From: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Petition on Gender Violence
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:36:10 GMT
Reply-To: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago, Dept of Molecular Genetics

In article <1992Apr16.144607.5726@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>In <1992Apr16.010604.29620@midway.uchicago.edu> gross@befvax.uchicago.edu writes:
>>I would sign it because 
>
>>a) it might prevent or limit violence against women, and violence against
>>anyone is horrible
>>and 
>
>>b) it would eventually benefit males in that certain once institutions
>>and practices are place to address violence against women, those same
>>institutions and practices can address violence against men, and make
>>it easier to do so.
>
>I wouldn't sign it because implicit in its focus on women is the belief that
>violence against men is not a problem.  The fact that it chooses to only
>protect a small portion of victims of violence tells me how seriously it
>takes the problem of violence.
>
>>But in signing it, I would point out that it only address part of the
>>problem.  
>
>Violence in our society is a problem.  People who try to divide us, and say
>that only a certain group is worthy of help, don't do anything to heal society.
>Why not a petition against violence, period.

Well, the UN does have mechanisms for dealing with some kinds of violence.
UN peace keepers, mediation, resolutions, de-militirization, economic
sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and there is the World Court, and other
international agencies.

What is called 'violence against women' is domestic violence/and or sexual
violence, and the UN's mechanisms above do not address it.

Does anybody have an objection to signing a petition against domestic
violence and sexual violence, provided that it was gender neutral?
Clearly, the kinds of mechanisms the UN has does not address these issues.

Furthermore, I think that there are strategic reasons to consider.
Say on campus they had a petition to address 'violence against women'
on campus.  

Two strategies:  
A) Men don't sign because it excludes or ignores them
B) Men do sign because they think that violence against women is a problem
(but certainly not the whole problem).

Let's say that as a result of the petition mechanisms are put in place.
(Say someone is hired to deal specifically with the problem, and is
given an office).

Two men go into the office and ask "What are you doing for men?"
One followed strategy A, and is known for that.
The other followed strategy B, and is known for that.

Which is going to get a more sympathetic hearing?  My guess is the
one who followed strategy B.  

The person can't say to him "Well, what have you done for women",
and if the person knows the people who circulated the petition, who
probably would be the people on campus who might volunteer to work
in such an office, those people would be more willing to back him 
up, or vouch for him, or say that "He's legit, he's not just here
to cause trouble", and they might have more loyalty to him then to
the person who was recently hired.

Since there is no precedence of any kind of advesarial relation, there
is less chance of the discussion being adveserial.  I think that the
person who took strategy A is more likely to get a Feminism 101 
"you don't understand" lecture or is more likely to be seen as 
"just trying to prove a point" (like the example of the fictious
White Engineers group) , while the person who took strategy
B is more likely to have a serious conversation with the person.

Politics works by coaltions, which mean that I support you on your issue,
and you support me on mine.  

Different campus groups, with quite different campus agendas have cooperated
on issues, for instance, Jewish student groups recently asked for and
received support from the Black and Muslim students on a particular issue.  
I assume that these latter groups are more likely to ask the Jewish student 
groups for support in the future, and the Jewish students are more likely
to give it.

It would probably be a whole lot easier to get the person trained to
deal with interpersonal violence to deal with men, than it would be 
to get one hired specifically to deal with men in the first place.  
That person, on campus, would now be responsible to the univeristy and 
the students (as an employee) in a way that the advocacy or student
groups are not.

>Ken

Leon Gross
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV. 
Newsgroups: soc.women