If Being Compassionate Towards Mens Suffering Could Prevent Violence Would You

Is Female suffering seen as more important than male suffering. It is isn’t it???

Even as babies, it seems female suffering is seen as more important than male suffering. For example, this study found that parents take longer to pick up baby boys than baby girls when they cry:

Goldberg and Lewis "Play Behaviour in the Year-old Infant: Early Sex differences"
Abstract at:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1127152

And then there are events like the media uproar when 276 school girls were kidnapped by the islamic Terrorist Group boko harem:

Boko Harem also murder boys. Where’s the protest for them.

The kidnapping of the 276 predominantly Christian schoolgirls by Islamic terror group Boko Haram is an atrocity, but it is not the first atrocity they have committed. It is just the first one to trip the West’s interest switch. A girl’s right to an education has become an important pillar in western ideology, and an important pawn in the battle against radical Islam. It is why Malala has seen herself elevated to an almost saint-like position.
The recent kidnappings have enraged western sensibilities, because they desecrate hallowed ideas about female equality. The West has responded in the only way it knows how: a self-righteous selfie protest using the hashtag ‘Bring Back Our Girls’. Michelle Obama, Cara Delevingne, Jessica Biel and Anne Hathaway have all involved themselves in it. On a more pragmatic front, Britain announced this week that it would send in a small team of Whitehall experts (the subtext being that they are members of our intelligence services and Special Forces). In a toss-up between a selfie and the SAS, I know who I’d back to ‘bring back our girls’.

But Boko Haram – whose name means ‘western education is sinful’ – does not distinguish between the education of girls and boys. In February, the group attacked another school. After boarding up every exit, its men seized 59 boys and gunned them down or cut their throats with machetes. Some buildings were sealed up and set alight. The girls were ordered to go home, abandon their ‘wicked’ schooling and seek husbands.

Where was the selfie protest then? Or does a savage affront to male education matter less than a savage affront to female education? The answer should clearly be no. For equality to count, both boys and girls need to feel safe in school. By focusing only on the girls – ‘Our Girls’ – we forget the boys who are also in danger.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...-protest-then/

And then there’s the fact that women attempt suicide 3 times more often than men yet men committ suicide four times more often than women.
http://mentalhealthrealities.blogspot.c ... n-men.html

What accounts for this discrepancy. I believe men are more motivated to actually be successful than women when it comes to suicide because men know there won’t be any sympathy for them if they fail and women have an attempted suicide rate 3 times greater than men but fail to succeed four times as often because they know people will be sympathetic towards their suffering when they fail.


Then there’s the fact that 98% of shooters are male. What could account for this statistic? Is it because they’re lashing out at a world that they know doesn’t care about their suffering, often calling them wimps, whiners, non-men ec cetera if they complain about their problems.
http://time.com/114128/elliott-rodgers- ... a-shooter/

I’ve seen it on several forums that men are disparaged when they bring up an issue effecting themselves or men in general.
If one of the causes of violence is the lack of sympathy and often even the disparaging of men who are suffering wouldn’t it be worth it to be as compassionate or even remotely as compassionate about the suffering of men as they are of women if it could prevent this violence. If compassion towards a man could prevent a rape, or a shooting, or some other act of violence wouldn’t it be worth it to be compassionate???

 

Men's rights... yeah right. I'm all for them, as long as it doesn't mean taking away women's rights, which sadly is often the object of MRA's requests. I mean, we already have LESS privileges than men, equality is still a myth, and you want to take some of those hard-earned rights away in the name of fairness? You're joking, right? I don't say any person's rights mean less than some others but women historically have always been more oppressed than men, which is why I guess people focus more on their rights and needs. It just makes sense to focus on the most oppressed group first.

Boys around the world are allowed to get an education while this right is still denied, to this day, to girls in many countries. This is where the outrage comes from, when something like that Boko Haram attack happens. The slaughter of the boy students is just as dramatic but it doesn't carry the same message. In the boy's case the underlying message was "stay away from western education", while the kidnapping of the girl students meant "know your place as a woman, stay out of school". In both cases they were reinforcing the local "traditional values", if I can say that. We all know that knowledge is power and the last thing these guys want is having girls empowering themselves, because what if they start to think for themselves and put the traditional values and lifestyle in question? This thought is terrifying to them, so they do all they can to oppress females and prevent them from getting an education.

As for the suicide thing and men being called sissies and such when they cry for help, those 2 aspects can be directly linked to patriarchy. It's traditionally considered a sign of weakness for men to ask for help and being emotional, statements like "real men don't cry" is one out of many proofs of this. With such a mindset, it's no wonder the men's suicide rate is higher. Also, men tend to prefer more lethal means to end their life, shooting or hanging themselves for example, because it's more "manly" than slashing your wrists or gobbling down all the meds you have on hand.

Bullcrap. Women have been patient, tolerant and compassionate towards men since the dawn of time and that never prevented any rape, battering or murder from happening. And as for Elliott Rodgers, he needed professional help from a therapist, not compassion. His main problem was that he couldn't cope with the fact girls turned him down for sex and dating, which is their right. Those girls had NO obligation to comply and if a man can't wrap his mind around that HE is the problem, not the women. But it's easier to blame others than having a good hard look at yourself and try to improve as a person (and, once again, this isn't considered a "manly" thing to do, putting yourself into question), hence why he resorted to do a mass shooting instead.

 

I agree. I didn't mean to use Elliot Rodgers as someone who would not have done what he did if people were as compassionate about men's suffering as they are of woman's suffering. I just intended to use that statistic that 98% of shooters are male.

...and Elliot Rodgers killed 3 males and 3 females

 

What privileges do men have in the West that women don't have in the west besides being able to take their shirts off in public????

 

....and I'm not a men's rights activist. I'm an egalitarean. As an egalitarean I believe inequalities are wrong when those inequalities are a result of discrimination regardless of ones race and gender.

Where feminist arguments have merit, I support them. Where men's rights activists arguments have merit I support them.

 

Interesting post.

Absolutely 100%, and I take the above statement to mean society being more compassionate not women in general.

 

Oh let me get started lol!

Not rights, privileges. Read me well. Women are allowed to have hook-ups with who they want, but god forbid if they do AND if they don't! They might earn the "slut" or "prude/bitch" badge along the way. Women are allowed to work but they're denied equal pay for equal work and sometimes promotions, even though they might be just as qualified and experienced than their male coworkers, because oh well, babies you know. Recently in the US there has been a vote on the equal pay question, and the motion that would have employers require to pay women as much as males has been turned down. Women in the workplace have to work harder to prove their credibility compared to their male counterparts, especially in non-traditional fields (construction, computer programming, law enforcement, etc.). And don't get me started about the daily harassment women face just because they're women! This stems from the fact women are NOT seen as persons but as sexual objects at the disposition of men. Like we didn't have a brain or a potential except for making babies... Being seen as a whole person and not just a body is a privilege denied to women in western culture, even to this day.

You're wrong, this oppression exists. It's real, we face it everyday in the workplace, at school, in the streets, in our interactions with males. Being belittled, ridiculed, not taken seriously, having our basic rights denied (pay equality, access to quality reproductive healthcare, or having justice make its job when one of us gets raped, violented or murdered for example), are all forms of oppression.

When did I say that? Once again read me well. I admit in that case their lives were spared, but I can guarantee you this isn't always what happens!

Organizations that promote girls and women's rights and well-being have been put in place mostly by females (at least that's what I can witness in my city and the other ones I lived in). Why is that? I have 2 possible answers: female solidarity, or the fact men are usually not interested in investing time and money into something that WON'T generate any profit ($$$$). And that statement about education centres is a big steamy pile of bullshit. It reminds me what they said here when they first started to put males and females in the same schools back in the 60's-70's, they were telling the guys to "let the females a chance" because supposedly they would perform less than males in school. The exact opposite happened, girls had better grades than males BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING BETTER IN SCHOOL, simply. They take their studies more seriously in general too, which helps. Education centres didn't "help" girls or let them chances so they have better grades than boys, girls had better grades because they were performing better, that's it.

 

would affirmative action be one of these, "privileges," Because affirmative action gives women and minorities hiring preferance based on nothing more than gender and race???

 

Is VAWA the violence against women act one of these male privileges???

Starting with its title, VAWA is just about as sex discriminatory as legislation can get. It is written and implemented to oppose the abuse of women and to punish men.
Ignoring the mountain of evidence that women initiate physical violence nearly as often as men, VAWA has more than 60 passages in its lengthy text that exclude men from its benefits. For starters, the law's title should be changed to Partner Violence Reduction Act, and the words "and men" should be added to those 60 sections

 

White women are the most privilaged group in the world.

So privilaged that they can endlessly analyze words that they don't like - because when a word is not totally positive, it's the patriarchy attacking women. Any time a word with any gender bias is used on a woman, it's sexist because she's a woman - and if it's used on a man, it's sexist against women, because he's a man. And if it's a gender neutral word, a bunch of bossy jerks can throw a giant hissy fit because the word bossy exists, and is sometimes used on women, when bad words should only be used on men.

When men have the universal right to choose, it will be slightly more reasonable to hear semantics complaints from women.

After all, feminism is all about equality and freedom of choice - surely they want everyone to have the right to choose? It's a war on women if they don't have this right, that men never have.... how about we get on fixing that for men?

I'll give you this: gender roles and expectations are going dangerous places for both men and women - in large part, because women have that right, and men do not - and even more so, because of the way any suggestion about giving men that right is treated, as though they are not worthy or deserving of making that choice, and it is purely the womans - no choice, but the lion's share of the responsibility for the choice, all the stigma for the choice, etc.


(not agreeing with OP, he said some things that bothered me and I gave up on reading his post, though overall, the title is telling of a sick society, in that it needs to be a question)

 

Affirmative action is a reaction and a "solution" to those inequalities. If there was no discrimination in the first place, it wouldn't be deemed as necessary. I think it's sad we have to resort to that tho, it should be natural to perceive everybody as an equal.

When I was battered by my ex-husband, I didn't intitate violence (neither did the countless women I've encountered that went through the same thing). Sorry but you should revise your stats and facts about domestic violence (and probably refrain from talking about something you obviously know nothing about, to avoid looking like a fool)...

- 1 women in 4 will experience domestic violence in her lifetime.
- An estimate 1.3 million women will be victims of physical assault by a partner every year (in US alone).
- 85% of domestic violence victims are WOMEN. Not men, women.
- As for homicides, one third of reported female homicides were killed by an intimate partner.
- In 70-80% of intimate partner homicides, no matter which partner was killed, the man physically abused the woman prior to the murder.
- And about rape, nearly 7.8 million women have been sexually assaulted by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
- Sexual assault or forced sex happen in 40-45% of battering relationships.

Source: National Coalition Against Domestic Violence http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet%28National%29.pdf

The VAWA focused on male-on-woman violence out of necessity, because this is what happens most often. Stats are clear about that. Try and show me similar stats about female-on-male violence for the sake of it, I doubt the numbers will be as high. Until you prove me wrong, I stick to my opinion that male-on-female violence happens more frequently than the opposite, is more brutal, more lethal and needs more focus because this is a more serious problem than female-on-male violence.

Also, as usual, VICTIMS DON'T ASK FOR IT. Or intitate anything. Is making your man mad when sticking to your opinion, or wearing certain clothes, or serving a soup that's hotter than he expected, initiating violence according to you? I don't think so. If you do, you're sick in the head and should seek therapy.

 

Roorshack, valid point! This is a problem that makes victims in both camps, if I can say that. This isn't a women's problem, it's a society's problem, and everybody should work together to end it.

The problem I'd say is not the choice of the term, but the way it is used and thrown all over the place. If I take the example of the term "bossy", the term is used for a man when he is really bossy, while for a woman it can also be used when she stands up for herself, which is where the problem is. A derogatory term is used out of context to shun a woman up, to make something legitimate sound illegitimate, so she changes her behavior to something more "acceptable" by patriarcal standards. This is the real problem, not the word, but the meaning behind the word and how it's been used. The same could be said about countless terms that are commonly used against women (bitch, slut, whore, etc.)

 

How is it possible to disagree with something you didn't even read-LOL

 

I'm sorry you were a victim of domestic violence. Domestic violence is horrible regardless of the gender of the victim and the gender of the perpetrator.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V75-Straus-09.pdf

CURRENT CONTROVERSIES AND PREVALENCE
CONCERNING FEMALE OFFENDERS
OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE
Why the Overwhehning Evidence on Partner
Physical Violel.1~e1>y"\Vo1ll.enHas Not Been
Perceived and Is Often Denied
MURRAY A. STRAUS
Universi(y o/New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA
Over 200 studies have found about the same percentage ofwomen
as men physically assault partners, and that the risk factors and
motivations are mostly the same as for men. Explanations are
suggested for why this fundamental fact has not been perceived by
the public and practitioners' including concealment and denial
by many academics who know the research. Explanations for
concealment and denial are also presented, with discussion of the
adverse effect that misperception and denial have had on prevention
and treatment programs, The practical implications of
recognizing gender symmetry in partner violence are discussed.

http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/...view/59/59

Male Victims of Domestic Violence
DonalD G. Dutton
Katherine r. White

Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) or domestic violence (DV) is often framed as a “woman’s issue” or
“violence against women” generating the perception of males involved in violent relationships as the
aggressor and more capable of inflicting injury or causing harm to their partner. Due to this set of
beliefs called the “gender paradigm”, male victims are often met with disbelief or suspicion when
they attempt to gain protection from a female partner, or access services. Male victims may also report
difficulty in locating services specific to their needs, as help lines or shelters are targeted exclusively
towards female victims. These issues and the implications for male victims will be discussed.


Conclusion
Both male victims and male perpetrators have a more difficult experience in the aftermath of IPV.
Male perpetrators receive harsher legal penalties, and are judged as more capable of inflicting injury
or instilling fear in their female partner. This is true even when they have been part of a bilateral IPV
pattern. Male victims also fare worse when attempting to access services, as males are more likely to
be labelled the aggressor and to be treated with suspicion and injuries they have sustained are likely
to be minimized. Custody assessments are misdirected, focusing on the male as the sole source of
threat to children for physical abuse. A major revision of our thinking is required, one that is empirically
based and can to alter an emotionally tinged stereotype

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41-PR41-...ess-07.pdf

Children and Youth Services Review 30 (2008) 252–275
Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations
Murray A. Straus
Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, United States

Abstract
The study investigated the widely held beliefs that physical violence against partners (PV) in marital, cohabiting, and dating
relationships is almost entirely perpetrated by men, and that the major risk factor for PV is male dominance in the relationship. The
empirical data on these issues were provided by 13,601 university students in 32 nations who participated in the International
Dating Violence Study. The results in the first part of this paper show that almost one-third of the female as well as male students
physically assaulted a dating partner in the previous 12 months, and that the most frequent pattern was bidirectional, i.e., both were
violent, followed by “female-only” violence. Violence by only the male partner was the least frequent pattern according to both
male and female participants. The second part of the article focuses on whether there is gender symmetry in a crucial aspect of the
etiology of partner PV — dominance by one partner. The results show that dominance by either the male or the female partner is
associated with an increased probability of violence. These results, in combination with results from many other studies, call into
question the assumption that PV is primarily a male crime and that, when women are violent, it is usually in self-defense. Because
these assumptions are crucial elements in almost all partner PV prevention and treatment programs, a fundamental revision is
needed to bring these programs into alignment with the empirical data. Prevention and treatment of PV could become more
effective if the programs recognize that most PV is bidirectional and act on the high rate of perpetration by women and the fact that
dominance by the female partner is as strongly related to PV as dominance by the male partner.

http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-con...epaper.pdf



http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-con...epaper.pdf
Hit like a Girl:
Women Who Batter Their Partners
Theresa Porter

Abstract
Domestic violence by women represents a blind spot for western society. Since 1977, multiple
large scale international studies have demonstrated the women can and do beat, batter and murder
their male and female intimate partners at a rate equal to or higher than that of man, yet this issue
is not simply ignored but denied by society at large. Women’s use of domestic violence is
misrepresented by the media and denied by feminists, both of whom find the topic threatening.
Despite this gender symmetry in domestic violence, media representations display male
perpetrators 10 times more often than they display female perpetrators and when it is displayed, it
is usually shown as humorous. For the media and the society it caters to, domestically violent
women represent a failure of social control; women are not behaving in the expected manner. For
feminists, domestically violent women threaten the victim paradigm upon which much of Second
Wave feminist was based. This paper will examine the prevalence of domestic violence by women
against their intimate partners, explore the societal myths and gender dogma that both hides and
perpetuates this form of violence by women.

1. Introduction

2. Denial and misrepresentation in research

Yet if one were to ask most people, they would deny awareness of the extent of women’s
domestic violence in western culture. This is in part due to the denial and misrepresentation of the
issue by several groups, including Second Generation feminists, researchers and the media.
The discourse on gender symmetry in intimate partner violence by Second Generation
feminists often involves claims that women’s violence is less injurious than men’s violence, as if
this is a relevant issue. No one should be subjected to abuse, regardless of their physical strength.
This argument also ignores the women victims in violent lesbian relationships, where the
difference in body strength can be supposed to be less pronounced. Finally, it is important to recall
that women compensate for any discrepancy in size by using weapons more often than do men12.


3. Denial and misrepresentation in media and society

4. Consequences

[...] Ultimately, all violence is complex and multi-determined with individual, social and cultural
factors47. Women’s intimate partner violence occurs in the context of a significant double standard
about violence and gender, with women’s violence seen as funny or unimportant, or simply not
seen at all. It is somehow always circumstantial and beyond women’s control. It is time to move
beyond simplistic, dichotomous thinking and biased research and recognize all types of intimate
violence in order to stop it

 

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

 

male victimization of domestic violence is under-reported too, and female victimization is over-reported.

irregardless, domestic violence is abhorrent regardless of the gender of the victim and the gender of the perpetrator

...and I believe the statistics you quoted come from a study that suffered from confirmation bias. Participants were asked if they had been victims of domestic violence or if they had not and they were given the choice to participate or not.

 

Study showing male victimization is under-reported


From the Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research

“This drop in IPV against females and steady rate of violence against males raises an interesting policy question. There are many thousands of support programs, web sites and public-interest media items for female victims of domestic violence (DV), and virtually no programs and only a handful of web sites in the USA for male victims. Perhaps these programs and public education efforts have resulted in males, but not females, getting the message that DV is wrong.”

“…those that are the core of the DV service system: DV agencies, DV hotlines, and the police. On the one hand, about 25% of men who sought help from DV hotlines were connected with resources that were helpful. On the other hand, nearly 67% of men reported that these DV agencies and hotline were not at all helpful. Many reported being turned away. The qualitative accounts in our research tell a story of male helpseekers who are often doubted, ridiculed, and given false information.”

In 41.5 percent of the cases where men called the police, the police asked if he wanted his partner arrested; in 21 percent the police refused to arrest the partner, and in 38.7 percent the police said there was nothing they could do and left
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=17042186&

 

Having a hard time finding the other study explaining why female victimization of domestic violence is over-reported, but basically there are women who file false domestic violence complaints to get positive rulings in family/divorce courts.

 

Your stats show that in a lot of violent relationships both partners are abusive, which is true. After a while, the victim (no matter which gender) can feel like fighting back, at least to defend him/herself, and I don't think it's surprising. I don't say it's a good thing, but I can understand why a woman (or a man, if he's the victim) would retaliate and fight back. I've been into crazy situations where I felt like I had to knock first in order to prevent being the victim myself. Would you blame me? Even though I initiated, to my point of view I was still only defending myself. Usually this is what happens when both are abusive, the victim fights back or intitates violence in prevention of being a victim of violence. It becomes hard then to know exactly who's the perpetrator and who's the victim, because both seem to altern roles. Also, don't forget that stat:

- In 70-80% of intimate partner homicides, no matter which partner was killed, the man physically abused the woman prior to the murder.

...which supports the idea that women may fight back or initiate violence in order to prevent more violence. But are they really to blame? Do you think this would still happen if the male partner wasn't abusive in the first place? I don't think so.