“But male violence will only end when men, collectively, share the brunt of changing attitudes and behaviour.”
If that were true then violence would have disappeared from human civilisation thousands of years ago, since all cultures have moral codes which prohibit violence. All the evidence points to actual declines in violence being strongly correlated with increases in prosperity and better deterrents through enforcement and detection.
The idea that men commit crimes because of their culture is not only wrong but is also sexist and ignorant. It adds nothing to the debate but fuels a narrative of fear and division, pushed largely for the personal and political gain of privileged groups, who make a tidy profit from todays grievance industry.
If feminists really want to reduce violence in society, which affects men to a far greater degree than women, I would suggest they study economics, rather then gender studies, and apply the lessons they learn to make an actual difference to the world.
When Trump referred to Mexican rapists he was rightly condemned as supporting a racist trope. Why are statements about “male violence” not regarded in the same way as a sexist trope. Is “female violence” OK simply because there is less of it? Of course not, it is violence that both men and women are against irrespective of the sex of the attacker.
It is true that a subset of men are responsible for most of the violence perpetrated mostly against men but also women and that violence already receives condemnation by both men and women. The idea that there is any great enthusiasm among men for violence is a myth. As a man I do what I can to avoid violence by not venturing out late into dubious areas where men and women are tanked up with alcohol. I don’t winge that my freedom has been infringed. I simply take sensible precautions. Of course, it would be better if I didn’t have to give it a thought.
What can men and women do together to reduce violence beyond taking sensible precautions? Increased prosperity and civility will improve things in due course, but in the meantime more police on the beat and longer sentences for perpetrators of violence seem to be the answer – but one that the left is usually averse to, particularly if it impacts some sectors of society more than others.
“What can men and women do together to reduce violence beyond taking sensible precautions?”
Lock criminals up and throw away the key. Instead the criminals walk free with rap sheets pages long. Almost all crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
There’s no government money even for recruiting more police. What you’re suggesting is vastly more expensive.
Saul D
2 years ago
Men are at more risk of violence than women, so if there was a simple ‘do-as-you’re-told’ answer to eradicate violence, men would welcome it. Unfortunately, the real world isn’t like that.
That’s why you get young men carrying knives ‘for protection’, men learning martial arts to be able to defend themselves, men avoiding bad pubs or neighbourhoods and known thugs, men expecting police to prevent violence. It’s is not a gender thing. Men would love it if there was a solution beyond just handwaving ‘something must be done’.
CCW is a great option. Open carry even better for the deterrent effect. Would you try to rob a person you knew was armed? There’s a reason police are not frequent targets for muggings. And it isn’t the snappy uniform.
Bit of a big blind spot for this writer that she fails to reference how all boys learn too about dangerous situations and how to avoid them, or get out of them. Maybe she doesn’t know – she could have asked any male relative, for a wee bit of balance.
Excluding domestic abuse within ‘relationships’, there are far more deaths and serious injuries due to male on male violence compared to male on women violence.
Benedict Waterson
2 years ago
there seems to be a current feminist belief that ‘men’ are some sort of harmonious collective, with its own autonomous agency. All the separate parts of this hydrozoan entity form a closely inter-connected colony which acts as one body, so that no individual man is ever unaware of what another man is doing.
Next time I bump into a ‘man’ on the street, I’m going to simply tell him not to be a murderer
Pierre Lefevre
2 years ago
>the onus of staying safe on women (as opposed to the male attackers who prey on them)
I get a little annoyed at this framing – there will always be people who break laws and attack others. I don’t think a campaign to teach them the error of their ways will stop them. There are some at the edge who can be reached as they got their world view from a warped position, but you cannot tell me Sarah Everard’s killer could be taught not to kill – he knew it was wrong and did it anyway. You cannot just teach this away. We have locks on our cars, front doors, we have security on our phones, and we never hear about putting the onus on the thieves not to steal. We assume they know it is wrong and take precautions.
Is it terrible that women have to do this around men who may hurt them? Yes. But putting the onus on those men not to will not change that. Most of them are beyond reach.
There is a weaker version of this I can see – some men can be entitled and think they have the “right” to a woman. They may be swayed by social pressure and environment. But the killers? Do we really think they will be swayed by social pressure?
We need to understand that precautions do not make some morally liable – that likes with the attacker. But given they are out there, it is still wise.
I know why it is done, because people used to (maybe still do) blame women for being in short skirts etc. But it is irresponsible not to offer precautions and safety measures because of this.
Julian Farrows
2 years ago
What a terrible thing it is to be a woman in this time and age. Perhaps things were better when they were chaperoned and parents chose husbands for them.
There is an interesting question that this raises. I have seen here and elsewhere the oft cited identity politics claim that wars are started by men. I think this is a puerile point – focusing on the gender that engages in this behaviour – because it fails to mention or hypothesise what the reasons may be for such conflict, and the complex behaviours around that. Centring men – note, not some men – has the advantage of suggesting the conflict is only the result of masculinity, thereby ignoring a multivariate analysis that focuses the complex causes of such conflict.
“But male violence will only end when men, collectively, share the brunt of changing attitudes and behaviour.”
If that were true then violence would have disappeared from human civilisation thousands of years ago, since all cultures have moral codes which prohibit violence. All the evidence points to actual declines in violence being strongly correlated with increases in prosperity and better deterrents through enforcement and detection.
The idea that men commit crimes because of their culture is not only wrong but is also sexist and ignorant. It adds nothing to the debate but fuels a narrative of fear and division, pushed largely for the personal and political gain of privileged groups, who make a tidy profit from todays grievance industry.
If feminists really want to reduce violence in society, which affects men to a far greater degree than women, I would suggest they study economics, rather then gender studies, and apply the lessons they learn to make an actual difference to the world.
When Trump referred to Mexican rapists he was rightly condemned as supporting a racist trope. Why are statements about “male violence” not regarded in the same way as a sexist trope. Is “female violence” OK simply because there is less of it? Of course not, it is violence that both men and women are against irrespective of the sex of the attacker.
It is true that a subset of men are responsible for most of the violence perpetrated mostly against men but also women and that violence already receives condemnation by both men and women. The idea that there is any great enthusiasm among men for violence is a myth. As a man I do what I can to avoid violence by not venturing out late into dubious areas where men and women are tanked up with alcohol. I don’t winge that my freedom has been infringed. I simply take sensible precautions. Of course, it would be better if I didn’t have to give it a thought.
What can men and women do together to reduce violence beyond taking sensible precautions? Increased prosperity and civility will improve things in due course, but in the meantime more police on the beat and longer sentences for perpetrators of violence seem to be the answer – but one that the left is usually averse to, particularly if it impacts some sectors of society more than others.
“What can men and women do together to reduce violence beyond taking sensible precautions?”
Lock criminals up and throw away the key. Instead the criminals walk free with rap sheets pages long. Almost all crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
There’s no government money even for recruiting more police. What you’re suggesting is vastly more expensive.
Men are at more risk of violence than women, so if there was a simple ‘do-as-you’re-told’ answer to eradicate violence, men would welcome it. Unfortunately, the real world isn’t like that.
That’s why you get young men carrying knives ‘for protection’, men learning martial arts to be able to defend themselves, men avoiding bad pubs or neighbourhoods and known thugs, men expecting police to prevent violence. It’s is not a gender thing. Men would love it if there was a solution beyond just handwaving ‘something must be done’.
CCW is a great option. Open carry even better for the deterrent effect. Would you try to rob a person you knew was armed? There’s a reason police are not frequent targets for muggings. And it isn’t the snappy uniform.
Bit of a big blind spot for this writer that she fails to reference how all boys learn too about dangerous situations and how to avoid them, or get out of them. Maybe she doesn’t know – she could have asked any male relative, for a wee bit of balance.
Excluding domestic abuse within ‘relationships’, there are far more deaths and serious injuries due to male on male violence compared to male on women violence.
there seems to be a current feminist belief that ‘men’ are some sort of harmonious collective, with its own autonomous agency. All the separate parts of this hydrozoan entity form a closely inter-connected colony which acts as one body, so that no individual man is ever unaware of what another man is doing.
Next time I bump into a ‘man’ on the street, I’m going to simply tell him not to be a murderer
>the onus of staying safe on women (as opposed to the male attackers who prey on them)
I get a little annoyed at this framing – there will always be people who break laws and attack others. I don’t think a campaign to teach them the error of their ways will stop them. There are some at the edge who can be reached as they got their world view from a warped position, but you cannot tell me Sarah Everard’s killer could be taught not to kill – he knew it was wrong and did it anyway. You cannot just teach this away. We have locks on our cars, front doors, we have security on our phones, and we never hear about putting the onus on the thieves not to steal. We assume they know it is wrong and take precautions.
Is it terrible that women have to do this around men who may hurt them? Yes. But putting the onus on those men not to will not change that. Most of them are beyond reach.
There is a weaker version of this I can see – some men can be entitled and think they have the “right” to a woman. They may be swayed by social pressure and environment. But the killers? Do we really think they will be swayed by social pressure?
We need to understand that precautions do not make some morally liable – that likes with the attacker. But given they are out there, it is still wise.
I know why it is done, because people used to (maybe still do) blame women for being in short skirts etc. But it is irresponsible not to offer precautions and safety measures because of this.
What a terrible thing it is to be a woman in this time and age. Perhaps things were better when they were chaperoned and parents chose husbands for them.
…or for the eons when women were mere possessions and part of the spoils for a successful war or conquest.
Well, that’s going a bit too far for me. It’s been at least twenty years since I last fought for a woman.
When male violence ends, we can also abolish the Army, Navy and Air Force.
There is an interesting question that this raises. I have seen here and elsewhere the oft cited identity politics claim that wars are started by men. I think this is a puerile point – focusing on the gender that engages in this behaviour – because it fails to mention or hypothesise what the reasons may be for such conflict, and the complex behaviours around that. Centring men – note, not some men – has the advantage of suggesting the conflict is only the result of masculinity, thereby ignoring a multivariate analysis that focuses the complex causes of such conflict.