From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: What does "Male-dominated society" mean?
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:27:11 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan26.024228.23288@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.010521.28434@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:

>>Quite simply and, it seems to me rather obvious.  Men direct most of
>>their violence against other men.  If one counts all cases the target
>>of male violence is more likely to be male than female by a ratio of
>>about 3 to 1.  If one excludes domestic violence then the ratio is
>>more like 10 to 1.

>But the discussion (and apparently the view held by several posters)
>is that men have a cultural/societal proscription against violence
>towards women, while women don't have a similar proscription against
>violence towards men.  As far as I know, you're the first to start
>talking about male violence against men.

I would suppose it is implicit in the topic.  There isn't much doubt that
there is such a proscription -- do you really doubt that?  I mean, the
existence of a proscription, as distinguished from its universality or
its effectiveness?  Given the existence, one asks does it apply everywhere
or only in certain situtations.  One also asks -- is it effective, or is
something honored in word only?  Given that there is no similar male/male
proscription, we have a basis for comparison to measure whether the
procscription has effect.  If all other things were equal we would
predict that if the proscription had no effect, then men and women
would equally be the victims of male violence.  Since males are the
target of preference, the natural inference is that the proscription
"works", i.e. a smaller proportion of women are the target of male
violence than would be the case if there were no proscription.  In
other words, the ratio of male/female targets for male violence is
evidence that there is a proscription and that it works.  [But not
that is universally successful.]

Similarly, the fact that the ratios are very different for domestic
violence vs non-domestic violence is evidence that the proscription
is much less successful there, or that it is much weaker.

...

>>>This nearly sounds like a moral superiority of women
>>>that a few feminists suggest.

>>Indubitably, if one accepts that non-violence is morally superior.
>>It is well known, for example, that rabbits are morally superior
>>to wolves.  Ask any rabbit.

>As far as I know, this discussion has been about domestic violence and
>who takes the offensive.  We haven't really gotten into the discussion
>of whether the women and men are fighting back abusive mates or just
>hitting them because they can.  

And I wasn't raising that issue; rabbits and wolves were meant as
metaphors for the relatively non-violent and the relatively violent.
You sentence [and it was your sentence I was commenting on] talked
about moral superiority of women.  My comment was a reminder that
people naturally attribute moral superiority to those virtues that
they themselves possess.  One can as readily argue that men are
morally superior because they suppress a natural proclivity to
violence, whereas women are morally inferior because they do not.
I don't believe this; but you may choose to, if you like.

As to the discussion in general, people have said any number of
things.  I seem to recall that it is a bit broader than you claim.
Be that as it may, my comments were addressed to what you said.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.