Andrea Parrot & Nina Cummings, Forsaken Females: The Gobal Brutalization of Women. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2006, (p. 19)
is he talking about that little cut?
i was going to go to bed but it’s time to smack down so im gonna inform you all of a thing or two about the comparison between male and female victims of domestic violence that might shock you.
Similarities and differences between male and female victims
In the South Australian study, the similarities between male and female victims of domestic violence included.
- the reasons they remained in a relationship where there was violence and abuse
- the triggers for violence and abuse;
- feelings of shame and embarrassment associated with the disclosure of violence.
The ways in which male victims’ experiences of domestic violence differed from females’ were:
- males reported that they were not living in an ongoing state of fear of the perpetrator;
- males did not have prior experiences of violent relationships, and
- males rarely experienced post-separation violence and, in the one reported case, it was far less severe than in male-to-female violence.
Female victims of domestic violence in the South Australian study confirmed the prevalence of physical, psychological, emotional, social and financial abuse (often in combination) as well as other intimidating or controlling forms of abuse, such as stalking, sleep deprivation or driving a car too fast (*The South Australian phone-in interviewed 120 callers, most of whom were female victims of violence. The female respondents reported all forms of abuse and often the various forms of abuse overlapped in one abusive event.) They also described patterns of extreme cruelty that often developed in long-term, violent relationships with ‘strategies’ of abuse becoming more diverse over time.
95% of those interviewed reported that hey had experienced abuse over a period of years. In many relationships, acts of cruelty were carried out on the women, the children in the family (as primary and secondary victims) and on family pets. Humiliation, cruelty, jealousy, isolation from friends and family and the infliction of emotiona, sexual or physical pain were common experiences. Victims frequently spoke of the abusers’ need to control all aspects of their life. both in and away from the house.
The link between the length of the relationship and the experience of cruelty was particularly notable, especially as the common theme in the women’s accounts was their daily experience of living in fear. The findings indicated that the vast majority of female victims were frightened of their partner, compared to none of the male victims.
Although there is some evidence that both men and women engage in abusive behaviour in heterosexual relationships, the nature and consequence of women’s violence is not equivalent to men’s in the following ways.
- Men’s violence is more severe:
- Women are more likely to be killed by current and former male partners than by anyone else;
- most male homicides are committed by males in public places as a result of alcohol-related arguments;
- the main reasons men kill their female partners are desertion, the ending of a relationship, and jealousy. However studies of wives who kill their husbands reveal that there is a history of marital violence in more than 70% of the cases and over half of the husband killings occur in response to an immediate threat or attack by the husband;
- some studies suggest that women’s violence is more likely to be self defence where the male partner is violent;
- men’s violence towards women is most often an attempt to control, coerce, humiliate or dominate by generating fear and intimidation. However, women’s violence is more often an expression of frustration in response to their dependence or stress, or their refusal to accept a less powerful position; and
- most women whose partners are violent live in fear before, during and after separation from them. However male victims are far less likely to be afraid or intimidated, and are more likely to be angry.
-Bagshaw, D, Chung, D Couch, M, Lilburn, s & Wadham, B, Reshaping responses to domestic violence, Office for the Status of Women, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra 1999.
okay? i love how men experience a small portion of violence at the hands of women, like a fucking cut on his arm and he thinks he’s a full blown domestic abuse survivor worthy of shitting on all the experiences of the women who die or are hospitalised at the hands of male violence every fucking week.
like okay, it’s shitty that your girlfriend cut you or scratched you or whatever she did, i’m not sure it’s not clear but come back to me when you’ve had to spend years as a child watching your step dad pin your mum down on your bed while you were quietly playing just so he can spit on her face because she was trying to stand up for herself against him.
nobody says women can’t abuse men, the argument is that the abuse on female victims is far more severe and should be the main focus point, when you make posts like this you are actually erasing the entire struggle that we go through every day because you need to make your little issue front and centre and of course everyone cares about the white male’s issues more than anyone else!!!!
not to mention male violence has historical and political context surrounding it. Men for thousands of years, globally have been using violence to subjugate, silence and seek dominance over women. Female-to-male domestic violence is deviant, but male-to-female domestic violence is the norm and is systematically protected.
Once again, this is why I can’t take bullshit about how “it’s also hard to be a man!” seriously. Masculinity, male self-esteem, and the male ego is built/based on doing and being better than women.
(via home-of-amazons) The Male Ego *needs* female failure, humiliation, low self-esteem, vulnerability and dependency in order to thrive in a heteropatriarchal society. The poor boyz are so weak they need us to feel like shit and be weak in order for them to feel like big, strong manly men. Fuckin’ pathetic. (via the-uncensored-she)
Examining victim-offender relationships in cases of rape helps the understanding of issues of power and control sought by the offender and victim responses in those relationships (see Profile 5.8). The Massachusetts Treatment Center (MTC) also identified four major categories of rapists:
- Displaced Aggression rapists (aka anger-retaliatory or displaced anger) are usually violent and aggressive in their assaults with little or no display of sexual feeling. Rape is a vehicle to injure, humiliate, and degrade females and a way to vent extreme anger. The victim is usually a complete stranger. She is brutalized by biting, slashing, and tearing. As the assault itself is not sexually gratifying for the offender, he often demands oral sex or masturbation in order to achieve an erection. Resistance to the assault incites even more violence. Often married, they attack women who display independence and assertiveness.
The offenders tend to have stable, blue-collar jobs such as truck drivers, carpenters, or construction workers. The attack is often precipitated by an incident involving women but the victim usually has no connection to the incident. Such offenders usually defend the attack as being a result of “uncontrollable impulses.”
Their childhoods are replete with neglect, unstable and chaotic homes, and single-parent families. Many were adopted or raised in foster homes.
- Compensatory rapists are sexually stimulated by their environment (aka power-reassurance, ego dystonic, or true rapist). These are passive, introverted, non-assertive men who have no desire to use violence against the victim but to demonstrate prowess and sexual adequacy. They tend to be lonely, submissive, and reserved men viewed by others as nice people. Once considered to be men of little education and career success, evidence now suggests that they can be very well educated and successful in a career (see Profile 5.7).
The rapists’ fantasy world becomes a retreat for them. They are men who frequent porn shops and live in a world of fantasy that involves sexual intimacy and feelings that they are desired by women. This rapist does not cope with rejection well and seeks out women he senses would never want to be with him.
His fantasies change everything. In his mind the sexual assault is more of a “date” than it is rape. He would enjoy seeing his victim again for an encore of intimacy. In truth, the offender is sexually naive and has little experience with normal sexual relations. He is a stalker and plans out his attack. If the victim can resist enough the offender will desist and flee, his fantasies unfulfilled.
- Sexually aggressive rapist (aka sadistic rapist) holds fundamental beliefs that what women really want is to be dominated, controlled, sexually assaulted, and raped. His sexual arousal stems from mixing violence and pain in the process of raping a woman. He revels in his sadism and may ultimately kill his victim in order to achieve the greatest possible sexual gratification. They are often married men with histories of many infidelities, divorces, and/or separations. Products of childhood neglect and abuse, these men have extensive histories of childhood conduct disorder, do not handle stress and frustration well, and have committed many misdemeanors and crimes as adolescents.
- Impulsive rapist (aka exploitative rapist) rapes spontaneously when an opportunity presents itself such as when an offender is committing another crime where he has access to victims: bank robberies, burglaries. The offender has a long history of nonsexual crimes and rape is a secondary crime. Thus violence is limited in the absence of sexual arousal.
While the MTC original four typologies of rapists are utilized for differentiating rapists, some refinements have been necessary to accommodate emerging typologies (Knight, 1998).
Eric W. Hickey. “Serial Murderers & Their Victims” - Fifth Edition. Alliant International University; Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. 2010. (pg. 137 - 140)
If only men ran feminism, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in. We wouldn’t have to worry about offending them or arguing among ourselves. We would simply take instruction from consultants on gender struggle. Only the prettiest would be allowed to fight the gender jihad. And we would have to do it topless.
You can’t make this stuff up. And I am not. It turns out that that Femen, the Ukrainian feminist group known for semi-naked media stunts, slogan “Our mission is protest, our weapons are bare breasts” was actually founded by a man, Victor Svyatski. It gets weirder. This man hand picked attractive women knowing they would make the front pages – and they did. […] “These girls are weak. They don’t have the strength of character … Instead they show submissiveness, spinelessness, lack of punctuality, and many other factors which prevent them from becoming political activists.” Yes, women are so useless we can’t even get our tops off in the right way. Who knows how we ever got the vote?
This whole ridiculous tale is symptomatic of the huge muddle around men’s relationship to feminism. […] Increasingly […] to talk about gender-specific issues invokes cries of “misandry” from the What About The Men brigade. According to some, anyone who mentions breast cancer therefore doesn’t care about prostate cancer, anyone who mentions “domestic violence” doesn’t care that men are victims of violence too. Female genital mutilation? What about circumcision? […]
This week, for example, activists who amazingly kept their clothes on were asking whether there is a connection between trolling, online stalking and actual violence against women. Women’s Aid workers are reporting that there is. Immediately the What About The Men brigade suggests that somehow this means we don’t care when men are killed.
The battering ram of misandry is another attempt to silence debate. It is misguided. It operates from the assumption that we are all on a level playing field. I say tomato. You say to-mate-oh. I say misogyny. You say misandry. What is missing here is any analysis of patriarchy. Or, indeed, global reality.
[…] patriarchy […] produces a multi-faceted system in which men at the top are the most advantaged. […] patriarchy is a system that […] according to Jung, keeps men unable to fully mature. […]
Misandry will be equivalent to misogyny only when women are equal to men. There are no blurred lines here.
Suzanne Moore on Femen, patriarchy, misogyny and “misandry” in The Guardian (via politics-r-us)
The Horrific Practice of Chinese Foot BindingWomen have done many things for beauty throughout history – from indifferently using arsenic or lead-based cosmetics, suffering broken ribs from over-binding corsets for a smaller waist, to yet more extreme forms of body modification. One of the most agonizingly painful of such practices is the Chinese custom of foot binding. This required the feet of young women, most typically young girls, to be broken and bound until they were able to fit inside a tiny shoe. The ideal was a three-inch-long foot. The process itself took around two years, but the feet would stay bound for life.The tradition was believed to have begun around 970 AD when the consort of Emperor Li Yu of the Tang Dynasty performed a dance on a ‘golden lotus’ pedestal, wrapping her feet in silken cloths. The ruler was so entranced by the beauty of the movement that other women in the court imitated the look.For over a thousand years, tiny bound feet were considered highly erotic, and the resulting ‘lotus gait’ – caused by women needing to walk on their heels in a unsteady, ‘mincing’ manner was not only arousing for men but thought to make the sexual anatomy “more voluptuous and sensitive”. During the Qing Dynasty, love manuals apparently detailed 48 different ways of fondling a woman’s bound feet. However even while in bed, women wore special slippers to conceal them.Chinese women upheld foot binding believing it promoted health and fertility, in spite of the crippling pain they suffered. The practice also took the perceived disadvantage of being born a woman and turned it into a social advantage in terms of the marital opportunities it afforded. Women with unbound feet were highly unlikely to enter into a prestigious marriage, forcing those of the upper classes to ‘marry down’ while those of lower social status risked being sold into slavery. Women with bound feet were the ‘lily footed’ ladies of Chinese society. Fortunately, the Chinese government outlawed foot binding in 1911. A thousand years of women with bound feet.
For goodness’ sake, can we talk about how this is not just a matter of “beauty” (“women have done many things for beauty throughout history” — silly women!) but about literally and physically restricting women? About how beauty norms and constructions of femininity under patriarchy are designed to make women less powerful? It’s not an accident. When it’s impossible for women to walk or run without pain or injury (e.g., footbinding, high heels, etc.), women are less in control of their own bodies and physical movement and are thus more vulnerable. Attaching erotic and social value to those looks—even calling them “healthy”!—is a very effective way to get women to “willingly” participate. And can we talk about how another factor at the heart of “beauty” norms is that women’s bodies in their natural state are flawed, unattractive, and need fixing (whether by footbinding, corsets, cosmetic surgery, makeup, dieting, waxing, etc.)? Presenting footbinding as taking “the perceived [sic – it wasn’t/isn’t just a perception, because girls and women were and are actually worse off!] disadvantage of being born a woman” and “turn[ing] it into a social advantage in terms of marital opportunities” completely misses the point: that footbinding was an example of how women’s social inequality (as well as class differences between women) were physically cemented in their bodies.
“the resulting ‘lotus gait’ – caused by women needing to walk on their heels in a unsteady, ‘mincing’ manner was not only arousing for men but thought to make the sexual anatomy “more voluptuous and sensitive”.” - men think women in pain and women who can’t move are sexy. that’s nothing new. it’s why we have HIGH HEELS.
the point of beauty practices for women is that they take time, are painful and makes women unable to move freely. that’s WHY THEY EXIST.
THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF FEMININITY, no matter the culture or the country.
- Andrea Dworkin
Catharine A. Mackinnon, Elizabeth A. Long Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, (edited by Christine Stark & Rebecca Whisnant), “Not For Sale: Feminists Resisting Prostitution & Pornography.” 2004. (p. 139)
Exactly! Stop trying to make the women’s liberation narrative and praxis “guy-friendly”, “nice”, “ladylike”, “sexy”, “slutastic”, “girly-girl”, “cool”, etc.
David Lisak (via spoopyassguardian)
Here’s a link to The Journal of New England Board of Higher Education's research paper that Lisak is referring too in the above quote, (which is on page 21).