Mark Greene believes our male cultural history, the steps we took to get here, make ignoring boys and men as victims a likely outcome.
Over the last few days, a few of us have been in dialogue over the following question: Is Brutality Toward Women Getting Worse? I wrote this quick post in response to the story of a child bride victimized in Afghanistan, who recently received justice from an Afghanistan court of law.
There were many comments on the post from folks who wanted to know why I was highlighting “women’s issues” yet again, presumably at the expense of men and boys. Their argument, which is valid on many levels, goes as follows: We have over the last fifty years focused huge amounts of our global resources on women’s issues. Legislation, funding, scholarly work, media discourse and more have focused on the challenges faced by women both in the US and abroad. A lot of substantive progress has been made.
But has this ongoing focus on women’s issues come at the expense of men’s rights as fathers, husbands, workers and as victims of violent crimes and rape, as perpetrated both men and women? Furthermore, are we continuing to feed a cultural dialogue that puts boys and men at a disadvantage in every stage of our societal discourse?
For example: CDC statistics show that women are just as likely to be physically abusive in relationships as they are to be abused. Is this fact shared openly by the mass media or shunted aside in favor of narratives that define men as abusers and women as victims?
♦◊♦
Sometimes the emotions can run pretty high on the question of men’s rights. It has been suggested that my posting of the story about this child bride is part or an orchestrated effort to “hype up” articles about women being abused while the boys who suffer abuse, rape and untimely death in Afghanistan receive little or no gender specific attention.
It is clear to me that we live in a world full of angry, binary discourses. As such, there are ample reasons why people do everything they can to tilt focus to their issues. In the case of women’s issues, some percentage of people may have done so in ways that are ultimately harmful to men.
Here’s an obvious example. In our culture, if a man strikes his wife and she reports it, the consequences can be immediate and catastrophic for that man. If a women strikes her husband, and he reports it, are the results as significant? Or is he viewed culturally by the cop on the beat, as somehow lacking something integral to being a man? Is he viewed as weak? And are weak men viewed as less deserving of legal recourse than a women who, by definition, is defenseless? In a nutshell, the cops (as representatives of our culture’s most blunt social priorities ) may have very clear training and orders on how to deal with a husband beating his wife. But, by virtue of our system’s lumbering bureaucratic priorities, what training has he or she had to deal with a women beating a man? Very little. And so, they take a report and walk away shaking their heads.
I can tell you that I have seen this imbalance around physical abuse play out first person. A very kind and gentle friend of mine had the side of his face opened up by his wife on the day of their son’s first birthday. He was unable to attend the party because of this and when I saw him days later he showed me the claw marks on his face. This was a serious wound.
My friend made one thing perfectly clear. He knew that if he did anything in the moment to retaliate physically, he would lose access to his son. He took physical abuse from his wife for years before the marriage finally failed. And he never raised his hand back. But the knowledge that a double standard exists was never far from his mind. When the marriage ended he was stuck holding the alimony and child support bill. I would not relate a story like this if it were not the god’s honest truth. The stakes are too high here. The implications too immense.
What we are talking about is the result of a tilted public discourse, in which women’s issues have been successfully highlighted (and justifiably so) and in which men remain victims-in-hiding of a range of issues. We have had the first half of a conversation. It’s time for the second half to begin.
But is there ill will at work here, intentionally suppressing a public discourse on male issues?
I want to address the question of whether or not women’s issues have purposely been (and continue to be) highlighted in a way specifically intended to disempower men, because I believe this question lies at the heart of the high level of reactivity from some men’s rights advocates.
♦◊♦
First let me say this. It would be naive to deny that some of us have bought into the gender wars. There will be numerous examples of incidental smoking guns on all sides. Some people will focus on these kinds of “evidence” to somehow prove an orchestrated effort to suppress men’s issues. No matter what side you’re on, there will always be examples of the intention to mislead and take advantage of the larger dialogue. Especially when there are vast amounts of public money at stake. But I believe our stunted and contentious discourse about men’s issues is mostly the result of long standing male cultural norms.
Our male cultural history, the steps we took to get here, made ignoring boys and men as victims a likely outcome. Only now are we starting to talk about men as being equally in need of society’s focus and resources. Imagining such an idea even twenty years ago would have been impossible. In part, because men refused to think of themselves as needing help. Whatever we have had to endure, the over riding cultural message was, endure it in silence.
Our current living generation of men, born from the 1920s on, spent decades responding to the world in either the angry or confident-macho modes. These were the two acceptable modes of expression by men when confronted with life’s challenges. I suppose you can also toss in blind stinking drunk. But the fact is, there was no space in which men could express fear, or weakness, or talk about the abuse in their lives. In my father’s generation there was absolutely no space to discuss men as powerless victims. If things were bad you were expected to just punch back harder. “If you are too weak or stupid to avoid being a victim then its your own fault” seemed to be the prevailing wisdom. Never mind that some of us were just little children when bad things happened. Being tough was the answer to everything. And not that much has changed.
“Shake it off, crybaby.” When I hear that today at my kid’s soccer field, I look to see if its being said to a boy or a girl. It’s pretty much always a boy.
♦◊♦
The fact is women were culturally granted permission to weep. To show weakness and display emotions. To be victims who needed protection. (Even as they were, in some cases, victimizing men.)
But this discourse of victimhood is new for men. This space we have created in which to share our stories and our pain has no long cultural or historical roots. For men, it goes back maybe one generation and it stops. This is not a discussion I would ever expect to have with my father. These are new ways of speaking for men. New ways of being. And the stories that come pouring out are painful and angry and grief-stricken. They create rage and they cause us to lash out. In part because we are still getting a backlash when we do share our pain. The cultural rules about showing weakness are embedding deep in us and deep in those we share our beds with. Sometimes the strictest silencers are those closest to us. They prefer the old model. They don’t like scary stories and fear. Men are supposed to protect them from that.
♦◊♦
Sharing the stories of our victimhood is a double edged sword. A slippery slope. Focusing on a personal history of powerlessness or victimhood, although a necessary step to moving past it, can be the equivalent of drinking poison. You can get stuck there. Forever.
Victimhood is a toxic state and one has to move past it or risk being drained and weakened by the very forces you are in opposition to. And so, if we as men (or women) are now empowered to tell publicly how we have been victimized, we should also be wary of staying in that place of victimhood only. Or for too long.
Its clear that some in society and online make an identity out of it. Demanding compensation and ease of passage over and over again without giving much consideration to their role in or responsibilities to society at large. They batter and attack people, brandishing their victimhood like a club. But they are the price we pay for a wider more open discourse.
If men and boys are finally emerging from that place in which we have been prohibited from telling our painful stories, then this represents a shift of historic proportions. Because in telling these stories we can find common ground with others and we can highlight how the old stale narratives about what it is to be a man not only fall short, but are grossly divisive, abusive and unfair.
I would suggest that telling our stories is possible now. Not everywhere. And not all the time. But we have our foot in the narrative door and we’re not taking it out. And if we want our fair share of the resources and energy directed at growing a better world, we should should start looking for common ground around all the stories being told, by men or women. Because looking for good will from others is the first step in putting our pain behind us. And within that general process I intend to keep working towards substantive and genuine empowerment for all boys and men.
And girls and women, too.
About Mark Greene
“I’d disagree with anyone who claims that feminism as a movement tries to suppress men’s issues.”
So when feminists in Australia’s federal government interfered in the work of our Bureau of Statistics to hide victims and perpetrators of abuse just exactly what was that? They were determined to introduce discriminatory legislation and cooked the books to enable it. The result is nearly two decades of institutionalised discrimination wherein hundreds of thousands of victims are unable to access local services that their taxes fund and who are further abused if they dare try to get help.
If that’s not “suppression” I’d be pleased if you could provide an appropriate adjective.
Adam Jones analyses the western media’s style of coverage of male suffering…
Effacing the Male
Just before last Christmas there was an oil rig collapse to the north of Russia. Over fifty men died. No western media ever referred to them by gender. They were described as “the drowned”, corpses, workers, but never simply as “men”. Their only value – even in death – is their utility to others.
Greg Allen: I don’t think that the underlying ideas of feminism are wrong, nor do I think that they encourage suppression. Again, there are feminists that try to steer the conversation in the wrong direction, but I don’t want to participate in an argument with people who won’t change their mind. I’ll work to end “domestic violence,” and I won’t qualify it with gender.
As for your second comment… does it matter that they were men who died? Hearing a story like that, I think of the lives that were cut short and the families who lost a loved one. I think it’s insensitive to read that news story and focus on the journalist’s word choice.
Finally, a few points on the tragic story of journalism about Kosovo: I think that “women and children” are included in news reports more often than men because they serve as a signifier for civilian casualties. Thus, “the death of 100 people, including 30 women and children” indicates brutality against noncombatants that “100 deaths” does not. I grieve no less for the 70 dead men, but I grieve all the more for the 100 people because I can recognize that these people were not involved in the war.
The use of rape in wartime is horrific. I completely understand why that makes the headlines, even when other atrocities occur as well. The systematic implementation of sexual assault is pure evil. People expect death during wartime, and most soldiers are men. Rape serves no function except to torture and humiliate victims.
And ultimately, my view towards Adam Jones’ article is similar to my view on domestic violence and the Russian oil rig. Why do we need to bring gender into the story? I understand that you’re responding to a perceived slight to our half of the population, but it’s not very productive to argue about whether men or women suffered more. People suffered. Human beings with hopes and dreams, with friends, family, and lovers. If people spent as much time trying to end these root problems as they spent arguing about male representation in the media, the world would be a better place.
“As for your second comment… does it matter that they were men who died?”
Yes it does matter.
When men die they are reported as “people”, “casualties”, “miners” or “soldiers”, you can tell it was men who died because the journo will bend over backwards to conceal their sex in paragraph after paragraph of disaster-porn. They will go into detail how these “people” died, but not mention they were men.
When women die, they are women soldiers, women workers, women victims, women drivers, women passengers. Women are always women, even in death.
Men are sexless in death, they have already been discarded; it is as if their utility, thus their sex, is gone so now they are just corpses. Men are not civilians either; in war when civilian casualties are reported in the media, women and children are always highlighted. All men, must therefore be belligerents in any combat zone or men who are civilians are never killed.
It is an easy premise to test, read the newspapers for a couple of days.
Why if the dead are women do we need to bring their sex into the story? Is it somehow more tragic that people have died just because they were women?
Good point Transhuman.
It’s not only men who are faceless in death, but women too when their assailant is another women.
Look to the story of the Kuwaiti ex-wife who lit fire to the women and girls tent at her exes new marriage. She killed 42 women and girls.
If this had been done by a man, it would be on the feminists hit list as proof of muslim oppression of women. Since it was done by women, it was picked up by almost no U.S. papers that I have seen (at least it didn’t make the front page as I’m sure it would have if a man had done it).
In this way, the radical hateful wing of feminism (and the lackeys in editorial rooms that follow that lead of which stories to run) actually hurt women too. Extreme lopsided DV laws hurt girls too as they watch their fathers being abused since an abused man has almost zero options and often stays because he knows the abusive mother will get custody and he worries about them being alone with the abusive mother.
David Woods (who I detail below if the comment was not deleted) daughter is only alive today because when her mother pointed a shotgun at her head & pulled the trigger it was unloaded.
It’s just as Warren Farrell says in Myth of Male Power:
when one sex wins, both sexes lose. I wonder if those women in the audience at The Talk who laughed at Sharon Osbourne mocking Katherine Klue Beckers husband being a victim of DV ever stop to wonder at the horrendous world they are leaving behind for their sons.
Finally, a few points on the tragic story of journalism about Kosovo: I think that “women and children” are included in news reports more often than men because they serve as a signifier for civilian casualties. Thus, “the death of 100 people, including 30 women and children” indicates brutality against noncombatants that “100 deaths” does not. I grieve no less for the 70 dead men, but I grieve all the more for the 100 people because I can recognize that these people were not involved in the war.
And I think that is a sign of a problem. It seems the only time men are ever mentioned in war time events like that are men who are combatant. If its gotten to the point where the women and children have to specifically mentioned in order make sure readers know we are talking about civilians, then I think it speaks to a rather messed way that gender is viewed. Why not “100 deaths, all civilian”, “100 non combatants”, “100 innocent lives”, etc…
I trust that you don’t greive less for the men that died but on the whole I think its a real problem that it seems men can’t even be mentioned as victims as if that will lead readers to think that they story must be about combatants.
Do civilian men not exist in those parts of the world anymore or something?
The use of rape in wartime is horrific. I completely understand why that makes the headlines, even when other atrocities occur as well. The systematic implementation of sexual assault is pure evil. People expect death during wartime, and most soldiers are men. Rape serves no function except to torture and humiliate victims.
Its not just rape that makes headlines. Its the rape of women and children that makes headlines. Someone brought up a story from a few years ago about a woman that was sentenced to being lashed for being in the company of an unrelated male, even though this “crime” came to light after said woman was kidnapped and gang raped for several hours by 7 men. Then the story really hit the world wide stage when her punishment of lashing was increased because of the media attention. But the part that hardly anyone talked about was the fact that the unrelated male she was with was also gang raped and also had his lashing punishment increased. With the way the media left the guy out it was actually a few months after the story broke that I even found out what happened to that guy.
And of course if you look at how rape is covered in parts of Africa. Male victims are usually actively left unmentioned by the media.
Why do we need to bring gender into the story?
Its an attemp at trying to tip the scales on the discussion that are mostly tipped towards the stories of women. Sure you can argue that sexual violence and DV happen to women more but that does not justify the active denial of mentioning male victims.
If people spent as much time trying to end these root problems as they spent arguing about male representation in the media, the world would be a better place.
The representation of males in the media is an inevitable roadblock that must be confronted. It would be nice if we could just skip over it and go straight to world peace but it won’t be that easy.
@ Sean
“If people spent as much time trying to end these root problems as they spent arguing about male representation in the media, the world would be a better place.”
But male representation in the media shapes perception or are you arguing that girls don’t have body issues do to the representation of female beauty in the media. Couldn’t a positive or at least balanced depiction of men in the media assist in correcting these root issues?
“Thus, “the death of 100 people, including 30 women and children” indicates brutality against noncombatants that “100 deaths” does not. I grieve no less for the 70 dead men, but I grieve all the more for the 100 people because I can recognize that these people were not involved in the war.”
Couldn’t they accomplish this with including children? Why would you necessarily believe that women were not involved with the war effort? Isn’t that the societal stereotype that we’re trying to get rid of? If women are always victims, men will always be perpetrators.
You might be right about the immediate reasonging behind using that phrase, but does that really matter? The underlying assumptions is that men can’t be civilian, non-combatants in a war-zone. The underlying assumptions is that the death of women and children elicit a greater feeling of loss than the death of men which directly means that in this context women and children are worth more than men. All underlying assumptions which is wrong and should be fought against.
exactly. It implies that men are the correct gender to die, and that when women and children are killed, it is somehow not right
“…deaths, including women and children”
Very few people would like to admit this out loud, but the language suggests that when women and children die, it is more tragic than when men die. The “including women and children” suggests an extra level of tragedy, like “wait, it gets worse: it even killed women and children.” I don’t think it means that men’s deaths are treated like no big deal, but in relative terms it sounds like less of a tragedy. Perhaps the assumption is that women and children are more vulnerable than men are, so victimizing them sounds even more evil than victimizing men, who presumably are more able to fight back.
(This tends to ignore the ages of the men involved. Is a 90 year old man better able to defend himself than a 20 year old woman? This also leads to the question of when a male child becomes a man. This is a crucial point at which his death moves from being especially tragic to just sort of tragic.)
“The underlying assumptions is that men can’t be civilian, non-combatants in a war-zone.”
This is so true, as evidenced by Obama himself with the following:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/under-obama-men-killed-by-drones-are-presumed-to-be-terrorists/257749/
“Why do we need to bring gender into the story? ”
Good question, but it’s to late to ask. Th question is overcome by events.
Discussion and percpetions of DV has been gendered for ever- only men abuse, only women are victims. That’s gendering and you and I aren’t “bringing it in” to the discussion.
“The use of rape in wartime is horrific. I completely understand why that makes the headlines, even when other atrocities occur as well. ”
The way rape in wartime is reported is gendered too. It made a huge splash when the Guardian ran an article on male victims of wartime rape.
“does it matter that they were men who died?”
It matters if they are constantly being erased, as in the examples I sited.
“Hearing a story like that, I think of the lives that were cut short and the families who lost a loved one. I think it’s insensitive to read that news story and focus on the journalist’s word choice.”
I suggest we let those families decide what is and isn’t sensitive. It might very well be their wish to have all the facts come out and they might think the “journalist’s word choice” is what was insensitive.
This vid really puts the problem in perspective,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc6ytcZPmMQ
Did she really have to go there with the “Angry White Male” thing?
I am a Black guy, Republican, and Tea Party supporter. I was actually watching the show that morning as I always do. I just did not feel she needed to go there to make her point. Whether you like the Tea Party or not, I just am curious why she (Ms. Whitney) felt the need to make the “angry white male” statement. Maybe someone can help me out?
Just Monday while in Wash DC on business, I witnessed a white female (openly lesbian) make a “White male” comment. As a Black guy, I really am confused over the purpose. There was only one white male present among the four of us. It was her co-worker!
This site keeps refreshing and wiping my responses… third times a charm.
@Transhuman: I think I’ll decline your offer. I’m just fine with the fact that, when I read a story like the above, I don’t think to tally up the victims of my gender. It’s not tragic that people died “because they were women.” It’s also not tragic that people died because they were men. It’s tragic that people died. I don’t want to become distracted seeking out gender-signifying words in an article like that; I want to feel the sting of the people’s pain and use that to motivate me to action. I’m not concerned about their gender. I’m concerned because they’re my fellow humans.
@Danny: I’m going to start with the last thing that you said. Why is “the representation of males in the media… an inevitable roadblock that must be confronted?” Why do we need to “tip the scales?” Those phrases reek of a gender war that, quite frankly, I’m not at all interested in being a part of. As I explained above to Transhuman, I’m okay with the fact that I’m not hunting for alleged gender reporting disparities. I just don’t see the evidence that you do of “gender underrepresentation” in the media. And if it did exist, what road would it be blocking?
Also, how can a story be “actively left unmentioned?” That seems like a contradiction to me. I agree that Africa doesn’t receive enough media attention, and that news of atrocities there often fails to reach the eyes and ears of the Western world. But again, I don’t see that silence drawn up on gender lines. Abduction, rape, the use of child soldiers, and widespread murder are too common. Human rights in Africa is underrepresented in the media, and I’ll agree that it needs to change.
I vaguely remembered the story that you mentioned from Saudi Arabia, but I did some research to aid my recollection. Here’s a link to an article about it from the NYT: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/relief-and-dismay-in-saudi-rape-victim-case/
They managed to include the opinion of a MRA, although it was towards the bottom of the article. This gentleman criticized the media coverage of the story because it failed to include any mention of the male victim, who was also abducted, raped, and prosecuted in court (as you said). However, it seems like he might not have been victimized in the media because he was already making sexual threats to the woman; he was meeting her before the abduction because he had attempted to blackmail her with illicit photos from their past. She wanted to avoid shame and hoped to resolve the issue outside of the public eye. Obviously, the man did NOT deserve what happened to him, but I understand that civil rights groups made more of a stink over the female victim.
@John Anderson: Gender stereotypes cause lasting damage on the self-image of both men and women. But there is, I think, a distinction between the girl bombarded with images of pop stars and the women of reality TV, and the ungendered male victims in a news story. Both men and women can fall under the sway of pop stereotypes, but I think that the issue of stereotypes has been discussed elsewhere (although I’ll happily dive into it if this sight posts something). I’m enjoying this talk about the underrepresented male in media, and learning a lot from it.
To all three of you: I’m really glad that we started this conversation. I was wondering if any of you (or anyone else) has any studies about the link between the lack of male victims in media and negative male self-image. I don’t feel marginalized by these stories and I don’t see an active suppression of male victimization, but I want to be fair, and I’d like to educate myself further on the topic. Individual news stories can be taken in different ways by different people, but I’d like to see a study of how “suppressed male victimization” effects men.
Sean:
Well, let me illustrate by referring to an excerpt from one interview with an activist working to prevent rape in DRC.
( ht tp://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/8/they_are_destroying_the_female_species )
It’s difficult to think of more clear case of active erasure of victims along gender lines than that.
Calling this a femicide is not constrained to this activist – it is a commonly used term for the situation in DRC and it’s used also by prominent feminists like Eve Ensler (and her v-day organization). Given this way of framing the issue of killings, rape and sexual violence almost noone know that in addition to the 30% of women in eastern DRC reporting sexual violence there are also 22% of men reporting sexual violence. 80% of male prisoners of war in Sarajevo reported being raped. Yet only 3 percent of over 4000 NGOs adressing wartime sexual violence mentions male victims at all – and when they do it’s mostly just in passing, as a footnote.
And then we have allegation that international relief organizations are intentionally suppressing male suffering:
“@Transhuman: I think I’ll decline your offer. I’m just fine with the fact that, when I read a story like the above, I don’t think to tally up the victims of my gender. …”
I am surprised you are comfortable with men being marginalised. My point about reading the news articles is it isn’t people who die, women and children die. The deaths of men is implied. To me that is sexism and contributes to the normative image of men as the disposable sex.
men are the correct gender to be killed. It is a deviation when women and children are killed, and as such, it must be mentioned. That should be telling to some people, but it’s so ingrained they don’t even notice.
@ Sean
It’s not just the omission of male victimization, but the portrayal of men as rapists or murders. Feminists complain that the number of false rape accusations that hit the media give the impression that women lie about rape all the time. Maybe it’s hard to degender certain things like rape, but it could be balanced by providing a positive image of men (gendering) other things. Instead of saying a fire fighter saved a child from a burning building they could say a fireman saved a child from a burning building.
Here are some studies that looked at media portrayals and their effect.
” Social learning theory (Bandura 1977) argues for imitative behavior and learning from television of behaviors seen as rewarding and realistic. It uses both imitation and identification to explain how people learn through observation of others in their environment. The cultivation perspective (Gerber and Gross 1976) posits the cultivation of a worldview skewed toward that of televised portrayals among heavy viewers. This worldview, although possibly inaccurate, becomes the social reality of heavy viewers. Both social learning theory and the cultivation perspective provide the theoretical linkage between exposure to content and its consequence.”
” Evidence suggests that depictions do have consequences. For example, those who watch more television than average, particularly children, tend to hold more traditional notions of gender roles. Television cultivates beliefs in children such as “women are happiest at home raising children” and “men are born with more ambition than women” (Signorielli 1990).” Note the study was in 1990. Television was different then.
http://family.jrank.org/pages/1681/Television-Family-Social-Uses-Influence-Television-on-Families.html
If you’re looking for specific studies on the lack of male victimization, I’m unsure that you’ll find any. That may simply be the societal bias. But here is the question, if people can have their images of acceptable sexual identity shaped by the media and if girls can have their image of what a woman should be shaped by the media, why do you think that a portrayal of men as only abusers, strong, or in control not impact society’s perception of what a man is and what he is not, namely a victim.
@ Sean
“But there is, I think, a distinction between the girl bombarded with images of pop stars and the women of reality TV, and the ungendered male victims in a news story “
I think one of the things you’re missing is that men and boys are bombarded by images in the media as well. 25% of people with eating disorders are men / boys. Are there stories of female victims that have gone ungendered, while equally victimized males got a special mention?
Why is “the representation of males in the media… an inevitable roadblock that must be confronted?”
Because if the misrepresentation continues then they will serve to perpetuate misconceptions.
Why do we need to “tip the scales?” Those phrases reek of a gender war that, quite frankly, I’m not at all interested in being a part of.
Its a matter of telling all of the story. Or all of the stories.
As I explained above to Transhuman, I’m okay with the fact that I’m not hunting for alleged gender reporting disparities. I just don’t see the evidence that you do of “gender underrepresentation” in the media. And if it did exist, what road would it be blocking?
As I said its a matter of stories being hear or not being heard based on arbitrary things like the gender of the victims or perpetrators.
Also, how can a story be “actively left unmentioned?” That seems like a contradiction to me.
No its just as simple as deciding not to talk about it because of some factor.
I agree that Africa doesn’t receive enough media attention, and that news of atrocities there often fails to reach the eyes and ears of the Western world. But again, I don’t see that silence drawn up on gender lines. Abduction, rape, the use of child soldiers, and widespread murder are too common. Human rights in Africa is underrepresented in the media, and I’ll agree that it needs to change.
Fair enough if you don’t but I do see that it is so.
I vaguely remembered the story that you mentioned from Saudi Arabia, but I did some research to aid my recollection. Here’s a link to an article about it from the NYT: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/relief-and-dismay-in-saudi-rape-victim-case/
They managed to include the opinion of a MRA, although it was towards the bottom of the article. This gentleman criticized the media coverage of the story because it failed to include any mention of the male victim, who was also abducted, raped, and prosecuted in court (as you said). However, it seems like he might not have been victimized in the media because he was already making sexual threats to the woman; he was meeting her before the abduction because he had attempted to blackmail her with illicit photos from their past. She wanted to avoid shame and hoped to resolve the issue outside of the public eye. Obviously, the man did NOT deserve what happened to him, but I understand that civil rights groups made more of a stink over the female victim.
Which speaks to the idea that a man doing something bad does deserve what happens to him. You can see this attitude in the States when it comes say prison rape. Yeah its terrible but if a man ends up in prison he deserves it, especially if his crime was sexual. It would explain why efforts to confront prison rape are just relatively recently getting some traction.
To all three of you: I’m really glad that we started this conversation. I was wondering if any of you (or anyone else) has any studies about the link between the lack of male victims in media and negative male self-image.
Unfortunately I don’t but that would be some interesting data. Chances are I think it would play out to the effect of male victims, and men i general, being left with a feeling that they do not matter and should suffer in silence. Just like any other group of people that are misrepresented or underrepresented.
It’s tragic that people died. I don’t want to become distracted seeking out gender-signifying words in an article like that; I want to feel the sting of the people’s pain and use that to motivate me to action. I’m not concerned about their gender. I’m concerned because they’re my fellow humans.
I’m glad you don’t take gender in to account and it would be nice if folks like you were covering those stories because it sounds like from you the coverage would be a lot more balanced and more human than gender. But unfortunately the coverage is not balanced and human as it stands.
It would be nice if we could just go straight to more balanced coverage but the only way that will happen is to actually balance the coverage. Tell the stories that are not being told. Talk about the victims who are not being talked about. Listen to the voices that are being left silent (or actively silenced).
Mark.
There is plenty of evidence on the thread that there is in fact an organised effort to suppress male victimization that goes as far are threatening activists and researchers. There is plenty more of it around too.
This article seems to have set out to suppress the idea that there is an organised effort to suppress this information, would you be prepared to address the evidence that there is a deliberate effort to mislead the public and gov. on this?
The reason it must be fought is because money flows to the “important victims” that is way that charities work, the more deserving the victim the more money the collect, showing a male victim of sexual violence doesn’t garner as much money as a young girl does.
There is that, the information that I have from the DV establishment is saying that its often done to corroborate patriarchy theory. These charities and non profits, are often political too.
Snipet of Mark Greene’s article:
“But is there ill will at work here, intentionally suppressing a public discourse on male issues?”
The answer is: yes, on some advocates parts.
The $550 million annual budget of the OVW (Office for Violence against Women) which is a subjurisdiction of the Dept of Justice issues grants to police departments and courts to instill three mainstays of the duluth wheel idea of DV (that 1 it is gendered and 2 it is based on patriarchal concepts of the right of men to maintain discipline of women).
These three legs of the tripod are:
1. mandatory arrests in cases of domestic disturbance (no matter how slight the offense or how unlikely the person is to re-offend, or whether any harm is actually done)
2. primary aggressor laws (which basically instruct PD’s and police officers that female on male domestic abuse is 5% of the total–in total contradiction of all good known reliable studies). If a PD or officer deviates substantially the PD is directed to correct the behavior or lose the grant.
3. no-drop prosecution which basically gives grants to prosecutors (which prosecutors don’t want a larger budget?) to prosecute minor instances of shoving or slapping (for MEN primarily since PD’s are directed to make sure they arrest mostly men regardless of who is injured). Many times the wife doesn’t even lodge a complaint or call the cops–it is a 3rd party who does so, and the man is prosecuted against the wife’s wishes. In other words their is no complainant other than the government.
Two stories of extreme discrimination by PD’s and prosecutors were detailed on Glenn Sacks webpage.
One in which a husband and wife were travelling across the country to stay with family in a better employment state to restart their careers were staying with friends during their trek.
The husband and wife argued and the husband threw a bag of cheetos at his wife’s face. A woman of the family they were staying with called police. The man was in jail for 90 days (as of the time of the article) *against* the wife’s wishes thanks to no-drop prosecution.
There is also the story of David Woods. He was the lead plaintiff in getting VAWA discriminatory grant application to DV shelters overturned in 2008 in California. VAWA specifically states that no grants shall be given to DV shelters that house male victims.
David Woods was forced to punch his wife to stop her stabbing him with a steak knife (after one failed attempt lodged in his neck brace–he is disabled). When the cops arrived they were all set to arrest David until the children ran out saying they needed to arrest the mother and that David was only defending himself. What did the cops do when told (from the mouths of babes) that the mother made a malacious wounding/murder attempt with a deadly weapon?
They left telling David to get psychiatric treatment for his wife.
What nobody seems to understand is that their are actual advocates who seemingly *desire* the no-options scenario for abused men, and seemingly *desire* radical family dissolution for the slightest of transgressions of men.
Abused men are banned from testifying at VAWA reauthorizations. As are the ground-breaking DV researchers Gelles and Strauss.
A fathers rights advocate (nicknamed Daddy Justice) was physically accosted by a VP of a DV organization outside the conference room at VAWA reathorization hearings to ask Phil McGraw (dr phil) why he gave factually incorrect testimony about DV being a primarily women’s issue.
Then there is the story of Erin Prizzey–founder of the first battered women’s shelter in the UK. When she publicly stated that many of these women were as violent or more violent (especially to their children) as the men they were escaping, and announced her decision to start a battered men’s shelter Erin and her family were threatened with harm and bomb threats by radical feminists who basically ousted her and took over the shelter movement turning it into a gender stomping ground in which to advocate for their own vengeful agenda.
Here is the story of David Woods:
ht tp://www.drdue.com/tag/women-and-violence/
“3. no-drop prosecution which basically gives grants to prosecutors (which prosecutors don’t want a larger budget?) to prosecute minor instances of shoving or slapping (for MEN primarily since PD’s are directed to make sure they arrest mostly men regardless of who is injured). Many times the wife doesn’t even lodge a complaint or call the cops–it is a 3rd party who does so, and the man is prosecuted against the wife’s wishes. In other words their is no complainant other than the government.”
Firstly, technically in all criminal cases in the U.S. it’s the government bringing the charges against the defence. If there’s enough evidence, you don’t ever need a victim to level charges…technically.
Anyway, as to the meat of of your comment, I have absolutely no problem with allowing the government to prosecute DV aggressors against a spouse’s wishes. Just because someone isn’t willing to testify or even admit to themselves that they’re battered, doesn’t mean that they aren’t being abused. I’ve seen far too many people go back into abusive relationships.
The problem with this isn’t the point itself, but rather the gendered way in which it gets applied.
Heather,
The problem is that when you couple no-drop prosecutions with primary aggressor laws you have a system that executes itself primarily against men.
Also, no-drop prosecution is a very strong tool of government interference into peoples private affair. It should be used with some discretion and *strong* guidelines.
It shouldn’t be used in simple shoving or slapping cases (particularly against the victims consent) especially if the person has no record of violence and there were exacerbating conditions (emotion distress like death of a love one, termination from a job, being intoxicated) which point to an unlikeliness to re-offend, and unlikeliness for the person to be a serial abuser).
I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t agree with the methods that these no-drop prosecutions are being carried out (nor the fact that when teamed with primary aggressor laws you have a system for legal oppression of men by the criminal system).
I would have just as much an issue with this seeming *rabid* use of no-drop prosecutions (90 days for throwing cheetos in a persons face?) if it was gender neutral or done mostly to women.
If the person doesn’t have a record of abuse, but the prosecutor suspects that the abuse is persistent and continuous but well-hidden, then it is the job of prosecutors to prove that by interviewing other family members. If they can’t prove that, then they should drop the case as in the cheetos in the face case. Rather, it seems like a lot of prosecutors would rather hold defendants with far extended court dates as a tool of leverage.
Bail laws would simply mean that prosecutors are going to be able to use long term incarceration waiting for court dates as a tool to enforce deals against the poor.
Something as invasive and destructive as this needs to be used with a light touch, and/or strict guidelines in place to ensure it’s not used as a tool of oppression against the innocent to pad the prosecutors record to buck for D.A. or assistant D.A. or the states attorney general.
@ John D
The answer might be aggressive use of alternative sentencing. The state can still bring charges if warranted. Families can still get the support they need. The DA still gets the win. A plea bargain for mandatory counseling would eliminate long incarcerations if it included record expunging after a certain time period since I don’t think anyone would object.
Actually, I have a problem with that. This is exactly my point.
Charges that should be dropped can be used as leverage to extract deals that the citizen shouldn’t be subjected to because if the case went to court the judge would throw them out.
Secondly, in order to strike an agreement you have to admit guilt. This may not go on a record an employer will see, but it definitely will come up in a divorce court (and have a huge impact) or have a sizable impact on any future criminal court proceedings.
If there is no case, it should be thrown out.
Heather
There have been studies that show that there are problems with mandatory arrest and no drop despite the wishes of the spouse. For example genuine victims that want proper family counselling as opposed to arrest and the state dissolving the family will avoid calling the police.
Typo. was typing too fast:
2. primary aggressor laws (which basically instruct PD’s and police officers that female on male domestic abuse is 5% of the total–in total contradiction of all good known reliable studies). If a PD or officer deviates substantially (from women representing more than 5% of domestic disturbance arrests) the PD is directed to correct the behavior or lose the grant.
You can see what’s happening here, it’s the same that the roman catholic church did, they refused to answer questions or about or acknowledge that there was a deliberate cover up.
One need only look at Erin Pizzey, and the effort that went into (successfully) silencing her attempts to acknowledge female violence and male victimization, and the subsequent results 40 years latter, where male victims continue to be largely ignored, going so far as Verizon’s recent “Monster” commercial (that got rightly pulled, but can still be found on various blogs), where even the male child was not portrayed as a victim, but rather, as an abuser in training. He did not fear as his sister did, instead you have the word “abuse” knock down the little girl, and the boy stride triumphantly out from that word and, standing over his sister, himself becomes a monster like his father. Follow this all up with the Duluth model that clearly genders violence, and attributes sexist motivation as well, to further promote the suppression of male victims. If this does not clearly portray the gendered intentions of those initial feminist groups whom silenced Erin Pizzey, then I don’t know what will convince you.
I wrote a small article on the SFU initiative a sent it to GMP about 2 weeks ago. Lisa was going to look into outing it on the blog. I thought it was important to note successes of the MRM . Many feminists accuse the MRM of simply complaining and not actively seeking change. I thought that it was important to note that the comments section on neutral web sites were pro men’s center even comments from women. Speaking up, relating your experiences and changing minds does have an effect. I mentioned how at the start of my grad class, I was the only person concerned with the gender gap in higher education. People were either ignorant of its existence, believed that the fault rested solely on men’s choices so it’s not a problem, and/or believed that there were no societal implications toi the gender gap. Later a teacher was stunned into silence when she asked are women under represented in higher education and got a resounding no from the class. The conversation has also moved to how can we be more receptive to the needs of boys and men.
I think the article was never followed up on because it expressed disappointment that the main opposition to the men’s center seemed to come from the feminists. People who claim to care about the oppression of men shouldn’t be in opposition to a men’s center. I never understood why people shouldn’t be disappointed. Maybe the feminists on this site should spend more effort holding their movement to the ideals they claim to have rather than suppressing valid criticism of it. I kept the draft on my PC. During my off week, I might see if I can clean it up and put it on a personal blog. I’ll let you guys know. Successes should be celebrated. It keeps the movement alive.
I’d like to read it. Don’t the editors discuss why it can/can’t be posted via email?
It’s up now: http://goodmenproject.com/the-issues-of-mens-rights/mens-issues-its-important-to-celebrate-success/
Thanks for contributing.
John, your article was put up as you now know. I want to let you in on the timeline it can take to get pieces up. I’ve submitted things and have had it take up to two weeks to get published depending on the editorial process, theme of pieces listed, other authors ahead of me in queue and so forth. Blog posts come more fast and furious but even so.
I would have appreciated much more detail in your piece about the successes and what went into making them, personally. Because I felt that more of that would have been really interesting.
Not being published until today was not a feminist conspiracy.
And if you ever have questions about where your piece is in the process, Joanna, Justin or Lisa are always more than happy to answer.
I’m guessing it’s delayed so there is a steady stream of articles, instead of one day 20 articles, the next day none?
I think the recent bruhaha over the SFU men’s centre proposal also shows a great deal on the efforts some feminist will take to keep men not under their influence from the discussion. There reason I say “not under their influence is because, if you go to the (SFU) women’s centre website and examine their male allies page, you will clearly see them promoting a men’s centre, but they are promoting one that focuses, not on men’s issues, but on how men ca further women’s issues, as well as instilling male blame/guilt.
(as an aside, take a look at their FAQ page, second occurrence of masculinity, where it is said masculinity is homophobic, oppressive, emotionally stunted, etc. Seems a pretty hateful thing to say about men/masculinity, yet they not only do say it, they do so prominently and openly on their website, without fear of repercussion. Only reason their getting what little repercussions they have gotten is because they poured it on way to thick to be ignored this time, in their youtube video opposing the men’s centre)
ht tp://www.sfuwomenctr.ca/faqs.html
ht tp://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/20/robyn-urback-on-shocking-anti-male-hatred-on-the-sfu-campus/ Has a great article detailing the problems the women’s center and their attitude towards the mens center. From what I can understand these women’s center members are absolutely clueless to the reality of male suffering, see masculinity as negative and dangerous without ever asking could men have real issues to deal with instead of trying to get men to follow what these feminists want.
ht tp://www2.macleans.ca/2012/05/16/reverse-sexism-at-simon-fraser/
” Or as some of the video’s contributors warn, “a highly masculinized space… a room with a PS3 and a bunch of douche bags playing video games”…”
Clear misandry, I expect better from feminists.
In one of hte comments “4. The Men’s Centre has not been given a cheque. The 30,000 is an earmark for the future. They can only use $500 for professional consulting and public consulting for right now. ”
From what I understand the $30,000 would be in today’s money, but the women’s center was made in 1974 with $30,000 so the women’s center actually received a larger portion of funding when inflation is taken into account?
It’s quite clear they are using the more equal than others mindset, they want funding for the women’s shelter but are pretty much telling men that they have the rest of society. Hear that men? We have a safe space in society to just pull up chairs and discuss these issues anywhere without fear of trespassing, being moved along, etc. How do these people even get to college with such ignorance?
Yeah I’ve been sorta following this story too. I really want to say something like, “The next time some women’s advocates come along saying they don’t understand what men are up against, they need only look at this. Dead on evidence that people who call themselves activists that want to help all people, are not concerned for the well being of men. No they want to have a controlling influence on men.”
But the problem is the sensible women’s advocates (like most of the feminists that hang out here) already know this stuff happens are actually putting real effort into trying to understand what men are up against instead of the all too common practice of declaring that men just want to control women every time they see something they don’t like. No the one’s that need to see stuff like this going on are just to watch that video, say that that Men’s Centre is a bad idea for reasons they would not stand for if it were a Women’s Centre under attack, and go back to pretending that feminists are the only people on Earth that are trying to help men.
“But the problem is the sensible women’s advocates (like most of the feminists that hang out here) already know this stuff happens are actually putting real effort into trying to understand what men are up against instead of the all too common practice of declaring that men just want to control women every time they see something they don’t like.”
While I agree they know it exists, I do feel they underestimate just how pervasive it is. It’s not the fringe but the core.
One of the arguments O felt was interesting went along the lines of, the men’s center should be created in conjunction with the women’s center so that it wouldn’t become a bastion of misogyny. So abortion should be legal and we should “trust women”, but men shouldn’t be allowed to create a center that addresses their unique issues in society because we can “trust” men not to be misogynists, an interesting perspective, but completely wrong.
Another argument was that the women’s center addressed LGBT issues that the men’s center wouldn’t as if a gay man could walk into the women’s center and seek services or a safe place. They wanted the men’s center to essentially be another women’s center or at least an extension of.
“They wanted the men’s center to essentially be another women’s center or at least an extension of.”
That message is spelled out clear as day on the poster for their male allies page of the women’s centre website, the poster that basically says a men’s centre will look at how men negatively impact women and can help resolve that. nothing about men’s issues, apparently they don’t exist.
Maybe I missed it somewhere but did anyone ever list the top 5 MRM’s? Like I said before, the only ones that I find on a google search are “fathers rights” groups …. not the same as what’s commonly known as an MRM. Can someone also let me know who the MRM lobbyists are in Washington?
National Coalition for men would be the main one that goes under the MRM banner. SAVE doesn’t go under the MRM label (for two reasons I believe: because men are less likely to help other men, Errin Pizzey discusses this when she discusses her attempt to open a men’s shelter before the shelter movement was usurped. secondly, because the MRM has a strong opposition in feminism, and taking on a more neutral stance helps deflect from that. Non-the-less, they are still targeted, such as SPLC’s MRM hate list including SAVE among the hate groups). Otherwise, I know of no other MRM specifc lobies that have gotten off the ground, The more specific fathers rights groups have had more success. That said, Fathers rights, Domestic Violence and false accusations are amongst the top issues on the MRM list, and most fathers rights groups tackle these issues from a “fathers are good too” angle that is harder for opposition to vilify (still do with accusations of fathers groups being “abusers lobbyists”). But feminists never had the kind of organized and undermining opposition, not to mention general apathy that men’s groups have had to endure.
@Mark … thank you for posting the MRM’s which as we can see, are not the “forces” that some people want to make them out to be. The use of the term “MRM,” as I’ve seen with many responses to various articles would lead people to believe that MRM’s are a force to reckon with and I’m sad to say, I could only wish that MRM’s had such an influence.
With the “new age” (lack of any other term for it) feminist movement, I believe that the feminists are attempting to hijack the men’s movement. A new and softer feminist movement that has open arms for men to come and join. IMO, it’s smoke and mirrors. Although I believe there are some well-intentioned feminists, I feel the overall game plan is to prevent the men’s movement AS a men’s movement from gaining any real strength.
The new feminist attitude, though cloaked with caring, compassionate empathy, still wants control. No one is on the side of the dad that’s primary care giver to his kids, more then me and I applaud the efforts to dispel the myths of dads. But that is only one aspect of the problem men have struggled with for many years. The feminists promoting the dads being the primary care giver feels to me like we’re being thrown a bone to shut us up. …. Sorry, but it’s simply how I feel
I don’t entirely disagree. I do very much believe there are elements attempting to usurp the MRM as they did the LGBT movement. You can see it at SFU in the women’s centre’s “male allies” program that that they claim is for men, but ultimately, it still remains for women and to teach men the are evil and harmful to women. Unfortunately, the bulk of the MRM is made up of men who have been burned, who are paying the exorbitant child support and alimony payments, who have no money and can’t afford time off work because of it. And when you consider how easily government dismisses men and their concerns, such as Dr. Farrell’s council of boys to men proposal (IE, from a professional within the field with National organization for women credit on his resume and the backing of some 30+odd other professionals), it makes lobbying an exceptionally difficult thing to accomplish. Add to this the difficulty of organizing a lobby event without having a live space to get a feel for how many people will actually show up at any given event, and it’s that much harder. ZimbaZumba bellow discusses the value of university organization bellow, and why it’s needed and opposed. So for now, the MRM is largely just about disseminating information, which itself is important, and it’s working (as evidenced by some of the larger media organizations picking up some men’s issues on occasion) but it’s just the beginning and has a long way to go.
One of the most transparent and egregious examples of the suppression of Men’s issues is by the Nation Students Union in the UK . They recently passed a motion to oppose the hiring of Men’s Officers and officially offer advice on how to stop men from organizing. See here:-
http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/asset/news/6078/I-Will-.pdf
Stopping men from organizing in Universities is key to stopping the Mens Right’s from becoming more than a grassroots movement, those in opposition know this. Men’s centers or organizations offer places for like minded people to gather, exchange ideas, formulate policy, and organize campaigns. They allow for consistency of message, new converts to be made and for a mature movement to develop. The Feminist Movement knew this and it is through Universities that their movement ultimately flourished, they are now denying men the same opportunity. The recent SFU Men’s Center debacle is a recent example of this.
Whilst I can see your point, do you mind focusing your argument a bit more, is this SOME feminists or all feminists in the feminist movement opposing it? It treats the feminist movement as a monolith and so those feminists who do support the men’s center would feel they’re unfairly lumped in with a few who don’t.
Sorry Archy, but read his post again, he never actually blames feminism or the feminist movement for anything. He uses “those opposed to the men’s rights movement type language.
“The Feminist Movement knew this”
I meant for this, was it all of the feminist movement or just some? Is it a basic core belief?
Ah, you specified “opposing”…
“is this SOME feminists or all feminists in the feminist movement opposing it?”
I would argue that yes, the vast majority of the feminist movement knew universities offer places for like minded people to gather, exchange ideas, formulate policy, and organize campaigns (ether because they were part of it as university students, came through university where they experienced this, or helped organize at universities). As ZimbaZumba said, it is through Universities that the feminist movement ultimately flourished.
Well since there seems to be a standard in which if men care about it they should be speaking up. So where are the feminists that have a problem with these feminists railing against this (or trying to control) this Men’s Centre?
Actually I too am curious where the feminists are who will speak out against their sisters on the SFU men’s center issue. Would do quite a lot to help with credibility of the movement to see some call out the others on this stupidity.
Agreed. I keep hearing how those out to harm men are the fringe and real feminists are about equality, but the only time I hear about feminists getting rejected from the movement and deemed anti-feminist, it is people like Hoff Somers and Farrell. And the hateful type don’t even get a public scolding, they just get compartmentalized in discussions as a scapegoat to absorb the negative attitudes.
There is apparently very little (if any) objection. Otherwise, it would be out there.
There differences in views between the various factions of feminism are very slight. There is general agreement on most issues, to a greater or lesser degree. Otherwise, they would not be willing to share the monikor feminist.
I wanted to add this link to this article, as it, again, demonstrates that opposition to men’s rights isn’t just an internet feminist thing, but an institutional (NOW specifically) feminist agenda.
Of particular note:
“The Michigan branch of the National Organization for Women opposed the bills.”
http://www.necn.com/06/10/12/Mich-bills-would-extend-biological-dads-/landing_politics.html?&apID=da7cfb404f9c49a8b8a0c82f88b5e895
The bill speaks of allowing men who believe themselves to be fathers of children born within a marriage (not his own) to file for paternity rights. Other than protecting a woman’s “right” to infidelity and paternity fraud without consequences, what reason does NOW have for opposing this bill? Can one seriously argue NOW is acting in the interests of equality in this case, or is it far more clear they are acting in the interests of female entitlement?
It was signed into law. Score 1 for the good guys.
“Legislation inspired by a Livingston County man’s story was signed into law Tuesday by Governor Snyder. Public Act 159 of 2012 gives biological fathers more rights, and eliminates the Michigan Paternity Act, which Daniel Quinn of Hartland Township says has prevented him from seeing his daughter for the past four years. The new Act is titled “the Revocation of Paternity Act.” It permits a biological father to establish paternity of a child born or conceived during a marriage provided certain specific circumstances exist.”
http://jeannehannah.typepad.com/blog_jeanne_hannah_traver/paternity/