Hit Me With Your Best Shot, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise
April 2, 2011 Martha Thomases 0 Comments
In a recent news story (which I can’t find with my primitive Google skills), I read that the New York Police Department responds to 700 domestic violence calls EVERY DAY! That piece was written because of a spate of high profile cases (here and here and here for a few examples) that involve men beating women, often men who are (or have been) cops themselves.
According to a friend of mine, a social worker employed by the city, those statistics don’t include child abuse complaints. Domestic violence calls are about beatings between adults who live together, most often men beating women.
Personal violence against anyone is wrong, in my opinion. Violence against someone because of what group that person is part of can be worse. By speaking here about violence against women, I don’t mean in any way to condone violence against under-age people, queer people, black people, brown people, yellow people, Irish people, Jewish people, Palestinians or any other group. I’m not saying that violence against women is worse than any of these other acts.
However, violence against women, by men, is unique in that I’m willing to bet that nearly every man who commits this crime thinks he loves the woman involved. And that nearly every man who commits this crime has openly female people in his immediate family.
Why do they do this?
Obviously, there are individual crazy people on this planet, people so crazy that rational minds have trouble understanding their logic. And my perception is probably skewed by reading accounts in the newspaper, which may be more lurid than the average domestic violence call. However, it seems to me that the big problem here is the fetishization of sexual fidelity.
Our society really values monogamy, especially in women. We like our girls to promise Daddy they will be virgins on their wedding day, and throw big parties to celebrate. We condemn sexually active women as “sluts” and “ho’s” as if they deserve what happens to them. It’s a way to slur women who have independent opinions and say that they deserve what they get.
Keeping “your” woman in line is considered a sign of devotion. And it’s not even a felony.
Our culture thinks women need to be kept in line. We’re really afraid of their sexual appetites, and so must limit the number of partners they have, lest they lose all control. A man can be married three times and still be considered a viable presidential candidate (Trump, Gingrich). Can you imagine the same for a woman in politics?
“But what about the children?” you say. “Don’t they need a father?”
Yes. Yes they do. However, if we truly value children, we will make sure that there are adults in their lives of all genders, eager to take care of them and fight for their well-being. Sharing DNA is the least important part of being a parent. Raising children to be caring, responsible adults is the best way to insure the survival of the species.
If there is an area of our lives where socialism (sharing assets for the greater good) should triumph over capitalism (winning through competition), its within our families. And if that doesn’t appeal to you, I bet we can agree that it’s the right place for pacifism.
Media Goddess Martha Thomases does not wish to imply that monogamy isn’t working for her, since she never wants another adult man to see her cellulite as long as she lives.
R. Maheras
April 2, 2011 - 11:40 am
I also agree that personal violence is wrong against anyone, with a few specific caveats: When it is necessary to defend one’s self, one’s loved ones, or a helpless third party who is in imminent danger. In my opinion, the self-defense portion is a fundamental right of every person, and the latter two are the fundamental responsibilities of any civilized person.
One of the reasons I think I’ve never warmed up to professional boxing is because it involves two people beating the crap out of each other and neither one is a villain. It’s violence for the sake of violence, not a battle of good vs. evil.
Mike Gold
April 2, 2011 - 1:51 pm
“A man can be married three times and still be considered a viable presidential candidate (Trump, Gingrich). Can you imagine the same for a woman in politics?” Well, today I can’t imagine Trump or Gingrich getting elected president, and the three-marriage thing is damaging for them both — because they are assholes. In Newt’s case, an extreme asshole who then took it to new levels by blaming his screwing around behind his cancer-ridden wife’s back on his great love for the United States of America.
Damn. I’ll bet you Robert Blake gave him that one.
So I’ll agree that a female Newt Gingrich is a non-starter. But I can easily see a divorced woman, even a twice divorced woman, getting elected president. Even on the Republican ticket. Hey, Saint Ronnie was divorced. Particularly a Republican woman who ditched a Democratic husband and then went Bachmann on us.
By the way, as anybody in the social service racket can tell you, there is a LOT of woman-on-man domestic violence out there. Men are just too fucking stupid to report it because it makes them look weak. And, of course, any man who responds to violence from a woman in self-defense is going to get arrested. And men know this. But women know that men know that. Which brings us to Donald Rumsfeld.
And a lot of people would vote for Elin Nordegren for president even if her name was Jezebel Woods. Hell, I probably would.
Martha Thomases
April 2, 2011 - 1:55 pm
@Mike: Certainly, there are men who are abused. And just as certainly, they should report it and prosecute.
However, our culture does not celebrate violence against men by women to anything near the same extent as it does the reverse situation.
As for Newt and Trump, I agree they are laughable. However, there are many many many hours of broadcast and cable discourse (and reams of newsprint) devoted to discussing their chances, as if they are real candidates.
pennie
April 2, 2011 - 3:18 pm
Martha, before I launch, I’m on record here: I love this line: “And that nearly every man who commits this crime has openly female people in his immediate family.”
“Why do they do this?”
Lord knows we’ve had eons of discourse on this. Much of the available contemporary literature points less to domination as a reason than a need to assert power and control.
Before anyone comes our rearing, with examples that prove me wrong, I’m also on record stating that the instances of men beating women is so widespread, defying culture, national borders, language or any other criterion that one can actually make a case that this is a despicable trait of the species–and one that needs to go the way of the coccyx and dodo.
Does my explanation hold across the board, all of the time, everywhere?
Not possible.
But, as you noted Martha, even in our contemporary, purportedly advanced culture,the act of physically thrashing the familiar female in one’s life has been culturally accepted.
I believe that it has been also posited that the chance of this mayhem increases as social and economic pressures concurrently increase. As you cite, when women assert their sexuality, abandoning a formerly imposed double standard for equal amounts of infidelity as their male compatriots, well, that often doesn’t bode well for the woman.
Again, I believe that when women are beaten in this situation, it is as much if not more about a loss of power and control as the infidelity itself.
And do we still here men state with impunity, “She had it coming?”
Good article and thanks as always for your ever-present timely social consciousness.
pennie
April 2, 2011 - 4:41 pm
As I wrote else, I was supposed to go to public school but the streets beckoned. Work often gets in the way of coherent articulation…I meant to write, “Much of the available contemporary literature points less to SEXUAL domination…”
And–“…do we still “here…”
Even I know the difference between “here” and “hear.” I must not have been listening to myself…
Mike Gold
April 3, 2011 - 8:24 am
Martha sez: “However, our culture does not celebrate violence against men by women to anything near the same extent as it does the reverse situation.”
Absolutely. Agreed. You betcha.
And then she said: “As for Newt and Trump, I agree they are laughable. However, there are many many many hours of broadcast and cable discourse (and reams of newsprint) devoted to discussing their chances, as if they are real candidates.”
The media would treat J. Fred Muggs as a real candidate if he could howl an extremist political rant whenever you put him on camera. And, of course, if he alley-catted around on his girl friend of 55 years (simian marriage remains illegal), Phoebe B. Beebe.
For those who don’t know: J. Fred Muggs is a chimpanzee who co-hosted The Today Show (that’s what it was called then) from 1953 to 1957. Evidently he’s still alive and he enjoyed his 58th birthday last month, hopefully by humping Phoebe’s brains out.
Pennie, I thought we still had our coccyxes. Maybe that’s just me. But they are useless. Maybe that’s just me.
Howard Cruse
April 3, 2011 - 8:27 am
The ways that we are trained from early childhood to be jerks are many and multi-faceted. It takes a while to become conscious of their effect.
Fortunately I was too busy being fearful of being a thrashee to absorb the full measure of training that would make me be a thrasher — of women or anybody.
Mike Gold
April 3, 2011 - 8:34 am
Howard, that’s a new standard in looking at the bright side.
I’ve said it before and I’ll probably say it again, a lot. Women and other genders will stop getting beat on when we all learn self-defense. Don’t take that shit from anybody, and get it through your head that a person who beats you does not love you and is not the fount of your physical, economic or emotional security.
Yes, men are bigger than women. But to compensate, we wear our gonads OUTSIDE of our body in a nice convenient place for kicking, grabbing and twisting, or hitting with a broom stick. (Hey, it wasn’t MY idea.) All are equalizers… as long as you follow though when the jerk is incapacitated and bash him one in the head while you’re calling 911.
Martha Thomases
April 3, 2011 - 9:58 am
Actually, our closest primate relatives, the bonobos, diffuse violence with sex. Group sex, among as many individuals as would otherwise be fighting. Sounds like a much better solution to me.
Martha Thomases
April 3, 2011 - 10:00 am
As an aside, as I read this after it was posted, I’m not saying anyone should be obliged to fuck his or her assailant. Just that, when one’s thoughts turn to rage and anger, perhaps one should thing about what is really missing in life.
pennie
April 3, 2011 - 11:23 am
Bonobo get it (literally…): Make Love Not War.
Who Knew?
I’ll be a monkey’s auntie!
Seriously, Martha, I agree that this is a much better solution.
Then my question is: who initiates–monobos or fonobos?
My guess: the fonobos.
pennie
April 3, 2011 - 11:40 am
Mike wrote, “Pennie, I thought we still had our coccyxes. Maybe that’s just me. But they are useless. Maybe that’s just me.”
I agree. I was having multiple problems expressing clear thoughts last night. Several things at play. A one year anniversary I was trying to not dwell on but failing miserably…
Decided to drown my sorrows rooting for the Huskies with Flora the Wonder Dog on them as well. She was pawing a mean tequila shot while the dogs barked.
We do have our tailbones. They serve no purpose. Meant that we need to relegate violence against women to the same place.
We can defend ourselves, but my thought is, why should we need to do so? Sure, there will always be miscreants, psychopaths and their ilk. But,I believe education and attention will always help.
In talking to my best friend at work this week about bullying, this man who is very large, very strong, and can be quite lethal when needed, told me that he recently realized that one of his deepest regrets in life stems from not interceding when he could have done so.
He told me he has come to understand that his lack of action lent tacit agreement when he could have stepped in to help. He told me he was done with that. He vowed he would act–and has proven it to me by his actions–some of which have impacted my life at work for the better.
People can change. It’s all about building relationships.
How do you eat an elephant?
One bite at a time.
How do you eat a bonobo?
}’;>)
MOTU
April 3, 2011 - 7:08 pm
Martha,
I agree violence is never a good thing but I’ve had 2 of the 3 women in my immediate family taken by violence.
Sorry dear heart, but I think some people, like the evil bastards that beat women, should be beat to death.
Twice.
Mike Gold
April 4, 2011 - 6:54 am
Martha sez “Actually, our closest primate relatives, the bonobos, diffuse violence with sex. Group sex, among as many individuals as would otherwise be fighting. Sounds like a much better solution to me.”
But Martha ALSO sez: “she never wants another adult man to see her cellulite as long as she lives.”
You got something to work out, love.
Martha Thomases
April 4, 2011 - 7:04 am
@MOTU: I, too, am opposed to evil bastards who beat women (or members of any other group simply because they are members of that group). However, my preferred solution would be to prevent the bastards, not beat them to death. Let’s create an environment in which we don’t think we own each other.
Martha Thomases
April 4, 2011 - 7:05 am
@Mike. No, duh.
R. Maheras
April 4, 2011 - 9:44 am
Unfortunately, it may be a thousand years before cultural attitudes around the world are such where violence against women, the non-equality of women, is considered archaic. Because if you think it’s a problem in the U.S., which is actually one of the more progressive nations regarding women’s rights, what do you think it’s like in Asia, Africa, Central and South America, or the Middle East?
How do you reason with a culture that thinks women are subservient and that violence against women is perfectly acceptable; and a culture that backs those beliefs up with laws?
The problem I see with progressives in the U.S. is that they want the world to be a certain way, but they also do not want to offend anyone from another culture.
Instead, progressives attack easy targets in U.S. culture to push their ideas, hoping — apparently through osmosis — that their ideas will bleed over to other, far more offensive foreign cultural norms practiced both here and abroad. The usual “safe” targets of this self-flagellation? Judeo-Christians, middle America, and white guys.
Consequently, progressives here are, in a great number of instances, conspicuously silent about the horrors of other cultures. And this silence, as pennie’s “big man” can attest, is shameful in that it comes across to those doing the bullying as tacit approval.
We in the U.S. now tie ourselves in knots trying not to “offend” other cultures, and in the process, we dilute or impede the social advances we in the U.S. believe are right.
For example, overseas, despite being an obvious detriment to the morale and authority of female troops, we have forced our female military commanders and other female troops to wear abayas and not be “conspicuous” (or, in some cases, to be seen at all), sit in the back of vehicles, etc. — all because “we” don’t want to offend a host nation. Such actions are contrary to our core beliefs, and it’s a not-so-subtle form of selling-out our principles.
Frankly, my personal opinion is that if a foreign culture can’t accept such a fundamental tenet of our culture as women’s equality, then we shouldn’t be doing business with them. I think our willingness to bend ourselves into pretzels to be politically correct at home and abroad is offensive to OUR nation and OUR principles. If cultures — especially abroad — want our money, our skills and especially our blood, they need to be sensitive to the fundamental freedoms of OUR culture.
R. Maheras
April 4, 2011 - 12:07 pm
You want to know how bad I think PC is in this country today? I don’t think Hollywood would even consider making “Not Without My Daughter” today — despite the fact that it’s based on a true story.
It’s pretty sad when during the past 10 years or so, one of the few major voices in popular culture here speaking out about such cultural realities for females abroad is the brave female graphic novelist who actually experienced it first-hand, Marjane Satrapi.
Where’s the mass outrage and non-stop, visible lobbying effort from progressives regarding this cultural bullying that affects more than 50 percent of the world’s population?
The relative silence is deafening.
Mike Gold
April 4, 2011 - 12:40 pm
Russ sez: “The problem I see with progressives in the U.S. is that they want the world to be a certain way, but they also do not want to offend anyone from another culture.” I quite agree. That’s why they’ve spent the past 63 years running around in ever-tightening circles, biting nothing but their own tails.
Russ also sez: “if a foreign culture can’t accept such a fundamental tenet of our culture as women’s equality, then we shouldn’t be doing business with them.” I agree all the more.
We, as individuals (that word already turned off the hard left; in their lexicon it’s worse than nigger, cunt, Jap, Jap, and whatever else is trendy today) have our cultural standards. We treat everybody the same. We’re opposed to murder. We respect our differences. We enjoy freedom of expression.
And, of course, our higher cultural standard: we ignore our cultural standards. Our morality seems to have a sunset clause.
Martha Thomases
April 4, 2011 - 12:53 pm
My point in writing this column (aside from my general horror at the statistic I cited at the beginning) was to demonstrate that our society is not really very advanced in terms of fighting sexism etc. The “cultural bullying” to which Russ refers is obvious in this country to anyone who wants the freedom to love the adult of one’s choice, or have control of one’s body (especially if that body contains a uterus).
R. Maheras
April 4, 2011 - 3:22 pm
I understand your point, Martha, but the fact is, the cultural repression women suffer abroad — including sex trafficking — is also taking place in cultural enclaves here. But rarely is it addressed openly by the media or anyone else because such “cultural attacks” would probably be cited as “racist.”
For example, the 2002 study linked to below, funded by the Department of Justice, has the ridiculous PC/legalese BS caveat “Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.”
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/191863.pdf
If the DOJ can’t even endorse a Hispanic domestic violence study THEY PAID FOR because of PC concerns — Hispanics being a “soft” cultural target compared to, say, Middle Eastern cultures — then I think most first- or second-generation women immigrants being abused here have little hope of getting relief. Many don’t even speak English, so unless there is a concerted effort by the cultural community in question to eliminate the problem, little will change.
As the study points out, “Often, minority women may not be aware of the formal services available to them such as hospitals, domestic violence hotlines, or counseling services.” This means that life in a cultural enclave here is going to be far more difficult for the average abused female émigré than it would be for a natural-born American like you.
In reality, probably one of the only ways such a community could change itself in any reasonable length of time is if it is pressured to do so by outside (host country) cultural forces. After all, as the DOJ study shows, once women seek out help in a shelter, their quality of life increases dramatically. But progressives at the core of the women’s right movement seem unable to advocate such pressure because they’ve been conditioned to look at all cultures as “equal” — when clearly, in the case of women’s rights, they are not. Yet it is just such pressure that may be the only hope for speedy change.
And if change for immigrants in a relatively progressive society like the U.S. is glacial at best, women overseas may not see changes for hundreds of years.
Note: As studies go, the sample size for this one was not very large, and it did not examine a wide swath of ethnicities and religions – something that would probably be impossible to do anyway, since it’s very doubtful most of the known repressive cultures would allow a representative portion of their female population to participate in such a survey.
Martha Thomases
April 4, 2011 - 3:44 pm
2002? That would be a Bush Administration document, then, and a Bush Administration decision not to endorse what its own scientists discovered?
In any case, political correctness does not cause domestic violence. Domestic violence has been a part of society for thousands of years. If I were to take an equally extreme position (which I’m not going to do here because it doesn’t accurately reflect my beliefs), I’d say that patriarchy causes domestic violence.
R. Maheras
April 4, 2011 - 5:13 pm
Martha — So the problem is not a cultural one, but it’s merely a gender issue?
If that were true, men would treat women in every country of the world exactly the same.
The fact is, most sociologists believe patriarchy is entirely a cultural trait. In some cultures, it has been significantly tempered in the past 100 years or so, but in many others, it has not.
And since progressives apparently cannot reconcile the fact that many cultures in the world are radically different and are not all “equal,” they find themselves hamstrung by the fact that they don’t want to offend those other cultures.
Just to show how topsy-turvy things are in this PC world, which prominent woman is currently leading the charge for women’s rights in places like Afghanistan? Laura freakin’ Bush.
So much for progressive feminists taking care of their own.
Martha Thomases
April 4, 2011 - 6:47 pm
Russ, men DO treat women in every country in the world exactly the same. At least those in patriarchal countries. Women are raped, beaten, and sold into prostitution all over the modern world.
And you should expand your horizons. While I commend Laura Bush for her activism, she is hardly the most prominent. You can see who has been given a grant by the Ms. Foundation, or the A. J . Muste Institute (on whose Board I am honored to serve). Or you can listen to Arab feminists. You may wish to start here:
R. Maheras
April 5, 2011 - 1:44 am
Woman’s rights and treatment around the world is all over the map, and whether the problem is patriarchal or not, it still boils down to the culture in a country. And I stand by my accusation that progressives have hard-wired their brains to abhor attacking any culture, regardless of how barbaric or misguided it is.
By the way, as someone who has worked for quite a few female bosses over the years, I’ve observed that their management acumen (or lack thereof) is no different than what I’ve encountered with male bosses: Some are very good and some are very bad. So, based on my experiences, I envision no utopia with a matriarchal society either.
And just what the heck are we talking about here anyway? Women’s equality or women’s superiority? I’m for the former, but the latter is nothing more than a Who song: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”
Bill Mulligan
April 5, 2011 - 4:07 am
“However, our culture does not celebrate violence against men by women to anything near the same extent as it does the reverse situation.”
I’m not sure I can buy that. Violence against men is a source of great humor–watch how many ads feature men being injured, slapped, kicked in the nuts, having darts thrown into their chests (a personal favorite), etc.
When women are injured in a movie or on TV the attacker is usually punished for it. When was the last time a guy got kicked in the gonads and was able to exact an equal revenge?
“Russ, men DO treat women in every country in the world exactly the same. At least those in patriarchal countries. Women are raped, beaten, and sold into prostitution all over the modern world.”
Seriously? So as long as anything bad happens to any woman in any country it makes the general treatment of women there exactly the same? A country where some deviant performs an act of violence is no different than one where female genital mutilation is an accepted and expected part of the culture?
Also, which ones are the non-patriarchal countries…the ones where, presumably, there is the possibility that rape,abuse, and forced prostitution are nowhere to be seen?
I think one aspect of many feminists that hurts the overall movement is this reluctance to admit that this country is way–WAYYYYYY–better than others in its treatment of women, as though admitting that would somehow make everyone relax and ignore trying to make it better still. That seems to me to be a far less likely outcome than people not taking feminists seriously due to their seemingly unrealistic worldview.
Martha Thomases
April 5, 2011 - 4:58 am
In general, I aspire to get my own house in order before I criticize others. Especially my glass houses.
Hence, I criticize my own society first, because that is the one in which I can most effect change.
According to the aforementioned SEX AT DAWN, matriarchal societies are not patriarchal societies reversed. Women in such societies do not act like men do in our society, as if they are superior. Instead, power is much more likely to be shared. If only some existed in the modern world (in significant numbers) for me to provide a current example. In the meantime, I recommend that book.
And personal anecdotes (“as someone who has worked for quite a few female bosses over the years”) do not trump statistics. The fact that there are exceptions does not negate the rule.
Bill Mulligan
April 5, 2011 - 5:42 am
If the power is truly shared why would it be considered a matriarchal society? Is there a kind of society where the sex of the leadership is of no consequence? And would that not be the kind of society to which all should seek as a goal?
Regardless of how much better a matriarchal society would be over a patriarchal one, it still seems like merely an improvement on a bad idea.
Martha Thomases
April 5, 2011 - 5:47 am
@Bill: When I use the term, “matriarchal society,” I’m using it in the sense of its anthropological definitions. Again, I would recommend SEX AT DAWN, and not just because it has “SEX” in the title. Not a perfect book (I won’t defend every conclusion), but certainly an interesting and provocative perspective.
And I think the key word here is “Improvement.”
Bill Mulligan
April 5, 2011 - 5:51 am
As to whether we can affect the most change in our own society, I must respectfully disagree. When a society, such as ours, has made so many strides in women’s rights, further efforts, while worthwhile, are not anywhere near the improvements that can be made in societies that are still stuck in the single digit centuries.
.
Human rights does not end at the border. I’m not going to wait until our country achieves some impossible standard of perfection before commenting on absolute atrocities taking place in other countries, especially if those same countries in any way shape or form benefit from our support and aid.
By that reasoning, if my own family is in the least bit dysfunctional–and whose isn’t, if you dig deep enough–I should avoid commenting on the neighbor beating his wife.
Martha Thomases
April 5, 2011 - 6:02 am
Your definition of “family” is more narrow than mine.
Bill Mulligan
April 5, 2011 - 6:30 am
If “family” includes your neighbor, why not a woman in Afghanistan?
Martha Thomases
April 5, 2011 - 7:07 am
I do stand up for the woman in Afghanistan. However, the subject about which I chose to write this week is the violence against women here. One does not negate the other. Do you think it’s a good thing that there are 700 reports of domestic violence in New York City every day? I don’t.
And one doesn’t eliminate a problem by changing the subject.
Bill Mulligan
April 5, 2011 - 7:20 am
I mean no disrespect and I would certainly be more concerned with acts of violence here than in some faraway land–far more likely to affect the people I love and I won’t pretend that I care equally for strangers as I do my own kids. That said, it was you who stated “In general, I aspire to get my own house in order before I criticize others.” Perhaps I took your words with more literally than you intended. Together with the statement that “men DO treat women in every country in the world exactly the same” suggests a mindset that I believe leads to an acceptance of situations that should be unacceptable to any civilized culture, simply because they are out of our immediate sight or out of some perverse desire not to seem intolerant of cultural norms that do not deserve to be tolerated.
But since this conversation has degenerated to the point where I can be asked if I think 700 domestic abuse cases a week in one city is “a good thing” I obviously am doing a poor job of stating my position or at the very least found myself in a place where discussion is unlikely to yield much in the way of edification.
Martha Thomases
April 5, 2011 - 7:43 am
@Bill: I don’t mean to discourage you from expressing yourself. However, it is frustrating for me, as a writer, to have the subject changed on me.
For example, if I was appalled (as I frequently am) by some slob who threw chicken bones on the sidewalk after getting take-out from a local fast-food joint, and wrote about it as an assault on the environment, it would frustrate me if someone said, “But what about the nuclear spill in Japan? That’s much worse.”
Yes, it is. But I’m pissed at the slob who made a mess of my neighborhood and that’s what I wanted to write about.
Bill Mulligan
April 5, 2011 - 7:58 am
It’s cool. I get what you’re saying. But take it as a compliment–people respect your opinion enough to want to get your input on an expansion of the topic at hand.