Are men aware when they have sexist views about women and just don't care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at a statistic: likelihood of being raped of you are a woman, versus likelihood of being raped if you are a man. I'd take higher odds of being punched in the face over being raped any day.
How about likelihood of being killed by domestic violence? Yep, we women get to win that one too.
I'm tired of hearing that it "goes both ways". Sure, it does. But NOT in equal volume.

The PP that gave the explanation about the distinction of being terrorized because of some immutable personal characteristic (e.g. gender) was persuasive.

This response is much less so. Men are more likely to be victims of violent crimes. So, if we're going to do the one-upmanship thing, I'll see your rape victimization and raise you murder victimizations.

[Anonymous]

^^ As for my definition of harrassed or propositioned - I guess it would be something that made me uncomfortable or I saw as an attack on being a woman. To be honest I have had more negative things said to me by women than men about my gender. I am not a stereotypical woman (and by that I mean who women seem to expect me to be) and I find women far less accepting of that than men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP but I disagree with your position that men always attack women solely because they attack women and they always attack men for some other external reason. Not true. There are many motivations why people (men and women) are violent. Assuming you know everyone's motivation and then forming a generalized perception of men and women based on this is very flawed. Men are also victims of domestic violence and are also targeted sometimes just because of their gender, so you could equally say that men fully understand the experience of women and it isn't unique to them.

I am a woman and I have never been harassed or propositioned or had anyone expose themselves to me. So no experience is shared by everyone just because of gender.

I did not mean to suggest that men always attack women because they're women or that male-on-male violence is always the result of external factors. I was simply saying that many times, being a woman is an invitation to violence that being a man in a similar situation is not. I'm really glad to hear that you haven't been harassed or propositioned though. You're the first woman I've ever heard that from. I don't mean to sound patronizing, but how are you defining "harassed" or "propositioned"? Maybe things that other women find uncomfortable are not uncomfortable for you. I know that I certainly have different thresholds for certain things than some women I know (the word "bitch" doesn't really bother me unless it's used in a particularly hostile way, for example).

I think it's fairly safe to say that it's possible to generalize that women ARE targeted because of their gender more often than men are targeted because of their gender. I do not have statistics on hand to back this up, but will go see if I can find something on the internet to support this assertion.

I agree with this, just not your earlier assertion that there is a set formula to violence and that men always do x or women always do y.

I apologize. I didn't mean to imply a set formula to violence or prescribe gender roles! I was responding to what that PP said about street harassment vs. getting punched in the face by a man. I completely agree that men are socialized to tolerate more violence than women. I think that's horrible and is one of the things that I would fear and try to counteract as a parent, if I had a son. As it is, I have a four year old daughter, and I spend a lot of time thinking about how to raise a girl in the culture that she lives in. The reality is that my daughter is more likely to be raped or abused by an intimate partner than her brother would be.

Posters might be interested in this article from 2012: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/50-actual-facts-about-dom_b_2193904.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think it's fairly safe to say that it's possible to generalize that women ARE targeted because of their gender more often than men are targeted because of their gender. I do not have statistics on hand to back this up, but will go see if I can find something on the internet to support this assertion.

And yet, it's also fairly safe to say that you can generalize that men are subjected to violent crime more often than women are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ As for my definition of harrassed or propositioned - I guess it would be something that made me uncomfortable or I saw as an attack on being a woman. To be honest I have had more negative things said to me by women than men about my gender. I am not a stereotypical woman (and by that I mean who women seem to expect me to be) and I find women far less accepting of that than men.

I understand and have experienced similar things in my life. (I'm the PP that asked.) For what it's worth, I personally believe that counts as harassment based on your gender or a person's understanding of what your gender is. Women attack other women for not being feminine enough. Men attack other men for not being masculine enough. These are ALL sexist attitudes, regardless of whether they are being put forward by men against women or women against women or women against men or men against men.

Thanks for the dialogue!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP but I disagree with your position that men always attack women solely because they attack women and they always attack men for some other external reason. Not true. There are many motivations why people (men and women) are violent. Assuming you know everyone's motivation and then forming a generalized perception of men and women based on this is very flawed. Men are also victims of domestic violence and are also targeted sometimes just because of their gender, so you could equally say that men fully understand the experience of women and it isn't unique to them.

I am a woman and I have never been harassed or propositioned or had anyone expose themselves to me. So no experience is shared by everyone just because of gender.

I did not mean to suggest that men always attack women because they're women or that male-on-male violence is always the result of external factors. I was simply saying that many times, being a woman is an invitation to violence that being a man in a similar situation is not. I'm really glad to hear that you haven't been harassed or propositioned though. You're the first woman I've ever heard that from. I don't mean to sound patronizing, but how are you defining "harassed" or "propositioned"? Maybe things that other women find uncomfortable are not uncomfortable for you. I know that I certainly have different thresholds for certain things than some women I know (the word "bitch" doesn't really bother me unless it's used in a particularly hostile way, for example).

I think it's fairly safe to say that it's possible to generalize that women ARE targeted because of their gender more often than men are targeted because of their gender. I do not have statistics on hand to back this up, but will go see if I can find something on the internet to support this assertion.

I agree with this, just not your earlier assertion that there is a set formula to violence and that men always do x or women always do y.

I apologize. I didn't mean to imply a set formula to violence or prescribe gender roles! I was responding to what that PP said about street harassment vs. getting punched in the face by a man. I completely agree that men are socialized to tolerate more violence than women. I think that's horrible and is one of the things that I would fear and try to counteract as a parent, if I had a son. As it is, I have a four year old daughter, and I spend a lot of time thinking about how to raise a girl in the culture that she lives in. The reality is that my daughter is more likely to be raped or abused by an intimate partner than her brother would be.

Posters might be interested in this article from 2012: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/50-actual-facts-about-dom_b_2193904.html

And the reality is that if you had a son, he is more likely to be murdered than his sister would be.

I mean, we should work on all of it. And if you feel your efforts are more appropriately spent addressing the types of violence that affect women more, more power to you -- all too many people either exacerbate the problems or do nothing about any of them. And you certainly shouldn't feel like you have to address all of them versus none at all.

But, in light of the topic of this thread, is it sexist to think that violence against women is a more pressing problem than violence against men? Is it sexist to think violence that affects men more is more pressing than violence against women? Is it sexist to react negatively when you perceive a person is valuing the safety of one gender more than the safety of the other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think it's fairly safe to say that it's possible to generalize that women ARE targeted because of their gender more often than men are targeted because of their gender. I do not have statistics on hand to back this up, but will go see if I can find something on the internet to support this assertion.

And yet, it's also fairly safe to say that you can generalize that men are subjected to violent crime more often than women are.

No one is disagreeing with that point. A poster way up thread wanted to know what the point of bringing gender into it. I have been responding with some of the reasons why it's important ton consider gender-motivated violence through a lens that considers that motivation. If you disagree that gender is EVER a motivation for violence, or if you would prefer to see gender as an incidental element to a violent incident that was motivated by something else, I am not really sure what to say. We will simply have to agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP but I disagree with your position that men always attack women solely because they attack women and they always attack men for some other external reason. Not true. There are many motivations why people (men and women) are violent. Assuming you know everyone's motivation and then forming a generalized perception of men and women based on this is very flawed. Men are also victims of domestic violence and are also targeted sometimes just because of their gender, so you could equally say that men fully understand the experience of women and it isn't unique to them.

I am a woman and I have never been harassed or propositioned or had anyone expose themselves to me. So no experience is shared by everyone just because of gender.

I did not mean to suggest that men always attack women because they're women or that male-on-male violence is always the result of external factors. I was simply saying that many times, being a woman is an invitation to violence that being a man in a similar situation is not. I'm really glad to hear that you haven't been harassed or propositioned though. You're the first woman I've ever heard that from. I don't mean to sound patronizing, but how are you defining "harassed" or "propositioned"? Maybe things that other women find uncomfortable are not uncomfortable for you. I know that I certainly have different thresholds for certain things than some women I know (the word "bitch" doesn't really bother me unless it's used in a particularly hostile way, for example).

I think it's fairly safe to say that it's possible to generalize that women ARE targeted because of their gender more often than men are targeted because of their gender. I do not have statistics on hand to back this up, but will go see if I can find something on the internet to support this assertion.

I agree with this, just not your earlier assertion that there is a set formula to violence and that men always do x or women always do y.

I apologize. I didn't mean to imply a set formula to violence or prescribe gender roles! I was responding to what that PP said about street harassment vs. getting punched in the face by a man. I completely agree that men are socialized to tolerate more violence than women. I think that's horrible and is one of the things that I would fear and try to counteract as a parent, if I had a son. As it is, I have a four year old daughter, and I spend a lot of time thinking about how to raise a girl in the culture that she lives in. The reality is that my daughter is more likely to be raped or abused by an intimate partner than her brother would be.

Posters might be interested in this article from 2012: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/50-actual-facts-about-dom_b_2193904.html

And the reality is that if you had a son, he is more likely to be murdered than his sister would be.

I mean, we should work on all of it. And if you feel your efforts are more appropriately spent addressing the types of violence that affect women more, more power to you -- all too many people either exacerbate the problems or do nothing about any of them. And you certainly shouldn't feel like you have to address all of them versus none at all.

But, in light of the topic of this thread, is it sexist to think that violence against women is a more pressing problem than violence against men? Is it sexist to think violence that affects men more is more pressing than violence against women? Is it sexist to react negatively when you perceive a person is valuing the safety of one gender more than the safety of the other?

Okay, here's where I draw the line. Violence against men exists. Men experience violence across the board at higher rates. The reason that "violence against women" is an issue/cause/whatever is the historical support for the position that women are fundamentally "less". Worth less in the workplace. Owned by their male relatives. Disenfranchised in many political systems for hundreds of years. These are historical realities, and the reason that many people (not all women) focus on the issue of women's empowerment (or feminism or whatever you want to call it) is that women have historically not been empowered.

Are we to ignore the historical underpinnings of all oppression in order to focus broadly on oppression in general? Are we to ignore the social and political apparatuses that have supported the denial of political and economic rights to a particularly group simply because another group also experiences a denial of something?

As for your bolded statement, I don't know. I personally don't value the safety of one gender over another - it's important to me that everyone is safe. I think that it would sexist to say that because violence against women exists, violence against men is unimportant. I think it would be sexist to say that because men experience more violence overall, violence against women is unimportant. I don't react negatively when a person chooses to prioritize solving one problem over another, provided that they are not denying that the second problem exists at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at a statistic: likelihood of being raped of you are a woman, versus likelihood of being raped if you are a man. I'd take higher odds of being punched in the face over being raped any day.
How about likelihood of being killed by domestic violence? Yep, we women get to win that one too.
I'm tired of hearing that it "goes both ways". Sure, it does. But NOT in equal volume.

The PP that gave the explanation about the distinction of being terrorized because of some immutable personal characteristic (e.g. gender) was persuasive.

This response is much less so. Men are more likely to be victims of violent crimes. So, if we're going to do the one-upmanship thing, I'll see your rape victimization and raise you murder victimizations.

That's true, but misleading. How many of those male murder victims are involved in high-risk situations? (I.e., gang violence, drug-related violence.) NOT to say they deserve it, they don't. But it's not the same thing as being attacked randomly in a situation where you have every right to expect you are "safe". If you look at those stats, it's a very different picture.

[Anonymous]

Men are more likely to be victims of violent crimes perpetrated by other men. Women are likely to be one victims of violence perpetrated by men. I think this point is being overlooked. It's not a simple matter of numbers. If you want to know why women worry about violence at the hands of men, it's because most of us have either experienced it firsthand and seen it happen to our friends and family.

[Anonymous]

One= autocorrect fail, should be "the."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Men are more likely to be victims of violent crimes perpetrated by other men. Women are likely to be one victims of violence perpetrated by men. I think this point is being overlooked. It's not a simple matter of numbers. If you want to know why women worry about violence at the hands of men, it's because most of us have either experienced it firsthand and seen it happen to our friends and family.

Except that given the fact that more men experience more violence than women - men are even more likely to have experienced it firsthand or seen it happen to friends or family. Women are also perpetrators of violence and not in small numbers, towards both men and women. Domestic violence (or intimate partner violence) perpetrated by women is not uncommon. Woman are more likely than men to abuse their children (physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect). Many women experienced violence in their homes perpetrated by women when they were children. Look at all the posts on here about abusive MILs and being estranged from mothers due to childhood abuse. They are posted everyday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at a statistic: likelihood of being raped of you are a woman, versus likelihood of being raped if you are a man. I'd take higher odds of being punched in the face over being raped any day.
How about likelihood of being killed by domestic violence? Yep, we women get to win that one too.
I'm tired of hearing that it "goes both ways". Sure, it does. But NOT in equal volume.

The PP that gave the explanation about the distinction of being terrorized because of some immutable personal characteristic (e.g. gender) was persuasive.

This response is much less so. Men are more likely to be victims of violent crimes. So, if we're going to do the one-upmanship thing, I'll see your rape victimization and raise you murder victimizations.

That's true, but misleading. How many of those male murder victims are involved in high-risk situations? (I.e., gang violence, drug-related violence.) NOT to say they deserve it, they don't. But it's not the same thing as being attacked randomly in a situation where you have every right to expect you are "safe". If you look at those stats, it's a very different picture.

Most attacks on women are not random at all. Many, many domestic violence incidences also involve drugs and alcohol and involvement in criminal activity. I would have to go back and find the statistic but the majority of violence against women cases also include the same factors. Sure the jump out from behind the bushes in a total random attack can happen (to both men and women) but it is not the way most violence happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men are more likely to be victims of violent crimes perpetrated by other men. Women are likely to be one victims of violence perpetrated by men. I think this point is being overlooked. It's not a simple matter of numbers. If you want to know why women worry about violence at the hands of men, it's because most of us have either experienced it firsthand and seen it happen to our friends and family.

Except that given the fact that more men experience more violence than women - men are even more likely to have experienced it firsthand or seen it happen to friends or family. Women are also perpetrators of violence and not in small numbers, towards both men and women. Domestic violence (or intimate partner violence) perpetrated by women is not uncommon. Woman are more likely than men to abuse their children (physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect). Many women experienced violence in their homes perpetrated by women when they were children. Look at all the posts on here about abusive MILs and being estranged from mothers due to childhood abuse. They are posted everyday.

Oh, dear. Again, more women are child abusers, because more women are caretakers of children. Please.
Fine, "domestic violence perpetrated by women is not uncommon", but it is a lot less common than domestic violence perpretrated by men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men are more likely to be victims of violent crimes perpetrated by other men. Women are likely to be one victims of violence perpetrated by men. I think this point is being overlooked. It's not a simple matter of numbers. If you want to know why women worry about violence at the hands of men, it's because most of us have either experienced it firsthand and seen it happen to our friends and family.

Except that given the fact that more men experience more violence than women - men are even more likely to have experienced it firsthand or seen it happen to friends or family. Women are also perpetrators of violence and not in small numbers, towards both men and women. Domestic violence (or intimate partner violence) perpetrated by women is not uncommon. Woman are more likely than men to abuse their children (physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect). Many women experienced violence in their homes perpetrated by women when they were children. Look at all the posts on here about abusive MILs and being estranged from mothers due to childhood abuse. They are posted everyday.

Are you asserting that women are the primary perpetrators? Statistics don't support that.