Bad Advice

When it comes to domestic violence, most of us don't know the signs, yet we love to blame women for not noticing them and not getting out of the relationship fast enough. Case in point, a man writes to Cary Tennis, an advice columnist, and his letter is peppered with red flags. On Feministe, where we first saw this advice, Jill breaks them down:

I mean, we have some Classic Signs of A Controlling Man here.

1. Isolates her from her friends and family.


2. Criticizes her.


3. THREATENS SUICIDE when she tries to leave him.


4. Lies, or at least can’t keep his story straight, when he’s appealing for sympathy (see “we ended up having a screaming incident in front of our apartment” followed up with “I never threatened her or even raised my voice”).

The advice columnist, who by the way is paid to be an expert on relationships, has this to say:

It’s sad. I wish you two could patch it up.

This is the advice women are given. We are told to compromise so we won't end up alone, and then people are surprised when the violence escalates and we don't realize something is wrong until we are in too deep. To this advice columnist, the victim is the villain.

How hard would it be to tell women not to compromise, but only to commit to other people who treat them as equals and with respect? How hard would it have been for this advice columnist to tell this perfect stranger that his behavior is alarming and that his girlfriend is right to stay away? Domestic violence will not end if we tell women to put up with it and it certainly won't end until we are able to point out to men when their behavior is controlling or threatening. We need to stop ignoring the warning signs and start treating domestic and dating violence for what it is: a problem that needs to be addressed and can't be explained away.

Rape Culture Refresher Course

If you've read our blog for any length of time, you are familiar with the term "rape culture". If you don't know the term, or need a refresher, the blog Racialicious has a great breakdown that starts as a conversation about "Don't' get raped" vs. "Don't rape" as prevention strategies, goes through "Not saying no does not equal yes" and ends with violence in movies, books, and music in a full illustration of the permeation of rape into our culture. It is well worth a read.

Men's TV is on the Defensive

Jezebel had a really interesting article yesterday discussing some of the backlash our culture is seeing to women's advancement. Specifically, this season on television, we're seeing a host of new shows trying to put men and women back into their gender essentialist places, where men build civilizations, kill things, and don't act gentlemanly and women are servants and/or sex objects.

In all of the aforementioned shows, men and/or masculinity is threatened by women and/or femininity. You can thank the mancession for that; the media has so hammered into men's brains that they're the real victims while women in the workforce aren't in such bad shape. Now we see television capitalizing on that. Be it consciously or otherwise, these male-targeted shows are creating blatant ties between the rise of women and the fall of the economy.

The problem with gender-essentialism is that it is limiting, and not just to women. Rigid conservative gender roles say that women don't belong in the workplace, but they also say that men don't belong in the home as caregivers to children. They may say that women must dress modestly or else they deserve to be assaulted, but they also say that men can't be trusted to see a woman in a mini-skirt and not rape her. They say that women are overly emotional and thus irrational and that men should bottle up all of their feelings and only deal with problems through violence. None of this sounds very healthy or fulfilling.

There isn't a finite pool of human rights. If I gain/claim more of my rights, that doesn't mean that there are fewer rights for you. Everyone deserves freedom to be who they are, to express their personality, to pursue their chosen career, to have involvement with their families, and to express their emotions constructively. We only forfeit those rights when we do something wrong (such as commit a crime), and even then some rights are inalienable. Everyone has the right to be safe from violence. There aren't male rights and female rights, there are human rights, and by opening all options to all people by dismantling rigid gender roles, we are expanding those rights for everyone.

We Don't Hate Men

Organizations like ours often get accused of hating men. We must admit, sometimes it gets tempting to get mad at all men. After all, we've spent 25 years helping women pick up and start over after the damage that men have inflicted on them financially, emotionally, and physically. But each of us have men in our lives whom we love - fathers, brothers, husbands, friends, children, etc. We also know that the vast majority of men don't use violence.

It's the MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) that really seem to hate men. For example, men who wear this label are the type of men who feel that women are to blame for their own sexual assaults if they wear sexy clothing that sends men mixed signals. When feminists are saying that men are rational human beings who are able to make the conscious decision not to rape (because most men don't rape), MRAs say that men are animals who are ruled by their libidos and thus just can't restrain themselves if the see a thigh or a little bit of cleavage. Who sounds like they hate men?

Hugo Schwyzer is an ally to women who wrote an article for the Good Men Project claiming that MRAs have their ideas of feminism all wrong and that feminism is actually good for men, too. An excerpt:

The cause of men’s very real unhappiness isn’t a biased family court system, or feminist college professors, or the perceived injustices of Title IX athletic funding. The source of men’s anguish and uncertainty is the straitjacket of traditional American manhood. Men are suffering because their emotional, psychological, intellectual, and sexual potential is stunted by their own efforts to live up to an impossible masculine ideal.

Whether they got it from their fathers or their older brothers, whether they learned it from peers or pastors, coaches or drill instructors, almost all American boys grow up learning the “guy rules.” As Deborah David and Robert Brannon first showed in their landmark 1976 book on men, The Forty-Nine Percent Majority, the rules are crushingly simple: Big boys don’t cry. No sissy stuff. Be a “sturdy oak.” “Be a big wheel.” “Give ’em hell.”

Being a man, in other words, is defined by divesting oneself of anything remotely associated with femininity (like kindness, sensitivity, intuition, empathy). When heterosexual masculinity is defined by violent obtuseness, these “guy rules” rob boys of their chance to develop emotional skills to thrive in relationships with others. This frantic effort to shut down a whole aspect of one’s potential isn’t caused by testosterone or Y chromosomes. It’s caused by the longing to live by the “man code.”

♦◊♦

Most MRAs agree that the “man code” exists and that it does great damage to young men. But they blame women for these cruel and limiting rules. According to many MRAs I’ve spoken to, it is women’s sexual desire for the alpha male that forces boys to compete ruthlessly with one another. “Women say they want one thing but choose another: they always go for a**holes,” so many guys say. If women would broaden their sexual appetites to include “betas” and “omegas,” their reasoning goes, boys would feel less compelled to compete ruthlessly with one another. (The men’s rights activists tend to be wildly off-base about what women actually want, but that’s another topic.)

It’s a typical but tragic mistake: MRAs wildly overestimate women’s power, sexual or otherwise. Men, they insist, are helpless by comparison. But that claim ignores a long and unmistakable history of male domination in human history. And if there’s one undeniable truism about our species, it’s that the rules are made by the dominant group. The “man laws” or “guy rules” were created by and for men. Historically, winning validation from other men has mattered more than getting sex or love from women. (If you don’t believe that, think for a moment about how hard boys will work to please a demanding football coach.) Males are raised to be “homosocial,” which means they’re taught to get their primary affirmation from other men rather than from women. Working too hard for female approval just makes you a “mama’s boy” or “p***y-whipped,” and the frantic efforts young men make to ensure neither of those labels apply to them tells you all you need to know about who it is they are really trying to impress.

Amanda Marcotte on the same site breaks it down even better and with more detail. She looks at four examples of causes that MRAs take very seriously and shows how the feminist solution to all of them is better for women and for men. Those issues include:

• Men are more often the primary or even sole breadwinners of nuclear-family households.


• Men have to do all the work asking women out, and women are often hostile to men’s overtures, which hurts men’s feelings.


• Men are more likely to get killed at work.


• Ladies Night, where bars often extend a drink special to women and not to men.

Still think we're the man haters?

Many Think Women Should Be Hit

That's what a new survey released in Britain found this week. One in seven people believe it is acceptable in some circumstances for a man to hit his wife or girlfriend if she is dressed in “sexy or revealing clothes in public”.

A similar number believed that it was all right for a man to slap his wife or girlfriend if she is “nagging or constantly moaning at him”.

The findings of the poll, conducted for the Home Office, also disclosed about a quarter of people believe that wearing sexy or revealing clothing should lead to a woman being held partly responsible for being raped or sexually assaulted.

Although a majority of 1,065 people over 18 questioned last month believe that it is never acceptable to hit or slap a woman, the poll found that those aged 25-39 were more likely to consider that there were circumstances in which it was acceptable to hit or slap a woman.

Men and women over 65 and those in the lower social class groups D and E are more likely to believe that woman should be held partly responsible for being raped or sexually assaulted, Ipsos Mori telephone poll found.

Though the study was conducted in the UK, if you've followed public and/or media reaction to Christ Brown's assault on Rhianna, you know these feelings are espoused in the US as well.

It seems that the domestic violence movement has entered into the backlash stage, going from general acknowledgement, at least in public, that violence against women is bad, to resistance to that notion.

According to Wikipedia, "backlash can also refer to 'blaming the victim', which occurs when people in the surrounding environment shift blame, from the criminals, to their victims; and/or, further, blame those victims for subsequent controversies and conflicts, sometimes long after the initial crime is reported or discovered. Backlash, under these circumstances, is often a result of speculation and jumping to conclusions; such as that the victim must have been at fault, in order for the crime to have been committed. The victim may also be accused of attention-seeking, covering for incompetence, or lying (among other things) when reporting a crime. Various 'old-school' attitudes pressurize victims into either 'keeping their mouths shut' about certain crimes, or suffering further consequences."

Sound like anything we've seen recently?