What's going on? Is it just me?

[redqueen]

Recently, in a few of the threads about domsetic violence, it seemed to me that too many posters demonstrated some kind of stubborn insistence that we bend over backwards to observe how it affects men too, and that women are usually the instigators, etc.

Today, in a jokey thread about why men are happier, there seems to be a movement to decry just about any hardship women might dare to complain about as being simply a matter of women 'choosing' to suffer... and an unwillingness to acknowledge the very real challenges we face. It seems many would have us just say "oh well" about those issues and focus on the fact that (in their opinion) 'we have better orgasms' and 'men buy us things'.

I pretty much avoid the 'serious' discussion forums these days, so maybe it's just my skewed perspective, and this kind of... I don't even know what to call it, honestly... but maybe it's not so prevalent as it seems to me. I thought I'd post this to find out.

What's going on?

[iverglas]

1. backlash

Members of any privileged class will do it, and do do it in response to any organized effort by an oppressed/victimized class to get out from under. It is one element of the organized effort to keep the oppressed / victims down.

In discussions of female genital mutilation, circumcision must be addressed.

In discussions of sexual violence against / abuse of women and girls, sexual violence against men in prisons and sexual abuse of boys by clergy must be addressed.

In discussions of women's unequal access to and treatment in the labour market, the dangerous jobs done by men must be addressed.

It applies to any discussion of the experiences and problems of any oppressed/victimized class. They don't call 'em whining white men for no reason.

There definitely is organization behind some of the efforts. "Men's rights" didn't just spring from a few guys moaning over a few beers. (Who's noticed "parental alienation" as the latest gizmo in the family law biz? And who's doing all that alienating, and needing to be smacked down by the courts?)

On the other hand, there definitely is some validity to some of the complaints. The rights of men in prisons are violated by authorities who permit sexual assault; boys who are victims of sexual abuse and assault have not received adequate protection; men have been and are subjected to dangerous working conditions.

Often the overlay is class. Working-class men have it worse than wealthy women in many ways. Just as is the case for working-class white people and wealthy people of colour, etc. What is missing is the all things being equal analysis. All things being equal, women (and people of colour) have it worse than men (and white people) in virtually ever aspect of life.

And the systemic perspective is missing. There is no systemic oppression / victimization of men or white people as groups. What oppression they may be subject to will usually be related to class, and what victimization they are subject to will usually be idiosyncratic, having to do with their personal situations or their membership in a class defined more narrowly than just by sex.

And the damned thing is that very often, the problems men experience are exacerbated by the fact that they are supposed to be women's problems and so men don't talk about them or seek protection from them. Men victims of intimate partner violence; men victims of sexual assault in prison; boys victims of sexual abuse by clergy.

It isn't that they're being ignored because the focus is on women. One reason they're given less attention than perhaps they should be is that the men involved regard the problem they are experiencing as a woman's problem and feel shame -- shame that they are being treated like women.

I think that says a fair bit about what the underlying problems really are.

Just some musings on a really exhausted Friday ...

[redqueen]

2. Thanks...

I too recognize the validity of the challenges men face, of course. Very good point, though, about the reason why some of those problems just simmer... due to the shame involved, since they're 'women's' problems.

I think what surprises me more than anything is that it seemed there were so many women participating in the backlash.

[Scout]

3. excellent analysis, thanks very much

you are dead on.

i try not to minimize violence against men, but i also try to point out that at least on DU, the subject seems to ONLY come up in the middle of the women's threads. no one ever starts a thread about domestic violence committed against men by women. men don't ever seem to create shelters for other men, the way women did for women--and it's exactly as you pointed out: the shame at being treated like women.

i try to point out that, while it doesn't excuse it, most of the violence against men is committed by other men ... so it is a men's problem.

only men can "make" other men stop being violent, whether the victims of that violence are men, women or children. the violent men obviously don't give a flying fuck what women think.

i need to bookmark this thread. may i quote your post sometime when needed? :)

[ThomCat]

4. Damn, what a well said post.

[ThomCat]

5. I think that it's a common and unfortunately successful tactic.

If they can come up with one counter-example, no matter how un-representative, then they can dismiss anything you say. You have to be 100% provably right or else you are 100% wrong, and any deviation from simple black and white immediately makes you wrong.

That's how people use simple thinking to dismiss anything. :(

[iverglas]

6. the exception that proves the rule

"Proves" actually means "test", so if there's an exception, the rule is tested and found wanting.

This would be true in the case of the exceptions you cite -- the unrepresentative counter-examples; they would disprove the rule (which seems to be the goal) ... except that the rule they're disproving is just a straw thing.

An instance of intimate partner violence by a woman against a man (or 200 instances) is only relevant to a rule about women being victims of such violence if the rule is something like all women and only women are victims of intimate partner violence.

We all know it isn't. It's something like almost all women are at greater risk of intimate partner violence than almost all men, and the incidence of intimate partner violence is enormously higher in the case of women victims. And things like: the incidence of situations in which women do not have the financial resources to leave abusive relationships is multiple times higher than in the case of men; the incidence of women being murdered by their intimate partners (where the partner is not acting in self-defence or out of fear arising from a pattern of abuse) is multiple times higher than the number of men murdered by their intimate partners.

So these little disruptions are basically red fish being flung at straw adversaries. ;)

I mean cripes, they're like Person A saying "if the atmospheric humidity exceeds X% it will rain", and Person B saying "not in Antarctica it won't!!"

[Starry Messenger]

7. I think DU has a few MRAs who think they are being subtle.

http://www.xyonline.net/Respondingtomen.shtml

"The new victims

MEN'S rights men focus on the costs and destructiveness to men of masculine roles. They dispute the feminist idea that men (or some men) gain power and privilege in society, claiming that both women and men are equally oppressed or limited or even that men are oppressed by women. Men are "success objects" (like women are "sex objects") and burdened as providers, violence against men (through war, work and by women) is endemic and socially tolerated, and men are discriminated against in divorce and child custody proceedings. As far as "men's rights" are concerned, these men believe that men's right to a fair trial in domestic violence cases, to a fair negotiation in custody settlements, and to fair treatment in the media have all been lost.

The men in men's rights groups are typically in their forties and fifties, often divorced or separated, and nearly always heterosexual. In both general men's rights groups and fathers' rights groups, participants often are very angry, bitter and hurting (with good reason, they would say), and they often have gone through deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles.

For some men's rights men, feminism has largely achieved its goals and women have more choices, while men are still stuck in traditional masculine roles. For some, feminism was once a 'human liberation' movement that now only looks after women. For others, it never tried to liberate men, it has even tried to keep men in their traditional roles (eg as providers), and "feminazis" are involved in a conspiracy to discriminate against men and cover up violence against them.

Some men's rights and fathers' rights groups have links to conservative Christian organisations and support a traditional patriarchal family as the only real and natural form of family, while others have more flexible visions of family and gender relations. But most share the common enemy of feminism, as well as gay and lesbian politics and other progressive movements and ideals."