Differing reactions to men & women getting abused

[Loppan Torkel]

This word "echo chamber" keeps coming up. I wonder if you're aware of how ironic it is, when it is used in this thread to slander "feminists." Notice that once I, TF, and Crezth stopped frequenting the thread (and the other "feminist" threads), things went from extremely high-strung to calmed down. Once the "feminists" were gone, the men could finally get down to business and discuss things in a calm and orderly manner. Get to the bottom of the issue, without all that feminist claptrap clouding up the matter. And now it's a bunch of men patting each other on the backs for coming to agreements about a feminist issue without consulting anyfemale or feminist opinions.

Do you understand now how these threads are each excellent examples of an echo chamber? How it is not we who are the ones intolerant of other viewpoints, but you guys? Or at worst, we are both somewhat intolerant.

*The word "feminist" here appears in inverted commas, because I don't consider myself or any man to be feminists. Feminism is the movement to liberate women, and it would be improper for a man to assert his power over the movement to escape the power of men. We men are allies, with a mission and duties unique to our identity as it relates to the situation. It is the same for LGBTQ allies, POC allies, proletarian allies. We work together, but in separate ways, toward a common goal, according to our abilities, without stepping on any toes.

I quoted "echo-chamber" since it was Crezth who brought it up now, so no irony... To clarify, I meant that you guys seem to visit the reddit MRA sites more than anyone. Does anyone of us 'crypto-MRAs' visit any such sites? I've never been to one. I've learned about this from the 'feminists' here. ..and if you go back to the start of the thread you'll notice that it didn't start with slander of feminists. It got off to a bad start after some pretty antagonistic posts by Crezth. If it got less high-strung after some of you left, it might be because the tone improved somewhat.

Since I can't call you guys feminists. Is 'crypto-feminists' the appropriate word?

Where do you get these ideas from? gender studies? books? certain communities?

 

[Gori the Grey]

This word "echo chamber" keeps coming up. I wonder if you're aware of how ironic it is, when it is used in this thread to slander "feminists."

I wonder if you know how ironic it is that, prior to Loppan's quotation of it, it had in fact only been used by yourself and Crezth, posts 75 and 211, respectively.

Notice that once I, TF, and Crezth stopped frequenting the thread (and the other "feminist" threads), things went from extremely high-strung to calmed down.

That would be from posts 197-207. The only back-patting that went on was me thanking Rash for helping make my anti-patriarchy post more precisely worded!

 

[Traitorfish]

"Don't be ridiculous, it's not an echo chamber."

chamber.

chamber.

 

[illram]

Skipping a lot of posts admittedly, but here is my (perhaps irrelevant) observation: the root cause of the disparity in society's treatment of male victims of domestic violence vs female victims is... the construction of "maleness" as created and maintained by men.

"Take it like a man" is the knee-jerk reaction you would probably get from most men learning of another man being abused by a woman. Or "ooh you got molested by a woman, hot" or something equally stereo-typically "manly." The idea that men should shut up and take it and act like men and not complain--that complaining is for women--is a male construct. So I get confused when people blame "feminism" or worse, women in general, for this disparity.

So to me, creating a healthier awareness of male abuse starts with a healthier male gender identity and male sexuality. One that does not shame other men for being physically or sexually beaten by "the weaker sex."

 

[trader/warrior]

...

I have been trying and failing to put words to my thoughts on the video for a while now, then illram came along and articulated it perfectly.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I am not about to "put the blame" on women, but aren't also women part of this ideal of a "real" man?

 

[Senethro]

Skipping a lot of posts admittedly, but here is my (perhaps irrelevant) observation: the root cause of the disparity in society's treatment of male victims of domestic violence vs female victims is... the construction of "maleness" as created and maintained by men.

"Take it like a man" is the knee-jerk reaction you would probably get from most men learning of another man being abused by a woman. Or "ooh you got molested by a woman, hot" or something equally stereo-typically "manly." The idea that men should shut up and take it and act like men and not complain--that complaining is for women--is a male construct. So I get confused when people blame "feminism" or worse, women in general, for this disparity.

So to me, creating a healthier awareness of male abuse starts with a healthier male gender identity and male sexuality. One that does not shame other men for being physically or sexually beaten by "the weaker sex."

Even if it is irrelevant its a good observation and worth repeating. Often.

I am not about to "put the blame" on women, but aren't also women part of this ideal of a "real" man?

Well, yeah, kinda. This kind of macho-ness is an unhealthy cultural idea that can be held and perpetuated by anyone and harms men as well as women.

Just don't forget who gets most harmed by it.

 

[Narz]

Men & women don't exist in isolation. The characteristics of both maleness & femaleness need to be expanded. Keep in mind that both males & females absorb gender roles from both parents & peers & family members of both sexes. Both men & women are rougher with babies who are told they are male.

 

[illram]

I am not about to "put the blame" on women, but aren't also women part of this ideal of a "real" man?

Sure. But since, in my opinion, men are the primary cultivators of the most harmful elements of our own gender identity, it is men who must be the primary facilitators of change in their own gender identities first. The male stereotype needs to change. That a man is weak for being the victim is a male idea, perpetuated primarily by men.

 

[nc-1701]

Skipping a lot of posts admittedly, but here is my (perhaps irrelevant) observation: the root cause of the disparity in society's treatment of male victims of domestic violence vs female victims is... the construction of "maleness" as created and maintained by men.

"Take it like a man" is the knee-jerk reaction you would probably get from most men learning of another man being abused by a woman. Or "ooh you got molested by a woman, hot" or something equally stereo-typically "manly." The idea that men should shut up and take it and act like men and not complain--that complaining is for women--is a male construct. So I get confused when people blame "feminism" or worse, women in general, for this disparity.

So to me, creating a healthier awareness of male abuse starts with a healthier male gender identity and male sexuality. One that does not shame other men for being physically or sexually beaten by "the weaker sex."

I am not about to "put the blame" on women, but aren't also women part of this ideal of a "real" man?

There is a lot of truth to this, in general we look at violence against men as normal and perhaps bad but not particularly appalling. Also this is by no means restricted to male-female interactions, we aren't particularly appalled by male-male violence either. We just expect men to get hurt and we expect them be able to get over it.
The contrast is that we feel the exact opposite towards women, we are appalled when they are hurt and more specifically we don't expect them to be able to overcome it on their own.
You'll notice that in a movie if a women is beaten up everyone will comment about how hard it was too watch, but will not do this for men. As another example the UFC (MMA i.e. cagefighting) just added a women's division last year. Many people were upset and claimed they couldn't watch women getting beaten up/hurt.

I don't say any of this to cry about the poor men not getting any sympathy, or some other such .

Rather I point out that when it comes to pain/violence we have a social construct that says women are weak and men are strong. Not just in a physical sense but mentally, men can, should, and must be able to deal with violence and pain. Whereas we don't expect women too and discourage them from participating in sports where they might experience it, until recently we kept them out of the army etc.
This dichotomy has pretty severe negative effects for both men and women. For men it means that many who do need help, or who can't deal don't have a place to turn and certainly can't get very much sympathy. While for women I think the effects are even more we can't tell women they are weak and assume it while empowering them at the same time. If you pay attention to the violence/rape prevention language it's very much telling women to be afraid all the time. While I obviously can't know the exact effects I'm sure this reduces women's lifetime achievements and opportunities on average. If you are always afraid and think you are helpless then there's no way you can be empowered.

Spoiler :

Re the self proclaimed feminist* crowd: I think I've defended myself as much as I need to and will return to discussing the topic. I most certainly did not show up in this thread to attack a some feminist straw man. Rather several posters claiming to be feminists called those posting in the thread misogynists for not focusing on women. And started spouting off about privilege, it is specifically them and there characteristics which I associated with Modern/Tumblr feminism and argued against. If you would prefer I use a different pronoun I will, but I will not call you "Feminists" because it is entirely inaccurate and insulting to actual feminists.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I really am not sure if we can change that man who gets beaten by women will be viewed as weak. I mean, what dpes it mean to be weak? Obviously, weak is a relative concept. For instance: To shout out while being shot in the dick is a very normal reaction. We would not say that this makes a man weak. But to allow oneself to be physically bullied by woman is something most man are able to avoid. For all the sympathy we may muster for such a man - this man still will fail in a way most would not. That I think constitutes "weakness". So I don't think we can change that such a man will be viewed as weak. Because, well, for all intends and purposes - he just is.
I think all we can do is to not use this weakness to ridicule the man or actively lower him as a person. Rather, we can actively heighten him as a person by showing respect and understanding. But it will still suck and still mean this man is weak and will still mean a sorta "natural" lowering. Or so I'd argue.

 

[NovaKart]

It's interesting how a lot of this attitude is really Victorian and has stayed with us despite attempts at de-genderizing society.

It reminds me of the way some countries have decriminalized prostitution by prostitutes but will still prosecute men for seeing prostitutes. I suppose women too if they go to gigolos but it's mostly the former. It's like seeing women as just passive victims who aren't responsible for their own actions. I suppose some of this is an attempt at helping victims of trafficking but I read an article recently about a Cambodian activist who it turns out had fabricated some of her story and also coerced women to lie and say they had been forced into prostitution.

I actually met a teenage girl in Georgia (the country) who had gone to the UK with her godfather and they were both detained for days because the authorities believed her godfather was trafficking her and would not believe that she wasn't a girl being trafficked for sex despite everything she said. They were trying to help her thinking she was a victim but were really locking her up.

I have been skeptical for a long time about the prevalence of trafficking and wondered if people were often just assuming that prostitutes were forced into the business. I wondered if the newsmedia couldn't pass up on a sensational lurid story of sex trafficking and were exaggerating it. Of course I do have the utmost sympathy for victims of trafficking and I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just skeptical of how prevalent it is and if we should assume that most sex workers are forced into it.

 

[Senethro]

It's interesting how a lot of this attitude is really Victorian and has stayed with us despite attempts at de-genderizing society.

It reminds me of the way some countries have decriminalized prostitution by prostitutes but will still prosecute men for seeing prostitutes. I suppose women too if they go to gigolos but it's mostly the former. It's like seeing women as just passive victims who aren't responsible for their own actions. I suppose some of this is an attempt at helping victims of trafficking but I read an article recently about a Cambodian activist who it turns out had fabricated some of her story and also coerced women to lie and say they had been forced into prostitution.

I actually met a teenage girl in Georgia (the country) who had gone to the UK with her godfather and they were both detained for days because the authorities believed her godfather was trafficking her and would not believe that she wasn't a girl being trafficked for sex despite everything she said. They were trying to help her thinking she was a victim but were really locking her up.

I have been skeptical for a long time about the prevalence of trafficking and wondered if people were often just assuming that prostitutes were forced into the business. I wondered if the newsmedia couldn't pass up on a sensational lurid story of sex trafficking and were exaggerating it. Of course I do have the utmost sympathy for victims of trafficking and I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just skeptical of how prevalent it is and if we should assume that most sex workers are forced into it.

Upon reading this post I immediately hit the quote button but now I don't know what to DO with it.

I feel that everything about it is wrong but my thoughts are all falling over themselves trying to be the first one out!

 

[illram]

I really am not sure if we can change that man who gets beaten by women will be viewed as weak. I mean, what dpes it mean to be weak? Obviously, weak is a relative concept. For instance: To shout out while being shot in the dick is a very normal reaction. We would not say that this makes a man weak. But to allow oneself to be physically bullied by woman is something most man are able to avoid. For all the sympathy we may muster for such a man - this man still will fail in a way most would not. That I think constitutes "weakness". So I don't think we can change that such a man will be viewed as weak. Because, well, for all intends and purposes - he just is.
I think all we can do is to not use this weakness to ridicule the man or actively lower him as a person. Rather, we can actively heighten him as a person by showing respect and understanding. But it will still suck and still mean this man is weak and will still mean a sorta "natural" lowering. Or so I'd argue.

If you think that way it will undoubtedly infect your attempt to help him. The first step is--if you have the thought that the male victim is weak or "naturally lower" keep it to yourself and refer your victimized friend to the help of a professional whose assistance will not informed by this bias.

I assume you would agree that telling a man he is "naturally" lower (!) and weak perpetuates shaming male victims of violence and discourages reporting or treatment of abuse. I think even if you think you can ignore that, I do not think you can without a serious critical analysis of why you think that way and some sort of dispelling of that notion within yourself. For example: Do you see any inherent bias or predetermined stereotype in your phrasing of men "allowing" themselves to be abused or that "most men" should be capable of not "allowing" women to abuse them? That word alone is totally loaded. You have already taken your stereotype--that men are stronger and should not be victims--and gone straight to judgment, that men who do so are "naturally" lower, ignoring any context of the actual abuse or its causes and thus continuing a stereotype that actively discourages prevention (by shaming men).

Maybe it is emotional abuse. Maybe the man was abused as a child and is susceptible to domestic abuse. Maybe the man is actually physically capable of stopping it but chooses not to for some reason. Maybe there is some other reason other than the oversimplified "well he must just be weak" or in your words "naturally lower."

When we try to identify and prevent domestic violence against women, victim shaming is one of the types of things we avoid. So it is ironic if you have people clamoring for "male rights" or whatever while at the same time perpetuating ideals and stereotypes that affirmatively discourage proper identification, treatment, and prevention of domestic violence against men.

It's interesting how a lot of this attitude is really Victorian and has stayed with us despite attempts at de-genderizing society.

It reminds me of the way some countries have decriminalized prostitution by prostitutes but will still prosecute men for seeing prostitutes. I suppose women too if they go to gigolos but it's mostly the former. It's like seeing women as just passive victims who aren't responsible for their own actions. I suppose some of this is an attempt at helping victims of trafficking but I read an article recently about a Cambodian activist who it turns out had fabricated some of her story and also coerced women to lie and say they had been forced into prostitution.

I actually met a teenage girl in Georgia (the country) who had gone to the UK with her godfather and they were both detained for days because the authorities believed her godfather was trafficking her and would not believe that she wasn't a girl being trafficked for sex despite everything she said. They were trying to help her thinking she was a victim but were really locking her up.

I have been skeptical for a long time about the prevalence of trafficking and wondered if people were often just assuming that prostitutes were forced into the business. I wondered if the newsmedia couldn't pass up on a sensational lurid story of sex trafficking and were exaggerating it. Of course I do have the utmost sympathy for victims of trafficking and I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just skeptical of how prevalent it is and if we should assume that most sex workers are forced into it.

I think it is safe to assume that people do not make the rational decision to be taken away from their families and shipped off to far away places where they are forced to sell their bodies and suffer sexual and emotional abuse with little to no likelihood of escaping absent the intervention of authorities or aid workers. And if in the process of attempting to stop modern slavery like this we happen upon the occasional oddball who was totally down with this, well I guess that is a risk we have to take...

tl;dr version: "I wish I could be sold into a life of prostitution and poverty and probably get a venereal disease" said no one ever.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I am basing my reasoning on the "stereo-type" that most men would not have themselves be physically abused. Do you actually disagree with this? I am convinced that is so.
Surely, there will always be reasons for this happening. But if you do not manage what the vast majority does or would manage - you are weak. I think your problem is that you think weak equals judgment. I mean sure, in a way it does. But I guess my point is not only. There is also a dimension of weakness which is not so much a matter of judgment but simply fact. And I am saying that because of this dimension being weak for being physical abused by a women is not just a matter of cultural values.
I am not advocating shaming, I am saying even if no one shames there will still be shame.

 

[NovaKart]

Do you think telling a man he is "naturally" lower (!) and weak perpetuates shaming male victims of violence and discourages reporting or treatment of abuse? Do you see any inherent bias or predetermined stereotype in your phrasing of men "allowing" themselves to be abused or that "most men" should be capable of not "allowing" women to abuse them? You have already taken your stereotype--that men are stronger and should not be victims--and gone straight to judgment, that men who do so are "naturally" lower, ignoring any context of the actual abuse or its causes and thus continuing a stereotype that actively discourages prevention (by shaming men).

Maybe it is emotional abuse. Maybe the man was abused as a child and is susceptible to domestic abuse. Maybe the man is actually physically capable of stopping it but chooses not to for some reason. Maybe there is some other reason other than the oversimplified "well he must just be weak" or in your words "naturally lower."

When we try to identify and prevent domestic violence against women, victim shaming is one of the types of things we avoid. So it is ironic if you have people clamoring for "male rights" or whatever while at the same time perpetuating ideals and stereotypes that affirmatively discourage proper identification, treatment, and prevention of domestic violence against men. The first step is--if you have the thought that the male victim is weak or "naturally lower" keep it to yourself and refer your victimized friend to the help of a professional whose assistance will not informed by this bias.



I think it is safe to assume that people do not make the rational decision to be taken away from their families and shipped off to far away places where they are forced to sell their bodies and suffer sexual and emotional abuse with little to no likelihood of escaping absent the intervention of authorities or aid workers. And if in the process of attempting to stop modern slavery like this we happen upon the occasional oddball who was totally down with this, well I guess that is a risk we have to take...

tl;dr version: "I wish I could be sold into a life of prostitution and poverty and probably get a venereal disease" said no one ever.

When I was in Azerbaijan I recall looking at an ordinary Russian newspaper which had a classified section with ads recruiting strippers and escorts to work in New York. They were upfront about it so I think some women do make the conscious decision to do this.

The case I was referring to which was about made up stories was about Cambodia and women trafficked from villages to the capital, not necessarily abroad. The NGOs often assumed they were forced into it and not that they made that choice over poor pay and long hours in the garment manufacturing industry.

I didn't say that women chose of their own free will to be trafficked, I was questioning how often they are trafficked. Big difference.

 

[illram]

I am basing my reasoning on the "stereo-type" that most men would not have themselves be physically abused. Do you actually disagree with this? I am convinced that is so.
Surely, there will always be reasons for this happening. But if you do not manage what the vast majority does or would manage - you are weak. I think your problem is that you think weak equals judgment. I mean sure, in a way it does. But I guess my point is not only. There is also a dimension of weakness which is not so much a matter of judgment but simply fact. And I am saying that because of this dimension being weak for being physical abused by a women is not just a matter of cultural values.
I am not advocating shaming, I am saying even if no one shames there will still be shame.

There it is again--men "would not have themselves be physically abused." This statement ignores the third party--the abuser--and focuses on the acts or problems of the abused. This is classic dysfunctional domestic violence treatment. This is something women had to fight to get rid of to get to where we are today. So if we end up somewhere close to adequate treatment and recognition of male victims of domestic violence, as so many so called "MRA" types want, it will ironically be utilizing foundations built by the feminist movement.

Of course "weak" equals judgment. It is a horrible, crippling judgment, especially for a man. It simply cannot enter the treatment and prevention equation and it should be cast aside as totally and utterly irrelevant. So what if you think he is weak? Why does it matter? It also signals that the person doing the judging is willfully choosing to ignore or not delve into the actual root causes of the abuse. You cannot root out the shame someone sometimes feels for abuse, particularly in a domestic situation. But you can absolutely try to foster the idea that it is not the victim's fault and that it is perfectly acceptable to seek outside help.

When I was in Azerbaijan I recall looking at an ordinary Russian newspaper which had a classified section with ads recruiting strippers and escorts to work in New York. They were upfront about it so I think some women do make the conscious decision to do this.

The case I was referring to which was about made up stories was about Cambodia and women trafficked from villages to the capital, not necessarily abroad. The NGOs often assumed they were forced into it and not that they made that choice over poor pay and long hours in the garment manufacturing industry.

I didn't say that women chose of their own free will to be trafficked, I was questioning how often they are trafficked. Big difference.

You assume these ads were 100% accurate and not at all fraudulent. It is very common in the sex trafficking industry to fraudulently induce women, or worse, the families who sell their young daughters, by promising them something well short of the sex slaves they will ultimately become. I would wager women and young girls who sign up to be "strippers" in NY wind up doing a lot more than just taking off their clothes.

 

[NovaKart]

There it is again--men "would not have themselves be physically abused." This statement ignores the third party--the abuser--and focuses on the acts or problems of the abused. This is classic dysfunctional domestic violence treatment. This is something women had to fight to get rid of to get to where we are today. So if we end up somewhere close to adequate treatment and recognition of male victims of domestic violence, as so many so called "MRA" types want, it will ironically be utilizing foundations built by the feminist movement.

Of course "weak" equals judgment. It is a horrible, crippling judgment, especially for a man. It simply cannot enter the treatment and prevention equation and it should be cast aside as totally and utterly irrelevant. So what if you think he is weak? Why does it matter? It also signals that the person doing the judging is willfully choosing to ignore or not delve into the actual root causes of the abuse. You cannot root out the shame someone sometimes feels for abuse, particularly in a domestic situation. But you can absolutely try to foster the idea that it is not the victim's fault and that it is perfectly acceptable to seek outside help.



You assume these ads were 100% accurate and not at all fraudulent. It is very common in the sex trafficking industry to fraudulently induce women, or worse, the families who sell their young daughters, by promising them something well short of the sex slaves they will ultimately become. I would wager women and young girls who sign up to be "strippers" in NY wind up doing a lot more than just taking off their clothes.

I think most women who respond to these ads probably have an idea of what it involves and I mentioned they also included escorts but yeah, I'm assuming and you're assuming. We don't know. I have never suggested trafficking doesn't exist but some people would have us belief most sex workers are forced into it. MTV even did some ads urging men not to see prostitutes because of that. I'm not saying I have the answers but I'm questioning it and there are stories of aid agencies fabricating and exaggerating things and like I mentioned with the girl from Georgia I knew, sometimes people will insist someone is a victim of trafficking even when she's not.

 

[illram]

I think most women who respond to these ads probably have an idea of what it involves and I mentioned they also included escorts but yeah, I'm assuming and you're assuming. We don't know. I have never suggested trafficking doesn't exist but some people would have us belief most sex workers are forced into it. MTV even did some ads urging men not to see prostitutes because of that. I'm not saying I have the answers but I'm questioning it and there are stories of aid agencies fabricating and exaggerating things and like I mentioned with the girl from Georgia I knew, sometimes people will insist someone is a victim of trafficking even when she's not.

OK. I am saying your one anecdote is insufficient to trump the vast, vast amount of evidence that almost all trafficked sex workers are in fact "forced into it" or, at best, fraudulently recruited into it.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

illram, this is probably the most enjoyable discussion I ever had on feminism. I find it very stimulating. Let's see if I can stimulate you as well.

Of course "weak" equals judgment.

Not only. I already explained myself why I think so. It is too bad that you choose to just ignore it.
But I think I understand why you have such a hard time to wrap your head around it. Because in deed, we managed that no notion of weakness whatsoever is associated with women who are abused (at least in the right circles). But your failing is to understand how that was possible and why that at the same time means it can not be reproduced for men like that.
Let me show you what I mean:

This statement ignores the third party--the abuser--and focuses on the acts or problems of the abused.

But you can absolutely try to foster the idea that it is not the victim's fault

You say I only focus on the actions of the abused.
You respond by only focusing on the actions of the abuser.

I certainly see the psychological value of the latter. I really do. And I agree that this is how we should handle domestic abuse. It just makes everything easier.
However, the truth is different. The truth is that part of domestic abuse being possible is also the victim lacking the psychological strength standing up against it. And people will instinctively realize this.
Yet we do have managed to focus on the abuser when it comes to violence against women and basically eliminated the responsibility of the woman. How? By making the implicit assumption of her being the weaker sex. Which bears on the on hand some truth given typical difference in physical strength. But which is also a social construct to strengthen female victims. This is the bias we have to embrace when we only focus on the abuser.

Now you want to do the same with men. Trouble is - not both sexes can be weaker. And this is where comes into play what I called "factual weakness". Because while we can pretend that the male victim has not its own share of responsibility, it will not hold up entirely, because we have already decided that the male sex is the stronger one when it comes to physical abuse. Again, not totally without reason, given greater physical strength.
So when I focus on the abused, what I really do is allowing the possibility that also the abused has responsibility. Something which goes for both sexes, but which can be eliminated for one - and only one - by declaring it the weaker sex in this regard.