From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: What does "Male-dominated society" mean?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 03:43:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.072711.11999@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>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?

Yes, I really doubt that.  In all honesty, if you haven't realized
that's exactly what I've been saying in my posts, there doesn't seem
to be much point in even responding to you.

  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.]

But are males the target of preference?  Much of male-on-male violence
appears to be (I don't have the stats and would appreciate them if
anyone does) between men involved in criminal activity.  Since fewer
women are presently involved in criminal activities, it's reasonable
that fewer women are victims in this sense.

For example, do you really think that if there existed a mostly female
gang that had turf wars with a mostly male gang, the female gang
members wouldn't be targets of driveby shootings by the opposing male
gang members?  I don't.  And I think as more women become involved in
criminal activities, more women will be victims and perps.

>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.

That's my point exactly.  To be fair about domestic violence and the
proscription against violence towards women, I think one should
compare rates of male violence among male friends (or ex-friends) who
aren't involved in criminal activity to rates of male violence against
women.  I think we'd find fewer men beating up male friends than men
beating up female lovers.

>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.

Not really.  I'm not the least non-violent by nature, but I admire
that quality in others.  In fact, my very first response to anger at
someone or something is to want to physically act upon it.

  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.

I believe that all of us have a natural proclivity to violence.  I
think men are allowed by our culture to act on it much more so than
women.  I believe that women act on it in hostile, but non-violent
ways (in general of course).

Newsgroups: soc.women