So an attention craving angry brother (E.K.) decided to do a “social experiment” recently where he posted two pictures on his FB to see what type of reaction it would bring. He was trying to make a “pint” (Sorry, that was a spelling error that he made and it was sort of hilarious.) but he illuminated something I don’t think he was quite expecting to.
Here are the two pictures with captions:
“WHAT! This is sexist and and belittles the anguish that men go through every day at the hands of women!”
“Whaaat, me worry?”
So – these are shitty pictures with a shitty joke attached. Both of them. However, lets play “One of these things is not like the other”.
The picture where men are the target of violence:
The word “all” is not included.
There is an exclamation point.
The woman is in a neutral location.
The woman is pointing.
The victim is not shown.
The caption is a sarcastic phrase meant to appear over-the-top.
The picture where a woman is the target of violence:
The word “all” is included.
There is not an exclamation point.
The man appears to be in a home and therefor the victim is likely assumed to be his spouse.
The man has his hand in a fist.
The victim is shown and the following is observed or likely assumed: she is in a submissive position, she is wearing clothes you would wear at home around someone with whom you are intimate, she is the only one shown to have injuries, she is not as physically imposing as her attacker, she is backed into a corner without a chance of escaping the situation.
The caption alludes to the poster (who is obviously male) getting away with something without having to fear the repercussions.
***
Now, think about what type of mental knot-work would be needed to see these two pictures as EQUIVALENT….not just both problematic, not just both as wrong….but EQUAL.
This is a useful illustration of the profoundly distorted view of reality that some categorical anti-feminists are burdened with.
So, thank you, angry brother! Thank you for being so blatant and raw and unthinking that you have let slip the depth of your delusional level of false equivalency. You also got attention and cred for being uber-anti-PC.
We both got something out of this – fantastic!
But this isn’t a joke – not even a really offensive one.
What frustrates me the most is that this doesn’t have to happen. We KNOW that male victims of rape and abuse do not have the types of social supports that they deserve as human beings. We KNOW that individual men are often assumed to be the dangerous ones and the aggressors, even in light of evidence to the contrary. We KNOW that men tend to be punished more by the legal system for the same crimes than women. We KNOW that violence against men is many times not taken as seriously as violence against women.
Those are shitty things. Feminists can agree those things are unfair and those issues are worthy of action. I can get behind measures, actions or groups that would attempt to address these issues.
Angry brothers and sisters,
Why do we have to do this? What would motivate anyone to contrive weird manipulations in order to manufacture evidence and insist so strongly that other people don’t give two shits?
For frick’s sake.
I care about you as a fellow human being. You don’t deserve to be hurt or abused. You deserve support and protection. I honor your perspective and your life experience as valid – your hurt, your frustration, your personal choices – everything. They are not a joke.
I’m not your enemy.
So please – Just stop already. Pointing out false equivalencies is not devaluing you or trying to one-up the victim-capital. Pointing out when things you say are f-ed up is not belittling or dismissing you as a fellow human. Caring about women and the issues women face is not the same as attacking you or not giving a shit about your life and your experiences or men in general.
If I get angry at you – it doesn’t mean I hate you.
That is NOT how that frickin’ works.
If someone identifies as “feminist” or is a woman who has hurt you or disagrees with you – it doesn’t mean that I hurt you or that I disagree with you.
That is NOT how that frickin’ works.
Unfortunately, judging from how this particular person conducted himself and how he presents himself, I highly doubt he would be willing to express giving two shits about me or anyone like me.
E.R.: “Unlike you, I take violence against women seriously.”
E.K.: “That is because you are a politically correct prick. I could give two shots less what you think.”
Oh well.
Bright side is – I’m starting to think that his alcohol-puns are intentional – much funnier than his “social experiment”.
SINMANTYX 
First let me say I agree the two pics are not equivalent. The differences in the captions are mostly irrelevant, but there is a very big difference in the pics themselves.
I’m glad that you see the very real human rights issues that face men. You agree that they are real and need addressed.
This is not universal. I’ve been told it is physically impossible for a woman to rape a man. Not just that it doesn’t happen much, but that it is physically impossible, therefore not worth talking about.
I don’t take Violence AGAINST WOMEN seriously.
I take VIOLENCE seriously. There is no need for the harmful and limiting clause of “Against women”. I take violence seriously. violence against men. violence against women, violence against children. violence against animals, violence against fish, violence against seals. I take violence seriously. “Violence against women” blinds you to 90% of the problem.
I think it might be a problem, on some level, to treat all those types of violence as equivalent.
Sometimes violence absolutely has a root in gender socialization; and if you think of the issue too broadly you can obscure that aspect of the situation. Sort of like the naive “race-blindness” that Stephen Colbert makes fun of when he says, “I can’t see race.”
I do believe it can be beneficial to not use gender inappropriately though. For example, if an act of violence in characterized by the disproportionate physical strength of one of the people involved in the violence; the default should not be that the man is strong and the woman is weak. That is not always the case.
Here is part of the conversation I am having (though I’ll probably disengage soon) with the person that originally put these up:
“We already know that violence against men and boys is not taken as seriously. A feminists would be inclined to frame that fact in terms of society’s view of boys and men as indestructible and girls and women as weak and ineffectual. In a climate where insults that point to the female gender “pussy” “like a girl” “like a bitch” are synonyms for weakness, lack of agency, or being over-powered; it’s difficult for many people to see *any* woman as aggressive and violent, and in control of the situation. A feminist might even use the words *gasp* “patriarchy” to describe this as the women-as-property and the conflation of women-and-children points to passivity and submission. So, to a person socialized into that type of society; the idea that a woman would dominate and abuse a man seems strange as it doesn’t fit the model that society is pushing for what is feminine and what is masculine; it flips the dominant-subordinate relationship that a patriarchal society would see as immutable – “natural” “the way things are” etc. It would be like suggesting that someone’s cow was abusing them or getting the better of them. An abusive wife/cow? That’s silly!”
I think there is absolutely, for some men, a social drive to dominate a relationship because of their idea of what it is to be masculine; and feel humiliated if “their woman” ever gets the upper hand or refuses to be compliant. He will think of her as his property.
For some women, they are violent because they do not even recognize what they are doing as abuse. They see themselves as non-agents who could not possibly be the aggressor; and will rationalize any violent act as “self-defense” even when the violence is instigated by them. They have internalized their supposed lack of agency. They don’t see themselves as the source of their own happiness or unhappiness – and lash out at others.
Our society rarely teaches girls not to hit or be a bully – only how to defend themselves. So when they witness their own violence – that is the frame, the rationalization they use.
Men often internalize the idea that a “victim” is the worst thing you can be. Men are supposed to be in charge, be unshakeable, etc. To be a victim, to them, is to not be a man.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to white-wash that all away – the dynamics are sometimes steeped in gender concepts so discussing violence in terms of gender is justified.
I agree that it’s a very bad idea to white-wash all of that away. You make very good points that are very real concerns. This is why I don’t take “Violence against women” seriously. It is doing the white-washing….but it’s purple paint, so not white-washing, just producing the same affects.
“Violence against women” is removing the agency of women and making “victim” a female only occurrence. We need to really look at the concerns you brought up. “Violence against Women” stops that conversation.
Being painted as a victim and being actually made a victim by an abuser are two very different things.
What I see too often is that when feminists or women’s advocates attempt to bring to light various gender-based sexist attitudes or problems that disproportionately effect women; they are accused to “playing” the victim.
There are better and worse ways to do that – and I’ve heard of some actions and rhetoric that had much to desired. Please don’t put me into the position of defending everyone and all.
However, the idea that someone is “removing the agency of women” when they discuss issues related to gender equality, in my experience, is used as a silencing tactic.
A high-profile example would be Anita Sarkeesian doing videos about female tropes in movies and video games. I’ve seen a few of her videos (and though I disagree about Sucker Punch), they are about as straight-forward as you can possibly get. As in, she really doesn’t say a heck of a lot that is controversial.
However, the go-to criticism is that she doesn’t talk about male tropes. Why not talk about tropes in general? How dare she?! …..and it goes WAY down hill from there.
There is nothing stopping anyone from doing a series about male gender tropes; and occasionally Ms. Sarkeesian does discuss them.
The experience of men and how sexism negatively affects men – and any sort of concerns surrounding violence or abuse toward men and boys – is valid. To invalidate that is just sending “the menz” their own “Dear Muslima” letter.
However, the type of attacks that feminists receive for focusing on women’s issues occasionally smacks of, “How dare you care about yourselves!!?”
That’s what I meant in my post when I said, “Caring about women and the issues women face is not the same as attacking you or not giving a shit about your life and your experiences or men in general.”
Because I (and many many other feminists) get that attitude a lot. How DARE we not focus on men – how dare we? It’s just the same old imposed selflessness that characterizes socially acceptable femininity.
What is so insidious about that whole dynamic, is that it accuses a woman of “making herself a victim” the moment she dares stand up for herself.
Pingback: And kick and grope and pull and…SPIN. (TW: Sexualized violence.) | SINMANTYX
Pingback: And kick and grope and pull and…SPIN. (TW: Sexualized violence.) | SINMANTYX