Friday, August 11, 2006

Who are the victims of violence?

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has released a survey on personal safety in Australia. As reported in today's papers, the survey finds that men are twice as likely as women to be victims of physical violence or threats (1 in 10 men as opposed to 1 in 20 women).

Women were more likely to experience sexual violence than men (1.6 to .6) - note, though, that men are still a significant component even in this category of violence.

The statistics don't support the usual feminist take on violence, in which an oppressor male enacts violence against an oppressed female to uphold patriarchal control. It's difficult to accept this view when violence is mostly directed against men themselves.

19 comments:

  1. When the 'definition' of violence (by feminists) is anything that makes a woman "Feeeel" uncomfortable, then of course you will have more women reporting violence.

    Men tend not to report these trivial issues as the 'strong-independant' feminists would.

    The 'perception' of violence is skewed due to this, and other, circumnstances that would force people to act like sensible adults.

    Bobby.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your posts begin to seem one-sided... I don't give a rats what the usual feminist take on violence is. Everyone accepts that violence is just as wrong whether it's perpetrated on a woman or man. Look at the stats on who it's perpetrated by though...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lisa, if everyone accepts that violence is just as wrong if perpetrated on a man or woman, then where are the campaigns against violence directed toward men?

    Such campaigns always assume that women are the victims and not the perpetrators.

    The reason for this is an ideological one. Feminists have a patriarchy theory in which violence is understood to be a means by which men as a dominant class use violence in a systemic way to oppress women as a class.

    You can only maintain this ideological view through heavy filtering of the facts: you leave out the instances in which women are the perpetrators of violence and in which men are the victims of violence.

    This creates a false view of the real situation, and it disrupts, unnecessarily, the relations between young men and women.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bobby, if you looked at what mark wrote, you will see that men are twice as likely to be victims of physical violence as women. So when you talk about more women reporting violence, are you then talking about sexual violence (over 2 times as likley to happen to women as to men) and saying this is trivial?

    [anonymous, apologies for omitting the first part, but I'd like to discourage ad hominem comments. - Mark]

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't believe that the patriarchy as oppressor theory holds much weight, especially considering the male dominated power structures of some matriarchal sub saharan African societies - but still, I find it hard to accept that violence against women and men is the same thing.

    Our natural reaction to vision of a man assaulting a woman is to judge him as weak and low caste. I think the debate about violence towards women should focus on what a non masculine characteristic it is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ……………………..
    LISA SAID:
    Your posts begin to seem one-sided... I don't give a rats what the usual feminist take on violence is. Everyone accepts that violence is just as wrong whether it's perpetrated on a woman or man. Look at the stats on who it's perpetrated by though.
    ……………………..

    Great Lisa, first you accuse someone of being one-sided, then in the next sentence state “I don't give a rats what the usual feminist take on violence is.” – thereby being one-sided yourself.

    Yes everyone knows violence is wrong, but I was talking about the ‘definition’ of violence and how our laws are skewed to favour a feminist standpoint. Instead of the “Hundreds-of-Thousands” of taxpayer funded dollars given to commercials promoting, “Australia Says NO to Violence Against Women” – why not just promote, “Australia Says NO to Violence.” ? If you still think I’m exaggerating about the chauvinistic feminist attitude that is inherent in our culture, you’d do well to re-read that last sentence a few times.

    ………………………..
    ANONYMOUS SAID:
    Bobby, if you looked at what mark wrote, you will see that men are twice as likely to be victims of physical violence as women. So when you talk about more women reporting violence, are you then talking about sexual violence (over 2 times as likley to happen to women as to men) and saying this is trivial?
    ………………………..

    He may infact experience more physical violence (definitely verbal harassment/nagging), but how often does he report it? How often is it acceptable during normal ‘fun’ for a woman to punch a man in the arm as she laughs and says, “Oh stop it.” during a joke or funny situation? Come on - I mean seriously. How likely do you think it is for a man to report ‘physical’ violence from a woman? It’s embarrassing (for one), and he’s more likely to be able to take a higher threshold of pain (from physical abuse) than a typical women would. [Due in part to his physicality, and previous ‘rougher’ sporting activities]. The extreme to which a man would probably think of reporting violence would be one where his life was actually in danger. What I was commenting on, was the notion that feminists seem to deem almost any situation that makes a woman ‘feel’ bad as an excuse to report him on charges that would be treated as serious as an ‘actual’ dangerous situation.

    Going for the extreme cases of sever ‘physical’ violence where a man is infact a ‘nut’ is a common tactic feminists use. We see it often in Current Affairs programs where they find a rare wife-basher, and proceed to put him on display for all to watch. People who find it easier to go through life ‘not’ thinking, tend to look at this ‘rare nut’ as the NORM that we should set up strict laws to protect all women against. Even if those laws unfairly effect most of the 'innocent' male popoulation (as a result of being viewed as wife-bashers simply because they are male) – serve only the interests of women alone.

    As Lisa said [above] – the feminist laws “seem one-sided”.
    And they are. They tend to only benefit women, at the exclusion of men (in the short term), and society (in the long term).

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bobby, do you have any facts, statistics or proof to back up your argument? Or is it all just what you think? I know I could argue that most violence is perpetrated by men against women, based on people I know personally, but that would hardly be reliable data. Unless you are working in the field of domestic vioence, you need more than just what you have seen, because it is a relitively limited area.

    I do however, agree with you about the ads, we should be saying no to violence against anyone, male or female.

    [Understood Mark]

    ReplyDelete
  8. ………………………………..
    ANONYMOUS SAID:
    Bobby, do you have any facts, statistics or proof to back up your argument? Or is it all just what you think?
    ………………………………..

    I’d hope more people would actually ‘think’ about these issues in our culture instead of falling back ONLY on the ‘statistics’, ‘numbers’ & (supposed) ‘facts’ that the media feeds us – but then I also understand that the current generation is intellectually lazier, and that ‘thinking’ is very much out of fashion.

    Numbers are fine as a ‘support’ to frame an opinion if all the foundations are solid. Not as the argument itself. What I am talking about is information, together with one’s ‘reasoning’ ability in reference to the world around them. Numbers can (and are) fudged. The only time I’d suggest observing statistics is when they are very starkly contrasted. (like 90% of all… ) – but even then I wouldn’t base my whole argument on them. The media constantly publish ‘facts’ and ‘figures’ by so-called experts that from one-day-to-the-next contradict the previous day’s findings. “New research has shown…” being the obvious example. A frenzy of constantly changing so-called ‘facts’ that have nothing to do with being honest.

    I really ‘think’ (and you are free to disagree), that as an adult, you owe it to yourself to make your judgments based on what you read and see in the media (which you are partially correct on Anonymous) – but “also” the ‘cause-&-effect’ of what you’ve seen/read in the ‘obervations’ around you in YOUR personal world. The world you actually live in. THEN, after comparing your ‘real’ world and the one ‘fed’ to you through media, you (as an adult, hopefully) make your final judgements/truths.

    ………………………………..
    ANONYMOUS SAID:
    Unless you are working in the field of domestic vioence, you need more than just what you have seen, because it is a relitively limited area.
    ………………………………..

    I don’t JUST use what I have seen. I look at all areas. Media, my life, literature, etc – and form my opinions based upon looking at as many angles as I can. Saying that “Unless you are working in the field of domestic violence, you need more than just what you have seen” is infact ‘Limiting’ your thinking. You’re saying that unless one has a certain ‘job’, then you don’t have much weight to your ideas.

    You ‘know’ what you see around you. After absorbing ideas from different areas, I’d hope most of us start to ‘think’ and form an honest opinion about life. (eg: Simply using ‘statistics’ like 50% of the workforce should be women because it sounds ‘fair’), avoids thinking about what ‘effects’ these numbers (or convenient tactics) create. – ie) Who takes care of the kids? How does it effect tax rates? How does the standard of living change? How do relationships change?

    Statistics alone can (sometimes) be a dishonest persuader.
    You make your own decisions, and pay the consequences for them.


    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good answer Bobby, I guess I don't really want statistics, but my query is how do we reconcile two completely different points of view, when our judgements have been made in similar ways?

    .........................
    BOBBY SAID
    "...but then I also understand that the current generation is intellectually lazier, and that ‘thinking’ is very much out of fashion."

    I think you are being short sighted in your generational attitudes, you must realise that all generations think badly of the ones below them, and it gets passed on every time. Just the same as moral panics, every generation has one, starting with Jazz through to Elvis then Heavy Metal right up to Hip-Hop.

    ReplyDelete
  10. …………………………………..
    ANONYMOUS SAID:
    “I guess I don't really want statistics, but my query is how do we reconcile two completely different points of view, when our judgements have been made in similar ways?”
    …………………………………..

    Basically, by my last sentence:
    "You make your own decisions, and pay the consequences for them."

    …………………………………..
    ANONYMOUS SAID:
    I think you are being short sighted in your generational attitudes, you must realise that all generations think badly of the ones below them, and it gets passed on every time. Just the same as moral panics, every generation has one, starting with Jazz through to Elvis then Heavy Metal right up to Hip-Hop.
    …………………………………..

    They’re all entertainment examples. They’re hollow comparisons.
    Feminists tend to blame external factors, like ‘food’ being responsible for childhood obesity, or pornography being responsible for rape. It avoids parental/social responsibility.

    I’m talking about personal/social relations between the sexes & their consequences in our culture.

    The more one tends to look at 'What tended to work' in a societal structure - the more one sees that past generations had a better working model than today. I know 'times change' - but if we consciously alter the 'way' we live in relation to one-another (ie. male-female relationships) then we must look in the mirror and pay the consequences for those actions.

    I have a disdain for feminism because it progressively leaves women alone and miserable in their later lives. It's the exact opposite of the 'utopia' feminism promised. We cannot make sweeping societal changes that only benefit one gender over the other. I am more than happy to agree-to-disagree with another's opinion. (Live and let live as it were) – but the people who want to believe in the feminist myth (which they have the right to) need to take responsibility for their decisions.

    I suspect that a big reason feminists (which is the majority of the population) get so irate at my ‘old-fashioned’ opinions, is that it forces them to admit their core beliefs are unworkable when applied to human beings’ nature. That what they’ve spent their whole lives ‘living up to’ is just smoke-&-mirrors.

    Again, the premise is; ‘Believe what you will’.
    Just be clear about what the future may (or will) bring as a result of your chosen ethics, and most importantly, DON’T get mad at everyone and everything else because they didn’t slot into the feminist ‘fantasy’ construct.

    As Camille Paglia was famously quoted as saying, “All it takes is a major catastrophy, and men will be the ones to save the world.”

    I think it’s childish to let grown adults act like children in times of excess and safety, THEN when ‘survival’ is at stake, say, “Ok, we’re sorry – Lets go back to how it was again”. It’s insulting to our ancestors who faught for the privelages these feminists have today.

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bobby, the cold war is over. Crossing out communism and putting feminism in its place is irrational, to say the least. Tilting at windmills is the best way to describe it.

    I see this so much, people who take one thing and apply it to everything that is wrong. All the problems of the world are the fault of liberalism/feminism/ environmentalism/political-correctness/ect ect ect.

    The majority of the population are NOT feminists. What kind of skewed feminist literature have you been ingesting (and seen others take on) that leads you to think feminism will leave women alone and miserable? Forget Germaine Greer, feminism didn't end there, it's moved and so has everyone else.

    Maybe you had a run in with a few men-haters, they exist, same as misogynists, and neither is really very fun to hang around. But the destruction of men is not what feminism is about.

    Strangely I find myself defending feminism, when I do not know anyone who would call themselves such a thing and have read comparatively little about the subject compared to other matters. However, by painting everything with the brush of feminism, you create a very "with us or against us" kind of dichotomy and whether I like it or not I find myself on the other side of the line.

    I take umbrage with some of your comments, not because my "core beliefs are unworkable" and your comments expose them to be as such, but because they insulting to men and women, and any kind of progress which has been made in breaking down the rigid gender barriers which oppress both sexes.

    Live and let live indeed.

    [Also, talking about ancestors who fought for priviliges, I assume you are not excising the suffragettes]

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous, I think you're wrong in several respects.

    First, you suggest that it's people who object to the "isms" (liberalism, feminism etc) who are irrationally applying blame, since the isms don't really exert such influence.

    Your view here is wrong, as the Western political class is orthodox to an extraordinary degree in holding on to these "isms". That's why society continues to be shaped around the principles of liberalism and its derivatives (feminism, political correctness).

    I'm reading a book called "The ethics of identity" by Anthony Appiah. In the introduction he talks about the kinds of issues raised by liberalism and says of these issues "Indeed, I hope to persuade you that they are significant even if, mirabile dictu (miraculous to say), you do not find yourself disposed to think of yourself as a liberal at all."

    So for Appiah, a philosophy professor at Princeton, addressing an audience of intellectuals, it would be a kind of miracle if someone in his audience were not a liberal.

    Feminism is simply liberalism applied to gender and the family. Yes, most people do not identify as feminists. But government policy is based on feminism, and all girls get a strong dose of it at school, university and through women's magazines.

    For this reason, feminism does strongly influence the behaviour of women, particularly those roughly in the age group 18 to 30.

    Anonymous, you yourself have been affected to an important degree by feminist theory. You talk about progress "in breaking down the rigid gender barriers which oppress both sexes."

    But why focus on gender in such a negative way? Why not instead express an admiration for those who best represent the masculine or feminine virtues?

    The answer is that we live in a liberal society, and liberalism asserts that we are fully human only when we are free to choose who we are for ourselves.

    Gender is not something we get to choose, but is something we're born into, so it conflicts with the underlying principles of liberalism.

    Therefore, gender is looked on negatively or suspiciously by feminists as something limiting or oppressive, rather than something positive to individual identity and to the heterosexual appreciation of gender difference.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous, it's a bit difficult to rebut your claim that feminism isn't disruptive to the personal lives of individuals in the short space of a comment.

    So, if you're interested here are some links to articles which discuss such disruption:

    1) Disruption to personal relationships and family formation

    When liberalism fails

    An Australian Carrie

    2) Disruption to motherhood

    Is family a valid feminist choice?

    3) Disruption to fatherhood

    The Old Father

    Fatherless America

    ReplyDelete
  14. ……………………….
    ANONYMOUS SAID:
    Bobby, the cold war is over. Crossing out communism and putting feminism in its place is irrational,
    ……………………….
    Anonymous; using a whimsical comment to show your right doesn’t work. Saying “The cold war is over” doesn’t rebut my suggestion, that Feminism, like Communism, has a ‘very’ similar foundation. The similarities are VERY analogous. Stalin imposed Lysenko’s theories upon the soviet Union, as the scientific basis of his effort to remould human nature and form it into the ‘New Soviet Man’ and consequently; woman. Feminists are quick to label anyone who disagrees with their political viewpoint (and it IS a political viewpoint, like any ‘ism’ – Communism, Nationalism, Feminism, etc) as ‘conspiracy theorists’ or ‘irrational obsessives’ simply to make them seem like nutcases, while doing nothing to disprove the arguments antifeminists (like me) make. Time and time again I hear feminists (with no answer to the hard questions posed) revert to trying to make anyone who disagrees with their viewpoints (like myself), into people who claim to have seen Elvis at a local 7-11shop. Saying that I’m wrong because what I say makes you feel uncomfortable, and so you dismiss me, doesn’t prove your right.

    ……………………….
    ANONYMOUS SAID:
    The majority of the population are NOT feminists. What kind of skewed feminist literature have you been ingesting (and seen others take on) that leads you to think feminism will leave women alone and miserable? Forget Germaine Greer, feminism didn't end there, it's moved and so has everyone else.
    ………………………..
    Saying ‘The Majority aren’t Feminists’ doesn’t make it so. Feminism has been socially/politically instituted by law for a long time now. All the laws that feminists wanted passed in the late 60’s-early 70’s, has been passed. Every single one of them. Saying that no-one is a feminist, while every woman goes on living happily by it’s laws, and being ‘very’ happy to let feminist laws speak ‘for’ them in public and social life; makes your statement a little ill-founded.

    Yes – lets “Move On” is a very popular feminist tactic. It’s a central reason that I have little patience for feminists in our society, since they’re more than happy to “Move On” from any mess ‘they’ve’ made, while NOT wanting to “Move On” from the theoretical “oppressive male patriarchy” that they constantly revert back to, to support their ludicrous ideas.

    I’m well aware that feminism didn’t ‘end’ with Germaine Greer. It’s move on, and on, and changed into a hundred different feminist doctrines. What I find amazing, is that feminists cannot organize themselves into anything resembling a consensus, and yet, still claim that their ideals are the shining light of social democracy and harmony. Feminism is too ‘individual’ focused to be applied to a society. It’s proven in its inability to be a cohesive belief system. No-one can agree ‘what’ feminism IS, and yet (when the hard questions cannot be answered) revert to saying that feminism is a figment of our imagination. That it ‘doesn’t’ exist?

    Really; It’s like dealing with children sometimes.

    Saying that you take umbrage with my comments;
    ……………………………
    ANONYMOUS SAID:
    …because they insulting to men and women, and any kind of progress which has been made in breaking down the rigid gender barriers which oppress both sexes.
    ……………………………
    I find hard to take seriously.

    Men weren't oppressed. Women weren't oppressed. I hardly think that those minority of bully feminists that have persuaded you that a woman's 'boredom' at home equated to 'oppression' is anything to call a 'truth'.

    What rigid barriers? That girls are now taught that a career is the ‘holy grail’, and motherhood is something pushed to the side - that can wait until much later? (often too late?). What feminism has ‘broken’, is the complimentary respect and union between men & women. Feminists cannot realistically continue (as they have at considerable length through the last 40 years) to make fun of men, continue to make politically correct laws against men so they don’t exceed the boundaries that might make a female ‘feel’ bad or succeed in the corporate/political world, and continue to be men’s competitors in the workforce – and THEN expect men to still treat them as pre-Victorian ‘ladies’ who require men’s ‘special’ treatment. No. You are showing us that you don’t require men. That you infact look down on us in many ways (probably due to the ‘oppressive patriachy’ theory), and that it’s quite ‘cool’ and ‘empowering’ to be better than men. To have ‘one-up’ on him. The media proudly has story-after-story of how ‘great’ women are today.

    So enjoy the ego-stroking.
    (Enjoy it while you have your career, anyway).

    Just realize, that the almost extinct marriage rates are reflective of the feminists utopia that’s been created. You can pretend that feminism doesn’t exist. You can ‘move on’ – but I really think one has to look at ‘what’ the causes of our broken society may be.

    Just think at what may be in store (even possibly) for those ‘empowered’ women when they reach retirement, with no career left, possibly no child/ren, and possibly no husband. If a woman can find comfort in having that as a very ‘realistic’ possibility – then continue along your fantasy.

    Just don’t delude yourselves.

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have to say, first off, that these skinny posts are quite annoying, Mark is there any way to allow for wider text?

    .............
    MARK SAID

    First, you suggest that it's people who object to the "isms" (liberalism, feminism etc) who are irrationally applying blame, since the isms don't really exert such influence.
    ........................

    No, I was not denying that the various "isms" do not have influence, what I am saying is that the arguement generally asserts that there was some kind of perfect society which was then ruined by some kind of "ism", laying all the blame at this "isms" feet, which I find simplistic.

    ........................

    "But why focus on gender in such a negative way? Why not instead express an admiration for those who best represent the masculine or feminine virtues?"

    .........................

    I express a negativity to the way gender is used to put people in boxes and say what they can and cannot do or be. If we are talking virtues, not abilities, because those are more so tilted one way or another, I'm trying but can't think of any virtues which are distinctly male or female.

    By the way, how do homosexuals fit into conservative ideology or theory on gender?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Okay, so we had some laws which pulled women out of the ranks of second class citizens. Which ones do you disagree with?
    Does the fact that we have a welfare system, medicare and state owned utitities does not make us all socialists by your logic?

    I am not putting women up on some pedastal, but 'oppressive female matriarchy' is a lot rarer than partiarchy, which has been removed from a state level, but most definitely still exists in some families and relationships. This isn’t in the past, it still goes on.

    “No-one can agree ‘what’ feminism IS…”

    Except you, you know what it is, that everyone is a feminist and that is why society is so screwed up.

    ..............................
    BOBBY SAID

    “Men weren't oppressed. Women weren't oppressed. I hardly think that those minority of bully feminists that have persuaded you that a woman's 'boredom' at home equated to 'oppression' is anything to call a 'truth'”

    .............................

    Yes, the world was a happy place. Oh, for those simpler times when men did all the voting and things like ‘feelings’ were confined to women. Sarcasm aside, I am talking not just historically but also contemporarily, having to submit to someone who is meant to be your partner is oppression, feeling that you have to have the last word in order to save face is the other side of the coin. Spousal abuse is just one part of the oppression, exclusion, physical or verbal violence from ones own sex if one strays across the gender line is still prevalent through primary school right up and through adulthood.

    ............................
    BOBBY SAID

    “What rigid barriers? That girls are now taught that a career is the ‘holy grail’, and motherhood is something pushed to the side - that can wait until much later? (often too late?). “

    ............................

    Nonsense, how many little girls do you know, that are given briefcases instead of dolls to play with? They are given choices, same as guys, and stupid rules, like women having to leave a job upon marriage, have been removed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ………………………..
    ANONYMOUS SAID:
    …having to submit to someone who is meant to be your partner is oppression
    ……………………….
    In certain situations, one person will always end up making the decision. That’s a fact. The act of sex (or any interaction) requires submission & control on some level. It’s a necessity in a ‘partnership’. Not everyone can act, nor can everyone submit. Not simultaneously anyway. It’s a give and take this. At some point it’s the man’s turn to be in charge, and others it’s a females. NOT simultaneousluy, ALL the time. (As feminists would have it). It’s a ridiculous proposition.

    ………………………….
    ANONYMOUS SAID:
    Spousal abuse is just one part of the oppression, exclusion, physical or verbal violence
    …………………………
    Not this ‘straw man’ again.
    What is the percentage of ‘abusive’ partners/husbands? 5%-10% at most.
    Feminists pick a rare example of a lunatic man, and apply it to all. Almost all men like women. And yes, I still think ‘most’ modern women are feminists if they believe all these ludicrous ‘extreme’ cases apply to most men. (That’s why I think I can group most modern women in this way – since they all share the same misconception) – but as I’ve said previously… you are free to believe your own ideas. Really.

    ……………………………
    ANONYMOUS SAID:
    Nonsense, how many little girls do you know, that are given briefcases instead of dolls to play with? They are given choices, same as guys, and stupid rules, like women having to leave a job upon marriage, have been removed.
    ……………………………
    Girls learn by imitating what they see in adults. Namely their parents. If mommy is a ‘modern’ career woman – chances are that, since that’s the only personal reality shes experienced, will probably follow that course. Yes, the rule of women leaving a job upon marriage have gone.

    What happens when she has a child though? Feminists think it’s commendable for career women to ‘pop’ out their infant, then race back to work while daycare workers (strangers) raise their child during the week. The feminists are wanting Government Funded Daycare now too, which only benefits those women who (in the feminists popular lingo) ‘Choose’ to work.

    Why should my taxes pay for raising someone elses child.?

    Your child is YOUR responsibility. If you have a child, you should take care of it. Not expect the state to raise it for you.

    Saying that ‘it takes 2 people’s salary to raise a family’ only avoids the issue, that feminists ‘wanted’ 2 people to work in the first place. Now, apparently, we all have to pay for their short-sightedness.

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh bobby, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially such mis-aimed ones. Accusing me of using a straw man argument you do the very same thing yourself.

    When I said gender roles were oppressive you claimed this was no more than boredom suffered by housewives, I disputed this by raising the issue of abuse, you then concede that yes, more than boredom occurs like abuse, but I am accusing all men of it. You, sir, are the one setting up straw man arguments. In my post I state that patriarchy “…most definitely still exists in some families and relationships…” How is saying “some” making all relationships and men abusive? I have never claimed that, never would. I was saying more than that anyway, abuse is at least frowned upon by society and a punishable offence, but it is the least common or public form of oppression, others are more subtle and ingrained.

    Submit, as in love, honor and obey, that kind of submit. Don’t twist my argument by throwing in more straw men. What you seemed to be saying, if I haven’t misunderstood you, is that a relationship should be run as a meritocracy?

    ReplyDelete
  19. ……………………………..
    ANONYMOUS SAID:
    In my post I state that patriarchy “…most definitely still exists in some families and relationships…” How is saying “some” making all relationships and men abusive?
    ……………………………..
    Some. SOME families.
    My point is, that using these rare cases in discussing the stereotyped reality of ‘most’ families is counter-productive. If we agree that (overwhelmingly) most relationships DON’T have abusive men in them – then adding a statement of “patriarchy…MOST DEFINITELY still exists in some families.” Is beside the point if we are discussing a ‘major’ notion. I could as easily argue that “Dumb women, most definitely exist in society” – but it doesn’t address a majority. It’s simply point scoring. It’s diversion.

    I, in fact, pointed out (right after) I made the comment about the ‘straw man’ – WHY it was a ‘straw man’. It represents such a small section, that it’s unwarranted when talking about the majority of men in relationships.

    If you read my comments more carefully - I also point out that because the laws ‘define’ violence today as anything as minor as ‘raising ones voice’ – it makes a mockery of law, in that ‘violence’ tends to be anything that (subjectively) makes a woman ‘feel’ bad.

    Yes, ‘violence’ is bad and should be frowned upon. I agree, but unless one is citing actual ‘physical’ battery of another – Id say the term ‘violence’ is over-stepping the definition of the term.

    Meritocracy should be logically applied to most social aspects. A meritocratic relationship? To a general extent, yes. I still contend that ‘sex roles’ in a relationship were what made the relationship function well in it’s basic sense. Men stayed out of women’s business, and likewise, women stayed out of men’s. Why are we so surprised at the 'gender war' when men and women are 'competing' against each other in each others' domains? It makes perfect sense - don't you think?

    What I find abhorrent, is that Feminists will argue the ‘equality’ stance, up until the point where nature kicks in. (ie. If there’s a noise downstairs at night, should I expect my wife to go down there and risk her life to protect mine & my families? If the family pet gets hit by a car, and is barely alive, then who's going to put it out of it's misery if it is suffering? My wife?) These are just 2 examples, but there come many-a-time where men do (and should) take up their naturally pre-disposed positions to be responsible because they are able to do it better than anyone else in that situation.

    Let me say, that relationships shouldn’t be equal, simply because men & women are obviously different. Having 2 people drive a car with 2 steering wheels ends in chaos. What feminists have been whining about for 4 decades (and more) is that men have better toys in their sandbox (of which they’ve been born with, or made for themselves & society, and which work more efficiently without women) – that women ‘feel’ jealous of.

    You a free to believe what you want, and pay the consequences for those beliefs – but I don’t see how holding to the feminist illusion of ‘equality’ between the sexes, then complain about men’s dominance in certain areas. If we are the same, then why are we always seen as ‘holding women down? How can we? you've had 50 years. Aside from making laws to keep men from overstepping our boundaries - what has been achieved? Hasn't the marriage rate deteriorated? Aren't there FAR 'more' relationship problems toady?

    We’re approaching 50 years of legal/social feminism, and in all that time women still haven’t progressed passed many of their demands. Even though these demands have become law. Now that women have ‘carte blanche’ in our culture – it is still men who excel in almost every avenue of society. Why? How is the ‘mythical’ patriarchy still so dominant if it is illegal? And has been illegal for so long? The fact is (as I say) that men can achieve in certain areas of life far beyond that of women. EVEN in all of women’s most popular entertainments (Fashion, writing, arts... and even cooking, even if it isn't that popular with women nowdays) men are – and have always been – the highest achievers?

    In marriage, why shouldn’t a wife ‘love, honor & obey’ if he promises to love her back & keep her (safe) ‘in sickness & in health, for richer or poorer’. – EVEN when he’s poor, he’s promised to support her. If he is going to be the one in charge (especially in times of crisis and danger) - then that statute of responsibility in those extreme cases (where a women is more than happy for him to be an ‘old-fashioned’ guy, when her life is NOT going to be sacrificed) – I think makes his role as ‘leader’ more sensible.

    Feminists are essentially saying, “I’m in charge until I ‘feel’ scared.”

    That is the annoyance men feel towards most modern women today.

    But - believe what you will. feminists can find their SNAG, and then bristle in a crisis when she no longer wants to wear the pants, and he doesn't know how to.

    Undoubtably - it will still be his fault.

    Bobby.N

    ReplyDelete