The majority of men aren’t violent, but violence is a men’s issue, and we all have a stake in reducing it.
I’m a college professor. My office sits next to a hallway abuzz with students at every class changeover, so I often overhear their conversations, whether I want to or not. Recently, I heard one male student talking to another about the poster they were perusing, the White Ribbon Campaign: “Men working to end men’s violence against women—how insulting!”
Unfortunately, this is not an unusual reaction. When I talk about the gendered nature of violence, lots of men get defensive—“Hey, I’m not violent”—and they are unwilling to continue the conversation.
So let me say this loud and clear: the vast majority of men are not violent. I am a man and I haven’t had a fight since the sixth grade—and most men I know have similar histories of nonviolence. So why should we talk about violence as a men’s issue? After all, some women are violent, too.
♦◊♦
While the vast majority of men are not violent, the vast majority of violent people are men. In the United States, men commit nearly 90 percent of all violent crimes, and there are similar imbalances nearly everywhere in the world. Imagine if men were no more violent than women. In the United States, it would mean a 75 percent reduction in violent crimes, which translates into about 22,000 fewer violent crimes and 30 fewer murders per day.
We are tempted to believe that men are so much more violent than women because of some biological factor such as testosterone, but research into the biological correlates of violence doesn’t support that hypothesis; besides, the vast majority of men are not violent. Research into psychological factors has been much more successful. Violent men nearly all adhere to toxic definitions of masculinity. In gender-based violence—rape, intimate partner violence, etc.—these definitions of manhood include an especially strong dose of dominance and woman-hating. And these definitions are supported by the men they associate with, and the culture at large.
Violence is a men’s issue, and all of us have a stake in reducing it. Men are also the most frequent victims of male violence. It is physically and psychologically damaging for victims and their friends and families, it puts perpetrators at risk for harm and incarceration or other legal trouble, it causes non-victims to live in fear, and it costs us a tremendous amount of money in law enforcement, prisons and jails, emergency rooms and health insurance, and social services like batterer education programs and rape crisis centers.
♦◊♦
The solutions begin with the awareness that this is largely a men’s problem—we need to take responsibility for preventing violence. Every man can get involved by refusing to participate in attitudes and behaviors that support violence and by confronting men who support violence.
A well-placed couple of words can be remarkably powerful. Express disapproval when other men say dehumanizing things about others or suggest that violence is an appropriate reaction to conflict. Men talk in these ways to win the approval of other men. If you disapprove, they will not get what they want and they are more likely to stop than if you remain silent or go along with the joke.
We can also support local services such as rape crisis centers and domestic violence agencies with donations and volunteer time. We can get involved with national organizations like Men Can Stop Rape. We can participate in or begin a White Ribbon Campaign or a Red Flag Campaign to prevent interpersonal violence. We can mentor young boys and men and help them to see that there are alternatives to physical aggression.
Make it your personal pledge to never commit, condone, support, or remain silent about men’s violence, and we will go a long way toward solving the problem that has affected so many people.
♦◊♦
Christopher Kilmartin is a professor of psychology at the University of Mary Washington and maintains a small private therapy practice. He is the author of The Masculine Self (4th edition) and co-author of Men’s Violence Against Women: Theory, Research, and Activism. Dr. Kilmartin has performed his one-man show, “Crimes Against Nature,” a humorous and educational look at men’s issues, on more than 300 university campuses.
♦◊♦
Paul Elam responds to this article here.
Andrew Smiler of SPSMM responds to Elam here.
About the Editors
This piece is simply bizarre. He attacks the only group left to attack – men – and his motivations are fairly clear to me, after living on this planet for 50+ years, but I’ll leave the exercise of discerning them to other readers. They aren’t as noble as he tries to make them.
I’ve just had four attempts to post a comment flipped off on me.
For my fifth attempt, I will reiterate that men’s rights forums on the internet manage to publish articles taken from the mainstream media about violent women attacking males and usually getting away with it. I myself have experienced two unprovoked attacks by women who were neither intimidated or inhibited by the propects of either losing the fight or subsequently being arrested for it.
In reply, feminists and those that back them, trapse out their shopworn “studies” and wave them around. They also spout their trite slogans, such as the claim that more men are more violent, more often than women.
Women in the “Anglosphere” will attack you in a heartbeat: if they’re bigger than you, have you out numbered and they’re sure there are no witnesses. They also presume confidently that they” be able to turn the tables on their accusers by claiming they are the real victims. This strategy works very well for them, almost without exception.
They have a virtual “racket” going for them, and it sickens me to watch male academics become apologists for them.
Women are regularly portrayed as being every bit the equal of men, in terms of violence especially.
On television, you can find a very popular female Mosaad assassin that intimdates her male colleaugues. They are depicted as sheriff’s, commanding officers in the military, street-hardened detectives in the inner city and captains of pirate ships (despite the fact that men considered a woman aboard ship to be very bad luck).
They’re tough cookies who just happen to be always trying to finagle and finesse special privieges for themselves, on the basis of their ubiquitous need to be protected from, of all things, violent men!
Children first learn violence from their primary abuser. And who might their primary abuser be? Well, of course it’s their primary nurturer.
From Child Maltreatment 2002 (Administration for Children and Families. Child Maltreatment 2002. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., 2002. Based on data collected via the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System – NCANDS, National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information):
1) We know that women comprised 58.3% of the perpetrators of child abuse and men comprised 41.7% (Figure 5-1 of the Child Maltreatment Report and accompanying Table 5-1, Age and Sex of Perpetrators );
2) We also know that 32.6% of child fatalities were perpetrated by the mother acting alone, while 16.6% of child fatalities were perpetrated by the father acting alone (Figure 4-2 of the Child Maltreatment Report, Fatalities by Perpetrator Relationship). That is to say:
Approximately twice as many mothers as fathers are responsible for the fatalities of their children.
We also know that Infanticide and Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy are crimes overwhelmingly perpetrated by women.
And we also know that children grow up to become men and women. And as the following website acknowledges, “about 30% of abused and neglected children will later abuse their own children, continuing the horrible cycle of abuse” (which we have now assertained is most likely to be first learned from the primary abuser/nurturer):
http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics
We also know that rape is not the big deal for women that we used to assume it to be. After all, rape has been redefined to include:
1) A woman changing her mind the next day, in response to regret;
2) A drunken slut refusing to take responsibility for her slutty behaviour;
3) A condom rupturing in the course of sex (as per the Assange allegations);
4) The trend, it seems, is that it should be defined as rape whenever a woman is made to feel “uncomfortable”.
I, as a man, do not feel violated whenever I feel “discomfort” or “regret”. I, as a man, would not feel violated if I should experience a coyote moment (waking up wanting to gnaw my arm off for fear of arousing an ugly sleeping companion). For me, as a man, it might be regrettable, but I do not feel violated when I regret a lousy sexual encounter. If a condom breaks in the course of sex, even if it might be the fault of my partner, I might regret it and take action to minimize consequences, but it is nothing comparable to violation and what I used to assume rape to imply.
Conclusion? Clearly, rape is not the big deal for women that we used to assume it to be. Indeed, some women seem to positively delight in the ruff stuff:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/interviews/borden.html
Is someone suggesting that Lizzy Borden, in the above interview, has no responsibility for the violence taking place in her porn video?
We also know that many women choose to partner up with thugs to create thugspawn. We know that women have rape fantasies, and this suggests something about female sexuality and what gets their rocks off. Yeah, I know, just because a woman fantasizes about rape does not mean that she wants to be raped. What I’m getting at, though, is that there is something about female sexuality that is drawn to violence and thus somehow nurtures it… and, ipso facto, perhaps, just maybe, has some responsibility towards stopping it?
Why are some people so keen on disempowering women and leveling them with the responsibility of children? Sounds like a very “Patriarchy” thing to do.
Apart from which, I’m not convinced that these psychology “experts” understand women at all. Do they realize how violent and bloody women’s unrestrained fantasies can be? Women prefer to experience violence vicariously, from the comfy perspective of getting someone else to do their dirty-work… namely, men. Sometimes, though, their unrestrained, internalized fantasies can be actualized to be bloodier and more violent than anything that might be dreamt up by men – google the name “Elizabeth Bathory”.
So… come again? Why is addressing violence a “men’s issue”?
It is a men’s issue because the majority of violent crimes are comitted by men. If the majority of violent crimes were comitted by women, we as a society would be taking a step back and saying “what’s going on with these women?” But we don’t do this for men. Instead, we put all the focus on women, self-defense, walking in groups, never leaving your drink, etc. The burden of staying safe is put squarely on the shoulders of women. That being said, men are also victims of violence perpetrated by men. So both genders are victims of violence.
Rape laws do not include a woman simply regretting consentual sex. The law states that one cannot consent if he or she is intoxicated or otherwise incapacitated by substances. This law is to protect people from date rape, the date rape drug, purposefully intoxicating someone to take advantage.
Your silly fantasy theory is quite dated. The no means yes theory? She really wants it? Please. I can’t believe people are still saying that.
Men often become offended at such articles because they could never fathom admitting that for hundreds of thousands of years men have thought of women as their property to do with what they wish and that includes beating and killing them and the children. Domestic violence laws stopping violence against women is fairly new and still a work in progress. Men should be offended that other men are so violent and give them a bad name. lol..in all my years of being a police officer I can count on less then one hand the times a man was the victim of dv. I couldn’t begin to count the number of women that were beat, murdered and held hostage by men! The number is much higher for women. In saying that, I have seen women be just as violent and the young girls today are becoming more violent by the year! Many young girls have been beaten and raped by fathers, mama’s boyfriends and/or brothers friends. Regardless, violence against women is still an epidemic and to deny it or try to refute it is egregiously irresponsible. Many men that do this have abusive issues themselves, otherwise, why whine and cry about the statistics? Why try to tell women (as usual men tend to do this) they are wrong and try to tell them what is “really” up in the eyes of men? Why do you purpously try to take their voice away? To keep them under your thumb and undercontrol perhaps? Typical! I love men but damn SOME of ya’ll are not right in the head!
That being said, this: “If the majority of violent crimes were comitted by women, we as a society would be taking a step back and saying “what’s going on with these women?”” is entirely correct. That’s what we’re saying we should do. We should be saying “what’s wrong with THESE men?” not, “what’s wrong with ALL men?” So yes, you are right. What is wrong with men who commit violent crimes? Not, what’s wrong with men in general. That is why “violence
I’ve see a case where a woman drunkenly woke a man up, they had sex, and then she accused him of rape because she was “in love with someone else” (the quotations are because that’s what she said). Ultimately it boiled down to his word versus hers and he lost. To me it was absurd. She woke him up. How in any way could he have used her intoxication to coerce her? He was fast asleep. She was intoxicated, but she still made the mistake, and he shouldn’t have to pay for it.
In reponse to your comment about Lizzie Borden I’ll just use a quote from the aforementioned herself, “(Interviewer)’And when the feminists and liberals say you’re degrading your friend the actress here and you’re degrading women by portraying them this way, what do you say?’
Lizzie Borden: ‘They’re degrading, no matter what. Everyone gets degraded. I mean, even if she was a secretary in the office, she’s going to get some kind of harassment, whether sexual or verbal — you know? So this is normal. Women get degraded every day, and so do men.’”
Are you hearing what she’s saying? She thinks that the kind of thing she puts in her pornos is normal. Perhaps we need to make this a little clearer for you: SHE THINKS THE BEING CALLED NAMES, BEING SPIT ON, BEING RAPED AND THEN “BUTCHERED” IS ***NORMAL***! Do you have a daughter? Do you know any little girls or young women? Did you have a mother or do you have a wife? How would you feel if they felt that the above treatment was NORMALCY?!?! The sad truth of the matter is most women of the world feel like that is just a normal part of everyday life for them. How can you justify that? Please tell me! I’m very curious.
As a side note, I’ve had rape fantasies before and it has NOTHING to do with wanting to be raped or anything of the sort. The only reason I felt comfortable enough even telling those certain people that was that I TRUSTED them. If I had a real fear of possibly having been raped by them I would never have said anything. It’s not about the act, it’s about not having to be in control and still recieving pleasure. If you don’t understand it then please don’t talk about it like you do.
Going back to the topic at hand I’ll just end with something that Krishnamurti brings to light, “It’s no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
Bravo, Chris, for a very brave and complelling article. Paul Elam in his critique says that you reveal “a dangerous ignorance of what masculinity is about.” But what does Elam think masculinity is about? It is clear from his two articles that he thinks it is an essential part of being a men, whether rooted in biology or psychology, that men must be masculine, and therefore if you criticise masculitiny are committing misandry.
There is of course another view, one that. separates sex from gender, and sees the great plasticity of the latter. On that point, I debated Lionel Tiger on NPR a few years ago, after the pub of his book, “the decline of males,” and he went on and on about how men are the way they are because masculinity is hard-wired. I asked him to account for the fact that many women have changed their gender role/norms/ideology from the post war home-maker model to the great diversity of models that we see today, asking if he thought masculinity was more “hard-wired” than femininity. He did not respond, but instead changed the subject and started talking about religion.
Hi Ron,
You make some interesting points, even if you completely misunderstand and mischaracterized everything I said. I have never said anything even remotely supporting the idea that masculinity is an essential part of being a man. And in fact, have many times argued against that notion, especially where it concerns traditionalism.
What I have stated is that the overarching tendency to protect and provide (especially for women) has long been a part of masculine nature, but not that it is essential, especially in an age where gender roles have become prohibitive to self actualization.
In fact, I see that it is you and those of your thinking that are far more essentialist that I could dream of being. What is the cause of TGMP, or indeed of SPSMM, but to further a mandate for men to act as the designated protectors of women? That is what the article is all about!
You can put a dress on the Marlboro Man, Ron, but you will always hear those spurs a jingling.
Two peas in a pod, you are. Feminists and traditionalists are rooted in viewing women as weak and inferior children, unable to take care of themselves without protective male muscle. Traditionalists love mantra of “let’s man up and take care of women.” Just like this post.
Reading though Kilmartin’s piece you only find that same exact sentiment, pretentiously posed from behind the façade of progressivism. It’s a postmodern fraud that does nothing more than perpetuate a sex role for men, which is antithetical, by the way, to eliminating sex roles for women.
A tip of the chivalrous hat to you, nonetheless.
Paul: Do you have the capacity to engage in respectful dialogue without resorting to ad hominum attacks and name calling?
Thanks,
Ron
I didn’t make any ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem is not employed where questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. e.g. known feminist ideologues asserting judgements about masculinity while claiming to be unbiased.
And as to name calling, I didn’t do that either, unless you are implying that my calling you chivalrous is name calling. If that is the case, I can only suggest a lot more ventures out of your insular, back slapping environment in academe. It will give you the opportunity to grow a bit thicker skin.
The dissent “out here,” is real, Ron. I suggest you get used to it.
I think what you are trying to ask, even though you are using inappropriate examples, is whether I can be more respectful in tone and world to those I am debating with. The answer is yes, and that I would certainly prefer to be, and you can read many exchanges I have had on my website with people who disagree, but we were both very civil and courteous. The common denominator in all those exchanges was intellectual honesty on both sides of the fence.
So far, the people on your side in this debate are batting .000 in that department. Way too many questions ignored, circumvented and otherwise avoided where it was inconvenient to answer. That diminishes respect from a lot of people and I would definitely be one of them. Perhaps it reveals an imperfection on my part, but an honest one.
Now, as I was saying earlier, and what you ignored in favor of attacking me for attacking, was that I can draw many more parallels between feminism and traditionalism. In fact, as I stated, there is little difference between what SPSMM here is advocating (A sort of police functionary role with men) and what the state already does at the behest of right wing, conservative males. I think there is ample evidence to make the case that you are the same creatures in different clothing.
Will you post again your concerns about me personally, or will you, in a break with the patterns SPSMM here, actually address a point directly?
I am off to do just that with the question you posted to me.
I think Paul Elam makes a very good point in showing that the stance of the SPSMM is chivalrous and ironically connected to the traditional role for men of providing and protecting women. The SPSMM seem to be trying to carry that forward by stopping the “bad” men rather than blessing the male victims of IPV and working on giving men the same sorts of choices that we have given to women. Choice for men!
It appears there was a third option.
Precisely, Nancy.
It was the promise of feminism that the liberation from assigned sex roles would be a liberation for men as well as women. I have heard the mantra from feminists for decades now, “Patriarchy hurts men, too.” And it is spot on correct. It does hurt men.
But the problem with the ideologues that most commonly “claim” to support the goals of feminism is that their pursuit of the balancing liberation for men is half hearted and focused almost exclusively on changing all aspects of masculinity EXCEPT for the mandate to protect and provide for women.
In other words, it’s “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
In fact, the mandate for men to be relegated to assigned protector, a mandate that is foundational to the male sex role, is one that organizations like SPSMM, NOMAS and AMSA seek to impose on men with ever more autocratic intensity. They are, in effect, perpetuating a part of the patriarchy while claiming to desire its elimination. It is the ultimate intellectual hypocrisy.
I mean, look at this thread. I am actually here confronting feminists on the perpetuation of rigid expectations based on sex!!
!!!!!!
And I am having to explain to them why these expectations are unhealthy and dysfunctional, because the moment we attempt to move past male utility and actually realize the promise of feminism to benefit men, these men become academic John Wayne’s, telling us all that “real men,” don’t hit women.
It’s the same message I got from my father, who was as old school masculine they come.
I had always assumed that the idea of feminism was to foster a culture in which we moved past that and toward a genderless paradigm, where we understand and address each other not based on genitalia or chromosomes, but on our shared humanity.
But what I see as I read through these comments and the articles provided by SPSMM, is the most clear cut and unambiguous agenda to undermine that very goal.
And when called on it, they retreat from the dialog.
Mind blowing, isn’t it?
Oh and by the way, it is of the “masculine nature,” how could it not be “essential”?
Removing one component of a human being does not alter their humanity. Take the instinct for survival; the nature if you will, of human beings to try to live for every moment possible.
Is a suicidal person, a really suicidal person, less human for it, simply because they have lost the instinct for survival? Does this not demonstrate that the desire for survival, a distinct part of human nature, is not essential for qualification as human?
Let’s take a much more relevant example. It is clearly in the nature of men to seek women with whom to reproduce. But what about homosexual men? If we cannot separate nature from what is essential, then must we not regard gay men as men at all?
That would seem to me to be illogical, as their chromosomes are still male, as is every other aspect of their physiology. And it would also seem to be a big part of the bigotry they have endured in a culture that sees that aspect of masculinity as rigidly “essential.”
Having sex with women and reproducing is in the masculine nature, but it certainly isn’t an essential part of masculinity or manhood.
If you can’t separate the natural from the essential, you will have us all living in a tightly constrained little box.
Women are attracted to violent men. It is the sand kicking bully who gets the girl, not the 90 pound weakling. If a woman spurns you in favor of some pathological jerk, and further insults you by telling you that she has found a “real man”, why should you care if he knocks her around a little bit? If women have bad taste in men, it is their own fault.
Mr. Kilmartin
With all due respect, even though you throw out samples of empathy for the people who don’t fit your definition of victims and perpetrators of violence and torment:
Quote: “So let me say this loud and clear: the vast majority of men are not violent. I am a man and I haven’t had a fight since the sixth grade—and most men I know have similar histories of nonviolence. So why should we talk about violence as a men’s issue? After all, some women are violent, too.”
At the end of the day, you still have trouble really seeing the other side of this issue. Not surprising since this side is either swept away or met with resistence to simple acknowledgement. I’m talking about how men and boys can also be victims of torment and violence from women and girls.
I’ve read accounts from, and talked with, male survivors whom have had serious trauma in their lives dealt by their mothers, sisters, other girls at school, or their spouses. I’m not talking simple belittlement. These women showed all the characteristics and attitudes of male abusers and violators. All attributed to the dark side of humanity: Neglect, abuse, assault, bullying, etc.
The women and girls got away with it and these men were not believed or told to get on with their lives; “Man up.” Phrases like this are still utilized with reckless abandon even though we know that men need to express their feelings. I guess when it comes to women who are violent and abusive towards men and boys we have to discriminate equality and tell men to do a better job with fighting violence against women. Doesn’t this strike you as particularly unhealthy: To value the needs of one sex over the other in terms of mental health and safety?
Yes, you wanted to make it loud and clear that not all men are violent.
You weren’t loud and clear enough compared to the volume of your voice in the other paragraphs.
Your appeal to the other side who hardly get heard in circles like this (and I mean REALLY heard, not brushed away with “Patriarchy Hurts Men Too” or “Men are victims of violence by other men.”) amounted to a piffle and arbitrary three sentences, totalling a tiny pebble swallowed by a sea of large paragraphs with phrasings like “Toxic Masculanity”. I understand, you have a message to push with violence against women. But that’s basically it. You want to ONLY end violence against women. Not end ALL forms of violence, which includes women who are violent and abusive towards men and boys.
What happens when men are ignored while told they’re not doing a good enough job fighting for women’s issues? Frankly, I don’t want to be around to find out because it’s not pretty at all. In fact, desperate men will become the very thing you talk about in your article.
That’s what I mean by looking at the other side, examining the reasons behind men’s violence that are not tainted by ideology. Unfortunatly, it means putting to pasture the myth that women are the only victims and the sexist stereotype of inability to do no harm.
By the way, Mr. Kilmartin, I happen to be an autistic adult.
When I was diagnosed eons ago, caregivers and counselors yelled at me and forced me to do things the “normal” way. Those caregivers and counselors were women.
When I was a school kid, I was bullied and teased for being different. Girls did an equal amount of damage as the boys did.
When I was a teenager, the bullying escelated. The young men called me “Pussy”, “Faggot” and a whole heap of other repulsive slurs. The young women called me “Weirdo”, “Retard”, “Idiot”.
I’m not going to describe every detail of a serious incident that also took place in high school as well. Only tell you it involved a girl I was once friends with sicking her boyfriend on me. He threatened me with phyisical harm if I ever spoke to her again. You know where she was? Standing right beside him, grinning.
Other girls there did heinous things. But that will be the last I will add before speeding to the point of my response.
I have long come to terms with the ravaging these boys and young men did to me. Because there were things available centered around that and tons of support.
As far as coming to terms with what the women and young girls did to me? I have had no luck except to speak out about it. Problem is, very few want to hear it. Why is that? After all, I am on the list of groups alloted major support and have been subjected to abuse. But when I talk about what the girls and women did, suddenly I have hit a raw nerve because there’s a distance people put up. Men and women, by the way, of all shapes, colors, and creeds.
Sure, I’m always hearing how men have to step up to the plate and take responsiblity for the violence and torment in society. That’s all I’m hearing. And I’m tired of it after working hard and slow dealing with my experiences whenever they’re called up, frustrated at the fact there’s no supports for one side of it. Not unless I continue to bemoan what boys and men did to me, parrot the usual talking points and conform to the typical narratives. I’m not doing it anymore because, in my own steps towards a peaceful place, it no longer needs addressing.
See my point? It’s time to move beyond addressing only one side. If you want violence against women to end, you’ve got another answer right here. Thank you.
Edit: Sorry. It should read “Inability to do harm.” My error. I apologise.
From personal experience I have to ask. When will women speak up against male on male violence? When I grew up I was bullied without cease. Women just stood there and laughed while I got beaten. When I started beating back and showed my bullies what happens when someone who has trained martial arts for a decade won’t hold any punches anymore then suddenly women jumped to the bullies’ defence, so why should I stand up against violence against women?
The solutions begin with the awareness that this is largely a men’s problem—we need to take responsibility for preventing violence. Every man can get involved by refusing to participate in attitudes and behaviors that support violence and by confronting men who support violence.
And there’s your answer to why men refuse to engage. In one moment you acknowledge that the majority of men are violent but then right here you basically hold us all guilty by gender association by saying that as men we need to take responsibility for the violent acts a few of us commit.
You simply telling us, “Okay okay. I know most of us aren’t violent but its our job as men to do something about it!” (Sounds a whole lot like that “protector” gender role that men have tossed onto us.)
Paul Elam and his groupies are simply women haters. It is so obvious that they hate women. I mean, it’s palpable. I really had no idea the depths to which some people harbor hatred toward my sex until looking over this site’s many many articles loathing women. How women are less intelligent, not to be trusted, and apparently we’re just as, if not more violent than men. It just doesn’t make any sense. I have read and read, and at first I thought some of it was positive; i.e. equal custody laws, same protections for men, evolving roles of men, etc. It is so transparent, at this point. They aren’t a voice for men, they are a voice for misogyny. They aren’t interested in rights for men, as they are interested in hating women. Their backward views of rape, derogatory descriptions of women, and general ignorance are disturbing to say the least. All they do is spew hate and stupid opinions. It is a forum for the same handful of sorry people reinforcing their own misguided notions, downvoting any sign of a balanced argument.
Of the men who commit violent acts, how many are black, latino or otherwise non-white?
Since you are clear that it’s not a biological thing and more likely a social thing, which I agree with and is in fact far more positive than past things said about violence being inherent to masculinity by many feminists, I’d also say that the violence committed within minority groups to be societal and not a biological racial trait. So when are we going to start telling blacks that it’s their responsibility to be “good blacks”? When are we going to start telling them that reducing drug use, theft and violence is their responsibilities as blacks?
I know people often make it racial to build an analogy. But I don’t think this question is ever addressed thoroughly enough. What assumptions are being made about men as a class? What can we learn about respecting men as a class by contrasting it with the respect we give other classes? What assumptions are we making that on some level are really throwing men under the bus?