How far should free speech protection extend?

[River]

Well my nose has been broken twice so you could hardly make it worse.

[vison]

I still disagree. I was not talking about "the real world". I was talking about the depiction of sexual violence directed at women. If there are large and significant numbers of depictions of sexual violence to men, I am unaware of it.

The "porn industry" and the video game industry are aimed at men, and in the case of video games at very young men.

I maintain that it could be harmful to children of either sex to see misogynistic violent sexuality depicted in movies or video games. If there were games and movies where men are sexually abused or exploited by other men or by women, or if there is a vast underground library of lesbian on lesbian violence, then I would say that could be harmful to children, too.

However, in the real world, porn movies and video games are generally "straight", man to woman and as far as I know, few of the men in these settings are victims of violence from the women.

I don't know, though, having only ever seen one porn movie in my life and couldn't sit through the whole thing: the infamous Deep Throat.

What the ancient Greeks did or the Romans did or the modern-day Pashtuns do, is not of particular interest to me. I live in Canada and am concerned about my menfolk, not people removed from me by centuries or thousands of kilometres.

[Primula Baggins]

One doesn't have to be a radical feminist to be sensitive on this point, nor is it particularly polite to base a joke on the idea that only that subset of feminists care.

Of course all sexual exploitation and objectification is a bad thing, as is person-on-person violence and abuse. That doesn't change the fact that some categories of exploitation and abuse are large, current, severe social problems, and others are equally bad but much rarer occurrences. Campaigns of education and assistance that are specifically aimed against domestic abuse of women and children, or against the objectivization of women, are going to help a lot more people than urging everybody to be respectful and nice to each other generally, even if that is the underlying principle.

It's also disturbing to me to see objecting to a widely prevalent form of sexism as necessarily entailing sexist attitudes against men. I've heard similar arguments being used lately, that people objecting to racism are only perpetuating it because their accusations of racism are racist. Evidently shutting up and accepting the racist acts and statements is the only way we'll ever get to a "post-racist" society.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

vison, I feel I have been somewhat rude to you. That was not my intent, so please accept my apology.

I'm no expert on video games (I don't play them) and porn movies (I don't watch them), so it will require others to correct me. My knowledge is very much second hand, but as far as I am aware, there are actually very few video games that are violently misogynistic. Violent, yes. Misogynistic? Rare. On the other hand, there appear to be many, many video games that are brutally xenophobic. Is this trend not worthy of sanction, or even mention?

Again, cinema would seem to be more xenophobic than misogynistic, but cinema is outside the specific remit, so it is probably best to let that subject rest.

As for porn. I believe there is a massive gay porn industry, not geared for straight men. There are also sado-masochistic fetish genres that cater for the "dominatrix" market. All good, clean fun... I suppose.

My point, if I have one ( ), is that examples to disapprove of can be found no matter the subject of disapproval, if one searches hard enough. Somebody, somewhere, is going to lament the corrupting influence of x, or y, or z. I spent alot of time in Holland, and was impressed by how well balanced the Dutch were, yet their society was overtly sexualised, or at least sex wasn't "hidden". What conclusion can be drawn from that, I am unsure.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

One doesn't have to be a radical feminist to be sensitive on this point, nor is it particularly polite to base a joke on the idea that only that subset of feminists care.

That's the problem with jokes; not everybody finds them funny. It was not my intention to cause injury, and if I have done so, I am sorry.

Of course all sexual exploitation and objectification is a bad thing, as is person-on-person violence and abuse. That doesn't change the fact that some categories of exploitation and abuse are large, current, severe social problems, and others are equally bad but much rarer occurrences. Campaigns of education and assistance that are specifically aimed against domestic abuse of women and children, or against the objectivization of women, are going to help a lot more people than urging everybody to be respectful and nice to each other generally, even if that is the underlying principle.

This is obviously wrong. By inculcating "respect" (for wont of a better term) independent of special pleading, many, many more people benefit. Focussing on women victims of violence helps women victims of violence. Focussing on all victims of violence helps all victims of violence "All" is a larger constituency than "women", even if "women" is the greater proportion of "all" in this case. Furthermore, it rids the focus of artificial divisions, such as gender. Unfortunately, there are female polemicists who wish to use violence as a means to attack men generally. They are beneath contempt, and by eradicating gender specificity, their platform is minimised.

It's also disturbing to me to see objecting to a widely prevalent form of sexism as necessarily entailing sexist attitudes against men. I've heard similar arguments being used lately, that people objecting to racism are only perpetuating it because their accusations of racism are racist. Evidently shutting up and accepting the racist acts and statements is the only way we'll ever get to a "post-racist" society.

I think this is a straw man. 'Nuff said.

[vison]

"yet their society was overtly sexualised, or at least sex wasn't "hidden". "

No, indeed. Which is my point: the Dutch "porn" industry is, in fact, not geared to violent sexual imagery. I know this because - ta da - I know lots of Dutch people.

There is a series of commercials on our TV stations here promoting fitness. The idea is, "you never know when you might need to be fit". Being chased by a bear or a lion, or stuff like that.

But one just infuriated me to the point that I wrote to the TV network: it showed a little boy, looked like about 10 or 11, being chased by a "pack" of little girls and when they caught him - because he wasn't "fit enough", they kissed him and fondled his hair, etc. He wasn't enjoying it, either. The kid looked terrified.

Not bloody funny, you guys. And IF that commercial had shown a little girl being chased by a bunch of boys, there would have been proper outrage.

[Alatar]

Well I play computer games and occasionally/regularly watch porn. Please feel free to aske me any questions as I consider myself a "Subject Matter Expert" as they say in business!

[Primula Baggins]

The reality is that attempts to help people by addressing social problems do have to be aimed rather specifically to be effective at all. Which is going to help a female victim of spousal abuse more: a sign on a bus saying "Everybody be nice to each other," or a poster in a women's bathroom explaining that nobody has the right to abuse her and that there is help available, with a local phone number to call?

Yes, if we could somehow teach absolutely everyone to treat absolutely everyone else with respect and kindness 100% of the time, an awful lot of social problems would simply evaporate. Unfortunately, in an imperfect world, this can't be done. In an imperfect world, with limited budgets, specific problems require specific solutions that are focused on those who need the help most or in the greatest numbers.

Yes, this does mean that some people who need help, such as men whose female partners abuse them, are less likely to be targeted by efforts to help. No, that is not ideal. But triage is part of life, and widespread problems do move to the head of the line.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

In an imperfect world, with limited budgets, specific problems require specific solutions that are focused on those who need the help most or in the greatest numbers.

So because ethnic minorities are, by definition, minorities, their needs should be neglected?

Thither lies the tyranny of the majority.

[Primula Baggins]

Now who's playing straw man?

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Now who's playing straw man?

I learn from the best...

But there is a problem, to claim that the focus should be on one group, simply because it is the largest group. My recommendation is to eradicate artificial divisions and seek to work in unity against the principle of exploitation/oppression. Address the root cause and the characteristics of the individual victim become irrelevant. Victimhood really doesn't know gender, or race, or sexuality, or age, or...

[Holbytla]

....
But there is a problem, to claim that the focus should be on one group, simply because it is the largest group. My recommendation is to eradicate artificial divisions and seek to work in unity against the principle of exploitation/oppression. Address the root cause and the characteristics of the individual victim become irrelevant. Victimhood really doesn't know gender, or race, or sexuality, or age, or...

Been singing that same song around here for years for a few different topics.
All I can say is good luck.

[Primula Baggins]

My reasons for arguing that targeting is necessary don't mean I disagree with your principle, GbG. I tried to say that. It's just that social agencies working in the real world tend to have to treat the results rather than the causes of social problems.

An analogy would be medical care. We could save a huge amount of money and spare millions of people unnecessary illness and pain if we could change human nature so that everyone makes healthy choices at all times and in all things. But in the world as it is, although there are laudable efforts to educate people to do this, they haven't yet been able to solve the other end of the problem; people still get sick or are hurt in preventable accidents. It is still necessary to expend health care resources to deal with the results of non-ideal behavior. Helping those people is not condoning the behavior; it's doing what must be done, caring for people who need it.

So too with social problems.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Yes, I understand Prim, but to look at your analogy in a different way...

If a victim of a stabbing arrives at casualty, I wouldn't expect the gender of the victim to determine whether treatment is provided or not. It is the injury that is paramount, not the status of the victim. In the same way, whether the victim of exploitation is male or female should be irrelevant; the focus should be on the exploitation.

What I am advocating is addressing the root dysfunction; exploitation and its causes, rather than irrelevancies such as the characteristics of the individual victims.

I believe it really is that simple.


Edit. And I really did try and keep to topic, except I couldn't resist one... last... response...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well I play computer games and occasionally/regularly watch porn. Please feel free to aske me any questions as I consider myself a "Subject Matter Expert" as they say in business!

Okay, I'll bite. Based on your experience, which if either would you be more concerned about exposing your children to, sexually explicit porn, or extremely violent video games?

[Holbytla]

IMO, there is far more realism in movies as opposed to video games. I mean you are literally watching people having sex as opposed to a simulation as in video games, regardless of how good the graphics are.
Another difference is that sex, beyond youth and parochial teachings, is supposed to be "good" while violence is never purported to be considered "good". Some people do "enjoy" or are turned on by violence or like it because it is "bad", but I don't know of any pretext or pretense where it is supposed to be "good".

[nerdanel]

Yes, I understand Prim, but to look at your analogy in a different way...

If a victim of a stabbing arrives at casualty, I wouldn't expect the gender of the victim to determine whether treatment is provided or not. It is the injury that is paramount, not the status of the victim. In the same way, whether the victim of exploitation is male or female should be irrelevant; the focus should be on the exploitation.

What I am advocating is addressing the root dysfunction; exploitation and its causes, rather than irrelevancies such as the characteristics of the individual victims.

I believe it really is that simple.


Edit. And I really did try and keep to topic, except I couldn't resist one... last... response...

You know, before responding I decided I wanted to go grab some statistics from a reliable source. So I found the American Bar Association's statistics on domestic violence (with apologies for the parochialism):

http://new.abanet.org/domesticviolence/ ... stics.aspx

As we all know, women are far more likely to be the victims of such violence than men (at least 3-4 times more likely), and men are still more likely to be the perpetrators, whether against other men or women. But I confess that the numbers of male victims were much higher than I had expected, and the differentials smaller than I had expected. So I will thank you, Ghân, for reminding us of a more significant demographic of victims of violence than perhaps many of us had appreciated. (I also note that my statistics are focused on DV, and you were talking about violence more generally; I wanted to narrow it somewhat, and I don't have more than a few minutes to spend writing this post.)

That being said, I must strenuously disagree with your characterization of the "characteristics of the individual victims" as irrelevant. The fact that violence exists against multiple demographics does not render the characteristics of each irrelevant.

In particular, male-on-female violence is not only the most common form of violence but the most deeply infused in our societal fabric. Images of M/f violence are the most prevalent. From childhood, boys and girls are taught of a world in which men are the aggressors and the defenders, while too often women are the victims, to be savaged or in need of protection. These realities infuse our adult lives. As women, we are aware of the need not to walk alone at night (and feel much less safe doing so than men, based on a highly anecdotal survey of All The Men I've Ever Talked To). We're taught to safeguard our drinks at bars. We fear the possibility of physical violence on dates with someone new (I've discussed this with male friends and male dates and ex-boyfriends - they've all reported that it's never occurred to them to have any physical fear when meeting a woman for the first time on a date). We are counseled to make sure not to find ourselves alone with men we don't know well and trust (because if we failed to do so and something happened, it would be our own fault). And so on. We live in a world of potential or actual physical violence that is quite literally invisible to the men in our society - except, perhaps, for the comparatively rare men who are victims of such violence themselves. This reality is catalyzed by male-on-female violence in everything from the news to entertainment.

I submit that male-on-female intimate violence can be likened to hate crimes. Hate crimes are deemed worthy of a special layer of investigation and punishment because they terrorize not only the individual victim involved, but the entire targeted demographic. So too does male-on-female intimate violence victimize the entire female population - because we are (statistically) physically more vulnerable than men, the prevalence of this violence places us all in a situation where we feel some degree of fear - as I said, whether meeting a new person on a date or walking down a city street at night. Fear that is unknown to men - at least heterosexual men, and (from what my gay friends tell me) all but the most effeminate gay men (who may fear physical violence from heterosexual men even walking down the street).

Recognizing that hate crimes pose a special, particularly egregious dimension does not mean that we fail to condemn other crimes. So too, recognizing that male violence against women plays a special role in our society, one that marginalizes and disempowers all women, does not mean that other types of violence should not also be condemned and punished. But it does mean that the problem of male-on-female violence in our society is distinct, and merits being separately addressed.

In turn, male-on-male intimate violence poses a distinct set of issues that merit separate discussion from the male-on-female setting. The men in this situation I've talked to have reported fear of dealing with the police due to the need to disclose their homosexuality, shame because their perception is that men should be able to defend themselves (often exacerbated because the process of coming out may have made them feel insecure in their gender identity),* and if they're not generally out, fear of losing their partner as one of the few people with whom they can express their gay identity. The couple of lesbians I've talked to in this situation have reported the first and third issue as well. Insisting that all violence must be discussed in the same breath, in the same terms, without mentioning gender will assuredly lead to these gay-specific issues being marginalized, as they usually are. It is only by insisting that these forms of violence be distinguished and discussed separately that issues specific to the minority can even be addressed.

However, we do not live in a society where depictions of male-on-male or female-on-female intimate violence are common. And within a same-sex context, it is much more possible to act freely without fears of violence. When I have dated women - most recently this summer - I have been able to invite them into my car immediately, go to their homes quickly or invite them to mine without fear, and so on. For those of us who have dated both, it is one liberating aspect of "going back to women" that fears of physical violence and rape rapidly diminish with other women. There's much more respect for boundaries, a much greater degree of comfort. There is a much higher degree of trust that is possible quickly within a lesbian context, and it is much more likely to be vindicated than in an opposite-sex context, which I have also experienced. And a significant enough portion of my male friends are gay/bisexual that I feel comfortable saying that (most) gay men, too, don't seem to have the same fears that women in a heterosexual context have. If this problem was as bad or worse in a homosexual context as in a heterosexual one, I'd be particularly quick to focus on that aspect of it.

Needless to say, we do NOT live in a society where women are socialized to abuse their male partners, or are in a cultural context that depicts or encourages such behavior. And to state the freakin' obvious, there is usually a differential in physical power between men and women in heterosexual relationships, as utterly infuriating as that is. Most men are empowered to defend themselves against their intimate female partners.

In other words, violence within each gender pairing poses its own issues and requires its own vocabulary (e.g. you are not going to need to use words like "coming out," "heteronormativity," etc. to describe M/f or F/m violence.) The genders of the people involved are relevant, for all the reasons that I've given. Saying that they are irrelevant does not make it true.

I wish it did. If the genders were as irrelevant as you claim, we would not live in cultures in which women were many times more likely to be victims of intimate violence than men. But we do. And insisting that we pretend that there is not this gender disparity, because every victim is a victim, essentially seems to me to assert that we should not focus on and name specifically a form of violence that is causing disproportionate harm to a particular group. It denies an essential reality of our societies: that men are disproportionately victimizing women. I refuse to let that reality be obscured via inoffensive, gender-neutral language.

I also refuse to let a second reality be obscured: where straight men are disproportionately victimizing women, gay men are victimizing other men (and a smaller number of lesbians are victimizing other women), aided and abetted by the effects of homophobia and heteronormativity. This issue, too, must be named separately and its different but related causes addressed.

You can't divorce the causes of these particular "exploitations" from gender and from sexual orientation. Male and female are relevant; gay and straight are relevant.

*although I do feel awfully for these men, the engrained sexism in the notion that men specifically should be able to defend themselves makes me extremely angry every time I hear it, based on what they're subconsciously assuming (or flat-out stating) about women.

[JewelSong]

Excellent post, nerdanel.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Nerdanel, firstly I must apologise for the brevity of my response. It will not do justice to your excellent post. There are two points I would like to raise. Firstly, you have narrowed the focus to domestic violence, but if you would care to examine which demographic is most likely to be the victim of general violence, I believe you would find that it is the young male.
Secondly, in replying to:

That being said, I must strenuously disagree with your characterization of the "characteristics of the individual victims" as irrelevant. The fact that violence exists against multiple demographics does not render the characteristics of each irrelevant.

I would introduce the caveat that the irrelevance is comparative; no demographic is more important than any other demographic. The role of victim is independent, or at least should be independent, of a specific demographic. The reaction to violence, and support of the victim, should be independent of the victim's demographic. It is within this framework that the individual characteristic is irrelevant.

As a final point, I do not care for the compounding effect of designated "hate crime". It is a subjective addition that works to trivialise those events that fall outside a particular remit, and as such I find this quantifier distasteful.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Firstly, you have narrowed the focus to domestic violence, but if you would care to examine which demographic is most likely to be the victim of general violence, I believe you would find that it is the young male.

That's true, but really irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are talking about sexually-related violence, and by any objective measure, the vast majority of sexually-related violence is directed at women (even allowing for the fact that there is more directed at men than some believed).