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’).

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.