Why is inter-partner violence treated as gender violence when the partners are heterosexual (or, in the case of many feminists, when the man specifically is the violent one)? Isn't it just a dispute between two close people who happen to be of opposite genders due to their sexual preferences?

oncothrow · 2022-08-23T11:51:41+00:00

Around a year ago, MensLib had an AMA with Chuck Derry, of the Gender Violence Institute. I'll allow him to explain in his own words why they believe IPV is something men do to women.

https://np.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/pbzhoe/hi_menslib_im_chuck_derry_ama/

2) Regarding male survivors. This is an important discussion as many male abusers identify themselves as victims of those they abuse. And, in heterosexual relationships, the use of violence by women is often used in self-defense. And even if it is not used in self-defense, the impact of that violence is much different on the man as he is usually larger than her and knows he can stop her if he needs to. So, the power of that violence and the ability to control the man in a heterosexual relationship is not the same due to the gender differences. If we are looking to support male survivors of battering, the substantial level of abuse against men is in same sex relationships. The power and control dynamics of the abuse is very similar to heterosexual relationships, and that is where the majority of male victims experience the violence and control from their partners. Lastly, it is important to be mindful of how these conversations go as we speak of men’s violence against women. In many cases there is an attempt to divert the discussion away from men’s perpetration and to focus on the woman’s behavior or speak to men’s victimization. This is an effective way to avoid serious discussion specifically on male violence against women. So, while I believe the question of male survivors of battering is an important topic to discuss and intervene upon, this thread is specifically focusing on men who are being abusive to women, why that is occurring, and where is the social support that maintains this cultural norm.

Emphasis mine. He goes on elsewhere, the whole thread is a mess. Basically a shit-tonne of victim blaming and shifting responsibility.

The thinking starts from the premise and works backwards. We live in a Patriarchy, which means men are part of the power class, and women are the oppressed class. Therefore Men aren't victims, the are the perpetrators. Therefore if they say they are victims, they're lying and deceiving themselves / others. And if they're not lying, it's because the woman had to act in self defence. And if they didn't, the impact is minimal because women can't hurt men.

It's very telling that this was one of the very few times that was SO bad that even MensLib ended up pushing back against the standard feminist line:

https://np.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/pc8uof/unpacking_the_chuck_derry_ama/

EDIT: To answer more specifically about why it's viewed as being direct at the entire gender, it's because modern feminism views things in terms of power dynamics. Here again the thinking is simple:

Assume Patriarchy > Under patriarchy power is given to men and taken away from women > Under Patriarchy, Men are the oppressor class > If the subject is man, then they are part of the Patriarchy > Therefore their actions against any specific woman are ones that are allowed, enabled and encouraged by the Patriarchy. > Therefore domestic violence is another outlet of the Patriarchy.

Any man who lives is part of the patriarchy. And therefore, even when they do not do anything against women, they are an enabler:

https://np.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/m5l38n/not_all_men/

Bell Hooks is arguably one of the most important modern feminist writers. Her take on it is very direct:

https://np.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/valea9/domestic_violence/

"the more accurate term for domestic violence is patriarchal violence because it reminds us that violence in the home is directly connected to male domination"

A man perpetrating domestic violence against a woman is acting in his capacity as part of the patriarchal class that oppresses all woman. A woman perpetrating domestic violence does not exist. If she does (pfft, as if right?), it's in self defence. If it's not, she is an individual acting on her own (remember, we live in a patriarchy, so by definition the power system is in place to enable men to abuse women. A woman has no systemic power under patriarchy therefore they're acting on their own).

Starforce2005 · 2022-08-23T14:03:57+00:00

The argument that "Men hits harder" is easily debunked by:

If a man hit a woman with that of a forced less or equal to her would not be count as violence
A lighter weight class male hitting another male of heavier weight class is not violence
If a woman with a shotgun killed a man with a handgun by self defense would not count as self defense because the former had stronger fire power

You have to admit, the mental gymnastic these feminist went through to justify everything is incredible,

Even Ellen Pence the one who created the Duluth model debunked herself.

Oncefa2 · 2022-08-24T01:17:03+00:00

FWIW the scientific term is intimate partner violence or IPV.

Academic experts don't use the term gender violence.

In fact quite a few have spoken out heavily against that term.

hottake_toothache · 2022-08-23T15:15:40+00:00

People don't care about men, so they reflexively side with women.

excess_inquisitivity · 2022-08-23T15:15:46+00:00

People get more weepy and pay more donation money and vote more when something "victimizes women and girls. "

If something victimizes boys and men, tough shit because boys and men "deserve bad things" somehow.

Gender neutral donation seekers are an ethical turnoff because some donations that of feministic right ought to be sent to girls & women might spill over onto those nasty boys & men.

iainmf · 2022-08-24T10:50:58+00:00

There's some language tricks going on.

What feminists often mean by 'gender-based violence' is 'gender socialisation based violence'. And boys they think are socialised to be violent, and girls are socialised to be submissive.

devasiaachayan · 2022-08-23T23:23:07+00:00

Most domestic violence in this World is Mother on Child abuse. Especially young boys are beaten a lot by everyone (in my country) from parents to teachers. Girls are mostly spared. Gotta do something about it

griii2 · 2022-08-23T13:15:03+00:00

Isn't it just a dispute between two close people who happen to be of opposite genders due to their sexual preferences?

Not if such violence is systemic and the sex dimension has both predictive and explanatory power.

It is the same as if you asked why people care that men die on average 6 year prematurely, when they are just people.

Is there any rational justification at all for treating inter-partner violence as having any special socio-political significance beyond the two individuals involved?

There is more than enough justification. The gender roles are deeply influenced by historical patriarchy (where the man was supposed to be undisputed head of the family) and religion (where man is directly ordered to beat his wife if she disobeys him). Such stereotypes still meaningfully influence the gender roles today, including the inter-partner violence.

It is the same as if you asked whether there is any rational justification in treating the incarceration problem as having any special socio-political significance beyond the single individuals involved. (Yes it does. Again, the gender of those incarcerated has a strong predictive and explanatory power.)

nerdboy1r · 2022-08-23T23:20:40+00:00

The Duluth model became monolithic due to its efficacy. There is a historical precedent for men controlling women through violence, reference regularly in biblical and other religious texts. This doesn't discount the fact that women were also still violent throughout history, just that male violence was an endorsed form of coercive control.

The Duluth model's efficacy came from shooting fish in a barrel. It lowered rates of commonplace IPV drastically along a number of decades, regardless of whether the assumed power dynamic was valid or not.

We are now realising that what remains are cases much more akin to what you have described, either mutual violence with symmetrical rates of instigation by gender, or unidirectional violence with near symmetrical rates of perpetration (biased slightly towards women).

People are unwilling to explore other frameworks because they feel it will break a levy.

The Duluth model validates itself with forensic derived statistics which are flawed. We are also drawn to headlines about men murdering or severely battering women at disproportionate rates (true), and these are seen as supporting the need for the Duluth model.

Due to benevolent sexism, ingrained protectionism, and misandry, people are unable to consider the possibility that the system has reached a ceiling of efficacy, and may be based on flawed notions, which is acknowledgedby its creator Ellen Pence. They cannot conceive of a new system which may be more effective in the current state of IPV.

DifferenceThat8887 · 2022-08-24T15:29:09+00:00

Its more violence specifically towards partners, driven by low empathy. It is actually very different to other kinds of disputes. Its not really a dispute but one partner using coercion to punish and control the other to satisfy their own self-esteem and abandonment fears. There are a lot of partner-only abusers because people's self-esteem is uniquely tied to their intimate relationships.

Comments