Differing reactions to men & women getting abused

[NovaKart]

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.

I didn't say that. I was questioning how many are trafficked.

 

[Borachio]

Relevant article.

The answer to your question is: some sex workers are trafficked.

 

[Light Cleric]

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.

You may have have put "forced into it" into quotes to encompass this, as well, but a lot of them are also "forced" into it because they're desperate for money and needless to say the slavers prey on these kind of people.

I really can't imagine how the percentage of women who knowingly accept that kind of a job with real awareness of what it entails could anything but infinitesimal

 

[Narz]

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.

I think this reality you're discussing is part of why domestic (verbal & physical) abuse is so prevalent. One party takes abuse (usually verbal) at work, feels duty-bound to accept it without complaint & then takes it out on the one(s) closest to him (her). Abuse usually gets passed around (from parent to child, or spouse to spouse to child, etc.). To stop the cycle we need to stop abuse at all levels (note : I'm not giving abusers an excuse, I'm certainly soaked up tons of abuse, mostly verbal, from people & I like to pride myself on my self-discipline & being cool under fire).

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Light Cleric
It really depends on the work conditions. High quality prostitutes who can pick and decline seem to be able to pretty much enjoy their jobs. At least more than working at wall mart or something.
The problem is as you said women desperate for money and of course mean pimps.
The former is really bad in Germany by now because the prostitute flood gates of Eastern Europe are open. Prices have steeply declined, flat rates are going strong and conditions for the ordinary prostitutes go down the hill.

I think there should be a minimum price for sex determined by the government.

 

[Narz]

I think there should be a minimum price for sex determined by the government.

That actually seems like a good idea, a "living wage" for sex workers. Will certainly add to the legitimacy of the profession (which will of course improve conditions for workers).

 

[Borachio]

Someone ought to tell punters that paying a woman to have sex with you shows a distinct lack of self-esteem on your part.

I have nothing against sex workers accepting payment, however. I myself have been known to accept small but expensive gifts.

 

[Narz]

Someone ought to tell punters that paying a woman to have sex with you shows a distinct lack of self-esteem on your part.

That attitude of stigmatizing johns (I've seen ads online, "real men don't pay for sex" or something along those lines) just make everything worse.

In the real world, there are some guys who, simply put, will never get laid if not for sex workers & plenty of men who simply don't have the time/energy for relationships (I'd say faking it in a relationship just for sex is less honest & less moral than just being single & going to escorts). There's nothing wrong with paying for sex assuming both parties are consenting adults & there's no reliable way to prevent women from selling their bodies (incarcerating them certainly doesn't help).

Obviously soliciting sex in 3rd world countries is another moral issue entirely but certainly outright banning of it (or stigmatization of either providers or consumers) isn't the solution.

I have nothing against sex workers accepting payment, however. I myself have been known to accept small but expensive gifts.

Sure....

 

[Borachio]

That attitude of stigmatizing johns (I've seen ads online, "real men don't pay for sex" or something along those lines) just make everything worse.

This may, unhappily, be only too true. Nevertheless, an atmosphere of "get laid, or you're a loser" equally makes things worse.

In the real world, there are some guys who, simply put, will never get laid if not for sex workers. There's nothing wrong with paying for sex assuming both parties are consenting adults & there's no reliable way to prevent women from selling their bodies (incarcerating them certainly doesn't help).

Again. this may well be true. But, equally, there's nothing wrong, in the real world, with not getting laid.

But, sure, there's no way to prevent women from selling their bodies (provided they're not coerced into it). There may, though, be a way of encouraging or enabling women to leave prostitution if they want to. And I think a lot want to, and can be enabled to. Certainly the efforts in the major town near me, following from the conviction of a serial prostitute killer, would lead one to suppose so.

Obviously soliciting sex in 3rd world countries is another moral issue entirely but certainly outright banning of it (or stigmatization of either providers or consumers) isn't the solution.

Sure, outright banning isn't a solution.

Neither is the incessant sexualization of popular culture. Which positively works against any solution.

 

[Narz]

This may, unhappily, be only too true. Nevertheless, an atmosphere of "get laid, or you're a loser" equally makes things worse.

I agree with that.

But having sex is nice & having to pay for it is bad enough without being shamed for it.

Again this may well be true. But, equally, there's nothing wrong, in the real world, with not getting laid.

Well it's not a real "need" like eating but it's fun once in awhile.

But sure there's no way to prevent women from selling their bodies. There may, though, be a way of encouraging or enabling women to leave prostitution if they want to. And I think a lot want to.

I'm sure it's not the job most women would take if they had all the choice in the world but no one has all the choice in the world. Being an escort gives you a lot more freedom & free time than working at WalMart say where you'd have to work 20x as many hours for the same income.

Certainly the efforts in the major town near me, following from the conviction of a serial prostitute killer, would lead one to suppose so.

Probably your likelihood, as a prostitute, of being killed by a "serial prostitute killer" is similar to your likelihood, as a student, to be killed by a serial school shooter. There are other risks of course, all of which legalization would help.

Sure, outright banning isn't a solution.

Neither is the incessant sexualization of popular culture. Which positively works against any solution.

I agree but what can be done? It creeps me out that my daughter's maternal family buys her adult-looking bathing suits but it seems no little girls are allowed to run around without shirts anymore. To me this is friggin' weird, sexualizing a kid (though probably most people don't think of it this way).

Every "woman's magazine" is about looks, sex & fashion, whereas men are encouraged to have a far broader range of interests. It seems that girls have to be willing to go against gender-norms in order to be interesting/well-rounded people & that's sad. Oh well, just more motivation for me to stay as involved as possible (I just wish it wasn't such a disturbed culture I have to fight against).

 

[Borachio]

Probably your likelihood, as a prostitute, of being killed by a "serial prostitute killer" is similar to your likelihood, as a student, to be killed by a serial school shooter. There are other risks of course, all of which legalization would help.

I think you've misunderstood (undoubtedly because I put it badly). I wasn't making a point about the dangers of prostitution. Though sex workers, especially street sex workers, do face considerable risks.

After this killer was convicted, police made a special effort to get women away from earning a living through prostitution (which they were doing simply to make money - often to fund a drug habit) and into more gainful, or, rather, regular, employment, while getting them treatment for their drug addiction, so there isn't the pressure on them to earn such large quantities of money.

The action was considered successful, I believe. Customers looking for sex have to look elsewhere than the streets of that particular town.

My point was that things can be done, that constructive action can be taken.

None of which, imo, is to gainsay the right of a high-class courtesan to earn herself a very lucrative living. At the expense of rich males with no sense of how to woo a woman as a person in her own right.

 

[Crezth]

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.

I can just hear the champagne glasses clinking behind this sentence.

 

[Borachio]

What? As they put their feet up on the ottoman, smile at each other... and somehow a hand slips onto someone else's knee?

 

[illram]

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.

Your premise is incorrect. It will be incredibly difficult to properly treat male victims of domestic violence if you persist in pushing this black and white ideal that men are always the stronger sex, and any man that is the victim of domestic violence is to some extent responsible for his suffering by dint of his own physical or mental failings as a man. It is based on numerous false assumptions--that domestic abuse is always based on physical power or physical violence, that preventing abuse is simply a matter of "defending yourself," that if a man is a victim of repeated domestic abuse he must be physically or mentally weaker (maybe he reports it but no one believes him? maybe he cannot get custody of his children and thus is reluctant to leave the relationship? maybe he is worried that if he defends himself he will hurt her?) Simply put, you are oversimplifying a complicated issue.

Evidence based therapies for treating abuse (sexual, emotional, domestic violence, in both women and men) do not focus on the abuser because they assume the abused is the weaker person. Instead, they try to treat the abused by creating a supportive and safe environment in which, among other things, the abused can dispel themselves of their own (often misplaced) guilt and shame for their own (misperceived) role in their abuse.

Exploiting a real or perceived weakness in a domestic relationship is always primarily the fault of the abuser. Just because you are susceptible to being subjugated in the power dynamic of a domestic relationship, or the abused fails to leave, or fails to protect themselves, this does not mean that the person taking advantage of you is absolved to any extent.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I can just hear the champagne glasses clinking behind this sentence.

lol what? ^^

illram, I got so say - I feel like you didn't understand a word I was saying.

I most definitely did not...

persist in pushing this black and white ideal that men are always the stronger sex

I mean how can you read what I wrote and then write... that? It just doesn't compute. Part of my argument was how said ideal is part of the implicit assumptions we make and what that means and why we can not just do away with it. Not that this is how it is.

I most definitely did not assume that....

domestic abuse is always based on physical power

I clearly stated that physical power is only part of it.

maybe he reports it but no one believes him? maybe he cannot get custody of his children and thus is reluctant to leave the relationship? maybe he is worried that if he defends himself he will hurt her?

The first two are not cases of having oneself abused but of not being able to get away from the abuser or involve the police. The last one just seems outlandish to me, to be honest. You can hold arms, just make a clear verbal stand etcetera-- I honestly don't see the situation where one is just helpless unless because one is overpowered by superior strength.

Evidence based therapies for treating abuse (sexual, emotional, domestic violence, in both women and men) do not focus on the abuser because they assume the abused is the weaker person. Instead, they try to treat the abused by creating a supportive and safe environment in which, among other things, the abused can dispel themselves of their own (often misplaced) guilt and shame for their own (misperceived) role in their abuse.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything we are discussing, but okay. I certainly didn't try to outline some theory of therapy.

Exploiting a real or perceived weakness in a domestic relationship is always primarily the fault of the abuser. Just because you are susceptible to being subjugated in the power dynamic of a domestic relationship, or the abused fails to leave, or fails to protect themselves, this does not mean that the person taking advantage of you is absolved to any extent.

I think I already said that I agree that we should approach it that way. But this is a moralistic statement. A statement designed to structure social relations (i.e. if you abuse we will put the blame on you!) But it is not a statement of fact. You really need to realize this.

 

[Rashiminos]

"A cancer on society"? You don't think that's over-stating things just a mite?

Do you think you're overstating patriarchy?

But you yourself have arbitrarily grouped feminists into "rational" and "tumblr", into "good" and "bad", or to put it bluntly, "basically non-threatening" and "too ridiculous to feel obliged to engage with".

As opposed to not examining the possibility and letting the "cancer" go undetected.

You're performing the same manoeuvre, here, closing down meaningful debate while presenting yourself as its custodian.

He might be one of the better people for the job when feminists abdicate the responsibility.

The only real difference is the tone, self-righteous anger in their case and weary condescension in yours, and neither are flattering enough to disguise the rhetorical mechanism at work.

This subtly admits the problem.

 

[Traitorfish]

Do you think you're overstating patriarchy?

Seriously? "I know you are, but what am I"? That's the level we're working at?

 

[Rashiminos]

It sounds to me like you've constructed an enormous straw-man feminist to flog at will, here. I might be wrong on that (I don't frequent /r/tumblrinaction, though if we're on the subject of reddit, you might check out /r/mensrights and /r/stuffredditsays (technically language inappropriate for this forum, just fyi)) but it doesn't sound to me like you're attempting to engage with a meaningful or relevant opponent.

I'm just going to run with this hypothesis for a bit...

And this is kinda why I keep calling you guys MRAs, or at best crypto-MRAs, because you keep trying to elaborate why you don't trust feminism, and it's incredibly frustrating to see, because I don't think you're making even a cursory effort to understand these people.

I can agree it's good to make cursory efforts and not straw-man people....

Let's go to /r/tumblrinaction. Here's the top thread right now (warning, NSFW language and stuff): http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/comments/26plo3/this_is_such_horrible_logic/

The image in question is an admittedly rather odd analogy that explains why some women are afraid of men. Here's a link to the image. And the idea is that when women are propositioned by men (or vice-versa, hell), they need to be reasonably cautious that the man in question will physically harm them. Is it an unreasonable fear? Maybe.

I would think that it is a reasonable fear (on some level). Hypothesis still going..

I'm not going to pry open that crabshell, but more importantly, I don't know. My knowledge of this is limited to what I can learn from other people, such as the (evidently tens of thousands of) women who sympathize with the message contained in this image.

... and going...

Back to the reddit thread, almost all of the comments are some indignant interpretation that casts men as the victims and, perhaps most importantly, refuses to engage the message on the level, let alone try to understand where it's coming from. Take this charming fellow:

Some portrayals can be accurate. People can refuse to engage, but we seem to be slowing...

Gaspar_Guru_Of_Time
I wasn't aware women "consumed" men handfuls at a time. See, most men get to know women, they vet them in one way or another, before allowing themselves to be vulnerable around them.
Perhaps the problem isn't bad men, it's idiot women.

Now, maybe I'm just hahazardly guessing here... making a cursory effort if you will, but he seems to be saying that women should vet the men who are in their company.

I mean, wow. Does he not know that women get raped, like, kind of a lot? Kind of too much? Or does he just not care? This is tantamount to victim-blaming for rape. It's really a little shocking.

Hypothesis dropped. Does Crezth not know that some male-resembling humans choose to rape, regardless of how society perceives them? Does Crezth think society or law enforcement has some easy method* to identify these individuals before the woman encounters one of them? If I borrow the metaphor of the poster: Is the woman not ridiculously, yet desperately pleading with Mars (the God of War friendly corporation) to not manufacture poisonous candy while acknowledging that some corporations will do so if they can get away with it (quite possibly from her knees)?

*Elliot Rodger may be an exception due to extreme psychological instability.

This is what Cheezy is asking you guys to do: Take a few seconds to shut up and listen, instead of retreating to your reddit echo-chambers to hear about what idiots women are.

And, upon taking more than a few seconds, it can be found that the request presented is both unreasonable and, given the tone, actually a demand. But yes. Tell us to "Shut up." Tell us how we must "listen." If your messages were a bag of M&Ms, I might have to toss the bag out and look for something else to eat. Or, perhaps only some of the M&Ms are bad, and I'll have to sort them out.

Is it worth taking a seconds to think about that, Crezth? Yes or no?

Seriously? "I know you are, but what am I"? That's the level we're working at?

What level were you at when you made the post, TF?

I'm having a hard time believing it was a good one (Edit: might be on my part, but you did go on take issue with the notion of 'bad' feminist).

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.

Not all high-strung discussions are good, not all calm discussions are bad. This thread may or may not be an example of an echo chamber based on that criteria.

@All jumping at Cheezy for his past: Don't tell me that he's the first case of born-again critical theorist of some sort that you've met?

The desire to check posting history did pop up momentarily.

 

[illram]

I think I already said that I agree that we should approach it that way. But this is a moralistic statement. A statement designed to structure social relations (i.e. if you abuse we will put the blame on you!) But it is not a statement of fact. You really need to realize this.

I realize what you're saying, and I am trying to explain why it is irrelevant, counterproductive, and serves only to undermine equal recognition of male and female victims of domestic violence. You are saying that a man who is abused by a woman is likely weak and thus shares some blame for his abuse because he is weak. Ignoring everything else that is wrong with that idea, even if an abused person plays some role in perpetuating their own abuse, e.g. by not leaving when they have the opportunity, you cannot assign blame to them for this. It is not their "fault." Simply pointing out "that person is weak!" might be a "statement of fact" but it serves exactly zero utility whatsoever. It serves no purpose other than removing blame from the abuser and making it more difficult to treat the abused.

 

[Algeroth]

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 probably from most women as well. I think you underestimate the perpetuation of these stereotypes among women themselves.