Is Violence Against Women Wrong But O.K. Against Men?

[FrankGSterleJr]

I occasionally read about some writers' bewilderment at the near-total absence of physical intervention when it comes to, as a good example, professional sports like hockey, in which players frequently, very-violently bash each other in the head.
Serious concussions and brain damage, the writers mention.
However, why do they all nonetheless fail to acknowledge that such barbaric conduct is only one of many such ugly indicators and revelations of how society (though maybe not so much the legal system) tolerates male/female violence against males.
The proof is in the proverbial pudding: Be it a female Hollywood-movie character slamming her knee into her man’s groin because he, for example, is haplessly attracted to another woman, at all of which the movie audience breaks out in laughter as the guy keels over in agony; or a male character fist-cuffing another male character almost to death, or sports (e.g., boxing, and now almost-bare-knuckled “mixed martial arts”) in which men beat on each other as the audience cheers on or screams in some twisted form of euphoria.
I’m of the school of thought that as long as society tolerates -- even celebrates – male/female violence against males, there will be socially unwanted and politically undesirable repercussions that very few academics, or newspaper editors for that matter, are willing to acknowledge: Violence against girls/women.
I find it folly for society to insist on the total abolition of occurrences, of whatever motive(s), of violence against females, while that same society intently resists to eliminate all violence in which boys/men are the victims. I believe that societal conduct, as a whole, simply does not work that way.

Frank G. Sterle, Jr.
White Rock, B.C., Canada

[Aetixintro]

I just like to support this topic and the author [Frank G. Sterle, Jr.] of it!

There is today a quite dangerous environment in the face of corruption and the rest, that leaves much weight on the men in facing various threats and being the armor of the family. Men are also most likely to enter the physical fights in light of these deficiencies (of the democracy), thus as a man you can expect to begin that weightlifting as soon as possible, probably from 14 or 15 yo. So indeed, there are more blows hitting the armor today and you, as a man, are expected to deal with it which you have to!

It's incredible! It feels like we live in the 21st century technology-wise, yet with the morality of 0 CE, the morality of the original man, summa summarum, society today.

As I say today, informally and cheeky, of my nation today, that it's despotic with a skin of democracy. This can get more real than you like when you enter that strange door of society where a man stands in the skin of another, rather bloody!

Eh... cheers...

[duszek]

Violence against men is equally unacceptable.
The problem is that we have to change our view of things and not consider it embarassing if a man goes to court because a woman had hurt him.

Gianrico Carofiglio, who is magistrate in Bari, southern Italy, describes in one of his thrillers a husband who went to court because of domestic violence coming from his wife. He got justice and he wife was punished. So even in the macho areas of Italy things are progressing, hopefully.

Hurting a man is just as disgusting as hurting a woman. I see no difference at all.

[converge]

This is one of the dumbest "oh the poor men" posts I've seen. You honestly think that men have it harder than women because professional sports players, who get paid millions of dollars to consensually beat each other up on TV, are mostly male-only? Women play sports too (shocking!), they just don't get paid millions or broadcast on prime time television.

Also, I love that in your kick in the groin example, the guy only "haplessly" cheats on his girlfriend. Was this post inspired by a real life groin kicking?

[FrankGSterleJr]

I do my best to keep my emotions out of my posts, and I, also, was not trying to make a political point.
There was no "oh the poor men" post intended. Also, there's not much comparison at all in incidents of a man beating a smaller, weaker woman with incidents of two men of equal size "consensually" beating on each other. Nonetheless, that fact is irrelevant: for, the point that I apparently did not get clearly across to Forum readers is that, when analyzed, one may discover that male violence against females may, for the most part, be a terrible, enormous 'side-effect' (if I may use that term) of the overall, all-too-prevalent social epidemic of male/female violence against males.
Thus, what do we, society, do? Ignore my theory, and do naught about the indisputably larger social issue of male recipients of violence (be it "consensually" or not) but rather just keep on reading the print news-media's apparently-unenlightened obsession with only violence against females and publicly/privately condemn men in general? Or do we do something progressive, for a change, on this incredibly socially-destructive inhumanity?

[converge]

I do my best to keep my emotions out of my posts, and I, also, was not trying to make a political point.
There was no "oh the poor men" post intended.

Your post is about how you feel that "society" says violence against women is bad but violence against men is ok. That sounds very much like you're trying to make men seem like the victims of society.

Also, there's not much comparison at all in incidents of a man beating a smaller, weaker woman with incidents of two men of equal size "consensually" beating on each other.

Then why did you use it as your comparison?

Nonetheless, that fact is irrelevant:

But the entire post is predicated on that "irrelevant fact". If your comparison admittedly has nothing to do with your problem, and the examples you use are admittedly irrelevant, then you aren't really giving your readers any reason to buy into your conclusion.

for, the point that I apparently did not get clearly across to Forum readers is that, when analyzed, one may discover that male violence against females may, for the most part, be a terrible, enormous 'side-effect' (if I may use that term) of the overall, all-too-prevalent social epidemic of male/female violence against males.

Or violence against men might be a side effect of violence against women. Or violence against humans might be a side effect of violence against animals. Or vice versa. I don't think it makes that much sense to look at it that way. I'd say that all violence perpetrated by humans, against each other or another species, is due to humans' propensity for violence.

Thus, what do we, society, do? Ignore my theory, and do naught about the indisputably larger social issue of male recipients of violence (be it "consensually" or not) but rather just keep on reading the print news-media's apparently-unenlightened obsession with only violence against females and publicly/privately condemn men in general? Or do we do something progressive, for a change, on this incredibly socially-destructive inhumanity?

First, I'd disagree that the print media is more obsessed with non-consensual violence than consensual violence. As I said, sports stars are famous, and we pay them millions and millions of dollars. In the U.S. at least, the media, and people, are very obsessed with sports and consensual violence in general. Almost all newspapers have an entire section entirely dedicated to sports. There's no section dedicated to science, art, or literature. Consensual violence is America's favorite past time. The reason the non-sports section reports more on non-consensual assault than a friendly karate practice is because the news likes to focus on stories that are shocking and scary. Being assaulted is scary. Two friends in a boxing match isn't particularly scary.

I also think it's a little ridiculous to think that print media is condemning males and obsessing over females. It's quite the other way around. In fact, it's sort of depressing that the only thing you're complaining about is that men don't get as much face time in the "victims of criminal assault" section. I'm sure if you asked most women, they would gladly trade you the "victims of assault" category for the "making millions of dollars" section of the paper.

[FrankGSterleJr]

I copied and pasted onto a blank, MSWord page both my post and your latest response in order for me to try to understand what exactly you’re seemingly desperately attempting to dissect and discredit in my post(s).
Not a single “point” you’ve made holds any water.
If you thoughtfully read both of my posts, you may have understood that I’m not, at the end of the proverbial day, trying to just condemn and eliminate male/female violence against males -- but rather ALL societal violence.
I critique the unsuccessful path that society and virtually all of the news-media (though especially those of print) have taken thus far in trying to, overall, bypass male victims of violence (unless it’s gay-bashing, of course) and just stubbornly stick to their gender politics by only condemning and seeking to eliminate violence against women.
To quote myself: “I find it folly for society to insist on the total abolition of occurrences, of whatever motive(s), of violence against females, while that same society intently resists to eliminate all violence in which boys/men are the victims. I believe that societal conduct, as a whole, simply does not work that way ... [So] what do we, society, do? Ignore my theory ... Or do we do something progressive, for a change, on this incredibly socially-destructive inhumanity?”

[converge]

The problem I have with your post is not the "Violence against anyone is bad" part. Obviously I agree with that.

The problem is your claim that "virtually all of the news-media" don't pay enough attention to straight males who get assaulted, and that somehow they only care about saving women and gay people. The problem is that you are imagining this "victimization" of straight males by the news media, and that there's some sort of unfair discrimination against them; that somehow "virtually all the news media" cares about protecting women and gay people's interests more than straight males. This is wholly and completely the opposite of reality. Straight white Christian upper-middle class males are pretty much the top of the food chain in the U.S.; their interests are promoted far, far more in the mainstream than any minority group's. It's just hard for some Americans to see their own privilege because they're so obsessed with trying to find some sort of special treatment for non- straight white middle class Christian men because despite all the privileges they enjoy, they want a victimization card too.

There are plenty of news stories of straight men getting attacked or killed; one of the biggest things in the news is the war in the middle east, which is (allegedly) being fought entirely by straight males. The news covers murders of "important" rich white straight men far more than they cover unimportant inner city deaths. The reason gay bashing is covered sometimes instead of "straight-bashing" is because straight-bashing doesn't exist. There is a legitimate widespread problem of hate crimes perpetrated by straight people against gay people, and virtually no attacks from gay people against straight people. The reason most sexual assault and rape stories have women as the victims is because women almost always are the victims. There is a legitimate widespread problem of rape and assault perpetrated by straight males against women, and virtually no sexual assaults by women against men. You seem to think that the media is just ignoring stories of hate crimes against straight people or woman-on-man assault because they're biased against you, but the truth is that those things hardly ever happen. You're basically whining that you don't get murdered or raped as much as minorities and that that's not fair to you. It's one of the most ridiculous privileged straight white male "reverse discrimination" complaints I've heard!

[FrankGSterleJr]

After this post, you may, if you desire, have the last word (within reason, of course), for I grow weary.
Having said that, however, your typically dissective and more analytical post style has, in this case at least, turned into (what the conservative right, not I, would dismiss as) a “politically-correct” rant. (Although I used to do so, I no longer use that adjective terminology, for I find that it can act as a specious dismissal of legitimate social issues and injustices.)
First, re-reading my previous post, I realize that I, at one point (between parentheses), probably come across a sarcastic cynic regarding (mostly, anyway) legitimate gay issues and rights; however, that was a slip over which I don’t feel that I, believe it or not, am actually deserving of censure. As the cliché goes, I have many friends who are gay … Actually, one person -- a teen who was comfortable enough around me to openly, though understandably hesitant at first, say that he’s homosexual.
Second, I reside in Canada; the U.S., and its news-media, should not be utilized terminologically synonymous with the independent (in theory, anyway) nation to its north. To an extent, currently, you’re correct in your implication that the usually-straight, Caucasian male (though you frequently cannot even superficially distinguish him from a white, gay male) is, for the most part, usually at the top of the proverbial, societal pole in a power-status sense, especially in the U.S. But that status is definitely in the process, however quickly or slowly, of changing.
Third, from consuming much of the mainstream American news-media, print and otherwise, and very much of the content printed and aired in Canada (especially the zealously left-wing CBC, albeit somewhat less so than in the second half of the 20th century), I can too easily distinguish the mainstream news-media as a whole as actively -- and proudly so -- cynical regarding the straight, white, Christian (and it was you who even brought up these adjectives in the first place), especially-wealthy male. Very few professional and objective media critics would typically deny this fact, for they openly, simultaneously defend it.
As for the status of women, Canada’s print-media, and blatantly so here in the Greater Vancouver region that has had feminist-orientated opinion pieces overwhelming its newsprint since the weekend issue.
There’s nothing at all for me to “imagine” in regards to my observations of mainstream news-media ideology and very-partial coverage over the last two decades, plus.

[converge]

I've never seen the CBC, so I don't know enough about it to offer an opinion. But the idea that "the mainstream media" is this worldwide monolithic liberal conspiracy is pretty much the Fox credo, so when you keep talking about the whole world's "mainstream media" as liberal, it makes me wonder which news provider you think is telling the truth. I heard that Canada actually just banned Fox News from setting up a Canadian branch due to its failure to comply to news laws, which is awesome. I wish the U.S. had the guts to do that.

Anyway, all I can say is what I've seen of "mainstream news", namely, CNN, NBC, CBS, BBC, the AP, and so on.... do not at all match up with this weird secret minority agenda you think is going on. Let's look at some of the sections of the newspaper or a news show:

Politics - Dominated by straight white men.
Economy/Corporate news - Dominated by straight white men.
Science/Research and Development - Dominated by straight white men.
Entertainment, Arts, Film, Music - A majority is straight white men, with some variety.
Sports - Dominated by straight men, though mostly split between black and white.

In fact the only parts of news that you're complaining aren't dominated by straight white men is the "victims of violent crimes" section, and the "feminist opinion column". If those are the only two sections of the news you're not dominating, I think you're still in pretty good shape.

[Jamen Somasu]

I am a man that has never allowed the media to affect how I think or what I do to the point that I model myself after movies, actors, etc.

Look...my personal look into this is that I never like seeing someone stronger picking on someone weaker (be it sex, size, attitude, whatever). HOWEVER...here comes a problem.

Say you have a bear in front of you...what would you do? Naturally, I would do what I can to not upset the bear and let it go about its business. However, some people (more notoriously, women) are stupid enough to throw rocks at the bear or tease it. Then, those people would complain about the bear showing IT IS a bear.

If a smaller person, be it male or female, uses this as a free pass to show physical aggresion towards others, you best believe I will KO that person (and I have KO women before. No remorse whatsover).

Be like the lion: be cool, swift, understanding. Realize that you only need to be brave when you have to be. At the same time, realize that, every now and then, the jackals will bark at you, bite you, eat your food. When that happens, the lion needs to remind the kingdom who he is.

[Arising_uk]

... When that happens, the lion needs to remind the kingdom who he is.

Yeah a big lazy bastard!

Let us also remember that the lion oft scrounges off the hyena.

[converge]

I am a man that has never allowed the media to affect how I think or what I do to the point that I model myself after movies, actors, etc.

Look...my personal look into this is that I never like seeing someone stronger picking on someone weaker (be it sex, size, attitude, whatever). HOWEVER...here comes a problem.

Say you have a bear in front of you...what would you do? Naturally, I would do what I can to not upset the bear and let it go about its business. However, some people (more notoriously, women) are stupid enough to throw rocks at the bear or tease it. Then, those people would complain about the bear showing IT IS a bear.

If a smaller person, be it male or female, uses this as a free pass to show physical aggresion towards others, you best believe I will KO that person (and I have KO women before. No remorse whatsover).

Be like the lion: be cool, swift, understanding. Realize that you only need to be brave when you have to be. At the same time, realize that, every now and then, the jackals will bark at you, bite you, eat your food. When that happens, the lion needs to remind the kingdom who he is.

You beat women into unconsciousness for teasing you? You're not a "lion". You're a sociopath. Luckily, by your philosophy it sounds like you'd fit in rather well in prison.

[John]

You beat women into unconsciousness for teasing you? You're not a "lion". You're a sociopath. Luckily, by your philosophy it sounds like you'd fit in rather well in prison.

For teasing a metaphorical bear I think. It seems to be OK to be aggressive towards weaker people who are teasing bears...or something like that.

[jcastab]

The reason most sexual assault and rape stories have women as the victims is because women almost always are the victims. There is a legitimate widespread problem of rape and assault perpetrated by straight males against women, and virtually no sexual assaults by women against men. You seem to think that the media is just ignoring stories of hate crimes against straight people or woman-on-man assault because they're biased against you, but the truth is that those things hardly ever happen. You're basically whining that you don't get murdered or raped as much as minorities and that that's not fair to you. It's one of the most ridiculous privileged straight white male "reverse discrimination" complaints I've heard!

Actually, I'm glad someone posted this forum.

I'm a non-white male from California who hasn't been a typical male in many instances. People who know me would consider me rather feminine, though I'm a straight. Unfortunately, we live in a world that still looks down on that.

I've spent a lot of time volunteering at the women's centre (I've been in Australia for a while, that explains the British spelling) in my university. I do believe in the causes. I will be the first to say, among most people that I know, that there is far from a proper representation of women in politics, business, pop culture, and whatever else you can think of. I do question a lot of gender norms. So no one can accuse me of being anti-female.

Having said that, you say that woman-on-man assault is rare. I talked to a police officer from suburban Chicago who says that the statistics are 70-30, in terms of how often women report assault to men. Even if men are still quite outnumbered in this statistic, 30% is not a small number at all. Plus, personally, I have known some really nice men (including one teacher and one young Iraq veteran) who have unfortunately been in positions in which their wives/girlfriends have physically abused them.

People who know me know me as a nice guy - I myself am a primary teacher and I have often helped out with my brother with special needs, little cousins and church. While I generally prefer the company of women (as friends) to men, I have also found that some of the most mean-spirited people I have met were women. These include people who act as if no matter what they do to me (or to any male), I have to put up with it simply because of their gender. I fear a world in which aggressive, mean-spirited individuals like that can get away with murder, whereas someone like me, who actually takes care of people, can still be marginalised for fighting for a little respect, if the person bullying me happens to be female.

So if I ever ended up in a relationship with one of those mean-spirited women, is it fair that we live in a world in which she can punch me just because she doesn't like my jokes, whereas I, despite the personal description I've given above, could get marginalised or in trouble simply for standing up for myself or deflecting her hits?

And I repeat, 30% is not a small number. Furthermore, how many men would be afraid to report being the victims? I'll tell you one thing for sure - a woman beats me, I WILL report it. I will not be afraid. The question is, how much of society of the legal justice system would defend me, even given what I have stated about myself so far? Would it be equal to if I were the aggressor?

I'll tell you, I sometimes hear girls in these schools I work in tell the boys "you can hit girls." I always respond "so, does that mean you're allowed to hit him?" They usually say "no, no one should hit anybody."

When will that be more the norm?