I read the article differently. My reading is that, to some degree, the atrocity is linked to the function, to the social role that preceded the particular individual.
This is exactly why atrocity is so commonly perpetrated by soldiers and policemen.
Neither lesbianism nor femininity address that issue.
We tend too easily to scapegoat. Male gender is routinely scapegoated for issues of violence, and I was horrified at the degree to which Aboriginal culture was scapegoated in the linked article.
Accepting the scapegoating, for me, ends up evading the fundamental problem: how do we (best) protect ourselves from the folks whose job it is to be adventurously violent? How do we participate in the group construction, as a society, of these roles?
Lesbian separatism, to me, is an abdication of social responsibilty, and a fruitless one at that. Lesbian soldiers and policemen commit atrocity too.
Note that collective responsibility for the creation of a problematic role does not diminish the individual responsibility of he who adopts it.
separatism, to me, is an abdication of social responsibilty,
Only if it is one's responsibility to continue to participate in a society that one concludes is utterly and hopelessly corrupt.
I took "Lesbian" off of your quote because i think the argument could apply to any sort of separatism. I do not personally think it is anyone's ethical duty to continue participating in a social structure that they think is beyond repair.
As for male gender being scapegoated for violence, i am aware that not every single act of violence is committed by men, but most are, and more to the point, men in general benefit from the atmosphere of pervasive fear of violence that permeates every society on Earth, because it is more likely that women will restrict their participation in social ventures for fear of social sanction or direct violence. (For example, our society's most common response to rape is to advise women to stay indoors at night -- advice which would tend to limit women's participation in social ventures.)
I can see how you would conclude that Aboriginal culture was being singled out for scapegoating, but if it is in fact true that Aboriginal society is more violent than the rest of Australian society, than this needs to be talked about and addressed somehow.
Please note that I did not claim that all separatism was abdication. I feel rather that separatism in an attempt to escape problems to which we all contribute and which will not be escaped is abdication of responsibility.
Now I can understand if you dispute the application of the italicised description to this situation; but please, don't overgeneralise my point.
It is incorrect to claim that men as a class benefit from violence and the fearful reticence of women. Violent men and their consorts (whether male or female) both benefit. Non-violent men do not so benefit. Indeed, non-violent men are victims of violence more often than are women, a point that is often forgotten in discussions of male violence.
The advice given to non-violent men is identical to that given to fearful women. Stay in at night. Curtail your activities. Be fearful.
This is not an issue simply divided along gender lines; such lines represent a polarisation that is both false and counterproductive.
I disagree that aboriginal society needs to be scapegoated for a problem that is - prevalent globally - known to be linked to poverty and imperialism.
That, to me, just another excuse to blame the victim.
separatism in an attempt to escape problems to which we all contribute and which will not be escaped is abdication of responsibility.
How do you figure that someone who never uses violence, who abhors it, and who is trying to escape it, contributes to the problem of violence? It is not the case that every human being contributes to social problems simply by breathing; a more proximate contribution to a social problem must be demonstrated.
Gender is only, of course, one axis of analysis, and so focusing mainly on gender may give an incomplete picture of social stratification. That in itself does not make a gender-oriented analysis of violence necessarily incorrect or invalid, since gender affects every person on the planet.
It is not that feminists ignore the fact that men are the primary targets of violence; it is simply that this fact does not impeach the assertion that the primary beneficiaries of violence are men. It is not ALL men who benefit, but the ones who benefit are men. And there are ways in which men who do not use violence benefit from the pervasiveness of violence, even if they personally abhor and forswear violence. This is true of privileged groups in general: white people, even non-racist white people, benefit from violent racism, and so on.
I do see and concede your point about victim-blaming in the article. But i do not agree that it is necessarily victim-blaming to have a discussion about the level of violence in a community if the ones leading that discussion are members of the community itself.
Non-violent people contribute to male violence as a problem to the degree that they participate in the general social construction of violence as part of the male role. Overgeneralisations painfully similar to yours are a crucial part of this process by which young men come to see violence as a part of maleness.
Male violence does not benefit all men. It does not benefit most men. It does not benefit only men. Therefore, saying that males are the beneficiary of male violence is an overgeneralisation that is both offensive and counterproductive.
Or do you think that men in general in western culture are particular beneficiaries of female fear?
We agree that there is a difference between discussing violence and scapegoating; but when a difference of degree is cast as a special property of minority culture, in denial of other crucial socioeconomic issues that are independent of that culture- well, it stinks.
Scapegoating and bigotry,whether of race, culture, or gender, stink; and it is unfortunate that protesters of one stripe of bigotry can so easily fall prey to another. Protesters against race bigotry can dismiss the gender bigotry that white women face, for example.
Patriarchy is not a simple issue of gender. Violence creates a pyramid of exploitation, and men at the bottom of the pyramid suffer just as women do.
Just as racism was used by American oligarchies earlier in this century to pit poor white against poor black to the particular benefit of the wealthy- race was used as a tool in class warfare- so, too, can gender be used to divide those who should be working together.
Don't fall for it. Don't repeat the stereotypes. Don't make violence a defining feature of maleness in the way you describe the problem. By doing so, you become a part of the problem.
I sypathize with your concerns, but it is not scapegoating male gender to point out that (1) most of the people who commit violence are male and (2) most of the people who benefit from violence are male.
Secondly, it is not ME who has defined violence as part of the male role, that was done long before i was born. There's been of late a movement among men to redefine masculinity in ways that do not glorify violence, and i heartily applaud that. If i thought that men were inherently violent, i wouldn't bother to examine the nuances of violence and social stratification.
it is not scapegoating male gender to point out
that (1) most of the people who commit violence are male and (2) most
of the people who benefit from violence are male.
Agreed; and it is not those points against which I argue.
The distinction between "Men are violent" and "Too many men are
violent" is a crucial one, just as the distinction between "Women lie
about rape" and "Some women lie about rape" is a crucial one.
Both
unmodified statements can easily become false stereotypes, weapons that
knowingly or unwittingly wound the innocent and can warp the way that
young people view the world.
it is not ME who has defined violence as part of
the male role, that was done long before i was born. There's been of late a movement among men to redefine
masculinity in ways that do not glorify violence, and i heartily
applaud that.
False.
Gender role definition is not a one-time historical fait accompli; it
is fluid and continuous. We all contribute to it by the ways in which
we reinforce perceptions and stereotypes in our discourse, verbal and
nonverbal, with those around us.
The implied idea that masculinity as nonviolent is a modern invention
is slander against the millions and billions of nonviolent men,
intellectual and nonintellectual, poetic and athletic, heterosexual and
homosexual, who lived in ages prior to this one. It's simple arrogance,
and yet another false stereotype worth re-examining in the light of
historical knowledge that I'm sure you possess.
I think we are talking about two different things here, and i feel that you are projecting thoughts and assertions onto me that i've never stated.
The distinction between "Men are violent" and "Too many men are violent" is a crucial one
Please point to where i've said "men are violent." What i have said is that men generally benefit more from violence than women. There's a HUGE difference between these statements.
I am not denying the reality or courage of nonviolent men throughout history; heck, they're a big part of the reason i have hope for humankind. But it is not me, or feminists, who have created the idea that fighting is "men's business." By articulating this thought in order to object to it, i am not contributing to its perpetuation.
I think we are talking about two different things
here, and i feel that
you are projecting thoughts and assertions onto me that i've never
stated.
For what it's worth, I don't deceive myself that I know with certainty
what you mean to say, or what your thoughts are. I haven't even
speculated about those things.
I can only discuss on the basis of what your words imply to me, and
take any clarifications you care to offer into consideration as best I
can. Certainly that can mean that I raise implications that you did not
intend- but that's the nature of language.
I did not accuse you of saying that men were violent, any more
than I accused anyone else of saying that women lie about rape. Those
phrases were offered as examples of the ways in which
generalisations can become counterproductive stereotypes.
But it is not me,
or feminists, who have created the idea that fighting is "men's
business." By articulating this thought in order to object to it, i am
not contributing to its perpetuation.
I have already articulated the way that I think that words- including
yours- contribute to stereotypes. I'm sorry, but "No I'm not!" doesn't
really serve, to me, as refutation. At best, it serves as testimony of
benign intention.
I've noted it as your opinion, though. You have a right to it, as I
have a right to mine.
I'm sorry you feel misunderstood and/ or misrepresented. For what it's
worth, I feel like I've typed much, but that you haven't gotten even
the first point that I made in the very beginning.
That's something that I regret. I post for the purpose of mutual
understanding.
It seems to me, in all of these gender discussions, one key element is forgotten: Each of these types of articles highlight a specific problem involving specific categories of people (e.g. "Aboriginal men"). There is often a tendency to assume that (a) focusing on one subgroup means they are the only source of the problem, ignoring the sociocultural matrix that either causes or permits it to occur; (b) that other subgroups may be performing similar [or parallel] acts, whose solutions are also entangled in a sociocultural matrix; and (c) moreover, the two unfortunate actions may in fact be elements of a feedback loop, such that the only solution is to address both problems simultaneously.
It is always much easier to say "Group X does Y, and we need to fix it" than to say "Group X does Y, and so does group Z at much smaller percentages; will addressing the causes of group X's behavior also address the causes of group Z's behavior?"
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-18 03:14 pm (UTC)The more i think about how utterly widespread rape and sexual abuse are, the more i can relate to lesbian separatists.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-18 03:42 pm (UTC)This is exactly why atrocity is so commonly perpetrated by soldiers and policemen.
Neither lesbianism nor femininity address that issue.
We tend too easily to scapegoat. Male gender is routinely scapegoated for issues of violence, and I was horrified at the degree to which Aboriginal culture was scapegoated in the linked article.
Accepting the scapegoating, for me, ends up evading the fundamental problem: how do we (best) protect ourselves from the folks whose job it is to be adventurously violent? How do we participate in the group construction, as a society, of these roles?
Lesbian separatism, to me, is an abdication of social responsibilty, and a fruitless one at that. Lesbian soldiers and policemen commit atrocity too.
Note that collective responsibility for the creation of a problematic role does not diminish the individual responsibility of he who adopts it.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-18 03:56 pm (UTC)Only if it is one's responsibility to continue to participate in a society that one concludes is utterly and hopelessly corrupt.
I took "Lesbian" off of your quote because i think the argument could apply to any sort of separatism. I do not personally think it is anyone's ethical duty to continue participating in a social structure that they think is beyond repair.
As for male gender being scapegoated for violence, i am aware that not every single act of violence is committed by men, but most are, and more to the point, men in general benefit from the atmosphere of pervasive fear of violence that permeates every society on Earth, because it is more likely that women will restrict their participation in social ventures for fear of social sanction or direct violence. (For example, our society's most common response to rape is to advise women to stay indoors at night -- advice which would tend to limit women's participation in social ventures.)
I can see how you would conclude that Aboriginal culture was being singled out for scapegoating, but if it is in fact true that Aboriginal society is more violent than the rest of Australian society, than this needs to be talked about and addressed somehow.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-18 04:12 pm (UTC)Now I can understand if you dispute the application of the italicised description to this situation; but please, don't overgeneralise my point.
It is incorrect to claim that men as a class benefit from violence and the fearful reticence of women. Violent men and their consorts (whether male or female) both benefit. Non-violent men do not so benefit. Indeed, non-violent men are victims of violence more often than are women, a point that is often forgotten in discussions of male violence.
The advice given to non-violent men is identical to that given to fearful women. Stay in at night. Curtail your activities. Be fearful.
This is not an issue simply divided along gender lines; such lines represent a polarisation that is both false and counterproductive.
I disagree that aboriginal society needs to be scapegoated for a problem that is
- prevalent globally
- known to be linked to poverty and imperialism.
That, to me, just another excuse to blame the victim.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-18 04:46 pm (UTC)How do you figure that someone who never uses violence, who abhors it, and who is trying to escape it, contributes to the problem of violence? It is not the case that every human being contributes to social problems simply by breathing; a more proximate contribution to a social problem must be demonstrated.
Gender is only, of course, one axis of analysis, and so focusing mainly on gender may give an incomplete picture of social stratification. That in itself does not make a gender-oriented analysis of violence necessarily incorrect or invalid, since gender affects every person on the planet.
It is not that feminists ignore the fact that men are the primary targets of violence; it is simply that this fact does not impeach the assertion that the primary beneficiaries of violence are men. It is not ALL men who benefit, but the ones who benefit are men. And there are ways in which men who do not use violence benefit from the pervasiveness of violence, even if they personally abhor and forswear violence. This is true of privileged groups in general: white people, even non-racist white people, benefit from violent racism, and so on.
I do see and concede your point about victim-blaming in the article. But i do not agree that it is necessarily victim-blaming to have a discussion about the level of violence in a community if the ones leading that discussion are members of the community itself.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-18 06:11 pm (UTC)Male violence does not benefit all men.
It does not benefit most men.
It does not benefit only men.
Therefore, saying that males are the beneficiary of male violence is an overgeneralisation that is both offensive and counterproductive.
Or do you think that men in general in western culture are particular beneficiaries of female fear?
We agree that there is a difference between discussing violence and scapegoating; but when a difference of degree is cast as a special property of minority culture, in denial of other crucial socioeconomic issues that are independent of that culture- well, it stinks.
Scapegoating and bigotry,whether of race, culture, or gender, stink; and it is unfortunate that protesters of one stripe of bigotry can so easily fall prey to another. Protesters against race bigotry can dismiss the gender bigotry that white women face, for example.
Patriarchy is not a simple issue of gender. Violence creates a pyramid of exploitation, and men at the bottom of the pyramid suffer just as women do.
Just as racism was used by American oligarchies earlier in this century to pit poor white against poor black to the particular benefit of the wealthy- race was used as a tool in class warfare- so, too, can gender be used to divide those who should be working together.
Don't fall for it. Don't repeat the stereotypes. Don't make violence a defining feature of maleness in the way you describe the problem. By doing so, you become a part of the problem.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-18 06:43 pm (UTC)Secondly, it is not ME who has defined violence as part of the male role, that was done long before i was born. There's been of late a movement among men to redefine masculinity in ways that do not glorify violence, and i heartily applaud that. If i thought that men were inherently violent, i wouldn't bother to examine the nuances of violence and social stratification.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-18 07:20 pm (UTC)Agreed; and it is not those points against which I argue.
The distinction between "Men are violent" and "Too many men are violent" is a crucial one, just as the distinction between "Women lie about rape" and "Some women lie about rape" is a crucial one.
Both unmodified statements can easily become false stereotypes, weapons that knowingly or unwittingly wound the innocent and can warp the way that young people view the world.
False.
Gender role definition is not a one-time historical fait accompli; it is fluid and continuous. We all contribute to it by the ways in which we reinforce perceptions and stereotypes in our discourse, verbal and nonverbal, with those around us.
The implied idea that masculinity as nonviolent is a modern invention is slander against the millions and billions of nonviolent men, intellectual and nonintellectual, poetic and athletic, heterosexual and homosexual, who lived in ages prior to this one. It's simple arrogance, and yet another false stereotype worth re-examining in the light of historical knowledge that I'm sure you possess.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 12:58 am (UTC)The distinction between "Men are violent" and "Too many men are violent" is a crucial one
Please point to where i've said "men are violent." What i have said is that men generally benefit more from violence than women. There's a HUGE difference between these statements.
I am not denying the reality or courage of nonviolent men throughout history; heck, they're a big part of the reason i have hope for humankind. But it is not me, or feminists, who have created the idea that fighting is "men's business." By articulating this thought in order to object to it, i am not contributing to its perpetuation.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 01:15 am (UTC)For what it's worth, I don't deceive myself that I know with certainty what you mean to say, or what your thoughts are. I haven't even speculated about those things.
I can only discuss on the basis of what your words imply to me, and take any clarifications you care to offer into consideration as best I can. Certainly that can mean that I raise implications that you did not intend- but that's the nature of language.
I did not accuse you of saying that men were violent, any more than I accused anyone else of saying that women lie about rape. Those phrases were offered as examples of the ways in which generalisations can become counterproductive stereotypes.
I have already articulated the way that I think that words- including yours- contribute to stereotypes. I'm sorry, but "No I'm not!" doesn't really serve, to me, as refutation. At best, it serves as testimony of benign intention.
I've noted it as your opinion, though. You have a right to it, as I have a right to mine.
I'm sorry you feel misunderstood and/ or misrepresented. For what it's worth, I feel like I've typed much, but that you haven't gotten even the first point that I made in the very beginning.
That's something that I regret. I post for the purpose of mutual understanding.
cheers
adrian.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-18 08:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 01:16 am (UTC)It's a difficult topic, where there are several "sides", too many of them insistent that theirs is the only valid one.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-19 02:24 am (UTC)It is always much easier to say "Group X does Y, and we need to fix it" than to say "Group X does Y, and so does group Z at much smaller percentages; will addressing the causes of group X's behavior also address the causes of group Z's behavior?"
Ah, the curse of the modern soundbite...