Josh Bowman wonders if on-campus mentor programs can combat a culture of hyper-sexualized aggressive masculinity, and counter some of the lessons learned from watching porn at young age.
A recent Globe and Mail article highlighted a number of college and high school programs designed to “intervene in a young, male culture that is giving many adults cause for concern. Long-term, the aim is to combat the rates of domestic violence and sexually transmitted infections. Short-term, the goal is to tutor young men in healthy relations with women and non-destructive masculinity.”
Alongside the anti-bullying movement, there is a growing movement to address a culture of hyper-sexualized, aggressive masculinity. There is a concern that it is playing out as a kind of “rape culture”, where young men are losing site of realistic sexual expectations when it comes to women, due in part to the widespread consumption of pornography among men, often beginning at a very young age (81% of 14-16 year olds look at online pornography at home, according to one British study).
I may have been a late bloomer, but I don’t remember teenagers being all that sexually aware when I was younger. In fact, I still remember my embarrassment in a grade 7 health class when our teacher/gym instructor pulled out an anonymous question asking if it is a problem to masturbate, and a couple of the other guys in the class attributed the question to me. I was mortified at being accused of masturbating! Now, kids are watching porn, having sex, and wondering if 5 times a day is too much.
I remember trying to watch scrambled porn on television with my friends, and the thrill I got when my buddy Aaron and I purchased a copy of “Rear Action Magazine” from a local variety store (we giggled all the way home). Maybe we were nerds (ok, we were definitely nerds), but we didn’t have nearly as much access to graphic and exploitative imagery as kids do today.
Pornography is a tricky issue. On one side of the argument, you have sex-positive feminists who believe that pornography can be empowering, and has done a lot to bring the fetish world, BDSM, and queer (GLBTTTTTQ) culture out of the shadows. There is an argument to be made that pornography allows for the safe pursuit of fantasy (teachers with high school students, cheating on a spouse, etc.) without fear of reprisal and in the privacy and safety of your own home.
On the other hand, if pornography really is teaching young men problematic lessons (inaccurate assumptions around: consent, how to speak with women, what to expect sexually, what is pleasurable), then it becomes at best, misinformation, and at worst, dangerous. In this case, young men need access to good, positive information from sources they can trust and will truly listen to (peers, fraternity brothers, fellow athletes, or in my case…fellow nerds. Start online gaming, and then tell me that nerds couldn’t benefit from some lessons around homophobia and misogyny).
Young men are heavily influenced by their peers, and as the Globe and Mail article mentions, a lot of these programs are relying on high-status “jocks” to relay some of these sex-positive, anti-violence messages. I remember when I was in university, being part of the White Ribbon Campaign on campus. We eventually worked with a number of other agencies to form a group called Allies. I was proud to be part of Allies, and I remember the impact it had to have two star UBC football players in the group (neither of which were me. Did I mention that I was a nerd?). When they spoke to their fellow teammates, or other young men, their words carried weight.
Pornography is not going anywhere, and young men will always have role models and peers (good and bad) who they look up to. We need to be available to provide guidance to these boys on how to become good men, and these programs are helping to make that happen.
About Josh Bowman
Slightly offtopic: So do they run these programs for the women as well or is it just yet another attempt at placing responsibility on the men whilst ignoring the issues women need to address? I can see there are legitimate reasons to do such courses but without ALSO doing one for young women it’ll be a half-arsed attempt at tackling the non-gendered problems such as domestic and sexual violence.
Education around porn is needed to ensure people understand the type of porn they are watching may not represent reality (There is plenty of porn that does represent reality, see amateur porn). Education also needs to be for both of the genders for those topics, I’ve seen many cases of young women hitting men without reprisal to the point it’s become expected AND acceptable. I’ve been hit myself a few times. But we still fall into the narrative of male perpetrator, female victim so I take major objection to programs that only target 1 gender without a brother/sister program. Before it could be justified on vastly different representations in sexual violence for instance however latest stats are showing up to parity in some forms of violence, some even show women perpetrating as much or even more than the men for domestic violence.
Either way there’s clearly a need for both to be educated to control their behaviour, does this currently happen? I only see the male programs talked about which is raising my doubts on the effectiveness of the campaigns to combating violence as a whole. There is major need for concern on the “new” aggressive femininity culture.
The genre of porn being consumed will also influence the message being heard, hopefully the amateur content is shooting to the top in popularity and decent content at that. There’s a major desire for porn and other material for masturbation and fantasy, so fill the need with good quality porn that shows consent, sex, etc in a healthy way. I’d say the most common desire is simply seeing sex with people who are enjoying it.
I seem to recall an article a while back (was it on this site?) where it was pointed out that the average age for sexual debut have risen the last few decades. So even though young people perhaps were less sexually “aware” before they certainly had sex at the same age or younger than now.
Greater availabiullity of porn doesn’t seem to have had a large negative impact on age of sexual debut and I dare say that being sexually aware is a good thing to be when oner is about to engage in sexual activity.
You touch on many problematic aspects of porn, but the fact that it makes 7th graders more sexually aware is not one of them.
If women are experiencing any gender problems in society, it’s important to blame boys and fix boys to make them more acceptable to women. That’s a great program for our educational system! Oh, and boys will consistently do worse in school and fail to go to college as a result… but surely that’s a small price to pay.
Needless to say, the idea that any effort to change boys will somehow result in their downfall is absurd. Teaching boys and men to be less violent and even more compassionate isn’t going to have any bearing on their intelligence or motivation in school. Actually it would probably improve it by improving their overall mental health once they are better able to connect with others. Though of course that requires a form of male bonding that doesn’t involve violence or denigrating others, probably hard for you to imagine.
“Though of course that requires a form of male bonding that doesn’t involve violence or denigrating others, probably hard for you to imagine.”
Why thank-you for that extremely shaming language, you must be proud. Did you ever think that men also get an extremely negative message from these programs? That MEN are the violent ones that need to be changed, that MEN lack the compassion? Couple that with society’s gaping black hole of awareness for female violence and the fact many men are waking up to the fact that women are quite aggressive n violent, it does leave a sour taste in many mouths.
The program can be good, but it definitely needs to be for both genders or we simply are saying men are the violent people and the women don’t need to change. This is one of the biggest reason I see people speaking AGAINST the white ribbon campaign, I’ve seen men and women including myself who refuse to support it simply because it is too gendered in it’s approach and only calls on one gender to change their behavior regarding violence. And for a man that’s been through female violence, I simply refuse to support campaigns that either don’t have the sister campaign, or place the entire responsibility on one gender.
Imagine having sexual health campaigns ONLY for men, or ONLY for women, where the other misses out on important information? Women as a group NEED to hear the info along with men to help combat violence in all forms (including sexual).
Actually, it’s the idea that boys NEED changing that’s absurd. I notice that the program’s defenders swiftly declare it to be an “anti-violence campaign”… because who could argue with that? When of course, it’s far broader than that, including indoctrination in feminist-approved attitudes and behaviors that boys are told to comply with, along with a strong dose of anti-sexualization (Porn Is Rape, etc. etc.).
If you want to reshape gender relations, placing all the blame and responsibility on boys while telling girls they’re perfect just the way they are is probably the dumbest way to go about it… even assuming that your goal is worthwhile to begin with. (Hint: it’s not.)
“Teaching boys and men to be less violent and even more compassionate isn’t going to have any bearing on their intelligence or motivation in school.”
But to assert that boys “violence” is problomatic and needs to be trained away is a problem. It is yet another example of where masculinity is being burdened with an oversimplified interpretation (male aggressiveness = violence) and told that attribute is a bad one that must be removed. You are teaching boys they are naturally bad, and you’re damn right that’s going to have an impact.
Furthermore, it’s already happening. Boys are already heavily restricted and hampered by the education system, and that is having a huge impact on their motivation, as seen by record drop out rates, dropping grades and a tendency to retreat into video games, one of the few places a boy is still allowed to be who he wants to be.
In my experience, women have a hard time accepting that male aggression doesn’t automatically turn into violence. They have so little experience with being confronted aggressively (in no small part because society protects them from it as children, preferring to punish boys if they disagree with girls to actually mediating conflicts) that they don’t get the difference. Men do; we’ve gotten in each-others faces knowing that it won’t actually lead to an exchange of blows our entire lives. We’ve postured, knowing that posturing is all we’re doing.
But you so much as act angry near some woman and they act like you’re about to go on a killing spree. They simply refuse to accept that men are men, or that men understand more about the male condition than they do. Feminists are no different. For all their supposed belief in ‘equality’ and opposition to gender bias, they still fall back into the notion that their perception of the male condition is more accurate than our experience of it.
This is a profoundly interesting thing you’ve said. Thank you for giving me something very useful to consider.
Soullite, this is a brilliantly articulated insight. Absolutely brilliant. Thank you.
Wow, THIS!
That’s interesting, because I’ve always felt that men and boys have had more leeway for expressing aggression than women do. The “boys will be boys” attitude is still floating around. Meanwhile, a girl who expresses anger is not only told that anger is bad, but also that she’s not performing her gender correctly. Which, keep in mind, I’m just pointing out how I’ve felt about it. My perception, that’s all.
So thinking about what you’ve said…and thinking about my own experiences…could it be that there are multiple systems and cultural norms at play when it comes to aggression in our society?
Western society views physical violence as masculine and also physical aggression as masculine, so the two can often get mixed up. Also, the current discussions about domestic and sexual violence centre around a man as the aggressor. At the same time, women are taught not to be aggressive at all, particularly physically. So our ‘posturing’ and aggression is often expressed in other ways (see Mean Girls, Clueless, etc.). So then, when a woman is confronted with a type of aggression she is unfamiliar with (not just because she’s been protected, but more because it’s been denied her), she misunderstands and thinks that posturing and aggression are actual threats of violence.
In other words, could the problem actually be that we’ve decided to place gender on behaviour which is not inherently gendered? If we deny women the ability to express physical aggression even when they’re children, then they are unprepared to deal with it when faced with it. And I’m sure there’s a parallel in there about how men handle non-physical aggression and posturing.
And yes, typhon, if you’re reading this – I know…agency. I’m just talking about societal pressures, here.
Heather, Soullite… yes. I think Heather you are right on. Women’s violence is allowed in terms of how we treat emotional systems. Women can be excrutiatingly cruel and emotionally violent to each other. See Bridesmaids. And yes physically violent but I see more of the verbal stuff.
That’s interesting, because I’ve always felt that men and boys have had more leeway for expressing aggression than women do. The “boys will be boys” attitude is still floating around. Meanwhile, a girl who expresses anger is not only told that anger is bad, but also that she’s not performing her gender correctly. Which, keep in mind, I’m just pointing out how I’ve felt about it. My perception, that’s all.
Its a matter of experience and I’m glad you brought this up. A year or so ago I was on a forum where a guy made the point that Soullite just articulated so well…just to have a woman sweep in and declare that such things cannot have happened because of what you describe here.
Thing is they both happen. Just as there are boys that were punished for hitting girls even in self defense there are girls who witnessed boys getting free passes on hitting girls.
So thinking about what you’ve said…and thinking about my own experiences…could it be that there are multiple systems and cultural norms at play when it comes to aggression in our society?
Exactly. Region, culture, nationality, religion, time period, etc…. all can figure into this.
If we deny women the ability to express physical aggression even when they’re children, then they are unprepared to deal with it when faced with it. And I’m sure there’s a parallel in there about how men handle non-physical aggression and posturing.
If anything if we force physical aggression on men from the time they are boys then they are unprepared to even consider thinking of non-violent ways to react and stand a chance of going too far when it does get physical (which I was may have happened when Brown attacked Rihanna).
I like your comment.
Thanks.
And now question for you, and for any other guy reading this:
When you were first confronted with emotional aggression, did you feel able to handle it? Do you sometimes find yourself assuming that emotional aggression is actually being used in more harmful ways than it is? Or is it the opposite?
When you were first confronted with emotional aggression, did you feel able to handle it?
Truthfully no. When confronted with emotional aggression my response is rage even though aggressive doesn’t necessarily mean hostile or hatred.
Do you sometimes find yourself assuming that emotional aggression is actually being used in more harmful ways than it is?
I don’t think its an assumption but a true observation. Mind you I don’t think the way are “more harmful” in any inherent way but rather the result of the common belief that its not that big of a deal. Essentially giving those who employ those tactics a very wide range of acceptability.
As in the idea that a woman using such tactics isn’t a threat. Well there is a reason the first rule of fighting is to never underestermate your opponent. Because when you do that you opponent knows they can captialize on it.
Okay so let’s see if I can summarize: Growing up boys generally aren’t provided any means of expressing aggression except physical. Then they grow up and sometimes that can get out of hand, so that instead of expressing something emotionally, they end up getting violent. Also, when faced with emotional aggression directed toward them, they may respond with rage (possibly violence?) because they feel unable to handle it, in part because they’ve never been allowed to express it themselves. On top of all that, is a sense that our society treats emotional aggression as somehow unimportant and un-threatening, while at the same time overemphasising the possible danger in physical aggression.
Something like that?
Yes. Just bear in mind that this is not the only possibility (even among men and boys) and you are on the money.
No worries, I never assume anybody’s personal experience is the only possibility, or at least I always try not to.
Sounds about right, with the addition that even physical violence is becoming disallowed (while still not allowing the non physical), via anti-bullying campaigns and the various zero tolerance, and violence/assault laws.
I was actually just thinking about this the other day. I’m a large guy, and while I consider myself smart, I am slow to react, in that I usually don’t think of a good comeback or retort till about 2 minutes after it’s too late. In the past, a think skin, casual attitude and my ability to posture and intimidate has acted as a relative equalizer against those far more witty and quick than I am… But as time has passed, my posturing has thoroughly been trivialized by the fact that, should I actually follow through, I get in trouble. this leaves me little recourse against verbal hostilities. And there is only so much one can let slide.
Alright, though keep in mind that the anti bullying campaigns aren’t just about physical bullying. Actually, I’d say the anti bullying campaigns are one some of the most gender-neutral campaigns I’ve seen. Girls and boys are both definitely viewed as potential victims and as potential aggressors. And it’s been about combating both emotional and physical bullying.
Actually, I’d say the anti bullying campaigns are one some of the most gender-neutral campaigns I’ve seen.
Unfortunately these campaigns relatively new compared to the way bullying has been approached in the past. Before bullying used to be seen as something boys do to boys and boys do to girls. Over time people have finally come around and admitted that girls do bully girls. Problem is even now boys who are bullied by girls are still treated like an anomoly or that they did something to deserve it. Actually not too different from DV when you look at it. (You can look up the posts that Eagle34 has put up around here on that.)
I agree it’s different to the way bullying was approached in the past. Going on personal experience, I’d actually suggest that traditionally, bullying has been seen as something boys to do to boys, and maybe girls do to girls (if people were thinking outside the box), and that’s it. I think that when boys bullied girls in the past it was treated as something other than bullying (like a form of pre-DV). And when girls bullied boys in the past, it was also treated as something other than bullying (as something that was inconsequential).
Agreed that they are amongst the most gender neutral, but also keep in mind the physical is far more easy to identify and prove, and so is more easily squelched. How does one prove that emotional bullying is going on when one group is excluding/giving the silent treatment to another student? So, while yes, the campaigns are very much about stopping bullying of any kind, there is a focus on the physical, due to the ease of identifying and dealing with it. And zero tolerance is very much heavily focused on the physical. Do keep in mind I used “and’s”, not “or’s”.
Heather:
I think that when boys bullied girls in the past it was treated as something other than bullying (like a form of pre-DV).
True and it still is now to an extent I think. In fact didn’t Joanna once do a post here asking about bra snapping being a stepping stone to DV?
Mark:
Agreed that they are amongst the most gender neutral, but also keep in mind the physical is far more easy to identify and prove, and so is more easily squelched.
And it really doesn’t help that gender neutrality doesn’t always hold in this. A few months ago a group of 2 middle school age girls stripped a boy’s clothes off in public (outside of school though) while a third recorded and put it on youtube. Cops told the boy and his parents that it was likely a prank and not to worry about it.
I’m trying to get away from the “if the genders were swapped…” argument but I have a hard time believing that if the genders were swapped three boys doing this to a girl wouldn’t have gotten them charged with some sort of sex crime, especially if it became a high profile event.
(Generalizing on purpose to fit in to this gendered aggression stuff)
Emotional aggression hurts me more I think, I find bruises and physical pain easier to recover from. I see the men generally barking aggressively at each other ready for a fist fight, women though tended to be more sneaky…rumors, catty behaviour n stuff. I’ve seen guys become friends after a fight, I know I have friends I’ve been in fist fights with (in school), but friends after rumor spreading and just general emotionally aggressive behaviour might be more rare.
People fear male aggression more I think but female aggression can be just as damaging, I’d say many times a bruise is easier to heal from compared to reputation damage. A fight can be forgotten quick but rumors can stick around for ages, given the choice today I’d probably take the fist fights over the emotional bullying. I guess I can defend myself against physical aggression but emotional aggression hurts and I haven’t got the heart to truly inflict it back. Kids in schools need boxing gloves to work stuff out sometimes I think, go a few rounds in the ring….
But you so much as act angry near some woman and they act like you’re about to go on a killing spree. They simply refuse to accept that men are men, or that men understand more about the male condition than they do.
Damn straight. And this is probably why when a man that so much as yells at his wife people trip over themselves to call it domestic violence but a woman can hire someone to stright up kill her husband and people seem to actively refuse to call it domestic violence.
Feminists are no different. For all their supposed belief in ‘equality’ and opposition to gender bias, they still fall back into the notion that their perception of the male condition is more accurate than our experience of it.
Oh thank you all that is holy for saying that. This feeds right into what was said by folks further down in the comments about how it seems feminism hasn’t truly made room for men in their movement, despite regular declarations that feminism is for everyone.
As to the thing about feminists thinking they’ve got more knowledge about male perspectives…I’ve got some thoughts:
So as per usual, I’m not trying to defend anyone who does the shitty thing we’re talking about (in this case women assuming they know more about what it’s like to be a man than men do), I’m just trying to perhaps explain and understand it.
Okay, so that does happen, certainly…but I think part of it stems from the fact that often women (particularly feminists) feel that men do the same thing to women about female perspectives. Or perhaps from a feeling that “the male perspective” (as if such a thing existed) got it so very wrong, that it’s time to try “the female perspective” (as if this existed either). It’s very second-wavy, I think.
Okay, so that does happen, certainly…but I think part of it stems from the fact that often women (particularly feminists) feel that men do the same thing to women about female perspectives.
Yes it does. In fact I think that on a personal level its a bit of a cycle that ends up going out of control. Guy A gets dismissed by Woman A, Guy A then dismisses Woman B, Woman A get dismissed by Guy B, etc…
Or perhaps from a feeling that “the male perspective” (as if such a thing existed) got it so very wrong, that it’s time to try “the female perspective” (as if this existed either). It’s very second-wavy, I think.
Good point. I think there is a lot of generalizing and monolithing going on when people start talking about “the male/female perspective” (instead of “a male/female perspective”).
Exactly so.
“but I think part of it stems from the fact that often women (particularly feminists) feel that men do the same thing to women about female perspectives.”
AKA an eye for an eye approach.
“Or perhaps from a feeling that “the male perspective” (as if such a thing existed) got it so very wrong, that it’s time to try “the female perspective””
Zero Sum approach. Not the most ringing endorsements, though I do realise you’re not trying to defend the positions, just explaining them.
I think my problem is how self serving the gender feminist perspective often is… “Violence is wrong because hitting a woman is bad” or “the way to be a good man is to shut up, listen to women and do whatever they want of you”. It often looks like less trying to help and more manipulation to get what they want (because, I suspect, it very much is that).
“they still fall back into the notion that their perception of the male condition is more accurate than our experience of it.”
That’s an extremely important point, Soullite. It’s rare to meet a woman who doesn’t think she understands “men” completely… especially in the feminist movement. The recent blog entries about the CNN article “Are Men Stupid?” is a perfect illustration of this widespread, and false, assumption.
Hi all,
Thank for your thoughts. A few responses…
@Archy – I believe pornography is like any other film genre. There’s some good stuff, and a lot of bad (both pro and amateur).
@Tamen – I was referencing the original article there, but you may be right. I do think that the discourse for younger boys and girls has changed though.
@Copyleft – I would like to see the research showing a causality between anti-violence programs for young men and lower college enrolment. I know that young women are enrolling in post-secondary at much higher rates than young men, but I don’t believe that it is because of peer mentoring and anti-violence programs.
Not anti-violence specifically, but anti-boy programs in general. Attempts to control and feminize boys are all the rage in our educational system–with medication, if possible.
Josh: “A recent Globe and Mail article highlighted a number of college and high school programs designed to “intervene in a young, male culture that is giving many adults cause for concern. Long-term, the aim is to combat the rates of domestic violence and sexually transmitted infections. Short-term, the goal is to tutor young men in healthy relations with women and non-destructive masculinity.”
Once again, the onus of these programs is always put on the men to change and have healthy relationships with women.
I don’t have a problem with these programs per se. The goals are indeed noble but, like Archy said, where are the equivilant programs for young women? Right now, thanks to research like the CDC report, we’re seeing a parity in domestic and sexual violence where male victims are nearly equal to that of female victims. Young women can hit their boyfriends, or men in general, with impunity without consequence. And if a young man ever tried to defend himself from a physically violent woman, he’d be slapped with the label of “Aggressor” and shoulder the majority of blame. At worst, if police were involved, he’d be charged with assault instead of the woman.
And women watch porn as well. Yet, you don’t see any programs addressing that either.
Men and women have the capacity to harm. But still, with no equivilant programs as offered here for women, it gets bothersome and irritating having to once again remind people that women aren’t perfect angels.
Josh: “Alongside the anti-bullying movement, there is a growing movement to address a culture of hyper-sexualized, aggressive masculinity. There is a concern that it is playing out as a kind of “rape culture”, where young men are losing site of realistic sexual expectations when it comes to women, due in part to the widespread consumption of pornography among men, often beginning at a very young age (81% of 14-16 year olds look at online pornography at home, according to one British study).”
What the article fails to get is that “Rape Culture” also includes male victims of sexual abuse from female perpetrators treated as “Lucky” or “wanting it”, with very little services available on the same level female victims get thanks to the “Male agressor, female victim” view that is still pushed even to this day. That, to me, is also “Rape Culture” right there as well. But the article would have us believe “Rape Culture” only happens to female victims.
Josh, you didn’t answer Archy’s first question so I’ll pose it along with a few others:
Do you think that women should also have equivilant programs devoted to them since we’re finding now that they can do things to men and get away with it?
Do you believe women can harm men as well, both physically and sexually?
Would you welcome equivilant programs for women?
Hi Eagle34,
To your questions:
1) I think young women need just as much mentoring and peer support as young men do, particularly if they are perpetrating violence against young men or each other. Also, can you please post the link to the CDC report? I’m curious to read it…
2) I absolutely believe women can harm men, physically, sexually, and emotionally. I’ve been harmed by women physically and emotionally, so…living proof.
3) Sure.
My only caution here is that we have to be careful about how we frame this kind of conversation. A lot of times, we men get irate because we think that we are being unfairly targeted around issues of violence or sexual assault. The reality is, though, that for a very long time men have overwhelmingly been the perpetrators of violence and assault in relationships, far more than women. It doesn’t mean that women can’t assault men in relationships (or other women, or whatever)…but there is a historical precedent here. It feels like you guys are saying that these programs are sexist against men, but bear in mind that we are still the dominant sex in a lot of areas of society.
We still live in a patriarchal society, guys. There isn’t parity by a long stretch when it comes to equal pay for equal work, executive positions in business, etc. etc.
Josh.
“The reality is, though, that for a very long time men have overwhelmingly been the perpetrators of violence and assault in relationships, far more than women. ”
I’m sorry to be so blunt with you but you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).
Read More: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020
Josh
” There isn’t parity by a long stretch when it comes to equal pay for equal work”
Sorry to be blunt with you, but the pay gap is relative to the gap in time spent at market work. For example, men spend 25% more time at work, so there is a wage gap of roughly 25%. The women that spend 25% less time at market work, tend to be married and so sharing their husbands wage with them.
And more than that, below $100,000 in annual income, there is virtually no difference between men’s pay and women’s pay, even before adjusting for the higher number of hours worked by men outside the home. Young women earn more than young men, because young women have more education than young men.
“We still live in a patriarchal society, guys.”
That’s a popular claim, not a fact.
“There isn’t parity by a long stretch when it comes to equal pay for equal work, executive positions in business, etc.”
Or workplace injuries, depression, suicide rates, violent-crime victimization, etc. etc. Classic apex fallacy.
Don’t forget lifespan! When women’s lifespan goes from being 7 years longer than men to only 4 it’s a clear sign of sexism against women at work.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2012-04-19/Life-expectancy-improves-slower-for-women/54419298/1
I read that article , and I am so I laughed out loud
I just couldn’t wrap my head around someone writing this part.
“The trend is cause for alarm even though women are still expected to outlive men by four years”
ALARM, REALLY ALARM. My god, Women will still outlive men by 4 years but who gives a shit about the men, women are losing the huge advantage they had, better spend billions more on womens health , in fact, wouldn’t it be cheap to just take the pittance we spend on men and give that to women too.
Josh: “My only caution here is that we have to be careful about how we frame this kind of conversation. A lot of times, we men get irate because we think that we are being unfairly targeted around issues of violence or sexual assault.”
Well these programs only deal with the “Male Perpetrator, Female Victim” viewpoint with no equivilant programs for men and society is still reluctant to address this. So to the man who isn’t a perpetrator but also a survivor, yes it does feel like he’s being persecuted when these programs are all that exist out there when it comes to domestic violence and “Rape Culture”.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t exist. I’m saying that we need equivilant programs for women who hurt and abuse as well, progams that teach women and girls to show some form of basic respect to the men in their life instead of drilling into their head they can get what they want by abusing the systems in place for them (Falsely Accusing them of rape, slapping them around when they didn’t deserve it, etc).
Josh: “The reality is, though, that for a very long time men have overwhelmingly been the perpetrators of violence and assault in relationships, far more than women.”
I highly dispute this since its now coming to light that male survivors and victims have existed even in the 70s. There have been men coming forward who are as old as their late 50s talking about their tales of sexual abuse and domestic violence. Which tells it’s not all men who have been perpetrators.
Josh: “It feels like you guys are saying that these programs are sexist against men, but bear in mind that we are still the dominant sex in a lot of areas of society.”
Why is it that this is always brought up whenever people argue for equvilant programs for women? It’s like some automatic reflex reaction.
Josh: “We still live in a patriarchal society, guys. There isn’t parity by a long stretch when it comes to equal pay for equal work, executive positions in business, etc. etc.”
We are FAR from a patriarchal society, Josh.
Equal Pay for equal work: Based on choice. Granted, we could examine more why women make these choices rather than screaming sexism everytime.
Executive Positions in Business: Only an elite few men make it to the top. Meanwhile, the poverty level and lower class are majority men as well. In fact, it’s not unusual for the elite to step on the lower rung to make it to the top.
Congress and Politics: Yes, they’re dominated by men but do you honestly believe they have the best interest of all men at heart? Besides, since women are allowed to vote, they share the responsibility in putting them in those positions of power as well. Plus, congress has an office for women’s issues with none for men. The descriminatory VAWA bill? Passed by these men. Meanwhile, not a shred of concern for the issues of men are given equal attention by congress and politics. You’d hear a pin drop whenever someone dares mention male victims and survivors of female abuse.
Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse: Options galore for female victims. Very little for male victims and survivors. Male survivors are ostracized, told “They’re Lucky” and “They wanted it”, that they’re still priveledged white males and their pain is nothing compared to women. Which leads to them holding their pain in and then getting cricisised for not expressing their feelings.
I think the flaw, Josh, is that you tend to look at the top tier of men in positions of power while ignoring the bottom tier which are also men as well. Better to expand your awareness and be inclusive of those men who are struggling to get their issues heard.
And josh, here’s the report I mentioned:
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
It’s in PDF format.
AAAARGH. I was almost with you until this answer, which is basically “It’s OK to discriminate against men (by blaming them for the world’s majority of rapes and other sexual predation through these programs) because men are still in charge of society and therefore responsible for rape.” NO, NO, NO.
Let’s break it down: RAPISTS are responsible for rape. The monolith of “men” are NOT responsible for rape. I would be angry as hell to be required to be “mentored” because “all the porn I watched gave me the idea that it’s OK to rape someone.”
“We still live in a patriarchal society, guys. There isn’t parity by a long stretch when it comes to equal pay for equal work, executive positions in business, etc. etc.”
Well this is bit of a copout, these programs are about violence not equal pay are they not? The attempt to show womenhaveitworse isn’t neccessary especially when you’re talking about different areas. I could easily suggest that because the majority of violence victims are male, in deaths alone 4-6x as many men die than women that we should refocus our efforts onto male victims and to hell with the female ones if we’re going to follow the logic of only catering to the biggest victim. (stats from ht tp://www.who.int/entity/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/DALY6%202004.xls )
In the past yes men did much of the abuse if we look at the stats but those stats also don’t believe those stats took into account men forced to penetrate, or envelopment if I am correct. That is a huge amount of the sexual abuse women perpetrate on men.
eagle34 linked the document, pages 17-25 have the data needed.Tables 2.1 and 2.2 – In the last 12 months category 1.1% females report rape or attempted rape, 1.1% of men report being forced to penetrate. Around page 23-25 there’s a part saying 79.2% of men report female abusers for the “forced to penetrate” category. Just those 2 stats alone would be 60% male, 40% female rapists in the last 12 months. Please note the report doesn’t list “forced to penetrate” as rape, it lists it as “other sexual assault” so when they say rape the numbers are skewed in favour of female victims by that lil omission.
Now in the past it was easier to understand why they targetted men but these days we need to update the programs, also even a minority of cases is still significant. There’s no reason even if 90% of rape was perpetrated by men to not run the same course for women, that’s still 10% of rape perpetrated by women which is a very significant number. The course I’m guessing would also bolster the subjects own sense of consent, strengthen it and be less likely to have someone abuse them maybe?
Part of patriarchal societies is male sacrifice and ignoring the violence against men, treating women like the more worthy victim and championing their causes more. Please keep that in mind when discussing these issues because when it comes to support of male causes like violence awareness for men, etc, there is sweet f all support compared to what the women get. In Australia we have the violence against women campaigns, soooo much focus on violence against women and barely any for violence against men even though males are the more common victim in violence. Care to explain how patriarchy fits in here? Where does power in “equal pay for equal work” fit in where the majority victim gets less attention for violence prevention in favour of women?
One aspect I don’t understand is the seemingly underwhelming response to sexual assault on college campuses. If 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted during their time at school wouldn’t a physical separation of the genders be warranted? Where I’m from, the University of Nevada has a reported 15K undergrads. That equates to about 400 sexual assaults of women EVERY YEAR. If that’s not an epidemic then I don’t know what is. You would think parents would be doing everything they could to keep their daughters out of this kind of danger.
PersuitAce
The data shows that when asked the same questions, men and women report equal victimization of sexual assault, its inside the CDC 2010 study.
Even more reason for separation and perp profiling before and after school entry.
I believe the commonly cited 1 in 4 statistic refers to lifetime risk of sexual assault (how accurate it is, I dont know). So, no, 25% of college women are not being assaulted every year.
Actually the way PursuitAce says it is commonly used as well.
Ace said:
…1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted during their time at school…
I googled that and got some hits off of either that phrasing or similar (“college years”, “years on campus”, etc…)
The problem is the stats are being twisted. Like the way a RAINN came up with “60% of rapes go unreported”. From what I recall that was from a study/survey done on a single college campus. Yet that number is presented as being representative of (American) society as a whole.
As I understand it, there has been a couple of studies that showed this. However they didn’t actually ask anyone if they were “raped”. Rather that if they forced or coerced into sex, or some wording like that based on the legal definition of rape. While such acts might fit the legal definition of rape, not all of the victims, and almost none of the perpetrators consider it rape, or even really wrongful. Of course one can identify other ways that modern society confuses the morality of non-consensual intimacy, so…
Also, greater porn use has been shown to either decrease sexual violence or have no effect on it. That kind of makes the whole premise of your article moot right there.
Hi mods … why am I under moderation?
I don’t think porn is any indication or representation of hyper sexualized masculinity. What does that mean anyway?
Boys will always be curious but they are going to take their cues about relationships from their own families and not from movies based on fantasy.
This is just as baseless as blaming video games for violence.
I wondered the same thing about “hyper-sexualized.” Can someone give me a ballpark definition for that and how to measure it? Is there a sexualization unit of measurement, so one can say that 14-year olds in 2012 average 81.6 sexualization units, while in 1992 they averaged only a 73.8 sexualization units?
Hypothetically, what looks like hyper-sexualization could be explained by two alternative explanations that would need to be examined as well:
1. Previous generations were “undersexualized” or “hyposexualized,” and what we’re seeing is some sort of normalization. Maybe it looks excessive relative to an earlier shortage. If hyper- is possible, then hypo- must also be possible.
2. The number of times that teens can see sexual images on a daily basis is simply catching up to the number of times they already think about sex anyway. Less repression is not causing more focus on sex, just allowing more pursuit of an existing obsession.
This concern about hypersexualization has been going on in the U.S. for a couple centuries. See the invention of the Graham cracker in the nineteenth century as a way to limit children’s sinful appetites.
Next thing you know, kids will be masturbating before they get married, and then where will society be?
Well sexualization of children would be the adverts showing the 10 year old model? in lingerie with makeup clearly styled to look like a woman, in an image trying to look sexy. Kids/teens having sexuality is normal on their growth into adulthood but the problem comes when they’re marketed to adults or treated like mini-adults. It’s not about the shit kids get up to playing doctor.
If we leave the question of targeted gender aside, the fact that pornography is much more available to kids now than it has ever been before is something worth thinking about. Porn probably won’t turn kids into violent assholes all by itself, but it can certainly shape how people think about sex and what they find sexy; and it can become rather addicting. Teens could probably use some help.
Now bringing it back to the question of gender: maybe women are becoming more violent against men, I don’t know. They should stop it. But I wonder…are women learning to be aggressive from pornography specifically? Or is it a combination of the age-old slap-across-the-face plus a growing independence among women that makes the face-slap an anachronism? It was a women’s privilege to be able to strike a man without reprisal; that privilege needs to end. But I don’t know whether that’s entirely relevant to this discussion.
Either program would be a waste of time. Herding a bunch of teenagers into a room and telling them that they’re a problem because of their gender is ridiculous. The only ones who’ll listen are the ones who don’t need to.
As for porn being the root of domestic violence etc? I seriously doubt that. I’ve been looking at porn for years and I’ve never felt the need to be violent towards a partner.
I didn’t bother mentioning the whole “men are the problem” thing, it’s been well debunked above.
So, I’m confused.
We’re all here on a site built around the good qualities of men and of masculinity, the notion that men can be and are good, and the behaviors and attitudes that define a Good Man.
But when an actual program pops up to FOSTER GoodManShip among our youth by setting a good example through mentorship, you cry foul?
I imagine some of you protesters are conceiving of this type of program as some sort of concentration camp where young men are sent to be whipped into the ideal Feminist vision of man – submissive, nonviolent and sexually restrained.
My impression is that it’s more like Big Brothers for college-age kids, where mentors both model good behavior and encourage it in their mentees.
The female counterpart does exist, even if it wasn’t mentioned in the article. There are supportive programs for women already on a lot of college campuses. I can already hear you objecting that these programs are just extensions of the destructive Feminist machine and are about destroying/dominating men rather than being Good Women. That’s likely true for some of them, but in my experience, they’re not all about how we women can further establish dominance over men and how we can game the system to get revenge on men by falsely accusing them or using violence. More often, I heard griping about the portrayal of women in the media (including porn – so there’s your “porn isn’t realistic” counterpart for women), discussions of safe sex practices and sexual pleasure, discussions of what is good and bad behavior in relationships and what women can do if/when things do go bad, encouragement for women to not feel limited by their gender when pursuing positions of leadership and authority… in summation, lessons on being a Good Woman, albeit often from a feminist-skewed point of view.
I think your ideas of how to promote Good Manhood are quite different from mine. Indeed, I think your ideas of what constitutes a Good Man are quite different from mine.
The point of this article was to promote mentorships to *counteract* what the author supposes are the harmful effects of pornography among college-age males. The author further clarified in the comments that he feels pornography use causes sexual violence towards women by the men who consume the pornography.
I counter that pornography use causes no such thing and, in fact, has no bearing on whether a man is a “Good Man” or not. Therefore, there’s no need for the inevitably shaming anti-pornography, pro-feminist mentorship the author proposes.
Mentoring can be a good thing, but *not* the way the author describes. Ideally (to me), there’d be masculinist groups on campus in the same way there are feminist groups there now. The feminists could have Take Back the Night rallies, and the masculinists could have Take Back the False Accusation rallies. (I’m kidding, but just barely.)
Now let’s see if this comment gets tossed to moderation …
Exactly right, Bob-O. The key to any such program is “whose definition of Good Man is being used?’
Because men are the ones who define it; women do not.
Okay this is slightly off topic, but I kind of think it’s a bit wrongheaded to say that only men define what being a good man is. Keep in mind I also think it is a bit wrongheaded to say that only women define what being a good woman is. I think creating those lines just further divides the two genders, which is a problem. I think people – men, women and everyone in between and outside the two genders – should all contribute to discussing and defining what it means to be good men and women.
I respectfully disagree, if only because defining what a Good Man is has become part and parcel of mainstream feminism.
Call me crazy but the only woman who gets a say in whether I am a good man is my mom. Any other woman gets no say whatsoever.
Men can be feminists.
Women can be MRAs (probably a bit more rare than male feminists, but still).
Do male feminists get input on the definition of Good Man? Or are they traitors to the cause?
Do female MRAs get input on the definition of Good Man? Or are they invalidated because they’re women?
I would argue that men cannot be feminists, but they can be feminist supporters (otherwise known in MRA parlance as “white knights”). Likewise, women can support men’s rights. “MRA” is not a parallel term to “feminist.”
Anyone can have an opinion on anything, certainly, but I am not going to give much credence to what a woman thinks a “Good Man” is. I am relatively certain most feminists don’t give a fig about what men think of them, either.
Sorry, but no. Women do not get a say in this process.
Feminism enabled women to redefine their role in society and reshape it to their liking, including how they related to men. Men are now doing the same, including redefining our relationship to women. Women can certainly offer opinions, but they don’t have even a shred of control over the conclusions we reach and what actions we take. This is a process by, for, and about our own gender, just like it was for you.
Women might love some of our decisions; they might hate others. But it’s not up to them.
You gotta stop taking the moderation thing personally, Bob-O.
I would like to see masculinist and feminist groups on campuses too – and I’d like to see them working TOGETHER, not in opposition. I’d like to see them co-sponsor Take Back the Night and approach the topic from male and female perspectives.
And my idea of a Good Man is probably more in line with your idea than you might think.
I think it’s naive to say early exposure to and consumption of p0rn has NO effect on a young man’s developing sexuality (sexuality being one component of GoodManShip). It might not be quite as damaging as the article claims, but surely there is *some* effect. I personally believe p0rn sets up unrealistic, unfair expectations on the specific points mentioned in the article (quoted: consent, how to speak with women, what to expect sexually, what is pleasurable), expectations that teens could very well carry with them into young adulthood, especially if they *don’t* have a resource available to them to answer questions.
I don’t think the aim of these programs is to shame young men to get them to stop using p0rn – I disagree when you say this is “inevitable” and I don’t see evidence of this in the article linked to. I think it’s to help them with that fantasy/reality divide that older adults with more experience already understand.
As to who is defining the Good Man qualities encouraged in the programs, it ain’t me. It looks like these program are being run by and staffed by men, and that men are the mentors. So it’s men defining what a Good Man is. Is that definition influenced by feminism? Likely – it’s hard to escape the influence of feminism. It looks like the program in the article linked to from the top is trying to straddle the line between the PUA/Tucker Max “fratire” messaging of masculinity and the version of masculinity that mainstream feminism promotes. Middle ground: Responsible Masculinity.
Confirmed: In a more thorough re-reading of the article linked to from this post, nowhere does it say they want to convince the boys to stop using p0rn, just to clear the air about what is real and what is not, and answer some of the questions boys have from having consumed p0rn. (Basically, the people behind the program acknowledge the presence and influence of p0rn in the boys’ lives, but they’re not out to combat p0rn, just misconceptions informed by p0rn.)
Also, the only mention of violence is “Long-term, the aim [of WiseGuyz] is to combat the rates of domestic violence and sexually transmitted infections. Short-term, the goal is to tutor young men in healthy relations with women and non-destructive masculinity.”
I really have a hard time seeing anything objectionable here.
It’s very offensive to have the word “destructive” coupled with the word “masculinity.” When was the last time you heard the words “destructive” and “femininity” used together? Never, right? So why is it assumed if I’m a man I am more destructive to the opposite gender than a woman is?
I’d also like to see women’s groups “combat the rates of domestic vi0lence” since it’s now known that women are offenders as often as men are. However, to a women’s group, “combating the rates of domestic vi0lence” means doing something anti-male.
OK, I see your point on the destructive masculinity phrasing. I haven’t heard the phrase “destructive femininity” specifically, but I have heard things along the lines of “She used her feminine wiles to seduce him.” Certainly not as direct as the the word destructive, but connoting bad conduct never the less. (Never heard “masculine wiles” though…)
I agree with you too that women’s groups could be doing more to raise awareness of female-on-male (or hell, even female-on-female) abuse. I think it’s a matter of awareness, or lack thereof, more than of a particular anti-male agenda. That is, most women in women’s/feminist groups probably just haven’t given much thought to it or aren’t aware it’s a problem. Before GMP I was one of those who believed the myths about male victimhood and downplayed it, but all it took was a little exposure and education to turn me around. The same can be done for women’s groups, if they are approached in a helpful, collaborative, constructive way, as opposed to an accusatory “You’re intentionally ignoring us!” attitude (seriously, the accusation-flinging from BOTH sides has to stop if we’re gonna get anything done).
In my experience, many feminists of my generation are interested not just in women’s issues but in gender issues as a whole, and are receptive to talking about men’s issues too – provided we’re not being criminalized, figuratively speaking, for being feminists in the first place. This is perhaps a deviation, a distinction, from the feminists that preceded us, particularly the truly man-hating strain (that unfortunately gets way more attention than us moderate feminists). We don’t have to go far to find common ground – and we certainly don’t have to get territorial about that ground and wage war over it.
Film real couples having sex and show it to the class to combat the existing “pro” porn? Mimicing the adults is one way kids/teens learn various behaviours but when it comes to sex the ONLY training they really get is from porn, should we be surprised that porn is influencing the sex lives of our teens and adults? No one sat down and told me the ways to PLEASURE a woman, I watched porn and read articles in hopes of picking up some tips that would help. Yet I got tips on how to date and court women, but when it comes to sex we are meant to magically know what to do and obviously I found this to be a problem. Hell I was well into my 20′s before I learned many women do not orgasm from vaginal penetration alone!
Education is more than just Math n English, we need to know how to interact with the opposite sex or even just the gender we’re attracted to, we need to know how to have healthy, consenting and pleasurable sex, how to communicate and understand each other but where do you learn this? Some of us learn it by trial n error through dating but there are many who do not, many who remained single in school and fumble around well into their 20′s, even 30′s, they miss out or mess up interacting with the opposite sex through not knowing the common successful methods, or watching movies, porn, hoping that all has some degree of truth.
By the way KKZ, the outcry here isn’t at the program mostly, it’s the fact that it’s YET ANOTHER aimed at men. If you can show me these programs that specifically teach against the destructive femininity that address physical, emotional and sexual violence of women against men then please do but I have NEVER seen a single campaign that does this, especially targeting to our youth. The narrative was always man = perp, woman = victim, which is why I take offense especially as young women hit me quite a bit, groped me, bullied me with no one giving 2 shits. It’s pretty much a double standard, we know about the violence perpetrated by women yet we still push the destructive behaviour model onto men so the lack of a program for females will be seen as yet another slap in the face to men.
Apparently us men can stop rape, yet no campaign for women, apparently we can stop violence against women and should pledge this yet no campaign for women stopping their violence against men (that I can find), it gets tiring to hear these very clear messages that men have to be more responsible, ignore their own victimization and speak out at violence against women whilst women remain deathly silent on violence against men. I’ve seen many men and women denounce the gender-focused campaigns like these because they actually add to the very negative stereotype of men the aggressor, they actually harm the image of men in society. Think about it, do you see these campaigns talked about openly when they are women adjusting their VIOLENT behaviour towards men?
The lack of campaigns addressing womens violence against men cause these campaigns to be both good if they can help some men but also very negative as they reinforce “Men the aggressor, women the victim” stereotype, and on a site like the GMP where you have many male victims of female violence it’s like a big F you when it seems to be all we hear about. Women could do themselves a favour by starting the equivelent of the white ribbon campaign, and a “women can stop rape” campaign. I’ve already seen men step up to the plate and create campaigns addressing male violence towards women but not a single campaign created by women or anyone of women addressing their violence towards men. What message would you get from that?
“whilst women remain deathly silent on violence against men”
Actually, female violence against men is generally seen by women as either something hilarious or something totally justified.
“The outcry here isn’t at the program mostly, it’s the fact that it’s YET ANOTHER aimed at men.”
There are two ways of looking at a program like this:
1) We want to lower domestic violence rates and STI prevalence so we’re going to exclusively target young men.
2) We want to create a safe space for young men to talk about sexuality and masculinity in a constructive way (by which I mean the conversation is constructive, not implying the gender is destructive), and we hope that in doing so, we take a step towards lowering domestic violence and STI rates.
I think you are seeing it through Lens #1, and in that light, I guess I can see how the mere existence of a program like this is offensive to you.
Perhaps you would think I’m giving them too much credit, but I lean more towards #2. I’m a benefit-of-the-doubt kind of person, so if the program doesn’t look malicious against men and is working towards good things, I’m not going to read between the lines to condemn it.
Also, at no point did I, or the article here, or the article linked to, claim that programs like this would not also be beneficial for women. The message I get from the LACK of such programs is, there still isn’t enough awareness around female-on-male violence and abuse. In order for these programs to gain any kind of traction among women (especially feminists), I hate to say it but most of us need convincing. Call it feminist brainwashing or dominance or agenda-pushing or whatever, but you’re right, the narrative is still very much women-victim, men-perp.
So instead of griping about it, do something to change it. Start the dialogue, get the information out, fight for it, the same way feminists have been fighting to have their issues heard for years. Yes, you’re at a disadvantage because of that head start, and because of how ingrained that narrative has become in the public perception. Reversing all that mythology is not going to be easy – it will be exhausting and frustrating and will take a long time. You will face opposition, likely from some feminists who have bought into the myths wholesale, but you will also find allies.
I’m involved in a local organization called Women Writing for a Change, a loosely feminist writing school that primarily serves women but not exclusively. I’m on the agenda for our next leadership meeting to lead a discussion about how we can put our practices and principles to use to help men as well as women. This topic would have never crossed my mind to propose if it hadn’t been for GMP and the discussions I’ve had here with people like you. My goal in getting us to talk about it is that eventually we might develop a writing circle for men to talk about masculinity, and/or a circle for male victims of female abuse. I’m nervous because I think I will face some backlash from women in the organization, including the founder, who is an intimidating woman, but I’m equipping myself with knowledge and language to help them come around. This doesn’t mean I can’t be a feminist too – my personal feminism is just shifting gears.
To clarify, I don’t think the lack of opportunities for men in our organization is because we’ve actively sought to exclude them, but that we’ve actively shaped ourselves to serve women.
And I can see how women’s groups and feminist groups might be resistant to efforts to get men included in our conversations, and to take a public stand against female-on-male abuse. Frankly, it makes us (as women and/or as feminists) look bad among our core constituents. That’s not a GOOD reason to not join the cause, I’m not justifying this attitude, it just explains the resistance or hesitance on the part of women’s groups to pick up this particular torch.
The comment I was replying to, one of my own, got modded-out. (I’m not sure why but I won’t fight it, it’s your site.) Could you delete this reply since it’s now out of context?
To clarify, I don’t think the lack of opportunities for men in our organization is because we’ve actively sought to exclude them, but that we’ve actively shaped ourselves to serve women.
Speaking as a man that has tried to talk to feminists I say its both. I can understand how it can seem that men are excluded because of efforts being mainly focused on women but even that does not explain things like the declaration that female against male sexism doesn’t exist, the inability to talk about female against male violence without declaring that it doesn’t hapen as often as male against female violence, and the inability to talk about how men are harmed in pretty much any capacity without always putting in a disclaimer about how women having it worse or some other spin to make a conversation that’s supposed to be about men into a converstation about men that centers on women.
(This is a short version. The original was yet another casualty of that damn auto refresh.)
I was speaking just to my own organization, which doesn’t have a real focus on violence anyway, it’s more about writing and self-expression than about activism.
Those reactions you’re talking about – the claims that female against male sexism doesn’t exist, the inability to talk about men’s issues (if you’ll allow me to use that as a blanket term for the specific topics we’ve been discussing) without bringing up the women’s side – I think those are reflexes. It’s self-defense. These notions you are bringing to us are contradictory to what we’ve heard and believed for a long time, so naturally there will be some resistance. Some of us might be afraid of losing the limelight, so to speak – that by dedicating any energy to men’s issues, we risk women’s issues getting swept under the rug again, or worse, we become guilty somehow of marginalizing the population we’ve sought to support. I’m not defending it or saying it’s right, just trying to look at it from a step back.
By the way, the auto-refresh…I have found that if you’re using Firefox, it saves your text, but if you use Google Chrome, it erases the text when it refreshes.
By the by, if you have any advice or good, reliable resources for me to get information to help get others at WWFC on board, I’d welcome the help.
Another thing I’m sort of afraid of is, if we create a circle for male victims of abuse, how do we help those male victims to trust us? To come into our space, our very feminine-oriented space, and be in circle with at least one woman (right now, all of our facilitators are women), and feel they can speak their truths? I can imagine some men would be suspicious of our efforts and see them as either patronizing or ingenuine (we’re only doing it for the revenue, we’re only doing it to make ourselves look good, we’re going to bait-and-switch and bring them into the circle with a feminist agenda, etc.). I’d love some tips on how to handle that.
That’s a good question. Certainly, I wouldn’t consider that a safe space at all (of course, I’m pretty sensitive about this kind of thing). Ideally such a group would be man-founded, man-centered, and man-welcoming.
The problem is, those places once begun are immediately made fun of and shamed by, you guessed it, feminists. Remember the backlash again male retreats and drum circles? That ended up being enough to kill the tiny movement entirely.
Another thing I’m sort of afraid of is, if we create a circle for male victims of abuse, how do we help those male victims to trust us? To come into our space, our very feminine-oriented space, and be in circle with at least one woman (right now, all of our facilitators are women), and feel they can speak their truths? I can imagine some men would be suspicious of our efforts and see them as either patronizing or ingenuine (we’re only doing it for the revenue, we’re only doing it to make ourselves look good, we’re going to bait-and-switch and bring them into the circle with a feminist agenda, etc.). I’d love some tips on how to handle that.
Bring in male facilitators. And beyond that think about the things you do in order gain the trust of female victims. Some folks like to talk about how women are justified in not trusting men after being abused by men. What some of those folks seem to fail to realize (or refuse to acknoledge) is that that mistrust can work in reverse too. It really makes my soul burn to hear how men need to earn women’s trust but men should just trust women from get go.
I dare any feminist to come up to my face and criticize/shame/make fun of me for trying to start such a circle and for caring about these issues personally. I would not put up with it.
So, Bob-O, am I chasing my own tail here by even trying to be inclusive in the context of my organization? If ideally such a group would be man-founded, man-centered and man-welcoming, does that mean as a woman in a woman-centered organization, my hands are tied, no matter how much I want to help?
I’m conflicted… you said above women’s groups need to be inclusive of the male perspective and need to recognize the realities of female abuse. I don’t see how we can get very far in that effort without inviting you men to participate in the discussion with us, but you don’t feel safe in our presence and don’t trust our outreach. What to do, what to do….surely there’s a way to bridge the chasm…?
“Another thing I’m sort of afraid of is, if we create a circle for male victims of abuse, how do we help those male victims to trust us? To come into our space, our very feminine-oriented space, and be in circle with at least one woman (right now, all of our facilitators are women), and feel they can speak their truths? ”
Avoid certain words like male privilege, patriarchy, anything that can basically make a man feel shamed for being a man or like his pain is less worthy than that of a woman. Probably good to get some men on board to help but I’ve been ok with female counselors, they’ve generally been very warm people and that’s opened me up.
Women can extend their wing of support, the mistrust comes when they do it in a way that marginalizes men, “womengetitworse” type stuff. Quite often it’s done as men suffer x amount of abuse BUT women suffer more, Hugo Schwyzer was renown for doing that in his advocacy and look at the vitriol he copped over it.
Actually I think there is a third lens here.
3. We want to create a safe space for young men to talk about sexuality and masculinity in a constructive way…but only by focusing on the destruction done by males and masculinity and ignoring the destruction done to males and masculinity.
Now at a quick glance I know those may seem the same. Some may even think that its a cycle where males are engaging in destructive masculinity thus both the damage done by males/masculinity and damage done to males/masculinity are coming from the same place. I don’t think that is the case.
Also, at no point did I, or the article here, or the article linked to, claim that programs like this would not also be beneficial for women.
I wonder how much benefit it is to women when it seems the only discussion on males/masculinity is “women-victim, men-perp”. Women and feminists regularly say they want to identify with (or at least) hear from all sorts of men with different experiences so we can all work together. But time and time again the only types they seem to recognize are men that hurt women and how men need to be better at working with women.
The tales of vulnerability in men are out there but women and feminists for the most part simply don’t want to listen.
I would say that for example these programs that are supposedly using high status athletes to get through to young men. I agree that there needs to be conversation from these athletes about drugs, responsibility, and how to treat women. But how many of these atheletes are telling stories like what is (allegedly) happening to Deion Sanders or stories that may have ended like what happened to Steve McNair. (Like wise when we hear stories about women speaking up about abuse they have suffered in their past. How man stories do we hear about women who were abusive themselves?)
The tales of vulnerability in men are out there but women and feminists for the most part simply don’t want to listen.
I’m really sorry this has been your experience with women and feminists. I hope you keep trying to to reach out, though, and be heard, despite the discouraging reception.
I don’t follow sports news whatsoever so I have no response to the Deion Sanders/Steve McNair thing. I don’t know who those two men are or what their stories are. Although there was quite a lot of attention on Tiger Woods’ wife coming after him with a driver or whatever it was… and unfortunately, too many women cheering her on for it…
How many stories do we hear about women who were abusive themselves?
By stories we hear, are you talking about media coverage? Popular plotlines for fictional platforms (TV/movies/literature)? Support groups that create a safe space for these stories? All of the above?
Speaking from my experience in the newspaper business, at least in my city it didn’t get reported on in the paper often because it wasn’t in the police reports our crime reporters relied on for leads. I think we can agree these things are often unreported or underreported, which is one reason the stats are so skewed, but also explains why you don’t see it in the news often. Not because journalists are trying to cover it up – because the source material isn’t there to even tip us off to the story to begin with.
Popular plotlines…well, just look at who’s writing it and who they’re writing it for. It does pop up but rarely, and too often it’s played for laughs or as some example of “fempowerment” (like the country song “Before He Cheats”… long before I became an ally to this cause, that song made my blood boil, and I cringed to see women praising it).
Dr. Phil has made domestic violence his pet issue and has given stage time to male victims, but still features more female victims. Nancy Grace…well, don’t get me started on Nancy Grace, she is what’s wrong with feminism (in my opinion).
Off topic: Oh man Nancy Grace…she’s what’s wrong with lawyers with t.v. shows…and a heck of a lot else. Ugh.
Last few times I posted links of female on male abuse on my facebook, even just discussing it, I got accused of hating women, belittled by a few ex-friends (radfems), and it was treated like a joke. As for the local area I’m not sure where to go to start one up, I am hoping someone with skills sets up a decent campaign in Australia. I support the oneinthree.com.au campaign which seems to be a start, I wish our government and society would support it even 1/10th the amount we hear about white ribbon, violence against women etc.
If you’d waited 5 minutes it would have been up. Would you like me to delete one, or keep them both up?
Please delete the one with the dashes and asterisks. Thank you.
Any chance you could move to a slightly less restrictive filter? Not that you mods don’t do good work, but it seems silly to moderate certain words that the articles are actually talking about.
We can’t actually select mod words per post, unfortunately. Please bear with us. A little caution to create a more accessible community seems worth it. Email me if you feel something is held up in error.
Patience is a virtue…though I understand that it can be frustrating.
Young men are heavily influenced by their peers, and as the Globe and Mail article mentions, a lot of these programs are relying on high-status “jocks” to relay some of these sex-positive, anti-violence messages. I remember when I was in university, being part of the White Ribbon Campaign on campus. We eventually worked with a number of other agencies to form a group called Allies. I was proud to be part of Allies, and I remember the impact it had to have two star UBC football players in the group (neither of which were me. Did I mention that I was a nerd?). When they spoke to their fellow teammates, or other young men, their words carried weight.
With the Deion Sanders story going on right now I wonder. Are any of these peers and high status jocks speaking as victims of violence or just keeping the conversation limited to men as perps?
Hi folks, I haven’t been weighing in, but I really appreciate the conversation here…
Just a few notes…
1) I certainly don’t discount the reality of violence against men in relationships, and I think maybe I have been underestimating how prevalent it is. Thank you for sharing more statistics around this. I know I have personally been quite affected by at least one very emotionally and verbally abusive relationship, and it is validating to know that it’s not that uncommon. So thanks.
2) I also want to give these program coordinators the benefit of the doubt. Having been involved in a number of anti-violence campaigns, I do feel like the intention is to help men and women. That being said, I agree that we should be talking more about overall reciprocal violence as well.
3) I think it is important to find places of understanding between men and women. Places where men can appreciate the struggle that women have been (and still are) going through to gain rights in a society that has for many years restricted those rights, and places where women can appreciate the struggles we men face that are often in the shadows.
So thank you….
Thanks for that. It’s good to know that people are opening their eyes to it, a lot more work needs to be done so more people can become aware of it. Domestic and sexual violence is so often portrayed as violence against women that people fail to understand it’s actually violence against everyone as both genders are victim and perpetrator in significant rates.
“I also want to give these program coordinators the benefit of the doubt. Having been involved in a number of anti-violence campaigns, I do feel like the intention is to help men and women.”
It’s about helping men protect women from violence. It has never been about helping protect men from violence. Point out one domestic violence shelter for men.
“women have been (and still are) going through to gain rights in a society that has for many years restricted those rights.”
Please point out one example of a right that women are now fighting for that men have had for “many years.”
Hi all,
I wrote another comment, and somehow I think it got lost! Aargh.
Anyway, just wanted to say I appreciate the discussion…and thank you for sharing those statistics on reciprocal violence. I certainly never meant to suggest that violence against men didn’t exist, but I don’t think I realized how prevalent it is.
So thank you. (damn…my other comment was longer and more eloquent, I swear, but now I’m just too depressed to re-write it…:p)
KKZ:
I’m really sorry this has been your experience with women and feminists. I hope you keep trying to to reach out, though, and be heard, despite the discouraging reception.
Thanks. I tried for a while, got aggravated, turned to hate, and am slowly making my way back. The folks here helped a lot.
I don’t follow sports news whatsoever so I have no response to the Deion Sanders/Steve McNair thing. I don’t know who those two men are or what their stories are. Although there was quite a lot of attention on Tiger Woods’ wife coming after him with a driver or whatever it was… and unfortunately, too many women cheering her on for it…
And I think that’s the problem.
Deion Sanders a former NFL player who recently pressed charges against his wife for assault (which was apparently witnessed by their children). In an odd twist of events a few days after she was arrested now they’ve come and charged him with assault as well.
Steve McNair was a former NFL player who was killed by his mistress who then killed herself. This happened about 3 years ago.
Not many people know about those stories (admittedly the Deion Sanders story is still going on right now so time will tell on that one) but on the other hand how well do you know of Ben Rothesburger?
As for Tiger Woods people tripped over themselves to declare that she wasn’t attacking him (much like how quickly people dismissed the idea that Rihanna attacked Chris Brown first, which if would have changed the story from “man assaults woman” to “man goes way too far defending himself from a woman”). And I also didn’t like how the idea of Tiger’s wife attacking him was not just not talked about but as you say it was cheered on.
I can understand the rest of what you say until you get to this part:
Dr. Phil has made domestic violence his pet issue and has given stage time to male victims, but still features more female victims. Nancy Grace…well, don’t get me started on Nancy Grace, she is what’s wrong with feminism (in my opinion).
Are we talking about the same Dr. Phil? (http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/01/24/dr-phil-and-domestic-violence-he-just-doesnt-get-it/) Dr. Phil does almost denies that women can abuse men. He’s still in that phase where he just pays lip service to male victims in hope they’ll shut up about it. I think he went to the Joe Biden College of Violence Denial. Let’s not talk about Nancy Grace….
Of particular note is Dr. Phill’s assertion at 26:03 where he asserts the man’s behaviour is abuse, the woman’s behaviour is only relationship issues, thus denying female abuse when it’s staring him in the face. Who in their right mind would define throwing laptops as a relationship issue, not abuse?
Sounds a lot like the few stories I’ve heard where the cops are called to the scene of a domestic dispute ready to arrest the man but as soon its sorted out that its the woman being violent they say its a “domestic matter” and leave.
I’ve mentioned it before, but this is a good time as any to bring it up. Everybody knows what Chris Brown did, but how many people know about Mary J. Blige’s assault on her husband?
I think we should give boys and young men more credit. I am pretty sure that most of them are well aware that the video games they play, the TV shows and films they watch, and stories they read are not real. Why should we assume that they do not realize women do not actually behave as they do in adult films?
The idea that boys are basically too stupid to know that you do not walk up to a girl with a pizza box in your hand and ask if she would like sausage with her pie is rather insulting. So is starting from the position that boys’ sexuality is inherently bad, evil, violent, and aggressive, and that boys must be taught to behave differently to suit women’s needs.
These programs would better serve boys if those who created and ran them were actually concerned about boys rather than playing politics. When we look at the multiple issues boys face, it seems laughable that anyone would spend more time teaching boys that adults films or boys’ sexual interests are “teh evil” rather than say talking to boys about their ridiculously high suicide rate. We could go down the list of issues that affect boys on a daily basis, and they are far more important than teaching boys that women do not actually behave like adult film stars.
Even on a basic level one would think that if you want to mentor people you would do so by building them up and talking about their good qualities, not sending the message that just being male makes you a terrible person and that nothing bad EVER happens to boys or that women NEVER do any wrong.
You shoot yourself in the foot every time you do that.
One of the things I find interesting is that I believe that the same people teaching boys their natural aggression is wrong are the same people saying that teaching gay children that homosexuality, their natural predisposition (HeatherN, is that the correct term?), is wrong damages the child.
I’ve never been comfortable serving as an authority figure on anything as personal as sex, porn, or romantic relationships. I would find it absurd to be in a position telling an 18-year old how to be a good man, and I would not expect or demand that he take my advice seriously. I’ve always felt uncomfortable at the idea of putting myself in a position to dictate to other people what behavior society finds acceptable and unacceptable.
It’s hard for me to distinguish between mentoring younger people about how to be a “good man” and serving as the instrument of authority channeling them into narrow ranges of behavior. I’d be more likely tell them to define what goodness means on their own terms and not listen to the guy that the school found non-controversial enough to talk to you about sex.
When it comes to sex and porn relationships, I’d be more likely to focus on practicalities – when you do X, then you run a big risk of Y, and there is some evidence that ____ing can be addictive, and A, B, and C are currently illegal, and what feels good to many people is when you do both ____ and ____ together. I’d be more willing to give the best information that I have available, but otherwise I’m not the moral arbiter.
And by the time they’re in college, no way would I be interested in being a parental stand-in. That’s the “loco” part of _in loco parentis_.
There’s some wild-eyed radical part of me that gets very suspicious whenever any large institution talks about “tutoring…on healthy relationships” and decreasing “destructive masculinity.”
Sounds a bit totalitarian to me, a sort of re-education process. When people talk about programming minds and deprogramming minds, it sounds very similar to creating the perfect, revolutionized person, as opposed to the flawed, counter-revolutionary personality that must be extinguished before the utopia can begin.
There are all sorts of healthy behaviors that may be politically or institutionally inconvenient at any particular moment that can be branded as “destructive.” Anything that defies social convention or narrow political confines can be labeled as self-destructive and the powers that be issue themselves licenses to intervene for your own good. Not too long ago, masturbation itself was a form of “self-abuse” that called out for some sort of cure. Boys were apparently losing their vitality because of it, losing their motivation to do well in school, making it less likely that they would find an acceptable bride some day, you know, end of the world type stuff.
Imagine if I suggested that there should be mentors at an all-girls school teaching them how to have a healthy relationship with boys, because of course that’s one of the most important parts of being a girl. That would come across as totally paternalistic, as it should.
Here is the CDC report. Page 18 and 19 tables 2.1 and 2.2.
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
Here is a link showing an inverse relationship between porn use and sexual violence.
“recent research shows that moderate pornography consumption does not make users more aggressive, promote sexism or harm relationships. If anything, some researchers suggest, exposure to pornography might make some people less likely to commit sexual crimes.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-sunny-side-of-smut
It is my understanding that excessive porn use harms relationships not causes sexual violence. Men might substitute porn for a real relationship and I’ve heard that masturbation can sometimes result in men being unable to become sexually satisfied in a relationship. Fistina is always just the right size.
It’s better to have a program for both genders. Both genders should be taught to respect others, but a program targeting boys can help if the program is balanced not just teaching boys not to hit women, but also teaching them that it is not right for women to hit them and providing them the tools to cope with aggression in women. A police officer just might arrest a woman perpetrating domestic violence if he was taught that it was not OK for her to do that. It would still be better to end violence by both genders.
One last thing, when feminists talk about men perpetrating the majority of DV, they are referring to serious DV although they don’t actually state it to give the illusion that men slap more. Not, true and if you factor in child abuse, women commit the vast majority of DV in the country. The calculations of serious DV is a question. About 70% of serious DV is perpetrated by men. Feminists point out tht sexual violence is not included in that number so the disparity would be greater. The stats show that the instances of sexual violence is almost the same meaning that the disparity would be even lower. Also DV stats don’t include violence by third parties. More women will recruit third parties tio commit their violence than men reducing the gap even further.
Not factoring in child abuse, DV is about evenly split. About half of DV is mutual combatants with about half of those being initiated by the woman. That means that women can reduce domestic violence against women by 50% by simply teaching girls not to hit.