The correct use of violence is nothing to do with the person you hits gender. It is to do with self defence and doing whats right. What I think you need to say is that Good people do not use violence against defenceless and weaker people for their own enjoyment, gain or out of maliciousness. It is churlish to glibly state that there is no context in which violence is not appropriate.
After all an ex of mine was an extremely competant martial artisit, and was wont to use said skills againts me on more than one occasion, does it make me not a real man that I choose to defend myself (she kicked my arse anyway but thats another matter).
It may just be me, but I find 'PC' comments like that come with a whole bundle of 'isms' pre built into them.
Real men don't hit women why? Because all women are physically inferior to men? Because all women are less able than men? Because all women deserve a special level of protection that men don't?
In England the most at risk group from violence? Males aged 16 to 35. I don't see them getting special consideration when it comes to violence even though they are far and away the group most likely to die from it.
Surely its better just not to be a nasty fucker to anyone, regardless of gender, creed or any other thing.
I agree in principle with what you're saying. However, the reality, at least in the US, is that intimate violence is most likely to be perpetuated by a male on a weaker member of the family (a woman and/or children.) Out of curiosity, your statistics for England most likely refer to violence against males 16-35 perpetuated by a member of the same cohort, correct?
When women perpetuate absue in relationships, it's more likely to be psychological or indirect rather than direct. I'm not saying that some women don't hit, punch, kick, or throw things at a male partner. But women are more likely to do something like smash a car window with a brick.
Part of the reason why there is some validity to the "real men don't hit women" sloganeering is that our culture teaches males that hitting or other acts of violence are solutions to most, if not all, problem sets. Although women are making "gains" (1) in statistical tallies of violent crime, it is still far more likely that the perpetuator of any violent act, from a bar fight to murder, is a young man from the age cohort mentioned above.
(1)Something that I wonder is whether or not the upswing in women as the perpetuator of violent behavior can be linked to feminism. The message of feminism is that women should stand up for themselves or that women = men and that women should be encouraged to model non-female gender stereoypes. Since our culture does, at root, have a romantic image of male violence (soldiers, barbarian heros, cowboys and the like), how much encouraging of young girls and women to adopt male postures covertly enocourage women to begin to model the less desirable aspects of socialized masculine behavior?
As a general rule, I agree with what you're saying here. Gender-bias is something I try to avoid, and as we learn more about the many types of differently gendered people out there, one could get into a lot of trouble if one is too specific ("Well, I'm an XYY, so by definition I'm not a "real" man," and POW!).
I have an unfortunate tendency to hit when angry or cornered, and I have to remind myself that just because my usual victim is 10" taller than me and outweighs me by quite a lot doesn't make it okay. I generally feel like a mosquito wailing on a clydesdale, but of course while I can't physically hurt him, that's not the point. It's something I work on.
I am interested in clarity on the point about males 16-35. Are they typically being victimized by peers -- other males 16-35? I think there's a difference in how one promotes an end to violence because peer-on-peer violence is a different social manifestation than spousal abuse, which is different than child abuse, which is different than rape, which is different than bar brawling, etc, etc, etc. I would also guess that a violent 16-35 year old male has likely learned it from somewhere, and that somewhere is likely from home; the ones who don't die from said violence aren't likely to learn not to hit from being knocked around by their peers.
Rafe's statement posited the caveat of "Real Men" not hitting women. I belive you're rant failed to take that into account. First you have to define what sets apart a "Real Man" from "regular men." In this case, Rafe's "Real Man" (RM going forward) must have something "regular men" (rm) don't. I would feel it safe to conjecture that Rafe's RM has a sense of pride, honor, even a certain gentleness that is absent in rm. So instead of being an observation, Rafe's statement is a guideline that states if you want to be a REAL MAN you never should hit a women. So unless I'm wrong, I think your rant comes from a misunderstanding of Rafe's intent.
if statistics did not clearly indicate that A) men are *MUCH* more likely to be the aggressor in a physical attack, and B) that most men *are* stronger than most women, I'd agree to the notion of a change in wording.
However, your circumstance is rather a rare one. It's a little like a rich white guy complaining that he wasn't treated fairly in NOLA.
Just for example, a woman is more likely to go to jail for a lengthier period of time for killing an abusive Husband in self defense than *he* would be for killing her in his abuse in the USA.
said little rich white guy is not accounting for the fact that, *regardless* of his having one legitimate complaint, he has still not dealt with the depth and degree that is the lifetime of inequity that is what the poor black persons experience has likely been.
The same holds true of the experience of abuse towards women. Of the women in my life who I have conversed with about rape, I literally know not one single woman who has not been attacked. Not...one.
Do men get raped/beaten/abused? Sure. Statistically speaking, usually by other men, BTW. So, when I hear of a man saying that mens issues need to also be considered, I see it as a little skewed and selfish. Sorry...
Until more men champion the *much* greater issue of physical attacks against women, as a woman, I see taking the focus off of it as being moreso a man on woman crime as being very counterproductive.
A better analogy would be to say, if there are two people in an ER, one with a heart attack and one with a sprained wrist, the one with the heart attack gets first treatment. And, as it concerns numbers of victims, men are the sprain.
I am not saying that 'mens' issues need to be considered, what I am saying is that everyone should be treated with EQUAL respect in all things regardless of gender, race, sexuality or any other thing.
I am saying that an unjustified* attack on ANYONE is wrong.
I am saying that Real men are not thugs and act with honour and integrity in all things. Towards ALL people.
Going back to the point of the imaginary rich white guy in NOLA, why should he pay for the sins of his father or his fathers father? If said white guy is a little racist fucker then yeah sure lets hope the residents of NOLA beat him to death.. but maybe they had better find out first, after all he might be nice.
I am saying that Real men are not thugs and act with honour and integrity in all things. Towards ALL people.
This, coupled with Bob's clarification on my use of the term Real Men ("I would feel it safe to conjecture that Rafe's RM has a sense of pride, honor, even a certain gentleness that is absent in real men") is precisely my point.
In the interest of brevity, I was lacking for clarity.
he he bet you wanted to use violence to finally get this posted :)
Said in jest though I know this to be, I'll answer anyway.
Nope. There is only one time I will employ physical violence, and that is in defense of me or mine.
I think it obvious that self defense was not meant in etcet's original statement, and frankly do not understand the need to pick the statement apart... to add caviates, addendums and ammendments. If you know the man, then you know the intent, and there is no need to edit him.
I am not editing him, a comment was posted that I wished to remark on. You know one of those healthy debate things, I am glad it sparked of a strong series of comments. I don't mind at all that almost no one will agree with me, but then disscussing matters like this spark strong view points. Yes its gone a long way from the orginal point, but I read and I learn, and hopefully end up a tiny bit better because of it.
I'd say that there's a lot of vagueness in such statements, y'know. Seeing as you can say you would only defend yourself & your loved ones, & be the kind of person who starts on someone for looking at their partner (I've known people of both genders to turn violently jealous) or it could be only once someone else had actually acted first.
I think we could maybe distill this whole thing down to:
Argg don't you just hate it when LJ and the inter web just eats the really considered and witty reply you have put up... so I'll have another go, this time it may not be so considered and/or funny also I won't reply to everyone on an idividual basis this time but try to cover all points raised.
Firstly, and I think this is an important point to the basis of my comments, I come from a background of violence, used to 'solve' all and sundry problems, and am firmly of the view, that yes sometimes people do need a punch in the head to get them to learn the error of their ways (a glib way of phrasing it I know but hopefully the point is made). I have also been in a couple of situatons where the threat of leathal force was present, so I feel I have a good knowledge of this subject. I mean I know my life would have been better without this knowledge, but we all make wrong choices occasionally (looking in the dictionary I am now thinking that occasionally may not mean what I think it does and maybe should use the words A LOT). So hopefully that has put what I say into a better context, now on with answering some points raised. Oh and at the same time as all this I am lucky enough to be 'afflicted' (it feels like that today) with Gender Dysphoria so I like to feel I can think from both sides of the fence, as it were.
Yes the group most likely to be victims of violence are also the group most likely to initiate it. I personally do not see this as relevant, the victims are still the victims, and the crime is still the crime. As a way out example, if it were, say Elephants doing the violence on said group.. would we care about their gender?
A crime is still a crime, a victim is still a victim, regardless of their gender. I suppose it feels to me a bit like the statement suggest crime is somehow worse if its victim is female.
The point about femenism giving rise to more violence being caused by women is intresting, sadly it is most likely true, but I think indirectly, and of course very misguided. I think maybe it comes more from the culture of self above everything else that exists in the world today.
--> I may be losing the whole thrust of this argument here so excuse me if I ramble
On to violence and men as an issue. Lets face it we (men that is, can i still count myself as that?) are basically designed for violence, in all the years of human history we as a basic package have not changed that much over our basic mammoth killing self, the moral codes we put over our behaviour are really just a thin veneer to enable us to get along in large social groups. Is the nasty violent male really wrong in the context of life? or just not up to speed on the way we do things nowdays? Even today men (and sometimes women) are trained to go and kill people, sometimes lots of people, then expected to slot into a society where even pushing someone is a crime. I am not excusing them, just putting a point across. I think we need to do more thinking about the why, rather than just saying NO! Then we may finally get some answers, and yes I think some of the answers about men may turn out to be pretty unpleasent, but as they are nearly 50% of the population, solutions rather than punative viewpoints and punishments would get better results.
Rafe, I am very glad to say I have met him and yes he strikes me as a decent and perfectly wonderful example of being a bloke, and when I grow up I am going to be just like him (yeah right, I'm scum I know it)
Well I hope that made some sense, I do apologize if it rambled and missed the point, but I have a very bad hangover, its was rock music that made me do it.. its not like I had a choice.
Oh and as a footnote, if it turned out that all spam in the world originated from a woman... would it be really wrong of me to beat her to death with a chair?
being the originator of all spam removes one from the brotherhood of humankind, and you'd best be the fastest runner extant, for you shall be smote with great justice as soon as ye be caught.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ninetydegrees
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
(no subject)
After all an ex of mine was an extremely competant martial artisit, and was wont to use said skills againts me on more than one occasion, does it make me not a real man that I choose to defend myself (she kicked my arse anyway but thats another matter).
It may just be me, but I find 'PC' comments like that come with a whole bundle of 'isms' pre built into them.
Real men don't hit women why? Because all women are physically inferior to men? Because all women are less able than men? Because all women deserve a special level of protection that men don't?
In England the most at risk group from violence? Males aged 16 to 35. I don't see them getting special consideration when it comes to violence even though they are far and away the group most likely to die from it.
Surely its better just not to be a nasty fucker to anyone, regardless of gender, creed or any other thing.
-->rant over.
(no subject)
When women perpetuate absue in relationships, it's more likely to be psychological or indirect rather than direct. I'm not saying that some women don't hit, punch, kick, or throw things at a male partner. But women are more likely to do something like smash a car window with a brick.
Part of the reason why there is some validity to the "real men don't hit women" sloganeering is that our culture teaches males that hitting or other acts of violence are solutions to most, if not all, problem sets. Although women are making "gains" (1) in statistical tallies of violent crime, it is still far more likely that the perpetuator of any violent act, from a bar fight to murder, is a young man from the age cohort mentioned above.
(1)Something that I wonder is whether or not the upswing in women as the perpetuator of violent behavior can be linked to feminism. The message of feminism is that women should stand up for themselves or that women = men and that women should be encouraged to model non-female gender stereoypes. Since our culture does, at root, have a romantic image of male violence (soldiers, barbarian heros, cowboys and the like), how much encouraging of young girls and women to adopt male postures covertly enocourage women to begin to model the less desirable aspects of socialized masculine behavior?
(no subject)
I have an unfortunate tendency to hit when angry or cornered, and I have to remind myself that just because my usual victim is 10" taller than me and outweighs me by quite a lot doesn't make it okay. I generally feel like a mosquito wailing on a clydesdale, but of course while I can't physically hurt him, that's not the point. It's something I work on.
I am interested in clarity on the point about males 16-35. Are they typically being victimized by peers -- other males 16-35? I think there's a difference in how one promotes an end to violence because peer-on-peer violence is a different social manifestation than spousal abuse, which is different than child abuse, which is different than rape, which is different than bar brawling, etc, etc, etc. I would also guess that a violent 16-35 year old male has likely learned it from somewhere, and that somewhere is likely from home; the ones who don't die from said violence aren't likely to learn not to hit from being knocked around by their peers.
(no subject)
Gah... lemme try from here. Sheesh...
However, your circumstance is rather a rare one. It's a little like a rich white guy complaining that he wasn't treated fairly in NOLA.
Just for example, a woman is more likely to go to jail for a lengthier period of time for killing an abusive Husband in self defense than *he* would be for killing her in his abuse in the USA.
/Rant off
Re: Gah... lemme try from here. Sheesh...
Really though said little rich white guy in NOLA should be right to be aggrived if he is treated unfairly.. after all he is being treated unfairly.
-- he he bet you wanted to use violence to finally get this posted :)
Re: Gah... lemme try from here. Sheesh...
The same holds true of the experience of abuse towards women. Of the women in my life who I have conversed with about rape, I literally know not one single woman who has not been attacked. Not...one.
Do men get raped/beaten/abused? Sure. Statistically speaking, usually by other men, BTW. So, when I hear of a man saying that mens issues need to also be considered, I see it as a little skewed and selfish. Sorry...
Until more men champion the *much* greater issue of physical attacks against women, as a woman, I see taking the focus off of it as being moreso a man on woman crime as being very counterproductive.
A better analogy would be to say, if there are two people in an ER, one with a heart attack and one with a sprained wrist, the one with the heart attack gets first treatment. And, as it concerns numbers of victims, men are the sprain.
Re: Gah... lemme try from here. Sheesh...
I am saying that an unjustified* attack on ANYONE is wrong.
I am saying that Real men are not thugs and act with honour and integrity in all things. Towards ALL people.
Going back to the point of the imaginary rich white guy in NOLA, why should he pay for the sins of his father or his fathers father? If said white guy is a little racist fucker then yeah sure lets hope the residents of NOLA beat him to death.. but maybe they had better find out first, after all he might be nice.
*see earlier post about my views on violence
Re: Gah... lemme try from here. Sheesh...
This, coupled with Bob's clarification on my use of the term Real Men ("I would feel it safe to conjecture that Rafe's RM has a sense of pride, honor, even a certain gentleness that is absent in real men") is precisely my point.
In the interest of brevity, I was lacking for clarity.
Re: Gah... lemme try from here. Sheesh...
.... and yes I may have been a little contentious, but I did have the non gender specific blood relative of hangovers whe I started posting.
Re: Gah... lemme try from here. Sheesh...
Re: Gah... lemme try from here. Sheesh...
Said in jest though I know this to be, I'll answer anyway.
Nope. There is only one time I will employ physical violence, and that is in defense of me or mine.
I think it obvious that self defense was not meant in
Re: Gah... lemme try from here. Sheesh...
Re: Gah... lemme try from here. Sheesh...
If what you really mean is...
In the extreme last resort of unarmed self-defense, well that's another story.
Re: If what you really mean is...
Re: If what you really mean is...
I think we could maybe distill this whole thing down to:
CAN'T WE ALL JUST TRY TO GET ALONG?
A reply kind of
Firstly, and I think this is an important point to the basis of my comments, I come from a background of violence, used to 'solve' all and sundry problems, and am firmly of the view, that yes sometimes people do need a punch in the head to get them to learn the error of their ways (a glib way of phrasing it I know but hopefully the point is made). I have also been in a couple of situatons where the threat of leathal force was present, so I feel I have a good knowledge of this subject. I mean I know my life would have been better without this knowledge, but we all make wrong choices occasionally (looking in the dictionary I am now thinking that occasionally may not mean what I think it does and maybe should use the words A LOT). So hopefully that has put what I say into a better context, now on with answering some points raised. Oh and at the same time as all this I am lucky enough to be 'afflicted' (it feels like that today) with Gender Dysphoria so I like to feel I can think from both sides of the fence, as it were.
Yes the group most likely to be victims of violence are also the group most likely to initiate it. I personally do not see this as relevant, the victims are still the victims, and the crime is still the crime. As a way out example, if it were, say Elephants doing the violence on said group.. would we care about their gender?
A crime is still a crime, a victim is still a victim, regardless of their gender. I suppose it feels to me a bit like the statement suggest crime is somehow worse if its victim is female.
The point about femenism giving rise to more violence being caused by women is intresting, sadly it is most likely true, but I think indirectly, and of course very misguided. I think maybe it comes more from the culture of self above everything else that exists in the world today.
--> I may be losing the whole thrust of this argument here so excuse me if I ramble
On to violence and men as an issue. Lets face it we (men that is, can i still count myself as that?) are basically designed for violence, in all the years of human history we as a basic package have not changed that much over our basic mammoth killing self, the moral codes we put over our behaviour are really just a thin veneer to enable us to get along in large social groups. Is the nasty violent male really wrong in the context of life? or just not up to speed on the way we do things nowdays? Even today men (and sometimes women) are trained to go and kill people, sometimes lots of people, then expected to slot into a society where even pushing someone is a crime. I am not excusing them, just putting a point across. I think we need to do more thinking about the why, rather than just saying NO! Then we may finally get some answers, and yes I think some of the answers about men may turn out to be pretty unpleasent, but as they are nearly 50% of the population, solutions rather than punative viewpoints and punishments would get better results.
Rafe, I am very glad to say I have met him and yes he strikes me as a decent and perfectly wonderful example of being a bloke, and when I grow up I am going to be just like him (yeah right, I'm scum I know it)
Well I hope that made some sense, I do apologize if it rambled and missed the point, but I have a very bad hangover, its was rock music that made me do it.. its not like I had a choice.
Oh and as a footnote, if it turned out that all spam in the world originated from a woman... would it be really wrong of me to beat her to death with a chair?
Re: A reply kind of
Re: A reply kind of