Feminists like to portray domestic violence as being a result of the "social construction of masculinity".
This gives the impression that there is reason for women to fear men in general, especially masculine men. It also suggests that men need to reform by rejecting a traditional masculinity.
However, before men rush off to sign up for basket-weaving courses, they should consider the following. As I pointed out in a recent article, research shows that men initiate violence in only 15% of cases of domestic violence. It is much more common for the violence to be mutual, or for it to be initiated by women alone.
(Those who doubt that women can inflict serious harm on a male partner might consider cases such as the Swedish woman who earlier this month poured boiling water on her sleeping husband.)
And what of those 15% of cases where the woman is the victim of male violence? A newly released British study suggests that roughly a quarter of such women go straight from one abusive relationship to another. In other words, for psychological reasons they seek out abusive men.
This doesn't excuse the abusive men. But it decreases the statistical likelihood that a well-adjusted woman will be abused by her male partner.
As I noted in my earlier article, in the course of a year there is a roughly 1.5% chance of a woman being hit by her male partner. That figure of 1.5% includes those women who seek out violent partners. So women who aren't seeking out abuse will be the victims of hitting in a little over 1% of all relationships.
So should women fear the garden variety male? Given the research, I don't see why. A woman who chooses an emotionally stable, protective, non-alcoholic, socially successful male is statistically unlikely to be physically attacked by her partner.
The traditional masculine code forbidding violence against women works well in general. It needs to be encouraged, not overthrown.
Women’s nature is generally to seek male partners who are more powerful than they are. This human characteristic is due, in most part, to the fact that men are able to provide a woman with security. Whether it is greater earning power, physical power, or any other power where he is to go above-&-beyond a woman’s capabilities – she is more than grateful for it; especially if it benefits her. (ie: Making her life comfortable & secure.)ReplyDelete
These ‘masculine’ characteristics which make men the ‘most’ appealing to every woman, is exactly the characteristic that feminism absolutely deplores. In fact, feminism’s foundations are based on blaming and hating men for all the wrongs (theoretically) that women have (and continue?) to suffer.
Since all ‘modern’ women are feminists, they’re fighting an uphill battle with their natures. They inhabit a schizophrenic world where their feminine nature desires a ‘man’, while their ethical & political beliefs demand a eunuch; stripped of all masculinity.
Most every male & female will attest to the fact that no woman desires (or finds attractive) a man who is subservient or ‘wimpy’. You hear women state, “Where have all the REAL men gone?” – by which they mean the traditional masculine men who protected & took charge.
Well…. The answer is self-evident.
When feminism has (through legislation, courts & law) made masculinity ‘illegal’ - then masculinity will disappear. No man wants to waste his time in prison, or with a feminist woman. (which really, amounts to the same thing.)
Men tend to find ‘logic’ comforting, and as such cannot pretend (for very long) to inhabit a world where fantasy (feminism) replaces nature & reality. Thinking men, as opposed to males, will simply walk away from feminism – and subsequently; women.
Which is an unfortunate thing.
On one hand, is great risk - while on the other, there is none.
It’s a no-brainer really… for men.
In Andrea Dworin’s book ‘Woman Hating’ – she states, “Men start wars, so they should have to fight them”. This avoids the concept that women LIKE aggressive men because it ties into the notion that he can protect her. I contend that, “Men will stop fighting wars when women stop loving men who do.”
Women have to take steps to rectify the decades of man-hating that has increasingly eliminated chivalry from society. Men ‘cannot’ be gentlemen if there are no “ladies” left. Since most men are (by nature) heterosexual, then it serves that men cannot (innately) find attractive ‘worth’ in a masculine female, the likes of which we see going to work everyday in her ‘powersuit’ showing men how it’s done. Men don’t desire women as ‘competitors’ in their environments. It’s only destructive to the harmony between men & women in a mating context – as is clearly evident today with no more than 30% of marriages lasting. Women demand to dive into all ‘male’ areas to compete with men? – fine – as long as they accept the responsibility of the decisions they make. “Forcing” nature to revolve around society doesn’t work. Despite what feminism will ‘force’ onto public perception – most men DON’T like arrogant bossy women (and no, we are not ‘threatened; by them. We just find them unappealing), most men don’t like ugly overweight women (and we don’t care what feminists say REAL women are supposed to look like).
But, I digress…
It’s widely known that the ‘nice guy doesn’t get the girl’ – which is a perverse way of saying that men shouldn’t pander (or compromise) their masculinity around women. Men have never hated women for being feminine; infact it’s what we love about them. Women (in some bazaar way) have managed to publicly hate masculinity, whilst secretly desiring it. A very, very messed up way of trying to find happiness with men.
Traditionally, women had it better (in relationships) – because society’s ethical code of conduct placed women on pedestals.
Now - women are on their own.
PS: If feminism continues without opposition, I’d suggest all men invest their shares in catfood & vibrators, because there’ll be an aweful lot of single women in the future.
I doubt women 'seek' to be abused.
The problem with our feminist times is that it fosters the notion that one needn't have responsibility for one's actions. Feminists don't 'chose' abuse - but rather chose the ethics that invariably lead to consequences that make them 'feel' abused.
Comments policy note:ReplyDelete
I've now deleted several comments made in response to Bobby N.
I'd encourage readers to express disagreements with posts or comments politely, and preferably with a thoughtful argument.
Personally, I think Bobby N is right that there is a conflict between what feminism tells a woman to seek in a man and what her heterosexual nature will drive her to seek.
I think he is right too feminism has disrupted the normal process of establishing relationships and forming families.
Several posts?... well, aren't i the pariah.ReplyDelete
My intent isn't to insult individuals, but considering the 'me' nature of our times - I can see how feminists would read everything to include them 'personally' - even though I am discussing broad social/political observations. Feminists, unfortunately, see ‘everything’ to involve them in some way.
For example, feminists demand that there be no ‘male-only’ arenas where females are not permitted (eg: Men’s clubs, sporting clubs, etc) – even though the same ethics are absent (and conveniently explained) when they require their space. (eg): ‘Female-Only’ gyms, where the excuse is “Women don’t feel comfortable with men watching them work out.” – well… aren’t we all just conveniently shy ‘now’? - I will resist the temptation to point out that it is these SAME feminist ‘wallflowers’ that demand women have the right to walk the streets topless (like men) in the name of ‘equality’ (Like is already ‘Law’ in Canada.)
Feminists only acknowledge differences when it benefits them. It has little to do with (so-called) equality.
eg): If someone were to comment to me, "Men are sexually driven" - I would have to agree, because the statement is essentially, true. If one took a random sample of 1000 males & measured their libidos & frequency of sexual interest, I'm sure it would be so much higher than a similar sample of females, that it would serve as a sound argument. The statement observes men in ‘general’, and not ‘me’ as an individual.
There’s the famous John Clese sketch where he’s onstage and says, “Women take everything personally.” – Right then a woman stands up & says, “Well I don’t!”
In regards to what Bobby N has said, I am not disagreeing, simply shedding a brighter light on a clearly, not fully overturned stone. I think you should watch the BBC4 documentary on Billie Holiday before you clumsily state "i doubt women seek abuse". Albeit this woman had a number of issues, but she intentionally put herself in these intense situations with men, drugs & alcohol repeatedly. I think it is a very important question and should not be cast aside so quickly just because there is a single argument on the other side.. ;)ReplyDelete