence are men, therefore violence is not very important to women.

Lumberjack Jeff concludes that "feminism is irrelevant to justice for most victims" just as dsc concludes that abortion rights are irrelevant to most gay people.

[bettyellen]

91. it's a terribly selfish world view- and beyond that- what are those two doing about violence against

men? Because I'm not seeing it. Men are very frequently bringing it up to derail conversations women have- but very rarely to advocate for a lees violent society.

[yardwork]

92. It's possible that I'm misunderstanding them but it's difficult to converse with self-deleters.

Lumberjack Jeff clarified in response to a question I posted, but to me the two posts seem to be stating the same logic.

I have a feeling that a lot of us would like one another more in real life than we do on DU. Then again, maybe not.

[bettyellen]

116. I'm not convinced these guys want to advocate against any kind of violence.....

I wish someone would prove me wrong, I just don't see evidence of them doing much. Blaming women here for their inaction is bullshit. Jumping on threads about violence against women is not advocacy, it's just disruption.

I've loved almost all of the many DUers I've met so far, but they were mostly ones who got very far off their asses to protest the war in DC. And also Swag, LOL. But there's loads I just don't know how I'd feel about meeting. I'm more assured when I feel the love.

[obamanut2012]

181. wtf -- who even thinks like that?!

[sufrommich]

186. Uh. I have one person on ignore and I'm glad I do. nt

[obamanut2012]

195. I don't know what the deleted post said

But, I have no one on ignore, although some days I wish I did!

[lumberjack_jeff]

218. It's better to talk to me if you take issue with something I said.

"Violent victimization occurs more often to men." Agree or disagree?
"Most victimization of men is perpetrated by other men." Agree or disagree?
"Feminism shouldn't lose focus on their main area of advocacy to address man-on-man violence." Agree or disagree?

If, like an apparent majority of respondents in this thread, you agree with all three then you can't disagree with my appraisal of the relevance of feminism to most victims of violence.

I didn't read what DSC said, so I'm left with what you said, which looks like an attempt to discredit me by association.

If 70% of victims are demographic "A" then it stands to reason that you would concentrate your prevention efforts there... unless the 30% of victims who are members of demographic "B" are considered more important.

[obamanut2012]

176. I cannot believe the deleted post said that

Just wtf.

Women -- not just feminists -- have an unspoken sisterhood, and even when we argue, that sisterhood is still always there. Just wtf.

[bettyellen]

228. Yep, it assumed that only lesbians who were raped cared. Such ignorance!

[yardwork]

45. I'm actually speechless.

[bettyellen]

78. I'm not- it follows that he thinks since *some* men like himself probably, care less about

women's rights because they don't themselves need them... they assume lesbians might bother to care as well.
But anyone who has been on the frontline - or even looked at the frontline, LOL, knows lesbians stand and fight with all their sisters, and always have. And from this, men can learn a lesson in solidarity.

[dsc]

54. sorry I forgot

as a gay man I am never permitted to tell straights we have done something for them. I am so sorry I forgot my place at DU. I now remember. Straights get to tell gays that they have done everything under the sun for us but if we dare say we have done something not rooted in self interest we are sexist pigs. I now know my place. Thank you ever so much. (not meant to be a replay to the poster La Lioness Priyanka but to replace my grievious insult to the other posters.)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

55. actually i was about to ask, i couldnt find much info

on the HRC in regards to abortion, could you tell me what they specifically do in regards to abortion rights?

it might make me donate to them again

[dsc]

57. among other things they count

pro choice votes in their voting guides and they refuse to endorse pro life politicians even if they are otherwise pro gay.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

58. thanks dsc. that's super helpful info

[DURHAM D]

63. Perhaps this will be helpful.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces98/stories/ny102398.htm

The HRC endorsed Senator D'Amato over Schumer. Republican asshole D'Amato was good on gay rights but anti-choice. It caused a lot of problems and a giant loss of lesbian membership for HRC.

[obamanut2012]

172. Thanks -- was going to post this

I've been offline for the last day and a half, and just saw this rather... interesting thread.

[boston bean]

64. Just want to point out that this comes across

as though lesbians aren't members or part of the HRC.

[bettyellen]

80. we were explaining to YOU, that lesbians have greatly helped out their straight sisters, so wtf

offended you so- that it was explained to you that you were dead wrong about this?

[Riftaxe]

162. Opposing all violence against people

is just so passe'?

Or in other words only a real specimen would think that it was an exclusive issue.

[Threedifferentones]

165. Why couldn't it be a feminist issue?

As a forewarning, after I read this quickly written post I realized it's kind of aggressive and that I am, as usual, in some ways verging on hyperbole. So please consider this food for thought and not an attempt at truth, as this is obviously a deep subject we could talk about forever.

Emma Goldman for instance thought of all forms of hierarchy, violence and domination as different parts of one evil whole.

I agree with her century-old views that people who fight against only one flavor of hierarchy and violence are making a big mistake. She admonished other white women to advocate for racial equality as well as gender, and thought black men should sympathize with how women are oppressed.

We ought to be against violence on the whole, not just violence of sort or against some particular group. IMO this is not just morally right, it's practical, because violent behaviors and violent personalities don't limit themselves to affecting just one group.

It has always seemed obvious to me that violence between males is directly related to violence against women. Through history many men have been forced to learn to live with violence in order to survive interactions with other males. Our culture's teach us (men) that violence is good, and then life often times proves that we must be violent if only to survive the violence of others.

When men interact with each other, there is often a hierarchy, a command structure, whether formal or not. And if a man will not fall in line with that structure, then the other males attack him. Why would we expect men who are violent with other men to behave differently around women?

What's truly ironic is that if violence amongst men does not stop, then violence against women in some sense actually fulfills the promise of feminism. After all, women should be equal to men. Men are attacking one another, and women can expect to be treated equally.

[lumberjack_jeff]

170. what?

"It is not a feminist issue. It is simply a way of derailing the conversation into saying that feminists don't care."

Holy cognitive dissonance, Batman!

[alp227]

249. I think violence in general is an issue for ALL humanity.

If a man would get in fights with other guys what's stopping the man from striking his wife/girlfriend?

[arely staircase]

2. by definition, no

no more than say secterian violence in northern ireland is an african american, or feminist for that matter, issue. can one be a feminist and also care about those things? sure.

[RKP5637]

3. To me, it's all pretty much in the same bucket, violence. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. except public violence and private violence

have historically been treated very differently

till feminists pushed for a recognition of domestic violence, the state was happy to ignore it as a private issue

[RKP5637]

8. Yep, m/m, f/f, m/f = domestic violence.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. right, but should feminists and womens rights orgs

be actively involved in male-male violence in other areas (like say crime, mugging, assault, bar fights etc).

[RKP5637]

20. I generally think of domestic violence as relationship violence for lack of

a better way to put it, in the context of m/m, f/f, f/m.

To my knowledge m/m, f/f domestic violence doesn't probably get the recognition it should, in fact, some cops would probably laugh about it when reported. And I think it could use some help from feminists and womens rights orgs.

The other violence, such as crime, mugging, assault, bar fights etc. I think of as general violence.

[Bonobo]

140. Making an occasional comment on a message board is not "active involvement". nt

[Sadiedog]

163. Why not?

[raccoon]

71. You got that right. nt

[yardwork]

81. Still lots of foot dragging and moving backwards at the state level, too.

Some states have recently defunded domestic violence law enforcement, and many jurisdictions are doing so quietly. When times get tough, "women's issues" and "children's issues" often get pushed aside. Of course, that simultaneously defunds programs that help with male-on-male and female-on-male and female-on-female violence too. The myth that domestic violence is exclusive to male-on-female violence is damaging to everybody, not just women.

Hence my post downthread about the broad role of feminism in pushing back against all violence.

[Starry Messenger]

6. I think most feminists already come out against male on male violence.

See: the Trayvon Martin threads. Saying that women only care about battery of women by men is a red herring.

[Recursion]

7. WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ??!?? is 99% of the time a deflection

"WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ!!!???" is nearly always an antifeminist deflection (personally the one case I do it is in breast cancer discussions; my uncle died of that and a lot of men don't even know we can get it and need to check just like women do.)

Male on male violence is vastly more common than male on female violence (or female on anyone violence). However, as a man, when I have been a victim of male-on-male violence I have legal and social support that is far, far, far too often denied to women. Nobody wondered if I provoked my muggers.

[bettyellen]

34. this is correct. And maybe some lazy piggybacking- expecting us to do the advocacy for them?

As is the women on man violence often brought up here....when I ask what they have done for advocacy on their own issue, these guys haven't started a thread, let alone done much out there in the real world. So their concerns often aren't enough to amount to much action, except complaining about feminists?

Yet they are angry we are not bearing this torch for them! I can't take them seriously, and assume they are either extremely selfish and lazy, or just disruptors.

No, when we talk about the culture of violence, men should realise this can benefit them to, and they need to help themselves by starting to support our efforts.

[ZombieHorde]

12. I guess this depends on how one wants to define the word "feminism."

In my personal experience, very broadly speaking, most define the word "feminism" as women's issues. Using this very broad definition, male on male violence will rarely be within the realm of feminism.

I have seen some define the word "feminism" as anti-oppression and pro-support for all people. Using this very broad definition, almost all human on human violence is within the realm of feminism.

In my opinion, for DU, I think the most active members of each feminist group should decide for themselves how to define feminism.

[boston bean]

14. Most feminists care about all violence.

And I believe feminism is an advocacy for womens issues and equal rights.

So, if one were to say feminists don't care about male violence, I think that is completely false.

If they were to say feminism/feminist groups doesn't tackle male on male violence or don't consider it an issue they advocate for, that would be true.

[ZombieHorde]

27. I wasn't trying to say feminists don't care about all violence, I was just saying

most feminists, in my personal experience, don't include all violence in the realm of feminism.

[boston bean]

28. That's true. And I don't see a problem with that.

That is all.

[ZombieHorde]

50. I also don't see a problem with it. nt

[boston bean]

61. Want you to know I wasn't

trying to challenge you...

I was trying to just make the point of how the discussions can become personal, when some conflate feminism and causes they advocate for and individual feminists. ie, feminism doesn't focus on male on male violence, therefore feminists (individual people) don't care about male on male violence.

[ZombieHorde]

68. Good points. nt

[southernyankeebelle]

13. Well all violations isn't right no matter who is doing it. We all should care and

if one person is getting the better of another don't we have a moral obligation to say hey stop it.

[boston bean]

17. I can feel safe in saying feminists oppose all violence.

However, feminism and feminist groups, focus on the female side of the equation.

[thucythucy]

15. The irony is that what public awareness there is

on issues like, for instance, male on male rape, has come about largely because of feminist activism. Susan Brownmiller discussed prison rape in Against Our Wills, and rape crisis centers, generally staffed by women--usually volunteers--have been in the lead in confronting male on male rape (and female on male incest and child abuse) as an issue. And even today, if a man I know were to come to me and ask for help in dealing with the after affects of rape, one of the things I'd do is give him the number of my local rape crisis center.

So male on male violence already IS a part of feminist discourse, or at the very least feminist activism in the stop-rape movement, and has been for years.

[Jackpine Radical]

16. Actually, I think women ought to care about M/M violence. The reason

is because the underlying problem is violence.

Many males are raised in a culture of violence, and even organized sports promote it.

As long as males remain violent, they will be indiscriminate in their targets.

And many violent males started out as victims of domestic violence. In my career of doing psych evals of criminals, I must have heard the same story a thousand times from violent men: "Pa would come home drunk and beat the shit out of Ma and then he'd light into us kids. Sometimes I thought he wouldn't let up until he killed me. He kept doing that until I got big enough to knock him down, and that's what I did. And when I went to school, I didn't take no shit from nobody. I musta had 3 fights a week."

As long as our culture tolerates violence between males, it is providing a breeding ground for violence against women as well.

I say this as a 68 year-old man who has never been in a physical fight. My father told me that he also had never been in a fight, and I believe that is true of my grandfather as well.

[arely staircase]

19. women ought to care about doese not per se equal feminist

women care about many things that aren't feminist issues.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. well put.

i care about many things that are not feminist issues, including the amount we spend on the military, but military spending per se is not a feminist issue

[antigone382]

151. I would say it depends on how you define a feminist issue.

To my way of thinking, male on male violence is often centered around themes of "domination" and "honor" as they are perpetuated in a patriarchal system. In this system, "manhood" is a privileged status that men must earn through approved displays of masculinity. Just as homophobia is a lynchpin of patriarchy precisely because it pressures men and women to conform to gender norms, so male displays of violence are a lynchpin of patriarchy because they are one of the major ways that masculinity--and by extension its "rightful" place above femininity--can be definitively asserted. This obviously causes incredible harm to human beings regardless of gender, but I think it is still a vehicle for maintaining notions of control and subservience that are uniquely harmful to women.

Beyond that, I do think it is the unfair but necessary task of feminists to expose the ways in which gender roles and socializations are profoundly dysfunctional for individuals, regardless of gender. Male on male violence is one symptom of patriarchal ways of thinking and living, and therefore an appropriate target of feminists, in my opinion.

[CTyankee]

65. As an old feminist, I am in agreement with your point.

The culture of violence is one that encompasses women and always has. If you read history, you know that with violent conquest comes rape/abduction of women whose protectors have been vanquished by the conquering army, and their ensuing enslavement.

Your examples are quite true and disturbing.

[Bonobo]

142. This is exactly right! nt

[Sadiedog]

164. Yes! Well put!

[ismnotwasm]

18. No

But feminists are mothers and sisters etc. to men. As I wish for men to be allied with women to stop violence against women---and they don't have to call themselves 'feminist'---there is nothing wrong with a reciprocal relationship with feminists to allay themselves to those dedicated to stopping man on man violence.

For instance, to look at in a broader sense. War is most often men killing other men directly, and using rape and murder of women and children as a weapon of war. I would certainly consider war a feminist issue, because its the direct effect on women, but not only a feminist issue.

[etherealtruth]

21. It is a human issue ....

... therefore (in my mind), it is a feminist issue.

I am a woman, I am a mother (daughter and sons), I am a daughter, a sister, a friend, a lover ... violence (male/ male ... male/female) is my concern.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. but are all human issues feminist issues? like, global warming is a serious

human issue but its not a strictly feminist issue, is it?

[etherealtruth]

75. In a sense they are ....

I am a feminist and a mother (the two are forever a part of who I am) ... male on male violence is a serious issue for me as the mother of two sons.

I think violence (as a whole) is a feminist issue .... violence against women is a subset of the group of aberrant acts identified as violence ... women as a group are more vulnerable (as are children) and deserve additional attention.

[dogknob]

23. It is when the woman goes home with the winner of the fight.

San Diego's Gaslamp is a place I avoid, but it can be a lot like watching Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.

[MineralMan]

24. Perhaps it is not, but all violence is an issue for all people.

At least that's how I see it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. i agree. all people though is not a feminist issue per se

everyone SHOULD care about global warming, but its not a feminist issue

[MineralMan]

41. Yes. There are many issues that are issues for all of us.

There are other issues that are affect some of us more than others. All of those issues, however, can be understood and supported by all of us.

[MotherPetrie]

26. I agree with you. Let the men's rights' groups protest male on male violence.

[Sheldon Cooper]

29. No, it is not an issue for feminism to address.

For all the reasons that others have already articulated in this thread.

[yardwork]

35. I think that violence is a feminist issue because it is related to patriarchy.

Looking at feminism in the broadest sense, it is a movement away from patriarchy and capitalism. Violence of all kinds is exacerbated by patriarchy and capitalism, so in that sense it is a real concern of feminism.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. ok, so policy and action wise, what should feminists do?

[yardwork]

38. What we do. Activism for progressive causes.

Vote for Democrats who support social programs that provide a safety net. Better healthcare, better education, jobs, etc. Fight the Republicans who are trying to privatize everything and make it even more of a dog-eat-dog world where the strong are encouraged to take advantage of the weaker. Fight against the Ayn Randization of our country. All those things will reduce domestic violence, including male-on-male violence.

[boston bean]

43. Those are positive by products of the successes of issues feminists work for.

I don't think that feminist groups need to spend time and money focusing specifically on male on male violence.

And where I think it goes really wrong is when feminist groups are criticized for focusing on issues that involve women, and not focusing on other issues.

Know what I mean?

[yardwork]

46. Anybody criticizing any other group for not doing enough

needs to take the plank out of their own eye before focusing on the dust mote in somebody else's eye.

[boston bean]

47. I can agree with that.

[CTyankee]

72. What I have always said is that feminism is humanism and you can't separate the two.

If you are a feminist you are de facto a humanist and if you are a humanist you are de facto a feminist.

[seabeyond]

37. i am all for standing with men when they speak out about this. as a mama of two boys,

i am all for insuring i raise boys that learn it is not indicative of manhood, and character is showing other manners to solve issues. male violence is not in my life, and that is how as a feminist i deal with the issue.

[CTyankee]

74. I raised a son with those values, seabeyond, and I know well what you mean.

He is a deeply caring, feminist male who will, with all our family, lovingly welcome his first child into this world, a boy, in January. He and his wonderful wife will make terrific parents and raise the boy (no name decided yet!) as a feminist, progressive male! He got a late start but we are overjoyed that we have this treasure in our lives. My second grandson and my fifth grandchild! I am pretty blessed (even tho I am not religious).

My husband's daughter just welcomed her beautiful son into the world in September. She will be ordained a rabbi come June so we have many, many wonderful things to be joyful about right about now!

Hey, we are doing our bit to populate the world with caring, feminiist men! Think of that!

[seabeyond]

86. and that is why i do not buy into "all men are violent, in their DNA" the majority are not.

too many are not. does not have to be. we dont live it. many do not live it.

and how FUN is all that. the coolest. i love me my babies, lol. but... but better wait for at least a decade. more for the other one,

[Prism]

40. They're only tangentially related

It's good for feminists to study male on male violence in order to glean insight into masculine culture and uncovering the wellspring of aggressive behavior. I think a kind of tunnel visioned plank in certain quarters of feminist thinking is that male aggression against women is woman specific. However, I think some level of male aggression against women is actually a more universal expression of hostility some of them very generally possess.

When men abuse women, you find a lot of insecurity and self-esteem issues undergirding it, along with domination impulses and hyper self-consciousness of image.

The sexism comes in when these aggressive types perceive women as a "weak" sex and this an easier outlet for these impulses. But the underlying issues arise from that aggression socialization and also materialize in male vs male conflict.

So, a feminist issue? No, but it's worth it for all feminists to spend some time studying and understanding in order to protect and advance women in our culture.

[Major Nikon]

44. I think it depends on what is being discussed

If you want to speak strickly in terms of the issue itself being a feminist issue, I'd have to say no because it's not an issue that impacts women directly.

However, I can think of a number of ways in which this impacts women indirectly just as most women's issues affect men indirectly. It can also be relevant to a discussion on gender privilege.

[treestar]

49. It could be, because the idea of "winning" or solving conflicts by violence

Is ingrained in men and they use it against each other - some then use the same view when they are dealing with women.

The whole pecking order thing starts among males - women get to be inferior in it but it's and extension of it.

Women don't try to solve their conflicts with men by violence - except maybe in the few instances where they are the stronger one in the conflict.

[Dash87]

59. Both are subcategories of human rights issues

Male-male violence isn't a feminist issue, but both male-female and male-male violence are human rights issues.

Whether or not someone wants to be concerned with either is up to them, imo.

[LeftyMom]

60. It seems like a lot of male on male violence is intended to put the victim in the female role.

A lot of pre-fight trash talking suggests this. "I'll make him my bitch," "he's a pussy" etc.

[mercuryblues]

66. stick with the main focus

To me it is nothing more than a self-rationalization because feminists don’t fight for males, why should I care about their issues.

Animal rights groups, don’t promote human rights issues either, but you will be hard pressed to find someone who tries to diminish their work based on the same premise. Awareness of the male-female violence has an impact on male-male violence, directly and indirectly. Whether it is by legislation like the VAWA, which includes male victims or simply by giving women the trust and knowledge they need to have a happy well-adjusted life; sometimes breaking the cycle of abuse.

The people who make the argument in the OP are only serving one purpose, to keep the sexes divided as a way to maintain the status quo.

As you said there is some overlap and that is where the focus should stay. Taking on too many sub causes tend to water down the main cause. I question if that is what they seek. One way to find out the motive is to suggest they take the issue of male-male violence as their cause. Those that do care will find out that feminists address the overlap and will eventually work together in the overlapping areas. Those that are just using the argument as a way to diminish the cause, will most likely get offended and defensive.

[Moonwalk]

125. Nicely put!

[JoeyT]

67. No.

That isn't to say that feminists don't care about M/M violence: I haven't met one yet that doesn't. It just isn't part of the definition.

Ask any old white racist in the deep south about the NAACP and they'll insist the NAACP is as bad as or worse than the Klu Klux Klan because they don't care about white people. That's the card that keeps getting played.

[one_voice]

70. Don't know if it's a feminist issue...

my personal view is violence of any sort, domestic violence; male on male, male on female, female on female, female on male, is a human issue and should concern everyone and should be an issue for everyone.

[arthritisR_US]

73. It's a human issue and should be the discourse

and concern of all.

[madinmaryland]

76. No. It is a human issue. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. Of course not.

1) The vast majority of victims of violence are men.
2) Equality dictates that every victim be given equal protection.
3) Feminism isn't about equality, it is about advocacy for women.

therefore; feminism is irrelevant to justice for most victims.

(an aside... it seems that DU is beginning to internalize what I'm saying, because the word "equality" doesn't appear in this thread except for this post.)

[bettyellen]

82. why do you think that male advocacy against violence is so unpopular and ineffective?

It doesn't seem to be an issue that many men take to heart. I wonder if it's that they feel once they are past the bullying years - their youth- they don't want to revisit it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

87. Two reasons:

1) The point of the patriarchy is to protect women (The argument that they're being protected as assets is immaterial to this point)
2) The other point of the patriarchy is to raise boys into men who are willing and capable of protecting the women. "Violence" in that context roughly translates as "education".

A man who rejects either of these two principles is unsuited to be a husband... and a guy that other guys don't want to be associated with.

This head-bashing among and between men isn't a problem for women, except to the extent that an individual woman's son(s) and husband might wind up on the losing end.

[bettyellen]

90. I asked why men aren't more frequently or effectively advocating against violence?

I'm not sure what you explaining what the patriarchy means to you fits in? Are you saying the patriarchy isn't outmoded these days?
I certainly haven't relied on men to protect me, LOL. The ones that attack you- the aquaintance rapists - do their harm as soon as they get a moment alone with you.

I also disagree the head bashing among men isn't a problem for women. We do care about many more men than just our So's and sons. And unlike you, I find it very problematic if and when one of the men I care about be involved in any physical fights - not merely concened if they lose. Because it's problematic behavior unless it;s strictly self defense. I don't think any Dems feel "might makes right" so I'm sure I misunderstand you.

Anyway... why men aren't more frequently or effectively advocating against violence? Is it because only the ones on the losing end would bother complaining and it's embarrassing? If so, that's a sad conundrum.

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. Don't get confused.

Men aren't effectively advocating against violence because;
a) many patriarchal attitudes still permeate our culture, including the social expectation that our primary purpose is to protect the women.
b) because when men (like me) say that victimization of men is a problem, the idea is so offensive that it's hidden. The only kind of objectionable violence is male-on female.

I do find the victimization of men to be problematic. What do you think I've been on about for the last decade? The question of *this* thread is "Should we look to feminism to solve it?" and the answer is obviously no. The fact that LLP is asking the rhetorical question is proof enough.

[boston bean]

101. Are you criticizing feminism for focusing on violence perpetrated by men against women? nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

103. No, I'm criticizing some feminists who try to pretend otherwise. n/t

[boston bean]

146. you think feminists "pretend" what exactly? nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

156. I said some feminists pretend that feminism is about equality.

And that "equality for women" and "equality" are the same thing.

Some feminists truly believe it because they haven't really thought past the marketing.
Some feminists (such as the OP) understand the conflict and realize that advocacy for women is the only defensible position.
Some feminists understand the irreconcilable conflict and stick with the head-fake anyway.

Do you actually find it beneficial for me to repeat myself? I think I'm being pretty unambiguous.

[bettyellen]

104. You appear to be blaming women for men not doing enough about this? I hope I'm confused...

but it seems like you're scapegoating women- particularly ones here- for a failure in advocacy that happening among men. If you allow a voice or here two to stifle your advocacy work, was it really so important? Some men need to stop approaching this as a way to put down or compete with womens' advocates. Women have valid reasons to advocate. Men should be doing the same, instead of complaining "theirs is bigger". Go, do the damn work and raise awareness, no one here will stop you unless you are hijacking a thread where you admit you do not belong.

I do agree it should not be the focus of women's groups. Men get really angry if we talk about how much violence is coming from men, and if we added men on men violence, it would just make it worse.

What I don't get is - men hurting men is so much more common than women physically hurting a man. But you see lots of more men complaining abut women here, and not so much the other men. It's very odd.

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. You are.

My only frustration is with women who try to hold contradictory views. "Feminism is equality!" and "What about the menz!!!1!1".

Feminism doesn't care about the wellbeing of men, except to the extent that the specific issue may affect the wellbeing of women.

I dislike the pretense that it's anything else. The OP is right, even if she phrased it as a rhetorical question.

[boston bean]

121. That is because you believe men are oppressed and women

In this day and age are not, correct?

[lumberjack_jeff]

133. The words in my mouth?

I'm the only one who gets to put them there.

Btw, telling me what I think earns an immediate fail on the test.

[boston bean]

135. My apologies, consider iy as it was meant.

A question requesting clarification.

[lumberjack_jeff]

143. I reserve the word "oppressed" for the truly disenfranchised.

Neither "men" nor "women" qualify.

[bettyellen]

168. The pretense appears to be that you care about the issue

Because instead of doing any advocacy yourself, you're hung up on critcising women for doing their own.

Advocates against domestic violence are trying to help families - including little boys and that goes to the roots of this issue. How you can pretend otherwise is beyond me. Why you refuse to support their efforts is beyond me.

Your inaction is not women's fault. But your posts claim it is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

171. It takes a superhuman effort to move the ball one inch

I worked years to get a mens group here, and the attitude exemplified by this op is the reason why it took so long. Admission that men face problems causes a huge "disruption in the force".

If equality was the goal, that would not be the case.

[bettyellen]

174. Men's rights groups are NOT widely advocating

Against violence among men. They DO frequently advocate against feminism. That has no place on DU.

Sorry - but to equate being "pro man" and against violence is just nonsense.

[lumberjack_jeff]

178. "to equate being "pro man" and against violence is just nonsense."

I suspect you really mean that, but fairness suggests that I give you the opportunity to walk it back anyway.

When men on DU (100% of whom reject the label "MRA&quot discuss the topic of violent victimization of men, LLP posts this OP in GD asking why feminists should care.

The obvious answer is they shouldn't because feminism isn't about men, and therefore not about equality.

If your public policy interests include the wellbeing of men, or the promotion of equality, then you need to look somewhere besides feminism for an answer.

The problem is that every possible "somewhere else" is a distraction from feminism and thus a threat.

I think you're making the case that "feminist" ≠ "progressive" better than I ever could.

[bettyellen]

190. What a lazy excuse. Women hear the "what about men's" crap here all the time and it doesn't stop us!

At some point you have to put up or shut up. Women aren't stopping you from doing a thing.
If women thought like you do, we'd still be considered men's property. You need to get off this losing game because it appears you're more occupied with blaming others than doing the work that you feel is needed.

[lumberjack_jeff]

194. You react to the "what about men crap" in the same way every time.

The reason it's "crap" is because you don't care, which is of course your prerogative.

...But don't try to tell me you care about equality, it doesn't pass the giggle test.

I'm not blaming you. I'm asking people who actually are interested in equality to stop buying the marketing bullshit.

[bettyellen]

223. Unlike you, the feminists are continuing a history of effective activism. They don't need "advice"

from someone who is not successful.
Neither do they bear any responsibility for your inaction. Get a grip of your own shit, before trying to advise others. Because these excuses are truly pitiful.

[lumberjack_jeff]

225. Effective? Undoubtedly!

Median earnings for men have decreased 5 1/2% since 1980
Median earnings for women have increased 29% since 1980

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/endofgr/cpsearn.xls

[bettyellen]

227. We don't have parity yet, but we're working on it! You shld take a lesson from feminists!

[lumberjack_jeff]

233. We do and I am.

Even the AAUW study (which didn't account for benefits and negotiation) showed less than a 7% disparity between men's and women's wages.

I'm disinclined to take another 6% pay cut to ameliorate a nonexistent pay gap.

[bettyellen]

238. 7% would be significant enough to merit activism

And other studies have it at 3-4X that amount. So more work needs to be done, even if you think we should just eat the 7% and call it a day.
No thanks! Seven percent, if it were accurate is still huge. I'm disinclined to accept it. Says a lot of your mindset that you think 7% is parity.

[lumberjack_jeff]

241. 7% is less INaccurate than the rest of popular reporting on the issue.

They have an axe to grind, and 7% was the sharpest edge they could put on it without entirely sacrificing their credibility.

The real number is closer to zero.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-07-26/commentary/32859540_1_gender-wage-women-staffers-higher-paying-fields

[bettyellen]

244. But you are happy with the 7%, and pleased to make excuses

Why you don't seem to be able to even try to gin up enthusiasm to advocate against the epidemic of male violence.
We're not happy with 7%, don't blame us that we've got our shit together. Look to yourselves.

[lumberjack_jeff]

246. For some people, "reasons" look a lot like "excuses".

The whole point of the OP is LLP responding to a thread in the Men's group "trying to gin up enthusiasm against the epidemic of male violence."

The "reason" in this case is the demonstrable truth that in progressive circles (present company included) discussion of the issue is itself a problem.

[bettyellen]

248. I think the OP is asking a perfectly reasonable question

And it's also a way to take a pulse and see how or what we're expected to say when men crash into women's discussions saying "Hey! What about us!".
I assumed it was a response to posts, like yours saying violence against women is not as big of a deal (numbers wise) as violence against men. Whenever you respond asking what we should do, no one responds. So I think it was way over due to discuss rationally.
And I'm glad we tried to.

[yardwork]

84. So it's totally a numbers game?

More men than women suffer from violence, so violence is not a problem for women?

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. Violence IS a problem for women.

I'm saying that man-on-man violence is perceived as enough steps removed ("if men beat up men, will they become violent to women? Maybe, but feminism will say something at that point.&quot to not be considered a problem for feminism.

From the perspective of men, it's unfortunate that there isn't an -ism which would accept responsibility for this particular problem. At any rate, feminism isn't it.

[yardwork]

89. You seem to be disregarding the many posts in this thread that say the opposite.

For instance, I state clearly that feminism involves working against all kinds of violence.

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. Not disregarding. I'm agreeing with the OP's rhetorical question.

I find your viewpoint admirable, but naive. Feminism is exclusively about what is best for women. When what is in the interest of men, or in fact what is in the interest of equality, come into conflict with what is best for women, the interests of women override.

I accept that you oppose violence regardless of the gender of the victim... but you believe that to be true because you're a humanitarian, not because you're a feminist.

[boston bean]

96. here is what I think you seem to miss

feminism actually does help men.

Feminism is about breaking the gender roles that bind us. Feminists want nothing more than for men to be able to break free from the roles they find themselves in, as well.

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. If "breaking free of gender roles" means more men go to college, or more women dying in wars...

... then not so much.

Pull the other one. I was born at night, but not last night.

[boston bean]

100. Are you upset about your gender role, or not?

to me it seems you have a mighty big issue with the role you are forced to play.

Or are you saying you just want things to stay the way they are/were, and you don't like the strides feminism has helped make?

Do you agree the patriarchy exists?

[lumberjack_jeff]

105. I'm not anyone's monkey.

I do have an issue with the gender role that my kids will be expected to play. They will undoubtedly break their puppet strings too, but they'll suffer like I did prior to reaching that point.

[boston bean]

108. Do you blame feminists for this? nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. Of course not. The wellbeing of men isn't and shouldn't be feminism's problem.

It's not about equality, because equality requires giving the needs of men equal standing to the needs of women.

Feminism isn't relevant to me at all.

[boston bean]

112. You are not a feminist, correct?

Seems you believe feminism is somehow discriminatory of men, right?

[lumberjack_jeff]

115. That's correct, on both counts. nt

[boston bean]

117. Feminists are bigoted towards men, is that a fair characterization

Of what you are saying?

[lumberjack_jeff]

122. No. It is not.

The opposite of "discriminate" is "indiscriminate". Feminism is selective (i.e. discriminating) about who should benefit from its advocacy.

I agree with the OP, therefore I'm not a feminist.

[boston bean]

123. Because feminist groups should be advocating for men's issues on equal par

With women's issues, is what you ar saying, right? In ther words advocating for women's issue is discriminating against men.

How about civil rights groups. By focusing on civil right for minorities, they are in essence discriminating against white persons??

[lumberjack_jeff]

132. I advocate for the disabled. I don't pretend that I'm simultaneously advocating for everyone else.

Advocacy. Equality. Pick only one.

[gollygee]

134. You don't think it's possible

to advocate for equality in areas where you don't think there's equality?

[lumberjack_jeff]

137. Advocating for equality IS possible.

It is not possible to advocate for "equality... for me"

[gollygee]

147. Why do you think a group can't advocate

for equality for their own group?

[lumberjack_jeff]

153. Because one-sided equality is gibberish. It's an oxymoron.

You can't seek equality for one party without regard to the other. "Equality" is a math expression; it requires consideration of the factors on both sides of the sign.

Women = Men requires accounting for the various elements that reflect privilege on both sides.

[gollygee]

207. Advocating for one side of equality doesn't mean equality is one-sided

It means that we are not currently treated as equals and are advocating for ourselves to reach equality.

You don't agree that men have priviledge, and I think that's your real issue with this.

[lumberjack_jeff]

211. What is the feminist position on college enrollment?

http://www.now.org/issues/title_ix/index.html

The NOW push for "equality" in education takes the form of opposing the educational interventions which appear most promising in improving education for boys and girls, in part because although the educational improvement for girls in single-sex classrooms is large, for boys it is dramatic.

No mention of how a 3:2 women/men ratio in college is unequal, or anything other than socially desirable. In fact, scholarships for girls massively outnumbers scholarships for boys, mostly funded by organizations dedicated to "equality".

[gollygee]

219. My personal opinion

Is that elementary schools are not as well suited for boys as girls anymore. That isn't due to feminism though. It's due to fewer men being in education, and the crazy importance placed on standardized testing these days. Boys mature a bit slower than girls and are more active than girls at their same age group, but teachers have to teach kids in a less fun way for all the kids, but particularly in a way that's harder for boys - more sitting still at a desk rather than doing hands-on work.

And after 6 years or so of having a harder time in elementary school, boys have a hard time catching up by college age.

I am 100% in favor of changing how schools work.

I don't know if there is a feminist position. I read more general news and very little specific feminist things.

[lumberjack_jeff]

154. Yes, but not under the banner of feminism.

The movement is inseparable from advocacy for women.

I don't have a problem with that, it at least has the benefit of being honest.

[boston bean]

136. So feminists are not advocating for equality?

Do you think this because you believe women have fully equality with men?

[lumberjack_jeff]

157. Ms Bean of Fort Lee New Jersey asks

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Boy! You sure ask a lotta questions.
I, Rosanne Rosannadanna, am gonna answer 'em!



No. Men and women don't have full equality. In fact, there are a number of laws which will be immediately repealed upon passage of an equal rights amendment.

Can you name a few? I can.

[Tsiyu]

106. That's completely not fair

and not true.

I want more Americans, period, to go to college, especially minority males, who end up rotting in a prison/justice system feminists did not create.

I want fewer Americans to fight in any mercenary-styled war - again wars are not created or supported by most feminists.

I don't get how you go from A to B; but however you do that, it's simply not fair or true to say that feminists don't care about those issues.

[Jackpine Radical]

166. How about humanism?

[lumberjack_jeff]

197. I guess.

It doesn't entirely satisfy because it has an aroma of Obama-esque negotiation strategy about it. "If I start my negotiation position in the middle, maybe we'll settle there".

[Jackpine Radical]

212. The word seems to ha e different connotations for you than for me.

In my idiosyncratic usage, the term refers to placing a positive valuation on people. We have inherent worth, and that which is moral is that which advances us as humans. It is a moral imperative to work toward seeing that people are fed, clothed, sheltered, and to the extent possible, loved. Of course, when you descend from this lofty principle into the messy world of reality, all kinds of complications, ambiguities and contradictions arise.

[Dash87]

239. "Feminism isn't about equality" wut?

I don't think that's true. Feminism is very much about equality.

[lumberjack_jeff]

242. Take it up with the OP.

Feminism is about taking care of women. Taking care of men is someone else's problem.

That is not "being about equality". It is about advocacy, and it has the virtue of being intellectually honest.

I agree with her. Humanitarians, progressives and people of goodwill need to work to solve the problem of violence against men under some other banner.

[xchrom]

79. Doesn't child rearing come into play here?

It's still mostly women who rear our/their children - I would think violence is almost always a feminist issue?

[etherealtruth]

182. That is my feeling

... I can't separate the fact that I am a mother from any issue

[Tsiyu]

85. Women are mothers of sons

wives of husbands

daughters of fathers

sisters to brothers.

Any problem or crisis that effects humanity effects the feminist.

I would think any violence anywhere is a call to "discourse" on the subject.

I dislike boxes that separate.

[LittleBlue]

93. My female teacher in high school said fistfights are a normal guy thing

She was a health teacher in her 30s. Said when men have conflict they fight and everything is okay afterward, but women hold grudges. Fighting according to her was preferable in resolving conflict to the female method of long term passive aggression.

I'm still in my 20s so this wasnt too long ago. Male on male violence seems to be accepted as normal by many women to an extent. Among men it is an unwritten "guy" thing with near universal acceptance across cultures; it is part of being 'a man'. This is ingrained and won't change any time soon.

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. Your experience is similar to mine.

Most guys know that fighting isn't in every man's nature. That stereotype about men is more widely held by women - partly because that kind of man is the only one on that kind of woman's radar.

[boston bean]

107. That is bologne.

They are not the only men on womens radar.

You are conflating what feminism focuses on, advocating for women, and making it seem like that is all that every single women in the whole entire world cares about.

NOT True. Ok, not true. Feminists are not hurting you, feminists are helping you break free of that forced masculinity. Feminists abhorr the roles just as much as you do.

But just because feminism focuses on issues that are important to women, does not mean that women don't understand, sympathize or care bout the mugging, fighting, shootings among men (male on male violence).

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. Feminism focuses on issues that are important to women. True enough.

Feminism helps men only incidentally to that mission.

[boston bean]

110. The question remains, then, where are the men groups

working on these issues. And should groups that are set up to advocate these things from the perspective of women have to pick up all the pieces???

Feminism absolutley does help, you are correct. So what's the beef with feminists.

[lumberjack_jeff]

114. Aside from the guys derided as "MRA" groups, there aren't any.

Rectifying that problem is part of my motivation here.

[boston bean]

118. By refuting feminists and feminism?

[Tsiyu]

139. An admirable goal

and I wish you well. You have your own unique perspective on male on male violence, It will hopefully be heard by others.



I just have to note: It seems the OP is being used - maybe was even intended - as a litmus test as to the scope and relevancy of advocacy groups.

How many issues does a group take on? Who gets to decide what is relevant, what is not in the scope of a group's mission?


Most feminists are like me. They don't get memos; they don't have time for meetings; they just want to live their lives without additional burdens placed on them due to fanciful or predatory attitudes about women. They want to get up, have a decent job, pay the bills, have a little fun, leave something to their kids. They want the same stuff men want, for the most part.



But feminist literature and advocacy groups do often clue us in to situations/statistics/programs/crimes/laws/ and research that can help us better empower ourselves to overcome and some times end discrimination based on gender.

What literature could you develop - and what resources would you use - to get your personal message across? There are feminists who would be happy to help you.

As for your saying " You don't mention it so you don't care."

I have asked many men here why they never said anything about the 1000 bills introduced to Congress last year aimed at controlling my vagina. Can you imagine how you would feel if Congress offered up 1000 bills legislating how you use your penis?

So far, no man wants to envision himself in my shoes.

By your logic, if no man wants to go there, none of them cares. But I think men DO care even if they don't feel comfortable speaking up.

I have no problem with you advocating for men. But I have to say that your posts leave me with a creepy feeling, as if I am dealing with someone who only sees one side of the room. I wouldn't count on you in a gunfight, unless I could tell you could see the whole picture a little more clearly than I believe you do now.

Nevertheless: Glad to hear your motivation is not bitterness, but a desire to make a positive difference.

[lumberjack_jeff]

187. There is little need for me to focus on that side of the room.

What with the searchlights and neon signs, I can see it just fine, but *this* side is entirely unexamined.

"Creepy feeling". What an excellent metaphor. Bringing attention to the complete silence on the topic creates massive insecurity and cognitive dissonance to people who really believe they are on the side of the angels. Like the person who whistles through the graveyard, we don't like to be reminded of our vulnerabilities, including the blind spots in our moral world-views.

That blind spot is exemplified by what Boston Bean posted upthread; talking about the 70% or more of violence which victimizes men is "nothing but a deflection tactic".

There is a circular nature to feminist advocacy.
Women) "The patriarchal system is oppressing me"
Men) "It's my job to protect the women, so I'll become a feminist"
Women) "See? He gets it! And because he's a guy, the fact that even he can see it proves just how much oppression exists!"
Me) "What about men?"
Men and women in unison) "Shut up you big whiner"

Conveniently unexamined is the fact that it is the patriarchal system which places the responsibility for protecting women onto men.

The unfortunate thing is that men don't really see the imbalance in the system until they get slapped in the face with their actual powerlessness by finding themselves in divorce court, at which point they become MRA's and republicans.

[Tsiyu]

220. Ah. So this all boils down to a bad divorce

I get it now.


And women never have bad divorce outcomes...? LOL

I really hope you can work this out.

I've had bad divorce outcomes as well. I don't hate men because of it, nor do I blame my problems on most men - who had nothing to do with the other men who have harmed me.

Reality is, you've never seen a Congress propose 1000 bills in one year aimed at controlling your penis. I doubt you can even imagine how that might impact you.

Those 1000 bills proposed to control my vagina have nothing to do with your divorce. Your silence there is deafening, and you have absoutely nothing to compare it to in your life except.....your divorce?

To each his own, as the saying goes...

[lumberjack_jeff]

222. No, you don't "get it" at all.

29 mostly happy years with my only wife.

Like everyone, I have a back story, but it's not one I'm inclined to share for the purpose of helping anyone create a stereotype. You can continue speculating, but it's presumptuous.

I'm fully on board with the inadvisability of "1000 bills". I'm a democrat, so that dog won't hunt. I'm glad that the 54% of voters who are women made the election go my preferred way. If the impact of seeing republicans push anti-woman legislation creates a backlash against democratic men, no good comes from it.

[bettyellen]

229. feminists don't examine the patriarchy? LOL. they kind of invented that field of study!

Your fearful feelings about feminists are based on ignorance. Most women reject the idea of men's protection in favor of mutually supportive relationships. Sorry you failed to find a modern woman and this skewed your perceptions. But feminsts are the LAST people you should blame. The patriarchy failed you, as it fails us.

[lumberjack_jeff]

234. The only person you didn't speak for in that post was yourself.

Hopefully, you could do a better job of speaking for yourself than you do for "most women" (who DO value the protection of a man) and me (who married well and once).

[bettyellen]

237. Wow. Sorry this "protection of a man" thing is so outmoded

I don't know what to say. The women I know stick up for themselves. They support their husbands equally. They don't live in a world where the "protection of men" is required.
That's a totally alien concept in NYC.
What are you protecting them from, grizzly bears?

[Bonobo]

144. "Where are the men's groups?"

Take a look at how hard it was to form a Men's Group on DU. Ask yourself why their was so much opposition.

Now that is one clue as to why there are not more men's groups.

Another reason is that in Western Society, men have been shamed into grouping together with other men. That is why they do not show each other affection or bond together as they do in many other societies.

Who has done the shaming? Both men and women.

[bettyellen]

240. The (all male) mods wanted to deny a men's group?

That's a shame. I'm glad you were able to get one.

I'm only confused by the men here who hate feminism and prop up the patriarchy while saying it harms them. The ones who show no interest in violence against men unless they're doing it to derail discussion in a thread about violence against women.

It's one thing to not advocate for the issue, it's entirely another to disrupt others efforts for advocacy. Yet we see it frequently here. It's regressive and offensive.

Do you think the mods were afraid because of the few bad apples who think being pro man means being against feminism?
I don't know the history, but I'm curious as to your take on it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

243. I haven't talked to the admins about the issue directly.

... and it's water under the bridge.

But I do know that for a long period of time, moderators in DU2 were instructed to summarily lock threads on the topic as disruptive and too controversial.

[Bonobo]

247. But it is EXACTLY the opposite that happened here.

I started an OP in the MEN'S GROUP about male on male violence. It's main point was about how Male on Male violence is largely ignored by society and in the media.

I only parenthetically mentioned "feminist groups" as one of many that should be consistent about their stances on violence and say something about it. I mainly was referring to the whole society and singled out "progressive groups" as well as the media.

That OP was cherry picked to focus on my criticism of Feminist Groups and started as an OP in GD to make it look like we were harping of Feminist Groups.

So in this case, just who is trying to "derail" a discussion and disrupt efforts for advocacy?

Extra points for honesty.

[seabeyond]

159. bullshit. wouldnt be involved with a man that thought fighting was the answer. ever. i have spoken

out against it being the "nature" for men to be violent arguing constantly with MEN.

everything i learn, and everything i see tells me otherwise.

[pecwae]

206. Whoa!

I was feeling a little sorry for you in this thread until I read that last sentence. Sounds like you have a personal issue tied up in this and you're casting around for blame. Feminism is not your enemy and neither are women.

[lumberjack_jeff]

213. All three posters who replied to this misread, intentionally or otherwise, what I said.

Anyone who says that (insert kind of people here) all do (this kind of behavior) is operating from a stereotype.

A man who makes an all-encompassing generalization about women, has that kind of woman foremost in his consciousness.

The reverse is also true.

"that kind of man a violent man is the only one on that kind of woman's radar the consciousness of a woman who believes that all men are violent."

I absolutely guarantee that the teacher in question didn't choose a relationship with a nonviolent man or she wouldn't have said that.

[Lightbulb_on]

149. Pretty close...

... but even the method of "taking it outside" has been on the decline it seems. Anecdotally of course...

For good or for bad.. Time will tell.

I will say that I lose respect for a man unwilling and unprepared to act violently to protect himself, his family or his property.

Not a daily occurrence but always prepared.

[libodem]

95. In that violence begats violence

And its a humanitarian issue. Fighting should be done fairly. As a sport.

[Lightbulb_on]

150. Fighting fair in a sport fight? Fine...

When it counts though, I'll run through every dirty trick in the book to protect those I've taken responsibility for.

[ancianita]

98. It most certainly IS a feminist issue. How boys and men define themselves through force is always

a feminist issue. I could go on at length about how it starts in the rough-housing boys are allowed to do to promote competition and dominance in childhood, but books are already written on that subject. Read the book "Real Boys" for a look at betrayals of the wholeness that happens to boys at a young age. Maleness is a construct of patriarchy. This has mighty implications for girls and women for the rest of their lives. You're damned right to ask this question. It's one of the most important questions that all male and female feminists must address to be truly feminist -- and eventually, truly human.

You're damned right it's a feminist issue.

[seabeyond]

160. excellent book, real boys. i bought it a decade ago to read. my then 8 yr old picked it up

and would read here and there until he made ti thru. read it for years, here and there.

he is very academic and a HUGE reader. but, he would read a bit and come in and talk to me. i have only read snippets. that is all i had to read. i already get it. the boys though, choose to read it on their own. and it was great they did. validated the choices they made in identifying their manhood, instead of the definition society tries to feed them.

good stuff

[burnsei sensei]

113. Violence among men is an issue

that transcends feminism.
Violence is a profound issue for every aggregate of every society on earth.
It is part of the human condition; let it be approached this way.

[ancianita]

138. No. Violence is the divider between genders. It IS part of the male identity construct.

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2012, 03:57 PM - Edit history (1)

You dismiss the profundity of violence as part of a worldwide belief in one of the characteristics of male identity. Your denying the "violence as a part of maleness" construct is more of what those who fill prisons, power hierarchies and run wars do. Any kind of "women do it, too" implication is the mother of all false equivalencies. The stats are there. Women can be violent, but it's not institutionalized as part of their "training" to be women. Even institutionalized male constructs are there. Women as feminists are part of this discussion and men should not shrink from it or try to control the parameters and definitions.

[rrneck]

119. Violence is a violence issue. nt

[libdem4life]

124. For indigenous peoples, women and the hearth were protected by the males, as they bore and

raised the children. At some age...usually 12, the boys went through a meaningful and solemn ceremony of the mother releasing the son to the men. The daughters went through a similar ritual, and became a part of the female society. At this point, the responsibility shifted, but it was pre-determined at the time of gender identification. I am sure that the gender responsibility for violence was also included in this process.

Also, maybe not the same peoples...it's been awhile, the teens were allowed to live in communes together to cohabitate at will. Somehow they did not get pregnant. At a given age, they mutually chose to partner, left the "dorm" and created a lifelong family.

At the time, back in the Soc-Anthro days, it struck me as inordinately civilized. The Christians call 12 the Age of Accountability...which always struck me as appropriate.

[Bonobo]

126. That's not really what the post was about.

The post was focusing on how male on male violence is given less attention AS A WHOLE BY SOCIETY than male on female violence.

That's why the title of my post on it was "It's not really violence unless it's male on female violence".

Although I did erroneously mention Feminist group's who decry violence as being one sub-group that tends to pay no attention to male on male violence, it was not the main point I was making.

The main point is that it is largely ignored or treated as if it isn't as serious an issue. The same could be said for female on male violence which occurs as well. Females can abuse older men, younger men, boys, babies and even big strong men. But that's not the main point either.

The point is that if VIOLENCE itself is an issue for you, you must pay attention to male on male violence as well because it is one of the links in the chain of violence that leads to the spread of violence.

You really cherry picked and took it of context in order to hear a nice echo on this one LLP.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

129. First of all i did not cherry pick. I picked what stuck out to me

as an important statement, which now you said you made erroneously

also, notice i have not bullied anyone into agreeing with me, there are multiple opinions posted so clearly i am not looking for an echo chamber

if i had, i wouldn't have picked GD as the forum to hear my own echo

[Bonobo]

131. Do you agree with this statement

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=5717

You seem to have completely misunderstood the poster's point.

Feminism is not advocacy for women. It is advocacy for equal rights. It is advocacy for moving away from a system of patriarchy that glorifies and excuses violence, not just against women, but against children and men as well.

Feminism means equality for everybody.

[boston bean]

145. to me, feminism means

The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

In that end, feminists believe that when women are equal we will have achieved equality for everyone.

That doesn't mean dragging down men, but lifting up women and others to the same status.

[Cleita]

127. I think as human beings we should be concerned about any

kind of violence, so yes.

[Zorra]

158. +1 nt

[liberal_at_heart]

128. any woman who has a father, brother, husband, or son should care

I know I appreciate it when men support feminist issues such as breast cancer and women's rights. Men finally realized that these issues affect women they care about so they began supporting them. I have a father, two brothers, a husband and a son and I worry about their safety all the time. My legally blind husband was almost mugged a couple of weeks ago. If it weren't for a couple of strangers who intervened my husband could have been the victim of male on male violence. These issues affect us all, so we should all care about all of it.

[gollygee]

130. Not a feminist issue, but a human issue

and of course feminists are also humans and hopefully care about and work on both feminist issues, and other issues such as other types of violence, the environment, and other social justice issues.

Some violence other than M/F violence is created by the patriarchy, like the idea that masculine = violent. I guess there are some issues related to other violence that are related.

I guess I am of two minds about it, as I just contradicted myself.

[Bonobo]

141. The irony of this thread...

The irony of it is that this was a post in a men's group trying to discuss the lack of attention male on male violence gets. Feminist groups were only mentioned parenthetically.

And yet, as if to prove the point, the issue of male on male violence has been relegated to a discussion of the "real" issue which is male on female violence.

Thanks for the elegant demonstration of the difficulty of getting people to take it seriously.

The notion that men deserve it because it is a patriarchal society is hard to get beyond. But on an individual level, the everyday victims, the poor, the young, the old, the young, the rich, the black, white, asian, latino... they are not "patriarchs". They are victims.

[liberal_at_heart]

148. Many of us women do take male on male violence seriously

I think many women on this board have become defensive because every time a thread about violence against women is put up men trivialize it. It is obvious that both men and women on this board trivialize violence against the opposite sex. It is really sad to see. Rape and domestic violence against women are serious issues, and so is male on male violence. I would like to see both men and women on this board take all of those issues seriously, but I'm guessing that won't happen. And from what I've seen on posts about violence against women I'm glad I don't visit the men's group. I'm not sure I would want to know what is being said there.

[seabeyond]

161. i didnt know this was about your thread. i didnt see this thread discussing m/f violence more than

m/m violence. i think this thread pretty well stayed on m/m violence and should it be a feminist issue.

i have put many article up in our group on boy/men violence and how it is part of the conditioning to our males that does not have to be. i have raised two boys that have never gotten into a fight outside of home and only tried it a couple times at home when they were younger. me throwing them each in a different direction, .... flying thru the sky .... ok, not that bad. but, it was clear NO violence in this house EVER.

and you know what? we have none.

hubby did not fight. ALL my male friends did not fight. lots of males do not fight.

you will not EVER hear me lessen this issue or see it as acceptable, or a part of who our boys are.

it isnt acceptable, ok, validated, excused in my world

but then, i imagine you know i would say all this cause i say it often enough. this is not necessarily for you...

[lumberjack_jeff]

169. +1 nt

[fishwax]

152. i agree with you (which isn't to say that feminists don't care about such violence personally)

Most of the feminists I have known (I'd guess all, in fact) care about reducing violence and injustice wherever it occurs, but that doesn't make every incidence of violence or injustice a "feminist" issue.

[RobertEarl]

155. Duh!

What do you call a war between men. I mean, it ain't like women do much combat.

[Romulox]

167. No, because women can be isolated from the culture of violence and degredation

that rages in the lives of the men around them.

[obamanut2012]

173. I agree, Priyanka

It is definitely an issue everyone should be aware of and concerned about, because it is a domestic violence issue, but it is not specifically a FEMINIST issue.

[Rex]

183. If we are to hold to the standard that everyone is equal

and there should be no exceptions, then male on male violence is a feminist issue imo. If not that, then it is a progressive issue we should discuss, like the lack of rehabilitation in prisons.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

192. to me it is a progressive issue, but not a feminist issue

much like climate change or lack of rehab or even violence in prison

part of it is also there is a lot of resistance to the feminist movement from men (not all but a fair number), so women articulating this problem IMO will not lead to much aside from resistance.

[lumberjack_jeff]

198. To a person who is primarily interested in equality...

... feminism would seem to hold little attraction.

We're in full agreement, except when you express surprise and dismay that many men don't identify with feminism. Ambivalence would seem a sensible reaction.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

199. i think a lot more men believe in feminist principles, than say you do

which i think is a good thing

i think men who don't see their group as holding more power, are being intentionally blind.

[lumberjack_jeff]

202. I think they're subconsciously invested in the patriarchy.

"My job is to protect the helpless and childlike women, therefore I'm a feminist"

[Rex]

226. True

but the issue must be addressed.

[obamanut2012]

196. I don't think it is a feminist issue

It is an issue feminists should be informed ABOUT, AS SHOULD EVERYONE.

[lumberjack_jeff]

200. It is a progressive issue but not a feminist issue.

Because "equality" is a progressive value and feminist marketing terminology.

[obamanut2012]

205. "feminist marketing terminology"

[lumberjack_jeff]

209. You don't agree?

[obamanut2012]

210. lololol

[lumberjack_jeff]

215. I guess the problem must be the way I'm saying it. n/t

[MrScorpio]

201. There are some things that shouldn't be compartmentalized and violence is one of them

Rather than looking at it as, "As long as women aren't involved in the equation, a feminist need not worry about it", remember that the issue of violence transcends even definitions of gender. It also impacts race, culture and society in general. To say that women shouldn't express concern about male-on-male violence is to disregard that these women have fathers, sons, brothers, mates and acquaintances that could be impacted by it.

What affects these men will invariably affect the women in their lives as well.

Are we to say that these men mean nothing to the women in their lives?

As with the fact that the effects of violence crosses many lines, we are all connected, men and women together.

By saying that the feminist discourse restrict itself away from a male on male violence concern, one would separate whatever meaning that issues feminism have on general peace, justice and equality in our society as a whole.

The benefits of feminism should be extended to everyone in our society, making the lives of both males and females the better for it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

203. "To say that women shouldn't express concern about male-on-male violence"

Women who do so are speaking from a progressive humanitarian viewpoint, not a feminist one.

The distinction is important and relevant.

[sufrommich]

208. " To say that women shouldn't express concern about male-on-male violence"

Nobody said that.

"Are we to say that these men mean nothing to the women in their lives? "

Nobody said that either.

The question was whether it should be a feminist issue. Of course human beings are concerned about violence and crime,and as women are human beings, it goes without question that they share those concerns.

[njcamden_25884]

204. of course not

although it is a major issue regardless

[lumberjack_jeff]

216. Thank you for illustrating the distinction between progressivism and feminism. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

217. or advocating for gay rights and progressivism, or advocating for climate change

and the whole of progressivism.

you're welcome.

[gollygee]

224. There is no contradiction between the two

Progressivism is working for progressive social reforms. Feminism is working for progressive social reforms regarding women's rights and equality. Feminism is one part of progressivism.

[JI7]

230. isn't that like saying distinction between progressivism and health care for all ?

[JackRiddler]

221. Of course it is.

Feminism is a way of viewing the world as well as a moral philosophy. War and peace, economics, technology, everything in the world is a feminist issue. Male violence no matter where directed very obviously is.

[Evoman]

231. I think feminism has and can do more against male vs male violence than men's rights groups.

Even though it may not be a topic that is popular among feminists and even if some men here decry feminism as not caring about men, we really need to think about this.

If you don't think the life of your average man has gotten LESS violent as feminist theory has started changing social dynamics, you are living in a dream world. Feminism gave BOTH men and women a way at challenging gender roles...in fact, it's basically the only reason we can even see how damaging gender roles are to men.

I've been in scuffles. I've been in fights. I abhor violence, and have only ever used it to protect myself. Part of the reason, I suspect, is that I grew up in a rough neighbourhood. But the violence I've had to endure is peanuts compared to the violence that men of older generations and of other centuries endured. Duels for honor. Blood feuds. Honor killing.

Even the violence in my neighborhood was often the result of the lack of introspection. Women may have been fought over. Men may have fought to impress women or defend them. But that is the result of ignorance....it's not because of feminists....its because of the lack of feminist thought. Women I know, even in the hood, hated violence but fear and lack of equal status makes them powerless to do anything about it. The only way we men can be free is if women are free.

I won't fight over a women. I will not hurt other men over perceived slights. The only time I will ever use violence is if violence is done to me and I have no choice. My fiancee is a feminist. She doesn't agree with stupid gender roles, which means that she see through the pathetic challenges of some dumbass alpha male who tries to antagonize me. It frees me from having to be some dumb ape. She didn't leave me when I got cancer and lost the ability to provide for her, because she is a full free women capable of supporting us once she finishes school.

So call me a feminist. Not because I have some white hero aim to defend some weak chicks against the patriarchy. Call me a feminist because I care about who myself and what a gender equal system really means to the stupid pressures we men put on ourselves.

[lumberjack_jeff]

235. What is needed in that regard is a men's advocacy group without the RW politics and hate. n/t

[johnlucas]

232. No. But it's a Humanist issue that can affect Feminism

Specialized advocacy groups are necessary.
Feminists are advocates for the advancement of women.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is an advocacy group for the advancement of colored people like it says.
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is an advocacy group for the advancement of the image of Intersexed people (also known as LGBTQ).
Unions are advocates for the advancement of workers.

Focused groups based on protecting & securing the rights of disempowered portions of the populace are absolutely necessary in this society. A More Perfect Union couldn't form without resistance to a powerful group's tyranny.
This country is based on Equality under the law regardless of how poorly it has lived up to its advertising.

Feminism is concentrated on the issues of women as it SHOULD be.
Male-on-male violence is a Masculinist issue specifically & a Humanist issue broadly.
Being a humanist issue & given the fact that men don't exist without women/women don't exist without men, Feminists should keep tabs on the issue under a humanist lens.

After all Humanism is the supergroup that contains Feminism, Masculinism, Colored People's rights, LGBTQ rights, Worker's rights.
Because of this Humanist supercategory Feminists should have some concern over Worker's rights, LGBTQ rights, Colored People's rights, AS WELL AS Men's rights.

This is an ecology.
What affects one will eventually affect all.
Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.
Every action has a reaction.

I'm a Black man who can recognize that there can be injustices towards Whites.
Women should be able to recognize that there can be injustices towards Men.
As a Black man it does me no disservice to seek justice for Whites even though my people have been oppressed by Whites.
EVEN IF Blacks STILL remain under certain forms of oppression from Whites, I don't feel good celebrating something wrong done to a White just because there's a long history of things being done wrong to Blacks.

Women suffered under much oppression over millenia but is it right to dismiss an injustice towards a man because of that history of injustice towards women?
As a Black man I recognize it was a certain number of Whites who corrected their unjust system to recognize Blacks as equals.
Women must remember it was a certain number of Men who corrected their unjust system to recognize Women as equals.
As a result, we're probably gonna get our first female President in 2016.
(doggone it you better run Hillary!)

The disconnect & dismissal of another's rights is why I get pissed at Blacks who dismiss the cause of Gays.
ESPECIALLY after what we went through & are still going through in some cases (RIP Trayvon).

I'm not Gay or Bi or Trans or none of those other various initials that make up the LGBTQ.
Doesn't mean I'm callous to their suffering.
I'm not Female.
Doesn't mean I'm callous to their suffering.

Men suffer under other men. Men have oppressed other men.
Men suffer too even if some of that group also oppressed women.
And yes sometimes men suffer under women.

It's time to talk about these injustices with the same dedication as we talked about the injustices towards women.
I'm in agreement with the poster named lumberjack_jeff that there needs to be a Men's Rights section in this site that focuses on injustices against men & boys.

We gotta stop playing Kindergarten Sandbox with these gender issues. Boys Club here & Girls Club there.
Real progress comes ultimately from a Humanist perspective that seeks to give all members of society a fair shot.
To adjust that society in ways where every member gets to shine.
Civilization's ultimate goal is Utopia.
And if we can't get that, we can at least get the next best thing.

If we don't care about that, just go back to the old way & end this American experiment right now.
John Lucas

[lumberjack_jeff]

236. Thanks John!

There is a men's group here at DU.

Advocacy is useful, effective and often necessary. It's not a dirty word; my issue is with the head-fake.

[johnlucas]

245. Wow. This site is humongous. I had no idea.

Well, cool then.

While the Democratic Party started as a party dedicated to the interests of White slaveowners, it has definitely become the home for Human Rights causes today.
There's a logical reason to push for Human Rights.
You get higher quality more productive societies as a result.

Everytime we pushed for better rights for a disempowered group things have gotten better for the whole society.
I was glad that Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act in his first action as President.
There are more issues in Women's Rights that need to be addressed but so much progress has been made over the past 100 years.
As we continue to progress on that front we can afford to check on Men to see that their rights are not abused or eroded.

It's not a Zero Sum Game.
Improving the plight of women does not have to erode the plight of men.
And improving the plight of men does not have to erode the plight of women.

I have read some stuff from MRA folks & while sometimes they have good points other times they're too caught up in their anger preferring to play a tit-for-tat game.
Trying to return to the good ol' days that never were is what I get from some of these guys.
(There's a reason Feminism started guys)
One thing that will have immediate benefit is automatic paternity tests at birth so unwitting men are not forced into financing a baby that is not theirs unwillingly.
They should have a choice not be forced into things by default.
And there needs to be much more balance in Family Court. Sometimes the better parent is NOT the mother.
And I don't know if it will ever take root but one day we're gonna have to revisit the issue of alimony.
This made sense when women weren't allowed to make a living for themselves but this rule has been exploited to turn marriage into a cash-in strategy.
I say enforceable prenuptial agreements before every marriage.

These are some things that Men's Rights Activists can start on that will have great remedy.
John Lucas