From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: [violence against women vs. violence in general] was Re: Candada Massacre
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:04:14 GMT

In article <BzCw7o.IzL@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>[violence against women vs. violence in general]
>>>It seems likely that "the problem of violence" has many causes, many
>>>contributing factors; so it can only be solved in a piecemeal way.
>
>>I do not see that a "piecemeal" solution follows from multiple causes,
>>especially with regards to the law.
>
>??? The law cannot offer a solution to the problem of violence; it
>merely offers a number of bandages that can be applied to symptoms.

The question is should the laws be written specifically so that bandages
are available to one sex -only-.

And since you do not see the law as a solution (it is not, but leglislation
is inevitable) what is it that you see as a solution?

>I assumed when talking about solutions that we were talking about
>eliminating the motivations that led to violence, rather than
>introducing legislation.
 
As you say, the laws will only have effect after they are broken. But
I am not aware of any methods of directly affecting motivations that are
not at least as bad as the problem. (i.e. big brother, accusation 
being equal to conviction, fill in your own).

>>>>>Women are singled out as targets by many violent people, and this is a
>>>>>problem disctinct from the problem of violence in general.

I still question this statement made by Muffy. It states as a general
problem what you have been more carefull to qualify. But I get the
impression that you are making the same argument.

>>>>Posted statistics have shown that men are more often the victims of
>>>>violence, and that women hit men about as often as men hit women. What
>>>>exactly is it you are referring too?
>>>
>>>Historically (and in the present in many places), one of the
>>>reasons for domestic violence (among many) was that "the man
>>>of the household" felt that he owned his wife; he could do whatever
>>>he wanted with her, and punish her whenever she didn't obey him.
>>>Many people are still brought up with a trace of this attitude,
>>>even when they intellectually acknowledge some kind of equality
>>>of status.
>
>>And men have also been trained not to hit women, many are not prepared
>>to even defend themselves. You examine exactly one side of the coin.
>
>If we're discussing leukemia, why bring testicular cancer into it?

I did not introduce this two-sided scenario, but that is in fact what
we have been discussing. 

>The two sides of the coin that you refer to aren't opposed to one
>another; they are both problems, with different causes and different
>treatments.

That is not clearly the case. Nor is it clear that both could not be
addressed by the same solution. It is distinctly possible that if the
daily pressures were reduced, that most of this violence would stop.
That is, there are no motivations such as you deem necessary, it may
be no more than a reaction to the ever-increasing pressures and demands
of modern life. I am reasonably certain that pressure -is- a factor.

>>>              When a man with such a background feels frustrated,
>>>for whatever reason, he can feel a tendency to lash out at some
>>>woman for not staying in her place.
>
>>Argument by stereotype again. Is it equally valid to counter such
>>arguments with stereotypes about women?
>
>Stereotype?  

|>>>           When a man with such a background feels frustrated,...

If this is not in some way a general case, then the point is moot as
far as general solutions go, is it not?

>                 All women with backgrounds such that they feel that
>domestic troubles can best be resolved by physically lashing out at
>their spouses tend to do so.  Okay?  Are you satisfied?  Where's
>the problem?  Do you think that the solution to this is the same
>as that of physically-abusive husbands?  

What is your solution(s)? You claim different problems and solutions,
specifically, what are they?

>                                          If so, where's your
>Grand Unified Theory of Violence, and what is the Grand Unified
>Solution?

Is it necessary to understand everything fully, and have exact answers
to everything to have an opinion on a subject? I offer the observation
that you yourself have an opinion, and have offered no solution(s), and
the your theory has some problems.
 
>>>                                       Most men suppress such a
>>>reaction; some do not.  In this instance, women are singled out
>>>as targets.
>
>>Just like ljf, you define a situation which fits your preconception,
>>and use it as a general argument.
>
>Since the above clearly eliminates most people, I'd be interested
>to see how you can interpret it as a general argument (and what
>it is generally arguing for or against).  Do you disagree that the
>above happens at all?
>
>>You did forget to specify White
>>Heterosexual Male however, but you can fill that in next time.
>
>Tsk tsk.  Gratuitous flames get you nowhere.
> 
>>Is there any real evidence that "women are singled out as targets"
>>in domestic disputes, or are they just the other party in an argument
>>between two people?
>
>Some of each.  Do you really want to deny that women are *ever*
>singled out as targets?

I can no more deny it than confirm it. Can you do better than a logical
argument? Upon what evidence do you affirm it? (that women are singled out
as targets -because- they are women, and for no other reason, and in a
more general case than one or two crazies)
 
>>>                 Statistics about injuries tell very little about
>>>the motivations underlying them, and it is the latter that must
>>>be recognized if any solution is to be found.
>
>>I see, statistics are only valid when they support what one already
>>believes.
>
>This is stupid.  Since you're snidely attacking the above, are we
>to assume that you believe that statistics *do* inform us about
>the underlying motivations?  Would you really care to defend that?

You have yet to demonstrate that your motivational model is meaningful
and has anything to do with the problem. Why do you think that I am
on the defensive.
 
>>The Meese commission has already set precedence for this.
>
>Another gratuitous insult.

Not at all, if this is handled the same way (and I see that it might)
than we will have the same situation. Reality will be ignored when it
disagrees (or fails to agree) with what is already known to be true.

How do you consider this an insult? I am serious on this point.
 
>>The statistics which show greater violence towards women are OK to
>>use, even if flawed. Statistics which show parity, or greater violence
>>towards men are not valid, as we must look at the underlying motivations.
>
>???  I don't know where you're coming from now at all.  I thought
>we were talking about finding solutions to violence, in one form
>or another; and you're saying that statistics are a better way to
>discover solutions than looking at people's motivations?

Where did you get the idea that I have been talking about motivations?
 
>>Is it more important that one has committed an act of voilence, or
>>-why- one has committed an act of violence?
>
>You won't solve the problem until you understand it.

Maybe so, maybe not. But I think that a false understanding will result
in more harm than solution.
 
>>Has understanding the cause of inner-city violence solved it?
>
>How many policy-making politicians understand the cause?

I do not know about the UK, but in the U.S., there is no way to keep
politicians out of the picture. 
 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Discord, the Goddess of the Net, was developing a taste for blood sacrifice.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.postmodern