My latest blog post here at C4SS dealt with violence against women. One commenter seemed puzzled. He argued that in some significant areas men face greater amounts of state violence than women, and then asked “Why the focus on women? If you’re not an evil sexist pig, you’re just against violence, no matter the victim.”
Many, perhaps most, victims of state violence are men, and that state violence is worth opposing. Why is raising the issue of state violence against women relevant, in that case?
Violence against women has a particular oppressive role in our society. First, let’s address the violence that is committed in a decentralized manner by non-state actors. In America, violence against women in the domestic sphere has largely been made invisible, been ignored by the state’s justice system, and has in some cases even been explicitly aided and abetted by the state. Meanwhile, decentralized violence against women in more public spaces has served to keep women as a group in a state of fear and to consequently limit their freedom of movement and their sexual autonomy. Ask a group of women and men what they do to protect themselves when they walk at night, and the vastly different responses along gender lines will show the type of gender biased fear of violence that exists in this society.
Furthermore, both in the past and in some other societies today, violence against women has been institutionalized to keep women in a state of subordination. This can be seen with things like witch hunts, violence against feminist protesters, and bans on adultery. This is overt state violence against women, and it is crucial to understanding both sexism and state violence.
However, because cultural norms surrounding violence against women primarily address violence in public spaces by strangers, and Western feminists have focused the bulk of our consciousness raising efforts on violence in the private sphere, state violence against women is largely invisible in our society. While it may be less prevalent than state violence against men (And considering under-reporting I don’t think we can know that it is), state violence against women remains a serious problem that ought to be addressed.
There are myriad examples of state violence against women. In the immigration detention system, women are sexually assaulted and guards use their power over detainees to cover it up. Sex workers and suspected sex workers, mostly women, face harassment, threats, and sexual violence from police officers. Often, their possession of condoms is treated as a sufficient basis for harassing and caging them, as a recent report from Human Rights Watch revealed. Sexual assaults by police officers have been documented in a variety of detailed reports, including Driving While Female. This piece from INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence documents and analyzes some particularly appalling cases of sexual violence by police officers. Women in prison often face sexual violence, with this violence made invisible by calling it a “strip search” rather than what it is: sexual assault. This is why Angela Davis argues that strip searches constitute the “routinization of sexual assault.”
I could continue to list off and document examples, but I don’t think I need to. The reality is that state violence against women happens and that gender and sex play a role in the structure of that violence. Pointing this out does not make you a “sexist pig.” But being outraged when people attempt to fight it does.
You scare-quoted the term that you coined. Why would you do that?
I see you like to continue to spew false and/or misleading information whenever it can be used to minimize the suffering of men.
Did you know that men are more likely to be the victim of violent crime than women are?[1] Probably not, and Nathan Goodman wasn't about to tell you. He'd rather keep the facts in the dark.
Or how about the fact that men are seven times as likely to be imprisoned than women are? Imprisonment? Talk about state violence! That one you probably knew, but did you ever think about the conclusion of this fact? Men have always been those most harmed by State violence and coercion. It's men, not women, who are imprisoned and spend their lives wasting away behind bars, it's men, not women, who are drafted into foreign wars to come back in a coffin.
Goodman needs to stop being intellectually dishonest and talk openly about how it's men, and not women, who are the primary victims of the State and its crimes.
1 http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83534ac5b6…
1. “Why the focus on women? If you’re not an evil sexist pig, you’re just against violence, no matter the victim.” – to identify a quote from a previous conversation.
2. “strip search” – to show irony and indicate an uncommon usage.
3. “routinization of sexual assault.” – A quote from Angela Davis.
4. “sexist pig.” – to show irony, indicate an uncommon usage and to identify a quote (see usage 1.).
My recent post Socialism on One Planet
Too long; didn't read, condensed version of this article: the state has committed violence against women. Not gonna show you that it's disproportionate, not gonna to give any data or backup to my claim, the State has assaulted women, end of story, you're a sexist.
#LOLbertarians
That explains it, there are no statistics in this article because the statistics that do exist show that women are not disproportionately affected by state violence.
First, to the MRAs: you're just derailing here by complaining that they're not addressing YOUR problems. Stop it. Internet feminists do that enough for both your movements.
That said, the MRAs have a point: I rarely see men's issues addressed in left-libertarian circles. Feminist concerns more commonly dominates.
Fact is, men are the majority victims of violence – including rape when you count forced envelopment (which isn't actually rape according to the FBI!) and prison rape. Women's greater fear of violence is largely unjustified except insofar as that fear may actually cause them to be more careful and thus contribute to the disparity.
Cultural attitudes about rape in the US almost totally erase the possibility of a man being a raped. When a woman is raped, we ask what she did to deserve it, or blame it on her dress, or how she conducted herself. When a man is raped… we ask him how he liked it. When a male teacher has sex with an underage female student, we seethe with anger (and rightly so). When a female teacher has sex with an underage male student, we have people saying she should be commended.
Back to state violence. In the US, men – but not women – still have to sign up for "selective services" or face imprisonment and disenfranchisement. In fact, when women's suffrage was being debated, many women opposed it because they worried they'd have to sign up for the draft. Same thing happened with the ERA, for which an amendment exempting women from the draft was debated.
And as mentioned in a previous article republished on this very site, custody cases are almost always biased in favor of the mothers. In addition, men can be made to pay child support on children when the mother lied about using birth control. Even if it had been several years and they had never even been told about the child in all that time.
None of which is to deny the systematic, gendered oppression of and violence against women, especially in countries where women's legal identity is still absorbed into their husbands upon marriage, or where rape is legally tolerated. Nor to excuse the loathsome manner with which the MRM sometimes presents itself.
But when you say,
"Violence against women has a particular oppressive role in our society. In America, violence against women in the domestic sphere has largely been made invisible, been ignored by the state’s justice system, and has in some cases even been explicitly aided and abetted by the state,"
and
"The reality is that state violence against women happens and that gender and sex play a role in the structure of that violence."
do remember that the exact same thing is true about men.
I really wish left-libertarians were a little less charmed with feminism and addressed these issues more often.
(I really hope this didn't get posted multiple times. Browser troubles.)
" In America, violence against women in the domestic sphere has largely been made invisible, been ignored by the state’s justice system, and has in some cases even been explicitly aided and abetted by the state."
Violence in the domestic sphere IN GENERAL is commonly made invisible, ignored, or aided and abetted by the state- the primary victims of which are children of both sexes, not women. What efforts have been made to fight these things have been so disproportionately focused on protecting (heterosexual) women that they've served to further make invisible or aid and abet violence in the domestic sphere against those less favored.
"violence against feminist protesters"
Protesters for all sorts of causes have suffered violence. Do you have any evidence that feminist protesters, over supporters of all other causes, have been particularly singled out in this way? Because if not, treating it as especially noteworthy is just "You can't hit a LADY!" chivalry
"Meanwhile, decentralized violence against women in more public spaces has served to keep women as a group in a state of fear and to consequently limit their freedom of movement and their sexual autonomy."
Most victims of violent crime are male, by a sizable margin. If you narrow your focus to crime in public spaces, they're even more disproportionately male. Now, if you were to say that women's disproportionate fear is in itself a serious detriment to their freedom of action and quality of life, and an example of how the traditional gender system hurts women, I'd agree- but you can't make that claim without condemning yourself in the process, as long you're pushing the idea that actual street violence against women is a problem deserving of special concern and worry in a way violence against men isn't
"While it may be less prevalent than state violence against men (And considering under-reporting I don’t think we can know that it is),"
There's no reason to assume that under-reporting is a larger issue for women than for men, and- in light of the dramatic differences in attitudes towards male and female victims of violence prevalent in our society- much reason to believe it isn't.
"Ask a group of women and men what they do to protect themselves when they walk at night, and the vastly different responses along gender lines will show the type of gender biased fear of violence that exists in this society."
Women express more fear, yes; they have the privilege of being able to expect concern rather than mockery when they do so. Women are also not typically socialized from the cradle to think they should be ashamed about being strongly concerned with their own physical safety .
As for treatment of detainees and prisoners… My mind just boggles that you would present this as an example of state violence against women being a problem warranting extra concern and attention, in light of the well-known barbarity of conditions in many prisons and the overwhelmingly male population subjected to them.
"I could continue to list off and document examples, but I don’t think I need to. The reality is that state violence against women happens and that gender and sex play a role in the structure of that violence. Pointing this out does not make you a “sexist pig.”
No, you don't; you've made your position very clear.
NOBODY has said or suggested that state violence against women doesn't happen. Nobody in this comment section or the previous one has even denied that " gender and sex play a role in the structure of that violence." Nobody is calling you a sexist pig for asserting those things.
You come across as a sexist pig for the same reason someone who heard about the horrendous murder rate here in Chicago and said "Isn't it terrible how many white people have been killed this year?" would sound like a racist pig. Faced with something horrible being done to many people of both sexes, you are particularly outraged about the fact that some of the victims are female and treat them as deserving special concern that the male victims don't warrant, even if the mistreatment suffered by the latter is more common or egregious. You and the average conservative longing for the days "when men were men" are very much brothers under the skin.
The sheer number of conservative assholes is astounding.
I think Lush, Lark, and Lurray are the same person.
As for it being too long, no it isn't. And thanks for confirming my suspicions that trolls are largely right wing. Nathan Goodman is not the one being dishonest. Frankly, that "chart" isn't proof of anything. I frankly need more than something some chump put together for me to take it seriously. Stuff by actual scholars.
As for dealing with trolls. They say you cannot win against them. I intend to prove them wrong.
That chart is from data from the National Crime Victimization Survey. A well respected survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.[1]
1 http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/…
BTW, is switching the first syllables in a libertarian's name a Lysander Spoonerism?
Geesh, I didn't realize how many comments there would be illustrating the difficulty many people still have with admitting that maybe, just maybe, women are oppressed in significant ways…
With that said, I've been really pleased with the recent trend of covering "non-economic" oppression here at C4SS. Sometimes it seems like there is never anything beyond a little lip service paid to the topics of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. even though these are very important issues to address for a united Libertarian-Leftist movement.
Keep up the good work, C4SS!
I don't think sexist "pig" is the appropriate term here, if only because this is the sort of sexism our culture fully expects one to have. Thus, having it doesn't speak so badly to the character of one who has it.
I also don't see the problem with wanting to specifically address the problems of one group, even a group less-aggrieved by those same problems as another group, so long as you don't try to erase or hinder the problems of other groups. I don't care for the oppression olympics.
How come I never heard of it then?
"Geesh, I didn't realize how many comments there would be illustrating the difficulty many people still have with admitting that maybe, just maybe, women are oppressed in significant ways… "
While L-Spoonerist(s) is/are being a bit boorish, who here has denied that women are oppressed in significant ways? I affirmed it. John Markley affirmed it. Even the L-Spoonerists never suggested otherwise. What we're all insisting on is that the exact same thing is also true of men qua men, and to a larger degree in the case of violence.
"I rarely see men's issues addressed in left-libertarian circles"
Actually, left-libertarians talk about violence against men constantly (e.g. mass-imprisonment, conscription) — they just don't specify that it is focused on men.
Regardless of the violence against other groups, it is worthwhile to discuss the specific types of violence that are perpetrated against different groups. This is both to expand our awareness of the totality of violence in society and to increase the inclusiveness of the movement.
Okay, this person doesn't seem to be a crank. All the same, social science numbers are iffy by definition. Means of data collection always open to question.
Perhaps my statement was too much of a generalization, as I was only referring to the statements made by L-Spoonerist(s). While t(he)y may not have ever explicitly denied oppression of women, the comments seemed to suggest that any attempt to discuss women's oppression outright is inappropriate because it ignores oppression face by men, which to me is just absurd.