It's Time To Stop Demonizing Men (pls read OP)

[The Royal Sampler]

[mod edit]

Folks,

This thread was created to discuss the issue of demonising men.

It is not an excuse to post anti-men or anti-women or any other prejudiced content.

If anybody wants to discuss the issue of demonising women - go for it, but do it in another thread and keep it free of prejudiced content.

Please keep this thread on-topic

Thank-you

[/mod edit]


I am lucky enough to be the father of three sons, and like all parents, I imagine, I fear for them as they grow up. I fear that I may not be always able to provide adequately for them, I fear that they may never be able to own their own home as our parents were, I fear that they may fall prey to the wrong influences... but recently I've come to fear the way they might be made to view themselves and their role in society.

There is an obviously sensationalist media agenda, which ensures doom, gloom and violence is always on the front page, but more worryingly to me is a pervasive attitude that violence as a whole is attributable to men and men only, and that there is something fundamentally wrong with men's attitudes toward women across society. Without anyone being able to put a finger on specifically what is faulty in male thinking, we are now being bombarded with campaigns to "end violence against women", policy is drawn up with the aim of "preventing violence against women and their children", and feminist programs being implemented in schools with a mandate to change the attitudes of students in order to prevent violence against women, whilst simultaneously linking them to gender inequality and the portrayal of women in the media.

What concerns me is not only that my children might face being bullied into thinking that they have something wrong with them, and that they should be ashamed or embarrassed by their masculinity, but that there is unlikely to be any resources available to them if they find themselves the victims of violence in their relationships. The overarching stereotype is of men being painted as aggressors or perpetrators and women as victims. None of the propaganda being circulated appears to even acknowledge the portion of family violence visited upon males, so much so that you could be forgiven for thinking it doesn't exist. Males being victims of domestic violence is a taboo subject, to the extent that any male who wishes to report abuse has to weigh up;
a) the likelihood of simply being ignored,
b) the likelihood of being mistaken for the perpetrator, ie. "the accused must have been fighting back/defending themselves"
c) the risk of being labelled a sook/whinger/lesser male for admitting to being a victim
d) the possibility of their partner using their children (if any) as collateral, ie. "coercive control"

Data from the UK suggests that 1-in-4 women are victims of domestic violence/partner abuse, but that 1-in-6 males are also victims. Any semblance of logic would lead one to reason that males would also be considerably more likely to under-report any abuse they receive. The fact that partner abuse can of course also occur in LGBT relationships does not change the fact that men are absolutely capable of having "family violence" visited upon them and yet are completely ignored in the popular rhetoric. If domestic violence is a gendered issue, it surely appears no more so than suicide is a (male) gendered issue, and yet if there were a dearth of services to assist females with suicidal behaviour, or equally if there were marches down Spring Street to "end male suicide" then there would be justifiable uproar.

Another thought that plagues me; the drunken violence we see plastered over the news and print media. While it appears that primarily drunken males are to blame for this behaviour; it would also seem males are most likely to be the recipient of a glassing attack or a coward's punch, and all it requires is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Furthermore, because our ideology surrounding males is so messed up, society holds that it is cowardly for a man to walk away from a situation in which someone else is in danger, simply due to ownership of a Y-chromosome. Christopher Hudson inflicted violence upon an exotic dancer back in 2007, dragging her by the hair from a car out into the street, but two men who knew neither party in the dispute came to her aid; Brendan Keilar and Paul de Waard were both shot in an altercation neither man had any business being in, and Keilar died from his injuries.

To me the task of raising boys seems nigh on insurmountable in the current media environment. Articles like Melanie Phillips' are heartening not simply because they present statistics most would find surprising, but because she is brave enough to write an article which goes so far against the populist grain, maybe it's a sign the tide is ever-so-slightly starting to turn on the issue of men having to be stoic in the face of all possibilities.

 

[JB1975]

I've heard it before, men feeling victimised by the attention on domestic violence, as if men as a whole are being targeted. Thing is, as a man I feel that the only targets of such campaigns are (a) men who commit violence against women, and (b) men who think its okay to commit violence against women. I don't have any issue with campaigns designed to draw attention men's violence, and I certainly don't see as it an aspersion on me or my own son.

You seem to suggest that such campaigns have an agenda, beyond ending violence against women in the home. I probably shouldn't ask, but what do you think that agenda is?

 

[The Royal Sampler]

You should ask, because this is a board for discussion. No, I don't think there is necessarily an agenda behind the campaigns against violence inflicted upon women, but there certainly does seem to be a feminist agenda in some of the school programs being implemented. I'm old enough and grizzled enough to be able to understand I'm not being targeted, but that doesn't hold for my kids. I would likely pull them out of these programs, just as I would if the schools started teaching creationism.

The other issue is the lack of services available to men because of these issues being painted as an exclusively female problem. Without going into specifics, my family would be very different today if there was support available for male victims of abuse and in particular sexual assault, so it's particularly galling to see men broadly paraded as being worthy of blame only.

This is a fine example. The wording of the poster does not target violent men, it targets "Dads", and suggests we need to change to end domestic violence. Where in fact the majority of Dads do a wonderful job, love their family and go to great lengths to keep them safe from harm.

It's akin to a hypothetical poster displaying an Arab man with the tag line "Muslims, you need to stop blowing yourselves up to end terrorism". The vast majority of Muslims would abhor violence in the name of Islam, and would not identify with those who the poster is targeting, but at the same time be offended that the poster conflates Islam with terrorism. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Islam (no more so than the Bible), however a young Muslim person on viewing the poster might be made to feel ashamed of their beliefs.

 

[JB1975]

You should ask, because this is a board for discussion. No, I don't think there is necessarily an agenda behind the campaigns against violence inflicted upon women, but there certainly does seem to be a feminist agenda in some of the school programs being implemented. I'm old enough and grizzled enough to be able to understand I'm not being targeted, but that doesn't hold for my kids. I would likely pull them out of these programs, just as I would if the schools started teaching creationism.

The other issue is the lack of services available to men because of these issues being painted as an exclusively female problem. Without going into specifics, my family would be very different today if there was support available for male victims of abuse and in particular sexual assault, so it's particularly galling to see men broadly paraded as being worthy of blame only.

This is a fine example. The wording of the poster does not target violent men, it targets "Dads", and suggests we need to change to end domestic violence. Where in fact the majority of Dads do a wonderful job, love their family and go to great lengths to keep them safe from harm.

Programs directed at school children are often designed to address issues which might not yet personally concern them, but which one day might well concern them: bullying (cyber and otherwise), discrimination, drugs and alcohol etc. I have a son who has just started secondary school, and he's yet to be subject to information about domestic violence, but when/if he ever comes across such a program then I trust he will not take it personally. He'll hopefully accept it as reinforcing a message he's already been told many times: violence is not a legitimate form of self-expression.

The billboard you've used as an example is, to me, an interesting example of people's varied perception. You see that billboard and you feel that it's aimed at the broad category of 'Dads'. I see that billboard and I feel that it's aimed at fathers who commit violence in the home. It's actually a potentially offensive poster in another way, in the way that it signals that the bigger victim of such violence is the children who witness it, with the child prominent in the foreground and the woman all but invisible. Shouldn't the face of a wife, reeling in fear from his anger, be just as much of a wake-up call? In any case, as a father I don't feel impugned by the billboard, and nor should I. And nor should you.

As an aside, I do think that the campaigns against domestic violence are trying to enjoin men more broadly to condemn such violence. There's a feeling that men are too accepting of violence against women, and that perhaps they need to be more vocal in calling it out. But again, such a motive is hardly stigmatising the majority of men who don't engage in such behaviours, and it shouldn't be interpreted as such. I know that neither myself nor my son have any reason to feel guilty about who we are, and that guilt is only attached in these circumstances to violent actions and the consequences of them.

I can't speak to your personal experience. I think we're all shaped by our life histories in how we approach issues, and I know I am. In my immediate family, I am aware of three distinct examples of violence committed by men against women in the home. One of these examples stretched over decades, another involved frequent violence or the threat of it over a period of years, and the other was a more isolated incident. There was also violence against children, or the threat of it, which is something I experienced at the hands of males (plural, not singular) in my family. None of this was ever reported to authorities, and none of it will ever feature in anyone's statistics. But I suppose for me it has least brought a considerable amount of reflection about what is and what isn't acceptable. In my experience, at least, I've seen that men do have a disturbing capacity for violence, and I've seen most of it directed at the people they supposedly care the most about, and that lesson has been far more effective and long-lasting than the latest awareness campaigns.

 

[JB1975]

No, I don't think there is necessarily an agenda behind the campaigns against violence inflicted upon women, but there certainly does seem to be a feminist agenda in some of the school programs being implemented.

This quote is ambiguous to me. What do you think is the particular nature of the agenda in relation to school programs?

 

[Saintly Viewed]

It's a tough one. On the whole it's likely men do commit more of this abhorrent behaviour, but it's not exclusively men.
Like all things, the agenda of some who loathe men gets most attention (noisy crowd they are).

This, the blame males for everything, is Not helpful.

 

[speedytiger]

You should ask, because this is a board for discussion. No, I don't think there is necessarily an agenda behind the campaigns against violence inflicted upon women, but there certainly does seem to be a feminist agenda in some of the school programs being implemented. I'm old enough and grizzled enough to be able to understand I'm not being targeted, but that doesn't hold for my kids. I would likely pull them out of these programs, just as I would if the schools started teaching creationism.

The other issue is the lack of services available to men because of these issues being painted as an exclusively female problem. Without going into specifics, my family would be very different today if there was support available for male victims of abuse and in particular sexual assault, so it's particularly galling to see men broadly paraded as being worthy of blame only.

This is a fine example. The wording of the poster does not target violent men, it targets "Dads", and suggests we need to change to end domestic violence. Where in fact the majority of Dads do a wonderful job, love their family and go to great lengths to keep them safe from harm.

It's akin to a hypothetical poster displaying an Arab man with the tag line "Muslims, you need to stop blowing yourselves up to end terrorism". The vast majority of Muslims would abhor violence in the name of Islam, and would not identify with those who the poster is targeting, but at the same time be offended that the poster conflates Islam with terrorism. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Islam (no more so than the Bible), however a young Muslim person on viewing the poster might be made to feel ashamed of their beliefs.

i believe the aim of a poster like this is for all dads, the abusers and the ones who may know something and not act. Men traditionally wouldn't intervene if they knew of a man acting violent towards his partner. I think it's a call out for everyone to act, not turn away as if it's none of our business

 

[The Royal Sampler]

This quote is ambiguous to me. What do you think is the particular nature of the agenda in relation to school programs?

This article is from the UK, but does serve to highlight an approach which is gaining a foothold in some schools, which in my view would lead to boys being made to feel ashamed moreso than providing them with useful tools on conducting themselves in a respectful manner in relationships. I'm all for everyone receiving the latter, but would be removing my kids from class if they are subject to the former.

An older article which relates to Victorian schools suggests that a similar approach may be used here, but thankfully I'm yet to see evidence of it as yet.

 

[JB1975]

i believe the aim of a poster like this is for all dads, the abusers and the ones who may know something and not act. Men traditionally wouldn't intervene if they knew of a man acting violent towards his partner. I think it's a call out for everyone to act, not turn away as if it's none of our business

Yeah, I think this is right. It's for all dads in the sense that violence shouldn't be ignored. But it is clear to me that the poster isn't labelling fathers as abusers, potentially or otherwise.

 

[JB1975]

i believe the aim of a poster like this is for all dads, the abusers and the ones who may know something and not act. Men traditionally wouldn't intervene if they knew of a man acting violent towards his partner. I think it's a call out for everyone to act, not turn away as if it's none of our business

Yeah, I think this is right. It's for all dads in the sense that violence shouldn't be ignored. But it is clear to me that the poster isn't labelling fathers as abusers, potentially or otherwise.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

The billboard you've used as an example is, to me, an interesting example of people's varied perception. You see that billboard and you feel that it's aimed at the broad category of 'Dads'. I see that billboard and I feel that it's aimed at fathers who commit violence in the home. It's actually a potentially offensive poster in another way, in the way that it signals that the bigger victim of such violence is the children who witness it, with the child prominent in the foreground and the woman all but invisible. Shouldn't the face of a wife, reeling in fear from his anger, be just as much of a wake-up call? In any case, as a father I don't feel impugned by the billboard, and nor should I. And nor should you.

I find it mind-boggling that you find it more potentially offensive to women because the woman is in the background of the poster, than to fathers who are depicted as being the root cause of family violence. I imagine that it was a measured approach to appeal to emotion; violence against children is widely considered more abhorrent than against women.

By the same token, I think it's great that you don't identify with the "Dad" in the poster in any way. However it's well established that it's discriminatory to attribute the actions of a portion of a group/race/gender/religion to the whole. If there was a "Indigenous Australians - Stop Sniffing Petrol" poster, you could argue that it was only aimed at those sniffing petrol, but any Indigenous Australian viewing the poster would have a legitimate argument for having been discriminated against.

 

[JB1975]

This article is from the UK, but does serve to highlight an approach which is gaining a foothold in some schools, which in my view would lead to boys being made to feel ashamed moreso than providing them with useful tools on conducting themselves in a respectful manner in relationships. I'm all for everyone receiving the latter, but would be removing my kids from class if they are subject to the former.

An older article which relates to Victorian schools suggests that a similar approach may be used here, but thankfully I'm yet to see evidence of it as yet.

If boys are being pulled aside as the sole focus of anti-violence campaigns in Victorian schools then I'd be curious to hear about it. In the absence of that I just don't see what the issue is.

My son receives information about many things which he isn't guilty of, to raise awareness, promote respect etc. None of these programs and campaigns leave him with a fear that he might grow into a deranged, violent, gender non-specific, multi-faith drug addict. On the contrary, such programs have made him feel more knowledgable about the world and the other people in it, and I don't have a problem with that.

 

[JB1975]

I find it mind-boggling that you find it more potentially offensive to women because the woman is in the background of the poster, than to fathers who are depicted as being the root cause of family violence. I imagine that it was a measured approach to appeal to emotion; violence against children is widely considered more abhorrent than against women.

I didn't say that I find the poster offensive. You did. I also pointed out that others might find the poster offensive in different ways. And other people might suggest that anyone who is offended by the poster for any reason is just too easily offended. Such is the wonder of perspective.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

It's actually a potentially offensive poster in another way, in the way that it signals that the bigger victim of such violence is the children who witness it, with the child prominent in the foreground and the woman all but invisible. Shouldn't the face of a wife, reeling in fear from his anger, be just as much of a wake-up call?

I find it mind-boggling that you find it more potentially offensive to women because the woman is in the background of the poster, than to fathers who are depicted as being the root cause of family violence.

I didn't say that I find the poster offensive. You did.

Really? I even used your exact wording, i.e. "potentially offensive".

 

[JB1975]

Really? I even used your exact wording, i.e. "potentially offensive".

Yeah, I pointed out that the poster might be interpreted as offensive. Myself, I'm not offended by it. I hope I'm being clear now, if I was too ambiguous before.

 

[JB1975]

By the same token, I think it's great that you don't identify with the "Dad" in the poster in any way. However it's well established that it's discriminatory to attribute the actions of a portion of a group/race/gender/religion to the whole. If there was a "Indigenous Australians - Stop Sniffing Petrol" poster, you could argue that it was only aimed at those sniffing petrol, but any Indigenous Australian viewing the poster would have a legitimate argument for having been discriminated against.

I'm going to try and leave this as my last word in the thread. I knew that my own views on these issues couldn't be reconciled with yours from your first post, and I know from similar threads in the past (and from debates in society more generally) that these discussions quickly become toxic and pointless. Like a lot of men, you feel that men are being vilified by anti-domestic violence campaigns. Like a lot of men, I don't feel that I'm being vilified at all by such campaigns. You won't convince me, I won't convince you, and all we'll have for our labours at the end of the day is some antagonism and a reaffirmation of our pre-existing views. I'd rather talk about footy.

I just wanted to make a point in relation to the quote above. Awareness campaigns which are designed to change people's behaviour are not discriminatory just because they target their campaigns at a specific group of people. There are awareness campaigns targeted at men's mental health, for example, which encourage men to seek help for their problems because it has been established that men are reluctant to talk about their issues. The campaigns against drunken violence aren't directed at middle-class adults who sip some wine whilst playing board games; they're directed at young people, and primarily (but not exclusively) young men. There are awareness campaigns directed at teenage girls encouraging them to have a more positive body image, because there is evidence to show that young women can be overly harsh on their own appearance, and the physical appearance of other girls. There are still gay-specific awareness campaigns directed at gay men, because studies tell us that they are over-represented in HIV and STI statistics. All of these problems and behaviours can be seen in other age and gender groups, but the resources and attention has been targeted because the research suggests that this is where such resources will have maximum impact. This is sensible; not discrimination.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I would argue that they had an opportunity to launch a "targeted" campaign and failed. It wasn't nearly targeted enough.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Targetting men in a campaign to stop something predominantly committed by men sounds sensible to me

 

[Obese Arachnid]

I am lucky enough to be the father of three sons, and like all parents, I imagine, I fear for them as they grow up. I fear that I may not be always able to provide adequately for them, I fear that they may never be able to own their own home as our parents were, I fear that they may fall prey to the wrong influences... but recently I've come to fear the way they might be made to view themselves and their role in society.

There is an obviously sensationalist media agenda, which ensures doom, gloom and violence is always on the front page, but more worryingly to me is a pervasive attitude that violence as a whole is attributable to men and men only, and that there is something fundamentally wrong with men's attitudes toward women across society. Without anyone being able to put a finger on specifically what is faulty in male thinking, we are now being bombarded with campaigns to "end violence against women", policy is drawn up with the aim of "preventing violence against women and their children", and feminist programs being implemented in schools with a mandate to change the attitudes of students in order to prevent violence against women, whilst simultaneously linking them to gender inequality and the portrayal of women in the media.

What concerns me is not only that my children might face being bullied into thinking that they have something wrong with them, and that they should be ashamed or embarrassed by their masculinity, but that there is unlikely to be any resources available to them if they find themselves the victims of violence in their relationships. The overarching stereotype is of men being painted as aggressors or perpetrators and women as victims. None of the propaganda being circulated appears to even acknowledge the portion of family violence visited upon males, so much so that you could be forgiven for thinking it doesn't exist. Males being victims of domestic violence is a taboo subject, to the extent that any male who wishes to report abuse has to weigh up;
a) the likelihood of simply being ignored,
b) the likelihood of being mistaken for the perpetrator, ie. "the accused must have been fighting back/defending themselves"
c) the risk of being labelled a sook/whinger/lesser male for admitting to being a victim
d) the possibility of their partner using their children (if any) as collateral, ie. "coercive control"

Data from the UK suggests that 1-in-4 women are victims of domestic violence/partner abuse, but that 1-in-6 males are also victims. Any semblance of logic would lead one to reason that males would also be considerably more likely to under-report any abuse they receive. The fact that partner abuse can of course also occur in LGBT relationships does not change the fact that men are absolutely capable of having "family violence" visited upon them and yet are completely ignored in the popular rhetoric. If domestic violence is a gendered issue, it surely appears no more so than suicide is a (male) gendered issue, and yet if there were a dearth of services to assist females with suicidal behaviour, or equally if there were marches down Spring Street to "end male suicide" then there would be justifiable uproar.

Another thought that plagues me; the drunken violence we see plastered over the news and print media. While it appears that primarily drunken males are to blame for this behaviour; it would also seem males are most likely to be the recipient of a glassing attack or a coward's punch, and all it requires is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Furthermore, because our ideology surrounding males is so messed up, society holds that it is cowardly for a man to walk away from a situation in which someone else is in danger, simply due to ownership of a Y-chromosome. Christopher Hudson inflicted violence upon an exotic dancer back in 2007, dragging her by the hair from a car out into the street, but two men who knew neither party in the dispute came to her aid; Brendan Keilar and Paul de Waard were both shot in an altercation neither man had any business being in, and Keilar died from his injuries.

To me the task of raising boys seems nigh on insurmountable in the current media environment. Articles like Melanie Phillips' are heartening not simply because they present statistics most would find surprising, but because she is brave enough to write an article which goes so far against the populist grain, maybe it's a sign the tide is ever-so-slightly starting to turn on the issue of men having to be stoic in the face of all possibilities.

Sorry mate TLDR.

Stopped reading early. Men like women have "problems", unfortunately men are physically more powerful than women.
Because of this "imbalance" men are always going to be the aggressor, the power is easier. Obviously I'm not suggesting it's 100% this way but it's fuggen very high, therefore you address the biggest problem at the time, that's men.

Short & sweet.

 

[sirlothie]

I would argue as to the effectiveness of these campaigns, does it actually stop anything? Same could be said of alcohol, drink driving, gambling campaigns.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

I would argue as to the effectiveness of these campaigns, does it actually stop anything? Same could be said of alcohol, drink driving, gambling campaigns.

As a society.....

1. We drink less alcohol per capita as every year goes by, mind you I try & keep the average up.
2. Drink driving, absolutely. It's no where near the levels it used to be, road toll bears that out.
3. Gambling, would agree we have a long way to go.
4. Smoking, you didn't mention it but c'mon......

 

[Bard]

I think it comes down to a pretty widespread phenomenon happening right now in over-compensation. People are trying to over-react and over-compensate for many issues by taking their stance to the extreme which whilst not necessarily as bad as what they're trying to stamp out (it'd be ridiculous to suggest this poster is as bad as domestic violence) it's definitely not a good outcome either.

 

[sirlothie]

As a society.....

1. We drink less alcohol per capita as every year goes by, mind you I try & keep the average up.
2. Drink driving, absolutely. It's no where near the levels it used to be, road toll bears that out.
3. Gambling, would agree we have a long way to go.
4. Smoking, you didn't mention it but c'mon......

As alcohol consumption goes down, drug use goes up though.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

As alcohol consumption goes down, drug use goes up though.

I didn't know you were going to shift the goal posts, though I'm not sure you are correct.

For now though I have to take some cajun chicken out of the oven & chow down.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Sorry mate TLDR.

Stopped reading early. Men like women have "problems", unfortunately men are physically more powerful than women.
Because of this "imbalance" men are always going to be the aggressor, the power is easier. Obviously I'm not suggesting it's 100% this way but it's fuggen very high, therefore you address the biggest problem at the time, that's men.

Short & sweet.

Why bother replying if you didn't read it?

Anyway your "physical power" argument is massively reductionist. Most men know that aggression and violence are not acceptable, so what happens when they are physically assaulted in a domestic situation by their partner? They do nothing, and are too embarrassed to talk about it.

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe...s/news-story/210d26220fbaa182d24ac2a28c06afae

You don't think this guy was physically capable of challenging the woman who murdered him?