This is a comment by David Byron on the Comment of the Day: “If men get together for this kind of movie, it’s sleazy. If women do, it’s ‘good, clean fun’.”
“I’ve stated my criteria to oppose discrimination which is simply to oppose it always, with an exception for affirmative action under narrow circumstances….
“I think race gives a real problem because where it intersects with gender and ‘it’s OK if you are not a white male’ thing gets out of whack. I mean would you say it’s OK for black men to view porn or go see a sexy movie in a way that white men can’t?
“To take another example of sex discrimination you almost certainly support, which is gender segregation in domestic violence shelters, most people who support that discrimination against men say it is because women might be afraid of men, and in general they support many forms of ‘safe spaces’ for women that discriminate.
“But many white people are also afraid of blacks. You would not support racial segregation on that basis I bet. You would not support domestic violence shelters that excluded blacks or ‘safe spaces’ which were white-only.
“You probably wouldn’t demand that black people should cross the road when the see a white person coming in case that white person is afraid of blacks either. So I imagine your opposition to racism is not exactly on the same track with your feelings about sexism.”
Photo credit: Flickr / David Shankbone
About the Editors
Good point.
My opposition to racism is exactly on the same track with my feelings to sexism asI’d support racial segregation in the case of a violence victim shelter for blacks that have been violently victimized by whites or vice versa. In my opinion domestic violence shelters are probably best suited to be gender segregation as I doubt many women would feel safe at the shelter much less seek support out of their violent situation.
The best option to me rather bemoan gender segragation of men in domestic violence shelters than increase women to reliving their trauma and decrease women seeking help would be to work on having more domestic violence shelters for men.
To take another example of sex discrimination you almost certainly support, which is gender segregation in domestic violence shelters, most people who support that discrimination against men say it is because women might be afraid of men, and in general they support many forms of ‘safe spaces’ for women that discriminate.
I’m all for this. I can totally understand the reason behind such separation. And I would also support it the other way around.
So I imagine your opposition to racism is not exactly on the same track with your feelings about sexism.
Probably not because the dynamic of male/female nowhere near as one sided as the dynamic of black/white. But for some reason that doesn’t stop people from reaching for race as justification. I guess context only matters in some cases.
So do you think women should be afraid of all men? Whereas you realise that whites being afraid of blacks is racist? And on that basis you are happier with female-only spaces?
Just seems like you’ve shifted the sexism. When women are afraid of men they are sexist in the same way as whites afraid of blacks. The problem is because women have so much power nobody will call them out as sexist.
If someone genuinely has a phobia you don’t treat it by pandering to their irrational fears and telling them, eg. “Oh yes, it’s rational to be afraid of the number thirteen. Keep doing that.” That’s keeping the person disabled.
So do you think women should be afraid of all men?
No. But in the event that they are I can understand. What I have a problem with is not that they are afraid of all men but the ones that cast the presumption of worst faith on men and then have the nerve to say that it’s on men to dispell that presumption. And I have an even bigger problem with how this illusion is not just goes unchallenged but is sometimes actively defended while at the same time saying that other illusions are an -ism.
And on that basis you are happier with female-only spaces?
Only on the condition that no one is complaining about male only spaces.
While I wouldn’t blanket agree with all ____-only spaces it’s going to take more than “but they are (insert identifying characteristic)” to show that a certain group should not have their own spaces.
I’ve started to get a bit bored with trying to use race when talking about gender because the male/female imbalance is nowhere near as imbalanced as the black/white imbalance.
Just seems like you’ve shifted the sexism. When women are afraid of men they are sexist in the same way as whites afraid of blacks. The problem is because women have so much power nobody will call them out as sexist.
I wouldn’t say “in the same way…” but depending on the case at hand I would say that yes it is possible that a woman being afraid of men is being sexist.
If someone genuinely has a phobia you don’t treat it by pandering to their irrational fears and telling them, eg. “Oh yes, it’s rational to be afraid of the number thirteen. Keep doing that.” That’s keeping the person disabled.
Agreed. I think that a part of that person healing is by helping them overcome those fears, if possible. And I think that a good initial step may be a ____-only space. No they should not linger there forever but I don’t think it’s right to just expect them to jump headlong back into situations with said people who match the characteristic of the fear.
To use your example I wouldn’t make the first day of therapy for that person afraid of thirteen something like this:
1. Schedule the appointment for 13:13 on the 13th of the month
2. Make them take the number 13 bus to the office
3. Make them repeatedly write 13s on a piece of paper throughout the session
4. Have an alarm go off every 13 minutes
5. Have images of 13s all over the office
Sure that stuff may be good ideas to introduce in future sessions but right off the bat? There’s a chance that clam up and never work their way through it. You can’t baby them forever but you can’t treat them like battle hardened veterans on the first day either. (Well that might work for some but I don’t think it’s worth the risk to find out.)
You’re attacking a strawman of course, with those 13s. Does that mean you have no rational disagreement? Women meet men in normal life so if any of those women are afraid of men then they are already acclimatized to them to a large extent. By eliminating the presence of any men the DV shelters induce fear, possibly where none had existed before. Nobody was suggesting your strawman scenario of overloading these women with images of men, but just to continue the normal mix of men and women that they are already entirely used to as anyone who lives in society has to be.
By insisting that any phobic women, and more to the point the perfectly ordinary women who have no fear of men, must go without any contact at all with men (to the point of the child abuse of rejecting teenage boys) the feminists who runs these “shelters” are training their victims in hatred and fear.
Has anyone ever seen any scientific research on the subject of these DV shelters that would back the ridiculous notion that this hate filled environment actually aids their clients? Indeed how could any scientist make such an investigation given the weird secrecy levels that the organisers insist surround their shelters?
“By insisting that any phobic women, and more to the point the perfectly ordinary women who have no fear of men, must go without any contact at all with men (to the point of the child abuse of rejecting teenage boys) ”
I highly doubt that male on female domestic violence survivors are perfectly ordinary women much less have no fear of men. I thought that women meet men in normal life and are already acclimatized to them to a large extent so I’m unsure how are the shelters insisting the women go without any contact at all with men. I’ve researched shelters and I haven’t seen it be common policy for shelters to reject male children particularly after their 14th birthday as you claimed in another response.
I can understand how you got the shelters training their victims in fear however how did you get training their victims in hatred or that it’s a hate filled environment? I highly doubt the counselors and organizers are training them to hate men or fostering an environment of hate rather than healing.
Male sex addicts likely meet women in normal life and already acclimiatized to them to a large extent however many support single sex therapy for heterosexual male sex addicts thinking it would decrease the amount seeking help if women are present. To me it’s likely that housing men may decrease women seeking help as she’s likely already in a state of fear and would probably be less likely to call a shelter housing men than she would be calling a shelter housing women only. Especially if she’s one of the female domestic violence victims that has been so brutalized by the man or men in their lives that a mere male presence terrifies her. I think the most compassionate and effective option is to have one area of her life where there isn’t male presence then addressing her fears. Housing men may hinder as women in unburdening themselves of the experiences of male violence they had undergone without fear of censure, criticism or inhibition by male presence.
Considering the lack of funding, resources, and options for male domestic victims to me it’s probably better suited addressed domestic violence programs and shelters for men rather than outrage and equating it to hatred that men aren’t housed at a domestic violence shelter for women that have been abused by the man or men in their lives.
I’ve researched shelters and I haven’t seen it be common policy for shelters to reject male children particularly after their 14th birthday as you claimed in another response.
I don’t know about the “kick them out after they turn a certain age” thing but I have seen cases where if they are already over the limit their parent is not allowed to being them in and that limit seems to be pretty low (as in less than the usual 18 for adulthood).
I’ve seen a cases of not allowing guys 16 and over unless he was abused as well however that doesn’t seem to be common policy. In the cases you’ve seen what was the limit that seemed pretty low to you and would you consider that limit to be common policy?
I’ve seen a few where it like 14 (if I recall correctly). But even then, the problem isn’t how common it is but the fact that it is happening in the first place (I’ve seen similar about the gender wage gap, it’s not how much less women make than men but the mere fact that women make less than men). If people are so worried about helping people that are being abused then why put them in the painful position where they have to choose between their under aged son or a shelter?
I’ve seen a cases of not allowing guys 16 and over unless he was abused as well however that doesn’t seem to be common policy.
Also were are girls held to that same condition (or similar ones)? Is this a gendered matter where boys have to show they need help but girls are just given help without question?
Different views as to me it’s about how common it is and whether it’s the norm.
Most likely people are worried about putting other women in the painful position of not seeking help and not getting as much help due to male presence.
As for that painful position of choosing between the underage son or a shelter for me the best suited solution would be having shelters for women with male children and existing shelters placing the child in legal custody or having a male-only youth area.
Unsure why you’d question if 16+ year old girls be held to the same or similar conditions or it’s a gendered matter when it’s a woman only domestic shelter and the view is male presence is considered a possible hindrance for seeking and getting help.
Unsure why you’d question if 16+ year old girls be held to the same or similar conditions or it’s a gendered matter when it’s a woman only domestic shelter and the view is male presence is considered a possible hindrance for seeking and getting help.
I’m questioning it because if the problem is that a male presence is a possible hindrance then why the “if he’s been abused too….” condition?
Let’s say an abused woman with a young son is trying to find shelter. I am questioning how “….if he’s been abused too…” makes a difference when considering offering the mom aid. That condition sounds like the director (or whoever makes the decision) is thinking, “I don’t know he’s a guy and that would cause problems.” but when told that he was abused too all of a sudden that changes to “Okay we’ll let him in.”
It’s like they are presuming that he is a threat because he is male BUT if he has been abused as well then that indicates that he is not a threat (like they are thinking, “Well if he was abused too then he must not be a threat.”)?
Now as to the comparison to girls I was asking that in the sense of it seems like in those cases it looks like boys (and by extension parents of boys) are given an extra burden to proof to meet that girls don’t. that burden of proof being “he has to prove that he is not a threat to women”.
Initiating Cynicism Mode…
Or maybe there it’s a matter of thinking that since that boy was abused by a man as well as the mother then since share a common source of pain it’s okay to let the boy in. Otherwise without that common source of pain there is no way to know if he’s a threat or not.
Ending Cynicism Mode…
It likely makes a difference as it’s a woman only shelter and it’s more like they’re presuming since he’s a male his presence will be a hindrance to women seeking shelter and getting support.
Different views to me it’s seems more like the boys unlike the girls are being asked for why their presence is warranted since male presence not female presence may hinder the goal of the women only shelter. The potentials may be less likely to seek a shelter with males and the ones present may be less likely to unburdening themselves of the experiences of male violence they had undergone fearing censure, criticism or inhibition by male presence.
I see where your coming from but I think a matter of age comes in. We’re talking about boys, not men.
I think a matter of age did come in and the guys passed it. They’re not babies or toddlers whose presence generally invokes feelings of protection.
They may not be men but the boys are male presence.
Does that mean you have no rational disagreement? Women meet men in normal life so if any of those women are afraid of men then they are already acclimatized to them to a large extent. By eliminating the presence of any men the DV shelters induce fear, possibly where none had existed before.
But that meeting of men in normal life happened before the trauma. An event so horrible that it can override previous thoughts, feelings, and mindsets. That’s part of the definition of trauma isn’t it? So while it is certainly possible that such fear did not exist before the attack it is also possible that that lack of previous fear will have no bearing on what their minds go through during and after the attack.
Nobody was suggesting your strawman scenario of overloading these women with images of men, but just to continue the normal mix of men and women that they are already entirely used to as anyone who lives in society has to be.
Don’t get caught up in the 13 overload. My suggestion is that some time away from men may do women some good in the initial steps of therapy. And also what you call “normal mix” may register as an overload to a traumatized person.
By insisting that any phobic women, and more to the point the perfectly ordinary women who have no fear of men, must go without any contact at all with men (to the point of the child abuse of rejecting teenage boys) the feminists who runs these “shelters” are training their victims in hatred and fear.
No I’m not insisting that these women must go without men. I’m insisting that for a small part of the healing process it may not be such a bad idea for some women to do just that. And against when someone (not just a woman) is raped/abused/etc… the fact that they were “perfectly normal” before the attack may have no bearing on how they are after the attack. Different people handle these things differently. Some may go on with the mixing just as you say. I’m saying that some of them may need help getting back to that point.
The separation itself is not the training too for that hatred and fear. The separation is being taken advantage of by those who thrive on the notion that crimes like DV and rape are “things that men do to women”. The solution isn’t to eliminate the separation. The solution is to get rid of the jerks that take advantage of it like that.
There are a lot of single-sex AA meetings and single-sex group homes and halfway houses for recovering addicts and so on. There are also co-ed ones, obviously, but there can be a benefit to single-sex environments when we are talking about people who are in a very vulnerable place emotionally and physically. Tom Matlack had an article about that a couple weeks ago, where he claimed that men need single sex support groups and won’t get the same benefit if women are present. If men need domestic violence shelters then maybe the solution is to fund shelters for men, not complain that women are sexist if they are running shelters that serve women’s needs. Decades ago, women saw the need for such shelters to help other women escape domestic violence situations and they got together and raised money and started those shelters from scratch, with almost no support from society at large in the beginning. It was a grass roots effort. If you feel strongly about this issue, you could do the same thing.
Is there any basis whatsoever — beyond bigotry that is — for the sex segregation? Show me the scientific study that supports the idea that this prejudice actually helps any victims of domestic violence?
To me it is obvious that if a woman is worried about men the very last thing you want to do is confirm her irrational disabling fears with an authority figure telling her men are all scum. You’re entirely wrong about the early movement too. Erin Pizzey deliberately wanted men in the shelter precisely to show the women that some men are kind and good with kids and they didn’t have to relate to men only through an expression of violence.
The demonization of men was an ideological decision, not anything to do with trying to help victims.
Bit curious as to how she is entirely wrong about the early movement as I don’t see her mentioning whether or not the early movement wanted men in shelters or not rather that women saw other women having a need and started shelters for them with almost no societal support. I doubt that’s entirely wrong seeing as how domestic violence against men is relatively new in awareness and support.
More curious as to why for you creating an environment where women are less likely to relive their trauma and not seek help is ‘telling her men are all scum’ and ‘the demonization of men’.
Please provide evidence that sex segregation helps victims. To me it is obvious it hurts them more. One obvious example we discussed already being the child abuse handed out to young boys who are suddenly told they became evil monsters on their 14th birthday.
Again why for you is creating an environment where women are less likely to relive their trauma and not seek help ‘telling her men are all scum’ and ‘the demonization of men’? To me it’s obvious if a woman is bieng abused by her husband she’s likely already in a state of fear and would probably be less likely to call a shelter housing men than she would be calling a shelter housing women only.
That obvious example of supposed child abuse wasn’t discussed you claimed it without providing any evidence and had no response to:
“Is that really a common policy? I did a quick google search and did not find any shelters with such a policy. I found once that said male children can stay at the shelter up to age 18.”
One oddity here is the way that DV shelters treat male children. In many cases, a shelter that takes children has a cutoff age for male children. Any boys under that age can stay there with their mother, but above that age they cannot stay there. There must be cases out there in which a boy is sheltered as a victim, but then he has a birthday while he’s there and then has to leave because his birthday transforms him into a potential perpetrator. The day before your nth birthday you’re a survivor, but the day after you’re a threat. That seems patently absurd.
Yes it’s child abuse obviously. But I disagree that it is an oddity. It is simply a bunch of bigots being consistent in their hateful extremism. The same logic is why transsexual women are also not allowed in DV shelters, or to work in them, but eg. lesbians are even though wouldn’t the lesbians fear other women, instead of men?
Is that really a common policy? I did a quick google search and did not find any shelters with such a policy. I found once that said male children can stay at the shelter up to age 18.
Assuming it is a good idea to offer women, who have been victimized by men, women only shelters, so they feel safer, where should men, who faced abuse by men, and women, who faced abuse by women, turn?
Do women who have been through abuse by a man feel fear of a man who himself is a victim from his female partner? I’d think they’d realize that guy is also a victim and be less afraid of him. Are these women afraid of their male relatives?
Maybe setup shelters to have a single sex zone for both sexes, and a coed area?
If a woman abused me, I’d probably like a place to be where every would-be Patricia Heaton wasn’t telling me I deserved to be hit because I took out the trash wrong. But that’s an extremely rare, on-the-nose example, there are people out there who need to be specially separated from peanut butter for gods sake. If someone was traumatized by explosions, that doesn’t make fireworks evil.
That being said, I’m not supporting womyn-born-womyn subway cars any time soon. NOT ONE BIT. I’m not standing in the freezing cold for an extra 45 minutes because the only available seats are behind velvet ropes in the Valerie Solanas section.