Interesting article, Andee.
Here's what I read from this:
- It's up to women to tell men what's wrong with them
- 50% of men are rapists (and at least half of that do it for 'entertainment';
- 'According to the evidence...associated with broad-ranging harms to men themselves as well as with abusive and violent thoughts, attitudes and behaviours toward women.' - could you also argue that traditional notions of male entitlement and toughness are associated with a strong desire to protect his family? Could you argue that a women would want a strong man to protect her, especially when the environment is unsafe?
- 'Today, we are still as likely fight in other people's wars over access to other people's resources' - We are also being invited to fight other peoples wars because the violent instigators of these wars are hellbent on enforcing a truly misogynistic, evil ideology. Indeed, you need toughness on every level (which is found in both men AND women) to overcome this evil ideology that wants to destroy Western civilisation and impose an ideology.
- '...is our desire to retain the capacity to send hordes of gullible youth to fight other people's wars worth putting up with the side effects, namely the deep well of male fear that finds its target in women, children, queers, and ethnic minorities' - again, I'd argue that in this current war in the Middle East, we are fighting for the rights of women, children, queers and ethnic minorities. Can ISIS (or IS or ISIL) claim to be fighting for the rights of these groups? I suggest the evidence says otherwise. Are there side effects of war? Yes - horrible ones. Does more need to be done to protect and assist veterans (both men and women) from physical and mental damage following conflict? Of course! Are we going to avoid conflict because of the side effects - let someone else be raped, murdered or ethnically cleansed because of possible side effects? I certainly hope not.
Thank you for your thought provoking article, Andee.

Hi Pete,
You have just shown that you have not understood the article. Try again. Think about what upsets you so much and have a long slow look at why. Try thinking about this issue from the perspective of others: a child, a woman, a different type of man to you. Look at the messages the culture sends us and think about what it does to people. If you need a man to help you work out what is going on and how you are being manipulated watch Russell Brand deconstruct the news. Read the master of PR Edward Bernays and his 1928 pamphlet "Propaganda". Goebbels found it of great use. Manipulation the anger and entitlement of people is how we are ruled.

You start with a bold statement, which you then retract. Why make the statement in the first place?

Please Lillian,
Tell me how I should read this article (and think). You've said I misunderstood the article, I'm being manipulated and I need re-education (in different words).
I'm assuming you want me to think that at least 50% of men are rapists, predisposed and culturalised to violence (against all and sundry) and the author has a responsibility to tell the world of the ills of men.
What do you suggest my response be? Indeed I agree that violence (committed by anyone) is terrible and every individual has a responsibility to address it and the underlying motives behind it.
I enjoyed the article - it was thought provoking, annoying and interesting. I disagree with you however on your assertion that I've missed the point - please educate me on how I've done this (and I genuinely want to know).
Warmest regards,
Pete

LOL

Does Spurr really think emails are a secure and confidential form of communication?

Would you want someone as dumb as this joker educating your children?

In the private sector most employers have strict codes of conduct regarding email usage. Making racist comments in any shape, manner or form using your employer's email system is a sackable offence. I've seen it happen.

>>The fact is that traditional Western norms of masculinity both encourage and coerce boys and men into adopting tough, Father-Knows-Best attitudes, and that such attitudes are associated with restrictive sexual and emotional behaviour, obsession with dominating, competing and controlling, and health-care problems.>>

This is true in most cultures, not merely western.

How do you think ISIS gets its recruits?

I think I am going to be sick.

What a big load of codswallop. Rehashing Freudian ideology.

Is the male of the species REALLY in that much trouble?

Just maybe genetics, has a bigger role to play than the issues of alleged abuse and the so called society.

It would seem that a few of the mental health professionals have an amazing level of interest in sexual abuse, as if this is the seat of all our societies problems, however like all things definitions get redefined over a period of time, and it kind of reminds of how the witch hunters use to go out and find witches.

SUBMISSION WITHOUT INFORMED CONSENT IS STILL RAPE!
[Do you feel like it?
No?
Okay, do you mind laying down while I have one?]
And I dare say this happens in many more relationships, than we care to believe!
Therefore the claim of fifty percent, just doesn't seem that unreasonable!?
Yeah sure, we men know we're in charge, but not as some kind of boss whose word is law; just a very consultative team leader, and then only when a critical and timely decision must be made by someone.
Simply put, most men, the sensible ones,(MAN UP) wind up doing what they're told?
I used to drink beer, eat baked beans and or, B-B-Q'd steak and pass plentiful wind.
Try doing it into a didg, it's a gasser.
Can't do that anymore, given the gas seems to often have (oops) lumps in it.
What do you do when there's an oops in your life?
Today, it'S go home, take a shower and change the undies.
[Real men don't eat quiche and real women don't pump gas! And complete nonsense, quiche is great grub.]
That said, many men are now completely confused as to what their proper role is?
And more and more of them are shying away from long term commitment, and fatherhood!
I don't know what the answer is; but for either sex, it's not being a doormat for the other half, nor losing your cool over compete trivialities; nor shirking a fair share of a common workload!
Or having shouldered an unfair share of it, being too continually tired to have CONSENSUAL sex; the glue/love bond, that binds most heterosexual relationships!
Better you menfolk shoulder a more than fair share.
Cook a meal, (candle lit dinner) run her a bath, replete with bath oil, potpourri and a glass or two of her favorite wine; play her favorite mood music; and then have to put up with an energetic and "interested" lady, coming on to you, hands all over you and demanding her, (thank you sweetheart) conjugal rights!
WOW! Now that's what I call a relationship.
Rhrosty.

Hi Pete, Andee here. Thanks for your feedback. Just a couple of things:

First, you seem to have misread the sentence or two about the data from the Asia-Pacific study. What I'm actually saying is that, of the 10,000 men interviewed across the region, on average, one in every four admitted to having raped a woman or girl. Half of the men who admitted to raping, that is, the perpetrators (NOT half of the respondents) said they raped for fun, entertainment, or out of boredom. Three-quarters of the perpetrators said they raped because as men they were entitled to take what was rightfully theirs, including women's bodies. (The men entered the most sensitive data anonymously.)

I trust that every non-violent man would be appalled by these findings. My point is that all those good men need to stand up to the violent minority. The violent men do not listen to women; they only listen to men they respect.

Perhaps the quote in my next post (I am exceeding the word limit here) will communicate my take-home message. The piece, 'All Good Men' was written in response to the early ADF-top-brass claims that male violence is 'just human nature.' Of course all humans are capable of violence, which is why the rule of law is essentially saying, 'Yep, understand you were pissed off. Nup, you shouldn't have punched him out.'

Hope that makes things a bit clearer. Thanks again for your comments.
Andee

Just following up my previous post, here's the extract from 'All Good Men' by A. Jones (in 'Joining the Dots: Essays and Opinion 2011-2014')

'Self-assured men reject the spin that ‘real men’ must always be one-up in their relationships with women and that womanly attributes are weak and inferior. They’ve learned from their mothers, sisters, partners or daughters that women are people too. In spite of these men’s cultural conditioning, they’ve learned that women, like men, have their own thoughts, experiences and feelings and want to be in charge of their own lives and projects.

It is these reconstructed men, particularly in the military, who must go further and start telling their unreconstructed mates that their abusive behaviour is unacceptable. It takes guts for a man to stand up to another man who is putting women down. He knows he could be labelled ‘homo’ or ‘pussy-whipped’ or thumped for his trouble. Yet the men who do find the courage will have an enormous impact on the problem. To paraphrase anti-violence educator Jackson Katz (2006), the rates of abuse will plummet when men start telling other men to stop their sexist behaviour, that is, when the chauvinists start losing status among their peers.

Blaming human nature for a seriously sick culture is a cop out. There’s work to be done. And just as it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a community to change a culture. It’s time for all good men to lend a hand.'

Hi Pete
You are missing the point of the article and what it actually says. You are interpreting it in a way that shows you have not understood it. There is no point in me trying to explain it to you. Why? Because you want to believe that your misreading is correct. How do I know? Because you are up in arms over what it doesn't say.

How about reading this article on how domestic violence was massively reduced in Uganda. http://truth-out.org/news/item/27008-violence-against-women-can-be-stopped-if-everyone-is-invested-in-preventing-abuse

"Underpinning high rates of violence in many parts of the world are beliefs that it is an acceptable, even necessary part of life. “I have come face to face with many men who thought that controlling their partners and disciplining them whenever necessary was normal,” says Tina Musuya who heads the centre’s team. “I heard many community members say that violence was expected, it’s a private matter and a sign of love and that I shouldn’t meddle in people’s private lives.”

Designed by Raising Voices, a Ugandan NGO, the SASA! intervention mobilises whole communities to challenge these norms that make women vulnerable to both violence and HIV, and to address the imbalance of power between men and women that legitimises men’s control of women, limits women’s power to refuse sex or insist on condom use, and leads communities to turn a blind eye to violence."

Anger and anyone abusing power harms both the victim and the abuser power. Have a look at these books:

Somebodies and nobodies by Robert Fuller
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/somebodies-and-nobodies/200908/somebodies-and-nobodies-understanding-rankism

Or watch Jackson Katz:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_a_men_s_issue?language=en

Have a look at Joe Bageant on how people have been manipulated into supporting positions that undermine them. They are encouraged to believe in the stereotypes they are given rather than work out what is really going on and where the power is:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/10/05/3027543.htm

Hope you find one of these links interesting.

What a pile of utter garbage.

Ten thousand men across the Asia-Pacific region, Andee says, but carefully avoids telling us if that was the PNG highlands, or backward parts of India. Without such qualification the whole thing is just so much meaningless rubbish.

Of course I suppose it depends on the company you keep, whether you find this stuff believable. Not having been part of a university academic community, as Andee obviously has, I wouldn't know if he found these figures reflected his experience there.

Why is it that these people have to produce such obviously biased rubbish. Surely it would be better to do something useful.

Andee your article is garbage, sorry to be blunt but those of us who inhabit the plane we call "reality" know better.
The views and actions of men in Suva or Rabaul, Wadeye or South Auckland are irrelevant to life in mainstream Australia, there's no similarity between men of different races, the European might as well be a different species to the Melanesian or Polynesian since we have very little in common save gender.
There's no epidemic of violence in Australia, women are assaulted at the rate of 500 per 100,000 and men at a rate of 800 per 100,000 which is vastly lower than many other countries in the region, if you excluded intra-Aboriginal violence the problem virtually disappears in the mainstream.

Hi Andee,
Thank you for your response. I've been blessed to have VERY STRONG men in my life (physically, mentally, spiritually) who absolutely abhor violence against women. Your study of 10000 men - I'd love to have a read of that. If that article is representative of men (and I truly hope it is not), we have a much bigger problem on our hands.
I think we both agree that being 'manly' and 'masculine' does not mean being violent or sexually aggressive. I agree that many men need to think about their role and responsibility in resolving this terrible issue.
Thank you again for your post, it's certainly very interesting.

Hi Lillian,
Thank you for those links - I read them (and watched) with interest.
It seems perhaps we are arguing the same thing. We both agree that violence is bad. We both agree that some men have a predisposition (or have been culturalised) towards violence.
Do men have a long way to go? Certainly. Do women have a long way to go? Indeed.

"You are missing the point of the article and what it actually says. You are interpreting it in a way that shows you have not understood it. There is no point in me trying to explain it to you. Why? Because you want to believe that your misreading is correct. How do I know? Because you are up in arms over what it doesn't say."

The article is saying that men have a problem with violence and it is men that are part of the solution. I agree with that.
Do I believe the statistics in the article are incorrect? I have reservations, yes.

The article of 'rankism' I think really is just another word for low self esteem, or bullying.

Thank you for those article, I enjoyed reading them.

P

Daphne Patai in her book "Heterophobia" demonstrates the use of what is known as "inflammatory analogies".

<The fact is that traditional Western norms of masculinity both encourage and coerce boys and
<men into adopting tough, Father-Knows-Best attitudes, and that such attitudes are associated
< with restrictive sexual and emotional behaviour,

The author points to so called Western Norms, yet makes comparisons with various polynesian cultures.

"Once we were Warriors" is one movie that I have never been able to watch, it is just far too violent for me. Sure theatre does have 'dramatic licence'.

The generalised term "Western culture" is made up of two genders, so how come only one gender (male) gets loaded with all the guilt tripping about how males grow up.

I think this "Father knows best" is just a bit of romantic historical fiction, an urban myth.

Terrible article. Wrong on every point.

'The male of the species is in deep trouble and he doesn't seem to have the foggiest notion why.'

Yes we do. It's because of people like you. Girlie men in academia who want to curry favour with second rate feminist misandrists.

'What is not in doubt is that a minority of men perpetrates the vast majority of violence against others-both male and female.'

Well, why claim the entire male species is in 'dire trouble'?

'U. S.studies, for example, show that 80 percent of boys reported having experienced sexual abuse (mostly out of the home).'

Absolute tosh. Most sexual abuse occurs from a relative or a close friend. Most physical abuse and child deaths occur at the hands of mothers. Why demonize all men?

'Literally hundreds of studies over the past few decades show that men have been and still are vastly over-represented among problem populations such as perpetrators of abuse and violence, victims of suicide and fatal automobile accidents, sex addicts and sex offenders, substance abusers, parents estranged from their children, and more.'

So why does the vast majority of health and social serves funding go to women's issues? Maybe there are men who could do with some help too? Or would that be misogyny?

'Men who have been enculturated into this ideology of male entitlement'

Would that be the entitlement to work longer hours, further from home, take less sick leave, retire later in life and die earlier? Gee. I would love to have some of this wimmens suffering.

'The fact is that traditional Western norms of masculinity both encourage and coerce boys and men into adopting tough, Father-Knows-Best attitudes..'

I think you are stuck in the 1950s here. Are you reminscing about your own father maybe? You need to get with the program. Men have changed.

' ..and that such attitudes are associated with restrictive sexual and emotional behaviour, obsession with dominating, competing and controlling, and health-care problems.'

I know it's a difficult concept for academics to understand but just because men don't indulge in public outpouring of emotion doesn't mean they don't have them. Btw, just because women have them doesn't always make them right.

'According to the evidence, traditional notions of male entitlement and toughness are associated with broad-ranging harms to men themselves as well as with abusive and violent thoughts, attitudes and behaviours toward women.'

Men's problems are only important insofar as they affect women. At least we can see your real agenda now.

'Today, we are still as likely to be invited to fight in other people's wars over access to other people's resources.'

After being comprehensively wrong on every single point, after revealing absolutely no understanding of men except through the warped prism of academic feminism, you then venture into foreign wars for resources! Gee. Does it get any worse than this?

Here's a hint. You will get a better understanding of men if you treat them as humans with hopes, wishes and desires of their own, not just in relation to how well they can provide women with 'choices'. I would recommend seeing a councillor about your self esteem. You need to first come to terms with your own masculinity and to actually like yourself before you can advise other men.

Btw. Are you gay? (not that there's anything wrong with that; just that you are writing about hetrosexual men so it is relevant)

Hi again Pete, here's the link you requested plus an Australian link:

United Nations Emma Fulu, et al. “Why Do Some Men Use Violence Against Women And How Can We Prevent It? Quantitative Findings from the United Nations Multi-Country Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific.” Bangkok: UNDP, UNFPA, UN Women and UNV, 2013. http://unwomen-asiapacific.org/docs/WhyDoSomeMenUseViolenceAgainstWomen_P4P_Report.pdf

In Australia, on average, one in three women report having experienced physical or sexual violence. On average, at least one woman is killed every week by a current or former partner. See ‘Submission into the prevalence and impact of domestic violence’ (Aug 2014) at:
http://www.whiteribbon.org.au/

One can see the impact of this violence in Australia just by scanning the daily news columns.

Along with Rob Cover’s recent ‘Shirtfronting: the dangerous diplomacy of hypermasculine Australian politics’on OLO, this is a very important article, because it is helping to break down the great taboo that surrounds the subject of masculinity and violence.

However, I don't think men are 'in trouble' because of masculine violence. It's the human race that is in trouble, because violent masculinity is not an issue that men really want to deal with.

This is because enculturated violence in men is inextricably linked to masculine privilege. Until men can comfortably discuss this all-important link between masculine violence and masculine privilege, the topic will continue to be hijacked by all the usual ‘good men versus bad men’ distractions.

Men are extremely adept at deflecting any discussion of how they are complicit in their own enculturation and how they benefit, as a gender, from violent masculinity.

Masculine violence (committed only by the ‘bad guys’, of course) grants all men a lot more privilege, choices, independence, freedom, attention, money, status and power than women can ever hope to enjoy (at least under current social norms).

Violent masculinity severely restricts and limits women’s lives – the great gender irony being that violent masculinity makes women dependent on men for their protection, as well as inhibiting them from learning positive fighting and physical survival skills of their own.

Indeed, violent masculinity restricts all our lives - locking us into a continuous search for enemies to fight, both from within and without.

Where does it hurt most Killarney?

You are obviously sick.

Emma Fulu,

Emma Fulu has a PhD from the University of Melbourne and currently works for the Medical Research Council in South Africa which is leading a consortium to deliver a new global programme for DFID, What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls. Previously Emma was working for Partners for Prevention, a UNDP, UNFPA, UN Women and UNV Regional Joint Programme, coordinating a large-scale study on gender, masculinities and violence across seven countries in the Asia-Pacific region, she has also been an research advisor in Melanesia and Micronesia, and coordinated the first-ever national survey on violence against women in the Maldives. Her first book Domestic Violence in Asia: Globalization, Gender and Islam in the Maldives was published in 2013.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emma-fulu/

There's a picture of our friend Emma on the engangingmen.net, a gender justice information network. link here:

http://www.engagingmen.net/profile/emmafulu

You berate white Australan men using a non-white female gender warrior (with a pacific islander background) who does her research on non-white men in other countries.

That's the best you got?

dane

‘You berate white Australan men using a non-white female gender warrior (with a pacific islander background) who does her research on non-white men in other countries./ That's the best you got?’

Haven’t you heard of stuff like ‘global perspectives’ and ‘we’re a global community’?

When it comes to monetary policy, globalisation has been shoved down our throats for three decades. But when it comes to viewing humanity’s problems from a global perspective, people like yourself suddenly want to retreat into parochial tribalism.

Don’t worry, dude. No one would ever even think of suggesting that white men living in rich, developed countries would get into all this nasty masculine violence stuff.

No, not at all! You’re the good guys.

Hasbeen

‘You are obviously sick.’

Thank you for your concern, hazza. I’ll take a couple of Panadol, make some chicken soup and put my feet up for a while.

Andee surmises but this is short on evidence. When a sentence starts with "the fact is.." it usually turns out to be unsupported, or one possible explanation, hardly a "fact".
Yet while I think the analysis and diagnosis here are crude, I agree that the male of the species is in trouble.
It could be argued that rule of law seems peculiarly adapted to the female of the species, men being so prone to lawlessness. Women should press home their advantage and take recourse in the law more often, not for petty offences but serious ones. It seems too often the minor infringements that are prosecuted, while enormities perpetrated by men are allowed to pass.
Too many women seem "adapted" to male violence and rampant sexuality, and are prepared to put up with it, rationalise it or look the other way.
How else can we explain mens' virtual immunity from discovery, let alone prosecution, given the pandemic phenomena of violence and sexual misconduct of every imaginable kind? Women are complicit. This is not necessarily to blame women; the law has historically been complicit and women generally at a disadvantage, as well as being subject to intimidation. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to a dangerous man, especially when the law makes excuses for him, as it has in the past.
Thankfully this is changing and violence is being less and less tolerated.
I blame education, or the lack of it; men have to be educated in how to behave and why. Just as important, they must be deprived of opportunity. I would make the claim that virtually every male is capable of serious sexual misconduct at some period of his life, given the opportunity.
I've never given a male the opportunity to abuse my kids. They're boys and girls and I've always kept a weather eye for signs of misconduct. I've also discussed the topic with them in depth; not just sexual misconduct, but machismo generally.
Men have to change! It's no good blaming testosterone and primitive urges. We're supposed to be civilised and they're just excuses.

Killa,

If we're all the same, why don't you move to Mosul or anywhere in the ME for that matter? Let us know if you still think we are all the same when you get back.

Btw. I find it interesting that the biographical information about the author on OLO, on Amazon, and on Lexington books is exactly the same and very, very brief.

I also noticed the author didn't answer my question about whether or not he is gay. There is nothing wrong with being gay but I just can't help thinking that we have Emma, a non-white female who researches foreign societies, and a gay man of who knows what extraction berating hetrosexual Australian men.

Of course, they are free to do that but we should be free to judge the veracity of their advocacy accordingly.

Hi Squeers, thanks for your comments. Yes, it's a sad fact that one can't squeeze in all the research references in an opinion piece. You might be interested to squizz one or two from the list (I will have to make two posts).

There are decades of research (in Australia, US, UK, Europe and elsewhere) that have measured what the vast majority of women already see in the suffering of their fathers, brothers, spouses, sons, the men they work with, and so forth.

Here are just a few snippets: ‘Patriarchal identity formation can decisively deform the psyche and manifest in compulsive, rigidified ways of relating to others.’ ‘Violation of gender norms has more severe consequences for males than for females.’ ‘Dominant male gender role ideology is learned from patriarchal structures, including families and schools, and is experienced unconsciously as fear of femininity.’ ‘Stereotypical gender patterns arise directly and indirectly out of trauma.’ ‘A review of more than 230 empirical studies to 2007 showed that such patterns significantly correlate with a vast range of intrapersonal and interpersonal problems, among them depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, shame, substance abuse, suicidality, dysfunctional relationship patterns (including notions of male entitlement), hostile sexism, and self-reported sexual violence. The take-home message is that this suffering is inflicted via enculturation.

In other words, as you correctly point out, it can be changed. We don’t have to keep repeating the patterns. When enough men stand up to the violent minority, we will see change. Violent men do not listen to women. They listen to men they respect.

Many thanks for your comments.
Refs to follow

Examining "masculinity" through the eyes of feminism is like examining Jews through the eyes of Nazis, or examining capitalists through the eyes of Bolsheviks. Anyway, articles like this that denigrate the entire male specie based on the actions of a few have a lot in common with racist arguments. The racists take a few actions by blacks/Asians/whites, then extrapolate those actions to the whole race.

A few questions for the feminists:

Considering women (mothers) have control of boys for the first decade or more of their lives, why aren't women made accountable for producing supposed horrible men?

Why should tax payers' money fund the political propaganda and moral zealotry of a few radicals in our Universities?

Why are all-encompassing negative statements made about men considered intellectual, but all-encompassing negative statements on women considered sexist?

Can feminists ever point to a time where their perfect society existed? I am guessing, no.

Feminists, like all "progressives", live in the ideal, not the actual. They always set up some perfect ideal form of morality (of which no does, or can, act by) and then judge everyone (except for women) by it. How easy! In fact, how devious!

If they think they can "reconstruct" maleness, perhaps they can give a detailed plan and how this will be done? - No slogans or one-lined moralising - can they give an actual plan to be implemented?

Killarney
"Haven’t you heard of stuff like ‘global perspectives’ and ‘we’re a global community’?
When it comes to monetary policy, globalisation has been shoved down our throats for three decades. But when it comes to viewing humanity’s problems from a global perspective, people like yourself suddenly want to retreat into parochial tribalism."

We call that context denial.
http://therightstuff.biz/2014/10/17/exploring-liberal-context-denial/
Let's explore the context of violence in the third world shall we?
Let's discuss the fact that the majority of Africans and Pacific Islander adults have the intellectual capacity and ability to reason of a six year old European year old, ie their median IQ is about 70.
I mean these are the brilliant minds who came up with the idea that having sex with toddlers can cure aids:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/1362134/South-African-men-rape-babies-as-cure-for-Aids.html
Louis Theroux makes some good documentaries:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xycnjl_law-and-disorder-in-johannesburg_lifestyle
So does Sorious Samura:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yWlRTKMNCM
A longer Sierra Leone documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcOplqsgTqQ

Aristocrat,
Men aren't broken and we don't need to be fixed, neither are women, what's broken is academia and academics, not society.
The other day I actually heard that awful Lumby woman talking about how old White male academics are afraid to compete intellectually with women and "POC'S". It is to laugh, these silly old fuddy duddies like Barry Spurr are clearly starved of intellectual stimulation in modern arts departments, that's why they're frittering away their time writing saucy emails instead of working....

Real footage of the skilled debaters of the winning 2014 U.S Cross Examination Debate Association's National Championship team.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W77qa48MWDg

Hell yeah!

Come on boys....Let's blame the feminists, the mothers, the academics, the blacks, the gays, the refugees, the progressives, the loony left....everyone else but the violent men in this country who cause the death of at least one woman a week through domestic violence, and multiple deaths of other men each week.

No one can deny these statistics from our crime sites, so why can't we just own the reality that men perpetrate the most violence and deaths of others in Australia, and all work together towards dealing with this problem?

One thing is for sure, it will never be acknowledged by most on this manly masculine site!

LOL, another evening and another rejection, eh Suseonline? They could use the regularity of your drive-byes to set the Town Hall clock.

Here's hoping you didn't lay those Doc Martens into the cat as well.

A cold shower dear and a walk in the park. When you are in your moods even the shadows might avoid you.

Must be off, I've got to sort some morning teas and a lunch bbq, a few of us have a job to do this morning. Actually Suseonline your scorching tongue could come in handy as a paint stripper on some play equipment we are restoring. - Only joking, you have a chilled lemon juice and don't let those awful 'mens' haunt you now.

Hi Andee,
please don't concern yourself about references, clearly you've done your research.
It's a massive problem, yet your few snippets paint an even darker picture than I imagined.
My family and I suffered shocking psychological and sometimes physical (but never sexual) abuse from a violent father who himself suffered horrors in childrens' institutions. When one has been schooled in violence it is very hard to eradicate in one's turn. Even when the behaviour is successfully suppressed, the mechanism remains active and anger can unreasonably boil up when provoked.
It's a sad reality that we're subject to this kind of tenacious "enculturation", but then as you say, we can just as easily replicate decent behaviour when that is role-modelled.
It bothers me a little that you seem to be drawing a "structuralist" picture of the psyche which I remain skeptical of (including post-structural variants). I take the view that our "consciousness of" behavioural mechanisms, implicit in self-reflexive examinations conducted even by offenders, indicates executive awareness above enculturation.
This is bad news in that compulsive behaviour may thus have other determinants and/or withstand formative and generational intervention, but it's the best hope of addressing male psychopathology.
The final point, however, is that given my view of our "meta-social construction", if you like, individuals are just as likely capable of self-correction over lifetimes, rather than generations. Though a) this cuts both ways and implies the essentiality of the "sadistic savant". And on the other hand b) this cuts close to foucault's perhaps paranoid concept of the internal police state.
Education's the key, but may not stop the Hannibal Lecters of the world!

All this jargon will no doubt get up the noses of the alpha males here : )

Andee:

You say that it is up to men to put the pressure on violent men to change their ways. Why are these men violent in the first place? Why wait until they are fully developed adults to try and change their behaviour? Perhaps it is up to psychologists, who study human behaviour, to tell us why men become ‘monsters’. Perhaps the millions of dollars we spend on academic institutions which study human behaviour is a complete waste. It does not take a rocket scientist to suggest that men should encourage other men to stop being violent.

If anyone has failed us in this problem it is the psychologists who pussy-foot around the problem because they are afraid of the answers they may find and the effects it may have on them personally. They may find if they delve too deeply that they too have a propensity to violence which has its roots in their upbringing. Boys are not violent when they leave the womb – they become violent because of factors related to their early development. If men are predisposed to violence then why are all men not violent?

Killarney:
What exactly is ‘violent masculinity’? I know what violence is and I know what a violent man is but ‘violent masculinity’? It seems you often hide behind this kind of language which attempts to bamboozle people and perhaps even to patronise them with your superior understanding.

Suzeonline:
“One thing is for sure, it will never be acknowledged by most on this manly masculine site!”
If most men on this site are beyond hope then why bother entering the discussion and if there are a few who are worth the bother then why not focusing on bothering instead of on bitching?

Squeers:
“All this jargon will no doubt get up the noses of the alpha males here : )”
Why do you need to patronise the alpha males(whatever one of those might be)? Or are you trying to impress us with your learning. You sound insecure about it.

There have been a number of articles like this one about "Men in Trouble" fixated on the favourite subjects such as violence and sexual abuse etc.(50 shaded of grey) as if some how "magically curing" these problems/issues by trying to change 'cultural beliefs' will solve the worlds problems.

Well it won't. because culture alone is not the issue.

Disorders such as Austism, Aspbergers, more males that females have these disorders. I understand that the percentage of psychopaths, that there are more male psychopaths than female.

<In 2012, 1,901 males (16.8 per 100,000) and 634 females (5.6 per 100,000) died by suicide,
< a total of 2,535 deaths (11.2 per 100,000), -
See more at: http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/reporting-suicide/facts-and-stats#sthash.lMBRFhJ8.dpuf

Males are far more likely than females to be killed in a work place accident.

Males are much more likely to be killed in a motor vehicle accident.

Substance abuse affects males more than females.
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/addiction.htm

Substance abuse is extremely strongly associated with violence.
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/substance-use-disorder/link-between-substance-abuse-violence-and-suicide

Males make up a larger number of the prison population and in particular in Australia the prisons have become the defacto mental health institutions, added to that, around 60% of the male prison population shows signs of having had an acquired brain injury.

<Decades of research has demonstrated that both genetic and environmental factors play a
<role in a variety of behaviors in humans and animals (e.g. Grigorenko & Sternberg, 2003).

"Are men necessary?" asked Maureen Dowd, a question nobody would dare ask if 'women were necessary?'

The masculinity Crisis.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10572

Differences in communication between the genders
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14673

The Masculinity Conspiracy
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10383

Just on this website alone there are numerous "opinion" articles about male physical violence against women it really gets extremely depressing.

Why is it that whenever anyone asks about domestic violence and all other forms of violence in our society, suddenly we can't mention that it is men who are involved in the vast majority of this violence?

We can't even begin to have a reasonable discussion about this subject without carrying on about any other subject than the one at hand!

Yes women can be violent, yes men are more likely to die as a result of violence or work accidents or road accidents or suicide or any number of other reasons.

So why aren't we all up in arms about this violence against men by other men?
Because men don't want to address this part of the problem.
Until they do, nothing will change.

phanto,
sorry if that seemed patronising, but alphas are generally the bigger more aggressive primates=less given to philosophising. More to the point, I'm so used to being attacked for being left-wing and university educated by these same "alpha males" (for whom the terms are synonymous), that I can't help anticipating there predictable patterns of behaviour.
I don't think I'm insecure about my learning, such as it is. I try to use words for precision and only wish to be considered.

Suseonline,

it is a shame we can't be objective and just treat this problem on merit, like any other, but here as elsewhere it's interesting the way we generally line up along partisan lines, in this case gendered.
This article was written by a woman and opinion seems to follow suit (though moi is male).
It is surely fair to say that Women seem to want to place themselves above criticism, being quick to shout misogynist! Yet "mere men" are often cheap fodder in women's magazines and elsewhere?
I wonder if women are capable of critiquing their own role in the manifestation of male violence? I've said above that women are complicit; but women don't seem to want to go there?
Male violence is always condemned out of hand, and justifiably so, but this doesn't mean women are not influential?
And what about machismo? A lot of women enjoy and encourage male bravado and heroics? There's no doubt a biological as well as sociological component to this. Some women enjoy being fought over, the violence of the footy field, military uniforms and wrapping themselves in the flag, being supine in bed etc. etc.
As is always the case, there is much more to this issue than lazy and gendered opinion seem to suggest..

Hi Squeers, just a couple of points re your posts (I’ll need to do it in two posts).
First, re ‘you seem to be drawing a "structuralist" picture of the psyche’, I’d be inclined to say no; nevertheless I’m interested in what prompted you to think so.

Second, re ‘As is always the case, there is much more to this issue,’ I couldn’t agree more. The problem is that no single article can do justice to such complexity. In my case, I write books about the problem and, where possible, try to take one idea and say something relatively useful in 1200 words. Perhaps it doesn’t work, but I think it’s worth trying.

I tend toward interactionalist and biocultural-dialectical views (supported by archaeological and historical research (refs on request)), that it is the construction of patriarchy (with the rise of the city state), with its hierarchies based on class, race and gender, that led to the sheer scale of the violence common since the founding of the Abrahamic religions (as to Eastern cultures, I don’t know enough to comment). Following is an extract from my mainstream book: ‘Barking Mad’:

Lest the very sight of the word ‘patriarchy’ bring you out in hives, let me clarify. The term does not mean that all men have clout or that no women do. Most men don’t write the books and don’t have a say. Nor is patriarchal behaviour confined to men. Think Maggie Thatcher. It’s just that the Cheneys and Rumsfelds outnumber the Thatchers much as Afghan warlords to Trojan Horses.

Author Adrienne Rich describes patriarchy as the power of the Fathers. It works—by direct force or pressure, influence, law, tradition, customs, etiquette, education and the division of labour—to determine what part women shall or shall not play. Patriarchy, says Rich, is a ‘concrete, identifiable sexual hierarchy parallel and interconnected with those of race and class’.
TBC

Speaking of which, do I want to replace patriarchy with matriarchy? Do I want eight thousand years of a different system of inequality, this time with periods? What I’m on about is how social systems perpetuate dysfunction to which most of us remain oblivious. If it were up to me I’d opt for forms of democracy that foster the best of human traits rather than rewarding the worst. We teach children to consider the feelings of others and behave compassionately; why not governments?

But I digress. According to God’s Word (as interpreted by the self-appointed Fathers), Woman must be morally supervised, made to do as she’s told, kept under control at all times and treated with suspicion, while Man gets on with recreating Paradise. Patriarchal Authority is about controlling others, particularly women. By nature, it says, women cannot be trusted to control themselves.

Patriarchal Authority tells its sons that if they’re not constantly winning they must be losers.
It tells the rest of us we don’t count.
It blames its own victims for their misfortune, which it says follows naturally from their moral weakness.
It wounds particularly deeply the sons with the greatest capacity for empathy, sensitivity and creativity, and it crucifies those who turn uppity—for the ‘greater good’.
It damages, destroys or enslaves anything that threatens to interfere with the unlimited expansion of its domination and wealth.
It never owns up to its mistakes and never says sorry.
Patriarchy creates social divisions and says everyone deserves what they get. The lower level thinks it’s not smart enough to get an education; for solace, it rubbishes the upper tier for being afraid to get its hands dirty.
Patriarchy is no less than institutionalised hazing—from boot camp to boardroom, public house to public service.

TBC

violence in the Indigeneous, gay and I suspect Muslim communtity is at much higher rates than that of the rest of society. In America it is much higher among African Americans. Seems to me that this article simply fits Andee's warped little narrative. Blame never goes where it should. It will however win approval among 'regressives'.

Suse, we don't talk about men being the main perpetrators of family violence because it's the wrong way to look at the issue, women are just as violent as men and they initiate violent confrontations far more often than men do.
There's no scientific data to back the theory that family violence is a gendered issue, all the data suggests that mutual combat is the norm, the only difference is in the rates of injury and fatality, though that too is debatable when suicide and other forms of premature death in men are taken into account.
Being in a violent relationship is a road to an early grave for both men and women.
We know also that nearly all the violent crime in society is committed by a hard core 5-6% of men who are repeat offenders and that from medical examinations of prisoners the majority of these men have acquired brain injury of one form or another.
These facts have been posted so many times on this site that you'd assume that the patriarchy conspiracy theories would be laughed off like all the other nutball posts, not so it seems.

<describes patriarchy as the power of the Fathers. It works—by direct force or pressure,
<influence, law, tradition, customs, etiquette, education and the division of labour—to
<determine what part women shall or shall not play.

Posted by imho,

One of the problems we face today, is that we are judging the past by todays standards, this leads to a values conflict.

If we look at tribal law/rituals some of these were necessary for the survival of the tribe. For example our aboriginal people, would pack up and leave a campsite when someone died. Certain areas were known to have bad spirits (causing death and sickness).

Even in our own christian culture when the Jews were on their epic trip, there were a number of laws/rituals designed to keep them healthy, such as using separate plates for meat and veggies. (Helps prevent cross contamination)

Everyone from children to adults had defined roles, and expectations, to learn the skills necessary for survival. Sure there were restrictive gender roles, Whilst us so called modern people from our lofty high moral grounds pass judgement on the past behaviours, it wasn't until relatively recently when writing and literacy became common.

And even more recently have we had the time and luxury to be self indulgant in navel gazing and reflection. So there is thousands of years, where there is blank slate on how people felt, their reasons for doing what they were doing.

Different tribal groups, depending on the dangers of the area in which they lived would have had different laws/rituals and men as well were subject to a hierarchal structure.

So depending on which way you want to spin bias, by using anthological data. The past can be presented from a negative perspective or perhaps more realistically from a combination of both a positive and negative perspective.

Anthological data on our fore bearers , I believe is extrapolated from looking at the tribal behaviour of the current hunter gathers. There is danger in this, as not only there the researcher bias, but also the gender bias of our modern society, that will colour interpretations.

Jay of Melbourne  "...women are just as violent as men and they initiate violent confrontations far more often than men do."

Really?
Where are the official stats that tell us that, or is that the truth according to Jay?

"There's no scientific data to back the theory that family violence is a gendered issue..."

Really?

I tend to follow the official police stats that tell us that at least one woman a week is killed by an intimate partner in Australia.
I haven't seen many reports on men being killed by their intimate partners, have you?

In fact, almost all the news I read and watch each day involve men on men violence.
I doubt all of those altercations are 'caused' by women.....more likely drugs or alcohol.

I would have thought that death was the ultimate act of violence.
It is certainly very final, in that the bad women will never annoy those men again....

Womyn and right-thinking males, everyone gather round Jay of Melbourne and chant SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

Lest he uncover the vicious untruths told by the author. Using PNG Highlands male rapists as same-group proxies for Australian anglo males is the foulest statistical dishonesty I have struck in a long time - and I am right now in the Highlands.

If this is feminism, it's time dishonesty and manipulation are universally acknowledged as its essential values. If it wasn't for double standards, they would have no standards.

JoM,

"There's no scientific data to back the theory that family violence is a gendered issue..."

There was plenty of scientific data in our house when I was a kid.

Dad used to lose all his money "every" Saturday at the TAB, then get drunk and come home and give us merry hell - often he would slap mum around for good measure.

(But I'm sure it was all our fault:)

Yes men in trouble, especially in their relationship with women has been, and still is the principal theme of all of the worlds great literature.
Shakespeare gave the best examination of the dealy consequences of perennial unresolved conflicts in the male psyche, as it was projected both on to the world stage in general, and on to the bodies of both (other) men and.
The same dramas described by Shakespeare are still being dramatized on to the word stage. Modern stagings of his plays are mostly staged in contemporary settings. This includes films/movies. Richard III some years back, and Coriolanus last year.
Meanwhile the book The Natural Superiority of Women by Ashley Montagu gives persuasive arguments which essentially support the argument of Andee's essay

Andee,
I was guessing a structuralist/post-structuralist orientation based on the quotes earlier, about "patriarchal identity formation" etc. Whereas my position is that, conscious or not, we suspend disbelief apropos the social constructs. A great many people probably believe credulously in their "reality", but it remains role-play for me. Plus, in my limited acquaintance with feminism I've found social constructionism the usual rational.
The overwhelming view of patriarchy you posit strikes me as just such a "grand narrative" as the postmodern present was supposed to have put to bed.
Don't you find patriarchy rather vague and unsophisticated as the orientation within which we're all forged? Indeed, as you describe it, it seems to make feminism null and void, being that both sexes are mercilessly gendered.
But I don't really buy it. I grew up in as hardcore a working class, patriarchal/militaristic/intolerant family as I can imagine and I spontaneously rebelled from a very early age.
I'm not a Marxist but if we're going to have grand narratives it seems to me that late capitalism offers more tangible rationales for the world's ills, as well as those of individuals. We're surely all utterly commodified and patriarchy too serves capitalism as the greater power.
To what extent, I wonder, is patriarchy the villain because you're a feminist? If I'm correct in gathering that you are. On the other hand, capitalism is admittedly the invention of male ingenuity.

As someone said before, asking a Feminist to be impartial and honest in discussing men is like asking a Jew to be impartial and honest when discussing the Waffen SS.
How feminists corrupt DV research
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/how-feminists-corrupt-dv-research/
Men and women use violence against each other in equal numbers but, and here's that word again "context", the context is usually different because men and women think differently.
Women are more likely to lash out in anger or to use sustained but low level violence discipline a partner, men are more likely to use violence instrumentally to get their own way or to control and isolate a woman.
Feminists use arrest records and casualty reports as primary sources because they show a preponderance of male offenders, non Feminists or Anti Feminists will also include information such as CTS and other surveys of heterosexual relationships in their presentations.
For the record on this issue I'm an Anti Feminist, someone who is the opposite of a Feminist (and the opposite of a Men's Rights Activist) so I don't care either way since I don't accept the idea of equality in the first place. It'd be no skin off my nose if DV really was a gendered issue it's just that when you look at all the data gender symmetry in DV is apparent.

Read Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale

"'...general production of life, or subsistence production - mainly performed through the non-wage labour of women and other non-wage labourers as slaves, contract workers and peasants in the colonies - constitutes the perennial basis upon which 'capitalist productive labour' can be built up and exploited.'

Who does the work? Who gets the benefits? Who is socialised to accept their (crappy) lot as just the way things are?

Also try reading Caliban and the Witch by Silvia Federico about the rise of capitalism. It began when feudalism was waning. There were enormous peasant revolts all over Europe. Often led by heretics (many of whom were women). The aim was often for more equality like existed in the brotherhood of the early Christians. Instead they were ruthlessly repressed with some battlefields having 100,000 dead.

The promise of capitalism to the newly 'enclosed' men was you can now 'enclose' women. Thus the church etc made abortion and contraception a crime. Previously women had more freedom to chose to leave relationships, find paid work and decide on the size of their families. Common land was also enclosed and all was accomplished with lashings of violence. Hence 300 years of burning people: 90% women and mostly poor but also some men and powerful women. So nice to get hold of their assets.

It amazes me that the centuries long violence used to destroy a social and economic order is brushed over. The book ends with a very interesting comment that when the resources of a community are taken over then the most vulnerable are burnt as witches. Note the resource grabs going on by mining and landgrabbing western countries and ponder the witch burnings in PNG and Africa.

Look also at the lunar right. What do they oppose? Women being treated as independent people with the right to respect and the ability to control their bodies and lives. Witchfinder Generals are all over the 'Christian" right wing. Patterns depressingly repeat until we name and change them

The 'woman as witch' stereotype, lillian. The parallel is the feminist stereotyping of men and boys as violent and worse, demonic, right?

Squeers, lillian, I definitely identify with lillian’s analysis. Structural inequality has been naturalised over millennia into invisibility; it is literally hidden in plain view. If I had to put a label on my own conceptual position, it would be a critical-intersectional-feminist biocultural-dialectics. Social constructionism and structuralism are too narrowly focused; Foucault's analysis is brilliant, but his history of sexuality is a history of the male, and women figure only as objects.

In addition, a theorisation of patriarchy as a specific, historical, socially and temporally constructed phenomenon cannot properly described as universalising. Systems of law, whether monarchy, oligarchy, patriarchy, and so forth, are produced by specific historical circumstances. And while ‘patriarchy’ (literally, the rule of the fathers) names a category, the membership of that category is irreducibly complex, ranging in style from bearded Taliban to Fortune 500. In India, for example, specifically brahminical, tribal, and dalit patriarchies, as well as regional and religious variations.

When the complex criteria typical of scholarly enquiry is applied to the notion of patriarchy, patriarchy is shown to be socially constructed and reconstructed in numerous specific forms, locations, and circumstances. There are multiple patriarchies with similarities to and differences from each other just as there are multiple resistances, agencies, and dialectical relationships among all of these.

PS Squeers, it doesn’t seem to me that an author’s theoretical stance can properly be assessed on the strength of quotations from sources they refer to. I’ve also referred to Freud, but I’m far from a Freudian

imho,
on your PS, certainly let's take it as read that I haven't presumed to make any such glib assessment. As a matter of fact I went looking for your books, but I'm afraid the prices put me off. Shall try the library.
I have three daughters and three sons but so far no feminists, much to my disappointment. You didn't answer my question btw, "To what extent, I wonder, is patriarchy the villain because you're a feminist?"
I'd like to read more about patriarchy, but dismantling it seems as improbable as dismantling capitalism. Both seem to call for grass roots rebellion but there's precious little sign of that.

Social constructionism, incidentally, is not limited to Freud but arguably includes Vico, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty,Heidegger, Gadamer, Marxism, Wittgenstein, Judith Butler and many many others.

I shall read up on your critical position, which I think I can surmise except for the dialectic aspect.

Thank you (and Lillian) for elaborating these points.

Thanks, Squeers,
Re biocultural dialectics: http://bioculturalevolution.net/; Leatherman, Building a New Biocultural...

Re intersectional feminism (which basically holds that racism, classism, genderism, etc. are intersecting systems of oppression): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10572435/Intersectional-feminism.-What-the-hell-is-it-And-why-you-should-care.html; http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/perspectives_magazine/women_perspectives_Spring2004CrenshawPSP.authcheckdam.pdf

Re capitalism, which, under the above theorisations, can be seen as simply a patriarchal-style economic modus operandi, along with what we have already seen in modern communism, fascism, etc. The evidence suggests that patriarchy (as a temporally and culturally constructed system of law) began around 3500 BCE and was completed by 600 BCE (see Lerner (1986) 'The Creation of Patriarchy', etc). In other words the establishment of patriarchy went unrecorded (writing had not been invented), and the early canon, e.g. Hesiod, Aeschylus, the biblical authors, etc. depicted it as natural. It was naturalised into invisibility more than two millennia ago, which is why most people simply don't see it. Fish do not ask, where is the sea?

So, to return to your question, "To what extent, I wonder, is patriarchy the villain because you're a feminist?" patriarchy, like all other 'archies,' is simply a brute fact of history. Just as knowing about the development of monarchy, has only a distal connection to one's political stance (one is monarchist, republican, etc. regardless), ditto re patriarchy. And as one who hopes for the best but prepares for the worst, I have to agree with you that the chances of dismantling patriarchy are indeed slim, and that even if capitalism was dismantled, patriarchy might remain untouched. I guess Orwell's 1984 is the most likely scenario re patriarchy.

Yes, I agree about GV hardback price; there are second-hand copies about and, yes, it's also in libraries.

In mentioning Freud, my intention was nothing more than to provide an example of how one can't read an author's position from their reporting of certain theorists or certain research findings, etc. In effect, Freud was a biological determinist, an anti-feminist, and very demeaning of women, particularly compared with the views of his more enlightened psychoanalytic colleagues, such as Adler, Rank, Jung, Ferenczi, etc.
Thanks again for your thoughts.

Hi onthebeach
I am continually impressed that saying anything on this subject automatically means people like you assume all sorts of stuff that wasn't said. If you read "Caliban and the Witch" you will see the creation of capitalism rigidly restructured society including gender and sexuality. Previously non-heterosexual relationships and the type of family children were conceived and grew up in was more fluid. During the forced introduction of capitalism contraception was outlawed, you could be prosecuted for having a miscarriage (a witch killing babies) and all couples should merely have sex for procreation. This has had huge ramifications for men, boys, women and girls.

Have you never wondered why the systemic killing of people over 300 years in Europe has been ignored? Imagine a 300 year killing spree where men were the focus. Where boys were encouraged to inform on their fathers and then watch them burn at the stake. Then imagine that women, that run society, just dismissing any discussion of this as stereotyping and harassment of women and girls. Is your imagination strong enough to do this? It is reported that in one area of Germany after the witch burners went through there were 3 women left alive. The "Caliban" of the title is the Shakespearian character who represents the wild and natural man. Therefore the whole book is about how this period of history not only ruined life for women but also repressed men.

Another really interesting book is Kathleen Barry's Unmaking War, Remaking Men. There are also veterans (who Kathleen reports on ) are challenging the myths that encourage them to war and discard them when they come home needing healing.

The issue is not men vs women, it is oppression versus us all. Where does it come from, why do we support it, how do we transform into a respectful and fair society. Men sitting on the sidelines refusing to enter the discussion apart from to say there is nothing to discuss as feminists have ruined everything is rather feeble and self-destructive.

Silvia Federici is a Marxist so we can dismiss Caliban And The Witch out of hand.
No sensible person would disagree with Kathleen Barry's views on war but again we run into the the issue which stands out in Andee's article, some groups of men are pre-disposed toward violence and the key visual indicator is the amount of melanin in their skin.
Even if we recognise that in western societies the vast majority of violent acts are committed by men we still have to accept that in sub Saharan Africa and the Pacific men commit violence at ten to twenty times the rate of westerners.
If you want to focus an anti war movement on White European males, the least violent men on the planet and get them to stop fighting in order to pull the rug out from under "patriarchy" then Barry's plan could work. However it's not going to be useful in, say Lae or Freetown because the men there are not capable of the level of introspection or rational thought required to commit to such a course of action.
Look this whole argument, Barry's included is so deeply flawed because it pretends to be colourblind then apportions blame for all the trouble in the world on less than 5% of the men in the world,the White European males.
You can't end war by asking the most peaceable and amiable men in the world to stay home with, as the leader of ISIL put it "the wifey and the doggy and the benefits" and good luck trying to deliver Feminist critique of masculinity to the men of Monrovia or Lagos or Detroit.

Jay of Melbourne
I agree that Western White men are better than most other men
in their empathy and understanding of women's rights and issues.

Nobody here has mentioned however the biological hardwiring
of the male brain.

What is programmed by nature and evolution.

Yes, we have intelligence to override our basic instincts and
we can be socialised to have empathy, which is why the Western
males on average have more awareness and empathy toward women.

However just about every few months there
is still a rape reported in the papers somewhere. Not to mention
the billion dollar brothel industry. And the constant sexual
assaults and rape cases in the armed services.

So obviously men do fight a battle in controlling their sexual
biological imperatives. And some men just can't exert that control,despite societies laws and expectations.

We can see in times of war as recently as Isis that women are a
territorial resource to men. When their are no restricting
laws or societal pressures in play, the men revert to what the
male in every species on the planet does. Kills all the males(men
and boys sired by different bloodline males) and mates with every woman they can find. This greatly enhances their chance of
genetic immortality.

How many times in history have their been cases of men racing over
and kidnapping a group of women. Because a society of men is no
society at all.

*Note the resource grabs going on by mining and landgrabbing western countries and ponder the witch burnings in PNG and Africa.*

Sounds like a bit of a stretch to me, Lillian. Superstition is rampant in those parts of the third world and it is not just about burning witches. I suggest perhaps you read " No Mercy" by Redmond O'Hanlon, about his travels through the Congo. It infiltrates every part of their society, including the Bantu wondering if Pygmies really are people and so cannot be eaten or kept as slaves. Nothing to do with the West, everything to do with no education.

Karl Marx Quote-

Anyone who knows anything of history
Knows that the progress and enlightenment
of any society or civilization
Is directly linked to the position and advancement
of women in that society. Even the ugly ones.

the words may not be exact, but they are close enough
Don't have time to look up the actual quote

CHERFUL, "So obviously men do fight a battle in controlling their sexual biological imperatives"

Bollocks!

Which men might they be and how many?

Are you negatively stereotyping all men to fit (and be responsible for) the actions of the aberrant few?

How many women commit infanticide? But wait, they always have an excuse don't they and the enduring positive stereotype of women could not blame women for the actions of some.

I spent some hours this weekend as usual volunteering with a group of men and from their unselfish service and having also been into their homes I cannot believe they are the fiends, actual or potential, of your foul generalistion.

Once men were highly regarded and valued but not now, apparently. Hasn't feminism come a long way?(sic)

He had some other pretty wrong headed ideas too, didn't he.

Cherful:

“Yes, we have intelligence to override our basic instincts and
we can be socialised to have empathy”

Our basic instincts are not overridden by intelligence they are held in proper tension by our natural urge to treat people with respect. If we hurt someone we feel guilty. It is a feeling just as powerful as any sexual urge. It is a fundamental part of our human nature. Every man who rapes a woman feels deep guilt whether they acknowledge it or not. They most often suppress that guilt but many rapists do acknowledge that what they have done is very wrong.

It is extremely simplistic to suggest that men are just animals totally incapable of feeling guilt when they have done wrong. They are not ‘socialised to have empathy’ they are born with the same fundamental feelings that every human being is born with. You don’t need to be socialised to feel fear or anger or guilt – they are the most basic and powerful parts of our nature that aid us in caring for ourselves and our fellow human beings.

“Not to mention the billion dollar brothel industry.”

Are you suggesting that the brothel industry is a bad thing? Isn’t simply a business deal? There would be no brothel industry if women, for whatever reason, did not comply.

Lillian/imho et al

Another seminal work on the historical development of the patriarchy is Riane Eisler's 'The Chalice and the Blade'. I can't recommend it highly enough.

What overrides her exhaustive analysis is the observation (one that I share) that, given the gender chaos, injustice and misery that the patriarchy has caused humanity over the last few millennia, it's an extraordinary testament to the human spirit that women and men have been able maintain their bonds of affection at all.

imho 'I have to agree ... that the chances of dismantling patriarchy are indeed slim'

I believe that too. However, this does not affect my feminism. I see feminism more as a tool for analysing the distribution of power across the genders. If such an analysis changes society by making women more equal to men, all the better. But full equality is unlikely to ever happen.

Feminism and feminist theory is something that I use every day of my life to help me negotiate the patriarchal system I live under. Feminism's greatest benefit for a woman is not so much the hope of one day achieving equal value to men, but the realisation that it's the system that's crazy, not her. And that it's the system that drives much of men's violence and other negative behaviours, not something innate to men.

Killarney:
"I see feminism more as a tool for analysing the distribution of power across the genders. If such an analysis changes society by making women more equal to men, all the better. But full equality is unlikely to ever happen. Feminism and feminist theory is something that I use every day of my life to help me negotiate the patriarchal system I live under. Feminism's greatest benefit for a woman is not so much the hope of one day achieving equal value to men, but the realisation that it's the system that's crazy, not her. And that it's the system that drives much of men's violence and other negative behaviours, not something innate to men."

Well said; couldn't agree more. Besides, what choice do we have than to keep showing solidarity even while we are being treated by the noisy minority as the enemy? I only hope that the non-violent men, the majority, finds the courage to stand with us rather than stay silent.

imho

Agreed. But non-violent men also have to wake up to their complicity in maintaining a global system of violence – in their attraction to violent entertainment and sports, their glorification of war, their willingness to favour competition over cooperation, their consumption of pornography, their acceptance of misogynistic values, and their general resistance to relinquishing power to women.

Admittedly, women who grow up under a patriarchy support many of these dysfunctional values and behaviours as well. Both genders are on a learning curve.

<And that it's the system that drives much of men's violence and other negative behaviours,
< not something innate to men.
Posted by Killarney, Sunday, 26 October 2014 9:56:42 PM

So which gender gets to decide what the negative behaviours of men are?

Which gender gets to decide what is acceptable or not acceptable behaviour on the part of men?

Substance abuse affects males more than females.
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/addiction.htm

Substance abuse is extremely strongly associated with violence.
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/substance-use-disorder/link-between-substance-abuse-violence-and-suicide

Males make up a larger number of the prison population and in particular in Australia the prisons have become the defacto mental health institutions, added to that, around 60% of the male prison population shows signs of having had an acquired brain injury.

If we excluded from the violence figures, men who are violent when under the influence and men who are suffering a mental illness at the time. The figures would be reduced dramatically.

If we also excluded the males who have an acquired brain injury this figure would be further reduced.

We will be left with the socio and psychopaths. and there is no cure for them.

What a lot to discuss! Firstly to Jay of Melbourne. You cannot dismiss 300 years of witch burnings and the massive economic, political and social restructuring of society by saying an author is a marxist and so to be ignored.

Also making racist statements about the violence of men is correlated to the amount of melatonin in their skin is contemptable. What makes people violent is the culture they are in. For example the Nazis were all white men and managed a lot of death, as did the communists. The slaughter of the Native American population from 19million before the 'white man' arrived to 280,000 is an impressive genocide.

Culture changes over time and the colonialism of the West has made huge changes. When the Portuguese arrived in Senegal there were huge trading empires run by women. The Europeans were considered smelly and backward as they did not bathe twice a day. Never mind the colonial superiority in arms soon got rid of this type of society and replaced it with colonial repression.

I won't go into all the cultural changes around the world but think it worth mentioning that the European colonial empire has been going on for 500 years and has massively changed many many cultures and so to assume all were violent and sexist before is wrong. I'm not saying they were perfect but there was a variety of cultures. Have a read of Howard Zinn's "People's history of America" to read about an idyllic people on the island of Hispanola (now Haiti and Dominican Republic). It was a really fantastic place of plenty. Then Christopher Columbus arrived, enslaved the population to work the mines. They died of illness, torture and misery and refused to have kids. I think you would probably classify Chris C. as a white man.

Then you may have spotted there has been a long and intense campaign by some women and some men to make life fairer, especially for women. TBC

Lillian, Killarney
Spot on both of you.
And, once more for the road (and Wolly), let's just say that every person, regardless of ftheir gender, gets to have their say on matters that affect them. I admit it's a new idea, never been tried before, but why not give it a go? What have we got to lose?

Mary Wollenstonecraft wrote "The Rights of Women" at the time of the French Revolution seeing parallels in the treatment of women and the oppressed French peasants. Emancipists noted the similarities in the treatment of women and slaves. However our culture is still full of violence and anger. The leading cause of death, disability and illness for young women is intimate partner violence. Before you launch into the "women are worse than men" tirade just think about ending violence helps everyone.

Yabby you claim witch burnings and resource grabs are not linked and say Bantu's wonder if Pygmies are worth eating. What this shows is that it is a time honoured tradition to covert what your neighbour has and to dehumanise them allows for resource grabs. My point is that when the resource allocation of a population is altered (by mining, land grabs, population changes etc) that the most vulnerable (old women, children, widows) are vulnerable to being the scapegoats. Federicci in the Caliban book shows that in Scotland there is a direct correlation between land enclosures and witch burnings. Land enclosure=burnings, no enclosure=no burnings.

onthebeach So women are all infant killers and men are all wonderful volunteers. Hmmm. Men used to be thought highly of and are now disrespected. Hmmm. Are you thinking of when they were sent down mines? Over the top of the trenches? Were off "on the wallaby" in depressions? Subject to "Wake in Fright" type bullying by other men? Or do you mean prior to 1880 when a woman's property became a man's on marriage? Or when married women were unable to work, and so were dependent on men? Or when women were unable to open a bank account without a man's permission (1960's)?

What happens is that when group of people is denied their rights then everyone (apart from a few) suffer. Read this interesting article about how "whiteness" was made. To stop the 'sub-human' Irish teaming up with the Africans in Virginia to stop exploitation by their masters. It is the same thinking that says "feminists have done men down".

TBC

Cont from last post:
Substitute black for women and white for men and you get the idea.
"There is a simple truth to American history for the majority of people who have ever been American: the worse the black experience, the worse everyone else’s experience, including whites. Driving down (or eliminating) black wages, while always agreeable to whites, drove white pay lower than their European counterparts for most of our history."

https://medium.com/message/how-white-people-got-made-6eeb076ade42

So basically if you allow one group in your society to be picked on and put down everyone becomes vulnerable to abuse. Same as if you elevate one group from scrutiny ie the scandal of child abuse in powerful institutions - church, orphanages etc.

phanto You claim that paid sex is just a transaction and women wouldn't do it if they didn't want to. Hmmm. Have a read of "Making Sex Work" by Mary Sullivan. Think about all the economic and cultural burdens that women and girls face. This book said 63% of women in the industry wanted to get out. Many had a history of sexual abuse before. Some were there to deal with drug habits, some used drugs to get through their work. Many had PTSD. Sex work isn't one experience but basically it is the more economically powerful exploiting the poorer and more vulnerable. That is why it is overwhelmingly men buying the bodies of women, girls and boys.

Finally Killarney, thanks for The Chalice and the Blade reference. I have heard of it before and think it looks very interesting.

To wrap up, unless we all point out exploitation and injustice everywhere we are perpetrating it by our inaction. Ignoring the patriarchy that we live under helps neither men nor women and especially not children.

lillian, like the old match thing, if we reverse your ramble it just might strike.

You only have to look at those 2 Green harpies from the south on TV, & look into their eyes to see that the women are the most nasty & vicious of the species.

There is more hate in either of those 2 than in any 10 men, & they are a pretty common type in feminist circles.

Lillian, the struggle for resources will always exist, as Darwin noted, far more are created of any species then can ever survive. Resources is what limits them. Just take a look in our societies, what women are commonly chasing: They want resources to raise their offspring and they select males who have them and can provide them, rather than those with nothing.

You seldom see a young chick on the arm of a poor old guy, he is called a dirty old man. But if he is a billionaire with a yacht, she is considered as having made a clever catch.

The only society where there is very little violence or struggle over resources is in bonobos, which are a kind of pygmy chimp, living in the Congo. Sex in their societies is free and easy, used as a way to resolve conflicts. The result is a maternally dominated society, where the males are happy and have nothing to fight about.

Jay of Melbourne, I agree with Lillian; your white supremicism is extremely offensive.

I for one am delighted to encounter some fair dinkum feminists who don't water down their rhetoric, and kick men right where it hurts, in their complacency--though not so much men as the mouthpieces (eunuchs) of patriarchy.
I would observe however what our Amazons, no doubt, know too well; that their criticism tends toward a utopianism which, like the Marxist version, is well-nigh imponderable.
Such a society, neither patriarchy nor matriarchy, stripped of viciousness and competitiveness, is hard to imagine, though it might be that our new technologies might make the transition possible. In times gone by, of course, women needed their stronger and tougher counterparts to wage war and protect the homefront, to hunt, grow crops, build domiciles and shopping malls, invent science, sanitation, modern medicine etc etc. Camille Paglia gives men credit for all this.
It is arguable that the harsh conditions of human existence fostered the necessary but now problematic nature of masculinity. Of course we can call it patriarchy, but patriarchy has then to be acknowledged as well as condemned. Meanwhile, the modern world isn't exactly a love inn and we may need the warrior spirit yet.

I understand the vitriol, but I wonder if there are any practical theoretical plans for the construction, protection and maintenance of the feminist utopia?

Jay of Melbourne, I agree with Lillian and Squeers re the offensiveness of your white supremacism, which has no evidentiary basis.

Squeers: re the good though not utopian society, see http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1999----02.htm

Re your post on patriarchy, here’s some up-to-date info:
Neolithic and Chalcolithic evidence, such as at Çatalhöyük in Turkey, shows that more egalitarian communities existed prior to the rise of the city state (but there is no evidence for the existence of matriarchy. Matri- lineality -locality -focus, yes; -archy, no).
(see Hodder, Ian. “New Finds and New Interpretations at Çatalhöyük.” Çatalhöyük 2005 Archive Report, 2005)

As the state matured, bureaucratic (patriarchal) power trumped kinship systems and influence.
(see Richard Lee and Richard Daly, “Man’s Dominance and Women’s Oppression: The Question of Origins,” In ‘Community Power and Grassroots Democracy’ eds. Michael Kaufman et al).

Typically, forager societies are among the most gender-egalitarian economies known, particularly those in which women contribute highly to subsistence.
(see Chafetz, Janet. ‘Handbook of the Sociology of Gender’).

It seems that gender equality declined as the technoeconomic base of societies shifted from horticultural to agrarian plow cultivation. The most extreme male domination occurs in groups where men carry out herding and agrarian plow cultivation. A pivotal change occurred when men mistakenly interpreted their role in conception as primary. This appropriation of women’s reproductive capacity occurred prior to the creation of private property; in fact, women were the first private property (see Lerner, ‘The Creation of Patriarchy&#146;).

Re potential solutions to the problem, let’s say if the problem is this:

The amount of violence perpetrated against women, men and children is unacceptably high; A minority of men commits most of that violence. Our culture, particularly mainstream media, exacerbates the problem by telling boys and men they have to be tough and dominant (otherwise they are weak);

then the most immediately effective solution, as according to anti-violence educator and former all-star football player, Jackson Katz, will happen when men start telling the abusive minority to stop their violence: http://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_a_men_s_issue?language=en

What do you think might be the biggest obstacle to this simple and promising solution?

Violence is a form of aggression – it is not the only form nor is it necessarily the most destructive form. If men are peer-pressured into not being violent the aggression will find some other outlet and that outlet may be even more damaging. You cannot change a person’s behaviour by trying to manipulate them into changing and that is exactly what peer pressure is. You have to get to the source of why any man wants to hurt other people and the problem is that there are as many reasons as there are aggressive men.

Each man needs help to get to the source of their desire to hurt and there are simply not enough resources to do that. Another part of the problem is that there are very few good psychologists or counsellors who can help. The majority of them are blinkered when it comes to their own problems and you cannot help someone else in that field if you cannot even help yourself.

The desire to hurt is not any more prevalent in men than it is in women. One of the reasons women want to see aggression as a man’s problem is because they hope to the death that it is not also a women’s problem. It keeps the focus off their own propensity to hurt others. This is why they want to focus on violence rather than aggression. Men are always going to be more violent because that is how they get the results they think they need. Women get the same results by different methods.

When I see women wanting to maintain the focus on violence and ignore aggression as a real issue it makes me wonder why. Surely if you care about people you want to eradicate all forms of pain but if you want to avoid facing your own aggression then you will deflect attention from yourself as best you can. Don’t say it does not exist – the posts of most women on this forum regularly exhibit the same kind of aggression that they like to think is a masculine characteristic.

imho:

"Our culture, particularly mainstream media, exacerbates the problem by telling boys and men they have to be tough and dominant (otherwise they are weak);"

This is dubious, at least in the modern West; the macho message to boys and men has drastically diminished since I was a lad in the 70s, when gay bashing and male violence were generally and tacitly condoned, while the media fetishised violence on the sporting field.
Today, media output is far more sanitised and regulated, football violence and crowd hooliganism is heavily policed (not that I watch football), and racism isn't tolerated. I'm sure it's true many fathers still push the "weak" and "tough" stereotypes, but these are generally the poorly educated and it seems to me our schools are far more genteel place than they used to be.

"What do you think might be the biggest obstacle to this simple and promising solution?"

Haven't seen Katz presentation yet, but sceptical again.
It's not simply a problem of the "male violence" of a "minority". It's more a case of what drives the violence---which I would argue is much more widespread in it's myriad and latent psychic form.
By blaming a minority of men (most of whom are probably the maladjusted "detritus" of society) we shift the blame from culture to the usual suspects: individualist pathology is society's scapegoat.
Moreover violence is not a choice, it's an impulse conceived and executed by a crude or troubled mind; at its wits end and/or devoid of more sophisticated means of expression/rationalising. Telling a "minority" of men to "stop the violence" addresses the symptom with matronly appeals to individual conscience.
The much more uncomfortable truths are that male violence and sexual misconduct are extremely widespread—either manifest or latent—and symptomatic of a sick culture which either or both nurtures or fails to correct it. This at least is my hypothesis.
Education is an idealist solution which also runs into problems when it comes to implementation. In fine, any progressive solution projects blame elsewhere and protects the prevailing order.
(must fly. Taking sons fencing; civilised violence : )

TBC

phanto, while I take some of your points, your main argument is based on a false premise. Re “If men are peer-pressured into not being violent the aggression will find some other outlet and that outlet may be even more damaging. You cannot change a person’s behaviour by trying to manipulate them into changing and that is exactly what peer pressure is.”
If laws against violence had zero or little effect, what would be the point of having a system of rule of law? And what is the rule of law if not systematised enforcement of peer pressure?

Squeers, at least give Katz a chance before you judge him. He’s not blaming men; he’s saying that peer pressure is very powerful. I mean, why else would you publicly call out white supremacist views if you didn’t think it might make the promulgator think twice before he did it again?

imho,
I mentioned not having listened to Katz yet (trouble with the link) specifically so as not to judge or preempt him. But never mind.
Shall listen at earliest opportunity and revisit my remarks then. I'm glad where heading into those complexities which have formed my own research over the last few years. I am striving for an objective stance here.

IMHO:

Laws are based on reason. The law says you should not behave violently because people get hurt and no one likes getting hurt. Most people do not behave violently for this reason. The law is there as a safety net to protect people from irrational behaviour. If you do not act reasonably you will be punished.

Peer pressure is there to try and get people to renounce violence out of fear – fear of being ostracised from the group. It plays on people’s emotions, insecurities and their need to belong. That is why it is manipulative. The aim should be to get men to behave reasonably and not out of fear.

Laws do not manipulate but make it clear that behaviour that causes harm to others is irrational and will punished by deprivation of liberty – you will go to jail. Peer pressure says that if you do not behave according to our standards you will feel the emotional pain of being deemed to be outside the group. For many people this is not a deterrent because they have no need to belong to the group anyway. As a solution to the problem it is fundamentally flawed. If we as a society cannot solve this problem without manipulating the offenders then it does not say much for our problem solving skills.

We have laws to protect people from violence but not every offender will be caught. This is the reality that exists so another way of dealing with the problem has to be found and emotionally manipulating others is not really worthy of us as a species.

*Moreover violence is not a choice, it's an impulse conceived and executed by a crude or troubled mind;*

That is a good start, Squeers. All this was detailed in Goleman's "Emotional Intelligence", in terms of how the brain works. The stronger an emotion, the less we think, so somebody in a rage is hardly going to act rationally. Goleman also dealt with the answer. Teaching kids at school all about conflict resolution skills etc, was hugely successful and stays with them for life. We should do it here.

Panto-<Our basic instincts are not overridden by intelligence, they are held in proper tension by our natural urge to respect.>

That's just another way of saying what I said, we override our
natural instincts with our intelligence, which seeks to avoid
hurting others. But it is a tense battle in men with their
high sexual drive.

You say that it is only a few men who are guilty of violence and
a desire to sexually control women.

We are talking about a billion dollar sex industry. That amount of money is being spent by more than just a few men.

The industry has never been able to be shut down by arresting the women, for the simple reason that it is the clients that drive the
industry. In just the way that customers drive the sale of
products at any supermarket, anywhere. If they don't buy, the
item ceases to be sold.

Target the clients.
Lift the secrecy, make it legal for the press to be outside the doors of any sex shop, private residence and on the street-walker streets, with huge big cameras and photos in the papers and on TV the next day. The industry would shut down over night.

A few men you say,(and bullocks to that sir) I stated the example of Isis and their actions in Iraq. If you think that is a few. Lets look at what happened in
Bosnia. Again the Serbian males seeking to bring Serbia back under
their territorial control, systematically killing all the men and
boys of Bosnian ethnicity and raping all the women.

I think if you were present in most wars in history you would
witness this same behaviour from the male of the species.
Hardly a few.

Of course men have a kind side, but I still say that they find
it difficult to override their dominant, territorial, male instincts
and those instincts are a liability in todays overpopulated world.

CHERFUL:

‘That's just another way of saying what I said, we override our
natural instincts with our intelligence, which seeks to avoid
hurting others. But it is a tense battle in men with their
high sexual drive.’

No it’s totally different. I am saying that it is also a natural instinct to not hurt people. Natural instincts are in our body and not in our intelligence. We know what fear and anger are for, we know what the sex drive is for – what is the feeling of guilt for if not to alert us to the fact that we have done wrong or feel like doing wrong?

It is no more a battle in men than in women – it is a fundamental part of our nature which goes deeper than gender differences. I cannot see what sex-drive has to do with violence at all. There is an instinct built into us to make sure our species survives which leads to feelings in our body that propel us towards a behaviour that will lead to reproduction and the continuation of the species. Instincts produce emotions or feelings which galvanise us into moving or action. There is no instinct to violence. There is anger which is a feeling driven by the instinct for justice and that anger moves us to act. Sometimes those actions are irrational and violence is one of those irrational acts. Fear may lead us to behave in a way that seems to be violence but is in effect self-defence.

This is what happens when men or women are violent – they are acting irrationally in response to their anger or fear.

“You say that it is only a few men who are guilty of violence and
a desire to sexually control women.”

I don’t know where you got this from but I certainly did not say it.

So CHERFUL would be keen to males demonised in the media and in other aras of their lives on the basis of a consentual sexual interaction that does not fit with her own approval.

The attitudes in that are not so different to thugs wanting to see gays hurt, or any other form of judgmental thuggery throughout history.

Its a consentual sexual act between adults (and if not the police can deal with it), those choices should never be the subject of public ridicule for any of the parties involved unless they happen to be moral crusaders running a big double standard.

R0bert

Come on CHERFUL, the sex industry is so like the drug industry. In the sex industry it is the prostitutes that are the pushers, profiteering from a captive addicted market.

Prostitution & the public service are probably the only avenues for the average incompetent woman to earn an above average comfortable living, now the average bloke no longer earns enough to support a wife in the manor to which she hopes to become accustomed.

Chris Hedges is a US journalist who has spent most of his life in war zones. He talks about things that no one else does, the attraction of war and describes how some get caught up in it. It starts like love (defence of country, family etc) and ends up destroying everything. He uses a lot of ancient and archetypal ideas ie Thanatos the figure of death and its attractions. I think that a lot of what this discussion is about is to do with these forces. There is anger, aggression, and the allure of violence and power and death. They can be very seductive but their end is annihilation. Every human has some trace of these forces in them. How the culture deals with them is vital. How people deal with these emotions in themselves is also important.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_honors_humanists_combating_the_culture_of_war_20141019
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_takes_on_the_global_culture_of_violence_20141015

What to do about this? Teach kids (adults too) about their emotions in a healthy way. Two really good programmes are "Roots of Empathy" that is making huge differences in classrooms in Canada http://www.rootsofempathy.org/ and Hawn Foundation teaching mindfulness in schools. http://thehawnfoundation.org/

This next link will probably be too much for many of the men but it is women talking about their research with returned service people, men and women, in the US. It is pretty grim but does bring up much of what lies beneath what is being discussed here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owVm053wEb8

Basically men and women, masculine and feminine etc are entangled (like everything else on this planet). Therefore pitting one against the other is stupid. We are all part of the human condition and we need to approach it with clarity, kindness and openness.

Lillian:

I don’t think you can point to all the things that happen in war and all the attitudes that surround it and then use that as an argument to suggest that men are more violent than women (which is what I think you are arguing).

You cannot say it is a proof that men are more disposed to violence than women unless you know for sure that under the same circumstances women would not be equally as violent. We only know how men react in war because men go to war. We don’t know how women would react because very few of them go to war. That famous image of torture at Abu Ghraib prison with the woman soldier standing over her prisoner might give some indication.

It is possible that women under the same circumstances might turn out to be more violent then where would your argument be? Unless you can prove that they would be less violent in the same circumstances then you do not have evidence to back you claim. The only evidence you do have is that men behave violently under war conditions.

Boys grow up constantly being shown images of men in violent situations and they too know that one day they will be a man and they could well find themselves in that same position. War happens, men get conscripted, many get killed. It is a very real threat for lots of men that they may have to go to war. Would girls react any differently if they knew that such a fate could befall them when they became women?

It is not unreasonable for boys to grow up pre-occupied with a concern for war – not because it is glamorous or intoxicating or exciting but because they know that it could well be that they are forced by their governments into a situation where their very lives are at risk.

Lillian
"Read this interesting article about how "whiteness" was made. To stop the 'sub-human' Irish teaming up with the Africans in Virginia to stop exploitation by their masters."

Can we also get the Humanities and Social Sciences departments to do research into how "blackness" and Asianness" was created, but from a non-white perspective? "Blackness studies" and any other non-white ethnic studies are all about celebrating their "blackness" and ethnicity, but "whiteness" studies is very critical of being white. So maybe we can get some academics to do scathing critiques of what it means to be black and Asian.

"When the Portuguese arrived in Senegal there were huge trading empires run by women. The Europeans were considered smelly and backward as they did not bathe twice a day. Never mind the colonial superiority in arms soon got rid of this type of society and replaced it with colonial repression".

These trading empires sound sexist. Also, Senegal and you sound intolerant of European's bathing habits. You seem to be a bigot. (notice how "bigotry" works both ways in the race and sexism debate?)

"European colonial empire has been going on for 500 years and has massively changed many many cultures and so to assume all were violent and sexist before is wrong. I'm not saying they were perfect but there was a variety of cultures. Have a read of Howard Zinn's "People's history of America" to read about an idyllic people on the island of Hispanola (now Haiti and Dominican Republic). It was a really fantastic place of plenty. Then Christopher Columbus arrived, enslaved the population to work the mines. They died of illness, torture and misery and refused to have kids. I think you would probably classify Chris C. as a white man."

I am sensing a pattern here. White nations = evil; non-white nations = good. Heavy-hitting research here.

lillian
"Neolithic and Chalcolithic evidence, such as at Çatalhöyük in Turkey, shows that more egalitarian communities existed prior to the rise of the city state (but there is no evidence for the existence of matriarchy. Matri- lineality -locality -focus, yes; -archy, no).
(see Hodder, Ian. “New Finds and New Interpretations at Çatalhöyük.” Çatalhöyük 2005 Archive Report, 2005)"

There's nothing in this report that shows the society was egalitarian. In fact, the report is devoid of any kind of moralising on this society.

"As the state matured, bureaucratic (patriarchal) power trumped kinship systems and influence.
(see Richard Lee and Richard Daly, “Man’s Dominance and Women’s Oppression: The Question of Origins,” In ‘Community Power and Grassroots Democracy’ eds. Michael Kaufman et al)."

This text is about South American countries. I also saw no evidence that suggests South America was a paradise before the attempted implementation of bureaucratic control.

"Typically, forager societies are among the most gender-egalitarian economies known, particularly those in which women contribute highly to subsistence.
(see Chafetz, Janet. ‘Handbook of the Sociology of Gender’)."

This text is a Marxist and Foucauldian interpretation of history. In other words, it's going to be dripping with bias, moralising, scathing criticisms of men etc.

Marxists and post-structuralists are not historians. They're moralisers of the conservative order (or what was the conservative order).

"(see Lerner, ‘The Creation of Patriarchy&#146;)."

Another feminist writer. Hardly impartial. It's like judging Kurds through the eyes of Turks.

"What do you think might be the biggest obstacle to this simple and promising solution?"

Well, for a start, stop blaming all men for the actions of a few and for the actions of men in the past. All this does is create resentment and a strong counter-movement to feminism.

Anyway, academics and feminists aren't interested in solutions. They want revenge. They perceive men as the cause of the ills of their lives.

Having now listened to Katz I don't see that he offers a solution. He's a good showman as TED talkers tend to be, but apart from high dudgeon he mostly asks questions along the lines of "what is it with men!", the tacit message being that violence, exploitation and predatory behaviour is unacceptable! His solution is that men build peer networks in their respective cultures whose members speak out against passive/aggressive sexism, racism etc.
This is to underestimate how resilient established cultures tend to be. But also how covert. Political correctness "has" driven much of it underground and spokespersons are typically careful how they couch their hate-speak, or to whom. For what it's worth, I do challenge sexism/racism/denialism, but rather than changing cultures I tend to get excluded.
Barking at men to stop the violence! stop the depravity! in the way Katz recommends is ironically an appeal to just the kind of no-nonsense, Pattonesque, bloke-speak that has been used to rouse men forever. There's no depth or subtlety here, it's just, "pull yourself together, soldier!"
The first thing we have to do is acknowledge that probably all men are capable of vile and violent behaviour given merely the right circumstances. Circumstances overmaster virtually any man's self-control and a pep-talk isn't going to stop it. Something primal inhabits the soul/psyche and only waits for an opportunity to break out.

Education yes, but this means philosophy "and" self-discipline; the province of the privileged and still subject to corruption.
These are unbridled times. We are taught that life's about extracting the last drop of pleasure (whatever that is), but it never satisfies or appeases the boredom, the inanity.
Our precious freedom, which we don't know how to measure or put to good use, has to be curtailed if we are to protect the weak and the innocent. You cannot rely on men's benevolence, pity, compassion, sobriety. At best they're whimsical and at worst they whet the appetite once aroused.
But none of this even begins to address what more I would say..

Sqeers:

“The first thing we have to do is acknowledge that probably all men are capable of vile and violent behaviour given merely the right circumstances. Circumstances overmaster virtually any man's self-control and a pep-talk isn't going to stop it. Something primal inhabits the soul/psyche and only waits for an opportunity to break out.”

It might be the first thing that you have to do because you are trying to convince yourself it is true. What if it was true? Being capable of something and actually behaving in that way are two entirely different things. If we were all judged according to what we were capable of then every one of us would be condemned.

It is no wonder you display an embittered and disillusioned outlook on men because you seem to have an embittered outlook on life. It is not men who seem to be the problem but life itself. No one can reason with someone who is absolutely determined to find the worst in humanity. I do not think you are part of the discussion to find a solution but to convince yourself that one can never be found because that is the kind of defeatism you seem to enjoy.

I think it is an abuse of the forums to use them to enhance your own misery

phanto.
embittered? Never; that would suggest that like you I'd been taken in.

My last was just a preamble; one has to acknowledge the existential condition first. There are still such universals. Just watch Game of Thrones.
Back down on Earth, the problem with the progressive approach is it validates the status quo. Treating male misbehaviour as scandalous conceals the fact that it's a commonplace.
Jean Baudrillard said something similar about Watergate:
"Watergate ... succeeded in imposing the idea that Watergate 'was' a scandal". Similarly, "Capital, which is immoral and unscrupulous, can only function behind a moral superstructure, and whoever regenerates this public morality (by indignation, denunciation, etc) [he must have watched Katz too!] spontaneously furthers the cause of capital [or call it patriarchy if you like]".

So are our feminists tough enough to face the reality and condemn it, or will they be satisfied with Disneyland? (Disneyland was for Baudrillard an elaborate mode of deterrence, "set up in order to rejuvinate in reverse the fiction of the real. Whence the debility, the infantile degeneration of this imaginary. It is meant to be an infantile world, in order to make us believe the that the adults are elsewhere, particularly amongst those adults who go there to act the child in order to foster illusions as to their real childishness".)

Well, Squeers in order for people to solve a problem they have to have as an absolute minimum a common language. I cannot understand most of what you say so I will not be able to contribute to your problem solving endeavours.

Aristocrat,
I didn't post on Cetalhayuk and so cannot respond.

You said "Anyway, academics and feminists aren't interested in solutions. They want revenge. They perceive men as the cause of the ills of their lives." This is entirely reflective of your own myopia and not of this discussion.

Phanto you say I can't say men more violent than women, how do I know what women would resort to in similar circumstances? I've heard of one culture where women are regarded as more aggressive. However in general men are regarded as more violent and displays of aggression are considered manly. The video on US servicemen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owVm053wEb8 shows one reason they're so violent and brutal to women and gays is that both these groups are allowed into the arena that they consider to be the preserve of men, ie the military. I agree with you boys are socialised into being warlike men.

",,they are forced by their governments into a situation where their very lives are at risk." That would be the same governments that are mainly men sending the young men off to die for resource grabs (that is what war basically boils down to). Why not critiquing the men in power? There is a very long history of calling men cowards if they do not want to become brutes.

This is the point of Kathleen Barry's book "Unmaking War, Remaking Men." If men are expected to be cannon fodder they are at some level understandably angry. Therefore no one should be considered expendable and war should be regarded as unthinkable. Unless of course you like it. See Chris Hedges on the attractions of war and my previous post on human emotions.

Finally Aristocrat Your "White Man's Burden" version of history is a colonial construct. I certainly would not have liked to live in the Aztec empire. The early days of the Roman Republic would have been interesting but the later times of eternal war and slavery would have been hell. Once again watch Chris Hedges on this.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_takes_on_the_global_culture_of_violence_20141015

Lillian:

What would you have men do in the face of war? The Argentinean soldiers are having the crap beaten out of them by an army forced into battle by Margaret Thatcher. What do they do? Do they turn to each other and say “common chaps let’s not be violent. Let us lay down our arms and let the enemy come and take over our country. Let us not defend our sovereignty or our women and families.” Would you have had men not defend the west against Nazi Germany?

War exists for a whole range of reasons and has nothing to do with men’s violence. Your argument is so illogical. Men are violent in war therefore men are inherently violent and this explains all the violence that exists outside of war as well.

In childbirth women scream and yell and show that they are unable to tolerate the pain. They have no choice because the baby has to come out of the womb. From this we can conclude that all women are fundamentally weak and incapable of tolerating pain. Women are a burden on society because of this and make life for men much harder than it would be without them.

Boys are not ‘socialised’ into becoming warlike men –they are pre-occupied with war because they are instinctively pre-occupied with what can harm them. What could be more natural than to respond to your fears?

Your argument about politicians sending men to war because they are men is as illogical as your argument about men being violent in war because they are men. Politicians send men to war because wars sometimes have to be fought. Should they have let Hitler conquer the world? What would a woman have done?

It seems you are not dealing with reality but fantasising about some Utopia where there is no more violence. Maybe the world you want to rid of violence is a little closer to home for you and you do not want to face it.

I believe most people raised in a homogenised Western environment have lost touch with the way humans evolved.

Men had to range further away from settlements to hunt, they served as physical protectors to the community. It makes complete sense to me that the male of the species is more prone to physical violence. It was an evolutionary imperative.

Women in general fed the community. They roamed close to home, gathered food, they "farmed". Even now in countries where mechanised monoculture hasn't taken over, women are the prime raises of crops, grains and leafy crops, they prepare the grains, prepare all the harvest for food. This was principally women's work - and still is in some societies. It was only with the mechanization of farming, the introduction of machinery, modern fertilisers and pesticides that it became overwhelmingly "masculine".

In a societies like those of the West, which have been around for the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, the role of gender is somewhat blurred compared to traditional societies.

Poirot and phanto etc have shown themselves incapable of understanding arguments or reading links.They're discussing things I haven't said preferring instead to make things up and ignore history.

They claim problems are caused by women and nothing that men do (patriarchy, violent manhood promotion, military, organised religion, government etc) has any effect. Horrible women/feminists are to blame for everything. No evidence need be produced it is just obvious. Like it's obvious anything good has come from white men, except it hasn't.

According to phanto etc Nazis, Argentinians etc, come out of nowhere. Violence is the only response and its lucky we have men to fight. Women are feeble childbearing things of no use. This is some fantasy stereotype land with no relation to actual events or people.For example WW1 ended due to a mutiny by German sailors being led out to certain death by aristocratic top brass. They had had enough of the madness of Thanatos that had nothing for them but organised murder for the glory of the deluded. Good on them! Unfortunately they were betrayed by the Treaty of Versailles that wanted financial revenge on Germany and laid the ground for the Nazis.

Phanto etc amusingly display men stuck in inchoate, reflexive hatred of women. Paradoxically if you read what they say it is not actually real women they hate but the system that makes men expendable and easily manipulated. Where does that system come from?...patriarchy, where this whole discussion started. Challenging patriarchy means exploring why powerful men think ordinary men are expendable. It is easier for this type of blinkered man to band together in common hatred of their imagined oppressor, women, than actually look at what is going on and challenge what they think is their own.

Here's my argument in simple language. Human emotions are powerful (Hedges on Thanatos etc). How a society directs them determines everything. (Suggestions of teaching empathy as an antidote. Hispanola as an example of success) Male and female are entangled, if you want justice for one gender it means justice for the other too, otherwise it is just perpetuating abuse

lillian,

"They claim problems are caused by women and nothing that men do (patriarchy, violent manhood promotion, military, organised religion, government etc) has any effect. Horrible women/feminists are to blame for everything. No evidence need be produced it is just obvious. Like it's obvious anything good has come from white men, except it hasn't."

I wasn't addressing anything "you said" in particular, I was making a comment in general on this subject.

Male and female "are" entangled....especially if you view the human species as an organism ranging over the planet.

Are you addressing the advancement of human ingenuity, which brings forth mechanisation and allows us to rampage over the earth and slaughter from afar?

And that women, as a supporting foundation, are as much a part of that advancement and contingency as men?...(".... military, organised religion, government etc...")

That our evolutionary mores are somewhat warped in a modern setting where women as much as men luxuriate in and partake of the status quo?

(Btw, I'm a woman)

"Are you addressing the advancement of human ingenuity, which brings forth mechanisation and allows us to rampage over the earth and slaughter from afar?"
Yes, see Chris Hedges link, the will for death and destruction has to be present first.

"And that women, as a supporting foundation, are as much a part of that advancement and contingency as men?...(".... military, organised religion, government etc...")". I object to being seen as a supporting part of the current dysfunctional structures of power. I'm sure many men feel the same way. Women, people of colour, the poor and many men are massively disadvantaged by the system.

"That our evolutionary mores are somewhat warped in a modern setting where women as much as men luxuriate in and partake of the status quo?" Status quo currently means eternal war and the destruction of planetary systems. I'm doing my best to change things, perhaps you are resting and enjoying it all?

Here are a few quotes from the article we are discussing:

"...perpetrators of violence are highly likely to have been subjected to violence themselves (it goes without saying that this is not a causal relationship)."

"U. S.studies, ..show that 80 percent of boys reported having experienced sexual abuse (mostly out of the home)."

"According to the evidence, traditional notions of male entitlement and toughness are associated with broad-ranging harms to men themselves as well as with abusive and violent thoughts, attitudes and behaviours toward women."

"The question is this: is our desire to retain the capacity to send hordes of gullible youth to fight other people's wars worth putting up with the side effects, namely the deep well of male fear that finds its target in women, children, queers, and ethnic minorities and which, typically, eventually turns on itself?"

The manipulation of men and boys harms everyone. Saying women benefit as much as men (as I think you are claiming) is odd as both are warped and damaged by it. We either change this and inhabit the planet wisely or rip everything to shreds in a frenzy of violence.

The veneer of society is very thin. Educate all you want, which is easy in times of plenty, but once resources become scarce and the future of one's family/tribe is at stake, it is back to laws of the jungle

lillian,

"Status quo currently means eternal war and the destruction of planetary systems. I'm doing my best to change things..."

The status quo means that Western women are partaking of the Western structure...are they not? They enjoy all the trappings of capitalist hegemonic society. There is no huge groundswell of opposition to their fortunate material circumstances. The "machine" is grinding away at the planet. Politicians are moving mountains for corporations, all in the service of "consumer society" - are you telling me Western women aren't in solidly on the ground floor with those machinations? That's the Western status quo.

"...perhaps you are resting and enjoying it all?"

Thanks for the snippy rejoinder - what's that supposed to prove? I'm commenting. Is it feminist principle to fire puerile darts at commentors when you get your back up?

"I object to being seen as a supporting part of the current dysfunctional structures of power. I'm sure many men feel the same way...."

You might object, but that doesn't change the system.

"....Women, people of colour, the poor and many men are massively disadvantaged by the system."

The West through the IMF, World bank and WTO has been preying on the third world for yonks under the guise of delivering progress and wealth, and in fact delivering impotence and removing autonomy from traditional societies through privatisation and structural adjustments - in cahoots with govts which line their pockets and funnel wealth from the general population to Western corporations.

I've got little time for whinging women in first world countries who sit back and enjoy their fortunate circumstances, moaning that they can't "be equal" with men - because they've come so far - but not far enough.

When I see them acting en masse to pull back on consumption, cease supporting the structures which pillage the planet and their poorer brethren overseas, I'll believe they're dinkum. When they finally display the understanding that the human species - both genders - moves in tandem. They are both equally responsible for progressions and structures because, as you pointed out, they are entangled

Well said, Poirot. This is my position too.

Agree with lots of what you say but disagree with "Politicians are moving mountains for corporations, all in the service of "consumer society" Politicians are in cahoots with corporations but not for the benefit of consumers. Australia is about to lose it's sovereignty with the signing of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.
http://aftinet.org.au/cms/trans-pacific-partnership-agreement

This is effectively a corporate coup in multiple countries and the MSM are almost entirely silent on it. What we have is not a 'consumer' driven society (consumers had to be invented in the 20th century by advertising and built in obsolescence. Thrift was the previous virtue). We have had the plunder of the earth via the WTO, World Bank, IMF on a enormous scale. That is why we have the obscene wealth inequality both globally
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWSxzjyMNpU
and within countries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Sheldon Wolin has written a great book "Inverted Totalitarianism" on the corporate takeover of our world. Here is Chris Hedges explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV_c1ElZl7Q

Women are not sitting on a huge wave of wonderfulness, nor are many others. Families with kids, esp sole parents who tend to be women, will be worst hit by the budget.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poorest-families-pay-most-in-budget-20140521-38p5m.html

I am certainly not whinging I'm not equal with men and ignoring the 3rd world. I have repeatedly said we have unfairness for most. Men benefit from repression of women the same way men and women in 1st world benefit from the repression of the poor (all those cheap goods) in the 3rd world. Both are fundamentally unjust and corrupts the 'beneficiaries' while undermining a decent society for all. See "The Spirit Level" on how inequality damages everyone.
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/spirit-level-why-equality-better-everyone

Poirot

‘I've got little time for whinging women in first world countries who sit back and enjoy their fortunate circumstances, moaning that they can't "be equal" with men.’

In the nineteenth and early twentieth century, First World women were also living ‘fortunate’ lives, compared to Third World women. Many people argued back then that women never had it so good, especially if they were married to a decent man who was a good provider and didn’t beat them. Only ‘whingeing women’ bothered themselves over ‘selfish’ concerns like wanting the vote and the right to earn their own living.

'When I see them acting en masse to pull back on consumption, cease supporting the structures which pillage the planet and their poorer brethren overseas, I'll believe they're dinkum.’

Well, I for one am glad that women a hundred years ago decided not to defer the fight for equality until they had made life better for people in poorer countries. If they had, no doubt we’d still be chained to the kitchen sink and having a baby every year.

lillian,

I think we're on the same general wavelength, however, I disagree with your take on "consumer society".

"....Politicians are in cahoots with corporations but not for the benefit of consumers. Australia is about to lose it's sovereignty with the signing of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement."

"Everything" from cradle to grave in Western society is predicated on "consuming". Yes, right-wing governments are skewing the odds in favour of more power to corporations, however, that is more about corporations being given powers to sue if anything gets in their way. It's merely act of a progression, and something that has been practiced upon the developing world by Western organisations for a very long time.

" What we have is not a 'consumer' driven society (consumers had to be invented in the 20th century by advertising and built in obsolescence. Thrift was the previous virtue"

We "do" have a consumer-driven society, one in which if you're are not attending an actual "workplace" then you are likely ensconced in one or another institution, be you a toddler, an older child or a retiree. The reasoning behind this is that the person in the workplace is then freed to earn so as to consume...simples. And yes, 'advertising" is so important to urging consumption beyond sustainable limits...but how do you deduce from that that we "do not" have a consumer-driven society in 2014?

I'm under no delusion that "all" Western women are "sitting on a huge wave of wonderfulness", however, both genders are complicit in engaging the structure under which we Westerners live. Both genders benefit materially, and blithely and myopically accept their spoils without (for the most part) a sidelong glance at the exploitation from which it emanates in the third world.

It's all a very Apollonian ideal - and Western women appear happy to sit astride the bandwagon for the ride, criticising the patriarchal ideals which impel the vehicle.

Poirot:

It is good to hear what a woman free from a personal agenda to push has to say about the world. There are insights such as yours that only a woman might observe and they complement the insights that come from observations that only a man would be likely to observe. It is this complementarity that should be the back bone of the way forward in solving society’s problems.

Killarney:

You sound like a lot of Jewish people who want to keep the Holocaust up front and centre all the time in order to convince themselves that they are still victims of oppression.

Why not deal with the reality of the present instead of always talking about how things were? It seems that your identity is so tied up with your feminism that you cannot accept that the need for that kind of feminism is no longer necessary

Poirot
You write as if everything just 'happened' and everyone has happily gone along with it all. There is, and has been, immense opposition to this.

Maintaining everything really is about the consumer is daft. READ THE INFO ON THE TPP. Society has been deliberately engineered by the powerful by a variety of mechanisms. Have a look at Edward Bernays 1928 pamphlet "Propaganda". Once the great unwashed got the vote the popular will had to be bent to the bidding of the powerful.

The 'consumer' society makes money out of what was once free. The establishment of capitalism involved the enclosure of the commons, the enclosure of women by men and lashings of violence. Now the enclosures of the commons are the patenting of seed and human genes and Nestle being given water so it can bottle and sell it at vast profit and the exploitation of 3rd world via 'globalisation'.

Are people happy? Some are, increasing numbers aren't. Do most people realise what is going on? No. Why? Deliberate ignorance is fostered and the neo-lib right wing have done a splendid job of creating myths and making people believe the opposite of what is true. See the creation of the Abbott government as one example. Read "The Establishment" by Owen Jones for how it has been done, including the use of 'think tanks'. We have the Institute of Public Affairs as our very own loony tunes that is at the centre of Abbott's aims.

"It's all a very Apollonian ideal - and Western women appear happy to sit astride the bandwagon for the ride, criticising the patriarchal ideals which impel the vehicle." You can believe this if you only look narrowly. Have a look at what masses of small, underfunded organisations are doing for women and against the corporate, capitalist mess we live in.

Phanto, women still have to face violence, sexism, religious and other discrimination and poverty. When women's lives improve so do those of men and children.

Thrift may have been the previous virtue but according to Weber this was part of Protestant work ethic, and while austerity was the ideal this didn't stop these Godly entrepreneurs amassing enormous wealth. There had to be a switch to consumerism in order to service the economy. Late capitalism is not for humanity, humanity is for capitalism, which must grow. This can only be accomplished by creating more and greedier consumers. The great mass of consumers exist to consume and culture, another mode of consumption, is little more than patronage designed to foster the illusion of meaning. Mental health statistics and all the violence show that this isn't working, while exotic/predatory sexual bevaviour and the porn industry are testament to the dullness of satiety. Mass culture is detestable to the likes of Abbott, but it's a necessary evil; our bovine culture drives the economy and facilitates elitist culture which is alive and well.

lillian,

"Maintaining everything really is about the consumer is daft...."

Tell me what drives our economy? Convince me that conspicuous consumption isn't the chief tenet of Western life. You note the advertising propaganda which permeates almost every waking moment of Western lives - why is that? It's because our entire lifestyle is now predicated on buying stuff, and then buying more stuff.

"The 'consumer' society makes money out of what was once free."

Yep, but as Squeers points out, we're a bovine mob....are women going to withhold their spending power to make the point that capitalism exploits the ordinary man and rewards the obscenely rich? No, because ordinary people of both genders enjoy their fortunate material position - that's the pay-off.

Here's what Paglia wrote:

"The capitalist distribution network, a complex chain of factory, transport, warehouse, and retail outlet, is one of the greatest male accomplishments in the history of culture. It is a lightning quick Apollonian circut of male bonding. One of feminism's irritating reflexes is its fashionable disdain for "patriarchal society" to which nothing good is ever attributed. But it is patriarchal society that has freed me as a woman. It is capitalism that has given me the leisure to write this book [Sexual Personae]...."

And what is it that Westerners project onto third world countries when they envision "lifting them out of poverty" and development? - they would replicate our generic consumer society and foist it upon them...because with capitalism and consumerism comes material fortune, education and loosened gender role bonds.

Of course, humans turn out to be intelligent, but not wise - and our voraciousness, under a highly advanced capitalist system is not conducive to the health of fellow species or their habitats...perhaps we're an evolutionary error.

Poirot

You’re conflating feminism with humanism, which are two fundamentally separate social justice movements, driven by fundamentally separate issues. Like all social justice movements, their goals and activities overlap, but one should not be judged for not doing the work of another.

Feminism is about gender equality, not fighting global capitalism or making life better for people in the Third World (the latter of which usually creates more problems than it solves anyway).

Also, you seriously underestimate Western feminism’s awareness of the true ‘capitalist’ reasons behind the ‘green light’ given to Western women to enter the workforce en masse from the early 60s. They know full well that it was motivated by the recognition that women represented a whole new consumer market with its own spending power.

However, when technology and economic factors bring seismic shifts in the way societies are run, they also bring simmering social justice issues to the surface. The old principle of ‘preparation meets opportunity’ kicks in and social justice issues become movements that start pressuring the powers that be to make concessions.

While women have made what is patronisingly referred to as ‘great strides’, especially in terms of consumer spending, the matrix of power remains firmly in the hands of men. This particularly applies to all the propagandist institutions that drive public opinion – Hollywood, the media, advertising and publishing, whose main job is to spruik the male-centric values of war, sport and business, and keep women’s role in the culture as passive and peripheral.

Phanto

A bit of advice ... Ease up on all the psychobabble. You may get a kick out of pointing out people's deep, dark, existential identity issues, but it's really just an insidious form of abuse.

Personally, I prefer outright abuse to being 'meaningfully psychoanalysed'. At least outright abuse is more honest.

These articles and comments are always interesting to read, solely to see what the latest is in "feminist studies". They're still stuck in their Foucauldian and neo-Marxist analyses of history and society, not daring to step outside these paradigms for fear of losing their narrative they've built up over the past few decades.

It's lost on them that looking at history through the eyes of a 1960s theory of power relations doesn't actually tell us much about history. In fact, it's a very lazy approach to history. Gone are the thousands of nuances between cultures and their values and morals. Gone is the actual understanding of the social, religious, political, and economic conditions of the time and how this contributed to values and morals. Instead, all we get is some simplistic theory on oppressors and oppressed and that the oppressors where always bad and the oppressors always good.

It's an economic and intellectual crime that this approach is the dominant one in Humanities and Social Sciences departments. An economic crime because it's a waste of tax payers' money, and that the majority of this money comes from the people they hate - men; and, an intellectual crime because of the disregarding of trying to understand actual history - how cultures/people actually lived.

A historian should try to transport themselves back to the time they are writing about, and communicate this to the reader, and not use some post-structuralist philosophers who have an anger management problem toward men and power.

The last line in the second paragraph should say "oppressed always good".

aristocrat

'A historian should try to transport themselves back to the time they are writing about, and communicate this to the reader, and not use some post-structuralist philosophers who have an anger management problem toward men and power.'

You and phanto should do lunch.

Killarney,

I don't underestimate "true ‘capitalist’ reasons"....I'm fully aware that women were "emancipated" for that very reason, so much so, that these days a woman almost has to excuse herself if she's not "in the workplace" juggling home, kids, work and generally being driven to manic distraction. However, she'll probably have an outside entertaining area, a people mover, a Thermomix and map of her local IKEA permanently seared into her memory.

"While women have made what is patronisingly referred to as ‘great strides’, especially in terms of consumer spending, the matrix of power remains firmly in the hands of men..."

Let's say a masculine system dominates in Western industrial society.

Paglia:

"All the genres of philosophy, science, high art, athletics, and politics were invented by men...."

"...Men bonding together, invented culture as a defence against female nature. Sky cult was the most sophisticated step in this process, for its switch of the creative locus from earth to sky is a shift from belly-magic to head-magic. And from this defensive head-magic has come the spectacular glory of male civilisation, which has lifted women with it. The very language and logic modern woman uses to assail patriarchal culture were the invention of men.

"....Woman, at first, content to accept man's protections but now inflamed with desire for her own illusory freedom, invades man systems and suppresses her indebtedness to him as she steals them..."

I fail to really understand what it is that feminists want...the system is "male". The system has allowed women a certain autonomy not available in less developed, less Western societies. The system also rests on a foundation of aggression. 20th century modern industry and farm practices emanated from and really amount to peacetime applications of wartime technological advances - and they are now employed to manipulate/attack the earth...and from whence humanity began to get really out of balance with its ecosystem (but that's another story)

Western woman have been lifted, entangled as the genders are, by a male system - and simultaneously feminism derides the very paradigm that bestows it a voice.

Killarney:

My ‘psychobabble’ has obviously hit a nerve with you. Why not just ignore it? It is not abuse to suggest that someone who seems more intent on manipulating the discussion rather than helping it along by reason and logic has a hidden agenda. Such behaviour should be exposed for what it is. In my opinion it is not in the spirit of the forum to manipulate discussions for one’s own emotional reasons.

Aggressive behaviour, ranting and raving, using obtuse language, sarcasm and patronising people are all ways of trying to hijack the discussion to protect a view that someone is emotionally dependent on maintaining. That is abuse. It is an abuse of the forums and disrespectful to people who come here to discuss issues for the right reasons.

I do not need to expose anyone’s deep dark secrets they are there to be seen by anyone within an ounce of insight. People often expose a lot more than simply their opinions and ideas when they post. If they do not want that exposed then they should refrain from posting.

“You and Phanto should do lunch”

It is that kind of sarcastic bitterness that I am talking about.

Poirot, When you dad was violent to your mum did she think that that was OK as men had invented philosophy? Or was she stuck with a violent man because she was trapped her financially and/or socially? Surely a mother is hard pressed to fight both a system that protects (or at least doesn't intervene with) violent men and look after her kids. Paglia seems to want women to accept the system.We only have the rights we have because we fought for them. They haven't been bestowed by kindly patriarchs.

Aristocrat, you haven't made a post that wasn't a mass of generalisations and a rejection of other ways of thought without putting anything forward.

Squeers, Glad to see that you speak up against oppression. Interesting you are ostracised for it and so see it as the norm. I worked in the building industry and saw nasty men manipulate and play "in and out crowd" with other men. Have a look at the Peckham Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peckham_Experiment "Central to Scott Williamson's philosophy was the belief that left to themselves people would spontaneously begin to organize in a creative way, and this happened," I don't think we should give up all hope.

Phanto, You frequently refer to psychologists and said that people are violent when acting irrationally in response to anger and fear. How do you suggest dealing with this? What do you think of the Roots of Empathy programme http://www.rootsofempathy.org/ and Hawn Foundation http://thehawnfoundation.org/

Killarney I agree that men don't want to face up to violent masculinity because it brings privileges. This article shows the misogyny of Afghanistan. http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/27141-the-missing-women-of-afghanistan-after-13-years-of-war-the-rule-of-men-not-law The US are complicit in the creation of the Taliban. There's also a tradition of reforming Afghan men. "Nearly a century ago, King Amanullah founded the first high school for girls and the first family court to adjudicate women’s complaints about their husbands; he proclaimed the equality of men and women, and banned polygamy; he cast away the burqa, and banished ultra-conservative Islamist mullahs as “bad and evil persons”.

When life is good for women, it's good for men and kids too.

lillian,

Good point...no my mum was trapped in the 60's and she eventually walked out in desperation....on all of us.

My question, however, was why feminists would buy into a masculine system based on a projection away from, and aggression towards, feminine nature?

I'm trying to understand why feminists accept the aggression innate in the system - are complicit along with the rest of the population in enjoying Western privilege at the expense of those exploited in third world countries by our system - and yet criticise the very quality of aggression in men?

Feminists clamour for equality in a system which does not celebrate the feminine. It seeks to conquer it - to build an illusory reality that humanity is somehow separate and not dependent on feminine earth.

It's all very comfortable materially, but why do feminists seek to embrace with such gusto a system built on the aggressive subjection, not only of the environment, but also of vulnerable humans who don't share our system?

You say:
"We only have the rights we have because we fought for them. They haven't been bestowed by kindly patriarchs."

As I'm sure you realise, my choice of the word "bestow" was a recognition that it's the system (not kindly patriarchs) that gives feminism a voice - one which it wouldn't have had otherwise.

Lillian :

I had a look at those sites and they show a positive approach especially in regard to the importance of parenting.

My opinion is that things like empathy and emotional intelligence are things that do not need to be taught. They already exist in human nature and if a child is allowed to freely develop they will come to the surface naturally. They should be as natural as breathing and no one needs to be taught how to breathe.

The problem, as I see it, is that parents can hinder that natural development because they are more concerned with protecting their own pain than allowing their children freedom to develop. For example when they see a child develop a natural curiosity about sex then this may threaten them if they were brought up in an environment that repressed sexuality. They might punish the child or show such disapproval that the child grows up thinking there is something fundamentally unnatural about sex. So now you have a second generation with stilted attitudes to sex. It goes on through the generations until a parent decides to examine where they got such unnatural attitudes. This is where psychology should be able to help. I think you have to break the cycle as an adult before you can be effective as a parent in allowing a child to develop according to its nature.

I think this is how violence continues on through the generations. A person who feels threatened by the freedom exhibited by children may well become violent towards the child in order to protect themselves from the painful fact that they have had to repress a lot of their natural freedoms . When they see a free spirited child they want to silence that child because it triggers too much pain for them. They need to look at what freedoms they have repressed and recover them so they are free to parent in the best interests of the child.

"Aristocrat, you haven't made a post that wasn't a mass of generalisations and a rejection of other ways of thought without putting anything forward."

My "mass generalisations" can be verified by reading the references you provided. Some of them specifically state they are using a Foucauldian paradigm to analyse history. Additionally, in Humanities and Social Sciences departments, Foucauldian and neo-Marxist analyses are often used as a methodological approach to researching history (and a host of other cultural issues).

As I stated previously, the first step is to stop lambasting men as the cause of all the ills in the world. There is no solution in this approach. This only creates guilt and resentment and feeds the revenge fantasies of feminists and other "progressives".

phanto

'My ‘psychobabble’ has obviously hit a nerve with you.'

Oh, get over yourself. You're nowhere near as insightful as you like to think you are. You're just making yourself boring. No doubt you'll use this post as evidence of my existential bitterness or a cry for help or that I'm in denial ... or how about paranoid projection of my inner rage?

Knock yourself out, Sigmumd. But don't kid a kidder.

Poirot

Feminism crosses all political boundaries and belief systems. From your posts, you seem to think that a feminist must only embrace a particular kind of socio-political system.

Why must it be 'either/or', not 'both/and'? I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I've come across this attitude towards feminism a lot among the left, particularly the radical socialist left (not that I'm saying that you are a radical socialist ... I'm just drawing the comparison). The attitude is that a feminist is not a feminist if she endorses the capitalist system in any way, shape or form. The belief is that the class struggle takes priority over everything - I strongly suspect this is because class is the only real barrier most men have to struggle against.

A woman can be a feminist and yet believe in capitalism, consumerism, imperialism, religious values and military solutions to problems. A feminist can also be philosophically opposed to abortion (although A LOT of feminists don't agree with me on that one).

I don't mean to be argumentative with your views. I'm just putting forward my own view of what feminism means to me - a view that feminism embraces, and can operate within, all political systems

Killarney,
it's not "that a feminist is not a feminist if she endorses the capitalist system", but that she's a hypocrite.
Feminism appeals to ethics for consideration of her inequitable treatment, but my concern (andf Poirot's I think) is it's self-serving rather than ethical per se. Global capitalism is the zenith of patriarchy, relentlessly bent on reducing all humanity to market values and based on the unsustainable rape and pillage of the entire biosphere. Our feminists are apparently happy for this global "violence" to go on, so long as they get their share.

Lillian,

I'm disappointed you've addressed the least of the points I've made above. However, the whole idea that we can change the world with peer pressure and appeals to conscience is patent nonsense. You only have to spend time on OLO, especially AGW debates, to see that prejudices are obsidian. Humans are master rationalisers and can reconcile their irrational beliefs with all and any evidence to the contrary.
But as I said above, progressive action(merely agitation) only endorses the status quo, and it stands condemned. This imposes a far more disturbing form of ostracism and I would love to receive some cogent argument to the contrary. We are social animals and I have no wish to be a self-exile. But I put ethics before self-interest.

On the article, I just want to add the point that while violence can never be justified, women are often equal partners in stirring it up, at least domestically. Conflict often is stereotypical, with men trying to use reason and their partners responding emotionally. Each gets exasperated with the others obtuseness and it escalates.

Killarney,

"I don't mean to be argumentative with your views. I'm just putting forward my own view of what feminism means to me - a view that feminism embraces, and can operate within, all political systems"

Yes, I appreciate that....and it is good to have an insight from someone who has given feminism a lot of thought.

However, Squeers has articulated exactly the point I was attempting to make (and far more economically that I could:) From an ethical point of view, feminists embracing our system would seem to running counter to an overall feminine paradigm.

As an example, we've all seen those global gab-fests (like the upcoming G20) where men strut around in the capitalist uniform of dark suit and tie...and the women don costumes as close to that as they can, while still making the point that they're women...dark skirts, slacks, suit jackets, etc.

They are blending into masculine tapestry instead of weaving their own innate nature into it...and that's because they have bought into a system where they feel they have to adopt a masculine stance to "fight" for a bigger share of the spoils. They are required to wear "the uniform" in order to be taken seriously by their male colleagues.

Where is the feminine in all this?

Lost somewhere in the machinations of a masculine system, where women are required to reinvent themselves in male guise to be heard.

I do take your point that feminism seeks to raise women's status inside the system we have. However, my point is that if the system is so constructed as to be structurally incongruous to the feminine - then the voice of feminism is rendered somewhat discordant.

(I'll just add that I'm always entertained by your wit and eloquence on this forum - keep up the good work:)

Hi Poirot, Killarney and Squeers, I don't think people should be surprised if some people are aware of the prejudice women suffer everyday but are not entirely savvy to the mass exploitation that is the patriarchal capitalism we are struggling under. Hopefully everyone will come to see that you can't have capitalism and life (see Naomi Klein on how nothing has been done to stop climate change as it is very profitable for the mega wealthy). Hopefully it will become clear that you can't have a decent life without women, and children, being respected. This is the original oppression.

"In recent decades, the U.N., multiple research organizations, and academicians working in fields such as political science and security studies have piled up masses of evidence documenting the importance of equality between women and men (normally referred to as “gender equality”). Their findings point to the historic male dominance of women, enforced by violence, as the ancient prototype of all forms of dominance and violence and the very pattern of exploitation, enslavement, and war. Their research supports the shrewd observation of John Stuart Mill, the nineteenth century British philosopher, that Englishmen first learned at home and then practiced on their wives the tyranny they subsequently exercised on foreign shores to amass and control the British Empire."
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/27141-the-missing-women-of-afghanistan-after-13-years-of-war-the-rule-of-men-not-law

Phanto, I don't see why problems should only be fixed in adulthood. Roots of Empathy programme meant kids realise everyone, even tiny helpless babies, are entitled to respect. Some kids ealised that the abuse they were receiving was unjustified and they sought, and received, help. Just imagine if all those poor kids in religious and government institutions had those same lessons. How many lives of suicide, despair and violence could have been avoided? Adults can try and sort themselves out but it would be far better if they had been supported in childhood. The Hawn Foundation taught kids about their emotions via mindfulness allowing them to sort out their problems without physically or emotionally attacking each other. This mean happiness and a really useful lesson in emotional maturity. What could be wrong with that?

Hi Squeers
Using ostracism to enforce cultural norms is not a minor matter. Humans are social animals and exclusion is extremely painful and, in some situations, can be fatal. Patriarchy is the internalisation of the idea that men are better than women and therefore deserve different treatment. It becomes the norm when it is reinforced by the structures of the society (law, government, military, religion, work etc) and the social treatment (family, workmates etc).

" I just want to add the point that while violence can never be justified, women are often equal partners in stirring it up, at least domestically. Conflict often is stereotypical, with men trying to use reason and their partners responding emotionally. Each gets exasperated with the others obtuseness and it escalates." This is not gender, this is emotional immaturity. If you have a problem, get to the bottom of it, do not blame the other and get violent.

We live in a world that is violent and horrible for many women and children. Even if you are not the direct target of it, the dehumanisation of women and girls is under the surface. The structures are held in place by powerful men and by violence. Listen to the Mexican journalist Lydia Cacho's story.

"Sex trafficking is a booming business and enormously economically viable on a global scale. The estimate is that some 30 million, mainly women and children, are trapped in this industry." http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2014/09/18/4090413.htm

She challenges the clients, men, to think about what they are doing and why. She also challenges male journos to look into the issue.

Aristocrat, Since you do not put forward anything apart from a refusal to look at evidence or arguments I am unclear on where you stand and why. Do you think the world is perfect and women are just uppity? Please listen to Lydia Cacho's interview and tell me then how this is so.

Lillian:

“Some kids ealised that the abuse they were receiving was unjustified and they sought, and received, help. Just imagine if all those poor kids in religious and government institutions had those same lessons.”

I think kids already know instinctively when they are being abused and that it is wrong. I don’t think they need to learn that. You can tell they know because they also instinctively appeal to someone who they hope can help them. What happens though if the only adult who can help you is the one who is abusing you? What do you do if you have nowhere to go? If the person who is abusing you is also the one who gives you food, clothing and shelter then you have a real dilemma. You have to survive – there is an instinct for that as well – and so you have to choose between trying to stop the abuse or risking your survival. Most kids realise that survival is more important and so they just repress the abuse as best they can. They have made the only decision they could have made for themselves under the circumstances.

When they become adults they no longer need others to help them survive but all that repressed pain still lies within them. It is often called repressed memories but it is in fact repressed pain. Until that pain is addressed it will continue to affect them and especially their ability to parent properly.

So in a way you have to wait until people are no longer dependent on others for their survival before they will go anywhere near that repressed pain. They have to feel reasonably safe and even then it is a very difficult experience. It can be done and many have done it and their ability to parent increases immensely. The best people to approach would possibly be late teenagers who have the confidence to support themselves. This would target their repressed pain before they had become parents and I think this would produce the best outcome.

cont.

cont.

Telling a young child that he should respect other children means very little. Kids that age do not have a concept of social justice. You may tell them they should respect other children and they may go through the motions of respect but they only do it because you told them to and not because it feels right. They imbibe what you say in the same spirit as if you tell them they need to brush their teeth. They don’t understand why until they get older and study tooth decay.

They may not understand respect but they do know that you never hit someone because they may themselves have felt the pain of being hit or seen someone else’s pain and pain is not pleasant. They know that you should share things because they know how it feels when they are left out. They do not need to be given reasons for doing this since they already know. Their feelings are giving them clues all the time. If you punish them when they share or do not hit back when struck then you are creating doubts in their minds already about the value of their feelings as a part of their human nature.

Lillian:
“This is not gender, this is emotional immaturity [what is?]. If you have a problem, get to the bottom of it, do not blame the other and get violent.”

You presume to infer a great deal from my post that isn’t there, Lillian; I’m sorry to disappoint but I’m not given to violence. I was merely observing the emotional/rational sort of cross-purposes women and men are given to pit against each other. As I’ve suggested above, there are all sorts of levels of complexity and strata to the topic of male violence and this one obtains at the mundanely interpersonal.
It’s interesting that you use the phrase “emotional immaturity”—though I’m not sure how it applies to my comment—as if emotional maturity was a measurable quantity or more than a discursive construct. Emotional immaturity is one of those impressive reproaches women level at men without bothering to define or understand their terms, while the typical response to questioning is that it’s over our heads anyway. It’s commonly deemed a weakness in men—on dubious grounds—that they repress their emotions, but emotional women who confound reason are praised for their maturity. Reason is of course a male invention, adapted to address life’s challenges efficiently, but it’s curious that so many women despise it. I realise I’m on dangerous ground here—it’s ok for women to call men emotionally immature, but not for men to call women irrational. Well I’m sorry, but in my not insignificant experience with women I have commonly observed that when cross, they respond to reasoned argument with emotional abuse and even violence. I hasten to add that probably just as often the male antagonist only “thinks” he’s being reasonable, but this is no excuse for his combatant to dredge up unrelated grievances or hurl abuse adapted for maximum effect.
My point was that at the domestic level this kind of stereotypically gendered pattern of behaviour is a common driver of violence. It takes two. I think we should consider the possibility that men and women are emotionally incompatible, and not make the unsubstantiated claim that one is deficient.

Lillian:
“Using ostracism to enforce cultural norms is not a minor matter. Humans are social animals and exclusion is extremely painful and, in some situations, can be fatal.”

Once again it escapes me how this relates to the comment I made which provoked it.
It’s an interesting topic, however, and I suspect I have a greater appreciation of the implications than you do. When I initially observed that “we are social animals,” above, I was pondering greater implications than you seem to appreciate. To begin with, here was the great lesson Marx failed to learn from Hegel, that his mythical proletariat was never going to spontaneously renounce its cultural identity, which goes deeper than ideology. Marx’s historical dialectic could only be sustained by a true populist uprising, confirmed in its commitment by gross and ongoing injustice—and not via an “awakening”. Capitalism proved just too agile and made sufficient concessions, post war, to put down the bulk of dissent. The demand for equality was bought off by the illusion of democracy. Democracy is the way the game’s played, but the decks are stacked and it’s democratic in name only.
What’s worse is the powers that be are now much wiser and realise the masses are no threat so long as a minimum standard, or rather a minimum percentage of the population, is maintained. In any case, any grumbling is quieted by the “manufacture of mass consent”. Ideology is a more sophisticated technology now than it’s ever been. So while I appreciate your concern at my pariah status—though I have no thoughts of suicide—I celebrate it. The worry is not that we are bereft without our peers and institutions, but that we are so dependent! Rather than confirming our social dependency, you should be mocking it. Our obsequiousness makes us incapable of reacting spontaneously; not to contingency, but to the ills generated and made invisible by the institutions we cleave to.

Poirot

‘Lost somewhere in the machinations of a masculine system, where women are required to reinvent themselves in male guise to be heard.’

Yes, but in the current system, what else can they really do? After millennia of being kept ‘barefoot and pregnant’, how can women turn around and create a female counterpoint to the Security Council, the General Assembly, the IMF, the World Bank, the Pentagon, Lockheed Martin etc?

Often you do have to work within the system to change the system. The women who become politicians and bankers and business movers and shakers are predisposed by personality and values to that kind of professional orientation. If they walk the walk, talk the talk and dress the dress, that’s because it’s required of anyone who enters those walks of life. Otherwise, they don’t remain there for long.

If you’ve got any concrete suggestions as to how women/feminists can overcome this ‘hypocrisy’, other than the work they are already doing, I’d be interested to know.

‘(I'll just add that I'm always entertained by your wit and eloquence on this forum - keep up the good work:)’

Yes, I always enjoy your posts, too, even when I don’t always agree with you. I’m happy to consider you a 'forum friend’.

squeers

'Our feminists are apparently happy for this global "violence" to go on, so long as they get their share.'

Oh, come one, squeers. That's not fair. (See my post to Poirot for further explanation.)

We live in a violent, capitalist, imperialist, male-centric, hegemonic system that is not going to change anytime soon. What are feminists supposed to do - go off and form some kind of pacifist, egalitarian, utopian commune? A lot of good that will do.

I exaggerate to make a point. But surely you get my drift.

Lillian

Re your comments about King Amanullah of Afghanistan, there are numerous historical examples of rulers and thinkers in those nations we now despise as misogynist (including Egypt, Turkey and Libya), who believed that women's rights were essential to an enlightened and functional society. In 17th century Vietnam, the Le dynasty introduced extensive reforms that ensured the rights of women and minorities, reforms that fell apart under later 'advanced' French colonialist rule.

The idea that enlightened democratic principles only apply to modern Western states is uninformed and misguided. History is full of attempts to defy male hegemony, but powerful global powers have a way of overturning them. Sure, imperialism banned some grotesque misogynist practices like 'Sati' (widows burning themselves alive on their husband's funeral pyre), but it also ensured that men dominated the societies it occupied and controlled.

Killarney,
in democracies women have the voting power to change the system overnight. your position does the opposite. Striving for equality within the system only bolsters it. The system is not going to change any time soon, but that's no reason to legitimise it. If feminists are going to invoke grand narratives like patriarchy, they need to theorise viable alternatives, otherwise they go the same way as other 'progressive' movements and are thrown a bone for their compliance--while the select few join the high table with the male elites.

Hi Killarney,

"Often you do have to work within the system to change the system. The women who become politicians and bankers and business movers and shakers are predisposed by personality and values to that kind of professional orientation. If they walk the walk, talk the talk and dress the dress, that’s because it’s required of anyone who enters those walks of life. Otherwise, they don’t remain there for long."

Yes, but they're not really changing the system, are they.

They are perpetuating it.

"If you’ve got any concrete suggestions as to how women/feminists can overcome this ‘hypocrisy’, other than the work they are already doing, I’d be interested to know."

Well, this is where feminists have to step up and go the extra mile. If they are required to don the mask of the system, accommodate it, get inside it, etc, one would hope that by now they would have some concrete (and realistic) ideas of how to go about reshaping it - not just rendering routine maintenance to the contours it already has.

I have my doubts as to whether that's an attainable reality. As we've covered, the species is entwined and it marches on as one. However, constantly complaining about patriarchy when it's being perpetuated by a system embraced by feminists seems futile.

Hi Phanto,

Roots of Empathy does not 'tell' children anything. A mum brings her baby into the primary school classroom for a year. "Guided observation means children connect to the baby's humanity on a deep emotional level. This connection becomes the lever to discover their own feelings and the feeling of others. It is the very essence of empathy."
http://www.rootsofempathy.org/
So kids learn by looking and connecting that everyone has rights and feelings, even themselves. it has profound outcomes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4cgG9Thxs8

Squeers,
What a laugh! You interpreted me saying "If you have a problem, get to the bottom of it, do not blame the other and get violent.” as directed at you, the man. Anyone can be emotionally immature. Claiming reason for men and emotion for women is really silly. Everyone has both. How they use them shows how mature they are. I don't think men and women are emotionally incompatible. I've been happily married for 24 years. What is incompatible in any relationship is bullying, manipulation, entitlement and abuse. This is why I think programmes such as Roots of Empathy are important. Also removing the structural injustices in our society that restrict and damage women but also warp men. Back to patriarchy again.

Hi Poirot, Killarney and Squeers
We are all dealing with the existing system. It was not invented last week and it has some very persistent roots. The oldest and most persistent is the exploitation of women that has not yet been successfully tackled.

The capitalist system has made great strides in power and lunacy by the use of propaganda (see Chomsky Manufacturing Consent) think tanks, the support of very wealthy men, the revolving door between government and business, globalisation, deregulation, control of the press, rigorous suppression and silencing of dissent. If you are really concerned about equality and women's rights and the ills of patriarchy then surely you should be working with others on these issues. Condemning feminists that do not share your critique of capitalism is a waste of time. There are plenty of people who are condemning it, many of whom are feminists. For example the Occupy movement, people working against the G20 and just loads of small organisations all over the place.

Also we are social animals. We cannot survive without each other. It is better to recognize this and develop systems for behaviour that are not exploitative and nasty rather than pretending this is not the case. As Killarney says there have been systems in the past that do not rest on the exploitation of the vulnerable. If we've done it before we can do it again and it is time to get busy.

lillian,

Empathy is innate in the human species. Without it a human would be unable to interact at all with other humans. It's the capacity to recognise that others feel the same emotions as oneself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

Sympathy and compassion are further offshoots of the basic ability to empathise.

An example of a human unable to feel empathy is a one who's profoundly and classically autistic, who cannot read and reciprocate human emotions from other humans.

Empathy is understood very early in human development - from the get go in recognising like emotions in one's close family, in the parents and sibling's eyes and facial emotions. I'm sure bringing a baby into classroom is helpful, but probably unnecessary, for encouraging empathy, as it would already be a feature of a young child's emotional intelligence.

Notwithstanding, that children can be quite perverse and sadistic and exquisitely cruel, especially if they glean a peer has a weakness and has been isolated as a target by other peers. That's more of a "pack mentality", which is another human foible, probably more a consequence of the mammalian brain than the rational neocortex.

Hey guys, still going! Bravo for perseverence! Just a quick post:

Guardian Australia Nov 3, 2014. Victorian Police Commissioner Ken Lay: “I place family violence in a wider culture where vulgar and violent attitudes to women are common . . . These attitudes show that we perceive women differently than men and by differently I mean we perceive them as less valuable. In order to stop a problem we have to tackle the cause.”

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/03/culture-of-hostility-to-women-leads-to-domestic-violence-say-police-chiefs

Lillian,

I'm glad I misunderstood your comment, though it did read like that.
As for the rest, again you paraphrase me poorly, miss the complexity and are too quick to dismiss:

"Claiming reason for men and emotion for women is really silly".

I made no such bald claim; the observation was highly qualified since I knew I was likely to meet spontaneous (unconsidered) resistance. True to form, you follow through with truncated truth claims which profess common sense yet are unsubstantiated:
"Everyone has both. How they use them shows how mature they are. I don't think men and women are emotionally incompatible. I've been happily married for 24 years."
Such clarity and confidence is heartening, but hardly conclusive. The reality is that political correctness has taken "offensive" constructs off the table and we may denounce them out of hand, indeed we're obliged to. Yet it is true that certain patterns of behaviour remain highly predictable and gendered. Male violence for instance.. I don't suppose you'd argue with that?

You then say that, "What is incompatible in any relationship is bullying, manipulation, entitlement and abuse."

More common sense. Yet these are staples in every relationship, more or less. We live and think within discursive and power matrices, language games, which structure and lend our "thinking" its "kudos". "Emotional maturity" is a construct which suggests the healthy couple operates somehow above the flux, are able to orchestrate emotions/reason independently so as to reflect something "essential" about themselves. All communication is patterned and rhetorical, and its aim is to prevail or achieve some end.
Women stereotypically trope with emotion, and men with "reason". This is not a qualitative, sexist or insistent observation, and if it is true for any statistically significant number, as I suggest it is, it is more than likely conditioned behaviour. Ergo it doesn't have to be construed as an insult to women, but more evidence of her oppression.
Political correctness is the denial of unpalatable possibilities.

I'm glad btw that you've found my cues useful: humans being "social animals", and Chomsky's "manufactured consent"

Hi Everyone
Thanks for the discussion. Thanks to imho for the original article and the latest link.

To Phanto and Poirot, The evidence is in that encouraging and developing empathy in children is important. If you've ever been bullied, witnessed bullying, been a bully or parented a bullied child I think you know the damage that can be done. I find it interesting that you both seem to resist this idea. Forgive me if I'm wrong but it seems that both of you had difficult childhoods and I wonder if this could be part of why you reacted like this. Regardless of your/my ideas:

"Studies have long shown that stress can have a lasting, negative impact on the brain. Exposure to even a few days of stress compromises the effectiveness of neurons in the hippocampus—an important brain area responsible for reasoning and memory. Weeks of stress cause reversible damage to neuronal dendrites (the small “arms” that brain cells use to communicate with each other), and months of stress can permanently destroy neurons. "
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/10/28/comment-how-handle-toxic-people

To me the personal is very important. Creating a culture where empathy flourishes would benefit everyone.

Squeers
"Yet it is true that certain patterns of behaviour remain highly predictable and gendered. Male violence for instance.. I don't suppose you'd argue with that?" No I don't argue with that. We are discussing what is the root of this and how it harms everyone.

"Emotional maturity" is a construct which suggests the healthy couple operates somehow above the flux," No. It means people have learned about their emotions and don't lash out with them.

"Women stereotypically trope with emotion, and men with "reason". This is not a qualitative, sexist or insistent observation, and if it is true for any statistically significant number, as I suggest it is, it is more than likely conditioned behaviour. Ergo it doesn't have to be construed as an insult to women, but more evidence of her oppression."
It comes across to me as the more powerful in the relationship dismissing the concerns of the other.

In the building industry I had to deal with a builder who used tantrums to try and get me to authorise payments. I saw the way one man manipulated others, both his peers and his superiors.

I also witnessed mature and supportive and quietly gallant and honourable actions by my male peers and bosses. What this is all about is acknowledging we are all human. We have different characters, life experiences and a range of 'societies' we inhabit. It is up to all of us to make our lives fair and respectful to ourselves, the people that depend on us and to others as a whole.

Lillian:

"Forgive me if I'm wrong but it seems that both of you had difficult childhoods and I wonder if this could be part of why you reacted like this."

I don't think an emotionally intelligent person would apologise for their opinion. They would have a firm understanding of their rights which include the right to express one's opinion. They would also know that opinions cannot really hurt anyone and so there is nothing to be forgiven for.

I do not think you really feel guilt and yet you speak as if you do. That is an example of not being aware of your own feelings which is what you say emotional intelligence is.

It is hard to give much credence to your theories if you do not understand something as basic as the feeling of guilt. It seems to me that you are engaging in an intellectual discussion but do not accept your own conclusions.

Hi Phanto
It wasn't guilt but consideration. I don't like making assumptions. However I do find your continued negative response interesting.

Have a look at this article on what happens to a society that crushes empathy (as neo-liberalism does):
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2014/august/1406815200/linda-jaivin/rising-tide-narcissism?utm_content=buffer8a3cf&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Editorial+Teasers

"Among the defining traits of a narcissistic personality disorder is a lack of empathy."

"Yet narcissism is a recognised personality disorder with a spectrum that includes the pathological. Manne, reviewing the work of academic researchers, psychologists and others, argues that, moral panic aside, narcissism is genuinely on the rise in Australia and elsewhere. What’s more, it is having a toxic effect on community, culture, politics, the economy and even the environment. It is implicated in myriad acts of violence from road rage and sexual assault to politically motivated mass murder. According to Manne, the prevailing ideology of neoliberalism feeds the culture of narcissism and is in turn nourished by it, with global consequences."

Lillian:

“It wasn't guilt but consideration. I don't like making assumptions. However I do find your continued negative response interesting.”

What do you need to consider? I can’t speak for Poirot but there is no way that any of your opinions could hurt me – as I said they are simply opinions. There is nothing you need to be considerate about. What is wrong with making assumptions – they are also only opinions.

Just because I do not agree with you does not mean that I am negative and you are positive. It simply means we disagree.

I do not think the problem of men’s violence has anything to do with empathy. You can be the most empathetic person in the world and still give way to violence. You cannot teach empathy to children and hope they will grow up as non-violent adults. Empathy is not an idea that you have to grasp mentally and then once you have it in your head you automatically go on to behave empathetically. There are extremely empathetic people in the world who would not even know how to spell the word. That is because it is a naturally occurring phenomenon. A person who grows up responding to their own feelings in a natural way will automatically become empathetic. It is when their parents behave in such a way towards them that casts doubt in them about the naturalness of their fear, anger, guilt, pleasure and joy that their ability to behave empathetically is diminished.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t see any point in discussing it further.

Lillian:

I'm also sceptical that empathy is a miracle cure. I'm always wary of statements like "the evidence is in". I certainly think that healthy formative experience is crucial to well-adjusted development, but the nature of society is also answerable. Deriving our ethics from the "other", a la Levinas et al, amounts to theorising in a vacuum. But I won't persist; you seem content with your conclusions.

"We are discussing what is the root of this [male violence] and how it harms everyone."

Sorry but you're not. It seems to me you're evading what's at the root of it in favour of the foliage. We should all be wary of "how things come across" to us; that is, filtered through prior conviction.
But thank you, and everyone, for the engagement.

Hi folks, another quick post re recent success of the White Ribbon schools program, “Breaking the Silence.” The report focuses on a Sydney school where the program has resulted in an 80 per cent reduction in violent and aggressive behaviours. Focus is on attitudes involving male privilege, male power and control and the objectification of women as underlying causes of violence: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-04/sydney-school-ditches-detention-room-white-ribbon-program/5866242

Hi Phanto,
Each of us will believe whatever we wish. However I find your reasoning full of holes.

You appear to have had repressive parents. I'm assuming this from your references to children being controlled by parents until they are old enough to escape.

You appear to believe empathy is intrinsic and develops regardless of how the child is treated. Why then do the parents, who also would have had innate empathy presumably, behave badly to their child?

Regardless of your experience there are many children trapped in homes with abusive parents. It's only in recent years abuse has become socially visible although it's hidden in plain sight. Homes for people fleeing family violence were only established in the 70s and child sexual abuse is only coming out into the open now.

"I do not think the problem of men’s violence has anything to do with empathy. You can be the most empathetic person in the world and still give way to violence." Where is your evidence for this?

"If an abusive man involves himself in child discipline, he has rigid expectations, low empathy and an angry style of "power-assertive" (i.e. verbal and physical force) punishment. Discipline is a quick fix to an immediate problem, not a thoughtful strategy based upon reasonable and age-appropriate expectations."
http://www.lfcc.on.ca/HCT_SWASM_13.html

Sounds like repressive parenting to me.

The removal of empathy towards certain groups is also manipulated for social and political ends. Witness the demonisation of asylum seekers and Muslims. Women are also continually treated with far less consideration than men. If we truly had empathy for each other we would not behave like this. If you disagree please provide evidence other than your personal opinion.

lillian,

"The removal of empathy towards certain groups is also manipulated for social and political ends. Witness the demonisation of asylum seekers and Muslims..."

Yes, indeedy...

Are you telling me that women in the Australian community are not getting on board with the govt's demonsiation of asylum seekers...Muslims et al?

Entire blocs of the Oz demographic reckon Morrison's sadistic "Border Protection" policies are a jolly good idea - and those blocs consist of both men "and women".

How do you explain the fact that women can jettison empathy in such a case just as fulsomely as men?

Hi Poirot
"Are you telling me that women in the Australian community are not getting on board with the govt's demonsiation of asylum seekers...Muslims et al?" That's what political manipulation is all about.

"How do you explain the fact that women can jettison empathy in such a case just as fulsomely as men?" Is it a fact? Why do you seem to expect all women to be perfect? There are lots of women (and men) who will be working against the propaganda machine. Since you have previously argued that encouraging empathy does no good why do you seem to object to encouraging its opposite, dehumanisation?

Hi Squeers
I haven't said anything is a miracle cure but think how we treat ourselves and each other is vital. It is through this discussion that I have realised how important empathy is, so thanks everyone. I have also constantly stated, with evidence and examples, how important social and cultural norms are. You have ignored or dismissed the research and successful projects linked to by me and others by using generalisations and stereotypes to support your arguments rather than contrary evidence. You are entirely entitled to hold whatever views you like but they appear based on emotion not reason

I'm not familiar enough with lillian to know if this observation fits in her (or his) case but I do have a view that often those who have a lot to say on empathy and or social justice are often very selective about where that empathy or social justice is directed.

Most (probably including most psychopaths) do well when it's causes we agree with, the real telling for both is how we do when it's things that we are no so fond of. How we do when the issue not so black and white in our minds and we are juggling conflicting views.

I've probably seen more of it from those who tout their passion for social justice where that social justice concern is very selective and quite willing to ride rough shod over those who don't fit some preconceived category of those who deserve justice.

Empathy is important, if it's not real though and rather a cover to try and give greater credibility to some pet cause then it adds nothing.

R0bert

Sorry Lillian but can't let you have the last word. You've ignored the rigorous argument I've offered and tried to pass it off by misrepresenting it. Or perhaps you just can't think that deeply?
In the context of what I've been arguing your research and position are necessarily "of" the system. Your position only addresses symptoms.

sorry, I meant to say your "evidence", not "research".

lillian,

"....Is it a fact? Why do you seem to expect all women to be perfect?.."

Well, yes it is a fact that many women as well as men are right behind Morrison's agenda.

Why does it ensue that I expect "all women to be perfect"? I was making the point that women too can override their empathy when it suits their agenda.

"Since you have previously argued that encouraging empathy does no good why do you seem to object to encouraging its opposite, dehumanisation? "

I pointed out that empathy was an innate human response. - without it a person would be unable to interact with other people. I did not argue that "encouraging it was no good", merely that it was a fundamental trait of human development.

I happen to think Morrison's pogrom stinks to high heaven, but am equally appalled that so many support it....men "and women" - entangled as they are - and susceptible to confected threats and media-hyped faux hysteria.

Hi Squeers
Perhaps you'd like to summarise your argument? A lot of ground has been covered by all of us and I think it has been really interesting. What I have got from you is that you seem to think that we are stuck with what we have (violence, capitalism) You earlier suggested education as a way out but not sure you still support that.

"I take the view that our "consciousness of" behavioural mechanisms, implicit in self-reflexive examinations conducted even by offenders, indicates executive awareness above enculturation. ...The final point,.. individuals are just as likely capable of self-correction over lifetimes, rather than generations. Though a) this cuts both ways and implies the essentiality of the "sadistic savant". And on the other hand b) this cuts close to foucault's perhaps paranoid concept of the internal police state.Education's the key, but may not stop the Hannibal Lecters of the world!"

"surely fair to say that Women seem to want to place themselves above criticism, being quick to shout misogynist!"

"I'm not a Marxist but if we're going to have grand narratives it seems to me that late capitalism offers more tangible rationales for the world's ills, as well as those of individuals. We're surely all utterly commodified and patriarchy too serves capitalism as the greater power."

Hi Poirot
I too am appalled by Morrison and the way that people are sucked into hatred and fear of others. I think it comes from callous manipulation of our basic instincts of anger and fear. There is a really good book by Dylan Evans called "Emotion" that shows how those base emotions are the earliest and things like love, compassion etc are in the frontal lobes, not the amygdala. I think telling people this, and allowing them to feel their emotions without lashing out, is the way forward. If we know how and why we are being manipulated at least we have a chance to decide if we want to go along with it. That is the point of the Hawn Foundation doing meditation in schools.

Hi Robert
My pet cause is to live in a society that allows us all to flourish. Being a woman and (especially) a mum has enabled me to see how the vulnerable are treated. I also had a time as a professional and so know that while all is not rosy in the world of work, once you become a carer for others then you are regarded as mostly irrelevant, if not an actual burden on society. It made me realise that everyone has something to offer and the (turbo) capitalist way of only supporting the economically profitable is cruel as well as ridiculous.

The questions should be how do we ensure that people are treated kindly and fairly regardless of their age and abilities? It is pretty clear that our current systems are wildly out of whack where the richest 85 people own more than the poorest 3 billion.

That women and children are the poorest on the planet and that an estimated 30 million of them are in sex slavery http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2014/09/18/4090413.htm.

The biggest trades in our globalised economy are arms, drugs and people trafficking. http://geopium.org/640/illegal-trades-across-national-borders-2

That our systems are overwhelmingly run by men. Unfortunately the men that rise to the top in these systems are deeply amoral. Lacking entirely in any spark of empathy or social justice.

The 2010 film "Inside Job" is worth a watch to see them in action. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1zx56p_inside-job-full-movie-hd_shortfilms

Also have a look at the revelations today about the way companies, governments and individuals are rorting tax so that countries and people are impoverished. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/05/-sp-luxembourg-tax-files-tax-avoidance-industrial-scale

I think our world could use a lot more social justice and empathy. This cannot happen without everyone, but especially men, standing up for it. Women cannot do it alone (yes Poirot, I know not all women are doing this but lots are.)