Don't dare speak about violence against women

[BainsBane]

First it was the Juarez serial killing, now the WHO report. Some men who never take an interest in the high mortality rates resulting from gun violence feel the need to express outrage that the WHO had the audacity to release a report on violence against women, violence that is overwhelmingly carried out in the secrecy of homes. The WHO demonstrates that 85% of the 35.6% of women in the world subject to domestic violence and rape are abused at the hands of their partners. Abusers naturally want us to remain quiet. If women dare to speak in public about domestic violence and rape, it pierces the veil of silence that enables abusive men who rape, beat, mutilate, and kill their wives and partners. Those abusers find allies in all corners of the world, from India to Saudi Arabia to the United State of America, while those who challenge efforts to silence women are accused of being "crazy"--a typical effort to pathologize women's speech.

If we talk about sexist language and imagery, we are accused of being petty. If we talk about rape, beatings, and murder of women, we are told our speech is illegtimate because it doesn't focus on men. Misogyny is alive and well close to home and actively seeking to silence women so they can continue to rape and inflict abuse at will.

[niyad]

1. k and r. I wish this were not true, but it is all too true.

[BlueJazz]

2. There are some males that try to help in any way that they can.

The problem is so huge, most people feel they are trying to hold back a dam with Kleenex.

[BainsBane]

3. Absolutely

and some of them work at the WHO, but for some reasons the ones that want to hold women back are particularly insistent.

[UtahLib]

4. I would, just once, like to gain insight into certain issues without the same predictable crap

being spewed by the same predictable people. I find it pretty disturbing that whenever an OP concerning violence against women is posted, there is always a backlash from certain DU members. There seems to be a pattern to their concerted efforts to turn the focus to the trials and tribulations of men. This raises questions in my mind as to why they find it necessary to derail such discussions when they can just as easily post an OP voicing their concerns about violence against men if they find the information in the thread, they voluntarily entered, to be as one sided as they claim. I can only conclude that they enter certain threads posted by particular members, who they seem to delight in harassing, with the obvious intent to demean and diminish the importance of the subject.

As an aside, upon voicing my frustration to my husband, he suggested that disruptors might be discouraged from deliberately derailing the conversation if everyone else would simply act as though they aren't there, leaving them speaking to only each other. Though ignoring them would probably be difficult, I think it would be hilarious.

[raccoon]

5. Your husband is a genius! I'd like to repeat this, in bold:

"upon voicing my frustration to my husband, he suggested that disruptors might be discouraged from deliberately derailing the conversation if everyone else would simply act as though they aren't there, leaving them speaking to only each other.

Check your pm's.

[Jim Lane]

7. This reminds me of the "soft barring" or whatever the proposal was called.

I think it was discussed in the late lamented Meta. The idea is that, instead of PPRing a disruptor (who then creates a new account), the admins could adjust the account so that the messages still post, but aren't visible to anyone except the author. It's as if everyone else on the site automatically had all disruptors on Ignore.

Maybe, as a refinement, the posts would also be visible to everyone else who's in this status. That way they can have a happy little conversation among themselves, without realizing that they aren't reaching anyone else.

Such a feature could also be useful in many other contexts besides violence against women.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. +1 for this: simply act as though they aren't there.

[ismnotwasm]

6. It would be pretty funny

I tend to ignore entire threads with them in it, because of the pig piling that goes on

[niyad]

8. I sometimes think the same thing--have done it with success on other boards, though those

people did not have quite the vitriol and ugliness of some we have seen here. then I wonder if letting them spew their bile and hatred without response somehow gives them credence. I know what I would like to do . . .

[PsychoBunny]

12. If you ignore them

they will go away. I learned that in grade school.

[nomorenomore08]

9. Some people just somehow have this idea that *everything* is about *them*.

If one merely posts about how common violence against women - or hell, violence period - is in this country, and worldwide, certain posters seem to feel personally attacked, as an individual.

Are most violent acts committed by men? Yes. Does that mean all men are personally to blame? Of course not. Our only responsibility, as I see it, is to try to be a decent human being, and encourage others to do likewise.

[YoungDemCA]

14. Exactly right.

"Are most violent acts committed by men? Yes. Does that mean all men are personally to blame? Of course not. "

Well said!

[BainsBane]

10. They are at it again

I've never seen so many whiners in my life. All I posted was a graph with statistics about gun deaths against women, and they are all over themselves condemning me of accusing them of beating their wives. It's hardly a surprise that there is overlap between misogynists and gunners. I'm done with them for good.

[PsychoBunny]

13. Don't give up

it lets them win.