Thankyou to everyone for your posts in response to our article. It is always both challenging and of interest to me to hear others’ views about issues of gender and sexual violence. Like some other contributors, I am however often shocked at the number of people who seem to defend sexual violence; by saying that either women and men are ‘just different’, or women invite rape by dressing provocatively, or that rape is a rare occurrence and therefore not a big deal - and that any woman who suggests otherwise is automatically labelled ‘man-hater’ or ‘witch’.

Personal name-calling aside however, please let me address a few points. Firstly, that to me, every person’s sexual autonomy is a serious issue. Even though women have gained much in terms of equality, unfortunately it is the case that many women will experience forced sex in their lifetime – this is not something I believe should be tolerated or trivialised.

Secondly, that as many (not just feminists) have pointed out: there is something in our culture at the moment that seems to valorise male violence – and this is not just a ‘battle of the sexes’ type issue (as some posts have described it). After all, it is not only women who suffer from men’s violence. Men too, are victims of other men’s violence – you only have to look at the current concern and debates about night-time violence to see that there is something serious here to be addressed. I do not believe that it is simply ‘men’s nature’ or ‘difference’, that somehow makes such violence ‘inevitable’ – I believe that many men abhor this violence (whether against other men or against women) and that they (like many women) want things to change. However, there are also a large proportion of both women and men who subscribe to this particular version of ‘what it means to be a man’.

What I am hoping for is a discussion about what are the other possibilities? How can we work towards a society where violence (whether against women or men) is no longer tolerated?

AnastasiaP,

'this is not something I believe should be tolerated or trivialised. '

Is it something to be exaggerated? What do you think of the general standard procedure of inflating figures for the purposes of 'raising awareness'? Now normally in most of the lobby lobby lobby industry, the only harm done is a lack of trust and the 'cry wolf' effect. But inflating figures for effect when it comes to gender politics has the effect of getting half the population off side.

Why isn't 1 in 10 women raped enough? Why not 1 woman? Why not retain the power of rape as a word, rather than conflate it into 'sexual assault' to appropriate lesser crimes and give the rape figures a boost as these days the terms 'sexual assault' and 'rape' are used interchangeably?

You talk of genuinely wanting for men to be included in solutions to these problems, but so much is done to alienate and tar them all with the same brush.

Imagine if women were on the receiving end? Imagine if the definition of infanticide was changed to child murder, and then child murder was infused with verbal abuse and used to create statistics of 1 in 3 women is a child murderer?

Some men rape, most don't. Screaming this 1 in 3 women propaganda is deliberately creating the impression there's a lot more victims, and likely more perpetrators than there really are. That's pretty close to man bashing in my book.

ana p - there is a really long way to go eh?

houellebeceq...but 1 in 3 is not feminst agitprop mate...it's real. why not deal with it?...becaue if you don't you simply sound like a woman hater? long term, what kinda society do you really want your mother, sister and daughter to live in? this one? really?

do you really want small girls like your daughter to be constantly sexualised in junk mail catalogues (forget Bill Henson have a look at Target & Big W.!!)..do you want your sister to be date raped in the student union bar? do you want your mother to be attacked in her home by someone posing as a meter reader? i mean really is that what you want?....i don't think so...but you sure sound as if you do..because instead of responding in a rational way you instantly see women trying to negociate with you on equal terms as a threat. get over it, and have a chat with women, don't be so afraid, they really don't want to hurt you, they just want to talk.

<Founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, put it even better in the New Scientist a few months ago when he said: "The most important thing we can do as individuals is to think. Instead of responding with your gut reaction, get the facts, get a complete picture of the problem and the possible solutions." >

<"As an exercise take one of your strongly held opinions and challenge it. Spend a week, or better a month, researching it. You may find that you were mistaken. And if it turns out you were right, then so much the better," said Wales.>

< "I can't see many people doing it, but wouldn't it be great to start any argument with an agreed set of facts, before disputing opinions?">

Now for starters, chemical castration is a method used to treat some sexual offenders and it works very well provided they continue to take their medication.

I hypothese, that if all males between the ages of 14 to 24 were to be chemically castrated, the rates of alleged sexual by males would plumment.

The other advantage would be that the level of male violence against each other could also possibly plumment.

I agree with AnastasiaP, that we should continue to work towards a society that does not tolerate violence agianst any person, regardless of gender.

Runner, phanto, Robert, you do raise valid points, that word limits dont allow for much exploration.

Suzonline, male rape is very much underreported problem.

AnastasiaP:
“What I am hoping for is a discussion about what are the other possibilities? How can we work towards a society where violence (whether against women or men) is no longer tolerated?”

There is absolutely no way anyone could have inferred this from the article that you wrote.

Violence is not tolerated. There are and should be consequences for behaving violently. This is one of society’s core values. Another core value is that a person is innocent until proved guilty. There has to be proof. The problem is that a great deal of aggression cannot be proven to those who are given the task of administering consequences and so it goes unpunished in the way it would be if it could be proven. There seems no way around this unless we do away with the need for proof and just take the victim’s word for it.

The fact is that there can be consequences of violent behaviour which is not provable but which involve the victim taking a stance. Many women know this but are reluctant to take that stance because they are afraid of the consequences for themselves. Women have to choose between their safety and their desire to be in situations where men can take advantage of the fact that any violence cannot be proven. Many women are not prepared to make that choice in favour of their own safety and the real question is why not.

If men are as bad as these articles make out then why do women consistently put themselves in a position where they are at a distinct disadvantage? What drives them to ignore the fundamental need to be safe? What could be more important than that?

While women wait for men to change they could prove they are genuine by changing their own behaviour to make life much safer for themselves but the cost to them seems too high to pay so they continue to try and get men to change. The problem women have is that they value these other things more than they value their own well-being.

Yikes,

Nice hysterical use of hyperbole. Believe everything you read do you? The use of the term 'sexual assault' is deliberately ambiguous. Were 1 in 3 women raped, or were 1 in 3 women pinched on the bum? Who knows? All I'm asking is for the word 'rape' to retain it's status as a heinous crime, and for it not to be watered down or the figures exaggerated.

Anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between wanting honesty about gender violence and condoning it.

The author wants

'to advocate for a zero tolerance to all forms of gender violence and inequality.'

But, apparently female violence doesn't count as 'gender violence', as it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Does she condone female violence as you accuse me of condoning male violence? The levels of female violence are hardly insignificant...

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/9960605/Male-Victims-of-Domestic-Abuse-Key-Statistics

The Authors also want men 'to speak up and enter into these debates'.

As I am here.

But as I said, the example of the White Ribbon Day's campaign last year inhibits a lot of men from doing this...

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15904162/Domestic-violence-the-other-half-of-the-story

1 in 3 boys think it's ok to hit a girl huh? Not so it seems.

If it were serious about getting men onside, the White Ribbon Foundation would apologise for this false assertion and correct the record, giving it as much publicity as the original false assertion. Maybe it could have added this retraction to this years campaign.

Rather it decided to leave young boys with this false stigma for it's own POLITICAL ends. A whole generation of school aged boys labelled like this. I will be watching closely this year to check up on all their claims.

As the author says,

'Perhaps then, we can imagine and create a more robust reality that is not skewed towards distorted expectations of women and men'

What about the distorted 'reality' of women and men that is created by the constant distortion of statistics for the purposes of 'raising awareness'?