Male Violence

[The Real Buh 3,432]

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

Thought so

>thought

[The Real Buh 3,432]

6 minutes ago, sonyc said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Übermensch

I keep reading you post about the "strong man" and the weak man and it reminded me of Nietzsche's book "Thus Spake Zarathrusta" and the description he gives of the Overman. I include a wiki link here.

It might be the sort of book you'd like to read TRB. He is very interesting in his philosophy but of course was followed later by less honourable people. He hated the herd and of course the "weak" and believed in the creative power of the individual. Lots of similarities with the views you've been expressing in this thread. I am not sure what his views were about women but then you haven't really touched on your view of women in this thread.

Anyway, offering this for interest. You have very strong views and like to express them and sometimes its good to read around any subject.

 

I’m a big fan of stoicism, individual responsibility and independence/self reliance. These seem to be dirty concepts in a modern setting, because they lead to personal growth and elevation in the hierarchical structures of our society. The weaker members of this hierarchy, neck deep in collectivism as a defence mechanism, look at the strong individual and panic. Free thought threatens the collective and the thin foothold they have on given hierarchical structures as a result of hiding in a collective. I find it pretty fascinating. Read the gulag archipelago as well, that’s a good example of collectivism gone mad.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

>thought

I have ten minutes left until the Fulham v ManC game finishes before its goodnight.

I think, therefore I am.

I'm pink, therefore I'm Spam

[sonyc 5,510]

2 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

I’m a big fan of stoicism, individual responsibility and independence/self reliance. These seem to be dirty concepts in a modern setting, because they lead to personal growth and elevation in the hierarchical structures of our society. The weaker members of this hierarchy, neck deep in collectivism as a defence mechanism, look at the strong individual and panic. Free thought threatens the collective and the thin foothold they have on given hierarchical structures as a result of hiding in a collective. I find it pretty fascinating. Read the gulag archipelago as well, that’s a good example of collectivism gone mad.

.....then this might interest you too. A fantastic book.

It's the Guardian so you may have to hold your nose but they have very good articles from time to time! But it links the pandemic and stoicism well.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/apr/25/stoicism-in-a-time-of-pandemic-coronavirus-marcus-aurelius-the-meditations

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

14 minutes ago, sonyc said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Übermensch

I keep reading you post about the "strong man" and the weak man and it reminded me of Nietzsche's book "Thus Spake Zarathrusta" and the description he gives of the Overman. I include a wiki link here.

It might be the sort of book you'd like to read TRB. He is very interesting in his philosophy but of course was followed later by less honourable people. He hated the herd and of course the "weak" and believed in the creative power of the individual. Lots of similarities with the views you've been expressing in this thread. I am not sure what his views were about women but then you haven't really touched on your view of women in this thread.

Anyway, offering this for interest. You have very strong views and like to express them and sometimes its good to read around any subject.

 

But he was another one who leaned toward continental philosophy, rather like Bolshevism, that it was only the gifted who understood. That profound philosophy was more important than natural actions or nature.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Goodnight

[Fen Canary 811]

Firstly, I have a deep loathing of the term toxic masculinity. It appears to me to be in the same vein as the structural or systemic racism arguments during the summer, in that we’re simply supposed to accept it exists despite its proponents never displaying any evidence of its existence. It simply seems to be list of what are more masculine traits such as aggression or stoicism and painting these as entirely bad, even though there are situations (such as somebody breaking into your house, or facing a terminal disease) where they could be an advantage. I’ll agree that these traits can spill over too far, but the same can be said for some feminine ones too. Women on average can also be much more manipulative, though you never hear this described as toxic femininity.

 

Anyway, for the subject in hand, I believe it’s much more about how risks are perceived than anything else. As has been clumsily pointed out by others on here, as a man I’m probably around 4-5x more likely to be attacked or murdered than a women, and as a percentage of those attacked by strangers higher again. However, as a man I’m also much stronger than most women, so in my head (rightly or wrongly) I believe even if I am attacked I’ve got half a chance of beating my attacker and getting away ok. For women this obviously isn’t the case, so although they’re much less likely to be attacked, they’re also much more powerless when it does happen, which makes it a much scarier proposition. 

 

As for domestic abuse, I believe there is controlling behaviour from both sexes, however it manifests itself in different ways. For men they’re much more likely to use aggression and fear as weapons, whereas women aren’t able to so use coercion and manipulation instead. We all know of henpecked men who were almost completely cut off from friends and family once getting involved with a partner, whose self esteem has been destroyed over the years. However obviously only one of these types of controlling behaviour ends with the partner ending up dead which makes it much more serious I’ll agree. 

 

As for the solutions to the problem I’ll admit I have very few ideas. The violence and domestic abuse is carried out by a tiny percentage of men, most of whom know what they’re doing is wrong but do it anyway. Believing that somehow destroying a vaguely defined patriarchy or feminising all men will stop the bad or broken ones behaving the way they do is fanciful in my opinion. The UK is one of the safest places in the world, for both men and women, but unfortunately in a population of 70 million these incidents will always occur. 

 

All I can propose is offering support to those men who struggle to control their anger, and heavily punishing those that refuse to accept their violent behaviour is a problem. Also making it much easier for women to leave abusive partners, much stronger support systems etc, before the abuse leads to dangerous levels. Increasing awareness of what controlling behaviour looks like so more people can easily spot it and intervene earlier would also help. I know this will upset those who want revolution rather than evolution, but I’m yet to hear a sensible idea about how we can prevent this from happening in the short term. 

[NFN FC 1,123]

It's not hard chaps. Just stop being so damn rapey! 

[Herman 9,752]

Looks like the Met haven't handled things that well this evening.

[sonyc 5,510]

3 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

All I can propose is offering support to those men who struggle to control their anger, and heavily punishing those that refuse to accept their violent behaviour is a problem. Also making it much easier for women to leave abusive partners, much stronger support systems etc, before the abuse leads to dangerous levels. Increasing awareness of what controlling behaviour looks like so more people can easily spot it and intervene earlier would also help. I know this will upset those who want revolution rather than evolution, but I’m yet to hear a sensible idea about how we can prevent this from happening in the short term. 

And one of my jobs was doing exactly this Fen Canary (for 25 years). I know a huge amount about the subject but like you do not have any easy answers or solutions. Yet, I would add education from an early age - awareness of what control means and how to have really positive relationships would help in schools. I believe it is about to be addressed in the school curriculum in Wales plus there are many local projects all over the UK. Awareness is increasing and it is moving the right way.

[Fen Canary 811]

3 minutes ago, sonyc said:

And one of my jobs was doing exactly this Fen Canary (for 25 years). I know a huge amount about the subject but like you do not have any easy answers or solutions. Yet, I would add education from an early age - awareness of what control means and how to have really positive relationships would help in schools. I believe it is about to be addressed in the school curriculum in Wales plus there are many local projects all over the UK. Awareness is increasing and it is moving the right way.

I agree, much more awareness of what controlling behaviour looks like, the different forms it can take and where it ends up, coupled with much stronger support networks for victims would do far more good than simply labelling all men as misogynistic violent bullies. 
Funnily enough accusing people of being horrible people when they’re not puts them on the defensive and makes them much less likely to help you, no matter how worthy your cause

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Strange how the same people with thought Dominic Cummings, quite rightly, should be sacked for disobeying lockdown rules, now want Cressida **** to be sacked/resign for not allowing people to break lockdown rules.

I have mentioned many times we are all hypocrites and this just proves it.

[horsefly 4,296]

9 hours ago, Orly said:

Of course, I'm sure you never do and never have.  Have a pleasant evening.

Point out the bit in your post I responded to in which you even hint that it is only murder you're talking about. For that matter point out any bit that I have misunderstood. You can't, because I didn't. You have made different points, not clarified previous ones so please don't accuse me of misunderstanding you. As for your dismissive comment (something you seem very fond of), perhaps you need to take a look in the mirror. Have a good day!

[horsefly 4,296]

9 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Firstly, I have a deep loathing of the term toxic masculinity. It appears to me to be in the same vein as the structural or systemic racism arguments during the summer, in that we’re simply supposed to accept it exists despite its proponents never displaying any evidence of its existence.

Ok, so what do you want to call the version of masculinity that some men manifest that makes them feel it is acceptable to verbally abuse women, to harass women, to expose themselves to women, to grope women, to rape women, to beat up women, to murder women, and indeed to do all those things to other men too?  "Toxic masculinity" seems a pretty apt phrase to me, as it very clearly distinguishes this sort of violent expression of masculinity from that expressed by the majority of males.

Do you really want to claim, "we’re simply supposed to accept it exists despite its proponents never displaying any evidence of its existence"? Just take a look at the news, and a look at the crime statistics, and listen to women's experiences; what more evidence do you want? (the same goes for your points about racism btw)

Just about every woman speaking on the radio the last few days has prefixed an account of some horrific experience with a disclaimer along the lines of "I know a lot of lovely men", or, "the men I know wouldn't dream of...". They seem perfectly capable of distinguishing between "toxic masculinity" and expressions of masculinity that do not threaten the lives and rights of women to be free from abuse. Indeed it only seems to be certain men resistent to change who can't make that distinction, and who want to falsely parody the claims about toxic masculinity as a claim about "all" males. The fact is that the majority of males do not channel their "natural aggression" into  violent behaviour against women or, indeed, towards other men. And that's the point of the distinction, and the reason for calling those that do "toxic". I really don't understand why some men are hostile to recognising these simple truths. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by horsefly

[Fen Canary 811]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Ok, so what do you want to call the version of masculinity that some men manifest that makes them feel it is acceptable to verbally abuse women, to harass women, to expose themselves to women, to grope women, to rape women, to beat up women, to murder women, and indeed to do all those things to other men too?  "Toxic masculinity" seems a pretty apt phrase to me, as it very clearly distinguishes this sort of violent expression of masculinity from that expressed by the majority of males.

Do you really want to claim, "we’re simply supposed to accept it exists despite its proponents never displaying any evidence of its existence"? Just take a look at the news, and a look at the crime statistics, and listen to women's experiences; what more evidence do you want? (the same goes for your points about racism btw)

Just about every woman speaking on the radio the last few days has prefixed an account of some horrific experience with a disclaimer along the lines of "I know a lot of lovely men", or, "the men I know wouldn't dream of...". They seem perfectly capable of distinguishing between "toxic masculinity" and expressions of masculinity that do not threaten the lives and rights of women to be free from abuse. Indeed it only seems to be certain men resistent to change who can't make that distinction, and who want to falsely parody the claims about toxic masculinity as a claim about "all" males. The fact is that the majority of males do not channel their "natural aggression" into  violent behaviour against women or, indeed, towards other men. And that's the point of the distinction, and the reason for calling those that do "toxic". I really don't understand why some men are hostile to recognising these simple truths. 

Because the behaviour you describe already has a name, it’s called abuse. I wouldn’t call verbally or physically abusing women (or men) a particularly masculine trait, so why describe it as toxic masculinity as if it is something that is inherent within all men? If only a fraction of a percentage of men indulge in this behaviour I don’t think it’s right to effectively tar all men with this brush. 
As I said previously, would you call manipulation or emotional blackmail toxic femininity, seeing as they’re more commonly female behaviour than male, or would the words we already have be sufficient? 
As for the systemic racism, if you can give me statistics or specific laws that prove your point I’m willing to listen, however I’m yet to hear any that have changed my opinion on the matter 

[The Real Buh 3,432]

Just now, Fen Canary said:

Because the behaviour you describe already has a name, it’s called abuse. I wouldn’t call verbally or physically abusing women (or men) a particularly masculine trait, so why describe it as toxic masculinity as if it is something that is inherent within all men? If only a fraction of a percentage of men indulge in this behaviour I don’t think it’s right to effectively tar all men with this brush. 
As I said previously, would you call manipulation or emotional blackmail toxic femininity, seeing as they’re more commonly female behaviour than male, or would the words we already have be sufficient? 
As for the systemic racism, if you can give me statistics or specific laws that prove your point I’m willing to listen, however I’m yet to hear any that have changed my opinion on the matter 

Precisely, he’s creating a straw man whereby anyone who doesn’t want to heel to his demands of what masculinity is (flattening the curve for his inevitably stunted masculinity) is somehow pro-abuse. Nobody is pro-abuse, that’s why we have laws that prevent abuse.

This is, and always has been, about exploiting the tragic death of a woman to gain political capital. Sickening. Fear weak men.

[horsefly 4,296]

2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Because the behaviour you describe already has a name, it’s called abuse. I wouldn’t call verbally or physically abusing women (or men) a particularly masculine trait, so why describe it as toxic masculinity as if it is something that is inherent within all men? If only a fraction of a percentage of men indulge in this behaviour I don’t think it’s right to effectively tar all men with this brush. 

You really haven't got the point. Those of us that use the phrase "toxic masculinity" are precisely NOT tarring all men with the same brush. That's why the term is useful, because it distinguishes men who abuse women (and other men) from those that don't. It's you that is effectively saying all men are the same. And the point of calling such behaviour toxic "masculinity" ought to be very obvious; 90% of murders are commited by men, over 75% of violent crime is commited by men. In public spaces it is extraordinarily rare for a woman to attack a man; it is men who attack other men, and men who attack women. If you can't see from these obvious truths that there is a real issue with the way that some men express their masculinity (rather than simply human beings) then I really don't know what else to say.

[The Real Buh 3,432]

It’s always been about weak men and their collectivism. Since the very beginning.

[Fen Canary 811]

7 minutes ago, horsefly said:

You really haven't got the point. Those of us that use the phrase "toxic masculinity" are precisely NOT tarring all men with the same brush. That's why the term is useful, because it distinguishes men who abuse women (and other men) from those that don't. It's you that is effectively saying all men are the same. And the point of calling such behaviour toxic "masculinity" ought to be very obvious; 90% of murders are commited by men, over 75% of violent crime is commited by men. In public spaces it is extraordinarily rare for a woman to attack a man; it is men who attack other men, and men who attack women. If you can't see from these obvious truths that there is a real issue with the way that some men express their masculinity (rather than simply human beings) then I really don't know what else to say.

We’ll agree to disagree on the implications behind the wording. I’m well aware that men are more prone to violence, largely due to the increased testosterone. My objection to the phrase is that it’s largely used as a slur against almost any trait that’s traditionally seen as masculine, rather than just against abusive behaviour, which as I say already has a name.

[Herman 9,752]

8 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Strange how the same people with thought Dominic Cummings, quite rightly, should be sacked for disobeying lockdown rules, now want Cressida **** to be sacked/resign for not allowing people to break lockdown rules.

I have mentioned many times we are all hypocrites and this just proves it.

Slighly different situations. A bloke in charge of the lockdown driving around half blind to "protect his kids" and the leader of the Met sending in the troops to crush a vigil in support of a woman murdered at the hands of a member of her organisation. They've handled handled this badly. Other police groups let the vigils go along under strict safety levels. There was a simple and sensible way of doing this.

Although it has led to the hashtag #D!ckout.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

Slighly different situations. A bloke in charge of the lockdown driving around half blind to "protect his kids" and the leader of the Met sending in the troops to crush a vigil in support of a woman murdered at the hands of a member of her organisation. They've handled handled this badly. Other police groups let the vigils go along under strict safety levels. There was a simple and sensible way of doing this.

Although it has led to the hashtag #D!ckout.

Afraid I have to disagree. The sensible way was for any vigil to be doorstep. Many people have been unable to visit their loved ones before they die yet people believed it was their right to break lockdown rules for a vigil on behalf of someone they didn't know.

This isn't just a woman problem as the parents of 19 year old Jack Barry know after he was stabbed to death last Sunday morning. Little or no publicity or empathy. It was in Birmingham yet Jess Phillips didn't read his name out in Parliament.

The problem isn't that it was an upholder of the law who broke the law. Its that certain people believe that they can have disdain for their fellow human beings right to life.

[horsefly 4,296]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I’m well aware that men are more prone to violence, largely due to the increased testosterone.

There is no evidence to support the claim that increased testosterone explains violence against women, the following article is well worth reading:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence/

 

[Barbe bleu 822]

8 minutes ago, horsefly said:

There is no evidence to support the claim that increased testosterone explains violence against women, the following article is well worth reading:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence/

 

Desmond morris had some thoughts on this in 'the naked ape'. Well worth a read for anyone with an interest in why we behave as we do

[TheGunnShow 5,937]

It's not about the nature of male traits, or traits considered to be male. It's about how they are expressed. Many men have no problem keeping this within sensible, socially accepted limits. Some aren't quite sure as the goalposts have moved a bit over the last twenty/thirty years so are exhibiting behaviour considered OK back then, but is shakier now, and Pareto's Law covers the rest.

As for the "hard times create strong men" trope, it's literally the survivorship bias fallacy. In other words, nonsense.

Strong Men Create Good Times - Analysis — Unearned Wisdom

[Yellow Fever 3,767]

Huge amount of nonsense here. The question is nature or nurture? Very clearly most of us would never behave in the way described, and are appalled by it. Sadly some, often by way of nurture know no better. Changing societal structures and roles also play into this. Lads nights out by right etc? Yobbo culture ?

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

should we now tell our children and grandchildren not to bed anyone when they are both drunk? or will that go in one ear and out of the other?

Further should we compare last nights policing and arrest of masked women at the vigil, with the non policing of unmasked rampaging Rangers fans winning the Scottish championship?

I think we must, because the idea of a hiding by them was the motive for not doing SFA, whilst last nights show of inept cowardly masculinity was there for all to see. I don't think the resignation of C.**** will make any difference.

Edited March 14, 2021 by nevermind, neoliberalism has had it

[Orly 277]

On 13/03/2021 at 14:19, Bill said:

" No individual should bear the sins of their gender, race, etc.  People don't stack neatly into identity groups, they are too many differing identities to sub-categorise by.  "

you then go on to sub categorise them

"White  as such/ Black, British / Irish, Gay / Straight, Male / Female / Trans, Left wing / Right wing, the list goes on, and on, and on.  "

The below is tangential to the point of male violence, and only relates to the subsequent reaction to the terrible catalytic event, but I'd like to point out the following anyway:

As I said, "the list goes on and on".  You can keep going to ridiculous levels:  Brown Eyes, Small Feet, Ugly, Pretty, Short, Intelligence Levels, and so on and so on.

There is only one acceptable way for people to be grouped politically / socially in my opinion, and that is some kind of metric that measures a holistic "scale of disadvantage" so people who need help can be provided with it from the state regardless of their group identity, and it's on this basis that I've always voted Labour.

The increasing prevalence of racial / gender identity politics in a party whose formation was based on class struggle seems to me to contradict the principles behind its inception.

There is no need to replace a socialist economic policy based on 'levelling out unequal access to resources/opportunity' with this current iteration of group identity. 

I've studied a bit of Critical Theory, Ferdinand de Saussure, Adorno, and Paolo Freire at uni, and since then, I've read several bits of Critical Race Theory (source texts, not critical articles), so I'm not talking about this without at least attempting to have some degree of understanding - although neither do I mean to suggest that I'm some kind of expert - I'm just trying to understand how to create the best environment for everyone.

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Orly

[ron obvious 1,502]

9 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Desmond morris had some thoughts on this in 'the naked ape'. Well worth a read for anyone with an interest in why we behave as we do

Really interesting ideas in that book (read it 40-odd years ago). A feminist friend really hated it for some reason 🙂. She later found a feminist author who asserted that the reason women developed breasts was so that the babies had something to cling onto when sharks attacked. Hmmm.

Edited March 14, 2021 by ron obvious

[Orly 277]

9 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Desmond morris had some thoughts on this in 'the naked ape'. Well worth a read for anyone with an interest in why we behave as we do

Is on the 'to read' list  👍

[paul moy 235]

21 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Strange how the same people with thought Dominic Cummings, quite rightly, should be sacked for disobeying lockdown rules, now want Cressida **** to be sacked/resign for not allowing people to break lockdown rules.

I have mentioned many times we are all hypocrites and this just proves it.

There is a missing logic there as usual..... 🤣